Effects of Different Cropping Patterns on Maize (Zea mays L.) Yield


  • Rui Yukui China Agricultural University, China
  • Rui Fafu
  • Hao Jing




Cropping pattern, Row Spacing, Maize, Yield, Food security


Increasing maize yield per unit is the most important measure to address food security issues. Farmers from northeastern China created several cropping patterns to increase maize yield per unit, but which pattern is the best has not been researched systemically. A randomized block design of six cropping patterns and four replicates was used. Six cropping patterns 65cm×65 cm, 40cm×90 cm, 30cm×100 cm, 20cm×110 cm, 2L:0 and 4L:0 respectively were studied. The results showed that all wide and narrow rows patterns and free-sow patterns have higher yield than same spacing patterns, and 30cm×100cm is the optimal pattern to obtain the highest yield followed by 20cm×110cm, 4L:0, 2L:0, 40cm×90cm and 65cm×65cm respectively. According to our survey, more than four-fifths is the same spacing pattern (65cm×65cm) whose yield was 1.5t·ha-1 lower than wide and narrow rows with 30cm×100cm, so if all farmers carried out the 30cm×100cm pattern, food security of China problems will be obviously improved.


Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Rui Yukui, China Agricultural University, China

Associate dean of department of environmental science and engineering. Dr. Rui Yukui starts his professional career in 2003 as researcher, China Agricultural University, China. Dr. Rui Yukui received his B.Sc. in Horticultral science in 1997 at Qingao Agricultural University, Shandong province of China. He got M.Sc. in Applied Physics in 2000 from China Agricultural University, China. Dr. Rui Yukui obtained Ph.D. from China Agricultural University, China in 2003 in Crop Cultivation and Tillage. Dr. Rui Yukui’s current research interests are Plant Production, Environmental Science, Plant Nutrition.



How to Cite

Yukui, R., Fafu, R., & Jing, H. (2011). Effects of Different Cropping Patterns on Maize (Zea mays L.) Yield. Comunicata Scientiae, 2(3), 160–163. https://doi.org/10.14295/cs.v2i3.64



Original Article