Agricultural Water Management 177 (2016) 215–220

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Agricultural Water Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/agwat

Effect of different furrow and plant spacing on yield and water use
efficiency of maize
Kidane Welde ∗ , Hintsa Libsekal Gebremariam
Alamata Agricultural Research Center, Natural Resources Management Research Core Process, Alamata, Ethiopia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In southern zone of Tigray, Ethiopia, there is a large competition between maize production and other
Received 28 April 2016 horticultural crops for the limited irrigation water. Hence, there is an imminent need to improve the water
Received in revised form 27 July 2016 use efficiency or more importantly the water productivity of the area. The objective of the study was to
Accepted 27 July 2016
evaluate the effect of furrow and plant spacing and their interaction on yield and water use efficiency of
Available online 2 August 2016
maize. Experimental treatments include three levels furrow spacing (50, 70 and 90 cm) and three levels of
plant spacing (20, 25 and 30 cm) were arranged in factorial RCBD design under three replications. Maize
Keywords:
(BH543 variety) was used in this study in which all agronomic practices were treated equally including
IWUE
Small-scale irrigation the amount of water applied. Maize water requirement was estimated using CROPWAT 8 software. The
Agronomic practice result revealed that there was significant difference among the treatments (p < 0.05) for grain yield,
Maize biomass yield and irrigation water use efficiency (IWUE). But it was not significantly different for the
Yield yield components (plant height and number of cobs per plant). Maximum grain yield (56.26 qt/ha) and
IWUE (0.876 kg/m3 ) were obtained from 50 cm furrow and 30 cm plant spacing interaction. But maximum
biomass yield (250.6 qt/ha) was obtained from 50 cm furrow and 20 cm plant spacing interaction. The
IWUE ranges from 0.357 kg/m3 to 0.876 kg/m3 for the equal amount of irrigation water applied (642 mm)
for each treatment. This shows how much IWUE of small scale farmers can vary as their agronomic
practice (plant and furrow spacing) is different from one another. Hence, it can be concluded that irrigation
agronomist experts and development agents of the study area must create awareness to the small scale
farmers to exercise 50 cm furrow spacing with 30 cm plant spacing to improve and increase the water
productivity of maize.
© 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction strategic intervention of addressing food security in Ethiopia the

Soil, water, air and sunlight are the four key essential deter-
minants for plant to grow. Therefore, water and its control
mechanisms, are important to plant-growth and crop-production
(Widtose, 2001). The sources of water for crop production are rain-
fall and irrigation water. The two types of agriculture seen from
the perspective of water management, are rain fed and irrigation
agriculture which both helps to present sufficient water in the root
zone for germination, evapotranspiration and nutrient observation
(Dupriez and De Leener, 2002)
Currently the Ethiopian government considers water as an
essential policy instrument for development especially in ensur-
ing food security of the rural population (Fitsum et al., 2009). As
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: kidanew2009@gmail.com (K. Welde), hintsaar@gmail.com
(H.L. Gebremariam).
government and the cooperating sponsors has been chosen inten-
sification small scale irrigation due to a number of reasons. The
principal factors led to this choice is, irrigation increases the poten-
tial for producing more food consistently in the drought-prone
and food-insecure areas (Catterson et al., 1999). But a number
of problems and constrains are faced with small scale irrigation
system of the country. Limited knowledge in modern irrigation
management (irrigation scheduling techniques, water saving irri-
gation technologies, water measurement techniques and operation
and maintenance of irrigation facilities); inadequate knowledge on
improved and diversified irrigation agronomic practices and low
level of awareness of users about irrigated agriculture are the dom-
inant ones (Yalew et al., 2011).
Improving small scale farmers need to have efficient utilization
of irrigation water (Shuhuai et al., 2012). Agronomic practices have
a profound effect on farm water management practices. A number
of factors such as nature of cultivar, plant density, sowing time, and
nutrient and water management are involved in affecting profitable

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2016.07.026
0378-3774/© 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
216 K. Welde, H.L. Gebremariam / Agricultural Water Management 177 (2016) 215–220
yield (Masoud and Ghodratolah, 2010). Plant needs specific spacing
to gain the limited irrigation water. Hence, varying plant spacing
has different productivity and water use efficiency. Therefore, it is
very important that those who work in irrigation agriculture under-
stand clearly not only the benefits and consequence of irrigation but
also what it takes to maximize or optimize the benefits and in how
to contribute significantly in agricultural production growth.
Recently elsewhere, interest has arisen in the effects of row
spacing on maize grain yield and yield components. Decreasing the
spacing row to less than 1 m have increased grain yields (Karlen
and Camp, 1985; Cardwell, 1982). However, others studies also
shows similar grain yield for row spacing of 38 and 76 cm (Westgate
et al., 1997). Sowing maize at row spacing that are less than
0.76 m may increase the maize’s water use efficiency under limited
water resource and better in controlling weeds as well (Forcella
et al., 1992). However, the yield responses to the possible interact-
ing effects of furrow spacing and plant density (spacing between
plants) is not known especially in the study area.
Maize is among a high water demanding crop throughout its
all growing stages of its physiological development. Maize is very
sensitive to water stress but can attain its high yields when nutri-
ents and water are in optimally available the ground (Traore et al.,
2000). Under this condition, the effects of water stress on maize
not only reduce the main grain yield but includes the reduction of
plant height, diameter of shank, leaf area index and root growth
(Wilson et al., 2006). Many ways of conserving agricultural irriga-
tion water have been investigated for different climatic and agro
ecologic areas. Stone and Nofziger (1993) have used wide-spaced
furrow irrigation or skipped crop rows as a means to improve irriga-
Fig. 1. Location map of the experimental site.
tion water use efficiency (IWUE). They used as fixing some furrows
for irrigation, while keeping adjacent furrows without irrigating
throughout the growing season. Surface irrigation has been and
still continues to be the widely used method of water application
to agricultural lands. Design, evaluation and management of fur-
row irrigation, as one of the surface irrigation methods, rely on
infiltration characteristics (Nasseri et al., 2007).
In southern zone of Tigray Regional state, maize is often pro-
duced by furrow-irrigating under the limited water resource and
maize crop is the most competent of irrigation water with horti-
cultural crops in the district. Hence agronomic practice that can
improve irrigation water productivity of small scale farmers is
important for the area. This study investigated the effect of different
furrow and plant spacing combinations on yield, yield components
and irrigation water use efficiency of maize crop as well as the
water saving efficiencies of the combinations in order to provide
theoretical basis for drought resistant and water saving planting
mechanism of Maize crop under the specific soil and environmental
conditions of the study area.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Study area
A field experiment was carried out in 2013, at Tumuga site which
administratively located in Raya Alamata district of southern zone
in the Tigray regional state (Fig. 1). This site is considered as a repre-
sentative site for the lowland irrigation schemes of southern zone
of Tigray regional state. It is located at 12◦ 5 25.47 to 12◦ 20 7.06 N
 K. Welde, H.L. Gebremariam / Agricultural Water Management 177 (2016) 215–220
latitude and 39◦ 31 21.79 to 39◦ 37 41.59 E longitudes with an alti-
tude of 1432 m a.s.l. The minimum and maximum monthly average
temperatures are 14.2 ◦ C–29.8 ◦ C respectively for 1997–2011 ref-
erence year. The average rainfall is around 700 mm (1997–2012
reference years) and this site has limited irrigation water that cover
a large hectare of farmland in which maize is the dominant crop
grown in the command area followed by different horticultural
crops. Farmers growing maize crop in this area have not been prac-
ticing specific plant and furrow spacing.
2.2. Experimental design and management
The experiment was laid out in a factorial randomized complete
block design (RCBD) with three replications. There were three levels
of furrow spacing combined with three levels of plant spacing and
this has a total of nine experimental treatments. The plot size was
4 m × 4 m and the distance between replication and plots were 2 m
and 1 m respectively. The plots in each replication were represented
randomly for each treatment. The experimental field was fertilized
with DAP and Urea (150 kg/ha and 300 kg/ha respectively). DAP was
applied at basal but urea was applied both during planting and three
weeks after planting (1/3rd at basal and 2/3rd three weeks after
planting). The experimental plot was ploughed three times before
planting and managed carefully from weeds to minimize water and
nutrient competition with crop.
2.3. Treatment setting
Maize (BH543) variety was used as experimental crop and treat-
ments with their level of plant and furrow spacing are described in
Table 1 below.
Maize water requirement for the specific site was estimated
using CROPWAT 8.0 software. Secondary data’s like meteorological
data (monthly average temperature, relative humidity, sunshine
hours, rainfall and wind speed) which are main inputs for crop
water requirement estimation was taken from the nearby meteoro-
logical station (Chercher meteorological station). Crop parameters
(Kc values, rooting depth, yield response factor to water stress
and other related data) was taken from FAO publications (Andreas
and Karen, 2002). The irrigation scheduling (irrigation interval and
irrigation depth) was formulated using the estimated crop water
requirement of maize and soil characteristics of the specific site.
The estimation of irrigation water requirement of maize was con-
ducted based on a ten (10) year meteorological data (2002–2011).
The amount of irrigation water applied throughout the growing
season was equal for all treatments. All experimental treatments
were received the same amount of water at the same irrigation
intervals.
Table 1
Experimental treatment setting.
No. Treatment setting
Furrow spacing Plant spacing
20
1 50 25
30
20
2 70 25
30
20
3 90 25
30
217
2.4. Data measurements and analysis
As method of irrigation was furrow irrigation, the water applied
per each irrigation event was measured using two inch par-shall
flumes. Watering was done per fixed irrigation interval of seven
days for each respective depth of water required throughout the
growing season. The central rows of the plots were used for harvest-
ing of biomass and grain yield measurement. Irrigation water-use
efficiency was calculated as the ratio of grain yield to the total water
use (Michael, 1978) as:
GY
IWUE =
Wap
Where: IWUE: Irrigation water use efficiency in fraction (kg/m3 ),
GY: Grain yield (kg/ha) and Wap: Amount of water applied (m3 /ha)
The data was statistically analyzed by GenStat 12th edition. Sep-
arate analyses were performed for each data. Treatment means
were compared using least significant difference (P = 0.05) proce-
dure (Gomez and Gomez, 1984).
3. Result and discussion
The results declared that the differences between various levels
of furrow and plant spacing were notable for grain yield, biomass
yield, plant height, number of cobes per plant and irrigation water
use efficiency (IWUE) especially more on the grain yield and IWUE.
3.1. Estimation of crop water requirement
The gross irrigation water requirement of maize for the experi-
mental site estimated using CROPWAT 8 capabilities was 642 mm.
This amount includes the assumption of 75% of furrow irrigation
efficiency. Irrigation scheduling of the experiment for the whole
growing period was developed (Fig. 2 and Appendix 4)
3.2. Grain and biomass yield
Furrow spacing as a main effect and the interaction of furrow
and plant spacing significantly affects the grain yield but plant spac-
ing mainly did not affect the grain yield significantly at alpha level
of 0.05 using Duncan’s Multiple-Range P value adjustment method.
The 50 cm furrow spacing gave significantly highest grain yields
(46.98 qt/ha), almost twice greater than that obtained under 90 cm
furrow spacing (26.84 qt/ha). Even though the level of plant spac-
ing didn’t show significant difference the highest yield (37.91 qt/ha)
was obtained under 20 cm plant spacing (Table 2). Even though the
type of plant was different (sunflower) with this study crop (maize),
Ahmed and Mahmoud (2010) revealed in their study on effect of
inter- row spacing on yield, yields components and water use effi-
ciency of sunflower shows significant difference both on grain and
biomass yield which is in contrast to this result. The interaction
effect of furrow and plant spacing result which showed significant
Treatment statement Code
50 cm furrow spacing and 20 cm plant spacing F1P1
50 cm furrow spacing and 25 cm plant spacing F1P2
50 cm furrow spacing and 30 cm plant spacing F1P3
70 cm furrow spacing and 20 cm plant spacing F2P1
70 cm furrow spacing and 25 cm plant spacing F2P2
70 cm furrow spacing and 30 cm plant spacing F2P3
90 cm furrow spacing and 20 cm plant spacing F3P1
90 cm furrow spacing and 25 cm plant spacing F3P2
90 cm furrow spacing and 30 cm plant spacing F3P3
218 K. Welde, H.L. Gebremariam / Agricultural Water Management 177 (2016) 215–220

Fig. 2. Temporal variation of gross irrigation requirement throughout the growing season.

Table 2 20 cm) and (90, 20 cm) of furrow and plant spacing respectively
Main effects furrow and plant spacing on mean grain yield.
as shown in Table 3. As a comparison both grain yield and biomass
Plant spacing Grain yield Furrow spacing Grain yield yield was obtained for the combination of 50 cm furrow spacing but
(cm) (qt/ha) (cm) (qt/ha) their difference was at their plant spacing (30 cm for grain yield and
20 37.91 50 46.98a 20 cm for biomass yield). This shows the dense plant populations
30 35.81 70 32.13b which were about 20% greater (20 cm plant spacing) may contribute
25 32.23 90 26.84b to have maximum biomass yield without significantly responding
LSD 5.7 LSD 5.7
to the grain yield.
CV (%) 16.1 CV (%) 16.1

Note: Means within columns followed by different letters differ significantly at

P = 0.05.
3.3. Plant height and number of cobs per plant
Table 3
Mean Grain and biomass yield for different plant and furrow spacing interaction. Both the interaction of furrow spacing with plant spacing and
main effect of the two factors were not significantly affected (at
Furrow spacing, Grain Yield (qt/ha) Furrow spacing, Biomass Yield
plant spacing plant spacing (qt/ha)
P = 0.05) the plant height and number of cobs per plant of maize
at the experimental site (Table 4). Likewise similar result was
50, 30 56.26a 50, 20 250.6a
reported by Sani et al. (2008) as there was no significant increase in
50, 20 47.84a 50, 30 205.6ab
90, 20 36.87b 50, 25 182.5abc plant height due to increase plant population (maize). Bertoia et al.
70, 25 36.84b 70, 20 171.7bc (2002) also reported similarly from studies on sorghum at Samaru
50, 25 33.34bc 70, 25 164.4bc that changing plant distance with in the row did not affect plant
70, 20 32.56bc 70, 30 139.8bc height. Comparatively maximum plant height of 1.78 m and maxi-
70, 30 26.96bc 90, 30 121.9c
90, 25 24.22c 90, 25 120.4c
mum number of cobs per plant (1.58) were recorded from plot that
90, 30 22.98c 90, 20 119.0c received 90 cm furrow spacing with 30 cm plant spacing. This com-
LSD 9.81 LSD 68.067 bination (90 cm with 30 cm furrow and plant spacing respectively)
Note: Levels not connected by the same letters are significantly different at P = 0.05. was the third from the bottom that gives minimum yield of biomass
and grain yield. While the minimum plant height was recorded
from 70 cm furrow spacing with 30 cm plant spacing combination
difference on grain yield gave maximum yield (56.26 qt/ha) for the
and the 70 cm furrow with 20 cm of plant spacing interaction gave
combination of 50 cm furrow with 25 cm plant spacing (Table 3).
minimum number of cobs per plant (1.25).
Comparatively this furrow spacing might be supplied enough water
to the crop and higher plant density could produce more grain
yield than lower plant density. But minimum grain yields were
scored with larger plant spacing (30 cm) combined with larger fur- Table 4
row spacing (90 cm). This could be due to large area of plot land is Interaction effect of treatments on plant height and number of cobs per plant.
left blank and hence wastage of applied water and other nutrients Furrow spacing, Plant Height (m) Furrow spacing, Number of cobs
could be occur. But comparatively considerable amount of yield plant spacing plant spacing per plant
(36.87 qt/ha) was obtained for the larger furrow spacing (90 cm)
50, 25 1.797 90, 30 1.583
combined with the smaller plant spacing (20 cm). In this case the 90, 30 1.837 50, 25 1.500
larger furrow spacing effect may be offset by smallest plant popu- 70, 25 1.873 70, 25 1.500
lation. Similarly Majid and Schneiter (2007) found that increasing 50, 30 1.89 90, 20 1.417
plant population reduced grain yield per plant. According to their 70, 20 1.907 50, 30 1.333
50, 20 1.937 70, 30 1.333
report, it is because wider inter-row spacing had increased number 90, 25 1.98 50, 20 1.333
of seeds per cob and 1000-seed weight. 90, 20 1.983 90, 25 1.331
For the study as a whole, the maximum biomass yield 70, 30 1.987 70, 20 1.250
(250.6 qt/ha), which was greater than 50% as compared to the min- LSD 0.238 LSD 0.374
CV (%) 7.2 CV (%) 15.4
imum yield (119 kg/ha) was obtained for the combination of (50,
 K. Welde, H.L. Gebremariam / Agricultural Water Management 177 (2016) 215–220 219

3.4. Irrigation water use efficiency (IWUE) 4. Conclusion

The IWUE values can gave a complete analysis of water resource
management. Therefore, government regulators and conservation-
ist should know how to influence farmers in the selection of
appropriate application of agronomic practice during any irriga-
tion management decision makings. It is very important to shift
from maximizing productivity per unit of land area to maximizing
productivity per unit of water consumed under limited irrigation
water resource. This approach was used in calculating the IWUE in
this paper. Hence, grain yield per amount of water applied is the
major output of interest both for the outers and to the farmers from
maize fields. Therefore the most important measure used to esti-
mate the IWUE, which is expressed as yield in kg per m3 of irrigation
water used. Analysis of the IWUE results gave a significant differ-
ence (at P = 0.05) for furrow spacing and interaction of furrow and
plant spacing. But there was no significant difference for the main
effect of plant spacing levels at alpha level of 5% (Tables 5 and 6)
The result presented in Table 6 revealed that irrigation water use
efficiencies (IWUE) varied from 0.154 to 0.876 kg/m3 . Mohammad
and Afshin (2010) also revealed in their study of yield and water
use efficiency of corn planted in one or two rows and applying fur-
row irrigation systems shows the IWUE of furrow irrigation planted
in one row ranges 0.25 kg/m3 to 0.85 kg/m3 which is nearly simi-
lar to the range of IWUE obtained in this study. The highest value
of irrigation water use efficiency (0.876 kg/m3 ) were under a com-
bination 50 cm furrow and 30 cm plant spacing, while minimum
IWUE (0.154 kg/m3 ) was obtained for 90 cm furrow spacing with
25 cm plant spacing combinations. The implication of this result
is that resuming irrigation practices of maize at different furrow
and plant spacing will have an adverse effect on the efficient uti-
lization of the limited irrigation water. Even though the amount of
water applied were the same for all treatments (620 mm), as the
space between the furrow and plant spacing becomes wide, the
dry biological yield (grain and biomass yields) might be affected by
water stress due to inefficient water distribution efficiency around
the root zone of the maize, evaporation and deepercolation which
causes accordingly reducing in irrigation water use efficiency of the
maize crop (Table 6).
Table 5
IWUEs of Maize against main effects of plant and furrow spacing.
Irrigation water requirement of plants and its efficient utiliza-
tion can be varied from location to location depending on different
factors such as soil, farmers practice and other agro-ecologies. For
sustainable production of crops with sustainable and efficient uti-
lization of limited water resource for a particular area, specific
furrow and plant spacing recommendation is very crucial. For this
reason from the field experiment of this study could be conclude
the 642 mm depth of water was more productive in grain yield
(56.26 qt/ha) using a combination of 70 cm furrow and 30 cm plant
spacing. But in terms of Biomass productivity the 642 mm applied
irrigation water gives maximum yield (250.6 qt/ha) using 70 cm
furrow and 20 cm plant spacing. Larger production of grain yield
and biomass yield were obtained using similar furrow spacing
(70 cm). There difference was in plant spacing (30 cm and 20 cm
plant spacing for grain and biomass yield respectively). Hence small
scale farmers of the study area could select one of the combination
depending on their interest to produce grain yield and livestock
feed. The IWUE of this study ranges 0.357 kg/m3 for (90, 25 cm)
(furrow spacing, plant spacing) to 0.876 kg/m3 for (50 cm, 30 cm)
(furrow spacing, plant spacing). Irrigation agronomist experts and
development agents of the study area must create awareness to the
small scale farmers to exercise 50 cm furrow spacing with 30 cm
plant spacing during maize production.
Acknowledgements
This work was funded by Alamata Agricultural Research cen-
ter carried out within the routine research program of the center.
Hence, the authors gratefully acknowledge the research center. Our
deepest gratitude also extends to Alamata Agricultural Research
Center, Natural Resources Management Research Core Process staff
members especially to Mr. Gebru Eyasu and Mr. Tumay Tasew for
their great contribution during the field work.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found,
in the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2016.07.
026.

Plant spacing (cm) IWUE (kg/m3 ) Furrow spacing (cm) IWUE (kg/m3 ) References
a
50 0.7317 20 0.5905
70 0.5004b 30 0.5578 Ahmed, M., Mahmoud, F., 2010. Effect of irrigation intervals and inter- row spacing
90 0.4181b 25 0.5020 on yield: yields components and water use efficiency of sunflower (Helianthus
annuus L). J. Appl. Sci. Res. 6 (9), 1446–1451 (2010).
LSD 0.0887 LSD 0.0887
Andreas, K., Karen, F., 2002. Crop Water Requirements and Irrigation Scheduling.
CV (%) 16.1 CV (%) 16.1
Irrigation Manual Module 4. Water Resources Development and Management
Note: Means within columns followed by different letters differ significantly at Officers FAO Sub-Regional Office for East and Southern Africa, Harare (2002).
P = 0.05. Bertoia, L., Burak, R., Nivio, A., 2002. Effect of Plant Densities on Yield and Quality of
Forage Maize. Maize Growers Co-operative Newsletter, Santa Catarina, Brazil.
Cardwell, V.B., 1982. Fifty years of Minnesota corn production: sources of yield
Table 6 increase. Agron. J. 74, 984–990.
IWUEs of Maize against the different plant and furrow spacing interaction. Catterson, T., Moges, W., Messel, E., Abate, C.G., Brockman, F., Abebe, W., Kibru, M.,
1999. Programmatic Environmental Assessment of Small-Scale Irrigation in
Furrow spacing, plant spacing IWUE (kg/m3 ) Ethiopia. USAID, Ethiopia.
Dupriez, H., De Leener, 2002. Land Use and Life: Ways of Water, Run Off, Irrigation
50, 30 0.8763a
and Drainage; Tropical Handbook. CTA and TERRES ET VTE, Netherlands, ISBN:
50, 20 0.7451a
2-87105-011-2.
70, 25 0.5744b Fitsum, H., Makombe, G., Namara, R.E., Seleshi, B.A., 2009. Importance of Irrigated
50, 25 0.5738b Agriculture to the Ethiopian Economy: Capturing the Direct Net Benefits of
90, 20 0.5193bc Irrigation. IWMI Research Report 128, Colombo, Srilanka.
70, 20 0.5071bc Forcella, F., Westgate, M.E., Warnes, D.D., 1992. Effect of row width on herbicide
70, 30 0.4199bc and cultivation requirements in row crops. Am. J. Altern. Agric. 7, 161–167.
90, 30 0.3772c Gomez, K.A., Gomez, A.A., 1984. Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research.
90, 25 0.3579c John Willey & Sons, NY.
LSD 0.1537 Karlen, D.L., Camp, C.R., 1985. Row spacing, plant population, and water
CV (%) 16.1 management effects on corn in the Atlantic Coastal Plain. Agron. J. 77, 393–398.
Majid, H.R., Schneiter, A.A., 2007. Yield and yield quality of semi-dwarf and
Note: Means within columns followed by different letters differ significantly at standard height sunflower hybrids grown at five plant populations. Agron. J.
P = 0.05. 79, 681–684.
220 K. Welde, H.L. Gebremariam / Agricultural Water Management 177 (2016) 215–220
Masoud, R., Ghodratolah, S., 2010. Water use efficiency of corn as affected by every
other furrow irrigation and planting. World Appl. Sci. J. 11 (7), 826–829 (2010).
Michael, A.M., 1978. Irrigation Theory and Practice. Vikas Publishing House PVT Ltd.
Mohammad, K., Afshin, G., 2010. Yield and water use efficiency of corn planted in
one or two rows and applying furrow or drip tape irrigation systems In
Ghazvin. J. Irrig. Drain. 60, 35–41 (2010).
Nasseri, A., Neyshabori, M.R., Abbasi, F., 2007. Effectual components on furrow
infiltration. Irrig. Drai. J. 57, 481–489.
Sani, B.M., Oluwasemire, K.O., Mohammed, H.I., 2008. Effect of irrigation and plant
density on the growth, yield and water use efficiency of early maize in the
Nigerian Savanna. ARPN J. Agric. Biol. Sci. Vol. 3 (2), Asian Research Publishing
network (ARPN).
Shuhuai, J., Xiaoli, G., Jibao, L., Pengke, W., Jinfeng, G., Yang, Q., Baili, F., 2012. Effect
of different furrow and mulched ridge on water moisture conversation and
water saving of spring mung bean planted farmland. J. Agric. Sci. 4 (7) (2012).
Stone, J.F., Nofziger, D.L., 1993. Water use and yields of cotton grown under
wide-spaced furrow irrigation. Agric. Water Manage. 24, 27–38.
Traore, S.B., Carlson, R.E., Pilcher, C.D., Rice, M.E., 2000. B t and NON BTmaize
growth and development as affected by temperature and drought stress.
Agron. J. 92 (5), 1027–1035.
Westgate, M.E., Forcella, F., Reicosky, D.C., Somsen, J., 1997. Rapid canopy closure
for maize production in the northern U.S. Corn Belt: radiation-use efficiency
and grain yield. Field Crops Res. 49, 249–258.
Widtose, J.A., 2001. Irrigation Practices. Updesh Purhohit for Agrobios, India,
Jodhpur (ISBN NO: 81-7754-110-2).
Wilson, D.R., Ston, P.G., Gillespie, R.N., 2006. Drought effects on water use, growth
and yield sweet corn. Proceedings of the 9th Australian Agronomy Conference.
Yalew, B., Hussein, K., Ermias, B., Sorssa, N., 2011. Small-scale Irrigation Situation
Analysis and Capacity Needs Assessment, A Tripartite Cooperation Between
Germany, Israel and Ethiopia. Natural Resources Management Directorate
through the support of GIZ, Sustainable Land Management Program, Ministry
of Agriculture, Ethiopia.