Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-zzh7m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T17:01:32.494Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Weather Factors Affecting the Response of Maize to Planting Dates in a Tropical Rainforest Location

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 October 2008

M. A. B. Fakorede
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Science, University of Ife, Ile-Ife, Nigeria
B. O. Opeke
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Science, University of Ife, Ile-Ife, Nigeria

Summary

Simple linear correlations, stepwise multiple regressions and path-coefficient analyses were used to determine the relation between grain yield of maize (Zea mays L.) and weather factors in a three year study involving several planting dates within each year. Maximum and minimum relative humidity, which demonstrated negative relationships with yield, were the most reliable factors, both directly and indirectly, for predicting yield. Temperature (including accumulated heat units), sunshine hours and total and effective rainfall generally showed negligible direct effects on yield. Potential evaporation, which showed positive correlation, had a negative direct influence on grain yield. We conclude that, whenever possible, path analysis should be used as well as correlation and regression analyses in explaining the complex multiple interactions of yield and weather factors in crop production.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bhatt, G. M. (1973). Significance of path coefficient analysis in determining the nature of character association. Euphytica 22:338343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, W. F., Wagenet, R. J., Bamatraf, A. M. & Turner, D. L.(1980). Path coefficient analysis of correlation between stress and barley yield components. Agronomy Journal 72:10121016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cross, H. Z. & Zuber, M. S. (1972). Prediction of flowering dates in maize based on different methods of estimating thermal units. Agronomy Journal 64:351355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dewey, D. R. & Lu, K. H.(1959). A correlation and path-coefficient analysis of components of created wheatgrass seed production. Agronomy Journal 51:515518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, W. G., Shaver, D. L. & Williams, W. A., (1973). Insolation and temperature effects on maize growth and yield. Crop Science 13:187191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fakorede, M. A. B. (1979). Interrelationships among grain yield and agronomic traits in a synthetic population of maize. Maydica 24:181192.Google Scholar
Fakorede, M. A. B. (1985). Response of maize to planting dates in a tropical rainforest location. Experimental Agriculture 21:1930.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jong, S. K., Brewbaker, J. L. & Chong, H. L., (1982). Effects of solar radiation on the performance of maize in 41 successive monthly plantings in Hawaii. Crop Science 22:1318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, J. O. & Kohout, F. J., (1975). Path analysis and causal interpretation. In Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, 383397New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Pengra, R. F., (1946). Correlation analysis of precipitation and crop yield data for the sub-humid areas of the northern Great Plains. Journal of the American Society of Agronomy 38:848849.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaw, R. H., (1977). Climatic requirements. In Corn and Corn Improvement 2nd Edition, 591623 (Ed. Spraque, G. F.). Madison, Wisconsin, USA: American Society of Agronomy.Google Scholar
Shaw, R. H. & Thom, H. C., (1951). On the phenology of field com, silking to maturity. Agronomy Journal 43:541546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, A. M., Cuany, R. L., Eraser, J. G. & Oaks, W. R., (1981). Relationships among components of seed yield in blue grama. Agronomy Journal 73:10581062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, S., (1921). Correlation and causation. Journal of Agricultural Research 20:557–385.Google Scholar