1436-1439 - International Journal of Agriculture and Crop Sciences ...

International Journal of Agriculture and Crop Sciences.
Available online at www.ijagcs.com
IJACS/2012/4-19/1436-1439
ISSN 2227-670X ©2012 IJACS Journal
Evaluation of Drought Stress Effects on Yield
Components and Seed Yield of Three Maize
Cultivars (Zea mays L.) in Isfahan region
Hesamoddin Mohammadai 1 , Ali Soleymani 1* ,Majid Shams 1
1. Department of Agronomy and Plant Breeding, Khorasgan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Esfahan, Iran
* Corresponding author email: a_soleymani@khuisf.ac.ir
ABSTRACT: In order to evaluation of drought stress effects on yield components and seed yield of
three maize cultivars, an experiment was conducted in 2010-2011 in a research farm of farming
building of Islamic Azad University Khorasgan (Isfahan) Branch located in Khatun abad village
(latitude 32 o /40' N and Longitude 51 o /48' E). A split plot layout within randomized complete block
design with 3 replications was used. Main plot were irrigation treatmens Including: 70 (for control), 90
(moderate water stress), 110 and 130 mm (severe water stress) from evaporation pan evaporation
class A, and sub plots were cultivars (Sc 704 , Sc 604 and Sc 301). Condition represented the
effects of irrigation treatment was significant on number of seeds per row ,1000 seed weight, seed
yield, biological yield and harvest index. Control treatment resulted the maximum of all mentioned
factors. Effect of cultivar was significant on number of rows in ear, number of seeds per row, 1000
seed weight, seed yield, biological yield and harvest index. The maximum of all mentioned factors
related to Sc704 cultivar. Interaction of irrigation and cultivar was significant on number of seed per
row, seed yield and biological yield. On the basis of the results obtained, the 70mm treatment and
Sc704 cultivar might be suitable for maize productive under the condition similar to the present
study.
key words: Maize, Drought stress, Cultivar, Seed yield.
INTRODUCTION
Drought stress is one of the most important environ-mental factors in reduction of growth, development
and production of plants. It can be said that it is one of the most devastating environmental stresses. Iran, with
an annual rainfall of 240 mm, is classified as one of those dry regions (Jajarmi, 2009). According to
geographical location and topographic conditions, Iran has always been faced with drought over the last
centuries, about 10 percent of the Iran’s areas have more than 500 mm of rainfall over the years and the rest
have to be watered for the plants growth (Mazaheri and Mjnoun-hosseini, 2005). According to Hayat and Ali
(2004), Moisture stress is a limiting factor for crop growth in arid and semi-arid regions due to low and
uncertainty precipitation. Water stress due to drought is probably the most significant abiotic factor limiting plant
and also crop growth and development (Hartmann et al., 2005). Maize (Zea mays L.) is one of most important
crop that plays a great role in human nutrition (20-25%)(Emam, 2004). Water shortage is a critical problem
limiting maize growth through impact on anatomical, morphological, physiological and biochemical processes.
The severity of drought damage depends on stress duration and crop growth stage (Setter et al., 2001).
Drought occurs when moisture around the roots is so reduced that a plant is not able to absorb enough water,
or in other words with transpiration of water absorption (Benjamin, 2007). Drought stress is physiologically
related, because induced osmotic stress and most of the metabolic responses of the affected plants are similar
to some extent (Djibril et al., 2005). In a study on corn and sorghum grain, under drought stress conditions it
was shown that high levels of nitrate lowered grain quality (McWilliams, 2001).
Under drought stress, a plant’s ability to absorb and transfer materials is disturbed which affects the
access to food (Lauer, 2003). At present, there is no method for increasing atmospheric precipitation during
drought periods. Therefore, the best way for counteracting drought is to use suitable cultivation operations and
drought-tolerant cultivars (Rahba and Uprety, 1998). A study was therefore carried out to investigate the effects
of drought stress on yield and yield components of three maize cultivars in isfahan region.

Intl J Agri Crop Sci. Vol., 4 (19), 1436-1439, 2012
MATERIALS AND METHODS
An experiment was conducted on the basis of split plot layout with completely randomized block design
with 3 replications. Main plot were irrigation treatmens Including: 70 (for control), 90 (moderate water stress),
110 and 130 mm (severe water stress) from evaporation pan evaporation class A, and sub plots were cultivars
(Sc 704 , Sc 604 and Sc 301). This research was conducted in 2010-2011, at research farm of farming building
of Islamic Azad University Khorasgan (Isfahan) Branch located in Khatun abad village (latitude 32 o /40' N and
Longitude 51 o /48' E). Soil texture was silty clay. Long term average precipitation was 120 mm.The soil
preparation consisted of mouldboard ploughing (25-30 cm) followed by discing and smoothing with a land
leveler. On the basis of soil analysis, 120 kg ha -1 from triple superphosphate and 100 kg ha -1 KSo4, in planting
time were used. Nitrogen as urea (46.6% N) was applied equivalent 300 kg ha -1 . It was added into three equal
portions, the first part was applied in planting time and the second part was applied in 2-4 leaf stage, and third
part in 6 leaf stage. Other normal agronomic practices for maize production were followed. In each plot, 4 lines
were used, the planting lines number 1 and 4 and also 0.5 meter from start and end of lines were omitted and
the length of each line was 5 meter. Number of rows in ear, number of seeds per row, 1000 seed weight (g),
seed yield (kg ha -1 ), biological yield (kg ha -1 ) and harvest index (%),was measured. Mstat-C software and mean
comparison with Duncan , s test in 5% probability was used.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Irrigation treatment had significant influence on number of seeds per row ,1000 seed weight, seed yield,
biological yield and harvest index (Table 1). Several studies have shown that seed yield and yield components
of maize, was markedly affected by irrigation treatments (Moser et al., 2006., Rivera-Hernandez et al., 2010
and Cakir., 2004). Effect of cultivar was significant on number of rows in ear, number of seeds per row, 1000
seed weight, seed yield, biological yield and harvest index (Table 1). Mostafavi et al. (2011), in a similar
experiment on effects of drought stress on Maize hybrids stated variety were significantly affected either on the
yield parameters.
No. of rows in ear (NRE)
The highest of NRE was achieved with control, but had no significant differences between other
treatments. The lowest NRE related to 130 mm levels of evaporation. Sc 704 cultivar has highest NRE but had
no significant differences with Sc 604. The lowest NRE related to Sc 301 (Table 2). Rivera-Hernandez et al.
(2010) reported that although significant differences were observed among irrigation treatments for a variable
number of rows per ear, this was the least affected by the rise in soil moisture tension. This suggests that the
number of rows per ear is more influenced by heredity factors than by crop management.
No. of seeds per row (NSR)
The highest of NSR was achieved with control, but had no significant differences with 90 mm. The
lowest NSR related to 130 mm levels of evaporation but had no significant differences with 110 mm. Sc 704
cultivar has highest NSR with significant differences from other cultivars and the lowest of NSR related to Sc
301 (Table 2). Moser et al. (2006) reported that pre-anthesis drought significantly reduced the number of kernel
per row.
Table 1. Analysis of variance for experimental characteristics.
S.O.V. d.f No. of No.of 1000seed Seed yield Biological yield HI
rows/ear seeds/row weight
Replication 2 13.19 5.91 128.15 245975.7 901920.52 55.46
* and ** Significant at P=0.05 and P=0.01 level, respectively in F-test.
**
Irrigation 3 7.80 161.28 * 15027.6 ** 48505490.6 ** 174742355.7 ** 16.88 **
Error (a) 6 3.36 13.107 508.23 162827.3 609368. 6 0.43
Cultivar 2 4.95 * 200.3 ** 1239.40 * 6046435.1 ** 13737452. 6 ** 28.39 **
Irrigation ×Cultivar 6 3.29 43.16 ** 657. 45 880885.9 * 2999682. 5 * 0.38
Error (b) 16 1.36 6.04 255.98 253981.6 1090150.5 3.87
1437

Intl J Agri Crop Sci. Vol., 4 (19), 1436-1439, 2012
Table 2. Mean comparison for No.of rows/ ear, No.of seeds per row, 1000-seed weight (g), seed yield (kg ha -1 ), biological
yield (kg ha -1 ), HI (%).
Treatment No. of No.of 1000-seed Seed yield Biological HI
Irrigation (mm) (I)
rows/ear seeds/row weight
yield
70 (I1) 17.73 a 28.58 a 368.27 a 8716.2 a 17349.3 a 50.21 a
90 (I2) 16.48 a 26.96 ab 325.48 b 8004.8 b 16206.4 b 49.28 b
110 (I3)
15.80
130 (I4)
a
15.72 a
23.05 bc
19.11 c
292.17 c
275.74 c
5027.3 c
3884.2 d
10379.0 c
8289.1 d
48.42 c
46.99 d
Cultivar (C)
Sc 704 (C1) 16.92 a 28.87 a 327.00 a 7020.1 a 13854.7 a 50.38 a
Sc 604 (C2) 16.67 ab 23.58 b 311.17 b 6572.5 b 13472.8 a 48.46 b
Sc 301 (C3) 15.70 b 20.83 c 308.05 b 5629.5 c 11840.3 b 47.34 b
Irrigation × Cultivar (I×C)
I 1C1 18.63 ab 38.80 a 370.9 a 9746.7 a 18790.8 a 51.87 a
I 1C2 19.17 a 25.77 cd 358.7 a 8644.6 bc 17400.7 abc 49.70 abc
I 1C3 15.43 c 21.23 de 375.3 a 7758.7 c 15860.5 cd 49.10 abcd
I 2C1 16.47 bc 31.23 b 347.9 ab 9086.0 ab 17930.7 ab 50.67 ab
I 2C2 16.93 bc 27.63 bc 305.7 cd 8168.1 c 16500.6 bc 49.43 abcd
I 2C3 16.10 c 21.97 de 322.8 bc 6761.7 d 14180.4 d 47.73 bcd
I 3C1 16.07 c 24.13 cd 300.3 cd 5554.5 e 11120.1 e 50.03 abc
I 3C2 15.37 c 23.03 cd 292. 6cd 5020.0 ef 10380.0 e 48.40 abcd
I 3C3
16.00
I 4C1
I 4C2
I 4C3
c
16.53 bc
15.30 c
15.37 c
22.07 de
21.30 de
17.93 e
18.13 e
283.7 d
289.0 d
287.7 d
250.5 e
4508.5 fg
3695.6 gh
4458.4 fg
3491.4 h
9638.6 e
7580.5 f
9610.6 e
7678.6 f
46.90 bcd
48.93 abcd
46.33 cd
45.70 d
Common letters within each column do not differ significantly.
1000 seed weight
The highest of 1000seed weight was achieved control and has significantly different from other
treatments, but the lowest of 1000seed weight related to 130 mm levels of evaporation. The results show that
the highest 1000seed weight was from Sc 704 cultivar and other cultivar had no significant differences together
(Table 2). Zenislimer et al., (1995) stated that the drought effect on number of grains per and 1000-grain
weight, grain yield was reduced.
Seed yield and biological yield
The highest of seed yield and biological yield was achieved in control , and had significantly different
from other treatments, but the lowest of this factors related to 130 mm levels of evaporation. The highest of
seed yield and biological yield was from Sc 704 cultivar and the lowet of them was from Sc 301 (Table 2).
Osborne et al. (2002) stated that water stress occurring prior to silking, decreased yield by 22.1 and
15.1% for the dry land (no additional irrigation except that needed to avoid complete crop loss) and 0.5 ET
irrigation treatments. Oktem (2008) reported that the relationships between fresh ear yields and the irrigation
treatments were statistically significant (P

Intl J Agri Crop Sci. Vol., 4 (19), 1436-1439, 2012
the maximum of all mentioned factors, was achieved in Sc 704 cultivar, that is consistent with Mostafavi et al.
(2011) result , s. Then, on the basis of the results obtained, this finding is in agreement with other reports
suggesting that the 70mm levels of evaporation treatment and Sc704 cultivar might be suitable for maize
productive under the condition similar to the present study.
REFERENCES
Benjamin, J. 2007. Effects of water stress on corn production. USDA Agricultural Research Service, Akron, pp: 3-5.
Cakir R .2004. Effect of water stress at different development stages on vegetative and reproductive growth of corn. Filed. Crops. Res., 89:
1-16.
Djibril S, Mohamed OK, Diaga D, Diégane D, Abaye BF, Maurice S, Alain B. 2005. Growth and development of date palm (Phoenix
dactylifera L.) seedlings under drought and salinity stresses. Afr. J. Biotechnol., 4(9): 968-972.
Du T, Kang S, Zhang J, Li F, Hu X. 2006. Yield and physiological responses of cotton to partial root-zone irrigation in the oasis field of
northwest China. Agricultural Water Management 84: 41-52.
Emam Y. 2004. Agronomy of cereal crops (2rd edn.).University of Shiraz Press, Shiraz, Iran.
Hartmann T, College M, Lumsden P. 2005. Responses of different varieties of Lolium perenne to salinity. Annual Conference of the Society
for Experimental Biology,Lancashire.
Hayat R, Ali S. 2004. Water absorption by synthetic polymer (Aquasorb) and its effect on soil properties and tomato yield. Int J Agric Biol. 6:
998–1002.
Jajarmi V. 2009. Effect of water stress on germination indices in seven wheat cultivar.World Acad. Sci. Eng. Technol., 49: 105-106.
Lauer, J. 2003. What happens within the corn plant when Drought occurse CornAgronomist, 10(22): 153-155.
Mazaheri D, Majnoun-Hosseini N. 2005. Fundamental of agronomy (4th ed). Tehran University Publication. (In Persian).
McWilliams, D. 2001. Drought strategies for corn and grain Sorghum. Extension agronomist, Department of Extension Plant Sciences, New
Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico.
Moser SB, Feil B, Jampatong S, Stamp P. 2006. Effect of pre-anthesis drought nitrogen fertilizer rate and variety on grain yield, yield
components and harvest index of tropical maize. Agric. Water Manage., 81: 41-58.
Mostafavi KH, Sadeghi Geive H, Dadresan M, Zarabi M. 2011. Effects of drought stress on germination indices of corn hybrids (Zea mays
L.). International J. Agric. Sci.,1 (2):10-18.
Oktem A. 2008. Effect of water shortage on yield and protein and mineral compositions of drip-irrigated sweet corn in sustainable
agricultural systems. Agric. Water Manage., 95:1003-1010.
Osborne SL, Schepers JS, Francis DD, Schlemer MR. 2002. Use of spectral radiance to estimate in-season biomass and grain yield in
nitrogen and water-stressed corn. Crop Sci., 42: 165-171.
Rahba, B. K., and D.C. Uprety. 1998. Effects of elevated CO2 and moisture stress on maize. Photosynthetica. 35(4):597-602.
Rivera-Hernandez B, Carrillo-Avila E, Obrador-Olan JJ, Juarez-Lopez JF, Aceves-Navarro LA. 2010. Morphological quality of sweet corn
(Zea mays L.) ears as response to soil moisture tension and phosphate fertilization in Campeche, Mexico. Agric. WaterManage.
97(9): 1365-1374.
Setter TL, Flannigan B, Melkonian J. 2001. Loss of kernel set due to water deficit and shade in maize. Crop Sci. 41:1530-1540.
Stone PJ, Wilson DR, Reid JB, Gillespie RN. 2001. Water deficit effects on sweet corn. . Water use, radiation use efficiency growth and
yield. Aust. J. Agr. Res., 52(1): 103-113.
Tang LS, li Y, Zhang J. 2005. Physiological and yield response of cotton under partial root zone irrigation. Field Crops Res. 94: 214-223.
Wakrim R, Wahbi S, Tahi H, Aganchich B, Serraj R. 2005. Comparative effects of partial root drying (PRD) and regulated deficit irrigation
(RDI) on water relations and water use efficiency in common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Agriculture, Ecosystems and
Environment. 106: 275–287.
Zinselmeier, C., M.J. Lauer and J.S. boyer. 1995a. Reversing drought-induced losses in grain yield: sucrose Maintains embryo growth in
maize. Crop Sci., 35: 1390-1400.
1439