Elsevier Editorial System(tm) for Agricultural Water Management

Manuscript Draft

Manuscript Number: AGWAT3641

Title: Physiological consequences of cotton - maize cropping sequence under deficit irrigation through
drip system

Article Type: Research Paper

Keywords: Deficit irrigation; water stress; relative leaf water content; water use efficiency.

Corresponding Author: Dr. T. Sampathkumar, PhD

Corresponding Author's Institution: Tamil Nadu Agricultural University

First Author: T. Sampathkumar, PhD

Order of Authors: T. Sampathkumar, PhD; B.J. Pandian, Ph.D; P. Jeyakumar, Ph.D

Abstract: Field experiments were conducted at Agricultural College and Research Institute, Coimbatore
during 2007 - 2009 to study the effect of deficit irrigation practices through drip irrigation system on
crop productivity and water use efficiency of cotton - maize cropping sequence. Experimental
treatments comprised of six irrigation levels through drip system viz., T1 - Conventional drip irrigation
(CDI) at 100 % ETc once in three days (throughout the cropping period), T2 - 100 and 50 % of ETc in
first and second irrigation cycle (alternate deficit irrigation (ADI) at 100% ETc), T3 - 100 % ETc in
alternate irrigation cycle (CDI at 50 % ETc once in six days), T4 - Conventional drip irrigation (CDI) at
80 % ETc once in three days (throughout the cropping period), T5 - 80 and 40 % of ETc in first and
second irrigation cycle (ADI at 80% ETc), T6 - 80 % ETc in alternate irrigation cycle (CDI at 40 % ETc
once in six days) with surface irrigation (T7) as one of the treatments for comparison. Maize was sown
after hybrid cotton under no till condition without disturbing the raised bed and drip layout. Response
of cotton plants to water stress on physiological parameters indicated that RLWC, LWP, CSI were
optimal in ADI treatment.

Suggested Reviewers: J Zhang Ph.D

Department of Biology, Hon Kong Baptist University, Kowloon Tong, hong Kong
jzhang@net1.hkbu.edu.hk
Doing research on deficit irrigation and published many paper related to deficit irrigation.

Sajjan Singh Rao Ph.D

Central Arid Zone Research Institute, Regional Research Station, Rajastan, India
iaraoss61@yahoo.co.in
Published research papers on deficit irrigation and currently working in water stress related project.

I. Farre Ph.D
Department of Agriculture and Food Western Australia, Baron-Hay Court, South Pert, Australia
ifarre@agric.wa.gov.au
Currently working on deficit irrigation research projects and vast experiences on deficit irrigation.

N. Dagdelen Ph.D
Department of Agricultural Structure and Irrigation, Faculty of Agriculture, Adnan Menderes
University
ndagdelen@adu.edu.tr
Vast experiences in irrigation management especially on deficit irrigation and published related
articles.

Opposed Reviewers:
Cover Letter

From
Dr.T.SAMPATHKUMAR, Ph.D
Research Associate (Agronomy)
Water Technology Centre,
Tamil Nadu Agricultural University
Coimbatore – 3
To
The Editor,
Agricultural Water Management (Journal)
Elsevier Publication

Dear Sir,
Sub: Submission of manuscript – research paper –reg

Herewith I am submitting the research paper entitled “Physiological

consequences of cotton – maize cropping sequence under deficit irrigation through
drip system”. Kindly consider it for publication in the esteemed International Journal of
Agricultural Water Management. Agricultural Water Management journal is one the
internationally reputed journals in which all the water especially irrigation related
research works have been published regularly. Since this research paper is related to
irrigation management, this journal has been opted for publication.
I also declare that the manuscript has not been previously published, is not
currently submitted for review to any other journal, and will not be submitted elsewhere
before one decision is made.

Thanking you

Yours sincerely,

(SAMPATHKUMAR. T)
Responses to Technical Check Results

Journal Title: Agricultural Water Management

Manuscript title: Physiological consequences of cotton – maize cropping sequence

under deficit irrigation through drip system

Dear Editor,
Thank you for your useful comments and suggestions on the structure of our
manuscript. We have modified the manuscript accordingly, and the detailed corrections
are listed below point by point:

1. We read the whole manuscript carefully to avoid language errors. In addition, we

asked several colleagues who are skilled authors to check the English. We believe
that the language is now acceptable for the review process.
2. The word count in abstract is 211.
3. All figures and tables are provided and cited sequentially in the text.
4. The required information has been included in the cover letter.
5. We have typed the whole manuscript in uniform lettering and sizing, and with
double line spacing.
6. We have checked all the references and formatted them strictly according to the
Guide for Authors. Especially the journal names have been abbreviated and page
span provided.

The manuscript has been resubmitted to your journal. We look forward to your positive
response

Yours sincerely,

(SAMPATHKUMAR. T)
*Highlights

 Deficit irrigation through drip irrigation system on cotton – maize crop sequence
 Water stress effects on crop physiology
 Mild deficit (ADI at 100% ETc) irrigation maintained higher RLWC, LWP and CSI
values
 Severe water stress lower the RLWC, LWP and CSI values
 Mild water deficit irrigation could be the optimal deficit irrigation schedule.
*Manuscript
Click here to download Manuscript: Manuscript.doc Click here to view linked References

1
2
3
4 Physiological consequences of cotton – maize cropping sequence under deficit irrigation
5
6
7 through drip system
8
9 T. Sampathkumara,*, B.J. Pandianb, P. Jeyakumarc
10
11 a
Department of Agronomy, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore – 641, India
12 b
Water Technology Centre, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore – 641, India
13 c
14 Department of Crop Physiology, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore – 641 003, India
15
16
17 ABSTRACT
18
19
20 Field experiments were conducted at Agricultural College and Research Institute, Coimbatore
21
22
23 during 2007 - 2009 to study the effect of deficit irrigation practices through drip irrigation
24
25 system on crop productivity and water use efficiency of cotton - maize cropping sequence.
26
27
Experimental treatments comprised of six irrigation levels through drip system viz., T1 -
28
29
30 Conventional drip irrigation (CDI) at 100 % ETc once in three days (throughout the cropping
31
32 period), T2 - 100 and 50 % of ETc in first and second irrigation cycle (alternate deficit irrigation
33
34
35 (ADI) at 100% ETc), T3 - 100 % ETc in alternate irrigation cycle (CDI at 50 % ETc once in six
36
37 days), T4 - Conventional drip irrigation (CDI) at 80 % ETc once in three days (throughout the
38
39
40 cropping period), T5 - 80 and 40 % of ETc in first and second irrigation cycle (ADI at 80%
41
42 ETc), T6 - 80 % ETc in alternate irrigation cycle (CDI at 40 % ETc once in six days) with
43
44
45
surface irrigation (T7) as one of the treatments for comparison. Maize was sown after hybrid
46
47 cotton under no till condition without disturbing the raised bed and drip layout. Response of
48
49 cotton plants to water stress on physiological parameters indicated that RLWC, LWP, CSI were
50
51
52 optimal in ADI treatment.
53
54
55 Keywords: Deficit irrigation, water stress, relative leaf water content, water use efficiency
56
57 *
Corresponding Author. Tel.: +91 9787879901. E-mail: agrosamba@yahoo.co.in
58 Present Address: Water Technology Centre, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Tamil Nadu, India.
59
60
61
62
63
64
1
65
 1
2
3
4 1. Introduction
5
6
7
8 Advanced irrigation technologies such as, drip and sprinkler irrigation methods are
9
10 preferable to less efficient traditional surface methods to achieve higher crop and water
11
12
13 productivity. Deficit (or regulated deficit) irrigation is one way of maximizing the water use
14
15 efficiency for higher yield per unit of irrigation water applied. The goal of deficit irrigation is to
16
17
18 increase crop water use efficiency (WUE) by reducing the amount of water at irrigation or by
19
20 reducing the number of irrigation events (Kirda, 2002). Under deficit irrigation, crops are
21
22
23
deliberately exposed to water stress, which may consequently lead to yield reduction (Smith et
24
25 al., 2002; Prichard et al., 2004; Zhang et al., 2004). Drip irrigation has been practiced for many
26
27 years for its effectiveness in reducing soil surface evaporation, increasing the crop yield and
28
29
30 WUE. Now it has been used widely in horticultural and wide spaced agricultural crops in order
31
32 to tackle the problem of water scarcity. In addition to Deficit Irrigation (DI), Partial Root zone
33
34
35 Drying (PRD) is also a promising practice for inducing stress tolerance in some agricultural and
36
37 horticultural crops. DI and PRD systems require high management skills. Micro-irrigation
38
39
40
technology facilitates the application of DI and PRD. Under PRD, when part of the root zone
41
42 dries out, the levels of abcissic acid (ABA, a plant growth regulator) in the plant increases as
43
44 drying increases. This sends a message to the leaves to close the stomata as a response to water
45
46
47 stress, reducing shoot growth and evaporation from the leaf surface. However, because other
48
49 roots still have access to water, the plant continues to grow without affecting fruit development.
50
51
52 Several scientists explored the impact of deficit irrigation on maize and cotton (Kang et
53
54
55 al., 2000a,b; Pan and Kang, 2000; Tang et al., 2005). PRD and DI involve manipulating the
56
57 placement of irrigation water and the moisture deficit maintained in the root zone, respectively.
58
59
60 This type of small frequent irrigation applications is achievable only with either drip irrigation or
61
62
63
64
2
65
 1
2
3
4 Large Mobile Irrigation Machines, LMIMs (White, 2007). Alternate drip irrigation showed good
5
6
7 physiological responses in terms of photosynthesis, transpiration rate, gas exchange and WUE in
8
9 cotton (Du et al., 2008).
10
11
12 Deficit irrigation approach was adopted in crops based on the sensitivity of crop critical
13
14
15 stages to soil moisture stress. The use of permanent, pressurized irrigation systems also made it
16
17 possible for small amounts applied at frequent intervals thus, providing an additional tool for
18
19
20
stress management (Fereres and Soriano, 2007). White (2007) conducted field trial to evaluate a
21
22 range of both deficit and PRD irrigation strategies on cotton under commercial conditions
23
24 through Large Mobile Irrigation Machines (LMIMs) and found that there was no significant
25
26
27 influence of PRD on cotton. Du et al. (2008) outlined the positive impact of alternate drip
28
29 irrigation in cotton. They studied the cotton crop under conventional drip irrigation wherein, both
30
31
32 sides of plant row are watered, and alternate drip irrigation wherein, both sides of plant row are
33
34 alternatively watered. Alternate drip irrigation showed good physiological response and
35
36
37 increased the WUE of cotton.
38
39
40
Sampathkumar (2003) indicated that drip irrigated cotton plants maintained higher
41
42 relative leaf water content (RLWC) than water stressed plants. In maize, water stress at
43
44 vegetative stage decreased the RWC in sensitive cultivars (Li and Staden, 1998). Song et al.
45
46
47 (1995) reported that well watered maize leaves maintained relatively high water content than
48
49 stressed one. In many plants, leaf water potential is reduced under drought or water stress
50
51
52 conditions, but cotton has the ability to osmotically adjust and maintain a higher leaf turgor
53
54 potential (Turner et al., 1986; Nepomuceno et al., 1998). Leaf water potential was significantly
55
56
57 reduced in medium and lowest regimes of irrigation scheduled throughout the cropping period in
58
59 cotton. Atteya (2003) conducted a study to find out the response of maize to water deficit during
60
61
62
63
64
3
65
 1
2
3
4 different growth stages. The water deficit during vegetative growth stage reduced the mean leaf
5
6
7 water potential from –0.59 to –0.65 MPa (in control plant) and –0.66 to –0.77 MPa (in stressed
8
9 plant). Water stress during tasselling stage in maize showed the mean LWP was –0.96 to –1.25
10
11
12 MPa (in control plants) and –2.00 to –2.88 MPa (in stressed plants).
13
14
15 Schurr et al. (2000) suggested that free proline accumulated in water-stressed leaves of
16
17 many crops. Kar et al. (2004) studied the response of different cotton cultivars to moisture stress
18
19
20
and found that stress apparently increased the proline accumulation. Vendruscolo et al. (2007)
21
22 found that proline was involved in tolerance mechanisms against oxidative stress and this was
23
24 the main strategy of plants to avoid detrimental effects of water stress. Conversion of nitrate to
25
26
27 nitrite is a basic process in nitrogen metabolism. Khanna-Chopra et al. (1980) observed that there
28
29 was a continuous decline in nitrate reductase (NRase) activity in maize under water stress. Kar et
30
31
32 al. (2004) reported that irrespective of cotton cultivars, NRase activity was adversely affected by
33
34 moisture stress.
35
36
37 Gadallah (1995) studied the performance of maize plants under moisture stress for its
38
39
40
physiological characters. In control (fully watered) plants, decrease in chlorophyll stability index
41
42 (CSI) was accompanied with a progressive decrease in soil water potential. The decrease was
43
44 highly significant at soil matric potential at -1.0 and -1.5 MPa. Kar et al. (2004) studied different
45
46
47 physiological characters in cotton cultivars under water stress and found that CSI was adversely
48
49 affected by the moisture stress. Under sever water stress, the CSI decreased with increase in
50
51
52 water stress in most of the genotypes of maize (Meena Kumari et al., 2004).
53
54
55 Water stress induces some physiological changes inside the plants, which are hidden and
56
57 have cumulative effect on final crop yield. When cotton crop exposed to alternate drip irrigation,
58
59
60 photosynthesis rate was not reduced significantly as compared to that of conventional drip
61
62
63
64
4
65
 1
2
3
4 irrigation. Transpiration rate was significantly lower than that of conventional drip irrigation at
5
6
7 lower level of irrigation. At higher irrigation levels, significantly lower transpiration than that of
8
9 conventional drip irrigation was observed (Du et al., 2008). Kang et al. (2000a) outlined the
10
11
12 effect of deficit irrigation (DI) on stomatal conductance of maize. Significant increase in
13
14 stomatal resistance and reduction in photosynthesis were observed on both mildly and severely
15
16
17 dried plants when measured on diurnal basis at the end of the drying period. Such restriction
18
19 completely diminished three days after rewatering in all plots.
20
21
22 PRD is implemented in orchards and other crops in field by using two drip laterals per
23
24 crop row in order to create alternate wet and dry soil profile. But, it is not an economically viable
25
26
27 technology. Hence in this study, it was planned to use the PRD and DI approaches through drip
28
29 irrigation in existing paired row lay out and PRD concept was implemented through alternate
30
31
32 deficit irrigation (ADI). In India, little attempt has been made to assess the physiological
33
34 consequences, WUE and crop performance of cotton and maize under DI. The main objective of
35
36
37 this research was physiological response of cotton and maize to deficit irrigation through drip
38
39 system under water stress.
40
41
42
43
2. Materials and methods
44
45
46 2.1. Seasons and weather data
47
48
49
50
Field experiments were conducted at Agricultural College and Research Institute,
51
52 Coimbatore during 2007 (winter) – 2009 (summer). Cotton crop was raised during winter
53
54 (August, 2007 to January, 2008) and maize was raised during summer (February to May, 2008)
55
56
57 under raised bed lay out of drip system. Maize was sown after hybrid cotton under no till
58
59 condition without disturbing the drip layout A confirmation study with the same set of treatments
60
61
62
63
64
5
65
 1
2
3
4 was conducted in the same seasons during 2008-09. The pre-sowing composite soil samples
5
6
7 collected from the experimental field were analysed for physio-chemical characteristics. The
8
9 experimental soil was sandy clay with 1.36 -1.42 (2007) and 1.34 -1.41 (2008) Mg cc-1 of bulk density,
10
11
12 field capacity of 25.2 -26.3 (2007) and 25.1-26.1 (2008) per cent, and permanent wilting point of 12.5-
13
14 13.7 (2007) and 12.4 -13.6 (2008) per cent. The nutrient status was low (264-248 kg ha-1), medium
15
16
17 (18.1-18.5 kg ha-1) and high (364 - 372 kg ha-1) for available nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P) and
18
19 potassium (K), respectively.
20
21
22 Cotton crop raised during first year in winter (August’07 to Janaury’08) received 452.8
23
24 mm of rainfall in 24 rainy days (Table 1). Weekly mean pan evaporation ranged from 4.6 to7.2 mm.
25
26
27 Maximum mean weekly temperature was 33.0oC and minimum was 16.3oC. Relative humidity ranged
28
29 between 74 and 96 per cent and 41 and 71 per cent at 07.22 and 14.22 hrs, respectively. Maize crop
30
31
32 raised during February’08 to May’08 received 171 mm of rainfall in 11 rainy days (Table 2). Weekly
33
34 mean evaporation ranged from 3.2 to 7.3 mm. Maximum mean weekly temperature was 29.00C to
35
36
37 35.70C and minimum was 15.9 to 24.60C. Relative humidity fluctuated from 70 to 92 per cent and 28 to
38
39 63 per cent at 07.22 and 14.22 hrs, respectively.
40
41
42 Cotton crop raised during second year in winter (July’08 to December’08) received 473.0 mm
43
44 of rainfall in 30 rainy days. Weekly mean pan evaporation ranged from 2.4 to 7.3 mm. Maximum mean
45
46
47 weekly temperature was 27.1 to 33.4oC and minimum was 16.9 to 23.5oC. Relative humidity ranged
48
49 between 76 and 94 per cent and 38 and 71 per cent at 07.22 and 14.22 hrs, respectively. Second maize
50
51
52 crop raised during January’09 to May’09 received 101 mm of rainfall in 3 rainy days. Weekly mean
53
54 evaporation ranged from 4.8 to 6.8 mm. Maximum mean weekly temperature was 29.1 to 36.40C and
55
56
57 minimum was 18.0 to 24.40C. Relative humidity fluctuated from 79 to 88 per cent and 19 to 45 per cent
58
59 at 07.22 and 14.22 hrs, respectively.
60
61
62
63
64
6
65
 1
2
3
4 2.2. Lay out and experimentation
5
6
7
8 The experiment was laid out in a randomized block design and the treatments were
9
10 replicated thrice. Treatments comprised of six irrigation levels through drip with surface
11
12
13 irrigation under furrow as one of the treatments for comparison. Drip irrigation system was
14
15 operated once in three days and water was applied as per the treatments. Furrow irrigation was
16
17
18 applied based on IW/CPE ratio of 0.75. The treatments were allotted to the plots by
19
20 randomization.
21
22
23
Treatments
24
25 T1 – Conventional drip irrigation (CDI) at 100 % ETc once in 3 days (throughout the
26
27
28 cropping period)
29
30 T2 – 100 and 50 % of ETc in first and second irrigation cycle (alternate deficit irrigation
31
32
33 (ADI) at 100% ETc)
34
35
36
T3 – 100 % ETc in alternate irrigation cycle (CDI at 50 % ETc once in 6 days)
37
38 T4 – Conventional drip irrigation (CDI) at 80 % ETc once in 3 days (throughout the
39
40
41 cropping period)
42
43 T5 – 80 and 40 % of ETc in first and second irrigation cycle (ADI at 80% ETc)
44
45
46 T6 - 80 % ETc in alternate irrigation cycle (CDI at 40 % ETc once in 6 days)
47
48
49 T7 – Surface irrigation
50
51
52 The experimental field was thoroughly ploughed using tractor drawn tiller and then
53
54 properly levelled. After levelling, ridges and furrows were formed at 75 cm apart to
55
56
57 accommodate furrow irrigated crop. Beds were formed in the dimension of 120 cm width, 30 cm
58
59 furrow and 15 cm height. Buffer channels were formed to control the lateral seepage of water
60
61
62
63
64
7
65
 1
2
3
4 from one plot to another. The plot size was 7.2 x 4.5 m accommodating 6 rows of crop. The seed
5
6
7 rates adopted for cotton was 450 g per hectare. Cotton Bt hybrid Malliga, released from Nuzi
8
9 veedu seed (Pvt.) Ltd., and maize hybrid COHM (5) released from Department of Millets, Tamil
10
11
12 Nadu Agricultural University were used for the experimental study. Seeds were hand dibbled at
13
14 the rate of one per hole. Paired row spacing of 120 + 30 x 60 cm was followed. Dates of sowing
15
16
17 were 1.8.2007 and 23.7.2008, 19.2.2008 and 18.1.2009, respectively for cotton and maize.
18
19
20
Sowing irrigation was uniformly given to all treatments. The depth of irrigation was fixed
21
22 as 5 cm. Under drip irrigation scheduling was done based on wetted area concept and irrigation
23
24 system was operated once in three days.
25
26
27 Water requirement or ETc (lpd) = CPE x Kp x Kc x Wp x S
28
29
30 where,
31
32 ETc - Crop evapotranspiration
33
34
35 CPE - Cumulative Pan Evaporation (mm)
36
37 Kp - Pan factor (0.8)
38
39
40
Kc - Crop co-efficient
41
42 Wp - Wetting area percentage (80 per cent)
43
44 S - Crop spacing (0.75 x 0.60 m for cotton; 0.75 x 0.20 m for maize)
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
8
65
 1
2
3
4 Kc values
5
6
7
8 Crop stage Cotton Maize
9
10
11 Duration (days) Kc value Duration (days) Kc value
12
13
14 Initial 30 0.45 20 0.40
15
16
17 Crop development 45 0.75 30 0.80
18
19
20 Mid season 50 1.15 40 1.15
21
22
23
24 Late season 15 0.85 10 0.70
25
26
27 Irrigation water was pumped through 7.5 HP motor and conveyed to the main line of 63
28
29 mm OD (outer diameter) PVC (Poly vinyl chloride) pipes after filtering through sand filter. In
30
31
32 the main line, venturi was installed for fertigation. From the main, sub mains of 40 mm OD PVC
33
34 pipes were drawn and from the sub main, laterals of 12 mm LLDPE pipes were installed at an
35
36
37 interval of 1.5 m. Each lateral was provided with individual tap control for imposing respective
38
39 irrigation schedules. Along the laterals, inline drippers with a discharge capacity of 4 lit hr-1 were
40
41
42
spaced at 0.6 m. Single lateral was used for a paired row of cotton. Sub mains and laterals were
43
44 closed at the end with end cap. After installation, trial run was conducted to assess mean dripper
45
46 discharge and uniformity coefficient. This was taken into account while fixing the irrigation
47
48
49 water application time. During the irrigation period an average of 90 to 95 per cent uniformity
50
51 was observed.
52
53
54 Drip lines were laid out in a ‘one-line two-row pattern’ (ie two rows of crops were
55
56
57 irrigated with one drip line). Irrigation was applied as 100 (T1) and 80 (T4) per cent of ETc
58
59 throughout the cropping period. Irrigation under simulated PRD ie ADI treatments scheduled
60
61
62
63
64
9
65
 1
2
3
4 was as follows; alternate deficit irrigation treatment (T2) irrigation was applied 100 per cent ETc
5
6
7 during first irrigation and 50 per cent in second irrigation cycle and treatment (T5) received 80
8
9 per cent of ETc in first irrigation and 40 per cent in second irrigation cycle. Under severe water
10
11
12 stress treatments (T3 and T6), irrigation was applied as skipping alternate cycle. Conveniently, it
13
14 was fixed as once in 6 days with 50 and 40 per cent ETc, respectively in T3 and T6. Mild water
15
16
17 stress was imposed in T2 and T4 while moderate stress was in T5 and severe stress in T3 and T6.
18
19 Surface irrigation treatment was irrigated based on 0.75 IW/CPE ratio through furrow irrigation
20
21 to the depth of 5 cm.
22
23
24 Pendimethalin @ 1.0 kg a.i per hectare and Atrazine @ 0.5 kg a.i per hectare were
25
26
27 applied, respectively, in cotton and maize fields as pre emergence herbicide on 3 DAS. Hand
28
29 weeding was done on 25 and 60 DAS in cotton and 25 DAS in maize. Gap filling was done on
30
31
32 10 DAS for cotton and 6 DAS for maize in order to maintain the optimum plant population of
33
34 22220 and 66660 plants ha-1, respectively. Healthy crop stand was ensured by adopting
35
36
37 recommended package of practices and need based plant protection measures. Recommended
38
39 dose of 90:45:45 and 150:75:75 kg of NPK per hectare were applied to cotton and maize,
40
41
respectively. Nitrogen and potassium were applied through fertigation for drip irrigation
42
43
44 treatments in the form of urea and muriate of potash, respectively. Full dose of phosphorus was
45
46 applied basally as single super phosphate in all treatments. Fertigation schedule (Table 3) was
47
48
49 adopted for both the crops and injected through venturi device. In surface irrigation treatment,
50
51 fertilizers were soil applied as split doses as per the recommendation.
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
10
65
 1
2
3
4 2.3. Observation
5
6
7
8 Five plants from the net plot area were selected at random and tagged. The tagged plants
9
10 were used for recording physiological observation at different growth stages. Leaf samples were
11
12
13 collected from five sample plants before irrigation cycles during the rain free period (blooming
14
15 and boll development stages for cotton; tasseling and silking stages for maize) for analyzing
16
17
18 physiological parameters
19
20
21 Relative leaf water content was estimated as suggested by Barrs and Weatherly (1962). Fully
22
23 expanded third leaf of comparable age and orientation at the top was collected before irrigation
24
25
cycles. Two gram (fresh weight) was weighed from the leaf discs and was floated in distilled
26
27
28 water for four hours; then surface dried using tissue paper and weighed (leaf turgid weight). The
29
30 dry weight is obtained by drying leaf discs in an oven at 65  50 C which is sufficiently long to
31
32
33 dry the discs to constant weight. The RLWC was calculated from the formula given below;
34
35
36 Fresh weight (g) – Dry weight (g)
37
38
39 RLWC (%) = ----------------------------------------------- x 100
40
41
42 Turgid weight (g) – Dry weight (g)
43
44
45 Leaf water potential was measured during 11:00 am to 1:00 pm in youngest fully
46
47 expanded leaves (those for which gas exchange was measured) using pressure bomb apparatus.
48
49
50 The leaf proline accumulation was estimated as described by Bates et al. (1973). Chlorophyll
51
52 stability index (CSI) was assessed according to the method suggested by Murty and Majumder
53
54
55
(1962). CSI was estimated by using the formula given below
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
11
65
 1
2
3
4 OD of heated sample
5
6
7 CSI (%) = X 100
8
9
10 OD of control (unheated)
11
12
13 NRase activity in cotton and maize leaves was assessed by the method described by
14
15
16 Nicholas et al. (1976) and expressed as µmole of NO2 nitrogen produced hr–1g–1 of fresh tissue.
17
18 Eco-physiological parameters viz., transpiration rate, stomatal resistance and stomatal
19
20
21 conductance were measured using a portable steady state porometer (Model 1600 LI-COR
22
23 Instruments). Measurements were taken between 10:30 am to 11:30 am. The readings were taken
24
25
from physiologically active leaf (Third leaf from the top) in five randomly tagged plants per plot
26
27
28 (average of five readings from each plant) during blooming and silking stages, respectively in
29
30 cotton and maize.
31
32
33
34 3. Results and discussion
35
36
37 3.1. Relative leaf water content (RLWC)
38
39
40
41 Irrigation treatments had profound influence on relative water content of leaf and
42
43 registered higher values (Fig. 1 and 2) during blooming (60-70 DAS) and comparatively less
44
45
46 during the boll development (110-120 DAS). During 60-70 DAS, RLWC of cotton leaf was
47
48 higher (84.8-85.2 and 85.2-85.4 per cent during 2007 and 2008, respectively) under full
49
50
51 irrigation (T1) and it was on par with mild water stressed treatments (T2 and T4) and significantly
52
53 different from the treatments under severe stress (T3 and T6). Similar trend was observed at 110-
54
55
120 DAS also. The least values (65.8 -64.8 and 66.7-65.4 per cent during 60-70 DAS and 110-
56
57
58 120 DAS during 2007 and 2008, respectively) were registered under severely stressed plots (T6).
59
60 The RLWC as recorded at tasseling and silking stages is depicted in the Fig. 3 and 4. In general,
61
62
63
64
12
65
 1
2
3
4 RLWC was higher at tasseling when compared to silking during both the years. Significantly
5
6
7 more RLWC was noticed under T1 (84.6-85.6 and 83.7-84.8 per cent, respectively during tasseling
8
9 and silking) and it was comparable with ADI treatment (T2) and T4. Drip irrigation at 40 per cent
10
11
12 ETc once in six days registered least values (64.5-62.5 and 63.5-61.5 per cent, respectively
13
14 during tasseling and silking) next to T3. The values obtained under T3 and T7 were comparable
15
16
17 with each other. Though the trend was similar in 2008 and 2009, water stress had more effect
18
19 during 2009 than 2008.
20
21
22 Relative leaf water content was considered as an important indicator of plant water status,
23
24 which reflecting the metabolic activity in leaf tissues (Flower and Ludlow, 1986). In this study,
25
26
27 RLWC declined with water deficit and it might be due to unavailability of water in soil or root
28
29 system which was not able to compensate for water loss by transpiration through a reduction of
30
31
32 the absorbing surface (Gadallah, 2000). Similar views were expressed for many plant species
33
34 grown under water deficit conditions (Sairam, 1994 and Gadallah, 1995).
35
36
37
38 3.2. Leaf water potential (LWP)
39
40
41 Irrespective of the treatments, LWP was influenced by the water stress at both the stages and
42
43
44 recorded higher values (Fig. 1 and 2) during blooming (60-70 DAS) and lesser during boll
45
46 development (110-120 DAS). Higher values for LWP were registered under full irrigation treatment
47
48
(-0.6 MPa during both years) and they were closer to T2 and T4 treatments during blooming. LWP was
49
50
51 very low under severe stressed plants (T3 and T6). Values (-1.2 to -1.4 and -1.2 to -1.3 MPa on 60-70
52
53 DAS and 110-120 DAS during 2007 and 2008, respectively) recorded under surface irrigation (T7)
54
55
56 were closer to the values (-1.3 to -1.5 MPa at both the stages during both years) obtained under
57
58 alternate deficit irrigation (T5). Similar trend was noticed during 2007 and 2008. In maize, deficit
59
60
61
62
63
64
13
65
 1
2
3
4 irrigation practices adversely affected the LWP of maize during tasseling and silking stages
5
6
7 during both the years (Fig. 3 and 4). Plants applied with full irrigation (T1) maintained higher
8
9 values (-0.8 and 0.9 MPa, respectively during tasseling and silking) and was comparable (-0.8 to
10
11
12 -0.9 and -0.9 to -1.0 MPa, respectively during tasseling and silking) with ADI at 100 per cent
13
14 ETc (T2) during 2008. It was followed by ADI at 80 per cent ETc (T2) and T4. Severe water
15
16
17 stress drastically reduced the LWP and plants irrigated at 40 per cent ETc once in six days
18
19 showed the least (-1.9 to -2.0 and -2.0 to -2.1MPa, respectively during tasseling and silking)
20
21 values. The values obtained under T7 and T3 were comparable with each other. The same trend was
22
23
24 observed in both the years. Ennahli and Earl (2005) also studied the impact of water stress on leaf
25
26 water potential in cotton. In all stressed treatments LWP differed significantly from one another.
27
28
29 Severely water stressed plants recorded lesser values compared to mildly stressed and control
30
31 plants. Atteya (2003) also reported the same response of maize to water deficit during different
32
33
34 growth stages.
35
36
37 3.3. Leaf proline content
38
39
40
41 Proline accumulation was significantly affected by the irrigation practices in cotton leaf
42
43 (Fig. 1 and 2). Significantly more accumulation of 20.4 and 20.2 µmol g FW-1 during 2007 and 2008,
44
45
46
respectively at blooming (60-70 DAS) and 20.1 and 19.8 µmol g FW-1 during 2007 and 2008,
47
48 respectively at boll development (110-120 DAS) was observed in severely water stressed plant
49
50 (T6) as compared to all the treatments. Fully watered plants and mild stressed plants (ADI)
51
52
53 accumulated less proline when compared to other stressed plants. The same trend was observed
54
55 in the confirmation trial also. Maize plants subjected to severe water stress (T6) accumulated
56
57
58 significantly more proline (19.6 to 20.2 and 21.8 to 22.1 µmol g FW-1, respectively during 2008
59
60 and 2009) at silking and tasseling, respectively (Fig. 3 and 4). In general, the values were higher
61
62
63
64
14
65
 1
2
3
4 during tasseling than silking during both years. Next to T6, T7 accumulated more proline and it
5
6
7 was comparable with T3 during both the stages and years. Plants grown in CDI at 100 per cent
8
9 ETc (T1) accumulated lesser (4.6 to 4.9 and 4.9 to 5.0 µmol g FW-1, respectively during 2008 and
10
11
12 2009) proline when compared to other treatments. Next to T6, T7 accumulated more proline and
13
14 it was comparable with T3 during both the stages and years. Plants grown in CDI at 100 per cent
15
16
17 ETc (T1) accumulated lesser (4.6 to 4.9 and 4.9 to 5.0 µmol g FW-1, respectively during 2008 and
18
19 2009) proline when compared to other treatments.
20
21
22 Proline accumulation in response to stress is widely reported, and may play a role in
23
24 stress adaptation within the cell (Gilbert et al., 1998). Proline was one of the key osmolytes
25
26
27 contributing towards osmotic adjustments (Hare and Cress, 1997). Severe water stress reduced
28
29 the CSI compared to full irrigation. This may be due to degradation of chlorophyll by producing
30
31
32 proteolytic enzymes such as chlorophyllase, which is responsible for degradation (Sabater and
33
34 Rodriquez, 1978).
35
36
37
38 3.4. Chlorophyll stability index (CSI)
39
40
41 Different irrigation practices significantly influenced the chlorophyll stability index. Well
42
43
44 watered cotton plants (T1) recorded higher values of 67.6 and 65.8 per cent, respectively during
45
46 2007 and 2008 (blooming stage) and 65.5 and 64.9 per cent, respectively during 2007 and 2008
47
48
(boll development stage) (Fig. 1 and 2). The same was on par with T2 and T4 in all observations
49
50
51 and years. Least values for CSI were registered under severely water stressed plants (T3 and T6)
52
53 and significantly differed from the alternate deficit irrigation (T2 and T5). Maize plants subjected
54
55
56 to severe water stress (T6) accumulated significantly more proline (19.6 to 20.2 and 21.8 to 22.1
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
15
65
 1
2
3
4 µmol g-1FW, respectively during 2008 and 2009) at silking and tasseling, respectively (Fig. 3 and
5
6
7 4). In general, the values were higher during tasseling than silking during both years.
8
9
10 A higher CSI indicates the better availability of chlorophyll during stress. This leads to
11
12 increase in photosynthetic rate, dry matter production and high productivity. The decrease in CSI
13
14
15 was because of the degradation of chlorophyll under low RLWC due to low soil water status.
16
17 Stressed plants maintained lower RLWC than plants under optimal irrigation. This may be due to
18
19
20
insufficient root system to absorb soil water to improve the ET (El-Sharkawi and Salama, 1977).
21
22
23 3.5. Nitrate reductase (NRase) activity
24
25
26
27
Similar to proline and CSI, NRase activity was also significantly affected by water stress
28
29 and followed the same trend as proline. NRase activity was increased as water stress increased as
30
31 evidenced from higher values under stressed treatments (Fig.1 and 2). Irrespective of treatments
32
33
34 and all the stages of observation, NRase activity was significantly more (0.52 and 0.49 µmol
35
36 NO2g-1h-1 during 2007 and 2008, respectively) in plants with sever stress (T6) during blooming
37
38
39 stage. Plants supplied with full irrigation (T1) recorded less value for NRase activity and it was
40
41 on par with mild deficit irrigation of T2 but significantly differed with other treatments. The same
42
43
44 trend was noticed in the confirmation study also. In maize, NRase data showed that deficit
45
46 irrigation practices had significant effect on NRase activity at both the stages of observations
47
48
(Fig. 3 and 4). In general, values were lower during tasseling and higher during silking,
49
50
51 irrespective of treatments. Drip irrigation at 40 per cent ETc once in six days (T6) caused severe
52
53 stress and increased the NRase activity (0.52 to 0.54 and 0.52 to 0.55 µmol NO2 g-1h-1,
54
55
56 respectively during tasseling and silking in 2008 and 2009) followed by T3. Least values were
57
58 observed under non stressed treatment T1 followed by mild stressed (T2 and T4) treatments.
59
60
61
62
63
64
16
65
 1
2
3
4 However, the differences were comparable among the same treatments. Similar trend was
5
6
7 observed during 2008 and 2009.
8
9
10 Nitrogen assimilation and photosynthetic efficiency were reduced in water stressed plants
11
12 mainly owing to the decreased activities of the key enzymes involved in these processes. NRase,
13
14
15 the prime enzyme in the N assimilation process, was markedly inhibited by water stress. The
16
17 reduction in activity might be either due to reduction in enzyme level (Bardzik et al., 1971) or due to
18
19
20
inaction of enzyme dictated by stress conditions (Nicholas et al., 1976).
21
22 The nitrate reductase enzyme was highly sensitive towards oxidative stress and decreased
23
24 activity might be due to breakdown of proteins under water stress conditions
25
26
27 (Kalarani and Jeyakumar, 1998). Kar et al. (2004) also reported that reduced NRase activity
28
29 under soil moisture stress in sensitive cotton cultivars.
30
31
32
33 3.6. Transpiration rate
34
35
36 The data on transpiration rate recorded during blooming stage showed that water stress
37
38
39 had negative effect on transpiration rate during both the years of experimentation (Table 4).
40
41 Transpiration rate was highest (12.8 and 13.2 μg H2O cm-2 s-1, respectively during 2007 and
42
43
44 2008) in plants supplied with full irrigation (T1) followed by mild water stressed plants (T2 and
45
46 T4). Transpiration rate was decreased as water stress increased. The values obtained from full
47
48
irrigation and mild stress treatments were high when compared to severely stressed plants. Water
49
50
51 stressed plants (T6 and T3) less transpired than the other plants. Similar trend was observed
52
53 during 2007 and 2008. In maize, deficit irrigation practices caused negative effect on transpiration
54
55
56 rate at silking stage during 2008 and 2009 (Table 5). Transpiration rate was higher (26.7 and 26.2 μg
57
58 cm-2 s-1, respectively during 2008 and 2009) in plants supplied with full irrigation (T1) followed
59
60
61
62
63
64
17
65
 1
2
3
4 by T2 and T4. The values obtained from T1, T2 and T4 were numerically comparable with the
5
6
7 severe water stressed plants. Transpiration rate decreased as water stress increased. Water
8
9 stressed plants (T6 and T3) transpired less than the other plants. Similar trend was observed
10
11
12 during 2008 and 2009.
13
14
15 3.7. Diffusive resistance
16
17
18
19 Deficit irrigation practices caused differences in diffusive resistance of the crop (Table
20
21 4). Resistance to entry of air and CO2 was higher (6.7 and 5.3 s cm-1) in plants supplied with 40-
22
23
24 50 per cent of ETc (T6 and T3) during 2007. Fully irrigated plants (T1) registered lower values
25
26 (3.4 and 3.6 s cm-1, respectively during 2007 and 2008) for diffusive resistant compared to plants
27
28 grown in stressed plots. The same trend was observed in 2008 also. Diffusive resistance of maize
29
30
31 during silking stage showed that water stress had negative effect during both the years of
32
33 experimentation (Table 5). Resistance to entry of air and CO2 was higher (8.1 - 8.4 and 7.2 - 7.1
34
35
36 s cm-1, respectively during 2008 and 2009) in plants irrigated once in six days through drip
37
38 system at 40 and 50 per cent of ETc (T6 and T3). Fully irrigated plants (T1) registered lesser values
39
40
41 (5.4 s cm-1 during both the years) for diffusive resistant compared to plants grown under ADI at
42
43 100 per cent ETc and CDI at 80 per cent ETc plots (T2 and T4). The same trend was observed in
44
45
46
2009 also.
47
48
49 3.8. Stomatal conductance
50
51
52
53
Leaf conductance of cotton plants for gas and water vapour was adversely affected by the
54
55 water stress treatments at blooming stage during 2007 and 2008 (Table 4). The highest values were
56
57 registered under full irrigation (0.21 and 0.23 cm s-1, respectively during 2007 and 2008) followed
58
59
60 by ADI treatments (T4) at 100 per cent ETc (0.20 and 0.21 cm s-1, respectively during 2007 and
61
62
63
64
18
65
 1
2
3
4 2008). Stomatal conductance registered comparable values for CDI treatments and ADI
5
6
7 treatments at both levels. Severe water stressed treatments reduced the values for stomatal
8
9 conductance and lowest values were observed in T6 (0.05 and 0.07 cm s-1, respectively during
10
11
12 2007 and 2008). Data on stomatal conductance showed that severe water stress drastically
13
14 reduced the conductivity of maize leaf stomata for gas exchange (Table 5). Maize plants grown
15
16
17 under CDI at 40 per cent ETc once in six days registered lowest values (0.07 and 0.06 cm s-1
18
19 during 2008 and 2009, respectively) for leaf conductance. As that of transpiration rate, leaf
20
21 conductance was more (0.16 and 0.18 cm s-1 during 2008 and 2009, respectively) under CDI at
22
23
24 100 per cent ETc (T1) followed by T2 and T4. The same trend was noticed during both the years
25
26 of experimentation.
27
28
29 Severe water stress imposed at 50 and 40 per cent ETc once in six days drastically
30
31
32 reduced the transpiration rate, and stomatal conductance and increased stomatal resistance. The
33
34 differences between two levels of CDI once in six days (T3 and T6) were apparent. This is
35
36
37 because of closure of some stomata during severe water stress as the result of soil water stress.
38
39 Under ADI treatments (T2 and T5) eco-physiological parameters are not reduced as that of CDI
40
41
once in six days (T3 and T6). But, at lower water regimes (T5) reduction was more but closer to
42
43
44 T4. The same effect of water stress on cotton through drip irrigation was reported by Du et al.
45
46 (2008). Opening and closing of stomata depends on LWP and threshold LWP is required to
47
48
49 initiate the closing of stomata. The stomata of cotton plants become less sensitive to low LWP as
50
51 the number of stress cycles increased in aged plants. Repetitive cycles of water stress decreased
52
53
54 the threshold LWP required for initiating stomatal closure in cotton (Ackerson, 1980). In this
55
56 study, lower LWP of -1.2 to -2.0 during blooming and -1.4 to -2.1 MPa caused the partial closing
57
58
59
of stomata resulting in reduced transpiration rate in severely water stressed plants (T3 and T6).
60
61
62
63
64
19
65
 1
2
3
4 Soil water deficit at any stage substantially reduced the stomatal conductance,
5
6
7 transpiration rate and leaf photosynthesis. However, this did not cause permanent injury in the
8
9 case of rewatering (Kang et al., 2000a). It holds good for this study to explain the better
10
11
12 performance of maize crop to ADI treatments compared to severe stressed treatments in which
13
14 the physiological process viz., transpiration rate, stomatal conductance and stomatal resistance
15
16
17 were adversely affected due to water stress. Soil water deficit may also reduce water loss from
18
19 plants through physiological regulations e.g. reduced stomatal conductance, increase in stomatal
20
21 resistance, and reduced transpiration rate (Davies and Zhang, 1991). The results of this study
22
23
24 also showed the same effect on those processes and high fluctuation was found under severe
25
26 water stressed treatments (T3 and T6). This might be due to accumulation of ABA like substances
27
28
29 that send the signals from root to leaf and initiate the process of closing stomata and thus affect
30
31 the transpiration and photosynthesis under severe stress.
32
33
34
35 4. Conclusions
36
37
38 Drip irrigation maintains the favourable soil physical properties for second crop raised
39
40
41 without any tillage practices and disturbance to the existing drip lay out. The results of the study
42
43 showed that imposing wide ranging of water stress leads to increase in water productivity when
44
45
46
compared to full irrigation. Cotton and maize are physiologically suitable crops for deficit
47
48 irrigation. Among deficit irrigation practices, mild deficit (ADI at 100 per cent ETc once in three
49
50 days) always maintained higher RLWC, LWP and CSI during both the years. Response of cotton
51
52
53 and maize plants to water stress on physiology parameters indicated that RLWC, LWP, CSI were
54
55 reduced under water stress. The higher level of leaf proline content and NRase activity were
56
57
58 helped to reduce the effect of water stress on crop growth. Thus, the results of this study
59
60 revealed that mild water deficit (ADI at 100 per cent ETc and CDI at 80 per cent ETc once in
61
62
63
64
20
65
 1
2
3
4 three days) could be the optimal deficit irrigation schedule for cotton - maize cropping sequence
5
6
7 for better performance under water stress conditions.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
21
65
 1
2
3
4 References
5
6
7 Ackerson, R.C. 1980. Stomatal response of cotton to water stress and abscisic acid as affected by
8
9
10 water stress history. Plant Physiol., 65:455-459.
11
12
13 Atteya, A.M. 2003. Alteration of water relations and yield of corn genotypes in response to
14
15 drought stress. Bul. J. Plant. Physiol., 29(1-2):63-76.
16
17
18 Bardzik, J.M., H.V. Marsh and J.R. Havis. 1971. Effects of water stress on the activities of three
19
20
21 enzymes in maize seedlings. Plant Physiol., 47: 828-831.
22
23
24 Barrs H.D and P.E. Weatherley. 1962. A re-examination of the relative turgidity technique for
25
26 estimating deficit in leaves. Aust. J. Biol. Sci., 15:413–428.
27
28
29 Bates, L.S., R.P. Waldren and I.D. Teare. 1973. Rapid determination of free proline for water-
30
31 stress studies. Plant Soil, 39:205-207.
32
33
34 Bryant, K.J., V.W. Benson, J.R. Kiniry, J.R. Williams and R.D. Lacewell. 1992. Simulating corn
35
36
37 yield response to irrigation timings - validation of the epic model, J. Prod. Agric.,
38
39 5:237–242.
40
41
42 Colaizzi, P. D., S. R. Evett and T. A. Howell. 2005. Cotton production with SDI, LEPA, and spray
43
44
45
irrigation in a thermally-limited climate. CD-ROM. Irrigation Association Annual Meeting,
46
47 6-8 Nov, Phoenix, AZ.
48
49
50 Dagdelen, N., E. Yılmaz, F. Sezgin and T. Gurbuz. 2006. Water-yield relation and water use
51
52 efficiency of cotton and second crop corn in western Turkey. Agric. Water. Manage.,
53
54
55 82(1-2): 63-85.
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
22
65
 1
2
3
4 Dagdelen, N., H. Basal, E. Yilmaz, T. Gurbuz and S. Akcay. 2009. Different irrigation regimes
5
6
7 affect cotton yield, water use efficiency and fiber quality in western Turkey. Agric.
8
9 Water Mange., 96:111-120.
10
11
12 Darusman, A., H. Khan, L.R. Stone and F.R. Lamm. 1997. Water flux below the root zone vs.
13
14
15 drip-line spacing in drip-irrigated corn. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 61:
16
17 1755–1760.
18
19
20 Davies, W.J and J. Zhang. 1991. Root signals and the regulation of growth and development of
21
22
23
plants in drying soil. Annual Review of Plant Physiology and Plant Molecular
24
25 Biology. 42:55–76.
26
27
28 Du, T., S. Kang, J. Zhang and F. Li. 2008. Water use and yield response of cotton to alternate
29
30 partial root-zone drip irrigation in the arid area of north-west China. Irrg. Sci., 26:147-
31
32
33 159.
34
35
36 El-Hendawy, S. E., El-Lattief, E. A. A. Mohamed, S. Ahmed and U. Schmidhalter. 2008.
37
38 Irrigation rate and plant density effects on yield and water use efficiency of
39
40
41 drip-irrigated corn. Agric. Water Mange., 95:836-844.
42
43
44 El-Sharkawi, H.M and F.M. Salama. 1977. Effect of drought and salinity on growth contributing
45
46 parameters in wheat and barley. Plant and Soil, 46:423-437.
47
48
49 Ennahli, S and H.J. Earl. 2005. Physiological limitations to photosynthetic carbon assimilation in
50
51 cotton under water stress. Crop Sci., 45:2374-2382.
52
53
54 Ertek, R and A. Kanber. 2001. Effects of different irrigation programs on the growth of cotton
55
56
57 under drip irrigation, Turkish. J. Agric. Forest. 25:415–425.
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
23
65
 1
2
3
4 Farre, I and J.M. Faci. 2009. Deficit irrigation in maize for reducing agricultural water use in a
5
6
7 Mediterranean environment. Agric. Water Mange., 96:383-394.
8
9
10 Fereres, E and M.A. Soriano. 2007. Deficit irrigation for reducing agricultural water use. J. Exp.
11
12 Bot., 58:147–159.
13
14
15 Gadallah, M.A.A. 1995. Effect of water stress, abscisic acid and proline on cotton plants. J. Arid
16
17
18 Environ., 30:315-325.
19
20
21 Gadallah, M.A.A. 2000. Effects of indole-3-acetic acid and zinc on the growth, osmotic
22
23 potential and soluble carbon and nitrogen components of soybean plants growing under
24
25
water deficit. J. Arid Environ. 44:451–467.
26
27
28 Gerik, T.J., K.L. Faver, P.M. Thaxton, and K.M. El-Zik. 1996. Late season water stress in
29
30
31 cotton: I. Plant Growth, water use, and yield. Crop Sci., 36:914–921.
32
33
34 Gilbert, A.G., M.V. Gadush, C. Wilson and M.A. Madore, 1998. Amino acid accumulation in
35
36 sink and source tissues of Coleus blumei Benth. during salinity stress, J. Exp. Bot.,
37
38
39 49:107–114.
40
41
42 Gomez, K.A and A.A. Gomez. 1984. Statistical procedures for agricultural research. John Wiley
43
44 and Sons, New Delhi, p 680.
45
46
47 Grimes, D.W and K.M. El-Zik. 1982. Water management for cotton, Division of Agricultural
48
49
50
Science Bulletin No. 1904, University of California, Davis, CA.
51
52
53
Hare, P.D and W. A. Cress. 1997. Metabolic implications of stress-induced proline accumulation
54
55 in plants. Plant Growth Reg. 21:79–102.
56
57
58 Heller and Nadler. 1999. Physiological parameters, harvest index and yield of deficient irrigated
59
60 cotton. J. Crop Prod., 2:229-239.
61
62
63
64
24
65
 1
2
3
4 Howell, T.A., S.R. Evett, J.A. Tolk and A.D. Schneider. 2004. Evapotranspiration of full, deficit-
5
6
7 irrigated and dryland cotton on the Northern Texas High Plains. J. Irrig. Drainage Eng.
8
9 (ASCE) 130(4):277-285.
10
11
12 Ibragimov, N., S.R. Evett, Y. Esanbekov, B.S. Kamilov, L. Mirzaev and J.P.A. Lamers. 2007.
13
14
15 Water use efficiency of irrigated cotton in Uzbekistan under drip and furrow irrigation,
16
17 Agric. Water Manage., 90: 112–120.
18
19
20 Igbadun. H.E., A.S. Baanda, A.K.P.R. Tarimo and H.F. Mahoo. 2008. Effects of deficit irrigation
21
22
23
scheduling on yields and soil water balance of irrigated maize. Irrg. Sci., 27:11-23.
24
25
Kalarani, M.K. and D. Jeyakumar. 1998. Effect of nutrient and NAA spray on physiological
26
27
28 changes in soybean. Indian J. Plant Physiol., 38:197-202.
29
30
31 Kang, S., W. Shi and J. Zhang. 2000a. An improved water-use efficiency for maize grown under
32
33 regulated deficit irrigation. Field Crops Res., 67:207-214.
34
35
36 Kang, S., Z. Liang, Y. Pan, S. Peize and J. Zhang. 2000b. Alternate furrow irrigation for maize
37
38
39 production in arid area. Agric. Water Manage., 45:267-274.
40
41
42 Kar, M., B. B. Patro, C.R. Sahoo and B. Hota. 2004. Traits related to drought resistance in cotton
43
44 hybrids. Indian J. Plant Physiol., 4:377-380.
45
46
47 Khanna-Chopra, R., G.S. Chaturverdi, P.K. Aggarwal and S.K. Sinha. 1980. Effect of potassium
48
49
50
on growth and nitrate reductase during water stress and recovery in maize. Phyiol. Plant,
51
52 49:495-500.
53
54
55 Kirda, C. 2002. Deficit irrigation scheduling based on plant growth stages showing water stress
56
57 tolerance. In: Deficit irrigation practice. Water reports 22. FAO, Rome, pp1-3.
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
25
65
 1
2
3
4 Kırda, C., S. Topcu, M. Cetin, H.Y. Dasgan, H.F. Topaloglu, M.R. Derici and B. Ekici. 2007.
5
6
7 Prospects of partial root zone irrigation for increasing irrigation water use efficiency of
8
9 major crops in the Mediterranean region, Ann. Appl. Biol., 150:281–291.
10
11
12 Li, L and V. Staden. 1998. Effects of plant growth regulators on the antioxidant system in
13
14
15 seedlings of two maize cultivars subjected to water stress. Plant Growth Regulation,
16
17 25:81-87.
18
19
20 Mantovani, E.C., F.J. Villalobos, F. Orgaz and E. Fereres. 1995. Modelling the effects of
21
22
23
sprinkler irrigation uniformity on crop yield. Agric. Water Manage., 27:243–257.
24
25
Meena Kumari, S., Y. Dass and A. Pawan. 2004. Physiological parameters governing drought
26
27
28 tolerance in maize. Indian J. Plant Physiol., 9: 203-207.
29
30
31 Moreshet, M. Fuchs and Y. Cohen. 1996. Water transport characteristics of cotton as affected by
32
33 drip irrigation layout. Agron. J. 88:717–722.
34
35
36 Nepomuceno, A.L., J.M. Stewart, D.M. Oosterhuis and R. Turley. 1998. Physiological and
37
38
39 molecular responses during water deficit in cotton (G. hirsutum). pp 1377–1380. Proc.
40
41 Beltwide Cotton Prod. Res. Conf., 3–7 Jan. 1998, San Diego, CA. Natl. Cotton Council
42
43
44 of Am., Memphis TN.
45
46
47
NeSmith D.S., and J.T. Ritchie. 1992. Maize (Zea mays L.) response to a severe soil water-
48
49 deficit during grain filling. Field Crops Res., 29:23–35.
50
51
52 Nicholas, J.C., J.E. Harper and R.H. Hageman. 1976. Nitrate reductase activity in soybean
53
54 (Glycine max. L.) Effect of light and temperature. Plant Physiol., 58: 731-735.
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
26
65
 1
2
3
4 Oktem, A., M. Simsek and A.G. Oktem. 2003. Deficit irrigation effects on sweet corn (Zea mays
5
6
7 saccharata Sturt) with drip irrigation system in a semi-arid region. I. Water-yield
8
9 relationship. Agric. Water Manage., 61: 63-74.
10
11
12 Pan, Y.H and S.Z. Kang. 2000. Irrigation water infiltration in furrows and crop water use of
13
14
15 alternative furrow irrigation. Trans CSAE 16(1):39-43 (in Chinese).
16
17
18 Pandey, R.K., J.W. Maranville and A. Admou. 2000. Deficit irrigation and nitrogen effects on
19
20 maize in a Sahelian environment I. Grain yield and yield components. Agric. Water
21
22
23
Manage., 46: 1-13.
24
25
Payero, J.O., S.R. Melvin, S. Irmak and D. Tarkalson. 2006. Yield response of corn to deficit
26
27
28 irrigation in a semi-arid climate. Agric. Water Manage., 84:101–112.
29
30
31 Pettigrew. W.T. 2004. Moisture deficit effect on cotton lint yield, yield components, and boll
32
33 distribution. Agron. J. 96:377–383.
34
35
36 Prichard T., B. Hanson, L. Schwankl, P. Verdegaal and R. Smith. 2004. Deficit irrigation of
37
38
39 quality of wine grapes using micro-irrigation techniques. Publications of University of
40
41 California Co-operative Extension, Department of Land, Air and Water Resources,
42
43
44 University of California, Davis, p5.
45
46
47
Sabater, B and M.I. Rodriquez. 1978. Control of chlorophyll degradation in detached leaves of
48
49 barley and oat through effect of kinetin on chlorophyllase levels. Physiologia
50
51 Plantarum. 43:274-276.
52
53
54 Sairam, R.K. 1994. Effect of moisture stress on physiological activities of two contrasting wheat
55
56
57 genotypes. Indian. J. Exp. Biol., 32:594-597.
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
27
65
 1
2
3
4 Sampathkumar, T. 2003. Evaluation of drip and surface irrigation methods with rice straw
5
6
7 mulching in cotton. M.Sc Thesis submitted to the Department of Agronomy, Agricultural
8
9 college and Research Institute, TNAU, Madurai, Tamil Nadu, India.
10
11
12 Scheierling, S.M., G.E. Cardon and R.A. Young. 1997. Impact of irrigation timing on simulated
13
14
15 water-crop production functions, Irrig. Sci., 18:23–31.
16
17
18 Schurr, U., U. Heckenberger, K. Herdel, A.Walter and R. Feil. 2000. Ricinus communis during
19
20 drought stress: dynamics of growth processes, of cellular structure and of sink-source
21
22
23
transition. J. Exp. Bot., 5:1515- 1529.
24
25
Sezgin, F., E. Yılmaz, N. Dağdelen, S. Bas. 2001. Effect of different irrigation methods and
26
27
28 water supply level application on water-yield relations in cotton growing. Third National
29
30 Hydrology Congress, Univ. of September 9, Izmir, Turkey, June 27–9.
31
32
33 Smith, M., D. Kivumbi and L.K. Heng. 2002. Use of the FAO CROPWAT model in deficit
34
35
36 irrigation practice. Water reports no. 22. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
37
38 Nations, Rome, pp 17-28.
39
40
41 Song, F.B., J.Y. Dai, W.B. Gu and H.Y. Li. 1995. Effect of water stress on leaf water status in
42
43
44 maize. Journal of Jilin Agricultural University, 18:1-6 (in Chinese).
45
46
47
Tang, L.S., Y. Li and J. Zhang. 2005. Physiological and yield responses of cotton under partial
48
49 rootzone irrigation. Field Crops Res., 94: 214-223.
50
51
52 Tolk J.A and T.A. Howell. 2003. Water use efficiencies of grain sorghum grown in three U.S.A.
53
54 Southern great plains soils. Agric. Water Manage., 59:97–111.
55
56
57 Traore, S.B., R.E. Carlson, C.D. Pilcher and M.E. Rice. 2000. Bt and Non-Bt maize growth and
58
59
60 development as affected by temperature and drought stress. Agron. J. 92:1027–1035.
61
62
63
64
28
65
 1
2
3
4 Turner, A.B. Hearn, J.E. Begg and G.A. Constable. 1986. Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.)
5
6
7 physiological and morphological responses to water deficits and their relationship to
8
9 yield, Field Crops Res., 14:153–170.
10
11
12 Vendruscolo, A.C.G., I. Schuster, M. Pilrggi, C.A. Scapim, H.B.C. Molinari, C.J. Marur and
13
14
15 L.G.C. Vieira. 2007. Stress induced synthesis of proline confers tolerance to water deficit
16
17 in transgenic wheat. J. Plant Physiol., 164(10):1367-1376.
18
19
20 White, S.C. 2007. Partial rootzone drying and deficit irrigation in cotton for use under large
21
22
23
mobile irrigation machines. A Ph.D dissertion submitted to The University of Southern
24
25 Queensland, Australia.
26
27
28 Yazar, A., S.M. Sezen and S. Sesveren. 2002. LEPA and trickle irrigation of cotton in the
29
30 southeast Anatolia project (GAP) area in Turkey, Agric. Water Manage., 54:189–203.
31
32
33 Zhang, Z.H, H.J. Cai and R.Y. Yang. 2004. Water requirements and crop coefficients of drip-
34
35
36 irrigated crop under mulch in Minqin Vountry Oasis. Trans CSAE 20(5):
37
38 97-100.
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
29
65
Table 1

Table 1

Seasonal rainfall distribution (Cotton)

Crop stages 2007 2008

(DAS)
Rainfall (mm) Rainy days (No.) Rainfall (mm) Rainy days (No.)

0-15 37.0 2 20.6 2

16-35 82.5 4 23.6 2

36-70 13.2 1 68.8 7

71-120 349.5 17 313.0 14

121-150 - - 47.0 5

Total 452.8 24 473.0 30

Table 2

Table 2

Seasonal rainfall distribution (Maize)

Crop stages 2008 2009

(DAS)
Rainfall (mm) Rainy days (No.) Rainfall (mm) Rainy days (No.)

0-25 60.0 4 - -

26-45 69.0 4 - -

46-70 4.0 - 101.0 4

71-90 38.0 1 - -

Total 171.0 9 101.0 4

Table 3

Table 3

Fertigation schedule for Bt hybrid cotton and maize

Crop stage (DAS) Nutrient (per cent)

N K

Cotton

Seedling (10 - 22) 10 5

Early square (23 - 46) 20 20

Early boll (47 -70) 45 35

Maturity (71 -110) 25 40

Maize

Vegetative (6-30) 25 25

Development (31-60) 50 50

Maturity (61-80) 25 25
Table 4

Table 4

Effect of deficit irrigation on eco-physiological parameters of cotton during blooming

stage (60-70 DAS)

Treatment Transpiration rate Diffusive resistance Stomatal

(μg H2O cm-2 s-1) (s cm-1) conductance

(cm s-1)

2007 2008 2007 2008 2007 2008

T1 12.8 13.2 3.6 3.4 0.21 0.23

T2 12.3 13.0 3.8 3.9 0.19 0.20

T3 10.1 10.4 5.5 5.3 0.10 0.12

T4 11.5 11.8 4.0 4.1 0.20 0.21

T5 10.5 10.7 4.3 4.5 0.17 0.18

T6 8.5 8.7 6.5 6.7 0.05 0.07

T7 10.2 10.5 5.4 5.2 0.12 0.14

Data (mean of three replicates) statistically not analysed

Table 5

Table 5
Effect of deficit irrigation on eco-physiological parameters of maize during silking stage
(60-70 DAS)

Treatment Transpiration rate Diffusive resistance Stomatal conductance

(μg H2O cm-2 s-1) (s cm-1) (cm s-1)
2008 2009 2008 2009 2008 2009
T1 26.7 26.2 5.4 5.4 0.16 0.18
T2 26.0 25.7 5.5 5.6 0.14 0.15
T3 24.7 23.4 7.2 7.1 0.11 0.10
T4 25.7 25.3 5.5 5.6 0.15 0.14
T5 24.6 23.4 5.8 6.0 0.14 0.12
T6 18.2 17.3 8.1 8.4 0.07 0.06
T7 23.4 22.8 7.5 7.8 0.09 0.08
Data (mean of three replicates) statistically not analysed
Figure 1
Click here to download Tables: Figure 1.doc

2007 2007
90 2
2008 2008
80 1.8
70 1.6

LWP -(MPa)
1.4
RLWC (%)
60
1.2
50
1
40
0.8
30
0.6
20 0.4
10 0.2
0 0
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7

Treatments Treatments

2007 2007
25 80
2008 2008
Proline (µmol g FW-1)

70
20
60
15 50

CSI (%)
40
10
30
5 20
10
0
0
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
Treatments
Treatments

2007
0.6
NRase (µmol NO2g-1h-1)

2008
0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
Treatments

Fig. 1. Effect of deficit irrigation on physiological parameters of cotton during

blooming stage (60-70 DAS). Data are mean of three replicates.
Figure 2
Click here to download Tables: Figure 2.doc

2007 2007
90 2
2008 2008
80
70 1.5

LWP - (MPa)
RLWC (%)

60
50
1
40
30
20 0.5
10
0 0
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
Treatments Treatments

2007 2007
25 80
2008 2008
Proline (µmol g FW-1)

70
20
60

CSI (%)
15 50
40
10 30
5
20
10
0 0
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
Treatments Treatments

0.6 2007
NRase (µmol NO2g-1h-1)

2008
0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
Treatments

Fig. 2. Effect of deficit irrigation on physiological parameters of cotton during boll

development stage (110-120 DAS). Data are mean of three replicates.
Figure 3
Click here to download Tables: Figure 3.doc

2008 2008
90 2.5
2009 2009
80
RLWC (%) 70 2

LWP - (MPa)
60
50 1.5
40
30 1
20
0.5
10
0 0
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
Treatments
Treatments

2008 2008
25 80
2009 2009
Proline (µmol g FW-1)

70
20
60

CSI (%)
15 50
40
10 30
20
5
10
0 0
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
Treatments Treatments

2008
0.6
NRase (µmol NO2g-1h-1)

2009
0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
Treatments

Fig. 3. Effect of deficit irrigation on physiological parameters of maize during

tasseling (45-55 DAS). Data are mean of three replicates.
Figure 4
Click here to download Tables: Figure 4.doc

2008 2008
100 2.5
2009 2009
80 2

LWP - (MPa)
RLWC (%)

60 1.5
40 1
20 0.5
0 0
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
Treatments
Treatments

2008 2008
25 80
2009 2009
Proline (µmol g FW-1)

70
20
60

CSI (%)
15 50
40
10 30
20
5 10
0
0
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
Treatments
Treatments

2008
0.6
NRase (µmol NO2g-1h-1)

2009
0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
Treatments

Fig. 4. Effect of deficit irrigation on physiological parameters of maize during

silking (60-70 DAS). Data are mean of three replicates.