Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-qs9v7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-12T06:11:58.198Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Physiological studies of competition in Zea mays L: III. Competition in maize and its practical implications for forage maize production

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

Maurice Eddowes
Maurice Eddowes
Affiliation:
Harper Adams Agricultural College, Newport, Shropshire
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Competition among maize plants in the vegetative stage of growth was postponed by application of nitrogen to the seed bed and by maintaining soil moisture near field capacity. The amount of available nitrogen was a critical factor in determining the effect of the competitive balance between nitrogen and light on maize yield. The supply of either affected the capacity of the crop to utilize the other, but ultimately light became the dominant factor.

Soil moisture deficits of up to 1.0 in from field capacity, in the early stages of vegetative growth, did not reduce dry-matter accumulation and uptake of nitrogen, but in the absence of weed competition and post-planting cultivation soil moisture losses in the early stages of crop growth may be small.

In 1966, maize responded quicker to surface applied than to deep-placed nitrogen and utilized the surface applied nitrogen for dry-matter accumulation more effectively.

Provided that there was initially an adequate supply of nitrogen in the seed bed, there appeared to be no advantage to total yield from application of nitrogen top dressings to maize. In the West Midlands, under conditions of adequate nutrient and soil moisture supply, the optimum plant population for commercial production of forage maize was about 40000 per acre.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 72 , Issue 2 , April 1969 , pp. 203 - 215
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1969

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Barber, S. A., Walker, J. M. & Vasey, E. H. (1963). Mechanisms for the movement of plant nutrients from the soil and fertiliser to the plant root. J. Agric. Fd Ohem. 11, 204–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackman, G. E. & Black, J. N. (1959). Physiological and ecological studies in the analysis of plant environment. XI. Ann. Bot. N.S. 23, 51—65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bray, R. H. (1954). A nutrient mobility concept of soil–plant relationship. Soil Sci. 78, 9–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brouwer, R. (1965). Root growth of grasses and cereals. In Growth of Cereals and drosses (ed. Milthorpe, F. L.). London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Bunting, E. S. (1966). Maize—an alternative fodder crop in Britain. Outlk. Agric. 5, 104–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bunting, E. S. & Willey, L. A. (1959). The cultivation of maize for fodder and ensilage. II. The effect of changes in plant density. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 52, 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denmead, O. T. & Shaw, R. H. (1960). The effects of soil moisture stress at different stages of growth on the development and yield of corn. Agron. J. 52, 272–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eddowes, M. (1907). Physiological studies of competition in Zea mays L. Ph.D. thesis. University of Beading. Unpublished.Google Scholar
Eddowes, M. (1969a). Physiological studies of competition in Zea mays L. I. Vegetative growth and ear development in maize. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 72, 185–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eddowes, M. (1969b). Physiological studies of competition in Zea mays L. II. Effect of competition among maize plants. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 72, 195–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodgson, G. L. & Blackman, G. E. (1957). An analysis of the influence of plant density on the growth of Vicia faba. II. The significance of competition for light in relation to plant development at different densities. J. exp. Bot. 8, 195–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kozlowski, T. T. (1964). Water Metabolism in Plants. New York: Harper and Row.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1954). Calculation of irrigation need. Tech. Bull. 4. London: H.M.S.O.Google Scholar
Monsi, M. & Saeki, T. (1953). Über den Lichtfaktor in den Pflanzengesellsehaften und seine Bedeutung für die Stoffproduktion. Jap. J. Bot. 14, 22–52.Google Scholar
Moss, D. N. & Peaslee, J. (1965). Photosynthesis of maize leaves as affected by age and nutrient status. Crop Sci. 5, 280–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robins, J. S. & Domingo, C. E. (1953). Some effects of severe moisture deficits at specific growth stages of corn. Agron. J. 45, 618–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romkens, M. J. M. & Bruce, R. R. (1964). Nitrate diffusivity in relation to moisture content of nonabsorbing porous media. Soil Sci. 98, 332–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, R. S. (1963). Relationships between the exchange ability of nutrient ions in the soil and absorption by plants. J. Sci. Fd Agric. 14, 449–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutcliffe, J. F. (1964). The absorption of inorganic nutrients by plants. Proc. Fertil. Soc. no. 84. London.Google Scholar
Troughton, A. (1963). Root penetration. In Crop Production in a Weed-free Environment. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wadleigh, C. H. & Richards, L. A. (1951). Soil moisture and the mineral nutrition of plants. In Mineral Nutrition of Plants (ed. Truog, E.). University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar