Gezira j. of agric. sci. 15 (1): 93-107 (2017)
Effects of skipping
one irrigation at different growth stages on yield and water productivity of some
maize (Zea mays L.) cultivars under
heavy clay soils of central Sudan
Hisham M.Mohammed, Hussien S. Adam , Siddig. E.
Idris and
Osama A.Muhieldeen
Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, University of Gezira, Wad Medani, Sudan.
ABSTRACT
Crop
production in arid and semi-arid regions faces the challenge to ensure high
yields with limited supply of water. This study was conducted at the experimental farm of the
Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, University of Gezira, during seasons 2014/15 and
2015/16. The objectives of this study were to investigate the effects of skipping one
irrigation on yield and yield components of maize (Zea mays L.). A split-plot design with four replicates was used. Main plots were assigned
to the cultivars namely: Hudaiba1,
Hudaiba2 and Mogtamaa -45, and
sub-plots to irrigation treatments which consisted of (T1) irrigation every 10 days throughout the season (control), skipping
one irrigation at: Vegetative (T2), flowering (T3) and grain filling (T4) stages. The results indicated that irrigation treatments and cultivars had highly significant effects on
all parameters tested. Irrigation every 10 days resulted in the highest values
of plant height, cob length, number of grains per cob, 100 seed weight,
grain yield and water productivity.
Hudaaiba2 outyielded the other two cultivars. Skipping one irrigation at
flowering (T3) stage
gave the lowest values of the tested parameters. The highest grain yield was obtained when frequent irrigation (control)
and Hudaiba 2 was practiced and the lowest was obtained by skipping of irrigation
at flowering, which reflected the sensitivity of this stage for water deficit. Hence,
it is recommended to grow Hudaiba2 maize cultivar and irrigate every 10 days.
INTRODUCTION
Due to the serious water shortage, the great challenge for the coming decades is the task of increasing food production with less water, particularly in countries with limited water and land resources (FAO, 2002). Agricultural production in the arid area predominantly depends on both surface water and groundwater. The cost of pumping is increasing due to rising energy costs. Thus, the efficient use of available water is needed to produce high water use crops (Alam et al. 2009). The amount of water applied and the frequency of irrigation must be adjusted to the actual consumption of the crop, water- holding capacity of the soil, and depth of rooting (Hansen et al. 1979).
When rainfall is not sufficient, plants must receive additional water from irrigation (Brouwer et al., 1989). Farmers in the northern states of the Sudan generally apply large amounts of irrigation water without consideration of changes in climatic factors or growth stages of the crop which are the main factors that determine irrigation water requirements (Ahmed, 1995). Farmers normally over irrigate the fields due to lack of proper knowledge about irrigation scheduling and the belief that more water will produce more yields. Crop water requirement is mainly dependant on climatic factors such as temperature, solar radiation, relative humidity, wind velocity, etc, and agronomic factors like stage of crop development (Naheed and Arif, 2000).
The main objective of deficit irrigation is to increase the WUE of maize by skipping irrigations that have little impact on yield. The resulting yield reduction may be small compared with the benefits gained through diverting the saved water to irrigate other crops (FAO, 2002). Yenesew and Tilahun (2009) reported that the most critical period for irrigation is the mid season stage. Water stress in the flowering stage reduced grain yield (Cakir, 2004; Kuscu and Demir,2012; Sadalla et al. 2013). Also, Rewaily and Ayman (2010) showed that water stress in stages of flowering, seed formation and grain filling in maize caused the most reduction of grain yield. Igbadun et al. (2007) found that skipping of irrigation at flowering stage had a more severe impact on grain yield compared to skipping of irrigation at vegetative or grain-filling growth stages.
In general, it can be stated that, of the four growth stages (initial, mid, development and late), the mid-season stage is the most sensitive to water shortage. This is mainly because it is the period of the highest crop water needs. If water shortages occur during the mid-season stage, the negative effect on yield will be pronounced (Brouwer et al., 1989). The present experiment was carried out to investigate the effect of skipping irrigation on grain yield and yield components and water productivity of maize, using three cultivars (Hudaiba1, Hudaiba 2 and Mogtamaa-45).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Experiments were carried out during the winter seasons of 2014/15 (first season) and 2015/16 (second season) at the experimental farm, University of Gezira. It lies north of Wad Medani town, Lat. 14° 06ˋ N, Long. 33° 38ˋ E and altitude of 405 masl. The soil is Vertisol, with a high CEC, a pH of 7.5 and alkaline with low permeability (Alhilo, 1996). The experiment was laid out in a split-plot design with four replicates. The main plots were assigned to the cultivars namely: Hudaiba1, Hudaiba 2 and Mogtamaa-45, and the subplots for irrigation treatments.
The land was disc plowed, harrowed, leveled and ridged. Maize cultivars Hudaiba1, Hudaiba 2 and
Mogtamaa-45 were sown on ridges 80 cm apart by placing 2-3seeds per hole and 25
cm between holes. The plot area was 42 m2, each plot was separated
from the other by 2 m .Three weeks later, plants were thinned to one plant per
hole. Urea was side-dressed at the rate of 86 kg N ha-1, as
recommended by the Agricultural Research Corporation.
The irrigation treatments were as follows: Irrigation every 10 days throughout the season (control) (T1), skipping one irrigation at: vegetative (T2), flowering (T3) and grain filling (T4) stages. Water flow into each plot was measured based on the discharge rate of a small calibrated diesel water pump.
The data collected consisted of the following parameters: Plant height (cm), cob length (cm), number of seeds per cob, 100- seed weight (g) and grain yield (kg/ha). Each plot was harvested separately, air dried and threshed. The grain yield was obtained by converting the yield of the actual harvested area into kg/ha.
Water flow into each plot was measured from a small calibrated diesel water pump (Honda GX160, 1100 L/minute). Crop water productivity was assessed using the following equation:
CWP (kg/m3) = Yield (kg) / applied water (m3)
Data were analyzed using standard analysis of variance procedures and means were separated using LSD.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Plant height
Plant
height of the three maize cultivars under the different irrigation treatments is
shown in Table (1). There were highly significant differences (P ≤ 0.01) among
irrigation treatments with respect to each of the maize cultivars. The tallest
plants were obtained by frequent irrigation
(157, 156.3cm), followed by skipping at vegetative (152.7, 151.2 cm) and
the shortest by skipping at flowering (134.3,
138.7 cm) in both seasons, respectively. The effects of cultivars on plant
height were highly significant (P ≤ 0.01). The tallest plants were
obtained by Hudaiba2 (151, 151.2 cm), followed by Hudaiba1 (145, 147.3
cm) and the least by Mogtamaa-45 (145.5, 145.9
cm) in both seasons, respectively.
The interaction effects between irrigation
treatments and cultivars on plant height were highly significant (Table 2). Results
showed that frequent irrigation produced the tallest plant for the three maize
cultivars studied in both seasons, whereas skipping one irrigation at flowering
produced the shortest plants in both seasons. These results were in line
with the findings of Elzubeir and Elamin (2011), Cakir, (2004) and Sadalla et
al. (2013).
Cob length
The effect of irrigation treatments on cob
length in the three maize cultivars is shown in Table 1. There were significant
differences (P ≤ 0.05) among irrigation treatments with respect to each
of the maize cultivars tested. The longest cobs were obtained by frequent
irrigation (11.6, 12.7 cm), followed by skipping at vegetative (11.7, 12.2 cm)
and the shortest by skipping at flowering (11.1, 12 cm) in both seasons, respectively.
The effect of cultivar on cob length was not significant in both seasons. The
interaction effects of irrigation and cultivars was not significant (Table 2). These
results are in agreement with the findings of Sadalla et al. (2013).
Table1. Main effects of irrigation treatments on plant height and cob length of maize cultivars grown during seasons
2014/15 and 2015/16.
|
Plant height (cm) |
Cob length(cm) |
|||
|
|
2014/15 |
2015/16 |
2014/15 |
2015/16 |
|
|
157.0 |
156.3 |
11.6 |
12.7 |
|
T2 |
152.7 |
151.2 |
11.7 |
12.2 |
|
T3 |
134.3 |
138.7 |
11.1 |
12.0 |
|
T4 |
145.3 |
146.3 |
11.6 |
12.1 |
|
Sig. level |
** |
** |
* |
* |
|
SE± |
0.26 |
0.65 |
0.14 |
0.2 |
|
C.V(%) |
3.8 |
9.3 |
2.65 |
3.2 |
|
V1 |
145.0 |
147.3 |
11.6 |
12.2 |
|
V2 |
151.5 |
151.2 |
11.6 |
12.4 |
|
V3 |
145.5 |
145.9 |
11.2 |
12.2 |
|
Sig. level |
** |
** |
N.S |
N.S |
|
SE± |
0.26 |
0.18 |
0.4 |
0.12 |
|
C.V(%) |
2 |
3 |
8.7 |
2.36 |
Table 2. Interaction effects of irrigation treatments and
cultivars on plant height and cob length during seasons 2014/15 and 2015/16.
|
|
|
Cob length (cm) |
||
|
2014/2015 |
2015/2016 |
2014/2015 |
2015/2016 |
|
|
|
155 |
155.7 |
11.7 |
12.7 |
|
T2V1 |
150 |
149.7 |
12.0 |
12.0 |
|
T3V1 |
131 |
139.0 |
11.0 |
12.0 |
|
144 |
145.0 |
11.7 |
12.0 |
|
|
T1V2 |
160 |
158.3 |
11.7 |
12.7 |
|
T2V2 |
159 |
153.0 |
11.7 |
12.7 |
|
T3V2 |
137 |
145.0 |
11.3 |
12.0 |
|
T4V2 |
149 |
148.3 |
11.7 |
12.3 |
|
T1V3 |
156 |
155.0 |
11.3 |
12.7 |
|
T2V3 |
148 |
151.0 |
11.3 |
12.0 |
|
T3V3 |
135 |
132.0 |
11.0 |
12.0 |
|
T4V3 |
143 |
145.7 |
11.3 |
12.0 |
|
Sig. level |
** |
** |
N.S |
N.S |
|
SE± |
0.32 |
0.79 |
0.18 |
0.23 |
Number
of grains per cob
There were highly significant differences (P
≤ 0.01) in number of grain per cob among irrigation treatments (Table 3).
The largest number of grains per cob was obtained by frequent irrigation, followed by skipping
at vegetative and the least by skipping at flowering in both
seasons. The effects of cultivars on number of grains per cob were
highly significant (P ≤ 0.01). The largest number of grains per
cob was
obtained by Hudaiba2, followed by Hudaiba1 and the
least by Mogtamaa-45 in both seasons (Table 3).
The interaction effects of irrigation treatments and cultivars on number of grains per cob showed that frequent irrigation produced the largest number of grains per cob for all cultivars followed by skipping irrigation at vegetative stage whereas skipping irrigation at flowering produced the lowest number of grains per cob. These results support the findings of Khodarahmpour and Hamidi (2012) and Elzubeir and Elamin (2011) who reported that water deficit affected the number of grains per cob thereby compounding the effects on final grain yield. These results also agreed with those reported by Cakir (2004) who stated that moisture deficit at different growth stages had significant effects on number of grains per cob.
One
hundred seed weight
Irrigation treatments had highly significant (P ≤ 0.01) effects on 100-seed weight in both seasons (Table 3). The heaviest 100- seed weight was obtained by frequent irrigation followed by skipping at vegetative and the lowest 100- seed weight was obtained by skipping irrigation at flowering. Cultivars, on the other hand, showed highly significant (P ≤ 0.01) differences in 100-seed weight. The heaviest 100- seed weight was obtained by Hudaiba2 followed by Hudaiba1 and the lowest 100- seed weight was obtained by Mogtamaa-45 (Table 3).
The interaction effects of irrigation treatments and cultivars on 100 seed weight were highly (P ≤ 0.01) significant (Table 4). Results indicated that frequent irrigation of Hudaiba2 produced the heaviest 100- seed weight. On the other hand, skipping irrigation at flowering produced the lowest 100- seed weight for the three maize cultivars in both seasons. These results support by the findings of Khodarahmpour and Hamidi (2012).Similar results were also obtained by Abo-El-kheir and Mekki (2007) who found that water stress in maize decreased 100–seed weight.
Table 3. Main effects of irrigation treatments on number of
seeds per cob and 100 seed weight (gm) of maize cultivars grown during seasons
2014/15 and 2015/16.
|
|
No. of seeds /cob |
100 S.W (g) |
||
|
2014/15 |
2015/16 |
2014/15 |
2015/16 |
|
|
T1 |
324.0 |
331.0 |
17.7 |
17.4 |
|
T2 |
302.4 |
302.9 |
16.8 |
16.9 |
|
T3 |
216.1 |
206.1 |
13.3 |
13.6 |
|
T4 |
293.7 |
293.3 |
16.0 |
15.9 |
|
Sig. level |
** |
** |
** |
** |
|
SE± |
1.5 |
2.4 |
0.13 |
0.14 |
|
C.V (%) |
1.1 |
1.8 |
1.77 |
1.81 |
|
V1 |
281.2 |
280.2 |
16.1 |
16.2 |
|
V2 |
296.3 |
294.9 |
16.9 |
16.8 |
|
V3 |
274.7 |
274.9 |
14.9 |
14.8 |
|
Sig. level |
** |
** |
** |
** |
|
SE± |
2.6 |
3.1 |
0.07 |
0.1 |
|
C.V (%) |
2.3 |
2.7 |
1.12 |
1.56 |
|
|
No. of seed /cob |
100 S.W(g) |
||
|
2014/2015 |
2015/2016 |
2014/2015 |
2015/2016 |
|
|
|
322.3 |
325.3 |
18.0 |
18.0 |
|
T2V1 |
299.3 |
299.3 |
17.0 |
17.2 |
|
T3V1 |
212.0 |
203.7 |
13.2 |
13.5 |
|
T4V1 |
291.0 |
292.3 |
16.3 |
16.2 |
|
T1V2 |
332.7 |
352.3 |
18.7 |
18.0 |
|
T2V2 |
314.7 |
313.7 |
17.8 |
17.8 |
|
T3V2 |
224.7 |
210.7 |
14.0 |
14.2 |
|
T4V2 |
303.3 |
303.0 |
17.1 |
17.1 |
|
T1V3 |
317.0 |
315.3 |
16.3 |
16.1 |
|
T2V3 |
293.3 |
295.7 |
15.7 |
15.5 |
|
T3V3 |
201.7 |
204.0 |
13.0 |
13.2 |
|
T4V3 |
286.7 |
284.7 |
14.5 |
14.3 |
|
Sig. level |
** |
** |
** |
** |
|
SE± |
1.78 |
2.91 |
0.16 |
0.17 |
Grain
yield
The effects of irrigation treatments on grain yield were highly significant (P ≤ 0.01) (Table 5). The highest grain yield was obtained by frequent irrigation (3116.4 and 3110.1 kg/ha) followed by skipping at vegetative (3042.6 and 3018.3 kg/ha) and the lowest grain yield was obtained by skipping irrigation at flowering (2815.7 and 2789.4 kg/ha). Significant (P ≤ 0.05) differences were detected among cultivars on grain yield. The highest grain yield was recorded by Hudaiba2 (3030.7 and 3016.6 kg/ha) followed by Hudaiba1 (2978.7 and 2962.6 kg/ha) and the lowest grain yield was obtained by Mogtamaa-45 (2936.7 and 2922.6 kg/ha) for the first and second seasons, respectively.
The interaction effects of irrigation treatments and cultivars were significant (Table 6). Frequent irrigation produced the highest grain yield followed by skipping irrigation at vegetative treatment in both seasons. On the other hand, skipping irrigation at flowering produced the lowest grain yield for all cultivars in both seasons. These results support the findings of Ayana (2011), who reported that water stress during flowering and grain filling stages produced lower yields. Skipping one irrigation during flowering stage reduced grain yield (Cakir, 2004; Kuscu and Demir, 2012; Sadalla et al. 2013). These results were in line with the findings of Rewaily and Ayman (2010) who stated that water deficit in stages of flowering, seed formation and grain filling in maize caused the most reduction of grain yield.
Water
productivity (kg/m3)
Results showed that irrigation treatments had highly significant (P≤0.01) effects on water productivity (Table 5). Skipping irrigation at the vegetative stage had the highest water productivity (0.344 and 0.341 kg/m3) followed by frequent irrigation (0.308 and 0.307 kg/m3). On the other hand, skipping irrigation at flowering produced the lowest water productivity (0.282 and 0.287 kg/m3) for the first and second seasons, respectively. Results indicated no significant (P ≤ 0.01) differences among cultivars in water productivity.
The results of the interactions between the different treatments are shown in Table 6. The interaction effects of irrigation treatments and maize cultivars were not significant on water productivity. Results showed that skipping irrigation at vegetative treatment produced the highest water productivity followed by normal irrigation treatment. On the other hand, skipping irrigation at flowering produced the lowest water productivity. These results support the findings of Alfalahi et al. (2015), who reported that deficit irrigation was effective in increasing water productivity of maize. Zwart and Bastianssen (2004) found that crop-water productivity of maize ranged between 0.22 and 3.99 kg/m3. Zhao and Nan (2004) reported that water productivity of maize varied from 1.39 to 1.72 kg/m3.
|
|
Yield (kg/ha) |
W.P (kg/m3) |
||
|
|
2014/15 |
2015/16 |
2014/15 |
2015/16 |
|
T1 |
3116.4 |
3110.1 |
0.31 |
0.31 |
|
T2 |
3042.6 |
3018.3 |
0.34 |
0.34 |
|
T3 |
2815.7 |
2789.4 |
0.23 |
0.24 |
|
T4 |
2953.3 |
2951.1 |
0.28 |
0.29 |
|
Sig. level |
** |
** |
** |
** |
|
SE± |
14.31 |
15.57 |
0.007 |
0.01 |
|
C.V(%) |
1.02 |
1.11 |
5.46 |
6.74 |
|
V1 |
2978.7 |
2962.6 |
0.29 |
0.29 |
|
V2 |
3030.7 |
3016.6 |
0.29 |
0.30 |
|
V3 |
2936.7 |
2922.6 |
0.29 |
0.29 |
|
Sig. L |
* |
** |
N.S |
N.S |
|
SE± |
16.03 |
9.028 |
0.013 |
0.012 |
|
C.V(%) |
13.2 |
7.5 |
10.97 |
10.18 |
N.S= not significant, *and** significantly different
at 0.05 and 0.01 probability levels, respectively. T1=control, T2=
skipping at vegetative, T3 =skipping at flowering and T4=skipping
at grain filling. V1=Hudaiba 1, V2= Hudaiba2 and V3=
Mogtamaa-45
Table 6. Interaction effects of irrigation treatments and
cultivars on grain yield and water productivity
(kg/m3) of maize during seasons 2014/15 and 2015/16.
|
|
|
W. P (kg/m3) |
||
|
|
2014/2015 |
2015/2016 |
2014/2015 |
2015/2016 |
|
T1V1 |
3119.3 |
3113.7 |
0.30 |
0.31 |
|
T2V1 |
3027.0 |
3004.3 |
0.34 |
0.34 |
|
T3V1 |
2805.7 |
2797.0 |
0.23 |
0.24 |
|
T4V1 |
2962.7 |
2935.3 |
0.28 |
0.28 |
|
T1V2 |
3186.3 |
3176.0 |
0.31 |
0.31 |
|
T2V2 |
3118.7 |
3104.7 |
0.34 |
0.35 |
|
T3V2 |
2824.3 |
2792.3 |
0.22 |
0.24 |
|
T4V2 |
2993.3 |
2993.3 |
0.29 |
0.29 |
|
T1V3 |
3043.7 |
3040.7 |
0.31 |
0.31 |
|
T2V3 |
2982.0 |
2946.0 |
0.35 |
0.34 |
|
T3V3 |
2817.0 |
2779.0 |
0.24 |
0.24 |
|
T4V3 |
2904.0 |
2924.7 |
0.28 |
0.29 |
|
Sig. level |
* |
* |
N.S |
N.S |
|
SE± |
17.5 |
19.1 |
0.009 |
0.011 |
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, it is recommended to grow
Hudaiba2 maize cultivar and irrigate every 10 days.
REFERENCES
Abo- El-kheir, M.S.A. and B.B. Mekki. 2007. Response of maize single cross–10 to water deficit during silking and grain filling stages. World Journal of Agricultural Science 3 (3): 269 – 272.
Ahmed, S. H. 1995. Water relations of faba bean, chickpea and lentil. Production and Improvement of Cool-season Food Legumes in the Sudan. In: S.H. Salih, O. A. Ageeb, M. C. Saxena and M. B. Solh (eds). Proceedings of the National Research Review Workshop, 27-30 August 1995, Agricultural Research Corporation, Wad Medani, Sudan.
Alam, M., T. P. Trooien, D. H. Rogers and T. J. Dumler. 2009. Subsurface drip
irrigation for alfalfa. Irrigation Management Series. University of Kansas. available on: www.ksre.ksu.edu.
Alfalahi, A. A., A. H. M. Karem, B. K. Abdul Jabbar, M. M. Amer and Kh. A. Sulman.2015. Scheduling irrigation as a water saving practice for corn (Zea mays L.) production in Iraq. International Journal of Applied Agricultural Sciences 1 (3): 55-59.
Alhilo. A.S 1996. Water Management in the University of Gezira Farm. M.Sc. Thesis, University of Gezira, Sudan.
Ayana. M. 2011. Deficit irrigation practices as alternative means
of improving water use efficiencies in irrigated agriculture: Case study of
maize crop at Arba Minch, Ethiopia. African Journal of Agricultural Research
6(2):226-235.
Brouwer, C.,K. Prins and M. Heibloem. 1989. Irrigation Water Management: Irrigation Scheduling. Training Manual No. 4. Rome, Italy.
Cakir. R .2004. Effect of water stress at different developmental stages on vegetative and reproductive growth of corn. Field Crops Research 89:1–16.
Elzubeir , A. O. and M. A. Elamin. 2011. Response of maize (Zea mays L.) growth and yield to irrigation regimes and different tillage systems in arid area of Sudan. Agriculture and Biology Journal of North America 2(6): 1015-1021.
FAO. 2002. Deficit Irrigation Practices. Water Report No. 22. Rome, Italy.
Hansen.V.E., O.W Israelsen and G.E.Stringham.1979. Irrigation Principles and Practices, 4th ed. John Wiley and Sons, New York, USA.
Igbadun H.E., K.P.R.T. Andrew, AS.Baanda and F.M. Henry. 2007. Evaluation of selected crop water production functions for an irrigated maize crop. Agricultural and Water Management 94: 1–10.
Khodarahmpour. Z and J. Hamidi. 2012. Study of yield and yield components of corn (Zea mays L.) inbred lines to drought stress. African Journal of Biotechnology 11(13):3099-3105.
Kuscu. H and A. O. Demir.2012. Response of maize to full and limited irrigation at different plant growth stages. Journal of Agricultural Faculty of Uludag University 26 (2): 15-27.
Naheed . G and M. Arif. 2000. Water requirement of wheat crop in Pakistan. Pakistan Journal of Meteorology 6 (11): 89 – 97.
Rewaily. M. and A. A. Ayman. 2010. Evaluation of the response of some corn (Zea mays L.) genotypes for water stress at different growth stages. The Arab Journal for Arid Environments 3 (2):4 – 18
Sadalla, H. A., J. B. Guznay, T. F. Sadiq, S. A. Kakarash.
2013. Effect of irrigation treatments on maize (Zea mays L.) yield
and yield components during two growing seasons. Journal of Agriculture and
Veterinary Science 3 (5) :09-11.
Yenesew. M and K. Tilahun. 2009. Yield and water use
efficiency of deficit irrigated maize in a semi arid region of Ethiopia. African
Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development 9 (8): 1635 – 1651.
Zhao. C and Z. Nan. 2007. Estimating water needs of maize (Zea mays L.) using the dual crop coefficient method in the arid region of northwestern China. African Journal of Agricultural Research 2(7): 325-333.
Zwart.S. J and W. G.M Bastiaanssen 2004. Review of measured crop water productivity values for irrigated wheat, rice, cotton and maize. Agricultural Water Management 69 (2): 115–133.