TY - JOUR
T1 - Disk-till vs. no-till maize evapotranspiration, microclimate, grain yield, production functions and water productivity
AU - Irmak, Suat
AU - Kukal, Meetpal S.
AU - Mohammed, Ali T.
AU - Djaman, Koffi
N1 - Funding Information:
This research was partially supported by the grants from the Nebraska Environmental Trust (NET) under the project agreement #13-146 and the Central Platte Natural Resources District (CPNRD) under the grant agreement #38484. This research is based upon the work that is partially supported by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Dr. Suat Irmak’s Hatch Project , under the Project Number NEB-21-155. As the aforementioned projects’ Principal Investigator, Dr. Irmak expresses his appreciation to the NET , CPNRD , and USDA for collaboration and for providing partial financial support for this project. Dr. Irmak also expresses his appreciation to farmer collaborators, Mr. Mark Wells, Mr. Robert Wells, and Mr. Steven Frisell, near Holdrege, NE, for allowing us to conduct these extensive projects in their large scale disk-till and no-till production fields and for their excellent collaboration. Dr. Irmak also acknowledges all of his current and former Irmak Research Laboratory members, including L. O. Odhiambo, for their help with this field research.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2019 Elsevier B.V.
PY - 2019/5/1
Y1 - 2019/5/1
N2 - Recognition and understanding of impacts of any crop and (or) soil management practice on crop water use is equally crucial as its intended impacts. One such practice that has gained adoption among producers in the U.S. maize growing regions is conservation tillage, aiming at maintaining about 30–40%, or more, of residual vegetative cover on the soil surface after planting. The presence of numerous interacting factors suggests that the success of this practice is subject to its effectiveness on local scales, requiring scientific/research-based data. The crop evapotranspiration (ET c ), microclimate, yield, water productivity (WP) and other variables for irrigated maize (Zea mays L.) were measured and compared under disk-till (DT) (conventional) and no-till (NT) (conservation) tillage systems in 2011, 2012 and 2013 in two carefully managed and monitored producers’ fields, which have been under these tillage management practices for over 17 years. On a three-year total basis, the DT maize ET c (2091 mm) was 92 mm higher than the NT maize ET c (1999 mm). Also, a seasonal and a monthly pattern existed in the difference between DT and NT ET c . NT maize had less pre-anthesis water use than DT maize and greater post-anthesis water use than DT maize in all three growing seasons. The irrigation-yield (IYPF) and evapotranspiration-yield production functions (ETYPF) were developed, and change in ET c increase per unit irrigation application was quantified for both DT and NT maize. Differences in ET c between the two tillage systems was also responsible for modification of field-scale microclimate, where the difference in ET c between the two fields was negatively related to differences in air temperature, vapor pressure deficit, wind speed and sensible heat flux, whereas it was positively related to net radiation and total soil-water. Maize yield was higher for DT maize than NT maize for all three years, by 7% (0.8 t/ha), 6% (0.8 t/ha) and 10% (1.2 t/ha) for 2011, 2012 and 2013, respectively. Tillage practice did not impact WP as WP for both tillage practices were similar, ranging from 1.74 to 1.94 kg/m 3 . The presented research data and information are a benchmark evidence for tillage-specific agricultural water management for stakeholders in regions with similar crop management and climatic conditions.
AB - Recognition and understanding of impacts of any crop and (or) soil management practice on crop water use is equally crucial as its intended impacts. One such practice that has gained adoption among producers in the U.S. maize growing regions is conservation tillage, aiming at maintaining about 30–40%, or more, of residual vegetative cover on the soil surface after planting. The presence of numerous interacting factors suggests that the success of this practice is subject to its effectiveness on local scales, requiring scientific/research-based data. The crop evapotranspiration (ET c ), microclimate, yield, water productivity (WP) and other variables for irrigated maize (Zea mays L.) were measured and compared under disk-till (DT) (conventional) and no-till (NT) (conservation) tillage systems in 2011, 2012 and 2013 in two carefully managed and monitored producers’ fields, which have been under these tillage management practices for over 17 years. On a three-year total basis, the DT maize ET c (2091 mm) was 92 mm higher than the NT maize ET c (1999 mm). Also, a seasonal and a monthly pattern existed in the difference between DT and NT ET c . NT maize had less pre-anthesis water use than DT maize and greater post-anthesis water use than DT maize in all three growing seasons. The irrigation-yield (IYPF) and evapotranspiration-yield production functions (ETYPF) were developed, and change in ET c increase per unit irrigation application was quantified for both DT and NT maize. Differences in ET c between the two tillage systems was also responsible for modification of field-scale microclimate, where the difference in ET c between the two fields was negatively related to differences in air temperature, vapor pressure deficit, wind speed and sensible heat flux, whereas it was positively related to net radiation and total soil-water. Maize yield was higher for DT maize than NT maize for all three years, by 7% (0.8 t/ha), 6% (0.8 t/ha) and 10% (1.2 t/ha) for 2011, 2012 and 2013, respectively. Tillage practice did not impact WP as WP for both tillage practices were similar, ranging from 1.74 to 1.94 kg/m 3 . The presented research data and information are a benchmark evidence for tillage-specific agricultural water management for stakeholders in regions with similar crop management and climatic conditions.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85061429361&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85061429361&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.agwat.2019.02.006
DO - 10.1016/j.agwat.2019.02.006
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85061429361
SN - 0378-3774
VL - 216
SP - 177
EP - 195
JO - Agricultural Water Management
JF - Agricultural Water Management
ER -