GRAIN PRODUCTION AS INFLUENCED BY PLANTING PATTERN IN MAIZE

Transcription

1 Sarhad J. Agric. Vol.27, No.3, 2011 GRAIN PRODUCTION AS INFLUENCED BY PLANTING PATTERN IN MAIZE MUHAMMAD SHAFI*, MUHAMMAD FAROOQ**, SANIA MUNIR***, ZIA-UL-QAMAR*, AQSA SIDDIQ***** and ZAFAR MAHMOOD**** * Department of Agronomy, Agricultural University, Peshawar Pakistan. ** Department of Islamic/Pak Studies, Agricultural University, Peshawar Pakistan. *** Quality Enhancement Cell, Agricultural University, Peshawar Pakistan. **** Department of Maths, Stats & Computer Science, Agricultural University, Peshawar Pakistan. ***** Quaid e Azam College of Commerce, University of Peshawar Pakistan. ABSTRACT Maize (Zea mays L.) is one of the most important cereal crops consumed as food, feed and in numerous industrial products useful to mankind. Planting pattern exerts great influence on maize production. Nevertheless, information on planting pattern in the changing environments is limited. Therefore, this experiment was laid out on June 21 st, 2006 at New Developmental Farm of the Agriculture University, Peshawar, Pakistan with an objective to determine the influence of planting pattern on maize grain production. A randomized complete block design with split plot arrangements Azam, Pahari, Jalal and Sarhad White were allotted to main plots and planning pattern of 60,, Sarhad White cm row spacing to sub plots of 4m x 4.5m size each, replicated four times. A fertilizer dose of 150 kg N and Sarhad White kg P ha -1 and all other agronomic practices were uniformly applied to this trial. The data were collected on agronomic traits including grain yield, yield components, biological yield and harvest index. The results indicated that cm row spacing produced significantly (P 0.05), higher yield components, grain yield (2398 kg ha - 1 ), biological yield (9774 kg ha -1 ) and harvest index (24.6 %) as compared to 60 cm and Sarhad White cm row spacing. Among varieties Azam was significantly superior (p 0.05) based on yield components, grain yield (2726 kg ha -1 ), biological yield (10050 kg ha -1 ) and harvest index (27.3%)d. The interactions between row spacing and varieties were significant (p 0.05) also for these traits measured. Maximum grain yield (26 kg ha -1) and biological yield of (10360 kg ha -1) were harvested from Azam variety planted in cm row spacing. It is concluded that the use of cm row spacing and a maize variety Azam are the optimum choices for maize production in the environments similar to those of this study to mitigate food security problems prevailed in this province. Key Words: Row spacing, varieties, yield components, biological yield & grain yield. Citation: Shafi, M., M. Farooq, S. Munir, Z. U. Qamar, A. Siddiq and Z. Mahmood Grain Production as influenced by planting pattern in maize. Sarhad J. Agric 27(3): INTRODUCTION Maize is used as staple food and feed for livestock. It is estimated that its 70% production is used directly or indirectly as food and rest of it find its ways to starch manufacturing and poultry industries. Inspite of high yield potential of maize, its yield per unit area is very low as compared to advanced countries of the world. In Pakistan maize was cultivated over an area of thousand hectares with an average yield of 3415 kg ha -1. In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, it was grown on thousand ha with annual production of thousand tons. The average yield in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa was 1880 kg ha -1 (MINFAL, 2009). It is an established fact that management inputs like improved varieties, irrigation, sowing time, planting pattern, plant population, and balanced use of fertilizers have an effective role in enhanced yield of crops. Planting pattern exerts great influence on crop yield. However, information on the influence of planting pattern (row spacing) in the changing environment on maize crop production is limited. Therefore this study was designed with an objective to determine the influence of row spacing on maize production in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province of Pakistan. Johnson et al. (1998) reported that row spacing is a critical factor for increasing crop yield. In very narrow row spacing most plants remain barren, small ear size and plants are prone to lodging, diseases, pest and result in decreased grain yield. Whereas, wider row spacing may be suitable alternative and may result in higher yield as compared to narrow row spacing. Modarres et al. (1998) evaluated the effect of plant population and row spacing (60, Sarhad White, 120 cm) on morphology and yield of hybrid (Pioneer 3Sarhad White2). They found that decreased row spacing and increased population density enhanced grain yield, days to tasseling and silking. Decreased row spacing took more days to tasseling and silking. Grain yield plant -1 was decreased at higher plant density. Luis (2001) studied three row spacing of 50,, 100 cm apart and found a linear increase in yield with reduction in row spacing from 100 to 50 cm in maize using either early single cross and a late double cross hybrids. Barbieria et al. (2000) assessed the effect of row spacing, 35 and 70 cm and N availability on grain

2 Muhammad Shafi et al. Grain production as influenced by planting pattern in maize 358 yield. They found that 27-46% increase in grain yield was obtained in response to narrow row spacing in N deficient maize crop. Shah et al. (2001) compared row spacing 60,, Sarhad White cm and found that grains ear -1, wt. grain -1, and grain yield and maximum biological yield obtained were maximum from cm row spacing. Charles (2009) reported that the maize declining yield in recent past could be improved with optimum fertilization, weather conditions and decreased row spacing and suggested that decreased row spacing combined with improved varieties of maize can increase maize yield. Rehman (2009) reported that low yields in the less developed countries are the results of mostly poor management practices. Since planting pattern and crop varieties are important components of management practices, therefore, this study was conducted to determine the influence of planting pattern on the performance of maize varieties grown in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa of Pakistan. MATERIALS AND METHODS An experiment was conducted to determine the influence of row spacing on maize varieties at New Development Farm of Agricultural University Peshawar, Pakistan. The experiment was laid out in a randomized complete block design with split plot arrangement having four replications. Varieties were allotted to main plots and row spacing to sub plot size of 4m x 4.5m was used. Four varieties of maize (Azam, Pahari, Jalal, Sarhad White) were sown with three different row spacing of 60, and Sarhad White on June 21, The fertilizer dose of 150 kg N and Sarhad White kg P ha -1 was applied. Full dose of phosphorus and half of nitrogen was applied to the crop before sowing while remaining half of the nitrogen fertilizer was applied just prior to 2nd irrigation. Irrigation and all other agronomic practices were carried out uniformly for all the experimental units throughout the growing season. Data were recorded on days to 50% tasseling and silking, plant height (cm), weed biomass (gm -2 ) leaves plant -1 stem thickness (cm) number of plant ha -1 at harvest, number of ears plant -1, number of grains -1 ear, thousand grain weight (g), grain yield kg ha -1, biological yield and harvest index(%), respectively. Data on days to 50 % tasseling and 50% of sowing till more than 50% of plants produced tassels and silks, respectively. Data on plant height were recorded by measuring the height of ten plants randomly selected in each treatment from ground level to the tip of the tassel. Weed dry biomass were recorded in one m 2 area in each subplot. Numbers of leaves plant-1 were counted from five randomly selected plants and were averaged. Stem thickness of plants in two central rows in each treatment was measured with the help of Vernier Calipper and the average stem diameter was recorded. Number of plants at harvest plot -1 were recorded and converted to number of plants ha -1. For recording the data on number of ears plant -1, ten plants randomly selected in each sub plot were counted. The data on number of grains ear -1 were recorded by counting grains after shelling from cobs of five randomly hand picked plants and were divided by number of ears to get average. The data on thousand grains weight were recorded at random from the grains of each sub plot. Grains yield was weighed with a balance after shelling the ears from three central rows and converted into kg ha -1. Similarly biological yield was taken from three central rows harvested in each subplot at harvest maturity, and tillers were tied into bundles separately, sun dried and weighed by spring balance and then converted into kg ha -1. Harvest index (%) was calculated dividing the grain yield (kg ha -1 ) by biological yield (kg ha -1 ) and multiplied by 100. All the data were analyzed statistically using least significant difference (LSD) test when F values for the treatment were significant at P 0.05 (Steel and Torrie, 1980). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The data on various agronomic traits were recorded as affected by row spacing and maize varieties. There was no significant interaction between row spacing and varieties for traits of tasseling, silking, plant height, weed biomass, leaves plant -1, stem thickness, plant ha -1 and ear plant -1. Therefore, the main effects of row spacing and varieties are given in Table I and discussed. Mean values of the data showed that days to 50% tasseling were significantly affected by row spacing and varieties (Table I). The data showed that 54.3 days to 50% tasseling were observed in 60 cm row spacing. Whereas, 52.6 days to 50% were noted in cm row spacing. This might be due to the fact that cm row spacing have created better soil environment for proper root development and efficient supply of nutrients. Modarres et al. (1998) observed that decreased row spacing took more days to tasseling. It is evident from the data that 54.5 days to 50% tasseling were taken by Pahari and 50.2 days to 50% tasseling were taken by Azam. This could be due to the fact that tasseling is a physiological process and is mainly affected by genotypes and environment. Rehman (2009) reported that the effect of varieties was significant on most of the parameters studied Number of days to 50% silking were significantly affected by row spacing and varieties Table I. It was revealed from the data that 60.1 days to 50% silking were observed in 60 cm row spacing. Whereas, 58.4 days to 50% silking were noted in cm row spacing. This might be due to the fact that wide row spacing provided suitable environment for proper root development and resulted early silking. Modares et al. (1998) also observed that decreased row spacing took more days to silking in their trails. The data revealed that 60.2 days to

3 Sarhad J. Agric. Vol.27, No.3, % silking were taken by Pahari whereas Azam took minimum number of 58.2 days to reach silking. This could be due to genetic variability among varieties These results are in agreement with the findings of Muhammad et al. (2002) and Hassan (1987) who reported that days to 50% silking were significantly affected by varieties. Table I Agronomic traits as influenced by row spacing and varieties in maize at New Developmental Farm, Agric. University, Peshawar during Row Spacing (cm) Days to Stem Weed Biomass Plant Height 50% (g m -2 Leaves Plant -1 Thicknes ) (cm) Tasseling Silking (cm) Plants ha a 60.1a 24.7a 139.5c 12.73b 4.8b 58470a 52.6b 58.4b 24.7a 150.8b 12.86b 5.6a 57910a 53.9a 59.1b 27.7a 155.0a 13.04a 5.0b 57120b LSD (0.05) NS Varieties Azam 50.2b 58.2b 24.0c 145.2b 13.01a 5.2a 58194a Pahari 54.5a 60.2a 24.8b 148.1b 12.74a 5.1a 537a Jalal 53.8a 59.1ab 25.0ab 147.1b 12.95a 5.1a 57870a Sarhad White 53.8a 59.2ab 25.1a 153.4a 12.81a 5.1a 57731a LSD (0.05) NS NS NS Figure in each column followed by different small letters are significantly different at (P 0.05) using LSD test. NS = not significant The data on weed biomass were not significantly affected by row spacing Table I. These results are in line with those of Jones et al. (2001) who observed that row spacing had little effect on weed control. The data revealed that highest weed biomass was recorded from Sarhad White, whereas lowest weed biomass was recorded from Azam variety of maize. However, in study by Rehman (2008) weed biomass was not affected by varieties. The data on plant height were affected (P 0.05) by row spacing and varieties are given in (Table I). Maximum plant height of 155 cm was observed in row spacing of Sarhad White cm, followed by and 60 cm row spacing, respectively. Ali et al. (1998) reported that tallest plant height was recorded with increased plant spacing. Varieties were significant differently in plant height (P 0.05). Sarhad White had a maximum plant height of 153 cm as compared to other three varieties, which were not significantly different from each other. Khan (2008) and Ali (2008) also observed varietal differences in plant height in their studies. It was revealed from the data that number of leaves plant -1 and stem thickness were significantly affected by row spacing. Whereas, the effect of varieties on these parameters were not significant Table I. Greater stem thickness (5.6 cm) was recorded in cm row spacing and a minimum stem thickness of 4.8 cm was found in 60 cm row spacing plants. The reason could be that widely spaced plants had more space, sunlight and sufficient nutrients which resulted greater stem thickness. The effect of varieties was non significantly different from each other on stem thickness. The data of plants ha -1 is given in (Table I) indicated that there was a significant difference in the number of plants among row spacing. It can be seen from the data that the number of plants ha -1 was significantly different among rows spacing. Narrow row spacing produced higher number of plants ha -1 as compared to wider row spacing. However, the effect of variety on number of plants ha -1 was not significantly different from each other. The data on yield components, grain yield, biological yield and harvest index are given in Table II. Nevertheless the significant varieties x row spacing interactions for these traits are given in Table III. Table II Yield components, grain yield, biological yield and harvest index of maize as influenced by row spacing and varieties in maize at New Developmental Farm Agric. University, Peshawar during 2006 Row Spacing (cm) Ears Plant Grains wt. Grain Yield Biological Yield Harvest Grains Ear (g) (kg ha -1 ) (kg ha -1 ) Index (%) b 382b 214b 2250b 9537b 23.5b 1.3a 419a 231a 2398a 9774a 24.58a 1.2b 384b 213b 2218b 9398c 23.57b LSD(0.05) Varieties Azam 1.29a 441a 263a 2726a 10050a 27.28a Pahari 1.14b 361a 173c 1762c 9317d 18.8c Jalal 1.24a 398a 231b 2355b 9512b 24.7b Sarhad White 1.22ab 379a 212b 2310b 9405c 24.6b LSD(0.05) Figure in each column followed by different small letters are significantly different at (P 0.05) by using LSD test. NS = not significant

4 Muhammad Shafi et al. Grain production as influenced by planting pattern in maize 360 The number of grains ear -1 was significantly affected by row spacing and varieties (Table II). The data revealed that a maximum number of 419 grains ear -1 was recorded in cm row spacing. This may be due to the availability of fertile and well aerated soil. Increased number of 382 grains ear -1 was recorded by 60 cm row spacing. This might be due to high density of plant population which adversely affected availability of sunlight and nutrients to the plants. These results are in agreement with the findings of Shah et al. (2001) who reported that maximum number of grains ear -1 were recorded at cm row spacing. It is evident from the data in Table - II that number of grains ear -1 (441) was maximum in Azam. Whereas, a minimum number of 361 grains ear -1 was observed in Pahari. Nazim et al. (2007) reported that varieties had significant difference for number of grains ear -1. A significant row spacing x variety effect occurred for grains ear -1. Maximum grains ear -1 (457) were found in variety Azam sown in cm row spacing. Whereas minimum grains ear -1 were obtained from Pahari (349) and Sarhad White (357) when sown in 60 cm row spacing (Table III). Table III Varieties x row spacing effects on yield components, grain yield, biological yield and harvest index of maize at New Developmental Farm Agric. University, Peshawar during 2006 Maize varieties Row spacing (cm) Grains ear Grain wt. (g) Grain yield (kg ha -1 ) Biological yield (kg ha -1 ) Harvest index (%) Azam b 457.0a 432.0b 263.0b 276.3a 248.3c 2689a 26a 2733a 9941b 10360a 9834b 27.05ab 26.62bc 27.79a Pahari 60 Jalal 60 Sarhad White f 385.1d 349.9f 386.3d 420.8c 386.2d 357.3f 413.1c 366.7e 162.9h 187.6g 169.5h 221.7de 241.4c 230.1d 209.3f 219.8e 206.1f 16f 1856e 16g 2353c 2491b 2221d 2196d 24b 2244d 9288e 9436d 9227e 9580c 9699c 9257e 9339de 9600c 92e 18.g 19.67g 17.h 24.57e 25.69d 23.99ef 23.51f 25.93cd 24.20ef LSD(0.05) Figure in each column followed by different small letters are significantly different at (P 0.05) by using LSD test. Thousand grain weight was significantly affected by row spacing and varieties (Table-II). It was revealed from the data that a maximum 1000-grain weight (231g) was obtained from plants spaced with cm as compared to other row spacing. This might be due to the proper aeration of roots which enhanced its nutrient absorption capacity. These results are in conformity with those of Shah et al. (2001) who reported that maximum 1000 grain weight was recorded at cm row spacing. The reason for highest thousand grain weight in cm row spacing could be due to high light interception and low competition for moisture resulted in high photosynthate accumulation. Plants with les available space faced with tough competition for solar radiation, moisture and nutrients. Azam produced maximum 1000 grain weight (263g), whereas, a minimum 1000-grain weight (173 g) was recorded in variety Pahari. These results are in agreement with those of Muhmmad et al. (2002) who reported that 1000 grain weight was significantly affected by varieties. A significant (P 0.05) variety x row spacing interaction occurred for grain weight. A maximum grain wt (276 g) from Azam variety sown in cm row spacing and a minimum of 163 g were obtained from Pahari sown at 60 cm, respectively Table III. The data on grain yield was significantly affected by row spacing and varieties. It is evident from the data in Table II that a maximum grain yield of 2398 kg ha -1 was obtained from cm row spacing, significantly higher (P 0.05) than that of 60 and Sarhad White cm row spacing. Among varieties maximum grain yield of 2726 kg ha -1 was recorded in Azam. Whereas, a minimum grain yield of 1762 kg ha -1 was obtained from the plots sown with Pahari. The reason may be due to variable genetic characteristics of varieties. Similar results were reported by other researchers (Karim et al., 1995; Muhammad et al., 2002; Nazim et al., 2007) who concluded that Azam variety produced maximum grain yield as compared to Pahari and other varieties of maize tested. Charles (2009) also suggested that improved varieties combined with decreased row spacing can enhance maize yield. Variety by row spacing effect (P 0.05) was also observed for grain yield and variety Azam produced maximum grain yield (26 kg ha -1 ) when planted in cm row spacing. A minimum grain yield (16 kg ha -1 ) was obtained from Pahari variety sown in 97 cm row spacing Table III. Biological yield was significantly affected by row spacing and varieties. A maximum biological yield of 9774 kg ha -1 was produced in cm row spacing, whereas, 60 and Sarhad White cm row spacing produced minimum biological yield Table II. This may be due to the fact that cm row spacing provide better soil micro-environment, interacted with light and other climatic factors to enhance photosynthesis, producing more vegetative growth and thus resulted in extra biological yield. Shah et al. (2001) observed maximum biological yield in cm row spacing.it is obvious from the data that highest biological yield of 10,050 kg ha -1 was recorded in Azam. Lowest biological yield of 9317 kg ha -1 was recorded in Pahari. The reason for faster growth

5 Sarhad J. Agric. Vol.27, No.3, of variety Azam is due to varietal characteristics of the crop. Similar results were reported by Muhammad et al. (2002) and Khan et al. (2008) who observed that biological yield was significantly affected by varieties. A significant (p 0.05) interaction was also observed for biological yield by variety x row spacing. Maximum biological yield (10360 kg ha -1 ) was harvested from Azam variety sown in cm row spacing. Whereas, a minimum biological yield was obtained from Pahari (9227 kg ha -1 ), Jalal (9257 kg ha -1 ) and Sarhad White (92 kg ha -1 ) when sown in cm row spacing, respectively (Table III). Mean values of the data showed that harvest index was significantly affected by row spacing and varieties Table II. In case of row spacing, maximum harvest index of 24.5% was recorded at cm row spacing and a minimum harvest index of 23.5% was obtained from 60 oand Sarhad White cm row spacing Table II. Shah et al. (2001) reported maximum harvest index at cm row spacing. A maximum harvest index 27% was recorded in maize variety Azam. Whereas, a minimum harvest index 18.8% was recorded in maize variety Pahari. These findings are in line with those of Khan (2008) who reported that varieties had a significant effect on harvest indices. Variety x row spacing effect was significant (P 0.05) for harvest index. Maximum harvest index (27.8%) was noted in Azam variety sown in cm row spacing. Whereas, a minimum harvest index (17.9%) was recorded from Pahari variety sown in cm row spacing (Table III). CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS It is inferred that a row spacing of cm gave higher grain yield as compared to 60 and cm row spacing. While among maize varieties, Azam yielded maximum grain production than all the three varieties examined in this study. It is recommended that a row spacing of cm and a high yielding medium maturing variety Azam are the viable options, to enhance grain production in maize to mitigate the food security problems prevailing in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. REFERENCES Ali, M. S.K. Khalil, S. Ayaz and M.I. Marwat Phenological stages, flag leaf areas, plant height and leaves per plant of corn influenced by phosphorus levels and plant spacings. Sarhad J. Agric. 4 (6): Barbieria, P.A., R.S. Rozasa, F.H. Andradea and H.E. Echeverriaa Row spacing effects at different level of nitrogen availability in maize. Agron. J. 92: Charles, O.O Decreased row spacing as an option for increasing maize (Zea mays L.) yield in Trans Nzoia district, Kenya. Plant Breed & Crop Sci. 1(8): Hassan, A.E Performance of three corn cultivars (Zea mays L.) as affected by plant density in Riyadh region. J. Agric. Biol. Sci. 5(2): 1Sarhad White-203. Johnson, G.A., T.R. Hoverstad and R.E. Greenwald Integrated weed management using narrow corn row spacing, herbicides, and cultivation. Agron. J. Sarhad White. (1): Jones, C.A., J.M. Chandler, J.E.. Morrison Jr., S.A. Senseman and C.H. Tingle Glufosinate combinations and row spacing for weed control in glufosinate resistant corn (Zea mays). Weed Tech. 15(1): Karim, F Comparison of seven improved and a local check variety of maize across two locations in Peshawar valley. In Annual Report CCRI, Pirsabak, Nowshera, Pakistan. pp Khan, M.I Response of maize varieties to different nitrogen levels. M.Sc. (Hons) Thesis, Deptt. of Agron. Agric. Univ., Peshawar, Pakistan. Luis, S Influence of row spacing reduction on maize grain yield in regions with a short summer. Pesquisa Agropecuaria Brasileira. 36(6): MINFAL Agric. statistics of Pakistan. Ministry of Food, Agric. & Livest. Govt. of Pakistan, Econ. Wing, Islamabad. pp Modarres, A.M., M. Dijak, R.I. Hamilton, L.M. Dwyer, D.W. Stewart, D.E. Mather and D.L. Smith Leafy reduced stature maize hybrid response to plant population density and planning patterns in a short growing season area. Maydica. 43(3): Muhammad, S., J. Bakht, M.T. Jan, W.A. Shah and N.P. Khan Response of different maize varieties to various NP levels. Sarhad J. Agric. 18 (1): Nazim, H., A.Z. Khan, H. Akbar, N.G. Bangash, Z. Hayat and M. Idrees Response of maize varieties to phosphorus and potassium levels. Sarhad J. Agric. 23 (4): Rehman, H Response of different maize varieties to planting methods. M.Sc. (Hons) Thesis, Deptt. of Agron. Agric. Univ., Peshawar, Pakistan. Shah, S., S. Khan, Z. Muhammad, Y. Hayat and M. Arif Effect of different row spacing and orientations on the performance of maize. Sarhad J. Agric. 17 (4): Steel, R.G.D. and, J.H. Torrie Principle and procedures of statistics. McGraw Hill Book CO. New York, USA.