Root classes and spatial arrangement trials

415 views

Published on

Root classes and spatial arrangement trials of gmelina on the yield of zea maize: its impact on climate change

Published in: Technology, Health & Medicine
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
415
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Root classes and spatial arrangement trials

  1. 1. ROOT CLASSES AND SPATIAL ARRANGEMENT OF GMELINA: ITS EFFECT ON MAIZE AND IMPACT ON CLIMATE CHANGE ONOFRE S. CORPUZ, PHD CFCST Arakan, Cotabato Onofre S. Corpuz, Ph.D
  2. 2. INTRODUCTION  The relationship between root system development of planted tree species and its survival, stability and growth has attracted considerable research interest (Van Eerden and Kinghorn 1978; Somerville 1979; Coutts and Lewis 1983; Deans and Ford I983).  The intelligent application of plant combination requires an understanding of the various species interactions. Vandermeer (1989)  Intercropping of corn crops in Gmelina RGP trials at various spatial arrangements will be explored/investigate in this study  Estimation of Biomass and carbon density of the farming system  As input to green house gas inventory in the Country Onofre S. Corpuz, Ph.D
  3. 3. METHODOLOGY  The study was conducted on May 8 – August 23, 2007 (1st cropping) and September 16 – December 31, 2007 (2nd cropping) in a field trials of RGP of Gmelina planted at different spacing in Matalam Cotabato (Fig. 1)  The climate is warm tropical with mean annual temperature ranging from 28 oC – 40oC  Mean annual rainfall of 2,373.5mm.  The soil is silty clay with pH value ranging from 6.2 to 7.2.  Six months after outplanting, maize were sown in the furrows at 25cm x 60cm.  Basal application of complete fertilizer (14-14-14) and side dressing of urea (46-0-0) at a rate of 120-28-28 (prevailing farmer’s practice in the area) were employed. Onofre S. Corpuz, Ph.D
  4. 4. Fig. 1. Map showing the Study Site Onofre S. Corpuz, Ph.D
  5. 5. RESULTS Crop 1 Grain Yield (tons/ha) 7 Crop 2 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Mono-corn 2m x 2m 2m x 3m 2m x 4m Tree Sapcing Figure 2. Grain Yield of corn on both cropping season as affected by tree spacing Onofre S. Corpuz, Ph.D
  6. 6. RESULTS Grain Yield (tons/ha) 7 Crop 1 Crop 2 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Mono-corn R1 R2 R3 RGP Classes Figure 3. Grain Yield of corn on both cropping season as affected by RGP class Onofre S. Corpuz, Ph.D
  7. 7. RESULTS Table 1. Multiple correlation of the growth and yield of corn as affected by tree spacing and RGP classes. RGP RGP 1.000 DBH 0.000 H 0.144 NL 0.159 YD -0.344 WT500 -0.074 BIOM -0.454 LA -0.124 LAI -0.123 DBH H NL YD WT500 BIOM LA LAI 1.000 0.127 0.133 0.821** 0.668** 0.862** 0.187 0.181 1.000 0.354 0.106 0.173 0.138 0.072 0.069 1.000 0.138 0.171 0.204 -0.134 -0.129 1.000 0.677** 0.904** 0.249 0.241 1.000 0.605** 0.166 0.162 1.000 0.211 0.205 1.000 0.999** 1.000 ** Highly significant Onofre S. Corpuz, Ph.D
  8. 8. RESULTS Table 3. Mean corn biomass (tons/ha) in both cropping season as affected by tree spacing. TREE SPACING Mono-corn crop 2m x 2m 2m x 3m 2m x 4m CORN BIOMASS Crop 1 7.3000a 4.0233b 4.7800bc 5.3133c Crop 2 7.5867a 4.0367b 3.8500b 4.5500b Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different at 5% level Onofre S. Corpuz, Ph.D
  9. 9. Corn Biomass (tons/ha) RESULTS Crop 1 8 Crop 2 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Mono-corn R1 R2 R3 RGP Class Figure 4. Corn Biomass in both cropping periods as affected by RGP classes Onofre S. Corpuz, Ph.D
  10. 10. RESULTS 2.5 Crop 1 Crop 2 Height (m) 2 1.5 Control 2m x 2m 1 2m x 3m 0.5 2m x 4m 0 30 DAP 60 DAP 90 DAP 105 DAP Measurement Day 2.5 2.5 Mono-corn R1 R2 Mono-corn R3 1.5 R2 R3 2 1.5 1 Crop 1 0.5 0 Corn Height (m) Corn height (m) 2 R1 1 Crop 2 0.5 0 30 DAP 60 DAP 90 DAP Measurement Day 105 DAP 30 DAP 60 DAP 90 DAP 105 DAP Tree Spacing Measurement Day Onofre S. Corpuz, Ph.D
  11. 11. RESULTS Crop 1 0.3 Crop 2 Leaf Area Index 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 Mono-corn 2m x 2m 2m x 3m 2m x 4m Tree Spacing Figure 11. Leaf area index as affected by tree spacing Onofre S. Corpuz, Ph.D
  12. 12. RESULTS Leaf Area Index 0.3 Crop 1 Crop 2 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 Mono-corn R1 R2 R3 RGP Class Tree Spacing Figure 12. Leaf area index of as affected by RGP classes Onofre S. Corpuz, Ph.D
  13. 13. RESULTS Table 4: Biomass and carbon density of the farming system SOURCES AGB (MG/HA) RB (MG/HA) Tree components 4.3 1.3 Corn Component 5.18 CARBON DENSITY (MG/HA) 2.52 2.33 SOC 2.74 Total 7.59 Onofre S. Corpuz, Ph.D
  14. 14. RESULTS Figure 13. Path correlation analysis Onofre S. Corpuz, Ph.D
  15. 15. CONCLUSION The intercropped maize showed significant difference in all agronomic and morphological characters in the 2nd cropping Mono-corn crop dominated significantly in all traits Tree spacing was significantly related to corn yield and biomass RGP class was insignificantly and negatively correlated with corn yield, biomass, leaf area and leaf area index. The significant relationship of tree spacing with corn yield, and biomass implies that wider tree spacing will mean higher yield in corn and the reversed is true with the negative relationship. The farming system stored C of 7.6Mt/ha at 1 year Onofre S. Corpuz, Ph.D
  16. 16. RECOMMENDATIONS  Intercropping of corn with Gmelina at the early stage (not more than a year) with wider tree spacing is possible  A reducing corn yield would be expected when trying to intercrop corn in an older Gmelina Onofre S. Corpuz, Ph.D
  17. 17. The End…. Thank You!!! Onofre S. Corpuz, Ph.D

×