Investigating the Effects of Nitrogen Fertilizer and Irrigation Management on Yield and Yield Components of Maize

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4957129/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Investigating the Effects of Nitrogen Fertilizer and Irrigation Management on Yield and Yield Components of Maize

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4957129/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Nitrogen consumption management in the condition of water scarcity is considered as one of the most important factors in improving the maize yield. In order to investigate the effects of drought stress and nitrogen fertilizer on yield and yield, an experiment as split-plot design on completely randomized blocks with three iterations was carried out at Rasht, Iran. The main factor consisted of four irrigation levels and subfactor consisted of four nitrogen levels were considered. Empirical results have proved that in longer irrigation intervals, using more nitrogen had negative effects and caused the decrease in growth (morphological attributes), yield and yield components. The results presented that under 7 days irrigation interval condition with consumption of 240 kg of nitrogen, the highest grain yield and biological yield were obtained. In addition, there were no significant differences in yield and yield components under various treatment of using 180 and 240 kg N/ha or 7–14 days of irrigation intervals. Therefore, in order to reduce costs and use water and nitrogen optimally, utilizing more nitrogen and 7 days irrigation interval must be avoided to achieve the same yield with optimal management.

Nitrogen

Water

Growth

Maize

Management

Maize (Zea mays L.) is considered as the third most important cereal in the world after wheat and rice and has particular importance in agricultural production due to its widespread application in various areas such as human nutrition, livestock, poultry, industry, and pharmacy [1]. Cereal production in the world is projected to reach 3054 Mt in 2029, and maize yield is expected to increase the most (+ 193 Mt) [1]. Agriculture worldwide will need to increase its yields to meet the growing demand also for maize-based products [1]. Maize represents the second most important cereal globally in terms of acreage and the first one for production, predominantly cultivated in the USA and used to feed livestock and humans, in addition to bioethanol [2]. Deficit and unpredictable precipitation and improper nutrients management in arid and semi-arid regions can inhibit crops growth and development and results in lower yield and quality [3]. In China, dry land accounts for 60% of the cultivated area and the deficit and erratic precipitation and frequent droughts in these regions limit crops yield and quality [4]. The application of fertilizers to improve soil fertility and crop production is inevitable in any cultivation or environmental condition [5]. Suitable usage of chemical fertilizers, especially nitrogen (N) fertilizers, appears necessary to achieve the optimal yield as well as decrease environmental risks [6].An alternate technique to save water and increase irrigation water productivity (WPi) and fertilizer nitrogen use efficiency (NUE) comprises a shift to permanent raised beds based conservation agriculture (CA) practices (no-tillage and straw mulching), irrigation scheduling and fertigation [7, 8]. Optimum nitrogen (N) fertilization and irrigation are the main factors affecting crops growth, but the excessive application of water and N will not only waste water resources but also cause great harm to the ecological environment [9]. Drought is one of the most important factors in the production of corn in the world which annually reduces corn average global yield up to 19% that has been reported to be up to 75% in some areas [10]. Drought stress occurs when soil moisture around the root decreases and the plant does not have the ability to absorb water [11]. Investigating the performance of crops with regard to available water resources can play an important role in increasing yield. Soil moisture at planting time and precipitation during the growing season are two factors affecting the maize grain yield in dryland conditions. They observed that in the absence of precipitation during the growing season, the available water at the time of planting has a major impact on the yield of maize and sorghum [12]. Schiegel and Assefa investigated the effect of low irrigation on grain yield and reported 49% increase in grain yield with 254 mm irrigation compared to 127 mm irrigation and 19% reduction in grain yield compared to 381 mm irrigation. In this experiment, it was observed that by increasing irrigation from 127 mm to 254 mm, the grain yield of sorghum, soybean, and sunflower would respectively increase up to 18, 16 and 33 percent [13]. Various studies have been done to select the best irrigation management. Dona and Zhang observed that in addition to irrigation, the irrigation time could also be effective due to its effect on the soil temperature [14]. Ahmadour and Farhadi observed that the effect of low irrigation was significant on grain yield, biomass, stem weight, corn weight, leaf weight, leaf surface index, bush height, number of grains per row, number of grains per corn, protein yield, and grain oil. The effect of water stress on maize attributes was different in various intervals of the growth period. Moreover, water stress had more impact on these attributes at the end of the growth period (the grain filling stage) [15]. Nasrollah Zade and Moharam Nejadi conducted an experiment and observed that water scarcity stress increased the bush height, grain yield, weight of 1000 grains and number of grains per row up to 11.7, 22.8, 15, 12, 10 percent respectively. In this study, a simple correlation between attributes showed that grain yield was significantly positive correlated with plant height, weight of 100 grains, corn length and number of grains per row of a corn. According to the results of this study, Single Cross 640 and single Cross 704 had high yield stability under non-stress and low water stress conditions [16]. Nowadays, optimum use of water, fertilizer and other significant agricultural materials not only lead to reducing production costs and maintaining resources but also reduce the environmental pollution caused by excessive use of these resources [17]. Combining the optimal management of fertilizer and irrigation can be effective for environmental health. Sigua and Stone stated that irrigation can affect nitrate leaching in nitrogen fertilizer consumption [18]. Optimized N application and irrigation could enhance the soil water content and N uptake [19]. suggested that application of N (240 kg N ha–1, half as a basal dose and half top dressing) in winter wheat reduced methane (CH4), carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions, greenhouse gas intensity (GHGI) and global warming potential (GWP) and improved the N use efficiency and grain yield. Therefore, optimum N fertilization and irrigation are the most important factors for increasing the yield of fodder maize and reduce GHG emissions, GWP and GHGI [19]. Nitrogen (N) and water are the two most essential resources for determining crop production. Drought-_ and/or N decreases reduce the plant height, leaf area index (LAI), shoot growth, root growth, grain yield and biomass of maize [20] Mohammadi and Khazaie showed that achieving maximum yield while using optimal amount of fertilizer and water is one of the major challenges of water cultivation [18]. Mohammadi and Khazaie conducted an experiment to determine the optimal irrigation program using soil moisture sensors and growth modeling due to the problem of groundwater discharge and nitrate leaching in Florida. The comparison of grain yield along employing soil moisture measurement sensor and irrigation based on modeling showed that there was no difference between grain yields in two methods [18]. However, it was reported that by determining the exact irrigation time based of soil moisture measurement sensor, water storage was increased up to 43 to 53 percent. Alizadeh and Abbasi carried out an experiment to optimize the use of water and urea fertilizer of maize in Karaj and their results showed that the optimum level of fertilizer was dependent on the depth of irrigation. So that by increasing the amount of irrigation, the optimal level of fertilizer was increased [17]. Optimized results of production functions showed that under the limitations of the land, the optimal water levels and required urea fertilizer consumption to reach the maximum net profit were 940 mm and 375 kg/ha respectively. In terms of water constraints, optimal consumption of water and urea fertilizer were equal to 774 mm (77% of water consumption) and 357 kg/ha (90% of fertilizer requirement), respectively. The responses of maize to rates of N fertilizer have been found to vary with water supply levels. Different rates of N fertilizer influence the biomass and grain yield of maize under well-water conditions while they had no impact on those under serve drought [21]. Maharjan and Rosen investigated the maize response to nitrogen management under complete irrigation and drought stress condition and observed that the type of fertilizer and timing of consuming nitrogen fertilizer under complete irrigation condition led to yield increase (18 to 41 percent) [17]. In addition, imbalance N fertilization can also leads to lower crops productivity and cause environmental pollution. Water and N fertilization are an effective way to improve soil fertility, water and N use efficiency [9]. They also observed that applying different nitrogen management (fertilizer division and using coated fertilizer) did not change grain yield. It is very important to determine the ratio between the nitrogen used and the moisture in the soil. In a situation where we are facing water restrictions, the management of optimal conditions is insufficient and leads to the waste of resources, especially water and nitrogen. Based on these plans, irrigation along with the management of nitrogen fertilizer consumption has favorable effects on yield, improvement of product quality and the reduction of fertilizer losses due to nitrate leaching. also considered that the occurrence of drought stress to be one of the most important limitations in corn cultivation and to cause changes in corn physiology. The present study was conducted with the aim of determining the effects of nitrogen fertilizer under intermittent irrigation conditions on SC704 corn in Rasht city.

This experiments of this paper were conducted with the aim of investigating the effects of various amounts of nitrogen fertilizer and irrigation intervals on the maize cultivar SC704 during 2 years (2015–2016) at the Agricultural Research and Education Center of Guilan Province, Rasht, Iran, with specific geographical coordinates of the experimental site (latitude 37°,16 'N and longitude 41°, 36'E). Experiments were carried out considering two factors and three replications in split-plot and a completely randomized block design with respect to the growth characteristics, yield and yield components of maize. The first factor as the main one was irrigation interval at four levels containing 7, 14, 21 and 28 days periods. The second factor as the subfactor was nitrogen fertilizer in four levels including 60, 120, 180 and 240 kg/ha of nitrogen. In our experiments, the grains were grown in each plot with a spacing of 70 cm and rows of 25 cm in length of 5 m in the 10th of June 2015 and 2016. Before planting, in order to study the physicochemical characteristics of the soil where experiments were carried out in every two years, sampling was done at a depth of 30 cm and then the samples were transferred to the laboratory for soil analysis (Table 1). Before planting, based on soil experiments and regional convention 230 kg/ha of phosphorus fertilizer was added to the soil.

Table 1: Soil experiment result of the location of the test

soil pattern

Sand

(percentage)

Silt

(percentage)

Clay

(ppm)

Absorbable potassium (ppm)

Absorbable phosphorus (ppm)

Total nitrogen

Organic carbon

Electrical conductivity

Saturation percentage

Depth (cm)

Year

Loomi clay

195

31.3

0.16

1.82

6.03

1.08

0–30

2015

Loomi clay

195

31.35

0.16

1.8

6.03

1.9

0–30

2016

Urea fertilizer was also added to soil in two stages (June 15th and June 30th ) based on soil experiments and experimental treatments. During growing seasons, the operation including removing the weeds and pest control were carried out regularly. Irrigation was carried out based on experimental treatments and according to Table 2 in both years. In the end, after the growth period, to obtain the plant height, height of the first corn from the ground, stem diameter, dry bush weight, corn diameter, corn length, weigh of 1000 grains, number of grains per corn, number of grains per corns, number of rows per corncom, ratio of a grain weight to total corn weight, grain weight, biological yield, harvest index and grain yield ten bushes were randomly selected from middle rows to eliminate marginal effects and measure mentioned attributes. The harvest index were also measured and recorded based on the ratio of economic yield to biological yield. All the statistical analyses of the measured data including analysis of variance and comparison of means were conducted using SAS software and Duncan test.

Table 2: Irrigation schedule
Irrigation Date	Irrigation Treatment	2016
June 9th, 16th, 23rd and 30th, July 7th, 14th, 21st and 28th, August 4th, 18th, 25th and September 1st	IR1
May 30th, June 16th and 27th, July 14th and 28th, August 11th and 25th	IR2
June 23rd, July 14th, August 4th and 25th	IR3
June 30th, July 28th, August 25th	IR4
June 11th, 18th, 25rd and 32th, July 9th, 16th, 23st and 30th, August 6th, 20th, 27th and September 3st	IR1
May 32th, June 18th and 29th, July 16th and 30th, August 13th and 27th	IR2	2015
June 25rd, July 16th, August 6th and 27th	IR3
June 32th, July 30th, August 27th	IR4

Morphological characteristics

The results of composite variance analysis of data related to morphological attributes presented that the impacts of the irrigation interval and nitrogen fertilizer consumption on stem diameter and corn diameter were significant at the probability level of 1%. Additionally, the interaction effects of nitrogen fertilizer consumption × irrigation interval on bush height, height to corn and corn length were significant at the probability level of 5% (Table 3). The result of the comparison of the mean effect of the irrigation interval on stem diameter revealed that highest stem diameter (2.40 cm) and corn diameter (4.30 cm) were achieved in 7 days irrigation interval and their lowest values were obtained in 28 days irrigation intervals (Figs. 1 and 2). According to Figs. 1 and 2, it can be stated that by increasing the irrigation interval from 7 days to 28 days, stem diameter and corn diameter will decrease. Furthermore, by increasing irrigation intervals, the amount of moisture in the soil and around root will be decreased which causes the plant to withstand drought and leads to a reduction in plant growth. Radam and Dagash reported similar results by investigating the effect of irrigation intervals on maize [22]. Haghjoo and Bohrani also presented the same results by considering the effects of irrigation intervals [19].

Table 3

Results of composite variance analysis of some morphological attributes of maize by consuming the various amount of nitrogen fertilizer under different irrigation management
Sources of changes	Degrees of freedom	Plant height	Height to corn	Stem diameter	Corn length	Corn diameter
Year	1	100.04^ns	42.66^ns	0.0009^ns	0.51^ns	0.19^*
Error	4	98.51	60.60	0.03	0.64	0.004
Irrigation interval	3	18174.86^**	2351.23^**	1.08^**	32.45^**	0.27^**
Year \(\:\times\:\)irrigation interval	3	5.84^ns	2.19^ns	0.01^ns	1.14^ns	0.009^ns
Error	12	27.84	13.34	0.007	0.47	0.03
Urea fertilizer	3	334.13^**	188.45^**	0.24^**	27.53^**	0.70^**
Urea fertilizer\(\:\:\times\:\)irrigation interval	9	435.14^**	460.94^**	0.01^ns	3.39^**	0.06^ns
Year \(\:\times\:\) Urea fertilizer	3	15.40^ns	4.30^ns	0.03^ns	0.95^ns	0.01^ns
\(\:\text{Y}\text{e}\text{a}\text{r}\times\:\:\text{U}\text{r}\text{e}\text{a}\:\text{f}\text{e}\text{r}\text{t}\text{i}\text{l}\text{i}\text{z}\text{e}\text{r}\:\times\:\text{i}\text{r}\text{r}\text{i}\text{g}\text{a}\text{t}\text{i}\text{o}\text{n}\:\text{i}\text{n}\text{t}\text{e}\text{r}\text{v}\text{a}\text{l}\)	9	56.02^ns	20.61^ns	0.008^ns	0.37^ns	0.004^ns
Total Error	48	41.74	20.21	0.0086	0.96	0.034
Coefficient of variation (C.V %)	-	2.52	6.18	4.37	5.54	4.29
^ns there is no significant difference ^* significant at a probability level of five percent ^** significant at a probability level of one percent

The results of the comparison of the mean effect of consuming various levels of nitrogen fertilizer on stem diameter and corn diameter showed the highest amounts of these attributes were achieved by consuming 240 kg/ ha nitrogen fertilizer and the lowest amounts were obtained by consuming 60 kg/ha nitrogen fertilizer. Nitrogen deficiency due to reduced leaf size and its durability leads to reducing the amount of incoming radiation, the efficiency of using radiation and crops photosynthesis. Simultaneously, plant growth and morphological attributes are also decreased [24]. Zhao and Belt investigated various level of nitrogen consumption and reported that there was a direct relationship between nitrogen fertilizer consumption and plant growth which is similar to the results of this study [25]. Hejazi and Soleymani also reported the same results by studying the effect of nitrogen management on maize [26]. According to the results of the comparison of the mean interaction effect of irrigation intervals × nitrogen fertilizer (Table 4), bush height, height to corn and corn length had the highest values in 7 days irrigation interval treatment and consuming 240 kg/ha nitrogen fertilizer. The lowest amount of these attributes was obtained in 28 days irrigation interval treatment and consuming 60 kg/ha nitrogen fertilizer. Moreover, according to the results of Table 2, in treatments that the irrigation intervals were longer and plants were confronted with drought stress, nitrogen fertilizer consumption had adverse effects on morphological attributes (Table 4). In other words, wite the occurrence of drought stress, in each stage of development, the production of nutrients and plant growth were decreased. Rudenik and Irmak investigated the effects of irrigation intervals and nitrogen consumption on maize and concluded that by consuming a higher amount of nitrogen in longer irrigation intervals, the plant was more suffered from lack or shortage of water due to the accumulation of mineral elements in the rhizosphere and increasing concentration in drought stress conditions [27, 28]. They also confirmed the reduction in corn growth and yield in longer irrigation interval treatments and higher nitrogen consumption. Ghobadi and Shirkhani concluded that the reduction in plant height, the height of bush to corn and corn length were related to drought stress and nitrogen fertilizer consumption increment [29].

Table 4

Comparison of the interactions of irrigation intervals × nitrogen fertilizer level on stem height, the height of bush to corn and corn length (cm)
Treatment	Height	Height of bush to corn	Corn length
IR1N1	270c	60d	17b
IR1N2	280b	78c	18b
IR1N3	285a	83b	20a
IR1N4	288a	91a	21a
IR2N1	250d	60d	15c
IR2N1	240e	56e	13d
IR2N3	230f	55e	10e
IR2N4	226f	50f	10e
IR3N1	221g	46g	13d
IR3N2	220g	45g	10e
IR3N3	185h	41h	8f
IR3N4	175i	38h	6f
IR4N1	170j	35h	6j
IR4N2	160k	31i	5h
IR4N3	152l	30i	5h
IR4N4	150l	30i	5h
The numbers in each column with the same letters are not significantly different. IR1: 7 days irrigation interval, IR2: 14 days irrigation interval, IR3: 21 days irrigation interval, IR4: 28 days irrigation interval. N1: 60 kg / ha nitrogen fertilizer, N2: 120 kg / ha nitrogen fertilizer, N3: consumption of 180 kg / ha nitrogen fertilizer and N4: consumption of 240 kg / ha nitrogen fertilizer

Attributes related to yield and yield components

The results of the composite variance analysis of maize yield and yield component revealed that the effects of irrigation interval, fertilizer consumption and interaction effect nitrogen fertilizer × irrigation interval on weight of 1000 grains, number of grains per corn, number of grains per row, weight of grain, cob weight, grain yield, biological yield and harvest index were significant at the probability level of 1% (Table 5). The results of the comparison of the mean interactions of irrigation intervals × nitrogen fertilizer levels on some of the attributes related to yield and yield components (Table 6) showed that the highest amount of weight of 1000 grains (410 g), number of grains per corn (660), number of grains per row (45), grain weight in a corn (193 g), cob weight(35g), biological yield (28746 kg/ha), grain yield (11620 kg/ha) and harvest index (41%) were observed in IR1N4 treatment and their lowest amount were also obtained in IR4N4 treatment. Furthermore, the results revealed that excluding the harvest index, there were significant differences between treatments for the rest of the mentioned attributes (Table 6). In addition, for the majority of attributes related to yield, there were no significant differences between treatments of using 180 kg/ha and 240 kg/ha of nitrogen fertilizer. Therefore, the desirable yield can be achieved by reducing fertilizer consumption. Consuming higher amount of nitrogen fertilizer had a negative effect in treatments with 24 and 28 days irrigation intervals that were confronted with water scarcity. Consequently, in treatments suffering from lack of water, increasing nitrogen consumption up to 240 kg/ha decreased grain yield and yield component (Table 6). In the event of a severe shortage of soil moisture, nitrogen absorption by the plant is disturbed and required nitrogen for critical stages of growth is not provided even by increasing the nitrogen of soil. As a result, the grain yield is decreased. Moreover, the existence of the higher amount of nitrogen in the soli suffering from water scarcity increases the stress effect due to the difference in the concentration gradient. Overall, the drought stress effect on the plant is increased and in some cases, the plant is burnt [30].

Table 5

composite variance analysis results of yield and yield component of maize by consuming the various amount of urea fertilizer under irrigation management
Sources of changes	df	Weight of 1000 grains	Number of grains per corn	Number of grains per row	Number of rows per corn	the ratio of grain weight to the corn weight	Grain weight	Cob weight	Biomass	Yield	Harvest index
Year	1	1.50^ns	6.51^ns	0.51^ns	0.041^ns	189.848^*	1033.59^**	66.74^**	1543689^**	37209^3**	437.76^**
Error	4	3767.92	1355.66	16.32	1.54	19.06	501.61	205.85	2060969	180581	71.72
Irrigation interval	3	17011.41^*	138049.62^**	312.64^**	7.48^ns	4.01^ns	1882.84^**	1377.02^**	33499543^**	6797823^**	45.48^**
Year \(\:\times\:\)irrigation interval	3	4.19^ns	228.03^ns	0.45^ns	0.041^ns	12.70^ns	30.45^ns	95.44^**	210877^ns	10963^ns	40.78^ns
Error	12	2530.48	2142.19	5.40	1.93	17.57	158.21	45.13	228274	59956	39.72
Nitrogen	3	17112.33^*	89788.92^**	232.92^**	3.48^ns	17.26^ns	8642.78^**	423.15^**	12612608^**	3111403^**	48.73^**
Nitrogen\(\:\times\:\)irrigation interval	9	5810.80^**	28632.86^**	54.39^**	4.44^ns	14.82^ns	789.76^**	43.79^**	568686^**	284313^**	13.74^**
Year \(\:\times\:\)Nitrogen	3	26.77^ns	1377.62^ns	9.28^ns	0.041^ns	15.62^ns	806.06^**	92.86^**	6204644^**	290183^**	46.31^**
\(\:\text{Y}\text{e}\text{a}\text{r}\times\:\:\text{N}\text{i}\text{t}\text{r}\text{o}\text{g}\text{e}\text{n}\times\:\text{i}\text{r}\text{r}\text{i}\text{g}\text{a}\text{t}\text{i}\text{o}\text{n}\:\text{i}\text{n}\text{t}\text{e}\text{r}\text{v}\text{a}\text{l}\)	9	78.76^ns	729.55^ns	3.89^ns	0.041^ns	6.44^ns	60.48^ns	45.27^**	141444^ns	21773^ns	1.71^ns
Total Error	48	1755.71	3201.174	14.17	2.50	1303.40	82.14	15.26	108744	29572	5.18
Coefficient of variation (C.V %)	-	13.02	13.07	10.89	11.62	3.75	7.40	17.19	5.30	7.40	6.11
^ns there is no significant difference ^* significant at a probability level of five percent ^** significant at a probability level of one percent

Table 6

Comparison of the mean interactions effect of irrigation intervals ×nitrogen fertilizer levels on Some attributes related to yield and yield components
Treatment	Weigh of 1000 grains (g)	Number of grains per corn	Number of grains per row	Corn grain weight (g)	Cob weight (g)	Biomass (kg/ha)	Yield (kg/ha)	Harvest index (%)
IR1N1	353b	501c	39b	144c	28b	14356b	8660c	40a
IR1N2	363b	539b	41b	163b	30b	22096c	9800b	40a
IR1N3	386a	654a	44a	166b	31b	24520b	9980b	40a
IR1N4	410a	660a	45a	113f	35a	28746a	11620a	41a
IR2N1	320c	400d	33c	125e	23c	16390f	6000f	41b
IR2N2	330c	440e	36c	130d	25d	18066e	7000e	41b
IR2N3	330c	415f	36c	128e	24d	20066d	7380e	41b
IR2N4	316cd	389f	30d	193a	21d	21706c	8260d	41b
IR3N1	293d	300g	27e	100g	16e	10294h	3000g	42c
IR3N2	313e	290h	25e	102g	21d	10306h	3000g	43d
IR3N3	303e	265i	21f	101g	19e	14494g	3360g	43d
IR3N4	313e	240j	21f	110f	12f	15384g	3440g	43d
IR4N1	190f	200k	12i	80j	12f	7000j	2000h	43d
IR4N2	250g	185l	12i	85i	15g	7000j	2040h	44e
IR4N3	230h	136m	15h	80j	14g	7080j	2260h	45f
IR4N4	120i	110n	20g	94gh	10h	8960i	2400h	45f
The numbers in each column with same letters are not significantly different. IR1: 7 days irrigation interval, IR2: 14 days irrigation interval, IR3: 21 days irrigation interval, IR4: 28 days irrigation interval. N1: 60 kg / ha nitrogen fertilizer, N2: 120 kg / ha nitrogen fertilizer, N3: consumption of 180 kg / ha nitrogen fertilizer and N4: consumption of 240 kg / ha nitrogen fertilizer

In the present study, the results showed that increasing the irrigation interval from 7 days to 28 days led to a reduction in morphological attributes, yield and yield components. Moreover, nitrogen fertilizer consumption under normal irrigation conditions (7 days irrigation interval) increased the growth and yield. Fertilizer consumption under drought stress conditions had a negative reaction and by increasing the consumption of nitrogen fertilizer from 180 kg/ha to 240 kg/ha in longer irrigation intervals, grain yield, biological yield, and other yield components were reduced. It is worth mentioning that under normal irrigation intervals, there were no significant differences between treatments of 180 and 240 kgN/ha of nitrogen fertilizer for all of the studies attributes. Also, the best amount of fertilizer consumption and water requirement of corn can be introduced to farmers with 7-day irrigation interval and 180 kg/ha nitrogen fertilizer in the study area. Therefore, optimum growth and optimum yield can be achieved by using optimum nitrogen fertilizer and avoiding high levels of nitrogen consumption under drought stress conditions.

Acknowledgements

Not applicable

Authors’ contributions

Yaser kordkatooli: Review and corrections, Data curation, Writing – original draft, data analysis. Hossein Ajam Norouzi: Assisted in manuscript discussion, review and corrections. Ebrahim Amiri: Reviewed the manuscript. Afshin Soltani: Data Curation, Formal analysis, Software.

Mohamad reza dadashi: data analysis, Reviewed the manuscript, Provided input on article formatting.

Funding

Not applicable.

Data availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This research meets all the ethical guidelines, including adherence to the legal requirements of my country. The authors voluntarily agree to participate in this research study.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Author details

¹ Department of Agriculture, Gorgan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Gorgan, Iran.

² Department of Water Engineering, Lahijan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Lahijan, Iran.

³ Crop Physiology, Gorgan University of Agricultural Science and Natural Resources, Gorgan, Iran.

OECD/FAO. (2021) OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook: 2021–2030. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2021.
FAOSTAT Statistical Database. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2019.
. SUNCCHENLZHAILLIUHWANGKJIAOC. SHEN Z. National assessment of nitrogen fertilizers fate and related environmental impacts of multiple pathways in China. J Clean Prod. 2020;277(11):123519.
JIA QM, H FUJIANG. Planting practices and mulching materials improve maize net ecosystem C budget, global warming potential and production in semi-arid regions. Soil Tillage Res. 2021;207(3):104850.
STEWART Z. P., PIERZYNSKI G. M., MIDDENDORF B. J., PRASAD P.V. Approaches to improve soil fertility in sub-Saharan Africa. J Exp Bot 71 (2), 632, 2020.
DE SOUSA MA,. DE OLIVEIRA MM DAMINV. Productivity and economics of inoculated common bean as affected by nitrogen application at different phenological phases. J Soil Sci Plant Nutr. 2020;20:1848.
., GUPTA N, SINGH CHOUDHARYOPMAVIMS. Y. Enhancing water use efficiency for food security and sustainable environment in South Asia. In Input Use Efficiency for Food and Environment Security, 2021.
SINGH Y., KUKAL S. S., JAT M. L., SIDHU H. S. Improving water productivity of wheat-based cropping systems in South Asia for sustained productivity. Adv Agron 127, 157, 2014.
MENG XP, ZHIMIN ZIYANGXUENIYWENNANS, LI. XIAORONGW. TIE C., QOINGFANG H. Straw incorporation helps inhibit nitrogen leaching in maize season to increase yield and efficiency in the Loess Plateau of China. Soil Tillage Res. 2021;211:105006.
DASTBANDAN S., SAKI T., LACK S. Study ffect drought stress and different levels potassium fertilizer on K⁺ accumulation in corn. Nat Scienc 8 (5), 23, 2010.
ROSTAMI AJIRLOO A., ASGHARI POUR MR, KHORAMI GHANBARIAJOODIM. Effect of Low Irrigation on Yield, Qualitative Attributes and Water Use Efficiency Index of Three Soybean Cultivars in Moghan Plain. J Soil Water Resour Conserv. 2016;1(7):113.
DONG X., XU W., ZHANG Y., LESKOVAR D. I. Effect of Irrigation Timing on Root Zone Soil Temperature, Root Growth and Grain Yield and Chemical Composition in Corn. Agron J 6 (2), 34, 2016.
FARHADI BANSOLEH B. AHMADPOURAR. GHBADI M. Investigating of the Effects of Irrigation on Growth and Quality and Quantitative Attributes of Maize in Kermanshah. Prot Water Soil Resour. 2016;6(3):99.
NASROLLAH ZAHE ASL V., MOHARAM NEJADI S. YOUSEFIM, BANDEH HAGH A.. LALEH EBRAHIMI L. Evaluation of Grain yield of Maize (Zea mays L.) Hybrids under Water Restriction. J Agricultural Sci Sustainable Prod. 2017;27(2):85.
ALIZADEH H. A., ABBASI F. Optimization of Water and Fertilizer Consumption in Maize Irrigation. Water Res Agric (Soil Water Sci). 30 (4 b), 445, 2016.
MOHAMMADI SA. Effect of Nitrogen Fertilizer Management by Carophilometer on Yield and Yield Components of Maize in Low Irrigation Conditions. Iran Agricultural Researches. 2017;15(1):61.
MAHARJAN B., ROSEN C. J., LAMB J. A., VENTEREA R. T. Corn Response to Nitrogen Management under Fully-irrigated vs. Water-stressed Conditions. Agronomy Journal. 108 (5), 2089, 2016.
SIGUA GC, Nitrate Leaching STONEKCBAUERPJSZOGIAA. Water-use Efficiency, and Yield of Corn with Different Irrigation and Nitrogen Management Systems in Coastal Plains, USA. WIT Trans Ecol Environ. 2016;203:159.
ZHANG Z., ZHENWEN Y., YONGLI Z., YU S. Finding the fertilization optimization to balance grain yield and soil greenhouse gas emissions under water-saving irrigation. Soil and Tillage Research. 2021.
QI D. L., HU T.T., LIU T. T. Biomass accumulation and distribution, yield formation and water use efficiency responses of maize (Zea mays L.) to nitrogen supply methods under partial root-zone irrigation. Agric Water Manage 230, 105, 2021.
LI GH. LU W. P. Controlled-release urea combining with optimal irrigation improved grain yield, nitrogen uptake, and growth of maize. Agric Water Manage. 2020;227:105.
Growth ZHAOGQBELTMARENCZ. Gas Exchange, Chlorophyll Fluorescence and Ion Content of Naked Oat in Response to Salinity. Crop Sci J. 2007;47:131.
HAGHJOO M. Effect of Irrigation and Nitrogen Fertilizer on Grain Yield, Yield Components and Dry Material Remobilization of Single Cross 26 Cultivar. Iran J Crop Sci. 2014;16(4):278.
KhAN NASARJ, GITARI H.I. WKHANMZ, GBOLAYORI JF. MANDOZAI A., RIZWAM N., ANWARI G., MAROOF S.M.Photosynthetic Activities and Photosynthetic Nitrogen Use Efficiency of Maize Crop Under Different Planting Patterns andNitrogen Fertilization. J Soil Sci Plant Nutr. 2021;21:2274.
O’BRIEN D. SCHIEGELAJASSEFAY. Comparison of Corn, Grain Sorghum, Soybean, and Sunflower under Limited Irrigation. Agron J. 2016;108(2):670.
Soleymani HEJAZIL. Effect of Different Amounts of Nitrogen Fertilizer on Grain Yield of Forage Corn Cultivars in Isfahan. Int J Adv Biol Biomedical Res. 2014;2(3):608.
SCHIEGEL A. J., LAMM F. R., ASSEFA Y., STONE L. R. Dryland Corn and Grain Sorghum Yield Response to Available Soil Water at Planting. Agron J 110 (1), 236, 2018.
RUDENIK D. R., IRMAK S. Impact of Water and Nitrogen Management Strategies on Maize Yield and Water Productivity Indices Under Linear-move Sprinkler Irrigation. Am Soc Agricultural Biol Eng 56 (5), 1769, 2013.
GHOBADI R., SHIRKHANI A., JALILIYAN A.S. Investigating the Effect of Drought Stress and Nitrogen Fertilizer on Yield and Water and Nitrogen Use Efficiency of Maize Single Cross 704 Cultivar. J Agric 106, 79, 2015.
HU Y., ZEESHAN M., WANG G., PAN Y., LIU Y., ZHOU X. Supplementary irrigation and varying nitrogen fertilizer rate mediategrain yield, soil-maize nitrogen accumulation and metabolism. Agric Water Manage. 276, 108066, 2023.

No competing interests reported.

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Investigating the Effects of Nitrogen Fertilizer and Irrigation Management on Yield and Yield Components of Maize

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Introduction

Materials and methods

Results and discussion

Morphological characteristics

Attributes related to yield and yield components

Conclusion

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Status:

Version 1