4.6 Article

Improving Wheat Yield and Water-Use Efficiency by Optimizing Irrigations in Northern China

期刊

SUSTAINABILITY
卷 15, 期 13, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/su151310503

关键词

limited irrigation; drought stress; yield; water-use efficiency; northern China

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Reducing irrigation water and selecting suitable wheat varieties can increase both crop yield and water-use efficiency. The study found that selecting the right amount of irrigation water and the S086 variety resulted in the best outcomes in both seasons.
Achieving the goal of increasing both crop yield and water-use efficiency with a better irrigation regime is a major challenge in semi-arid areas. In this study, we presented a two-season field experiment (October 2018-June 2019 and October 2019-June 2020) that considered drought stresses, i.e., no irrigation (W0), irrigated in jointing (W1), both in jointing and flowering (W2) after re-greening, and wheat varieties (S086; J22). The results showed that a 45.5% excess of irrigation water input did not promote wheat yield (W1 vs. W2). S086 was beneficial for the usage of soil water consumption under a low amount of irrigation water in both seasons. In addition, irrigation positively affected the activities of superoxide dismutase and catalase in flag leaves (p < 0.05). A decrease in irrigation helped to increase the concentrations of soluble sugar and proline and decrease the amount of malondialdehyde content for S086. For the water- and irrigation-water-use efficiency, W1 was significantly increased by 20.6-21.7% and 38.3-39.3% in 2018-2019 and 23.4-24.4% and 43.8-44.7% in 2019-2020, respectively, as compared to W2. Additionally, a higher yield for S086 than J22 was found under deficit irrigation. Consequently, our study suggested that the S086 variety combined with a total amount of irrigation water of 165 mm might be recommended to meet the win-win goal of high crop yields and water-use efficiency for reducing ground water depletion in the future.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据