Plant Spacing and Variety of Field Corn (Zea mays L.) Affecting Yield, Yield Components and Silage Quality

Nattarat  CHAYANONT; Sujin  JENWEERAWAT; Jiraporn  CHAUGOOL; Sayan  TUDSRI; Tanapon  CHAISAN; Songyos  CHOTCHUTIMA

doi:10.48048/wjst.2021.9038

Authors

Nattarat CHAYANONT Department of Agronomy, Faculty of Agriculture, Kasetsart University, Bangkok 10900, Thailand
Sujin JENWEERAWAT Department of Agronomy, Faculty of Agriculture, Kasetsart University, Bangkok 10900, Thailand
Jiraporn CHAUGOOL Department of Agronomy, Faculty of Agriculture at Kamphaeng Saen, Kasetsart University, Nakhon Pathom 73140, Thailand
Sayan TUDSRI Department of Agronomy, Faculty of Agriculture, Kasetsart University, Bangkok 10900, Thailand
Tanapon CHAISAN Department of Agronomy, Faculty of Agriculture, Kasetsart University, Bangkok 10900, Thailand
Songyos CHOTCHUTIMA Department of Agronomy, Faculty of Agriculture, Kasetsart University, Bangkok 10900, Thailand

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.48048/wjst.2021.9038

Keywords:

Plant spacing, Field corn, Yield component, Nutritional value, Corn silage

Abstract

The recent increase in dairy and cattle production in Thailand has increased demand for high-quality roughage, particularly corn silage. Although there has been a great deal of research on field corn, far fewer studies have focused on corn intended as silage. This study involved a field experiment that analyzed crop management methods, focusing on plant spacing and 8 of the field corn varieties most commonly used in Thailand. The objectives were to determine which plant spacing and variety produced the best forage yield and silage qualities of corn silage. The plantings were arranged in a split-plot Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) with four replications. The main plot contained two spacing (75×20 and 75×25 cm²), each with subplots of 8 field corn varieties (SW5, NS2, NS3, NSX982013, TE1719, WS6437, WS6440, WS6442). All plants received the same crop management care regarding soil conditions, water, fertilization, and weeding. The results showed plant spacing did not significantly affect plant height (cm) and ears per plant, but the narrower 75×20 cm² spacing produced the highest fresh leaf yield (13 t ha^-1) and dry stalk yield (4.5 t ha^-1) (p < 0.05). At 75×20 cm² spacing, the TE1719 varietal had more ears per plant than SW5 (the check variety). TE1719 had the best fresh ear, stalk, and total biomass yield at both spacing of all the varieties. With regard to silage quality, the plant spacing did not significantly affect the CP, ADF, ADL, ash, and pH of the corn silage. The study revealed planting TE1719 varieties at 75×20 cm² spacing is more economical for farmers because it increases forage yields without negatively affecting the nutritional value of corn silage.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

S Iptas and AA Acar. Effects of hybrid and row spacing on maize forage yield and quality. Plant Soil Environ. 2006; 52, 515-52.

MK Zaki, KA Rahmat and B Pujiasmanto. Organic amendment and fertilizer effect on soil chemical properties and yield of maize (Zea mays L.) in rainfedcondition. Walailak J. Sci. & Tech. 2020; 17, 11-7.

Haryono. Maize for food, feed and fuel in Indonesia: Challenges and opportunity. In: Proceedings of the International Maize Conference, Sulawesi, Indonesia. 2012; p. 3-9.

DT Juniper, RH Phipps, DI Givens, AK Jones, C Green and C Bertin. Tolerance of ruminant animals to high dose in-feed administration of a selenium-enriched yeast. Anim. Sci. 2008; 86, 773-81.

S Tudsri. Tropical forage crop knowledge in goats in Thailand. Kasetsert University Press, Bangkok, 2004, p. 320-70.

M Lashkari, H Madani, MR Ardakani, F Golzardi and K Zargari. Effect of plant density on yield and yield components of different corn (Zea mays L.) hybrids. Am. Eurasian J. Agric. Environ. Sci. 2011; 10, 450-7.

L Pinter, Z Alfoldi, Z Burucs and E Paldi. Feed value of forage maize hybrids varying in tolerance to plant density. Agron. J. 1994; 86, 799-804.

D Widdicombe and KD Thelen. Row width and plant density effect on corn forage hybrids. Agron. J. 2002; 94, 326-30.

MR Abuzar, GU Sadozai, MS Baloch, AA Baloch, IH Shah, T Javaid and N Hussain. Effect of plant population densities on yield of maize. J. Appl Pharm. Sci.2011; 21, 692-5.

JA Douglas, CB Dyson and DP Sinclair. Effect of plant population on the yield of maize under high yielding conditions in New Zealand. New Zeal. J. Agr. Res. 1982; 25, 147-9.

F Tetio-Kagho and FP Gardner. Responses of maize to plant population density. II. Reproductive development yield and yield adjustments. Agron. J. 1988; 80, 935-40.

L Echarte, S Luque, FH Andrade, VO Sadras, A Cirilo, ME Otegui and CRC Vega. Response of maize kernel number to plant density in Argentinean hybrids released between 1965 and 1993. Field Crop Res. 2000; 68, 1-8.

GL Cuomo, DD Redfeam and DC Blouin. Plant density effect on tropical corn forage mass morphology and nutrition value. Agron. J. 1998; 90, 93-6.

M Gonzalo, TJ Vyn, JB Holland and LM McIntyre. Mapping density response in maize: A direct approach for testing genotype and treatment interactions. Genetics 2006; 173, 331-48.

R Monsanto. Evalution of corn plant density and row spacing, Available at: http://imbgl.cropsci.illinois.edu/school/2013/12_TY_BARTEN.pdf, accessed October 2019.

D Stanton, AW Grombacher, R Pinnisch, H Mason and D Spaner. Hybrid and population density affect yield and quality of silage maize in north central Alberta. Can. J. Plant Sci. 2007; 87, 867-71.

PJ Van Soest, JB Robertson and BA Lewis. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J. Dairy Sci. 1991; 74, 3583-97.

AOAC. Official methods of analysis of the AOAC, 15th ed. methods 932.06, 925.09, 985.29, 923.03. Association of Official Analytical Chemists. Arlington, USA, 1990.

S Yilmaz, H Gozubenli, O Knuskan and I Atis. Genotype and plant density effect on corn (Zea mays L.) forage yield. Asian J. Plant Sci. 2007; 3, 538-41.

TF Frank and AR Hallauer. Generation means analysis of the twin-ear trait in maize. J. Hered. 1997; 88, 469-74.

SR Seyed and R Taghizadeh. Response of maize (Zea mays L.) cultivars to different levels of nitrogen fertilizer. J. Food, Agric. Environ. 2009; 7, 518-21.

IA Ciampitti, ST Murrell, JJ Camberato, M Tuinstra, Y Xia, P Friedemann and TJ Vyn. Physiological dynamics of maize nitrogen uptake and partitioning in response to plant density and nitrogen stress factors: II. reproductive phase. Crop Sci. 2013; 53, 2588-602.

P Yan, P Junxiao, W Zhang, J Shi, X Chen and Z Cui. A high plant density reduces the ability of maize to use soil nitrogen, Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5325311/ table/pone.0172717.t001, accessed February 2017.

AK Borrell, GL Hammer and EV Oosterom. Stay-green: A consequence of the balance between supply and demand for nitrogen during grain filling. Ann. Appl. Biol.2001; 138, 91-5.

DY Shi, YH Li, JW Zhange, P Liu, B Zhao and ST Dong. Effects of plant density and nitrogen rate on lodging-related stalk traits of summer maize. Plant Soil Environ. 2016; 62, 299-306.

X Jun, XR Zhi, ZW Feng, WK Ru, H Peng, M Ling, M Bo, G Ling and LS Kun. Research progress on reduced lodging of high-yield anddensity maize. Integr. Agri. 2017; 10, 2717-25.

M Tollenaar, A Aguilera and SP Nissanka. Grain yield is reduced more by weed interference in an old than in a new maize hybrid. Agron. J. 1997; 89, 239-46.

M Ramezani, RRS Abandani, HR Mobasser and E Amiri. Effects of row spacing and density on silage yield of corn (Zea mays L.cv.sc 704)in two plant patterns in North of Iran. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 2011; 6, 1128-33.

MR Hasan, MR Rahma, AK Hasa, SK Pauland AJ Alam. Effect of variety and spacing on the yield performance of maize (Zea mays L.) in old Brahmaputra fl oodplain area of Bangladesh. Archives Agric. Environ. Sci. 2018; 3, 270-4.

SH.Begna, RI Hamilton, LM Dwyer, DW Stewart and DL Smith, Variability among maize hybrids differing in canopy architecture for above-ground dry matter and grain yield. Maydica 2000; 45, 135-41.

HH Geiger, G Eitz, AE Melchinger and GA Schmidt. Genotypic correlations in forage maize. I. Relationships among yield and quality traits in hybrids. Maydica 1992; 37, 95-9.

NL Miller and CM Ocamb. 2009, Relationships between yield and crown disease of sweet corn grown in the Willamette Valley of Oregon, Available at https://apsjournals.apsnet.org/doi/abs/ 10.1094/PHP-2009-0831-01-RS, accessed September 2019.

HY Li, L Xu, WJ Liu, MQ Fang and N Wang.Assessment of the nutritive value of whole corn stover andits morphological fractions. Asian Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2014; 27, 194-200.

G Testa, A Reyneri and M Blandino. Maize grain yield enhancement through high plant density cultivationwith different inter-row and intra-row spacings. Eur. J. Agron. 2016; 72, 28-37.

E Opoku. 2017, Effect of row width and plant population density on yield and quality of maize (Zea mays L.) silage. Ph.D. Dissertation. Lincoln University, New Zealand.

FR Valdez, JH Harrison and SC Fransen. Effect of feeding silage of early and late maturing corn planted at two population densities to lactating dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 1989; 72, 2081-6.

RT Cowan and DV Kerr. Dairy feeding systems based on pasture and forage crop silage in the tropics and sub-tropics. In: Proceedings of the National Workshop, Armidale, New South Wales, 1984, p. 384-9.

S Petrovska, D Jonkus and A Adamovics. The silage composition and its influence on dairy cows milk yield. In: Proceedings of the 25th Nordic Association of Agricultural Scientists Congress, Riga, Latvia, 2015, p. 355-60.

JA Cusicanqui and LG Lauer. Plant density and hybrid influence on corn forage yield and quality. Agron. J. 1999; 91, 911-5.

WJ Cox and DJ Cherney. Row spacing, plant density, and nitrogen effects on corn silage. Agron. J. 2001; 93, 597-602.

M Jeschke and B Curran. Plant population effects on corn silage yield and quality. Crop Insights 2010; 18, 1-6.

B Hatew,A Bannink, HV Laar, LHde Jonge and J Dijkstra. Increasing harvest maturity of whole-plant corn silage reduces methane emission of lactating dairy cows. Dairy Sci. 2016; 99, 354-68.

PC Hoffman. Ash content of forage. Focus on Forage. University of Wisconsin Board of Regents, Madison, USA, 2005.

K Karmearm, K Phokhsawat, W Suksaran and C Phaikaew. Silage guide. department of livestock development. Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives, Bangkok, Thailand, 2005.