Agricultural Water Management 243 (2021) 106483

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Agricultural Water Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/agwat

Deficit irrigation improves maize yield and water use efficiency in a

semi-arid environment
Zou Yufenga, b, c, 1, Qaisar Saddique a, b, c, 1, *, Ali Ajazd, Xu Jiatuna, b, c, Muhammad Imran Khan e,
Qing Mua, b, c, Muhammad Azmat f, Huanjie Cai a, b, c, *, Kadambot H.M. Siddique g
a
Key Laboratory of Agricultural Soil and Water Engineering in Arid and Semiarid Areas, Ministry of Education, Northwest A&F University, Yangling, Shaanxi, 712100,
China
b
Institute of Water Saving Agriculture in Arid Regions (IWSA), Northwest A&F University, Yangling, Shaanxi, 712100, China
c
College of Water Resources and Architectural Engineering, Northwest A&F University, Yangling, Shaanxi, 712100, China
d
Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, United States
e
National Research Center of Fluid Machinery Engineering and Technology, Jiangsu University, Zhenjiang, China
f
School of Civil and Environmental Engineering (SCEE), National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST), Islamabad, 44000, Pakistan
g
The UWA Institute of Agriculture, The University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, 6001, Australia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Uncertainty in the availability of water supply pose challenges to traditional irrigation approaches. Regulating
Irrigation scheduling the amount and time of irrigation at different crop growth stages could provide a solution to optimize the
Evapotranspiration irrigation water amid drought periods. This study evaluated the effect of different deficit irrigation levels on
Maize yield
maize (Zea mays L.) at several growth phases over two growing seasons (2012 and 2013) in Yangling, Shaanxi
Water use efficiency
Water deficit
province of China. Total nine irrigation treatments incorporated three irrigation amount ratios, i.e., control
Drought irrigation (CK, 100 % of crop evapotranspiration), and 80 % and 60 % of control irrigation; named as T2–T9.
Among the irrigation treatments, grain yield ranged from 6392 to 9362 kg ha–1 and seasonal water use efficiency
(WUE) varied from 20.3 to 34.9 kg ha–1 mm–1, whereas the irrigation water use efficiency (IWUE) ranged be­
tween 32.0 and 58.1 kg ha–1 mm–1. T2 that received 80 % irrigation between V8 and R6 growth stage had overall
higher yield than CK, and this was closely followed by T4 that received 80 % irrigation at growth phase V3-V8
and V11-Tasseling, full irrigation at V8-V11, and 60 % irrigation between Tasseling and Maturity. Due to near
optimum growing season temperature in 2013, larger WUE was noted in comparison to 2012, that resulted 16 %
larger yield with 10 % lesser ETc, on an average, whereas 2012 growing season had better IWUE because of 37.5
% smaller irrigation consumption. Maize grain yield in response to water stress (Ky, the yield response factor)
was 0.66, suggesting that the environmental conditions of the study area favor the application of deficit irri­
gation. The maize yield response to reduced irrigation supply in this experiment indicated that regulated deficit
irrigation might help growers to cope with decline in water availability during growing season.

1. Introduction (Alexandratos and Bruinsma, 2012). China is the second-largest mai­

ze-producing country, and Shaanxi province is the main production
Maize is a part of staple diet in many developing countries and it is region in China (Meng et al., 2006). Like other parts of the world, maize
considered among the most important food sources (FAO, 2014). Also, production in China is also being affected by changes in climatic con­
maize has the highest contribution in feed grain sector world-wide ditions (Wang et al., 2012). An overall drying trend has been noted
(CGIAR, 2016). With the ever-increasing world population, maize pro­ during summers in Shaanxi province (Wang et al., 2020) that point to­
duction needs to increase by 66 % by 2050 to meet the global demand wards higher crop water demand of maize.

* Corresponding authors.
E-mail addresses: Zouyufeng1222@163.com (Y. Zou), engrqaisar@nwafu.edu.cn (Q. Saddique), aliajazch@gmail.com (A. Ali), xujt@nwafu.edu.cn (J. Xu),
imrankhan7792@yahoo.com (M.I. Khan), muqingsci@163.com (M. Qing), azmat@igis.nust.edu.pk (M. Azmat), huanjiec@yahoo.com (H. Cai), kadambot.
siddique@uwa.edu.au (K.H.M. Siddique).
1
These authors have contributed equally to this work.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2020.106483
Received 8 May 2020; Received in revised form 23 August 2020; Accepted 24 August 2020
Available online 5 September 2020
0378-3774/© 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Y. Zou et al. Agricultural Water Management 243 (2021) 106483

Due to the climate change-induced uncertainty both in spatial and 2. Materials and methods
temporal trends of precipitation, timely availability of the irrigation
water to fulfill crop water requirements (Saddique et al., 2020; Wang 2.1. Environmental conditions of the study area
et al., 2009; Xiao et al., 2020) would be a considerable challenge for
maize production in the region. Irrigation is essential for supporting The experiment was carried out during two cropping years 2012 and
crop yield especially during drought periods, and limited water avail­ 2013 at the Key Laboratory of Agricultural Soil and Water Engineering,
ability could reduce water quotas for irrigated agriculture to support Northwest A&F University (Fig. 1) (34◦ 18′ N, 108◦ 24′ E, 506 m above
other stakeholders in water resources (Ajaz et al., 2019). Increasing sea level), Yangling, Guanzhong Plain, China. The study area is situated
tendency of precipitation extremes (extreme drought to extreme pre­ in a semi-arid weather zone with a mean annual temperature of 12.8 ◦ C.
cipitation) in Guanzhong plain coupled with high temperature (Liu Annual precipitation in the region is 548 mm. Precipitation (mm d–1)
et al., 2018) makes the precise information on crop water requirements and maximum and minimum daily air temperatures (◦ C) in 2012 and
inevitable for better planning. Also, it is important to determine how 2013 were obtained from a weather station near the field site (Fig. 2).
much and when the irrigation is needed for optimum water productivity The soil at the field site was sampled from different locations in the
and crop yield under scarce water supply (Thorp et al., 2010; Ali et al., experimental plots from 0 to 250 cm soil depth. The soil class is a brown
2016; Chai et al., 2016). loess loam, containing 51 % silt, 26 % sand, and 23 % clay. The soil had
Based on the historical records, annual stream flow in Wei river 0.028 g kg–1 phosphorus (P), 0.0021 g kg–1 nitrogen (N), 0.99 g kg–1
basin, which mainly provides irrigation water to Guanzhong plain, has potassium (K), and the bulk density was 1.36 g cm–3. The average
decreased, whereas potential evapotranspiration has increased in the volumetric water content at permanent wilting point and field capacity
region (Zhao et al., 2012). Wei river basin is highly susceptible to was 12.7 % and 26.2 %, respectively.
occurrence of frequent droughts and floods as described by Huang et al.
(2015) due to a considerable variation of annual precipitation in dry and
wet years (370–800 mm, respectively). This arises the need for the 2.2. Crop management and irrigation
irrigation districts and growers to adapt accordingly. One possible
adaptation strategy is deficit irrigation that allows the farmers to The maize variety Wuke-2 was selected for this study as it is
decrease the irrigation amount based on the irrigation quota and water commonly grown in the region. Summer maize (June–October) and
availability (Ouda and Noreldin, 2020; Ajaz et al., 2020). Though crop winter wheat (October–May) are grown as common practice in the area.
yield response to full irrigation is usually stable in semi-arid regions, Crop was sown between 19 June 2012 and 23 June 2013. Six plants m–2
response to deficit irrigation can fluctuate substantially, depending on were sown in rows 50 cm apart, with 180 kg N ha–1 and 120 kg P2O5 ha–1
the timing and quantity of irrigation provision along with the occur­ applied at sowing.
rence of precipitation and initial soil water content at sowing (Kang Four successive phenological phases in the summer maize growing
et al., 2000). period [V3 (3-leaf)–V8 (8-leaf), V8 (8 leaf)–V11 (11-leaf), V11 (11-leaf)–
Many previous studies have evaluated the effect of controlled water VT (tasseling), and VT (tasseling)–R6 (physiological maturity or black
stress on the maize yield by conducting field experiments. For example, layer)] were selected to study the influence of different irrigation
Aguilar et al. (2007) found 29 % larger productivity of applied water for amounts. The aforementioned periods were named as Stage 1, 2, 3, and
limited irrigation treatments in comparison to full irrigation in a 4, respectively, for irrigation applications. Moveable rain-out shelter
semi-arid environment. 10–32% reduction in water use by the maize was used in the study to avoid the impact of uncertainty due to pre­
crop was reported by Li et al. (2010) under partial root-zone irrigation cipitation. Partial orthogonal L9 design scheme was used for the nine
when compared with conventional irrigation as well as they found deficit irrigation treatments with three replications of each treatment in
10–42 % increase in canopy water use efficiency. Crop modeling has also both years. Details of the design scheme and irrigation amounts are
been used by previous researchers to examine the interaction of maize provided in Tables 1a and 1b. Nine irrigation treatments incorporated
yield and water stress. For example, Dominguez et al. (2012) investi­ three irrigation amounts—control or full irrigation (CK, 100 % of crop
gated the optimized approach for deficit irrigation of maize using evapotranspiration (ET)), and two levels as a fraction of the control,
MOPECO model and found that the stage specific reduced irrigation may being 80 % and 60 % of CK–applied at different growth stages during the
increase the grain yield up to 20 % as to constant deficit irrigation growing season. Crop ET of the CK irrigation treatment was measured
during whole growing cycle. DSSAT-CERES-Maize model was employed with a large weighing lysimeter (3 m × 2.2 m × 3 m) with continuous
by Chen et al. (2020) to improve irrigation use efficiency (IUE) including data loggers (precision of 0.021 mm) installed in experimental plots
a site in Guanzhong region. They estimated IUE as high as 3.5 times by (Fig. 3). Soil and crop management conditions in the lysimeter were the
reducing water application to crop in comparison to locally applied same as other experimental plots. The crop ET from the lysimeter was
irrigation at the cost of about 12 % reduction in yield. recorded on an hourly basis and then summed up to get the daily or
Crop growth stage plays a pivotal role in decision related to allowing monthly value. When the soil moisture in the control treatment (CK)
deficit irrigation, and despite its importance, to the best of our knowl­ declined to a predetermined lower limit (i.e., 65 % FC), irrigation was
edge, the effects of different levels of reduced irrigation application on applied. Soil water content was measured using a pre-calibrated The­
maize yield at different development stages has not been investigated taProbe ML2x (Delta-T DevicesLtd, Cambridge, UK) sensor installed at
before in the Guanzhong Plain, China. Also, such amalgamation of depths of 20, 40, 80, 100, 200, and 250 cm. For the treatments T2–T9,
varying irrigation levels with respect to crop growth phases received less irrigation was synchronous to the control irrigation treatment (CK). The
attention in other parts of the world. Therefore, the impact of variation flood irrigation method was employed in the experimental plots, and
in irrigation amounts with respect to different growth stages of maize irrigation application was performed with a pump coupled with a flow
grown in the Guanzhong region is needed to be thoroughly examined. meter to control the amount of irrigation applied to each experimental
Furthermore, the implications of any potential fluctuation in water plot.
supply to farms during the maize growing period should be thoroughly
studied. This study aimed to 1) identify the effect of different irrigation
amounts at different growth stages on maize yield, and 2) determine 2.3. Irrigation and seasonal water use efficiency
whether deficit irrigation can help maintaining the maize yield under
water-stressed conditions in Guanzhong plain. Irrigation water use efficiency (IWUE) was calculated dividing the
grain yield by total irrigation applied during the growing season. Sea­
sonal water use efficiency (WUE) was calculated as follows:

2
Y. Zou et al. Agricultural Water Management 243 (2021) 106483

Fig. 1. Map location of Yangling field experiment and Wugong weather station in China.

Fig. 2. Average monthly maximum, minimum temperature (◦ C) and rainfall (mm) during the maize growing season (2012–2013).

Y boundary around the plot, and downward flux below the crop root zone
WUE = (1)
ETc that was neglected because the lower side of every plot in the rain-out
shelter was impermeable. Therefore, Eq. (2) was simplified to:
where Y is grain yield (kg ha–1) and ETc is growing season crop ET for
each irrigation treatment estimated using the following water balance ETc = I ± ΔS (3)
equation (Allen et al., 1998):
ETc = I + P − R − D ± ΔS (2) 2.4. Maize yield response factor

where I is applied irrigation (mm), P is seasonal precipitation (mm), R is The yield response factor (Ky) for maize was calculated in this study
surface runoff (mm), D is downward flux below the crop root zone (mm), that is the relative reduction in yield linked to the corresponding relative
and ΔS is variation in soil water content in terms of depth (mm). P, R and reduction in ET, and reflects the slope of the relationship of these two
D were considered 0 due to the presence of the rain-out shelter, covered variables (Smith and Steduto, 2012; Doorenbos and Kassam, 1979).
Calculation of Ky has been described as follows:

3
Y. Zou et al. Agricultural Water Management 243 (2021) 106483

Table 1a (CK) had maximum LAI values of 4.78 and 5.22 at 58 (2012) and 55 DAS
Irrigation strategies for summer maize, including the irrigation amount ratio (2013), respectively, which differed significantly (P < 0.05) from the
(IAR) during each growth stage of each treatment. other irrigation treatments (T3–T9) (Table 2). T3 had a maximum LAI of
Treatment1 Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 3.81 in 2012, which did not significantly differ from T4, T6 or T9. The
CK (T1) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
maximum LAI of the T3, T4, T6, and T9 treatments did, however,
T2 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.8 significantly differ (P < 0.05) from those in CK, T2, T5, T7, and T8. The
T3 1.0 0.6 0.6 0.6 maximum LAI of T3 during 2013 growing season was significantly
T4 0.8 1.0 0.8 0.6 different from all other treatments, whereas the maximum LAI did not
T5 0.8 0.8 0.6 1.0
differ significantly between CK and T2, and similar trend was noted from
T6 0.8 0.6 1.0 0.8
T7 0.6 1.0 0.6 0.8 T4 to T9.
T8 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.6 Water stress significantly influenced dry biomass production in both
T9 0.6 0.6 0.8 1.0 growing seasons (Table 2), with significantly higher growth in 2013
1
CK, control treatment; T1–T8, deficit irrigation treatments. In T1, the irri­ than 2012 (P < 0.05) due to the more favorable weather conditions; near
gation amount during four growth stages fully replaced crop water consumption optimum growing seaoson temperature (Greaves, 1996). The control
since the last irrigation, i.e., the ratio of actual irrigation amount to irrigation treatment (CK) produced the largest dry biomass, 15,809 kg ha–1 and 18,
amount of the control treatment (IAR) was 1.0 during each growth stage. Irri­ 911 kg ha–1 in 2012 (at 110 DAS) and 2013 (at 101 DAS), respectively.
gation was applied when the soil moisture dropped to 65 % of field capacity. For The T3 irrigation treatment produced the smallest dry biomass, 13,260
T1–T8, the irrigation duration was the same as CK. kg ha–1 and 16,075 kg ha–1 in 2012 and 2013, respectively, which
differed significantly from the other irrigation treatments except for T6
in 2013. Dry biomass did not significantly differ in the T4–T9 irrigation
Table 1b
treatments in 2012, or T7–T9 irrigation treatments in 2013 (P < 0.05).
Total irrigation amount (mm) applied in the 2012 and 2013 growing seasons.
Treatments 2012 2013 3.2. Grain yield
T1 (CK) 192 262
T2 147 220 Mean grain yield in 2013 was significantly larger compared to 2012
T3 123 165 (P < 0.05). Table 3 shows the grain yields for the 2012 and 2013
T4 152 205
T5 126 182
cropping seasons. The control and T4 treatments produced the largest
T6 142 211 grain yields in 2012 (7994 kg ha–1) and 2013 (9362 kg ha–1), respec­
T7 129 198 tively. T3 treatment has the smallest yield; 6571 kg ha–1 in 2012 and
T8 145 196 7461 kg ha–1 in 2013, which was 20 % and 12 % smaller than the
T9 120 204
control. In 2012, grain yield in the T2, T5, and T6 treatments did not
significantly differ from the control, and during 2013, grain yield in T2,
(
Ya
) (
ETa
) T4, T5, T7 and T9 treatments did not show significant difference from
1− = Ky 1 − (4) the control (P < 0.05).
Ym ETm
The maximum yield (Ym ) and maximum ET (ETm ) values were 3.3. Relationship between grain yield, biomass, LAI, irrigation depth, and
determined from the non-stressed irrigated treatment (CK). Actual yield ET
(Ya ) and actual ET (ETa ) values were determined from the combined
deficit irrigation levels (60 % CK, 80 % CK, and 100 % CK). Furthermore, Maize yield improved by increasing the irrigation depth and a linear
data for the two growing seasons were pooled to determine seasonal relationship existed between them with R2 of 0.86 (Fig. 4). The pre­
values of Ky. In general, larger Ky translates greater sensitivity for yield dictability of yield, biomass, LAI, and irrigation amount was found to be
to water stress during crop growing period, and smaller Ky implies good under multiple regression and R2 ranged from 0.81 to 0.90
higher tolerance of the crop to water deficit. (Table 4). A linear relationship between ET deficit and relative grain
yield reduction was observed in both years, with grain yield response
2.5. Growth parameters factor values (Ky) of 0.61 and 0.82 in 2012 and 2013, respectively. The
average slope (Ky) across both years was 0.66, with R2 of 0.77.
Leaf area index (LAI) was measured using a SunScan-SS1 canopy
analyzer. Leaf area observations were recorded on eight occasions dur­ 3.4. Water use efficiency
ing crop development. Crop phenology in each irrigation treatment was
observed by inspecting the field experiment. Grain yield and above­ Across all treatments, WUE and IWUE ranged from 20.3 to 34.8 kg
ground biomass were collected at maturity. ha–1 mm–1 and 32.0 to 58.0 kg ha–1 mm–1, respectively (Table 3).
Overall, higher WUE was noted in 2013 whereas larger IWUE was
2.6. Statistical analysis estimated for 2012. The T5 and T2 treatments had the highest WUE in
2012 and 2013, and T8 and CK treatments had the lowest WUE in 2012
The collected maize data and parameters (grain yield, biomass, LAI, and 2013, respectively. The T5 treatment had the highest IWUE, 58.1 kg
WUE, and IWUE) were examined by analysis of variance test (ANOVA) ha–1 mm–1 in 2012 and 46.2 kg ha–1 mm–1 in 2013, and CK had the
and the least significant difference (LSD) test (P < 0.05). Regression lowest IWUE, 41.5 kg ha–1 mm–1 in 2012 and 32.0 kg ha–1 mm–1 in 2013
analysis was used to investigate the relationship between yield and (Fig. 5).
seasonal ET and total applied irrigation water.
4. Discussion
3. Results
This study examined the impact of variable irrigation supply on
3.1. Leaf area index and biomass maize yield applied at different growth stages in a semi-arid area. It was
found that in comparison to full irrigation treatment (CK), T2 provided
In both growing seasons (2012 and 2013), the maximum LAI was overall better yield in two growing seasons, and T4 yield was also close
recorded near the anthesis stage. The non-stressed irrigation treatment to CK, on an average for 2012 and 2013. This highlighted the potential

4
Y. Zou et al. Agricultural Water Management 243 (2021) 106483

Fig. 3. Field layout and large lysimeter structure installed in the field.

water stress at different crop growth stages, which had a positive impact
Table 2
on yield for T2 and T5 in comparison to CK. Though the processes
Effect of irrigation treatments (CK, T2–T9) on crop growth parameters in maize.
involved in increasing the plant productivity under stress are not well
2012 2013 explored as discussed by Chai et al. (2016), one probable reason in case
Treatments LAI (58 Dry weight at LAI (55 Dry weight at of T4 could be the reallocation of pre-anthesis carbon reserves towards
DAS) harvest (kg ha–1) DAS) harvest (kg ha–1) grains due to presence of water stress between vegetative, reproductive,
T1 (CK) 4.78a 15,809a 5.22a 18,800a and grain-filling stages (Raes et al., 2018; Yang and Zhang, 2006). In
T2 4.58a 15,404a 5.2a 18,911a addition, higher biomass and grain yield of T2 might be due to better
T3 3.81c 13,260c 4.58c 16,075c nitrogen use efficiency of maize plant under partial water stress condi­
T4 3.84c 14,849b 4.83b 18,000a
tions as highlighted by Li et al. (2007).
T5 4.49b 14,723b 4.90b 18,500a
T6 3.92c 14,839b 4.81b 16,093c Lower yields were noted in T3 where the irrigation supply was
T7 4.20b 14,932b 4.79b 17,907b reduced by 40 % of full irrigation between second and fourth stage.
T8 4.10b 14,996b 4.77b 17,500b These results were in accordance with the findings of Jin et al. (2020)
T9 3.88c 14,678b 4.80b 16,901b
who found higher yield response of maize due to water stress in vege­
Mean values within a column and for the same treatment followed by different tative stages in comparison to reproductive stages. Zhang et al. (2019a)
letters differ significantly at P ≤ 0.05. also reported similar findings, and maize yield was higher when irri­
gation was applied at trumpeting stage (V6-V12) in comparison to
of water saving in the region by following a combination of deficit silking stage. This is most likely due to the effects of water deficit be­
irrigation application at different development stages. It is important to tween V9 and tasseling stage that impacts the kernel setting and weight
note that full irrigation treatment (CK) did not always have the largest (Li et al., 2018). Our results also showed that the negative impacts of
yield. For example, T4 during 2013 had the largest yield, 10.8 % greater water stress on maize yield during the early to mid-vegetative stages (i.e.
than CK, whereas the biomass was 4.3 % smaller than CK. T2, on the T6 and T9) can be compensated by supplying 80 % or 100 % irrigation
other hand, had 0.6 % larger biomass than CK, whereas the yield was during the later stages i.e. silking, flowering, and grain filling. This could
10.7 % greater than CK. This shows the impact of different levels of be most probably due to the fact that by saving the maize from water
deficit during the reproductive and maturity stage, the accelerated

5
Y. Zou et al. Agricultural Water Management 243 (2021) 106483

Table 3
Irrigation treatment yield, ETc, WUE, and IWUE in the 2012 and 2013 growing seasons.
Yield (kg ha–1) ETc (mm) ETc (mm) WUE (kg ha–1 mm–1) IWUE (kg ha–1 mm–1)
Treatments
2012 2013 2012 2013 2012 2013 2012 2013

T1 (CK) 7994a 8401b 302.8 324.4 26.4a 25.9c 41.5d 32.0d

T2 7812a 9350a 336.7 268.7 23.2b 34.8a 53.6b 42.4ab
T3 6571c 7461c 317.4 242.2 20.7c 30.8b 53.4b 44.5a
T4 6927b 9362a 331.4 307.0 20.9c 30.5b 45.5c 45.5a
T5 7328ab 8411b 277.6 292.0 26.4a 28.8b 58.1a 46.2a
T6 7109ab 7714bc 332.2 283.6 21.4c 27.2bc 50.0b 36.4c
T7 6392c 8192bc 291.9 283.5 21.9b 28.9b 48.7bc 41.3b
T8 6808b 7836bc 335.4 263.8 20.3c 29.7b 46.9c 39.8bc
T9 6612bc 8136bc 303.3 300.2 21.8c 27.1bc 55.5b 39.8c

T1 (CK)–T9: irrigation treatments. Mean values within a column and for the same treatment followed by different letters differ significantly at P ≤ 0.05.

senescence would be curbed that otherwise may reduce the photosyn­

thesis (Zhang et al., 2019b).
The association between irrigation depth and grain yield is important
for understanding the grain yield response to different irrigation regimes
(Chai et al., 2016). In our study, the irrigation depth-grain yield rela­
tionship was linear, and corresponds with the findings of Farré and Faci
(2006). Other factors such as soil characteristics, irrigation management
practices, and climate also affect the relationship between the amount of
irrigation applied and grain yield (Tolk and Howell, 2003); however,
these factors were not included in the scope of this study.
The range of Ky value for the two years (0.61− 0.82) was lower than
that of estimated by Jin et al. (2020) in the same region. They reported
Ky ranging between 0.97 and 1.2 for different development stages of
maize by skipping irrigation in different periods. Smith and Steduto
(2012) also calculated Ky for maize and it ranged from 0.2 to 2.3 in
Fig. 4. Relationship between grain yield and total irrigation depth. different growth stages. Moreover, Ky ranging between 0.83 and 1.65
was estimated by Irmak et al. (2016) for maize crop grown under vari­
able irrigation rates (as low as 25 % of full irrigation) and dryland
Table 4
conditions. There could be several possible factors causing smaller Ky
Multiple regression analyses for yield, biomass, leaf area index (LAI) and irri­
values in this study. For example, drought tolerance of crop variety used
gation across the 2012 and 2013 growing seasons.
in the experiment, crop management practices, growing season weather
Dependent Independent Regression equation R2
conditions etc. (Dominguez et al., 2012; Irmak et al., 2016). Another
variable variables
probable reason of smaller Ky is that the crop never experienced severe
Yield Biomass, LAI, Yield = –953 + 0.334 Biomass + 81 water stress in our study as lowest irrigation treatment for any particular
Irrigation amount 851 LAI – 3.63 Irrigation amount
Biomass Yield, LAI, Biomass = 5226 + 0.646 Yield + 90
stage was 40 % of total irrigation, and a small overall coefficient of
Irrigation amount 472 LAI + 22.28 Irrigation amount variation (0.1) was calculated for grain yields from two years and all
LAI Yield, Biomass, LAI = 1.381 + 0.000192 Yield + 84 treatments.
Irrigation amount 0.000055 Biomass + 0.00446 WUE values estimated in our study ranged from 20.3 to 34.8 kg ha–1
Irrigation amount
mm–1 which were broadly in accordance with the results of Jin et al.
Irrigation Yield, Biomass, LAI Irrigation amount = –196.8 – 86
amount 0.0054 Yield + 0.01724 Biomass + (2020), and their WUE range was 14.3–24.1 kg ha–1 mm–1. The IWUE
29.6 LAI values of our study (32.0–58.0 kg ha–1 mm–1) were also largely in
agreement with the findings of Greaves and Wang (2017), and their
estimated IWUE ranged as 16.4–45.3 kg ha–1 mm–1 for different treat­
ments of deficit irrigation for maize. The aforementioned study, never­
theless, did not incorporate different growth stages to optimize reduced
irrigation as included in our study. Larger WUE in 2013 was mainly due
to better growing conditions that resulted about 16 % larger yield with
10 % lesser ETc, on an average, in comparison to 2012 yield. Also, the
irrigation requirement was greater in 2013, mainly due to warmer
growing season in comparison to 2012. Conversely, 2012 growing sea­
son had better IWUE due to 37.5 % smaller irrigation consumption, in
general, as to 2013. Higher WUE for T2 and T3 during 2013 shows that
with sufficient water supply during stage-1 (V3-V8) of maize develop­
ment, greater yields can be achieved despite reducing the irrigation in
later stages. On the other hand, when the water supply is short, repro­
ductive stages can be prioritized for full irrigation (T5 and T9) to
maximize the IWUE while regulating the deficit irrigation for earlier
growth phases.
Fig. 5. Relationship between seasonal yield reduction and seasonal evapo­ The water saving potential of maize under water deficit conditions
transpiration deficit for maize in two growing seasons. could be linked to the chemical signaling mechanism of roots due to lack
of plant available water that triggers the stomatal closure hence

6
Y. Zou et al. Agricultural Water Management 243 (2021) 106483

reducing the transpiration from leaves (Kang et al., 2000; Davies and Chai, Q., Gan, Y., Zhao, C., Xu, H.L., Waskom, R.M., Niu, Y., Siddique, K.H.M., 2016.
Regulated deficit irrigation for crop production under drought stress. A review.
Zhang, 1991). Implementation of deficit irrigation at a certain growth
Agron. Sustain. Dev. 36, 3.
stage might allow the growers to harness from this physiological process Chen, S., Jiang, T., Ma, H., He, C., Xu, F., R.W, Feng, H., Yu, Q., Siddique, K.H.M.,
and by reducing the crop water supply, partial stomatal inhibition could Dong, Q., He, J., 2020. Dynamic within-season irrigation scheduling for maize
be achieved that would reduce the plant water use with minimal production in Northwest China: a method based on weather data fusion and yield
prediction by DSSAT. Agric. For. Meteorol. 285–286, 107928.
reduction in photosynthesis (Chai et al., 2016). Davies, W.J., Zhang, J., 1991. Root signals and the regulation of growth and
development of plants in drying soil. Ann. Rev. Plant Physol. Plant Mol. Biol. 42,
55–76.
5. Conclusion Dominguez, A., Juan de, J.A., Tajuelo, J.M., Martinez, R.S., Romero, M.A., 2012.
Determination of optimal regulated deficit irrigation strategies for maize in a semi-
This study was conducted to assess the water saving potential of arid environment. Agric. Water Manag. 110, 67–77.
Doorenbos, J., Kassam, A.H., 1979. Yield Response to Water. FAO Irrigation and
maize farming in Guanzhong plain, China, during the growing seasons of Drainage Paper 33. United Nations FAO, Rome.
2012 and 2013. Deficit irrigation was regulated at different growth FAO, 2014. Food and Nutrition in Numbers. FAO, Rome. http://www.fao.org/p
stages to analyze the impact of water stress on maize yield. The results ublications/card/en/c/9f31999d-be2d-4f20-a645-a849dd84a03e/.
Farré, I., Faci, J.M., 2006. Comparative response of maize (Zea mays L.) and sorghum
showed that irrigation treatment T2 that received 20 % less irrigation
(Sorghum bicolor L. Moench) to deficit irrigation in a Mediterranean environment.
(compared with 100 % of plant ET; full irrigation treatment (CK)) from Agric. Water Manag. 83, 135–143.
V8 to maturity had the overall highest yield. T4 received 80 % irrigation Greaves, J.A., 1996. Improving suboptimal temperature tolerance in maize-the search for
variation. J. Exp. Bot. 47, 307–323.
between V3-V8 and V11-Tasseling, 100 % irrigation between V8-V11,
Greaves, G.E., Wang, Y.M., 2017. Yield response, water productivity, and seasonal water
and 60 % irrigation between Tasseling and Maturity, and it had production functions for maize under deficit irrigation water management in
average yield closer to CK. Lower yields were noted when the irrigation southern Taiwan. Plant Prod. Sci. 20, 353–365.
supply was reduced by 40 % of full irrigation between V8-V11 and Huang, S., Hou, B., Chang, J., Huang, Q., Chen, Y., 2015. Spatial-temporal change in
precipitation patterns based on the cloud model across the Wei River Basin, China.
Tasseling-Maturity. The results also showed that the negative impacts of Theor. Appl. Climatol. 120, 391–401.
water stress on maize yield during the early to mid-vegetative stages (i.e. Irmak, S., Djaman, K., Rudnick, D.R., 2016. Effect of full and limited irrigation amount
T6 and T9) can be compensated by supplying 80 % or 100 % irrigation and frequency on subsurface drip-irrigated maize evapotranspiration, yield, water
use efficiency and yield response factors. Irrig. Sci. 34, 271–286.
during the later stages i.e. silking, flowering, and grain filling. The Jin, N., He, J., Fang, Q., Chen, C., Ren, Q., He, L., Yu, Q., 2020. The responses of maize
overall highest IWUE (52.15 Kg mm− 1 ha− 1) for both growing seasons yield and water use to growth stage‑based irrigation on the loess plateau in China.
was noted for T5 with the application of 169 mm irrigation, which was Int. J. Plant Prod. 13.
Kang, S.Z., Shi, P., Pan, Y.H., Liang, Z.S., Hu, X.T., Zhang, J., 2000. Soil water
29 % smaller than CK at the cost of 4% decline in the yield. The average distribution, uniformity and water-use efficiency under alternate furrow irrigation in
yield response factor (Ky) for maize was 0.66, indicating that the envi­ arid areas. Irrig. Sci. 19, 181–190.
ronmental conditions of the study area are favorable for deficit irrigation Li, F., Liang, J., Kang, S., Zhang, J., 2007. Benefits of alternate partial root-zone irrigation
on growth, water and nitrogen use efficiencies modified by fertilization and soil
approach. One major limitation of this study is that the findings related
water status in maize. Plant Soil 295, 279–291.
to deficit irrigation need further validation in the field as the precipi­ Li, F., Wei, C., Zhang, F., Zhang, J., Nong, M., Kang, S., 2010. Water-use efficiency and
tation was excluded from the experiments. Future research should physiological responses of maize under partial root zone irrigation. Agric. Water
Manag. 97, 1156–1164.
include narrower windows of plant growth stages as well as a wider
Li, Y., Tao, H., Zhang, B., Huang, S., Wang, P., 2018. Timing of water deficit limits maize
range of deficit irrigation levels. Also, the impact of climate change may kernel setting in association with changes in the source-flow-sink relationship.
be assessed in conjunction with deficit irrigation strategies using crop Fronti. Plant Sci. 9, 1326.
models. Liu, S., Huang, S., Xie, Y., Huang, Q., Leng, G., Hou, B., Zhang, Y., Wei, X., 2018. Spatial-
temporal changes of maximum and minimum temperatures in the Wei River Basin,
China: changing patterns, causes and implications. Atm. Res. 204, 1–11.
Meng, E.C.H., Ruifa, H., Xiaohua, S., Shihuang, Z., 2006. Maize in China: Production
Declaration of Competing Interest Systems, Constraints, and Research Priorities. CIMMYT, Mexico.
Ouda, S., Noreldin, T., 2020. Deficit irrigation and water conservation. Deficit Irrigation
15-27. Springer, Cham.
The authors report no declarations of interest. Raes, D., Steduto, P., Hsiao, T.C., Fereres, E., 2018. Reference manual, AquaCrop.
Version 6.0–6.1, Chapter 3, Calculation procedures.
Saddique, Q., Liu, D.L., Wang, B., Feng, P., He, J., Ajaz, A., Ji, J., Xu, J., Zhang, C.,
Acknowledgments Cai, H., 2020. Modelling future climate change impacts on winter wheat yield and
water use: a case study in Guanzhong Plain, Northwestern China. Eur. J. Agron. 119,
This research was jointly supported by the National Key Research 126113.
Smith, M., Steduto, P., 2012. Yield response to water: the original FAO water production
and Development Program of China (2016YFC0400201), the National function. FAO Irrig. Drain. Paper 66, 6–13.
Science Foundation of China (no. 51179162), and the Program of Thorp, K.R., Hunsaker, D.J., French, A.N., White, J.W., Clarke, T.R., Pinter Jr., P.J.,
Introducing Talents of Discipline to Universities, China (B12007). 2010. Evaluation of the CSM-CROPSIM-CERES-wheat model as a tool for crop water
management. Trans. ASABE 53, 87–102.
Tolk, J.A., Howell, T.A., 2003. Water use efficiencies of grain sorghum in three USA
References southern Great Plains soils. Agric. Water Manag. 59, 97–111.
Wang, Y.J., Xie, Z.K., Malhi, S.S., Vera, C.L., Zhang, Y.B., Wang, J.N., 2009. Effects of
rainfall harvesting and mulching technologies on water use efficiency and crop yield
Aguilar, M., Borjas, F., Espinosa, M., 2007. Agronomic response of maize to limited levels
in the semi-arid Loess Plateau, China. Agric. Water Manag. 96, 374–382.
of water under furrow irrigation in southern Spain. Span. J. Agric. Res. 5, 587–592.
Wang, J., Wang, E., Yang, X., 2012. Increased yield potential of wheat-maize cropping
Ajaz, A., Karimi, P., Cai, X., De Fraiture, C., Akhter, M.S., 2019. Statistical data collection
system in the North China Plain by climate change adaptation. Clim. Change 113,
methodologies of irrigated areas and their limitations: a review. Irrig. Drain. 68,
825–840.
702–713.
Wang, Y., Kong, Y., Chen, H., Ding, Y., 2020. Spatial-temporal characteristics of drought
Ajaz, A., Datta, S., Stoodley, S., 2020. High plains aquifer–state of affairs of irrigated
detected from meteorological data with high resolution in Shaanxi Province, China.
agriculture and role of irrigation in the sustainability paradigm. Sustainability 12,
J. Arid Land 1–19.
3714.
Xiao, D., Liu, D.L., Wang, B., Feng, P., Bai, H., Tang, J., 2020. Climate change impact on
Alexandratos, N., Bruinsma, J., 2012. World Agriculture Towards 2030/2050: the 2012
yields and water use of wheat and maize in the North China Plain under future
Revision. ESA Working paper No. 12-03. FAO, Rome.
climate change scenarios. Agric. Water Manag. 238, 106238.
Ali, S., Jan, A., Zhang, P., Khan, M.N., Cai, T., Wei, T., Ren, X., Jia, Q., Han, Q., Jia, Z.,
Yang, J., Zhang, J., 2006. Grain filling of cereals under soil drying. New Phytol. 169,
2016. Effects of ridge-covering mulches on soil water storage and maize production
223–236.
under simulated rainfall in semiarid regions of China. Agric. Water Manag. 178,
Zhang, P., Wei, T., Li, Y., Zhang, Y., Cai, T., Ren, X., Han, Q., Jia, Z., 2019a. Effects of
1–11.
deficit irrigation combined with rainwater harvesting planting system on the water
Allen, R.G., Pereira, L.S., Raes, D., Smith, M., 1998. Crop Evapotranspiration. Guide-
Lines for Computing Crop Water Requirements. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper
56. FAO, Rome, Italy.
CGIAR – Consortium of International Agricultural Research Centers, 2016. Why Maize.
https://maize.org/why-maize/.

7
Y. Zou et al. Agricultural Water Management 243 (2021) 106483

use efficiency and maize (Zea mays L.) yield in a semiarid area. Irrig. Sci. 37, Zhao, G., Mu, X., Tian, P., Wang, F., Gao, P., 2012. Climate changes and their impacts on
611–625. water resources in semiarid regions: a case study of the Wei River basin, China.
Zhang, H., Han, M., Comas, L.H., DeJonge, K.C., Gleason, S.M., Trout, T.J., Ma, L., Hydrol. Process. 27, 3852–3863.
2019b. Response of maize yield components to growth stage-based deficit irrigation.
Agron. J. 111, 3244–3252.