EFFECTS OF DIFFERENT IRRIGATION LEVELS ON YIELD AND

WATER PRODUCTIVITY OF MAIZE

A PROJECT REPORT
BY

MD. ABDUL KADER

ID No. 0805040
Reg. No. 34578
Session: 20082009
AND
JAKIR AHMED
ID No. 0805068
Reg. No. 34606
Session: 20082009

BACHELOR OF SCIENCE
IN
AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING

DEPARTMENT OF IRRIGATION AND WATER MANAGEMENT

BANGLADESH AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY
MYMENSINGH 2202

EFFECTS OF DIFFERENT IRRIGATION LEVELS ON YIELD AND

WATER PRODUCTIVITY OF MAIZE

A PROJECT REPORT
BY

MD. ABDUL KADER

ID No. 0805040
Reg. No. 34578
Session: 20082009
AND
JAKIR AHMED
ID No. 0805068
Reg. No. 34606
Session: 20082009

A Project Report Submitted to:

The Department of Irrigation and Water Management
Faculty of Agricultural Engineering & Technology
Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh

DEPARTMENT OF IRRIGATION AND WATER MANAGEMENT

BANGLADESH AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY
MYMENSINGH 2202

EFFECTS OF DIFFERENT IRRIGATION LEVELS ON YIELD AND

WATER PRODUCTIVITY OF MAIZE

A PROJECT REPORT
BY
MD. ABDUL KADER
ID No. 0805040
Reg. No. 34578
Session: 20082009
AND
JAKIR AHMED
ID No. 0805068
Reg. No. 34606
Session: 20082009
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
Faculty of Agricultural Engineering & Technology
Bangladesh Agricultural University
Mymensingh 2202

ABSTRACT
This study was conducted in the experimental farm of Bangladesh Agricultural University
(BAU), Mymensingh, during 1 January 2012 to 10 May 2012 with a view to evaluate the
effects of different irrigation levels on yield and yield contributing attributes of maize. The
experiment consisted of 5 irrigation treatments, such as 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, I4: irrigation at IW/CPE = 1.0. The
experiment was laid out in a Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) with three
replications. Each replication was divided into 5 plots (7.0 m 4.5 m) having 1.5 m buffer
zone between them. Maize was grown with three irrigations applied at 43, 63 and 83 days
after sowing (DAS) and recommended fertilizer doses. There was no significant ( = 0.05)
effect of irrigation on the grain yield of maize. Treatment I4 produced the highest grain yield
(10.30 t/ha) and I1 produced the lowest grain yield (6.81 t/ha). The irrigation treatments
exerted different degrees of influence; some attributes differed significantly while others
differed insignificantly. The water use efficiency (WUE) differed significantly among the
irrigation treatments. The maximum stressed treatment (I0) provided the highest WUE (6291
kg/ha/cm for grain production and 30050 kg/ha/cm for biomass production). The maximum
irrigated treatment (I4), on the other hand, provided the lowest WUE (459.3 kg/ha/cm for
grain production and 110.7 kg/ha/cm for biomass production).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
At the outset, the authors wish to express their deepest sense of gratitude to Almighty Allah,
Whose boundless blessings enabled them to complete the research work and prepare this
report.
The authors take this opportunity to express their profound appreciation and heartfelt
gratitude to their 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 report.
The authors also feel pride to express profound respect to their teachers of the
Department of Irrigation and Water Management, Bangladesh Agricultural University,
Mymensingh, for their constant inspiration during conduction of the project work.
Above all, the authors reserve boundless gratitude and indebtedness to their family
members for their patience, sacrifices and constant encouragement for completion of the
research work.

The authors

CONTENTS
CHAPTER

TITLE

PAGE

ABSTRACT

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

ii

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF FIGURES

vi

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

vii

I.

INTRODUCTION

II.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

III.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

8-13

3. General description of the experiment

3.1. Experimental site

3.2. Weather and climate

3.3. Procurement of seed and fertilizers

3.4. Experimental design

3.5. Land preparation and field layout

3.6. Fertilizer application

3.7. Sowing of seeds

3.8. Intercultural operations

3.8.1. Weeding and thinning

3.8.2. Quantification and application of irrigation

10

3.8.3. Plant protection

11

3.9. Harvesting and data recording

11

3.10. Harvest index

12

CONTENTS (CONTD)

CHAPTER

IV.

V.

REFERENCES

TITLE

PAGE

3.11. Water use efficiency

12

3.12. Data analysis

13

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

14-19

4.1. Effect of irrigation on growth and yield parameters

14

4.1.1. Plant height

14

4.1.2. Grain per line of cob

14

4.1.3. Cob length and perimeter

15

4.1.4. Shell yield

15

4.1.5. Number of grains per cob

15

4.1.6. 100-grain weight

15

4.2. Effect of irrigation on yield

16

4.2.1. Grain yield

16

4.2.2. Straw yield

17

4.2.3. Biological yield

17

4.3. Effect of irrigation on harvest index and water use efficiency

18

4.3.1. Harvest index

18

4.3.2. Water use efficiency

18

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

20

5.1. Conclusions

20

5.2. Recommendations

20
21-24

LIST OF TABLES
Table
No.

Title

Page
No.

3.1.

Summary of calculation of irrigation water need for different

treatments at different irrigation events.

11

4.1.

Growth and yield attributes of maize under different irrigation

treatments.
Grain, straw and biomass yield of maize under different
irrigation treatments.
Harvest index (HI) and water use efficiency for grain (WUEg)
and biomass (WUEb) production under different irrigation
treatments.

14

4.2.
4.3.

16
18

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
No.

Caption

Page
No.

3.1.

Field layout of the experiment.

10

4.1.

Variation of 100-grain weight with the number of grains per cob.

16

4.2.

4.3.

Variation of grain yield of maize with total water use under

different irrigation treatments (except for I1).
Variation of straw yield of maize with total water use under
different irrigation treatments (except for I3).

17

18

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AEZ

= Agro-Ecological Zone

BARC

= Bangladesh Agricultural Research Council

BARI

= Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute

BAU

= Bangladesh Agricultural University

BBS

= Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics

FAO

= Food and Agriculture Organization (of the United Nations)

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION
Bangladesh is an agro-based country. Agriculture is the backbone of the economy of
Bangladesh. Out of the total effective land area of Bangladesh (14.846 million hectares),
13.734 million hectares of land were brought under cultivation during 2006 to 2007 (BBS,
2009). Due to urbanization and industrialization, the cultivable land is decreasing day by
day. But, food production in Bangladesh is not increasing sufficiently to keep track with the
additional population. To meet the challenge of this situation, food production in the country
must be increased. It is possible to do so either by increasing the area under cultivation i.e.
horizontal expansion or vertical expansion. As the scope of horizontal expansion is almost
out of question, production is to be increased vertically. In order to increase production
vertically, practice of cultivation of such crops should be increased which give more yield per
unit area. Maize is one such crop. The grain yield of maize in Bangladesh is 7.71 t/ha
whereas grain yield of wheat and rice is 3.26 t/ha and 7.41 t/ha, respectively (Thakur, 1980;
Chowdhury and Islam, 1993).
Maize (zea mays L.) is a multipurpose crop. Every part of the plant and its products
can be used in one form or the other. It can supply food and fuel in relatively large quantities
as compared to other cereal crops. Its grain has high nutritive value containing 66.20% starch,
11.10% protein, 7.12% oil and 1.50% minerals. Moreover, it contains 90 g carotene, 1.80 mg
thiamin and 0.10 mg riboflavin per 100 g grains (Thakur, 1980; Chowdhury and Islam,
1993). Grain alone can be used in various forms. Maize can be consumed directly as green
cob, popped grain and flour satu (a type of local food). 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. Even the dried
plants are not useless. Now-a-days, the green part of the maize is popularly used to produce
chitagour as animal feed.
Maize, being one of the very high yielding varieties among the cereal crops, is the
third most cultivated crop in Bangladesh. In our country, it covers 152076 hectares of land
with annual production of 887391 metric tons during 2009 to 2010 (BBS, 2010). Now-adays, 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. 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 to 29C is favorable for its growth. Maize is grown in Bangladesh
during the driest months when rainfall is almost inadequate. Proper growth and development
of maize needs formable soil moisture in the root zone. The moisture content in the soil
gradually decreases with elapsed time during dry season. Limited water supply during
growing season results in soil and plant water deficits and reduces maize yield (Gordon et al.
1995). In relation to crop yield, proper time and supplemental irrigation should be realized in
irrigation scheduling for the most effective use of available water in optimizing maize
production. Water deficit had little effect on timing of emergence and number of leaves per
plant but it delays tasseling initiation and silking, reduces plant height and vegetative growth
of maize (Abrecht and Carberry, 1993). Heading to milking stage is the most sensitive period
of water stress and has ultimate impact on grain yield (Shaozhong and Minggang, 1992).
Improper scheduling of irrigation results not only in wastage of water but also reduces the
crop growth and yield.
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
improving crop profitability. Therefore, an attempt has been made to find out the influence of
different levels of irrigation on growth and yield of maize.

Objective
The objective of this study is:
1. to evaluate the effects of different levels of irrigation on the growth, yield and water
productivity of maize.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Maize being one of the most important cereal crops receives much attention of workers
throughout the world. Since the second half of the last century, work has been done by
various workers in many countries of the world on the effect of irrigation levels for obtaining
the highest yield of maize.
Petrunin (1966) found that without irrigation, the yield of maize was 4.3 t /ha and four
irrigations elevated the yield to 10.80 t/ha. Further irrigation resulted in only slight increase in
yield. The 1000-grain weight also increased from 221 g to 270 g. Milic (1967) investigated
the effect of irrigation on maize yields and reported the highest grain yields of 6.4 and 5.2 t/
ha obtained by applying irrigation at 65% and 70% of field capacity, 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.
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, respectively. In an experiment, Islam et al. (1980) obtained the highest grain yield of 5.94
t /ha 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 when irrigation was applied most
frequently. 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 for with and without irrigation, respectively.
Irrigating maize at IW/CPE ratios of 0.6, 0.8 and 1.0, Sridhar and Singh (1989) found
increased grain yield with increasing irrigation water. The grain yields were 2.14, 2.40 and
3.12 t/ha 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 with the increased IW/CPE ratio. 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. 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 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.
Cosculleula and Faci (1992) obtained 10.71 t/ha grain yields with 592 mm irrigation
and 10.30 t/ha without irrigation. 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. 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 in the irrigation
treatments; the yield was 0 to 92% lower in the control treatment. Kristov (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.
Conducting long term experiments (19731989) on maize with and without irrigation
treatments Eneva (1995) found 5.23 t/ha grain yield without irrigation and 12.50, 12.03 and
10.97 t/ha with 21.20, 18.20 and 12.10 cm irrigation water, respectively. In an experiment in
Bulgaria during 19861988, the grain yield of maize without irrigation and with full
irrigation treatments was reported to be 5.13 and 13.08 t/ ha, respectively (Zhirkov, 1995).
This investigator reported that grain yield reduced from 11.68 to 10.26 t/ha due to the
reduction of irrigation water from 20 to 40%. Hefner and Tracy (1995) also reported that
increasing irrigation enhanced the grain yield of maize. Applying irrigation water at IW/CPE
ratio of 1.2, 0.9 and 0.6, Bandyopadhyay and Mallik (1996) found that increasing irrigation
water raised grain yield of maize. The highest yield of 7.23 t/ha was obtained by IW/CPE
ratio of 1.2.
Carp and Maxim (1997) carried out experiments during 19881994 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 (without irrigation) to 9.23 t/ha
(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 grain yields at IW/CPE ratio of 0.6 and 0.8, respectively.
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. Talukder et al.
(1999) conducted an experiment at Bangladesh Agricultural University Farm, Mymensingh
to evaluate the growth parameters and yield response of maize to water stress and nitrogenous
fertilizer. They found that yield and yield contributing characters were significantly affected
due to the application of irrigation and nitrogen. The highest grain yield of 6.77 t/ha was
obtained with IW/CPE ratio of 0.50 and 5.61t/ha by the application of 70 kg N/ha.
Interactions between IW/CPE ratio of 0.50 and 70 kg N/ha were found as the best
combination for yield of maize.
Shirazi et al. (2000) carried out an experiment at Trishal Upazila in
Mymensingh district in 1998 to study 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. Application of 120 kg N/ha also significantly increased grain yield from
3.03 to 3.95 t/ha. Niazuddin et al. (2002) carried out an experiment during November 1999
to April 2000 at the Bangladesh Agricultural University Farm, Mymensingh to evaluate the
effect of irrigation and nitrogen on the performance of maize. The highest grain yield
obtained was 6.88 t/ha for 90 DAS irrigation treatment and 7.61 t/ha by the application
of 100 kg N/ha, both mainly due to 100 kernel weights. Interactions between 58 DAS
irrigation treatment and 100 kg N/ha were found to be the best combination for yield of
maize. Gope et al. (2003) conducted an experiment during November 2000 to April 2001 at
Bangladesh Agricultural University Farm, Mymensingh to evaluate the influence of
irrigation and nitrogenous fertilizer on yield of maize. The highest grain yield of 5.78 t/ha
was obtained for irrigation at 35 and 70 DAS, and 5.21 t/ha by the application of 100 kg
N/ha, both mainly due to 100 kernel weight. Interactions between the irrigation
treatment and 120 kg N/ha produced 5.92 t/ha grain yield and were found as the best
combination for yield of maize. Ogunbodede et al. (2004) tested two sets of maize varieties.
Grain yield was significantly higher in the northern/southern Guinea savanna and the yellow
hybrids. The highest yielding variety was TZE Comp.4 DMR BC1 with an average grain
yield of 2.43 t/ha while the hybrid had an average of 18.2% greater yield.

BARI (20052006) conducted an experiment in farmers fields of Comilla, Rangpur,

Mymensingh, Patuakhali, Kustia, Jhenaidah, Tangail, Faridpur, Rajshahi and Manikgong
during rabi season of 20052006 with the varieties BHM 2, 3 and 5. Pacific-11 was also
compared. Among them, Pacific-11 produced numerically higher yield (12.50 t/ha). BARI
(20062007) conducted an experiment among twenty improved and two locally developed
maize hybrids at Joydevpour during rabi 20062007. Among the varieties, Chamak (10.73
t/ha), Pacific-984 (10.66 t/ha) and Monesha (10.24 t/ha) out yielded the better check
varieties BHM-5 (9.28 t/ha) and Pacific-11 (9.32 t/ha). Maize was grown in Comilla,
Rangpur, Mymensingh, Patuakhali, Kustia, Jhenaidah, Tangail, Faridpur, Rajshahi and
Manikgong during rabi season of 2006-2007 with the varieties BHM-2, 3, and 5. Pacific-11
was also compared. Among them, Pacific-11 produced numerically higher yield (12.50 t/ha).
The growing season was divided into three phases: vegetative, flowering and grain filling.
Results showed that flowering was the most sensitive stage to water deficit, with reductions
in biomass, yield and harvest index. Average grain yield of treatments with deficit irrigation
around flowering (691 g/m2) significantly was lower than that of the well-irrigated
treatments (1069 g/m2). Yield reduction was mainly due to a lower number of grains per
square meter. Deficit irrigation or higher interval between irrigations during the grain filling
phase did not significantly affect crop growth and yield.
Hossain et al. (2009) carried out an experiment at the experimental farm of
Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh during 23 December 2008 to 11 May 2009
with a view to evaluating the effect of deficit irrigation on yield and water productivity of
maize. The highest grain yield of 10.20 t/ha was obtained with the irrigation treatment I4
(irrigations given at 43, 63 and 83 DAS) and the lowest of 9.07 t/ha with I0 (no control). The
highest grain yield of 10.97 t/ha was obtained for Pacific 11 and the lowest 8.93 t/ha was
obtained for BHM 5. It was also observed that the water productivity was the highest for
stress treatment I1 (irrigation given at 43 DAS). Mansouri et al. (2010) conducted an
experiment to study the effects of water stress imposed at low-sensitive growth stages
(vegetative, reproductive, and both vegetative and reproductive) and level of nitrogen (N)
supply (100 and 200 kg/ha) on the physiological and agronomic characteristics of two
hybrids of maize (Zea mays L.). Their results showed that the highest IWUE was obtained
when maize endured water deficit at vegetative stage at two sites. The limited irrigation
imposed on maize during reproductive stage resulted in more yield reduction than that during
vegetative stage compared with fully irrigated treatment.

Golbashy et al. (2010) studied the effect of drought stress on yield and its components
on 28 new hybrids of maize along with 6 commercial control hybrids at the Khorashan
Razavi Agricultural Research and Natural Resources Institute Mashhad, Iran in 2010. The
study was conducted in a completely randomized block design with three replications under
normal irrigation and drought stress conditions. The mean grain yield of SC 500 hybrid in the
normal irrigation condition and N11 hybrid in the stress condition were the highest.
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.

CHAPTER III

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The experiment was carried out at the farm of Bangladesh Agricultural University,
Mymensingh, Bangladesh during 1 January 2012 to 10 May 2012 to study the effects of five
irrigation treatments on the growth, yield and water productivity of maize. The experimental
field was a medium high land belonging to the Old Brahmaputra Floodplain having noncalcareous Dark Grey Flood plain soil. Salient experimental activities and essential
information are enumerated in this chapter.

3. 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.

3.2. Weather and climate

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 crop was a high yielding variety of maize: BARI hybrid maize 5 (BHM5). This
variety is popular due to its high yield potentials and stress tolerant characteristics. It is 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 five irrigation 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 35, 810 and 2022 leaves on average, respectively. The variety of the maize was
BARI hybrid maize 5 (BHM5).

3.5. Land preparation and field layout

The land of the experimental field was opened on 15 December 2011 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
2011 following a Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD). 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 equal plots having 1.50 m buffer between them in a
block. 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, 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, 56 cm deep furrows were made by using single tine hand rakes at a
spacing of 75 cm. The seeds were sown on 1 January 2012 at a depth of 5 to 6 cm, and 2
seeds were dropped per hill. The seed to seed distance was 25 cm.

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.

R1

R2

R3

I0

I3

I1

I4

I1

I3

I2

I4

I0

I1

I2

I4

I3

I0

I2

Fig.3.1. Field layout of the experiment

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.
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.

Table 3.1. Summary of calculation of irrigation water need for different treatments at
different irrigation events.
IW=IW/CPE*
Irrigation
Treatment

IW/CPE

CPE (mm)

Rainfall (mm)

CPE-Rainfall

Events
(mm)

1st

2nd

rd

I0

0.00

74

5.00

0.00

I1

0.40

74

5.00

24.6

I2

0.60

74

5.00

39.4

I3

0.80

74

5.00

54.2

I4

1.00

74

5.00

69.0

I0

0.00

63.6

0.00

0.00

I1

0.40

63.6

0.00

25.4

I2

0.60

63.6

0.00

38.2

I3

0.80

63.6

0.00

50.9

I4

1.00

63.6

0.00

63.5

I0

0.00

82.5

0.92

0.00

I1

0.40

82.5

0.92

32.1

I2

0.60

82.5

0.92

48.6

I3

0.80

82.5

0.92

65.1

I4

1.00

82.5

0.92

81.6

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, a bell, made of kerosene 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 10 May 2012. A 1m2 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.

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 sampling area was converted into yield per hectare for each plot.

8.

Straw yield: The plants collected from 1 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 1 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
Grain yield
Harvest Index (HI) = Biological yield 100

(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=Y/WU

(2)

where, FWUE = field water use efficiency, kg/ha/cm

Y

= grain yield, kg/ha

WU

= seasonal water use in the crop field, cm

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.

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

In this chapter, the results obtained in the experiment have been presented, interpreted and
discussed. Analysis of variance of different data demonstrates statistical significance of the
effects of different irrigation levels on the growth and yield of maize. The effects of different
irrigation levels on maize cultivation have been elaborated.

4.1 Effect of irrigation on growth and yield attributes

4.1.1 Plant height
The mean plant heights for different irrigation treatments are listed in Table 4.1. The highest
plant height of 299.6 cm was obtained at I3 (IW/CPE = 0.8) and the lowest was 287.9 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), Hossain et al. (2009) and Alam (2011) also reported different plant
heights under different irrigation treatments.

Table 4.1. Growth and yield attributes of maize under different irrigation treatments.
Treatment Plant
Line/cob Grain/line Grain/cob Cob
Height,
length
cm
,cm
b
a
a
a
I0
287.9
15.2
35.3
540.3
16.6a

Shell
100 grain
Cob
perimeter, weight, weight, g
cm
t/ha
b
15.7
2.280a
20.19a

I1

293.3ab

15.6a

35.1a

547.6a

17.1a

16.1ab

2.167a

19.71a

I2

295.5a

14.7ab

34.5a

508.4a

15.9a

15.6b

2.320a

18.91a

I3

299.6a

14.1b

35.5a

498.1a

17.2a

16.1ab

2.205a

21.91a

I4

297.3a

15.2a

37.8a

574.1a

17.5a

16.3a

2.654a

21.66a

LSD0.05

7.26

1.09

5.22

82.67

2.06

0.56

0.652

4.35

4.1.2 Grains per line of cob

The irrigation treatments did not have significant effects on the number of grains per line of
cob (Table 4.1) although a trend of increased number of grains with increased level of
irrigation was noticed. The highest value (37.84 grains/line) was observed at I4 and the lowest
value (34.54 grains/line) was at I2.

4.1.3 Cob length and perimeter

The irrigation treatments did not affect the length and perimeter of cobs significantly (Table
4.1). Among all irrigation treatments, the highest cob length of 17.45 cm was obtained at I4
and the lowest of 15.93 cm was obtained at I2. A similar cob length was also reported by
Niazuddin et al. (2002), Hossain et al. (2009) and Alam (2011). An increase in cob length by
3.19, 3.43 and 5.06% was observed in treatment I1, I3 and I4, respectively and a decrease in
cob length by 4.09% in I2 was observed compared to the control treatment, I0. In case of cob
perimeter, the highest value of 16.29 cm was at I4 and the lowest value of 15.63 cm was at I2.
Again, an increase in cob perimeter by 2.99, 2.61 and 3.95% in treatments I1, I3 and I4,
respectively and a decrease by 0.25% in I2 was observed compared to the control.

4.1.4 Shell yield

The shell yield did not vary significantly among the irrigation treatments. The highest shell
yield (2.654 t/ha) was obtained under maximum irrigation (I4) and the lowest (2.167 t/ha) was
obtained at I1. The shell yield increased by 1.75 and 16.40% in treatment I2 and I4,
respectively and decreased by 4.95 and 3.28% in I1 and I3, respectively compared to I0.

4.1.5 Number of grains per cob

The number of grains per cob was identical among the irrigation treatments (Table 4.1). The
highest number of grains per cob (574) was obtained at I4 and the lowest (498) was at I3. An
increase in the number of grains per cob by 1.29 and 6.29% were obtained in I1 and I4,
respectively and a decrease by 5.92 and 7.77% in I2 and I3, respectively compared to I0. 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 (21.91 g) was obtained at I3 and the lowest (18.91
g) was obtained at I2. The 100-grain weight decreased by 2.13 and 6.33% in I1 and I2,
respectively and increased by 8.51 and 7.28% in I3 and I4, respectively compared to the
control treatment. The 100-grain weight had a relation with the number of grains per cob.
Fig.4.1 shows a positive linear relationship (r2=0.874) between 100-grain weight and number
of grains per cob except for I3 for which the data might be erroneous. During grain filling
stage many plants lodged due to a storm.

I3

Fig.4.1. Variation of 100-grain weight with the number of grains per cob.
4.2 Effect of irrigation on yield
4.2.1 Grain yield
The treatment I4 produced the highest grain yield of 10.301 t /ha and I1 produced the lowest
yield of 6.810 t/ha (Table 4.2). 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 I2, I3 and I4 was 11.83, 10.54 and
17.63, respectively over the control treatment. The grain yield however decreased by 22.23%
in treatment I1. In similar experiments, Talukder et al. (1999), Niazuddin et al. (2002),
Hossain et al. (2009) and Alam (2011) reported obtaining the highest grain yield at I4 and the
lowest at I0. In an experiment in a farmers field, the highest grain yield (12.50 t/ha) was also
reported under the highest irrigation level (BARI, 2005 2006).
Table 4.2. Grain, straw and biomass yield of maize under different irrigation treatments.
Treatment

Grain yield, t/ha

Straw yield, t/ha

Biomass yield,
t/ha

I0

8.757a

33.071b

45.731b

I1

6.810a

33.282b

43.903b

I2

9.793a

31.150b

44.872b

I3

9.680a

47.041a

60.571a

I4

10.301a

31.491b

46.072b

LSD0.05

3.481

11.530

13.160

The grain yield of maize increased with the increase in total water use except for the
treatment I2. Fig.4.2 illustrates a linear relationship (r2=0.937) between the grain yield and
total water use.
I1

Fig. 4.2. Variation of grain yield of maize with total water use under different
irrigation treatments (except for I1).

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
31.15 to 47.041 t/ha. Treatment I3 produced the highest straw yield (47.041 t/ha) and I2
produced the lowest (31.15 t/ha) yield. Hossain et al. (2009) and Alam (2011) however
reported obtaining the highest straw yield at I4 and the lowest at I0. Straw yield of maize
decreased linearly (r2=0.506) with the increasing total water use except for the treatment I3
(Fig.4.3).
4.2.3 Biological yield
No significant variation was observed in the biological yield of maize among the irrigation
treatments apart from the I3 treatment (Table 4.2). The highest biological yield (60.571 t/ha)
was obtained at I3 and the lowest (43.903 t/ha) was at I0. These results are inconsistent with
the findings of Niazuddin et al. (2002), Hossain et al. (2009) and Alam (2011) as all of them
found the highest yield at I4 and the lowest at Io.

I3

Fig. 4.3. Variation of straw yield of maize with total water use under different
irrigation treatments (except for I3).

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 (21.83%) and I1 provided the
lowest HI (15.27%). Niazuddin et al. (2002) Hossain et al. (2009) and Alam (2011) 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

Harvest Index,%

Total water use,

mm

WUEg ,
kg/ha/cm

WUEb,
kg/ha/cm

I0

19.18a

13.9e

6291a

30050a

I1

15.27a

128.0d

531.9b

13130b

I2

22.00a

164.1c

596.7b

2495b

I3

16.38a

200.8b

489.0b

2877b

I4

21.83a

246.2a

459.3b

110.7b

LSD0.05

6.778

13.06

1248

15990

4.3.2 Water use efficiency

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

did not differ significantly among the irrigation treatments apart from I0. The highest water
use efficiency for grain production, WUEg (6291 kg/ha/cm), was obtained at I0 and the lowest
(459.3 kg/ha/cm) was obtained at I4 (Table 4.3). The highest water use efficiency for biomass
production, WUEb (30050 kg /ha/cm), was at I0 and the lowest (110.7 kg/ha/cm) was at I4.
Both water use efficiencies decreased with increasing quantity of applied irrigation. Hossain
et al. (2009) and Alam (2011) also reported comparable effects of different irrigation levels
on water use efficiencies of maize.

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the experimental results, some conclusions can be drawn and some
recommendations can be put forward for further research activities.

5.1 Conclusions
The following conclusions were drawn from this study:

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

treatments.
2. The highest grain yield was 10.301 t/ha for I4 (IW/CPE = 1) and the lowest was
6.810 t/ha for I1 (IW/CPE=0.4).
3. The water productivity/water use efficiency (WUE) was the highest (6291 kg/ha/cm
for grain production and 30050 kg/ha/cm for biomass production) for I0 and the
lowest (459.3 kg/ha/cm for grain production and 110.7 kg/ha/cm for biomass
production) for I4.

5.2 Recommendations
The following recommendations can be put forward 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 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
Abrecht, D.G. and P.S. Carberry. 1993. The influence of water deficit prior to tassel initiation
on maize growth, development and yield. Field Crops Res., 31(1-2):55-69.
Ahmed, F. 1994. Maize production technology (in Bengali). Published by International
Fertilizer Development Center, Consultant of Ministry of Agriculture, Bangladesh,
pp.13-15.
Alam, S.K.S. 2011. Effects of deficit irrigation on yield and water productivity of maize.
M.S. Thesis. Department of Irrigation and Water Management, Bangladesh
Agricultural University, Mymensingh, pp.21-26
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.
BARI (Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute). 2005-2006. Maize and barley
improvement, development of hybrid maize research project in Bangladesh,
Government of Bangladesh (GoB), BARI, Joydebpor, Gazipur-1701, August 2006,
p.86.
BARI (Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute). 2006-2007. Maize and barley
improvement, development of hybrid maize research project in Bangladesh,
Government of Bangladesh (GoB), BARI, Joydebpor, Gazipur-1701, p.58.
BBS (Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics). 2009. Monthly Statistical Bulletin Bangladesh,
August, p.66.
BBS (Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics). 2010. Monthly Statistical Bulletin Bangladesh,
August, p.69.

BBS/DAE (Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics, Statistical Pocket Book of Bangladesh,

Statistical Division, Govt. of the Peoples Republic of Bangladesh/ Department of
Agriculture Extension, Khamar Bari, Farm Gate, Dhaka, Bangladesh).
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):241245.
Chowdhury, M.K. and M.A. Islam. 1993. Production and uses of maize (in Bengali).
Published by Farm Research Div. Bangladesh Agril. Res. Inst., Joydebpur, Gazipur,
Bangladesh, p.1-189.
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,
ProductionyProtection Vegetables, 7(2):169194.
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, B. Zheng, H. Qi, 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.
Eliades, G. 1993. Irrigation of maize for grain production. Cyprus Agril. Res. Inst., 152:6672.
Eneva, S. 1995. The yield-water relation and its utilization in practice. Resteniev Dni
Nauki., 32(5):55-57.
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.

Golbashy, M., E. Mohsen, K.K. Saeid and R. Choukan. 2010. Evaluation of drought
tolerance of some corn (Zea mays L.) hybrids in Iran. African J. Agril. Res.,
5(19):2714-2719.
Gope, S.N., M.S.U. Talukder, S.M. Shirazi, A.K.M. Adham and M.A. Hye. 2003. Influence
of irrigation and nitrogenous fertilizer on the performance of maize. Bangladesh J.
Agri. Eng., 14(1&2):17-25.
Gordon, W.B., R.J Raney, and L.R. Stone. 1995. Irrigation management practice for crop
production in north central Kansa. J. Soil Water Cons., 50(4):395-402.
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., M.S.U. Talukder, K.M. Hassanuzzaman and S.M.T. Mustafa. 2009. Effect of
deficit irrigation on yield and water productivity of maize. Bangladesh J. Agril. Sci.,
36(2):26-38.
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 L.). Bangladesh J. Agril. Sci., 7(2):195-199.
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 Crops, 8:95-97.
Lanza, F., V. Rizzo, M.E.V. Scarascia, V. D.I. Bari, N. Losavio. 1980. Grain maize in the
southern Italy: Effects of irrigation. Annali dell Inst. Sperimentale Agronomico,
11:167-179.
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.
Mansouri-Far, C., M.S. Ali, S. Modarres and S.S Farhad. 2010. Maize yield response to
deficit irrigation during low-sensitive growth stages and nitrogen rate under semi-arid
climatic conditions. Agril. Water Mgt., 97(1):12-22.

Milic, M. 1967. Irrigation regimes and fertilization of maize in Metohija. Agron. Glasnic.
17(8):647-62.
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.
Ogunbodede, B.A., S.R Ajibade, and S.A. Olakojo. 2004. Grain yield stability of new maize
varieties in Nigeria. African Crop Sci. J., 9(4):685-692.
Petrunin, V.M. 1966. The effect of irrigation on the grain quality and yields of maize. Field
Crops Abst., 20(1):34.
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. Annals Agril. Res.,
10(2):139-144.
Rudat, H., J.C. Ball Aux, and Treharne. 1975. Light and water stress in maize cultivation in
the low land tropics. International Inst. Tropical Agril., pp.66-68.
Shaozhong, K. and A. Minggang. 1992. Crop water production function and optimum
allocation of irrigation water use. Leuven, Belgium, Catholic Univ. Leuven, pp.801807.
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.
Sridhar, V. and R.A Singh. 1989. Effect of irrigation levels on growth of rabi maize. Annals
Plant Physiol., 3(2):212-212.
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. Metropolitan Book Co.
New Delhi, India, p.145-185.

Zhirkov, Z.V. 1995. Growing maize for grain under optimum and deficit irrigation. Rasteniev
dni-Nauki, 32(9-10):142-145.