RESPONSE OF DIFFERENT WHEAT VARIETIES TO VARIOUS ROW SPACING

Transcription

1 Sarhad J. Agric. Vol. 23, No. 4, 2007 RESPONSE OF DIFFERENT WHEAT VARIETIES TO VARIOUS ROW SPACING Jehan Bakht *, Ziaul Qamer *, Mohammad Shafi *, Habib Akber *, Masood-ur-Rahman **, Nazir Ahmad *** and M. Javed Khan **** ABSTRACT An experiment was conducted at Malakanddher Research Farms, NWFP Agricultural University Peshawar during to study the response of different wheat variety to various row spacing. The experiment was laid out in RCB design with split plot arrangements having four replications. Four varieties of wheat (Fakhr-e-Sarhad, Suleman 96, Haider 2000, Saleem 2000 and Khyber 87) and four row spacing (30, 40, 50 and 60 cm) were studied during the course of study. Statistical analysis of the data showed that days to emergence, days to maturity, thousand grain weight, number of grains spike -1, grain yield and stalk yield was significantly (P 0.05) affected by different row spacing. Similarly, plant height, days to heading, number of grains spike -1, grain yield, straw yield and harvest index were significantly (P 0.05) affected by various varieties. The data also revealed significant (P 0.05) effect on grain yield due to interaction between row spacing and varieties. Results indicated that maximum grain yield (3528 kg ha -1 ), number of grains spike -1 (68) and thousand grain weight (45 g) was recorded in those plots where row spacing was kept at 30 cm. Similarly, minimum grain yield (1891 kg ha -1 ) was noted in 60 cm row spacing. Keywords: Row Spacing, Triticum aestivum,, Wheat INTRODUCTION The ultimate yield of wheat crop is controlled by a number of genetic and external factors. An optimum level of single factor will not cause any appreciable increase in the yield itself, but a combination of factors contributes to the ultimate yield of wheat. It is well recognized that by keeping proper row spacing and inputs like varieties, fertilizers and seed rate etc. have an effective role in increasing the yield of crops. Wheat is generally planted by broadcast method by most of the farmers in our country, only progressive farmers and research scientists use line sowing. Nowadays due to infestation of weeds, it has become important to sow the crops in lines with suitable row spacing, which besides facilitating inter-culture and convenient herbicide application for effective and efficient weed control may also help in intercropping and reducing the seed rate per hectare without any adverse effect on the final grain yield. Due to the above mention usefulness of proper row spacing it may be helpful to increase and improve the yield components of wheat crop. There are controversial reports in the literature regarding the role of row spacing in wheat production. Sharma and Thakur (1990) investigated that grain yield was non-significantly affected by sowing wheat either at 22 or 30 cm row spacing. Raj et al. (1992) reported that row spacing (15, 22.5 or 30 cm) had no effect on grain yield but the yields were lower in the wider row spacing (30 cm). Singh and Srivastava (1991) reported that tiller numbers, grains spike -1 and 1000-grain weight increased with increasing row spacing. Dawood (1994) reported that grain yield increased with increasing row spacing. Yoon et al. (1991) concluded that number of spikes m -2 increased with narrow row spacing. Grain yields were highest with the 19 cm row spacing. Fatyga (1991) reported that highest average yields of t ha -1 were obtained with 25 cm row spacing. Rajput et al. (1989) reported that maximum grain yield was obtained when wheat was sown at row spacing of 30 cm. Kumar et al. (1991) reported that higher sowing rates coupled with decrease in row spacing increased the number of tillers m -2 and grain yields. Increases in tillers m -2 were greater in the recommended cultivars than in the long-spike cultivars (L 19 (brown), L 19 (white), L 17 and HP 1671), but the yield increases were higher in the long-spike cultivars because of greater increases in the total number of grains m -2 in these cultivars. Solie et al. (1991) investigated that decreasing row spacing significantly increased wheat yields in cheat-free and cheat-infested fields. Tompkins et al. (1991) reported that grain yield increased as row spacing decreased. Grain weight was slightly higher with wide row spacing. Marko (1994) reported that increases in row spacing decreased grain yield from 6.37 t at a spacing of 0.06 m to 6.09 t ha -1 at 0.15 m. Ercoli and Masoni (1995) reported that aboveground biomass progressively decreased with increasing row spacing. Grain yield progressively decreased as row spacing increased, but was not affected by row orientations. Number * ** *** **** Department of Agronomy, NWFP Agricultural University, Peshawar - Pakistan Department of Agricultural Mechanization, NWFP Agricultural University, Peshawar - Pakistan Department of Animal Nutrition, NWFP Agricultural University, Peshawar - Pakistan Chemistry Section, Agriculture Research Institute, Tarnab, Peshawar - Pakistan

2 Jehan Bakht et al. Response of different wheat variety to various row spacing 840 of spikes m -2 was the yield component most affected by row spacing. Srivastava et al. (1996) reported that grain yield was not affected by row spacing. Fonts et al. (1997) studied that grain yield decreased linearly with increase in row spacing. Mortality increased with increasing row spacing. Ogunlela et al. (2000) investigated that row spacing did not influence grain and straw yields, grain weight, spikelets spike -1 and spike length but wider rows enhanced productive tillers and grains spike -1. Keeping in view the importance of row spacing, the present experiment was conducted study the response of different wheat variety to various row spacing. MATERIALS AND METHODS To study the response of different wheat variety to various row spacing, an experiment was conducted at Malakandher Research Farms, NWFP Agricultural University, Peshawar during The experiment was laid out in randomize complete block design with split plot arrangement. The experiment was replicated four times having net sub plot size of 3 m x 3 m. The following treatments were studied during the course of experiment. The experiment was conducted during the first week of November 2004 at proper moisture condition and applied with NPK ka ha -1. A: (Main plot): i. Fakhr-e-sarhad ii. Sulemen 96 iii. Haider 2000 iv. Saleem 2000 v. Khyber 87 B: Row Spacing (sub plot) i. 30cm ii. 40cm iii. 50cm iv. 60cm The following parameters were studied during the course of the study: i. Days to emergence ii. Days to heading iii. Days to maturity iv. Plant height v. Number of grains spike -1 vi. Thousand grains weight (g) vii. Straw yield (kg ha -1 ) viii. Grain yield (kg ha -1 ) ix. Harvest index (%) Data on days to emergence was recorded by counting the number of days from the date of sowing till when 80% of the plants got emerged. Days to heading data was recorded by counting number of days from the date of sowing till when 50% of spikes were produced by crop. Ten representative spikes in each sub plot were selected, threshed and then grains were counted to record data on grains spike -1. One thousand grains in each treatment were taken from the threshed clean grains and then weighed by electronic balance to note data on 1000 grain weight. Ten plants in each sub plot were randomly selected and their height was measured from the base of the plant to the tip of the spike. Days to maturity was recorded by counting the number of days from date of sowing till when 50% of the plants were matured. Grain yield was recorded after threshing and thoroughly cleaning the grains in each sub plot and then converted into kg ha -1. Straw yield in each treatment was calculated and then converted in to kg ha -1. Harvest index was calculated according to the following formula. Harvest index(%)=economic yield 100 Biological yield The data was statistically analyzed according to the method appropriate for RCB design. Upon obtaining significant differences, least significant difference (LSD) test was employed (Steel and Torrie, 1980). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Days to emergence Data recorded on days to emergence are presented are Table I. Statistical analysis of the data showed that row spacing had a significant (P 0.05) effect on days to emergence while varieties and their interaction with row spacing had a no-significant effect. Analysis of the revealed that maximum days to emergence (13.56) were noted in plots of 40 cm row spacing while minimum days to emergence (11.90) were recorded in plants having 60 cm row spacing. Maximum days to emergence were observed in those plots which were sown with Fakher-e-Sarhad (13.43) followed by Khyber 87 (13.26 days) and minimum days to emergence were taken by Saleem 2000 (12.05 days). Days to headings Statistical analysis of the data indicated that varieties had a significant (P 0.05) effect on days to headings (Table II). The effect of row spacing and interactive effects of varieties and row spacing was non-significant. Maximum days to headings (110 days) were noted in plots with row spacing of

3 Sarhad J. Agric. Vol. 23, No. 4, , 50 or 60 cm while minimum days to headings were noted in plots having row spacing of 40 cm. Mean value of the data indicates that maximum days to headings (113) were taken by Suleman 96 followed by Khyber 87 (112 days) and Haider 2000 (110 days). Analysis of the data also indicates that minimum days to headings (106 days) were taken by Saleem Days to maturity Statistical analysis of the data revealed that row spacing had a significant (p 0.05) effect on days to maturity (Table III). The effects of varieties and their interaction with row spacing were nonsignificant. Analysis of the data revealed that maximum days to maturity (139.8 days) were observed in those plots where row spacing was kept at 60 cm and minimum days to maturity (137.4 days) were noted in plots having row spacing of 30 cm. Mean value of the data indicates that maximum days to maturity (140.8 days) were taken by Suleman 96, followed by Khyber 87 (140.4 days). Minimum days to maturity (136.8) were taken by Saleem Plant Height Statistical analysis of the data showed that varieties had a significant (P 0.05) effect on plant height. While the effect of row spacing and their varieties and row spacing was non-significant (Table IV). Analysis of the data indicated that maximum plant height of cm was attained by plots having row spacing of 50 cm while minimum plant height of cm was obtained from plots having row spacing of 30 cm. Similar results are also reported by Rajput et el. (1989). They reported that plant height was increased with increase in row spacing. Mean value of the data also showed that maximum plant height of cm was recorded by Fakhr-e- Sarhad whereas minimum plant height (83.18 cm) was produced by Saleem Number of Grains Spike -1 Data recorded on number of grains spike -1 is presented in Table V. Statistical analysis of the data revealed that row spacing had a significant (P < 0.05) effect on number of grains spike -1 while varieties and their interaction with row spacing had a non-significant effect. Maximum number of grains spike -1 (67.80) were obtained from those plots where row spacing was kept at 30 cm and minimum number of grains spike -1 (59.72) were obtained from plots where row spacing was 60 cm. These results agree with those reported by Singh and Srivastava (1991). Maximum number of grains spike -1 (65.80) was obtained from Haider 2000 which was at par with plots seeded with Suleman 96 and Saleem Analysis of the data also showed that minimum number of grains spike -1 (62.57) was produced by Fakher-e-Sarhad. Thousand grain weight Data regarding 1000 grains weight is presented in Table VI. Analysis of the data revealed row spacing had a significant (p 0.05) effect on 1000 grain weight while row spacing and their interaction with varieties had a non-significant effect. Analysis of the data indicates that maximum 1000 grain weight of g was produced by those plots which were sown with row spacing of 30 cm while minimum 1000 grain weight was noted in plots sown with row spacing of 50 cm. The data also showed that maximum 1000 grain weight was produced by Fakher-e-Sarhad whereas minimum 1000 grain weight was recorded by Saleem Straw yield Data concerning straw yield is presented in Table VII. Statistical analysis of the data indicated that row spacing had a significant (P 0.05) effect on straw yield while varieties and their interaction with row spacing had a non significant effect. Analysis of the data revealed that maximum straw yield of 5809 kg ha -1 was noted in those plots where row spacing was kept at 30 cm and minimum straw yield of 2545 kg ha -1 was obtained from plot having row spacing of 60 cm. Though the effect of varieties was non significant, however, maximum straw yield of 4278 kg ha -1 was obtained from plots sown with Fakhre-e-Sarhad while minimum straw yield (3879 kg ha -1 ) was observed in plots seeded with Khyber 87. Grains yield Data regarding grain yield is presented in Table VIII. Analysis of the data indicated that row spacing and their interaction with varieties had a significant (P 0.05) effect on grain yield while the effect of varieties was non-significant. Analysis of the data indicates that maximum grain yield of 3528 kg ha -1 was obtained in those plots where row spacing kept at 30 cm while minimum in plots sown with 60 cm. Similarly, maximum grain yield of 2743 kg ha -1 was obtained from plots sown with Saleem-2000 which was at par with plots seeded with Fakhr-e-Sarhad (2730 kg ha -1 ). These results agree with the finding of Fonts et al. (1997) who reported that grain yield decreased with increase in row spacing.

4 Jehan Bakht et al. Response of different wheat variety to various row spacing 842 Harvest index Data recorded on harvest index is shown in Table IX. Analysis of the data showed that varieties had a significant effect on harvest index. The effect of row spacing and interaction with varieties was non significant. Analysis of the data indicated that maximum index value of 32.57% was noted in plots having row spacing of 30 cm while minimum harvest index value of 31.21% was obtained from plots having row spacing of 40 cm. Highest harvest index of 37.53% was observed in plots sown with Saleem-2000 followed by Haider-2000 with harvest index value of 32.64% while the lowest harvest index value of 28.05% was recorded in Suleman-96. Similar results were also reported by Silva and Gomes (1990). CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS It can be concluded from these results that wheat variety Fakhre-e-Sarhad performed better than the other cultivars under study with respect to yield and yield components. Similarly, when sown under different row spacing, 30 cm row apart was superior to other row spacing. Table I: Effect of different variety and various row spacing on days to emergence of wheat ab a ab b Means LSD value at P < 0.05 for row spacing = Table II: Effect of different variety and various row spacing on days to heading of wheat Means 108b c 113 a 110 ab 106 c 112 a LSD value at P < 0.05 for varieties = Table III: Effect of different variety and various row spacing on days to maturity of wheat Row Spacing Fakher-e- Sarhad Suleman 96 Haider 2000 Saleem 2000 Khyber 87 Means c bc ab a Means LSD value at P < 0.05 for row spacing = Mean values of the same category followed by different letters are significant at P < 0.05.

5 Sarhad J. Agric. Vol. 23, No. 4, Table IV: Effect of different variety and various row spacing on plant height of wheat Row Spacing Fakher e- Suleman Haider Saleem Khyber 87 Means Sarhad Means a 90.91ab a b ab LSD value at P < 0.05 for varieties = Table V: Effect of different variety and various row spacing on number of grains spike -1 of wheat Means LSD value at P < 0.05 for row spacing = Table VI: Effect of different variety and various row spacing on 1000 grains weight of wheat a b c d Means LSD value at P < 0.05 for row spacing = 0.85 Table VII: Effect of different variety and various row spacing on straw yield (kg ha -1 ) of wheat Means LSD value at P < 0.05 for row spacing = 719 Mean values of the same category followed by different letters are significant at P < 0.05.

6 Jehan Bakht et al. Response of different wheat variety to various row spacing 844 Table VIII: Effect of different variety and various row spacing on grain yield (kg ha -1 ) of wheat Row Spacing Fakher-e- Sarhad Suleman 96 Haider 2000 Saleem 2000 Khyber 87 Means a cd bc ab a a ef de fg cd ef b gh hi hi gh gh c j j ij j j d Means LSD value at P < 0.05 for row spacing = LSD value at P < 0.05 for interaction = Table IX: Effect of different variety and various row spacing on harvest index (%) of wheat Means b c b a c LSD Value at P < 0.05 for varieties Mean values of the same category followed by different letters are significant at P < REFERENCES Dawood, R.A Effect of row spacing and timing of nitrogen application on the yield, yield components and some technological properties of wheat grains (Triticum aestivum, L.). Assiut J. Agric. Sci. 25: Ercoli, L. and A. Masoni Effects of row spacing and orientation on yield and yield components of winter wheat. Agricoltura Mediterranea 125: Fatyga, J Effect of different nitrogen fertilizer application rates and row spacing on the quantity and quality of buckwheat yields. Roczniki Nauk Rolniczych. Seria A Produkcja Roslinna. 109: Fonts, J.R.M., M.A. de Souza, A.A. Cardosa, C.D. Cruz and M.A.de Souza Effect of spacing and sowing rate on yield and other agronomic characteristics of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Revista Ceres 44: Kumar, A., A.K. Sinha, B.P. Sinha, K.M.P. Singh and S.S. Thakur Response of wheat genotypes to seed rates and row spacing. Indian J. Agron. 36: Marko, F Effects of row spacing and seed rates on grain yield and properties of winter wheat seed. Rostlinna Vyroba. 40: Ogunlela, V.B., V.O. Chude and S. Negedu Response of two irrigated wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) varieties to row spacing and nitrogen supply: yield, yield components and N uptake. Tropenlandwirt. 101: Raj, S., S. Diwan, V.U. Rao, R. Singh and D. Singh Effect of date of sowing and row spacing on the yield of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Crop Res. Hisar. 5: Rajput, F.K.M., A.S. Arain, M.J. Rajput, S.M. Alam and A.W. Baloch The growth and yield of wheat as affected by different seed rates and row spacing. Sarhad J. Agric. 5: Sharma, R.R. and R.C. Thakur Effects of seed rates, row spacing and soil moisture conservation practices on rainfed wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Himachal J. Agric. Res. 16: 1-5. Silva, D.B. and A.C. Gomes Spacing and sowing density in irrigated wheat in the cerrado region. Pesquisa Agropecuaria Brasileira. 25:

7 Sarhad J. Agric. Vol. 23, No. 4, Singh, R.B. and R.K. Srivastava Influence of different spacing on the yield of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). New Agric. 1: Solie, J.B., S.G. Solomon, K.P. Self, T.F. Peeper and J.A. Koscelny Reduced row spacing for improved wheat yields in weed-free and weedinfested fields. Transactions of the ASAE 34: Srivastava, U.S.L., R. Paltoo, P. Om, P. Ram and O. Prakash Response of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) to row spacing, seed rate and fertilizer. Indian J. Agron. 41: Steel, R.G.D. and J.H. Torrie Principles and procedures of statistics. McGraw Hill Book Co. Inc. New York. Tompkins, D.K., G.E. Hultgjreen, A.T. Wright and D.B. Fowler Seed rate and row spacing of notill winter wheat. Agron. J. 83: Yoon, E.B., Y.H. Yoon, Y.U. Kwon, K.B. Youn and M.G.Shin Studies on fertilizer level, row spacing and sowing rate using the plot drill seeder in winter wheat. Res. Reports of the Rural Dev. Administration. Upland and Industrial Crops. 33:

8 Jehan Bakht et al. Response of different wheat variety to various row spacing 846