effect of corn spacing and emergence variation on grain...

Effect of Corn Spacing and Emergence Variation on Grain Yield

Wisconsin Fertilizer, Ag Lime, and Pest Management Conference

Madison, WIJanuary 20-22, 2004

Joe LauerUniversity of Wisconsin

http://corn.agronomy.wisc.edu/Extension/CC04

Lauer, © 1994-2004University of Wisconsin – Agronomy

Uniform Stand:

• Plants emerged in adequate numbers, with uniform spacing and emergence time

(Hoeft, R.G., E.D. Nafziger, R.R. Johnson, and S.R. Aldrich)

Lauer, © 1994-2004University of Wisconsin – Agronomy

Previous Research on Corn Grain Yield Response to Plant Spacing and Emergence VariationPlant Spacing and Emergence Variation

• Iowa: Non significant up to 6 inches standard deviation

• Ontario: Non significantDaynard et al (1983 1981inches standard deviation

Erbach et al. (1972)• Illinois: Non significant

J h d M l (1980)

Daynard et al. (1983, 1981, 1979)

• Kansas: Significant Krall et al (1977): 3 4 bu/AJohnson and Mulvaney (1980)

Dungan et al., (1958): hills• Indiana: Non significant and

Si ifi ( b)

Krall et al. (1977): 3.4 bu/A decrease for each inch increase standard deviationVanderlip et al (1988): grainSignificant (web)

Nielsen (1997)Nielsen (web): Grain yield

Vanderlip et al (1988): grain yield decreased when standard deviation values were greater than 2.4 inches

decreases 2.5 bu/A for each inch standard deviation > 2 inches

• Nebraska: Non significant in hills

Kiesselbach and Weihing • Uneven emergence can reduce yield by 10-20% when 1/3 plants emerged 2 weeks late or later (C t 1989 N f i 1991)

g(1933)

Lauer, © 1994-2004University of Wisconsin – Agronomy

(Carter, 1989; Nafziger, 1991)

Objectives

• To measure the effects and interactions of plant spacing variation and plant emergence variation on plant growth and grain yield.

• To quantify the grain yield compensation ofTo quantify the grain yield compensation of individual plants in variable corn stands

• To quantify the grain yield of corn in communities ith i bl t dwith variable corn stands

Lauer, © 1994-2004University of Wisconsin – Agronomy

Plant Spacing Variability Treatments 2000-2002; Plant Population = 30 000 Plants/APlant Population = 30,000 Plants/A

98Control 2-plant 4-plant 8-plant

84

hes)

56

70

cing

(inc

h

42

ant s

pac

14

28Pla

00 2 4 2 4 8 2 4 8 12

Lauer, © 1994-2004University of Wisconsin – Agronomy

Standard deviation (inches)

100 2-plant pattern4-plant pattern8-plant patternControl

eld

(%)

90

Control

grai

n yi

80 =

Rel

ativ

e R

70

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 1460

Lauer, © 1994-2004University of Wisconsin – Agronomy

Plant spacing deviation (inches)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Deen et al. University of GuelphFi ld D i tiField Descriptions

Locations: • Elora (E)Elora (E)• Woodstock (W)

CHU:CHU:• 2700 (E)• 2900 (W)

Soil Types:• London Loam (E) • Guelph Loam

(W)

Previous Crops: • Alfalfa (E)• Soybeans (W)

Lauer, © 1994-2004University of Wisconsin – Agronomy

y ( )

Treatments using Roundup Ready seed to establish Plant Spacing Variabilityestablish Plant Spacing Variability

Treatment Roundup Ready Normal CornTreatment Roundup Ready Normal Corn

Seeds/A

RR 28250 0%

RR + 10% Normal 28250 10%

RR + 20% Normal 28250 20%RR 20% Normal 28250 20%

RR + 35% Normal 28250 35%

RR + 50% Normal 28250 50%

RR 70% N l 28250 70%Lauer, © 1994-2004

University of Wisconsin – Agronomy

RR + 70% Normal 28250 70%

Establishment of Plant Standard Deviation and Plant Density

88 Standard Deviation Plant Density

Plant Density

6

7

6

7

nts

m-2

)

LSD (0.05)

ion

(inch

es)

4

5

4

5

nsity

(pla

n

tand

ard

devi

at

2

3

2

3

Plan

t Den

Plan

t st

0

1

2

0

1

2 P

00RR RR+10c RR+20c RR+35c RR+50c RR+70c

Treatments

Lauer, © 1994-2004University of Wisconsin – Agronomy

Grain yield response to Plant Standard Deviation using Roundup Ready Treatments

200

Deviation using Roundup Ready Treatments

160

A)

120(bu/

A

80Yiel

d

40

Gra

in

00 2 4 6 8

G

Elora 2000 Elora 2001 Woodstock 2000 Woodstock 2001

Lauer, © 1994-2004University of Wisconsin – Agronomy

0 2 4 6 8Plant Spacing Deviation (inches)

I t f Pl t S i d EImpact of Plant Spacing and Emergence Variation on Yield

Lauer, © 1994-2004University of Wisconsin – Agronomy

Summary of variance analysis

Plant Forage GrainFactor Plant height LAI Forage

yieldGrainyield

Emergence ** ** ** **

Spacing NS NS NS NS

E X S NS NS NS NS

** Significant at P < 0.05, NS = Non significant

Lauer, © 1994-2004University of Wisconsin – Agronomy

Significant at P 0.05, NS Non significant

Grain Yield Response to Emergence

140

130)

a

b

120

130

(bu/

A c

110

120

yiel

d

110

Gra

in

100E EM EL

G

Emergence Treatments

Lauer, © 1994-2004University of Wisconsin – Agronomy

e ge ce eat e ts

Dry Grain Yield per Plant

150 E-20 (Control)150

)

E 20 (Control)

100

plan

t-1

50d (g

p

0

50

n Yi

eld

0No.1 No.2 No.3 No.4 No.5 No.6G

rain

Plant PositionsLauer, © 1994-2004

University of Wisconsin – Agronomy

Plant Positions

E-40 Relative Yield

110120101

11093 90

99 100100

120

)

60

80

eld

(%)

40

60

ve Y

ie

0

20

Rel

ativ

0No.1 No.2 No.3No.4 No.5 No.6

R

Plant Positions

Lauer, © 1994-2004University of Wisconsin – Agronomy

E-60 Relative Yield

103 110120 103 11094 89 89

100100120

ld

6080Yi

e)

4060

tive

(%)

2040

Rel

at

0No 1 No 2 No 3No 4No 5 No 6

R

Plant PositionsLauer, © 1994-2004

University of Wisconsin – Agronomy

No.1 No.2 No.3No.4No.5 No.6Plant Positions

EM-20 Relative Yield

120100 103 102 99 102

100

)

6560

80

ld (%

)

40

60

ve Y

ie

20

40

Rel

ativ

0No 1 No 2 No 3 No 4 No 5 No 6

R

Lauer, © 1994-2004University of Wisconsin – Agronomy

No.1 No.2 No.3 No.4 No.5 No.6Plant Positions

EL-20 Relative Yield

120101 107 106 102 102

100

120

80

ld (%

)

2840

60

ve Y

iel

2820

40

Rel

ativ

0No 1 No 2 No 3 No 4 No 5 No 6

R

Plant PositionsLauer, © 1994-2004

University of Wisconsin – Agronomy

No.1 No.2 No.3 No.4 No.5 No.6Plant Positions

EL-60 Relative Yield

119107

11995103 103

100ld

100

e Yi

e)

50

ativ

e(%

)

160R

ela

0No.1 No.2 No.3No.4No.5 No.6Plant Positions

Lauer, © 1994-2004University of Wisconsin – Agronomy

Clipping Studies at Arlington

Lauer, © 1994-2004University of Wisconsin – Agronomy

Plant Clipping at Arlington(2000 2003)(2000-2003)

• Growth stages:All leaves clipped at V2, V4 and V6

• Plot plant patterns for clipping treatments:p p pp gUntreated check, 2-, 4-, and 8-plant patterns, All

Lauer, © 1994-2004University of Wisconsin – Agronomy

Corn Grain Yield Response to Clipping on a Plot Basis at Arlington (2000 2003)on a Plot Basis at Arlington (2000-2003)

206210

194197200

LSD(0.10) = 12

189

182186

178181 179

190

d (b

u/A

)

174178 179

170

180

rain

yie

ld

160

170

Gr

150Control V2-2 V2-4 V2-8 V4-2 V4-4 V4-8 V6-2 V6-4 V6-8

Lauer, © 1994-2004University of Wisconsin – Agronomy

Clipping Treatment

Conclusions

• Corn was more responsive to plant emergence variability h l i i bilithan plant spacing variability.

• Plant growth and grain yield were unaffected by within-ro plant spacing ariabilit (SD 1 7 inches)row plant spacing variability (SD= 1-7 inches)

• Yield decreased 4-8% as 1/6 plants emerged 2 to 4 leaves lateleaves late.

• Yield reduction due to emergence delay was not intensified by increased spacing variabilityintensified by increased spacing variability.

• Planter performance evaluation and subsequent maintenance must consider crop emergence uniformity.maintenance must consider crop emergence uniformity.

• Management and planting decisions that influence emergence pattern can have a significant impact on yield.

Lauer, © 1994-2004University of Wisconsin – Agronomy

g p g p y