Hindawi

Journal of Sensors
Volume 2021, Article ID 6617437, 12 pages
https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/6617437

Research Article
Effects of Subsurface Drip Irrigation on Water Consumption and
Yields of Alfalfa under Different Water and Fertilizer Conditions

Xuesong Cao ,1 Yayang Feng ,2 Heping Li ,1 Hexiang Zheng ,1 Jun Wang ,1

and Changfu Tong 1
1
Institute of Water Resources for Pastoral Area, China Institute of Water Resources and Hydropower Research,
Huhhot 010020, China
2
Water Conservancy and Civil Engineering, Inner Mongolia Agricultural University, Hohhot 010018, China

Correspondence should be addressed to Xuesong Cao; [email protected]

Received 2 November 2020; Revised 10 January 2021; Accepted 20 January 2021; Published 3 February 2021

Academic Editor: Jingwei Wang

Copyright © 2021 Xuesong Cao et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License,
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

A field experiment was conducted for the purpose of examining the effects of different combinations of water and fertilizer
applications on the water consumption and yields of alfalfa under subsurface drip irrigation (SDI). The results showed that the
jointing and branching stages were the key stages for alfalfa water requirement. The water consumption had varied greatly
(from 130 to 170 mm) during the growth period of each alfalfa crop. The water consumption during the whole growth period
was approximately 500 mm, and the maximum water consumption intensity was 3.64 mm·d-1. The overall changes in water
consumption and yields during the growth period of the alfalfa displayed trends of first increasing and then decreasing. The
sensitivities of the yields to water changes were much higher than that of fertilizer. The water use efficiency (WUE) of the alfalfa
was determined to range from 1.68 to 3.20 kg·m-3, and the rate of growth had ranged from 4.85% to 51.77%. The WUE and rate
of growth of the alfalfa indicated the following trend: second crop > third crop > first crop. The results of frequency analysis
based on the water-nitrogen-yield regression equation are the following: irrigation amounts of 142~165 mm and nitrogen
application of 61~80 kg·hm-2 have a 95% probability of obtaining a hay yield of alfalfa of more than 11903 kg·hm-2. These
results suggest that SDI is a promising irrigation method, which can increase the WUE and hay yield of alfalfa under the
condition of SDI within an appropriate amount of water and nitrogen fertilizer, and too low or too high water and nitrogen
fertilizer will adversely affect the WUE and hay yield of alfalfa.

1. Introduction improve crop water productivity and hay yield [4–7]. In

modern precision agricultural activities, two of the three
With the global economic development, population growth, “precisions” (precision sowing, precision fertilization, and
and regional water shortages, agricultural production, as the precision irrigation) are implemented through SDI. The
world’s primary consumer of water resources, is increasingly technical characteristics of SDI include small flow, local
focused on agricultural water conservation, environmental moistening, and frequent irrigation. When compared with
protection, and improving crop quality and yield, which is surface irrigation methods, SDI has been found to have out-
also increasingly squeezed by the demands from other society standing advantages, such as water conservation, lower
sectors and threatened by potential climatic change [1]. SDI, amounts of required fertilizer, reducing evaporation losses,
as a new irrigation method in recent years, has attracted increasing crop WUE, irrigation WUE and crop yield, good
much attention in agricultural production in arid and semi- adaptability to various terrain, uniform irrigation, and ease
arid areas due to its improving WUE and ability to minimize of technology integration [8–15].
the adverse effects of excessive irrigation on the environment Alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) is a type of high-quality
[2, 3]. Studies have shown that SDI saves water resources and perennial leguminous forage, with the characteristics of good
does not interfere with ground production of alfalfa and can palatability, high stress resistance, high yield, rich nutrition,
2 Journal of Sensors

and so on [16–22]. Throughout the world, alfalfa enjoys the in the forage quality and efficiency; protection of grassland
reputation as the “ Queen of Forage” [16] and is one of the ecological environments, adjustments in the livestock indus-
main high-quality forage crops planted in pastoral areas try structures, and promotion of the sustainable development
and occupies a very important position in agricultural pro- of grassland animal husbandry in the arid and semiarid pas-
duction. Alfalfa is not suitable for aboveground drip irriga- toral areas of western Inner Mongolia. This paper provides
tion due to its mowing multiple times per year and its findings for the enrichment of the alfalfa SDI technology sys-
growth characteristics; therefore, alfalfa under SDI technol- tem and offers valuable data support and theoretical basis by
ogy came into being. With the development of new water- field experiment data analysis for water saving, yield
saving irrigation technology, artificial grass SDI technologies enhancement, and quality improvement of agricultural crops
with increased water-saving potential have become impor- in this region.
tant directions for the current development projects in arid
and semiarid pastoral regions. Studies have shown that alfalfa
has better adaptability to SDI in arid and semiarid areas [23– 2. Materials and Methods
25]. Furthermore, as a form of engineered water-saving irri-
2.1. Experimental Site. This study’s experiment was carried
gation, SDI has been widely applied in actual production pro-
out at the Hengfeng water-saving irrigation experimental
cesses. It has been found to have the ability to improve
base in Otog Front Banner, Ordos City, Inner Mongolia
farmland production environments, along with regulating
(Figure 1(a)) from April to October 2019. The Otog Front
the physiological processes of crops, and also have certain
Banner is located in the abdomen of Mu Us Sandland and
positive effects, such as increasing hay yield [26, 27] and sav-
at the junction of Inner Mongolia, Shaanxi, and Ningxia
ing water [28]. In a previous study, Kou et al. [29] examined
Provinces. Its geographic coordinates are eastern longitude
the effects of subsurface regulated deficit drip irrigation on
the water consumption, yields, and quality of alfalfa and also 106° 30 ′ − 108° 30 ′ and northern latitude 37° 38 ′ − 38° 45 ′ ,
pointed out that with increases in the water deficit and yields, with an altitude ranging between 1,300 and 1,400 m. The
the water consumption of the alfalfa had been reduced. study area is characterized by the semiarid continental cli-
Meanwhile, the water usage efficiency had been increased. mate of a middle temperate zone, which includes hot sum-
However, some studies have shown that the fresh and dried mers, cold winters, dry conditions with little rainfall, strong
yield of alfalfa decreases with the decrease of water supply, evaporation conditions, and abundant sunlight. The annual
and the WUE increases instead [30, 31]. SDI can also greatly average temperature is 7.9°C; annual average precipitation
reduce surface evaporation and deep percolation; studies had is 260.6 mm; annual average evaporation is 2,497.9 mm; and
shown that using SDI can save a quarter of total water trans- the annual prevailing wind direction is south, followed by
fers in the season [32, 33]. Similarly, alfalfa under SDI can west and east wind directions, with an average annual wind
increase crop yields by improving precise control of water speed of 2.6 m·s-1. In the study area, the average number of
and fertilizer. Compared with the conventional method of sandstorm days is 16.9 days, and the average relative humid-
irrigation, the water-saving ratio due to SDI that precisely ity is 49.8%. Also, the number of annual average sunshine
regulates water and fertilizer ranges from 30 to 70 per cent hours ranges between 2,500 and 3,200 hours, with an average
whereas gain in productivity for different crops ranges from of 2,958 hours, and the frost-free period is 171 days. The
20 to 90 per cent as well as reduces the requirement of labors maximum frozen soil depth is 1.54 m. The 40 cm deep soil
and fertilizers [34]. Stavarache et al. [35] determined that type in the experimental area was determined to be sandy soil
nitrogen applications had a significant promoting effect on with a bulk density of 1.62 g·cm-3. The soil mechanical com-
the yields of alfalfa grown in the same year. In another related position of 0~40 cm soil layer is shown in Table 1.
study, Liu et al. [36] proposed a precision regulation model of
water and fertilizer for irrigation and fertilizer management 2.2. Test Material and Planting Method. SDI material: the
in alfalfa. Therefore, a comprehensive understanding of crop SDI belts were embedded at a depth of 20 cm, as part of a
water needs and water and fertilizer precise control ratio patch-type SDI belt system. The wall thicknesses were
under SDI conditions is of great significance for vigorously 0.4 mm; drip discharge was 2.0 L·h-1; and the drip spacing
developing efficient water-saving agricultural methods, alle- was 0.3 m. Each SDI belt controlled four rows of alfalfa, and
viating water shortages, and improving crop water and fertil- the spacing between the SDI belts was 60 cm.
izer usage efficiency. Varieties of alfalfa: the alfalfa which was used in this
In the current experiment, the water and fertilizer were study was in its third year of planting. The alfalfa variety
transported directly to the roots of the alfalfa plants using was Grassland No. 2. The alfalfa was sown using drills, with
an SDI belt. The irrigation and fertilization processes for the seeding amount set as 30 kg·hm-2 and the line spacing
the alfalfa were strictly controlled in order to effectively ana- set at 15 cm.
lyze the water consumption rule of the alfalfa under SDI con- Planting method: alfalfa was artificially sown using drills
ditions. The effects of the different irrigation and fertilization with line spacings of 15 cm. In order to ensure the nutritional
treatments on the yields and water usage efficiency of the value and palatability of the alfalfa, the alfalfa was harvested
alfalfa were studied in order to obtain the best combination and stored at the initial flowering stage. The alfalfa was har-
points for the water and fertilizer application amounts. The vested in three crops a year. The alfalfa strikes rooted in early
results of this study provided a theoretical basis for the devel- April of each year, and the third crop was harvested at the
opment of irrigation in artificial forage land, improvements end of September.
Journal of Sensors 3

W E

S S F-10 S F-9 S F-8 S F-7 S F-6 S F-5 S F-4 S F-3 S F-2 S F-1

Hohhot Beijing

Otog front banner

Study site
Farm road
Note: → Represents the drip irrigation belt, where the arrows indicate the direction of flow.

(a) (b)

Figure 1: Study site on the map of China (a) and experimental plot layout of the studied field (b).

Table 1: Soil mechanical composition of 0~40 cm soil layer in the test area.

Soil particle distribution (%)

Bulk density (g·cm-3) Proportion Soil type
0.05~2 mm 0.002~0.05 mm <0.002 mm
1.62 2.71 76.85 21.69 1.46 Sandy soil

Fertilizers used in the experiment: in this study, the nitro- Table 2: Designs of the experimental factors and levels for the
gen fertilizer was urea (N 46.4%). fertilization of the alfalfa under SDI conditions.

Levels and factors for production target

2.3. Experimental Design. A 2-factor and 3-level orthogonal Treatment
Irrigation quota (mm) N (kg·hm-2)
combination design was used in this study’s experiment.
SF-1 20 0
The designs of the specific experimental factors and levels
are shown in Table 2. Nine different orthogonal design treat- SF-2 20 60
ments and one conventional field control treatment were set SF-3 20 120
up in the experimental area, with a total of ten experimental SF-4 25 0
treatments being conducted in this study. Each treatment SF-5 25 60
was repeated three times, for a total of 30 experimental plots. SF-6 25 120
Each experimental treatment had a length of 60 m, width of SF-7 30 0
8 m, and area of 480 m2. The total area of the experimental
SF-8 30 60
plots was 4,800 m2. In order to avoid the mutual impact of
the treatments, a 2 m wide isolation belt was set up between SF-9 30 120
every two treatments (Figure 1(b)). Each treatment was A local herdsman’s traditional alfalfa planting
SF-10
divided into three experimental plots during the experiment field was taken as the control treatment
monitoring process. For example, each experimental plot
had a length of 20 m, width of 8 m, and area of 160 m2. When
details are shown in Figure 2 (the red line in Figure 2 repre-
the soil moisture content of the SF-5 treatment was reduced
sents the two-period moving average trend line).
to 65% of the field water holding capacity, each treatment
Observations of the groundwater levels: the groundwater
was irrigated according to the irrigation quota (the amounts
level changes in the experimental area were measured using
of irrigated water were recorded by a rotor digital water
a HOBO automatic groundwater level meter (HOBO U30
meter), and each experimental treatment had the same irriga-
Onset, Onset Computer Corporation, Bourne, MA, USA).
tion date and frequency.
The groundwater burial depths in the experimental area were
determined to be between 1.2 and 2.0 m.
2.4. Measurement Indexes and Method. Observations of the Irrigation amounts: the soil moisture levels of each plot
meteorological factors: a farmland meteorological station were automatically monitored by the HOBO soil moisture
(HOBO U30 Onset, Onset Computer Corporation, Bourne, automatic measuring instrument (HOBO U30 Onset, Onset
MA, USA) was set up in the experimental area for the pur- Computer Corporation, Bourne, MA, USA). When the soil
pose of observing the temperature, rainfall, wind speeds, rel- moisture content had reached the lower water limit, irriga-
ative humidity, air pressure, wind directions, and other tion was implemented in time for the treatment. The irriga-
factors occurring during the growing period of the alfalfa tion for the local control treatment (SF-10) was based on
crops. The effective rainfall was determined to be the irrigation experiences of the local herdsmen, and the
182.10 mm during the entire alfalfa growth period, and the amounts of the irrigation were measured using water meter
4 Journal of Sensors

40
35

Effective rainfall (mm)

30
25
20
15
10
5
0

22-Jul
23-Jul
4-Apr
7-Apr
8-Apr

5-Jun
21-Jun

20-Aug
22-Aug
26-Aug
15-Sep
2-May
29-May
Date (day-month)

Figure 2: Effective rainfall during the entire growth period of the alfalfa.

Table 3: Irrigation amounts of each alfalfa crop during each growth period.

Irrigation amounts (mm) (the first/second/third crop)

Treatment
Seedling establishment stage Jointing stage Branching stage Flowering stage Total irrigation
SF-1 20/20/20 40/20/20 40/40/0 20/20/20 120/100/60
SF-2 20/20/20 40/20/20 40/40/0 20/20/20 120/100/60
SF-3 20/20/20 40/20/20 40/40/0 20/20/20 120/100/60
SF-4 25/25/25 50/25/25 50/50/0 25/25/25 150/125/75
SF-5 25/25/25 50/25/25 50/50/0 25/25/25 150/125/75
SF-6 25/25/25 50/25/25 50/50/0 25/25/25 150/125/75
SF-7 30/30/30 60/30/30 60/60/0 30/30/30 180/150/90
SF-8 30/30/30 60/30/30 60/60/0 30/30/30 180/150/90
SF-9 30/30/30 60/30/30 60/60/0 30/30/30 180/150/90
SF-10 0/0/0 80/80/80 80/80/80 0/0/0 160/160/160

readings. The irrigation amounts of each growth period of the alfalfa after cutting was determined, and the fresh hay
the experiment are detailed in Table 3. samples were placed into an oven. A water removal treatment
Soil moisture content levels: the field water holding capac- was conducted for 30 minutes at a high temperature of
ity of undisturbed soil samples which were taken using a cut- 105°C, and then, the temperature was adjusted to 65°C in
ting ring from the experimental area was measured in this order to dry the samples for a period of 48 hours under con-
study’s laboratory facilities. Then, the results were compared stant temperature conditions. The samples were then taken
with the field experiment results, and the field water holding out of the oven; the dry weights of the samples were calcu-
capacity of the 0 to 40 cm soil layer in the experimental area lated after the samples had cooled.
was determined to be 22.86%. The soil moisture content of
each experimental plot was measured by instrument mea- 2.5. Calculation and Analysis of the Water Consumption of
surement methods and checked by an oven-drying method. the Alfalfa. Water consumption: the water consumption of
The instrument used in the measurement method was the the alfalfa was calculated using a water balance equation as
HOBO soil moisture automatic measuring instrument, and follows:
the measured depth of the soil layer was 10, 20, 30, 40, 50,
and 60 cm, respectively. The oven-drying method utilized a ET a = P + I − ΔW − Q, ð1Þ
soil auger to extract the soil samples, and an oven was used
for the drying process.
Hay yields of the alfalfa crops: the growth stage of the where ET a represents the water consumption (mm) during
alfalfa was divided into the seedling establishment stage, each period, P is the effective precipitation (mm) during the
branching stage, squaring stage, and flowering stage. The corresponding period, I denotes the irrigation amount dur-
alfalfa hay was cut when it had entered the flowering stage, ing the corresponding period, ΔW represents the changes
and three crops were harvested each year. A quadrat sam- in the soil water storage (mm) during the corresponding
pling method was used for measurements of the hay yields. period, and Q is the water flux (mm) of the lower boundary
The quadrat area was set as 1 m × 1 m. The fresh weight of during the corresponding period.
Journal of Sensors 5

Changes in the soil water storage levels: the changes in the 3. Results
soil water storage levels during each growth stage were calcu-
lated according to soil moisture content of each experimental 3.1. Changes in the Soil Water Storage and Soil Water Fluxes.
treatment, and the formula was as follows: The changes in the soil water storage and water flux levels at
the lower boundaries of the three alfalfa crops during each
growth period are detailed in Tables 4 and 5, respectively.
θi+1 − θi
ΔW = × γ × h, ð2Þ Results indicated that some treatments had a positive soil
100 water storage capacity, which indicated a soil water surplus
during growing seasons, whereas some treatments had a
where θi denotes the initial soil water content (%) during the negative soil water storage capacity, which indicated a soil
corresponding period, θi+1 is the final soil water content (%) water deficit during growing seasons. According to the cur-
during the corresponding period, γ represents the soil bulk rent irrigation system, in the SF-1~SF-9 treatments, the larg-
density (cm3/g), and h is the planned depth (mm) of the wet- est soil water surplus and soil water deficit during growing
ting layer. seasons occurred in the jointing stage of the first crop of
Soil water fluxes of the lower boundary: the soil water SF-7 treatment and that of the third crop of SF-5 treatment,
fluxes at the lower boundary of the alfalfa were the deep soil and the values were 19.25 and -10.67 mm, respectively. For
leakage or recharge during each growth period which was the control treatment (SF-10), soil water surplus during
calculated according to the soil’s negative pressure measured growing seasons occurred in the jointing stage and branch-
during the experiment. The recharge and leakage of the soil ing stage, due to the irrigation during the two periods,
moisture at the lower boundary of the planned wetting layer whereas soil water deficit occurred in the seedling establish-
were calculated using an oriented flux method, and the mea- ment stage and flowering stage, as there was no irrigation
suring instrument was a negative pressure gauge. The calcu- during this time. The changes in the soil water fluxes at
lation formula of the oriented flux method was as follows: the lower boundaries of each crop of alfalfa displayed similar
  laws and changes.

 H2 − H1

qðz 1−2 Þ = −k H × +1 , ð3Þ
Δz 3.2. Water Consumption. The results of the calculated water
consumption of the three crops of alfalfa during each growth
where kðHÞ  represents the permeability coefficient of the soil stage are shown in Figure 3. Results indicated that the level of
  = ðH 1 + H 2 Þ/2, and H 1 and H 2 indicate
at H, Δz = z 2 − z 1 , H water consumption of the first crop of alfalfa during each
the negative pressure values of the soil at the locations z 1 and growth stage under low, medium, and high water treatment
z 2 , respectively. Therefore, the soil water flow qðz1−2 Þ per unit conditions showed a trend of first increasing and then
area during the period from t 1 to t 2 could be obtained. Sim- decreasing, and the relationship pattern of the water con-
ilarly, the flow qðzÞ on each section could be calculated sumption during each growth stage was as follows: branching
according to qðz 1−2 Þ as follows: stage > jointing stage > seedling establishment stage > flower-
ing stage. Furthermore, in accordance with the results of this
ð z1−2 study’s comparison of total water consumption of the first
qðz Þ = qðz 1−2 Þ + ½qðz, t 2 Þ − qðz, t 1 Þdz: ð4Þ crop of alfalfa (upper layer of Figure 3), the water consump-
z tion of the high water treatment (SF-7, SF-8, and SF-9) was
greater than the water consumption of the medium water
WUE: WUE refers to the output per unit of water con- treatment (SF-4, SF-5, and SF-6), which was greater than
sumption of crops, the value of which is equal to the ratio the water consumption of the low water treatment (SF-1,
of the crop yields to the net water consumption of crops. In SF-2, and SF-3). Furthermore, the water consumption during
this study, the crop WUE was calculated using the following each growth period was observed to have increased with the
formula: increases in the irrigation amounts. The water consumption
levels of the alfalfa during each growth period under the
Y low, medium, and high water treatments were found to be
WUE = , ð5Þ
ET a lower than those of the local control treatment (SF-10). The
control treatment (SF-10) was a one-time irrigation of alfalfa
where WUE is the water use efficiency (kg·m-3), Y represents without applied fertilization treatments by the local herds-
the crop yields (kg·hm-2), and the meanings of the other sym- man for the purpose of pursuing a low input and high output
bols are the same as previously mentioned. scenario. In this study, by utilizing the results of this study’s
analyses of the water consumption levels of the alfalfa at dif-
2.6. Statistical Analysis. Analysis of variance was performed ferent growth stages under the same water treatments and
using the SPSS22.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, New York, NY, different fertilizer application rates, and according to the
USA) to determine the least significant difference (LSD) results of the comparison of a, b, and c detailed in the upper
among treatments at P < 0:05, and Duncan’s multiple range layer of Figure 3, it could be seen that under the same water
test was applied for comparing the means. OriginPro2019 treatment conditions, the water consumption levels of the
(Origin Lab Corporation, Northampton, MA, USA) was used alfalfa during the different growth stages were greatly affected
to draw the picture. by the amounts of the fertilizer applications.
6 Journal of Sensors

Table 4: Changes in the soil water storage levels of each crop of alfalfa during each growth stage.

Soil water storage (mm) (the first/second/third crop)

Treatment
Seedling establishment stage Jointing stage Branching stage Flowering stage Total
SF-1 1.54/9.59/3.36 9.97/-3.27/-6.18 1.35/-3.95/13.35 3.83/-6.17/6.79 16.69/-3.80/17.32
SF-2 0.54/7.53/1.64 8.97/-5.97/-9.73 0.35/-3.61/12.46 2.83/-5.37/2.49 12.69/-7.42/6.86
SF-3 0.55/8.46/1.87 7.36/-5.48/-10.13 0.93/-2.92/14.61 2.63/-4.67/3.01 11.47/-4.61/9.36
SF-4 3.63/6.58/3.99 14.27/-3.37/-5.63 6.61/0.72/14.76 6.48/-4.38/5.47 30.99/-0.45/18.59
SF-5 3.36/5.69/3.01 12.23/-4.92/-10.67 3.85/-0.18/11.85 4.65/-4.55/3.13 24.09/-3.96/7.32
SF-6 3.68/5.99/3.05 12.87/-4.46/-8.81 6.37/0.25/13.16 4.49/-4.27/3.61 27.41/-2.49/11.01
SF-7 5.18/10.87/8.25 19.25/-1.14/-4.73 11.27/5.88/15.83 7.84/-1.62/8.36 43.54/13.99/27.71
SF-8 3.94/9.76/6.45 15.34/-2.07/-5.68 7.27/4.87/11.79 6.59/-1.86/5.16 33.14/10.70/17.72
SF-9 3.68/10.37/5.74 17.35/-1.48/-4.57 10.54/5.17/12.66 7.59/-1.25/5.63 39.16/12.81/19.46
SF-10 -9.68/-7.46/-8.89 23.35/23.75/17.65 19.56/13.69/56.08 -8.59/-15.18/-5.67 24.64/14.80/59.17

Table 5: Changes in the soil water fluxes of each crop of alfalfa during each growth stage.

Water flux at the lower boundaries (mm) (the first/second/third crop)

Treatment
Seedling establishment stage Jointing stage Branching stage Flowering stage Total
SF-1 1.29/8.06/2.89 8.76/-4.54/-7.23 1.19/-2.67/15.01 3.55/-4.34/3.58 14.79/-3.49/14.25
SF-2 0.29/6.72/0.83 6.76/-4.71/-11.29 0.19/-3.49/11.35 1.55/-5.88/2.08 8.79/-7.36/2.97
SF-3 0.76/7.09/1.16 8.64/-5.03/-9.78 0.17/-3.64/11.07 4.15/-5.18/2.16 13.72/-6.76/4.61
SF-4 3.78/7.24/4.87 14.34/-4.65/-7.88 6.31/0.83/12.27 6.19/-3.95/5.36 30.62/-0.53/14.62
SF-5 1.95/6.78/3.47 13.91/-4.74/-8.13 5.62/-0.35/9.39 3.97/-4.16/2.86 25.45/-2.47/7.59
SF-6 3.03/6.82/3.36 13.52/-4.81/-7.86 4.16/0.55/10.15 5.54/-3.99/3.37 26.25/-1.43/9.02
SF-7 5.61/11.36/6.42 18.18/-0.96/-3.06 10.48/6.43/12.14 8.85/-1.15/8.15 43.12/15.68/23.65
SF-8 5.82/10.85/5.18 19.61/-1.39/-7.67 9.69/5.52/10.18 7.86/-1.72/6.29 42.98/13.26/13.98
SF-9 6.27/10.89/5.99 18.26/-1.17/-6.76 8.91/5.58/11.19 8.17/-1.69/6.98 41.61/13.61/17.40
SF-10 -10.27/-6.19/-8.62 25.68/22.46/15.28 16.91/15.73/51.16 -8.17/-14.85/-6.42 24.15/17.15/51.40

The water consumption intensity of three alfalfa crops atures during the second crop period and was observed to
during each growth stage under different water and fertilizer grow more slowly during the third crop period due to the
combination applications was detailed in Table 6. Results lower temperatures. Finally, it was found that under the same
showed that the value of water consumption intensity of water treatment conditions, with the increases in the fertilizer
alfalfa ranged from 1.84 to 3.27 mm/d at the seedling estab- applications, the average water consumption intensity of the
lishment stage, from 1.97 to 3.75 mm/d at the jointing stage, alfalfa had first increased and then decreased, and the water
from 2.21 to 3.89 mm/d at the branching stage, and from 1.90 consumption intensity pattern of the alfalfa was as follows:
to 3.75 mm/d at the flowering stage, respectively. The value of medium fertilization > high fertilization > low fertilization.
average water consumption intensity of alfalfa throughout its Note: different letters within the same column indicate
growth period ranged from 1.98 to 3.64 mm/d. Secondly, the significant differences in 0.05 level, the same as below.
average water consumption intensity of the alfalfa had first
increased and then decreased with the increases in the irriga- 3.3. Hay Yield and WUE. In this research, in order to make
tion quota. The average water consumption intensity of the the test results more obvious, the WUE and growth rates of
second alfalfa crop treatment was observed to be the lowest the three alfalfa crops during each treatment period were cal-
at 3.12 mm d-1. The average water consumption intensity of culated based on the control treatment (SF-10). The calcula-
the SF-8 treatment was observed to be the largest at tion results are shown in Tables 7 and 8. Results showed that
3.64 mm d-1, which was 16.67% higher than that of the SF- the hay yield of the first alfalfa crop ranged from 2576.29 to
1 treatment. The water consumption intensity pattern of 3326.66 kg·hm-2, of the second alfalfa crop ranged from
the three crops of alfalfa during each growth stage was as fol- 3526.76 to 5352.68 kg·hm-2, and of the third alfalfa crop
lows: branching stage > jointing stage > flowering stage > - ranged from 3051.53 to 4352.18 kg·hm-2, respectively. Simi-
seedling establishment stage. Thirdly, it was determined larly, the WUE of the first alfalfa crop ranged from 1.68 to
that the water consumption of the second crop was greater 2.34 kg·m-3, of the second alfalfa crop ranged from 2.15 to
than that of the first crop, which was higher than that of 3.20 kg·m-3, and of the third alfalfa crop ranged from 1.98
the third crop (second crop > first crop > third crop). The to 2.65 kg·m-3 (Table 7), respectively. Obviously, the WUE
alfalfa had tended to grow vigorously due to the high temper- of the alfalfa ranged between 1.68 and 3.20 kg·m-3, and the
Journal of Sensors 7

50 50 50

45 45 45
Water consumption levels (mm)

Water consumption levels (mm)

Water consumption levels (mm)

40 40 40

35 35 35

30 30 30

25 25 25
Seedling Jointing stage Branching stage Flowering stage Seedling Jointing stage Branching stage Flowering stage Seedling Jointing stage Branching stage Flowering stage
establishment establishment establishment
stage stage stage

Growth stage Growth stage Growth stage

55 55 55

50 50 50

Water consumption levels (mm)

Water consumption levels (mm)

Water consumption levels (mm)

45 45 45

40 40 40

35 35 35

30 30 30

25 25 25
Seedling Jointing stage Branching stage Flowering stage Seedling Jointing stage Branching stage Flowering stage Seedling Jointing stage Branching stage Flowering stage
establishment establishment establishment
stage stage stage

Growth stage Growth stage

Growth stage

50 50 50

45 45 45
Water consumption levels (mm)

Water consumption levels (mm)

Water consumption levels (mm)

40 40 40

35 35
35

30 30
30

25 25
25
Seedling Jointing stage Branching stage Flowering stage Seedling Jointing stage Branching stage Flowering stage Seedling Jointing stage Branching stage Flowering stage
establishment establishment establishment
stage stage stage

Growth stage Growth stage

Growth stage

SF-4 SF-6
SF-1 SF-3 SF-7 SF-9
SF-5 SF-10
SF-2 SF-10 SF-8 SF-10

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 3: Water consumption levels of alfalfa during each growth stage. Note: the water consumption of the first, second, and third crops of
alfalfa is plotted in the upper, middle, and lower layers in order, and (a–c) represent the low, medium, and high water level treatments in turn.

Table 6: Water consumption intensity levels of each crop of alfalfa during each growth stage.

Water consumption intensity levels (mm/d) (the first/second/third crop)

Treatment
Seedling establishment stage Jointing stage Branching stage Flowering stage Average value
b e c c c e c b c c b d
SF-1 1.99 /2.33 /1.84 2.29 /3.18 /1.97 2.34 /3.59 /2.21 2.23 /3.39 /1.90 2.21c/3.12c/1.98d
SF-2 2.12a/2.61d/2.08a 2.51b/3.42b/2.41c 2.47b/3.62b/2.48b 2.46a/3.47b/2.24b 2.39b/3.28b/2.30b
SF-3 2.09a/2.50d/2.04a 2.49b/3.40b/2.35c 2.43b/3.58b/2.37b 2.28c/3.32b/2.20b 2.32c/3.20c/2.24b
SF-4 2.02b/3.07b/1.99b 2.30c/3.61a/2.27d 2.32c/3.73a/2.29c 2.21c/3.70a/2.16b 2.21c/3.53a/2.18c
SF-5 2.15a/3.18a/2.14a 2.48b/3.75a/2.58b 2.53b/3.89a/2.63a 2.52a/3.75a/2.45a 2.42b/3.64a/2.45a
SF-6 2.06b/3.15a/2.14a 2.46b/3.71a/2.45c 2.47b/3.78a/2.51a 2.41b/3.70a/2.39a 2.35b/3.59a/2.37a
SF-7 2.12a/2.78c/1.94b 2.38c/3.53b/2.22d 2.39c/3.67b/2.24c 2.29b/3.64a/2.12c 2.29c/3.41b/2.13c
SF-8 2.18a/2.92b/2.13a 2.56b/3.65a/2.55b 2.69a/3.82a/2.59a 2.46a/3.73a/2.42a 2.47b/3.53a/2.42a
SF-9 2.17a/2.86c/2.12a 2.51b/3.58a/2.43c 2.53b/3.79a/2.48b 2.36b/3.66a/2.35a 2.39b/3.47a/2.35a
SF-10 2.17a/3.27a/2.08a 2.98a/3.67a/2.77a 2.72a/3.89a/2.28c 2.55a/3.34b/2.04c 2.61a/3.54a/2.29b

growth rate was between 4.85 and 51.77%. It was found that tively. It was determined that both the WUE and growth
the second crop of the SF-5 treatment had the highest WUE rates showed the following trend: second crop > third crop > -
and growth rate, which were 3.20 kg·m-3 and 51.77%, respec- first crop. The second crop of the SF-5 treatment was found
8 Journal of Sensors

Table 7: Yields, WUE, and growth rates of each crop of alfalfa (the first/second/third crop).

Treatment Total water consumption (mm) Yield (kg·hm-2) WUE (kg·m-3) Yield increasing rate (%)
c c d c d d
SF-1 130.42 /143.19 /132.73 2701.35 /4077.04 /3351.68 2.07b/2.85b/2.52b 4.85/15.60/9.84
SF-2 140.42b/150.68b/154.47b 3201.60a/4752.38c/4127.06b 2.28a/3.15a/2.67a 24.27/34.75/35.25
SF-3 136.71b/147.27c/150.33b 3076.54b/4627.31c/3951.98b 2.25a/3.14a/2.63a 19.42/31.21/29.51
SF-4 130.29c/161.88a/146.09c 3026.51b/5152.58a/3801.90c 2.32a/3.18a/2.60a 17.48/46.10/24.59
SF-5 142.36b/167.33a/164.39a 3326.66a/5352.68a/4352.18a 2.34a/3.20a/2.65a 29.13/51.77/42.62
SF-6 138.24b/164.82a/159.27a 3226.61a/5252.63a/4177.09a 2.33a/3.19a/2.62a 25.24/48.94/36.89
SF-7 135.24c/156.23b/142.94c 2801.40c/4802.40b/3676.84c 2.07b/3.07a/2.57a 8.74/36.17/20.49
SF-8 145.78a/161.94a/162.60a 3076.54b/5027.51b/4227.11a 2.11b/3.10a/2.60a 19.42/42.55/38.52
SF-9 141.13b/159.48a/157.44a 2976.49b/4927.46b/4077.04b 2.11b/3.09a/2.59a 15.53/39.72/33.61
SF-10 153.11a/163.95a/153.73b 2576.29d/3526.76e/3051.53e 1.68c/2.15c/1.98c 0/0/0

Table 8: Total yield, average WUE, and growth rates of the three
The frequency statistical analysis on the different levels of
alfalfa crops.
irrigation and nitrogen application (Figure 4) showed that
Total water Yield there was a 95% probability that an irrigation water of
Yield WUE 141.11~165.75 mm and a nitrogen application of
Treatment consumption increasing
(kg·hm-2) (kg·m-3)
(mm) rate (%) 60.52~80.70 kg·hm-2 could obtain a hay yield of alfalfa of
SF-1 406.34c 10130.06d 2.49b 10.66 more than 11903.17 kg·hm-2.
SF-2 445.57b 12081.04b 2.71a 31.97
SF-3 434.31b 11655.83c 2.68a 27.32 4. Discussion
SF-4 438.26b 11980.99b 2.73a 30.87 4.1. Effects of Subsurface Drip Irrigation on Water
SF-5 474.08a 13031.51a 2.75a 42.35 Consumption of Alfalfa. Water is one of the most important
SF-6 462.33a 12656.33a 2.74a 38.25 factors which affect alfalfa growth in arid and semiarid areas,
SF-7 434.41b 11280.64c 2.60b 23.22 where irrigation is required for crop production, and growers
SF-8 470.32a 12331.16b 2.62a 34.70 are seeking methods to save water by increasing irrigation
SF-9 458.05a 11980.69b 2.61b 30.87 efficiency. Water consumption, water consumption intensity,
and WUE are important criteria for determining whether the
SF-10 470.79a 9154.58e 1.94c 0.00
irrigation application amounts are reasonable, especially
WUE, which is considered to describe the physiological indi-
to have the highest WUE and growth rate, at 3.20 kg·m-3 and cators of alfalfa growth, especially the relationship between
51.77%, respectively. It was observed that both the WUE and harvest yield and crop water consumption [30]. In this study,
growth rates displayed the trend pattern of second the water consumption of alfalfa showed an increasing trend
crop > third crop > first crop. Tables 7 and 8 also showed that with the increase of irrigation. Most importantly, it could be
the yield and WUE level of the first crop of alfalfa control seen that under the same water treatment conditions, the
treatment (SF-10) were the lowest, at 2576.29 kg·hm-2 water consumption levels of the alfalfa during the different
and 1.68 kg·m-3, respectively. The yield and WUE level of growth stages were greatly affected by the amounts of the fer-
the SF-5 treatment were found to be the highest, at tilizer applications (Figure 3). This result indicated that fertil-
3326.66 kg·hm-2 and 2.34 kg·m-3, respectively, which indi- ization was a sensitive factor, which had obvious water
cated that the yield and WUE had increased by 29.13% regulating effect, and proper fertilization could improve
and 38.88%, respectively. When compared with the control water consumption and WUE. Our findings were compara-
treatment (SF-10), the growth rates of the alfalfa crops ble to those obtained by Thompson et al. [37] and Agami
were 4.85% to 29.13% higher under the different water et al. [38], who suggested that exogenous N-supply was effec-
and fertilizer application treatments, which indicated obvi- tive in mitigating the adverse effects of drought stress, and
ous yield increase effects. The second and third crops of understanding the water consumption rule of crops is signif-
the alfalfa displayed similar results. It was found that icant for the prevention of unnecessary water losses. Simi-
under the same water treatment conditions, the hay yields larly, al-Naeem [39] also reported that alfalfa dry yield
and WUE levels of the alfalfa undergoing the medium fer- could be severely affected under water stress irrigation
tilization treatment were the largest. Also, under the same management.
fertilization treatment conditions, the hay yields and WUE In this study, we also found that the water consumption
levels of the alfalfa undergoing the medium fertilization of alfalfa during each growth stage under low, medium, and
treatment were the largest. Therefore, it was determined high water treatment conditions showed a trend of first
that with the increases in the water or fertilization treat- increasing and then decreasing. This was because the cover-
ments, both the crop yields and WUE levels had shown age of the alfalfa plants was low during the seedling establish-
the phenomenon of “diminishing returns.” ment stage, and the water consumption of the alfalfa during
Journal of Sensors 9

13500

13000

12500
Yield (kg˙hm–2)
12000

11500

11000
180
10500
170

m)
(m
10000 160

ts
un
150
9500

mo
100 140

na
80

tio
Nitro 60 130

ga
ge n app 40

i
Irr
licatio 20 120
n rate 0
(kg h
˙ m 2)
–

Figure 4: Relationship curve between the hay yield and the total irrigation amounts and fertilizer amount.

that stage was mainly soil evaporation. With the growth and results (Table 6) showed that the value of average water con-
development of the crops, the alfalfa entered a vigorous sumption intensity of alfalfa throughout its growth period
growth stage and rapid plant growth had occurred. As the ranged from 1.98 to 3.64 mm/d. These findings were compa-
plant coverage began to reach the maximum, the bare field rable to those obtained by Jackson [42], Stanberry et al. [43],
surfaces gradually decreased, and crop transpiration was Daigger et al. [44], Krogman and Hobbs [45], and Wang et al.
the main form of crop evapotranspiration. At this time, the [25], who suggested that the water consumption intensity of
water consumption reached a maximum. Since the alfalfa alfalfa throughout the growing season ranged from 2.00 to
was cut at the beginning of the flowering stage and quickly 7.00 mm/d. Furthermore, the maximum water consumption
entered the seedling establishment stage of the next crop, this intensity of alfalfa appeared at the branching stage and then
led to the water consumption being the lowest during the decreased at the flowering stage. Our findings were in con-
flowering stage. Our findings were in consensus with that of sensus with Wang et al. [25], who suggested that the water
Li et al. [40], who suggested that the increased vegetation consumption intensity was also high for reproductive growth
coverage induced a decrease in surface albedo and resulted and nutrition growth at the bud stage and then decreased at
in an increase in temperature, and this positive effect could the flowering stage when alfalfa grew slowly due to reproduc-
be counteracted by higher evapotranspiration, and the net tive growth. Generally, the trend of water consumption of
effect was a decrease in daytime land surface temperature. alfalfa during the fertility period in an arid and semiarid
It should be noted that the water consumption of each exper- desert region was similar compared to other regions in which
iment plot of the third crop of alfalfa during the branching water consumption has been studied [46, 47].
and flowering stages was observed to be higher than that of
the control treatment (SF-10). The reasons for these results 4.2. Effects of Subsurface Drip Irrigation on Hay Yield and
were determined to be that the temperature was relatively WUE of Alfalfa. WUE refers to the output per unit of water
low and nitrogen application caused alfalfa to still grow vig- consumption of crops. Previous studies had shown that
orously, which consumed more water under relatively low drought was an important environmental factor that influ-
temperature conditions. These findings indicated that the ences growth and physiological processes in plants [48], there
fertilization treatments had potentially promoted the growth were a positive link between WUE and hay yield [49] and
and development of alfalfa under low temperature condi- synergistic effects between water and fertilizer, and an appro-
tions, which is consistent with Hannaway and Shuler [41], priate N-supply had an obvious water regulating effect [50,
who suggested that a yield increase due to fertilizer N is even 51], which could stimulate plant growth, improve WUE,
more likely when alfalfa is established in low N soils and rel- and alleviate the effects of drought stress [52, 53]. The irriga-
atively cool less than 60°F for several weeks after planting. tion amount and nitrogen application rate had significant
Water consumption intensity is defined as the water con- effects on the total hay yield of alfalfa. In the case of water
sumption per unit area of plant population per unit time. deficit, crop root development is hindered, nutrient absorp-
Under the current study, the supplied water was based on tion capacity is reduced, and fertilizer efficiency is limited.
the actual water consumption in the root zone, where irriga- When water is excessive, soil nutrient leaching occurs, soil
tion water was automatically supplied when needed. The permeability is reduced, and root respiration and nutrient
10 Journal of Sensors

uptake by crops are hindered [54], thereby reducing the hay the increases in the irrigation quota. The average water
yield of alfalfa. Therefore, it should be irrigated in small consumption intensity of alfalfa ranged from 1.98 to
increments and frequently in order to attain high yields when 3.64 mm d-1. The WUE of alfalfa ranged between 1.68 and
an alfalfa crop is grown under arid and semiarid conditions 3.20 kg·m-3, and the growth rates were between 4.85% and
[55]. In this study, we found that additional applications of 51.77%. The results indicated that there was a 95% probabil-
fertilizer under the same water treatment conditions had an ity of obtaining a hay yield of alfalfa of more than
obvious effect of increasing hay yields of the alfalfa, which 11903 kg·hm-2 under SDI with the irrigation amounts of
was in consensus with Wang et al. [56] and Liu et al. [57], 142~165 mm and nitrogen application of 61~80 kg·hm-2.
who observed higher WUE under moderate water stress Our results demonstrated that SDI was a promising irriga-
and a decrease of WUE under severe water stress conditions. tion method, which can increase the WUE and hay yield of
Abd el–Mageed et al. [58] conducted field experiments for alfalfa under the condition of SDI within an appropriate
two years at the experimental farm of the Faculty of Agricul- amount of water and nitrogen fertilizer, and too low or too
ture, in EI Fayoum Province of Egypt, and found that appli- high water and nitrogen fertilizer will adversely affect the
cation of higher levels of potassium fertilizer in an arid WUE and hay yield of alfalfa.
environment improves plant water status as well as growth
and yield of soybean under water stress. In this study, we Data Availability
found that an appropriate amount of water and nitrogen fer-
tilizer can increase the WUE of alfalfa under the condition of The raw/processed data required to reproduce the results
SDI and increase the hay yield, and too low or too high water obtained in this study cannot be shared at this time because
and nitrogen fertilizer will adversely affect the WUE and hay they are used in an ongoing study.
yield of alfalfa. These were in consensus with Wang et al.
[59], who suggested that partial root-zone drying could be a Conflicts of Interest
promising technique for alfalfa production in the arid area
of Northwest China, with improved crop water productivity The authors declare no conflict of interest.
and positive effect on quality characteristics.
In the research, we also found that the second crop of Authors’ Contributions
alfalfa had the largest hay yield and WUE, and both appeared
in the SF-5 treatment (Table 7). The reason for this phenom- Xuesong Cao and Yayang Feng contributed equally to this
enon was that the second crop of alfalfa was in the season work.
from late June to early August each year, when the tempera-
ture was higher, the metabolism of alfalfa was faster, and the Acknowledgments
growth was vigorous. Our findings were in consensus with
Karimzadeh Soureshjani et al. [60], who suggested that cool This study was supported financially by the China Institute of
weather during the emergence of first flower buds and first Water Resources and Hydropower Research (grant No.
flowering stages led to forage yield loss of alfalfa. In this MK2018J05) and Natural Science Foundation of China
experiment, hay yield and WUE of alfalfa both increased first (No. 41901052).
and then decreased with the increase of irrigation amount
and increased first and then decreased with increasing nitro- References
gen application (Table 8). This result indicated that fertiliza-
tion had obvious water regulating effect, and proper [1] S. Sun, P. Wu, Y. Wang, J. Liu, X. Zhang, and X. Zhao, “The
fertilization could improve WUE [37]. Furthermore, fertili- impacts of interannual climate variability and agricultural
zation can increase the soil water holding capacity [61], and inputs on water footprint of crop production in an irrigation
successfully matching fertilizer availability with crop absorp- district of China,” Science of the Total Environment, vol. 444,
tion improves water-use efficiency and increases yield [38]. pp. 498–507, 2013.
Thus, SF-5 treatment is recommended for subsurface drip [2] A. D. McHugh, S. Bhattarai, G. Lotz, and D. J. Midmore,
irrigation of alfalfa in Mu Us Sandland of Northwest China. “Effects of subsurface drip irrigation rates and furrow irriga-
tion for cotton grown on a vertisol on off-site movement of
sediments, nutrients and pesticides,” Agronomy for Sustain-
5. Conclusions able Development, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 507–519, 2008.
[3] T. L. Thompson, T. A. Doerge, and R. E. Godin, “Subsurface
Overall, the larger the irrigation quota, the greater the water
drip irrigation and fertigation of broccoli,” Soil Science Society
consumption of the alfalfa during each growth stage. The of America Journal, vol. 66, no. 1, pp. 178–185, 2002.
overall changes in the water consumption levels displayed a [4] J. E. Ayars, C. J. Phene, R. B. Hutmacher et al., “Subsurface drip
trend of first increasing and then decreasing. The water irrigation of row crops: a review of 15 years of research at the
consumption during each growth period of each crop of Water Management Research Laboratory,” Agricultural Water
alfalfa had changed within a range of 130 to 170 mm and Management, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 1–27, 1999.
had displayed a large amplitude of change, with the water [5] M. P. Palacios-Díaz, V. Mendoza-Grimón, J. R. Fernández-
consumption during the entire growth period measuring Vera, F. Rodríguez-Rodríguez, M. T. Tejedor-Junco, and
approximately 500 mm. The water consumption intensity J. M. Hernández-Moreno, “Subsurface drip irrigation and
of the alfalfa had first increased and then decreased with reclaimed water quality effects on phosphorus and salinity
Journal of Sensors 11

distribution and forage production,” Agricultural Water Man- [21] P. A. N. Wei-cang, “Main composition of alfalfa and its appli-
agement, vol. 96, no. 11, pp. 1659–1666, 2009. cation in animal husbandry,” Journal of Traditional Chinese
[6] J. W. Heard, M. J. Porker, D. P. Armstrong et al., “The eco- Veterinary Medicine, vol. 34, no. 2, 2015.
nomics of subsurface drip irrigation on perennial pastures [22] D. Wang, M. Khurshid, Z. Min Sun, M. Liang Zhou, Y. Min
and fodder production in Australia,” Agricultural Water Man- Wu, and Y. Xiong Tang, “Genetic engineering of alfalfa (Med-
agement, vol. 111, pp. 68–78, 2012. icago sativa L.),” Protein and Peptide Letters, vol. 23, no. 5,
[7] M. M. Kandelous, T. Kamai, J. A. Vrugt, B. Hanson, J. W. pp. 495–502, 2016.
Hopmans, and J. Šimůnek, “Evaluation of subsurface drip [23] F. Lamm, “Subsurface drip irrigation and possibilities in
irrigation design and management parameters for alfalfa,” alfalfa,” 2016.
Agricultural Water Management, vol. 109, pp. 81–93, 2012. [24] D. Zaccaria, M. T. Carrillo-Cobo, A. Montazar, D. H. Putnam,
[8] F. R. Lamm, “Cotton, tomato, corn, and onion production and K. Bali, “Assessing the viability of sub-surface drip irriga-
with subsurface drip irrigation: a review,” Transactions of the tion for resource-efficient alfalfa production in central and
ASABE, vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 263–278, 2016. southern California,” Water, vol. 9, no. 11, 2017.
[9] M. L. Wood and L. Finger, “Influence of irrigation method on [25] S. Wang, X. Jiao, W. Guo, Y. Bai, L. Wang, and J. Lu, “Adapt-
water use and production of perennial pastures in northern ability of shallow subsurface drip irrigation of alfalfa in an arid
Victoria,” Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, desert area of northern Xinjiang,” PLoS One, vol. 13, no. 4, arti-
vol. 46, no. 12, pp. 1605–1614, 2006. cle e0195965, 2018.
[10] M. Gil, L. Rodríguez-Sinobas, L. Juana, R. Sánchez, and [26] C. Godoy-Avila, A. Perez-Gutierrez, C. A. Torres, L. J. Hermo-
A. Losada, “Emitter discharge variability of subsurface drip sillo, and I. Reyes, “Water use, forage production and water
irrigation in uniform soils: effect on water-application unifor- relations in alfalfa with subsurface drip irrigation,” Agrocien-
mity,” Irrigation Science, vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 451–458, 2008. cia, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 107–115, 2003.
[11] Y. Mo, G. Li, and D. Wang, “A sowing method for subsurface [27] S. Kazumba, L. Gillerman, Y. DeMalach, and G. Oron, “Sus-
drip irrigation that increases the emergence rate, yield, and tainable domestic effluent reuse via subsurface drip irrigation
water use efficiency in spring corn,” Agricultural Water Man- (SDI): alfalfa as a perennial model crop,” Water Science and
agement, vol. 179, pp. 288–295, 2017. Technology, vol. 61, no. 3, pp. 625–632, 2010.
[12] D. Geisseler, B. J. Aegerter, E. M. Miyao, T. Turini, and M. D. [28] C. R. Camp, “Subsurface drip irrigation: a review,” Transac-
Cahn, “Nitrogen in soil and subsurface drip-irrigated process- tions of the ASAE, vol. 41, no. 5, 1998.
ing tomato plants (Solanum lycopersicum L.) as affected by fer- [29] D. Kou, D. Su, D. Wu, and Y. Li, “Effects of regulated deficit
tilization level,” Scientia Horticulturae, vol. 261, no. 3, article irrigation on water consumption, hay yield and quality of
108999, 2020. alfalfa under subsurface drip irrigation,” Transactions of the
[13] A. Gupta, K. Rao, S. Singh, K. Soni, and C. Sawant, “Water Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, vol. 30, no. 2,
productivity and yield of baby corn (Zea mays L.) as influenced pp. 116–123, 2014.
by irrigation levels under subsurface drip irrigation,” Interna- [30] F. R. Lamm, K. R. Harmoney, A. A. Aboukheira, and S. K.
tional Journal of Chemical Studies, vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 128–135, Johnson, “Alfalfa production with subsurface drip irrigation
2019. in the Central Great Plains,” Transactions of the ASABE,
[14] M. Umair, T. Hussain, H. Jiang et al., “Water-saving potential vol. 55, no. 4, pp. 1203–1212, 2012.
of subsurface drip irrigation for winter wheat,” Sustainability, [31] S. M. Ismail and M. H. Almarshadi, “Maximizing productivity
vol. 11, no. 10, pp. 2978–3015, 2019. and water use efficiency of alfalfa under precise subsurface drip
[15] J. P. Bordovsky and D. O. Porter, “Effect of subsurface drip irrigation in arid regions,” Irrigation and Drainage, vol. 62,
irrigation system uniformity on cotton production in the no. 1, pp. 57–66, 2013.
Texas High Plains,” Applied Engineering in Agriculture, [32] M. Alam, T. P. Trooien, D. H. Rogers, and T. J. Dumler, “An
vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 465–472, 2008. efficient irrigation technology for alfalfa growers,” Journal of
[16] D. Barnes, “Alfalfa,” in Hybridization of crop plants. Crop Sci- Extension, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 1–9, 2002.
ence Society of America and American Society of Agronomy, [33] F. R. Lamm, H. L. Manges, L. R. Stone, A. H. Khan, and D. H.
pp. 177–187, Madison, WI, USA, 1980. Rogers, “Water requirement of subsurface drip-irrigated corn
[17] Y. Chen, X. Gong, G. Li et al., “Effects of dietary alfalfa flavo- in Northwest Kansas,” Transactions of the ASAE, vol. 38,
noids extraction on growth performance, organ development no. 2, pp. 441–448, 1995.
and blood biochemical indexes of Yangzhou geese aged from [34] K. S. Reddy, R. Singh, K. V. R. Rao, and D. M. Bhandarkar,
28 to 70 days,” Animal Nutrition, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 318–322, “Economic feasibility of drip irrigation systems in India,”
2016. Agricultural Engineering Today, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 65–69,
[18] S. Kumar, “Biotechnological advancements in alfalfa improve- 2004.
ment,” Journal of Applied Genetics, vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 111–124, [35] M. Stavarache, I. Muntianu, V. Vîntu, C. Samuil, and C. I.
2011. Popovici, “Research on the influence of inoculation and fertil-
[19] N. P. Martin and D. R. Mertens, “Reinventing alfalfa for dairy ization on the alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.), in first year of veg-
cattle and novel uses,” in Proceedings, California alfalfa and etation, under conditions of Moldavian forest steppe,” Lucrări
forage symposium, pp. 12–14, California, America, 2005. Ştiinţifice - Universitatea de Ştiinţe Agricole Şi Medicină Veter-
[20] K. I. Rovkina, S. V. Krivoshchekov, A. M. Guryev, M. S. Yusu- inară Seria Zootehnie, vol. 56, pp. 176–181, 2011.
bov, and M. V. Belousov, “Water-soluble polysaccharides of [36] R. Liu, Y. Zhang, Y. Ge, W. Hu, and B. Sha, “Precision regula-
alfalfa (Medicago sativa (Fabaceae)) of flora of Krasnoyarsk tion model of water and fertilizer for alfalfa based on agricul-
Krai,” Russian Journal of Bioorganic Chemistry, vol. 44, no. 7, ture cyber-physical system,” IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 38501–
pp. 854–859, 2018. 38516, 2020.
12 Journal of Sensors

[37] T. L. Thompson, T. A. Doerge, and R. E. Godin, “Nitrogen and efficiency of Sophora davidii seedlings,” Environmental and
water interactions in subsurface drip-irrigated cauliflower I. Experimental Botany, vol. 63, no. 1-3, pp. 248–255, 2008.
Plant response,” Soil Science Society of America Journal, [53] H. Brueck, K. Erdle, Y. Gao et al., “Effects of N and water sup-
vol. 64, no. 1, pp. 406–411, 2000. ply on water use-efficiency of a semiarid grassland in Inner
[38] R. A. Agami, S. A. Alamri, T. A. Abd el-Mageed, Mongolia,” Plant and Soil, vol. 328, no. 1-2, pp. 495–505, 2010.
M. Abousekken, and M. Hashem, “Role of exogenous nitrogen [54] M. Abid, E. Mansour, L. B. Yahia, A. Ben Khaled, A. Ferchichi,
supply in alleviating the deficit irrigation stress in wheat and K. Bachar, “Alfalfa nutritive quality as influenced by
plants,” Agricultural Water Management, vol. 210, pp. 261– drought in South-Eastern Oasis of Tunisia,” Italian Journal
270, 2018. of Animal Science, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 334–342, 2016.
[39] M. A. al-Naeem, “Influence of water stress on water use effi- [55] I. Saeed and A. H. el-Nadi, “Irrigation effects on the growth,
ciency and dry hay production of alfalfa in Al-Ahsa, Saudi yield, and water use efficiency of alfalfa,” Irrigation Science,
Arabia,” International Journal of Soil Science, vol. 3, no. 3, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 63–68, 1997.
pp. 119–126, 2008.
[56] F. Wang, S. Kang, T. Du, F. Li, and R. Qiu, “Determination of
[40] S. Li, W. Liang, B. Fu et al., “Vegetation changes in recent comprehensive quality index for tomato and its response to
large-scale ecological restoration projects and subsequent different irrigation treatments,” Agricultural Water Manage-
impact on water resources in China's Loess Plateau,” Science ment, vol. 98, no. 8, pp. 1228–1238, 2011.
of the Total Environment, vol. 569-570, pp. 1032–1039, 2016.
[57] H. Liu, A. W. Duan, F. S. Li, J. S. Sun, Y. C. Wang, and C. T.
[41] D. B. Hannaway and P. E. Shuler, “Nitrogen fertilization in Sun, “Drip irrigation scheduling for tomato grown in solar
alfalfa production,” Journal of Production Agriculture, vol. 6, greenhouse based on pan evaporation in North China Plain,”
no. 1, pp. 80–85, 1993. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 520–531,
[42] E. Jackson, “Water consumption by lucerne in Central Austra- 2013.
lia,” Australian Journal of Agricultural Research, vol. 11, no. 5, [58] T. A. Abd el–Mageed, A. M. A. el-Sherif, M. M. Ali, and M. H.
pp. 715–722, 1960. Abd el-Wahed, “Combined effect of deficit irrigation and
[43] C. Stanberry, C. Converse, H. Haise, and O. Kelley, “Effect of potassium fertilizer on physiological response, plant water sta-
moisture and phosphate variables on alfalfa hay production tus and yield of soybean in calcareous soil,” Archives of Agron-
on the Yuma Mesa,” Soil Science Society of America Journal, omy and Soil Science, vol. 63, no. 6, pp. 827–840, 2016.
vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 303–310, 1955. [59] Y. Wang, C. Liu, P. Cui, and D. Su, “Effects of partial root-zone
[44] L. Daigger, L. Axthelm, and C. Ashburn, “Consumptive use of drying on alfalfa growth, yield and quality under subsurface
water by alfalfa in Western Nebraska1,” Agronomy Journal, drip irrigation,” Agricultural Water Management, vol. 245,
vol. 62, no. 4, pp. 507-508, 1970. article 106608, 2021.
[45] K. Krogman and E. Hobbs, “Evapotranspiration by irrigated [60] H. Karimzadeh Soureshjani, A. Ghorbani Dehkordi, and
alfalfa as related to season and growth stage,” Canadian Jour- M. Bahador, “Temperature effect on yield of winter and spring
nal of Plant Science, vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 309–313, 1965. irrigated crops,” Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, vol. 279,
[46] H. X. Liu and Z. G. Guo, “Forage yield and water use efficiency article 107664, 2019.
of alfalfa applied with silicon under water deficit conditions,” [61] J. Wang, W. Liu, and T. Dang, “Responses of soil water balance
PHILIPP AGRIC SCIENTIST, vol. 96, pp. 370–376, 2013. and precipitation storage efficiency to increased fertilizer
[47] I. Borza, C. Domuța, M. Șandor, R. Brejea, and E. Jude, “The application in winter wheat,” Plant and Soil, vol. 347, no. 1–
irrigation influence on water use efficiency in alfalfa 2nd year, 2, pp. 41–51, 2011.
Oradea 2010-2013,” Analele Universității din Oradea, Fasci-
cula: Protecția Mediului, vol. 23, pp. 25–30, 2014.
[48] N. Loutfy, M. A. el-Tayeb, A. M. Hassanen, M. F. M. Moustafa,
Y. Sakuma, and M. Inouhe, “Changes in the water status and
osmotic solute contents in response to drought and salicylic
acid treatments in four different cultivars of wheat (Triticum
aestivum),” Journal of Plant Research, vol. 125, no. 1,
pp. 173–184, 2012.
[49] S. Tandoh, B. Coulman, and B. Biligetu, “Assessment of
crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum L.) accessions with
different geographical origins for agronomic and phenotypic
traits and nutritive value,” Euphytica, vol. 215, no. 10, 2019.
[50] Y. Li and D. Su, “Alfalfa water use and yield under different
sprinkler irrigation regimes in north arid regions of China,”
Sustainability, vol. 9, no. 8, 2017.
[51] V. S. Rathore, N. S. Nathawat, S. Bhardwaj et al., “Yield, water
and nitrogen use efficiencies of sprinkler irrigated wheat
grown under different irrigation and nitrogen levels in an arid
region,” Agricultural Water Management, vol. 187, pp. 232–
245, 2017.
[52] F. Wu, W. Bao, F. Li, and N. Wu, “Effects of drought stress and
N supply on the growth, biomass partitioning and water-use