Maize response to irrigation and nitrogen under center pivot, subsurface drip and furrow irrigation: Water productivity, basal evapotranspiration and yield response factors

Information and data about quantification comparison of crop water productivity indices for various irrigation levels methods nitrogen (N) application timings “simultaneously” under the same conditions do not exist. Unprecedented extensive field experiments were conducted maize (Zea mays L.) in 2016 2017 center pivot (CP), subsurface drip (SDI) furrow (FI) with full treatment (FIT), 80 % FIT, 60 FIT rainfed (RFT) three N timings. treatments were: (i) traditional (TN), (ii) non-traditional-1 (NT-1) (iii) non-traditional-2 (NT-2). Irrigation-yield production functions (IYPF); evapotranspiration-yield (ETYPF), basal evapotranspiration (ETb), (CWP), use efficiency (IWUE); (ETWUE) yield response factors (Ky) quantified each method. SDI method required least seasonal amount achieving maximum yield, followed by CP (>~30 mm more than SDI) FI (>~55 SDI). Average requirement grain varied among within between methods. Irrigation amounts yields 160, 175 TN, NT-1 NT-2 treatments, respectively, method; 130, 150 184 TN management The highest per 25.4 applied order CP-TN (2.07 Mg ha−1)>SDI-NT-2 (1.91 ha−1)>FI-TN (1.22 ha−1). Across all given method, averaged CWP 3.00 kg m−3 (slope = 0.067 m−3) was observed (p < 0.05) 2.84 0.052 2.51 0.046 lowest ETb FI-TN (169 mm), CP-NT-2 (172 mm) SDI-TN (255 mm). For two consecutive years, did have significant > influence on IWUE or IWUE, ETWUE always obtained limited (60 and/or FIT) whereas FIT. Maize had Ky 1 CP, along lower values respective SDI, suggesting that reduction is impacted to a lesser degree from magnitude stress. overall conclusion disclosed utilizing combination (80 fertigation while can be viable practices high similar those presented this research.