DATE, RATE, AND METHOD OF PLANTING CORN Thesis for We Degzea 0% M. 5. MICHlGAN STATE COLLEGE Wifiiam T. Rounds 1959 0-169 This is to certify that the thesis entitled "Date, Rate, and Method of Planting Corn" presented by Willié m '1‘. Rounds has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for _Ms_degree mws 67:?! flw Major fimfessor Date A. ‘r' )0 fr:- . v__ .__ —-' "n‘. -_- ‘ ' DATE, RATE, AND METHOD OF PLANTING CORN by WILLIAM T. ROUNDS W A THESIS Submitted to the Graduate School of Michigan State College of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial.fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Farm Crops 1950 an a...‘ . DATE, RATE, AND METHOD OF PLANTINGCORN ‘ ‘ “)‘305398 n.” ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The author wishes to acknowledge his indebtedness to Dr. E. C. Rossman for his guidance and assistance in making this study. The author is grateful to Dr. W. D. Baten for his constructive criticism. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. VIII. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Review of literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Methods and materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A. Date, rate, and method of planting-Ingham County B. Rate and method of planting - Saginaw County . Experimental results A. Ingham County experiment 1. Yield . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Moisture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Lodging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . k. Ear weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B. Saginaw County experiment 1. Yield . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Moisture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Lodging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . h. Ear weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C. Two locations combined 1. Yield . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Moisture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Lodging . 4. Ear weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Literature cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 23 27 29 31 35 37 37 #0 #1 Al #2 #3 A9 51 52 INTRODUCTION The effects of date, rate, and method of planting on corn production have been the subject of numerous investi- gations over a number of years. Many of these studies were conducted with open-pollinated varieties which have been re- placed by hybrids. It appears worthwhile to repeat some of the earlier research on cultural practices using the hybrids grown by farmers today.‘ Results of experiments conducted in neighboring states do not always apply to other states where the climate, soil conditions, and hybrids may give different results. The effect of rate of planting and method of planting on corn production in Michigan was studied at two locations in l9h9 with several hybrids adapted to Michigan. Date of planting was investigated at one location. -2- REVIEW OF LITERATURE Hughes and Henson (h) reviewed a number of the early investigations on the effect of date, rate, and method of planting corn. In general, most of the studies reviewed showed higher corn yields from the earlier dates of planting. Comparisons of drilled versus hill planting from four states, Maryland, Ohio, Minnesota, and Arkansas, showed a consistent yield difference in favor of drilling corn. Long time experi- ments from a number of stations showed conflicting results for the effect of rate of planting on corn yields. Climatic and soil conditions, and growth habits of the varieties are factors which influenced the results. Mbntgomery (8) reported that yields increased steadily as rate of planting increased from one to three plants per hill. Four and five plants per hill gave essentially the same yield as three plants over the six year period. Ear weight, number of ears per 100 plants, number of tillers per 100 plants, and number of two-eared plants per 100 plants decreased as the rate of planting was increased from one to five plants per hill. The percentage of barren stalks increased as the rate of plant- ing was increased. Kiesselbach (5) obtained similar results for a seven year period with Rogue's Yellow Dent. He found that lodging percentage increased as the rate of planting in- creased from one to five plants per hill. There was no marked difference in date of maturity, height of stalks, ear height, -3- or shelling percentage for the different rates. Richey (10) found that corn planted at two different rates yielded approximately the same over a period of years, but the thinner rate of planting yielded more in less favorable seasons. Corn planted at the thinner rate produced larger ears and lodged less than that planted more thickly. The Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station (9) in rate of planting tests concluded that a stand of four plants per hill with hills spaced #2" x #2" averaged the highest yield of shelled corn over a period of years, while three plants per hill gave a higher yield in poor seasons and five plants pro- duced more in good seasons. Duncan (2) found that early maturing varieties had smaller stalks and gave their maximum yield when either three or four kernels per hill were planted. Koehler and Holbert (6) found that the higher rate of planting of corn increased the percent of lodging and that late planting resulted in more lodging than early planting. Eisele and Buchanan (3) reported that at maturity the aver- age cross sectional area of stalks at ground level where there were three plants per hill was 60% as large as where there was one plant per hill. Stalks in five plant hills were only 40% as large as those in one plant hills. METHODS AND MATERIALS Two experiments were conducted in l9h9. The effects of date, rate, and method of planting were investigated in an experiment conducted in Ingham County near East Lansing. Rate and method of planting were studied in an experiment conducted in Saginaw County near Reese. The 1949 season was unusually favorable for corn production in most areas of thhigan. The average yield of k8.0 bushels per acre for the state was the highest on record (13). The previous ten year average was 3h.0 bushels per acre. Table 1 presents temperature and precipitation data obtained at the Saginaw and Lansing weather stations (1h). Temperature and rainfall conditions at both locations were almost ideal for corn. A period of dry weather in late August matured corn rapidly. The first killing frost occurred on October 2h, l9h9. -5- Table 1. Temperature and precipitation data obtained at Lansing and Saginaw weather stations. 19h9. April 2 May 2 June 2 July E Aug. 2 Sept. 2 Oct. Temperature Lansing Average #6.2 59.5 71.7 7h.1 70.2 57.2 5h.9 Departure 0.9 2.7 k.9 2.5 0.9 -h.5 k.6 from normal Saginaw Average hh.9 56.9 70.h 73.0 70.1 56.8 53.8 Departure 0.0 0.1 3e7 1.2 0.8 -5e“ 3e3 .from normal Precipitation Lansing Average 1.87 2.35 h.89 h.78 1.61 1.91 2.35 Departue -071 -1007 1038 10$ -1021 -1000 -.12 from normal Saginaw Average 2.u6 1.20 3.75 3.65 2.28 2.36 2.07 Departure .12 -2e35 090 087 -073 -055 -05“ from normal -6- Date, rate, and method of planting - Ingham County Three dates of planting, three rates of planting, two methods of planting, and three hybrids were combined in a split-plot experiment consisting of 5b treatment combinations with four replications. The experiment was conducted at the Farm.Crops experimental farm near East Lansing in Ingham County. Dates of planting were used as the main plot, hybrids were used as the sub-plot, method of planting as the sub-sub-plot, and rate of planting as the sub-sub-sub-plot. All factors were randomized within each subdivision. Each plot was two rows wide and 23' A” long (seven hills long). The front two hills or 6' 8” of each plot were harvested for pre-harvest moisture samples. Data for the pre-harvest moisture samples are not reported in this study. Ten hills or 33' h" of drilled corn were harvested for yield.) . - The experiment was conducted on a level well-drained field of Conover clay loam soil. The field had grown a good crop of corn in l9h7. It was plowed in the spring of 19h8 and planted to soybeans which were plowed under in late August for green manure. Rye was planted in the field in the fall of 19h8. In late April of 19h9 the rye was plowed under for green manure when it was approximately 2k" in height. Two hundred pounds of h-16-8 fertilizer per acre were broadcast on the field prior to corn planting in 19h9. Corn was planted in #0" rows with #0” between hills on May 5, May 21., and June 11.“ The seedbedsflfor the May 21. and June 11 plantings were reworked by cultivation with a Gravely garden tractor. Cultivation and hoeing were kept equal for the three dates of planting. Michigan 513 (W9 x m3) x (Ia.153 x W25) , Ohio M15 (Oh51 x 0h26) x (A x W23) , and Michigan 29D (A x 0h51A) x (OthB x W10) ‘were the three hybrids used. 'In south-central Michigan, Michigan 513 is rated as a very early maturing hybrid, Ohio M15 is an early hybrid, and Michigan 29D is a mid-season hybrid. Table 2 presents yield and maturity data obtained from the Michigan Hybrid Corn Trials for the three hybrids used in the Ingham County experiment. Table 2. Two and sixpyear averages for yield and moisture content for the hybrids used in the Ingham and Saginaw County experiments. 2 year average 6 year average E l9h8-1999 2 19au-19t9 2 Yield 2 Moisture 2 Yield ': Moisture : per acre : in ears % : per acre : in ears Ingham County Nflchigan 513 62.8 27.9 - - Ohio M15 73.6 32.0 65.3 3k.3 Michigan 290 7h.8 35.6 66.0 36.8 Saginaw County Euchigan 11A 67.5 2h.8 - - Enchigan 363 32.9 28.3 72.0 35.7 Ohio M15 39.0 30.1 75.8 36.1 -8... The three rates of planting for each of the two methods of planting were as follows: Drilled - one plant every 20 inches = 7,800 plants per acre one plant every 13 1/3 inches = 11,700 plants per one plant every 10 inches = 15,600 plants paragzge Hills - two plants per hill 3 7,800 plants per acre three plants per hill = 11,700 plants per acre four plants per hill - 15,600 plants per acre The three dates of planting were harvested on September 30, October 18, and November 5. All plots in each date of planting were harvested 1&7 days after planting. Rate and method of planting - Saginaw County The Saginaw County experiment was conducted on a level well-drained field of Brookston clay loam on the farm of Walter Reinbold near Reese. The field was in alfalfa-bromegrass for two years before being plowed in the spring of l9h9 for corn. No fertilizer was applied for the corn crop. Four hybrids, two methods of planting, and three rates of planting were arranged in a split-plot experiment with 2h treat- ments replicated four times. Hybrids were used as main plots, methods of planting as sub-plots, and rates of planting as sub- sub plots. Each plot was two rows wide and five hills or 17' 6" long. The entire plot was harvested for yield. 9 - Corn was planted in 36" rows on May 11. The spacing between hills was #2". Rates of planting were as follows: H. -9- Drilled - one plant every 21 inches I 8,300 plants per acre one plant every 1h inches - 12,h50 plants per acre one plant every 10% inches = 16,600 plants per acre Hills - two plants per hill = 8,300 plants per acre three plants per hill ' 12,h50 plants per acre four plants per hill 8 16,600 plants per acre jMichigan 11A (W9 x M13) x (H x #9) , Michigan 513, Ohio M15, and Michigan 368 (M13 x WR3) x (W23 x W26) were the four hybrids used. JMichigan 11A is a very early maturing hybrid, Michigan 513 is an early hybrid, and Michigan 363 and Ohio was are mid-season hybrids in north-central Michigan. The experiment was harvested on October 5 or lb? days after planting. Data on stand, moisture-content of ears, yield, lodging, and ear weight were obtained at harvest at both locations. The few minor deviations from perfect stands did not affect the results to any practical extent at either location. Excess seed was planted and the plots were thinned to the desired stand when the plants were approximately 18" tall. ,MOisture samples were taken by cutting one-inch sections of cob and grain from ten randomly selected ears for each plot. The samples were weighed in the field, dried in an oven at the I laboratory, and weighed again when dry. Plot yields were con- verted to bushels of shelled corn containing 15.5% moisture. Lodging data represent the percentage of plants broken below the ear. Root lodging was negligible at both locations. -10- The number of ears in each plot was counted and the weight of ear corn was converted to dry weight to obtain the average dry weight per ear. The data on yield, moisture percentage, and lodging per- centage were analyzed by analyses of variance. When experimental errors are used to determine the significance of main effects and interactions, the conclusions apply only to the particular experiment and the specific factors enumerated. Ordinarily these conclusions are not as interesting as those drawn from tests of significance where the conclusions may be projected into state- ments likely to apply to the population from which the experi- mental sample was drawn (1, 12). First-order interactions are used to test the significance of main effects, second-order interactions are used to test first-order interactions, and third-order interactions are used to test second-order inter- actions when these broader conclusions are drawn. -11.. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS Ingham County Experiment Summarized data on yield, moisture content, lodging, and ear weight are presented in Table 3 and the analyses of variance for yield, moisture content, and lodging are given in Table A. Table 3. Yield , moisture content, lodging, and ear weight for three hybrids planted at three dates, two methods, and three rates of planting. Ingham County experiment. Hybrid, method of : Yield in :MbisturezLodging: Dry planting, and rate :bushels er : in ears: % {Weight per of planting. :acre at 5.5% : % z : ear in : moisture : : : pounds May 5 planting Enchigan 513 Drilled every 20" 60.2 26.9 1.3 .AA Drilled every 13.1/3n 78.5 26.1 t.3 .hl Drilled every 10" - 9h.7 27.9 8.2 .37 . Average _ 77.8 27.0 h.6 .40 Hills - 2 plants 52.9 27.h 1.3 .hO H1118 " 3 plants 76e8 27.2 3e3 e39 Hills ~ A plants 90.9 28.1 8.2 .36 Average 73.5 27.6 ho3 .33 Average for.Michigan 51B 75.7 27.3 h.h .39 Ohio M15 Drilled every 20" 75.6 31.7 1.3 .L1 Drilled every 13 1/3" 91.7 31.1 3.u .39 Drilled every 10” . 10h.8 31.1 5.6 .39 Average . 90.7 31.3 3.A .40 Hills - 2 plants 69.h 32.3 0.0 .AO H1118 - 3 plants 82e1 31o? 5.0 e39 Hills - A plants 100.3 31.9 7.6 .39 Average . 83.9 32.0 k.2 .39 31.6 3.8 .39 Average for Ohio M1 87. -12- Table 3. (continued) Hybrid, method of : Yield in :MOisture:Lod ing: Dry planting, and rate :bushels per : in ears: a :Weight per of planting. :acre at 15.5% : : : ear in moisture : : : pounds May 5 planting Michigan 29D Drilled every 20" 76.h 33.5 0.0 .5h Drilled every 13 1/3" 95.6 33.5 2.5 .47 Drilled every 108 . 108.9 33.8 3.8 .A3 Average - 93.6 33.6 2.1 .h8 Hills - 2 plants 73.5 33.5 1.3 .53 Hills - 3 plants 90.1 35.1 5.0 .us Hills - h plants 105.1 3h.9 5.7 .hl Average 8905 3&05 h.0 eh6 Average for Michigan 29D 91.6 3t.l 3.0 .A7 Grand average for May 5 8h.9 31.0 3.8 .h2 May 2A planting Michigan 513 Drilled every 20" 48.8 28.8 3.8 .38 Drilled every 13.1/3n 63.6 28.6 5.8 .32 Drilled every 10" . 75.9 27.7 6.3 .31 Average . 62.7 28.A 5.3 .3A Hills - 2 plants 5h.0 28.8 6.3 .A0 Hills - 3 plants 65.3 29.0 10.0 .33 Hills - h plants 77.6 29.2 9.h .31 Average 65.6 29.0 8.6 .35 Average for Michigan 513 6h.2 28.7 6.9 .3h Ohio 1415 Drilled every 20" 68.6 28.A 1.3 .39 Drilled every 13 1/3" 79.5 28.6 1.0 .37 Drilled every 10" . 89.h 30.3 2.5 .32 Average - 79.2 29.1 1.6 .36 Hills - 2 plants 6B.h 29.5 3.8 .hO Hills - 3 plants 81.7 30.5 2.5 .38 Hills - h plants 104.7 30.3 5.6 .39 Average 83.3 30.1 A.O .39 Average for Ohio M15 81. 29.6 2.8 .37 -13- Table 3. (continued) i f EMpietureELod ing; Dry : in ears: % :Weight per ° Yield in ' :bushels per Hybrid, method of planting, and rate of planting. :acre at 15.5% : : ear in moisture : pounds may 24 planting Michigan 29D Drilled every 20” 66.2 32.6 3.9 .50 Drilled every 13.1/3n 84.4 33.1 3.5 .ut Drilled every 10" - 9h.0 34.0 4.4 .37 Average ~ 81e5 3302 3e9 ehk Hills - 3 plants 78.9 32.6 5.0 .40 H1118 -' ‘0» plants 88.0 33e6 3e8 e35 Average 77.7 32.7 3.8 .41 Average for.Michigan 29D 79.6 32.9 3.8 .42 Grand average for May 24 75.0 30.4 4.5 .38 June 11 planting Nfichigan 513 . Drilled every 20" 60.5 27.6 19.0 .44 Drilled every 13.1/3n 79.4 26.4 23.3 .41 Drilled every 10" . 96.8 27.1 21.4 .39 . Average . 78.9 27.0 21.2 .41 Hills - 2 plants 62.0 26.5 16.5 .45 Hills - 3 plants 82.3 25.4 15.8 .42 Average 79.3 26.8 17.5 .41 Average for Michigan 518 79.1 26.9 19. .41 Ohio M15 Drilled every 20" 71.9 28.9 23.8 .42 Drilled every 13.1/3n 89.2 28.6 20.0 .38 Drilled every 10” . 100.3 28.2 26.3 .37 . Average - 87.1 28.6 23.3 .39 31113 - 2 Plants 6801 29s]. 11e3 e39 Hills - 4 plants 94.1 30.6 15.3 .36 Average 82.9 29.8 13.6 .37 Average for Ohio M15 85.0 29.2 18.5 .38 Table 3. (continued) f Hybrid, method of E Iield in EMpistureELod ing; Dry planting, and rate :bushels per : in ears: a {Weight per of planting :acre at 15.5% : : ear in moisture : pounds June 11 planting Enchigan 29D “ Drilled every 20” 69.9 31.1 15.0 .48 Drilled every 13.1/3n 92.5 32.9 21.0 .46 Drilled every 10" - 108.0 32.4 20.6 .42 Average - 90.1 32.1 18.9 .45 Hills — 2 plants 68.3 31.3 3.8 .48 Hills - 3 plants 83o 32el+ 7e5 .42 Average 84.3 31.9 8.1 .43 Average for Michigan 29D 87.2 32.0 13.5 .44 Grand average for June 11 83.8 29.4 17.1 .41 -15- Table 4. Analyses of variance of yield, moisture content, and lodging percentage. Ingham County experiment. gDegrees of; Source of variation : freedom : Mean Squares : : Yield : Mbisture : Lodging : : : content : Dates of planting 2 2104.3** 49.1 4044.2** Replications 3 1370.9** 46.9 63.1 Error (A) 6 151.6 15.4 99.7 Hybrids 2 3705.4** 520.6** 213.5** Hybrids x dates 4 233.9 19.5** 74.5* Error (B) 18 120.6 3.1 18.7 .Methods of planting 1 312.0* 10.5 178.5* Methods x dates 2 174.5* 0.9 513.2** Methods x hybrids 2 81.9 4.1 35.7 M x D x H 4 53.0 2.0 38.5 Error (C) 27 v 43.4 2.7 30.5 Rates of planting 2 17039.l8** 8.4* 290.3** Rates x dates 4 . * 0.5 24.9 Rates x hybrids 4 11.9 3.9 8.5 Rates x methods 2 6.6 2.0 8.8 R x D x H 8 50.3 2.7 13.3 R x D x M 4 26.2 1.4 3.4 R x H xJM 4 59.6 0.5 7.4 R x H x.M x D 8 38.8 1.6 12.1 Error (D) . 108 19.3 2.7 18.2 Total . 215 *Significant at the 5% level of probability when tested with experimental error. **Significant at the 1% level of probability when tested with experimental error. ~16- Yield. Average corn yields for all treatments were 84.9, 75.0, and 83.8 bushels per acre for the May 5, May 24, and June 11 plantings, respectively. The normal date for corn planting in south-central Michigan corresponds more nearly to the May 24 date than to the other two dates. .The significant decrease of approximately 12.0% in yield for the May 24 plant- ing may have been due to the generally higher temperatures and lower moisture supply during and shortly after the tasseling and silking period. MOisture and temperature conditions were generally favorable for the first and third plantings through- out this critical stage of plant development. The significant differences in yield between Muchigan 51B and Ohio M15 and Michigan 29D were expected on the basis of previous data (Table 2). The difference between Ohio M15 and Michigan 29D was not significant. A The decrease in yield of Ohio M15 for the May 24 planting was less than the decrease in yield for the other two hybrids (Table 5). However, all three hybrids decreased in yield and there was no significant interaction of hybrids with date of planting. -17- Table 5. Average yield and days from planting to 50% silked for three hybrids planted at three dates. Ingham County experiment. Hybrid 5 Date of planting : ; May 5 1 May 24 2 June 11 g Average yield Michigan 513 Yield 7507 6he2 79el % of May 24 127.9 100.0 123.2 Ohio M15 Yield 8703 81.2 85.0 % Of May 2h 10705 100.0 104.7 Michigan 29D Yield ~ 9106 7906 87.2 % of May 24 115.1 100.0 109.5 Average 84.9 75.0 83.8 Days from planting to 50% silked Mflehigan 513 67 61 53 Ohio.M15 76 66 57 Hflchigan 29D 80 69 6O -18.. Drill planting averaged 2.4 bushels per acre more than hill planting. This difference was significant at the 5% level of probability when tested with error (0). The signif- icant interaction, methods x dates, indicates that the differ- ences between methods of planting were not alike for all dates of planting. Drill planting averaged 5.1 and 3.2 bushels more than hill planting for the May 5 and June 11 plantings. Hill planting on May 2A averaged 1.0 bushel more per acre than drill planting. All three hybrids gave slightly higher yields for drill planting (Table 6), but Michigan 29D was the only hybrid which showed a significant difference. In general, the yield of all hybrids tended to be greater for drill planting at all dates of planting. The exceptions were Michigan 518 on May 24 and June 11 plantings and Ohio M15 on may 24 planting where hill planting was slightly, but not significantly, superior. In only two cases, Ohio M15 on May 5 planting and Michigan 29D on June 11 planting, were the differences significantly in favor of drill planting. When the interactions, methods x dates or methods x hybrids, are used to test the significance of the main effect, methods of planting, there is no significance. This comparison is of interest since it indicates that there is likely to be no significant difference in yield between the two methods of planting over all dates of planting and all hybrids under similar environmental conditions in south-central Michigan. -19- Table 6. Average yields for three hybrids, three dates of planting, and two methods of planting. Ingham County experiment. W W O Hybrid .Method of planting Difference ' Drilled 2 Hills Q May 5 planting Michigan 513 77.8 73.5 4.3 Ohio M15 90.7 83.9 6.1* Nuchigan 29D 93.6 89.5 4.1 Average - May 5 87.4 82.3 5.1** May 24 planting Ohio M15 79.2 83.3 4.1 Michigan 29D 81.5 77.7 3.8 Average - May 24 74.5 75.5 1.0 June 11 planting NHchigan 51E 78.9 79.3 -0. Ohio MlS 87e1 82e9 “M2 Enchigan 29D 90.1 84.3 ‘ 5.8* Average - June 11 85.4 82.2 3.2* Average - all dates Nfichigan 51B 73.1 72. 0.3 Ohio M15 85.7 83.4 2.3 Michigan 29D 88.4 83.8 4.6** 82.4 80. 2.4* Average - all dates -20.. Table 6. (continued) Differences required for 5% level of 1% level of significance between: probability probability Two methods of planting any has hybrids at one date of planting 5.5 bu. 7.5 bu. Two methods of planting at one date of planting 3.2 bu. 4.3 bu. Two methods of planting any one hybrid 3.2 bu. 4.3 bu. * Difference between methods of planting significant at 5% level of probability. **Differences between methods of planting significant at 1% level of probability. Rate of planting influenced corn yields more than any of the other factors. There was practically a straight line relationship between rate of planting and yield (Figure 1). Increasing the plant population from 7,800 plants per acre to 11,700 plants increased yields 17.0 bushels per acre, from 65.3 to 82.3 bushels (Table 7). The increase amounted to 26.1% as an average for all hybrids, dates of planting, and methods of planting. Doubling the population per acre, 7,800 to 15,600 plants per acre, increased yields 30.8 bushels per acre or 47.2% (from 65.3 to 96.1 bushels) for the entire experiment. When the rate of planting was increased from 11,700 to 15,600, the average corn yield increased 13.8 bushels (from 82.3 to 96.1). The in- crease amounted to 16.8%. c P: :. -———e._.*.___. “ -‘- a *9. ~— _... —.._- - ~-.. .- -21- Figure 1. Relationship between yield and rate of planting. Ingham County experiment. -22- meanness Hanna assessed Hafiz «.54H H.0NH o.ooa H.04H ~.0~H o.ooa H.04H 5.mma o.ooa open boa mo 5 H.oe m.~m m.mo 0.55 m.mm e.oo H.ma 5.0m «.48 cantata m.msa o.mma 0.00H m.0mH H.5NH 0.00H 0.04H. 0.0NH 0.00H open 36d no & H.0m m.mm 0.00 5.Hoa 0.5m 0.50 4.00 o.mm H.00 macaw Ha mush m.aaa m.mma o.ooH ~.H4H o.mma o.ooa «.54H o.mma 0.00H open 30a mo 5 m.mm 0.5 «:8 .100 , m.m5 ~40 .105 m.m5 «40 33» an an: «.maa N.0NH 0.00H 4.m¢H m.m~H o.ooa N.Hma H.5NH o.ooa open 36H mo * m.ooa m.mm 0.00 m.~oa 0.wm 5.05 5.mo o.mm m.m0 m0MMfiM ooo.mam 005.HHW oom.5 m coo.mam 005.HHW oom.5 m ooo.mam ooa.aam oom.5 m ones hem npnwam m chow hon mpnmam m ones non mpnsam m weapnmaa vowmao>m wnapnsam “ . u n me open Adana 0nd Haw: .unmsanodxo hpnnoo asnmnH .mcannhm mean» no owenobd .mnwpcsaa me wanna mouse was .mmwunsad mo avenues esp .mnapnsam mo mouse eons» new means» owmno>< .5 canes -23- The regression, Y - 34.4 + .0041 (I - number of plants per acre) indicates that yields increased at a rate of 4.0 bushels per 1000 plants within the range of 7,800 to 15,600 plants per acre. A yield of 50.0 bushels is indicated for a plant popula— tion of 3,900 plants per acre using this regression. If the same relationship between yield and rate of planting continued to exist, a yield of 112.4 and 128.0 bushels per acre could be predicted for populations of 19,500 and 23,400 plants per acre. These pOpulations would correspond to five and six plants per hill or one plant every 8" and one plant every 6 2/3" respectively. The only significant interaction involving rate of planting was rates x dates which was significant at the 5% level of probability when tested with error (D) (Table 4). Yield did not increase as much with increased rate of planting for the May 24 planting as for the other two dates (Table 7). The rate x date interaction is not significant when tested with either of the two second-order interactions, rates x dates x hybrids or rates x dates x methods. These tests indicate that the interaction, rates x dates, is not likely to be significant in the population with all hybrids and methods of planting. With these rates of planting and comparable Soil and climatic conditions in south- central Michigan, yields can be expected to increase as rate of planting increases irregardless of date of planting, hybrid, or method of planting. Moisture content. ,MOisture content of the ears at harvest was significantly affected by hybrid and rate of planting in the Ingham County experiment. The differences between hybrids were expected from previous information on the three hybrids. Considering the entire experiment, date of planting had no significant effect on moisture content at harvest when the different dates of planting were harvested the same number of days (147) after planting. However, hybrids differed in their response to date of planting as indicated by the significant interaction, hybrids x date of planting (Table 4). Mbisture content at harvest for Michigan 29D and Ohio M15 decreased as date of planting advanced, but the moisture content for Muchigan 513 increased for the second date of planting. Figure 2 illustrates this interaction. Method of planting had no effect on moisture content. There was a slight tendency for moisture content to increase as rate of planting increased (Table 8). The effect of rate of plant- ing was significant when tested with error (D), but not signif- icant when tested with the first-order interactions. The latter test indicates that, in general, rate of planting is net likely to affect moisture content of the ears at harvest. -25- Table 8. Average moisture content of ears at harvest for three dates of planting, two methods of planting, and three rates of planting. Ingham County experiment. fi' Rate of planting - : .Method of planting Average Plants per acre ; : : : Hills : Drilled : {0. A_._. May 5 planting 7,800 31.1 30.7 30.9 11,700 31.3 30.2 30.8 15,600 31.6 31.0 31.3 Average 31.3 30.6 31.0 May 24 planting 7,800 30.0 29.9 30.0 11,700 30.7 30.1 30.4 15,600 31.0 30.6 30.8 Average 30.6 30.2 30.4 June 11 planting 7,800 29.0 29.2 29.1 11,700 29.1 29.3 29.2 15,600 30.3 29.2 29.8 Average 29.5 29.2 29.4 Average - all dates 7,800 30.0 29.9 30.0 11,700 30.4 29.9 30.1 15,600 31.0 30.3 31.3 Average 30.5 30.0 30.5 -26- Figure 2. Effect of date of planting on moisture content of ears at harvest for three hybrids. Ingham County experiment. -27- The number of days from planting to the average date when 50% of the plants were in silk decreased as the date of planting was advanced (Table 5). There were 14, 19, and 20 days differences for Michigan 51B, Ohio M15, and Michigan 29D, respectively, between the May 5 and June 11 plantings. These data illustrate that the later plantings caught up, in part, in plant development and maturity with the earlier plant- ings. Lodging. The percentage of plants broken below the ear was significantly affected by all four factors in the Ingham County experiment. Date of planting had the greatest effect. Average lodging percentages for the three dates of plant- ing were 3.8, 4.5, and 17.1%. There was a striking increase in lodging for the June 11 planting (Table 9). -28- Table 9. Average lodging percentage for three dates of planting, two methods of planting, and three rates of planting. Ingham County experiment. h; i O v Rate of planting ; Mbthod ofplanting ; Average Plants per acre Q Hills 2 Drilled ° 0 O 0 May 5 planting 7,800 0.8 0.8 0.8 11,700 4.5 3.4 4.0 15,600 701 509 6.5 Average 4.1 3.4 3.8 May 24 planting 7,800 4.2 , 2.9 3.6 11,700 5.8 3.4 4.6 15.600 6.3 4.4 5.4 Average 5.4 3.6 4.5 June 11 planting 7,800 0. 19.2 14.9 11,700 12.5 21.4 17.0 15,600 16.2 22.7 19.5 Average 13.1 21.1 17.1 Average - all dates 7,800 5.2 7.6 6.4 11,700 7.6 9.4 8.5 15,600 9.9 11.0 10.5 Average 7.5 9.4 8.5 -29- The interaction, hybrids x dates of planting, was signif- icant, indicating a differential response of hybrids with date of planting. 'Michigan 513 had the highest lodging percentage at all three dates. Ohio M15 and Michigan 29D interchanged relative positions with respect to lodging percentage depending on date of planting. Drill planting averaged 9.4% lodging and hill planting averaged 7.5%. The difference was significant when tested with error (C) but not significant when tested with the first-order interactions. The only significant difference occurred in the June 11 planting, where drill planting averaged 21.1% lodging compared with 13.1% for hill planting. The two methOds of plant- ing did not respond alike at the different dates of planting, but this interaction is .7: significant when tested with the second- order interaction. Rate of planting had a significant effect on lodging when tested with either error (D) or the first-order interactions. Lodging increased as rate Of planting increased. Plant popula- tions of 7,800, 11,700, and 15,600 averaged 6.4, 8.5, and 10.4% lodging, respectively. The effect of rate of planting on lodging was generally consistent as evidenced by the lack of significance for all interactions involving rate of planting. Ear weight. Ear weights, in pounds of dry matter, were not subjected to analysis of variance. Examination of the data (Table 10) showed that rate of planting was the only factor con- sistently affecting ear weight. Ear weight decreased as the rate of planting was increased. Table 10. Average dry weight per ear in pounds for three dates of planting, two methods of planting, and three rates of planting. Ingham County experiment. Rate of planting - 1 Method of planting ; Average Plants per acre 2 Hills 2 Drilled ' May 5 planting 7,800 .43 .46 .45 11,700 .41 .42 .42 15,600 .38 .39 .39 Average .41 .42 .42 May 24 planting 7,800 .42 .43 .43 11,700 .37 .38 .38 15.600 .35 .34 .35 Average .38 .38 .38 June 11 planting 7,800 .44 .45 .45 11,700 .40 .41 .41 15,600 .37 .39 .38 Average .40 .42 .41 Average - all dates 7,800 .43 .45 .44 11,700 .39 .40 .40 15,600 .37 .37 .37 Average .40 .41 .40 -31- Saginaw County Experiment Table 11 presents the summarized data on yield, moisture content, lodging, and ear weight. Analyses of variance for yield, moisture content, and lodging are given in Table 12. Yield. The effects of hybrids, methods of planting, and rates of planting were highly significant when tested with the appropriate experimental errors. Rate of planting affected corn yields more than hybrid or method of planting. The differences among hybrids were expected from previous information. The differences between Michigan 11A and the other three hybrids were highly significant. There was no significant difference between Michigan 51B and Michigan 368. Ohio M15 gave the highest yield. Drill planting averaged 92.6 bushels compared to 84.8 bushels per acre for hill planting. The difference, 7.8 bushels, was highly significant when tested with error (B). The difference is not significant when the first-order interaction, methods x hybrids, is used to test significance. Therefore, there is likely to be no significant difference between hill and drill planting for all hybrids under similar environmental conditions in north-centra1.Michigan. With populations of 8,300, 12,450, and 16,600 plants per acre, the yields were 69.1, 91.2, and 105.9 bushels per acre, respectively. Yields increased 22.1 bushels or 32% when rate Of planting was increased from 8,300 to 12,450 plants per acre. Saginaw County experiment. Yield, moisture content, lodging, and ear weight for four hybrids, two methods of planting, and three rates of planting. Table 11. :Grand Average :Aver- v C be so so Drill planting Rate of planting 8,300 Hill planting Rate of plantin pe ee ee ‘Hybrid age Yield in bushels per acre at 15.5%lmoisture -32- % r .Mbisture content in ears at harvest - O:OONU\ Amt-IO”: NNMMN 24.7 27.5 31. 30. 28.5 JOBAFM O Ln\OI-|O\m NNMNN O‘NVOHN "WOOD” NNMMN ”I‘Mlfim . O O O . ¢5HHm manna as; Lodging,percent QMWNN NQOMM ”HO‘OIA HE‘OON 010“me MMHI—IN «5000.4 Mb-Mv-ld; \OOHOO-d‘ MHOOH [70000 NOOMN m5 Average Mich. 36B Ohio NHch. 11A Mich. 513 me. me. as. me. as. on. 5m. 04. ms. casters as. as. as. as. as. as. an. as. as. as: ease .3. ms. 3. 3. 3. 3. on. .3. 3. m0m £32 «a. .3. .3. ms. 04. on. mm. mm. .3. mam Home 04. «4. mm. 4:. m4. mm. mm. 5m. m4. «Ha .nde uvnsoammlaso nomypmwmmmwumm. em - - ooo.oa - cms.ma . com-m - - ooo.oa . ems-NH - oom.w . m u u u u u u u u « Ino>d u 1wnapssam mo comm “ owmnobd u .wnflpnmanymo spam ” page»: ensue“ “ weapnsam Adana " " weapnmaa Adam - Rosanapnoe- .HH canoe Table 12. Analyses of variance of yield, moisture content, and lodging percentage. Saginaw County experiment. : Degrees : Source of variation : of : Mean squares freedom : : MoiSture : Yield : content : Lodging Hybrids 3 1270.6** 179.o** 58.1 Replications 3 3h.l lh.6 32.1 Error (A) 9 73.8 8.1 17.6 Methods of planting l 1h57.0** 0.3 0.6 Methods 1 hybrids 3 151.8 2.1 23.6 Error (B) 12 69.1 1.5 9.5 Rates of planting 2 109h5.h** 3.2 uu.o* Rates x hybrids 6 35.9 2.6 11.2 Rates 2: methods 2 60. 3* 0.6 2.1 R x H x.M 6 hh.8 2.5 1h.8 Error (0) #8 17.2 2.2 9.3 Total 95 * Significant at the 5% level of probability when tested with experimental error. ** Significant at the 1% level of probability when tested with experimental error. -35- Increasing the population from 12,h50 to 16,600 plants gave 1A.? bushels or 16.1% more corn per acre. When the population was doubled, 8,300 to 16,600 plants, yield increased 36.8 bushels or 53.3%. The relationship between yield and rate of planting was not as straight for the Saginaw County experiment as it was for the Ingham County experiment (Figures 1 and 3). The regression, I = 33.9 + .oouax, indicates that yields increased h.h bushels per acre with each increase of 1,000 plants within the range 8,300 to 16,600. A stand of h,150 plants would be expected to yield 52.2 bushels per acre if the same relationship between yield and rate of planting existed. Likewise, populations of 20,750 and 29,900 plants per acre would yield 12h.2 and lb2.5 bushels per acre, respectively. These two populations would provide five and six plants per hill or one plant every 8.h" and one plant every 7". L The interaction, rates x methods, was significant when tested with error (C), indicating that in this particular exper- iment the relationship of yield and rate of planting differed depending on the method of planting (Figure 3). The interaction is not significant when tested with the second-order interaction. Assuming comparable soil and climatic conditions in north-central Michigan, yields can be expected to increase as rate of planting increases irregardless of hybrid or method of planting. moisture content. Meisture content of the ears at harvest was not affected by method or rate of planting. The differences between hybrids were expected. -55- Relationship between yield and rate of planting. Saginaw County experiment. Figure 5. ll! )1)! 1|!- !Iau‘nua- y. I .. 1 l d III! 1.1114 11 14 1 M 4 ll) 1|- ) ..|.|.I :1 I .31).)J . I)! l. 4 141 1 _ 7 . . . 117 .a 1. 7. .. _ 4 1 1. 1... . . _ a7 .. 7 7. a . . . . ...-7 1 . 1.17.1.1... . ...... .-.-..-... . . . . . . . .1 1 . A p . . a 7 _ . 7 . 7 L w . . w _ .0 v .. . . .. _ 7 fi 7 . 7 . 7 . 7 -0110.-1-+-.4 + a 14- +1.4. 11 0. 0 s + M ..1 0 .0 . ._ .7 a . . 7 M H . 7 p ... f h .f- 7r .1 Th 0 o 0 1v .v- . I” 0.1 u 1 I 4 1.01-0 -. I - 0.. 1059 .o .0 .1 . 1 a . w 0 I. 7 . _ 7 . 7 . . 0 a .F 7 u ..v + 0 0 .1. 0..7.. » 1 .0. I w . s 0.. ) .1 1 1011+- . 0111-. T I e I 7 . 7 . 7. . 1. 0 . + s o 0 4 - 0 I e 4 _ 0 . t u . ... 7 . p . v 7 f . _ 0 _ v s s w v 0 v . 0 . q 7 . . 0 1 «101-1 0 . .1-1 -. .4 _ s _ . . . . . . t . o 0 . 1 u . .. . . . 0 0 7 + I . ... .v m 1 1 011+ - I s 0 o . . . - . o o 1 . 7 . s a . . u . 7 7. ~ 1 0 s 7a + v 1 -.- 0 1+ 11 II -+ . a . . _ . 7 7 _1 +- 0 v .. H! w p 0 .01 6 e1 v * 0 .. I A . . a 0 0 . a . . 7 . . . 7 7 . 7 + . . 7 7 7 7 . . .. . . - a - . . - L - 1 7. . s . s _ _ a . . 7 . . . .r L 1.1.4.111 Y .- 4 0 0 a 0 ... p - 1. 1A 7 _ _ M1 T L1 . 7 . .0 01 0 f .AY el .+ .011 .1- ? #1.). 1.9 ..1 .v .- I. )1) 1o. 0 61.41.11 1H- 19.1.0.1. 101)? 0.1 .v -o la - Is )9 ['11) _..-.fi 7. . . . 7 7 . ..|. 1. ..01- :11 ...1 I111 . ...1 $1.0 911.71 1 .. 1.11411011101- 1-. .1 _ .. . 0 . HI)I.! 1.!1 -1)1l¢11|Y11-!1 m1 .111) 01)! .41 101 I'll). + .7) ..o .1' - 1f- 141 0.) 1 1 . 7 . +1111 011.- 0. .7 m 3. 11 1 . p _ . o c 0 1 a 01 o 0 0 + 7— .0 e 0. .7 1 .0 10 0 4 10 0 0 A . . . . 7 7 . 11 0 11 . .1 ~ 1 - h . . L s 0 + . v 11 1+1 .7. 41 01101 10 1 41 . d. a . 7 . 7. s .1 . p . . ... .1 1.1 I -s 1 a- -a-.L-1.7- 4 I 1 . a 7 7 . _ 7 _ 7 7 _ _ 7 .. 1 . 1 7 1 -. 7 a 11.. .1 . . .- 111... 7 . . R . . 7 7 .fi F r. r 7* . 1 0 .. . u o Q 0 w 0 . .0. _. - 0 . . 0 1 . . _ . w 0... L11.) ..rI-1+1.101 91. a V w +. h . 7. w . 0 + 0 v 7 7 _ . d .+ +11 _. ...1 _ ..r o a7 0 . A .0 0 e 0 + .1 0 19-19 7 . 7 _ . 7 7 . . 7 .. .- - .1. 7 1 . - . 7 . .. . . . ._ . . s o _ _ _ 7 ._ 7 ..41 .&i . 7. ~ 0 .9 10 O Iv .4 Ir! .9 .V a . 9 011.?- ..1 1 H 7 7 . D + * 7 e. 7 u w h a * . + 0 . e 0 I .. w 07 16. -_v 0 7 . . 7 _ .. 0 o. 0 . 1 _ _ 7 _ . . . h 7 . 0 7- -§ 0 a . . r > L n v . 1 7 . 7 7 7 . 17.1 .. .w v .1 771.111.111.1- 0 ... s . . .s . v p . 77 . 1 I 1 0. .r 1 l 1.7 e ...... a. 1. 1111011011..) - - .1 j 0 1. -If.1s1loll¢)0)117 1. JV 1 F 4 111 )lmwll! 4 1 14. .1 1 . . L n . 0 0 o . _ 0 0 . 1 I .- 7 . . F _ m 7 . k 7 * .0 9 h v v . 0 a . v 7. e + . . s I 0 7.17141 7’? 0 n . a m _ . 1..1.. _ r L . w h s . . 0 0- .v _ . 7 . . 7 7 u _ . o o 1 .... o _ 1 . .0 o 1 0119 7 o _F . a . . 7 u 7 . . _ H 7 + 1 7 1. . 141 L1 77 *1 01 *1; p s .. .7 1 s .4 * . . . 711.7111.- 1. . 7 . 7 . a . n .y ‘11. 7 . F + .1 w 0 b 0 . . . . _ . e 1e 1 1. 0 0 e V 1 0 . s .0 . 0 H 0 .. H 7 7 0. . . 7. H1 » 7 r . 7 . . . . L. + s 7. o s . . + .7 . 7. r 1. . . 7. m 7 4 10 a 1 a a ....7 7 p . 7 .. ..1--7.-7...111.1- 1 . . . , 7 . a . 7 d 7 __ 7 . _ . . . . . . 7 . . . 7 . . . . . h _ f h 7 . . 0 71 k . . 7 a a v 7 0 o u L. 7. t. 7 .7. e . 0 v 1 . . 1 1a1 . a . 7 _ 11 .11 - .7 . . . 0 0. 1 . 1+ 1.1.? 11.11 1- 7 . . s 7 7 .. t . . 1 . 11. - 1).. - - .- 1 ..v. 5. )1. .411 4 . . _ _ 1. 0. . 7 . 1 I701 1011f.) 101 1.0-11.! L111 T )1111 ITMI .10.. 0.. 7.1 1, -. ‘ ..Ti... . - 1.01 1.1-! 1).. 01 1.1 10). Y 4 .011 y 1.0. 1 111 101 . __ #1)) I114.1||+))10|)F1 -+. )1 La) 1!). 1 . 110113115.) )1 1 ll 1 16 .! )1! .4 l— 7 . H . . “1 p 7 + h . e - A v ‘1 16 7 w 0 01 1011+ 0 v m - 0 1? 1e .1 a a _ _ . 7 . . r .. 7 . .9 7 0 . 1 _ . . 7 . 7 _ 7 T v . v _ h + 1» 7 4 w 01 a. 1 1T 0 w 1 .0 0 0 v1 01 L. «.1 a 0 + s e a a w a 7 u 7 . 7 . .v -. . 7 7 0 a . .0. ,7 .a .7 ----.7711.-- .... (17.... ...y. ..7. _ , 7.. _ 7- - .... 1 r _. . .. r r . 1.... . . . . 7 17 . , . 7 ._ _ . . _ 7 e s a _ _ 7 .7 . .. . 7 . s 1 . $1-1, . .fl 1 1.. 7. . _ _ , 7 a . 7 _. . . . . . . .7 1 . 7 7 . 7, r S 1 . . . . . . . . . . H . _ a _. .1-;.1... .... 7-..7....7 .7 _ ....7....... .d. 17-... .... ... ...-a...- . _ _ 7 . .7 .. - . .- Y 0 e 9.. 1 . - . 7 _. . 7 .1 II V1-11-I77110110-.+ .1 .r. v . +7 .0 ... 0 -. .7. .7 . 7 p .y 7 . n L 7 1 1 1 1 1L. LI 0'17 1. . 1 1 - - ”)6 -)|v..|.0|111 11.110.11.01 +11T111Ir-Iollfl 1 A . 1 ¥ 17 1r 1 0 k 4 Ir- -r .31.!) 71 1+ (1 I? 14 . 47 . < 41 47 3 1 . . . _ 7 . . . . - - 1 II)- 0.1% 7 1 . 11 . U . 7 a . 7 1. . 7 7 7 r 77.- 1 as. d. . 7 . . 7 . 7. 7.11.. s .. -. 1 1 1 7. 4 -. . 1 q + 7 . .. . 7 _ . w v T e . . 7 . fL-i 1. 1 . . .- ....7 a .r . ..-». ... . .7 7 . . .. . 7 . , _ . , 7 . . . . , _ . _ _. 7 . . . s 1. -. ...1. - _ 7 . 7 14 _ . . . . 7 7 . 7 h M 7 0. 0.- 17 V .F + . .v v . § .7. .0 7. h w . fi .0 a 0 a 07 1. . _ _ 7 _ . . 7 r. ... .. 1_-l . . s 0 . 1 I1. . 7 . _ 7 . _ M . . _ . 10.. ...1-1.17....7 .1.7_7.11.... ..7 171.. ._ 7..-..1711- 7.. 37.711.17.71. ...... ....r.1_.._...1. - . _ . . a _ _. . . . 7 . . a a . I7. . .- . 1 7 . . _ . R 7 _ . _ v v .1 s. 0 y 10 .. 0 - . 1 0 a . + .7 . . 7 _ . F . . . - 1 - 101... .. .9 .a .... . s 4 o + 0 0 v . . . . 7 h . v r v e o c 0 . 0 A 4 a . _ _ . . _ 7 .7- 111-177 . 7. . .. .7 . 7 .. . .1. 7 . . . . 7 . . 1. . w -. 1 . . .. 7 7 .- . . 7 _ _ _ 8 _ -1111pl-T-I-Il. + 11141-141; . . 7 . . _ 7 _ . . 7 7 .+ #- )F + 171*) a .- ...-101110. .1 1V ...1-#111». 10. II ll)4)l!...4.lAT-+.n 11‘.- .v fit-.4 . . . 010111011 1 II )4- I - . . . . i F )Y 1 7 _ 1+1 I.v.11011-Y f v .- I. If. .19... +- . 7fi IA! a . 7 - o s - Y ‘1 1 1 . 7 , h .1 . v. e e A r v 0 o o . p a A 10 7 . . 7 4 . . . +- .1 . + + 1.1+ 1&1 0111 1 01- I. k 1 . s. . s .7 L. .y % r. _ a . 1... -. . _ s 7 i 7 7 . 7 7 11-11.7111,. .. ..s . .. . . . . .. .7. - .. . . _ A _ _ 7 ..r. . 7.- 7 . _. 1.11, -.-1 1.1.-- 7 7 . _ _ _ . _ 1H- 7 _ 1 0 Y1) 011F111). L)1)11L.1 .Y- L). *1 .a1.-..11.v ... L . 0 1.1 I. +. . s v s. 1 _ _ _ .7 d . . M .11. 1.. . .7. 1- L ... -. . s 7. 171-171 + 1. 1 . . . 7... -11. a . _ 7 7 U . _ 7 .7 s .1 1. 7 1 . . 7 +1. .. 1.4 11-111. _7 _7 .... -1: . ... 6.. e 7 1L-)- .0- .y .. + .4 0. . ... + fl1l.’ « ¢ . 0. 0 L11? 7. ..0 _ a. r 7 n u _ . — _ . « 7+ 5 e. . F is. r L +.-1.v. 0 e1 1 1 L .I s 4 h 0 0 0 .17 7 _ _ . . . w o k. L1 u 0 1 0 . s a . . 7 7 . . . . fi . . . . a k 1 + e F a .0 .1 A —. _ 7 7 1 .11 7 0.1101 .» 01 1 .V ..r F r f Y L 10.1 1011+ 1%.... k u 0 s v . r . . . . _ 1r 4).-...!) r 7 1 v . 1|.I1I4IIQI). 41.11)) If). 7 s I _ > 1'1 171) + )’ )11IIL ' L A) 11 d 1 1 .7 .1 . 7 _ 1 17 11 - .1 v 1 . . .- a .L + 1 A , mu 7 _ 1. L 7 7 171 . 4 1.1 . 1 . a 1 1 _ . 7 . 7 . .. .. . _ 1 h. .. . - 7.111%. 1.. . . . . . 7 1 ...-.1. . . 1 . 4 . 7. . ..11 a I. . . .. 1 T1 +1.1 . . . 7 1 . . 7r . . .. ... . . a 7 7 . . £11.”.- 1.1i_1.1 - I 7... 1.. fl 7 7 . -. H 7 H1. _ ’7 7+ . ._ 7. 1 ...1-7. I 1 .7. 1. .. . -.- . . | .. . . . . 7 . . . _ _ ... . 1 - .. . - . 1-I1 .0 .0. - - 1 11 . w 7 . . _ _ . _ _ 7 _ . 9 . e .- .F- F 0 I #11? fl- ? 9. pl 0 .1 1.7 k 1 1+ *+ >1 -+ $11 814. lo 0 f . 7 _ ')1+1 1%) 0. . .9 . 14 ..+ r. +- 0111311.?) +. 161.1% .V -v .A ..O a .0 11 W T 11.1 r e o +. 0.. _ _ . A] ..n AV 7 7 . h . _ 7 7 7 .— _ 7 _ Ar _ e 0. .0) IF 1h- .-!|| ’Ilf 1+1 h 1!. 19 v 4 17 . n . . _ _ 7 _ . . _ 7 . . - 1. o r .r .- 0- w v . 1. . . 7 . . . .. l.. 1 1. . . . . +IIM . 11%Illsl IAv)..+. 1&7: 1 L1. 4711+- .v. [Aw-v. % H 8. 0.. ...—1.1_!1.- '- o * 10 I) .> 0 Q 10 .L-IILm- .9. L. .0 «1:. r A 1.71% a a e 0 . . Q 7 . _— 1h . 7 w . 7 T T Q.- 60+)I01I 11+)! ...OIIIF .91.).lo-1‘ 14 I _ a . . 7 . . 7 . . 7 . . . o a I . a . . 1 e .a :0.- .I 1 1 I7 . 7 . , .7 7 . ,. . 171..-.-. ...-T1... .. 17..) _ . _ . _ 114.. ......r .- 7. ._ 7H1 7 7 7 ., . , . 7. . 7 7 , _ 7- -. 11- . - 77. . .7 .. -1 .-.-.1711; r3121..-.....7-..-111.-. P. 7f 7 . 1P h 7 P h j .7 + .1+ 8. » I441). )1) - 11.01.101.110! 1.9 1.01 1.11 4|.I4..)|0)§1|L)0I 1AT )7?) I 4 7. Av . + u + A h .. A 1. .0. V )- 7911+ 1+ 1.1 1‘ IO 4 .. . .1 a J” _ n 7 . . 7 . 7 _ .- v. 1- 1. -. L. 4 111-. -. 0 1.1 1 ... .01 .0 .Q ..7 t1 ... . . .7- ..-. 7 + H -7 . ...1-+1117- . a .1 .7 .- 7 . . . 7 1 ... . . . . 7 . .. 7. s . 1 s _ 17- _ 7 _ 1 1. . ,7 _ - . +1 . 1 7 1.1. 11-- -. w _ 7 7 . w . _ 7 m . 7 7 . 7 u 0 .f h . .. m. . 01 7-. I.) 101- 1r 1. i. i}. u- . 0.1 l 1 .0 1 A . . _ c a .. r 4 .0 .0. + 1 . ..+1L.1L_1 171.7 L..- +.ILI.1+I.. .-+-». 0. 7 0.1 .- .4. v H v a IT . 1 _ . 7 . A . a _ 7 . 7. 0- m 7 s .71 o 7‘ 1 s -. A71 . R1 1 . .0 . 0 -I-L.1+ 4 .0 s :4 7 _ _ . _ 1 . . . - . ...r - .. . _ . . v _1 1.11 1 0 .. 14. 7- .1 - F d 7. . F 7" 1 a Y. _I 1' L1 0 .F f 0. 0 . a + o. 7 +1 0 L- 771 0. a F + 1’ . 7 p7 _ _ m s . . 1 .. -%I I 0 k -+ .0 .10. 10 A _ +11% . 7 4 _ 7 . . 7 7 _ _ 7 .7. .r 1 .1 +111. ...1 . .. h.- . . . . 7 .1 .7 _ . . 1% h 7 ...7. . -.a .. . .... 1.1 a .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . 11 .- 1 .. - . . _ 7 7 _ . _ 7 . h r- . .. .7- .1-1 1|. -_ 11 .- 1 1 1111. 110111-4191) .. 11 _ t H 1 1 1 c a #11 1 4 11 17 111.1 1 1 1 7.1 1 1 . 7 .. 1.7 171 . . 4 . . . 7 _ 7 W _ . k. 1 u 7 o 0 1 f I a. w o. 0.. iv 0.. A. .171 10 . J. A. 1 o 1 14. 1' IA. 4 4 A . 7 . . ..I1 . 17 _ *1 17 1b . r n h |1|10l 10 b7 . .70 . 7. #1 F1 0 F- o 0 ...1 .wl . .0. 1 + . 0 ..7 0 . _ . . . . . . 1*. 0. 4 101 r If 19 101 A 0 . . . 7 , . 7 . I 0 w 7 .7 + L. . ...-A q 0 0. A .1v-19 ... a + -¢ 10 10 -a _ _ _ . _ f . ...- . .v. V. 7 ... . 1 .. I1 .1. L . p . 7-1 7 0- 1 ...-+1.11 .7- ... 4 r . ._ . 1 7 _ _ . -7 T. 7 .41-l?- -1¢.)1!. .J)I.f . . . _ .4 . 0. L71 . _. M H . .P w #1 1% F. _ . . o I L 14. O. 11 a7) a . -L a s. .4 1. 01* 7+ J. .. 7. v 91411 7 . 7 . )L! ..- 7 .1 1&3 ...1 v .o 1. .0 .. .0 0 . O. Y .01. 4 V . | .1 .0- 4 . . _ . .. . 7 7 - - 1. . .r r1110 L ....- 0.. . ...: + v A .- ..f 1.1-0. .1 r 1. .. .01. v . . 7 +10. 1411+ .41 IM “1 .0 > w v u _ . + . . 7 kl“) #7111071. . L 1 ...-.1 ...1-A. 1.. 4 1.1171h .+ 4.1- (.4 +11 . . 1% .f I0 1110 I. 17 t r III. Isl-+1 + -.7+..)1)-1F-|+ .17.. 11.111...) L. . -1)|4-...1 11. 4 01. -101 7.1 11.70- 0. .. 10.1 1 7 . h .7 . . 4 .. . . .. 7 1. s . 1 7 _ . _ . . . . _ . . _ 1%. ..r. .v H- +11. 1 0- -. 0 u L 4 _ . .. . _ _ I - | .0. r .9 - a a. v 10 L. 1A 0 .w 0 + >- v o 7. .1 771 lo 0 . . 7 7 . . . . . 71.01.11? ..t7... |+. F. 0.- + v . 0. v u _ _ 7 . . 7 . 7 . L" + .. . 7 a 0 17 * .a 4 14 b . m In 0. « .O -10 . L .0 .+ I 01 10 1-4 |01|I+-1Lv1_ 7 l. .+ . I .1 A + -. ...1 ..T .+ v t L .. r 1.1 O + c . . .- 0 0 a . a .0. ..v. 1.71.111 1T 7 -. . . .. 7 L .. _ . . _ . . H . . 77 .7 . 7 .- . . . . ...-.11 . . +1.... +1 . .. .. . .- . . . . . .0 o - w L 1 1.)... . . 0. .- A O _ _ . . ” T-L..-10.1L1 .|0.1.1+I. ... 3 +111. . k .1 L . 1 s 1 0 s A 0 |._~ 01 . . . 7. . . I er #104. . h . a a . w 0 e 7 1 o . .11 . 0 L _ . _ _ .. . .v a 0 0 1 111 .1- . . 7 . _ 7 . 1 . If 0 0 . 1 .7. L. 1w o 0 10. 51 >- 7. 1 w . u . 7 0 . . 7.1.41.1».1? L. 1?. .+I .1 0 10 ) o . _ . . . . A .1 .t ... .1. 11111-1 IL- )iio-IIQJiOIIQ .1: J )1.) I?!) 1.911)); L r 1 11 11.)!)‘11 til-011L111? )1-011101111301) . 1713171 . 1r 1 1 P 1 . a . . . u . . .l n 0 s a .0 7 . . 7 1b - w _ I . r - . . w J.- .+)IAY .77 L & v a 0 . w v 0 . . . . 7 _ 1 7 1011 F11 1117. 10- .1 1 ... «- . .1 1 . a 1 1. 1 .- . L. . 1 7 + . . . . . . - I. 7 1. . . . . . h- . . . . H 7 11101-1011. 1 101 _ _ _ 7 . _ _ . . o 0 .91 10. | .0 0 o a 1.. -0 .101 L 7 . 7 _ . . . 7 . _ * 0 H 0 Y .0 y .... 0. -. O .0 I v a. 1. 0. 17 m. . . I L 7' l.- .7181.. u- o 0 . .0 . . . _ . a . . . 1 .0 I e A 0 0 0 . 6 Q 1 1 . . . .- . . (1.9 1.791% +- ..A 17*. . . 1+ .0 0 W 0 _ 7 h . 4 fl . L7 L1 w. .7 0 1 s .a. . 0 7 1..T + a 0 11.10 b. 10 0 4 hi .0 | 0. s h . . .1 . . . . . 1 1 1 1 9 .- 1 . 1 . . 1 . .01 .1 1... . . 7 . . . 7 117. +1.» .47- 1. 1. L. .+. 1.. 7.1111171... 7. 7 + ...-.... . 1 H 1 - 1- . w 7 . .. . + . 7 . . . . .7 .7 - -. . . .. 7 . ._ .7 . .7 . - . L 11111. 1 .7 . . . 7 7 _ . _ 1 1 . . . 1 1.1 1 0 . . . 7 . 0 1. f + a. .. . ..- . . . . . 1 1 _ 7 . . 7 1171-11-; . 71.117.11.11 1. -+ +1.3 7. I 4 7 .. ... 1 .. -. _ . a . . a _ + _ 7 _ .. . . ..-. . 1 1 .1 L 1- - 1.. -. .7 1.111111 -1L_. 1- 1111-11117 . . _ _ . . .. . 1 111‘ .1. V . 1. .' -.. . .01 118-1). 1 1) 1. 1 .. . . . . . 7... 7.1. .71 7a.. ...-.71--.---7-1-1--.-..- - .- .. -.1 . -7 . . _ ,7 7. .1 -.. . 7 . . . . . _ . . . .- 1 -. I - L . . I I I . .. _ 0 _ . _ . . . . . u . . . h v 0 - 1. a J 9 0 s . 7 0 a . . . 1-7-1-7.-..-7s-1111.7.-+.7.7..-+._1.-....- .7 .7 . .7 7, . 7.7.. . . 7 . . . 7 . . . _ _ . . . . . 7. .. p u . 7 . . 1 - - I . . 7 . 7 _ 1 . . -. - . . . . . . 1 . - . . , . _ 7 . . . 7 . 1 t -0 a +1114- 4. .17 701+1v-10 7 . w . 7 . _ . 7 . .. .7 L 01 0 1 0 . - v _. 011% 1k 7 a . + .7 0 I. + 410 1 . . . . . 1 m qu -1. 17 .7 ... . .r f 1:1. v. .... 7 . . . . . ._ 1 1 .... _ . . . 1 1 1 . _ . _ .7 7 1 1 1 . . - 0. . . . 1+. 7 .7! 14. .. . . _ u h 7 0 - 0 a .w r .. p r ...1 .91.) 1’ m 14- + 1 .c r .“1 H e . . .7. L o 7 — 711011» 1.1 I¢_ .v -P (411+. 1? .17. L ..Q :1 .0. 4. .01 1 .0. 0 ¢ ‘1 o .0 p . 1 .771 o 11 .u M . . 7P P 1F L7 H _ t P H 1r H a r r 1.1 u 1 1.? 0|) I’I av If 1?- II. '10 )1, § |\.III.II’ 114.... I. .‘Llsllfrll I4 1? 1.. 1.1 .r p . 7 . 7 p 1 v F U a 4 . 1W . . .r 1 17 r 1 1 1 . 1 L . 1 7 1 1. . 771 1 H 17 . _ . a — _ n 7 . 7 . . w. . . . . . . r . . . . . . . . . . . . . . h - y .- 0 o 0 s s1 . . . v1 101 - . v k -+ .. 0 .4 . *1. 4 . . +117 7 . a . . s . I . .w - Q . . 7 7 7 . . . . 7 . .- . . 1. -.1 177 a .. A ._ _ _ + 7. . 7 0' . _ _ 70v 7 7 . .7. 1 7 . . . - Z . . _ . .a .1 . . - . 7 . . . .- - .. 1 . . a . . 11 s 0 _ . r _ . .. . . . . . . 1 .77....771... _ fi7777 8......- 7 ....77...7_. . . . v . .. .. 0 o 0 7 . _ 1 . . 310-110....- -H v .0 a a + . 1 0 1 iii A. a 4 1 I— - . o _> 7 + +1q 47 + .. 0 h u M . w . . . o. . . a . . 1 . 7 .7 1 w o w 4 . 1112+. I 14 l ... A f I+ . k1+ IF. 0. v w 7.1 10- .V a F.- k-- 1w * o 1 . o e. 74 + 7 . _ 7 y . IF- . . . r 1 . . 9 1*.) -I c 0 10. 10.1.10. 1F|If11)- $1.18 1%. .1071 alt-11117 11111.1. .1 _ 1. 71 , . _. . 7 r 1.-. .1. . 1-11. ...-.4. .1..+ .- -. 1 ._. ... . s . . _ 7 _ _ . 1 IIO- _ LTIIO: |.v 1.91 . . 1+ 1+1l§| IT 1 1 10.1111) 1.! 4111+: 141 10. 1 0.- v - 110) u . 7 . ~ 1 0 0 v 1 v 1.0 . d . .h h 0 * .v w J t. . . fl . 7 . . 7 _ _ _ . _ ... 0 o e r . . . 1 .. . . a . Y 79107.11.- 1b h .0 .01..) a a v a 101 + w .7f .3 0 .79 .s .. a +1 0 a 1 7 7. . v + ... s a H _ 7 a 7 . s h a .0 a 0 v . Iv- , .0 .... 1+ -e. +141 0 7 . . . 7 7 _ . .7 . .. . s - .. . . 1. . . 7 7 . . _ _ . . 1.1.. F141-) + p F 0 k .1” .r w ...-1 1 A. +- . s F 0.1 L a ~ .7 . a . fl . . 11w + + + _ 7 7 d . . . .— r I. 7 7 F 17 .7 w ..r 7- +. 0 1011+ . . n 7 _ . . . . 1w .. 1T . s . 1 . . . + 1 0 . 14 n 0 1. . . . _ . 7 . 7 +11+|.v . 0+... . . ..4 701+¥ ++ .41» 171 w a. o a A s. 1- + + a s a . w 4. 7 q H _ fl 7 7 a _ . . M — a. 7. .. .. a b. 4 07 ~ 4 0 + 1 7 . 7 . _ . 7 7 . _ 7 w . a . 0 i . . . .. 7 -H7.._.7..-_.+.. 7.7.1717. .... 7.7.... . 77...... .- 71. .... - 1.- .7.__.7771_ F.7.17 _ .17 77. .11--. . -1 -1- -.-..- -37- None of the interactions was significant. Differences in moisture content were due to varietal characteristics in this experiment. Lodging. Rate of planting was the only factor significant- ly affecting lodging in the Saginaw County experiment. Popula- tions of 8,300, 12,u50, and 16,600 plants averaged 2.3, 1.6, and 3.9% lodging, respectively. The difference between the first two rates of planting was significant at the 5% level of proba- bility. The differences between the first and third and between the second and third rates were highly significant. The main effect, rate of planting, is not significant when tested with the first-order interaction, rates x hybrids, indicating that rate of planting is not likely to affect lodging for all hybrids in the north-central part of Michigan. Ear weight. As in the Ingham County experiment, ear weight decreased as rate of planting increased. Two Locations Combined Two hybrids, Michigan 513 and Ohio M15, were common in both the Ingham County and Saginaw County experiments. The data for the May 5 planting in Ingham County and the data for the Saginaw County experiment (planted May 11) were subjected to an analysis of variance to determine the effect of location. Average agronomic data are presented in Table 13 and the analyses of variance in Table 1h. -33- 04. 3. 3. 3. 3. on. nm. on. 3. $985 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. on. 04. 3. mg 38 .04. Na. 04. «4. m:. mm. mm. mm. «4. man .noaz nausea :a ham meng Hm: Hun mo.m 4m.m cm.o oa.m o:.~ om.m m~.o mm.~ ~4.H ammpo>4 Qua .3.~ omé cm.~ mo. mm.~ $3 cm.~ 2.4 3: 030 00.: 4:.m mm.w Hm.m oa.¢ m>.m No.5 om.m no.a mam .nofiz umwunmopmmquwmvoa c~.m~ mo.o~ mu.mm sm.m~ o¢.m~ m4.o~ 45.0w mo.o~ mo.om ommpm>< Ho.om Hm.om mm.0m mm.om Ho.am Ho.Hm Hm.om mm.0m om.am mas oano 3.3 omém nmém 5.15 amém “3.5m mm.wm Hmém omfim mam .noda Ru pmm>pmn pm mnmm aw pampcoo ounumwoz 0.5m ~.Hm o.ooa o.~m o.au m.~m H.mm o.mm u.mo amauo>< 0.3 93 m.~3 Numo 9E. Numm H63 .13 5.2. mg 030 4.Hm m.mm H.moa n.0m H.oo 0.05 H.mo 0.0m 5.mm man .20“: wuspmaoa xm.wa pm when hmaxmaonmsn ca camaw " ” oow4oa u WNOqNH " Omo.m “ “ OOHAQH " w~o«ma u owedm " mwu u owmuo>< " u u " owwho>< “ u u " vannhm Ino>