Section 3 (Crop Management)

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Seed priming with maize Results RBD trials Yields were significantly higher from crops in which seeds had been primed in water for 16 or 18 hours in 11 of the trials (Table 1). In the remaining three trials there was no significant difference due to priming. Priming was effective during four different years and over a wide range of production environments (non-primed yields ranged from 1.1 t ha -1 to 6.3 t ha -1 ), including both rainfed and irrigated conditions and on salt-affected soils. All five maize genotypes that were tested responded positively to priming. Where priming was effective (i.e., in 11 trials), the extra grain produced varied from around 0.3 t ha -1 to about 1.4 t ha -1 and represented increases ranging from 17% to 76%. In the three remaining trials, priming had no negative effects on yield. In the two trials that investigated the effect of duration of priming (Table 1), grain yield was proportional to priming time between 0 and 16 hours (Tables 2 and 3) but declined after priming for 20 hours (Table 3). This confirmed that, for Pakistan conditions, the best duration for soaking maize seeds was 16 hours. FAMPAR trials Primed crops outyielded non-primed crops in all 32 trials (Fig. 1). Yield increases due to priming were 40% in 1999, 57% in 2000 and 20% in 2001, with an overall mean of 40%. Discussion ‘On-farm’ seed priming was effective in raising maize grain yields of a range of varieties grown in diverse production environments and years in Pakistan. These findings agree with earlier results for maize from India and Zimbabwe (Harris et al., 1999; 2001a; 2002) and for other important tropical and subtropical crops, e.g. chickpea in India and Bangladesh (Harris et al., 1999; Musa et al., 1999; 2001), wheat in India, Nepal and Pakistan (Harris et al., 2001b) and upland rice in India (Harris et al., 2000). For maize, the optimum duration for priming appears to be 16-18 hours. Farmers growing trials in Zimbabwe soaked seed for only 12 hours, for practical reasons, and increased yields by an average of 14% over two years (Harris et al., 2002). However, earlier research indicated that a longer period of soaking would be more effective. Harris et al. (1999) determined that the safe limit for priming maize – the maximum length of time for which seeds can be soaked and which, if exceeded, could lead to seed or seedling damage – was 24 hours. Farmers in India reduced the priming time for maize to 12 hours, largely for practical purposes, and still gained from the practice (Harris et al., 1999; 2001a). The data from Pakistan presented here (Tables 1-3 and Figs. 1 and 2) strongly suggest that 16-18 hours should be the recommended priming time for maize. Recent in vitro work has shown that, for at least some cultivars of maize, priming for 18 hours followed by drying for about two hours (rather than simply surface-drying) gives an enhanced germination response, presumably as a result of more aerobic conditions in the seed (Lawrence Clark, Silsoe Research Institute, UK, pers. comm.). On the evidence presented here, priming maize works most of the time and for most varieties. Harris et al. (2002) reported a positive germination response to priming for 17 out of 18 maize varieties tested. The time taken for 50% of seeds to germinate without priming ranged from less than 40 hours to more than 70 hours. For the varieties that responded positively to priming, the treatment reduced the range of germination times to between 20 and 40 hours. Final germination of all seed lots was not significantly affected by priming. - 318 -
Harris et al. In Pakistan, priming gave statistically significant grain yield increases in 11 (79%) of the trials. In the remaining 3 (21%) trials, priming was associated with a large, but non-significant, yield increase and two other instances where small positive yield differences were not significant. Priming was either better than not priming or was the same: it was never worse. This is a pattern encountered in other crops (see, for instance, Musa et al., 2001 for chickpea and Harris et al., 2001b for wheat) and, since priming is very low cost, it should be very attractive for farmers to prime their seed as a form of insurance. In the participatory, on-farm, trials all of the paired plot comparisons gave positive results: priming increased yield in all 32 trials (Figs. 1 and 2). In these FAMPAR trials series, the average response is due to priming whereas the result of individual trials may be affected by other, unknown, factors. If farmers only viewed their own plots this might be a problem from the point of view of dissemination and promotion, but our approach emphasises group evaluation of trials so that farmers can achieve a consensus view of the technology. This is important and is a factor in the rapid and sustained uptake of seed priming after exposure during participatory exercises such as those described here. Benefits due to priming extend beyond immediate yield increases in some circumstances. Harris et al. (2001a) listed farming-system-related effects of priming that were identified by farmers in India. Musa et al. (2001) concluded that seed priming in Bangladesh was the path-breaking technology that allowed chickpea to be grown profitably as a second crop after rice as an alternative to leaving the land fallow. There is a great deal of evidence that seed priming is an attractive ‘key’ technology – low cost and low risk – that is easily adopted by farmers. Acknowledgements The authors gratefully acknowledge the contributions made by support staff and farmers in Pakistan. This paper is an output from projects R7438 and R7189 funded by the UK Department for International Development through the Plant Sciences Research Programme. The views expressed are not necessarily those of DFID. Literature Cited Harris, D., Joshi, A., Khan, P.A., Gothkar, P. and Sodhi, P.S. 1999. On-farm seed priming in semi-arid agriculture: development and evaluation in maize, rice and chickpea in India using participatory methods. Experimental Agriculture 35: 15-29. Harris, D., Tripathi, R.S. and Joshi, A. 2000. ‘On-farm’ seed priming to improve crop establishment and yield in direct-seeded rice. Paper presented at the International Workshop on Dry-Seeded Rice Technology, held 25-28 January, Bangkok, IRRI. Harris, D., Pathan, A. K., Gothkar, P., Joshi, A., Chivasa, W. and Nyamudeza, P. 2001a. On-farm seed priming: using participatory methods to revive and refine a key technology. Agricultural Systems 69 (1-2): 151-164 Harris, D., Raghuwanshi, B.S., Gangwar, J.S., Singh, S.C., Joshi, K.D., Rashid, A. and Hollington, P.A. 2001b. Participatory evaluation by farmers of ‘on-farm’ seed priming in wheat in India, Nepal and Pakistan. Experimental Agriculture 37 (3): 403-415. Harris, D., Rashid, A., Hollington, P.A., Jasi, L. and Riches, C. (2002). Prospects of improving maize yields with ‘on-farm’ seed priming. Pp 180-185 in: N.P. Rajbhandari, J.K. Ransom, K. Adikhari and A.F.E. Palmer (eds) ‘Sustainable Maize Production Systems for Nepal’: Proceedings of a Maize Symposium held, December 3-5, 2001, Kathmandu, Nepal. Kathmandu: NARC and CIMMYT. Musa, A. M., Harris, D., Johansen, C. and Kumar J. 2001. Short duration chickpea to replace fallow after aman rice: the role of on-farm seed priming in the High Barind Tract of Bangladesh. Experimental Agriculture 37 (4): - 319 -
Page 1 and 2:
Section 3: Crop Management - 203 -
Page 3 and 4:
Proceedings of the 8 th Asian Regio
Page 5 and 6:
Maize in the rice-wheat rotation gr
Page 7 and 8:
Maize in the rice-wheat rotation Av
Page 9 and 10:
Maize in the rice-wheat rotation RW
Page 11 and 12:
Maize in the rice-wheat rotation Ta
Page 13 and 14:
Rajbhandari Extensively cited data
Page 15 and 16:
Rajbhandari There was a linear resp
Page 17 and 18:
Rajbhandari sole crop soybean was m
Page 19 and 20:
Table 3. Sample means for phosphoru
Page 21 and 22:
Rajbhandari Table 5. P use efficien
Page 23 and 24:
Appendix 1 a. Combined analysis of
Page 25 and 26:
Rajbhandari Appendix 2a. Combined a
Page 27 and 28:
Rajbhandari Appendix 2b. Combined a
Page 29 and 30:
Proceedings of 8 th Asian Regional
Page 31 and 32:
Soil fertility in the hills of Nepa
Page 33 and 34:
Soil fertility in the hills of Nepa
Page 35 and 36:
Experimental Findings (Based on sta
Page 37 and 38:
Quayyum treatment T2 i.e., maize no
Page 39 and 40:
Table 1. Yield and yield components
Page 41 and 42:
Table 5. Effect of different fertil
Page 43 and 44:
Table 8. Cost & return analyses of
Page 45 and 46:
Table 13. Cost-benefit analysis of
Page 47 and 48:
Proceedings of 8 th Asian Regional
Page 49 and 50:
Maize-wheat systems measured under
Page 51 and 52:
Literature Cited Maize-wheat system
Page 53 and 54:
Table 2. Growth and yield attributi
Page 55 and 56:
Maize-wheat systems Table 4. Balanc
Page 57 and 58:
grain yield and eff. tillers grain
Page 59 and 60:
Proceedings of the 8 th Asian Regio
Page 61 and 62:
Results and Discussion Maize in eas
Page 63 and 64:
Maize in eastern hills of Nepal Tab
Page 65 and 66: Yield kg/ha 7000 6000 5000 4000 300
Page 67 and 68: Maize in eastern hills of Nepal App
Page 69 and 70: Pokharel et al. backgrounds, we hav
Page 71 and 72: Proceedings of the 8 th Asian Regio
Page 73 and 74: Results and Discussion N-requiremen
Page 75 and 76: Rainfall (mm) 800 700 600 500 400 3
Page 77 and 78: N-requirement in maize/millet relay
Page 79 and 80: Appendix I. Weather Information rec
Page 81 and 82: Tripathi It is necessary to manage
Page 83 and 84: Results and Discussion Tripathi Mai
Page 85 and 86: Literature Cited Tripathi App (Nepa
Page 87 and 88: Table 4. Treatment combinations and
Page 89 and 90: Table 6. Grain yield of maize (t/ha
Page 91 and 92: Maize grain (t/ha) 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Page 93 and 94: Maize grain (t/ha) 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3
Page 95 and 96: Labios et al. surface is left undis
Page 97 and 98: Labios et al. Figures 3 and 4 showe
Page 99 and 100: Labios et al. Labios R.V.; Robles,
Page 101 and 102: Figure 1. Farmers planting corn usi
Page 103 and 104: Figure 5a. Status of the field at p
Page 105 and 106: Proceedings of the 8 th Asian Regio
Page 107 and 108: Maize-rice rotation in Thailand On-
Page 109 and 110: Maize-rice rotation in Thailand Fro
Page 111 and 112: Maize-rice rotation in Thailand Tab
Page 113 and 114: Maize-rice rotation in Thailand Tab
Page 115: Harris et al. humid, sub-tropical c
Page 119 and 120: Table 2. Effect of priming duration
show all

Section 3 (Crop Management)

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?