Skip to main content
. 2017 Apr 6;8:512. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2017.00512

Table 3.

Effects of different mulch plots on agronomic properties of maize during 2013–2014 at the Dryland Agricultural Research Station, Pengyang County, China.

Year Treatments Ear length (cm) Ear diameter (cm) 100-kernel weight (g) Grain number per ear Shelling (%)
2013 FCM 20.19a 51.42ab 42.56a 608.48a 86.30a
FLM 18.73b 49.04b 39.73ab 585.79bc 82.58b
FLSM 19.26ab 51.82a 42.15a 595.96abc 84.10ab
PM 19.04b 50.23ab 35.19c 605.31ab 86.11a
CK 18.28b 49.54ab 36.03b 582.71c 81.91b
2014 FCM 19.52a 52.38ab 33.73a 640.13a 80.38a
FLM 20.41a 51.68ab 32.50ab 631.33a 81.31ab
FLSM 20.10a 52.75a 34.85a 633.09a 82.82a
PM 19.49a 50.40b 30.55b 578.39b 80.40b
CK 18.15a 46.34c 26.07c 574.35b 77.01c

CK, the control, conventional flat planting without plastic film mulch; PM, flat planting with maize rows (60 cm spacing) on plastic film mulch (70 cm wide); FCM, furrow planting of maize (60 cm spacing), separated by consecutive plastic film-mulched ridges (each 50 cm wide and 15 cm tall); FLSM, furrow planting of maize (60 cm spacing), separated by alternating large and small plastic film-mulched ridges (large ridges: 70 cm wide and 15 cm tall, small ridges 50 cm wide and 10 cm tall); FLM, furrow-flat planting of maize (60 cm spacing) with a large plastic film-mulched ridge (60 cm wide and 15 cm tall) alternating with a flat plastic film-mulched space (60 cm wide). Values followed by the different lowercase letter in the same row indicate significant differences among treatments for each year (Tukey HSD test, p < 0.05).