Yield and water use efficiency of corn planted in one or two rows and applying furrow or drip tape...

YIELD AND WATER USE EFFICIENCY OF CORN PLANTED IN ONE OR TWO ROWSAND APPLYING FURROW OR DRIP TAPE IRRIGATION SYSTEMS IN GHAZVIN

PROVINCE, IRANy

MOHAMMAD KARIMI* AND AFSHIN GOMROKCHI

Ghazvin Agricultural and Natural Resources Research Centre, Ghazvin, Iran

ABSTRACT

This study investigated water use efficiency and yield in corn (SC 704) irrigated with drip (tape) and furrow irrigation systems in

Ghazvin, Iran, in 2006. Four levels of irrigation including: 80, 100 and 120% of water requirement with drip irrigation (tape)

and 100% water requirement with furrow irrigation as main plots and method of planting (one and two rows), as well as three

levels of crop density including: 75 000, 90 000 and 105 000 (plants ha�1) as subplots were considered. The highest average

grain yield was 12.9 t ha�1 while the treatment was drip irrigation at level of 120% water requirement in a two-row planting

pattern and crop density equal to 75 000 plants ha�1 (I3R2D1 treatment). The highest water use efficiency (WUE) was obtained

in I3R2D1 treatment as 1.96 kg m�3, while the lowest was found in drip irrigation at a level of 80% water requirement in a two-

row planting pattern and crop density equal to 75 000 plants ha�1 (I1R2D1 treatment) as 0.82 kgm�3. Variance analysis of the

grain yield data indicated that both planting pattern and interaction of planting pattern and crop density significantly affected the

yields. Generally, the planting of one row resulted in significantly higher grain yields than the other planting pattern. Copyright

# 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

key words: drip irrigation; surface irrigation; water use efficiency; corn; planting pattern

Received 24 August 2008; Revised 5 October 2009; Accepted 7 October 2009

RESUME

Cette etude s’est penchee sur l’utilisation rationnelle de l’eau et le rendement dans le maıs (SC 704) irrigues avec goutte a goutte

(bandemagnetique) et des systemes d’irrigation par rigoles a Ghazvin en Iran en 2006. Quatre niveaux d’irrigation, notamment:

80, 100 et 120% des besoins d’eau avec l’irrigation au goutte a goutte (ruban) et 100% avec un besoin en eau d’irrigation des

parcelles comme sillon principal et la methode de plantation (une et deux lignes), outre trois niveaux de densite de peuplement,

y compris: 75 000, 90 000 et 105 000 (plantes ha�1) en tant que sous-parcelles ont ete considerees. Le plus haut rendement en

grain moyen etait de 12.9 t ha�1 alors que le traitement a ete l’irrigation au goutte a goutte au niveau des besoins en eau de 120%

en deux lignes de plantation demodele et de la densite des cultures egal a 75 000 plants ha�1 (traitement I3R2D1). Les plus fortes

efficacite de l’utilisation de l’eau (EUE) a ete obtenu dans le traitement I3R2D1 que 1.96 kgm�3 alors que le plus faible a ete

constate dans l’irrigation au goutte a goutte au niveau des besoins en eau de 80% en deux lignes de plantation de modele et de la

densite des cultures egal a 75 000 plantes ha�1 (I1R2D1 traitement) 0.82 kg m�3. Analyse de la variation des donnees de

rendement en grain indique que les deux modeles de plantation et de l’interaction de la plantation de modele et de la densite des

cultures sensiblement affecte les rendements. En regle generale, la plantation d’une rangee a donne des rendements

significativement plus eleves du grain que dans le schema de plantation autres. Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

mots cles: irrigation goutte a goutte; irrigation de surface; efficacite de l’utilisation de l’eau; maıs; schema de plantation

INTRODUCTION

The water resources of the world are finite. Efficient use has

economical and environmental benefits for people. Nowa-

days irrigation is the primary consumer of fresh water on

earth (Shiklomanov, 1998 as cited in Gleick, 2000), but the

IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE

Irrig. and Drain. 60: 35–41 (2011)

Published online 14 May 2010 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/ird.562

*Correspondence to: Mohammad Karimi, Ghazvin Agricultural andNatural Resources Research Centre, Shahid Beheshti Blv. No. 118, Ghaz-vin, Iran, P.O. Box. 34185-618. E-mail: [email protected] de l’eau et l’efficacite d’utilisation de maıs plante dans un oudeux lignes et application de sillon ou systemes d’irrigation goutte de bandedans Ghazvin Province, Iran.

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

twin drivers of human population and development exert

pressure on our water resource management regimes to be

more productive with less water. To solve totally, or to

reduce, the severity of water scarcity, water management

must improve. Thus, agriculture has the greatest potential for

solving the problem of global water scarcity (Longo and

Spears, 2003). Drip irrigation has been used for agricultural

production for about the past 35 years. Drip irrigation has

advantages over more traditional practices such as surface

and sprinkler irrigation due to reduced labour requirements

and its ability to conform to irregularly shaped fields. It can

also achieve higher efficiencies than sprinkler or surface

irrigation (Camp, 1998). Water is an important factor in

agricultural development. In the sector of agriculture in Iran

more than 90% of extracted water resources are used. Maize

as a strategic plant uses water at 18–20m3 ha�1 (Moayyeri,

2002). A drip irrigation system is one of the methods that in

addition to increase of yield, enables a reduction of water use

and increase of water use efficiency. Today, using of drip

irrigation system is common in row crops. Hamedi et al.

(2005), in a comparison of drip (tape) and surface irrigation

systems in yield of maize with different levels of water

requirement, indicated that drip irrigation increased the

amount of yield to 2015 kg ha�1 and water use efficiency by

three times. Kohi et al. (2005) investigated effects of deficit

irrigation use of drip (tape) irrigation on water use efficiency

of maize in planting of one and two rows. Results showed

that maximum water use efficiency related to crop density,

water requirement and planting pattern: 85 000, 125% and

two rows respectively with 1.46 kgm�3. Lamm et al. (1995)

studied the water requirement of maize in a field with silt

loam texture under sub-drip irrigation and reported that

water use reduced to 75% but yield of maize remained at a

maximum of 12.5 t ha�1.

A study was designed to evaluate the yield response of

trickle-irrigated corn grown on a clay-textured soil under the

arid Southeast Anatolia Project (GAP) area conditions during

the 2000 growing season at Koruklu in Turkey. The effects of

threedifferent irrigation levels (100,67and33%ofcumulative

Class-A pan evaporation on a three- and six-day basis), and

two irrigation intervals (three- and six-day) on yield were

investigated. The highest average corn yield (11 920 kg ha�1)

was obtained from the full irrigation treatment (100%) with a

six-day interval. Corn grain yields varied from 7940 to

11 330 kg ha�1 and 7253 to 11 920 kg/ha�1 for three- and six-

day irrigation intervals, respectively. Irrigation levels signifi-

cantly increased yield. Maximum irrigation water use

efficiency (IWUE) and water use efficiency (WUE) were

2.53 and 2.27 kgm�3 in the treatment of I-33 with a six-day

interval. Both IWUE and WUE values varied with irrigation

quantity and frequency (Yazar et al., 2002).

Furrow (conventional) and drip-irrigated corn yields (Zea

mays L.) were compared on an old irrigated sierozem deep

silt loam for two consecutive years in Central Asian

Uzbekistan. Results showed that maize irrigation water use

for furrow irrigation ranged from 547 to 629mmyr�1

compared with 371–428mmyr�1 for drip irrigation.

Irrigation water use efficiency was always superior for drip

irrigation compared with furrow irrigation (Nazirbay et al.,

2005).

Lamm and Trooien (2003) investigated subsurface drip

irrigation (SDI) for corn production (a review of 10 years of

research in Kansas) and concluded that irrigation water use

for corn can be reduced by 35–55% when using SDI

compared with more traditional forms of irrigation in the

region. Irrigation frequency has not been a critical issue

when SDI is used for corn production on the deep silt loam

soils of the region. Payero et al. (2008) evaluated the effect

of irrigation applied with subsurface drip irrigation on field

corn (Zea mays L.) evapotranspiration (ETc), yield, water

use efficiencies (WUE¼ yield/ETc, and IWUE¼ yield/

irrigation), and dry matter production in the semi-arid

climate of west central Nebraska in 2005 and 2006. Results

showed that irrigation significantly affected yields, which

increased with irrigation up to a point where irrigation

became excessive. Yields increased linearly with seasonal

ETc and ETc/ETp (ETp¼ETc with no water stress). WUE

increased non-linearly with seasonal ETc and with yield.

WUE was more sensitive to irrigation during the drier 2006

season, compared with 2005. In both seasons IWUE

decreased sharply with irrigation. Irrigation significantly

affected dry matter production and partitioning into the

different plant components (grain, cob, and stover).

The large area of the Ghazvin plain is used for growing

corn annually and surface irrigation is utilized in most of it.

Although surface irrigation efficiency is about 30%, a great

amount of water is wasted in this plain. So in order to study

the efficiency of micro-irrigation on function level and some

other corn-growing attributes and also water consumption

efficiency, this research was carried out in the Ghazvin area.

The objective of this study was to evaluate the drip (tape)

irrigation method for corn production practices in Ghazvin

province in Iran. Moreover, water use efficiency and the

yield response of corn to a drip irrigation system in the

region were investigated.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study was conducted at the Esmael abad Research

Station of the Agricultural and Natural Resources Research

Centre of Ghazvin Province of Iran during the corn-

growing season in 2006. The station is at latitude 368150 Nand longitude 498540 E. Some physical and chemical

properties of the soil of the experimental site are given in

Table I.

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Irrig. and Drain. 60: 35–41 (2011)

DOI: 10.1002/ird

36 M. KARIMI AND A. GOMROKCHI

The climate of the research region is cold and semi-dry.

The minimum and maximum temperature of the region is

�178C and 368C, respectively. The average annual

precipitation of the area is 330mm. In order to investigate

water use efficiency and yield of corn in planting of one and

two rows with different crop density in corn (SC 704) in drip

(tape) and furrow irrigation systems, a study was conducted

on randomized complete blocks as a strip split plot design

and three replications. Four levels of irrigation including 80,

100 and 120% of water requirement with drip tape irrigation

(I1, I2 and I3, respectively) and 100%water requirement with

furrow irrigation (I4) as main plots, and method of planting

one and two rows (R1 and R2) with three levels of crop

density including 75 000, 90 000 and 105 000 plants ha�1

(D1, D2 and D3, respectively) as subplots were considered.

Therefore, 24 treatments were created. For example, I1R1D1

treatment, namely drip irrigation at level of 80% water

requirement in a one-row planting pattern and crop density

equal to 75 000 plants ha�1. The experimental field was

130� 50m and each experimental plot 20� 7.5m (10 rows

with spacing of 0.75m in any plot). Corn (with a

comparative relative maturity of 130 days) was planted

on June 4th, and matured on October 11th.

Fertilizer applications were based on soil analysis

recommendations. All treatment plots received the same

amount of total fertilizer. The drip irrigation system

consisted of a control unit and distribution lines. The

control unit of the system contained a venturi injector

(50.8mm), fertilizer tank (90 l), disk filter, control valves

and a water flow meter. Nutrient requirements in the drip

irrigation method were applied by chemical injection using a

venturi injector with irrigation water. Distribution lines

consisted of PE pipe manifolds (supply and discharge) for

each plot. Irrigation laterals of tape pipes with 0.2mm wall

thickness and 16mm inside diameter had emitters spaced

0.3m apart, each delivering 4 l h�1 for 1m of pipe length at a

pressure of 60–70 kPa. The laterals were spaced at 0.75m

(every other corn row). Irrigation level treatments in drip

irrigation were accomplished after the four-leaf stage of

plants. Water requirement was determined by Class-A

evaporation pan by using crop and pan coefficients and

overshadow surface percent (in drip irrigation). The pan was

located near the study site. Crop coefficient (Kp) during

growing period was determinate by FAO method (Figure 1).

The variation of the pan coefficient during different

months of the year (at weather stations in the area) is

presented in Table II.

Percent of overshadow surface was utilized from 4 to 6

leaf stage in crop that is estimated approximately by green

coverage and plant cover situation in field in each irrigation

(Figure 2).

Water requirement was calculated by the following

equation:

ETc ¼ Ep � Kp � Kc (1)

where ETc¼ evapotranspiration of plant or water require-

ment (mm day�1), Ep¼Class A evaporation pan (mm

day�1), Kp¼ pan coefficient and Kc¼ crop coefficient.

In drip irrigation, overshadowed surface (%) was applied

in calculation of the water requirement. Therefore, the water

requirement was modified as

ETC ¼ EP � KP � KC � ð0:1� PC0:5Þ (2)

The irrigation interval in drip and furrow irrigation up to

the 6–8-leaf stage of the crop was 3 and 9 days, respectively.

After this stage, irrigation interval was 4 and 12 days. Depth

and volume of irrigation water were calculated according to

the area of the plot. The amount of water use in a period of

irrigation was measured in drip and furrow irrigation

Table I. Physical and chemical properties of different soil layers of the experimental field

Soildepth

Particle sizedistribution (%)

Textureclass

PH EC(dsm�1)

SAR Cations (me l�1)

Sand Silt Clay Naþ CaþþþMgþþ

0–30 54 31 15 S L 7.86 0.87 2.8 5.2 6.530–60 56 28 16 S L 7.93 0.74 2.2 4 6.560–90 44 34 22 L 7.94 0.86 4.9 6.2 3.1

Figure 1. Variations of Crop coefficient (Kc) in growing season. This figureis available in colour online at wileyonlinelibrary.com


DOI: 10.1002/ird

YIELD AND WATER USE EFFICIENCY OF CORN IN GHAZVIN PROVINCE, IRAN 37

systems by using a counter and WSC flume, respectively.

Irrigation efficiency (Ea) in drip irrigation was considered

equal to 90%. Furrow irrigation was designed according to

the SCS method. Therefore, the parameters of the family

curve number in the SCS method and the suitable furrow

inflow were determined. In any irrigation, by measuring the

advance time in the length of a furrow (with attention to

depth of irrigation), the cut-off time of irrigation was

determined. The average of irrigation efficiency (Ea) in

furrow irrigation was calculated as 34.7%. After the maturity

of crop, grain yields were determined by hand harvesting the

4m sections of the two adjacent centre rows in each plot on

10 November in 2006. The harvest area in each plot was 6

m2 (two rows, each 4 m long). Yield and yield components

including 1000-kernel weight, number of kernels per ear,

number of rows per ear and number of kernels per row were

measured. The grain yield per plot was calculated in a ‘‘wet-

mass basis’’ (standard water content of 14%). Five plants

from each plot were also hand-harvested to determine dry

mass and its partitioning into the different plant components

(grain, Stover, and cob). Plants were cut at ground level and

the ears were separated from the Stover. Grain, Stover and

cob samples were taken, oven-dried at 708C until they

reached a constant mass (7 days), and weighted. Water use

efficiency (WUE, kgm�3) and irrigation water use

efficiency (IWUE, kgm�3) were calculated as

WUE ¼ Y

ETc

(3)

IWUE ¼ Y

I(4)

where Y¼ yield (g m�2), ETc¼ seasonal crop evapotran-

spiration (mm) and I¼ seasonal irrigation (mm), which is

I1 ¼ 80� ETC

Ea

ðdrip irrigation; Ea ¼ 90%Þ (5)

I2 ¼ 100� ETC

Ea


I3 ¼ 120� ETC

Ea


I4 ¼ 100� ETC

Ea


The MSTATC program (Michigan State University) was

used to carry out statistical analysis. Treatment means were

compared using Duncan’s multiple range test (Steel and

Torrie, 1980).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Water requirement was determined using evaporation pans,

which the pan data was collected daily and manually using

hook gage, by using crop and pan coefficients. Variations of

evaporation of pan (Ep) and evapotranspiration of plant

(ETc) are shown in Figures 3 and 4.

Table II. Variations of Kp during different months of the year in weather stations of the research region

Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

Kp 0.85 0.80 0.75 0.70 0.60 0.55 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.75 0.80

Figure 2. Variations of overshadow surface (Pc) in growing season. Thisfigure is available in colour online at wileyonlinelibrary.com

Figure 3. Variations of Class-A evaporation pan in growing season. This figure is available in colour online at wileyonlinelibrary.com


DOI: 10.1002/ird


The seasonal irrigation, seasonal crop evapotranspiration

(mm), dry matter and grain yield, 1000-grain weight, water

use efficiency (WUE) and irrigation water use efficiency

(IWUE) in different treatments are given in Table III.

The highest seasonal irrigation application was observed

in furrow irrigation (I4) as 1886mm (irrigation efficiency¼34.7%), and the lowest was found in the I1 treatment as

582mm (irrigation efficiency¼ 90%). Grain yields varied

from 5.4 to 12.9 t ha�1 among the treatments: in drip

irrigation at a level of 120% water requirement in the two-

row planting pattern and crop density equal to 75 000 plants

ha�1 (I3R2D1 treatment) yield was 12.9 t ha�1, and the

lowest yield was found in drip irrigation at a level of 80%

water requirement in the two-row planting pattern and crop

density equal to 75 000 plants ha�1 (I1R2D1 treatment) as 5.4

t ha�1. The highest water use efficiency (WUE) was

obtained in the I3R2D1 treatment (1.96 kg m�3), while the

lowest was found in treatment I1R2D1 (0.82 kg m�3).

Irrigation water use efficiencies (IWUE) varied from 0.32 to

1.74 kg m�3. The highest irrigation water use efficiency was

obtained in drip irrigation at a level of 80% water

requirement in the one-row planting pattern and crop

density equal to 90 000 plants ha�1 (I1R1D2 treatment) as

1.74 kg m�3. Whereas the lowest was found in furrow

Figure 4. Variations of evapotranspiration of plant in growing season

Table III. Calculation of corn grain yield, Irrigation water use efficiency (IWUE) and water use efficiency (WUE)

Treatments Corn grainyield (t ha�1)

Dry matteryield (t ha�1)

1000- grainweight (g)

Seasonalirrigation (mm)

Seasonal cropevapotranspiration (mm)

WUE(kgm�3)

IWUE(kgm�3)

I1R1D1 9.8 21.5 347 582 655 1.50 1.68I1R1D2 10.1 13.9 325 582 655 1.54 1.74I1R1D3 8.3 17.2 278 582 655 1.27 1.43I1R2D1 5.4 12.2 323 582 655 0.82 0.92I1R2D2 8.2 17.4 284 582 655 1.24 1.40I1R2D3 7.5 13.5 310 582 655 1.15 1.29I2R1D1 8.8 22.8 295 728 655 1.35 1.21I2R1D2 9.9 27.1 331 728 655 1.51 1.36I2R1D3 8.6 14.7 304 728 655 1.31 1.18I2R2D1 8.1 25.0 329 728 655 1.24 1.12I2R2D2 7.5 14.9 322 728 655 1.15 1.03I2R2D3 11.0 21.4 320 728 655 1.67 1.51I3R1D1 11.3 17.4 361 873 655 1.72 1.29I3R1D2 12.4 28.8 347 873 655 1.89 1.42I3R1D3 10.6 23.5 346 873 655 1.61 1.21I3R2D1 12.9 22.4 317 873 655 1.96 1.47I3R2D2 9.8 15.6 306 873 655 1.49 1.12I3R2D3 11.8 28.8 313 873 655 1.80 1.35I4R1D1 8.8 23.8 340 1 886 655 1.34 0.46I4R1D2 11.0 28.5 331 1 886 655 1.68 0.58I4R1D3 10.8 25.1 326 1 886 655 1.65 0.57I4R2D1 9.1 20.7 337 1 886 655 1.39 0.48I4R2D2 6.1 19.2 294 1 886 655 0.92 0.32I4R2D3 10.6 34.0 335 1 886 655 1.62 0.56

Explanations: I1, I2 and I3 indicate drip irrigation levels of 80, 100 and 120% water requirement, respectively. I4: furrow irrigation. R1, R2: planting of one andtwo rows and D1, D2 and D3 are crop density of 75 000, 90 000 and 105 000 plants ha�1, respectively.


DOI: 10.1002/ird


Figure 5. Variations of Corn grain yield in different treatments

Figure 6. Variations of irrigation water use efficiency in different treatments

Table IV. Variance analysis of corn grain yield data

Variation source Degrees of freedom Mean square F-value Probability

Replication 2 29.9 1.7 0.260I(irrigation method) 3 34.3 1.9 0.224Error 6 17.6R(Planting pattern) 1 19.7 19.5 0.048�

Error 2 1.0IR 3 6.0 0.7Error 6 8.3D(crop density) 2 2.8 0.7ID 6 4.7 1.1 0.360RD 2 19.9 4.8 0.015�

IRD 6 4.9 1.2 0.335Error 32 4.1Total 71

�Significant at 5% level.


DOI: 10.1002/ird


irrigation with the two-row planting pattern and crop density

equal to 90 000 plants ha�1 (I4R2D2 treatment) as 0.32 kg

m�3. Total dry matter varied from 34.0 to 12.2 t ha�1, with

the highest dry matter observed in furrow irrigation with the

two-row planting pattern and crop density equal to 105 000

plants ha�1 (I4R2D3 treatment) and the lowest in drip

irrigation at a level of 80%water requirement in the two-row

planting pattern and crop density equal to 75 000 plants ha�1

(I1R2D1 treatment). Variations of yield and Irrigation water

use efficiency in the different treatments are shown in

Figures 5 and 6.

The results of simple variance analysis of attributes (Table

IV) showed that the method of planting has a significant

difference on the level of 5 for grain yield, but on the other

measured attributes did not have any significant effect. The

respective effect of planting method and crop density showed

a significant difference on the level of 5% for grain yield,

number of kernels per ear and the 1000-grainweight, whereas

it did not have any significant effect on the other measured

attributes. The respective effects of irrigation method,

planting method and crop density showed a significant

difference on the level of 1% for the attributes of number of

kernels per ear. The planting in one row resulted in

significantly higher grain yields than the other planting

pattern. The R1D2 treatment had higher grain yields than the

other treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

The target of this study was to the evaluate drip (tape)

irrigation method for corn production practices in Ghazvin

province in Iran. In addition, water use efficiency and the

yield response of corn to a drip irrigation system in the

region were investigated.

Results showed that irrigation water use for corn can be

reduced by 60.4% when using drip tape irrigation compared

with furrow irrigation, and the average grain yield can be

increased to 12.9 t ha�1 in the region. The highest irrigation

water use efficiencies in drip tape irrigation and furrow

irrigation were obtained as 1.74 and 0.58 kgm�3, respect-

ively. Therefore, drip tape irrigation increases irrigation

water use efficiency by three times.

The amount of grain yield in the I1R1D2 treatment (10.1 t

ha�1) was more than the mean of yield in the region. On the

other hand, the highest irrigation water use efficiency was

obtained in this treatment (Table II). Therefore, in order to

save water in irrigation and extension of irrigated lands, the

mentioned treatment (I1R1D2) was recommended.

REFERENCES

Camp CR. 1998. Subsurface drip irrigation: a review. Transactions of the

ASAE 41(5): 1353–1367.

Hamedi F, Jafari H, Ghaderi J, Rezaee R, Sayyadian K. 2005. Comparison

of drip and surface irrigation with difference levels of water requirement

on yield of corn. In Proceedings of 9th Soil Science Congress of Iran,

Mashhad, Iran; 120–121.

Kohi N, Azadshahraki F, Ganjeezadeh F, Aghamirzadeh S. 2005. Effects of

irrigation level and plant density on water use efficiency of corn using

surface drip irrigation (tape). In Proceedings of 2nd National Conference

on Watershed and Soil and Water Management, Kerman, Iran; 1819–

1827.

Lamm FR, Manges HL, Stone LR, Khan AH, Rogers DH. 1995. Water

requirement of subsurface drip irrigated corn in Kansas. Transactions of

the ASAE 38(2): 441–448.

LammFR, Trooien TP. 2003. Subsurface drip irrigation for corn production:

a review of 10 years of research in Kansas. Irrigation Science 22: 195–

200. DOI: 10.1007/s00271-003-0085-3.

Longo FD, Spears TD. 2003. Water Scarcity and Modern Irrigation,

Valmont Water Management Group, Valmont Industries, Inc.: Valley,

Nebraska, USA.

Moayyeri M. 2002. Investigation of water use efficiency drip and furrow

irrigation systems in the planting of one and two rows of corn. Annual

Research Report. Agricultural Engineering Research Institute, Karaj,

Iran.

Nazirbay I, Evett S, Esanbekov Y, Kamilov B. 2005. Water use of maize for

two irrigation methods and two scheduling methods. In Agronomy

Abstracts, ASA-CSSA-SSSA Annual Meeting, Salt Lake City, Utah.

Payero JO, Tarkalson DD, Irmak S, Davison D, Petersen JL. 2008. Effect of

irrigation amounts applied with subsurface drip irrigation on corn

evapotranspiration, yield, water use efficiency, and dry matter production

in a semiarid climate. Agricultural Water Management in press, corrected

proof, available online 18 April 2008.

Shiklomanov I. 1998. Pictures of the future: a review of global water

resources projections. In TheWorld’s Water 2002–2001, Gleick PH (ed.).

Island Press: Washington, DC; 53.

Steel RGD, Torrie JH. 1980. Principles and Procedures of Statistics, 2nd

edn. McGraw-Hill: New York.

Yazar A, Sezen SM, Gencel B. 2002b. Drip irrigation of corn in the

southeast Anatolia project (GAP) area in Turkey. Irrigation and Drainage

51: 293–300.


DOI: 10.1002/ird


Yield and water use efficiency of corn planted in one or two rows and applying furrow or drip tape...

Documents

Transcript of Yield and water use efficiency of corn planted in one or two rows and applying furrow or drip tape...