Hostname: page-component-5db6c4db9b-fdz9p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2023-03-25T11:37:42.739Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue true


Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2015

Grassland Science and Renewable Plant Resources, University of Kassel, Steinstrasse 19, 37213 Witzenhausen, Germany Plant Breeding and Genetics, UCA & ES, The Islamia University of Bahawalpur
Plant Breeding and Genetics, University of Agriculture Faisalabad, Pakistan
Grassland Science and Renewable Plant Resources, University of Kassel, Steinstrasse 19, 37213 Witzenhausen, Germany
Organic Plant Production and Agroecosystem Research in the Tropics and Subtropics (OPATS), University of Kassel, Steinstrasse 19, 37213 Witzenhausen, Germany
Grassland Science and Renewable Plant Resources, University of Kassel, Steinstrasse 19, 37213 Witzenhausen, Germany
§Corresponding author. Email:


In many parts of Pakistan, availability of green forage is critical to livestock farmers. Forage production is often conducted with two succeeding crops grown within one year and it is highly affected by uncertain availability of irrigation water and low levels of applied mineral fertilisers. The objectives of the present study were to (i) evaluate the effects of crop species, fertiliser type and irrigation level on yield, (ii) determine the corresponding water use efficiency and (iii) investigate relationships between chlorophyll content and crop yield as a basis for a simple sensor-based prediction of crop yield for on-farm use. To this end a two-year field experiment was conducted in Faisalabad, Pakistan, with a completely randomised design with four replications in a split plot arrangement. A combination of fertiliser treatment (control, farm yard manure and mineral fertiliser) and irrigation (recommended irrigation, half recommended irrigation) were assigned to main plot whereas subplots were assigned to cropping systems (common (CCS): Egyptian clover (Trifolium alexandrinum L.) followed by corn (Zea mays L.), drought-adapted (DACS): Oat (Avena sativa L.) followed by Sudangrass (Andropogon sorghum subsp. drummondii). Yield and irrigation water use efficiency of DACS was higher than CCS (14.8 and 26% respectively), the differences were bigger with reduced irrigation and fertilised crops used the available water better than the control. Positive linear relationships were found between chlorophyll concentration estimated by a chlorophyll meter and yield for all crops (r2 = 0.63–0.96), suggesting this technique as a fairly accurate approach to predict yields of crops in vegetative growth stage.

Research Article
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)



Abbasi, M. K., Khaliq, A., Shafiq, M., Kazmi, M. and Ali, I. (2010). Comparative effectiveness of urea N, poultry manure and their combination in changing soil properties and maize productivity under rain-fed conditions in northeast Pakistan. Experimental Agriculture 46:211230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ahmad, A., Qadir, I., Naeem, M. (2007). Effect of integrated use of organic and inorganic fertilizers on fodder yield of sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L.). Pakistan Journal of Agricultural Sciences 44:415421.Google Scholar
Amanullah, J., Stewart, B. (2013). Dry matter partitioning, growth analysis and water use efficiency response of oats (Avena sativa L.) to excessive nitrogen and phosphorus application. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology 15:479489.Google Scholar
Bibi, A., Sadaqat, H., Tahir, M., Usman, B.F., Ali, M. (2012). Genetic analysis of forage quality traits in sorghum-sudangrass hybrids under water stress. Journal of Animal & Plant Sciences 22:10921100.Google Scholar
Biewer, S., Fricke, T., Wachendorf, M. (2009). Development of canopy reflectance models to predict forage quality of legume-grass mixtures. Crop Science 49:19171926.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blum, A. (2009). Effective use of water (EUW) and not water-use efficiency (WUE) is the target of crop yield improvement under drought stress. Field Crops Research 112:119123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bokari, U.G. (1983). Chlorophyll, dry matter and photosynthetic conversion-efficiency relationships in warm-season grasses. Journal Range Management 36:431434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bredemeier, C., Schmidhalter, U. (2003). Non-contacting chlorophyll fluorescence sensing for site-specific nitrogen fertilization in wheat and maize. Precision Agriculture 3:103108.Google Scholar
Bremner, J. M. and Mulvaney, C. S. (1982). Nitrogen-total. In Methods of Soil Analysis Part 2, 595624 (Ed Page, A. L. et al.). Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy.Google Scholar
Cai, H., Mi, G., Chen, F., Zhang, X., Gao, Q. (2010). Genotypic variation of leaf SPAD value, nitrogen and nitrate content in maize. Plant Nutrition and Fertilizer Science 16:866873.Google Scholar
Chang, S. X., Robison, D. J. (2003). Non-destructive and rapid estimation of hardwood foliar nitrogen status using the SPAD-502 chlorophyll meter. Forest Ecology and Management 181:331338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheema, M. A., Farooq, M., Ahmad, R., Munir, H. (2006). Climatic trends in Faisalabad (Pakistan) over the last 60 years (1945–2004). Journal of Agriculture and Social Sciences 2:4245.Google Scholar
Clark, A. (2007). Managing Cover Crops Profitably, 3rd edn. 118122. Beltsville, MD: Sustainable Agriculture Network.Google Scholar
Costa, C., Dwyer, L. M., Dutilleul, P., Stewart, D. W., Ma, B. L., Smith, D. L. (2001). Inter-relationships of applied nitrogen, SPAD, and yield of leafy and non-leafy maize genotypes. Journal of Plant Nutrition, 24:11731194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Critchley, W., Siegert, K. (1991). A manual for the design and construction of water harvesting schemes for plant production. FAO–Rome. Available at; (accessed on 01 Jul. 2013)Google Scholar
Dean, J. A. (1960). Flame Photometry. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Devendra, C., Sevilla, C. (2002). Availability and use of feed resources in crop–animal systems in Asia. Agricultural Systems 71:5973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farooq, O. (2012). Agriculture. In Economic Survey of Pakistan, 1735 (Ed Wasti, S. E.) Ministry of Finance, Islamabad. Govt. Pak.Google Scholar
Frame, J., Harkess, R. D., Hunt, I. V. (1976). The effect of variety and fertilizer nitrogen level on red clover production. Grass and Forage Science 31:111115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
George, D. (2003). SPSS for Windows Step by Step: A Simple Study Guide and Reference, 17.0 Update, 10th edn., Delhi, India: Pearson Edu. Delhi. Google Scholar
Gérard, B. and Buerkert, A. 2001. Estimation of spatial variability in pearl millet growth with non-destructive methods. Experimental Agriculture 37:373389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoel, B. O. (1998). Use of a handheld chlorophyll meter in winter wheat: evaluation of different measuring positions on the leaves. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica B-Plant Soil Sciences 48:222228.Google Scholar
Hokmalipour, S., Darbandi, M. H. (2011). Effects of nitrogen fertilizer on chlorophyll content and other leaf indicate in three cultivars of maize (Zea mays L.). World Applied Sciences Journal 15:17801785.Google Scholar
Howell, T. A. (2001). Enhancing water use efficiency in irrigated agriculture. Agronomy Journal 93:281289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jalota, S. K., Vashisht, B. B., Kaur, H., Arora, V. K., Vashist, K. K. and Deol, K. S. (2011). Water and nitrogen-balance and use efficiency in a rice (oryza sativa)–wheat (triticum aestivum) cropping system as influenced by management interventions: field and simulation study. Experimental Agriculture 47:609628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazaridou, M., Koutroubas, S. (2004). Drought effect on water use efficiency of berseem clover at various growth stages. In Proceedings of 4th International Crop Science Congress, (Ed Fischer, T.), Brisbane, Australia.Google Scholar
Li, F.-L., Bao, W.-K., Wu, N. (2011). Morphological, anatomical and physiological responses of Campylotropis polyantha (Franch.) Schindl. seedlings to progressive water stress. Scientia Horticulturae 127:436443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manetas, Y., Grammatikopoulos, G., Kyparissis, A. (1998). The use of the portable, non-destructive, SPAD-502 (Minolta) chlorophyll meter with leaves of varying trichome density and anthocyanin content. Journal of Plant Physiology 153:513516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markwell, J., Osterman, J. C., Mitchell, J. L. (1995). Calibration of the Minolta SPAD-502 leaf chlorophyll meter. Photosynthesis Research 46:467472.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mubarak, A., Ragab, O. E., Ali, A. A., Hamed, N. E. (2009). Short-term studies on use of organic amendments for amelioration of a sandy soil. African Journal of Agricultural Research 4:621627.Google Scholar
Olsen, S. R., Watanabe, F. S. (1957). A method to determine a phosphorus adsorption maximum of soils as measured by the Langmuir isotherm. Soil Science Society of America Journal 21:144149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Payero, J., Tarkalson, D., Irmak, S., Davison, D., Petersen, J. L. (2009). Effect of timing of a deficit-irrigation allocation on corn evapotranspiration, yield, water use efficiency and dry mass. Agricultural Water Management 96:13871397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quershi, A. S. (2005). Climate change and water resources management in Pakistan. In Climate Change and Water Resources in South Asia, 197230 (Eds Mirza, M.M.Q. and Ahmed, Q. K.) Leiden, The Netherland: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Rasul, G., Mahmood, A. (2009). Performance evaluation of different methods for estimation of evapotranspiration in Pakistan's climate. Pakistan Journal of Meteorology 5:2536.Google Scholar
Rorie, R. L., Purcell, L. C., Mozaffari, M., Karcher, D. E., King, C. A., Marsh, M. C., Longer, D. E. (2011). Association of ‘greenness’ in corn with yield and leaf nitrogen concentration. Agronomy Journal 103:529535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, S. M., King, J. R., O’Donovan, J. T., Spaner, D. (2004). Intercropping berseem clover with barley and oat cultivars for forage. Agronomy Journal 96:17191729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, O. (1994). MSTAT-C v. 2.1 (a computer based data analysis software). Crop and Soil Science Department, Michigan State University.Google Scholar
Sanger, J. E. (1971). Quantitative investigations of leaf pigments from their inception in buds through autumn coloration to decomposition in falling leaves. Ecology 52:10751089.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sarwar, M., Khan, M. A., Iqbal, Z. (2002). Status paper: Feed resources for livestock in Pakistan. International Journal of Agriculture and Biology 4:186192.Google Scholar
Siddiqui, R., Lashari, B., Skogerboe, G. (1996). Converting a fabricated cutthroat flume into a discharge measuring instrument. In IIMI Pakistan Report, T-5. IMMI, Pakistan National Program, Hydrabad, 1–55.Google Scholar
Sikuku, P., Netondo, G., Onyango, J., Musyimi, D. (2010). Chlorophyll fluorescence, protein and chlorophyll content of three nerica rainfed rice varieties under varying irrigation regimes. Journal of Agricultural and Biological Science 5:1925.Google Scholar
Singh, A., Aggarwal, N., Aulakh, G. S., Hundal, R. (2012). Ways to maximize the water use efficiency in field crops– A review. Greener Journal of Agricultural Sciences 2:108129.Google Scholar
Sivakumar, M., Salaam, S. (1999). Effect of year and fertilizer on water-use efficiency of pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum) in Niger. Journal of Agricultural Sciences 132:139148.Google Scholar
Soler, C., Hoogenboom, G., Sentelhas, P., Duarte, A. (2007). Impact of water stress on maize grown off-season in a subtropical environment. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science 193:247261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Systat Software, Inc. (2008). SigmaPlot for Windows, version 11.0. San Jose, CA: Systat Software, Inc.Google Scholar
Széles, A. V., Megyes, A., Nagy, J. (2012). Irrigation and nitrogen effects on the leaf chlorophyll content and grain yield of maize in different crop years. Agricultural Water Management 107:133144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talebi, R. (2011). Evaluation of chlorophyll content and canopy temperature as indicators for drought tolerance in durum wheat (Triticum durum Desf.). Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences 5:14571462.Google Scholar
Ul-Allah, S., Khan, A. A., Fricke, T., Buerkert, A., Wachendorf, M. (2014). Fertilizer and irrigation effects on forage protein and energy production under semi-arid conditions of Pakistan. Field Crops Research 159:6269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar