Effect of different saline groundwater depths and irrigation water salinities on yield and water use of quinoa in lysimeter

Agricultural Water Management 148 (2015) 177–188

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Agricultural Water Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/agwat

Effect of different saline groundwater depths and irrigation water salinities on yield and water use of quinoa in lysimeter R. Talebnejad, A.R. Sepaskhah ∗ Irrigation Department, Shiraz University, Islamic Republic of Iran

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 19 March 2014 Accepted 5 October 2014 Keywords: Quinoa Saline groundwater Irrigation water salinity Groundwater contribution

a b s t r a c t Water scarcity and water salinity are major constrains for agricultural production in arid and semi-arid regions of Iran. Salt tolerant and high nutritious crop, quinoa, has been introduced all around the world. However, little documented investigations are presented about the effect of different saline groundwater depths and irrigation water salinities on plant growth, yield and water use of quinoa. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the influence of saline groundwater depths, SGD (0.3, 0.55 and 0.80 m) with salinity equivalent to irrigation water and irrigation water salinity, WS (10, 20, 30 and 40 dS m−1 ) on growth and yield of quinoa and groundwater contribution to its water use in cylindrical lysimeters in greenhouse conditions. Results indicated that increasing in WS caused significant decrease in seed yield (SY) and shoot dry matter (SDM) and at all SGDs. However, root dry matter (RDM), harvest index (HI), protein content, 1000-seed weight (SW), number of panicle per plant (NP) and plant height (PH) are reduced by WS higher than 20 dS m−1 . Furthermore, at all WSs increasing in SGD resulted in significant increase in SY, SDM, RDM and ET. Results indicated that quinoa is able to extract water (groundwater contribution to evapotranspiration ratio, GWC/ET as 18 to 66%) from saline groundwater, even at no deficit irrigation conditions. Contour plot was developed to show the combined effect of WS and SGD on GWC/ET. It is indicated that non-saline groundwater depth lower than 1.62 m could contribute to quinoa water use. In presence of saline groundwater (SGD as m), the salinity should be considered by the equation SGD = 1.62 − 0.013WS.Yield-salinity functions indicated that maximum threshold ECe for SY (20.7 dS m−1 ) occurred at 0.80 m SGD and seed yield reduction coefficient (b) was on average, 7.7% per unit soil salinity increase. Also, increasing in SGD resulted in significant decrease in RDM reduction coefficient. Minimum RDM reduction coefficient was 5.5% per unit soil salinity increase. It showed that quinoa root is more tolerant to salinity than shoots. © 2014 Published by Elsevier B.V.

1. Introduction Water scarcity is a serious problem for agricultural production in arid and semi arid areas. Furthermore, development of new water resources in these areas is very costly (Talebnejad and Sepaskhah, 2014). Shallow groundwater is potentially a valuable source of additional water supply to meet crop water requirements in arid and semi-arid regions such as Iran. Crop water use from the high water tables reduces irrigation needs, lowers production costs, reduces deep seepage losses, and decreases the volume of drainage water requiring disposal (Grismer and Gates, 1988). The contribution of groundwater to crop water use depends on the depth of groundwater, crop species and irrigation interval

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +98 71 32286276; fax: +98 71 32286130. E-mail address: [email protected] (A.R. Sepaskhah). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2014.10.005 0378-3774/© 2014 Published by Elsevier B.V.

or soil water availability for crop use, soil type, evapotranspiration demand, distribution of plant root system and salinity and toxicity of ions effect on crop growth (Grimes and Henderson, 1984). Different studies showed that crops such as cotton (e.g. Ayars and Schoneman, 1986; Hutmacher et al., 1996), alfalfa (Benz et al., 1983), pistachio (Sepaskhah and Karimi-Goghary, 2005), maize (Ragab and Amer, 1986; Kang et al., 2001; Sepaskhah et al., 2003), wheat (Chaudary et al., 1974; Kang et al., 2001), safflower (Soppe and Ayars, 2003; Ghamarnia and Gholamian, 2013), sugarcane (Sweeney et al., 2001; Kahlown et al., 2005), sorghum (Sepaskhah et al., 2003), rice (Talebnejad and Sepaskhah, 2014) and black cumin (Ghamarnia and Jalili, 2014) are capable of extracting significant quantities of water from groundwater. The water quantities taken by different crops from shallow groundwater were reviewed by Ayars et al. (2006). In many instances, the percentage contribution of groundwater exceeded 50% of the total water requirement (Chaudary et al., 1974; Wallender et al., 1979; Kruse

R. Talebnejad, A.R. Sepaskhah / Agricultural Water Management 148 (2015) 177–188

10

40 2011

35

8

30 25

6

20 4

Tavg RHavg ETo

15 10 5

ETo (mm d-1 )

Tavg(˚C) and RHavg(%)

2 0

0 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90 100 110

Days after planting 10

40 2012

35

8

30 25

6

20

Tavg RHavg ETo

15 10 5

4

ETo (mm d-1)

et al., 1993). Ayars et al. (2006) reported that most of the studies were conducted with non-saline groundwater while only a small number of studies were performed under saline shallow groundwater conditions. However, groundwater quality is an important aspect in groundwater contribution to crop water use and final yield production. For example, as much as 70% of total evapotranspiration of a wheat crop (Triticum aestivum L.) was derived from a water table at 60 cm depth in the work of Chaudary et al. (1974); however, groundwater with salinity levels of 2.9 dS m−1 or greater resulted in pronounced yield losses. Hutmacher et al. (1996) reported that groundwater contributed about 30–42% of seasonal total evapotranspiration of cotton in treatments with groundwater salinity less than 20 dS m−1 ; however, it declined to 12–19% of total ET at higher salinity levels. Ghamarnia and Gholamian (2013) reported reduction (from 58% to 15%) in groundwater contribution to safflower water use, by increasing groundwater salinity from 1 to 10 dS m−1 . Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) is an Andean pseudo-cereal that has been cultivated in the Andes area for at least 5000 years. Recently, it has been introduced into the United States and Canada and also Europe where it is a good candidate crop for agricultural diversification (Jacobsen, 1997). Quinoa has higher protein content (about 14.6%) than other cereals (Ruales and Nair, 1992). Its balanced composition makes the protein quality of quinoa comparable to that of mother milk (Rojas et al., 2004). Apart from the high protein content and the balanced presence of essential amino acids such as lysine, the grains are also rich in vitamins and minerals (Comai et al., 2007). Its robust character is due to a high tolerance level of frost (Jacobsen et al., 2005), drought (Geerts et al., 2008) and soil salinity (Jacobsen et al., 2003). In terms of basic characteristics, the plant is an annual crop species belonging to the C3 group of plants (Jacobsen et al., 2003). It is a 0.5–2 m high plant terminating in a panicle that consists in small flowers producing 1 seed per flower. The 1000-grain mass is generally low due the small seed size (3–6 g (Geerts et al., 2008). Despite of the high nutritional value of the seeds, they also contain the anti-nutritious component saponin in a certain concentration, depending mainly on the variety (Ward, 2000). Saponins need to be removed before consumption, and are now sometimes mentioned to be useful for industrial purposes [e.g. as molluscicide (Joshi et al., 2008)]. Different agronomic characteristics of a large number of quinoa varieties are listed by Bhargava et al. (2006). Some varieties can grow in salt concentrations similar to those found in seawater (40 dS m−1 ) and even higher (Jacobsen et al., 2001), well above the threshold for any known crop species. Because of quinoa’s nutritional qualities, its natural adaptation to harsh conditions, its increasing marketability (in bread, soups, biscuits, drinks, etc.), and its cultural acceptability, increased quinoa production is regarded as the single most important prospect for addressing the food security problems of the Andes, and therefore it has been selected by FAO as one of the crops destined to offer food security over the 21st century (FAO, 1998). Adaptation of quinoa to Mediterranean environment has been investigated recently (Cocozza et al., 2012; Pulvento et al., 2012); however, documented research in quinoa adaptation in South West Asia countries like Iran has not been exposed. Effect of irrigation salinity on different quinoa traits such as germination (Koyro and Eisa, 2008), growth and physiological characteristics (Hariadi et al., 2011; Ruiz-Carrasco et al., 2011; Cocozza et al., 2012; Pulvento et al., 2012) and morphological characteristics (Razzaghi et al., 2011, 2012; Adolf et al., 2012) have been investigated in literature. Although the effect of water salinity on quinoa has been presented in some papers, quinoa growth reaction and water use in presence of shallow groundwater has not been studied. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the influence of saline groundwater depths (0.3, 0.55 and 0.80 m) with salinity equivalent to irrigation water salinity and irrigation

Tavg(˚C) and RHavg(%)

178

2 0

0 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90 100 110

Days after planting Fig. 1. Daily mean air temperature (Tavg), relative humidity (RHavg) and reference evapotranspiration (ETo) during growing period in 2011 and 2012.

water salinity (10, 20, 30 and 40 dS m−1 ) on growth, yield and water use efficiency of quinoa and groundwater contribution to its water use in cylindrical lysimeters in greenhouse conditions. 2. Materials and methods 2.1. Experimental design and treatments This research was conducted in a greenhouse at the College of Agriculture, Shiraz University, I.R. Iran (29◦ 56 N, 52◦ 02 E, 1810 m above sea level), in 2011 and 2012. The maximum and minimum air temperatures were 33 ± 4 and 20 ± 3 ◦ C, and the maximum and minimum percentage of relative humidity were 44 ± 3 and 22 ± 1, respectively. Reference evapotranspiration (ETo) in the study area was calculated using the Hargreaves–Samani method (Hargreaves and Samani, 1985), because it is the most appropriate method when only temperature data is available in this experimental conditions in greenhouse (Razzaghi and Sepaskhah, 2010). Mean daily air temperature (Tavg), relative humidity (RHavg) and ETo during the growing season in 2011 and 2012 are shown in Fig. 1. The soil was a loam obtained from the top 0.3 m layer and some of the physico-chemical properties of this soil are shown in Table 1. The air dried soil was passed through a 2-mm sieve and then packed in PVC column with a soil bulk density of 1.38 g cm−3 . In two replications, TDR probes were placed horizontally at the center of column to monitor soil water content above the groundwater level by Time Domain Reflectrometry (Topp et al., 1980). At 0.3 m groundwater depth, TDR probes were placed in soil at 0.1 and 0.2 m from soil surface. At 0.55 m groundwater depth, TDR probes were placed in soil at depth of 0.20 and 0.40 m from soil surface and at 0.80 m groundwater depth TDR probes were placed in soil at depth of 0.20, 0.40 and 0.60 m from soil surface. It should be noted that the soil of columns were removed from the columns

R. Talebnejad, A.R. Sepaskhah / Agricultural Water Management 148 (2015) 177–188 Table 1 Physical and chemical properties of the soil in lysimeter. Physical property Sand (%) Silt (%) Clay (%) Soil texture Field capacity(cm3 cm−3 ) Permanent wilting point (cm3 cm−3 ) Bulk density (g cm−3 )

Chemical property 17 47 36 Loam 0.32

ECe (dS m−1 ) pH Cl (meq l−1 ) Na (meq l−1 ) K (meq l−1 )

0.73 7.19 3.75 1.30 0.06

0.16

Ca (meq l−1 )

6.80

1.38

−1

Mg (meq l ) SO4 (meq l−1 ) HCO3 (meq l−1 )

2.2 1.1 8.0

at the end of first experiment after taking soil samples. Then they were refilled with new soil for the second experiment. Therefore, no salt accumulation over two years occurred. The lysimeters height was 1.0 m and was made of 0.317 m diameter PVC tube with 2.5 mm wall thickness. The tube bottom was sealed with PVC plate. A hole was made in the column wall for connection to Mariotte bottle (90 mm i.d by 2500 cm3 volume) with 16 mm polyethylene (PE) pipe (Fig. 2). For drainage purpose, a gravel layer (grain diameter of 7 mm) with thickness of 50 mm was placed at bottom of the lysimeter column. Groundwater was controlled by keeping the water in the bottles in constant level in order to have the groundwater depths at 0.3, 0.55 and 0.80 m. Salinity levels of the groundwater and irrigation water were 10, 20, 30 and 40 dS m−1 and were obtained by adding NaCl and CaCl2 to the tap water in equal proportion. Levels of irrigation water salinity were chosen equal to groundwater salinity. We have used similar levels of salinities for irrigation and groundwater since the saline groundwater is usually used as irrigation water in the central parts of Iran. Chemical analysis of the saline irrigation water is shown in Table 2. Water salinity of 10 dS m−1 was the lowest salinity level in this research. This level of salinity was chosen because quinoa is halophyte with a high salinity tolerant. Besides, prior investigations in literature demonstrated that water salinities of 10 dS m−1 (100 mM) and lower has no significant effect on top and root growth of some quinoa cultivars (e.g. Ruiz-Carrasco et al., 2011, Eisa et al., 2012; Brakez et al., 2013).

179

The experiment was conducted in factorial arrangement with two factors as saline groundwater depths and irrigation water salinity with complete randomized block with three replicates run in two consecutive years. Initially, the soil columns were irrigated to field capacity. Six quinoa (C. quinoa Willd) seeds of Danish bred cultivar (cv. Titicaca, no. 5206) from material originated in southern Chile (Adolf et al., 2012) were planted in 10 mm depth in three batches with a triangle arrangement with about 200 mm distance in each column on 25 April and 16 March, 2011 and 2012, respectively. Two weeks after planting, the seedlings were thinned to three per column. Quinoa was irrigated with tap water to field capacity with a total of 25 mm of water (6.25 mm at 4-day interval) up to treatments initiation (30 days after planting) at vegetative growth stage of quinoa according to Jacobsen and Stolen (1993). This is about 10% of quinoa ET during the growing season. Therefore, results and conclusions of this research are not affected by usage of tap water at the beginning of growing season. Tap water was used to establish the quinoa in the initial stage. In salinity studies, it is usual to use non-saline water before starting salinity treatments. Furthermore, quinoa is planted in non-native conditions in this study and we were concerned about its adaptability to the new conditions in initial stage to fulfill its establishment. Therefore, we have not used the water with salinity of 10 dS/m in the establishment stage. Before treatment initiation, the lysimeters were initially saturated from bottom by water with salinity levels of 10, 20, 30 and 40 dS m−1 up to depths of 0.30, 0.55 and 0.80 m for 2 weeks. After treatment initiation, the daily rate of crop water use from the groundwater was determined by replacing the water loss from the Mariotte bottle that maintained a constant groundwater level for the various treatments. Before planting, phosphorus were applied uniformly to all columns at the rate of 51.6 mg kg−1 soil as triple superphosphate, Ca(H2 PO4 )2 (equivalent to 50 kg P ha−1 ). Nitrogen was applied uniformly to all columns at the rate of 163 mg kg−1 soil as urea (equivalent to 120 kg N ha−1 ). Nitrogen fertilizer was splitted and applied at two different plant growth stages (Fig. 3), i.e., at vegetative with bud formation (45 days after planting) and onset of flowering (65 days after planting). Lysimeters were irrigated at the time when the soil water content depleted 50% of total available water and the volumetric soil water content was 0.26 cm3 cm−3 . This procedure adopted in order to have considerable amount of groundwater contribution to crop water use; therefore, irrigation interval was approximately 7 days. The amount of irrigation water

Crop cycle =102days from 16 March to 25 June

EV V

2012

40

23

10

15

14

A SF M

Crop cycle =104 days from 25 April to 6 August

2011

Fig. 2. Details of experimental set up for constant water table.

34

26

10

19

15

Fig. 3. Phenological stages and length of the crop cycle in two experimental years according to the classification of Jacobsen and Stolen (1993): EV, early vegetative; V, vegetative with bud formation; A, anthesis; SF, seed filling; M, maturity.

180

R. Talebnejad, A.R. Sepaskhah / Agricultural Water Management 148 (2015) 177–188

Table 2 Chemical analysis of tap water, the saline groundwater and irrigation water used in the experiment. EC (dS m−1 )

pH

Mg

Na

K

Ca

Cl

SO4

HCO3

1.2 50 106 131 195

0.05 0.07 0.9 1.4 3.1

1.15 54 88 152 177

2.1 100 202 288 380

1.0 6 10 16 20

1.5 17 14 13 16

(meq l−1 ) 0.55 10 20 30 40

7.00 6.90 6.81 6.76 6.73

2.1 26 28 30 38

was determined by measuring soil water content with the Time Domain Reflectrometry method before each irrigation event and raising the soil water content to field capacity. Salinity of irrigation water was 10, 20, 30 and 40 dS m−1 .Chemical analysis of the saline irrigation water is shown in Table 2. 2.2. Measurements and calculations Volumetric soil water contents above the groundwater were monitored by the TDR method (Model TRASE, 6050 X1) before each irrigation in order to determine the irrigation water requirement. During the crop cycle, phenological stages were monitored in the greenhouse using the indications of Jacobsen and Stolen (1993) for quinoa. Daily groundwater contribution to crop water use was determined volumetrically by replacing the water loss from the Mariotte bottle that maintained a constant groundwater level for the various treatments. The crop evapotranspiration for the irrigation intervals was estimated by the water balance procedure using the following equation: ET = IW + GWC ± S

(1)

where IW is the irrigation water depth (mm), GWC is the groundwater contribution to plant ET (upward flow of water; mm), and S is the contribution to plant ET due to the change in soil water content between two irrigations. Crop coefficient (Kc ) in the study area was calculated by dividing crop evapotranspiration by reference evapotranspiration for treatment with no stress and with highest yield in greenhouse condition (0.8 m SGD with 10 dS m−1 WS). Plants were harvested on 6 August and 25 June in 2011 and 2012, 2–3 weeks after stopping irrigation. Plant height was determined 1 week before harvest. After harvest, plants were cut at the soil surface and roots were washed to remove the soil. Simultaneously, soil samples of each 0.10 m increment up to the groundwater depth, were taken, air dried and passed through 2 mm sieve for chemical analysis including electrical conductivity of soil saturation extract (ECe , Richards, 1954), soluble Na+ (through flame photometer), soluble Ca2+ and SO4 − by titrating the saturation extract against EDTA solution, Cl− by titration with AgNO3 (using the method presented by Chapman and Pratt, 1961). Using the methods described by the U. S. Salinity Laboratory Staff (Richards, 1954), average ECe above groundwater was determined for yield salinity functions (Eq. (2)). Panicles were separated from shoots and number of panicle per plants was counted. Furthermore, lengths of main panicle (panicle placed at the top of plant) were measured. Achenes were separated in panicles and their covers were robed from the seeds. Seeds were dried in an oven at 65 ◦ C for 48–72 h to determine seed yield and 1000-seed weight. Plant tops and roots were dried in an oven at 65 ◦ C for 48–72 h to determine the shoot and root dry matter. Harvest index was calculated as seed yield divided by the shoot dry matter (sum of seed and straw). Samples from the seeds were used to determine the seed protein content (as percent) by multiplying the nitrogen content by 6.25. Seed nitrogen concentration was

determined by the Kejldahl procedure (Bremner and Mulvaney, 1982). Protein yield was calculated as seed yield multiplied by the seed protein content. Water use efficiency was calculated as seed yield divided by ET. Besides, the groundwater contribution to ET under interaction effect of saline groundwater depth and water salinity was described by linear equation and contour (iso-quant) lines. Furthermore, the relationship between relative seed yield (SY) [the ratio of SY in treatments with water salinity stress (SYa ) to its maximum (SYm )] and average root-zone salinity of soil saturation extract above groundwater (ECe ) was determined for each saline groundwater depth by regression analysis as fallows (Maas and Hoffman, 1977): SYa = 1 − b (ECe − ECth ) SYm

(2)

where ECth is the threshold value of ECe and b is the growth reduction coefficient of quinoa SY. Furthermore, similar relationships were determined for relative shoot dry matter and relative root dry matter. 2.3. Statistical analysis The interaction effects between saline groundwater depths and water salinity were evaluated by using analysis of variance test and means were compared by using the Duncan’s multiple range test. Before means comparison, normality test was conducted and distribution function for all data was normal. Statistical analysis by MSTATC software showed that there was no significant difference between the results in different years (2011 and 2012) and between blocks. Therefore, the combined 2-year means of different traits were statistically analyzed. 3. Results and discussion 3.1. Crop development stages. Phenological stages and length of the crop cycle in the two experimental years according to the indications of Jacobsen and Stolen (1993) [EV, early vegetative; V, vegetative with bud formation; A, anthesis; SF, seed filling; M, maturity] are shown in Fig. 3. Prior aim of this investigation was to evaluate the possibility of quinoa to complete its developmental growth and to distinguish the different phenological stages in non-native weather conditions. Results showed that crop cycle in two years was about 103 days, which was similar to growth duration of quinoa in Mediterranean weather condition (96–110 days, Pulvento et al., 2012; Cocozza et al., 2012). However, Garcia et al. (2003) in Bolivian highlands and Geerts et al. (2009) in Southern Bolivia reported longer quinoa growth duration (150–170 days). Quinoa is an indeterminate growth crop. It means that quinoa continued vegetative growth after its main panicle appeared. This stage is known as vegetative with bud formation. Although, early vegetative stage in this experiment was shorter than that reported in literature (50 days, Pulvento et al., 2012), vegetative with bud formation stage was longer in lysimeter experiment in the greenhouse conditions.

R. Talebnejad, A.R. Sepaskhah / Agricultural Water Management 148 (2015) 177–188 Table 3 Seed yield (g column−1 ), dry matter (g column−1 ), plant height (m) and harvest index at different groundwater depths and water salinities. Water table depth (m)

Water salinity, (dS m−1 ) 10

20

30

40

−1

Seed yield (g column ) 0.30 23.10* d 0.55 38.01b 49.80a 0.80 Shoot dry matter (g column−1 ) 138.23de 0.30 175.16b 0.55 0.80 198.66a Root dry matter (g column−1 ) 0.30 8.46de 16.52bc 0.55 19.62a 0.80 Plant height (m) 1.24bc 0.30 1.27bc 0.55 1.37a 0.80 Harvest index 0.30 0.167d 0.55 0.217bc 0.251a 0.80

17.07fg 28.39c 35.27b

12.19hi 18.55ef 21.43de

117.40g 144.15d 153.28e

104.40h 124.44f 135.04e

7.65ef 17.52b 20.62a

4.72g 9.58d 15.32c

5.59j 11.10i 14.19gh 91.48i 105.95h 117.73g 2.63h 3.67gh 6.63f

1.20c 1.28bc 1.31ab

1.05de 1.22c 1.26bc

0.88f 1.02e 1.11d

0.145de 0.197c 0.231ab

0.117f 0.149de 0.159d

0.061g 0.105f 0.127ef

* Means followed by the same letters in each trait are not significantly different at 5% level of probability.

3.2. Saline groundwater depth and water salinity effects 3.2.1. Seed yield Seed yields at different saline groundwater depths (SGD) and water salinities (WS) are presented in Table 3. There was a significant interaction between the effects of SGD and WS on seed yield (p < 0.05). Results indicated that increasing in WS caused significant decrease in seed yield at all SGDs. At SGD of 0.3 m increasing WS from 10 to 40 dS m−1 , resulted in 76% decrease in seed yield, whereas 70% reduction in seed yield occurred at SGD of 0.55 and 0.80 m by the same increase in WS levels. At all WSs, increasing SGD resulted in significant increase in seed yield. It indicated that increasing in SGD alleviates the effect of salinity stress on quinoa seed yield. For example, at 10 dS m−1 WS, increasing in SGD from 0.3 to 0.55 m resulted in 65% increase in seed yield while 98% increase was obtained by increasing SGD from 0.3 to 0.55 m at 40 dS m−1 . Maximum seed yield in this lysimeter experiment is 49.8 g column−1 (about 3.11 Mg ha−1 ) which is similar to that obtained in field conditions in native regions (Geerts et al., 2009) or non-native regions (Bhargava et al., 2006; Pulvento et al., 2012; Razzaghi et al., 2012). It seems that quinoa has potential to growth adaptability in Iran conditions as a new crop. Results showed that quinoa can continue its growth in high salinity level (40 dS m−1 ) with presence of shallow saline groundwater and complete its developmental stage and produce seed yield (0.35 Mg ha−1 in SGD of 0.3 m). This finding shows its ability to survive in presence of about seawater salinity levels. 3.2.2. Shoot dry matter Shoot dry matter (SDM) at different SGD and WS are presented in Table 3. There was a significant interaction between the effects of SGD and WS on SDM (p < 0.05). Results indicated that in all SGD, increasing WS resulted in significant decrease in SDM. According to Table 3 in all WSs, increasing in SGD resulted in significant increase in SDM. Maximum SDM occurred at SGD of 0.8 m with WS of 10 dS m−1 . It showed that at the SGD of 0.80 m, suitable conditions occurred for quinoa growth and more SDM was produced. Increasing in SDM as result of increasing in groundwater depth was observed for rice (Talebnejad and Sepaskhah, 2014), sugarcane and sunflower (Kahlown et al., 2005). However, Ghamarnia and Jalili

181

(2014) reported that increasing SGD caused significant decrease in SDM of black cumin. When the groundwater salinity is higher than 4.0 dS m−1 , the groundwater with depth of 1–2 m or less resulted in decreased wheat and sugarcane yields (Kahlown and Azam, 2002). It is indicated that the salinity tolerance of crop species is an important factor for SDM production restrictions in presence of shallow saline groundwater. According to Table 3, increasing WS from 10 to 40 dS m−1 at SGD of 0.30, 0.55 and 0.80 m resulted in 33%, 40% and 40% reduction in SDM, respectively. Maximum SDM in this lysimeteric experiment is 198 g column−1 (about 12 Mg ha−1 ) which is higher than that obtained in field conditions in native regions (Geerts et al., 2009) (8 Mg ha−1 ) or non-native regions (Pulvento et al., 2012; Razzaghi et al., 2012) (6.9 and 7.9 Mg ha−1 , respectively). It showed that greenhouse conditions motivated the vegetative growth. Although, early vegetative stage in this experiment was shorter than that reported in literature, the vegetative with bud formation stage was longer in lysimeter experiment in the greenhouse conditions. 3.2.3. Root dry matter Root dry matter (RDM) at different SGD and WS are presented in Table 3. There was a significant interaction between the effects of SGD and WS on RDM (p < 0.05). Results indicated that increasing SGD at all WSs caused significant increase in RDM. However, at WS of 40 dS m−1 , increasing in SGD from 0.30 to 0.55 m has no significant increase in RDM. At WS of 10, 20 and 30 dS m−1 , increasing SGD from 0.30 to 0.55 m resulted in 95, 130 and 102% increase in RDM, respectively. However, increasing SGD from 0.55 to 0.80 m resulted in 19, 18, 60 and 80% increase in RDM at WS of 10, 20, 30 and 40 dS m−1 , respectively. It showed that quinoa is able to develop its root system in order to obtained more water from the shallow SGD, which is discussed later. In all SGDs, increasing WS from 10 to 20 dS m−1 has no significant effect on RDM. However, in average, 35% and 56% reduction in RDM was observed by increasing WS from 20 to 30 d m−1 and 30 to 40 d m−1 , respectively. In general, comparison in the main effect of salinity showed that RDM was reduced by SW higher than 20 dS m−1 . Restriction in quinoa root growth at high WS (30–40 dS m−1 ) was observed by Eisa et al. (2012). 3.2.4. Plant height Plant height (PH) at different SGD and WS are presented in Table 3. There was a significant interaction between the effects of SGD and WS on PH (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference between quinoa height at WS of 10 and 20 dS m−1 at all SGDs. PH at SGD of 0.30 m and WS higher than 20 dS m−1 showed significant decrease compared with WS higher than 20 dS m−1 . However, PH at SGD of 0.55 and 0.80 m and WS higher than 30 dS m−1 showed significant decrease compared with WS lower than 30 dS m−1 . Reduction in PH may be due to decrease in cell elongation as a result of water stress and salinity. Further, plant growth might have been retarded with lower stomatal conductance, decrease in photosynthesis rate and ion toxicity (Shabani et al., 2013). Increasing in SGD from 0.55 to 0.80 m resulted in about 8% increase in PH in WS of 10 and 40 dS m−1 , while this increase was not significant in WS of 20 and 30 dS m−1 . In general, comparison in the main effect of salinity showed that PH is reduced by SW higher than 20 dS m−1 . 3.2.5. Harvest index Harvest index (HI) at different SGD and WS are presented in Table 3. There was not a significant interaction between the effects of SGD and WS on HI (p < 0.05). Increasing in SGD and decreasing in WS generally enhanced HI. At all SGDs, WS higher than 20 dS m−1 resulted in significant reduction in HI compared with WS lower than 20 dS m−1 . At WS of 10 and 20 dS m−1 , increasing in SGD from 0.55 to 0.8 m resulted in 13 and 15% increase in HI, respectively.

182

R. Talebnejad, A.R. Sepaskhah / Agricultural Water Management 148 (2015) 177–188

Table 4 Number of panicle per plant, length of panicle (m), 1000-seed weight (g) and seed protein content % at different groundwater depths and water salinities. Water table depth (m)

Water salinity, (dS m−1 ) 10

Number of panicle per plant 0.30 12.74* cde 0.55 14.44bcd 17.03a 0.80 Length of panicle (m) 21.93b 0.30 22.75ab 0.55 0.80 25.24a 1000-seed weight (g) 1.53bc 0.30 2.26a 0.55 2.19a 0.80 Protein yield (g column−1 ) 0.364d 0.30 0.574b 0.55 0.736a 0.80 Seed protein content % 15.79de 0.30 0.55 15.11e 14.82e 0.80

20

30

shown) indicated that increasing SGD from 0.3 to 0.55 and 0.55 to 0.80 m resulted in 60% and 24% increase in PY, respectively. Maximum PY (about 0.46 Mg ha−1 ) occurred at SGD of 0.80 with 10 dS m−1 WS.

40

12.19def 14.67abc 16.04ab

9.778fgh 11.50efg 15.76ab

8.073h 9.292gh 12.09def

17.43cde 20.10bc 21.42b

15.96de 16.67de 18.15cd

9.56f 16.15de 14.67e

1.73b 2.13a 2.18a

1.46bcd 1.58bc 1.51bc

1.20d 1.43bcd 1.34cd

0.291e 0.453c 0.551b

0.224f 0.344de 0.402cd

0.116g 0.218f 0.289e

17.06cd 16.01de 15.66de

18.49bc 18.46bc 18.77abc

20.60a 19.50ab 19.58ab

* Means followed by the same letters in each trait are not significantly different at 5% level of probability.

However, at WS of 30 and 40 dS m−1 , increasing in SGD from 0.55 to 0.8 m did not significantly affect HI. Maximum HI (0.25) occurred at SGD of 0.80 m with WS of 10 dS m−1 . It is noticeable that in our experiment HI was lower than those reported by Pulvento et al. (2012) and Razzaghi et al. (2012), (about 0.3–0.4). It could be a result of higher vegetative growth and lower 1000-seed weight in greenhouse conditions that is discussed later.

3.2.8. Yield component 3.2.8.1. Number of panicle per plant. Number of panicles per plant (NP) at different SGD and WS are presented in Table 4. There was no significant interaction between the effects of SGD and WS on NP. Increasing SGD resulted in intensification of NP, although it was not significant in some treatments. Comparison in the main effect of SGD on NP (data not shown) indicated that increasing SGD from 0.30 to 0.55 m and 0.55 to 0.80 m resulted in 17% and 22% increase in NP, respectively. Panicles in quinoa are originated from the axils of the whole plant starting from the top; therefore, higher number of branches resulted in higher number of panicles. In our experiment, originated panicles from the lower axils of the main stem were shorter as compared with those observed in quinoa farms in native Andean regions (FAO, 2014). It could be the reason of low HI that was obtained in our experiment (Table 3). At all SGDs, increasing in WS from 10 to 20 dS m−1 did not show significant effect on NP. However, increasing in WS from 20 to 40 dS m−1 on average, resulted in 30% reduction in NP. Comparison between the main effects of salinity on NP (data not shown) indicated that WS higher than 20 dS m−1 resulted in significant decrease in NP. 3.2.8.2. Length of panicle. Length of main panicle at the top of the plant (LP) at different SGDs and WS are presented in Table 4. There was a significant interaction between the effects of SGD and WS on LP (p < 0.05). At all WSs, there were no significant differences between the LP for 0.55 and 0.80 m SGD. However, LP increased about 18% at 0.55 and 0.80 m SGD compared with that obtained at 0.3 m SGD. Increasing WS at all SGDs resulted in decreasing LP, although it was not significant at some treatments. Comparison of the main effect of WS on LP (data not shown) indicated that increasing WS from 10 to 20, 20 to 30 and 30 to 40 dS m−1 resulted in 17%, 14% and 20% decrease in LP, respectively.

3.2.6. Seed protein content High nutritional value of the quinoa seeds is due to its high protein content and valuable characteristic of its amino acid composition. Seed protein content (as % in dry weight basis) at different SGDs and WS are presented in Table 4. Analysis of variance indicated that WS had significant effect on seed protein content. However, there was not a significant interaction between the effects of SGD and WS and also significant effect of SGD on seed protein content. In all SGD, increasing WS from 10 to 20 dS m−1 had no significant effect on seed protein content. However, increasing WS from 20 to 30 dS m−1 and 30 to 40 dS m−1 , resulted in 13% and 7% increase in seed protein content, respectively. Seed protein content in salinity stress conditions, due to osmotic adjustment usually increases. This was occurred for increasing WS higher than 20 dS m−1 for quinoa in our experiment. However, Razzaghi et al. (2012) reported that no significant effect on proportion of total-N in seed (%) was observed on WS higher than 20 dS m−1 . Koyro and Eisa (2008) reported that WS lower than 300 mol m−3 NaCl resulted in significant decrease in seed protein content. Protein contents in our experiment were 14% to 21%, which is in accordance with the protein content reported for quinoa by other investigators (Dini et al., 2005; Jacobsen et al., 2005).

3.2.8.3. 1000-seed weight. 1000-seed weight (SW) at different SGDs and WS are presented in Table 4. There was a significant interaction between the effects of SGD and WS on SW (p < 0.05). Increasing in SGD did not affect SW at WS of 30 and 40 dS m−1 . However, significant SW increase (32 and 19%) occurred by increasing SGD from 0.30 to 0.55 m at 10 and 20 dS m−1 WS, respectively. At all SGDs increasing WS from 10 to 20 dS m−1 had no significant effect on SW. The same effect was observed for increasing WS from 30 to 40 dS m−1 . Comparison between the main effects of WS on SW (data not shown) indicated that SW reduction occurred at WS higher than 20 dS m−1 . Decrease in seed weight was probably related to prevention of assimilate transport to the seeds and decrease in growth during seed filling stage. Furthermore, comparison between the main effects of SGD (data not shown) indicated that the threshold of SGD for SW increase is 0.55 m. It is worth noting that quinoa has SW lower than many other nutritious grains like wheat, corn and rice. In our experiment, maximum SW (2.26 g) was even lower than that obtained by Razzaghi et al. (2012) and Pulvento et al. (2012) (3.40 and 3.10 g, respectively).

3.2.7. Protein yield Protein yields (PY) at different SGDs and WS are presented in Table 4. There was a significant interaction between the effects of SGD and WS on PY (p < 0.05). At all SGDs, increasing in WS resulted in significant decrease in PY. For example, at SGD of 0.80 m increasing WS from 10 to 20 dS m−1 resulted in 25% decrease in PY; however, 28% reduction in PY was observed by increasing WS from 30 to 40 dS m−1 . Comparison of the main effect of SGD (data not

3.2.9. Irrigation water requirement The amount of irrigation water (IW) at different SGDs and WS are presented in Table 5. In this experiment, lysimeters were irrigated at the time when the soil water content depleted 50% of total available water and the volumetric soil water content was 0.26 cm3 cm−3 . This procedure adopted in order to have considerable amount of groundwater contribution to crop water use; therefore, IW increased significantly by increasing SGD due to

R. Talebnejad, A.R. Sepaskhah / Agricultural Water Management 148 (2015) 177–188 Table 5 Seasonal evapotranspiration (mm), groundwater uptake (mm), seasonal groundwater contribution to evapotranspiration, GWC/ET, and water use efficiency (kg m−3 ) at different groundwater depths and water salinities.

Crop coefficient

Water salinity, (dS m−1 ) 10

20

30

129* c 223b 284a

128c 224b 287a

128c 224b 286a

Kc mid

1.2

40 129c 223b 287a

1 0.8

Kc ini

0.6

Kc end

0.4 0.2 0

379.8d 437.6b 471.3a

Groundwater uptake (mm) 249.5a 0.30 212.8b 0.55 180.4c 0.80 GWC/ET 0.30 0.66a 0.49d 0.55 0.38f 0.80 −3 Water use efficiency (kg m ) 0.38d 0.30 0.54b 0.55 0.66a 0.80

339.1f 408.5c 441.4b

281.5d 360.6e 402.5c

239.1i 314.6g 361.0e

209.2b 182.2c 146.6e

152.5d 132.7f 106.9g

108.7g 88.24h 67.05i

0.61b 0.45e 0.33h

0.54c 0.37g 0.27i

0.45e 0.28i 0.18j

0.31ef 0.43c 0.50b

0.27fg 0.32ef 0.33de

0.15h 0.22g 0.26g

*

Means followed by the same letters in each trait are not significantly different at 5% level of probability.

increase in soil water holding capacity (mm water/m soil) with increasing in SGD. Therefore, IW was on average 129, 224 and 287 mm for SGD of 0.30, 0.55 and 0.80 m, respectively. WS had no significant effect on IW. This could be due to high tolerance of quinoa to WS and also monitoring soil water content by TDR to maintain the volumetric soil water content above 0.26 cm3 cm−3 . 3.2.10. Seasonal crop evapotranspiration and crop coefficient Seasonal crop evapotranspiration (ET) or total water use of quinoa in greenhouse conditions was determined from Eq. (1). There was a significant interaction between the effects of SGD and WS on the seasonal crop evapotranspiration (p < 0.05). Increasing in WS at all SGDs resulted in significant decrease in ET. This was in accordance with the results of Razzaghi et al. (2011) that showed increasing in irrigation water salinity resulted in decrease in ET for quinoa. Increasing in SGD resulted in significant increase in ET (Table 5). However, the rate of ET increase was related to WS. For example, increasing SGD from 0.30 to 0.55 m resulted in 13, 17, 22 and 24% increase in ET at WS of 10, 20, 30 and 40 dS m−1 . Comparison in the main effect of SGD on ET showed that increasing in SGD from 0.30 to 0.55 resulted in 18% increase in ET; however, increasing in SGD from 0.55 to 0.80 resulted in 10% increase in ET. The effect of increasing groundwater depth on increasing ET was reported by Talebnejad and Sepaskhah (2014) for rice; however, it had no significant effect on maize and sugarcane (Kahlown et al., 2005). Sepaskhah and Karimi-Goghary (2005) reported that increasing groundwater depth had no significant effect on ET at WS of 13 dS m−1 for pistachio in soil column experiment in greenhouse. It is indicated that the effect of groundwater depth on ET depends on salinity of groundwater and crop species. It is noticeable that no water stress occurred in this experiment and soil volumetric water content before irrigation at all treatments was about 26% (50% depleted soil available water) and no water stress symptoms were observed before irrigation. Therefore, ET in our experiment is the potential ET for quinoa in the experimental conditions in greenhouse. Fig. 4 showed the relationship between ET and SDM. This Figure indicated that increasing in SDM resulted in ET increase for quinoa, in the other words; treatments with higher dry matter showed higher ET. Maximum ET (470 mm) was observed in SGD of

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Days after planting Fig. 4. Crop coefficient Kc for quinoa in greenhouse conditions.

0.80 with WS of 10 dS m−1 , which had the maximum shoot and root dry matter and seed yield. Garcia et al. (2003) and Choquecallata (1993) in Bolivian highlands reported 450 and 305 mm ET for quinoa, respectively. However, Razzaghi et al. (2012) reported that 289 mm ET for quinoa in a sandy clay loam in humid European weather. Relationship between the ET, SGD and WS obtained by regression analysis is as follows: ET = −253.4SGD2 + 442.0SGD − 5.043WS + 2.20SGDWS + 319.4

(3)

R2 = 0.98, n = 72, SE = 9.4, p < 0.0001

where ET is the evapotranspiration in mm, SGD is the saline groundwater depth in m and WS is the water salinity in dS m−1 . Eq. (3) indicated that maximum ET occurred at SGD of 0.91, 0.95, 1.00 and 1.03 m for WS of 10, 20, 30 and 40 dS m−1 for quinoa, respectively. In other word, the maximum ET is obtained by derivation of Eq. (3) with respect to SGD and equaling it to zero. Therefore, the relationship between SGD and WS for maximum ET is as follows: SGD = 0.87 + 0.004WS

(4)

Eq. (4) showed that WS had low effect on the maximum ET (low coefficient of 0.004) due to remarkable tolerance of quinoa to salinity stress (Table 3). The calculated crop coefficient (Kc ) for non-stress condition is plotted in Fig. 5. The Kc values are then adapted and defined following the development stages as in Allen et al. (1998): initial stage (Kc ini), crop development stage, mid-season stage (Kc mid) and the late-season stage (Kc end). In this research, Kc values during initial, mid and late stages were 0.58, 1.2 and 0.8. This differs with the Kc values reported by Razzaghi et al. (2012) of 1.05, 1.22 and 1.0 for initial, mid and late stages of quinoa on the European conditions. This 250 -1

Irrigation water (mm) 0.30 0.55 0.80 Evapotranspiration (mm) 0.30 0.55 0.80

1.4

Shoot dry matter, g column

Water table depth (m)

183

200

SDM = 0.3637ET 2

R = 0.84

150

100

50

0 0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Evapotranspiration, mm Fig. 5. Relationship between shoot dry matter and evapotranspiration in greenhouse conditions.

184

R. Talebnejad, A.R. Sepaskhah / Agricultural Water Management 148 (2015) 177–188

Table 6 Summary of statistical significance from analysis of variance for groundwater contribution.

ns

Source of variation

df

Mean square

Location/time Replication (L) Factor A LA Factor B LB AB LAB Error Coefficient of variation (%)

1 4 2 2 3 3 6 6 44

21.6ns 30.7ns 17672.7** 29.7ns 54814.9** 291.7** 296.7** 23.5ns 13.8ns 2.2

Statistically not significant. Statistically significant at the 1% level.

**

is probably due to differences in weather conditions. The Kc values reported by Garcia et al. (2003) are 0.5, 1.0 and 0.7 for initial, mid and late stages of quinoa on the Bolivian Altiplano. These values are more similar to those obtained in this research for initial and late stages. It is important to say that Kc in field conditions is probably different from those obtained in greenhouse conditions. Crop evapotranspiration with 6-day irrigation interval (ETc), reference evapotranspiration (ETo) and crop coefficient (Kc ) in greenhouse conditions were shown in Table 7. According to Table 7, Kc reached its highest values at 12–14th of 6-day periods (72–84 days after planting) which is at the end of vegetative with bud formation stage to the middle of seed filling stage as defined in Fig. 3. It is indicated that this duration is sensitive stages for quinoa in water management strategies for quinoa production. 3.2.11. Water use efficiency Water use efficiency (WUE = SY/ET) at different SGDs and WS are presented in Table 5. There was a significant interaction between the effects of SGD and WS on WUE (p < 0.05). Increasing in WS from 10 to 20 dS m−1 , 20 to 30 dS m−1 and 30 to 40 dS m−1 at all SGDs, on average, resulted in 21%, 26%, 32% decrease in WUE, respectively. It indicated that the rate of SY reduction due to WS increase is higher than the rate of ET decrease due to WS increase. ET is related to SDM as it was shown in Fig. 4 Therefore, increasing in WS influenced SY reduction more drastically than SDM reduction. According to Table 5, increasing in SGD at WS of 10 and 20 dS m−1 resulted in significant increase in WUE. However, there was no significant difference between WUE at 30 and 40 dS m−1 at SGD of 0.55 and 0.80 m. Maximum WUE of quinoa in this experiment (0.66 kg m−3 ) was equivalent to that obtained for rice (Talebnejad and Sepaskhah, 2014; 0.63 kg m−3 ) and higher than that obtained for rapeseed (Shabani et al., 2013; 0.40 kg m −3 ) in the same climate. However, it is lower than that obtained in humid Table 7 Crop evapotranspiration with 6-day irrigation interval (ETc ), reference evapotranspiration (ETo ) and crop coefficient (Kc ) in greenhouse conditions. 6-Day periods

Irrigation (mm)

ETc (mm)

ET0 (mm)

Kc

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

14.00 14.06 17.50 20.31 21.88 21.88 26.56 26.56 26.56 26.56 22.50 20.94 18.75

32.50 34.00 36.43 36.72 39.54 40.20 41.29 39.98 39.92 43.72 41.94 34.26 41.15

18.00 26.06 24.66 30.06 32.41 39.44 41.18 45.67 50.02 53.19 45.81 32.41 27.13

0.55 0.77 0.68 0.82 0.82 0.99 1.00 1.16 1.26 1.22 1.09 0.95 0.80

European weather as reported by Pulvento et al. (2012) and Razzaghi et al. (2012) about 1.1 kg m−3 . It showed that quinoa has considerable ability to produce SY by using low amount of water as ET. Therefore, it is suitable crop for cultivation in scarce water conditions such as Iran. 3.2.12. Groundwater contribution to evapotranspiration Groundwater contribution to evapotranspiration (GWC) or total groundwater contribution at different SGDs and WS are presented in Table 5. Because of GWC importance in this research, summary of statistical significance from analysis of variance for groundwater is presented in Table 6. The total water use and the groundwater use were not significantly different between two years of experiments (2011 and 2012) according to the analysis of variance. Therefore, the average over two years was presented and discussed. There was a significant interaction between the effects of SGD and WS on GWC (p < 0.05). Increasing in SGD resulted in significant decrease in GWC at all WSs. Similar results were reported for cotton (Ayars and Schoneman, 1986), alfalfa (Benz et al., 1983), pistachio (Sepaskhah and Karimi-Goghary, 2005), maize (Kang et al., 2001; Sepaskhah et al., 2003), wheat (Chaudary et al., 1974; Kang et al., 2001) and safflower (Ghamarnia and Gholamian, 2013). Increasing in SGD from 0.30 to 0.55 m resulted in 15, 13, 13 and 18% decrease in GWC at WS of 10, 20, 30, and 40 dS m−1 , respectively. However, these reductions were 15, 20, 18 and 23% with increasing SGD from 0.55 to 0.80 m, respectively. Daily groundwater contribution to crop water use (DGWC) is shown in Fig. 6. DGWC increased during growing season to its maximum at the end of vegetative with bud formation stage and the middle of seed filling stage (70 to 80 days after planting). In SGD of 0.30 m maximum DGWC during the growing season were 6.41, 5.63, 4.69 and 2.81 mm d−1 for 10, 20, 30 and 40 dS m−1 WS, respectively. Increasing SGD resulted in significant decrease in DGWC. In SGD of 0.55 m maximum DGWC during the growing season were 5.63, 5.31, 4.06 and 2.27 mm d−1 for 10, 20, 30 and 40 dS m−1 WS, respectively. In SGD of 0.80 m maximum DGWC during the growing season were 4.69, 4.69, 3.75 and 2.03 mm d−1 for 10, 20, 30 and 40 dS m−1 WS, respectively. It showed that quinoa was able to use considerable amount of water from saline groundwater, even with WS of 40 dS m−1 . Average groundwater contributions during quinoa growth for different groundwater depths (0.30, 0.55 and 0.80 m) were measured as 3.33, 2.84 and 2.41 mm d−1 with WS of 10 dS m−1 and 2.79, 2.43 and 1.96 mm d−1 with WS of 20 dS m−1 and 2.03, 1.77 and 1.45 mm d−1 with WS of 30 dS m−1 and 1.45, 1.18 and 0.89 mm d−1 with WS of 40 dS m−1 . These results suggests that water saving can be gained by shallow saline groundwater for quinoa cultivation. Ghamarnia and Gholamian (2013) reported average groundwater contribution during safflower growth in presence of 0.8 m SGD with WS of 10 dS m−1 was 0.19 mm d−1 while it was 2.41 mm d−1 for quinoa. Ghamarnia and Jalili (2014) reported that average groundwater contribution during black cumin growth in presence of 0.8 m SGD with WS of 4 dS m−1 was 2.4 mm d−1 . The ratio of GWC to ET for all treatments is shown in Table 5. In this experiment in the controlled environment (greenhouse) the surface water use was the irrigation water and the rain was not occurred. In the other word, GWC/ET was equivalent to the surwater use face water saving in this experiment (1 − surface ET = GWC ). ET Although in experiments at outdoor conditions (Ghamarnia and Jalili, 2014) GWC/ET and surface water saving were different. Results indicated that quinoa is able to extract water (GWC/ET 0.18–0.66) from saline groundwater, even at no deficit irrigation condition. Therefore, it is anticipated that quinoa can extract higher amount of water from saline groundwater in water stress conditions. Reaction of GWC to deficit irrigation should be determined in further research. At all SGDs, increasing WS resulted in reduction

-1

R. Talebnejad, A.R. Sepaskhah / Agricultural Water Management 148 (2015) 177–188

Table 8 Ions concentration in soil saturation extract at different groundwater depths and water salinities.

Groundwater contribution, mm d

7 6

SGD1WS1

5

SGD1WS2

4

SGD1WS3

Water table depth (m)

SGD1WS4

3

+

2 1 0 0

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

Groundwater contribution, mm d

-1

Days after planting 7 6

SGD2WS1

5

SGD2WS2

4

SGD2WS3

3

SGD2WS4

185

Water salinity, dS m−1 10

20

30

95.94* g 91.97g 102.5f

116.4e 121.3de 131.2bc

121.24de 125.1cd 136.2b

98.04* g 94.07g 104.6f

118.5e 123.4de 133.3bc

123.3de 127.2cd 138.3b

134.5b 139.5b 148a

230.5* g 220.9g 246.1f

279.5e 291.3de 315.2bc

291.0de 300.4cd 327.1b

317.9b 329.9b 350.4a

40

−1

Na (meq l ) 0.30 0.55 0.80 Ca2+ (meq l−1 ) 0.30 0.55 0.80 Cl− (meq l−1 ) 0.30 0.55 0.80 SO4 2− (meq l−1 ) 0.30 0.55 0.80

20.69* g 19.90g 21.99f

24.77e 25.76de 27.75bc

25.74de 26.52cd 28.74b

132.4b 137.4b 145.9a

27.98b 28.97b 30.68a

* Means followed by the same letters in each trait are not significantly different at 5% level of probability

2 1 0 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90 100 110

Groundwater contribution, mm d

-1

Days after planting

GWC = −0.55SGD − 0.007WS + 0.89 ET

7

(5)

6

SGD3WS1

R2 = 0.96, n = 72, SE = 0.03, p < 0.001

5

SGD3WS2

4

SGD3WS3

3

SGD3WS4

where GWC is the ratio of GWC to ET, SGD is the saline groundwaET ter depth in m and WS is the salinity of groundwater in dS m−1 . Comparison of Eq. (5) with that reported by Sepaskhah and Karimi-Goghary (2005) showed that the intercept and coefficient of SGD is higher and coefficient of WS of Eq. (5), is lower than those reported for pistachio. It is shown that quinoa is capable to tolerate the severe saline shallow groundwater (small slope for WS in Eq. (5)) and even contribute considerable amount of water for its water use. Higher coefficient of SGD for quinoa as compared with pistachio could be due to differences in the roots structure of quinoa and pistachio as a tree with deep and developed root system. Eq. (5) indicated that WS had minor effect on GWC/ET, while SGD showed major effect on GWC/ET for quinoa. Therefore, contour (iso-quant) plot were developed to show the combined effect of WS and SGD on GWC/ET (Fig. 7). According to Eq. (5), the boundary for existence of groundwater contribution for contribution to ET is obtained by putting the Eq. (5) equal to zero. Therefore, the boundary for existence of groundwater contribution to quinoa ET is as follows (dash line in Fig. 7):

2 1 0 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90 100 110

Days after planting Fig. 6. Daily groundwater contribution during quinoa growing season.

1.6 SGD=1.62-0.013 WS

1.4 Saline groundwater depth, m

of GWC/ET. Minimum GWC/ET was observed at SGD of 0.80 and WS of 40 dS m−1 (0.18). Relationship between GWC/ET, SGD and WS of groundwater is obtained by multiple regression analysis as follows:

1.2 1

0.2

SGD = 1.62 − 0.013WS

0.1

0.8

It is indicated that non-saline groundwater depth lower than 1.62 m could contribute to quinoa water use. In presence of saline groundwater, the salinity should be considered in estimation of GWC/ET

0.4 0.3

0.6 0.6

0.4

0.5

0.2

(6)

0.7 0.8

0 0

10

20

30

40

50

-1

Water salinity, dS m

Fig. 7. Relationship between saline groundwater depth (SGD) and water salinity (WS) at different ratios of groundwater contribution to evapotranspiration (GWC/ET). Dashed line indicated the boundary for SGD to contribute groundwater to quinoa ET.

3.2.13. Soil ions The concentration of Na+ , Ca2+ , Cl− and SO4 2− in saturation extract of soil was statistically higher in SGD of 0.80 m than those values in other SGDs (Table 8). The concentration of these ions also increased significantly (40%) with increasing in WS from 10 dS m−1 to 40 dS m−1 at 0.80 m SGD. Soil ions concentrations in SGD of 0.30 m and 0.55 m were not statistically different. In all SGDs, ion concentrations in the soil extraction were not significantly different between WS of 20 and 30 dS m−1 . Quinoa is halophyte;

186

R. Talebnejad, A.R. Sepaskhah / Agricultural Water Management 148 (2015) 177–188

Table 9 Threshold ECe, and yield reduction coefficient (b) for quinoa seed yield (SY), shoot dry matter (SDM), root dry matter (RDM) at different saline groundwater depths. Water table depth (m)

0.30 0.55 0.80

Seed yield

Shoot dry matter

Root dry matter

Threshold ECe (dS m−1 )

b (% dS m−1 )

Threshold ECe (dS m−1 )

b (% dS m−1 )

Threshold ECe (dS m−1 )

b (% dS m−1 )

19.22 18.72 20.73

8.8 7.0 7.4

18.89 18.54 20.44

3.9 3.9 4.3

19.34 19.88 22.25

7.4 6.9 5.5

Fig. 8. Relationship between relative quinoa seed yield (SYa /SYm ) and salinity of soil saturation extract (ECe dS m−1 ) at different saline groundwater depths: (a) SGD = 0.30 m, (b) SGD = 0.55 m, (c) SGD = 0.80 m.

therefore, high ion concentration in the soil extraction hardly reduced quinoa yield as compared to other cultivations. In this study, foliar injury symptoms were observed on quinoa leaves only on WS of 40 dS m−1 . In this experiment soil of lysimeters were refilled with new soil at the end of first year. Therefore, accumulation of ions over two years did not occur. Input salts in this research were gained from IW and GWC. This amount of salt is accumulated in the soil and plant tissue. Due to roots growth and development to the groundwater depth and closed bottom no drainage water was occurred. EC of saturated extract was measured from soil samples at the end of growing season. Water content of the soil was averagely maintained at the field capacity and no water stress was imposed in this research. Therefore, WS of soil water was determined from ECe (ECfc = 2ECe ). Furthermore, the salt dissolution in the soil was assumed negligible. These assumptions were used in salt balance estimation in soil column.

Fig. 9. Relationship between relative quinoa shoot dry matter (SDMa /SDMm ) and salinity of soil saturation extract (ECe dS m−1 ) at different saline groundwater depths: (a) SGD = 0.30 m, (b)SGD = 0.55 m, (c) SGD = 0.80 m.

Results (data not shown) indicated increasing in WS resulted in salt accumulation in soil at all SGDs at the end of growing season. Further research on ions concentrations in quinoa seed and shoots could explain salt balance in the experiment more clearly. 3.3. Growth-salinity function 3.3.1. Seed yield—salinity function Relationship between relative SY (SYa /SYm ) and average rootzone salinity of soil saturation extract above groundwater (ECe ) was determined for each groundwater depths (Eq. (2)) by regression analysis and the results are presented in Table 9 and Fig. 8. Thresholds ECe for SY did not differ considerably between different

1.20

a

1.00

4. Conclusions

0.80 0.60 0.40

RDM a /RDM m= -0.0741ECe + 2.433

0.20

R = 0.5158

2

0.00 0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

Relative root dry matter, RDMaRDM m-1

Soil saturation extreact salinity, ECe dS m -1

1.40 1.20

b

1.00 0.80 0.60

RDMa/RDMm = -0.0691EC e + 2.374

0.40

2

R = 0.4778

0.20 0.00 0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

-1

Soil saturation extreact salinity, ECe dS m

Relative root dry matter, RDMaRDM m-1

187

threshold ECe for SDM is 19.3 dS m−1 that is approximately similar to the average threshold ECe for SY (19.6 dS m−1 ).

1.40

RDMm-1

Relative root dry matter, RDMa

R. Talebnejad, A.R. Sepaskhah / Agricultural Water Management 148 (2015) 177–188

1.40 1.20

c

1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40

RDMa/RDMm = -0.0552EC e + 2.228 2

R = 0.4054 0.20 0.00 0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

Soil saturation ex treact salinity, ECe dS m -1

Fig. 10. Relationship between relative quinoa root dry matter (RDMa /RDMm ) and salinity of soil saturation extract (ECe dS m−1 ) at different saline groundwater depths: (a) SGD = 0.30 m, (b) SGD = 0.55 m, (c) SGD = 0.80 m.

SGDs. However, maximum threshold ECe (20.7 dS m−1 ) occurred at 0.80 m SGD. Seed yield reduction coefficient (b) was on average, 7.7% per unit soil salinity increase. It was lower than those reported for maize (Azizian and Sepaskhah, 2014) and rice (Sepaskhah and Yousofi-Falakdehi, 2009). However, seed yield reduction coefficient and threshold ECe for quinoa were higher than rapeseed (Shabani et al., 2013)

3.3.2. Shoot dry matter and root dry matter—salinity function Relationship between relative SDM (SDMa /SDMm ) and average ECe above groundwater was determined for each groundwater depths by regression analysis (Table 9 and Fig. 9). Similar relationship was determined for relative RDM (RDMa /RDMm ) and average ECe above the groundwater that is shown in Table 9 and Fig. 10. According to Table 9, threshold ECe for RDM is higher than that for SDM. It is indicated that quinoa root is more tolerant to salinity than shoots. Maximum threshold ECe for RDM (22.3 dS m−1 ) and minimum root reduction coefficient (b) for RDM (5.5% per unit soil salinity increase) was observed at SGD of 0.80 m. Increasing in SGD resulted in significant decrease in RDM reduction coefficient (b); however, there was not a significant trend for SY and SDM. Average

Results of recorded phenological stages of quinoa growth showed its capability to complete the growth and development in non-native weather conditions in Iran. Also it is indicated that quinoa can grow in high salinity level (40 dS m−1 ) with presence of shallow saline groundwater and produce seed yield (0.35 Mg ha−1 in SGD of 0.3 m). Furthermore, at all WSs, increasing SGD resulted in significant increase in SY, SDM, RDM and ET. Our results showed that RDM, PH, HI, NP, seed protein content and 1000-seed weight are reduced by WS higher than 20 dS m−1 . Maximum WUE of quinoa in this experiment (0.66 kg m−3 ) was observed at SGD of 0.80 m with 10 dS m−1 WS. Results of WUE indicated that the rate of SY reduction due to WS increase is higher than the rate of ET decrease due to WS increase. Kc values during initial, mid and late stages were 0.58, 1.2 and 0.8 in greenhouse condition. Results of GWC to water use indicated that quinoa is able to extract water (GWC/ET of 0.18 to 0.66 and GWC of 0.89–3.33 mm d−1 ) from saline groundwater, even at no deficit irrigation condition. However, reaction of GWC to deficit irrigation should be determined in further research. Finally, contour plot was developed to show the combined effect of WS and SGD on GWC/ET. It is indicated that non-saline groundwater depth lower than 1.62 m could contribute to quinoa water use. In presence of saline groundwater, the salinity should be considered by the equation SGD = 1.62 − 0.013WS.Yield-salinity functions indicated that maximum threshold ECe for SY (20.7 dS m−1 ) occurred at 0.80 m SGD and seed yield reduction coefficient (b) was on average, 7.7% per unit soil salinity increase. Also, increasing in SGD resulted in significant decrease in RDM reduction coefficient. Minimum RDM reduction coefficient was 5.5% per unit soil salinity increase. It showed that quinoa root is more tolerant to salinity than shoots. Acknowledgments This research supported in part by a research project funded by Grant no. 92-GR-AGR 42 of Shiraz University Research Council, Drought National Research Institute and the Center of Excellence for On-Farm Water Management.: References Allen, R.G., Pereira, L., Raes, D., Smith, M., 1998. Crop evapotranspiration. FAO Irrig. Drain. (Paper No. 56. Rome, Italy). Adolf, V.L., Shabaha, S., Anderson, M., Razzaghi, F., Jacobsen, S.V., 2012. Varietal differences of quinoa’s tolerance to saline conditions. Plant Soil 357, 117–129. Ayars, J.E., Christen, E.W., Soppe, R.W., 2006. The resource potential of in-situ shallow ground water use in irrigated agriculture: a review. Irrig. Sci. 24, 147–160. Ayars, J.E., Schoneman, R.R., 1986. Use of saline water from a shallow water table by cotton. Trans. ASAE 29, 1674–1678. Azizian, A., Sepaskhah, A.R., 2014. Maize response to different water, salinity and nitrogen levels: agronomic behavior. Int. J. Plant Prod. 8 (1), 107–130. Benz, L.C., Reichman, G.A., Doering, E.J., 1983. Drainage requirements for alfalfa grown on sandy soil. Trans. ASAE 26 166, 161–164. Bhargava, A., Shukla, S., Ohri, D., 2006. Chenopodium quinoa—an Indian perspective. Ind. Crop Prod. 23, 73–87. Brakez, M., Brik, K.E., Daoud, S., Harrouni, M.C., 2013. Performance of Chenopodium quinoa under salt stress 10 (32), 463–478. Bremner, J.M., Mulvaney, C.S., 1982. Nitrog total. In: Page, A.L (Ed.), Methods of Soil Analysis: Part 2. Agronomy Monograph , 2nd ed. ASA, ASSA, Madison WI, pp. 595–641. Chapman, H.D., Pratt, P.F., 1961. Methods of Analysis for Soil Plants and Water. University of California, Division of Agricultural Sciences, CA, USA. Chaudary, T.N., Bhatnagar, V.K., Prihar, S.S., 1974. Growth response of crops to depth and salinity of ground water, and soil submergence I. wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Agron. J. 66, 32–35. Choquecallata, J., 1993. Evapotranspiración maxima de quinua. Ing. Agr. Thesis, Santa Cruz, Bolivia.

188

R. Talebnejad, A.R. Sepaskhah / Agricultural Water Management 148 (2015) 177–188

Cocozza, C., Pulvento, C., Lavini, A., Riccardi, M., Andria, R., Tognetti, R., 2012. Effects of increasing salinity stress and decreasing water availability on ecophysiological traits of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) grown in a mediterranean-type agroecosystem. J. Agron. Crop Sci. 199 (4), 229–240. Comai, S., Bertazzo, A., Bailoni, L., Zancato, M., Costa, C.V.L., Allegri, G., 2007. The content of proteic and nonproteic (free and protein-bound) tryptophan in quinoa and cereal flours. Food Chem. 100, 1350–1355. Dini, I., Tenore, G.C., Dini, A., 2005. Nutritional composition of Kancolla seeds: an interesting and underexploited Andine food plant. Food Chem. 92, 125–132. Eisa, S., Hussin, S., Geissler, N., Koyro, H.W., 2012. Effect of NaCL salinity on water relations, photosynthesis and chemical composition of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) as a potential cash crop halophyte 2012. Aust. J. Crop Sci. 6 (2), 357–368. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations), 1998. Under-Utilized Andean Food Crops. Latin America and the Caribbean, Rome, Italy. FAO, 2014. [on Line]. http://www.FAO.org/docrep/t0646e/t0646e0f.htm.. Garcia, M., Raes, D., Jacobsen, S.E., 2003. Evapotranspiration analysis and irrigation requirements of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa) in the Bolivian highlands. Agric. Water Manage. 60, 119–134. Geerts, S., Raes, D., Garcia, M., Vacher, J., Mamani, R., Mendoza, J., Huanca, R., Morales, B., Miranda, R., Cusicanqui, J., Taboada, C., 2008. Introducing deficit irrigation to stabilize yields of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.). Eur. J. Agron. 28, 427–436. Geerts, S., Raes, D., Garcia, M., Miranda, R., Cusicanqui, J.A., Taboada, C., Mendoza, J., Huanta, R., Mamani, A., Condori, O., Mamani, J., Moraled, B., Osco, V., Steduto, P., 2009. Simulating yield response of quinoa to water availability with Aqua Crop. Agronomy J. 101 (3), 499–508. Ghamarnia, H., Gholamian, M., 2013. The effect of saline shallow ground and surface water under deficit irrigation on (Carthamus tinctorius L.) in semi arid condition. Agric. Water Manag. 118, 29–37. Ghamarnia, H., Jalili, Z., 2014. Shallow saline groundwater by black cumin (Nigella sativa L.) in the presence of surface water in a semi-arid region. Agric. Water Manag. 132, 89–100. Grimes, D.W., Henderson, D.W., 1984. Developing the Resource Potential of a Shallow Water Table Contribution. California Water Resource Center, University of California, Davis, pp. 39 (No. 188.). Grismer, M.E., Gates, T.K., 1988. Estimating saline water table contribution to crop water use. Calif. Agric. 42, 23–24. Hargreaves, G.H., Samani, Z.A., 1985. Reference crop evapotranspiration from temperature. Appl. Eng. Agric. 1 (2), 96–99. Hariadi, Y., Maradon, K., Jacobsen, Tian.Y., Shabana, S.E.S, 2011. Ionic and osmosic relations in quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa) plants grown at various salinity levels. J. Exp. Bot. 62 (1), 185–193. Hutmacher, R.B., Ayars, J.E., Vail, S.S., Bravo, A.D., Dettinger, D., Schoneman, R.A., 1996. Uptake of shallow groundwater by cotton: growth stage, groundwater salinity effects in column lysimeters. Agric. Water Manag. 31, 205–223. Jacobsen, S.E., Stolen, O., 1993. Quinoa-morphology and phenology and prospects for its production as a new crop in Europe. Eur. J. Agron. 2, 19–29. Jacobsen S.E., Quispe, H., Mujica, A., 2001. Quinoa: an alternative crop for saline soils in the Andes. In: Scientists and Farmer-Partners in Research for the 21st Century. (CIP Program Report 1999–2000), 403–408. Jacobsen, S.E., 1997. Adaptation of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa) to northern European agriculture: studies on developmental pattern. Euphytica 96, 41–48. Jacobsen, S.E., Mauteros, C., Christiansen, J.L., Bravo, L.A., Corcuera, L.J., Mujica, A., 2005. Plant responses of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa) to frost at various phonological stages. Eur. J. Agron. 22, 131–139. Jacobsen, S.E., Mujica, A., Jensen, C., 2003. The resistance of Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) to adverse abiotic factors. Food Rev. Int. 19, 99–109. Joshi, R.C., San Martin, R., Saez-Navarrete, C., Alarcon, J., Sainz, J., Antolin, M.M., Martin, A.R., Sebastian, L.S., 2008. Efficacy of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa) saponins against golden apple snail (Pomacea canaliculata) in the Philippines under laboratory conditions. Crop Prot. 27, 553–557. Kahlown, M.A., Azam, M., 2002. Individual and combined effect of waterlogging and salinity on crop yields in the Indus basin. Irrig. Drain. 51, 329–338. Kahlown, M.A., Ashraf, M., Zia-ul-Haq., 2005. Effect of shallow groundwater table on crop water requirements and crop yields. Agric. Water Manag. 76, 24–35.

Kang, S., Zhang, F., Hu, X., Jerie, P., Zhang, L., 2001. Effects of shallow water table on capillary contribution, evapotranspiration, and crop coefficient of maize and winter wheat in a semi-arid region. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 52, 317–327. Koyro, H.-W., Eisa, S., 2008. Effect of salinity on composition, viability and germination of seeds of Chenopodium quinoa Willd. Plant Soil 302, 79–90. Kruse, E.G., Champion, D.F., Cuevas, D.L., Poder, R.L., Yang, D., 1993. Crop water use from shallow, saline water tables. Trans. ASAE 36, 696–707. Maas, E.V., Hoffman, G.J., 1977. Crop salt tolerance, current assessment. J. Irrig. Drain. Div. ASCE 103, 115–134. Pulvento, C., Riccardi, M., Lavini, A., Lafelice, G., Andrea, R., 2012. Yield and quality characteristics of quinoa grown in open field under different saline and unsaline irrigation regimes. J. Agron. Crop Sci. 198, 254–263. Ragab, R.A., Amer, F., 1986. Estimating water table contribution to the water supply of maize. Agric. Water Manag. 11, 221–230. Razzaghi, F., Ahmadi, S.H., Adolf, V.I., Jensen, C.R., Jacobsen, S.-E., Andersen, M.N., 2011. Water relations and transpiration of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) under salinity and soil drying. J. Agron. Crop Sci. 197, 348–360. Razzaghi, F., Sepaskhah, A.R., 2010. Assessment of nine different equations for ETo estimation using lysimeter data in a semi-arid environment. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci. 56 (1), 1–12. Razzaghi, F., Plauborg, F., Jacobsen, S.-E., Jensen, C.R., Andersen, M.N., 2012. Effect of nitrogen and water availability of three soil types on yield, radiation use efficiency and evapotranspiration in field-grown quinoa. Agric. Water Manag. 109, 20–29. Richards, L.A., 1954. Diagnosis and Improvement of Saline and Alkali Soils. Handbook 60. U.S. Salinity Laboratory, U.S.D.A. Rojas, W., Soto, J.L., Carrasco, E., 2004. Study on the Social, Environmental and Economic Impacts of Quinoa Promotion in Bolivia. PROINPA Foundation, La Paz, Bolivia. Ruales, J., Nair, B.M., 1992. Nutritional quality of the protein in quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) seeds. Plant Foods Hum. Nutr. 42, 1–11. Ruiz-Carrasco, K., Antognoni, F., Coulibaly, A.K., Lizardi, S., Covarrubias, A., Martínez, E.A., Molina-Montenegro, M.A., Biondi, S., Zurita-Silva, A., 2011. Variation in salinity tolerance of four lowland genotypes of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) as assessed by growth, physiological traits, and sodium transporter gene expression. Plant Phys. Biochem. 49, 1333–1341. Sepaskhah, A.R., Kanooni, A., Ghasemi, M.M., 2003. Estimating water table contributions to corn and sorghum water use. Agric. Water Manag. 58, 67–79. Sepaskhah, A.R., Karimi-Goghary, Sh., 2005. Growth and chemical composition of pistachio affected by salinities and depths of water table. Comm. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 34 (3/4)), 343–355. Sepaskhah, A.R., Yousofi-Falakdehi, A., 2009. Interaction between the effects of irrigation and water salinity on yield and yield components of rice in pot experiment. Plant Prod. Sci. 12 (2), 168–175. Shabani, A., Sepaskhah, A.R., Kamgar-Haghighi, A.A., 2013. Response of agronomic components of rapeseed (Brassica napus L.) as influenced by deficit irrigation, water salinity and planting method. Plant Prod. Sci. 7 (2), 313–340. Soppe, R.W.O., Ayars, J.E., 2003. Characterizing groundwater use by safflower using weighing lysimeters. Agric. Water Manag. 60, 59–71. Sweeney, C.A., Thorburn, P.J., Bristow, K.L., 2001. Water table contribution to sugarcane production: impacts on irrigation water use efficiency. Proc. Aust. Soc. Sugarcane Technol. 23, 116–121. Talebnejad, R., Sepaskhah, A.R., 2014. Effects of water-saving irrigation and groundwater depth on rice growth, yield and water use. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci. 60 (1), 15–31. Topp, G.C., Davis, J.L., Annan, A.P., 1980. Electromagnetic determination of soil water content: measurement in coaxial transmission lines. Water Resour. Res. 16, 574–582. Wallender, W.W., Grimes, D.W., Henderson, D.W., Stromberg, L.K., 1979. Estimating the contribution of a perched water table to the seasonal evapotranspiration of cotton. Agron. J. 71, 1056–1060. Ward, S.M., 2000. Response to selection for reduced grain saponin content in quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.). Field Crop Res. 68, 157–216.