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)


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)


(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


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


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


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)


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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



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


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



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


Clipping Studies at Arlington


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


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


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.


g p g p y

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

Documents