Report Maize

8/9/2019 Report Maize

1/35

EFFECTS OF DIFFERENT IRRIGATION LEVELS ON YIELD AND

WATER PRODUCTIVITY OF MAIZE

A PROJECT REPORT

BY

MD. ABDUL KADERID No. 0805040

Reg. No. 34578

Session: 2008–2009

AND

JAKIR AHMED

ID No. 0805068

Reg. No. 34606Session: 2008–2009

BACHELOR OF SCIENCE

IN

AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING

DEPARTMENT OF IRRIGATION AND WATER MANAGEMENT

BANGLADESH AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITYMYMENSINGH – 2202


2/35



A PROJECT REPORT

BY

MD. ABDUL KADER

ID No. 0805040

Reg. No. 34578

Session: 2008–2009

AND

JAKIR AHMED

ID No. 0805068

Reg. No. 34606

Session: 2008–2009

A Project Report Submitted to:

The Department of Irrigation and Water Management

Faculty of Agricultural Engineering & Technology

Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh

DEPARTMENT OF IRRIGATION AND WATER MANAGEMENT

BANGLADESH AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY

MYMENSINGH – 2202


3/35



A PROJECT REPORT

BY

MD. ABDUL KADER

ID No. 0805040

Reg. No. 34578

Session: 2008–2009

AND

JAKIR AHMED

ID No. 0805068

Reg. No. 34606

Session: 2008–2009

Approved as to style and content by:

Prof. Dr. M. A. Mojid

(Supervisor)

(Member) (Member) (Member)

Chairman of

Examination Committee

&

Head

Department of Irrigation and Water Management

Faculty of Agricultural Engineering & Technology

Bangladesh Agricultural UniversityMymensingh – 2202


4/35

ABSTRACT

This study was conducted in the experimental farm of Bangladesh Agricultural University

(BAU), Mymensingh, during 1 January 2012 to 10 May 2012 with a view to evaluate theeffects of different irrigation levels on yield and yield contributing attributes of maize. The

experiment consisted of 5 irrigation treatments, such as I0: no irrigation (control), I1:

irrigation at IW (Irrigation Water applied)/CPE (Cumulative Pan Evaporation) = 0.4, I2:

irrigation at IW/CPE = 0.6, I3: irrigation at IW/CPE = 0.8, I4: irrigation at IW/CPE = 1.0. The

experiment was laid out in a Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) with three

replications. Each replication was divided into 5 plots (7.0 m × 4.5 m) having 1.5 m buffer

zone between them. Maize was grown with three irrigations applied at 43, 63 and 83 days

after sowing (DAS) and recommended fertilizer doses. There was no significant (α = 0.05)

effect of irrigation on the grain yield of maize. Treatment I4 produced the highest grain yield

(10.30 t/ha) and I1 produced the lowest grain yield (6.81 t/ha). The irrigation treatments

exerted different degrees of influence; some attributes differed significantly while others

differed insignificantly. The water use efficiency (WUE) differed significantly among the

irrigation treatments. The maximum stressed treatment (I0) provided the highest WUE (6291

kg/ha/cm for grain production and 30050 kg/ha/cm for biomass production). The maximum

irrigated treatment (I4), on the other hand, provided the lowest WUE (459.3 kg/ha/cm for

grain production and 110.7 kg/ha/cm for biomass production).


5/35

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

At the outset, the authors wish to express their deepest sense of gratitude to Almighty Allah,

Whose boundless blessings enabled them to complete the research work and prepare thisreport.

The authors take this opportunity to express their profound appreciation and heartfelt

gratitude to their reverend supervisor Dr. M. A. Mojid, Professor, Department of Irrigation

and Water Management, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh, for his patient

guidance, intense supervision, untiring assistance, constant encouragement, worthy

suggestions, constructive criticism and inestimable help during every phase of this research

work and preparation of this report.

The authors also feel pride to express profound respect to their teachers of the

Department of Irrigation and Water Management, Bangladesh Agricultural University,

Mymensingh, for their constant inspiration during conduction of the project work.

Above all, the authors reserve boundless gratitude and indebtedness to their family

members for their patience, sacrifices and constant encouragement for completion of the

research work.

The authors


6/35

CONTENTS

CHAPTER TITLE PAGE

ABSTRACTi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTii

LIST OF TABLESv

LIST OF FIGURESvi

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONSvii

I. INTRODUCTION 1

II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE 3

III. MATERIALS AND METHODS 8-13

3. General description of the experiment

3.1. Experimental site

3.2. Weather and climate

3.3. Procurement of seed and fertilizers

3.4. Experimental design

3.5. Land preparation and field layout

3.6. Fertilizer application

3.7. Sowing of seeds

3.8. Intercultural operations

3.8.1. Weeding and thinning

3.8.2. Quantification and application of irrigation

3.8.3. Plant protection

3.9. Harvesting and data recording

3.10. Harvest index

8

8

8

8

8

9

9

9

9

9

10

11

11

12


7/35

CONTENTS (CONT’D)

CHAPTER TITLE PAGE

.11. Water use efficiency 12

3.12. Data analysis 13

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 14-19

4.1. Effect of irrigation on growth and yield parameters 14

4.1.1. Plant height 14

4.1.2. Grain per line of cob 14

4.1.3. Cob length and perimeter 15

4.1.4. Shell yield 15

4.1.5. Number of grains per cob 15

4.1.6. 100-grain weight 15

4.2. Effect of irrigation on yield 16

4.2.1. Grain yield 16

4.2.2. Straw yield 17

4.2.3. Biological yield 17

4.3. Effect of irrigation on harvest index and water use efficiency 18

4.3.1. Harvest index 18

4.3.2. Water use efficiency 18

V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 20

5.1. Conclusions 20

5.2. Recommendations 20

REFERENCES 21-24


8/35

LIST OF TABLES

Table

No.Title

Page

No.

3.1. Summary of calculation of irrigation water need for differenttreatments at different irrigation events.

11

4.1. Growth and yield attributes of maize under different irrigationtreatments.

14

4.2. Grain, straw and biomass yield of maize under differentirrigation treatments.

16

4.3. Harvest index (HI) and water use efficiency for grain (WUEg)and biomass (WUEb) production under different irrigationtreatments.

18


9/35

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure

No.Caption

Page

No.

3.1. Field layout of the experiment. 10

4.1. Variation of 100-grain weight with the number of grains per cob. 16

4.2.Variation of grain yield of maize with total water use under

different irrigation treatments (except for I1).17

4.3.Variation of straw yield of maize with total water use under

different irrigation treatments (except for I3).18


10/35

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AEZ = Agro-Ecological Zone

BARC = Bangladesh Agricultural Research Council

BARI = Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute

BAU = Bangladesh Agricultural University

BBS = Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics

FAO = Food and Agriculture Organization (of the United Nations)


11/35

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Bangladesh is an agro-based country. Agriculture is the backbone of the economy of

Bangladesh. Out of the total effective land area of Bangladesh (14.846 million hectares),

13.734 million hectares of land were brought under cultivation during 2006 to 2007 (BBS,

2009). Due to urbanization and industrialization, the cultivable land is decreasing day by

day. But, food production in Bangladesh is not increasing sufficiently to keep track with the

additional population. To meet the challenge of this situation, food production in the country

must be increased. It is possible to do so either by increasing the area under cultivation i.e.

horizontal expansion or vertical expansion. As the scope of horizontal expansion is almost

out of question, production is to be increased vertically. In order to increase production

vertically, practice of cultivation of such crops should be increased which give more yield per

unit area. Maize is one such crop. The grain yield of maize in Bangladesh is 7.71 t/ha

whereas grain yield of wheat and rice is 3.26 t/ha and 7.41 t/ha, respectively (Thakur, 1980;

Chowdhury and Islam, 1993).

Maize ( zea mays L.) is a multipurpose crop. Every part of the plant and its products

can be used in one form or the other. It can supply food and fuel in relatively large quantities

as compared to other cereal crops. Its grain has high nutritive value containing 66.20% starch,

11.10% protein, 7.12% oil and 1.50% minerals. Moreover, it contains 90 g carotene, 1.80 mg

thiamin and 0.10 mg riboflavin per 100 g grains (Thakur, 1980; Chowdhury and Islam,

1993). Grain alone can be used in various forms. Maize can be consumed directly as green

cob, popped grain and flour satu (a type of local food). It is also used for manufacturing

starch, corn flakes, alcohol, salad oil, soap, varnishes, paints, printing and similar products

(Ahmed, 1994). The green part of the crop is a good source of animal feed. Even the dried

plants are not useless. Now-a-days, the green part of the maize is popularly used to produce

chitagour as animal feed.

Maize, being one of the very high yielding varieties among the cereal crops, is the

third most cultivated crop in Bangladesh. In our country, it covers 152076 hectares of land

with annual production of 887391 metric tons during 2009 to 2010 (BBS, 2010). Now-a-

days, a good number of maize varieties are available in Bangladesh; most of them are hybrid


12/35

varieties. Three improved hybrids namely-Chamak, pacific-984 and Monesha are used at

field level. There are other varieties such as Diamond, Atlantic-11, Heera-9070, Mukti-9090,

Heera-777, Sonali, Pacific-11, Pacific-60, BHM-2, BHM-3, BHM-5 and BHM-7. Maize

grows well in sandy loam and clay loam type of soils having pH in between 5.5 and 8.5. A

temperature range of 12 to 29˚C is favorable for its growth. Maize is grown in Bangladesh

during the driest months when rainfall is almost inadequate. Proper growth and development

of maize needs formable soil moisture in the root zone. The moisture content in the soil

gradually decreases with elapsed time during dry season. Limited water supply during

growing season results in soil and plant water deficits and reduces maize yield (Gordon et al.

1995). In relation to crop yield, proper time and supplemental irrigation should be realized in

irrigation scheduling for the most effective use of available water in optimizing maize

production. Water deficit had little effect on timing of emergence and number of leaves per

plant but it delays tasseling initiation and silking, reduces plant height and vegetative growth

of maize (Abrecht and Carberry, 1993). Heading to milking stage is the most sensitive period

of water stress and has ultimate impact on grain yield (Shaozhong and Minggang, 1992).

Improper scheduling of irrigation results not only in wastage of water but also reduces the

crop growth and yield.

Maize has high irrigation requirements and is very sensitive to water stress. Thus,

adequate irrigation management of maize is important not only for saving water but also

improving crop profitability. Therefore, an attempt has been made to find out the influence of

different levels of irrigation on growth and yield of maize.

Objective

The objective of this study is:

1. to evaluate the effects of different levels of irrigation on the growth, yield and water

productivity of maize.


13/35

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Maize being one of the most important cereal crops receives much attention of workers

throughout the world. Since the second half of the last century, work has been done by

various workers in many countries of the world on the effect of irrigation levels for obtaining

the highest yield of maize.

Petrunin (1966) found that without irrigation, the yield of maize was 4.3 t /ha and four

irrigations elevated the yield to 10.80 t/ha. Further irrigation resulted in only slight increase in

yield. The 1000-grain weight also increased from 221 g to 270 g. Milic (1967) investigated

the effect of irrigation on maize yields and reported the highest grain yields of 6.4 and 5.2 t/

ha obtained by applying irrigation at 65% and 70% of field capacity, respectively. Rudat et

al. (1975) evaluated water stress on maize during the vegetative, flowering, early grain filling

stage and continuously throughout the growing season. They found that 100-grain weight and

grain per cob decreased due to continuous water stress treatment.

In the experiment of Follett et al. (1978) with maize on sandy soil, the irrigation water

applied at IW/CPE ratio of 0.0, 0.5, 1.0 and 1.5 produced the yield of 4.0, 5.4, 7.3 and 8.3 t/

ha, respectively. In an experiment, Islam et al. (1980) obtained the highest grain yield of 5.94

t /ha by three irrigations applied at seedling, vegetation and tasselling stages. Lanza et al.

(1980) conducted field trials during 1977 to 1978 on maize and irrigation was applied based

on IW/CPE ratio when cumulative evaporation reached 30, 60, 90 and 120 mm. They found

that grain yield increased from 9.04 to 10.28 t/ha when irrigation was applied most

frequently. Caliandro et al. (1983) investigated the effect of irrigation on 12 maize cultivars

by growing them with and without irrigation. They found the average grain yields for all

cultivars as 4.56 and 3.19 t/ha for with and without irrigation, respectively.

Irrigating maize at IW/CPE ratios of 0.6, 0.8 and 1.0, Sridhar and Singh (1989) found

increased grain yield with increasing irrigation water. The grain yields were 2.14, 2.40 and

3.12 t/ha with IW/CPE ratio of 0.6, 0.8 and 1.0, respectively. Prasad and Prasad (1989)

irrigating maize at IW/CPE ratios of 0.4, 0.6 and 0.8 reported that the grain yield increased up

to 4.50 t/ha with the increased IW/CPE ratio. Dai et al. (1990) found that growth and

development of all cultivars of maize were inhibited at moderate water stress at different

growth stages. Drought during formation of reproductive organ seriously reduced the yield,but drought at seedling stage enhanced root growth and adaptability of all cultivars. Bao et al.


14/35

(1991) evaluated the effect of water stress during different growth periods of maize. They

found that the water stress at tasselling or grain filling period reduced leaf water potential,

lead to abortion of tassels and delayed grain development. The grain yield was the highest

with the earliest water stress, the lowest with stress at tasselling and increased as stress was

applied after tasselling.

Cosculleula and Faci (1992) obtained 10.71 t/ha grain yields with 592 mm irrigation

and 10.30 t/ha without irrigation. Abrecht and Carberry (1993) evaluated the influence of

water deficit prior to tassel initiation on maize growth and development. In their study, water

deficit had little effect on timing of emergence but delayed tassel initiation, silking and

reduced the plant height during vegetative growth of maize. Eliades (1993) studied the effect

of irrigation on grain yield of maize by irrigating at IW/CPE ratios of 0.6, 0.8, 1.0 and 1.2.

The reduction of irrigation water by 20 and 40% reduced the grain yield by 8 and 21%,

respectively. Cracin and Craclum (1994) investigated the response of maize under limited

water supply. They found that the grain yield varied from 7.60 to 14.29 t/ha in the irrigation

treatments; the yield was 0 to 92% lower in the control treatment. Kristov (1995), on the

other hand, studied the yield response to soil moisture level at different growth stages of

maize. He found that water deficiency during the (extremely) critical growth stages such as

tasseling, milk ripening and maturity stage caused average yield reduction by 52.6, 28.0 and

20.0%, respectively. They found a close correlation between the yield and water use.

Conducting long term experiments (1973−1989) on maize with and without irrigation

treatments Eneva (1995) found 5.23 t/ha grain yield without irrigation and 12.50, 12.03 and

10.97 t/ha with 21.20, 18.20 and 12.10 cm irrigation water, respectively. In an experiment in

Bulgaria during 1986−1988, the grain yield of maize without irrigation and with full

irrigation treatments was reported to be 5.13 and 13.08 t/ ha, respectively (Zhirkov, 1995).

This investigator reported that grain yield reduced from 11.68 to 10.26 t/ha due to the

reduction of irrigation water from 20 to 40%. Hefner and Tracy (1995) also reported that

increasing irrigation enhanced the grain yield of maize. Applying irrigation water at IW/CPE

ratio of 1.2, 0.9 and 0.6, Bandyopadhyay and Mallik (1996) found that increasing irrigation

water raised grain yield of maize. The highest yield of 7.23 t/ha was obtained by IW/CPE

ratio of 1.2.

Carp and Maxim (1997) carried out experiments during 1988−1994 to find out the

effect of irrigation on maize yield by growing the crop with or without irrigation treatments.

They observed that the grain yield increased from 7.80 t/ha (without irrigation) to 9.23 t/ha

(with irrigation). In a field trial on maize at Hebbal of Banglore in India during 1996 summer


15/35

season, Mallikarjunaswamy et al. (1997) irrigated maize at IW/CPE ratio of 0.6 and 0.8.

They obtained 7.68 and 12.63 t/ha grain yields at IW/CPE ratio of 0.6 and 0.8, respectively.

Lambe et al. (1998) conducted a field experiment at Maharastra in India. Maize (cv. AMC)

was grown in rows of 30, 45 and 60 cm spacing and irrigated at cumulative pan evaporation

(CPE) of 40, 60 and 80 mm at critical growth stages. They found that the grain yield was the

highest at the spacing of 60 cm and with irrigation at the CPE of 40 mm. Talukder et al.

(1999) conducted an experiment at Bangladesh Agricultural University Farm, Mymensingh

to evaluate the growth parameters and yield response of maize to water stress and nitrogenous

fertilizer. They found that yield and yield contributing characters were significantly affected

due to the application of irrigation and nitrogen. The highest grain yield of 6.77 t/ha was

obtained with IW/CPE ratio of 0.50 and 5.61t/ha by the application of 70 kg N/ha.

Interactions between IW/CPE ratio of 0.50 and 70 kg N/ha were found as the best

combination for yield of maize.

Shirazi et al. (2000) carried out an experiment at Trishal Upazila in

Mymensingh district in 1998 to study the effect of irrigation regimes and nitrogen levels on

the yield and yield contributing characters of maize (cv. Barnali). They found that the

application of 40 cm irrigation water significantly increased grain yield from 3.30

to 3.97 t/ha. Application of 120 kg N/ha also significantly increased grain yield from

3.03 to 3.95 t/ha. Niazuddin et al. (2002) carried out an experiment during November 1999

to April 2000 at the Bangladesh Agricultural University Farm, Mymensingh to evaluate the

effect of irrigation and nitrogen on the performance of maize. The highest grain yield

obtained was 6.88 t/ha for 90 DAS irrigation treatment and 7.61 t/ha by the application

of 100 kg N/ha, both mainly due to 100 kernel weights. Interactions between 58 DAS

irrigation treatment and 100 kg N/ha were found to be the best combination for yield of

maize. Gope et al. (2003) conducted an experiment during November 2000 to April 2001 at

Bangladesh Agricultural University Farm, Mymensingh to evaluate the influence of

irrigation and nitrogenous fertilizer on yield of maize. The highest grain yield of 5.78 t/ha

was obtained for irrigation at 35 and 70 DAS, and 5.21 t/ha by the application of 100 kg

N/ha, both mainly due to 100 kernel weight. Interactions between the irrigation

treatment and 120 kg N/ha produced 5.92 t/ha grain yield and were found as the best

combination for yield of maize. Ogunbodede et al. (2004) tested two sets of maize varieties.

Grain yield was significantly higher in the northern/southern Guinea savanna and the yellow

hybrids. The highest yielding variety was TZE Comp.4 DMR BC1 with an average grain

yield of 2.43 t/ha while the hybrid had an average of 18.2% greater yield.


16/35

BARI (2005−2006) conducted an experiment in farmer’s fields of Comilla, Rangpur,

Mymensingh, Patuakhali, Kustia, Jhenaidah, Tangail, Faridpur, Rajshahi and Manikgong

during rabi season of 2005−2006 with the varieties BHM 2, 3 and 5. Pacific-11 was also

compared. Among them, Pacific-11 produced numerically higher yield (12.50 t/ha). BARI(2006−2007) conducted an experiment among twenty improved and two locally developed

maize hybrids at Joydevpour during rabi 2006−2007. Among the varieties, Chamak (10.73

t/ha), Pacific-984 (10.66 t/ha) and Monesha (10.24 t/ha) out yielded the better check

varieties BHM-5 (9.28 t/ha) and Pacific-11 (9.32 t/ha). Maize was grown in Comilla,

Rangpur, Mymensingh, Patuakhali, Kustia, Jhenaidah, Tangail, Faridpur, Rajshahi and

Manikgong during rabi season of 2006-2007 with the varieties BHM-2, 3, and 5. Pacific-11

was also compared. Among them, Pacific-11 produced numerically higher yield (12.50 t/ha).The growing season was divided into three phases: vegetative, flowering and grain filling.

Results showed that flowering was the most sensitive stage to water deficit, with reductions

in biomass, yield and harvest index. Average grain yield of treatments with deficit irrigation

around flowering (691 g/m2) significantly was lower than that of the well-irrigated

treatments (1069 g/m2). Yield reduction was mainly due to a lower number of grains per

square meter. Deficit irrigation or higher interval between irrigations during the grain filling

phase did not significantly affect crop growth and yield.

Hossain et al. (2009) carried out an experiment at the experimental farm of

Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh during 23 December 2008 to 11 May 2009

with a view to evaluating the effect of deficit irrigation on yield and water productivity of

maize. The highest grain yield of 10.20 t/ha was obtained with the irrigation treatment I 4

(irrigations given at 43, 63 and 83 DAS) and the lowest of 9.07 t/ha with I 0 (no control). The

highest grain yield of 10.97 t/ha was obtained for Pacific 11 and the lowest 8.93 t/ha was

obtained for BHM 5. It was also observed that the water productivity was the highest for

stress treatment I1 (irrigation given at 43 DAS). Mansouri et al. (2010) conducted an

experiment to study the effects of water stress imposed at low-sensitive growth stages

(vegetative, reproductive, and both vegetative and reproductive) and level of nitrogen (N)

supply (100 and 200 kg/ha) on the physiological and agronomic characteristics of two

hybrids of maize (Zea mays L.). Their results showed that the highest IWUE was obtained

when maize endured water deficit at vegetative stage at two sites. The limited irrigation

imposed on maize during reproductive stage resulted in more yield reduction than that during

vegetative stage compared with fully irrigated treatment.


17/35

Golbashy et al. (2010) studied the effect of drought stress on yield and its components

on 28 new hybrids of maize along with 6 commercial control hybrids at the Khorashan

Razavi Agricultural Research and Natural Resources Institute Mashhad, Iran in 2010. The

study was conducted in a completely randomized block design with three replications under

normal irrigation and drought stress conditions. The mean grain yield of SC 500 hybrid in the

normal irrigation condition and N11 hybrid in the stress condition were the highest.

The literatures reviewed so far demonstrate that there are very often contradictory and

confounding effects of irrigation on maize production. Often the observed results are location

specific. In such contexts, more studies need to be carried out in Bangladesh to generate

location specific information on maize irrigation.


18/35

CHAPTER III

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The experiment was carried out at the farm of Bangladesh Agricultural University,

Mymensingh, Bangladesh during 1 January 2012 to 10 May 2012 to study the effects of five

irrigation treatments on the growth, yield and water productivity of maize. The experimental

field was a medium high land belonging to the Old Brahmaputra Floodplain having non-

calcareous Dark Grey Flood plain soil. Salient experimental activities and essential

information are enumerated in this chapter.

3. General description of the experiment

3.1. Experimental site

The experimental site was located at the farm near the office of Chief Farm Superintendent

(CFS) of the Bangladesh Agricultural University at Mymensingh.

3.2. Weather and climate

The rainfall and evaporation data for the study area were collected from the weather station at

the BAU farm.

3.3. Procurement of seed and fertilizers

The test crop was a high yielding variety of maize: BARI hybrid maize 5 (BHM−5). This

variety is popular due to its high yield potentials and stress tolerant characteristics. It is also

resistant to most insects and diseases. The seeds were collected from the Bangladesh

Agricultural Research Institute (BARI), Joydebpur, Gazipur. Urea, triple super phosphate

(TSP) and muriate of potash (MP) were bought from the local market of Mymensingh.

3.4. Experimental design

The experiment consisted of five irrigation treatments. Irrigation was scheduled based on the

ratio of irrigation water applied (IW) to the cumulative pan evaporation (CPE). The irrigation

treatments were:

I0: no irrigation (control),

I1: IW/CPE = 0.4,I2: IW/CPE = 0.6,


19/35

I3: IW/CPE = 0.8, and

I4: IW/CPE = 1.0.

In all treatments, irrigation was given at 43, 63 and 83 DAS. The timing of irrigation was

selected based on physiological development stages of maize. The 43 (vegetative stage), 63

(silking stage) and 83 (tasselling stage) DAS were designated as the stage when a maize plant

contained 3−5, 8−10 and 20−22 leaves on average, respectively. The variety of the maize was

BARI hybrid maize 5 (BHM−5).

3.5. Land preparation and field layout

The land of the experimental field was opened on 15 December 2011 with a tractor and

subsequently prepared thoroughly by ploughing and laddering. Weeds, stubble and crop

residues were collected and removed from the field. The field was laid out on 20 December

2011 following a Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD). It was divided into 3 blocks

to represent three replications of the treatments. The spacing between the adjacent blocks was

1.5 m. Each block was divided into five equal plots having 1.50 m buffer between them in a

block. The layout of the experimental plots is shown in Fig 3.1.

3.6. Fertilizer application

The recommended doses of urea, triple super phosphate, muriate of potash, gypsum and zinc

sulphate at the rate of 540, 240, 240, 15 and 5 kg/ha, respectively were applied (BARC,

2005). One-third of urea and the entire doses of the other fertilizers were applied at the time

of final land preparation. The rest two-third of urea was top dressed in two equal splits at 50

and 83 DAS.

3.7. Sowing of seeds

For sowing the seeds, 5−6 cm deep furrows were made by using single tine hand rakes at a

spacing of 75 cm. The seeds were sown on 1 January 2012 at a depth of 5 to 6 cm, and 2

seeds were dropped per hill. The seed to seed distance was 25 cm.

3.8. Intercultural operations

3.8.1. Weeding and thinning

The first weeding was done manually at 15 DAS and also the thinning was done on the same

day keeping only one healthy plant per hill; the rest of the plants were uprooted carefully to

avoid disturbance to the nearby plants. Weeding was done when it was necessary to keep the


20/35

field free from weeds. There was no attack from insects and also there was no disease

infection of the crop during the growing season.

Fig.3.1. Field layout of the experiment

3.8.2. Quantification and application of irrigation

Irrigation was applied based on the IW/CPE ratios of 0, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8 and 1.0. The amount of

water applied in different treatments in each irrigation was quantified based on pan

evaporation and rainfall. The procedure of calculating irrigation water is summarized in

Table 3.1.

An irrigation canal of the Bangladesh Agricultural University farm passed beside the

experimental field. A barrier was constructed across the canal to store water in it. Water was

collected from the canal by using buckets and applied to the plots in check basin. The buckets

were marked up to 15 liters of water in order to keep record of the applied water.

R1 R2 R3 N

I0

I4

I2

I1

I3 I0

I2

I4

I1

I1

I3

I0

I4

I2

I3


21/35

Table 3.1. Summary of calculation of irrigation water need for different treatments at

different irrigation events.

Irrigation

EventsTreatment IW/CPE CPE (mm) Rainfall (mm)

IW=IW/CPE*

CPE-Rainfall

(mm)

1st

I0 0.00 7 !.00 0.00

I1 0.0 7 !.00 ".#

I" 0.#0 7 !.00 $%.

I$ 0.&0 7 !.00 !."

I 1.00 7 !.00 #%.0

"n'

I0 0.00 #$.# 0.00 0.00

I1 0.0 #$.# 0.00 "!.

I" 0.#0 #$.# 0.00 $&."

I$ 0.&0 #$.# 0.00 !0.%

I 1.00 #$.# 0.00 #$.!

$r'

I0 0.00 &".! 0.%" 0.00

I1 0.0 &".! 0.%" $".1

I" 0.#0 &".! 0.%" &.#

I$ 0.&0 &".! 0.%" #!.1

I 1.00 &".! 0.%" &1.#

3.8.3. Plant protection

At the booting stage, jackals and parrots continuously tried to damage young cobs in the

field. To protect from them, a bell, made of kerosene container, installed in the field to

threaten the jackals and parrots. A guard was employed to operate the bell and also to protect

the ripening crop from human at the later stage.

3.9. Harvesting and data recording

At full maturity, the maize was harvested on 10 May 2012. A 1m2 area containing 16 plants

was selected at the middle of each plot for harvesting. These plants were harvested to the

ground level. The plants were bundled and tagged separately for each plot. The following

data was collected from the sample plants:

1.

Plant height: Plant heights were measured from the ground level to the tip of theplant. A measuring tape and a ruler were used to measure the height.


22/35

2. Number of cobs per plant: The number of cobs was counted and collected from

each plant.

3. Cob length: The length of each cob was measured by using a measuring tape.

4. Cob perimeter: The perimeter of the cob was measured by using a measuring tape.

5. Number of row of grains per cob: The number of rows of grains in each cob was

counted for the sample plants.

6. Number of grains per cob: The grains in each cob were counted for the sample

plants.

7. Grain yield: The grains were separated from the shell by using a maize sheller.

The grains were cleaned and dried in the sun at 14% (by weight) moisture content.

Then the weight of the grains was taken by using a balance. The weight of the

grain of the sampling area was converted into yield per hectare for each plot.

8. Straw yield: The plants collected from 1 m2 sampling area were dried in the sun at

14% (by weight) moisture content. The weight of the dried plants was taken by a

balance. The weight of cover of the cobs and shell was also taken by using a

balance. The weight of the straw of the 1 m2 sampling area was converted into

yield per hectare for each plot.

9. Hundred (100)-grain weight: One hundred (100) grains were counted from each

sample and their weight was taken by using a balance.

3.10. Harvest index

Harvest index (HI) is the ratio between the grain yield and biological/biomass yield. The

biological yield is the sum of the grain and straw yields. The HI is expressed as

Harvest Index (HI) =Grain yield

Biological yield ×100 (1)

3.11. Water use efficiency

The water use of a crop field is generally described in terms of field water use efficiency

(FWUE), which is the ratio of the crop yield to the total amount of water used in the field

during the entire growing period of the crop. The FWUE demonstrates the productivity of

water in producing crop yield.


23/35

FWUE for maize was calculated by:

FWUE=Y/WU (2)

where, FWUE = field water use efficiency, kg/ha/cm

Y = grain yield, kg/ha

WU = seasonal water use in the crop field, cm

The WU was calculated by summing up the water applied in irrigation (taking into account

the rainfall) and soil moisture contribution. The soil moisture contribution was determined by

subtracting the soil moisture at harvest from that at sowing.

3.12 Data analysis The collected data were analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) technique with

MSTAT statistical package.


24/35

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

In this chapter, the results obtained in the experiment have been presented, interpreted and

discussed. Analysis of variance of different data demonstrates statistical significance of the

effects of different irrigation levels on the growth and yield of maize. The effects of different

irrigation levels on maize cultivation have been elaborated.

4.1 Effect of irrigation on growth and yield attributes

4.1.1 Plant height

The mean plant heights for different irrigation treatments are listed in Table 4.1. The highest

plant height of 299.6 cm was obtained at I3 (IW/CPE = 0.8) and the lowest was 287.9 cm at I0

(no irrigation). Due to different irrigation treatments at different growth stages, the plant

heights, although varied to some extent, were statistically identical in the treatments.

Niazuddin et al. (2002), Hossain et al. (2009) and Alam (2011) also reported different plant

heights under different irrigation treatments.

Table 4.1. Growth and yield attributes of maize under different irrigation treatments.

4.1.2 Grains per line of cob

The irrigation treatments did not have significant effects on the number of grains per line of

cob (Table 4.1) although a trend of increased number of grains with increased level of

irrigation was noticed. The highest value (37.84 grains/line) was observed at I4 and the lowestvalue (34.54 grains/line) was at I2.

Treatment PlantHeight,cm

Line/cob Grain/line Grain/cob Coblength,cm

Cobperimeter,cm

Shellweight,t/ha

100 grainweight, g

I0 287.9b 15.2a 35.3a 540.3a 16.6a 15.7b 2.280a 20.19a

I1 293.3ab 15.6a 35.1a 547.6a 17.1a 16.1ab 2.167a 19.71a

I2 295.5a 14.7ab 34.5a 508.4a 15.9a 15.6b 2.320a 18.91a

I3 299.6

a

14.1

b

35.5

a

498.1

a

17.2

a

16.1

ab

2.205

a

21.91

a

I4 297.3

a 15.2a 37.8a 574.1a 17.5a 16.3a 2.654a 21.66a

LSD0.05 7.26 1.09 5.22 82.67 2.06 0.56 0.652 4.35


25/35

4.1.3 Cob length and perimeter

The irrigation treatments did not affect the length and perimeter of cobs significantly (Table

4.1). Among all irrigation treatments, the highest cob length of 17.45 cm was obtained at I4

and the lowest of 15.93 cm was obtained at I2. A similar cob length was also reported by

Niazuddin et al. (2002), Hossain et al. (2009) and Alam (2011). An increase in cob length by

3.19, 3.43 and 5.06% was observed in treatment I1, I3 and I4, respectively and a decrease in

cob length by 4.09% in I2 was observed compared to the control treatment, I0. In case of cob

perimeter, the highest value of 16.29 cm was at I4 and the lowest value of 15.63 cm was at I2.

Again, an increase in cob perimeter by 2.99, 2.61 and 3.95% in treatments I1, I3 and I4,

respectively and a decrease by 0.25% in I2 was observed compared to the control.

4.1.4 Shell yield

The shell yield did not vary significantly among the irrigation treatments. The highest shell

yield (2.654 t/ha) was obtained under maximum irrigation (I4) and the lowest (2.167 t/ha) was

obtained at I1. The shell yield increased by 1.75 and 16.40% in treatment I2 and I4,

respectively and decreased by 4.95 and 3.28% in I1 and I3, respectively compared to I0.

4.1.5 Number of grains per cob

The number of grains per cob was identical among the irrigation treatments (Table 4.1). The

highest number of grains per cob (574) was obtained at I4 and the lowest (498) was at I3. An

increase in the number of grains per cob by 1.29 and 6.29% were obtained in I1 and I4,

respectively and a decrease by 5.92 and 7.77% in I2 and I3, respectively compared to I0. There

was no trend in the number of grains per cob with the quantity of applied irrigation.

4.1.6 100-grain weight

The 100-grain weight of maize was statistically similar for different irrigation treatments

(Table 4.1). The highest 100-grain weight (21.91 g) was obtained at I3 and the lowest (18.91

g) was obtained at I2. The 100-grain weight decreased by 2.13 and 6.33% in I1 and I2,

respectively and increased by 8.51 and 7.28% in I3 and I4, respectively compared to the

control treatment. The 100-grain weight had a relation with the number of grains per cob.

Fig.4.1 shows a positive linear relationship (r2=0.874) between 100-grain weight and number

of grains per cob except for I3 for which the data might be erroneous. During grain filling

stage many plants lodged due to a storm.


26/35

Fig.4.1. Variation of 100-grain weight with the number of grains per cob.

4.2 Effect of irrigation on yield

4.2.1 Grain yield

The treatment I4 produced the highest grain yield of 10.301 t /ha and I1 produced the lowest

yield of 6.810 t/ha (Table 4.2). However, irrigation treatments had no significant effect on the

production of grain yield of maize. As water stress was the lowest in I4, the yield became the

highest. The percentage increase in grain yield in treatment I2, I3 and I4 was 11.83, 10.54 and

17.63, respectively over the control treatment. The grain yield however decreased by 22.23%in treatment I1. In similar experiments, Talukder et al. (1999), Niazuddin et al. (2002),

Hossain et al. (2009) and Alam (2011) reported obtaining the highest grain yield at I4 and the

lowest at I0. In an experiment in a farmer’s field, the highest grain yield (12.50 t/ha) was also

reported under the highest irrigation level (BARI, 2005 – 2006).

Table 4.2. Grain, straw and biomass yield of maize under different irrigation treatments.

Treatment Grain yield, t/ha Straw yield, t/ha Biomass yield,

t/ha

I0 8.757a 33.071 45.731

I1 6.810a 33.282 43.903

I2 9.793a 31.150b 44.872b

I3 9.680a 47.041a 60.571a

I4 10.301a 31.491 46.072

LSD0.05 3.481 11.530 13.160

I 3


27/35

The grain yield of maize increased with the increase in total water use except for the

treatment I2. Fig.4.2 illustrates a linear relationship (r2=0.937) between the grain yield and

total water use.

Fig. 4.2. Variation of grain yield of maize with total water use under different

irrigation treatments (except for I1).

4.2.2 Straw yield

Although irrigation played a positive role in increasing the straw yield of maize, its effect was

insignificant (Table 4.2). The straw yield under various irrigation treatments ranged from

31.15 to 47.041 t/ha. Treatment I3 produced the highest straw yield (47.041 t/ha) and I2

produced the lowest (31.15 t/ha) yield. Hossain et al. (2009) and Alam (2011) however

reported obtaining the highest straw yield at I4 and the lowest at I0. Straw yield of maize

decreased linearly (r2=0.506) with the increasing total water use except for the treatment I3

(Fig.4.3).

4.2.3 Biological yield

No significant variation was observed in the biological yield of maize among the irrigation

treatments apart from the I3 treatment (Table 4.2). The highest biological yield (60.571 t/ha)

was obtained at I3 and the lowest (43.903 t/ha) was at I0. These results are inconsistent with

the findings of Niazuddin et al. (2002), Hossain et al. (2009) and Alam (2011) as all of them

found the highest yield at I4 and the lowest at Io.

I 1


28/35

Fig. 4.3. Variation of straw yield of maize with total water use under different

irrigation treatments (except for I3).

4.3 Effect of irrigation on harvest index and water use efficiency

4.3.1 Harvest index

As compared in Table 4.3, the irrigation treatments did not exert any significant influence on

the harvest index (HI). Treatment I4 provided the highest HI (21.83%) and I1 provided the

lowest HI (15.27%). Niazuddin et al. (2002) Hossain et al. (2009) and Alam (2011) also

reported similar effects of irrigation levels on HI.

Table 4.3. Harvest index (HI) and water use efficiency for grain (WUEg) and biomass

(WUEb) production under different irrigation treatments.

4.3.2 Water use efficiencyThe water use efficiency that demonstrates the productivity of water in producing crop yields

Treatment Harvest Index,% Total water use,mm

WUEg ,kg/ha/cm

WUEb,kg/ha/cm

I0 19.18a

13.9e

6291a

30050a

I1 15.27a 128.0 531.9 13130

I2 22.00a 164.1c 596.7 2495

I3 16.38a 200.8 489.0 2877

I4 21.83a 246.2a 459.3 110.7

LSD0.05 6.778 13.06 1248 15990

I 3


29/35

did not differ significantly among the irrigation treatments apart from I0. The highest water

use efficiency for grain production, WUEg (6291 kg/ha/cm), was obtained at I0 and the lowest

(459.3 kg/ha/cm) was obtained at I4 (Table 4.3). The highest water use efficiency for biomass

production, WUEb (30050 kg /ha/cm), was at I0 and the lowest (110.7 kg/ha/cm) was at I4.

Both water use efficiencies decreased with increasing quantity of applied irrigation. Hossain

et al. (2009) and Alam (2011) also reported comparable effects of different irrigation levels

on water use efficiencies of maize.


30/35

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the experimental results, some conclusions can be drawn and some

recommendations can be put forward for further research activities.

5.1 Conclusions

The following conclusions were drawn from this study:

1. Most yield attributes of maize were significantly affected by different irrigation

treatments.

2. The highest grain yield was 10.301 t/ha for I4 (IW/CPE = 1) and the lowest was

6.810 t/ha for I1 (IW/CPE=0.4).

3. The water productivity/water use efficiency (WUE) was the highest (6291 kg/ha/cm

for grain production and 30050 kg/ha/cm for biomass production) for I0 and the

lowest (459.3 kg/ha/cm for grain production and 110.7 kg/ha/cm for biomass

production) for I4.

5.2 Recommendations

The following recommendations can be put forward for further research work and farmers’

practice:

1. studies at various agro-ecological zones (AEZs) of Bangladesh need to be carried

out to find out the effect of irrigation on the yield and yield attributes of maize,

2.

in the future study, one or more irrigation treatment(s) of IW/CPE ratio >1.0 needsto be included, and

3. the results of this study may be adopted in the area having less available water

resources.


31/35

REFERENCES

Abrecht, D.G. and P.S. Carberry. 1993. The influence of water deficit prior to tassel initiation

on maize growth, development and yield. Field Crops Res., 31(1-2):55-69.

Ahmed, F. 1994. Maize production technology (in Bengali). Published by International

Fertilizer Development Center, Consultant of Ministry of Agriculture, Bangladesh,

pp.13-15.

Alam, S.K.S. 2011. Effects of deficit irrigation on yield and water productivity of maize.

M.S. Thesis. Department of Irrigation and Water Management, Bangladesh

Agricultural University, Mymensingh, pp.21-26

Bandyopadhyay, P.K. and S. Mallik. 1996. Irrigation requirement of winter maize under

shallow water table condition in Damodar Valley irrigation command area. J. Indian

Soc. Soil Sci., 44(4):616-620.

Bao, J.S., C.S. Yang, J.Q. Xue and Y.C. Hao. 1991. The effect of water stress during

different growth periods of maize on its physiological characteristics. Acta

Agronomica Sinica. 17(4):261-266.

BARI (Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute). 2005-2006. Maize and barley

improvement, development of hybrid maize research project in Bangladesh,

Government of Bangladesh (GoB), BARI, Joydebpor, Gazipur-1701, August 2006,

p.86.

BARI (Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute). 2006-2007. Maize and barley

improvement, development of hybrid maize research project in Bangladesh,

Government of Bangladesh (GoB), BARI, Joydebpor, Gazipur-1701, p.58.

BBS (Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics). 2009. Monthly Statistical Bulletin –Bangladesh,

August, p.66.

BBS (Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics). 2010. Monthly Statistical Bulletin –Bangladesh,

August, p.69.


32/35

BBS/DAE (Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics, Statistical Pocket Book of Bangladesh,

Statistical Division, Govt. of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh/ Department of

Agriculture Extension, Khamar Bari, Farm Gate, Dhaka, Bangladesh).

Caliandro, A., E. Tarantino, A. Decaro, P. Rubino and A. Mastro. 1983. Water uptake of

main crop maize. Consumi idrici del mais in prima coltura. Informatore Agraio.,

39(11):25011-25015.

Carp, A. and D. Maxim. 1997. Influence of irrigation and soil preparation on maize yields on

the saline saturated meadows of the pruit. Cercetari Agron. in Mooldoova,

30(1):241−245.

Chowdhury, M.K. and M.A. Islam. 1993. Production and uses of maize (in Bengali).

Published by Farm Research Div. Bangladesh Agril. Res. Inst., Joydebpur, Gazipur,

Bangladesh, p.1-189.

Cosculleula, F. and J.M. Faci. 1992. Determination of the maize ( Zea mays L.) yield function

in respect of water using a line source sprinkler. Investigation Agraria,

Production−y−Protection Vegetables, 7(2):169−194.

Cracin, I. and M. Craclum. 1994. Irrigated maize response under limited water supply.

Romanian Agril. Res., 1:57-61.

Dai, J.Y., W.L. Gu, X.Y Shen, B. Zheng, H. Qi, and S.F. Cai. 1990. Effect of drought on the

development and yield of maize at different growth stages. J. Shenyang Agril. Univ.,

21(3):181-185.

Eliades, G. 1993. Irrigation of maize for grain production. Cyprus Agril. Res. Inst., 152:66-

72.

Eneva, S. 1995. The yield-water relation and its utilization in practice. Resteniev “Dni”

Nauki., 32(5):55-57.

Follett, R.F., L.C. Benz, E.J Doering and G.A. Reichman. 1978. Yield response of corn to

irrigation on sandy soils. Agron. J., 70(5):823-828.


33/35

Golbashy, M., E. Mohsen, K.K. Saeid and R. Choukan. 2010. Evaluation of drought

tolerance of some corn ( Zea mays L.) hybrids in Iran. African J. Agril. Res.,

5(19):2714-2719.

Gope, S.N., M.S.U. Talukder, S.M. Shirazi, A.K.M. Adham and M.A. Hye. 2003. Influence

of irrigation and nitrogenous fertilizer on the performance of maize. Bangladesh J.

Agri. Eng., 14(1&2):17-25.

Gordon, W.B., R.J Raney, and L.R. Stone. 1995. Irrigation management practice for crop

production in north central Kansa. J. Soil Water Cons., 50(4):395-402.

Hefner, S.G. and P.W. Tracy. 1995. Corn production using alternate furrow, nitrogen

fertilizer and irrigation. J. Production Agril., 8(1):66-69.

Hossain, M.S., M.S.U. Talukder, K.M. Hassanuzzaman and S.M.T. Mustafa. 2009. Effect of

deficit irrigation on yield and water productivity of maize. Bangladesh J. Agril. Sci.,

36(2):26-38.

Islam, M.A., N.H. Khan and M.A. Razzaque. 1980. Effect of irrigation under soil and straw

mulches on the yield of corn ( Zea mays L.). Bangladesh J. Agril. Sci., 7(2):195-199.

Kristov, I. 1995. Yield response to soil moisture level changes during individual stages of

maize development. Pochvoznanie Agrokhimiya-y-Khologiya, 30:74-75.

Lambe, D.L., S.M. Patil, D.J. Jiotode and S.O. Darangeg. 1998. Effect of irrigation levels and

row spacing on yield of rabi maize ( Zea mays L.). J. Soil and Crops, 8:95-97.

Lanza, F., V. Rizzo, M.E.V. Scarascia, V. D.I. Bari, N. Losavio. 1980. Grain maize in the

southern Italy: Effects of irrigation. Annali dell Inst. Sperimentale Agronomico,11:167-179.

Mallikarjunaswamy, S.M., B.M. Ramachandrappa and H.V. Nanjappa. 1997. Water

requirement, water use efficiency and moisture extraction pattern in maize as

influenced by irrigation. Mysore J. Agril. Sci., 31(3):236-240.

Mansouri-Far, C., M.S. Ali, S. Modarres and S.S Farhad. 2010. Maize yield response to

deficit irrigation during low-sensitive growth stages and nitrogen rate under semi-aridclimatic conditions. Agril. Water Mgt., 97(1):12-22.


34/35

Milic, M. 1967. Irrigation regimes and fertilization of maize in Metohija. Agron. Glasnic.

17(8):647-62.

Niazuddin, M., M.S.U Talukder, S.M. Shirazi and M.A. Hye. 2002. Response of maize to

irrigation and nitrogenous fertilizer. Bangladesh J. Agril. Sci., 29 (2):283-289.

Ogunbodede, B.A., S.R Ajibade, and S.A. Olakojo. 2004. Grain yield stability of new maize

varieties in Nigeria. African Crop Sci. J., 9(4):685-692.

Petrunin, V.M. 1966. The effect of irrigation on the grain quality and yields of maize. Field

Crops Abst., 20(1):34.

Prasad, T.N. and U.K. Prasad. 1989. Effect of irrigation pattern of sowing and intercrop onthe growth, yield and water use efficiency of winter maize. Annals Agril. Res.,

10(2):139-144.

Rudat, H., J.C. Ball Aux, and Treharne. 1975. Light and water stress in maize cultivation in

the low land tropics. International Inst. Tropical Agril., pp.66-68.

Shaozhong, K. and A. Minggang. 1992. Crop water production function and optimum

allocation of irrigation water use. Leuven, Belgium, Catholic Univ. Leuven, pp.801-807.

Shirazi, S.M., M.S.U. Talukder, M.A. Hossain, M. Niazuddin and M.A. Samad. 2000. Effect

of irrigation regimes and nitrogen levels on the performance of maize. Bangladesh J.

Agril. Sci., 27(2):271-278.

Sridhar, V. and R.A Singh. 1989. Effect of irrigation levels on growth of rabi maize. Annals

Plant Physiol., 3(2):212-212.

Talukder , M.S.U., S.M. Shirazi, M.A. Hossain, H. Dey and M.A. Hye.1999. Growth

parameters and yield response of maize to water stress and nitrogenous fertilizer. J.

Okinawa Agric., 34:12-14.

Thakur, C. 1980. Scientific Crop Production. Vol. I. Food Crops. Metropolitan Book Co.

New Delhi, India, p.145-185.


35/35

Zhirkov, Z.V. 1995. Growing maize for grain under optimum and deficit irrigation. Rasteniev

“dni-Nauki”, 32(9-10):142-145.

Report Maize

Documents

Transcript of Report Maize