Impacts of Drought Stress and Planting Methods on Sweet Corn Yield and Water Use Efficiency

Document Type : Research Paper

Abstract

Abstract
Seasonal drought is the most important factor to limit the production of maize in the world. Using a split plot design, a two year field experiment was conducted to determine the effect of limited irrigation regime on yield, yield components and water use efficiency of sweet corn (Zea mays var. saccharata). Responses of three sweet corn varieties KSC403, Merit and Obsession to three different water regimes were studied under two planting methods (raised bed and furrow planting). The three water levels (I1: 100%, I2: 80%, I3: 60%) of the estimated crop evapotranspiration (ETc)) were arranged as main plots. Combination of the two planting methods and three sweet corn varieties were arranged in subplots. The evaluated traits were significantly affected by varieties (p<0.01).  The highest ear length and diameter and biomass belonged to Merit. Fresh ear weight was significantly affected by the interaction of variety and irrigation level. The highest (19.7 ton/ha) and lowest (7.4 ton/ha) yields (fresh ear weight) belonged to Merit at 100% and KSC403 and obsession at 60% irrigation level, respectively. There was no difference between planting methods with respect to the measured traits. Results showed that limited irrigation significantly decreased kernel number per row by increasing the anthesis-silking interval, which decreased grain yield. Biomass decreased by decrement of water amount.  The reduction in fresh ear yield and biomass decreased water use efficiency (WUE), but there was no significant difference between I1 and I2 irrigation levels for WUE.
 

Keywords

Article Title [Persian]

اثرات اعمال خشکی و روش کشت بر عملکرد و کارایی مصرف آب ذرت شیرین

Abstract [Persian]

چکیده
خشکی فصلی یکی از عوامل مهم محدود کننده رشد و تولید ذرت در جهان است. آزمایشی دو ساله به منظور بررسی اثرات کم آبیاری بر عملکرد، اجزای عملکرد و کارایی مصرف آب ذرت شیرین (Zea mays L. var. saccharata)، اجرا شد. این آزمایش به صورت فاکتوریل اسپلیت پلات در قالب طرح بلوک­های کامل تصادفی در چهار تکرار انجام شد. کرت­های اصلی به سه رقم KSC403، مریت و آبسیژن تعلق گرفت. سطوح مختلف آبیاری  (تامین 100، 80 و 60 درصد ETc) و روش کاشت (روش پشته و کف جوی) به کرت­های فرعی تعلق گرفت. در بین ارقام مختلف از نظر صفات مورد مطالعه تفاوت معنی دار مشاهده شد (p<0.01). بیشترین طول و قطر بلال و حداکثر زیست توده مربوط به رقم مریت بود. اثر متقابل سطح آبیاری و روش کاشت بر  وزن بلال تر معنی دار بود (p<0.01). حداکثر و حداقل عملکرد بلال تازه با میانگین 7/19 تن در هکتار و 4/7 تن در هکتار، به ترتیب مربوط به رقم مریت در سطح آبیاری 100% ETc و ارقام KSC403 و آبسیژن در سطح آبیاری 60% ETc بود. اثر روش کاشت بر صفات مورد مطالعه معنی دار نبود. نتایج نشان داد که افزایش طول دوره  ASI(فاصله بین ظهور رشته­های ابریشمی و گل تاجی) در پاسخ به کمبود آب، سبب کاهش تعداد دانه در ردیف و در نهایت کاهش عملکرد دانه می­شود. وزن زیست توده با کاهش مقدار آب مصرفی کاهش یافت. کاهش عملکرد بلال تازه توام با کاهش عملکرد زیست توده سبب کاهش کارایی مصرف آب در ذرت شیرین گردید، اما بین کارایی مصرف آب در تیمارهای تامین 100 و 80 درصد نیاز آبی، تفاوت معنی داری مشاهده نشد.
 

Keywords [Persian]

  • رژیم آبیاری
  • کارایی مصرف آب
  • کشت روی پشته
  • کشت کف فارو

References

Arora S and Saradhi PP, 1995. Light induced enhancement in proline levels in Vignaradiata exposed to environmental stresses. Australian J Plant Physiol 22: 383-386.
Ashraf M, 1994a.Breeding for salinity tolerance in plants. Crit Rev Plant Sci 13: 17–42.
Ashraf M,1994b.Organic substances responsible for salt tolerance in Eruca sativa.Biol Plant 36: 255–259.
Bandehagh A, Hosseini Salekdeh Gh, Toorchi M, Mohammadi SA and Komatsu S,2011. Comparative proteomic analysis of canola leaves under salinity stress. Proteomics 11: 1965-1975.
Bandeh-hagh A, Toorchi M, Mohammadi SA, Chaparzadeh N, Hosseini Salekdeh Gh and Kazemnia H,2008.Growth and osmotic adjustment of canola genotypes in response to salinity. J Food Agric Environ 6: 201-208.
Bates LS, Waldren RP and Teare ID, 1973.Rapid determination of free proline for water-stress studies. Plant Soil 39: 205–207.
Bhattacharjee S and Mukherjee AK,1994. Influence of cadmium and lead on physiological and biochemical responses of Vigna unguiculata (L.)Walp seedling. I. Germination behaviour, total protein, proline content and protease activity. Pollut Res 13: 269-277.
Bohnert HJ and Jensen RG,1996.Strategies for engineering water-stress tolerance in plants.Trends Biotechnol 14: 89–97.
Charest C and Phan CT,1990. Cold acclimation of wheat (Triticumaestivum): properties of enzymes involved in proline metabolism. PhysiolPlantarum 80: 159–168.
Costa G and Morel JL,1994. Water relations, gas exchange and amino acid content in Cd-treated lettuce. Plant Physiol Bioch 32: 561–570.
De B and Mukherjee AK,1998. Mercury induced metabolic changes in seedlings and cultured cells of tomato. Geobios 23: 83-88.
Dietz KJ, Baier M and Kramer U,1999.Free radicals and reactive oxygen species as mediators of heavy metal toxicity in plants.In: Prasad MNV and Hagemeyer J (Eds). Heavy Metal Stress in Plants: from Molecules to Ecosystems.Pp73–97.Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Dushenkov V, Kumar PBAN, Motto H andRaskin I,1995.Rhizofiltration: the use of plants to remove heavy metals from aqueous streams. Environ Sci Technol 29: 1239-1245.
Farago ME and Mullen WA,1979.Plants which accumulate metals. IV. A possible copper-proline complex from roots of Armeriamaritima. Inorg. ChemActa 32: 193-194.
God bold DL and Kettner C,1991.Lead influences root growth and mineral nutrition of Piceaabies seedlings. J Plant Physiol 139: 95-99.
Greenway H and Munns R,1980.Mechanism of salt tolerance in non halophytes. Annu Rev Plant Physiol 31: 149–190.
Hall JL,2002.Cellular mechanisms for heavy metal detoxification and tolerance. J Exp Bot 53: 1–11.
Handique GK and Handique AK,2009. Proline accumulation in lemongrass (Cymbopogon flexuosus Stapf.) due to heavy metal stress. J Environ Biol 30: 299-302.
Kumar N, Dushenkov PBA, Motto H and Raskin I,1995.Phytoextraction: the use of plants to remove heavy metals from soils. Environ Sci Technol 29: 1232-1238.
Kuzenetsov VV and Shevyakovan  I,1997. Stress responses of tobacco cells to high temperature and salinity. Proline accumulation and phosphorylation of polypeptides. Physiol Plantarum 100: 320–326.
Mansour MMF ,2000. Nitrogen containing compounds and adaptation of plants to salinity stress. Biol Plant 43: 491–500.
Nedel-KoskaTV and Doran PM,2000.Characteristics of heavy metal uptake by plants species with potential for phytoremediation and phytomining. Minerals Engineering 13:  549–561.
Nikolopoulos D and Manetas Y,1991. Compatible solute and in vitro stability of Salsola soda enzymes: proline incompatibility. Phytochemistry 30: 411–413.
Rhodes D and Hanson AD,1993. Quaternary ammonium and tertiary sulfonium compounds in higher plants. Ann Rev Plant Physiol Plant Mol Biol 44: 375–384.
Salt DE, Blaylock M, Kumar NPA, Dushenkov V, Ensley BD, Chet I andRaskin I,1995. Phytoremediation – A novel strategy for removal of toxic metals from environtment with plants. Biotechnology 13: 468-474.
Salt DE, Pickering IJ, Prince RC, Gleba D, Dushenkov S, Smith RD and Raskin I,1997.Metal accumulation by aquacultured seedlings of Indian mustard. Environ Sci Technol 31: 1636-1644.
Saradhi A and Saradhi PP,1991.Proline accumulation under heavy metal stress. J Plant Physiol 138: 554-558.
Schat H, Sharma SS and Vooijs R,1997.Heavy metal-induced accumulation of free proline in a metal-tolerant and non-tolerant ecotype of Silene vulgaris. Physiol Plantarum 101: 477–482.
Serraj R and Sinclair TR,2002.Osmolyte accumulation: can it really help increase crop yield under drought conditions? Plant Cell Environ 25: 333–341.
Steffens JC,1994. The heavy metal-binding peptide of plants. Ann Rev Plant Physiol Plant Mol Biol 41:553-575.
Journal of Plant Physiology and Breeding
Volume 3, Issue 2 - Serial Number 2
December 2013
Pages 23-31

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics