مهندسی زراعی

شماره جاری

بر اساس شماره‌های نشریه

بر اساس نویسندگان

بر اساس موضوعات

نمایه نویسندگان

نمایه کلیدواژه ها

درباره نشریه

اهداف و چشم انداز

بانک ها و نمایه نامه ها

پیوندهای مفید

پرسش‌های متداول

فرایند پذیرش مقالات

اثر آبیاری جویچه‌ای یک در میان ثابت و متغیر بر تغییرات شوری، فسفر و پتاسیم خاک در اراضی زیرکشت نیشکر

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 گروه علوم و مهندسی خاک، دانشگاه علوم کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی خوزستان، ملاثانی، ایران

2 گروه علوم و مهندسی خاک، دانشکده کشاورزی،دانشگاه علوم کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی خوزستان ، ملاثانی، ایران

3 گروه مهندسی آب، دانشگاه علوم کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی خوزستان، ملاثانی، ایران

چکیده

بخش کشاورزی بزرگترین مصرف کننده آب است. بهبود روش‌های آبیاری راهکار مناسبی جهت افزایش کارآیی پایین مصرف آب در مزارع و در نتیجه، کاهش بحران آب در مناطق نیمه خشک می‌باشد. با توجه به مصرف بالای آب در مزارع نیشکر و همچنین کمبود و افت کیفیت آب رودخانه‌ها، این پژوهش جهت بررسی تأثیر روش‌های آبیاری کامل (مرسوم)، آبیاری جویچه‌ای یک در میان ثابت و متغیر بر توزیع شوری و غلظت عناصر فسفر و پتاسیم در محل کف، میانه و بالای پشته در ابتدا، وسط و انتهای جویچه، به‌ صورت فاکتوریل در قالب طرح کاملاً تصادفی انجام شد. نتایج نشان داد روش کم‌آبیاری جویچه‌ای یک در میان ثابت بیشترین تأثیر را بر تغییرات شوری خاک داشته و موجب کاهش شوری به میزان 9 درصد در مقایسه با روش آبیاری کامل گردید. از نظر تغییرات مکانی، کمترین میزان شوری در کف و ابتدای جویچه‌ها مشاهده شد. تغییر روش آبیاری از روش ثابت به یک درمیان تأثیرمعنی داری بر میزان فسفر قابل جذب نداشت. بیشترین مقدار فسفر در قسمت میانی پشته‌ها به میزان 47/2 میلی‌گرم در کیلوگرم گزارش گردید. تغییرات پتاسیم خاک مستقیماً تحت تأثیر روش آبیاری قرار نداشت. اگرچه، بیشترین مقدار آن در کف جویچه‌ها مشاهده شد. به طور کلی، از نظر مقدار شوری و غلظت عناصر فسفر و پتاسیم، بالای پشته‌ها، در هر سه روش آبیاری، محل مناسبی برای کشت گیاه نخواهد بود. با توجه به برتری روش‌های کم آبیاری به ویژه جویچه‌ای یک در میان ثابت، در افزایش کارآیی مصرف آب، استفاده از آنها به جای روش مرسوم توصیه می‌گردد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Effect of variable and fixed alternate furrow irrigation on salinity, phosphorous and potassium concentration in soil of sugarcane field

نویسندگان [English]

  • Mohammad Adib 1
  • Nafiseh Rang Zan 2
  • Amir Naserin 3

1 Department of Soil Science, Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources University of Khuzestan, Mollasani, Iran

2 Department of Soil Science, Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources University of Khuzestan Mollasani, Iran

3 Department of water Science, Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources University of Khuzestan Mollasani, , Iran

چکیده [English]

Introduction The highest amount of water consumption is allocated to the agricultural sector, which has led to a water crisis due to increasing demand for food production and non-conservative agriculture and climate change in some countries. Sugarcane needs a lot of water during the growing season and is sensitive to drought. In drought conditions and water stress, the intensity of reverse flow of water to the soil surface increases and can cause salinization of the soil around the roots of sugarcane, which is a relatively sensitive plant related to salinity. Due to the high-water consumption in sugarcane fields and also the shortage and decline of water quality in dry years, this study aimed to investigate the effect of conventional and deficit irrigation by variable and fixed alternate furrow irrigation on soil salinity and some nutrient concentration consist of phosphorous and potassium in sugarcane field.
Materials and Methods To investigate the effect of irrigation methods on salinity distribution and concentration of phosphorous and potassium in soil, this experiment was conducted with independent variables of irrigation method treatment including conventional (complete) irrigation, variable alternate furrow irrigation and fixed alternate furrow irrigation, irrigation round treatment including before irrigation, after one and two times irrigation, sampling location treatment including bottom, middle and top of raised bed and sampling position treatment consist of start, middle and end of furrow. The experiment was performed factorially in a completely randomized design with three replications in sugarcane fields of MianAb in Susa. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS software and mean comparisons were performed by Duncan's multiple range test. Charts were drawn using Excel software.
Results and Discussion The results showed that irrigation method is mainly affects salinity distribution and concentration of phosphorus in soil. The fixed alternate furrow irrigation method had the greatest effect on soil salinity changes and reduced the salinity as compared to the conventional method and the variable alternate furrow irrigation. In general, in the conventional irrigation method (complete irrigation of all furrows) and variable alternate furrow irrigation, there is no constantly dry furrow as compared to the fixed alternate furrow irrigation method, and this intensifies the accumulation of salts on the sides and the top of raise beds. Increasing the frequency of irrigation (irrigation round) reduces the soil salinity so that in soil samples before irrigation, soil salinity was 2.30 dS/m and with one round irrigation, this amount decreased by 7.8% to 2.12 dS/m and with two rounds of irrigation reached to 2.09 dS/m. In terms of locative variation of salinity related to the fixed alternate furrow irrigation method, the lowest amount of salinity was observed in the bottom of the raised bed. With increasing distance from the beginning of furrow, an upward trend in soil salinity was reported. Regarding the change in the amount of available phosphorus in the soil under the influence of irrigation method, any of the deficit irrigation methods can be used as an alternative to conventional irrigation. The highest amount of soil phosphorus was reported in the middle of the raise bed. Soil potassium changes were not directly affected by irrigation method and the highest amount was assessed in the bottom of the raise bed. In terms of salinity, the lowest value was at the bottom of the furrows and the highest value was at the top of the raise bed. Unlike salinity changes, soil phosphorus had the highest accumulation in the middle of the raise bed and reached a minimum at the top of the raise bed. A relatively uniform trend was observed in changes in soil phosphorus from the beginning to the end of the furrow. Contrary to salinity changes, the highest amount of available potassium in soil was observed in the bottom of raise bed and a decreasing trend in soil potassium was reported from the beginning to the end of furrow. In general, based on the results, the average level of soil salinity and potassium and the highest amount of phosphorus were reported in the middle of the raise bed.
Conclusion For optimal water use and soil salinity management, application of deficit irrigation methods especially fixed alternate furrow irrigation instead of conventional irrigation method, is recommended. In case of salinity and concentration of mentioned nutrients, the top of the raise bed in all three irrigation methods, would not be a suitable place for plant cultivation.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Deficit irrigation
  • Variable alternate furrow
  • Fixed alternate furrow
  • Soil salinity
  • Nutrient
  • Sugarcane
مراجع
  1. Akbari, M. 1998. Effect of deficit irrigation on sugar beet yield. International congress on Irrigation and drainage. Tehran. Iran. (In Persian)
  2. Allen, R.G., Pereira, L.S., Raes, D., and Smith, M. 1998. Crop evapotranspiration: guidelines for computing crop water requirements. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 56, FAO, Rome, Italy.
  3. Ayers, R.S., and Westcot, D.W. 1976. Water quality for agriculture (Irrigation and drainage paper). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, pp: 97.
  4. Bar-Yosef, B. and Bar-Tal, A. 1995. Principles of fertigation. In Cohen, Y. (ed.) Summary of Lecture Notes on Irrigation Science and Greenhouse Control. Bet Dagan. pp. 49-62.
  5. Bar-Yosef, B., Sagiv, B. and Markovitz, T. 1989. Sweetcorn response to surface and subsurface trickle phosphorus fertigation. Agronomy Journal, 81: 443-447.
  6. Cardon, G.E., Davis, J.G., Bauder, T.A., and Waskom, R.M. 2010. Managing Saline Soils.http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/crops/00503.htm.
  7. Davies, W.J., Wilkinson, S., and Loveys, B. 2002. Stomatal control by chemical signaling and the exploitation of this mechanism to increase water use efficiency in agriculture. New Phytologist, 153: 449-460.
  8. Devkota, M., Martius, C., Gupta, R.K., Devkota, K.P., McDonald, A.J., and Lamers, J.P.A. 2015. Managing soil salinity with permanent bed planting in irrigated produc-tion systems in Central Asia. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 202: 90-97.
  9. El-Swaify, S.A. 2000. Soil and water supply. In: Silva, J.A., Uchida, R. (Eds.), Plant nutrient management in Hawaii’s soils: approaches for tropical and subtropical agriculture. University of Hawaii, Manoa.
  10. Erice, G., Irigoyen, J.J., Sanchez-Diaz, M., Aviceb, J.C., and Ourryb, A. 2007. Effect of drought, elevated CO2 and temperature on accumulation of N and vegetative storage proteins (VSP) in taproot of nodulated alfalfa before and after cutting. Plant science, 172 (5): 903-912.
  11. FAO, 2002. Deficit Irrigation Practices, Natural Resources Management and Environment Department.
  12. FAO, 2015. AQUASTAT Website Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Available at: http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/main/index.stm.
  13. FAOWaterReports,Rome,Italy,FAOSTAT,http://faostat.fao.org/site/567/default.aspx#ancor, 2020.
  14. Farshi, A.A., Shariati, M., Jarollahi, R., Ghaemi, M., Shahabifar, M., and Tolaaii, M.M. 2004. Estimation of water requirements for crops and horticultural plants in Iran. Crops. pp: 434.
  15. Galindo, A., Calín-Sánchez, A., Rodríguez, P., Cruz, Z.N., Girón, I.F., Corell, M., Martínez-Font, R., Moriana, A., Carbonell-Barrachina, A.A., Torrecillas, A., and Hernández, F. 2017. Water stress at the end of pomegranate fruit ripening produces earlier harvesting and improves fruit quality. Scientia Horticulturae, 226: 68-74.
  16. Han, Y., and Kang, S. 2002. Preliminary study on effects of roots divided alternate irrigation on nutrient uptake by maize. Trans. CSAE 18 (1): 57-
  17. Havlin, J. L., Tisdale, S. L., Nelson, W. L. and Beaton, JD. 2005. Soil Fertility and Fertilizers: An Introductionto Nutrients Management. 7th Edition. Prentice Hall.
  18. Hernandez-Santana, V., Fernández, J.E., Cuevas, M.V., Perez-Martin, A., and Diaz-Espejo, A. 2017. Photosynthetic limitations by water deficit: effect on fruit and olive oil yield, leaf area and trunk diameter and its potential use to control vegetative growth of super-high-density olive orchards. Agricultural Water Management, 184: 9-18.
  19. Hu, K.L., Li, B.G., Chen, D., Zhang, Y.P., and Edis, R. 2008. Simulation of nitrate leaching under irrigated maize on sandy soil in desert oasis in Inner Mongolia. China Agricultural Water Management, 95: 1180-1188.
  20. Hu, T., Kang, S., Li, F., and Zhang, J. 2009. Effects of partial root-zone irrigation on the nitrogen absorption and utilization of maize. Agricultural Water Management, 96: 208-214.
  21. Kamali, H., Khorramian, M., Naserin, A., and Hosseinpour, M. 2021. Developing a logistic model for estimating the yield of autumn sugar beet under water stress conditions. Journal of Sugar Beet, 37(1), pp. -. Doi: 10.22092/jsb.2021.354624.1276. (In Persian)
  22. Kang, S., Liang, Z., Hu, W., and Zhang, J. 1998. Water use efficiency of controlled alternate irrigation on root-divided maize plants. Agricultural Water Management, 38: 69-76.
  23. Kang, S., Liang, Z., Pan, Y., Shi, P., and Zhang, J. 2000. Alternate furrow irrigation for maize production in arid areas. Agricultural Water Management, 45: 267-274.
  24. Kang, S.Z., and Zhang, J.H. 2004. Controlled alternate partial root-zone irrigation: its physiological consequences and impact on water use efficiency. Journal of Experimental Botany, 55(407): 2437-2446.
  25. Kirda, C., 2002. Deficit irrigation scheduling based on plant growth stages showing water stress tolerance. In: Kirda, C. (Ed.), Deficit Irrigation Practice. Water Reports 22. FAO, Rome, pp. 1-3.
  26. Kirda, C., Cetin, M., Dasgan, Y., Topcu, S., Kaman, H., Ekici, B., Derici, M.R., and Ozguven,I. 2004. Yield response of greenhouse grown tomato to partial root drying and conventional deficit irrigation. Agricultural Water Management, 69 (3): 191-201.
  27. Kresovic, B., Tapanarova, A., Tomic, Z., Zivotic, L., Vujovic, D., Sredojevic, Z., and Gajic, B. 2016. Grain yield and water use efficiency of maize as influenced by different irrigation regimes through sprinkler irrigation under temperate climate. Agricultural Water Management, 169: 34-
  28. Kumari, K., Dass, A., Sudhishri, S., Kaur, D., and Rani, A. 2017. Yield components, yield and nutrient uptake pattern in maize (Zea mays) under varying irrigation and nitrogen levels. Indian Journal of Agronomy, 62: 104-
  29. Loveys, B.R., Stoll, M., and Davies, W.J. 2004. Physiological approaches to enhance water use efficiency in agriculture: exploiting plant signaling in novel irrigation practice. In: Bacon (Eds.), Water Use Efficiency in Plant Biology.
  30. Malakoti, M.J, and Homaii, M. 2004. Soil Fertility in Arid and Semi-arid Areas. Tarbiyat Moddares Publication. Tehran. Iran. pp: 482. (In Persian)
  31. Meiri, A., and Plaut, Z. 1985. Crop production and management under saline conditions. Plant Soil, 89: 253-271.
  32. Micklin, P., 2000. Managing Water in Central Asia. The Royal Institute of International Affairs, London, England, pp: 72.
  33. Mir, E., Piri, H. and Naserin, A., 2021. Investigation of the interaction effect of nitrogen and water stress on greenness and water consumption indices of Carla (bitter melon). Iranian Journal of Irrigation and Drainage, 15(4), 854-864. (In Persian)
  34. Nazirov, A.A. 2005. Central Asia: Water for Food. http://www.cawaternet/4wwf/pdf/nazirov e.pdf.
  35. Nouri, M., and Nasab, S.B. 2011. Study of effect of alternate furrow irrigation in sugarcane (Var CP69-1062) at different growth stages on quality and quantity of yield. pp. 287-291. ICID 21st International Congress on Irrigation and Drainage (ICID), Tehran, (In Persian)
  36. Piri, H. and Naserin, A. 2020. Effect of different levels of water, applied nitrogen and irrigation methods on yield, yield components and IWUE of onion. Scientia Horticulturae, 268, 109361.
  37. Qadir, M., Noble, A.D., Qureshi, A.S., Gupta, R.K., Yuldashev, T., and Karimov, A. 2009. Salt-induced land and water degradation in the Aral Sea basin: a challenge to sustainable agriculture in Central Asia. Natural Resources Forum, 33: 134-149.
  38. Qureshi, A.S., McCornick, P.G., Qadir, M., and Aslam, Z. 2008. Managing salinity andwaterlogging in the Indus Basin of Pakistan. Agricultural Water Management, 95: 1-10.
  39. Rangzan, N. 2018. Changes in water quality of Karun River in a forty-year period from headstream to Mallasani (research project, final report). Agricultural sciences and natural resources university oh Khuzestan.

40. Richards, L.A. 1954. Diagnosis and improvement of saline and alkali soils. In: USDA (Ed.), Agriculture Handbook. USDA, Washington, DC, USA.

  1. Ritter, W. F. 1980. Nitrate leaching under irrigation in the US: a review. Journal of Environmental Health, 24: 349-378.
  2. Sampathkumar, T., Pandian, B.J., Rangaswamy, M.V., Manickasundaram, P., and Jeyakumar, P. 2013. Influence of deficit irrigation on growth, yield and yield parameters of cotton–maize cropping sequence. Agricultural Water Management, 130: 90-102.
  3. Sarker, K.K., Hossain, A., Timsina, J., Biswasa, S.K., Malone, S.L., Alame, M.K., Loescher, H.W., and Bazzaz, M. 2020. 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. Agricultural Water Management, 238: 106-229.
  4. Sharma, B.R., and Minhas, P.S. 2005. Strategies for managing saline/alkali waters for sustainable agricultural production in South Asia. Agricultural Water Management, 78 (1-2): 136-151.
  5. Sheini, D.A., Jafari, S., Baniabbasi, N., and Maleki, A. 2006. The effect of alternate furrow irrigation on quantitative and qualitative characteristics of sugarcane. National Conference on Irrigation and Drainage Networks Management. Ahwaz. Iran. (In Persian)
  6. Turner, N.C. 1990. Plant water relations and irrigation management. Agricultural Water Management, 17: 59-73.
  7. United State Department of Agriculture. Methods for soil characterization, Saline and Alkali soils. Agriculture, Chapter 6, Hand book 60.
  8. Wakrim, R., Wahbi, S., Tahi, H., Aganchich, B., and Serraj, R. 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.
  9. Wang, Y. and Zhang, Y. 2010. Soil-phosphorus distribution and availability as affected by greenhouse subsurface irrigation. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science, 173(3): 345-352.
  10. Wang, Z., Kang, S., Jensen, C.R., and Liu, F. 2012. Alternate partial root-zone irrigation reduces bundle-sheath cell leakage to CO2 and enhances photosynthetic capacity in maize leaves. Journal of Experimental Botany, 63: 1145-
  11. Webber, H.A., Madramootoo, C.A., Bourgault, M., Horst, M.G., Stulina, G., and Smith, D.L. 2006. Water use efficiency of common bean and green gram grown using alternate furrow and deficit irrigation. Agricultural Water Management, 86:259-268.
  12. Yang, C.H., Chai, Q., Huang, G.B. 2010. Root distribution and yield responses of wheat/maize intercropping to alternate irrigation in the arid areas of northwest China. Plant, Soil and Environment, 56 (6): 253-262.
مهندسی زراعی
دوره 45، شماره 1
خرداد 1401
صفحه 97-116
فایل ها
هم رسانی
ارجاع به این مقاله
آمار