Yield of forage, grain and biomass in eight hybrids of maize with different sowing dates and environmental conditions

Santiago López, Ulises; Rosales Nieto, César A.; Santiago López, Elizabeth; Santiago López, Norma; Preciado Rangel, Pablo; Palmo Gil, Arturo; Real, Daniel; Santiago López, Ulises; Rosales Nieto, César A.; Santiago López, Elizabeth; Santiago López, Norma; Preciado Rangel, Pablo; Palmo Gil, Arturo; Real, Daniel

doi:10.22319/rmcp.v9i1.4403

Servicios Personalizados

Revista

Articulo

Indicadores

Citado por SciELO
Accesos

Links relacionados

Similares en SciELO

Otros
Otros

Permalink

Revista mexicana de ciencias pecuarias

versión On-line ISSN 2448-6698versión impresa ISSN 2007-1124

Rev. mex. de cienc. pecuarias vol.9 no.1 Mérida ene./mar. 2018

https://doi.org/10.22319/rmcp.v9i1.4403

Article

Yield of forage, grain and biomass in eight hybrids of maize with different sowing dates and environmental conditions

Rendimiento de forraje, grano y biomasa en ocho híbridos de maíz con diferentes fechas de siembra y condiciones ambientales

Ulises Santiago López^a^b

César A. Rosales Nieto^b^*

Elizabeth Santiago López^c

Norma Santiago López^d

Pablo Preciado Rangel^e

Arturo Palmo Gil^a^{^ᵼ}

Daniel Real^f^g

^{^a}Universidad Autónoma Agraria Antonio Narro, Periférico Raúl López Sánchez y Carretera a Santa Fe, Torreón, Coahuila, 27054. México.

^{^b}Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales, Agrícolas y Pecuarias. Campo Experimental San Luis, San Luis Potosí, San Luis Potosí. México.

^{^c}Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales, Agrícolas y Pecuarias. Campo Experimental Saltillo, Zaragoza, Coahuila. México.

^{^d}Colegio de Postgraduados. Campus Montecillo. Carretera México - Texcoco km 36.5, Montecillo, Texcoco, Estado de México. México.

^{^e}Instituto Tecnológico de Torreón. Torreón, Coahuila, México.

^{^f}Department of Agriculture and Food, Western Australia, Australia.

^{^g} Centre for Plant Genetics and Breeding, The University of Western Australia, Australia.

Abstract:

The aim was to evaluate yield of forage, grain and biomass and fibre content of eight hybrids of maize (Rio-Grande, Arrayan, Genex 778, Narro 2010, Advance 2203, DAS 2358, P4082W and HT9150W) during two sowing seasons (spring/summer) for two consecutive years at La Laguna in Torreon, Mexico. Once the grain progression of the kernel milk line was ⅓, green forage yield (GFY), dry matter (DM), neutral detergent fiber (NDF) and acid detergent fiber (ADF) were determined. When the corncobs were fully mature, grain yield (GY) and biomass production (TBP) were determined. Weather conditions were recorded during the experiment. The results indicated that maximum temperature was higher and rainfall lower in the summer sowing and second year. Spring sowing had significantly higher yields of GFY, DM, GY and TBP compared to summer sowing. The first year of study showed significantly higher yields regarding GFY, GY and TBP, but FDN, FDA, DM content compared to the second year. The best hybrid for GFY and DM was Rio-Grande; for FDN and FDA was Advance 2203; for GY was HT9150W and finally for TBP was Arrayan. Regardless of the hybrid used and the sowing season, production of maize depended on external factors such as maximum temperature and rainfall; therefore, producers need to consider sowing in spring to avoid the negative effect of high temperatures on plant development.

Key words: Zea mays L.; Sowing season; Hybrid; Yield

Resumen:

El objetivo fue evaluar la producción de forraje, grano, biomasa y contenido de fibra de ocho híbridos de maíz (Rio-Grande, Arrayan, Genex 778, Narro 2010, Advance 2203, DAS 2358, P4082W and HT9150W) durante dos épocas de siembra y dos años consecutivos. Cuando el grano estaba en estado lechoso-masoso, se determinó la producción de forraje en verde (PFV), materia seca (MS), fibra detergente neutro (FDN) y ácido (FDA). Cuando la mazorca estaba madura, se determinó la producción de grano (PG) y la biomasa (BIO). Adicionalmente, en el área de estudio, se obtuvieron datos ambientales (temperaturas y precipitación). Los resultados indican que la máxima temperatura fue superior y la precipitación menor en la siembra de verano y en el segundo año. La siembra de primavera fue superior para PFV, MS, PG y BIO (P<0.05) en comparación con la siembra de verano. El primer año de estudio fue superior al segundo en PFV, PG, BIO (P<0.05) pero no en FDN, FDA y MS. El mejor híbrido para PFV y MS fue Rio-Grande; para FDN y FDA fue Advance2203, para PG fue HT9150W y finalmente para BIO fue Arrayan. Independientemente de la variedad y de la fecha de siembra, es evidente que la producción de forraje y grano de maíz dependen de los factores externos temperatura y precipitación; por lo tanto, los productores necesitan considerar la siembra de primavera como una alternativa para incrementar la producción y evitar el efecto negativo de las altas temperaturas sobre el desarrollo de las plantas.

Palabras clave: Zea mays L.; Fecha de siembra; Variedad; Producción

Introduction

Maize (Zea mays L.) is after wheat and rice the most important crop in various parts of the world¹ and has the ability of adaptation to different climatic and soil conditions²^,³^,⁴. In industrialized countries its uses are mainly for forage production, raw material for the production of processed foods, and recently, for ethanol production⁵^,⁶^,⁷.

The yield and quality of maize depend on soil fertility⁸, crop management⁹^,¹⁰ and genetics¹¹^,¹². Forage maize is considered an excellent food for ruminants for its high energy and protein content¹³. However, in Mexico, maize silage has a lower energy value for lactation because previous breeding focussed on increasing forage yield rather than forage quality for dairy production¹⁴.

In La Laguna area, a dairy basin in Mexico, more than 30,000 ha of maize are grown under irrigation and about 1,000 ha under rainfed conditions¹⁵. The demand for forage maize in dairy farms, located in this area, is high and there is a need to identify hybrids with both good forage quality and high biomass production potential, because the forage of maize constitutes 30 to 40 % of the daily diet of the dairy cattle¹⁶.

Despite the importance of production of forage maize in La Laguna, there are few reports comparing the quality (crude protein, fiber, and digestibility of dry matter) and yield of commercial hybrids¹⁷^,¹⁸. Seed companies and research institutions are constantly releasing new hybrids to the market; therefore, it is necessary to evaluate them for their production potential under different environmental conditions and thereby to select the hybrids with the best adaptability, yield and chemical composition for animal production. Thus, the objectives were to evaluate: 1) the green forage yield, fiber content, 2) grain yield and 3) biomass yield of eight hybrids of maize (Rio Grande, Arrayan, Genex 778, Narro 2010, Advance 2203, DAS 2358, P4082W and HT9150W) in two sowing seasons (spring and summer) for two consecutive years under irrigation in the dairy basin of La Laguna. The hypothesis was that season, year of sowing and hybrids used do not affect green forage yield, fibre content, grain yield and biomass yield.

Material and methods

Experimental site

The study was conducted in the experimental field of the Universidad Autónoma Agraria Antonio Narro in La Laguna (25° 23' 36.24'' N, 101° 0' 1.8'' W and 1,120 m asl) for two consecutive years (2010 and 2011). In Table 1, presents the average monthly maximum, minimum and mean temperature, heat units and rainfall that occurred during the experimental period.

Table 1 Temperature (maximum, minimum and mean), heat units [HU] and rainfall at La Laguna region during 2010 and 2011*

	2010					2011
Month	Max	Min	Mean	HU	Rainfall	Max	Min	Mean	HU	Rainfall
	Temperature (ºC)				(mm)	Temperature (ºC)				(mm)
Apr	31.7	14.3	23.3	400.8	12.4	35.1	15.0	25.8	475.2	0.0
May	35.4	18.1	27.3	536.6	13.8	35.3	18.0	27.2	534.4	0.6
Jun	35.6	21.7	28.8	564.6	50.4	36.3	21.5	29.7	592.8	0.0
Jul	32.0	21.2	26.4	508.1	102.2	34.3	22.1	28.4	569.8	0.8
Aug	35.1	22.0	28.9	584.7	2.4	35.9	22.7	29.7	609.8	6.4
Sept	31.9	19.4	25.6	468.3	69.8	33.2	18.3	26.4	491.4	1.2
Oct	30.2	11.5	21.2	346.3	0.0	30.9	14.1	22.7	392.8	0.0
Nov	26.2	5.8	15.9	177.0	0.0	26.2	7.9	17.1	212.7	0.2

* For the area of La Laguna, the rainfall recorded in 2010 was within normal range; however, the rainfall registered in 2011 was below normal range.

Hybrids and crop management

Prior to the establishment of the experiments in both years, spatial heterogeneity in soil nutrient status from previous crops were balanced by sowing oats in the fall-winter cycle. Crop rotation profoundly modify the soil environment by reducing the incidence of diseases, pest or weeds and influencing crop growth and yield¹⁹. The soil was prepared with fallow, tracking and levelled, followed by dug furrows at 0.75 m spacing and 0.1 m deep with a plow. The soil is a loamy-sand with a pH of 7.6.

It was evaluated the maize hybrids Rio Grande, Arrayan, Genex 778, Narro 2010, Advance 2203, DAS 2358, P4082W and HT9150W. These hybrids are widely grown in the region because they were tested and released for production areas like this one. Sowings were done on May 4 and July 1 in 2010 and April 13 and June 13 in 2011. The seed was hand-sown at 3 cm depth. In both seasons and years, the sowings were carried out under dry soil conditions, then irrigated to a depth of 10 cm. Two seeds every 20 cm were planted and 23 d later, thinning was carried out to achieve a population of 88,000 plants per hectare²⁰. Additionally, the experiments were hand-weeded 28 d after sowing in both years. The experimental plot, for forage and grain, in each replicate consisted of one central furrow by 3 m (2.25 m²), in order to harvest plants in full competition. Four repetitions of each hybrid were sown. The total plot area for each replicate was 12 m² consisting of four furrows, 4 m long.

During both sowing seasons and years, four irrigations to a 70 cm depth were applied using furrow irrigation system. The irrigation depended on the phenological stage of the crop as described in Table 2. In addition, nitrogen and phosphorus were provided during both sowing seasons and years; 150 kg/ha of nitrogen (Urea [CO(NH₂)₂]; 50% at sowing and 50% before the second irrigation) and 80 kg/ha of phosphorus (fosfato monoamonico [NH₄H₂PO₄]; all at sowing time). Accordingly, to the soil analysis, fertilization with potassium was not necessary. The presence and incidence of pests and weeds were monitored and controlled with several chemical products, using a GIBER^® GM-20 sprayer.

Table 2: Irrigations applied in the crops of the experiments conducted in the region of La Laguna during the years of 2010 and 2011

	2010		2011
Irrigation No.	Spring (das)	Summer (das)	Spring (das)	Summer (das)
1^st	16	21	15	15
2^nd	34	41	38	37
3^rd	52	59	60	59
4^th	78	80	81	80

das= Days after sowing.

The forage was hand-harvested when the grain progression of the kernel milk line was ⅓²¹. This occurred 90 days after sowing (das) in spring 2010; 97 das in summer 2010; 94 das in spring 2011 and 92 das in summer 2011.

Shelling was carried out by hand and the biomass was estimated when corncobs were fully mature. Full maturity was considered when the moisture content of seeds was 12 % measured with a moisture meter (SHORE®). This occurred 136 das in spring 2010; 149 das in summer 2010; and 131 das in both seasons of 2011.

Response variables

In both seasons and years, the following variables were determined: days to male flowering, days to female flowering, plant height, corn ear height, green forage yield, dry matter content, neutral and acid detergent fiber, grain yield, biomass production and distribution of plant organs.

The green forage yield is the addition of weight of leaves and stems plus maize ears, which were harvested and counted separately. The content of dry matter was assessed by taking randomly three whole plants per plot. The samples were sun dried for 3 d and subsequently transferred to a digital oven (FELISA^®) at 65 °C for 24 h. Dry samples were ground in a mill through a 3 mm screen (NOGUEIRA^®). A sub-sample of the dried and ground sample was analysed by the method of Van Soest et al²² to determine neutral detergent fiber and acid detergent fiber.

From the experimental plot it was counted the number of plants and maize ears produced. For the grain yield, all the corn ears were threshed and weighted the grains (kernels). For the agronomic variables of the maize ears, three maize ears per experimental plot were used and the following variables measured: weight, length, diameter and number of rows per ear, number of grains in three rows per ear. Finally, for the agronomic variables of the grains, width, length, thickness, diameter and weight of the corncob and weight of the grain per ear were measured.

Biomass yield and the relative proportion of yield components were obtained when the plants were fully mature; for this, two plants per plot were taken and separated into leaves, stems, corn ear, husks and tassel and subsequently dried at 70 °C in a digital oven (FELISA^®) for 24 h.

The variables assessed in units of mass ≤ 0.5 kg were weighed on a precision balance (0.5 x 0.001 kg; TRANSCELL Technology^®). The variables assessed in units of mass ≥ 0.5 kg were weighed using a digital scale (30 x 0.02 kg; REVUELTA^®). The units of length were measured with a vernier (0.15 m; TRUPER^®) and metal ruler (0.30 m); height of plants and maize ears were measured with a 4 m length metal ruler.

Statistical analyses

The experimental design used in both experiments was a complete block with four repetitions. The model that explains each observation was:

Yij = µ + Ԏi + βj + Єij

Here:

µ represents the general mean;

Ԏi represents the effect of treatment i (i = 1,….t).

βj represents the effect of block j (j = 1,….b);

Єij are the residuals.

Differences among fixed effects (sowing season, year and hybrid) to compare means were analysed by variance (PROC ANOVA; SAS version 9.3)²³ with Tukey test at the same level when statistical difference was detected (P<0.05). The data of the sowing season were combined for the variable year. For the season variable, the data of the years were combined. For the hybrid variable, the data of sowing seasons and years were combined. All two-way interactions among the fixed effects were included in each analysis. Non-significant (P>0.05) interactions were removed from the analysis.

Results

Forage variables and yield, dry matter and fiber content

The interaction among hybrids, year and season of sowing influenced the variables for days to male (P<0.01) and female flowering (P<0.01), whereas for the rest of the variables the triple interactions were not significant (Table 3).

Table 3: Days to male (MF) and female flowering (FF), plant height (PH), corn ear height (CH), weight of fresh plants (FP), weight of fresh corn ear (CF), green forage yield (FY), dry matter content (DM), neutral detergent fiber (NDF), acid detergent fiber (ADF) of eight hybrids of maize sown on two different seasons in two years

	Variables
	MF	FF	PH	CH	FP	CF	FY	DM	NDF	ADF
	Days		cm		t ha^-1				%
Sowing Season/P value	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Spring	76	78^a	227^a	121^a	49.6^a	25.7^a	75.3^a	20.2^a	46^b	23^b
Summer	68	70^a	193^b	103^b	34.3^b	18.6^b	52.9^b	13.7^b	63^a	39^a
Year/P value	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	NS	*	*
2010	70^b	73^b	213^a	110^b	44.3^a	23.9^a	68.2^a	17.5	46^b	24^b
2011	73^a	75^a	207^b	115^a	39.6^b	20.36^b	59.9^b	16.3	55^a	31^a
Year*Season	NS	NS	NS	NS	**	**	**	NS	*	*
Hybrid/P value	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Rio Grande	75^a	77^a	209^bc	111^bc	47.9^a	25.1^a	72.9^a	19.2^a	53^b	30^b
HT9150W	74^ab	77^a	208^bc	105^c	43.6^ab	25.2^a	68.7^ab	17.9^ab	52^d	30^b
Genex778	68^d	71^d	209^bc	123^a	44.3^ab	21.6^b	65.9^bc	16.6^b	58^a	34^a
Arrayan	70^c	72^c	215^ab	112^b	45.2^ab	20.5^bc	65.6^bc	16.8^b	56^ab	31^ab
P4082W	74^ab	76^b	222^a	121^a	43.4^ab	20.9^bc	64.7^bc	16.8^b	57^ab	37^a
DAS 2358	74^ab	77^a	204^cd	111^b	39.3^c	25.2^a	64.5^bc	17.1^b	52^d	29^c
Narro 2010	70^c	73^c	217^a	118^a	42.8^bc	19.5^bc	62.4^c	17.2^b	55^b	30^b
Advance2203	68^d	70^e	197^d	97^d	28.6^d	19.2^c	47.8^d	13.6^c	50^d	27^c
P value Hybrid*Year	**	**	NS	**	NS	**	*	**	*	*
P value Hybrid*Season	**	*	**	**	NS	**	NS	NS	*	*
P value HybridYearSeason	**	**	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS

For the year variable, the data of the sowing seasons were combined. For the season variable, the data of the years were combined. For the hybrid variable, the data of sowing seasons and years were combined.

* P≤0.05; ** P≤0.01; *** P≤0.001; NS P>0.05; NA= not applicable.

ab Values with different superscript differ (P<0.05).

The interaction between sowing seasons and years influenced weight of fresh plants, weight of fresh corn ear, green forage yield and content of NDF and ADF (P<0.05 to P<0.01); however for the rest of the variables the interactions were not significant. Most of the interactions evaluated for hybrids and years differed (P<0.05 to P<0.01); however, plant height and fresh plant weight did not. Similarly, most of the interactions evaluated for hybrids and sowing season differed (P<0.05 to P<0.01); however, ear height, green forage yield and dry matter production were not significant.

Days to male and female flowering, plant and corn ear height, weight of fresh plants and fresh corn ear, and green forage yield and dry matter production differed between years (P<0.01), between sowing seasons (P<0.01) and among hybrids (P<0.01); but dry matter production did not differ between years (P>0.05). The percentage of NDF and ADF among hybrids was significant for year, sowing season and hybrids (P<0.05 to P<0.01).

Grain variables and yield

The interaction among hybrids, year and season of sowing were significant for the variables grain yield (P<0.01), corn ear yield (P<0.01), corn ear diameter (P<0.01) and number of grains per row (P<0.01); whereas the rest of the variables were not significant (Table 4). The interaction between sowing seasons and years were significant for almost all variables evaluated for grain (P<0.05 to P<0.01); however, number of rows per corn ear did not differ statistically between sowing season and between years (P>0.05). Interactions between hybrids and years differed for all the variables assessed (P<0.05 to P<0.01). On the contrary, the interactions between hybrid and sowing season were significant for grain yield, corn ear yield, corn ear diameter and number of grains per row (P<0.01) and the rest of the variables were not significant (P>0.05).

Table 4: Grain yield (GY; kernels), corn ear yield (CY; corn ear [kernels + corncob]), corn ear length (CL), individual corn ear weight (ICW), grain weight per corn ear (GWC), corncob weight (CBW), corn ear diameter (CD), corncob diameter (CBD), number of rows per corn ear (NRC), number of grains per row (NGR) of eight hybrids of maize sown on two different seasons in two consecutive years

	Variables
	GY	CY	CL	ICW	GWC	CBW	CD	CBD	NRC	NGR
	t ha^-1		cm	g			mm		n
Sown season/P value	**	**	**	*	**	**	**	**	NS	**
Spring	9.97^a	11.9^a	17^a	217^a	193^a	29^a	48^a	26^a	15	38.5^a
Sumer	7.2^b	9.8^b	15^b	189^b	154^b	21^b	37^b	20^b	15	32.0^b
Year/P value	**	*	**	NS	**	*	*	*	NS	*
2010	7.9^a	10.8^a	16^a	208	182^a	27.5^a	47^a	25^a	15	36.5^a
2011	6.9^b	9.3^b	12^b	206	165^b	23.2^b	42^b	19^b	15	29.0^b
Year*Season	**	**	*	**	**	**	**	**	NS	**
Hybrid/P value	**	**	NS	**	**	**	**	**	**	**
Rio Grande	9.4^ab	12.3^a	17	216^a	186^ab	29^ab	48^bc	27^a	16^abc	39^a
HT9150W	9.9^a	11.8^a	16	229^a	202^a	29^ab	51^a	27^a	16^a	36^bcd
Genex778	5.5^d	8.2^c	15	112^c	130^c	27^b	45^d	24^bc	15^bcd	36^c
Arrayan	8.9^b	11.8^a	16	228^a	198^ab	31^ab	50^a	27^a	16^ab	35^cd
P4082W	9.4^ab	12.8^a	16	215^a	193^ab	32^a	49^ab	27^a	17^a	38^a
DAS 2358	9.5^ab	11.1^a	17	215^a	189^ab	27^b	46^cd	25^b	15^cd	39^a
Narro 2010	7.8^c	10.3^b	17	208^a	179^b	29^ab	45^d	25^b	14^e	38^ab
Advance2203	7.0^c	8.8^c	16	169^b	150^c	19^c	44^e	23^c	15^de	34^d
P value Hybrid*Year	**	**	*	**	**	**	**	**	*	**
P value Hybrid*Season	**	**	NS	NS	NS	NS	**	NS	NS	**
P value HybridYearSeason	**	**	NS	NS	NS	NS	**	NS	NS	**

For the year variable, the data of the sown seasons were combined. For the season variable, the data of the years were combined. For the hybrid variable, the data of sown seasons and years were combined.

* P≤0.05; ** P≤0.01; *** P≤0.001; NS P>0.05; NA= not applicable.

abcd Letters with different superscript differ (P<0.05).

Almost all variables on grain (grain yield, corn ear yield, corn ear length, grain weight per corn ear, corncob weight, number of grains per row) were significant for by sowing season, year and hybrid (P<0.05). Individual corn ear weight and number of rows per corn ear did not differ between years (P>0.05). Similarly, number of rows per corn ear did not differ between sowing season and hybrid did not influence the length of the corn ear.

Biomass variables and yield

The interaction among hybrids, year and season of sowing were significant for almost all the variables for biomass and its components (P<0.01), except for the variable husks weight that was not significant (P>0.05, Table 5). All the interactions between season and year of sowing were significant (P<0.05 to P<0.01), except for the weight of husks. All the interactions between year of sowing and hybrids were significant (P<0.05 to P<0.01); however, none of the interactions between season and hybrid were significant. Biomass production, the weight of corn ear, stem, leaf and tassel were significant for sowing season, year and hybrid (P<0.05 to P<0.01). Weight of husks was significant only for hybrid (P<0.01) and not by the rest of variables (P>0.05).

Table 5: Biomass production (BP), corn ear weight (EW), stem weight (SW), leaf weight (LW), husks weight (BW) and tassel weight (TW) of eight hybrids of maize sown on two different seasons (spring and summer) in two consecutive years

	Variables
	BP	EW	SW	LW	BW	TW
	kg m^-1		g m^-1
Sown season/P value	*	*	**	**	NS	**
Spring	2.8^a	1.7^a	464^a	381^b	178	36^a
Summer	2.6^b	1.6^b	341^b	468^a	174	30^b
Year/P value	*	*	**	**	NS	*
2010	2.5^a	1.5^a	452^a	346^b	170	32^b
2011	2.2^b	1.3^b	352^b	425^a	170	35^a
Season*Year	**	**	*	**	NS	*
Hybrid/P value	**	*	**	**	**	**
Rio Grande	2.7^b	1.6^ab	377^a	447^ab	192^bc	43^a
HT9150W	2.7^b	1.7^ab	417^bc	388^bc	150^bc	27^cd
Genex778	2.8^b	1.6^ab	400^bc	481^a	256^a	41^a
Arrayan	3.3^a	1.9^a	584^a	485^a	199^b	43^a
P4082W	2.8^a	1.7^ab	485^b	475^a	188^bc	32^bc
DAS 2358	2.6^b	1.8^ab	345^a	344^cd	140^cd	24^d
Narro 2010	2.7^b	1.5^bc	401^bc	481^a	185^bc	37^ab
Advance2203	1.9^c	1.3^a	211^d	295^d	99^d	16^e
P value/ Hybrid*Year	**	**	**	*	*	*
P value/ Hybrid*Season	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS
P/ HybridSeasonYear	**	**	**	**	NS	**

* P≤0.05; ** P≤0.01; *** P≤0.001; NS P>0.05; NA no applicable.

abc Letters with different superscript differ statistically (P<0.05).

Discussion

The green forage yield, dry matter and fiber content of the evaluated hybrids differed according to the season and year of sowing and hybrid; therefore, the first hypothesis is rejected. According to the results, spring sowing was more productive than summer sowing; but had a lower content of neutral and acid detergent fiber. This support the results of Reta et al²⁴ who observed that the yield of crops planted in spring was higher than the yield of crops planted in summer. Even though, the yield differed between sowing seasons, the yield recorded in summer was similar to previous reports for this sowing season²⁵. Furthermore, it was observed a difference in temperature between sowing season and between years. It is likely that high temperatures, especially in summer, have caused a stress in plants, which accelerated the physiological development resulting in inhibiting plant growth and reducing the leaf area²⁶^-²⁹; therefore affecting the weight of stem and leaves and its fiber content³⁰^,³¹. It was assumed that the heat units accumulated during the plant growth influenced the male and female flowering in both sowing seasons; this agrees with the difference observed among hybrids in green forage yield and dry matter. Extreme temperatures are associated with increased vapour pressure deficit, which contributes to water stress. Water stress promoted a faster development in plants that results in smaller plants due to a shorter life cycle, hence, shorter reproductive duration and, consequently, lower yield potential²⁹. Therefore, this could have contributed to increase biomass accumulation during the vegetative stage.

Rainfall is another external factor that might have contributed to production. The records indicated that rainfall was higher in the first year than the second year (251 mm vs 9.2 mm); consequently, the overall production was higher in the first year compared to the second year independently of the irrigation provided during the experiment. The irrigation provided during the experiment was similar on both years in order to provide similar management conditions and without influencing the outcome. Thus; both external factors (temperature and rainfall) influenced directly the development and production of the plants; because there are a positive relationships among plant height, forage yield, dry matter and fiber content³²^-³⁴. For animal production, producers need to consider the sowing season in order to obtain an adequate forage yield and nutritional value aimed to increase the animal productivity¹⁷^,³⁵^,³⁶.

The grain yield was influenced by the season and year of sowing and hybrid; therefore, the second hypothesis is rejected. Despite the variation in yield observed between seasons and years and among hybrids; the average production of grain was higher than average grain yield reported for this area, region and nationwide¹⁵. As previously reported for forage yield, dry matter and fiber content, it was assumed that the grain and corn ear yield were influenced by external factors (mainly temperature and rainfall). Grain and corn ear yield were higher in spring rather than summer sowing and were higher in the first year rather the second year of the experiment. These results are consistent with previous reports that indicated that rainfall directly influenced the total production of maize due to increases in the distribution, density and depth of the roots³⁷. Moreover, extreme temperatures affect directly the grain weight³⁸^,³⁹ and yield⁴⁰^-⁴³. Heat stress reduced maize grain weight due to proportional losses in grain composition (starch, protein and oil contents) and due to its direct effect during the grain-filling period, which caused a cessation of grain filling⁴³^-⁴⁴. Moreover, heat stress reduced maize grain yield due to its negative effect on plant growth and development by increasing the abortion of fertilized structures⁴⁵^,⁴⁶.

The differences observed among hybrids on grain and corn ear yield was due to the timing of male and female flowering and individual weight of the corncob and grain. These results are consistent with those reported elsewhere¹²^,⁴⁷, who observed that grain weight depended on the growth and development of the plant and that the grain yield depended on the grain weight and the number of grains per row. Thus, it would be possible that the differences observed in grain yield between sowing seasons and among hybrids were because the plants sown in spring developed greater photosynthetic capacity due to a longer vegetative stage; which consequently results in an increased leaf area index as hypothesized by Reta et al²⁴. It can infer that increasing the diameter of the corncob and reducing the number of grains affected directly the grain and corn ear yield. Therefore, as previously hypothesized³⁸ and based on our observations, in order to improve the grain yield, it is necessary to consider, firstly, biomass production rather than grain weight.

Most of the evaluated variables that influence the total production of biomass were influenced by the season, year of sowing and hybrid; therefore, the third hypothesis is rejected. Similar to the previous sections (yield of forage and grain); the organs of the plant evaluated growth and develop better in the spring sowing; consequently, the total biomass production was higher in the spring sowing rather than summer sowing. These results concur with Reta et al²⁴, who observed that the organs of the maize plants sown in spring developed better than the maize plants sown in summer. These results corroborate the observed variation among hybrids in relation to the total biomass production, and are consistent with others¹²^,³⁸ who reported that the total yield of maize depends on the proper development of each of the plant components.

Conclusions and implications

The hybrids used in this experiment presented good adaptation to the conditions of the dairy basin of La Laguna; consequently, their forage yield, dry matter production, fiber content, grain yield and biomass production were acceptable. Production of biomass will depend on the proper development of plant organs. External factors affected directly the total yield of maize, regardless of the hybrid used. Therefore, producers in the livestock industry need to consider sowing in spring and use cultivars or hybrids tolerant to drought and extreme temperatures to avoid the negative effect of these conditions on plant growth and development. Moreover, sowing in spring will improve the biomass production and will help producers to realize the full potential of the selected hybrids; consequently, decrease the NDF and ADF of food and increase animal productivity.

Acknowledgements

During his master studies, Ulises Santiago López was supported by CONACyT (the Mexican National Council for Science and Technology).

Literature cited

1. Shiferaw B, Prasanna BM, Hellin J, Bänziger M. Crops that feed the world 6. Past successes and future challenges to the role played by maize in global food security. Food Security 2011;3:307-327. [ Links ]

2. Ruiz CJA, Durán PN, Sánchez GJJ, Ron PJ, González Eguiarte DR, Holland JB, Medina García G. Climatic adaptation and ecological descriptors of 42 mexican maize races. Crop Sci 2008;48:1502-1512. [ Links ]

3. Bellon MR, Hodson D, Hellin J. Assessing the vulnerability of traditional maize seed systems in Mexico to climate change. PNAS 2011;108:13432-13437. [ Links ]

4. Zhou B, Yue Y, Sun X, Wang X, Wang Z, Ma W, Zhao M. Maize grain yield and dry matter production responses to variations in weather conditions. Agron J 2016;108:196-204. [ Links ]

5. Cox WJ, Cherney JH. Timing corn forage harvest for bunker silos. Agron J 2005;97:142-146. [ Links ]

6. Dhugga KS. Maize biomass yield and composition for biofuels. Crop Sci 2007;47:2211-2227. [ Links ]

7. Persson T, Garcia Garcia A, Paz J, Jones J, Hoogenboom G. Maize ethanol feedstock production and net energy value as affected by climate variability and crop management practices. Agric Syst 2009;100:11-21. [ Links ]

8. Major J, Rondon M, Molina D, Riha SJ, Lehmann J. Maize yield and nutrition during 4 years after biochar application to a Colombian savanna oxisol. Plant Soil 2010;333:117-128. [ Links ]

9. Irlbeck NA, Russell JR, Hallauer AR, Buxton DR. Nutritive value and ensiling characteristics of maize stover as influenced by hybrid maturity and generation, plant density and harvest date. Anim Feed Sci Technol 1993;41:51-64. [ Links ]

10. Kim JD, Kwon CH, Kim DA. Yield and quality of silage corn as affected by hybrid maturity, sown date and harvest stage. Asian Austral J Anim 2001;14:1705-1711. [ Links ]

11. Stuber CW, Edwards MD, Wendel JF. Molecular marker-facilitated investigations of quantitative trait loci in maize. II. Factors influencing yield and its component traits. Crop Sci 1987;27:639-648. [ Links ]

12. D’Andrea KE, Piedra CV, Mandolino CI, Bender R, Cerri AM, Cirilo AG, Otegui ME. Contribution of reserves to kernel weight and grain yield determination in maize: phenotypic and genotypic variation. Crop Sci 2016;56:697-706. [ Links ]

13. Andrieu J, Demarquilly C, Dardenne P, Barrière Y, Lila M, Maupetit P, Rivière F, et al. Composition and nutritive value of whole maize plants fed fresh to sheep. I. Factors of variation. Ann Zootech 1993;42:221-249. [ Links ]

14. Núñez HG, Contreras E, Faz R. Características agronómicas y químicas importantes en genotipos de maíz para forraje con alto valor energético. Téc Pecu Méx 2003;41:37-48. [ Links ]

15. SIAP. 2011. Servicio de Información Agroalimentaria y Pesquera. Inicio/producción anual/resumen nacional por cultivo. http://www.siap.gob.mx/index.php?option=com_wrapper&view=wrapper&Itemid=346. Consultado 2 Ago, 2011. [ Links ]

16. González CF, Peña A, Núñez G, Jiménez CA. Efecto de la densidad y altura de corte en el rendimiento y calidad del forraje de maíz. Rev Fito Méx 2005;28:393-397. [ Links ]

17. Argillier O, Méchin V, Barriere Y. Inbred line evaluation and breeding for digestibility-related traits in forage maize. Crop Sci 2000;40:1596-1600. [ Links ]

18. Núñez HG, Faz C, Tovar G, Zavala G. Genotipos de maíz para la producción de forraje con alta digestibilidad en el norte de México. Téc Pecu Méx 2001;39:77-88. [ Links ]

19. Ball BC, Bingham I, Rees RM, Watson CA, Litterick A. The role of crop rotations in determining soil structure and crop growth conditions. Can J Soil Sci 2005;85:557-577. [ Links ]

20. Sangoi L. Understanding plant density effects on maize growth and development: an important issue to maximize grain yield. Ciencia Rural 2001;31:159-168. [ Links ]

21. Crookston RK, Kurle JE. Using the kernel milk line to determine when to harvest corn for silage. J Prod Agric 1988;1:293-295. [ Links ]

22. Van Soest PJ, Robertson JB, Lewis BA. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J Dairy Sci 1991;74:3583-3597. [ Links ]

23. SAS Institute. 2010. SAS/Stat User’s guide, Version 9.3. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA. [ Links ]

24. Reta SDG, Gaytán A, Carrillo JS. Respuesta del maíz para ensilaje a métodos de siembra y densidades de población. Rev Fito Méx 2000;23:37-48. [ Links ]

25. Peña RA, González C, Núñez G, Tovar G, Preciado O, Terrón I, Gómez M, et al. Estabilidad del rendimiento y calidad forrajera de genotipos de maíz. Rev Fito Mex 2006;29:109-114. [ Links ]

26. Crafts-Brandner SJ, Salvucci ME. Sensitivity of photosynthesis in a C4 plant, maize, to heat stress. Plant Physiology 2002;129:1773-1780. [ Links ]

27. Sinsawat V, Leipner J, Stamp P, Fracheboud Y. Effect of heat stress on the photosynthetic apparatus in maize (Zea mays L.) grown at control or high temperature. Environ Exp Bot 2004;52:123-129. [ Links ]

28. Lobell DB, Banziger M, Magorokosho C, Vivek B. Nonlinear heat effects on African maize as evidenced by historical yield trials. Nature Climate Change 2011;1:42-45. [ Links ]

29. Hatfield JL, Prueger JH. Temperature extremes: Effect on plant growth and development. Weather and climate extremes 2015;10(Part A):4-10. [ Links ]

30. Filya I. Nutritive value and aerobic stability of whole crop maize silage harvested at four stages of maturity. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2004;116:141-150. [ Links ]

31. Jensen C,Weisbjerg MR, Nørgaard P, Hvelplund T. Effect of maize silage maturity on site of starch and NDF digestion in lactating dairy cows. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2005;118:279-294. [ Links ]

32. Neylon JM, Kung Jr L. Effects of cutting height and maturity on the nutritive value of corn silage for lactating cows. J Dairy Sci 2003;86:2163-2169. [ Links ]

33. Bernard JK, West JW, Trammell DS, Cross GH. Influence of corn variety and cutting height on nutritive value of silage fed to lactating dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 2004;87:2172-2176. [ Links ]

34. Freeman KW, Girma K, Arnall DB, Mullen RW, Martin KL, Teal RK, Raun WR. By-plant prediction of corn forage biomass and nitrogen uptake at various growth stages using remote sensing and plant height. Agron J 2007;99:530-536. [ Links ]

35. Di Marco ON, Aello MS, Nomdedeu M, Van Houtte S. Effect of maize crop maturity on silage chemical composition and digestibility (in vivo, in situ and in vitro). Anim Feed Sci Technol 2002;99:37-43. [ Links ]

36. Qiu X, Eastridge ML, Wang Z. Effects of corn silage hybrid and dietary concentration of forage NDF on digestibility and performance by dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 2003;86:3667-3674. [ Links ]

37. Li X, Takahashi T, Suzuki N, Kaiser HM. The impact of climate change on maize yields in the United States and China. Agric Syst 2011;104:348-353. [ Links ]

38. Maddonni GA, Otegui ME, Bonhomme R. Grain yield components in maize: II. Postsilking growth and kernel weight. Field Crop Res 1998;56:257-264. [ Links ]

39. Mayer LI, Rattalino Edreira JI, Maddonni GA. Oil yield components of maize crops exposed to heat stress during early and late grain-filling stages. Crop Sci 2014;54:2236-2250. [ Links ]

40. Badu-Apraku B, Hunter RB, Tollenaar M. Effect of temperature during grain filling on whole plant and grain yield in maize (Zea mays L.). Can J Plant Sci 1983;63:357-363. [ Links ]

41. Muchow RC. Effect of high temperature on grain-growth in field-grown maize. Field Crops Res 1990;23:145-158. [ Links ]

42. Wilhelm WW, Wortmann CS. Tillage and rotation interactions for corn and soybean grain yield as affected by precipitation and air temperature. Agron J 2004;96:425-432. [ Links ]

43. Rattalino Edreira JI, Mayer LI, Otegui ME. Heat stress in temperate and tropical maize hybrids: Kernel growth, water relations and assimilate availability for grain filling. Field Crop Res 2014;166:162-172. [ Links ]

44. Wilhelm EP, Mullen RE, Keeling PL, Singletary GW. Heat stress during grain filling in maize: Effects on kernel growth and metabolism. Crop Sci 1999;39:1733-1741. [ Links ]

45. Cicchino M, Edreira JIR, Otegui ME. Heat stress during late vegetative growth of maize: Effects on phenology and assessment of optimum temperature. Crop Sci 2010;50:1431-1437. [ Links ]

46. Cicchino M, Edreira JIR, Uribelarrea M, Otegui ME. Heat stress in field-grown maize: Response of physiological determinants of grain yield. Crop Sci 2010;50:1438-1448. [ Links ]

47. López SJA, Ortiz CJ, Mendoza CM. Componentes del crecimiento de grano de líneas de maíz de peso contrastante de grano. Rev Fito Mex 2000;23:141-151. [ Links ]

Received: March 12, 2017; Accepted: July 22, 2017

*Corresponding author: nieto_cesar@hotmail.com

^ᵼ

Deceased.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License