Advertisement

Cereal Research Communications

, Volume 36, Issue 1, pp 189–199 | Cite as

Twin or Narrow-Row Planting Patterns versus Conventional Planting in Forage Maize Production in the Eastern Mediterranean

  • S. Yilmaz
  • M. EraymanEmail author
  • H. Gozubenli
  • E. Can
Article

Abstract

Producing forage maize (Zea mays L.) in twin-row planting pattern has been attempted in past years. This research was performed to determine effects of planting patterns and densities on yields of forage maize hybrids. We also examined other plant characteristics associated with forage yield under second crop conditions in Hatay, East Mediterranean region of Turkey, during 2003 and 2004. The experimental design was a randomized complete block design in a split-split-plot arrangement with three replications. The planting patterns of twin row (55:20 cm), conventional row (75 cm) and narrow row (50 cm) were main plots, the plant densities (80,000, 100,000 and 120,000 plants ha −1) were split-plots, and the hybrids (PR-1550, MAVERIK and DK-585) were split-split plots. Forage and dry matter yields were significantly affected by planting patterns, plant densities and maize hybrids. Our results revealed the advantage of twin-row planting pattern over conventional and narrow row plantings at all plant densities. Twin row planting out-yielded conventional row (16% more forage and 10.2% more dry matter yield) and narrow-row (7.9% more forage and 5.9% more dry matter yield) plantings. Twin-row planting pattern may be a profitable production technique for forage maize producers.

Keywords

forage yield maize narrow row plant density planting pattern twin-row 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Brown, R.H., Beaty, E.R., Ethredge, W.J., Hayes, D.D. 1970. Influence of row width and plant population on yield of two varieties of maize (Zea mays L.). Agron. J. 62:767–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bryant, H.T., Blaser, R.E. 1968. Plant constituents of an early and a late maize hybrid as affected by row spacing and plant population. Agron. J. 60:557–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cox, W.J., Otis, D.J. 1993. Grain and silage yield responses of commercial maize hybrids to plant densities. Agron. Abstracts 1993, ASA, Madison, WI, p. 132.Google Scholar
  4. Cox, W.J. 1996. Whole-plant physiological and yield response of maize to plant density. Agron. J. 88:489–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cox, W.J. 1997. Corn forage and grain yield response to plant densities. J. Prod. Agric. 10:405–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cox, W.J., Hanchar, J.J., Knoblauch, W.A., Cherney, J.H. 2006. Growth, yield, quality, and economics of corn silage under different row spacings. Agron. J. 98:163–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cummings, D.G., Dobson Jr., J.W. 1973. Maize for silage as influenced by hybrid maturity, row spacing, plant population, and climate. Agron. J. 65:240–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cuomo, G.J., Redfearn, D.D., Blouin, D.C. 1998. Plant density effects on tropical maize forage mass, morphology, and nutritive value. Agron. J. 90:93–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cusicanqui, J.A., Lauer, J.G. 1999. Plant density and hybrid influence on maize forage yield and quality. Agron. J. 91:911–915.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Doss, B.D., King, C.C., Patterson, R.M. 1970. Yield components and water use by silage maize with irrigation, plastic mulch, nitrogen fertilization, and plant spacing. Agron. J. 62: 541–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Duncan, W.G. 1975. Maize. In: Even, L.T. (ed.), Crop Physiology: Some Case Histories, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 23–50.Google Scholar
  12. Farnham, D.E. 2001. Row spacing, plant density, and hybrid effects on maize grain yield and moisture. Agron. J. 93:1049–1053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gozubenli, H., Kilinc, M., Sener, O., Konuskan, O. 2004. Effects of single and twin row planting on yield and yield components in maize. Asian J. of Plant Sci. 3:203–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Graybill, J.S., Cox, W.J., Otis, D.J. 1991. Yield and quality of forage maize as influenced by hybrid, planting date, and plant density. Agron. J. 83:559–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hoeft, R.G., Nafziger, E.D., Johnson, R.R., Aldrich, S.R. 2000. Modern Maize and Soybean Production, MCSP Publ., Savoy, IL, p. 353.Google Scholar
  16. Iqbal, K., Mahmood, T., Usman, M. 2001. Yield and quality of two maize hybrids as affected by different planting patterns. J. Biol. Sci. 1:249–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Karlen, D.L., Camp, C.R. 1985. Row spacing, plant population, and water management effects on maize in the Atlantic coastal plain. Agron. J. 77:393–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Larson, W.E., Hanway, J.J. 1977. Maize production. In: Sprague, G.F. (ed.), Maize and Maize Improvement. American Society of Agronomy, Inc., Madison, WI., pp. 625–669.Google Scholar
  19. Lewis, A.L., Cox, W.J., Cherney, J.H. 2004. Hybrid, maturity and cutting height interactions on corn forage yield and quality. Agron. J. 96:267–274.Google Scholar
  20. Nielsen, R.L. 1988. Influence of hybrids and plant density on grain yield and stalk breakage in maize grown in 15-inch row spacing. J. Prod. Agric. 1:190–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Olson, R.A., Sander, D.H. 1988. Corn production. In: Sprague, G.F., Dudley, J.W. (eds), Maize and Maize Improvement, 3rd edition, #18 Agron. Series, America. Soc. Agron., Madison, pp. 659–662.Google Scholar
  22. Ottman, MJ., Welch, L.F. 1989. Planting patterns and radiation interception, plant nutrient concentration and yield in corn. Agron. J. 81:167–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Paszkiewicz, S. 1996. Narrow row spacing influence on maize yield. In: Proc. Maize and Sorghum Res. Conf., 51 st, Chicago, IL. 11–12 Dec. 1996. Am. Seed Trade Assoc., Washington, DC, pp. 130–138.Google Scholar
  24. Porter, P.M., Hicks, D.R., Lueschen, W.E., Ford, J.H., Warnes, D.D., Hoverstad, T.R. 1997. Maize response to row width and plant density in the Northern Maize Belt. J. Prod. Agric. 10:293–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Roth, G.C. 1996. Maize Grain and Silage Yield Responses to Narrow Rows. Agronomy Abstracts, ASA, Madison, WI., p. 128.Google Scholar
  26. Scarsbrook, C.B., Doss, B.D. 1973. How plant populations and row widths affect light penetration, yield, and plant characteristics of irrigated corn. Ala. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 450.Google Scholar
  27. Sener, O., Gozubenli, H., Konuskan, O., Kilinc, M. 2004. The effect of intra-row spacings on the grain yield and some agronomic characteristics of maize (Zea mays L.) hybrids. Asian J. Plant Sci. 3:429–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Turgut, I., Duman, A., Bilgili, U., Acikgoz, E. 2005. Alternate row spacing and plant density effects on forage and dry matter yield of maize hybrids (Zea mays L.). J. Agron. and Crop Sci. 91: 146–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Widdicombe, D.W., Thelen, K.D. 2002. Row width and plant density effect on maize forage hybrids. Agron. J. 94:326–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wiersma, D.W., Carter, P.R., Albrecht, K.A., Coors, J.G. 1993. Kernel milkline stage and maize forage yield, quality, and dry matter content. J. Prod. Agric. 6:94–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Field Crops, Faculty of AgricultureMustafa Kemal UniversityHatayTurkey

Personalised recommendations