USE OF DRAINAGE WATER FOR IRRIGATION OF QUINOA IN A MEDITERRANEAN ENVIRONMENT

Transcription

1 USE OF DRAINAGE WATER FOR IRRIGATION OF QUINOA IN A MEDITERRANEAN ENVIRONMENT S. Metin SEZEN 1, Attila YAZAR 2, Servet TEKIN 3, Mehmet YILDIZ 4 ABSTRACT Productivity in agriculture is to be enhanced in the near future with a smaller amount of available fresh water. Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) is a promising crop for food security in dry areas. The objective of this study is to evaluate the effect of drainage water applied with a line-source sprinkler system at different growth stages of quinoa grown in the Mediterranean region of Turkey in 2014 and 2015 on yield, yield components, vegetative growth, water use efficiency and salt accumulation in the plant rootzone. Total amount of drainage water applied to treatment (I1) was 344 and 400 mm; and total amount of seasonal water use (ET) was 514, and 459 mm; for two experimental years. Irrigation levels (I1-I4) influenced significantly quinoa yields and yield components. Maximum yield came from the I1 as kg ha -1 ; and the lowest yield was from the rainfed treatment as 1880 and 1430 kg ha -1, respectively, in the two study years. Significant positive linear relationships were found between the seed yield and ET. The yield response factors (ky) were 1.17 in 2014 and 1.06 in Data on yield and some quality parameters such as the harvest index, 1000 seed weight, leaf area index as well as plant height at harvest were highest in I1 treatment. Not only the total yield, but also yield components increased with higher irrigation levels.the experimental results revealed that there was no significant difference in the WUE among the treatments (0.95 to 1.03 kg m -3 in the 1 st year and kg m -3 in the 2 nd year). Soil salinity at the beginning of the season varied from ds m -1 and application of drainage water resulted in its increase up to 1.69 ds m -1. Soil salinity decreased with increasing depth in all treatments. In conclusion, full irrigation using drainage water is recommended for sprinkler irrigated quinoa in order to obtain higher and better quality yield in the Mediterranena region of Turkey. Thus, drainage water can safely be used in quinoa production without soil degradation in this region since the winter rainfalls are sufficient enough to leach salts out of crop root zone. Keywords: Drainage water reuse, quinoa, abiotic stresses, line-source sprinkler. INTRODUCTION In regions with scarce fresh water resources and increasing food demand for ever growing population, water management along with production of climate proof crops become key factors for a sustainable agriculture (WWAP 2012). The cultivation of drought- and salt-tolerant crops such as quinoa has the potential to enhance the farm-level productivity and livelihoods in drought- and salt-prone areas. Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) is a native Andean seed crop for domestic consumption and market sale, widely investigated due to its nutritional composition and gluten-free seeds. Quinoa has been cultivated in the Peru and Bolivian Altiplano for 4000 years. In recent times the crop is also gaining attention in USA, Europe, and Asia because of its high nutritional value. Quinoa develops unique resistance mechanisms to water 1 Irrigation and Agricultural Structures Department, Çukurova. Univ., Adana, Turkey; smsezen@cu.edu.tr 2 Irrigation and Agricultural Structures Department, Çukurova University, Adana, Turkey; yazarat@cu.edu.tr 3 Biosystem Engineering Department, Sütçüimam University, K.Maraş, Turkey; stekin@ksu.edu.tr 4 Soil and Water Research Unit, Hort. Research Institute, Tarsus, Turkey; mehmetyildizim@gmail.com 1

2 stress allowing it to adapt to harsh conditions in arid and semi-arid regions (Jacobsen et al. 2003). Greater demand for fresh water, increased frequency of drought, and increased pressure to reduce drainage water volumes have intensified the need for drainage water reuse in arid and semi-arid agricultural areas. The reuse of drainage water on marginal lands is an alternative approach that can provide an additional source of irrigation water. Reusing drainage water would reduce its volume and the amount of land needed for its disposal by up to an order of magnitude (Oster & Grattan 2002; Corwin et al. 2008), lowering the cost of disposal and reducing the exposure of wildlife to potentially toxic waters. However, the recycling of drainage water containing salts and trace elements would re-introduce potentially harmful chemical constituents that can degrade soil quality (Qadir & Oster 2004). Re-use is a natural method of managing drainage water. In order to develop the maximum benefit and to help dispose of drainage water, strategies for water re-use have evolved (Diaz et al. 2013). Water re-use must be balanced against both short and long-term needs, with consideration for both local and off-site effects. In regions where irrigation water supplies are limited, drainage water can be used to supplement them. Saline drainage water is successively re-used for the irrigation of salt-tolerant crops and trees (Corwin et al. 2008). In Mediterranean region, high winter precipitation leads to salt leaching. Drainage water reuse could be an effective method of reducing the risk of irrigation water stress through dry season. Previous studies in the Mediterranean region of Turkey using drainage water for supplemental irrigation to wheat and cotton (Yazar et al.2000) and wheat and quinoa (Yazar et al. 2015) indicated that both wheat and quinoa yields increased considerably as compared to rainfed wheat, and salinity of the soil in the top 60 cm increased, but not to the level to decrease wheat and quinoa yields. The winter rainfalls (65% of the annual rainfall of 650 mm) leached the salts out of the crop rootzone. The primary objectives of this study were to evaluate the effect of irrigation on quinoa yield and yield components and water use efficiency using saline drainage canal water in the Mediterranean region of Turkey. 2. MATERIALS AND METHODS 2.1 Experimental site and soil properties The field experiment was carried out during the growing season (March - July) of 2014 and 2015 on the experimental field of Soil and Water Resources Research unit, Tarsus in the Mediterranean region of Turkey. The station has a latitude of 37 01' N and, a longitude of 35 01' E and is at 10 m above mean sea level. The soil of experimental site is Arikli silty-clay-loam with relatively high water holding capacity Table 1). The available water holding capacity of the soil was 158 mm in a 90 cm soil profile. Soil salinity at different depths (0-20; 20-40; and cm) was evaluated on saturation extracts of the soil samples taken at the beginning and at harvest period. Soil organic matter was 1.73%, soil salinity at the beginning of the field experiment varied from 0.63 ds m -1 in the top soil layer to 0.72 ds m -1 at lower layers. The soil salinity level is low and is no threat to crop production. Relevant climatic data of 2014 and 2015 recorded in an AWS and long-term monthly means ( ) at Soil and Water Resources Research Institute in Tarsus are presented in Table 2. 2

3 Table 1. Some physical and chemical properties of soil at Tarsus Research Institute Depth (cm) Soil properties ph Salinity (ECe; ds/m ) CaCO3 (%) Sand (%) Clay (%) Silt (%) Texture class Clay Clay Clay Clay Field capacity (%) Wilting point (%) Bulk density (g/cm 3 ) Organic Matter (%) 1.73 Table 2. Monthly climatic data of 2014, 2015 growing seasons and long-term monthly means Years Climatic Parameters Months March April May June July Mean Mean Temp. ( o C) Max Temp. ( o C) Min Temp ( o C) Rainfall (mm) Evaporation (mm) Rel. Humid. (%) Mean Temp. ( o C) Max Temp. ( o C) Min Temp ( o C) Rainfall (mm) Evaporation (mm) Rel. Humid. (%) Mean Temp. ( o C) Max Temp. ( o C) Min Temp ( o C) Long-term Rainfall (mm) Evaporation (mm) Rel. Humid. (%)

4 2.2 Experimental Design and Treatments The experiment was laid out using a line-source irrigation system which allows a gradual variation of irrigation, in direction at right angle to the source (Figure 1). Five irrigation levels, namely one full (I1) and four deficit (I2-I5) irrigations were envisaged. I2, I3, I4 and I5 treatments represent deficit irrigation of approximately 80, 60, 40 and 20 %, respectively. 2.3 Agronomic Practices Quinoa seeds were provided to seedlings producing greenhouse 3 weeks before the planting dates. Seedlings were transplanted at 15 cm in row, and 50 cm row spacing on April 2 and April 4, in 2014 and 2015, respectively. At planting 70 kg ha -1 composite fertilizer of N-P-K was applied and incorporated into soil. The rest of the N fertilizer was applied during flowering stage (On May 26, 2014; and May 18, 2015) at a rate of 75 kg ha -1 ammonium nitrate (33 % N). 2.4 Measurements and Observations The soil water content measurements were made at 7-day intervals for quinoa until harvest in the four replications for all treatments by gravimetric sampling in 0-30 cm, and using a neutron probe (Campbell Pacific model 503DR Hydroprobe) at 30 cm depth increments over 90 cm deep with 15-s counts. The probe was field calibrated for the experimental soil. Plant and soil water measurements were started after planting, and were terminated on the harvest date. Quinoa was harvested manually on July 10, 2014 and July 3, At harvest, all plants in the two 2 m rows were cut at ground level and grain and straw were separated by hand and weighed. All plant samples were dried for 48 h in an oven at 68 o C to determine dry matter production and grain moisture content. Actual crop ET was calculated using the water balance equation (Eq.1): ET=I + P ± ΔSW-Dp-Rf (1) where; ET is actual evapotranspiration (mm), I the amount of irrigation water applied (mm), ΔSW the soil water content changes (mm), Dp the deep percolation (mm), and Rf amount of runoff (mm). Since the amount of irrigation water was controlled, deep percolation and run off were assumed to be zero. Water use efficiency (WUE) was calculated as grain yield divided by seasonal ET; and Irrigation water use efficiency (IWUE) was estimated as the difference in grain yield in irrigated and rainfed treatments divided by the seasonal total irrigation depth (Yazar et al. 2015). Data were analyzed with a statistical software package developed for line-source sprinkler system (Hanks et al. 1980). Treatment means were compared using Fisher s least significant difference (LSD) test at P = RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 3.1 Irrigation and Evapotranspiration The amount of saline drainage water applied and seasonal water use, grain yield, water use efficiency (WUE) and irrigation water use efficiency values (IWUE) for quinoa in the experimental years are given in Table 3. Applied water decreased with 4

5 distance from the sprinkler line source in a fairly linear manner. Average water amounts ranged from mm next to the sprinkler line (Iı), and from 97 to 114 mm in the I4 irrigation level. Total number of irrigation application in I1 treatments were 4 in the experimental years. I5 treatment plots received irrigation water varying between 15 and 20 mm at the transplanting times early in the seasons. Figure 1. Layout of the line-source sprinkler system Seasonal water use varied from mm in I5 treatment plots (rain-fed) to mm in the I1 plots. In other treatments crop water use varied between the I1 and I5 treatments. Evapotranspiration was significantly influenced by irrigation levels (P<0.023). Water use decreased with increasing distance from the line-source. The highest water use measured in the I1 treatment in the experimental years. Greater soil water deficit occurred in the second season and quinoa experienced water stress in the severe deficit irrigation treatments. Soil water stress gradually increased towards the end of the growing season in the least watered treatment plots. Yazar et al. (2015) reported seasonal ET values ranged from 247 mm in the non-irrigated treatment to 576mm in full irrigation tretament in the Mediterranean region of Turkey.ET values in the deficit irrigation treatments (I2-I5) were significantly. (P<0.05) lower than in the full irrigation treatments. 3.2 Grain Yield and Water Use Efficiency (WUE) Irrigation levels significantly (P 0.045) affected quinoa grain yield, the highest being 4510 and 4880 kg ha-1, respectively, in 2015 and 2014 from the I1 plots. The lowest yields were attained from the I5 treatment plot as 1430 and 1880 kg ha -1. Grain yields significantly decreased with decreasing amount of irrigation water. Severe deficit irrigation treatment (I4) received only mm of water and produced grain yield of 2860 and 3550 kg ha -1 which is almost two fold increases in comparison to rain-fed (I5) treatment.on the other hand, I2 and I3 irrigation levels produced kg ha -1 ; and kg ha -1, respectively in the experimental years. 5

6 Table 3. Grain yield, evapotranspiration (ET), irrigation water applied, water use efficiency (WUE) and irrigation water use efficiency (IWUE) values for the irrigation levels in the experimental years Years Irrigation Levels Yield kg/ha ET mm Irrigation mm WUE kg/m 3 IWUE kg/m Seed weight, g I (a) (a) I (b) (a) I (b) (b) I (c) (c) I (d) (d) I (a) (a) I (b) (b) I (c) (c) I (d) (d) I (e) (e) Grain yield, seasonal water use, WUE and IWUE depended on the controlled ranges of soil water content. Grain yield response to irrigation varied considerably due to differences in soil water contents and rainfall distribution during the growing seasons. Treatment I5 in represents a severe soil water deficit condition. Mean grain yield of treatment I5 was evidently lower than those the other treatments (Table 3), which showed that severe soil water deficit markedly decreased grain yield of quinoa compared with other treatments. WUE ranged from kg m -3 in I5 to 1.03 kg m -3 in I4 and 1.10 kg m-3 I2 treatment in the experimental years. Rainfed (I5) resulted in lowest WUE; and I4 and I2 treatments resulted in the greatest WUE. IWUE values ranged from kg m -3 in I1; and to kg m -3 in I4 irrigation level. IWUE values increased with decreasing irrigation amounts. Other yield attributes such as 1000-grain weight values varied from a low of 2.4 g in I5 to maximum of 3.6 g in I1 in 2014; and from 1.8 g in I5 to 3.5 g in I1 in 2015 growing season grain weights decreased with increasing distance from the lateral. In other words, as the amount of irrigation water decreased 1000-grain weight decreased. The effects of irrigation treatments on 1000-grain yield were found to be statistically significant. Yazar et al. (2015) reported that ull irrigation with fresh or saline water produced significantly higher 1000-seed weight values than the deficit irrigation treatments in the Mediterranean region of Turkey. 3.3 Soil Water Storage Variations Profile soil water storage variations during the 2014 and 2015 growing seasons are shown in Fig. 2 and 3, respectively. Soil water contents in the 0.60 m profile decreased gradually from DAT 20 until 90 in all treatments in both experimental years. Available soil water in I1 treatment plot remained above 50 % throughout the growing season. On the other hand, almost all treatment plots except I1 and I2 treatment, available water fell below 40 % after 35 DAT during the growing season and resulted in lower yields. In 2015, available soil water in I1 and I2 plots remained above 50% throughout the growing season. Thus, water stress gradually increased in the late planting treatments, and reduced yield significantly. 6

7 Soil Water Content, mm/90 cm Soil Water Content, mm/90 cm 2 nd World Irrigation Forum (WIF2) I1 I2 I3 I4 I5 FC 50% AW PWP Days after transplanting, DAT Figure 2. Soil water storage variation in all treatments during the 2014 growing season I1 I2 I3 I4 I Days after transplanting, DAT Figure 3. Soil water storage variation in all treatments during the 2015 growing season FC 50% AW PWP Full irrigation (I1) created favorable soil water environment for quinoa growth and resulted in higher yields. Although quinoa is classified as drought tolerant crop, irrigations increased quinoa grain and biomass yields significantly. Soil water deficit increased gradually towards the end of the growing season and almost reached wilting point in I4 and I5 treatment plots. 3.4 Soil Salinity Pre-experiment soil ECe in the top 0-30 cm was 0.63 ds m -1, which didn t change much in the deeper layers. Post experiment, there was increase in soil ECe in the irrigation treatments reaching 1.69 ds m -1 in I1 treatment (Figure 4). The increase in this treatment resulted from the addition of salts through drainage water, which had ECe ranging from 0.57 to 1.69 ds m -1. The minimal increase in soil ECe (1.29 ds m -1 ) was in the supplemental irrigation where minimum amount of water was used for 7

8 Yield, kg/ha Verim, kg/da Yield, kg/ha Verim, kg/da Soil Salinity, ds/m 2 nd World Irrigation Forum (WIF2) irrigation (97 mm). The soil ECe levels didn t change much in the I5 treatment (rainfed). The increase in soil ECe in all the irrigation treatmentswas not significant. This was due to drainage water used for irrigation had ECe ranging from 0.57 to 1.69 ds m -1 during the experimental period Initial I1 I2 I3 I4 I5 Irrigation levels 0-30 cm cm cm Figure 4. Effect of irrigation levels on soil electrical conductivity (ECe) 3.5 Grain Yield-Evapotranspiration and Irrigation Relations The relationships between seed yield and crop water use (ET) in the experimental years of 2014 and 2015 are shown, respectively, in Figure 5. Significant linear relationship were found between the seed yield and ET (R 2 =0.78 and 0.87) in both seasons. Quinoa seed yield increased with increasing ET. Yield reached its maximum value at a seasonal ET of 512 and 459 mm in I1 treatment then started to decrease with decreasing ET. When ET is relatively low, water availability is the limiting factor for grain yield and an increase in ET results in significant increases in grain yield a) 2014 Drenaj suyu a) b) 2015 Drenaj Kanal suyu 600 b) Kanal suyu Y = x R² = Verim, kg/da Y = x R² = Y= x R 2 = Verim, kg/da Y= R 2 = ET, mm , , , , , ,0 500,0 550 ET, ET, mm mm Figure 5. The relationship between the quinoa grain yield and evapotranspiration (ET) in 2014 and 2015 ET, mm ,0 250,0 300,0 350,0 4 The yield response factor (ky), the slope of the relationship between the relative grain yield and relative evapotranspirationare depicted in Figure 6 for the experimental years. ky values were 1.17 and 1.06 for the 2014 and 2015 growing seasons, respectively. 8

9 (1-Ya/Ym) 2 nd World Irrigation Forum (WIF2) (1-ETa/ETm) ,70 0,60 0,50 0,40 (1-ETa/ETm) 0,30 0,20 0,10 0,00 0, , ,20 0,30 ky = ky = 1,06 0,40 0,50 0,60 (1-Ya/Ym) , a) Drenaj suyu a) Drenaj suyu Figure 6. Yield response factor (ky) for quinoa irrigated with drainage water in the experimental years CONCLUSIONS In this study, our results demonstrate that sprinkler irrigation results in higher yields of quinoa under climatic conditions of the Tarsus plain in Turkey. Evapotranspiration, grain yield and WUE of quinoa were all affected by controlled ranges of soil water content during the growing season. Grain yield response to irrigation varied considerably due to differences in soil moisture contents and rainfall among seasons. Highest average grain yield (4695 kg ha -1 ) was obtained from the full irrigation treatment (I1) and deficit irrigation (I2-I5) affected crop yields by reducing grain weight. Thus, deficit irrigation of quinoa is not recommended if water is available. Drainage water can safely be used for irrigation of quinoa crop, which is very tolerant to salinity. Winter rainfalls are sufficient to leach out the salts from the profile accumulated during quinoa growing seasons. Soil salinity in the top soil layer (30 cm) increased to 1.69 ds/m at harvest from 0.7 ds/m at sowing. Soil salinity decreased with increasing depth.the high correlation between grain yield and ET in this study indicates that grain yield is strongly influenced by the pattern of water use during the course of the season and emphasizes the importance of adequate water supply during all growing season for higher yield and WUE. Production systems based on salt-tolerant plant species using drainage waters may be sustainable with the potential of transforming such waters from an environmental burden into an economic asset. Such a strategy would encourage the disposal of drainage waters within the irrigated regions where they are generated rather than exporting these waters to other regions via discharge into main irrigation canals, local streams, or rivers. Being economically and environmentally sustainable, these strategies could be the key to future agricultural and economic growth and social wealth in regions where salt-affected soils exist and/or where saline-sodic drainage waters are generated.in conclusion, quinoa, designated as the potential crop of the 21th Century by FAO to ensure food security and fight famine and malnutrition, can be irrigated with saline drainage water can be safely used for producing quinoa with acceptable yields in the semi-arid and arid regions of the Mediterranean Basin. REFERENCES Corwin D.L., LeschS.M., OsterJ.D., & KaffkaS.R Short-term sustainability of drainage water reuse: Spatio-temporal impacts on soil chemical properties. J. Environ. Qual. 37: ,80 9

10 Díaz F.J., BenesS.E., Grattan, S.R Field performance of halophytic species under irrigation with saline drainage water in the San Joaquin Valley of California Agricultural Water Management 118: Hanks R.J., KellerJ., RasmussenV.P., WilsonG.D Line-source sprinkler for continuous variable irrigation-crop production studies. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 40(3), Jacobsen S-E., MujicaA., JensenC.R The resistance of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa ) to adverse abiotic factors. Food Rev. Int. 19, Jacobsen S-E., MonterosC., Christiansen, J.L.,BravoL.A.,. CorcueraL.J, MujicaA Plant responses of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) to frost at various phenological stages. Eur. J. Agron. 22, Oster J.D., GrattanS.R Drainage water reuse. Irrigation and Drainage Systems 16, Qadir M., OsterJ.D Crop and irrigation management strategies for saline sodic soils and waters aimed at environmentally sustainable agriculture. Science of the Total Environment 323, WWAP (World Water Assessment Programme) The United Nations World Water Development Report 4: Managing Water under Uncertainty and Risk. Paris, UNESCO." Yazar A, Yarpuzlu A, Sezen SM.2000 Irrigation Cotton and Wheat with Drainage Water in the Mediterranean Region of Turkey. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Techniques to Control Salination for Horticultural Productivity November, 2000, Antalya, Turkey. ISHS Section Fruit, Vegetables and Ornamentals. Acta Horticulturae 573, Yazar A., Incekaya C, Sezen S. M., & JacobsenS-E Saline water irrigation of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa) under Mediterranean conditions. Crop & Pasture Science, 66,