Next Article in Journal
Effects of Wave Height, Period and Sea Level on Barred Beach Profile Evolution: Revisiting the Roller Slope in a Beach Morphodynamic Model
Next Article in Special Issue
Analysis of the Dynamics and Characteristics of Rice Stem Tillers via Water Level Management
Previous Article in Journal
Wave Effects on the Initial Dilution of Untreated Wastewater Discharge for Santa Marta’s Submarine Outfall (Colombia)
Previous Article in Special Issue
A Review of HYDRUS 2D/3D Applications for Simulations of Water Dynamics, Root Uptake and Solute Transport in Tree Crops under Drip Irrigation
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Integrated Effects of Water Stress and Plastic Film Mulch on Yield and Water Use Efficiency of Grain Maize Crop under Conventional and Alternate Furrow Irrigation Method

1
School of Transportation Engineering, Yangzhou Polytechnic Institute, Yangzhou 225127, China
2
Faculty of Agricultural Engineering, Sindh Agricultural University, Tandojam 70060, Pakistan
3
Institute of Environment and Sustainable Development in Agriculture, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing 100081, China
4
College of Optical, Mechanical and Electrical Engineering, Zhejiang Agriculture and Forestry University, Hangzhou 311300, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Water 2023, 15(5), 924; https://doi.org/10.3390/w15050924
Submission received: 1 February 2023 / Revised: 21 February 2023 / Accepted: 22 February 2023 / Published: 27 February 2023

Abstract

:
Water scarcity in arid regions increases the need for technologies to improve water productivity. The integrated effects of plastic film mulching and water stress on grain maize under conventional and alternate furrow irrigation methods are still poorly understood in Sindh’s climate. Therefore, field trials were conducted at Malir farm, Sindh Agriculture University Tandojam, Pakistan, during the cropping season 2020–2021 to investigate whether mulching is practicable for grain maize production under the different furrow irrigation methods. The experiments involved two types of furrow irrigation, two water stress levels (sufficient and severe water stress), and plastic film mulching. Treatments were laid out in a randomized block design and three replications. The conventional and alternate furrow irrigation method was assigned to the main plot, while the water stress and plastic film mulching were in sub-plots. The results showed that different furrow irrigation methods significantly affected plant growth, grain yield parameters, and crop harvest index. Significant highest plant growth and grain yield of maize crop were observed with the conventional furrow irrigation (CFI) compared with the alternate furrow irrigation (AFI) method. However, grain yield and irrigation water productivity (IWP) were increased significantly by the plastic film mulching. The results revealed that sufficient water stress was more effective in sustaining grain yield and IWP than crop irrigating at several water stresses. The interaction effect of furrow irrigation and water stress, furrow irrigation, and plastic film mulching significantly impacted the IWP of grain maize. The IWP of the maize crop was significantly higher under the AFI than the CFI method if it was mulched with plastic film and irrigated at sufficient water stress level.

1. Introduction

In arid and semi-arid regions, where soil moisture stress is the main challenge for crop production, and the temporal model exacerbates the spatial hassle. Therefore, design or irrigation methods do not address the situations of soil moisture availability for crops, and competition schemes do not address sectors. Hence, it becomes critical to increase food production. Agricultural production depends on the availability of freshwater resources. Therefore, it compels the urgent manipulation of the available freshwater resources in any respect [1,2,3,4]. Farmers usually prefer conventional surface irrigation methods for grain maize cultivation in Sindh County. These irrigation water applications are responsible for considerable wastage of freshwater resources and reduced crop yields. Moreover, micro-irrigation methods have been avoided by formers because they require a colossal cost of installation and maintenance. It is evident that farmers, mainly smallholders, will need to discover ways to boost their agricultural production on the limited land and water available through technology and management practices.
Maize is regarded as an internationally prime commodity driving world agriculture. It has great importance in Pakistan because the rapidly growing population already fears the low availability of food. Grain maize can be used as the primary food, mostly in rural areas [5,6]. It contributes 2.2% to the value added in agriculture and 0.4% to the GDP [7]. Moreover, grain maize is a high delta crop and can achieve maximum crop yields if water and nutrients are provided [8]. It is also very sensitive to water stress. According to researchers, plants are at the seed filling stage when water stress and nutrient deficiencies can reduce the grain yields [9,10,11].
The plastic film mulching practice is the most improved technique that enhances soil fertility and makes conditions more favorable for plant growth [12,13,14]. Mulching is one management method that can conserve water by preventing surface evaporation, controlling weeds, regulating soil surface temperature, improving overall soil quality by increasing soil organic matter, stimulating soil activity, increasing nutrient availability, and increasing crop production [15,16,17]. However, plastic film mulches have been effectively utilized to progress neglected productivity and increase the sum of put away soil water accessible for plant utilization. The surface film mulching favorably affects the soil dampness administration by controlling evaporation from the soil surface. Plastic film mulching affects semi-arid agriculture, such as soil temperature, crop productivity, soil water status, and soil nutrients. Through many previous studies, the physiological mechanisms involved are well known. On the other hand, many researchers have used fixed and alternate furrow irrigation (AFI) methods, and they found that both methods resulted in improved WUE and reduced evaporation compared to the conventional furrow irrigation (CFI) method [18,19,20]. Similarly, they have reported that the production of field crops is negatively impacted by water scarcity when using plastic-film mulching techniques. It has good potential to increase soil moisture retention under water-limited conditions [21]. Likewise, plastic film mulching is an economical and effective management method for controlling soil moisture in the crop’s root zone.
Alternate furrow irrigation is the same as the conventional method in planting, consisting of irrigation every other furrow (irrigation odd and even furrows alternately). Irrigation water, whether in every furrow or only in alternate furrows, showed no effect on grain maize plant development, growth, or grain yield [22,23]. Similarly, the authors of [23,24,25] reported significantly higher water use efficiency (WUE) of grain maize under AFI, followed by the CFI method. According to the literature, under AFI, total irrigation water used was roughly half of the irrigation water applied under conventional practices [26]. However, the considerable reduction in applied water due to the alternate furrow irrigation at eight 14 days’ irrigation intervals and water saving were approximately 10% and 32%, respectively, comparable to the conventional furrow irrigation method [27]. Based on the above facts and figures, the present research experiments were carried out on the integrating effect of different water stress levels and plastic film mulching on plant growth, grain yield, and WUE of grain maize under conventional and alternate furrow irrigation.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

The field experiments were conducted at Malir farm, Sindh Agriculture University Tandojam, Pakistan, during the cropping season 2020–2021 to evaluate the integrated effect of different mulching practices and water stress on different furrow irrigation practices for a grain maize crop. It is located between 25,024′59.35″ N and longitude 61,031′41.37″ E and has an elevation of about 23 m above Mean Sea Level (MSL). It was noted in the figures obtained that the highest ETo was observed in the month of May. The minimum and maximum air temperatures, rainfall (mm), ETo (mm), and relative humidity are shown in Figure 1. The experimental soil was classified as silty clay loam and silty clay (the detailed soil textural classes measured by hydrometer method are presented in Table 1). The pH of the soil was 7.38, soil electrical conductivity (EC1:5) of 0.23 dS m−1, soil bulk density of 1.45 g cm−1, soil porosity of 47.12%, initial soil moisture contents of 21.91%, soil water-holding capacity of 288 mm m−1 up to 1–160 cm depth, and average data are also summarized in Table 1.

2.2. Treatment and Experimental Setup

The experimental design was based on a complete, randomized block design including two types of irrigation modes, two water stress levels, and a plastic film mulching practice. A total of eight (8) combined treatments were arranged along with three replications, and the experimental setup is presented in Table 2. During the experiment, a total of twenty-four sub-plots with a mean field size of 3 by 4 m were prepared.

2.3. Land Preparation, Crop Variety, Planting Method, Fertilizers Doses

The study area was ploughed thoroughly by moldboard plow and disc harrow, and leveled with a leveler. The furrows and ridges were constructed manually using spades. The 30y87 of a pioneer variety of grain maize crops was used. The seeds were sown at a row spacing of 0.55 cm and plant-to-plant spacing of 20 cm. However, all the fertilizer doses were applied as per the manufacturer’s recommendations.

2.4. Irrigation Water Depth and Quality

The irrigation water was applied at 50 and 80% soil moisture depletion of field capacity according to the designated water stress levels under all experimental treatment plots. In order to determine the irrigation depth and frequency for grain maize, it was computed by the CROPWAT model. CROPWAT version 8.0 software runs with the average climatic data for the last 30 years. The depth of irrigation water to crop was measured using a cutthroat flume. The required depth of irrigation water under all replicates plot was calculated by empirical equation and the equation given by Soothar [28] and Tagar [29]. However, the irrigation water was received from an irrigation channel with an ECW of 0.35 dS m−1 and a pH of 7.8.
In this study, the gross irrigation water applied under the different treatments is shown in Figure 2. Irrigation water use under the CFI method was significantly higher than the AFI method as shown in Table 3. It amounted to 6633 m3 ha−1 per season in the conventional furrow irrigation method, higher than the alternate furrow irrigation method (3133 m3 ha−1 per season). In the water-stress treatment plots, the grain maize plants used 5200 m3 ha−1 more irrigation water compared to the alternate furrow irrigation plots, which consumed 4700 m3 ha−1 per season. Moreover, the data showed that the number of irrigation events (18) and net irrigation (297 mm) were the same as both plastic film mulching and non-mulching treatments.

2.5. Sampling, Measurements, and Analysis

Before and after the experiment, the soil samples were collected from up to 100 cm soil layers at 20 cm intervals and collected after harvesting from each replicate plot. Soil moisture contents (SMCs) were calculated by the gravimetric method. The climatic data were collected from the nearest Agro-meteorological station, including average relative humidity, rainfall, sunshine, wind speed, and temperature per day. During this designed study period, the experimental site was visited biweekly, and five plants per replication were selected and labeled. The plant height, leaf area, and leaves per plant were determined regularly at different days after sowing [6,30,31]. All the selected plants were harvested and divided into biomass and grain yields at physiological maturity. The stem girth, 1000 grains weight, grain yield, biomass, and crop harvest index of the maize crop was determined [14]. The dry biomass was measured after oven drying at 70 °C to the constant weight of harvested plants. The crop harvest index was determined through the grain yield divided by the plant’s biomass. Irrigation water productivity was calculated by grain yield divided by the water consumed during crop period [4].

2.6. Statistical Analysis

The field-collected data were statistically analyzed using ANOVA (analysis of variance) techniques following a randomized complete block design with three replicated plot arrangements under field trials. The correlations and statistical analysis were performed in term of stem girth, seed Index (1000-grain weight), cob length, grain yield (t ha−1), biomass (t ha−1), crop harvest index, water use (m3 ha−1), and irrigation water productivity using an Excel spreadsheet and SPSS package (SPSS version 20.0, SPSS Inc. IM corporation, New York, NY, USA).

2.7. Economic Benefits

To compute the economic benefits, the plastic film mulching, and labor charges were apparent differences in the input cost of the different treatments. In this study, the calculated parameters were total input value by additions of labor charge, mulching cost, water charges, and seed and fertilizer costs.

3. Results

3.1. Plant Growth Parameters

3.1.1. Plant Height

The plant height of the grain maize was significantly affected among the treatments throughout the cropping season (Figure 3 and Table 4). Under the water stress and mulching treatments, the conventional furrow irrigation (CFI) method still had a significantly greater plant height than the alternate furrow irrigation (AFI) method. Within the water stress levels, the highest plant height was noted in the sufficient (80%) water stress condition compared to the severe water stress condition under the same irrigation method. Across irrigation methods, the alternate furrow irrigation-treated plants showed a significantly lower plant height. However, the plant height of grain maize was significantly affected by different furrow irrigation methods with plastic mulching and water stress levels at different growth stages. Overall, the data show that the plant height was significantly affected among the treatments from 15 to 140 DAS.

3.1.2. Numbers of Leaves per Plant

Analysis of variance revealed that the CFI and AFI methods with plastic mulching and different irrigation water stress levels significantly influenced the number of grain maize leaves throughout the cropping season (Table 4 and Figure 4). Results indicate that the maximum number of leaves was recorded from non-mulching at the sufficient (80%) water stress level in the CFI at 85 DAS, followed by the AFI method. In contrast, the maximum number of leaves was observed from plastic film mulching at sufficient (80%) water stress in the CFI, followed by the number of leaves recorded under the AFI method. However, the effect of different furrow irrigation methods with plastic film mulching at severe (50%) water stress significantly influences the number of leaves.

3.1.3. Leaf Area per Plant

Under water stress and plastic film mulching treatments, the CFI method still had a non-significantly affected leaf area compared with the AFI method. Within the water stress levels, the higher leaf area of grain maize was noted in the sufficient water level compared to the severe water stress levels under the same irrigation method (Figure 4). Across the irrigation methods, the alternate irrigation-treated plants showed lower leaf area. However, the leaf area was significantly affected by plastic film mulching and water stress levels at different growth stages (Table 4).

3.1.4. Stem Girth

The stem girth of grain maize was significantly affected by furrow irrigation methods and water stresses and was non-significantly different among the plastic film mulching practice, as shown in Table 5. The result clearly shows that the higher stem girth was found under the CFI method; the maximum average stem girth of the maize plant recorded was 3.46 cm compared to the AFI method. Irrigation water at sufficient (80%) and severe (50%) levels, the stem girth significantly decreased from 3.54 cm to 3.03 cm, respectively. A significant difference (p-value 0.001) was recorded in stem girth under water stress levels. Moreover, the stem girth of the maize crop was not significantly affected by the plastic film mulching and non-mulching practices. In addition, the factors’ interaction of irrigation methods × water stress, irrigation methods × mulching practice, water stress × mulching practice, and irrigation methods × water stress × mulching practice was non-significant at the p level of 0.05.

3.1.5. Cob Length

Conventional and alternate furrow irrigation methods significantly affected the average cob length of grain maize and was non-significantly different among the water stress and plastic film mulching practice, as shown in Table 5. The results clearly showed that more cobs length recorded under the CFI treatment; the highest average cob length observed was 19.01 cm compared to the AFI method. In addition, the factor interaction of irrigation methods × water stress, irrigation methods × mulching practice, water stress × mulching practice, and irrigation methods × water stress × mulching practice were non-significant at the p level of 0.05.

3.2. Yield Components of Grain Maize

3.2.1. 1000-Grains Weight

Average 1000-grain weights of maize crop were significantly affected by different factors (irrigation methods, water stress, and mulching practice), as shown in Table 5. The experimental results show that the maximum 1000-grains weight was observed under the CFI method; the average 1000-grains weights recorded was 246 gm compared to the AFI method. However, irrigation at sufficient (80%) and severe (50%) water stress levels, significantly decreased the average 1000-grain weights of grain maize to 238 gm to 208 gm, respectively. Moreover, the 1000-grain weights of maize crops were significantly affected among the mulching and non-mulching practices. The maximum 1000-grain weight were recorded under plastic film mulching compared to the non-mulching practice. In addition, the factor interaction of water stress × plastic film mulching practice was found significant at the p level of 0.05.

3.2.2. Grain Yield

The yield of grain maize was significantly affected by the different treatment factors (irrigation methods, water stress, and plastic film mulching practice), as shown in Table 5. The result clearly shows that the maximum grain yield (19.92 t hac−1) was recorded under the CFI; the average grain yield recorded was 19.92 t ha−1 compared to the AFI treatment. Irrigation at sufficient (80%) and severe (50%) water stress levels significantly decreased the average grain yield of grain maize to 16.99 and 13.82 tha−1, respectively. Moreover, the non-mulching and plastic film mulching practices significantly increased grain yield to 14.23 and 16.58 tha−1, respectively. In addition, the factor interaction of irrigation methods × water stress was found significant at the p-level of 0.05. Moreover, the interaction of irrigation methods × mulching practice, water stress × mulching practice, and irrigation methods × water stress × mulching practice were non-significant at the p level of 0.05.

3.2.3. Biomass

The dry biomass of grain maize at the harvesting stage was significantly affected by the three different factors; data are present in Table 6. The results clearly show that the maximum dry biomass of grain maize was recorded under the CFI compared to the AFI method. A significant difference (p-value 0.01) was recorded in the dry biomass under furrow irrigation. The sufficient (80%) and severe (50%) water stress levels significantly affected the dry biomass of maize crops. The non-mulching and plastic film mulching practices significantly increased dry biomass to 5.47 and 6.00 t ha−1, respectively. In addition, the factors’ interaction of irrigation methods × water stress and water stress × plastic film mulching was found significant at the p of 0.05. In addition, the interaction of irrigation methods × mulching practice and irrigation methods × water stress × mulching practice were non-significant at the p level of 0.05.

3.3. Crop Harvest Index and Irrigation Water Productivity

3.3.1. Crop Harvest Index (CHI)

The crop harvest index at the harvesting stage was significantly affected by furrow irrigation methods, irrigation water stress, and plastic film mulching practice, as shown in Table 6. The results clearly show that the highest CHI was found with the CFI compared to the AFI method. A significant difference (p-value 0.001) was recorded in CHI under irrigation. Irrigation at sufficient (80%) and severe (50%) water stress significantly decreased the average stem girth of grain maize to 2.75 and 2.49, respectively. A significant difference (p-value 0.01) was recorded in CHI under the sufficient (80%) and severe (50%) water stress/levels.
Moreover, the non-mulching and plastic film mulching practices significantly increased CHI to 2.52 and 21.71, respectively. In addition, the factor interaction of irrigation methods × water stress was found significant at the p-level of 0.001. In addition, factor interaction of irrigation methods × mulching practice, water stress × mulching practice, and irrigation methods × water stress × mulching practice were non-significant at the p level of 0.05.

3.3.2. Irrigation Water Productivity

Irrigation water productivity (IWP) of grain maize was significantly affected by furrow irrigation methods, irrigation water stress, and mulching practice, as shown in Table 6. The results clearly show that the maximum IWP was found with the AFI method compared to the conventional furrow irrigation (CFI) method. However, a significant difference (p-value 0.001) was recorded in IWP under the water stress and mulching practice. Irrigation at sufficient (80%) and severe (50%) water stress significantly decreased the average IWP of grain maize to 3.38 and 2.91, respectively. Moreover, the non-mulching and plastic film mulching practices significantly increased IWP to 2.87 and 3.42, respectively. In addition, the factor interaction of irrigation methods × water stress and irrigation method × mulching practice was found significant at the p level of 0.001 and 0.05, respectively. The factor interaction of water stress × mulching practice and irrigation methods × water stress × mulching practice were non-significant at the p level of 0.05.

3.4. Correlation Analysis between Different Parameters of Grain Maize

The correlations between plant growth and yield parameters of the grain maize was highly significantly associated with all parameters analyzed except water use and IWP under different treatments, (Table 7). The data revealed that the stem girth was positively significantly correlated with seed index, cob length, grain yield, dry biomass, CHI, and water use. Similarly, the 1000-grain weight was positively significantly correlated with cob length, grain yield, dry biomass, CHI, and water use. However, the data indicated that the cob length was significantly positively corrected with crop yield, dry biomass, and water use. The grain yield was highly and significantly correlated with dry biomass, CHI, water use, and irrigation water productivity (Table 7). Moreover, the results showed that the dry biomass positively correlated with CHI and water use. In addition, experimental results indicated that CHI positively correlated with water use and irrigation water productivity.

3.5. Economic Benefits

Total input cost under different treatments plots during the experimental period is presented in Table 8. In all treatments, input cost followed the order T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, T6, T7, and T8. The maximum net income of USD 4240 ha−1 was found under T1, and the minimum net income of USD 1298 ha−1 was found under T7 as compared to T3 (conventional furrow irrigation method + severe water stress + non-mulching practice).

4. Discussion

The water scarcity in arid and semi-arid regions increases the need for technologies to improve irrigation water productivity. Integrated effects of plastic film mulching and water stress for grain maize cultivation under different furrow irrigation practices are still poorly understood in Sindh’s climate. The conventional and alternate furrow irrigation with plastic film mulching and water stress levels significantly affected the different plant growth parameters of grain maize. The results showed that the maximum plant height, number of leaves, and leaf area per plant of grain maize were recorded under non-mulching at sufficient (80%) water stress treatment in the conventional as compared to the alternate furrow irrigation (AFI) method. Similarly, in the case of plastic film mulching, the maximum plant growth was observed for the CFI with plastic film mulching at sufficient (80%) water stress as compared with the AFI method.
Moreover, under water stress conditions, the highest plant growth of grain maize was observed from severe (50%) water stress in non-mulching conditions with CFI compared to the AFI. At the same time, the plant growth was significantly higher in plastic film mulching with severe (50%) water stress level with CFI compared to the AFI method. The plastic film mulching practice improved soil hydrothermal conditions and greatly accelerated. The experimental results were similar to those of [32,33,34], who reported that the CFI provided better yield components and plant height than the AFI method.
It was also reported that the different mulching conditions had a substantial impact on the plant growth parameters of the grain maize [14]. This might be attributed to the greater SMCs in the root zone under CFI methods, leading to optimal growth conditions. The CFI and AFI of water management practices significantly affected the grain yield components of grain maize. The maximum 1000-grain weight was significantly t of the CFI method compared to the AFI method. The conventional furrow irrigation treated plant yielded; the maximum grain yield at 5.7 t ha−1 is followed by AFI method [25].
Similarly, Makino [35] suggested that 90% plant biomass is found in photosynthetic products, in which irrigation water is the primary source. A similar result was also published by the authors of [34] that showed an increase in the surface grain and the biomass yield in maize using CFI with 100% water requirements rather than in alternate and fixed furrow irrigation. According to Shamsi [36], soil water contents reduced the plant biomass, and the authors of [37] also found the same results. The maize biomass improved by 73.5% with the plastic film mulching compared to non-mulching practices [38]. The conventional furrow-irrigated plants could be used to maximize grain yield in the absence of water stress [24].
Similarly, many other researchers have reported similar results [10,39]. The application of plastic film mulch demonstrated that transpiration [40] and the evaporation rate from soil [41] decreased, and maize yield increased. In addition, the crop harvest index and water use efficiency were significantly affected. Water use efficiency is a crucial term in assessing different irrigation strategies. In the literature, the different forms of mulching highly significantly influenced the irrigation water productivity of maize crops [42,43]. Grain yield reductions in the alternate furrow irrigation method were non-significant, unlike the fixed furrow irrigation method [32]. It was hypothesized that the water use efficiency of various crops, including maize, can be increased by plastic film mulching to retain soil moisture for proper plant growth. Maintaining soil water contents in the root zone because of mulching can improve transpiration and nutrient absorption and transport in the platform body with the limited water presented [44]. Nigusie and Abebe [45,46] found that alternate furrow irrigation improves water productivity compared to conventional furrow irrigation treated in different field crops. The total volume of irrigation water used in the alternate furrow irrigation was about half that in the conventional furrow irrigation [26]. However, with a significant reduction in water used under the alternate furrow irrigation, the treated okra crop slightly declined (7.3%). The significantly higher water productivity under the alternate furrow irrigation is almost double compared to conventional furrow-treated plants. The water use efficiency positively correlated with the grain yield and crop harvest index [36]. Previous research studies alternate furrow irrigation-treated plant results in high water use efficiency. However, this is not an all-time circumstance and water use efficiency (WUE) may vary due to factors such as crop types, water stress, and mulching conditions in which moisture stress occurs. Some related studies have reported that plastic film mulching can significantly improve the WUE [47,48,49]. Similar findings align with those of Liu [50] and Montazar and Kosari [44], who revealed that the WUE of different crops, including maize, could be increased through mulching techniques to conserve moisture in the soil for proper utilization by the plant. Our observation is also in line with Liakatas [51], who concluded that the black plastic film mulching absorbed more sunlight, reduced weed growth, decreased soil water loss, and conserved moisture in the field, resulting in an increase in yield and WUE. Moreover, Xu [39] reported that the WUE of grain maize crop under plastic film mulching increased by 16% compared to the control treatment. However, the overall evapotranspiration was similar between the two treatments. Soil mulching with plastic film minimizes water loss, conserves soil moisture, and increases the regulation of the soil temperature [52,53].

5. Conclusions

From the present study, grain yield and irrigation water productivity of maize crops can be increased significantly by the plastic film mulching practice. Conventional furrow irrigation practice with mulching and non-mulching plots resulted in higher crop water use, by way of increased evapotranspiration losses, compared to the alternate furrow irrigation method. Our results showed that sufficient water stress was more effective in sustaining crop yield and irrigation water productivity use efficiency than crop irrigating at several water stresses. In case the alternate furrow irrigation method is adapted for grain maize production, the irrigation water productivity of maize can be increased if the entire irrigated field is mulched with plastic film and the irrigation performed at sufficient water stress. The maximum net income was found in the non-mulching practice with sufficient water stress under CFI compared to the AFI method.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, X.Y., R.K.S., and A.A.R.; methodology, R.K.S. and M.U.M.; software, S.A.S. (Sher Ali Shaikh); validation, B.L., S.A.S. (Shoukat Ali Soomro), and Y.W.; investigation, F.A.C.; writing—original draft preparation, R.K.S. and X.Y.; writing—review and editing, M.U.M., B.L., and S.A.S. (Sher Ali Shaikh); funding acquisition, X.Y. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China: Evolution Mechanism of Lignin Decomposition and Humic Acid Production of Steam Exploded Crop Straw by Multiple Bacteria 31801317 and the Natural Science Foundation of Zhejiang Province: The Mechanism of APSE Promoting the Evolution of True Protein in Rice Straw Solid-state Fermentation LQ17C130001.

Data Availability Statement

Data will be available on request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Tariq, J.A.; Usman, K. Regulated Deficit Irrigation Scheduling of Maize Crop. Sarhad J. Agric. 2009, 25, 441–450. [Google Scholar]
  2. Berihun, B. Effect of Mulching and Amount of Water on the Yield of Tomato under Drip Irrigation. J. Hortic. For. 2011, 3, 200–206. [Google Scholar]
  3. Soothar, R.K.; Zhang, W.; Liu, B.; Tankari, M.; Wang, C.; Li, L.; Xing, H.; Gong, D.; Wang, Y. Sustaining Yield of Winter Wheat under Alternate Irrigation Using Saline Water at Different Growth Stages: A Case Study in the North China Plain. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Soothar, R.K.; Zhang, W.; Zhang, Y.; Tankari, M.; Mirjat, U.; Wang, Y. Evaluating the Performance of SALTMED Model under Alternate Irrigation Using Saline and Fresh Water Strategies to Winter Wheat in the North China Plain. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2019, 26, 34499–34509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Arif, M.; Jan, M.T.; Khan, M.J.; Saeed, M.; Munir, I.; Din, Z.; Khan, M.Z. Effect of Cropping System and Residue Management on Maize. Pak. J. Botony 2011, 43, 915–920. [Google Scholar]
  6. Kori, S.; Soothar, C.; Qureshi, A.; Ashrafani, S. Effect of Different Irrigation Methods on Water Use Efficiency and Yield of Maize Crop. Pak. J. Agric. Agric. Eng. Vet. Sci. 2017, 33, 54–65. [Google Scholar]
  7. Agricultural Statistics of Pakistan. GOP Economic Survey of Pakistan 2014–2015; Ministry of Food Agriculture and Livestock Division: Islamabad, Pakistan, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  8. Nasri, M.; Khalatbari, M.; Farahani, H.A. The Effect of Alternate Furrow Irrigation under Different Nutritional Element Supplies on Some Agronomic Traits and Seed Qualitative Parameters in Corn (Zea Mays L.). J. Cereals Oilseeds 2010, 1, 17–23. [Google Scholar]
  9. Lauer, J. What Happens within the Corn Plant When Drought Occurs. Corn Agron. 2003, 10, 153–155. [Google Scholar]
  10. Yaseen, R.; Shafi, J.; Ahmad, W.; Shoaib, M.; Qaisrani, S.A. Effect of Deficit Irrigation and Mulch on Soil Physical Properties, Growth and Yield of Maize. Environ. Ecol. Res. 2014, 2, 122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Tankari, M.; Wang, C.; Ma, H.; Li, X.; Li, L.; Soothar, R.K.; Cui, N.; Zaman-Allah, M.; Hao, W.; Liu, F.; et al. Drought Priming Improved Water Status, Photosynthesis and Water Productivity of Cowpea during Post-Anthesis Drought Stress. Agric. Water Manag. 2021, 245, 106565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Chakraborty, D.; Nagarajan, S.; Aggarwal, P.; Gupta, V.K.; Tomar, R.K.; Garg, R.N.; Sahoo, R.N.; Sarkar, A.; Chopra, U.K.; Sarma, K.S. Effect of Mulching on Soil and Plant Water Status, and the Growth and Yield of Wheat (Triticum Aestivum L.) in a Semi-Arid Environment. Agric. Water Manag. 2008, 95, 1323–1334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Memon, M.S.; Siyal, A.A.; Ji, C.; Tagar, A.A.; Shamim, A.; Soomro, S.A.; Khadimullah; Fahim, U.; Noreena, M. Effect of Irrigation Methods and Plastic Mulch on Yield and Crop Water Productivity of Okra. J. Basic Appl. Sci. 2017, 13, 616–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Thidar, M.; Gong, D.; Mei, X.; Gao, L.; Li, H.; Hao, W.; Gu, F. Mulching Improved Soil Water, Root Distribution and Yield of Maize in the Loess Plateau of Northwest China. Agric. Water Manag. 2020, 241, 106340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Zhou, Q.; Shen, H.H.; Helenbrook, B.T.; Zhang, H. Scale Dependence of Direct Shear Tests. Chin. Sci. Bull. 2009, 54, 4337–4348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Patil, S.S.; Kelkar, T.S.; Bhalerao, S.A. Mulching: A Soil and Water Conservation Practice. Res. J. Agric. For. Sci. 2013, 1, 26–29. [Google Scholar]
  17. Shaikh, S.A.; Yaoming, L.; Chandio, F.A.; Tunio, M.H.; Ahmad, F.; Mari, I.A.; Solangi, K.A. Effect of Wheat Residue Incorporation with Tillage Management on Physico-Chemical Properties of Soil and Sustainability of Maize Production. Fresenius Environ. Bull. 2020, 29, 10. [Google Scholar]
  18. Li, F.; Liang, J.; Kang, S.; Zhang, J. Benefits of Alternate Partial Root-Zone Irrigation on Growth, Water and Nitrogen Use Efficiencies Modified by Fertilization and Soil Water Status in Maize. Plant Soil 2007, 295, 279–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Javed, A.; Iqbal, M.; Farooq, M.; Lal, R.; Shehzadi, R. Plastic Film and Straw Mulch Effects on Maize Yield and Water Use Efficiency under Different Irrigation Levels in Punjab, Pakistan. Int. J. Agric. Biol. 2019, 21, 767–774. [Google Scholar]
  20. El-Halim, A. Impact of Alternate Furrow Irrigation with Different Irrigation Intervals on Yield, Water Use Efficiency, and Economic Return of Corn. Chil. J. Ofagricultural Res. 2013, 73, 175–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Jabran, K.; Ullah, E.; Hussain, M.; Farooq, M.; Zaman, U.; Yaseen, M.; Chauhan, B.S. Mulching Improves Water Productivity, Yield and Quality of Fine Rice under Water-Saving Rice Production Systems. J. Agron. Crop Sci. 2015, 201, 389–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Eldoma, I.M.; Li, M.; Zhang, F.; Li, F.-M. Alternate or Equal Ridge–Furrow Pattern: Which Is Better for Maize Production in the Rain-Fed Semi-Arid Loess Plateau of China? Field Crops Res. 2016, 191, 131–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Tadese Eba, A. The Impact of Alternate Furrow Irrigation on Water Productivity and Yield of Potato at Small Scale Irrigation, Ejere Wereda, West Shoa, Ethiopia. Ph.D. Thesis, Haramaya University, Haramaya, Ethiopia, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  24. Jemal, K.; Berhanu, S. Effect of Water Application Methods in Furrow Irrigation Along with Different Types of Mulches on Yield and Water Productivity of Maize (Zea Mays L.) at Hawassa, Ethiopia. Ph.D. Thesis, Haramaya University, Haramaya, Ethiopia, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  25. Mebrahtu, Y.; Mehamed, A. Effect of Different Type of Mulching and Furrow Irrigation Methods on Maize (Zea Mays L.) Yield and Water Productivity at Raya Valley, Northern Ethiopia. J. Biol. Agric. Healthc. 2019, 9, 6–13. [Google Scholar]
  26. Siyal, A.A.; Mashori, A.S.; Bristow, K.L.; Genuchten, M.V. Alternate Furrow Irrigation Can Radically Improve Water Productivity of Okra. Agric. Water Manag. 2016, 173, 55–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Abdel-Maksoud, H.; Othman, S.A.; El-Tawil, A. Improving Water and N-Use Utilization For Field Crops Via Lternate-Furrow Irrigation Echnique. Maize Crop. J. Soil Sci. Agric. Eng. 2002, 27, 8761–8769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Soothar, R.K.; Wang, C.; Li, L.; Cui, N.; Wang, Y. Soil Salt Accumulation, Physiological Responses, and Yield Simulation of Winter Wheat to Alternate Saline and Fresh Water Irrigation in the North China Plain. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2021, 21, 2072–2082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Tagar, A.; Soomro, A.; Bhatti, S.; Memon, S.; Soothar, R. Comparative Study of Scientific and Traditional Water Application Practices for Wheat Crop. Pak. J. Agric. Agric. Eng. Vet. Sci. 2016, 32, 202–211. [Google Scholar]
  30. Karimi, S.; Tavallali, V.; Rahemi, M.; Rostami, A.A.; Vaezpour, M. Estimation of Leaf Growth on the Basis of Measurements of Leaf Lengths and Widths, Choosing Pistachio Seedlings as Model. Aust. J. Basic Appl. Sci. 2009, 3, 1070–1075. [Google Scholar]
  31. Bréda, N.J. Ground-Based Measurements of Leaf Area Index: A Review of Methods, Instruments and Current Controversies. J. Exp. Bot. 2003, 54, 2403–2417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  32. Meskelu, E.; Tesfaye, H.; Debebe, A.; Mohammed, M. Integrated Effect of Mulching and Furrow Methods on Maize Yield and Water Productivity at Koka, Ethiopia. Irrig. Drain. Syst. Eng. 2018, 7, 2. [Google Scholar]
  33. Furgassa, Z.S. The Effect of Deficit Irrigation on Maize Crop Under Conventional Furrow Irrigation in Adami Tulu Central Rift Valley of Ethiopia. Appl. Eng. 2017, 1, 1–12. [Google Scholar]
  34. Narayanan, K.; Seid, M.M. Effect of Deficit Irrigation on Maize under Conventional, Fixed and Alternate Furrow Irrigation Systems at Melkassa, Ethiopia. Int. J. Eng. Res. Technol. (IJERT) 2015, 4, 119–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Makino, A. Photosynthesis, Grain Yield, and Nitrogen Utilization in Rice and Wheat. Plant Physiol. 2011, 155, 125–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Shamsi, K.; Petrosyan, M.; Noormohammadi, G.; Haghparast, R. The Role of Water Deficit Stress and Water Use Efficiency on Bread Wheat Cultivars. J. Appl. Biosci. 2010, 35, 2325–2331. [Google Scholar]
  37. Peng, S.; Liu, W.; Wang, W.; Shao, Q.; Jiao, X.; Yu, Z.; Xing, W.; Xu, J.; Zhang, Z.; Luo, Y. Estimating the Effects of Climatic Variability and Human Activities on Streamflow in the Hutuo River Basin, China. J. Hydrol. Eng. 2013, 18, 422–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Mo, F.; Wang, J.-Y.; Li, F.-M.; Nguluu, S.N.; Ren, H.-X.; Zhou, H.; Zhang, J.; Kariuki, C.W.; Gicheru, P.; Kavagi, L.; et al. Yield-Phenology Relations and Water Use Efficiency of Maize (Zea Mays L.) in Ridge-Furrow Mulching System in Semi-arid East African Plateau. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 3260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  39. Xu, J.; Li, C.; Liu, H.; Zhou, P.; Tao, Z.; Wang, P.; Meng, Q.; Zhao, M. The Effects of Plastic Film Mulching on Maize Growth and Water Use in Dry and Rainy Years in Northeast China. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0125781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Zhou, L.; Li, F.; Jin, S.; Song, Y. How Two Ridges and the Furrow Mulched with Plastic Film Affect Soil Water, Soil Temperature and Yield of Maize on the Semi-arid Loess Plateau of China. Field Crops Res. 2009, 113, 41–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Zribi, W.; Araguees, R.; Medina, E.; Faci, J.M. Efficiency of Inorganic and Organic Mulching Materials for Soil Evaporation Control. Soil Tillage Res. 2015, 148, 40–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Kang, S.; Liang, Z.; Pan, Y.; Shi, P.; Zhang, J. Alternate Furrow Irrigation for Maize Production in an Arid Area. Agric. Water Manag. 2000, 45, 267–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Panigrahi, P. Evaluating Partial Root-Zone Irrigation and Mulching in Okra (Abelmoschus Esculentus L.) under a Sub-Humid Tropical Climate. J. Agric. Rural Dev. Trop. 2011, 112, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  44. Montazar, A.; Kosari, H. Water Productivity Analysis of Some Irrigated Crops in Iran. In Proceedings of the international conference Water Saving in Mediterranean Agriculture and Future Research Needs, Valenzano, Italy, 14–17 February 2007. [Google Scholar]
  45. Sori, N.A.; Hassen, J.M.; Borena, W.T.A.F.R.; Tufa, K.N.; Hailu, E.K. Integrated Effect of Mulching Materials and Furrow Irrigation Methods on Onion (Allium Cepa l.) Yield and Water Use Effeciency at Werer, Middle Awash Valley, Ethiopia. In Proceedings of the Natural Resources Management Research—Completed Research Activities Workshop, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 25–26 November 2019. [Google Scholar]
  46. Abebe, N.; Alemayehu, Y.; Abegaz, F. Effect of Mulching Materials and Furrow Irrigation Techniques on Yield, Water Productivity and Economic Return of Maize (Zea Mays L.) at Werer, Middle Awash Valley, Ethiopia. Int. J. Agric. Biosci. 2020, 9, 156–162. [Google Scholar]
  47. Zhang, D.Q.; Liao, Y.C.; Jia, Z.K. Research Advances and Prospects of Film Mulching in Arid And Semi-Arid Areas. Agric. Res. Arid. Areas 2005, 23, 208–213. [Google Scholar]
  48. Liu, C.A.; Jin, S.L.; Zhou, L.M.; Jia, Y.; Li, F.M.; Xiong, Y.C.; Li, X.G. Effects of Plastic Film Mulch and Tillage on Maize Productivity and Soil Parameters. Eur. J. Agron. 2009, 31, 241–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Yi, L.; Shenjiao, Y.; Shiqing, L.; Xinping, C.; Fang, C. Growth and Development of Maize (Zea mays L.) in Response to Different Field Water Management Practices: Resource Capture and Use Efficiency. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2010, 150, 606–613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Liu, X.J.; Wang, J.C.; Lu, S.H.; Zhang, F.S.; Zeng, X.Z.; Ai, Y.W.; Christie, P. Effects of Non-Flooded Mulching Cultivation on Crop Yield, Nutrient Uptake and Nutrient Balance in Rice–Wheat Cropping Systems. Field Crops Res. 2003, 83, 297–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Liakatas, A.; Clark, J.A.; Monteith, J.L. Measurements of the Heat Balance under Plastic Mulches. Part I. Radiation balance and soil heat flux. Agric. For. Meteorol. 1986, 36, 227–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Fan, M.; Liu, X.; Jiang, R.; Zhang, F.; Lu, S.; Zeng, X.; Christie, P. Crop Yields, Internal Nutrient Efficiency, and Changes in Soil Properties in Rice–Wheat Rotations under Non-Flooded Mulching Cultivation. Plant Soil 2005, 277, 265–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Xu, G.W.; Zhang, Z.C.; Zhang, J.H.; Yang, J.C. Much Improved Water Use Efficiency of Rice Under Non-Flooded Mulching Cultivation. J. Integr. Plant Biol. 2007, 49, 1527–1534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Monthly air temperature (minimum, maximum, and average °C), rainfall (mm), ETo (mm), and relative humidity of experimental site.
Figure 1. Monthly air temperature (minimum, maximum, and average °C), rainfall (mm), ETo (mm), and relative humidity of experimental site.
Water 15 00924 g001
Figure 2. Gross irrigation water used under different irrigation methods (IM), water stress (WS), and mulching practice (MP) throughout the base period during 2020–2021. T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, T6, T7, and T8 indicate the combined factor treatments.
Figure 2. Gross irrigation water used under different irrigation methods (IM), water stress (WS), and mulching practice (MP) throughout the base period during 2020–2021. T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, T6, T7, and T8 indicate the combined factor treatments.
Water 15 00924 g002
Figure 3. Mean plant height of grain maize crop as affected by irrigation methods (IM), water stress (WS), and mulching practice (MP) under conventional furrow irrigation (a) and the alternate furrow irrigation (b) method throughout the growing period during 2020–2021. T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, T6, T7, and T8 indicate the combined factor treatments. The values mean ± SE (n = 3). The error bars are standard errors.
Figure 3. Mean plant height of grain maize crop as affected by irrigation methods (IM), water stress (WS), and mulching practice (MP) under conventional furrow irrigation (a) and the alternate furrow irrigation (b) method throughout the growing period during 2020–2021. T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, T6, T7, and T8 indicate the combined factor treatments. The values mean ± SE (n = 3). The error bars are standard errors.
Water 15 00924 g003
Figure 4. Mean leaves per plant of grain maize crop as affected by irrigation methods (IM), water stress (WS), and mulching practice (MP) under conventional furrow irrigation (a) and the alternate furrow irrigation (b) method throughout the growing period during 2020–2021. T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, T6, T7, and T8 indicate the combined factor treatments, respectively. The values are means ± SE (n = 3). The error bars are standard errors.
Figure 4. Mean leaves per plant of grain maize crop as affected by irrigation methods (IM), water stress (WS), and mulching practice (MP) under conventional furrow irrigation (a) and the alternate furrow irrigation (b) method throughout the growing period during 2020–2021. T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, T6, T7, and T8 indicate the combined factor treatments, respectively. The values are means ± SE (n = 3). The error bars are standard errors.
Water 15 00924 g004
Table 1. The basic properties of initial soil profile up to 0–160 cm depth.
Table 1. The basic properties of initial soil profile up to 0–160 cm depth.
Soil PropertySoil Layer
(cm)
ValuesSoil PropertySoil Layer (cm)Values
Soil texture0–20Silty clay loamSoil moisture content (%)0–2018.84
20–40Silty clay loam20–4019.67
40–60Clay loam40–6020.07
60–80Silty clay loam60–8020.81
80–100Silty clay80–10022.31
100–120Silty clay100–12023.23
120–140Clay loam120–14024.18
140–160Silty clay loam140–16026.18
Dry bulk
density
0–1601.45 g cm−3Water holding capacity0–160288 mm m−1
EC1:50–200.28Soil pH0–207.7
20–400.2020–407.5
40–600.1840–607.5
60–800.2260–807.4
80–1000.3980–1007.0
100–1200.18100–1207.4
120–1400.22120–1407.3
140–1600.20140–1607.3
Table 2. Treatment arrangements and combinations (irrigation method, water stress, and plastic film mulching).
Table 2. Treatment arrangements and combinations (irrigation method, water stress, and plastic film mulching).
Irrigation MethodWater StressPlastic Film PracticeTreatments
Factor—AFactor—BFactor—C
Conventional furrow irrigationSufficientlyNo mulchT1
Plastic film mulchT2
SeverelyNo mulchT3
Plastic film mulchT4
Alternate furrow irrigationSufficientlyNo mulchT5
Plastic film mulchT6
SeverelyNo mulchT7
Plastic film mulchT8
Table 3. Factor effects on irrigation interval, irrigation events, water application, and water use. The data represent means ± SE.
Table 3. Factor effects on irrigation interval, irrigation events, water application, and water use. The data represent means ± SE.
Factor
Levels/Interactions
Irrigation Events
(Number)
Net
Irrigation (mm)
Gross Irrigation
(mm m−1)
Water Applied.(mm)Water Use (m3 ha−1)
Furrow irrigations
Conventional18 ± 1.01396 ± 20.28660.00 ± 33.46660.00 ± 33.466600 ± 337
Alternate 18 ± 1.01198 ± 10.14330.00 ± 17.24330.00 ± 17.243300 ± 169
Water stress
Sufficient19 ± 0.00312 ± 105.47520.00 ± 175.45520.00 ± 175.455200 ± 175
Severe17 ± 0.00282 ± 95.33470.00 ± 159.23470.00 ± 159.234700 ± 1589
Mulching
Non-mulching18 ± 1.01297 ± 101.67495.00 ± 1.69.44495.00 ± 1.69.444950 ± 1694
Plastic film mulching18 ± 1.01297 ± 101.67495.00 ± 1.69.44495.00 ± 1.69.444950 ± 1694
Table 4. ANOVA output for the effect of irrigation methods (IM), water stress (WS), and mulching practice (MP) on mean plant height leaves per plant, and leaf area per plant of grain maize on different days after sowing (DAS).
Table 4. ANOVA output for the effect of irrigation methods (IM), water stress (WS), and mulching practice (MP) on mean plant height leaves per plant, and leaf area per plant of grain maize on different days after sowing (DAS).
Plant Height
FactorDays after Sowing
1530405585140
IM**************
WS******************
MPns*************
IM × WSnsnsns**ns
IM × MP**nsnsnsnsns
WS × MPnsnsnsnsnsns
IM × WS × MP**nsnsnsnsns
Leaves per plant
IM******************
WS******************
MPns*************
IM × WSns*nsnsns***
IM × MPnsnsnsnsns**
WS × MPnsnsnsnsnsns
IM × WS × MP***nsnsnsns
Leaf area per plant
IM*nsnsns***ns
WSns***************
MP******ns****ns
IM × WSnsnsnsns*****
IM × MP***nsnsnsnsns
WS × MPnsnsns*nsns
IM × WS × MPnsnsnsnsns*
Note: *, **, and *** indicate the significant differences among the treatments according to Duncan’s multiple range test at p ≤ 0.05, 0.01, and 0.001 levels, and ns indicate the non-significant differences.
Table 5. Factor effects and interactions of furrow irrigation method, water stress, and plastic mulching on mean stem girth, cob length, 1000 grains weight, and grains yield.
Table 5. Factor effects and interactions of furrow irrigation method, water stress, and plastic mulching on mean stem girth, cob length, 1000 grains weight, and grains yield.
Factor
Levels/Interactions
Stem Girth
(cm)
Cob Length
(cm)
1000-Grains WeightGrain Yield
(tha−1)
Furrow irrigations
Conventional3.46 ± 0.69 a19.01 ± 1.48 a246 ± 32 a19.92 ± 2.73 a
Alternate 3.12 ± 0.53 b18.18 ± 1.21 b199 ± 39 b10.89 ± 2.98 b
Significance********
LSD (at 5%)5.046.6043.4349.9
Water stress
Sufficient3.54 ± 0.53 a18.86 ± 1.24238 ± 35 a16.99 ± 4.80 a
Severe3.03 ± 0.78 b18.33 ± 1.52208 ± 42 b13.82 ± 5.48 b
Significance**Ns******
LSD (at 5%)11.092.6517.3543.30
Mulching
Non-mulching3.15 ± 0.7118.40 ± 1.37211 ± 39 b14.23 ± 5.25 b
Plastic film mulching3.42 ± 0.6918.79 ± 1.44235 ± 42 a16.58 ± 5.29 a
Significancensns*****
LSD (at 5%)3.271.4411.5023.68
Interactions
Furrow irrigation × Water stressnsnsns*
Furrow irrigation × Mulchnsnsnsns
Water stress × Mulchingnsns*ns
Furrow irrigation × Water stress × Mulchingnsnsnsns
Note: The data represent means ± SE. Different lowercase letter in each column shows significant differences according to Duncan’s multiple range test. ns = Not significant, * = Significant at the 0.05 level, ** = Significant at the 0.01% level and *** = Significant at the 0.001% level.
Table 6. Main factor effects and interactions of furrow irrigation method, water stress, and plastic mulching on mean biomass, crop harvest index, and irrigation water productivity.
Table 6. Main factor effects and interactions of furrow irrigation method, water stress, and plastic mulching on mean biomass, crop harvest index, and irrigation water productivity.
Factor
Levels/Interactions
Biomass
(tha−1)
Crop Harvest IndexIrrigation Water
Productivity
Furrow irrigations
Conventional6.37 ± 0.67 a3.12 ± 0.36 a3.02 ± 0.37 b
Alternate 5.10 ± 0.29 b2.12 ± 0.52 b3.27 ± 0.80 a
Significance******
LSD (at 5%)0.40138.85.65
Water stress
Sufficient6.10 ± 0.89 a2.75 ± 0.47 a3.38 ± 0.63 a
Severe5.37 ± 0.54 b2.49 ± 0.81 b2.91 ± 0.54 b
Significance*******
LSD (at 5%)0.209.1318.94
Mulching
Non-mulching5.47 ± 0.73 b2.52 ± 0.68 b2.87 ± 0.51 b
Plastic film mulching6.00 ± 0.83 a2.71 ± 0.65 a3.42 ± 0.63 a
Significance*****
LSD (at 5%)0.865.1326.04
Interactions
Furrow irrigation × Water stress*******
Furrow irrigation × Mulchingnsns*
Water stress × Mulching*nsns
Furrow irrigation × Water stress × Mulchingnsnsns
Note: The data represent means ± SE. Different lowercase letter in each column shows significant differences according to Duncan’s multiple range test. ns = Not significant, * = Significant at the 0.05 level, ** = Significant at the 0.01% level and *** = Significant at the 0.001% level.
Table 7. Correlation analysis between various parameters of maize crop under different irrigation methods, water stress and mulching treatments.
Table 7. Correlation analysis between various parameters of maize crop under different irrigation methods, water stress and mulching treatments.
SGSICLGYBMCHIWUIWP
SI0.249 *1
CL0.263 *0.310 **1
GY0.349 **0.613 **0.303 **1
BM0.443 **0.683 **0.369 **0.847 **1
CHI0.245 *0.509 **0.2270.938 **0.623 **1
WU0.299 *0.596 **0.322 **0.878 **0.850 **0.750 **1
IWP0.1580.1270.0450.307 **0.0590.456 **−0.1621
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed), **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed), SG = Stem girth; SI = Seed Index (1000-grain weight); CL = Cob length; GY = Grain yield (t ha−1); BM = Biomass (t ha−1); CHI = Crop harvest index; WU = water use (m3 ha−1); IWP = Irrigation water productivity.
Table 8. Mean economic benefits (USD ha−1) of maize production under different treatments (furrow irrigation method, water stress, and plastic mulching).
Table 8. Mean economic benefits (USD ha−1) of maize production under different treatments (furrow irrigation method, water stress, and plastic mulching).
Irrigation
Method
Water
Stress
Mulch
Practice
TreatmentsLabor ChargeMulching CostTractor ChangesSeed and Fertilizer CostTotal Input ValueTotal Output ValueOutput/InputNet IncomeNet Income Difference from Control
Factor—AFactor—BFactor—C
Conventional furrow irrigationSufficientNMT140.3073.92299413465411.34240749
PFMT240.344873.9229986149535.84092600
SevereNMT340.3073.9229941339059.434910
PFMT440.344873.9229986146285.43767275
Alternate
furrow irrigation
SufficientNMT540.3073.9229941327266.62312−1179
PFMT640.344873.9229986131703.72308−1183
SevereNMT740.3073.9229941317114.11298−2194
PFMT840.344873.9229986123752.81514−1978
NM = Non-mulching; PFM = Plastic film mulching; TIV = total input value = LC + MMC + SFC; All the price values were according to the local market.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Yang, X.; Soothar, R.K.; Rahu, A.A.; Wang, Y.; Li, B.; Mirjat, M.U.; Soomro, S.A.; Shaikh, S.A.; Chandio, F.A. Integrated Effects of Water Stress and Plastic Film Mulch on Yield and Water Use Efficiency of Grain Maize Crop under Conventional and Alternate Furrow Irrigation Method. Water 2023, 15, 924. https://doi.org/10.3390/w15050924

AMA Style

Yang X, Soothar RK, Rahu AA, Wang Y, Li B, Mirjat MU, Soomro SA, Shaikh SA, Chandio FA. Integrated Effects of Water Stress and Plastic Film Mulch on Yield and Water Use Efficiency of Grain Maize Crop under Conventional and Alternate Furrow Irrigation Method. Water. 2023; 15(5):924. https://doi.org/10.3390/w15050924

Chicago/Turabian Style

Yang, Xiufang, Rajesh Kumar Soothar, Aftab Ahmed Rahu, Yaosheng Wang, Bin Li, Muhammad Uris Mirjat, Shoukat Ali Soomro, Sher Ali Shaikh, and Farman Ali Chandio. 2023. "Integrated Effects of Water Stress and Plastic Film Mulch on Yield and Water Use Efficiency of Grain Maize Crop under Conventional and Alternate Furrow Irrigation Method" Water 15, no. 5: 924. https://doi.org/10.3390/w15050924

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop