Alternate furrow irrigation can maintain grain yield and nutrient content, and increase crop water productivity in dry season maize in sub-tropical climate of South Asia

Khokan Kumer Sarker, Akbar Hossain, Jagadish Timsina, Sujit Kumar Biswas, Sparkle L. Malone, Md. Khairul Alam, Henry W. Loescher and Mahfuz Bazzaz

Agricultural Water Management, 2020, vol. 238, issue C

Abstract: Water scarcity is becoming a major constraint for maize cultivation and increasing maize yield globally. Water-saving irrigation methods are required to increase crop water productivity (CWP) without reducing grain yield and nutrient uptake. We evaluated the effects of different methods and levels of irrigation on crop dry matter, grain yield, nutrient uptake and CWP of maize (cv. ‘BARI Hybrid Bhutta-9′) in field condition in a sub-tropical environment in Bangladesh. The experiment was laid out in a nested plot design with three replications during 2014−15 and 2015−16. The treatments were three irrigation levels (I1: 100 % field capacity, FC; I2: 80 % FC; I3: 60 % FC) and three irrigation methods (AFI: alternate furrow irrigation; SFFI: skip-fixed furrow irrigation; and TFI: traditional furrow irrigation). Results indicate that both the irrigation method and level had significant effects on dry matter, grain yield, nutrient uptake, and CWP. The AFI technique maintained similar grain yield (8.1 t ha−1) to TFI but reduced irrigation water by 37 % for irrigation applied at 100 % of FC. Both AFI and TFI had significantly higher (p ≤ 0.05) grain yield compared to SFFI at the irrigation level of I2. The interactive effect of irrigation level and method also had a significant effect (p ≤ 0.05) on maize yield. The uptakes of macronutrients (N, P, K, S, Ca, and Mg) and micronutrients (B, Zn, Fe, and Mn) by maize grain were not significantly different between AFI and TFI under I1. Irrigation level was the main driver for determining the patterns in grain yield but irrigation method controlled the patterns in CWP. The AFI technique resulted in higher CWP compared to TFI or SFFI. Results demonstrate that AFI is an effective water-saving technique, which can increase the CWP without a significant reduction in grain yield and nutrients uptake by maize grain. The AFI method in conjunction with a reduced amount of irrigation water can be adapted in the sub-tropical climates of South Asia where maize production in the dry season is heavily dependent on repeated irrigation with limited water supplies.

Keywords: Bangladesh; Deficit irrigation; Furrow irrigation; Irrigation amount; Macro- and micro-nutrients; Water-saving technique (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2020
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (9)

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037837741932387X
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:agiwat:v:238:y:2020:i:c:s037837741932387x

DOI: 10.1016/j.agwat.2020.106229

Access Statistics for this article

Agricultural Water Management is currently edited by B.E. Clothier, W. Dierickx, J. Oster and D. Wichelns

More articles in Agricultural Water Management from Elsevier
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Catherine Liu ().