




































 

53 
† Corresponding author 
© 2014 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

 

IMPACT OF LASER LAND LEVELING ON WATER PRODUCTIVITY OF 

WHEAT UNDER DEFICIT IRRIGATION CONDATIONS 

 

Abdelraouf R. Eid1 --- Mehana H. Mohamed2 --- Sabreen Kh. Pipars3 --- Bakry A. 

Bakry4 
1,2,3Department of Water Relations & Field Irrigation, Agriculture and Biological Division, National Research Centre, 

Dokki, Cairo, Egypt 

4Department of Field Crops Research, Agriculture and Biological Division National Research Center, Egypt 

 

ABSTRACT 

Nowadays determining the optimum crop water requirements is considered one of the most important 
factors affecting plant productions, especially, with scarce water resources. This may be due to the 
interrelation between the amount of water added and the ability of plant. Two field experiments were 
carried out during the two growing seasons 2010/2011–2011/2012, at the Research Farm of the 
National Research Centre in Nubarya region, Egypt, to study the effect of both deficit irrigation and laser 
land leveling on saving water and increasing yield of wheat crop under Egyptian growing conditions. 
Studied factors were deficit irrigation (100% Irrigation Requirements "IR", 80%IR, 60%IR and 40%IR) 
and land leveling techniques (conventional "C" and laser "L"). The following parameters were studied to 
evaluate the effect of deficit irrigation and laser land leveling; (1) Soil moisture distribution, (2) Growth of 
wheat plant, (3) Yield of wheat , (4) Irrigation water use efficiency of wheat and (5) Economical 
parameters of wheat production process. Statistical analysis of the effect of the interaction between land 
leveling and irrigation on IWUE of wheat indicated that the maximum values were detected at adding 
100%IR*L. However, no significant difference was observed between 100%IR*L >80%IR*L >and 60% 
IR*L, this means that we can save 40% of irrigation water by adding 60% IR with laser land leveling 
technique to irrigate wheat under sandy soil conditions. 

Keywords: Laser leveling, Water productivity, Deficit irrigation, Wheat, Water requirements, 

Soil moisture distribution 

 

Contribution/ Originality 

This study contributes in the existing literature to improve water use efficiency of wheat 

under deficit irrigation conditions and rotational irrigation system by using laser land leveling 

techniques. 

 

1. INTRODUCTION 

Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) is the world's most important crop. A crop of wheat is 

harvestedsomewhere in the world during every month of the year [1]. Greater importance of 

bread wheat can be expected as a main source of food for solving the increasing population’s 

Current Research in Agricultural Sciences 
2014 Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 53-64 
ISSN(e): 2312-6418 
ISSN(p): 2313-3716 
© 2014 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2014, 1(2): 53-64 

 

 
54 

© 2014 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

emergency of the world. In arid and semiarid regions with Mediterranean climate, wheat crops 

usually encounter drought during the grain filling period. Wheat quality was controlled not only 

by genetic factors, but also by environmental conditions, especially the supply of water and 

fertility in soil that can change wheat quality under normal cropping condition [2].  

Traditional methods of land leveling are cumbersome, time consuming, and expensive, so 

more and more farmers are turning to modern methods to level the land. Laser leveling is a 

process of smoothing the land surface (± 2 cm) from its average elevation using laser-equipped 

drag buckets. This technique is well known for achieving higher levels of accuracy in land 

leveling and offers great potential for water savings and higher grain yields. [3]. Effective land 

leveling reduces the work involved with crop establishment and crop management. It increases 

yield, improves uniformity of crop maturity and reduces weeds and the amount of water needed 

for land preparation. Laser land leveling when applied under various crops and cropping patterns 

has resulted in water savings up to 15-30 % [4]. Deficit irrigation is a way for maximizing water 

use efficiency, it means obtaining higher yields per unit of irrigation water applied. The crops are 

exposed to a certain level of water stress either during a particular period or throughout the 

whole growing season. The expectation is that any yield reduction will be insignificant compared 

with the benefits gained through diverting the saved water to irrigate other crops. [5].The aim of 

the present work is to study the effect of Laser land leveling and deficit irrigation levels for 

saving water and increasing yield of wheat under Egyptian growing conditions.  

 

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS 

2.1. Location and Climate of Experimental Site 

Field experiments were conducted during two winter seasons 2010/2011–2011/2012 at the 

experimental farm of National Research Center, El-Nubaria, Egypt (latitude 30.8667 N, and 

longitude 30.1667 E, and mean altitude 21 m above sea level) as shown in fig. (1). The 

experimental area has an arid climate with cool winters and hot dry summers prevailing in the 

experimental area. The data of maximum and minimum temperature, relative humidity, and wind 

speed were obtained from “Local Weather Station inside El-Nubaria Farm”. There was not 

rainfall that could be taken into consideration through the two seasons, because the amount was 

very little and the duration didn't exceed few minutes. 

 

Fig-1. Location of the Experimental Farm in EL-NUBARIA Region, Egypt 

  

 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2014, 1(2): 53-64 

 

 
55 

© 2014 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

2.2. Irrigation System 

Irrigation system components consisted of control head, pumping and filtration unit. It 

consists of centrifugal pump with 45 m3/h discharge and it was driven by electrical engine and 

screen filter and back flow prevention device, pressure regulator, pressure gauges, flow-meter, 

control valves. Main line was of PVC pipes with 110 mm in diameter (OD) to convey the water 

from the source to the main control points in the field. Sub-main lines were of PVC pipes with 75 

mm diameter (OD) was connected to the main line. Manifold lines: PE pipes were of 63 mm in 

diameter (OD) were connected to the sub main line through control valve 2`` and discharge 

gauge. Sprinklers were 3/4" diameter and discharge was 1.2 m3/ h at 2.5 bar operating pressure 

and 12 m service radius. 

 

2.3. Some Physical and Chemical Properties of Soil and Irrigation Water 

Some Properties of soil and irrigation water for experimental site are presented in (Tables 1,2 

and 3). 

Table-1. Some chemical and mechanical analyses of soil study site. 

         OM= organic matter. pH= power of hydrogen EC= Electrical Conductivity 

 

Table-2. Soil water characteristics. 

Hydraulic 
conductivity(cm/hr) 

A.W (%) W.P (%) F.C (%) SP (%) Depth 

22.5 5.4 4.7 10.1 21.0 0-20 
19.0 7.9 5.6 13.5 19.0 20-40 
21.0 7.9 4.6 12.5 22.0 40-60 

         S.P. = saturation point, F.C. = field capacity, W.P. = wilting point and A.W. = available water. 

Table-3.Some chemical characteristics of used irrigation water in the open channel at farm study 

site. 

S
A

R
 %

 

Cations and anions (meq/L) 

EC 
(dSm-1) 

pH 
Anions Cations 

S
O

4
--

 

C
l-
 

H
C

O
3

-  

--
C

O
3
  

K
+
 

N
a+

 

M
g

+
+
 

C
a+

+
 

2.8 1.3 2.7 0.1 -- 0.2 2.4 0.5 1 0.41 7.35 

             pH= power of hydrogen EC= Electrical Conductivity SAR= Sodium Adsorption Ratio 

 

 

 

Texture Chemical analysis Chemical analysis  
 

Depth 
Silt
+ 
clay 

Fine 
sand 

Course 
sand 

CaCO3 

% 

EC 
(dSm-1) 

pH 
(1:2.5) 

OM 
(%) 

Sandy 2.49 49.75 47.76 7.02 0.35 8.7 0.65 0-20 

3.72 39.56 56.72 2.34 0.32 8.8 0.40 20-40 

3.84 59.40 36.76 4.68 0.44 9.3 0.25 40-60 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2014, 1(2): 53-64 

 

 
56 

© 2014 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

2.4. Irrigation Requirements 

Seasonal irrigation requirements for wheat crop were estimated. The seasonal irrigation 

water applied was found to be 2304 m3/fed./season for sprinkler irrigation system by following 

equation and as tabulated in table (4):  

IRg = (ETO x Kc ) / Ei - R + LR  

Where: IRg      = Gross irrigation requirements, mm/day 

ETO    = Reference evapotranspiration, mm/day (estimated by the meteorological data of Central 

Laboratory for Agricultural Climate (CLAC) according to Penman-Monteith equation)  

Kc       = Crop factor (FAO reference)  

Ei     = Irrigation efficiency = Ea x EU where Ea = (Ds/Da) x 100 where Ds = Average water 

stored in root volume; Da = Average water applied; EU = Coefficient reflecting the 

uniformity of application 

R         = Water received by plant from sources other than irrigation, mm (for example rainfall) 

LR     = Amount of water required for the leaching of salts, mm = LRt x (IRn/Ei) where: LRt = 

leaching requirement ratio under drip irrigation = ECw /(2 x max ECe) where ECw = 

electrical conductivity of irrigation water (ds/m); max ECe = electrical conductivity of 

saturated soil extract that will reduce the crop yield to zero (dS/m); IRn (net irrigation 

requirement) =  ETo x Kc  

The seasonal irrigation water applied for wheat crop was 2304, 1843, 1382 and 922 m3/ fed. for 

100 %, 80 %, 60 % 40 % IR, respectively as shown in fig. (2). 

 

Fig-2. Relation between growth of wheat plant and irrigation requirements. 

 

2.5. Components of Laser Leveling Equipment 

Laser leveling unit was 4 m width and agriculture tractor was 65 hp were used. 

 

2.6. Experimental Design 

Experimental design was made as split plot with three replications. Land leveling and deficit 

irrigation were put in the main plots and sub main plots, respectively and the treatments were 

irrigation requirements (100%, 80%, 60% and 40% IR) and land leveling (conventional and laser). 

 

 

 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2014, 1(2): 53-64 

 

 
57 

© 2014 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

2.7. Soil Moisture Distribution 

Soil moisture distribution was determined according to Liven and Van Rooyen [6]. The soil 

moisture content was measured by profile probe device, 2 hours directly after irrigation at equal 

100 cm intervals along 1200 cm, the distance between each two sprinklers line. All the measures 

were taken at 15 cm intervals to a 90 cm depth at each point.  Using "contouring program Surfer 

version 8", contouring map for different moisture levels, distances and depths were obtained. 

 

2.8. Irrigation Water Use Efficiency "IWUE"  

IWUE of wheat crop was calculated according to James [7] as follows: WUE (kg/m3) 

=Total yield (kg/fed.) / Total applied irrigation water (m3/fed./season). 

 

2.9. Leaf Area 

Leaf area= leaf length x maximum leaf width x 0.75 according to Stickler, et al. [8]. 

 

2.10. Statistical Analyses 

Statistical analyses were done using the method described by Snedecor and Cochran [9], 

whereas treatments means were compared according to Duncan [10]. 

 

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 

The water resource for irrigation coming from an irrigation channel under rotational 

irrigation where the water exist in the channel just for three days every week and the residual 

four days the channel is empty, the idea was using laser land leveling and deficit irrigation 

techniques under rotational irrigation conditions may decrease from run-off and to evaluate its 

effect on growth, yield and irrigation water use efficiency of wheat (IWUE). 

 

3.1. Soil Moisture Distribution 

Soil moisture distribution in the root zone and wetted soil volume (more than or equal 100% 

of field capacity) was measured at the growth period of maximum irrigation requirement. Both 

SMD and WSV improved under laser land leveling technology than conventional land leveling at 

100%IR, 80% IR, 60%IR, and 40%IR, respectively. This by the effect of laser land leveling on the 

land surface which creates more uniform moisture distribution in the root zone. This uniformity 

results is more suitable condition for growing roots and lowest drought stress. (Bold line in 

contouring maps = field capacity) as shown as from Fig. (3)  to Fig. (6).  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2014, 1(2): 53-64 

 

 
58 

© 2014 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

Fig-3. Soil Moisture Distribution at 100% Irrigation requirements. 

(a) Laser land leveling 

 

(b) Conventional leveling 

 

 Fig-4. Soil Moisture Distribution at 80% Irrigation requirements. 

(a) Laser land leveling 

 

(b) Conventional leveling 

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200

-50

0

7

7.5

8

8.5

9

9.5

10

10.5

11

11.5

12

12.5

13

13.5

14

14.5

15

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200

-50

0

4.5

5

5.5

6

6.5

7

7.5

8

8.5

9

9.5

10

10.5

11

11.5

12

12.5

13

13.5

14

14.5

15

15.5

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200

-50

0

7

7.5

8

8.5

9

9.5

10

10.5

11

11.5

12

12.5

13

13.5

14

14.5

15

S
o
il

 D
ep

th
, 
cm

 
S

o
il

 D
ep

th
, 
cm

 
S

o
il

 D
ep

th
, 
cm

 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2014, 1(2): 53-64 

 

 
59 

© 2014 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

 

 Fig-5. Soil Moisture Distribution at 60% Irrigation requirements. 

(a) Laser land leveling 

 

(b) Conventional leveling 

 

 

Fig-6. Soil Moisture Distribution at 40% Irrigation requirements. 

(a) Laser land leveling 

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200

-50

0

5.5

6

6.5

7

7.5

8

8.5

9

9.5

10

10.5

11

11.5

12

12.5

13

13.5

14

14.5

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200

-50

0

6.5

7

7.5

8

8.5

9

9.5

10

10.5

11

11.5

12

12.5

13

13.5

14

14.5

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200

-50

0

5

5.5

6

6.5

7

7.5

8

8.5

9

9.5

10

10.5

11

11.5

12

12.5

13

13.5

14

14.5

S
o
il

 D
ep

th
, 
cm

 
S

o
il

 D
ep

th
, 
cm

 
S

o
il

 D
ep

th
, 

cm
 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2014, 1(2): 53-64 

 

 
60 

© 2014 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

 

(b) Conventional leveling 

 

3.2. Growth Characters of Wheat Plant 

Data presented in Table (4) show the effect of land leveling techniques on the growth 

parameters of wheat plants. It could be observed that the highest values were obtained by using 

laser land leveling technology this is may be due to improvement in the soil moisture distribution 

in root zone. Table (4) shows clearly that irrigation affected significantly all studied wheat 

growth parameters. It could be safely concluded that irrigating wheat plants with 2304 m3/ fed./ 

season (100 % IR) led to the highest values of most growth parameters, then the values decreased 

by decreasing the deficit irrigation this may be due to increasing soil moisture content in root 

zone and also increasing in leaching process and removing the salts. Effect of interaction between 

irrigation and land leveling techniques is shown in table (4) as an average of the two growing 

seasons. The highest values of growth parameters were detected under laser land leveling 

technology and adding 2304 m3/ fed. / season (100 % IR). Subjecting wheat plants to water stress 

conditions from 100 % to 40 % IR led to reductions of plant height, total dry weight of whole 

plant, number of leaves per mean stem, and flag area by 9.14 %, 24.63 %, 22.17 %, and 31.53 %, 

respectively, under laser land leveling technique. The same trend was observed under the 

conventional land leveling condition. 

 

 

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200

-50

0

5.5

6

6.5

7

7.5

8

8.5

9

9.5

10

10.5

11

11.5

12

12.5

13

13.5

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200

-50

0

4.5

5

5.5

6

6.5

7

7.5

8

8.5

9

9.5

10

10.5

11

11.5

12

12.5

S
o
il

 D
ep

th
, 
cm

 
S

o
il

 D
ep

th
, 
cm

 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2014, 1(2): 53-64 

 

 
61 

© 2014 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

Table-4.Effect of irrigation, land leveling and their interaction on vegetative growth parameters 

of wheat in Nubarya (average of two seasons) 

 Plant 
height, cm 

No. of 
spikes/m2 

Dry 
weight / 
plant, g 

No. of 
leaves 

/mean stem 

Flag leaf 
area, cm2 

Land leveling techniques 
Laser leveling  119.17 a 489.50 4.81 5.17 25.92 

Conventional leveling  116.17 b 477.67 4.54 4.67 24.00 
Irrigation amounts, m3/ fed. / season 

2304 121.50 a 470.33 b 5.23 a 5.50 a 30.50 a 
1843 119.33 ab 483.50 ab 4.93 ab 4.83 ab 26.67 b 
1382 117.83 b 495.33 a 4.63 b 4.50 b 21.33 c 
922 112.00 c 485.17 ab 3.90 c 4.83 ab 21.33 c 

Interaction between land leveling techniques and irrigation 

Laser leveling  

2304 124.00 a 480.33 ab 5.40 a 6.00 a 30.67 a 

1843 121.33 ab 495.33 a 5.10 a 5.33 ab 29.33 a 
1382 118.67 b 497.00 a 4.67 ab 4.67 b 22.67 b 
922 112.67 cd 485.33 ab 4.07 bc 4.67 b 21.00 b 

Conventional 
leveling  

2304 119.00 b 460.33 ab 5.07 a 5.00 ab 30.33 a 
1843 117.33 bc 471.67 ab 4.77 ab 4.33 b 24.00 b 
1382 117.00 bc 493.67 a 4.60 ab 4.33 b 20.00 b 
922 111.33 d 485.00 ab 3.73 c 5.00 ab 21.67 b 

L.S.D. at 5% level 4.57  0.79 1.09 4.13 

 

3.3. Wheat Yield Parameters  

The main goal of any development in agriculture is increasing the yields of the crops. Table 

(5) shows that the highest significant values of wheat yield and its attributes were achieved by 

preparing the soil surface by laser technique more than preparing the land by the conventional 

method. This may be due to improvement in the soil moisture distribution in root zone which 

creates good conditions for growth of roots. Data in table (5) show the relation between wheat 

yield and irrigation. Generally, wheat yield was decreased by decreasing amount of irrigation 

water. This may be due to increasing in soil moisture content in root zone and also increasing in 

leaching process and removing the salts. The important attribute (grain yield, ton/fed.) was 

lessened when the used irrigation water was dropped from 2304 m3/ fed./ season to 922 m3/ fed./ 

season by 52.79 %.Data shown in Fig. (7) and Table (5) indicated the effect of the interaction 

between land leveling techniques and deficit irrigation on the yield of wheat crop. Although, the 

highest value of grain yield was achieved by using laser land leveling technique under 100% IR 

(2304 m3/ fed./ season) but  the statistical analysis indicated that no significant deference was 

achieved between 100% and 60% IR, in the grain yield, this means  saving 40% from irrigation 

water. 

 

 

 

 

 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2014, 1(2): 53-64 

 

 
62 

© 2014 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

Fig-7. Effect of land leveling techniques and deficit irrigation on the yield of wheat. 

 

3.4. Irrigation Water Use Efficiency of Wheat Crop 

Response of wheat IWUE to the interaction between studied water regimes and the two land 

leveling technique was recorded in Table (5). The highest IWUE (1.98 kg/ m3) was obtained by 

using 1382 m3/ fed./ season (60 % IR) water regime under laser soil leveling technique. From the 

viewpoint of water conservation, it is observed that using of 2304 m3/ fed./ season (100 % IR) is 

not efficient to irrigate wheat crop. Therefore, the efficient water regime is 60 % IR under laser 

soil leveling technique, because there was no significant differences of grain yield of wheat crop 

between using of 60 %, 8.0 % and 100 % IR. Consequently, 40 % of the irrigation water could be 

saved for irrigating other crops. 

 

Table-5.Effect of irrigation, land leveling and their interaction on yield parameters and Nubarya 

(average of two seasons) 

 Biological 
yield, 

(ton/fed.) 

Straw yield, 
(ton/fed.) 

Grain yield, 
(ton/fed.) 

IWUE, 
(kg/ m3) 

Land leveling techniques 
Laser leveling  8.74 a 6.23 a 2.51 a 1.61 a 

Conventional leveling  7.34 b 5.27 b 2.08 b 1.31 b 
Deficit  irrigation , m3/fed./season 

2304 8.23 5.37 b 2.87 a 1.25 c 
1843 8.28 5.68 ab 2.60 b 1.41 b 
1382 8.03 5.68 ab 2.35 c 1.70 a 

922 7.62 6.27 a 1.35 d 1.47 b 
Interaction between land leveling techniques and deficit  irrigation 

Laser leveling  

2304 8.83 ab 5.80 abc 3.03 a 1.32 cd 
1843 8.97 ab 6.20 ab 2.77 ab 1.50 bc 
1382 9.17 a 6.43 a 2.73 ab 1.98 a 
922 8.00 bc 6.50 a 1.50 d 1.63 b 

Conventional 
leveling  

2304 7.63 cd 4.93 c 2.70 ab 1.17 d 
1843 7.60 cd 5.17 bc 2.43 b 1.32 cd 
1382 6.90 d 4.93 c 1.97 c 1.42 bcd 
922 7.23 cd 6.03 ab 1.20 d 1.3 cd 

L.S.D. at 5% level 1.00 0.98 0.35 0.23 

 

 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2014, 1(2): 53-64 

 

 
63 

© 2014 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

3.5. Economical Analysis 

Method for calculation net income as shown in table (6) and values of total costs of inputs, 

total income of outputs and net income were presented according to Rizk [11]. 

Table-6.Method of calculating the net income for the studied experimental factors in wheat plant 

Items Land Leveling Techniques All treatments 

Deficit Irrigation 

 
 
 
 
 

List of 
inputs 

Cost of Irrigation, E/fed. 100%IR 80%IR 60% IR 40%IR 

600 480 360 240 

Cost of land preparation, LE/fed. 150 and 300 with laser Leveling 

Cost of seeds, LE/fed. 230 

Cost of mineral fertilizers, LE/fed. 1100 
Cost of compost, LE/fed 1500 

Cost of bio-fertilizers LE/fed 50 

Cost of weed control, LE/fed. 200 

Cost of pest control, LE/fed. 150 

Cost of harvesting, LE/fed. 150 

Cost of labor, LE/fed. 600 

Rent (on season), LE/fed. 2000 

Total costs, LE/fed.         

  Output Yield, ton/fed.(Grain yield + Straw yield) Yn= (Yg +Ys) 

Price, LE/ ton.                                  Yg = 350 * 6.66 ardb = 2331 ,Ys =  600 

Total income, LE/fed. Yn*(2331 + 600) 

Net income = list of outputs – list of inputs Yn*2931 – T.C.I. 

Yn = Y is yield   and n= number of treatment (from 1 to 8 treatment), T.C.I.= Total Costs for InputsThe prices according 

to 2011/2012where 1$ = 5.85L.E 

 

The data plotted in Fig. (8) and Table (7) show the effect of land leveling techniques and 

irrigation treatments on the total costs and the total income as well as the net income (LE/ fed.). 

The economical analysis of the production of wheat crop under the experiment conditions 

explained that the total costs of wheat production inputs increased by increasing of irrigation 

water from 40 % to 100 % IR under the two experimental land leveling techniques. Otherwise, 

the highest values of the net income were acquired by using of 100 %, 80 %, and 60 % IR under 

laser land leveling technique and there were no significant differences between the three values, 

because these three treatments produced the highest values of grain yield. Generally, the more 

efficient and the economical treatment was 60 % IR (1382 m3 / fed./ season) under laser land 

leveling.  

Table-7. Effect of experimental treatments on the total costs for Inputs, total income for outputs 

and net income 

 Total costs for 
Inputs, LE/fed 

Total income for 
outputs, LE/fed 

Net income, LE/fed. 

Laser leveling  

2304 6880 a 10550.6 a 3670.67 a 
1843 6760 b 10169.3 ab 3409.33 ab 
1382 6640 d 10231.3 ab 3591.33 a 

922 6520 f 7396.6 d 876.67 dc 

Conventional 
leveling  

2304 6730 c 9254.0 bc 2524.00 bc 
1843 6610 e 8772.3 c 2162.33 c 
1382 6490 g 7544.3 d 1054.33 d 
922 6370 h 6417.0 e 47.00 e 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2014, 1(2): 53-64 

 

 
64 

© 2014 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

Fig-8. Effect of land leveling techniques and deficit irrigation on the net income. 

 

REFERENCES 

[1] L. W. Briggle, Origin and botany of wheat. Basel. Switzerland: Wheat Documenta Ciba-Geigy, 1980. 

[2] E. Triboi, P. Martre, and A. Triboi-Blondel, "Environmentally-induced changes in protein composition in 

developing grains of wheat are related to changes in total protein content," J. Exp. Bot., vol. 54, pp. 1731- 1742, 

2003. 

[3] M. L. Jat, C. Parvesh, G. Raj, S. K. Sharma, and M. A. Gill, Laser land leveling: A precursor technology for resource 

conservation. Rice-wheat consortium technical bulletin Series No. 7. New Delhi: Rice-Wheat Consortium for the 

Indo-Gangetic Plains, 2006. 

[4] Conservation Agriculture, "Conservation agriculture: Resource productivity and efficiency," IVth World 

Congress on Conservation Agriculture, New Delhi, PACA, 1st Floor, NASC Complex, DPS Marg, Pusa, New 

Delhi - 110 012 INDIA, 2009. Available: www.conserveagri.org, 2009. 

[5] C. Kirda, Deficit irrigation scheduling based on plant growth stages showing water stress tolerance. Adana, Turkey: 

Cukuroya University, 2000. 

[6] P. C. Liven and F. C. Van Rooyen, "The effect of discharge rate and intermittent water application by point-

source irrigation on the soil moisture distribution pattern," Soil Sci.Amer. J., vol. 43, pp. 8-15, 1979. 

[7] L. G. James, Principles of farm irrigation system design: John Willey&sons. Inc.,Washington State University, 

1988. 

[8] F. C. Stickler, Weaden, and A. W. Pauli, "Leaf area determination in grain sorghum," Agron. J., vol. 53, pp. 

187–188, 1961. 

[9] G. W. Snedecor and W. G. Cochran, Statistical methods, 7th ed. Iowa, U.S.A.: Iowa State Univ. Press, 1982. 

[10] D. B. Duncan, "Multiple range and multiple F tests," Biometrics, vol. 11, pp. 1 - 42, 1955. 

[11] E. K. Rizk, "Irrigation scheduling and environmental stress coefficient of kidney bean under some irrigation 

systems in North Sinai," Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., vol. 22, pp. 286-296, 2007. 

 

 

Views and opinions expressed in this article are the views and opinions of the author(s), Current Research in Agricultural Sciences 

shall not be responsible or answerable for any loss, damage or liability etc. caused in relation to/arising out of the use of the content. 

 

http://www.conserveagri.org/

