Skip to main content
BMC Plant Biology logoLink to BMC Plant Biology
. 2026 Feb 13;26:518. doi: 10.1186/s12870-026-08335-x

Enhancing water use efficiency and nutritional quality of maize fodder under deficit irrigation with microbial and potassium amendments

Haq Nawaz 1,, Cengiz Türkay 1, İlknur Akgün 1, Ulaş Şenyiğit 2
PMCID: PMC13005382  PMID: 41688917

Abstract

Optimizing maize fodder production under water limited conditions is essential for sustainable livestock systems facing climate induced water stress and declining soil fertility. In this two-year field study, we investigated how deficit irrigation at different maize growth stages (VT-R3, R3-R6, VE-VT) in combination with potassium fertilization (0, 50 kg ha⁻¹) and bacteria inoculation (B-, B+) influences water use efficiency and the nutritional quality of maize fodder. Data was recorded on acid detergent fiber (ADF), neutral detergent fiber (NDF), crude protein (CP), ash, hemicellulose, biological yield, water use efficiency and irrigation water use efficiency. Irrigation timing exerted the strongest influence on most traits. Late season deficit irrigation (R3-R6) increased fiber accumulation (ADF and NDF), whereas early season deficit irrigation (VE-VT) consistently reduced fiber accumulation while improving crude protein content and irrigation water use efficiency. Full irrigation produced the highest biological yield, followed by early season deficit irrigation. Potassium fertilization enhanced crude protein content and water use efficiency, particularly under water limited conditions. Bacterial inoculation significantly improved crude protein concentration, biological yield, and both water use efficiency and irrigation water use efficiency, with more pronounced effects under deficit irrigation. Overall, the results indicate that early season deficit irrigation (VE-VT) combined with potassium supplementation and bacterial inoculation represents an effective integrated strategy to improve forage biomass production and water productivity in maize; however, these practices may also increase fiber fractions, potentially reducing digestibility and voluntary intake, and therefore require careful balancing of yield gains with forage quality.

Keywords: Maize fodder, Fodder quality, Water use efficiency, Irrigation water use efficiency

Introduction

Cereal crops, such as maize (Zea mays L.), wheat, and rice are used worldwide for grain and livestock feed. Therefore, the dietary content of maize stover and wheat straw must be accurately and promptly analyzed [1, 2]. The time of harvest, storage conditions, and processing procedure usually affect roughage composition [3]. Beneficial phytochemicals found in straw, such as NDF, are crucial for promoting rumen fermentation in ruminants. Thus, an assessment is necessary to understand the sources and objectives of straw [4].

Fertilizers and irrigation significantly impact the productivity and nutritional value of fodder [5]. However, excessive irrigation and fertilizer use increases production costs and can harm the ecosystem and soil, ultimately decreasing yield. Excessive and improper use of chemical fertilizers can result in significant yield losses [6, 7]. Limited irrigation can influence the leaf to stem ratio, affecting the quality of the feed [8]. Several studies have proven the detrimental effects of limited irrigation on various stages of crop growth [911].

Water scarcity is the most prominent abiotic threat to crop productivity in dry and semiarid regions and a key issue in addressing climate change [12]. Climate change is expected to negatively impact agricultural production in the coming years by causing more frequent and severe occurrences of low precipitation and insufficient moisture, as well as an increase in mean and maximum temperatures [13]. Water scarcity reduces photosynthesis by lowering chlorophyll content and leaf area. It also impairs metabolic activity and negatively impacts final yield [14]. Water scarcity decreases the relative water content of leaves, transpiration rate, stomatal conductance, and cell enlargement rate. Ultimately, these changes hinders plant growth, particularly during critical growth stages [15]. Therefore, effective crop management requires an understanding of how deficit irrigation affects maize growth and development. Beneficial soil microorganisms, such as plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR), can enhance plant growth and productivity [16]. When introduced to seeds or roots, PGPR colonizes the root system and uses root exudates for energy, thereby promoting growth and increasing yield. PGPR also helps plants cope with abiotic stress, improves nutrient uptake, and regulates plant hormones, such as auxin, abscisic acid, cytokinin, ethylene, and gibberellins [17]. Numerous investigations have focused on several PGPR taxonomic groups, particularly native Bacillus species [18, 19].

Adequate irrigation significantly improves the nutritional value of maize straw. It increases crude protein (CP) content and reduces structural fiber components, such as acid detergent fiber (ADF) and neutral detergent fiber (NDF). Increasing irrigation levels in silage maize resulted in a 13% increase in CP content and a decrease in fiber fractions, which aligns with reported trends [20]. Similarly, study [21] examined the effects of irrigation technology and rate on forage yield and quality. They found that appropriate irrigation practices can enhance forage quality by increasing CP content and reducing fiber fractions. Another study [22] showed that irrigation and nitrogen management significantly affect these quality indices, underscoring the importance of water and nutrient management in forage production. Partial root zone drying and drip irrigation methods can maintain or improve CP content while lowering ADF and NDF values [23]. Collectively, these findings suggest that appropriate irrigation strategies enhance the feeding value of maize straw, whereas water stress deteriorates its nutritional quality by increasing fiber and reducing protein content. Recent studies have demonstrated that effects of deficit irrigation on forage yield in maize and other forage cereals, with crop responses largely dependent on the severity and timing of water stress [2427]. Furthermore, optimized deficit irrigation strategies can improve water productivity and sustain forage yield by enhancing soil water extraction and root system efficiency [28, 29].

Accordingly [30], recently observed that reducing irrigation water by 26% during specific growth stages (VT, or tasseling stage; R1, or silking stage; and R2, or blister stage), as classified by [31], could be suitable for new commercial maize hybrids, while preserving a similar whole plant yield and forage nutritive values. Conversely [32], studied the effect of four irrigation levels (0, 153, 305, and 480 mm of total water) on maize and reported that decreased irrigation levels caused a linear decrease in yield, crude protein content and water-soluble carbohydrates, as well as an increase in fibrous fractions.

Similarly [33], tested different amounts of irrigation water (an average of 451 to 975 mm) and reported modifications to the chemical composition of maize grown in semi-arid conditions.

Due to the conflicting results regarding the effect of irrigation water on the nutritive value of maize silage, as well as the desire to reduce the amount of water used for irrigation, it is crucial to investigate how maize responds to a severe reduction in irrigation water in terms of its chemical composition, rumen dry matter, and fiber digestibility.

Although the effects of irrigation management and PGPR on maize have been widely studied [3032], their combined influence with potassium nutrition under growth-stage-specific deficit irrigation remains poorly understood. Most studies have evaluated these factors independently or under uniform seasonal water stress. This creates uncertainty regarding how potassium and PGPR interact with early, mid, and late season water deficits to regulate stress physiology, nutrient assimilation, biomass partitioning, and the trade-offs between forage yield and quality. Growth stage specific deficit irrigation is biologically important because maize responds differently to water stress across developmental stages. Early season water limitation mainly restricts canopy growth, root development, and nitrogen assimilation, whereas stress during the reproductive stage enhances lignification and secondary cell wall formation [29]. Therefore, clarifying how potassium supply and PGPR interact with irrigation timing is essential to explaining variations in forage quality and water use efficiency under water-limited conditions.

This study aimed to determine the effects of potassium and bio-fertilizer application on water use efficiency, biomass yield, and quality characteristics of maize fodder under seasonal deficit irrigation conditions. Additionally, the study aimed to reveal the ability of these factors to tolerate seasonal water deficiency.

Materials and methods

The study was conducted during the years 2023 and 2024 at experimental research farm of the Isparta University of Applied sciences, Türkiye. The experiment was conducted in randomized complete blocks design (RCBD) with split split plot arrangement. The main plots of the experiment were allotted with irrigation as control and seasonal deficit irrigations based on Zadoks [34] growth scales as VT-R3 (deficit irrigation from tasseling to grain filling stage), R3-R6 (deficit irrigation from grain filling stage to physiological maturity), VE-VT (deficit irrigation from to emergence to tasseling stage) and a rainfed treatment. Although maize cultivation under fully rainfed conditions is not agronomically feasible in the study region, the rainfed treatment was intentionally included as a reference to quantify crop response under extreme water limitation and to enable the calculation and comparison of irrigation-related indices, particularly irrigation water use efficiency (IWUE), subplots with potassium doses (0 and 50 kg ha− 1) and subsub plots of the experiment was assigned with Bacillus bacteria (B-/B+). Pre experiment soil analysis showed that soil samples taken from a depth of 0–90 cm in the experimental area had sufficient potassium (K) content: 1.94 cmol kg⁻¹ at 0–30 cm, 0.75 cmol kg⁻¹ at 30–60 cm, and 0.58 cmol kg⁻¹ at 60–90 cm. Therefore, the 50 kg ha⁻¹ rate was selected to evaluate the supplemental effect of potassium, particularly in combination with bacterial inoculation and deficit irrigation treatments. This approach allowed assessment of whether additional potassium could enhance crop performance and water-use efficiency beyond the existing soil K status.

For proper seedbed preparation the soil was cultivated with cultivated twice followed by rotavator to ensure proper sowing and emergence of the seeds. The length of the plot was maintained as 5 m with 70 cm row to row and 30 cm plant to plant distance. All the control plots (without Bacillus) were sowed at first followed by inoculated seeds. The seed were inoculated with recommended dose of Bacteria (36 g 100 kg− 1 seed) prior to sowing and were properly mixed. The Bacillus inoculant used in this study was i30FP (Bacillus simplex strain − 1 × 108 cfu/g). All experimental plots received equal applications of nitrogen and phosphorus at rates of 200 kg ha⁻¹ N and 80 kg ha⁻¹ P, supplied as urea and monoammonium phosphate (MAP), respectively. Phosphorus was applied entirely at sowing, whereas nitrogen was applied in two equal splits, with 50% at sowing and the remaining 50% at the 45-cm crop growth stage.

Irrigation water and evapotranspiration

Control irrigation was performed using drip irrigation system throughout the growing season of the plots following the moisture loss. During the experiment, soil water content was determined using the gravimetric method to monitor changes in soil moisture in the plant root zone. To verify and cross check the amount of irrigation to be applied the class A evaporation container was installed in the experiment area. The amount of irrigation water was calculated based on the daily evaporation values measured from the Class A evaporation pan.

The amount of the applied irrigation water to the treatments was calculated using Eq. 1. The amount of irrigation water determined as depth terms, was calculated in volume terms by multiplying with the parcel unit area and the percentage of the wetted area during the applications (Eq. 2).

graphic file with name d33e331.gif 1
graphic file with name d33e335.gif 2

Where;

I, irrigation water amount (mm); Epan, cumulative evaporation amount from the class A pan during the irrigation interval according to the treatments (mm); Kp, pan coefficient taken as 1 based on the principles given by [35]; V, irrigation water amount as volume (L); A, plot area (m2); WA, percentage of the wetted area (47%).

Plant water consumption (PWC) for experimental treatments was calculated on a water budget basis using Eq. 3 [36].

graphic file with name d33e356.gif 3

Where;

ET: Evapotranspiration (mm), P: Effective rainfall (mm), Dp: Deep percolation (mm), Cp: Capillary rise (mm), Rf : Surface runoff (mm), ΔS: Water content change in soil profile (mm).

Capillary rise was neglected because of no ground water problem in the experimental area. In addition to this, the infiltration rate of the soil was determined as a result of the infiltration tests and the appropriate dripper flow rate (1.5 L h− 1) was selected, there were no surface runoff losses. For this reason, the formula was simplified (Eq. 4).

graphic file with name d33e371.gif 4

Equation (4) was used to calculate the irrigation requirement (I). In cases of excessive rainfall (P), the amount of deep percolation (DP) was deducted from the irrigation calculation. Throughout the crop growing seasons in both years, soil moisture changes (ΔS) were regularly monitored, and irrigation was scheduled when 30% of the available soil moisture was depleted from field capacity (5–7 days interval based on moisture depletion).

Water use efficiency (kg ha− 1.mm)

The Eqs. 5 and 6 given by [37], was used to determine the water use efficiency (WUE) and irrigation water use efficiency (IWUE) realized in the trial.

graphic file with name d33e396.gif 5

In the equations; BY = Biological yield (kg ha− 1); ET = Plant water consumption (mm).

Irrigation water use efficiency (kg ha− 1.mm)

graphic file with name d33e411.gif 6

In the equations; BY = Biological yield (kg ha− 1); IR = Irrigation water applied (mm), BY0 = Biological yield (kg ha− 1) taken from rainfed treatment.

The coverage ratio of the applied irrigation water to the evapotranspiration (IRc)

The irrigation coverage ratio (IRc) is used to evaluate the adequacy of irrigation in meeting the crop water requirements. It is calculated using the following formula 7 [38].

graphic file with name d33e431.gif 7

Where,

IRc= irrigation water to the evapotranspiration, I= irrigation water applied, ET = Plant water consumption.

Biological yield (kg ha− 1)

For recording biological yield (BY), two central rows in each subplot was harvested along with cobs at maturity and was tied in bundles. The bundles were sun dried for two days and weighed for recording biological yield data then was converted into kg ha− 1 by the following formula (Eq. 8).

graphic file with name d33e451.gif 8

Determination of nutritional traits in maize fodder

For determining the nutritional traits maize fodder biomass (only above ground biomass without ears (excluding grains)) samples were dried in an oven at 65 °C until they reached a constant weight. The dried samples were grinded to pass through a 1 mm sieve. Acid detergent fiber (ADF), neutral detergent fiber (NDF), crude protien CP, hemicellulose content (HC), and ash content (AC) were determined using Near Infrared Spectroscopy (NIRS) calibrated against traditional wet laboratory analyses. In these analyses, a FOSS Forage Analyzer 5000 (FOSS XDS RCA, Denmark) NIRS device equipped with the Win ISI II software package (version 1.5, Intra Soft International, LLC) was used. Outliers were detected during the analysis process, the relevant samples were re-scanned to obtain accurate data points. A basic NIRS calibration for maize fodder was developed and validated using calibration and validation sets, with a Global H value of 1, in accordance with conventional laboratory analyses. This basic NIRS equation was updated by analyzing 10% of new fodder samples after it was created using conventional analyses [39, 40].

Climatic characteristics of the experimental site (2023–2024)

Air temperature and precipitation patterns showed notable interannual variation between 2023 and 2024 across the months from May to October (Table 1).

Table 1.

Monthly averages of air temperature, precipitation, relative humidity, and solar radiation during crop growing season (2023–2024)

2023
Months Air temperature (°C) Precipitation (mm) R. Humidity (%) S. Radiation (W/m2)
Min Max Mean Total Mean Mean
May 8.08 20.73 14.11 52.2 77.69 189.95
June 12.01 25.87 18.85 0.8 67.62 286.5
July 11.81 32.08 23.16 0.4 42.3 346
August 13.73 35.05 25.14 60.2 42.53 306.43
Sept. 8.58 28.75 18.84 2.22 53.23 253.66
October 5.05 23.51 13.83 95 67.11 203.33
2024
Months Air temperature (°C) Precipitation (mm) R. Humidity (%) S. Radiation (W/m2)
Min Max Mean Total Mean Mean
May 6.42 23.09 14.87 41 60.9 250.25
June 13.12 33.85 24.65 6 38.99 335.93
July 14.69 32.69 24.28 34.2 48.63 312.38
August 13.15 33.06 24.13 11.4 43.68 298.77
Sept. 11.22 28.57 20.07 9.4 59.19 243
October 2.03 23.02 12.79 1.8 52.74 200.96

In 2023, mean air temperatures ranged from 13.83 °C in October to 25.14 °C in August. The highest maximum temperature recorded was 35.05 °C in August, while the lowest minimum was 5.05 °C in October. Precipitation was highest in October (95 mm) and lowest in July (0.4 mm), with particularly dry conditions observed from June through September. In contrast, 2024 displayed the mean values ranging from 12.79 °C in October to 24.65 °C in June. The highest recorded temperature (33.85 °C) occurred in June, and the lowest minimum (2.03 °C) in October. Precipitation levels in 2024 were generally lower, with the exception of May (41 mm) and July (34.2 mm), while October recorded the lowest total (1.8 mm), indicating a drier end to the growing season compared to the previous year.

To eliminate potential residual effects from previous treatments, particularly bacterial inoculants, the experimental area was changed annually to preserve the independence of treatments and uphold data reliability. Soil texture remained clay loam in both years. In 2023, bulk density values were 1.45 g/cm³ and 1.43 g/cm³, with field capacity of 24.3% (105.70 mm) and 24.2% (103.81 mm), respectively. In 2024, bulk density varied more, with 1.34 g/cm³ in the upper layer and 1.51 g/cm³ in the lower, while field capacity was 21.96% (88.30 mm) and 21.92% (99.15 mm). Total field capacity values was 209.51 mm in 2023 and 187.45 mm in 2024 (Table 2).

Table 2.

Soil characteristics of the experimental site (2023–2024)

2023
Soil depth (cm) Structure class Bulk density (gr/cm3) Field Capacity Wilting Point
% mm % mm
0–30 Clay Loam 1.45 24.3 105.70 14.1 61.33
30–60 Clay Loam 1.43 24.2 103.81 14 60.06
Total (0–60 cm) 209.51 121.39
2024
Soil depth (cm) Structure class Bulk density (gr/cm3) Field Capacity Wilting Point
% mm % mm
0–30 Clay Loam 1.34 21.96 88.3 11.55 46.43
30–60 Clay Loam 1.51 21.92 99.15 11.99 54.24
Total (0–60 cm) 187.45 100.67

Statistical analysis

The collected data were statistically examined using the analysis of variance (ANOVA) method in accordance with a randomized complete block design (RCBD) split split plot method by using Statistix software (version 8.1). When the F-test was significant, the least significant differences (LSD) test was used to link data means [41].

Results

Evaluation of crop water use and irrigation requirements

Over two growing seasons (2023 and 2024), the effects of different irrigation treatments on irrigation amount, precipitation, crop evapotranspiration (ETc), and irrigation requirement (IRc) were evaluated (Table 3). The total irrigation amount varied significantly among treatments and years. In both years, the control treatment received the most irrigation, at 318.2 mm in 2023 and 396 mm in 2024. Conversely, the VE-VT treatment applied the least amount of irrigation in 2023 (163.8 mm); in 2024, the R3-R6 treatment used the least (215 mm). The precipitation amount was 210 mm in 2023 and 98.4 mm in 2024. Seasonal ETc values ranged from 462.11 to 595.88 mm in 2023 and from 429.4 to 523.39 mm in 2024. The highest ETc values were recorded in the control plots in both years. The ratio of applied irrigation water to evapotranspiration (IRc) was highest in the control plots in both years (53.40% in 2023 and 75.77% in 2024), reflecting a greater dependency on supplemental irrigation. The R3-R6 and VE-VT treatments consistently exhibited lower IRc values, especially in 2023 (38.32% and 35.45%, respectively). Overall, these results suggest that strategically timing irrigation (e.g., limiting it to specific growth stages, such as VE-VT or R3-R6) can significantly reduce water usage while maintaining comparable ETc levels, contributing to more efficient water management.

Table 3.

Evaluation of crop water use and irrigation requirements

Treatments Irrigation amount (mm) Precipitation (mm) Etc (mm) IRc (%)
2023 2024 2023 2024 2023 2024 2023 2024
Control 318 396 210 98 596 523 53 76
VT-R3 257 306 210 98 537 451 48 68
R3-R6 216 215 210 98 563 429 38 50
VE-VT 164 267 210 98 462 433 35 62
Rainfed 0 0 210 98

Acid detergent fiber (%)

Acid detergent fiber (ADF) was significantly affected by the seasonal deficit irrigation, potassium application, and bacterial inoculation in both years (Table 4). R3-R6 irrigation consistently produced the highest ADF across years (62.55% in 2023 and 64.91% in 2024), followed by VT-R3. Early season deficit irrigation VE-VT, on the other hand, consistently produced the lowest ADF (53.58% and 52.73%, respectively). Rainfed and control treatments showed intermediate values. Potassium application significantly influenced ADF only in 2024. Bacterial inoculation increased ADF in both years, with higher values observed in B+ than B- plots. The interaction between irrigation and bacteria was significant in both seasons (Fig. 1).

Table 4.

Nutritional parameters of maize fodder as affected by seasonal deficit irrigation potassium and bacteria

Treatments Examined traits
ADF (%) NDF (%) Crude Protein (%)
Irrigation Levels (IL) 2023 2024 2023 2024 2023 2024
Control 59.34b 60.59b 83.00b 78.51c 2.45c 2.52c
VT-R3 58.78b 63.92a 73.78d 77.13d 2.82b 2.62c
R3-R6 62.55a 64.91a 87.67a 90.53a 2.27d 2.36d
VE-VT 53.58d 52.73d 72.41d 68.79e 2.76b 3.65a
Rainfed 56.07c 58.93c 78.26c 80.66b 3.54a 3.20b
LSD 1.15 1.2 1.51 1.18 0.14 0.14
F-Value 37.08 254.06 94.54 429.39 96.61 103.58
Potassium (P) kg ha− 1
 0 56.31b 58.34b 77.44b 77.15b 2.59b 2.64b
 5 59.82b 62.09a 80.63a 81.10a 2.95a 3.11a
 LSD 0.73 0.75 0.96 0.74 0.09 0.09
 F-Value 82.99 145.63 47.01 60.32 78.81 276.06
Bacteria (B)
 B- 54.75b 56.76b 75.52b 74.82b 2.40b 2.52b
 B+ 61.38a 63.68a 82.53a 83.43a 3.14a 3.23a
 LSD 0.73 0.75 0.96 0.74 0.09 0.09
 F-Value 539.16 252.3 268.23 870.89 231.38 199.75
Interaction (F value)
 I×P 1.57 5.64* 0.99 1.6 21.99** 15.21**
 I×B 8.36** 13.43*** 9.51** 30.42*** 7.46** 5.86**
 P×B 4.58* 0.52 1.88 36.25*** 13.69** 7.84**
 I×P×B 2.7 0.25 3.20* 0.57 7.54*** 0.57

The difference between the values shown with different letters in the same columns is significant at P ≤ 0.05 level. ns: p ≥ 0.05, *p ≤ 0.05, **p ≤ 0.01, ***p ≤ 0.001

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Effects of seasonal deficit irrigation and bacteria interaction on crop response across the 2023 and 2024 seasons

In 2023, the highest ADF occurred under R3-R6 irrigation with bacterial inoculation, while the lowest ADF occurred under VE-VT irrigation treatment without bacteria. In 2024, the maximum ADF was recorded under VT-R3 with bacteria, and the minimum values were recorded under VE-VT without bacterial application. Across both years, bacterial inoculation consistently increased ADF, particularly under VT-R3 and R3-R6 irrigation. These treatments generally produced higher ADF values than the control, VE-VT, and rainfed treatments (Fig. 1).

The potassium × bacteria interaction was significant in 2023, but not in 2024 (Fig. 2). Conversely, the irrigation × potassium interaction became significant in 2024 (Fig. 3). The three-way interaction (irrigation × potassium × bacteria) was not significant in either year. In 2023, the highest ADF occurred with 50 kg K ha⁻¹ combined with bacterial inoculation, while the lowest ADF occurred in the untreated control.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Interactive effects of potassium fertilization and bacterial inoculation on crop responses during the 2023 and 2024 growing seasons

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3

Crop response to combined effects of seasonal deficit irrigation and potassium fertilization in 2023 and 2024

Neutral detergent fiber (%)

Neutral detergent fiber (NDF) was significantly affected by irrigation regime, potassium application, and bacterial inoculation (Table 4). The R3-R6 irrigation regime produced the highest NDF values (87.67% in 2023 and 90.53% in 2024) and the VE-VT regime produced the lowest values (72.41% and 68.79%, respectively). Control and rainfed treatments showed intermediate responses. Potassium application slightly increased NDF in both years. Bacterial inoculation markedly increased NDF, with higher values were observed in B+ than in B- plots. The interaction between irrigation and bacteria was significant in both seasons, indicating that the effects of bacteria on NDF varied with the irrigation regime (Fig. 1).

The highest NDF values in 2023 occurred under the R3-R6 irrigation with bacterial inoculation, while the lowest values occurred under VT-R3 and VE-VT without bacteria. A similar pattern emerged in 2024: maximum NDF occurred under R3-R6 with bacteria, and minimum NDF occurred under VE-VT without bacteria. Overall, bacterial inoculation markedly increased NDF under R3-R6 irrigation, whereas its effect was smaller under VE-VT and rainfed conditions. These results suggest that the effects of bacteria on fiber accumulation depends on irrigation timing and growth stage (Fig. 1).

The potassium × bacteria (P × B) interaction was highly significant in 2024 (Fig. 2), though it was not significant in 2023. This suggests a delayed or environmentally mediated synergistic effect. The maximum NDF value occurred under 50 kg K ha⁻¹ with bacterial inoculation, while the minimum value occurred in the non-fertilized, non-inoculated treatment. Applying bacteria alone resulted in higher NDF than applying potassium alone, indicating that bacterial inoculation has a comparatively stronger effect on cell wall fiber accumulation.

Crude protein (%)

Crude protein (CP) content was significantly influenced by irrigation regime, potassium application, and bacterial inoculation in both 2023 and 2024 (Table 4). The highest CP occurred under rainfed conditions in 2023 (3.54%) and VE-VT deficit irrigation in 2024 (3.20%). The lowest values were recorded under R3-R6 water deficit in both years. Potassium fertilization significantly increased CP in both seasons, and bacterial inoculation consistently enhanced protein content, resulting in higher CP in B+ than B- plots.

The interaction between irrigation and bacteria was significant in both years. In 2023, the highest CP was recorded under rainfed conditions with bacterial inoculation, while the lowest CP occurred under R3-R6 without bacteria. In 2024, the maximum CP was observed under VE-VT with bacteria, whereas minimum values again occurred under R3-R6 without inoculation. Overall, bacterial inoculation consistently increased CP within each irrigation regime, with rainfed and VE-VT treatments producing higher CP than R3-R6, particularly in the absence of bacteria (Fig. 1). The potassium × bacteria interaction was significant in both years. In 2023, crude protein was highest with 50 kg K ha⁻¹ combined with bacterial inoculation and lowest in the untreated control. The same trend was observed in 2024, confirming the consistent positive effect of combined potassium fertilization and bacterial inoculation on crude protein content (Fig. 2).

Ash content (%)

Seasonal deficit irrigation regimes had a statistically significant effect on ash content (Table 5). However, potassium fertilization and bacterial inoculation treatments did not significantly effect ash content except in 2024. According to 2023 and 2024 data, plots without irrigation during VE-VT period showed the highest ash content (6.13% and 6.90%). This result suggests that early water stress may have a stimulating effect on mineral matter accumulation or concentration. Conversely, in 2023, during the R3-R6 period, the non-irrigated treatment had the lowest ash value with 4.78%, while there was no statistical difference with the rainfed treatment (4.90%). In 2024, the rainfed treatment had the lowest ash content (3.41%). These findings suggest that late or continuous water stress may have limiting effects on mineral accumulation. The control (2023: 5.15%, 2024: 6.25%) and the treatment without irrigation during the VT-R3 period (2023: 5.51%, 2024: 4.29%) had moderate ash content. Potassium treatment slightly increased ash content (control: 4.85%; 50 kg ha− 1: 5.28%), but this difference was not statistically significant during first year of study (2023). Similarly, no significant difference was observed between B- (5.30%) and B+ (5.29%) in the bacterial inoculation treatment. The interaction between the treatments also did not reveal any statistically significant change. These results indicate that ash content was mainly sensitive to irrigation timing and only slightly affected by potassium fertilization.

Table 5.

Nutritional parameters and biological yield of maize as affected by seasonal deficit irrigation potassium and bacteria

Treatments Examined traits
Ash content (%) Hemicellulose (%) Biological yield (kg ha− 1)
Irrigation Levels (IL) 2023 2024 2023 2024 2023 2024
Control 5.15bc 6.25b 23.66ab 18.50b 34583a 36528a
VT-R3 5.51b 4.29c 15.00d 23.77a 26240b 26872c
R3-R6 4.78c 4.46c 25.11a 25.12a 22618c 23990d
VE-VT 6.13a 6.90a 18.83c 15.75c 27135b 29399b
Rainfed 4.90c 3.41d 22.19b 17.68bc 14052d 15424e
LSD 0.46 0.57 1.77 2.05 1158.7 1008.7
F-Value 13.63 30.89 35.1 51.07 300.86 822.26
Potassium (P) kg ha− 1
 0 5.25 4.85b 21.12 20.22 23537b 24874b
 50 5.34 5.28a 20.79 20 26314a 28011a
 LSD 0.29 0.36 1.12 1.3 732.82 637.97
 F-Value 0.44 12.49 0.29 0.21 67.86 134.06
Bacteria (B)
 B- 5.3 5.11 20.77 19.83 22343b 23428b
 B+ 5.29 5.02 21.15 20.5 27508a 29457a
 LSD 0.29 0.36 1.12 1.3 732.82 0.03
 F-Value 0.01 0.24 0.57 1.04 200.95 282.19
Interaction (F value)
 I×P 3.1 4.76* 0.51 3.03 ns ns
 I×B 1.88 0.28 5.29** 0.62 5.61** 9.08***
 P×B 0.81 1.72 0.01 1.28 8.15** 8.09*
 I×P×B 2.07 0.12 2.79 0.66 4.88** 2.89*

The difference between the values shown with different letters in the same columns is significant at P ≤ 0.05 level. ns: p ≥ 0.05, *p ≤ 0.05, **p ≤ 0.01, ***p ≤ 0.001

Hemicellulose (%)

The hemicellulose content varied across irrigation treatments and between the two years of study (Table 5). In 2023, the highest hemicellulose content was recorded under the R3-R6 irrigation level (25.11%), followed by control (23.66%) and the rainfed (22.19%) treatments. The lowest value was observed under the VT-R3 treatment (15.00%). In 2024, R3-R6 again produced the highest hemicellulose content (25.12%), while VE-VT recorded the lowest (15.75%). Notably, hemicellulose content decreased in 2024 for most treatments compared to 2023, particularly in the control and rainfed plots. In 2023, plots receiving no potassium showed slightly higher hemicellulose content (21.12%) compared to those receiving 50 kg ha⁻¹ (20.79%). A similar trend was observed in 2024, with hemicellulose content of 20.22% and 20.00% for 0 and 50 kg ha⁻¹, respectively. This suggest that the rate of potassium has a minimal influence on hemicellulose levels. Bacterial inoculation was statistically non-significant in both years. However, marginally increased hemicellulose content in both years compared to uninoculated control (B-). In 2023, B+ plots recorded 21.15% compared to 20.77% in B-, while in 2024, the values were 20.50% and 19.83% for B + and B-, respectively. These results indicate a slight but consistent enhancement of hemicellulose accumulation with bacterial inoculation. A significant interaction between irrigation and bacterial inoculation (I×B) was observed in 2023 (Fig. 1), indicating that the effect of bacterial treatments on hemicellulose content was influenced by the irrigation regime. All other interaction effects (I×P, P×B, and I×P×B) were statistically non-significant in both years.

Biological yield (kg ha− 1)

Biological yield (BY) was significantly affected by irrigation regime, potassium application, and bacterial inoculation in both 2023 and 2024 (Table 5). Control irrigation produced the highest yields (34583 and 36528 kg ha⁻¹), followed by VE-VT irrigation. Rainfed treatment resulted in the lowest yields (14052 and 15424 kg ha⁻¹). Potassium application (50 kg ha⁻¹) increased BY to 26,314 and 28,011 kg ha⁻¹, compared with 23,537 and 24,874 kg ha⁻¹ without potassium in 2023 and 2024, respectively. Bacterial inoculation also significantly enhanced yield, increasing BY from 22,343 to 27,508 kg ha⁻¹ in 2023 and from 23,428 to 29,457 kg ha⁻¹ in 2024.

Significant interactions were observed between irrigation and bacterial inoculation (I×B) in both years, suggesting that the response to bacteria depended on the irrigation regime (Fig. 1). Similarly, potassium and bacteria (P×B) interactions were significant in both years (Fig. 2). Biological yield increased progressively with the combined application of potassium and bacterial inoculation in both years. In 2023, yield ranged from 21,475 kg ha⁻¹ in the non-fertilized, non-inoculated control (K0 × B-) to 29,417 kg ha⁻¹ under 50 kg K ha⁻¹ with bacteria (K50 × B+). A similar response was recorded in 2024, with values spanning 22,369 to 31,536 kg ha⁻¹, again peaking in the K50 × B+ treatment. Across both seasons, treatments receiving a single input produced intermediate biomass levels. Likewise, the three-way interaction (I×P×B) was also significant in both years (Table 7). In 2023, the highest biological yield (41208 kg ha⁻¹) was obtained under full irrigation combined with 50 kg K ha⁻¹ and bacterial inoculation, while the lowest yield (10861 kg ha⁻¹) occurred under rainfed conditions without potassium and bacteria. A similar pattern was observed in 2024, with yields ranging from 43,347 kg ha⁻¹ under fully irrigated K50 × B + to 12,306 kg ha⁻¹ under rainfed, non-treated conditions. Overall, the combined application of potassium and bacteria consistently maximized yield, particularly under adequate water supply (Table 7).

Table 7.

Interactive effects of seasonal deficit irrigation, potassium fertilization and bacterial inoculation on crop responses during the 2023 and 2024 growing seasons

Treatments NDF CP IWUE WUE Biological yield
Irrigation Potassium Bacteria 2023 2023 2023 2023 2024 2023 2024
Control KO B- 79.83ef 2.03j 65.34b-d 53.12c-e 60.74c-e 31653bc 31792d
K50 B+ 83.57d 2.57f-h 60.8c-e 56.45c 70.85b 33639b 37083b
KO B- 81.77de 2.27ij 58.7d-f 53.42 cd 64.75c 31833bc 33889c
K50 B+ 86.87bc 2.97d 73.20b 69.16a 82.82a 41208a 43347a
VT-R3 KO B- 67.03j 2.23 h-j 47.51f-h 42.92gh 52.90 g-i 23056f 23,847 h
K50 B+ 68.67ij 2.87de 44.91gh 45.94 fg 54.75f-h 24681f 24681f-h
KO B- 76.33gh 2.63e-g 50.75e-g 50.83de 60.82c-e 27306e 27417e
K50 B+ 83.10d 3.57c 46.75gh 55.69c 69.97b 29,917 cd 31542d
R3-R6 KO B- 83.40d 2.03j 39.12hi 34.27j 48.65i 19,306 g 20889i
K50 B+ 88.57b 2.37 g-i 43.20gh 42.01gh 57.93d-f 23667f 24875f-h
KO B- 87.00bc 2.03j 44.72gh 40.48hi 56.22e-g 22806f 24139gh
K50 B+ 91.73a 2.67ef 31.40i 43.84gh 60.68c-e 24694f 26056e-g
VE-VT KO B- 67.00j 2.30 h-j 71.04bc 48.69ef 53.17 g-i 22500f 23,014 h
K50 B+ 76.13gh 2.47f-i 88.51a 63.00b 74.04b 29111de 32,042 cd
KO B- 70.53i 2.40f-i 63.67b-d 51.03de 61.13 cd 23583f 26458ef
K50 B+ 76.00gh 3.90b 94.19a 72.16a 83.37a 33347b 36083b
Rainfed KO B- 73.87 h 2.97d - 27.86k 50.08hi 10861i 12306k
K50 B+ 78.67 fg 4.33a - 36.62ij 62.97c 14,278 h 15472j
KO B- 76.13gh 2.90a - 33.73j 53.98f-h 13153hi 13264k
K50 B+ 84.40 cd 3.97b - 45.95 fg 84.06a 17,917 g 20653i

The difference between the values shown with different letters in the same columns is significant at P ≤ 0.05 level.

Biological yield varied significantly with irrigation regime and Bacillus inoculation in both years. In 2023 and 2024, the highest yields were obtained under control irrigation with bacterial inoculation, while the lowest yields occurred under rainfed conditions without bacteria. Bacterial application was most effective under control and VE-VT irrigation, whereas its benefit was limited under rainfed conditions. Overall, Bacillus inoculation increased biological yield across irrigation regimes, but water stress consistently constrained biomass production (Fig. 1).

Water use efficiency (kg ha⁻¹ mm− 1)

Water use efficiency (WUE) was significantly affected by irrigation regime, potassium application, and bacterial inoculation in both 2023 and 2024 (Table 6). In 2023, the highest WUE was recorded under VE-VT irrigation (58.72 kg ha⁻¹ mm⁻¹), followed by the control, whereas in 2024 the control treatment showed the maximum WUE (69.79 kg ha⁻¹ mm⁻¹), with VE-VT also performing well. Rainfed and R3-R6 treatments produced the lowest WUE in both years. Potassium application (50 kg ha⁻¹) significantly increased WUE compared with no potassium, and bacterial inoculation markedly enhanced WUE, increasing values from 43.14 to 53.57 in 2023 and from 55.63 to 70.75 in 2024. The irrigation × bacteria interaction was highly significant in both seasons, indicating that bacterial effects on WUE depended on irrigation regime (Fig. 1).

Table 6.

Water Use Efficiency (WUE) and Irrigation Water Use Efficiency (IWUE) as influenced by irrigation regimes, potassium application and bacterial inoculation

Treatments Examined traits
WUE (kg ha− 1.mm) IWUE (kg ha− 1.mm)
Irrigation Levels (IL) 2023 2024 2023 2024
Control 58.03a 69.79a 64.52b 53.21a
VT-R3 48.84b 59.60c 47.47c 37.33b
R3-R6 40.15c 55.86d 39.68d 39.67b
VE-VT 58.72a 67.92a 79.35a 52.34a
Rainfed 36.04d 62.77b - -
LSD 2.27 2.37 5.60 4.37
F-Value 155.84 80.37 128.51 87.86
Potassium (P) kg ha− 1
 0 45.57b 59.21b 58.32 45.71
 50 51.14a 67.17a 57.19 45.57
 LSD 1.44 1.50 3.96 3.09
 F-Value 64.15 198.98 0.32 0.02
Bacteria (B)
 B- 43.14b 55.63b 54.37b 44.45
 B+ 53.57a 70.75a 61.14a 46.82
 LSD 1.44 1.50 3.96 3.09
 F-Value 214.42 303.44 11.14 1.65
Interaction (F value)
 I×P ns ns ns ns
 I×B 7.92*** 10.86** 9.01** 8.61**
 P×B 7.99* 11.17** ns 9.67**
 I×P×B 3.80* 4.47** 4.08* ns

The difference between the values shown with different letters is significant at P ≤ 0.05 level. ns: p ≥ 0.05, *p ≤ 0.05, **p ≤ 0.01, ***p ≤ 0.001

For the irrigation × bacteria interaction, the highest WUE in 2023 was observed under VE-VT irrigation with bacterial inoculation, while the lowest WUE occurred under rainfed conditions without bacteria. A similar pattern was noted in 2024, with maximum WUE again under VE-VT with bacteria, followed by the control with bacterial application, whereas the lowest values were recorded under R3-R6 and rainfed treatments without bacteria. Overall, bacterial inoculation most effectively improved WUE under VE-VT and control irrigation, while its effect was limited under R3-R6 and rainfed conditions (Fig. 1). The potassium × bacteria interaction was significant in both years (Fig. 2). In 2023, WUE was highest under 50 kg K ha⁻¹ with bacterial inoculation (57.36 kg ha⁻¹ mm⁻¹) and lowest in the untreated control (41.37 kg ha⁻¹ mm⁻¹). A similar response occurred in 2024, with maximum WUE (76.18 kg ha⁻¹ mm⁻¹) in K50 × B + and minimum WUE (53.11 kg ha⁻¹ mm⁻¹) in K0 × B-, confirming the consistent synergistic effect of potassium and bacterial inoculation on water use efficiency.

Irrigation water use efficiency (kg ha⁻¹ mm− 1)

Seasonal deficit irrigation significantly affected IWUE in both 2023 and 2024 (Table 6). The highest IWUE values were recorded under VE-VT irrigation (79.35 and 52.34 kg ha⁻¹ mm⁻¹) and the lowest values occurred under R3-R6 irrigation in both years. Control irrigation showed intermediate IWUE. Potassium application had no significant effect on IWUE. Bacterial inoculation increased IWUE, from 54.37 to 61.14 kg ha⁻¹ mm⁻¹ in 2023 and from 52.0 to 53.2 kg ha⁻¹ mm⁻¹ in 2024; however, the increase was only statistically significant in 2023.

A highly significant irrigation × bacteria interaction was observed in both years (Fig. 1). In 2023 and 2024, the highest IWUE occurred under VE-VT irrigation with bacterial inoculation, while R3-R6 irrigation consistently resulted in the lowest IWUE, particularly with or without bacteria. Overall, bacterial inoculation improved IWUE primarily under VE-VT and full irrigation, whereas its effect was limited under R3-R6 and rainfed conditions. The three way interaction (irrigation × potassium × bacteria) was significant in 2023 but not in 2024 (Table 7). No significant irrigation × potassium interaction was detected in either year, while a potassium × bacteria interaction was significant only in 2024 (Fig. 2).

Discussion

Seasonal deficit irrigation, potassium fertilization, and bacterial inoculation significantly influenced acid detergent fiber (ADF) and neutral detergent fiber (NDF). Early irrigation (VE-VT) consistently reduced fiber accumulation, while late irrigation (R3-R6) promoted higher ADF and NDF levels due to increased lignification during the reproductive stage. These results imply that deficit irrigation during the early vegetative stage (VE-VT) is preferable for maintaining lower ADF content. In contrast, late irrigation (R3-R6) increases fiber accumulation in the forage. Adequate or excessive irrigation promotes vigorous vegetative growth, particularly stem and leaf elongation. This leads to greater deposition of structural carbohydrates, such as cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin, which are the primary components of ADF and NDF [42]. The application of potassium, particularly at a rate of 50 kg ha⁻¹, enhanced NDF while reducing ADF in some cases, likely due to improved nutrient translocation and cellulose biosynthesis, which support structural development [43]. Interestingly, bacterial inoculation significantly increased both ADF and NDF, suggesting that these microbial treatments may enhance nutrient uptake or activate metabolic pathways favoring lignocellulose formation. Although bacterial inoculation increased forage yield, it was also associated with higher ADF and NDF content, which can negatively affect digestibility and intake. The elevated ADF and NDF concentrations observed under late-season deficit irrigation have direct consequences for forage utilization. Increased ADF reflects greater lignification, which reduces cell wall digestibility, whereas higher NDF limits voluntary dry matter intake by livestock. Consequently, irrigation strategies that increase fiber accumulation during reproductive stages may compromise forage feeding value, despite maintaining or increasing biomass production. These findings emphasize the importance of irrigation timing in managing the trade-off between forage yield and nutritional quality. During periods of forage shortage, the deficit is usually compensated for with cereal straw, which has low nutritional value. Maize leaves and husks have moderate nutritional value and are highly palatable. Therefore, the plant residues (maize stover) remaining after grain harvest are used in animal feed. Using maize stover as a low cost source of animal feed is of considerable economic importance. Significant interaction effects, particularly irrigation × bacteria and potassium × bacteria, indicate that microbial stimulation of fiber traits is modulated by water and nutrient availability. While increased NDF can limit voluntary intake and elevated ADF reduces digestibility [44], these results underscore the need to optimize irrigation timing and inoculant selection to balance yield with forage quality. For ADF, the significant interaction between irrigation and bacteria indicates that bacterial inoculation increased lignified fiber most significantly under R3-R6 irrigation. This suggests that bacterial stimulation of lignin deposition is amplified during reproductive stages, when water availability supports secondary cell wall formation. In contrast, the interaction between irrigation and bacteria for NDF suggests that bacterial inoculation mainly increased total cell wall components under VE-VT and VT-R3 irrigation. This indicates enhanced structural carbohydrate accumulation during active vegetative growth rather than increased lignification.

Although bacterial inoculation increased forage yield, it was also associated with higher ADF and NDF contents. This indicates a clear trade-off between biomass production and forage quality. These results suggest that bacterial inoculation is most suitable when combined with early-season deficit irrigation (VE-VT), as yield benefits can be achieved with smaller penalties to digestibility [44]. Overall, the interaction among water availability, potassium nutrition, and bacterial inoculation indicates that fiber accumulation is driven by growth stage specific responses where water and nutrients regulate whether microbial stimulation favors vegetative biomass expansion or lignified structural development.

The crude protein content of maize fodder was significantly affected by irrigation, potassium fertilization, and bacterial inoculation. The increase in crude protein values under rainfed and deficit irrigation conditions may be due to the crops ability to combat stress. During drought, plants accumulate free amino acids and stress-related proteins to protect cells. This leads to increased protein synthesis as a defense mechanism [45]. Potassium fertilization increased protein content, possibly due to its role in supporting nitrogen assimilation and enzyme activity [46, 47]. Bacterial inoculants further increased protein content by improving nitrogen provision and nutrient uptake [48, 49]. Under deficit irrigation, the combined effects of potassium nutrition and bacterial inoculation likely improved nitrogen assimilation efficiency. This enabled sustained protein synthesis despite reduced water availability. These findings underscore the importance of integrating water and nutrient management with microbial inoculation to optimize forage protein quality. The ash content of maize fodder was primarily influenced by seasonal deficit irrigation. Early-season water deficits, from emergence to tasseling, significantly increased ash levels, likely due to concentration effects or enhanced mineral uptake under mild stress [50]. In contrast, prolonged or late season water stress (R3-R6) reduced ash content. This decline reflects limitations on root growth and transpiration-driven nutrient flow induced by stress. It indicates that severe or prolonged water stress restricts mineral acquisition rather than concentrating nutrients in plant tissues. This suggests that extended drought limits root activity and mineral translocation [51, 52]. Potassium fertilization and bacterial inoculation had a minimal impact on ash levels, which is consistent with previous reports that these inputs did not significantly alter total mineral accumulation in forage crops [53]. The lack of significant treatment interactions further underscores that ash content is largely governed by soil moisture availability during the early growth stages rather than by nutrient or microbial inputs.

The hemicellulose content varied significantly with seasonal deficit irrigation, increasing during late stage irrigation (R3-R6). This increase is likely due to enhanced secondary cell wall biosynthesis during reproductive growth [54, 55]. During the reproductive stage, the allocation of biomass shifts toward stem thickening and tissue maturation, increasing the deposition of hemicellulose as part of the reinforced cell wall architecture [56]. Lower values under VE-VT and VT-R3 deficit irrigation suggest reduced structural carbohydrate synthesis under early water stress [57]. Early-season water stress likely suppresses cell expansion and delays secondary cell wall formation. This reflects a stress-adaptive strategy that prioritizes survival and metabolic maintenance over structural biomass accumulation. Potassium application had minimal influence, which is consistent with reports that hemicellulose accumulation depends more on water than on nutrients [47, 53]. Bacterial inoculation slightly increased hemicellulose content, possibly by promoting root growth and nutrient uptake under stress conditions [48, 49, 58]. This response suggests that bacterial inoculation may improve nutrient assimilation efficiency and carbon allocation to structural polysaccharides when water is available for continued growth. Overall, the irrigation-dependent response of hemicellulose indicates that water availability dominantly regulates cell wall carbohydrate accumulation. Bacterial effects primarily become evident under conditions that support active growth rather than severe stress.

The biological yield of maize increased significantly with irrigation, potassium fertilization, and bacterial inoculation. The maximum biological yield was recorded under full irrigation, reflecting optimal conditions for photosynthesis and biomass accumulation [59]. Meanwhile, yield reduction under rainfed conditions indicates limitations on growth and assimilate transport due to drought [45]. With an adequate water supply, biomass partitioning favors vegetative tissues, such as stems and leaves. This results in greater accumulation of harvestable stover and a higher biological yield. A water deficit reduces leaf expansion, photosynthetic capacity, and carbon fixation, ultimately constraining biomass accumulation and biological yield [51].

Potassium may have contributed to the improvement in yield by supporting stomatal function, enzyme activity, and sugar translocation. Increased potassium availability improves assimilate transport and carbon allocation efficiency, which supports sustained biomass production, even under moderate water limitations [60, 61]. Bacterial inoculants have been reported to promote biomass production by enhancing nutrient uptake, improving root architecture, and increasing plant resilience to environmental stresses [48, 49, 58, 62]. The positive effects of Bacillus inoculation on biomass production and yield can be attributed to several physiological and biochemical mechanisms. Bacillus species are known to enhance root growth and root surface area through the production of phytohormones such as indole-3-acetic acid (IAA) and cytokinin, which improves nutrient acquisition and supports vegetative growth [48, 58]. Significant two-way interactions highlight the synergistic potential of combining microbial and agronomic inputs under water-limited or nutrient-deficient conditions.

Deficit irrigation during the early growth stages (VE-VT), during which no water was applied from emergence to tasseling, resulted in the highest IWUE in 2023. Water limitation during these early stages likely induced adaptive physiological responses, such as improved stomatal control and reduced non-productive water loss. This allowed the plants to maintain biomass production with lower irrigation input. These results are consistent with previous studies that emphasized the critical role of early vegetative water management in optimizing biomass accumulation and yield under limited water conditions [63, 64]. Although full irrigation produced similar WUE values, VE-VT was more efficient in terms of irrigation-specific productivity. This confirms that strategic irrigation scheduling enhances resource use. This indicates that, under VE-VT deficit irrigation, assimilates were preferentially allocated to harvestable biomass rather than excessive vegetative growth. This improves the yield per unit of applied irrigation water. Potassium application significantly improved water use efficiency (WUE) but had no effect on irrigation water use efficiency (IWUE), which aligns with reports that potassium enhances drought tolerance and stomatal regulation, especially under limited water conditions [46, 53]. Improvements in osmotic regulation and photosynthetic efficiency mediated by potassium enhance carbon assimilation per unit of water transpired. This increases water use efficiency (WUE) without directly affecting irrigation-derived efficiency. These findings suggest that potassium is more beneficial in improving water productivity under rainfed or partially irrigated systems. Bacterial inoculation significantly increased WUE and IWUE in 2023, likely due to improved root function, nutrient uptake, and stress mitigation mechanisms, as documented in the literature [48, 65]. Although IWUE improvements in 2024 were not statistically significant, the trend persisted, indicating year-dependent variability in the effects of microbes. Significant I×B interactions in both years imply a synergistic effect between early irrigation and microbial inoculation. Furthermore, the P×B interaction for WUE suggests that integrated nutrient-microbe strategies could optimize water use under specific conditions [66]. The beneficial effects of microbial inoculation on WUE and IWUE were most pronounced under early-stage deficit irrigation, where physiological efficiency rather than the absolute amount of water supplied determined productivity. Similarly, the potassium-bacteria interaction for WUE suggests that a combination of nutrients and microbes can improve water use efficiency under conditions of moderate water limitation. Improvements in water use efficiency and irrigation water use efficiency following Bacillus inoculation may be associated with enhanced regulation of plant water status under deficit irrigation. Bacillus spp. have been reported to influence root hydraulic conductivity and improve soil root interactions, facilitating more effective water uptake at lower soil moisture levels [6769]. Additionally, plant growth promoting bacteria maintain cellular function under drought conditions by accumulating compatible solutes (e.g., proline, glycine betaine, trehalose), production of heat shock proteins, and synthesis of extracellular polymeric substances. These substances improve membrane stability, protect enzymes, and enhance microenvironmental water retention [7073].

Conclusion

This study clearly demonstrated that the timing of irrigation, potassium fertilization, and bacterial inoculation significantly influence the quality of the forage, the biological yield, and the water use efficiency of maize. Early-season deficit irrigation from crop emergence to the tasseling stage (VE-VT) most effectively enhanced crude protein content and water productivity. This irrigation strategy is preferable and recommended under water-limited conditions to improve forage quality and efficiency. In contrast, late-season irrigation (R3-R6) increased fiber fractions but reduced protein content and yield. Higher fiber accumulation may negatively affect forage digestibility and intake, representing a quality and quantity trade-off. Bacterial inoculation improved plant performance consistently across all parameters, including crude protein content, yield, and water use efficiency. Potassium application contributed to a higher yield and improved nutrient uptake; however, its effects on ash and hemicellulose content were minimal. The significant interaction effects, particularly between irrigation and bacterial inoculation, underscore the importance of integrated management strategies for optimizing maize forage production. Integrated management helps balance yield improvement with forage quality, rather than only optimizing production.

Recommendation

Deficit irrigation should be applied during the vegetative crop growth stage, particularly before the appearance of tassel (VE-VT), to enhance protein content and water use efficiency. Deficit irrigation should be avoid during the R3-R6 stages to prevent yield and quality losses. If sufficient water is available, full irrigation should be applied to maximize crop potential; however, under limited water conditions, irrigation should be strategically scheduled based on critical growth stages to ensure optimal plant performance, especially under Mediterranean climatic conditions. The use of plant growth-promoting bacteria such as Bacillus is strongly recommended to improve nutrient uptake, biomass and efficiency particularly under moderate water availability and adequate baseline soil fertility conditions. Applying potassium at 50 kg ha⁻¹ can support protein synthesis and overall plant development, depending on initial soil potassium status. An integrated approach combining timely irrigation, moderate potassium fertilization, and bacterial inoculation offers the most effective strategy for optimizing maize fodder production.

Limitation

This study was conducted under semi-arid conditions. Extrapolation to other environments should be made with caution, and multi-location studies are needed for validation. Moreover, bacterial inoculation and potassium application increased forage yield, they also raised ADF and NDF contents, potentially reducing forage quality. This highlights the need to balance yield gains with digestibility and intake considerations.

Acknowledgements

This study is the part of Doctoral dissertation supported by Scientific Research Projects Unit (BAP) of Isparta University of Applied Sciences, Türkiye.

Authors’ contributions

H.N. İ.A. and U.Ş. designed the study; C.T. and H.N conducted the research and wrote the first draft; H.N. C.T. İ.A. and U.Ş. revised the paper; H.N. and C.T contributed to the discussion of the paper.

Funding

This research did not receive any fund.

Data availability

Data that supports the findings are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not appropriate.

Consent for publication

Not appropriate.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Footnotes

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  • 1.Guo T, Dai L, Yan B, Lan G, Li F, Pan F, Wang F. Measurements of chemical compositions in corn Stover and wheat straw by near-infrared reflectance spectroscopy. Animals. 2021;11(11):3328. 10.3390/ani11113328. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Naik BSS, Sharma SK, Pramanick B, Chaudhary R, Yadav SK, Tirunagari R, Hossain A. Silicon in combination with farmyard manure improves the productivity, quality and nitrogen use efficiency of sweet corn in an organic farming system. Silicon. 2022;14(10):5733–43. 10.1007/s12633-022-01818-0. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Diaz JT, Veal MW, Chinn MS. Development of NIRS models to predict composition of enzymatically processed sweet potato. Ind Crop Prod. 2014;59:119–24. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Zhang G, Li P, Zhang W, Zhao J. Analysis of multiple soybean phytonutrients by near-infrared reflectance spectroscopy. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2017;409:1–11. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Balazadeh M, Zamanian M, Golzardi F, Torkashvand AM. Effects of limited irrigation on forage yield, nutritive value and water use efficiency of Persian clover (Trifolium resupinatum) compared to berseem clover (Trifolium alexandrinum). Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal. 2021;52(16):1927–42. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Khelil MN, Rejeb S, Henchi B, Destain JP. Effects of irrigation water quality and nitrogen rate on the recovery of ^15 N fertilizer by sorghum in field study. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal. 2013;44(18):2647–55. 10.1080/00103624.2013.813032. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Kaplan M, Kara A, Unlukara A, Kale H, Buyukkilic Beyzi S, Varol IS, Kizilsimsek M, Kamalak A. Water-deficit and nitrogen affects yield and feed value of sorghum Sudangrass silage. Agr Water Manage. 2019;218:30–6. 10.1016/j.agwat.2019.03.021. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Nematpour A, Eshghizadeh HR, Zahedi M, Ghorbani GR. Millet forage yield and silage quality as affected by water and nitrogen application at different sowing dates. Grass Forage Sci. 2020;75(2):169–80. 10.1111/gfs.12475. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Golzardi F, Vazan S, Moosavinia H, Tohidloo G. Effects of salt and drought stresses on germination and seedling growth of swallow wort (Cynanchum acutum L). Res J Appl Sci Eng Technol. 2012;4(21):4524–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Jahanzad E, Jorat M, Moghadam H, Sadeghpour A, Chaichi MR, Dashtaki M. Response of a new and a commonly grown forage sorghum cultivar to limited irrigation and planting density. Agr Water Manage. 2013;117:62–9. 10.1016/j.agwat.2012.11.001. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Baghdadi A, Balazadeh M, Kashani A, Golzardi F, Gholamhoseini M, Mehrnia M. Effect of pre-sowing and nitrogen application on forage quality of silage corn. Agron Res. 2017;15(1):011–23. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Hafez EM, Gharib HS. Effect of exogenous application of ascorbic acid on physiological and biochemical characteristics of wheat under water stress. Int J Plant Prod. 2016;10:579–96. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Lisar SYS, Motafakkerazad R, Hossain MM, Rahman IMM. Water stress in plants: causes, effects and responses. Water stress. London, UK: Intech Open; 2012. pp. 1–14. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Chandra P, Tripathi P, Chandra A. Isolation And molecular characterization of plant growth-promoting Bacillus spp. And their impact on sugarcane (Saccharum spp. hybrids) growth And tolerance towards drought stress. Acta Physiol Plant. 2018;40:199. 10.1007/s11738-018-2770-0. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Chai Q, Gan Y, ZhaoXu CHL, Waskom RM, Niu Y, Siddique KHM. Regulated deficit irrigation for crop production under drought stress: a review. Agron Sustain Dev. 2016;36:1–21. 10.1007/s13593-015-0338-6. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Agami RA, Medani RA, Abd El-Mola IA, Taha RS. Exogenous application with plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) or proline induces stress tolerance in Basil plants (Ocimum Basilicum L.) exposed to water stress. Int J Environ Agric Res. 2016;2:78. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Sandhya V, Shrivastava M, Ali SZ, Prasad VSSKJ. Endophytes from maize with plant growth promotion and biocontrol activity under drought stress. Russ Agric Sci. 2017;43:22–34. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Adesemoye AO, Yuen G, Watts DB. Microbial inoculants for optimized plant nutrient use in integrated pest and input management systems. Probiotics and plant health. Singapore: Springer; 2017. pp. 21–40. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Ullah A, Akbar A, Luo Q, Khan AH, Manghwar H, Shaban M, Yang X. Microbiome diversity in cotton rhizosphere under normal and drought conditions. Microb Ecol. 2019;77:429–39. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Yerli C, Sahin U, Ors S, Kiziloglu FM. Improvement of water and crop productivity of silage maize by irrigation with different levels of recycled wastewater under conventional and zero tillage conditions. Agric Water Manage. 2023;277:108100. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Ghalkhani A, Golzardi F, Khazaei A, Mahrokh A, Illés Á, Bojtor C, Széles A. Irrigation management strategies to enhance forage yield, feed value, and water-use efficiency of sorghum cultivars. Plants. 2023;12(11):2154. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Kamran M, Liu X, Zhang X, Zhang Y. Interactive effects of reduced irrigation and nitrogen fertilization on resource use efficiency, forage nutritive quality, yield, and economic benefits of spring wheat in the arid region of Northwest China. Agric Water Manage. 2023;275:108000. 10.1016/j.agwat.2022.108000. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Kiziloglu FM, Sahin U, Kuslu Y, Tunc T. Determining water–yield relationship, water use efficiency, crop and Pan coefficients for silage maize in a semiarid region. Irrig Sci. 2009;27(2):129–37. 10.1007/s00271-008-0127-y. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Bhattarai B, Singh S, West CP, Ritchie GL, Trostle CL. Effect of deficit irrigation on physiology and forage yield of forage sorghum, Pearl millet, and corn. Crop Sci. 2020;60(4):2167–79. 10.1002/csc2.20171. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Mokari M, Majidi M, Falahati H. Investigation the effect of new deficit irrigation strategies on growth indices of two corn cultivars. Irrig Sci Eng. 2021;44(4):75–91. 10.22055/jise.2020.32531.1909. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Albayrak S, Türk M, Yüksel O, Yilmaz M. Forage yield and the quality of perennial legume-grass mixtures under rainfed conditions. Notulae Botanicae Horti Agrobotanici Cluj-Napoca. 2011;39(1):114–8. 10.15835/nbha3915853. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Singh M, Singh S, Deb S, Ritchie G. Root distribution, soil water depletion, and water productivity of sweet corn under deficit irrigation and Biochar application. Agric Water Manag. 2023;279:108192. 10.1016/j.agwat.2023.108192. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Esmaily M, Dadashi MR, Feyzbakhsh MT, Kaboosi K, Sheikh F. Influence of deficit irrigation regimes on the quantitative and qualitative yield of forage maize hybrids. J Crop Health. 2024;76(2):549–60. 10.1007/s10343-024-00973-1. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Nawaz H, Şenyiğit U, Türkay C, Akgün İ, Rolbiecki R, Rolbiecki S. Modulation of fiber and nutrient composition in maize grains under differential deficit irrigation regimes. Infrastruktura I Ekologia Terenów Wiejskich. 2025;20(1):77–88. 10.14597/infraeco.2025.005. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Masoero F, Gallo A, Giuberti G, Fiorentini L, Moschini M. Effect of water-saving irrigation regime on whole‐plant yield and nutritive value of maize hybrids. J Sci Food Agric. 2013;93(12):3040–5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Hill JH. Corn diagnostic guide: Iowa state university extension. 2007.
  • 32.Islam MR, Garcia SC, Horadagoda A. Effects of irrigation and rates and timing of nitrogen fertilizer on dry matter yield, proportions of plant fractions of maize and nutritive value and in vitro gas production characteristics of whole crop maize silage. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 2012;172(3–4):125–35. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Simsek M, Can A, Denek N, Tonkaz T. The effects of different irrigation regimes on yield and silage quality of corn under semi-arid conditions. Afr J Biotechnol. 2011;10(31):5869–77. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Zadoks JC, Chang TT, Konzak CF. A decimal code for the growth stages of cereals. Weed Res. 1974;14(6):415–21. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Doorenbos J, Pruitt WO. Crop water requirements. FAO irrigation and drainage paper No. 24. Rome: FAO; 1977. p. 179. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.James LG. Principles of farm irrigation system design. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd; 1988. p. 543. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Howell TA, Cuenca RH, Solomon KH. Crop yield response. Chapter 5 in Management of Farm Irrigation Systems, pp. 93–122. Edited by G. J. Hoffman, T. A. Howell, and K. H. Solomon. ASAE Monograph, ASAE, St. Joseph, Michigan. 1990; 1040 pp.
  • 38.Şenyiğit U, Arslan M. Effects of irrigation programs formed by different approaches on the yield and water consumption of black Cumin (Nigella sativa L.) under transition zone in the West Anatolia conditions. J Agric Sci. 2018;24(1):22–32. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Hansey CN, Lorenz AJ, de Leon N. Cell wall composition and ruminant digestibility of various maize tissues across development. Bioenergy Res. 2010;3(1):28–37. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Reddy YR, Ravi D, Reddy CR, Prasad KVSV, Zaidi PH, Vinayan MT, Blümmel M. A note on the correlations between maize grain and maize Stover quantitative and qualitative traits and the implications for whole maize plant optimization. Field Crops Res. 2013;153:63–9. 10.1016/j.fcr.2013.06.013. [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Steel RGD, Torrie JH. Principles and procedure of statistics 2nd ed Mc. Graw Hill, 1984; New York.
  • 42.Ball DM, Collins M, Lacefield GD, Martin NP, Mertens DA, Olson KE, Wolf MW. Understanding forage quality. Am Farm Bureau Federation Publication. 2001;1(01):1–15. [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Jiang W, Liu X, Wang Y, Zhang Y, Qi W. Responses to potassium application and economic optimum K rate of maize under different soil Indigenous K supply. Sustainability. 2018;10(7):2267. 10.3390/su10072267. [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Van Soest PJ. Nutritional ecology of the ruminant. 2nd ed. Cornell University Press; 1994.
  • 45.Farooq M, Wahid A, Kobayashi N, Fujita D, Basra SM. Plant drought stress: effects, mechanisms and management. Sustainable agriculture. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands; 2009. pp. 153–88. [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Pettigrew WT. Potassium influences on yield and quality production for maize, wheat, soybean and cotton. Physiol Plant. 2008;133(4):670–81. 10.1111/j.1399-3054.2008.01073.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Marschner P. Marschner’s mineral nutrition of higher plants. 3rd ed. Academic; 2012.
  • 48.Vessey JK. Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria as biofertilizers. Plant Soil. 2003;255(2):571–86. 10.1023/A:1026037216893. [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Bashan Y, de-Bashan LE, Prabhu SR, Hernandez JP. Advances in plant growth-promoting bacterial inoculant technology: formulations and practical perspectives. Plant Soil. 2014;378:1–33. 10.1007/s11104-013-1956-x. [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Blum A. Plant breeding for water-limited environments. Springer Science & Business Media; 2010.
  • 51.Tuberosa R. Phenotyping for drought tolerance of crops in the genomics era. Front Physiol. 2012;3:347. 10.3389/fphys.2012.00347. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Raza A, Razzaq A, Mehmood SS. Impact of climate change on crops adaptation and strategies to tackle its outcome: a review. Plants. 2019;8(2):34. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Wang M, Zheng Q, Shen Q, Guo S. The critical role of potassium in plant stress responses. Int J Mol Sci. 2013;14(4):7370–90. 10.3390/ijms14047370. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Carpita NC. Structure and biogenesis of the cell walls of grasses. Annu Rev Plant Physiol Plant Mol Biol. 1996;47:445–76. 10.1146/annurev.arplant.47.1.445. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Vogel J. Unique aspects of the grass cell wall. Curr Opin Plant Biol. 2008;11(3):301–7. 10.1016/j.pbi.2008.03.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Hatfield RD, Rancour DM, Marita JM. Grass cell walls: a story of cross-linking. Front Plant Sci. 2017;7:2056. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Chaves MM, Maroco JP, Pereira JS. Understanding plant responses to drought-from genes to the whole plant. Funct Plant Biol. 2003;30(3):239–64. 10.1071/FP02076. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Calvo P, Nelson L, Kloepper JW. Agricultural uses of plant bio stimulants. Plant Soil. 2014;383(1):3–41. 10.1007/s11104-014-2131-8. [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Nawaz H, Akgün I, Şenyiğit U. Effect of deficit irrigation combined with Bacillus simplex on water use efficiency and growth parameters of maize during vegetative stage. BMC Plant Biol. 2024;24:135. 10.1186/s12870-024-04772-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Römheld V, Kirkby EA. Research on potassium in agriculture: needs and prospects. Plant Soil. 2010;335:155–80. 10.1007/s11104-010-0520-1. [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Hasanuzzaman M, Bhuyan MB, Nahar K, Hossain MS, Mahmud JA, Hossen MS, Fujita M. Potassium: a vital regulator of plant responses and tolerance to abiotic stresses. Agronomy. 2018;8(3):31. 10.3390/agronomy8030031. [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Bhardwaj D, Ansari MW, Sahoo RK, Tuteja N. Biofertilizers function as key player in sustainable agriculture by improving soil fertility, plant tolerance and crop productivity. Microb Cell Fact. 2014;13(1):66. 10.1186/1475-2859-13-66. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Passioura J. Increasing crop productivity when water is scarce—from breeding to field management. Agr Water Manage. 2006;80(1–3):176–96. 10.1016/j.agwat.2005.07.012. [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Payero JO, Melvin SR, Irmak S, Tarkalson D. Yield response of corn to deficit irrigation in a semiarid climate. Agr Water Manage. 2006;84(1–2):101–12. 10.1016/j.agwat.2006.01.009. [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Glick BR. Bacteria with ACC deaminase can promote plant growth and help to feed the world. Microbiol Res. 2014;169(1):30–9. 10.1016/j.micres.2013.09.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Kloepper J, Ryu W, Zhang CM. Induced systemic resistance and promotion of plant growth by Bacillus spp. Phytopathology. 2004;94(11):1259–66. 10.1094/PHYTO.2004.94.11.1259. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Dimkpa C, Weinand T, Asch F. Plant–rhizobacteria interactions alleviate abiotic stress conditions. Plant Cell Environ. 2009;32(12):1682–94. 10.1111/j.1365-3040.2009.02028.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Vurukonda SSKP, Vardharajula S, Shrivastava M, Ali SZ. Enhancement of drought stress tolerance in crops by plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria. Microbiol Res. 2016;184:13–24. 10.1016/j.micres.2015.12.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Ngumbi E, Kloepper J. Bacterial-mediated drought tolerance: current and future prospects. Appl Soil Ecol. 2016;105(1):109–25. 10.1016/j.apsoil.2016.04.009. [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Schimel JP, Balser TC, Wallenstein M. Microbial stress response physiology and its implications for ecosystem function. Ecology. 2007;88(1):1386–94. 10.1890/06-0219. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Conlin LK, Nelson HCM. The natural osmolytetrehalose is a positive regulator of the heat-induced activity of yeast heat shock transcription factor. Mol Cell Biol. 2007;27(1):1505–15. 10.1128/MCB.01158-06. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Allison SD, Martiny JB. Resistance, resilience, and redundancy in microbial communities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2008; 105(1): 11512–11519. 10.1073/pnas.0801925105 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 73.Rossi F, Potrafka RM, Pichel FG, De Philippis R. The role of exopolysaccharides in enhancing hydraulic conductivity of biological soil crusts. Soil Biol Biochem. 2012;46:33–40. 10.1016/j.soilbio.2011.10.016. [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

Data that supports the findings are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.


Articles from BMC Plant Biology are provided here courtesy of BMC

RESOURCES