Grain Yield and Water Use Efficiency of Five Sorghum Cultivars under Different Irrigation Regimes in Kerman

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

• H Vahidi
• Gh. R Khajoei-nejad
• A Rezaei Estakhroeih

Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman

10.22067/gsc.v13i3.51154

Abstract

Introduction
Reduction of the forage and grain yield of sorghum genotypes under different levels of deficit irrigation has been reported. The plants that have higher water use efficiency (WUE), have a better chance of survival in arid regions. On average, WUE of sorghum in clay, loamy soil has been reported equal to 1.46 kg m-3. Effects of drought stress and different levels of nitrogen on yield of two cultivars of sorghum were investigated and results showed significant effects on plant height, leaf area index, fresh and dry weight of leaf, dry weight of stem and forage yield. The purpose of this research is to investigate the effect of deficit irrigation on grain yield and WUE of sorghum cultivars in Kerman.
Materials and Methods
This study has been conducted in the research station of Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman with 56o 58' E longitude, 30o 15' N latitude and 1753.8 altitudes. According to the regional information from 1952 to 2005, the average temperature is 17.1 oC, the average rainfall is 154.1 mm, the average annual relative humidity is 32%. The climate of Kerman according to De Martonne method can be classified as semiarid. The experimental design was split-plot based on RCBD with three replications. Three levels of irrigation (after 50, 80 and 110 mm evaporation from class A pan) were assigned to the main plots and the five sub-plots of sorghum cultivars (Speedfeed, Pegah, Payam, Sepideh and Kimia). On the 20th of May all sorghum cultivars were planted at the distance of 10 cm from each other on ridges. On the 7th of October, with considering margins, four square meters of the two middle lines were selected to determine the grain and biological yield. The samples were weighed with a digital scale and heated for 48 hours in the degree of 75 oC-and then the dry weight of each samples were measured again. Finally, the data were analyzed by SAS software (v. 9.1). Comparision of the averages attributes was performed using, Duncan’s test at five percent level of significant.
Results and Discussion
The result of the analysis of variance (Table 3) has shown a non-significant effect of different irrigation regimes on the study attributes. Grain yields of different cultivars were shown to have a significant effect (P < 0.01) (Table 3). Among the cultivars, Sepideh with the production of 7806.7 kg ha-1 of grain had the highest and Payam with the production of 4721.9 kg ha-1 had the lowest yield (Table 4). The results of the analysis of variance (Table 3) showed that the biological yield of the cultivars were significantly different (P < 0.01). Pegah showed the maximum dry matter production with 30365 kg ha-1 and Payam showed the minimum dry matter production with 12865 kg.ha-1 (Table 4). Harvest index of different cultivars was significantly (P < 0.01) different too (Table 3). The highest harvest index belonged to Sepideh with 43% and the lowest belonged to Pegah with 18% (Table 4). The highest WUE was 1.12 kg m-3 in Sepideh and the lowest of WUE were equal to 0.85 and 0.86 kg m-3 for Speedfeed and Payam, respectively (Table 4). The water use efficiency (WUE) based on the biological yield, between the cultivars was statistically significant different (P < 0.01) (Table 1). The highest WUE belonged to Pegah with 4.34 kg m-3 and the lowest belonged to Payam with 2.33 kg m-3 (Table 2). The lowest crop water requirement was 0.91 m3 kg-1 for Sepideh and the highest was equal to 1.32 m3 kg-1 for Pegah (Table 2). Overall, the results showed that Sepideh is the most appropriate cultivar for the grain yield in arid regions.

Conclusions
The cultivar Sepideh with producing grain yield of 7806.7 kg ha-1 and the water use efficiency (WUE) of 1.12 kg.m-3 is the best choice for the region of Kerman. On the other hand, with the purpose of cultivating sorghum, biological yield, and achieving the minimum water requirement for biological yield of sorghum in this region, Pegah cultivar is the best suggestion.

Keywords

• Crop water requirement, Deficit irrigation
• Drought stress
• Evapotranspiration
• Harvest index

20.1001.1.20081472.1394.13.3.3.7

---

References

1. Baghkhani, F. 2007. Effect of drought stress on yield and yield components and evaluation of tolerance indices of spring safflower varieties. M.Sc. thesis. Department of Agronomy, Faculty of Agriculture, Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman. 147 p. (in Persian).

2. Bakhtiari, B., Liaghat, A., Khalili, A., and Kjanjani, M. J. 2010. Evaluation of Two Hourly Combination Models for Estimation of Grass Reference Evapotranspiration (Case study: Climate of Kerman). Journal of Science and Technology of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Water and Soil Science 13 (50): 13-26. (in Persian with English abstract).

3. Beheshti, A., and Behbodifard, B. 2010. Dry Matter Accumulation and Remobilization in Grain Sorghum Genotypes (Sorghum bicolor L. Moench) under Normal and Water Stress Conditions. Journal of Iranian Field Crop Research 8 (4): 717-725. (in Persian with English abstract).

4. Emam, Y., Maghsoudi, K., and Moghimi, N. 2014. Effect of Water Stress and Nitrogen Levels on Yield of Forage Sorghum. Journal of Crop Production and Processing 3 (10): 145-155. (in Persian with English abstract).

5. Gupta, U. S. 1940. Physiological aspects of dryland farming. New Delhi: Oxford and IBH Pub. Co. 391p.

6. Haji Hasani Asl, N., Moradi Aghdam, A., Shiranirad, A. H., Hosseini, N., and Rasaeifar, M. 2010. Effect of drought stress on forage yield and agronomical characters of millet, sorghum and cron in delay cropping. Journal of Crop Production Research 2 (1): 63-74. (in Persian with English abstract).

7. Hall, A. E., Richards, R. A., Condon, A. G., Wright, C. G., and Farquhar, G. D. 1994. Carbon isotope discrimination and plant breeding. Plant Breeding Reviews 12: 81-113.

8. Howell, T. A., Tolk, J. A., Evett, S. R., Copeland, K. S., and Dusek, D. A. 2007. Evapotranspiration of Deficit Irrigated Sorghum. Texas Experiment Station Field Day Handout, pp: 32-39.

9. Ibrahim, Y. M. 1995. Response of sorghum genotypes to different water levels. Sprinkler irrigation Annals of Arid zone, 34: 287-288.

10. Keykhaei, F., Ganji Khorramdel, N., Farzanjo, M., Keykha, G. H., Saghafi K., and Keykha, M. 2010. Deficit irrigation impact on crop yield and water use efficiency of forage sorghum in Sistan region. Journal of Water Research in Agriculture 24 (1): 41-49. (in Persian with English abstract).

11. Klocke, N. 2009. Corn and Grain Sorghum Production with Limited Irrigation. 21st Annual central plains irrigation conference, Kansas, Feb 24-25.

12. Maghsoudi Moud, A. A. 2008. Physiological, Morphological and Anatomical Bases of Drught Tolerance in Wheat. Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman Publications. 233p. (in Persian).

13. Matthews, K. B., Reddy, D. M., Rani, A. U., and Peacock, I. M. 2004. Response of four sorghum lines to midseason drought. I. Growth, water use and yield. Field Crop Research 25: 279-296.

14. Moaveni, P., and Heidari, U. 2005. Study of plant density and irrigation intervals on grain yield and some physiological traits in forage sorghum. Iranian Journal of Crop Science 6 (4): 374-382. (in Persian with English abstract).

15. Noor-mohammadi, Gh., Siadat, A., and Kashani, A. 2005. Grain Farming, vol 1. Ahwaz University Press, 446. (in Persian).

16. Onken, A. B., Wendt, C. W., Payne, W. A., and Drew, M. C. 1992. Soil phosphorus availability and pearl millet water use efficiency. Crop Science 32: 1010-1015.

17. Payero, J. O., Tarkalson, D. D., Irmak, S., Davison, D., and Petersen, J. L. 2009. Effect of timing of a deficit-irrigation allocation on corn evapotranspiration, yield, water use efficiency and dry mass. Agricultural Water Management 96: 1387-1397.

18. Razmi, N., and Chasmi, M. 2007. Effect of different irrigation regimes on growth, grain yield and its components of grain sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L.) cultivars under Isfahan conditions. Iranian Journal of Crop Sciences 9 (2): 169-183. (in Persian with English abstract).

19. Saeed, I. A. M., and EL-Nadi, A. H. 1998. Forage sorghum yield and water use efficiency under variable irrigation. Irrigation Science 18: 67-71.

20. Stout, D. G., Kannangara, T., and Simpson, G. M. 1978. Drought resistance of sorghum bicolor.1: Drought avoidance mechanisms related of leaf water status. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 98: 213-224.

21. Tolk, J. A. and Howell, T. A. 2003. Water use efficiencies of grain sorghum grown in three USA southern Great Plains soils. Agricultural Water Management 59: 97-111.

22. William, G., Hopkins Norman, P., and Huner, A. 2008. Introduction to Plant Physiology (4thed). University of Western Ontario, Willey, 528p.

23. Yosef, E., Carmi, A., Nikbacht, M., Zenou, A., Umiel, N., and Miron, J. 2009. Characteristics of tall versus short-type varieties of forage sorghum grown under two irrigation levels, for summer and subsequent fall harvest, and digestibility by sheep of their silage. Animal feed Science and Technology 152: 1-11.

24. Younesi, O., Sharifzadeh, F., and Ahmadi, A. 2010. Effect of Irrigation Regime on Grain Yield, Yield Components and some Germination Attributes in Grain Sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L. C. V. Kimia). Iranian Journal of Field Crop Science 41 (1): 187-195. (in Persian with English abstract).