Agronomy Journal Grow Your Career With ASA
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
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 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 HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (4)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Liu, W.
Right arrow Articles by Deen, W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Liu, W.
Right arrow Articles by Deen, W.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Liu, W.
Right arrow Articles by Deen, W.
Related Collections
Right arrow Maize
Right arrow Maize Management
Right arrow Tillage
Published in Agron. J. 96:1668-1672 (2004).
© American Society of Agronomy
677 S. Segoe Rd., Madison, WI 53711 USA

Production Papers

Impact of Planter Type, Planting Speed, and Tillage on Stand Uniformity and Yield of Corn

Weidong Liua, Matthijs Tollenaara, Greg Stewartb and William Deena,*

a Dep. of Plant Agric., Univ. of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada N1G 2W1
b Ontario Ministry of Agric. and Food, Crop Science Bldg., Univ. of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada N1G 3E1

* Corresponding author (bdeen{at}uoguelph.ca)

Received for publication November 11, 2003.

   ABSTRACT
TOP
 ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 NOTES
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 SUMMARY
 REFERENCES
 
Planter type, maintenance, and operation play an important role in uniform stand establishment in corn (Zea mays L.). Research was conducted to determine if planter type affects corn yield by altering plant spacing and emergence variability and to determine if planting speed and tillage influence these effects. This experiment was performed at two locations in south-central Ontario during a 2-yr period. Treatments were established with conventional tillage (CT) and no-tillage (NT) as main plots, three planter types (vacuum meter, finger-pickup, and air seeder) with differing mechanisms including varied seed-singulating mechanisms as subplots, and two planting speeds of 7.2 and 11.3 km per hour (kph) as sub-subplots. Planter type affected stand uniformity with mean standard deviation (SD) of within-row plant spacing of 7.9, 10.3, and 19.9 cm for vacuum meter, finger pickup, and air seeder, respectively. A higher SD was observed in NT for finger pickup and air seeder but remained the same for vacuum meter. For all planters, SD increased at faster planting speeds. The number of days required to achieve 50% emergence was similar between the vacuum meter and finger pickup but was greater for the air seeder, especially when planting speed was increased and NT was used. Final plant population was unaffected by planter and planting speed treatments. Overall, grain yields decreased 35.9 kg ha–1 for each centimeter increase in within-row plant spacing SD and 292.8 kg ha–1 per day of delay in emergence. Results suggest that grower's attention to corn planter mechanisms and maintenance is more critical under a NT system or when operating speeds are increased.

Abbreviations: CT, conventional tillage • kph, kilometer per hour • LAI, leaf area index • NT, no-till • SD, standard deviation


   INTRODUCTION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
 NOTES
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 SUMMARY
 REFERENCES
 
SPACING UNIFORMITY, timing and rate of emergence, and plant population in a corn stand are the most common characteristics used by producers in evaluating planter performance. Mechanisms and maintenance along with planting speed may all influence seed singulation and placement and can further affect plant spacing and emergence variability in corn. Such variability may ultimately affect plant growth and grain yield.

The effect of within-row plant spacing variability on grain yield is somewhat unclear. Various studies have demonstrated a corn yield reduction associated with spacing variability (Krall et al., 1977; Vanderlip et al., 1988; Nielsen, 2001), whereas other studies indicate that spacing variability commonly observed in many commercial fields will not reduce grain yield if plant population is adequate (Erbach et al., 1972; Edmeades and Daynard, 1979; Muldoon and Daynard, 1981; Daynard and Muldoon, 1983; Liu et al., 2004a, 2004b). In contrast, uneven emergence almost always reduces grain yield, with early emerged plants unable to compensate for lower yield of late-emerging plants (Carter and Nafziger, 1989; Nafziger et al., 1991; Ford and Hicks, 1992; Liu et al., 2004b).

Excessive planting speeds can alter seeding rates, increase stand establishment variability, and consequently decrease grain yield. Increasing planting speed increased the SD of plant spacing by 0.4 to 0.6 cm kph–1 (Nielsen, 1995). Yield losses of 78 kg ha–1 kph–1 increase in planting speed in the range of 6.4 to 11.3 kph were observed in this study. The effect did not consistently occur, with only 5 out of 22 sites demonstrating this relationship. It was concluded in this study that future research on the effect of planting speed on grain yield should measure the effects on emergence uniformity because faster planting speeds can decrease uniformity of seeding depth and seed-to-soil contact, causing uneven emergence.

Previous research has examined the mean response of commonly used planters to planting speed and generally has ignored the possible differences of individual planters with differing mechanisms. In addition, no data have been published to determine if planter performance is the same in reduced tillage systems compared with CT systems or whether there are interactions between planter and tillage system and between planter and planting speed. A comparison of planter performance under different tillage systems and planting speeds may assist growers in improving planter performance, thereby increasing yield and economic returns. More practically, it may assist growers in evaluating corn planter requirements before retrofitting or replacing existing planters.

The objectives of this study were to (i) determine if planter type affects corn growth and grain yield by altering plant spacing and emergence variability and (ii) assess whether plant-spacing and emergence variability resulting from various planter types is influenced by planting speed and tillage management.


   MATERIALS AND METHODS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
NOTES
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 SUMMARY
 REFERENCES
 
Field experiments were conducted in 2000 and 2001 at the Elora Research Station (43°39'N, 80°25'W, elevation 376 m) and the Woodstock Research Station (43°08'N, 79°06'W, elevation 317 m) in south-central Ontario, Canada. A mean accumulation of 2650 crop heat units (Brown and Bootsma, 1993) occurred during the growing season at Elora, and 2850 crop heat units occurred at Woodstock. At Elora, the London loam soil is an imperfectly drained medium, mixed, weakly to moderately calcareous Typic Hapludalf with tile drainage and an organic matter content of 38 to 40 g kg–1. The Guelph loam soil at Woodstock is a well-drained medium, mixed, alkaline, moderately to very strongly calcareous Typic Hapludalf with 20 to 30 g kg–1 organic matter.

Experimental design was a split-split plot arrangement of a randomized complete block with four replicates of each treatment. Two tillage systems were main plots, three types of planter were subplots, and two levels of planting speed were sub-subplots. Each sub-subplot consisted of four rows in 0.76-m row spacing and 25 m in length. Each main plot was bordered by eight rows. The two tillage systems were CT and NT. The CT treatments consisted of spring moldboard plowing to a depth of 16 cm followed by one or two cultivations before planting. In both years, the previous crop was alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) at Elora and soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] at Woodstock.

Three planters1 were chosen to represent the range in planter technologies currently available to corn growers in Ontario. For the purpose of description, the three planters are referred to as (i) vacuum meter, (ii) finger pickup, and (iii) air seeder. The vacuum meter was a John Deere 1750 MaxEmerge Plus planter (Moline, IL) that was manufactured in 1998 and equipped with a double-disk opener system, 2.5-cm-wide angled closing wheels, fingered residue removers attached in front of the furrow opener, three coulters set at a 10- to 15-cm depth, and seed firmers. The finger-pickup planter was a John Deere 7000 planter (Moline, IL) manufactured in 1986 with similar components as the vacuum meter planter, except for the absence of seed firmers. The air seeder was a Gandy Orbit-Air 6224 air seeder (Owatonna, MN) manufactured in 1990. Unlike the previous two planters, this planter has no precision-metering device. Seed metering is achieved using a ground-driven revolving seed drum that delivers seed from the central hopper to delivery tubes to each seed furrows. Furrow opening is achieved by a single disc and furrow closing by a single angled closing wheel. No residue removers, coulters, or seed firmers were on this planter.

All planters were adjusted to plant at a depth of 4 to 5 cm, a row width of 76 cm, and a target population of 71500 plants ha–1. The two planting-speed treatments of 7.2 and 11.3 kph were chosen to represent low and high speeds used by farmers in Ontario.

Corn was planted on 30 May 2000 and 9 May 2001 at Elora and 22 May 2000 and 1 May 2001 at Woodstock. Roundup Ready corn hybrids ‘DK335’ and ‘DK C42-21RR’ were used at Elora and Woodstock, respectively. Urea NH4NO3, at a rate of 150 kg N ha–1, was injected between rows at approximately 4 to 5 wk after planting. Glyphosate [N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine] was sprayed 5 to 6 wk after planting for weed control.

Corn emergence was recorded by daily counting the number of emerged plants in two central rows of each sub-subplot starting 7 d after planting and continuing for 20 d. Within-row plant spacing was measured for 120 consecutive plants in the center two rows of each sub-subplot using a Space Cadet stand analyzer (Version 1.9, Space Cadet, Bagley, Iowa) at 2 wk after silking. Number of days from planting to 50% plant emergence was calculated. Within-row plant-spacing variability was determined by calculating the plant-spacing SD.

Plant samples were taken at 6 and 12 wk after planting. At both sampling dates, the aboveground biomass of 10 consecutive plants in each plot was harvested from a premarked sampling area that was bordered by two rows on each side and by six plants within the row on each end. Green leaf area of all harvested plants was measured with a LI-3000 leaf area meter (LI-COR, Lincoln, NE). The leaves and stems of sample plants were dried at 80°C for 72 h before measurement of plant dry matter. At maturity, ears were hand-harvested from 6 m of the two center rows. Grain yield was adjusted to a 15.5% moisture basis. Final plant population, number of broken stalks, and number of double and barren ears were determined from the harvest area.

Analyses of variance for a split-split plot design were performed using the PROC MIXED procedure of the SAS software package, version 8.2 (SAS Inst., Carry NC). All treatment factors in the experiments were considered as fixed effects, and the locations, years, and blocks were treated as random effects. Treatment means were separated using Fisher's protected LSD comparisons. Multiple linear regressions were performed to determine the influence of spacing and emergence variability on grain yield. Unless indicated, effects were considered significant if P ≤ 0.05.


   RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 NOTES
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
SUMMARY
 REFERENCES
 
Treatment effects were significant for most measured characters, and these effects generally were similar across years in combined variance analysis (data not shown). Monthly mean air temperatures for both years were close to the 30-yr average. Monthly precipitation was above the 30-yr average in 2000 and below in 2001 (data not shown). Interactions between tillage treatment and location mostly were insignificant in combined analysis; pooled data for each location and means across all locations and years are presented. Tillage had significant effects on all measurements; therefore, the comparisons between the tillage systems are made without showing LSD values. At Woodstock, feeding by wild animals caused significant damage in six plots in one replication in 2000. Also at Woodstock, several of the air seeder plots had very low populations (less than 75% of the target population) in 2001, presumably due to poor furrow closing. Yields and other data from those plots were eliminated from the analysis.

The vacuum meter produced the lowest SD, and the air seeder produced the highest SD (Table 1). For the air seeder, SD was approximately two times higher than for the other two planters. The air seeder used in this study did not possess a seed-singulating mechanism, and consequently higher SD levels were expected. In general, for all planters, SD increased as planting speed increased. The effect of planting speed on SD was greatest for the finger pickup and the air seeder under NT. Averaged over all locations and years, SD increased from 10.0 to 12.2 cm for the finger pickup and from 19.3 to 21.8 cm for the air seeder as speed increased from 7.2 to 11.3 kph under NT. Standard deviation increased an average of 0.4 cm per kilometer increase in planting speed, a value similar to that reported in an earlier study (Nielsen, 1995). Tillage system had a greater impact on SD of the finger pickup and air seeder than the vacuum meter. Averaged over the location, year, and planting speed, SD increased from 9.5 cm and 19.2 cm under CT to 11.1 cm and 20.6 cm under NT for the finger pickup and the air seeder, respectively. In comparison, SD levels for the vacuum meter were similar under both CT and NT systems. The singulating mechanism used in the vacuum meter appeared to be less affected by increased jarring of the planting unit often associated with either higher planting speeds or NT conditions.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 1. Effect of tillage, planter, and planting speed on within-row plant-spacing standard deviation (SD) and days to 50% emergence for corn grown at Elora and Woodstock, Ontario, in 2000 and 2001.

 
While initial corn emergence occurred on the same day for all treatments, cumulative emergence patterns, as indicated by days to 50% corn emergence, was affected by planter type and tillage (Table 1). Among the three planters, the number of days required to achieve 50% emergence was similar between the vacuum meter and finger-pickup planter but differed between these two planters and the air seeder. Under CT, planting speed did not affect the emergence pattern produced by the vacuum planter or finger pickup planter. The emergence delay observed for the air seeder was probably due to poor depth control and the inability of the single closing wheel to adequately close the seed furrow.

The number of days required to achieve 50% emergence for NT was approximately 1.5 d greater than for CT. This difference was increased when planting speed was increased or when the air seeder was used. The longer time taken by corn in NT treatments to emerge may have been associated with lower soil temperature in the NT vs. the CT treatments (Imholte and Carter, 1987; Janovicek et al., 1997).

Final plant population between tillage systems differed, but population was unaffected by planter type and planting speed treatment (data not presented) within a tillage system. When averaged across all locations and years, mean plant population was 72670 plants ha–1 for CT and 70730 plants ha–1 for NT.

Leaf area index (LAI) and aboveground dry matter differed between both tillage systems and among the three planters but not between low and high planting speeds (Table 2). For example, averaged across planters and planting speed, mean LAI and dry matter measured 12 wk after planting were both 18% lower in NT than in CT. Averaged across tillage and planting speed, LAI and dry matter accumulation were consistently highest for the vacuum meter and lowest for the air seeder at the two locations. Compared with the vacuum meter, mean dry matter accumulation was 14 and 10% lower for the finger-pickup planter and 36 and 14% lower for the air seeder at 6 and 12 wk after planting, respectively.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 2. Effect of tillage, planter, and planting speed on leaf area index (LAI) and aboveground dry matter measured at 6 and 12 wk after planting for corn grown at Elora and Woodstock, Ontario, in 2000 and 2001.

 
Planter types and tillage systems differed in mean grain yield, and a tillage x planter interaction occurred (Table 3). Averaged across all locations and years, grain yield was 7.41, 7.17, and 6.80 Mg ha–1 for the vacuum planter, finger-pickup planter, and air seeder, respectively. Grain yield was lower in NT than in CT. Averaged over all locations and years, NT yielded 7, 8, and 15 lower than CT for the vacuum meter, finger pickup, and air seeder, respectively. Averaged across locations, years, and planting speeds, yield differences between air seeder and the other two planters were greater in NT than in CT. In CT, the finger pickup and air seeder produced 0.24 and 0.34 Mg ha–1 lower yield than the vacuum meter, respectively. In the NT system, the finger pickup and air seeder yielded 0.26 and 0.90 Mg ha–1 lower than the vacuum meter, respectively. Planting speed had no effect on grain yield at both locations with an exception for the air seeder under NT management. Averaged across locations and years, yield declined 0.41 Mg ha–1 when planting speed increased from 7.2 to 11.3 kph.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 3. Effect of tillage, planter, and planting speed on grain yield of corn grown at Elora and Woodstock, Ontario, in 2000 and 2001.

 
Regression analyses indicated that grain yield reductions were related to greater within-row plant spacing variability and delays in emergence (Table 4). Yield decreased approximately 35.9 kg ha–1 for each centimeter increase in within-row plant spacing SD. Previous research suggested that grain yield is unaffected by the plant-spacing SD within rows (Liu et al., 2004a, 2004b), but the SD values in these two studies ranged from 6.7 to 16.2 cm and 2.5 to 17.5 cm, respectively. In the present study, grain yield response may be due to the large within-row plant spacing SD (16.5–23.9 cm) produced by the air seeder treatment, which was two to three times higher than observed for the other two planters. With vacuum meter and finger-pickup planters, grain yield was unaffected by the SD values for within-row plant spacing, which were within the ranges evaluated by Liu et al. (2004a)(2004b).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 4. Regression variables and coefficients for corn grain yield responses to plant spacing and emergence variability for different planter treatments in Ontario from 2000 to 2001.

 
Results of the present study confirm previous research findings (Liu et al., 2004b) on emergence delay effects on grain yield. Yield decreased 292.8 kg ha–1 d–1 whenever the time to 50% emergence was delayed by >3 d across the three planters. The number of days required to achieve 50% emergence was 1.5 to 2 d greater with the air seeder than the other two planters. Differences were accentuated when planting speed was increased.

Grain yield was lower with the air seeder than the vacuum meter in both tillage systems. In CT, the air seeder produced similar yield as the finger pickup. However, the air seeder produced lower yields than the finger pickup in NT and also yielded lower under high planting speed than low planting speed.


   SUMMARY
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 NOTES
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 SUMMARY
REFERENCES
 
The three planters evaluated in this study were chosen to be representative of the range of planting technologies currently available to Ontario growers. The vacuum meter represents a well-maintained planter with the most current technology for ensuring accurate seed singulation and placement. The air seeder represents a planter with poor seed singulation and placement capabilities. The finger-pickup planter represents a commonly used planter with intermediate seed singulation and placement capabilities.

The results of this study suggest that grower attention to planter mechanisms and maintenance becomes more critical under NT or when operating speeds are increased. Overall performance on plant spacing uniformity was in the order of vacuum meter > finger pickup > air seeder. The vacuum meter and finger-pickup planter produced an equivalent within-row plant spacing SD when operated under CT at a planting speed of 7.2 kph. However, under NT or at the higher planting speed, SD increased with the finger-pickup planter whereas SD remained stable with the vacuum meter planter. Emergence patterns did not differ between the vacuum meter and finger-pickup planter, whereas emergence was delayed when the air seeder was used. In general, the planter that produced the lowest within-row plant spacing SD and the most uniform emergence also achieved the highest LAI, dry matter accumulation, and yield.

The air seeder used in this study could be modified so as to improve performance. Ontario growers are interested in the possibility of using this type of planter since it would enable them to plant all crops of a typical Ontario crop rotation (i.e., corn, soybean, and cereals) using a single planter. However, results from this study would suggest that this type of planter is probably not advisable for corn unless planting conditions are ideal and planting occurs at low operating speeds. If these conditions do not occur, the air-seeding system will probably need to be equipped with devices to improve seed singulation and placement.


   NOTES
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 NOTES
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 SUMMARY
 REFERENCES
 
1 Identification of specific planters and manufacturers does not imply an endorsement over similar planters available from competitive manufacturers. Back


   REFERENCES
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 NOTES
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 SUMMARY
 REFERENCES
 




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Agron. J.Home page
F. Solari, J. Shanahan, R. Ferguson, J. Schepers, and A. Gitelson
Active Sensor Reflectance Measurements of Corn Nitrogen Status and Yield Potential
Agron. J., May 7, 2008; 100(3): 571 - 579.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Agron. J.Home page
M. Perez-Bidegain, R. M. Cruse, and A. Ciha
Tillage System by Planting Date Interaction Effects on Corn and Soybean Yield
Agron. J., April 4, 2007; 99(3): 630 - 636.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Agron. J.Home page
M. Tollenaar, W. Deen, L. Echarte, and W. Liu
Effect of Crowding Stress on Dry Matter Accumulation and Harvest Index in Maize
Agron. J., June 5, 2006; 98(4): 930 - 937.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
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 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 HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (4)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Liu, W.
Right arrow Articles by Deen, W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Liu, W.
Right arrow Articles by Deen, W.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Liu, W.
Right arrow Articles by Deen, W.
Related Collections
Right arrow Maize
Right arrow Maize Management
Right arrow Tillage

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