## 3 Result
### The Effect of Different N Management Practices on N Agronomic Efficiency and Water Use Efficiency
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Year** & **Treatment** & **Growth Curve Equation** & **T\({}_{\text{max}}\)** & **T\({}_{\text{max}}\)** & **D\({}_{\text{max}}\)** & **D\({}_{\text{total}}\)** \\  & & & **(d)** & **(d)** & **(mg grain\({}^{-1}\) d\({}^{-1}\))** & **(d)** \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{2022–2023} & TN0 & Y = 43.88/(1 + 43.46 \(\times\) e\({}^{-0.26\text{c}}\)) & 14.64 \(\pm\) 0.00 e & 32.42 \(\pm\) 0.01 d & 2.82 \(\pm\) 0.00 a & 23.23 \(\pm\) 0.01 d \\  & FN0 & Y = 44.05/(1 + 44.94 \(\times\) e\({}^{-0.26\text{c}}\)) & 14.64 \(\pm\) 0.01 e & 32.42 \(\pm\) 0.07 d & 2.85 \(\pm\) 0.01 a & 23.13 \(\pm\) 0.10 d \\  & TN1 & Y = 42.89/(1 + 45.56 \(\times\) e\({}^{-0.24\text{c}}\)) & 15.65 \(\pm\) 0.01 d & 34.44 \(\pm\) 0.10 c & 2.62 \(\pm\) 0.01 d & 24.54 \(\pm\) 0.14 bc \\  & FN1 & Y = 43.75/(1 + 45.41 \(\times\) e\({}^{-0.24\text{c}}\)) & 15.65 \(\pm\) 0.01 d & 34.44 \(\pm\) 0.07 c & 2.67 \(\pm\) 0.01 c & 24.54 \(\pm\) 0.08 b \\  & TN2 & Y = 43.89/(1 + 51.88 \(\times\) e\({}^{-0.25\text{c}}\)) & 15.95 \(\pm\) 0.05 c & 34.44 \(\pm\) 0.06 c & 2.71 \(\pm\) 0.02 b & 24.24 \(\pm\) 0.12 c \\  & FN2 & Y = 44.46/(1 + 52.25 \(\times\) e\({}^{-0.24\text{c}}\)) & 16.36 \(\pm\) 0.01 b & 35.35 \(\pm\) 0.10 b & 2.69 \(\pm\) 0.02 bc & 24.74 \(\pm\) 0.12 b \\  & TN3 & Y = 42.72/(1 + 53.11 \(\times\) e\({}^{-0.23\text{c}}\)) & 16.96 \(\pm\) 0.04 a & 36.56 \(\pm\) 0.20 a & 2.50 \(\pm\) 0.02 e & 25.55 \(\pm\) 0.21 a \\  & FN3 & Y = 42.91/(1 + 54.47 \(\times\) e\({}^{-0.23\text{c}}\)) & 17.07 \(\pm\) 0.06 a & 36.66 \(\pm\) 0.11 a & 2.51 \(\pm\) 0.00 e & 25.55 \(\pm\) 0.06 a \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{2023–2024} & TN0 & Y = 45.46/(1 + 40.21 \(\times\) e\({}^{-0.25\text{c}}\)) & 14.63 \(\pm\) 0.01 e & 32.83 \(\pm\) 0.09 e & 2.87 \(\pm\) 0.02 a & 23.76 \(\pm\) 0.10 e \\  & FN0 & Y = 45.29/(1 + 40.82 \(\times\) e\({}^{-0.25\text{c}}\)) & 14.62 \(\pm\) 0.03 e & 32.72 \(\pm\) 0.10 e & 2.87 \(\pm\) 0.01 a & 23.64 \(\pm\) 0.09 e \\ \cline{1-1}  & TN1 & Y = 44.09/(1 + 45.95 \(\times\) e\({}^{-0.24\text{c}}\)) & 15.87 \(\pm\) 0.06 d & 34.93 \(\pm\) 0.10 d & 2.66 \(\pm\) 0.01 b & 24.88 \(\pm\) 0.06 d \\ \cline{1-1}  & FN1 & Y = 44.01/(1 + 45.91 \(\times\) e\({}^{-0.24\text{c}}\)) & 15.90 \(\pm\) 0.01 d & 34.99 \(\pm\) 0.04 d & 2.65 \(\pm\) 0.00 b & 24.93 \(\pm\) 0.05 d \\ \cline{1-1}  & TN2 & Y = 40.34/(1 + 51.49 \(\times\) e\({}^{-0.24\text{c}}\)) & 16.65 \(\pm\) 0.02 c & 36.07 \(\pm\) 0.28 c & 2.39 \(\pm\) 0.01 c & 25.35 \(\pm\) 0.36 c \\ \cline{1-1}  & FN2 & Y = 41.76/(1 + 51.66 \(\times\) e\({}^{-0.23\text{c}}\)) & 17.12 \(\pm\) 0.05 b & 37.05 \(\pm\) 0.09 b & 2.41 \(\pm\) 0.01 c & 26.03 \(\pm\) 0.06 b \\ \cline{1-1}  & TN3 & Y = 38.86/(1 + 52.41 \(\times\) e\({}^{-0.22\text{c}}\)) & 17.76 \(\pm\) 0.05 a & 38.37 \(\pm\) 0.07 a & 2.17 \(\pm\) 0.01 d & 26.91 \(\pm\) 0.10 a \\ \cline{1-1}  & FN3 & Y = 39.10/(1 + 53.02 \(\times\) e\({}^{-0.22\text{c}}\)) & 17.94 \(\pm\) 0.01 a & 38.70 \(\pm\) 0.07 a & 2.16 \(\pm\) 0.01 d & 27.11 \(\pm\) 0.10 a \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{2023–2024} & F-value & & 325.10 \({}^{**}\) & 65.04 \({}^{**}\) & 4.56 \({}^{*}\) & 13.68 \({}^{*}\) \\ \cline{1-1}  & M & & 18.284.11 \({}^{**}\) & 3480.31 \({}^{**}\) & 3135.92 \({}^{**}\) & 694.36 \({}^{**}\) \\ \cline{1-1}  & R \(\times\) M & & 126.84 \({}^{**}\) & 39.37 \({}^{**}\) & 1.89 & 13.17 \({}^{**}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* N0, no N application; N1, the N application rate of 150 kg ha\({}^{-1}\); N2, the N application rate of 210 kg ha\({}^{-1}\); N3, the N application rate of 270 kg ha\({}^{-1}\); T, traditional fertilization method; F, fertigation; R, N rates; M, N application methods. Values followed by a different small letter were significantly different at \(p\leq\) 0.05. Data were presented as mean values \(\pm\) SD (n =3). \({}^{*}\) Indicates significance at \(p\) level of 0.05. \({}^{**}\) indicates significance at \(p\) level of 0.01.  
\end{table} 
Table 3: The grain filling process model and grain filling parameters under different treatments. Figure 7: Grain filling characteristics under different treatments.