Understanding the linkage between crop yields, irrigation frequencies, and fertilizer rates is crucial in region-specific agriculture practices. The present study was conducted to assess the effect of nitrogen fertilizer rates and irrigation frequency on wheat crop growth and yield in the semi-arid region of Rajasthan, India. The experiment was laid out in a randomized complete block design with 12 treatments with 4 replicas, combining 4 nitrogen fertilizers quantities (0%, 50%, 100%, and 125% of recommended dose) with 3 irrigation intervals (15, 21, and 25 days after sowing) were used for three consecutive years (2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17). Crop responses were recorded for different growth stages. One-way analysis of variance and Fisher's least significant difference tests were applied to determine significant changes in yield. The results showed that the high irrigation frequency and high fertilizer application significantly increased crop growth and yields. Yields observed in the first year of the experiment were higher than those in the second and third years in most treatments. The results showed that water and fertilizer are the key factors that can affect wheat yield in the semi- arid region of Rajasthan and should be managed according to soil and irrigation availability.

  • Linkage between fertilizer rates and irrigation frequency analyzed in a semi-arid environment using wheat crop.

  • Twelve treatments with four replicas set up in the experimental field for three different periods.

  • Root length and shoot length measured after every 20, 40, and 60 days of sowing.

  • High irrigation frequency and high fertilizer application significantly increased crop growth and yields.

Arid regions in India and the world are facing the problem of water scarcity. The leading causes of water scarcity are the changes in climatic conditions, rapid increase in population, and increase in agriculture (El-Hendawy et al. 2017; Pradhan et al. 2019; Sharma et al. 2022). Climate change has led to an increase in temperature, due to which most countries are becoming warmer and drier (Perry et al. 2009; Sharma et al. 2018a, 2018b; Mehta & Yadav 2021). Approximately 75% of fresh water is used by the agriculture sector, which further aggravates the scenario (Prathapar 2000). On average, the water requirement of a wheat crop is 45 cm, which can vary with factors such as the type of soil irrigation method and crop variety (St-Martin et al. 2017; Fellah et al. 2018). Wheat crop belongs to the category of crops having high water requirement per hectare (Mishra 2017; Gunawat et al. 2022). Well-drained loam, sandy loam, and clay loam soil are conducive to the growth of wheat (Behera & Panda 2009a; Li et al. 2010). According to the World Bank report, the state government demotivates the cultivation of water-intensive wheat crops and other water-guzzling crops, which is affecting water sustainability and narrowing fiscal space (World Bank Report on Rajasthan 2018; Mundetia et al. 2023). Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) is one of the most dominant crops that covers approximately 32% of the total land under cereal cultivation globally and ranks first among all the other cereals (Tari 2016). Better matching of fertilizer and irrigation rates suitable to the local climate and soil type can increase the productivity of wheat (Boudjabi & Chenchouni 2021; English et al. 2002). Without compromising productivity and profitability, using the optimum quantity of nutrients is vital for agricultural sustainability (Salim & Raza 2020). Proper water management is extremely important for maintaining crop production in the arid and semi-arid regions where water is usually a limiting factor in crop growth.

Globally, India ranks fourth in wheat production (after Russia, USA, and China) and contributes approximately 8.7% of the total wheat production (Ramadas et al. 2019). Wheat is the second most important food crop in India, particularly in the north-western and northern parts of India. It is cultivated on an area of approximately 19–20 million hectares, which accounts for approximately 54% of the total irrigated area in India. Groundwater is predominantly used in irrigation in Indian agriculture, particularly in semi-arid regions, due to the limited supply of surface water (Zhai et al. 2018; Sreedevi et al. 2019). In 2016, wheat production in India was 2,750 kg/ha, whereas that in China was 5,393 kg/ha (Agricultural Statistics at a Glance 2017 Government of India). Nearly 86% of wheat production in India occurs in five states, namely Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan, and Madhya Pradesh (Nagarajan 2005). The total average irrigated land area of the semi-arid zone of Rajasthan is 0.37 million hectares, and the cultivated wheat grain yield is approximately 3,315 kg/ha (Gunawat et al. 2016). The semi-arid region of Rajasthan is highly fertile. Because of limited irrigation water availability, there is a challenge to the cultivation of wheat crops. In this context, adaptation strategies can help increase wheat production under changing climate conditions (Hussain et al. 2018). Irrigation water availability is limited worldwide, which necessitates the development and exploration of new water-saving irrigation technologies and methods to reduce water losses through deep percolation and soil surface evaporation (Mandal et al. 2005; Ahmadi et al. 2011; Liu & Wang 2018; Bouaroudj et al. 2019; Kumar et al. 2020).

Farmers generally use a high quantity of fertilizer dose and a large amount of irrigation water at frequent intervals to increase agricultural yield (Musick et al. 1994; Hussain et al. 1995; Boudjabi et al. 2015, 2019). According to Ul-Allah et al. (2018), managing low irrigation water consumption at various plant growth stages, with minimal consequences on crop growth and quality, has remained a top priority of various studies worldwide. Intensive use of agrochemicals leads to water and soil quality degradation, which seems to be a serious global issue (Panda et al. 2003). Nitrogen is an effective plant nutrient that affects plant growth, water-use efficiency, and nitrogen-use efficiency in wheat crops (Mehrabi & Sepaskhah 2018; Bandyopadhyay et al. 2019). Temperature and its related seasonal changes are also deleterious for agricultural production (Mehta & Yadav 2022). The increase in temperature is directly linked to climate changes, which may cause harm to crop production, livestock, fishery, and associated sectors (Rojas-Downing et al. 2017; Mbow et al. 2019). On the other side, the plant–soil–water relation increases productive water utilization and improves agriculture management (Fan et al. 2018). Thus, understanding the linkage between harvest yield and water-use efficiency is essential to facilitate the growth of various semi-arid crops and develop water management practices (Halitligil et al. 2000; Wiedenfeld 2000; Fellah et al. 2018). Deficit irrigation is a useful method that helps in the complete development process of plants requiring a limited amount of water (Fereres & Soriano 2006; Ali & Talukder 2008; Behera & Panda 2009b; Geerts et al. 2009; Bezzalla et al. 2018). Considering the limitation of land allocation for wheat production, ensuring an increase in the water-use efficiency by using well-planned water-saving techniques in agriculture is essential. This study was conducted at the experimental level with only a single variety of wheat crop, i.e. Raj 3077. In water-deficient areas, a suitable irrigation method helps farmers save crops and water (Liu et al. 2013). These insights allow for assessing the impact of fertilizer doses and different irrigation periods on wheat crop development.

Improved nutrient use efficiency will not only help to lower the cost of crop production by reducing fertilizer use but also help to reduce fertilizer contamination. Even though using less fertilizer increases nutrient use efficiency, farmers are concerned about optimizing profit. So, it's essential to find a balance between nutrient efficiency and crop productivity. To address these gaps, this study aims to find the best combination of nitrogen fertilizers and irrigation in wheat crops for improved nutrient management strategy in the semi-arid region of Rajasthan. For optimal agricultural productivity, a proper irrigation schedule and N application modes are crucial. Even though significant work has been done on irrigation scheduling and N application modes during wheat production (Si et al. 2020; Zain et al. 2021). However, deep knowledge of split N application modes under various irrigation scheduling in winter wheat is still lacking. The response of wheat to the use of N fertilizers and irrigation is not well understood in the semi-arid region of Rajasthan. As a result, there has been uncertainty about the use of recommended fertilizer rates with proper irrigation. To answer the research questions, the main objective of the study is to study the effect of nitrogen fertilizer rates and irrigation frequency on the growth and yield of wheat crops using field experiments in the semi-arid region of Rajasthan, India. The outcomes of the present study will give insights into how proper irrigation of winter wheat's crop performance can be improved by adjusting integrated irrigation and N fertilizer management.

Study area

The present study was conducted in the experiment field of the Central University of Rajasthan (26°37′39″ N, 75°01′54″ E), India (Figure 1).
Figure 1

Experimental site location at Central University of Rajasthan (red circle experimental location). Please refer to the online version of this paper to see this figure in colour: https://dx.doi.org/10.2166/aqua.2023.032.

Figure 1

Experimental site location at Central University of Rajasthan (red circle experimental location). Please refer to the online version of this paper to see this figure in colour: https://dx.doi.org/10.2166/aqua.2023.032.

Close modal
A semi-arid climate condition is predominant in the region with less precipitation and high evapotranspiration (Mehta & Yadav 2022, 2023). This region exhibits extreme temperature variations, with hot and dry summers and cold winters. Figure 2 presents the trend of mean monthly rainfall for 4 years (2014–17). Rainfall was mainly recorded in the months from June to October as 484, 305, 474, and 453 mm during the years 2014–15, 2015–16, 2016–17, and 2017–18, respectively. The growing period of the wheat crop in this region witnesses only a few rainfall events with a low amount, particularly from the last week of November to the beginning of April.
Figure 2

Monthly rainfall (mm) pattern near to the experimental site.

Figure 2

Monthly rainfall (mm) pattern near to the experimental site.

Close modal

Before performing an experiment in the field, soil samples were collected to determine initial soil physico-chemical properties. Different physico-chemical parameters such as soil moisture, soil water holding capacity, pH, electric conductivity, micronutrients, and NPK content of the experimental field soil were analyzed in the laboratory. The experimental site has coarse-to-medium textured loamy soils.

The soil pH ranged from 7.2 to 7.5, electrical conductivity was 755–761 μS/cm, and bulk density was 1.43–1.47 g/cm3. The soil has medium water holding capacity of 28.8–29.6%. It has a low nitrogen (N) content (77.6–80.3 kg/ha), a moderate phosphorus (P) content (2.01–2.13 kg/ha), and a high potash (K) content (492.7–507.1 kg/ha). Table 1 presents the data regarding soil water holding capacity, porosity, moisture content, bulk density, particle density, micronutrients (Fe, Mn, Zn, and Cu), and carbonates.

Table 1

Physico-chemical parameters of soil at the experiment site

Soil physico-chemical properties
Sample No.DepthpHECCaCO3OCNPKFeMnZnCuBulk densityParticle densityPorosityWHCMoisture content
(cm)(μS/cm)(%)(%)(kg/ha)(ppm)(g/cm3)(g/cm3)(%)(%)(%)
S1 0–15 7.2 755 4.5 0.46 78.4 2.01 502.9 4.6 9.8 1.2 0.5 1.43 2.61 34.55 29.6 15.27 
S2 0–15 7.5 761 5.0 0.44 80.3 2.13 492.7 5.5 10.1 1.1 0.7 1.47 2.63 32.81 28.8 14.97 
S3 0–15 7.3 758 4.6 0.47 77.6 2.04 507.1 4.8 9.5 1.0 0.6 1.44 2.60 33.85 29.1 15.15 
Soil physico-chemical properties
Sample No.DepthpHECCaCO3OCNPKFeMnZnCuBulk densityParticle densityPorosityWHCMoisture content
(cm)(μS/cm)(%)(%)(kg/ha)(ppm)(g/cm3)(g/cm3)(%)(%)(%)
S1 0–15 7.2 755 4.5 0.46 78.4 2.01 502.9 4.6 9.8 1.2 0.5 1.43 2.61 34.55 29.6 15.27 
S2 0–15 7.5 761 5.0 0.44 80.3 2.13 492.7 5.5 10.1 1.1 0.7 1.47 2.63 32.81 28.8 14.97 
S3 0–15 7.3 758 4.6 0.47 77.6 2.04 507.1 4.8 9.5 1.0 0.6 1.44 2.60 33.85 29.1 15.15 

EC, electrical conductivity; OC, organic carbon; WHC, water holding capacity.

Experimental procedure and design

A Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) field experiment was performed to analyze the effects of irrigation period and fertilizer dose on yields, biomass, and productivity of the wheat crop during three consecutive years from 2014–15 to 2016–17. A detailed design procedure of RCBD was described by Shabani et al. (2013). The dimension of each experimental sub-plot was approximately 2 × 2 m2, as shown in Figure 3. A 0.5-m gap of land was left between each sub-plot of all four blocks to prevent horizontal water flows. Several researchers (Bajgai et al. 2019; Paik et al. 2020; Rawal et al. 2022; Torabian et al. 2023) used this type of methodology which is appropriate for assessing the effects on wheat growth and yield.
Figure 3

Agricultural field experimental randomized complete block design.

Figure 3

Agricultural field experimental randomized complete block design.

Close modal

A total of 12 experiments with 4 replicates were conducted by combining different doses of fertilizer (100% RD, 125% RD, 50% RD, and no fertilizer) with respect to the recommended dose (RD) of 150 kg/ha and three irrigation intervals (15, 21, and 25 days). Irrigation water was applied using the surface flood method. At the time of irrigation, 50 mm of irrigation water was applied at each sub-plot at various intervals. Detailed information on different treatments is presented in Table 2.

Table 2

Different treatment methods applied in the experimental field

S. No.Treatment No.Details layout of experiment
1. T-1 Control and irrigation with 21 days interval + No urea 
2. T-2 Irrigation with 25 days interval + No urea 
3. T-3 Irrigation with 15 days interval + No urea 
4. T-4 RD of urea + Irrigation with 21 days interval 
5. T-5 1.25 RD of urea + Irrigation with 15 days interval 
6. T-6 RD of urea + Irrigation with 25 days interval 
7. T-7 RD of urea + Irrigation with 15 days interval 
8. T-8 RD of urea/2 + Irrigation with 21 days interval 
9. T-9 1.25 RD of urea + Irrigation with 25 days interval 
10. T-10 RD of urea/2 + Irrigation with 25 days interval 
11. T-11 RD of urea/2 + Irrigation with 15 days interval 
12. T-12 1.25 RD of urea + Irrigation with 21 days interval 
S. No.Treatment No.Details layout of experiment
1. T-1 Control and irrigation with 21 days interval + No urea 
2. T-2 Irrigation with 25 days interval + No urea 
3. T-3 Irrigation with 15 days interval + No urea 
4. T-4 RD of urea + Irrigation with 21 days interval 
5. T-5 1.25 RD of urea + Irrigation with 15 days interval 
6. T-6 RD of urea + Irrigation with 25 days interval 
7. T-7 RD of urea + Irrigation with 15 days interval 
8. T-8 RD of urea/2 + Irrigation with 21 days interval 
9. T-9 1.25 RD of urea + Irrigation with 25 days interval 
10. T-10 RD of urea/2 + Irrigation with 25 days interval 
11. T-11 RD of urea/2 + Irrigation with 15 days interval 
12. T-12 1.25 RD of urea + Irrigation with 21 days interval 

Agricultural land was prepared using standard tillage equipment, and seed plantation on the land was performed manually. The wheat cultivar ‘Raj 3077’ was used in the experiment because it is well-adapted to the region and grows well under light-to-moderate saline/alkaline conditions, which allowed flexible sowing dates. Seeds were sown in the last week of November (28th November) for three consecutive years from 2014 to 2016, with a seed rate of 125 kg/ha. At the time of land preparation, compost manure of cow dung was mixed in the topsoil. Afterward, nitrogen fertilizer (urea) was applied at the tillering stage of growth according to the doses mentioned in different treatments. The weeding process was performed using spud between 30 and 60 days after sowing. Thereafter, harvesting was performed using a parcel harvester on April 10 each year. The total grain biomass was determined for each treatment immediately after harvesting. Moisture correction was not performed on the yield values. Wheat plants were harvested at ground level from 2 m × 2 m of each sub-plot to determine biomass yields.

Statistical analysis

Crop yield data of 3 years were analyzed using the basic statistical method (average, standard deviation, maximum-minimum biomass, and yield from four replicas were calculated). Pairwise comparison is a widely used method for comparison in agricultural research (Carmer & Walker 1985). The commonly used test for pairwise comparison is the least significant differences (LSD) test, which is suitable for a planned pair comparison (Gomez & Gomez 1984). The procedure to use the LSD test was described by Fisher (1936). Generally, the F-test is used to test the hypothesis that all means are equal. The two treatments are considered different if the absolute difference between the two-sample means is more than the calculated LSD.

Then, crop yield data were statistically analyzed by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and LSD test at a 5% level of significance (Favati et al. 2009; Patanè & Cosentino 2010). Variance analysis was used to understand the interaction between the treatments and yield production and determine significant differences among various treatments. LSD value was calculated at a fixed level of significance that helped in determining significant and nonsignificant differences among any pair of treatment means. Fisher's LSD value was estimated using Equation (1), as follows:
(1)
where is the degree of freedom (observation – groups) for experimental error; is the replication number for different treatments; MSE is mean square of error; and is the tabular value of ‘Student's t’ for given .

The given procedure was applied to analyze different treatments and the average value of crop yield to determine the significant difference among different pairs of means.

Crop response (root and shoot length, yield, and biomass)

Different experiments were conducted for three consecutive years (2014–15, 2015–16, and 2016–17) at the field level. Treatment-wise growth was recorded for root and shoot length at 20, 40, and 60 days. Table 3 presents basic statistics of root and shoot length at the pre-determined time points (20, 40, and 60 days after treatment) for all 3 years. The growth pattern for both root length and shoot length was found to be similar in all 3 years of study. Root and shoot length was found to increase with time. The maximum root and shoot length was observed at 60 days in T-5 and T-3 in the first year (2014–15), in T-12 in the second year (2015–16), and T-11 and T-3 in the third year (2016–17) (Table 3). Table 4 presents the data for different morphological parameters related to plant spike, leaf, root, and stem for all 3 years. The values of all the parameters reflected a high crop yield. As shown in Table 4, the values of all parameters were highest in T-5 and lowest in T-2, indicating that plant growth is directly dependent on fertilizer quantity. LSD value is calculated at a fixed level of significance which can help in differentiating between significant and nonsignificant differences among any pair of treatment means. According to the LSD test, different letters in a column represent the significant difference in the morphological parameters at a 5% significance level. It means that means are not significantly different and are assigned a common letter.

Table 3

Basic statistics of root and shoot length of wheat crop for 3 years

Parameters20 days
40 days
60 days
Shoot lengthRoot lengthShoot lengthRoot lengthShoot lengthRoot length
Development stages of crop growth (2014–15) 
 Maximum (cm) 17.5 (T-7) 7.6 (T-3) 36.4 (T-3) 8.2 (T-5) 56.3 (T-3) 9.5 (T-5) 
 Minimum (cm) 12.9 (T-6) 5.2 (T-8) 26.9 (T-6) 6.5 (T-1) 40.5 (T-6) 7.1 (T-6) 
 Mean ± SD (cm) 15.1 ± 1.4 6.4 ± 0.6 31.0 ± 2.7 7.3 ± 0.5 49.6 ± 4.9 8.2 ± 0.6 
Development stages of crop growth (2015–16) 
 Maximum (cm) 18.2 (T-8) 7.9 (T-3) 27.6 (T-9) 9.1 (T-12) 85.5 (T-12) 13.2 (T-12) 
 Minimum (cm) 11.9 (T-9) 3.9 (T-8) 21.2 (T-7) 5.5 (T-6) 58.0 (T-10) 7.1 (T-7) 
 Mean ± SD (cm) 15.5 ± 1.6 5.8 ± 0.9 24 ± 1.9 7.4 ± 1.0 71.0 ± 9.5 10.1 ± 1.8 
Development stages of crop growth (2016–17) 
 Maximum (cm) 16.2 (T-7) 7.1 (T-3) 34.4 (T-3) 7.7 (T-10) 54.7 (T-3) 9.0 (T-11) 
 Minimum (cm) 12.2 (T-2) 3.8 (T-6) 24.9 (T-6) 4.4 (T-6) 37.0 (T-11) 5.1 (T-6) 
 Mean ± SD (cm) 14.4 ± 1.5 5.5 ± 1.0 29.6 ± 3.2 6.4 ± 0.8 44.5 ± 5.9 7.3 ± 1.0 
Parameters20 days
40 days
60 days
Shoot lengthRoot lengthShoot lengthRoot lengthShoot lengthRoot length
Development stages of crop growth (2014–15) 
 Maximum (cm) 17.5 (T-7) 7.6 (T-3) 36.4 (T-3) 8.2 (T-5) 56.3 (T-3) 9.5 (T-5) 
 Minimum (cm) 12.9 (T-6) 5.2 (T-8) 26.9 (T-6) 6.5 (T-1) 40.5 (T-6) 7.1 (T-6) 
 Mean ± SD (cm) 15.1 ± 1.4 6.4 ± 0.6 31.0 ± 2.7 7.3 ± 0.5 49.6 ± 4.9 8.2 ± 0.6 
Development stages of crop growth (2015–16) 
 Maximum (cm) 18.2 (T-8) 7.9 (T-3) 27.6 (T-9) 9.1 (T-12) 85.5 (T-12) 13.2 (T-12) 
 Minimum (cm) 11.9 (T-9) 3.9 (T-8) 21.2 (T-7) 5.5 (T-6) 58.0 (T-10) 7.1 (T-7) 
 Mean ± SD (cm) 15.5 ± 1.6 5.8 ± 0.9 24 ± 1.9 7.4 ± 1.0 71.0 ± 9.5 10.1 ± 1.8 
Development stages of crop growth (2016–17) 
 Maximum (cm) 16.2 (T-7) 7.1 (T-3) 34.4 (T-3) 7.7 (T-10) 54.7 (T-3) 9.0 (T-11) 
 Minimum (cm) 12.2 (T-2) 3.8 (T-6) 24.9 (T-6) 4.4 (T-6) 37.0 (T-11) 5.1 (T-6) 
 Mean ± SD (cm) 14.4 ± 1.5 5.5 ± 1.0 29.6 ± 3.2 6.4 ± 0.8 44.5 ± 5.9 7.3 ± 1.0 
Table 4

Three years average (2014–17) values of various morphological parameters of wheat crop at maturation for different treatments with the LSD test

Morphological parametersTreatments
T-1T-2T-3T-4T-5T-6T-7T-8T-9T-10T-11T-12
Plant height (cm) 110.7 e 112.3 d 114.7 bc 113.0 cd 119.0 a 118.0 a 119.3 a 119.0 a 111.3 112.0 d 112.7 cd 115.3 b 
Spike height (cm) 14.3 de 13.3 e 18.7 c 15.0 d 24.3 a 19.7 c 22.7 b 21.3 b 15.7 d 14.0 e 15.3 d 19.7 c 
Leaf count 4.0 a 4.0 a 4.0 a 4.0 a 4.0 a 4.0 a 4.0 a 4.0 a 4.0 a 4.0 a 4.0 a 4.0 a 
Spike weight (g) 3.2 fg 3.4 de 3.4 de 3.4 de 4.6 a 4.3 c 4.5 a 4.4 b 3.1 3.3 ef 3.2 fg 3.5 d 
Spike wheat count 67.3 d 64.7 d 65.7 d 66.3 d 79.0 a 74.0 b 77.7 a 73.3 b 64.0 d 65.7 d 64.3 d 69.0 c 
Root length (cm) 11.0 d 11.0 d 12.7 c 12.3 c 15.3 a 14.0 ab 16.0 a 13.7 bc 11.0 d 12.3 cd 11.3 d 13.0 c 
Root width (cm) 3.0 d 3.1 d 3.5 bc 3.3 cd 4.4 a 3.7 b 4.5 a 3.7 b 3.1 d 3.2 d 3.1 d 3.5 bc 
Stem diameter (mm) 4.0 c 4.0 c 4.2 c 4.4 b 4.8 a 4.2 c 4.8 a 4.5 b 4.0 c 4.2 c 4.2 c 4.7 a 
Total node count 4.0 a 4.0 a 4.0 a 4.0 a 4.0 a 4.0 a 4.0 a 4.0 a 4.0 a 4.0 a 4.0 a 4.0 a 
Length between second node (cm) 21.7 de 21.0 e 22.0 de 22.7 cd 25.3 a 23.0 cd 25.0 ab 24.0 bc 20.3 e 21.7 de 22.0 de 22.7 cd 
Morphological parametersTreatments
T-1T-2T-3T-4T-5T-6T-7T-8T-9T-10T-11T-12
Plant height (cm) 110.7 e 112.3 d 114.7 bc 113.0 cd 119.0 a 118.0 a 119.3 a 119.0 a 111.3 112.0 d 112.7 cd 115.3 b 
Spike height (cm) 14.3 de 13.3 e 18.7 c 15.0 d 24.3 a 19.7 c 22.7 b 21.3 b 15.7 d 14.0 e 15.3 d 19.7 c 
Leaf count 4.0 a 4.0 a 4.0 a 4.0 a 4.0 a 4.0 a 4.0 a 4.0 a 4.0 a 4.0 a 4.0 a 4.0 a 
Spike weight (g) 3.2 fg 3.4 de 3.4 de 3.4 de 4.6 a 4.3 c 4.5 a 4.4 b 3.1 3.3 ef 3.2 fg 3.5 d 
Spike wheat count 67.3 d 64.7 d 65.7 d 66.3 d 79.0 a 74.0 b 77.7 a 73.3 b 64.0 d 65.7 d 64.3 d 69.0 c 
Root length (cm) 11.0 d 11.0 d 12.7 c 12.3 c 15.3 a 14.0 ab 16.0 a 13.7 bc 11.0 d 12.3 cd 11.3 d 13.0 c 
Root width (cm) 3.0 d 3.1 d 3.5 bc 3.3 cd 4.4 a 3.7 b 4.5 a 3.7 b 3.1 d 3.2 d 3.1 d 3.5 bc 
Stem diameter (mm) 4.0 c 4.0 c 4.2 c 4.4 b 4.8 a 4.2 c 4.8 a 4.5 b 4.0 c 4.2 c 4.2 c 4.7 a 
Total node count 4.0 a 4.0 a 4.0 a 4.0 a 4.0 a 4.0 a 4.0 a 4.0 a 4.0 a 4.0 a 4.0 a 4.0 a 
Length between second node (cm) 21.7 de 21.0 e 22.0 de 22.7 cd 25.3 a 23.0 cd 25.0 ab 24.0 bc 20.3 e 21.7 de 22.0 de 22.7 cd 

Different letters ‘a to g’ in a column represent the significant difference in the mean yield value at a 5% significance level. It means that means are not significantly different and are assigned a common letter. It is presented in all the tables of LSD analysis.

The average root and shoot lengths 20 days after the 12 treatments were analyzed, and the results are shown in Figure 4. As depicted in the figure, the average maximum and minimum shoot lengths were observed in T-8 (18.2 cm) and T-9 (11.9 cm), respectively, in 2015–16. Similarly, the average maximum and minimum root lengths were observed in T-3 (7.9 cm) in 2015–16 and T-6 (3.8 cm) in 2016–17. The treatment-wise comparison of root and shoot length 40 days after treatment is presented in Figure 5. The average maximum shoot length after 40 days of treatment was observed in T-3 (36.4 cm) in 2014–15, whereas the average minimum shoot length was found in T-7 (21.2 cm) in 2015–16. The average maximum and minimum root lengths 40 days after treatment were observed in T-12 (9.1 cm) in 2015–16 and T-6 (4.4 cm) in 2016–17, respectively.
Figure 4

Growth stage (root length and shoot length in cm) of wheat plant after 20 days of sowing.

Figure 4

Growth stage (root length and shoot length in cm) of wheat plant after 20 days of sowing.

Close modal
Figure 5

Growth stage (root length and shoot length in cm) of wheat plant after 40 days of sowing.

Figure 5

Growth stage (root length and shoot length in cm) of wheat plant after 40 days of sowing.

Close modal
Figure 6 illustrates the maximum and minimum lengths of root and shoot 60 days after treatment. The average maximum shoot length was observed in T-12 (85.5 cm) in 2015–16, whereas the average minimum shoot length was found in T-11 (37 cm) in 2016–17. The maximum root length was observed in T-12 (13.2 cm) in 2015–16, whereas the minimum root length was observed in T-6 (5.1 cm) in 2016–17.
Figure 6

Growth stage (root length and shoot length in cm) of wheat plant after 60 days of sowing.

Figure 6

Growth stage (root length and shoot length in cm) of wheat plant after 60 days of sowing.

Close modal

The data for crop yield (kg), biomass (kg), root length (cm), and shoot length (cm) of the wheat crop for all three study years were categorized into four groups, according to the fertilizer quantity used (0, 50, 100, and 125%) and the three irrigation intervals (Table 5).

Table 5

Summary of crop yield (kg plot-1), biomass (kg plot-1), root length (cm), and shoot length (cm) of the wheat with different fertilizer rates and irrigation intervals

GroupT. No.Treatment details2014–15
2015–16
2016–17
YieldBiomassRootShootYieldBiomassRootShootYieldBiomassRootShoot
G-1 T-3 Irrigation with 15 days interval + No urea 1.80 4.10 8.2 56.3 1.32 2.21 11.3 66.0 1.52 3.41 7.8 54.7 
T-1 Control and irrigation with 21 days interval + No urea 1.68 3.25 8.6 52.8 1.38 2.62 13.0 70.0 1.30 2.43 7.0 49.6 
T-2 Irrigation with 25 days interval + No urea 1.80 3.79 8.9 55.6 1.17 2.39 7.5 58.5 1.63 3.05 8.5 50.7 
G-2 T-7 RD of urea + Irrigation with 15 days interval 1.88 4.41 8.0 44.3 1.70 3.07 5.0 65.0 1.64 3.52 7.2 39.5 
T-4 RD of urea + Irrigation with 21 days interval 1.66 3.87 7.6 53.9 1.54 2.51 7.8 85.0 1.37 2.95 6.3 50.4 
T-6 RD of urea + Irrigation with 25 days interval 1.66 3.75 7.1 40.5 1.74 3.19 9.8 82.5 1.45 2.79 5.1 37.6 
G-3 T-11 RD of urea/2 + Irrigation with 15 days interval 1.61 3.82 8.2 43.6 1.47 2.22 10.2 63.0 1.38 3.02 9.0 37.0 
T-8 RD of urea/2 + Irrigation with 21 days interval 1.74 4.24 7.5 51.9 1.68 2.16 10.0 78.0 1.53 3.67 7.2 44.1 
T-10 RD of urea/2 + Irrigation with 25 days interval 1.70 3.44 9.1 49.5 1.37 2.47 7.5 58.0 1.48 2.50 8.5 37.1 
G-4 T-5 1.25 RD of urea + Irrigation with 15 days interval 2.00 3.76 9.5 45.8 2.20 3.10 11.5 76.0 1.97 3.36 7.1 48.7 
T-12 1.25 RD of urea + Irrigation with 21 days interval 1.73 3.89 7.6 47.5 1.52 2.60 13.2 85.5 1.52 2.91 7.7 39.8 
T-9 1.25 RD of urea + Irrigation with 25 days interval 1.47 2.77 8.3 53.4 1.24 2.04 5.7 65.0 1.23 1.99 7.0 44.8 
GroupT. No.Treatment details2014–15
2015–16
2016–17
YieldBiomassRootShootYieldBiomassRootShootYieldBiomassRootShoot
G-1 T-3 Irrigation with 15 days interval + No urea 1.80 4.10 8.2 56.3 1.32 2.21 11.3 66.0 1.52 3.41 7.8 54.7 
T-1 Control and irrigation with 21 days interval + No urea 1.68 3.25 8.6 52.8 1.38 2.62 13.0 70.0 1.30 2.43 7.0 49.6 
T-2 Irrigation with 25 days interval + No urea 1.80 3.79 8.9 55.6 1.17 2.39 7.5 58.5 1.63 3.05 8.5 50.7 
G-2 T-7 RD of urea + Irrigation with 15 days interval 1.88 4.41 8.0 44.3 1.70 3.07 5.0 65.0 1.64 3.52 7.2 39.5 
T-4 RD of urea + Irrigation with 21 days interval 1.66 3.87 7.6 53.9 1.54 2.51 7.8 85.0 1.37 2.95 6.3 50.4 
T-6 RD of urea + Irrigation with 25 days interval 1.66 3.75 7.1 40.5 1.74 3.19 9.8 82.5 1.45 2.79 5.1 37.6 
G-3 T-11 RD of urea/2 + Irrigation with 15 days interval 1.61 3.82 8.2 43.6 1.47 2.22 10.2 63.0 1.38 3.02 9.0 37.0 
T-8 RD of urea/2 + Irrigation with 21 days interval 1.74 4.24 7.5 51.9 1.68 2.16 10.0 78.0 1.53 3.67 7.2 44.1 
T-10 RD of urea/2 + Irrigation with 25 days interval 1.70 3.44 9.1 49.5 1.37 2.47 7.5 58.0 1.48 2.50 8.5 37.1 
G-4 T-5 1.25 RD of urea + Irrigation with 15 days interval 2.00 3.76 9.5 45.8 2.20 3.10 11.5 76.0 1.97 3.36 7.1 48.7 
T-12 1.25 RD of urea + Irrigation with 21 days interval 1.73 3.89 7.6 47.5 1.52 2.60 13.2 85.5 1.52 2.91 7.7 39.8 
T-9 1.25 RD of urea + Irrigation with 25 days interval 1.47 2.77 8.3 53.4 1.24 2.04 5.7 65.0 1.23 1.99 7.0 44.8 

Bold numbers show a relation between biomass-shoot and yield-root in wheat growth.

The results indicated that the effects of fertilizer quantity and irrigation interval on crop yield, biomass, root length, and shoot length were different among the four groups. In the first group (T-3, T-1, T-2), crop yield was highest in the treatment in which the maximum root length was observed, and biomass was highest in the treatment in which the maximum shoot length was observed. A similar pattern was observed in all 3 years. In the second group (T-7, T-4, T-6), crop yield was highest in the treatment in which the maximum root length was observed. In the third group (T-11, T-8, T-10), biomass was highest in the treatment in which the maximum shoot length was observed. In the last group (T-5, T-12, T-9), no specific pattern was observed. Overall, the increase in fertilizer quantity and irrigation interval was found to significantly increase the yield, and the yield was maximum in T-5 (2.20 kg or 4,525.46 kg/ha) in the year 2015–16 (with the irrigation interval of 15 days and fertilizer dose of 125%). The year-wise yield comparison indicated that most treatments resulted in a high yield in the first year (2014–15); however, the yield was found to decrease in the second year (2015–16) and the third year (2016–17).

The variation in average yield for all treatments was estimated in kg/ha and compared; the results are illustrated in Figure 7. The crop yield was found to be maximum (4,525.46 kg/ha) in T-5 (1.25 times the RD of urea and 15-day irrigation interval) in the year 2015–16, which was the highest among all three experimental years. The second highest crop yield was observed in the same treatment in the year 2014–15. However, the minimum crop yield (2,560.34 kg/ha) was observed in T-2 (no dose of urea and 25-day irrigation interval) in the year 2015–16. On average, the maximum and minimum wheat yield among all treatments was observed in T-5 (4,247 kg/ha) and T-4 (3,152.29 kg/ha), respectively.
Figure 7

Three years average yield production for different treatments of wheat crop.

Figure 7

Three years average yield production for different treatments of wheat crop.

Close modal
Based on the pattern of variation in root length and biomass with yield and shoot length, respectively, observed in the year-wise comparison of treatments (Table 5), we analyzed the overall averaged data for all the treatments to determine any changes, as shown in Figure 8. The maximum biomass production was observed in T-7 (RD of urea + irrigation with 15-day intervals), followed by T-5 (1.25 RD of urea + irrigation with 15-day intervals), whereas the minimum biomass production was observed in T-9 (1.25 RD of urea + irrigation with 25-day intervals). The maximum shoot length was observed in T-4 (RD of urea + irrigation with 21-day intervals), and the minimum shoot length was observed in T-11 (RD of urea/2 + irrigation with 15-day intervals). Thus, no specific pattern was observed in the averaged data of biomass and shoot length in all the treatments.
Figure 8

Pattern of average shoot length (in cm) for different periods (20, 40, and 60 days) and biomass.

Figure 8

Pattern of average shoot length (in cm) for different periods (20, 40, and 60 days) and biomass.

Close modal
Figure 9 shows the average crop yield and average root length. The maximum yield was observed in T-5 (1.25 RD of urea + irrigation with 15-day intervals), followed by T-7 (RD of urea + irrigation with 15-day intervals) and T-8 (RD of urea/2 + irrigation with 21-day intervals). The yield was found to be minimum in T-9 (1.25 RD of urea + irrigation with 25-day intervals). The maximum root length was observed in T-5 (1.25 RD of urea + irrigation with 15-day intervals). The highest crop yield and the maximum root length observed in T-5 indicate that root length may be associated with high crop yield.
Figure 9

Pattern of average root length (in cm) for different periods (20, 40, and 60 days) and yield.

Figure 9

Pattern of average root length (in cm) for different periods (20, 40, and 60 days) and yield.

Close modal

Pairwise multiple comparisons

One-way ANOVA was used to statistically analyze the effects of different fertilizer treatments on crop yield for all 3 years. Differences between the yields were evaluated using the LSD test; the results are presented in Table 6. In Table 7, the means within columns not followed by the same letter are significantly different at the p < 0.05 level, based on the Fisher (LSD) test. In Group I: (zero fertilizer with different irrigation periods), only one treatment of comparison was found significant (T-2 vs. T-1) for three consecutive years. Group II (50% fertilizer with different irrigation) and Group III (fertilizer with RDs with different irrigation periods) exhibited no significant difference among treatments. In Group IV (125% of RD fertilizer with different irrigation periods), only one comparison of treatment (T-5 vs. T-9) was found to be significant in 3 years (2014–15 and 2015–16).

Table 6

Treatments/Fisher (LSD)/Analysis of the differences between the categories with a confidence interval of 95% (Yield) for different treatments of fertilizer dose and irrigation period (2014–17)

2014–15
2015–16
2016–17
ContrastDifferenceSignificantContrastDifferenceSignificantContrastDifferenceSignificant
Group I: (0% fertilizer with different irrigation) 
T-2 vs. T-1 0.119 No T-1 vs. T-2 0.21 No T-2 vs. T-1 0.338 Yes 
T-2 vs. T-3 0.002 No T-1 vs. T-3 0.059 No T-2 vs. T-3 0.109 No 
T-3 vs. T-1 0.117 No T-3 vs. T-2 0.151 No T-3 vs. T-1 0.229 No 
Group II: (50% fertilizer with different irrigation) 
T-8 vs. T-11 0.125 No T-8 vs. T-10 0.31 No T-8 vs. T-11 0.157 No 
T-8 vs. T-10 0.034 No T-8 vs. T-11 0.216 No T-8 vs. T-10 0.049 No 
T-10 vs. T-11 0.09 No T-11 vs. T-10 0.094 No T-10 vs. T-11 0.108 No 
Group III: (100% fertilizer with different irrigation) 
T-7 vs. T-4 0.225 No T-6 vs. T-4 0.191 No T-7 vs. T-4 0.269 No 
T-7 vs. T-6 0.222 No T-6 vs. T-7 0.034 No T-7 vs. T-6 0.186 No 
T-6 vs. T-4 0.003 No T-7 vs. T-4 0.157 No T-6 vs. T-4 0.083 No 
Group IV: (125% fertilizer with different irrigation) 
T-5 vs. T-9 0.527 Yes T-5 vs. T-9 0.957 Yes T-5 vs. T-9 0.734 Yes 
T-5 vs. T-12 0.268 No T-5 vs. T-12 0.678 No T-5 vs. T-12 0.441 No 
T-12 vs. T-9 0.259 No T-12 vs. T-9 0.279 No T-12 vs. T-9 0.293 No 
2014–15
2015–16
2016–17
ContrastDifferenceSignificantContrastDifferenceSignificantContrastDifferenceSignificant
Group I: (0% fertilizer with different irrigation) 
T-2 vs. T-1 0.119 No T-1 vs. T-2 0.21 No T-2 vs. T-1 0.338 Yes 
T-2 vs. T-3 0.002 No T-1 vs. T-3 0.059 No T-2 vs. T-3 0.109 No 
T-3 vs. T-1 0.117 No T-3 vs. T-2 0.151 No T-3 vs. T-1 0.229 No 
Group II: (50% fertilizer with different irrigation) 
T-8 vs. T-11 0.125 No T-8 vs. T-10 0.31 No T-8 vs. T-11 0.157 No 
T-8 vs. T-10 0.034 No T-8 vs. T-11 0.216 No T-8 vs. T-10 0.049 No 
T-10 vs. T-11 0.09 No T-11 vs. T-10 0.094 No T-10 vs. T-11 0.108 No 
Group III: (100% fertilizer with different irrigation) 
T-7 vs. T-4 0.225 No T-6 vs. T-4 0.191 No T-7 vs. T-4 0.269 No 
T-7 vs. T-6 0.222 No T-6 vs. T-7 0.034 No T-7 vs. T-6 0.186 No 
T-6 vs. T-4 0.003 No T-7 vs. T-4 0.157 No T-6 vs. T-4 0.083 No 
Group IV: (125% fertilizer with different irrigation) 
T-5 vs. T-9 0.527 Yes T-5 vs. T-9 0.957 Yes T-5 vs. T-9 0.734 Yes 
T-5 vs. T-12 0.268 No T-5 vs. T-12 0.678 No T-5 vs. T-12 0.441 No 
T-12 vs. T-9 0.259 No T-12 vs. T-9 0.279 No T-12 vs. T-9 0.293 No 
Table 7

Summary (LS means) – for different treatments of fertilizer dose and irrigation period (2014–17)

Treatments detailsYield
Group I: (0% fertilizer with different irrigation) 2014–15 2015–16 2016–17 
 T-1 Control and irrigation with 21 days interval 1.689 a 1.388 a 1.301 b 
 T-2 Irrigation with 25 days interval 1.807 a 1.178 a 1.638 a 
 T-3 Irrigation with 15 days interval 1.806 a 1.329 a 1.530 ab 
Group II: (50% fertilizer with different irrigation) 2014–15 2015–16 2016–17 
 T-8 Irrigation with 21 days interval 1.742 a 1.690 a 1.537 a 
 T-10 Irrigation with 25 days interval 1.708 a 1.380 a 1.488 a 
 T-11 Irrigation with 15 days interval 1.618 a 1.474 a 1.381 a 
Group III: (100% fertilizer with different irrigation) 2014–15 2015–16 2016–17 
 T-4 Irrigation with 21 days interval 1.661 a 1.549 a 1.372 a 
 T-6 Irrigation with 25 days interval 1.664 a 1.740 a 1.455 a 
 T-7 Irrigation with 15 days interval 1.886 a 1.706 a 1.641 a 
Group IV: (125% fertilizer with different irrigation) 2014–15 2015–16 2016–17 
 T-5 Irrigation with 15 days interval 2.003 a 2.205 a 1.966 a 
 T-9 Irrigation with 25 days interval 1.477 b 1.249 b 1.233 b 
 T-12 Irrigation with 21 days interval 1.736 ab 1.528 ab 1.526 ab 
Treatments detailsYield
Group I: (0% fertilizer with different irrigation) 2014–15 2015–16 2016–17 
 T-1 Control and irrigation with 21 days interval 1.689 a 1.388 a 1.301 b 
 T-2 Irrigation with 25 days interval 1.807 a 1.178 a 1.638 a 
 T-3 Irrigation with 15 days interval 1.806 a 1.329 a 1.530 ab 
Group II: (50% fertilizer with different irrigation) 2014–15 2015–16 2016–17 
 T-8 Irrigation with 21 days interval 1.742 a 1.690 a 1.537 a 
 T-10 Irrigation with 25 days interval 1.708 a 1.380 a 1.488 a 
 T-11 Irrigation with 15 days interval 1.618 a 1.474 a 1.381 a 
Group III: (100% fertilizer with different irrigation) 2014–15 2015–16 2016–17 
 T-4 Irrigation with 21 days interval 1.661 a 1.549 a 1.372 a 
 T-6 Irrigation with 25 days interval 1.664 a 1.740 a 1.455 a 
 T-7 Irrigation with 15 days interval 1.886 a 1.706 a 1.641 a 
Group IV: (125% fertilizer with different irrigation) 2014–15 2015–16 2016–17 
 T-5 Irrigation with 15 days interval 2.003 a 2.205 a 1.966 a 
 T-9 Irrigation with 25 days interval 1.477 b 1.249 b 1.233 b 
 T-12 Irrigation with 21 days interval 1.736 ab 1.528 ab 1.526 ab 

The value for crop yield was statistically analyzed by one-way ANOVA using the LSD test. In the first year (2014–15), only four comparisons of treatments were found to be significant. In the second year (2015–16) and the third year (2016–17), six and nine comparisons of treatments were found significant. Means within columns not followed by the same letter are significantly different at the level of p < 0.05 based on the Fisher (LSD) test (Table 8).

Table 8

Summary (LS means) – for different treatments for all 3 years (2014–17)

T. No.Treatments detailsYield
2014–152015–162016–17
T-1 Control and water irrigation at 21 days after sowing (DAS) 1.689 abc 1.388 b 1.301 b 
T-2 Water irrigation at 25 DAS 1.807 abc 1.178 b 1.638 ab 
T-3 Water irrigation at 15 DAS 1.806 abc 1.329 b 1.530 b 
T-4 Recommended dose (RD) of urea (U) + Water at 21 DAS 1.661 bc 1.549 ab 1.372 b 
T-5 1.25 RD of U + Water at 15 DAS 2.003 a 2.205 a 1.966 a 
T-6 RD of U + Water irrigation at 25 DAS 1.664 abc 1.740 ab 1.455 b 
T-7 RD of U + Water irrigation at 15 DAS 1.886 ab 1.706 ab 1.641 ab 
T-8 RD of U/2 + Water irrigation at 21 DAS 1.742 abc 1.690 ab 1.537 b 
T-9 1.25 RD of U + Water irrigation at 25 DAS 1.477 c 1.249 b 1.233 b 
T-10 RD of U/2 + Water irrigation at 25 DAS 1.708 abc 1.380 b 1.488 b 
T-11 RD of U/2 + Water irrigation at 15 DAS 1.618 bc 1.474 b 1.381 b 
T-12 1.25 RD of U + Water irrigation at 21 DAS 1.736 abc 1.528 ab 1.526 b 
T. No.Treatments detailsYield
2014–152015–162016–17
T-1 Control and water irrigation at 21 days after sowing (DAS) 1.689 abc 1.388 b 1.301 b 
T-2 Water irrigation at 25 DAS 1.807 abc 1.178 b 1.638 ab 
T-3 Water irrigation at 15 DAS 1.806 abc 1.329 b 1.530 b 
T-4 Recommended dose (RD) of urea (U) + Water at 21 DAS 1.661 bc 1.549 ab 1.372 b 
T-5 1.25 RD of U + Water at 15 DAS 2.003 a 2.205 a 1.966 a 
T-6 RD of U + Water irrigation at 25 DAS 1.664 abc 1.740 ab 1.455 b 
T-7 RD of U + Water irrigation at 15 DAS 1.886 ab 1.706 ab 1.641 ab 
T-8 RD of U/2 + Water irrigation at 21 DAS 1.742 abc 1.690 ab 1.537 b 
T-9 1.25 RD of U + Water irrigation at 25 DAS 1.477 c 1.249 b 1.233 b 
T-10 RD of U/2 + Water irrigation at 25 DAS 1.708 abc 1.380 b 1.488 b 
T-11 RD of U/2 + Water irrigation at 15 DAS 1.618 bc 1.474 b 1.381 b 
T-12 1.25 RD of U + Water irrigation at 21 DAS 1.736 abc 1.528 ab 1.526 b 

Different letters ‘abc’ in a column represent the significant difference in the mean yield value at a 5% significance level. It means that means are not significantly different and are assigned a common letter. It is presented in all the tables of LSD analysis.

Data for crop yield were further statistically analyzed using the LSD test. In the case of average data, only 11 comparisons of treatments were found to be significant. Means within columns not followed by the same letter are significantly different at the level of p < 0.05 based on the Fisher (LSD) test (Table 9).

Table 9

Summary (LS means) of different treatments considering the average yield of 3 years (2014–17)

T. No.Treatment detailsAverage yield
T-1 Control and water irrigation at 21 days after sowing (DAS) 1.459 bc 
T-2 Water irrigation at 25 DAS 1.541 bc 
T-3 Water irrigation at 15 DAS 1.555 bc 
T-4 Recommended dose (RD) of urea (U) + Water at 21 DAS 1.527 bc 
T-5 1.25 RD of U + Water at 15 DAS 2.058 a 
T-6 RD of U + Water irrigation at 25 DAS 1.620 bc 
T-7 RD of U + Water irrigation at 15 DAS 1.744 ab 
T-8 RD of U/2 + Water irrigation at 21 DAS 1.656 bc 
T-9 1.25 RD of U + Water irrigation at 25 DAS 1.319 c 
T-10 RD of U/2 + Water irrigation at 25 DAS 1.525 bc 
T-11 RD of U/2 + Water irrigation 15 DAS 1.491 bc 
T-12 1.25 RD of U + Water irrigation at 21 DAS 1.596 bc 
T. No.Treatment detailsAverage yield
T-1 Control and water irrigation at 21 days after sowing (DAS) 1.459 bc 
T-2 Water irrigation at 25 DAS 1.541 bc 
T-3 Water irrigation at 15 DAS 1.555 bc 
T-4 Recommended dose (RD) of urea (U) + Water at 21 DAS 1.527 bc 
T-5 1.25 RD of U + Water at 15 DAS 2.058 a 
T-6 RD of U + Water irrigation at 25 DAS 1.620 bc 
T-7 RD of U + Water irrigation at 15 DAS 1.744 ab 
T-8 RD of U/2 + Water irrigation at 21 DAS 1.656 bc 
T-9 1.25 RD of U + Water irrigation at 25 DAS 1.319 c 
T-10 RD of U/2 + Water irrigation at 25 DAS 1.525 bc 
T-11 RD of U/2 + Water irrigation 15 DAS 1.491 bc 
T-12 1.25 RD of U + Water irrigation at 21 DAS 1.596 bc 

Different letters in a column represent the significant difference in the mean yield value at a 5% significance level. It means that means are not significantly different and are assigned a common letter. It is presented in all the tables of LSD analysis.

In the semi-arid region of Rajasthan, water is an essential element due to its limited availability, and thus, it is a limiting factor for crop development and yields in this region. Water stress is responsible for a decline in crop yield, which suggests its role in crop growth and productivity (Abd El-Mageed et al. 2017; Mostafa et al. 2021). The results of this study validated that nitrogen fertilizer application and irrigation management extensively affect wheat crop growth and development. This result is consistent with those of Zain et al. (2021) for winter wheat crop in the North China Plain. The 12 combinations of fertilizer amount (0, 50, 100, and 125% of RD) and water irrigation intervals (15, 21, and 25 days) were applied in an RCBD field experiment. The morphological parameters, root length, shoot length, crop yield, and biomass were statistically analyzed to determine the crop response. Root and shoot length at 20-, 40-, and 60-day intervals showed a similar pattern of increased growth with time in all the years. Crop yield in many of the treatments was high in the first year (2014–15); however, it decreased in the second year (2015–16) and the third year (2016–17).

The year-wise comparison showed that the three treatment groups with 0, 100, and 50% fertilizer quantity and different irrigation intervals exhibited high crop yield, with maximum root and shoot length and high biomass; however, this pattern for overall average crop yield, root length, and shoot length was not observed in the fourth group of 125% fertilizer quantity. Increased fertilizer quantity and irrigation frequency have been shown to significantly increase the yield (Sandhu et al. 2019), which is highest observed in the treatment T-5 (15 days interval irrigation and 125% fertilizer) with 4,525.5 kg/ha in the year 2015–16 and 4,247 kg/ha for 3 years average. Abdou et al. (2021) reported the same observation and found that a small increase in the nitrogen amount could be responsible for increased crop yield. Differences between the yields of the treatments using the LSD test show that in a pairwise comparison, and some treatments are not worthy of use for crop cultivation in the semi-arid region of Rajasthan.

The present study analyzed the effects of different treatments and irrigation intervals on crop yield production through field experiments. This study provided field-level primary results that can be utilized to develop better practices for region-specific agriculture of wheat crops. The growth pattern for both root length and shoot length was found to be similar in all 3 years of study. The maximum root and shoot length was observed at 60 days in T-5 and T-3 in the first year (2014–15). The average maximum shoot length after 40 days of treatment was observed in T-3 (36.4 cm) in 2014–15, whereas the average minimum shoot length was found in T-7 (21.2 cm) in 2015–16. The crop yield was found to be maximum (4,525.46 kg/ha) in T-5 (1.25 times the RD of urea and 15-day irrigation interval) in the year 2015–16, which was the highest among all three experimental years. From the results of this study, it can be concluded that the wheat is a water-intensive crop and its yield is directly linked to water availability and recommended fertilizer dose. As highlighted in the World Bank Report (2018), in semi-arid regions (e.g. Rajasthan) with limited water resources, intensive agriculture of water-guzzling crops by using groundwater is unlawful as it disrupts water balance in such regions. The present study reports a shift in the cropping pattern toward less water-intensive highly productive crops or mixed cropping and sustainable agricultural practices in such regions. In the context of climate change, advanced agriculture practices, appropriate amounts of nitrogen fertilizer application, and water-saving irrigation methods are the key factors for sustainable wheat production in Rajasthan.

All relevant data are included in the paper or its Supplementary Information.

The authors declare there is no conflict.

Abd El-Mageed, T. A., Semida, W. M. & Rady, M. M. 2017 Moringa leaf extract as biostimulant improves water use efficiency, physio-biochemical attributes of squash plants under deficit irrigation. Agricultural Water Management 193, 46–54
.
Abdou
N. M.
,
Abdel-Razek
M. A.
,
Abd El-Mageed
S. A.
,
Semida
W. M.
,
Leilah
A. A.
,
Abd El-Mageed
T. A.
&
Rady
M. O.
2021
High nitrogen fertilization modulates morpho-physiological responses, yield, and water productivity of lowland rice under deficit irrigation
.
Agronomy
11
(
7
),
1291
.
Ahmadi
S. H.
,
Andersen
M. N.
,
Lærke
P. E.
,
Plauborg
F.
,
Sepaskhah
A. R.
,
Jensen
C. R.
&
Hansen
S.
2011
Interaction of different irrigation strategies and soil textures on the nitrogen uptake of field grown potatoes
.
Int. J. Plant Prod.
5
(
3
),
263
274
.
https://doi.org/10.22069/IJPP.2012.738
.
Ali
M. H.
&
Talukder
M. S.
2008
Increasing water productivity in crop production – a synthesis
.
Agric. Water Manage.
95
,
1201
1213
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2008.06.008
.
Bajgai
Y.
,
Yeshey
Y.
,
De Mastro
G.
,
Ghimiray
M.
,
Chhogyel
N.
,
Tshewang
S.
&
Ali
S. A.
2019
Influence of nitrogen application on wheat crop performance, soil properties, greenhouse gas emissions and carbon footprint in central Bhutan
.
Environ. Dev.
32
,
100469
.
Bandyopadhyay
K. K.
,
Chopra
U. K.
,
Pradhan
S.
,
Krishnan
P.
&
Ranjan
R.
2019
Simulation of grain yield, seasonal evapotranspiration, global warming potential and yield gap analysis of wheat under varied water and nitrogen management practices using InfoCrop model
.
Agric. Res.
9
(
2
),
277
290
.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40003-019-00415-9
.
Behera
S. K.
&
Panda
R. K.
2009a
Effect of fertilization and irrigation schedule on water and fertilizer solute transport for wheat crop in a sub-humid sub-tropical region
.
Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.
130
,
141
155
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2008.12.009
.
Behera
S. K.
&
Panda
R. K.
2009b
Integrated management of irrigation water and fertilizers for wheat crop using field experiments and simulation modeling
.
Agric. Water Manage.
96
,
1532
1540
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2009.06.016
.
Bouaroudj
S.
,
Menad
A.
,
Bounamous
A.
,
Ali-Khodja
H.
,
Gherib
A.
,
Weigel
D. E.
&
Chenchouni
H.
2019
Assessment of water quality at the largest dam in Algeria (Beni Haroun Dam) and effects of irrigation on soil characteristics of agricultural lands
.
Chemosphere
219
,
76
88
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.11.193
.
Boudjabi
S.
,
Kribaa
M.
&
Chenchouni
H.
2015
Growth, physiology and yield of durum wheat (Triticum durum) treated with sewage sludge under water stress conditions
.
EXCLI J.
14
,
320
334
.
https://doi.org/10.17179/excli2014-715
.
El-Hendawy
S. E.
,
Hassan
W. M.
,
Al-Suhaibani
N. A.
&
Schmidhalter
U.
2017
Spectral assessment of drought tolerance indices and grain yield in advanced spring wheat lines grown under full and limited water irrigation
.
Agric. Water Manage.
182
,
1
12
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2016.12.003
.
English
M. J.
,
Solomon
K. H.
&
Hoffman
G. J.
2002
A paradigm shift in irrigation management
.
J. Irrig. Drain. Eng.
128
,
267
277
.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9437(2002)128:5(267)
.
Fan
Y.
,
Wang
C.
&
Nan
Z.
2018
Determining water use efficiency of wheat and cotton: a meta-regression analysis
.
Agric. Water Manage.
199
,
48
60
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2017.12.006
.
Favati
F.
,
Lovelli
S.
,
Galgano
F.
,
Miccolis
V.
,
Di Tommaso
T.
&
Candido
V.
2009
Processing tomato quality as affected by irrigation scheduling
.
Sci. Hort.
122
,
562
571
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2009.06.026
.
Fellah
S.
,
Khiari
A.
,
Kribaa
M.
,
Arar
A.
&
Chenchouni
H.
2018
Effect of water regime on growth performance of durum wheat (Triticum durum Desf.) during different vegetative phases
.
Irrig. Drain.
67
(
5
),
762
778
.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ird.2289
.
Fereres
E.
&
Soriano
M. A.
2006
Deficit irrigation for reducing agricultural water use
.
J. Exp. Bot.
58
,
147
159
.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erl165
.
Fisher
R. A.
1936
Design of experiments
.
British Medical Journal
1
(
3923
),
554
.
Geerts
S.
,
Raes
D.
,
Garcia
M.
,
Miranda
R.
,
Cusicanqui
J. A.
,
Taboada
C.
,
Mendoza
J.
,
Huanca
R.
,
Mamani
A.
,
Condori
O.
&
Mamani
J.
2009
Simulating yield response of quinoa to water availability with AquaCrop
.
Agron. J.
101
,
499
508
.
https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2008.0137s
.
Gunawat
A.
,
Dubey
S. K.
&
Sharma
D.
2016
Development of indices for aridity and temperature changes pattern through GIS mapping for Rajasthan, India
.
Clim. Change Environ. Sustain.
4
,
178
189
.
https://doi.org/10.5958/2320-642X.2016.00018.1
.
Gunawat
A.
,
Sharma
D.
,
Sharma
A.
&
Dubey
S. K.
2022
Assessment of climate change impact and potential adaptation measures on wheat yield using the DSSAT model in the semi-arid environment
.
Nat. Hazards
111
,
2077
2096
.
Halitligil
M. B.
,
Akın
A.
,
Bilgin
N.
,
Deniz
Y.
,
Öğretir
K.
,
Altınel
B.
&
Işık
Y.
2000
Effect of nitrogen fertilization on yield and nitrogen and water use efficiencies of winter wheat (durum and bread) varieties grown under conditions found in Central Anatolia
.
Biol. Fertil. Soils
31
,
175
182
.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s003740050642
.
Hussain
G.
,
Al-Jaloud
A. A.
,
AI-Shammary
S. F.
&
Karimulla
S.
1995
Effect of saline irrigation on the biomass yield, and the protein, nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium composition of alfalfa in a pot experiment
.
J. Plant Nutr.
18
,
2389
2408
.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01904169509365073
.
Hussain
J.
,
Khaliq
T.
,
Ahmad
A.
,
Akhter
J.
&
Asseng
S.
2018
Wheat responses to climate change and its adaptations: a focus on arid and semi-arid environment
.
Int. J. Environ. Res.
12
(
1
),
117
126
.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s41742-018-0074-2
.
Kumar
N.
,
Poddar
A.
,
Shankar
V.
,
Ojha
C. S. P.
&
Adeloye
A. J.
2020
Crop water stress index for scheduling irrigation of Indian mustard (Brassica juncea) based on water use efficiency considerations
.
J. Agron. Crop Sci.
206
(
1
),
148
159
.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IR.1943-4774.0001526
.
Li
Q.
,
Dong
B.
,
Qiao
Y.
,
Liu
M.
&
Zhang
J.
2010
Root growth, available soil water, and water-use efficiency of winter wheat under different irrigation regimes applied at different growth stages in North China
.
Agric. Water Manage.
97
,
1676
1682
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2010.05.025
.
Liu
X.
,
Shao
L.
,
Sun
H.
,
Chen
S.
&
Zhang
X.
2013
Responses of yield and water use efficiency to irrigation amount decided by pan evaporation for winter wheat
.
Agric. Water Manage.
129
,
173
180
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2013.08.002
.
Mandal
K. G.
,
Hati
K. M.
,
Misra
A. K.
,
Bandyopadhyay
K. K.
&
Mohanty
M.
2005
Irrigation and nutrient effects on growth and water-yield relationship of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) in central India
.
J. Agron. Crop Sci.
191
(
6
),
416
425
.
Mbow
C.
,
Rosenzweig
C.
,
Barioni
L. G.
,
Benton
T. G.
,
Herrero
M.
,
Krishnapillai
M.
,
Liwenga
E.
,
Pradhan
P.
,
Rivera-Ferre
M. G.
,
Sapkota
T.
,
Tubiello
F. N.
&
Xu
Y.
2019
Chapter 5 Food Security
. In:
Climate Change and Land: an IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems
.
Mishra
S.
2017
Water Use and Reallocation: Implications for Economic Growth. A Case Study of Rajasthan
.
World Bank Report
.
Mostafa
S. M.
,
Wahed
O.
,
El-Nashar
W. Y.
,
El-Marsafawy
S. M.
&
Abd-Elhamid
H. F.
2021
Impact of climate change on water resources and crop yield in the Middle Egypt region
.
Journal of Water Supply: Research and Technology-Aqua
7
(
7
),
1066
1084
.
Musick
J. T.
,
Jones
O. R.
,
Stewart
B. A.
&
Dusek
D. A.
1994
Water-yield relationships for irrigated and dryland wheat in the US Southern Plains
.
Agron. J.
86
,
980
986
.
Nagarajan
S.
2005
Can India produce enough wheat even by 2020?
Curr. Sci.
89
(
9
),
1467
1471
.
Paik
T.
,
Singh
Y.
&
Sadhukhan
R.
2020
Nutrient management in wheat (Triticum aestivum) for improving grain yield, nutrient-use efficiency and profitability
.
Indian J. Agron.
65
(
1
),
107
110
.
Panda
R. K.
,
Behera
S. K.
&
Kashyap
P. S.
2003
Effective management of irrigation water for wheat under stressed conditions
.
Agric. Water Manage.
63
,
37
56
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-3774(03)00099-4
.
Patanè
C.
&
Cosentino
S. L.
2010
Effects of soil water deficit on yield and quality of processing tomato under a Mediterranean climate
.
Agric. Water Manage.
97
,
131
138
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2009.08.021
.
Perry
C.
,
Steduto
P.
,
Allen
R. G.
&
Burt
C. M.
2009
Increasing productivity in irrigated agriculture: agronomic constraints and hydrological realities
.
Agric. Water Manage.
96
,
1517
1524
.
Pradhan
R. K.
,
Sharma
D.
,
Panda
S. K.
,
Dubey
S. K.
&
Sharma
A.
2019
Changes of precipitation regime and its indices over Rajasthan state of India: impact of climate change scenarios experiments
.
Clim. Dyn.
52
(
5
),
3405
3420
.
Prathapar
S. A.
2000
Water Shortages in the 21st Century. The Food and Environment Tightrope
.
Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research
,
Canberra
,
Australia
, pp.
125
133
.
Ramadas
S.
,
Kumar
T. K.
&
Singh
G. P.
2019
Wheat production in India: Trends and prospects
.
In Recent advances in grain crops research. IntechOpen.
Report, Agricultural Statistics at a Glance
2017
Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, Department of Agriculture, Cooperation & Farmers Welfare Directorate of Economics and Statistics. Available from: http://agricoop.gov.in/sites/default/files/agristatglance2017.pdf (accessed January 2019)
.
Rojas-Downing
M. M.
,
Nejadhashemi
A. P.
,
Harrigan
T.
&
Woznicki
S. A.
2017
Climate change and livestock: Impacts, adaptation, and mitigation
.
Climate Risk Management
16
,
145
163
.
Salim
N.
&
Raza
A.
2020
Nutrient use efficiency (NUE) for sustainable wheat production: a review
.
Journal of Plant Nutrition
43
(
2
),
297
315
.
Shabani
A.
,
Sepaskhah
A. R.
&
Kamgar-Haghighi
A. A.
2013
Responses of agronomic components of rapeseed (Brassica napus L.) as influenced by deficit irrigation, water salinity and planting method
.
Int. J. Plant Prod.
7
(
2
),
313
340
.
Sharma
A.
,
Sharma
D.
,
Panda
S. K.
,
Dubey
S. K.
&
Pradhan
R. K.
2018a
Investigation of temperature and its indices under climate change scenarios over different regions of Rajasthan state in India
.
Glob. Planet. Change
161
,
82
96
.
Sharma
B. R.
,
Gulati
A.
,
Mohan
G.
,
Manchanda
S.
,
Ray
I.
&
Amarasinghe
U.
2018b
Water productivity mapping of major Indian crops
.
NABARD CRIER
.
Sreedevi
P. D.
,
Sreekanth
P. D.
,
Ahmed
S.
&
Reddy
D. V.
2019
Evaluation of groundwater quality for irrigation in a semi-arid region of South India
.
Sustain. Water Resour. Manag.
5
(
3
),
1043
1056
.
St-Martin
A.
,
Vico
G.
,
Bergkvist
G.
&
Bommarco
R.
2017
Diverse cropping systems enhanced yield but did not improve yield stability in a 52-year long experiment
.
Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.
247
,
337
342
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2017.07.013
.
Torabian
S.
,
Farhangi-Abriz
S.
,
Qin
R.
,
Noulas
C.
&
Wang
G.
2023
Performance of nitrogen fertilization and nitrification inhibitors in the irrigated wheat fields
.
Agronomy
13
(
2
),
366
.
Ul-Allah
S.
,
Iqbal
M.
,
Maqsood
S.
,
Naeem
M.
,
Ijaz
M.
,
Ashfaq
W.
&
Hussain
M.
2018
Improving the performance of bread wheat genotypes by managing irrigation and nitrogen under semi-arid conditions
.
Arch. Agron. Soil Sci.
64
(
12
),
1678
1689
.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03650340.2018.1450974
.
Wiedenfeld
R. P.
2000
Water stress during different sugarcane growth periods on yield and response to N fertilization
.
Agric. Water Manage.
43
,
173
182
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-3774(99)00053-0
.
World Bank Report
2018
Rajasthan Playing to Its Strengths ‘A Strategy for Sustained and Inclusive Growth’
.
Zain
M.
,
Si
Z.
,
Li
S.
,
Gao
Y.
,
Mehmood
F.
,
Rahman
S. U.
,
Hamani
A. K. M.
&
Duan
A.
2021
The coupled effects of irrigation scheduling and nitrogen fertilization mode on growth, yield and water use efficiency in drip-irrigated winter wheat
.
Sustainability
13
(
5
),
2742
.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence (CC BY 4.0), which permits copying, adaptation and redistribution, provided the original work is properly cited (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).