Irrigation and fertigation scheduling under drip irrigation for maize crop in sandy soil

Open access

Abstract

Field experiments was conducted to determine the best irrigation scheduling and the proper period for injecting fertilizers through drip irrigation water in a sandy soil to optimize maize yield and water productivity. Four irrigation levels (0.6, 0.8, 1.0 and 1.2) of the crop evapotranspiration and two fertigation periods (applying the recommended fertilizer dose in 60 and 80% of the irrigation time) were applied in a split-plot design, in addition to a control treatment which represented conventional irrigation and fertilization of maize in the studied area. The results showed that increasing the irrigation water amount and the fertilizer application period increased vegetative growth and yield. The highest grain yield and the lowest one were obtained under the treatment at 1.2 and of 0.6 crop evapotranspiration, respectively. The treatment at 0.8 crop evapotranspiration with fertilizer application in 80% of the irrigation time gave the highest water productivity (1.631 kg m−3) and saved 27% of the irrigation water compared to the control treatment. Therefore, this treatment is recommended to irrigate maize crops because of the water scarcity conditions of the studied area.

AbdEl-Hafez S.A., El-Sabbagh A.A., El-Bably A.Z., and Abou-Ahmed E.I., 2001. Responses of maize crop to drip irrigation in clay soils. Alex. J. Agric. Res., 46(2), 153-159.

Abd El-Wahed M.H., and Ali E.A., 2013. Effects of irrigation system, amounts of irrigation water and mulching on corn yield, water use efficiency and net profit. Agric. Water Manag., 120(31), 64-71.

Abu-Zeid M., 1999. Egypt’s Water Policy for the 21th Century, 7th Nile Conf., March 15-19, Cairo, Egypt.

Ali M.H., Hoque M.R., Hassan A.A., and Khair A., 2007. Effects of deficit irrigation on yield, water productivity, and economic returns of wheat. Agric. Water Manag., 92, 151-161.

Allen R.G., Pereira L.S., Roes D., and Smith M., 1998. Crop evapotranspiration: guidelines for computing crop water requirements. FAO No. 56. Rome, FAO.

Deshmukh G. and Hardaha M.K., 2014. Effects of irrigation and fertigation scheduling under drip irrigation in papaya. J. Agric. Search., 1(4), 216-220.

Doorenbos J. and Kassam H.A., 1979. Yield response to water. FAO No. 33, Rome: FAO, 101-103.

El-Beltagy A.T. and Abo-Hadeed A.F., 2008.The main pillars of the national program for maximizing the water-use efficiency in the old land. The Research and Development Council, Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation (MOALR), Giza, Egypt.

El-Gindy A.M., Abd El-Salam M.F., Abdel-Aziz A.A., and El-Saha E.A., 2003. Some engineering properties of maize plants, ears and kernels under different irrigation systems. J. Agric. Sci. Mansura Univ., 28(6), 4339-4360.

El-Hendawy S.E., Hokam E.M., and Schmidhalter U., 2008. Drip irrigation frequency: the effects and their interaction with nitrogen fertilization on sandy soil water distribution, maize yield and water use efficiency under Egyptian conditions. J. Agron. Crop Sci., 194, 180-192.

El-Kalla S.E., El-Hindi M.H., Hanna A.S., and Ainer N.G., 1985. Maize growth, yield and yield Components and chemical composition of grains as affected by different irrigation levels and plant population. Agric. Res. Rev., 63(7), 167-176.

El-Meseery A.A., 2003. Effects of different drip irrigation systems on maize yield in sandy soil. 11th Annual Conf. Society Misr of Agriculture Engineering Role in Reducing Losses and Maximizing Production. Misr J. Ag., 576-594.

El-Nady M.A. and Borham T.I., 2009. Responses of corn yield to water deficit and rice straw mulch at some growth stage. Bulletin of Faculty of Agriculture, Cairo University, 60(2), 226-233.

Feleafel M.N. and Mirdad Z.M., 2013. Optimizing the nitrogen, phosphorus and potash fertigation rates and frequency for eggplant in arid regions. Int. J. Agric. Biol., 15(4), 737-742.

Lamm F.R., Trooien T.P., Manges H.L., and Sunderman H.D.,2001. Nitrogen fertilization for subsurface drip irrigated corn. Trans. ASAE, 44(3), 533-542.

Majumdar D.K., 2002. Irrigation Water Management: Principles and Practice. New Delhi: Prentice-Hall of India.

Moayeri M., Siadat H., Pazira E., Abbasi F., Kaveh F., and Oweis T.Y., 2011. Assessment of maize water productivity in southern parts of the Karkheh river basin, Iran. World Applied Sci. J., 13(7), 1586-1594.

Ne Smith D.S. and Ritchie J.T., 1992. Short and long term responses of corn to a pre anthesis soil water deficit. Agron. J., 84, 107-113.

Otegui M.E., Andrade F.H., and Suero E.E., 1995. Growth water use and kernel abortion of maize subjected to drought at silking. Field Crop Res., 40, 87-94.

Pandey R.K., Maranville J.W., and Admou A., 2000. Deficit irrigation and nitrogen effects on maize, in a sahlian environment, grain yield and yield components. Agri. Water Manag., 46, 1-13.

Papadopoulos I., 1995. Use oflabelled fertilizers in fertigation research. Proc. Int. Symp. Nuclear and Related Techniques in Soil/Plant Studies on Sustainable Agriculture and Environmental Preservation. P: 399-410 Vienna.

Steel R.G. and Torrie J.H., 1984. Principles and procedures of statistics. A Biometrical Approach. McGraw. Hill Book Company, New York, USA.

Stone P.J., Wilson D.R., Jamieson P.D., and Gillespie R.N., 2001. Water deficit effects on sweet corn I: water use, radiation use efficiency, growth, and yield. Aust. J. Agric. Res., 52, 103-113.

Tan K.H., 1996. Soil sampling, Preparation and Analysis. Marcel Dekker Press, New York, USA.

USDA, 2011. Grain: World markets and trade. Foreign Agriculture Service, Circular Series FG 09-11. Foreign Agricultural Service, United States Department of Agriculture, http://www.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/circulars/grain.pdf

Vijayakumar G., Tamilmani D., and Selvaraj P.K., 2010. Irrigation and fertigation scheduling under drip irrigation in brinjal (Solanum melongena L.) crop. Int. J. Bio-res Management, 1(2), 72-76.

Zwart S.J. and Bastiaansen W.G.M., 2004. Review of measured crop water productivity values for irrigated wheat, rice, cotton and maize. J. Agric. Water Manag., 69, 115-133.

International Agrophysics

The Journal of Institute of Agrophysics of Polish Academy of Sciences

Journal Information


IMPACT FACTOR 2017: 1.242
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 1.267

CiteScore 2017: 1.38

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.435
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 0.849

Cited By

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 578 578 48
PDF Downloads 296 296 28