Intra-specific competition in maize: Contribution of extreme plant hierarchies to grain yield, grain yield components and kernel composition (original) (raw)

Abstract

Maize (Zea mays L.) cropping conditions that promote high intra-specific competition pressure generate an increased plant-to-plant variability within the stand, and the appearance of individuals with different ability to capture scarce resources (i.e. dominant and dominated plants). The objectives of this paper were to analyze (i) stand density effects on plant biomass at physiological maturity (R 6 ), grain yield per plant (GYP), GYP components (KNP: kernel number per plant; KW: kernel weight), and kernel composition (starch, oil and protein contents per kernel) of the mean plant of the stand (i.e. considering all individuals) and of the dominant (D) and dominated (d) individuals; and (ii) the contribution of these extreme plant hierarchies to GYP, GYP components and kernel composition of the mean plant of a stand. Four maize hybrids of contrasting KW (small and large KW) were cropped at a wide range of stand densities (3-15 pl m À2 ) during 1999/2000 and 2001/ 2002 in Argentina. The mean value of measured variables declined as plant density increased from 3 to 15 pl m À2 , and plant-to-plant variability (CV: coefficient of variation) of the same variables increased with enhanced crowding. The magnitude of the reduction in mean plant values differed among variables: plant biomass at R 6 , GYP and KNP underwent a larger reduction (ca. 66%) than KW (ca. 14-19%) or kernel contents (ca. 22% for oil and protein contents, and 13% for starch content). Similarly, the increase in CVs was larger for plant biomass at R 6 (from ca. 13 to 40%) and GYP (from ca. 30 to 58 and 15 to 38% for small and large KW hybrids, respectively) than for KW (ca. from 7 to 20%). Only a slight increase in CVs of oil (6-17%) and protein (9-12%) concentrations of large KW hybrids was recorded. The CV of KNP followed a trend similar to that for GYP. Differences between plant categories increased when mean GYP and KNP of all individuals of the stand were smaller than 157 g pl À1 and 649 kernel pl À1 , respectively. Below these thresholds, the d/D ratio dropped from 0.76 to 0.30 (small KW hybrids) or to 0.40 (large KW hybrids) for GYP (r 2 = 0.76, P < 0.001), and from 0.75 to 0.38 (small KW hybrids) or to 0.46 (large KW hybrids) for KNP (r 2 = 0.59, P < 0.001). In contrast, the d/D ratio for KW varied always from 1 to 0.80 in response to decreased mean KW (r 2 = 0.39, P < 0.01). The concentration of kernel contents did not differ between plant types. Results indicate that grain yield of maize crops grown at high stand densities is composed by plants bearing very different kernel numbers, with slight differences in kernel size, and similar starch, oil and protein concentration. #

Key takeaways

sparkles

AI

  1. High intra-specific competition in maize significantly reduces grain yield per plant and its components.
  2. Stand density between 3-15 plants/m² resulted in a 66% drop in mean plant biomass at maturity.
  3. Kernel number per plant (KNP) is the primary determinant of grain yield per plant (GYP).
  4. Dominant plants had greater biomass and GYP than dominated plants, especially under high density conditions.
  5. Kernel composition (starch, oil, protein) remained similar across plant hierarchies despite variations in size.

Loading...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

References (38)

  1. Andrade, F.H., Vega, C., Uhart, S., Cirilo, A., Cantarero, M., Valentinuz, O., 1999. Kernel number determination in maize. Crop Sci. 39, 453-459.
  2. Ballare ´, C.L., Scopel, A.L., Sanchez, R.A., 1997. Foraging for light: photosensory ecology and agricultural implications. Plant Cell Environ. 20, 820-825.
  3. Borra ´s, L., Cura ´, J.A., Otegui, M.E., 2002. Maize kernel composition and post-flowering source-sink ratio. Crop Sci. 42, 781-790.
  4. Borra ´s, L., Maddonni, G.A., Otegui, M.E., 2003. Leaf senescence in maize hybrids: plant population, row spacing and kernel set effects. Field Crops Res. 82, 13-26.
  5. Borra ´s, L., Otegui, M.E., 2001. Maize kernel weight response to postflow- ering source-sink ratio. Crop Sci. 41, 1816-1822.
  6. Borra ´s, L., Slafer, G.A., Otegui, M.E., 2004. Seed dry weight response to source-sink manipulations in wheat, maize and soybean. A quantitative reappraisal. Field Crops Res. 83, 131-146.
  7. Calderini, D.F., Reynolds, M.P., 2000. Changes in grain weight as con- sequence of de-graining treatments at pre-and post-anthesis in synthetic hexaploid lines of wheat (Triticum durum  T. tauschii) Aust. J. Plant Physiol. 27, 183-191.
  8. Echarte, L., Andrade, F.H., Vega, C.R.C., Tollenaar, M., 2004. Kernel number determination in Argentinean maize hybrids released between 1965 and 1993. Crop Sci. 44, 1654-1661.
  9. Echarte, L., Andrade, F., 2003. Harvest index stability of Argentinean maize hybrids released between 1965 and 1993. Field Crops Res. 82, 1-12.
  10. Echarte, L., Luque, S., Andrade, F.H., Sadras, V.O., Cirilo, A., Otegui, M.E., Vega, C.R.C., 2000. Response of maize kernel number to plant density in Argentinean hybrids released between 1965 and 1993. Field Crops Res. 68, 1-8.
  11. Edmeades, G.O., Daynard, T.B., 1979a. The development of plant-to-plant variability in maize at different planting densities. Can. J. Plant Sci. 59, 561-576.
  12. Edmeades, G.O., Daynard, T.B., 1979b. The relationship between final yield and photosynthesis at flowering in individual maize plants. Can. J. Plant Sci. 59, 585-601.
  13. Fonseca, A.E., Lizaso, J.I., Westgate, M.E., Grass, L., Dornbos, D.L., 2004. Simulating potential kernel production in maize hybrid seed fields. Crop Sci. 44, 1696-1700.
  14. Jandel TBLCURVE, 1992. TableCurve 3.0. Curve Fitting Software. Jandel Scientific, Corte Madera, CA.
  15. Kiniry, J.R., Xie, Y., Gerik, T.J., 2002. Similarity of maize seed number responses for a diverse set of sites. Agronomie 22, 265-272.
  16. Liu, W., Tollenaar, M., Stewart, G., Deen, W., 2004. Response of corn grain yield to spatial and temporal variability in emergence. Crop Sci. 44, 847-854.
  17. Lizaso, J.I., Westgate, M.E., Batchelor, W.D., Fonseca, A., 2003. Predicting potential kernel set in maize from simple flowering characteristics. Crop Sci. 43, 892-903.
  18. Maddonni, G.A., Otegui, M.E., 2004. Intra-specific competition in maize: early establishment of hierarchies among plant affects final kernel set. Field Crops Res. 85, 1-13.
  19. Maddonni, G.A., Otegui, M.E., Andrieu, B., Chelle, M., Casal, J., 2002. Maize leaves turn away from neighbors. Plant Physiol. 130, 1181-1189.
  20. Nafziger, E.D., Carter, P.R., Graham, E.E., 1991. Response of corn to uneven emergence. Crop Sci. 31, 811-815.
  21. Otegui, M.E., Nicolini, M.G., Ruiz, R.A., Dodds, P.A., 1995. Sowing date effects on grain yield components for different maize genotypes. Agron. J. 87, 29-33.
  22. Pommel, B., 1990. Influence du poids de la semence et de la profondeur de semis sur la croissance et le de ´veloppement de la plantule de maı ¨s. Agronomie 10, 699-708.
  23. Pommel, B., Mourazux, D., Cappellen, O., Ledent, J.F., 2002. Influence of delayed emergence and canopy skips on the growth and development of maize plants: a plant scale approach with CERES-Maize. Eur. J. Agron. 16, 263-277.
  24. Ritchie, S.W., Hanway, J.J., Benson, G.O., 1993. How a corn plant develops. Special Report 48. Iowa State University.
  25. Ricthie, J.T., NeSmith, D.S., 1991. Temperature and crop development. In: Hanks, J., Ritchie, J.T. (Eds.), Modelling Plant and Soil Systems. Agronomy Society of Agriculture, Crop Science Society of America, Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI, pp. 5-29.
  26. Sangoi, L., Gracietti, M.A., Rampazzo, C., Bianchetti, P., 2002. Response of Brazilian maize hybrids from different eras to changes in plant density. Field Crops Res. 79, 39-51.
  27. Sinclair, T.R., de Wit, C.T., 1975. Photosynthate and nitrogen requirements for seed production by various crops. Science 189, 565-567.
  28. Smith, H., Whitelam, G.C., 1997. The shade avoidance syndrome: multiple responses mediated by multiple phytochromes. Plant Cell Environ. 20, 840-844.
  29. Steel, R.G.D., Torrie, J.H., 1960. Principles and Procedures of Statistics with Special Reference to the Biological Sciences, 1st ed. McGraw- Hill, New York.
  30. Tetio-Kagho, F., Gardner, F.P., 1988. Responses of maize to plant popula- tion density. II. Reproductive development, yield, and yield adjustments. Agron. J. 80, 935-940.
  31. Thomison, P.R., Geyer, A.B., Lotz, L.D., Siegrist, H.J., Dobbels, T.L., 2003. Topcross high oil corn production: select grain quality attributes. Agron. J. 95, 147-154.
  32. Tollenaar, M., Dwyer, L.M., Stewart, D.W., 1992. Ear and kernel formation in maize hybrids representing three decades of grain yield improve- ments in Ontario. Crop Sci. 32, 432-438.
  33. Tollenaar, M., Lee, E.A., 2002. Yield potential, yield stability and stress tolerance in maize. Field Crops Res. 75, 161-169.
  34. Tollenaar, M., Wu, J., 1999. Yield improvement in temperate maize is attributable to greater stress tolerance. Crop Sci. 39, 1597-1604.
  35. Uhart, S.A., Andrade, F.H., 1995. Nitrogen and carbon accumulation and remobilization during grain filling in maize under different source/sink ratios. Crop Sci. 35, 183-190.
  36. Vega, C.R.C., Andrade, F.H., Sadras, V.O., 2001a. Reproductive partition- ing and seed set efficiency in soybean, sunflower and maize. Field Crops Res. 72, 163-175.
  37. Vega, C.R.C., Andrade, F.H., Sadras, V.O., Uhart, S.A., Valentinuz, O.R., 2001b. Seed number as a function of growth. A comparative study in soybean, sunflower, and maize. Crop Sci. 41, 748-754.
  38. Vega, C.R.C., Sadras, V.O., 2003. Size-dependent growth and the devel- opment of inequality in maize, sunflower and soybean. Ann. Bot. 91, 1- 11.