Maize response to water, salinity and nitrogen levels: yield-water relation, water-use efficiency and water uptake reduction function

authors

  • A. Azizian Irrigation Department, Shiraz University, Shiraz, I.R of Iran (At present, faculty member of Ardakan University).
  • A.R. Sepaskhah Irrigation Department, Shiraz University, Shiraz, I.R of Iran (At present, faculty member of Ardakan University).
abstract

Water, salinity and nitrogen are the major factors affecting maize production in arid and semi-arid areas. The objectives of this study were to investigate the effects of different water, salinity and nitrogen levels on yield-water relationships, water use, water productivity (WP), water use efficiency (WUE) and water uptake reduction function by maize hybrid SC-704 in a semi-arid area and silty clay loam soil. A split-split-plot design with three replications in two years of 2009 and 2010 was conducted. The different levels of irrigation water considered as main plot, salinity of irrigation water as sub-plot and nitrogen fertilizer rate as sub-sub-plot. Irrigation treatments consisted of I1 (1.0ETc+0.25ETc as leaching), I2 (0.75I1) and I3 (0.50I1) applied at 7-day intervals. The salinity treatments of irrigation were 0.6 (fresh water), 2.0 and 4.0 dS m-1. There were also three nitrogen (N) treatments including 0, 150 and 300 kg N ha-1. Results showed that the actual crop ET and transpiration (T) were significantly less in I3 as compared to I1 treatments as 42 and 43%, respectively. Besides, T values under S3 were statistically less than that in S1 treatment as 12%. The soil evaporation (E) values were 26, 31 and 27% of ET at I1, I2 and I3 treatments, respectively and its values significantly increased with increasing salinity levels of irrigation water. The minimum and maximum amount of E occurred at I3S1N3 and I1S3N3, respectively. The study showed that deficit irrigation as 0.50I1 and 0.75 I1 were the optimum levels of irrigation to access the highest WP and WUE for dry matter (DM) and grain yield (GY) respectively. Besides, S1 was the optimum treatment for achievement of highest WP and WUE for DM and GY. Results also indicated that the optimum treatment for WP and WUE for GY was I2S1N3. Furthermore, N fertilization could not statistically improve WP and WUE beyond 150 kg N ha-1. The yield response factor to water showed that maize GY was more sensitive to water than its DM. Results also indicated that the Homaee and Feddes (1999) equation was resulted in acceptable estimation of root-water uptake reduction function [α (h,ho)]. Furthermore, results showed that the FAO method underestimated the maize yield (DM/GY) at different N application rates: however, the Homaee and Feddes (1999) method resulted in acceptable prediction of the maize GY. Therefore, Homaee and Feddes (1999) equation is recommended for estimation of both α (h, ho) and maize GY. Keywords: Maize; Nitrogen levels; Root-water uptake reduction function; Salinity levels; Water use efficiency; Yield-water relationships.

Upgrade to premium to download articles

Sign up to access the full text

sign up

Already have an account?login

similar resources

Maize response to water, salinity and nitrogen levels: physiological growth parameters and gas exchange

A split-split-plot design with three replications in two years of 2009 and 2010 was conducted to investigate the effect of different levels of irrigation water (main plot), salinity of irrigation water (sub-plot) and nitrogen fertilizer rate (sub-subplot) on maize growth rate and gas exchange. Irrigation treatments were I1 (1.0 crop evapotranspiration (ETc)+0.25ETc as leaching), I2 (0.75I1)...

full text

Maize response to water, salinity and nitrogen levels: soil and plant ions accumulation

In the present study, some nutritional imbalances, specific ion toxicity and yield-ion concentration relationships in maize under water, nitrogen (N) and salinity stresses were assessed. Effect of different levels of irrigation water (I1=1.0ETc+0.25ETc as leaching, I2 =0.75I1 and I3 =0.5I1) as main plot, salinity of irrigation water (S1=0.6, S2= 2.0 and S3=4.0 dS m-1) as sub-plot and N fertiliz...

full text

Maize response to different water, salinity and nitrogen levels: agronomic behavior

Soil water, salinity and nitrogen content are three major factors affecting crop production in arid and semi-arid areas. This study was performed in two years of 2009 and 2010 in a semi-arid area in order to investigate the effects of irrigation water quantity (as main plot), quality (saline water, as sub-plot), nitrogen fertilizer (as sub-sub plot) and their interactions on growth and yiel...

full text

water and nitrogen application levels for the optimum tomato yield and water use efficiency

this study was conducted to determine the effects of different water and nitrogen application levels on drip-irrigated tomato plants. the amount of water usage was based upon the pan evaporation from a screened (class “a”) evaporation pan. the treatments consisted of two irrigation intervals (i1= 5 days and i2= 10 days), three plant-pan coefficients (kcp1= 0.50; kcp2= 0.75 and kcp3= 1.00) and t...

full text

Soil salinity and matric potential interaction on water use, water use efficiency and yield response factor of bean and wheat

We studied the effects of soil matric potential and salinity on the water use (WU), water use efficiency (WUE) and yield response factor (Ky), for wheat (Triticum aestivum cv. Mahdavi) and bean (Phaseoulus vulgaris cv. COS16) in sandy loam and clay loam soils under greenhouse conditions. Results showed that aeration porosity is the predominant factor controlling WU, WUE, Ky and shoot biomass (B...

full text

Modification of a maize simulation model under different water, nitrogen and salinity levels

Irrigation, salinity and nitrogen (N) are the three major limiting environmental factors inmaize yield potentials especially in arid and semi-arid regions. An integrated water and N MaizeSimulation Model (MSM) was modified for salinity conditions using 2009-2010 fieldexperiments data in southwest of Iran. Irrigation levels were: I1=1.0ETc+0.25ETc as normalleaching amount, I2=0.75I1 and I3=0.5I1...

full text

Save to my library

Save to my library Already added to my library

{@ msg_add @}

  Save resource for easier access later

Download full text

Sign up to access the full text

Signup

Already have an account?login


Journal title:

volume 8  issue 2

pages  183- 214

publication date 2014-02-01

By following a journal you will be notified via email when a new issue of this journal is published.

Keywords

Hosted on Doprax cloud platform doprax.com

copyright © 2015-2022