Title: Field corn research in the Everglades.
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00076899/00001
 Material Information
Title: Field corn research in the Everglades.
Physical Description: Serial
Publisher: Everglades Experiment Station.
Publication Date: 1961
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00076899
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 166140929

Full Text



Everglades Station Mimeo 62-11


Field Corn Research in the Everglades 1961
by
Victor E. Green, Jr., Emmett D. Harris, Jr. and Joseph R. Orsenigo -


AGRONOMIC TESTS

Variety Tests.

Two variety tests were planted to field corn in 1961: 1) a 15- variety
yellow and white subtropical and tropical corn test for grain feed, and 2) an
8- variety white tropical corn test for grain feed and for milling. Soil tests
revealed that the soil had a pH value of 5.50, with a P content of 5 and a K
content of 63 pounds per acre. Five hundred pounds per acre of an 0-12-16
fertilizer containing 1.0% MnO, and 0.4% each of B20 and ZnO equivalent and
100 pounds per ton of 25% heptachlor were applied per acre. The yellow and
white corn test was planted on February 13 and the white corn test on February
15, 1961. The stand was thinned to one plant every 12 inches, or to a popu-
lation of 14,520 per acre. The randomized complete block design was used with
six replications. Other details of the two variety tests are shown in Tables
1 and 2, along with data collected during the growth of the crop. Figure 1
shows the average yields of varieties grown for the last few years. The plots
were harvested on July 5, 1961. A count was made of the stand at harvest and
of the number of ears per plot. The husk extension and tightness was measured.
The plot weights were recorded as snapped corn, ear corn and shelled corn.
Mean yields were separated by the Student-Newman-Kuels test at the 5 percent
point. The husk percentage of snapped corn was calculated for each variety.
Shelling percentages of ear corn were calculated. The bushels per acre of
U.S. No. 2 grain were computed. These data are shown in Tables 3 and 4.

Certain varieties were common to both tests. The characteristics from 12
replications were averaged and appear in Table 5.

Analyses of variance were performed on the yield data. Since highly
significant F tests were indicated, the yield data were subjected to func-
tional analyses of variance using Orthogonal class comparisons and the Student-
Newman-Kuels multiple comparison test was employed at the 5% level of significance.
The sources of variation used were country of origin and common lineage. These
comparisons are shown in Tables 6 and 7A. Single degree of freedom analysis of
the yields of varieties occurring in both tests appears in Table 7B.

Table 6 Comparisons

The following comparisons were found to be highly significant. Comparison 1
shows that all the other varieties, which were all hybrids, outyielded Big Joe,
a multi-lined synthetic variety. Comparison 2 shows that the avera R.-
Poey varieties were better than the average of the Cornell variety i
Poey T-66 was better than Poey T-62 is shown in the third compare These
are both yellow corns. Poey T-23 was better than the average of ,ey T-18 and c,
Poey T-46. These three are white varieties compared in number e 46 2

1/ Associate Agronomist, Assistant Entomologist and Associate Ho ulturist,
respectively. '/


December, 1961








Thble 1. 1961 Yellow and White Field Corn Variety Test


Row

1*

2

3*

4

5

6

'7

8

9*

10*

11*

12

13

14

15


Lineage

T xT2xT3xT

Unknown

T-3 T6xT7
WTIXTxCEFKM

1x2 3ax6

1 x2 7x8

Imp. K-257
**


Variety

Rocamex H-501

Keystone 257

Rocamex H-503

Big Joe

Funk G-740

Funk G-745

Embro 256 cP

Embro 257 CT2

Poey T-18

Poey T-23

Poey T-46

Poey T-62

Poey T-66

Corneli 54

Corneli 54-2


Tasselling
mid-point
Date Days


5-5

4-29

5-5
4-24

4-26

4-27

4-27

4-28

4-26

4-30

4-28

4-30

4-28

4-28

4-28


Height, inches


Stalk


Number
leaves
per


Ear plant


H. tur.
Index***

1.8

2.4

1.8

1.5

1.9

1.9

2.0

2.3

1.1

1.2

1.2

1.0

0.5

1.5

1.2


White varieties occurring also in the white corn test.

Planted February 13, 1961. Range 1 F2NW. 1 plant every foot. 14,520
per acre. Scratched 2/27, 3/3. Hilled slightly 3/7. Sprayed bud-
worms 1 pint (2#/gal) Heptachlor. Laid by 3/21 6 reps.

** Embro is the trade name of EMngelsdory & Sons, successor to Field Crop
Seed Division of Corneli Seed Co. Embro 257 CT2 was made from the
female parent of Keystone 257 x the male parent of Corneli 54.

*** Readings by Miss Alice L. Robert, CRD-ARS-USDA, May 18, Avg. of 40.

Poey T-18, 23 and 46 emerged earliest and had greatest seedling vigor.
Looked best after frost of 3/11.


J x M
JxM

I x J

H x G

A xR
A x RS
AxS

Ax C

AxC


116

111

118

96

96

98

109

104

104

117

111

106

108

108

112


Nx

Gx

J x

P x

P x

Dx

Dx










Table 2. 1961 White Field Corn Variety Test


Variety

Poey T-18

Poey T-23

Poey T-46

Rocamex H-501

Rocamex H-502

Rocamex H-503

San Juan

Barretal


Lineage

J x M

Ix J

H x G
HxG

T xT2

T1T3
T2xT3

OP

OP


NxL

G x F
GxF

JxK
J x K

T3xT
2xT5
T6xT7


Tasselling
mid-point
Date Days

4-26 70

4-30 74

5-1 75

5-5 79

5-5 79

5-5 79

4-25 69

4-23 67


H. tur.
Index*

0.7

0.9

0.4

1.6

1.7

1.3

1.7

1.3


Height,in.
Stalk Ear

109 65

115 65

118 68

129 78

124 78

127 76

100 56

94 49


Planted February 15, 1961. Range 19 F2NW. 1 plant per foot. 14,520 per
acre. Scratched 2/27, 3/3. Hilled slightly 3/7. Sprayed budworms 1
pint (2#/gal.) Heptachlor. Layed by 3/21. 6 reps.

* Readings by Miss Alice L. Robert, CRD-ARS-USDA, May 18. Avg. of 40.
The Rust Puccinia Polysora found on Barretal and Poey T-18.


Row

18

23

46

1

2

3

S

B


Number
leaves
per
plant

15

16

15

16

16

16

13

12


I








was better than Poey T-18 in comparison 6. According to comparison 10 the Poey
hybrids and the Corneli hybrids, all of Cuban lineage were better than all other
varieties on the average. The Rocamex and Funk variety average was better than
the Keystone and Embro variety average as shown in Comparison 13.

One comparison was significant only at odds of 19:1. This is shown in
comparison 8. Embro 257CT-2 was better than the average of Keystone 257 and
Embro 256CT-2.

The following comparisons were not significant, showing equal yields in
1961 among these varieties: the average yields of the yellow Poey varieties
T-62 and T-66 equaled those of the white Poey varieties T-18, T-23 and T-46.
See comparison 4. According to comparison 7, Keystone 257 equalled Embro
256CT-2. Funks G-740 equalled Funks G-745 as shown by comparison 9. Corneli
54 equalled Corneli 54-2 according to the eleventh comparison. As shown in
comparison 12, Rocamex H-501 equalled Rocamex H-503.

Table 7A comparisons

The following comparisons were found to be highly significant. In com-
parison 2, it will be seen that the Rocamex hybrids outyielded open-pollinated
varieties. Among the open-pollinated varieties, San Juan outyielded Barretal
See comparison 3. Rocamex 502 was outyielded by the average of Rocamex 501 and
503 as seen in comparison 5.

There was one significant comparison at the 5 percent level, comparison 7.
Poey T-23 was better than the average of Poey T-18 and Poey T-46.

The following comparisons were now-significant. The average of the Cuban
varieties equalled the average of the Mexican varieties. See comparison 1.
According to comparison 4, Rocamex H-501 yield equalled that of Rocamex H-503.
In comparison 6, Poey T-18 was equal to Poey T-46.

Table 7B comparisons

These comparisons, in which yield data from the two tests were combined
into one analysis, confirmed some of the earlier comparisons. One additional
mean separation was nade that was not significant in the Student-Newman-Kuels
test for mean separation.

Four comparisons were highly significant showing: 1) that the average of
the Rocamex varieties were higher than the average of the Poey varieties,
3) that Poey T-23 outyielded the average of Poey T-18 and Poey T-46, 4) that
Poey T-46 yield was better than Poey T-18.

Comparison 2 showed that the yield of Rocamex H-501 was equal to Rocamex
H-503.






Table 3. Yields and Quality measurements of the 15 variety yellow and white subtropical and tropical corn test.
Belle Glade, Florida. 1961.
Ent- Yields,bu/Ac.,No. 2 Ears/ Husk extn. 2, Husk % Shelling Lodging Ear size, cm
ry Variety and significance 1/ 25' row & tightness- snapped corn percentage 3 Length Diameter

1 Roa~nex H-501* 163.8 29 55T 8.8 82.7 18 5
3 Rocamex H-503* 160.5 30 26L 9.0 83.0 0 21 5
10 Poey T-23* 144.5 30 35ML 8.8 84.0 U 21 5
13 Poey T-66 144.2 26 58MT 9.1 84.0 o D 20 6
11 Poey T-46* 139.1 19 47M 8.4 84.0 19 5
5 Funks G-740 136.8 31 65M 9.1 83.6 19 5
8 Embro 257 CT-2 133.3 25 59M 9.1 83.0 21 5
6 Funks G-745 133.0 30 47M 9.0 83.6 8 20 6
7 Embro 256CP 121.4 28 73LM 9.0 83.0 otm 19 5
14 Corneli 54 120.9 28 20L 8.7 83.0 > 18 5
12 POey T-62 120.7 28 40mr 8.8 84.0 0 19 5
2 Keystone 257 120.4 30 64M 9.0 83.0 o 20 5
9 Poey T-18* o16.9 25 21LM 8.4 84.0 o ? 21 5
4 Big Joe 102.2 26 19L 9.0 82.7 8 co 20 5
0 (U H


1/ Yields connected
bu./A. yield.


with the same range line are not significantly different from each other. LSD .05 = 13.2


2/ Husk extension beyond the tip of the ear in mm. T = tight, M =
MT = medium to tight, LM = loose to medium.


medium, L = loose, ML = medium to loose,


* Occurs in both tests in 1961. White corn.









Table 4. Yields and quality measurements of the 8 variety white tropical corn test. Belle Glade, Florida. 1961.

Ent- Yields, bu/Ac.,No. 2 Ears/ Husk extn. Husk % Shelling Lodging Ear size,cm.
ry Variety and significance 25' row & tightness snapped corn Percentage % Length Diam.

3* Rocamer H-503 176.7 25 36M 9.0 83.0 22 6

1* Rocamex H-501 175.5 30 23LM 8.8 82.7 21 5

23* Poey T-23 153.8 26 32L 8.6 84.0 t H 20 6
-H 0
46* Poey T-46 141.3 24 52M 8.5 84.0 4 o20 5

2 Rocamex H-502 133.3 22 16L 8.9 82.7 19 5

5 San Juan 131.0 22 14LM 9.0 82.7' 19 5

18* Poey T-18 126.7 26 36LM 8.7 84.0 19 6

B Barretal 82.1 22 24w 8.7 82.7 o 18 5
22 ~ ~~ fSM 8.


I/ Yields connected
yield.


with the same range line are not significantly different from each other. LSD .05 = 17.9 bu./A.


2/ Husk extension beyond the tip of the ear in mm. T = tight, M = medium, L
T = medium to tight, LM = loose to medium.

* Occurs in both tests in 1961. White corn.


- loose, ML = Medium to loose,








Table 5. The


characteristics of the white varieties common to both tests in 1961.


Averages < 12 replications.


Tasseling
mid-point
Date Days


Height,in.
Stalk I Ear


0


P,
O


a0
*d






r-
0)
r4


Ear size, cm.
Length Diameter


Rocamex H-501 Tl T2 T3 T4 5-5 80 1.7 122 74 16 169.6 29 39M 8.8 82.7 20 5.2

Rocamex H-503 T2 T3 T6 T7 5-5 80 1.5 122 75 16 168.6 27 31ML 9.0 83.0 21 6.4

Poey T-23 I J G F 4.30 75 1.0 116 66 16 149.2 28 34LM 8.7 84.0 20 5.4

Poey T-46 H G J K 4-30 75 0.8 115 65 15 140.2 21 50ML 8.5 84.0 20 5.1

Poey T-18 J M N L 4-26 71 0.9 106 62 14 116.8 26 29ML 8.6 84.0 20 5.4


* Yields connected by the same range line are not significantly different from each othtr. LSD .05 = 11.0 bu./A.




t'-


Variety


,Seed
parent


Pollcn
Darent







-8-
Table 6. Functional analysis of variance using orthogonal class comparisons
of the yield data in the variety test. Sources of variation are
country of origin and lineage.


Source of Variation -
Blocks
Varieties
1. Big Joe vs. others
2. Corneli vs. other Cuban varieties
3. Poey T-62 vs. Poey T-66
4. Avg. of Poey T-62 and T-66 vs. Avg. of Poey T-18,
T-23 and T-46
5. Poey T-23 vs. Avg. of Poey T-18 and T-46
6. Poey T-18 vs. Poey T-46
7. Keystone 257 vs. Embro 256CT-2
8. Embro 257CT-2 vs. Keystone 257 and Embro 256CT-2
9. Funks G-740 vs. Funks G-745
10. Poey and Corneli varieties vs. other varieties
11. Corneli 54 vs. Corneli 54-2
12. Rocamex H-501 vs. Rocamex H-503
13. Keystone and Embro vs. Rocamex and Funks
14. Rocamex varieties vs. Funks varieties
Error


DF MS
5 242.13
14 1917.93
1 1230.18
1 1360.80
1 1656.75

1 34.67
1 1834.70
1 3104.08
1 2.08
1 616.70
1 44.08
1 8990.00
1 75.00
1 29.17
1 975.00
1 0.38
70 130.58


I


I/ Figures in parenthesis were obtained by dividing the lesser (variety) mean
square into the greater (error) mean square. F value at 70 (error) and
1 (variety) DF = 3.98 @ .05 and 7.01 @ .01.


F
1.85
14.69*
9.42**
10.42**
12.68**

(3.77)1
14.05**
23.77**
(62.78)
4.72*
(2.96)
68.85**
(1.74)
(4.47)
7.47**
(343.63)












Table 7A.


Functional analysis of variance using orthogonal class comparisons
of the yield data in the white corn test. Sources of variation are
country of origin and lineage.


Source of variation DF MS F

Blocks 5 135.42 0.58

Varieties 7 5531.03 23.71**

1. Cuban varieties vs. Mexican varieties 1 9.80 (23.79)

2. Rocamex hybrids vs. open-pollinated varieties 1 21978.45 94.24**

3. San Juan vs. Barretal, both open-pollinated 1 7154.08 30.68**
4. Rocamex H-501 vs. Rocamex H-503 1 4.08 (57.16)1/

5. Rocamex H-502 vs. Avg. of Rocamex H-501 and H-503 1 7310.25 31.35**

6. Poey T-18 vs. Poey T-46 1 630.75 2.70NS

7. Poey T-23 vs. Avg. of Poey T-18 and Poey T-46 1 1560.25 6.69*

Error 35 233.21 ---

i/ Figures in parenthesis were obtained by dividing the lesser (variety) mean
square into the greater (error) mean square. F value at 35 (error) and 1
(variety) DF = 4.12 and 7.42 @ .01.







-10-


Table 7B.


Functional analysis of variance using orthogonal class comparisons
of the yield data of varieties occurring in both tests.


Source of variation DIF MS F
Blocks 11 301.09 1.70NS

Varieties 4 5769.97 32.59**

1. Rocamex varieties vs. Poey varieties 1 16368.76 92.45**

2. Rocamex H-501 vs. Rocamex H-503 1 13.23 (13.38)1

3. Poey T-23 vs. average of Poey T-18 and T-46 1 3412.75 19.28**
4. Poey T-46 vs. Poey T-18 1 3287.70 18.57**

Error 44 177.05 --



11 Figures in parenthesis were obtained by dividing the lesser (variety) mean
square into the greater (error) mean square. F value at 44(error) and
1 (variety) DF = 4.06 @ .05 and 7.25 @ .01.







-11-
Row Direction Test

Curiosity on the part of a sufficient number of growers of field corn
prompted a test in 1961 to ascertain whether there was any advantage of
orienting rows of corn north and south and east and west. Layouts of existing
water control systems dictate that these are the only two practical directions
to run the rows. Further, if the laterals run east and west from a north-
south main canal, the rows should run east and west to make the rows as long
as possible, thus reducing the number of turns with implements in the various
operations incident to a corn crop.

A test was laid out in the west half of Field 4NW. The randomized com-
plete block in four replications was employed. The plot area had a pH value
of 5.5, a P content of 6 and a K content of 77 pounds per acre, as revealed
by current methods of soil analysis at this station. Three hundred pounds per
acre of the same fertilizer formula that was applied to the variety tests were
used on this experiment. Rows were laid out N and S, E and W, NE and SW, and
NW and SE. Rows were 25 feet long. The plots were six-rowed. The variety
Poey T-23 was employed. Rows were 3 feet apart. Seed were planted on March
1, 1961. The stand was adjusted to one plant every 9 inches in the drill
(19,360 per acre) by quickly replanting skips after emergence and by thinning.
An herbicidal treatment with 2.7 pounds each of Randox (CDAA) and Vegadex (CDEC)
in 41 gallons of water per acre controlled weeds from emergence to maturity.
However, soil was thrown to the rows at lay-by to prevent lodging. Harvest
occurred on July 20, 1961, by pulling the center two 25-foot rows. The ears
were husked, shelled and the grain weighed. Moisture samples were taken, and
acre yields at 15.5% moisture were calculated.

There was no difference in stalk or ear heights or in dates of tasselling
among planting direction.

The yield data were analyzed for variance as if the experiment were either
a randomized complete block and a 4 x 4 Latin square. Under the conditions of
the experiment, there were no significant differences between directions of
planting as regards yield. The yield data are shown in Table 8.

Table 8. The Yields of Poey T-23 Field Corn as Affected by Direction of the
Rows. Belle Glade, Florida. 1961.
Bushels per acre, U. S. No. 2 shelled grain
Row Direction I II III IV Total Average

North & South 104.2 132.9 105.2 101.3 443.6 110.9
East & West 122.8 108.0 116.6 120.5 467.9 117.0
Northeast &
Southwest 116.2 117.6 98.9 120.9 453.6 113.4
Northwest &
Southeast 123.3 131.5 150.6 109.0 514.4 128.6


LSD .05 = N.S.






-12-


From these data on the basis of one year's results, it may be concluded that
row direction has no appreciable effect on the yield of Poey T-23 growing on
organic soil.

Observational Test of Corn Belt Varieties

Seed for an observational test of midwest varieties were furnished by
Mr. A. F. Crow of Milford, Illinois. They included from two to 14 varieties
representative of the larger seed companies. Extensions of the same rows used
for the variety tests were employed. The test was planted on February 16,
1961 on rows 25 feet long. The characteristics of the varieties are shown
in Table 9. Of the three lots of Crow Combine Corn, lot 9022 seems to be the
most adaptable to the Everglades area. It had the most resistance to northern
leaf blight, the tallest stalks and the highest relative yield. Other varie-
ties that showed up well were Crow 722, Funk's G-75A, Funk's G-76, Funk's G-91,
P.A.G. S x 19, P.A.G. 418, Moews 500A, Moews 524, Steckleys 10, Northrup King
KT6, Pioneer 317A, and DeKalb 630. All of these are dent corns and should be
harvested promptly and stored under insect-free conditions. The 1961 spacing
tests, as well as those conducted in former years have shown one fact very
clearly: that the highest yields have been obtained from populations that
allow only a minimum number of square feet per plant on the land. Averaging
the yields at the various populations in Tables 11 and 12 shows this clearly,
as seen in Figure 2.


Table 9. Observational Test With Corn Belt Hybrids at
1961.


Belle Glade, Florida.


Number
Tasselling leaves Relative
Cross or mid-point H. tur. Heightinches per yield,bu./A.
Row variety Date Days Index* Stalk Ear plant ear corn


1 Crow's 402
2 Crow's 407
3 Crow's 487
4 Crow's 495
5 Crow's 607
6 crow's 638
7 Crow's 649
8 Crow's 722
9 Crow's 821


4-18


61 2.5


4-18 61 2.5
4-17 60 2.5
4-18 61 2.5
4-20 63 3.0
4-20 63 3.0
4-19 62 3.0
4-20 63 2.5
4-20 63 2.5


10 Crow's Lot 478-1-3 x
Semi-dwarf 4-17
11 Crow's Lot 9038
Multi-ear 4-18
12 Funks G G71 4-17


C2394
60


55 22 9
63 24 9


73 32 10
68 32 10
69 32 10
79 42 10
79 38 11

63 27 10

70 34 11
67 28 10


2.5


61 2.0
60 3.0


4-16 59 2.0 66 28 9


107
122
99
87
95
137'
128

105

112
112


13 Funks G72







-13-


Number
Tasselling leaves
Cross or mid-point H. tur. Height,inches per
Row variety Date Days Index* Stalk Ear plant


14 Funks G75A 4-18
15 Funks G76 4-18
16 Funks G91 4-18
17 Funks G93 4-16
18 Funks G95A 4-16
19 P.A.G. Sx9 4-14
20 P.A.G. Sx14 4-21
21 P.A.G. Sxl9 4-22
22 P.A.G. 415 4-20
23 P.A.G. 418 4-16
24 P.A.G. 444 4-22
25 L.Pfister LP1871
Single Cross 4-17
26 L.Pfister
LP1875 4-19
27 L.Pfister
SP3601 4-19
28 Cargill 256 4-20
29 Cargill 310 4-22
30 Moews 500A 4-17
31 Moews 524 4-19
32 Steckleys 10 4-17
33 Steckleys 12 4-17
34 Producers 363 4-19
35 Producers 953 4-16
36 Northrup King
KT6 4-19
37 Northrup King
CT632 4-19
38 Northrup King
KT645 4-16
39 Pioneer 317A 4-17
40 Pioneer 329 4-17
41 Pioneer 349 4-16


2.0
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
2.5
2.0
2.0
2.5
2.5
2.5


60 3.0

62 3.0

62 3.5
63 3.0
65 3.5
60 2.5
62 2.0
60 2.0
60 3.0
62 2.5
59 3.5

62 3.0

62 2.5

59 3.0
60 2.5
60 3.5
59 4.0


10
9
10
10
9
9
10
11
10
10
10


73 28 10

83 39 11


69 33 11

79 38 11


Relative
yield,bu./A.
ear corn
139
144
142
122
127
118
100
162
122
144
133

131

120

87
89
105
137
155
156
128
129
126

136

128

122
145
122
99


4-17 60 3.5 63 26


9 113


42 Pioneer 352







-14-


Row
43


Tasselling
Cross or mid-point
variety Date Days


Pioneer 354 4-17


44 Pioneer 371 4-16


45 DeKalb 3x2


4-16


46 DeKalb 41l 4-16
47 DeKalb 414 4-16
48 DeKalb 423 4-16
49 DeKalb 444 4-17
50 DeKalb 630 4-17
51-56 Combine Corn Lot
9022 4-20
57-61 Combine Corn Lot
9023 4-20
62-67 Combine Corn Lot
9029 4-20


H. tur. Height,inches
index* Stalk Ear


3.0
4.0
3.5
4.5
4.0


3.5

2.5

4.0

3.0


Number
leaves
per
Plant


34 10
31 10
37 11
32 10
32 10
29 10
37 11
35 11

36 10

35 10

40 11


Relative
yield,bu./A.
ear corn


115
104
111
99
104
101
108
135

125


Planted 2-16-61 F2NW Range 23. Rows E and W.
Seed treated with Arasan. Harvested 6-14-61.


Numbered from S to N 1-50.


* Readings on May 16, 1961 by Miss Alice L. Robert, CRD-ARS-USDA.
tant to 5 = susceptible.


1 = Resis-


Skip Row Test

The data presented on the 1960 skip-row test outlined in Everglades Station
Mimeo 61-13 of February 17, 1961 considered yields only from a net acre stand-
point. Higher yields were obtained from the net acreage planted to sklp-row
plants as compared with planting every 3-foot row at the three populations used,
with the higher yields at the higher populations. Under certain conditions, it
is advantageous to consider only the net planted acreage. This is valid when
land rent is not to be considered. Also, the unplanted portion of the field
does not have to be fertilized, sprayed, planted, or harvested. It does, how-
ever, have to be cultivated and kept free of weeds. In 1960, the only arrange-
ment of skipping rows was to plant 2 rows and skip one row.

In 1961, the schemes were enlarged to include 15 treatments as shown in
Table 10. For convenience and in lieu of narration, these have been grouped
as to skipped rows, populations, drill spacings, and percent of land occupied
by plants. The test was laid out in rows -st and west, all rows whether planted
or s. pped being 3 feet apart. Seed were planted on February 15, 1961, using
Poey T-23 white flint corn. Skips in the stand were replanted soon after emer-
gence. Hills were thinned to one per hill. The experimental design was the








Skip Row Field Corn 1961


Drill Spacings


1, 2, 3
4, 7
5, 6, 8, 11, 12
9, 10, 13
14, 15


1, 6, 9, 12, 13, 14
2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 15
3


Plants


9680 plants

5. Plant 2;
10. Plant 3;
15. Plant 4;


skip 2 @ 9"
skip 3 @ 9"
skip 4 @ 9"


11,616 plants


8. Plant 3; skip 2 @ 9"


16,588 plants

13. Plant 4; skip 3 @ 6"


19,360 plants

2. Plant every 3' row @ 9"
12. Plant 4; skip 2 @ 6"


29,040 plants


1. Plant every 3' row @ 6"


12, 894 plants

4. Plant 2; skip 1 @ 9"
11. Plant 4; skip 2 @ 9"


14, 520 plants


Percent of Land Planted


row @ 12"
2 @ 6"
1 @ 9"
3 @ 6"
4 @ 6"


50
57.1
60
66.6
75
100


5, 6, 9, 10, 14, 15
13
8,
4, 11, 12,
7
1, 2, 3


Skip


Skip
Skip
Skip
Skip
Skip


Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant
Plant


every 3'
2; skip
3; skip
3; skip
4; skip


ITble 10.












70 90 110 130 150
x x x .x x

10 BIG JOE----------------o


8 FUNK'S G-740---------------------o
CORNELI 54-------------------------o


5 ROCAMEX H-503---------------------------


4 ROCAMEX H-501-----------------f--------- -------o


POEY T-23-------------------- -------------------------o-
3 POEY T-18------------------------- --------------o
KEYSTONE 257----------------------------


2 ROCAMEX H-502-----------------------o


POEY T-66--- -- ------------------------------- -------- o
POEY T-46 -- -------------- ----------------------------------- o
1 FUNK'S G-745------------------------- ------------------
EMBRO 257 CT2----------------------------------------------
EMBRO 256 cP---------------------------------------
POEY T-62------------------------------------------o

.x. x x x x
70 90 110 130 150
AVERAGE YIELDS, BUSHELS PER ACRE SHELLED CORN

Figure 1. Average Yields of Field Corn Varieties Grown on Organic
Soils'at Belle Glade, Florida for the Indicated Number
of Years Between 1952 and 1961.


-16-







-17-


Y 200
i
e
1 ,o
d
s 180 0o


U. o /
B /

// o/
A. 160

o


9.7 .11.6.128.1L.5 16.6. 19.h 29.0
Thousands of Plants per Acre

Figure 2. The effects of plant population ofi the yields of Poey T-23
Hybrid field corn in the 1961 skip-row test.



randomized complete block in four replications. The nutrient status of the
soil was identical to that under the variety tests. The mid-point of tas-
selling for this test was May 2.

Cultivation in this test consisted of a light scratching on February 27
and on March 3. The middles were deepened slightly on March 7 and the ex-
periment was laid-by on March 21. The skipped rows were leveled with a
tractor-drawn disk on March 27. On March 28 and April 14, Atrazine 80W at
3.3 and 4.4 pounds active material per acre, resp. was applied to the fallow
area. On May 12, 2 pounds of Karsil and 3 pounds of Randox per acre were
applied for post emergence control of weeds. On May 18, DNBP (dinitro) at
4 pounds per acre were applied for post-emergence grass control in the fallow
areas.

The plots were harvested on July 6. The ears were weighed and moisture
content was determined. After determining the shelling percentage, the per
acre yields were calculated at 15.5 percent moisture. Yields were figured
both on the net and the gross acreage. An analysis of variance was performed
on the data and the means were separated by the Student-Newman-Kuels test at
the 5-percent level of significance. Single degree of freedom analysis was
performed on the data using as sources of variation the schemes of planting
and comparing the gross acre yields. Five comparisons were highly significant.
The remaining nine comparisons that were used were either valid comparisons or
were used to achieve orthogonality and were not significant.








Table 11. The Yields of Corn From Treatments in the 1961 Skip Row Test. Gross acre Basis.

Gross area
Gross yield,* available
Drill Scheme of Percent Actual bushels Significance per plant
Treatment spacing planting planted population per acre S-N-K @5% sq. ft.
1 6 Plant every row 100 29040 216 1.50
2 9 Plant every row 100 19360 191 2.25
12 6 Plant 4; Skip 2 66.6 19360 146 2.25
7 9 Plant 3; Skip 1 75 14520 144 3.00
4 9 Plant 2; Skip 1 66.6 12894 138 3.40
9 6 Plant 3; Skip 3 50 14520 134 3.00
13 6 Plant 4; Skip 3 57.1 16588 131 2.65
11 9 Plant 4; Skip 2 66.6 12894 129 3.40
3 12 Plant every row 100 14520 127 3.00
8 9 Plant 3; Skip 2 60 11616 115 3.75
6 6 Plant 2; skip 2 50 14520 109 3.00
14 6 Plant 4; Skip 4 50 14520 107 3.00
10 9 Plant 3; Skip 3 50 9680 106 4.50
15 9 Plant 4; Skip 4 50 9680 96 4.50
5 9 Plant 2; Skip 2 50 9680 93 4.50


* These figures represent the actual acre yields of land planted
included in this calculation.


to these schemes. The fallow land is









Table 12. Yields of Corn From Treatments in the 1961 Skip Row Test. Net acre basis.


Gross area
Net yield,* available
Drill Scheme of Percent Actual @ rate of bu- Significance per plant
Treatment ~patIa planting planted population shels. per acre S-N-K @ 556 sq. ft.

9 6 Plant 3; skip 3 50 14520 268
13 6 Plant 4; skip 3 57.1 16588 229 1.30
12 6 Plant 4; skip 2 66.6 19360 219 1.50
6 6 Plant 2; skip 2 50 14520 218 1.50
1 6 Plant every row 100 29040 216 1.50
10 9 Plant 3; skip 3 50 9680 214 2.25
14 6 Plant 4; skip 4 50 14520 212 1.50
4 9 Plant 2; skip 1 66.6 12894 207 2.25
11 9 Plant 4; skip 2 66.6 12894 194 2.25
7 9 Plant 3; skip 1 75 14520 192 2.25
8 9 Plant 3; skip 2 60 11616 192 2.25
15 9 Plant 4, skip 4 50 9680 192 2.25
2 9 Plant every row 100 19360 191 2.25
5 9 Plant 2; skip 2 50 9680 186 2.25
3 12 Plant every row 100 14520 127 3.00


the plots is
that with only


* These figures represent the yields of the planted portion of an acre. The fallow land in
ignored in this calculation. Refer to the percent planted column, and note, for example,
50% planted 2 acres of land are necessary to give one acre of corn.







-20-


On the gross acre yield basis:


a) Comparing treatments at 14,520 population -
When planting 750 against planting 50% of the land -
Plant 3; skip 1 @ 9 inches significantly out-yielded Plant 2;
Skip 2; Plant 3; skip 3, and plant 4; skip 4 @ 6 inches.

b) Plant 3; skip 3 out-yielded Plant 2; Skip 2 and Plant 4; Skip 4 @ 14.520
All @ 6 inch spacing in the drill.

c) Comparing treatments at 19,360 population -
Plant every row @ 9 inches outyielded Plant 4; Skip 2 @ 6 inches

d) A population of 19,360 was better than 9,680 in all treatments

e) Plant every row @ 6 inches was better than all other treatments.

Table 11 presents the yields of corn on a gross acre basis, These figures
represent the actual corn yields from an acre of the separate schemes as
planted, including the fallow land. On this basis, the treatment in which
every three foot row was planted and plants were 6 inches apart in the drill
at a population of 29,040, was the best scheme. The second highest yielding
scheme was different only in that the plants were 9 inches apart at a popu-
lation of 19,360.

These findings are in agreement with those found with the single degree
of freedom analysis.

Table 12 presents the yields of corn on a net acre basis. These figures
represent the corn yields from the planted portion of the acre only. The
fallow land on a given acre is not taken into consideration. In treatments
which consist of only 50 percent planted area, two acres of land would be
utilized in obtaining these yields. None of the skip row treatments yielded
such that any of the schemes could be recommended over planting every three-
foot row.

In a future test, hill dropped spacings in the drill will be tested.
The 1961 spacing tests, as well as those conducted in former years have shown
one fact very clearly: that the highest yields have been obtained from
populations that allow only a minimum number of square feet per plant on the
land. Averaging the yields at the various populations in Tables 11 and 12
shows this clearly, as seen in Figure 2.



Entomological investigations

Observations to determine degrees of earworm, Heliothis zea (Boddie) and/
or Laphygma frugiperda (J. E. Smith), damage and stored grain insect damage
among the varieties in the two experiments were made on September 22, 1961,
following open storage after harvest. About the only stored grain insect
involved was the rice weevil, Sitophilus oryzae (Linnaeus). Twenty-five ears
from eac plot were given an index number (0 t 5) to indicate the degree of
injury by earworms. An average index for each plot was computed and multiplied
by 100. The highest possible index, 500, would indicate the greatest amount








-21-
of damage. Because damage to the side of the ear was practically non-exis-
tent, indexing was based only on damage starting from the tip of the ear,
as follows:

Index Fraction of Length of Ear Damaged
0 No damage
1 One-eighth of less
2 One-eighth to one-fourth
3 One-fourth to three-eighths
4 Three-eighths to one-half
5 Greater than one-half

To evaluate the degree of damage by stored grain insects, 100 kernels were
taken randomly from each plot after the corn was shelled and the number with
emergence holes made by adult rice weevils was taken.

The average degrees of insect damage for 15 varieties of field corn are
shown in Table 13. Table 14 shows that the amount of earworm damage to the
multilined synthetic Big Joe was significantly greater than the average amount
of damage to the other varieties. The amount of earworm damage to Poey T-23
was significantly less than that to Poey T-18 and Poey T-46. The average
amount of earworm damage to the Rocamex varieties was highly significantly
less than that to the Funk varieties. Table 15 shows that the stored grain
insect damage to Poey T-23 was significantly less than the average amount to
Poey T-18 and Poey T-46. Poey T-46 received significantly less damage than
Poey T-18.

The average degrees of insect damage to the 8 varieties of white field
corn are shown in Table 16. The average amount of earworm damage to the three
Poey varieties was highly significantly less than the average amount of damage
to the other varieties in this experiment (Table 17). As a group, the Roca-
mexes received highly significantly less earworm damage than the average of
San Juan and Barretal. As in the other experiment, Poey T-23 had signifi-
cantly less earworm damage than Poey T-18 and Poey T-46. There were no
significant differences among the varieties of white field corn in respect
to the amount of stored grain insect damage. Therefore, the results of the
analysis of variance were not tabled.








Average Earworm and Stored Grain Insect Damage
of Field Corn. Belle Glade, Florida. 1961.


-22-
Among 15 Varieties


% Stored Grain Insect
Variety Earworm Damage Index-' Damaged Kernels
1. Rocamex H-501 136 3.7
2. Keystone 257 166 6.3
3. Rocamex H-503 151 6.7
4. Big Joe 185 3.2
5. Funk's G-740 175 4.3
6. Funk's G-745 188 3.7
7. Embro 256 CP 163 4.8
8. Embro 257 CT2 164 6.0
9. Poey T-18 175 8.3
10. Poey T-23 150 2.7
11. Poey T-46 174 4.0
12. Poey T-62 145 4.0
13. Poey T-66 164 4.3
14. Cornell 54 174 4.7
15. Corneli 54-2 172 4.3

a/ Possible damage index ranges from 0 to 500 from no damage to severest damage.


Table 14.


Detailed Analysis of Variance for Corn Earworm Damage Among 15
Varieties of Field Corn. Belle Glade, Florida. 1961.


Source of Variation d.f. MS
Blocks 5 467.09
Varieties'/ 14 1298.59**
Big Joe (185) vs. Other Varieties (164) 1 2386.31*
Corneli (173) vs. Poeys (162) 1 1113.94
Poey T-62 (145) vs. Poey T-66 (164) 1 1083.00
Poeys T-62 & T-66 (154) vs. Other Poeys (166) 1 1056.09
e Poey T-23 (150) vs. Poeys T-18 & T-46 (175) 1 2336.11*
Poey T-18 (175) vs. Poey T-46 (174) 1 5.33
Keystone 257 (166) vs. Embro 256 CP (163) 1 28.50
Embro 257 CT2 (164) vs. Embro 256 CP & Keystone 257 (164) 1 0
Funk G-740 (176) vs. Funk G-745 (188) 1 468.75
Poeys & Corneli (165) vs. Others (163) 1 58.33
Corneli 54(174) vs. Corneli 54-2 (172) 1 8.33
Rocamex H-501 (136) vs. Rocamex H-503 (151) 1 675.00
Rocamexs and Funks (162) vs. Keystone & Embros (164) 1 30.02
Rocamexs (143) vs. Funks (182) 1 8932.04**
Error 70

a/ Parenthetical values are average earworm damage indices.


Table 13.







Table 15.


-23-
Detailed Analysis of Variance for Stored Grain Insect Damage among
15 Varieties of Field Corn. Belle Glade, Florida. 1961.


Source of Variation d.f. MS
Blocks a 5 261.55**
Varieties-' 14 12.57
Big Joe (3.2) vs. Other Varieties (4.8) 1 15.78
Corneli (4.5) vs. Poeys (4.7) 1 0.24
Poey T-62 (4.0) vs. Poey T-66 (4.3) 1 0.33
Poeys T-62 & T-66 (4.2) vs. Other Poeys (5.0) 1 5.00
Poey T-23 (2.7) vs. Poeys T-18 & T-46 (6.2) 1 49.00*
Poey T-18 (8.3) vs. Poey T-46 (4.0) 1 56.33*
Keystone 257 (6.3) vs. Embro 256 CP (4.8) 1 6.75
Embro 257 CT2 (6.0) vs. Embro 256 CP & Keystone 257 (5.6) 0.69
Funk G-740 (4.3) vs. Funk G-745 (3.7) 1 1.33
Poeys & Corneli (4.6) vs. Other Hybrids (5.1) 1 4.30
Corneli 54 (4.7) vs. Corneli 54-2 (4.3) 1 0.33
Rocamex H-501 (3.7) vs. Rocamex H-503 (6.7) 1 V7.00
Rocamexes & Funks (4.6) vs. Keystone & Embros (4.2) 1 13.34
Rocamexes (5.2 vs. Funks (4.0) 1 8.17
Error 70 8.42

a/ Parenthetical values are average percent damaged kernels.

Table 16. Average Earworm and Stored Grain Insect Damage Among 8 varieties
of White Field Corn. Belle Glade, Florida. 1961.
variety Earworm Damage Index Stored Grain Insect
VarietyEaror Daage Index Damaged Kernels

Poey T-18 170 10.0
Poey T-23 138 8.3
Poey T-46 165 7.7
Rocamex H-501 161 10.5
Rocamex H-502 166 9.8
Rocamex H-503 182 12.7
San Juan 195 9.8
Barretal 191 11.3

a/ Possible damage index ranges from 0 to 500 from no damage to severest damage.


Analysis of Variance for Corn Earvom Damage Among
White Field Corn. Belle Glade Florida. 1961


8 Varieties of


Source of Variation d.f. MS
Blocks / 5 1658.30**
Varieties 7 2119.61**
Poeys (158) vs. Other Varieties (179) 1 5045.61**
Rocamexes (170) vs. San Juan & Barretal (193) 1 4023.34**
San Juan (195) vs. Barretal (191) 1 36.75
Rocamex H-501 (161) vs. Rocamex H-503 (182) 1 1430.08
Rocamex H-502 (166) vs. Rocamex H-501 & H-503 (172) 1 140.03
Poey T-18 (170) vs. Poey T-46 (165) 1 60.75
Poey T-23 (138) vs. Poey T-18 & T-46 (168) 1 3500.69*

a/ Parenthetical values are average earworm damage indices.


Table 17.








Herbicide Tests


A number of herbicides currently have clearance for field corn production
and are recommendable for organic soils. This section summarizes information
on the performance and value of these chemicals for field corn on the organic
soils of the Everglades. It must be remembered that herbicides are production
tools and do not substitute for good agronomic practices. For some growers
they may be timely, economical production aids.

Where tillage is economical and effective in controlling weeds in drill-
planted field corn pre-emergence herbicides may not be appealing. However,
pre-emergence herbicides may be a necessary adjunct to production of high
tonnages of solid- or close-planted field corn for silage or soilage. In
late-spring plantings weeds grow vigorously and compete effectively with the
crop to lower production, quality and, possibly, impede harvesting. The
critical period is from emergence until the solid-planted corn shades the
soil 4 to 5 weeks later. Effective herbicides eliminate weed competition
and permit rapid, vigorous growth of the crop during this period.

During the past year, pre-emergence herbicides have been evaluated in 8
crops of solid-planted field corn. These trials, along with sweet corn herbi-
cide experiments, make it possible to indicate reliable treatments and the
conditions under which herbicides are best adapted.

Pre-emergence: (drill or solid-planted)

The treatments indicated below may be expected to provide at least 4 to
5 weeks of adequate week control under the conditions specified. The chemicals
(and rates of application) are listed in decreasing order of overall effect-
iveness and utility.

1. "Randcx", 4 qt/A.: Best overall performance under range of soil
moisture conditions; light rainfall improves performance. Controls
grasses better than broadleaf weeds; a lay-by application of 2,4-D
may be needed in drill planted fields. No post-emergence activity.
Economical and dependable.

2. "Vegadex", 4 qt./A.: Good overall performance; light rainfall in-
creases effectiveness. Less effective against grass weeds than
broadleaf weeds. No post-emergence activity. Economical and
dependable.

3. "Randax", 2 qt./A. plus "Vegadex", 2 qt./A.: Provides good overall
performance against grass and broadleaf weeds. Economical and
dependable.

4. "Atrazine", 4 Ib./A. active ingredient: Requires good soil moisture
or rainfall soon after application for best pre-emergence performance.
Post-emergence activity against small annual grass and weed seed-
lings is good. Corn is tolerant of pre-emergence and directed
post-emergence sprays. Performance depends on soil moisture.







-25-


5. "Simazine", 4 lb./A. active ingredient: Pre-emergence treatments
require high soil moisture or rainfall soon after application for
good pre-emergence weed control. Post-emergence activity is poor.
Corn tolerance is excellent. Performance depends on soil moisture.

6. DNBP, 9 lb./A. active ingredient (as "Premerge", "Sinox PE" or
equivalent): Requires good soil moisture or rainfall for best
pre-emergence activity. Provides good control of emerged small
annual grass and broadleaf weed seedlings. Corn is tolerant to
pre-emergence and directed post-emergence sprays. Performance
depends on soil moisture.

Post-emergence: (for directional application in drill-planted corn)

These treatments may be used to control the indicated weeds in field corn
in rows where sprays may be directed to avoid wetting the corn foliage.

7. 2,4-D, 3/4 to 1 lb./A acid equivalent: Use amine salt formulation
and apply higher rate when broadleaf weeds are large. Apply with
caution to avoid drift to sensitive crops. This chemical will con-
trol broadleaf weeds only. Do not cultivate soon after application.

8. "Atrazine", 2- to 3 lb./A. active ingredient: Usable until 3 to 4
weeks after planting. Small emerged annual grass and broadleaf
weed seedlings will be controlled and there will be some residual
control of weeds following spraying.

9. DNBP, l1 to 3 lb./A. active ingredient (as above): Will control small
emerged annual grass and broadleaf weeds with some residual control.

All post-emergence treatments may cause temporary corn injury.

General:

Most pre-emergence herbicides are effective only against germinating weed
seed and very small weed seedlings; ordinarily, emerged, established weed
seedlings may be injured but will not be killed.

Granular formulations of all listed pre-emergence chemicals are available
and may be more convenient than sprays for some growers. Usually, greater
soil moisture or rainfall is necessary for granules to be as effective as
sprays at the same application rate.

Chemical costs for herbicides in drill-planted corn may be reduced by
applying the herbicides in bands over the drill. This will require culti-
vation of the row middles.

Application rates for the herbicides listed above are on a per-treated-
acre basis.

Proper calibration and application methods are essential to successful
chemical weed control. These procedures are detailed in Everglades Station
Mimeo Report 62-4.

EES 62-11
400 copies




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs