EFFECT OF ROW DIRECTION AND PLANT ARRANGEMENT ON GROWTH, YIELD AND YIELD COMPONENTS OF TWO MAIZE CULTIVATERS

 

M.F. Abd El-Maksoud

Plant Production Department, Efficient Productivity Institute, Zagazig Univ., Egypt.

 

ABSTRACT

          Two field experiments were carried out at Sheiba village, Zagazig District, Sharkia Governorate during 2005 and 2006 summer growing seasons to study the effect of row direction (two row direction i.e. East-West (E-W) and North-South (N-S)) and plant arrangement i.e. ( 50 x 35, 60 x 29.1 and 70 x 25 cm) on growth, yield and yield attributes of two maize hybrids (SC 10 and SC 30 k8) single crosses. Split-split plot design with four replicates was used.

          Results indicated that row direction North-south (N-S) produced the highest light interception % (LIP%) at different height compared with row direction East-west.

          The obtained results indicated that row direction at East-west (E-W) was superior than the other row direction at North-south (N-S) on plant height, ear leaf area, LAI, ear height, ear length, ear diameter, grain number/row and/ear, 100-grain weight, ear grain weight and grain yield/faddan.

          Results also showed that the plant arrangement of ((70 x 25 produced the highest (LIP at 150 cm height and grain yield/faddan followed by 60 x 29 and 50 x 35 the lowest grain yield/faddan on the other plant arrangement in the most characters under this study.

          The obtained results revealed that the tested maize hybrids varied significantly in plant height, ear leaf area, ear height, ear length, ear diameter, number of grains/row and /ear, 100 grain weight, ear grain weight and finally grain yield/faddan. The single cross 10 (SC10) surpassed than the other one (SC 30 K8).

              Key words: Row direction, plant arrangement, growth, yield components,   maize.

 

INTRODUCTION

Stand density and distribution of plants during planting are the important factors affecting maize growth and yield. The good distribution and orientation of maize plants during sowing permit canopy to intercept more light and hence increase vegetative growth and grain yield.

Maize grain yield could be increased by raising plant population density, hill spacing or row width, inter and intera-row spacing which play a great role in maize production. At low population, grain yield is limited by the number of plants per unit area.

Talentino (1982), reported that row orientation significantly influenced the interception and transmission of solar radiation. He found that the daily intercepted solar radiation was higher at north- south row direction at 53 days after sowing.

Robinson (1975) and Seif et al. (1988) showed that north-south row direction recorded a significant higher seed index, grain weight/head, grain yield and stover yield of grain sorghum as compared with east-west direction.

El-Murshedi (1991) showed no advantages in grain yield due to sowing maize on east-west or north-south rows. However, north-south direction out yielded east-west one in stover yield.

Abdrabou (1996) found that maize plants grown from east-west direction had an increase in number of grain/row and grain yield/ faddan than those grown from north-south.

Ismail (1997) found that north-south row direction recorded a significant higher in plant height, number of grains /ear, grain weight/ear, grain yield/faddan and stover yield/faddan compared with east-west row directions, but no significant difference between the two row directions in ear length, ear diameter, number of rows/ear, number of grains/row, 100- grain weight and shelling percentage.

Intra spacing and competition for water as well as light and nutrients determine optimum plant densities for each environment factors (Karlen and Comp, 1985).

Tetio-Kagho and Gardnar (1988) demonstrated that planting maize plant in equidistance distribution increased the  efficiency of light utilization and hence encouraged the accumulation and translocation of metabolites to the developing yield components and to the yield.

            Ragheb et al. (1993) found that planting maize at rate of 2400 plants/faddan (60 x 30 or 70 x 25 cm) produced the highest grain yield in this respect.

            Sarhan (1994) under agroforstry system, found that the planting arrangement of maize planting 40 x 75 was superior than 40 x 37.5, 20 x 75 and 30 x 75 in the yield component characters i.e. ear length, grain number /ear, ear grain  weight, 100- grain weight and shelling % but the highest grain yield/faddan was recorded by  planting arrangement 30 x 75 cm.

            Abdel-Aal et al. (1997) found that growing maize plants in 60 x 40 system gave high ear length, number of rows/ear, number of grains/ row, ear weight, 100- grain weight, shelling % and grain yield/plant. On the other  contrary, the highest significant values for grain yield/faddan was obtained by sowing maize plants in quadratic distribution 40 x 40 system compared the other systems, 60 x40 and 60 x 30.

            Ibrahim and Abd El-Maksoud (2001) found that growth and productivity of the single plant were favoured with wider planting 40 cm. Also, yield components were followed the same trend while the grain yield/faddan was superior under narrow hill spacing 20 cm with 70 cm row width.

            El-Murshedy and Abuldahab (2002) reported that increasing the hill spacing 20 to 30 cm with row width 70 cm increased yield component of maize yield but grain yield/ faddan was decreased.

            Its well known that maize varieties differ in their yielding abilities depending on the genetic make up and its interaction with the environmental conditions. Many workers found significant differences among the tested varieties. El-Metwally et al. (2001), Oraby and Sarhan (2002) , Ahmed and El-Shiekh (2002), Oraby et al. (2003a), Mowafy (2003) and Oraby et al. (2005b).

 

MATERIALS AND METHODS

 

Two field experiments were conducted at Sheiba village, Zagazig district, Sharkia Governorate, during summer growing seasons in 2005 and 2006 to study the effect of row direction and plant arrangement of two maize hybrids.

The studied factors were:

A-Row directions (D):

1-      The rows were directed from East to West (E-W).

2-      The rows were directed from North to South (N-S).

B- Plant arrangements (P):

1-      The ridges were 0.5 m in width and 35 cm between hills (P₁).

2-      The ridges were 0.6 m in width and 29.1 cm between hills (P₂).

3-      The ridges were 0.7 m in width and 25 cm between hills (P₃).

C-Maize hybrids (H):

1-      Single cross 10 (SC10).

2-      Single cross 30K8 (SC30K8).

A split-split plot design with four replicates was used. Row directions were arranged in the main plots whereas, plants arrangements were assigned at random in the sub-plots, while maize hybrids were randomly distributed in the sub-sub plots. The sub-sub plots constituted of 6 ridges which were 4m long.

The preceding crop was Egyptian clover, the soil of experimental field was clay in texture. Super phosphate (15.5 %P₂O₅) at the rate of 100 kg /fad was applied before sowing. Nitrogen as urea (46 %N) at the rate of 100 kg/fad was added in three equal doses after 18, 30 and 42 days after sowing. Maize was sown on May 21^st. After complete emergence (17 days after sowing)in the both seasons, the crop was thinned to one plant per hill. Planting density in all plant arrangements was 24000 plants/fad because  all the plant arrangement treatment gave 1750 cm land area for each plant. The other agronomic practices were followed as recommended in the region.

Recorded data:

The two outer ridges (1^st and 6^th ) were left as borders. The second two inner ridges were used for recording growth characters and to determination yield attributes.

A- Light interception percentage (LIP):

            After 80 days from sowing, light intensity was estimated by using a Luxmeter apparatus as according to the method of Williams et al. (1965), between 1100 and 1330 hr according to Leach et al. (1968). Whereas, LIP was calculated according to the following formula used by Tetio-kagho and Gardnar (1988) as follows:

LIP = (Ia- Ig /Ia) x 100

Where Ia and Ig are the irradiation above plants and at ground or above 50, 100 and 150 cm soil surface.

B- growth characters:

            After 75 days from sowing, plant height (cm), ear height (cm), ear leaf area (cm²) and leaf area index (LAI) were measured using five guarded plants from each sub-sub plot.

C- Grain yield and its attributes:

            At harvest, ten guarded plants were taken from the 2^nd two inner ridges of each sub-sub plots, then ear length (cm), ear diameter (cm), number of rows/ear, number of grains per both row and ear, number of ears/plant, 100-grain weight(g), grain weight per ear (g) and shelling percentage were recorded. Plants of the central two ridges were used to determine grain yield (ardab/fad), which was the adjusted at 15.5 % moisture content.

Statistical analysis

The obtained data were subjected to the proper statistical analysis according to Snedecor and Cochran (1980). For comparison of means, Duncan’s multiple range test was used (Duncan, 1955).

 

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

 

            Data presented in Tables 1 to 6 show the effects of row direction (D) and planting arrangement (P) on light interception % as well as growth, yield attributes and grain yield of two maize hybrids.

A): Light interception %:

            Light interception % measured at different depths of the canopy was affected by row direction. Ridging the land in east-west direction (E-W) caused more light to penetrate allow in the canopy than north-south(N-S). This

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

was observed  from ground level (00 cm) up to  120 cm  height. Planting arrangement also exercised significant effect on light interception %. Planting maize in rectangle pattern (70 x 25 cm) allowed more light penetration at 100 cm depth than square type (50 x 35 cm).

            The two hybrids were similar except at 150 cm height where SC 30 K8 (H₂) intercepted less light than SC 10 (H₁). The importance of studying the agronomic factor which affect light interception % for a C4 crop like maize can not be neglected because the more light energy deep in the canopy, the more photosynthesis activities leading to more production. This results are in agreement with those obtained by Duncan (1972), Goldsworthy (1972), Robinson (1975), Talentino (1982), Leach et al. (1986), Tetio-Kagho and Gardnar (1988), Ottman and Welch (1989), Fernando, et al. (2001), Ibrahim and Abd El Maksoud (2001).

B) Growth:

            AS seen the east-west direction allowed more light deep in the canopy leading to more growth of the C4 maize plants. This was reflected in plant height, ear leaf area, leaf area per plant, leaf area index and ear height. The differences were significant. Likewise, as seen the rectangle pattern in planting the crop favoured more growth than the near square type (50 x 35 cm).

            This effect was clear on leaf area/plant and leaf area index. In Similar  way, SC 30 K8 hybrid was better than SC 10 in allowing light to penetrate which had significant effect on growth parameters presented in Tables 3 and 4. It is worth here to mention that all the treatments of row directions and planting arrangement of the two maize hybrids did not cause the leaf area index to fall below the optimum value for maize crop which ranged from 6 to 8. Similar results were reported by Seif et al. (1988), El;-Murshedi (1991), Ragheb et al. (1993), Sarhan (1994), Ismail (1997), Khalil et al. (1999), Hasssan (2000), El-Mursheady and Abuldahab (2002), Ahmed and El-Shiekh (2002), Mowafy (2003), Oraby et al. (2005b).

 

C: Yield and its attributes:

As mentioned before, the E-W row direction allowed more light to penetrate through the canopy of the C4 maize plants resulted in better growth and leading to higher grain yield and some of its components. Among these components which were affected positively by row direction ear length and diameter, number of grain per row and ear, ear grain weight, 100-grain weight and finally the grain yield was increased      by 7.7 (%) although nane of  the  yield components was affected significantly by planting arrangement, yet the grain yield was affected significantly. The more rectangle arrangement (70 x 25 cm) caused higher grain yield than the other two arrangements. The same trend were found by the Leach et al. (1986), Seif (1988), El-Murshedi (1991), Abdrobu (1996), Ismail (1997), Abdel Aal et al. (1997), Ibrahim and Khalil et al. (1999), Fernando, et al. (2000), El-Metwally et al. (2001) Ahmed and El-Shiekh (2002).

The hybrid SC 10 outyielded the SC 30 K8. It produced longer and thicker ears, grain number/row and per ear and heavier grains. These variation may be explained on the light of different genetical make up. Many workers found significant differences among the tested maize varieties. Hassan (2000), El-Metwally et al. (2001), Oraby and Sarhan (2002), Ahmed and El-Sheikh (2002) Oraby et al. (2003a) and Mowafy (2003) and Oraby et al. (2005b).

D): Effect of interaction:

            Data in Table 7 show a significant effect of the interaction between row direction  and  plant  arrangement  on ear leaf area, ear grain weight, 100-grain weight and grain yield/faddan. And ear leaf area was significantly inreased by widing the row space and  narrowing plant space (rectangle shape) when the rows oriented east-west. While, this trait took the oppsite trend under row orientation north- south.

            Under plant arrangement of 50 x 35 cm ear leaf area was larger by north-south orientation than  that by east-west direction. Whereas, under the two other row orientations this trait took the opposite trend.

            The heaviest ear grains was recorded by plant arrangement of 70 x 25 cm, but the  lighest ear grains was observed by 60 x 29.1 cm under east-west orientation. However, heavier ear grains was founded by 50 x 35 and 60 x 29.1 cm plant arrangement under north-south row direction.

             Under 50 x 35 and 70 x 25 cm plant arrangement ear grains weight was heavier by east-west orientation of rows. While, the opposite case under north-south row direction.

            For east-west row direction, both 100-grain weight and greain yield/faddan were the greatest by 70 x 25 cm plant arrangement. Whereas, with north-south one, the greatest 100-grain weight and grain yield /faddan were recorded by 60 x 28.1 cm arrangement.

            Concerning the orientation of east-west was superior in 100-grain and grain yield/faddan by 50 x 35 and 70 x 25 cm plant arrangements. However, the opposite trend was observed with north-south row direction.

            Data in Table 8 show a significant effect of the interactoion between row direction and maize hybrids (ombined data) on leaf area index (LAI), number of grains/row, shelling % and grain yield/faddan.

            Leaf area index of SC 10 was significantly decreased by north-south was direction.

            Single cross 10 gave higher LAI under east-west row direction, but SC30 K8  hybrid was superior under north-south one.

            Single cross 10 surpassed 30 K8 hybrid  on number of grains/row under east-west row direction. Row direction of east-west produced more grains/ row than that of north-south orientation for both maize hybrids (SC 10 and SC 30K8).

           

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maize hybrid 30 K8 was superior in shelling percentage under eastwest orientation, while SC 10 superrior under north-south orieintation.

            Single cross 10 produced greater than that of SC30 K 8  grain yield/faddan under east-west row direction. While, 30 K8 hybrid  gave little grain yield /faddan under north south direction.

            Data in Table 9 show a significant effect of the interaction between plant arrangement and maize hybrids (combined data) on number of grains/ear, 100-grain weight, shelling percentage and grain yield/faddan.

            Single cross 10 produced mor grains per ear than that SC30 K 8 hybrid under both 50 x 35 and 70 x 25 cm arrangement. Both 50 x 35 and 70 x 25 cm arrangements gave more grains /ear for SC 10. However, 70 x 25 cm arrangement of SC30 K 8 produced little grains/ear.

            Single cross 10 gave heavier grains than that of SC 30 K8 hybrid on 100-grain weight under 50 x 35 cm hybrid surpassed SC 10 in this trait under 60 x 29.1 cm arrangement.

            Hundred-grain weight of SC 10 was the heaviest with 60 x 29.1 cm arrangement while, grains of SC 30 K 8 hybrid was the heaviest by 70 x 25 cm arrangement.

            Shelling pecentage of SC 30 K8 hybrid was higher than that of SC 10 under both 50 x 35 and 60 x 29.1 cm arrangement and the opposite trend was observed under 70 x 25 cm one. The highest shelling % of SC 10 hybrid was recorded under 70 x 25 cm plant arrangement. While, this highest of SC 30 kg 8 hybrid was appeared by 60 x 29.1 cm.

Single cross 10 surpassed on grain yield/faddan than SC 30 K8 hybrid under any plant arrangement. Grain yield/faddan was sigificantly increased by any increment in row width from 50 to 60 and 70 cm.

 

REFERENCES

 

Abdel-Aal, S. M.; M. E. Ibrahim, A. A. ; Ali, and Kh.S. Sarhan (1997). Studied on some maize varieties sown at different plant distribution systems. II. Flowering, grain filling and yield and its components. Monofya J. Agric. Res., 22 (3): 755-780.

Abdrabou, R. Th. (1996). Response of maize yield to etheophon treatment and nitrogen fetilizer rates under two directions. Annals Agric. Sci., Ain. Shams Univ. Cairo, Egypt., 41 (2): 683-695.

Ahmed, M.A. and M.H. El-Shiekh (2002). Response of maize cultivars to different management regimes. Journal of Agric. Sci., Mansoura Univ., 29(8): 4821-4833.

Duncan, D. B.(1955). Multiple range and multiple F-test. Biometrics, 11:1-42.

 

 

Duncan, D. B. (1972). Plant spacing, density, oriantaton and light relationships as related to different corn genotype. Proc. 27^th Annual Corn and Sorghum Research Conf. Am. Seed Trad Assoc., Washington, USA.

El-Murshedi, W. A. (1991). Crop canopy and  crop distribution pattern in the field and its influence on biological and economical yields in Maize. M.Sc. Thesis, Fac. Agric., Cairo Univ. , Egypt.

El-Metwally, I.M.; S. A. Ahmed and Samia A. Saad El-Din (2001). Nitrogen fertilizer levels and some weed control treatments effects on maize and its associated weeds. J. Agric. Sci. Mansoura Univ., 26 (2):585-601.

El-Murshedy, W. A. and A. A. Abuldahab (2002). Response of some maize hybrids and a synthetic cultivars to planting density. Egyptian J. Appl. Sci., 17 (7): 546-562.

Fernando, H. Andrade, Maria E. Otegui and Claudia vega (2000). Intercepted radiation at flowering and kernel in maize. Agron. J., 92: 92-97.

Goldsworthy, P. R. (1974). Maize physiology. In: Proc. World Wide Maize Improvement in the 7^th and role for CIMMYT, CMMYT, Mexico.

Hassan, A. A. (2000). Effect of plant population density on yield and yield components of eight Egyptian maize hybrids. Bull. Fac. Agric. Cairo Univ., 51: 1-16.

Ibrahim, A. A. and M. F. Abd El-Maksoud (2001). Leaf defoliation and hill spacing effects on maize productivity. Zagazig Agric. Res., 28 (2): 261-274.

Ismail, M. A. (1997). Effect of some agronomic practices on maize. M.Sc. Thesis Zagazig University, Zagazig, Egypt.

Karlen, D. L. and C. R. Camp (1985). Row spacing, plant population and water management effects on corn in the  Atlantic costal proin. Agron. J., 77: 393-398.

Khalil, A. N. M.; Sh. A. El-Shamarka; M. E. Ibrahim and E. A. El-Absawy (1999).  Effect of plant densities on growth yield of sixteen maize genotypes differed in their leaves angles. Minufiya J. Agric. Res., 24 (1): 85-106.

Leach, M. C. ; M. C. Ress and D. A. Chorles, Dewards (1986). Relation between summer crops and ground cover legumes in subtropical environment. 1. Effect of avignal trilobgata ground cover on growth and yield of sorghum and sunflower. Field crops. Res., 15: 17-37.

Mowafy, S.A.E. (2003). Response of some maize hybrids to nitrogen fertilizer splitting under drip irrigation system in sandy soils. Zagazig J. Agric. Res., 30 (1): 17-34.

Oraby, F. T. and  A.A. Sarhan (2002). Proper agronmic practices required to maximize productivity of some maize varieties in old and reclaimed soils: II- Response of some maize varieties to NPK fertilization in the reclaimed sandy soil. Egyptian J. Appl.Sci., 17 (11): 520-542.

 

Oraby, F. T.; A.A. Sarhan ; M. F. Abd El-Maksoud and A. H. Bassiouny  (2003a). Proper agronmic practices required to maximize productivity of some maize varieties in old and reclaimed soils: III. Effect of sowing dates on response of two maize hybrids to nitrogen fertilization. Egyptian  J. Appl. Sci. ,18 (5B): 597-618.

Oraby, F. T.; M. F. Abd El-Maksoud and  A.A. Sarhan (2005b). Proper agronmic practices required to maximize productivity of some maize varieties in old and reclaimed soils: v- Response of ten maize hybrids to N fertilization under two locations. J. Prodct. & Dev.,10 (1): 55-73.

Ottman, M. J. and Welch, L. F. (1989). Planting pattern and radiation interception, plant nutrient concentration and yield in corn. Agron. J. , 81: 167-174.

Robinson, R. G. (1975). Effect of row direction on sunflower. Agron. J. 67: 93-94.

Ragheb, M. M. A.; A. A. Bedeer and A. Sh.A. Gouda (1993). Effect of row spacing and plant population density on grain yield of some maize hybrids. Zagazig J. Agric. Res., 20 (2): 581-594.

Sarhan, A. A. (1994). Agrofrestry system and plant arrangement effects on yield and its components of some maize hybrids. Egypt. J. Appl. Sci. , 12: 728-746.

Seif, S. A.; M. I. Bashir and M. H. El-Bakry (1988). Effect of sowing directions, inter and intra row spacing on growth and yield of two grain sorghum cultivars. (Sorghum bioclor L.). Egyptian J. Appl. Sci., 3: 181-191.

Snedecor, G. W. and W. G. Cochran (1980). Statistical Methods. 6^th ed Iowa State Univ. Press Ames Iwoa, USA. 

Tetio, F. Kagho and F.P. Gardnar (1988). Response of maize to plant population density. 1. Canopy development, light relationship and vegetative growth. Agron. J., 80: 430-435.

Talentino, N. M. (1982). Solar radiation interception on sorghum (Sorghum bioclar L.) grown at different plant densities. Sorghum and Millets information enter (SMIC) Newsletter, 19, April, 1986)

Williams, W. A.; R. S. Loomis and C. R. Lpley (1965). Vegetative growth of corn as affected by population density. 1. productivity in relation to interception of solar radiation. Crop Sci., 5: 211-215.

 

 

 

تأثیر  إتجاه  التخطیط والتوزیعات النباتیة علی النمو والمحصول ومساهماته لهجینین من هجن الذرة الشامیة.

 

مجدی فتحی عبدالمقصود

قسم الأنتاج النباتی (فرع المحاصیل) - معهد الکفایة الأنتاجیة – جامعة الزقازیق

 

        أقیمت تجربتان حقلیتان فی مزرعة خاصة بقریة شیبة مرکز الزقازیق بمحافظة الشرقیة خلال موسمی 2005 و 2006 وذلک لدراسة تاثیر إتجاهین للتخطیط (شرق –غرب  و شمال –جنوب) و ثلاث توزیعات نباتیة (50 x 35 – 60 x 29.1 و  70  x 25 ) علی صفات  النمو والمحصول ومساهماته لهجین فردی 10 وهجین فردی 30 ک 8. فی أرض طینیة فی تصمیم القطع المنشقة مرتان فی أربع مکررات.

کانت أهم النتائج کما یلی:

1-  تفوق إتجاه التخطیط شمال – جنوب علی التخطیط شرق- غرب فی نسبة إعتراض الضوء. ولکن تفوق إتجاه التخطیط شرق- غرب فی معظم الصفات تحت الدراسة (إرتفاع النبات –مساحة ورقة الکوز – دلیل مساحة الأوراق- إرتفاع الکوز- طول وقطر الکوز – عدد حبوب السطر والکوز- وزن الـ100 حبة – وزن حبوب الکوز ومحصول الفدان حبوب).

2-  تفوق التوزیع النباتی 70 x   25 فی نسبة إعتراض الضوء علی ارتفاع 150 سم وکذلک محصول الفدان حبوب وجاء فی الترتیب الثانی 60 x 29.1 ثم 50 x 35 بینما لم یکن هناک فرق معنوی بین التوزیعات النباتیة الثلاث تحت الدراسة فی معظم الصفات المدروسة ( طول الکوز – قطر الکوز – عدد الکیزان /نبات – عدد سطور الکوز – عدد حبوب السطر والکوز نسبة التفریط- وزن حبوب الکوز).

3-  کما أوضحت النتائج ان هناک إختلاف معنوی بین هجینی الذرة الشامیة تحت الدراسة فی معظم الصفات المدروسة (إرتفاع النبات – مساحة ورقة الکوز – إرتفاع الکوز- طول وقطر  الکوز– عدد حبوب السطر والکوز- وزن الـ100 حبة – وزن حبوب الکوز ومحصول الفدان حبوب). وأظهرت النتائج تفوق هجین فردی 10 علی الهجین الفردی (30 ک 8).

Article View: 414