Next Article in Journal
Initial Weed and Maize Response to Conservation Tillage and Liming in Different Agroecological Conditions
Previous Article in Journal
Use of a Pair of Pulse-Charged Grounded Metal Nets as an Electrostatic Soil Cover for Eradicating Weed Seedlings
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agronomy
Volume 13
Issue 4
10.3390/agronomy13041117
agronomy-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Effect of Row Spacing and Plant Density on Silage Maize Growth, Dry Matter Distribution and Yield

by
Pavel Fuksa
,
Zuzana Hrevušová
,
Ondřej Szabó
and
Josef Hakl
*
Department of Agroecology and Crop Production, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Kamýcká 129, 165 00 Prague, Czech Republic
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2023, 13(4), 1117; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13041117
Submission received: 29 March 2023 / Revised: 7 April 2023 / Accepted: 12 April 2023 / Published: 14 April 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Farming Sustainability)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Maize growth in narrow rows provides a more uniform spatial arrangement, but it does not always lead to increasing yield. A four-year study was conducted to investigate the effect of row spacing on silage maize growth and yield during the growing season and at harvest time. A field experiment with conventional (0.70 m) and narrow rows (0.35 m) at a plant density of 92,000 plants ha−1 was evaluated in the years 2011–2014, and the interaction of row spacing × plant density (92,000 and 110,000 plants ha−1) was tested in 2013–2014. The narrow rows clearly demonstrated potential to support plant height and weight development, together with a higher stalk proportion, at around two months after seeding. However, these contrasts were lost in the later stages and at harvest time. Some potential for non-significantly higher dry matter yield (4.6–10.8%) was shown in the narrow rows in three years of the experiment, in association with lower losses in plant numbers, when compared to conventional row spacing. The potential of yield improvement in the narrow rows showed relationships with weather conditions during the second half of the growing season. In summary, under the growing conditions of the study region, narrow row spacing significantly promoted early plant development, but these effects did not persist until harvest, thus resulting in only limited success in yield improvement.

1. Introduction

Silage maize (Zea mays L.) is one of the most important forage crops in the world due to its high biomass yield and nutritive value. These characteristics of maize have been continually investigated, mainly in research related to breeding [1] and agricultural technologies, including predominantly the effect of nitrogen fertilization [2,3], tillage effect [4,5], weed management [6,7] or spatial plant arrangement [8,9,10,11,12,13]. Maize is traditionally grown in widely spaced rows (0.65–0.75 m), although this planting arrangement is associated with environmental risks, particularly soil erosion [14] and nutrient leaching [15]. Therefore, optimization of spatial arrangement toward narrow or twin row spacing may offer some benefits, e.g., in association with N-use efficiency [16].
The spatial arrangement of a maize monoculture depends on plant density per unit area and on plant spacing in an area. Reduction in row spacing under uniform plant density leads to an increasing distance between plants within a row, which plays an important role in the uniform distribution of water and nutrients among plants [17]. Gao et al. [18] found that narrow row spacing reduced root competition and increased root distribution at the top soil layer. Moreover, lower throughfall and splash erosion were found to occur with planting in narrow rows (0.45 m) in comparison to wider row spacing (0.75 m) [19]. Alternatively, spatial arrangement with narrow rows or twin rows enables an increase in plant density, thereby avoiding a reduction in the distance between plants within a row. In addition to maize grown in monocultures, the focus on maize plant spatial arrangement also needs to pay special attention to intercropping systems, where suitable row spacing could maximize the benefit of maize–soybean [20] or maize–white bean [21] intercropping.
A more uniform plant arrangement (with the same or higher plant densities) can theoretically increase yield [9,11], but published studies show various impacts of row spacing on maize yield and other (morphologic and qualitative) characteristics because of the additional effects of hybrid [22,23,24], fertilization [25], irrigation [26] and environmental conditions [22,27]. Changes in plant arrangement (plant density and row spacing) can lead to modifications in shoot size and leaf orientation due to altered light conditions within the canopy. The plant response is manifested in different leaf growth from the initial stages of maize growth, and its range is related to the type of hybrid (rigid vs. plastic hybrids) [28].
Regarding maize utilization, the effect of row spacing has been evaluated predominantly in grain maize, whereas only a few studies have focused on silage maize despite its high importance in animal nutrition and as a crop for biogas production. A significant effect on grain yield of maize growing in alternative rows was recorded by Gözübenli [22]; on average, the grain yields of three plant densities of narrow rows and twin rows were higher than in the conventional rows by about 1.0 and 0.9 t ha−1, respectively. Similarly, Grevenitios et al. [27] found a higher yield of 1.0 t ha−1 in narrow rows. A difference of 1.2 and 1.8 t ha−1 in favor of narrow rows was found by Testa et al. [29] and Ge et al. [30], respectively. No interaction of row spacing × plant density was found in any of these studies. In the studies by Stone et al. [31], Strieder et al. [9] and Barbieri et al. [32], the increases in grain yield with narrow row spacing were inconsistent and ranged from 0 to 6%, 14% and 23%, respectively, at different plant densities, nitrogen fertilization or water supply.
Considering silage utilization, Widdicombe and Thelen [8] recorded a significant increase in forage dry matter yield (5.4%) when row spacing was narrowed from 0.76 to 0.38 m, but there was no row spacing × plant density interaction. Turgut et al. [33] compared conventional row (0.65 m) and alternate twin row spacing (0.40:0.25 m) under increasing plant density (from 65,000 to 125,000 plants ha−1). They observed a significantly higher yield in twin row spacing as well as under higher density; however, the interaction was not significant. In contrast to the previously mentioned studies, no significant effect of row spacing on grain or forage yield was reported by Robles et al. [11], Maqbool et al. [34] and Ramezani et al. [35]. Forage yield is negatively correlated with qualitative parameters, especially plant digestibility and starch content. Starch content is closely related to ear ratio; therefore, ear ratio is a relevant factor for the nutritive value of the whole plant [36].
The differences in maize yield potential and actual yields point to further possible yield increases due to advances in plant breeding and improved agronomic practices [37]. Experiments with alternative spatial arrangement have been conducted predominantly in North and South America [24,32,38,39] or Asia [18,30,34,35]; however, there is a lack of studies in Central Europe where wide rows are standard and other spatial arrangements are rarely used. The growing season significantly impacts maize yield [9,27], and, therefore, the effect of row spacing needs to be evaluated in experiments over several years. Previous studies have shown that optimizing plant arrangement can improve maize performance in both monoculture and intercropping systems. Moreover, most papers have focused on the yield response of maize at harvest time, but data throughout the growth period have usually been omitted. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the effects of row spacing and plant density (i) on silage maize biomass accumulation over the growing season and (ii) on yield and maize plant-part proportion at harvest time in Central Europe over a 4-year period. These results could help to better understand the benefits of various row spacing effects relevant to the growing conditions in the region.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Site Description

A field experiment was conducted at the experimental field station of the Czech University of Life Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic (50°7′39″ N, 14°22′19″ E; 286 m a.s.l.) in the growing seasons 2011–2014. The soil of the experimental site was clayey-loam Haplic Chernozem [40] with the following characteristics: salinity of 19.7 µS cm−1, pH (H2O) of 7.9, pH (KCl) of 7.1, phosphorus of 91 mg kg−1, potassium of 230 mg kg−1, magnesium of 240 mg kg−1, and calcium of 9000 mg kg−1 (according to the Mehlich 3 method [41]). Particle-size distribution of the soil was 16.4% of sand (0.05–2 mm), 54.9% of silt (0.002–0.05 mm), and 28.7% of clay (<0.002 mm). The monthly mean air temperature and sums of precipitation for the period from 2011 to 2014 and long-term data are presented in Table 1.

2.2. Experimental Design

The experiment was arranged in a Latin square with four treatments and four replications of the main plot. The plot size was 14 m2 (2.8 × 5 m) with four and eight rows for conventional and narrow rows, respectively. In 2011–2012, two inter-row spacing treatments (0.70 and 0.35 m) from four inter-row spacing treatments were selected for evaluation in this study. The plant densities were 92,000 plants ha−1. In 2013–2014, two inter-row spacing treatments (0.70 and 0.35 m) at 92,000 and 110,000 plants ha−1 were evaluated. This selection provided a four-year evaluation of two inter-row spacing treatments (0.70 and 0.35 m) established at 92,000 plants ha−1. Maize (hybrid Kuxxar) seeds were hand-sown to a depth of 0.04 m and at an exact distance. Kuxxar is a single cross, medium-early stay-green hybrid (FAO 300) for silage or grain and is characterized as a tall and well-leaved hybrid with erect leaves and resistance to lodging. The dates of sowing are presented in Table 2.
On the experimental site, silage maize has been continuously cultivated since 2004 under conventional tillage practices. Fertilizers were applied each year before seeding at a rate of 120 kg ha−1 for N (ammonium sulphate), 45 kg ha−1 for P (superphosphate), and 120 kg ha−1 for K (potassium chloride). Weeds were controlled by post-emergent herbicide (Laudis) at a rate of 100 g ha−1 for tembotrione and 50 g ha−1 for isoxadifen-ethyl.

2.3. Biomass Sampling and Measurement

During the growing season, five measurements of plant height and six samplings of above-ground biomass were conducted in two-week intervals (Table 2). Plant height was measured for 20 plants in the center of two rows of each plot from the soil surface to the uppermost developed leaf tip or the tip of the tassel (m). The last measurement was obtained in the fifth term of sampling when tassels were fully emerged. Four plants were randomly selected (per plot) from the edge rows throughout the vegetation period and the center rows at harvest time to quantify dry matter content (DMC; %). The sampled plants were divided into ear, leaf and stalk parts and dried at 60 °C in a forced-air dryer for calculation of leaf (LR; %), stalk (SR; %) and ear (ER; %) weight percentage ratio (calculated as the percentage ratio of the weight of particular plant parts from the DM weight of the whole plant). In the first and second sampling before stalk elongation, the whole above-ground biomass was calculated as leaves. The ears were calculated as a plant part after the beginning of grain development (in the fifth sampling). The center two rows (0.70 m row spacing) or four rows (0.35 m row spacing) of each plot were manually harvested at optimal silage maturity (Table 2) to determine dry matter biomass yield (DMY; t ha−1). The harvest was realized 120–125 days from seeding (maturity stage: 1/2 milk line of the grain in 2011, 2013 and 2014; 3/4 milk line of the grain in 2012). The number of harvested plants compared to the theoretical number of seeds sown (92,000 and 110,000 plants ha−1, respectively) is described as the harvested plant ratio (HPR; %).

2.4. Statistical Analysis

The growth and harvest characteristics were statistically evaluated by using analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by the Tukey post hoc test (α = 0.05) using the data analysis software Statistica 12 (2013) [42]. The growth characteristics from 2011 to 2014 were analyzed by three-way ANOVA (year, term and row spacing) with interaction, whereas the harvest data from this period were evaluated by two-way ANOVA (year and row spacing). In 2013–2014, plant density was included as another factor; therefore, density effect, as well as its interaction with row spacing, was additionally analyzed for the growth and harvest data. The effects of the tested factors on plant part ratio were evaluated separately within terms where the tested plant part was presented.

3. Results

Different yearly weather conditions resulted in different growth parameters during the maize growing season. Two contrasting groups of years were observed. The average air temperature was significantly higher in the April–September period in the years 2011 and 2012 (16.4 °C and 16.3 °C, respectively) than in 2013 and 2014 (15.2 °C and 15.9 °C, respectively). May and June were significantly warmer in the years 2011 and 2012. Significantly lower sums of precipitation during the vegetation period were found in 2011 and 2012 (329 mm and 296 mm, respectively) compared to 2013 and 2014 (488 mm and 408 mm, respectively). Above-average sums of precipitation were recorded in May and June 2013 and May 2014.

3.1. Influence of Row Spacing on Growth Characteristics during the Vegetation Periods

All characteristics of silage maize stand evaluated during the growing seasons in 2011–2014 were significantly influenced by the year (Table 3). Over the growing season, the highest plants were found in 2011 and 2012. The greatest weight of plants (Figure 1) and DMC of whole plants were also found in these years. The significantly highest ear ratio and lowest leaf ratio were found in 2011 and 2012 in the morphological analysis of plants. The tested row spacing predominantly influenced the height of plants, where the significantly highest plants were found in the row spacing of 0.35 m. Plants from narrowly spaced rows showed significantly higher stalk ratio and lower leaf ratio. Plants from the same treatment had greater weight, but the difference between the tested row spacings was not significant. The average values of plant characteristics, in particular the terms of measurement across all treatments, are shown in Table 3.
Higher plant height in the narrow rows was found for the row spacing × term interaction in the 1st–4th terms of measurement, but a significant difference (37 mm) between the different row-spacing treatments used was found only in the 3rd term. Significantly lower leaf and complementarily higher stalk ratios were found in the narrow rows in the third term compared to the conventional rows. A higher stalk ratio was proved when evaluating the row spacing × year interaction in the treatment with narrow rows, except for the year 2012. This difference was statistically significant in 2014 (51.8% vs. 47.5%). The rate of ears was lower in plants from the narrow rows in 2013 and 2014 compared to the conventional rows. A statistically significant difference between tested row-spacing treatments was found across different terms in 2014 (36.4% vs. 43.2%).

3.2. Influence of Row Spacing on Harvest Characteristics

The harvest characteristics of silage maize are presented in Table 4. The results show a significant influence of year on plant height, dry matter, and rate of particular plant parts. Year did not influence the yield components of maize (weight of plants and number of plants harvested from an area unit). Therefore, a significant difference was not found in the total yield of biomass among the tested years. An impact of row spacing on the evaluated harvest parameters of maize plants was not found. Even so, higher plants, with greater weight, were found in the conventional row spacing compared to the average values measured over the growth cycle. Significantly lower losses of plant number were found in the treatment with narrow rows, but the total yield of biomass was not influenced by the row-spacing treatment. The yield variability across the years was higher in narrow than in conventional row spacing (Figure 2). The yield of biomass from the narrow rows was higher than in conventional row spacing in 2011–2013 but considerably lower than in alternative row spacing in 2014.

3.3. Row Spacing × Plant Density Interaction

The impact of row spacing × plant density interaction was evaluated in 2013 and 2014 (Table 5). Row spacing significantly influenced plant height, where higher plants were found in the conventional rows, but the difference was marginal (only by 0.02 m). Simultaneously, a lower stalk ratio and a higher ear ratio were recorded in the conventional rows. The results obtained during the growing season showed a significantly greater plant weight at the seeding rate of 92,000 plants ha−1. The increase in seeding rate to 110,000 plants ha−1 led to a 6% reduction in plant weight. The different plant densities did not influence other characteristics. The row spacing × plant density interaction was significant for plant height and proportion of stalks and ears. Significantly higher plants were recorded at the seeding rate of 110,000 plants ha−1 with conventional row spacing compared to narrow row spacing, while no difference was found under the seeding rate of 92,000 plants ha−1. The lowest ear ratio was observed in the narrow rows under the lower density. There was no effect of row spacing on the observed characteristics in any of the six terms evaluated (shown as the averages per plant density in Table 5). From Table 6, it is evident that there are no significant effects of the tested plant densities on the growing and morphological characteristics of maize plants. An enhanced plant density resulted in a significant 9.3% increase in total biomass yield (23.5 t ha−1 vs. 21.5 t ha−1).

4. Discussion

4.1. Influence of Row Spacing on Growth Characteristics during the Vegetation Periods

The analysis of the effect of year showed two contrasting periods: 2011–2012 and 2013–2014. Taller plants with greater weight, dry matter content and ear ratio (Table 3) were recorded in 2011 and 2012, when higher temperatures were observed at the beginning of the vegetation growth period, and when May and June were about 2 °C above the temperatures of 2013 and 2014. Simultaneously, in 2011 and 2012, the sums of precipitation were lower in comparison to 2013 and 2014, but it is evident that the amount of water was sufficient for initial plant growth in 2011 and 2012. In 2011, a lower amount of precipitation (17 mm) was recorded in April, but there was a total of 13 mm of precipitation in the four days after seeding. In contrast, above-average precipitation in April (44 mm) provided a sufficient amount of water for germination, although the period after seeding was dry in 2012. It seems that temperatures were more important in these conditions. Brant et al. [43] found that increasing temperature from 10 to 20 °C accelerated germination by approximately two weeks under both optimal and water stress conditions. More rapid initial growth manifested in a higher ear ratio (data not shown) and greater plant weight (Figure 1) in the treatment with narrow rows in 2011 and 2012. These results correspond with Barbieri et al. [32], who found a positive grain yield in response to narrow rows in water-limited conditions when compared with irrigated conditions. A more uniform horizontal distribution of roots in narrow rows [18] provides better plant water utilization, which may compensate for the decrease in yield in years with water deficit. Our results represent temperate conditions of the Central European region; however, in warmer regions, higher precipitations or applied irrigation water are more important for plant growth and grain or silage maize yield [39]. Furthermore, a higher leaf ratio during the growing seasons in 2013 and 2014 could be connected with the above-average precipitation, as well as lower air temperatures in May. Similarly, Battaglia et al. [44] recorded greater rates of leaf growth and higher leaf area index in the year with lower temperatures and higher amounts of precipitation.
According to Greveniotis et al. [27], narrow and twin rows favored many morphological characteristics, especially height characteristics. In our experiment, the greatest difference in plant height between the narrow and conventional rows (1.34 m vs. 1.30 m) was found in the third term of measurement (65–69 days from seeding). In later terms of measurement, plant heights were more uniform between contrasting row spacing. In Robles et al. [11], an alternative spatial arrangement should theoretically decrease plant-to-plant competition and alleviate crop crowding stress. The faster growth of plants in the narrow rows at the beginning phases of the vegetation period in the presented experiment could be related to the more uniform spacing of plants in the plot. Similar to plant height, the greatest differences in plant weight were measured in the third and fourth terms of sampling (about 5.9 g plant−1 and 7.2 g plant−1, respectively), and these differences were reduced in later terms (up to 1.7 g plant−1 in the sixth term). Moreover, a higher stalk ratio was found in the treatment with the narrow rows in the third term of sampling. These results are in accordance with the results published by Bullock et al. [45], who described a greater crop growth rate for equidistant plant-spacing patterns than for conventional plant-spacing patterns in an early growing season. Similarly, for twin rows, Robles et al. [11] recorded a higher leaf area index (LAI) up to early reproductive growth (around silking time). The radiation interception was initially favored by earlier canopy closure with twin row planting, but the relative radiation-interception advantage declined at the following vegetative stages. The differences between the treatments used in our experiment also gradually reduced to become more uniform in later periods (around the beginning of August). Accordingly, Novacek et al. [23] found small changes in plant morphology and interception of photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) at V9 stage (nine leaves with visible collars).

4.2. Influence of Row Spacing on Harvest Characteristics

The significantly lower values of growth characteristics recorded throughout the maize growth cycle (Table 3) in 2013–2014 were not detected at the time of harvest (Table 4), probably due to the subsequent weather pattern, which allowed the slower initial plant growth to be compensated. Moreover, the harvest evaluation did not show significant differences in morphologic parameters between the tested row widths, on average, over the four-year period. These results correspond with many studies on the impact of row width on morphological composition in different hybrids [27,33,46] or different soil conditions [47]. The total biomass yields were not significantly different between the narrow and conventional row treatments in our experiment, in line with Skoniesky et al. [46]. Similarly, in a twin row system, Robles et al. [11] and Novacek et al. [23] did not observe a noticeable gain in the grain yield of maize, even though they found differences in several parameters throughout the vegetation period. Conversely, Turgut et al. [33] found a significantly higher yield of silage maize biomass in alternate twin row (0.40:0.25 m) spacing compared with conventional (0.65 m) row spacing. Higher grain yield and total dry matter yield in narrow rows were also recorded by Liang et al. [48], but the extent of the effect was dependent on year and plant density. In our experiment, a higher yield variability was found in the narrow rows (Figure 2). The year 2014 represented an exception to the trend of higher yields under the narrow row treatment, indicating a different effect of weather conditions when maize is grown at different row-spacing patterns. Regarding the contrasts between 2014 and other years, the lowest average temperature and the lowest sums of precipitation from all four experimental years were in August 2014 when the silage maize ripened (Table 1). Water deficit stress, especially during the grain filling stage, massively negatively affects plant performance due to the deterioration in trait function and, consequently, the yield [49].
It is also noticeable that greater numbers of harvested plants were found in the narrow row treatment than in the conventional one (89,125–91,641 plants ha−1 vs. 84,453–88,047 plants ha−1). Similarly, Beres et al. [50] reported significantly lower losses in plant number when grown in narrow row spacing. In the conventional pattern, a higher plant population density within a row can lead to increased stress, resulting in increased plant-to-plant variability [51,52] and loss of plants in this treatment. The greater number of harvested plants in the narrow row treatment caused a non-significantly higher yield of biomass (Figure 2) in our experiment. This is in accordance with the results gained throughout the vegetation period and indicates the positive impact of a higher average air temperature on the evaluated parameters of maize grown in narrow rows. A significant impact of year on other evaluated morphological parameters of maize (Table 4) was found throughout the vegetation period as well as at harvest time.

4.3. Row Spacing × Plant Density Interaction

In the experiment with row spacing and plant density interaction, a higher stalk ratio and a lower ear ratio were found in the narrow rows in each sample term; however, significant differences were recorded only for the average over the whole growing season. Maize growing with a higher plant density caused a significant decrease in plant weight during the vegetation period (Table 5). This difference was not significant at harvest time (Table 6). Similar results were reported by Ramezani et al. [35]. The change in seeding rate had no effect on the height of plants in our experiment, which is also in agreement with other authors [33,35,53]. However, a detailed analysis of the interaction of row spacing × plant density showed an effect of row width on plant height in the higher plant-density stands (Table 5). The highest plants were found in the conventional pattern where the inter-plant distance within the row was smaller at higher seeding rates.
The differences in the morphological parameters of plants between seeding rates were not so evident at harvest time (Table 6). Similarly, Millner and Villaver [54] did not find an impact of plant density on changes in plant part ratio during the harvest of silage maize. On the other hand, Baghdadi et al. [10] found a decrease in the ear ratio as well as the leaf ratio at a higher seeding rate (from 90,000 to 130,000 plants ha−1). Çarpici et al. [53] found a significantly higher ear ratio at 60,000 plants ha−1 and the lowest ratio at 220,000 plants ha−1, but they did not find significant differences in the range of plant density from 100,000 to 180,000 plants ha−1. An ear ratio that determines the content of starch can affect forage quality for livestock [10] as well as biomass quality for biogas production [55]. Biomass quality is generally driven by plant part ratio. According to Hakl et al. [36], stover (i.e., leaves and stalks) parameters were able to account for about 60% of variability for the whole-plant yield and quality. Baron et al. [56] noted the effects of plant density and row spacing on the qualitative parameters of silage maize, which could be associated with morphological changes induced by different spatial plant arrangements. However, no effect of either row spacing or plant density on morphological parameters (plant height and ear, stalk, and leaf ratio) was recorded in our experiment. This suggests that stand arrangement did not significantly affect biomass quality throughout the four years. This assumption was confirmed by Jirmanová et al. [57], who found no differences in biomass quality in a one-year analysis of the results of this experiment.
The total dry matter yield was significantly higher at the 110,000 plants ha−1 seeding rate in our experiment. Consistent results have been published in other papers [31,33,53,56,58]. These authors described an increase in the total yield of maize biomass at a higher plant density until an optimal number of plants per unit area is reached. The resulting increase in plant density causes a decrease in yield. Liang et al. [48] compared different plant patterns (conventional, narrow, twin and narrow twin rows), and they found that the optimal density at which the highest total dry matter yield was obtained was similar for all plant arrangements.

5. Conclusions

This agronomic study aimed to investigate the effect of narrow row spacing on the growth of maize during the vegetation period and potential yield benefit under the conditions of the Central European region. The four-year experiment showed faster growth of maize plants at the beginning of the growing season under a management system based on narrow row spacing. Differences between row spacing were found approximately two months after seeding when the narrow rows showed higher plant height and stalk ratio. Differences in plant part proportion between the different row-spacing patterns disappeared in the second half of the vegetation period and were not found in any evaluated parameter of maize plant at harvest time. The effect of the tested row width on biomass yield was not significant; nevertheless, some potential for higher dry matter yield was demonstrated for narrow row spacing in three years of the four-year experiment. However, this yield improvement was dependent on favorable weather and was not significant when adverse weather conditions likely resulted in the elimination of the benefits of narrow row spacing. The effect of a higher sowing density significantly improved biomass yield without interaction with row spacing. Narrow row spacing had less effect on yield than the tested stand densities under Central European growing conditions. Although sowing in narrow rows is not clearly beneficial in terms of achieving higher yields, further study of this technology may be valuable for assessing its support due to environmental aspects, such as the influence of rainwater throughfall, diminishing water runoff, and soil erosion, as well as agroecological perspectives in intercropping systems.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, P.F. and J.H.; methodology, P.F. and J.H.; formal analysis, P.F.; investigation, P.F. and Z.H.; data curation, P.F.; writing—original draft preparation, P.F. and J.H.; writing—review and editing, P.F., Z.H. and O.S.; project administration and funding acquisition, P.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by the ‘S’ grant from the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Acknowledgments

We thank Jana Jirmanová for her excellent field and technical assistance.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Andorf, C.; Beavis, W.D.; Hufford, M.; Smith, S.; Suza, W.P.; Wang, K.; Woodhouse, M.; Yu, J.; Lübberstedt, T. Technological Advances in Maize Breeding: Past, Present and Future; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019; Volume 132, ISBN 0123456789. [Google Scholar]
  2. Liimatainen, A.; Sairanen, A.; Jaakkola, S.; Kokkonen, T.; Kuoppala, K.; Jokiniemi, T.; Mäkelä, P.S.A. Yield, Quality and Nitrogen Use of Forage Maize under Different Nitrogen Application Rates in Two Boreal Locations. Agronomy 2022, 12, 887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Xu, R.; Zhao, H.; You, Y.; Wu, R.; Liu, G.; Sun, Z.; Zhang, Y. Effects of Intercropping, Nitrogen Fertilization and Corn Plant Density on Yield, Crude Protein Accumulation and Ensiling Characteristics of Silage Corn Interseeded into Alfalfa Stand. Agriculture 2022, 12, 357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Gozubuyuk, Z.; Sahin, U.; Adiguzel, M.C.; Dasci, E. Energy Use Efficiency of Deficit-Irrigated Silage Maize in Different Soil Tillage Practices on a High Plain with a Semi-Arid Climate. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci. 2020, 66, 1611–1626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Voltr, V.; Wollnerová, J.; Fuksa, P.; Hruška, M. Influence of Tillage on the Production Inputs, Outputs, Soil Compaction and GHG Emissions. Agriculture 2021, 11, 456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Mhlanga, B.; Chauhan, B.S.; Thierfelder, C. Weed Management in Maize Using Crop Competition: A Review. Crop Prot. 2016, 88, 28–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Böcker, T.; Britz, W.; Finger, R. Modelling the Effects of a Glyphosate Ban on Weed Management in Silage Maize Production. Ecol. Econ. 2018, 145, 182–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Widdicombe, W.D.; Thelen, K.D. Row Width and Plant Density Effects on Corn Grain Production in the Northern Corn Belt. Agron. J. 2002, 94, 1020–1023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Strieder, M.L.; Da Silva, P.R.F.; Rambo, L.; Sangoi, L.; Da Silva, A.A.; Endrigo, P.C.; Jandrey, D.B. Crop Management Systems and Maize Grain Yield under Narrow Row Spacing. Sci. Agric. 2008, 65, 346–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Baghdadi, A.; Halim, R.A.; Majidian, M.; Daud, W.N.W.; Ahmad, I. Plant Density and Tillage Effects on Forage Corn Quality. J. Food Agric. Environ. 2012, 10, 366–370. [Google Scholar]
  11. Robles, M.; Ciampitti, I.A.; Vyn, T.J. Responses of Maize Hybrids to Twin-Row Spatial Arrangement at Multiple Plant Densities. Agron. J. 2012, 104, 1747–1756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Zhang, D.; Sun, Z.; Feng, L.; Bai, W.; Yang, N.; Zhang, Z.; Du, G.; Feng, C.; Cai, Q.; Wang, Q.; et al. Maize Plant Density Affects Yield, Growth and Source-Sink Relationship of Crops in Maize/Peanut Intercropping. Field Crop. Res. 2020, 257, 107926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Burton, A.B.; Kemanian, A.R. Maize Yield in Response to Alternating Low- and High-Density Rows of Diverse Hybrids. Eur. J. Agron. 2022, 135, 126472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Vogel, E.; Deumlich, D.; Kaupenjohann, M. Bioenergy Maize and Soil Erosion—Risk Assessment and Erosion Control Concepts. Geoderma 2016, 261, 80–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Allende-Montalbán, R.; Martín-Lammerding, D.; Delgado, M.D.M.; Porcel, M.A.; Gabriel, J.L. Nitrate Leaching in Maize (Zea mays L.) and Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) Irrigated Cropping Systems under Nitrification Inhibitor and/or Intercropping Effects. Agriculture 2022, 12, 478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Liang, S.; Yoshihira, T. Effect of Nitrogen Topdressing on Planting Density Response of Grain Yield in Maize with Different Planting Pattern Cultivation. Grassl. Sci. 2022, 68, 286–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Nakarmi, A.D.; Tang, L. Within-Row Spacing Sensing of Maize Plants Using 3D Computer Vision. Biosyst. Eng. 2014, 125, 54–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Gao, J.; Lei, M.; Yang, L.; Wang, P.; Tao, H.; Huang, S. Reduced Row Spacing Improved Yield by Optimizing Root Distribution in Maize. Eur. J. Agron. 2021, 127, 126291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Brant, V.; Zábranský, P.; Škeříková, M.; Pivec, J.; Kroulík, M.; Procházka, L. Effect of Row Width on Splash Erosion and Throughfall in Silage Maize Crops. Soil Water Res. 2017, 12, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Liang, B.; Ma, Y.; Shi, K.; Chen, G.; Chen, H.; Hu, Y.; Chen, P.; Pu, T.; Wu, Y.; Sun, X.; et al. Appropriate Bandwidth Achieves a High Yield by Reducing Maize Intraspecific Competition in Additive Maize–Soybean Strip Intercropping. Eur. J. Agron. 2023, 142, 126658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Zhanbota, A.; Noor, R.S.; Khan, A.I.; Wang, G.; Waqas, M.M.; Shah, A.N.; Ullah, S. A Two-Year Study on Yield and Yield Components of Maize-White Bean Intercropping Systems under Different Sowing Techniques. Agronomy 2022, 12, 240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Gözübenli, H. Influence of Planting Patterns and Plant Density on the Performance of Maize Hybrids in the Eastern Mediterranean Conditions. Int. J. Agric. Biol. 2010, 12, 556–560. [Google Scholar]
  23. Novacek, M.J.; Mason, S.C.; Galusha, T.D.; Yaseen, M. Twin Rows Minimally Impact Irrigated Maize Yield, Morphology, and Lodging. Agron. J. 2013, 105, 268–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Ferreira, L.L.; Mendes, S.; Carvalho, I.R.; Conte, G.G.; Leal, F.S.; Santos, N.S.C.; Silva, J.G.; Fernandes, M.S.; Pereira, A.I.A.; Curvelo, C.R.S.; et al. Spatial Arrangement and Its Implications in the Yield of Maize Cultivars. Genet. Mol. Res. 2021, 20, gmr18425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Valadabadi, S.A.; Farahani, H.A. Effects of Planting Density and Pattern on Physiological Growth Indices in Maize (Zea mays L.) under Nitrogenous Fertilizer Application. J. Agric. Ext. Rural Dev. 2010, 2, 40–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Saif, U.M.; Maqsood, M.; Hussain, S.; Habib, A. Effect of Planting Patterns and Different Irrigation Levels on Yield and Yield Component of Maize (Zea mays L.). Int. J. Agric. Biol. 2003, 5, 64–66. [Google Scholar]
  27. Greveniotis, V.; Zotis, S.; Sioki, E.; Ipsilandis, C. Field Population Density Effects on Field Yield and Morphological Characteristics of Maize. Agriculture 2019, 9, 160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Maddonni, G.A.; Otegui, M.E.; Cirilo, A.G. Plant Population Density, Row Spacing and Hybrid Effects on Maize Canopy Architecture and Light Attenuation. Field Crop. Res. 2001, 71, 183–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Testa, G.; Reyneri, A.; Blandino, M. Maize Grain Yield Enhancement through High Plant Density Cultivation with Different Inter-Row and Intra-Row Spacings. Eur. J. Agron. 2016, 72, 28–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Ge, X.L.; Chen, Y.B.; Wang, Y.; Wang, B.C.; Chao, Q.; Yu, Y.; Gong, X.J.; Hao, Y.B.; Li, L.; Jiang, Y.B.; et al. Photosynthetic Mechanism of High Yield under an Improved Wide–Narrow Row Planting Pattern in Maize. Photosynthetica 2022, 60, 465–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Stone, P.J.; Pearson, A.J.; Sorensen, I.B.; Rogers, B.T. Effect of Row Spacing and Plant Population on Maize Yield and Quality. Agron. N. Z. 2000, 30, 67–75. [Google Scholar]
  32. Barbieri, P.; Echarte, L.; della Maggiora, A.; Sadras, V.O.; Echeverria, H.; Andrade, F.H. Maize Evapotranspiration and Water-Use Efficiency in Response to Row Spacing. Agron. J. 2012, 104, 939–944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Turgut, I.; Duman, A.; Bilgili, U.; Acikgoz, E. Alternate Row Spacing and Plant Density Effects on Forage and Dry Matter Yield of Corn Hybrids (Zea mays L.). J. Agron. Crop Sci. 2005, 191, 146–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Maqbool, M.M.; Tanveer, A.; Ata, Z.; Ahmad, R. Growth and Yield of Maize (Zea mays L.) as Affected by Row Spacing and Weed Competition Durations. Pakistan J. Bot. 2006, 38, 1227–1236. [Google Scholar]
  35. Ramezani, M.; Rezaie Soukht Abandani, R.; Mobasser, H.R.; Amiri, E. Effects of Row Spacing and Plant Density on Silage Yield of Corn (Zea mays L.Cv.Sc704) in Two Plant Pattern in North of Iran. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 2011, 6, 1128–1133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Hakl, J.; Loučka, R.; Jirmanová, J.; Jambor, V. Influence of Genotype, Site, and Year on Maize Nutritive Value-Yield Relationships. Sci. Agric. Bohem. 2017, 48, 47–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Tollenaar, M.; Lee, E.A. Yield Potential, Yield Stability and Stress Tolerance in Maize. Field Crop. Res. 2002, 75, 161–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Modolo, A.J.; Carnieletto, R.; Kolling, E.M.; Trogello, E.; Sgarbossa, M. Desempenho de Híbridos de Milho Na Região Sudoeste Do Paraná Sob Diferentes Espaçamentos Entre Linhas. Rev. Ciên. Agron. 2010, 41, 435–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Balkcom, K.S.; Satterwhite, J.L.; Arriaga, F.J.; Price, A.J.; Van Santen, E. Conventional and Glyphosate-Resistant Maize Yields across Plant Densities in Single- and Twin-Row Configurations. Field Crop. Res. 2011, 120, 330–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. IUSS WRB Working Group. World Reference Base for Soil Resources 2014. In International Soil Classification System for Naming Soils and Creating Legends for Soil Maps; World Soil Resources No. 106; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  41. Mehlich, A. Mehlich 3 Soil Test Extractant: A Modification of Mehlich 2 Extractant. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 1984, 15, 1409–1416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Statistica. Data Analysis Software System, version 12; StatSoft Inc.: Tulsa, OK, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  43. Brant, V.; Zábranský, P.; Hamouzová, K.; Fuksa, P. Germination of Sorghum Seeds under Condition of Water Deficit. In Proceedings of the 10th Scientific and Technical Seminar on Seed and Seedlings, Prague, Czech Republic, 13–14 September 2011; pp. 130–134. [Google Scholar]
  44. Battaglia, M.; Lee, C.; Thomason, W.; Van Mullekom, J. Effects of Corn Row Width and Defoliation Timing and Intensity on Canopy Light Interception. Crop Sci. 2019, 59, 1718–1731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Bullock, D.G.; Nielsen, R.L.; Nyquist, W.E. A Growth Analysis Comparison of Corn Grown in Conventional and Equidistant Plant Spacing. Crop Sci. 1988, 28, 254–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Skonieski, F.R.; Nörnberg, J.L.; Kessler, J.D.; De David, B.; Azevedo, E.B.D.; Brüning, G.; Margaret, C. Corn Plant Arrangement and Its Effect on Silage Quality. Rev. Bras. Zootec. 2014, 43, 114–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Ion, V.; Bǎşa, A.G.; Temocico, G.; Dicu, G.; Epure, L.I.; State, D. Maize Plant Biomass at Different Hybrids, Plant Populations, Row Spacing and Soil Conditions. Rom. Biotechnol. Lett. 2014, 19, 9551–9560. [Google Scholar]
  48. Liang, S.; Yoshihira, T.; Sato, C. Grain Yield Responses to Planting Density in Twin and Narrow Row Cultivation of Early Cultivars in Maize. Grassl. Sci. 2020, 66, 183–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Sah, R.P.; Chakraborty, M.; Prasad, K.; Pandit, M.; Tudu, V.K.; Chakravarty, M.K.; Narayan, S.C.; Rana, M.; Moharana, D. Impact of Water Deficit Stress in Maize: Phenology and Yield Components. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 2944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Beres, B.L.; Bremer, E.; Van Dasselaar, C. Response of Irrigated Corn Silage to Seeding Rate and Row Spacing in Southern Alberta. Can. J. Plant Sci. 2008, 88, 713–716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Maddonni, G.A.; Otegui, M.E. Intra-Specific Competition in Maize: Early Establishment of Hierarchies among Plants Affects Final Kernel Set. Field Crop. Res. 2004, 85, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Rossini, M.A.; Maddonni, G.A.; Otegui, M.E. Inter-Plant Competition for Resources in Maize Crops Grown under Contrasting Nitrogen Supply and Density: Variability in Plant and Ear Growth. Field Crop. Res. 2011, 121, 373–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Çarpici, E.B.; Çelik, N.; Bayram, G. Yield and Quality of Forage Maize as Influenced by Plant Density and Nitrogen Rate. Turkish J. F. Crop. 2010, 15, 128–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Millner, J.P.; Aver, R.V.; Hardacre, A.K. The Yield and Nutritive Value of Maize Hybrids Grown for Silage. N. Z. J. Agric. Res. 2005, 48, 101–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Fuksa, P.; Hakl, J.; Míchal, P.; Hrevušová, Z.; Šantrůček, J.; Tlustoš, P. Effect of Silage Maize Plant Density and Plant Parts on Biogas Production and Composition. Biomass Bioenergy 2020, 142, 105770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Baron, V.S.; Najda, H.G.; Stevenson, F.C. Influence of Population Density, Row Spacing and Hybrid on Forage Corn Yield and Nutritive Value in a Cool-Season Environment. Can. J. Plant Sci. 2006, 86, 1131–1138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Jirmanová, J.; Fuksa, P.; Hakl, J.; Brant, V.; Šantrůček, J. Effect of Different Plant Arrangements on Maize Morphology and Forage Quality. Agriculture 2016, 62, 62–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Liu, Z.; Wei, S.; Li, M.; Zhang, Q.; Zong, R.; Li, Q. Response of Water Radiation Utilization of Summer Maize to Planting Density and Genotypes in the North China Plain. Agronomy 2023, 13, 68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Agronomy 13 01117 g001 550
Figure 1. Plant weight (PW) for two row spacings (0.70 m and 0.35 m) at a plant density of 92,000 plants ha−1 during the growing seasons in 2011–2014 (p = 0.010).
Figure 1. Plant weight (PW) for two row spacings (0.70 m and 0.35 m) at a plant density of 92,000 plants ha−1 during the growing seasons in 2011–2014 (p = 0.010).
Agronomy 13 01117 g001
Agronomy 13 01117 g002 550
Figure 2. Dry matter yield (DMY) for two row spacings (0.70 m and 0.35 m) at a plant density of 92,000 plants ha−1 in 2011–2014 (p = 0.095).
Figure 2. Dry matter yield (DMY) for two row spacings (0.70 m and 0.35 m) at a plant density of 92,000 plants ha−1 in 2011–2014 (p = 0.095).
Agronomy 13 01117 g002
Table
Table 1. Monthly mean air temperature (t) and monthly sums of precipitation (P) in 2011–2014 (Prague–Suchdol), and long-term climatological normal for the period 1981–2010 obtained from the meteorological station in Prague–Ruzyně (source: Czech Hydrometeorological Institute).
Table 1. Monthly mean air temperature (t) and monthly sums of precipitation (P) in 2011–2014 (Prague–Suchdol), and long-term climatological normal for the period 1981–2010 obtained from the meteorological station in Prague–Ruzyně (source: Czech Hydrometeorological Institute).
Month2011201220132014Normal
t
(°C)		P
(mm)		t
(°C)		P
(mm)		t
(°C)		P
(mm)		t
(°C)		P
(mm)		t
(°C)		P
(mm)
April12.3179.6449.62611.6228.528
May15.03616.02312.710713.013713.570
June18.26018.14716.817317.32016.267
July17.812019.48020.65420.79218.378
August19.17020.05618.59017.24317.965
September16.02614.64613.13815.79413.538
April–September16.432916.329615.248815.940814.7346
January–December10.04469.85019.066910.75048.4501
Table
Table 2. Dates of sowing, sampling, and harvest and number of days from seeding to individual terms of sampling and harvest in 2011–2014.
Table 2. Dates of sowing, sampling, and harvest and number of days from seeding to individual terms of sampling and harvest in 2011–2014.
Term20112012
DateDays from SeedingDateDays from Seeding
Sowing29 April030 April0
1st sampling7 June396 June37
2nd22 June5420 June51
3rd6 July684 July65
4th19 July8118 July79
5th3 August961 August93
6th17 August11015 August107
Harvest30 August12328 August120
Term20132014
DateDays from SeedingDateDays from Seeding
Sowing29 April024 April0
1st sampling5 June374 June41
2nd19 June5118 June55
3rd3 July652 July69
4th17 July7917 July84
5th31 July9330 July97
6th14 August10712 August110
Harvest29 August12227 August125
Table
Table 3. Plant height (PH), plant weight (PW), dry matter content (DMC), leaf ratio (LR), stalk ratio (SR) and ear ratio (ER) for two row spacings (RS, 0.70 m and 0.35 m) at a plant density of 92,000 plants ha−1 in six terms (T, see dates in Table 2) during the growing seasons in 2011–2014 (Y).
Table 3. Plant height (PH), plant weight (PW), dry matter content (DMC), leaf ratio (LR), stalk ratio (SR) and ear ratio (ER) for two row spacings (RS, 0.70 m and 0.35 m) at a plant density of 92,000 plants ha−1 in six terms (T, see dates in Table 2) during the growing seasons in 2011–2014 (Y).
PH
(m)		PW
(g)		DMC
(%)		LR
(%)		SR
(%)		ER
(%)
Year
20111.51 c91.2 b16.3 b52.5 b48.8 a44.8 c
20121.58 d102.4 c16.7 b51.4 a50.4 ab45.1 c
20131.15 a68.9 a14.9 a56.9 d50.9 b27.5 a
20141.27 b68.9 a15.2 a53.6 c49.7 ab39.8 b
p<0.001<0.001<0.001<0.0010.031<0.001
Row spacing (m)
0.701.37 a81.415.753.9 b49.2 a39.9
0.351.39 b84.315.853.3 a50.7 b38.7
p0.0070.1840.4210.0170.0050.229
TermRow spacing (m)
10.700.35 a1.7 a13.0 b100.0 f--
0.350.36 a2.0 a13.0 b100.0 f--
20.700.78 b12.0 a11.4 a100.0 f--
0.350.80 b12.6 a11.4 a100.0 f--
30.701.30 c39.2 b12.6 b53.0 e47.0 b-
0.351.34 d45.1 b13.0 b49.6 d50.4 c-
40.702.03 e92.2 c15.2 c33.3 c66.7 d-
0.352.05 e99.4 c15.2 c31.9 c68.1 d-
50.702.40 f143.5 d19.1 d21.3 b46.6 b32.1 a
0.352.38 f147.9 d19.3 d21.6 b46.6 b31.8 a
60.70-200.1 e22.9 e15.9 a36.4 a47.7 b
0.35-198.4 e22.9 e16.9 a37.4 a45.7 b
p—Term<0.001<0.001<0.001<0.001<0.001<0.001
p—RS × T0.0120.8010.947<0.0010.0250.368
p—RS × Y0.5800.0100.8770.879<0.001<0.001
p = probability; different letters indicate statistical differences based on Tukey’s HSD test (α = 0.05) for each factor separately (year, row spacing or interaction of row spacing × term) within each column. The plant part ratios follow the presence of the plant parts in particular terms.
Table
Table 4. Plant height (PH), plant weight (PW), dry matter content (DMC), leaf ratio (LR), stalk ratio (SR), ear ratio (ER), dry matter yield (DMY) and harvested plant ratio (HPR) for two row spacings (RS, 0.70 m and 0.35 m) at a plant density of 92,000 plants ha−1 at harvest time in 2011–2014 (Y).
Table 4. Plant height (PH), plant weight (PW), dry matter content (DMC), leaf ratio (LR), stalk ratio (SR), ear ratio (ER), dry matter yield (DMY) and harvested plant ratio (HPR) for two row spacings (RS, 0.70 m and 0.35 m) at a plant density of 92,000 plants ha−1 at harvest time in 2011–2014 (Y).
PH
(m)		PW
(g)		DMC
(%)		LR
(%)		SR
(%)		ER
(%)		DMY
(t ha−1)		HPR
(%)
Year
20112.32 a246.030.8 b13.3 a24.2 a62.6 b21.696.1
20122.48 c253.241.4 c14.1 ab21.9 a64.0 b22.395.7
20132.39 b247.028.1 a13.7 a32.6 b53.7 a22.297.7
20142.36 ab235.930.5 b14.9 b24.7 a60.4 b20.895.9
p<0.0010.462<0.0010.008<0.001<0.0010.3910.768
Row spacing (m)
0.702.40246.232.513.925.560.621.494.6 a
0.352.38244.832.914.126.259.722.198.0 b
p0.1620.8510.4440.4950.4820.3600.3030.030
p—RS × Y0.3640.2680.6820.0040.6730.3410.0950.311
p = probability; different letters indicate statistical differences based on Tukey’s HSD test (α = 0.05) for each factor separately (year or row spacing) within each column.
Table
Table 5. Plant height (PH), plant weight (PW), dry matter content (DMC), leaf ratio (LR), stalk ratio (SR) and ear ratio (ER) for two row spacings (RS, 0.70 m and 0.35 m) and two plant densities (PD, 92,000 and 110,000 plants ha−1) in six terms (T, see dates in Table 2) during the growing seasons in 2013–2014 (Y).
Table 5. Plant height (PH), plant weight (PW), dry matter content (DMC), leaf ratio (LR), stalk ratio (SR) and ear ratio (ER) for two row spacings (RS, 0.70 m and 0.35 m) and two plant densities (PD, 92,000 and 110,000 plants ha−1) in six terms (T, see dates in Table 2) during the growing seasons in 2013–2014 (Y).
PH
(m)		PW
(g)		DMC
(%)		LR
(%)		SR
(%)		ER
(%)
Row spacing (m)
0.701.22 b68.315.155.449.6 a34.5 b
0.351.20 a65.515.055.251.1 b32.3 a
p0.0040.1410.8220.4030.0060.036
Plant density
92,0001.2168.9 b15.055.350.333.7
110,0001.2064.9 a15.155.350.433.2
p0.3210.0340.6680.8270.7780.642
TermRow spacing (m)
10.700.20 a0.3 a13.0 b100.0 e--
0.350.20 a0.3 a13.5 b100.0 e--
20.700.60 b5.8 a11.1 a100.0 e--
0.350.59 b5.9 a11.2 a100.0 e--
30.701.07 c23.1 b11.6 a55.2 d44.8 b-
0.351.04 c23.9 b12.0 a53.4 d46.6 b-
40.701.82 d72.3 c13.7 b37.6 c62.4 d-
0.351.81 d73.5 c13.5 b36.5 c63.5 d-
50.702.38 e131.0 d18.9 c22.7 b51.5 c25.9a
0.352.36 e124.5 d18.9 c23.0 b52.5 c24.5a
60.70-177.1 e22.0 d17.0 a39.8 a43.2b
0.35-165.0 e21.1 d18.2 a41.6 a40.1b
p—Term<0.001<0.001<0.001<0.001<0.001<0.001
p—RS × T0.5670.2450.2310.3010.9080.416
RS × PD
0.70 × 92,0001.20 b71.115.055.548.6 a36.3 b
0.70 × 110,0001.23 c65.515.155.350.6 b32.7 ab
0.35 × 92,0001.22 bc66.715.055.051.9 b31.0 a
0.35 × 110,0001.18 a64.315.055.350.2 ab33.6 ab
p<0.0010.3950.5930.366<0.0010.005
p—RS × Y0.6260.5680.8880.6870.9630.711
p = probability; different letters indicate statistical differences based on Tukey’s HSD test (α = 0.05) for each factor separately (row spacing, plant density, interaction of row spacing × term or interaction of row spacing × plant density) within each column. The plant part ratios follow the presence of plant parts.
Table
Table 6. Plant height (PH), plant weight (PW), dry matter content (DMC), leaf ratio (LR), stalk ratio (SR), ear ratio (ER), dry matter yield (DMY) and harvested plant ratio (HPR) for two row spacings (RS, 0.70 m and 0.35 m) and two plant densities (PD, 92,000 and 110,000 plants ha−1) at harvest time in 2013–2014 (Y).
Table 6. Plant height (PH), plant weight (PW), dry matter content (DMC), leaf ratio (LR), stalk ratio (SR), ear ratio (ER), dry matter yield (DMY) and harvested plant ratio (HPR) for two row spacings (RS, 0.70 m and 0.35 m) and two plant densities (PD, 92,000 and 110,000 plants ha−1) at harvest time in 2013–2014 (Y).
PH
(m)		PW
(g)		DMC
(%)		LR
(%)		SR
(%)		ER
(%)		DMY
(t ha−1)		HPR
(%)
Row spacing (m)
0.702.38241.029.314.728.157.222.994.9
0.352.36227.129.614.628.756.722.096.3
p0.2090.1510.3680.9000.6040.6490.3120.296
Plant density
92,0002.38241.429.314.328.657.121.5 a96.7
110,0002.37226.629.615.028.256.823.5 b94.5
p0.5500.1270.4640.0740.7370.8550.0300.106
p—RS × PD0.8610.9230.5880.8310.2800.3340.8140.666
p—RS × Y0.4130.0900.7570.0070.3800.1150.0220.064
p = probability; different letters indicate statistical differences based on Tukey’s HSD test (α = 0.05) for each factor separately (row spacing or plant density) within each column.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Fuksa, P.; Hrevušová, Z.; Szabó, O.; Hakl, J. Effect of Row Spacing and Plant Density on Silage Maize Growth, Dry Matter Distribution and Yield. Agronomy 2023, 13, 1117. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13041117

AMA Style

Fuksa P, Hrevušová Z, Szabó O, Hakl J. Effect of Row Spacing and Plant Density on Silage Maize Growth, Dry Matter Distribution and Yield. Agronomy. 2023; 13(4):1117. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13041117

Chicago/Turabian Style

Fuksa, Pavel, Zuzana Hrevušová, Ondřej Szabó, and Josef Hakl. 2023. "Effect of Row Spacing and Plant Density on Silage Maize Growth, Dry Matter Distribution and Yield" Agronomy 13, no. 4: 1117. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13041117

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop