Growth of Fertilized Maize via Fertirrigation and Foundation With Treated Human Urine and Cassava Wastewater

  •  Jailton Ramos    
  •  Vera Lima    
  •  Eliton Santos    
  •  Gibran Medeiros    
  •  Mariana Pereira    
  •  Rafaela Guimarães    
  •  Vitória Borges    
  •  Thiago Sobrinho    
  •  Gessica Ramos    


The agricultural reuse of wastewater is already a reality in several countries of the world. The objective of this work was to evaluate the growth of hybrid corn AG 1051 grown in fertilized soil via the foundation and fertirrigation with the combination of human urine and treated cassava and NPK in protected environment.The experiment was conducted at the Federal University of Campina Grande, Campina Grande, Paraíba. The experimental design was the completely randomized one with 14 treatments and four replications, being two experiments, one fertilized via foundation and the other via fertigation. The treatments were as follows: T1 (NPK), T2 (470 mL), T3 (670 mL), T4 (870 mL), T5 (1070 mL), T6 (1270 mL), T7 (1470 mL) applied via fertilization of fertirrigado, and the same dosages applied via fertirrigation corresponding to T9 mineral fertilization, and T10, T11, T13 and T14 the different doses of organic fertilization. There was an average increase of 17.32% in the Index of Emergency Speed for the seeds that were cultivated in soil fertilized with T3 and T4 in relation to the one fertilized with NPK (T1), the soil fertilized with T3 was the one that presented the highest %E (Emergency Percentage) with 98, 81%. At 15 days after the emergency (DAE), the chemical fertilization through the foundation promoted greater leaf area gain differently than at 65 DAE. The organic fertilization via fertigation promoted the highest gains for absolute and relative growth rates of plant height stem diameter and number of leaves.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
  • Issn(Print): 1916-9752
  • Issn(Onlne): 1916-9760
  • Started: 2009
  • Frequency: monthly

Journal Metrics

(The data was calculated based on Google Scholar Citations)

  • Google-based Impact Factor (2016): 2.28
  • h-index (December 2017): 31
  • i10-index (December 2017): 304
  • h5-index (December 2017): 22
  • h5-median (December 2017): 27