Agricultural

Communication

Biosci. Biotech. Res. Comm. 10(1): 219-229 (2017)

Agronomic responses of maize to de cit and adequate

irrigation and levels of chemical fertilizers and bio

fertilizers

Safar Nasrolahzadeh

, Ali Shirkhani

* and Saeid Zehtab Salmasi

Department of Eco-physiology, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran

Crop Horticulture Research Department, Kermanshah Agricultural Resources Research and Education Center

(AREEO), Iran

ABSTRACT

In 2014, over 180 thousand hectares and 1.223 million tons of Maize produced in Iran. However Iran is a major importer of Maize

in the world. Kermanshah is located in Western Iran and Maize is the most important crop after wheat. Maize production in this

province has two major problems: water shortage caused and low percentage of organic matter in soil. In this research, effects of

vermicompost and Azotobacter as a boi- fertilizers and chemical fertilizers on yield and yield components of Maize under normal

and de cit irrigation was investigated in two sites in 2014 and 2015. Site included normal irrigation and de cient irrigation (65%

optimum water requirement) and each site was conducted as the factorial split plot in a randomized complete block design with three

replications. Treatments included Azotobacter in the main plots (non-inoculation and inoculation), vermicompost (consuming 0, 2, 4

and 6 ton/ha) and chemical fertilizers included N,P,K in tree levels (100% recommendation based on soil test, 50% recommendation

and no fertilizer) in the sub plots. Results showed that grain yield, 1000 kernels weight, number of kernels per row, number of kernels

per ear and plant height were decreased by de cient irrigation. Use of Azotobacter and vermicompost signi cantly increased these

traits in normal and de cit irrigation, Results also showed that using 6 ton/ha of vermicompost and Azotobacter in soil, 50% of the

corn fertilizer supplied. The results showed that combined use of bio-fertilizers with chemical fertilizers increased the yield and yield

component. Therefore the uses of biological fertilizers signi cantly reduce the consumption of chemical fertilizers and reduce the

adverse environmental effects. So biofertilizers could be considered as a suitable substitute for chemical nitrogen fertilizer in organic

agricultural systems. On the other hand from this experiment, application of vermicompost in combination with chemical fertilizers

showed better performance than only chemical fertilizers, even in 100% recommendation based on soil test treatments.

KEY WORDS: MAIZE, VERMICOMPOST, AZOTOBACTER, CHEMICAL FERTILIZER, INM, YIELD

219

ARTICLE INFORMATION:

*Corresponding Author: Ali.shirkhani@gmail.com

Received 27

Dec, 2016

Accepted after revision 24

Feb, 2017

BBRC Print ISSN: 0974-6455

Online ISSN: 2321-4007 CODEN: USA BBRCBA

Thomson Reuters ISI ESC and Crossref Indexed Journal

NAAS Journal Score 2017: 4.31 Cosmos IF : 4.006

reserved.

Online Contents Available at: http//www.bbrc.in/

220 AGRONOMIC RESPONSES OF MAIZE TO DEFICIT AND ADEQUATE IRRIGATION BIOSCIENCE BIOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS

Nasrolahzadeh, Shirkhani and Salmasi

INTRODUCTION

Maize (Zea mays L.) is an important crop that used as

food, feed and industrial products. Maize is the third

most important cereal after wheat and rice all over the

world and the world’s largest grain crop in term of total

production on a MT basis. Maize is currently produced

on nearly 184 million hectares in 125 developing coun-

tries and is among the three most widely grown crops in

75 of those countries (FAOSTAT, 2015).

Kermanshah is located in western Iran and Maize

is the most important crop after wheat, grown on an

area of 45,000 ha with the production of 382,500 tones

with 8500 kg ha-1 average grain yield; the third and

 rst place of Iran for area harvested and mean yield,

respectively. Maize production in this province has two

major problems: water shortage caused by drought in

recent years and low percentage of organic matter in

soil, which in most areas is less than one percent. Maize

is an irrigated crop in Iran and recent drought periods

in Iran imposed pressure on groundwater resources. The

groundwater is the primary source of irrigation of Maize

production in province and in recent years, the water

storage has gradually decreased in this region mainly

because of increasing annual irrigation and the dry cli-

mate (Agricultural Department of Kermanshah, 2015).

Drought is the most common abiotic environmental

stress limited the production at approximately 25 % of

the world agricultural land. Yield losses include more

than two- thirds of the total damage of abiotic stresses

due to drought, salinity and other factors. Maize, how-

ever, is highly sensitive to drought, speci cally two

weeks prior and post-silking (Tollenaar and Lee, 2011).

Among the abiotic stresses, drought is the most severe

limitation to Maize production. Water stress adversely

affects crop growth and yield in many regions of the

world. One of the most important constraints for agri-

culture is water limitation. Most recently, global warm-

ing may be worsening this situation in most agricultural

region (Jabasingh and Babu, 2014).

The drought stress decreases the Maize yield due to

three main mechanisms: 1- by reducing the amount of

photosynthetic active radiation received by vegetation

canopy (due to decreasing growth of leaves and leaf pre-

mature senescence), 2- by reducing ef ciency of energy

and 3- by reducing the harvest index (due to less allo-

cation of assimilates to crop economic yield) (Hlavinka

and et al., 2009). Adequate water and nutrient supply

are important factors affecting optimal plant growth

and successful crop production. Water stress is one of

the severe limitations of crop growth especially in arid

and semiarid regions of the world as it has a vital role

in plant growth and development at all growth stages

(Taleshi and Osoli, 2015)

The addition of organic matter to the soil usually

increases the water holding capacity of the soil. This

is because the addition of organic matter increases the

number of micropores and macropores in the soil either

by “gluing” soil particles together or by creating favour-

able living conditions for soil organisms. Certain types

of soil organic matter can hold up to 20 times their

weight in water. The consequence of increased water

in ltration combined with a higher organic matter con-

tent is increased soil storage of water (Reicosky, 2005).

Hudson (1994) showed that for each 1-percent

increase in soil organic matter, the available water hold-

ing capacity in the soil increased by 3.7 percent. Soil

water is held by adhesive and cohesive forces within

the soil and an increase in pore space will lead to an

increase in water holding capacity of the soil. As a

consequence, less irrigation water is needed to irrigate

the same crop. The use of biofertilizer in condition of

environmental stress can decrease effects of stress and

enhance soil water holding capacity, root growth and

yield (Li and Ni, 1996). By increasing soil organic mat-

ter content, composts improve soil physical properties

such as structural stability, total porosity and hydrau-

lic conductivity, aggregate formation and water hold-

ing capacity. However, the effect of composts on plant

available water varies, depending on soil type, the type

of compost and application rate (Nguyen et al., 2012).

Compost produced from organic dairy cattle manure

can result in higher soil water content under Kentucky

bluegrass (Poa pratensis L.) after 8 days without addi-

tion of water (Johnson et al. 2009). Also Gholipoor et

al. (2014) reported that vermicompost can alleviate the

deleterious effects of drought stress on grain yield of

chickpea. Moreover, the use of organic matter such as

animal manures, compost and vermicompost has long

been recognized in agriculture as bene cial for plant

growth and yield and the maintenance of soil fertility.

The new approaches to the use of organic amendments

in farming have proven to be effective means of improv-

ing soil structure, enhancing soil fertility and increas-

ing crop yields. Organic matter is excellent source of

plant-available nutrients and their addition to soil could

maintain high microbial populations and activities. In

recent years vermicompost an organic amendment has

been selectively and effectively used in soil conditioning

and in varying degrees to in uence the soil properties.

Among various sources of organic matter, vermicom-

posts have been recognized as having considerable

potential as soil amendments. Vermicomposts are prod-

ucts of organic matter degradation through interactions

between earthworms and microorganisms. The process

accelerates the rates of decomposition of the organic

matter, alters the physical and chemical properties of the

material, and lowers the C:N ratio, leading to a rapid

BIOSCIENCE BIOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS AGRONOMIC RESPONSES OF MAIZE TO DEFICIT AND ADEQUATE IRRIGATION 221

Nasrolahzadeh, Shirkhani and Salmasi

humi cation process in which the unstable organic mat-

ter is fully oxidized and stabilized (Arancon et al., 2005).

The cost of inorganic fertilizers is very high and

sometimes it is not available in the market for which the

farmers fail to apply the inorganic fertilizers to the crop

 eld in optimum time. On the other hand, the organic

manure is easily available to the farmers and its cost is

low compared to that of inorganic fertilizers. One of the

main practices in sustainable agriculture is application of

biologic and organic fertilizers in order to provide plants

nutrients and to reduce the need for chemical fertilizers.

Vermicompost is an important type of non chemical fer-

tilizers. Bio-fertilizer is a densely populated preservative

of one or more types of useful terricolous microorgan-

ism, their metabolic phenomenon are used to provide the

nutrients needed by plants, control soil-borne diseases

and maintain the stability of soil structure (Vessey, 2003).

Furthermore, compost has a high nutritional value, with

high concentrations of especially nitrogen, phosphorus

and potassium, while the contamination by heavy metals

and other toxic substances are very low, and also positive

changes have been reported in the quality of wheat  our,

because of increasing the amount of gluten after compost

treatment (Gopinath, 2008).

Many attempts have been tried to replace a part of

those harmful fertilizers by biofertilizer. Integrated

nutrient management strategies involving chemical fer-

tilizer and biofertilizer have suggested enhancing the

sustainability of crop production (Esmailpour et al.,

2013). Previous studies showed that the combination of

compost with chemical fertilizer further enhanced the

biomass and grain yield of crops (Sarwar et al., 2008).

Also the synergistic effect of combining farm and min-

eral fertilizers application has been con rmed. Kmetova

and Kovacik (2014) reported where the joint application

of vermicompost and nitrogen fertilizer increased the

rice crop of 15.6 % compared to the only application of

nitrogen fertilizer.

On the other hand, El-Afry et al (2012) reported that

application of Azotobacter in Wheat, act as protective

factors against irrigation water de cit and could over-

come the negative effects of drought stress. The use of

rhizosphere associated microorganisms as biofertilizers

is now being considered as having potential for improv-

ing plant productivity (Vessey, 2003). Biofertilizers are

able to  x atmospheric nitrogen in the available form

for plants. Rhizosphere-associated nitrogen  xing and

phosphate-solubilizing bacteria have been used as inoc-

ulum for nonlegume crop species such as Maize, rice,

wheat, and sugarcane (Mehnaz and Lazarovits, 2006).

Many attempts have been tried to replace a part of those

harmful fertilizers by biofertilizers in Maize to get yield

of a good quality without loss in its quantity (Kholy

et al., 2005). Inoculation of Maize and wheat seeds with

Azotobacter and Azospirillum increased plant growth,

nutrients uptake and yield (Dobbelaere, et al., 2001). El-

kholy and Gomma have succeeded to reduce the recom-

mended dose of chemical fertilizers in Maize and millet

by 50%, using biofertilizers without signi cant yield

loss. A pot experiment was conducted by Mudenoor et

al., (2007), to study the effects of seed treatment of micro

nutrient supplemented Azospirillum biofertilizer on dry

mater production and yield of Maize at Karnataka and

result indicated high shoot and root dry matter with seed

treatment of Azospirillum. Azospirillum spp. are com-

monly isolated bacteria from the rhizosphere of various

grasses and cereals and are well characterized as plant-

growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR). Many pub-

lished reports exist on the use of Azospirillum spp. for

inoculation of cereals (Mehnaz and Lazarovits, 2006). In

France, Azospirillum lipoferum is used as commercial

fertilizer for Maize under the trade name AzoGreen-m

(Jacoud et al, .1999). Integrated plant nutrient manage-

ment (INM) is the combined use of mineral fertilizers

with organic resources such as cattle manures, crop resi-

dues, urban/rural wastes, composts, green manures and

biofertilizers (Kemal and Abera, 2015).

Various studies revealed that sustainable yield and

yield related parameters of maize are signi cantly

improved by integrated nutrient management (INM)

practices. INM including vermicompost showed best

results in yield parameters of maize like number of

grains per cob, weight of the cob, 100 seed weight and

yield (Kannan et al., 2013). Also Kemal and Abera (2015)

reported application of recommended dose of inor-

ganic fertilizer along with vermicompost at 6 ton/ha to

maize not only enhanced productivity of maize but also

improved soil fertility in terms of higher available N,

P, K and organic carbon content over the control and

recommended N, P and K, moreover.The objective of this

study was to determine the effect of biofertilizers and

chemical fertilizers on yield and yield components of

Maize under normal and de cit irrigation condition in

western Iran region and looking for the

best biological

treatments could be applied to the maize to get a high yield

in addition to

keep our environment clean and safe.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Characterization of the experimental area

Field experiments were conducted for two years (2014–

2015) at the agricultural research farm, Agricultural and

Natural Resources Research Centre in Kermanshah, Iran.

This farm is located at 34.08 N, 46.26 E, 1345 m altitude,

silty clay soil, pH=7.5-8, 450 mm precipitation Medi-

terranean climate. Table 1 gives the properties of the

experimental  eld.

Nasrolahzadeh, Shirkhani and Salmasi

222 AGRONOMIC RESPONSES OF MAIZE TO DEFICIT AND ADEQUATE IRRIGATION BIOSCIENCE BIOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS

Application of the treatments

In this research, effects of vermicompost and Azotobac-

ter as a boi- fertilizers and chemical fertilizers on yield

and yield components of Maize under normal and de cit

irrigation was investigated in two sites. Sites included

normal irrigation and de cient irrigation (65% opti-

mum water requirement) and each site was conducted as

the factorial split plot in a randomized complete block

design with three replications and three factors. Treat-

ments included Azotobacter in the main plots (non-

inoculation and inoculation), vermicompost (consuming

0, 2, 4 and 6 ton/ha) and chemical fertilizers included

N,P,K in tree levels (100% recommendation based on soil

test, 50% recommendation and no fertilizer) in the sub

plots. The Maize cultivar used was “KSC 704” (a grain

Maize cultivar that is commonly planted in the region).

Entire experimental area was chisel-plowed in the fall

and plowed in the spring before planting. Soil samples

were taken before the imposition of treatments and were

analyzed for physical and chemical characteristics.

Experiment plots were seeded with 75 cm row to row

distance and plant density was 75000 plant/ha (conven-

tional plant density). Maize was planted in May 2014

and 2015 and by experimental planter. Seeds were sown

5 cm deep. Before planting 7g inoculation with 1g had

107 active and live bacteria, were used inoculating

seeds. Seeds which must mix with Azotobacter soaked

with sugar water with concentration 2% and with ratio

2kg inoculation 100kg seeds. Plot dimensions using in

this study will be 7m long by 3m wide, each plot will

be consisted four rows spacing at 0.75m. Vermicompost

used in this study has been produced by the activity

of Eisenia foetida worm produced from cattle manure.

The amount of acidity and electrical conductivity of its

aqueous solution are 7.5 and 14.65 dS/m, respectively.

Phosphorus and potassium fertilizers were mixed by soil

before cultivation. A quarter of urea fertilizer at plant-

ing, one-fourth of 6 to 8 leaf stage, and the remaining

fertilizer was applied prior to  owering, before planting

all quantities of vermicompost was mixed with soil to a

depth of 30 cm. Weeds were removed manually across

the growing season.

Irrigation

Maize is an irrigated crop in Iran; therefore, it is not

dependent on the seasonal rainfall. Irrigations were car-

ried out at 7 day intervals. Water treatments (de cit and

adequate irrigation) were initiated during middle veg-

etative growth stage (around V6). Beginning on these

dates, water was applied at weekly intervals based on

the amount of evapotranspiration for the previous week

as determined by the on-site weather station using a

modi ed version of the Penman FAO equation (O’Neill

et al., 2004). The adequate irrigation treatment received

the amount of water required to fully replace the pre-

vious week evapotranspiration while the de cit treat-

ment received 65 % this amount. This was continued

throughout the remainder of the growing season. Water

entrance to plots was measured by counter and Hydro x

irrigation system

Variables

Each plot was harvested at maturity for yield and yield

components. The Maize ears located 6 m2 from each plot

were harvested by hand, then allowed drying at 80°C

to a constant weight and then seed yield was obtained.

Before  nal harvesting Maize yield components includ-

ing the number of ears per plant and the number of

seeds per ear were determined on  ve randomly selected

plants in the center rows of each plot. 100-seed weight

was measured according to the recommendation of the

International Seed Testing Association (ISTA).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Grain yield

The yield of maize was signi cantly in uenced by de -

cient irrigation (Table 2); Results showed that during the

both research years, grain yield was decreased from 8.2

ton/ha to 4.4 ton/ha by de cient irrigation. Water de cit

in maize is one of limiting factors of yield and at the

time of pollination, drought may have severe impact on

yield (Moser et al., 2006). These results are consistent with

previous work; Dagdelen et al. (2006) reported that water

de ciency signi cantly affected maize yield and the

highest maize yield was obtained from the full irrigation

treatments. Stone et al. (2001) reported that water de cit

reduces crop growth and morphological characteristics

of maize plant. Pandey et al. (2000) reported that yield

reduction (22.6 - 26.4%) was found with de cit irrigation

and this was associated with decrease in kernel number

and weight. Also Karam et al. (2003) stated that water

de ciency signi cantly reduced dry matter accumulation

and as a result grain yield deceased in maize.

Table 1. Soil characteristics

Depth Cm av.P ppmav.K PpmN%O.C%Mn PpmFe ppmZn ppm

0-3011.66400.080.87.25.90.58

30-607.86400.10.96.43.80.52

Nasrolahzadeh, Shirkhani and Salmasi

BIOSCIENCE BIOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS AGRONOMIC RESPONSES OF MAIZE TO DEFICIT AND ADEQUATE IRRIGATION 223

Analysis of variance showed that Azotobacter

increased grain yield about 89 kg/ha in all treatments

(Table 4). In addition the use of vermicompost at 2, 4

and 6 ton/ha consistently and signi cantly increased

grain yield in normal and de cit irrigation (Table 4).

Although, application of vermicompost led to increase

in grain yield, the highest grain yield was related to

integrated treatments 6 ton/h vermicompost and 100%

chemical fertilizers recommendation based on soil test.

Results also indicated that the use of 6 ton/ha ver-

micompost and Azotobacter in soil, 50% of the maize

fertilizer supplied. The results showed that combined use

of bio-fertilizers with chemical fertilizers increased the

grain yield. Therefore the uses of biological fertilizers

signi cantly reduce the consumption of chemical ferti-

lizers and reduce the adverse environmental effects.

On the other hand from this experiment, application

of vermicompost in combination with chemical fertiliz-

ers showed better performance than only chemical ferti-

lizers, even in 100% recommendation based on soil test

treatments. It can be stated that the increase in growth

parameters of maize are due to greater availability of

nitrogen in full organic and integrated treatments. In

full chemical treatments most of nitrogen would be

leached from the soil pro le. In addition, high porosity

and water holding capacity of vermicompost that helps

Table 2. AOVA table of fresh and dry yield of data 2014 and 2015 (in brief).

S O V df MS

Yield kernel

weight

Number of

kernels per

row

Number of

kernels per

ear

Plant

height

Replication 2 ns ns ns ns ns

Year 1 ns ns ns ns ns

Year* replication 2 ns ns ns ns ns

Irrigation 1 ** ** * ** **

Error 8 - - - - -

Azotobacter 1 ns ns ns Ns ns

Azotobacter * Irrigation 1 ns ns ns Ns ns

Year*Vermicompost * Irrigation 1 ** ** ** ** **

Error 8 - - - - -

N P K 2 ** ** * ** **

Azotobacter * N P K 2 ns ns ns Ns ns

Irrigation* N P K 2 ** ** ** ** **

Azotobacter *Irrigation* N P K 2 ** ** * ** **

Vermicompost 3 ** ** * ** **

Vermicompost *Irrigation 3 ** ** ** ** **

N P K*Vermicompost *Irrigation 6 ** ** ** ** **

N P K*Vermicompost *Irrigation* Azotobacter 6 ** ** ** ** **

Year* N P K*Vermicompost *Irrigation* Azotobacter 24 ** ** ** ** **

C.V. 8.8 9.6 8.9 10.5 11.1

ns: not- signi cant; * signi cant at 5-% (P<0.05), ** signi cant at 1-% (P<0.01)

Table 3. Effects of chemical fertilizer and vermicompost on yield

Chemical Fertilizers included N P K

100% Recommendation50% RecommendationNo Fertilizer

642064206420

Vermicompost

(ton/ha)

Irrigation

10.710.310.310.210.38.587.375.95.34.4Normal 100%

5.55.45.34.75.34.84.74.14.23.83.12.8De cient 65%

Nasrolahzadeh, Shirkhani and Salmasi

224 AGRONOMIC RESPONSES OF MAIZE TO DEFICIT AND ADEQUATE IRRIGATION BIOSCIENCE BIOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS

in better aeration and drainage. Moreover use of 6 ton/

ha vermicompost and Azotobacter in treatments with

no chemical fertilizers produced 7 and 4.4 ton/ha grain

yield in normal and de cit irrigation respectively. Appli-

cation of organic manures either alone or integrated

with chemical amendments for maize, performed better

than all amendments tested in laboratory trails studied

by Mujeeb et al. (2010). Recommendation of organic

matter alone with synthetic fertilizers could be helpful

for enhancing stagnant wheat grain yield was reported

by Tahir et al. (2011). Similarly Fanuel and Gifole (2012)

recommended applying combination of compost at 5 ton

ha-1 along with inorganic fertilizer to obtain better yield

of maize.

Nagananda et al., (2010) in their experiments observed

that inoculation of maize with Azotobacter and Azos-

Table 4. Effects of Azotobacter and vermicompost on yield

Azotobacter

InoculationNon-inoculation

64206420

Vermicompost

(ton/ha)

Irrigation

5.14.74.43.94.94.64.33.8Normal 100%

9.58.27.97.39.38.27.87.3De cient 65%

Table 5. Effects of Chemical and bio fertilizer on yield

Normal IrrigationDe cient Irrigation

64206420

Vermicompost

(t/ha)

NPK

Recommendation

Azotobacter

6.85.75.14.34.13.732.6

No Fertilizernon-inoculation

75.95.44.44.43.93.12.8

No FertilizerInoculation

108.47.97.25.14.74.63.9

50% non-inoculation

10.48.58.17.45.34.94.84.3

50% Inoculation

10.510.210.2105.45.25.24.8

100% non-inoculation

10.610.310.310.25.55.45.34.7

100% Inoculation

FIGURE 1. Effect of vermicompost and imigation on grain yield

Nasrolahzadeh, Shirkhani and Salmasi

BIOSCIENCE BIOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS AGRONOMIC RESPONSES OF MAIZE TO DEFICIT AND ADEQUATE IRRIGATION 225

pirillum bacteria, leads to yield increasing in sections of

nitrogen fertilizer.

1000 kernel weight

The results of this study showed that vermicompost and

chemical fertilizers had a signi cant effect on 1000 ker-

nel weight during both the years (Table 6). Vermicom-

post and Azotobacter increased 1000 kernel weight

and also chemical fertilizers. The heaviest 1000 kernel

weight 331.8 g was recorded in the plots where 6 ton/

ha vermicompost and 100% chemical fertilizer were

applied but with use of 6 ton/ha vermicompost and

50% chemical fertilizer 1000 kernel weight was 327.3 g

and no signi cant different was observed. Also without

chemical fertilizer and with use of 6 ton/ha vermicom-

post and Azotobacter, 1000 kernel weight was 315.7 g

and 263g in normal and De cient Irrigation condition

respectively.

Ramasamy et al. (2011) reported vermicompost

increased kernel weight in maize. Similarly, Cheema,

et al. (2010) found that applying 50% N from poultry

manure and remaining from urea fertilizer produced

maximum grain yield of maize and grain weight per cob.

Kalhapure and et al. stated that (2013) Azotobacter and

compost increased 1000-grain weight in maize. Similar

results were described by Yazdani et al. (2009) that grain

weight of maize increased with the application of phos-

phate solubilizing microorganisms.

FIGURE 2. Effect of vemicompost and azotobacter on kernel weight

Table 6. Effects of chemical fertilizer and vermicompost on 1000 kernel weight

De cient Irrigation Normal Irrigation

Vermicompost (ton/ha)

Chemical Fertilizers

02460246

No Fertilizer 213.6 235.2 240 263 260.3 269.7 281.1 316

50% Recommendation 240.5 259.3 271.7 283 288.5 304.2 319.8 326.9

100% Recommendation 274.8 278.6 279.8 284.6 327.6 330.7 331.4 337.3

Table 7. Effects of chemical fertilizer and vermicompost on number of kernels per row

De cient Irrigation Normal Irrigation

Vermicompost (ton/ha)

Chemical Fertilizers

02460246

No Fertilizer 33.4 33.2 35.5 36 39.1 39.3 45 45,6

50% Recommendation 36.5 36.3 38.3 38.7 46.8 47 48.4 48.6

100% Recommendation 39 39.3 40 40.5 48.3 48.3 49 49

Nasrolahzadeh, Shirkhani and Salmasi

226 AGRONOMIC RESPONSES OF MAIZE TO DEFICIT AND ADEQUATE IRRIGATION BIOSCIENCE BIOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS

Whereas results of this experiment showed that

drought stress reduced 1000 kernel weight from 307.8 g

to 260.3 g. In de cient irrigation condition by increase

vermicompost and chemical fertilizer kernel weight was

increased. Nevertheless, uses of vermicompost and Azo-

tobacter in this condition were increased kernel weight.

Karam et al. (2003) stated that water de ciency signi -

cantly reduced dry matter accumulation. Grain yield

reduced to 37% due to a decline of 18% in kernel weight

and of 10% in kernel number under water stress condi-

tions. Increase in 1000-grain weight of common mil-

let due to the application of humic acid was informed

by (Veysel et al., 2011). Beigzade et al. (2013) reported

bacteria (Azospirillum + Pseudomonas) increased grain

weight in maize.

Number of kernels per row

Number of kernels per row was affected by water short-

ages. Number of kernels per row in normal and de cient

irrigation was 46.2 and 37.1 respectively. In addition

Analysis of variance of the data showed the main effects

of chemical fertilizers and biofertilizers and interaction

of chemical and biofertilizers were signi cant. Simi-

larly with other traits in de cient irrigation condition

by increase vermicompost and chemical fertilizer kernel

weight was increased. The maximum number of kernels

per row 49 was observed in 100% chemical fertilizer,

but Number of kernels per row in treatment with 50%

chemical fertilizer and 6 ton/ha vermicompost and use

of Azotobacter was 48.5. Results showed that using 6

tons of vermicompost and Azotobacter, reduced use of

chemical fertilizers by 50%. Whereas this trait in condi-

tion with use of 6 ton/ha vermicompost and Azotobacter

without chemical fertilizer was 45.6. Moreover Azoto-

bacter increased number of kernels per row from 40.2 to

43.2 (Table 7 and 8)

INM including vermicompost showed best results in

yield parameters of maize like number of grains per cob,

weight of the cob, 100 seed weight and yield (Kannan et

al., 2013). Beigzade et al. (2013) showed that phospho-

Table 8. Effects of Azotobacter and vermicompost on number of kernels per row

Azotobacter

InoculationNon-inoculation

64206420

Vermicompost

(ton/ha)

Irrigation

48.14847.847.647.2474241Normal 100%

39.539.337.637.636.736.53534.7De cient 65%

Table 9. Effects of chemical fertilizer and vermicompost on number of kernels per ear

De cient Irrigation Normal Irrigation

Vermicompost

(ton/ha)

Chemical Fertilizers

02460246

No Fertilizer 405 461.8 471.5 512.7 464.1 659 662.6 674.2

50% Recommendation 495.6 523.3 545.8 581.4 680.4 729.4 749.9 751.1

100% Recommendation 551.6 556.4 568.5 594.9 718.6 735.3 757.1 763.2

Table 10. Effects of Azotobacter and vermicompost on number of kernels per ear

Azotobacter

InoculationNon-inoculation

64206420

Vermicompost

(ton/ha)

Irrigation

734.9731.8721.7623.6724.1714.6707.5618.7Normal 100%

571.3526.5526.5490.8554.7521.3509.1480.7De cient 65%

Nasrolahzadeh, Shirkhani and Salmasi

BIOSCIENCE BIOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS AGRONOMIC RESPONSES OF MAIZE TO DEFICIT AND ADEQUATE IRRIGATION 227

rus fertilizer and bacteria (Azospirillum + Pseudomonas)

growth had a signi cant effect on number of grains per

row, but interaction effect of these two factors had not

signi cant effect on mentioned trait. Baral and Adhikari

(2013) reported that the numbers of kernels per row was

signi cantly in uenced by Azotobacter

Number of kernels per ear

Results showed that de cient irrigation decreased num-

ber of kernels per ear and the other hand vermicompost,

Azotobacter and chemical fertilizers had a signi cant

effect on number of kernels per ear (Table 3). Maximum

number of kernels per ear was recorded to inoculation

with Azotobacter, 6 ton/ ha vermicompost and 100%

chemical fertilizer (763.2) and with use of Azotobacter,

6 ton/ ha vermicompost and 50% chemical fertilizer this

treat was 749.4. So, biofertilizers was decreased chemi-

cal fertilizer 50% (Table 9 and 10).

Grain yield of maize is product of three yield compo-

nents i.e. the number of ears per unit of area, the number

of grains per ear and the unit grain weight (Gardner et

al., 1985). Variation in any one of these components,

keeping the size of other components constant, contrib-

utes to increase or decrease in grain yield, and thus any

management factor which increase any of these compo-

nents, will increase the  nal grain yield.

3.5 Plant height

Inoculation with Azotobacter and use of vermicompost

signi cantly in uenced the plant height. Two years

mean revealed that maximum plant height (236.5) was

recorded with the application of recommended dose of

chemical fertilizer plus 6 ton/ha vermicompost and Azo-

tobacter inoculation and in normal irrigation. Minimum

plant height (147.1) was observed in de cient Irrigation

and without chemical and bio fertilizer. In both irrigation

treatments with increasing of chemical and bio fertilizer

plant height was increased (Table 11 and 12). Baral and

Adhikari (2013) reported Azotobacter increased plant

height in maize. Alnoaim and Hamad (2004), reported

that by using of bio-fertilizers with using of N fertilizer

the highest plant height, number of tiller and grain yield

of rice (Oryza sativa) were achieved. Maize plant height

increased application with 10 t/ha farm yard manure

(Karki, et al., 2005).

CONCLUSION

Although the vermicompost and Azotobacter were not

able to provide all the nutritional requirements for

Maize but the results indicated that the use of 6 ton/

ha vermicompost and Azotobacter in soil, 50% of the

maize fertilizer supplied and that means a 50% reduc-

tion in the consumption of chemical fertilizers and less

pollution of the soil and the environment. On the other

hand, the results showed that under de cient irrigation

vermicompost and Azotobacter increased grain yield. As

a general conclusion these results suggested that inte-

grating organic sources with 50% of recommended NPK

fertilizers are appropriate for sustainable crop produc-

tion in normal and de cient irrigation.

REFERENCES

Alnoaim AA, Hamad SH.(2004). Effect of bio-fertilization

along with different levels of nitrogen fertilizerapplication on

Table 11. Effects of chemical fertilizer and vermicompost on plant height

De cient Irrigation Normal Irrigation

Vermicompost

(ton/ha)

Chemical Fertilizers

02460246

No Fertilizer 147.1 164.6 168 171 201.9 208.9 213.8 219.3

50% Recommendation 158.2 167.3 168.5 174.5 216.5 220.6 229.1 235.5

100% Recommendation 162.1 175.2 175.1 177.5 230.7 231 236 237.4

Table 12. Effects of Azotobacter and vermicompost on plant height

Azotobacter

InoculationNon-inoculation

64206420

Vermicompost

(ton/ha)

Irrigation

174.2172.6171.4156.8171.5170.5166.7154.9Normal 100%

229.1224.8219.1218232.3227.8221.2214.7De cient 65%

Nasrolahzadeh, Shirkhani and Salmasi

228 AGRONOMIC RESPONSES OF MAIZE TO DEFICIT AND ADEQUATE IRRIGATION BIOSCIENCE BIOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS

the growth and grain yield of hassawi rice (Oryza sativa L.).

Basic and Applied Sci. 5:215-225.

Arancon, N., Edwards, C., Bierman, P, Metzger, J., and Chad

Lucht. (2005). Effects of vermicomposts produced from cattle

manure, food waste and paper waste on the growth and yield

of peppers in the  eld. Pedobiologia 49 297—306.

Baral, B and Parbati Adhikari.(2013). Effect of Azotobacter on

growth and yield of Maize. SAARC J. Agri., 11(2): 141-147.

Beigzade, m., Maleki, A., Ataollah Siaddat, S. Malek, M.(2013).

Effect of combined application of phosphate fertilizers and

phosphate solubilizing bacteria on yield and yield components

of maize single cross 704. International Journal of Agriculture

and Crop Sciences. Vol., 6 (17), 1179-1185

Cheema,M, Farhad, W., Saleem,M., Khan,H., Munir, A.,

Wahid,M., Rasul,F., and H. M.Hammad.( 2010). Nitrogen man-

agement strategies for sustainable maize production. Crop

Environ.,1: 49-52. Crop Prod., vol. 2, pp. 23-27.

Dagdelen, N., E. Yılmaz, F. Sezgin and T. Gurbuz.(2006). Water-

yield relation and water use ef ciency ofcotton and second

crop Maize in western Turkey. Agric. Water Management 82(1-

2): 63-85.

Dobbelaere, S., A. Croonenborghs, A. Thys, D. Ptacek, J. Van-

derleyden, P. Dutto, C. Labandera Gonzalez, J. Caballero-Mel-

lado, F. Aguirre, Y. Kapulnik, S. Brener, S. Burdman.(2001).

Response of agronomically important crops to inoculation

with Azospirillum. Austuralian J. Plant Physiol., 28: 871-879.

DOI:10.1071/PP01074

El-Afry, M., El-Nady, M. and E. B. Abdelmonteleb. (2012). Ana-

tomical studies on drought stressed wheat plants treated with

some bacterial strains. Acta Biologica Szegediensis. Volume

56(2):165-174.

El-Kholy, M.A., S. El-Ashry and A.M. Gomaa.(2005). Biofertili-

zation of maize crop and its impact onyield and grains nutrient

content under low rates of mineral fertilizers. J. Applied Sci-

ence Res.,1(2): 117-121.

Fanuel,L., and G. Gifole.( 2012). Response of maize (Zea mays

L.) to integrated fertilizer application inwolaita. South Ethiopia

Advances in Life Science and Technology. ISSN 2224-7181,

vol. 5. Available: www.iiste.org.

Gholipoor,M., A. Karamzadeh, A. and Gholami, A.(2014). Ver-

micompost as a soil supplement to relieve the effects of low

intensity drought stress on chick pea yield ICHS Acta Horti-

culturae 1018: I International Symposium on Organic Matter

Management and Compost Use in Horticulture.DOI 7660/Acta-

Hortic.2014.1018.22

Gopinath KA, Saha S, Mina BL, Pande H, Kundu S and Gupta

HS.( 2008). In uence of organic amendments on growth,

yield and quality of wheat and on soil properties during

transition to organic production. Nutr Cycl Agroecosys 82:

51-60.

Gardner FP, Pearce RB and Mitchell RL (1985). Physiology of

Crop Plants (Iowa State Univ. Press) Ames, Iowa..

Hlavinka, P., Trnka, M., Semeradovaa, D., Dubrovsky, M.,

Zalud, Z. and Mozny, M. (2009). Effect of drought on yield

variability of key crops in Czech Republic. Agric. Forest Mete-

orology 149:431-442.

Hudson, B.D (1994). Soil organic matter and available water

capacity. J. Soil Wat. Con., 49(2):189-194.

Jacoud, C, Job, D, Wadoux, P, Bally, R (1999) Initiation of root

growth stimulation by Azospirillum lipoferum CRT1 during

maize seed germination. Can J Microbiol 45: 339–342

Jabasingh, C and S. Saravana Babu. (2014). Impact of Water

Stress on Protein Content of Zea mays L. Journal of Academia

and Industrial Research (JAIR). Volume 2, Issue 12 May 2014.

Johnson G.A., Qian Y.L., Davis J.G. (2009): Topdressing Ken-

tucky bluegrass with compost increases soil water content and

improves turf quality during drought. Compost Science and

Utilization, 17: 95–102.

Kalhapure, A., B.T. Shete, B. and M.B. Dhonde. (2013). Inte-

grated Nutrient Management in Maize (Zea mays L.) for

Increasing Production with Sustainability. International Jour-

nal of Agriculture and Food Science Technology. ISSN 2249-

3050, Volume 4, Number 3 (2013), pp. 195-206.

Kannan,R., Dhivya,M., Abinaya,D., Lekshmi Krishna,R., and S.

Krishnakumar, Effect of integrated nutrient management on

soil fertility and productivity jn maize, Bull. Env. Pharmacol.

Life Sci., vol. 2, pp. 61-67, 2013.

Karam, F., J. Breidy, C. Stephan and J. Rouphael. (2003). Evap-

otranspiration, yield and water use ef ciency of drip irrigated

Maize in the Bekaa Valley of Lebanon. Agric. Water Manage-

ment 63(2): 125-137.

Karki, T.B., Kumar, A. and Gautam, R.C. (2005).In uence of

Integrated Nutrient Management on Growth, Yield, Content

and Uptake of Nutrients and Soil Fertility Status in Maize (Zea

mays). Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 75 (10): 682-5.

Kemal, and Merkuz Abera.(2015). Contribution of integrated

nutrient managment practices for sustainable crop productiv-

ity, nutrient uptake and soil nutrient status in maize based

cropping systems. Journal of Nutrients, 2015, 2(1):1-10.home-

page: http://www.pakinsight.com/?ic=journal&journal=87

Kmetova, M and Kováˇ

ik, P.(2014). The impact of vermicom-

post application on the yield parameters of maize (Zea mays

L.) observed in selected phenological growth stages (BBCH-

SCALE). Acta fytotechn. zootechn., 17, 2014(4): 100–108. DOI:

10.15414/afz.2014.17.04.100–108

Li WJ, Ni YZ .(1996). Researches on application of microbial

inoculants in crop production. Researches and application of

En technology, Agriculture University Press, Beijing, China,

pp: 42-84.

Mehnaz, S and Lazarovits, G.(2006). Inoculation Effects of

Pseudomonas putida, Gluconacetobacter azotocaptans, and

Azospirillum lipoferum on Maize Plant Growth Under Green-

house Conditions. Volume 51, 326–335. DOI: 10.1007/s00248-

006-9039-7

Moser, S. B., Feil, B., Jampatong, S. and Stamp, P.(2006).

Effects of pre- anthesis drought, nitrogen fertilizer rate, and

variety on grain yield, yield components, and harvest index of

tropical maize. Agric. Water Management 81:41-58.

Nasrolahzadeh, Shirkhani and Salmasi

BIOSCIENCE BIOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS AGRONOMIC RESPONSES OF MAIZE TO DEFICIT AND ADEQUATE IRRIGATION 229

Mudenoor, M. G., Geete, Goudar and Savalgi, V. P.(2007).

Response of maize (Zea mays) to seed treatment of micronu-

trients supplemental Azospirillum biofertiilizer. International

Journal of Plant Science. 2:197-201.

Mujeeb, F., Rahmatullah, J., Akhtar and Ahmad, R. (2010).

Integration of organic and inorganic P sources for improv-

ing P use ef ciency in different soils. Soil and Environment,

29:122-127.

Nagananda GS, Bhattacharya Das AS, Kalpana T.(2010). In

vitro studies on the effects of bio fertilizers (Azotobacter and

Rhizobium) on seed germination and development of Trigo-

nella foenum-graecum L. using a Novel glass marable contain-

ing liquid medium. International journal of botany 6 (4): 394-

403.

Nguyen, T., Fuentes, S. and Marschner, P. (2012). Effects of

compost on water availability and gas exchangein tomato dur-

ing drought and recovery. Plant Soil Environ., 58, 2012 (11):

495–502

O’Neill, P., Shanahan, J., Schepers, Jand Bob Caldwell.(2004).

Agronomic Responses of Maize Hybrids from Different Eras to

De cit and Adequate Levels of Water and Nitrogen. Agron. J.

96:1660–1667. Doi:10.2134/agronj2004.1660–1667.

Pandey, R.K., J.W. Maranville and A. Admou.(2000). De cit

irrigation and nitrogen effects on maize in a Sahelian environ-

ment I. Grain yield and yield components. Agric. Water Man-

agement 46: 1-13.

Ramasamy, P., Baskar, K. and S. Ignacimuthu. (2011). In uence

of vermicompost on kernel yield of Maize (Zea mays L.). Elixir

Agriculture 36 : 3119-3121.

Reicosky, D.C.( 2005). Alternatives to mitigate the greenhouse

effect: emission control by carbon sequestration. In: Simpósio

sobre Plantio direto e Meio ambiente; Sequ¨ estro de carbono

equalidade da agua, pp. 20-28.. Anais. Foz do Iguaçu, 18–20

de Maio 2005.

Sarwar, G., Schmeisky, H., Hussain, N., Muhammad, S., Ibra-

him, M. and Safdar, E. 2008.Improvmentof soil physical and

chemical properties with compost application in Rice-wheat

cropping system. Pak. J. Bot., 40(1): 275-282.

Stone P.J., D.R. Wilson, P.D. Jamieson and R.N. Gillespie.

(2001). Water de cit effects on sweet Maize. II. Canopy devel-

opment. Aust.J.Agric. Res. 52: 115-126.

Tahir, M., Ayub, M., Javeed, H.M.R., Naeem, M., Rehman, H.,

Waseem, M. and Ali, M. (2011). Effect of different organic mat-

ter on growth ad yield of wheat (Triticum aestivum L). Pakistan

Journal of life and Social Sciences, 9: 63-66.

Taleshi, |K. and , Osoli, N. (2015). In uence of Drought Stress,

Vermicompost and N Fertilizer on Saf ower Leaves Antioxi-

dant Enzymes Activity. International Conference on Chemical,

Agricultural and Biological Sciences (CABS-2015) Sept. 4-5,

2015 Istanbul (Turkey). http://dx.doi.org/10.17758/ERPUB.

ER915042

Tollenaar, M. and Lee, E.A. (2011). Strategies for enhancing

grain yield in maize. Pl. Breed. Rev. 34: 37-81.

Vessey, JK (2003) Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria as

biofertilizers. Plant Soil 255: 571–586.

Veysel, S., A. Kusvuranand S. Babat. (2011). The effect of dif-

ferent humic acid fertilization on yield and yield components

performances of common millet (Panicummi liaceum L.). Sci-

enti c Research and Essays Vol. 6, pp. 663-669.

Yazdani, M., M. A. Bahmanyar, H. Pirdashti and M. A. Esmaili.

(2009). Effect of Phosphate Solubilization Microorganisms

(PSM) and Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria (PGPR) on

Yield and Yield Components of Maize (Zea mays L.). Int.J.Biolo.

Life Sci., 5:2 2009.