The Influence of Different Amounts of Nitrogen and Weed Interference on Yield and Yield Components of Corn under Two Irrigation Systems

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

• R. Zangoueinejad
• S.A. Kazemeini

Shiraz University

10.22067/jpp.v29i3.33014

Abstract

Introduction: Corn (Zea mays L.) is one of the most important crops in the world that need high water requirement during its developmental stages. Improvement of water management system increases crop production all over the world, especially in aired and semiarid climates. For instance, drip irrigation system can be used to provide accurate and adequately nitrogenous fertilizers while conventional systems such as flood irrigation has lower efficiency in the use of nitrogen fertilizers. An improved understanding of the effects of nitrogen (N) on crop–weed interactions is needed for development of integrated weed management systems where reasonable application of N fertilizers is considered too. Moreover, maize competition with weeds is another important factor that affects its yield. So this study was conducted to evaluate the effect of nitrogen on yield and yield components of corn and weed interference under two systems of flood and drip irrigation.
Materials and Methods: In order to evaluate the effect of irrigation methods and nitrogen under weed-infest condition on yield and yield components of maize, a field experiment was conducted in split-split plot design based on randomized complete blocks during 2012 growing season at the Collage of Agriculture, Shiraz University. Factors were irrigation type as main plots (flooding and drip), nitrogen levels as sub plots (0, 75 and 150 kg ha-1) and weed interference as sub-sub plots (weed infest and weed free). Drip irrigation system was carried out by using strips with 20 cm output, 0.175 mm thickness and 16.5 mm internal diameter. Urea 46% was used to supply nitrogen. A control (weed free) was used in this experiment. Statistical analysis of the data was performed by using SAS 9.1 software and comparing of the means was done by the least significant difference test (LSD) at 5% level.
Result and Discussion: The results showed that under weed interference, grain yield (51.0%) and yield components (number of rows and kernels per ear, ear length and diameter and seed weight) decreased significantly. In the former studies weed competition had been expressed a major limitation for corn production. It seems that weeds caused corn yield losses indirectly through their influence on the resources required for crop growth and competition for light and belowground resources. It was also shown that weeds are high nitrogen consumers cause to reduce the amount of available nitrogen for crops growth. Therefore when corn and weeds emerge simultaneously in a mixture, weeds competitiveness increases with increasing nitrogen supply. However, nitrogen addition has a positive effect on both corn and weeds growth, but weeds tends to respond more to nitrogen addition than corn. In this study we observed similar results and increasing of nitrogen application from 75 to 150 kg ha-1 which increased grain yield by 44.4% and ear length by 4.9 %, but under weedy condition decreased ear length by 25.8%. Nitrogen application caused a different response in each irrigation system, so that the application of 75 and 150 kg ha-1nitrogen under drip irrigation system reduced weed biomass by 62.6 % and 64.4 % compared to flooding system respectively. Applying drip irrigation system also reduced weed density (56.8%) and biomass (54.3%) and increased corn grain yield compared to flooding irrigation system. Under weed free condition and using of drip irrigation system number of grain per ear increased by 50.1% significantly. In drip and flooding irrigation systems under weed free condition compared to weedy plots, number of grain per ear increased by 17.0% and 7.9% respectively whilst drip irrigation system compared to flooding irrigation system increased ear diameter by 50.5%. However hundred grain weights were affected by all treatments, under weed free condition compared to weedy condition, in drip irrigation system hundred grain weights increased by 18.2 %, but in flooding irrigation system no significant differences was observed. Performance comparison of grain yield under irrigation systems revealed that drip irrigation increased grain yield by 62.0 %.
Conclusion: The results showed that the effectiveness of nitrogen was much higher under drip irrigation compared to flooding irrigation. It can be because of that drip irrigation system directly provide water for plants and prevent from water availability for weeds. Therefore, appropriate irrigation system as an agronomical practice affects the growth and weed competition ability in corn

Keywords

• Competition
• irrigation method
• Weed biomass
• Weed density

20.1001.1.20084749.1394.29.3.8.5

---

References

1- Badr M.A., Abou Hussein, S.D. and El-Tohamy W.A. 2010. Nutrient uptake and yield of tomato under various methods of fertilizer application and levels of fertigation in arid lands. Healthy Plants, 62(1): 11–19.

2- Blackshaw R.E., Odonovan J.T., Harker, K.N. and Li X. 2002.Beyond herbicides: New approaches to Managing Weeds. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 52: 614-622.

3- Bondada, B.R. and Oosterhuis D.M. 2001. Canopy photosynthesis, specific leaf weight, and yield components of cotton under varying nitrogen supply. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science, 24: 469–477.

4- Bonifas K.D., Walters D.T., Cassman, K.G. and Lindquist J.L. 2005. The effects of nitrogen supply on root: shoot ratio in corn and velvetleaf. Weed Science, 53:670–675.

5- Bruns, H.A. and Abbas H. k. 2005. Ultra high plant population and nitrogen fertility effects on corn I the Mississippi Valley. Agron Journal, 97:1136-1140.

6- Carlson, H.L. and Hill J.E. 1986. Wild oat (Avena fatua) competition with spring wheat: effects of nitrogen fertilization. Weed Science, 34:29-33.

7- Correll D. L. 1998. The role of phosphorus in the eutrophication of receiving waters: a review. Journal of Environmental Quality, 27(2): 261-266.

8- Evans S.P., Knezevic S.Z., Lindquist J.L., Shapiro, C.A. and Blankenship E.E. 2003. Nitrogen application influences the critical period for weed control in corn. Weed Science, 51:408-417.

9- FAO. 2002. Deficit Irrigation Practices. Water Report No. 22. Rome.

10- Fathi G.A. 2008. Grouth and mineral nutrition of field crops. Iranain academic for education, culture and research (ACECR), Mashhad.

11- Hamdy A. 2001. Agricultural water demand management: a must for water saving. In: Advanced Short Course on Water Saving and Increasing Water Productivity: Challenges and Options. p. B 15.1-b 18.30. University of Jordan, Amman. Jordan.

12- Husseini S.A., Rashed Mohassel M.H., Nassiri Mahallati, M. and Hajmohammadnia Ghalibaf1 K. 2009. The influence of nitrogen and weed interference periods on corn (Zea mays L.) yield and yield components. Journal of Plant Protection, 23(1): 97-105. (in Persian with English abstract)

13- Harrison S.K., Regnier E.E., Schmoll, J.T. and Webb J.E. 2001. Competition and fecundity of giant rag weed in corn. Weed Science, 49: 224–229.

14- Knezevic S.Z., Horak, M.J. and Vanderli R.L. 1997. Relative time of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) emergence is critical in pigweed-sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) competition. Weed Science, 45:502-508.

15- 15- Kogbe, J.O.S. and Adediran J. A. 2003. Influence of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium application on the yield of maize in the Savanna Zone of Nigeria. African Journal of Biotechnology, 2 (10):345 - 349.

16- Norton, E.R. and Silvertooth J.C. 2007. Evaluation of added nitrogen interaction effects on recovery efficiency in irrigated cotton. Soil Science, 172: 983–991.

17- Ovverman R., Wilson, D.M. and Vidack W. 1995. Extended probability model for dry matter and nutrient accumulation by crops. Journal of Plant Nutrition, 18:2609-2627.

18- Sarabi V., Nassiri Mahallati M., Nezami, A. and Rashed Mohassel M. H. 2010. Effect of density and relative time of emergence common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album L.) on yield component of corn (Zea mays L.). Journal of Plant Protection, 24(2): 128-136. (in Persian)

19- Sharmasarkar F.C., Sharmasarkar, S. and Miller S. D. 2001. Assessment of drip and flood irrigation on water and fertilizer use efficiencies for sugarbeets. Agricultural Water Management, 46: 241–251.

20- Shiklomanov I.A. 2000. Appraisal and assessment of world water resources. Water International, 25(1):11-32.

21- Shrestha A., Mitchell, J.P. and Lanini W. T. 2007. Subsurface drip irrigation as a weed management tool for conventional and conservation tillage tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) production in semi-arid agroecosystems. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 31(2):91-112.

22- Stikic R., Popovic, S. and Srdic M. 2003. Partial root drying (PRD): a new technique for growing plants that saves water and improves the quality of fruit. Bulgarian Journal of Plant Physiology, (Special issue): 164–171.

23- Tollenaar M., Aguilera, A. and Nissanka S.P. 1997. Grain yield is reduced more by weed interference in an old than in a new maize hybrid. Agronomy Journal, 89: 239-246.

24- Vanderlip R.L., Okonkwo, J.C. and Schaffer J.A. 1988. Corn response to precision of within-row plant spacing. Application Agriculture Research, 3: 116-119.

25- Williams M. M. II. 2006. Planting date influences critical period of weed control in sweet corn. Weed Science, 54:927–932.

26- Zand E., Rahimian Mashhadi H., Koocheki A., Kholghani J., Mosavi, S.K. and Ramazani K. 2011. Weed ecolology implications for management. Iranain academic for education, culture and research (ACECR), Mashhad.