IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE

Irrig. and Drain. 58: 96–104 (2009)

Published online 29 May 2008 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/ird.395

CORN YIELD RESPONSE TO IRRIGATION INTERVAL AND THE RESULTANT

SAVINGS IN WATER AND OTHER OVERHEADSy

PASCHALIS S. DIOUDIS1, AGATHOS T. FILINTAS1 AND ARISTOTELIS H. PAPADOPOULOS2*

1
Technological Educational Institute of Larissa, Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Agricultural Engineering and Irrigation,
Larissa, Greece
2
NAGREF/ Soil Science Institute, Thermi, Thessaloniki, Greece

ABSTRACT
The aim of this project was to conduct research into the effect of irrigation interval, using drip irrigation, on the
depletion of available soil moisture and on corn yield, and the possible savings it might bring about in water,
manpower, energy and other overheads. The experiments were carried out between 2000 and 2001 in the plain of
Thessaly, central Greece. The experimental field had a complete randomized block design and consisted of three
treatments (i.e. irrigation every 2, 5 and 9 days) for four replicates. Daily measurements were taken of the soil
moisture content using the time domain reflectrometry (TDR) method and the depletion of available soil moisture
was calculated. The amount of water used in each irrigation session was equal to the cumulative evapotranspiration
between two successive irrigation sessions as measured using evaporation pan type A.
Results showed that irrigation could be carried out every nine days instead of every two or even five days, thus
bringing about substantial savings in the consumption of water. In addition, other overheads such as manpower,
energy, etc. could be cut down with no statistically significant difference in crop yield. Copyright # 2008 John
Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
key words: corn yield; irrigation scheduling; drip irrigation; TDR; available soil moisture; water savings

Received 22 November 2006; Revised 28 November 2007; Accepted 3 December 2007

RÉSUMÉ
Le but de ce travail était de conduire une recherche sur l’effet de l’allongement de l’intervalle entre irrigations (maı̈s
irrigué au goutte à goutte) sur la diminution de la réserve en eau du sol et sur le rendement, ainsi que les économies
possibles sur l’eau, la main d’œuvre, l’énergie et les autres charges générales. Les expérimentations ont été
conduites en 2000 et en 2001 dans la plaine de Thessalie en Grèce centrale. Le terrain expérimental comportait un
bloc complet randomisé avec trois traitements (soit une irrigation tous les 2, 5 et 9 jours) et quatre répétitions. Des
mesures ont été faites quotidiennement sur l’humidité du sol selon la méthode TDR (temps, domaine, réflectomé-
trie) et la diminution de la réserve en eau du sol a été calculée. Le volume de chaque irrigation était égal à
l’évapotranspiration cumulée entre deux irrigations successives telle que mesurée à l’aide d’un évaporomètre de
type A.
Les résultats ont montré que l’irrigation peut être réalisée tous les 9 jours au lieu de 5 ou de 2, conduisant ainsi à
de substantielles économies d’eau. En outre d’autres charges telles que main d’œuvre, énergie, etc., ont pu être
économisée sans différence significative de rendement. Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
mots clés: rendement du maı̈s; pilotage de l’irrigation; irrigation au goutte à goutte; TDR; réserve en eau du sol disponible; économie d’eau

* Correspondence to: Dr Aristotelis H. Papadopoulos, NAGREF/Soil Science Institute of Thessaloniki, P.O. BOX 60435, 570 01 Thermi,
Thessaloniki, Greece. E-mail: ssi@the.forthnet.gr
y
Rendement du maı̈s et espacement des irrigations, effet sur l’économie d’eau et d’autres charges.

Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

 CORN YIELD RESPONSE TO IRRIGATION INTERVAL 97

INTRODUCTION

Corn (Zea mays L.) is cultivated in areas lying between 588 N and 408 S from sea level up to an altitude of 3800 m. It
is a crop which is irrigated worldwide (Musick et al., 1990; Filintas, 2003), the main corn-producing country being
the USA (Filintas, 2003).
In Greece, 266 700 ha are given over to corn cultivation (Greek National Statistical Organization, 2002), i.e. 5%
of the country’s total cultivated area. In the years 2000 and 2001, according to data issued by the Ministry of
Agriculture, the average corn yield in Greece was 9477 and 9676 kg ha
1, respectively (Filintas, 2003).
According to Musick and Dusek (1980), corn requires large quantities of water seasonally if it is to yield a large
crop. Panoras et al. (1997) reached the same conclusion and observed that restricting water quantities in corn
irrigation (replenishing only 65–66% of the water deficit) during an experiment conducted in the plain of
Thessaloniki reduced the crop yield by 37%.
Gill et al. (1996) conducted research, on coarse soil, into the effect of tilling, the incorporation or not of mulch,
and irrigation on crop yield. The aforementioned researchers observed that corn production was increased with a
combination of deep tillage and the incorporation of hay deposits in mulch, together with a general increase in
crop irrigation. Various other research scientists – Storchshnabel (1965), Klapp (1967), Mpountonas and
Karalazos (1968), Zarogiannis (1979), Danalatos (1992), Dioudis et al. (2003a, b), Filintas (2003), Filintas et al.
(2006, 2007), who have made an extensive study of irrigation in the cultivation of corn – drew the same
conclusion, i.e. that irrigation is of the utmost importance, from the appearance of the first silk strands until the
milky stage in the maturation of the kernels on the cob. Once the milky stage has occurred, the appearance of
black layer development on 50% of the corn kernels is a sign that the crop has fully ripened, according to Rench
and Shaw (1971) and also Danalatos (1992) who carried out research in an experimental field in Greece. The
aforementioned criterion was used in the experimental plots for the total irrigation process. In Greece, irrigation
takes place from June until the ripening stage mentioned above, which usually occurs some time around the
middle to the end of August (Danalatos, 1992; Dioudis et al., 2003a, b; Filintas, 2003) but which may even
extend into the first two weeks of September (Danalatos, 1992; Filintas, 2003; Dioudis et al., 2003a; Filintas
et al., 2006, 2007).
Most research projects on this particular subject refer to the effect of irrigation on corn yield using sprinkler or
furrow irrigation. In contrast, only a few studies have been made on corn cultivation using drip irrigation (Danalatos,
1992; Dioudis et al., 2003a, b; Filintas, 2003; Filintas et al., 2006, 2007). In these studies the evaporation pan method
was used to calculate the amount of water needed for irrigation. The evaporation pan method was also used in
England, in 2001, for an irrigation schedule which was applied to 45% of the irrigated areas of the country (outdoor
cultivation, not in greenhouses) (Weatherhead and Danert, 2002).
The aim of this project was to carry out research on the effect of irrigation interval on the depletion of available
soil moisture and its effect on the corn yield irrigated with drip irrigation, thus bringing about substantial savings in
the consumption of water and other overheads such as manpower, energy, etc.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Description of installation
The project was carried out during the cultivation season of the years 2000 and 2001 on the farm of the
Technological Educational Institute of Larissa in the plain of Thessaly, central Greece.
A drip irrigation system was installed and the effect of irrigation interval (2, 5 and 9 days) on the corn yield was
studied and evaluated. Soil moisture content was also studied and evaluated daily.
The irrigation system (Figure 1) consisted of: (a) an irrigation head unit (filter, hydrocyclone, hydro fertilizer,
etc.); (b) a primary conduit, made of metal (diameter, 89 mm); (c) secondary conduits, made of polyethylene (PE
40 mm/6.08 bar); (d) drip laterals. The drip laterals were made of low density polyethylene (PELD), (external
diameter 20 mm) with internal spiral-line drippers achieving a flow (nominal discharge) of 4 l h
1 for a nominal
pressure of 1.215 bar and the space between drippers being 0.50 m.

Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Irrig. and Drain. 58: 96–104 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/ird
98 P. S. DIOUDIS ET AL.

Figure 1. Layout of the experimental plots (treatment E2, E5, E9 are irrigation intervals every 2, 5 and 9 days, respectively) and of the drip
irrigation system

Experimental design
The experiments were conducted during the years 2000 and 2001 in an experimental field with a complete
randomized block design layout consisting of three treatments, for four replicates. The three treatments were,
according to their respective irrigation interval {E}, every two days {E2}, every five days {E5} and every nine days
{E9}, for four replicates. The experimental design layout and the drip irrigation system layout are shown in
Figure 1.
Each experimental plot was 10 m wide (the width was at right angles to the seed rows) and 12 m long (the length
was parallel to the seed rows). The distance between the corn rows was 0.75 m.

Methodology
Measurements were taken of the dripper discharge and were seen to be within the limits set down by the
manufacturer (Figure 2).
Measurements were also taken daily of the soil moisture volume in the experimental plots, throughout the entire
irrigation season, using the TDR (time domain reflectrometry) method. The TDR method is a non-radioactive one
which has been proved to be quick and reliable, irrespective of soil type (ESI Environmental Sensors Inc., 1997;
Filintas, 2003; Dioudis et al., 2003a; Filintas et al., 2007). A TDR device from the ESI company was used, which
was tested and calibrated using laboratory measurements at the beginning of each cultivation season. Testing the
soil moisture content is a very complex process and the placing of a sensor at the root level of the crop is, in the
majority of cases, not sufficient for a satisfactory performance of the test. As a solution to this problem, quite a
number of researchers, Filintas (2005), Campbell and Campbell (1982) and Cary and Fisher (1983), recommend
using two or more sensors at various depths, so that a greater area of the root level is covered. In order to do this and
to ensure greater accuracy, soil moisture probes with five sensors each were used and lay permanently installed in
the 12 experimental plots, where they were in continuous contact with the soil. Each probe had sensors which
measured the soil moisture content at five different depths: 0–15, 15–30, 30–45, 45–60 and 60–75 cm. From the
measurements taken at each position, the average value was calculated from the five depths for each treatment

Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Irrig. and Drain. 58: 96–104 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/ird
 CORN YIELD RESPONSE TO IRRIGATION INTERVAL 99

Figure 2. Chart of pressure versus dripper discharge from the measurements taken (a) by the manufacturer and (b) in the laboratory

(irrigation interval of 2, 5 and 9 days). Moreover, from the daily soil moisture content testing, the available soil
moisture depletion (ASMD) for each treatment was calculated and the results can be seen in Figure 3.
The volume of irrigation water used, for each treatment, was equal to the cumulative evapotranspiration (ETc)
between two consecutive irrigation sessions as estimated with the aid of an evaporation pan type A, corrected by the
respective coefficient Kp of the evaporation pan.
It has been observed that the root development, at deeper levels, is greater in dry areas, due to the roots’ need to
seek moisture at a deeper level. For this reason, the first irrigation was delayed (until after sowing) so that the root
system could develop at a deeper level.
At the end of each cultivation period, once the crop had fully ripened with the appearance of black layer
development on 50% of the corn kernels, which is the sign of crop maturation (Rench and Shaw, 1971; Danalatos,
1992), the corn crop was harvested. Then the cobs were separated from the corn ears, the kernels from each
experimental plot were removed from the cobs and weighed. In this way, the corn yield from each treatment was
accurately determined.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The soil of the experimental field was a heavy one with 28.5% sand, 25.5% silt and 46.0% clay. The field capacity
on a dry weight basis was 31.2%, the permanent wilting point 17.1% and the bulk density 1.42 g cm
3. The
saturated hydraulic conductivity, measured using a Guelph permeameter, was found to be 3.0  10
5 cm s
1 for the
first 15 cm of the soil and 3.2  10
5 cm s
1 at a depth of 45 cm. Finally, the pH of the soil was found to be 7.5.
From the soil moisture content measurements (the average of the total measurements at the five different depths),
the depletion of available moisture was calculated daily and a chart drawn up of the available soil moisture
depletion in relation to each irrigation interval (Figure 3). The negative values which appear in Figure 3 apparently
correspond to soil moisture values greater than the field capacity and they may be attributed to rainfall (Figure 4).
It is reported (Doorenbos and Kassam, 1986) that for the cultivation of maize, soil water depletion up to 55% of
available soil water, has a non-statistically significant effect on corn yield ( p ¼ 0.55). Moreover, it is recommended
(Doorenbos and Kassam, 1986), that in order to meet full water seasonal requirements, the water depletion level
should range between 55 and 65% during the various periods (vegetative, flowering, yield formation) and up to 80%
during the ripening period.

Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Irrig. and Drain. 58: 96–104 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/ird
100 P. S. DIOUDIS ET AL.

Figure 3. Chart of available soil moisture depletion versus time, for the three treatments (E2, E5 and E9) for the years 2000 and 2001

Table I shows the maximum and mean peak values of ASMD for the two years and for each irrigation interval.
The mean peak depletion values of ASM for both years were 25.7% for an irrigation interval of 2 days (E2), 44.0%
for an irrigation interval of 5 days (E5), 62.5% for an irrigation interval of 9 days (E9). These values of ASMD are
consistent with the peak depletion values recommended above (Doorenbos and Kassam, 1986).
The results of the corn yield for the years 2000 and 2001 of the three treatments are shown in Figure 5. The
statistical analysis (Table II) of the two years’ corn yields shows that the yield variation for each irrigation interval

Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Irrig. and Drain. 58: 96–104 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/ird
 CORN YIELD RESPONSE TO IRRIGATION INTERVAL 101

Figure 4. Rainfall chart for the irrigation season of the years 2000 and 2001

Table I. Maximum values and mean peak values of available soil moisture depletion (ASMD)

Treatment Maximum values Mean peak values

of ASMD (%) of ASMD (%)

2000 2001 2000 2001 2000–01

E2 40.9 37.3 24.5 26.8 25.7

E5 58.7 59.9 41.8 46.2 44.0
E9 73.1 76.0 60.9 64.1 62.5

Figure 5. Diagram of corn yield versus irrigation interval for the years 2000 and 2001

Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Irrig. and Drain. 58: 96–104 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/ird
102 P. S. DIOUDIS ET AL.

Table II. Statistical analysis of the years 2000 and 2001

Treatment Irrigation Observation number Standard Pooled Yield
interval (days) (replicates) deviation standard mean (kg ha
1)
deviation

2000–01 2000–01 2000 2001 2000 2001 2000 2001

E2 2 4 347 557 404 671 15 541.0 16 195.0

E5 5 4 287 447 15 278.0 15 854.0
E9 9 4 536 918 15 227.0 15 460.0

Source DF Mean square (MS) F-test p-value

Year 2000–01 2000 2001 2000 2001 2000 2001

Treatments 2 113 923 540 436 0.70 1.20 0.52 n.s. (a ¼ 0.05) 0.35 n.s. (a ¼ 0.05)
Error 9 163 239 450 853

Table III. Data of water saving analysis and water productivity index (WPI) of the years 2000 and 2001

Treatment Observation Mean Mean corn yield Mean water consumption Mean water
number corn yield of the two years (irrigation þ effective productivity
(replicates) (kg ha
1) (kg ha
1) rainfall) (WCon) index (WPI)
(mm ha
1) (kg m
3)

2000–01 2000 2001 2000–01 2000–01 2000–01

E2 4 15 541.0 16 195.0 15 868.0 6 034.0 2.63

E5 4 15 278.0 15 854.0 15 566.0 5 802.1 2.68
E9 4 15 227.0 15 460.0 15 343.5 5 447.2 2.82

had no statistically significant effect. It should be noted that the crop yields shown in Figure 5 are for corn kernels
with 14% moisture content.
Table III presents the mean total water consumption (irrigation þ effective rainfall), for each treatment, as well as
the water productivity index (WPI). The WPI (or water efficiency index), defined as the mean corn yield per cubic
metre of water used, for the irrigation interval of 9 days was 2.82 kg m
3, for the irrigation interval of 5 days it was
2.68 kg m
3 and for the irrigation interval of 2 days it was 2.63 kg m
3. The relatively high WPI, in comparison
with the reported values of 0.8–1.6 kg m
3 (Doorenbos and Kassam, 1986), is attributed to the higher crop yields
(mean yield for the two years was 15 600 kg ha
1) of the experimental field, as well as to the irrigation method used
(drip irrigation) and the general good cultivation techniques.
Moreover, despite the fact that the total rainfall for the irrigation season in the year 2001 was clearly more than
that of the year 2000 (Figure 4), nevertheless the crop yield for each treatment for the year 2001 showed no
statistically significant variations from those for the year 2000. This confirms that the depletion of available
moisture in the treatment of 9 days, of the drier year 2000, was not so crucial as to cause a statistically significant
reduction of corn yield. Furthermore, it implies that the yield may not be decreased in even wider irrigation
intervals, a subject which is currently under investigation.

CONCLUSIONS
Experiments were carried out in a corn field during the irrigation periods of 2000 and 2001 in order to study the
effect of irrigation interval (every 2, 5 and 9 days) on the depletion of available soil moisture, on the corn yield, as
well as on the water productivity index (WPI).

Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Irrig. and Drain. 58: 96–104 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/ird
 CORN YIELD RESPONSE TO IRRIGATION INTERVAL 103

It was observed that although the irrigation treatment with an interval of 2 days resulted in the greatest crop yield,
in comparison with that of 5 and 9 days’ interval, the statistical analysis of both years showed no statistically
significant variations in corn yield between the irrigation intervals.
Consequently, the statistical processing of the results showed that irrigation under the specific soil-climate
conditions (clay soil and Mediterranean climate type Csa according to Köppen (Filintas, 2005) or xeric moisture
regime (Soil Survey Staff, 1975), may be carried out every 9 days instead of every 2 or 5 days, resulting in
substantial savings in overhead expenses (irrigation water, manpower, energy, etc.), since the variations in corn
yield between the three different treatments were not statistically significant.
In addition, the savings made in water consumption (irrigation þ effective rainfall) can be seen from the
following: (a) the total quantity of water (average per treatment, for the years 2000 and 2001) which was applied
until ripening occurred for the irrigation interval of 9 days was approximately 5450 m3 ha
1, whereas for the
irrigation interval of 5 days it was 5800 m3 ha
1 and for the irrigation interval of 2 days it was 6030 m3 ha
1; and (b)
the mean water productivity index (WPI), for the irrigation interval of 9 days (2.82 kg m
3) was the highest of all
treatments.
It is obvious that the lower amount of irrigation water used, in the 9-day irrigation interval treatment, is attributed
to the lower evapotranspiration from the drier topsoil in comparison with that of the 5- and 2-day irrigation interval
treatments. It should be noted that deep infiltration losses were negligible due to the use of drip irrigation.
Further research is currently being carried out using different irrigation intervals and on different soil types, until
more satisfactory and safer results are achieved.

REFERENCES

Campbell GS, Campbell MD. 1982. Irrigation scheduling using soil moisture measurements: theory and practice. Advances in Irrigation 1:
25–42.
Cary JW, Fisher HD. 1983. Irrigation decision simplified with electronics and soil water sensors. Soil Science Society of America Journal 47:
1219–1223.
Danalatos GN. 1992. Quantified analysis of selected land use systems in the Larissa region, Greece. PhD thesis, Agricultural University,
Wageningen; 133 pp (175–207).
Dioudis P, Filintas Ag, Lellis Th, Kokkoras I. 2003a. Drip irrigation frequency effects in corn (Zea mays L) yield. In Proceedings of the 9th
Pan-Hellenic Conference of Greek Hydrotechnic Union, Thessalonica, 2–5 April; 167–174 (in Greek with English abstract).
Dioudis P, Filintas Ag, Lellis Th, Sakellariou M. 2003b. Productivity of a drip irrigated corn cultivation with regard to irrigation scheduling. In
Proceedings of the 3rd Pan-Hellenic Conference of Agricultural Mechanics, Thessalonica, 29–31 May; 69–76 (in Greek with English
abstract).
Doorenbos J, Kassam AH. 1986. Yield response to water. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper 33. Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations: Rome; 101–104.
ESI Environmental Sensors Inc. 1997. MP-917 Soil Moisture Instrument Operational Manual. ESI: Sidney, BC, Canada.
Filintas TAg. 2003. Cultivation of Maize in Greece: Increase and Growth, Management, Output Yield and Environmental Sequences, University
of the Aegean, Faculty of Environment, Department of Environmental Studies, Mitilini, Greece (in Greek with English abstract).
Filintas TAg. 2005. Land use systems with emphasis on agricultural machinery, irrigation and nitrates pollution, with the use of satellite remote
sensing, geographic information systems and models, at watershed level in central Greece. MSc thesis, University of the Aegean, Faculty of
Environment, Department of Environmental Studies, Mitilini, Greece (in Greek with English abstract).
Filintas Ag, Dioudis P, Pateras D, Hatzopoulos J, Toulios GL. 2006. Drip irrigation effects in movement, concentration and allocation of nitrates
and mapping of nitrates with GIS in an experimental agricultural field. Proceedings of 3rd HAICTA International Conference on: Information
Systems in Sustainable Agriculture, Agroenvironment and Food Technology (HAICTA ’06), Volos, Greece, 20–23 September; 253–262.
Filintas Ag, Dioudis P, Koutseris E, Papadopoulos A. 2007. Soil nitrates GIS mapping, irrigation water and applied N-fertilizer effects in soil
nitrogen depletion in a drip irrigated experimental field in Thessaly basin. In Proceedings of the 3rd IASME/WSEAS International Conference
on Energy, Environment, Ecosystems and Sustainable Development (EEESD’07), Agios Nikolaos, Crete, Greece, 24–26 July; 486–492.
Gill KS, Gajri PR, Chaudhary MR, Singh B. 1996. Tillage, mulch and irrigation effects on corn (Zea mays L.) in relation to evaporative demand.
Soil and Tillage Research 39: 213–227.
Greek National Statistical Organization. 2002. Monthly Statistical Bulletin. 47(8), Athens.
Klapp E. 1967. Lehrbuch des Acker - und Pflanzenbaues. Sechste Auflage, Klapp, Bone, 6.
Mpountonas G, Karalazos I. 1968. Maize in Greece. Institute of Cereals: Thessalonica.
Musick JT, Dusek DA. 1980. Irrigated corn yield response to water. Transactions of the ASAE 23: 92–98, 103.
Musick JT, Pringle FB, Harman WL, Stewart BA. 1990. Long-term irrigation trends: Texas high plains. Applied Engineering in Agriculture 6:
717–724.

Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Irrig. and Drain. 58: 96–104 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/ird
104 P. S. DIOUDIS ET AL.

Panoras Ath, Giannakaris Ar, Lellios M, Dimov St, Eneva St. 1997. Water-corn production relationship in Thessalonica Plain conditions.
Hydrotechnica 7: 39–51.
Rench EW, Shaw RH. 1971. Black layer development in corn. Agronomy Journal 63: 303–305.
Soil Survey Staff. 1975. Soil Taxonomy: a Basic System of Soil Classification for Making and Interpreting Soil Surveys. USDA Natural Resources
Conservation Service, USA.
Storchschnabel G. 1965. Der Einfluß des Wasserangebotszeitpunktew auf die Wurzel -und Ertragsbildung bei Kornarmais. Die Bodenkultur
16(4): 314–320.
Weatherhead EK, Danert K. 2002. Survey of Irrigation of Outdoor Crops in 2001 – England. Cranfield University: Silsoe.
Zarogiannis V. 1979. Beregnung und Standraum bei Mais (Zea mays L.). Die Bodenkultur 30(3): 281–303.

Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Irrig. and Drain. 58: 96–104 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/ird