thesis s. alam
DESCRIPTION
Irrigation ThesisTRANSCRIPT
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
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
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
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
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
4.4.1 Plant height 26
4.4.2 Number of cobs per plant 26
4.4.3 Cob length and perimeter 27
4.4.4 Cover and shell yields 27
4.4.5 Number of grain per cob 27
4.4.6 100-grain weight 27
4.5 Effect of varieties on yield 27
4.5.1 Grain yield 27
4.5.2 Straw yield 28
4.5.3 Biological yield 28
4.6 Effect of varieties on harvest index and water use
efficiency 29
4.6.1 Harvest index 29
4.6.2 Water use efficiency 30
4.7 Interaction effect between irrigation and varieties on
growth and yield parameters 29
4.7.1 Plant height 29
4.7.2 Number of cobs per plant 30
4.7.3 Cob length and perimeter 31
v
CONTENTS (contd.)
ITEMS PAGE
4.7.4 Cover and shell yields 31
4.7.5 Number of grain per cob 31
4.7.6 100-grain weight 31
4.8 Interaction effect between irrigation and varieties on yield 32
4.8.1 Grain yield 32
4.8.2 Straw yield 33
4.8.3 Biological yield 33
4.9 Interaction effect between irrigation and varieties on
harvest index and water use efficiency 33
4.9.1 Harvest index 33
4.9.2 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
4.6 Harvest index (HI) and water use efficiency for
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
4.9 Harvest index (HI) and water use efficiency for
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
Review of Literature
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
Review of Literature
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
Review of Literature
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
Review of Literature
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
Materials and Methods
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.
Materials and Methods
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.
Materials and Methods
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
Materials and Methods
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
Materials and Methods
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.
Materials and Methods
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
Materials and Methods
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.
Results and Discussion
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
Results and Discussion
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,
Results and Discussion
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
Common letter(s) within the same column do not differ significantly at 5% level of
significance analyzed by DMRT.
ns: not significant (p ≥ 5%)
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
Results and Discussion
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 *** ***
Common letter(s) within the same column do not differ significantly at 5% level of
significance analyzed by DMRT.
*** very highly significant (p ≤ 0.1%)
ns: not significant (p ≥ 5%)
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
Results and Discussion
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
Common letter(s) within the same column do not differ significantly at 5% level of
significance analyzed by DMRT.
*** very highly significant (p ≤ 0.1%)
ns: not significant (p ≥ 5%)
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.
Results and Discussion
27
4.4.3 Cob length and perimeter
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.
4.4.4 Cover and shell yields
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.
4.4.5 Number of grain per cob
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
Results and Discussion
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
Level of significance Ns ns ns
Common letter(s) within the same column do not differ significantly at 5% level of
significance analyzed by DMRT.
ns: not significant (p ≥ 5%)
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).
4.5.3 Biological yield
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.
Results and Discussion
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%).
Table 4.6 Harvest index (HI) and water use efficiency for grain (WUEg) and
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
Level of significance Ns ns ns
Common letter(s) within the same column do not differ significantly at 5% level of
significance analyzed by DMRT.
ns: not significant (p ≥ 5%)
4.6.2 Water use efficiency
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
Results and Discussion
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
* *** *** *** ** * *** **
Common letter(s) within the same column do not differ significantly at 5% level of
significance analyzed by DMRT.
*** very highly significant (p ≤ 0.1%)
** highly significant (p ≤ 1%)
* significant (p ≤ 5%)
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.
Results and Discussion
31
4.7.3 Cob length and perimeter
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.
4.7.4 Cover and shell yields
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.
4.7.5 Number of grain per cob
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
Results and Discussion
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
* *** ***
Common letter(s) within the same column do not differ significantly at 5% level of
significance analyzed by DMRT.
*** very highly significant (p ≤ 0.1%)
* significant (p ≤ 5%)
Results and Discussion
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.
4.8.3 Biological yield
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.
4.9.2 Water use efficiency
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
Results and Discussion
34
combinations of I2V2, I2V3, I3V1, I3V2, I3V3, I4V1, I4V2 and I4V3 resulted in the
identical water use efficiency.
Table 4.9 Harvest index (HI) and water use efficiency for grain (WUEg) and
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 *** *** ***
Common letter(s) within the same column do not differ significantly at 5% level of
significance analyzed by DMRT.
*** very highly significant (p ≤ 0.1%)
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.