The effect of planting patterns and irrigation intervals on quantitative and qualitative yield of forage maize under drip irrigation system in Pishva-Varamin

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 University of Tehran

2 -

3 ChaltaZian Research farm

Abstract

Background and aim: According to the country's position in terms of water resources, implementation of newest plant pattern methods and application of advanced irrigation systems can be help to reduce existing threats. The aim of this study was to reduce irrigation water and to keep the highest crop yield.
Materials and methods: For this purpose, the evaluation of the irrigation interval and planting pattern on the yield of forage maize (cultivar ZP434), an on-farm experiment was conducted in ChaltaZian, Pishva, as split-plot based on Randomized CompleteBlock Ddesign with three replications at 2017. This experiment in which main plots were irrigation intervals and sub-plots were planting patterns. Sub-plots size were 9 × 8 m. Irrigation treatments were carried out at three levels of 4, 6 and 8day intervals (I1, I2, and I3, respectively) with the same time and amount of water in each irrigation interval by drip irrigation. Treatments of planting pattern were also arranged in three levels of one row with spacing of 70 cm, two rows with spacing of 70 cm and two rows with spacing of 140 cm (P1, P2 and P3, respectively). P1 and P2 are the traditional planting patterns in Iran, and the P3 was considered as the newest arrangement of corn cultivation. In this experiment, a set of quantitive traits (stem diameter, plant height, number of grain per spike, spike weight, the ratio of spike weight to biological weight, the percentage dry material, fresh yield per hectar and dry yield per hectare), Qualitative traits (crude protein, percentage of neutral detergent fiber, percentage of acid detergent fiber, ash, crude fat, percentage of Non-fiber Carbohydrates) and the traits related to economic profit and water use efficiency were studied.
Findings: results showed that irrigation treatments had significant effect on stem diameter, plant height, the ration of ear weight to total weight, the percentage of dry matter and forage yield at 0.05 of probability and dry matter yield (ha-1) at 0.01 of probability. Also, the effect of planting pattern was significant on plant height (at 0.05 of probability) and stem diameter, number of seeds per ear, ear weight, the ration of ear weight to plant weight, yield (ha-1) and dry yield (ha-1) (at 0.01 of probability). Also, the results of quality analyze showed that irrigation treatments and plant pattern had significant effect on crude protein and crude fat at 0.05 (crude protein on irrigation treatments and crude protein and crude fat on plant pattern treatments) and at 0.01 (the irrigation treatments on crude fat). The interaction effect was significant on water use efficiency, gross profit and net profit. The result of water use efficiency showed that in all irrigation treatments, P3 was the best treatment. I2 was the best irrigation treatment for the net profit, and by checking the results of slicing the interaction on I2 irrigation treatment we found, they had no-significant effect between plant pattern treatments.
Conclusions: The current study, indicated that irrigation with 6 days interval against 4 days interval can produce the same crop yield using lower water in irrigation. Also, planting pattern of two rows with 140 cm space used lower water compared with one row with spacing of 70 cm, and two rows with spacing of 70 cm. Totally, results indicated the new planting pattern of P3 and irrigation interval of I2 used 3200 m3.ha-1 and the highest crop yield compared with two other planting patterns in I3 that used 5900 m3.ha-1 water. Using the new planting pattern irrigation water reduced and crop yield and the economic efficenciy were at the highest level. The quality of sillage also had not changed significantly.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. Afsharmansh, Gh. 2010 Effect of Planting Pattern on Grain Yield of Maize Cultivars in Jiroft Region. Final report of Shahid Moghadli Agricultural Research Center in Jiroft and Kahnouj. 35 p.
  2. Albayrak, S., Turk, M., Yukel, O., and Yilmaz, M. 2011. Forage yield and quality of perennial legume–grass mixtures under rainfed conditions. Not. Bot. Horti. Agrobon. 39: 1. 114-118.
  3. Anil, L., Park, J., and Phipps, R.H. 2000. The potential of forage- maize intercrops in ruminant nutrition. Animal Feed Sci. Tech. 85: 157-164.
  4. Asay, K.H., Jensen, K.B., Waldron, B.L., Han, G., and Monaco, T.A. 2002. Forage quality of tall fescue across an irrigation gradient. Agron. J. 94: 3. 1337-1343.
  5. Badavi, A.R., Ghalavand, A., Alikhani, M.A., Zand, A., and Fallah, S. 2007. Effect of plant density and canopy arrangement of corn on growth indices of Amaranthus retroflexus L. Res. Cons. 75: 33-42.
  6. Bazi, M.T., Nemati, N., Mokhtarpour, H., and Mosavat, S.A. 2005. Effects of tiller removal and plant density on ear yield and forage of sweet corn. Azad University of Varamin. (In Persian).
  7. Bozkurt, Y., Yazar, A., Gencel, B., and Sezen, M.S. 2006. Optimum lateral spacing for drip irrigated corn in the Mediterranean region of Turkey. Agric. Water Manage. 85: 113-120.
  8. Chen, R., Cheng, W.H., Cui, J., Liao, J., Fan, H., Zheng, Z., and Ma, F.Y. 2015. Lateral spacing in drip-irrigated wheat the effects on soil moisture, yield and water use efficiency. Field Crop. Res. 179: 52-62.
  9. Cheng, F.L., Du, X., Liu, M.X., Jin, X.L., and Cui, Y.H. 2011. Lodging of summer maize and the effects on grain yield. J. Maize Sci., 19: 105-108. (in Chinese)
  10. Choghan, R. 1996. Investigate and Comparative of yield and yield components of hybrid varieties of corn silage. J. Agric. Res. Branch. 2: 12. 36-40. (In Persian).
  11. Dai. A. 2013. Increasing drought under global warming in observations and models. Nat. Clim. Change. 3: 52-8.
  12. Deng, X.P., Shan, L., Zhang, H., and Turner, N.C. 2006. Improving agricultural water use efficiency in arid and semi-arid areas of China. Agric. Water Manage. 80: 23-40.
  13. Esechie, H.A. 1985. Relationship of stalk morphology and chemical composition to lodging resistance in maize (Zea mays L.) in a rainforest zone. J. Agric. Sci. 104: 429-433.
  14. FAOSTAT. 2010. Statistical databases and data-sets of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. http://faostat.fao. org/default. aspx. Accessed April 2010.
  15. FAOSTAT. 2017. Statistical databases and data-sets of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. http://www.fao.org.
  16. Grassini, P., Yang, H.S., Irmak, S., Thorburn, J., Burr, C., and Cassman, K.G. 2011. High-yield irrigated maize in the Western U.S. Corn Belt: II. Irrigation management and crop water productivity. Field Crop. Res. 120: 133-141.
  17. Halil, Y., Dasci, M. and Tan, M. 2009. Evaluation of annual legumes and barley as sole crops and intercrop in spring frost conditions for animal feeding Yield and quality. J. Anim. Veter. Adv. 8: 7. 1337-1342.
  18. Hao, B.Z., Xue, Q.W., Marek, T.H., Jessup, K.E., Hou, X.B., Xu, W.W., Bynum, E.D., and Bean, B.W. 2015. Soil water extraction, water use and grain yield by drought tolerant maize on the Texas High Plains. Agric. Water Manage. 155: 11-21.
  19. IPCC, 2013. Summary for policymakers Climate Change in the Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the 5th Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ed T.F Stocker et al.
  20. Irmak, S., Djaman, K., and Rudnick, D.R. 2016. Effects of full and limited irrigation amount and frequency on subsurface drip-irrigated maize evapotranspiration, yield, water use efficiency and yield response factors. Irrig. Sci. 34: 271-286.
  21. Jones, B.P. 2008. Effects of twin – Row spacing on corn silage growth development and yield in the Shenandoah Valley available at http://www.valleycrop. Cses. Vt. Edu / corn Mdndgement Assts/ Twin Row Cornsilage.
  22. Kang, S.Z., Hao, X.M., Du, T.S., Tong, L., Su, X.L., Lu, H.N., Li, X.L., Huo, Z.L., Li, S., and Ding, R.S. 2017. Improving Agricultural water productivity to ensure food security in China under changing environment: from research to practice. Agric. Water Manage. 179: 5-17.
  23. Kang, S.Z., Shi, W.J., and Zhang, J.H. 2000. An improved water-use efficiency for maize grown under regulated deficit irrigation. Field Crop. Res. 67: 207-214.
  24. Madani, K. 2014. Water management in iran: what is causing the looming crisis, J. Environ. Stud. Sci. 4: 4. 315-328.
  25. Kiziloglu, F.M., Sahin, U., Kuslu, Y., and Tunc, T. 2009. Determining water yield relationship, water use efficiency, crop and pan coefficients for silage maize in a semiarid region. Irrig Sci. 27: 129-137.
  26. Kuscu, H., Karasu, A., Oz, M., Demir, A.O., and Turgut, I. 2013. Effect of irrigation amounts applied with drip irrigation on maize evapotranspiration yield, water use efficiency, and net return in a Sub-Humid climate. Turk. J. Field Crops. 18: 13-19.
  27. Lamm, F.R., and Trooien, T.P. 2003. Subsurface drip irrigation for corn production: A review of 10 years of research in Kansas. Irrig. Sci. 22: 195-200.
  28. Lin, Y., Zeng, Z., Ren, C., and Yuegao, H.U. 2012. Water use efficiency and physiological responses of oat under alternate partial root-zone irrigation in the semiarid areas of Northeast China. Proc. Engin. 28: 33-42.
  29. Li, S., Wang, K., Xie, R., Hou, P., Ming, B., Yang, X., Han, D. and Wang, Y., 2016. Implementing higher population and full mechanization technologies to achieve high yield and high efficiency in maize production. Crops. 4: 1-6.
  30. Liu, H.J., Wang, X.M., Zhang, X., Zhang, L.W., Li, Y., and Huang, G.H. 2017. Evaluation on the responses of maize (Zea mays L.) growth: yield and water use efficiency to drip irrigation water under mulch condition in the Hetao irrigation district of China. Agric. Water Manage. 179: 144-157.
  31. Martin, M.J., and Russell, W.A. 1984. Correlated responses of yield and other agronomic traits to recurrent selection for stalk quality in a maize synthetic. Crop Sci. 24: 746-750.
  32. Nabati, J., and Rezvani Moghaddam, P. 2010. The effect of irrigation intervals on yield and morphological traits in forage millet, sorghum and corn. Iranian J. Field Crop Sci. 41: 179-186. (In Persian).
  33. Novacek, M.J., Mason, S.C., Galusha, T.D., and Yaseen, M. 2013. Twin rows minimally impact irrigated maize yield, morphology, and lodging. Agron. J. 105:268-276.
  34. Payero, J.O., Melvin, S.R., Irmak, S. and Tarkalson, D. 2006. Yield response of maize to deficit irrigation in a semiarid climate. Agric. Water Manag. 84: 101-112.
  35. Qin, S.J., Li, S.E., Kang, S.Z., Du, T.S., Tong, L., and Ding, R.S. 2016. Can the drip irrigation under film mulch reduce crop evapotranspiration and save water under the sufficient irrigation condition? Agric. Water Manag. 177: 128-137.
  36. Ringler, C. 2017. Investment in Irrigation for Global Food Security, IFPRI Policy Note. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington DC (USA).
  37. Rosegrant, M.R., Ringler, C., Sulser, T.B., Ewing, M., Palazzo, A., and Zhu, T. 2009. Agriculture and food security under global change: Prospects for 2025/2050. Washington, D.C: International Food Policy Research Institute.
  38. Rudnick, D., Irmak, S., Ferguson, R., Shaver, T., Djaman, K., Slater, G., Bereuter, A., Ward, N., Francis, D., Schmer, M., Wienhold, B., and Van Donk, S. 2016. Economic return versus crop water productivity of maize for various nitrogen rates under full irrigation, limited irrigation, and rainfed Settings in South Central Nebraska. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 142: 6. 04016017.
  39. Sharma, A.K. 2002. Biofertilizers for Sustainable Agriculture. Agrobios India, 407p.
  40. Pandey, P. 2018. The Role of Irrigation for Food Security and Sustainability. Elsevier Inc.
  41. Tian, F.Q., Yang, P.J., Hu, H.C., and Liu, H. 2017. Energy balance and canopy conductance for a cotton field under film mulched drip irrigation in an arid region of northwestern China. Agric. Water Manag. 179: 110-121.
  42. Van Soest, P.J. 1991. Methods of fiber, neutral detergent fiber and non starch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J. Dairy Sci. 74: 3583-3597.
  43. Wang, Z., Li, J., and Li, Y. 2014. Simulation of nitrate leaching under drip system uniformities and precipitation patterns during the growing season of maize in North China Plain. Agric. Water Manage. 142: 19-28.
  44. Xue, J., Gou, L., Shi, Z.G., Zhao, Y.S., and Zhang, W.F. 2017. Effect of leaf removal on photosynthetically active radiation distribution in maize canopy and stalk strength. J. Integr. Agri. 16: 85-96.
  45. Xue, J., Zhao, Y., Gou, L., Shi, Z., Yao, M. and Zhang, W. 2016. How high plant density of maize affects basal internode development and strength formation. Crop Sci. 56: 3295-3306.
  46. Yilmaz, S., Erayman, M., Gozubenli, H., and Can, E. 2008. Twin or narrow – row Planting Patterns versus conventional planting in forage maize production in the Eastern Mediterranean. Cereal. Res. Commun. 36: 189-199.
  47. Zand-Parsa, S., Sepaskhah, A.R., and Rownaghi, A. 2006. Development and evaluation of integrated water and nitrogen model for maize. Agric. Water Manage. 81: 227-256.
  48. Zarei, A. 2012. Summary of Experiments on Animal Feeding Principles. Islamic Azad University, Karaj Branch, Faculty of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Animal Sci. Dept. (In Persian). 

Journal of Crop Production
Volume 12, Issue 2
September 2019
Pages 137-156

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics