Genotypic Differences among Argentinean Maize Hybrids in Yield Response to Stand Density
Maize (Zea mays L.) stand density selection is an important management practice because yield is maximized at a particularoptimum value. Optimum stand density (OSD) varies across environments, and many have argued that current commercialgenotypes differ in their optimum stand density for a similar e...
| Autores: | , , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Estado: | Versión publicada |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2014 |
| País: | Argentina |
| Institución: | Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas |
| Repositorio: | CONICET Digital (CONICET) |
| Idioma: | inglés |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/30377 |
| Acceso en línea: | http://hdl.handle.net/11336/30377 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Maize Stand Density Yield Optimum Stand Density https://purl.org/becyt/ford/4.1 https://purl.org/becyt/ford/4 |
| Sumario: | Maize (Zea mays L.) stand density selection is an important management practice because yield is maximized at a particularoptimum value. Optimum stand density (OSD) varies across environments, and many have argued that current commercialgenotypes differ in their optimum stand density for a similar environment. We tested this concept by planting 11 Argentineancommercial genotypes from four seed companies at a range of stand densities (1, 8, and 16 plants m?2) in two environments.Genotypes differed in their yield response to changes in stand density, and their OSD varied from 7.3 to 11.9 plants m?2. Yield oftested genotypes was similar at the lowest stand density but different at the highest density, indicating no differences in potentialyield per plant but significant differences in crowding tolerance. When using a crop growth and biomass partitioning frameworkfor understanding kernel set differences among genotypes in their response to stand density, hybrids differed in most measuredtraits, showing differential strategies for coping with stress tolerance. Under high stand density conditions, genotypic strategiesfor avoiding barrenness were key for hybrid tolerance to crowding stress. We conclude that stand density management needs totake into account not only the environment but also the specific genotype, especially under high density management systems. |
|---|