Abstract
A field experiment was carried out to study the effect of changing spacing allocations on root growth and yield of maize.Maize variety Zhengdan958 was used,and six treatments were set under three densities.The results showed as follows.Generally,root weight density,root length density and root surface area density with narrow row spacing were greater than wide row spacing in 0-60 cm soil depth under each plant density.In addition,under density of 50 025 plants/ha,significant differences on root weight density and root length density were observed between two row spacing at silking stage,and also on the root surface area density at the 10-leaf stage,silking stage and 25 days after silking.Moreover,under density of 67 500 plants/ha,root weight density at three stages and root length density and root surface area density at 10-leaf stage and 25 days after silking between two row spacing were significantly different.Under density of 100 050 plants/ha,root weight density and root length density were significantly different between two row spacing at the 10-leaf stage and 25 days after silking,and root weight density at three stages between two row spacing were also significant.The xylem sap volume was greater when reducing row spacing,demonstrating stronger root function,which benefit to yield formation,6.76% and 4.89% more yield after reducing row spacing under 50 025 plants/ha and 67 500 plants/ha.Especially,significantly positive correlations existed between root traits and yield at the 10-leaf stage,showing the critical stage of root formation for high yield of summer maize.
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 11
Claim · model-written summary
Narrow rows increased root weight density, root length density, and root surface area density relative to wide rows across densities at 0–60 cm.
- Treatment
- narrow row spacinge0
- Outcome
- root weight density,root length density and root surface area densitye0
- Direction
- greater thane0
- Qualifier
- 0-60 cm soil depth under each plant densitye0
- Comparator
- wide row spacinge0
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“root weight density,root length density and root surface area density with narrow row spacing were greater than wide row spacing in 0-60 cm soil depth under each plant density.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
At 50 025 plants/ha, row spacings significantly differed in root weight and length density at silking.
- Organ / stage
- silking stagee0
- Treatment
- two row spacinge0
- Outcome
- root weight density and root length densitye0
- Qualifier
- 50 025 plants/hae0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“under density of 50 025 plants/ha,significant differences on root weight density and root length density were observed between two row spacing at silking stage”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
At 50 025 plants/ha, row spacings significantly differed in root surface area density at three stages.
- Organ / stage
- 10-leaf stage,silking stage and 25 days after silkinge0
- Treatment
- two row spacinge0
- Outcome
- root surface area densitye0
- Qualifier
- 50 025 plants/hae0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“under density of 50 025 plants/ha,significant differences on root weight density and root length density were observed between two row spacing at silking stage,and also on the root surface area density at the 10-leaf stage,silking stage and 25 days after silking.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
At 67 500 plants/ha, row spacings significantly differed in root weight density at three stages.
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“under density of 67 500 plants/ha,root weight density at three stages and root length density and root surface area density at 10-leaf stage and 25 days after silking between two row spacing were significantly different.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
At 67 500 plants/ha, row spacings significantly differed in root length and surface area densities at the 10-leaf and later stages.
- Organ / stage
- 10-leaf stage and 25 days after silkinge0
- Treatment
- two row spacinge0
- Outcome
- root length density and root surface area densitye0
- Qualifier
- 67 500 plants/hae0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“under density of 67 500 plants/ha,root weight density at three stages and root length density and root surface area density at 10-leaf stage and 25 days after silking between two row spacing were significantly different.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
At 100 050 plants/ha, root weight and length density differed significantly between spacings at the 10-leaf stage and 25 days after silking.
- Organ / stage
- 10-leaf stage and 25 days after silkinge0
- Treatment
- two row spacinge0
- Outcome
- root weight density and root length densitye0
- Qualifier
- 100 050 plants/hae0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Under density of 100 050 plants/ha,root weight density and root length density were significantly different between two row spacing at the 10-leaf stage and 25 days after silking”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
At 100 050 plants/ha, root weight density differed significantly between spacings at all three stages.
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“root weight density at three stages between two row spacing were also significant.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Reduced row spacing increased xylem sap volume.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The xylem sap volume was greater when reducing row spacing”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Reduced row spacing increased maize yield by 6.76% at 50 025 plants/ha.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“6.76% and 4.89% more yield after reducing row spacing under 50 025 plants/ha and 67 500 plants/ha.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Reduced row spacing increased maize yield by 4.89% at 67 500 plants/ha.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“6.76% and 4.89% more yield after reducing row spacing under 50 025 plants/ha and 67 500 plants/ha.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Root traits and yield were significantly positively correlated at the 10-leaf stage.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“significantly positive correlations existed between root traits and yield at the 10-leaf stage”
t0“Maize”
The same questions in other papers
density · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
118 papers in the same direction as this paper · 76 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- no effect
193 papers more in this group
See all 197 papers →density · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
518 papers in the same direction as this paper · 132 in the opposite direction · 7 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- 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.