Abstract
Maize ( Zea mays L.) grain yield increase in narrow rows (0.35–0.50 m) may be related to the improvement of light interception around silking, but percentages of grain yield increase are generally lower than those of light interception, suggesting a lower efficiency to convert the amount of intercepted photosynthetic active radiation (IPAR) into aboveground phytomass. We analyzed the effects of plant population and row spacing on grain yield and its components (kernel number and kernel weight) and on the underlying processes, the IPAR around silking and during the effective grain filling period, and radiation use efficiency (RUE) during both periods. Field experiments were conducted in Argentina from 1997 to 2001. Five hybrids were cultivated at a wide range of plant population densities (3, 4.5, 9, and 12 plants m −2 ) and row spacings (0.35, 0.50, 0.70, and 1 m) without water and nutrient limitations. Row spacing reduction increased IPAR around silking at low plant densities (≈8 and 4% for 3–4.5 and 9–12 plants m −2 , respectively) but did not modify RUE during this period. Morphogenetic limitations in the reproductive organs of plants (number of florets per ear) cultivated at low stand densities, suppressed the slight benefits of enhanced light capture under narrow rows, yielding similar kernel numbers at any row spacing. Contrarily, a postsilking RUE reduction (≈13–16%) of crops in narrow rows compared to those in wide rows minimized or counterbalanced any positive effect on IPAR during the grain‐filling period. Hence, for the tested growing conditions, no benefits could be expected in terms of grain yield by reducing row spacing from the present 0.7‐ to 0.8‐m inter‐row distance.
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
Claim · model-written summary
Narrower rows increased light interception around silking at low stand density.
Zea maysNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Row spacing reduction increased IPAR around silking at low plant densities (≈8 and 4% for 3–4.5 and 9–12 plants m −2 , respectively)”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Narrower rows did not modify radiation use efficiency around silking.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“did not modify RUE during this period”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Kernel numbers were similar at every row spacing.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“yielding similar kernel numbers at any row spacing”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Narrow rows reduced post-silking radiation use efficiency by about 13 to 16% versus wide rows.
- Treatment
- narrow rowse0
- Outcome
- postsilking RUEe0
- Direction
- reductione0
- Value
- ≈13–16%e0
- Comparator
- wide rowse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“a postsilking RUE reduction (≈13–16%) of crops in narrow rows compared to those in wide rows”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors expect no grain-yield benefit from reducing current row spacing under the tested conditions.
- Outcome
- no benefits could be expected in terms of grain yielde0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“for the tested growing conditions, no benefits could be expected in terms of grain yield by reducing row spacing from the present 0.7‐ to 0.8‐m inter‐row distance”
t0“Maize”
The same questions in other papers
density · physiology: photosynthesis · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
17 papers in the same direction as this paper · 11 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
25 papers more in this group
See all 29 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.