3 MATERIAL AND METHODS
3.2 Description of the experimental locations
3.2.2 Experimental station Gross-Gerau
The growing season (April to October) can be seen to be drier than 2004 and 2005.
July was the hottest month and corresponded with the period of Anthesis in the middle late and late maize cultivars as well as grain filling stages for the early and middle early cultivars. This Couple with the cooler April and may explain the reason why 2006 is described as problematic.
Figure 3.7 shows the temperature distribution over Giessen in 2006 and compares it with long term averages of each month. The growing season (April to October) can be seen to be drier than 2004 and 2005. July was the hottest month and corresponded with the period of Anthesis in the middle late and late maize cultivars as well as grain filling stages for the early and middle early cultivars. This Couple with the cooler April and may explain the reason why 2006 is described as problematic.
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25
January February
March Aprile
May
June July August
September October
November December month
temperature units°C
Temperature Long term average°(C) Temperature 2006(°C)
Fig. 3.7: Developments in atmospheric temperature over Giessen in 2006 compared with respective long term averages (temp=temperature; lta = long term average)
Gross-Table 3.9: General characteristics of the experimental station Gross Gerau
Factor Value
Soil specie sandy loam
Clay content <5%
Available field capacity (100cm) <100mm
Height above NN 91m
Long term average Air temperature 8,0°C Long term average precipitation 590mm/year
NN= Normal null (the German standard for measuring height above sea level
The experimental field used for maize cultivation in 2004, was previously sown with sun flower in 2002 and pea in 2003.That used for the 2005 experiments had sun flower in 2003 and pea in 2004 as pre crops. For the 2006 experiments the field used was pre-sown with winter rye in 2004 and pea in 2005.
Soil conditions and fertilization
Soil nutrient contents were analysed from top soil to 90 cm deep and the results were used in planning any necessary fertilizer or manure applications. The results of soil analysis for the experiments of 2004 are presented in tables 3.10 and 3.11 and those for the 2005 and 2006 experiments can be found in tables 3.12 and 3.13 below.
Table 3.10: Results of soil analysis (depth 0-90 cm) for the 2004 experiments
Nutrient Content (mg/100g soil)
P2O5 23
K2O 12
MgO 5
B 0,2
Soil reaction (pH value) 6,6
Table 3.11: Results of mineralised Nitrogen at different soil depths Soil depth analyse Nmin (mgNO3)/100g soil
0 – 30 cm 6
30 – 60 cm 6
60 – 90 cm 10
Total = 22
Table 3.12: Results of soil (depth 0-90 cm) analysis for the 2005 and 2006 experiments
Nutrient and soil reactions mg Nutrient /100g soil
P2O5 24
K2O 11
MgO 4
B 0,2
Soil reaction were slightly acidic (pH 6,1)
Table 3.13: Results of mineralised Nitrogen at different soil depths Soil depth analyse Nmin (mgNO3)/100g soil
0 – 30 cm 0,14
30 – 60 cm 0,30
60 – 90 cm -
Total = 0,44
Table 3.14 shows fertilizer applications made in 2004, 2005 and 2006 following soil analysis results.
Table 3.14: Fertilizer applied at the seed bed preparation stage in Giessen in 2004, 2005 and 2006
Type of fertilize Application(kg / ha)
Thomaskali® P K
70 210
Type of fertilize Application(kg/ha) Ammonium
nitrate(NH4NO3)
N 60kg/ha
At the fourth leaf stage a second N – fertilization of 40 kg N / ha was carried out using the same Ammonium nitrate (NH4NO3) fertilizer containing 27% nitrogen.
In all the experimental years, the same types of herbicides were applied during the fourth leaf stage to ensure a healthy maize crop stand.
Table 3.15: Herbicides used in 2004, 2005 and 2006 Plant
protection
Type Trade mark Quantity l/ha
Herbicide Gardo Gold 2,0 l/ha
Herbicide Mikado 1,0 l/ha
Herbicide Certrol B 0,5 l/ha
Weather and Climate conditions
Just as in Giessen, the effects of weather on the performances of the maize cultivars were also accessed by comparing meteorological results of each experimental year with the known long term averages for Gross-Gerau. The results are illustrated in figures 3.8, 3.9, 3.10, 3.11, 3.12, and 3.13 below.
Weather and climate conditions in 2004
Figure 3.8 below illustrates precipitations over Gross-Gerau in 2004 and compares it with long term averages. Precipitations during the growing season in 2004 were less than the long term averages except August.
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
January February
March Aprile
May
June July August
September October
November December months
precipitation units mm
Precipitation Long term average Precipitation 2004 (mm)
Fig. 3.8: Developments in precipitation over Gross-Gerau in 2004 compared with respective long term averages (Ppt = precipitation; lta = long term average This is indicative of the drier climate of Gross-Gerau as compared with Giessen.
Results of temperature conditions over Gross-Gerau in 2004 are compared with the respective long term averages in figure 3.9 below.
0 5 10 15 20 25
January February
March Aprile
May
June July August
September October
November December months
temperature units °C
Temperature Long term average°(C) Temperature 2004 (°C)
Fig. 3.9: Developments in atmospheric temperature over Gross-Gerau in 2004 compared with respective long term averages (temp=temperature;
lta = long term average)
Generally conditions were warmer with favourable temperatures (≥ 10°C) for Germination in mid April.
Weather and climate conditions in 2005
Fig. 3.10 shows a very wet April and May and dry July and August in Gross-Gerau.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
January February
March Aprile
May
June July August
Septem ber
October Novem
ber Decem
ber
months
precipitation units mm
Precipitation Long term average Precipitation 2005 (mm)
As has already been pointed at the beginning Gross-Gerau is a region prone to sporadic droughts. Hence irrigation was always included in the experimental planning.
0 5 10 15 20 25
January February
March Aprile
May
June July August
September October
November December month
temperature units°C
Temperature Long term average°(C) Temperature 2005 (°C)
Fig. 3.11: Developments in atmospheric temperature over Gross-Gerau in 2005 compared with respective long term averages (temp=temperature;
lta = long term average)
It can be observed that 2005 was warmer as the temperatures of each month are above their respective long term averages. Temperatures were therefore favourable at all months.
Weather and climate conditions in 2006
A comparison of monthly precipitations with their respective long term averages over Giessen in 2006 is illustrated in figure 3.12 below.
0 20 40 6080 100 120 140 160 180 200
January February
March Aprile
Ma y
June July August
Septemb er
October Novemb
er Decemb
er
months
precipitation units mm
Precipitation Long term average Precipitation 2006 (mm)
Fig. 3.12: Developments in precipitation over Gross-Gerau in 2006 compared with respective long term averages (Ppt = precipitation; lta = long term average
April, June and September were drier but September was much drier. Since September was the harvesting period this could be a problem in controlling the moisture contents of whole plant silage maize.
Figure 3.13 shows the results of monthly temperatures over Gross-Gerau as compared with their respective long term averages. The trend is equal to that observed in 2005 but the individual values are higher compared with 2004, 2005 and long term averages.
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
January February
March Aprile
May
June July August
Septem ber
October Novem
ber Decem
ber months
temperature units °C
Temperature Long term average°(C) Temperature 2006 (°C)
Fig. 3.13: Developments in atmospheric temperature over Gross-Gerau in 2006 compared with respective long term averages (temp=temperature;
lta = long term average)
This also indicates 2006 to be the warmest of all the experimental years as was also observed in Giessen. The lower values of temperature in April also indicates cooler than normal conditions for Gross-Gerau. Like in Giessen 2006 in Gross-Gerau was characterised by late frost and droughts at Anthesis and grain filling stages.