Influence of Crop Geometry and Mulching on Growth and Yield of Maize [Zea mays L.]

Introduction

Maize (Zea mays L.) refers to a class of very versatile cereal crops cultivated all over the world for many uses, providing human food, poultry feed, and high-class forage for farm animals. It is competitively globalized as the "Queen of Cereals" because of its highest maximum genetic potential yield among cereals and serves as a vital cornerstone for food security and industrial input. As a C4 plant, maize has high photosynthetic efficiency and is an important source of calories to help meet the requirements of an increasing global population. The nutritional profile of its seeds includes protein (10%), fat (4%), carbohydrates (70%), and fiber (2.3%), and it is a great source of minerals like phosphorous and magnesium. In industrial terms, maize is assuming great importance in the production of bio-fuel and the brewery industry. India is significantly involved in producing maize, with the state of Rajasthan being extremely crucial, yielding 2.11 million tonnes during the Kharif season (Anonymous, 2024). Although it has the capacity to produce large amounts of grain, low yield levels result from improper farming methods that focus on seed density and water retention. Maize is cultivated on a large scale because of its sensitivity to high levels of inputs and adaptability to different crop production systems (Reddy et al., 2018) [12] . The optimization of planting pattern using crop geometry forms one of the main limitations to maximizing crop yield. Correct spacing enables the minimization of inter-competition and maximization of light capture, which is highly linked to the vegetative growth and development of the maize plant. Mulching is another major management approach which helps to conserve soil moisture through reduced evaporation, temperature moderation, and weed control (Tao et al., 2015) [13] . Through the application of proper planting arrangements together with moisture-retaining mulch, it becomes easier to establish an optimum environment that facilitates efficient synchronization between the requirement and supply of nutrients.

International Journal of Agriculture and Food Science https://www.agriculturaljournals.com Implementation of climate-resilient technologies like optimized crop geometry and organic or straw mulching presents a practical strategy to optimize the benefit-to-cost ratio. This makes it important to conduct studies of this kind in order to formulate regional recommendations.

Material and Methods

The experiment was conducted at Research farm, Vivekananda Global University, Jaipur during Kharif season 2025-26. Geographically, this place is situated at 750 47' East longitude, 260 51' North latitude and at altitude of 390 m above mean sea level in Jaipur district of Rajasthan. This region falls under Agro-climatic zone IIIa (Semi-arid eastern plain zone) of Rajasthan. The climate of this place is semi-arid characterized by aridity of the atmosphere and extremity of temperature both in summer (45.5 ºC) and winter (4ºC). The average rainfall of this region is between 500-700 mm per annum which is mostly received during July to September. The sporadic showers in winters are also common.

There was rainfall of 494.7 mm during the crop season 2025-26. In order to evaluate the physico-chemical properties, soil samples from 30 cm depth were taken from five random spots of the experimental field prior to layout and representative composite sample was prepared by mixing and processing of all soil samples together. The homogeneous composite soil sample was subjected to mechanical, physical and chemical analysis. The results of these analyses along with methods used for determination are presented in table 3.3. It is apparent from data that the soil of the experimental field was loamy sand in texture, alkaline in reaction, poor in organic carbon with low available nitrogen and zinc, medium in phosphorus and potassium content.

Results and Discussion

Effect of Crop Geometry and Mulching on Growth Attributes

All growth attributes, viz. plant height and dry matter accumulation, were increased significantly with the application of various crop geometries and mulching practices during the year of investigation. Results showed that the sowing of maize at a crop geometry of G₄ (75 cm × 25 cm) attained the maximum plant height of 75.78, 157.56, and 199.67 cm at 40, 80 DAS, and at maturity, respectively. This treatment was found to be statistically at par with G₂ (60 cm × 25 cm) at early stages but was significantly superior over the recommended spacing G₁ (60 cm × 20 cm) and G₃ (75 cm × 20 cm) at all recorded stages. Similarly, the highest dry matter accumulation was observed with G₄ (41, 213, and 289 g plant⁻¹), which was statistically similar to G₂ and significantly superior over the rest of the treatments. Regarding mulching, the application of M₂ (Organic mulchstraw @ 5 t ha⁻¹) recorded the maximum plant height of 67.00, 148.22, and 182.44 cm and the highest dry matter accumulation of 32, 192, and 267 g plant⁻¹ at 40, 80 DAS, and at maturity, respectively. The application of M₂ was significantly superior over the no-mulch control (M₁) and plastic mulch (M₃) at all stages of observation.

Effect of Crop Geometry and Mulching on Yield Attributes

It is evident from the data that crop geometry and mulching treatments significantly affected the yield attributes of maize during the year of study. Sowing at a crop geometry of G₄ (75 cm × 25 cm) attained the maximum number of cobs per plant (2.7), cob length (20.1 cm), and grains per cob (611.6). This treatment was found to be statistically at par with G₂ (60 cm × 25 cm) for cob length and number of cobs, but it was significantly superior over the recommended spacing G₁ (60 cm × 20 cm) and G₃ (75 cm × 20 cm). Specifically, G₄ increased the number of grains per cob by 76.56% over the recommended spacing G₁. Regarding mulching, the maximum values for yield attributes were recorded with the application of M₂ (Organic mulch). This treatment produced a significantly higher number of cobs per plant (2.1), cob length (17.5 cm), and grains per cob (540.9) compared to the no-mulch control. The application of M₂ increased the number of grains per cob by 34.12% over the control M₁ and by 13.47% over plastic mulch M₃.

Effect of Crop Geometry and Mulching on Yield

The experimental results revealed that crop geometry and mulching significantly influenced the final yield. The highest grain yield (4641 kg ha⁻¹) and stover yield (9674 kg ha⁻¹) were achieved with crop geometry G₄ (75 cm × 25 cm). This treatment was statistically on par with G₂ (60 cm × 25 cm) but significantly better than G₁ and G₃. G₄ increased the grain yield by 34.79% over the recommended spacing G₁ (3443 kg ha⁻¹). In terms of mulching, M₂ (Organic mulch) recorded the maximum grain yield (4086 kg ha⁻¹) and stover yield (8992 kg ha⁻¹). This was significantly superior to both the no-mulch control and plastic mulch. M₂ increased the grain yield by 8.64% over the control M₁. Interestingly, the harvest index remained statistically at par across all mulching treatments, though it was significantly higher in G₄ and G₂ (32%) compared to G₁ and G₃ (30%).

Effect of Crop Geometry and Mulching on Economics

The maximum net returns (Rs. 96996.6 ha⁻¹) and the highest B:C ratio (2.9) were achieved with the application of G₄ (75 cm × 25 cm). This treatment was statistically equivalent to G₂ but significantly superior to the recommended spacing G₁, which yielded the lowest net returns (Rs. 58664.1 ha⁻¹). For mulching treatments, M₂ (Organic mulch) provided the maximum net returns (Rs. 78077.0 ha⁻¹). However, the highest B:C ratio (2.7) was obtained with the no-mulch control (M₁). This is attributed to the lower cost of cultivation in the control plots compared to the additional expenses incurred from purchasing and applying mulch materials. Plastic mulch (M₃) resulted in the lowest net returns and B:C ratio, likely due to the higher initial cost of the material.

Discussion

Growth Attributes

Growth attributes, viz., plant height and dry matter accumulation, were significantly increased with different crop geometries and mulching. Among all treatments, G₄ (75 cm × 25 cm) recorded the highest plant height and dry matter accumulation, which was at par with G₂ (60 cm × 25 cm). Higher growth parameters with G₄ might be due to wider row and plant spacing, facilitating better interception of solar radiation and reduced inter-plant competition. Beneficial effects of mulching were observed with M₂ (Organic mulch -straw @ 5 t ha⁻¹), recording maximum plant height and dry matter production. This is attributed to better soil moisture conservation and moderated soil temperature.

Yield Attributes

Yield attributing characters, viz., cobs per plant, cob length, grain rows per cob, and total grains per cob, were significantly increased. G₄ (75 cm × 25 cm) recorded the highest values for these parameters. Wider planting geometry facilitated better individual plant growth and reduced "crowding effect," consequently increasing sink capacity. Optimized spacing is an essential factor for resource availability and biological energy transformation. M₂ (Organic mulch) recorded maximum values for all cob and grain attributes. Organic mulch maintains a cooler hydrothermal regime in the root zone, facilitating nutrient uptake during critical silking and grain-filling stages. This improved pollination and reduced kernel abortion, thereby increasing grains per row and grains per cob.

Yields

Grain yield and stover yield were significantly influenced by crop geometries. The highest grain yield (4641 kg ha⁻¹) and stover yield (9674 kg ha⁻¹) were obtained in G₄, which was superior over the recommended spacing. This is due to higher yield attributing parameters and higher sink translocation producing bolder grains. Increased yield with organic mulch (M₂) resulted from the combined effect of improved growth and yield components. Optimized spacing and moisture conservation improved the photosynthetic rate and energy transformation.

Economics G₄ (75 cm × 25 cm) gave higher net returns (Rs. 96,996.6 ha⁻¹) and the maximum B:C ratio (2.9). This is attributed to significantly higher yields compensating for management costs. Regarding mulching, maximum net returns (Rs. 78,077.0 ha⁻¹) were found with M₂, providing better returns compared to plastic mulch. However, the maximum B:C ratio (2.7) was obtained with the no-mulch control (M₁) due to the lower cost of cultivation, as no additional expenditure was incurred on mulching materials or labor.

Conclusion

Based on one year field experimentation, it is concluded that higher yield attributes, grain yield, and better economic returns of maize can be obtained by planting the crop with 75 cm × 25 cm (G₄) crop geometry along with the application of Organic mulch (M₂). However, maximum net return (Rs. 96,996.6 ha⁻¹) and highest B: C ratio (2.9) was obtained with the application of G₄ (75 cm × 25 cm). In case of mulching, while organic mulch improved growth, yield attributes, yields and net returns but the maximum B:C ratio 2.7 was recorded with the no-mulch control (M₁) due to the lower cost of cultivation. Thus, for getting higher yields and net returns the maize crop should be sown at crop geometry of 75 cm × 25 cm along with application of straw mulch at 5t/ha at the time of owing. Above conclusions are based on single season research and its needs further confirmation by repeating the trial for at least one more season for getting more relevant and consistent results.

References

1. Abd El-Latif KhM, Ainer NG, Eid TAA, Osman EAM. Effect of irrigation and mulching practices on maize crop and some water relations. Ann Agric Sci Moshtohor. 2017;55(4):1027-1036.
2. Barbieri P, Echarte L, Della Maggiora A, Sadras VO, Echeverria H, Andrade FH. Maize evapotranspiration and water-use efficiency in response to row spacing. Agron J. 2012;104(4):939-944.
3. Bhargav A, Subbaiah R. Enhancing maize productivity through mulching practices in semi-arid regions, Gujarat (India): impact on yield, water use efficiency, International Journal of Agriculture and Food Science https://www.agriculturaljournals.com and economic viability. Asian Res J Agric. 2024;17(4):1208-1217.
4. Ding X, He Z, Zhang M, Bai J, Zhang J, Liu P, et al. Optimizing row spacing to boost maize yield via enhanced photosynthesis and post-silking biomass allocation. J Integr Agric. 2024;23(12):3977-3990.
5. Fang H, Li Y, Gu X, Du Y, Chen P, Hu H. Evapotranspiration, water use efficiency, and yield for film mulched maize under different nitrogenfertilization rates and climate conditions. Agric Water Manag. 2024;301:108935.
6. Gobeze YL, Ceronio GM, Van Rensburg LD. Effect of spatial arrangements of row spacing and plant density on water use and water use efficiency of maize under irrigation. J Nat Sci Res. 2016;6(1):13-21.
7. Hossain ME, Zhang Z, Dong W, Wang S, Liu M, Liu E, et al. Plastic film mulching improved maize yield, water use efficiency, and N use efficiency under dryland farming system in northeast China. Plants. 2022;11(13):1710.
8. Kar PP, Barik KC, Mahapatra PK, Garnayak LM, Rath BS, Bastia DK, et al. Effect of planting geometry and nitrogen on yield, economics and nitrogen uptake of sweet corn (Zea mays). Indian J Agron. 2006;51(1):4345.
9. Kumar R, Singh RP, Rajpoot VK, Kumar R. Effect of rain water conservation practices and mulching yield and water use efficiency (WUE) on maize (Zea mays L.) under changing climate. J Pharmacogn Phytochem. 2021;10(1):538-540.
10. Niazi AGK, Qazi MA, Ullah R, Bilal M, Iqbal M, Khan MM, et al. Impacts of various levels of mulching on the yield of maize, water use efficiency, soil organic carbon and physical and chemical properties under different methods of sowing. J Xi'an Shiyou Univ Nat Sci Ed. 2023;19(07):379-410.
11. Qin W, Hu C, Oenema O. Soil mulching significantly enhances yields and water and nitrogen use efficiencies of maize and wheat: a meta-analysis. Sci Rep. 2015;5:16210.
12. Reddy KKK, Singh AK, Singh RS. Consumptive use, water use efficiency and economics of rabi maize as influenced by planting geometry and moisture regimes. Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci. 2018;7(9):3811-3816.
13. Tao Z, Li C, Li J, Ding Z, Xu J, Sun X, et al. Tillage and straw mulching impacts on grain yield and water use efficiency of spring maize in Northern Huang-HuaiHai Valley. Crop J. 2015;3(5):445-450.
14. Wang J, Chen Z, Liang Z, Yin Y, Huang S, Meng Q, et al. Interactive effects of planting density and row spacing on maize root distribution and yield. Agronomy. 2025;15(11):2552.
15. Xing Y, Fu J, Wang X. Effect of mulching and organic manure on maize yield, water, and nitrogen use efficiency in the Loess Plateau of China. PeerJ. 2024;12:e18644.