Experiment was conducted at Eastern Ethiopia of Harari Regional State of Erer Woldiya district, on farmers’ field for two years. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of AFI and EFI with different irrigation intervals on growth component, yield and water use efficiency of tomato for two years 2018 and 2019. Accordingly plant height and NFPP were significantly (P<0.05) influenced by (IMs), whereas (IIs) had highly significant (P<0.01) effect on plant height and NFPP at both planting season. Total tomato yield was significantly influenced (P<0.05) by furrow IMs, but application frequency had highly significant (p<0.01). Water saved from treatment combination of AFI with 4, 6 and 8 days water IIs were 16%, 44% and 58% of total volume of irrigation water applied. Whereas water saved from EFI with 6 and 8 days of application was 33.3% and 50% respectively. AFI with 4 day water application shows little yield reduction as 4.97%, as compared with no stressed treatment; EFI with the same water application frequency). But AFI with 4 day II was saves 16% water from gross water applied for no stressed treatment EFI with 4 day. Treatment with 6 day II of AFI and, EFI were indicated that significant yield reduction as 15.74% and 14.61% respectively. But total amount of gross volume of irrigation water saved as 44 and 33.3% for AFI and EFI of the same II treatment. Crop water productivity (CWUE, IWUE and EWP) were highly significantly (P<0.01) influenced by both IMs and IIs. The result clearly confirms that, AFI had beneficial advantage over EFI on water saving and, the same consequent is happened for irrigation interval i.e. increasing interval from 4 day followed by 6 to 8 days increases water use efficiency of crop. Hence the result indicates that interaction effect of both factors (IMs and IIs) could save significant amount of irrigation water.
| Published in | Journal of Water Resources and Ocean Science (Volume 10, Issue 5) |
| DOI | 10.11648/j.wros.20211005.13 |
| Page(s) | 105-112 |
| Creative Commons |
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited. |
| Copyright |
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Science Publishing Group |
Irrigation Methods, Irrigation Intervals, Tomato, Growth, Yield Parameters, Water Productivity
| [1] | Ghrab M, Gargouri K, Bentaher H, Chartzoulakis K, Ayadi M, Ben Mimoun M, Masmoudi MM, Ben Mechlia N, Psarras G (2013) Water relations and yield of olive tree (cv. Chemlali) in response to partial root-zone drying (PRD) irrigation technique and salinity. |
| [2] | Chai Q, Gan Y, Turner NC, Zhang RZ, Yang C, Niu Y, Siddique KHM (2014a) Water-saving innovations in Chinese agriculture. Adv Agron 126: 147–197. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-800132-5.00002-X. |
| [3] | Forouzani M, Karami E (2011). Agricultural water poverty index and sustainability. Agron Sustain Dev 31: 415–432. doi: 10.1051/agro/ 2010026. |
| [4] | Bhangar, M. I., Saima, Q. M., 2008. Water research activities in Pakistan. In: Proceedings of the 1st Technical Meeting of Muslim Water Researchers Cooperation (MUWAREC), December, p. 82. |
| [5] | Burt, C. M., Clemmens, A. J., Strelkoff, T. S., Solomon, K. H., Bliesner, R. D., Hardy, L. A., Howell, T. A., Eisenhauer, D. E., 1997. Irrigation performance measures: efficiency and uniformity. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 123, 423–442. |
| [6] | Siyal A. A., Mashori A. S, Bristow, K. L., Van Genuchten M. Th. 2016. Alternate furrow irrigation can radically improve water productivity of okra. Agricultural Water Management. Journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/agwat |
| [7] | Mashori, A. S., 2013. Evaluation of the performance of the alternate furrow irrigation under climatic conditions of Sindh. In: M. E. Thesis. Sindh Agriculture University, Tandojam, Pakistan. |
| [8] | Nasri, M., M. Khalatbari, and H. A. Farahani. 2010. The effect of alternate furrow irrigation under different nutritional element supplies on some agronomic traits and seed qualitative parameters in corn (Zea mays L.) Journal of Cereals and Oilseed 1 (2): 17-23. |
| [9] | Kashiani, P., G. Saleh, M. Osman, and D. Habibi. 2011. Sweet corn yield response to alternate furrow irrigation methods under different planting densities in a semi-arid climatic condition. African Journal of Agricultural Research 6: 1032-1040 05. |
| [10] | Jema Haji, Yared Mengesha, Demeksa Tamiru, Getnet Alemu, Gulilat Birhane, Tamene Chaka 2010. Research-inspired Policy and Practice Learning in Ethiopia and the Nile region (RiPPLE) Aid effectiveness in the WASH (Water Sanitation and Hygiene) sector in Oromia region, Eastern Hararghe zone: The case of Goro-Gutu and Babile woreda. |
| [11] | AGP-II (Agricultural Growth Program). 2016. A participatory agricultural production systems analysis of AGP-II districts: the case of Dire Dawa Administrative Council and Harari Region, Eastern Ethiopia, implications for research and development. Unpublished report by Alemayehu B., Kibret Ketema K., Meles F., Lelisa O., Abdulahi U.: Fedis Agricultural Research Center Harar; Ethiopoia. |
| [12] | Staney, W. E and B. yerima. 1992. Improvement of Soil Science for Agriculture Development: Guideline for sampling and fertility evaluation. Ministry of Natural Resource Development and Environmental Pollution, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. |
| [13] | Walker, A. and I. A. Black. 1934. An Examination of Different Method for Determining Soil Organic Matter and a Proposed Modification of the Chromic Acid Titration Method. Soil Sci. 37: 29-37. |
| [14] | A. A. Abd El-Halim. 2015. Water saving under fixed-furrow surface irrigation in clay soil of the Middle Nile Delta of Egypt. www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3541 (on-line) WIT Transactions on Ecology and The Environment, Vol 200, © 2015 WIT Press Water and Society III 343 doi: 10.2495/WS150291. |
| [15] | James, L. G. (1988). Principles of Farm Irrigation System Design. John Wiley. & sons, New york Chichester Brisbane Toronto Singapore, 410p. |
| [16] | Chapagain T, Yamaji E. 2010. The effects of irrigation method, age of seedling and spacing on crop performance, productivity and water-wise rice production in Japan. Paddy Water Environment, 8, 81-90. |
| [17] | Shahnazari, A., F. Liu, M. N. Andersen, S. E. Jacobsen, C. R. Jensen. 2007. Effects of partial root zone drying on yield, tuber size and water use efficiency in potato under field conditions. Field Crop Res. 100, 117–124. |
| [18] | Wakrim, R., Wahbi, S., Tahi, H., Aganchich, B., Serraj, R., 2005. Comparative effects of partial root drying (PRD) and regulated deficit irrigation (RDI) on water relations and water use efficiency in common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 106: 275-287. |
| [19] | Li-Song Tang, Yan Li Jianhua Zhang, 2005. Physiological and yield responses of cotton under partial root zone irrigation. www.elsevier.com/locate/fcr/doi:10.1016/j.fcr.2005.01.0 |
| [20] | Kamel N, E. Fathia, M. Mohamed, Netij Ben. 2013. Soil salinity, yield and water productivity of lettuce under irrigation regimes with saline water in arid conditions of Tunisia. International journal of Agronomy and Plant Production. Vol., 4 (5), 892-900. |
| [21] | Acar B, M. Paksoy, O. Türkmen, M. Seym, 2008. Irrigation and nitrogen level affect lettuce yield in greenhouse condition. African Journal of Biotechnology 7 (24): 4450-4453. |
| [22] | El-Halim Abd A. A., 2015. Water saving under fixed-furrow surface irrigation in clay soil of the Middle Nile Delta of Egypt. (On-line); www.witpress.com, WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Vol. 200. |
| [23] | Ibrahim, S. A. & Kandil, H., 2007. Growth, Yield and Chemical Constituents of Corn (Zea Maize L.) As Affected by Nitrogen and Phosphors Fertilization under Different Irrigation Intervals. J Appl Sci Res, 3, pp. 1112-1120. |
| [24] | Stickic R, P. S. (2003). Partial Root Drying-A new Technique for growing plants that saves water and improves quality of fruit. Bulgarian. |
| [25] | Pfeiffer L. and Y. C. Lin. 2014. Does efficient irrigation technology lead to reduced groundwater extraction? Empirical evidence, J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 67, 189 208, doi: 10.1016/j.jeem.2013.12.002, 3596, 3615 Journal of Plant Physiology, special issue; 164-171. |
| [26] | Shock CC, Pereira A, Wang FX, Flock R, Eldredge E (2013) Successful irrigation scheduling of potato. Sustainable Agriculture Techniques. Oregon State University, USA. pp. 1-8. |
| [27] | Abdel-Maksoud, H. H., Sanaa A. Othman, and A. Y. El-Tawil. 2002. Improving water and N-use utilization for feld crops via alternate furrow irrigation technique 1-Maize crop. Mansoura University Journal of Agricultural Sciences Mansoura University 27: 8761- 8769. |
| [28] | Awad Abd El-Halim. 2013. Impact of alternate furrow irrigation with different irrigation intervals on yield, water use efficiency, and economic return of corn. Chilean Journal of Agricultural Research 73 (2) April-June 2013. Tanta University, Faculty of Agriculture, Tanta, Egypt. |
| [29] | Ahmadi, S. H., M. N, Andersen, F., Plauborg, R. T., Poulsen, C. R., A. R., Jensen, Sepaskhah, S., Hansen, 2010b. Effects of irrigation strategies and soils on field grown potatoes: Yield and Water Productivity. Agricultural Water Management. DOI 10.1`016/j.agwat.2010.07.007. |
| [30] | Guang-Cheng, S., Zhan-Yua, Z., Nac, L., Shuang-Ena, Y., Weng-Ganga, X., 2008. Comparative effects of deficit irrigation (DI) and partial root zone drying (PRD) on soil water distribution, water use, growth and yield in greenhouse grown hot pepper. Scientia Horticulturae, 119: 11-16. |
APA Style
Jemal Nur, Lalisa Ofgea. (2021). Effect of Alternate Furrow Irrigation with Different Irrigation Intervals on Tomato (Lycopersicon E.) Yield and Water Use Efficiency. Journal of Water Resources and Ocean Science, 10(5), 105-112. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.wros.20211005.13
ACS Style
Jemal Nur; Lalisa Ofgea. Effect of Alternate Furrow Irrigation with Different Irrigation Intervals on Tomato (Lycopersicon E.) Yield and Water Use Efficiency. J. Water Resour. Ocean Sci. 2021, 10(5), 105-112. doi: 10.11648/j.wros.20211005.13
AMA Style
Jemal Nur, Lalisa Ofgea. Effect of Alternate Furrow Irrigation with Different Irrigation Intervals on Tomato (Lycopersicon E.) Yield and Water Use Efficiency. J Water Resour Ocean Sci. 2021;10(5):105-112. doi: 10.11648/j.wros.20211005.13
Share This Article
Twitter
Linked In
Facebook
Copy
Download@article{10.11648/j.wros.20211005.13,
author = {Jemal Nur and Lalisa Ofgea},
title = {Effect of Alternate Furrow Irrigation with Different Irrigation Intervals on Tomato (Lycopersicon E.) Yield and Water Use Efficiency},
journal = {Journal of Water Resources and Ocean Science},
volume = {10},
number = {5},
pages = {105-112},
doi = {10.11648/j.wros.20211005.13},
url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.wros.20211005.13},
eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.wros.20211005.13},
abstract = {Experiment was conducted at Eastern Ethiopia of Harari Regional State of Erer Woldiya district, on farmers’ field for two years. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of AFI and EFI with different irrigation intervals on growth component, yield and water use efficiency of tomato for two years 2018 and 2019. Accordingly plant height and NFPP were significantly (P<0.05) influenced by (IMs), whereas (IIs) had highly significant (P<0.01) effect on plant height and NFPP at both planting season. Total tomato yield was significantly influenced (P<0.05) by furrow IMs, but application frequency had highly significant (p<0.01). Water saved from treatment combination of AFI with 4, 6 and 8 days water IIs were 16%, 44% and 58% of total volume of irrigation water applied. Whereas water saved from EFI with 6 and 8 days of application was 33.3% and 50% respectively. AFI with 4 day water application shows little yield reduction as 4.97%, as compared with no stressed treatment; EFI with the same water application frequency). But AFI with 4 day II was saves 16% water from gross water applied for no stressed treatment EFI with 4 day. Treatment with 6 day II of AFI and, EFI were indicated that significant yield reduction as 15.74% and 14.61% respectively. But total amount of gross volume of irrigation water saved as 44 and 33.3% for AFI and EFI of the same II treatment. Crop water productivity (CWUE, IWUE and EWP) were highly significantly (P<0.01) influenced by both IMs and IIs. The result clearly confirms that, AFI had beneficial advantage over EFI on water saving and, the same consequent is happened for irrigation interval i.e. increasing interval from 4 day followed by 6 to 8 days increases water use efficiency of crop. Hence the result indicates that interaction effect of both factors (IMs and IIs) could save significant amount of irrigation water.},
year = {2021}
}
TY - JOUR T1 - Effect of Alternate Furrow Irrigation with Different Irrigation Intervals on Tomato (Lycopersicon E.) Yield and Water Use Efficiency AU - Jemal Nur AU - Lalisa Ofgea Y1 - 2021/09/27 PY - 2021 N1 - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.wros.20211005.13 DO - 10.11648/j.wros.20211005.13 T2 - Journal of Water Resources and Ocean Science JF - Journal of Water Resources and Ocean Science JO - Journal of Water Resources and Ocean Science SP - 105 EP - 112 PB - Science Publishing Group SN - 2328-7993 UR - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.wros.20211005.13 AB - Experiment was conducted at Eastern Ethiopia of Harari Regional State of Erer Woldiya district, on farmers’ field for two years. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of AFI and EFI with different irrigation intervals on growth component, yield and water use efficiency of tomato for two years 2018 and 2019. Accordingly plant height and NFPP were significantly (P<0.05) influenced by (IMs), whereas (IIs) had highly significant (P<0.01) effect on plant height and NFPP at both planting season. Total tomato yield was significantly influenced (P<0.05) by furrow IMs, but application frequency had highly significant (p<0.01). Water saved from treatment combination of AFI with 4, 6 and 8 days water IIs were 16%, 44% and 58% of total volume of irrigation water applied. Whereas water saved from EFI with 6 and 8 days of application was 33.3% and 50% respectively. AFI with 4 day water application shows little yield reduction as 4.97%, as compared with no stressed treatment; EFI with the same water application frequency). But AFI with 4 day II was saves 16% water from gross water applied for no stressed treatment EFI with 4 day. Treatment with 6 day II of AFI and, EFI were indicated that significant yield reduction as 15.74% and 14.61% respectively. But total amount of gross volume of irrigation water saved as 44 and 33.3% for AFI and EFI of the same II treatment. Crop water productivity (CWUE, IWUE and EWP) were highly significantly (P<0.01) influenced by both IMs and IIs. The result clearly confirms that, AFI had beneficial advantage over EFI on water saving and, the same consequent is happened for irrigation interval i.e. increasing interval from 4 day followed by 6 to 8 days increases water use efficiency of crop. Hence the result indicates that interaction effect of both factors (IMs and IIs) could save significant amount of irrigation water. VL - 10 IS - 5 ER -
Information
Email: