PRODUCTION AGRICULTURE
Yield Responses to Narrow Rows Depend on Increased Radiation Interception
Fernando H. Andrade,* Pablo Calviño, Alfredo Cirilo, and Pablo Barbieri
ABSTRACT
The response of grain yield to narrow rows can be analyzed in
terms of the effect on the amount of radiation intercepted by the
crops. The objective of this work was to study the effect of row spacing
on grain yield and radiation interception (RI) during the critical period
for grain set in three crop species. Ten experiments were conducted
with maize (Zea mays L.), sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.), or soy-
bean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] under irrigation or under dryland con-
ditions without severe drought during flowering and grain filling. The
treatments consisted of two row distances combined with other factors
such as plant density, cultivar, defoliation, etc. Grain yield responses
to decrease distance between rows were inversely proportional to RI
achieved with the wide-row control treatment during the critical pe-
riod for grain number determination (r 2 ⫽ 0.62, 0.54, and 0.86 for
maize, soybean, and sunflower, respectively). Moreover, when row
spacing was reduced, grain yield increases and RI increases during
the critical periods for grain set were significantly and directly corre-
lated in the three crop species (r 2 ⫽ 0.71, 0.64, and 0.94 for maize,
soybean, and sunflower, respectively). For the conditions of these
experiments, grain yield increase in response to narrow rows was
closely related to the improvement in light interception during the
critical period for grain set.
D ecreasing row spacing at equal plant densities
produces a more equidistant plant distribution.
This distribution decreases plant-to-plant competition
for available water, nutrient, and light and increases ra-
diation interception (RI) and biomass production (Shi-
bles and Weber, 1966; Bullock et al., 1988). It also re-
duces the leaf area index required to intercept 95% of
the incident radiation due to an increase in the light
extinction coefficient (Flenet et al., 1996). However, the
benefits of more equidistant spacing for crops grown
without important water and nutrient deficiencies are
variable. Some researchers reported grain yield increases
(Hunter et al., 1970; Scarsbrook and Doss, 1973; Olson
and Sanders, 1988; Bullock et al., 1988; Porter et al.,
1997; Ethredge et al., 1989; Parvez et al., 1989; Board
et al., 1992; Egli, 1994), but others have not (Robinson,
1978; Beatty et al., 1982; Zaffaroni and Schneiter, 1991;
F.H. Andrade and P. Barbieri, Unidad Integrada INTA Balcarce-
Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias UNMP, CC 276, 7620 Balcarce, Bue-
nos Aires, Argentina; P. Calviño, Unidad Integrada INTA Balcarce-
Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias UNMP and AACREA, CC 276, 7620
Balcarce, Buenos Aires, Argentina; and A. Cirilo, INTA Pergamino,
CC 276, 7620 Balcarce, Buenos Aires, Argentina. This work was
supported by Instituto Nacional de Tecnologı́a Agropecuaria (INTA),
Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias UNMP, CREA Tandil, Consejo Na-
cional de Investigaciones Cientı́ficas y Técnicas (CONICET), and
Monsanto Argentina. Received 27 Nov. 2001. *Corresponding author
(fandrade@balcarce.inta.gov.ar).
Published in Agron. J. 94:975–980 (2002).
975
Blamey and Zollinger, 1997; Ottman and Welch, 1989;
Rumawas et al., 1971; Nunez and Kamprath et al., 1969;
Westgate et al., 1997).
There are times during the crop cycle that are most
critical for yield determination. These times comprise
the period bracketing flowering in maize (Kiniry and
Ritchie, 1985; Fischer and Palmer, 1984) and sunflower
(Chimenti and Hall, 1992, Connor and Sadras, 1992;
Cantagallo et al., 1997) and extend to more advanced
reproductive stages in soybean (Shaw and Laing, 1966;
Board and Tan, 1995; Egli, 1997). Higher crop growth
rates during these periods would allow more grains to
be set and thus higher grain yields (Andrade et al.,
1999). Crop growth rate is directly related to the amount
of radiation intercepted by the crop (Gardner et al.,
1985). Therefore, the response of grain yield to narrow
rows can be analyzed in terms of the effect on the
amount of RI at the critical periods for kernel set. In
some cases, full RI during these periods may not be
achieved with wide rows. Examples of this situation
could be late soybean plantings, early maize plantings,
defoliation or stress at early stages, use of short-season
cultivars, use of erect-leaf maize hybrids, etc.
Our working hypothesis is that the yield increase in
maize, soybean, and sunflower in response to decreased
distance between rows is a result of an increase in light
interception at the critical periods for grain set. Re-
sponses are expected to be inversely proportional to RI
achieved with the wider row spacing at those critical
periods for grain yield determination.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The experiments were conducted at Balcarce (37 ⬚45⬘ S lat),
Tandil (37 ⬚15⬘ S lat), and Pergamino (33 ⬚56⬘ S lat), Argentina,
during different growing seasons. The soils were typical Argiu-
dols with an organic matter content of 6 to 8% in Balcarce
and Tandil and 2% in Pergamino in the first 25 cm of depth.
Nitrogen and P were applied following fertilizer recommen-
dations derived from soil analysis. Soybean seeds were inocu-
lated with Bradirhizobium japonicum. In Exp. 3, 4, 5, and 6,
soil water in the 1-m depth was kept above 50% of maximum
available water by sprinkler irrigation. In Exp. 1, a comple-
mentary irrigation of 45 mm was applied at flowering. The
rest of the experiments (2, 7, 8, 9, and 10) were conducted
under dryland conditions; however, plants were not exposed
to severe drought during flowering and grain filling. In all
cases, weeds, insects, and diseases were controlled. The size
of the experimental plots ranged from 28 to 39 m2, and the
number of replications varied from three to four.
Abbreviatons: MG, maturity group; PAR, photosynthetically active
radiation; RI, radiation interception.
976 AGRONOMY JOURNAL, VOL. 94, SEPTEMBER–OCTOBER 2002
Table 1. Species, cultivars, plant density at harvest, sowing date, row spacing, and other treatments used in the different experiments.
Exp. Species Cultivar Plant density
plant m ⫺2
1 Maize DK 688, P37P73 8 1 Oct. 1999
2 Maize DK 688, P37P73 8 1 Oct. 1999
3 Maize C7301, C280 5.1, 6.3, 8.1
4 Maize M4, C Titanium, 6.2, 8.7, 11.4
C 343, DK757,
Ax924, Ax884
5 Maize Ax924 and Ax884 6, 8.5,11.5
6 Soybean SRF 350, Ax3127, 40
Williams, Ax4268,
SRF450, Crawford
7 Soybean Pioneer 9396, Don 15, 30, 45
Mario 2800
8 Soybean Mitchel and Ax3127 35
9 Sunflower Rancul 20 and Zenit 52
10 Sunflower Paraiso 20 and Zenit 46
Crop, cultivars, plant density at harvest, sowing date, row
spacing, and other treatments are shown in Table 1. In Exp. 1,
treatments were a factorial arrangement of two maize hybrids
and two row distances (Table 1). In Exp. 2, the treatments were
a factorial arrangement of two maize hybrids, three defoliation
treatments (an untreated control, defoliation at V3 stage, and
defoliation at V5 stage; Ritchie and Hanway, 1982), and two
row distances (Table 1). Defoliation consisted of removing all
exposed leaf blades. Experiment 1 and 2 were analyzed as ran-
domized complete block designs with three replications. In
Exp. 3, 4, and 5, the treatments were a factorial arrangement
of two to six maize hybrids, three plant densities, and two row
distances, with three replications (Table 1). The experiments
were split-split plot designs in which densities corresponded
to the main plots in randomized complete blocks, row spacing
to the subplots, and hybrids to the sub-subplots. Data from
Exp. 6 were taken from Bodrero (1988). The experiment was
conducted under irrigation, and the treatments were a factorial
arrangement of six soybean cultivars [maturity group (MG)
III and MG IV] and two row distances (Table 1). In Exp. 7,
the treatments were a factorial arrangement of two soybean
cultivars (MG II and MG III), three plant densities, and two
row distances (Table 1). The analyzed values correspond to
the average of two sowing dates (4 and 19 Dec. 1999). In
Exp. 8, the treatments were a factorial arrangement of two
soybean cultivars (MG III and MG IV) and two row distances.
This experiment was conducted in deep (⬎1 m) and shallow
(0.6 m) soils. Experiments 6, 7, and 8 were randomized com-
plete block designs with three replications. In Exp. 9 and 10,
the treatments were a factorial arrangement of two sunflower
cultivars and two row distances in a randomized complete
block design with three replications (Table 1).
Radiation interception was calculated as (1 ⫺ It/I0) ⫻ 100,
where It is incident photosynthetically active radiation (PAR)
just below the lowest layer of photosynthetically active leaves
and I0 is incident PAR at the top of the canopy. The values
of It and I0 were obtained with an AccuPAR radiometer (Deca-
gon Devices, Pullman, WA) in Exp. 3 to 5 and with a LI-
COR 188 B meter (LI-COR, Lincoln, NE) connected to a
line quantum sensor 191 SB in the rest of the experiments.
Determinations were taken near flowering in maize and sun-
flower and at R3 in soybean (Fehr and Caviness, 1977). The
number of observations were at least five per experimental
unit. The measurements were confined to the midday period
(1100–1300 h) and were taken on sunny days only following
the technique described by Gallo and Daughtry (1986). At
harvest, 7.15 m of each of the two center rows in maize and
sunflower and 5 m of the central rows in soybean were har-
vested to determined total grain yield. Grain moisture was
Sowing date Row spacing Observations
m
0.52 and 0.70 Irrigation
0.52 and 0.70 Defoliation levels
Dryland
26 Dec. 1996 0.35 and 0.70 Irrigation
25 Sept. 1998 0.50 and 0.70 Irrigation
12 Oct. 1999 0.50 and 0.70 Irrigation
29 Dec. 1986 0.35 and 0.70 Irrigation
Dec. 1999 0.19 and 0.57 Dryland
18 Nov. 1989 0.30 and 0.60 Dryland, deep and
shallow soils
12 Oct. 1996 0.52 and 0.70 Dryland
18 Oct. 1999 0.52 and 0.70 Dryland
determined with a Tesma A-79 moisture meter (Tesma SAIC,
Buenos Aires, Argentina), and yield was expressed at a mois-
ture content of 140, 110, and 120 g kg⫺1 in maize, sunflower,
and soybean, respectively. Linear regressions between per-
centage yield increase in response to a reduction in row spacing
and RI achieved with wide rows were established for the three
crops. Moreover, linear regressions between percentage yield
increase in response to a reduction in row spacing and RI
increase in response to the same treatment were also calcu-
lated for the three species. Radiation interception increase
was expressed as [(RI in narrow rows ⫺ RI in wide rows)/RI
in wide rows] ⫻ 100. Data were also processed by analysis
of variance.
RESULTS
In maize, the largest increases in RI at flowering and
in grain yield in response to narrow rows were observed
in Exp. 2 (Table 2). Within this experiment, the largest
increase in grain yield (p ⬍ 0.05) in response to narrow
rows was found in crops that were defoliated at V5 and
reached ⬍65% RI in wide rows. Responses to decreases
in row spacing were lower when crops were not defoli-
ated because they achieved much higher RI in wide
rows at flowering. In the experiments conducted under
irrigation (1, 3, 4, and 5), close to maximum RI was
achieved with wide row spacing, and small or no grain
yield responses (p ⬎ 0.05) to narrow rows were observed.
Combining the data from all of the experiments, per-
centage grain yield increase in response to decrease in
row spacing was significantly and inversely associated
(r 2 ⫽ 0.62, p ⬍ 0.001) with RI achieved with wide rows
(Table 3). Moreover, when row spacing was reduced, per-
centage yield increase was significantly related to per-
centage increase in RI (r 2 ⫽ 0.71, p ⬍ 0.001) (Table 4).
In soybean, the greatest increases in RI at R3 and in
grain yield in response to narrow rows were observed
in crops planted in December (Table 2, Exp. 6 and 7)
(p ⬍ 0.05). The smallest responses were observed when
RI at R3 in wide rows was close to or ⬎90%. Combining
the data from the three soybean experiments, percent-
age grain yield increase from decreased row spacing was
inversely associated (r 2 ⫽ 0.54, p ⬍ 0.01) with RI in
wide rows at R3 (Table 3). Moreover, when row spacing
was reduced, percentage yield increase was significantly
 ANDRADE ET AL.: YIELD RESPONSES TO NARROW ROWS 977

Table 2. Radiation interception (RI) and grain yield as a function of row spacing in maize, soybean, and sunflower in Exp. 1 to 10.
Data in Exp. 7 correspond to the average of two December planting dates.
RI Grain yield
Exp. Cultivar Treatment Wide rows Narrow rows Wide rows Narrow rows
% g m⫺2
1 DK688 94.6 96.2 1188 1145
P37P73 86.3 93.6 1006 1081
SE 1.2 37.9
2 Mean of two cultivars Control 84.6 88.3 1075 1068
Defoliated V3 79.0 87.3 1035 1086
Defoliated V5 62.5 73.1 860 974
SE 1.5 31.1
3 Mean of two cultivars 5.1 pl† m⫺2 88.5 91.9 1064 1126
6.3 pl m⫺2 92.8 94.3 1158 1183
8.1 pl m⫺2 95.6 95.8 1228 1234
SE 2.11 53.0
4 Mean of six cultivars 6.1 pl m⫺2 88.8 91.7 1327 1336
8.7 pl m⫺2 94.3 96.0 1442 1454
11.4 pl m⫺2 95.0 97.0 1441 1467
SE 0.59 21.7
5 Means of two cultivars 6.0 pl m⫺2 94.0 94.5 1183 1189
8.5 pl m⫺2 96.0 96.5 1156 1181
11.5 pl m⫺2 98.0 98.0 1096 1110
SE 0.34 31.0
6 Mean of six cultivars 80.8 97.2 259 289
SE NA‡ NA
7 D. Mario 2800 15 pl m ⫺2 74.5 91.0 310 350
30 pl m⫺ 2 81.5 90.5 362 373
45 pl m⫺ 2 90.5 91.5 359 366
Pioneer 9396 15 pl m ⫺2 72.0 88.0 333 362
30 pl m⫺ 2 79.0 90.0 361 382
45 pl m⫺ 2 87.5 90.0 362 393
SE 1.5 5.1
8 Mitchel Shallow soils 89.6 90.4 247 248
Deep soils 91.4 91.8 312 306
A⫻3127 Shallow soils 86.7 90.1 235 244
Deep soils 88.9 90.8 296 310
SE 2.1 11.9
9 Rancul 96.2 97.4 251 237
Zenit 80.8 93.9 248 271
SE 1.7 7.2
10 Paraiso 83.9 92.8 324 322
Zenit 74.8 89.3 303 338
SE 2.1 8.1
† pl, plants.
‡ NA, not applicable.

and positively related to percentage increase in RI (r 2 ⫽ A common relationship for the three species com-
0.64, p ⬍ 0.01) (Table 4). bined was determined (Fig. 1 and 2). Average grain
In sunflower, increases in grain yield in response to yield response to narrow rows was close to zero when
narrow rows were only observed in the short-season RI in wide rows was ⬎90%. The average grain yield re-
hybrid Zenit (Table 2) (p ⬍ 0.05). This cultivar showed sponses increased to 4.5 and 8.8% for RI values in wide
the lowest RI at flowering in wide rows. Maximum RI rows of 80 to 90% and 70 to 80%, respectively (Fig. 1).
at flowering in wide rows was achieved with the long- On the other hand, when row distance was reduced, the
season hybrid Rancull, and no positive grain yield re- relative increase in grain yield was approximately 50%
sponse to narrow rows was observed. Again, percentage of the relative increase in RI (Fig. 2).
grain yield increase in response to decrease in row spac-
ing was inversely associated (r 2 ⫽ 0.86, p ⬍ 0.1) with DISCUSSION
RI achieved with wide rows at flowering (Table 3).
Moreover, when row spacing was reduced, percentage Most of the yield response of the maize crop to reduc-
yield increase was positively and directly related to per- tions in row distance was related to improvements in
centage increase in RI (r 2 ⫽ 0.94, p ⬍ 0.05) (Table 4).
Table 4. Ordinate (a), slope (b), and coefficient of determination
Table 3. Ordinate (a), slope (b), and coefficient of determination (r 2) of the linear regressions between percentage yield increase
(r 2) of the linear regressions between percentage yield increase and radiation interception (RI) increase when row width was
in response to a reduction in row spacing and radiation intercep- reduced for maize, soybean, and sunflower. Radiation intercep-
tion observed in wide rows for maize, soybean, and sunflower. tion increase was expressed as [(RI in narrow rows ⫺ RI in
Standard error of a and b are also shown. N is the number with wide rows)/RI in wide rows] ⫻ 100. Standard error of a
of observations. and b are also shown. N is the number of observations.
Species a b r2 N Species a b r2 N
Maize 34 ⫾ 7 ⫺0.35 ⫾ 0.08 0.62 14 Maize 0.20 ⫾ 0.8 0.72 ⫾ 0.13 0.71 14
Soybean 47.9 ⫾ 13 ⫺0.51 ⫾ 0.16 0.54 11 Soybean 1.71 ⫾ 1.3 0.41 ⫾ 0.10 0.64 11
Sunflower 74.6 ⫾ 21 ⫺0.85 ⫾ 0.25 0.86 4 Sunflower ⫺8.3 ⫾ 2.5 1.00 ⫾ 0.18 0.94 4
978 AGRONOMY JOURNAL, VOL. 94, SEPTEMBER–OCTOBER 2002
Fig. 1. Relationship between percentage grain yield increase in re-
sponse to reduction in row spacing and radiation interception (RI)
observed in wide rows for maize (circles), soybean (triangles), and
sunflower (squares). Radiation interception was expressed as per-
centage of incident radiation and measured at flowering in maize
and sunflower and at R3 in soybean. Average standard errors of
all experiments were 1.4 and 3.4% for x and y variables, respec-
tively. Y ⫽ 42.85 ⫺ 0.45x; r 2 ⫽ 0.60; p ⬍ 0.001.
RI at the critical flowering period. When available data
from the literature were combined (Westgate et al.,
1997; Scarsbrook and Doss, 1973; Ottman and Welch,
1989; Bullock et al., 1988), a similar relationship was
found between percentage yield increase and percent-
age RI increase at flowering in response to narrow rows
(slope ⫽ 0.54, r 2 ⫽ 0.49, p ⬍ 0.01, n ⫽ 11). In soybean,
there was an association between yield response to re-
ductions in row spacing and RI increase at R3. A similar
conclusion was obtained when data from the literature,
in which RI at R3 or close to R3 was reported (Board
et al., 1992; Egli, 1994; Board and Harville, 1996), were
combined and analyzed (slope ⫽ 0.45, r 2 ⫽ 0.44, p ⬍
0.01, n ⫽ 16). Thus, soybean yield responses to reduc-
tions in row spacing can be partly attributed to improve-
ments in RI at the critical pod-setting period. Finally,
in sunflower, yield response to narrow rows was ob-
served for the short-season hybrid only, and again, it was
related to improvements in RI at flowering. In most cases,
the literature indicates little or no effect of row spacing
on sunflower grain yield (Zaffaroni and Schneiter, 1991;
Robinson, 1978; Vijayalakshmi et al., 1975). This lack
of response is probably because sunflower has a high
capacity to achieve full light interception at flowering,
provided that adapted cultivars are grown without seri-
ous water deficits or other adversities during the vegeta-
tive period.
In our work, maximal increases in RI with narrow
rows did not differ much among the three species. In
the literature, however, reported increases are often
⬎25% in late-planted soybean (Board et al., 1992; Egli,
1994; Board and Harville, 1996) and generally ⬍15%
in maize (Scarsbrook and Doss, 1973; Bullock et al.,
1988; Ottman and Welch, 1989; Westgate et al., 1997).
Fig. 2. Relationship between percentage grain yield increase in re-
sponse to narrow rows and radiation interception (RI) increase in
response to the same treatment for maize (circles), soybean (tri-
angles), and sunflower (squares). Radiation interception increase
was expressed as [(RI in narrow rows ⫺ RI in wide rows)/RI in
wide rows] ⫻ 100. Average standard errors of all experiments
were 1.9 and 3.4% for x and y variables, respectively. Radiation
interception was measured at flowering in maize and sunflower
and at R3 in soybean. Y ⫽ 0.17 ⫹ 0.52x; r 2 ⫽ 0.62; p ⬍ 0.001.
Greater responses to decreases in row spacing are ex-
pected in those crop species whose plants are closer to-
gether within the row. Similarly, the response of maize
to narrow rows is low or null at low plant densities
(Fulton, 1970) because the decrease in transmitted PAR
between the rows is compensated by an increase in
transmitted PAR between the plants in the row.
In the three crops, full light interception can probably
not be achieved when (i) short-season and/or erect leaf
cultivars are grown (Anderson et al., 1998) or (ii) plants
are defoliated (frost, hail, insects, etc.) or subjected to
water or nutrient stress at vegetative stages (Alessi et al.,
1977; Barbieri et al., 2000). Because drought or nutrient
deficiencies at vegetative periods limit leaf area expan-
sion (Trapani and Hall, 1996; Salah and Tardieu, 1997),
they would increase the probability of response to nar-
row rows. Early plantings in maize and late plantings
in soybean would also increase the response to narrow
rows because these management practices produce small
plants with fewer leaves (Andrade et al., 1996; Duncan
et al., 1973; Weaver et al., 1991).
There are suggestions in the literature that reduced
row distance can increase soybean yield without affect-
ing light interception at the critical period for grain
number determination (Duncan, 1986; Egli, 1994; Wells,
1991). Such responses would be explained by an increase
in potential grain number due to an increase in node
number and vegetative biomass, which would increase
dry matter partitioning to reproductive structures and
the number of grains set per unit growth during the
critical periods for grain set. Increases in potential grain
number in response to plant biomass are greatest in soy-
bean, intermediate in sunflower, and smallest in maize
 ANDRADE ET AL.: YIELD RESPONSES TO NARROW ROWS
(Vega et al., 2001). However, Vega (2001) showed that
dry matter partitioning during the critical period for
grain set was highly stable in soybean and sunflower.
Our data suggest that grain yield increases in response
to narrow rows closely relates to the improvement in
light interception during the critical period for grain set.
Examples of other advantages of reduced row spacing
are a decrease in water evaporation from the soil surface
(Yao and Shaw, 1964; Nunez and Kamprath, 1969; Kar-
len and Camp, 1985), an inhibition of weed growth (For-
cella et al., 1992; Teasdale, 1994), and an improved up-
take of limiting nutrients from the soil (Stickler, 1964;
Rosolem et al., 1993, Barbieri et al., 2000). In some of
these cases, responses to narrow rows could be greater
than predicted by RI. Contrarily, narrow rows would de-
crease yield when crops are subjected to progressive
drought because enhanced early cover would increase
water use (Zaffaroni and Schneiter, 1989), resulting in
a more severe water stress at the critical moments for
grain set (Fulton, 1970).
We developed a very simple model to describe the
responses of crops to narrow rows. Grain yield response
to decreased distance between rows was inversely pro-
portional to RI achieved with the wide-row control
treatment during the critical period for grain number
determination. Similar association patterns were ob-
served in the three species examined (Fig. 1). This ap-
proach, although simple, does not consider the real im-
provement in RI with narrow rows. A more meaningful
and elaborated approach to analyze the effect of reduc-
ing row spacing was to relate grain yield increases to
RI increases during the critical periods for grain set.
These two variables were significantly and directly cor-
related in the three crop species (Fig. 2). These results
highlight the importance of the critical periods for grain
number determination. For the conditions of these ex-
periments, management practices should ensure that the
crop reaches full RI at these moments to maximize the
number of reproductive sinks set.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Thanks go to Dr. Dennis Egli for helpful comments on the
manuscript.
REFERENCES
Alessi, J., J.F. Power, and D.C. Zimmerman. 1977. Sunflower yield
and water use as influenced by planting date, population, and row
spacing. Agron. J. 69:465–469.
Anderson, R., J. Yocum, G. Roth, and M. Antle. 1998. Narrow row
corn management [Online]. Available at http://www.agronomy.
psu.edu/Extension (verified 16 May 2002).
Andrade, F., A. Cirilo, S. Uhart, and M. Otegui. 1996. Ecofisiologı́a
del Cultivo de Maı́z. Editorial La Barrosa, Dekalb Press, and INTA,
FCA UNMP, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Andrade, F.H., C. Vega, S. Uhart, A. Cirilo, M. Cantarero, and O.
Valentinuz. 1999. Kernel number determination in maize. Crop
Sci. 39:453–459.
Barbieri, P.A., H.R. Sainz Rozas, F.H. Andrade, and H.E. Echeverria.
2000. Row spacing effects at different levels of nitrogen availability
in maize. Agron. J. 92:283–288.
Beatty, K.D., I.L. Eldridge, and A.M. Simpson. 1982. Soybean re-
sponse to different planting patterns and dates. Agron. J. 74:859–
862.
Blamey, F.P.C., and R.K. Zollinger. 1997. Sunflower production and
979
culture. In A.A. Schneiter (ed.) Sunflower technology and produc-
tion. Agron. Monogr. 35. ASA, CSSA, and SSSA, Madison, WI.
Board, J.E., and B.G. Harville. 1996. Growth dynamics during the
vegetative period affects yield of narrow-row, late-planted soybean.
Agron. J. 88:567–572.
Board, J.E., M. Kamal, and B.G. Harville. 1992. Temporal importance
of greater light interception to increased yield in narrow row soy-
bean. Agron. J. 84:575–579.
Board, J.E., and Q. Tan. 1995. Assimilatory capacity effects on soy-
bean yield components and pod number. Crop Sci. 35:846–851.
Bodrero, M.L. 1988. Intercepción de la radiación fotosintéticamente
activa y productividad de soja de segunda sembrada a distintos
espaciamientos entre surcos. Tesis Magister Scientiae. Facultad de
Ciencias Agrarias, Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata, Bal-
carce, Argentina.
Bullock, D.G., R.L. Nielsen, and W.E. Nyquist. 1988. A growth analy-
sis of corn grown in conventional and equidistant plant spacing.
Crop Sci. 28:254–258.
Cantagallo, J.E., C.A. Chimenti, and A.J. Hall. 1997. Number of seeds
per unit area in sunflower correlates well with a photothermal
quotient. Crop Sci. 37:1780–1786.
Chimenti, C.A., and A.J. Hall. 1992. Sensibilidad del número de frutos
por capı́tulo de girasol (Helianthus annuus L.) a cambios en el
nivel de radiación durante la ontogenia del cultivo. p. 27–28. In
Actas XIX Reunión Argentina de Fisiologı́a Vegetal. Sociedad
Argentina de Fisiologı́a Vegetal, Córdoba, Argentina.
Connor, D.J., and V.O. Sadras. 1992. Physiology of yield expression
in sunflower. Field Crops Res. 30:333–389.
Duncan, W.G. 1986. Planting patterns and soybean yields. Crop
Sci. 26:584–588.
Duncan, W.G., D.L. Shaver, and W.A. Williams. 1973. Insolation and
temperature effect on maize growth and yield. Crop Sci. 13:187–191.
Egli, D.B. 1994. Mechanisms responsible for soybean yield response
to equidistant planting patterns. Agron. J. 86:1046–1049.
Egli, D.B. 1997. Cultivar maturity and response of soybean to shade
stress during seed filling. Field Crops Res. 52:1–8.
Ethredge, W.H., D.A. Ashley, and J.M. Woodruff. 1989. Row spacing
and plant population effects on yield components of soybeans.
Agron. J. 81:947–951.
Fehr, W.R., and C.E. Caviness. 1977. Stages of soybean development.
SR-80. Iowa Agric. Exp. Stn., Ames.
Fischer, K.S., and F.E. Palmer. 1984. Tropical maize. p. 213–248. In
P.R. Goldsworthy and N.M. Fisher (ed.) The physiology of tropical
field crops. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Flenet, F., J.R. Kiniry, J.E. Board, M.E. Westgate, and D.C. Reicosky.
1996. Row spacing effects on light extinction coefficients of corn,
sorghum, soybean and sunflower. Agron. J. 88:185–190.
Forcella, F., M.E. Westgate, and D.D. Warnes. 1992. Effects of row
width on herbicide and cultivation requirements in row crops. Am.
J. Altern. Agric. 7:161–167.
Fulton, J.M. 1970. Relationships among soil moisture stress, plant
population, row spacing and yield of corn. Can. J. Plant Sci. 50:
31–38.
Gallo, W.P., and. C.S.T. Daughtry. 1986. Techniques for measuring
intercepted and absorbed photosynthetically active radiation in
crop canopies. Agron. J. 78:752–756.
Gardner, B.R., R.B. Pearce, and R.L. Mitchel. 1985. Physiology of
crop plants. Iowa State Univ. Press, Ames.
Hunter, R.B., L.W. Kannemberg, and E.E. Gamble. 1970. Perfor-
mance of five maize hybrids in varying plant population and row
widths. Agron. J. 62:255–256.
Karlen, D.L., and C.R. Camp. 1985. Row spacing, plant population
and water management effects on corn in the Atlantic Coastal
Plain. Agron. J. 77:393–398.
Kiniry, J.R., and J.T. Ritchie. 1985. Shade sensitive interval of kernel
number in maize. Agron. J. 77:711–715.
Nunez, R., and E. Kamprath. 1969. Relationships between N re-
sponse, plant population, and row width on growth and yield of
corn. Agron. J. 61:279–282.
Olson, R.A., and D.H. Sanders. 1988. Corn production. p. 639–686.
In G.F. Sprague and J.W. Dudley (ed.) Corn and corn improve-
ment. 3rd ed. Agron. Monogr. 18. ASA, CSSA, and SSSA, Madi-
son, WI.
Ottman, M.J., and L.F. Welch. 1989. Planting pattern and radiation
980 AGRONOMY JOURNAL, VOL. 94, SEPTEMBER–OCTOBER 2002
interception, plant nutrient concentration, and yield in corn. Agron.
J. 81:167–174.
Parvez, A.Q., F.P. Gardner, and K.J. Boote. 1989. Determinate- and
indeterminate-type soybean cultivars responses to pattern, density,
and planting date. Crop Sci. 29:150–157.
Porter P.M., D.R. Hicks, W.E. Lueschen, J.H. Ford, D.D. Warnes,
and T.R. Hoverstad. 1997. Corn response to row width and plant
populations in the northern Corn Belt. J. Prod. Agric. 10:293–300.
Ritchie, S.W., and J.J. Hanway. 1982. How a corn plant develops.
Spec. Rep. 48. Iowa State Univ. Coop. Ext. Serv., Ames.
Robinson, R.G. 1978. Production and culture. p. 89–143. In J.F. Carter
(ed.) Sunflower science and technology. Agron. Monogr. 19. ASA,
CSSA, and SSSA, Madison, WI.
Rosolem, C.A., S.M. Kato, J.R Machado, and S.J. Bicudo. 1993. Nitro-
gen redistribution to sorghum grains as affected by plant competi-
tion. p. 219–222. In N.J. Barrow (ed.) Plant nutrition—from genetic
engineering to field practice. Kluwer Academic Publ., New York.
Rumawas, F., F.O. Blair, and R.J. Bula. 1971. Microenvironment and
plant characteristics of corn (Zea mays L.) planted at two row
spacings. Crop Sci. 11:320–333.
Salah, H.B., and F. Tardieu. 1997. Control of leaf expansion rate of
droughted maize plants under fluctuating evaporative demand.
Plant Physiol. 114:893–900.
Scarsbrook, C.E., and B.D. Doss. 1973. Leaf area index and radiation
as related to corn yield. Agron. J. 65:459–461.
Shaw, R.H., and D.R. Laing. 1966. In W.H. Pierre et al. (ed.) Plant
environment and efficient water use. ASA and SSSA, Madison, WI.
Shibles, R.M., and C.R. Weber. 1966. Interception of solar radiation
and dry matter production by various soybean planting patterns.
Crop Sci. 6:55–59.
Stickler, F.C. 1964. Row width and plant population studies with corn.
Agron. J. 56:438–441.
Teasdale, J.R. 1994. Influence of narrow row/high population corn
(Zea mays ) on weed control and light transmittance. Weed Tech-
nol. 9:113–118.
Trapani, N., and A. Hall. 1996. Effects of leaf position and nitrogen
supply on the expansion of leaf of field grown sunflower. Plant
Soil 184:331–340.
Vega, C.R. 2001. Fisiologı́a comparada de la determinación del núm-
ero de granos y del rendimiento en soja, girasol y maı́z. Tesis de
Doctorado. Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias, Universidad Nacional
de Mar del Plata, Balcarce, Argentina.
Vega, C.R., F.H. Andrade, V.O. Sadras, S.A. Uhart, and O.R. Valenti-
nuz. 2001. Seed number as a function of growth. A comparative
study in soybean, sunflower and maize. Crop Sci. 41:748–754.
Vijayalakshmi, K., N.K. Sanghi, W.L. Pelton, and C.H. Anderson.
1975. Effect of plant population and row spacing in sunflower
agronomy. Can. J. Plant Sci. 55:491–499.
Weaver, D.B., R.L. Akridge, and C.A. Thomas. 1991. Growth habitat,
planting date, and row spacing effects on late planted soybeans.
Crop Sci. 31:805–810.
Wells, R. 1991. Soybean growth response to plant density: Relation-
ships among canopy photosynthesis, leaf area and light intercep-
tion. Crop Sci. 31:755–761.
Westgate, M.E., F. Forcella, D.C. Reicosky, and J. Somsen. 1997.
Rapid canopy closure for maize production in the northern US
corn belt: Radiation-use efficiency and grain yield. Field Crops
Res. 49:249–258.
Yao, A.Y.M., and R.H. Shaw. 1964. Effect of plant population and
planting pattern of corn on the distribution of net radiation. Agron.
J. 56:165–169.
Zaffaroni, E., and A.A. Schneiter. 1989. Water-use efficiency and light
interception of semi-dwarf and standard-height sunflower hybrids
grown in different row arrangements. Agron. J. 81:831–836.
Zaffaroni, E., and A.A. Schneiter. 1991. Sunflower production as
influenced by plant type, plant population and row management.
Agron. J. 83:113–118.