Abdala ResearchThesis pdf

Transcription

THE EFFECT OF INTRA-ROW SPACING AND NUMBER OF
PLANTS PER HILL ON IRRIGATED MAIZE (Zea mays L.)
PRODUCTION AT GODE, EASTERN ETHIOPIA
MSc THESIS
ABDALA ABDIKENI ABDULAHI
October 2015
HARAMAYA UNIVERSITY
THE EFFECT OF INTRA-ROW SPACING AND NUMBER OF PLANTS
PER HILL ON IRRIGATED MAIZE (Zea mays L.) PRODUCTION AT
GODE, EASTERN ETHIOPIA
A Thesis Submitted to the Postgraduate Program Directorate
(School of Plant Sciences)
HARAMAYA UNIVERSITY
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE IN AGRICULTURE
(AGRONOMY)
By
Abdala Abdikeni Abdulahi
October 2015
Haramaya University
HARAMAYA UNIVERSITY
Postgraduate Program Directorate
We hereby certify that we have read and evaluated this Thesis titled `Effect of intra- row
spacing and number of plants per hill on irrigated maize (Zea Mays L.) Production at Gode,
eastern Ethiopia` prepared under our guidance by Abdala Abdikeni. We recommend that it be
submitted as it fulfills the thesis requirements.
Ketema Belete (PhD)
Major Advisor
Jemal Abdulahi (PhD)
Co-advisor
_________________
Signature
__________________
Signature
_____________
Date
_____________
Date
As members of the Board of Examiners of the MSc Thesis Open Defense Examination, we
certify that we have read, evaluated the Thesis prepared by Abdala Abdikeni and examined the
candidate. We recommend that the Thesis be accepted as fulfilling the Thesis requirement for
the Degree of Master of Science in Agriculture (Agronomy).
_________________________
__________________
Chairperson
________________________
Signature
___________________
Internal Examiner
_______________________
Signature
__________________
External Examiner
Signature
ii
___________
Date
__________
Date
_________
Date
DEDICATION
I dedicate this piece of work to my mother, Quresh Hasan Nur and my father Abidikeni
Abdulahi Shegow for their consistent and unreserved help and encouragement with selfless
scarifies throughout my educational career.
iii
STATEMENT OF THE AUTHOR
First, I declare that this Thesis is my genuine work and that all sources of materials used for
this Thesis have been duly acknowledged. The Thesis has been submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for M.Sc. Degree at Haramaya University and is deposited at the
University Library to be made available to borrowers under rules and regulations of the
Library. I solemnly declare that this Thesis is not submitted to any other institution anywhere
for the award of any Academic Degree, Diploma or Certificate.
Brief quotations from this Thesis are allowable without special permission provided that
accurate acknowledgement of sources is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation
from or reproduction of this manuscript in a whole or in part may be granted by the Head of
the School of Plant Sciences or the Director of the directorate of Graduate Studies when, in
his/her judgment, the proposed use of the material is in the interest of Scholarship. In all other
instances, however, permission must be obtained from the author.
Name: Abdala Abdikeni Abdulahi
Signature: ----------------
Place: Haramaya University
Date of Submission: ____________
iv
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
The author Abdala Abdikeni was born on January 15, 1985 at Fer Fer district, Shabele Zone
of Somali Region State, Eastern Ethiopia. He attended his primary, junior and senior
secondary education at Gode. After completion of high school education, he joined Gode
Agricultural, Technical Vocational Educational Training College (ATVETC), in the
Department of Plant Science and graduated with Diploma in Plant Science in 2005. Soon after
graduation he was employed by Adale District Crop, Livestock and Rural Development
Bureau in Shabele Zone, Somali Regional State in the crop department as DA (Development
Agent). After four year of service he was transferred to Fer Fer District. In 2006, he joined
Haramaya University to continue his undergraduate study in Plant Science. After he graduated
in 2010, he was employed by Somali Region Pastoral and Agro-pastoral Institute (SoRPARI)
as crop researcher and was assigned as crop process owner (Crop Department Head) in Kelafo
Pastoral and Agro-pastoral Research sub Center (KePARSC). After serving in the sub center
for four years, he joined the School of Graduate Studies of Haramaya University in October
2013, to pursue his post graduate study in the field of Agronomy.
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and fore most, I bow with gratefulness to Almighty Allah and would like to thank and say
Alhamdulillah for having bestowed upon me his grace and blessing, giving me stamina and
strength throughout my study.
I would like to extend many thanks to my major advisor. Dr. Ketema Belete, who transferred
to me his vast and excellent professional knowledge and thoughts related to my research study.
His prompt guidance, advice and support have encouraged me to complete this Thesis.
Without his friendly and welcoming behavior, this success would not be possible. Then I
would like to express my deepest gratitude and special thanks to my co-advisor Dr. Jemal
Abdulahi for his unreserved constructive guidance, comments, suggestions and criticisms
throughout the research time. I appreciate his readiness to share his experience and knowledge.
I am especially grateful to the Director of Somali Region Pastoral and Agro-pastoral Research
Institute (SoRPARI) Dr. Suldan Wali for giving this chance and sponsoring my education. I
want also to thank the staff of SoRPARI particularly Mr. Khader Heybe and Mr. Yohones
Lama for their support.
I am truthfully thankful to all staff members of Gode Pastoral and Agro-pastoral Research
Center (GoPARC), especially Mr. Abdulahi Rabi (Manager of the Center), Mr. Ahmed Arab,
Mr. Abdulahi Soane, Mr. Mahad Abdi, Mr. Abdulahi Arbao and Mr. Adde Hussen for
providing me with the material and technical support during planting, trial management and
data collection.
Last, but not the least, my special thanks and appreciation go to Mr. Abdi Hassan Sufi and Mr.
Ahmed Mohammed Ismail for helping in data analysis.
Finally, these expressions of appreciation would not be complete without recognizing my
much-loved family, in the direction of whom I would like to state my deepest and sincere
gratitude for their endurance and continued ethical support which enabled me to complete this
work fruitfully.
vi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
ATA
Agricultural Transformation Agency
CIMMYT
Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maíz y Trigo
(International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center)
DPPA
Disaster Prevention and Preparedness Agency
ESA
East South Africa
ESSP
Ethiopia Strategy Support Program
GDP
Gross Domestic Product
IOSNRS
Investment Office of the Somali National Regional State
KePARSC
Kelafo Pastoral and Agro-pastoral Research sub Center
MoARD
Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development
SACCAR
Southern Africa Centre for Cooperation in Agricultural Research
SCF-UK
Save the Children Fund – United Kingdom
SoRPARI
Somali Region Pastoral and Agro-Pastoral Research Institute
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
DEDICATION
III
STATEMENT OF THE AUTHOR
IV
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
V
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
VI
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VII
VIII
LIST OF TABLES
X
LIST OF TABLES IN THE APPENDIX
LIST OF FIGURE
XI
XII
1. INTRODUCTION
1
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
5
2.1. Origin and Distribution of Maize
5
2.2. Ecology of Maize
6
2.3. Importance of Maize Crop
7
2.4. Importance of Maize in Ethiopia
10
2.5. Effect of Plant Spacing on Maize Production
13
2.6. Effect of Plant Population on Maize Production
15
2.7. Effect of Number of Plants per Hill on Crop Production
18
2.8. Effect of Number of Plants per Hill of Maize Crop
19
3. MATERIALS AND METHODS
22
3.1. Description of the Study Area
22
3.2. Treatment and Experimental Design
23
3.3. Soil Physical and Chemical Properties of the Experimental Site
24
3.4. Experimental Field Management
24
3.5. Data Collection and Measurement
25
3.4.1. Crop phenology
25
3.4.2. Growth parameters
25
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ( Continued)
3.4.3. Yield components and yield
25
3.6. Statistical Data Analysis
27
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSION
28
4.1. Crop Phenology
28
4.1.1. Days to 50% tasseling
28
4.1.2. Days to 50% silking
28
4.1.3. Days to 95% maturity
29
4.2. Growth Parameters
31
4.2.1. Plant height (cm)
31
4.3. Yield components and yield
32
4.3.1. Stand count (%)
32
4.3.2. Number of ears per plant
33
4.3.3. Number of rows per ear
34
4.3.4. Number of kernels per row
34
4.3.5. Ear length (cm)
35
4.3.6. Thousand Kernel weight (g)
36
4.3.7. Above ground biomass (kg/ha)
36
4.3.8. Grain yield (kg/ha)
37
4.3.9. Harvest index (%)
38
5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
39
6. REFERENCES
41
7. APPENDICS
50
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table
1
Combination of plant density on maize crop production
2
Interaction effect of intra-row spacing and number of plants per hill on
Pages
23
27
days 50% tasseling of maize
3
27
days 50% silking of maize
4.
Main effect of intra-row spacing and number of plants per hill on days to
28
75% of physiological maturity and stand count difference of maize
5.
Interaction effect of intra-row spacing and number of plants per hill on plant
29
height of maize
6..
Interaction effect of intra-row spacing and number of plants per hill on Ear
30
height of maize
7.
Main effect of intra-row spacing and number of plants per hill on number
32
of ears per plants (cm), number of kernel rows per cob, number of kernels
per row, ear length (cm) and thousand kernel weight (g) of maize
8.
Interaction effect of intra-row spacing and number of plants per hill on the
34
above ground dry biomass of maize
9Intera Interaction effect of intra-row spacing and number of plants per hill on grain
35
yield of maize
10
harvest index of maize
x
35
LIST OF TABLES IN THE APPENDIX
Appendix Table
1.
Page
Mean square values of ANOVA for phenological parameters of maize as
45
affected by intra-row spacing and number of plants per hill
2. Mean square values of ANOVA for growth parameters of maize as affected by
45
intra-row spacing and number of plants per hill
3. Mean square values of ANOVA for yield components of maize as affected by
46
4. Mean square values of ANOVA for thousand kernels weight, stand count,
46
above ground biomass, grain yield and harvest index of maize as affected by
5. Long-term (2005-2014) meteorological data of the experimental site at Gode
xi
47
LIST OF FIGURE
Figure1. Map of the study site, Gode Zone, Somali Regional State, Ethiopia
xii
THE EFFECT OF INTRA-ROW SPACING AND NUMBER OF PLANTS PER HILL
ON IRRIGATED MAIZE (Zea mays L.) PRODUCTION AT GODE, EASTERN
ETHIOPIA
ABSTRACT
Maize is the major cereal crop grown widely in the Gode District. Most appropriate intra-row
spacing and plants per hill must be determined for maize production under irrigated
condition. Therefore, an experiment was conducted during October 2014 to January 2015
crop season under irrigation at Gode in Shebele Zone, Somali Regional State to assess the
effects of intra-row spacing and number of plants per hill on the yield and yield components of
maize. The experiment was conducted in factorial arrangement of four intra-row spacing (25,
30, 35 and 40 cm), and three levels of plants per hill (1, 2 and 3) in RCBD with three
replication using maize variety Melkasa-4. Significantly the highest of days to tasseling
49.33), days to silking (57.6), plant height (171.5cm) and ear height (89.43cm) were obtained
from the highest plant population to 25cm of three plants per hill. The highest of
physiological maturity (80.75), number of ears per plant (1.70), number of rows per ear
(15.87), number of kernels per row (31.95), ear length (19.57cm) and thousand kernel weight
(191.29g) which were obtained from the lowest number of plants per hill. On the other hand,
the highest above ground dry biomass (7073kg ha-1) and harvest index (45.69).Moreover, the
highest grain yield (3232kg ha-1) which was obtained from one plant per hill and 25 cm intrarow spacing with plant density of 53,333 plants/ha, while the lowest grain yield (1431kg ha-1)
was obtained from three plants per hill and 25 cm intra-row spacing with plant density of
160000 plants/ha. Thus, the 25cm x 75cm with one plant per hill could be used for maize
production under irrigation condition of Gode.
Keywords: days to tasseling, Gode, Melkasa-4, Plant population
xiii
1. INTRODUCTION
Maize (Zea mays L) is one of the major cereals and chief sources of energy in the human diet.
It is the most widely distributed cereal crop. It is originated central America`s greatest gift to
mankind. Maize has number of uses as food for man, livestock, feed, and for making many
kinds of non-food products (Usha and Pandey, 2007).
The importance of maize lies in its wide industrial applications besides serving as human food
and animal feed. It is the most versatile crop with wider adaptability in varied agro-ecologies
and has highest genetic yield potential among the food grain crops. New production
technologies offer great promise for increasing productivity to meet the growing demands of
world consumers. For decades, maize growers have worked for continuous improvement and
greater efficiency (Singh et al., 2002).
Maize is the staple food of 24 million households in east and southern Africa and is annually
planted over an area of 15.5 million hectares (Thorne et al., 2002). Research in agronomic
practices to optimize grain yields is a priority for governments in the region because of the
critical role played by maize in food security. As a result, agronomic evaluation and crop
husbandry recommendations for maize focus on optimizing plant population density and
reducing weed competition for maximizing grain yield, but have generally paid little attention
to the maize crop as sources of cattle fodder (Thorne et al.,2002).
In Ethiopia, cereals are the major food crops both in terms of the area they are planted and
volume of production obtained. They are produced in larger volume compared with other
crops because they are the principal staple crops. Cereals are grown in all the regions with
varying quantity as shown in the survey results. Out of
the total grain crop area, 78.17%
(9,601,035.26 ha) was under cereals. Teff, maize, sorghum and wheat took up 22.23% (about
2,730,272.95 ha), 16.39% (about 2,013,044.93 ha), 13.93 % (1,711,485.04 ha) and 13.25%
(1,627,647.16 ha) of the grain crop area, respectively (CSA, 2013).
Maize is Ethiopia’s leading cereal in terms of production, with six million tons produced in
2012 by nine million farmers across two million ha of land. Over half of all Ethiopian farmers
2
grow maize, primarily for subsistence. Maize is thus an important crop for overall food
security and for economic development in the country (ATA, 2013). Anyhow, the yield of
maize in Ethiopia is 3059kg per ha (CSA, 2013).
In Ethiopia maize is produced for food, especially, in major maize producing regions mainly
for low-income groups, it is also used as staple food.
Maize is consumed as ''Injera,''
Porridge, Bread and ''Nefro.'' It is also consumed roasted or boiled as vegetables at green stage
(MOA, 2009).
In addition to the above it is used to prepare ''Tella'' and ''Arekie.'' The leaf and stalk are used
for animal feed and also dried stalk and cob are used for fuel. It is also used as industrial raw
material for oil and glucose production (MOA, 2009).
Somali Region Pastoral and Agro-pastoral Research Institute, during the first years of its
establishment in the year 2002, undertook a baseline survey in the rain fed and irrigation crop
production areas using a semi-structured questionnaire and the results of this survey revealed
that maize is the major cereal crop grown widely in the region. It is largely produced in the
Northern, North-eastern and South-western parts of the region. It is produced for food and
fodder especially in areas along the river-banks of the region. Maize is consumed as Porridge
and ‘’Gerew’’. It is also consumed roasted or boiled cobs, considering the potential of the
region for growing maize and its high rate of consumption, especially in the rural areas of the
region (Abdi et al., 2009).
Number of biotic and a biotic factor affect maize yield considerably. However, it is more
affected by variations in plant density than other member of the grass family. Maize differs in
its responses to plant density (Luque et al., 2006).
Plant populations affect most growth parameters of maize even under optimal growth
conditions and therefore it is considered a major factor determining the degree of competition
between plants.
General management considerations can provide the background for
profitable maize production. Since maize is planted in row, the inter row spacing as well intra
row plant spacing can be variable depending on the selected planting method (ATA, 2013). It
3
would be usefull to know optimum or critical population densities to exclude population as
limiting factors for crop yield (Balasubramaniyan and Palanlappan, 2007).
Stand density affects plant architecture, alters growth and developmental patterns and
influences carbohydrate production. At low densities, many modern maize varieties produce
only one ear per plant. Whereas, the use of high population increases interplant competition
for light, water and nutrients, which may be detrimental to final yield because it stimulates
apical dominance, induces barrenness, and ultimately decreases the number of ears produced
per plant and kernels set per ear (Abuzar, 2011). According to Lopez-Bellido et al (2003) as
plant density increases, competition between plants becomes more intense, affecting the
growth, development and production of each plant.
Number of seedlings per hill is an important factor among the management practices (Akhter
et al., 2010). It play important role in boosting yield of plant because it influences solar
radiation interception, total sunshine reception, nutrient uptake, rate of photosynthesis and
other physiological phenomena and ultimately affects the growth and development of plant
production
(Faisul et al., 2013). Wekesa et al. (2003) reported that, in Kenya, farmers used higher seed
rates than the recommended one up to two plants per hill.
In Tanzania the farmer seed rates varied between 1 and 5 seeds per hill. The most popular seed
rate was 3 seeds per hill, followed by 2 seeds per hill, and 4 seeds per hill, which are 57%,
25.5% and 17.5% of the sample, respectively. Another sample indicates that 55% of the
sample farmers planted two seeds per hill, 42% planted three seeds per hill, and 3% planted
only one seed per hill (Katinila et al., 1998).
In Ethiopia, the recommended spacing of 75 cm and 30 cm between rows and plants is used,
respectively, in maize which is 44,444 plants/ha (EARO, 2004).
Somali Pastoral and Agro-pastoral Research Institute have introduced various maize varieties
that are nationally released and subjected to on-station and on-farm variety adaptation trials.
Open pollinated maize varieties have been found to be adaptable and have been recommended
4
to various adaptation areas of the region. On top of this, new adaptability projects have
commenced on hybrid maize, which showed there is a tremendous potential to grow hybrid
maize varieties in areas where enough moisture can be sustained with supplementary irrigation
(Abdi et al., 2009).
Maize is the major crop cultivated in Gode area and the agronomic recommendations are Interrow 75cm and intra-row 25cm with plant density 53,333 plants ha-1 (Abdi et al., 2009).
Farmers in Gode area apply agronomy` practice of maize such as within plant spacing of 30
cm up to 40cm and number of plants per hill of two to three without leaving any space
between the seeds. Hence, realizing the importance of developing appropriate cultural
practices for maize in Gode area, the objective of the study was:
 To assess the effects of intra-row spacing and number of plants per hill on the yield and yield
components of maize.
5
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Origin and Distribution of Maize
Maize is considered to be indigenous to the Americas particularly Southern Mexico. It has
been domesticated about 8000 years ago and does not exist in its wild form (Mandal, 2014).
The crop is a tropical grass that is well adapted to many climates and hence has varieties
which have wide maturity from 70 days to 210 days (Stephanie and Brown, 2008).
The name ‘maize’ is derived from a South American Indian Arawak – Carib word “Mahiz”. It
was first used for food about 10,000 years ago by Red Indians living in the area now called
Mexico. For hundreds of years, the tribal people in the area gathered the grains from wild
plants before they learnt to grow maize themselves. Thus, it was also called as “Indian corn”
although this did not refer to the Asian country “India” in any way (Usha and Pandey, 2007).
The genus Zea is classified in the tribe Maydeae of the family Poaceae/Gramineae. There is
only
one species, Zea mays which is known only in cultivation. Closely related to this genus
are two other New World genera, Tripsacum (called gama grass which is used as fodder in
North America) and Euchlaena (called Teosinte, believed to be the closest wild relative of
maize). Some taxonomists do not recognize Euchlaena as a separate genus and have
transferred all the species of this genus to Zea (Usha and Pandey, 2007).
The oldest written record of maize in China appears in Dian Nan Ben Cao by Lan Mao in
approximately 1492. The original usage of maize was as traditional Chinese medicine. The
earliest written record (from 1560) of maize as a food crop mentions that maize was a popular
cereal crop cultivated in conjunction with rice, wheat, and millet in Pinliang Fu, Gansu
Province, in northwestern China. Records also indicate that maize was used as a tribute to the
emperor. Other historical accounts describe the cultivation of maize in the hilly areas of Fujian
Province on China’s southeastern coast in the 16th century. By the early 20th century, maize
had become one of China’s major crops. The maize area expanded to 10 million ha,
approximately 12% of total cultivated area, between 1900 and 1930 (Erika et al., 2006).
Usually Africa in particular Ethiopia, grow mainly white dent or semi-flint white grain maize.
White flint maize is growing in Central America and South America, Asia and Southern
6
Europe. Overall white maize occupies only 10% of the world maize production. The majority
of the areas around the world are planted under yellow maize, and a very small fraction to
other grain colors such as black, red, violet, green-blue and other grain colors (ATA, 2013).
2.2. Ecology of Maize
Maize is grown globally from 50°N to 40°S, and from sea level up to 4000 m altitude. It is a
short-day plant with 12.5 hours/day being suggested as the critical photoperiod. Photoperiods
greater than this may increase the total number of leaves produced prior to initiation of
tasseling, and may increase the time taken from emergence to tassel initiation (Stephanie and
Brown, 2008).
Plessis (2003) indicated that maize is a warm weather crop and is not grown in areas where the
mean daily temperature is less than 19 ºC or where the mean of the summer months is less
than 23 ºC. Although the minimum temperature for germination is 10 ºC, germination will be
faster and less variable at soil temperatures of 16 to 18 ºC. At 20 ºC, maize emerges within
five to six days. The critical temperature detrimentally affecting yield is approximately 32 ºC.
It does not do well when the temperature during the growing cycle averages below 190C or
above 400C (ATA, 2013).
It is a warm weather plant that requires high temperature during the growing period. The crop
requires an average temperature of about 24Co. Low temperature reduces growth and
extremely high temperature may retard germination of seed particularly when it’s combined
with deficient moisture (Balasubramaniyan and Palanlappan, 2007). The optimum temperature
for maize growth and development is 18 to 32 °C. Temperatures of 35 °C and above
considered inhibitory. The optimum soil temperatures for germination and early seedling
growth are 12 °C or greater, and at tasselling 21 to 30 °C is ideal (Stephanie and Brown,
2008).
It is a cereal crop adapted to a wide range of environmental conditions and is cultivated in all
agro-ecologies of West and Central Africa. The crop is grown throughout the region, even
under suboptimal conditions. Suitability for maize production is determined mainly by the
length of the growing season that in turn is determined by the amount of rainfall and its
distribution and temperature (Apraku et al., 2012).
7
Approximately 10 to 16 kg of grain are produced for every millimetre of water used. Yield of
3 152 kg/ha requires between 350 and 450 mm of rain per annum. At maturity, each plant will
have used 250 liter of water in the absence of moisture stress (Plessis, 2003).
According to the Stephanie and Brown (2008) maize can grow and yield with as little as 300
mm but prefers 500 to 1200 mm as the optimal range. Depending on soil type and stored soil
moisture, crop failure would be expected if less than 300 mm of rain were received in crop.
The crop grows well under any soil type with pH ranging from slightly acidic to slightly
alkaline (pH range of 5.8 to 7.5). Adequate drainage is needed to allow for the maintenance of
sufficient oxygen in the soil for good root growth and microbial activity, as well as water
holding capacity to provide adequate moisture throughout the growing season (ATA, 2013).
A deep loamy soil, high in organic matter and plant nutrients is the best soil for maize
production. However, with proper management and fertilizer practices, a variety can be grown
successfully on any soil from loamy sand to clay. The soil should be free from salinity and
water logging (Chowdhury and Hassan, 2013). Water loggings are harmful at seeding stage;
continuous water logging for 3 days reduces the yield by 40–45% (Chandrase et al., 2010).
The most suitable soil for maize is one with a good effective depth, good internal drainage, an
optimal moisture regime, sufficient and balanced quantities of plant nutrients and chemical
properties that are favourable specifically for maize production (Plessis, 2003).
2.3. Importance of Maize Crop
Maize is one of the most important cereal crops in the world and the leading crop of the world
after rice and wheat. It has high productivity due to its large leaf area and being a C4 plant has
one of the highest photosynthetic rates of all food crops. It is the highest potential for
carbohydrate production per unit area per day. It can be grown throughout the year because of
its photo-insensitiveness. The maize seed contains 11% protein and its nutrient value is higher
in comparison to rice and wheat (Chowdhury and Hassan, 2013).
It is generally grown in the areas of high to medium production potential that, because of their
ecological and geographic characteristics, have the potential to be major food producing areas
for Africa (Thorne et al., 2002).
8
It is one of the important cereal crops in the world’s agricultural economy both as food for
men and feed for animals. Because of its higher yield potential compared to other cereals, it is
called “Queen of Cereals”. Green cobs are roasted and eaten by the people. Maize has low
fibre content, more carbohydrate and most palatable. It is widely used in preparation of cattle
feed and poultry feed. It can be used as green fodder and has no hydroajanic acid (HCN)
content. It can be preserved as silage (Chandrase et al., 2010).
It is a widely cultivated crop throughout the world and a greater mass of maize is produced
each year than any other grain. The United States produce 40% of the world’s harvest. Other
top producing countries include China, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, India, Ukraine, Indonesia,
France and South Africa. The USA is the first maize producer in the world with average yield
of 8.5 (tons per ha) followed by China (4.6 tons per ha) (Abuzar, 2011). Maize grain yields in
the U.S. started to rise in the late 1930s, concurrent with introduction of hybrids and improved
cultural methods (Duvick, 2005).
In India, maize is cultivated throughout the year in most of states of the country for various
purposes including grain, feed, fodder, green cobs and industrial products.
Maize area,
production and productivity in India have shown a steady upward trend in recent years. The
consumption pattern of maize is 52% poultry, pig, and fish, 24%
for direct human
consumption 11%, cattle feed and starch and 1% seed and brewery industry ( Singh et al.,
2002).
It is the third most important cereal crop in Pakistan after wheat and rice. About 60% maize is
grown in irrigated and 36% in rain fed areas of Pakistan. Basically it is a tropical plant but at
present it is being cultivated extensively with equal success in temperate, tropical and subtropical regions of world (Abuzar, 2011). The yield of maize in Pakistan is very low as
compared to other maize producing countries. Among the various factors responsible for low
yield, non availability of seed of improved varieties and sub optimal or super optimal plant
population per hectare are the causes of lower yield (Sikandar et al., 2007).
The importance of maize lies in its wide industrial applications besides serving as human food
and animal feed. Grain is the most important part of the maize and used for food (Babaji et
al., 2012). New production technologies offer great promise for increasing productivity to
9
meet the growing demands of world consumers. For decades, maize growers have worked for
continuous improvement and greater efficiency (Singh et al., 2002).
Food products like corn meal, corn flakes etc., can be prepared. It is used in making industrial
products like alcohol, corn starch (dextrose), glucose, corn oil, corn syrup etc., and used in
canning industry; production of polymer, making paper, paper boards, and bread etc. Maize
grain contains proteins (10%), carbohydrates (70%), oil (4%), albuminoides (10.4%), crude
fibre (2.3%) and ash (1.4%) (Chandrase et al., 2010).
Tanzania’s maize production has been on a progressive gain since 2005. However this
production is gaining at the same time when consumption is also growing. Maize is perhaps
the most widely grown crop in Tanzania, grown by 4.5 million agricultural households
representing about 82% of farm households. On average, maize production is estimated at 3-4
metric tonnes. Nearly all (98%) of the maize produced in Tanzania comes from smallholder
farmers (Shellemiah and Patrick, 2013).
In a processed form it is also found as fuel (ethanol) and starch. Starch in turn involves
enzymatic conversion into products such as sorbitol, dextrine, sorbic and lactic acid, and
appears in household items such as beer, ice cream, syrup, shoe polish, glue, fireworks, ink,
batteries, mustard, cosmetics, aspirin and paint. In developed countries, maize is consumed
mainly as second-cycle produce, in the form of meat, eggs and dairy products. Most people
regard maize as a breakfast cereal. In developing countries, it is consumed directly and serves
as staple diet for some 200 million people (Plessis, 2003).
The significance of maize as a staple crop in east Africa has grown tremendously over the last
30 years. In Kenya, food security is synonymous with maize availability. Maize is a staple to
over 90% of Kenya’s population with about 42% dietary energy intake. The production of
maize in Kenya takes a central focus thus; it occupies more land area than any other crop;
estimated at 1.6 million hectares annually. Of this, over 70% production is attributed to
smallholder farmers. In Uganda, maize production is growing in importance as well as
consumption this is attributed to rising urbanization, a change in consumption patterns and the
agility of smallholders to diversify into maize production as a commercial crop. The national
yield of maize is however very low estimated at 2.3 Mt/ha (Shellemiah and Patrick, 2013).
10
Maize is Ghana’s most important cereal crop and is grown by the vast majority of rural
households. It is widely consumed throughout the country, and it is the second most important
staple food next to cassava. Ghana is one of the major maize producers in Africa south of the
Sahara, accounting for about 9 percent of the total acreage among surveyed countries and 7
percent of the total acreage in West and Central Africa (Alene and Mwalughali 2012). Both
production and area cultivated with maize have been increasing over time. Production has
been increasing over time slightly faster than area and therefore yield (in tons/hectare). The
national average yield was 1.7 tons/hectare/year (MOFA, 2011).
2.4. Importance of Maize in Ethiopia
Ethiopia’s agriculture is complex, involving substantial variation in crops grown across the
country’s different regions and ecologies. Five major cereals (teff, wheat, maize, sorghum and
barley) are the core of Ethiopia’s agriculture and food economy (Alemayehu et al., 2011).
In Ethiopia, maize production is of recent history. Probably it was introduced to this country
from Kenya during the 17th Century. Maize has been introduced to Ethiopia in the 1600s to
1700s. In Ethiopia, maize grows under a wide range of environmental conditions between 500
to 2400 meters above sea level (EIAR, 2015).
Over half of all Ethiopian farmers grow maize, mostly for subsistence, with 75% of all maize
output consumed by farming households. This makes maize Ethiopia’s leading cereal crop, in
terms of production, with 6.2 million tons produced in 2013 by 9.3 million farmers across 2
million hectares of land (EIAR, 2015).
Ethiopian agriculture is mainly subsistence oriented and most of the production is for
household consumption. About 67% of cereal grain produced is consumed at the household
level and the surplus is either sold or used as seed. Among the cereals, maize and sorghum
have highest proportion consumed by producers (75–76% of produce consumed by
producers), followed by finger millet, oats and rice (ILRI, 2007).
The role of maize as a source of cash income is low compared to other cereals except oats and
barley. Only about 10.9% of the maize grain produced was marketed in 2001/02 compared to
11
25.8% for teff and 19.5% for wheat. Thus, the major role of maize in Ethiopia is for household
consumption (ILRI, 2007).
Maize is one of Ethiopia’s major and strategic cereal crops that have important role in the
country’s food security and farmers’ livelihood. It is grown in 13 agro-ecological zones on
about 1,994,813.80 ha (16.08%) of the total grain crop area of which 39% of the total maize
area in Ethiopia is now planted with improved varieties. Among all cereals, maize is second to
tef in area coverage but first in productivity and total production (CSA, 2014).
However, instead of simply growing maize for subsistence, Ethiopian smallholder farmers
have the long-term potential to cultivate large surpluses of the crop for domestic processed
food production as well as for export. Ethiopia is the fourth largest maize producing country
in Africa, and first in the East African region. It is also significant that Ethiopia produces nongenetically modified white maize, the preferred type of maize in neighboring markets (ATA,
2014).
In Ethiopia, maize is mainly used for food and feed purpose. The stover is also used for
construction and domestic fuel. Though maize is mainly used for human consumption, its
share in the total calorie intake in Ethiopia is lower when compared to other African countries.
For instance in Malawi the contribution of maize is as high as 67% where as in Ethiopia it has
only a share of 19% (Berhanu et al., 2007).
Maize production in Ethiopia is exercised using both the traditional methods and extension
package. The extension package is of a green revolution type characterized by use of high
yielding varieties, fertilizers and chemicals (Berhanu et al., 2007).
In Ethiopia maize is produced for food. It is consumed as injera, porridge, bread and nefro. It
is also consumed roasted or boiled as vegetable at green stage. In addition to the above, it is
used to prepare local alcoholic drink known as Tella and Arekie. The leaf and stalk are used
for animals feed and also dried stalk and cobs are used for fuel. It is also used as industrial row
material for oil and glucose production, (MOA, 2010).
Moreover, maize plays a central role in Ethiopia’s food security. It is the lowest cost source of
cereal calories. Also it already plays a critical role in smallholder livelihood and food security,
12
this role can be expanded. Maize is the staple cereal crop with the highest current and potential
yield from available inputs, at 2.2 tons per hectare in 2008/09 with a potential for 4.7 tons per
hectare according to on-farm field trials, when cultivated with fertilizer (Rashid et al., 2010).
Ethiopia national maize yield is 3.2 tons per hectare, 28% above the developing world average
of 2.5 tons per hectare (ATA, 2014). The ‘developed’ world, however, sees Ethiopia’s maize
farmers strive for these increased potential averages, the maize initiative is expanding a core
technology package aimed at growing smallholder farmer productivity and yields, while at the
same time connecting farmers to reliable demand sinks to better market their harvests. The
core package, which includes increasing the availability of improved inputs, access to credit,
and training on agronomic practices, has been scaled-up for 2014, with a goal of reaching
500,000 farmers across 50 target woredas in the Amhara, Oromia, SNNP, and Tigray Regions
(ATA, 2014).
Maize is instrumental for the food security of Ethiopian households, and is the lowest cost
caloric source among all major cereals, which is significant given that cereals dominate
household diets in Ethiopia. The unit cost of calories per US dollar for maize is one-and-a-half
and two times lower than wheat and teff, respectively. Maize is also a low-cost source of
protein in comparison to other cereals. On-farm consumption is the largest source of demand
with few large, downstream buyers and limited processing activity. The most attractive
demand sinks for maize are in food and livestock feed, with potential demand of 800,000 tons
of cereal demand for food and upwards of 450,000 tons of maize demand for feed (IFPRI,
2010). Maize is the only crop with significant use of commercial inputs. In 2008, about 37
percent of the maize farmers used fertilizer, compared to the national average of 17 percent for
all cereal farmers. An estimated 26 percent of the maize growers used improved seed, which is
again about twice the national average for all cereal farmers (Rashid et al., 2010).
In Somali Regional state maize production plays great role. The Region is suitable for maize
production and maize yield about 3500kg/ha was obtained for Melkasa-4 and ECV- 3 varieties
s
on research field and on farmer ` field a yield of 1520kg/ha was obtained (Abdi et al., 2009).
Majority farmers of the Somali Regional State still grow maize as have been grown for
centuries. Use of proper plant population densities, proper selection of suitable crops in crop
rotation, intercropping of friendly crops, have always been ignored (GLCRDB, 2014).
13
2.5. Effect of Plant Spacing on Maize Production
Plant spacing is an important agronomic attribute because it is believed to have effects on light
interception during which photosynthesis takes place which is the energy manufacturing
medium using green parts of the plant. Also, it affects the photosphere and rhizosphere
exploitation by the plants especially when spacing is inadequate and the plants clustered
together. Proper plant spacing gives the right plant density (Ibeawuchi et al., 2008).
Plant spacing plays an important role on growth, development and yield of cereal crops.
Optimum plant density ensures that plants grow properly with their aerial and underground
parts by utilizing more sunlight and soil nutrients Closer spacing hampers intercultural
operations and in a densely populated crop, the inter-plant competition for nutrients, air and
light is very high, which usually results in mutual shading, lodging and thus favours more
straw yield than grain yield (Bhowmik et al., 2012).
Row spacing requirements depend on architecture and growth pattern of the varieties. For
higher yield, higher proportion of incident radiation at the soil surface must be intercepted by
crop canopy. If a row distance is too wide, solar radiation that falls between crop rows
remains un utilized. On the other hand, plants become crowded and they suffer from mutual
shading if the row distance is too narrow. Moreover, yield may be reduced in narrow spacing
due to increased competition of plants for nutrient and moisture (Das and Yaduraju, 2011).
Selecting optimal row spacing is important to improve crop productivity as plants growing in
too wide of a row may not efficiently utilize light, water, and nutrient resources. However,
crops grown in too narrow rows may result in severe inter row competition. Row spacing also
modifies plant architecture, photosynthetic competence of leaves, and dry matter partitioning
in several field crops (Hussain et al., 2012).
Plant density is dependent on both row width and intra-row spacing and under dry land
conditions row width plays an important role in determining plant density (Mashiqaa and
Ngwako, 2011).
14
Though the yield per plant is lower at closer spacing, greater number of plant per ha
compensate
the loss in the yield of individuals plant (Balasubramaniyan and Palanlappan,
2007). The optimum plant population varies and it is important to target a specific planting
density (GRDC, 2005).
Intra-row spacing should not be too narrow as this can increase competition between plants
and results in yield detrimental effects (Mashiqaa and Ngwako, 2011).
The impact of row spacing on cereal yield varies depending on the rain fall growing season,
the time of sowing and the potential yield of the crop. The higher the yield potential, the
greater the negative impact of wide rows on cereal yields. There is some variation in responses
to row spacing greater than 40cm among cereal varieties (GRDC, 2011).
The best way to get uniform plant stands is to plant in regularly spaced rows and at regular
intervals within the row (Faisul et al., 2013).
Maize is among the least tolerant of crops to high plant population densities. Stated that the
plant height and ear yield of maize increased as the plant density increased, but ear lengh, ear
diameter and filled ear length decreased in high plant density. Rising of maize plant population
from 53333 to 88888 plants ha-1 significantly increased the fresh ear yield (Akman, 2002).
Modern varieties are much more responsive to closer spacing than traditional varieties
(Balasubramaniyan and Palanlappan, 2007).
High plant densities are used to increase crop yield per unit area while yield per plant
decreases with increased plant densities. Total light interception by the canopy is maximized
and total yield is increased. The high plant densities significantly increased leaf area, grain
yield and harvest index in different maize cultivars compared with low plant densities. Wider
spacing significantly promoted grain yield of maize crop compared with narrow rows
(Muhammed et al., 2002).
Plant density exerts a strong influence on maize growth, because of its competitive effect both
on the vegetative and reproductive development. Grain yield increases linearly with plant
density until some competitive effects become apparent. Effects of plant density normally
15
refer to number of plants per unit area, but spatial arrangement of plants should also be
considered. Plant density effects are highly pronounced in crops such as maize, where there is
no possibility of filling gaps between plants by branching or tillering. So, an appropriate plant
stand may help in harnessing all the renewable and non renewable resources in a more and
efficient manner towards higher crop yields (Ahmed et al., 2010). Maize grain yield was
greatly influenced by the different plant spacing used. Maize usually is planted in rows with
spacing between rows ranging from 50 up to 100 cm, although in some countries maize still is
broadcasted (ATA,2013).
Sikandar et al. (2012) reported that spacing of 75cm x 35cm resulted in increased grain yield
of maize while 75cm x 15cm gave maximum cob weight. In the both the hybrid and the local
maize, plant spacing of 25 x 75cm had the highest grain yield followed by plant spacing of
30cm x 50cm that had 66,667 plants/ha while plant spacing of 100 x 100cm had the least grain
yield (Chinyere, 2013).
Increase in the use of maize has led farmers to reduce spacing among plants thus; population
density is increased with attendant increased quantity of maize grain produced (Futuless et al.,
2010). Farmers grow maize at very irregular and wide spacing, due to the fact that most
farmers inter-crop maize with other crops (Iken and Amusa, 2004).
2.6. Effect of Plant Population on Maize Production
The production of a crop is influenced by many factors among which plant population and
spacing play very important role in enhancing its productivity (Babaji et al., 2007).
Plant population is defined as the number of plants per unit area (Balasubramaniyan and
Palanlappan, 2007).
Plant population density is a management variable that affects the production and quality of
most crops. Though optimal plant densities for production differ among geographic regions,
research indicates that grain yield generally increases as plant density increases.
Crop
potential yield may also be affected by intra-row spacing. It has been reported that effects of
plant population are not easily disentangled from within-row spacing differences (Shaw et al.,
2008).
16
A given plant population may be arranged in several ways, leading to variation in intensity of
interaction between the cultivars concerned (Chinyere, 2013). Plant population per ha depends
very much on the variety (ATA, 2013).
Plant population can have either asymptotic or parabolic. In the asymptotic relation, yields
increase linearly with increase population over the lower range of population. However, in
parabolic the total yield decline at higher population and there is an identifiable optimum
value (Mashiqaa and Ngwako, 2011).
Also plant population per ha depends on the fertility of the soil (ATA, 2013). A nutrient to
plants is affected by the interaction between the plants and thus, efficiency of the use of the
limiting resources (Chinyere, 2013).
Lower crop densities encourage weeds growth whereas higher crop densities negatively affect
the leaf area and other phenological parameters. The competitiveness of a weed community
with a crop depends on species composition, time of emergence and abundance. The recent
rise in environmental awareness of the public, interest in organic food production and possible
hazards of herbicide use has led us to device methods of weed management that could be
economical and environment friendly (Subhan-ud-Din et al., 2013).
Low plant density results in unnecessary sacrifice of yield and higher density also lead to
unnecessary stress on the plants. High plant densities are used to increase crop yield per unit
area while yield per plant decreases with increased plant densities. High plant densities
significantly increased leaf area, grain yield and harvest index in different maize cultivars
compared with low plant densities (Iken and Amusa, 2004). Under optimum water and
nutrient supply, high plant density can result an increase number of cobs per unit area, with
eventual increase in grain yield (Bavec and Bavec, 2002).
The optimum density or plant population for any given situation results in mature plants that
are sufficiently crowded to efficiently use resources such as water, nutrients, and sunlight, yet
not so crowded that some plants die or are unproductive. At this population, production from
the entire field is optimized, although any individual plant might produce less than would have
occurred with unlimited space. Many factors influence the optimum plant population for a
crop: availability of water, nutrients and sunlight; length of growing season; potential plant
17
size; and the plant’s capacity to change its form in response to varying environmental
conditions (Drew, 2009).
Plant density is an important agronomic attribute since it is believed to have effects on light
interception during which photosynthesis takes place which is the energy manufacturing
medium using green parts of the plant. Good plant spacing gives the right plant density, which
is the number of plants, allowed on a given unit of land for optimum yield. In agronomic
practices plant density exerts a strong influence on maize growth, because of its competitive
effect both on the vegetative and reproductive development. The maize, 80000 plant
populations per hectare produced higher yield than 60,000 plant population (Amin and
Maysam, 2014).
Maize plant population for maximum economic grain yield varies from 30,000 to 90,000
plants per ha depending on planting date, water availability, soil fertility and maturity
(Chinyere, 2013). Optimum maize population is known to vary according to level of soil
fertility, moisture status, cultivar grown and planting time. Generally, under irrigation, the
practice is to grow short season cultivars at a population of 80000 to 90000 plants ha-1 whereas
medium to long season cultivars can be grown at populations of 45000 to 65000 plants ha-1
(Fanadzo et al., 2010).
Maize yields variations between regions or agro ecological zones can be attributed to various
factors of which some are agronomic like plant density, planting dates, and soil fertility. Plant
density affects yield by influencing yield components such as number of ears, number of
kernels per ears, and kernel mass (Mashiqaa and Ngwako, 2011).
Plant density affects yield of maize by influencing yield components such as number of ears,
number of kernels per ears, and kernel weight (ATA, 2013). Optimum plant population of
53,333 plants/ha for maximum yield of maize, the report indicated that this is obtainable using
a spacing of 75cm x 25cm at 1 plant per stand or 75cm x 50cm at 2 plants per stand (Iken and
Amusa, 2004).
For maize, plant population per ha vary considerably around the world, depending on
cultivars, rainfall, soil fertility and other challenges. In very dry environments (below 500 mm
rainfall) plant densities ranging from as low as 15,000 to 25,000 plants/ha can be found,
18
However, on more favorable environments or irrigated areas, populations between 50,000 to
as high as 100,000 plants/ha give the optimum grain production. In Ethiopia, the
recommended spacing of 75 cm and 30 cm between rows and plants is used, respectively, in
maize which is 44,444 plants/ha (EARO, 2004). The optimum plant population range for
maize varies depending on the yield potential of the soil, the variety, and the intended use of
the crop (Chodhury, 2013). Tropical maize yields an average of 1.2 to 2.0 t/ha under sole
cropping with a varying population density (Futuless et al., 2010).
Optimum plant population for grain production and optimum seed rate for forage production
are important. In order to increase grain, there is a need to plant maize at proper plant
population. If plant population is too high, then crop net photosynthesis process will be
affected due to less light penetration in the crop canopy as well as increase in the competition
for available nutrient which will affect grain yield and forage production. On the other hand, if
plant population is lower than optimum plant population then per hectare production will be
low and weeds will also be more (Sikandar et al., 2007).
2.7. Effect of Number of Plants per Hill on Crop Production
The grain yield per plant was decreased (Luque et al., 2006) in response to decreasing light
and other environmental resources available to each plant (Abuzar, 2011.) The crop plants
depend largely on temperature, solar radiation, moisture and soil fertility for their growth and
nutritional requirements.
Among various agronomic factors limiting yield, planting pattern is considered of great
importance. Increase in yield can be ensured by maintaining appropriate plant population
through different planting patterns.
The plant spacing and number of seedlings per hill are two effective factors in planting pattern
design (Faisul et al., 2013).
Excess number of seedlings per hill result in mutual shading, lodging and thus favoring the
production of straw instead of grain, while less number may cause insufficient use of space,
nutrient utilization and tiller growth and at the end, total number of panicles per unit area may
be reduced resulting in poor yield. The highest grain yield of rice (7.40 t ha-1) was obtained
19
when transplanted with four seedlings per hill (Akhter et al., 2010). So, it may be inferred
that the effectiveness of grain filling is decided by the conditions of particular tiller. Hence,
planting of fewer seedlings resulted in higher grain yield (Faisul et al., 2013).
The growth and development of rice plant is greatly affected both qualitatively and
quantitatively by hill density. Optimum hill or planting density enables the rice plant to grow
properly in its aerial and underground parts by utilizing maximum radiant energy, nutrients,
space and water ultimately leading to bumper crop production. Improper spacing and hill
density may adversely affect the normal physiological activities of the rice plant. In densely
populated rice fields the inter-specific completions between the plants heights results in
gradual shading and lodging and thus favor the increased production of straw instead of grain
(Islam et al., 2012).
On the contrary, sparsely populated fields with wide spacing lead to uneconomic utilization of
space, profuse growth of weeds and diseases and reduction of grain yield per unit area.
Improper hill density and improper number of seedlings per hill may affect the physiological
activity of rice plant and account for yield reduction (Islam et al., 2012). Like hill density,
number of seedlings per hill also influences the uptake of nutrients, availability of radiant
energy, and other physiological phenomena, ultimately affect the growth and development of
plant. Among various factors improper hill density and number of seedlings per hill are now
considered as the major reasons for low yield of rice (Islam et al., 2012).
2.8. Effect of Number of Plants per Hill of Maize Crop
Plant configuration recommendations specifically on plant density, seeds per hill, spacing,
timing, and planting for maize inbred liner were developed in Ghana based on extensive onstation trials concluded that lodging increases with higher plant density and greater interplant
competition, or a planting density of about 56,000 to 76,000 plants per hectare (based on twoseeds-per-hill planting) or approximately 20 kilograms of seed per ha (IFPRI, 2012).
Farmers used to plant maize as many as five seeds per hill, and researchers examined the
effect of number of seeds per hill at different plant densities in several on-station trials. Yield
was reduced only slightly when surviving plants per hill increased from one to two, but the
20
decline became more rapid when the number exceeded two per hill, especially at low plant
densities (IFPRI, 2012). Wekesa et al. (2003) reported that, in Kenya, farmers used higher
seed rates than the recommended one-two seeds per hill.
Under normal farmer production practices in Uganda, maize is planted in rows more than one
meter apart with a spacing of one meter between hills.
Farmers usually plant three- four plants per hill and often interplant their maize with beans or
other crops. This spacing results in a maize plant population of approximately 20,000 plants
per hectare (Elizabeth, 1992).
A plant population of 53,000 plants per ha achieved with a spacing of 75cm x 50 cm with 2
two plants/hill was recommended as optimal. It was expected that altering the spacing to 75cm
by 25 cm with one plant per hill (i.e. the same plant population of 53,000/ha) would result in a
comparable yield (Elizabeth, 1992).
Depending on the germination test, planting two seeds per hill is recommended for those with
85 to 100 percent germination rate and three seeds per hill for a 70 to 84 percent germination
rate; it is recommended to get better seeds if the germination rate is lower than 70 percent
(IFPRI, 2012).
Faisul et al. (2013) indicated that in maize single seedling per hill recorded significantly
higher yield and its attributes as compared to other treatments of planting. With the increase in
number of seedlings per hill, grain and straw yields increases up to three seedlings per hill but
further increase to five seedlings per hill showed decreased trend.
In Tanzania, the recommended spacing for full-season maize varieties is 75 x 30 cm with one
plant per hill, resulting in a plant population of 44,000 plants/ha. Results from the Maize
Research Programme show that in similar yields were produced by planting two seeds per hill
at 90 x 50 cm, three plants per hill at 90 x 75 cm, or a single seed per hill at 90 x 25 cm. In the
day, intermediate altitude areas, similar yields were obtained by planting two seeds per hill at
21
75 x 60 cm or one seed per hill at 75 x 30 cm. For short-statured varieties, farmers are
recommended to sow two seeds per hills at 75 x 40 cm (Katinila et al., 1998).
The combination of 25cm intra-row and two plants per stand had to obtain the highest grain
yield, which is significantly comparable with that at three plants per stand under similar intrarow spacing of 75cm and one plant per stand had the least grain yield (Babaji et al., 2012).
The higher cob and grain yields so obtained at combinations of 25 cm and two or three plants
per hill could also be due to fact that more cobs are harvested under this population (Onyango,
2009).
Maintaining one plant per stand had resulted in heaviest cobs. The least cob weight was
recorded when three plants/stand was maintained which in turn was statistically at par with
that produced by maize sown at two plants/stand cob weight was not significantly affected by
interaction of within row spacing and stands density (Babaji et al., 2012).
Maize spaced at 25cm intra-row resulted in the highest cob yield. Increase in intra-row spacing
to 50cm intra-row led to significant reduction in cob yield. The cob yield obtained at the
widest intra-row spacing of 75cm intra-row was lower than for 50cm. Maintaining three
plants per stand had the highest cob yield that was significantly comparable only with that
obtained by two plants per stand (Babaji et al., 2012).
The higher yield with low seedling density might be due to higher percentage of productive
more interception of light. Grain filling is the process of remobilization from stored reserves,
particularly from stem, leaves, and from current photosynthesis (Faisul et al., 2013). Improved
endurance in high stands has allowed maize to intercept and use solar radiation more
efficiently, contributing to the remarkable increase in grain yield potential (Mashiqaa and
Ngwako, 2011). Farmers sell some of their maize as green cobs and price is charged as per
cob. Therefore, a higher plant population with acceptable cob size would mean higher income
per given unit of land (Fanadzo et al., 2010). Therefore, increasing plant per hill will
contribute to more cobs per unit area.
22
3. MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1. Description of the Study Area
Field experiment was conducted under irrigation at Gode in Shebele Zone, Somali Regional
State from October 17, 2014 to January 13, 2015. The experimental site was located about 3
km West of Gode town. Shebelle Zone is one of the nine administrative Zones of the Somali
Regional State that constitutes nine Woredas/districts (Gode, Adadle, Berano, Kelafo,
Mustahil, Ferfer, East Imey, Danan and Elweyne) and one city administration council, It is
bounded by Korahe Zone in the East, Afdere Zone in the West, Nogob Zone in the North and
Republic of Somalia in the South. The zone has a total population of 524,068 of which 293,
478 are males and 230, 590 are females (CSA, 2007).
Figure 1: Map of the study area, Gode Zone, eastern Ethiopia.
The Zone has four main livelihood types: Pastoralist, Agro-pastoralist, Riverine farming and
Urban where 85.70% live in rural areas and 14.36% live in urban areas. It has four seasons
(Deyr/Meher, Jilal/Bega, Gu/Belag and Haga/Tseday) where Deyr (October –December) and
Gu (April –May) are wet and Jilal and Haga are dry seasons (DPPB et al., 2013).
23
It is located between latitude of 5°57' N and longitude of 43°27' E, The climate of Gode is
characterized as arid to semi-arid agro-ecology, where livestock is the main occupation and
crop cultivation is undertaken along Shabelle river bank and rain fed plains (SCF-UK DPPA,
2003).
The altitude of Gode ranges between 200-1100 amsl with bimodal rain pattern with annual
mean precipitation of 220 mm and annual mean temperature range is 24Co -35Co (DPPB et al.,
2013).
It is located about 580 km south of the regional city, Jigjiga. The Shabelle River laid the
southern and the eastern boundaries of the district. The Webi-shabelle River basin is a huge
plain area of 500,000 to 600,000 ha of land which is suitable for agriculture. There is well
developed irrigation channel system for irrigation about 27,000 ha indicating the high
unexploited potential of the river for the future use (Mahammed, 2009). The predominant
land use activity in the district is livestock grazing and browsing encompassing 55.5% of the
district’s land (IOSNRS, 2000).
3.2. Treatment and Experimental Design
The treatment consisted of four intra-row spacing (25, 30, 35 and 40 cm) and three levels of
seeding per hill (1, 2 and 3) (Table 1). Intre-row spacing of 75cm was used. The experiment
was laid out in randomized complete block design (RCBD) with factorial arrangement with
three replications. The maize variety Melkasa-4 (ECA-EE-36) that was released in 2006 was
used (MoA, 2010).
Each plot has a gross plot area of 15 m2 with 4m long and 3.75m width and 5 rows. Data were
collected from the middle 3 rows. Blocks and plots were separated by 1.50 m and 40 cm
respectively. The experimental seeds were sown in each hill and later were thinned according
to the treatment.
24
Table.1. Intra-row spacing, plants per hill and plant density
No
1
Intra-row spacing (cm)
25
2
30
3
35
4
40
Number of plants per hill
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
Plant density(plants/ha)
53,333
106,667
160,000
44,444
88,889
133,333
38,095
76,190
114,286
33,333
66,666
99,999
3.3. Soil Physical and Chemical Properties of the Experimental Site
The soil in study area is slightly alkaline (pH = 8.2) with low organic matter (0.84%) and total
nitrogen content (0.04%). Landon (1991) classified soils having total N of greater than 1.0%
as very high, 0.5-1.0% high, 0.2-0.5% medium, 0.1-0.2% low and less than 0.1% as very low
in total nitrogen content. Therefore, the soil of the experimental site has very low total
nitrogen content (Abdifarah, 2013). Since the experimental field was under continuous
irrigation, the high pH value and the low N contents are expected. Likewise, Olsen et al.
(1954) rating of available P soil test of >25, 18-25, 10-17, 5-9, <5 ppm were classified as very
high, high, medium, low and very low, respectively. Thus, the soils of the study area fall under
the low category in its available P (5.31 ppm) (Abdifarah, 2013).
On the other hand, the Cation Exchange Capacity (44 meq/100 g soils) of the soil was under
very high category according to Landon (1991) who classified soils having CEC of >40, 2540, 15-25, 5-15,<5 meq/100g as very high, high, medium, low and very low, respectively
(Abdifarah, 2013).
3.4. Experimental Field Management
The land was prepared by tractor and harrowing, leveled by human labor. Planting date was 17
October 2014.The seed was sown at depth of 4- 5 cm for three up to four seeds per hill to
ensure adequate emergence and were thinned 7 days after emergence to maintain the intended
25
of number of plants per hill and intra-row spacing between plants.
The recommended
fertilizer for maize N 92 kg/ha (urea 200 kg/ha) and P2O5 46 kg/ha (DAP100 kg/ha), was used.
Weeding was done as needed and irrigation was done as the practice of farmers. Irrigation
water was applied through between maize rows across the slope of the experimental field as
per water requirement of the crop. It was 15 days of interval irrigation and weeding was three
times. Other crop management practices were carried out uniformly for each plot as per the
recommendation at the appropriate time (EARO, 2004).
3.5. Data Collection and Measurement
3.4.1. Crop phenology
Days to 50% tasseling: Days were counted from sowing to the day when 50% of the plants
produced tassels in a plot or more plants in a plot started shedding pollen
Days to 50% silking: was determining as number of day taken from planting to the stage
when 50% of the plant in produce silk.
Days to 95% maturity: the day of maturity was recorded when 95% or more plants formed
black layer at the base of the kernel.
3.4.2. Growth parameters
Plant height (cm): The height of five randomly taken plants was measured from ground level
to the point where the tassel starts branching when 50 percent of the plants in the plot reached
taselling stage and the mean value was taken as plant height.
Ear height (cm): Was recorded from five randomly taken plants by measuring the height of
the stem from ground to the base of upper ear at maturity.
3.4.3. Yield components and yield
Stand count: The number of plant per plot was recorded after thinning and at harvest from the
central three rows and the plant stand count difference was reported in percentage.
26
Number of ears per plant: The number of ears per plant was recorded from the count of five
randomly sampled plants per plot at harvest.
Number of rows per ear: The number of kernel rows was counted on five representative ears
and the average value was recorded for each plot.
Number of kernels per row: This yield component was determined by counting the number
of kernels per row from five randomly taken ears and the average was registered for the plot.
Ear length (cm): Was recorded from the measure of five randomly taken plants ear length at
harvest.
Thousand kernels weight (g): Count of seed from sample taken after grain yield was
determined.
Above ground biomass (kg/ha): Was measured based on five plants randomly taken at
harvest time after sun drying, and changed to per hector using respective plant density for each
treatment.
Grain yield (kg/ha): Was recorded after harvesting from the central three rows of the net plot.
Grain yield was adjusted to 12.5% moisture level the adjusted grain yield per plot at 12.5%
moisture level was converted to kg/ha and used for the analysis.
Harvest index (%): harvest index was calculated as the ratio of grain yield to above ground
dry biomass per plant multiplied by 100 at harvest from the respective treatments.
Harvesting index =
27
3.6. Statistical Data Analysis
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for RCBD with factorial arrangement was done (Gomez and
Gomez, 1984) using the SAS software (SAS, 2002). Significant treatment means were
compared using the Least Significant Difference (LSD) Test at 5% level of significance.
28
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSION
4.1. Crop Phenology
4.1.1. Days to 50% tasseling
Analysis of variance showed that of the days of tasseling was significantly (P<0.05) affected
by intra-row spacing and highly significantly (P<0.01) affected by number of plants per hill
and interaction of intra-row spacing by number plants per hill (Appendix Table 1).
The highest days to 50% tasseling (49.33) was recorded at intra-row spacing of 25 cm and
three plants per hill with plant density of 160000 plants/ha while the intra-row spacing 40 cm
and one plant per hill with plant density of 33333.333 plants/ha delayed tasseling (42.00)
(Table 2). This result indicated when plant population increase the days of tasseling will
increase due to inadequate of light, nutrient and water.
This result agree with that of Zahid et al. (2013) who indicated that high maize density delays
tasseling. This result was contrary with Sikandar et al. (2007) who report the days to tasseling
was not significantly affected by plant density of maize. According Langham (2007) described
the attributed to that closely spaced plants use resources faster.
4.1.2. Days to 50% silking
Analysis of variance showed that number of days to 50% silking was highly significantly
(P<0.01) affected by the main effect of number of plants per hill and intra-row spacing while
the interaction of number of plant per hill by intra-row spacing was significantly (P<0.05)
affected the trait (Appendix Table 1).
Significantly the highest days to 50% silking (57.67) was recorded at intra-row spacing of 25
cm and three plants per hill with plant density of 160000 plants/ha while the lowest days was
with 40 cm intra-row spacing and one plant per hill with plant density of 33333.333 plants/ha
hastened silking (46.00) (Table 3). This result indicated when plant population increase the
days of tasseling and silking will increase due to inadequate of light, nutrient and water. This
result was agree with that of Zahid et al. (2013) who reported that days to tasseling and silking
are greater at higher population density.
29
Table 2: Interaction effect of intra-row spacing and number of plant per hill on days 50%
tasseling of maize crop
Number of plant per hill
Two
Three
b
46.33
49.33a
46.67b
47.67ab
43.67cd
47.33b
47.00b
47.00 b
One
25
44.00c
30
44.33c
35
44.33c
40
42.00d
LSD (0.05)
1.70
CV (%)
2.2
NS = Non-significant, LSD = Least Significant Difference at 5% level of significant, CV (%)
= coefficient of variation in percent; Means in column followed by the same letters are not
significantly different at 5% level of significance.
Table 3: Interaction effect of intra-row spacing and number of plant per hill on days to 50%
silking of maize crop.
Number of plants per hill
Two
Three
c
53.00
57.67a
53.33bc
56.67a
50.67cd
56.00ab
c
52.33
52.67c
One
25
49.33d
30
52.00cd
35
50.67cd
40
46.00e
LSD (0.05)
2.87
CV (%)
3.2
significantly different at 5% level of significance
4.1.3. Days to 95% maturity
The number of days to 75% physiological maturity was highly significantly (P<0.01) affected
by number of plants per hill and intra-row spacing while the interaction did not significantly
affect the trait (Appendix Table 1).
30
One plant per hill significantly delayed maturity as compared to two and three plants per hill,
and 40 inter-row spacing significantly delayed maturity as compared to others (Table 4). This
result indicated that maturity delays as intra-row spacing increases.
This result was contrary with Zahid et al. (2013) indicated that there was an intra-specific
competition effect at higher maize densities; thus, the plants transferred the resources to
vegetative growth causing delay in the reproductive growth which eventually increased the
number of days to maturity.
Table 4: Main effect of number of plants per hill and intra-row spacing on days to 75% of
physiological maturity (DPM) and plant stand count difference (PSCD) (%)
Treatment
Days of Physiological
95% (DPM)
Plant stand count
difference (PSCD) (%)
Number of plants
one
80.75a
80.08b
Two
78.00b
94.12a
Three
74.92c
96.46a
LSD (0.05)
2.007
5.82
25
75.67
94.7
30
77.56
91.9
35
77.89
87.5
40
80.44
86.7
LSD (0.05)
2.317
NS
3.0
7. 6
CV (%)
NS = Non-significant, LSD = Least Significant Difference at 5% level of significance, CV (%) =
coefficient of variation in percent; Means in column and followed by the same letters are not
significantly difference at 5% level of significance.
31
4.2. Growth Parameters
4.2.1. Plant height (cm)
The analysis of variance indicated that plant height was significantly (P<0.05) affected by the
number of plants per hill and highly significantly (P<0.01) affected by the interaction of
number of plants per hill and intra-row spacing, while intra row spacing did not significantly
(Appendix Table 2) affected plant height. The tallest plant was recorded (171.5 cm), at the
narrowest intra-row spacing of 25 cm and three plants per hill with plant density of 160,000
plants/ha, while the shortest plant (146.1cm) was recorded at the widest intra-row spacing of
40 cm and planted one plant per hill with plant density of 33,333 plants/ha (Table 5).
This indicated that at highest plant density (160,000 plants\ha) the competition for light
resulted in tall plants as compared to the lowest plant density (33,333, plants/ha).This result
agreed to Babaji et al. (2012) who reported that the higher competition for light might have
been the reason for production of taller plants at the highest density. Similarly, Ibeawuchi et
al. (2008) reported that closely spaced plants compete for nutrient and other growth factors;
they tend to grow taller than those with wider spacing. Langham (2007) reported that the plant
spacing affects the phenotype and the length of time of the phases and stages as plants
compete for light at high population densities plants to grow taller and faster than low
population density.
Table 5: Interaction effect of intra-row spacing and number of plants per hill on plant height
(cm)
Two
Three
152.5cd
171.5a
152.5cd
160.4abc
155.0bcd
159.7abc
ab
168.4
156.4bcd
One
25
155.1bcd
30
157.1bcd
35
155.5bcd
40
146.1d
LSD (0.05)
13.42
CV (%)
5.0
= coefficient of variation in percent, means in column followed by the same letters are not
significantly difference at 5% level of significance.
32
4.2.2. Ear height (cm)
In the present study, ear height per plant was highly significantly (P<0.01) affected by number
of plants per hill and significantly (P<0.01) affected by interaction of number of plants per hill
and intra-row spacing while the effect of intra-row spacing was not significant (Appendix
Table 2).
The longest ear height (89.43cm) was scored under intra-row spacing of 25 cm planted with
three plants per hill with plant density of 160000 plants/ha while the shortest (68.67cm) was
recorded from intra-row spacing of 40 cm and one plants per hill with plant density of 33,333
plants/ha (Table 6). This may be due to high computation for growth resources at high density.
This result was contrary with Mina and Joveno (2006) reports that the significant differences
in ear height were attributed to the interaction number of plants per hill. Plants tended to
become shorter when grown in pairs per hill in each mixed culture.
Table 6: Interaction effect of intra-row spacing and number of plant per hill on ear height (cm)
1
2
3
bc
bc
25
76.27
75.57
89.43a
30
79.73b
78.90b
82.07ab
35
77.20b
79.60b
80.47b
40
68.67c
83.30ab
81.17b
LSD (0.05)
7.85
CV (%)
5.8
significantly difference at 5% level of significance
4.3. Yield components and yield
4.3.1. Stand count (%)
The analysis variance showed that the number of plants per hill effect on stand count
difference at harvest as compared to initial count was highly significantly (P < 0.01), but, the
effect of intra-row and their interaction effects was not significant (Appendix Table 2).
33
The highest stand mortality (96.46%) was occurred for three plants per hill while significantly
lower mortality percentages were recorded for one plant per hill (Table 4). Therefore, this
study indicated that, when number of plants per hill increased, plant mortality percentage also
increased.
This might be due to at lower population comparatively availability of more space might have
resulted in less competition for resources (nutrients, moisture and light) whereas at high
density more intra-specific competition the weaker plants might have died by the time the crop
approached maturity.
This result was in agreement with Henderson et al. (2000) who reported that final plant
population of grain amaranth at harvest showed increasing plant mortality as plant population
increased, reduced inter plant competition and plant mortality were observed at the lowest
plant population, compared with the higher plant population.
4.3.2. Number of ears per plant
Number of ears per plant was highly significantly (P<0.01) affected by the number of plants
per hill, but it was not significantly affected by intra-row spacing and interaction of number of
plants per hill by intra-row spacing (Appendix Table 3).
Significantly the lowest number of ears per plant (1.28) was obtained due to planting of three
plants per hill as compared to one and two plants per hill (Table 7). This might be due to the
competitor for resources at higher number of plants per hill.
This result agrees with that of Junichi (1974) who reported that the number of ears per plant
decreased with an increase number of plants per hill. This decrease was more significant in the
tillers than in the main culm.
Zamir et al (2011) reported when increasing plant density the number of ears per plant was
significantly reduced possibly due to more competition for light, aeration and nutrients and
consequently enabling the plants in these treatments to undergo less reproductive growth. Also
Babaji et al. (2007) explained that maize spaced at 25cm resulted in the highest ear yield
Increase in intra-row spacing to lead to significant reduction in number of ear yield.
34
This might suggest that plants need optimum densities to bear two or more ears per plant and
plant density above a certain optimum inhibited prolificacy.
4.3.3. Number of rows per ear
The analysis of variance showed that the number of kernels row per ear was highly
significantly (P<0.01) affected by the number of plants per hill while intra-row spacing and
interaction of number of plants per hill by intra-row spacing did not significantly affect
(Appendix Table 3).
The number of kernels row per ear due to one plant per hill was significantly highest than due
to two and three plants per hill (Table 7). This might be due to the competitor for resources at
higher number of plants per hill.
This result agrees with that of Junichi (1974) who reported that the number of kernels row per
ear decreased with an increase number of plants per hill. Similarly, Gobeze Loha, et al.,
(2012) explained that the Number of kernels row per ear decreased with increasing plant
density within all plants.
4.3.4. Number of kernels per row
The analysis variance for the number of kernels per row indicated that the number of plants
per hill had highly significant (P<0.01) effect, while the both intra-row spacing and interaction
of number of plants per hill by intra-row spacing was not significant (Appendix Table 3).
One plant per hill gave significantly higher number of kernels per row than three plants per
hill (Table 7). This is possibly due to less availability of nutrients to grain formation at three
plants per hill than at one plant.
This result was agreement Gobeze Loha, et al., (2012) who reported that the Number of
kernels per row was decreased with increasing plant density within all plants. Increasing plant
density led to reduction in number of kernels per row and kernels per ear presumably due to
increased interplant competition and mutual shading of lower leaves where light could not
penetrate throughout and distribute to all leaves for efficient photosynthesis. Similarly,
35
increasing plant density inhibited the prolific character of plants and negatively correlated with
plant densities.
Table 7: Main effect of number of plants per hill and intra-row spacing on number of ears per
plants (cm) (NEPP), number of rows per ear (NRPE), number of kernels per row (NKPR), ear
length (cm) (EL) and thousand kernel weight(g) (THKW)
Treatment
NEPP
NRPE
NKPR
EL(cm)
THKW
(g)
1
1.70a
15.87a
31.95a
19.57a
191.2a
2
1.58a
14.98b
29.60ab
17.18b
173.7b
3
1.28b
14.07c
26.94b
14.98c
153.6c
0.15
0.70
2.66
1.06
10.42
LSD (0.05)
25
1.55
14.87
30.60
17.30
169.2
30
1.48
15.22
30.18
17.79
173.9
35
1.48
15.22
29.06
16.80
170.0
40
1.55
14.58
28.16
17.09
178.2
LSD (0.05)
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
12.2
5.1
10.7
CV (%)
7.3
7.2
NS = Non-significant, LSD = Least Significant Difference at 5% level of significant, CV (%) =
coefficient of variation in percent; Means in column followed by the same letters are not
4.3.5. Ear length (cm)
The result obtained from this study showed that the ear length was highly significantly
(P<0.01) affected by plants per hill while intra-row spacing and interaction of number of
plants per hill by intra-row spacing was not significantly affect ear length (Appendix Table 3).
The ear length due to one plant per hill was significantly the longest as compared to two and
36
three plants per hill (Table 7). This result contrary with Mina and Joveno (2006) who reports
that the differences ear height of number of plants per hill of maize were not significant.
4.3.6. Thousand Kernel weight (g)
Thousand kernel weights was highly significantly (P<0.01) affected by the main effect of
number of plants per hill while the effect of both intra-row spacing and interaction of number
of plants per hill by intra-row spacing were not significant (Appendix Table 3). The highest
significant kernel weight (191.2g) was recorded for one plant per hill while significantly the
lowest was recorded for three plants per hill (Table 7).
This might be due to fewer
competitors for resource at one plan per hill.
Gobeze Loha, et al., (2012) reported that increased competition for resources becomes severe
which in turn affected the grain formation and grain filling. Junichi (1974) also reported that
the thousand kernel weights decreased slightly with an increase of number of plants per hill.
4.3.7. Above ground biomass (kg/ha)
The analysis of variance showed that number of plants per hill and interaction of number of
plants per hill by intra-row spacing had highly significant (P<0.01) and intra-row spacing had
significant (P<0.05) effect on above ground biomass (Appendix T able 4).
The highest above ground biomass weight (7073kg/ha) was obtained from one plant per hill
and 25cm intra-row spacing with plant density of 53,333 plants/ha while the lowest weight
was recorded (3591kg/ha) which was obtained at three plants per hill and 25cm intra-row
spacing with plant density of 160000 plants/ha (Table 8).
This result was in line with that of Gobeze Loha, et al. (2012) who reported that subjecting
plants to reduced row spacing increased the ability of plants for capturing resources which was
reflected as evident in their increased biomass production.
37
Table 8: Interaction effect of intra-row spacing and number of plant per hill on above ground
(kg ha-1 biomass of maize crop
One
Two
Three
a
fg
25
7073
4539
3591g
abc
abcd
30
6779
5990
4694ef
35
5136def
5730abcd
4462fg
40
4611fg
6806ab
5710cde
LSD (0.05)
525.2
CV (%)
11.9
= coefficient of variation in percent; Means in column and followed by the same letters are not
4.3.8. Grain yield (kg/ha)
The result obtained from this study of grain yield was highly significant (P<0.01) due to
number of plants per hill and interaction of number of plants per hill by intra-row spacing
while the intra-row spacing was significant (Appendix Table 5).
The highest (3232kg-1) grain yield weight was obtained from one plant per hill and 25 cm
intra-row spacing with plant density of 53,333 plants/ha while the lowest weight (1431kg ha-1)
was recorded from three plants per hill and 25 cm intra-row spacing with plant density of
160000 plants/ha (Table 9).
This result was in agreement with Ibeawuchi et al. (2008) who reported that the plant spacing
75 x 25cm with plant density of 53,333 plants/ha had the highest grain yield. Also Abuzar et
al. (2011) reported that the lower grain yield at the highest population. This result was in
contrary reported by with Babaji et al. (2012) who explained that the each increase in intrarow spacing has resulted in corresponding significant decrease in maize grain yield.
38
Table 9: Interaction effect of intra-row spacing and number of plant per hill on grain yield (kg
ha -1) of maize crop
Two
Three
de
1764
1431e
2664bc
1800de
2542c
1698de
ab
3098
2032d
One
25
3232a
30
3029abc
35
1922de
40
1613de
LSD (0.05)
507.3
CV (%)
13.4
significantly difference at 5% level of significantly.
4.3.9. Harvest index (%)
The analysis variance of the harvest index indicated that the number of plants per hill and
interaction of number of plants per hill by intra-row spacing was highly significant (P<0.05)
while the intra-row spacing was significant (Appendix Table 5).
The highest harvest index (45.69%) was obtained from 25 cm intra-row spacing and one plant
per hill with plant density of 53,333 plants/ha while the lowest (34.89%) was recorded from
one plant per hill and 40 cm intra-row spacing with plant density of 33.333 plants/ha (Table
10).
Table 10: Interaction of effect intra-row spacing and number of plant per hill on harvesting
index (%) of maize crop
One
Two
Three
25
45.69a
39.18bc
39.87b
30
44.67a
44.16a
38.29bcd
cd
a
35
37.72b
44.29
38.22bcd
40
34.98d
45.51a
35.56cd
LSD (0.05)
4.07
CV (%)
5.9
39
5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
In Ethiopia, cereals are the major food crops both in terms of the area they are planted and
volume of production obtained. They are produced in larger volume compared with other
crops because they are the principal staple crops. Maize is Ethiopia’s leading cereal in terms of
production, with six million tons produced in 2012 by nine million farmers across two million
ha of land. Over half of all Ethiopian farmers grow maize, primarily for subsistence. Maize is
thus an important crop for overall food security and for economic development in the country
(ATA, 2013). Anyhow, the yield of maize in Ethiopia is 3059kg per ha (CSA, 2013).
Maize it is largely produced in the Northern, North-eastern and South-western parts of the
Somali Region State. It is produced for food and fodder especially in areas along the riverbanks of the region. It is consumed as Porridge and ‘’Gerew’’. It is also consumed roasted or
boiled cobs, considering the potential of the region for growing maize and its high rate of
consumption, especially in the rural areas of the region.
Plant populations affect most growth parameters of maize even under optimal growth
conditions and therefore it is considered a major factor determining the degree of competition
between plants.
General management considerations can provide the background for
profitable maize production. Number of seedlings per hill is an important factor among the
management practices, can play important role in boosting yield of plant because it influences
solar radiation interception, total sunshine reception, nutrient uptake, rate of photosynthesis
and other physiological phenomena and ultimately affects the growth and development of
plant production.
Realizing the importance of developing appropriate cultural practices for maize in Gode area,
the study was conducted for one season the assessing of the effects of intra-row spacing and
number of plants per hill on the yield and yield components of maize.
Four intra-row spacing (25, 30, 35, 40 cm) and three levels of plants per hill (1, 2 and 3) were
evaluated in factorial arrangement using RCBD with three replication.
The result showed that highly significantly (P>0.01) main effect of number of plants per hill
on days to tasseling, days to silking, days of physiological maturity, ear height (cm), stand
40
count (%), number of ears per plant, number of kernels per row, number of rows per ear, ear
length (cm), thousand kernel weight (g), above ground dry biomass (kg-1), grain yield (kg-1)
and harvest index (%). The highest plant population of 25cm and three plants per hill gave the
highest of days to tasseling (49.33), days of siliking (57.67), plant height (171.5 cm) and ear
height (89.43 cm). The plants stand count differences the highest was (96.46%) which were
obtained three plants per hill. The highest of physiological maturity (80.75 days), number of
ears per plant (1.70), number of rows per ear (15.89), number of kernels per row (31.95), ear
length (19.57cm) and thousand kernel weight (191.2 g) which were obtained one plant per hill.
Similarly, the highest above ground dry biomass (7073kg ha-1), grain yield (3591kg ha -1) and
harvest index (45.69%) which were obtained lowest plant population (25cm and one plant per
hill).
The main effect of intra-row spacing was highly significant on days silking, days of maturity,
while the days of tasseling, above ground dry biomass (kg -1), grain yield (kg -1) and harvest
index (%) was significantly. The interaction effect of number of plants per hill and intra-row
spacing had significantly influence days of tasseling, days of silking, plant height (cm), ear
height (cm), above ground dry biomass (kg -1), grain yield(kg -1) and harvest index (%).
The highest grain yield (kg ha -1) was obtained from one plant per hill and 25 cm intra-row
spacing the lowest weight was obtained three plants per hill and 25 cm intra-row spacing. The
25 cm intra-row spacing and one plant per hill could be recommended for irrigation maize
production at Gode.
41
6. REFERENCES
Abdi Ahmed, Abdurehman Eid and Muhiyadin Mohamed, 2009. Comprehensive Registry of
Research Technologies, for Somali Region and other Same Agro-Ecological Areas in
Ethiopia. Somali Region Pastoral and Agro-pastoral Research Institute (SoRPARI). Jigjiga,
Ethiopia.
Abdifarah Mohamed, 2013. Effect of inter and intra-row spacing on yield and yield components of
sesame (Sesamum indicum L) under irrigation at Gode, Eastern, Ethiopia. M.sc Thesis,
Haramaya University. Ethiopia.
Abuzar, M. R. G. U., Sadozai, M. S., Baloch, A. A., Baloch, I. H., Shah, T., Javaid,J and Hussain,
N. 2011. Effect of plant population densities on yield of maize. The Journal of Animal and
Plant Sciences, 21(4): 692-695.
Ahmed, M. A., Bukhsh, H. A., Ahmed, R., Malik, A. U., Hussain, S., and Ishaque, M., 2010. AgroPhysiological Traits of Three Maize Hybrids as Influenced by Varying Plant Density. The
Journal of Animal and Plant Sciences 20(1): 34-39.
Akhter, Z., Bhuiya, M.S.U., and Miah, M.N.H., 2010. Effect of number of seedlings per hill and
fertilizer dose on yield and yield attributes of advanced line and variety of rice. Department of
Agronomy, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh.
Akman, Z., 2002. Effect of tiller removing and plant density on ear yield of corn (Zea mays. L).
Pakistan of Journal Biology, (9): 906-908.
Alemayehu Seyoum Taffesse, Dorosh,. P. and Sinafikeh Asrat, 2011. Crop Production in Ethiopia:
Regional Patterns and Trends. Development Strategy and Governance Division, International
Food Policy Research Institute, Ethiopia Strategy Support Program II (ESSP II), Ethiopia.
ESSP II Working Paper No. 0016.
Alene, A. and J. Mwalughali, 2012. The Effectiveness of Crop Improvement Programs in SubSaharan Africa from the Perspectives of Varietal Output and Adoption: The Case of Cassava,
Cowpea, Maize, and Soybean. Draft Technical Report for Measuring and Assessing the
42
Impacts of the Diffusion of Improved Crop Varieties in Africa (DIVA) Project, International
Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), Ibadan, Nigeria.
Amin, F. and Meysan, M., 2014. Effect of Plant density to Yield and Yield components of Maize
(Zea mays L.) Cultivars. Journal of Bulletin Environment, Pharmacology and Life Sciences,
(3):123-127.
Apraku, B.M.A.B., Fakorede, Abebe., Menkir, and Sanogo, D, 2012. Conduct and management of
maize field trials. International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), Ibadan, Nigeria. 59 pp.
ATA (Agricultural Transformation Agency), 2013. Maize Production Manual for Extension Staff
in Ethiopia of Ministry of Agriculture, ATA. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
ATA (Agricultural Transformation Agency), 2013. Maize Sector Development Strategy. ATA.
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
ATA (Agricultural Transformation Agency), 2014. Annual report. ATA. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Babaji, B.A., Ibrahim, Y.B., Mahadi, M.A., Jaliya, M.M., Yahaya, R. A., Sharifai, A.I., Mukhtar,
A.A., Sani, B.M., Ibrahim, A., Muhammad, A.A., 2012. Response of extra-early maize (Zea
mays) to varying Intra-row spacing and hill density. Global Journal of Bio-Science and
Biotechnology,1 (1): 110-115.
Balasubramaniyan, P. and Plalaniappan, SP. 2007. Principle and practice of agronomy. 2nd edition.
Published by India.
Bavec, F., and Bavec, M., 2002. Effect of plant population on leaf area index, cob characteristics
and grain yield of early maturing maize cultivars. Journal of Agronomy, 16:151-159.
Berhanu Gebremedhin, S Fernandez-Rivera, Mohammed Hassena, W Mwangi and Seid Ahmed.
2007. Maize and livestock: Their inter-linked rolesin meeting human needs in Ethiopia.
Research Report 6. ILRI.
43
Bhowmik, S. K, Sarkar, M. A. R and Zaman, F. 2012. Effect of spacing and number of seedlings
per hill on the performance of ausrice cv. NERICA 1 under dry direct seeded rice (DDSR)
system of cultivation. Journal Bangladesh Agriculture University,10 (2): 191-195.
Chandrase K, B., Annadurai, K. and Somasun, D, E., 2010.Text book of agronomy. Published by
New Age International (p) Ltd, New Delhi – 110002.
Chinyere, P., 2013. Plant Spacing, Dry Matter Accumulation and Yield of Local and Improved
Maize Cultivars. International Journal of Agriculture and Environmental. (01):1526.
Chowdhury, M.
A. H. and Hassan, M. S., 2013. Hand Book of Agricultural Technology.
Bangladesh Agricultural Research Council, Farmgate, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
CSA (Central Statistical Agency) 2007. Ethiopian Statistical Abstract, Central Statistical Autority,
Addis Ababa Ethiopia.
CSA (Central Statistical Agency), 2013. Agricultural Sample Survey. Area and Production of
Major Crops in Ethiopia. (private peasant holdings, meher season). Volume 1, Statistical
Bulletin 532, Addis Ababa, Ethiospia.
CSA (Central Statistics Agency). 2014. Agricultural Sample Survey 2014. Volume I. Report on
Area and Production of Major Crops (Private Peasant Holdings, Meher Season). Statistical
Bulletin 532, Addis Ababa.
Das, T.K. and Yaduraju, N.T. 2011.Effects of missing- row sowing supplemented with row spacing
and nitrogen on weed competition and growth and yield of wheat. Crop and Pasture Science,
62: 48-57.
DPPB (Disaster Prevention and Preparedness Agency), FAO (Food Agriculture Organization) and
WFP (World food Programme), 2013.
Deyr/Meher seasonal needs assessment report.
Shebelle Zone, Somali Regional State, Ethiopia.
Drew, J. L., 2009. How Do Plant Populations Affect Yield. University of Nebraska – Lincoln,
Press Releases from Panhandle Research and Extension Center. Paper 19.
44
Duvick, D.N., 2005. Genetic progress in yield of United States Maize. Iowa State University,
Ames, IA, USA.
EARO (Ethiopian Agricultural Research Organization), 2004. Directory of released crop varieties
& their recommended cultural practices. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
EIAR (Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research), 2015. National government vs Cimmyt
investment trends in maize research. Research Journal of Agriculture and Environmental
Management. (4): 192-196.
Elizabeth, K. B.1992. Maize Research and Production in Uganda. Printers, Entebbe, Uganda.
Erika C.H, Meng, Ruifa Hu, Xiaohua Shi and Shihuang Zhang. 2006. Maize in China: Production
Systems, Constraints, and Research Priorities. International Maize and Wheat Improvement
Center (CIMMYT), Mexico.
Faisul U.R., Raihana, H and Bhat, M. I., 2013. Agronomic evaluation of rice (Oryza sativa L.) for
plant spacing and seedlings per hill under temperate conditions. African Journal Agriculture
Research, 8 (37): 4650-4653.
Fanadzo, M., Chiduza, C. and Mnkeni, P. N. S., 2010. Effect of inter-row spacing and plant
population on weed dynamics and maize (Zea mays L.) yield at Zanyokwe irrigation scheme,
Eastern Cape, South Africa. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 5 (7):5118-523.
Futuless, K, N., Kwaga, Y.M. and Aberakwa, S.M., 2010. Effect of spacing on the performance of
extra early yellow maize (Zea mays l.) variety tzesr - y in Mubi, Adamawa State Nigeria.
Journal of American Science. 6(10): 629-633.
GLCRDB (Gode Livestock, Crop and Rural Development Bureau), 2014.
Annual Progress
Report. Gode, Ethiopia.
Gobeze Yada Loha, Gert, M. C. and Van Rensburg, L. D. 2012. Effect of Row Spacing and Plant
Density on Yield and Yield Component of Maize (Zea mays L.) under Irrigation. Journal of
Agricultural Science and Technology, 2: 263-271.
45
Gomez, K.T. and A.A. Gomez. 1984. Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research. 2nd Edition.
John Wiley and Sons, New York.
GRDC (Grain Research Development Corporation), 2005. Cereal growth stage book. Crop & Food
Research, Lincoln, New Zealand.
GRDC (Grain Research Development Corporation), 2011. Crop placement and row spacing.
GRDC. Australian. (Http; // www.cortect.com.au ). (Accessed on March 12, 2014).
Henderson T.L., B.L. Johnson, and A.A. Schneiter, 2000. New crops row spacing, plant
population, and cultivar effects on grain amaranth in the Northern Great Plains. Agronomic.
Journal. 92: 329-336.
Hussain, M. Mehmood, Z. Khan, M. B. Farooq, S. Lee, D. J. and Farooq, M., 2012. Narrow row
spacing ensures higher productivity of low tillering wheat cultivars. International Journal of
Agriculture and Biology, 14: 413–418.
Hussain, Z . Marwat,K. B, Muhammad Azim Khan, Saima Hashim and Tamana Bakht., 2013.
How the competition of xanthium strumarium l. affects the phenological characters of maize
crop. Pakistan Journal Botany, 45(6): 1883-1887.
Ibeawuchi, I. I, Matthews-Njoku, Edna, Ofor, Miriam O, Anyanwu, Chinyere P and Onyia; V. N.
2008. Plant Spacing, Dry Matter Accumulation and Yield of Local and Improved Maize
Cultivars. Journal of American Science, 4:1545-1003.
IFPRI (International Food Policy Research Institute), 2010. Maize Value Chain Potential in
Ethiopia, Constraints and opportunities for enhancing the system, Ethiopia.
IFPRI (International Food Policy Research Institute), 2012. Patterns of Adoption of Improved
Maize Technologies in Ghana.
Ghana strategy support programme. Working paper 36,
Ghana.
IFPRI (International Food Policy Research Institute), June 2007. Policies to promote cereal
intensification in Ethiopia: A Review of Evidence and Experience. IFPRI Discussion paper
00707.
46
Iken, J.E. and Amusa, N.A. 2004. Maize research and production in Nigeria. African Journal of
Biotechnology, 3 (6): 302-307.
ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute), 2007. Maize and livestock their inter-linked roles
in meeting human needs in Ethiopia. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
IOSNRS (Investment Office of the Somali Regional State), 2000. Resources potential assessment
and project identification study of Somali Regional State. Agriculture resources Vol.3.
Industrial project services (IPS) Project NO. 09 (137)–91. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Islam, M.R. Khan, M.A.H. Rahman, M.S. Alam, M.S. And Afrin S. 2012. Effect of spacing and
number of seedlings per hill on the yield performance of fine rice cv. Kalizira. Journal
Agrofrostry Environmental, 6: 79-82.
Junichi Yamagucui, 1974. Varietal Traits Limiting the Grain Yield of Tropical Maize. Soil Science
Plant Nutrition, 20 (2), 155-161.
Katinila, N. H., Verkuijl, W., Mwangi, P., Anandajayasekeram, and A.J., Moshi, 1998. Adoption of
Maize Production Technologies in Southern Tanzania International Maize and Wheat
Improvement Center (CIMMYT), the United Republic of Tanzania, and the Southern Africa
Centre for Cooperation in Agricultural Research (SACCAR), Mexico
Landon, J. R. (ed.), 1991. Booker Tropical Soil Manual. A Hand book for soil survey and
agricultural land evaluation in the tropics and subtropics. Co published The United State with
John Willey and Sons, Inc., New York.474 P.
Langham,D.R., 2007. Issues in New Crop and New uses. IN J. Janic and A. Whipkey (eds) ASHS
press, Elexadaria, VA.
Lopez Bellido, R.J. L., Lopez Bellido, F.J. and Castillo J.E., 2003. Faba bean (Vicia faba L.)
response to tillage and soil residual nitrogen in a continuous rotation with wheat (Triticum
aestivum L.) under rainfed Mediterranean conditions. Agronomy Journal, 95: 1253– 1261.
47
Luque, S. F. Cirilo, A. G. and Otegui M. E., 2006. Genetic gains in grain yield and related
Physiological attributes in maize hybrids. Field Crop of Agronomy Journal, 95: 383-397.
Mahammed Sharif, 2009. Effect of nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizer rate on yield and yield
components of upland rice (Oryza sativa l.). Gode, Somali Regional State, Ethiopia.
Mandal, B, C., 2014. Maize Breeding and Seed Production Manual.
Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations. Office of the Food and Agriculture Organization in DPR
Korea.
Mashiqaa, P., Lekgaria, L., And
Ngwako, S., 2011. Effect of plant density on yield and yield
components of maize in Botswana. World of Sciences Journal, 7): 173-179.
Mina, N. P., and Joveno, S. L., 2006. Partial Substitution of Hybrid Seeds with Open Pollinated
Variety in Single Plant and Double Plants per Hill on Grain Yield and Yield Components of
Maize (Zea mays L.). Kasetsart Journal. 40: 862 – 871.
MOA (Ministry of Agriculture), 2009. Animal and Plant Health regulatory directorate. Crop
variety register, Issue NO 12. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
MOA (Ministry of Agriculture), 2010. Animal and Plant Health regulatory directorate. Crop
variety register, Issue NO 13. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
MOFA (Ministry of Food and Agriculsture), 2011. Agriculture in Ghana: Facts and Figures (2010).
Statistics Research and Information Directorate. Accra, Ghana.
Muhammed, B. KH., Muhammed, A., Madiha, A. and Taurqeer, H., 2002. Impact of Intra-row
Spacing on Growth and Yield of Some Maize Cultivars. Journal of Research, Bahauddin
Zakariya University, Multan, Pakistan. (13): 135-138.
Olsen, S. R., C. Cole, F. S. Watanable and L. A. Dean, 1954. Estimation with sodium and
phosphorus in soil by extraction with sodium bicarbonate. USDA Circ. 939: 1-19.
Onyango, O.C., 2009. Decrease row spacing as an option for increasing maize (Zea mays L.) yield
in Trans Nzoia district, Kenya. Journal of Plant Breeding and Crop Science, 1(8): 281 – 283.
48
Plessis, J, 2003. Maize production hand book. Department of Agriculture Resource Centre
Directorate Agricultural Information Services. Private Bag X144, Pretoria, 0001 South Africa.
Rashid, S. K., Kindie Getnet and Solomon Lemma, 2010. Maize value chain potential in Ethiopia:
Constraints and opportunities for enhancing the system, IFPRI, Working Paper, Ethiopia.
SCF- UK Save the children fund United Kingdom and Disaster Prevention and Preparedness
Agency, 2003. Management risk and opportunities on understanding of livelihoods of Somali
Regional State, Ethiopia.
Shaw S., van de Westelaken,T., Sorrenson, I., Searle, B and Hederley, D. 2008. Effects of plant
population and planting date on growth and development of kumara cultivar Owairaka Red.
Agronomy New Zealand, 38:61-68.
Shellemiah Keya and
Patrick Rubaihayo, 2013.
Progress in On-Farm Production and
Productivity in the East African Community: 50 Years after Independence. Nairobi, Kenya.
Sikandar Azam, Murad Ali, Mohammad Amin, Shahida Bibi and Muhammad Arif. 2007. Effect of
plant population on maize hybrids. Journal of Agricultural and Biological Science, 2:1990 6145.
Singh, R.P., Kumar, Ranjit and Singh, N.P. 2002. Transitioning maize seed industry in India:
Sectoral dimensions. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 57 (3): 430-442.
Stephanie, B., and C., Brown, 2008. Field Crop Manual of Maize, First edition. Cambodian
Agricultural Research and Development Institute of Department of Primary Industries, the
State of New South Wales.
Subhan-ud-Din, M. Ramzan, R. Khan, M.U. Rahman, M. Haroon, T. A. Khan and A. Samad. 2013.
Impact of tillage and mulching practices on weed biomass and yield components of maize
under rainfed condition. Pakistan Journal Weed Science, 19(2): 201-208.
Thorne, P.J. Thornton, P.K. Kruska R.L. Reynolds, L. Waddington, S.R. Rutherford, A.S. And
Odero, A.N., 2002. Maize as food, feed and fertilizer in intensifying crop-livestock systems in
49
East and southern Africa: An ex ante impact assessment of technology interventions to
improve smallholder Welfare. Nairobi, Kenya.
Usha, R. and Pandey, B. K.,2007. Origin and introduction of crop plants, cereals, and
pulses.Department of Botany, University of Delhi, India.
Wekesa, E., Mwangi, W.,Verkuijl, H., Danda K. and De Groote H. 2003. Adoption of Maize
Production Technologies in the Coastal Lowlands of Kenya International Maize and Wheat
Improvement Center (CIMMYT), Mexico.
Zahid Hussain, Khan Bahadar Marwat, Muhammad Azim Khan, Saima Hashim and Tamana
Bakht.2013. How the competition of xanthium strumarium l. affects the phenological
characters of maize crop. Pakistan Journal botany. 45(6): 1883-1887.
Zamir, M.S.I., Ahmad, A.H., Javeed, H.M.R. and Latif, T. 2011. Growth and yield behaviour of
two maize hybrids (zea mays l.) towards different plant spacing. Cercetări Agronomice în
Moldova Vol. XLIV , No. 2 (146).
50
7. APPENDICS
Appendix Table1: Mean square values of ANOVA for phenological parameters of maize as
affected by intra-row spacing and number of plants per hill
Mean squares
Source of variation
d.f
DT
DS
DM
Replication
2
4.5
5.86
4.861
2
52.19**
117.52**
102.19**
Intra-row spacing
3
4.32*
22.19**
34.74**
Intra-row x plant per hill
6
4.82**
7.63*
6.60ns
Error
22
1.013
2.89
5.619
df = Degree of freedom, DT = Days to tasseling, DS = Days to silking, DM = Days of
maturity, *Significant difference at P < 0.01, ** = Significant difference at P < 0.05 and NS =
Non-significant at P > 0.05.
Appendix Table 2: Mean square values of ANOVA for growth parameters of maize as affected
by intra-row spacing and number of plants per hill
Mean squares
Source of variation
d.f
PH
EH
SCADP
Replication
2
62.40
14.60
39.56
2
219.51*
183.31**
942.13**
Intra-row spacing
3
27.82ns
14.05ns
128.54ns
6
168.42**
67.97*
89.05ns
Error
22
62.72
21.51
47.23
d.f = Degree of freedom, PH = Plant Height, EH = Ear Height, SCADP = Stand count
difference pecentage, *Significant difference at P < 0.01, ** = Significant difference at P <
0.05 and NS = Non-significant at P > 0.05.
51
Appendix Table 3: Mean square values of ANOVA for yield components of maize as affected
by intra-row spacing and number of plants per hill
Mean squares
Source of variation
d.f
NEP
NKPR
NRPE
EL
Replication
2
0.021
9.49
0.0686
4.510
2
0.554** 75.35**
9.7211**
63.054**
Intra-row spacing
3
0.013ns
11.02ns
0.8752ns 1.564ns
6
0.039ns
10.57ns
1.0707ns 1.876ns
Error
22
0.03
10.04
0.59
1.59
d.f = Degree of freedom, NEP = Number of ears per plant, EL = Ear length, NKPR = Number
of kernels per row, NRPE = Number of rows per ear, *Significant difference at P < 0.01, ** =
significant difference at P < 0.05 and NS = Non-significant at P > 0.05.
Appendix Table 4: Mean square values of ANOVA for thousand kernels weight and above
ground biomass, grain yield and harvest index of maize as affected by intra-row spacing and
number of plants per hill
Mean squares
Source of variation
d.f
THKW
AGB
GY
Replication
2
365.1
132870
2
425.8** 5996274** 22209**
84.18**
Intra-row spacing
3
151.8ns
1394665*
33109*
24.08*
6
157.3ns
3959662**
13536**
45.66**
Error
22
157.3
413745
8974
5.78
21102
HI
11.39
d.f = Degree of freedom, THKW = Thousand kernels weight, AGB = above ground biomass,
GY= Grain yield, HI = Harvest index, *Significant difference at P < 0.01, ** = Significant
difference at P < 0.05 NS = Non-significant at P > 0.05.
52
Appendix Table 6: Long-term (2005-2014) meteorological data of the experimental site at
Gode
No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Jan
34.7
34.9
35.2
36.2
35.8
Na
35.1
35.8
35.7
35.2
Feb
36.4
36.3
37.3
35.7
36.9
Na
36.7
36.7
36.7
36.2
March
37.8
37.2
38.1
36.8
38.1
Na
37.8
37.8
36.1
37.4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
21.3
22.7
21.8
23.3
22.1
Na
21.5
20.6
22.1
21.7
23.1
23.1
24.1
22.6
22.6
Na
22.8
22.4
22.8
23.1
25.9
24.3
25.5
23.2
23.9
Na
24.4
24.2
23.8
25.4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Na
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
11.9
0.0
0.0
2.2
Na
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
87.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Na
0.0
0.0
74.4
0.0
Maximum temperature (co)
Apr
May
Jun Jul
36.1
34.8
34.3 33.3
36.0
34.4
34.1 32.3
36.1
36.1
32.4 33.6
36.2
34.4
34.5 33.3
36.5
35.9
35.8 33.6
36.2
35.8
34.6 32.9
48.3
34.51 34.6 33.4
35.2
35.2
34.1 32.8
33.6
34.7
33.0 32.2
37.7
36.1
34.8 32.6
Minimum Temperature (co)
25.6
24.9
24.8 24.1
24.9
24.2
24.8 23.7
25.2
25.7
24.2 23.8
24.9
24.4
24.2 24.1
25.2
24.6
24.3 23.3
25.5
26.0
25.5 24.4
25.9
25.0
25.6 24.8
24.6
24.7
24.5 24.0
23.6
23.8
22.8 23.2
25.8
24.9
24.9 21.1
Total Rainfall ( ml)
32.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
62.0
51.1
0.0
0.6
151.6 64.0
0.0
0.0
47.6
60.2
0.0
0.0
5
42.1
0.0
0.0
85.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
87.6
17.2
0.0
0.0
90.6
51.6
0.0
0.0
126.3 22.4
Na
1.4
7.3
11.0
0.0
0.0
Aug
33.4
34.3
34.5
35.0
34.3
34.6
34.4
34.7
34.1
34.5
Sep
35.2
34.9
35.4
36.4
35.5
35.2
35.7
35.8
36.1
35.4
Oct
34.1
33.3
34.3
34.6
33.8
Na
33.5
34.0
33.6
32.9
Nov
Na
32.5
33.5
35.8
34.5
Na
32.6
33.3
32.0
34.4
Dec
Na
34.5
35.7
36.2
35.7
Na
34.1
Na
34.2
Na
23.9
23.2
24.5
24.4
24.1
24.8
24.9
24.0
23.5
24.7
24.7
23.8
25.0
24.9
25.1
25.5
25.6
24.3
24.9
24.7
24.1
23.6
23.5
23.2
24.3
Na
23.7
23.4
23.3
23.6
Na
21.6
22.2
21.6
22.5
Na
22.7
21.2
21.8
22.7
Na
21.1
21.9
20.7
23.9
Na
19.9
Na
19.2
Na
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
45.3
33.1
4.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
120.0
40.8
52.6
94.0
Na
100.5
0.0
95.8
145.3
0.0
59.1
34.0
19.3
1.7
Na
95.8
0.0
142.3
13.3
0.0
12.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
Na
7.8
Na
0.0
Na
Source: National Meteorological Agency, Jigjig a Meteorological Branch Office
Note: NA = means not available data.

Abdala ResearchThesis pdf

Transcription

Similar documents

My Brother, My Sister: Shannon Boodram Rob Hill, Sr.

MAIZE DEGERMER/HULLER

embassy of the republic of zambia

Stone Hill Flowering Pear L.E. COOKE CO

Brief Makeup - Swisscontact

10/3 Dragon0Do-Right Assembly 6:00 Homecoming Parade 10/8

fantastic fabric prices! quilting cottons