Copyright is owned by the Author of the thesis. Permission is given for
a copy to be downloaded by an individual for the purpose of research and
private study only. The thesis may not be reproduced elsewhere without
the permission of the Author.
MAIZE IN THE MANAWATU
A FIELD STUDY OF THE EFFECTS OF SPACL'fG AND VARIETY UPcm THE GROWTH OF ZEA MAYS L •
A thesis
presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree
of
MASTER OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE
at
MASSEY UNIVERSITY
GREGORY OWEN EDME.ADES
1972
LIST OF TABLES LIST 01? FIGlJRES SUW·U\RY
IWTRODUCTION' DEFINITIONS
CHAPYSR ONE
1.1 Introduction
TABLE OF CONTENTS
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
1.2 Aspects of GroV1th and Development 1.2.1 The Terms Defined
1.2.2 Quantitative Description and Analysis of Growth and Development
1.2.3 Growth Analysis and its Parameters
1.3 Some Factors Influencing tl!e Magnitude and Pattern of Photosynthate Distribution in the W.aize Plant
1 .3.1 'I'he Developr.ient and Maintenance of Leaf .Are.a in Maize
i i
v vii viii 1 2
3 4 4 4 4 5 10 10 1 .3.2 Some Factors Determining Crop Growth 0ate in ?v'aize 16 1.3.3 Patterns of Assimilate Distribution in Maize 29
1 .; .• 4 The Growth :and Development of Yielc in lv'aize 36 1 .3.5 Distribution of Dry ?v'.atter in the ~.'.ature Maize Plant 42 1 .4 The Field Maturation of Grain ?v~aize 43 1.5 The Response of the Maize Plant to Intraspecific Competition 46 1.5.1 Yield Density Relationships in Uaize 47 1.5.2 Changes in Individual Plant Characters Associated 50
1:ii th Interplant Competition for Light
1.5.3 Intraspecific Competition in Maize and Plant 53 Barrenness
1.5.4 The Quantita.tive Relationship Between Plant 56 Population and Crop Yield
CHAPI'ER TWO ID..""THODS AND MATERIALS 2.1 Introduction
2.1.1 The Experimental Site 2.1.2 Experimental Layout 2.1.3 Cultural Aspects 2 .2 Experimental Methods
2.2.1 Field Observations
2.2.2 Measurements on Harvested Plants
59 60 60 60 61 62 62 63
2.3
3.3
3.5
3.6
3. e
StatiGtical rethodc
2.3.4 Growth /u:1n.J:/cis
?.3.5 2)''Y !';.cttf!"" C<m,~<mtc
2.3.6 ~o~uJa'.;io~ ~!fcctc
?.3.7 Corrclntionc Jetwecn Yield en~ ~jcltl C~
In :.rccl1lction
Dn~rc to Flo1·:erin.:;
Growth in ~~e Size of th~ ~tc~
The C:rmrth c:.nl1. r r-nn.:vi ty oC' T,0;-if Arna
y , ... . v
·3.5~2 GrOi:th in ':'otaJ Stoot Dq '.'c:i";l':t "c:r Uni L .'.;·.'::
Gro~·:,.:!-1 in ::" ic ld.
3. ·· .1 Circ.in Dr:,r .'cicht :;::.er Plant
3. G.2 Ch.:1.n::;c~ in ":r:::y ~-.rci,'.rLt of ~lri1 L P;.n·,.;.: Juri~.,:
Gr.-:.in ?illinc Yield end Yield C~·~oncnt8
.-. ....
...
66
67
(,P
70 72 7?
72
72
' 1
( ,.
('. ' )
3.11 ~icld Jc~city ~clat~onship3 ( '
.
::)I3Cn::SION
I:et~oU.c
4. 1 .1 r.:x;Jc"i::i€n tul !!ethods 4. 1 • 2 St".. tis ticul r:cthods
~xperinentnl Results
4. 2. 1 Grouth, C onposi ti on o.ncl Loneevi ty of Pho to.::rn Ll
.~ren
1 (' j
1 "1 4. 2. 2 Changes in '.i'oto.l Shoot D!"J 'Teir;ht .:?'1d i tr C:>;y;o· :1'.;:: 10r
4.2.3 Growth Andysi s 1 'J7
.~.2.4 Ti1c Grm·:th of Grain Yield 4.2.5 Yield and Yield Structure 4.2.6 ~lant Densi~J Zffccts 4. 2. 7 Field Maturation
11 3 11 5 112 120
4.3
Conclusions 'AC""lCNOWLEDGEMENT S·BIBLIOGRAPHY APP.21\'DICBS
1 (a) Weather Data Recorded During the Experimental Period (b) Accumulated Effective Degree Days
iv Page
121
123
A1 A2
·2 Schedule of Events A3
3 Reeressions of ~bole Huskless Ear Cob to Grain Ratio (Y) Pl+
on Cob to Grain ~atio of Centre 4cm Section of Huskless Ear (x)
.4 .rtegression of Uid Stem Diameter (Y) on Diameter of Stem :Suse (X) A5 5 .Analysis of Variance of Stem Length and Expanded Leaf Number A6
on the Vain Stem
6 Coefficients of Polynomials Fitted to Data on Stem Length A7 and expanded Leaf Number on the t~ain Stem
7 Coefficients of Polynomials Fitted to Total Photosynthetic A8 Area Data
8 Analysis of Variance of Total Photosynthetic Area per Plant h10 and Total .Dry Weight per Plant
9
Analysis of Variance of Fractions of Total Photosynthetic A11 Area per Plant10 Analysis of Variance of Total Leaf Area Index and Total Dry A13 Weight per Unit Area
11 Analysis of Variance-of Dry Weight Fractions per Plant A14 12 Coefficients of Polynomials Fitted to Dry Weight Data of Plant A18
Parts
13 Sample Analyses of Variance of Polynomials Fitted to A22 Indiv5,dual Plant Data for Population 3
14 Analysis of Variance of Yield per Plant and Yield A25 Components
15 Analysis of Variance of Dry Matter Contents A26 16 Coefficients of Polynomials Fitted to Dry Matter Content A29
Data
17 (a) Polynomials in Density Fitted to Grain Yield Data A30 (b) Analysis of Variance of the Logarithm of Grain per Plant
on Plants per Square Metre
1 • 1
1 ')
I • .:.._
1.3
' ) , . ,_ • I
"). 2
?. • 3
3.1
3.6
3.8
3.10
3. 11 3.12 3.13
·3.14
3. 1 5 3.16 3.17 3.18 3.19
LIST OF TABI,3S
kbclled .".:::::.:;i:1ilr,_tc Dis"'.:ribution in Tuo Sir;i. l.-1r L'.'.ize Varieti es
!'erc(mtac;c of 'i.'ot:-.1 -:;hco t Dry :;3. ttr::r in DEfcTC'"'t
:-1~::1-t ::--·c·.rts at :-":. turi t~,r
L::cbcllcd "'"s:::;i::·; lo.fo Ji8t11lbutiori ir. :.:.. 3~.n.::;~c i-:ii:-:c
~v:~riot2r Grc1in rit '.2·1rO s~);'.Cir0e>
!tnal:;s~:::: nf 'l:.~ ri ~::-.cc ?or :Cit tccl T'o lyr:o;;;i:. l 1f .JC ;;-r··=
}·: ~11 Ti:-·e, 7i-~"t·:;c1 to D2-t;J. :;-'ror1 n !.'.,:r'\·r;:~t0 n~d b ~eplic .ticns
1\.:n thc:-;is
(b) ,\.nalysis of 7ari:~:'lcc; o.f D<-2rs to 5Sn~ ':'a~;.Jr~h:1.'._;, : . . ~l ··''"
tl!1d :)i J~:inc-
Sten Jc;.s:il Dfr.ractcr
j)::~/S :·,roi~ ~lr~n 2cir1~r to ::;o:-~ 8c~~ c.sccnce of ; ~·~>=i~.~u:7l Photosynthetic Aro~ Att~incd
Lo::l.f J.. rc.c..:. Dur.:, ti on :~rorn 50 ~ S:i E:in c 'i'i 11 50~~ of ~Lo :.:a;.:irrun Fl10 .Jco s:-:: -t~1c tic :.r~a ~·r:-t~ :-ic .c ~cc:-: t
Ro.tios of ?lc.nt :"ar"c :Ury '.lsic;hts at ;.:c.:.tu.ri t-y
Values of L'li t :'."co.::.:.f Tl.e:.tc ?rcdic"'.:ccl b~' I.ine~J RccTu~~:..;i·;n:
of S U)On LcI at 50;, SU}-:ir,g
Ja te :::'rora T)L·.;1 tine; :n1d Fro2 50~ Silh.nc Till 9::;-~ r.:...::~ri111:-:
Grain Dry '.'cic;~it i·:.:::s Obto.incd Grain Lco.f :ta tio
Su.r:r.i'..l.ry of ct~.nce:~ in Dry 'Ie:i.ght of ::on-Gr~cin
Pl.:.mt Co;'1;1oncnts Du:i nc t"!-le Period fror'.1. tl;.eir "" ·:~.k
D1·y '::cic;hts .. d"'.:or ::<'lo'.rer:Lng till 95~ '.i'ot.'.ll Crain Dry '.icight 1r.-;:::; O!:::tc.incd
Su!:im1:.~r of Ch.:: .. "1ccs in :9::.·y ~·.'cic:1 t of S te:J. n.;~,i :r e::.f :?.!'<:1ctions fror.i. 50~ SiE:inc mtil 95~ '.i'otal Gru.in Dry Ueic11t uc.s Obbincd
Yield and Yield Co~ponent.s
Fcrcen tage Co~iposi tion of Total Sar J:ur:i.bor -;:ic:r :r'l."n t
!malysis of-Vo.riancc of Total Ear Humber ;;er ha, :··.'.1!1bcr of Second r.ars rier ha, 2.Yld Total Grain Yield
Correlations of Total Grain Dry 1;JeiL;ht per !"'lant with Various Characters
Sar Dimensions
l!u.mbers of the ~~odes at which the Three Heaviest 2.c.rs were Borne
Height of Api cal, Second and Third Ears Tiller Number per Plant
The Percentaee Distribution of Dry 1'leieht per Plant
Between the Hain Stem and Tillers of the Two Vc.rietics
v
32
'7.'
Ti
'7,, 0
7,..., ,c_
(' 1 c I
9o
r; 1
92 93 94
S:r::.ble
4. 1
I,. 3
(:. 5
I,. 6
Coefficients of Varictiorr (~) for Total
Shoot Jry ·,:cicht I'cr Plot at I·i.:lturi ty, n:;.d Toi;:.J.
j,c;,f J~Tcrt per n lot ." t D::.y 103
Co:t::,r;rison of Stc,:1crrd Sr:c-ors C'llculrttcd fron ?i-Ltc~
T'.itl tip le J.e(;'I'c:-:>s:'._or:~; .end .:ron .::i One '.!a~' An.'.llys::. of V.cric..ncc
Av·2-::~1r.sc !·onthly To:·:::'C:::-~tnro:::; ::nd Acc1.t..'7:nl·,tcd DC::t_;rC' ' Jay;,
'"J.t t1---LC I:nd of' ~ . ..,ch r ()!J. t:1 t:.t TJ1r·:c Sj '.:r;s
'rl':.o Distribution of Tobl Shoot Cro; Grout:1 J.~t-;;c (r;":t)
1lct:·7(")c~: tl:0 :·~~ ... ncl t>c J.c;~ .... ::.i!-:.dcr of t>:c ShcoJc For '.;ach V:~rie~.j- for 'o;>ul~tion 3
L'ni t J.r;;-,f ::..::. tc :u:d. J,c;:f k::·;,'l Tb tio '.'hon L~I = :? • 00
Vl
97
107
1 Hi
2 ( 2. ~
( ll)
Gro;-rth i 71 Ste~.: T cn:;th St;;r., :Sencth C::·o;;th tci. tc
60 75 3
~~~
:~ll::'.bCT Of ·-::\~.-i.J.J ~:-:::_:i."lndc;cl Tl.!l.VCS Ol'l t:r J:C,L'1 '.':;[,. .. 765 6
7 8
11
12
.13
:::o.. tc of "i.:!>y>1~·~,2:cc of 1\x!'~i!l c'lcd !,eavc;s on i·'.ain :~!;en
. ( c) i.c 1:• ti vc R.:L ~c oi' AVi}(':?'J.l\'--.:1ce of 2x;v:u,ri cd lc·1vc:-:;
on i-:[1..i n ~tcJ::1
(n) T.o::.f -~C'O.'.l 1'01· ".1Lnt
(b) TI:.;,tc of ".?cl'.i.tivc Lc.r:f GroHth
S~ecific·lcaf ~ro2
rerccn"tCJ.[~e Distribution of Tot.3.l T'lo.~1 t ntoto:i::l~1-thc ~ c
Leaf Arco. I:-tdcx
(a) Gro·:rth in To b l "~ncot Dr~r ·rnight ::-'er :-lo.n t (b) Eel~tive Grciwth R:.lte
Pc·rcentu.cc Dis cribdion oi Total Shoot Jr:.' "Jcic;ht ( n) ~Tni t Le."lf RP .. tc
(b) /~ .. 80.f ~\re£:. ~ __ a J..t-lO '
(a) Tot.'.11 3hoot Dr:~ ·.'cj_c;I:t rur Unit :,r.-::1 (b) Cro;:: Grouth ;bto
(a) Gro\·rth in Total ~ni· Dry '.!cicht ?er :'.'11.::n t (b) Gro1rth in Grair: Dry ':leir;ht I"cr "PL·.nt (c) Grain Un~t Lou: ~ntc
Ch.c:.nces in PL:.nt Co::::.ponent Dry '·Teichts Durinc Gro .. ".'-
(n) ~tG!ll
(b) Lo.'.l.f
( c) Hus'.<:
( d) Cob
1t1r Dr--y- J.Iatter Co:1tent (Fresh ~!eight Basis) of PlDllt
1 5
Com::_:ionents.
( n) Grain, Cob o.nd Husk (b) Stem and Le2f
(c) Rate of Inc:ccc.se in Grain Dry N2ttcr Content (a)
(b)
Quadratic T'olynoDinl in Plru1 t Density Gi vine Best Fit to G:cc.in .._,-ield
I,inear Regression of tbe LoG"ari thm of Grain ·.rci:;11t Per Plant on Flant Density
76
77
77
78 78
( " .
' I
r)
viii SUMl1!ARY
J.:n experiment is described in which two commercie!.l dent. ::'laize varieties, 'T575, a late maturinG" hybrid, o.nd KC3, an e2.rly mnturini:; hybrid ·.:ere grmm
-1 d equiclistnnt SJ!.?.cings in five poyiul.,tions of fro::i 39,000 tc ?CJ/'[)0 plants.ha . :'.:l::.nts Herc sa:ar)led on ten occo.sions from 4-4 do.JS after pl<'mt::.r1c '.':;; field
1.'.'lturity, rmcl leaf are.J., cl:ry 11ej_c:1ts of shoot c0;·11;011cntc, :-::· dr: :0'1ttcr c'"mtents deternined. Annlysos of V<1rin11ce vere perfor::icd : · tr.. ,Lt=·'t,
~1olynomio.ls fitted to plot mc.::ms of the vnri~bles, 2.nd GT0\1-:: <.u: -:r::is
c~:.rj~ied out.
Al tho 1ch 0.-:.rs in both Vc:rieties >rerc ;;.i::lil.'lr i~1 ' .. ·( : c11·';, h:Cj' ircrc r..ore nur:crous in 'T575, -:-:.~rticularl~r nt wide -:11'.'nt Sj)·''C;
T!'lc difference arose fro::i c. J.o·.-rcr leaf nur.:bcr, s:~o.llcr l:;.-:,~ :-:;j 7.( , <"U1 ,::-, sL:.'.:'.ller tiller co:-:::::)onent, ~ri1ich ~.·e:c-e slici1tly offr;et by lc11c;.~r :i. :tc~r:odes
gi vircc a gr2.-: ter :::iropo rtion of stern n.rea.
At maturity, YC3 'l·T.'13 chc,:::':'.ctcrized b~r a 10~1cr proyiorticn c::' ~:tic~.:, ~•';·f .'.ll1cl cob, nnd 2. c;re:-:.tcr ~1:coror,cion of cr.:cin and tc.:-:scl tltr:n ,chc ln '!:c v ·,1':;.c ~;~'.
radi::i.tion into tot1::.I shoot d17 1rcight, b1Jt thh. cfricicncy · :; :-:.'.. · i 1·' 2· i:1 both vo.rioties for grain ~roduction.
Gro11th analysis rcve.:tJcd t:1:· t the
:prior to silldnJ uas due prim.3.rily to
11iG·11cr on 1 1~
cror: c;ro·.-;th !'~. ·~e 0
hiJlcc:r 1mit l·-: .. :L r~. '.;. ,.,~ . (..' significantly lower leo.f .'.J.re<.i rn.tio of this V"riO°bj indic.:ltncl a :-:u::c·r: 2-'.' t~-
of eross photosynthesis in this variety. T .. ·' . -"'."iority of cro;, ;:;ro·;'l·
r.:::te in U575 after flouerinc 'l-Tas :principnlJy <he; to its (i7_~ hich·:r le'.;
area index, and to the !"'Ore rapid aeeing of KC3. The ['.'r<.iin J.0af r~, i,~ o, C, of the early variety signific:in tly exceeded t}10. t of 1:7575, tho11~h :: '. .. ~
comparL:.tively uniform ui thin any sin,~le variety.
Considerable losses of dry weight from non-crain shoot cor.:ponc!~ t.:;
occurred durine the late erain fi1line period of botli v~,?'ictics.
Pobilization of previously established reserves m:'y h:wc ·t;oun' cd fo:.: ~ .. ~. '.
and 4.2~ of fino.l gro.in yield in I(C3 and li575 respective<:.~. . 'r.1i3 p·0·10~·,,ion increased with plnnt density inKC3, but not in '.I575.
The time from silking to senescence was gre.'.lter th:1n that c,oservcd in rnony other countries. Leaf area was reduced to 50;:b of its maxir:nlill value
ix .
·~pproximately 10 weeks after silking, end 68 and 79 days elapsed between silking and 95,% completion of grain filling in the early aud late varie.ties respectively. Varietal differences in grain yield were due to differences
~n the length of the grain filling period rather than in.the rate of grain filling. ~easons for delayed plant senescence and its implicatio~s en maize productivity are discussed.
':::'he optimum plant population fo'!' grain production in
Kc;
diC:. not occur within the range ·of densi tiee tested, though that for i'."575 appee.red to be close to. the upper end of the range o'f plant densities crow~.. C'ptimum plant popi.llations calculated from regressions of the lorarithm o~ srain weight per plant on density were 92000 plants.ha- 1 (~575) and 157000 plants.ha-1 (KC3), and appeared to reflect differences in plant size.
The rate of increase in grain dry matter content was sisnificantly greater in v,:575 than in KC3.
Implications of these findings on plant growth and crop yield are discussed in the light of current knowledge and hypotheses on the physiology of growth and productivity in maize.
