Published September, 2002
CORN
Row Width and Plant Density Effects on Corn Grain Production in the Northern
Corn Belt
William D. Widdicombe and Kurt D. Thelen*
ABSTRACT
Continued genetic improvement in the ability of hybrid corn (Zea
mays L.) to withstand high plant density stress requires agronomists
to periodically reassess optimal plant density and row width. Further-
more, the optimal plant density level and row width for corn grain
yield may vary with location, primarily latitude, in the Corn Belt. This
study was conducted to evaluate corn grain yield, harvest moisture,
test weight, and stalk lodging with modern corn hybrids, as affected
by row width and plant density in the northern Corn Belt. At six
locations in 1998 and 1999, four hybrids differing in relative maturity,
ear type, plant height, and leaf orientation were planted at row widths
of 76, 56, and 38 cm and five plant density levels ranging from 56 000
to 90 000 plants ha⫺1. Plots were arranged randomly in a split-split
plot configuration. Results show that corn grain yield increased 2 and
4% and harvest moisture decreased by a factor of 2.1% when row
width was narrowed from 76 cm to 56 cm and 38 cm, respectively.
The highest plant density evaluated, 90 000 plants ha⫺1, had the highest
grain yield. Grain moisture decreased and grain test weight increases
slightly as plant density increased. A hybrid ⫻ row width interaction
was not observed indicating that hybrids that yield well in conventional
76-cm row systems will also yield well in narrow row systems.
T he optimal row width and plant density in field
corn (Zea mays L.) production systems continue to
narrow and intensify as corn genetics evolve (Duvick
and Cassman, 1999). In 1908, Hume et al. reported a
slight advantage of 84 by 84 cm over 112 by 112 cm
spacing of hill plots in northern Illinois at both the two-
and three-kernel (per hill) planting rate. Rounds et al.
(1951) found that drilled corn yielded 7% better than
did corn planted in hills. The authors reported that dril-
ling corn allowed higher plant densities than utilized
under previous hill planting systems. Higher plant den-
sity was found to have a greater effect on yield than row
width or planting pattern (Rossman and Cook, 1966).
Similarly, Fulton (1970) reported that narrow rows in-
creased corn grain yield only in the presence of both high
plant population and high soil water supply. Uniformity
between plants within rows affects grain yield by equal-
izing inter-plant competition and increasing the utiliza-
tion efficiency of nutrients, water, and solar radiation
(Krall et al., 1997; Nafziger, 1996; Hodges and Evans,
1990; Bullock et al., 1988).
Recent studies on narrow-row corn production sys-
tems have produced inconsistent results. Results vary
from no yield advantage of planting corn in narrow rows
(Johnson et al., 1998; Farnham, 2001) to a 7% increase
Dep. of Crop and Soil Sci., Michigan State Univ., East Lansing, MI
48824-1325. Received 12 Oct. 2001. *Corresponding author (thelenk3@
msu.edu).
Published in Agron. J. 94:1020–1023 (2002).
1020
in yield over wider rows as reported by Porter et al.
(1997). Nielsen (1988) reported a 2.7% increase in corn
grain yield across nine Indiana locations when corn was
grown in narrow rows. The greatest advantage with nar-
row row systems seems to be in northern locations.
Paszkiewicz (1997) summarized 84 university and indus-
try studies and reported corn grown north of the Inter-
state 90 (I-90) corridor responded on average with an
8% increase in yield when row width was narrower than
76 cm. Furthermore, Cox et al. (1998) suggested that
corn grown in narrow row widths north of 44⬚ N had a
yield advantage over wider rows.
Hybrids developed in recent years are able to with-
stand higher plant density levels than older hybrids (Tol-
lenaar, 1989). The current hybrids were found to have
decreased lodging frequencies at the higher plant popu-
lations. Also, newer hybrids were able to better with-
stand environmental stress, resulting in production of
fewer barren plants (Tollenaar, 1991). When selecting
hybrids for higher plant densities, Thomison and Jordan
(1995) reported that hybrid ear type was of limited im-
portance in determining optimum plant density. Naf-
ziger (1994) evaluated two hybrids with reportedly dif-
ferent responses to plant density and found no significant
hybrid ⫻ plant density interaction.
In Michigan, many producers growing sugar beet
(Beta vulgaris L.) utilize a 56-cm row width. Also, many
soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] growers have recently
switched from 18 cm grain drill planting to planting with
38 cm row mounted units to gain more precise depth
control and equidistant within row seed placement. Ad-
ditionally, research on Sclerotinia sclerotiorum in soy-
bean (Hart, 1998) has shown that row widths wider than
the conventional grain drill width of 18 cm can reduce
the incidence of white mold infection. Interest in in-
creasing equipment use efficiency, by utilizing the same
planter for soybean, sugar beet, and corn, and the ob-
served ability of new corn hybrids to better withstand
high plant density stress has contributed to the renewed
interest in converting corn row width to narrow row
systems.
The objective of this study was to determine the ef-
fects of 76-, 56-, and 38-cm row widths and increasing
plant density levels on corn grain yield, moisture, test
weight, and stalk lodging with modern corn hybrids in
the northern Corn Belt.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Field research was conducted in 1998 and 1999 in Calhoun,
Huron, Ingham, Kalamazoo, Monroe, and Saginaw counties.
Abbreviations: GDU, growing degree units
 WIDDICOMBE & THELEN: NARROW-ROW CORN GRAIN PRODUCTION IN THE NORTHERN CORN BELT 1021

Table 1. Planting and harvest dates by location. Table 3. Row width effect on corn grain yield, grain moisture, and
stalk lodging averaged across hybrid, plant density, location,
Planting date Harvest date
Maturity replication, and year. Each value is the mean of 880 obser-
Location† zone‡ 1998 1999 1998 1999 vations.
Ingham C 30 April 6 May 3 Oct. 2 Oct. Row width Yield Moisture Stalk lodging
Saginaw C 29 April 10 May 29 Sept. 5 Oct.
Huron C 14 May 10 May –¶ 5 Oct. cm kg ha⫺1 g kg⫺1 %
Monroe S 13 May 5 May 13 Oct. 11 Oct. 76 11 130c† 196a 1.60b
Calhoun S 11 May 26 Oct. 56 11 350b 192b 1.92a
Kalamazoo S 11 May 12 Oct. 38 11 551a 192b 1.65b

† Two locations planted at Calhoun in 1998 and Kalamazoo in 1999.
‡ Maturity zones: C, central; S, southern.
¶ Location not harvested in 1998 due to poor emergence.
The respective soil types for each site were a Spinks loamy
sand (sandy, mixed, mesic Psammentic Hapludalfs), Kilma-
nagh loam (fine-loamy, mixed, nonacide, mesic Aeric Hapla-
quepts), Capac loam (fine-loamy, mixed, mesic Aeric Ochra-
qualfs), Schoolcraft loam (fine-loamy, mixed, mesic Typic
Argiudolls), Selfridge–Pewamo clay loam (loamy, mixed, me-
sic Aquic Arenic Hapludalfs), and a Sloan–Ceresco sandy
loam complex (fine-loamy, mixed, mesic Fluvaquentic Hapla-
quolls). Trial locations were chosen that best represented the
diverse soils and cultural practices utilized in the state of
Michigan. The previous crop at each location was soybean
with the one exception of Saginaw in 1998, where the previous
crop was corn. The experiment was designed as a randomized
complete block with a split-split plot arrangement with four
replications. The hybrid represented the whole plot, row width
represented the split-plot, and plant density represented the
split-split plot.
Corn was planted in 3 by 12 m plots with a mechanical
planter configured to plant in 76-, 56-, and 38-cm row widths.
Tractor wheel spacing was adjusted so wheel tracks did not
interfere with planted rows. Within each row width, hybrids
were over planted to establish five target plant densities of
56 000, 65 000, 73 000, 81 000, and 90 000 plants ha⫺1. Viable
plant density was determined after corn emergence and plots
were hand-thinned if plant density exceeded target levels for
the plot. The middle rows of each plot were harvested for
yield to allow one border row on each side of the plot. In the
76-cm rows, the two center rows were harvested, while in the
56- and 38-cm plots, three and five rows were harvested, re-
spectively.
The experimental site locations were divided into central
and southern corn maturity zones (Table 1). The Saginaw,
Ingham, and Huron locations were included in the central
corn maturity zone and the Monroe, Calhoun, and Kalamazoo
locations were included in the southern corn maturity zone.
Six hybrids were chosen to match the varying maturity zone
and agronomic characteristics of the selected locations. Of
these six hybrids, four were selected for each maturity zone
(Table 2). The two earliest hybrids were used in the central
zone along with the two medium-maturing hybrids. The same
medium-maturing hybrids were also used in the southern zone
along with two later-maturing, full-season hybrids (Table 2).
Lodging observations were recorded before harvest. Plants
† Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different.
were considered lodged if corn stalks were broken below the
ear. The percent lodging was calculated based upon the total
number of plants per plot.
Plots were harvested mechanically with grain harvester
heads custom built to match each of the three row widths.
The 1998 Huron location was not harvested due to extremely
poor corn emergence in the spring, resulting in plant density
levels below established thresholds. Moisture content and field
weights were automatically measured by a GrainGage linked
to a HarvestData System (Juniper Systems, Logan UT)
mounted on a plot combine. Grain yields are reported at 155
g kg⫺1 moisture. Test weights were also recorded and reported
at harvest moisture.
All data were analyzed with the analysis of variance (AN-
OVA) and the Mixed Linear Model in SAS Statistical Soft-
ware Package version 6.12 (SAS Inst., 1990). The Mixed Lin-
ear Model is able to calculate the appropriate error terms for
tests associated with the split-split plot design. Experimental
locations and all interactions involving locations were consid-
ered random effects. Corn hybrids, row width, plant density,
and the respective interactions were considered fixed effects.
Mean separation between variables was obtained by Tukey’s
Least Significant Difference test. Effects were considered sig-
nificant in all statistical calculations if P values ⬍ 0.05.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The range of accumulated growing degree units
(GDU) over locations for 1998 was 154 to 329 GDU
above normal. The 1999 season ranged from 110 GDU
to 183 GDU above the 30-yr average. Precipitation lev-
els for the 1998 and 1999 growing season were 8.0 and
7.1 cm below the 30-yr average. Precipitation ranged
from 17.3 cm below average at the Saginaw location to
2.6 cm above average at the Calhoun location in 1998.
In 1999, precipitation ranged from 15.6 cm below at the
Monroe location to 4.4 cm above the 30-yr mean at the
Huron location. Statewide average corn grain yields in
Michigan were 6964 and 8156 kg ha⫺1 for the 1998 and
1999 growing seasons (Michigan Agric. Statistics, 2000,
p. 31–34), respectively.
Row width was inversely correlated with grain yield
(Table 3). Corn grain yield increased 2% when row

Table 2. Hybrid maturity and agronomic characteristics. Hybrids are listed in order of relative maturity.
Company Hybrid Relative maturity† Maturity zone‡ Ear type Height Leaf orientation
Novartis Max 86 E (93 d) C Determinate Tall Erect
Renk RK 552 E (95 d) C Indeterminate Medium Erect
Great Lakes GL 4758 M (100 d) C&S Flex Med-tall Semi-upright
Pioneer PIO 3573 M (103 d) C&S Flex Med-short Semi-upright
Great Lakes GL 5715 L (105 d) S Determinate Medium Wide
Renk RK 775 L (108 d) S Indeterminate Medium Semi-upright
† Relative maturity: E, early season hybrid; M, midseason hybrid; and L, full-season hybrid.
‡ Maturity zone in which hybrid was included: C, central (Saginaw, Ingham, and Huron locations); S, southern (Monroe, Calhoun, and Kalamazoo locations).
1022 AGRONOMY JOURNAL, VOL. 94, SEPTEMBER–OCTOBER 2002

Table 4. 1998 and 1999 summary of combined ANOVA probability values for grain yield, grain moisture, test weight, and stalk lodging.
Source of variation df Grain yield Moisture Test wt. Stalk lodging
P-values from ANOVA
Location 10 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
Hybrid 3 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
Row width (RW) 2 0.0001 0.0001 0.5834 0.0077
Hybrid ⫻ RW 6 0.2862 0.1649 0.9655 0.1408
Density 4 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0004
Hybrid ⫻ Density 12 0.0050 0.0001 0.2714 0.1317
RW ⫻ Density 8 0.1579 0.0272 0.5716 0.8963
Hybrid ⫻ RW ⫻ Density 24 0.0077 0.7436 0.8614 0.0227

width was narrowed from 76 to 56 cm and 4% when
row width was narrowed from 76 to 38 cm. This gain
in yield is less than the 7.2 and 8.5% increase reported
by Porter et al. (1997), but slightly greater than the 2.7%
reported by Nielsen (1988). The six hybrids selected for
this study varied in maturity, ear type, height, and leaf
orientation (Table 2). The hybrid effect was highly sig-
nificant for grain yield, moisture, test weight, and stalk
lodging (Table 4). However consistent with both Nielsen
(1988) and Porter et al. (1997), there was no hybrid ⫻
row width interaction. This suggests that relative hybrid
performance will not vary significantly between conven-
tional 76-cm row width cropping systems and narrow
row systems. Additionally, there was no significant in-
teraction between plant density and row width on grain
yield. This is consistent with the results reported by
Nielsen (1988) and Farnham (2001), who did not ob-
serve a plant density ⫻ row width interaction, and by
Porter et al. (1997), who did not observe a plant den-
sity ⫻ row width interaction at two of three locations
evaluated. From this, it may be concluded that grain
yield will increase similarly when row width is narrowed
across the range of plant density levels commonly used
in the Corn Belt.
Grain moisture at harvest was dependent on the hy-
brid (Table 4). Grain moisture decreased from 196 to
192 g kg⫺1 when row width was narrowed from 76 cm
to 56 and 38 cm (Table 3). Although this decrease in
grain moisture with narrow row systems was small, it
results in a potential savings of $1.80 to $5.45 ha⫺1 for
an 11 550 kg ha⫺1 yield based on local energy costs. Row
width did not affect grain test weight. The lack of a
grain test weight response to row width confirms the
observations of Porter et al. (1997).
When row width was narrowed from 76 to 56 cm, the
percentage of stalk lodging increased slightly. However,
there was no difference in stalk lodging between the
corn planted in 76-cm rows and that planted in the
38-cm row width (Table 3). Nielsen (1988) reported
Table 5. Plant density effect on corn grain yield, grain moisture,
grain test weight, and stalk lodging averaged across hybrid,
row width, location, replication, and year. Each value is the
mean of 880 observations.
Plant density Yield Moisture Test wt. Stalk lodging
Plants ha⫺1 kg ha⫺1 g kg⫺1 kg m⫺3 % ture levels from the early maturing hybrids decreased as
56 000 10 536d† 197a 740b 2.15b
65 000 11 125c 195ab 741ab 2.22b
73 000 11 380b 194bc 743a 2.21b
81 000 11 555a 193c 743a 2.40ab
90 000 11 683a 192d 743a 2.67a
† Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different.
increased stalk lodging when row width was narrowed
from 76 to 38 cm. However, Hoff and Mederski (1960)
did not observe an increase in stalk lodging when corn
row width was narrowed from 107 to 41 cm. The ob-
served increase in stalk lodging when row width was
narrowed from 76 to 56 cm, though statistically signifi-
cant in the experimental setting, is small and would
likely have minimal economic effect in a field-scale grain
production system.
Plant density had a significant effect on grain yield,
moisture, test weight, and stalk lodging (Table 4). The
highest plant density level evaluated (90 000 plants
ha⫺1 ) resulted in the highest grain yield (Table 5). This
suggests that the highest plant density evaluated (90 000
plants ha⫺1 ) may have been too low to establish the
true maximum yield plant density for this study. This
contrasts with the findings of Nielsen (1988), who found
the 90 000 plant ha⫺1 plant density level was greater
than optimum for the conditions at three locations eval-
uated in Indiana. Porter et al. (1997) reported inconsis-
tent optimal plant density levels ranging from 86 000 to
101 270 plants ha⫺1 for corn grain yield across three
Minnesota locations. As plant density increased from
lowest to highest, grain moisture decreased from 197 to
192 g kg⫺1. Grain test weight increased negligibly as
plant density increased. This contradicts the observa-
tions of Porter et al. (1997), who observed a trend for
decreased grain test weight as plant density was in-
creased. A significant hybrid ⫻ plant density interaction
was observed for grain yield and grain moisture (Table
4). However, with regard to yield, the plant density
interaction was found to be nonsignificant (data not
shown) for the hybrid characteristics listed in Table 2,
including relative maturity, ear type, plant height, and
leaf orientation. Therefore, the significant hybrid ⫻
plant density interaction on grain yield appeared to be
due to differences in the hybrids other than these four
characteristics. The observed hybrid ⫻ plant density
interaction on grain moisture appeared to be due to
differences in hybrid relative maturity (Table 6). All
hybrids, regardless of relative maturity, were planted
and harvested on the same day at a given location (Table
1). This provides the basis for the observed hybrid ⫻
plant density interaction on grain moisture. Grain mois-
plant density increased. Conversely, the later maturing,
full-season hybrids had relatively less time to field-dry
following physiological maturity. As a result, the later
maturing, full-season hybrids had consistently high grain
moisture levels across all plant density levels. Therefore,
 WIDDICOMBE & THELEN: NARROW-ROW CORN GRAIN PRODUCTION IN THE NORTHERN CORN BELT
Table 6. Effect of plant density and relative hybrid maturity on
grain moisture at harvest. Means are averaged across hybrid,
row width, location, replication, and year.
Relative maturity†
Plant density Early Mid
Plants ha⫺1 g kg⫺1
56 000 192a‡ 199a
65 000 189ab 197ab
73 000 186bc 195abc
81 000 184bc 194bc
90 000 182c 192c
† Relative maturity: Early, early season hybrid; Mid, midseason hybrid;
and Late, full-season hybrid.
‡ Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different.
in the Northern Corn Belt, where the length of the corn
growing season may be limited, early maturing hybrids
are more likely to exhibit lower grain moisture levels
at higher plant density levels. Porter et al. (1997) re-
ported a hybrid ⫻ plant density interaction for grain
moisture at two of three locations evaluated. However,
the authors did not observe a hybrid ⫻ plant density
interaction for grain yield.
CONCLUSIONS
Average corn grain yield increased 2 and 4% when
row width was narrowed from 76 cm to 56 and 38 cm
over the 2 yr and 11 locations of this study. Corn grain
harvest moisture decreased by a factor of 2.1% when
row width was narrowed similarly. The decrease in grain
moisture at harvest was small but statistically significant
over the scope of the study and suggests a modest poten-
tial savings in grain drying costs with narrow row corn
systems. Plant density affected grain yield, moisture,
test weight, and stalk lodging. The highest plant density
evaluated, 90 000 plants ha⫺1, had the highest grain yield.
A plant density ⫻ hybrid interaction was observed.
Grain moisture decreased for early maturing hybrids as
plant density increased, but moisture levels were consis-
tently high across all plant density levels for the later
maturing hybrids. A hybrid ⫻ row width interaction
was not observed, indicating hybrids that yield well in
conventional 76-cm row systems will also yield well in
narrow row systems. Similarly, a plant density ⫻ row
width interaction was not observed, which suggests the
increased yield effect observed with narrow row systems
will generally occur across the range of plant densities
commonly used by growers in the northern Corn Belt.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors thank the Corn Marketing Program of Michi-
gan for financial support of the project. We also thank the
Michigan State University Agricultural Weather Office for
assistance in procuring the weather data.
1023
REFERENCES
Bullock, D.G., R.L. Nielsen, and W.E. Nyquist. 1988. A growth analy-
sis comparison of corn grown in conventional and equidistant plant
spacing. Crop Sci. 28:254–258.
Late
Cox, W.J., D.R. Cherney, and J.J. Hanchar. 1998. Row width, hybrid,
and plant density effects on corn silage yield and quality. J. Prod.
Agric. 11:128–134.
199ns Duvick, D.N., and K.G. Cassman. 1999. Post-green revolution trends
199ns in yield potential of temperate maize in the North-Central United
200ns States. Crop Sci. 39:1622–1630.
200ns Farnham, D.E. 2001. Row spacing, plant density, and hybrid effects
200ns
on corn grain yield and moisture. Agron. J. 93:1049–1053.
Fulton, J.M. 1970. Relationships among soil moisture stress, plant
populations, row spacing, and yield of corn. Can. J. Plant Sci. 50:
31–38.
Hart, L.P. 1998. White mold in soybeans. Soybean fact sheet. Michigan
State Univ. Ext., East Lansing, MI.
Hodges, T., and D.W. Evans. 1990. Light interception model for esti-
mating the effects of row spacing on plant competition in Maize.
J. Prod. Agric. 3:190–195.
Hoff, D.J., and H.J. Mederski. 1960. Effect of equidistant corn plant
spacing on yield. Agron J. 52:295–297.
Hume, A.N., O.D. Center, and A. Hegnauer. 1908. Distance between
hills of corn in the Illinois Corn Belt. Illinois Exp. Stn. Bull. 126.
Johnson, G.A., T.R. Hoverstad, and R.E. Greenwald. 1998. Integrated
weed management using narrow corn row width, herbicides, and
cultivation. Agron. J. 90:40–46.
Krall, J.M., H.A. Esechie, R.J. Raney, S. Clark, G. TenEyck, M.
Lundquit, N.E. Humburg, L.S. Axthelm, A.D. Dayton, and R.L.
Vanderlip. 1997. Influence of within-row variability in plant spacing
on corn grain yield. Agron. J. 69:797–799.
Michigan Agricultural Statistics Service. 2000. Michigan agricultural
statistics. Michigan Agric. Statistics Service, Lansing, MI.
Nafziger, E.D. 1994. Corn planting date and plant density. J. Prod.
Agric. 7:59–62.
Nafziger, E.D. 1996. Effects of missing and two-plant hills on corn
grain yield. J. Prod. Agric. 9:238–240.
Nielsen, R.L. 1988. Influence of hybrids and plant density on grain
yield and stalk breakage in corn grown in 38 cm row width. J. Prod.
Agric. 1:190–195.
Paszkiewicz, S. 1997. Narrow row width influence on corn yield. p.
130–138. In Proc. 51st Annu. Corn and Sorghum Res. Conf., Chi-
cago, IL. 11–12 Dec. 1996. Am. Seed Trade Assoc., Washington,
DC.
Porter, P.M., D.R. Hicks, W.E. Lueschen, J.H. Ford, D.D. Warnes,
and T.R. Hoverstad. 1997. Corn response to row width and plant
density in the Northern Corn Belt. J. Prod. Agric. 10:293–300.
Rossman, E.C., and R.L. Cook. 1966. Soil preparation and date, rate,
and pattern of planting. p. 53–101. In W.H. Pierrce et al. (ed.)
Advances in corn production: Principles and practices. Iowa State
Univ. Press, Ames, IA.
Rounds, W.T., E.C. Rossman, W. Zurakowski, and E.E. Down. 1951.
Method, and date of planting corn. Michigan Agric. Exp. Stn. Q.
Bull. 33:372–387.
SAS Institute. 1990. SAS user’s guide: Statistics. 6th ed. SAS Inst.,
Cary, NC.
Thomison, P.R., and D.M. Jordan. 1995. Plant density effects on corn
hybrids differing in ear growth habit and prolificacy. J. Prod.
Agric. 8:394–400.
Tollenaar, M. 1989. Genetic improvement in grain yield of commercial
maize hybrids grown in Ontario from 1959 to 1988. Crop Sci. 29:
1365–1371.
Tollenaar, M. 1991. Physiological basis of genetic improvement of
maize hybrid in Ontario from 1959 to 1988. Crop Sci. 31:119–124.