Next Article in Journal
Perceived Danger and Landscape Preferences of Walking Paths with Trees and Shrubs by Women
Next Article in Special Issue
A Bibliometrics Review of Water Footprint Research in China: 2003–2018
Previous Article in Journal
Sustainability of Service Intermediary Platform Ecosystems: Analysis and Simulation of Japanese Hotel Booking Platform-Based Markets
Previous Article in Special Issue
Simulation of Saline Water Irrigation for Seed Maize in Arid Northwest China Based on SWAP Model
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 11
Issue 17
10.3390/su11174564
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Sustaining Yield of Winter Wheat under Alternate Irrigation Using Saline Water at Different Growth Stages: A Case Study in the North China Plain

by
Rajesh Kumar Soothar
1,2,
Wenying Zhang
3,
Binhui Liu
3,
Moussa Tankari
1,
Chao Wang
1,
Li Li
1,
Huanli Xing
1,
Daozhi Gong
1 and
Yaosheng Wang
1,*
1
State Engineering Laboratory of Efficient Water Use of Crops and Disaster Loss Mitigation of China/Key Laboratory of Dryland Agriculture, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs of China, Institute of Environment and Sustainable Development in Agriculture, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences (CAAS), Beijing 100081, China
2
Department of Irrigation and Drainage, Sindh Agriculture University, Tandojam 70060, Pakistan
3
Institute of Dryland Farming, Hebei Academy of Agriculture and Forestry Sciences, Hengshui 053000, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2019, 11(17), 4564; https://doi.org/10.3390/su11174564
Submission received: 16 July 2019 / Revised: 13 August 2019 / Accepted: 15 August 2019 / Published: 22 August 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Water Resources and Green Growth)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Brackish water used for irrigation can restrict crop growth and lead to environmental problems. The alternate irrigation with saline water at different growth stages is still not well understood. Therefore, field trials were conducted during 2015–2018 in the NCP to investigate whether alternate irrigation is practicable for winter wheat production. The treatments comprised rain-fed cultivation (NI), fresh and saline water irrigation (FS), saline and fresh water irrigation (SF), saline water irrigation (SS) and fresh water irrigation (FF). The results showed that the grain yield was increased by 20% under SF and FS treatments compared to NI, while a minor decrease of 2% in grain yield was observed compared with FF treatment. The increased soil salinity and risk of long-term salt accumulation in the soil due to alternate irrigation during peak dry periods was insignificant due to leaching of salts from crop root zone during monsoon season. Although Na+ concentration in the leaves increased with saline irrigation, resulting in significantly lower K+:Na+ ratio in the leaves, the Na+ and K+ concentrations in the roots and grains were not affected. In conclusion, the alternate irrigation for winter wheat is a most promising option to harvest more yield and save fresh water resources.

1. Introduction

Groundwater poses a continuous threat to sustainable development of irrigated agriculture in the North China Plain (NCP). This plain generates about one-third of the country’s gross domestic product (GDP) in agriculture, and limited quantities of fresh water contribute a significant share in agricultural production [1,2], thus there is an urgent need to use this water resource more judiciously. Saline water irrigation is increasingly used, though such irrigation water is one of the major sources of soil salinity, which can result in crop yield reduction and loss of soil resources [3,4,5,6,7]. Wang et al. [8] reported that various irrigation modes of saline and fresh water could be altered to grow sensitive and salt tolerant crops. Therefore, not only the management and efficient use of limited fresh water resources is essential, but also discrete or alternate use of brackish water towards agricultural development is necessary for agricultural sustainability [1,8,9,10,11].
Previous studies have reported that the saline/salty water can be effectively used to irrigate several crop species [12,13,14,15,16,17]. The continuous use of saline water for irrigation leads to long-term environmental problems, such as soil salinization. In a study, Fang and Chen [18] noted that there is potential for high desalinization of upper soil layers if more than 300 mm rainfall occurs during monsoon months, but there is a significantly low chance of soil desalinization in the years with less rainfall occurring during monsoon months. According to Romy [19], in the regions situated in littoral and semi-arid climatic areas, the annual rainfall ranges between 400–600 mm, and mostly occurs during summer season (which spans from mid-June to September), while, for the rest of period, a somewhat arid climate persists [1,20,21]. Kiani and Mirlatifi [22] have recommended the use of saline water for cultivation during the dry period. According to them, the salt build-up in soil profile during saline irrigation can be leached during the monsoon season under semi-arid climate. Kafi et al. [23], Naresh et al. [24], Malash et al. [25] and Hassanli and Ebrahimian [15], however, suggested that to counter-down the effect of saline water irrigation on crop yield and salt accumulation in soil profile, irrigation strategies should be adopted. The available strategies including the alternate use of saline to fresh waters are recommended to reduce salinity build-up in the soil. Although the indirect evidence favors alternate use of saline water [26], the alternate saline and fresh water irrigation strategies at different growth stages still needs further investigation such as in the North China Plain (NCP).
Saline water can restrict physiological activities of crops and decrease biomass growth, fertile tillers and root development [27,28]. Under high ionic concentration, leaf area expansion is affected by water deficiency and nutritional imbalance, especially leading to K+ deficiency in plant organs. It was reported that winter wheat is able to reduce Na+ concentration while increase K+ concentration and K+:Na+ ratio [29,30]. Oxidative stress and primary carbon metabolism of many crops are negatively affected due to osmotic effects [31]. Similarly, due to high osmotic pressures, crop growth parameters are affected. These pressures restrict uptake of water by the roots that in turn are a major contributing factor to low crop water productivity and yields [32,33,34]. Previous studies investigated continuous or alternate irrigation with varied saline water concentrations to maize and lower potentially toxic ion accumulation and improvement in K+ and Na+ balance in plant shoots were found [35]. Grattan and Rhoades [36] observed that the cyclic use of saline and non-saline water reduced soil salinity especially in the upper soil layers up to 30 cm depth. Therefore, the conjunctive use of irrigation water may not only increase crop production but also reduce risks of soil salinization in the NCP to achieve the maximum yield per drop of saline water.
Winter wheat (Tritium aestivum L.) is a worldwide important grain crop. China is one of the most significant wheat-producing countries in the world and more than 75% of the winter wheat is produced in the NCP [37,38]. Winter wheat and summer maize are dominant sequences of the cropping system in the NCP. Liu et al. [1] noted that the double cropping system requires significantly more water than that received from natural precipitation. Due to this fact, winter wheat requires additional irrigation water during peak dry months. Zheng et al. [39] and Hu et al. [40] reported that more than 50% of the area in the NCP is irrigated with groundwater. The continuous and over-pumping of groundwater for irrigation is not only the direct cause of a decline in water table and seawater intrusion in the aquifers [41,42,43,44], but also positively affecting hydrological water cycle and regional climate [45]. However, as a general trend, lift irrigation operated by mechanical energy and excessive exploitation of groundwater will increase electricity consumption, thus increase carbon emissions, which will not only change global climate but also at the same time will have a massive impact on global economy [46,47].
Even though the impact of saline water irrigation on plant vegetative growth, grain yield, biomass, ionic concentration as well as soil salinity profile under salinity stress have been reported, the fundamental understanding of enhanced crop yield and the alternate use of saline and fresh water at different growth stages are still poorly understood. Therefore, the effect of alternate saline water irrigation at the peak dry season in winter wheat is evaluated in the NCP. Wheat is classified as a moderately tolerant crop to salinity [48]. The generally three growing phases are relevant for determination of grain yield of winter wheat. The jointing phase of winter wheat is more water sensitive compared to other phases [49,50,51], as it is more salt tolerant than other phases. The main aim of this study was to examine the yield responses of winter wheat subjected to different irrigation modes of alternate use of saline and fresh water and to explore the tangible irrigation scheduling for winter wheat production using underground saline water during different growth stages of winter wheat in the county of NCP.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Experimental Site

The field trial was conducted during the winter wheat growing seasons from 2015–2018 at the experimental station of Institute of Dryland Farming, Hebei Academy of Agriculture and Forestry Sciences (Latitude: 37°54′ N; Longitude: 115°42′ E) in the NCP. The experimental site falls in a typical continental monsoon climate zone with a mean annual temperature of 12.8 °C, average annual sunshine of 2600 h and average 188 days of frost-free period. The mean precipitation during the winter wheat growth season varied between 120 and 160 mm. The minimum and maximum air temperatures and average monthly rainfall are presented in Figure 1. It was noted in the figure that large amount of rainfall occurred after the harvest of winter wheat. The soil was classified as silt loam (the detailed soil textural classes measured by Mastersizer particles analyzer (model 2000, Malvern Instruments Ltd., Worcestershire, UK) in the soil profile were presented in Table 1) with a pH of 8.1, soil organic matter of 1.1%, soil electrical conductivity (EC1:5) of 365 µS cm−1, soil bulk density of 1.2 to 1.5 g cm−3 and field water holding capacity of 42.9% in the root zone. During the experimental period, the soil was well-drained and the water table remained always below 40 m.

2.2. Experimental Treatments

The treatments included (1) no irrigation water applied during the whole growth period (NI); (2) freshwater applied at stem elongation stage and saline water at flowering stage (FS); (3) saline water applied at stem elongation stage and fresh water at flowering stage (SF); (4) saline water applied at stem elongation stage and flowering stage (SS), and (5) fresh water applied at stem elongation stage and flowering stage of winter wheat (FF). The NI, FS and SF treatments were deployed during the growing seasons of 2015–17, while all five treatments were adopted during the growing season of 2017–18. Winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L., var. Heng0628) was sown around 15th October in 2015, 2016 and 2017, and harvested on around 10th June in 2016, 2017 and 2018. The fresh water for irrigation was received from a local deep groundwater having averaged electrical conductivity of 0.39 dS m−1. The saline water for irrigation at 4.7 dS m−1 representing the saline water concentration in most of the shallow groundwater in the NCP was used and the water quality is shown in Table 2 (elements measured by AAS, Perkin-Elmer 3300, Norwalk, CT, USA). The treatments in the field were set in a completely randomized design (CRD) with three replicates for each treatment. The plot size for each replicate was 10 m by 7.5 m. A separate 20 m wide buffer zone was provided around the irrigated plots with the non-irrigated winter wheat to protect from reciprocal effects of adjacent plots. The plots in the treatments were irrigated twice in accordance with local farmer’s management. For each irrigation event, the water dose for all the treatment plots was 900 m3 per hectare according to the locally recommended amount of irrigation water for winter wheat in the NCP. A socking doze of 97 mm of fresh water was applied to entire field for land preparation. The fertilizers of N, P and K as compound fertilizer (N:P:K = 20:20:8) were uniformly applied at the rate of 375 kg ha−1 before the field was ploughed. Apart from the irrigation practices, other cultural management practices were the same for all the treatments according to the recommendations of on farm’s guidelines.

2.3. Sampling, Measurements and Analyses

Soil samples were collected at a 20 cm interval down to 100 cm soil depth at different growth stages and also before sowing and after harvesting from five locations in the middle of each replicate plot. Soil moisture contents were measured using the gravimetric method. The soil samples were air-dried and sieved passing through a 2 mm sieve. Soil electrical conductivity and pH (1:5 soil water ratio) were measured by an EC meter (model LE703, Mettler Toledo International Inc., Shanghai, China) and a pH meter (model LE43, Mettler Toledo International Inc., Shanghai, China), respectively. Meteorological parameters including precipitation, air temperature, relative humidity, solar radiation and wind speed were recorded by automatic weather station at the experimental facility. Plant height and dry biomass was determined regularly during the experimental period. At the physiological maturity, in an area of 2 by 2 m in the middle of each replicate plot, the plants were harvested manually and divided into leaves, stems, roots and grains. The tiller number, spike length, spikelet number, grain number and grain weight per spike, 1000-grain weight, biomass and grain yield were recorded. The dry biomass was determined after oven drying at 70 °C to constant weight. The dry leaves, stems, roots and grains were ground, and digested by HNO3. The concentrations of Na+ and K+ were measured by an atomic absorption spectrometer (ICE3500, Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc., Waltham, MA, USA). The relative growth rate (RGR) was measured as the mass increase per above-ground biomass per day from 178 day after sowing to crop maturity [52]. The Crop Harvest Index was computed through the grain yield divided by the crop biomass, and specifically for grain crops it can be used as a measure of reproductive efficiency [53]. The total water used during the experimental period was calculated by irrigation water, rainfall and soil moisture depletion in each treatment. Crop water productivity was calculated by crop yield divided by the total water consumed. The volume of irrigation water applied, soil moisture deficit from initial to final growth stage and rainfall readings during the experimental period are presented in Table 3.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

The data were analyzed by analysis of variance (ANOVA) using SPSS program version 21.0 (IBM Corporation, New York, NY, USA). Duncan’s multiple range test was performed to assess the differences between treatments at a significant level of p ≤ 0.05.

3. Results

3.1. Soil Water Content and Water Consumptions

In general, soil moisture content in the NI treatment was the lowest compared with the other treatments while irrigation increased soil moisture contents regardless of irrigation water quality during the entire growth period (Figure 2). In addition, the soil-water deficit and total amount of water consumed by plants during the experimental periods were significantly different between NI and other irrigated treatments (Table 3). However, under the irrigated treatments, these differences were not statistically significant. The highest amount of water consumed was found in SF treatment, and closely followed by FS treatment and FF treatments.

3.2. Soil pH and Salinity Development in the Crop Root Zone

Before the experiment, the profile of soil pH among the treatment plots during the study periods are illustrated in Figure 3. At sowing time, average soil pH was about 8.2 during 2015–16. Similarly, comparatively equivalent soil pH around 8.2 was observed during 2016–17. Nonetheless, the averaged soil pH decreased to around 7.8 under all the treatments in 2017–18, and higher variability in soil pH was observed. At the time of crop harvesting, soil pH decreased by 1% to 2% in the plots of NI, FS and SF treatments during 2015–16. It increased by 2.3% in NI treatment while it decreased by 0.7% and 2.1% in FS and SF treatment in 2016–17, respectively. In 2017–18, results showed that soil pH increased by 2.2% to 4.4% compared to the soil pH values observed before sowing.
The salt build-up in the root zone by the alternate irrigation during the winter wheat cultivation is depicted in Figure 4. At sowing time, average soil EC1:5 in the crop root zone (0–100 cm) were 334, 322 and 454 µS cm−1 for the NI, FS and SF treatments during 2015–16, respectively. In 2016–17, soil EC1:5 were 405, 363 and 361 µS cm−1 in these treatments, respectively. Nevertheless, soil EC1:5 decreased on average being 286, 269, 283, 356 and 269 µS cm−1 for NI, FS, SF, SS and FF treatments, respectively, for pre-irrigation. Major salinity build-up, as indicated by the increases in EC1:5 with irrigation to winter wheat, occurred at the upper soil layers of the profile. However, after harvest, the average soil EC1:5 in the root zone with plots under NI, FS and SF treatments increased by 67.8%, 57.0% and 12.2% in 2015–16, respectively. Similarly, soil EC1:5 increased by 4.0% in NI and decreased by 1.1% and 1.3% in FS and SF treatments in 2016–17, respectively. In 2017–18, the plots under NI and FF treatments showed a 22.3% and 7.8% reduction, whereas, the values for plots irrigated with FS, SF and SS increased by 13.0%, 21.6% and 22%, respectively. There was a cumulative increase in soil EC1:5 with the subsequent years of the alternate irrigation using saline and fresh water as well as under NI treatment.

3.3. Plant Growth and Yield

Table 4 showed that the variations in plant height were significantly affected by the treatments. Winter wheat irrigated with fresh water at the stem elongation growth stage had the highest plant height after 178 days of sowing. Similarly, the number of tillers significantly increased in the FS treatment compared to other treatments (Table 4). Moreover, spike length responded significantly to the alternate use of saline and fresh water. FS treatment provided the largest spike length. In comparison, the spike length decreased by more than 5% in NI, SF, SS and FF treatments. Similarly, the highest and lowest numbers of spikelet were found in FF and SS treatment, respectively. On average, the number of spikelet decreased by 0.7%, 2.2%, 2.6% and 7.0% under NI, FS, SF and SS treatments, respectively, compared to the FF treatment (Table 4).
Grain number per spike was not affected by the treatments (Table 5). However, the grain weight per spike was significantly affected by the saline irrigation applied at the flowering stage. The mean grain weight per spike decreased by 4%, 12%, 2% and 15% under NI, FS, SF and SS, respectively, compared to FF (Table 4). Similarly, the 1000-grain weight of winter wheat was negatively affected and it decreased by 2%, 13% and 15% in the NI, FS and SS, respectively, compared to FF treatment. Likewise, the highest RGR was observed under irrigation with fresh water, while the significantly lowest RGR was found under SS treatment (Table 5).
Alternate saline and fresh water irrigation applied to crop significantly influenced above-ground dry biomass among the treatments during the entire experimental periods (Figure 5). The fresh water irrigation at the stem elongation growth stage increased dry biomass compared to saline water irrigation. Dry biomass of crop did not follow the same pattern under NI due to lower amount of rainfall occurred in 2015–16.
Grain yield differed significantly among the treatments (Figure 6). The grain yield decreased by 20% under NI treatment compared to FF treatment. Similarly, a significant decrease of 22% was observed in the SS treatment compared to FF treatment. Nevertheless, the grain yield was not significantly declined when saline water applied at the stem elongation stage and fresh water at the flowering stage were adopted during peak dry season in the NCP compared with the FF treatment. The crop harvest index (CHI) was similar among the treatments during 2015–16 and 2016–17 (Table 6). However, there were significant differences in CHI among the treatments during 2017–18. The CHI decreased by 20% under FF treatment compared to SF treatment. However, small variations in CHI were observed when the crop was alternately irrigated by saline and fresh water.

3.4. Na+, K+ Concentrations and K+:Na+ Ratio

The Na+ and K+ concentrations in the leaves and stems were significantly affected by the treatments. Na+ concentration in the leaves and stems was the highest in the FS and SS treatments compared to other treatments (Figure 7a). However, K+ concentration was the highest in the SF treatment compared to other treatments (Figure 7b). Use of saline water during the irrigation modes under the SF, FS and SS treatments significantly decreased the K+:Na+ ratio compared with NI and FF treatments (Figure 7c). The Na+ and K+ concentrations and the K+:Na+ ratio in the roots and grains as well as the K+:Na+ ratios in the stem were not significantly affected by the treatments.

3.5. Water Productivity of Winter Wheat

The crop water productivity (CWP) was significantly affected by the treatments during the study periods (Table 6). Throughout the experimental period, the highest CWP was observed under the NI treatment. Significant differences were found under FS and SF treatments during 2015–16 and 2016–17 followed by the NI treatment. A significant reduction of CWP was observed under SS treatment, and the CWP under SS treatment was 19.8% lower than the FF treatment. The corresponding reduction in CWP under FS and SF treatments was 11.3% and 4.2% while it increased by 35.6% under NI treatment. However, the comparison between irrigation water productivity (IWP) for the three years revealed that the highest IWP was produced under FS treatment compared to SF treatment in 2015–16 and 2016–17. Nevertheless, during 2017–18, IWP deceased by 11%, 3% and 22% under FS, SF and SS treatment, respectively, compared to FF treatments.

4. Discussion

A huge potential of water available in upper aquifers of NCP is characterized by brackish water at around 4.7 dS m−1 [54]. Utilization of this water for winter crops is important to cope up with the current tight water situation [23,55,56,57]. The NCP illustrates the challenges facing China as it deals with increased water demands and severe ground depletion [41]. The mean water table is declining by 0.5 to 3 m year−1 [58]. In order to address water issues, Yuan, et al. [42] suggested that the irrigation water requirement, groundwater pumping and depth, and crop yield in the region should be corrected.
Furthermore, the agricultural production per year is continually decreasing due to drought and fresh water shortage caused by other factors than the sum of the losses [1]. In this context, the alternate use of saline and fresh water can be an alternative to increase crop productivity and simultaneously reduce the pressure on fresh water [8,15,59]. In order to minimize the potentially hazardous effects of saline water on crop yield, farmers in the regions have not been able to adopt alternate saline and fresh water irrigation strategies. Thus, it is an urgent need to thoroughly evaluate the irrigation practices that can better perform for winter crops without affecting crop growth and yield. Therefore, in this study, the main aim was to investigate whether alternate saline and fresh water irrigation can sustain the yield without causing salinity accumulation in the soil. Use of saline and fresh water, particularly at stem elongation and the flowering stage of wheat, needs to be further understood.
The results of the study showed that effects of the alternate irrigation using saline water were predominated in this experiment. The soil pH and EC1:5 were significantly different among treatments during entire periods (Figure 3 and Figure 4) when irrigation water was applied at different growth stages. During the peak dry months of winter season, soil electrical conductivity (EC1:5) were significantly increased while decreased during the winter months. These results indicated that the average soil salinity in the root zone could be balanced annually. Winter wheat was able to utilize saline water during dry season (from March to mid-June). In the NCP, corresponding to about 70% of the annual rainfall occurs during summer season after the harvest of wheat, thus the salts accumulated in crop root zone leached. Similar results were reported by Sharma et al. [60,61], and they observed that in the monsoon climate areas characterized by a mean annual rainfall 500 mm or more, about 80% of the salts accumulated by irrigation application during winter wheat season is leached without any irrigation practices. However, the use of saline water for irrigation decreases water loss from the root zone (Table 3). It slows down the deep percolation and evapotranspiration, thus soil water content under this condition minimally declines (Figure 2). These results were in agreement with previous findings of Malash et al. [12,25], who observed that the field irrigated with fresh water had reached 70% soil moisture depletion and soil water content was depleted quickly. On the other hand, the fields that received saline water still had a soil water content greater than 70%, and so were irrigated a few days later. Total water consumptive values were lower when saline water was used (3390 m3 ha−1 for 2017–18), which could have been attributed to less evapotranspiration rate with saline water irrigation compared to threshold water quality for irrigation [62]. These results are also supported in previous studies carried out by Hassanli and Ebrahimian [15], Naresh, et al. [24], Chauhan et al. [63]. According to them, those options for the alternate use of saline underground and fresh water should hold greater assurance that produces higher grain yield of wheat for the similar salt load to soils.
Focusing on the application of alternate saline water at different growth stages, the results of the present study indicated positive influence of irrigation with different water qualities on plant height and dry biomass of winter wheat was more pronounced in stem elongation and flowering stages as compared to SS treatment. While at the flowering stage, growth parameters of winter wheat were slightly affected [1,24,63,64]. Nonetheless, when irrigated with fresh water at the stem elongation stage, higher plant height considerably produced more tillers (Table 4). Figure 5 revealed that the dry biomass was significantly increased by additional irrigation [8,22,65]. Saline water irrigation applied during the flowering stage led to significant influences on spike length, spikelet number, grain weight and RGR, whereas, grain number was not affected in the applied saline water irrigation (Table 4 and Table 5).
The alternate irrigation method using saline and fresh water significantly influenced crop yield (Figure 6). Irrigation with alternate saline and fresh water only showed mild decline of grain yield as followed by fresh water treatment (FF). Similarly, the grain yield slightly declined between FS treatment with respect to SF treatment. The successful amalgamation of alternate irrigation water in this region offers great potential of saline water resources. Irrigation with SS treatment produced the lowest crop yield compared to other treatments [3,55]. If fresh water were available during initial crop stages for the better tillering of winter wheat, the saline water irrigation can be more effectively applied at other crop development stages. The threshold salinity of irrigation water for wheat was 7~8 dS m−1 that could be used after germination [1,63]. Several researchers have also suggested the positive effects of saline irrigation on wheat production. Salinity of irrigation water between 6 to 9 dS m−1 has been suggested by Mass and Grattan [66], while water salinity ranging from 3 to 8 dS m−1 has been rated within the permissible limit and water with 4.7 dS m−1 in irrigation for winter wheat was not so high [1,65]. Moreover, previous studies reported that saline irrigation affected Na+ and K+ concentrations in plant biomass [67,68,69,70,71]. Although saline water was applied at either or during the two growth stages, and the Na+ and K+ concentrations were increased significantly compared with NI and FF treatments in the leaves, the saline irrigation did not affect Na+ and K+ concentrations as well as K+:Na+ ratios in the roots and grains.
The results revealed that the water quality affected crop harvest index when water was applied at the flowering stages (Table 6). Previous studies reported that saline water irrigation reduced water uptake efficiency, transpiration rate and net CO2 assimilation due to these reductions, and in turn crop growth and nutrients transport into plant is affected [72,73,74,75]. Similarly, Poustini [76] reported that there was no effect of water quality having an EC1:5 ranging between 3.5 and 6.9 dS m−1 on net assimilation rate. However, winter wheat could be salt tolerance to water and soil salinity up to 6 dS m−1 [77]. According to Alarcon et al. [78], the reduction in leaf area index led to a reduced light interception and thus reduced dry biomass production. Moreover, Pang et al. [79] have reported the comparisons between alternate irrigation and blended/ mixing ratio. According to the results, the alternate application of fresh and saline water increased irrigation water productivity if compared to the application of saline water during the whole season. In other comparisons, Hassanli and Ebrahimian [15], Naresh et al. [24] and Zhao et al. [26] concluded that the grain yield of winter wheat were higher with the alternate use of saline and fresh water than blended as well as saline water. Consequently, the amount of irrigation water devoted to field that received the saline water at flowering stage was less than those at fresh water and this led to the increase in crop water productivity [32].
In the NCP, the limited availability of fresh water resources and to release the pressure on fresh resources, the alternate irrigation using saline water can leave the groundwater salinity level (4.7 dS m−1) unaffected and is a promising option for the sustainable agriculture development. Proper saline water management is required besides selection of a salt tolerant variety and water application timing for saline irrigation alternated with fresh water.

5. Conclusions

Use of saline water is a productive source that ensures irrigation during peak dry season in order to harvest higher crop grain yields. In the present study, the results revealed that in the NCP where winter wheat is sown depends upon climate conditions. Alternate saline water at 4.7 dS m−1 can be applied at stem elongation stage and flowering stage (FS and SF) without any negative impact on grain yield and Na+ and K+ concentrations in the grains compared to other irrigation practices, such as FF. A good choice can be that which uses limited available fresh water applied at flowering stage on winter wheat under rain-fed cultivated area. Alternate irrigation using saline and fresh water produced up to 20% higher yield compared to NI treatment while slightly reduced grain yield by 2% when compared with FF treatment. It is therefore recommended that this irrigation strategy might enable to enhance winter wheat production and save limited available fresh water resources.

Author Contributions

Y.W. designed the experiment. R.K.S. conducted the experiment with W.Z. and B.L. R.K.S. analyzed the data and drafted the manuscript. Y.W. revised the manuscript. D.G., M.T., L.L. and H.X. assisted with the experiment. All the authors reviewed the manuscript and approved the content of this manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (SQ2018YFGH000241), the Agricultural Science and Technology Innovation Program and the Elite Youth Program of Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences (CAAS). Rajesh Kumar Soothar appreciates the Chinese Government Scholarship (CGS) for supporting his study at the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Liu, X.-W.; Feike, T.; Chen, S.-Y.; Shao, L.-W.; Sun, H.-Y.; Zhang, X.-Y. Effects of saline irrigation on soil salt accumulation and grain yield in the winter wheat-summer maize double cropping system in the low plain of North China. J. Integr. Agric. 2016, 15, 2886–2898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Yang, Y.; Yang, Y.; Moiwo, J.P.; Hu, Y. Estimation of irrigation requirement for sustainable water resources reallocation in North China. Agric. Water Manag. 2010, 97, 1711–1721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Feizi, M.; Hajabbasi, M.A.; Mostafazadeh-fard, B. Saline irrigation water management strategies for better yield of safflower (‘Carthamustinctorius’ L.) in an arid region. Aust. J. Crop Sci. 2010, 4, 408–414. [Google Scholar]
  4. Tanji, K.K.; Wallender, W.W. Nature and extent of agricultural salinity and sodicity. In Agricultural Salinity Assessment and Management, 2nd ed.; American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE): Leston, VA, USA, 2011; pp. 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Feng, D.; Zhang, J.; Cao, C.; Sun, J.; Shao, L.; Li, F.; Dang, H.; Sun, C. Soil Salt Accumulation and Crop Yield under Long-Term Irrigation with Saline Water. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 2015, 141, 4015025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Rouphael, Y.; Colla, G.; Bernardo, L.; Kane, D.; Trevisan, M.; Lucini, L. Zinc Excess Triggered Polyamines Accumulation in Lettuce Root Metabolome, As Compared to Osmotic Stress under High Salinity. Front. Plant Sci. 2016, 7, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Wang, Q.; Huo, Z.; Zhang, L.; Wang, J.; Zhao, Y. Impact of saline water irrigation on water use efficiency and soil salt accumulation for spring maize in arid regions of China. Agric. Water Manag. 2016, 163, 125–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Wang, X.; Yang, J.; Liu, G.; Yao, R.; Yu, S. Impact of irrigation volume and water salinity on winter wheat productivity and soil salinity distribution. Agric. Water Manag. 2015, 149, 44–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Kendy, E.; Molden, D.J.; Steenhuis, T.S.; Liu, C.; Wang, J. Policies Drain the North China Plain: Agricultural Policy and Groundwater Depletion in Luancheng County, 1949–2000; IWMI Research Report 71; International Water Management Institute: Colombo, Sri Lanka, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  10. Shahbaz, M.; Ashraf, M. Improving Salinity Tolerance in Cereals. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 2013, 32, 237–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Feng, W.; Zhong, M.; Lemoine, J.-M.; Biancale, R.; Hsu, H.-T.; Xia, J. Evaluation of groundwater depletion in North China using the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) data and ground-based measurements. Water Resour. Res. 2013, 49, 2110–2118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Malash, N.; Ali, F.; Fatahalla, M.; Hatem, M.; Tawfic, S. Response of tomato to irrigation with saline water applied by different irrigation methods and water management strategies. Int. J. Plant Prod. 2012, 2, 101–116. [Google Scholar]
  13. Singh, A.; Panda, S.N. Effect of saline irrigation water on mustard (Brassica Juncea) crop yield and soil salinity in a semi-arid area of North India. Exp. Agric. 2012, 48, 99–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Sharma, D.; Singh, K.; Kumbhare, P. Response of sunflower to conjunctive use of saline drainage water and non-saline canal water irrigation. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci. 2005, 51, 91–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Hassanli, M.; Ebrahimian, H. Cyclic use of saline and non-saline water to increase water use efficiency and soil sustainability on drip irrigated maize in a semi-arid region. Span. J. Agric. Res. 2017, 14, 1204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Baath, G.S.; Shukla, M.K.; Bosland, P.W.; Steiner, R.L.; Walker, S.J. Irrigation water salinity influences at various growth stages of Capsicum annuum. Agric. Water Manag. 2017, 179, 246–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Di Gioia, F.; Rosskopf, E.N.; Leonardi, C.; Giuffrida, F. Effects of application timing of saline irrigation water on broccoli production and quality. Agric. Water Manag. 2018, 203, 97–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Sheng, F.; Xiuling, C. Using shallow saline groundwater for irrigation and regulating for soil salt-water regime. Irrig. Drain. Syst. 1997, 11, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Romy, K.R.E. Effects of Alternate Irrigation with Fresh and Saline Water on Soil Salinization Process and Wheat Production in North China Plain. Master’s Thesis, Graduate School of Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing, China, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  20. Cao, G.; Han, D.; Song, X. Evaluating actual evapotranspiration and impacts of groundwater storage change in the North China Plain. Hydrol. Process. 2014, 28, 1797–1808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Sun, H.; Shen, Y.; Yu, Q.; Flerchinger, G.N.; Zhang, Y.; Liu, C.; Zhang, X. Effect of precipitation change on water balance and WUE of the winter wheat–summer maize rotation in the North China Plain. Agric. Water Manag. 2010, 97, 1139–1145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Kiani, A.; Mirlatifi, S. Effect of different quantities of supplemental irrigation and its salinity on yield and water use of winter wheat (Triticum aestivum). Irrig. Drain. 2012, 61, 89–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Kafi, M.; Asadi, H.; Ganjeali, A. Possible utilization of high-salinity waters and application of low amounts of water for production of the halophyte Kochia scoparia as alternative fodder in saline agroecosystems. Agric. Water Manag. 2010, 97, 139–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Naresh, R.; Minhas, P.; Goyal, A.; Chauhan, C.; Gupta, R. Conjunctive use of saline and non-saline waters. II. Field comparisons of cyclic uses and mixing for wheat. Agric. Water Manag. 1993, 23, 139–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Malash, N.; Flowers, T.; Ragab, R. Effect of irrigation systems and water management practices using saline and non-saline water on tomato production. Agric. Water Manag. 2005, 78, 25–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Zhao, X.; Othmanli, H.; Schiller, T.; Zhao, C.; Sheng, Y.; Zia, S.; Müller, J.; Stahr, K. Water Use Efficiency in Saline Soils under Cotton Cultivation in the Tarim River Basin. Water 2015, 7, 3103–3122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. De Pascale, S.; Orsini, F.; Pardossi, A. Irrigation Water Quality for Greenhouse Horticulture; Good Agricultural Practices for Greenhouse Vegetable Crops; The University of Tennessee: Knoxville, TN, USA, 2013; pp. 169–204. [Google Scholar]
  28. Plaut, Z.; Edelstein, M.; Ben-Hur, M. Overcoming Salinity Barriers to Crop Production Using Traditional Methods. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 2013, 32, 250–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Munns, R.; Tester, M. Mechanisms of Salinity Tolerance. Annu. Rev. Plant Boil. 2008, 59, 651–681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  30. Goudarzi, M.; Pakniyat, H. Evaluation of wheat cultivars under salinity stress based on some agronomic and physiological traits. J. Agric. Soc. Sci. 2008, 4, 35–38. [Google Scholar]
  31. Kim, H.-J.; Fonseca, J.M.; Choi, J.-H.; Kubota, C.; Kwon, D.Y. Salt in Irrigation Water Affects the Nutritional and Visual Properties of Romaine Lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.). J. Agric. Food Chem. 2008, 56, 3772–3776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Fang, Q.; Ma, L.; Green, T.; Yu, Q.; Wang, T.; Ahuja, L.; Green, T. Water resources and water use efficiency in the North China Plain: Current status and agronomic management options. Agric. Water Manag. 2010, 97, 1102–1116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Yamaguchi, T.; Blumwald, E. Developing salt-tolerant crop plants: Challenges and opportunities. Trends Plant Sci. 2005, 10, 615–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Jouyban, Z. The effects of salt stress on plant growth. Tech. J. Eng. Appl. Sci. 2012, 2, 7–10. [Google Scholar]
  35. Barbosa, F.D.S.; De Lacerda, C.F.; Gheyi, H.R.; Farias, G.C.; Júnior, R.J.D.C.S.; Lage, Y.A.; Hernandez, F.F.F. Yield and ion content in maize irrigated with saline water in a continuous or alternating system. Cienc. Rural 2012, 42, 1731–1737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Grattan, S.R.; Rhoades, J.D. Irrigation with saline ground water and drainage water. In Agricultural Salinity Assessment and Management Manual; Tanji, K.K., Ed.; ASCE: Leston, VA, USA, 1990; pp. 432–449. [Google Scholar]
  37. Lv, Z.; Liu, X.; Cao, W.; Zhu, Y. Climate change impacts on regional winter wheat production in main wheat production regions of China. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2013, 171, 234–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Zheng, C.; Liu, J.; Cao, G.; Kendy, E.; Wang, H.; Jia, Y. Can China Cope with Its Water Crisis?-Perspectives from the North China Plain. Ground Water 2010, 48, 350–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Kim, G.; Ward, M. This Report Contains Assessments of Commodity and Trade Issues Made by USDA Staff and Not Necessarily Statements of Official U.S. Government Policy; GAIN Report Number: CH19022; USDA Foreign Agricultural Service: Washington, DC, USA, 2019.
  40. Hu, C.; Delgado, J.; Zhang, X.; Ma, L. Assessment of groundwater use by wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) in the Luancheng Xian region and potential implications for water conservation in the northwestern North China Plain. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2005, 60, 80–88. [Google Scholar]
  41. Shi, J.; Wang, Z.; Zhang, Z.; Fei, Y.; Li, Y.; Zhang, F.; Chen, J.; Qian, Y. Assessment of deep groundwater over-exploitation in the North China Plain. Geosci. Front. 2011, 2, 593–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Yuan, Z.; Xu, Y.; Xie, L. Correlation among farmland water consumption, grain yield and groundwater dynamics in the Hebei Plain. Chin. J. Ecol. Agric. 2014, 22, 904–910. [Google Scholar]
  43. Yang, X.; Chen, Y.; Pacenka, S.; Gao, W.; Zhang, M.; Sui, P.; Steenhuis, T.S. Recharge and Groundwater Use in the North China Plain for Six Irrigated Crops for an Eleven Year Period. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0115269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Mazi, K.; Koussis, A.D.; Destouni, G. Intensively exploited Mediterranean aquifers: Resilience to seawater intrusion and proximity to critical thresholds. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2014, 18, 1663–1677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Kirby, M.; Ahmad, M.-U.-D.; Mainuddin, M.; Khaliq, T.; Cheema, M. Agricultural production, water use and food availability in Pakistan: Historical trends, and projections to 2050. Agric. Water Manag. 2017, 179, 34–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Karimi, P.; Qureshi, A.S.; Bahramloo, R.; Molden, D. Reducing carbon emissions through improved irrigation and groundwater management: A case study from Iran. Agric. Water Manag. 2012, 108, 52–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Obama, B. The irreversible momentum of clean energy. Science 2017, 355, 126–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  48. Ma, W.; Mao, Z.; Yu, Z.; Van Mensvoort, M.; Driessen, P. Effects of saline water irrigation on soil salinity and yield of winter wheat–maize in North China Plain. Irrig. Drain. Syst. 2008, 22, 3–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Kang, S.; Zhang, L.; Liang, Y.; Hu, X.; Cai, H.; Gu, B. Effects of limited irrigation on yield and water use efficiency of winter wheat in the Loess Plateau of China. Agric. Water Manag. 2002, 55, 203–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Qiu, G.Y.; Wang, L.; He, X.; Zhang, X.; Chen, S.; Chen, J.; Yang, Y. Water use efficiency and evapotranspiration of winter wheat and its response to irrigation regime in the north China plain. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2008, 148, 1848–1859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Chen, S.; Sun, H.; Shao, L.; Zhang, X. Performance of winter wheat under different irrigation regimes associated with weather conditions in the North China plain. Aust. J. Crop Sci. 2014, 8, 550. [Google Scholar]
  52. Evans, G.C. The Quantitative Analysis of Plant Growth; University of California Press: Berkeley, CA, USA, 1972; Volume 1. [Google Scholar]
  53. Gardner, F.P.; Peacrce, R.B.; Mithchell, R.L. Physiology of Crop Plants; Iowa State University Press: Iowa City, IA, USA, 1985; p. 66. [Google Scholar]
  54. Jiang, H.; Yang, J.; Yan, H. Effects of irrigation with saline water on soil salinity and crop yield. Plant Nutr. Fertil. Sci. 2004, 10, 599–603. [Google Scholar]
  55. Xue, J.; Ren, L. Conjunctive use of saline and non-saline water in an irrigation district of the Yellow River Basin. Irrig. Drain. 2017, 66, 147–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Radhouane, L. Yield and growth responses of autochthonous pearl millet ecotype (Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br.) under saline water irrigation in Tunisia. In Developments in Soil Salinity Assessment and Reclamation; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2013; pp. 437–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Pang, H.-C.; Li, Y.-Y.; Yang, J.-S.; Liang, Y.-S. Effect of brackish water irrigation and straw mulching on soil salinity and crop yields under monsoonal climatic conditions. Agric. Water Manag. 2010, 97, 1971–1977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Currell, M.J.; Han, D.; Chen, Z.; Cartwright, I. Sustainability of groundwater usage in northern China: Dependence on palaeowaters and effects on water quality, quantity and ecosystem health. Hydrol. Process. 2012, 26, 4050–4066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Simpson, C.; Nelson, S.; Melgar, J.; Jifon, J.; King, S.; Schuster, G.; Volder, A. Growth response of grafted and ungrafted citrus trees to saline irrigation. Sci. Hortic. 2014, 169, 199–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Sharma, D.; Singh, K.; Kumbhare, P. Reuse of agricultural drainage water for crop production. J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci. 2001, 49, 483–488. [Google Scholar]
  61. Sharma, D.; Rao, K.; Singh, K.; Kumbhare, P.; Oosterbaan, R. Conjunctive use of saline and non-saline irrigation waters in semi-arid regions. Irrig. Sci. 1994, 15, 25–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Katerji, N.; Van Hoorn, J.; Hamdy, A.; Mastrorilli, M. Salt tolerance classification of crops according to soil salinity and to water stress day index. Agric. Water Manag. 2000, 43, 99–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Chauhan, C.; Singh, R.; Gupta, S. Supplemental irrigation of wheat with saline water. Agric. Water Manag. 2008, 95, 253–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Hamdy, A.; Sardo, V.; Ghanem, K.F. Saline water in supplemental irrigation of wheat and barley under rainfed agriculture. Agric. Water Manag. 2005, 78, 122–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Jiang, J.; Huo, Z.; Feng, S.; Zhang, C. Effect of irrigation amount and water salinity on water consumption and water productivity of spring wheat in Northwest China. Field Crops Res. 2012, 137, 78–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Skaggs, R.; Van Schilfgaarde, J.; Maas, E.V.; Grattan, S.R. Crop Yields as Affected by Salinity. Sorghum State Art Future Perspect. 1999, 38, 55–110. [Google Scholar]
  67. Ashraf, M.; McNeilly, T.; Bradshaw, A.D. The response to NaCl and ionic content of selected salt-tolerant and normal lines of three legume forage species in sand culture. New Phytol. 1986, 104, 463–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Liu, T.; Van Staden, J. Growth rate, water relations and ion accumulation of soybean callus lines differing in salinity tolerance under salinity stress and its subsequent relief. Plant Growth Regul. 2001, 34, 277–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Chinnusamy, V.; Zhu, J.; Zhu, J.-K. Gene regulation during cold acclimation in plants. Physiol. Plant. 2006, 126, 52–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Lunde, C.; Drew, D.P.; Jacobs, A.K.; Tester, M. Exclusion of Na+ via sodium ATPase (PpENA1) ensures normal growth of Physcomitrella patens under moderate salt stress. Plant Physiol. 2007, 144, 1786–1796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Ma, Q.; Scanlan, C.; Bell, R.; Brennan, R. The dynamics of potassium uptake and use, leaf gas exchange and root growth throughout plant phenological development and its effects on seed yield in wheat (Triticum aestivum) on a low-K sandy soil. Plant Soil 2013, 373, 373–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Niu, G.; Wang, M.; Rodriguez, D.; Zhang, D. Response of Zinnia Plants to Saline Water Irrigation. HortScience 2012, 47, 793–797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  73. Kütük, C.; Çaycı, G.; Heng, L.K.; Cayci, G. Effects of increasing salinity and 15N-labelled urea levels on growth, N uptake, and water use efficiency of young tomato plants. Soil Res. 2004, 42, 345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Hussain, Z.; Khattak, R.A.; Irshad, M.; Mahmood, Q.; An, P. Effect of saline irrigation water on the leachability of salts, growth and chemical composition of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) in saline-sodic soil supplemented with phosphorus and potassium. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2016, 16, 604–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Giuffrida, F.; Cassaniti, C.; Malvuccio, A.; Leonardi, C. Effects of salt stress imposed during two growth phases on cauliflower production and quality. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2017, 97, 1552–1560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Poustini, K. Physiological responses of two wheat cultivars to salinity stress. Iran. J. Agric. Sci. 1995, 26, 57–64. [Google Scholar]
  77. Phogat, V.; Satyawan, S.; Kumar, S.; Sharma, S.K.; Kapoor, A.K.; Kuhal, M.S. Performance of upland cotton and wheat genotypes under different saline conditions. Indian J. Agric. Sci. 2001, 71, 303–305. [Google Scholar]
  78. Alarcón, J.J.; Bolarín, M.C.; Sánchez-Blanco, M.J.; Torrecillas, A. Growth, yield and water relations of normal fruited and cherry tomato cultivars irrigated with saline water. J. Hortic. Sci. 1994, 69, 283–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Pang, G.; Zhang, S.; Xu, Z. Effect of irrigation with brackish water on photosynthesis characteristics and yield of winter wheat. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2018, 170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 11 04564 g001 550
Figure 1. Monthly air temperature (minimum, maximum and average, °C) and precipitation (mm) during the experimental periods for winter wheat.
Figure 1. Monthly air temperature (minimum, maximum and average, °C) and precipitation (mm) during the experimental periods for winter wheat.
Sustainability 11 04564 g001
Sustainability 11 04564 g002 550
Figure 2. Effects of the alternate use of saline and fresh water on soil moisture contents (%) for the years of 2015–16 (a), 2016–17 (b) and 2017–18 (c) during winter wheat cropping seasons in the North China Plain (NCP). The dash lines indicate the application of irrigation water.
Figure 2. Effects of the alternate use of saline and fresh water on soil moisture contents (%) for the years of 2015–16 (a), 2016–17 (b) and 2017–18 (c) during winter wheat cropping seasons in the North China Plain (NCP). The dash lines indicate the application of irrigation water.
Sustainability 11 04564 g002
Sustainability 11 04564 g003 550
Figure 3. Soil pH values in the soil profile at crop sowing and harvesting in (a,d) 2015–16, (b,e) 2016–17 and (c,f) 2017–18 cropping seasons. Values are means ± standard deviation (n = 3).
Figure 3. Soil pH values in the soil profile at crop sowing and harvesting in (a,d) 2015–16, (b,e) 2016–17 and (c,f) 2017–18 cropping seasons. Values are means ± standard deviation (n = 3).
Sustainability 11 04564 g003
Sustainability 11 04564 g004 550
Figure 4. Soil electrical conductivity (EC1:5) values in the soil profile at crop sowing and harvesting in (a,d) 2015–16, (b,e) 2016–17 and (c,f) 2017–18 cropping seasons. Values are means ± standard deviation (n = 3).
Figure 4. Soil electrical conductivity (EC1:5) values in the soil profile at crop sowing and harvesting in (a,d) 2015–16, (b,e) 2016–17 and (c,f) 2017–18 cropping seasons. Values are means ± standard deviation (n = 3).
Sustainability 11 04564 g004
Sustainability 11 04564 g005 550
Figure 5. Changes in the above-ground dry biomass of winter wheat under the alternate use of saline and fresh water for 2015–16 (a), 2016–17 (b) and 2017–18 (c) cropping seasons. Different letters indicate significant differences among the treatments according to Duncan’s multiple range test at p ≤ 0.05 level.
Figure 5. Changes in the above-ground dry biomass of winter wheat under the alternate use of saline and fresh water for 2015–16 (a), 2016–17 (b) and 2017–18 (c) cropping seasons. Different letters indicate significant differences among the treatments according to Duncan’s multiple range test at p ≤ 0.05 level.
Sustainability 11 04564 g005
Sustainability 11 04564 g006 550
Figure 6. Effects of alternate use of saline and fresh water on grain yield during three growing seasons of winter wheat in the NCP. Different letters indicate significant differences among the treatments according to Duncan’s multiple range test at the p ≤ 0.05 level.
Figure 6. Effects of alternate use of saline and fresh water on grain yield during three growing seasons of winter wheat in the NCP. Different letters indicate significant differences among the treatments according to Duncan’s multiple range test at the p ≤ 0.05 level.
Sustainability 11 04564 g006
Sustainability 11 04564 g007 550
Figure 7. Concentration of (a) potassium and (b) sodium in plant organs and (c) potassium and sodium ratio under the alternate use of saline and fresh water to winter wheat for growing season of 2017–18 in the NCP. Different letters indicate significant differences among the treatments according to Duncan’s multiple range test at p ≤ 0.05 level. ns denotes non-significant differences.
Figure 7. Concentration of (a) potassium and (b) sodium in plant organs and (c) potassium and sodium ratio under the alternate use of saline and fresh water to winter wheat for growing season of 2017–18 in the NCP. Different letters indicate significant differences among the treatments according to Duncan’s multiple range test at p ≤ 0.05 level. ns denotes non-significant differences.
Sustainability 11 04564 g007
Table
Table 1. Textural class of the experimental site.
Table 1. Textural class of the experimental site.
Soil Layer (cm)Particle Distribution (%)
ClaySandSilt
0–2020.672.56.9
20–4016.475.18.5
40–6013.575.211.3
60–807.879.312.9
80–1003.378.318.3
Table
Table 2. Ion compositions of irrigation water in the field experiments.
Table 2. Ion compositions of irrigation water in the field experiments.
CharacteristicFresh WaterSaline Water
K+0.396.32
Na+7.2443.28
Ca2+0.761.29
Mg2+0.551.78
SAR8.9534.93
Note: SAR = Na+/[(Ca2+ + Mg2+)/2]1/2, all ions expressed in meq. L−1.
Table
Table 3. Volume of irrigation water applied, soil-water deficit, rainfall and total water consumed in the treatments during 2015–16, 2016–17 and 2017–18 growing seasons.
Table 3. Volume of irrigation water applied, soil-water deficit, rainfall and total water consumed in the treatments during 2015–16, 2016–17 and 2017–18 growing seasons.
PeriodTreatmentIrrigation (mm)Soil-Water Deficit (mm m−1)Rainfall (mm)Total Water Consumed
(mm)(m3 ha−1)
2015–16Rain-fed cultivation (NI)0601582182180
Fresh and saline water irrigation (FS)180413793790
Saline and fresh water irrigation (SF)180443823820
2016–17NI0461301761760
FS180553653650
SF180643743740
2017–18NI0661291951950
FS180393483480
SF180433523520
SS180303393390
FF180393483480
Table
Table 4. Effects of the alternate use of saline and fresh water on plant height, tiller number, spike length and spikelet number of winter wheat in the growth period of 2017–18. The values are means ± standard deviation (n = 3). DAS represents days after sowing. Different letters within each column indicate significant differences among the treatments according to Duncan’s multiple range test at p ≤ 0.05 level.
Table 4. Effects of the alternate use of saline and fresh water on plant height, tiller number, spike length and spikelet number of winter wheat in the growth period of 2017–18. The values are means ± standard deviation (n = 3). DAS represents days after sowing. Different letters within each column indicate significant differences among the treatments according to Duncan’s multiple range test at p ≤ 0.05 level.
TreatmentPlant Height (cm)Tiller Number (m−2)Spike Length (cm)Spikelet Number Spike−1
178 (DAS)186 (DAS)206 (DAS)221 (DAS)242 (DAS)257 (DAS)
NI20 ± 1.4 a27 ± 1.5 c49 ± 2.7 b66 ± 2.4 d70 ± 2.4 c71 ± 1.7 c715 ± 74 b13.8 ± 0.9 b18.1 ± 1.2 a
FS19 ± 1.7 a30 ± 2.1 a55 ± 4.3 a75 ± 2.8 a77 ± 3.5 a78 ± 3.0 a776 ± 163 a14.8 ± 1.0 a17.8 ± 1.1 a
SF19 ± 1.3 a29 ± 1.7 b54 ± 4.3 a70 ± 6.2 c74 ± 3.6 b75 ± 4.0 b682 ± 114 b14.0 ± 1.1 b17.7 ± 2.3 a
Saline water irrigation (SS)18 ± 1.6 b29 ± 1.7 ab53 ± 4.4 a72 ± 5.2 bc73 ± 3.4 b74 ± 4.3 b669 ± 94 b13.8 ± 0.9 b16.9 ± 1.6 a
Fresh water irrigation (FF)19 ± 1.0 ab30 ± 2.5 ab54 ± 4.1 a74 ± 3.1 ab78 ± 3.3 a80 ± 3.1 a727 ± 120 ab13.9 ± 1.1 b18.2 ± 1.4 a
Table
Table 5. Effects of the alternate use of saline and fresh water on grain number, grain weight, test weight and relative growth rate of winter wheat in the NCP for the 2017–2018 cropping period. The values are means ± standard deviation (n = 3). Within the same column, different letters indicate significant differences among treatments according to Duncan’s multiple range test at p ≤ 0.05 level.
Table 5. Effects of the alternate use of saline and fresh water on grain number, grain weight, test weight and relative growth rate of winter wheat in the NCP for the 2017–2018 cropping period. The values are means ± standard deviation (n = 3). Within the same column, different letters indicate significant differences among treatments according to Duncan’s multiple range test at p ≤ 0.05 level.
TreatmentsGrain Number Spike−1Grain Weight Spike−1 (g)1000-Grain Weight (g)Relative Growth Rate (mg mg−1 day−1)
NI43 ± 5 a1.9 ± 0.2 ab41.6 ± 2.0 a42.2 ± 2.1 b
FS44 ± 4 a1.8 ± 0.3 bc36.9 ± 1.2 b42.7 ± 1.6 b
SF44 ± 3 a2.0 ± 0.2 ab42.0 ± 1.4 a44.4 ± 0.3 a
SS43 ± 7 a1.7 ± 0.4 c36.2 ± 3.6 b41.1 ± 1.0 c
FF45 ± 7 a2.1 ± 0.3 a42.4 ± 1.1 a44.6 ± 0.8 a
Table
Table 6. Effect of the alternate use of saline and fresh water on crop harvest index and crop and irrigation water productivity of winter wheat in the NCP for 2015–16, 2016–17 and 2017–18 cropping period. The values are means ± standard deviation (n = 3). Within the same column, different letters indicate significant differences among treatments according to Duncan’s multiple range test at p ≤ 0.05 level. ns denotes non-significant differences.
Table 6. Effect of the alternate use of saline and fresh water on crop harvest index and crop and irrigation water productivity of winter wheat in the NCP for 2015–16, 2016–17 and 2017–18 cropping period. The values are means ± standard deviation (n = 3). Within the same column, different letters indicate significant differences among treatments according to Duncan’s multiple range test at p ≤ 0.05 level. ns denotes non-significant differences.
PeriodTreatmentCrop Harvest Index (CHI)Crop Water Productivity (Kg m−3)Irrigation Water Productivity (Kg m−3)
2015–16NI0.36 ± 0.11 ns2.93 ± 0.18 a-
FS0.27 ± 0.27 ns2.24 ± 0.07 b4.73
SF0.26 ± 0.26 ns2.07 ± 0.06 b4.41
2016–17NI0.28 ± 0.05 ns3.63 ± 0.22 a-
FS0.30 ± 0.04 ns2.33 ± 0.07 b4.72
SF0.40 ± 0.10 ns2.12 ± 0.06 b4.40
2017–18NI0.27 ± 0.03 ab3.15 ± 0.14 a-
FS0.25 ± 0.03 ab2.06 ± 0.04 cd3.98
SF0.30 ± 0.00 a2.22 ± 0.17 b4.35
SS0.25 ± 0.02 ab1.86 ± 0.10 d3.51
FF0.24 ± 0.01 b2.32 ± 0.08 b4.49

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Soothar, R.K.; Zhang, W.; Liu, B.; Tankari, M.; Wang, C.; Li, L.; Xing, H.; Gong, D.; Wang, Y. Sustaining Yield of Winter Wheat under Alternate Irrigation Using Saline Water at Different Growth Stages: A Case Study in the North China Plain. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4564. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11174564

AMA Style

Soothar RK, Zhang W, Liu B, Tankari M, Wang C, Li L, Xing H, Gong D, Wang Y. Sustaining Yield of Winter Wheat under Alternate Irrigation Using Saline Water at Different Growth Stages: A Case Study in the North China Plain. Sustainability. 2019; 11(17):4564. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11174564

Chicago/Turabian Style

Soothar, Rajesh Kumar, Wenying Zhang, Binhui Liu, Moussa Tankari, Chao Wang, Li Li, Huanli Xing, Daozhi Gong, and Yaosheng Wang. 2019. "Sustaining Yield of Winter Wheat under Alternate Irrigation Using Saline Water at Different Growth Stages: A Case Study in the North China Plain" Sustainability 11, no. 17: 4564. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11174564

APA Style

Soothar, R. K., Zhang, W., Liu, B., Tankari, M., Wang, C., Li, L., Xing, H., Gong, D., & Wang, Y. (2019). Sustaining Yield of Winter Wheat under Alternate Irrigation Using Saline Water at Different Growth Stages: A Case Study in the North China Plain. Sustainability, 11(17), 4564. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11174564

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop