Hostname: page-component-669899f699-7xsfk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-25T14:51:28.177Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Drip irrigation and mulching reduce weed interference and improve water productivity of spring maize

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 November 2024

Ritu Mohanpuria ,
Simerjeet Kaur Open the ORCID record for Simerjeet Kaur [Opens in a new window] ,
K. B. Singh  and
A. S. Brar
Ritu Mohanpuria
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, Punjab, India
Simerjeet Kaur*
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, Punjab, India
K. B. Singh
Affiliation:
Department of Soils Science, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, Punjab, India
A. S. Brar
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, Punjab, India
*
Corresponding author: Simerjeet Kaur; Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Drip irrigation and mulching were tested to minimize unproductive water loss through evaporation and weed interference. A field experiment was conducted during spring season of 2020 and 2021 in split plot design with three replications. The study includes six treatment combinations of drip irrigation methods (surface drip and subsurface drip irrigation) and mulching (black plastic, paddy straw and no mulch) along with one conventional furrow irrigation without mulching (as control) in main plots. Four weed control treatments (atrazine 1000 g a.i./ha as pre-emergence, two hand weedings at 30 and 60 days after sowing [DAS], weed free and weedy for whole crop growth period) were kept in the subplots. The combination of drip irrigation and mulches significantly enhanced leaf area index and crop biomass at 60 DAS than furrow irrigation. Integration of subsurface drip irrigation with plastic mulching resulted in the lowest weed density and biomass among main plots. Drip irrigation coupled with plastic and straw mulching resulted in 86 and 50% reduction in weed density and biomass, respectively, as compared to no mulching. Integration of subsurface drip with paddy straw mulch and black plastic mulch resulted in 17.1 and 15.5% higher maize grain yield, respectively, as compared to furrow irrigation. The highest irrigation water productivity (3.58 kg/m3) was observed in combination of subsurface drip and paddy straw mulch followed by combination of subsurface drip and black plastic mulch (3.51 kg/m3). Overall, straw mulching in drip irrigation system proved economical in terms of maize productivity.

Keywords

furrow irrigationgrain yieldpaddy straw mulchplastic mulchweed density
Type
Crops and Soils Research Paper
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 162 , Issue 3 , June 2024 , pp. 215 - 224
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Abou El-Enin, MM, Sheha, AM, El-Serafy Rasha, S, Ali, OAM, Saudy, HS and Shaaban, A (2023) Foliage-sprayed nano-chitosan-loaded nitrogen boosts yield potentials, competitive ability, and profitability of intercropped maize–soybean. International Journal of Plant Production 17, 517–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anonymous (2020) Punjab guidelines for groundwater extraction and conservation by Punjab water Regulation and Development Authority. pp. 14–17.Google Scholar
Anonymous (2021) Package of Practices for Rabi Crops of Punjab, 2020–21. Ludhiana: Punjab Agricultural University, pp. 124.Google Scholar
Arora, VK and Kukal, SS (2017) Re-appraisal of water use in Punjab agriculture: implications for rice culture. Agricultural Research Journal 54, 434–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brar, HS and Vashist, KK (2020) Drip irrigation and nitrogen fertilization alter phenological development and yield of spring maize (Zea mays L.) under semi-arid conditions. Journal of Plant Nutrition 43, 1757–1767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brar, SK, Mahal, SS, Brar, AS, Vashist, KK, Sharma, N and Buttar, GS (2012) Transplanting time and seedling age affect water productivity, rice yield and quality in north-west India. Agricultural Water Management 115, 217–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brar, AS, Buttar, GS and Vashist, KK (2019) Enhancing crop and water productivity of spring maize (Zea mays) through drip fertigation. Indian Journal of Agronomy 64, 87–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brar, AS, Kaur, K, Sindhu, VK, Tsolakis, N and Srai, JS (2022) Sustainable water use through multiple cropping systems and precision irrigation. Journal of Cleaner Production 333, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chakraborty, D, Nagarajan, S, Aggarwal, P, Gupta, VK and Tomar, RK (2008) Effect of mulching on soil and plant water status, and the growth and yield of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) in a semi-arid environment. Agricultural Water Management 95, 1323–1334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chalker-Scott, L (2007) Impact of mulches on landscape plants and the environment – a review. Journal of Environmental Horticulture 25, 239–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coolong, T (2013) Using irrigation to manage weeds: a focus on drip irrigation. In Soloneski, S and Larramendy, M (eds). Weed and Pest Control – Conventional and New Challenges. Rijeka, Croatia: InTech Publishers, pp. 162–182.Google Scholar
Culpepper, AS, Flanders, JT, York, AC and Webster, TM (2004) Tropical spiderwort (Commelina benghalensis) control in glyphosate-resistant cotton. Weed Technology 18, 432–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dar, E, Brar, A, Mishra, SK and Singh, K (2017) Simulating response of wheat to timing and depth of irrigation water in drip irrigation system using CERES-wheat model. Field Crop Research 214, 149–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Díaz-Pérez, JC, Phatak, SC, Ruberson, J and Morse, R (2012) Mulches increase yield and improve weed control in no-till organic broccoli (Brassica oleracea var. botrytis). Acta Horticulturae 933, 337–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
El-Hendawy, SE and Schmidhalter, U (2010) Optimal coupling combinations between irrigation frequency and rate for drip-irrigated maize grown on sandy soil. Agricultural Water Management 97, 439–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
El-Hendawy, SE, El-Lattief, EA, Ahmed, AS and Schmidhalter, U (2008) Irrigation rate and plant density effects on yield and water use efficiency of drip-irrigated corn. Agricultural Water Management 95, 836–844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
El-Metwally, IM, Geries, L and Saudy, HS (2022a) Interactive effect of soil mulching and irrigation regime on yield, irrigation water use efficiency and weeds of trickle-irrigated onion. Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science 68, 1103–1116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
El-Metwally, IM, Saudy, HS and Elewa, TA (2022b) Natural plant by-products and mulching materials to suppress weeds and improve sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) yield and quality. Journal of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition 22, 5217–5230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fentabil, MM, Nichol, CF, Neilsen, GH, Hannam, KD, Neilsen, D and Forge, TA (2016) Effect of micro-irrigation type, N-source and mulching on nitrous oxide emissions in a semi-arid climate: an assessment across two years in a Merlot grape vineyard. Agricultural Water Management 171, 49–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gao, HH, Yan, CG, Liu, Q, Li, Z, Yang, X and Qi, RM (2019) Exploring optimal soil mulching to enhance yield and water use efficiency in maize cropping in China: a meta-analysis. Agricultural Water Management 225, 105741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heap, I (2024) The International Herbicide-Resistant Weed Database. Online. 30 September 2024. Available at www.weedscience.org.Google Scholar
Hull, R, Tatnell, L, Cook, S, Beffa, R and Moss, S (2014) Current status of herbicide-resistant weeds in the UK. Aspects of Applied Biology 127, 261–272.Google Scholar
Hussain, M, Shah, SNA, Naeem, M, Farooq, S, Jabran, K and Alfarraj, S (2022) Impact of different mulching treatments on weed flora and productivity of maize (Zea mays L.) and sunflower (Helianthus annus L.). PLoS ONE 17, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jat, HS, Sharma, PC, Datta, A, Choudhary, M, Kakraliya, SK, Singh, Y, Sidhu, HS, Gerard, B and Jat, ML (2019) Re-designing irrigated intensive cereal systems through bundling precision agronomic innovations for transitioning towards agricultural sustainability in north-west India. Scientific Reports 9, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kang, SZ, Hao, XM, Du, TS, Tong, L, Su, XL, Lu, HN, Li, XL, Huo, ZL, Li, SE and Ding, RS (2017) Improving agricultural water productivity to ensure food security in China under changing environment: From research to practice. Agricultural Water Management 179, 5–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaur, R, Kaur, S, Deol, JS, Sharma, R, Kaur, T, Brar, AS and Choudhary, OP (2021) Soil properties and weed dynamics in wheat as affected by rice residue management in the rice–wheat cropping system in south Asia: a review. Plants 10, 953.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klute, A and Dirksen, C (1986) Hydraulic conductivity and diffusivity: laboratory methods. In Klute, A (ed.), Methods of Soil Analysis, Part I: Physical and Minerological Methods. Madison, WI: SSSA, pp. 687–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kresović, B, Tapanarova, A, Tomić, Z, Životić, L, Vujović, D, Sredojević, Z and Gajić, B (2016) Grain yield and water use efficiency of maize as influenced by different irrigation regimes through sprinkler irrigation under temperate climate. Agricultural Water Management 169, 34–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kunzová, E and Hejcman, M (2009) Yield development of winter wheat over 50 years of FYM N, P and K fertilizer application on black earth soil in the Czech Republic. Field Crop Research 111, 226–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuscu, H, Karasu, A, Oz, M, Demir, AO and Turgut, L (2013) Effect of irrigation amounts applied with drip irrigation on maize evapotranspiration, yield, water use efficiency, and net return in a sub-humid climate. Turkish Journal of Field Crops 18, 13–19.Google Scholar
Liu, G, Hou, P, Xie, R, Ming, B, Wang, K, Xu, W, Liu, W, Yang, Y and Li, S (2017) Canopy characteristics of high-yield maize with yield potential of 22.5 Mg ha−1. Field Crop Research 213, 221–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mubarak, M, Salem, EMM, Kenawey, MKM and Saudy, HS (2021) Changes in calcareous soil activity, nutrient availability, and corn productivity due to the integrated effect of straw mulch and irrigation regimes. Journal of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition 21, 2020–2031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Qin, SJ, Li, SE, Kang, SZ, Du, TS, Tong, L and Ding, RS (2016) Can the drip irrigation under film mulch reduce crop evapotranspiration and save water under the sufficient irrigation condition? Agricultural Water Management 177, 128–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, LA and Weaver, LR (1943) Fifteen-atmosphere percentage as related to the permanent wilting percentage. Soil Science 56, 331–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salem, EMM, Kenawey, MKM, Saudy, HS and Mubarak, M (2021) Soil mulching and deficit irrigation effect on sustainability of nutrients availability and uptake, and productivity of maize grown in calcareous soils. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis 52, 1745–1761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saudy, HS (2015) Maize–cowpea intercropping as an ecological approach for nitrogen-use rationalization and weed suppression. Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science 61, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saudy, HS and El-Metwally, IM (2023) Effect of irrigation, nitrogen sources and metribuzin on performance of maize and its weeds. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis 54, 22–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saudy, HS, El-Bially, MA, Ramadan, KhA, Abo El-Nasr, EKh and Abd El-Samad, GA (2021) Potentiality of soil mulch and sorghum extract to reduce the biotic stress of weeds with enhancing yield and nutrient uptake of maize crop. Gesunde Pflanzen 73, 555–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharma, R and Bhardwaj, S (2017) Effect of mulching on soil and water conservation – a review. Agricultural Reviews 38, 311–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shrestha, A, Jefrey, PM and Lanini, WT (2007) Subsurface drip irrigation as a weed management tool for conventional and conservation tillage tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) production in semi-arid agroecosystems. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 31, 37–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, KB and Vashist, KK (2016) Enhancing productivity of spring maize (Zea mays) through planting methods, varieties and irrigation levels in Punjab. Indian Journal of Agronomy 61, 348–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, KB, Jalota, S and Gupta, RK (2015) Soil water balance and response of spring maize (Zea mays) to mulching and differential irrigation in Punjab. Indian Journal of Agronomy 60, 279–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinha, I, Buttar, GS and Brar, AS (2017) Drip irrigation and fertigation improve economics, water and energy productivity of spring sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) in Indian Punjab. Agricultural Water Management 185, 58–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tian, FQ, Yang, PJ, Hu, HC and Liu, H (2017) Energy balance and canopy conductance for a cotton field under film mulched drip irrigation in an arid region of northwestern China. Agricultural Water Management 179, 110–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vatta, K, Arora, K, Kumar, S, Bhoi, PB and Adhale, P (2023) Commodity Outlook Report: Maize. Ludhiana: Department of Economics and Sociology, Punjab Agricultural University, 36pp.Google Scholar
Wang, D, Li, G, Mo, Y, Zhang, D, Xu, X, Wilkerson, CJ and Hoogenboom, G (2020) Evaluation of subsurface, mulched and non-mulched surface drip irrigation for maize production and economic benefits in northeast China. Irrigation Science 39, 159–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xu, L (2019) The application and practice of mulched drip irrigation on the facility horticulture. Agricultural Engineering Technology 9, 54–57 (in Chinese).Google Scholar
Zhang, X (2014) Experimental study of water and fertilizer coupling on maize mulched drip irrigation in the Yellow River Irrigation Area of Ningxia. Dissertation China Agricultural University, Beijing (in Chinese with English abstract).Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Mohanpuria et al. supplementary material 1

Mohanpuria et al. supplementary material
Download Mohanpuria et al. supplementary material 1(File)
File 15.9 MB
Supplementary material: File

Mohanpuria et al. supplementary material 2

Mohanpuria et al. supplementary material
Download Mohanpuria et al. supplementary material 2(File)
File 52.6 KB