Influences of planting system and nutrient management on growth attributes of maize
The different planting systems show distinct effects on the growth attributes of maize crops. The results revealed that sole maize recorded significantly higher leaf number (12.66 plant
-1), LAI (3.85), LAD (140.91 days) and SLW (6.12 gcm
-2) at 90 DAS, which was on par with M3 and M4 and lowest values were found in M5 treatment (Table 1). It might be due to the appropriate spacing and zero competition between plants in sole crop maize
(Singh et al., 2023). Similarly, lowest LAI (2.52) and LAD (92.74 days) were found M4 which was probably due to higher competition between plants for their resources. The significantly higher SLA was observed in M5 (166.57 cm
2 g
-1) which was on par with M4 (166.49 cm
2 g
-1) and lowest value was recorded in M1 treatment (163.62 g
-1). It was probably due to the inversely proportional relationship between leaf size and specific leaf area
(Torrez et al., 2013). In nutrient management, the S5 was recorded significantly higher number of leaves (11.57 plant
-1), LAI (3.54) and LAD (129.52 days), which was on par with the S4 and the S3. While, the significantly lowest no. of leaves (9.97 plant
-1), LAI (3.34), LAD (123.36 days) and SLW (5.84 gcm
-2) were noticed in S1 (control) (Table 1). This result might be due to higher micronutrient and microbial activity found in plant extract and Homemade NPK (liquid compost)
Kantwa et al., 2023 and
Chandukishore et al., (2023). Contradictorily while, high SLA was record in S1 (171.28 m2 g
-1) treatment, which was on par with S4 (164.47 m2 g
-1) and S3 treatment (163.78 m2 g
-1). Interaction effect of growth attributes was significantly influenced with cropping system and nutrient sources except SLA and SLW, these results were corroborated with
Kalyanasundaram et al., (2021), Katarzyna et al., (2021) and
Unay et al. (2021).
Influences of planting system and nutrient management on maize biological yield
The significantly highest biological yield was recorded in sole maize (132.21 q ha
-1), which was on par with M2 (126.79 qha
-1), M3 (118.74qha-1) and M4 (110.99 qha
-1). No inter competition with soybean. Similarly in nutrient management, significantly higher biological yield was record in S5 (129.02 qha
-1), which was on par with S4(127.57 qha
-1) and S3 treatment (127.21 q ha
-1). Similarly and lowest biological yield was recorded in S1 treatment (101.44 q ha
-1). It might be plant extract have higher micro-nutrients which enhance the nutrient efficiency inside the plant metabolism, similar result was followed by
Chandukishore et al., (2023), Choudhary et al., (2024) and
Garg et al., (2024). There was significant interaction noticed between planting systems and nutrient sources. Results are corroborated with
Umesh et al., (2024) and
Dudwal et al. (2021).
Influences of planting systems and nutrient management on Light transmission ratio and light interception in maize
The sole maize (M1) was recorded significantly maximum LTR (52.63%,), which was on par with M3 (39.46%), M4 (38.96%) and lowest was found in M5 (20.34). M1 treatment recorded 158% more LTR over M5 treatments. It was due to less light interception
(Mo et al., 2015). While, M5 (77.69%) treatment observed significantly highest light interception (LI), which was on par with M4 (74.59%) and M3 (70.21%) and lowest was recorded in M1 treatment. It might be due to maximum leaf covered on surface by parahelionastic movement of soybean in intercropping
(Chandukishore et al., 2023). In nutrient management, significantly high LTR was recorded in S1 (40.26%), which was on par with S2 (35.06%), S3 (34.81%) and S4 (16.19) and lowest LTR was recorded in S5 (11.55%) treatment. While, S5 (88.45%) was found significantly highest light interception which was on par with S4 (83.81) and lowest was found in S1 (59.75%). It might be due to the foliar application of plant extract enhanced the leaf area which is directly proportional to light interception and indirectly proportional to light transmission ratio
(Chandukishore et al., 2023).
Relationship between growth and yield light attributes
The relationship between growth, yield and light attributes were significantly correlated with each other (Fig 1). Light interception was positively correlated with SLW (0.166), leaf number (0.127) but, negatively correlated with LAI (0.035), SLA (0.174) and LAD (0.046). Similarly, SLW correlated with LI (0.165), LAI (0.216), no of leaf (0.519), LAD (0.213) and negative correlation with SLA (0.99); LAI positively correlated with SLW (0.16) no. of leaf (0.400), LAD (0.998) and negatively correlated with LAI (0.35) and SLA (0.215); No of leaf positively correlated with LI (0.127), SAW (0.519), LAI (0.400), LAD (0.376) and negative with SLA (0.516); SLA was negatively correlated with SLW, LI, LAI, no of leaf and LAD. Similarly, LAD positively correlated with SLW (0.213), LAI (0.998), no of leaf (0.376) and negatively correlated with LI and SLA.