1058177

research-article2021
ASW0010.1177/11786221211058177Air, Soil and Water ResearchBayisa et al.

Maize Yield and Water Use Efficiency Under Different Air, Soil and Water Research
Volume 14: 1–7

Irrigation Levels and Furrow Irrigation Methods in © The Author(s) 2021

Article reuse guidelines:

Semiarid, Tropical Region sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/11786221211058177
https://doi.org/10.1177/11786221211058177

Gobena D. Bayisa , Tilahun Hordofa, Ketema Tezera ,

Abera Tesfaye, Gebeyehu Ashame and Tatek Wondimu
Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research, Melkassa Agricultural Research Center, Adama, Ethiopia.

ABSTRACT: Water scarcity is the major limiting factor of agricultural production and productivity in the central rift valley of Ethiopia. Best use of
limited water is necessary through water conservation practices. Field experiments were conducted during the dry cropping seasons of 2016
and 2017 on clay loam soil at experimental farm of Melkassa Agricultural Research Centre to evaluate the impact of irrigated furrow methods
and deficit irrigation applications on maize (Zea mays) yield and water use efficiency. The study involved three furrow irrigation methods (con-
ventional, fixed, and alternate furrow irrigation) and three irrigation application levels (100%ETc, 75%ETc, and 50%ETc). Furrow irrigation system
as main plot and irrigation levels as sub-plot were arranged in split plot design with three randomized complete blocks each year. Greatest yield
was obtained under conventional furrow irrigation supplied with 100%ETc of water. Water use efficiency under the same treatment was lesser
and shows no significant difference with fixed furrow irrigation and 50%ETc application. Greatest water use efficiency of maize was obtained from
alternate furrow irrigation under 75%ETc application and showed no significant difference with 100%ETc application. However, grain yield reduc-
tion under 75%ETc applications was very much higher than 100%ETc application. Water saved as a result of 100ETc and 75%ETc applications
were 50% and 62.5%, respectively. Therefore, scheduling irrigation time for maize in the central rift valley of Ethiopia and similar semiarid envi-
ronments could be 100%ETc or 75%ETc application using alternate furrow irrigation. The 75%ETc application has an advantage over 100%ETc
applications in saving more water and hence could be applied when water availability is severely limited.

Keywords: Alternate furrow irrigation, deficit irrigation, furrow irrigation, maize, water use efficiency

RECEIVED: April 14, 2021. ACCEPTED: October 19, 2021. CORRESPONDING AUTHOR: Gobena D. Bayisa, Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural
Research, Melkassa Agricultural Research Center, Soil and Water Research Department,
TYPE:Original Research P.O.Box 436, Adama, Ethiopia. Email: [email protected]

Introduction furrow remain dry throughout the growth period, and alternate
Maize (Zea mays L.) is one of the most important cereal crops furrow irrigation, AFI where two neighboring furrows inter-
of Ethiopia, ranking first and second in production and area changeably receive irrigation water during successive irrigation
coverage, respectively. It is extensively grown in semi-arid to periods. Several researchers found that FFI saved water and
sub-humid areas for grain and forage. The crop is grown dur- gave comparable yield as in every furrow irrigation (Rafiee &
ing dry season ( January–May) under irrigation and wet season Shakarami, 2010; Shayannejad & Moharreri, 2009). It was
( June–September) under rainfall in the semi-arid part of reported that AFI used less irrigation water but can maintain
Awash basin of Ethiopia. In the basin, Awash River is the main the same grain yield production to that of CFI (Abera et al.,
source of water for irrigation and a shortage of water resources 2020). The WUE was greater in AFI than in CFI and FFI for
is becoming a big concern affecting sustainable crop produc- the same irrigation amount (Kang et al., 1998, 2000).
tion and productivity. Deficit irrigation application has been promoted in areas of
In areas with limited water resources, the goal is to improve where water is the most limiting factor for crop production and
water use efficiency, WUE. The WUE is gaining importance several authors emphasized the importance of deficit irrigation
particularly in arid and semi-arid regions to improve water as a water saving technique and maximizing WUE in agricul-
management practice. In these regions, irrigation is required tural production (Behboudian & Mills, 1997; Kang et al., 2000;
for almost all crop production and furrow irrigation the princi- Oweis & Hachum, 2006; Oweis et  al., 2000; Zhang et  al.,
pal means of applying irrigation water for crop production. 2000). The AFI and deficit irrigation practices have been con-
Furrow irrigation is characterized by low application efficiency sidered as an important production approach in water scarce
(45%–60%) and causes significant water losses, mainly due to areas (Davies et  al., 2002; Hsiao et  al., 2007; Webber et  al.,
excess application leading to deep percolation from the irri- 2006). Both approaches comprise employing the soil water to
gated area (Raine & Bakker, 1996; Smith et  al., 2018). The induce the crop’s innate response to water scarce situations, so
system of water application in furrow irrigation requires funda- as to enhance WUE. A study of deficit irrigation application
mental changes in order to use the limited water resources together with CFI, AFI, and FFI showed that AFI and FFI
efficiently. improved water use efficiency over CFI application (Slatni
The greater water losses occurring in conventional furrow et al., 2011).
irrigation, CFI could be reduced in fixed furrow irrigation, FFI Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess the com-
where only one furrow receives irrigation and the adjacent one bined effects of different deficit irrigation levels and furrow

Creative Commons Non Commercial CC BY-NC: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial
4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without
further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
2 Air, Soil and Water Research 

Figure 1.  Relationship between reference evaporation (ETo) and rainfall (RF) during the study period and the long-term averages at Melkassa, Ethiopia.

irrigation methods on maize yield and WUE, and identify the depletion (p). The experimental treatments had a split plot
optimal irrigation management practices that maximize the arrangement in a randomized complete block design with
WUE under climatic conditions of Melkassa and similar three blocks in which furrow irrigation system was assigned to
environments. main plots while irrigation levels were assigned to sub-plots.

Materials and Methods

Maize agronomy
Description of studied area
Maize seed cultivar Melkassa-II, suitable for dry areas, was
Field experiments were conducted during the dry cropping sown on clay loam soil. Plots were 4.5 m × 5 m. The seed was
seasons of 2016 and 2017 at Melkassa Agricultural Research sown at plant and row spacing of 25 and 75 cm, respectively,
Center (8°24′N latitude and 39°21′E longitude at altitude of with a total plant population of 100 per plot. The spacing
1,550 masl). The center is located in the semi-arid part of between plots of the same block was 1.5 m and the spacing
Awash basin of Ethiopia, downstream of Koka dam. between blocks was 3 m. Planting date was January 14 and
The study area receives about 818 mm rainfall annually. On January 23 for the 2016 and 2017 experiments, respectively.
the other hand, the evapotranspiration demand of the area is The treatments received di-ammonium phosphate, DAP,
about 2,567 mm/year. Greater percentage of the rainfall (67%) ((NH4)2HPO4) at a rate of 100 kg ha−1 during planting and two
occurs from mid-June to mid-September and the maximum is times split application of urea (CO(NH2)2) at planting and
in July (Figure 1). The water balance in the study area indicates knee height (40 days after planting) at rate of 50 kg ha−1. The
the need for irrigation throughout the year except during the experimental treatments received two common irrigations one
months of July and August (Figure 1). The rainfall occurred at planting and the other after germination for better crop
during the study period was greater than the long-term average establishment. The plant was harvested on May 23 and May 29
rainfall of the area, while the reference evapotranspiration was for the 2016 and 2017 experiments, respectively. Both years the
less than the average of the long-term average. experiment was conducted at the same site following main sea-
The mean monthly temperature recorded during the study son haricot bean harvesting.
period was greater than the long-term mean monthly tempera-
ture recorded in the study area (Figure 2).
Irrigation water management
The textural class of the soil of the study area was clay loam.
Table 1 shows some of the physiochemical properties of soils of Irrigation applications to meet treatment levels were based on
the experimental site. allowable soil moisture depletion (p = .50) of the total available
water in the crop root depth (Allen et  al., 1998), which for
maize in the present study was 90 cm. Daily climatic data
Treatment and design
(maximum and minimum temperatures, humidity, wind speed
The experiment consisted three furrow irrigation systems and actual sunshine hours) were used in CROPWAT 8.0 for
(CFI, AFI, and FFI) and three levels of irrigation applications Windows (Food and Agriculture Organization, 1992) to com-
(100%ETc, 75%ETc, and 50%ETc). The 100%ETc application pute reference evapotranspiration, ETo. The crop evapotran-
is a control treatment based on allowable soil moisture spiration, ETc was estimated using “Kc ETo” approach.
Bayisa et al. 3

Figure 2.  Average long-term and study period mean temperature comparison at Melkassa, Ethiopia.

Table 1.  Physical and Chemical Characteristics of the Study Site Soil at Melkassa, Ethiopia.

Soil Particles proportion (%) Textural Bulk FC PWP TAW pH ECe ECw OM
property class density (%v) (%v) (mm/m) (dS/m) (dS/m) (%)
Sand Silt Clay (g/cm3)

Average 34.5 29.7W 35.8 Clay loam 1.1 34.6 18.7 175.0 7.5 0.20 0.38 2.3

Note. FC, PWP, TAW, ECe, ECw, and OM represent field capacity, permanent wilting point, total available water, electrical conductivity of the soil saturated paste,
electrical conductivity of water, and organic matter content, respectively.

The sum of daily ETc was added between two irrigation three central rows, and two plants were left from both ends of
events following the water balance equation (1). the furrow length, with a net plot size of 9 m2.
Crop WUE was computed as a ratio of grain yield (kg/ha)
ETc = P + I − D − ∆S (1) to seasonal crop evapotranspiration (mm ha/ha). Harvest index
based on maize grain yield and biomass yield was calculated
Where, ETc is crop evapotranspiration (mm), P is precipitation
using equation (2) (Du et al., 2010):
(mm), I is irrigation (mm), D is deep percolation (mm), and ΔS
is change in soil water storage (mm). Yg
Irrigation was provided for the control treatment when 50% HI = (2)
of the total available water within the root depth was depleted. Yb
The remaining treatments received the allocated percentage of
Where, HI is the harvest index, Yg (kg ha−1) is the grain yield,
control treatment in the same date. The gross irrigation appli-
and Yb (kg ha−1) is the biomass yield.
cation was estimated by using average application efficiency of
The yield response factor, Ky, was estimated following equa-
60% for furrow irrigation (Raine & Bakker, 1996). The required
tion (3) (Doorenbos & Kassam, 1979).
depth of irrigation water was applied using 3-inch Parshall
flume.
{1 − Ya / Ym} = Ky { ETa / ETm} (3)
Data collection
where, Ya and ETa are, respectively, the actual yield and actual
The crop was harvested after physiological maturity, when rel- ET for the deficit treatments, Ym and ETm are the maximum
atively low grain moisture content was attained (18%–25%) yield and maximum ET, respectively; obtained from the fully
(SESI Technologies, 2020). Data on aboveground biomass and irrigated treatment, and (1–Ya/Ym) is the relative yield
grain yield were collected from each plot. Stover weight was decrease to the corresponding relative ET deficit (1–ETa/
measured after oven drying at 70°C temperature for 48 hours. ETm).
Maize cobs were harvested and shelled. The grain was weighed,
grain moisture measured using digital moisture meter and
Data analysis
eventually corrected for moisture content at 12.5%. Yield was
extrapolated and then reported on a hectare basis. To avoid The obtained data were subjected to analysis of variance suit-
border effects, both stover and cobs were collected from the able for split plot design and year considered to be random
4 Air, Soil and Water Research 

Table 2.  Significance of Furrow Method, Irrigation Level, Furrow Method × Irrigation Level, Replication, Replication × Furrow Method, Year,
Year × Furrow Method, and Year × Furrow Method × Irrigation Level on Maize Parameters Over Two Years and Three Randomized Complete Blocks
at Melkassa, Ethiopia..

Factors F-value

Grain yield (kg ha−1) WUE (kg ha-mm−1) Biomass (kg ha−1) Harvest index

Furrow method 333.54* 75* 43.51** 46.86*

Irrigation level 295.78*** 14.67** 309.43*** 61.48***

Furrow method × irrigation level 16.03** 22.84*** 4.62* 11.33**

Replication 4.98NS 9.1NS 15.43* 16.59*

Replication × furrow method 0.38NS 0.23NS 9.09*** 1.39NS

Year 1.49NS 0.35NS 13.36NS 0.05NS

Year × furrow method 2.37NS 2.01NS 0.49NS 1.29NS

Year × furrow method × irrigation level 0.49NS 0.81NS 1.12NS 0.82NS

Note. NS = Not significant.

*Significant at p < .05. **significant at p < .01. ***significant p < .001.

effect while furrow method and irrigation level were consid- for CFI than AFI, while the lesser was from FFI (Table 3).
ered to be fixed effects. Analysis of variance tests were per- However, no significance difference in WUE was observed due
formed for the model using the Mixed procedure (SAS version to furrow method. The difference in grain yield recorded due to
9.00, SAS Institute) with block considered to be a random difference in subplot factor, irrigation level, was significant.
effect (KLI, 2007). Mean separations were conducted using the Greater grain yield was obtained for 100%ETc followed by
SAS macro pdmix800 (Saxton, 1998) with Fisher’s LSD at an 75%ETc, and lesser value was obtained from 50%ETc. WUE
error rate of 5% (p = .05). was statistically similar for 75 and 100%ETc, but lesser for
50%ETc (Table 3). Among the furrow methods, FFI had the
Results and Discussion least performance in grain yield and WUE compared to CFI
Depth of irrigation water applied and AFI (Table 3).
Significance differences were observed on maize grain
Irrigation water depth of 594.10 mm was given to the maize
yield and WUE by the interaction effect of furrow methods
for its entire growing period under conventional furrow irri-
and irrigation levels (Table 2). The greatest grain yields were
gation with full irrigation (CFI 100%ETc). For CFI 75%ETc,
measured for CFI 100%ETc and CFI 75%ETc, which were
75% of full irrigation (445.58 mm) was applied, while for CFI
not significantly different from each other (Table 4).
50%ETc irrigation depth of 297.05 mm was applied in CFI.
Application of CFI 75%ETc gave the highest maize yield
In both AFI 100%ETc and FFI 100%ETc treatments, total
from the other deficit irrigation levels and showed no differ-
irrigation depth of 297.05 mm was given under full irrigation
ence with AFI 100%ETc application. The lowest maize grain
treatment, because water was applied to half of the plot area
yield in CFI was obtained from 50%ETc irrigation applica-
through alternate and specific furrows, respectively. For AFI
tion, which is also statistically similar with result of AFI at
75%ETc, AFI 50%ETc, FFI 75%ETc, and FFI 50%ETc irri-
75%ETc irrigation (Table 4). A similar study by Kang et al.
gation depth of 222.79 mm and 148.53 mm of water was
(2000) confirmed that reduction in yield due to AFI applica-
applied respectively.
tion was statistically similar to FFI.
The WUE of AFI 75%ETc and AFI 100%ETc was greater
Maize grain yield and water use efficiency
than the other treatments, however the difference between
Maize grain yield and WUE were not significantly different them was not significant. Kang et al. (1998) and Mehari et al.
between years (Table 2). No significant interaction between (2020) showed that AFI is most effective to improve WUE.
years and furrow method, and year × furrow method × irriga- The lowest WUE was obtained from FFI 50%ETc irrigation
tion level was observed for grain yield and WUE (Table 2). and it was statistically similar result with CFI 100%ETc
The analysis of variance showed significant variation on maize application (Table 4). Better WUE was also observed from
grain yield and WUE among the different furrow irrigation deficit application of CFI 50%ETc and CFI 75%ETc.
methods and deficit irrigation levels (Table 2). Grain yield However, in terms of crop yield, the CFI 75%ETc had com-
obtained under the main plot factor was significantly greater parable yield with AFI 100%ETc. This could be because of
Bayisa et al. 5

Table 3.  Grain Yield, WUE, Biomass and Harvest Index for Furrow Method and Irrigation Level on Maize at Melkassa, Ethiopia. Values are the
Means of Two Years and Three Replicates.

Grain yield (kg ha−1) WUE (kg ha-mm−1) Biomass (kg ha−1) Harvest index

Main plot factor Furrow method

 AFI 4403b 17.35a 7608b 0.56b

 FFI 2790b 11.13a 6505c 0.42c

 CFI 6150a 13.13a 9085a 0.68a

 LSD0.05 1653 6.59 807 0.07

  p-Value .039 .081 .003 .022

Subplot factor Irrigation level

 100%ETc 5788a 14.28a 8847a 0.66a

 75%ETc 4750b 14.98a 7963b 0.57b

 50%ETc 2805c 12.34b 6389c 0.43c

 LSD 0.05 305 1.67 245 0.04

  p-Value <.0001 .005 <.0001 <.0001

Note. AFI, FFI, and CFI represent alternate, fixed and conventional furrow irrigation, respectively, ETc represents crop evapotranspiration. Means within a column and
treatment effect followed by the same letters are not significantly different.

Table 4.  The Furrow Irrigation Method × Irrigation Level Interaction on Grain Yield, WUE, Biomass, and Harvest Index (HI) of Maize in 2016 and
2017 at Melkassa, Ethiopia. Values are the Means of Two Years and Three Replicates.

Treatments Grain yield (kg ha−1) WUE (kg ha-mm−1) Biomass (kg ha−1) HI

AFI 100%ETc 6330a 19.57a 8980b 0.70a

AFI 75%ETc 4816b 19.80a 7709c 0.62b

AFI 50%ETc 2062d 12.68bcd 6135de 0.35cd

FFI 100%ETc 4053b 12.47bcd 7319c 0.57b

FFI 75%ETc 2783c 11.43cde 6784cd 0.40c

FFI 50%ETc 1535d 9.48e 5412e 0.28d

CFI 100%ETc 6981a 10.80de 10241a 0.70a

CFI 75%ETc 6651a 13.72bc 9395b 0.70a

CFI 50%ETc 4816b 14.87b 7619c 0.65ab

Mean 4448 13.87 7733 0.55

CV (%) 12 12.16 6.56 16.08

LSD 0.05 534 2.15 677.87 0.08

p-Value .002 .0009 .048 .005

Note. AFI, FFI, CFI, WUE, and HI represent alternate, fixed and conventional furrow irrigation, water use efficiency and harvest index, respectively. Means with the same
column followed by the same letters are not significantly different.

better application efficiency and less evapotranspiration The values estimated for WUE have some very important
related to AFI and deficit irrigation (Hassene & Seid, 2017; implications. Under a limited water supply situation where the
Subhan et al., 2021). On the other hand, the obtained WUE goal may be to achieve the highest possible WUE, using AFI
values agreed with the globally measured average WUE for 100%ETc and AFI 75%ETc offers opportunities for water sav-
maize which ranged from 11 kg ha-mm−1 to 27 kg ha-mm−1 ings. Otherwise, if the objective is to maximize yield, the use of
(Yazar et al., 2009). CFI with 100 or 75%ETc would be better.
6 Air, Soil and Water Research 

Biomass and harvest index Table 5.  Relative Yield Reduction, Relative ETc Deficit and Yield
Response Factor of Maize Using Different Irrigation Methods and
No significant difference was observed over years, by interaction Deficit Irrigation at Melkassa, Ethiopia. Values are the Means of
of year and furrow method, and year × furrow method × irriga- Two Years and Three Replicates.
tion level for biomass and HI (Table 2). Biomass and harvest Treatments 1–(Ya/Ym) 1–(ETa/ETm) Ky
index were reduced significantly from CFI to AFI and FFI in
furrow method treatments and from 100%ETc to 75%ETc and AFI 100%ETc 0.09 0.50 0.19

50%ETc (Table 3). The result was in agreement with those AFI 75%ETc 0.31 0.62 0.50
reported by Bryant et  al. (1992) and Farré and Faci (2009).
AFI 50%ETc 0.70 0.75 0.94
Bryant et al. (1992) reported that water stress reduced yield by
reducing both accumulated biomass and the harvest index. Farré FFI 100%ETc 0.42 0.50 0.84
and Faci (2009) also reported a significant effect of limited irri- FFI 75%ETc 0.60 0.62 0.96
gation on HI.
FFI 50%ETc 0.78 0.75 1.04
Higher biomass yield was observed from the 100%ETc appli-
cation in CFI and shows no significant difference with deficit CFI 100%ETc 0.00 0.00 *
irrigation application of 75%ETc and 100%ETc under CFI and CFI 75%ETc 0.05 0.25 0.19
AFI, respectively (Table 4). The FFI performed low in biomass
CFI 50%ETc 0.31 0.50 0.62
(BM) yield and shows no significant differences with CFI at
50%ETc and AFI at 75%ETc and 50%ETc applications. Low Note. Ky is yield response factor, expressed as the ratio of relative yield
harvest index, HI for maize was recorded from FFI and similar reduction to relative irrigation deficit, Ya is the actual yield of each treatment
(kg/ha), Ym is the maximum yield for CFI 100%ETc that is, 6980.7 kg ha−1, ETa
response was obtained from AFI with 50%ETc application. is actual evapotranspiration and it is the irrigation amount applied throughout
the entire growth period for each treatment (mm), ETm is the maximum
Highest HI of 0.71 was recorded from CFI with 75%ETc appli- evapotranspiration estimated from CFI 100%ETc (594.1 mm), (1–Ya/Ym) is the
cation and showed no difference with 100%ETc application relative yield reduction, and (1–ETa/ETm) is the relative ET deficit.
*There was no water deficit and yield reduction, thus no yield response value for
under AFI. The AFI with 100%ETc application saved 50% CFI 100%ETc.
water compared to the CFI furrow irrigation with 100%ETc
application and could be considered best water saving technol-
ogy in water limited area (Table 4). as a valuable and sustainable production strategy to improve
maize yield and WUE in these regions. The FFI with 50%ETc
application and CFI with 100%ETc application resulted in
Yield response to water deficit significantly lesser WUE. The AFI with 100 and 75%ETc
Maize grain yield response to water deficit was obtained from treatment combinations resulted in significantly greater WUE.
the relationship between seasonal yield reduction and the corre- In terms of crop yield the CFI 75%ETc and AFI 100%ETc
sponding seasonal ET deficit (Table 5). The relative yield reduc- were not different. Hence, the AFI with 100%ETc was supe-
tion corresponding to relative water deficit was noticed to rior to 75%ETc application considering crop yield. Nonetheless,
increase with increase in irrigation deficit in all the three furrow the 75%ETc application in AFI could be applicable in areas
methods. For the same amount of water deficit, the yield reduc- with severely limited water resources.
tion incurred was greater for FFI than AFI (Table 5). The great-
est yield response factor was obtained from FFI 50%ETc, while Author Contributions
it was less than 1 for all the other treatment combinations (Table All the authors conducted field experiment and data collection,
5). As Ky represents a measure of the relative sensitivity of a crop analyzed the data, performed result interpretation, and pre-
to drought in a particular environment (Ferreira & Gonçalves, pared draft manuscripts for publication. Finally, all authors
2007), the obtained result indicates that using combined furrow read and approved the final manuscript. The author(s) received
method and irrigation level as a management strategy could be financial support for the research from Ethiopian Institute of
employed in semi-arid regions as effective scarce water utiliza- Agricultural Research (EIAR), but received no financial sup-
tion practices. As noted by Araya et  al. (2011), values for Ky port for authorship, and/or publication of this article.
above 1 indicate that the crop is sensitive to moisture stress,
whereas values below 1 indicate that the crop can tolerate some Declaration of Conflicting Interests
levels of moisture stress in its growing environment. The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
Conclusion article.
Limited water resources availability is becoming the main
challenge for sustainable crop production in semiarid regions Funding
such as the Central Rift Valley of Ethiopia. Alternate furrow The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
irrigation and deficit irrigation practices have been considered authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Bayisa et al. 7

ORCID iDs Kang, S., Liang, Z., Hu, W., & Zhang, J. (1998). Water use efficiency of controlled
alternate irrigation on root-divided maize plants. Agricultural Water Manage-
Gobena D. Bayisa https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3268-573X ment, 38, 69–76.
Kang, S., Liang, Z., Pan, Y., Shi, P., & Zhang, J. (2000). Alternate furrow irrigation for
Ketema Tezera https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0393-9614 maize production in an arid area. Agricultural Water Management, 45, 267–274.
Gebeyehu Ashame https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1610-6400 Mehari, H., Bedadi, B., & Abegaz, F. (2020). Maximizing water productivity of maize
using alternate furrow irrigation at clay-loam soil, Raya valley, Ethiopia. Interna-
tional Journal of Plant Breeding and Crop Science, 7(2), 771–778.
Oweis, T., & Hachum, A. (2006). From water use efficiency to water productivity:
References Issues of research and development. In Hamdan, I., Oweis, T., & Hamadalla, G.
Abera, M., Wale, A., Abie, Y., & Esubalew, T. (2020). Verification of the efficiency of (Eds.), AARINENA water use efficiency network: Proceedings of the expert consulta-
alternate furrow irrigation on amount of water productivity and yield of onion at tion meeting (pp. 13–36). ICARDA.
Sekota Woreda. Irrigation & Drainage Systems Engineering, 9(4), 1–5. https://doi. Oweis, T., Zhang, H., & Pala, M. (2000). Water use efficiency of rainfed and irrigated
org/10.37421/idse.2020.9.248 bread wheat in a Mediterranean environment. Agronomy Journal, 92, 231–238.
Allen, R., Pereira, L. A., Raes, D., & Simth, M. (1998). Crop evapotranspiration guide- Rafiee, M., & Shakarami, G. (2010). Water use efficiency of corn as affected by every
lines for computing crop water requirement. FAO irrigation and drainage paper no. other furrow irrigation and planting density. World Applied Sciences Journal, 11(7),
56. FAO. 826–829.
Araya, A., Stroosnijder, L., Girmay, G., & Keesstra, S. D. (2011). Crop coefficient, Raine, S. R., & Bakker, D. (1996). Increased furrow irrigation efficiency through bet-
yield response to water stress and water productivity of teff (Eragrostis tef ter design and management of cane fields. In Egan, B. T. (Ed.), Proceedings of
(Zucc.)) Agricultural Water Management, 98, 775–783. Australian society of sugar cane technologists. (Vol. 18, pp. 119–124). Watson Fergu-
Behboudian, M. H., & Mills, T. M. (1997). Deficit irrigation in deciduous orchards. son and Company.
In Jules, J. (Ed.), Horticultural reviews (Vol. 21, pp. 105–131). John Wiley & SAS-Institute. (2007). SAS/STAT 9.3 User’s guide. SAS Institute.
Sons, Inc. Saxton, A. M. (1998). A macro for converting mean separation output to letter group-
Bryant, K. J., Benson, V. W., Kiniry, J. R., Williams, J. R., & Lacewell, R. D. (1992). ings in Proc Mixed. In: Proceedings of the 23rd SAS users group international,
Simulating corn yield response to irrigation timings: Validation of the epic Nashville, TN, 22–25 March 1998, pp.1243–1246. SAS Institute.
model. Journal of Production Agriculture, 5, 237–242. SESI Technologies. (2020). SESI technologies. SESI Technologies. https://sesitechnol-
Davies, W. J., Wilkinson, S., & Loveys, B. (2002). Stomatal control by chemical sig- ogies.com/reduce-post-harvest-losses-in-maize/
nalling and the exploitation of this mechanism to increase water use efficiency in Shayannejad, M., & Moharreri, A. (2009). Effect of every-other furrow irrigation on
agriculture. New Phytologist, 153(3), 449–460. water use efficiency, starch and protein contents of potato. Journal of Agricultural
Doorenbos, J., & Kassam, A. H. (1979). Yield response to water. FAO irrigation and Science, 1(2), 107–112.
drainage paper 33. FAO. Slatni, A., Zayani, K., Zairi, A., Yacoubi, S., Salvador, R., & Playán, E. (2011).
Du, T., Kang, S., Sun, J., Zhang, X., & Zhang, J. (2010). An improved water use effi- Assessing alternate furrow strategies for potato at the Cherfech irrigation district
ciency of cereals under temporal and spatial deficit irrigation in north China. of Tunisia. Biosystems Engineering, 108(2), 154–163.
Agricultural Water Management, 97, 66–74. Smith, R. J., Uddin, M. J., & Gillies, M. H. (2018). Estimating irrigation duration for
Farré, I., & Faci, J. M. (2009). Deficit irrigation in maize for reducing agricultural high performance furrow irrigation on cracking clay soils. Agricultural Water
water use in a Mediterranean environment. Agricultural Water Management, Management, 206, 78–85.
96(3), 383–394. Subhan, F., Malik, A., Haq, Z. U., & Khalil, T. M. (2021). Effect of deficit irrigation
Ferreira, T. C., & Gonçalves, D. A. (2007). Crop-yield/water-use production func- under different furrow irrigation techniques on cauliflower yield and water pro-
tions of potatoes (Solanum tuberosum, L.) grown under differential nitrogen and ductivity in Mardan, Pakistan. Sarhad Journal of Agriculture, 37(3), 868–876.
irrigation treatments in a hot, dry climate. Agricultural Water Management, 90, https://doi.org/10.17582/journal.sja/2021.37.3.868.876
45–55. Webber, H. A., Madramootoo, C. A., Bourgault, M., Horst, M. G., Stulina, G., &
Food and Agriculture Organization. (2009). CROPWAT—A computer program for Smith, D. L. (2006). Water use efficiency of common bean and green gram
irrigation planning and management. FAO irrigation and drainage paper no. 46. grown using alternate furrow and deficit irrigation. Agricultural Water Manage-
FAO. ment, 86(3), 259–268.
Hassene, J. N., & Seid, M. T. (2017). Comparative performance evaluation of alternate Yazar, A., Gökçel, F., & Sezen, M. S. (2009). Corn yield response to partial rootzone
and convectional furrow irrigation under different water application level on cab- drying and deficit irrigation strategies applied with drip system. Plant Soil and
bage water use efficiency and economic analysis. American Journal of Environmen- Environment, 55, 494–503.
tal Resources Economics, 2(3), 123–131. Zhang, H., Pala, M., Oweis, T., & Harris, H. (2000). Water use and water-use effi-
Hsiao, T. C., Steduto, P., & Fereres, E. (2007). A systematic and quantitative approach ciency of chickpea and lentil in a Mediterranean environment. Australian Journal
to improve water use efficiency in agriculture. Irrigation Science, 25, 209–231. of Agricultural Research, 51, 295–305.