IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0228809.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Understanding variability in optimum plant density and recommendation domains for crowding stress tolerant processing sweet corn

Author

Listed:
  • Daljeet S Dhaliwal
  • Martin M Williams II

Abstract

Recent research shows significant economic benefit if the processing sweet corn [Zea mays L. var. rugosa (or saccharata)] industry grew crowding stress tolerant (CST) hybrids at their optimum plant densities, which may exceed current plant densities by up to 14,500 plants ha-1. However, optimum plant density of individual fields varies over years and across the Upper Midwest (Illinois, Minnesota and Wisconsin), where processing sweet corn is concentrated. The objectives of this study were to: (1) determine the extent to which environmental and management practices affect optimum plant density and, (2) identify the most appropriate recommendation domain for making decisions on plant density. To capture spatial and temporal variability in optimum plant density, on-farm experiments were conducted at thirty fields across the states of Illinois, Minnesota and Wisconsin, from 2013 to 2017. Exploratory factor analysis of twelve environmental and management variables revealed two factors, one related to growing period and the other defining soil type, which explained the maximum variability observed across all the fields. These factors were then used to quantify the strength of associations with optimum plant density. Pearson’s partial correlation coefficients of ‘growing period’ and ‘soil type’ with optimum plant density were low (ρ1 = -0.14 and ρ2 = -0.09, respectively) and non-significant (P = 0.47 and 0.65, respectively). To address the second objective, six candidate recommendation domain models (RDM) were developed and tested. Linear mixed effects models describing crop response to plant density were fit to each level of each candidate RDM. The difference in profitability observed at the current plant density for a field and the optimum plant density under RDM level represented the additional processor profit ($ ha-1) from a field. The RDM built around ‘Production Area’ (RDMPA) appears most suitable, because plant density recommendations based on RDMPA maximized processor profits as well grower returns better than other RDMs. Compared to current plant density, processor profits and grower returns increased by $448 ha-1 and $82 ha-1, respectively at plant densities under RDMPA.

Suggested Citation

  • Daljeet S Dhaliwal & Martin M Williams II, 2020. "Understanding variability in optimum plant density and recommendation domains for crowding stress tolerant processing sweet corn," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(2), pages 1-15, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0228809
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0228809
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0228809
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0228809&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0228809?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Harrington, Larry W. & Tripp, R., 1984. "Recommendation Domains: A Framework for On-Farm Research," Economics Working Papers 232445, CIMMYT: International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center.
    2. Phiri, Donald & Franzel, Steven & Mafongoya, Paramu & Jere, Isaac & Katanga, Roza & Phiri, Stanslous, 2004. "Who is using the new technology? The association of wealth status and gender with the planting of improved tree fallows in Eastern Province, Zambia," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 79(2), pages 131-144, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Arslan, Aslihan & McCarthy, Nancy & Lipper, Leslie & Asfaw, Solomon & Cattaneo, Andrea, 2013. "Adoption and Intensity of Adoption of Conservation Farming Practices in Zambia," Food Security Collaborative Working Papers 147461, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    2. Subert, Moses Peter, 2017. "Perceptions Of Enhanced Freshness Formulation Technologies And Adoption Decisions Among Smallholder Banana Farmers In Morogoro, Tanzania," Research Theses 276437, Collaborative Masters Program in Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    3. Kiptot, Evelyne & Hebinck, Paul & Franzel, Steven & Richards, Paul, 2007. "Adopters, testers or pseudo-adopters? Dynamics of the use of improved tree fallows by farmers in western Kenya," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 94(2), pages 509-519, May.
    4. Peterman, Amber & Behrman, Julia & Quisumbing, Agnes, 2010. "A review of empirical evidence on gender differences in nonland agricultural inputs, technology, and services in developing countries," IFPRI discussion papers 975, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    5. Peterman, A., 2010. "A review of empirical evidence on gender differences in nonland agricultural inputs, technology, and services in developing countries," IWMI Working Papers H043605, International Water Management Institute.
    6. Parwada, Cosmas & Chipomho, Justin & Mapope, Nyamande & Masama, Edmore & Simango, Kennedy, 2022. "Role of Agroforestry on Farmland Productivity in Semi-arid Farming Regions of Zimbabwe," Research on World Agricultural Economy, Nan Yang Academy of Sciences Pte Ltd (NASS), vol. 3(2), May.
    7. Martha Swamila & Damas Philip & Adam Meshack Akyoo & Stefan Sieber & Mateete Bekunda & Anthony Anderson Kimaro, 2020. "Gliricidia Agroforestry Technology Adoption Potential in Selected Dryland Areas of Dodoma Region, Tanzania," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-17, July.
    8. Moses C. Tembo & Elias Kuntashula & Thomson Kalinda, 2017. "Climate Change Awareness and Joint Decision to Adopt Agroforestry and Conservation Agriculture Practices in Zambia," Journal of Sustainable Development, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 10(4), pages 107-107, July.
    9. Rupak Goswami & Soumitra Chatterjee & Binoy Prasad, 2014. "Farm types and their economic characterization in complex agro-ecosystems for informed extension intervention: study from coastal West Bengal, India," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 2(1), pages 1-24, December.
    10. Kisaka-Lwayo, Maggie, 2008. "A Discriminant Analysis of Factors Associated with The Adoption Of Certified Organic Farming By Smallholder Farmers in Kwazulu-Natal, South Africa," 2007 Second International Conference, August 20-22, 2007, Accra, Ghana 52155, African Association of Agricultural Economists (AAAE).
    11. B. Fosu-Mensah & P. Vlek & D. MacCarthy, 2012. "Farmers’ perception and adaptation to climate change: a case study of Sekyedumase district in Ghana," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 14(4), pages 495-505, August.
    12. S?ren Marcus Pedersen & Kim Martin Lind & Orjon Xhoxhi & Attila Yazar & Sven-Erik Jacobsen & Jens Erik ?rum, 2020. "Introducing quinoa in Turkey - farmers perception in the region of Adana," Economia agro-alimentare, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 22(1), pages 1-24.
    13. Joachim N. Binam & Frank Place & Arinloye A. Djalal & Antoine Kalinganire, 2017. "Effects of local institutions on the adoption of agroforestry innovations: evidence of farmer managed natural regeneration and its implications for rural livelihoods in the Sahel," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 5(1), pages 1-28, December.
    14. Michael Jacobson & Cori Ham, 2020. "The (un)broken promise of agroforestry: a case study of improved fallows in Zambia," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 22(8), pages 8247-8260, December.
    15. Goswami, Rupak & Biswas, Malay Sankar & Basu, Debabrata, 2009. "Validation of Participatory Farming Situation Identification: Case of Rainfed Rice Cultivation in Selected Area of West Bengal, India," Working Papers/Conference Papers 97599, Ramakrishna Mission Vivekananda University, Integrated Rural Development and Management Faculty Centre.
    16. Daniel Ruppert & Martin Welp & Michael Spies & Niels Thevs, 2020. "Farmers’ Perceptions of Tree Shelterbelts on Agricultural Land in Rural Kyrgyzstan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-18, February.
    17. Lilja, Nina K. & Bellon, Mauricio R., 2006. "Analysis of Participatory Research Projects in the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center," Impact Studies 56099, CIMMYT: International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center.
    18. Oluyede Clifford Ajayi & Festus K. Akinnifesi & Gudeta Sileshi & Sebastian Chakeredza, 2007. "Adoption of renewable soil fertility replenishment technologies in the southern African region: Lessons learnt and the way forward," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 31(4), pages 306-317, November.
    19. Jha, Srijna & Kaechele, Harald & Sieber, Stefan, 2021. "Factors influencing the adoption of agroforestry by smallholder farmer households in Tanzania: Case studies from Morogoro and Dodoma," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    20. Samuel T. Partey & Angela D. Dakorah & Robert B. Zougmoré & Mathieu Ouédraogo & Mary Nyasimi & Gordon K. Nikoi & Sophia Huyer, 2020. "Gender and climate risk management: evidence of climate information use in Ghana," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 158(1), pages 61-75, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0228809. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.