Response of Some Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) Cultivars to Intervals under Conditions of Kosti , White Nile State,Sudan

By

Yusuf Elamin Elmadani Akashah

B.Sc. (Agric) Honours)،2008

University of Al Neelain

A Dissertation Submitted to the University of Khartoum in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Agriculture (Agricultural Engineering)

Supervisor: Prof. Amir Bakheit Saeed

Department of Agricultural Engineering

Faculty of Agriculture

University of Khartoum

August 2016

1

DEDICATION

I dedicate this work to:

My beloved Parents: My wonderful mother Nemat and kind father

Elamin, my sisters and my brothers.

ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Above all, my thanks and praise to almighty Allah who provided me with health, strength and patience to bring this work to its conclusion.

My deep thanks, greatfullness and appreciation to my supervisor Prof.AmirBakheit Saeed For his valuable superintending, monitoring, encouragement, support and well divecting with broadness and ampleness through the period of this study.

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Dr. Bashir Mohammed Ahmed the Coordinator of Agricultural Engineering Research Program for his great help in all this research.

My thanks also go to all the staff of Agricultural Engineering Research Program. Finally, thanks to my friends and colleagues at the Agricultural Research Corporation (ARC).

iii Response of Some Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) Cultivars to Irrigation Intervals under Conditions of Kosti, White Nile State,Sudan M.Sc. Agric. (Agricultural Engineering) Yusuf Elamin Elmadani Akashah Abstract: A field experiment was conducted during two successive winter seasons (2013/14 and 2014/15) at the Research Farm of the White Nile Research Station(WNRS), Kosti latitude 12 37N and longitude 31 54E, to investigate the effect of irrigation intervals on the growth , yield and water productivity of wheat ( Triticum sp.) under Kosti, White Nile State conditions in which the soil is deep , heavy cracking. The treatments considered were irrigation intervals and crop varieties. Three wheat varieties (Nebta,Bohean and Argeen) were grown on Novmber 22 under three different irrigation intervals (7days,10days and14days). Each treatment was replicated three times in a split-plot experimental design, in which the main plots were assigned to irrigation intervals and the sub-plots to wheat varieties. Seeding was done at the rate of 119 kg/ha, Fertilizers were broadcasted at the rate of 96-kg/ha for super phosphate before planting, and 96kg/ha for nitrogen prior to the second irrigation. Another similar dose of nitrogen was broadcasted before the fourth irrigation according to the Agricultural Research Corporation (ARC) recommendation. The parameters monitored were: plant height, dry matter weight, number of plants/m², days to 50% heading, days to maturity, number of spikes/m², number of grains/spike, 1000-grain weight, grain and straw yield and water productivity(kg/m³).The statistical analysis showed highly significant differences in the parameters studied due to irrigation intervals where the irrigation interval every 7days recorded higher values of grain yield (Argeen 2140,Bohean 2320 and Nebta 2510kg/ha) as compared to 14days interval(Argeen1320,Bohean 1510 and Nebta 1020 kg/ha) However, it was slightly different as compared to 10 days interval (Argeen1820,Bohean 2000 and Nebta 1550 kg/ha).In so far as the water productivity is concerned, 7 days interval recorded the highest value (75.9kg/ m³) While 10 day (75.7 kg/m³) and 14 day (70.1kg/ m³). Hence it can be concluded that Argeen and Bohean are the wheat varieties appropriate for the area under an irrigation interval of ten day .

iv إستجابة بعض أصناف القمح لفترات الرى

تحت الظروف البيئية لمنطقة كوستى، والية النيل االبيض

ماجستير العلوم فى الهندسة الزراعية

يوسف األمين المدني عكاشة

ألمستخلص:أجريت تجربة حقلية خالل شتاء موسمين متتابعين )3102/01 و 3101/01( في المزرعة التجريبية لمحطة بحوث النيل األبيض )كوستى( خط طول 31 54،خط عرض 12 37 ، لدراسة تأثير فترات الري على ثالثة أصناف من القمح من حيث ألنمو واإلنتاجية وكفاءة استخدام مياه الرى تحت ظروف والية النيل األبيض ذات التربة الطينية الثقيلة المتشققة . ألمعامالت شملت فترات الري وأصناف المحصول حيث زرعت ثالثة أصناف من ألقمح )أرجين، بوهين، نبته( فى 33 نوفمبر للموسمين المتتالين تحت ثالث فترات ري مختلفة) 7أيام، 01 أيام، 01 يوم(.كررت كل معاملة ثالث مرات باستخدام تصميم القطع المنشقة، حيث تمثل فترات الري المعاملة الرئسية و أصناف القمح المعاملة الفرعية ، الزراعة تمت بمعدل 001كيلو جرام /هكتار. تم نثر أألسمدة عند ألزراعة بمعدل 19 كيلو جرام/هكتار سوبرفوسفيت و19 كيلوجرام/هكتار من النيتروجين تم نثرها بنفس المعدل قبل الريتين الثانية و الرابعة تبعاً لتوصيات هيئة البحوث الزراعية . ألقياسات التي تمت دراستها شملت طول النبات، وزن المادة الجافة، عدد النباتات في المتر المربع، عدد األيام للوصول إلى 11% إزهار، عدد األيام حتى النضج، عدد السنابل في المتر المربع، عدد الحبوب في السنبلة، وزن 0111حبة، وزن الحبوب والعلف، ثم االنتاجية بناء على كمية الماء المستخدم. اظهرت النتائج فروقا ً معنوية بين القياسات التي درست بالنسبة لفترات الري,حيث سجلت فترة الري كل 7أيام أعلى قيمة لالنتاجية )ارجين 3011, بوهين 3231,نبته 3101 كجم/هكتار( مقارنة بفترة ألري كل 01 يوم)ارجين 0231, بوهين 0101,نبته 0131 كجم/هكتار( وفروقات طفيفة عن الرى كل01 ايام)ارجين 0231, بوهين 3111,نبته 0111 كجم/هكتار(. من ناحية أخرى فان فترة الرى كل 7 ايام اعطت اعلى انتاج لوحدة المياه )75.9 كيلو جرام /متر³ ( بينما اعطت فترة الرى كل01 ايام )71.7 كيلو جرام /متر³ ( اما فترة ألري كل 01 يوم فقد اعطت )71.0كيلو جرام /متر³ ( . عليه يتضح ان ارجين وبوهين هما صنفا القمح اللذان يمكن اعتبارهما االكثر مالئمة للزراعة فى المنطقة تحت فترة الرى عشرة ايام.

v No Ccontents Page i Dedication i ii Acknowledgements ii iii English Abstract iii iv Arabic Abstract iv v Table of Contents v vi List of Figures viii 1 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1 2 CHAPTER TWO Literature Review 4 2.1 Definition of irrigation 4 2.2 Modern Irrigation system 5 2.2.1 Sprinkler irrigation 5 2.2.2 5 2. 3 systems 9 2. 3.1 Basin irrigation 12 2. 3.2 Border irrigation 13 2. 3.3 Furrow irrigation 14 2.4 Other Important processes in surface irrigation 16 2.4.1 Uncontrolled flooding 16 2.4.2 Waste water recovery and reuse 17 2.4.3 Inlet discharge control 17 2.5 Surface irrigation structures 19 2. .5.1 Diversion structures 19

vi

2.5.2 Conveyance, distribution and 21 Management structures 2.5.3 Field distribution systems 21 2.6 Subsurface irrigation 22 2.7 Phonology, yield and yield components in wheat 22 2.8 The effects of water stress on wheat 23 3 CHAPTER THREE MATERIALS AND METHODS 27 3.1 Experimental Site 27 3.2 The experimental design 27 3.3 Data collection procedure and calculation 30 3.3.1 Plant parameters 30 3.3.2 Water productivity 30 4 CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 35 4.1 Plant growth and yield parameters 35 4.1.1 Plant height (cm) 36 4.1.2 Dry matter accumulation (g) 36 4.1.3 spikes formation 37 4.1.4 Grain yield (kg/ha) 37 4.1.5 Straw yield and biomass (kg/ha) 39 4.1.6 Number of plants /m2 40 4.1.7 Number of grains/spike 42 4.1.8 Thousand grain weight (g) 41 4.2 Water productivity 43

vii

5 CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS AND 44 RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Conclusions 44 5.2 Recommendations 44 References 45

Appendices 51

viii Listof Figures

No Figure Page

2.1 Time-space trajectory of water during a surface irrigation 10

2.2 Graded furrow irrigation system 15

2.3 Contour furrows 16

2.4 Typical turnout from a canal or lateral 20

3.1 Experimental lay out 28

3.2 Land preparation 29

3.3 Crop in early stages 29

3.4 Physiological maturity stage 31

3.5 Parameters measurements 31

4.1 Means of yield kg.ha Season (2013/14). 32

4.2 Means of yield kg.ha Season (2014/15). 33

4.3 Means of yield kg.ha season (2013/14, 2014/15). 33

4.4 Means of plant heights 34

4.5 Means of grain weight 36

4.6 Means of biomass 36

4.7 Means of straw weight 38

ix 4.8 Means of number of plant/ Meter 39

4.9 Means of number of grain/spike 40

4.10 Means of weight of grain/ Spike 41

4.11 Means of thousand seeds weight 42

4.12 Mean of Days to 50% mature 42

4.13 Means of moister depth 43

x

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

Irrigation has played and will continue to play a critical role in agricultural development. It is essential for crop production particularly in arid and semi-arid regions. It supplies the water needed for crop growth when rainfall is limited. In more humid climate, it can bridge dry periods and reduce agricultural risks. While the human food needs are increasing, the fresh water available for agriculture getting is limited.

In surface irrigation systems, water moves over and across the land by gravity flow in order to wet it and to infiltrate into the soil. It is often called flood irrigation when the irrigation results in flooding or near flooding of the cultivated land. Historically, this has been the most common method of irrigating agricultural land (Walker, 2003). As the oldest and most common method of applying water to croplands, surface irrigation has evolved into an extensive array of configurations. Efforts to classify surface systems differ substantially, but generally include the following: (1) basin irrigation, (2) border irrigation, (3) furrow irrigation, and (4) wild flooding

1 Wheat (Triticum sp.) is the leading food crop in the world. It occupies over 30 % of the world area cropped to grains. Its high food value can be attributed to the following:

1. The protein carbohydrate ratio of wheat grain is optimum for

human nutrition.

2. The protein contained in wheat includes albumins, globulins and

glutens. The gluten in wheat is the highest in comparison to all other

grain crops, and it is the best for bread making. The main producing

areas are situated in the temperate regions of Europe, Asia and North

America. In the hot countries of the sub tropics and warm regions of

the temprate zones the distribution of wheat is determined by

temperature and water supply. Wheat cultivation in the humid warm

regions is not very effective because of the poor physiological

adaptation and prevailance of diseases and pests. In North Africa,

wheat is mostly widespread in Egypt, where the yield reaches 5000 kg

/ ha under irrigation. In the Sudan, wheat is exclusively produced

under irrigation during the period from November to March. The

period is shorter and with relatively higher temperature than those of

traditional wheat producing regions of the world. The northern region

of the country (altitude 350 m above sea level ) having a longer and

cooler season, is considered more suitable for wheat production

compared to the central part of the country, but due to the high costs

2 of production and limited area in the northern region (40,756ha), the

crop was introduced to the Gezira and New Halfa areas . At present

the area cropped to wheat in the Gezira is about 222,689 ha, in New

Halfa scheme about 26,470 ha and in the Blue and White Niles

schemes about 25,210 ha, (Ministry of Agriculture, 1991) The crop is

faced with a short season and often experiences high temperature and

drought stress during the grain filling stage.

Intensive research has been performed to study the effect of irrigation interval on the yield of wheat in central, northern and eastern Sudan.

Many recommendations have been released for wheat production concern irrigation require, however in White Nile state no information are available for optimum irrigation interval and its effect on different verities performance , they for the main objective of this study was to determine the most appropriate wheat varity and irrigation intervals under the White Nile region conditions.

Further objectives of the study were to investigate:

1. The effect of different irrigation frequencies at vegetative,

reproductive and grain filling stages on growth, yield and yield

components of wheat.

2. The optimum irrigation intervals for wheat.

3. The response of wheat genotype to water stress.

3 CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Definition of irrigation

Irrigation is the supply of water to agricultural crops by artificial means, designed to permit farming in arid regions and to offset the effect of drought in semi-arid regions. Even in areas where total seasonal rainfall is adequate on average, it may be poorly distributed during the year and variable from year to year. Where traditional -fed farming is a high-risk enterprise, irrigation can help to ensure stable agricultural production (FAO, 1997). Irrigation is also generally defined as the application of water to soil in order to supply optimum moisture for plant growth. A comprehensive definition stated by Fadl (2006) is that irrigation is the application of water to the soil to satisfy one or more of the following purposes:-

1- Adding water to the soil to supply moisture essential for plant

growth.

2- Providing crop insurance against short duration droughts.

3- Cooling the soil and atmosphere, thereby making more favorable

environment for plant growth.

4 4- Reduce the hazard of frost.

5- Reduce the hazards of soil piping.

6- Wash out or dilute salts from the soil.

2.2 Modern Irrigation systems

Irrigation water may be applied to the crop by flooding (surface irrigation), applying it beneath the soil surface (sub surface irrigation), spraying it under pressure (sprinkler irrigation), applying it in drops as in drip irrigation (Michael, 1978).

2.2.1 Sprinkler irrigation

Sprinkler irrigation is a method of applying irrigation water, similar to natural rainfall. Water is distributed through a system of pipes usually pumped under pressure. It is then sprayed into the air through sprinkler (nozzles) so that it breaks up into small water drops, which fall down. The operation condition must be designed to enable a uniform application of water (Abed Algabar et al , 2009).

2.2.2 Drip irrigation

Drip irrigation is one of the most recent irrigation systems in the world. It is an irrigation system, which conserves water, reduces initial construction costs and enhances plant growth. It is a method of watering plant frequently and with water approaching their consumptive use and

5 would minimize such conventional losses such as deep percolation, runoff and soil water evaporation (Michael, 1978).

Drip irrigation is described as the frequent application of water to soil through mechanical devices called emitters. Or applicators located at selected points along the water delivery lines (Howel et al., 1980).Drip irrigation has been very effective in arid areas that normally have extended periods of dry weather during which the root zone has optimum moisture at all times. It is an efficient method of irrigation and can reach an efficiency of 90% or more. It is easy to design and install, and it can be inexpensive when used to irrigate unleveled lands (Howel et al., 1980).

The first experiment of drip irrigation began in Germany in 1869 where subsurface irrigation was performed in combination with drainage system in which short porous clay pipes were used. In 1912, the first subsurface drip irrigation was reported using iron pipes in USA, but it was highly expensive. During 1925-1932 some experts in France and

Russia used subsurface drip irrigation. In England, it was used between

(1945 – 1948) to irrigate tomato plants in greenhouses. Technological development of plastic pipes after the Second World War made the use of drip irrigation system practical. With increased availability of plastic pipes and the development of emitters in Israel in the 1950, it has since become an important method of irrigation in Australia, Europe, Israel,

Japan, Mexico, South Africa and the United States (Schwab et al., 1981).

6 The advantages of drip irrigation can be summarized as follows:

 Major advantages of trickle irrigation system are that the close

balance between applied water and crop evapotranspiaration

reduces surface runoff and deep percolation to minimum (Ceunca,

1989).

 For perfect drip irrigation system design, about 40% of the

irrigation water is saved with an application efficiency of 85-95%

as compared with other irrigation systems.

 Drip irrigation system produces higher ratio of yield per unit area

and yield per unit volume of water than typical surface or sprinkler

irrigation systems (Ceunca, 1989).

 Labor requirements are lowered and the system can be readily

automated

 Frequent or daily application of water keeps the salts in the soil

water more dilute and leached to the outer limits of the wet zone to

make the use of saline water more practical (Jensen, 1980).

 Weed growth is reduced because of the limited wet soil surface

(Ahmed, 2009).

 Use of drip irrigation is practical even in fields that have 5-6%

slope without erosion (Khalil, 1998).

7  Drip irrigation needs no leveling, no drainage and no other field

operations like ridging.

 Fertilizers and chemicals can be injected into the irrigation water

causing a uniform distribution at the root zone (AL-Amoud,

1997).

 Bacteria, fungi and other pests and diseases that depend on moist

environment are reduced as the above ground plants are normally

completely dry (Schwab et al., 1981).

 Landscape is the area where drip irrigation is experienced, it would

widely suit many landscape situations balancing the high and

rapidly rising cost of water and pumping energy.

The disadvantages of drip irrigation can be summarized as follows:

 The major disadvantage of the system is a high capital or initial

cost (Michael, 1978).

 Clogging of emitters by biological, chemical and physical matters.

 Frequent application of water leach the salts out to the wetted zone

,if the system stops supplying water ,the salts may enter to the

roots of the plant causing wilting or poisoning the plant

(Abdelazeem ,1997).

8  Shallow roots due to the limited wet zone .The field needs frequent

irrigation and in case of trees they are liable to tilt in the windward

direction and may be uprooted.

2. 3 Surface irrigation systems

Surface irrigation has evolved into an extensive array of configurations which can be broadly classified as: (1) basin irrigation; (2) border irrigation; (3) furrow irrigation; and (4) uncontrolled flooding. As noted previously, there are two features that distinguish a surface irrigation system: (a) the flow has a free surface responding to the gravitational gradient; and (b) the on-field means of conveyance and distribution is the field surface itself.

A surface irrigation event is composed of four phases as illustrated graphically in Figure 1. When water is applied to the field, it 'advances' across the surface until the water extends over the entire area. It may or may not directly wet the entire surface, but all of the flow paths have been completed. Then the irrigation water either runs off the field or begins to pond on its surface. The interval between the end of the advance and when the inflow is cut off is called the wetting or ponding phase. The volume of water on the surface begins to decline after the water is no longer being applied. It either drains from the surface (runoff) or infiltrates into the soil. For the purposes of describing the hydraulics of

9 the surface flows, the drainage period is segregated into the depletion phase (vertical recession) and the recession phase (horizontal recession).

Depletion is the interval between cut off and the appearance of the first bare soil under the water. Recession begins at that point and continues until the surface is drained.

Figure 2.1. Time-space trajectory of water during a surface irrigation showing its advance, wetting, depletion and recession phases.

The time and space references shown in Figure 1 are relatively standard. Time is cumulative since the beginning of the irrigation, distance is referenced to the point water enters the field. The advance and recession curves are therefore trajectories of the leading and receding edges of the surface flows and the period defined between the two curves at any distance is the time water is on the surface and therefore also the

10 time water is infiltrating into the soil.

It is useful to note here that in observing surface irrigation one may not always observe a ponding, depletion or recession phase. In basins, for example, the post-cut off period may only involve a depletion phase as the water infiltrates vertically over the entire field. Likewise, in the irrigation of paddy , irrigation very often adds to the ponded water in the basin so there is neither advance nor recession - only wetting or ponding phase and part of the depletion phase. In furrow systems, the volume of water in the furrow is very often a small part of the total supply for the field and it drains rapidly. For practical purposes, there may not be a depletion phase and recession can be ignored. Thus, surface irrigation may appear in several configurations and operate under several regimes.

The surface irrigation system is one component of a much larger network of facilities diverting and delivering water to farmlands. Figure 2 illustrates the 'irrigation system' and some of its features. It may be divided into the following four component systems: (1) water supply; (2) water conveyance or delivery; (3) water use; and (4) drainage. For the complete system to work well, each must work conjunctively toward the common goal of promoting maximum on-farm production. Historically, the elements of an irrigation system have not functioned well as a system

11 and the result has too often been very low project irrigation efficiencies.

The classification of surface methods is perhaps somewhat arbitrary in technical literature. This has been compounded by the fact that a single method is often referred to with different names. In this guide, surface methods are classified by the slope, the size and shape of the field, the end conditions, and how water flows into and over the field.

Each surface system has unique advantages and disadvantages depending on such factors as were listed earlier like: (1) initial cost; (2) size and shape of fields; (3) soil characteristics; (4) nature and availability of the water supply; (5) climate; (6) cropping patterns; (7) social preferences and structures; (8) historical experiences; and (9) influences external to the surface irrigation system.

2.3. 1 Basin irrigation

Basin irrigation is the most common form of surface irrigation, particularly in regions with layouts of small fields. If a field is level in all directions, is encompassed by a dyke to prevent runoff, and provides an undirected flow of water onto the field, it is herein called a basin. A basin is typically square in shape but exists in all sorts of irregular and rectangular configurations. It may be furrowed or corrugated, have raised beds for the benefit of certain crops, but as long as the inflow is

12 undirected and uncontrolled into these field modifications, it remains a basin. Which illustrate the most common basin irrigation concept: water is added to the basin through a gap in the perimeter dyke or adjacent ditch.

a. large basin in the USA

b. paddy basin in Asia

There are few crops and soils not amenable to basin irrigation, but it is generally favoured by moderate to slow intake soils, deep-rooted and closely spaced crops. Crops which are sensitive to flooding and soils which form a hard crust following an irrigation can be basin irrigated by adding furrowing or using raised bed planting. Reclamation of salt- affected soils is easily accomplished with basin irrigation and provision for drainage of surface runoff is unnecessary. Of course it is always possible to encounter a heavy rainfall or mistake the cut-off time thereby having too much water in the basin. Consequently, some means of emergency surface drainage is good design practice. Basins can be served with less command area and field watercourses than can border and furrow systems because their level nature allows water applications from anywhere along the basin perimeter. Automation is easily applied.

To reach maximum levels of efficiency, the flow per unit width

13 must be as high as possible without causing erosion of the soil. When an irrigation project has been designed for either small basins or furrows and borders, the capacity of control and outlet structures may not be large enough to improve basins.

2. 3. 2 Border irrigation

Border irrigation can be viewed as an extension of basin irrigation to sloping, long rectangular or contoured field shapes, with free draining conditions at the lower end. Figure 4 illustrates a typical border configuration in which a field is divided into sloping borders. Water is applied to individual borders from small hand-dug checks from the field head ditch. When the water is shut off, it recedes from the upper end to the lower end. Sloping borders are suitable for nearly any crop except those that require prolonged ponding. Soils can be efficiently irrigated which have moderately low to moderately high intake rates but, as with basins, should not form dense crusts unless provisions are made to furrow or construct raised borders for the crops. The stream size per unit width must be large, particularly following a major tillage operation, although not so large for basins owing to the effects of slope. The precision of the field topography is also critical, but the extended lengths permit better levelling through the use of farm machinery.

14 2.3.3 Furrow irrigation

Furrow irrigation avoids flooding the entire field surface by channelling the flow along the primary direction of the field using

'furrows,' 'creases,' or 'corrugations'. Water infiltrates through the wetted perimeter and spreads vertically and horizontally to refill the soil reservoir. Furrows are often employed in basins and borders to reduce the effects of topographical variation and crusting. The distinctive feature of furrow irrigation is that the flow into each furrow is independently set and controlled as opposed to furrowed borders and basins where the flow is set and controlled on a border by border or basin by basin basis.

Furrows provide better on-farm water management flexibility under many surface irrigation conditions. The discharge per unit width of the field is substantially reduced and topographical variations can be more severe. A smaller wetted area reduces evaporation losses. Furrows provide the irrigator more opportunity to manage toward higher efficiencies as field conditions change for each irrigation throughout a season. This is not to say, however, that furrow irrigation enjoys higher application efficiencies than borders and basins.

There are several disadvantages with furrow irrigation. These may include: (1) an accumulation of salinity between furrows; (2) an increased level of tailwater losses; (3) the difficulty of moving farm equipment

15 across the furrows; (4) the added expense and time to make extra tillage practice (furrow construction); (5) an increase in the erosive potential of the flow; (6) a higher commitment of labour to operate efficiently; and (7) generally furrow systems are more difficult to automate, particularly with regard to regulating an equal discharge in each furrow..

Figure 2.2.graded furrow irrigation system

Figure 2.3.contour furrows

Furrow irrigation configurations (after USDA-SCS, 1967)

16 2.4 Other Important process in surface irrigation

2.4.1 Uncontrolled flooding

There are many cases where croplands are irrigated without regard to efficiency or uniformity. These are generally situations where the value of the crop is very small or the field is used for grazing or recreation purposes. Small land holdings are generally not subject to the array of surface irrigation practices of the large commercial farming systems. Also in this category are the surface irrigation systems like check-basins which irrigate individual trees in an orchard, for example. While these systems represent significant percentages in some areas, they will not be discussed in detail in this paper. The evaluation methods can be applied if desired, but the design techniques are not generally applicable nor need they be since the irrigation practices tend to be minimally managed.

2.4.2 Wastewater recovery and reuse

There is substantial field evidence that surface irrigation systems can apply water to croplands uniformly and efficiently, but it is the general observation that most such systems operate well below their potential. A very large number of causes of poor surface irrigation performance have been outlined in the technical literature. They range from inadequate design and management at the farm level to inadequate

17 operation of the upstream water supply facilities. However, in looking for a root cause, one must often retreats to the fact that infiltration changes a great deal from irrigation to irrigation, from soil to soil, and is neither predictable nor effectively manageable. The infiltration rates are an unknown variable in irrigation practice.

In those cases where high levels of uniformity and efficiency are being achieved, irrigators utilize one or more of the following practices:

(1) precise and careful field preparation; (2) irrigation scheduling; (3) regulation of inflow discharges; and (4) tailwater runoff restrictions, reduction, or reuse.

2.4.3 Inlet discharge control

Surface irrigation systems have two principal sources of inefficiency, deep percolation and surface runoff or tail water The remedies are competitive. To minimize deep percolation the advance phase should be completed as quickly as possible so that the intake opportunity time over the field will be uniform and then cut the inflow off when enough water has been added to refill the root zone. This can be accomplished with a high, but non-erosive, discharge onto the field.

However, this practice increases the tailwater problem because the flow at the downstream end must be maintained until a sufficient depth has infiltrated. The higher inflow reaches the end of the field sooner but it

18 increases both the duration and the magnitude of the runoff.

There are three options available to solve this problem, at least partially: (1) dyke the downstream end to prevent runoff as in basin irrigation; (2) reduce the inflow discharge to a rate more closely approximating the cumulative infiltration along the field following the advance phase, a practice termed 'cutback'; or (3) select a discharge which minimizes the sum of deep percolation and tailwater losses, i.e., optimize the field inflow regime.

The tailwater deep percolation trade-off can also be solved by collecting and recycling the runoff to improve surface irrigation performance. Reuse systems have not been widely employed historically because water and energy have been inexpensive. Even today it is often more economical to regulate the inflow rather than to collect and pump the runoff back to the head of the field or to another field, tailwater reuse systems are more cost-effective when the water can be added to the flow serving lower fields and thereby saving the cost of pumping.

2.5 Surface irrigation structures

Surface irrigation systems are supported by a number of on- and off-farm structures which control and manage the flow and its energy. In order to facilitate efficient surface irrigation, these structures should be easily and

19 cheaply constructed as well as easy to manage and maintain. Each should be standardized for mass production and fabrication in the field by farmers and technicians.

It is not the intent of this guide to be comprehensive with regard to the selection and design of these structures since other sources are available, but it is worthwhile to note some of these structures by way of presenting a larger view of surface irrigation.

The structural elements of a surface system perform several important functions which include: (1) turning the flow to a field on and off; (2) conveying and distributing the flow among fields; (3) water measurement, sediment and debris removal, water level stabilization; and

(4) distribution of water onto the field.

2.5.1 Diversion structures

Most surface irrigation systems derive their water supplies from canal systems operated by public or semi-public irrigation departments, districts, or companies. Some irrigation water is supplied in piped delivery systems and some directly pumped from . Diversion structures perform several tasks including (1) on-off water control which allows the supply agency to allocate its supply and protects the fields below the diversion from untimely flooding; (2) regulation and

20 stabilization of the discharge to the requirements of field channels and watercourse distribution systems; (3) measurement of flow at the turnout in order to establish and protect water entitlements; and (4) protection of downstream structures by controlling sediments and debris as well as dissipating excess kinetic energy in the flow. A typical turnout structure is shown in Figure 7.

Figure 2.4. Typical turnout from a canal or lateral (from walker end Skogerboe,

1987)

2.5.2 Conveyance, distribution and management structures

Conveying water to the field requires similar structures to those found in major canal networks. The conveyance itself can be an earthen ditch or lateral, a buried pipe, or a lined ditch. Lined sections can be elevated or constructed at surface level. Pipe materials are usually plastic, steel, concrete, clay, or asbestos cement, or they may be as simple as a wooden or bamboo construction. Lining materials include slip-form cast-in-place, or prefabricated concrete, shotcrete or gunite, asphalt, surface and buried plastic or rubber membranes, and compacted earth.

21 The management of water in the field channels involves flow measurement, sediment and debris removal, divisions, checks, drop- energy dissipators, and water level regulators. Some of the more common flow control structures for open channels. Associated with these are various flow measuring devices like weirs, flumes, and orifices. The designs of these structures have been standardized since they are small in size and capacity. Designs for flow measurement and drop-energy dissipator structures need more attention and construction must be more precise since their hydraulic responses are quite sensitive to their dimensions.

2.5.3 Field distribution systems

After the water reaches the field ready to be irrigated, it is distributed onto the field by a variety of means, both simple and elaborately constructed. Most fields have a head ditch or pipeline running along the upper side of the field from which the flow is distributed onto the field.

In a field irrigated from a head ditch, the spreading of water over the field depends somewhat on the method of surface irrigation. For borders and basins, open or piped cutlets as illustrated in generally used.

Furrow systems use outlets which can be directed to each furrow.

22 2.6 Subsurface irrigation

Through sub-surface irrigation, water is applied below the ground surface, it reaches the plant roots through capillary action .Water may be introduced through open ditches or underground pipe lines (Abed

Algabar, 2009).

2.7 Phonology, yield and yield components in wheat:

Grain yield in wheat is the function of the number of Kernels per unit area and single Kernel weight. Kernel number per unit area constitutes the number of spikes per unite area and the kernel number per spike. These yield components are sequentially determined during specific phases of crop development .The cardinal points for wheat development are germination, floral initiation, an thesis and physiologic maturity, delineating the vegetative, reproductive and grain filling periods , respectively.

An adequately long vegetative period is needed to establish the root system, leaf and tiller number together with a large apex capable of forming a big spike primordium.

During the reproductive stage spikelest and florets within spikelets are formed. Spike development is accompanied by stem elongation and maximum root expansion. By the end of this stage an important component of yield (kernels/m²) has been fixed. Final kernel weight is a function of the grain growth period ( duration of grain filling ) and the amount of photosynthate stored in the grain per day Both component are affected by the prevailing environmental conditions.

23 2.8 The effects of water stress on wheat:

Water stress effects on wheat phenology are minor compared to other environmental factors e.g. temperature and photoperiod. However water stress can influence the length of developmental stages, (Angus and Moncur, 1977).Aliyu et.al, (1982) showed in two varieties of spring wheat that irrigation delayed the time from star of spikelet initiation to its completion. The duration from sowing to star of initiation and that from head emergence to maturity were not affected.

Wheat it is an important strategic crops, to that we have several pervious studies in wheat for example in wheat fertilizers (Ibrahim, 2009) found the cultivars and fertilizers had a significant effect on grain yield, stalk yield and harvest index at 5% level of significance and that there is no significant interaction between fertilizers and cultivars for grain yield and harvest index. However, there is a significant interaction between fertilizers and cultivars for stalk yield. Days to maturity and seed weight had an effect in being in the model as covariates that they were correlated significantly with grain yield, stalk yield and harvest index. Cultivar appears to be the best for grain and stalk yield as well as the harvest index. Nitrogen rate of 160kg/Ha improved the productivity parameters.

Also Ibrahim (2009) say revealed no significant difference among wheat varieties and no significant interaction between varieties and sowing date at 5% level of significance. However, the planting dates have a highly significant effect (at 1% level of significance) on grain yield, stalk yield and harvest index. Days to maturity have a significant effect in being in the model as a covariate and are correlated significantly with grain yield, stalk yield and harvest index. In arid areas, where the growing season is short, the best time for sowing wheat is early November.

24 Ahmadi and Mohammadi, (2002) suggested that the larger number of grains/spike under irrigated condition and the higher grain weight and larger number of spikes per unit area under non-irrigated condition should be selected to increase grain yield. Among the indices, MP, GMP and STI were more effective in identifying high yielding cultivars in both drought- stressed and irrigated conditions (group A cultivars). Under severe stress, none of the indices used were able to identify group a cultivars, although regression coefficient (b) and SSI were found to be more useful in discriminating resistant cultivars. It is concluded that the effectiveness of selection indices in differentiating resistant cultivars varies with the stress severity.

AS well as we have several pervious studies in wheat (Yagoub, 2011) Mention no significant effect on spike/m2 , grain per spike, spikelet/spike and 1000 seed weight, but there were differences between cultivars. Npta showed the highest records for number of spike/m and spikelets/spike, with significant effect in the first season. Meanwhile, WadiElneil had greater 1000-seed weight compared with Npta. The wheat cultivar Wadi Elniel was more tolerant to water stress during tillering and jointing stages under the Northern State conditions(Sudan) compared with Npta. Skipping one irrigation during this stage had no effect on economic yield of wheat. On the other hand, skipping irrigation during booting and heading stages had adverse effect and must be avoided.

El Hwary, (2011) found highly significant differences in the studied parameters due to irrigation intervals, except for days to fifth leaf stage and harvest index in the first season and number of plant/m2 in second season, where the irrigation every 7days recorded higher values, slightly different from 10 days. The results showed highly significant differences in treatments effects on biomass, straw and grain yield, harvest index, water

25 use efficiency and protein content. In general irrigation every 7 and 10 days gave the highest protein content, grain, straw yield and field water use efficiency. But for economics aspect irrigation every 10 days is recommended. Irrigation every 14 have no remarkable effect, on the other hand irrigation every 21, and 28 days must be avoided under this semi-arid condition.

The results revealed that protein contents are sensitive to water frequency and water stress especially irrigation interval every 28 days, and this may due to effect of water stress on physiology and growth of wheat.

Fadul1and Mustafa, (2004) mentioned the data did not reflect the salt distribution between irrigation intervals. The ‘irrigated weekly was the superior treatment; all forage and grain yields and their components increased with irrigation frequency. The results of the two seasons showed that irrigation per se caused significant salt leaching. Furthermore, salt leaching was not significantly affected by irrigation frequency (IF), farmyard manure (FYM) or by their interaction. Thus, the ECe data of each season were averaged over the three levels of FYM and plotted to reflect the main effects of irrigation frequency, and averaged over the three levels of irrigation frequency and plotted to reflect the main effects of FYM. In general, the effectiveness of salt leaching decreased with increase in the depth of the soil layer. It may be cautioned that this data was collected at harvest. It indicates the overall effect of treatments at harvest, but it does not reflect the salt distribution between irrigation intervals.

26 CHAPTER THREE

MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1. Experimental Site:

The experiment was conducted in the Research farm of the White Nile

Research Station, Kosti during two consecutive winter seasons (2013-

2014 and 2014-2015). Kosti area is located at latitude 12 37N and longitude 31 54E, 113m above mean sea level. Climate of the area is hot in summer (33-42C) and cool in winter (15- 24C) with an average annual rain fall of 254 mm. The rainy months are July, August and

September. Soil is heavy clay with deep cracks when dry. The main crops grown are sorghum and groundnut.

3.2. The experimental design:

The experimental design adopted was Split plot design with three replicates. The Irrigation intervals (7, 10 and14days) were assigned to the main plot, While varieties (Nebta,Bohean and Argen) were represented by the sub-plot.(Fig.3.1).

27

Fig 3.1 Experimental lay out

28 The land was prepared by disc-plough as primary tillage, then disc- harrow as secondary tillage then leveled. Crop was sown at a rate of 50kg/ feddan during the third week of November in both seasons. Fertilizers were added at planting at a rate of 96kg/ha for super phosphate, 96kg/ha for nitrogen by broadcasting before the first watering. Another similar dose of nitrogen before fourth irrigation. Cultural practices were performed based on practical experience in the area. Measurements were taken for yield and its components. The quantity of water added and the moisture depth were also measured during the growing season.

Fig 3.2 Land preparation

Fig 3.3 Crop at early stages

29 3.3 Data collection procedure and calculation:

3.3.1 Plant height (cm)

Ten plants were randomly selected from each plot, labeled, and their average heights were periodically determined and recorded. Days to five leaves stage was determined from the day of sowing until the fifth leaf appearance and the 50% spikes formation. In the final harvest, one meter row was sampled from the three middle rows, and the spikes were randomly selected from each plot. The parameters recorded were: i) number of spikes / m2 ii) number of grains / spike and iv) thousand- grains weight (g).

Also the biological yield (kg/ha), from one meter row in each plot was carefully determined. The fresh matter was weighed in the field and taken to the laboratory, left to dry thoroughly for a week, before reweighing. Final grain yield (kg/ha) was determined. Straw yield( kg/ha) = biomass - grain yield.

3.3.2 Water productivity (kg/m³)

The Water productivity (WP) was determined by the following equation:

WP = Yield (Kg/ha) Water applied (m³/ha) ______(3.1)

Statistical analyses for ANOVA were carried out by using SAS 0.9 and Excel program to illustrate and compare data on figures.

30

Fig 3.4 Physiological maturity stage

Fig 3.5 Plant height measurements

.

31

CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The results showed that generally the growth and yield attributes of wheat under different irrigation intervals were highest when irrigation intervals were shortest. However growth and yield attributes were relatively lower in the first season than in the second season at all sampling periods this is attributed mainly due to weather.

2000 1800 1600

1400 1200 1000 Argen 800 Bohean

Yield (kg/ha)Yield 600 Nebta 400 200 0 7days 10days 14days Irrigation Intervals

Fig 4.1 Effect of irrigation Interval and varities On Wheat yield during season (2013/14)

32 3500

3000

2500

2000 Argen 1500

Bohean Yield (kg/ha) Yield 1000 Nebta 500

0 7days 10days 14days Irrigation interval

Fig 4.2 Effect of irrigation Interval and varities On Wheat yield during season (2014/15)

3000

2500

2000

1500 Argen Bohean

1000 Yield (kg/ha) Yield Nebta 500

0 7days 10days 14days Irrigation Intervals

Fig 4.3Effect of irrigation Interval and varities On Wheat yield during season (2013/14, 2014/15) 4.1 Plant Grow and Yield parameters: 4.1.1 Plant Height (cm):

33 The shorter irrigation intervals of (7, 10 days) resulted in taller plants compared to the longest irrigation intervals of 10 days . This agrees with previous similar studies of Elmonyeri et al., (1982), Haikl and Melegy

(2005) who reported that the positive effect of irrigation on plant height may be attributed to the effect of irrigation on the encouragement of cell elongation, cell division and consequently increased growth.

100 90 80 70 60 50 Argen 40 Bohean 30 Nebta 20 10

Plant hight(cm) in mature Stage mature in hight(cm) Plant 0 7days 10days 14days Irrigation Intervals

Fig 4.4Effect of irrigation Interval and varities On Plant heights in mature stage

4.1.2 Dry matter accumulation (g):

High dry matter production is an important pre-requisite for high grain yield. In the present study ten plants were randomly selected

34 from each plot, labeled, and their heights were periodically determined. Average plant height measured (in cm) was then recorded.

Plants samples were then dried at field condition for three days then weights were recorded to determine the dry matter accumulation in (g).

Days to five leave stage were determined starting from the day of sowing until the fifth leave appearance.

4.1.3 spikes formation:

For the 50% spikes formation. For final harvest, one meter row was sampled from the three middle ridges, and spikes were randomly taken from each plot to study the following parameters: i) number of spikes / m2 ii) number of spikelets / spike iii) number of grains / spike and iv) thousand-grains weight (g):

The thousand grains were carefully counted from the same samples of each

Plot. The weight of the sample was precisely determined. Final biological yield (kg/ha), from one meter row in each plot was carefully determined.

The whole bunch of plants were carefully uprooted and taken to the crops laboratory, left to dry thoroughly for a week, before they were weighed.

Final grain yield (kg/ha). Straw yield kg/ha = biomass - grain yield.

35 4.1.4 Grain yield (kg/ha):

The results of grain yield (kg/ha) are shown in Fig 4.5. In both seasons, grain yield was significantly reduced under longer irrigation intervals due to lower number of tillers/plant, number of spikes/m2, number of spikelets- /spike, number of grains/spike and 1000-grains weight. These results are in agreement with those obtained by Awad et al. (2000), El Hadi and Khadr (2003) and Singh et al., (2009).

4.1.5 Straw yield and Biomass (kg/ha):

The shorter irrigation intervals resulted higher biomass and straw yield during the both seasons Fig 4.6 and Fig 4.7. Increasing soil moisture depletion by decreasing the amount of irrigation progressively from ear- emergence to harvest, reduced straw and grain yields. This is in conformity with the findings of Omer and Aziai (1993).

36 300

250

200

150 Argen Bohean 100 Nebta

Grain Weight (kg/ha) Weight Grain 50

0 7days 10days 14days Irrigation Intervals

Fig 4.5 Effect of irrigation Interval and varities On grain weight (kg/ha)

800 700

600 500 400 Argen 300 Bohean

Biomass (kg/ha) Biomass 200 Nebta 100 0 7days 10days 14days Irrigation Intervals

Fig 4.6 Effect of irrigation Interval and varities On Biomass (kg/ha)

37

500

450 400 350 300 250 Argen 200 Bohean 150 Nebta 100 Straw Weight (kg / ha) / (kg Weight Straw 50 0 7days 10days 14days Irrigation Interval

Fig 4.7Effect of irrigation Interval and varities On straw weight (kg/ha)

4.1.6 Number of Plants /m2:

The highest number of plants/m2 and surviving tillers were associated with the shorter irrigation intervals 7, 10 days. Cooper (1980) and Awad et al., (2000) found greater tiller survival with frequent irrigation. The beneficial effect of frequent irrigation may be due to improved availability of nutrients in the upper surface of the soil where the nodal roots usually spread. Survival of productive tillers was reported to be positively correlated with grain yield (Shanahan et al., 1985). The higher number of tillers may be attributed to adequate moisture supply,

38 particularly at tillers stage. Bajwa et al .,(1993) observed significant effect on varying levels of irrigations on the number of tillers/m2.

The final yield of wheat is the product of the number of spikes/m2 x spikelets/spike x grains/spike x weight of grains.

120

100

² 80

60 Argen Bohean 40

Nebta Number ofplant /mNumber 20

0 7days 10days 14days Irrigation Intervals

Fig 4.8 Effect of irrigation Interval and varities On number of plants / m²

4.1.7 Number of grains/spike:

In the two seasons, shorter irrigation intervals (7 and 10 days) produced greater number of grains/spike Fig 4.12 .The maximum

39 number of grains/spike obtained may be due to suitable moisture availability for those treatments (Hussain, 1996; Akram, 2000).

50

45 40 35 30 25 Argen 20 Bohean 15 Nebta 10

Number of Seeds / Spike Seeds of Number 5 0 7days 10days 14days Irrigation Intervals

Fig 4.9 Effect of irrigation Interval and varities On number of grain / spike

3

2.5

2

1.5 Argen Bohean 1 Nebta

Weight of Seeds / spike Seeds of Weight 0.5

0 7days 10days 14days Irrigation Intervals

40 Fig 4.10 Effect of irrigation Interval and varities On weight of grain/Spike

4.1.8 Thousand grain weight (g):

Grains weight increased with short irrigation intervals (7, 10 days) than longer Interval 14 day in both seasons. These results are in agreement with Ibrahim (1995) and Martin and Drewitt (1982) who reported that consistent increase in grain weight with frequent irrigation

40

35 30 25

20 Argen 15 Bohean 10 Nebta

5 Thousand Seeds Weight (g) Weight Seeds Thousand 0 7days 10days 14days Irrigation Interval

Fig 4.11 Effect of irrigation Interval and varities

On thousand grain weight (g)

41 75

70 Argen Bohean

% mature % 65

50 Nebta 60

55 Days to to Days 7days 10days 14days Irrigation Intervals

Fig 4.12 Effect of irrigation Interval and varities On days to 50% mature

30

25

20

15 Argen Bohean 10 Nebta

Moisture depth (cm) depth Moisture 5

0 7days 10days 14days Irrigation Interval

Fig 4.13 Effect of irrigation Interval and varities On moisture depth (cm)

42

4.2 Water productivity (kg/m3):

The water use efficiency is expressed as kg grain/m3 water consumed by wheat plants. This criterion has been used to evaluate the crop production under different irrigation treatments. The present scientific approaches that supposed the plant roots could extract more soil water from a greater depth under conditions of stress as compares to those irrigated at relatively wet situations. This means that stored water in soil at water stress can be used with more efficiency.

These results are in agreement with those reported by El Hadi and

Khadr (2003) who indicated that wheat responded to water stress conditions.

43 CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 CONCLUSIONS

From the results of this study the following conclusions are drawn:

1. Wheat can be a successful cultivar in White Nile State.

2. The irrigation intervals of 7 and 10 days gave the highest, grain, growth and consequently water use efficiency.

3. The Argeen and Bohean wheat varieties gave the highest yield under

White Nile State conditions.

5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS

In light of the results the study recommends the following:

1. For economic aspect irrigation every 10 days is recommended.

2. Varieties Argeen and Bohean are recommended when applying irrigation water in ten days interval.

3.Further studies at similar terms are recommended.

44 REFERENCES:

Abed Algabar. Abdellatif Y. Idris, Abdelmohsin H. El Nadi, Yassin M.I.

Dagash, Siddig A.M.Ali. (2009) Comparative Study of Lucerne (Medicago sativa L.) under Drip and Sprinkler Irrigation.

Abdelhafiz, M. E. (2001). Effect of Partially Acidulated Phosphate Rocks and

Triple Superphosphate and Their Combination on Growth, Mineral

Composition and yield of wheat. PhD Thesis, Sudan University of Science and Technology.

Ahmadi and Mohammadi. (2002). Evaluation of wheat yield and drought resistance indices across water regimes Ahmadi A1 , Mohammadi V1 ,

Siosemardeh A2 Poustini K1 Agronomy and Plant Breeding, College of

Agriculture, The University of Tehran, Karaj, 3158777871, Iran. 2 College of

Agriculture, Kurdistan University, Sanandaj, Iran.

Akram, M.M. (2000). Effect of irrigations and nitrogen levels on the growth, yield and quality of wheat, M. Sc Thesis, Department of Agronomy, University of Agriculture, Fasialabad.

Aliyu, L. and Lagoke.S. T. O. (1995). "Evaluation of herbicides for weed control in Solanum aethiopicum L.(Scarlet eggplant) at Samaru, Nigeria." Crop

Protection 14.6 (1995): 479-481.

45 Angus and Moncur. (1977). Effect of Water stress on flowering and fruit set in processing tomatoes Scientia HorticulturaeVolume 27, Issues 3–4, December

1985, Pages 189–198.

Annual Report. (1991). Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation - Sudan.

Awad, A.M., H.El- Zaher, M.A. Mostafa, M.A. Sayed and A.M.

Osman.(2000). Wheat production on sandy soil using different fertilization methods and irrigation regimes. Alex. J. Agric. Res., 45(1): 35-61.

Bajwa.(1993). Effect of organic matter and gypsum in controlling soil sodicity in a rice- wheat- maize irrigated system with sodic waters Agricultural water management 24:15-25.

Osman,Tahar Bstawi Ali El Hwary, Samia Osman Yagoub , (2000). Effect of skipping irrigation on growth, yield, yield components and water use efficiency of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) in semi arid Region of Sudan.

Ceunca,R.H.(1989). irrigation system design: An engineering Approach

Englewood Cliffs.N.J: Prentice.Hall

Cooper, J. L. (1980). The effect of nitrogen fertilization and irrigation frequency on a semi-dwarf wheat in South-East Australia in growth and yield.

Aust.J. Exp. Agric.Anim. Husb. 20: 359 – 364

Doorenbos, J. and Pruitt. W.O. (1977). Crop water requirements. FAO

Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 24.

46 El Monyeri, M.O; Hegazi, M. N; Ezzat, N.H; Salem, H. M and Tahoun, S.

M. (1982). Growth and yield of some wheat and barley varieties grown under different moisture stress levels. Field crop abstracts,36, abstract

No.9.

El Hadi, A. H. and M. S Khadr. (2003). Effect of potassium fertileization under saline and drought condition in Egyptian soils. Potas- sium and water management in West Asia and North Africa Proce-edings of the Regional.

Work-shop of the International Potash Instit-ute. Amman. Jordan, from

5 -5 November 2003. Pp: 85 – 91.

El Hwary, E. B. A. and Yagoub,S.O. (2011).Effect of Different Irrigation

Intervals on Wheat (Triticum aestivum L) in Semi-arid Regions of Sudan.

FAO. (1997). irrigation and water resource potential in Africa

.www.sswm.info/…ault/.../FAO%201997%20Irrigation.pdf

Fadul1, E.m and Mustafa,M.A.(2004). Proceedings of the 12th Regional Wheat

Workshop for Eastern, Central and Southern Africa Nakuru, Kenya, 22–26

November 2004 Impact of Irrigation Frequency and Farmyard Manure on

Wheat Productivity on a Saline- Sodic Soil in Dongola, Sudan Elmoiez M.

Fadul1 and Mukhtar A Mustafa2 Dongola Agric. Research Station (ARC),

Sudan. Faculty of Agriculture, University of Khartoum, Sudan.

Haikle, M. A and A. M. El Melegy. (2005). Effect of irrigation requirements, seeding rates and bio-mineral fertilizer on wheat productivity

47 in newly reclaimed soil under sprinkler irrigation system. Productivity and

Development, 10 :113-134.

Howell, T. A., D.S.,Stevenson, F.K. Alibury, A.M., Gitlin, I.P.Wu, A.W.

Warrick, and Roots P.A.C.(1980). Design and operation of trickle

(drip system). In: Design and operation of farm irrigation system.

Jensen M.A. (ed.) ASAE monograph 3, St. Joseph, MG pp.663-

717

Hussain, M. (1996). Impact of Varying Level of Irrigations and Phosphorus on the Growth and Yield of Lentil. M.Sc. Thesis, Department of Agronomy.

University of Agriculture, Faisalabad.

Ibrahim, H. S. (1995). Response of wheat to differential irrigation in the Nile

Province. Paper submitted to the Crop Husbandry Committee Meeting, July

1995, Agricultural Research Corporation, Wad Medani,Sudan.

Ibrahim,Y.M. and Kittani ,H.F(2009). Effect of different doses of nitrogen fertilizer on productivity of durum wheat (Triticum durum) cultivars : A multivariate approach.

Jensen, M.E. (1980). Design and Operation of Farm Irrigation Systems. An

ASAE Monograph. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, 2950 Niles

Road, St. Joseph, MI 49085.

48 Martin, R. J. and Drewitt, E. G. (1982). Irrigation of Spring-sown wheat on

Templeton silt loam. N.Z.J. Exp. Agric. 10: 137 – 146.

Michael, A.M. (1978). “Irrigation: Theory and Practice”, Vikas Publishing

House. PVT.L.T. New delhi, India.

Omer, M.S. and M.A. Aziai, (1993). The effect of spikelet in wheat due to water deficit. Aust. Exp. Agric. Anim. Husb., 11:349-351.

Passioura, J.B. (2006). Increasing crop productivity when water is scarce -- from breeding to field management. Agricultural Water Management.

Schwab, G.O., R.K. Frevert, T.W. Edminster, and K.K. Barnes. (1981). Soil and Water Conservation Engineering, Third Edition. John Wiley and Sons.

New York.

Schneider, A. D. and T. A. Howell. (1997). Methods, amounts and timing of sprinkler irrigation for winter wheat. Transaction of the ASAE40: 137

142.

Shanahan, J. F.; K. L. , Donnely; D. H. Somth, and D. E. Smika, (1985).

Winter wheat shoot development properties associated with grain yield. Crop

Sci. J. 25: 770 – 775.

Singh, R.B., C.P.S. Chauhna and P.S. Minhas. (2009). Water production functions of wheat irrigation with saline and alkali waters using double line source sprinkler system. Agric. Water Management: 736 - 744.

49 Sinha L. Aliyu, S.T.O. Lagoke (1982). Evaluation of herbicides for weed control in Solanum aethiopicum L. (Scarlet eggplant) at Samaru, Nigeria.

Strelkoff, T. and N.D. Katapodes. (1977). Border irrigation hydraulics with zero-inertia. J Irrig Drain Div ASCE 103.

WALKER, W.R. (2003). (Guide and TechnicalDocumentation).Surface

Irrigation Simulation Evaluation and Design Logan: Utah State University.

URL [Accessed: 20.06.2011]

Yagoub, S.O, Elkhalil ,A.E,and Balasio ,E.D(2011). Effects of Watering

Regimes on Wheat (Triticum aestivum L) Production at the upper Terraces of the Northern State (Sudan) Journal of Science and Technology 12 (02)

December 2011 ISSN 1605 427X.

Appendices

50 Table 1: Range, grand mean, F-value, coefficient of variation (C.V. %) Standard error (SE±) of 3 water Interval in wheat at the combined analysis of two seasons (2014/2015) in White Nile State.

Character Grand mean F-value C.V% SE+

Plant Height (cm) 59.002 26.59** 9.33 0.537379

Days to maturity 66.222 8.89* 2.72 0.22667

Number of seeds/10spike 376.19 5.02 14.15 8.339749

Biomass weight (Kg/ha) 5058.3333 16.48** 22.59 12.33855

Straw weight (g/m2) 3268.1 16.53 ** 23.34 10.37123

1000-seed weight (Kg/ha) 27.500 2.48 21.60 0.541014

Seed yield (Kg/ha) 1799.4954 68.86** 10.43 3.849115

*, **, Significant at 0.05 and 0.01 levels of probability, respectively. N.S. not significant

51

Table 2: Effect of irrigation interval and wheat varieties on growth parameter:

Number of seeds/10Spike rePemaraP Plant height(cm) Days to mature Biomass(kg/ha)

Wheat varieties

Argen 62 69 341 5086

Bohean 60.9 63 361 5376

Nebta 53.7 65 426 4703

Irrigation Interval

7 days 67.1 68 399 6416

10 days 61.1 66 399 5373

14days 48.6 64 330 3376

SE± 0.537379 0.22667 8.339749 12.33855

Cv% 9.33 2.72 5.02 22.59

Straw 1000 seeds weight(kg/ha) weight(g) rePemaraP 52 Yield(kg/ha)

Wheat varieties

Argen 3416 27 1760

Bohean 3496 28 1943

Nebta 2920 27 1693

Irrigation Interval

7 days 4030 31 2323

10 days 3720 25 1790

14days 2083 25 1283

SE± 10.37123 0.541014 3.849115

Cv% 23.34 21.60 10.43

Table 3: Effect of irrigation interval and wheat varieties on growth parameter:

53

Table 4: shows the Means 1st Season:

Irrigation Varity Biomass Grain Weight Straw Number Number Weight of 1000seeds Weight of spike of seeds seeds Weight Interval (Kg/ha) (Kg/ha) /meter /spike /spike(g) (g) (Kg/ha)

54 7 Argen 4400 1800 2600 106 37 1.2 31.6

7 Bohean 4400 1800 2600 96 44 1.4 30.2

7 Nebta 3500 1700 1800 91 51 1.3 27.6 Irrigation Varity Plant Plant Plant Day to Day to Q.m3 WUE Moisture 10 Argen 3700 1500 2600 116 36 1 28.8

10 Bohean 3500 1400 2200 90 36 1.2 32.3

10 Nebta 3400 1000 2400 93 46 1.3 24.6

14 Argen 3000 1000 2000 70 32 1 29.6

14 Bohean 2300 900 1500 64 36 1 29.8

14 Nebta 2000 800 1200 74 45 1.1 23.5

Table 5: shows the Means 1st Season:

55 Interval Height(v) Height(T) Height(M) Tillring Mature Depth

7 Argen 35 39 70 88 88 3.2 60.6 14

7 Bohean 46 60 67 79 79 3.7 52.4 18

7 Nebta 40 51 64 82 82 2.8 55.1 16

10 Argen 29 44 64 86 86 2.4 68 8

10 Bohean 40 54 62 75 75 2.4 64.3 8

10 Nebta 32 43 53 79 79 2.8 53.5 10

14 Argen 27 37 51 84 74 1.8 73.5 6

14 Bohean 37 47 53 76 76 2.2 46.1 5

14 Nebta 32 36 47 79 69 1.7 51.9 4

Table 6: shows the Means 2nd season:

56 Irrigation Varity Biomass Grain Weight Straw Weight Number Number Weight of 1000 Seeds (Kg/ha) of spike of seeds seeds Weight (g) Interval (Kg/ha) (Kg/ha) /meter /spike /10spike(g)

Irrigatio Varity Plant Plant Plant Tillring Matur Q.m3 WUE Moisture n high(V) high(T high(M) e Depth 7 Argen 7030 2030 5000 36 9 25 ) 103 7 Bohean 8050 2400 5650 119 38 12 26

7 Nebta 8060 2880 5180 91 46 12 28

10 Argen 6570 1800 4770 95 38 9 23

10 Bohean 7210 2290 4920 95 36 7 23 Nebta 10 5560 1850 3700 76 47 10 21 Argen 14 3550 1060 2490 76 25 7 25 Bohean 14 4180 1560 2620 76 29 7 28 Nebta 14 3450 920 2530 50 33 7 20

Table 7: shows the Means 2nd season:

57 7 Argen 32.2 46 70 88 81 3.2 63 14

7 Bohean 42.8 63 70 79 79 3.7 64 18

7 Nebta 36 53 62 82 78 2.8 57 16

10 Argen 28.6 45.7 68 86 80.6 2.4 75 8

10 Bohean 40 60.6 65 75 77 2.4 95 8

10 Nebta 30.1 47 54 79 77 2.8 66 10

14 Argen 25.7 42 50 84 78 1.8 58 6

14 Bohean 34.6 50.5 49 76 74 2.2 70 5

14 Nebta 29.5 40 42 79 74 1.7 54 4

Irrigation Varity Biomass GrainWeight Straw Number Number Weight of 1000seeds Weight of spike of seeds seeds (Kg/ha) Interval (Kg/ha) /meter /spike /spike(g) Weight (g) (Kg/ha)

58

7 Argen 6240 2140 4100 104 37 1.1 28

7 Bohean 6770 2320 4550 107 41 1.3 28

7 Nebta 6240 2510 3440 75 42 2.5 37

10 Argen 5410 1820 3990 105 37 1 26 Irrigation Varity Plant Plant Plant Tillring Day to WUE Q.m3. Moisture 10 Bohean high(v)5810 high(T)2000 high(M)3820 96 Mature36 1.1 28 Depth Interval

10 Nebta 4900 1550 3350 82 47 1.2 23 Argen 3610 1320 2160 73 29 0.8 27 14 Bohean 3550 1510 2120 73 31 0.9 29 14 Nebta 2970 1020 1970 74 40 0.9 21 14

Table 8: shows the Means Two Season:

Table 9: shows the Means Two Season:

59 7 Argen 32.2 46.5 70.1 88 71 62 3.2 11

7 Bohean 42.9 63.3 68.1 79 66 58 3.7 13

7 Nebta 36 53.8 63.1 82 67 56 2.8 25

10 Argen 28.6 45.7 66.2 86 69 71 2.4 10

10 Bohean 40 60.6 63.6 75 63 80 2.4 11

10 Nebta 30.1 47.3 53.7 79 66 60 2.8 12 Argen 25.7 42.9 50.4 84 68 66 1.8 8 14 Bohean 34.6 50.5 51 76 62 58 2.2 9 14 Nebta 29.5 40.5 44.5 79 64 53 1.7 9 14

60