Agronomy Journal Journal of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Education
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Published online 5 June 2006
Published in Agron J 98:930-937 (2006)
DOI: 10.2134/agronj2005.0336
© 2006 American Society of Agronomy
677 S. Segoe Rd., Madison, WI 53711 USA
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text Free
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (3)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Tollenaar, M.
Right arrow Articles by Liu, W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Tollenaar, M.
Right arrow Articles by Liu, W.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Tollenaar, M.
Right arrow Articles by Liu, W.
Related Collections
Right arrow Maize
Right arrow Spatial Distribution
Right arrow Maize Management

Effect of Crowding Stress on Dry Matter Accumulation and Harvest Index in Maize

Matthijs Tollenaar*, William Deen, Laura Echarte and Weidong Liu

Department of Plant Agriculture, Crop Science Building, Univ. of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada, N1G 2W1


Figure 1
View larger version (48K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 1. Plant spacing and emergence treatments are composed of repeatable sequences and each sequence unit consists of six maize plants: C, plant-emergence control; 2L, two-leaf emergence delay for plant in Position 3; 4L, four-leaf emergence delay for plant in Position 3; 20, plants spaced uniformly at 20-cm intervals (plant-spacing control); 40, 40-cm gap between plants in Positions 2 and Position 4, and double plants at Position 4; 60, 60-cm gap between plants in Position 2 and Position 5, and triple plants at Position 5. Plant positions from Position 1 to Position 6 are indicated under diagram (adapted from Liu et al., 2004a).

 

Figure 2
View larger version (22K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 2. Relationships between harvest index and dry matter at maturity for plants in Position 3 (cf., Fig. 1).

 

Figure 3
View larger version (32K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 3. Relationships between (a) harvest index and plant growth rate during a critical period for kernel set bracketed by silking (PGRS) and (b) kernel number and plant dry matter before silking for plants with PGRS equal to threshold for kernel set ±0.5 g plant–1 d–1 for four Argentinean maize hybrids. Equation harvest index (HI) = a + bx PGRS, if PGRS > PGRS threshold for kernel number was fitted to the relationship between HI and PGRS and R2 of the fitted equations ranked from 0.42 to 0.56 (Fig. 3a). Closed symbols represent plants with PGRS equal to threshold for kernel set ±0.5 g plant–1 d–1.

 

Figure 4
View larger version (25K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 4. Relationship between harvest index (HI) of plants in Position 3 and total plant dry weight (DM) at 2 wk postsilking for plots of the two-leaf delayed and four-leaf delayed treatments at two locations and 2 yr.

 





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
The SCI Journals Crop Science Vadose Zone Journal
Journal of Natural Resources
and Life Sciences Education
Soil Science Society of America Journal
Journal of Plant Registrations Journal of
Environmental Quality
The Plant Genome
Copyright © 2006 by the American Society of Agronomy.