Microsoft Word - 9. BAJ-476E Bangladesh Agron. J. 2024, 26(2): 67-76 GROWTH, PHENOLOGY AND YIELD ATTRIBUTES OF A WHITE MAIZE GENOTYPE SAUWMOPMDT273 UNDER DIFFERENT PLANTING CONFIGURATIONS S. Ahamed1, M. J. Ullah1, M.S. Islam1, M.H. Mahmud2* and A. Hossain3 1Department of Agronomy, Sher-e-Bangla Agricultural University, Dhaka-1207, Bangladesh 2Project Implementation Unit-BARC, National Agricultural Technology Program-Phase-II Project, Farmgate, Dhaka, Bangladesh 3Sub-Station, Bangladesh Institute of Nuclear Agriculture, Sunamganj, Bangladesh *Corresponding author, Email: h.mahmud193@gmail.com (Received: 20 February 2024, Accepted: 02 May 2024) Keywords: Planting configurations, white maize, yield Abstract A field experiment was carried out at the agronomy field of Sher-e-Bangla Agricultural University, during the period from July to October, 2018 with fifteen planting configurations viz., T1 (40 cm × 15 cm), T2 (40 cm × 20 cm), T3 (40 cm × 25 cm), T4 (45 cm × 15 cm), T5 (45 cm × 20 cm), T6 (45 cm × 25 cm), T7 (50 cm × 15 cm), T8 (50 cm × 20 cm), T9 (50 cm × 25 cm), T10 (55 cm × 15 cm), T11 (55 cm × 20 cm), T12 (55 cm × 25 cm), T13 (60 cm × 15 cm), T14 (60 cm × 20 cm), and T15 (60 cm × 25 cm) to study the growth, phenology, yield attributes and yield of a white maize genotype SAUWMOPMDT273. The experiment was laid out in a randomized complete block design with three replications. Regarding growth and yield parameters, the treatment 60 cm × 25 cm showed significantly the maximum plant height, tassel length and leaf area at silking, grain filling and at harvest. The highest area of an individual leaf 477.9, 879.3, and 496.3 cm2 as well as stem dry matter weight of 28.73, 21.35, and 27.40 g plant-1 respectively, below cob-node, at cob-node and above the cob-node during silking obtained from treatment 60 cm × 25 cm. The treatment 55 cm × 25 cm showed maximum biological yield (14.64 t ha−1) and 60 cm × 20 cm showed significantly the highest cob length (15.94 cm) and number of grains row−1 (20.00), but the highest number of grains cob−1 (231.50), 100 seed weight (29.99 g), grain weight cob−1 (59.81 g) were recorded from 55 cm × 25 cm. Sparser configuration (60×20 cm) requiring less seed rate, this configuration may be followed. Introduction Maize (Zea mays L.) is one of the most important cereal crops of the world. In Bangladesh, the cultivation of maize has been gaining popularity in recent years because of its high productivity and diversified use (Tajul et al., 2013). In Bangladesh, it covers about 3.5 lac hectares of land producing 23 lac metric tons grains (Baral, 2016). Maize crop has been included as a major enterprise in the crop diversification and intensive cropping programs (Zamir et al., 2011). The average yield of maize in Bangladesh is not satisfactory. The national average yield is only 6.45 t ha−1, whereas, the newly released varieties have the potential to produce more than 8 t ha−1 (AIS, 2015). Yellow maize is preferred for feeding animals because it contains carotenoids; for this reason, white-maize production decreased from 50% in 1920 to 1% in 1970 (Troyer, 1999). Commercial quality requirements for white maize are quite strict for purity of the white color, large uniform size of kernels, high specific density, hard endosperm, and white cob (Watson, 1988). The genetics of endosperm color has been summarized by Coe et al. (1988), who exposed the complex genetic interactions of the numerous factors involved in the determination of endosperm color and other traits, such as chlorophyll synthesis or endosperm morphology. Plant spacing is an important factor, which plays a significant role on growth, development and yield of maize. Less plant population and poor nutrient management practices are the major yield reducing factors in maize (Dawadi and Sah, 2012). The Broadcasting method produced the most effective spatial arrangements. It generally gave lower yields than sowing in rows (Krezel and Sobkowicz, 1996). 68 Ahamed et al. Maize differs in its responses to plant density (Luque et al., 2006). Closer row spacing leading to overcrowding, enhanced inter-plant competition for incident photosynthetic photon flux density and soil rhizosphere resource, resulting reduced yield per plant because of its influence on hormonally mediated apical dominance, exaggerated barrenness, and there by finally decreases the number of ears plant-1 and kernels ear−1 (Sangoi, 2001). Adjustment of proper plant spacing in the maize field is important to ensure maximum utilization of solar energy by the crop and reduce evaporation of soil moisture (FAO, 2012). This experiment was designed to evaluate growth, phenology and yield attributes of the white maize genotype SAUWMOPMDT273 under different planting configurations. Materials and Methods The experiment was conducted at the experimental field of Sher-e-Bangla Agricultural University, Dhaka under the Agro-ecological zone of Modhupur Tract, AEZ-28 during the Kharif-II season from July to October, 2018. The experimental area is under the sub-tropical climate that is characterized by high temperature, high humidity, and heavy rainfall with occasional gusty winds in kharif season (April-September) and less rainfall associated with moderately low temperature during the Rabi season (October-March). The experiment was laid out in a randomized complete block design with three replications. The treatments (spacing) were as follows: T1= 40 cm × 15 cm, T2= 40 cm × 20 cm, T3= 40 cm × 25 cm, T4= 45 cm × 15 cm, T5= 45 cm × 20 cm, T6= 45 cm × 25 cm, T7= 50 cm × 15 cm, T8= 50 cm × 20 cm, T9= 50 cm × 25 cm, T10= 55 cm × 15 cm, T11= 55 cm × 20 cm, T12= 55 cm × 25 cm, T13= 60 cm × 15 cm, T14= 60 cm × 20 cm, T15= 60 cm × 25 cm. In this research work, White maize genotype - SAUWMOPMDT273 variety was used as plant materials and the seeds were collected from SAU, Dhaka. The plot selected for the experiment was prepared on the first week of July 2018. Weeds and stubble were removed and finally obtained a desirable field. Fertilizers and manure were applied for the cultivation of crops as recommended by BARI, 2014. The baby corn seeds were sown in lines maintaining plant to plant and row to row distance as per treatments having 2 seeds hole−1 under direct sowing in the plot. All intercultural operations like gap filling, weeding, plant protection, irrigation and drainage were taken properly. The cobs of five randomly selected plants of each plot were separately harvested for recording data on yield attributes and other parameters.The plant height, tassel length plant−1, cob length and breadth as recorded in centimeters (cm) at the time of silking, 15 days of silking and at harvest. Leaf area and dry matter content plant−1 were measured at three stages viz., at silking, 15 days after silking and at harvest and this data was taken from three part of the plant (lower leaves, cob leaves and upper leaves) separately. Number of grains row−1, number of grains cob−1, weight of 100 seeds (g), grain weight cob−1 (g), shell weight cob−1 (g), chaff weight cob−1 (g), grain yield (t ha−1) and stover yield (t ha−1) was counted. Cob (dehusked) and stover obtained from each unit plot were sun-dried and weighed carefully. The harvest index was calculated with the following formula: Harvest Index (%) = Grain yield Biological yield × 100 The data were analyzed, and the means were separated by LSD at 5% level of significance using the statistical computer package program MSTAT-C. Results and Discussion Plant height Significant influence was recorded on plant height of maize at different growth stages as affected by different planting configurations (Table 1). The treatment 60 cm × 25 cm showed highest plant height at all three stages (217.00, 220.30 and 220.70 cm at silking time, 15 days after silking time and at harvest, respectively) whereas the shortest plant was observed (190.30, 184.30 and 175.50 cm at silking time, 15 days after silking time and at harvest, respectively) from 40 cm × 15 cm. Similar result was found by Fromme et al. (2019). But Zeleke et al. (2018) also found that plant height, significantly increased with increasing planting density from 44,444 to 88,888 plants ha−1. Growth, phenology and yield attributes of maize under different planting configurations 69 Tassel length Significant influence was recorded on tassel length of maize at different growth stages as affected by different planting configurations (Table 1). The treatment 60 cm × 25 cm showed maximum tassel length of maize at all three stages (48.00, 52.80 and 39.77 cm at silking time, 15 days after silking time and at harvest, respectively) whereas the minimum tassel length was observed (33.00, 26.67 and 27.98 cm at silking time, 15 days after silking time and at harvest, respectively) from the treatment 40 cm × 15 cm. The highest tassel length from 60 cm × 25 cm which might be due to cause of higher nutrients light and air availability during the cropping period. Table 1. Plant height and tassel length of maize as influenced by different planting configurations Treatments Plant height (cm) Tassel length (cm) At silking At 15 days of silking At harvest At silking At 15 days of silking At harvest T1 190.3 h 184.3 g 175.5 h 33.00 f 26.67 f 27.98 j T2 197.7 g 200.7 c 190.6 e 37.67 e 32.10 e 28.93 j T3 200.3 f 206. b 184.1 f 34.33 f 37.70 d 31.30 hi T4 209.7 c 209.3 b 176.5 gh 44.00 c 39.17 cd 30.50 i T5 197.0 g 200.3 c 179.3 g 41.33 d 37.77 d 34.38 de T6 210.3 c 194.3 ef 179.3 g 46.00 b 37.17 d 31.02 hi T7 211.3 c 196.3 e 194.2 d 44.00 bc 37.30 d 33.37 ef T8 204.7 de 197.0 de 201.2 c 43.33 cd 37.13 d 32.60 fg T9 206.7 d 201.3 c 177.0 gh 38.00 e 40.13 c 36.33 c T10 201.7 f 195.0 ef 206.5 b 37.00 e 38.20 cd 31.67 gh T11 214.3 b 208.7 b 186.3 f 44.00 bc 38.17 cd 35.23 d T12 205.0 de 217.7 a 204.2 bc 44.00 bc 37.97 cd 37.28 c T13 196.0 g 192.7 f 204.0 bc 39.00 e 44.33 b 36.52 c T14 202.7 ef 199.7 cd 194.0 d 43.33 cd 44.63 b 38.72 b T15 217.0 a 220.3 a 220.7 a 48.00 a 52.80 a 39.77 a LSD0.05 2.464 3.092 3.128 1.948 2.06 1.048 CV (%) 8.59 6.97 9.12 9.66 7.55 6.53 In a column means having similar letters) arc statistically identical and those having dissimilar letter(s) differ significantly as per 0.05 level of probability T1 = 40 cm × 15 cm, T2 = 40 cm × 20 cm, T3 = 40 cm × 25 cm, T4 = 45 cm × 15 cm, T5 = 45 cm × 20 cm, T6 = 45 cm × 25 cm, T7 = 50 cm × 15 cm, T8 = 50 cm × 20 cm, T9 = 50 cm × 25 cm, T10 = 55 cm × 15 cm, T11 = 55 cm × 20 cm, T12 = 55 cm × 25 cm, T13 = 60 cm × 15 cm, T14 = 60 cm × 20 cm, T15 = 60 cm × 25 cm Leaf area at silking time Significant influence was recorded on leaf area of maize at silking time as affected by different planting configurations (Table 2). At all three portions of maize plant, the maximum leaf area at silking time (477.90, 879.30 and 496.30 cm2 leaf−1 at leaves below cob- node, leaf at cob-node and leaves above cob-node, respectively) was found from the treatment 60 cm × 25 cm followed by 60 cm × 20 cm whereas the minimum leaf area at silking time (302.50, 595.50 and 262.90 cm2 leaf−1 at leaves below cob- node, leaf at cob-node and leaves above cob-node, respectively) was found from the treatment 40 cm × 15 cm. Leaf area at 15 days of silking time Significant influence was recorded on leaf area of maize at 15 days after silking time as affected by different planting configurations (Table 2). At all three portion of maize plant, the maximum leaf area at 15 days after silking time (511.60, 756.40 and 381.00 cm2 leaf−1 at leaves below cob- node, leaf at cob- node and leaves above cob-node, respectively) was found from the treatment 60 cm × 25 cm followed by treatment 60 cm × 20 cm whereas the minimum leaf area at 15 days after silking time (247.70, 562.80 and 256.60 cm2 leaf−1 at leaves below cob- node, leaf at cob-node and leaves above cob-node, respectively) was found from the treatment 40 cm × 15 cm. 70 Ahamed et al. Table 2. Leaf area (cm2 leaf−1) of maize at silking, 15 days of silking time and harvest as influenced by different planting configurations Treatments At silking At 15 days of silking time At harvest Leaves below cob- node Leaf at cob-node Leaves above cob- node Leaves below cob- node Leaf at cob-node Leaves above cob-node Leaves below cob- node Leaf at cob-node Leaves above cob- node T1 302.5 k 595.5 k 262.9 l 247.7 l 562.8 k 256.6 j 145.7 k 365.4 j 211.1 k T2 350.0 j 621.4 i 316.4 ij 281.1k 591.6 i 274.5 i 183.9 h 438.6 i 262.7ef T3 356.3 i 662.9 g 293.3 k 297.8 j 633.5 f 291.8h 170.8 j 446.1 h 246.3 h T4 364.9 h 681.1 e 409.3 ef 313.9 i 617.6 g 273.3 i 181.8hi 446.9 h 253.8 g T5 373.4 g 659.0 g 353.8 g 326.0h 562.6 k 289.4h 175.2 ij 445.5 h 259.6 fg T6 306.5 k 676.5ef 428.3 d 369.8g 579.5 j 299.1g 233.9 d 513.0 d 267.7 e T7 406.2 e 614.6 j 311.0 ij 380.9 f 674.2 e 291.0h 201.6 g 432.7 i 236.7 i T8 370.0 gh 627.5 i 309.9 j 367.3g 715.2 d 311.2 f 172.7 j 445.9 h 224.0 j T9 346.6 j 613.2 j 331.3 h 298.4 j 720.3cd 368.8c 200.6g 494.8ef 290.1 d T10 389.5 f 646.8 h 318.8 i 283.2k 668.6 e 350.5d 230.1de 474.5 g 294.6 d T11 375.7 g 671.5 f 404.0 f 393.1e 605.3 h 321.4e 226.4 e 490.4 f 288.7 d T12 442.4 d 734.0 d 414.0 e 414.1d 749.8ab 362.3c 209.1 f 497.5 e 315.3 c T13 452.1 c 747.0 c 444.6 c 441.6c 726.5 c 372.9b 256.3 c 523.2 c 318.5 c T14 470.3 b 771.3 b 464.6 b 467.6b 745.1 b 355.1d 284.1 b 549.1 b 344.3 b T15 477.9 a 879.3 a 496.3 a 511.6a 756.4 a 381.0a 302.1a 615.6 a 389.0 a LSD0.05 5.824 6.404 7.529 7.161 6.926 6.754 6.964 6.688 6.838 CV (%) 10.17 12.24 9.00 8.79 10.17 13.20 7.14 11.86 12.57 In a column means having similar letters) arc statistically identical and those having dissimilar letter(s) differ significantly as per 0.05 level of probability T1 = 40 cm × 15 cm, T2 = 40 cm × 20 cm, T3 = 40 cm × 25 cm, T4 = 45 cm × 15 cm, T5 = 45 cm × 20 cm, T6 = 45 cm × 25 cm, T7 = 50 cm × 15 cm, T8 = 50 cm × 20 cm, T9 = 50 cm × 25 cm, T10 = 55 cm × 15 cm, T11 = 55 cm × 20 cm, T12 = 55 cm × 25 cm, T13 = 60 cm × 15 cm, T14 = 60 cm × 20 cm, T15 = 60 cm × 25 cm Leaf area at harvest Significant influence was recorded on leaf area of maize at harvest as affected by different planting configurations (Table 2). At all three portion of maize plant, the maximum leaf area at harvest (302.10, 615.60 and 389.00 cm2 leaf−1 at leaves below cob- node, leaf at cob-node and leaves above cob- node, respectively) was found from the treatment 60 cm × 25 cm followed by treatment 60 cm × 20 cm whereas the minimum leaf area at harvest (147.70, 365.40 and 211.10 cm2 leaf−1 at leaves below cob- node, leaf at cob-node and leaves above cob-node, respectively) was found from the treatment 40 cm × 15 cm. Similar result was also observed by Enujeke (2013) who found higher leaf area per plant with 75 cm × 35 cm compared to 75 cm × 15 cm plant spacing. Dry matter content at silking time Significant influence was recorded on dry matter content of maize at silking time at different portion of plant as affected by different planting configurations (Table 3). At all three portions of maize plant, the maximum dry matter content at silking time (31.32, 29.17 and 27.25 g plant−1 at below cobs- node, at cob-node and above cob-node, respectively) was found from the treatment 55 cm × 25 cm whereas the minimum dry matter content at silking time (16.85, 11.95 and 15.46 g plant−1 at below cobs- node, at cob-node and above cob-node, respectively) was found from the treatment 40 cm × 15 cm. Dry matter content at 15 days after silking Significant influence was recorded on dry matter content of maize at 15 days after silking as affected by different planting configurations (Table 3). At all three portions of maize plant, the maximum dry matter content at 15 days after silking time (34.47, 73.54 and 28.00 g plant−1 at below cobs-node, at cob-node and above cob-node, respectively) was found from the treatment 55 cm × 25 cm whereas the minimum dry matter content at 15 days after silking time (19.45, 28.99 and 17.06 g plant−1 at below cobs-node, at cob-node and above cob-node, respectively) was found from the treatment 40 cm × 15 cm. Dry matter content at harvest Growth, phenology and yield attributes of maize under different planting configurations 71 Significant influence was recorded on dry matter content of maize at harvest as affected by different planting configurations (Table 3). Table 3. Stem dry matter content of maize at silking time, 15 days after silking and harvest as influenced by different planting configurations Treatment At silking time At 15 days after silking At harvest Below cobs-node At cob- node Above cob-node Below cobs-node At cob- node Above cob-node Below cobs-node At cob- node Above cob-node T1 16.85 f 11.95 h 15.46 h 19.45 j 28.99 k 17.06h 15.76 h 33.17g 10.62g T2 22.80de 15.81 g 18.01fg 20.90ij 32.80 j 17.63h 22.73de 46.73b 12.97cd T3 22.12de 12.51 h 17.38 g 24.59fg 44.09g 15.52 i 21.24 f 37.90ef 12.17def T4 21.52 e 19.88ef 22.38 c 26.91de 33.33ij 17.71gh 17.11 h 37.34 f 12.78 cd T5 23.28de 24.39bc 18.36fg 23.32gh 34.28 i 19.38ef 20.50 f 35.31fg 13.56 bc T6 22.04de 16.01 g 25.51 b 32.73 a 37.73h 21.65 d 18.61 g 40.92de 12.65cde T7 24.25cde 23.81 c 18.12fg 30.61 b 47.50f 25.58 b 20.58 f 34.73fg 14.00 b T8 24.45cd 19.75 f 19.44ef 26.13ef 50.57de 19.03fg 21.00 f 36.38 f 13.43 bc T9 26.66bc 22.25 d 20.66de 28.41cd 49.33 e 23.54 c 23.77cde 37.41 f 11.64efg T10 28.29 b 21.59 d 21.93cd 24.93fg 51.23 d 18.28fgh 22.64 e 43.38cd 12.59cde T11 23.05 de 12.60 h 22.37 c 29.67bc 52.87 c 18.11fgh 24.03 cd 46.48bc 11.20 fg T12 31.32 a 29.17 a 27.25 a 34.47 a 73.54 a 28.00 a 28.07 a 56.21 a 15.10 a T13 22.73 de 18.89 f 18.05fg 22.15hi 49.71 e 19.35 ef 24.38 c 49.59 b 14.07 b T14 27.61 b 21.35de 19.33ef 29.45bc 50.33de 20.65 de 26.00 b 54.81 a 14.33 ab T15 28.73 ab 25.91 b 27.40 a 34.27 a 64.46 b 27.97 a 28.30 a 54.45 a 14.24 ab LSD0.05 0.52 0.29 0.28 0.35 0.27 0.26 0.26 0.60 0.19 CV (%) 8.89 7.47 6.60 9.80 11.60 10.89 12.05 9.20 7.51 In a column means having similar letters arc statistically identical and those having dissimilar letter(s) differ significantly as per 0.05 level of probability T1 = 40 cm × 15 cm, T2 = 40 cm × 20 cm, T3 = 40 cm × 25 cm, T4 = 45 cm × 15 cm, T5 = 45 cm × 20 cm, T6 = 45 cm × 25 cm, T7 = 50 cm × 15 cm, T8 = 50 cm × 20 cm, T9 = 50 cm × 25 cm, T10 = 55 cm × 15 cm, T11 = 55 cm × 20 cm, T12 = 55 cm × 25 cm, T13 = 60 cm × 15cm, T14 = 60 cm × 20 cm, T15 = 60 cm × 25 cm At all three portion of maize plant, the maximum dry matter content at harvest (28.07, 56.21 and 15.10 g plant−1 at below cobs-node, at cob-node and above cob-node, respectively) was found from the treatment 55 cm × 25 cm whereas the minimum dry matter content at harvest (15.76, 33.17 and 10.62 g plant−1 at below cobs-node, at cob-node and above cob-node, respectively) was found from the treatment 40 cm × 15 cm. Ibeawuchi and Matthews-Njoku (2008) achieved highest dry matter with the plant spacing of 25 cm × 75 cm and found that higher nutrient efficiency showed higher dry matter accumulation in plants. Under the present study higher plant spacing 55 cm × 25 cm showed higher dry matter content compared to others which was supported by the finding of Ibeawuchi and Matthews- Njoku (2008). Cob length Significant influence was recorded on cob length of maize as affected by different planting configurations (Table 4). Table 4. Yield contributing parameters of maize as influenced by different planting configurations Treatment Yield contributing parameters Cob length (cm) Cob breadth (cm) Number of rows cob−1 Number of grains row−1 Number of grains cob−1 100-grain weight (g) T1 9.19 g 9.62 f 8.22 i 6.89 j 61.21 k 23.38 e T2 9.58 g 10.03 ef 8.83 hi 10.56 hi 93.58 j 24.04 e T3 9.31 g 10.10 ef 8.67 hi 9.66 i 86.86 j 25.46 d T4 10.78 f 10.69 e 9.22 gh 11.33 h 107.40 i 27.77 c T5 11.80 ef 11.52 d 10.00 f 14.00 f 140.20 g 28.29 bc T6 11.05 f 12.22 c 11.67 b 14.11 ef 164.10 e 25.73 d T7 11.51 ef 10.68 e 10.67 de 15.55 d 165.60 e 27.38 c 72 Ahamed et al. Treatment Yield contributing parameters Cob length (cm) Cob breadth (cm) Number of rows cob−1 Number of grains row−1 Number of grains cob−1 100-grain weight (g) T8 13.13 cd 12.08 cd 11.11 bcd 15.33 de 170.30 e 27.55 c T9 13.51 bcd 12.94 ab 11.33 bc 12.67 g 140.30 g 28.43 bc T10 12.35 de 12.54 abc 9.22 gh 13.11 fg 121.60 h 29.95 a T11 13.49 bcd 12.27 bc 9.66 fg 15.56 d 154.10 f 28.08 bc T12 13.77 bc 13.06 a 12.33 a 18.67 b 231.50 a 29.99 a T13 14.39 b 12.46 abc 11.00 cd 17.34 c 189.50 c 27.96 bc T14 15.94 a 12.01 cd 10.78 cde 20.00 a 218.50 b 29.51 a T15 14.28 bc 12.13 cd 10.22 ef 17.44 bc 181.20 d 28.94 ab LSD0.05 0.23 0.13 0.12 0.24 1.34 0.20 CV (%) 7.76 8.21 13.34 7.07 12.72 8.85 In a column means having similar letters) arc statistically identical and those having dissimilar letter(s) differ significantly as per 0.05 level of probability T1 = 40 cm × 15 cm, T2 = 40 cm × 20 cm, T3 = 40 cm × 25 cm, T4 = 45 cm × 15 cm, T5 = 45 cm × 20 cm, T6 = 45 cm × 25 cm, T7 = 50 cm × 15 cm, T8 = 50 cm × 20 cm, T9 = 50 cm × 25 cm, T10 = 55 cm × 15 cm, T11 = 55 cm × 20 cm, T12 = 55 cm × 25 cm, T13 = 60 cm × 15cm, T14 = 60 cm × 20 cm, T15 = 60 cm × 25 cm The highest cob length (15.94 cm) was recorded from the treatment 60 cm × 20 cm which was significantly different from all other treatments followed by the treatment 60 cm × 15 cm. The lowest cob length (9.19 cm) was found from the treatment 40 cm × 15 cm which was statistically identical with the treatment 40 cm × 20 cm and 40 cm × 25 cm. Fanadzo et al. (2010) found similar result with the present study and observed that higher cob length per plant was found from higher plant spacing. Ramchandrappa et al. (2004), Kunjir (2007), Bairagi et al. (2015) and Chamroy et al. (2017) also found similar result with the present study. Cob breadth Significant influence was recorded on cob breadth of maize as affected by different planting configurations (Table 4). The highest cob breadth (13.06 cm) was recorded from the treatment 55 cm × 25 cm which was statistically similar with the treatment 50 cm × 25 cm, 55 cm × 15 cm and 60 cm × 15 cm. On the other hand, the lowest cob breadth (9.62 cm) was found from the treatment 40 cm × 15 cm. Under the present study, the highest cob breadth (13.06 cm) from 55 cm × 25 cm which might be due to cause of higher nutrient uptake from lower plant population due to less competition of nutrients. Number of rows cob-1 Significant influence was recorded on number of rows cob−1 of maize as affected by different planting configurations (Table 4). The highest number of rows cob−1 (12.33) was recorded from the treatment 55 cm × 25 cm which was significantly different from all other treatments followed by 45 cm × 25 cm, 50 cm × 25 cm and 55 cm × 15 cm. The lowest number of rows cob−1 (8.22) was found from the treatment 40 cm × 15 cm which was statistically similar with the treatment 40 cm × 20 cm and 40 cm × 25 cm. Rahman et al. (2016) supported the present study who reported that number of rows cob−1 per plant basis was achieved with wider row spacing compared to lower plant spacing. Similar result was also observed by Kunjir (2007). Number of grains row−1 Significant influence was recorded on number of grains row−1 of maize as affected by different planting configurations (Table 4). The highest number of grains row−1 (20.00) was recorded from the treatment 60 cm × 20 cm which was significantly different from all other treatments followed by 55 cm × 25 cm and 60 cm × 25 cm. The lowest number of grains row−1 (6.89) was found from the treatment 40 cm × 15 cm which was significantly different from all other treatments. Similar result was also observed by Rahman et al. (2016) and Kunjir (2007). Number of grains cob−1 Growth, phenology and yield attributes of maize under different planting configurations 73 Significant influence was recorded on number of grains cob−1 of maize as affected by different planting configurations (Table 4). The highest number of grains cob−1 (231.50) was recorded from the treatment 55 cm × 25 cm which was significantly different from all other treatments followed by 60 cm × 20 cm. The lowest number of grains cob−1 (61.21) was found from the treatment 40 cm × 15 cm which was significantly different from all other treatments. The result obtained from the present study was similar with the findings of Rahman et al. (2016), Kunjir (2007) and Bairagi et al. (2015). Weight of 100-seeds Significant influence was recorded on 100-seed weight of maize as affected by different planting configurations (Table 4). The highest 100-seed weight (29.99 g) was recorded from the treatment 55 cm × 25 cm which was statistically similar with the treatment 55 cm × 15 cm, 60 cm × 20 cm and 60 cm × 25 cm. The lowest 100-seed weight (23.38 g) was found from the treatment 40 cm × 15 cm which was statistically identical with the treatment 40 cm × 20 cm. Similar result was also observed by Shafi et al. (2012) who found higher 100-seed weight with higher plant spacing. Kunjir (2007) also found 1000-grains weight increased significantly with wider spacing 75 cm × 20 cm as compared to narrower spacing 45 cm × 20 cm and 60 cm × 20 cm. Rahman et al. (2016) also found similar result with the present study. Grain weight cob−1 Significant influence was recorded on grain weight cob−1 of maize as affected by different planting configurations (Table 5). The highest grain weight cob−1 (59.81 g) was recorded from the treatment 55 cm × 25 cm which was statistically identical with the treatment 60 cm × 25 cm. The lowest grain weight cob−1 (17.42 g) was found from the treatment 40 cm × 15 cm which was significantly different from all other treatments. The treatment 40 cm × 20 cm, 40 cm × 25 cm and 45 cm × 15 cm also showed lower result on grain weight cob−1 which was closer to 40 cm × 15 cm but significantly different from them. Similar result was also observed by Kunjir (2007) who observed weight of grains per cob, increased significantly with wider spacing 75 cm × 20 cm as compared to narrower spacing 45 cm × 20 cm and 60 cm × 20 cm. Similar result was also observed by Rahman et al. (2016). Shell weight cob−1 Significant influence was recorded on shell weight cob−1 of maize as affected by different planting configurations (Table 5). The highest shell weight cob−1 (15.33 g) was recorded from the treatment 60 cm × 20 cm which was statistically similar with the treatment 55 cm × 25 cm whereas the lowest shell weight cob−1 (7.76 g) was found from the treatment 40 cm × 15 cm which was statistically similar with the treatment 40 cm × 20 cm, 45 cm × 15 cm and 50 cm × 15 cm. Chaff weight cob−1 Significant influence was recorded on chaff weight cob−1 of maize as affected by different planting configurations (Table 5). The highest chaff weight cob−1 (8.24 g) was recorded from the treatment 55 cm × 25 cm which was statistically identical with the treatment 60 cm × 20 cm and 60 cm × 25 cm and 60 cm × 15 cm. The lowest chaff weight cob−1 (4.00 g) was found from the treatment 40 cm × 15 cm which was statistically similar with the treatment but 40 cm × 20 cm, 40 cm × 25 cm and 45 cm × 15 cm also showed closer result on chaff weight cob−1 compared to 40 cm × 15 cm. Grain yield ha−1 Significant influence was recorded on grain yield ha−1 of maize as affected by different planting configurations (Table 5). The highest grain yield (4.77 t ha−1) was recorded from the treatment 55 cm × 20 cm which was statistically identical with the treatment 45 cm × 20 cm, 50 cm × 15 cm, 60 cm × 15 cm and 60 cm × 20 cm followed by 55 cm × 15 cm. The lowest grain yield ha−1 (2.11 t ha−1) was found from the treatment 40 cm × 25 cm which was significantly different from all other treatments. The treatment 40 cm × 15 cm and 50 cm × 25 cm also showed lower result on which was closer to 40 cm × 25 cm but significantly different from them. Similar result was also observed by Shafi et al. (2012), Rahman et al. 74 Ahamed et al. (2016), Hasan et al. (2018) and Stephanus et al. (2018) who observed grain yield ha−1 significantly increased with increasing planting density to a certain level. Stover yield ha−1 Significant influence was recorded on stover yield ha−1 of maize as affected by different planting configurations (Table 5). The highest stover yield (10.60 t ha−1) was recorded from the treatment 40 cm × 20 cm which was statistically identical with the treatment 40 cm × 15 cm, 45 cm × 15 cm and 60 cm × 15 cm followed by 50 cm × 15 cm and 55 cm × 15 cm, 55 cm × 15 cm. The lowest stover yield ha−1 (5.66 t ha−1) was found from the treatment 50 cm × 25 cm which was significantly different from all other treatments. Shafi et al. (2012) and Rahman et al. (2016) also found similar result with the present study. Biological yield ha−1 Significant influence was recorded on biological yield ha−1 of maize as affected by different planting configurations (Table 4). The highest biological yield (14.48 t ha−1) was recorded from the treatment 60 cm × 15 cm which was statistically similar with the treatment 40 cm × 20 cm, 45 cm × 15 cm and 50 cm × 15 cm. The lowest biological yield ha−1 (8.68 t ha−1) was found from the treatment 50 cm × 25 cm which was significantly different from all other treatments. The treatment 40 cm × 25 cm and 45 cm × 25 cm also showed lower result on biological yield ha−1 which was closer to 50 cm × 25 cm but significantly different Stephanus et al. (2018) and Rahman et al. (2016) also found similar result with this study. Harvest index Harvest index influenced significantly by different planting configurations (Table 5). The highest harvest index (40.52%) was recorded from the treatment 55 cm × 20 cm which was significantly different from all other treatments followed by 45 cm × 20 cm, 50 cm × 20 cm, 55 cm × 20 cm and 60 cm × 25 cm. The lowest harvest index (22.63%) was found from the treatment 40 cm × 15 cm which was significantly same with the treatments 40 cm × 25 cm. The treatment 40 cm × 20 cm and 60 cm × 15 cm also showed lower result on harvest index which was closer to 40 cm × 15 cm but significantly different. Similar result was also observed by Stephanus et al. (2018) and Hasan et al. (2018). Table 5. Yield parameters of maize as influenced by different planting configurations Treatment Grain weight cob−1 (g) Shell weight cob−1 (g) Chaff weight cob−1 (g) Grain yield (t ha−1) Stover yield (t ha−1) Biological yield (t ha−1) Harvest index (%) T1 17.42 k 7.75 i 4.00 g 2.99 f 10.21 a 13.19 b 22.63 k T2 26.12 i 8.32 hi 5.33 f 3.36 e 10.60 a 13.96 ab 24.06 j T3 21.09 j 8.81 h 5.13 f 2.11 g 7.13 e 9.24 i 22.82 k T4 25.53 i 8.53 hi 5.34 f 3.89 c 10.24 a 14.13 ab 27.52 i T5 40.87 e 9.69 g 6.81 c 4.67 a 7.93 cd 12.60 cd 37.07 b T6 40.32 ef 9.96 g 6.11 e 3.58 d 6.42 fg 10.00 h 35.84 cd T7 35.26 h 8.51 hi 6.24 e 4.70 a 9.24 b 13.94 ab 33.72 f T8 41.94 e 12.19 ef 6.91 c 4.19 b 7.08 e 11.28 f 37.20 b T9 38.81 fg 12.70 de 6.36 de 3.02 f 5.66 h 8.68 j 34.77 e T10 37.99 g 11.70 f 6.70 cd 4.34 b 8.98 b 13.33 b 32.58 g T11 55.67 b 13.20 cd 7.67 b 4.77 a 7.00 e 11.78 e 40.52 a T12 59.81 a 14.57 ab 8.24 a 3.99 c 6.63 f 10.61 g 37.57 b T13 40.42 e 12.82 de 8.05 ab 4.62 a 10.06 a 14.68 a 31.47 h T14 55.47 b 15.33 a 8.19 a 4.75 a 8.15 c 12.91 c 36.83 bc T15 58.32 a 13.81 bc 8.13 a 3.89 c 6.47 fg 10.35 gh 37.55 b LSD0.05 0.32 0.16 0.08 0.04 0.40 0.49 1.03 CV (%) 12.83 8.39 11.03 11.92 12.32 12.24 11.14 In a column means having similar letters) arc statistically identical and those having dissimilar letter(s) differ significantly as per 0.05 level of probability Growth, phenology and yield attributes of maize under different planting configurations 75 T1 = 40 cm × 15 cm, T2 = 40 cm × 20 cm, T3 = 40 cm × 25 cm, T4 = 45 cm × 15 cm, T5 = 45 cm × 20 cm, T6 = 45 cm × 25 cm, T7 = 50 cm × 15 cm, T8 = 50 cm × 20 cm, T9 = 50 cm × 25 cm, T10 = 55 cm × 15 cm, T11 = 55 cm × 20 cm, T12 = 55 cm × 25 cm, T13 = 60 cm × 15cm, T14 = 60 cm × 20 cm, T15 = 60 cm × 25 cm Conclusion Considering the above results, it may be concluded that higher planting density (lower number of plant population per unit area) showed better performance in terms of per plant basis compared to lower plant density (higher number of plant population per unit area) but in case of per ha yield, lower planting density showed better result compared to higher planting density. With this respect, the highest grain weight cob−1 (59.81 g) was found from the treatment 55 cm × 25 cm whereas the highest grain yield (4.77 t ha−1) was recorded from the treatment 55 cm × 20 cm. From the above findings, it can be concluded that the spacing 55 cm × 20 cm showed highest grain yield (4.77 t ha−1) and harvest index (40.52%). So, the plant spacing 55 cm × 20 cm could be considered for higher grain yield as compared to other planting configurations. References AIS, 2015. Agriculture Information Service. Area, production and yield of different crops. Agriculture Information Service. Khamarbari, Dhaka. pp. 14. Bairagi, S., M.K. Pandit, P. Sidhya, S. Adhikary and A.V.V. Koundinya. 2015. Impacts of date of planting and crop geometry on growth and yield of baby corn (Zea mays var. rugosa). J. Crop Weed. 11(2):127-131. Baral, B. 2016. Agricultural Market information system (AMIS) in Bangladesh. Asia and pacific commission on agricultural statistics. Twenty-sixth Session on Asia and Pacific Commission on Agriculture Statistics, 15- 19 February, Thimphu, Bhutan. BARI. 2014. Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute. Krishi Projukti Hat Boi, Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute. pp. 54 Chamroy, T., V.S. Kale, P.K. Nagre, V.N. Dod, S.S. Wanjari and S.W. Jahagirdar. 2017. Growth and yield response of baby corn (Zea mays L.) to sowing time and crop geometry. Chem. Sci. Rev. Lett. 2017. 6(22): 978-981. Coe, E.H., M.G. Neuffer and D.A. Hoisington. 1988. The genetics of maize. In: G.F. Sprague and J.W. Dudley (ed.). Maize and maize improvement, 3rd ed. ASA, CSSA, SSSA, Madison, WI. Dawadi, D.R. and S.K. Sah. 2012. Growth and yield of hybrid maize (Zea mays L.) in relation to planting density and nitrogen levels during winter season in Nepal. Tropic. Agric. Res. 23(3): 218-227. Enujeke, E.C. 2013. Effects of variety and spacing on growth characters of hybrid maize. Asian J. Agric. Rural Dev. 3(5): 296-310. Fanadzo, M., C. Chiduza and P.N.S. Mnkeni. 2010. Effect of inter-row spacing and plant population on weed dynamics and maize (Zea mays L.) yield at Zanyokwe irrigation scheme, Eastern Cape, South Africa. African J. Agric. Res. 5(7): 518-523. FAO. 2012. Food and Agriculture Organization. Production report of agricultural crop. http://faostat.fao.org/site/ 339/default.aspx Fromme, D.D., T.A. Spivey and W.J. Grichar. 2019. Agronomic response of corn (Zea mays L.) hybrids to plant populations. Int. J. Agron. 2019(1): 1-8. Hasan, M.R., M.R. Rahman and A.K. Hasan. 2018. Effect of variety and spacing on the yield performance of maize (Zea mays L.) in old Brahmaputra floodplain area of Bangladesh. Agric. Environ. Sci. 3(3): 270-274. Ibeawuchi, I.I. and Matthews-Njoku. 2008. Plant spacing, dry matter accumulation and yield of local and improved maize cultivars. J. American Sci. 4(1): 11-20. Krezel, R. and P. Sobkowicz. 1996. The effect of sowing rates and methods on winter triticale grown on light soil. Roczniki Nauk Rolniczych. Seria A, Produkcja Roślinna. 111(3&4): 69-78. Kunjir, S.S., S.A. Chavan, S.B. Bhagat and N.B. Zende. 2007. Effect of planting geometry, nitrogen levels and micronutrients on the growth and yield of sweet corn. Crop Prot. Prod. 2(3): 25-27. Luque, S.F., A.G. Cirilo and M.E. Otegui. 2006. Genetic gains in grain yield and related physiological attributes in Argentine maize hybrids. Field Crop Res. 95: 383-397. Rahman, M.M., S.K. Paul and M.M. Rahman. 2016. Effects of spacing and nitrogen levels on yield and yield contributing characters of maize. J. Bangladesh Agril. Univ. 14(1): 43–48. Ramachandrappa, B.K., H.V. Nanjappa and H.K. Shivakumar. 2004. Yield and quality of baby corn (Zea mays L.) as influenced by spacing and fertilizer levels. Acta-Agronomica-Hungarica. 52(3): 237-243. 76 Ahamed et al. Sangoi, L. 2001. Understanding plant density effects on maize growth and development: An important issue to maximize grain yield. Ciencia Rural. 31(1): 159-168. Shafi, M., J. Bakht, S. Ali, H. Khan, M.A. Khan and M. Sharif. 2012. Effect of planting density on phenology, growth and yield of maize (Zea mays L.). Pak. J. Bot. 44(2): 691-696. Stephanus, J., Haarhoff and P.A. Swanepoel. 2018. Plant population and maize grain yield: A global systematic review of rainfed trials. J. Crop Sci. 58: 1819–1829. Tajul, M.I., M.M. Alam, S.M.M. Hossain, K. Naher, M.Y. Rafii and M.A. Latif. 2013. Influence of plant population and nitrogen- fertilizer at various levels on growth and growth efficiency of maize. Sci World J. 2013(1):1- 9. Troyer, A.F. 1999. Background of U.S. hybrid maize. Crop Sci., 39: 601–626. Watson, S.A. 1988. Maize marketing, processing, and utilization. In: G.F. Sprague and J.W. Dudley (eds.) Maize and maize improvement, 3rd edn. ASA, CSSA, SSSA, Madison, WI. pp. 881–940. Zamir, M.S.I., A.H. Ahmad, M.R. Javeed and T. Latif. 2011. Growth and yield behaviour of two maize hybrids (Zea mays L.) towards different plant spacing. Cercetari Agronomice in Moldova, 14(2): 33-40. Zeleke, A., G. Alemayehu and G.S. Yihenew. 2018. Effects of planting density and nitrogen fertilizer rate on yield and yield related traits of maize (Zea mays L.) in Northwestern, Ethiopia. Adv. Crop Sci. Technol. 6: 352.