Research Article

Impact of Soil Conditioning and Irrigation Regimes on the Performance of Maize Crop

Muhammad Ijaz Khan* and Amanullah Jan

Department of Agronomy, Faculty of Crop Production Sciences, The University of Agriculture, Peshawar, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan.

Received | February 13, 2017; Accepted | January 29, 2018; Published | February 26, 2018

*Correspondence | Muhammad Ijaz Khan, Department of Agronomy, Faculty of Crop Production Sciences, The University of Agriculture, Peshawar, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan; Email: ijaz_agrian@yahoo.com

Citation | Khan, M.I. and A. Jan. 2018. Impact of soil conditioning and irrigation regimes on the performance of maize crop. Sarhad Journal of Agriculture, 34(1): 173-187.

DOI | http://dx.doi.org/10.17582/journal.sja/2018/34.1.173.187

Keywords | Soil conditioning, Humic acid, Regimes, Tassel visible, Blister, Dough

Introduction

Maize (Zea mays L.) is the third most important cereal crop in the world after wheat and rice both in area sown and production obtained (Kara and Biber, 2008; Morris, 1998). In Pakistan, maize was sown on 1.13 million hectares area with 4.695 million tons production having normal yield of 3590 kg ha-1 (Anjum et al., 2014). In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa maize was planted on 0.475 million hectares area with production of 0.887 million tons on average basis (Shafi et al., 2007). The average yield of maize (1868 kg ha-1) in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province of the country was almost half of the national average yield (MNFSR, 2015-16) and our average yield is extremely low as compared with other leading growing countries of maize in the world where the average grain yield exceeds 5000 kg ha-1. Inefficient use of the available water and lack of proper soil management practices are amongst the important factors limiting maize production at the regional and national level in Pakistan.

In the study area (Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan) maize is mainly grown as summer season crop. Surface irrigation is predominate water application method in the country. Water application to a crop is based on the numbers of irrigation given per growing season. Efficiency of water applied and yield of crop depends on water application at critical growth stage of crop. Filintas (2003) reported that for achieving maximum production, maize requires large quantities of seasonal water and depends upon the climatic condition and length of growing period. For achieving maximum yield of 4000 kg/ha in Pakistan seasonal irrigation of 400-600 mm have been recommended for maize (Pervez et al., 2004).

The physical condition of the soil is another important factor that affects crop production. Poor soil physical condition limit the movement of soil moisture, plant water uptake, soil aeration and performance of roots. To overcome these hindrances the improvement in the soil physical conditions, soil amending materials called “soil conditioners” are added to the soil. Wheat straws as crop residues (CR) are important renewable, cheap and organic sources which are readily available to farmers. Rehman (1996) reported that CR and FYM built up soil humus status, improved water holding capacity of soil and increasedcation exchange capacity and conserved soil moisture. Sial et al. (2007) mentioned that the application of manure as farm yard manure (FYM) improved physical properties of soil, increased soil water holding capacity and also the fraction of water needed by the plants for their growth and development.

Gypsum application improved soil physical condition, increased calcium uptake, water availability and reduced subsoil aluminum toxicity that all favored the growth of plants (Norton and Rhoton, 2007).Soil conditioning is required to improve soil structure required for growth of underground part of the plant, movement of air and water through the soil and gypsum flocculate clay in acid and alkaline soils as it provides calcium (Sumner et al., 1986; Sheinberg et al., 1989). Humic acid exerts a stimulatory, conditioning and growth promoting effect on soil when applied in combination with chemical fertilizers due to its chelating properties to hold nutrients ions and released them as and when required by the plants (Linchen, 1978). Khattak and Muhammad (2008) reported that HA application in conjunction with NPK or micronutrients (Cu and Zn) had additive effect in increasing nutrients and water availability and yield of various crops. HA act as a catalyst in boost up the movement of soil microorganisms (Bhardwaj and Gaur, 1970).

Keeping in view the importance of these factors the present experiment was designed using maize as test crop under the climatic condition of Peshawar valley with the objective to determine the most promising irrigation regime and best soil conditioner for higher production of maize crop.

Materials and Methods

Experimental details

Field experiments on “impact of soil conditioning and irrigation regimes on the performance of maize crop” were conducted for two consecutive growing season of maize crop (2011-2012) at Agronomy Research Farm, The University of Agriculture, Peshawar Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Randomized complete block design with split plot arrangements was used to carry out the experiment having three replications, with a subplot size of 24 m2 (6 m width x 4 m length). Main plot and subplot factors were irrigation regimes and soil conditioners, respectively. Soil conditioners were applied one week before sowing of maize crop. Soil conditioners applied were organic soil conditioners (wheat straw as crop residue, farm yard manure and humic acid) while the inorganic source of soil conditioner was gypsum (G). Two levels of humic acid (2 kg and 4 kg ha-1) were also used as soil conditioners (SC). Maize cultivar “Azam” was planted at seed rate of 30 kg ha-1with 75 cm row- rowand25 cm plant - plant distance. There were 8 rows per plot. The crop was sown on 27th June both in 2011 and 2012.The analyses showed that FYM and CR contained 0.70 and0.35 % Nrespectively.DAP was applied as a source of phosphorus at the rate of 60 kg ha-1, while urea as a source of nitrogen was applied at the rate of 120 kg ha-1to the field. The soil of the research site was silty clay loam, pediment alluvium, Ustochrept. Detail and combination of the treatments are as follow:

Figure 1 showed that during maize growing season (June- September) of both years the temperature was almost stable. Maximum and minimum temperatures were 40°C and 23°C during the first and second year of experiment (2011 and 2012), respectively. Rainfall data shown in Figure 2 reveal that the total rainfall during growing of maize in year 2011 was 204.4 mm while during 2012 the total rainfall was 190.5 mm.

 

Table 1: Physico-chemical characteristics of research site before the initiation of the trial (0-15 cm).

Soil Properties	Units	Values
Class of Texture	---	Silty clay loam
pH (1:2.5)	---	7.74
ECe (1: 2.5)	dSm-1	0.37
Clay	%	40.1
Silt	%	50.9
Sand	%	8.7
Bulk density	g cm-3	1.46
Total organic carbon	%	0.59
Total Nitrogen	g kg-1	0.42

In this study our main objective was not to reduce or increase the quantity of each irrigation event, but applied the same amount at each occasion. Irrigations were omitted at different growing stages of maize crop. Constant amount of water (93 mm per irrigation) as surface irrigation was given at the most critical growth stages of maize plant as those defined by Ritichi et al. (1992) and given in Table 2.

Factor A. Main plot: Irrigation

Table 2: Irrigation schedule for maize crop grown during 2011 and 2012.

Irrigation applied at growth stage		Numbers of Irrigations applied
		W6	W5	W4	W3
Emergence (VE)		√	√	√	√
4 Leaves (V20)		√	√	√	√
8 Leaves (V40)		√	√	√	√
Tassel visible (VT)		√	√	√	X
Blister stage (R2)		√	√	X	X
Dough stage (R4)		√	X	X	X
Total Amount of Water Applied (mm)		558	465	372	279
Rainfall (mm)	Year 1	204.5
	Year 2	190.5
Time taken per irrigation of main plot		28 minutes

Ritichi et al, (1992); √: Irrigation applied; x: Irrigation omitted at growth stage.

Factor B: Sub Plot: Soil Conditioning.

Soil Conditioning (SC) (kg ha-1)

Farmyard manure (FYM) 10000

Crop Residue (CR) 10000

Humic Acid (HA1) 2

Humic Acid (HA2) 4

Control (00) 0

Factor C: Sub Plot: Gypsum

Gypsum (G) Added(+) 1000

Gypsum (G) Not Added(-) 00

Treatment Combinations (B x C)

T1 =Control (00)T2 =Gypsum

T3 =FYM + No Gypsum T4 =FYM + Gypsum

T5 =Crop Residue + No Gypsum T6 =Crop Residue + Gypsum

T7 =Humic acid 2 + No Gypsum T8 =Humic acid 2 + Gypsum

T9 = Humic acid 4 + No Gypsum T10 =Humic acid 4 + Gypsum

Table 3: Average Crop growth rate (gm-2day-1) of maize as affected by soil conditioning and irrigation regimes during year 2011 and 2012.

Treatments			Years (Y)				Two years average
			2011		2012
No. of Irrigations
3			5.8 c		6.2 c		6.0 c
4			7.2 b		8.0 b		7.6 b
5			8.8 a		10.4 a		9.6 a
6			8.5 a		10.0 a		9.3 a
LSD (0.05)			0.40		1.0		0.60
Gypsum	(t ha-1)
Without gypsum (-)	0		6.3 b		7.7 b		7.0 b
With gypsum (+)	1		8.0 a		9.2 a		8.6 a
Significance			*		*		*
Soil conditioning (SC)	(kg ha-1)
T1= Control	0		5.0 d		6.2 d		5.6 d
T2= Farmyard manure (FYM)	10000		9.2 a		11.0 a		10.1 a
T3= Crop Residue (CR)	10000		8.4 b		9.3 b		8.8 b
T4= Humic acid (HA1)	2		6.2 c		7.8 c		7.0 c
T5= Humic acid (HA2)	4		9.1 b		10.3 b		9.7 b
LSD (0.05)			0.35		0.44		0.37
Year Mean			6.0 b		8..6 a
Planned Mean Comparison
Treatment			Mean		Contrast			Significance
Control (T1)			5.6		T1 vs T2+T3+T4+T5			**
Rest (T2+T3+T4+T5)			8.9
FYM (T2)			10.1		T2 vs T3			**
CR (T3)			8.8
FYM (T2)			10.1		T2 vs T4 + T5			**
HA (T4 + T5)			8.4
CR (T3)			8.8		T3 vs T4 + T5			ns
HA (T4 + T5)			8.4
Interactions
W x G ns Y x W		ns		Y x W x SC		ns
W x SC ns Y x G		ns		Y x G x SC		ns
G x SC * W x G x SC		ns		Y x W x G x SC		ns
Y x SC ns Y x W x G		ns

Means in the same category with the same letters are not significantly different from each other at 5% level of probability. *: Significant at 5% level of probability; **: Significant at 1% level of probability; ns: Non significant.

Procedures

The growth rate (g m-2 day-1) of the crop was determined by taking destructive sampling at 20 days interval. The harvested biomass was dried in oven at 80 0C for 24 hours for having a constant dry weight. Then mean CGR was calculated by the formula proposed by Hunt (1978).

 

Leaf area plant-1 (cm2) was determined by measuring the length and width of all leaves of five selected plants randomly in three central rows from each subplot and calculated according to the following formula proposed by Saxena (1965).

Leaf area plant-1 = No. of leaves plant-1 x avg. leaf length x avg. leaf width x Correction Factor (0.75)

Data on plant height (cm) was recorded from base of plant to tassel base in each sub plot of five plant selected randomly at maturity and averages was calculated. Biological yield (above ground parts of the plant) was calculated in each subplot by harvesting five central rows, dried and then weighed with electric balance. The data obtained for biological yield in every subplot was changed into kg ha-1. Grain and straw nitrogen analysis was made for maize grain. At the harvest of maize in both years the samples (grain and straw) were collected from each treatment, dried and ground in a Willey’s Mill and samples were analyzed for N contents through the Kjildhal method outlined by Breemner and Mulvaney (1982).

Statistical analysis

The collected data were statistically analyzed using the procedure out lined by Steel and Torrie (1984).

Results and Discussion

Crop growth rate

Data concerning average crop growth rate are shown in Table 3. Perusal of the mean data indicated that gypsum, irrigation regime and soil conditionings had improved average crop growth rate significantly. The interaction between G x SC and year effect was also significant for crop growth rate. During second year (2012) average crop growth rate was significantly higher (8.6 gm-2day-1) as compared with first year (6.0 gm-2 day-1) of the experiment. Crop growth rate was also significantly affected by irrigation regimes. Crop growth rate was higher (9.6 gm-2 day-1) in plots where five irrigations were applied at (emergence + 4 leaves + 8 leaves + Tassel visible + blister stage) while significantly lower average crop growth rate (6.0 gm-2 day-1) were observed in plots receiving three irrigations and was at par with irrigation increased up to six irrigation. The findings of Hassan (2003) and Kazmi et al. (2003) also indicated that CGR in maize increased with increase in irrigation numbers up to the maximum of five irrigation. Data further showed that crop growth rate was significantly faster (8.6 gm-2 day-1) in plots where gypsum was applied while lower CGR (7.0 gm-2 day-1) was observed in no G applied plots. Gypsum accelerated growth rate of maize as a result of improving conservation and movement of water in the soil (Norton and Rhoton, 2007). Significant higher CGR 10.1 gm-2 day-1 was received in plots where FYM was applied compared to control plots having lowerCGR (5.6 gm-2 day-1). Our results are in accordance with Micske et al. (1990) who observed that farmyard manure had brought significant and positive changes in the growth rate, leaf area, and leaf area index, yield and harvest index of maize. Significant differences were recorded among various SC applied. Planned mean comparison revealed that average CGR was higher in SC treated plots compared with control.

The interaction between G x SC was also significant for average crop growth rate (Figure 3). The interaction indicating that crop growth rate increased with G application compared with no G. Higher crop growth rate was observed in case of combined application of SC x G, however faster CGR was received from those plots where FYM was incorporated in combination with G.

Leaf area plant-1

Table 4 revealed that leaf area plant-1(cm2) was significantly affected by gypsum, irrigation numbers and soil conditioning. The interaction between W x SC and G x SC and year effect was also significant for leaf area plant-1. Considerably higher leaf area plant-1 (4302 cm2) was recorded during 2012 as compared with 2011 (4067 cm2). Data showed that higher leaf area plant-1 (4388 cm2) was obtained in plots where five irrigations were applied at (emergence + 4 leaves + 8 leaves + Tassel visible + blister stage) which was statistically similar to leaf area plant-1 recorded at six irrigation number compared to leaf area plant-1 (3874 cm2) of the plots irrigated thrice. Irrigation increased leaf parameters (leaf area and leaf area index) of the maize crop (Moiez et al., 2003) and water shortage during any stage of growth and development of the crop reduced leaf area plant-1 and leaf area index (Pandey et al., 2000; Traore et al., 2000) of maize crop. Higher leaf area plant-1 (4231 cm2) was recorded in those subplots where gypsum was used compared to plots having no G application. Our results are also in line with Downey (1991) and Fontanetto et al. (2000)

Table 4: Leaf area plant-1 (cm2) of maize as affected by soil conditioning and irrigation regimes during 2011 and 2012.

Treatments			Years (Y)				Two years average
			2011		2012
No. of Irrigations
3			3797 c		3951 c		3874 c
4			4040 b		4156 b		4098 b
5			4334 a		4442 a		4388 a
6			4288 a		4311 a		4299 a
LSD (0.05)			183		190		201
Gypsum	(t ha-1)
Without gypsum (-)	0		3958 b		4059 b		4008 b
With gypsum (+)	1		4156 a		4307 a		4231 a
Significance			*		*		*
Soil conditioning (SC)	(kg ha-1)
T1= Control	0		3722 c		3795d		3758 d
T2= Farmyard manure (FYM)	10000		4405 a		4530a		4467 a
T3= Crop Residue (CR)	10000		3979 b		4183 c		4081 c
T4= Humic acid (HA1)	2		3998 b		4082 c		4040 c
T5= Humic acid (HA2)	4		4180 b		4326 b		4253 b
LSD (0.05)			155		120		170
Year Means			4067 b		4302 a
Planned Mean Comparison
Treatment			Mean		Contrast			Significance
Control (T1)			3758		T1 vs T2+T3+T4+T5			**
Rest (T2+T3+T4+T5)			4210
FYM (T2)			4467		T2 vs T3			**
CR (T3)			4081
FYM (T2)			4467		T2 vs T4 + T5			*
HA (T4 + T5)			4146
CR (T3)			4081		T3 vs T4 + T5			ns
HA (T4 + T5)			4146
Interactions
W x G ns Y x W		ns		Y x W x SC		ns
W x SC * Y x G		ns		Y x G x SC		ns
G x SC * W x G x SC		ns		Y x W x G x SC		ns
Y x SC ns Y x W x G		ns

Means in the same category with the same letters are not significantly different from each other at 5% level of probability. *: Significant at 5% level of probability; **: Significant at 1% level of probability; ns: Non significant.

who reported that gypsum delayed growth stages (leaf area and leaf area index) of maize. Similarly leaf area plant-1 was significantly higher (4467 cm2) in plots treated with FYM as compared with control plots where lower leaf area plant-1 of 3758 cm2 was observed. Significant increase in root shoot dry weights, leaf area, ear per plant and yield of maize with incorporation of FYM at 10 tons ha-1 as soil conditioning has been reported by Adeyemo and Agele (2010). Planned mean

Comparison indicated that leaf area plant-1 was higher in plots treated with soil conditioners (4210 cm2) when compared to control plots (3758 cm2).

The interaction between W x SC for leaf area plant-1 of maize was significant (Figure 4). The figure indicated that with increase in irrigation numbers up to certain limit SC had produced greater leaf area plant-1 but further increase in irrigation number leaf area plant-1 brought no significant changes in leaf area plant-1.Among SC applied plots, FYM treated plots responded well with increase in irrigation as compared with others. It is indicated that when there is limited irrigation FYM can help to maintain leaf growth. No significant difference was observed in leaf area plant-1 in plots where other soil conditionings were used. The interaction between G x SC for leaf area plant-1 of maize (Figure 5) revealed that leaf area plant-1 enhanced with application of SC in gypsum applied plots as compared with no G application. Farmyard manure having G application had produced significantly broader leaves as compared with other soil conditionings used. FYM application resulted in higher leaf area when used in combination with G as compared with sole application.

Plant height

Data concerning plant height (cm) of maize as influenced by soil conditioning and irrigation regimes are reported in Table 5. Meditation of the data indicated that plant height was affected by all the factors under study significantly. All the interactions were significant except W x G for plant height. The year effect was non-significant for plant height for both years of experimentation. Based on the results of two years of experimentation taller plants of 206.8 cm were observed in plots where five irrigations were applied while dwarf plants (193.8 cm) were recorded in plots where three irrigations (Omitted three irrigations at (tassel visible, blister stage and dough stage) were applied and was at par with six irrigation. Our results confirmed the findings of Anjam et al. (2014) who suggested that plant height showed linear response to increase in irrigation frequency up to some levels. On the other hand there is also some evidence as reported by Soler et al. (2007) and Cakir (2004) that water deficiency at any growth stage reduce the plant height of maize. Based on the two years average taller plants of 203.0 cm were recorded in G treated plots compared to plot with no G (195.1 cm). For increasing crop productivity and soil fertility gypsum application is the best option to be used as it had significant effect on plant height and straw and grain N percentage in maize crop (Bello, 2012). Plant height had also significant response to SC. Higher plant height was obtained from plots treated with SC than plots without SC. The results of our experiment are supported by Jadoon et al. (2004) who reported that grain yield, biological yield, plant height and leaves plant-1 were higher in maize with the application of FYM. Significantly taller plants were found in rest treated plots as compared to control plots. Similarly FYM treated plots resulted in taller plants as compared with HA.

The interaction between W x SC for plant height was significant (Figure 6). The interaction reflects that plant tallness increased with increase in irrigation levels from W3 to W5 and SC application. Among SC application FYM produced taller plants even with lower irrigation regime than other SC. However taller plants were recorded when FYM was used in combination with five numbers of irrigation. Plant height increased with increase in irrigation number from three to five but further increase in irrigation numbers did not increase plant height significantly in all the SC applied plots. The interaction between G x SC also affected plant height (Figure 7) which showed that plant height was notably influenced by G in plots where SC was applied. Gypsum application in combination with FYM had resulted in taller plants compared sole application or in combination with other SC. The increase in plant height was more in case of G x SC as compared with control. Amongst SC treated plots the taller

Table 5: Plant height (cm) of maize as affected by soil conditioning and irrigation regimes during 2011 and 2012.

Treatments			Years (Y)				Two years average
			2011		2012
No. of Irrigations
3			193.6 c		193.9 c		193.8 c
4			196.8 b		199.9 b		198.4 b
5			206.5 a		207.1 a		206.8 a
6			202.3 ab		204.1 ab		203.2 ab
LSD (0.05)			2.22		1.38		1.39
Gypsum	(t ha-1)
Without gypsum (-)	0		193.9 b		196.3 b		195.1 b
With gypsum (+)	1		202.7 a		203.2 a		203.0 a
Significance			*		*		*
Soil conditioning (SC)	(kg ha-1)
T1= Control	0		189.0 d		191.1 d		190.1 d
T2= Farmyard manure (FYM)	10000		208.3 a		207.7 a		208.0 a
T3= Crop Residue (CR)	10000		195.7 c		198.7 c		197.2 c
T4= Humic acid (HA1)	2		198.3 b		198.5 c		198.4 c
T5= Humic acid (HA2)	4		200.3 b		202.8 b		201.5 b
LSD (0.05)			1.4		1.58		1.47
Year Means			198.3		199.7
Planned mean comparison
Treatment			Mean		Contrast			Significance
Control (T1)			190.1		T1 vs T2+T3+T4+-T5			**
Rest (T2+T3+T4+T5)			201.2
FYM (T2)			208.0		T2 vs T3			*
CR (T3)			197.2
FYM (T2)			208.0		T2 vs T4 + T5			**
HA (T4 + T5)			199.9
CR (T3)			197.2		T3 vs T4 + T5			ns
HA (T4 + T5)			199.9
Interactions
W x G ns Y x W		ns		Y x W x SC		ns
W x SC * Y x G		ns		Y x G x SC		ns
G x SC ** W x G x SC		ns		Y x W x G x SC		ns
Y x SC ns Y x W x G		ns

Means in the same category with the same letters are not significantly different from each other at 5% level of probability. *: Significant at 5% level of probability; **: Significant at 1% level of probability ns = Non significant.

plants were observed in FYM treated plots with both G applied or not. Plant height responded positively to the application of G along with FYM as compared with other treatments.

Biological yield

Data regarding biological yield (kg ha-1) of maize are given in Table 6. Mean value of the data revealed that G, W and SC had a significant effect on biological yield of maize crop. The year effect and the interaction

Table 6: Biological yield (kg ha-1) of maize as affected by soil conditioning and irrigation regimes during 2011 and 2012.

Treatments				Years (Y)					Two years average
				2011			2012
No. of Irrigations
3				9040 c			9720 c		9380 c
4				9699 b			9940 b		9820 b
5				10411 a			10996 a		10704 a
6				9932 b			10356 b		10144 ab
LSD (0.05)				463			542		359
Gypsum	(t ha-1)
Without gypsum (-)	0			9348 b			9959 b		9653 b
With gypsum (+)	1			10194 a			10625 a		10409 a
Significance				*			*		*
Soil conditioning (SC)	(kg ha-1)
T1= Control		0		9259 c			9602 c		9430 d
T2= Farmyard manure (FYM)		10000		10653 a			11293 a		10973 a
T3= Crop Residue (CR)		10000		9488 b			9957 b		9722 c
T4= Humic acid (HA1)		2		9794 b			10250 b		10022 b
T5= Humic acid (HA1)		4		9860 b			10359 b		10109 b
LSD (0.05)				472			433		370
Year Means				9902 b			10464 a
Planned Mean Comparison
Treatment				Mean		Contrast			Significance
Control (T1)				9430		T1 vs T2+T3+T4+T5				**
Rest (T2+T3+T4+T5)				10206
FYM (T2)				10973		T2 vs T3				*
CR (T3)				9722
FYM (T2)				10973		T2 vs T4 + T5				*
HA (T4 + T5)				10066
CR (T3)				9722		T3 vs T4 + T5				ns
HA (T4 + T5)				10066
Interactions
W x G * Y x W			ns		Y x W x SC			ns
W x SC ns Y x G			ns		Y x G x SC			ns
G x SC ** W x G x SC			ns		Y x W x G x SC			ns
Y x SC ns Y x W x G			ns

Means in the same category with the same letters are not significantly different from each other at 5% level of probability; *: Significant at 5% level of probability; **: Significant at 1% level of probability ns: Non significant.

between W x G and G x SC was also significant for biological yield. During second year of the experimentation higher biological yield (10464kg ha-1) was produced as compared to first year (9902kg ha-1). Higher biological yield of (10704kg ha-1) was observed in five times irrigated plots (stress imposed at dough stage) compared to plots (9380kg ha-1) receiving three irrigations (stress imposed at tassel visible, blister and dough stages). Both Irrigation and quality of water affect the height of plant, rate of germination, grains ear-1, production and the efficiency of water utilized by the plants (Irfan et al., 2014). In case of G, higher biological yield (10409kg ha-1) was founded in G treated plots while lower biological yield of 9653kg ha-1 was found in those plots where no G was applied. Gypsum application proved to be the best treatment giving higher biological yield and delayed maturity of maize (Zaka et al., 2005; Khurana and Sharma, 1995). Effect of SC was significant for biological yield. Higher biological yield (10973kg ha-1) was observed in FYM applied

Table 7: Grain N (g kg-1) of maize as affected by soil conditioning and irrigation regimes during 2011 and 2012.

Treatments					Years (Y)				Two years average
					2011		2012
No. of Irrigations
3					18.7 c		18.8 d		18.7 c
4					19.7 b		19.4 c		19.6 b
5					20.8 b		20.9 b		20.8 b
6					21.6 a		21.7 a		21.6 a
LSD (0.05)					0.10		0.12		0.12
Gypsum	(t ha-1)
Without gypsum (-)	0				19.5 b		19.3 b		19.4 b
With gypsum (+)	1				21.9 a		21.0 a		21.0 a
Significance					*		*		*
Soil conditioning (SC)	(kg ha-1)
T1= Control	0				18.2 c		17.9 d		18.1 c
T2= Farmyard manure (FYM)		10000			21.4 a		23.1 a		22.2 a
T3= Crop Residue (CR)	10000				20.3 b		19.7 c		20.0 b
T4= Humic acid (HA1)	2				20.6 b		19.9 b		20.2 b
T5= Humic acid (HA1)	4				20.5 b		20.3 b		20.4 b
LSD (0.05)					0.11		0.13		0.10
Year Means					20.2		20.2
Planned Mean Comparison
Treatment				Mean			Contrast		Significance
Control (T1)				18.1			T1 vs T2+T3+T4+T5			**
Rest (T2+T3+T4+T5)				20.7
FYM (T2)				22.2			T2 vs T3			*
CR (T3)				20.0
FYM (T2)				22.2			T2 vs T4 + T5			**
HA (T4 + T5)				20.3
CR (T3)				20.0			T3 vs T4 + T5			ns
HA (T4 + T5)				20.3
Interactions
W x G ns Y x W			ns			Y x W x SC		ns
W x SC ns Y x G			ns			Y x G x SC		ns
G x SC * W x G x SC			ns			Y x W x G x SC		ns
Y x SC ns Y x W x G			ns

Means in the same category with the same letters are not significantly different from each other at 5% level of probability; *: Significant at 5% level of probability; **: Significant at 1% level of probability; ns: Non significant.

plots; whereas lower biological yield (9430 kg ha-1) was recorded in plots without FYM and other SC application. The results of our experiment are in association with Ihsan and Hasan (2013) who investigated that FYM significantly increased.

biological yield, plant height, grain yield, (Adeyemo and Agele, 2010; Singh and Agarwal, 2001; Chalk et al., 2003; Wang et al., 2004). Planned mean comparison showed that biological yield was higher (10206kg ha-1) in treated plots as compared to rest treated and control plots (9430 kg ha-1).

The interaction between G x W was significant for biological yield. The figure showed that when G was used as inorganic source of SC higher biological yield was observed at all levels of irrigation as compared to application of irrigations without G application so it showed that G performed well at the presence of sufficient amount of water at the initial stages of crop growth (Figure 8). The data regarding interaction between G x SC (Figure 9) revealed that biological yield responded very well to application of G x SC as compared with no G. All the SC applied in the experiment produced higher biological yield in the presence of G as compared to no G application. It shows that G can increase biological yield even without SC but the increase with SC is many fold. Among SC, FYM respond positively to the application of G as higher biological yield was observed in those plots where FYM along with G was applied.

Grain nitrogen

Data pertaining to nitrogen contents (%) in grains of maize are shown in Table 7. Mean value of the data revealed that G, W and SC had influenced grain nitrogen contents of maize. The year effect and all interactions were non significant with exception of G x SC for grains nitrogen contents of maize. In case of irrigation plots which received six irrigations at known critical growth stages had significantly increased nitrogen contents of maize grains (21.6 g kg-1) as compared with other irrigations regimes applied in the experiment. Our results are supported by the finding of Ning et al. (2012) who stated that irrigation enhanced the rate of nitrogen uptake and rate of translocation to grain and straw of maize crop. Higher grain nitrogen contents (21.0 g kg-1) were found in those plots where G was applied as inorganic soil conditioner compared with control plots where lower grains nitrogen contents (19.4 g kg-1) were recorded. Berecz et al. (2005) observed that G application resulted in production of higher amount of dry matter and nitrogen concentration in both grains and straw of maize. Among SC, higher grains nitrogen contents (22.2 g kg-1) were found in FYM applied plots while lowest grains nitrogen contents (18.1 g kg-1) were found in plots where no SC was applied. Our results are in agreement with Bayu et al. (2006) who recognized that use of FYM enhanced nitrogen uptake by 21%–36%, grain and straw N and concentration of protein in grain of maize crop by 20 %–29%. Planned mean comparison revealed that grain N contents were higher in treated plots as compared with control plots.

Interaction between G x SC showed that initially all SC had lower maize grain nitrogen contents but significant increase in grain N contents was observed with G application. Higher grains nitrogen contents were observed when FYM and G were used as compared with no G application. No significant variations were found when G was used with other soil conditioners (Figure 10).

Straw nitrogen

Perusal of the data (Table 8) showed that nitrogen contents (g kg-1) in maize straw were significantly influenced by G, W and SC. The year effect was also significant for straw nitrogen contents. Interactions between G x SC was found significant for maize straw nitrogen contents. In second year of experiment higher straw N (9.1 g kg-1) was recorded as compared with the first year (7.9 g kg-1). Higher nitrogen contents in maize straw

Table 8: Straw N (g kg-1) of maize as affected by soil conditioning and irrigation regimes during 2011and 2012.

Treatments					Years (Y)					Two years average
					2011			2012
No. of Irrigations
3					5.7 c			7.6 d		6.7 c
4					7.6 b			8.9 c		8.2 b
5					8.4 b			9.2 b		8.8 b
6					10.2 a			10.9 a		10.5 a
LSD (0.05)					0.10			0.9		0.9
Gypsum		(t ha-1)
Without gypsum (-)		0			7.2 b			8.4 b		7.8 b
With gypsum (+)		1			8.8 a			9.9 a		9.3 a
Significance					*			*		*
Soil conditioning (SC)		(kg ha-1)
T1= Control		0			6.1 d			6.5 c		6.3 d
T2= Farmyard manure (FYM)		10000			10.1 a			11.4 a		10.8 a
T3= Crop Residue (CR)		10000			7.4 c			8.9 b		8.2 c
T4= Humic acid (HA1)		2			7.4 c			9.2 b		8.3 c
T5= Humic acid (HA1)		4			8..9 b			9.6 b		9.3 b
LSD (0.05)					0.19			0.13		0.10
Year Means					7.9 b			9.1 a
Planned Mean Comparison
Treatment				Mean			Contrast			Significance
Control (T1)				6.3			T1 vs T2+T3+T4+T5				**
Rest (T2+T3+T4+T5)				9.1
FYM (T2)				10.8			T2 vs T3				*
CR (T3)				8.2
FYM (T2)				10.8			T2 vs T4 + T5				**
HA (T4 + T5)				8.8
CR (T3)				8.2			T3 vs T4 + T5				ns
HA (T4 + T5)				8.8
Interactions
W x G ns Y x W			ns			Y x W x SC			ns
W x SC ns Y x G			ns			Y x G x SC			ns
G x SC * W x G x SC			ns			Y x W x G x SC			ns
Y x SC ns Y x W x G			ns

Means in the same category with the same letters are not significantly different from each other at 5% level of probability; *: Significant at 5% level of probability; **: Significant at 1% level of probability; ns: Non significant.

(10.5 g kg-1) were observed in plots where six irrigations (no stress imposed) were applied at critical growth stages of crop, however lowest straw nitrogen contents (6.7 g kg-1) were received in three times irrigated plots. Increases in irrigation frequency/numbers increased nitrogen, phosphorous and potassiumuptake by maize and ultimately increased straw and seed nitrogen contents of maize (Prasad and Prasad, 1988; Jose et al,. 2008). Higher straw nitrogen contents (9.3 g kg-1) were recorded where G was applied as compared with no G treated plots where straw nitrogen contents were (7.8 g kg-1). Among SC, higher straw nitrogen contents (10.8 g kg-1) was reported in those plots where FYM was applied as soil conditioner while lowest straw nitrogen contents (6.3 g kg-1) were found in control treatment. Gypsum application enhanced straw nitrogen contents of maize. Higher N contents were higher in both maize and wheat with the application of FYM as reported by Rasool et al. (2005) and Pathak et al. (2005). Planned mean comparison revealed that in treated plots straw nitrogen content was more (9.1 g kg-1) as compared to the rest treated plots (6.3 g kg-1).

The SC incorporation showed significant response to straw N. Interaction between G x SC (Figure 11) showed that lower straw nitrogen was recorded with all SC without G application but G application sufficiently increased straw N when used in combination with SC. Farmyard manure and G combination seems to be better for more straw N accumulation than other SC. It indicated that G can improve straw N even when there is no SC applied.

Conclusions and Recommendations

On the assertion of observations made in this project, it is concluded that:

1. 1. Six irrigations given at emergence, 4 leaves, 8 leaves, tassel visible,blister and dough stage had significantly increased growth of maize as compared to lower irrigation regimes.
2. 2. Amongst organic soil conditioners, application of farmyard manure resulted in bumper and improved maize quality followed by HA2.
3. 3. Gypsum application as inorganic soil conditioner resulted in higher crop growth and development and improved crop quality as compared to no gypsum.
4. 4. Combination of gypsum + farm yard manure as soil conditioners having five irrigation regimes given at emergence, 4 leaves, 8 leaves and tassel visible and blister stages produced higher yield.
5. 5. Crop performance and improvement in crop quality was better in second year of the experiment.

 

On the basis of experimental results and conclusion drawn, it is recommended that both farmyard manure (10 tons ha-1) and gypsum (1 tons ha-1) with five irrigation (at critical stages of emergence, 4 leaves, 8 leaves and tassel visible and blister stage) can perform better as compared with other soil conditioning and irrigation regimes for obtaining higher yield of maize crop in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.

Author’s Contribution

Muhammad Ijaz Khan: Concieved the study, planned the experiments, cunducted the research and wrote the manuscript.

Amanullah Jan: Supervised the whole work and edited the manuscript.

References

Adeyemo, A.J. and S.O. Agele. 2010. Effects of tillage and manure application on soil physicochemical properties and yield of maize grown on a degraded intensively tilled alfisol in southwestern Nigeria. J. Soil Sci. Environ. Manage. 1(8): 205-216.

Anjum, L., N. Ahmad, M. Arshad and R. Ahmad. 2014. Effect of different irrigation and management practices on corn growth parameters. Pak. J. Lif. Sci. 12(2): 106-113.

Bayu, W., N.F.G. Rethman, P.S. Hammes and G. Alemu. 2006. Effects of farmyard manure and inorganic fertilizers on sorghum growth, yield, and nitrogen use in a semi-arid area of Ethiopia. J. Plant Nut. 29(2): 391-407. https://doi.org/10.1080/01904160500320962

Bello, W.B. 2012. Influence of gypsum application on wheat (Triticumaestivum) yield and components on saline and alkaline soils of Tigray Region, Ethiopia. Greener J. Agric. Sci. 2(7): 316-322.

Berecz, K., T. Kismanyoky and K. Debreczeni. 2005. Effect of organic matter and gypsum in long-term fertilization trials and model pot experiments. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 36:191-202. https://doi.org/10.1081/CSS-200043034

Bharadwaj, V. and P.K. Omanwar. 1994. Long term effects of continuous rotational cropping and fertilization on crop yields and soil properties-II. Effects on EC, pH, organic matter and available nutrients of soil. Indian J. Soil Sci. 42 (3): 387-392.

Bremner, J.M. and C.S. Mulvaney. 1982. Nitrogen total. In: A.L. Page, Miller and D.R. Keeney, (eds). Method of soil analysis, Part II.2nd edition. Am. Soc. Agron. Madison. 395-622.

Cakir, R. 2004. Effect of water stress at different developmental stages on vegetative and reproductive growth of corn. Field Crop Res. 89(1): 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2004.01.005

Chalk, P.M., L.K. Heng and P. Moutonnet. 2003. Nitrogen fertilization and its environmental impact. In ‘Proceeding of 12th International World Fertilizer Congress’. pp. 1-15. Beijing, China.

Downey, L.A. 1991. Effect of gypsum and drought stress on maize (Zea mays L.). I. Growth, light absorption and yield. Agron. J. Aust. Inst. Agric. Sci. 4(2): 411-417.

Hassan, P.K. 2003.Effect of drought stress on yield and yield component of some wheat and triticale genotype. Ann. Agric. Sci. 48 (1): 117-129.

Hunt, R. 1978. Plant growth analysis. Edward Arnold, U.K. pp. 26-38.

Fontanetto, H., O. Keller, R. Inwinkelried and N. Citroni. 2000. Phosphorus and sulfur fertilization of corn in the Northern Pampas. Can. Plant Sci. J. 80: 3-5.

Ihsan, M. and M. Hasan. 2013. The effect of farm yard manure (FYM) on sodic soil in Gezira Sudan (Triticum aestivum L.) production in Gezira Sudan. J. Sci. Tech. 14:11-22.

Irfan, M., M. Arshad, A. Shakoor and L. Anjum. 2014. Impact of irrigation management practices and water quality on maize production and water use efficiency. J. Anim. Plant Sci. 24(5): 1518-1524.

Jadoon, M.A., A.U. Bhatti, F. Khan and Q.A. Sahabzada. 2004. Effect of farmyard manure in combination with NPK on the yield of maize and soil physical properties. Pak. J. Soil Sci. 22 (2): 47-55.

Jose, O., D. David, S. Irmak, D. Davison and James. 2008. Effect of irrigation amounts applied with subsurface drip irrigation on corn evapotranspiration, yield, water use efficiency, and dry matter production in a semiarid climate. Agric. Water Manage. 322-334.

Kara and Biber. 2008. Irrigation frequencies and corn (Zea mays L.) yield relation in Northern Turkey. Pak. J. Biol. Sci. 11(1): 123-126. https://doi.org/10.3923/pjbs.2008.123.126

Kazmi, R.H., M.Q. Khan and M.K. Abbasi. 2003. Effect of water stress on the performance of wheat grown under controlled condition of Rawalakot, Azad jammu and Kishmir. Sarhad J. Agric. 19 (1):15-16.

Khattak, R.A. and D. Muhammad. 2008. Increasing crop production through humic acid in salt affected soils in Kohat division (NWFP). Final Technical Progress Report. Pak-Us Collaborative Res. Endeavor, ALP project, PARC, Islamabad.

Khurana, G. and B. Sharma. 1995. Effects of soil amendments on production potential of gram (Cicer aretinum) in salt affected environment and their residual effect on pearl millet (Pennisetum glucum). Indian J. Agron. 40(2): 313-316.

Linchen, D.J. 1978. Humic acid and Fe uptake by plants. J. Plants Soil. 50: 663-670. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02107217

Micskei, G., I. Jocsak, T. Arendas, P. Bonis and Z. Berzsenyi. 1990. Effect of farmyard manure and mineral fertilizer on the yield and yield components of maize in a long-term monoculture experiment in Martonvasar. Acta Agronomica Hungarica. 58(1): 63-68.

MNFSR. 2015-16. Agriculture Statistics of Pakistan. Govt. of Pakistan, Ministry of National Food Security and Research, Economic Wing, Islamabad.

Moiez, L.A. and M. Fadul. 2003. Impact of irrigation frequency and farm yard manure on a salt-affected soil and wheat production in Dongola. Department of Soil Science Faculty of Agriculture University of Khartoom.

Morris, L.M. 1998. Maize seed industries in developing countries. Lynne Rienner. Publisher London. p.14.

Ning, T.Y., G.Q. Shao, Z.J. Li, H.F. Han, H.G. Hu, Y. Wang, S.Z. Tian and S.Y. Chi. 2012. Effects of urea types and irrigation on crop uptake, soil residual, and loss of nitrogen in maize field on the North China Plain. Plant Soil Environ. 58 (1): 1-8. https://doi.org/10.17221/156/2011-PSE

Norton, L.D. and F. Rhoton. 2007. Gypsum influences on soil surface sealing, crusting, infiltration and runoff. Presented at the workshop on Agricultural and Industrial Uses of FGD Gypsum.

Pandey, R.K., J.W. Maranville, M.M. Chetima. 2000. Deficitirrigation and nitrogen effects on maize in a Sahelian environment II. Shoot growth, nitrogen uptake and water extraction. Agric. Water Manage. 46:15-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-3774(00)00074-3

Pathak, S.K., S.B. Singh, R.N. Jha and R.P. Sharma. 2005. Effect of nutrient management on nutrient uptake and changes in soil fertility in maize (Zea mays L.) wheat (Triticum aestivm) cropping system. Indian J. Agron. 50(4): 269-273.

Pervez, H.Z., G. Srinivasan, H.S. Cordova and C. Sanchez. 2004. Grains from improvement for mid-season drought to tolerance in tropical maize (zea mays L.). Field Crop Res. 89: 135-152.

Prasad, T.N. and U.K. Prasad. 1988. Effect of irrigation crop geometry and intercrops on yield and nutrient uptake of winter maize. Indian J. Agron. 33: 338-41.

Rasool, R., S.S. Kukal and G.S. Hira. 2005. Soil organic carbon and physical properties as affected by long-term application of FYM and inorganic fertilizers in maize wheat system. Soil Till. Res. 101(1-2): 31-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2008.05.015

Rehman, H.1996. Keynote address in 5th National congress of soil science held in Peshawar (Oct 23-25. 1994). Pak. J. Soil sci. 11(1-2):145-149.

Ritchie, S.W., J.J. Hanway and G.O. Benson. 2000. How a corn plant develops? Special Report No. 48. Iowa State University, Ames, Lowa. pp. 21.

Saxena, M.C. and Y. Singh. 1965. A note on leaf area estimation of intact maize. Indian J. Agron. 10(1): 437-439.

Shafi, M., J. Bakht, M.T. Jan and Z. Shah. 2007. Soil C and N dynamic and maize yield as affected by cropping system and residue management in Northwest Pakistan. Soil Till. Res. 94: 520-529. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2006.10.002

Shainberg, I., M.E. Sumner, W.P. Miller, M.P.W. Farina, M.A. Pavan and M.V. Fey. 1989. Use of gypsum on soils: A review (pp. 1-111). In: Stewart. Advances in Soil Science (9), Springer US.

Sharif, M., R.A. Khattak and M.S. Sarir. 2002. Effect of different levels of lignitic coal derived humic acid on growth of maize plants. Commun Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 33(19): 3567-3580. https://doi.org/10.1081/CSS-120015906

Sial, R.A., E.H. Chuadhary, S. Hussain and M. Naveed. 2007. Effect of organic manures and chemical fertilizers on grain yield of maize in rainfed area. Soil Environ. 26: 130-133.

Singh, R. and S.K. Agrawal. 2001. Growth and yield of maize as influenced by level of farm yard manure and nitrogen. Ind. J. Agron. 46(3):462-467.

Soler, C. M., G. Hoogenboom, P.C. Sentelhas, A.P. Duarte. 2007. Impact of water stress on maize grown off-season in a subtropical environment. J. Agron. Crop Sci. 193: 247-261. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-037X.2007.00265.x

Steel, R.G.D. and J.H. Torrie. 1980. Principles and procedures of statistics. A biological apporoach. 2nd ed. McGraw Hill Inc., New York.

Sumner, M.E., H. Shahandeh, J. Bouton and J. Hammel. 1986. Amelioration of an acidic soil profile through deep liming and surface application of gypsum. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. 50: 1254-1258. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1986.03615995005000050069x

Traore, S.B, R.E. Carlson, C.D. Pilcher and M.E. Rice. 2000. Bt and Non Btmaize growth and development as affected by temperature and drought stress. Agron. J. 92:1027-1035. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2000.9251027x

Wang, K.R., X. Liu, W.J. Zhou, X.L. Xie and R.J. Buresh. 2004. Effects of nutrient recycling on soil fertility and sustainable rice production. J. Agro-Environ. Sci. 23: 1041-1045.

Zaka, M.A., O.U. Rehman and H.U. Khan. 2005. Integrated approach for reclamation of salt affected soils. J. Agric. Soc. Sci. 1(2): 94-97.