تأثیر روش های مختلف کم آبیاری بر عملکرد و کارآیی مصرف آب گندم رقم پارسی
محورهای موضوعی : اکوفیزیولوژی گیاهان زراعی
نادیا جعفری
1
(دانشجوی کارشناسی ارشد، گروه زراعت و اصلاح نباتات، واحد کرج، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، کرج، ایران)
فیاض آقایاری
2
(استادیار؛ دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی؛ واحد کرج؛ گروه زراعت؛ کرج؛ ایران)
فرزاد پاک نژاد
3
(دانشیار گروه زراعت و اصلاح نباتات، واحد کرج، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، کرج، ایران)
کلید واژه: تنش خشکی, کم آبیاری, آبیاری جویچه ای یک در میان, کارآیی مصرف آب,
چکیده مقاله :
به‌منظور بررسی تأثیر روش‌های مختلف کم آبیاری بر عملکرد و کارآیی مصرف آب گندم تحت سطوح متفاوت آبیاری، آزمایشی به‌صورت کرت‌های خرد شده در قالب طرح بلوک‌های کامل تصادفی در چهار تکرار در سال زراعی 94-1393 در مزرعه تحقیقاتی دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد کرج اجرا گردید. کم آبیاری در سه سطح شامل :I100 آبیاری بر اساس 100% نیاز آبی گیاه، I75: آبیاری بر اساس 75% نیاز آبی گیاه و I50: آبیاری بر اساس 50% نیاز آبی گیاه در کرت‌های اصلی و روش آبیاری در سه سطح شامل :M1آبیاری جویچه ای معمول، :M2 آبیاری جویچه ای یک در میان ثابت و :M3آبیاری جویچه ای یک در میان متغیر در کرت های فرعی قرار گرفتند. نتایج نشان داد که با مصرف 100 درصد نیاز آبی گیاه، روش های آبیاری جویچه ای یک در میان ثابت و متغیر نسبت به روش آبیاری جویچه ای معمول به ترتیب 21.8 و 23.7 درصد کاهش عملکرد دانه را به همراه داشتند. بیشترین کارآیی مصرف آب برای عملکرد دانه (1.63 کیلوگرم بر مترمکعب) در شرایط 75 درصد نیاز آبی گیاه و روش های آبیاری جویچه ای یک در میان ثابت و متغیر و کمترین مقدار کارآیی مصرف آب عملکرد دانه (1.24 کیلوگرم بر مترمکعب) مربوط به تیمار 50 درصد نیاز آبی گیاه با روش آبیاری جویچه ای معمول به دست آمدند. هم چنین، بیشترین کارآیی مصرف آب برای عملکرد بیولوژیک (4.38 کیلوگرم بر مترمکعب) در سطح 50 درصد نیاز آبی گیاه به همراه روش آبیاری جویچه ای یک در میان ثابت برآورد شد که نسبت به تیمار شاهد (I100M1)، 31.5 درصد افزایش یافت. با توجه به نتایج حاصل از این مطالعه، اعمال روش آبیاری جویچه ای یک در میان بر اساس 75% نیاز آبی گیاه، برای افزایش کارایی مصرف آب عملکرد گندم در منطقه مورد مطالعه می تواند مورد توجه قرار گیرد.
To study the effect of different deficit-irrigation methods on yield and water use efficiency of wheat under different water applications a field experiment was carried out in split plot arrangement using randomized complete block design with four replications at the Research Farm of Islamic Azad University, Karaj branch, Iran in 2014-2015 growing year. Deficit irrigation with three levels were I100: use of 100% wheat water requirement, I75: use of 75% wheat water requirement and I50: use of 50% wheat water requirement, which were assigned to the main plots and irrigation methods with three levels, consisting of M1: conventional furrow irrigation, M2: fixed alternate-furrow irrigation and M3: periodic alternate-furrow irrigation which were assigned to the sub plots. The results showed that by using 100% wheat water requirement grain yield in the fixed and periodic alternate-furrow irrigation methods decreased by 21.8 and 23.7 percents as compared to conventional furrow irrigation method, respectively. The highest water use efficiency for grain yield (1.63 kg.m-3) was obtained when 75% wheat water requirement and fixed and alternate-furrow irrigation methods and the lowest water use efficiency for grain yield (1.24 kg.m-3) was obtained when to 50% wheat water requirement, with conventional furrow irrigation method, was used. Also, the highest water use efficiency for biologic yield (4.38 kg.m-3) was obtained at 50% wheat water requirement, with fixed alternate-furrow irrigation method, that decreased 31.5 percent as compared to I100M1. According to the results of this study, the application of alternate furrow irrigation with 75% crop water requirement can be used to increase water use efficiency for wheat yield in the studied area.
· Aghayari, F., F. Khalili, and M.R. Ardakani. 2016 a. Effect of different irrigation methods and superabsorbent polymer on yield and water productivity of corn (Zea mays L.). Journal of Plant Ecophysiology. 8(24): 35-48. (In Persian).
· Aghayari, F., F. Khalili, and M.R. Ardakani. 2016 b. Effect of deficit irrigation, partial irrigation and superabsorbent polymer on yield and yield components of corn (cv. KSC703). Journal of Water and Soil Resources Conservation. 6(1):1-14. (In Persian).
· Ali, M.H., M.R. Hoque, A.A. Hassan, and A. Khair. 2007. Effects of deficit irrigation on yield, water productivity, and economic returns of wheat. Agricultural Water Management. 92(3): 151-161.
· Aminian, R., S. Mohammadi, S. Hooshmand, and M. Khodombashi. 2011. Chromosomal analysis of photosynthesis rate and stomatal conductance and their relationships with grain yield in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) under water-stressed and well-watered conditions. Acta Physiologiae Plantarum. 33(3): 755-764.
· Basinger, A.R., and E.W. Hellman. 2006. Evaluation of regulated deficit irrigation on grape in Texas and implications for acclimation and cold hardiness. International Journal of Fruit Science. 6(2): 3-22.
· Dastfal, M., V. Brati, F. Nvabi, and H. Haghighatnia. 2009. Effect of terminal drought genotypes in dry and warm conditions in south of Fars province. Seed and Plant Production Journal. 25(3): 329-344. (In Persian).
· Dehghanzadeh, H. 2016. Effect of irrigation regimes on some quantity and quality traits of three bread wheat cultivars in Isfahan province. Journal of Plant Ecophysiology. 24: 34-25. (In Persian).
· Fardad, H. 2011. General irrigation (Vol 3): Methods irrigation. University of Tehran. 338 pp. (In Persian).
· Hosseini, S.GH.A., M. Khorramy, and B. Dahanzadeh. 2014. Investigation of wide spaced furrow irrigation in a crop of Wheat. 1nd Conference on New Finding in Environment and Agricultural Ecosystems. https://www.civilica.com/paper-agrocongress. 01-098.html. (In Persian).
· Molavi, H., Mohammadi, M., and A.M. Liaghat. 2011. Effect of full irrigation and alternative furrow irrigation on yield, yield components and water use efficiency of tomato (Super Strain B). Water and Soil Science. 3(21): 115-126. (In Persian).
· Osborne, S.L., J.S. Schepers, D.D. Francis, and M.R. Schlemmer. 2002. Use of Spectral radiance to inseason biomass and grain yield in nitrogen and water-stressed corn. Crop Science. 42: 165-171.
· Paolo, E.D., and M. Rinaldi. 2008. Yield response of corn to irrigation and nitrogen fertilization in a Mediterranean environment. Field Crops Research. 105: 202-210.
· Papi, M., A. Ahmadi, and H.R. Rafei. 2017. Response of three wheat cultivars to different moisture regimes during vegetative and reproductive stages under field conditions. Iranian Journal of Field Crop Science. 47(3): 377-391. (In Persian).
· Rafiee, M., and Gh. Shakarami. 2010. Water use efficiency of corn as affected by every other furrow irrigation and planting density. World Applied Sciences Journal. 11(7): 826-829.
· Reynold, M.P., A. Pellergrineschi, and B. Skovmand. 2005. Sink –Limitation to yield and biomass: A summery of some investigations in spring wheat. Annals Applied Biology. 146(1): 39-49.
· Samsamipour, M., M.R. Emdad, P. Afrasiab, and M. Delbari. 2016. Improvement in water use efficiency of corn plant through alternate furrow irrigation at its different growth stages. Journal of Management System. 9(28): 57-66. (In Persian).
· Samsamipour, M., M.R. Emdad, P. Afrasiab, M. Delbari, and F.Karandish. 2015. Evaluation of corn forage yield and yield componets under alternate furrow irrigation. Iranian Journal of Soil and Water Research. 46(1):11-18. (In Persian).
· Sarai Tabrizi, M., H. Babazadeh, M. Parsinegad, and S.A.M. Modares Sanavi. 2010. Improving soybean water use efficiency using partical root drying. Journal of Water and Soil Science. 14(52): 1-14. (In Persian).
· Sepaskhah, A.R., A. Azizian, and A.R. Tavakoli. 2006. Optimal applied water and winter variable seasonal rainfall and planning scenarios for consequent crop in a semi-arid region. Agricultural Water Management. 84:113-122.
· Sepaskhah, A.R., and M. Ghasemi. 2008. Every-other-furrow irrigation with different intervals for sorghum. Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences. 11(9): 1234-1239.
· Sepaskhah, A.R., and M. H. Khajehabdollahi. 2005. Alternate furrow irrigation with different irrigation intervals for maize (Zea mays L.). Plant Production Science. 8(5): 592-600.
· Shahbazpanahi, B., F. Paknejad, D. Habibi, M. Sadeghi Shoaa, M. Nasri, and A. Pazoki. 2012. Evaluation of irrigation regimes on yield and yield componente in different cultivars of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Iranian Journal of Agronomy and Plant Breeding. 8(2): 185-197. (In Persian).
· Shahnazari, A., F. Liu, M.N. Andersen, S.E. Jacobsen, and C.R. Jensen. 2007. Effects of partial root zone drying on yield, tuber size and water use efficiency in potato under field conditions. Field Crops Research. 100: 117–124.
· Sinclair, T.R., J.M. Bennett, and R.C. Muchow. 1990. Relative sensitivity of grain yield and biomass accumulation to drought in field grown maize. Crop Science. 30: 690-693.
· Stoll, M., B. Loveys, and P. Dry. 2000. Improving water use efficiency of irrigated horticultural crops. Journal of Experimental Botany. 51: 1627–1634.
· Tafte, A., and A.R. Sepaskhah. 2011. Analysis of economic water and nitrogen productivity in alternate furrow irrigation for canola production. Journal of Water and Soil Resources Conservation. 1: 1-9. (In Persian).
· Tang, L., Y. Li, and J. Zhang, 2005. Physiological and yield responses of cotton under partical root zone irrigation. Field Crops Research. 94: 214-223.
· Wakrim, R., B. Aganchich, H. Tahi, R. Serraj, and S. Wahbi. 2005. Comparative effects of partial root drying (PRD) and regulated deficit irrigation (RDI) on water relations and water use efficiency in common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment. 106: 275-287.
Yazar, A., F. Gokcel, and M.S. Sezen. 2009. Corn yield response to partial root zone drying and deficit irrigation strategies applied with drip system. Plant and Soil Environment. 55(11): 494–503.
_||_· Aghayari, F., F. Khalili, and M.R. Ardakani. 2016 a. Effect of different irrigation methods and superabsorbent polymer on yield and water productivity of corn (Zea mays L.). Journal of Plant Ecophysiology. 8(24): 35-48. (In Persian).
· Aghayari, F., F. Khalili, and M.R. Ardakani. 2016 b. Effect of deficit irrigation, partial irrigation and superabsorbent polymer on yield and yield components of corn (cv. KSC703). Journal of Water and Soil Resources Conservation. 6(1):1-14. (In Persian).
· Ali, M.H., M.R. Hoque, A.A. Hassan, and A. Khair. 2007. Effects of deficit irrigation on yield, water productivity, and economic returns of wheat. Agricultural Water Management. 92(3): 151-161.
· Aminian, R., S. Mohammadi, S. Hooshmand, and M. Khodombashi. 2011. Chromosomal analysis of photosynthesis rate and stomatal conductance and their relationships with grain yield in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) under water-stressed and well-watered conditions. Acta Physiologiae Plantarum. 33(3): 755-764.
· Basinger, A.R., and E.W. Hellman. 2006. Evaluation of regulated deficit irrigation on grape in Texas and implications for acclimation and cold hardiness. International Journal of Fruit Science. 6(2): 3-22.
· Dastfal, M., V. Brati, F. Nvabi, and H. Haghighatnia. 2009. Effect of terminal drought genotypes in dry and warm conditions in south of Fars province. Seed and Plant Production Journal. 25(3): 329-344. (In Persian).
· Dehghanzadeh, H. 2016. Effect of irrigation regimes on some quantity and quality traits of three bread wheat cultivars in Isfahan province. Journal of Plant Ecophysiology. 24: 34-25. (In Persian).
· Fardad, H. 2011. General irrigation (Vol 3): Methods irrigation. University of Tehran. 338 pp. (In Persian).
· Hosseini, S.GH.A., M. Khorramy, and B. Dahanzadeh. 2014. Investigation of wide spaced furrow irrigation in a crop of Wheat. 1nd Conference on New Finding in Environment and Agricultural Ecosystems. https://www.civilica.com/paper-agrocongress. 01-098.html. (In Persian).
· Molavi, H., Mohammadi, M., and A.M. Liaghat. 2011. Effect of full irrigation and alternative furrow irrigation on yield, yield components and water use efficiency of tomato (Super Strain B). Water and Soil Science. 3(21): 115-126. (In Persian).
· Osborne, S.L., J.S. Schepers, D.D. Francis, and M.R. Schlemmer. 2002. Use of Spectral radiance to inseason biomass and grain yield in nitrogen and water-stressed corn. Crop Science. 42: 165-171.
· Paolo, E.D., and M. Rinaldi. 2008. Yield response of corn to irrigation and nitrogen fertilization in a Mediterranean environment. Field Crops Research. 105: 202-210.
· Papi, M., A. Ahmadi, and H.R. Rafei. 2017. Response of three wheat cultivars to different moisture regimes during vegetative and reproductive stages under field conditions. Iranian Journal of Field Crop Science. 47(3): 377-391. (In Persian).
· Rafiee, M., and Gh. Shakarami. 2010. Water use efficiency of corn as affected by every other furrow irrigation and planting density. World Applied Sciences Journal. 11(7): 826-829.
· Reynold, M.P., A. Pellergrineschi, and B. Skovmand. 2005. Sink –Limitation to yield and biomass: A summery of some investigations in spring wheat. Annals Applied Biology. 146(1): 39-49.
· Samsamipour, M., M.R. Emdad, P. Afrasiab, and M. Delbari. 2016. Improvement in water use efficiency of corn plant through alternate furrow irrigation at its different growth stages. Journal of Management System. 9(28): 57-66. (In Persian).
· Samsamipour, M., M.R. Emdad, P. Afrasiab, M. Delbari, and F.Karandish. 2015. Evaluation of corn forage yield and yield componets under alternate furrow irrigation. Iranian Journal of Soil and Water Research. 46(1):11-18. (In Persian).
· Sarai Tabrizi, M., H. Babazadeh, M. Parsinegad, and S.A.M. Modares Sanavi. 2010. Improving soybean water use efficiency using partical root drying. Journal of Water and Soil Science. 14(52): 1-14. (In Persian).
· Sepaskhah, A.R., A. Azizian, and A.R. Tavakoli. 2006. Optimal applied water and winter variable seasonal rainfall and planning scenarios for consequent crop in a semi-arid region. Agricultural Water Management. 84:113-122.
· Sepaskhah, A.R., and M. Ghasemi. 2008. Every-other-furrow irrigation with different intervals for sorghum. Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences. 11(9): 1234-1239.
· Sepaskhah, A.R., and M. H. Khajehabdollahi. 2005. Alternate furrow irrigation with different irrigation intervals for maize (Zea mays L.). Plant Production Science. 8(5): 592-600.
· Shahbazpanahi, B., F. Paknejad, D. Habibi, M. Sadeghi Shoaa, M. Nasri, and A. Pazoki. 2012. Evaluation of irrigation regimes on yield and yield componente in different cultivars of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Iranian Journal of Agronomy and Plant Breeding. 8(2): 185-197. (In Persian).
· Shahnazari, A., F. Liu, M.N. Andersen, S.E. Jacobsen, and C.R. Jensen. 2007. Effects of partial root zone drying on yield, tuber size and water use efficiency in potato under field conditions. Field Crops Research. 100: 117–124.
· Sinclair, T.R., J.M. Bennett, and R.C. Muchow. 1990. Relative sensitivity of grain yield and biomass accumulation to drought in field grown maize. Crop Science. 30: 690-693.
· Stoll, M., B. Loveys, and P. Dry. 2000. Improving water use efficiency of irrigated horticultural crops. Journal of Experimental Botany. 51: 1627–1634.
· Tafte, A., and A.R. Sepaskhah. 2011. Analysis of economic water and nitrogen productivity in alternate furrow irrigation for canola production. Journal of Water and Soil Resources Conservation. 1: 1-9. (In Persian).
· Tang, L., Y. Li, and J. Zhang, 2005. Physiological and yield responses of cotton under partical root zone irrigation. Field Crops Research. 94: 214-223.
· Wakrim, R., B. Aganchich, H. Tahi, R. Serraj, and S. Wahbi. 2005. Comparative effects of partial root drying (PRD) and regulated deficit irrigation (RDI) on water relations and water use efficiency in common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment. 106: 275-287.
Yazar, A., F. Gokcel, and M.S. Sezen. 2009. Corn yield response to partial root zone drying and deficit irrigation strategies applied with drip system. Plant and Soil Environment. 55(11): 494–503.
