تحقیقات آب و خاک ایران

تحقیقات آب و خاک ایران

برنامه‌ریزی آبیاری ذرت علوفه‌ای براساس شاخص تنش آبی گیاه (CWSI) تحت آبیاری قطره‌ای

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان
1 دانشجوی دکتری گروه مهندسی آبیاری و آبادانی، دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشکدگان کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران.
2 گروه مهندسی آبیاری و آبادانی، دانشکده مهندسی و فناوری کشاورزی، دانشگاه تهران، کرج، ایران
3 دانشیار گروه مهندسی آبیاری و آبادانی، دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشکدگان کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران.
4 استاد گروه مهندسی آبیاری و آبادانی، دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشکدگان کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران.
چکیده
ایران با بحران جدی کم‌آبی به دلیل محدودیت منابع، تغییرات اقلیمی و برداشت بی‌رویه آب‌های زیرزمینی مواجه است و این موضوع اهمیت بهینه‌سازی مصرف آب، به‌ویژه در بخش کشاورزی را افزایش داده است. این مطالعه با هدف بهبود مدیریت آب کشاورزی، روش برنامه‌ریزی آبیاری مبتنی بر دمای پوشش سبز گیاه (Tc) و شاخص تنش آبی گیاه (CWSI) را برای ذرت علوفه‌ای(SC704) تحت آبیاری قطره‌ای سطحی در کرج مورد بررسی قرار داد. آزمایش با سه سطح آبیاری (۶۰، ۸۰ و ۱۰۰ درصد نیاز آبی) و سه تکرار در تابستان ۱۴۰۳ اجرا شد و از دماسنج مادون قرمز دستی برای پایش دمای برگ ذرت استفاده گردید. با بهره‌گیری از روش تجربی ایدسو، بطور کلی مقادیر خط مبنای بالا برای ذرت علوفه‌ای در ماه‌های تیر، مرداد و شهریور به ترتیب 55/4، 98/3 و 00/5 درجه سانتی‌گراد
تعیین گردید. همچنین روابط خطوط مبنای پایین برای ماه‌های مذکور به ترتیب برابر
(Tc-Ta)c = -0.0781 (AVPD) + 3.7018، (Tc-Ta) c = -0.0694 (AVPD) + 3.3326 و
(Tc-Ta)c = -0.0859(AVPD)+4.0814 استخراج شد. مقادیر ضریب تبیین (R2) برای این روابط به ترتیب برابر 86/0، 81/0 و 83/0 به‌دست آمد که نشان دهنده دقت بالای روابط رگرسیونی استخراجی بین اختلاف دمای پوشش سبز گیاه و دمای هوا (Tc-Ta) و کمبود فشار بخار هوا (AVPD) است. در نهایت، شاخص CWSI برای تیمارهای مختلف آبیاری استخراج شد. میانگین CWSI در تیمارهای آبیاری 60، 80 و 100 درصد نیاز آبی به ترتیب 57/0، 48/0 و 29/0 محاسبه گردید. با در نظر گرفتن تیمار بدون تنش (تیمار آبیاری کامل)، روابط اختصاصی برای تعیین زمان آبیاری در سه دوره مختلف رشد محصول به ترتیب به صورت (Tc-Ta)c = -0.0679(AVPD)+3.8121،
(Tc-Ta)c = -0.0341(AVPD)+3.6628
و (Tc-Ta)c = -0.0653(AVPD)+4.3019 بر اساس فشار بخار نسبی (AVPD) و اختلاف دمای Tc-Ta ارائه شد که امکان برنامه‌ریزی دقیق‌تر و مطابق با شرایط اقلیمی را فراهم می‌کند.
کلیدواژه‌ها
موضوعات

عنوان مقاله English

Irrigation Scheduling for Forage Maize Based on Crop Water Stress Index (CWSI) Under Drip Irrigation

نویسندگان English

Mohammad Mahdi Jafari 1
Farhad Mirzaei Asl Shirkoohi 2
Hamed Ebrahimian 3
Abdolmajid Liaghat 4
1 Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Irrigation and Reclamation Engineering, Faculty of Agriculture, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
2 Department of Irrigation and Drainage, Faculty of Agricultural Technology and Engineering, University of Tehran, Karaj, Iran
3 Associate Professor, Department of Irrigation and Reclamation Engineering, Faculty of Agriculture, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
4 Professor, Department of Irrigation and Reclamation Engineering, Faculty of Agriculture, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
چکیده English

Iran is facing a serious water crisis due to limited resources, climate change, and excessive extraction of groundwater, which has increased the importance of optimizing water consumption, especially in the agricultural sector. This study, aiming to improve agricultural water management, investigated an irrigation scheduling method based on canopy temperature (Tc) and Crop Water Stress Index (CWSI) for forage maize (SC704) under surface drip irrigation in Karaj. The experiment was conducted with three irrigation levels (60, 80, and 100 percent of water requirement) and three replications in the summer of 2024, and a handheld infrared thermometer was used to monitor corn leaf temperature. Utilizing the empirical IDSO method, baseline upper canopy temperatures for forage corn in July, August, and September were determined to be 4.55, 3.98, and 5.00 °C, respectively. Furthermore, baseline lower canopy temperature relationships for the aforementioned months were established as follows: (Tc-Ta)c = -0.0781(AVPD)+3.7018, (Tc-Ta)c = -0.0694(AVPD)+3.3326, and (Tc-Ta)c = -0.0859(AVPD)+4.0814. The coefficient of determination (R²) values for these relationships were 0.86, 0.81, and 0.83, respectively, indicating the high accuracy of the regression relationships derived between canopy-air temperature difference (Tc-Ta) and atmospheric vapor pressure deficit (AVPD). Finally, the CWSI was extracted for different irrigation treatments. The average CWSI in irrigation treatments of 60, 80, and 100 percent of water requirement was calculated as 0.57, 0.48, and 0.29, respectively. Considering the non-stress treatment (full irrigation treatment), specific equations for determining irrigation timing during three different growth stages were respectively presented as (Tc–Ta)c = –0.0679(AVPD) + 3.8121, (Tc–Ta)c = –0.0341(AVPD) + 3.6628, and (Tc–Ta)c = –0.0653(AVPD) + 4.3019, based on air vapor pressure deficit (AVPD) and the temperature difference (Tc–Ta), which enables more precise and climate-adapted irrigation scheduling.

کلیدواژه‌ها English

Air temperature
Canopy temperature
Infrared thermometer
Irrigation scheduling

Introduction

Water scarcity in Iran, exacerbated by population growth, drought, and excessive groundwater use, poses serious threats to agricultural sustainability and food security. Given the urgent need to improve water productivity, particularly in agriculture, accurate irrigation management based on real-time plant responses is essential. The Crop Water Stress Index (CWSI), calculated from canopy temperature (Tc), has emerged as a reliable and quantitative indicator for assessing plant water status and has proven effective in irrigation scheduling and enhancing water use efficiency across diverse crops and climates.

This study focuses on forage maize, a strategic crop in Karaj, where water resources are limited. Despite the widespread adoption of CWSI-based irrigation scheduling globally, its application in Iranian agriculture remains limited. This research aims to apply the CWSI approach under surface drip irrigation to optimize irrigation scheduling. Objectives include determining upper and lower baseline equations for CWSI calculation and establishing crop stage-specific irrigation relationships based on Tc and AVPD, with the potential to improve water management in arid regions.

Methods

The study was conducted in 2024 at the Research Farm of the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Tehran, in Karaj (50°95′ E, 35°80′ N, 1293 m elevation). Prior to planting, soil samples were taken from three depths across the field, and irrigation water was tested for quality. A randomized complete block design (RCBD) was used with three irrigation treatments (60, 80, and 100 percent of crop water requirement) and three replications, using forage maize (SC704). Each 12 m² plot contained four rows (75 cm row spacing, 20 cm intra-crop). Irrigation was applied via drip tape. Crop water requirements were estimated using reference evapotranspiration (ET), calculated with ET Calculator V3.2 software based on meteorological data. Actual crop evapotranspiration was determined by applying crop coefficients (Kc) from FAO-56 guidelines, adjusted for local climate. Water Stress treatments began at the four- to five-leaf stage.

The Crop Water Stress Index (CWSI) was calculated based on the difference between canopy temperature (Tc) and air temperature (Ta), using lower limit (non-stressed) and upper limit (fully stressed) baseline equations. The lower baseline, dependent on AVPD and relative RH, indicates maximum transpiration, while the upper baseline represents zero transpiration. Canopy temperature was measured with a handheld infrared thermometer at multiple plant heights and four cardinal directions, hourly from 8:30 to 14:30. Leaf temperature data from post-irrigation (non-stressed) and pre-irrigation (all treatments) were used to develop baseline equations and calculate CWSI, enabling assessment of plant water status under different irrigation levels.

Results and Discussion

Upper and lower limit baseline equations were established using the Idso method for different maize growth stages. Field data showed that as AVPD increased, the absolute (Tc−Ta) difference also rose, with variations influenced by growth stage and irrigation level. Using the developed baselines, CWSI was calculated for the three irrigation treatments, and its relationship with crop evapotranspiration was analyzed. Results revealed that CWSI increased as irrigation decreased, with the highest values observed in August under the severe deficit treatment (60 percent of crop water requirement). To facilitate accurate irrigation scheduling under non-stressed conditions, specific equations were developed to estimate allowable (Tc−Ta)c based on AVPD during three distinct growth periods. These equations enable optimized irrigation timing using real-time temperature and humidity data.

Conclusions

Irrigation scheduling based on canopy temperature (Tc) was evaluated for forage maize in Karaj using an infrared thermometer. Three drip irrigation treatments (60, 80, and 100 percent of water requirement) were applied, yielding CWSI values of 0.57, 0.48, and 0.29, respectively. Using the full irrigation (non-stressed) treatment as reference, equations were developed to determine irrigation timing at three growth stages based on AVPD and the canopy-to-air temperature difference (Tc−Ta). One of the limitations of this approach is the need to establish site- and growth-stage-specific baselines using field data, along with challenges in measuring canopy temperature during early growth stages due to sparse foliage. It is recommended that infrared thermometry be used to determine irrigation timing, while water volume be estimated through complementary methods such as soil moisture monitoring or meteorological data.

Funding

The study was funded by the University of Tehran, Faculty of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Department of Irrigation and Reclamation, Iran, Tehran.

Authorship contribution

Data curation: Mohammad Mahdi Jafari; Investigation: Mohammad Mahdi Jafari; Formal analysis: Mohammad Mahdi Jafari.

All authors contributed equally to the study design and execution, data collection, statistical analysis, interpretation of data and results, preparation of the original draft, validation of results, and revision and finalization of the manuscript.

The authors’ specific contributions based on the thesis are as follows:

First Author (Student): Investigation, Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing—original draft preparation.

Second Author (Supervisor): Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Validation, Writing—review and editing.

Third Author (Supervisor): Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing—review and editing.

Fourth Author (Co-supervisor): Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing—review and editing.

All authors contributed equally to the conceptualization of the article and writing of the original and subsequent drafts.

Declaration of Generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process

This declaration does not apply to the use of basic tools for checking grammar, spelling, references, etc..

Data availability statement

Data available on request from the authors.

Acknowledgements

We would like to express our gratitude to the esteemed Vice Chancellor for Research of the University of Tehran / Faculty of Agriculture and Natural Resources for their financial support / moral support / cooperation in conducting the present study.

Ethical considerations

The authors avoided data fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism, and any form of misconduct.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Ahi, Y., Orta, H., Gündüz, A., & Gültaş, H. T. (2015). The canopy temperature response to vapor pressure deficit of grapevine cv, Semillon and Razaki. Agriculture and Agricultural Science Procedia, 4, 399-407.
Ahmadi, H., nasrolahi, A., sharifipur, M., & isvand, H. R. (2017). Soybean irrigation scheduling by using the temperature difference of the air and canopy cover. Journal of Water and Irrigation Management, 7 (1), 121-134. (In Persian).
Akkuzu, E., Kaya, U., Camoglu, G., Pamuk, G., & Asik, S. (2015). Determination of Crop Water Stress Index and Irrigation Timing on Olive Trees Using a Handheld Infrared Thermometer. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, 141 (10), 1-12.
Bellvert, J., Marsal, J., Girona, J., & Zarco-Tejada, P. J. (2015). Seasonal evolution of crop water stress index in grapevine varieties determined with high-resolution remote sensing thermal imagery. Irrigation Science, 33 (2), 81–93.
Bhatti, S., Heeren, D. M., O’Shaughnessy, S. A., Neale, C. M. U., LaRue, J., Melvin, S., Wilkening, E., & Bai, G. (2023). Toward automated irrigation management with integrated crop water stress index and spatial soil water balance. Precision Agriculture, 24, 2223-2247.
Candogan, B. N., Shncik, M., Buyukcangaz, H., Demirtas, C., Goksoy, A. T., & Yazgan, S. (2013). Yield, quality and crop water stress index relationships for deficit-irrigated soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] in sub-humid climatic conditions. Journal of Agricultural Water Management, 118, 113-121.
Chen, Jiazhou, Lin, Lirong, & Lü, Guoan, (2010), An index of soil drought intensity and degree: An application on corn and a comparison with CWSI. Journal of Agricultural Water Management, 97 (6), 865-871.
Colak, Y. B., Yazar, A., Çolak, İ., Akça, H., & Duraktekin, G. (2015). Evaluation of crop water stress index (CWSI) for eggplant under varying irrigation regimes using surface and subsurface drip systems. Agriculture and Agricultural Science Procedia, 4, 372-382.
Cremona, M. V., Stutzler, H., & Kage, H. (2004). Irrigation scheduling of Kohlrabi (Brassica oleracea var. gongylodes) using crop water stress index. Hort Science, 39 (2), 276-279.
DeJonge, K. C., Taghvaeian, S., Trout, T. J., & Comas, L. H. (2015). Comparison of canopy temperature-based water stress indices for maize. Agricultural Water Management, 156, 51-62.
Fucs, M., & Tanner, C. B. (1966). Infrared thermometry of vegetation. Agronomy journal, 58 (6), 597-601.
Gardner, B. R., Blad, B. L., & Watts, D. G. (1981). Plant and air temperatures in differentially-irrigated corn. Agricultural Meteorology, 25, 207-217.
Geerts, S., & Raes, D. (2009). Deficit irrigation as an on-farm strategy to maximize crop water productivity in dry areas. Agricultural Water Management, 96 (9), 1275–1284.
Gheysari, M., Sadeghi, S. H., Loescher, H. W., Amiri, S., Zareian, M. J., Majidi, M. M., Asgarinia, P., & Payero, J. O. (2017). Comparison of deficit irrigation management strategies on root, plant growth and biomass productivity of silage maize. Agricultural Water Management, 182, 126-138.
Ghobadi, M., Ebrahimian, H., & Abbasi, F. (2016). Effect of irrigation scheduling on water use efficiency of Maize using a furrow seasonal simulation model. Iranian Journal of Irrigation and Drainage, 10 (3), 316-326. (In Persian).
Gholami, Z., Ebrahimian, H., & Noory, H. (2016). Investigation of irrigation water productivity in sprinkler and surface irrigation systems (case study: Qazvin plain). Journal of Irrigation Sciences and Engineering, 39 (3), 135-146. (In Persian).
Ghorbani, M., Broomand nasab, S., & Soltani Mohammdi, A. (2016). Effect of water salinity in sprinkler irrigation on the CWSI index for irrigation scheduling of summer maize. Journal of Irrigation Sciences and Engineering, 39 (3), 63-71. (In Persian).
Hamdi Ahmadabad, Y., Liaghat, A., Rasoulzadeh, A., & ghaderpour, R. (2019). Investigation of in the capita water consumption variation in Iran based on the past two-deca diet. Iranian Journal of Soil and Water Research, 50(1), 77-87. (In Persian).
Han, M., Zhang, H., Dejonge, K. C., Comas, L. H., & Gleason, S. (2018). Comparison of three crop water stress index models with sap flow measurements in maize. Agricultural Water Management, 203, 366–375.
Hiler, E. A., & Clark, R. N. (1971). Stress day index to characterize effects of water stress on crop yield. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, 14 (4), 757-761.
Himanshu, S. K., Fan, Y., Ale, S., & Bordovsky, J. (2021). Simulated efficient growth-stage-based deficit irrigation strategies for maximizing cotton yield, crop water productivity and net returns. Journal of Agricultural Water Management, 250, 106840.
Idso, S. B., Jackson, R. D., Pinter Jr, P. J., Reginato, R. J., & Hatfield, J. L. (1981). Normalizing the stressdegreeday parameter for environmental variability. Agricultural Meteorology, 24, 45-55.
Irmak, S., Burgert, M. J., Yang, H. S., Cassman, K. G., Walters, D. T., Rathje, W. R., Payero, J. O., Grassini, P., Kuzila, M. S., Brunkhorst, K. J., Eisenhauer, D. E., Kranz, W. L., VanDeWalle, B., Rees, J. M., Zoubek, G. L., Shapiro, C. A., & Teichmeier, G. J. (2012). Large-scale on-farm implementation of soil moisturebased irrigation management strategies for increasing maize water productivity. American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers, 55 (3), 881-894.
Irmak, S., Haman, D. Z., & Bastug, R. (2000). Determination of crop water stress index for irrigation timing and yield estimation of corn. Agronomy Journal, 92 (6), 1221-1227.
Jackson, R. D., Idso, S. B., Reginato, R. J., & Pinter Jr, P. J. (1981). Canopy temperature as a crop water stress indicator. Water Resources Research, 17 (4), 1133-1138.
Jackson, R. D., Idso, S. B., Reginato, R. J., & Pinter Jr, P. J. (1981). Canopy temperature as a crop water stress indicator. Water Resources Research, 17 (4), 1133-1138.
Jones, H. G. (1999). Use of thermograph for quantitative studies of spatial and temporal variation of stomatal conductance over leaf surfaces. Plant, Cell and Environment, 22 (9), 1043-1055.
Khorsand, A., Verdinejad, V. R., Asgarzadeh, H., Majnooni Heris, A., Rahimi, A., Besharat, S., & Sadraddini, A. A. (2018). Determination of a crop water stress index (CWSI) for detecting water stress time of Maize crop in the Urmia region. Iranian Journal of Soil and Water Research, 50(4), 873-884. (In Persian).
King, B. A., Tarkalson, D. D., Sharma, V., & Bjorneberg, D. L. (2021). Thermal crop water stress index base line temperatures for sugarbeet in arid western US. Agricultural Water Management, 243, 106459.
Kumar, N., Poddar, A., Shankar, V., Ojha, C. S. P., & Adeloye, A. J. (2019). Crop water stress index for scheduling irrigation of Indian mustard (Brassica juncea) based on water use efficiency considerations. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science, 206 (1), 148– 159.
Mohammadi, H., Boroumand Nasab, S., nasrolahi, A., & Izadpanah, Z. (2016). Studying the effect of different drip irrigation regimes of corn on the crop water stress index (CWSI), The 2nd National Congress on Irrigation and Drainage of Iran, September 2-4, 2016, Isfahan University of Technology, 1-10. (In Persian).
Mousavi, S. M. S., Albaji, M., Naseri, A. A., Golabi, M., & Moradi Telavat, M. R. (2024). Application of crop water stress index (CWSI) for scheduling safflower irrigation in Khuzestan climate. Journal of Water Management in Agriculture, 11 (1), 183-200. (In Persian).
Movahedi, M. R., & Salehi, B. (2010). Effect of row spacing and plant density on yield and yiel components of maize (SC711) in the Mianeh region. Agroecology Journal, 6(18), 97-104. (In Persian).
Nandan, R., Woo, D. K., Kumar, P., & Adinarayana, J. (2021). Impact of irrigation scheduling methods on corn yield under climate change. Journal of Agricultural Water Management, 255, 106990.
Orta, A.H., Erdem, Y., & Erdem, T. (2003). Crop water stress index for watermelon. Scientia Horticulturae, 98 (2), 121-130.
Osroosh, Y., Peters, R. T., Campbell, C. S., & Zhang, Q. (2015). Automatic irrigation scheduling of apple trees using theoretical crop water stress index with an innovative dynamic threshold. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 118, 193-203.
Saeedinia, M., Boroomand Nasab, S., Hooshmand, A., Soltani Mohamadi, A., & Andarzian, B. (2015). Applicability of CWSI index for irrigation scheduling of Maize using saline water in Ahvaz. Journal of Water and Soil Science, 26 (1), 173-185. (In Persian).
Saeedinia, M., Hooshmand, A., Boroomand Nasab, S., Soltani Mohamadi, A., & Andarzian, B. (2015). Investigation of the effect of water irrigation salinity on the performance of CWSI index under the climatic conditions of Ahvaz. Journal of Irrigation Sciences and Engineering, 39 (4), 1-12. (In Persian).
Salari, S., Karandish, F., Haghighatjou, P., & Aldaya, M. (2022). Efficient and sustainable use of water resources in Khuzestan through water footprint benchmarking. Journal of Water and Soil Resources Conservation, 12 (1), 35-49. (In Persian).
Seyfi, A., Mirlatifi, S. M., Dehghani Sanij, H., & Torabi, M. (2014). Determination of crop water stress index for pistachio trees under subsurface drip irrigation using canopy-air temperature differenc. Journal of Water and Irrigation Management, 4 (1), 123-136. (In Persian).
Sezen, S. M., Yazar, A., Daşgan, Y., Yucel, S., Akyıldız, A., Tekin, S., & Akhoundnejad, Y. (2014). Evaluation of crop water stress index (CWSI) for red pepper with drip and furrow irrigation under varying irrigation regimes. Journal of Agricultural Water Management, 143, 59-70.
Taghvaeian, S., Chávez, J. L., Bausch, W. C., DeJonge, K. C., & Trout, T. J. (2013). Minimizing instrumentation requirement for estimating crop water stress index and transpiration of maize. Irrigation Science, 32 (1), 53-65..
Taghvaeian, S., Comas, L., DeJonge, K. C., & Trout, T. J. (2014). Conventional and simplified canopy temperature indices predict water stress in sunflower. Journal of Agricultural Water Management, 144, 69-80.
Taheri Ghanad, S. (2008). Irrigation scheduling of farmlands using a direct method, The 2nd Seminar on Strategies for Improvement and Optimization of Surface Irrigation Systems, May 22, 2008, Karaj, Iran, 1–8. (In Persian).
Verdinejad, V. R., Besharat, S., Abghari, H., & Ahmadi, H. (2012). Estimation of maximum allowable deficit in different growth stages of fodder mays using canopy-air temperature difference. Journal of Water and Soil, 25 (6), 1344-1352. (In Persian).
Wanjura, D. F., Upchurch, D. R., & Mahan, J. R. (2006). Behavior of temperature-based water stress indicators in BIOTIC-controlled irrigation. Irrigation Science, 24 (4), 223-232.
Zamani, O., Mortazavi, S. A., & Balali, H. (2014). Economical water productivity of agricultural products in Bahar plain, Hamadan. Journal of Water Research in Agriculture, 28 (1), 51-62. (In Persian).
Zhang, L., Zhang, H., Zhu, Q., & Niu, Y. (2023). Further investigating the performance of crop water stress index for maize from baseline fluctuation, effects of environmental factors, and variation of critical value. Journal of Agricultural Water Management, 285, 108349.