Elsevier

Field Crops Research

Volume 49, Issues 2–3, February 1997, Pages 249-258
Field Crops Research

Rapid canopy closure for maize production in the northern US corn belt: Radiation-use efficiency and grain yield

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-4290(96)01055-6Get rights and content

Abstract

Slow development of maize (Zea mays L.) canopies in northern areas of the USA may limit light interception and potential productivity. Whether radiation-use efficiency (RUE) and grain yield could be increased by earlier canopy closure was examined with two hybrids contrasting in canopy architecture and potential phytomass production. Early canopy closure was achieved using a combination of row spacings narrower and plant population densities (PPD) greater than typically used by local producers. Maximum interception of incident PAR (θmax) and total PAR intercepted from sowing to θmax (IPAR) increased with PPD. Thermal time to one-half θmax(TU0.5) decreased with increasing PPD. Sowing in narrow (38 cm) rows did not affect θmax, IPAR, or TU0.5 in the tall hybrid, Pioneer 3790; nor did it affect grain yield, which increased with PPD up to 10 plants m−2. Grain yield of the dwarf hybrid, SX123, was always less than that of Pioneer 3790, due to its low efficiency in converting intercepted PAR into phytomass. Both hybrids exhibited an optimum rate of canopy development in terms of θmax, IPAR, and TU0.5 for grain production. Optima for these parameters varied across years, but were similar for both hybrids and row spacings. These results indicate that hybrids adapted to the northern corn belt may yield more grain if sown at PPDs greater than commonly used to promote early canopy closure. Sowing to rows less than 76 cm wide will have less impact on grain yield. Productivity of hybrids prone to barrenness or with a low efficiency in converting PAR into phytomass, such as SX123, will not improve with earlier canopy closure.

References (30)

  • K.P. Gallo et al.

    Spectral estimation of absorbed photosynthetically active radiation in maize canopies

    Remote Sensing Environ.

    (1985)
  • J.R. Kiniry et al.

    Radiation-use efficiency in biomass accumulation prior to grain-filling for five grain-crop species

    Field Crops Res.

    (1989)
  • F.H. Andrade et al.

    Intercepted radiation at flowering and kernel number in maize: Shade versus plant density effects

    Crop Sci.

    (1993)
  • C. Aspiazu et al.

    Comparisons of several methods of growing day unit calculations for corn

    Iowa State Coll. J. Sci.

    (1972)
  • L.L. Buren et al.

    Morphological and physiological traits

    In maize associated with tolerance to high plant density

    Crop Sci.

    (1974)
  • K.J. Boote et al.

    The prediction of canopy assimilation

  • V.B. Cardwell

    Fifty years of Minnesota maize production: Sources of yield increase

    Agron. J.

    (1982)
  • A.L. Christy et al.

    Characteristics of CO2 fixation and productivity of maize and soybeans

  • A.L. Christy et al.

    Maize source development and activity

  • C.S.T. Daughtry et al.

    Spectral estimates of solar radiation intercepted by maize canopies

    Agron. J.

    (1983)
  • F. Flenet et al.

    Row spacing effects on light extinction coefficients of corn, sorghum, soybean, and sunflower

    Agron. J.

    (1996)
  • F. Forcella et al.

    Effect of row width on herbicide and cultivation requirements in row crops

    Am. J. Alt. Agric.

    (1992)
  • K.P. Gallo et al.

    Techniques for measuring intercepted and absorbed photosynthetically active radiation in corn canopies

    Agron. J.

    (1984)
  • J. Giesbrecht

    Effect of population and row spacing on performance of four maize (Zea mays L.) hybrids

    Agron. J.

    (1969)
  • T. Hodges et al.

    Light interception model for estimating the effects of row spacing on plant competition in maize

    J. Prod. Agric.

    (1990)
  • Cited by (176)

    • 3D reconstruction of plants using probabilistic voxel carving

      2023, Computers and Electronics in Agriculture
    View all citing articles on Scopus

    Contribution from USDA-ARS in cooperation with the University of Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station. Names of products are included for the benefit of the reader and do not imply endorsement or preferential treatment by USDA or the University of Minnesota.

    View full text