thesis s. alam

EFFECTS OF DEFICIT IRRIGATION ON YIELD AND WATER

PRODUCTIVITY OF MAIZE

A THESIS

BY

SK. SHAMSHUL ALAM KAMAR

Examination Roll No. 10 IWM JD 04 M

Registration No. 32441

Session: 2005–2006

Semester: July–December 2011

MASTER OF SCIENCE

(AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING)

IN

IRRIGATION AND WATER MANAGEMENT

DEPARTMENT OF IRRIGATION AND WATER MANAGEMENT

BANGLADESH AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY

MYMENSINGH2202

DECEMBER 2011



A THESIS

BY




Session: 2005–2006


A Thesis Submitted to:

The Department of Irrigation and Water Management

Faculty of Agricultural Engineering & Technology

Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh

in partial fulfillment of the requirement

for the degree

of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

(AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING)

IN

IRRIGATION AND WATER MANAGEMENT

DEPARTMENT OF IRRIGATION AND WATER MANAGEMENT

BANGLADESH AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY

MYMENSINGH2202

DECEMBER 2011



A THESIS

BY




Session: 2005–2006


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

Bangladesh Agricultural University

Mymensingh–2202, Bangladesh

DECEMBER 2011

i

ABSTRACT

This study was conducted in the experimental farm of Bangladesh Agricultural

University (BAU) to demonstrate the experimental evidence of the effects of deficit

irrigation on yield and water use efficiency (WUE)/water productivity of maize

during December 2010 – April 2011. There were two factors: irrigation and variety.

Irrigation had five treatments − 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 and I4: irrigation at IW/CPE = 1.0.

There were three maize varieties − V1: BARI hybrid maize 5 (BHM−5), V2: BARI

hybrid maize 7 (BHM−7) and V3: Pacific 984. The experiment was laid out in a split

plot design with three replications. The irrigation treatments were employed in the

main plots and the varietal treatments were distributed in the sub-plots. Maize was

grown with three irrigations applied at 43, 63 and 83 days after sowing (DAS) and

recommended standard fertilizer doses. There was no significant (α = 0.05) effect of

irrigation and varietal treatments on the grain yield of maize. Treatment I4 produced

the highest grain yield (9.30 t ha−1

) and I0 produced the lowest yield (7.62 t ha−1

).

Pacific 984 produced the highest grain yield (8.60 t ha−1

) and BHM−7 produced the

lowest yield (7.31 t ha−1

). The interaction effect between irrigation and varieties

exerted significant impact on grain yield. The interaction between I4 and V3 (I4V3)

gave the best combination for the highest grain yield (9.31 t ha−1

) and that between

I0 and V2 (I0V2) gave the lowest yield (6.34 t ha−1

). The irrigation and varietal

treatments employed different degrees of influence; some attributes differed

significantly while others differed insignificantly. The water use efficiency differed

significantly among the irrigation treatments but insignificantly among the varietal

treatments. In case of interaction effects, WUE differed significantly. The maximum

stressed treatment (Io) provided the highest WUE and the maximum irrigated

treatment (I4) provided the lowest WUE.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

At the outset, the author wishes to express his deepest sense of gratitude to Almighty Allah, Whose boundless blessings enabled him to successfully complete the research work and prepare this thesis. The author takes this opportunity to express his profound appreciation and heartfelt gratitude to his 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 thesis. Thanks are extended to Mr. Syed Shams Tabriz, Scientific Officer, Bangladesh Sugarcane Research Institute, Mr. Sujit Kumar Biswas, Senior Scientific Officer, Irrigation and Water Management Division, Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute, Gazipur and Mr. A.B.M. Zahid Hossain, Senior Scientific Officer, Irrigation and Water Management Division, Bangladesh Rice Research Institute, Gazipur, for their time-to-time co-operation, advice and suggestions throughout this research work. Special thanks are extended to my friends - Rony, Suruj, Moudud, Arup and Rana, for their co-operation during the research work. The author is grateful to all the laboratory technicians of the Department of Irrigation and Water Management, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh, for their sincere co-operation in completion of this work. The major research expenses for this study were met from the BAURES project No. 2010/34/BAU. A partial funding support was provided from the VLIR - BAU - ILQW Project of the supervisor. A number of equipments donated by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, Germany, were used in different measurements. The author gratefully acknowledges all these contributions in conducting the research. Above all, the author reserves his boundless gratitude and indebtedness to his family members for their patience, sacrifices and constant encouragement for successful completion of the research work and the thesis.

THE AUTHOR

iii

CONTENTS

ITEMS PAGE

ABSTRACT i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ii

CONTENTS iii

LIST OF TABLES vi

LIST OF FIGURES vii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS viii

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1−7

1.1 Origin and history of maize 2

1.2 Nutritive value of maize 2

1.3 Varieties grown in Bangladesh 3

1.4 Climate and soil for maize cultivation 3

1.5 Area under maize cultivation 3

1.6 Irrigation requirement for maize cultivation 6

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE 8−12

2.1 Irrigation on maize production 8

2.2 Irrigation and fertilizer interaction on maize production 11

CHAPTER III MATERIALS AND METHODS 13−20

3.1 Experimental site 13

3.2 Weather and climate 13

3.3 Procurement of seed and fertilizers 13

3.4 Experimental design 14

3.5 Land preparation and field layout 15

3.6 Fertilizer application 15

3.7 Sowing of seeds 15

3.8 Intercultural operations 17

3.8.1 Weeding and thinning 17

3.8.2 Quantification and application of irrigation 17

3.8.3 Plant protection 18

3.9 Harvesting and data recording 18

3.10 Harvest index 19

3.11 Water use efficiency 19

3.12 Data analysis 20

iv

CONTENTS (contd.)

ITEMS PAGE

CHAPTER IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 21−34

4.1 Effect of irrigation on growth and yield parameters 21

4.1.1 Plant height 21

4.1.2 Number of cobs per plant 21

4.1.3 Cob length and perimeter 22

4.1.4 Cover and shell yields 22

4.1.5 Number of grain per cob 23

4.1.6 100-grain weight 23

4.2 Effect of irrigation on yield 23

4.2.1 Grain yield 23

4.2.2 Straw yield 24

4.2.3 Biological yield 24

4.3 Effect of irrigation on harvest index and water use

efficiency 25

4.3.1 Harvest index 25

4.3.2 Water use efficiency 26

4.4 Effect of varieties on growth and yield parameters 26







4.5 Effect of varieties on yield 27




4.6 Effect of varieties on harvest index and water use

efficiency 29



4.7 Interaction effect between irrigation and varieties on

growth and yield parameters 29




v

CONTENTS (contd.)

ITEMS PAGE




4.8 Interaction effect between irrigation and varieties on yield 32




4.9 Interaction effect between irrigation and varieties on

harvest index and water use efficiency 33



CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 35–36

5.1 Conclusions 35

5.2 Recommendations 36

REFERENCES 37−43

vi

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE NO TITLE PAGE NO

1.1 Production cost, yield and return of major cereals in

Bangladesh

1

1.2 Area under maize cultivation in different districts of

Bangladesh

4

3.1 Summary of calculation of irrigation water need for

different treatments at different irrigation events

17

4.1 Growth and yield parameters under different

irrigation treatments

22

4.2 Yield under different irrigation treatments 24

4.3 Harvest index (HI) and water use efficiency for

grain (WUEg) and biomass (WUEb) production

under different irrigation treatments

25

4.4 Growth and yield parameters under three different

varieties of maize

26

4.5 Yield under different varietal treatments 28


grain (WUEg) and biomass (WUEb) production

under different varietal treatments

29

4.7 Growth and yield parameters of maize under the

interaction of three maize varieties and five

irrigation treatments

31

4.8 Yield under different irrigation−variety interaction

treatments

33


grain (WUEg) and biomass (WUEb) production of

maize under the interaction of different varieties

and irrigation treatments

34

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE NO TITLE PAGE NO

1.1 Area and production of maize in Bangladesh by year 5

3.1 Field layout of the experiment 16

viii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

BHM : BARI Hybrid Maize

BARI : Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute

BAU : Bangladesh Agricultural University

BBS : Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics

CIMMYT : International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center

CPE : Cumulative Pan Evaporation

DAS : Days After Sowing

IW : Irrigation Water applied

Introduction

1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Maize (zea mays L.) is one of the main cereal crops in Bangladesh. It is a

multipurpose crop and has been accepted by the farmers of Bangladesh as an

important cereal crop. Its growth in recent years has increased faster than any other

crop in Bangladesh, probably due to its year round production, higher yield and

less susceptible to high temperature and other natural hazards. The intensive

efforts of researchers, seed producing agencies, breeders and extension agents in

association with international cooperation from institute like CIMMYT have made

it possible to take the crop to the farmers’ door step of Bangladesh.

In Bangladesh, maize is being cultivated for a long time, but still it is a minor crop.

Periodic attempts were made previously to accelerate maize production. During

the last decade, maize has gained an increasingly important attention by the

government. This is mainly due to its huge demand for poultry feed industries,

fodder and fuel. From maize, 0.55 Mt of fodder and 0.27 Mt of fuel were produced

(Ahmed, 1994). 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. It appears that maize is

more profitable than other cereal crops (Table 1.1). So, the researchers,

government and farmers have to give more emphasis on maize cultivation.

Table 1.1. Production cost, yield and return of major cereals in Bangladesh

Item Maize Wheat Rice

1. Total cost (Tk ha1

) 33988 22968 34974

2. Gross return (Tk ha─1

) 50112 26912 46284

3. Net return (Tk ha─1

) 16124 3944 11310

4. Benefit-cost-ratio (BCR) 1.47 1.17 1.325

5. Grain yield (t ha─1

) 7.71 3.26 7.41

6. Sale price (Tk kg─1

) 6.49 8.24 6.26

(Source: Thakur, 1980; Chowdhury and Islam, 1993)

Introduction

2

As one of the three most important cereal species (after rice and wheat), maize is

grown in a range of environments. It is a basic food grain in many areas and

several cultures. The total sowing area, production and yield of maize in 2002

were 13.88 Mha, 60.26 Mt and 4.34 t ha-1

, respectively (FAO, 2002). The

Production Yearbook also reported that a major shift in global demand in cereal is

underway, and by 2020, demand for maize in developing countries is expected to

exceed the demand for both wheat and rice. Maize is preferred for its multiple

purposes as human food, animal feed, and pharmaceutical and industrial

manufacturing. Over the past 40 years, the global total acreage for maize

production has increased by 40% and production has doubled.

1.1 Origin and history of maize

It is known that maize was cultivated systematically by the American Indians,

from Chile to Virginia, from Brazil to California, several centuries before the

Maya Civilization. In 1492, Columbus discovered cultivated maize in Haiti, where

it was known as “MAHIZ”, a name perhaps originating from the Maya people

responsible for its diffusion. Maize was introduced into Spain by Columbus, but

the first attempt of its cultivation only took place some 40 years later. When the

cultivation of maize was unknown in Europe among majority of agriculturists, a

part of students and botanists, the Portuguese introduced its use to Guinea and

Congo, from where it has become the staple grain crop for much of Sub-Saharan

Africa. In Europe, towards 1550, its cultivation spread from Spain to France and

Italy. Towards the end of the same century, Venetian merchants introduced it to

the neighboring Balkan States, Turkey and Egypt. At about the same time, it was

also introduced in China.

1.2 Nutritive value of maize

Maize plays a significant role in human and livestock nutrition worldwide. Its

grain has high nutritive value containing 66.2% starch, 11.1% protein, 7.1% oil

and 1.5% minerals. Moreover, it contains 90 g carotene, 1.8 mg niacin, 0.9 mg

thiamin and 0.1 mg riboflavin in pure 100 g grains (Thakur, 1980; Chowdhury and

Introduction

3

Islam, 1993). From nutritional point of view, maize carries all necessary

components that are required for human body. Maize has more nutritional value

than rice and is equivalent to wheat.

1.3 Maize varieties grown in Bangladesh

Now-a-days, a good number of maize varieties are available in Bangladesh; most

of them are hybrid 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.

1.4 Climate and soil for maize cultivation

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 − 29°C is favorable for its growth. Maize

grows best in a warm climate and is now grown in most of the countries that have

suitable climatic conditions. Its growth depends more on high summer

temperatures than on a high mean temperature. It ripens in a short hot summer and

withstands extreme heat. A large amount of water is needed during the growth of

maize. Its average maturing period is relatively short that makes it possible to grow

at fairly high latitudes.

1.5 Area under maize cultivation

In Bangladesh, 113700 t of hybrid maize was produced in an area of 0.174 Mha

(Table 1.2) (BBS, 2009). Maize production in Bangladesh started increasing

gradually from 1997 to 2008 (Fig. 1.1) due to its higher profitability than other

cereal crops. But, its production reduced drastically in 2008−2009, possibly due to

the affection of farmers to other crops (BBS, 2009).

Introduction

4

Table 1.2. Area under maize cultivation in different districts of Bangladesh

(Area in hectare and production in metric tons)

Districts 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005

Area Prod Area Prod Area Prod Area Prod Area Prod

Bandarban 3.80 205 4.20 220 4.15 180 4.15 180 2.95 110

Chittagong 1.45 175 1.50 200 1.55 215 1.15 170 1.05 135

Comilla 0.45 45 8.00 355 5.40 55 5.75 90 44.95 7595

Noakhali 0.30 55 2.05 360

Rangamati 43.55 2005 47.25 2065 54.35 2385 56.20 2445 57.55 2645

Sylhet 0.60 10 0.80 25 16.30 525 1.25 220

Dhaka 18.10 2895 60.85 8910 62.55 9560 135.10 21865 164.45 34930

Faridpur 5.35 450 5.75 490 3.90 235 3.95 240 4.15 265

Jamalpur 1.75 95 1.45 115 1.40 85 3.80 300 13.50 3355

Kishoregonj 2.05 240 2.95 295 2.85 260 3.05 260 13.45 1570

Mymensingh 1.05 35 6.10 320 6.90 370 7.30 390 2.85 580

Tangail 2.35 150 7.45 735 7.35 655 10.45 1255 9.60 1970

Jessore 1.60 215 10.35 1330 15.75 2920 56.10 10935 59.70 11610

Khulna 0.30 40 1.20 295 0.65 150 0.80 115 2.55 560

Kushtia 4.40 385 154.25 28585 168.95 32305 428.40 114445 429.30 101115

Patuakhali 0.35 20 0.40 25 0.40 30 0.60 65

Bogra 8.00 490 68.35 4365 172.50 39050 169.70 38180 207.85 51030

Dinajpur 10.20 860 16.00 1470 95.55 13300 164.90 24060 192.20 41415

Pabna 1.00 160 2.70 460 3.25 515 20.25 3890 24.35 5525

Rajshahi 5.20 210 16.65 1665 28.55 2640 32.85 3155 96.45 14110

Rangpur 8.00 1600 69.70 12125 73.00 11680 104.65 17250 308.60 75420

Khagrachari 2.40 65 7.35 335 7.80 615 10.45 1610 10.70 1600

Barisal 3.0 30 0.50 30 0.45 30 0.25 15 0.60 95

Bangladesh 124 10350 493.50 64335 718.05 117255 1035.30 241460 1650.70 356280

(Source: BBS, 2005)

Introduction

5

0

50

100

150

200

250

Fiscal Year

Are

a (

'000' h

a)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

Pro

du

cti

on

('0

00' m

to

n)

Production 2 3 1 5 20 29 50 68 100 151 223 128

Area 3 3 1 10 64 117 241 356 523 902 1346 730

1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09

Fig. 1.1. Area and production of maize in Bangladesh by year

Introduction

6

1.6 Irrigation requirement for maize cultivation

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 for improving crop profitability. Like many crops grown under irrigation, high

yielding maize crops require soil moisture monitoring to schedule irrigations. This

would ensure that water can be applied at the right time to eliminate any moisture

stress that would adversely affect yield and net returns. Irrigation requirements vary at

different growth stages of maize and need to be calculated on the basis of root zone

depth.

Crop yield response to irrigation, called the crop-water production function, is

important for crop selection, economic analysis and for practicing effective irrigation

management strategies. If water is limited, it is important to know how to schedule

irrigations to optimize yields, water use efficiency and ultimately, profits. Several

studies have shown significant effect of stress timing on maize yield (Robins and

Domingo, 1953; Denmead and Shaw, 1960; Claassen and Shaw, 1970; Downey,

1971; Jurgens et al., 1978; Bryant et al., 1992; NeSmith and Ritchie, 1992; Jama and

Ottman, 1993). Other studies have developed mathematical models to quantify this

effect (Jensen, 1968; Nairizi and Rydzewski, 1977; Doorenbos and Kassam, 1979;

Meyer et al., 1993a, b). Several other studies, however, have suggested that maize

yield is just a linear function of seasonal evapotranspiration or transpiration (Robins

and Domingo, 1953; Hanks, 1974; Hanks et al., 1976; Barrett and Skogerboe, 1978;

Gilley et al., 1980; Schneekloth et al., 1991; Stone, 2003; Klocke et al., 2004). These

studies suggest that if grain yield is linearly related to evapotranspiration, then the

effect of water stress on yield would depend on the magnitude in which stress affects

seasonal evapotranspiration. Some of the results of the studies evaluating the effect of

stress timing on maize yield, however, have been confounded by the fact that, in

many cases, the applied irrigation treatments varied both in timing and seasonal

Introduction

7

irrigation depth. This study investigated how water stress-induced responses of

growth and yield attributes and water use efficiency (WUE) were regulated at

different growth stages of maize when the plants were applied with deficit irrigation.

Objectives

The objectives of this study were:

1. to investigate the affiliation between yield and water use of maize,

2. to evaluate the effects of deficit irrigation on the growth and yield of maize,

and

3. to study the interaction effect of different levels of irrigation and varieties on

the yield and yield contributing characters of maize.

Review of Literature

8

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Innovations aimed at increasing efficient use of irrigation water must be developed

to expand irrigated agriculture with limited water resources. Among the means to

survive the consequences of water scarcity and yet to sustain higher crop production

under irrigated agriculture with decreasing share of water, deficient irrigation

programs are highly valued and their adoption is widely promoted. However, to

ensure that the same level of crop yields as in full irrigation can still be achieved

with deficient irrigation, experience regarding crop yield response to deficient

irrigation programs must be gained. Many researchers investigated various aspects

of irrigation on the yield and yield contributing characters of maize at different

places of the world. A literature search was done to collect existing information

regarding the effects of irrigation on the production of maize from different national

and international publications. The information gathered on various aspects of

different levels of irrigation on maize production has been reviewed in this chapter.

2.1 Irrigation on maize production

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. Crap 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−1

(without irrigation) to 9.23 t ha−1

(with irrigation). In a field trial on maize at

Hebbal of Banglore in India during 1996 summer 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−1

grain yields at IW/CPE ratio of 0.6 and 0.8, respectively. Applying irrigation

water at IW/CPE ratio of 1.2, 0.9 and 0.6, Bandyopadhyay and Mallik (1996) found


9

that increasing irrigation water raised grain yield of maize. The highest yield of 7.23

t ha−1

was obtained by IW/CPE ratio of 1.2. Henfer and Tracy (1995) also reported

that increasing irrigation enhanced the grain yield of maize. Kritov (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. Lyle and Bordovsky (1995)

investigated the effect of water stress on the yield of maize and reported that grain

yield increased from 9.3 to 12.4 t ha−1

with the increasing average seasonal

irrigation water application from 147 to 428 mm. Conducting long term experiments

(1973−1989) on maize with and without irrigation treatments Eneva (1995) found

5.23 t ha−1

grain yield without irrigation and 12.50, 12.03 and 10.97 t ha−1

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−1

, respectively (Zhirkov,

1995). This investigator reported that grain yield reduced from 11.68 to 10.26 t ha−1

due to the reduction of irrigation water from 20 to 40%. 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−1

in the irrigation treatments; the yield was

0 to 92% lower in the control treatment.

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. Cosculleula and Faci (1992) obtained 10.71 t ha−1

grain

yields with 592 mm irrigation and 10.30 t ha−1

without irrigation.

Bao et al. (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


10

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.

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. Irrigating maize at

IW/CPE ratios of 0.6, 0.8 and 1.0, Sridhar and Singh (1989) found increased the

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

3.12 t ha−1

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−1

with the increased IW/CPE ratios. 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−1

for with and without irrigation, respectively. In an experiment,

Islam et al. (1980) obtained the highest grain yield of 5.94 t ha−1

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−1

when irrigation was

applied most frequently. 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−1

, 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. Milic

(1967) investigated the effect of irrigation on maize yields and reported the highest

grain yields of 6.4 and 5.2 t ha−1

obtained by applying irrigation at 65% and 70% of

field capacity, respectively. Petrunin (1966) found that without irrigation, the yield

of maize was 4.3 t ha−1

and four irrigations elevated the yield to 10.80 t ha−1

. Further


11

irrigation resulted in only slight increase in yield. The 1000-grain weight also

increased from 221 to 270 g.

2.2 irrigation and fertilizer interaction on maize production

Bucur et al. (2005) conducted an experiment on the effect of long-term fertilization

and irrigation on wheat and maize yield. In maize, irrigation at the rates of 4 and 6

cm resulted in yield increase of 27 and 35%, respectively. They observed increased

efficiency of irrigation water when irrigation rates were low and applied at critical

stages of the growing period. Shirazi et al. (2000) investigated 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−1

. The highest yield of 4.73

t ha-1

was found with the application of 40 cm irrigation and 100 kg N ha−1

; this

yield was 22.5% higher over the control. Pandey et al. (2000) evaluated the effects

of deficit irrigation and nitrogen on maize production. They found that increasing

moisture stress resulted in decreased plant height and shoot dry-matter. Mean

increase in the above ground biomass was 7.70 and 8.70 kg mm−1

of water use in

the seasons of 1996−1997 and 1997−1998, respectively.

In an experiment, Huang et al. (1999) evaluated the effect of irrigation and fertilizer

application to summer maize; the maize consumed 48 cm water. Application of N

and P2O5 at 175 and 145 kg ha−1

, respectively over the season produced maize yield

of 9.45 t ha−1

and water use efficiency of 190 kg ha−1

cm−1

. Rajendran and

Sumdersingh (1999) studied the effect of irrigation regimes and N rate on yield,

water use efficiency and quality of baby corn. Their results revealed that yield, total

water requirement and crude protein percentage were higher when irrigation was

scheduled at IW/CPE ratio of 1.0. The yield and yield contributing characters of

maize were significantly affected due to the application of irrigation and nitrogen.

Talukder et al. (1999) obtained the highest grain yield of 6.77 t ha−1

with IW/CPE

ratio of 0.50, and 5.61 t ha−1

by the application of 70 kg N ha−1

. The IW/CPE ratio

of 0.50 and 70 kg N ha−1

were found the best combination for optimum yield of

maize. In an experiment of Tyagi et al. (1998) maize was irrigated at IW/CPE ratios


12

of 0.2, 0.4 and 0.6 and fertilized with 0, 75, 150 and 225 kg N ha−1

. They found that

the yield increased with increasing irrigation and N rates. Bharati et al. (1997)

irrigated maize based on IW/CPE ratios of 0.50 and 0.75 and fertilized with

application of 75, 125 and 175 kg N ha−1

. They found that grain yield was higher

with irrigation at IW/CPE of 0.75 and increased with irrigation and N rate. Selvaraju

and Iruthayaraj (1993) evaluated the effect of irrigation and nitrogen on the maize

yield. They applied different ratios of IW and CPE and obtained the highest grain

yield with irrigation at IW/CPE ratio of 0.75 and with increasing rate of nitrogen.

Silva et al. (1992) investigated the effect of irrigation water and nitrogen levels on

the yield of maize. A total of 109 to 753 mm water and 0 to 240 kg N ha−1 was

applied. They reported that grain yield increased with increasing irrigation water and

nitrogen levels. The highest grain yield of 8.95 t ha−1

was obtained with 160 kg N

ha−1

and 753 mm of water. The lowest grain yield (1.25 t ha−1

) was obtained with

109 mm of irrigation water and without nitrogen fertilizer. EI-Noemani et al. (1990)

evaluated the effect of irrigation regimes and nitrogen levels on the performance of

maize. They reported that water stress reduced plant height, ear yield, 100-grain

weight and number of ears per plant. Ear yield and 1000-grain weight increased up

to 285 kg N ha−1

and irrigation applied at 12 days interval. Bajwa et al. (1987)

applied 0, 85 and 170 kg N ha−1

with an irrigation norm of 5.0, 7.5 and 10.0 cm

depth of water. They obtained the highest grain yield of 3.40 t ha−1

with 170 kg N

ha−1

and 10.0 cm irrigation water. They also reported that cob length and 100-grain

weight increased with increasing nitrogen rate and irrigation water. In a similar

experiment, Rizzo and Bari (1980) applied 0 to 300 kg N ha−1

and 30, 60, 90 and

120 mm of irrigation water. They found increased grain yield of maize (7.00, 7.70,

9.80 and 10.76 t ha−1

) with increasing nitrogen fertilizer from 0 to 100 kg N ha−1

and

irrigation water.

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.

Materials and Methods

13

CHAPTER III

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The experiment was conducted at the farm of Bangladesh Agricultural University,

Mymensingh, Bangladesh during 25 December 2010 to 8 May 2011 to study the

effects of irrigation on the growth and yield attributes, and yield of maize of three

varieties. 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 below:

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.

The site is under the Brahmaputra alluvium soil tract and at 240 55 ́ − 25

0 50 ́ N

latitude and 900 10 ́− 90

0 30 ́ E longitude. The soil of the experimental plot was silt

loam with pH varying from 5.75 to 6.42. The reaction of the soil was thus slightly

acidic. The soil texture was suitable for maize cultivation.

3.2 Weather and climate

The climate is sub-tropical with an average annual rainfall of 242 cm concentrated

over May to September. The summer is hot and humid, and the winter (November

– February) is moderate with only occasional light rainfall in some years. 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 crops were three high yielding varieties of maize cultivars: BARI hybrid

maize 5 (BHM−5), BARI hybrid maize 7 (BHM−7) and Pacific 984. These

varieties are popular due to their high yield potentials and stress tolerant


14

characteristics. They are 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 two factors: irrigation and maize variety. Irrigation

had five levels or 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,

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 three varieties of the maize were:

V1: BARI hybrid maize 3 (BHM−5),

V2: BARI hybrid maize 5 (BHM−7), and

V3: Pacific 984.


15

3.5 Land preparation and field layout

The land of the experimental field was opened on 15 December 2010 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 2010 following a split plot design. 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 main plots having 1.0

m buffer between them in a block. Each main plot was again divided into three

sub-plots each of size 4.5 m x 2.0 m. A 50-cm buffer was maintained between the

sub-plots. A 15-cm ridge was constructed around each sub-plot to retain irrigation

water. The irrigation treatments were allocated to the main plots and the varieties

in the sub-plots. 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−1

,

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 25 December 2010 at a depth

of 5 to 6 cm, and 2 seeds were dropped per hill. The seed to seed distance was 25

cm.


16

4.5 m

Fig. 3.1. Field layout of the experiment

0.5 m I0 I3 I1

V1 V2

V3

V1

V3

V3

V1

V3 V1

V3

V1

V1

V3

V1

V2 V3

V3

V1

V2

V3

V1

I4 I1 I3

V3

V3

V2

V3

V3

V1

V2

V3

V1

V1

V3

V2

V1

V3

V1

V1

V3

V1

V2

V3

V2

V2

V3

V1

V3

V3

V1

I2 I4 I0

V1

V3

V1

V3

V3

V1

V1

V3

V2

V3

V3

V1

V1

V3

V1

V3

V3

V2

V2

V3

V1

V2

V3

V1

V2

V3

V2

I1 I2 I4

V3

V3

V1

V1

V3

V1

V3

V3

V1

V1

V3

V1

V3

V3

V1

V1

V3

V1

V2

V3

V1

V2

V3

V1

V2

V3

V1

I3 I0 I2

V2

V3

V1

V1

V3

V2

V1

V3

V1

V1

V3

V1

V3

V3

V2

V3

V3

V1

V3

V3

V1

V2

V3

V2

V2

V3

V1

R1 R2 R3

1.5 m

7 m

1 m

2 m

N


17

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 field free from weeds. There was no attack from

insects and also there was no disease infection of the crop during the growing

season.

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.

Table 3.1 Summary of calculation of irrigation water need for different

treatments at different irrigation events.

Irrigation

events

Treatment IW/CPE CPE

(mm)

Rainfall

(mm) IW =

(mm)

1st

I0 0 95.8 13.1 0

I1 0.4 95.8 13.1 25.22

I2 0.6 95.8 13.1 44.38

I3 0.8 95.8 13.1 63.54

I4 1.0 95.8 13.1 82.70

2nd

I0 0 75.8 1.8 0

I1 0.4 75.8 1.8 28.58

I2 0.6 75.8 1.8 43.68

I3 0.8 75.8 1.8 58.84

I4 1.0 75.8 1.8 74.00

3rd

I0 0 65.4 44.2 0

I1 0.4 65.4 44.2 0

I2 0.6 65.4 44.2 12.72

I3 0.8 65.4 44.2 16.96

I4 1.0 65.4 44.2 21.20


18

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.

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, the whole experimental field was surrounded by

bamboo fence. A bell, made of kerosine 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 8 May 2011. A 3-m2 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 the plant. A measuring tape and a ruler were used to measure the height.

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.


19

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 3-m2

sampling area was converted

into yield per hectare for each plot.

8. Straw yield: The plants collected from 3-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 3-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) = %100yield Biological

yieldGrain (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. FWUE for maize

was calculated by:

FWUE =WU

Y (2)

Where, FWUE = field water use efficiency, kg ha-1

cm-1

Y = grain yield, kg ha-1

WU = seasonal water use in the crop field, cm


20

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 and the mean differences were adjusted by

Duncan’s Multiple Range Test (DMRT).

Results and Discussion

21

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The results obtained in the experiment have been presented, interpreted and

discussed in this chapter under relevant headings and sub-headings with necessary

tables and figures. Analysis of variance of different data demonstrates statistical

significance of the effects of different irrigation levels and maize varieties on the

growth and yield of maize. The effects of different irrigation levels, crop varieties

and their interactions on maize cultivation have been elaborated.

4.1 Effect of irrigation on growth and yield parameters

4.1.1 Plant height

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

The highest plant height of 123.9 cm was obtained at I4 (IW/CPE = 1) and the

lowest was 97.0 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) and Hossain (2009)

also reported different plant heights under different irrigation treatments.

4.1.2 Number of cobs per plant

The highest number of cob per plant (avg. 1.07) was obtained at I1 (IW/CPE = 0.4)

and the lowest was (0.93) at I0 and I3 (IW/CPE = 0 and 0.8). For treatment I2

(IW/CPE = 0.6), the number of cob per plan was 1.01. I4 produced 0.96 cob per

plant. In a similar experiment, Bala (2007) obtained the highest number of cob per

plant at I2 and the lowest at I3. The number of cob per plant increased by 15.05,

8.60 and 3.22% in I1, I2 and I4, respectively compared to the control I0 (Table 4.1).

The irrigation treatments however did not exert any significant influence on the

number of cob per plant.


22

Table 4.1 Growth and yield parameters under different irrigation treatments

Common letter(s) within the same column do not differ significantly at 5% level of

significance analyzed by DMRT.

* significant (p ≤ 5%)

ns: not significant (p ≥ 5%)

4.1.3 Cob length and perimeter

The irrigation treatments did not exert significant influence on the length and

perimeter of cobs (Table 4.1). Among all irrigation treatments, the highest cob

length of 17.78 cm was obtained at I4 and the lowest of 16.39 cm was obtained at

I2. A similar cob length was also reported by Niazuddin et al. (2002) and Hossain

(2009). An increase in cob length of 2.81 and 3.97% was observed in treatment I3

and I4, respectively and a decrease in cob length by 1.11 and 4.15% in I1 and I2,

respectively was observed compared to the control treatment, I0. In case of cob

perimeter, the highest value of 15.33 cm was at I4 and the lowest value of 15.12

cm was at I2. Again, an increase in cob perimeter of 0.39 and 0.46% in treatments

I3 and I4, respectively and a decrease by 0.92% in I2 was observed compared to the

control.

4.1.4 Cover and shell yields

As compared in Table 4.1, the cover yield did not vary significantly among the

irrigation treatments. The shell yield, on the other hand, increased with the

increasing quantity of irrigation water except for the control treatment, which

Treatment Plant

height

(cm)

No. of

cobs/

plant

Length

of cob

(cm)

Cob

perimeter

(cm)

Cover

yield

( t ha−1

)

Shell

yield

(t ha−1

)

No. of

grain/

cob

100-

grain

wt (g)

I0 97.0A 0.93

A 17.10

A 15.26

A 1.27

A 1.23

AB 537

A 31.03

A

I1 121.7A 1.07

A 16.91

A 15.27

A 1.26

A 0.91

B 529

A 31.18

A

I2 111.6A 1.01

A 16.39

A 15.12

A 1.06

A 1.09

AB 526

A 31.17

A

I3 111.8A 0.93

A 17.58

A 15.32

A 1.03

A 1.38

A 509

A 30.59

A

I4 123.9A 0.96

A 17.78

A 15.33

A 1.05

A 1.40

A 547

A 31.33

A

CV (%) 18.36% 18.99% 6.53% 3.33% 30.45% 25.62% 10.29% 6.55%

LSD 26.93 0.24 1.45 0.66 0.45 0.39 70.60 2.65

Level of

significance

ns ns ns ns ns * ns ns


23

produced relatively large shell yield. The highest cover yield (1.27 t ha−1

) was

obtained at I0 and the lowest (1.03 t ha−1

) was at I3. The cover yield decreased by

0.78, 16.53, 18.90 and 17.32% in I1, I2, I3 and I4, respectively compared to the

control treatment. The highest shell yield (1.40 tha−1

) was obtained under

maximum irrigation (I4) and the lowest (0.91 tha−1

) was obtained at I2. The shell

yield increased by 12.19 and 13.82% in treatment I3 and I4, respectively and

decreased by 26.01 and 11.38% in I1 and I2, respectively compared to I0. The

treatments I0, I1 and I2 were identical and the treatments I2, I3 and I4 were also

identical in respect of shell yield.

4.1.5 Number of grain per cob

The number of grain per cob was identical among the irrigation treatments (Table

4.1). The highest number of grains per cob (547) was obtained at I4 and the lowest

(509) was at I3. An increase in the number of grains per cob of 1.86% was obtained

in I4 and a decrease by 1.49, 2.05 and 5.21% in I1, I2 and I3, respectively compared

to the control treatment. 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 (31.33 g) was obtained at I4

and the lowest (30.59 g) was obtained at I3. The 100-grain weight decreased by

1.42% in I3 and increased by 0.48, 0.45 and 0.97% in I1, I2 and I4, respectively

compared to the control treatment.

4.2 Effect of irrigation on yield

4.2.1 Grain yield

The treatment I4 produced the highest grain yield of 9.30 t ha−1

and I0 produced the

lowest yield of 7.62 t ha−1

. 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 I1, I2,


24

I3 and I4 was 7.35, 7.48, 12.47 and 22.05%, respectively over the control treatment

I0. In similar experiments, Talukder et al. (1999), Niazuddin et al. (2002) and

Hossain (2009) reported obtaining the highest grain yield at I4 and the lowest at I0.

In an experiment in farmer’s field, the highest grain yield (12.50 t ha−1

) was also

reported at the highest irrigation level (BARI, 2005−2006).

Table 4.2 Yield under different irrigation treatments

Treatment Grain yield

(t ha-1

)

Straw yield

(t ha-1

)

Biological yield

(t ha-1

)

I0 7.62A 8.32

A 15.95

A

I1 8.18A 9.19

A 17.37

A

I2 8.19A 8.86

A 17.06

A

I3 8.57A 8.78

A 17.35

A

I4 9.30A 10.58

A 19.88

A

CV (%) 19.18% 36.39% 16.95%

LSD 2.12 2.61 4.61

Level of significance Ns ns ns




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 8.32 to 10.58 t ha-1

. Treatment I4 produced the highest

straw yield (10.58 t ha−1

) and I0 produced the lowest (8.32 t ha−1

) yield. Talukder et

al. (1999), Niazuddin et al. (2002) and Hossain (2009) also reported obtaining the

highest straw yield at I4 and the lowest at I0. The straw yield increased in treatment

I1, I2, I3 and I4 by 17.67, 6.5, 5.53 and 27.16%, respectively over the control

treatment, I0.

4.2.3 Biological yield

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

irrigation treatments (Table 4.2). The highest biological yield (19.88 t ha−1

) was


25

obtained at I4 and the lowest (15.95 t ha−1

) was at I0. These results were fully

consistent with the findings of Niazuddin et al. (2002) and Hossain (2009).

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 (55.89%)

and I0 provided the lowest HI (50.87%). Niazuddin et al. (2002) and Hossain

(2009) 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

Treatment HI (%) WUEg

(kg ha−1

cm−1

)

WUEb

(kg ha−1

cm−1

)

I0 51.06A 7.64

A 14.98

A

I1 52.15A 5.82

B 11.11

B

I2 52.21A 4.15

BC 8.06

C

I3 50.87A 3.25

C 6.39

CD

I4 55.89A 2.67

D 4.93

D

CV (%) 16.96% 22.10% 19.61%

LSD 11.52 0.082 2.311

Level of significance Ns *** ***



*** very highly significant (p ≤ 0.1%)


4.3.2 Water use efficiency

The water use efficiency that demonstrates the productivity of water in producing

crop yields significantly differed among the irrigation treatments (Table 4.3). The

highest water use efficiency for grain production, WUEg (7.638 kg ha−1

cm−1

), was

obtained at I0 and the lowest (2.670 kg ha−1

cm−1

) was obtained at I4. The highest

water use efficiency for biomass production, WUEb (14.98 kg ha−1

cm−1

), was in I0

and the lowest (4.934 kg ha−1

cm−1

) was in I4. Both water use efficiencies decreased


26

with increasing quantity of applied irrigation. Niazuddin et al. (2002) and Hossain

(2009) also reported comparable effects of different irrigation levels on water use

efficiencies of maize.

4.4 Effect of varieties on growth and yield parameters

4.4.1 Plant height

The mean plant heights for the three maize varieties are listed in Table 4.4. The

highest plant height of 118.1 cm was obtained in V2 (BHM−7) and the lowest of

106.5 cm was in V3 (Pacific 984). The increase in plant height in V2 was 2.6% and

the decrease in plant height in V3 was 7.47% compared to V1. Hossain (2009) also

reported different plant heights for different varieties.

Table 4.4 Growth and yield parameters under three different varieties of

maize

Variety Plant

height

(cm)

No of

cobs/

plant

Length

of cob

(cm)

Cob

perimeter

(cm)

Cover

yield

(t ha−1

)

Shell

yield

(t ha−1

)

No of

grain/

cob

100-

grain

wt (g)

V1 115.1A 1.09

A 17.01

A 14.68

B 1.25

A 1.21

A 510

A 30.60

A

V2 118.1A 0.89

A 16.78

A 15.03

A 0.95

A 1.15

A 526

A 31.14

A

V3 106.5A 0.95

A 17.67

A 15.91

AB 1.26

A 1.24

A 552

A 31.24

A

CV (%) 18.36% 18.99% 6.53% 3.33% 30.45% 25.62% 10.29% 6.55%

LSD 34.77 0.313 1.874 0.849 0.584 0.515 91.15 3.426

Level of

significance

ns ns Ns *** ns ns ns ns





4.4.2 Number of cobs per plant

The number of cobs per plant was identical for different maize varieties (Table

4.4). The highest number of cob per plant (1.09) was obtained with V1 (BHM−5)

and the lowest was (0.89) for V2 (BHM−7). The number of cob per plant decreased

by 18.35 and 12.84% in V2 and V3, respectively compared to V1.


27


The cob length did not vary significantly among the three maize varieties. It varied

from 16.78 to 17.67 cm; the highest was obtained with V3 and lowest (16.78 cm)

was with V2. In case of cob perimeter, the highest value of 15.91 cm was obtained

for V3 and the lowest value of 14.68 cm was obtained for V1 (BHM−5). The

perimeter of cob significantly varied among the three maize varieties.


As compared in Table 4.4, the cover and shell yields did not vary significantly

among the varietal treatments. The highest cover yield (1.26 t ha−1

) was obtained

with V3 and the lowest (0.95 t ha−1

) was obtained with V2. The highest shell yield

(1.24 t ha−1

) was obtained with V3 and the lowest (1.15 t ha−1

) was obtained with

V2.


The number of grains per cob did not vary significantly among the treatments

(Table 4.4). The highest number of grains per cob (552) was obtained for V3 and

the lowest (510) was for V1. An increase in the number of grains per cob of 3.14

and 8.23% was obtained in V2 and V3, respectively compared to V1.

4.4.6 100-grain weight

The weight of 100-grain was identical for different varietal treatments (Table 4.4).

The variety V3 produced the highest 100-grain weight (31.24 g) and V1 produced

the lowest 100-grain weight (30.60 g). The variety V2 and V3 produced 1.67 and

2.1% more 100-grain weight, respectively than V1.

4.5 Effect of varieties on yield

4.5.1 Grain yield

The three different varieties of maize had no significant effect on the grain yield of

maize. The highest grain yield (8.60 t ha−1

) was obtained with V3 and the lowest


28

(7.31 t ha−1

) was obtained with V2; V1 produced 7.50 t ha−1

. Talukder et al. (1999),

Niazuddin et al. (2002) and Hossain (2009) also reported the best performance of

V3 in terms of grain yield.

Table 4.5 Yield under different varietal treatments

Variety Grain yield

(t ha-1

)

Straw yield

(t ha-1

)

Biological yield

(t ha-1

)

V1 7.50A 9.12

A 16.62

A

V2 7.31A 8.35

A 15.66

A

V3 8.60A 8.90

A 17.50

A

CV (%) 19.18% 36.39% 16.95%

LSD 2.738 3.370 4.655





4.5.2 Straw yield

The influence of the varietal treatments on straw yield was insignificant since they

produced identical straw yield (Table 4.5). The variety V1 produced the highest

straw yield (9.12 t ha−1

) and V2 produced the lowest (8.35 t ha−1

). Similar trend in

straw yield was also reported by Talukder et al. (1999), Niazuddin et al. (2002)

and Hossain (2009).


The highest biological yield (17.50 t ha−1

) was obtained with V3 and the lowest

(15.66 t ha−1

) was obtained with V2. The variety V1 produced 16.62 t ha−1

. As

compared in Table 4.5 the three varieties performed identically in producing the

biological yield.


29

4.6 Effect of varieties on harvest index and water use efficiency

4.6.1 Harvest index

The harvest index, compared in Table 4.6, did not vary significantly among the

three maize varieties. The variety V3 produced the highest harvest index (52.16%)

and V2 produced the lowest harvest index (51.45%).


biomass (WUEb) production under different varietal treatments

Variety HI

(%)

WUEg

(kg ha-1

cm-1

)

WUEb

(kg ha-1

cm-1

)

V1 51.70A 4.90

A 9.39

A

V2 51.45A 4.41

A 8.60

A

V3 52.16A 4.81

A 9.30

A

CV (%) 16.96% 22.10% 19.61%

LSD 14.87 0.106 2.983






The water use efficiency did not significantly differ among the three maize

varieties (Table 4.6). The highest water use efficiency for grain production (4.90

kg ha−1

cm−1

) was obtained for V1 and the lowest (4.41 kg ha−1

cm−1

) was obtained

for V2. The highest water use efficiency for biomass production (9.39 kg ha−1

cm−1

)

was for V1 and the lowest (8.60 kg ha−1

cm−1

) was for V2.

4.7 Interaction effect between irrigation levels and varieties on growth

and yield parameters

4.7.1 Plant height

The interaction effect of irrigation and variety on plant height of maize was

significant (Table 4.7). The highest plant height of 140.3 cm was obtained in V2 at


30

irrigation treatment I4 (IW/CPE = 1.0) and the lowest of 85.41 cm was obtained in

V1 at irrigation treatment I0 (no irrigation). The treatment combinations of I4V1,

I2V1, I3V2 and I3V1 resulted in plant heights that were identical to I4V2.

Table 4.7 Growth and yield parameters of maize under the interaction of

three maize varieties and five irrigation treatments

Intera

ction

Plant

height

(cm)

No of cobs/

plant

Length

of cob

(cm)

Cob

perimeter

(cm)

Cover

yield

(tha-1

)

Shell

yield

(tha-1

)

No of

grain/ cob

100

grain wt

(g)

I0V1 85.41G 1.10

ABC 16.80

DEF 14.92

FGH 1.18

CD 1.049

DE 514

BCDE 29.05

E

I0V2 106.5CDEF

0.83FG

16.61DEF

15.67CD

1.17CD

1.45AB

540BC

31.18BCD

I0V3 99.07FG

0.87EFG

17.90ABC

15.20EFG

1.47AB

1.20BCD

556AB

32.64AB

I1V1 116.8BCDE

1.17A 16.47

EF 14.55

HI 1.68

A 0.774

F 486

DE 30.67

CDE

I1V2 130.4AB

1.0 BCDE

17.14BCDE

16.14AB

0.993D 0.78

F 547

ABC 33.18

A

I1V3 118.1BCDE

1.03ABCD

17.11CDE

15.13EFG

1.10CD 1.19

BCD 553

ABC 32.69

AB

I2V1 125.3AB

1.13AB

16.95DE

14.80GH

0.947D 1.3

BCD 536

BC 31.02

BCD

I2V2 102.3EF

1.0BCDE

15.93F 15.62

CD 1.057

D 1.10

CDE 508

CDE 30.85

CDE

I2V3 107.2CDEF

0.90DEFG

16.27EF

14.93FGH

1.19BCD

0.91EF

533BCD

31.65ABCD

I3V1 121.0BCD

1.03ABCD

16.76DEF

14.30I 1.37

BC 1.56

A 485

E 30.01

DE

I3V2 123.1ABC

0.77G 17.50

BCD 16.37

A 0.611

E 1.24

BCD 508

CDE 32.61

AB

I3V3 91.46FG

1.0BCDE

18.48A 15.49

CDE 1.23

BCD 1.36

ABC 533

BCD 29.15

E

I4V1 127.2AB

1.03ABCD

18.04 AB

14.83GH

1.10CD

1.42AB

529BCDE

32.03ABC

I4V2 140.3A 0.87

EFG 16.70

DEF 15.85

BC 0.94

D 1.21

BCD 526

BCDE 31.89

ABC

I4V3 104.4DEF

0.97CDEF

18.60A 15.32

DEF 1.12

CD 1.57

A 585

A 33.08

DE

LSD 15.55 0.139 0.838 0.379 0.261 0.230 40.76 1.532

Level of

sig

* *** *** *** ** * *** **




** highly significant (p ≤ 1%)


4.7.2 Number of cob per plant

A very highly significant variation was observed for the number of cob per plant

due to the interaction effect between irrigation and maize variety (Table 4.7). The

highest number of cob per plant (1.17) was obtained for I1V1 and the lowest was

(0.83) for I0V2. The treatment combinations I1V1, I1V3 and I2V1 were statistically

identical.


31


The interaction between irrigation and maize varieties exerted very highly

significant impact on the length and perimeter of cob (Table 4.7). The highest cob

length (18.60 cm) was obtained for I4V3 and the lowest (15.93 cm) was obtained

for I2V2. The highest perimeter of cob (16.37 cm) was obtained for I3V2 and the

lowest (14.30 cm) was for I3V1. There was no significant difference between I3V3

and I4V3 although there was variation between them. The treatment combinations

I0V3, I3V3, I4V1 and I4V3 were indistinguishable. The treatment combination I3V2

differed significantly from I1V1, I2V2, I2V3, I3V3, I4V1 and I4V3.


As compared in Table 4.7, the cover and shell yields of maize varied significantly

due to the interaction effect between irrigation and maize variety. The treatment

combination I1V1 produced the highest cover yield (1.68 t ha−1

) and I3V2 produced

the lowest one (0.611 t ha−1

). The treatment combination I3V2 differed significantly

from all other treatments. The treatment combination I1V1 was similar to that of

I0V3. The highest shell yield (1.57 t ha−1

) was obtained for I4V3 and the lowest

(0.774 t ha−1

) was obtained for I1V1. The treatment combinations I0V2, I3V1, I3V3,

I4V1 and I4V3 were identical.


The number of grain per cob significantly varied due to the interaction effect

between irrigation and maize variety (Table 4.7). The highest number of grains per

cob (585) was obtained for I4V3 and the lowest number (485) was for I3V1. The

treatment combinations I4V3, I0V3, I1V2 and I1V3 produced the identical number of

grain per cob.

4.7.6 Hundred (100)-grain weight

The 100-grain weight was statistically similar due to the interaction effect between

irrigation and varieties (Table 4.7). I4V3 produced the highest 100-grain weight of

33.08 g and I0V1 produced the lowest 100-grain weight of 29.05 g. The treatment


32

combinations I4V3, I0V1, I0V2, I1V1, I2V1, I2V2, I2V3, I3V1 and I3V3 produced the

identical 100-grain weights.

4.8 Interaction effect between irrigation and varieties on yield

4.8.1 Grain yield

The interaction effect between irrigation and varieties had significant effect on the

grain yield of maize (Table 4.8) in most cases. The highest grain yield of 9.31 t

ha−1

was obtained for I4V3 and the lowest of 6.34 t ha−1

was obtained for I0V2. The

significant difference was observed between I0V2 and I1V1. The grain yield was

identical for treatments I0V1, I1VI, I1V2, I2V2, I2V3, I3V3, I4V1 and I4V2.

Table 4.8 Yield under different irrigation–variety interaction treatments

Interaction Grain yield

(t ha-1

)

Straw yield

(t ha-1

)

Biological yield

(t ha-1

)

I0V1 8.84BCD

7.17BC

16.01CD

I0V2 6.34F 7.03

CD 13.37

E

I0V3 7.69DE

7.79BC

15.48CDE

I1V1 8.66BCDE

8.17ABC

16.83ABC

I1V2 8.45BCDE

8.22AB

16.67BC

I1V3 8.44A 10.69

AB 19.13

A

I2V1 9.05AB

9.79A 18.84

AB

I2V2 8.74BCD

8.65A 17.39

ABC

I2V3 8.75BCD

7.01BC

15.76CD

I3V1 7.74CDE

8.9ABC

16.64BC

I3V2 9.15ABC

7.22ABC

16.37CD

I3V3 8.83BCD

8.60ABC

17.43ABC

I4V1 8.76BCD

7.5BC

16.26CD

I4V2 8.85BCD

5.26D 14.11

DE

I4V3 9.31EF

6.34ABC

15.65CD

CV (%) 19.18% 36.39% 16.95%

LSD 1.224 1.507 2.082

Level of

significance

* *** ***






33

4.8.2 Straw yield

The interaction effect between irrigation and maize variety on straw yield was

significant. The treatment combination I1V3 produced the highest straw yield of

10.69 t ha−1

and I4V2 produced the lowest yield of 5.26 t ha−1

. From Table 4.8, it is

observed that the straw yield was identical for the treatment combinations I0V1,

I0V2, I0V3, I1V1, I1V2, I2V3, I3V1, I3V2, I3V3, I4V1 and I4V3. Significant difference

was however observed among I2V1, I0V1, and I4V1.


The biological yield varied significantly due to the interaction effect between

irrigation and maize variety (Table 4.8). The highest biological yield of 19.13 t

ha−1

was obtained for I1V3 and the lowest of 13.37 t ha−1

was obtained for I0V2.

The straw yield significantly differed among I0V1, I0V2 and I1V3.

4.9 Interaction effect between irrigation and varieties on harvest index

and water use efficiency

4.9.1 Harvest index

The harvest index significantly differed for the interaction effect between irrigation

and maize variety (Table 4.9). The highest harvest index (57.65%) was obtained

for I2V3 and the lowest (46.2%) was obtained for I3V1.


The water use efficiency significantly differed due to the interaction effect

between irrigation treatments and maize varieties (Table 4.9). The water use

efficiency for grain production, WUEg, was the highest (8.86 kg ha−1

cm−1

) at I0V1

and the lowest (2.35 kg ha−1

cm−1

) at I4V3. The highest water use efficiency for

biomass production, WUEb (16.04 kg ha−1

cm−1

) was found in I0V1 and the lowest

(4.53 kg ha−1

cm−1

) was in I4V3. There was significant variation among the

treatment combinations I0V1, I0V2, I1V1, I2V1, I2V3 and I4V1. The treatment


34

combinations of I2V2, I2V3, I3V1, I3V2, I3V3, I4V1, I4V2 and I4V3 resulted in the

identical water use efficiency.


biomass (WUEb) production of maize under the interaction of different

varieties and irrigation treatments

Interaction HI

(%)

WUEg

(kg ha-1

cm-1

)

WUEb

(kg ha-1

cm-1

)

I0V1 55.71BCD

8.86A 16.04

A

I0V2 47.33EF

6.36AB

13.40B

I0V3 50.15BCDEF

7.70AB

15.51A

I1V1 51.49BCDEF

5.49AB

10.66C

I1V2 50.49BCDEF

5.35AB

10.56C

I1V3 54.46BCDE

6.61AB

12.12B

I2V1 50.45BCDEF

4.39AB

8.69D

I2V2 48.54CDEF

4.03AB

8.21DE

I2V3 57.65B 4.05

AB 7.27

EF

I3V1 46.20F 2.93

B 6.30

FGH

I3V2 56.16BC

3.47AB

6.28FGH

I3V3 50.25BCDEF

3.34AB

6.60FG

I4V1 54.66BCDE

2.82B 5.24

GHI

I4V2 54.71A 2.84

B 4.53

I

I4V3 48.30DEF

2.35B 5.03

HI

CV (%) 16.96% 22.10% 19.61%

LSD 6.652 0.04731 1.334

Level of significance *** *** ***




Conclusions and Recommendations

35

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Some conclusions were drawn based on the experimental results and a few

recommendations were put forward for further research activities and farmers’

practices.

5.1 Conclusions

The following conclusions were drawn from this study:

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

treatments and maize varieties.

2. The highest grain yield was 9.30 t ha−1

in I4 (IW/CPE = 1) and the lowest was

7.62 t ha−1

in I0 (no irrigation).

3. Pacific 984 (V3) produced the highest grain yield of 8.60 t ha−1

and BHM−7

(V2) produced the lowest of 7.31 t ha−1

. These yields were however identical.

4. For the interaction between the irrigation and variety, the highest grain yield

was 9.31 t ha−1

for I4V3 (IW/CPE = 1 in Pacific 984) and the lowest was 6.34 t

ha−1

for I0V2 (no irrigation in BHM−7).

5. The water productivity/water use efficiency was the highest (7.64 kg ha−1

cm−1

)

for I0 and lowest (2.67 kg ha−1

cm−1

) for I4 in irrigation treatments. In case of the

variety, V1 produced the highest water use efficiency (4.90 kg ha−1

cm−1

) and V2

produced the lowest one (4.41 kg ha−1

cm−1

).

6. The water productivity was the highest (8.86 kg ha−1

cm−1

) for I0V1 (no

irrigation in BHM−5) and the lowest (2.35 kg ha−1

cm−1

) for I4V3 (IW/CPE = 1

in Pacific 984) in the interaction effect between irrigation and varietal

treatments.

Conclusions and Recommendations

36

5.2 Recommendations

The following recommendations were made 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 and varieties 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

needs to be included, and

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

resources.

References

37

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 Crop Res.

31(1–2):55−69.

Ahmed, F. 1994. Maize Production Technology (in Bengali). Published by

International Fertilizer Development Center, Consultant of the Ministry of

Agriculture, Bangladesh. pp.13−15.

Bajwa, M.S., A. Akhtar, M.R. Hussain and M.B. Raja. 1987. Effect of irrigation

frequencies and nitrogen rates on the yield and protein content of maize.

Pakistan J. Agrill. Res. 8(3):325−329.

Bala, D.C. 2007. A study on effects of irrigation and fertilizer on yield of hybrid

maize. M.S. Thesis (Agric. Eng.) Department of Irrigation and Water

Management. pp. 26−28.

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.

Barrett, J.W.H. and G.V. Skogerboe. 1978. Effect of irrigation regime on maize

yields. J. Irrig. Drain. Div. 104:179−194.

BARI (Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute). 2005−2006. Maize and Barley

Improvement and Development of Hybrid Maize Res. Project in

Bangladesh, BARI, Joydebpur, Gazipur-1701, August, 2006. pp.86−93.

References

38

BBS (Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics). 2005. Statistical Pocket Book of

Bangladesh. Statistical Division, Ministry of Planning, Govt. of the

People’s Republic of Bangladesh. p.60.

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

Bangladesh, August, 2009. p.66.

Bharati, A., K.K. Vadivelu and R. Umarani. 1997. Effect of irrigation management

and nitrogen fertilization on seed yield, recovery and sowing quality of

maize. Madras Agril. J. 84(1):33−36.

Bryant, K.J., V.W. Benson, J.R. Kiniry, J.R. Williams and R.D. Lacewell. 1992.

Simulating corn yield response to irrigation timings: validation of the epic

model. J. Prod. Agric. 5:237−242.

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). Pub. by On Farm Res. Div. Bangladesh Agril. Res. Inst.,

Jaydebpur, Gazipur, Bangladesh. pp.1−189.

Claassen, M.M. and R.H. Shaw. 1970. Water deficit effects on corn. II. Grain

components. Agron. J. 62:652−655.

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.

References

39

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, H. Qi, B. Zheng 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.

Denmead, O.T. and R.H. Shaw. 1960. The effects of soil moisture stress at

different stages of growth on the development and yield of corn. Agron. J.

52:272−274.

Doorenbos, J. and A.H. Kassam. 1979. Yield response to water. FAO Irrigation

and Drainage Paper no. 33, FAO, Rome, Italy, p.193.

Downey, L.A. 1971. Effect of gypsum and drought stress on maize (Zea Mays L.).

I. Growth, light absorption and yield. Agron. J. 63:569−572.

Eliades, G. 1993. Irrigation of maize for grain production. Cyprus Agril. Res. Inst.

J. 32:66−152.

El–Nomemani, A.A., A.K.A. El–Halim, H.A. El–Zeing and A.K. Abd–El–Halim.

1990. Response of maize to irrigation intervals under different levels of

nitrogen fertilization. Egypt J. Agron. 15(1−2):147−158.

Eneva, S. 1995. The yield–water relation and its utilization in practice. Resteniev

“Dni” Nauki. 32(5):55−57.

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 2002. Production Yearbook. FAO,

Rome. 54:61−70.

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.

Gilley, J.R., D.G. Watts and C.Y. Sullivan. 1980. Management of irrigation

agriculture with a limited water and energy supply. Institute of agriculture

and natural resources, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, p.168.

References

40

Hanks, R.J. 1974. Model for predicting plant yield as influenced by water use.

Agron. J. 66:660−664.

Hanks, R.J., J. Keller, V.P. Rasmussen and G.D. Wilson. 1976. Line source

sprinkler for continuous variable irrigation–crop production studies. Soil

Sci. Soc. Am. J. 40:426−429.

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. 2009. Effect of deficit irrigation on yield and water productivity of

maize. M.S Thesis (Agric. Eng.) Department of Irrigation and Water

Management. pp. 26−38.

Huang, G.H., S.Y. Feng, W.H. Zhan, G. Wang, Z.G. Ziu and H.Q. Wu. 1999.

Coupling effects of water and fertilizer on maize yield with drip irrigation.

J. China Agril. Univ. 4(6):48−52.

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). Bangladesh J. Agril.

Sci. 7(2):195−199.

Jama, A.O. and M.J. Ottman. 1993. Timing of the first irrigation in corn and water

stress conditioning. Agron. J. 85:1159−1164.

Jensen, M.E. 1968. Water Consumption by Agricultural Plants. in: Kozlowski,

T.T. (Ed.), Water Deficits and Plant Growth. Academic Press, New York,

pp. 1−22.

Jurgens, S.K., R.R. Johnson and J.S. Boyer. 1978. Dry matter production and

translocation in maize subjected to drought during grain fill. Agron. J.

70:678−682.

References

41

Klocke, N.L., J.P. Schneekloth, S. Melvin, R.T. Clark and J.O. Payero. 2004. Field

scale limited irrigation scenarios for water policy strategies. Appl. Eng.

Agric. 20:623−631.

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

Grops. 8:95−97.

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

maize in the southern Italy: Effects of irrigation. Annali dell” Inst.

Sperimentale Agronomico. 11:167−179.

Lyle, W.M. and J.P. Bordovsky. 1995. Low energy precision application (LEPA)

corn irrigation with limited water supplies. ASAE. 38(2):455−462.

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.

Meyer, S.J., K.G. Hubbard and D.A. Wilhite. 1993a. A crop–specific drought

index for corn. I. Model development and validation. Agron. J. 85:388−395.

Meyer, S.J., K.G. Hubbard and D.A. Wilhite. 1993b. A crop–specific drought

index for corn. II. Application in drought monitoring and assessment.

Agron. J. 85:396−399.

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

Glasnic. 17(8):647−62.

Nairizi, S. and J.R. Rydzewski. 1977. Effects of dated soil moisture stress on crop

yields. Exp. Agric. 13:51−59.

References

42

NeSmith, D.S. and J.T. Ritchie. 1992. Short– and long–term responses of corn to

pre−anthesis soil water deficit. Agron. J. 84:107−113.

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.

Pandey R.K., J.W. Maranville and M.M. Chetina. 2000. Deficit irrigation and

nitrogen effects on maize production. J. Agril. Water Mgt. 64(1):15−27.

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

maize. Field Crop Abst. 20(1):34−38.

Prasad, T.N. and U.K Prasad. 1989. Effect of irrigation pattern of sowing and

intercrop on the growth, yield and water use efficiency of winter maize.

Annual Agril. Res. 10(2):139−144.

Rajendran, K. and S.D. Sumdersingh. 1999. Effect of irrigation regimes and

nitrogen levels on yield, water requirement, water use efficiency and quality

of body corn (Zea mays L.). Agril. Sci. Digest Karnal. 19(3):159−161.

Rizzo, V. and V.D.I. Bari. 1980. Levels of irrigation and rates of nitrogen on main

crop grain maize. Sperimentale Agronomico. 11:67−75.

Robins, J.S. and C.E. Domingo. 1953. Some effects of severe soil moisture deficits

at specific growth stages in corn. Agron. J. 12:618−621.

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

cultivation in the low land tropics. International Inst. Tropical Agril. (IITA).

pp.66−68.

Schneekloth, J.P., N.L. Klocke, G.W. Hergert, D.L. Martin and R.T. Clark. 1991.

Crop rotations with full and limited irrigation and dry land management.

Trans. ASAE 34:2372−2380.

References

43

Selvaraju, R. and M.R. Iruthayaraj. 1993. Effect of irrigation scheduling, methods

of irrigation and nitrogen levels on growth analysis parameters of maize.

Madras Agril. J. 80(10):562−565.

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.

Silva, D.D.DA., B.T. Loureiroo, S. Bernado and J.D. Galvao. 1992. Effects of

water levels and nitrogen rates on line sprinkler irrigated maize. Revista

Ceres. 39(222):91−104.

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

maize. Annals Plant Physiol. 3(2):212−212.

Stone, L.R. 2003. Crop water use requirements and water use efficiencies. In:

proceedings of the 15th annual central plains irrigation conference and

exposition, February 4–5, Colby, Kansas, pp. 127−133.

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. Metropolian

Book Co., New Delhi. 145−185.

Tyagi, R.C., S. Devender, I.S. Hoda and D. Singh. 1998. Effect of plant

population, irrigation and nitrogen on yield and its attributes of spacing

maize (Zea mays). Indian J. Agron. 43(4):672−676.

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

Rasteniev “Dni–Nauki”. 32(9–10):142−145.

thesis s. alam

Documents