Paper · 2018 · International Journal of Genomics and Data Mining

Study and Determination of the Best Plant Density and Planting Patterns of Silage Corn (Zea mays L.), H.S.C. 704 Cultivar

Alireza Saberi

5
claims
10
verbatim quotes
0
citations
1
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

To examine the effect of plant densities and sowing patterns on yield and agronomical characteristics of corn (hybrid S.C.704), a field experiment was conducted at agricultural research station of Gorgan. This experiment was laid out in a randomized complete block design arranged in a factorial with four replications. Forage corn experiment had four levels of plant densities (D1=65000, D2=75000, D3=85000, D4=95000) and with two planting arrangements (p1=single row and p2=double row 15 cm space apart). The results showed; there was significant difference between planting arrangement for total dry matter, number of kernel per ear, kernel per row, ear length and double row produced higher amount for all above characters. In addition, plant density had a significant effect on total dry weight, number of kernel per ear, number of row per year, total fresh weight, ear length at 0.01 probability level and with an increase in plant density amount of biomass increased. The highest forage yield was produced by 95000 plant density and 15-centimeter double row at 5% significant (93.31-ton ha-1). It might be concluded that by using double row planting pattern the inter plant competition could be decreased and higher yield might be produced.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 5

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Double rows increased total dry matter, kernel counts and ear length over single rows.

Treatment
double rowe0
Outcome
total dry matter, number of kernel per ear, kernel per row, ear lengthe0
Direction
highere0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“there was significant difference between planting arrangement for total dry matter, number of kernel per ear, kernel per row, ear length and double row produced higher amount for all above characters”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 527–726 · show in text ↑
t0

“Silage Corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 75–86 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Plant density significantly affected dry weight, kernel and row counts, fresh weight and ear length.

Treatment
plant densitye0
Outcome
total dry weight, number of kernel per ear, number of row per year, total fresh weight, ear lengthe0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“plant density had a significant effect on total dry weight, number of kernel per ear, number of row per year, total fresh weight, ear length at 0.01 probability level and with an increase in plant density amount of biomass increased”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 741–973 · show in text ↑
t0

“Silage Corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 75–86 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Biomass increased as plant density increased.

Treatment
plant densitye0
Outcome
biomasse0
Direction
increasede0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“with an increase in plant density amount of biomass increased”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 912–973 · show in text ↑
t0

“Silage Corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 75–86 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

The 95000 density and double rows produced the highest forage yield of 93.31-ton ha-1.

Treatment
95000 plant density and 15-centimeter double rowe0
Outcome
forage yielde0
Direction
higheste0
Value
93.31-ton ha-1e0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The highest forage yield was produced by 95000 plant density and 15-centimeter double row at 5% significant (93.31-ton ha-1).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 975–1100 · show in text ↑
t0

“Silage Corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 75–86 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

Authors suggest double rows may reduce interplant competition and increase yield.

Outcome
double row planting patterne0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“by using double row planting pattern the inter plant competition could be decreased and higher yield might be produced”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1128–1246 · show in text ↑
t0

“Silage Corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 75–86 · show in text ↑

density · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

658 papers: 519 positive, 139 negative or no effect

518 papers in the same direction as this paper · 132 in the opposite direction · 7 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. no effect

654 papers more in this group

See all 658 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.