The field experiment was conducted to investigate the effects of mulching materials and furrow irrigation methods on phenology and crop stand of maize at Werer, Middle Awash Valley of Ethiopia during 2017/18 cool cropping season. Split plot design with three replications, in which the irrigation methods (Conventional, Fixed and Alternate Furrow) were assigned to main plot and the three mulching materials (plastic, straw and no mulch), were to the sub-plot. Result showed that maize phenology and crop stand was affected by different furrow irrigation methods and mulching materials. But interaction of irrigation methods and mulch had no significant effect on maize phenology and crop stand except days to phenological maturity. Conventional furrow irrigation took less days to emergence (8.4 days) and tasseling (66.67 days). Plastic mulch took less day to emergence (6.9 days), tasseling (62.67 days) and silking (69 days) respectively. Physiological maturity (114.3 days) arrived earlier in fixed furrow with plastic mulch. The conventional furrow irrigation (29600ha-1) and white plastic mulch (29956ha-1) resulted in the maximum maize stand. In conclusion, conventional furrow irrigation and plastic mulching had improved phenological stages and maize crop stand at Werer and other similar agro ecology.

1. Maize Phenology and Crop Stand in Response to Mulching and Furrow Irrigation Methods
Maize Phenology and Crop Stand in Response to Mulching
and Furrow Irrigation Methods
*Nigusie Abebe1 and Yibekal Alemayehu2
1Werer Agricultural Research Center, Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research, P.O. Box 2003, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
2Haramaya University, P. O. Box 138, Haramaya, Ethiopia
The field experiment was conducted to investigate the effects of mulching materials and furrow
irrigation methods on phenology and crop stand of maize at Werer, Middle Awash Valley of
Ethiopia during 2017/18 cool cropping season. Split plot design with three replications, in which
the irrigation methods (Conventional, Fixed and Alternate Furrow) were assigned to main plot and
the three mulching materials (plastic, straw and no mulch), were to the sub-plot. Result showed
that maize phenology and crop stand was affected by different furrow irrigation methods and
mulching materials. But interaction of irrigation methods and mulch had no significant effect on
maize phenology and crop stand except days to phenological maturity. Conventional furrow
irrigation took less days to emergence (8.4 days) and tasseling (66.67 days). Plastic mulch took
less day to emergence (6.9 days), tasseling (62.67 days) and silking (69 days) respectively.
Physiological maturity (114.3 days) arrived earlier in fixed furrow with plastic mulch. The
conventional furrow irrigation (29600ha-1
) and white plastic mulch (29956ha-1
) resulted in the
maximum maize stand. In conclusion, conventional furrow irrigation and plastic mulching had
improved phenological stages and maize crop stand at Werer and other similar agro ecology.
Keywords: Mulching, furrow irrigation, Phenology, Crop stand, evapotranspiration
INTRODUCTION
Characterizing and understanding crop phenology is vital
for crop management practices and irrigation scheduling
(Streck et al., 2008). Phenology and maize crop stand is
affected by mulching materials and moisture availability
(Zamir et al 2014). Mulch had greater role to improve
water retention in the soil, reduces soil evaporation,
increase soil organic matter content, enhance biological
activity, improve soil structure, increase plant nutrients
after decomposition, promote early harvest and provides a
favorable environment for growth which results in more
vigorous, healthier plants which may be more resistant to
pest injury (Liu et al., 2010, Kumar and Lal, 2012, Depar
et al., 2016). Shortage of water, on the other hand, is an
important limiting factor in crop production. Payero et al.
(2008) reported that water stress can affect growth,
development and physiological processes of maize plants,
which affect yield. Deficit irrigation has been widely
investigated as a valuable and sustainable production
strategy in arid and semi-arid regions (Robel et al, 2019).
Using every other furrow (alternate and fixed furrow)
irrigation method is an ideal strategy to reduce irrigation
water used (Rafiee, 2012). Phenological data is used as
an input for crop models and understanding the
phenological responses to water stress is essential for a
holistic perception of plant resistance mechanisms and
management practice under water stress condition.
However, the role of mulching materials and furrow
irrigation water application methods in crop stand and
phenological occurrence is not well studied. Therefore, the
present study was conducted to determine the eff ects
mulching materials and furrow irrigation methods on
phenology and crop stand of maize under semi arid climate
of werer.
*Corresponding Author: Nigusie Abebe, Werer
Agricultural Research Center, Ethiopian Institute of
Agricultural Research, P.O. Box 2003, Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia. Email: nibhoney@gmail.com
Co-Author: yibekalabebe@gmail.com
International Journal of Plant Breeding and Crop Science
Vol. 7(2), pp. 785-789, August, 2020. © www.premierpublishers.org, ISSN: 2167-0449
Research Article

2. Maize Phenology and Crop Stand in Response to Mulching and Furrow Irrigation Methods
Abebe and Alemayehu 786
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Experimental site
Field experiments was conducted during 2017/2018
cropping season at Werer Agricultural Research Center,
Amibara, Middle, Awash, Ethiopia located at 90 16’8” N
and 400 9’41”E with an altitude of 750 m asl. The
experimental site has semiarid climatic condition, with
average minimum and maximum temperature of 15 and
38.4°C, respectively. The site receives a mean annual
rainfall of 589 mm. The soil in the experimental field was
classified in clay textural class (12.13% sand, 32.67% silt,
and 55% clay) and characterized by moderately alkaline
with very low organic matter.
Experimental Design and Crop Management
The experiment was laid out in a split-plot design with three
irrigation water application methods (conventional,
alternate and fixed furrow) as main plots factor and two
mulch types (straw and plastic) and control (no mulch) as
subplots factor. Each sub-plots measures (25 m2) with 3.6
and 1.8 m border between the main-plots and sub-plots,
respectively. Melkassa II maize variety was used for the
experiment. A plant spacing 80cm x 20cm was used.
Wheat straw mulch with a rate of 6 ton ha-1 and white
plastic mulch 30 microns thickness was used as mulching
material and applied uniformly to the experimental plots at
the time of planting. The local rate of fertilizer for maize in
the area 50 kg/ha di ammonium phosphate (DAP) fertilizer
at planting and urea at a rate of 100 kg/ha in split
application half at planting and half five weeks after
planting were applied. All needed management aspects
was done according to the agronomic recommendation of
the crop made for the area.
Figure1: (a) mulch appilication, (b) plastic mulch, (c) wheat straw mulch, (d) no mulch
Crop water requirement and irrigation scheduling
Crop water requirements was estimated using the
CROPWAT computer software program using climatic, soil
and crop data as inputs. The total amount of water
estimated using the CROPWAT model was applied to the
plot using calibrated parshall flume with 3 inch dimension.
Statistical Analysis
The data were subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA)
using SAS version 9.3. Treatment means were compared
using the least significant difference (LSD) at 5% level of
probability.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Crop water requirement and amount of water applied
Amount of water required during the growing season and
amount of irrigation water applied to each treatment plots
is presented in Table 1. Half of the convention furrow
irrigation method was applied to alternate and fixed furrow
at the three tested mulching materials. Totally eight
irrigation events were practiced during the crop period
(Table 1).
(a) (b)
(c) (d)

3. Maize Phenology and Crop Stand in Response to Mulching and Furrow Irrigation Methods
Int. J. Plant Breed. Crop Sci. 787
Table 1. Irrigation scheduling of maize and amount of water applied
Date of
irrigation
Growth irrigation applied (mm)
Conventional furrow Fixed furrow Alternate furrow
White Plastic No mulch What Straw White Plastic No mulch What Straw White Plastic No mulch What Straw
15-Dec 49.2 49.2 49.2 24.6 24.6 24.6 24.6 24.6 24.6
3-Jan 72.6 72.6 72.6 36.3 36.3 36.3 36.3 36.3 36.3
19-Jan 92.5 92.5 92.5 46.3 46.3 46.3 46.3 46.3 46.3
1-Feb 106.0 106.0 106.0 53.0 53.0 53.0 53.0 53.0 53.0
13-Feb 111.3 111.3 111.3 55.7 55.7 55.7 55.7 55.7 55.7
24-Feb 106.0 106.0 106.0 53.0 53.0 53.0 53.0 53.0 53.0
7-Mar 106.1 106.1 106.1 53.0 53.0 53.0 53.0 53.0 53.0
21-Mar 126.5 126.5 126.5 63.3 63.3 63.3 63.3 63.3 63.3
Total 770 770 770 385 385 385 385 385 385
Observation recorded
Phenological stages were measured in term of days to
emergence, tasseling, silking and physiological maturity.
The days’ between sowing and each particular
phonological stage was counted. Emergence was
considered when 50% plants were emerged. Tasseling
and silking was taken, when 50% of plants in a plot
developed tassel and silk. Day to physiological maturity
was recorded, when 50% of the plants in a plot form black
layer at the tip of each kernel on the ears. Crop stand was
considered in term of emergence per plot were counted
and converted into ha-1 at harvest (after physiological
maturity).
Days to 50% emergency
There was significant difference (P < 0.05) on days to 50%
emergency among different furrow irrigation methods
(Table 2). Among, the furrow irrigation methods,
conventional furrow irrigation took significantly less days
(8.4) to 50% emergency than alternate and fixed furrow
irrigation methods. It is evident that emergency was
delayed by 1.9 days in fixed furrow irrigation technique
over the conventional furrow irrigation technique (Table 2).
The current finding is in line with Zelalem (2015) who
reported that emergency period was longer due to water
stress conditions in both alternate and fixed furrow as
compared to full conventional furrow irrigation.
Regarding mulch treatments, there was significant
difference (P < 0.05) on days to 50% emergency (Table 2).
Among, the mulching practice, white plastic mulch took
significantly less days (6.9) to 50% emergency than wheat
straw mulch and no mulch treatment. As shown in Table 2
emergency was delayed by 5.3 days in no mulch plots over
white plastic mulch treatments. The greater water storage
capability and improved available water, reduce soil
evaporation and make uniform optimum temperature
might have resulted in enhanced emergence in plastic
mulch plot over no mulch plots. Similar result was reported
by other researchers (Gul et al., (2014), and Liu et al,
2014) they reported that mulches induced early
emergency, tasseling and silking in maize. The interaction
effect between furrow irrigation methods and mulching on
day to 50% tasseling of maize were found to be non-
significant.
Table 2. Days to 50% emergency of maize as influenced
by main effects of furrow irrigation methods and mulching
materials
Treatments Days to emergency (day)
Irrigation methods
CFI 8.4b
AFI 9.9a
FFI 10.3a
LSD (5%) 0.6
CV (%) 2.8
Mulch types
Straw 9.6b
Plastic 6.9c
No mulch 12.2a
LSD (5%) 0.8
CV (%) 8.3
Irrigation methods *Mulch NS
Means within a column followed by the same letter are not
significantly different at 5% level of significance. NS= Non-
significant, CFI= Conventional furrow irrigation, AFI=
Alternate furrow irrigation, FFI= Fixed furrow irrigation,
CV= Coefficient of variation; LSD=Least significant
difference.
Days to 50% tasseling
There was significant difference (P < 0.05) on days to 50%
tasseling among different furrow irrigation methods (Table
3). Among, the furrow irrigation methods, conventional
furrow (66.67 days) took significantly less days to 50%
tasseling than fixed (68.56 days) furrow irrigation methods.
It is evident that tasseling was delayed by 1.89 days in
fixed furrow irrigation technique over the conventional
furrow irrigation technique (Table 3).Tasseling was longer
with increasing water stress. The current finding is in line
with Zelalem (2015) who reported that tasseling period
was longer due to water stress conditions in both alternate
and fixed furrow as compared to full conventional furrow
irrigation. Similarly Singh et al. (2016) observed a delay of
days to 50% tasseling in stressed crop as compared to full
irrigated crop.

4. Maize Phenology and Crop Stand in Response to Mulching and Furrow Irrigation Methods
Abebe and Alemayehu 788
Regarding mulch treatments, there was significant
difference (P < 0.05) on days to 50% tasseling (Table 3).
Among, the mulching practice, white plastic mulch took
significantly less days to 50% tasseling (62.67 days) than
wheat straw mulch(70.11 days) and no mulch (70 days)
treatment. As shown in Table 3 tasseling was delayed by
about 7.4 days in wheat straw mulch plots over white
plastic mulch treatments (62.67 days). The early tasseling
in white plastic mulch could be due to increase in soil
temperature under plastic mulch treatments, which may
have promoted early tasseling (Gul et al., 2014). The
interaction effect between furrow irrigation methods and
mulching on day to 50% tasseling of maize were found to
be non-significant.
Days to 50% silking
Statistically there was no significant difference (P > 0.05)
in day to 50% silking among different furrow irrigation
water application methods (Table 3). Regarding mulch
treatments, there was significant difference (P < 0.05) in
day to 50% silking among different mulching practice
(Table 3). Among mulching practice, white plastic mulched
plots took significantly less days to 50% silking (69 days)
than wheat straw (74.22 days) and no mulch (74.67 days).
As shown in Table 3 silking was delayed by 5.7 days in no
mulch plots over white plastic mulch treatments. The early
silking in plastic mulch might be due to the effects of plastic
mulch in increasing soil temperature that induced early
silking (Gul et al., 2014). These results for plastic mulches
are in agreement with Liu et al. (2014) who reported that
mulches induced early tasseling and silking in maize as
compared to uncovered treatments. The interaction effect
between furrow irrigation methods and mulching on day to
50% silking of maize were found to be non-significant.
Table 3. Days to 50% tasseling and silking of maize as
influenced by main effects of furrow irrigation methods and
mulching materials
Treatments
Days to 50%
tasseling (day)
Days to 50%
silking (day)
Irrigation
methods
CFI 66.67b 72.00
AFI 67.56ab 72.56
FFI 68.56a 73.33
LSD (5%) 1.87 Ns
CV (%) 4.19 1.83
Mulch types
Straw 70.11a 74.22a
Plastic 62.67b 69.00b
No mulch 70.00a 74.67a
LSD (5%) 1.40 1.02
CV (%) 2.01 1.36
Irrigation methods
*Mulch
NS NS
Means within a column followed by the same letter are not
significantly different at 5% level of significance. NS= Non-
significant, CFI= Conventional furrow irrigation, AFI=
Alternate furrow irrigation, FFI= Fixed furrow irrigation,
CV= Coefficient of variation; LSD=Least significant
difference.
Days to 50% maturity
There was significant difference (P < 0.05) in days to 50%
maturity between interaction effect of different furrow
irrigation methods and mulching practice (Table 4). Among
the treatments fixed furrow with plastic mulched plots took
significantly less days to 50% maturity (114.3 days).
Maturity was delayed by about 8.7 days in conventional
furrow with straw mulch over fixed furrow with plastic
mulch (Table 4). This could be due to the fact that plants
under moisture stress tend to complete their life cycle,
which enables them escape from the unfavorable
conditions by ending their life cycle, few days earlier than
those under normal or high soil moisture conditions.
Similarly, Karkanis et al. (2011) reported that plants
matured early under conditions of moisture stress than
under favorable conditions, indicating that plants under
favorable condition delay flowering to allocate more
biomass to vegetative growth. On other hand Plastic
mulch will warm the soil and promote faster growth in early
season, which generally leads to earlier harvest. Similar
report was reported by (Ibrahim and Khan, 2017) how
reported that plastic mulch accelerate days to
physiological maturity as compared to uncovered
treatment.
Table 4. Days to 50% maturity of maize as affected by
interaction of furrow irrigation methods and mulching
materials
Treatment Day to 50% maturity (day)
Furrow Irrigation
Methods
Mulching Types
Plastic mulch Straw mulch No mulch
CFI 118.7cd 123.0a 119.7bcd
AFI 115.3e 121.3b 119.3bcd
FFI 114.3e 120.3bc 118.0d
LSD (0.05) 1.31
CV (%) 0.6
Means within columns and rows followed by the same
letter are not significantly different at 5% level of
significance. CFI = Conventional furrow irrigation, AFI =
Alternate furrow irrigation, FFI = Fixed furrow irrigation, CV
= Coefficient of variation; LSD: Least significant difference.
Crop stand
Statistically there was no significant difference (P > 0.05)
in crop stand among different furrow irrigation water
application methods (Table 5). However, stand count
higher in the conventional furrow irrigation method
(29600ha-1) as compared to alternate (29289ha-1) and
fixed (28222ha-1) furrow irrigation methods. Regarding
mulch treatments, there was significant difference (P <
0.05) in stand count among different mulching practice
(Table 5). Among mulching practice, white plastic mulch
plot resulted in higher stand count (29956ha-1) than no
mulch (28178ha-1) and straw mulch (28978ha-1) practice.
Plastic mulch protects soil evaporation and more moisture

5. Maize Phenology and Crop Stand in Response to Mulching and Furrow Irrigation Methods
Int. J. Plant Breed. Crop Sci. 789
accumulation might have increased stand count. Similarly
result reported by Materechera et al. (2007), Ibrahim and
Khan, (2017).
Table 5. Stand count of maize as influenced by main
effects of furrow irrigation methods and mulching materials
Treatments Stand count (thousand)
Irrigation
methods
CFI 29600
AFI 29289
FFI 28222
LSD (5%) NS
CV (%) 1303.9
Mulch types
Straw 28978b
Plastic 29956a
No mulch 28178b
LSD (5%) 884
CV (%) 3
Irrigation methods *Mulch NS
Means within columns and rows followed by the same
letter are not significantly different at 5% level of
significance. CFI = Conventional furrow irrigation, AFI =
Alternate furrow irrigation, FFI = Fixed furrow irrigation, CV
= Coefficient of variation; LSD: Least significant difference.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The research results revealed that conventional furrow
irrigation technique and white plastic mulch practice
enhance phenology and crop stand of maize for Amibara
area and similar agro ecology.
REFERENCES
Depar N, Shah JA, Memon MY. (2014). Effect of organic
mulching on soil moisture conservation and yield of
wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Pakistan Journal of
Agriculture, Agricultural Engineering and Veterinary
Sciences, 30(1): 54-66.
Gul B, Marwat KB, Khan MA, Khan H. (2014). Impact of
tillage, plant population and mulches on phenological
characters of maize. Pak. J. Bot, 46(2): 549-554.
Ibrahim M, Khan A. (2017). Phenology and Maize Crop
Stand in Response to Mulching and Nitrogen
Management. Sarhad Journal of Agriculture, 33(3).
Karkanis A, Bilalis D, Efthimiadou A. (2011). Architectural
Plasticity, Photosynthesis and Growth Responses of
Velvetleaf ('Abutilon theophrasti'Medicus) Plants to
Water Stress in a Semi-arid Environment. Australian
Journal of Crop Science, 5(4): 369.
Kumar SD, Lal BR. (2012). Effect of mulching on crop
production under rainfed condition: a
review. International Journal of Research in Chemistry
and Environment (IJRCE), 2(2): 8-20.
Liu J, Bu L, Zhu L, Luo S, Chen X, Li S. (2014). Optimizing
plant density and plastic film mulch to increase maize
productivity and water‐use efficiency in semiarid
areas. Agronomy Journal, 106(4): 1138-1146.
Liu Y, Li S, Chen F, Yang S, Chen X. (2010). Soil water
dynamics and water use efficiency in spring maize (Zea
mays L.) fields subjected to different water
management practices on the Loess Plateau,
China. Agricultural Water Management, 97(5): 769-
775.
Materechera SA, Motsuenyane B, Modise JR. (2007). The
effects of soil amendments and mulch on emergence,
pod development and yield of bambara groundnut
(Vigna subterranea L.) in a hard-setting soil. South
African Journal of Plant and Soil, 24(2): 100-105.
Payero JO, Tarkalson DD, Irmak S, Davison D, Petersen
JL. (2008). Effect of irrigation amounts applied with
subsurface drip irrigation on corn evapotranspiration,
yield, water use efficiency, and dry matter production in
a semiarid climate. Agricultural water
management, 95(8):895-908.
Rafiee M. (2012). Effect of every other furrow irrigation and
planting density on physiological traits in corn (Zea
mays L.). World Applied Sciences Journal, 17(2): 189-
193.
Robel A, Abraham W, Tilahun H. (2019). Effect of Moisture
Stress on Maize (Zea Mays L.) Yield and Water
Productivity. International Journal of Environmental
Sciences and Natural Resources, 16(4): 555945.
Singh Brar H, Kumar Vashist K, Bedi S. (2016). Phenology
and Yield of Spring Maize (Zea mays L.) under Different
Drip Irrigation Regimes and Planting Methods. Journal
Agricultural Science and Technology,(2016) Vol. 18:
831-843.
Streck NA, Lago I, Gabriel LF, Samboranha FK. (2008).
Simulating maize phenology as a function of air
temperature with a linear and a nonlinear
model. Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira, 43(4): 449-
455.
Zamir SI, Asif M, Haq I, Ashraf U, Hussain S, Khan MK.
(2014). Maize phenology, yield and its quality is
affected by organic mulches and various irrigation
regimes. International Journal of Modern
Agriculture, 3(2): 56-59.
Zelalem SH. (2015). Response of maize to deficit irrigation
under three furrow irrigation systems in Adami Tulu.
MSc. Thesis Research. Haramaya University, Ethiopia.
Accepted 23 July 2020
Citation: Abebe N and Alemayehu Y (2020). Maize
Phenology and Crop Stand in Response to Mulching and
Furrow Irrigation Methods. International Journal of Plant
Breeding and Crop Science, 7(2): 785-789.
Copyright: © 2020: Abebe and Alemayehu. This is an
open-access article distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits
unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original author and source are cited.