Global Journal of Science Frontier Research, D: Agriculture and Veterinary, Volume 21 Issue 7

then extrapolated to the hectare according to formula number 4 (Table 1). After drying, six ears were randomly selected for counting the number of rows per ear and the number of grains per row used to determine the number of grains per ear. The number of grains per ear was by formula 5 (Table 1). The straw was weighed on a scale to obtain the different fresh weights. Samples of 100 g were taken and dried in an oven at 105°C for 72 hours to determine dry weights. The total straw production was determined by formula 6 (Table 1). All values were extrapolated to represent kg/ha according to formula number 7 (Table 1). The data were then subjected to an analysis of variance (ANOVA) using RStudio 1.2.1335. The separation of the means was made at the 5% threshold according to the Newman- Keuls test. Table 2: Formulas used for the various calculations Number Computation formulae 1 Moisture Content (%) = (((wet weight-container weight)-(dry weight-container weight))/(dry weight- container weight))×100 2 Yield (kg/ha) = ((Pu ×10000))/(10 (m 2 ) ×1000) Where, Pu: grain weight of the useful parcel in grams; 10000: the surface area of one hectare in m 2 , 10 m 2 the surface area of the useful parcel, 1000: the equivalent of one kilogram in grams 3 Stalk weight (kg/ha) = ((WRuP×10000))/(10 (m 2 ) ×1000) Where, WRuP: Weight of the Rafles of the Useful Plot, 10000: the surface area of one hectare in m2 , 10 m 2 the surface area of the useful plot, 1000: the equivalent of one kilogram in grams 4 Number of ears/ha = ((NEPu ×10000))/(10 (m 2 )) Where, NEuP: number of ears of the useful plot, 10000: the surface area of one hectare in m 2 , 10 m 2 the surface area of the useful plot 5 Number of grains/ears = (number of grain/radius)×(number of radius/ear) 6 DW (g) = DWS/FWS×TFW Where, DW: dry weight; DWS: dry weight of the sample; FWS: fresh weight of the sample; TFW: total fresh weight 7 Straw yield (kg/ha) = (WS ×10000)/10 (m2) ×1000 Where, WS: the weight in grams of the straw of the useful plot, 10000: the surface area of one hectare in m 2 , 10 m 2 the surface area of the useful plot, 1000: the equivalent of one kilogram in grams III. R esults a) Effects of mulching and legumes on soil moisture The effects of mulching and legumes on soil moisture content (Figure 3) showed that moisture content varied from one treatment to another depending on the measurement depth and production period. At the 7 th DAP (Figure 3A), soil weight moisture varied in the overlying horizons from 11.25 ± 2.69% (MfLf) to 13.38 ± 2.35% (MwRC). In the middle and deep horizons, the same trends were observed. All mulched land plots (MwRP, MwRC, MwRMb, MWLF) had improved soil moisture compared to bare soil (MfLf). At this level, no significant difference was detected among treatments. From the 21 st DAP (Figure 3B), better moisture levels are with the MwRP (16.00 ± 0.41%) and MwRC (16.00 ± 0.54%) treatments in the overlying horizons. At this level, all treatments with mulch (MwRP, MwRC, MwRMb, MWLF) had better moisture content than treatments without mulch (MfRP, MfRC, MfRMb, and MfLf). These moisture levels varied significantly between treatments (p < 0.05). Treatments (MfRP, MfRC, MfRMb) had no significant effect on soil moisture compared to bare soil (MfLf). In the medium and deep horizons, the different treatments did not significantly affect soil moisture levels. At the 35 th DAP (Figure 3C), the moisture content ranged from 15.00 ± 0.5% (MfLf) to 18.12 ± 1.14% (MwRMb) and the moisture content did not vary significantly between treatments. The greatest moisture levels were in the mulched plots. The moisture content in plots under legume cover (MFRP, MFRC, and MfRMb) was greater compared to plots under mulch alone (MWLF) and without mulch (MfLf). The combination of mulch and legumes (MwRP, MwRC, and MwRMb) improved soil moisture compared to bare soil (M) or legumes alone (MfRP, MfRC, and MfRMb). The greatest moisture levels were on the 49th DAP (Figure 3D) in the surface zones with the combined legume and mulch treatments (MwRP, MwRC, and MwRMb). Legumes (MfRP, MfRC, and MfRMb) improved soil moisture compared to simple mulch (MWLF) and bare soil (MfLf) at these same depths. In the middle and deep horizons, no significant difference was found. However, the effect of mulching and 1 Global Journal of Science Frontier Research Volume XXI Issue VII Year 2021 5 ( D ) © 2021 Global Journals Version I Effects of Cereal-Legume Intercropping and Mulching on Maize ( Zea Mays L.) Productivity in Dry Season using Drip Irrigation in South-Sudanian Climatic Zone of Burkina Faso