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

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.

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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Cox, W.J. 1997. Corn forage and grain yield response to plant densities. J. Prod. Agric. 10:405–410.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

  22. Ottman, MJ., Welch, L.F. 1989. Planting patterns and radiation interception, plant nutrient concentration and yield in corn. Agron. J. 81:167–174.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Widdicombe, D.W., Thelen, K.D. 2002. Row width and plant density effect on maize forage hybrids. Agron. J. 94:326–330.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. Erayman.

Rights and permissions

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Yilmaz, S., Erayman, M., Gozubenli, H. et al. Twin or Narrow-Row Planting Patterns versus Conventional Planting in Forage Maize Production in the Eastern Mediterranean. CEREAL RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS 36, 189–199 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1556/CRC.36.2008.1.19

Download citation

Keywords

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