Blue panic‐alfalfa combination as affected by irrigation water regimes and forage mixing ratio under subsurface drip irrigation in arid regions

Abstract

A field experiment designed in a split plot with four replications was carried out at the Agriculture Research Station of King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia to study the response of blue panic (Panicum antidotale L. cv. Australian‐110) ‐ alfalfa (Medicago sativa L. cv. Cuf 101 USA) forage production, quality and land and water use efficiencies to three irrigation water regimes and six intercropping mixing ratios. The main plots were 100, 80 and 60% of crop water requirement (WR). Under each water regime six intercropping ratios: IC1 (1 row alfalfa: 1 row blue panic), IC2 (2 alfalfa: 1 blue panic), IC3 (3 alfalfa: 1 blue panic), IC4 (4 alfalfa: 2 blue panic), IC5 (alfalfa sole crop) and IC6 (blue panic sole crop) were investigated. Results revealed that difference in fresh and dry forage yields between the 100% WR and 80% WR treatments were minimal in all cuts. The IC5 produced the least forage yield while IC6 produced the highest compared to all treatments. The IC1 produced the highest forage yield compared with IC2, IC3 and IC4. Irrigation water use efficiency of 80% WR was higher than in 100% WR but fewer than in 60% WR. The highest land equivalent ratio was obtained from IC1. Intercropping ratios increased protein content in forage compared to blue panic sole plantation. Applying 80% WR reduced dry matter yield by 10% while saving 20% of irrigation water. Applying 60% WR reduced dry matter yield by 20.7% while saving 40% of irrigation water.

Integrated Agronomic Practices to Enhance Forage Productivity and Quality of Blue Panicum (Panicum antidotale Retz.) under Saline and Arid Conditions in the South of Morocco

“…They also found amendments and bed planting methods improved crop yield by 50% in saline soil conditions. Similarly, consistent with Al-Shareef et al [6], intercropping of blue panicum with alfalfa has a significant advantage over sole cropping.…”

Evaluation of the effectiveness of irrigation methods and fertilization strategies for alfalfa: A meta‐analysis

“…The response of WUE to drought stress significantly increased under light and moderate drought but exhibited a high degree of uncertainty under severe and extreme drought. Under light and moderate drought stress, the transpiration rate of alfalfa is inhibited, which results in a decrease in water consumption and yield but an increase in yield per unit of water (Al‐Shareef et al, 2018; Erice et al, 2011; Johnson & Asay, 1993; Stanhill, 1986). Thus, high WUE can produce the same production with the same or fewer water resources (Ismail & Almarshadi, 2011).…”

“…In this study, the drought intensity was simulated by water input (from 0% to 100%) and was compared with full irrigation as the control (Al‐Shareef et al, 2018; Cavero et al, 2017; Liu, Gudmundsson, et al, 2020; Liu, Liu, et al, 2020; Yin, 2012). Drought stress means that water input is not 100% (Zhou et al, 2018).…”