GREENOAK INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL, SECONDARY, PORT HARCOURT

INTERNATIONAL GENERAL CERTIFICATE OF SECONDARY EDUCATION (IGCSE)

AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE (0600) COURSEWORK

PRACTICAL INVESTIGATION

PROJECT TOPIC:

THE EFFECT OF DIFFERENT LEVELS OF ARTIFICIAL DEFOLIATION AND TASSEL

REMOVAL ON THE YIELD OF MAIZE
(ZEA MAYS)

BY:

CHIBUIKE DANIEL WORDU

INDEX NUMBER: 0015

DATE:

AUGUST 23RD, 2021.

Table of Contents
CHAPTER ONE ..................................................................................................................................................... 4
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................. 4
BACKGROUND INFORMATION ....................................................................................................................
4
Trend of production .............................................................................................................................................
4
Nutritional Value and uses of maize ................................................................................................................... 4
Taxonomy of maize .............................................................................................................................................
5
Problem Statement .............................................................................................................................................. 5
Objectives ............................................................................................................................................................
5
Null hypothesis ....................................................................................................................................................
6
Alternative hypothesis .........................................................................................................................................
6
Justification of project ......................................................................................................................................... 6
Limitations .......................................................................................................................................................... 6
DELIMITATIONS ............................................................................................................................................
10
Chapter Two.......................................................................................................................................................... 12
Literature Review.................................................................................................................................................. 12
Origin and History of maize .............................................................................................................................. 12
Importance of maize .......................................................................................................................................... 12
Defoliation .........................................................................................................................................................
12
CHAPTER THREE .............................................................................................................................................. 14
METHODS AND MATERIALS .......................................................................................................................... 14
EXPEIMENTAL SITE ..................................................................................................................................... 14
LAND PREPARATION ................................................................................................................................... 14
Experimental Design ......................................................................................................................................... 15
Seed Sowing ......................................................................................................................................................
15
Post sowing operations ...................................................................................................................................... 15
 Treatment Application....................................................................................................................................... 18
Harvesting ......................................................................................................................................................... 19
Sampling, Data collection and Data Analysis ................................................................................................... 19
Chapter four .......................................................................................................................................................... 21
Result and Discussion ........................................................................................................................................... 21
Weight of cob (with husk and without husk) .................................................................................................... 21
NUMBER OF GRAINS PER COB .................................................................................................................. 24
Correlation analysis between number of grains per cob and weight of cob. .................................................... 27
Chapter Five .......................................................................................................................................................... 30
Conclusions and Recommendations ..................................................................................................................... 30
Conclusions ....................................................................................................................................................... 30
Recommendations ............................................................................................................................................. 31
References .............................................................................................................................................................
32
 CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION
Background Information
Maize is believed to have originated from Mexico and it is a widely cultivated crop in Central and South America.

The scientific name is Zea mays. Maize was introduced into Africa in the 1500s and has become staple food crop

in Nigeria. Maize (Zea mays ssp. mays) belongs to the tribe Maydae, family Poaceae and was originated in Mexico

and Central America. (Schnable et al. 2009). Maize serves as a raw material and food crop for human consumption.

Trend of production
Maize has become a staple food in many parts of the world, with the total production of maize surpassing that of

wheat or rice. In addition to being consumed directly by humans, maize is also used for corn ethanol, animal feed

and other maize products, such as corn starch and corn syrup. (Foley, Jonathon, 2019). The six major types of

maize are dent corn, flint corn, pod corn, popcorn, flour corn, and sweet corn. (Linda Campbell Franklin, 2013).

Nutritional Value and uses of maize

Maize grain has great nutritional value and can be used as raw material for manufacturing many industrial products

and for domestic consumption (Afzal et al., 2009). Maize and other cereal grains constitute important sources of

carbohydrates, proteins, vitamin B, and minerals. In some regions, maize serves as the primary staple while in

other regions, maize is combined with other cereal grains. In Africa, where maize is mostly used for human

consumption, dietary preferences, processing and mode of preparation affect the contributions of maize in human

nutrition.

Taxonomy of maize
Root: Normally maize plants have three types of roots, i) seminal roots - which develop from radical and persist

for long period, ii) adventitious roots, fibrous roots developing from the lower nodes of stem. iii) brace or prop

roots, produced by lower two nodes.

4
Stem: The stem generally attains a thickness of three to four centimeters. The internodes are short and fairly thick

at the base of the plant; become longer and thicker higher up the stem, and then taper again. The ear bearing

internode is longitudinally grooved, to allow proper positioning of the ear head (cob).

Flower: The apex of the stem ends in the tassel, an inflorescence of male flowers and the female inflorescences

(cobs or ears) are borne at the apex of condensed, lateral branches known as shanks protruding from leaf axils.

The male (staminate) inflorescence, a loose panicle, produces pairs of free spikelets.. The female (pistillate)

inflorescence, a spike, produces pairs of spikelets on the surface of a highly condensed rachis (central axis, or

“cob”).

Problem Statement
Preliminary investigation on the knowledge of local maize farmers revealed that some of the farmers did not know

the exact role that leaves and tassel play in the yield of maize. Some of the local farmers said that they even reduce

the leaf density by cutting the leaves from the lower part of the maize plant when they weed among their crops.

Some of the farmers that were interviewed acceded to the fact that they sometimes remove the tassels in order for

deter birds from damaging the fresh cob. These responses from these local farmers suggest that they have limited

knowledge on the crop that they are cultivating; it is against this background that this project seek to ascertain the

effect of artificial defoliation and tassel removal on the yield of maize.

Objectives
The main objective of the research work is to find out how defoliation and tassel removal in maize affect the yield

of maize.

Null hypothesis
Different levels of artificial defoliation do not affect weight of cob, number grains per cob, length of cob and

number row per cob.

Total tassel removal does not affect weight of cob, number grains per cob, length of cob and number row per cob.

5
Alternative hypothesis
Different levels of artificial defoliation affect weight of cob, number grains per cob, length of cob and number row

per cob.

Total tassel removal affects weight of cob, number grains per cob, length of cob and number row per cob.

Justification of project
In business, the primary aim is to maximize profits. Relating this to the project work, the farmer must be able to

apply the same concept and increase yield of maize to the highest possible amount. The findings of the research

will help farmers understand the role that leaves and tassels play in yield of maize. The finding would also serve

as a secondary data for any researcher who would like to expand the concept.

Limitations
This project was faced with several challenges. Some of which had a significant effect on the results of the

research. Among these limitations are;

Army worm infestation; These insects are the natural defoliators which destroy some of the leaves from treatments

that do not require defoliation and this has a major effect on the outcome of the research work.

The pictures below are the evidence of the destruction caused by the army worms;

6
Another limitation encountered was the space available for the project. This limitation affects how the treatments

were applied especially to the total tassel removal which requires it being done on another plot for it to truly show

the effects of the treatment on the yield.

Around the research plot, there were tall plantain trees with broad leaves that shadowed some of the maize plant

making them etiolated and having drastic effects on the yield and growth of those maize plants. Evidences of this

limitation is shown below;

7
Another significant limitation is the damage of the fresh cobs by the weaver birds. The weaver birds ate the fresh

grains from the cobs especially in the control section reducing the number of grain per cob therefore reducing the

weight of the cob. Evidences of these damage are shown below;

8
DELIMITATIONS
These are some of the actions taken to resolve some of the problems faced during the project. For the army worm

infestation, insecticide was applied to the entire plot to control the destructions by the army worms. Evidences of

this delimitation is shown below;

9
To solve the problem concerning the limited space, the plant that were tagged for total tassel removal, their ears

were concealed with plastic bags to prevent/minimize pollen grains from the tassels of neighboring plants from

having access to the ear. Although we were solving this problem of limited space, some of the ears grew out of

the bags. Evidences of this delimitation are shown below;

10
To resolve the issue of the weaver birds damaging cobs on the plot, a scarecrow was setup to scare the weaver

bird, chasing them away from the plot. Evidences of this delimitations are shown below;

11
 Chapter Two

Literature Review
This chapter focuses on the review of relevant literature in line with the project aims and hypothesis.

Origin and History of maize

Maize (Zea mays ssp. mays) belongs to the tribe Maydae, family Poaceae and was originated in Mexico and

Central America. It possesses somatic chromosome number of 20, a genome size of 2.3 gigabase and more than

32,000 genes (Schnable et al. 2009).

Importance of maize
Every part of the maize plant has economic value. The grain can be consumed as human food, fermented to produce

a wide range of foods and beverages, fed to livestock, and used as an industrial input in the production of starch,

oil, sugar, protein, cellulose and ethyl alcohol. The leaves, stalks, and tassels can be fed to livestock, either green

(in the form of fodder or silage) or dried (in the form of Stover) (Morris, 2002).

Defoliation
The leaf area usually increases as the plant emits new leaves until it reaches the maximum of leaves. The yield

potential of maize grains will depend mainly on the amount of incident solar radiation, interception efficiency,

intercepted radiation conversion, and assimilation efficiency of the grains (Forsthofer et al., 2006).

Leaf maintenance is extremely important because it is the main organ responsible for photosynthesis and

photoassimilates production. In addition, the crop has low capacity to compensate foliar losses (Pereira et al.,

2012). The loss of leaves by the plant is a stress that impairs the development of the crop, because it reduces the

leaf area of the plant and consequently limits the interception of the solar radiation, reducing the photosynthetic

capacity and the biomass production (Picoli Junior, 2011).

According to Fancelli and Dourado Neto (2004), the total destruction of the leaves when the crop presents eight

expanded leaves, due to the occurrence of hail, frost, severe attack of pests and diseases, decreases the

productivity between 10 to 25%.

12
 CHAPTER THREE

METHODS AND MATERIALS

This chapter highlights methods and materials used in carrying out the research.

Experimental Site
This research work was carried out at Greenoak International School research garden. The school is located in

G.R.A phase 3, Tombia Road Extension, Port Harcourt, Rivers State, Nigeria. The School is located at 4.8156°N,

7.0498°E above sea level. This research work commenced from the 19th of March 2021 to 10th June 2021.

Land Preparation
Land preparation has to do with getting the land ready for sowing. The land was prepared by removing all the

vegetation that are not wanted. By the use of hoe and spade, all the weeds were cleared. After clearing the weeds,

rake was used to gather weeds and other debris and these material were collected off the plot.

13
The land was tilled by using spade to produce a good crumb soil structure for the seeds to be sown to germinate

well. After ploughing with the spade, hoe and rake were used to break the soil clods so as to level the surface of

the soil.

Experimental Design
The plot was divided into two. The size of the plots was 4m x 12m. The planting distance was 60cm x 60cm. the

two plots were further divided into three treatment plots. The plan of the plot is shown below;

14
Seed Sowing
After land preparation, a planting distance of 60cm x 60cm was marked out using the meter-ruler. Planting holes

were made using cutlass at a depth of 4cm. Two viable seeds were sown per stand. In all, about 42 seeds were

sown for each treatment plot. For the 6 treatment plot, the expected plant population was 252 plants.

Post sowing operations

These are activities done after sowing. The field was watered often to supply plants with the adequate amount

water that they needed to grow properly. After germination, to avoid overcrowding, thinning was carried out. At

a stand, if there are more than 2 seedlings, the small and the weakest ones will be removed to allow only two

healthy seedlings per stand. Some of the seeds did not germinate which may be due to damage by soil organisms

or the embryo of the seed was dead. In place of such seeds, new seeds were sown to make up for the intended

plant population needed for the project. For the plant to have proper growth rate, weeds were regularly removed

15
by the use of hoe. There was infestation of army-worm and grasshopper. These insects were controlled through

the application of insecticide. Snails were feeding on the leaves, so they were often handpicked. Six week after

germination, some of the maize plants were experiencing nutrient deficiency therefore, NPK chemical fertilizer

was applied to each plant by side placement. Weaver birds were the major field pest that damaged some of the

grains, scarecrow was made to scare the birds away and it actually solved the problem.

16
Treatment Application
Five different treatments were worked on; Removal of 3 leaves below the ear, Removal of 3 leaves above the ear,

Total defoliation, Total tassel removal and Removal of the ear leaf. Each treatment had 30 replications and most

were done on the same day to ensure uniformity. The treatments were carried out at the emergence of the ear.

17
Harvesting
The fresh maize cobs were harvested by using harvesting knife to separate the cobs from the plant. Each cob from

the plant was tagged again to make record keeping easier.

18
Sampling, Data collection and Data Analysis
About 250 seeds were sown and the plant population was 247. Eighty (80) plants were randomly sampled from

each treatment plot for the treatment to be carried out on them, each plant was tagged as T1 to T30 for easier

identification. The parameters were; weight of cob (with husk and without husk), length of cob, number of grains

per cob and number of row of grains per cob. The data were collected, organised and analysed by the use of

Microsoft excel and R programming at harvest.

19
20
 Chapter four

Result and Discussion

This chapter focuses on the result and the discussion of the results from the project.

Weight of cob (with husk and without husk)

Table 1: Weight of cobs with husk and without husk.
plant tag Ctrl ELR 3 LBE 3LAE TTR
WH (g) WOH WH (g) WOH WH WOH WH (g) WOH WH WOH
(g) (g) (g) (g) (g) (g) (g)
T1 194.7 138.9 212.6 163.9 30.1 17.9 187.9 137.2 225 208.9
T2 314.95 261 197.7 128.5 95.7 20.81 66.73 19.88 291 70.18
T3 255.47 193.2 362.8 169 108 53.61 167.1 42.02 174 113.4
T4 209.47 141.4 129.8 122.5 143 46.43 282.6 97.05 148 55.33
T5 203.51 166.5 174.1 33.6 148 109.4 353.4 113.8 157 146.7
T6 162.79 129.2 203.4 38.3 130 71.5 98.87 21.93 135 102.8
T7 168 153.5 173.1 66.7 155 75.95 211.2 38.61 225 186.4
T8 153.64 114.9 192.7 155 189 48.5 69.82 62.99 154 96.78
T9 301.36 180 122.8 98.75 233 77.3 139.9 37.01 160 89.7
T10 208.59 204.9 191.7 36.3 192 15.7 70.39 56.26 83.7 6.21
T11 296.63 173.4 120 76.61 82 61.7 31.42 2 83.4 28.12
T12 151.49 134.7 184.9 129.7 86.2 23.1 202.7 19.32 120 42.68
T13 260.2 168.2 42.79 0.8 240 112.9 125.2 99.38 60.2 7.59
T14 248.59 151.7 113.3 90.89 279 140 17.28 9.15 136 36.3
T15 177.57 122 111.8 83.97 188 39.8 140.4 23.43 70.1 18.32
T16 235.17 100.5 160.2 108.1 127 42.5 195.9 181.9 89.3 25.81
T17 242.5 187.9 174 113.8 206 76.8 37.71 30.1 62.9 35.06
T18 189.91 172.2 238.5 84.67 136 101.2 130.9 39.8 154 78.23
T19 343.94 148.2 189.6 175.6 120 27.21 238.5 89.85 116 63.07
T20 154.13 104.6 248.6 91.8 30.4 2 102.7 20.48 95.2 87.36
T21 162.02 102.2 118 107.3 45 17.7 47.45 7.33 273 78.69
T22 147 115.7 325.8 90.61 50.6 45.1 99.38 45.33 225 47.36
T23 145.65 117.1 94.46 22.4 127 9.6 36.29 3.94 114 49.32
T24 84.99 79.78 253.4 43.9 109 40.1 95.01 52.78 109 51.67
T25 228.11 120.7 155.6 71.8 68.4 36.1 19.66 13.14 82.7 80.57
T26 200.31 146.9 72.59 58.09 62.1 62.44 332 177.3 61.9 40.13
T27 229.86 64.32 234.4 70.42 130 71.1 139.4 62.92 51.7 30.17
T28 234.05 90.54 75.35 60.8 147 90.53 216.8 62.96 68.4 41.19
T29 185.4 59.82 122.3 58.45 100 77.5 239.6 29.37 70.4 40.71
T30 255.2 200.1 85 42.12 64.3 40.1 132.2 16.15 81.9 25.78
Keys: Ctrl (control treatment), ELR (Ear leaf Removal), 3LBE (3 Leaves Below the Ear), 3LAE (3 Leaves

Above the Ear), TTR (Total Tassel Removal), WH (With Husk) and WOH (Without Husk)

21
Chart one: Weight of cob from various treatments

CHART 1: WEIGHT OF COB WITH HUSK AND WITHOUT

HUSK
Ctrl ELR 3 LBE 3LAE TTR

400

350

300
WEIGHT OF COB (G)

250

200

150

100

50

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
PLANT TAG

Table 1 and chart 1 present the result on weight of cob with the husk and without the husk. From the table and the

chart, the plants that perform well in terms of weight of cob with the husk is plant T3 recording 362.8g from the

Ear Leaf Removal treatment, followed by T19 from the control plot recording 343.94g. The least performing plant

from the 3 leaves above the ear removal treatment is T25 recording 19.66g. From the total defoliation treatment

plot, no cob was formed. From the Total Tassel Removal plot, the best performing plant is T2 recording 291g of

cob with husk.

From the control plot, the plant that had the highest weight of cob without husk was T10 (204.9g) while plant T13

from the Ear Leaves Removal treatment had 0.8g of cob with the husk, plant T20 from the 3 Leave Below the ear

Removal treatment recorded 2g of cob without the husk. From the Total Tassel Removal treatment plot, plant T10

recoded the least weight of cob without husk; 6.21g while the best performing plant is T1 recording 208.9g of cob

without husk.

22
Averagely, the plants from the control plot had 211.51g and 141.5g of cob with husk and without husk respectively,

from the Ear Leaf Removal plot, the average weight of cob with husk and without husk were 169.4g and 86.48g

respectively, from the 3 Leaves Below the Ear removal plot, the average weight of cob with husk and without husk

are 127g and 55.25g respectively. The average weight of cob with husk from the 3 Leaves Above the Ear removal

plot is 140.9g and without husk is 53.78g. Comparing the weight of cobs from other treatment to the control

treatment, it clear that plants from the control treatment performed better and this result is consistent with (Heidari,

2012), who reported that Upper leaves are more efficient in absorbing light than lower leaves hence their removal

impact the weight of cob negatively. Cobs from the Total Tassel Removal plot had the average weight of cob with

husk and without husk as 129g a d 66.16g respectively. The result from this research is in line with the work done

by Brimavandi et al. (2010) and Heidari (2013).

23
Number of Grains Per Cob
Table 2: Number grains per cob
Plant Tag Control 3 Leaves Above 3 Leaves Below Ear Leaf Total Tassel
Removal
T1 300 432 27 408 368
T2 350 348 240 320 168
T3 432 322 187 364 276
T4 348 200 204 120 70
T5 434 187 276 21 264
T6 300 299 204 130 288
T7 348 364 294 160 288
T8 252 156 104 294 280
T9 448 112 100 191 380
T10 408 34 37 43 0
T11 406 96 200 220 68
T12 348 110 66 178 264
T13 378 0 261 336 0
T14 558 0 249 240 96
T15 468 348 62 228 114
T16 216 294 71 444 360
T17 288 28 190 448 182
T18 381 180 350 264 120
T19 459 56 25 300 120
T20 252 4 2 224 208
T21 216 23 32 240 221
T22 348 5 160 0 85
T23 100 5 5 0 130
T24 252 0 0 4 69
T25 544 200 96 147 92
T26 270 44 0 216 51
T27 260 19 142 110 20

24
 T28 110 108 230 78 55
T29 108 123 13 16 50
T30 299 8 0 18 28

CHART 2: NUMBER OF GRAIN PER COB

600

500

400

300

200

100

0
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 T11 T12 T13 T14 T15 T16 T17 T18 T19 T20 T21 T22 T23 T24 T25 T26 T27 T28 T29 T30
PLANT TAG

Control 3 Leaves Above 3 Leaves Below Ear Leaf Total Tassel Removal

Table two and chart two present results on the number of grain for each cob in every treatment plot. From the table

and chart, plant T14 from the control plot had the highest number of grains per cob with a total of 558 grains and

lowest from this treatment was plant T23 with a total of 100 grains. From the 3 Leaves Above the ear treatment

plot, the highest recorded number of grains per cob is plant T1 with a total of 432 grains and the lowest, plants

T13 and T14, with a total of 0 grains in both cobs. From the 3 Below the Ear removal treatment plot, plant T18

recorded 350 grains per cob which is the highest from that treatment while plant T26 and T30 had no grain at all

from the same treatment plot. Plant T17 from the Ear Leave Removal treatment plot recorded 448 grains per cob

while plat T22 had no grain, and plat T24 had only 4 grains per cob. From the chart 2, plat T9 from the Total

25
Tassel removal treatment plot, plant T9 recorded the highest number of grains per cob to 380 grains. Plant T10

and T13 had no grain from the same treatment plot.

The average performance of the plant from the various treatment plots are; 329 grains per cob from the control

plot, 136 grains per cob from the 3 leaves above the ear removal treatment plot, from the 3 leaves below the ear

removal treatment plot recorded 127 grains per cob, 192 grains per cob was recorded from the Ear leave removal

plot, 134 grains per cob were recorded from the total tassel removal treatment plot, though the male flower was

removed, the performance in terms of number of grain per cob was better than the other treatment. The result

confirmed the result from Hussain N, Khan etl (2007) which states that detasseled young maize plants significantly

produced more cobs per plant. Finally, there were no cobs form from the total defoliation plot.

Number of rows per cob

Chart 3 presents the result on number of rows per cob from the individual treatment plots. From the chart, plant

T9 and T25 had the highest number rows of grains per cob to 17 rows from 3 Leaves Below the ear Removal

treatment plot and Control treatment plot respectively. From the Total Tassel Removal plot, plant T19 had 16 rows

of grains per cob which was the highest from that treatment plot. Sixteen rows of grains were also recorded by

plant T27 from the Ear Leaf Removal plot. The average number of rows of grains per cob were 12.2 from control,

9.9 rows from Total Tassel removal, 10.2 rows from ear leaf removal, 9.5 rows from 3 leaves below ear removal

26
and 99 rows of grains per cob from 3 leaves above the ear removal treatment plot. The result from this parameter

is consistent with Tilahun (1993), which demonstrated that, removing of above three leaves has considerable effect

on the total dry weight of grains. Below leaves of maize transferred a greater part of their photosynthates to the

roots, but above leaves transferred their production to the upper plant organs (Hashemi et al., 1995). It is clear that

plants from the control treatment plot, performed better than those from various level of defoliation and total tassel

removal.

Correlation analysis between number of grains per cob and weight of cob.
From the control plot
Number of grains per cob against weight of cob per plant

700

600

500 y = 1.3277x + 144.87

R² = 0.2281
400

300

200

100

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
weight of cob per plant

From the control treatment plot, there is positive relationship between the number grains per cob and the weight

of cob but the relationship was a weak with correlation coefficient is 0.2.

27
From the 3 Leaves Above the Ear Removal plot

Number of grains per cob against weight of cob per plant

500
450
400
350
300
250
y = 0.5295x + 108.36
200
R² = 0.0365
150
100
50
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
weight of cob per plant

The correlation coefficient is 0.05 which is a weak but positive relationship between the number of grains per cob

and weight of cob per plant.

From 3 Leaves Below the Ear Removal plot

Number of grains per cob against weight of cob per plant

400

350
y = 2.1788x + 7.395
300 R² = 0.4828

250

200

150

100

50

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
weight of cob per plant

From this treatment plot, the relationship between the number of grains per cob and weight of cob per plant is a

positive with a correlation coefficient of 0.48 which is a relatively strong correlation.

28
From Ear Leaf Removal plot

Number of grains per cob against weight of cob per plant

500
450
400
y = 1.8385x + 33.082
350
R² = 0.3707
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
weight of cob per plant

From this treatment plot, the relationship between of number of grains per cob and weight of cob per plant is a

positive with a correlation coefficient of 0.37 which is a relatively weak correlation.

From Total Tassel Removal plot

Number of grains per cob against weight of cob per plant

450
400 y = 1.6343x + 49.052
R² = 0.4673
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
weight of cob per plant

From this treatment plot, the relationship between of number of grains per cob and weight of cob per plant is a

positive with a correlation coefficient of 0.46 which is a strong correlation.

29
 Chapter Five

Conclusions and Recommendations

This chapter focuses on the conclusions and recommendations based on the results from the research.

Conclusions
The main objective of the project was to find out the effect of artificial defoliation and total tassel removal on the

yield of maize. The yield parameters were the weight of cob with husk and without husk, number of grain rows

per cob, length of cob and number of grains per cob. Different levels of defoliation were employed as total

defoliation, ear leaf removal, three above the ear removal and three below the ear defoliation. In order to measure

the effect well, there was a control experiment in which there was no leaf removal.

From the results, is clear that crops from the control plot performed better than crops from the other treatment

plots which had different level of defoliation. It can be concluded that defoliation had a negative effect on the yield

of maize, emphasized the vital role leaves play on the yield of maize. Another significant impact from the result

was that plants that had the total defoliation had no cob formed on them. The findings from this project confirmed

that leaves are indeed responsible for photosynthesis which is an ultimate process through which plant manufacture

their food.

Since there is a significant effect of defoliation on the yield of maize the null hypothesis which states “Different

levels of artificial defoliation do not affect weight of cob, number grains per cob, length of cob and number row

per cob” is accepted and the its alternative hypothesis is rejected.

Regarding the total tassel removal treatment, there was significant effect on the yield of maize as the performance

of crops from that treatment is lower than the performance of crops from the control experiment. For this reason,

the alternative hypothesis which states that “Total tassel removal affects weight of cob, number grains per cob,

length of cob and number row per cob” is accepted. Tassels are the male flower which produces the pollen grains

therefore their removal will obviously affect the yield of the plant. Though there is negative effect of tassel removal

on the yield of maize, defoliation had drastic effect since crops from the total tassel removal plot performed far

better than those and the defoliation treatment.

30
Finally, From the results, it can be concluded that the defoliation at different levels has significant responses in the

maize crop, and with total defoliation the plant drastically stalled the production of cobs, better results were

obtained by the control in which there was no defoliation, but there was no significant difference with the results

obtained by the treatment in which there was removal of ear leaves. From these results it can be affirmed the great

importance of leaves and tassel on the yield of maize.

Recommendations
Farmers are encouraged to carry out agronomic practices that will ensure proper leaf canopy of their maize plant

since the leaves are importance parts of the plant that have significant effect on the yield.

Agricultural extension agents should teach farmers how to control natural defoliators- grass hopper, army worm,

leaf miners, snails etc., which can reduce the photosynthetic area of the leaves through their feeding activities.

Farmers should be taught the relevance of tassel in maize since many of the local farmers do not know the role it

plays in the formations of grains in the cob, so that they will not be cutting the tassels as a way of controlling

weaver birds at the early stage of the maize plant.

Lastly, plant breeders working on hybrid of maize, should remove that tassels before they emerge so that the

release of the pollen can be entirely curtail.

References
Afzal, I., Shahid, A., Qasim, M., Basra, S.M.A. and Shahid, M. (2009). Does halopriming improve germination

and seedling vigour in marigold (Tagetus species)? Seed Science and Technology, 37, 436-445.

31
Barimavandi, A. R., S. Sedaghathoor and R. Ansari, 2010. Effect Of different defoliation treatments on yield

and yield components in maize (Zea mays L.) cultivar of S. C704. AJCS, 4 (1): 9-15.

Fancelli, A. L., & Dourado Neto, D. (2004). Maize Production (2nd ed.). Guaíba: Livraria e Editora Agropecuária.

Hashemi DA, Kocheki E, Banayan Aval M (1995) Increasing of crops yield. Mashhad Jehade Daneshgahi

Press. pp 287.

Heidari, H., 2012. Effect of defoliation intensity on maize yield, yield components and seed germination. Life

Science Journal, 9 (4): 1587-1590.

Heidari, H., 2013. Yield, yield components and seed germination of maize (Zea mays L.) at different defoliation

and tassel removal treatments. Philippine Agricultural Scientists, 96 (1): 42-47.

Hussain N, Khan AZ, Akbar H, Bangash NG, Khan ZH & Idrees M (2007). Response of maize varieties to

phosphorus and potassium levels. Sarhad J Agric 23 (4): 881-887.

Morris, M.L. (2002). Impacts of international maize breeding research in developing countries,

1966-98. Mexico, D.F. CIMMYT.

Pereira, M. J. R., Bonan, E. C. B., Garcia, A., Vasconcelos, R. de L., Giacomo, K. dos S., & Lima, M. F.

(2012). Morphoagronomic characteristics of maize submitted to different levels of manual defoliation. Revista

Ceres, 59(2), 200-205. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-737X2012000200008

Pícoli Junior, G. J. (2011). Nitrogen fertilization as a strategy to minimize stress caused by foliar defoliation and

phytotoxicity in corn (Unpublished master’s thesis, State University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis).

Tilahun A (1993) Quantitative and physiological traits in maize (Zea Mays). Associated with different levels of

moisture, plant density and leaf defoliation in Ethiopia. IARP. 74-80.

32