IMPACT OF NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT ON GROWTH, YIELD AND …

Impact of nutrient management on yield of forage maize

J. Agric. Res., 2014, 52(4)

499

IMPACT OF NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT ON GROWTH, YIELD AND QUALITY OF FORAGE MAIZE (ZEA MAYS L.) UNDER

AGRO-CLIMATIC CONDITIONS OF FAISALABAD

Syed Muhammad Waqas Gillani*, Azraf-ul-Haq Ahmad, Farhan Khalid, Muhammad Shahid Ibne Zamir**, Muhammad Bilal Anwar*, Wasiq Ikram

and Abdul Jabbar**

ABSTRACT

An experiment was conducted during 2011 at Agronomic Research Area, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan to check the interactive effect of both macronutrients and micronutrients on the yield and quality of forage maize. The experiment comprised two factors i.e. varieties (Pak Afghoi and Syngenta-6621) and nutrients (NP and micronutrients). The application of NP and micronutrients alone and in combination was carried out with one water spray at 15 days after sowing (DAS), two water sprays at 15 and 30 DAS and three water sprays at 15, 30 and 45 DAS while, recommended dose of NP was used as control. The experiment was laid out in RCBD with factorial arrangement. The application of two foliar sprays of micronutrients at 15 and 30 DAS along with NP applied in soil significantly increased the green forage yield (58.63 t/ha) in Pak Afghoi. The quality parameters like crude protein (%), crude fiber percentage and ash contents percentage were also significantly affected by the application of micronutrients. Significant differences were also observed among the cultivars regarding plant height, leaf area per plant and stem girth per plant. The variety Pak Afghoi with two foliar sprays of micronutrients applied at 15 and 30 DAS along with NP as soil application produced significantly higher green forage yield (58.63 t/ha) and crude protein (9.55 %). For higher yield and protein content of forage maize, Pak Afghoi variety should be grown with two foliar applications of micronutrients at 15 and 30 DAS along with simultaneous use of NP in soil. KEYWORDS: Zea mays; maize; nutrient management; NP; micronutrients;

agronomic characters; forage yield; Faisalabad; Pakistan.

INTRODUCTION

The livestock sector is an integral part of agriculture in Pakistan. Green forage demands for rapidly expanding livestock industry is increasing day by day in Pakistan. The total area under fodder cultivation was 23.12 million

*Pakistan Tobbaco Board Research Station, Okara, Pakistan, **Department of Agronomy, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan.

S. M. W. Gillani et al.

J. Agric. Res., 2014, 52(4)

500

hectares with a production of 519.25 million tons. Maize fodder was cultivated on an area of 0.09 million hectares and its production was 0.96 million tons (4). Although forage is the cheapest form of feed for animals but the present forage production in Pakistan does not meet the forage requirement in terms of both quantity and quality, which consequently results in poor nourishing of animals.

Almost all cultivated soils of Pakistan are alkaline and calcareous, with high base saturation and low organic matter contents (generally < 1%). Therefore, the major soil fertility problems are deficiencies of macro and some micronutrients. Out of 17 elements, 10 essential elements have been classified as “macronutrients” as these are required in relatively large amount by the plants.

Crop nutrition is a phrase that describes the interrelationship of mineral elements in the soil and solution phase and their function in plant development. Some plants require specific amount of certain nutrients in specific form at appropriate time, for their growth and development (19). However for these micronutrients a very narrow range of deficiency and toxicity exists (13). Micronutrients not only increase the grain yield but also increase NP concentration of plants. NP concentration of plant is increased by the application of zinc and boron (1).

Micronutrient deficiencies in Pakistan are reducing crop productivity as well as deteriorating produce quality. The second most extensive deficiency after zinc is of boron as it affects maize, sorghum, other crops and deciduous fruits (18). However, there have been little research on the effects of secondary nutrients S and micronutrients such as B and Zn on the nutritional quality of crops (for food, feed and fodder use), especially under rainfed conditions in the semi-arid tropical regions. The importance of mineral nutrition of crops along with improved cultivars and crop management cannot be overemphasized for producing nutritious food and fodder (11, 28). The objective of the current study was to evaluate the effect of micronutrients on growth, fodder yield and quality of maize varieties and to assess the effect of schedule of spray of micronutrients on maize forage.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The experiment was conducted at agronomic research area of University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan following RCBD in factorial arrangements with three replications and net plot size of 3m x 5m. Seeds of two maize genotypes (Pak Afghoi and Syngenta-6621) were collected from Maize and Millets Research Institute Yousafwala, Sahiwal, Pakistan. The crop was sown


J. Agric. Res., 2014, 52(4)

501

in first week of May 2011 with the help of hand drill in 30 cm spaced rows using a seed rate of 60 kg per hectare. The treatments were as under:-

T1 = NP (80-60 kg/ha), T2 = NP + 1 water spray at 15 day, T3 = NP + 2 water sprays at 15 days and 30 days, T4 = NP + 3 water spray at 15, 30 and 45 days, T5 = 1 foliar spray of micronutrients at 15 days, T6 = 2 foliar sprays of micronutrients at 15 and 30 days, T7 = 3 foliar sprays of micronutrients at 15, 30 and 45 days, T8 = NP + 2 foliar sprays of micronutrients at 15 days, T9 = NP + 2 foliar sparys at 15 and 30 days and T10 = NP + 3 foliar sprays of micronutrients at 15, 30 and 45 days.

Fertilizer was applied @ 80-60 kg NP per hectare. Whole of phosphorus and half of nitrogen dose was applied at sowing as basal dose. The remaining nitrogen was applied with first irrigation. All agronomic practices were kept constant.

Measurement of growth related attributes: Plant population at harvesting stage was recorded by counting all the plants in one square meter at three randomly selected places in each plot and then average was calculated. At the time of fodder harvesting data on plant height was recorded. Ten plants were randomly selected from each plot at harvest and plant height was measured from the soil level to tip of the highest leaf with help of measuring tape and then their averages were calculated. The stem diameter was determined in cm by using vernier caliper. The average of leaves of ten plants were taken after weighing the leaves of ten plants and then three samples each of 40 g leaves were taken and their leaf area was calculated with the help of portable area meter MK2 and average leaf area was noted. The total area of leaves was calculated by multiplying the area of 40 g leaves with total weight of all the leaves of ten plants and then averages was calculated. Determination of yield related attributes: The weight of ten plants from each plot was taken with the help of triple beam balance and averages of these plant weights were calculated to get fresh weight of each plant in gram. Ten plants were randomly selected and chopped with the help of fodder cutter immediately and a sample of 500g was taken from each plot and was dried in an electric oven at 65°C until a constant weight was obtained. Samples were re-weighed and dry weight per plant was calculated on an average basis. The weight of plants of each plot after harvesting from all replications was weighed to calculate the green forage yield in kg. The yield


J. Agric. Res., 2014, 52(4)

502

was converted into tons per hectare. Dry matter yield per plot was determined with the help of following formula and was converted into tons per hectare.

Dry weight

Dry matter (%) = ————————— x 100 Fresh weight

Determination of quality related attributes: Kjeldahl distillation apparatus was used for calculating N (%) with the help of following formula and crude protein (%) was determined by multiplying with factor 6.25.

Volume of 0.1 N H2SO4 used x 0.0014 x Volume of sample dilution N% = ——————————————————————————————— x 100

Weight of sample x Volume of sample solution used (10 ml)

Crude protein (%) = N% x 6.25 The crude fiber (%) and ash contents (%) were determined using the method described by AOAC (3) with the help of following formula.

W1 – We Crude fiber (%) —————————— x 100

Sample weight (g)

Total weight of crucible and ash-weight of empty crucible Ash contents (%) = —————————————————————————— x 100

Weight of sample (g)

Statistical analysis: Data collected on growth and yield parameters was analyzed statistically by using Fischer’s analysis of variance technique and LSD test at 5% probability applied to compare the treatment means Steel et al. (26).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Plant height (cm)

Interactive effect of maize forage cultivars and treatments of water and micronutrients spray at different intervals along with NP application was recorded highly significant regarding plant height (Table 1). Maize forage cultivar Pak Afghoi produced maximum plant height (247.3 cm) when treated with two foliar sprays of micronutrients at 15 and 30 DAS along with basal


J. Agric. Res., 2014, 52(4)

503


J. Agric. Res., 2014, 52(4)

504

dose of NP. However, this was followed by maize forage cultivar Syngenta-6621 when treated with NP + two foliar sprays of micronutrients at 15 and 30 DAS, and Pak Afghoi and Syngenta-6621 when treated with NP + one foliar spray of micronutrients at 15 DAS where, plant heights were 241.3, 240 and 237.7 cm, respectively. While, the least plant height (199.3 cm) was recorded in both maize forage cultivars when treated with NP + one water spray at 15 DAS and NP + two water sprays at 15 and 30 DAS. These results are in accordance with the findings of Sencor et al. (21); Soomro et al. (24) and Ziaeyan et al. (30) and they have found significant effect of nutrient application on plant height of forage maize. However, contradictory results were reported by Coors et al. (10) who reported non-significant effect of nutrients particularly micronutrients on plant height of maize cultivars. Number of leaves per plant Nutrient application significantly affected the number of leaves per plant whereas, varieties and the interaction among nutrients and varieties were not significantly differed (Table 1). Maximum number of leaves per plant (18.17) were recorded in T9. However the least number of leaves per plant (13.5) was recorded in T4. An increase in number of green leaves might be due to the availability of nutrients (B, Zn etc.) at later growth stages of maize. These results are similar with the findings of Baloch et al. (19); Iptas and Acar (14) and Altin and Hunter (2). However contradictory results were reported by Aslam et al.(6) and Shehzad et al.(22) While on the other hand varieties did not reflect any significant response to nutrient application and also the interaction between nutrients and varieties was non significant.

Stem diameter (cm)

Statistically significant difference was recorded in case of forage maize cultivars and interaction of varieties with nutrient application regarding stem diameter (Table 1 & 2). Pak Afghoi cultivar surpassed the Syngenta-6621 with stem diameter of 1.57 and 1.52 cm, respectively. The interaction among varieties and nutrient application showed that maximum stem diameter (1.96 cm) was recorded in Pak Afghoi which was treated with two foliar sprays of micronutrients at 15 and 30 DAS along with basal dose of NP. This was followed by Syngenta-6621 (1.86 and 1.77 cm) which was treated with two foliar sprays of micronutrients at 15 and 30 DAS along with basal dose of NP and one foliar spray of micronutrients at 15 DAS along with basal dose of NP. However, the minimum stem diameter (1.32 cm) was recorded in Syngenta-6621 where, three foliar sprays of micronutrients was carried out. This trend was observed due to the reason that micronutrients works within the narrow


J. Agric. Res., 2014, 52(4)

505

range of toxicity. When the micronutrients exceeds that range, the negative effect was observed. These results are in line with the findings of Sakal et al. (20) and Soomro et al. (25) who stated that stem girth of different cultivars of forage maize differ significantly with foliar application of micronutrients.

Leaf area per plant (cm2)

Leaf area per plant is the measure of size of assimilatory system of plant and

is the product of leaf length and width. The main as well as interactive effect

of maize cultivars and micronutrients application significantly affected the leaf

area per plant (Table 1 & 2). The maximum leaf area (3351 cm2) and (3350

cm2) was produced by Pak Afghoi and Syngenta-6621 when these varieties

were treated with two foliar sprays of micronutrients applied at 15 and 30

DAS along with NP as basal dose followed by Pak Afghoi and

Syngenta-6621 (3136 cm2 and 3135 cm

2), when treated with one foliar spray

of micronutrients applied at 15 DAS with basal NP application. Whereas, the

minimum leaf area per plant (2908 cm2) was recorded in both Pak Afghoi and

Syngenta-6621 when treated with NP as basal application and three foliar

sprays of micronutrients at 15, 30 and 45 DAS, respectively. These results

are in line with the results found by Zheng et al. (29) and Sheperd &

Kung (23).

Fresh forage yield

Effect of varieties, nutrients sprays and their interaction on green forage yield

was highly significant (Table 1 & 2). Pak Afghoi performed better (green

forage yield of 46.55 t/ha) than Syngenta-6621 (46.01 t/ha). Maximum green

forage yield (58.63 t/ha) was recorded in Pak Afghoi where two foliar sprays

of micronutrients were applied along with basal dose of NP application, which

was statistically at par with Syngenta-6621 in the same treatment, followed

by Pak Afghoi (50.17 t/ha) where one foliar spray of micronutrients was

applied at 15 DAS along with NP applied in soil. While statistically, the

minimum forage yield was obtained in Pak Afghoi (40.74 t/ha) where only NP

was applied in soil. These results are in line with the results found by Ayub et

al. (8) and Awan (7).

Dry matter yield (t/ha)

The main and interactive effect of varieties and nutrients sprays was significant regarding dry matter yield (Table 1 & 2). Statistically, the maximum


J. Agric. Res., 2014, 52(4)

506


J. Agric. Res., 2014, 52(4)

507

dry matter yield (7.64 t/ha) was recorded in Pak Afghoi when compared with Syngenta-6621 (7.60 t/ha). Among the nutrients applied statistically the maximum dry matter yield (10.90 t/ha) was recorded in T9 followed by T8 (10.16 t/ha). The interactive effect of varieties and micronutrients sprays revealed that highest dry matter yield (10.94 t/ha) was recorded in Pak Afghoi where two foliar sprays of micronutrients were applied at 15 and 30 DAS along with NP applied in soil, followed by Syngenta-6621(10.85 t/ha) in the same treatment. Minimum dry matter yield was obtained in Sygenta-6621 where only NP was applied. These results are in line with the findings of Ashrafullah et al. (5); Soomro et al. (25); Lewis et al. (16) and Turgut et al. (27). Protein content The data (Tables 1 & 2) reflected that the effect of micro nutrients spray on crude protein percentage was highly significant while interaction of nutrients and varieties (N x V) was statistically non-significant. Mean comparison of treatments revealed that the highest value of crude protein (9.49%) was obtained in T9 followed by T8 (8.37%). Statistically the minimum crude protein (6.23%) was recorded in T7. Significant differences for crude protein contents among the maize cultivars have been also reported by Lukipudis and Spasov (17). Crude fibre

Crude fiber contents were lower at early stages and gradually increases with the age of plant. The results (Tables 1 & 2), showed that nutrients have statistically significant effect on crude fiber contents, while interactive effect of nutrients and varieties (N x V) was non significant. Statistically the highest value of crude fiber (32.02%) was observed in T9, followed by T8 (27.96%) where two foliar sprays of micronutrients were applied at 15 and 30 DAS along with NP. Minimum crude fiber contents (23.49%) were recorded in T10. These results are in accordance with the results of Kim et al. (15) and Hussain et al. (12). Ash contents Ash contents were significantly affected by varieties and nutrients spray whereas interaction among varieties and nutrients spray were found statistically non significant (Tables 1 & 2). Statistically, the highest value of ash contents (7.58%) was observed in T9 followed by T8 (7.37%). Statistically,


J. Agric. Res., 2014, 52(4)

508

the minimum ash contents (6.9%) were recorded in T7. These results are in line with the findings of Lukipudis (17) who reported the significant differences among the cultivars of maize with the application of both micro and macronutrients.

CONCLUSION

The results revealed that maize variety Pak Afghoi with application of two foliar sprays of micronutrients at 15 and 30 DAS along with NP applied in soil can yield better than the variety Syngenta-6621.

REFERENCES

1. Adiloglu, A. and S. Adiloglu. 2006. An investigation on nutritional status of tea (Camellia sinensis L.) grown in Eastern Black sea region of Turkey. Pak. J. Biol. Sci., 9:365-70.

2. Altin, G. W. and R. B. Hunter. 1984. Comparison of growth, forage yield and nutritional quality of diploid and autotetraploid maize synthetics. Canadian. J. Plant Sci., 64(3):593-98.

3. Anon. 1990. Official Methods of Analysis.15th Ed. Association of Official

Analytical Chemists, Inc.,Virginia, USA. p.770-71. 4. Anon. 2010. Pakistan Economic Survey. Ministry of Finance. Govt. of

Pakistan, Islamabad, Pakistan. 5. Ashrafullah, M., A. Ali., I. A. Mahmood, A. Amir and M. Salim. 2010.

Effect of graded level of boron on paddy yield under salt-affected soils. Abstract: 13th Congress of Soil Sci. Faisalabad, Pakistan, 22-27 March.

6. Aslam, M., A. Iqbal, M. S. Ibni Zamir, M. Mubeen and M. Amin. 2011. Effect of different nitrogen levels and seed rates on yield and quality of maize fodder. Crop Environ., 2:47-51.

7. Awan, T. H. 1999. Studies on Fodder Yield and Quality of six Maize Cultivars. M.Sc. Thesis, Deptt. of Agronomy, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan.

8. Ayub, M., R. Mehmood, A. Tanveer and I. Ahmad 1998. Fodder yield and quality of four cultivars of maize under different methods of sowing. Pakistan J. Bio. Sci., 1(3):232-34.

9. Baloch, M. B., I. U. Awan and G. Hassan. 2006. Growth and yield of rice as affected by transplanting dates and seedlings per hill under high temperature of Dera Ismail Khan, Pakistan. J. Zhejiang Univ. Sci., 7:572-79.

10. Coors, J. G., P. R. Carter and R. B. Hunter. 1994. Silage Corn. In: Specialty Corns. A. R. Hallauer, (Cal). CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. p. 305-40.


J. Agric. Res., 2014, 52(4)

509

11. Graham R. D., R. M. Welch, D. A. Saunders, I. Ortiz-Monasterio, H. E. Bouis, M. Bonierbale, S. de Haan, G. Burgos, G. Thiele, R. Liria, C. A. Meisner, S. E. Beebe, M. J. Potts, M. Kadian, P. R. Hobbs, R. K. Gupta, S. Twomlow. 2007. Nutritious Subsistence Food Systems. In: Advances in Agronomy. Boyer, J. S., K. M. Scow, R. L. Philips, P. M. Bertsch, L. P. Wilding (eds.),. American Society of Agronomy, USA. Pp. 237.

12. Hussain, A., D. Muhammad, S. Khan and M. B. Bhatti. 1995. Performance of various cultivars of forage sorghum under rainfed conditions. J. Agric. Res., 33:413-26.

13. Imtiaz, M., A. Rashid, P. Khan, M. Y. Memon and M. Aslam. 2010. The role of micronutrients in crop production and human health. Pak. J. Bot., 42:2565-78.

14. Iptas, S. and A. A. Acar. 2003. Genotype and Row Spacing Influence on Corn Silage Yield and Some Agronomic Characters. Proceedings Fifth. Field Crops Congress in Turkey, 13-17 October, 458-62.

15. Kim, S. K., A. Awad, C. Agbobli, G. Weber, D. Berner and M. Winlow. 1992. Breeding maize for durable resistant to Striga hermonthica, S. asiatica and S. aspera. Abstract of the first Intl. Crop Sci. Congress. Ames, lowa, USA. p.67.

16. Lewis, L., M. Onsongo, H. Njapau, H. Schurz-Rogers, G. luber, S. J. Nyamongo, L. Baker, A. M. Dahiye, A. Misore and D. R. Kevin. 2005. Aflatoxin contamination of commercial maize products during an outbreak of acute aflatoxicosis in Eastern and Central Kenya. Environmental Health Perspective, 113(12):1763-67.

17. Lukipudis. S. and R. Spasov. 1987. Study of triticale in the high plains

of Bulgaria. Plant Breeding Abstracts. 57(3), Abst. No. 1815.

18. Rashid, A. M. Yasin, M. A. Ali, Z. Ahmed and R. Ullah. 2006. An

alarming boron deficiency in calcareous rice soil of Pakistan: Boron use

improves yield and cooking quality. Proc. 3rd Int symposium on All

Aspects of Plant and Animal Boron Nutrition, Wuhan,, China, 9-13

Sept. 2005. Springer New York, USA.

19. Sajid, A., A. R. Khan, G. Mairaj, M. Fida and S. Bibi. 2008. Assessment

of different crop nutrient management practices for yield improvement.

Aust. J. Crop Sci., 2(3): 150-57.

20. Sakal, R., R. B. Sinha, A. P. Singh and N. S. Bhoga. 1999. Effect of

boron and FYM alone and in combination on boron nutrition of crops in

maize-lentil cropping system. Fertilizer News, 44(11):49-52.

21. Sencor, O., A Yildirin and S. Gokmen. 1993. Effect of sowing density on

fodder and hay yields of some maize cultivars grown for silage as a

second crop. Turk Tarim, Ve ormanaki Dergisi, 17:763-73.


J. Agric. Res., 2014, 52(4)

510

22. Shehzad, M. A., M. Maqsood, M. A. Bhatti, W. Ahmad, M. R. Shahid. 2012. Effects of nitrogen fertilization rate and harvest time on maize (Zea mays L.) fodder yield and its quality attributes. Asian J. Pharm. Biol. Res., 2:19-26.

23. Sheperd, A. C., and L. Kung. 1996. An enzyme additive for corn silage: Effects on silage composition and animal performance. J. Dairy Sci., 79:1760-66.

24. Soomro Z. A., A. S. Larik, M. B. Kumbhar and N. U. Khan. 2006. Expression of heterosis in the F1 generation of a diallel cross of diverse cotton genotypes. Sarhad J. Agric. 22(3):427-31.

25. Soomro, Z. H., P. A. Baloch and A. W. Gandhai. 2011. Comparative effects of foliar and soil applied boron on growth and fodder yield of maize. Pak. J. Agri., Agril. Engg. Vet. Sci., 27(1):18-26.

26. Steel, R. G. D., J. H. Torrie and D. A. Dicky. 1997. Principles and procedures of statistics. A biometrical approach. 3rd Ed. McGraw-Hill, Book Co. Inc., New York, USA.

27. Turgut, I., A. Duman, U. Bilgili and E. Acikgoz. 2005. Alternate row spacing and plant density effects on forage dry matter yield of corn hybrids (Zea mays L.). J. Agron. Crop Sci., 191:146-51.

28. Welch, R. M. and R. D. Graham. 2004. Breeding for micronutrients in staple food crops from a human nutrition perspective. J. Exp. Bot., 55(396):353-64.

29. Zheng, Q. C., W. H. Chen, Y. L. Zhu, X. M. Tang, X. Y. Fu, H. Z. Qi and G.X. Zhang. 1993. Screening of salt-tolerant wheat variants via anther culture in salt stress media. Acta Bot. Sin., 35(2):121-28.

30. Ziaeyan, A. H. and M. Rajaie. 2009. Combined effect of zinc and boron on yield and nutrients accumulation in corn. Int. J. Plant Prod. 3(3):35-44.

IMPACT OF NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT ON GROWTH, YIELD AND …

Documents

Transcript of IMPACT OF NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT ON GROWTH, YIELD AND …