Food Security

, Volume 4, Issue 1, pp 103–114 | Cite as

Effects of light environment on maize in hillside agroforestry systems of Nepal

  • Thakur Prasad Tiwari
  • Robert M. Brook
  • Paul Wagstaff
  • Fergus L. Sinclair
Original Paper

Abstract

Maize (Zea mays L.) is the most important staple food in the mid-hills region of Nepal. The mid-hills are characterized by steeply sloping land and complex farming systems where crops, livestock and trees are inseparable components, and maize has to compete with trees grown for fodder, fuel wood, building materials and other purposes in a landscape severely constrained for agricultural purposes. This paper reports the effects of the presence of trees growing on crop terrace risers on bari (upper-slope, rainfed) land on growth and yield of maize grown on terrace benches. Maize performance was compared with and without tree and artificial shade to determine its responses above and below ground to such limiting factors. Mean photosynthetic photon flux density (PPFD) incident on maize in farm conditions was lower than 700 μmol m-2 s-1, well below the light saturation point for maize (1,500 μmol m−2 s−1). Grain yield was reduced by 33% under tree shade and by 43% under artificial shade compared with natural (unshaded) conditions. As the light environment is sub-optimal for maize, the crop rarely achieved maximum rates of photosynthesis. Farmers claim that local landraces are better adapted to shade than station-bred genotypes, but there was no evidence of varietal effects upon rates of photosynthesis. However, there was some evidence that there were varietal adaptations to shade for other factors such as greater numbers of leaves and more competitive rooting patterns. Maize varieties with deeper root systems and adapted to low light conditions are required if productivity in these complex systems is to be improved. The findings of this study should be useful to breeders in developing maize genotypes suitable for the complex hillside systems of Nepal, thereby improving food security.

Keywords

Maize Zea mays Agroforestry Photosynthesis Hillside systems Shade 

References

  1. Andrade, H. F., Uhart, S. A., & Frugone, M. I. (1993). Intercepted radiation at flowering and kernel number in maize: shade versus plant density effects. Crop Science, 33, 482–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Carter, E. J. (1992). Tree cultivation on private land in the middle hills of Nepal: lessons from some villages of Dolakha district. Mountain Research and Development, 12(3), 241–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chamshama, S. A. O., Mugasha, A. G., Kloustad, A., Haveraaen, O., & Maliond, S. M. S. (1998). Growth and yield of maize alley cropped with Leucaena leucocephala and Faidherbia albida in Morogoro, Tanzania. Agroforestry Systems, 40, 215–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Duncan, W. G. (1980). Maize. In L. T. Evans (Ed.), Crop physiology (pp. 23–50). UK: University Press Cambridge.Google Scholar
  5. Duncan, W. G., & Hesketh, J. D. (1968). Net photosynthetic rates, relative leaf growth rates and leaf numbers of 22 races of maize grown at eight temperatures. Crop Science, 8, 670–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Earley, E. B., Miller, R. J., Reichert, G. L., Hageman, R. H., & Seif, R. D. (1966). Effects of shade on maize production under field conditions. Crop Science, 6, 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ephrath, J. E., Wang, R. F., Terashima, K., Hesketh, J. D., Huck, M. G., & Hummel. (1993). Shading effect on soybean and corn. Biotronics, 22, 15–24.Google Scholar
  8. Gaskel, M. L., & Pearce, R. B. (1981). Growth analysis of maize hybrids differing in photosynthetic capability. Agronomy Journal, 73, 817–821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Harris, D., Joshi, A., Khan, P. A., Gothkar, P., & Sodhi, P. S. (1999). On-farm seed priming in semi-arid agriculture: development and evaluation in maize, rice and chickpea in India using participatory methods. Experimental Agriculture, 35, 15–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Huxley, P. A., Pinney, A., Akunda, E., & Muraya, P. (1994). A tree-crop interface orientation experiment with a Grevillea robusta hedgerow and maize. Agroforestry Systems, 26, 23–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Johnson, I. R., Riha, S. J., & Wilks, D. S. (1995). Modelling daily net canopy photosynthesis and its adaptation to irradiance and atmospheric CO2 concentration. Agricultural Systems, 50, 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jose, S., Gillespie, A. R., Seifert, J. R., & Pope, P. E. (2001). Comparison of minirhizotron and soil core methods for quantifying root biomass in a temperate alley cropping system. Agroforestry Systems, 52, 161–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Maddoni, G. A., & Otegui, M. E. (1996). Leaf area, light interception and crop development in maize. Field Crops Research, 48, 81–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Midmore, D. J., Roca, J., & Berrios, D. (1988). Potato (Solanum spp) in the hot tropics IV. Intercropping with maize and the influence of shade on potato microenvironment and crop growth. Field Crops Research, 18, 141–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Morgan, D. C., & Smith, H. (1981). Non-photosynthetic responses to light quality. In O. L. Lange, P. S. Nobel, C. B. Osmond, & H. Ziegler (Eds.), Encyclopedia of plant physiology: physiological plant ecology. I. Responses to the physical environment (pp. 108–134). Berlin: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  16. Peek, M. S., Russek-Cohen, E., Wait, D. A., & Forseth, I. N. (2002). Physiological response curve analysis using nonlinear mixed models. Oecologia, 132, 175–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Prasad, R. B., & Brook, R. M. (2005). Effect of varying maize densities on intercropped maize and soybean in Nepal. Experimental Agriculture, 41, 365–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Reed, A. J., Singletary, G. W., Schussler, J. R., Williamson, D. R., & Christy, A. L. (1988). Shading effects on dry matter and nitrogen partitioning, kernel number and yield of maize. Crop Science, 28, 819–825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Robertson, M. J. (1994). Relationships between internode elongation, plant height and leaf appearance in maize. Field Crops Research, 38, 135–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Smith, H. (1986). The perception of light quality. In R. E. Kendrick & G. H. M. Kronenberg (Eds.), Photomorphogenesis in plants (pp. 187–216). Dortrecht: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  21. Stirling, C. M., Rodrigo, V. H., & Emberru, J. (1993). Chilling and photosynthetic productivity of field grown maize (Zea mays); changes in the parameters of the light-response curve, canopy leaf CO2 assimilation rate and crop radiation-use efficiency. Photosynthesis Research, 38, 125–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Tennant, D. (1975). A test of a modified line intersect method of estimating root length. Journal of Ecology, 63, 995–1001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Thapa, B. (1994). Farmers’ ecological knowledge about the management and use of farmland tree fodder resources in the middle hills of eastern Nepal. Ph.D. Thesis. Bangor: University of Wales.Google Scholar
  24. Tiwari, T. P., Brook, R. M., & Sinclair, F. L. (2004). Implications of hill farmers’ agronomic practices in Nepal for crop improvement in maize. Experimental Agriculture, 40, 397–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Tiwari, T. P., Virk, D. S., & Sinclair, F. L. (2009). Rapid gains in yield and adoption of new maize varieties for complex hillside environments through farmer participation. I. Improving options through participatory varietal selection (PVS). Field Crops Research, 111, 137–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Tiwari, T. P., Ortiz-Ferrara, G., Urrea, C., Katuwal, R. B., Koirala, K. B., Prasad, R. C., Gurung, D. B., Sharma, D., Hamal, B., Bhandari, B., & Thapa, M. (2009). Rapid gains in yield and adoption of new maize varieties for complex hillside environments through farmer participation. II. Scaling-up the adoption through community-based seed production (CBSP). Field Crops Research, 111, 144–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wilson, T. D., Brook, R. M., & Tomlinson, H. F. (1998). Interaction between Nere (Parkia biglobosa) and under-planted sorghum in a parkland system in Burkina Faso. Experimental Agriculture, 34, 85–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V. & International Society for Plant Pathology 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thakur Prasad Tiwari
    • 1
  • Robert M. Brook
    • 2
  • Paul Wagstaff
    • 3
  • Fergus L. Sinclair
    • 2
    • 4
  1. 1.CIMMYTDhakaBangladesh
  2. 2.School of the Environment, Natural Resources and GeographyCollege of Natural Sciences, Bangor UniversityBangorUK
  3. 3.Dublin 2Ireland
  4. 4.World Agroforestry CentreNairobiKenya

Personalised recommendations