Figure 1.
Area of the experimental site.
Figure 1.
Area of the experimental site.
Figure 2.
Layout of experimental design.
Figure 2.
Layout of experimental design.
Figure 3.
Effect of water quality and fertigation rate of nitrogen on the soil moisture content before irrigation at peak during the 2017/2018 growing season compared with the simulated soil moisture content for all treatments: drainage water from fish farms (DWFF), fresh irrigation water (IW) and nitrogen (N).
Figure 3.
Effect of water quality and fertigation rate of nitrogen on the soil moisture content before irrigation at peak during the 2017/2018 growing season compared with the simulated soil moisture content for all treatments: drainage water from fish farms (DWFF), fresh irrigation water (IW) and nitrogen (N).
Figure 4.
Soil moisture calibration for fresh irrigation water and 100%N during the 2017/2018 season.
Figure 4.
Soil moisture calibration for fresh irrigation water and 100%N during the 2017/2018 season.
Figure 5.
Observed and simulated soil moisture at a depth of 0–30 cm, during the 2017/2018 season, for overall validation treatments: drainage water from fish farms (DWFF), fresh irrigation water (IW) and Nitrogen (N).
Figure 5.
Observed and simulated soil moisture at a depth of 0–30 cm, during the 2017/2018 season, for overall validation treatments: drainage water from fish farms (DWFF), fresh irrigation water (IW) and Nitrogen (N).
Figure 6.
Observed and simulated soil moisture at a depth of 0–30 cm depth, during the 2018/2019 season, for overall validation treatments: drainage water of fish farms (DWFF), fresh irrigation water (IW), and Nitrogen (N).
Figure 6.
Observed and simulated soil moisture at a depth of 0–30 cm depth, during the 2018/2019 season, for overall validation treatments: drainage water of fish farms (DWFF), fresh irrigation water (IW), and Nitrogen (N).
Figure 7.
Effect of water quality and fertigation rate of nitrogen on the water application efficiency (WAE) at the peak of irrigation during growing seasons and compared with simulated WAE for all treatments for the 2017/2018 and 2018/2019 growing seasons for different treatments: drainage water from fish farms (DWFF), fresh irrigation water (IW), and nitrogen (N).
Figure 7.
Effect of water quality and fertigation rate of nitrogen on the water application efficiency (WAE) at the peak of irrigation during growing seasons and compared with simulated WAE for all treatments for the 2017/2018 and 2018/2019 growing seasons for different treatments: drainage water from fish farms (DWFF), fresh irrigation water (IW), and nitrogen (N).
Figure 8.
Observed versus simulated water application efficiency for all treatments for bothseasons.
Figure 8.
Observed versus simulated water application efficiency for all treatments for bothseasons.
Figure 9.
Observed and simulated nitrogen concentration of the soil layer for all treatments during the 2017/2018 and 2018/2019 seasons for different treatments: drainage water from fish farms (DWFF), fresh irrigation water (IW) and nitrogen (N).
Figure 9.
Observed and simulated nitrogen concentration of the soil layer for all treatments during the 2017/2018 and 2018/2019 seasons for different treatments: drainage water from fish farms (DWFF), fresh irrigation water (IW) and nitrogen (N).
Figure 10.
Observed versus simulated nitrogen concentration of the soil layer for all treatments for two seasons.
Figure 10.
Observed versus simulated nitrogen concentration of the soil layer for all treatments for two seasons.
Figure 11.
Effect of water quality and nitrogen fertigation on N uptake during growing seasons and compared with simulated nitrogen uptake for the 2017/2018 and 2018/2019 seasons for all treatments: drainage water from fish farms(DWFF), fresh irrigation water (IW) and nitrogen (N).
Figure 11.
Effect of water quality and nitrogen fertigation on N uptake during growing seasons and compared with simulated nitrogen uptake for the 2017/2018 and 2018/2019 seasons for all treatments: drainage water from fish farms(DWFF), fresh irrigation water (IW) and nitrogen (N).
Figure 12.
Observed and simulated accumulated-nitrogenuptake during 2017/2018 and 2018/2019 for all treatments: drainage water from fish farms(DWFF), fresh irrigation water (IW) and nitrogen (N).
Figure 12.
Observed and simulated accumulated-nitrogenuptake during 2017/2018 and 2018/2019 for all treatments: drainage water from fish farms(DWFF), fresh irrigation water (IW) and nitrogen (N).
Figure 13.
Observed versus simulated accumulated-nitrogen uptake for all treatments for two seasons.
Figure 13.
Observed versus simulated accumulated-nitrogen uptake for all treatments for two seasons.
Figure 14.
Effect of water quality and the fertigation rate of nitrogen on the observed and simulated yield of barley for the 2017/2018 and 2018/2019 seasons for all treatments: drainage water of fish farms(DWFF); fresh irrigation water (IW) and Nitrogen (N).
Figure 14.
Effect of water quality and the fertigation rate of nitrogen on the observed and simulated yield of barley for the 2017/2018 and 2018/2019 seasons for all treatments: drainage water of fish farms(DWFF); fresh irrigation water (IW) and Nitrogen (N).
Figure 15.
Observed versus simulated yield for all treatments for seasons 2017/2018 and 2018/2019.
Figure 15.
Observed versus simulated yield for all treatments for seasons 2017/2018 and 2018/2019.
Figure 16.
Effect of water quality types and nitrogen fertigation rate on the observbed and simulated water productivity of barley for the 2017/2018 and 2018/2019 seasons for all treatments: drainage water from fish farms(DWFF); fresh irrigation water (IW) and nitrogen (N).
Figure 16.
Effect of water quality types and nitrogen fertigation rate on the observbed and simulated water productivity of barley for the 2017/2018 and 2018/2019 seasons for all treatments: drainage water from fish farms(DWFF); fresh irrigation water (IW) and nitrogen (N).
Figure 17.
Observed versus simulated water productivitybarley for the 2017/2018 and 2018/2019 seasons for all treatments.
Figure 17.
Observed versus simulated water productivitybarley for the 2017/2018 and 2018/2019 seasons for all treatments.
Table 1.
Meteorological data for the research farm of the National Research Center (NRC) in Nubaryia.
Table 1.
Meteorological data for the research farm of the National Research Center (NRC) in Nubaryia.
Meteorological Data | TMAX | TMIN | RAIN | WIND | RH |
---|
Date | 2017/2018 | 2018/2019 | 2017/2018 | 2018/2019 | 2017/2018 | 2018/2019 | 2017/2018 | 2018/2019 | 2017/2018 | 2018/2019 |
November | 24.25 | 24.38 | 12.23 | 14.35 | 0 | 0 | 3.42 | 4.13 | 58.36 | 69.17 |
December | 21.29 | 20.35 | 10.32 | 10.52 | 0 | 0 | 3.64 | 5.13 | 63.5 | 69.83 |
January | 17.61 | 18.82 | 5.97 | 8.7 | 0 | 34.48 | 3.67 | 5.33 | 61.22 | 67.83 |
February | 20.01 | 19.73 | 6.71 | 8.98 | 0 | 17.6 | 3.51 | 5.67 | 60.56 | 67 |
March | 24.05 | 21.55 | 10.13 | 10.7 | 0 | 9.63 | 4.21 | 6.12 | 51.5 | 61 |
April | 28.46 | 24.7 | 12.24 | 13.05 | 68.08 | 0 | 4.3 | 6.05 | 43.5 | 59 |
May | 33.42 | 28.15 | 16.82 | 16.23 | 0 | 0 | 4.44 | 5.45 | 39.09 | 58.33 |
Total precipitation during the two growing seasons for barley to be deducted from the total amount of water calculated | 68.08 mm = 681 m3 ha−1 | 61.71 mm = 617 m3 ha−1 |
Table 2.
Chemical and physical properties of the studied soil.
Table 2.
Chemical and physical properties of the studied soil.
Parameter | Soil Depth (cm) |
---|
0–15 | 15–30 | 30–45 | 45–60 |
---|
Physical properties |
Textural class | Sandy | Sandy | Sandy | Sandy |
Coarse sand (%) | 46.74 | 55.70 | 38.75 | 36.79 |
Fine sand (%) | 50.78 | 40.68 | 57.44 | 59.10 |
Silt + clay (%) | 2.48 | 3.62 | 3.81 | 4.11 |
BD (t m−3) | 1.68 | 1.69 | 1.69 | 1.69 |
Chemical properties |
ECe (dS m−1) | 0.37 | 0.33 | 0.45 | 0.47 |
pH (1:2.5) | 8.6 | 8.7 | 9.1 | 9.2 |
CaCO3 (%) | 7.03 | 2.35 | 4.67 | 5.05 |
OMa (%) | 0.64 | 0.42 | 0.27 | 0.25 |
Table 3.
Some properties of drainage water from fish farms and fresh irrigation water.
Table 3.
Some properties of drainage water from fish farms and fresh irrigation water.
Parameter | Drainage Water of Fish Farm (DWFF) | Irrigation Canal Water (IW) |
---|
E.C, dS m−1 | 1.85 | 0.45 |
pH | 8.21 | 7.38 |
Chemical properties, mg L−1 |
Calcium, Ca2+ | 1.33 | 1.02 |
Potassium, K+ | 0.51 | 0.22 |
Sodium, Na+ | 2.52 | 2.44 |
Magnesium, Mg2+ | 0.72 | 0.53 |
Carbonate, CO32− | 0.15 | <0.01 |
Bicarbonate, HCO3− | 0.40 | 0.10 |
Chloride, Cl− | 3.19 | 2.74 |
Sulfate, SO42− | 1.47 | 1.30 |
Nitrogen, gN/m3 NN(NH4++NO3−) | 4.78 | <0.01 |
Phosphorus, P(PO43−) | 10.1 | 0.22 |
Copper, Cu++ | 0.04 | 0.02 |
Ni++ | 0.01 | 0.01 |
Zn++ | 1.12 | 1.01 |
Magnesium, Mg2+ | 0.72 | 0.53 |
Table 4.
Bio-component characteristics of the drainage water from fish farms and fresh irrigation water.
Table 5.
Total amount of applied irrigation water and nitrogen for each treatment in the two studied seasons.
Table 5.
Total amount of applied irrigation water and nitrogen for each treatment in the two studied seasons.
Treatment | Total Amount of Water Applied (m3 ha−1) | Applied Nitrogen, kgN ha−1, (2017/2018) | Total Amount of Water Applied (m3ha−1) | Applied Nitrogen, kgN ha−1 (2018/2019) |
---|
Biological | Chemical | Total | Biological | Chemical | Total |
---|
DWFF 100%N | 2680 | 12.81 | 156 | 168.81 | 2600 | 12.43 | 156 | 168.43 |
DWFF, 80%N | 2680 | 12.81 | 124.8 | 137.61 | 2600 | 12.43 | 124.8 | 137.23 |
DWFF, 60%N | 2680 | 12.81 | 93.6 | 106.41 | 2600 | 12.43 | 93.6 | 106.03 |
DWFF, 40%N | 2680 | 12.81 | 62.4 | 75.21 | 2600 | 12.43 | 62.4 | 74.83 |
IW, 100%N | 2680 | 0 | 156 | 156 | 2600 | 0 | 156 | 156 |
IW, 80%N | 2680 | 0 | 124.8 | 124.8 | 2600 | 0 | 124.8 | 124.8 |
IW,60%N | 2680 | 0 | 93.6 | 93.6 | 2600 | 0 | 93.6 | 93.6 |
IW, 40%N | 2680 | 0 | 62.4 | 62.4 | 2600 | 0 | 62.4 | 62.4 |
Table 6.
The primaryinput parameters for barley for calibrating IW, 100%N (2017/2018), Egypt.
Table 6.
The primaryinput parameters for barley for calibrating IW, 100%N (2017/2018), Egypt.
Barley | Growth Stage | Parameter |
---|
20 November | Initial | The sowing date of barley plant |
146 | Number of days to harvest |
20 | Development Middle Late | Age stages of barley plants |
32 |
57 |
37 |
0.32 | Initial | Crop coefficient, Kc |
1.15 | Middle |
0.27 | End |
0.68 | Initial | Leaf area index, LAI |
3.5 | Middle |
3.12 | End |
0 | | Mini. root depth, m |
0.5 | | Maxi. root depth, m |
3.9 | | Un-stressed crop yield, t h−1 |
0.85 | Initial | Water uptake threshold |
0. 45 | Middle |
0.7 | End |
0.32 | | Harvest index |
0.15 | | Field capacity, m3 m−3 |
0.26 | | Saturated soil moisture content, m3m−3 |
0.04 | | Wilting point, m3 m−3 |
0.3 | | Root width factor |
0 | | Residual water content, m3 m−3 |
0.22 | | Lambda pore size |
11 | | Bubbling pressure, cm |
52 | | Max. depth for evaporation, mm |
Table 7.
Coefficient of determination (R2), root mean square error (RMSE), and residual mass factor (CRM) coefficients for soil moisture in one layer depth (0–30 cm) for all irrigation treatments.
Table 7.
Coefficient of determination (R2), root mean square error (RMSE), and residual mass factor (CRM) coefficients for soil moisture in one layer depth (0–30 cm) for all irrigation treatments.
Date | Correlation Parameter | Drainage Water of Fish Farms | Irrigation Water |
---|
100%N | 80%N | 60%N | 40%N | 100%N | 80%N | 60%N | 40%N |
---|
2017/2018 | R2 | 0.89 | 0.91 | 0.93 |
RMSE | −0.012 | 0.005 |
RCM | −0.017 | −0.036 |
2018/2019 | R2 | 0.92 | 0.94 |
RMSE | 0.009 | 0.007 |
RCM | −0.015 | −0.023 |
Table 8.
Effect of water quality and nitrogen fertigation on the average weight of barley dry matter and compares it to simulated barley dry matter for all treatments.
Table 8.
Effect of water quality and nitrogen fertigation on the average weight of barley dry matter and compares it to simulated barley dry matter for all treatments.
Treatments | Observed Dry Matter-2017/2018, ton/ha | Simulated Dry Matter-2017/2018, ton/ha | Observed Dry Matter-2018/2019, ton/ha | Simulated Dry Matter-2018/2019, ton/ha |
---|
Water quality | DWFF | 11.9 a | ±0.9 | | 12.5 a | ±1.0 | |
IW | 11.2 b | ±1.1 | | 11.5 b | ±1.2 | |
LSD at α 0.05 | 0.3888 | | | 0.3513 | | |
N-fertigation | 100%N | 12.5 a | ±0.3 | | 13.0 a | ±0.4 | |
80%N | 12.4 a | ±0.5 | | 12.9 a | ±0.6 | |
60%N | 11.2 b | ±0.6 | | 11.6 b | ±0.7 | |
40%N | 10.3 c | ±0.6 | | 10.6 c | ±0.7 | |
LSD at α 0.05 | 0.4412 | | | 0.5054 | | |
Interaction | DWFF × 100%N | 12.6 | ±0.4 | 13.1 | 13.2 | ±0.4 | 13.4 |
DWFF × 80%N | 12.7 | ±0.2 | 13.0 | 13.4 | ±0.3 | 13.5 |
DWFF × 60%N | 11.6 | ±0.6 | 12.2 | 12.2 | ±0.6 | 12.3 |
DWFF × 40%N | 10.9 | ±0.1 | 10.1 | 11.2 | ±0.1 | 11.8 |
IW × 100%N | 12.3 | ±0.2 | 12.3 | 12.7 | ±0.2 | 11.7 |
IW × 80%N | 12.0 | ±0.3 | 12.1 | 12.4 | ±0.3 | 11.8 |
IW × 60%N | 10.8 | ±0.3 | 11.0 | 11.1 | ±0.3 | 11 |
IW × 40%N | 9.8 | ±0.3 | 9.9 | 10.0 | ±0.3 | 10.1 |
LSD at α 0.05 | N.S | | | N.S | | |
Equation, R2 | y = 1.152x − 1.642, R² = 0.896 | y = 0.883x + 1.331, R² = 0.820 |
Table 9.
Effect of the water quality and nitrogen fertigation rate on the Harvest Index, grain yield, and water productivity of barley.
Table 9.
Effect of the water quality and nitrogen fertigation rate on the Harvest Index, grain yield, and water productivity of barley.
Treatments | H.I | Observed Yield, t ha−1 | Simulated Yield, t ha−1 | IRg = Irrigation − Rainfall, m3 ha−1 | Observed Water Productivity kggrain m−3water | Simulated Water Productivity, kggrain m−3water | % Difference = [(DWFF − IW)/IW] × 100 |
---|
2017/2018 |
Water quality | DWFF | | 3.9 a | ±0.4 | | 2680 | 1.46 | | 14.7 |
IW | | 3.4 b | ±0.5 | | 2680 | 1.27 | | |
LSD at α 0.05 | | 0.1242 | | | | | |
N-fertigation | 100%N | | 4.0 a | ±0.2 | | 2680 | 1.49 | | |
80%N | | 4.0 a | ±0.2 | | 2680 | 1.49 | | |
60%N | | 3.5 b | ±0.2 | | 2680 | 1.31 | | |
40%N | | 3.0 c | ±0.5 | | 2680 | 1.12 | | |
LSD at α 0.05 | | 0.2035 | | | | | |
Interaction | DWFF × 100%N | 0.33 | 4.1 | ±0.2 | 4.3 | 2680 | 1.53 | 1.60 | 5.1 |
DWFF × 80%N | 0.33 | 4.2 | ±0.1 | 4.0 | 2680 | 1.57 | 1.49 | 10.5 |
DWFF × 60%N | 0.32 | 3.7 | ±0.1 | 3.6 | 2680 | 1.38 | 1.34 | 12.1 |
DWFF × 40%N | 0.31 | 3.4 | ±0.2 | 3.3 | 2680 | 1.27 | 1.23 | 25.9 |
IW × 100%N | 0.32 | 3.9 | ±0.1 | 3.8 | 2680 | 1.46 | 1.42 | |
IW × 80%N | 0.31 | 3.8 | ±0.1 | 3.9 | 2680 | 1.42 | 1.46 | |
IW × 60%N | 0.31 | 3.3 | ±0.1 | 3.5 | 2680 | 1.23 | 1.31 | |
IW × 40%N | 0.27 | 2.7 | ±0.4 | 2.8 | 2680 | 1.01 | 1.04 | |
LSD at α 0.05 | | N.S | | | | | |
2018/2019 |
Water quality | DWFF | | 4.2 | ±0.4 | | 2600 | 1.62 | | 20.0 |
IW | | 3.5 | ±0.6 | | 2600 | 1.35 | | |
LSD at α 0.05 | | 0.147 | | | | | |
N-fertigation | 100%N | | 4.3 | ±0.2 | | 2600 | 1.65 | | |
80%N | | 4.2 | ±0.3 | | 2600 | 1.62 | | |
60%N | | 3.7 | ±0.3 | | 2600 | 1.42 | | |
40%N | | 3.1 | ±0.6 | | 2600 | 1.19 | | |
LSD at α 0.05 | | 0.2067 | | | | | |
Interaction | DWFF × 100%N | 0.34 | 4.5 | ±0.1 | 4.7 | 2600 | 1.73 | 1.81 | 9.8 |
DWFF × 80%N | 0.34 | 4.5 | ±0.1 | 4.6 | 2600 | 1.73 | 1.77 | 15.4 |
DWFF × 60%N | 0.33 | 4.0 | ±0.1 | 3.7 | 2600 | 1.54 | 1.42 | 17.6 |
DWFF × 40%N | 0.32 | 3.6 | ±0.2 | 3.4 | 2600 | 1.38 | 1.31 | 33.3 |
IW × 100%N | 0.33 | 4.1 | ±0.1 | 4.4 | 2600 | 1.58 | 1.69 | |
IW × 80%N | 0.32 | 3.9 | ±0.2 | 4.0 | 2600 | 1.50 | 1.54 | |
IW × 60%N | 0.31 | 3.4 | ±0.1 | 3.3 | 2600 | 1.31 | 1.27 | |
IW × 40%N | 0.26 | 2.7 | ±0.4 | 2.5 | 2600 | 1.04 | 0.96 | |
LSD at α 0.05 | | N.S | | | | | |