The effects of different levels of irrigation practices on quinoa I: Evapotranspiration and crop coefficients

Year 2021, , 63 - 69, 01.04.2021

Neslihan Samutoğlu Ruhi Baştuğ , Cihan Karaca , Dursun Büyüktaş

https://doi.org/10.29136/mediterranean.733764

Abstract

In this study, the water-yield relationships, evapotranspiration and crop coefficients (Kc) of quinoa grown in Mediterranean climate conditions was determined. The research was conducted in drainage-type lysimeters, filled with sandy loam soil, in 2017 using Titicaca (Q-52) quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.). Full (TS), 75%, 50%, 25% of deficit irrigation (KS75, KS50, KS25) and rainfed (SZ) treatments were tested in randomized blocks design with three replications. Irrigation was applied to the TS treatment 7-day interval to bring the soil water content to the field capacity, and the deficit irrigation treatments were irrigated taking into account the specified cut-off rates. Kc was determined using ET in TS and reference crop evapotranspiration (ETo) calculated by FAO56-Penman-Monteith. ET ranged from 302.0 (TS) to 198.2 mm (SZ), while grain yield ranged from 295.2 to 243.0 kg da-1, respectively. Significant decrease in quinoa grain yield observed in deficit irrigation compared to TS. In Antalya conditions, the initial, development, mid- and late-season stages of the quinoa, planted in March 15, was 31, 36, 15 and 26, respectively, and the total growing period was 108 days. Kc was 0.54, 1.13 and 0.79, respectively, for the initial, mid- and late-season stages. Additionally, seasonal yield response factor (ky) was 0.54.

Keywords

Water productivity, Deficit irrigation, Yield response factor

Project Number

FYL-2017-2365

Farklı düzeylerdeki sulama uygulamalarının kinoa bitkisi üzerine etkileri I: Bitki su tüketimi ve bitki katsayıları

Abstract

Bu çalışmada, Akdeniz iklim koşullarında yetiştirilen kinoanın su-verim ilişkileri, bitki su tüketimi ve bitki katsayılarının (Kc) belirlenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Araştırma drenaj tipi lizimetre sisteminde, kumlu tın bünyeli toprakta, 2017 yılında, Titicaca (Q-52) kinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) çeşidinde yürütülmüştür. Araştırmada tam sulama (TS), sırasıyla %75, 50 ve 25 oranında kısıntılı sulama (KS75, KS50, KS25), ve susuz (SZ) konuları tesadüf blokları deneme deseninde üç tekerrürlü olarak ele alınmıştır. TS konusuna 7 günde bir toprak su içeriğini tarla kapasitesine getirecek kadar, kısıntılı sulama konularına ise belirtilen kısıntı oranları dikkate alınarak sulama suyu uygulanmıştır. Kc, TS konusundaki bitki su tüketimi (ET) ve FAO56-Penman-Monteith yöntemiyle hesaplanan kıyas bitki su tüketimi (ETo) kullanılarak belirlenmiştir. ET değerleri 302.0 (TS) ile 198.2 mm (SZ), kinoa dane verimi ise aynı konularda sırasıyla 295.2 ve 243.0 kg da-1 arasında değişmiştir. Kısıntılı sulama konularında TS konusuna göre kinoa dane veriminde istatistiksel olarak önemli azalmalar saptanmıştır. Antalya koşullarında, 15 Mart’ta ekilen kinoa bitkisinin başlangıç, gelişim, mevsim ortası ve olgunlaşma dönemleri sırasıyla 31, 36, 15 ve 26 gün, toplam gelişme dönemi 108 gün ve başlangıç, orta ve geç gelişim dönemleri için Kc, sırasıyla, 0.54, 1.13 ve 0.79 olarak saptanmıştır. Ayrıca, mevsimlik bitki verim tepki etmeni (ky) 0.54 olarak belirlenmiştir.

Keywords

Su verimliliği, Kısıntılı sulama, Verim tepki etmeni

Supporting Institution

Akdeniz Üniversitesi Bilimsel Araştırma Projeleri Koordinasyon Birimi

Project Number

FYL-2017-2365

Thanks

Bu çalışma Akdeniz Üniversitesi Bilimsel Araştırma Projeleri Koordinasyon Birimi tarafından (Proje No. FYL-2017-2365) desteklenmiştir.

References

• Allen RG, Pereira LS, Raes D, Smith M (1998) Crop evapotranspiration guidelines for computing crop water requirements. FAO İrrigation and Drainage, Paper 56, Rome.
• Allen RG (2015) REF-ET: Reference evapotranspiration calculation software for FAO and ASCE standardized equations. User manuel. University of Idaho, Idaho.
• Ayers AS, Westcot DW (1985) Water quality for agriculture. FAO İrrigation and Drainage, Paper 20, Rome.
• Bhargava A, Shukla S, Ohri D (2006) Chenopodium quinoa-An Indian perspective, Industrial Crops and Products 23:73-87.
• FAO (2017) FAOSTAT. World quinoa production statistics. FAO, Rome. http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC. Erişim 27 Haziran 2018.
• Flynn RO (1990) Growth characteristics of quinoa and yield response to increase soil water deficit. MS Thesis, Colorado State Univ. Fort Collins, U.S.A.
• Garcia M, Raes D, Jacobsen SE (2003) Evapotranspiration analysis and irrigation requirements of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) in the bolivian highlands. Agricultural Water Management 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.). European Journal of Agronomy 28: 427-436.
• Gesinski K (2008) Evaluation of the development and yielding potential of Chenopodium quinoa Willd. under the climatic conditions of Europe, Part One: Accomodation of Chenopodium quinoa (Willd.) to different conditions. Acta Agrobotanica 61(1):179-184.
• Jacobsen SE, Stolen O (1993) Quinoa-morphology and phenology and prospects for its production as a new crop in Europe. European Journal of Agronomy 2: 19-29.
• Jacobsen SE (2003) The worldwide potential for quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.). Food Reviews International 19: 167-177.
• Jacobsen SE, Mujica A, Jensen CR (2006) The resistance of quinoa (chenopodium quinoa willd.) to adverse abiotic factors. Food Reviews International 19: 99-109.
• Jacobsen SE, Monteros LJ, Corcuera LA, Bravo JL, Christiansen AM (2007) Frost resistance mechanisms in quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.). European Journal of Agronomy 26: 471-475.
• Jacobsen SE, Jensen CR, Liu F (2012) Improving crop production in the arid Mediterranean climate. Field Crops Research 128: 34-47.
• Jaikishun S, Li W, Yang Z, Song S (2019) Quinoa: In perspective of global challenges. Agronomy 9: 1-16.
• Kaya Ç (2010) Akdeniz bölgesinde damla sistemiyle tatlı ve tuzlu su kullanılarak uygulanan farklı sulama stratejilerinin quinoa bitkisinin verimiyle toprakta tuz birikimine etkileri ve saltmed modelinin test edilmesi. Çukurova Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Tarımsal Yapılar ve Sulama Anabilim Dalı Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Adana.
• Koziol MJ (1992) Chemical composition and nutritional evaluation of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.). Journal of Food Composition and Analysis 5: 35-68.
• Lavini A, Pulvento C, D’andria R, Riccardi M, Choukr-Allah R, Belhabib O, Yazar, A, Ince Kaya Ç, Sezen SM, Qadir M, Jacobsen SE (2014) Quinoa’s potential in the Mediterranean region. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science 200(5): 344-360.
• MGM (2020) T.C Tarım ve Orman Bakanlığı, Meteoroloji Genel Müdürlüğü, https://www.mgm.gov.tr/veridegerlendirme/il-ve-ilceler-istatistik.aspx?m=ANTALYA. Erişim 02 Mayıs 2020.
• Pereira LS, Cordery I, Lacovides L (2012) Improved indicators of water use performance and productivity for sustainable water conservation and saving. Agricultural Water Management 108: 39-51.
• Pulvento C, Riccardi M, Lavini A, Iafelice G, Andrea R (2012) Yield and quality characteristics of quinoa grown in open field under different saline and unsaline irrigation regimes. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science 198: 254-263.
• Razzaghi F, Plauborg F, Jacobsen SE, Jensen CR, Andersen MA (2012) Effect of nitrogen and water availability of three soil types on yield, radiation use efficiency and evapotranspiration in field-grown quinoa. Agricultural Water Management. 109: 20-29.
• Schlick G, Bubenheim DL (1996) Quinoa: Candidate crop for NASA's controlled ecological life support systems. p. 632-640. In: J. Janick (ed.), Progress in new crops. ASHS Press, Arlington, VA. https://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/proceedings1996 /V3-632.html.
• Sezen SM, Yazar A, Özer S, Akça H, Yıldız M, Günaçtı H, Bozkurt-Çolak Y, Madanoğlu O (2017) Çizgi kaynaklı yağmurlama sulama sistemi ile uygulanan drenaj ve kanal suyunun quinoa bitkisinin verim, verim bileşenleri ile su kullanım randımanı üzerine etkileri. Proje Sonuç Raporu, Alata Bahçe Kültürleri Araştırma Enstitüsü Mersin.
• Steduto P, Hsiao CT, Ferers E, Raes D (2012) Crop yield response to water. FAO İrrigation and Drainage, Paper 66, Rome.
• Stewart JI, Cuenca RH, Pruitt WO, Hagan RM, Tosso J (1977) Determination and utilization of water production functions for principal California crops. W-67 CA Contributing Project Report, University of California, Davis, USA.
• Talebnejad R, Sepaskhah AR (2015) Effect of different saline ground water depths and irrigation water salinities on yield and water use of quinoa in lysimeter. Agricultural Water Management 148: 177-188.
• Yazar A, Kaya Çİ (2014) A New Crop for Salt Affected and Dry Agricultural Areas of Turkey: Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.). Turkish Journal of Agricultural and Natural Sciences Special Issue 2: 1440-1446.