Abstract
To better understand the accumulation and transport of substances under different planting densities, the adaptation of maize root and leaf in response to increasing planting densities was investigated. In this two-year filed study, three maize varieties, Fumin108 (FM), Xianyu335 (XY) and Dika159 (DK), were sown under three different planting densities: 15,000 (D1), 60,000 (D2) and 90,000 plants ha-1 (D3) during 2018 and 2019. Increase in planting density gradually increased leaf area index along with reduced leaf area and net photosynthetic rate of individual leaves. In the 0–20 cm soil layer, the average root dry matter decreased by 55.88 and 80.92%, and the average root number decreased by 31.18 and 38.71% under D2 and D3, respectively, compared with D1. With increase in planting density, yield and dry matter per plant of maize gradually decreased while yield and dry matter per ha was increased with increase in D1-D2 density and then flattened in D2-D3 density. Compared with D1, two-year average yield per plant was decreased by 34.10 and 51.87% under D2 and D3, respectively. The difference in the number of roots of XY, FM and DK were not significant, so change in variety did not alleviate the decrease in the number of roots. At higher planting densities (above D2), the increase in density did not increase per ha grain yield. In conclusion, the suitable plant density was about 60,000 plants ha-1 to harvest more yield of spring maize while density higher than that reduced leaf area and photosynthesis per plant. Moreover, leaf area, root number and net photosynthesis per plant was higher in lower planting density coupled with overall less yield on ha basis and thus seemed wastage of soil nutrients and light resources.
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 12
Claim · model-written summary
Increasing density increased leaf area index.
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Increase in planting density gradually increased leaf area index along with reduced leaf area and net photosynthetic rate of individual leaves.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Increasing density reduced individual leaf area and net photosynthetic rate.
- Treatment
- planting densitye0
- Outcome
- leaf area and net photosynthetic rate of individual leavese0
- Direction
- reducede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Increase in planting density gradually increased leaf area index along with reduced leaf area and net photosynthetic rate of individual leaves.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
At 0–20 cm, root dry matter fell by 55.88% at D2 versus D1.
- Treatment
- D2e0
- Outcome
- average root dry mattere0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- 55.88e0
- Qualifier
- 0–20 cm soil layere0
- Comparator
- D1e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In the 0–20 cm soil layer, the average root dry matter decreased by 55.88 and 80.92%, and the average root number decreased by 31.18 and 38.71% under D2 and D3, respectively, compared with D1.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
At 0–20 cm, root dry matter fell by 80.92% at D3 versus D1.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In the 0–20 cm soil layer, the average root dry matter decreased by 55.88 and 80.92%, and the average root number decreased by 31.18 and 38.71% under D2 and D3, respectively, compared with D1.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Root number fell by 31.18% at D2 versus D1.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the average root number decreased by 31.18 and 38.71% under D2 and D3, respectively, compared with D1.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Root number fell by 38.71% at D3 versus D1.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the average root number decreased by 31.18 and 38.71% under D2 and D3, respectively, compared with D1.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Yield and dry matter per plant declined as density increased.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“With increase in planting density, yield and dry matter per plant of maize gradually decreased while yield and dry matter per ha was increased with increase in D1-D2 density and then flattened in D2-D3 density.”
Claim · model-written summary
Yield and dry matter per hectare rose from D1 to D2 and flattened from D2 to D3.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“yield and dry matter per ha was increased with increase in D1-D2 density and then flattened in D2-D3 density.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Two-year mean yield per plant decreased 34.10% at D2 versus D1.
- Treatment
- D2e0
- Outcome
- two-year average yield per plante0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- 34.10e0
- Comparator
- D1e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared with D1, two-year average yield per plant was decreased by 34.10 and 51.87% under D2 and D3, respectively.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Two-year mean yield per plant decreased 51.87% at D3 versus D1.
- Treatment
- D3e0
- Outcome
- two-year average yield per plante0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- 51.87%e0
- Comparator
- D1e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared with D1, two-year average yield per plant was decreased by 34.10 and 51.87% under D2 and D3, respectively.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Root number did not differ significantly among XY, FM and DK.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The difference in the number of roots of XY, FM and DK were not significant, so change in variety did not alleviate the decrease in the number of roots.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend approximately 60,000 plants ha-1 for spring maize yield.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the suitable plant density was about 60,000 plants ha-1 to harvest more yield of spring maize”