Effect of Irrigation Scheduling Methods on Maize Grain Yield and Nitrate Leaching in Central Minnesota

Abstract

Highlights Four irrigation scheduling methods were compared for maize yield vs nitrate-N losses. Yield was similar with SM, CB, and EPIC, and lower for IMA irrigation scheduling. Nitrate-N leaching losses were highly dependent on precipitation as well as on the rate and frequency of irrigation. IMA and EPIC methods should be adopted with further calibration. ABSTRACT. Coarse-textured soils in the Great Lakes states have limited water holding capacity, which makes irrigation essential to obtain optimum yields for maize; however, excess irrigation has the potential to contaminate ground and surface water resources through deep seepage of applied fertilizers, making irrigation management critical. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of different strategies for agricultural irrigation water management on maize grain yield and nitrate leaching losses. In this three-year study (2019-2021), the following four irrigation scheduling strategies were compared under continuous maize cropping systems at two sites in Central Minnesota, Becker and Westport: (1) soil moisture monitoring using soil moisture sensors (SM), (2) checkbook method of irrigation scheduling (CB), (3) irrigation management assistant tool (IMA), and (4) EPIC model auto-irrigation (EPIC). Overall, in comparison to the CB method (highest irrigation method), the SM, IMA, and EPIC methods recommended 2.58%, 51.05%, and 9.27% less water in irrigation, respectively. In terms of grain yield, no significant differences were observed between irrigation treatments at the Becker site. The average maize grain yield at the Becker site was 12.02, 11.97, 11.76, and 10.62 Mg/ha, for SM, CB, EPIC, and IMA treatments, respectively. However, in the drier 2021 season, a grain yield loss of 30%, 27%, and 21% was observed under IMA when compared to SM, CB, and EPIC methods, respectively, at the Becker site. At the Westport site, on average, no significant difference in yield was obtained between SM, CB, and EPIC, however, yield under IMA treatment was significantly lower (12%) than CB. The results suggest that nitrate leaching losses can be significantly reduced by altering the rate and frequency of irrigation. IMA treatment resulted in significantly lower nitrate leaching (62%) than the CB method, reducing nitrate leaching from 35.86 kg/ha to 13.71 kg/ha at the Westport site. No significant differences in nitrate leaching were observed at the Becker site because the impact of precipitation superseded the impact of irrigation. Results from this study can aid in the adoption and further development of less labor-intensive and more accurate methods of irrigation scheduling in coarse-textured soils of Great Lakes states. Keywords: Coarse textured soils, Crop evapotranspiration, Irrigation scheduling methods, Maize grain yield, Nitrate-N leaching, Water quality, Water quantity.