Next Article in Journal
Morphological and Molecular Characterization of Quinoa Genotypes
Previous Article in Journal
Targeting Youths’ Intentions to Avoid Food Waste: Segmenting for Better Policymaking
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agriculture
Volume 11
Issue 4
10.3390/agriculture11040285
agriculture-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Ameliorative Effects of Calcium Sprays on Yield and Grain Nutritional Composition of Maize (Zea mays L.) Cultivars under Drought Stress

by
Mohamed Abbas
1,
Hashim Abdel-Lattif
2 and
Mohamed Shahba
1,*
1
Natural Resources Department, Faculty of African Postgraduate Studies, Cairo University, Giza 12613, Egypt
2
Agronomy Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Cairo University, Giza 12613, Egypt
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agriculture 2021, 11(4), 285; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11040285
Submission received: 10 March 2021 / Revised: 22 March 2021 / Accepted: 23 March 2021 / Published: 26 March 2021
(This article belongs to the Section Agricultural Water Management)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Drought stress is seriously affecting maize production. To investigate the influence of calcium (Ca) foliar application on maize production and chemical composition of grains under drought stress, two experiments were carried out at Cairo University Research Station, Giza, Egypt, during the summer seasons of 2018 and 2019. The experimental design was split-split plot design with a completely randomized blocks arrangement with three replications. Water regimes were assigned to the main plots [100 (control), 75, and 50% of estimated evapotranspiration]. Calcium levels (zero and 50 mg/L) were assigned to the sub plots. Maize cultivars (SC-P3444, Sammaz-35 and EVDT) were assigned to the sub-sub plots. Three maize cultivars were sprayed with Ca solution concentration (50 mg/L) under normal and drought conditions. The control treatment (0 mg/L) was sprayed with an equal amount of distilled water for comparison. Results indicated a significant decrease in total yield and grain characteristics [protein, ash, total sugars, nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), potassium (K), and iron (Fe) contents] as a response of drought. Calcium foliar application significantly increased maize yield, protein, ash, carbohydrates, starch, total sugars, and ionic contents of grains, except for manganese (Mn), under all irrigation levels. Based on the drought tolerance index (DTI), only cultivar SC-P3444 showed drought tolerance while cultivars Sammaz-35 and EVDT were sensitive to drought stress. Foliar application of Ca on SC-P3444 cultivar achieved the highest grain yield per hectare (8061 kg) under the water regime of 100% of the total evapotranspiration, followed by Sammaz-35 (7570 kg), and EVDT (7191 kg) cultivars. At the water regime of 75% of estimated evapotranspiration (75% irrigation), Ca foliar application increased grain yield by 16, 13 and 14% in SC-P3444, Sammaz-35, and EVDT, respectively. At the water regime of 50% of the estimated evapotranspiration (50% irrigation), Ca foliar application increased grain yield by 17, 16, and 13% in SC-P3444, Sammaz-35, and EVDT, respectively. In brief, Ca had a clear impact on productivity and grain quality with important implications for maize yield under normal and water stress conditions. Our findings demonstrate that foliar application of Ca enabled drought stressed maize plants to survive better under stress. The most water stress tolerant cultivar was SC-P3444 followed by Sammaz-35 and EVDT under drought stress.

1. Introduction

Maize (Zea mays L.) is an important cereal crop with a wider range of uses than other cereals [1]. It ranks 3rd after wheat and rice in the world’s production of cereal crops and is known as the king of grain crops [2,3]. Maize is valuable as a source of food, feed, oil, and biofuel [4]. Maize grains are a rich source of energy as 100 g seed provides 365 kilocalories of energy [5]. It is responsible for providing 1/2 of calorie consumption worldwide [6].
Drought or water deficiency is one of the most common abiotic stresses in agricultural production practically in arid and semi-arid environments. It is expected to be more frequent and intense as a result of global climate change, which may severely impact world crop production [7]. Drought is the most injurious stress that significantly influences the yield and quality traits of major cereal crops [8]. It reduces agricultural production mainly by disrupting the osmotic equilibrium and membrane structure of the cell [9]. Drought affects 20–25% of the cultivated area of maize around the world [10]. Water deficiency causes stomatal closure or destruction in photosynthetic reaction centers, which can lead to serious decline in photosynthetic rates and ultimately biomass accumulation [11,12]. In addition, it induces nutrient absorption, redistribution, and transport which results in a decline in productivity [13,14]. Water deficit severely reduces growth, dry matter content [15], and yield of maize hybrids [16]. Song et al. [17] concluded that severe maize yield loss could occur when maize was exposed to severe and extended water stress events during the seedling stage. Zhang et al. [18] indicated that irrigation deficit during maturation is more damaging than deficit during late vegetative stages due to the limitation of kernel development. In addition, drought significantly reduces starch, protein [19], and mineral contents in maize [9], while Balla et al. [20] found a reduction in grain starch and an increase in protein content in maize in response to drought stress.
Calcium is an essential element for plant growth and productivity. It plays a structural role in cell walls and membranes, counter-cation for inorganic and organic anions in the vacuole, acts as an intracellular messenger in the cytosol, and helps plants resist different environmental stresses [21,22,23,24]. Calcium ions can enhance drought stress tolerance in plants [25]. It alleviates the harmful effects of drought on plants by signaling anti-drought responses [26]. Ali et al. [27] indicated that the increasing cellular transient Ca participates in the processes abscisic acid (ABA)-induced drought signal transduction. The biosynthesis of ABA has improved water use efficiency and confer drought tolerance in plants [28]. Calcium foliar application improved drought tolerance in maize [29], sugar beet [30], wheat [31], and tea [32]. Fan [33] indicated that Ca concentration of 10 mM achieves the highest maize grain yield under both normal and drought conditions. Naeem et al. [29] found that foliar application of Ca (40 mg L−1) is effective in improving maize growth and productivity. In addition, Naeem et al. [34] suggested that Ca application is effective to make maize plants survive under drought conditions.
Maintaining water balance in plants by reducing water loss or increasing water absorption is an essential way to improve plant tolerance to drought stress [35]. Maize requires large quantities of water to complete its life cycle and water deficiency negatively affects its vegetative growth and productivity [4,34]. Maize is sensitive to drought at different growth stages from germination to maturity [36]. However, a shortage of water during the period between pollination and maturity leads to a 15–20% decrease in yield [37]. Stress tolerance indictors are beneficial tools to determine high yield and stress tolerance potential of genotypes of crops [38]. Identifying high-yield genotypes under stress and non-stress conditions are more useful than developing new varieties [19,39]. Due to the continuous increase in irrigation water and global warming, maize production will face big difficulties and, as a result, testing techniques that can enhance drought tolerance in maize have become important. In this study, we will address the role of Ca sprays in maize drought stress tolerance. Little is known about the performance of cultivars SC-P3444, Sammaz-35, and EVDT under normal and water stress conditions. Therefore, the objectives of this research were to investigate the productivity and nutritional composition of grain in SC-P3444, Sammaz-35, and EVDT maize cultivars grown under different water regimes and to investigate the effect of foliar application of Ca on these cultivars under drought stress.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Experimental Site

The experiments were carried out at the Agricultural Experimental and Research Station, Faculty of Agriculture, Cairo University, Giza, Egypt (30°02′ N and 31°13′ E, altitude of 30 m above sea level) during the two successive seasons of 2018 and 2019. Monthly mean temperature, monthly relative humidity, and rainfall were recorded (Table 1). Monthly mean temperature values increased gradually from 28.2 and 27.6 °C in May to 30.5 and 30.8 °C in August in the 2018 and 2019 seasons, respectively. The maximum relative humidity was 56% during August and September in the first and second season, respectively. There was no rain in the two seasons.
Soil physical analysis was conducted according to Klute [40] and chemical analysis was done as follows: pH; Soil pH [41], electrical conductivity; EC (dS m−1); Soluble Salts [42], organic matter (%) [43], N (mg kg−1); Nitrogen [44], P (mg kg−1); Phosphorus [45] and K (mg kg−1); Potassium [46]. The study site soil is classified as clay (Table 2). The soil pH was 7.21 and 7.41 and EC was 0.92 and 0.75 dS m−1 in the first and second season, respectively. Chemical analysis of irrigation water was conducted according to Cottenie et al. [47]. The water pH was 7.02 and 7.37 and electrical conductivity (EC) was 0.78 and 0.86 dSm−1 in the first and second season, respectively (Table 3).

2.2. Experimental Design and Treatments

Maize commercial Nigerian cultivars Sammaz-35 and EVDT were obtained from the National Agricultural Seeds Council, Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Abuja, Nigeria and the Egyptian cultivar SC-P3444 was obtained from DuPont Pioneer Company, Egypt. Cultivars used in the present study are single cross hybrids SC-P3444, Sammaz-35, and EVDT and were evaluated under three water regimes [irrigation amounting to 100 (control), 75, and 50% of estimated evapotranspiration]. Irrigation interval and amount of irrigation water over the growing season were calculated according to Allen et al. [48] (Table 4). The Ca solution was prepared by using Calcium Chloride Dihydrate (CaCl2 · 2H2O). Three maize cultivars were sprayed with Ca solution concentration (50 mg/L about 25 g/ha) under normal and drought conditions in two equal doses using foliar spraying before the first and second irrigations. The control treatment (0 mg/L) was sprayed with an equal amount of distilled water for comparison. Calcium doses were sprayed at morning time (8:00–10:00 a.m.) on a dry and sunny day.
Each experiment was laid out in a split-split plot design using randomized complete blocks arrangement with three replications. Water regimes were assigned to the main plots, while Ca treatments were assigned to the sub plots. Maize cultivars were assigned to the sub-sub plots.

2.3. Cultural Practices

The preceding crop was faba bean (Vicia faba L.) in both seasons. Sowing dates were on May 10 and 16 in the 2018 and 2019 seasons, respectively. Seeds were sown in hills by hand at a seeding rate of 57,600 plants/ha. Before the 1st irrigation, thinning was done to one plant per hill. Each plot contained 6 rows (70 cm width and 5 m long). Calcium super phosphate fertilizer (15.5% P2O5) at the rate of 60 kg P2O5/ha was applied uniformly before sowing. Ammonium nitrate (33.5% N) at a nitrogen rate (288 kg N/ha) was added in two equal doses before the 1st and 2nd irrigations. The weed management was carried out during the growing season by hoeing two times, before the 1st and the 2nd irrigations. Cultural practices were conducted according to the recommendation of the Agricultural Research Center (ARC), Egyptian Ministry of Agriculture.

2.4. Data Collection

2.4.1. Agronomic Traits

Plant height (cm) measured from soil surface up to point of flag leaf, ear length (cm), number of rows plant−1, number of grains row−1, ear weight/plant (g), and 100-grain weight (g) were recorded for twenty plants selected from the inner ridges of each plot at harvest time. Grain yield ha−1 in kg was weighed from whole area of each experimental unit (sub-sub-plot) and then adjusted into kilogram per hectare (kg/ha). The grain yield per hectare was adjusted on the basis of 15.5% grain moisture content.

2.4.2. Drought Tolerance Index (DTI)

Drought tolerance index is the factor used to compare drought tolerance among the tested cultivars. It was calculated as an Equation (1), [49].
DTI   =   Y w / Y ¯ w ∗ Y s / Y ¯ s
where, Yw = mean of grain yield/hectare for a genotype at well watering. Y ¯ w = average of grain yield/hectare for all genotypes at well watering. Ys = mean of grain yield/hectare for a genotype at water stress. Y ¯ s = average of grain yield/hectare for all genotypes at water stress. Fort drought tolerant (T) cultivars, DTI is ≥1 while DTI is <1 for drought sensitive (S) cultivars.

2.5. Grain Quality Traits

2.5.1. Preparation of Samples

Fully developed grains were arbitrarily selected from each plot, picked, and taken to the laboratory for grain quality analysis. Grains were manually removed and dried at 65 °C to a constant weight, ground and stored in polyethylene bags in dark at 4 °C for chemical analysis.

2.5.2. Chemical Characteristics of Grain

The protein content was determined by the Kjeldahl method, ashing was carried out in a muffle and oxidizing atmosphere at a temperature of 900 ± 10 °C, crude fiber and ether extract was determined by the Soxhlet method, and grains were measured by using the appropriate protocols according to Association of Official Agricultural Chemists, A.O.A.C. [50]. Carbohydrate content of grains was calculated according to Fraser and Holumes [51] as follows: carbohydrates (on dry basis) = 100 − (ash + ether extract + protein + fiber). Total sugar was determined with the phenol-sulfuric acid method according to Dubois et al. [52]. Starch content was determined via starch hydrolysis as described by Rasmussen and Henry [53]. The total polyphenol content was determined by the preparation of grain flour that will be used in extraction: the sample was extracted with ethanol according to Mohan and Rajinder [54] and the total polyphenol content was carried out using a modified method described by McDonald et al. [55].

2.5.3. Elemental Composition of Grain

Two grams of sample was weighed and burned at 550 °C. The ashes were dissolved with 100 mL 1 M HCl. Dissolved ash was analyzed for Fe and Mn contents according to Association of Official Agricultural Chemists, A.O.A.C. [50]. Perkin Elmer (Model 3300, Wellesley, MA, USA) Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer was used to quantify the contents of theses minerals. Nitrogen (N) of the dried material was determined by using the modified-Micro-Kjeldahel method as described by Jones et al. [56]. Phosphorus (P) was determined spectrophotometrically and potassium was analyzed by flame photometer (Jenway, PFP, Jenway, Essex, UK) as described in Association of Official Agricultural Chemists, A.O.A.C. [50].

2.6. Statistical Analysis

Data were checked out for normal distribution in each trait by the Shapiro–Wilk method [57], using SPSS v. 17.0 [58] computer package. Additionally, data were tested for violations of assumptions underlying the combined analysis of variance by separately analyzing data of each season and then running combined analysis across the two seasons. Means were separated using LSD testing when significant difference was obtained [59] using MSTAT-C [60].

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Agronomic Traits

There was no significant difference between the two years of the study and as a result data for the two years were pooled together. Significant differences among water regimes, Ca levels, and cultivars in agronomic traits were observed (Table 5). Water stress resulted in a significant decrease in the agronomic traits in different cultivars compared to the control. The foliar application of Ca (50 mg/L) significantly enhanced most agronomic traits in different cultivars compared to the control (zero Ca) under water stress conditions. Drought stress significantly reduced the yield and yield components of all cultivars. Foliar application of Ca was effective and improved the yield and its components such as ear length (cm), number of rows, number of grains row−1, ear weight plant−1 (g), 100-grain weight (g) and grain yield per hectare (kg/ha). At the water regime of 75% of estimated evapotranspiration, grain yield decreased by 28, 28 and 35% for SC-P3444, Sammaz-35, and EVDT cultivars, respectively compared to the control. Under severe water stress (50% of estimated evapotranspiration), the grain yield significantly decreased by 51, 50, and 50% in SC-P3444, Sammaz-35, and EVDT cultivars, respectively, compared to the control (Table 5). At the control water regime, Ca foliar application significantly increased the grain yield of all tested cultivars. Grain yields of SC-P3444, Sammaz-35, and EVDT were increased by 5, 12, and 7%, respectively. At the water regime of 75% of estimated evapotranspiration, Ca foliar application increased grain yield by 16, 13, and 14% in SC-P3444, Sammaz-35, and EVDT cultivars, respectively. Under severe water stress (50% of estimated evapotranspiration), Ca foliar application significantly increased the grain yield of all cultivars. Grain yields of SC-P3444, Sammaz-35, and EVDT, were increased by 17, 16, and 13%, respectively.
Maize yield reduction has been commonly reported under water stress conditions [61,62]. Ear height, number of grains per row−1, and grain yield of maize have been adversely affected by drought stress [57]. Further, Anjum et al. [63] found a reduction in the number of grains per row, grains weight, and grain yield of maize when plants were exposed to drought at the tasseling stage. Results indicate that SC-P3444 cultivar treated with foliar Ca application achieved the highest ear length (19.2 cm), the greatest number per row (14.7), the highest ear weight plant−1 (171.4 g), the highest 100-grain weight (33.5 g), and the highest grain yield ha−1 (8061 kg) under the water regime of 100% of estimated evapotranspiration, followed by Sammaz-35 and EVDT cultivars (Table 5). The foliar fertilization of Ca (50 mg/L) was effective in enhancing maize yield. This effect might be due to the vital role of Ca in maintenance of turgor, enhancing photosynthesis and transpiration rate under water stress conditions [29,34,64]. Additionally, Ca is involved in signaling anti-drought responses [32]. Calcium participated in abscisic acid (ABA)-induced drought signal transduction which improved water use efficiency and confer drought tolerance [27,28]. In addition, Ca-sensing proteins have shown to up-regulate drought tolerance signaling events, whereas negative regulation of drought stress is also attributed to these proteins [65].
Results indicate that the foliar application of Ca increased the grain yield and its components under drought stress. Calcium foliar application likely increased intracellular Ca levels. Ca binding proteins that function as Ca sensors perceive the elevated Ca levels, which can lead to the activation of Ca dependent protein kinases. The activated kinases or phosphatases can phosphorylate or dephosphorylate specific transcription factors, thus regulating the expression levels of stress-responsive genes. The activated Ca sensors can also bind to cis-elements of major stress-responsive gene promoters or can interact with DNA binding proteins regulating these genes, resulting in their activation or suppression [66,67]. In this context, Marques et al. [68] reported a positive effect on maize production with the application of calcium silicate under water stress. Fan [33] concluded that Ca application at 10 mM achieved the highest maize yield under both normal and drought conditions while Naeem et al. [29,34] found an increase in maize yield with the foliar application of Ca (40 mg L−1). A continuous supply of Ca was required by plants for vigorous leaves and overall canopy development [69]. However, Al-Naggar et al. [70] stated that SC-P-3444 cultivar is characterized by the ability to stay green under water stress.

3.2. Yield Reductions and Drought Tolerance Index (DTI)

The maximum yield reduction due to water stress was observed in EVDT cultivar (70%) and Sammaz-35 (67%) under the water regime of 50% of estimated evapotranspiration. SC-P3444 was less affected (23%), followed by Sammaz-35 (28%), under the water regime of 75% of estimated evapotranspiration (Table 6). From an agronomic approach, the tolerant cultivar to water stress should have the highest mean yield and the lowest reduction in yield under stress compared to non-stress conditions [71]. Based on this approach, the best maize cultivars for tolerance to water stress were SC-P3444 followed by Sammaz-35 and EVDT cultivars under all conditions.
Drought tolerance index (DTI) is one of the most-used tools to assess drought tolerance potential of plants [38]. Drought tolerance index (DTI) ranged from 1.23 to 1.16 in SC-P3444 cultivar, 0.94 in Sammaz-35 cultivar, and 0.85 to 0.91 in EVDT cultivar under moderate and severe water stress conditions, respectively. Based on the drought tolerance index (DTI), only cultivar SC-P3444 proved tolerance (T) while cultivars Sammaz-35 and EVDT were sensitive (S).
Water stress during maize growth leads to a 15–20% decrease in yield [37]. However, Pandey et al. [72] found a reduction in maize yield ranging from 22.6 to 26.4% under water stress and this reduction was mainly attributed to a reduction in the number of grains and in grain weight. Cultivar SC-P3444, which was found to be stress tolerant, was characterized by having significantly higher grain yield/ha, higher ear weight/plant, and higher 100-grains weight. These results came in agreement with those reported by Al-Naggar et al. [73,74] and Atta et al. [75]. Further, Al-Naggar et al. [70] indicated that the highest DTI was recorded for SC-P3444 cultivar under water stress. Application of supplementary irrigation increases the yield of 2009 EVDT cultivar under water deficiency [76]. Further, Oluwaranti and Ajani [77] indicated that EVDT-W 2000 cultivar was less drought tolerant. Mubarik et al. [78] suggested that foliar spray of Ca delayed senescence and ameliorated the adverse effects of water stress in maize seedlings. The application of Ca reduces toxicity to reactive oxygen species by increasing the concentration of antioxidant enzymes in plant cells [79]. Additionally, external Ca supplementation helps plants to recover from stress [80].

3.3. Chemical Constituents of Grain

Significant differences among water regimes, Ca levels, and cultivars in chemical constituents of grain were observed (Table 7). Drought stress significantly decreased protein, ash, and total sugars. Crude fiber and fat contents were significantly increased under water stress, while little effect was recorded on carbohydrates and starch under drought stress. Application of Ca increased protein, ash, carbohydrates, starch, and total sugars. Sammaz-35 cultivar sprayed with Ca application had the highest protein content (4.95 and 4.89 g/100 g) under well water irrigation (100% of normal irrigation) and severe water irrigation (50% of estimated evapotranspiration). Sammaz-35 and SC-P3444 cultivars had a higher ash content (2.2 and 2.2 g/100 g, respectively). Cultivar SC-P3444 which was sprayed with Ca attainted the highest crude fiber content (1.5 g/100 g) both under normal and drought stress. Cultivars EVDT and Sammaz-35 achieved higher carbohydrates content (90 g/100 g in both) and there was no significant difference between them under well water and moderate water stress with and without Ca application, respectively. SC-P3444 and Sammaz-35 cultivars achieved a higher starch content (85.1 and 84.9 g/100 g, respectively), and there was no significant difference between them under severe and moderate water stress without and with Ca application, respectively. EVDT and Sammaz-35 cultivars attainted the highest total sugar content (1.8 and 1.7 g/100 g, respectively), and there was no significant difference between them under moderate water stress and well water. and SC-P3444 cultivar achieved a higher total phenols content (2025, 1932 and 1412 mg gallic acid/100 g, respectively), and there was a significant difference between them under well water, moderate, and severe water stresses, respectively.
In agreement with our findings, Barutcular et al. [19] found that drought significantly reduced starch and protein, while Balla et al. [20] reported that drought reduced grain starch and increased protein content in maize. Zhao et al. [81] indicated that protein components are sensitive under water stress during the grain filling stage of maize. Crude protein, oil content, and carbohydrate percentages were significantly decreased under 50% water regime [82]. Drought decreases the development of cells and tissues and nutrients uptake that causes many biochemical changes [83]. Drought may decrease photosynthetic rate, so declining the number of photo-assimilates leads to decreasing carbohydrates and protein in the grains [84,85]. Water stress reduced the kernel sugar, oil, protein, and moisture contents with a subsequent increase in the seed fiber and ash contents [86]. Moreover, the starch content increased and the oil content decreased with decreasing irrigation [87]. In addition, Zhao et al. [81] reported that water deficit decreased the starch content while Lu et al. [88] showed that water deficit had no effect on the starch content of fresh waxy maize.

3.4. Elemental Composition of Grain

Results indicate a significant difference among water regimes, Ca levels, and cultivars in grain ionic contents (Table 8). However, drought stress significantly reduced the grain N, P, K, and Fe contents as compared to control. However, Mn accumulation was not affected by drought stress. Foliar treatment of Ca significantly improved the ionic contents of grains in all cultivars under all water regimes, except for Mn (Table 8). Application of Ca increased macronutrient contents in grain, N (7.3, 10 and 13%), P (3, 35 and 20%), and K (5, 18 and 3%) of all cultivars under well water, moderate, and severe water stress, respectively. Increasing micronutrient contents in grain was observed with Fe (23, 68 and 65%) of SC-P3444, Sammaz-35, and EVDT cultivars under normal irrigation levels, 75%, and 50% of estimated evapotranspiration, respectively.
The application of Ca on Sammaz-35 cultivar resulted in the highest content of N (835 mg/kg), P (4987 mg/kg) under 75% of estimated evapotranspiration. Further, the foliar application of Ca on EVDT cultivar resulted in the highest content of Fe (179 mg/kg) under all water regimes. Cultivar Sammaz-35 achieved the highest content of Mn (106 mg/kg) under the water regime of 50% and without Ca application. Cultivar SC-P3444 achieved the highest K content (3055 mg/100 g) with Ca application under all water regimes (Table 8).
Grain ionic contents decreased under drought compared to normal conditions, indicating the restriction of nutrient uptake under drought conditions because of the declined transpiration rate, reduced active transport and lowered membrane permeability [34]. Further, Aqaei et al. [9] reported that drought stress level led to a decrease in the concentrations of P, Ca, Fe, Mn and Si in maize grain. In addition, Naeem et al. [29] revealed that concentration of macro-nutrients (N, K, Ca) and micro-nutrients (Fe, Mn) in maize grains was improved by Ca application. Likewise, Ge et al. [89] indicated that severe water stress caused a significant increase in N, Ca, Mg, and Cu contents and a decrease in P and K contents in maize grain. Ali and Ashraf [86] indicated that drought stress significantly reduced the levels of all macro-minerals (K, Mg, P, N, and Ca) and micro-minerals (Mn, Cu, and Fe).

4. Conclusions

Calcium foliar application (50 mg/L) significantly increased maize yield, grain protein, ash, carbohydrates, starch, total sugars, and ionic contents of grains under normal and water stress conditions. The present study concludes that Ca has a diverse impact on productivity and grain quality with important implications for maize yield under normal and water stress conditions.
Our findings demonstrate that foliar application of Ca enabled drought-stressed maize plants to survive better. The highest drought tolerant cultivar was SC-P3444 followed by Sammaz-35 and EVDT. The cultivar SC-P3444 had the highest yield under drought stress and could be a better choice for use as a parent in future breeding efforts to enhance drought tolerance in maize. More efforts are required to investigate the linkage analysis between yield, grain quality and genetic variation in maize cultivars that can tolerate drought stress.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.A. data acquisition, M.A., H.A.-L. design of methodology H.A.-L., M.A. writing and editing, M.S. and M.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Olaniyan, A.B. Maize panacea for hunger in Nigeria. Afr. J. Plant Sci. 2015, 9, 155–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Bukhsh, M.A.A.H.A.; Ahmad, R.; Iqbal, J.; Maqbool, M.M.; Ali, A.; Ishaque, M.; Hussain, S. Nutritional and physiological significance of potassium application in maize hybrid crop production. Pak. J. Nutr. 2012, 11, 187–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Cooper, M.; Gho, C.; Leafgren, R.; Tang, T.; Messina, C. Breeding drought-tolerant maize hybrids for the US corn-belt: Discovery to product. J. Exp. Bot. 2014, 65, 6191–6204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Badr, A.; El-Shazly, H.H.; Tarawneh, R.A.; Börner, A. Screening for drought tolerance in maize (Zea mays L.) germplasm using germination and seedling traits under simulated drought conditions. Plants 2020, 9, 565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Nuss, E.T.; Tanumihardjo, S.A. Maize a paramount staple crop in the context of global nutrition. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2010, 9, 417–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Liang, Z.; Pandey, P.; Stoerger, V.; Xu, Y.; Qiu, Y.; Ge, Y.; Schnable, J.C. Conventional and hyperspectral time-series imaging of maize lines widely used in field trials. GigaScience 2018, 7, gix117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  7. Qiao, Y.; Ren, J.; Yin, L.; Liu, Y.; Deng, X.; Liu, P.; Shiwen-Wang, S. Exogenous melatonin alleviates PEG induced short-term water deficiency in maize by increasing hydraulic conductance. BMC Plant Biol. 2020, 20, 218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. EL Sabagh, A.; Hossain, A.; Barutçular, C.; Islam, M.S.; Ahmad, Z.; Wasaya, A.; Meena, R.S.; Fahad, S.; Oksana, S.; Hafez, Y.M.; et al. Adverse Effect of Drought on Quality of Major Cereal Crops: Implications and Their Possible Mitigation Strategies; Hasanuzzaman, M., Ed.; Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Aqaei, P.; Weisany, W.; Diyanat, M.; Razmi, J.; Struik, P.C. Response of maize (Zea mays L.) to potassium nano-silica application under drought stress. J. Plant Nutr. 2020, 43, 1205–1216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Golbashy, M.; Ebrahimi, M.; Khavari Khorasani, S.; Choukan, R. Evaluation of drought tolerance of some corn (Zea mays L.) hybrids in Iran. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 2010, 5, 2714–2719. [Google Scholar]
  11. Cornic, G.; Prioul, J.L.; Louason, G. Stomatal and non-stomatal contribution in the decline in leaf net CO2 uptake during rapid water stress. Physiol. Plant. 2010, 58, 295–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Gleason, S.M.; Wiggans, D.R.; Bliss, C.A.; Comas, L.H.; Cooper, M.; Dejonge, K.C.; Young, J.S.; Zhang, H. Coordinated decline in photosynthesis and hydraulic conductance during drought stress in Zea mays. Flora 2016, 227, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Rouphael, Y.; Cardarelli, M.; Schwarz, D.; Franken, P.; Colla, G. Effects of drought on nutrient uptake and assimilation in vegetable crops. In Plant Responses to Drought Stress; Aroca, R., Ed.; Springer Nature: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012; pp. 171–195. [Google Scholar]
  14. Osakabe, Y.; Osakabe, K.; Shinozaki, K.; Tran, L.S.P. Response of plants to water stress. Front. Plant Sci. 2014, 5, 86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  15. Kim, S.G.; Lee, J.; Bae, H.H.; Kim, J.; Son, B.; Kim, S.; Baek, S.; Shin, S.; Jeon, W. Physiological and proteomic analyses of Korean F1 maize (Zea mays L.) hybrids under water-deficit stress during flowering. Appl. Biol. Chem. 2019, 62, 32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Anjum, S.A.; Ashraf, U.; Tanveer, M.; Khan, I.; Hussain, S.; Shahzad, B.; Zohaib, A.; Abbas, F.; Saleem, M.F.; Ali, I.; et al. Drought induced changes in growth, osmolyte accumulation and antioxidant metabolism of three maize hybrids. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Song, L.; Jin, J.; He, J. 2019. Effects of severe water stress on maize growth processes in the field. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Zhang, H.; Han, M.; Comas, L.H.; DeJonge, K.C.; Gleason, S.M.; Trout, T.J.; Ma, L. Response of maize yield components to growth stage-based deficit irrigation. Agron. J. 2019, 111, 3244–3252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Barutcular, C.; Dizlek, H.; EL Sabagh, A.; Sahin, T.; EL-Sabagh, M.; Islam, M.S. Nutritional quality of maize in response to drought stress during grain-filling stages in Mediterranean climate condition. J. Exp. Biol. Agric. Sci. 2016, 4, 644–652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Balla, K.; Rakszegi, M.; Li, Z.; Békés, F.; Bencze, S.; Veisz, O. Quality of winter wheat in relation to heat and drought shock after anthesis. Czech J. Food Sci. 2011, 29, 117–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Sanders, D.; Pelloux, J.; Brownlee, C.; Harper, J.F. Calcium at the crossroads of signaling. Plant Cell 2002, 14 (Suppl. 1), 401–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Hetherington, A.M.; Brownlee, C. The generation of Ca2+ signals in plants. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 2004, 55, 401–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Hochmal, A.K.; Schulze, S.; Trompelt, K.; Hippler, M. Calcium-dependent regulation of photosynthesis. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 2015, 1847, 993–1003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  24. Kapilan, R.; Vaziri, M.; Zwiazek, J.J. Regulation of aquaporins in plants under stress. Biol. Res. 2018, 51, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Kong, X.; Lv, W.; Jiang, S.; Dan, Z.; Cai, G.; Pan, J.; Li, D. Genome-wide identification and expression analysis of calcium-dependent protein kinase in maize. BMC Genom. 2013, 14, 433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  26. Shao, H.B.; Song, W.Y.; Chu, L.Y. Advances of calcium signals involved in plant anti-drought. Comptes Rendus Biol. 2008, 331, 587–596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Ali, S.; Hayat, K.; Iqbal, A.; Xie, L. Implications of abscisic acid in the drought stress tolerance of plants. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Cardoso, A.A.; Gori, A.; Da-Silva, C.J.; Brunetti, C. Abscisic acid biosynthesis and signaling in plants: Key targets to improve water use efficiency and drought tolerance. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 6322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Naeem, M.; Naeem, M.S.; Ahmad, R.; Ihsan, M.Z.; Ashraf, M.Y.; Hussain, Y.; Fahad, S. Foliar calcium spray confers drought stress tolerance in maize via modulation of plant growth, water relations, proline content and hydrogen peroxide activity. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci. 2018, 64, 116–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Hosseini, S.A.; Réthoré, E.; Pluchon, S.; Ali, N.; Billiot, B.; Yvin, J.C. Calcium application enhances drought stress tolerance in sugar beet and promotes plant biomass and beetroot sucrose concentration. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20, 3777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Nayyar, H.; Kaushal, S. Alleviation of negative effects of water stress in two contrasting wheat genotypes by calcium and abscisic acid. Biol. Plant. 2002, 45, 65–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Upadhyaya, H.; Panda, S.K.; Dutta, B.K. CaCl2 improves post-drought recovery potential in Camellia sinensis (L) O. Kuntze. Plant Cell Rep. 2011, 30, 495–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Fan, D. The effect of calcium to maize seedlings under drought stress. Am. J. Plant Sci. 2019, 10, 1391–1396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Naeem, M.; Naeem, M.S.; Ahmad, R.; Ahmad, R. Foliar-applied calcium induces drought stress tolerance in maize by manipulating osmolyte accumulation and antioxidative responses. Pak. J. Bot. 2017, 49, 427–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Gleason, S.M. Evolutionary outcomes should inform strategies to increase drought tolerance. Nat. Plants 2015, 1, 15114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Muhammad, A.; Muhammad, A.M.; Cengiz, R. Drought Stress in Maize (Zea mays L.) Effects, Resistance Mechanisms, Global Achievements and Biological Strategies for Improvement; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015; pp. 1–79. [Google Scholar]
  37. Al-Shaheen, M.R.; Soh, A. Effect of proline and gibberellic acid on the qualities and qualitative of corn (Zea mays L.) under the influence of different levels of the water stress. Int. J. Sci. Res. 2016, 6, 752–756. [Google Scholar]
  38. EL Sabagh, A.; Hossain, A.; Barutçular, C.; Khaled, A.A.A.; Fahad, S.; Anjorin, F.B.; Islam, M.S.; Ratnasekera, D.; Kizilgeçi, F.; Yadav, G.S.; et al. Sustainable maize (Zea mays l.) production under drought stress by understanding its adverse effect, survival mechanism and drought tolerance indices. J. Exp. Biol. Agric. Sci. 2018, 6, 282–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Naghavi, M.R.; Pour-Aboughadareh, A.R.; Khalili, M. Evaluation of drought tolerance indices for screening some of corn (Zea mays L.) cultivars under environmental conditions. Not. Sci. Biol. 2013, 5, 388–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Klute, A. Methods of Soil Analysis. Part-I: Physical and Mineralogical Methods, 2nd ed.; American Society of Agronomy Madison: Madison, WI, USA, 1986. [Google Scholar]
  41. Mclean, E.O. Soil pH and Lime Requirement. In Methods of Soil Analysis; Part 2. Chemical and Microbiological Properties-Agronomy Monograph no. 9; Page, A.L., Ed.; ASA-SSSA: Madison, WI, USA, 1983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Rhoades, J.D. Soluble Salts. In Methods of Soil Analysis; Part 2. Chemical and Microbiological Properties-Agronomy Monograph no. 9; Page, A.L., Ed.; ASA-SSSA: Madison, WI, USA, 1983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Nelson, D.W.; Sommers, L.E. Total Carbon, Organic Carbon, and Organic Matter. In Methods of Soil Analysis; Part 2. Chemical and Microbiological Properties-Agronomy Monograph no. 9; Page, A.L., Ed.; ASA-SSSA: Madison, WI, USA, 1983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Bremner, J.M.; Mulvaney, C.S. Nitrogen—Total. In Methods of Soil Analysis; Part 2. Chemical and Microbiological Properties-Agronomy Monograph no. 9; Page, A.L., Ed.; ASA-SSSA: Madison, WI, USA, 1983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Olsen, S.R.; Sommers, L.E. Phosphorus. In Methods of Soil Analysis; Part 2. Chemical and Microbiological Properties-Agronomy Monograph no. 9; Page, A.L., Ed.; ASA-SSSA: Madison, WI, USA, 1983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Knudsen, D.; Peterson, G.A.; Pratt, P.F. Lithium, Sodium, and Potassium. In Methods of Soil Analysis; Part 2. Chemical and Microbiological Properties-Agronomy Monograph no. 9; Page, A.L., Ed.; ASA-SSSA: Madison, WI, USA, 1983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Cottenie, A.; Verloo, M.; Kiekens, L.; Velghe, M.; Camerlgnck, R. Chemical Analysis of Plant and Soil; Laboratory Analytical Agrochemistry, State University of Ghent: Ghent, Belgium, 1982; pp. 100–129. [Google Scholar]
  48. Allen, R.G.; Pereira, L.S.; Raes, D.; Smith, M. Crop Evapotranspiration-Guidelines for Computing Crop Water Requirements-FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper 56; FAO: Rome, Italy, 1998; Volume 300, p. D05109. [Google Scholar]
  49. Fageria, N.K. Maximizing Crop Yields; Marcel Dekker, Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 1992. [Google Scholar]
  50. A.O.A.C. Official Methods of Analysis of Association of Official Agricultural Chemists, 17th ed.; Suitem, H.W., Ed.; A.O.A.C.: Rockville, MD, USA, 2000; Volume 2, pp. 66–68. [Google Scholar]
  51. Fraser, J.R.; Holmes, D.C. Proximate analysis of wheat flour carbohydrates. IV.—Analysis of whole meal flour and some of its fractions. J. Sci. Food Agric. 1959, 10, 506–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Dubois, M.; Gilles, K.A.; Hamilton, J.K.; Rebers, P.A.; Fred, S. Colorimetric method for determination of sugars and related substance. Anal. Chem. 1956, 28, 350–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Rasmussen, T.S.; Henry, R.J. Starch determination in horticultural plant- material by an enzymatic- colorimetric procedure. J Sci. Food Agric. 1990, 52, 159–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Mohan, S.B.; Rajinder, K.G. Bread (composite flour) formulation and study of its nutritive, phytochemical and functional properties. J. Pharmacogn. Phytochem. 2015, 4, 254–268. [Google Scholar]
  55. McDonald, S.; Prenzler, P.D.; Antolovich, M.; Robards, K. Phenolic content and antioxidant activity of olive extract. Food Chem. 2001, 73, 73–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Jones, J.B., Jr.; Wolf, B.; Mills, H.A. Plant analysis handbook. In A Practical Sampling, Preparation, Analysis, and Interpretation Guide; Micro-Macro Publishing, Inc.: Athens, GA, USA, 1991; pp. 30–34. [Google Scholar]
  57. Shapiro, S.S.; Wilk, M.B. Analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika 1965, 52, 591–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. SPSS. SPSS Statistics 17.0. SPSS for Windows; SPSS Inc.: Chicago, IL, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  59. Snedecor, G.W.; Cochran, W.G. Statistical Methods, 9th ed.; Iowa State Univ. Press: Ames, IA, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  60. Freed, R.; Einensmith, S.P.; Gutez, S.; Reicosky, D.; Smail, V.W.; Wolberg, P. User’s Guide to MSTAT-C Analysis of Agronomic Research Experiments; Michigan State University: East Lansing, MI, USA, 1989. [Google Scholar]
  61. Abdelaal, K.A.A.; Hafez, Y.M.; EL Sabagh, A.; Saneoka, H. Ameliorative effects of abscisic acid and yeast on morpho-physiological and yield characters of maize (Zea mays L.) plants under water deficit conditions. Fresenius Environ. Bull. 2017, 26, 7372–7383. [Google Scholar]
  62. EL Sabagh, A.; Barutçular, C.; Islam, M.S. Relationships between stomatal conductance and yield under deficit irrigation in maize (Zea mays L.). J. Exp. Biol. Agric. Sci. 2017, 5, 15–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Anjum, S.A.; Wang, L.C.; Farooq, M.; Hussain, M.; Xue, L.L.; Zou, C.M. Brassinolide application improves the drought tolerance in maize through modulation of enzymatic antioxidants and leaf gas exchange. J. Agron. Crop Sci. 2011, 197, 177–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Brown, C.E.; Pezeshki, S.R.; DeLaune, R.D. The effects of salinity and soil drying on nutrient uptake and growth of Spartina alterniflora in a simulated tidal system. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2006, 58, 140–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Aliniaeifard, S.; Shomali, A.; Seifikalhor, M.; Lastochkina, O. Calcium signaling in plants under drought. In Salt and Drought Stress Tolerance in Plants; Signaling and Communication in Plants; Hasanuzzaman, M., Tanveer, M., Eds.; Springer Nature Switzerland AG: Cham, Switzerland, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Kudla, J.; Batistic, O.; Hashimoto, K. Calcium signals: The lead currency of plant information processing. Plant Cell 2010, 22, 541–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Reddy, A.S.; Ali, G.S.; Celesnik, H.; Day, I.S. Coping with stresses: Roles of calcium and calcium/calmodulin-regulated gene expression. Plant Cell 2011, 23, 2010–2032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Marques, D.J.; Ferreira, M.M.; Lobato, A.K.D.; de Freitas, W.A.; Carvalho, J.D.A.; Ferreira, E.D.; Broetto, F. Potential of calcium silicate to mitigate water deficiency in maize. Bragantia Campinas 2016, 75, 275–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  69. Del-Amor, F.; Marcelis, L. Regulation of nutrient uptake, water uptake and growth under calcium starvation and recovery. J. Hort. Sci. Biotechnol. 2003, 78, 343–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Al-Naggar, A.M.M.; Shafik, M.M.; Elsheikh, M.O.A. Putative mechanisms of drought tolerance in maize (Zea mays L.) via root system architecture traits. Annu. Res. Rev. Biol 2019, 32, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Blum, A. Plant Breeding for Stress Environment; CRC Press Inc.: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 1988. [Google Scholar]
  72. Pandey, R.K.; Maranville, J.W.; Admou, A. Deficit irrigation and nitrogen effects on maize in a Sahelian environment: I. grain yield and yield components. Agric. Water Manag. 2000, 46, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Al-Naggar, A.M.M.; Soliman, S.M.; Hashimi, M.N. Tolerance to drought at flowering stage of 28 maize hybrids and populations. Egypt. J. Plant Breed. 2011, 15, 69–87. [Google Scholar]
  74. Al-Naggar, A.M.M.; Atta, M.M.M.; Ahmed, M.A.; Younis, A.S.M. Influence of deficit irrigation at silking stage and genotype on maize (Zea mays L.) agronomic and yield characters. Inter. J. Plant Soil Sci. 2016, 7, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Atta, M.M.M.; Hamza, M.; Gohar, A.M. Tolerance of ten yellow corn hybrids to water deficit at flowering and grain filling. Egypt. J. Plant Breed. 2017, 21, 179–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Garba, I.I.; Adnan, A.A.; Shaibu, A.S. Quantifying the response of different maturity groups of maize (Zea mays L.) supplementary irrigation in the Sudan Savannah of Nigeria. Afr. J. Agric. Res 2019, 14, 1415–1420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Oluwaranti, A.; Ajani, Q.T. Evaluation of drought tolerant maize varieties under drought and rain-fed conditions: A rainforest location. J. Agric. Sci. 2016, 8, 153–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Mubarik, N.; Iqbal, A.; Munir, I.; Arif, M. Alleviation of adverse effects of water stress on Zea mays (Cv Azam) by exogenous application of CaCl2. Sarhad. J. Agric 2018, 34, 327–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Waraich, E.A.; Ahmad, R.; Halim, A.; Aziz, T. Alleviation of temperature stress by nutrient management in crop plants: A review. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nut. 2012, 12, 221–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  80. Robertson, D.N. Modulating plant calcium for better nutrition and stress tolerance. ISRN Botany 2013, 2013, 952043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  81. Zhao, C.X.; He, M.R.; Wang, Z.L.; Wang, Y.F.; Lin, Q. Effects of different water availability at post-anthesis stage on grain nutrition and quality in strong-gluten winter wheat. Comptes Rendus Biol. 2009, 332, 759–764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Ghazi, D.A. Impact of drought stress on maize (Zea mays) plant in presence or absence of salicylic acid spraying. J. Soil Sci. and Agric. Eng. Mansoura Univ. 2017, 8, 223–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Dubey, R.S.; Pessarakli, M. Physiological mechanisms of nitrogen absorption and assimilation. In plants under stressful conditions. In Handbook of Plant and Crop Physiology, 2nd ed.; Passarakli, M., Ed.; Marcel Dekker Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 2001; pp. 636–655. [Google Scholar]
  84. Neslihan-Ozturk, Z.; Talam, V.; Deyholos, M.; Michalowski, C.B.; Galbraith, D.M.; Gozukirmizi, N.; Tuberosa, R.; Bohnert, H.J. Monitoring large-scale changes in transcript abundance in drought- and salt stressed barley. Plant Mol. Biol. 2002, 48, 551–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Liu, F.; Jensen, C.R.; Andersen, M.N. Drought stress effect on carbohydrate concentration in soybean leaves and pods during early reproductive development: Its implication in altering pod set. Field Crops Res. 2004, 86, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Ali, Q.; Ashraf, M. Exogenously applied glycinebetaine enhances seed and seed oil quality of maize (Zea mays L.) under water deficit conditions. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2011, 71, 249–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Kresović, B.; Gajić, B.; Tapanarova, A.; Dugalić, G. How irrigation water affects the yield and nutritional quality of maize (Zea mays L.) in a Temperate Climate. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2018, 27, 1123–1131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Lu, D.; Cai, X.; Zhao, J.; Shen, X.; Lu, W. Effects of drought after pollination on grain yield and quality of fresh waxy maiz. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2015, 95, 210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Ge, T.D.; Sui, F.G.; Nie, S.; Sun, N.B.; Xiao, H.; Tong, C.L. Differential responses of yield and selected nutritional compositions to drought stress in summer maize grains. J. Plant. Nutr. 2010, 33, 1811–1818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table
Table 1. Average temperature, relative humidity and rainfall in the study area in Giza, Egypt, during the two growing seasons of 2018 and 2019 *.
Table 1. Average temperature, relative humidity and rainfall in the study area in Giza, Egypt, during the two growing seasons of 2018 and 2019 *.
Month20182019
Temperature (°C)Relative Humidity (%)Rainfall (mm)Temperature (°C)Relative Humidity (%)Rainfall (mm)
May28.243.30.0027.634.90.00
June29.945.40.0029.947.10.00
July30.752.90.0030.650.30.00
August30.556.00.0030.851.40.00
September29.454.70.0028.556.20.00
* Data obtained from the Central Laboratory for Agricultural Climate (CLAC), Agricultural Research Center (ARC), Egypt.
Table
Table 2. Soil properties at the experimental site in 2018 and 2019 seasons.
Table 2. Soil properties at the experimental site in 2018 and 2019 seasons.
Soil Analysis20182019
Physical properties
Fine Sand (%)2721
Silt (%)2926
Clay (%)4453
TextureClayClay
Chemical properties
pH(1:1)7.217.41
EC(1:1) (dS m−1)0.920.75
Organic matter (%)2.432.12
Available N (mg kg−1)12.310.7
Available P (mg kg−1)19.514.3
Available K (mg kg−1)76.091.0
Irrigation systemSurface irrigationSurface irrigation
Table
Table 3. Chemical properties of irrigation water at the experimental site in 2018 and 2019 seasons.
Table 3. Chemical properties of irrigation water at the experimental site in 2018 and 2019 seasons.
SeasonpHEC
(ds m−1)		Soluble Ions (meq/L)
HCO3−CL−SO4−Ca+Mg+Na+K+
20187.020.784.780.921.093.63.120.590.11
20197.370.865.121.041.284.32.600.900.18
Table
Table 4. Water irrigation scheme of field experiments.
Table 4. Water irrigation scheme of field experiments.
DateDayStageNo. of IrrigationGross (m3/ha)
mm *100% Irrigation75% Irrigation50% Irrigation
23May9Init128286215143
1June18Init330304228152
13June30Dev61610457305
22June39Dev73732549366
30June47Dev82829621414
9July56Mid31151161871581
18July65Mid1191202901601
27July74Mid1161173880587
5August83Mid21131139854570
14August92Mid1091094820547
25August103End1141151863576
7September116End192930698465
16SeptemberEndEndHarvest
Total uptake of water during season (m3/ha)10,61179585306
mm * = milliliter of water depth, Init = initiation, Dev = development, Mid = mid-season and End = end season.
Table
Table 5. Agronomic characteristics of three maize cultivars at different levels of irrigation and foliar application of Ca.
Table 5. Agronomic characteristics of three maize cultivars at different levels of irrigation and foliar application of Ca.
Water StressCa Levels (mg/L)CultivarsEar Length (cm)No. of RowsNo. of Grains/
Row		Ear Weight/Plant (g)100-Grain Weight (g)Grain Yield/ha (kg)
100% Irrigation50SC-P344419.214.036.5171.433.58061
Sammaz-3517.014.037.0159.233.67570
EVDT18.012.737.8143.628.07191
0SC-P344415.814.034.0148.131.17676
Sammaz-3517.514.730.5129.828.66670
EVDT17.313.035.2115.726.16718
75% Irrigation50SC-P344413.212.731.2121.330.66588
Sammaz-3515.512.728.095.827.35518
EVDT15.712.327.388.125.55079
0SC-P344411.712.029.797.227.45518
Sammaz-3514.712.026.390.225.74779
EVDT16.313.324.873.824.94379
50% Irrigation50SC-P344415.012.022.263.623.74482
Sammaz-3515.712.020.858.723.24006
EVDT14.812.019.754.222.83882
0SC-P344416.511.721.556.523.23733
Sammaz-3516.811.320.752.222.03364
EVDT18.011.717.342.721.13391
LSD p = 0.051.691.403.1115.641.78439.3
Table
Table 6. Mean grain yield (kg ha−1), change (%) and drought tolerance index (DTI) for maize cultivars under water stress (data are combined across 2018 and 2019 seasons).
Table 6. Mean grain yield (kg ha−1), change (%) and drought tolerance index (DTI) for maize cultivars under water stress (data are combined across 2018 and 2019 seasons).
CultivarsMeanChange%Drought Tolerance Index (DTI)
100% Irrigation75% Irrigation50% Irrigation75% Irrigation50% Irrigation75% Irrigation50% Irrigation
SC-P344478686053410823621.23 (T)1.16 (T)
Sammaz-3571205149368528670.94 (S)0.94 (S)
EVDT69554729363632700.85 (S)0.91 (S)
Change% = [(100% − 75% or 50%)/100% Irrigation] × 100. T and S indicate tolerant and sensitive, respectively.
Table
Table 7. Grain chemical contents (g/100 g) as affected by water regimes, calcium level, and cultivars.
Table 7. Grain chemical contents (g/100 g) as affected by water regimes, calcium level, and cultivars.
Water StressCa levels (mg/L)CultivarsProteinAshCrude FiberEther ExtractCarbohydrateStarchTotal SugarTotal Phenols *
100% Irrigation50SC-P34444.451.901.483.8388.3483.480.971319
Sammaz-354.951.591.173.5688.7384.531.641127
EVDT4.321.441.063.1290.0684.911.29797
0SC-P34444.241.681.013.3889.6983.720.642025
Sammaz-354.441.401.027.1386.0182.611.73837
EVDT4.381.361.343.9788.9583.791.14692
75% Irrigation50SC-P34444.621.610.983.3689.4383.461.201842
Sammaz-354.501.480.973.4789.5884.930.93704
EVDT4.261.831.173.2189.5382.621.51688
0SC-P34444.471.541.113.4489.4484.811.381932
Sammaz-354.451.151.023.4889.9084.051.33395
EVDT4.191.481.223.8289.2982.791.79634
50% Irrigation50SC-P34444.692.161.543.9587.6683.341.311156
Sammaz-354.892.231.276.9684.6581.441.21469
EVDT4.461.901.364.0888.2083.511.43698
0SC-P34444.681.620.913.2089.5985.411.421412
Sammaz-354.761.841.254.0788.0884.561.59627
EVDT4.021.821.333.3189.5282.431.19592
LSD p = 0.050.160.140.180.122.301.210.1530.28
* Total phenols: (mg gallic acid/100 g).
Table
Table 8. Ion contents (N, P, K, Mn, and Fe mg/kg) as affected by water regimes, calcium level and maize cultivars.
Table 8. Ion contents (N, P, K, Mn, and Fe mg/kg) as affected by water regimes, calcium level and maize cultivars.
Water StressCa Levels (mg/L)CultivarsN *PKMnFe
100% Irrigation50SC-P34447403506305562.137.9
Sammaz-358503420257059.831.5
EVDT7523066244662.979.5
0SC-P34447303082290446.827.6
Sammaz-357293164228771.525.2
EVDT7253404249084.568.7
75% Irrigation50SC-P34447873234260548.833.1
Sammaz-358534988294644.660.6
EVDT8383980247890.5178.9
0SC-P34447053229248046.328.5
Sammaz-3574528192187101.454.3
EVDT7982969213860.379.1
50% Irrigation50SC-P34448324306298576.532.1
Sammaz-3585147503020100.664.8
EVDT8534362236689.496.8
0SC-P34447913249250054.822.0
Sammaz-3580541322696105.944.0
EVDT6473782292371.151.3
LSD p = 0.05272052215.96.7
* N: mg/100 g.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Abbas, M.; Abdel-Lattif, H.; Shahba, M. Ameliorative Effects of Calcium Sprays on Yield and Grain Nutritional Composition of Maize (Zea mays L.) Cultivars under Drought Stress. Agriculture 2021, 11, 285. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11040285

AMA Style

Abbas M, Abdel-Lattif H, Shahba M. Ameliorative Effects of Calcium Sprays on Yield and Grain Nutritional Composition of Maize (Zea mays L.) Cultivars under Drought Stress. Agriculture. 2021; 11(4):285. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11040285

Chicago/Turabian Style

Abbas, Mohamed, Hashim Abdel-Lattif, and Mohamed Shahba. 2021. "Ameliorative Effects of Calcium Sprays on Yield and Grain Nutritional Composition of Maize (Zea mays L.) Cultivars under Drought Stress" Agriculture 11, no. 4: 285. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11040285

APA Style

Abbas, M., Abdel-Lattif, H., & Shahba, M. (2021). Ameliorative Effects of Calcium Sprays on Yield and Grain Nutritional Composition of Maize (Zea mays L.) Cultivars under Drought Stress. Agriculture, 11(4), 285. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11040285

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop