4.5 Article

Effects of zeolite application on grain yield, water use and nitrogen uptake of rice under alternate wetting and drying irrigation

Publisher

CHINESE ACAD AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING
DOI: 10.25165/j.ijabe.20181101.3064

Keywords

zeolite; alternate wetting and drying irrigation; rice; yield; water use efficiency

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51679142, 51709173]
  2. Special Fund for Agro-scientific Research in the Public Interest from the Ministry of Agriculture, China [201303125]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

With the increasing scarcity of water resources and growing population, the dual goal of saving irrigation water and increasing grain yield has become a major challenge in rice production around the world. A two-year lysimetric experiment was conducted to assess the effects of zeolite application (Z(0): 0 and Z(1): 15 t/hm(2)) and water regimes (W-0: continuous flooding irrigation, W-1: energy-controlled irrigation, W-2: alternate wetting and drying irrigation) on grain yield, water use and total nitrogen uptake of rice. Zeolite addition to paddy field significantly increased grain yield, total N uptake, and water use efficiency (WUE), despite a negligible effect on amount of irrigation water used. Compared with W-0, the separate use of W-1 and W-2 each considerably decreased irrigation water. However, W-2-grown rice showed a significant decline in grain yield. In contrast, W-1 showed comparable grain yield with W-0, and achieved the highest WUE. Correlation analysis revealed that grain yield was significantly and positively correlated with effective panicles, spikelets per panicle, water consumption, and total N uptake. It is concluded that the combination of zeolite application at the rate of 15 t/hm(2) and energy-controlled irrigation could be recommended to benefit farmers by reducing irrigation water while improving grain yield on a clay loam soil.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available