Parameter | Value | Level |
Texture | ||
Clay (%) | 39 | |
Silt (%) | 46 | |
Sand (%) | 15 | |
Organic C (%) | 0.89 | Very low |
Total N (%) | 0.13 | Low |
C/N | 5.75 | Low |
Source: Soil laboratory of the Indonesian Cereal Testing Instrument Standard Institute. |
Fossilized energy system and linear economy model are associated with many of the environmental challenges facing the globe today. The current take-make-dispose model of production causes resource depletion and waste generation; while the highly fossilized energy system is associated with greenhouse gases emissions and climate change. Hence, the current study examined the challenges and opportunities of implementing coupled circular economy and energy transition model in Nigeria. Review and synthesis of literature was adopted for the study. Transitions to the two models are highly situated in socio-technical context. The barriers and potentials connected with both and their coupled transitions is dependent on the country's development stage (economic and infrastructure development), institutions, technological capacity and political will (evident in effective and enforceable legislations). Industrial symbiosis and waste-to-energy path are some of the operational approaches that couples CE and ET. Both also allows for resource efficiency and sustainability—environmental, social and economic. Effective policy actions and sustainable financing are critical enablers for developed CE and ET.
Citation: Chukwuebuka Okafor, Christian Madu, Charles Ajaero, Juliet Ibekwe, Festus Otunomo. Situating coupled circular economy and energy transition in an emerging economy[J]. AIMS Energy, 2021, 9(4): 651-675. doi: 10.3934/energy.2021031
[1] | Huanhai Yang, Shue Liu . A prediction model of aquaculture water quality based on multiscale decomposition. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2021, 18(6): 7561-7579. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2021374 |
[2] | Xin Jing, Jungang Luo, Shangyao Zhang, Na Wei . Runoff forecasting model based on variational mode decomposition and artificial neural networks. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2022, 19(2): 1633-1648. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2022076 |
[3] | Ziyang Sun, Xugang Xi, Changmin Yuan, Yong Yang, Xian Hua . Surface electromyography signal denoising via EEMD and improved wavelet thresholds. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2020, 17(6): 6945-6962. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2020359 |
[4] | Hongli Niu, Kunliang Xu . A hybrid model combining variational mode decomposition and an attention-GRU network for stock price index forecasting. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2020, 17(6): 7151-7166. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2020367 |
[5] | Rakesh Pilkar, Erik M. Bollt, Charles Robinson . Empirical mode decomposition/Hilbert transform analysis of postural responses to small amplitude anterior-posterior sinusoidal translations of varying frequencies. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2011, 8(4): 1085-1097. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2011.8.1085 |
[6] | Yujie Kang, Wenjie Li, Jidong Lv, Ling Zou, Haifeng Shi, Wenjia Liu . Exploring brain dysfunction in IBD: A study of EEG-fMRI source imaging based on empirical mode diagram decomposition. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2025, 22(4): 962-987. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2025035 |
[7] | Tao Zhang, Hao Zhang, Ran Wang, Yunda Wu . A new JPEG image steganalysis technique combining rich model features and convolutional neural networks. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2019, 16(5): 4069-4081. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2019201 |
[8] | Enas Abdulhay, Maha Alafeef, Hikmat Hadoush, V. Venkataraman, N. Arunkumar . EMD-based analysis of complexity with dissociated EEG amplitude and frequency information: a data-driven robust tool -for Autism diagnosis- compared to multi-scale entropy approach. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2022, 19(5): 5031-5054. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2022235 |
[9] | Konki Sravan Kumar, Daehyun Lee, Ankhzaya Jamsrandoj, Necla Nisa Soylu, Dawoon Jung, Jinwook Kim, Kyung Ryoul Mun . sEMG-based Sarcopenia risk classification using empirical mode decomposition and machine learning algorithms. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2024, 21(2): 2901-2921. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2024129 |
[10] | Xiaotong Ji, Dan Liu, Ping Xiong . Multi-model fusion short-term power load forecasting based on improved WOA optimization. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2022, 19(12): 13399-13420. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2022627 |
Fossilized energy system and linear economy model are associated with many of the environmental challenges facing the globe today. The current take-make-dispose model of production causes resource depletion and waste generation; while the highly fossilized energy system is associated with greenhouse gases emissions and climate change. Hence, the current study examined the challenges and opportunities of implementing coupled circular economy and energy transition model in Nigeria. Review and synthesis of literature was adopted for the study. Transitions to the two models are highly situated in socio-technical context. The barriers and potentials connected with both and their coupled transitions is dependent on the country's development stage (economic and infrastructure development), institutions, technological capacity and political will (evident in effective and enforceable legislations). Industrial symbiosis and waste-to-energy path are some of the operational approaches that couples CE and ET. Both also allows for resource efficiency and sustainability—environmental, social and economic. Effective policy actions and sustainable financing are critical enablers for developed CE and ET.
Maize is a vital crop for humans. Humans rely on maize for various purposes, including food, feed, industry, and biofuel [1]. In 2022, Indonesian maize production was 16.53 million t, decreasing by around 12.50% in 2023, while maize demand increased at an increasing rate[2,3]. A challenge for increasing maize production is agricultural expansion in areas with low soil nitrogen (N) levels.
Nitrogen (N) is crucial for maize, serving as a vital nutrient for its life cycle [4]. N deficiency can reduce leaf area and photosynthesis rate because more photosynthate is allocated to roots [5]. This deficiency may also decrease plant height, increase the Anthesis-Silking Interval, accelerate senescence [6,7,8]. Additionally, nitrogen deficiency leads to decreased maize yield during harvest [9,10,11].Yields can drop by 10–50%, reaching up to 70% under severe stress conditions due to N deficiency [12,13].
The development of maize varieties with low-nitrogen (N) tolerance has addressed the challenge of cultivating crops in areas with insufficient N levels. Globally, breeding maize with low-N tolerance has been a significant focus in maize breeding. Breeding low-N-tolerant maize plants can enhance maize yield in China by 14% [14]. More than 100 inbred lines can be used as parents for breeding with low nitrogen tolerance hybrids that have high stable yield [15,16]. Various hybrid combinations with low N tolerance in maize have also been documented by [17,18,19]. In the context of Indonesia, the CY 11, G2013631, MR 14, AVLN 118-7, and AVLN 83-2 lines demonstrate good combining ability for yield in low N conditions [20,21]. It is possible to select low-nitrogen-tolerant hybrid maize lines based on secondary characteristics, stress tolerance index, and Simple Sequence Repeat (SSR) markers [22,23,24]. In Indonesia, there are 15 low-N-tolerant hybrid maize selected based on the Stress Tolerance Index and the Stress Susceptibility Index[25,26].
Low-nitrogen-tolerant hybrid maize is a potential solution for Indonesia's low soil nitrogen (N) problems. However, the current research on this crop is limited and slow. Therefore, more research is required to overcome these challenges. This research aimed to investigate the impact of nitrogen fertilization on the growth and yield of maize hybrids and assess their tolerance to N stress. The results can provide valuable insights for breeding high-yield hybrid maize under low N conditions in Indonesia, improving food security and economic growth.
This study was conducted at the Indonesian Cereal Testing Instrument Standard Institute in Maros, South Sulawesi, Indonesia, from July to November 2022. The experiment involved a total of nine promising low-nitrogen-tolerant maize hybrids (HLN 01, HLN 02, HLN 03, HLN 04, HLN 05, HLN 06, HLN 07, HLN 08, and HLN 09) and two control varieties: ADV 777 (hybrid maize that requires high nitrogen) and JH 37 (moderately tolerant to low nitrogen and drought hybrid maize). The genotype arrangement employed a three-replication nested design. The genotypes were organized within the nested structure based on the nitrogen fertilizer levels, i.e., 0 kg N ha−1, 100 kg N ha−1, and 200 kg N ha−1. The 200 kg N ha−1 level is the usual nitrogen fertilizer level farmers use for maize in Indonesia. It represents a high fertilizer level. The 100 kg N ha−1 level represents half of the usual fertilizer dose and serves as a low fertilizer level. It allows us to observe how maize responds to a reduced fertilizer level. 0 kg N ha−1 is the baseline at which no nitrogen is applied. It helps us understand the natural conditions or the minimum nitrogen requirement for maize. The experiment plot was 3 meters by 5 meters, with plants spaced at 75 cm between rows and 20 cm within rows, so there were 100 plants in one plot. This plant spacing corresponded to a population density of 66,666 plants ha−1. At 10 days after planting (DAP), the 100 kg N ha−1 treatment was applied, while the 200 kg N ha-1 treatment was split into two doses: one at 10 DAP and the other at 35 DAP, Phosphorus (P) and potassium (K) fertilizers, each at a rate of 60 kg ha−1, were applied ten days after planting (DAP). Optimal plant maintenance practices were implemented, including weeding, watering, and hoarding.
Before the research, a soil test was done (Table 1). The total nitrogen analysis employed the Kjeldahl method [27], while soil organic carbon analysis utilized the Walkley-Black method [28]. The analysis shows that the location has a silty clay texture. The land has a very low level of organic C and low total nitrogen and C/N ratio. That level means the land is suitable for low-N-tolerant maize selection.
Parameter | Value | Level |
Texture | ||
Clay (%) | 39 | |
Silt (%) | 46 | |
Sand (%) | 15 | |
Organic C (%) | 0.89 | Very low |
Total N (%) | 0.13 | Low |
C/N | 5.75 | Low |
Source: Soil laboratory of the Indonesian Cereal Testing Instrument Standard Institute. |
The observed variables were agronomic traits and yield. The agronomic traits included plant height, ear height, stalk diameter, leaf angle, leaf length, and leaf width. The yield was corrected to t ha−1 with 15% moisture, employing the formula
Yield(tha−1)=104HAx100-GM85x EHW x SP ÷ 1.000[29] | (1) |
HA = harvested area (m2);
GM = grain moisture (%);
EHW = ear harvested weight (kg);
SP = shelling percentage (%).
An analysis of variance was performed to assess the effects of N fertilizer levels, genotype, and their interaction on the variables observed [30]. If a significant effect was found, a 5% LSD test was conducted to compare the test hybrid with control varieties.
The Stress Tolerance Index (STI) is used to measure maize hybrids' tolerance to low nitrogen (N) conditions. The STI formula is YsxYp−Y2p [31]. Ys and Yp represent the hybrid yield under low and optimum N conditions, respectively, and the average yield of all hybrids under optimum N conditions is −Y2p. The tolerance levels of the hybrids are based on their STI values: STI > 1.0 for tolerance, 0.5 < STI ≤ 1.0 for moderate tolerance, and STI ≤ 0.5 for susceptible.
The stability of the hybrid over the three N levels is another factor in determining maize hybrid tolerance. The Eberhart and Russel stability analysis [32] used bi=∑jYijIj∑jI2j, S2di=(∑jˆδ2ijj−2−s2er), where bi is the regression coefficient, S2di is the deviation from regression, i is the genotype number, j is the environment number, r is the replication number, Yij is the average yield of the ith genotype in the jth environment, Ij is the environmental index = mean index, i.e., the mean yield of the jth environment minus the mean yield of all genotypes, ∑jˆδ2ij = pooled variance, and ∑jˆδ2ij = pooled ANOVA error.
The effect of nitrogen fertilizer, genotype, and their interactions are displayed in Table 2. Table 2 demonstrates that nitrogen fertilizer and genotype significantly affected maize traits and yields. Their interaction was also significant for all variables except leaf width and angle. The variables' coefficients of variation (CVs) varied between 4.70% and 15.20%.
Variable | Mean square | CV (%) | |||||||
Nitrogen (N) | R/N | Hybrid (H) | H x N | Error | |||||
Plant height | 11777.50 | ** | 66.17 | 571.38 | * | 955.91 | ** | 218.47 | 7.40 |
Ear height | 3788.14 | ** | 28.78 | 242.23 | ** | 660.90 | ** | 64.87 | 7.60 |
Stalk diameter | 235.60 | ** | 8.28 | 14.78 | ** | 7.79 | ** | 2.84 | 7.00 |
Leaf angle | 344.93 | ** | 10.89 | 98.32 | ** | 14.82 | 14.84 | 15.20 | |
Leaf length | 1689.11 | ** | 34.30 | 152.66 | * | 45.52 | ** | 15.19 | 4.70 |
Leaf width | 9.12 | ** | 0.49 | 2.19 | ** | 0.33 | 0.44 | 6.80 | |
Yield | 289.03 | ** | 0.81 | 3.50 | ** | 3.56 | ** | 0.73 | 11.90 |
Note: * = significant at p < 0.05, ** = significant at p < 0.01, CV = coefficient of variation. |
Table 3 illustrates that the agronomic traits of maize vary with each level of fertilizer. For plant height, at 200 kg N ha−1, the range is 202.27–249.93 cm. At 100 kg N ha−1, it is 187.53–212.00 cm. At 0 kg N ha−1, it is 153.6–191.33 cm. HLN 01 and HLN 07 do not differ in plant height across the three fertilizer levels. Only HLN 01 shows no differences across the fertilizer levels for ear height. The ear height had ranges of 94.60–139.67 cm at 200 kg N ha−1, 95.47 to 115.00 cm at 100 kg N ha−1, and 61.00–111.13 cm at 0 kg N ha−1. The stalk diameter at 200 kg N ha−1 ranged from 23.80 to 29.58 mm. At 100 kg N ha−1, it ranged from 20.78 cm to 26.27 cm. At 0 kg N ha−1, it ranged from 18.44 to 24.39 mm. The leaf length was 82.13–95.91 cm at 200 kg N ha−1, 76.53–92.20 cm at 100 kg N ha−1, and 64.20–85.16 cm at 0 kg N ha−1. Only HLN 03 and JH 37 do not show any differences in stalk diameter and leaf length across all levels of fertilizers.
Hybrid | Plant height (cm) | Ear height (cm) | Stalk diameter (mm) | Leaf length (cm) | ||||||||
N2 | N1 | N0 | N2 | N1 | N0 | N2 | N1 | N0 | N2 | N1 | N0 | |
HLN 01 | 202.27 | 199.33 | 185.40 | 94.60b | 111.73 | 111.13 | 26.60 | 22.65 (x) | 20.70 (x) | 88.67 | 87.80a | 77.13 (x) |
HLN 02 | 226.60 | 202.07 (x) | 153.60 (x) | 118.53 | 115.00 | 61.00ab (x) | 26.50 | 26.27ab | 23.40a (x) | 95.91ab | 92.20ab | 85.16a (x) |
HLN 03 | 249.93 | 202.40 (x) | 177.93 (x) | 139.67 | 111.20 (x) | 99.07 (x) | 27.07 | 25.47ab | 24.39a | 89.27 | 85.33a | 81.13 (x) |
HLN 04 | 216.27 | 208.53 | 175.07 (x) | 117.00 | 95.47b (x) | 100.27 (x) | 29.55 | 24.51ab (x) | 22.39 (x) | 82.13 | 76.53 | 66.27 (x) |
HLN 05 | 210.67 | 188.47a | 182.20 (x) | 116.00 | 95.80b (x) | 105.00 | 23.80 | 22.78 | 20.86 (x) | 90.13 | 79.67 (x) | 74.53 (x) |
HLN 06 | 243.47 | 201.20 (x) | 181.60 (x) | 131.60 | 107.20 (x) | 91.80 (x) | 26.56 | 25.13ab | 21.24 (x) | 89.40 | 86.27a | 64.20 (x) |
HLN 07 | 205.93 | 187.53a | 184.73 | 113.20 | 96.33b (x) | 100.80 | 24.61 | 22.49 | 18.44 (x) | 87.33 | 86.33a | 69.07 (x) |
HLN 08 | 242.33 | 206.07 (x) | 191.33 (x) | 128.33 | 114.47 (x) | 96.87 (x) | 27.05 | 26.10ab | 21.85 (x) | 91.33a | 89.07a | 73.13 (x) |
HLN 09 | 228.33 | 212.00 | 172.93 (x) | 123.93 | 110.67 (x) | 91.27 (x) | 24.60 | 24.34ab | 20.20 (x) | 92.20ab | 88.60a | 74.93 (x) |
ADV 777 | 214.40 | 196.67 | 176.47 (x) | 122.22 | 100.00 (x) | 89.67 (x) | 29.58 | 20.78 (x) | 20.47 (x) | 84.27 | 77.20 (x) | 78.27 |
JH 37 | 215.67 | 188.33 (x) | 166.13 (x) | 114.67 | 114.40 (x) | 80.20 | 28.77 | 21.23 (x) | 22.11 (x) | 85.20 | 83.60 | 79.33 |
Mean | 223.26 | 199.33 | 177.04 | 117.96 | 96.65 | 93.37 | 26.79 | 23.8 | 21.46 | 88.71 | 84.78 | 74.83 |
LSD 5% | 24.14 | 24.14 | 24.14 | 13.15 | 13.15 | 13.25 | 2.75 | 2.75 | 2.75 | 6.36 | 6.36 | 6.36 |
Note: N0 = 0 kg N ha−1, N1 = 100 kg N ha−1, N2 = 200 kg N ha−1; in a row, (x) = significant difference from 200 kg N ha−1 by 5% LSD; in a column, a = better than ADV 777 by 5% LSD, b = better than JH 37 by 5% LSD. |
Table 4 presents the yields of the hybrids at nitrogen levels of 200 kg N ha−1, 100 kg N ha−1, and 0 kg N ha−1, along with the corresponding yield decreases and the Stress Tolerance Index (STI) levels for each fertilization level. The research study revealed that the yield of hybrid maize varied significantly with different levels of nitrogen fertilization. The yield of maize ranged from 8.42 to 12.57 t ha−1 with the application of 200 kg N ha−1. With low nitrogen fertilization of 100 kg N ha−1, the yield ranged from 4.74 to 8.09 t ha−1. However, without any nitrogen fertilizer, the yield decreased significantly. The yield of maize ranged from 4.40 to 5.33 t ha−1.
Hybrid | Yield (t ha−1) | Yield reduction (t ha−1) | STI | ||||||
N2 | N1 | N0 | N2-N1 | N2-N0 | N1-N0 | N2-N1 | N2-N0 | N1-N0 | |
HLN 01 | 8.42 | 7.00a | 5.33 | 1.42 | 3.10 | 1.67 | 0.54 (MT) | 0.41 (S) | 0.86 (MT) |
HLN 02 | 12.05ab | 8.09ab | 4.40 | 3.96 | 7.66 | 3.70 | 0.89 (MT) | 0.49 (S) | 0.82 (MT) |
HLN 03 | 12.57ab | 5.61 | 4.60 | 6.96 | 7.97 | 1.01 | 0.65 (MT) | 0.53 (MT) | 0.60 (MT) |
HLN 04 | 8.96 | 6.76a | 4.53 | 2.20 | 4.44 | 2.24 | 0.56 (MT) | 0.37 (S) | 0.71 (MT) |
HLN 05 | 9.73 | 7.30a | 4.52 | 2.43 | 5.21 | 2.78 | 0.65 (MT) | 0.40 (S) | 0.76 (MT) |
HLN 06 | 11.02ab | 7.16a | 4.84 | 3.86 | 6.18 | 2.33 | 0.72 (MT) | 0.49 (S) | 0.80 (MT) |
HLN 07 | 11.45ab | 6.16a | 4.47 | 5.29 | 6.99 | 1.69 | 0.65 (MT) | 0.47 (S) | 0.64 (MT) |
HLN 08 | 12.42ab | 6.09 | 3.90 | 6.33 | 8.52 | 2.19 | 0.69 (MT) | 0.44 (S) | 0.55 (MT) |
HLN 09 | 10.83ab | 7.16a | 5.05 | 3.67 | 5.79 | 2.11 | 0.71 (MT) | 0.50 (MT) | 0.84 (MT) |
ADV 777 | 8.50 | 4.74 | 4.58 | 3.76 | 3.92 | 0.17 | 0.37 (S) | 0.36 (S) | 0.50 (MT) |
JH 37 | 8.90 | 6.18 | 4.73 | 2.72 | 4.17 | 1.46 | 0.50 (MT) | 0.39 (S) | 0.68 (MT) |
Mean | 10.44 | 6.57 | 4.63 | 3.87 | 5.81 | 1.94 | |||
SE | 0.49 | 0.49 | 0.49 | ||||||
LSD 5% | 1.40 | 1.40 | 1.40 | ||||||
Note: N0 = 0 kg N ha−1, N1 = 100 kg N ha−1, N2 = 200 kg N ha−1, a = better than ADV 777 by 5% LSD, b = better than JH 37 by 5% LSD, S = susceptible, MT = moderate tolerance. |
As per Table 4, when comparing the yield at a rate of 200 kg N ha−1 with that at 100 kg N ha−1, the yield reduction ranged from 1.42 to 6.96 t ha−1. Similarly, the yield reduction varied from 3.10 to 8.52 t ha−1 when comparing the yield at 200 kg N ha−1 to that at 0 kg N ha−1. The yield reduction from 100 kg N ha−1 to 0 kg N ha−1 ranged from 0.17 t ha−1 to 3.70 t ha−1.
The STI values ranged from 0.37 to 0.89 when fertilized with 200 kg N ha−1 and 100 kg N ha−1. Ten hybrids showed moderate tolerance, while only one hybrid was susceptible. On the other hand, when maize fertilized was with 200 kg N ha−1 and 0 kg N ha−1, the STI index was between 0.36 and 0.53. Only two hybrids demonstrated moderate tolerance, while the rest were susceptible. At rates of 100 kg N ha−1 and 0 kg N ha−1, the STI ranged from 0.50 to 0.86, and all hybrids were classified as moderate tolerance (Table 4).
The relationship pattern of tolerance levels of the hybrids based on their STIs of 200 kg N ha−1 to 100 kg N ha−1, 200 kg N ha−1 to 0 kg N ha−1, and 100 kg N ha−1 to 0 kg N ha−1 is displayed in a Venn diagram in Figure 1. Interestingly, the tolerance level at 100 kg N ha−1 to 0 kg N ha−1 was moderate, the same as for the other dose combination. Therefore, it was not included in the Venn diagram. Only STI values for the other two dose combinations (200 kg N ha−1 to 100 kg N ha−1 and 200 kg N ha−1 to 0 kg N/ha) were shown in the diagram. The diagram shows that one hybrid is susceptible at 200 kg N ha−1 to 100 kg N ha−1 and 200 kg N ha−1 to 0 kg N/ha. Additionally, eight hybrids are moderately tolerant to the first dose combination but susceptible to the second. Two maize genotypes fall into the moderately tolerant category for both dose combinations.
Table 5 shows the average yield, regression coefficient (bi), and regression deviation value (s2di) for eleven maize hybrids at three levels of N fertilizer. The average yield was 7.21 t ha−1, ranging from 5.49 t ha−1 (ADV 777) to 8.18 t ha−1 (HLN 02). Six hybrids (HLN 02, HLN 03, HLN 06, HLN 07, HLN 08, and HLN 09) had above-average yields, while five hybrids (HLN 01, HLN 04, HLN 05, ADV 777, and JH 37) had below-average yields. Most hybrids had bi values close to 1 and s2di values close to zero, except for HLN 01, HLN 03, and HLN 08.
Hybrid | Mean yield (t ha−1) | bi | s2di |
HLN 01 | 6.92 | 0.51** | 0.02 |
HLN 02 | 8.18 | 1.28 | 0.59 |
HLN 03 | 7.60 | 1.43** | 1.50** |
HLN 04 | 6.75 | 0.74 | 0.12 |
HLN 05 | 7.18 | 0.86 | 0.45 |
HLN 06 | 7.67 | 1.05 | −0.20 |
HLN 07 | 7.36 | 1.23 | 0.02 |
HLN 08 | 7.47 | 1.49** | 0.03 |
HLN 09 | 7.68 | 0.99 | −0.22 |
ADV 777 | 5.94 | 0.72 | 0.60 |
JH 37 | 6.60 | 0.72 | −0.24 |
Mean | 7.21 | ||
Note: bi: regression coefficient; s2di: deviation from regression. |
The data presented in Table 2 shows that both nitrogen fertilizer and the genotype factors significantly affect various traits and the overall yield of maize crops. Specifically, the application of nitrogen fertilizer and the use of hybrid maize varieties were found to have considerable impacts on the traits. The interaction between nitrogen fertilizer and hybrid maize was significant for most of the measured traits. This suggests that combining these two factors can result in different outcomes than expected from each individually. It implies that both factors affect growth and yield and that hybrids respond differently to nitrogen levels. [33]. However, this combined effect did not extend to all traits, as no significant interaction was observed for leaf width and angle. The coefficient of variation (CV) ranged from 4.70% to 15.20% across the variables, indicating the experiment has moderate variance and adequate precision [34].
Generally, the observation variable tends to decline as fertilizer diminishes. Lower nitrogen levels reduced maize growth indicators such as plant height, leaf area, chlorophyll, stalk diameter, ear length, and kernel number [35,36]. Nitrogen (N) is essential for plant growth and development. Maize needs N throughout its life cycle, from the vegetative to the reproductive stage [37]. Maize requires nitrogen to synthesize proteins and chlorophyll and for other metabolic pathways [38]. Chlorophyll, the green pigment for photosynthesis, contains much nitrogen. Without sufficient nitrogen, plant leaves lose their green colour and become pale and yellow due to less chlorophyll [39]. Leaf area index (LAI) and leaf chlorophyll content are crucial in evaluating a plant's photosynthetic capacity, nutrient status, and overall health. LAI is a valuable indicator of the plant's light interception capability for photosynthesis, while leaf chlorophyll content reflects the plant's nutrient status and photosynthetic efficiency [40,41]. The reduced photosynthesis rate affects the plant's ability to generate energy and biomass, inhibiting plant growth and development. The addition of N fertilizer can enhance the vascular tissue in the stem and the synthesis of enzymes and nucleic acids that regulate protein accumulation and post-translational protein modification [42,43].
Root traits are critical for resource uptake and crop performance under low nitrogen conditions. Maize responds to nitrogen deficiency by enhancing root depth and steepening root growth angles [44,45]. Fine roots exhibit greater nitrogen uptake compared to thicker roots [46]. Root architecture plays a significant role in determining nutrient acquisition efficiency, particularly through root length and density [47,48]. A deeper root system with increased lateral root length increases nitrogen acquisition efficiency [49].
The interaction between genotype and environment is beneficial for breeders in plant-stress fields. The interaction causes each genotype to show different responses to different fertilization levels. The response is due to differences in genetic backgrounds. Tolerant genotypes will perform more stable than susceptible ones. Therefore, plant breeders can use these differences to select the desired genotypes according to their purposes [50,51].
The maize yield at each N level is varied. At a 200 kg N ha−1 rate, HLN 03 had the maximum yield (12.57 t ha−1), while HLN 01 had the minimum (8.42 t ha−1). All maize hybrids, except HLN 01, HLN 04, and HLN 05, differed from the control at this level. However, at 100 kg N ha−1, HLN 02 was the best, and ADV 777 was the worst. HLN 02 had a significant difference from the controls, achieving a yield of 8.09 t ha−1, whereas ADV 777 had the lowest yield at 4.74 t ha−1. At a 0 kg ha−1 nitrogen rate, HLN 01 exhibited the highest yield at 5.33 t ha−1, while HLN 08 had the lowest at 3.90 t ha−1 (Table 4). The interaction of genotype and N fertilizer dose led to differences in yield for each genotype at each N fertilization level [52].
The yield reduction between each level of nitrogen fertilization differs depending on the hybrid maize variety. Table 4 shows that the yield at the rate of 200 kg N ha−1 instead of 100 kg N ha−1 is reduced by 1.42–6.96 t ha−1. HLN 03 has the highest yield reduction, and HLN 01 has the lowest. The yield reduction ranges from 3.10 to 8.52 t ha−1 when the yield at rate 0 kg N ha−1 is compared to that at 200 kg N ha−1, with HLN 08 having the most considerable reduction and HLN 01 having the smallest. The yield reduction from 100 kg N ha−1 to 0 kg N ha−1 ranged from 0.17 t ha−1 (ADV 777) to 3.70 t ha−1 (HLN 03). The absence of nitrogen in the soil led to a restricted presence of starch metabolizing enzymes and hormone levels in maize, consequently causing a reduction in yield [19].
Table 4 shows the hybrid maize tolerance index values based on STI for different fertilization levels. For 200 kg N ha−1 and 100 kg N ha−1, the STI values varied from 0.37 (ADV 777) to 0.89 (HLN 02). According to the STI criteria, all hybrid maize corresponds to a moderate-tolerance group, except for ADV 777 (susceptible). For 200 kg N ha−1 and 0 kg N ha−1, the STI values ranged from 0.36 to 0.53. HLN 03 had the highest STI value, and ADV 777 had the lowest. Only HLN 03 and HLN 09 were encompassed in the moderate-tolerance criteria at this fertilization level, while the rest were susceptible. For 100 kg N ha−1 and 0 kg N ha−1, the STI values spanned from 0.50 to 0.86. ADV 777 showed the lowest STI value, and HLN 01 showed the highest based on the STI criteria. All hybrid maize belonged to a moderate-tolerance group at this fertilization level.
The STI index can identify maize genotypes with high yields under normal and stressful conditions. The STI index can screen genotypes with high yield potential and tolerance under both normal and stressful conditions [53,54]. Table 4 shows that maize hybrids with above-average yields at three fertilization levels were classified as tolerant or moderately tolerant. A similar pattern in wheat was also found, where genotypes with high yields under heat stress and normal conditions had high STI values, while genotypes with low yields had low STI values [55]. This finding was in line with previous studies by [56,57,58].
Figure 1 is a Venn diagram that shows the different groups of maize genotypes that can handle 200 kg N ha−1 and 100 kg N ha−1 of nitrogen fertilization based on their STI values. A Venn diagram is a graphical representation of the relationships among different data sets based on intersections or combinations of several sets [59,60]. Venn diagrams can categorize data by intersections or combinations of sets and are more informative than heat maps and tables for up to five variables in some cases [61,62]. In a Venn diagram, each set is shown as a transparent circle. The overlapping regions indicate the elements that belong to more than one set [63,64,65]. In Figure 1, the hybrid ADV 777 was classified as susceptible to both fertilizer conditions, meaning it had low yields under both N levels. Eight hybrids (HLN 01, HLN 02, HLN 04, HLN 05, HLN 06, HLN 07, HLN 08, and JH 37) were rated as moderately tolerant at STI 100 kg N ha−1 at susceptible to STI 0 kg N ha−1. When N levels were normal, their yields were high, but when N levels were stressed, their yields were low. Two maize hybrids (HLN 03 and HLN 09) were classified as moderately tolerant to both fertilizer conditions, meaning they had moderate yields under both N levels.
The bi and s2di values determine the maize hybrid stability. Based on these values, maize hybrids can be classified into four categories [66,67]. The first category consists of hybrids with bi values not significantly different from 1 and s2di values not significantly different from 0. These hybrids are considered stable across environments. The second category comprises hybrids with bi values significantly different from 1 and s2di values not significantly different from 0. These hybrids are adapted to specific environments. The third category includes hybrids with bi values not significantly different from 1 and s2di values significantly different from 0. The fourth category contains hybrids with bi values significantly different from 1 and s2di values significantly different from 0. Hybrids in the third and fourth categories are unstable across environments.
The HLN 03 maize hybrid is unstable due to its bi value of 1.43 (significantly different from 1) and its s2di value of 1.30 (significantly different from 0). These values indicate that HLN 03 has a high level of interaction with the environment. HLN 01 is a genotype-specific hybrid for low-N soil locations. The bi value of 0.51 (significantly lower than 1) and the s2di value of 0.02 (not significantly different from 0) of the HLN 01 maize hybrid indicate that it is suitable for cultivation in marginal environments. The HLN 08 maize hybrid has a bi value of 1.49 (significantly higher than 1) and s2di value of 0.02 (not significantly different from 0), which implies that HLN 08 is a genotype-specific hybrid for optimal environments (high N soil locations). Maize hybrids with bi values close to 1 and s2di values close to 0 have low environmental interaction and are categorized as stable hybrids. Genotypes HLN 02, HLN 04, HLN 05, HLN 06, HLN 07, HLN 09, ADV 777, and JH 37 belong to this category of stable hybrid (Table 5).
The selection that considers the tolerance and stability index in the stress conditions can identify both tolerant and widely adapted genotypes. This method has been employed in various crops, such as rice in saline conditions [68], bread wheat in drought conditions [69], and maize under waterlogging conditions [70]. In the current research, HLN 02, HLN 06, and HLN 07 are stable hybrids with yields higher than average. However, these hybrids exhibit only moderate tolerance at STI 100 kg N ha−1 and are susceptible at STI 0 kg N ha−1. In contrast, HLN 09 was identified as the most suitable maize hybrid for low-N environments. HLN 09 exhibited a relatively high yield of 7.68 t ha−1, surpassing the mean yield of 7.21 t ha−1 for all hybrids. The HLN 09 yields at 0 kg N ha−1, 100 kg N ha−1, and 200 kg N ha−1 were 5.05 t ha−1, 7.16 t ha−1, and 10.83 t ha−1, respectively, greater than mean yields at each fertilizer level (4.63 t ha−1, 6.57 t ha−1, and 10.44 t ha−1). The Stress Tolerance Index (STI) values for HLN 09 were 0.71 for N2-N1, 0.50 for N2-N0, and 0.84 for N1-N0. These STI values demonstrate that HLN 09 consistently maintained higher stress tolerance across varying nitrogen levels. Additionally, HLN 09 was characterized as a stable hybrid (bi = 0.99, s2di = −0.22). These facts indicate that HLN 09 has superior performance to other hybrids. As such, HLN 09 represents a stable and promising hybrid for low-N environments.
A decrease in nitrogen fertilizer dosage for maize significantly affected agronomic traits, followed by a yield decrease among the tested maize hybrid genotypes. This fact indicates that optimal nitrogen levels are essential to optimizing maize yield. Among the tested genotypes, the HLN 09 maize hybrid showed remarkable tolerance to nitrogen-deficient conditions, sustaining both stability and high yield. The hybrid's tolerance to low nitrogen suggests its potential for cultivation in environments with limited nitrogen availability.
The authors declare they have not used artificial intelligence (AI) tools in the creation of this article.
The author appreciates the Indonesian Cereal Testing Instrument Standard Institute chief for permission and the staff for carrying out the research well.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Conceptualization: M.A.; data curation: A.M.; formal analysis: R.I. and S.B.P.; investigation: R.I. and N.N.A.; methodology: A.M; project administration: R.E.; resources: S and R.E.; software: S.B.P. and N.N.A.; supervision: M.A.; validation: A.M; visualization: S; writing—original draft: R.E.; writing—review and editing: S.B.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
[1] |
Falcone PM (2018) Analyzing stakeholders' perspectives towards a socio-technical change: The energy transition journey in Gela municipality. AIMS Energy 6: 645-657. doi: 10.3934/energy.2018.4.645
![]() |
[2] |
Chen W-M, Kim C (2019) Circular economy and energy transition: A nexus focusing on the non-energy use of fuels. Energy Environ 30: 586-600. doi: 10.1177/0958305X19845759
![]() |
[3] | European Commission (2012) A circular economy plan to boost energy transition in Europe, Available from: https://cordis.europa.eu/article/id/423201-a-circular-economy-plan-to-boost-energy-transition-in-europe. |
[4] |
Kalchenko O, Evseeva S, Evseeva O, et al. (2019) Circular economy for the energy transition in Saint Petersburg, Russia. E3S Web of Conferences 110: 1-10. doi: 10.1051/e3sconf/201911002030
![]() |
[5] | Lago C, Herrera I, Caldes N, et al. (2018) Nexus bionergy-bioeconomy. Resour Technol Sustain Policy, 3-24. |
[6] | Chowdhury Md, Rahman K, Chowdhury T, et al. (2020) An overview of solar photovoltaic panels' end-of-life material recycling. Energy Strateg Rev 27: 1-11. |
[7] |
Salguero-Puerta L, Levya-Diaz J, Cortes-Garcia F, et al. (2019) Sustainability indicators concerning waste management for implementation of the circular economy model on the University of Lome (Togo) Campus. Int J Environ Res Public Health 16: 1-21. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16122234
![]() |
[8] |
Okafor C, Ajaero C, Madu C, et al. (2020) Implementation of circular economy principles in management of end-of-life tyres in a developing country (Nigeria). AIMS Environ Sci 7: 406-433. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2020027
![]() |
[9] |
Okafor C, Madu C, Ajaero C, et al. (2021) Moving beyond fossil fuel in an oil-exporting and emerging economy. AIMS Energy 9: 379-413. doi: 10.3934/energy.2021020
![]() |
[10] |
Ben-Iwo J, Manovic V, Longhurst P (2016) Biomass resources and biofuels potential or the production of transportation fuel in Nigeria. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 63: 172-192. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2016.05.050
![]() |
[11] | Adewuyi O, Kiptoo, M, Afolayan A, et al. (2020) Challenges and prospects of Nigeria's sustainable energy transition. Energy Rep, 993-1009. |
[12] | Nnorom I, Odeyingbo O (2020) Electronic waste management practices in Nigeria. Handbook of Electronic Waste Management, 323-354. |
[13] | Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2013) Towards the circular economy: Opportunities for the consumer goods sector, Available from: https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/publications/towards-the-circular-economy-vol-2-opportunities-for-the-consumer-goods-sector. |
[14] | Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2017) A new textiles economy: Redesigning fashion's future. Available from: http://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/publications. |
[15] | Brears R (2015) The circular economy and the water-energy-food nexus. NFG policy paper no. 7/2015, NGF Research Group, Asian Perceptions of the EU. Freie Universität Berlin. |
[16] | Upadhyay A, Kumar A, Akter S (2021) An analysis of UK retailers' initiatives towards circular economy transition and policy-driven directions. Clean Technol Environ Pol, 1-21. |
[17] |
Uphadhay A, Mukhuty S, Kumar V, et al. (2021) Blockchain technology and the circular economy: Implications for sustainability and social responsibility. J Clean Prod 293: 126130. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126130
![]() |
[18] |
Narayan R, Tidström A (2020) Tokenizing coopetition in a blockchain for a transition to circular economy. J Clean Prod 263: 12143. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121437
![]() |
[19] | Jæger B, Menebo M, Upadhyay A (2021) Identification of environmental supply chain bottlenecks: a case study of the Ethiopian healthcare supply chain. Manag Environ Quality An Int J 14: 1-26. |
[20] | Renewable and non-renewable energy/EM SC 240N: Energy and sustainability in contemporary culture. Available from: https://www.e-education.psu.edu/emsc240/node/506. |
[21] |
Zou C, Zhao Q, Zhang GS, et al. (2016) Energy revolution: From a fossil fuel energy era to a new energy era. Nat Gas Ind B 3: 1-11. doi: 10.1016/j.ngib.2016.02.001
![]() |
[22] | Oxford Institute for Energy Studies (2018) The rise of renewables and energy transition: what adaptation strategy for oil companies and oil-exporting countries? OIES Paper: MEP 19: 1-25. |
[23] |
Thombs R (2019) When democracy meets energy transitions: A typology of social power and energy system scale. Energy Res Soc Sci 52: 159-168. doi: 10.1016/j.erss.2019.02.020
![]() |
[24] |
Kalmykova Y, Sadagopan M, Rosado L (2018) Circular economy-From review of theories and practices to development of implementation tools. Resour Conserv Recycl 135: 190-201. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.10.034
![]() |
[25] | IRENA and IEA-PVPS (2016) End-of-life management: Solar photovoltaic panels, International Renewable Agency and International Energy Agency Photovoltaic Power Systems. |
[26] | SEIA, Solar Energy Industries Association, 2019, End-of-life considerations for solar photovoltaics: Engaging the circular economy approach. |
[27] | Fall T, Renewable energy growth depends on a circular economy for batteries, GreenBiz, December 18, 2020. Available from: https://www.greenbiz.com/article/renewable-energy-growth-depends-circular-economy-batteries. |
[28] | FAO (2016) An overview of how sustainability is addressed in official bioeconomy strategies at international, national and regional levels. Environment and natural resources management Working paper 63: 1-48. |
[29] | Stegmann P, Londo M, Junginger M (2020) The circular bioeconomy: Its elements and role in European bioeconomy clusters. Resour, Conserv Recycl X 6: 1-17. |
[30] | Searcy E, Lamers P, Deutmeyer M, et al. (2016) Chapter 6—Commodity-scale biomass trade and integration with other supply chains. Dev Global Bioeconomy, 115-137. |
[31] | EU Science Hub, Green and circular economy, 2016. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/research-topic/green-and-resource-efficient-europe. |
[32] |
Fraccascia L, Yazdanpanah V, Yazan D (2020) Energy-based industrial symbiosis: A literature review for circular energy transition. Environ Dev Sustain 23: 4791-4825. doi: 10.1007/s10668-020-00840-9
![]() |
[33] |
Chertow M, Ashton W, Espinosa J (2008) Industrial symbiosis in Puerto Rico: Environmentally related agglomeration economies. Reg Stud 42: 1299-1312. doi: 10.1080/00343400701874123
![]() |
[34] | Ntasiou M, Andreou E (2017) The standard of industrial symbiosis. Environmental criteria and methodology on the establishment and operation of industrial and business parks. Procedia Environ Sci 38: 744-751. |
[35] | Munro F, Cairney P (2020) A systematic review of energy systems: The role of policymaking in sustainable transitions. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 119: 1-10. |
[36] | Zurlini G, Petrosillo I, Cataldi M (2008) Socioecological systems, In Jergensen SE, Fath BD (Editor-in-Chief), Systems Ecology, Encycl Ecol 4: 3264-3269. |
[37] |
Falcone PM, Lopolito A, Sica E (2017) Policy mixes towards sustainability transition in the Italian biofuel sector: Dealing with alternative crisis scenarios. Energy Res Soc Sci 35: 105-114. doi: 10.1016/j.erss.2017.09.007
![]() |
[38] | Brooks A, Rich H (2016) Sustainable construction and socio-technical transitions in London's mega-projects. The Geogr J, 1-11. |
[39] | Al-Abrrow H, Alnoor A, Abdullah H, et al. (2020) How does socio-technical approach influence sustainability? Considering the roles of decision making environment. IntechOpen, 1-20. |
[40] | Ghisellini P, Ulgiati S (2020), Managing the transition to the circular economy, In: Brando M, Lazarevic D, Finnveden G (ed), Handbook of the circular economy, Edward Elgar Publishing, 37: 491-504. |
[41] |
De Boer J, Zuidema C, Gugerell K (2018) New interaction paths in the energy landscape: the role of local energy initiatives. Landsc Res 43: 489-502. doi: 10.1080/01426397.2018.1444154
![]() |
[42] | PwC, PriceWaterCoopers (2016), Nigeria: Looking beyond oil, 1-32. |
[43] | Netherlands Enterprise Agency, Ministry of Foreign Affairs (2020) Scoping mission waste and circular economy to Lagos, Nigeria. |
[44] | US Energy Information Administration, Biomass explained: Waste-to-energy (Municipal solid waste), 2019. Available from: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/biomass/waste-to-energy.php. |
[45] | Hafner M, Tagliapietra S (2020) The geopolitics of the global energy transition. Springer Open: Lecture Notes in Energy 73: 1-398. |
[46] | Cervigni R, Rogers J, Henrion M (2013) Low-carbon development: Opportunities for Nigeria. Directions in development, Washington DC: The World Bank. |
[47] |
Staffas L, Gustavsson M, McCormick K (2013) Strategies and policies for the bioeconomy and bio-based economy: An analysis of official national approaches. Sustain 5: 2751-2769. doi: 10.3390/su5062751
![]() |
[48] | Heshmati A (2015) A review of the circular economy and its implementation. Institute for the Study of Labour Discussion Paper No. 9611, Bonn Germany. |
[49] | ENTeR, Expert Network on Textile Recycling, Strategic agenda on textile waste management and recycling, European Regional Development Fund. Available from: https://www.interreg-central.eu/Content.Node/Stategic-Agenda-1.pdf. |
[50] |
Isoaho K, Karhunmaa K (2019) A critical review of discursive approaches in energy transitions. Energy Policy 128: 930-942. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2019.01.043
![]() |
[51] | Vezzoli C, Ceschin F, Osanjo L, et al. (2018) Energy and sustainable development. In: Designing sustainable energy for all. Green energy and Technology, Springer, Cham. |
[52] | McKinsey & Company (2020) How the European Union could achieve net-zero emissions at net-zero cost. December 3, 2020 Report. Available from: https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/sustainability/our-insights/how-the-european-union-could-achieve-net-zero-emissions-at-net-zero-cost#. |
[53] | Owen R, Brennan G, Lyon F (2018) Enabling investment for the transition to a low carbon economy: Government policy to finance early stage green innovation. Submitted to Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability Special Issue for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Sixth Assessment Cycle and Special Report on Global Warming. |
[54] |
Falcone PM (2020) Environmental regulation and green investments: The role of green finance. Int J Green Econ 14: 159-173. doi: 10.1504/IJGE.2020.109735
![]() |
[55] |
Falcone PM, Morone P, Sica E (2018) Greening of the financial system and fueling a sustainability transition: A discursive approach to assess landscape pressures on the Italian financial system. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 127: 23-37. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2017.05.020
![]() |
[56] | Akanonu PC (2017) Climate policy and finance: Designing an effective carbon pricing system for Nigeria's oil and gas sector. Center for the Study of the Economies of Africa (CSEA) Working Paper DPS/17/02. |
[57] | Yu Ⅲ, V.P.B. 2009, Developing country perspectives on carbon-based competitiveness, trade and climate change linkages. Energy, Environment and Development Programme Paper: 09/04. Chatham House. |
[58] | Akinwande G (2014) The prospects and challenges of the proposed carbon tax regime in South Africa: Lessons from the Nigerian experience. J Sustain Dev Law Pol 3: 177-188. |
[59] | Kemfert C, Schäfer D, Semmler W (2020) Great green transition and finance. Climate Policy, Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, 181-186. |
[60] | BusinessDay, Nigerians consumed 20.8 billion litres of petrol in 2019—NBS, 2020. Available from: https://businessday.ng/energy/oilandgas/article/nigerians-consumed-20-8billion-litres-of-petrol-in-2019-nbs/amp/. |
Parameter | Value | Level |
Texture | ||
Clay (%) | 39 | |
Silt (%) | 46 | |
Sand (%) | 15 | |
Organic C (%) | 0.89 | Very low |
Total N (%) | 0.13 | Low |
C/N | 5.75 | Low |
Source: Soil laboratory of the Indonesian Cereal Testing Instrument Standard Institute. |
Variable | Mean square | CV (%) | |||||||
Nitrogen (N) | R/N | Hybrid (H) | H x N | Error | |||||
Plant height | 11777.50 | ** | 66.17 | 571.38 | * | 955.91 | ** | 218.47 | 7.40 |
Ear height | 3788.14 | ** | 28.78 | 242.23 | ** | 660.90 | ** | 64.87 | 7.60 |
Stalk diameter | 235.60 | ** | 8.28 | 14.78 | ** | 7.79 | ** | 2.84 | 7.00 |
Leaf angle | 344.93 | ** | 10.89 | 98.32 | ** | 14.82 | 14.84 | 15.20 | |
Leaf length | 1689.11 | ** | 34.30 | 152.66 | * | 45.52 | ** | 15.19 | 4.70 |
Leaf width | 9.12 | ** | 0.49 | 2.19 | ** | 0.33 | 0.44 | 6.80 | |
Yield | 289.03 | ** | 0.81 | 3.50 | ** | 3.56 | ** | 0.73 | 11.90 |
Note: * = significant at p < 0.05, ** = significant at p < 0.01, CV = coefficient of variation. |
Hybrid | Plant height (cm) | Ear height (cm) | Stalk diameter (mm) | Leaf length (cm) | ||||||||
N2 | N1 | N0 | N2 | N1 | N0 | N2 | N1 | N0 | N2 | N1 | N0 | |
HLN 01 | 202.27 | 199.33 | 185.40 | 94.60b | 111.73 | 111.13 | 26.60 | 22.65 (x) | 20.70 (x) | 88.67 | 87.80a | 77.13 (x) |
HLN 02 | 226.60 | 202.07 (x) | 153.60 (x) | 118.53 | 115.00 | 61.00ab (x) | 26.50 | 26.27ab | 23.40a (x) | 95.91ab | 92.20ab | 85.16a (x) |
HLN 03 | 249.93 | 202.40 (x) | 177.93 (x) | 139.67 | 111.20 (x) | 99.07 (x) | 27.07 | 25.47ab | 24.39a | 89.27 | 85.33a | 81.13 (x) |
HLN 04 | 216.27 | 208.53 | 175.07 (x) | 117.00 | 95.47b (x) | 100.27 (x) | 29.55 | 24.51ab (x) | 22.39 (x) | 82.13 | 76.53 | 66.27 (x) |
HLN 05 | 210.67 | 188.47a | 182.20 (x) | 116.00 | 95.80b (x) | 105.00 | 23.80 | 22.78 | 20.86 (x) | 90.13 | 79.67 (x) | 74.53 (x) |
HLN 06 | 243.47 | 201.20 (x) | 181.60 (x) | 131.60 | 107.20 (x) | 91.80 (x) | 26.56 | 25.13ab | 21.24 (x) | 89.40 | 86.27a | 64.20 (x) |
HLN 07 | 205.93 | 187.53a | 184.73 | 113.20 | 96.33b (x) | 100.80 | 24.61 | 22.49 | 18.44 (x) | 87.33 | 86.33a | 69.07 (x) |
HLN 08 | 242.33 | 206.07 (x) | 191.33 (x) | 128.33 | 114.47 (x) | 96.87 (x) | 27.05 | 26.10ab | 21.85 (x) | 91.33a | 89.07a | 73.13 (x) |
HLN 09 | 228.33 | 212.00 | 172.93 (x) | 123.93 | 110.67 (x) | 91.27 (x) | 24.60 | 24.34ab | 20.20 (x) | 92.20ab | 88.60a | 74.93 (x) |
ADV 777 | 214.40 | 196.67 | 176.47 (x) | 122.22 | 100.00 (x) | 89.67 (x) | 29.58 | 20.78 (x) | 20.47 (x) | 84.27 | 77.20 (x) | 78.27 |
JH 37 | 215.67 | 188.33 (x) | 166.13 (x) | 114.67 | 114.40 (x) | 80.20 | 28.77 | 21.23 (x) | 22.11 (x) | 85.20 | 83.60 | 79.33 |
Mean | 223.26 | 199.33 | 177.04 | 117.96 | 96.65 | 93.37 | 26.79 | 23.8 | 21.46 | 88.71 | 84.78 | 74.83 |
LSD 5% | 24.14 | 24.14 | 24.14 | 13.15 | 13.15 | 13.25 | 2.75 | 2.75 | 2.75 | 6.36 | 6.36 | 6.36 |
Note: N0 = 0 kg N ha−1, N1 = 100 kg N ha−1, N2 = 200 kg N ha−1; in a row, (x) = significant difference from 200 kg N ha−1 by 5% LSD; in a column, a = better than ADV 777 by 5% LSD, b = better than JH 37 by 5% LSD. |
Hybrid | Yield (t ha−1) | Yield reduction (t ha−1) | STI | ||||||
N2 | N1 | N0 | N2-N1 | N2-N0 | N1-N0 | N2-N1 | N2-N0 | N1-N0 | |
HLN 01 | 8.42 | 7.00a | 5.33 | 1.42 | 3.10 | 1.67 | 0.54 (MT) | 0.41 (S) | 0.86 (MT) |
HLN 02 | 12.05ab | 8.09ab | 4.40 | 3.96 | 7.66 | 3.70 | 0.89 (MT) | 0.49 (S) | 0.82 (MT) |
HLN 03 | 12.57ab | 5.61 | 4.60 | 6.96 | 7.97 | 1.01 | 0.65 (MT) | 0.53 (MT) | 0.60 (MT) |
HLN 04 | 8.96 | 6.76a | 4.53 | 2.20 | 4.44 | 2.24 | 0.56 (MT) | 0.37 (S) | 0.71 (MT) |
HLN 05 | 9.73 | 7.30a | 4.52 | 2.43 | 5.21 | 2.78 | 0.65 (MT) | 0.40 (S) | 0.76 (MT) |
HLN 06 | 11.02ab | 7.16a | 4.84 | 3.86 | 6.18 | 2.33 | 0.72 (MT) | 0.49 (S) | 0.80 (MT) |
HLN 07 | 11.45ab | 6.16a | 4.47 | 5.29 | 6.99 | 1.69 | 0.65 (MT) | 0.47 (S) | 0.64 (MT) |
HLN 08 | 12.42ab | 6.09 | 3.90 | 6.33 | 8.52 | 2.19 | 0.69 (MT) | 0.44 (S) | 0.55 (MT) |
HLN 09 | 10.83ab | 7.16a | 5.05 | 3.67 | 5.79 | 2.11 | 0.71 (MT) | 0.50 (MT) | 0.84 (MT) |
ADV 777 | 8.50 | 4.74 | 4.58 | 3.76 | 3.92 | 0.17 | 0.37 (S) | 0.36 (S) | 0.50 (MT) |
JH 37 | 8.90 | 6.18 | 4.73 | 2.72 | 4.17 | 1.46 | 0.50 (MT) | 0.39 (S) | 0.68 (MT) |
Mean | 10.44 | 6.57 | 4.63 | 3.87 | 5.81 | 1.94 | |||
SE | 0.49 | 0.49 | 0.49 | ||||||
LSD 5% | 1.40 | 1.40 | 1.40 | ||||||
Note: N0 = 0 kg N ha−1, N1 = 100 kg N ha−1, N2 = 200 kg N ha−1, a = better than ADV 777 by 5% LSD, b = better than JH 37 by 5% LSD, S = susceptible, MT = moderate tolerance. |
Hybrid | Mean yield (t ha−1) | bi | s2di |
HLN 01 | 6.92 | 0.51** | 0.02 |
HLN 02 | 8.18 | 1.28 | 0.59 |
HLN 03 | 7.60 | 1.43** | 1.50** |
HLN 04 | 6.75 | 0.74 | 0.12 |
HLN 05 | 7.18 | 0.86 | 0.45 |
HLN 06 | 7.67 | 1.05 | −0.20 |
HLN 07 | 7.36 | 1.23 | 0.02 |
HLN 08 | 7.47 | 1.49** | 0.03 |
HLN 09 | 7.68 | 0.99 | −0.22 |
ADV 777 | 5.94 | 0.72 | 0.60 |
JH 37 | 6.60 | 0.72 | −0.24 |
Mean | 7.21 | ||
Note: bi: regression coefficient; s2di: deviation from regression. |
Parameter | Value | Level |
Texture | ||
Clay (%) | 39 | |
Silt (%) | 46 | |
Sand (%) | 15 | |
Organic C (%) | 0.89 | Very low |
Total N (%) | 0.13 | Low |
C/N | 5.75 | Low |
Source: Soil laboratory of the Indonesian Cereal Testing Instrument Standard Institute. |
Variable | Mean square | CV (%) | |||||||
Nitrogen (N) | R/N | Hybrid (H) | H x N | Error | |||||
Plant height | 11777.50 | ** | 66.17 | 571.38 | * | 955.91 | ** | 218.47 | 7.40 |
Ear height | 3788.14 | ** | 28.78 | 242.23 | ** | 660.90 | ** | 64.87 | 7.60 |
Stalk diameter | 235.60 | ** | 8.28 | 14.78 | ** | 7.79 | ** | 2.84 | 7.00 |
Leaf angle | 344.93 | ** | 10.89 | 98.32 | ** | 14.82 | 14.84 | 15.20 | |
Leaf length | 1689.11 | ** | 34.30 | 152.66 | * | 45.52 | ** | 15.19 | 4.70 |
Leaf width | 9.12 | ** | 0.49 | 2.19 | ** | 0.33 | 0.44 | 6.80 | |
Yield | 289.03 | ** | 0.81 | 3.50 | ** | 3.56 | ** | 0.73 | 11.90 |
Note: * = significant at p < 0.05, ** = significant at p < 0.01, CV = coefficient of variation. |
Hybrid | Plant height (cm) | Ear height (cm) | Stalk diameter (mm) | Leaf length (cm) | ||||||||
N2 | N1 | N0 | N2 | N1 | N0 | N2 | N1 | N0 | N2 | N1 | N0 | |
HLN 01 | 202.27 | 199.33 | 185.40 | 94.60b | 111.73 | 111.13 | 26.60 | 22.65 (x) | 20.70 (x) | 88.67 | 87.80a | 77.13 (x) |
HLN 02 | 226.60 | 202.07 (x) | 153.60 (x) | 118.53 | 115.00 | 61.00ab (x) | 26.50 | 26.27ab | 23.40a (x) | 95.91ab | 92.20ab | 85.16a (x) |
HLN 03 | 249.93 | 202.40 (x) | 177.93 (x) | 139.67 | 111.20 (x) | 99.07 (x) | 27.07 | 25.47ab | 24.39a | 89.27 | 85.33a | 81.13 (x) |
HLN 04 | 216.27 | 208.53 | 175.07 (x) | 117.00 | 95.47b (x) | 100.27 (x) | 29.55 | 24.51ab (x) | 22.39 (x) | 82.13 | 76.53 | 66.27 (x) |
HLN 05 | 210.67 | 188.47a | 182.20 (x) | 116.00 | 95.80b (x) | 105.00 | 23.80 | 22.78 | 20.86 (x) | 90.13 | 79.67 (x) | 74.53 (x) |
HLN 06 | 243.47 | 201.20 (x) | 181.60 (x) | 131.60 | 107.20 (x) | 91.80 (x) | 26.56 | 25.13ab | 21.24 (x) | 89.40 | 86.27a | 64.20 (x) |
HLN 07 | 205.93 | 187.53a | 184.73 | 113.20 | 96.33b (x) | 100.80 | 24.61 | 22.49 | 18.44 (x) | 87.33 | 86.33a | 69.07 (x) |
HLN 08 | 242.33 | 206.07 (x) | 191.33 (x) | 128.33 | 114.47 (x) | 96.87 (x) | 27.05 | 26.10ab | 21.85 (x) | 91.33a | 89.07a | 73.13 (x) |
HLN 09 | 228.33 | 212.00 | 172.93 (x) | 123.93 | 110.67 (x) | 91.27 (x) | 24.60 | 24.34ab | 20.20 (x) | 92.20ab | 88.60a | 74.93 (x) |
ADV 777 | 214.40 | 196.67 | 176.47 (x) | 122.22 | 100.00 (x) | 89.67 (x) | 29.58 | 20.78 (x) | 20.47 (x) | 84.27 | 77.20 (x) | 78.27 |
JH 37 | 215.67 | 188.33 (x) | 166.13 (x) | 114.67 | 114.40 (x) | 80.20 | 28.77 | 21.23 (x) | 22.11 (x) | 85.20 | 83.60 | 79.33 |
Mean | 223.26 | 199.33 | 177.04 | 117.96 | 96.65 | 93.37 | 26.79 | 23.8 | 21.46 | 88.71 | 84.78 | 74.83 |
LSD 5% | 24.14 | 24.14 | 24.14 | 13.15 | 13.15 | 13.25 | 2.75 | 2.75 | 2.75 | 6.36 | 6.36 | 6.36 |
Note: N0 = 0 kg N ha−1, N1 = 100 kg N ha−1, N2 = 200 kg N ha−1; in a row, (x) = significant difference from 200 kg N ha−1 by 5% LSD; in a column, a = better than ADV 777 by 5% LSD, b = better than JH 37 by 5% LSD. |
Hybrid | Yield (t ha−1) | Yield reduction (t ha−1) | STI | ||||||
N2 | N1 | N0 | N2-N1 | N2-N0 | N1-N0 | N2-N1 | N2-N0 | N1-N0 | |
HLN 01 | 8.42 | 7.00a | 5.33 | 1.42 | 3.10 | 1.67 | 0.54 (MT) | 0.41 (S) | 0.86 (MT) |
HLN 02 | 12.05ab | 8.09ab | 4.40 | 3.96 | 7.66 | 3.70 | 0.89 (MT) | 0.49 (S) | 0.82 (MT) |
HLN 03 | 12.57ab | 5.61 | 4.60 | 6.96 | 7.97 | 1.01 | 0.65 (MT) | 0.53 (MT) | 0.60 (MT) |
HLN 04 | 8.96 | 6.76a | 4.53 | 2.20 | 4.44 | 2.24 | 0.56 (MT) | 0.37 (S) | 0.71 (MT) |
HLN 05 | 9.73 | 7.30a | 4.52 | 2.43 | 5.21 | 2.78 | 0.65 (MT) | 0.40 (S) | 0.76 (MT) |
HLN 06 | 11.02ab | 7.16a | 4.84 | 3.86 | 6.18 | 2.33 | 0.72 (MT) | 0.49 (S) | 0.80 (MT) |
HLN 07 | 11.45ab | 6.16a | 4.47 | 5.29 | 6.99 | 1.69 | 0.65 (MT) | 0.47 (S) | 0.64 (MT) |
HLN 08 | 12.42ab | 6.09 | 3.90 | 6.33 | 8.52 | 2.19 | 0.69 (MT) | 0.44 (S) | 0.55 (MT) |
HLN 09 | 10.83ab | 7.16a | 5.05 | 3.67 | 5.79 | 2.11 | 0.71 (MT) | 0.50 (MT) | 0.84 (MT) |
ADV 777 | 8.50 | 4.74 | 4.58 | 3.76 | 3.92 | 0.17 | 0.37 (S) | 0.36 (S) | 0.50 (MT) |
JH 37 | 8.90 | 6.18 | 4.73 | 2.72 | 4.17 | 1.46 | 0.50 (MT) | 0.39 (S) | 0.68 (MT) |
Mean | 10.44 | 6.57 | 4.63 | 3.87 | 5.81 | 1.94 | |||
SE | 0.49 | 0.49 | 0.49 | ||||||
LSD 5% | 1.40 | 1.40 | 1.40 | ||||||
Note: N0 = 0 kg N ha−1, N1 = 100 kg N ha−1, N2 = 200 kg N ha−1, a = better than ADV 777 by 5% LSD, b = better than JH 37 by 5% LSD, S = susceptible, MT = moderate tolerance. |
Hybrid | Mean yield (t ha−1) | bi | s2di |
HLN 01 | 6.92 | 0.51** | 0.02 |
HLN 02 | 8.18 | 1.28 | 0.59 |
HLN 03 | 7.60 | 1.43** | 1.50** |
HLN 04 | 6.75 | 0.74 | 0.12 |
HLN 05 | 7.18 | 0.86 | 0.45 |
HLN 06 | 7.67 | 1.05 | −0.20 |
HLN 07 | 7.36 | 1.23 | 0.02 |
HLN 08 | 7.47 | 1.49** | 0.03 |
HLN 09 | 7.68 | 0.99 | −0.22 |
ADV 777 | 5.94 | 0.72 | 0.60 |
JH 37 | 6.60 | 0.72 | −0.24 |
Mean | 7.21 | ||
Note: bi: regression coefficient; s2di: deviation from regression. |