Volume 5, Issue 9, September – 2020 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology

ISSN No:-2456-2165

Row Spacings and Schedule of Urea Application on

Sweet Corn (Zea mays) at MSU-Buug Campus
1
Junry R. Maato, 2Abdani D. Bandera, 3Jowie P. Cullamar, 4Angelyn M. Montuerto
1,3,4
Department of Plant Science, College of Agriculture, Mindanao State University- Buug Campus
2
Assistant Professor I, Department of Plant Science, College of Agriculture, Mindanao State University- Buug Campus

Abstract:- This study was conducted with an area of 540 tonnes for Nigeria (FAO, 2010). Maize production has
square meters excluding canals and was divided into expanded dramatically in the Northern Guinea Savanna of
twenty plots. Each plot was measured 3m x 9m. The West Africa where it has replaced traditional cereals and
experimental area was laid out following Randomized serves as both a food and a cash crop. In West Africa,
Complete Block Design (RCBD). The study aimed to Manyong et al. (1996) assessed maize as one of the five
determine the effect of different row spacings and main crops of the farming systems in 124.7 million hectare
schedule of urea application in medium level on the or 72% of West Africa. The Northern Guinea Savanna
yield of sweet corn. Results of the analysis showed that alone took about 92% of total area grown to maize in
the average length and average circumference of corn Nigeria. Maize is also widely believed to have the greatest
ears in centimeter per plot per treatment both showed potential among food crops for attaining the technological
no significant difference as affected by different row breakthroughs that will improve food production in the
spacings and schedule of application of urea. Results of region (Kamara and Sanginga, 2001).
the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on the average
weight and total weight of corn ears in kg per plot per Growing maize at appropriate spacing is one of the
treatment showed that there was significant difference bases for higher yield, whereas intra-row spacing at sub
on the yield of sweet corn using row spacings. However, optimum is a major constrain to attaining the yield potential
no significant difference on the schedule of application of the crop (Alofe et al., 1988). Intra-row spacing for
of urea. Thus, R2 is recommended in terms of longest maximum grain yield in maize varies from 20 to 45 cm
husk, biggest circumference of husk, and heavier husk (Olson and Sanders, 1988). There is no single
of corn ears. On the other hand, R1 is recommended to recommendation for all environments and all maize types
obtain more husk of corn ears and R5 is recommended and varieties because optimum spacing for optimum maize
to obtain heavier husk of corn ears. yield could vary depending on climatic factors such factors
as soil fertility, variety and type, planting date and planting
Keywords:- Sweet Corn, Row Spacings, Schedule of Urea pattern among others (Luis, 2001). The intra-row spacing
Application, Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD), used by the local farmers for open pollinated extra-early
Corn Ears. maize was found to be the same as for hybrid, medium and
late maturing varieties. This could be a reason for the low
I. INTRODUCTION yield obtained by farmers. Morphologically, extra-early
maize varieties are generally shorter in height (185-190
Sweet Corn (Zea mays) is observed as one of the cm), have fewer number of leaves per plant, flowering
important agronomical crops in the Philippines. It is occurs at about 40 days after sowing (Elemo, 1997).
produced by most Filipinos due to its nutritive value. Because of the high nutrient demand by maize, its
However, the production of this commodity is found costly production requires high inputs of fertilizer. However,
because it requires high nutrient demand. Hence, to achieve because of high cost, unavailability and low levels of soil
high yield performance, spacings and schedule of fertlizers’ organic matter, alternative organic sources of nutrients
application play an important role. particularly N needs to be included in maize fertilization.
The use of animal manure is needed to ensure an efficient
Maize (Zea mays L.) is one of the most important nutrient management in the maize-based cropping systems
staple food crops in West and Central Africa. The Savanna in the Northern Guinea Savanna. Research conducted in
of West and Central Africa has one of the greatest potential Northern Guinea Savanna and elsewhere had shown great
for its major production because of relatively higher improvement in the yield of crop as a result of
incident of solar radiation and lower incident of pest and improvement in organic matter content of the soil (Boateng
diseases during the cropping season (Badu-Apraku et al., et al., 2006). In this study, it aimed to determine the effect
2006). In 2008, the world production was 822.7 million of different row spacings and schedule of urea application
tonnes, 53.4 million tonnes for Africa and 7.5 million in medium level on the yield of sweet corn.

IJISRT20SEP259 www.ijisrt.com 343

Volume 5, Issue 9, September – 2020 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
II. MATERIALS AND METHODS corn borers on the field. For the prevention of downy
mildew development on the crop, the seeds were mixed
Materials used in the study are carabao drawn plow, with fungicide before planting using Ridomil. Harvesting
harrow, bolo, sprayer, meter stick, straw lace, treatment was done 75-80 days after planting. It was done manually
indicators, sign board, shovel, weighing scale, tape by removing the ears of corn from the stalk. Corn ears were
measure, cellophanes, record book, ball pen, sacks, and harvested and labeled in separate containers according to
camera. Macho F1 corn variety was used in the study. plot to avoid mixing and mispresentation of data.
Variety used can be harvested 75-80 days after planting.
The inorganic fertilizers used are: Urea (46-0-0), Muriate of There were 68 samples in R1, 63 in R2, 59 in R3, 54 in
Potash (0-0-60), and Ammonium Phosphate (16-20-0). In R4, and 50 in R5. Choosing of plant samples was done by
this study, Lannate TM 40 SP and Ridomil were used to drawing of lots in every plot. Collection of data was done
control insect pests and diseases. during harvesting by picking first the corn ear from the
sample plant before harvesting the entire plants in every
An area of 540 square meters excluding canals was plot. The data collected were the following: (1) Average
utilized by slashing the existing weeds, then the area was length of corn ears in centimeter per plant per treatment, (2)
plowed thoroughly using carabao drawn plow. Plowing was average circumference of corn ears in centimeter per plant
done twice. The area was equally divided into 20 plots. per treatment, (3) average weight of corn ears in grams per
Each plot measures 3 meters by 9 meters. Randomized plot per treatment, (4) total number of corn ears per plot per
Complete Block Design (RCBD) was used in this study. treatment, and (5) total weight of corn ears in kilograms per
Random numbers were generated from calculator and were plot per treatment.
used in the distribution of each treatment to every plot by
ranking them from lowest to highest. The area was The length of each corn ear from the sample plants in
thoroughly prepared. Two seeds were sown in every hill every plot was measured using a ruler and then added. The
with a distance of 60-80 centimeters between rows and 20 result was divided by the total number of sample to get the
centimeters between hills. There were 900 plants in R1, 840 average length. The circumference of each corn ear from
plants in R2, 780 plants in R3, 720 plants in R4, and 660 the sample plants in every plot was measured using tape
plants in R5 with four plots. Thinning started seven (7) to measure and was added. The result was divided by total
ten (10) days after planting by removing unhealthy number of sample to get the average circumference. The
seedlings, leaving only one plant per hill. weight of each corn ear from the sample plants in every
plot was taken using a weighing scale and was added. The
A day before planting, Ammonium Phosphate (16-20- result was divided by the total number of sample to get the
0) was applied at a rate of 1.38 gram and Muriate of Potash average weight. All corn ears from each plot were collected
(0-0-60) at a rate of 0.69 gram per hill. After 15 days of and were counted to get the total number of corn ears per
planting, Ammonium Phosphate (16-20-0) at a rate of 1.38 plot. In addition, All corn ears from each plot were
grams per hill was applied (first and second side dressing) collected and were weighed using a weighing scale to get
24, 26, 28, and 30 days after planting. Medium level of the total weight of corn ears per plot per treatment.
Urea (46-0-0) was applied at a rate of 1.40 gram per hill
during 24, 26, 28, and 30 days after planting. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used in two way
classification without inter-action to determine if there is a
Cultivation was done simultaneously in the 14 to 18 significant difference in the yield performance of sweet
days after planting and was repeated 22 to 25 days after corn using different row spacings and schedule of
planting. Weeds were controlled by uprooting manually application of urea in medium level. Scheffe method was
with the use of hand. Corn plants were irrigated 0-3 DAS, used to determine if there is significant difference based on
13-15 DAS, 30-35 DAS, 45-55 DAS, and 65-80 DAS with the ANOVA table to observe which of the different row
sufficient amount of water for the growth of the crop using spacings and schedule of application of Urea will give the
sprinkler, pail and deeper. A foliar application of 0.864 L of highest yield of sweet corn. Below are the treatments used
Lannate TM 40SP was done to plants 30 days after planting in this study:
to control earworms, cutworms, brown plant hoppers and

IJISRT20SEP259 www.ijisrt.com 344

Volume 5, Issue 9, September – 2020 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
Treatments Variables’ Combinations Description
Row Spacings (R) Schedule of Application (F)
T1 R1F1 60 cm between rows 24 Days after planting
T2 R1F2 60 cm between rows 26 Days after planting
T3 R1F3 60 cm between rows 28 Days after planting
T4 R1F4 60 cm between rows 30 Days after planting
T5 R F
2 1 65 cm between rows 24 Days after planting
T6 R2F2 65 cm between rows 26 Days after planting
T7 R2F3 65 cm between rows 28 Days after planting
T8 R2F4 65 cm between rows 30 Days after planting
T9 R3F1 70 cm between rows 24 Days after planting
T10 R3F2 70 cm between rows 26 Days after planting
T11 R3F3 70 cm between rows 28 Days after planting
T22 R3F4 70 cm between rows 30 Days after planting
T13 R4F1 75 cm between rows 24 Days after planting
T14 R4F2 75 cm between rows 26 Days after planting
T15 R4F3 75 cm between rows 28 Days after planting
T16 R4F4 75 cm between rows 30 Days after planting
T17 R5F1 80 cm between rows 24 Days after planting
T18 R5F2 80 cm between rows 26 Days after planting
T19 R5F3 80 cm between rows 28 Days after planting
T20 R5F4 80 cm between rows 30 Days after planting
Table 1
Treatments (T); Row Spacings (R); Schedule of Application (F)

III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION that the computed “f2” (1.93) is lesser than the tabulated
“f2” at 5% (3.26) and at 1% (5.49). Therefore, the null
 Average Length of Corn Ears ( in cm) hypothesis is accepted in both 5% and 1% levels of
Table 2 presents the average length of corn ears in significance in different row spacings. This means that
centimeter per plot per treatment. It shows that in row there is no significant difference at 5% and 1% on the
spacing, R5 obtained the longest average length of (29.46 average length of corn ears per plot in both different row
cm), followed by R2 with (28.56 cm), R4 obtained (28.46 spacings and times of Urea application in medium level
cm), R3 with (27.83 cm) and the shortest average length is (See Table 7).
in R1 with (27.39) cm. The schedule of urea application in
medium level treatment shows that F3 obtained the longest  Average Circumference of Corn Ears (in cm)
average length of (28.43 cm), followed by F1 with (28.36 Table 3 presents the average circumference of corn
cm) and the shortest average length are F2 and F4 with ears in centimeter per plot per treatment. It shows that in
(28.29 cm). row spacing, R5 gained the biggest average circumference
of (19.75 cm) followed by R4 with (19.28 cm), R2 with
(19.25 cm), R3 with (19.14 cm) and R5 obtained the smallest
circumference of corn ears with an average of (18.90 cm).
The schedule of urea application in medium level treatment
shows that F3 obtained the biggest average circumference of
(19.44 cm), followed by F1 with (19.36 cm), F4 with (19.17
cm) and F2 obtained the smallest average circumference
with (19.09 cm).

Table 2:- Average Length of Corn Ears in Centimeter per

Plot per Treatment.

The result of statistical analysis revealed that the

computed “f” (0.02) is lesser than the tabulated “f1” at 5%
(3.49) and at 1% (5.95). Therefore, the null hypothesis is
accepted in both 5% and 1%, levels of significance in
different schedule of Urea application in medium level. In Table 3:- Average Circumference of Corn Ears in
addition, based on statistical analysis the result revealed Centimeter per Plant per Plot per Treatment.

IJISRT20SEP259 www.ijisrt.com 345

Volume 5, Issue 9, September – 2020 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
Result of the statistical analysis revealed that the
computed “f” (0.48) is lesser than the tabulated “F1” at 5%
(3.49) and at 1% (5.95). Therefore, the null hypothesis is
accepted in both 5% and 1% levels of significance in
different schedule of Urea application in medium levels. In
addition, based on statistical analysis the result revealed
that the computed “f2” (1.43) is lesser than the tabulated
“f2” at 5% (3.26) and at 1% (5.49). Therefore, the null Table 5:- Total Number of Corn Ears in Centimeter per Plot
hypothesis is accepted in both 5% and 1% levels of per Treatment
significance in different row spacings. This means that
there is no significant difference at 5% and 1% on the Result of the statistical analysis revealed that the
average circumference of corn ears per plot in both computed “f” (0.30) is lesser than the tabulated “f1” at 5%
different row spacings and schedule of Urea application in (3.49) and at 1% (5.95). Therefore, the null hypothesis is
medium level (See Table 8). accepted in both 5% and 1% levels of significance in
different schedule of Urea application in medium level. In
 Average Weight of Corn Ears (in Grams) addition, based on statistical analysis the result revealed
Table 4 presents the average weight of corn ears in that the computed “f” (43.81) is greater than the tabulated
centimeter per plot per treatment. It shows that in row “f2” at 5% (3.26) and at 1% (5.49). Therefore, the
spacing, R5 acquired the heaviest average weight of (352.39 alternative hypothesis is accepted in both 5% and 1% levels
g) followed by R4 with (328.83 g), R2 with (311.26 g), R3 of significance in different row spacings (See Table 10).
with (299.52 g) and R1 obtained the least average weight of
corn ears with (286.96 g). In addition, the table shows that  Total Weight of Corn Ears (in Kilograms)
F3 obtained the heaviest average weight of (322.81 g), Table 6 presents the total weight of corn ears in
followed by F1 with (317.92 g), F4 with (315.84 g) and F2 kilogram per plot per treatment. The table shows that in
gained the lightest average weight with (306.60 g). row spacing treatment, R2 gained the heaviest total weight
(45.12 kg) of corn ears followed by R3 (42.12 kg), R1 (41.62
kg), and R5 with (38.87 kg). R4 gained the lightest total
weight of corn ears in kilogram per plot per treatment with
a total of (33.87 kg). In addition, the table shows that F1
acquired the heaviest total weight of (210.5 kg), followed
by F3 (208.5 kg), F2 with (196 kg) and F4 obtained the
lightest total weight of corn ears in kilogram per plot per
treatment having a total weight of (191.5 kg).
Table 4:- Average Weight of Corn Ears in Grams per Plot
per Treatment.

The result of the statistical analysis revealed that the

computed “f” (0.29) is lesser than the tabulated “f1” at 5%
(3.49) and at 1% (5.95). Therefore, the null hypothesis is
accepted in both 5% and 1% levels of significance in
different schedule of Urea application in medium level. In
addition, based on statistical analysis the result revealed
that the computed “f2” (3.27) is greater than the tabulated Table 6:- Total Weight of Corn Ears in Kilograms per Plot
“f2” at 5% (3.26) but lesser than at 1% (5.49). Therefore, per Treatment
the alternative hypothesis is accepted in 5% and null
hypothesis is accepted in 1% on the average weight of corn The result of the statistical analysis revealed that the
ears in different row spacings (See Table 9). computed “f” (0.99) is lesser than the tabulated “f1” at 5%
(3.49) and at 1% (5.95). Therefore, the null hypothesis is
 Total Number of Corn Ears (in Centimeter) accepted in both 5% and 1% levels of significance in
Table 5 reveals the total number of corn ears per plot different schedule of Urea application in medium level. In
per treatment. The table below shows that in row spacing, addition, based on statistical analysis the results revealed
R1 gained the highest total number of corn ears of (255.75) that the computed “f2” (4.09) is greater than the tabulated
followed by R2 with (226.5), R3 with (204.75), R4 with “f2” at 5% (3.26) but lesser than at 1% (5.49). Therefore,
(199) and R5 obtained the least number of corn ears with the alternative hypothesis is accepted in 5% and null
total number of (185). Moreover, the table shows that F2 hypothesis is accepted in 1% levels of significance in
acquired the highest total number of (216.4), followed by different row spacings (See Table 11).
F4 with (215.4), F1 with (213.3) and F3 obtained the least
number of corn ears having a total number of (212).

IJISRT20SEP259 www.ijisrt.com 346

Volume 5, Issue 9, September – 2020 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
IV. CONCLUSION [2]. Badu-Apraku, B., Menkir, A., Fakorede, M.A.B.,
Fonten Lum, A. and K., Obeng-Antwi (2006)
Based on the result of the study, the following Multivariate analyses of the genetic diversity of forty-
conclusions were drawn: seven Striga resistant tropical early maturing maize
 There is no significant difference on the average length inbred lines. Maydica 51: 551-559
of corn ears in centimeter per plot per treatment; [3]. Boateng, S. A, Zickermann, J. and Kornahrens, M.
 There is no significant difference on the average (2006). Poultry Manure Effect on Growth and Yield
circumference of corn ears in centimeter per plot per of maize. Crop Science Journal, 8 (3): 273-282
treatment; [4]. Elemo, K.A (1997). Extra-early maize varieties as
 There is a significant difference on the average weight affected by the rate and time of N fertilization.
of corn ears in gram per plot per treatment; Production of reginal maize workshop IITA-Cotonou,
 There is a significant difference on the total number of Benin Republic: 419-425.
corn ears per plot per treatment; and [5]. FAO (2010). Food and Agriculture Organisation
 There is a significant difference on the total weight of Statistics, FAOSTAT. www.fao.org/faostat
corn ears per plot per treatment. [6]. Kamara, A.Y. and Sanginga, N (2001). Balance
nutrient management for intensified maize-based
RECOMMENDATIONS systems in the Northern Guinea Savanna of West
Africa. In: Proceeding of the National Quality Protein
Based on the previous findings and conclusions, the Maize Production Workshop 4th – 5th September
following are highly recommended: To obtain longest husk 2001 at Institute for Agricultural Research
corn ears and biggest circumference husk corn ears, any of Comperence Hall A.B.U., Zaria pp 17-24.
the combined treatments are recommended. However, to [7]. Luis, S (2001). Understanding plant density effects on
achieve heavier husk corn ears and to obtain more husk maize growth and development: An important issue to
corn ears, R2 and R1 are recommended respectively. maximize grain yield. Ciencia Rural 3(1): 1-17
[8]. Manyong, V.M., Smith, J., Webe, G.K., Jagtap, S.S
REFERENCES and Oyewole, B (1996). Macro-characterization of
agricultural systems in West Africa: An Over view
[1]. Alofe, C.O., Kim, S.K., Efron, Y., Fajemisin, J.M., Research and Crop Management Research Monograph
Khadr, F.H. and Kang, B.T (1988). Effect of nitrogen No. 21. International Institute of Tropical Agriculture
and plant density on grain performance of hybrid (IITA), Ibadan, Nigeria.
maize in the forest and derived savanna zone of [9]. Olson, R.A and D.H. Sanders (1988). Crop production
Nigeria. National Conference on maize, Ile-Ife in corn and corn improvement Madison W.I. U.S.A:
Abstract 17pp 686

APPENDICES

Table 7:- ANOVA for the Average Length of Corn Ears in Centimeter per Plot per Treatment

Table 8:- ANOVA for the Average Circumference of Corn Ears in Centimeter per Plot per Treatment

IJISRT20SEP259 www.ijisrt.com 347

Volume 5, Issue 9, September – 2020 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165

Table 9:- ANOVA for the Average Weight of Corn Ears in Gram per Plot per Treatment

Table 10:- ANOVA for the Total Number of Corn Ears in Gram per Plot per Treatment.

Table 11:- ANOVA for the Total Weight of Corn Ears in Kilogram per Plot per Treatment.

IJISRT20SEP259 www.ijisrt.com 348