Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Research
  • Open Access

Inoculation with Azospirillum brasiliense increases maize yield

Chemical and Biological Technologies in Agriculture20185:6

https://doi.org/10.1186/s40538-018-0118-z

  • Received: 10 October 2017
  • Accepted: 1 February 2018
  • Published:

Abstract

Background

Maize plants have a high nitrogen (N) demand, and thus, the fertilizers’ sustainable management and the inoculation with N2-fixing bacteria are the alternatives to reduce fertilization cost and the environmental impacts with N fertilizers. Under no tillage system, the N2-fixing inoculant Azospirillum brasiliense effects were compared with mineral N fertilization for maize crop.

Results

The N fertilization treatments influenced all variables in the 2014/2015 season and the cob insertion, plant height, yield, and N concentration in leaves in the 2015/2016 season, suggesting that the N supply, either N mineral from A. brasiliense increased growth and yield of maize plants. The maize cultivars influenced all variables in the two seasons. There was no interaction effect of cultivars × N fertilization on the variables. Thus, the maize cultivars had similar performance regardless treatments.

Conclusions

The inoculation with A. brasiliense increased maize yield compared with non-N-fertilized plants and the inoculation with Azospirillum at sowing + mineral N at topdress provided similar grain yield as mineral N at sowing and topdress for both cultivars.
Graphical Abstract image

Keywords

  • Zea mays L.
  • Inoculation
  • Grain yield
  • Mineral fertilization

Background

The maize (Zea mays L.), the main cereal crop in Brazil, was grown near 16 million hectares during the 2015/2016 harvest, at mean yield of 4181 kg ha−1, despite its increasing global demand [1]. This low yield is explained by the high cost of inputs and low level of technology adopted by farmers. In Amazonas state, the maize yield is around only 2515 kg ha−1 [1].

The photosynthetic rate of maize is high, but is easily influenced by environmental stress, as the low soil N level [2, 3] is an essential element for plant cell and fundamental to increase crop yield [4]. In addition, most of tropical soils have low N availability, requiring the N fertilization as an indispensable practice [5]. In this context, inorganic fertilizers are the main N source to increase maize plant development and yield [6]. However, the inadequate management of N fertilizers has negative environmental impacts, as water body eutrophication and nitrous oxide emission [7].

The reduction of N fertilizers and their negative impacts requires urgent alternative strategies. For instance, supplementing partially the plant needs by natural processes, as biological N2 fixation and organic phosphate solubilization [8, 9]. The commercial use of Bradyrhizobium is successfully implemented in Brazil and USA [10], leading together the annual N2 fixation by soybean [11].

The beneficial effects of biofertilizers include promotion of plant growth, yield quality, nutrient mobilization, soil health, and reduced susceptibility to disease caused by environmental changes [12]. Previous studies evaluated the positive effects of diazotrophic bacteria Azospirillum on increasing growth, root length, yield, dry matter, and N accumulation of maize plants [6, 1315]. Besides these benefits, it has a potential to reduce the production costs [16].

In this context, we evaluated the effect of A. brasiliense inoculation on maize cultivated under no tillage system.

Methods

Study area

The experiment was performed in an Oxisol (Latossolo Amarelo, distrófico, muito argiloso [17]; Xanthic Hapludox [18]; Xantic Ferralsol, [19]) on an upland area on two harvests—2014/2015 and 2015/2016—under no tillage system.

The experimental area was located at km 29 of Highway AM010, in the State of Amazonas, (02°53′25″S, 59°58′06″W, 102 m a.s.l.). The climate, according to the Köppen classification, is the rainy tropical type AF, with an average temperature of 26.2 °C, and annual rainfall of 2 mm [20].

The maize was sown in December 2014 and December 2015, on millet straw desiccated with glyphosate (900 g ha−1 of active ingredient). The potassium and phosphorus rates used for maize crop were based in the chemical and physical properties of 0–20 cm soil layer (Table 1).
Table 1

Chemical and physical soil properties (0–20 cm) before maize sow of 2014/2015 and 2015/2016

Season

pHH2O

SOM

N

P

K

Ca

Mg

Al

C.E.C

B.S

g kg−1

mg dm−3

cmolc dm−3

%

2014/2015

5.62

20.02

1.98

78

61

3.51

1.17

0

7.08

44.77

2015/2016

6.13

24.33

3.23

98

61

3.16

0.95

0

8.01

53.46

SOM soil organic matter, N KCl extractable nitrogen, P and K Mehlich-1 available phosphorus and potassium, Ca, Mg and Al KCl extractable calcium, magnesium and aluminum, C.E.C cation exchange capacity, B.S basis saturation

Experimental design

The experimental design was four randomized blocks in a 2 × 4 factorial combination (two cultivars of maize × four treatments with N fertilization). Five seeds were sowed per meter on 0.9-m spaced lanes. Each experimental plot size was 5.4 m (length) per 10 m (width), summing 54 m2.

Treatments and cultivation

We used the varieties BRS Caimbé and double-cross hybrid AG 1051 in four treatments to evaluate N fertilization: (1) control (without inoculant and mineral N); (2) seeds inoculated with A. brasiliense bacterium; (3) N fertilization with urea (20 kg ha−1 at sowing and 100 kg ha−1 at topdress band); and (4) seeds inoculation with A. brasiliense + N fertilization with urea at topdress (100 kg ha−1 of N). Seeds were inoculated with a commercial product containing Ab-V5 and Ab-V6 strains at concentration of 108 cell ml−1, applied at rate of 100 ml on 60,000 seeds. The inoculation was performed by adding the inoculant using an automatic pipette directly on the seeds, which were shaken in plastic bags for uniform product distribution.

The sowing was carried 1 h after inoculation. At sowing, were applied 80 kg ha−1 of P2O5 triple superphosphate and 60 kg ha−1 of K2O as potassium chloride.

To control weeds, we applied nicosulfuron (50 g ha−1 of active ingredient) at 25 days after plant emergence, and to control armyworm [Spodoptera frugiperda (J.E. Smith)], we applied deltamethrin (5 g ha−1 of active ingredient) at 40 days after plant emergence.

Data analysis

The dependent variables were measured considering 10 central plants on each experimental plot: first cob insertion height; plant height; and total N concentration in leaves and grains. For the N concentration in leaves, plants were sampled during the flowering season and 100 grains were sampled after harvest for the N concentration determination. A 36 m2 central area on each experimental plot was used to evaluate the variable yield of grains at 13% of moisture. All variables were subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA), and the Tukey (p < 0.05) test compared the means. The data analysis was performed using SAS 9.1 statistical package.

Results

The N fertilization treatments influenced (p < 0.01) all variables in the 2014/2015 season and the cob insertion, plant height, yield, and N concentration in leaves in the 2015/2016 season (Table 2). The maize cultivars influenced (p < 0.01) all variables in the two seasons (Table 2). There was no interaction effect (p > 0.05) of cultivars × N fertilization on the variables. Thus, the maize cultivars had similar performance regardless treatments (Table 2).
Table 2

Analysis of variance considering the influence of different N fertilization treatments, different cultivars AG 1051 e BRS Caimbé in two seasons of evaluation on first cob insertion height (FCIH), plant height (PH), grains yield (GY), N leaves concentration (NL), and N grains concentration (NG)

Sources

DF

Mean square

FCIH

PH

GY

NL

NG

Growing season 2014/2015

 Block

3

31.85ns

149.91ns

476,496.1ns

2.72ns

1.57ns

 Cultivar (C)

1

3606.13**

1199.28**

31,621,724.6**

88.05**

186.58**

 Nitrogen (N)

3

227.86**

686.25**

20,983,449.3**

144.44**

13.26**

 C × N

3

158.19ns

482.69ns

993,154.7ns

2.05ns

3.13ns

 Error

21

58.47

168.17

326617.5

7.47

0.92

 CV (%)

7.3

6.4

14.0

9.7

6.1

Growing season 2015/2016

 Block

3

36.53ns

6.91ns

75,302.1ns

4.92ns

3.59ns

 Cultivar (C)

1

2397.58**

1928.21**

12,329,709.0**

65.35**

50.07**

 Nitrogen (N)

3

214.96**

871.44**

27,503,747.9**

191.12**

5.45ns

 C × N

3

40.77ns

107.19ns

625,594.3ns

4.54ns

1.57ns

 Error

21

21.92

51.99

257,929.3

3.91

3.52

 CV (%)

4.1

3.3

11.4

7.7

12.3

DF degrees of freedom

** Significant at F test, p < 0.01

nsNot significant at F test (p > 0.05)

The AG 1051 hybrid had higher cob insertion and plant height than the BRS Caimbé variety in both seasons (Figs. 1a, b, 2a, b). Considering the N fertilization treatments, only the control treatment—without N—showed lower cob insertion and plant height comparing with other treatments in both seasons (Figs. 3a, b , 4a, b), suggesting that the N supply, either N mineral from A. brasiliense increased growth of maize plants.
Fig. 1
Fig. 1

Effects of BRS Caimbé and AG 1051 maize cultivars on first cob insertion height (FCIH) (a), plants height (PH) (b), grain yield (GY) (c), N leaves concentration (NL) (d), and N grains concentration (NG) (e) in 2014/2015 season. Different letters indicate differences (p < 0.05) between maize cultivars by Tukey test

Fig. 2
Fig. 2

Effects of BRS Caimbé and AG 1051 maize cultivars on first cob insertion height (FCIH) (a), plants height (PH) (b), grain yield (GY) (c), N leaves concentration (NL) (d), and N grains concentration (NG) (e) in 2015/2016 season. Different letters indicate differences (p < 0.05) between maize cultivars by Tukey test

Fig. 3
Fig. 3

Effects of N fertilization treatments without N (W N), inoculation with Azospirillum brasiliense (I), N fertilization as urea at sowing and at topdress (N + N), and seeds inoculation + N fertilization at sowing (I + N) on first cob insertion height (FCIH) (a), plants height (PH) (b), grain yield (GY) (c), N leaves concentration (NL) (d), and N grains concentration (NG) (e) in 2014/2015 season. Different letters indicate differences (p < 0.05) among N fertilization treatments by Tukey test

Fig. 4
Fig. 4

Effects of N fertilization treatments without N (W N), inoculation with Azospirillum brasiliense (I), N fertilization as urea at sowing and at topdress (N + N) and seeds inoculation + N fertilization at sowing (I + N) on first cob insertion height (FCIH) (a), plants height (PH) (b), grain yield (GY) (c), N leaves concentration (NL) (d), and N grains concentration (NG) (e) in 2015/2016 season. Different letters indicate differences (p < 0.05) among N fertilization treatments by Tukey test

The AG 1051 hybrid had higher yield than the BRS Caimbé for both seasons (Figs. 1c, 2c). The treatments mineral N fertilization at sowing + mineral N fertilization at topdress, and the seed inoculation + mineral N at topdress had similar yield in both seasons. These treatments showed yield grain higher than the other N fertilization treatments. In addition, the yield of inoculation with A. brasiliense treatment was higher than control treatment in both seasons (Figs. 3c, 4c).

Considering the N concentration in leaves and grains, the AG 1051 hybrid showed higher concentration than BRS Caimbé variety in both seasons (Figs. 1d, e, 2d, e). The treatments mineral N at sowing + mineral N at topdress and seed inoculation + mineral N at topdress had the same response and were superior to the other treatments, considering the N concentration in leaves (Figs. 3d, 4d), as well as the N concentration in grains had this same behavior in 2014/2015 season (Fig. 3e), while in 2015/2016 season, the N concentration in grains was not different among the N fertilization treatments (Fig. 4e).

Discussion

We demonstrated that the Azospirillum seed inoculation at sowing increased N concentration in plants and growing variables compared with control treatment. Moreover, the reported yield was higher than the average of yield maize at Amazonas state [15] confirmed that Azospirillum seed inoculation build up plants’ height. As well known, the positive effects of N on plant development are due to its function on the roots and shoots growth, composing protein, enzymes, coenzymes, nucleic acids, phytochromes, photosynthetic pigments, etc. Consequently, increasing the photosynthetically active area of plants and photoassimilates synthesis translocated to the grains [21] providing a higher yield. The demonstrated benefits of Azospirillum are explained by its successful association with grasses [15, 16, 22]. These microorganisms called diazotrophics reduce the atmospheric N2 to ammonia (NH3)-breaking triple bonds by the nitrogenase enzyme, process with high demand of energy as ATP. After this reduction, the NH3 is converted to ammonium (NH4+), assimilated as glutamine by the vegetal cells [23]. Besides the N2-fixing, these bacteria also (i) synthesize phytohormones [24]; (ii) solubilize inorganic phosphate [25, 26]; (iii) stimulate root system development [27], and (iv) increase resistance of plants by stress and their own N biological fixation [26].

Moreover, the inoculation with Azospirillum at sowing + mineral N at topdress provided similar grain yield as mineral N at sowing and topdress for both maize cultivars. Previous studies generally reported the benefits of Azospirillum. The combination of 200 ml ha−1 of A. brasiliense with 200 kg ha−1 of N increased the physiological response of the maize crop [6]. Gains on maize grains yield with this inoculation are reported from 7% [28] to 30% [29, 30]. Lana et al. [28] reported that inoculated plants’ yield was equivalent to those topdressed with 100 kg ha−1 of mineral N.

The N leaves’ concentrations on plants treated with inoculant at sowing + mineral N fertilization were higher than the sufficiency range for maize crop, from 27.5 to 32.5 g kg−1 [31], confirming the positive effects of the inoculant on the plant nutrition.

Considering the high economical and environmental costs of the industrial N fixation and the increasing demand for food, new technologies are essential to the best management practices of N fertilization. In this context, an alternative is associate diazotrophic bacteria N2-fixing with crops of economical importance, increasing the vegetative growth, development, and yield [32]. Besides, it is an option to reduce and potentiate the effect of N fertilizers in the maize crop, since they are diazotrophic and thus can complement the quantity of the nutrient required by the plants via biological fixation of the atmospheric N (BNF) [15].

The high cost of chemical fertilizers and concerns for a sustainable agriculture are hightening the interest on inoculant bacteria [30]. We reported an alternative to cultivate maize without mineral fertilization at sowing, saving 20 kg ha−1 of N. Considering cultivated 11,600 ha year−1 of maize in Amazonas state [1], a reduction of 232 Mg of N shall occur, or 515 Mg of fertilizer as urea, saving yearly US$ 339,680.00, considering the local costs in Manaus—AM. Moreover, the contribution of A. brasiliense would represent a gain of 0.103 Mg C ha−1, corresponding to 0.309 Mg CO2-eq ha−1 [22].

Comparing the AG 1051 hybrid cultivar advantages over BRS Caimbé variety in all studied variables including yield was previously reported [33, 34]. Hybrids can be synthesized crossing lines with complementary genetic pools, allowing best exploitation of heterosis, as suggested by [35].

Conclusions

The inoculation with A. brasiliense increased the maize yield compared with non-N-fertilized plants, and the inoculation with Azospirillum at sowing + mineral N at topdress provided similar grain yield as mineral N at sowing and topdress for both cultivars of maize. Therefore, A. brasiliense can be a sustainable alternative to the N supply for the maize crop of tropical regions, in addition to saving costs on maize production, especially with chemical N fertilizers.

Declarations

Authors’ contributions

All authors have contributed equally to the work. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Luiz de Queiroz Agricultural Studies Foundation by the administrative support and Embrapa Western Amazon for their support in the development of field experiments.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Availability of data and materials

All data were presented in the manuscript.

Consent for publication

All authors agreed to the publication.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The manuscript is an original work that has not been published in other journals. The authors declare no experiments involving humans and animals.

Funding

The project was funded by Agrisus Foundation (Project 1077-12).

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Embrapa Amazônia Ocidental, AM 010 Road, km 29, Manaus, 69010970, Brazil
(2)
Universidade Federal do Amazonas, Av. Gen. R. Otávio Jordão Ramos 3000 - Coroado I, FCA, DEAS, Manaus, 69077-000, Brazil

References

  1. Conab. Acompanhamento da Safra Brasileira: grãos, sétimo levantamento, abril 2017. Conab: Brasília. 2017.Google Scholar
  2. Boussadia O, Steppe K, Zgallai H, El Hadj SB, Braham M, Lemeur R, Van Labeke MC. Effects of nitrogen deficiency on leaf photosynthesis, carbohydrate status and biomass production in two olive cultivars “Meski” and “Koroneiki”. Sci Hortic. 2010;123:336–42.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Wasaya A, Tahir M, Ali H, Hussain M, Yasir TA, Sher A, Ijaz M, Sattar A. Influence of varying tillage systems and nitrogen application on crop allometry, chlorophyll contents, biomass production and net returns of maize (Zea mays L.). Soil Tillage Res. 2017;170:18–26.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Tabuchi M, Abiko T, Yamaya T. Assimilation of ammonium ions and reutilization of nitrogen in rice (Oryza sativa L.). J Exp Bot. 2007;58(9):2319–27.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Wei S, Wang X, Shi D, Li Y, Zhang J, Liu P, Zhao B, Dong S. The mechanisms of low nitrogen induced weakened photosynthesis in summer maize (Zea mays L.) under field conditions. Plant Physiol Biochem. 2016;105:118–28.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Morais TP, Brito CH, Ferreira AS, Luz JMQ. Aspectos morfofisiológicos de plantas de milho e bioquímico do solo em resposta à adubação nitrogenada e à inoculação com Azospirillum brasilense. Rev Ceres. 2015;62(6):589–96.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Qiao C, Liu L, Hu S, Compton JE, Greaver TL, Li Q. How inhibiting nitrification affects nitrogen cycle and reduces environmental impacts of anthropogenic nitrogen input. Glob Change Biol. 2015;21(3):1249–57.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Das K, Prasanna R, Saxena AK. Rhizobia: a potential biocontrol agent for soilborne fungal pathogens. Folia Microbiol. 2017;62(5):425–35.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Delaporte-Quintana P, Grillo-Puertas M, Lovaisa NC, Teixeira KR, Rapisarda VA, Pedraza RO. Contribution of Gluconacetobacter diazotrophicus to phosphorus nutrition in strawberry plants. Plant Soil. 2017;439:1–13.Google Scholar
  10. Alves BJR, Boddey RM, Urquiaga S. The success of BNF in soybean in Brazil. Plant Soil. 2003;252(1):1–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Herridge DF, Peoples MB, Boddey RM. Global inputs of biological nitrogen fixation in agricultural systems. Plant Soil. 2008;311(1–2):1–18.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Kumar A, Verma J. Does plant–microbe interaction confer stress tolerance in plants: a review. Microbiol Res. 2018;207:41–52.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Marini D, Guimarães VF, Dartora J, Lana MC, Pinto Júnior AS. Growth and yield of corn hybrids in response to association with Azospirillum brasilense and nitrogen fertilization. Rev Ceres. 2015;62:117–23.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. D’Angioli AM, Viani RAG, Lambers H, Sawaya ACHF, Oliveira RS. Inoculation with Azospirillum brasilense (Ab-V4, Ab-V5) increases Zea mays root carboxylate-exudation rates, dependent on soil phosphorus supply. Plant Soil. 2017;410(1–2):499–507.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Picazevicz AAC, Kusdra JF, Moreno ADL. Maize growth in response to Azospirillum brasilense, Rhizobium tropici, molybdenum and nitrogen. Rev Bras Eng Agrícola e Ambient. 2017;21(9):623–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Silveira APD, Sala VMR, Cardoso EJBN, Labanca EG, Cipriano MAP. Nitrogen metabolism and growth of wheat plant under diazotrophic endophytic bacteria inoculation. Appl Soil Ecol. 2016;107:313–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Solos E. Sistema Brasileiro de Classificação de Solos. 2nd ed. Rio de Janeiro: Embrapa; 2000. p. 412.Google Scholar
  18. Soil Survey Staff. Soil taxonomy. 2nd ed. Washington: U.S. Department of Agriculture; 1999. p. 869.Google Scholar
  19. FAO. Soil map of the world. Paris: UNESCO; 1988.Google Scholar
  20. Scarazatti B. Boletim Agrometeorológico 2014: Estação Agroclimatológica da Embrapa Amazônia Ocidental, km 29 da Rodovia AM-010. Documentos 125. Manaus: Embrapa Amazônia Ocidental; 2016. p. 40.Google Scholar
  21. Mengel K, Kirkby EA. Principles of plant nutrition. 5th ed. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2001.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Hungria M, Nogueira MA, Araujo RS. Inoculation of Brachiaria spp. with the plant growth-promoting bacterium Azospirillum brasilense: an environment-friendly component in the reclamation of degraded pastures in the tropics. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 2016;221:125–31.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Sangoi L, Silva LMM, Mota MR, Panison F, Schmitt A, Souza NM, Giordani W, Schenatto DE. Desempenho agronômico do milho em razão do tratamento de sementes com Azospirillum sp. e da aplicação de doses de nitrogênio mineral. Rev Bras Cienc do Solo. 2015;39(4):1141–50.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Cassán F, Perrig D, Sgroy VLV, Okon V, Vanderleyden J, Boussadia O, Steppe K, Zgallai H. Basic and technological aspects of phytohormone production by microorganisms: Azospirillum sp. as a model of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria. In: Maheshwari DK, editor. Bacteria in agrobiology: plant nutrient management, vol. 123(7). Berlin: Springer; 2011. p. 141–82.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Verma SC, Ladha JK, Tripathi AK. Evaluation of plant growth promoting and colonization ability of endophytic diazotrophs from deep water rice. J Biotechnol. 2001;91(2–3):127–41.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Gray EJ, Smith DL. Intracellular and extracellular PGPR: commonalities and distinctions in the plant-bacterium signaling processes. Soil Biol Biochem. 2005;37(3):395–412.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Lambrecht M, Okon Y, Broek AV, Vanderleyden J. Indole-3-acetic acid: a reciprocal signalling molecule in bacteria–plant interactions. Trends Microbiol. 2000;8(7):298–300.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Lana MC, Dartora J, Marini D, Hann JE. Inoculation with Azospirillum, associated with nitrogen fertilization in maize. Rev Ceres. 2012;59(3):399–405.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Cavallet LE, Pessoa CDP, Helmich JJ, Helmich PR, Ost CF. Corn productivity in response to nitrogen application and seed inoculation with Azospirillum spp. Rev Bras Eng Agric e Ambient. 2000;4(1):129–32.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Hungria M, Campo RJ, Souza EM, Pedrosa FO. Inoculation with selected strains of Azospirillum brasilense and A. lipoferum improves yields of maize and wheat in Brazil. Plant Soil. 2010;331(1):413–25.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. Malavolta E, Vitti GC, Oliveira SA. Avaliação do estado nutricional das plantas: princípios e aplicações. 2nd ed. Piracicaba: Potafos; 1997.Google Scholar
  32. Baldani JI, Caruso L, Baldani VLD, Goi SR, Dobereiner J. Recent advances in BNF with non-legume plants. Soil Biol Biochem. 1997;29(5–6):911–22.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Mendes FF, Guimarães LJM, Souza JC, Guimarães PEO, Pacheco CAP, Machado JRA, Meirelles WF, Silva AR, Parentoni SN. Adaptability and stability of maize varieties using mixed model methodology. Crop Breed Appl Biotechnol. 2012;12:111–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Oliveira IJ, Atroch AL, Dias MC, Guimarães LJ, Guimarães PEO. Selection of corn cultivars for yield, stability, and adaptability in the state of Amazonas, Brazil. Pesqui Agropecuária Bras. 2017;52(6):455–63.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  35. Hallauer AR, Carena MJ, Miranda Filho J. Quantitative genetics in maize breeding. 2nd ed. Ames: Iowa State University; 2010. p. 663.Google Scholar

Copyright

Advertisement