1.

INTRODUCTION
Maize is one of the most important cereal crops in the world agricultural economy both as
food for human being and feed for animals. It has a very high yield potential than any
other cereals and thus is popularly known as the ‘queen of cereals’ (Singh, 2002). It is the
second most important staple food crop both in terms of area and production after rice in
Nepal. It is grown in 0.87 million hectare of land with an average yield of 2.09 t/ha. Maize
occupies about 28.15% of the total cultivated agricultural land and shares about 24.83 %
of the total cereal production in Nepal. It shares about 6.87% to Agricultural Gross
Domestic Product (MOAC, 2006/2007). The proportion of maize area consists of 70% in
mid-hills followed by 22% in terai and 8% in high-hills (Pathik, 2002). In Chitwan, it is
grown in 0.020 million hectare of land with the productivity of 2.8 t/ha (MOAC, 2006/07).

The productivity of the cereal grains including maize is basis for food security as well as
the means of earning surplus income and better livelihood of the farm families
(HMGN/ADB, 1995). Maize contributes to food security in the hills while in the
accessible areas it is gradually becoming a commercial commodity due to increasing
demand of nutrients in poultry and animal feed. The overall demand for maize has been
estimated to grow up by 6-8% per annum for the next two decades because of the
increased demand for food in the hills and for livestock feed in accessible areas in the terai
and inner-terai (Pathik, 2002).

The area under improved maize is 83.8% and the local seed is used in remaining 16.2%
area (Sherchan, 2004). The growth rate of the productivity of maize seems improving
trend for years at quite slower rate. However, the productivity is still quite low and far
behind the global average of 4.3 t/ha (FAO, 2003). There is wide gap between the
potential experimental yield (5 t/ha) of open pollinated varieties and the actual yield under
farmer’s situation (2.03 t/ha). The causes of yield gap include low use of production inputs
and lack of adoption of modern production technologies. However, there is a great
potential to increase crop yield through judicious use of inputs and adoption of innovative
technologies (Kaini, 2004).

One of the main factors for low yield of maize is loss of soil fertility and low use of
chemical fertilizer (Katuwal and Barakoti, 2001). Depletion of the organic matter content
has been at the center of the overall problem of soil fertility decline. The major factors for
declining land productivity in the hills are nutrient leaching, soil erosion and improper
management of nutrients, while in the plain areas the main cause is increased crop
intensity without replenishment (Regmi et al. 2004). In recent years, the increased use of
high yielding crop varieties in intensive cropping systems has lead to a substantially
increased demand for nutrients. Nutrients supplied by FYM/compost may not be sufficient
to exploit the genetic potential of improved varieties (Subedi and Sapkota, 2002). Nitrogen
is the most limiting nutrient for maize production. Maize is an exhaustive crop and
requires high quantities of nitrogen during the periods of efficient utilization, particularly
at 25 days after sowing and pre-tasseling (40 days after sowing) stages for higher
productivity (Bindhani et al.,2007). Most maize in developing countries is also produced
under low N conditions (McCrown et al., 1992) because of low N status of tropical soils,
low N use efficiency in drought-prone environments, high price ratios between fertilizer
and grain, limited availability of fertilizer, and low purchasing power of farmers (Banziger
et al., 1997). In such a situation, application of N fertilizer is highly necessary to meet the
N requirement of maize to achieve optimum productivity. At the same time, the recovery
of applied nitrogen in rainfed maize is very less due to various losses and local crop

1
management practices. In addition to economic losses, N overapplication results in
environmental pollution through nitrate contamination (Gehl et al., 2005). Optimization of
applied N at critical growth stages coinciding with periods of efficient utilization are the
modern approaches for improving the N-use efficiencies in rainy season maize.

Weed competition is one of the most important limiting factors in crop production. Initial
slow growth of maize, wider spacing and adequate moisture during rainy season provide
favorable environment for weed growth (Malviya and Singh, 2007). The competitive
ability weeds form a serious negative effect in crop production and are responsible for
marked losses in crop yield. Weedy environment can lead to maize grain yield loss of up
to 70% (Misra, 2004). Yield loss due to weeds in maize varies from 28-93%, depending
on the type of weed flora and the intensity and duration of crop-weed competition (Sharma
and Thakur, 1998). It is well known fact that weeds through competition with crop,
deprive crops of limited essential resources prominent amongst which are nutrients.
Nitrogen is the first nutrient to become limiting in most instances of weed-crop
competition (Zimdahl, 1993). Control of weeds is vitally important not only to check the
yield losses caused by them but also to increase the fertilizer use efficiency. Therefore,
proper nutrient supply along with weed management becomes necessary to increase the
productivity of maize. Thus, the present study was conducted to achieve the following
objectives:

2. OBJECTIVE
2.1. General objective
 To increase the productivity of maize through the optimum Nitrogen and weed
management practice.
2.2. Specific objective
 To assess the effect of different levels of nitrogen and weed management practices
on growth and yield of maize.
 To study the interaction effect of weed and nitrogen management practices on
maize.
 To find out the economics of nitrogen and weed management practices in rainy
season maize production.

3. STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
The productivity of maize is still very low and the current figure is only 2.09 t/ha (MOAC,
2006/07). There is wide gap between the potential experimental yield (5 t/ha) of open
pollinated varieties and the actual yield under farmer’s situation (2.03 t/ha). The causes of
yield gap include low use of production inputs and lack of adoption of modern production
technologies (Kaini, 2004). Low use of nutrient or chemical fertilizer (Katuwal and
Barakoti, 2001) and poor weed management (Mishra, 2004) are recognized as major
problems of low productivity of maize in Nepal.
Lack of proper management of nutrient leads the poor yield of maize. In recent years, the
increased use of high yielding crop varieties in intensive cropping systems has lead to a
substantially increased demand for nutrients. Nutrients supplied by FYM/compost may not
be sufficient to exploit the genetic potential of improved varieties (Subedi and Sapkota,
2002). The high cost of inorganic fertilizer dramatically limits its use by farmers (Balko and
russel, 1980). Nitrogen is one of the costliest and perhaps the most crucial nutrients
limiting crop yields and is a burning problem of most of the maize growing areas of Nepal.
Not only use of fertilizer is very low in Nepal but the fertilizers are also used in imbalance

2
way. In addition to economic losses, N overapplication results in environmental pollution
through nitrate contamination (Gehl et al., 2005).In such a situation, optimum application
of N fertilizer is necessary to meet the N requirement of maize to achieve optimum
productivity. At the same time, the recovery of applied nutrient in maize is very less due to
various losses among them weeds is the major one. Due to rainy season and widely spaced
crop it is infested with the variety of weeds and subjected to vigorous competition due to
favorable environmental condition for their growth (Mishra, 2004), which often inflicts huge
losses ranging from 28-100% (Angiras and Singh, 1989). Weeds through competition with
crop deprive crops of limited essential resources prominent amongst which are nutrients.
The extent of nutrient loss varies from 30-40% of the applied nutrient (Mundra et al.,
2002). Nitrogen is the first nutrient to become limiting in most instances of weed-crop
competition (Zimdahl, 1993). Thus, nutrient drain by weeds assumes added significance in
the present context of fertilizer crisis.

4. RATIONALE OF THE STUDY (JUSTIFICATION)

Maize is the second major cereal crop of the country and contributes the major share in
AGDP. Agriculture Perspective Plan (APP) has also defined the productivity of the cereal
grains including maize as a basis for food security as well as the means of surplus income
and better livelihood of the farm families (HMGN/ADB, 1995). The yield of maize in
Nepal is more or less static at around 2 t/ha, but there is increased demand, estimated to
grow by 6-8% per annum (Pathik, 2002). There is a great potential to increase crop yield
through judicious use of inputs and adoption of innovative technologies (Kaini, 2004).
Judicious use of nutrient is essential to exploit the genetic potential of improved varieties
in intensive cropping systems (Subedi and Sapkota, 2002). Maize is an exhaustive crop
and requires high quantities of nitrogen during the periods of efficient utilization,
particularly at 25 days after sowing and pre-tasseling (40 days after sowing) stages for
higher productivity (Bindhani et al.,2007). Optimization of applied N at critical growth
stages coinciding with periods of efficient utilization becomes necessary for improving the
N-use efficiencies in rainy season maize. At the same time, the recovery of applied
nitrogen in rainfed maize is very less due to removal by weeds. Weeds responsible for
marked loss (20-100%) in maize crop yield. Therefore, control of weeds is vitally
important not only to check the yield losses caused by them but also to increase the
fertilizer use efficiency. Management of weeds through hoeing and herbicides can increase
the uptake of nutrients and productivity of the crop by decreasing the biomass and nutrient
removal by the weeds.

5. HYPOTHESIS
Null Hypotheses (Ho): Different levels of nitrogen and weed management have no effect
on growth and yield of maize.
Alternative hypotheses (HA): Different levels of nitrogen and weed management have
effect on growth and yield of maize.

6. REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Effect on nitrogen management on maize yield
Maize is a feeder of nutrients; therefore its nutrients requirement is high. Provisions for an
adequate supply of N throughout the growing season are necessary and are one of the
important functions of soil management (Jain, 1981). It plays important role in
metabolism, growth, reproduction and heredity of plant (Jain, 1990). The grain yield of

3
maize is the product of the number of kernels per unit ground area and the mean kernel
weight (Moser et al.2006). Application of nitrogen increases number of cobs per plant,
1000 kernel weight and yield of grain to straw ratio (Rai, 1961). The number of kernel per
plant is determined by the number of kernel rows per ear, the number of kernels per row
and the number of ears per plant (Moser et al.2006).
The grain yield of maize increased significantly with N levels up to 100 to 150 Kg per ha,
depending upon the variety (Shrivastava and Neupane, 1984). Yadav (1990) observed that
grain: Stover ratio recorded under 90 and 60 kg N/ha was significantly higher that under
control and 30 kg N/ha.
The application of each of 100 kg N and 100 Kg P per ha increased the maize grain yield
by 72% as compared to farmers practice under environments of mid and far western Nepal
(Pokharel et al, 2004). The increase in the use of N rates from 0 to 120 Kg per ha
increased the grain yield from 1.49 to 2.9 t per ha under rainfed condition (Narang and
Gill, 2004). Adhikari (1992) concluded that response of early and full season maize
varieties was economically viable up to 90 and 120 kg/ha N respectively. Higher yields
with higher level of N might be due to better N uptake, leading to greater dry matter
production and its translocation to the sink.

Effect of weed management on maize yield

The crop canopy in the early period of growth of maize is inadequate to smother the weed
growth due to its wider row spacing and slow growth in the first 3-4 weeks. Hence, weed
competition in crop field is in variably severe in early stage of crop growth than later
stage. The critical period for weed crop competition for maize is 15-45 DAS and it results
in 15-40% grain yield reduction (Mishra, 1997). Generally in a crop of 100 days duration,
the first 35 days after sowing should be maintained weed free for optimum yield. The
extent of losses due to weeds depends on intensity of infestation, time of occurrence and type
of weeds (Reedy and Reddi, 1997). Both types of weeds (narrow/grassy and broad) infest
the maize field.
Joshi (2004) reported that first weeding on 14 DAE produced the highest plant stand
(32/7.2 m-2),plant height (190 cm), crop biomass (8.1 t ha-1),the number of ears (38888
ha-1) and grain yield\(4.3 t ha-1). He concluded that the first weeding practice done 25-30
DAS after emergence and second weeding practices done 50-60 DAS appeared to be
economical in the farmer’s field condition.
Chemicals for weed control offer great potential in crop production. Herbicides should be
incorporated in cropping plans generally to control initial flush of weeds, which usually
remains out of reach of the other methods of weed control. Also, the weeds than can not be
controlled by any other non-chemical methods can be brought under the banner of herbicides.
The effectiveness of herbicidal control is 100% (Mukhopadyay, 1991). A field experiment
was conducted during rainy seasons (kharif) of 1998 and 1999 at the research farm at the
Vishvavidyalaya, Palampur Shown that all the doses of atrazine, ie 1.0, 1.5 and 2.0 kg/ha
gave significantly lower dry weight of weeds as compared to the weedy check. Varshney
(1990) also observed Atrazine 2.0 kg/ha most effective for weed control in maize which
reduced the weed biomass by 62-70%. With delay in time of application of atrazine
commencing from pre-emergence, there was decrease in weed control efficiency and
increase in dry matter accumulation in weeds. Gupta and Dhupia (1971) reported that
application of atrazine to maize planted on 3 dates resulted in better weed control and
higher crop yields than hand weeding in proportion to the increasing doses of herbicide
from 1.0 to 2.0 kg/ha.

4
7. MATERIALS AND METHOD
7.1 Site Selection:
A field experiment will be conducted at NMRP farm during 2008 rainy season from mid
June to October. The Area is located at 27o 37’ N latitude and 84o 25’ E longitude with an
elevation of 228 masl. The soil type is sandy loam and climatically humid sub-tropical
with average annual rainfall of 2000 mm (mainly during mid to late summer).

7.2 Experimental setup

Design: Two factorial RCBD
Treatments: Total 16 treatments [four levels of nitrogen (0, 40, 80,120) and four weed
control practices (control, one hand weeding, Atrazine 1.5 kg a.i/ha + one hand weeding,
Glyphosat 1.2 kg a.i/ha).
Replication: Three
Plot size: 6×3 m2
Spacing: 75 cm ×25 cm between row to row and plant to plant respectively.

Treatment combination
Treatment Notation Treatment Combination
T1 N0W0 0:45:30 NPK kg/ha and control
T2 N0 W1 0:45:30 NPK kg/ha and one hand weeding
T3 N0 W2 0:45:30 NPK kg/ha and atrazine + one hand weeding
T4 N0 W3 0:45:30 NPK kg/ha and glyphosate
T5 N1 W0 40:45:30 NPK kg/ha and control
T6 N1 W1 40:45:30 NPK kg/ha and one hand weeding
T7 N1 W2 40:45:30 NPK kg/ha and atrazine + one hand weeding
T8 N1 W3 40:45:30 NPK kg/ha and glyphosate
T9 N2 W0 80:45:30 NPK kg/ha and control
T10 N2 W1 80:45:30 NPK kg/ha and one hand weeding
T11 N2 W2 80:45:30 NPK kg/ha and atrazine + one hand weeding
T12 N2 W3 80:45:30 NPK kg/ha and glyphosate
T13 N3 W0 120:45:30 NPK kg/ha and control
T14 N3 W1 120:45:30 NPK kg/ha and one hand weeding
T15 N3 W2 120:45:30 NPK kg/ha and atrazine + one hand weeding
T16 N3 W3 120:45:30 NPK kg/ha and glyphosate

7.3 Variety Detail:

Rampur Composit: It is highly popular full season variety. Its coverage is larger in terai,
tars and foot hills. It has deep orange, bold and shiny kernel, sturdy and hardy stem, pink
tassel and silk, tolerance to downy mildew, stem rot. Average Yield: 4.5-5.5 tonne /ha,
Plant height: 205-235 cm, Maturity: 105-115 DAS, Released in 1975, Source: IACP.
Parantage: DMR version of Thai Composite No 1 which is composite of 36 germplasm
from different sources including CIMMYT (NARC/CIMMYT 2001).

7.4 Manure and fertilizer application

The recommended dose of FYM @ 10 ton/ ha will be applied 20 days before sowing of
seeds. Urea, SSP and MOP are the source of fertilizers used for supplying nitrogen,
phosphorus and potash respectively. Full dose of phosphorous and potassium fertilizers

5
will be applied at the time of land preparation. The recommended dose of 45 kg P 2O5/ha
and 30 kg K2O/ha will be applied as basal in all plots at the time of seed sowing. 1/2 dose
of N will be used at the time of seed sowing as basal dose. The remaining 1/2 dose of N
will be side-dressed at knee high stage and tasseling stage.

8. OBSERVATIONS TO BE TAKEN
8.1 Weather data during the crop season
Monthly average maximum temperature
Monthly average minimum temperature
Monthly average rainfall
Monthly average relative humidity
Monthly average solar radiation
These data will be recorded from nearest point of Agro Meteorological Data Recorder,
NMRP, Rampur.

8.2 Soil sampling and analysis of initial fertility status of soil

Soil sample will be taken before sowing of the seeds from each replication and composite
sample will be made and analyzed for the initial fertility status of the soil. The soil
samples will be taken by tube auger from 0 – 15 cm and 0 – 30 cm depth of soil layer. The
samples will be subjected to air drying under room condition, grounded and passed
through 0.2 mm sieve for analysis of
 Organic matter content
 Organic carbon content
 Total N content
 Available P2O5
 K2O content
 PH
The estimation of N will be carried out by Alkaline permanganate (Steam Distillation
method), P2O5 by Spectrophotometer and K2O by Flame Photometer method.

8.3. Phenological Observation:

Ten plants will be tagged for taking phonological observations. The phenological data will
be taken when 50% observation occurred and ended when 75% observation completed.
The phenological observations will be recorded as;
8.3.1 Emergence: Seed emergence will be recorded when about 50% of the seedling will
have emerged out of the soil.

8.3.2 Plant population/m2: The plant population/m2 will be counted about 20 days after
sowing.

8.3.3 Days of tasseling: The date of tasseling will be recorded from tassel emergence to
75% of plant will have tasseled in each plot. The mid 3 rows will be taken for each
phenological observation.

8.3.4 Days of silking: The date will be recorded from the initiation of silk to 75% silking
in each plot. The silk exposed 1cm from closed ear will be considered as emerged silk.
The same rows as that of tasseling records will be taken for days of silking.

6
8.3.5 Days of physiological maturity: The appearance of black layer between ear surface
and ear grains and occurrence of senescence of ear husks will be considered as an
indication to physiological maturity.

8.4 Biometric observation

8.4.1 Number of Leaf:
Number of leaf per plant will be counted from 5 randomly selected plants from each plot.

8.4.2 Leaf area index (LAI):

Leaf area will be measured from 3 randomly selected plants from each plot at 30 DAS, 45
DAS, 60 DAS, 75 DAS, 90 DAS, 105 DAS, and at maturity. Leaves from the plants will
be detached and leaf area will measured by leaf area meter. Then leaf area index will be
calculated as:

8.4.3 Plant height: Plant height will be measured from the ground level to the top most
visible due lap of ten randomly selected plants from each plot at 30 DAS, 45 DAS, 60
DAS, 75 DAS, 90 DAS, 105 DAS, and at maturity

8.4.4 Dry matter accumulation: Detached leaves will be packed in the envelope and will
dried in hot oven for 48 hours at the temperature of 75 0c. The remaining portion will also
be packed in the envelope and will dried in hot oven for 48 hours at the temperature of 105
0
c. Then the dry weight of whole plant will be taken and expressed as t/ha.

8.5 Observation on weed

8.5.1 Identification of weed flora: Weed species found in the field will be identified at
different stages (at3 rd week, 6th week and at harvest period)

8.5.2 Weed density: Total number of weeds from 0.25 m2 of each net plot will be
recorded at3 rd week, 6th week and at harvest period with the help of quadrate. Weed
density will be expressed in weeds/ m2.

8.5.3 Weed species infestation (%): It should be calculated at at3 rd week, 6th week and at
harvest period on count basis with the same quadrate.

8.5.4 Weed dry matter: The whole sample taken from 0.25 m2 area of each plot will be
recorded at3 rd week, 6th week and at harvest period for dry matter. Sample will be dried in
oven at 700c till the constant weight obtained and expressed as g/ m2.

8.5.5 Nitrogen uptake: Nitrogen analysis for both plant and weed should be done by the
method mentioned by Pradhan (1995). Nitrogen uptake by weed and crop at at3 rd week, 6th
week and harvest period should be calculated by multiplying their nitrogen percentage in
plants with their dry matter yield.
Nitrogen uptake (kg/ha) = N% × Dry matter (kg/ha)

7
8.6 Yield attributing characters
8.6.1 Number of harvested ears: Total number of ears harvested from net harvestable
area will be recorded as harvested ears per plot and it is converted to hectare basis.

8.6.2 Ear length and circumference: Ten dehusked ears will be selected from each plot
randomly and length from the base up to top grain bearing portion of each ear will
measure. The average of ten ears will be calculated and expressed as ear length. The
circumference of ten randomly selected ears from each plot will be measured and average
value will express as ear circumference.

8.6.3 Number of kernels per ear: Ten randomly selected ear from each plot will be
shelled and all the kernels will count. And will be reported as number of kernels per ear.

8.6.4 Thousand Grain Weight (TGW) or Test weight: One thousand shelled maize
grains from each plot will randomly be taken, weighed and recorded as test weight and
expressed in gram (g). The kernels used for test weight will be corrected to 15% moisture
content.

8.6.5 Shelling percentage: It is the ratio of grain to ear (grain: ear) and expressed in
percentage. Five randomly selected ears will be weighed with grains. All grains will be
shelled out and the weight of grain will be taken and the shelling percentage will
calculated as:

8.6.6 Grain moisture content (%): Ten ears will be selected randomly and central two
kernel rows will be shelled out and will bulk the kernels from all ears and moisture will be
measured by multigrain moisture meter.

8.6.7 Grain yield: Grain yield will be calculated on hectare basis by using following
formulae:

Where,
FEW = filled ears weight (Kg) SP = shelling percentage (%)
GMC = grain moisture content at harvest (%) NHA = net harvested area (m2)

8.6.8 Stover yield: All maize stems will be harvested from the base from the net harvested
area and weighted immediately after harvesting. Husk is also included while taking Stover
yield. Stover yield will be calculated on hectare basis in Kg ha-1.

8.6.9 Harvest index and grain:stover ratio: Harvest index (HI) will be computed by
dividing economic yield with the biological yield as per the following formula.
HI% = (economic yield × 100)/ biological yield
Grain:stover ratio will be calculated based on grain yield and stover yield.

8.7 Economic analysis:

8
8.7.1 Cost of cultivation:
Cost of cultivation will be calculated on the basis of local charges for different agro-inputs
viz., labor, fertilizer, herbicides, machines, and other necessary materials.

8.7.2 Gross return:

Economic yield (grain + stalk) will be converted into gross return (Rs/ha) on the basis of
local market prices of different commodities.

8.7.3 Net return

It will be calculated by deducting the cost of cultivation from the gross return.

8.7.4 B: C ratio: It will be calculated by following formula.

Benefit: Cost ratio = Gross return / Cost of cultivation (total cost)

9. STATICAL ANALYSIS
Analysis for the variance for all parameters will be analyzed by using MSTAT statistical
analysis system. All the analyzed data will be subjected to DMRT for mean comparison.
5% level of significance will be considered for ANOVA. Correlation and regression will
be done for group comparison from the reference of Gomez and Gomez, (1983).

ANOVA table

Source of variation Degree of S.S. M.S. F-calculated F-tabulated

Freedom (5%) (1%)
Replication r-1 = 2
Treatments t-1 = 15
Factor A (Nitrogen) a-1 = 3
Factor B (weed control) b-1 = 3
AxB (a-1) (b-1) = 9

Error (r-1) (t-1) = 30

Total rt-1 = 47

Activities May June July Aug Sept Oct

9
 Field survey, collection of soil sample
Soil analysis
Land preparation and Layout of research field
FYM, fertilizer application
Seed and seed sowing
Intercultural operation
Data Record of growth attributes
Observation of yield and yield attributing characters
Harvesting and threshing
Calculation, Analysis and Interpretation of Data
Research completion, report writing and Report
presentation
10. WORK SCHEDULE

11. BUDGET SUMMARY

S. Particulars Amount
N (Rs.)
1 Land Preparation 5000
2 Soil sample analysis 1000
3 Lay out of field 1000
4 Plastic rope, tags, tape, poly bags 2000
5 Manure and Fertilizers 3000
6 Seed and seed sowing 2000
7 Intercultural operations 2000
8 Herbicides and Spray 2000
9 Measurement of growth parameters and yield attributing 2000
characters
10 Stationary, Photocopies, printing, etc. 5000
11 Harvesting and Threshing 2000
Sub total 27000
Contingency (10%) 2700
Total 29,700

12. EXPECTED OUTPUT

10
  Optimum level of nitrogen for maximizing the growth and yield of maize will be
assessed.
 Effective weed management practice for maximizing the yield of maize will be
identified.
 Economics of nitrogen level and weed control method will be determined.
 Interaction effect of weed and nitrogen management should be identified.

13. BENEFICIARIES
 Primary beneficiary will be maize growers
 Secondary beneficiary will be the researchers, students and organizations working
in this area.
 Tertiary beneficiary will be maize consumer and businessman

14. RISK AND ASSUMPTION

 Timely availability of the fund, labor and inputs.
 The environmental condition will remain favorable.

11
REFERENCE:

Angiras, N. N. and C. M. Singh. 1989. Economic analysis of integrated weed management

in maize. Indian J. Weed Science 21: 29-36.
Banziger, M., F.J. Betran, and H.R. Lafitte. 1997. Efficiency of high-nitrogen selection
environments for improving maize for low-nitrogen target environments. Crop
Science 30:556–561.
Bindhani, A., K.C. Barik, L.M. Garnayak, and P.K. Mahapatra. 2007. Nitrogen
management in baby corn (Zea mays). Indian Journal of Agronomy 52(20):135-
138.
FAO. 2003. Bulletin of statistics, vol. 4 No. (1). Food and Agriculture Organization of
United Nations, Rome.
Goydani, B.M. and C. Singh. 1968. Performance of hybrid maize under varying plants
population with three levels of nitrogen and their time of application. Indian J.
Agron.13: 83-87.
Gupta, O. P. and B. K. Dhupia. 1971. Efficacy of atrazine in maize planted on different
dates as affected by its residual phytotoxicity under varying levels and methods of
its application. Indian J. Agric. Sci. 41 (3): 221-227
HMGN/ADB.1995. Agricultural perspective plan (1995/ 96-2014/ 15). John Meller
Associates, Inc., Washington D.C. for National Planning Commission (T.A. No.
1845. NEP).
Joshi, K. R. 2004. Effect of Time of Weeding and Levels of N and P2O5 Fertilizers on the
Grain Yield of Maize. Nepal Agric. Res. J. Vol. 5.
Kaini, B. R. 2004. Increasing crop production in Nepal. In: D.P. Sherchan, K. Adhikari,
B.K. Batsa, and D. Sharma (eds.) Proceedings of the 24 th National Summer Crops
Research Workshop on Maize Research and Production in Nepal, June 28-30,
2004, NARC, Khumaltar, Lalitpur. pp. 15-19.
Katuwal, R.B. and T.P.Barakoti. 2001. Maize Varietal and fertilizer studies at the outreach
reaearch sites. ARSP working paper No. 257. Agricultural Research station
Pakhribas, Dhankuta, Nepal.
McCown, R.L., B.A. Keating, M.E. Probert, and R.K. Jones. 1992. Strategies for
sustainable crop production in semi-arid Africa. Outlook Agric. 21:21–31.
Mishra, J. S.1997. Critical period of weed competition and losses due to weeds in major field
crops. Farmers and Parliament.33: 19-20.
Misra, M. 2004. Studies in weed management in maize crop in the Eastern hills of Nepal.
In: Proceedings of the 24th National Summer Crops Research Workshop on Maize
Research and Production, Sherchan, D. P., K. Adhikari, B. K. Basta and D.
Sharma. (eds) held June, 2004, Kathmandu, Nepal.
MOAC. 2006/07. Statistical Information on Nepalese Agriculture, Agribusiness
Promotion and Statistics Division, Singh Darbar, Kathmandu.
Moody, M. 1983. Weeds: Definition, costs, characteristics, classification and effects. In:
H. Walter (ed.), Weed management in the Philippines. Report of Seminars, PLITS
1(1):11-32.
Moser, S.B, B. Feil, S. Jampatong and P.Stamp. 2006. Effects of pre-anthesis drought,
nitrogen fertilizer rate and variety on grain yield, yield components and harvest
index of tropical maize. Agricultural water management. 81:41-58
Mundra,S.L., A.K. Vyas and P.L. Maliwal.2002. Effect of weed and nutrient management
on nutrient uptake by maize and weeds. Indian.J.Agron. 47(3):378-383.
Pathik, D.S. 2002. Maize research achievements and constraints. In: N.P. Rajbhandari,
J.K. Ransom, K. Adhhikari and A.F.E. Palmer (eds.) Sustainable maize production

12
 system for Nepal: Proceedings of a maize Symposium, December 3-5, 2001,
Kathmandu, Nepal. pp. 7-12.
Rai, K.D. 1961. Response of maize following sorghum to fertilizer and foliar spray of zinc
sulphate at Tozi,Sudan.Indian J. Agron. 5(1): 176-187.
Regmi, D.B., B.P. Tripathi, C. Poudel, B.K. Dhital, and S. Schulz. 2004. Integrated plant
nutrition systems for maize based cropping systems: Experiences From the Hills of
Nepal. In: D.P. Sherchan, K. Adhikari, B.K. Batsa, and D. Sharma (eds.)
Proceedings of the 24th National Summer Crops Research Workshop on Maize
Research and Production in Nepal, June 28-30, 2004, NARC, Khumaltar, Lalitpur.
pp. 220-222.
Sharma, J. J. 1973. Studies on the multiple cropping sequences under different fertility
level. Msc.Ag.Thesis submitted to H.P.U.Agric.(Complex), Palampur
Sharma, K.C. and P.C. Gupta. 1968. Effect of Plant population and rates opf nitrogen on
the performances of hybrid maize. Indian J. Agron. 13: 76-82.
Sherchan, D.P. 2004. Maize research highlights (2002 to 2004): contributing to food
security and improving the livelihood of the Nepalese people. In: Sherchan, D.P.,
K.Adhikari, B. K. Batsa, and D. Sharma. Proceedings of the 24 th National Summer
Crops Research Workshop in Maize Research and Production in Nepal held in
June 28-30, 2004 at NARC, Khumaltar, Lalitpur, Nepal. Pp1-14.
Singh, C. 2002. Modern techniques of raising field crops. Oxford and IBH Publishing Co.
Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. 573 p.
Singh, K. K. 1988.Response of maize to nitrogen rates and tassel removal. Msc.Thesis
Submitted to G.B.Pant University of Agric and Tec, Pantnagar.
Subedi, K., and G.P. Sapkota. 2002. Integrated plant nutrient management (IPNM) in
maize: Pilot Testing the Extension of IPNS with Farmers in Sindhupalchowk. In:
N.P. Rajbhandari, J.K. Ransom, K. Adhhikari and A.F.E. Palmer (eds.) Sustainable
maize production system for Nepal: Proceedings of a maize Symposium,
December 3-5, 2001, Kathmandu, Nepal. pp. 163-169.
Yadav, D. N. 1990. Growth and productivity of maize under different crop sequence and
nitrogen rates. Thesis , Phd. G. B. Pant Univ. of Agric. And Tech., Pantanagar,
India.

13
LOGICAL FRAMEWORK

Narrative Summary Verifiable indicator Means of Important assumptions

verification
Goal:
Increase the economic Farmers’ income would Survey report, Good co-ordination
status of the maize be raised by 15% at the DADO report between extension,
growers due to increased end of 2010. Research, IAAS and
productivity. farmers
Purpose: 1. By the end of 2010 Progress report Extension through
Increase the production at least 20 % of the effective channel
and productivity of yield of maize will be Report of
maize. increased. research and
2. By the end of 2009, extension.
at least 30% farmers
adopted the
management package.
Outputs:
1. Identified best At least 1 best weed Thesis report Technical and
optimum dose of control method and financial support is
nitrogen for maize. nitrogen level identified achieved
2. Best weed by the end of 008.
management method
identified.
3. Best combination of
economic dose of
nitrogen and weed
management practice
identified.
Activities:
1. Land preparation and Total Cost = Rs. 29,700 Availability of all the
seed sowing inputs on time
2. Transplanting and
other intercultural
operations
3. Harvesting and
threshing
4. Data record and
analysis

14
Thesis Proposal:

Study of nitrogen and weed management in exploiting the yield

potentiality of maize (Zea mays L.)

PROJECT LEADER: Mr. Basu Dev Neure,

M.Sc.Ag (Agronomy)
R 2007 AGR 02M

MAJOR ADVISOR: Mr. N. K. Chaudhary

TYPE OF RESEARCH: Field experiment

PROJECT DURATION: Six month

LOCATION OF RESEARCH: NMRP farm, Rampur, Chitwan

FUND REQUIRED: 29,700.0

15