BY
JULY, 2016.
1
CHAPTER ONE
1.0
INTRODUCTION
ears are cherished by different species of livestock (Dutt, 2005) in spite of the
increasing relevance and high demand for maize in Nigeria, yield across the
country continues to decrease with an average of about it/ha which is lowest
African yield ( Fayenisin, 19930).
According to Sridhar and Adeoye (2003), maize has a fibrous rough
system which has seminal and prop root in the soil stem, stalk which are solid
unbranched and herbaceous where ear bearing branches are formed. Maize can
supply human requirement for iron when largely consumed (Gordon and
Whitney, 1993).
Fertilizer play an important role in increasing the maize yield and their
contribution is 40-50 percent. Balanced and optimum use of nitrogen,
phosphorous and potassium fertilizer play a pivotal role in increasing yield of
cereals (Asghar et al, 2010).
Cereal crops are influenced by N fertilizer in many ways, firstly it
increases N supply and helps/results in canopy (leaf area index, LAI) and (leaf
area duration, LAD), which ultimately results in high rates of dry its amounts
can also affect the growth of the plants. Thirdly, late and or heavy N application
may result in grain unacceptable to industry because of their high N/protein
contents ( Uyovbisere, 2000). Therefore, in this way quality and quantity of
grain is also influenced by fertilizer application finally fertilized.
CHAPTER TWO
2.0
LITERATURE REVIEW
Maize grains have nutritional value as they contain 72% starch, 10%
protein, 4.8% oil, 8.5% fibre, 3.0% sugar and 1.7% ash (Chaudhary, 1983). It is
the most important cereal fodder and grain crop under both irrigated and rainfed
agricultural systems in the semi-arid and tropics (Hussan et al, 2003).
2.3 N.P.K Fertilizer
The low fertility status of most tropical soil hindered maize production as
maize production as maize has a strong exhausting effect on the soil. It was
generally observed that maize fail to produce good grain in plots without
adequate nutrients (Adediran and Banjoko, 2003) Inorganic fertilizer exert
strong influence on plant growth, development and yield (Stefano et al 2004).
The availability of sufficient growth nutrients from inorganic fertilizers
lead to improved cell activates, enhance cell, multiplication and enlargement
and luxuriant growth (Fashina et al; 2002). Luxuriant growth resulting from
fertilizer application leads to larger dry matter production (obi et al,2005)n
owing better utilization of solar radiation and more nutrient (Sadee et al, 2001).
The use of inorganic fertilizer on crop increased yield as Adediran and Banjoko
(2003) observed that there was substantial depletion of nutrients with the yields
where no N.P.K fertilizer was applied. This position was reported by
Uyovbisere et al; (2001) who reported there was substantial depletion of
nutrients and available phosphorus were substantially reduced with cropping in
humid zone of south, western Nigeria.
8
the use of limited fertilizer resources, which may just be as available to the
weeds as it is to the crop (Tisdale et al., 1985).
The effect of NPK fertilizer application rates on growth and yield of okra
has been studied by many researchers in Nigeria, but there seem to be a dearth
of information on the effect of NPK fertilizer application rates and methods of
application.
10
CHAPTER THREE
3.0
11
REP 1
REP II
REP III
T1
T3
T4
3M
T2
T4
T1
0.5M
T3
T2
T3
T4
T1
T2
T5
T5
1M
T5
Treatments
T1 = 200kg/ha NPK 20:15:15
T2 = 200kg/ha NPK 20:10:10
T3 = 200kg/ha NPK 15:15:15
T4 = 200kg/ha NPK 20:05:05
T5 = No fertilizer (Control)
3.3 Source of Materials
The NPK fertilizers was sourced from the Taraba State Agricultural
Development Project,(TADP) while the improved maize seeds was bought from
Agro-Allied Store in Jalingo, Hoe, Pegs, Paper, Biro, Weighing Balance, Thread
and other was purchased and others collected from the Department of Crop
Science, College of Agriculture, Jalingo Taraba State.
12
ii.
iii.
Stem girth of maize were measured from ten randomly sampled plant
from each plot using venire caliper and the average was recorded as
stem girth.
Leaf length (cm):
Leaf lengths were recorded of the ten randomly sampled fully matured
iv.
green leaves from the leaf tip of the stem at 3, 6, 9 and 12 WAP. The
v.
vi.
vii.
taken at maturity and the mean recorded as number of cob per plant.
100 Seeds weight (cm):
This was obtained from the threshed grain per plot by randomly
counting 100 grain and weighting balance and their weight recorded in
grain (g).
viii. Grain yield of maize kg/ha:
Grain yield were computed from the grain yield of each plot as
follows: -seed yield (kg/ha)
= Yield/plot (kg)
Net plot size (144.0m2) x 10000m2
ix.
3.6
Data Analysis
14
15
CHAPTER FOUR
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Table 1: Mean square for nine (9) character of Maize in Jalingo
Source of
Variation
df
PH
(cm)
SG
(cm)
LL
(cm)
NL
2
3
6
11
54.83
0.21 55.1
679.83* 5.87* 11546.52*
321.63 2.86 5754.8
LW
(cm)
NC
CW
(cm)
0.08
0.14
0.25 1.38
30.08* 80.20* 1.00* 36.18*
15.01 40.05 4.16 17.63
GY/
Plot
Kg
0.07
2.84*
1.39
=Significant, **=Highly significant, NS=Not significant, PH=Plant height, SG=Stem girth, LL=Leave length, NL=Number
of leave, LW=Leave width, NC=Number of cobs, CL=Cob weight, GY/Plot= Grain yield per plant, 100SW= 100% seed
weight.
PH
(cm)
SG
(cm)
LL
(cm)
NL
LW
(cm)
NC
CW
(cm)
T1
T2
T3
T4
LSD
44.77a
47.15a
60.02a
68.82ab
17.58
1.37a
2.22a
3.07ab
3.8bc
1.65
34.1a
35.07a
44.22a
46.32a
14.38
3.75a
3.75a
6a
8.75ab
3.79
1.55a
1.57a
2.75a
3.07ab
6.20
0.75a
0.75a
1.5a
1.5a
1.99
3.92a
5.07a
8.02a
9.57ab
4.11
GY/
Plot
Kg
1a
0.97a
2.2b
2.3b
1.15
100SW
(kg)
0.65a
0.50a
1.35a
1.35a
2.13
Means within the same column with the same letters are not significantly different.
a
=Significant, ab=Highly significant, b=Not significant, PH=Plant height, SG=Stem girth, LL=Leave length, NL=Number of
leave, LW=Leave width, NC=Number of cobs, CW=Cob weight, GY/Plot= Grain yield per plant, 100SW= 100% seed
weight.
100SW
(g)
0.2
1.08*
4.76
produced the tallest plant, closely followed by treatment 3, while the shortest
plant was recorded by treatment 1. This in disclosed that weeding thrice had the
taller plant as a result of less competition with weed for space, light, nutrient
etc.
Similarly the mean performance of stem girth also revealed that
significant difference for the character. However, Treatment 4 recorded the
widest stem, followed by Treatment 3, while the narrowest stem was obtained
by Treatment 1. This also indicated that the effect of weeding regime on the
stem of the plant.
Number of leaves per plant (Table 2) revealed significant difference
among some of the characters studied. The highest number of leaves was
recorded by Treatment 4, closely followed by Treatment 3, then Treatment 2.
The lowest number of leaves per plant was obtained by Treatment 1. This result
revealed that weeding regime had significant effect on number of leaves per
plant of maize in the environment.
For leaf length, (Table 2) no significant difference existed among the
Treatments for all the characters of maize studied. This indicated non influence
of weeding regime on maize. Leaf width was also similar to leaf length as not
significant difference existed among the characters in the area.
17
18
CHAPTER FIVE
5.0 SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Summary
This research on the influence of weeding regime on the growth and yield
of maize in Jalingo was conducted at the Teaching and Research Irrigation of
Farm of the Department of Crop Science Taraba State. College of Agriculture,
Jalingo during the dry season farming of 2016.
Data were collected on ten randomly sampled plants per plot and the
following parameters were collected plant height, stem girth, leaf length, leaf
width, number of leaves, number of cobs per plant, cob length, grain yield per
plot and 100 seed height. The result obtained revealed that significant difference
existed in some of the characters studied such as plant height, stem girth,
number of leaves, cob length and grain yield per plot.
5.2 Conclusion
This can be concluded that weeding regime had significant influence on
the growth and yield of maize as the plant has less competition with weed which
had influence on the plant.
19
5.3 Recommendations
i.
ii.
weeding.
Chemical fertilizer should be made available to the farmers at
iii.
subsidize rate.
All farms should be kept weed free as weeds has detrimental effects
on the growth and yield of maize.
20
REFERENCES
Adediran, J. A. and V. A. Banjoko (2003). Comparative effectiveness of some
compost fertilizer formulations for maize in Nigeria. Nig. J. Soil Sci.,
13:42-48.
Agbato, S. O. (2003). Principles and Practices of crop production (pp. 57-62).
Oyo: Odumatt press publisher.
Anonymous (2009-10). Agricultural Statistics of Pakistan, Govt. of Pakistan,
Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Livestock, Economic Wing,
Islamabad.
Aquino, P., F. Carrion, R. Calvo and D. Flores. (2001). Selected maize
statistics. In: Pingali, P.L. (ed.). 2001. CIMMYT 1999-2000 World
Maize Facts and Trends. Meeting world maize needs: Technological
opportunities and priorities for the public sector. Mexico, D.F.:
CIMMYT.
Asghar, A.A. Ali., Syed, W.H., Asif, M., Khaliq, T. and Abid, A.A. (2010)
Growth and Yield of Maize (Zea Mays L) Cultivars affected by NPK
Application in different proportion. Pakistan Journal of Science (Vol.
62. No. 4) PP 211-216.
Cannor, K.I, Agbogidi, O.M, and Okonmah, C.U.(2012), Growth and Yield of
Maize as influenced by Organic Manure type in a Niger Delta
Environment. International Journals of Agriculture and Rural
Development (IJARD) Vol. 15 (1) Owerri, PP. 818-824.
DIPA. (2006). Handbook of Agriculture: facts and figures for farmers, students
and all interested in farming. Directorate of Information and
Publications of Agriculture. Indian Council of Agricultural Research,
New Delhi, p. 435.
Donald, S.W. and Hamblin, N.A. (2006) The Comparative Study of the effect
of organic manure cow dung and inorganic fertilizer N.P.K on the
growth rate of maize (Zea Mays L). International Journal of Crop
Science. PP 89-97
Dutt, S. (2005). A Handbook of Agriculture (pp. 116-118). India: ABD
Publishers.
FAO. (2002). Fertilizer and the future. IFA/FAO Agriculture Conference on
Global food security and the role of Sustainability Fertilization. Rome,
Italy. 16th-20th March, 2003, pp. 1-2.
21
24
APPENDICES
Appendix 1: ANOVA Table for Plant Height
Source of Variation
Df
SS
MS
Rep (r-1)(3-1)
109.66
54.83
Trt(t-1)(4-1)
2039.4
679.83
Fcal
Ftab
2.11
4.6
Fcal
Ftab
2.05
4.6
9
Err(r-1)(t-1)
1929.8
321.63
2
Total rt-1
11
2354.1
214.01
7
CV= 17.58%
*= Significant
**=Highly significant
NS=Not significant
Appendix 2: ANOVA Table for Stem girth
Source of Variation
Df
SS
MS
Rep (r-1)(3-1)
0.43
0.21
Trt(t-1)(4-1)
17.63
5.87
Err(r-1)(t-1)
17.2
2.86
Total rt-1
11
21.27
1.93
CV= 1.65%
*= Significant
25
**=Highly significant
NS=Not significant
26
Df
SS
MS
Rep (r-1)(3-1)
110.23
55.11
Trt(t-1)(4-1)
34639.58 2.00
Err(r-1)(t-1)
34529.35
Total rt-1
11
825.09
Fcal
Ftab
4.6
75.00
CV= 14.38%
*= Significant
**=Highly significant
NS=Not significant
Df
SS
MS
Rep (r-1)(3-1)
110.23
55.11
Trt(t-1)(4-1)
34639.58 2.00
Err(r-1)(t-1)
34529.35
Total rt-1
11
825.09
CV= 3.79%
*= Significant
**=Highly significant
NS=Not significant
27
75.00
Fcal
4.6
Ftab
Df
SS
MS
Rep (r-1)(3-1)
0.29
0.14
Trt(t-1)(4-1)
240.62 80.20
Err(r-1)(t-1)
240.33 40.05
Total rt-1
11
11.48
Fcal
Ftab
2.00
4.6
Fcal
Ftab
2.40
4.6
1.04
CV= 14.38%
*= Significant
**=Highly significant
NS=Not significant
Df
SS
MS
Rep (r-1)(3-1)
0.5
0.25
Trt(t-1)(4-1)
1.0
Err(r-1)(t-1)
2.5
4.16
Total rt-1
11
6.36
CV= 1.99%
*= Significant
**=Highly significant
NS=Not significant
28
Df
SS
MS
Rep (r-1)(3-1)
2.77
1.38
Trt(t-1)(4-1)
108.55 36.18
Err(r-1)(t-1)
105.78 17.63
Total rt-1
11
117.75 10.70
Fcal
Ftab
2.05
4.6
Fcal
Ftab
0.22
4.6
CV= 4.11%
*= Significant
**=Highly significant
NS=Not significant
Appendix 8: ANOVA Table for 100 seed weight
Source of Variation
Df
SS
MS
Rep (r-1)(3-1)
0.40
0.2
Trt(t-1)(4-1)
3.26
1.08
Err(r-1)(t-1)
2.86
4.76
Total rt-1
11
4.62
0.42
CV= 2.13%
*= Significant
**=Highly significant
NS=Not significant
29