Agricultural Water Management 55 (2002) 85±91

Soil±plant water status and yield of sweet corn

(Zea mays L. cv. Saccharata) as in¯uenced
by drip irrigation and planting methods
G.B. Viswanatha, B.K. Ramachandrappa*, H.V. Nanjappa
Department of Agronomy, University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore 560065, Karnataka, India
Accepted 28 November 2001

Abstract

A ®eld experiment was conducted during summer season of 1998 at the Main Research Station,
University of Agricultural Sciences, Hebbal, Bangalore. Experiment consisted of four irrigation
levels and two methods of planting. Drip irrigation at 0.8 Epan with normal planting recorded
signi®cantly higher green cob (20.07 t ha 1) and fodder yield (24.87 t ha 1) compared to either drip
at 0.6 Epan or weekly surface irrigation at 0.8 Epan, while drip at 0.4 Epan under paired planting
(10.53 and 15.23 t ha 1, respectively registered the lowest. Drip at 0.4 Epan with normal planting
recorded higher WUE of green cob and fodder (48.21 and 61.22 kg ha mm 1) with total water
requirement of 330.46 mm. With increase in water use (drip at 0.6 Epan, drip/surface irrigation at
0.8 Epan) the water use ef®ciency decreased. Drip irrigation at 0.8 Epan resulted in higher leaf water
potential ( 4, 7, 8 bars) at 20, 40 and 60 DAS before irrigation. Consequently, the RWC in the
leaf was 81.10% and the available soil moisture ranged from 55.62 to 61.91%. # 2002 Elsevier
Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Water requirement; Water use ef®ciency; Relative water content; Available soil moisture; Green cob;
Sweet corn

1. Introduction

Maize is one of the cultivated grain-cum-fodder crop with tremendous yield potential
grown round the year under irrigated conditions. It is a quick growing and high yielding
crop with no hazard of prussic acid poisoning and considered as a valuable fodder crop. In
many parts of the world, maize is the most important food stuff and in particular, provides
the daily bread for the indigenous population of poorer rural areas. Maize is one of the most
ef®cient ®eld crops in producing higher dry matter per unit quantity of water. A well
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: ‡91-80-3330153; fax: ‡91-80-3330684.

0378-3774/02/$ ± see front matter # 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 3 7 8 - 3 7 7 4 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 1 8 9 - 5
86 G.B. Viswanatha et al. / Agricultural Water Management 55 (2002) 85±91

managed irrigation envisages achieving maximum yields per unit of water applied with
minimum unavoidable losses, besides keeping the natural supply in view and aiming at
environmental preservation and ecological sustainability.
Water is the prime natural resource which very often becomes costly and limiting input
particularly in semi-arid tropics and needs to be judiciously used to reap the maximum
bene®t of other inputs. Drip irrigation provides the ef®cient use of limited water with
increased water use ef®ciency. The higher green cob yield with increased moisture level
was reported by Braunworth and Mack (1989). Hence, this study was undertaken with drip
irrigation and methods of planting in sweet corn.

2. Materials and methods

The experiment was conducted at the Main Research Station, University of Agricultural
Sciences, Hebbal, Bangalore during the summer season of 1998. The soil was red sandy
loam in texture, neutral in pH (7.6) with electrical conductivity of 0.2 dS m 1. The
available N, P2O5 and K2O were 170.9, 23.66 and 174.72 kg ha 1, respectively. Based on
the daily evaporation from a standard class A open pan evaporimeter which is installed at
the meteorological sub-station located at about 200 m from the site of experimentation, the
calculated quantity of water was given under drip irrigation levels. In weekly surface
irrigation, a calculated amount of water corresponding to 80% of one week's cumulative
evaporation was given in furrows using Parshall ¯ume. Effective rainfall of 53.1 mm has
occurred on 7 rainy days scattered over 3 months of crop growth period with a maximum of
27 mm rainfall in 1 day. During rainy days, the quantity of water applied to each treatment
was adjusted for the rainfall received. The details of the treatments are given in Table 1.
There were four irrigation levels and two methods of planting. These were replicated
three times in randomised complete block design. The crop was sown on 19 February, 1998
according to spacing mentioned in the treatments. The recommended dose of N, P2O5 and
K2O (150:75:40 kg ha 1) in the form of urea (50% at sowing, 50% at 4 weeks after
sowing), single super phosphate and muriate of potash (both at sowing),respectively, were
applied. The crop was harvested 82 days after sowing (DAS) and the plant water status,
available soil moisture (%) water requirement, water use ef®ciency were recorded and
subjected to statistical analysis.

Table 1
Details of treatments

A. Irrigation levels
I1ÐDrip at 0.4 Epan
I2ÐDrip at 0.6 Epan
I3ÐDrip at 0.8 Epan
I4ÐWeekly surface irrigation at 0.8 Epan
B. Planting methods
Normal planting (60 cm  30 cm)
Paired planting (45±90 45 cm  30 cm)
 G.B. Viswanatha et al. / Agricultural Water Management 55 (2002) 85±91 87

3. Results

3.1. Crop yields

Green cob and fodder yield differed signi®cantly due to irrigation levels. Drip irrigation
at 0.8 Epan (I3) registered signi®cantly higher green cob (16.93 t ha 1 and fodder yield
21.52), while, drip irrigation at 0.4 Epan (I1) recorded signi®cantly lower green cob and
fodder yield (13.23 and 17.73 t ha 1, respectively). Either drip irrigation at 0.6 Epan or
weekly surface irrigation at 0.8 Epan did not differ among themselves but were signi®-
cantly superior over drip irrigation at 80% of open pan evaporation.
Planting methods differed signi®cantly with respect to green cob yield. Normal planting
at 60 cm  30 cm produced signi®cantly higher green cob and fodder yield (16.73 and
21.30 t ha 1) over paired row planting at 45±90±45 cm  30 cm (12.48 and 17.13 t ha 1)
(Table 2). Green cob and fodder yield differed signi®cantly due to interaction of irrigation
levels and planting methods. Drip irrigation at 0.8 with normal planting recorded
signi®cantly higher green cob and fodder yield (20.07 and 24.87 t ha 1), compared to
other treatment combinations. However, drip irrigation at 0.4 Epan with paired row
planting gave the lowest green cob and fodder yield (10.53 and 15.23 t ha 1) closely
followed by drip irrigation at 0.6 Epan under paired row method of planting (11.63 and
16.47 t ha 1, respectively).

3.2. Total water use and water use efficiency

Either drip (I3) or weekly surface irrigation (I4) at 0.8 Epan recorded higher water use of
517.82 mm than other two irrigation levels. Drip irrigation at 0.4 Epan (I1) recorded the
lower water use (330.46 mm) followed by drip irrigation at 0.6 Epan (I2: 424.14 mm). Drip
irrigation at 0.4 Epan recorded signi®cantly higher WUE for green cob and fodder (40.04
and 53.65 kg ha mm 1, respectively) compared to weekly surface irrigation at 0.8 Epan
(I4: 27.19 kg ha mm 1). Drip irrigation either at 0.6 or 0.8 Epan (33.27 and
32.69 kg ha mm 1, respectively) were on par with each other but signi®cantly lower than
drip irrigation at 0.4 Epan (I1) (Table 2).
Normal planting recorded signi®cantly higher WUE for green cob and fodder yield (38.43
and 48.93 kg ha mm 1) compared to paired row planting (28.16 and 39.00 kg ha mm 1,
respectively). Drip irrigation at 0.4 Epan with normal planting registered signi®cantly
higher WUE for green cob and fodder yield (48.21 and 61.22 kg ha mm 1, respectively)
compared to paired row method of planting with drip either at 0.6 or 0.8 Epan or weekly
surface irrigation at 0.8 Epan which were on par with each other.

3.3. Plant water status and actual available soil moisture (%)

Weekly surface irrigation at 0.8 Epan (I4) revealed lower leaf water potential before
irrigation at 20, 40 and 60 DAS ( 8 12 and 12 bars, respectively) over rest of the
irrigation levels. Drip irrigation at 0.8 Epan recorded higher leaf water potential before
irrigation at 20, 40 and 60 DAS ( 4, 7 and 8 bars, respectively) which was closely
followed by drip irrigation at 0.6 Epan (Table 3).
Table 2
Green cob (t ha 1), fodder yield (t ha 1), total water use (mm) and water use efficiency (kg ha mm 1) as influenced by irrigation levels and methods of planting in sweet corn

Treatments Yields under the two methods of planting (t ha 1) Water applied for Total water Water use efficiency in the two methods of planting
irrigation (mm) used (mm)a
Green cob Green fodder Green cob (kg ha-mm 1) Fodder (kg ha-mm 1)

Normal Paired Mean Normal Paired Mean Normal Paired Mean Normal Paired Mean

I1ÐDrip at 0.4 Epan 15.93 10.53 13.23 20.23 15.23 17.73 187.36 330.46 48.21 31.87 40.04 61.22 46.09 53.65
I2ÐDrip at 0.6 Epan 16.7 11.63 14.17 21.4 16.47 18.93 281.04 424.14 39.36 27.18 33.27 50.44 38.81 44.63
I3ÐDrip at 0.8 Epan 20.07 13.8 16.93 24.87 18.17 21.52 374.72 517.82 38.75 26.64 32.69 48.02 35.07 41.54
I4ÐWeekly surface 14.2 13.97 14.08 18.67 18.67 18.67 374.72 517.82 27.42 26.96 27.19 36.04 36.04 36.04
irrigation at 0.8 Epan
Mean 16.73 12.48 21.3 17.13 38.43 28.16 48.93 39
S.E.M. CD at 5% S.E.M. CD at 5% S.E.M. CD at 5% S.E.M. CD at 5%
Irrigation levels 0.28 0.86 0.46 1.41 0.67 2.05 1.15 3.49
Methods of planting 0.2 0.6 0.33 0.99 0.47 1.45 0.81 2.47
Interaction 0.4 1.21 0.66 1.99 0.95 2.9 1.68 4.94
a
Includes common surface irrigation of 90 mm, effective rainfall (53.1 mm) and irrigation water applied.
 G.B. Viswanatha et al. / Agricultural Water Management 55 (2002) 85±91 89

Table 3
Leaf water potential (bars), Relative water content (%) as influenced by irrigation levels and methods of planting

Treatments Leaf water potential (bars) Relative water

content (%)

20 DASa 40 DAS 60 DAS 60 DAS

Before After Before After Before After Before After

irrigation irrigation irrigation irrigation irrigation irrigation irrigation irrigation

Irrigation levels
I1ÐDrip at 0.4 Epan 7 5 10 7 11 9 73.80 76.95
I2ÐDrip at 0.6 Epan 5 4 8 6 10 8 76.05 78.70
I3ÐDrip at 0.8 Epan 4 3 7 5 8 6 81.10 82.60
I4ÐWeekly surface 8 6 12 6 12 8 69.65 79.05
irrigation at 0.8 Epan
Methods of planting
Normal planting 5 3.5 7.5 4.5 9 6.5 77.10 81.80
Paired planting 7 5 11 7.5 11.5 9 72.95 77.07
a
DAS: days after sowing.

After irrigation, drip at 0.8 Epan (I3) recorded higher leaf water potential of 3, 5 and
6 bars at 20, 40 and 60 DAS, respectively, which was followed by drip irrigation at
0.6 Epan. However, moisture stress created either due to weekly surface irrigation at
0.8 Epan or drip irrigation at 0.4 Epan could not maintain higher leaf water potential even
after irrigation (Table 3).
Normal planting maintained higher leaf water potential of ±5, 7.5 and 9 bars at 20, 40
and 60 DAS, respectively before irrigation while paired method of planting recorded lower
leaf water potential of 7, 11 and 11.5 bars at 20, 40 and 60 DAS, respectively.
Similarly, soon after irrigation higher leaf water potential of 3.5, 4.5 and 6.5 bars was
maintained under normal planting of 60 cm  30 cm as against lower potentials with paired
planting (45 90 45 cm  30 cm) at 20, 40 and 60 DAS.
Drip irrigation at 0.8 Epan recorded higher RWC in leaf before and after irrigation
(81.10 and 82.60%, respectively) followed by drip irrigation at 0.6 and 0.4 Epan (76.05,
78.70 and 73.80, 76.95%, respectively) while weekly surface irrigation at 0.8 Epan
recorded lower RWC (69.65%) before irrigation. Normal planting registered higher
RWC (77.10 and 81.80%) before and after irrigation compared to paired method of
planting (72.95 and 77.07%).
Available soil moisture (%) before irrigation at 0±30 cm soil layer revealed that drip
irrigation at 0.8 Epan (I3) recorded higher percentage of soil moisture (61.91, 58.2 and
55.62, respectively) at 20, 40 and 60 DAS compared to other lower levels of drip irrigation,
viz. 0.6 and 0.4 Epan. Weekly surface irrigation at 0.8 Epan recorded less than 11%
available soil moisture at different growth stages at the end of the irrigation cycle indicating
the severe moisture stress exerted on the crop which resulted in reduced yield (Table 4).
Available soil moisture status before irrigation in upper 30 cm soil layer ranged between
29.13 and 34.07% with paired row planting compared to 36.31±45.29% under normal
planting.
90 G.B. Viswanatha et al. / Agricultural Water Management 55 (2002) 85±91

Table 4
Available soil moisture (%) before irrigation in 0±30 cm soil layer as influenced by irrigation levels and planting
methods at different growth stages of sweet corna

Treatments Available soil moisture (%)

20 DASb 40 DAS 60 DAS

Irrigation levels
I1ÐDrip at 0.4 Epan 39.46 ( 2.2) 40.06 ( 2.1) 31.98 ( 2.8)
I2ÐDrip at 0.6 Epan 49.93 ( 1.4) 47.54 ( 1.8) 38.86 ( 2.3)
I3ÐDrip at 0.8 Epan 61.91 ( 0.9) 58.20 ( 1.1) 55.62 ( 1.3)
I4ÐWeekly surface irrigation at 0.8 Epan 7.42 ( 10.9)c 10.71 ( 8.0)c 4.43 ( 12.3)c
Methods of planting
Normal planting 45.29 ( 1.7) 44.34 ( 1.8) 36.31 ( 2.4)
Paired planting 34.07 ( 2.4) 33.92 ( 2.3) 29.13 ( 3.0)
a
Figures in the parentheses indicate corresponding soil moisture tension in bars.
b
DAS: days after sowing.
c
Recorded at the end of irrigation cycle (7th day before irrigation).

Drip irrigation at 0.8 Epan (I3) recorded moderate stress of 0.9 to 1.3 bars followed
by drip irrigation at 0.6 Epan ( 1.4 to 2.3 bars) and 0.4 Epan ( 2.1 to 2.8 bars).
Weekly surface irrigation at 0.8 Epan (I4) recorded severe soil moisture stress of 8.00 to
12.3 bars at the end of irrigation cycles on 7th day before next irrigation.

4. Discussion

Irrigation levels signi®cantly in¯uenced the green cob yield of sweet corn. Drip
irrigation at 0.8 Epan (I3) registered signi®cantly higher green cob yield (16.93 t ha 1)
which was 27.97% higher over drip at 0.4 Epan (I1) which experienced more moisture
stress among drip irrigation treatments. Increase in cob yield under drip irrigation at
0.8 Epan was mainly due to increased soil moisture status before irrigation in the upper
30 cm soil layer (52.62±61.91%) consequently higher plant relative water content
(81.10%) and less negative leaf water potential ( 8 bars) at 60 DAS were recorded.
The decrease in tissue water potential affects the several physiological processes. Leaf
expansion rate is one of the important growth characters affected by slight decrease in
tissue water potential (Muchow et al., 1986). Plant water de®cit affects the ®nal yield
through its in¯uence on various physiological processes. The magnitude of the adverse
effect of plant water de®cit on ®nal yield depends on stage of the growth at which the
moisture stress occurs (Salter and Goode, 1967). Similarly, drip irrigation at 0.4 Epan and
weekly surface irrigation at 0.8 Epan recorded relatively lower soil moisture status, plant
relative water content and leaf water potential which created severe moisture de®ciency
affecting the yield signi®cantly.
Drip irrigation at 0.8 Epan under paired row planting recorded lower WUE for green cob
and fodder (26.64 and 35.07 kg ha mm 1, respectively). This may be due to lesser green
cob and fodder yield with higher total water use (517.82 mm) because of increased
 G.B. Viswanatha et al. / Agricultural Water Management 55 (2002) 85±91 91

competition that resulted due to closure inter row spacing in paired rows. This was in
con®rmity with Selvaraju and Iruthaya Raj (1994), Prasad and Prasad (1989). The increase
in yield as a consequence of increased application of water from 180 to 520.60 mm was
noticed by Costa et al. (1988) which is in strong agreement with our results obtained under
drip irrigation at 0.8 Epan. Braunworth (1987) reported 311±604 mm of water for sweet
corn to obtain around 21 t ha 1 green cob.

5. Conclusion

Sweet corn yield increased with increase in amount of water applied. Drip irrigation at
0.8 Epan resulted in higher green cob and fodder yield. There was 27.97% increase in yield
of green cob over drip at 0.4 Epan. Normal planting with 60 cm  30 cm registered higher
green cob and fodder yield. Finally, it can be recommended that under conditions of
adequate water resource availability, higher yields can be realized by irrigating at 0.8 Epan
under normal method of planting (60 cm  30 cm) through drip irrigation with reduced
water use ef®ciency. On the contrary, with scarce availability of water, higher water use
ef®ciency can be realized compromising on productivity by irrigating at de®cit level of
0.4 Epan through drip.

References

Braunworth Jr., W.S., 1987. Irrigation scheduling methods and water use of sweet corn. Dessertation Abstracts
Int. B. 47 (8), 3168 B.
Braunworth Jr., W.S., Mack, H.J., 1989. CropÐwater production functions for sweet corn. J. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci.
114, 210±215.
Costa, J.O., Ferreira, L.G.R., Souza, F.D., 1988. Yield of maize under different levels of water stress. Pesquisa
Agropeouaria Brasileira 23 (11), 1255±1261.
Muchow, R.X., Sinclair, T.R., Bennett, J.M., Hammond, L.C., 1986. Response of leaf growth, leaf nitrogen and
stomatal conductance to water deficits during vegetative growth of field grown soybean. Crop Sci. 26, 1190±
1195.
Prasad, T.N., Prasad, U.K., 1989. Effect of irrigation, crop geometry and intercrops on yield and nutrient uptake
of winter maize. Indian J. Agron. 33 (3), 238±241.
Salter, R.J., Goode, J.B., 1967, Crop response to water at different stages of growth. Commonw. Agric. Bur.
Farham Royal Bucks, England, p. 246
Selvaraju, R., Iruthaya Raj, M.R., 1994. Effect of irrigation, methods of irrigation and nitrogen levels on nutrient
uptake by maize. Madras Agric. J. 82 (3), 215±216.