Effects of planting patterns and sowing densities on grain-filling, radiation use efficiency and yield of maize (Zea mays L.) in semi-arid regions

Jia, Qianmin; Sun, Lefeng; Mou, Hongyan; Ali, Shahzad; Liu, Donghua; Zhang, Yan; Zhang, Peng; Ren, Xiaolong; Jia, Zhikuan

doi:10.1016/j.agwat.2017.11.025

Cited by 84 publications

(51 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Increasing the plant density is used as an efficient management tool for improving maize production (Yan et al., 2017). Increasing yield by increasing plant density hinges on the mechanism that a higher plant density improves light interception and photosynthate accumulation per hectare (Jia et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2018). However, even with sufficient water and nutrients, light can limit yields (Amanullah & Shad, 2009; Wang et al., 2019).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Notwithstanding these findings, our study showed that increasing the plant density significantly increases the leaf area index (Table 3). An increased leaf area index achieves more light interception and photosynthetic assimilation per unit land area, thus increasing maize biomass yield (Andrade et al., 1999; Jia et al., 2018; Xu, 2018).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, when plant density increased from 75,000 to 82,500 plants ha −1 , the biomass yield neither increased nor decreased (Table 3). This limiting effect on the biomass yield should be attributed to the intense inter‐plant competition (Jia et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2018). When the plant density exceeds optimal value, intraspecific competition passively affects the transformation and assimilation of nutrients, thereby limiting any gains in crop productivity, and resulting in reduced yield (Boomsma, Santini, Tollenaar, & Vyn, 2009; Ferreira et al., 2014; Qiang et al., 2019).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the present study, the concept behind increasing the plant density was to improve WMP forage yield. As plant density increased, the leaf area per unit land area increased, which results in more water consumption and an increased ET (Jia et al., 2018; Ogola, 1999). The rainfall at the study site ranged from 400.6 to 461.8 mm (Table 1), which meets the physiological needs of maize.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Increasing the plant density reduces the photosynthesis rate and dry matter accumulation per plant due to interplant competition, but it improves the light interception and the resource efficiency, thereby increasing biomass yield per unit area (Gao et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2018). However, high plant densities exceeding the optimal rate result in a decrease in leaf area per plant and leaf chlorophyll content, limit assimilation, and a decrease in dry matter accumulation (Jia et al., 2018; Xu, 2018). Plant densities that maximize WMP forage production range widely from 45,000–125,000 plants ha −1 in different regions (Karaşahin, 2014; Mandić et al., 2015; Stanton, Grombacher, Pinnisch, Mason, & Spaner, 2007).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

The optimal plant density of maize for dairy cow forage production

Han

Liu

et al. 2020

Agronomy Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Whole maize (Zea mays L.) plant (WMP) silage is an important feed for dairy cows. In northern China, yields and feed quality are adjusted by modifying the planting density. This paper is the result of a 2-yr field study aimed at determining the effects of plant density on maize silage yield and quality. Five planting densities (52,500, 60,000, 67,500, 75,000, and 82,500 plants ha −1 ) were used. The results showed that plant height and leaf area increased, while stem diameter, chlorophyll, and leaf area per plant decreased with increasing plant density. Both the biomass yield, expressed as the dry matter (DM) per ha, and the utilizable energy yield improved when the density was increased from 67,500 to 75,000 plants ha −1 , but increasing the density further reduced these values. The highest observed DM were 17,734 kg ha −1 and 17,055 kg ha −1 , and total net energy for lactation (NE L ) were 104.1 GJ ha −1 and 97.0 GJ ha −1 in 2017 and 2018, respectively. Feeding quality generally decreased with increasing plant density. The plant density which obtained the highest biomass yield was not the same as the plant density for optimizing feeding production. Compared with the highest predicted DM yields, the highest predicted total NE L yields increased the grading index by 4-9%, which indicated an improvement in forage quality. Total NE L yield is more efficient for the purpose of evaluating the productivity of WMP forage than biomass yield.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

The optimal plant density of maize for dairy cow forage production

Han

Liu

et al. 2020

Agronomy Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Ridge‐furrow rainfall harvesting planting and its effect on soil erosion and soil quality in sloping farmland

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ridge-furrow rainfall harvesting (RFRH) planting can improve crop productivity through enhancing water use efficiency. However, effects of long-term use of RFRH on soil erosion and soil quality in sloping farmland are not well understood. This experiment was conducted with a two-factor split plot design, with the main plot having a slope of 5˚and 10˚. The sub-plots followed three planting patterns: contour ridge-furrow planting without mulching (CK), contour ridge film mulching and furrow straw mulching (T1), and contour ridge film mulching and furrow no mulching (T2). The results showed that no significant effect on soil erosion was found under T1 and T2 on 5˚slope. The total runoff and total erosion of T1 on 10˚slope decreased by 82.8 and 92.0%, and that of T2 on 10˚slope decreased by 34.5 and 83.1%, respectively, compared with CK. Soil water content in T1 and T2 significantly increased by 11.0 and 10.6%, respectively, compared with CK (p < .05). Soil quality index in T1 was the highest, followed by T2 under the same slope. Yield was increased in T1 and T2 significantly by 30.7 and 20.2%, respectively, compared with CK (p < .05). Our results show that contour ridge film mulching and furrow straw mulching can alleviate drought, water shortages, and soil erosion.Abbreviations: CK, control, contour ridge-furrow planting without mulching; PCA, principal component analysis; RFRH, ridge-furrow rainfall harvesting; SQI, soil quality index; T1, contour ridge film mulching and furrow straw mulching; T2, contour ridge film mulching and furrow no mulching

show abstract

Evaluating agronomic factors for maize production in a semi‐arid Loess Plateau

Gao

Bao-liang

et al. 2021

Agronomy Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Crop production is often affected by multiple agronomic factors. However, little has been reported on the synergistic effects of multiple factors on crop production. Here, we reported the effects of five factors (i.e., variety, planting density, nitrogen application, This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.supplementary irrigation and plastic mulching) on crop yields, using data from a 5-year experiment at Dongyang, Shanxi province of China. An incomplete factorial design with these factors comprised 12 treatments, including two controls: optimized technology (OT) and conventional technology (CT), comprising all five factors applied at the added or subtracted level, respectively. The result showed that, on 5-year average, OT significantly increased maize yield by 3.5 Mg ha -1 (44.3% more) as compared to CT (7.9 Mg ha -1 ), showing a huge potential for increasing yields. Among the five factors, plastic mulching contributed the most in yield increase (11.5%), high density, improved variety and irrigation contributed 9.9%, 6.9% and 5.1% increase in yield, respectively. There were no significant differences in yield between two N input levels (i.e., 225 and 300 kg N ha -1 ), suggesting the N input of 225 kg N ha -1 was sufficient to realize yield level of 8-11 Mg ha -1 in the studied area. In conclusion, reducing yield gap can only be achieved by optimizing multiple factors simultaneously because the effects of single measure are relatively small and inconsistent among years. The results of our study would help develop adaptive management practices for increasing crop yield stability in other semi-arid regions.

show abstract

Effects of planting patterns and sowing densities on grain-filling, radiation use efficiency and yield of maize (Zea mays L.) in semi-arid regions

Cited by 84 publications

References 48 publications

The optimal plant density of maize for dairy cow forage production

The optimal plant density of maize for dairy cow forage production

Ridge‐furrow rainfall harvesting planting and its effect on soil erosion and soil quality in sloping farmland

Evaluating agronomic factors for maize production in a semi‐arid Loess Plateau

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About