BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

FOR DRIP IRRIGATED CROPS

This page intentionally left blank
 Research Advances in Sustainable Micro Irrigation
VOLUME 6

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

FOR DRIP IRRIGATED CROPS

Edited by
Kamal Gurmit Singh, PhD
Megh R. Goyal, PhD, PE
Ramesh P. Rudra, PhD, PE
CRC Press Apple Academic Press, Inc
Taylor & Francis Group 3333 Mistwell Crescent
6000 Broken Sound Parkway NW, Suite 300 Oakville, ON L6L 0A2
Boca Raton, FL 33487-2742 Canada
© 2016 by Apple Academic Press, Inc.
Exclusive worldwide distribution by CRC Press an imprint of Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa
business

No claim to original U.S. Government works

Version Date: 20150702

International Standard Book Number-13: 978-1-4987-1482-2 (eBook - PDF)

This book contains information obtained from authentic and highly regarded sources. Reasonable
efforts have been made to publish reliable data and information, but the author and publisher cannot
assume responsibility for the validity of all materials or the consequences of their use. The authors and
publishers have attempted to trace the copyright holders of all material reproduced in this publication
and apologize to copyright holders if permission to publish in this form has not been obtained. If any
copyright material has not been acknowledged please write and let us know so we may rectify in any
future reprint.

Except as permitted under U.S. Copyright Law, no part of this book may be reprinted, reproduced,
transmitted, or utilized in any form by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or
hereafter invented, including photocopying, microfilming, and recording, or in any information stor-
age or retrieval system, without written permission from the publishers.

For permission to photocopy or use material electronically from this work, please access www.copy-
right.com (http://www.copyright.com/) or contact the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. (CCC), 222
Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, 978-750-8400. CCC is a not-for-profit organization that pro-
vides licenses and registration for a variety of users. For organizations that have been granted a photo-
copy license by the CCC, a separate system of payment has been arranged.

Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are
used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
Visit the Taylor & Francis Web site at
http://www.taylorandfrancis.com
and the CRC Press Web site at
http://www.crcpress.com
For information about Apple Academic Press product
http://www.appleacademicpress.com
CONTENTS

List of Contributors.........................................................................................ix
List of Abbreviations.....................................................................................xiii
List of Symbols............................................................................................... xv
Preface.......................................................................................................... xix
Foreword 1 by Gajendra Singh...................................................................xxiii
Foreword 2 by R. K. Sivanappan............................................................... xxvii
Foreword 3 by V. M. Mayande.................................................................... xxix
Foreword 4 by M. E. Jensen.......................................................................xxxv
About the Senior Editor-in-Chief............................................................. xxxvii
Warning/Disclaimer.......................................................................................xli

PART I: IRRIGATION METHODS

1. Low Tunnel Technology for Vegetable Crops in India..................................3
A. S. Lodhi, Arun Kaushal, and Kamal G. Singh

2. Performance of Sweet Pepper Under Low Tunnel Technology................. 11

A. S. Lodhi, Arun Kaushal, and Kamal G. Singh

3. Economics of Growing Sweet Pepper in Low Tunnels...............................33

Arun Kaushal, A. S. Lodhi, and Kamal G. Singh

4. Performance of Greenhouse Sweet Pepper.................................................43

Kamal G. Singh, Angrej Singh, and G. Mahajan

5. Nitrogen Fertigation in Drip Irrigated Cauliflower....................................51

Chetan Singla and Kamal G. Singh

6. Evaluation of Irrigation Strategies for Wheat............................................59

Kamal G. Singh and A. K. Tiwari

7. Evapotranspiration Estimations Using Climatological Approaches.........71

Kamal G. Singh and Pawanpreet Kaur

8. Advances in Micro Irrigation for Enhancing Resource Use Efficiency....... 79

Kamal G. Singh
vi Contents

9. Micro Irrigated Sugarcane in India: A Review...........................................91

Arun Kaushal, Rahul Patole, and Kamal G. Singh

10. Drip Irrigation Design for Sugarcane........................................................105

Pooja Behal and Kamal G. Singh

11. Design and Cost Estimation of Micro Sprinkler Irrigation System for
Chili...............................................................................................................123
Satwinder Singh and Kamal G. Singh

12. Development of Low Pressure Fertigation Injector..................................137

Santosh Kumar, Kamal G. Singh, and Chetan Singla

PART II: MICRO IRRIGATION SCHEDULING

13. Simulation of Salt Distribution and Moisture Wetting Patterns in
Drip Irrigated Tomato.................................................................................147
D. D. Nangare and Kamal G. Singh

14. Water Use Efficiency for Sweet Peppers....................................................251

A. S. Lodhi, Arun Kaushal, and Kamal G. Singh

15. Irrigation Water Requirements of Green Pea...........................................261

Kamal G. Singh, Mukesh Siag, and Gulshan Mahajan

16. Irrigation Scheduling of Cauliflower.........................................................269

Chetan Singla, Kamal G. Singh, and Nilesh Biwalkar

PART III: MULCHING AND CROP PERFORMANCE

17. Use of Mulches in Soil Moisture Conservation: A Review.......................283
Sushant Mehan and Kamal G. Singh

18. Performance of Drip Irrigated Groundnut...............................................295

Angrej Singh, Kamal G. Singh, Ramesh P. Rudra, and Pradeep K. Goel

19. Performance of Drip Irrigated Potato.......................................................299

Amanpreet Kaur Chawla and Kamal G. Singh

PART IV: CROP SEQUENCE AND ECONOMICS

20. Evaluation of Different Crop Sequences Using Drip Irrigation
System...........................................................................................................335
A. K. Saini and Kamal G. Singh

21. Economics of Drip Irrigated Crop Sequences...........................................343

A. K. Saini, Kamal G. Singh, and Mukesh Siag
Contents vii

22. Economics of Drip Irrigated Closely Spaced Crops.................................357

Kamal G. Singh, H. A. W. S. Gunathilake, Ramesh. P. Rudra, and Pradeep K. Goel

23. Economics of Drip Irrigated Cauliflower – Chili Sequence.....................365

Kamal G. Singh, Gulshan Mahajan, and Mukesh Siag

Appendices....................................................................................................373
Index..............................................................................................................389
This page intentionally left blank
LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

Pooja Behal
Ex-undergraduate Student, Department of Soil and Water Engineering, Punjab Agricultural University,
Ludhiana. India–141004, Phone: +919646111866
Nilesh Biwalkar, PhD
Assistant Professor, Department of Soil and Water Engineering, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhi-
ana. India–141004, Mobile: +918146977883, E-mail: [email protected]

Amanpreet Chawla, PhD

Research Associate, Department of Soil and Water Engineering, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhi-
ana. India–141004. Mobile: +918872109021, E-mail: [email protected]

Pradeep K. Goel, PhD

Senior Surface Water Scientist, Water Monitoring and Reporting Section, Environmental Monitoring and
Reporting Branch of Ontario Ministry of the Environment, 125 Resources Road, West Wing, Etobicoke,
ON, M9P 3 V6, Canada, Tel: 001–4162356060, E-mail: [email protected]

Megh R. Goyal, PhD

Retired Professor in Agricultural and Biomedical Engineering, University of Puerto Rico – Mayaguez
Campus; and Senior Technical Editor-in-Chief in Agriculture Sciences and Biomedical Engineering,
Apple Academic Press Inc., PO Box 86, Rincon – PR – 00677 – USA. E-mail: [email protected]

H. A. W. S. Gunathilake, PhD
Director, Sri Lanka Institute of Technological Education, NO 320, T.B Jaya Mawatha, Colombo 10, Sri
Lanka. E-mail: [email protected]

Marvin E. Jensen, PhD, PE

Retired Research Leader at USDA – ARS. 1207 Spring Wood Drive, Fort Collins, Colorado 80525. E-
mail: [email protected]

Pawan Preet Kaur

Ex-undergraduate Student, Department of Soil and Water Engineering, Punjab Agricultural University,
Ludhiana. India–141004

Arun Kaushal, PhD

Associate Professor, Department of Soil and Water Engineering, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhi-
ana. India–141004, Mobile: +919855338437, E-mail: [email protected]

Ashwani Kumar, PhD

Director, Directorate of Water Management, ICAR, Opposite Rail Vihar, Chandrasekharpur, Bhu-
baneswar, 751023, Odisha, India. Tel.: 91-0674-2300060. E-mail: [email protected]; ashwani_
[email protected]

Santosh Kumar, MS
Ex graduate Student, Department of Soil and Water Engineering, Punjab Agricultural University, Lud-
hiana. India–141004
x List of Contributors

Satyendra Kumar, PhD

Senior Scientist, CSSRI Zarifa Farm, Kachawa Road, Karnal – 132001, India. Tel.: 91-184-2292004.
E-mail: [email protected]

A. S. Lodhi, PhD
Research Scholar (Hydraulics Eng.), Department of Civil Engineering, IIT-Roorkee-247667, Uttarkhand,
India. Mobile: +919548759089. E-mail: [email protected]
Gulshan Mahajan, PhD
Agronomist (Rice), Department of Plant Breeding and Genetics, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhi-
ana. India–141004. Mobile: +919417352312. E-mail: [email protected]
V. M. Mayande, PhD
Vice Chancellor, Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth, Akola, 444104, Maharashtra-India. Phone:
+91 9423174299, E-mail: [email protected]
Sushant Mehan
Ex Graduate Student, Department of Soil and Water Engineering, College of Agricultural Engineering
and Technology, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, India–141004. Tel.: +91- 9592772996. E-
mail: [email protected]

Miguel A. Muñoz-Muñoz, PhD

Ex-President of University of Puerto Rico, University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez Campus, College of
Agriculture Sciences, Call Box 9000, Mayagüez, PR. 00681–9000. Tel.: 787-265-3871, E-mail: miguel.
[email protected]
D. D. Nangare, PhD
Scientist (SWCE), National Institute of Abiotic Stress Management, Malegaon, Baramati, Pune, Maha-
rashtra-413115. Mobile: +9109665204895. E-mail: [email protected]
Rahul Patole, MS
Ex-Graduate Student, Department of Soil and Water Engineering, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhi-
ana. India–141004. Mobile: +91 8968459044; E-mail: [email protected]
Ramesh P. Rudra, PhD, PE
Professor in Water Resources Engineering, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario N1G2W1, Canada.
Phone: 001–519824-4120 ext 52110. Fax: 001–5198360227. E-mail: [email protected]

A. K. Saini, PhD
Ex Research Engineer, Department of Soil and Water Engineering, Punjab Agricultural University, Lud-
hiana. India–141004. Mobile: 001-416-524-7030. E-mail: [email protected]

Sharda Rakesh, PhD

Extension Specialist, Department of Soil and Water Engineering, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhi-
ana, India–141004. Mobile: +919855545189. E-mail: [email protected]

Mukesh Siag, PhD

Associate Professor, Department of Soil and Water Engineering, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhi-
ana. India–141004. Mobile: +919872999640, E-mail: [email protected]

Angrej Singh, PhD

Agronomist, Department of Soil and Water Engineering, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana. In-
dia–141004. Mobile: +9181463888111. E-mail: [email protected]
Gajendra Singh, PhD
Former Vice President, Asian Institute of Technology, Thailand. C-86, Millennium Apartments, Plot
E-10A, Sector −61, NOIDA – U.P. – 201301, India, Mobile: (011)-(91) 9971087591, E-mail: <prof.
[email protected]>
List of Contributors xi

Kamal Gurmit Singh, PhD

Senior Research Engineer, Department of Soil and Water Engineering, Punjab Agricultural University,
Ludhiana. India–141004. E-mail: [email protected]

S. R. Singh, PhD
Retired Professor, House No.561, Sector 2, Udyan II, ELDECO Colony, Rae Bareli Road, Lucknow.
Mobile: +919935631990. E-mail: [email protected]

Chetan, Singla, MS
Assistant Agricultural Engineer, Director (Farm), Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, India
141004, Phone: +91-9872034222. E-mail: [email protected]
R. K. Sivanappan, PhD
Former Professor and Dean, College of Agricultural Engineering and Technology, Tamil Nadu Agricul-
tural University (TNAU), Coimbatore. Mailing address: Consultant, 14, Bharathi Park, 4th Cross Road,
Coimbatore-641043, India. E-mail: [email protected]

A. K. Tiwari, PhD
Ex Professor, Department of Soil and Water Engineering, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana,
India–141004
This page intentionally left blank
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ASABE American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers

CU Coefficient of Uniformity
DIS Drip Irrigation System
DOY Day of the Year
EPAN Pan Evaporation
FAO Food and Agricultural Organization, Rome
FC Field Capacity
FUE Fertilizers Use Efficiency
GPIS Gated Pipe Irrigation System
gpm Gallons per Minute
ICAR Indian Council of Agriculture Research
IR Water Intake Rate Into the Soil
ISAE Indian Society of Agricultural Engineers
LAI Leaf Area Index
lps Liters per Second
lph Liters per Hour
MAD Maximum Allowable Depletion
MSL Mean Sea Level
MWD Mean Weight Diameter
PE Polyethylene
PET Potential Evapotranspiration
PM Penman-Monteith
ppm One Part Per Million
psi Pounds Per Square Inch
PVC Polyvinyl Chloride
PWP Permanent Wilting Point
RA Extraterrestrial Radiation
RH Relative Humidity
RMSE Root Mean Squared Error
RS Solar Radiation
SAR Sodium Absorption Rate
SDI Subsurface Drip Irrigation
SRW Simulated Rain Water
SW Saline Water
SWB Soil Water Balance
TE Transpiration Efficiency
xiv List of Abbreviations

TEW Total Evaporable Water

TR Temperature Range
TSS Total Soluble Solids
TUE Transpiration Use Efficiency
USDA US Department of Agriculture
USDA-SCS US Department of Agriculture-Soil Conservation Service
WSEE Weighed Standard Error of Estimate
WUE Water Use Efficiency
LIST OF SYMBOLS

A cross sectional flow area (L2)

AL average life of wells
AW available water (w, %)
C concentration of chlorine wanted, ppm
Cp specific heat capacity of air, in J/(g·°C)
CV coefficient of variation
D accumulative intake rate (mm/min)
d depth of effective root zone
D depth of irrigation water (mm)
E evapotranspiration rate, in g/(m2·s)
e vapor pressure, in kPa
ea actual vapor pressure (kPa)
Ecp cumulative class A pan evaporation
eff irrigation system efficiency
Ei irrigation efficiency of drip system
Ep pan evaporation as measured by Class-A pan evaporimeter (mm/day)
Epan class A pan evaporation
ER cumulative effective rainfall (mm)
es saturation vapor pressure (kPa)
Es saturation vapor pressure, in kPa
es–ea vapor pressure deficit (kPa)
ET evapotranspiration rate, in mm/year
ETa reference ET, in the same water evaporation units as Ra
ETc crop-evapotranspiration (mm/day)
ETo the reference evapotranspiration obtained (mm/day)
ETpan the pan evaporation-derived evapotranspiration
EU emission uniformity
F flow rate of the system (GPM)
F.C. field capacity (v/v, %)
G soil heat flux at land surface, in W/m2
H plant canopy height (m)
h soil water pressure head (L)
I infiltration rate at time t (mm/min)
IR injection rate, GPH
IRR irrigation
K unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (LT–1)
Kc crop coefficient
xvi List of Symbols

Kc crop-coefficient for bearing ‘Kinnow’ plant

Kg kilograms
Kp pan coefficient
Kp pan factor
Ks hydraulic conductivity
n number of emitters
P percentage of chlorine in the solution*
P.W.P. permanent wilting point (w%)
Pa atmospheric pressure, in Pa
pH acidity/alkalinity measurement scale
Q flow rate in gallons per minute
q the mean emitter discharges of each lateral (lh–1)
R rainfall
ra aerodynamic resistance (s m–)
Ra extraterrestrial radiation
Re effective rainfall depth (mm)
Ri individual rain gauge reading in mm
RMAX maximum relative humidity
RMIN minimum relative humidity
Rn net radiation at the crop surface (MJ m–day–1)
RO surface runoff
Rs incoming solar radiation on land surface
rs bulk surface resistance (s m–)
S sink term accounting for root water uptake (T–1)
Se effective saturation
Sp plant-to-plant spacing (m)
Sr row-to-row spacing (m)
SU statistical uniformity (%)
Sψ water stress integral (MPa day)
t time that water is on the surface of the soil (min)
T time in hours
TMAX maximum temperature
TMIN minimum temperature
V volume of water required (liter/day/plant)
Vid irrigation volume applied in each irrigation (liter tree–1)
Vpc plant canopy volume (m3)
W canopy width
Wp fractional wetted area
z vertical coordinate positive downwards (L)
List of Symbols xvii

GREEK SYMBOLS
α inverse of a characteristic pore radius (L–1)
∆ slope of the vapor pressure curve (kPa°C–1)
γ psychometric constant (kPa°C–)
θ volumetric soil water content (L3L–3)
θ(h) soil water retention (L3L–3)
θr residual water content (L3L–3)
θs saturated water content (L3L–3)
θvol volumetric moisture content (cm3/cm3)
λ latent heat of vaporization (MJ kg–)
λΕ latent heat flux, in W/mo
ρa mean air density at constant pressure (kg m–3)
w dry weight basis
This page intentionally left blank
PREFACE

Due to increased agricultural production, irrigated land has increased in the arid
and subhumid zones around the world. Agriculture has started to compete for water
use with industries, municipalities and other sectors. This increasing demand along
with increments in water and energy costs have made it necessary to develop new
technologies for the adequate management of water. The intelligent use of water for
crops requires understanding of evapotranspiration processes and use of efficient
irrigation methods.
An informative article was published on the importance of micro irrigation in
India (weblink: http://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/bengaluru/Micro-irriga-
tion-to-be-promoted/2013/08/17/article1738597.ece). Every day, similar news ap-
pears all around the world indicating that government agencies at central/state/local
levels, research and educational institutions, industry, sellers and others are aware
of the urgent need to adopt micro irrigation technology, which can have an irriga-
tion efficiency up to 90% compared to 30–40% for conventional irrigation systems.
I stress the urgent need to implement micro irrigation systems in water scarcity
regions.
Micro irrigation is sustainable and is one of the best management practices. I at-
tended the 17th Punjab Science Congress on February 14–16, 2014 at Punjab Tech-
nical University in Jalandhar. I was shocked to know that the underground water
table has lowered to a critical level in Punjab. My father-in-law in Dhuri told me that
his family bought the 0.10 acres of land in the city for US $100.00 in 1942 because
the water table was at 2 feet depth. In 2012, it was sold for US $200,000 because the
water table had dropped to greater than 100 feet depth. This has been due to luxury
use of water by wheat-paddy farmers. The water crisis is similar in other countries,
including Puerto Rico where I live. We can therefore conclude that the problem of
water scarcity is rampant globally, creating the urgent need for water conservation.
The use of micro irrigation systems is expected to result in water savings, increased
crop yields in terms of volume and quality. The other important benefits of using
micro irrigation systems include expansion in the area under irrigation, water con-
servation, optimum use of fertilizers and chemicals through water, and decreased
labor costs, among others. The worldwide population is increasing at a rapid rate,
and it is imperative that food supply keeps pace with this increasing population.
Micro irrigation, also known as trickle irrigation or drip irrigation or localized
irrigation or high frequency or pressurized irrigation, is an irrigation method that
saves water and fertilizer by allowing water to drip slowly to the roots of plants,
either onto the soil surface or directly onto the root zone, through a network of
xx Preface

valves, pipes, tubing, and emitters. It is done through narrow tubes that deliver water
directly to the base of the plant. It supplies controlled delivery of water directly to
individual plants and can be installed on the soil surface or subsurface. Micro irriga-
tion systems are often used in farms and large gardens but are equally effective in
the home garden or even for houseplants or lawns.
The mission of this compendium is to serve as a reference manual for gradu-
ate and undergraduate students of agricultural, biological, and civil engineering;
horticulture, soil science, crop science, and agronomy. I hope that it will also be
a valuable reference for professionals that work with micro irrigation and water
management; for professional training institutes, technical agricultural centers, ir-
rigation centers, agricultural extension services, and other agencies that work with
micro irrigation programs.
After my first textbook, Drip/Trickle or Micro Irrigation Management by Apple
Academic Press Inc., and response from international readers, I was motivated to
bring out for the world community this ten-volume series on, Research Advances
in Sustainable Micro Irrigation. This book series will complement other books on
micro irrigation that are currently available on the market, and my intention is not
to replace any one of these. This book series is unique because it is complete and
simple, a one-stop manual, with worldwide applicability to irrigation management
in agriculture. This series is a must for those interested in irrigation planning and
management, namely, researchers, scientists, educators and students.
The contributions by the cooperating authors to this book series have been most
valuable in the compilation of this volume. Their names are mentioned in each chap-
ter and in the list of contributors. This book would not have been written without
the valuable cooperation of these investigators, many of whom are renowned sci-
entists who have worked in the field of micro irrigation throughout their profes-
sional careers. I am glad to introduce Dr. Kamal Gurmit Singh, Senior Research
Engineer and Professor at Punjab Agricultural University, and Dr. Ramesh P. Rudra,
Distinguished Professor in Water Resources Engineering at University of Guelph,
Canada. They join as editors for this volume. We all three are alumni of the College
of Agricultural Engineering at Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana – Punjab.
Dr. Ramesh was one year senior to me and graduated in 1970. Kamal graduated in
1983, after me. Without their support and extraordinary work, readers will not have
this quality publication. Most of the research studies in this volume were conducted
by Dr. Kamal G. Singh, his colleagues, and students.
I would like to thank editorial staff, Sandy Jones Sickels, Vice President, and
Ashish Kumar, Publisher and President at Apple Academic Press, Inc., (www.
appleacademicpress.com) for making every effort to publish the book when the di-
minishing water resources are a major issue worldwide. Special thanks are due to
the AAP Production staff for the quality production of this book.
We request that readers offer us your constructive suggestions to help to improve
the next edition.
Preface xxi

I express my deep admiration to my family for understanding and collaboration

during the preparation of this ten-volume book series. With my whole heart and
best affection, we dedicate this volume to the late (Dr.) C. M. Jacob, who in 1965
founded College of Agricultural Engineering at Punjab Agricultural Engineering,
Ludhiana – India; and was Dean. Dr. Jacob held admirable professional and human
values as I saw during my college years. He has been my master, councilor, profes-
sional father and guru since 1966. He helped me to trickle on to add my drop to the
ocean of service to the world of humanity. Without his advice and patience, I would
not have been a “Father of Irrigation Engineering of twentieth century in Puerto
Rico” with zeal for service to others. My salutes to him for his legacy. As an educa-
tor, I offer this advice to one and all in the world: “Permit that our Almighty God,
our Creator and excellent Teacher, irrigate the life with His Grace of rain trickle by
trickle, because our life must continue trickling on…”
—Megh R. Goyal, PhD, PE
Senior Editor-in-Chief
August 1, 2014
This page intentionally left blank
FOREWORD 1

With only a small portion of cultivated area under irrigation and with the need to
expand this area, which can be brought about by irrigation, it is clear that the most
critical input for agriculture today is water. It is important that all available supplies
of water should be used intelligently to the best possible advantage. Recent research
around the world has shown that the yields per unit quantity of water can be in-
creased if the fields are properly leveled, the water requirements of the crops as well
as the characteristics of the soil are known, and the correct methods of irrigation are
followed. Significant gains can also be made if the cropping patterns are changed
so as to minimize storage during the hot summer months when evaporation losses
are high, if seepage losses during conveyance are reduced, and if water is applied at
critical times when it is most useful for plant growth.
Irrigation is mentioned in the Holy Bible and in the old documents of Syria, Per-
sia, India, China, Java, and Italy. The importance of irrigation in our times has been
defined appropriately by N.D. Gulati: “In many countries irrigation is an old art, as
much as the civilization, but for humanity it is a science, the one to survive.” The
need for additional food for the world’s population has spurred rapid development
of irrigated land throughout the world. Vitally important in arid regions, irrigation
is also an important improvement in many circumstances in humid regions. Unfor-
tunately, often less than half the water applied is used by the crop—irrigation water
may be lost through runoff, which may also cause damaging soil erosion, deep per-
colation beyond that required for leaching to maintain a favorable salt balance. New
irrigation systems, design and selection techniques are continually being developed
and examined in an effort to obtain high practically attainable efficiency of water
application.
The main objective of irrigation is to provide plants with sufficient water to pre-
vent stress that may reduce the yield. The frequency and quantity of water depends
upon local climatic conditions, crop and stage of growth, and soil-moisture-plant
characteristics. The need for irrigation can be determined in several ways that do
not require knowledge of evapotranspiration (ET) rates. One way is to observe crop
indicators such as change of color or leaf angle, but this information may appear too
late to avoid reduction in the crop yield or quality. Other similar methods of schedul-
ing include determination of the plant water stress, soil moisture status, or soil water
potential. Methods of estimating crop water requirements using ET and combined
with soil characteristics have the advantage of not only being useful in determining
when to irrigate, but also enables us to know the quantity of water needed. ET esti-
mates have not been made for the developing countries though basic information on
xxiv Foreword 1

weather data is available. This has contributed to one of the existing problems that
the vegetable crops are over irrigated and tree crops are under irrigated.
Water supply in the world is dwindling because of luxury use of sources; com-
petition for domestic, municipal, and industrial demands; declining water quality;
and losses through seepage, runoff, and evaporation. Water rather than land is one
of the limiting factors in our goal for self-sufficiency in agriculture. Intelligent use
of water will avoid problem of sea water seeping into aquifers. Introduction of new
irrigation methods has encouraged marginal farmers to adopt these methods without
taking into consideration economic benefits of conventional, overhead, and drip
irrigation systems. What is important is “net in the pocket” under limited available
resources. Irrigation of crops in tropics requires appropriately tailored working prin-
ciples for the effective use of all resources peculiar to the local conditions. Irrigation
methods include border-, furrow-, subsurface-, sprinkler-, sprinkler, micro, and drip/
trickle, and xylem irrigation.
Drip irrigation is an application of water in combination with fertilizers within
the vicinity of plant root in predetermined quantities at a specified time interval. The
application of water is by means of drippers, which are located at desired spacing on
a lateral line. The emitted water moves due to an unsaturated soil. Thus, favorable
conditions of soil moisture in the root zone are maintained. This causes an optimum
development of the crop. Drip/micro or trickle irrigation is convenient for vine-
yards, tree orchards, and row crops. The principal limitation is the high initial cost
of the system that can be very high for crops with very narrow planting distances.
Forage crops may not be irrigated economically with drip irrigation. Drip irrigation
is adaptable for almost all soils. In very fine textured soils, the intensity of water
application can cause problems of aeration. In heavy soils, the lateral movement of
the water is limited, thus more emitters per plant are needed to wet the desired area.
With adequate design, use of pressure compensating drippers and pressure regulat-
ing valves, drip irrigation can be adapted to almost any topography. In some areas,
drip irrigation is used successfully on steep slopes. In subsurface drip irrigation,
laterals with drippers are buried at about 45 cm depth, with an objective to avoid
the costs of transportation, installation, and dismantling of the system at the end
of a crop. When it is located permanently, it does not harm the crop and solve the
problem of installation and annual or periodic movement of the laterals. A carefully
installed system can last for about 10 years.
The publication of this book series is an indication that things are beginning to
change, that we are beginning to realize the importance of water conservation to
minimize the hunger. It is hoped that the publisher will produce similar materials in
other languages.
In providing this book series on micro irrigation, Megh Raj Goyal, as well as the
Apple Academic Press, is rendering an important service to the farmers. Dr. Goyal,
Father of Irrigation Engineering in Puerto Rico, has done an unselfish job in the
presentation of this series that is simple and thorough. I have known Megh Raj since
Foreword 1 xxv

1973 when we were working together at Haryana Agricultural University on an

ICAR research project in “Cotton Mechanization in India.”

Dr. Gajendra Singh, PhD,

Former Vice Chancellor, Doon University, Dehradun,
India.
Adjunct Professor, Indian Agricultural Research Insti-
tute, New Delhi
Ex-President (2010–2012), Indian Society of Agricul-
tural Engineers.
Former Deputy Director General (Engineering), Indian
Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), New Delhi.
Former Vice-President/Dean/Professor and Chairman,
Asian Institute of Technology, Thailand. Dr. Gajendra Singh, PhD
New Delhi
August 1, 2014
This page intentionally left blank
FOREWORD 2

Monsoon failure during June of 2014 has created shock waves once again across
India. The Indian Meteorological Department has reported a shortage of rains in
major parts of India with the country average of 42%, Karnataka 35%, Konkan
and Goa 56%, Kerala 24%, Gujarat 88% and Rajasthan 80% during June 2014. In-
dia still is 62% agriculture dependent on monsoon rain, and most of the 83% small
and marginal farmers are living in these regions. Monsoon failure in June affects
food production and livelihood of the majority population of India. The Govern-
ment of India has taken timely and laudable initiatives to develop a contingency
program. India has observed this type of monsoon situation 12 times during the
last 113 years, meaning a huge deficit of rain once in 10 years. Although contin-
gency plans provide some relief, there is a need to address fundamental issues of
water management in India. India has 1896 km3 total renewable water resources;
in addition only 5% of the total precipitation is harvestable. Improving water pro-
ductivity is a major challenge. Improving irrigation efficiency, effective rainwater
management, and recycling of industrial and sewage water will get enough water
available for agriculture in the state. Micro irrigation can mitigate abiotic stress
situation by saving over 50% of irrigation water and can be useful in a late mon-
soon situation for timely sowing.
Agricultural engineers across India have made several specific recommendations
on water conservation practices, ground water recharge, improving water productiv-
ity, land management practices, tillage/cultivation practices and farm implements
for moisture conservation. These technologies have potential to conserve water that
will facilitate timely sowing of crops under the delayed monsoon situation that has
occurred this year and provide solutions to monsoon worries. Agricultural engineers
need to provide leadership opportunities in the water resources and water manage-
ment sector, which include the departments of Command Area Development, Rural
Development, Panchayat Raj, Water Resources, Irrigation, Soil Conservation, Wa-
tersheds, Environment and Energy for Stability of Agriculture, and in turn the stable
growth of Indian economy.
This book series on micro irrigation addresses the urgent need to adopt this
water saving technology not only in India but throughout the world. I would like to
see more literature on micro irrigation for use by the irrigation fraternity. I appeal
to all irrigation engineering fraternities to bring such issues to the forefront through
research publications, organizing symposiums, seminars and discussions with plan-
xxviii Foreword 2

ners and policymakers at the regional, state and national level so that agricultural
engineers will get a well-deserved space in the development process of the country.

Dr. V. M. Mayande, PhD

President 2012–15, Indian Society of Agricultural Engineers,
Vice Chancellor,
Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth
Akola–444104, Maharashtra, India. Tel.: +91 9423174299.
E-mail: [email protected]

Dr. V. M. Mayande, PhD

August 1, 2014
FOREWORD 3

In the world, water resources are abundant. The available fresh water is sufficient
even if the world population is increased by four times the present population, that
is about 25 billion. The total water present in the earth is about 1.41 billion Km3 of
which 97.5% is brackish and only about 2.5% is fresh water. Out of 2.5% of fresh
water, 87% is in ice caps or glaciers, in the ground, or deep inside the earth. Accord-
ing to Dr. Serageldin, 22 of the world’s countries have renewable water supply of
less than 1000 cubic meter per person per year. The World Bank estimates that by
the year 2025, one person in three, in other words 3.25 billion people in 52 coun-
tries, will live in conditions of water shortage. In the last two centuries (1800–2000)
the irrigated area in the world has increased from 8 million ha to 260 million ha for
producing the required food for the growing population. At the same time, the de-
mand of water for drinking and industries has increased tremendously. The amount
of water used for agriculture, drinking, and industries in developed countries are
50% in each and in developing countries it is 90% and 10%, respectively. The aver-
age quantity of water is about 69% for agriculture and 31% for other purposes. Wa-
ter scarcity is now the single largest threat to global food production. To overcome
the problem, there is a compulsion to use the water efficiently and at the same time
increase the productivity from the unit area. It will involve spreading the whole
spectrum of water-thrifty technologies that enable farmers to get more crops per
drop of water. This can be achieved only by introducing drip/trickle/micro irrigation
in large scale throughout the world.
Micro irrigation is a method of irrigation with high frequency application of
water in and around the root zone of plant (crop) and consists of a network of pipes
with suitable emitting devices. It is suitable for all crops except rice, and especially
for widely spaced horticultural crops. It can be extended to wastelands, hilly areas,
coastal sandy belts, water scarcity areas, semi arid zones, and well irrigated lands.
By using micro irrigation, the water saving compared to conventional surface ir-
rigation is about 40–60% and the yield can be increased up to 100%. The overall ir-
rigation efficiency is 30–40% for surface irrigation, 60–70% for sprinkler irrigation,
and 85–95% for micro irrigation. Apart from this, one has the advantage of saving
of costs related to labor and fertilizer and weed control. The studies conducted and
information gathered from various farmers in India have revealed that micro irriga-
tion is technically feasible, economically viable, and socially acceptable. Since the
allotment of water is going to be reduced for agriculture, there is a compulsion to
change the irrigation method to provide more area under irrigation and to increase
the required food for the growing population.
xxx Foreword 3

Most farmers in the developing countries are poor, and hence it is not possible
for them to adopt/install the micro irrigation with fertigation, though it would be
economically viable and profitable for them. In Tamil Nadu, India, the number of
marginal farmers (holding less than 1.0 hectare) and small farmers (holding 1 to
2 ha) has increased from 5,076,915 in 1967–1968 to 7,184,940 in 1995–1996 and
area owned by them has also decreased in the same period from 0.63 ha to 0.55 ha.
In addition, the small farmers category is about 89.68% in 1995–1996, of the total
farmers in the state. At the same time if micro irrigation is used for all crops, yield
can be increased and water savings will be 50%. In the case of sugarcane crop, the
yield can be increased to 250 tons/ha from the present average yield of 100 tons/ha,
which is the highest at present in India. Therefore, to popularize the micro irrigation
system among this group of farmers, more books like this, not only in English but
also in the respective national languages, should be published.
Volumes 1 through 6 in this book series contain 72 chapters covering all areas of
micro irrigation as well as it potentials, and reviews of the system, presents princi-
ples of micro irrigation, discusses the experience of micro irrigation in desert region
mainly in Middle East, and presents its application in the field for various crops,
especially in water requirements for crops such as citrus, banana, eggplant, papaya,
plantations, sugarcane, tanier, blueberries, etc. The book series also includes wetting
patterns under various sustainable practices; evaluation of the micro irrigation sys-
tems; the software to design the systems; ornamental nursery production. Volume
three includes an extensive bibliography in addition the references at the end of each
chapter. The chapters are written by experienced scientists from various parts of the
world, bringing their findings, which will be useful for all users of the micro irriga-
tion in the world in the coming years.
I must congratulate Dr. Goyal for contacting many experts who are involved in
the subject to bring their experience and knowledge about micro irrigation to this
book series. He has also given many figures, illustrations, and tables to understand
the subject. I congratulate the editor(s) for the volume in this book series.
The editors of these volumes are reputed agricultural engineers in the world and
have wide knowledge and experience in soil and water conservation engineering
particularly micro irrigation. After the big success first book titled, Management
of Drip/Trickle or Micro Irrigation by Dr. Goyal, this compendium book series is
unique. Dr. Goyal, Senior Editor-in-Chief of ten-volume book series, has taken into
account the fate of marginal farmers and thus serves the poor. The information pro-
vided in this book series will go a long way in bringing large areas under micro irri-
gation in the world, especially in water scarcity countries. On behalf of international
scientists and agricultural engineers on micro irrigation, I am indebted to Dr. Megh
R. Goyal and Apple Academic Press for undertaking this project.
Foreword 3 xxxi

Professor (Dr.) R. K. Sivanappan,

Former Dean-cum-Professor of College of Agricultural Engi-
neering and Founding Director of Water Technology Centre at
Tamil Nadu Agricultural University [TAMU], Coimbatore –
India. Ex-member of Tamil Nadu State Planning Commission
(2005–2006).
Recipient of Honorary PhD degree by Linkoping University –
Sweden; and conferment of the honorary D.Sc. degree by the
TAMU – India.
E-mail: [email protected]

Dr. R. K. Sivanappan, PhD

August 1, 2014
This page intentionally left blank
FOREWORD 4

The microirrigation system, more commonly known as the drip irrigation system,
has been one of the greatest advancements in irrigation system technology devel-
oped over the past half century. The system delivers water directly to individual
vines or to plant rows as needed for transpiration. The system tubing may be at-
tached to vines, placed on or buried below the soil surface.
This book series, written by experienced system designers/scientists, describes
various systems that are being used around the world, the principles of microirriga-
tion, chemigation, filtration systems, water movement in soils, soil-wetting patterns,
design principles, use of wastewater, crop water requirements and crop coefficients
for a number of crops. The book series also includes chapters on hydraulic design,
emitter discharge and variability, and pumping station. Irrigation engineers will find
this book series to be a valuable reference.

Dr. Marvin E. Jensen, PhD, PE

Retired Research Program Leader at USDA-ARS; and Ir-
rigation Consultant
1207 Spring Wood Drive, Fort Collins, Colorado 80525,
USA.
E-mail: [email protected]

Dr. Marvin E. Jensen, PhD

August 1, 2014
This page intentionally left blank
BOOK SERIES: RESEARCH ADVANCES
IN SUSTAINABLE MICRO IRRIGATION

Volume 1: Sustainable Micro Irrigation: Principles and Practices

Senior Editor-in-Chief: Megh R. Goyal, PhD, PE

Volume 2: Sustainable Practices in Surface and Subsurface Micro Irrigation

Senior Editor-in-Chief: Megh R. Goyal, PhD, PE

Volume 3: Sustainable Micro Irrigation Management for Trees and Vines

Senior Editor-in-Chief: Megh R. Goyal, PhD, PE

Volume 4: Management, Performance, and Applications of Micro Irrigation

Senior Editor-in-Chief: Megh R. Goyal, PhD, PE

Volume 5: Applications of Furrow and Micro Irrigation in Arid and Semi-Arid

Regions
Senior Editor-in-Chief: Megh R. Goyal, PhD, PE

Volume 6: Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

Editors: Kamal Gurmit Singh, PhD, Megh R. Goyal, PhD, PE, and
Ramesh P. Rudra, PhD, PE

Volume 7: Closed Circuit Micro Irrigation Design: Theory and Applications

Senior Editor-in-Chief: Megh R. Goyal, PhD; Editor: Hani A. A. Mansour, PhD

Volume 8: Wastewater Management for Irrigation: Principles and Practices

Editor-in-Chief: Megh R. Goyal, PhD, PE; Coeditor: Vinod K. Tripathi, PhD

Volume 9: Water and Fertigation Management in Micro Irrigation

Senior Editor-in-Chief: Megh R. Goyal, PhD, PE

Volume 10: Innovations in Micro Irrigation Technology

Senior Editor-in-Chief: Megh R. Goyal, PhD, PE; Coeditors: Vishal K. Chavan,
MTech, and Vinod K. Tripathi, PhD
This page intentionally left blank
ABOUT THE EDITORS

Three internationally distinguished scientists have joined together to bring this vol-
ume on micro irrigation. They are authorities on the area of soil and water conserva-
tion engineering. From left to right: Dr. Kamal Gurmit Singh, Dr. Megh R. Goyal,
and Dr. Ramesh P. Rudra obtained the Bachelor of Technology degrees in Agricul-
tural Engineering in 1983, 1971 and 1970, respectively, from Punjab Agricultural
University, Ludhiana – Punjab – India.

Kamal Gurmit Singh, PhD, is working as Senior Research Engineer in the Depart-
ment of Soil & Water Engineering at the Punjab Agricultural Ludhiana, Punjab,
India. Dr. Singh is an authority in the Punjab State of India on micro irrigation
and protected structures with more than 28 years of academic and consulting ex-
perience, particularly in environmental engineering/water resources management,
micro irrigation, protected cultivation, and computer simulation modeling such as
LEACHN, SALTMED, and MODFLOW. He has worked as Principal Investigator
on several research projects, including “Plasticulture” and “best management prac-
tices” at Punjab Agricultural University. He has extensive experience in designing,
installation, and use of protected cultivated structures, i.e. polyhouses, net houses,
and micro irrigation systems. He has been awarded a gold medal for recognition
in the field of soil and water engineering by the Society of Recent Developments
in Agriculture (SRDA), India. In addition, he has attended training on net house
designing at AVRDC—The World Vegetable Centre, Taiwan. He has also acted as
chairman/ member of several technical committees on micro irrigation and green-
house technology. A dedicated professor teaching courses such as advanced hydrol-
xxxviii About the Editors

ogy, watershed hydrology, system engineering for graduate and postgraduate stu-
dents, he has also advised five MS and three PhD students. He has published over
87 papers including 38 refereed journal articles. He received a BTech, a MTech and
a PhD (Agricultural Engineering) from Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana,
India.

Megh R. Goyal, PhD, PE, is a Retired Professor in Agricultural and Biomedical

Engineering from the General Engineering Department in the College of Engineer-
ing at University of Puerto Rico–Mayaguez Campus; and Senior Acquisitions Editor
and Senior Technical Editor-in-Chief in Agriculture and Biomedical Engineering for
Apple Academic Press Inc. He received his BSc degree in engineering in 1971 from
Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, India; his MSc degree in 1977 and PhD
degree in 1979 from the Ohio State University, Columbus; and his Master of Divin-
ity degree in 2001 from Puerto Rico Evangelical Seminary, Hato Rey, Puerto Rico,
USA. He spent one-year sabbatical leave in 2002–2003 at the Biomedical Engineer-
ing Department at Florida International University in Miami, Florida, USA. Since
1971, he has worked as Soil Conservation Inspector (1971); Research Assistant at
Haryana Agricultural University (1972–75) and Ohio State University (1975–79);
Research Agricultural Engineer/Professor at the Department of Agricultural Engi-
neering of UPRM (1979–1997); and Professor in Agricultural and Biomedical Engi-
neering in the General Engineering Department of UPRM (1997–2012).
He was first agricultural engineer to receive the professional license in Agricul-
tural Engineering in 1986 from College of Engineers and Surveyors of Puerto Rico.
On September 16, 2005, he was proclaimed as “Father of Irrigation Engineering
in Puerto Rico for the twentieth century” by the ASABE, Puerto Rico Section, for
his pioneer work on micro irrigation, evapotranspiration, agroclimatology, and soil
and water engineering. During his professional career of 45 years, he has received
awards such as Scientist of the Year, Blue Ribbon Extension Award, Research Paper
Award, Nolan Mitchell Young Extension Worker Award, Agricultural Engineer of
the Year, Citations by Mayors of Juana Diaz and Ponce, Membership Grand Prize
for ASAE Campaign, Felix Castro Rodriguez Academic Excellence, Rashtrya Ratan
Award and Bharat Excellence Award and Gold Medal, Domingo Marrero Navarro
Prize, Adopted Son of Moca, Irrigation Protagonist of UPRM, and Man of Drip
Irrigation by Mayor of Municipalities of Mayaguez/Caguas/Ponce and Senate/Sec-
retary of Agriculture of ELA, Puerto Rico.
He has authored more than 200 journal articles and textbooks, including Ele-
ments of Agroclimatology (Spanish) by UNISARC, Colombia, and two Bibliog-
raphies on Drip Irrigation. Apple Academic Press Inc. (AAP) has published his
books, namely Biofluid Dynamics of Human Body, Management of Drip/Trickle
or Micro Irrigation, Evapotranspiration: Principles and Applications for Water
Management, Sustainable Micro Irrigation Design Systems for Agricultural Crops:
Practices and Theory, Biomechanics of Artificial Organs and Prostheses, and Sci-
About the Editors xxxix

entific and Technical Terms in Bioengineering and Biotechnology. During 2014–15,

AAP is publishing his ten-volume set, Research Advances in Sustainable Micro Ir-
rigation. Readers may contact him at [email protected].

Ramesh P. Rudra, PhD, PE, is currently Professor of Water Resources Engineering

at the University of Guelph in Guelph, Ontario, Canada. With more than 34 years
of experience as a water resource engineer, researcher, and educator in Canada, the
United States, and India, he is involved in research related to source water protec-
tion, development of procedures for watershed system capacity for water quality
(TMDL), and tools for site-specific design of vegetative filter strips to protect and
improve stream water quality in rural areas. He is a member of many professional
organizations and has received the Canadian Society of Agricultural Engineers’ Jim
Beamish Award for excellence (research and teaching) in soil and water conserva-
tion. Dr. Rudra received his BSc (Engineering) from Punjab Agricultural University,
Ludhiana, India; his MSc; and his PhD from the Pennsylvania State University,
University Park, Pennsylvania, USA.
Dr. Rudra’s work has primarily focused on agricultural water management
through investigation of fundamental process of soil erosion, hydrology, irrigation
and drainage, irrigation with saline water, source water protection, modeling and
management of non-point source pollution, as evident by the publications in Asia,
Europe and North America. Several graduate students from Asia, Africa, Far East
and Middle East have worked on soil and water management problems related to
their countries under his supervision. In addition, he has provided technical assis-
tance to extension agents, government officials in planning, design, development,
management and evaluation of source water protection schemes, water quality mon-
itoring projects, irrigation and drainage systems, both surface and sub-surface drain-
age, soil erosion control practices and structures, and water harvesting. He has been
involved in the development and evaluation of models for source water protection
and non-point source pollution management, nomographs and computer software
for management of water quantity and quality at the farm as well as watershed scale.
His present research activities include development of watershed-based tools to help
quantify the health status of water bodies in rural watersheds, and also economically
feasible, environmentally sustainable and socially acceptable strategies to improve
their status by identifying the source of pollution and their relative contribution to
the impairment of water quality. This approach provides a linkage between needs
for nutrient management and watershed-based source water protection. He is also
involved in the development of tools for the site-specific design of vegetative strips
to improve stream water quality in rural and urban environment.
This page intentionally left blank
WARNING/DISCLAIMER

The goal of this compendium, Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated
Crops, is to guide the world community on how to manage efficiently for eco-
nomical crop production. The reader must be aware that dedication, commitment,
honesty, and sincerity are most important factors in a dynamic manner for complete
success. This reference is not intended for a one-time reading; we advise you to
consult it frequently. To err is human. However, we must do our best. Always, there
is a place for learning new experiences.
The editor, the contributing authors, the publisher, and the printer have made ev-
ery effort to make this book as complete and as accurate as possible. However, there
still may be grammatical errors or mistakes in the content or typography. Therefore,
the contents in this book should be considered as a general guide and not a complete
solution to address any specific situation in irrigation. For example, one size of ir-
rigation pump does not fit all sizes of agricultural land and work for all crops.
The editor, the contributing authors, the publisher and the printer shall have
neither liability nor responsibility to any person, organization, or entity with respect
to any loss or damage caused, or alleged to have caused, directly or indirectly, by
information or advice contained in this book. Therefore, the purchaser/reader must
assume full responsibility for the use of the book or the information therein.
The mention of commercial brands and trade names are only for technical pur-
poses and does not imply endorsement. The editor, contributing authors, educational
institutions, and the publisher do not have any preference for a particular product.
All web links that are mentioned in this book were active on December 31, 2014.
The editors, the contributing authors, the publisher, and the printing company shall
have neither liability nor responsibility if any of the web links are inactive at the
time of reading of this book.
This page intentionally left blank
 PART I
IRRIGATION METHODS
This page intentionally left blank
CHAPTER 1

LOW TUNNEL TECHNOLOGY FOR

VEGETABLE CROPS IN INDIA
A. S. LODHI, ARUN KAUSHAL, and KAMAL G. SINGH

1.1 INTRODUCTION
Agriculture was developed by human beings for their survival against hunger. As
the time passed, human beings learnt that maximum crop yield is achieved when
the crops are grown during different seasons under favorable climatic conditions.
Vegetables are rich source of vitamins, carbohydrates, salts and proteins. There is a
year round high demand for fresh vegetables in the country in domestic and export
market due to: increased health awareness, high population growth rate, changing
dietary patterns of increasingly affluent middle class, and availability of packaged
vegetables. But due to unfavorable climatic conditions, there is a flood of vegetables
in the season and high priced vegetables in off-season. Vegetables can be cultivated
in off-season, with the introduction of green houses, low and high poly tunnel tech-
nology, in which temperature and moisture are controlled for specific growth of
vegetables. The production of vegetables all around the year enables the growers
to fully use the resources and supplement income from vegetable growing as com-
pared to other normal agricultural crops.
Low tunnels are miniature structures producing green house like effect. In these
tunnels, plastic sheets are used for roof covering of the tunnel with shaped construc-
tion having low height, which is built with steel bars. These tunnels facilitate the
entrapment of carbon dioxide, thereby enhancing the photosynthetic activity of the
plants and hence the yield. These structures also protect the plants from the high
winds, rain, frost and snow. Besides being inexpensive, they are easy to construct
and dismantle. Low tunnels are being used for producing high quality, high valued
nurseries and crops such as tomatoes, cucumber, radish, beans and capsicum. With
this technology, the farmers can capture the market in the early season and may get
good return of the produce. Another advantage of such technology is that low tun-
nels can be easily dismantled and used in the next year.

*In this chapter, the currency is expressed in Indian Rupees (1.00 US$ = Rs. 60.93; 1.00 Rs. = 0.02 US$).
4 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

The use of low tunnels conserves warmth climate, stimulates germination and
early growth, protects plants from injury and improves the quality of crop. Other
beneficial effects include: maintaining soil texture and protecting crops from the
attacks of birds and pest.
This chapter presents the research review in production of vegetables under low
tunnel technology (LTT).

1.2 EFFECT OF LOW TUNNEL TECHNOLOGY ON YIELD OF

VEGETABLES
Saini and Singh [13] conducted a research study on growth and yield of chilly crop
under low tunnel polyhouse, at research farm of Soil and Water Engineering Depart-
ment at Punjab Agricultural University (PAU), Ludhiana – India. They found that
there was no significant effect on the yield of chili due to variation in perforations
on polythene cover. Drip irrigation system with IW/CPE ratio of 0.50 and 30 cm low
tunnel polythene cover gave the best yield and water saving.
Helbacka [4] conducted a study on row covers for vegetable gardens. It was re-
ported that many cucurbits (squash, cucumber, and melons) respond well under row
covers with increased yield of as much as 25%.
Joublan and Vergara [7] conducted a study on vegetative and productive de-
velopment of strawberry (Fragaria X ananassa Duch.), using row cover of spun-
bonded polyester with different densities. Row covers were placed directly over
the plants as a tunnel without any support structure. Treatments were comprised of
a control treatment (without row covers), row covers of 20 g/m2 and row covers of
30 g/m2. Fruit production started 4.8 and 2.2 days earlier under 20 and 30 g/m2 row
covers, respectively, than under the control treatment. The use of row covers also
increased the number of fruit and weight, yield per plant and sugar concentration
compared to the control treatment. The best results were obtained with 30 g/m2 row
covers.
Henandez et al. [5] conducted studies on row covers for quality improvement
of Chinese cabbage for three years in the area of Granada, Spain, under a Mediter-
ranean continental temperate climate, on 55-day cycles with transplanting in mid-
march. The mean commercial yield for the 3-years was l 1.9 kg/m2 under row cover
compared to only 2.1 kg/m2 in open air, owing primarily to important number of
noncommercial cabbages.
Vishnuvardhana et al. [18] conducted a study on the economics on the propaga-
tion of cashew grafts in a mist chamber, naturally ventilated green house, low tunnel
and shade net during the summer, monsoon and winter season. The initial invest-
ment for the establishment of the propagation structure (100 mi) reached Rs. 8,500
for the shade net, Rs. 300,000 for mist chamber, Rs. 36,400 for naturally ventilated
green house and Rs. 21,000 for the low tunnel. The highest net profit was obtained
with propagation in low tunnels, followed by propagation in a naturally ventilated
green house, mist chamber and shade net.
Low Tunnel Technology for Vegetable Crops in India 5

1.3 EARLY HARVESTING OF VEGETABLE UNDER LOW TUNNEL

TECHNOLOGY
Meesters [10] conducted a study on early cultivation of strawberry under tunnels. In
a study at Tongeren – Belgium, in 1995, the strawberry cultivar Evita was planted
in a plastic tunnel on 6 April at densities of 3, 4 or 5 plants/m2. The first friots were
ready on 24 May, and 80% of the total harvest was picked on 40–50 days between
late July and mid-August. The harvest finished on 19 October. Production of Evita
was 20–25 days earlier under the tunnel than in the field, and it was 30–35 days
earlier than that of field-grown Selva. It therefore filled the gap between field-grown
Elsanta and field-grown Selva. Yields in the tunnel were 2.6–3.2 kg/m2.
Arin and Ankara [2] conducted a study to determine the effects of low tunnel,
mulching and pruning on yield and earliness of tomato in unheated glass house. It
was observed that there was an increase of 643.42% in height (relative to height at
the planting time) of the plants grown under low tunnel than those grown without
tunnel (602.87%). Stem diameter increase was higher in tunneled plants (265.63%)
than plants growing without tunnel (233.83%). The number of days to first harvest
was 117.97 for tunneled treatment compared to 119.9 days for plant growing with-
out tunnel.
Amer [1] carried out a study on protection effect of low-temperature on some
snap bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) varieties, green yield and some isozyme levels. It
was found that protected plants recorded higher vegetative growth and total, early
and exportable yields compared with those of the open field. Plants grown under
plastic low tunnels recorded higher vegetative growth and total-green yield com-
pared with agrel-covered plants. All the cultivars recorded higher vegetative growth,
total, early and exportable yields under plastic protection than under agrel or open
field condition.
Singh et al. [15] conducted a study on effects of plastic tunnel and mulching on
growth and yield of strawberry. It was found that use of plastic tunnel along with
control (without tunnel) were taken as main factors and mulching materials, via
black polyethylene, transparent polyethylene and straw mulch as subfactors and laid
out in split-plot design replicated four times. Use of plastic tunnel resulted in signifi-
cantly higher plant spread, dry matter accumulation and yield attributing characters
compared to control. Further, plastic tunnel enhanced earliness by 16 days besides
19% higher yield over control. Among different mulching materials, black polyeth-
ylene mulch was most suitable and resulted in 41% higher fruit yield compared to
straw mulch.
Slezak et al. [16] conducted a study on enhancing earliness of sweet corn by us-
ing transplants and plastic row covers. The technological variations were transplant-
ed plants with floating row cover, transplanted plants with no row cover, direct sown
plants with floating row cover, and direct sown plants with no row cover. The appli-
cation of direct sowing and floating row cover increased the earliness by 3 days for
6 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

germination and by 4 days for the total growing period, compared to the treatment
with no row cover. The 25–26 day transplant growing period reduced the growing
period by 15–18 days. Covering the seedling in the early season was beneficial for
frost protection. The combination of seedling grown plants and floating row cover
resulted in a 22-day earlier harvest, compared to the traditional technology.

1.4 FAVORABLE CLIMATIC CONDITIONS FOR PLANT GROWTH

UNDER LOW TUNNELS
Libik and Siwek [9] studied the changes in soil temperature affected by the applica-
tion of plastic covers in field production of lettuce and watermelon. At 8:00 a.m.,
the highest soil temperature was recorded under a low tunnel, where it was 3°C
higher than in the open ground from 29 March to 14 April and 5.9°C higher from 9
to 14 June. However, at 2:00 p.m., the highest soil temperature was recorded under
perforated plastic. By 2:00 p.m., the air temperature under the cover was between 35
and 40°C, which was 10°C higher than the ambient temperature. Marketable yield
of lettuce was highest under low tunnel (110.9% higher than in the open field).
Lamarrel et al. [8] conducted a study on influence of nitrogen fertilization, row
covers and cultivars on the production of day neutral strawberry. It was found that
the use of low tunnel was beneficial during winter, when the crop was protected
from frost and low temperature for higher productivity.
Hochmuth et al. [6] conducted a study on row covers for commercial vegetable
culture in Florida. It was found that row covers are used to enclose one or more rows
of plants to enhance the crop growth and production by increasing both air and soil
temperatures and reducing wind damage.

1.5 COVERAGE MATERIAL USED IN LOW TUNNEL

TECHNOLOGY
Monteiro et al. [11] carried out a study on perforated plastic film for low tunnels
cultivated with lettuce. During the spring, tunnels were tested with and without let-
tuce, with 0, 5, 10, 15 and 20% of perforated film area and in soil without tunnel.
The evaluation of the temperature inside the protected atmosphere was inversely
related to the percentage of perforation contrary to the humidity loss for the external
atmosphere. The production obtained under protected condition was higher and of
better quality.
Fu et al. [3] conducted a study on effects of different ventilation methods on
seedling growth of chili pepper. Chili pepper seeds were sown in beds under mini
plastic tunnels. When the outside temperature dropped to below 12°C, a normal
plastic tunnel was set up to cover all the mini tunnels. Different watering and ven-
tilation methods were tested. Based upon the seedling quality and yield, it was sug-
Low Tunnel Technology for Vegetable Crops in India 7

gested that the bed should be thoroughly irrigated before sowing, with no water-
ing needed until the seedlings had six leaves. During this period, the film of mini
plastic channels should be removed when 70% of the seedlings emerged and the
film should be replaced to cover the mini tunnels completely when the temperature
inside the normal plastic tunnel dropped to below 5°C.
Reghin et al. [12] conducted an experiment on mulching and row cover in let-
tuce crop. The parameters tested were total lettuce leaf number, frost-damaged
leaves, plant height, stem length, plant fresh weight, plant dry matter accumulation
and biomass. Weed population and dry weight were also assessed. Row cover with
white plastic produced positive results on yield, early harvest and quality, even with
the occurrence of frost. Frost damage in uncovered plots reduced the plant weight
by 34.62%. Black plastic mulch controlled weeds and resulted in 22.12% increase
in plant weight compared to rice straw.
Shiraiwa et al. [14] conducted a study on effects of tunnel covering plastic films
and fertilization methods on growth, bolting and yield in Welsh onion (AIlium fis-
tulosum L.) harvested in early summer. It was found that polyolefin plastic film
(PO) induced the highest mean air and soil temperatures, while dripped polyethyl-
ene plastic film (DP) showed the lowest temperatures. The coefficient of variance
on soil water content was higher in PO and nondripped polyethylene plastic film
(NDP). Application of an overall layer of fertilizer produced a lower bolting rate
than application of fertilizer in a planting furrow when using DP. However, op-
posite results were demonstrated with PO and NDP. The effects of covering films
and fertilizer application methods on the bolting rate and yield showed significant
interaction. Higher thermo keeping films suppressed flower initiation. When higher
thermo-keeping films were used to cover tunnels, management to control nitrogen
concentration is required to inhibit bolting in this culture.
Streck et al. [17] conducted a study on a system to grow lettuce inside low
plastic tunnels. Four different covers were tested to obtain a system to produce veg-
etables throughout the year under low tunnels without ventilation management. Let-
tuce cv. Regina was grown from October 1994 to July 1997. The winter treatments
comprised low tunnels with transparent polyethylene without perforations and with
conventional management according to the meteorological conditions; low tunnel
with 3% perforated transparent polyethylene and without ventilation management;
umbrella-like low tunnel with transparent polyethylene with open laterals through-
out the year and without ventilation management; and cropping without a tunnel
throughout the year (control). The treatments in the summer were similar to the win-
ter treatments with conventional and perforated covers replaced by a black plastic
screen with a 30% reduction in solar radiation. Results showed that umbrella-like
tunnels can be used instead of conventional low tunnels, which need daily manage-
ment. This technique allowed lettuce to grow throughout the year and only required
lateral adjustment according to the season.
8 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

1.6 FUTURE THRUSTS

Considerable research work has been conducted on low tunnel technology for
vegetable production during the past 20 years. However, still a significant work is
needed, such as: (a) Testing of low tunnel technology for different vegetables grown
under different regions of India; (b) the optimum tunnel heights for various veg-
etable crops; (c) the optimum polyethylene sheet thickness and effect of perforation
in poly sheets on vegetables crop; (d) adoption of low tunnel technology with drip
irrigation; (e) the economic analysis of low tunnel; (t) constraints in the adoption of
low tunnel technology for a wide variety of vegetable crops.

1.7 SUMMARY
Growing vegetable by low tunnel technology (row cover technology) has many ad-
vantages with regards to increase in yield, early harvesting of vegetables, conserv-
ing soil warmth, protecting plant from wind and frost and ultimately increasing the
net profit for the farmers. This review chapter provides better understanding and
facilitates optimal analysis for rational use of low tunnel technology for vegetable
production and will help to identify vegetables for adoption of low tunnel technol-
ogy by farmers.

KEYWORDS

•• cabbage
•• chili
•• corn
•• frost
•• green house
•• lettuce
•• low tunnel technology
•• plastic film
•• polysheet
•• row cover technology
•• snap bean
•• strawberry
•• tomato
•• vegetable garden
•• vegetables
•• yield
Low Tunnel Technology for Vegetable Crops in India 9

REFERENCES
1. Amer, A. H. (2004). Protection effect of low-temperature on some snap bean (Phaseolus vul-
garis L.) varieties green yield and some isozyme levels. Ann. Agric. Sci., Moshtohor, 42,
661–678.
2. Arin, L., Ankara, S. (2001). Effect of low tunnel, mulch and pruning on the yield and earliness
to tomato in unheated green house. J. Appl. Hort., Lucknow, 3, 23–27.
3. Fu, D. M., Huang, K. L., Wang, Y. H. (2004). Effects of different ventilation methods on seed-
ling growth of chili pepper. China Veg., 3, 35–36.
4. Helbacka, J. (2002). Row covers for vegetable gardens. King County Coop. Extn. Ser., Wash-
ington State Univ., Fact Sheet No. 19, USA.
5. Hemandez, J., Soriano, T., Morales, M. L., Castilla, N. (2004). Row covers for quality im-
provement of Chinese cabbage (Brassica rapa subsp. Penkinensis). New Zeal, J. Crop Hort.
Sci., 32, 379–388.
6. Hochmuth, G. J., Kostewicz, S., Stall, W. (2000). Row covers for commercial vegetable cul-
ture in Florida. Florida Coop. Extn. Ser., Univ. Florida, Circular 728.
7. Joublan, J. P., Vergara, M. (2003). Vegetative and productive development of strawberry
(Fragaria Ananassa Duch.) using row cover of spunbonded polyester with different densities.
Agro. Sur., 3, 37–47.
8. Lamarrel, M., Larean, M. J., Payette, S., Fortin, C. (1996). Influence of nitrogen fertilization,
row covers and cultivars on the production of day neutral strawberry. Canadian J. Soil Sci.,
76, 29–36.
9. Libik, A., Siwek, P. (1994). Changes in soil temperature affected by the application of ‘plastic
covers in field production of lettuce and water melon. Acta Hort., 371, 269–273.
10. Meesters, P. (1996). Early cultivation of Evita under tunnels. Fruit Belgc, 64, 129–131.
11. Monteiro, J. E. B. A., Silva, I. J. O., Piedade, S. M. (2002). Perforated plastic film for low
tunnels cultivated with lettuce. Revista Brasileira-de-Engenharia Agricola -Ambiental, 6,
535–538.
12. Reghin, M. Y., Purissimo, C., Feltrim, A. L., Foltran, M. A. (2005). Mulching and row cover
in lettuce crop. Scientia Agraria, 3, 69–77.
13. Saini, A. K., Singh, K. G. (2001). In: Annual report of All India Coordinated Research, Project
on application of plastics in agriculture. pp. 69–74. Dep. Soil Water Engg., Punjab Agricultural
University, Ludhiana, India.
14. Shiraiwa, N., Kashima, Y., Itai, A., Tanabe, K. (2007). Effects of tunnel covering plastic films
and fertilization methods on growth, bolting and yield in Welsh onion (Allium fistulosum L.)
harvested in early summer. Hort. Res., Japan, 6, 17.
15. Singh, R., Asrey, R., Kumar, S. (2006). Effect of plastic tunnel and mulching on growth and
yield of strawberry. Indian J. Hort., 63, 18–20.
16. Slezak, K., Orosz, F., Osz, A. (2006). Enhancing earliness of sweet corn by using transplants
and plastic row covers. Kertgazdasag Hort., 38, 14–19.
17. Streck, L., Schneider, F. M., Buriol, G. A., Luzza, J., Sandri, M. A. (2007). A system to grow
lettuce inside low plastic tunnels. Ciencia Rural, 37, 667–675.
10 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

18. Vishnuvardhana, Lingaiah, H. B., Khan, M. M., Raju, G. T. (2004). Economics of production
of cashew grafts in different propagation structures under eastern dry zone of Karnataka. Ca-
shew, 18, 39–44.

APPENDIX I: PHOTOS OF TUNNEL TECHNOLOGY

CHAPTER 2

PERFORMANCE OF SWEET PEPPER

UNDER LOW TUNNEL TECHNOLOGY
A. S. LODHI, ARUN KAUSHAL, and KAMAL G. SINGH

2.1 INTRODUCTION
Capsicum (Capsicum annuum L. var. grossum) or sweet pepper is one of the most
popular and high value vegetable crops grown for around the world. High demand
of fresh vegetables generate domestic and export market throughout the year. How-
ever, due to unfavorable climatic conditions, there is a flood of vegetables in the
season and very high priced vegetables in offseason. Vegetables can be cultivated
in off-season, with the introduction of green houses, low and high poly tunnel tech-
nology, in which temperature and moisture are controlled for specific growth of
vegetables. The production of vegetables all around the year enables the growers to
fully use the resources and supplement income from vegetable growing as compared
to other normal agricultural crops.
For sweet pepper, the optimum night temperature for quality fruit production is
16–18°C. When the temperature falls below 16°C for extended periods, growth and
yields usually decrease. It can tolerate day temperature above 30°C. Sweet pepper
are generally raised in open fields during main season thus causing glut in the mar-
ket, which lead to price crash in the season. Punjab has extreme low temperature
during winter and high temperature during summer, and therefore availability of
these vegetables are for a short span. This situation suggests us to modify microcli-
mate, which will not only increase the availability span of vegetables but also the
yield. Low tunnel technology (LTT) can help to supply sweet pepper in offseason
during early summer. With LTT, the farmers can capture the market in the early
season and may get good return of their produce.
Low tunnels or row covers are plastic film covered shelters with small frames,
producing greenhouse like effect. For low tunnels the sheet of the film is placed
over the plants in a single or double row with an arch-shaped frame for support.
The shape of the frame can vary but the farmer cannot work inside the low tunnels.

*In this chapter, the currency is expressed in Indian Rupees (1.00 US$ = Rs. 60.93; 1.00 Rs. = 0.02 US$).
12 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

These tunnels facilitate the entrapment of carbon dioxide. Low tunnels are being
used for producing high quality high valued nurseries and crops such as tomatoes,
cucumber, radish, beans, and capsicum.
Libik and Siwek [6] studied the changes in soil temperature affected by the
application of plastic covers in field production of lettuce and watermelon. It was
reported that at 8:00 a.m., soil temperature was 3°C higher than in the open ground
and by 2:00 p.m., the air temperature under the cover was 10–15°C higher than the
ambient temperature. Lamarrel et al. [5] was found that the use of low tunnel has
been beneficial during winter when the crop has to be protected from frost and low
temperature for higher productivity.

2.2 MATERIALS AND METHODS

Field experiment was conducted at the Research Farm of the Department of Soil and
Water Engineering, Punjab Agricultural University (PAU), Ludhiana – India from
October, 2008 to June, 2009. Ludhiana is situated at latitude of 30° 54’N and longi-
tude of 75������������������������������������������������������������������������
°�����������������������������������������������������������������������
48’E and at a mean height of 247 meters above sea level. Average mini-
mum and maximum temperature in the region varies from 3°C to 43°C, respectively.
A field plot measuring approximately 550.8 m2 (54 × 10.2 m2) was prepared and
the experiment was laid out in split plot design keeping five irrigation treatments in
main plots and three different heights of low tunnel in sub plots and replicated three
times. The irrigation treatments were taken as main plots as they require bigger plot
size. The three treatments of different heights of low tunnel made with tunnel frame
height of 45 cm (H1), 60 cm (H2) and 75 cm (H3) were used in the experiment. Low
tunnels were made with the 6 mm thick steel (iron) rods. The shape of the low tunnel
frame was made parabolic with the given base and desired height. A length of 15 cm
at the base was kept for inserting frame into the soil and inside loops was provided
on both side of frame for the support in addition to low tunnel height (Fig. 2.1).
Nursery production of sweet pepper of “Bharath” variety was done in poly
house on 13th of October 2008 and transplanting was done in the field on 17th of
November 2008. In paired sowing 60 cm wide beds were raised, row-to-row spac-
ing between paired rows was 45 cm and row spacing between pairs was 75 cm but
plant-to-plant spacing was kept as 30 cm. Irrigation was applied as needed. In the
single furrow, the row-to-row spacing was 60 cm and plant-to-plant spacing was 30
cm. As per the recommendations of PAU Ludhiana “Package of Practices for Veg-
etable Crops” [1], full package of plant protection measures were adopted during the
growth period of crop so as to have a disease free and weed free crop.
Performance of Sweet Pepper Under Low Tunnel Technology 13

FIGURE 2.1 Low tunnels of different heights in experimental field.

After transplanting of peppers, the crop was covered with poly sheet of 50-mi-
cron thickness with width of 150 cm, 185 cm and 240 cm over the low tunnel frame
heights of 45 cm, 60 cm and 75 cm, respectively, to protect crop from frost and
other injury (Fig. 2.1). The low tunnel frames were kept at beginning and at end of
paired row and distance between successive frames was kept as 2.50 m. The crop
was completely covered with low tunnels till 4th February 2009 and after that low
tunnels were removed.
To observe the effects of low tunnels on soil temperature, soil temperature ther-
mometers were installed at a depth of 10 cm in the field in 45 subplots under low
tunnel and outside in adjoining open field.
Maximum and minimum air temperature was recorded by placing thermometer
at middle in each subplot and outside in adjoining open field. The minimum tem-
perature was recorded at 7.30 a.m. in the morning and maximum temperature was
recorded at 2:30 p.m. in the afternoon. The observations were also recorded daily
at 7.30 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. respectively, till the tunnel cover was removed from the
crop.
Relative humidity was recorded by placing hygrometer in the middle in each
subplot and outside in adjoining open field. These observations were also recorded
daily at 7:30 a.m. and 2:30 p.m., till the tunnel cover was removed from the crop.
Maximum solar radiation inside the tunnel and outside in adjoining field was
taken out by using digital Lux meter (TES 1332) daily at 2:30 p.m., till the tunnel
cover was removed from the crop.

2.3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

To observe the effects of different treatments on microclimate inside the low tun-
nels: Air temperature, soil temperature, relative humidity and solar radiation were
14 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

recorded daily from the time when the crop was covered with low tunnels, till the
low tunnels were removed (i.e., 27th November 2008 to 4th February 2009). Mean
of seven days was calculated and used for analysis.

2.3.1 AIR TEMPERATURE

The measurement of recorded temperature showed that the thermal condition de-
pends on the tunnel height and the type of irrigation applied as presented in Table
2.1. At 7:30 a.m., the air temperature in low tunnel varied from 8.75°C to 13.42°C
and was higher by 3.25���������������������������������������������������������
°C�������������������������������������������������������
to 3.71�����������������������������������������������
°C���������������������������������������������
in comparison with open field where tempera-
ture varied from 5.50°C to 9.71°C during the low tunnel coverage period.
Among the tunnel height treatments, the air temperature was highest in H2
which varied from 9.33���������������������������������������������������������
°C�������������������������������������������������������
to 13.42����������������������������������������������
°C��������������������������������������������
, and was higher by 0.57��������������������
°C������������������
to 0.58����������
°C��������
in com-
parison with H1 treatment where temperature was lowest that varied from 8.75°C
to 12.85°C. Among the irrigation treatments, the air temperature was highest in I2,
and varied from 9.61���������������������������������������������������������
°��������������������������������������������������������
C to 13.42����������������������������������������������
°C��������������������������������������������
, and was higher by 0.76��������������������
°C������������������
to 0.86����������
°C��������
in com-
parison with I5 treatment where temperature was lowest with a variation of 8.75°C
to 12.66°C. For the treatment combinations, the air temperature was highest with
a variation of 9.75°C to 13.42°C and was higher by 1°C H2I2 in comparison with
I5H1 treatment where temperature was lowest with a variation of varied 8.75°C to
12.42°C.
At 2:30 p.m., the air temperature varied from 23.8°C to 36.8°C and was higher
by 6.38°C to 9.3°C in low tunnel compared to open field where temperature varied
from 17.42°C to 27.5��������������������������������������������������������
°C������������������������������������������������������
during the low tunnel coverage period. Among the tun-
nel height treatments, the air temperature was highest with a variation of 24.42°C
to 36.8°C and was higher by 0.14°C to 0.62°C in H2 compared to H1 treatment
where temperature was lowest with a variation of 23.8°C to 36.66°C. Among the
irrigation treatments, the air temperature was highest with a variation of 25.94°C to
36.8°C and was higher by 1.1°C to 2.14°C in I2 treatment compared to I5 treatment
where temperature was lowest with a variation of 23.8����������������������������
°C��������������������������
to 35.7������������������
°C����������������
. For the treat-
ment combination, the air temperature was highest with a variation of 26.61°C to
36.8°C and was higher by 2.81°C to 3.23°C in I2H2 treatment compared to I5H1
treatment where temperature was lowest with a variation of 23.8�������������������
°C�����������������
to 33.57��������
°C������
. Dif-
ferences in temperature between low tunnels treatments may be due to many factors
including initial air, soil temperature, soil moisture, air volume in tunnel, convective
and conductive heat exchange characteristics of the material and transmissibility to
long wave radiation.
These results were in close proximity with those of Wolfe et al. [7], who re-
ported 5°C to 20°C rise in daytime air temperature under row covers as compared
with open field.
Performance of Sweet Pepper Under Low Tunnel Technology 15

TABLE 2.1 Variation of Air Temperature In Different Heights of Low Tunnel With Various
Irrigation Treatments

Week after Mean Mean Air Temperature (°C)

covering of Air
crop Temp.
(°C)
(Open
Field)
Low Tunnel Heights
45 cm 60 cm 75 cm
7:30 2:30 7:30 2:30 7:30 2:30 p.m. 7:30 2:30
a.m. p.m. a.m. p.m. a.m. a.m. p.m.
I1 = IW/ CPE= 0.60

1. (27 7.85 24.71 10.90 32.47 11.37 33.42 11.14 33.09

Nov−3
Dec)
3. (11−17 7.85 22.42 11.09 31.37 11.42 32.90 11.18 32.37
Dec)
4. (18–24 9.28 20.85 12.33 27.90 12.61 28.94 12.56 28.66
Dec)
5. (25–31 7.42 17.42 10.71 24.94 11.33 25.80 10.99 25.28
Dec)
6. (1−7 Jan) 6.16 18.00 9.33 26.28 9.56 27.09 9.51 26.95
7. (8–14 5.50 23.42 9.04 30.04 9.52 31.24 9.28 30.61
Jan)
8. (15−21 8.28 22.57 11.42 30.85 11.61 31.71 11.52 31.14
Jan)
9. (22−28 8.66 23.50 11.85 30.18 11.99 31.56 11.95 31.28
Jan)
10. (29 7.00 27.50 10.18 35.56 10.33 36.56 10.23 36.14
Jan–4 Feb)
I2 = IW/CPE= 0.75

1. (27 7.85 24.71 11.33 33.38 11.90 33.99 11.47 33.94

Nov−3
Dec)
2. (4–10 9.71 23.14 12.85 31.61 13.42 32.56 13.19 32.04
Dec)
16 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

TABLE 2.1 (Continued)

3. (11−17 7.85 22.42 11.28 32.37 11.76 33.04 11.61 32.90

Dec)
4. (18–24 9.28 20.85 12.61 29.33 12.90 29.80 12.80 29.61
Dec)
5. (25–31 7.42 17.42 11.23 25.94 11.66 26.61 11.42 26.18
Dec)
6. (1−7 Jan) 6.16 18.00 9.71 27.28 9.95 27.99 9.85 27.47
8. (15−21 8.28 22.57 11.71 31.56 11.95 31.95 11.80 31.80
Jan)
9. (22−28 8.66 23.50 12.09 31.71 12.52 31.99 12.23 31.85
Jan)
10. (29 7.00 27.50 10.37 36.66 10.61 36.80 10.47 36.95
Jan–4 Feb)
I3 = IW/CPE= 0.90

1. (27 7.85 24.71 11.04 32.90 11.76 33.75 11.33 33.61

Nov−3
Dec)
2. (4–10 9.71 23.14 12.76 30.99 13.23 32.23 13.04 31.04
Dec)
3. (11−17 7.85 22.42 11.18 31.8 11.61 32.76 11.33 32.75
Dec)
4. (18–24 9.28 20.85 12.47 28.75 12.71 29.42 12.66 28.94
Dec)
5. (25–31 7.42 17.42 11.14 25.33 11.52 26.37 11.28 25.90
Dec)
6. (1−7 Jan) 6.16 18.00 9.56 26.99 9.71 27.47 9.61 27.23
7. (8–14 5.50 23.42 9.18 30.23 9.56 31.61 9.47 31.18
Jan)
8. (15−21 8.28 22.57 11.52 31.18 11.85 31.66 11.66 31.33
Jan)
9. (22−28 8.66 23.50 12.04 31.66 12.33 31.71 12.13 31.61
Jan)
10. (29 7.00 27.50 10.23 36.42 10.47 36.75 10.37 36.52
Jan–4 Feb)
I4 = Paired row planting

1. (27 7.85 24.71 11.04 32.90 11.76 33.75 11.33 33.61

Nov−3
Dec)
Performance of Sweet Pepper Under Low Tunnel Technology 17

TABLE 2.1 (Continued)

2. (4–10 9.71 23.14 12.76 30.99 13.23 32.23 13.04 31.04

Dec)
3. (11−17 7.85 22.42 11.18 31.8 11.61 32.76 11.33 32.75
Dec)
4. (18–24 9.28 20.85 12.47 28.75 12.71 29.42 12.66 28.94
Dec)
5. (25–31 7.42 17.42 11.14 25.33 11.52 26.37 11.28 25.90
Dec)
6. (01−7 6.16 18.00 9.56 26.99 9.71 27.47 9.61 27.23
Jan)
7. (8–14 5.50 23.42 9.18 30.23 9.56 31.61 9.47 31.18
Jan)
8. (15−21 8.28 22.57 11.52 31.18 11.85 31.66 11.66 31.33
Jan)
9. (22−28 8.66 23.50 12.04 31.66 12.33 31.71 12.13 31.61
Jan)
10. (29 7.00 27.50 10.23 36.42 10.47 36.75 10.37 36.52
Jan–4 Feb)
I5 = Single row planting

1. (27 7.85 24.71 10.47 31.23 10.95 32.18 10.61 31.33

Nov−3
Dec)
3. (11−17 7.85 22.42 10.85 30.18 11.09 31.90 10.94 31.33
Dec)
4. (18–24 9.28 20.85 11.90 27.32 12.33 27.66 12.14 27.56
Dec)
5. (25–31 7.42 17.42 10.42 23.80 10.99 24.42 10.71 24.18
Dec)
6. (1−7 Jan) 6.16 18.00 8.85 24.42 9.33 25.04 9.04 24.90
7. (8–14 5.50 23.42 8.75 27.90 9.37 29.04 8.90 29.23
Jan)
8. (15−21 8.28 22.57 11.23 30.28 11.47 30.94 11.33 30.47
Jan)
9. (22−28 8.66 23.50 11.56 28.99 11.76 30.42 11.66 29.94
Jan)
10. (29 7.00 27.50 10.04 33.57 10.18 35.70 10.09 34.61
Jan–4 Feb)
18 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

2.3.2 SOIL TEMPERATURE

The measurement of recorded soil temperature also depends on the tunnel height
and the type of irrigation applied as presented in Table 2.2. At 7:30 a.m., the soil
temperature in low tunnel varied from 8.71°C to 16.61°C and was higher by 1.29°C
to 4.76°C in comparison with open field where soil temperature varied from 7.42°C
to 11.85������������������������������������������������������������������������
°C����������������������������������������������������������������������
during the low tunnel coverage period. Among the tunnel height treat-
ments, the soil temperature in H2 treatment was highest with a variation of 9.23°C
to 16.61°C and was higher by 0.52°C to 1°C in comparison with H1 treatment where
soil temperature was lowest with a variation of 8.71°C to 15.61°C.
Among the irrigation treatments, the soil temperature in I2 treatment was high-
est with a variation of 10.57°C to 16.61°C and was higher by 0.95°C to 1.86°C in
comparison with I5 treatment where soil temperature was lowest with a variation of
8.7���������������������������������������������������������������������������������
°C�������������������������������������������������������������������������������
to 15.7�����������������������������������������������������������������������
°C���������������������������������������������������������������������
. For the treatment combinations, the soil temperature in I2H2 treat-
ment was highest with a variation of 11.13°C to 16.61°C and was higher by 2.42°C
to 2.62°C in comparison with I5H1 treatment where soil temperature was lowest
with a variation of 8.71°C to 13.99°C.
At 2:30 p.m., the soil temperature in low tunnel varied from 20.52°C to 27.95°C
and was higher by 3.52���������������������������������������������������������
°C�������������������������������������������������������
to 6.38�����������������������������������������������
°C���������������������������������������������
in comparison with open field where tempera-
ture varied from 17°C to 21.57°C during the low tunnel coverage period. Among
the tunnel height treatments, the soil temperature in H2 treatment was highest with
a variation of 21.76°C to 27.95�������������������������������������������������
°C�����������������������������������������������
and was higher by 0.48������������������������
°C����������������������
to 1.24��������������
°C������������
in compari-
son with H1 treatment where temperature was lowest with a variation of 20.52°C to
27.47°C. Among the irrigation treatments, the soil temperature in I2 treatment was
highest with a variation of 23°C to 27.95°C and was higher by 1.43°C to 2.48°C in
comparison with I5 treatment where soil temperature was lowest with a variation of
20.52°C to 26.52°C. For the treatment combinations, the soil temperature in I2H2
treatment was highest with a variation of 23.76°C to 27.95°C and was higher by
1.43°C to 2°C in comparison with I5H1 treatment where temperature was lowest
with a variation of 21.76°C to 26.52°C. Differences in soil temperature among low
tunnels treatments may be due to many factors including initial air, soil temperature,
soil moisture, air volume in tunnel, convective and conductive heat exchange char-
acteristics of the material, surface area of the tunnel to volume ratio, and transmis-
sibility to long wave radiation.
Performance of Sweet Pepper Under Low Tunnel Technology 19

TABLE 2.2 Variations In Soil Temperature In Different Heights of Low Tunnel With
Various Irrigation Treatments

Week Mean Mean Soil Temperature (°C)

after Soil
covering Temp.
of crop (°C)
(Open
Field)
Low Tunnel Heights
45 cm 60 cm 75 cm
7:30 2:30 7:30 2:30 7:30 2:30 7:30 2:30
a.m. p.m. a.m. p.m. a.m. p.m. a.m. p.m.
I1 = IW/ CPE= 0.60

1. (27 11.00 19.14 13.28 23.14 13.75 24.19 13.61 23.85

Nov−3
Dec)
2. (4–10 11.85 20.57 13.95 25.23 14.66 26.14 14.28 25.71
Dec)
3. (11−17 9.71 17.42 12.37 22.47 12.90 22.95 12.66 22.66
Dec)
4. (18–24 11.14 20.85 13.47 25.38 14.09 26.85 13.76 25.9
Dec)
5. (25–31 11.28 18.14 13.71 22.52 14.04 23.38 13.99 23.00
Dec)
6. (01−7 10.66 19.14 13.28 23.95 13.94 25.04 13.61 24.47
Jan)
7. (08–14 7.42 17.00 10.18 22.33 10.80 23.19 10.42 22.61
Jan)
8. (15−21 10.42 19.57 15.04 23.61 16.00 24.47 15.56 24.14
Jan)
9. (22−28 9.71 19.71 12.38 23.19 12.75 24.04 12.61 23.57
Jan)
10. (29 10.50 21.57 13.85 26.28 14.04 27.28 13.99 26.61
Jan–4
Feb)
20 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

I2 = IW/CPE= 0.75

1. (27 11.00 19.14 13.80 24.23 14.28 25.18 14.14 24.62

Nov −3
Dec)
2. (4–10 11.85 20.57 14.37 26.38 15.09 26.85 14.71 26.52
Dec)
3. (11−17 9.71 17.42 12.95 23.00 13.37 23.76 13.18 23.28
Dec)
4. (18–24 11.14 20.85 13.94 26.85 14.71 27.52 14.47 27.09
Dec)
5. (25–31 11.28 18.14 14.23 23.42 15.09 24.33 14.47 23.71
Dec)
6. (1−7 10.66 19.14 13.99 25.04 14.37 25.66 14.13 25.23
Jan)
7. (8–14 7.42 17.00 10.57 23.00 11.13 23.76 10.76 23.23
Jan)
8. (15−21 10.42 19.57 15.61 24.71 16.61 26.09 15.85 25.61
Jan)
9. (22−28 9.71 19.71 12.90 24.19 13.23 25.33 13.00 24.95
Jan)
10. (29 10.50 21.57 14.04 27.47 14.61 27.95 14.37 27.66
Jan–4
Feb)
I3 = IW/CPE= 0.90

1. (27 11.00 19.14 13.42 24.09 13.95 24.85 13.71 24.57

Nov−3
Dec)
2. (4–10 11.85 20.57 14.23 26.00 14.80 26.62 14.56 26.43
Dec)
3. (11−17 9.71 17.42 12.75 22.71 13.18 23.38 12.99 23.14
Dec)
4. (18–24 11.14 20.85 13.85 26.14 14.42 27.04 14.18 26.9
Dec)
5. (25–31 11.28 18.14 13.99 23.14 14.61 23.95 14.33 23.57
Dec)
Performance of Sweet Pepper Under Low Tunnel Technology 21

TABLE 2.2 (Continued)

6. (1−7 10.66 19.14 13.75 24.76 14.14 25.33 13.95 24.99
Jan)
7. (8–14 7.42 17.00 10.33 22.66 10.94 23.52 10.52 22.95
Jan)
8. (15−21 10.42 19.57 15.37 24.33 16.13 24.80 15.71 24.76
Jan)
9. (22−28 9.71 19.71 12.61 23.99 13.04 24.95 12.90 24.52
Jan)
10. (29 10.50 21.57 13.94 26.99 14.37 27.52 14.14 27.14
Jan–4
Feb)
I4 = Paired row planting

1. (27 11.00 19.14 13.09 22.57 13.61 23.81 13.47 23.28

Nov−3
Dec)
2. (4–10 11.85 20.57 13.80 24.42 14.47 25.71 14.14 25.09
Dec)
3. (11−17 9.71 17.42 12.09 21.19 12.70 22.76 12.37 22.33
Dec)
4. (18–24 11.14 20.85 13.28 24.95 13.85 25.95 13.71 25.57
Dec)
5. (25–31 11.28 18.14 13.51 21.71 13.85 23.09 13.71 22.19
Dec)
6. (1−7 10.66 19.14 13.04 23.05 13.71 24.61 13.37 24.19
Jan)
7. (8–14 7.42 17.00 9.94 21.38 10.33 22.23 10.04 21.90
Jan)
8. (15−21 10.42 19.57 14.95 23.43 15.75 24.00 15.37 23.76
Jan)
9. (22−28 9.71 19.71 12.23 22.76 12.52 23.62 12.37 23.04
Jan)
10. (29 10.50 21.57 13.66 25.90 13.85 26.81 13.76 26.52
Jan–4
Feb)
22 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

TABLE 2.2 (Continued)

I5 = Single row planting

1. (27 11.00 19.14 12.95 22.09 13.33 23.47 13.18 22.62

Nov−3
Dec)
2. (4–10 11.85 20.57 13.28 24.75 14.13 25.38 13.80 24.19
Dec)
3. (11−17 9.71 17.42 11.89 20.52 12.33 21.76 12.09 21.57
Dec)
4. (18–24 11.14 20.85 13.04 23.76 13.56 25.61 13.33 24.90
Dec)
5. (25–31 11.28 18.14 13.37 21.33 13.71 22.42 13.47 21.90
Dec)
6. (1−7 10.66 19.14 12.90 22.28 13.42 24.38 13.04 23.42
Jan)
7. (8–14 7.42 17.00 8.71 21.09 9.23 22.14 8.95 21.42
Jan)
8. (15−21 10.42 19.57 13.99 22.81 15.66 23.62 14.56 23.19
Jan)
9. (22−28 9.71 19.71 11.61 22.24 12.23 22.80 11.99 22.47
Jan)
10. (29 10.50 21.57 13.04 25.42 13.56 26.52 13.23 26.14
Jan–4
Feb)

The above mentioned results were in close proximity with those of Hemphill
[4] who reported that row covers increased daily mean soil temperature by 1 to 4°C
over bare ground. The results are also in line with those of Gaye and Maurer [3] who
reported that row cover elevated mean soil temperature 1 to 6°C and promoted plant
growth compared with bare soil.

2.3.3 RELATIVE HUMIDITY

The measurement of recorded relative humidity also depends on the tunnel height
and the type of irrigation applied as presented in Table 2.3. At 7:30 a.m., the relative
Performance of Sweet Pepper Under Low Tunnel Technology 23

humidity in low tunnel varied from 87.59% to 94.13% and was lower by 4.58% to
6.55% in comparison with open field where relative humidity varied from 94.14%
to 98.71% during the low tunnel coverage period. Among the tunnel height treat-
ments, the relative humidity in H3 treatment was highest with a variation of 88.4%
to 94.00% and was higher by 0.01% to 0.81% in comparison with H1 treatment
where relative humidity was lowest with a variation of 87.59% to 93.99%. Among
the irrigation treatments, the relative humidity in I3 treatment was highest with a
variation of 89.3% to 94.13% and was higher by 1.23% to 1.71% in comparison
with I5 treatment where relative humidity was lowest with a variation of 87.59% to
92.9%. For the treatment combinations, the relative humidity in I3H3 treatment was
highest with a variation of 89.8% to 93.8% and was higher by 1.19% to 2.23% in
comparison with I5H1 treatment where relative humidity was lowest with a varia-
tion of 87.57% to 92.61%. The decrease in the relative humidity from the open field
may be due to dew effect on the poly sheet in the morning.
At 2:30 p.m., the relative humidity in low tunnel varied from 59.71% to 91.66%
and was higher by 11.52% to 17.57% in comparison with open field where rela-
tive humidity varied from 42.14% to 80.14% during the low tunnel coverage pe-
riod. Among the tunnel height treatments, the relative humidity in H2 treatment was
highest with a variation of 61.75% to 91.66% and was higher by 1.86% to 2.04% in
comparison with H1 treatment where relative humidity was lowest with a variation
of 59.71% to 89.8%. Among the irrigation treatments, the relative humidity in I2
treatment was highest with a variation of 63.71% to 91.66% and was higher by 2%
to 4% in comparison with I5 treatment where relative humidity was lowest with a
variation of 59.71% to 89.66%. For the treatment combinations, the relative humid-
ity in I2H2 treatment was highest with a variation of 67.04% to 91.66% and was
higher by 3.57% to 7.28% in comparison with I4H3 treatment where relative humid-
ity was lowest with a variation of 59.76% to 88.09%. Differences in relative humid-
ity between low tunnels treatments may be due to many factors including initial air,
soil temperature, soil moisture, air volume in tunnel, convective and conductive heat
exchange characteristics of the material, surface area of the tunnel to volume ratio
and transmissibility to long wave radiation. The data also reveals that the low tunnel
effect decreases the relative humidity in the morning but in the daytime it increases
the relative humidity to provide favorable condition for plant growth. These results
were in close proximity with those of Chaugule et al. [2].
24 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

TABLE 2.3 Variation of Relative Humidity In Different Heights of Low Tunnel With
Various Irrigation Treatments
Week After Mean Mean Relative Humidity (%)
Covering of Relative
Crop Humidity
(%)
(Open
Field)
Low Tunnel Heights
45 cm 60 cm 75 cm
7:30 2:30 7:30 2:30 7:30 2:30 7:30 2:30
a.m. p.m. a.m. p.m. a.m. p.m. a.m. p.m.
I1 = IW/ CPE= 0.60

1. (27 Nov−3 98.71 42.14 93.76 63.75 93.52 65.33 94.00 64.8
Dec)
2. (4–10 Dec) 98.14 48.85 91.8 66.33 91.9 67.04 92.09 66.99
3. (11−17 Dec) 97.71 51.42 90.47 67.47 90.61 69.37 90.87 68.09
4. (18–24 Dec) 94.14 65.42 88.78 77.99 88.87 80.47 89.21 78.76
5. (25–31 Dec) 98.14 80.14 91.9 88.04 92.47 90.8 93.18 89.09
6. (1−7 Jan) 96.85 62 89.95 75.85 90.42 76.8 90.8 76.37
7. (8–14 Jan) 97.42 58.85 92.13 74.09 92.61 75.56 92.76 74.85
8. (15−21 Jan) 96.57 68.71 90.33 82.18 90.66 83.09 91.13 82.66
9. (22−28 Jan) 94.14 66 88.71 78.94 88.85 79.56 89.23 79.18
10. (29 Jan–4 97.57 57.28 89.66 71.71 90.28 74.23 90.9 73.9
Feb)
I2 = IW/CPE= 0.75

1. (27 Nov−3 98.71 42.14 93.42 63.71 93.9 67.04 93.61 65.56
Dec)
2. (4–10 Dec) 98.14 48.85 91.85 66.28 91.9 68.28 92.47 67.52
3. (11−17 Dec) 97.71 51.42 90.4 68.23 90.83 69.9 91.54 68.85
4. (18–24 Dec) 94.14 65.42 88.26 79.18 89.16 82.04 89.73 79.8
5. (25–31 Dec) 98.14 80.14 92.37 89.8 92.47 91.66 92.56 90.57
6. (1−7 Jan) 96.85 62 90.28 75.99 90.61 78.28 90.99 77.71
Performance of Sweet Pepper Under Low Tunnel Technology 25

TABLE 2.2 (Continued)

7. (8–14 Jan) 97.42 58.85 92.56 74.75 92.8 77.28 93.04 76.18
8. (15−21 Jan) 96.57 68.71 90.66 82.18 91.18 83.47 91.33 81.85
9. (22−28 Jan) 94.14 66 89.18 81.09 89.23 83.04 89.57 81.61
10. (29 Jan–4 97.57 57.28 90.18 73.8 90.37 75.18 91.37 74.04
Feb)
I3 = IW/CPE= 0.90

1. (27 Nov−3 98.71 42.14 93.99 63.61 94.13 66.23 93.8 64.09
Dec)
2. (4–10 Dec) 98.14 48.85 92.09 66.04 92.13 67.8 92.66 66.09
3. (11−17 Dec) 97.71 51.42 91.21 66.47 91.73 69.61 91.83 68.42
4. (18–24 Dec) 94.14 65.42 89.3 78.75 89.73 80.47 90.11 79.94
5. (25–31 Dec) 98.14 80.14 92.85 88.94 93.33 90.75 93.47 89.39
6. (1−7 Jan) 96.85 62 90.94 75.94 91.42 76.85 91.99 76.71
7. (8–14 Jan) 97.42 58.85 92.61 73.99 92.99 75.85 93.71 74.37
8. (15−21 Jan) 96.57 68.71 91.14 80.23 91.33 83.04 91.9 82.28
9. (22−28 Jan) 94.14 66 89.37 80.51 89.61 81.13 89.8 81.09
10. (29 Jan–4 97.57 57.28 91.66 72.23 92.8 74.66 93.13 73.8
Feb)
I4 = Paired row planting

1. (27 Nov−3 98.71 42.14 92.85 61.23 93.23 62.99 93.33 59.76
Dec)
2. (4–10 Dec) 98.14 48.85 91.04 65.18 91.23 65.42 91.52 63.42
3. (11−17 Dec) 97.71 51.42 90.59 66.14 90.78 67.18 91.44 64.33
4. (18–24 Dec) 94.14 65.42 88.54 77.23 88.73 78.33 89.16 76.66
5. (25–31 Dec) 98.14 80.14 91.94 88.37 91.99 88.8 92.13 88.09
6. (1−7 Jan) 96.85 62 89.47 74.09 90.18 75.42 90.23 74.13
7. (8–14 Jan) 97.42 58.85 91.71 73.61 91.94 72.32 92.32 71.18
8. (15−21 Jan) 96.57 68.71 90.04 82.09 90.56 81.18 90.9 80.37
9. (22−28 Jan) 94.14 66 88.37 75.71 88.42 76.71 88.47 75.56
10. (29 Jan–4 97.57 57.28 89.8 72.14 90.09 71.71 90.8 69.75
Feb)
I5 = Single row planting
26 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

TABLE 2.2 (Continued)

1. (27 Nov−3 98.71 42.14 92.61 59.71 92.85 61.75 92.9 60.04
Dec)
2. (4–10 Dec) 98.14 48.85 91.04 63.13 91.18 64.42 91.37 63.28
3. (11−17 Dec) 97.71 51.42 89.49 64.13 90.3 65.14 90.78 64.61
4. (18–24 Dec) 94.14 65.42 87.59 75.85 88.11 77.57 88.4 76.85
5. (25–31 Dec) 98.14 80.14 91.13 88.9 91.51 89.66 91.7 89.18
6. (1−7 Jan) 96.85 62 89.37 73.04 89.61 74.09 88.99 73.42
7. (8–14 Jan) 97.42 58.85 91.33 72.56 91.56 72.28 91.66 71.47
8. (15−21 Jan) 96.57 68.71 89.71 81.8 89.76 81.75 89.9 81.56
9. (22−28 Jan) 94.14 66 88.42 76.28 88.47 77.37 87.9 76.75
10. (29 Jan–4 97.57 57.28 88.76 71.56 89.71 70.95 89.76 69.85
Feb)

2.3.4 SOLAR RADIATION

The measurement of solar radiation depends on the tunnel height and the type of
irrigation applied as presented in Table 2.4. At 2:30 p.m., the solar radiation in low
tunnel, which varied from 19,614 lux to 43,242.66 lux, was lower by 16.65% to
37.45% in comparison with open field whose solar radiation varied from 31,360
lux to 51,885.71 lux during the low tunnel coverage period. Among the tunnel
height treatments, in H3 treatment the solar radiation was highest which varied from
19,861.66 lux to 43,242.66 lux and was higher by 1.26% to 9.01% in comparison
with H1 treatment whose solar radiation was lowest which varied from 19614 lux to
39,666.33 lux. Among the irrigation treatments, in I5 treatment the solar radiation
was highest which varied from 19,718.66 lux to 43,242.66 lux and was higher by
0.53% to 6.97% in comparison with I1 treatment whose solar radiation was lowest
which varied from 19,614 lux to 40,423.33 lux. For the treatment combination in
I5H3 treatment the solar radiation was highest which varied from 19,994.66 lux to
43,242.66 lux and was higher by 1.94% to 10.97% in comparison with I1H1 treat-
ment whose solar radiation was lowest which varied from 19,614 lux to 38,966.33
lux. Differences in solar radiation between low tunnels treatments may be due to dif-
ferent surface area of the tunnel and soil moisture distribution. The above mentioned
results were in close proximity with those of Siwek et al. (1994) who reported that
on average 70.3% of radiation reached to the plants inside the tunnel.
Performance of Sweet Pepper Under Low Tunnel Technology 27

TABLE 2.4 Variation of Solar Radiation In Different Heights of Low Tunnel Under Various
Irrigation Treatments
Week Mean Solar Mean Solar Radiation (Lux)
after Radiation
covering (Lux)
of crop (Open Field)
Low Tunnel Heights
45 cm 60 cm 75 cm
I1 = IW/ CPE= 0.60

1. (27 40,328.57 26,361.66 27,647.00 28,399.66

Nov−3
Dec)
2. (4–10 50,471.42 38,304.33 40,166.33 40,423.33
Dec)
3. (11−17 45,514.28 30,399.66 31,409.00 33,032.66
Dec)
4. (18–24 48,614.28 35,270.66 37,866.33 38,147.00
Dec)
5. (25–31 31,360.00 19,614.00 19,747.33 19,866.00
Dec)
6. (1−7 33,342.85 23,380.33 23,557.00 23,904.33
Jan)
7. (8–14 44,128.57 29,647.00 29,871.00 30,285.00
Jan)
8. (15−21 51,885.71 38,966.33 39,728.33 39,842.33
Jan)
9. (22−28 46,342.85 33,914.00 34,499.66 34,694.66
Jan)
10. (29 51,442.85 36,556.66 37,004.33 37,104.66
Jan–4 Feb)
I2 = IW/CPE= 0.75

1. (27 40,328.57 27,218.66 27,518.66 28,385.33

Nov−3
Dec)
28 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

TABLE 2.3 (Continued)

2. (4–10 50,471.42 39,176.00 40,361.66 41,737.66

Dec)
3. (11−17 45,514.28 31,118.66 31,823.33 32,261.33
Dec)
4. (18–24 48,614.28 36,399.66 37,899.66 39,690.00
Dec)
5. (25–31 31,360.00 19,695.00 19,733.00 19,914.00
Dec)
6. (1−7 33,342.85 23,328.33 23,666.33 23,899.66
Jan)
7. (8–14 44,128.57 29,380.66 29,875.66 30,161.66
Jan)
8. (15−21 51,885.71 38,909.00 39,666.00 39,885.33
Jan)
9. (22−28 46,342.85 34,480.33 34,628.33 34,842.66
Jan)
10. (29 51,442.85 36,894.66 37,066.33 37,290.33
Jan–4 Feb)
I3 = IW/CPE= 0.90

1. (27 40,328.57 27,037.66 27,499.33 27,818.66

Nov−3
Dec)
2. (4–10 50,471.42 39,533.00 40,076.00 41,885.00
Dec)
3. (11−17 45,514.28 30,652.00 31,542.66 32,299.66
Dec)
4. (18–24 48,614.28 37,647.33 37,704.33 37,847.33
Dec)
5. (25–31 31,360.00 19,485.33 19,752.00 19,899.66
Dec)
6. (1−7 33,342.85 23,213.66 23,490.00 23,756.66
Jan)
7. (8–14 44,128.57 29,294.66 29,842.33 30,242.33
Jan)
Performance of Sweet Pepper Under Low Tunnel Technology 29

TABLE 2.3 (Continued)

8. (15−21 51,885.71 39,299.66 39,475.66 39,875.66

Jan)
9. (22−28 46,342.85 33,833.00 34,633.00 34,880.66
Jan)
10. (29 51,442.85 36,918.66 37,014.00 37,175.66
Jan–4 Feb)
I4 = Paired row planting

1. (27 40,328.57 26,814.00 27,347.00 27,609.00

Nov−3
Dec)
2. (4–10 50,471.42 39,666.33 40,433.00 41,304.33
Dec)
3. (11−17 45,514.28 30,318.66 31,856.66 32,807.66
Dec)
4. (18–24 48,614.28 35,409.33 37,928.00 38,047.00
Dec)
5. (25–31 31,360.00 19,633.00 19,761.33 19,861.66
Dec)
6. (1−7 33,342.85 23,109.00 23,433.00 23,785.33
Jan)
7. (8–14 44,128.57 29,704.33 29,928.33 30,190.00
Jan)
8. (15−21 51,885.71 39,375.66 39,599.66 39,795.00
Jan)
9. (22−28 46,342.85 33,380.33 34,490.00 34,652.00
Jan)
10. (29 51,442.85 36,809.00 37,128.33 37,290.33
Jan–4 Feb)
I5 = Single row planting

1. (27 40,328.57 28,123.33 28,795.00 29,999.66

Nov−3
Dec)
30 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

TABLE 2.3 (Continued)

2. (4–10 50,471.42 39,661.66 40,609.00 43,242.66

Dec)
3. (11−17 45,514.28 32,566.00 33,209.00 33,752.00
Dec)
4. (18–24 48,614.28 38,356.66 38,766.33 39,485.33
Dec)
5. (25–31 31,360.00 19,718.66 19,832.66 19,994.66
Dec)
6. (1−7 33,342.85 23,499.33 23,604.33 23,956.66
Jan)
7. (8–14 44,128.57 29,723.33 29,990.00 30,528.33
Jan)
8. (15−21 51,885.71 39,370.66 39,933.00 39,932.66
Jan)
9. (22−28 46,342.85 34,447.00 34,618.66 34,780.66
Jan)
10. (29 51,442.85 36,999.66 37,185.33 37,352.00
Jan–4 Feb)

2.4 CONCLUSIONS
The mean air temperature was higher in low tunnel than open field by 3.25°C to
3.71°C at 7:30 a.m. and 6.38°C to 9.30°C at 2:30 p.m., respectively. The mean
soil temperature was higher in low tunnel than open field by 1.29°C to 4.76°C at
7:30 a.m. and 3.52°C to 6.30°C at 2:30 p.m., respectively. The highest air and soil
temperatures were observed in H2 and I2 treatments among the tunnel height and ir-
rigation treatments, respectively. For the combinations, I2H2 treatment gave higher
air and soil temperature than other treatment combinations.
The highest relative humidity was observed at 7:30 a.m. and lowest at 2:30 p.m.
At 7:30 a.m., mean relative humidity in the low tunnels was lowered by 4.58% to
6.55% than open field, however at 2:30 p.m. it was higher by 11.52% to 17.57%.
The highest relative humidity was observed in H3 and I2 treatments among the tun-
nel height and irrigation treatments, respectively. For the combinations, I3H3 gave
higher mean relative humidity at 7:30 a.m., but at 2:30 p.m. combination I2H2 treat-
ment gave higher relative humidity than other treatment combinations.
The mean solar radiation under low tunnels was lowered by 16.65% to 37.45%
as compared to open field at 2:30 p.m. The highest solar radiation was observed in
H3 and I5 treatments in the tunnel height and irrigation treatments, respectively. For
Performance of Sweet Pepper Under Low Tunnel Technology 31

the combinations, higher mean solar radiation in I5H3 treatment was observed than
other treatments combinations.

2.5 SUMMARY
Field experiment was conducted in the Department of Soil and Water Engineering,
PAU, Ludhiana in 2008–2009 to study the effects of low tunnel environment on
sweet pepper (Capsicum annuum L. var. grossum). The experiment was laid out
in split plot design keeping five irrigation treatments (drip irrigation with IW/CPE
ratio of 0.60 (I1), 0.75 (I2), 0.90 (I3), furrow irrigation with paired row planting (I4)
and single row planting (I5)), in main plots and three different low tunnel heights
(45 cm (H1), 60 cm (H2) and 75 cm (H3)) in sub plots and replicated three times.
The air temperature, soil temperature, relative humidity, solar radiations were ob-
served. For the combinations, I2H2 treatment gave higher air and soil temperatures
than other treatments combinations; and I3H3 gave higher mean relative humidity at
7:30 a.m. but at 2:30 p.m. combination I2H2 treatment gave higher relative humid-
ity than other treatment combinations.

KEYWORDS

•• air temperature
•• irrigation
•• low tunnel technology
•• microclimate
•• relative humidity
•• soil temperature
•• sweet pepper
•• tunnel height

REFERENCES
1. Anonymous, (2008). Package of Practices for Vegetable Crops. pp. 20–25. Punjab Agri-
cultural University, Ludhiana, India.
2. Chaugule, A. A., Gutal, G. B., Kulkarni, P. V. (1990). The feasibility of plastic polyhouse
for capsicum crop. Proc. International Agricultural Engineering Conference and Exhibi-
tion, Bangkok, Thailand. pp. 1485–1489.
32 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

3. Gaye, M. M., Maurer, A. R. (1991). Modified transplant production techniques to in-

crease yield and improve earliness of Brussels sprouts. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci., 116,
210–214.
4. Hemphill, D. D. (1986). Response of muskmelon to three floating row covers. J. Amer.
Soc. Hort. Sci., 111, 513–517.
5. Lamarrel, M., Larean, M. J., Payette, S., Fortin, C. (1996). Influence of nitrogen fertiliza-
tion, row covers and cultivars on the production of day neutral strawberry. Canadian J.
Soil Sci., 76, 29–36.
6. Libik, A., Siwek, P. (1994). Changes in soil temperature affected by the application of
plastic covers in field production of lettuce and water melon. Acta Hort., 371, 269–273.
7. Wolfe, D. W., Albright, L. D., Wyland, J. (1989). Modeling row cover effects on micro-
climate and yield, I: Growth response of tomato and cucumber. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci.,
114, 562–568.
CHAPTER 3

ECONOMICS OF GROWING SWEET

PEPPER IN LOW TUNNELS
ARUN KAUSHAL, A. S. LODHI, and KAMAL G. SINGH

3.1 INTRODUCTION
The demand for fresh vegetables, which are rich source of vitamins, carbo-
hydrates, proteins and salts, is increasing day by day in India, as people have
become more health conscious. Population is increasing at an alarming rate and
there is change in dietary patterns. Due to unfavorable climatic conditions, there
is a flood of vegetables in the season and very high priced vegetables in off-season.
Vegetables can be cultivated in off-season with the use of green houses, low and
high poly tunnels.
In the low tunnel technology (LTT), the plants in a single or double row are
covered with a sheet/film (preferably polythene), w h i c h is placed over an
arch-shaped frame for support. These structures protect the plants from the high
winds, low temperature, rain, frost and snow. The increase in marketable yield of
vegetable under low tunnels as comparison to open field has been well documented
[1, 2].
Sweet pepper also called bell pepper (Capsicum annuum L. var. grossum) is a
high value vegetable crop grown in many states of India including Punjab. Sweet
pepper is more sensitive to environment (especially soil moisture and tempera-
ture), it can be grown under low tunnels. Soil moisture is one of the predominant
factors influencing sweet pepper productivity. There is an increasing demand for
maximum irrigation efficiency, due to increasing demand for water for agriculture,
the limited available supplies and economic considerations. To achieve this goal,
drip irrigation is one of the alternatives. Higher water use efficiency of drip irriga-
tion system over the conventional irrigation system has been reported by [3, 4].
Higher profit using LTT was reported by Saini [5].
This chapter discusses economic viability of sweet pepper production under low
tunnels.

*In this chapter, the currency is expressed in Indian Rupees (1.00 US$ = Rs. 60.93; 1.00 Rs. = 0.02 US$).
34 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

3.2 MATERIALS AND METHODS

Field experiment was conducted at the Research Farm of the Department of Soil and
Water Engineering at Punjab Agricultural University (PAU), Ludhiana – India from
October 2008 to June 2009. Ludhiana is situated at latitude of 30����������������
°���������������
54′N and longi-
tude of 75�����������������������������������������������������������������������
°����������������������������������������������������������������������
48′E and at a mean height of 247 meters above sea level. Average mini-
mum and maximum temperature in the region varies from 3°C to 43°C, respectively.
A field plot measuring approximately 440.64 m2 (43.2 × 10.2 m2) was prepared
and the experiment was laid out in split plot design keeping four irrigation treat-
ments as main effects and three different heights of low tunnel as sub main effects.
All following treatments were replicated three times:
I1 Drip irrigation with IW/CPE ratio of 0.60,
I2 Drip irrigation with IW/CPE ratio of 0.75,
I3 Drip irrigation with IW/CPE ratio of 0.90, and
I4 Furrow irrigation with paired row planting.
H1 Low tunnel height of 45 cm,
H2 Low tunnel height of 60 cm, and
H3 Low tunnel height of 75 cm.
The soil at the experimental site was sandy loam having pH of 8.9, low in or-
ganic carbon and available nitrogen, medium in phosphorous and high in potash.
Farm yard manure @ 55 tons/ha was added to the field, one month before the field
preparation so that it was thoroughly mixed in the soil and got decomposed by the
time of sowing of crop [6].
Nursery production of sweet pepper of “Bharath” variety was done in poly-
house on 13th of October 2008 and transplanting was done in the field on 17th of
November 2008. In paired sowing, 60 cm wide beds were raised, row-to-row
spacing between paired rows was 45 cm and row spacing between pairs was 75
cm, but plant-to-plant spacing was 30 cm.
The low tunnel frame was constructed with 6 mm thick steel (iron) rods and its
shape was parabolic with 60 cm base and desired height of tunnel height. A length
of 15 cm at the base was kept for inserting frame into the soil and inside loops were
provided on both sides of a frame for the support. After transplanting of crop, it was
covered with polyethylene sheet of 50-micron thickness over the low tunnel frame.
The low tunnel frames were kept at beginning and at end of paired row and distance
between successive frames was 2.5 m. The crop was completely covered with low
tunnel till February 4, 2009 and after that low tunnel was removed. Full package of
plant protection measures were adopted during the crop growth period, according to
package practices for vegetable crops by PAU, Ludhiana.
The fruits from each subplot were picked at green mature stage and weighed at
each picking. The weight of all pickings was added and yield per plant was used to
find yield per hectare.
Economic analysis was carried out by calculating the amount of material
needed for one hectare and seasonal cost of production by considering present
Economics of Growing Sweet Pepper in Low Tunnels 35

market rate, depreciation cost, life of material, annual interest. Cost of cultivation
for growing furrow irrigated sweet pepper included expenses occurred on cost of
seedlings, cost of manures and fertilizers, cost of hoeing, cost of irrigation, cost
for labor charges, cost of herbicides and pesticides, cost of marketing and transpor-
tation charges. On these charges, R s . 1,000 per month was taken as additional
maintenance charges for drip irrigated sweet pepper. Yield of crop was taken from
experimental data generated from the study and first three harvestings were con-
sidered as early yield, which had market rate R s . 20 per k g , and remaining
yield had seasonal rate of R s . 10 per kg.
Table 3.1 gives the material requirement for constructing low tunnel frame for
different tunnel height treatments. For the low tunnel frame, life of the material was
taken 15 years, annual interest rate of 10% annual, material cost at Rs. 35 per kg, and
labor cost at Rs. 5 per tunnel frame construction. Table 3.2 gives the poly sheet re-
quirements for covering the low tunnels for different treatments. For the poly sheet,
life of the poly sheet was considered as two years for one crop only and rate of poly
sheet Rs. 60 per�����������������������������������������������������������������������
kg��������������������������������������������������������������������
was considered. In the drip irrigation system, for the drip irriga-
tion components (main line, sub main, fertilizer tank, venturi assembly, filters and
pumping unit) 15 years life was considered, and for laterals with inline drippers 5
years life was considered for annual cost calculations. It was assumed that this drip
irrigation can be used for two crops (i.e., sweet pepper and eggplant). Prices of these
drip irrigation components were taken from the market. The annual cost of drip ir-
rigation was calculated by considering no subsidy and maximum subsidy for drip
irrigation (Rs 49,680 per hectare) given by Punjab State Government in 2008–2009.
The details of material required for one hectare of cultivation of sweet pepper with
drip irrigation system are presented in Table 3.3. With data in Tables 3.1–3.3, annual
cost was calculated and benefit-cost ratio for each treatment was evaluated.
The yield data were subjected to statistical analysis using split plot experi-
mental design and using analysis of variance (ANOVA) techniques. For the split
plot design, irrigation treatments were considered as main plots and different low
tunnel heights as subplots. The significance of differences was tested at 5% level.

TABLE 3.1 Total Weight of Tunnel Frame (kg/ha) For Three Tunnel Height Treatments

Irrigation Tunnel Length Average weight No. of low Total weight of

treatments height of each frame tunnel frames
frames

cm cm g/each frame No. per ha Kg/ha

I1 to H1 = 45 180 392 3486 1366.51

I4
H2 = 60 210 446 3486 1554.76

H3 = 75 235 498 3486 1736.03

36 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

TABLE 3.2 Total Weight of Poly Sheet (kg/ha) For Three Tunnel Heights

Tunnel height Width Average weight Total weight, for

83 frames

cm cm g per 10 m length kg/ha

H1 = 45 150 661.62 571.1

H2 = 60 185 816.0 704.37

H3 = 75 240 1058.6 913.78

Note: The length of each

frame was 104 m.

TABLE 3.3 List of Materials For One Hectare of Sweet Pepper Production

List of materials Units Quantity

PVC pipe, 90 mm × 4 kg/cm2 (for main) m 60

PVC pipe, 63 mm × 4 kg/cm2 m 162

PVC pipe, 40 mm × 4 kg/cm2 (for submain) 60
LDPE lateral inline (16 mm × 2 kg/cm2) with emitters of m 8400
2.6 lph at 30 cm spacing.

Fertilizer tank, 30 L each 1

Venturi assembly for chemigation each 1
Sand filter of 40 m3 capacity each 1
Screen filter of 40 m3 capacity each 1
Pumping unit of 5 horsepower each 1

TABLE 3.4 Commercial Yield (100 kg/ha) of Sweet Pepper For Four Irrigation Treatments
and For Three Tunnel Heights

Irrigation treatments, I Yield (100 kg/ha) of sweet pepper Mean

Tunnel height, H, cm

45 60 75
I1 Drip irrigation, IW/CPE = 0.60 211.14 229.09 227.17 222.46

I2 Drip irrigation, IW/CPE = 0.75 275.55 298.86 289.92 288.11

I3 Drip irrigation, IW/CPE = 0.90 253.95 297.95 278.95 276.95
Economics of Growing Sweet Pepper in Low Tunnels 37

TABLE 3.4 (Continued)

I4 Furrow irrigation (paired row) 209.39 229.45 222.59 220.48

Mean 237.51 263.84 254.65

CD at 5%, I = 5.06; CD at 5%, H = 5.09; and CD at 5%, IH = 10.19.

TABLE 3.5 Early Yield (100 kg/ha) of Sweet Pepper For Four Irrigation and Three Tunnel
Height Treatments

Irrigation treatments, I Yield (100 kg/ha) Mean

of sweet pepper

Tunnel height, H, cm

45 60 75

I1 Drip irrigation, IW/CPE = 0.60 44.63 50.39 49.29 48.10

I2 Drip irrigation, IW/CPE = 0.75 48.27 61.11 57.37 55.58

I3 Drip irrigation, IW/CPE = 0.90 42.91 55.98 51.77 50.22

I4 Furrow irrigation (paired row) 34.04 38.24 35.21 35.83

Mean 42.46 51.43 48.41 —

CD at 5%, I = 3.76; CD at 5%, H = 2.22; and CD at 5%, IH = 4.44.

TABLE 3.6 Benefit–Cost Ratio (BCR) of Sweet Pepper Production For Four Irrigation
Treatments and Three Tunnel Heights

Irrigation treat- Details Low tunnel height, H, cm

ment, I 45 60 75
Values in Indian Rupees, Rs./ha

I1 Drip irrigation, Gross returns (Rs./ha) 255,776 279,480 276,460

IW/CPE = 0.60 Total expenditure (Rs./ha) 117,346 122,512 130,163
Net seasonal income 138,430 156,968 146,297
(Rs./ha)
BCR 2.17 2.28 2.12
Delete this row
38 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

TABLE 3.6 (Continued)

I2 Drip irrigation, Gross returns (Rs./ha) 323,823 359,976 347,293

IW/CPE = 0.75 Total expenditure (Rs./ 117,346 122,512 130,163
ha)
Net seasonal income 206,477 237,464 217,130
(Rs./ha)
BCR 2.75 2.93 2.66
I3 Drip irrigation, Gross returns (Rs./ha) 296,863 353,933 330,720
IW/CPE = 0.90 Total expenditure (Rs./ 117,346 122,512 130,163
ha)
Net seasonal income 179,517 231,421 200,557
(Rs./ha)
BCR 2.52 2.88 2.54
I4 Furrow irriga- Gross returns (Rs./ha) 243,436 267,690 257,803
tion (paired row) Total expenditure (Rs./ 95243 100,409 108,060
ha)
Net seasonal income 148,193 167,281 149,743
(Rs./ha)
BCR 2.55 2.66 2.38

Note: With No Drip Irrigation Subsidy.

TABLE 3.7 Benefit–Cost Ratio With Maximum Subsidy (Rs 49,680) On Drip Irrigation

Irrigation Details Low tunnel height, cm

treatment
45 60 75

Drip irriga- Gross returns (Rs./ha) 255,776 279,480 276,460

tion, Total expenditure (Rs./ha) 112,678 117,844 125,495
IW/CPE =
Net seasonal income (Rs./ha) 143,098 161,636 150,965
0.60
B/C ratio 2.26 2.37 2.20
Economics of Growing Sweet Pepper in Low Tunnels 39

TABLE 3.6 (Continued)

Drip irriga- Gross returns (Rs./ha) 323,823 359,976 347,293

tion, Total expenditure (Rs./ha) 112,678 117,844 125,495
IW/CPE =
Net seasonal income (Rs./ha) 211,145 242,132 221,798
0.75
B/C ratio 2.87 3.05 2.76

Drip irriga- Gross returns (Rs./ha) 296,863 353,933 330,720

tion, Total expenditure (Rs./ha) 112,678 117,844 125,495
IW/CPE =
Net seasonal income (Rs./ha) 184,185 236,089 205,225
0.90
B/C ratio 2.63 3.00 2.63

Furrow irriga- Gross returns (Rs./ha) 243,436 267,690 257,803

tion Total expenditure (Rs./ha) 95243 100,409 108,060
(paired row)
Net seasonal income (Rs./ha) 148,193 167,281 149,743

B/C ratio 2.55 2.66 2.38

3.3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.3.1 PERFORMANCE OF SWEET PEPPER

The results obtained for sweet pepper yield per hectare under different irrigation
and low tunnel height treatments are presented in Table 3.4. The data revealed that
the mean sweet pepper yield in 60 cm tunnel height was maximum followed by
75 cm and 45 cm tunnel height treatments. This may be due to the fact that 60 cm
tunnel height provided the best microclimatic conditions to the crop as the volume
of entrapped air differed with the tunnel heights. Among tunnel height treatments,
60 cm tunnel height gave an increase of 11.08% yield over 45 cm tunnel height
and an increase of 3.60% yield over 75 cm tunnel height. Among the irrigation
treatments, drip irrigation with 0.75 IW/CPE ratio gave the maximum mean
sweet pepper yield followed by drip irrigation with 0.90 IW/CPE ratio, drip irriga-
tion with 0.60 IW/CPE ratio and furrow irrigation paired row planting. Among
the irrigation treatments, drip irrigated treatments gave better yield as compared
to furrow irrigated treatments. Best drip irrigated treatment (i.e., drip irrigation,
IW/CPE = 0.75) gave an increase of 30.67% over the furrow irrigated paired row
planting. For treatment combinations, mean sweet pepper yield was maximum
(29,886 k g /ha) in the I2H2 treatment and minimum (20,939 kg/ha) in I4H1 treat-
ment. This may be due to the fact that moisture in optimum level enhances the
cell metabolism resulting in better yield. The results are in agreement with Sharma
40 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

et al. [7], who reported that drip irrigation necessarily enhanced capsicum yield
as compared to furrow-irrigated production. Singh [8] reported that tunneling in-
creases the yield of pepper.
Statistical analysis for different irrigation treatments and different tunnel height
is given in Table 3.4. There was significant effect of irrigation and tunnel heights on
sweet pepper yield. The interaction of irrigation treatments and tunnel heights was
also significant.
Out of the total yield, the first three harvests gave early yield till 3 April 2009,
which was priced at double the normal rates. The results obtained for early sweet
pepper yield under different irrigation and low tunnel height treatments are pre-
sented in Table 3.5. The data revealed that the mean sweet pepper early yield in H2
was highest followed by H3 and H1 treatments, due to the fact that H2 provided the
best microclimatic conditions to the crop. Among the irrigation treatments, I2 gave
the highest mean sweet pepper early yield followed by I3, I1 and I4. For treatment
combinations, mean sweet pepper early yield was maximum (61.11 per 100 kg/ha)
in the I2H2 treatment and minimum in I4H1 treatment (34.04 per 100 kg/ha). This
may be due to early flowering and fruit initiation in the respective treatments. The
results are in agreement with Singh et al. [9].

3.3.2 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

Tables 3.6 and 3.7 summarize the results obtained for benefit–cost ratio (BCR) of
growing sweet pepper under different irrigation and low tunnel height treatments
with no subsidy and maximum subsidy for drip irrigation (Rs. 49,680 per hectare
given by Punjab State Government in 2008–2009). The data clearly revealed that
the mean BCR in H2 was highest followed by H1 and H3 tunnel height treat-
ments. Among the irrigation treatments, I2 gave the highest mean BCR followed
by drip irrigation I3, I4 and I1. This is due the fact that yields in I2 and I3 were
higher as compared to furrow irrigation method (I4). For treatment combinations,
BCR was highest (2.93 without subsidy) and (3.05 with maximum subsidy) in
the I2H2 treatment. BCR was lowest in I1H3 treatment (2.12 without subsidy) and
(2.20 with maximum subsidy) on drip irrigation. The results are in line with those
of (10) who reported that cultivation under low tunnels in the season is highly
profitable with a BCR of 3.86.

3.4 CONCLUSIONS
The maximum sweet pepper yield (100 kg/ha) was observed in H2 and I2 treat-
ments among the tunnel heights and irrigation treatments. Among the tunnel height
treatments, 60 cm tunnel height gave an increase of 11.08% yield over 45 cm tun-
Economics of Growing Sweet Pepper in Low Tunnels 41

nel height and an increase of 3.60% yield over 75 cm tunnel height. Among the
irrigation treatments, drip irrigated treatments gave better yield compared to fur-
row irrigated treatments. Best drip irrigated treatment (i.e., drip irrigation, IW/CPE=
0.75) gave an increase of 30.67% over the furrow irrigated paired row planting.
For the treatment combinations, in I2H2 treatment maximum sweet pepper yield
(29886 kg/ha) was observed and it was minimum in I4H1 treatment (20,939 kg/
ha). There was significant effect of irrigation and tunnel height treatment on
sweet pepper yield. Also the effect of their interaction on sweet pepper yield was
significant. The maximum BCR was observed in H2 and I2 treatments among the
tunnel heights and irrigation treatments. For the treatment combinations, in I2H2
treatment BCR was maximum and I1H3 it was minimum. This study concludes
that it is economically feasible to grow sweet pepper in low tunnel with 60 cm tun-
nel height, which is drip irrigated with IW/CPE ratio of 0.75 as it gives maximum
yield and maximum BCR.

3.5 SUMMARY
To study the economics of growing sweet pepper under low tunnels, an experiment
was laid out in split plot design with four irrigation treatments (drip irrigation
with IW/CPE ratio of 0.60 (I1), 0.75 (I2), 0.90 (I3) and furrow irrigation with
paired row planting (I4)), in main plots and three different low tunnel heights (45
cm (H1), 60 cm (H2) and 75 cm (H3)) in sub plots. All treatments were replicated
three times.
Total yield was highest in H2 and I2 treatments. There was significant effect of
irrigation, tunnel height on sweet pepper yield and their interaction was also sig-
nificant. Among the tunnel height treatments, H2 gave an increase of 11.08% yield
over lowest H1 treatment. Best drip irrigated treatment (I2) gave an increase
of 30.67% over the furrow irrigated paired row planting (I4). For treatment
combinations, in the I2H2 treatment mean sweet pepper yield was maximum
(29,886 kg/ha) and minimum in I4H1 treatment (20,939 kg/ha). The early yield
varying from 16–20% was obtained under low tunnels. The treatment combination
of I2H2 treatment gave highest BCR (2.93 without subsidy) and (3.05 with maxi-
mum subsidy) on drip irrigation.
42 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

KEYWORDS

•• bell pepper
•• benefit–cost ratio, BCR
•• drip irrigation
•• economics
•• low tunnel technology, LTT
•• row cover
•• Sweet pepper
•• tomato
•• tunnel height
•• vegetable crop
•• yield

REFERENCES
1. Anonymous, (2008). Package of Practices for Vegetable and Horticultural Crops. Pp 35–37.
Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana.
2. Arin, L., Ankara, S. (2001). Effect of low tunnel, mulch and pruning on the yield and earli-
ness to tomato in unheated green house. Journal of Applied Hortculture, 3, 23–27.
3. Gerber, J., Mohd-Khir, M. I., and Splittoesser, W. E. (1988). Row tunnel effect on growth,
yield and fruit quality of bell pepper. Hort. Science, 26(3–4), 191–197.
4. Helbacka, J. (2002). Row covers for vegetable gardens. King County Cooperative Extension
Service. Fact Sheet No. 19, Washington State University, Washington, USA.
5. Saini, A. K., Singh, K. G. (2001). Annual Report of AICRP on Application of Plastics in Ag-
riculture. pp. 69–74. Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, India.
6. Shara, E. A., George, H. C. (1998). Spun bonded row cover and capsicum fertilization im-
prove quality and yield in bell pepper. HortScience, 33, 1150–1152.
7. Sharma, P. K., Sharma, H. G., Singh, P. N. (2004). Effects of methods/levels and colored
plastic mulches on weeds incidence in capsicum (Capsicum annuum var. grossum L.) crop.
Agricultural Science Digest, 24, 42–44.
8. Singh, A. (2008). Economic feasibility to growing capsicum under drip irrigation in West
Bengal, India. Irrigation & Drainage System 22, 179–188.
9. Singh, Sirohi, B. N. P. S., Neubauer, E., Chin, A. (2001). Off-season production of musk-
melon under plastic low tunnels. Indian Horticulture, 46, 15–17.
10. Vishuvardhana, L. H. B., Khan, M. M., Raju, G. T. T. (2004). Economics of production
of cashew grafts in different propagation structures under eastern dry zone of Karna-
taka. Cashew, 18, 39–44.
CHAPTER 4

PERFORMANCE OF GREENHOUSE
SWEET PEPPER
KAMAL G. SINGH, ANGREJ SINGH, and G. MAHAJAN

4.1 INTRODUCTION
Maximization of crop yields requires combination of an optimum genotype with an
optimum environment. The productivity of a particular crop in an area depends on
the overall environment [3]. Polyhouse farming, also known as protected cultiva-
tion, is one of the farming systems widely used to provide and maintain a controlled
environment suitable for optimum crop production. This technology is a break-
through in agricultural production technology that integrates market driven quality
parameters with production system profits [1]. In addition to this, polyhouse tech-
nology can contribute to solve global issues such as the shortage of artificial energy,
water, environmental problems and instability of ecological system in various ways.
In north India, Capsicum is very popular crop for production in polyhouse, because
in open field, fruit yield and quality is poor due to very low temperature during the
winter season, when it is grown [5, 13]. This crop is chilling sensitive and cannot
tolerate extended periods of temperature below 10�����������������������������
°C���������������������������
, the mean growing tempera-
ture of the crop is range from 18–30°C. Irena [7] reported that under plastic covered
greenhouse the night temperature was favorable for the development of capsicum
fruit. The night temperature of 18–20°C before anthesis and 8–10°C after anthesis
recorded the maximum fruit set. Water is another important input for poly house
Capsicum crop because irrigation is the only source for application of water to the
Capsicum plants in polyhouse. Several efforts have been made to use irrigation wa-
ter as efficient as possible under protected cultivation system. The use of drip irriga-
tion and fertigation saves water, fertilizer and gives better plant yield and quality as
it reduces the humidity build up inside the polyhouse after irrigation due to precise
application of irrigation water to the root zone of the crop [12]. In polyhouse, Cap-
sicum due to indeterminate nature of crop, vegetative and reproductive stage over-
laps and the plant needs nutrients even up to fruit maturity, so, fertilizer application
method such as fertigation may be very effective in polyhouse Capsicum. Further,

*In this chapter, the currency is expressed in Indian Rupees (1.00 US$ = Rs. 60.93; 1.00 Rs. = 0.02 US$).
44 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

fertilizer costs and nitrate losses can be reduced and nutrient applications can be
better timed to plant’s needs. A limited research has been done on drip irrigation
and fertigation on Capsicum grown in low cost naturally ventilated polyhouse [12].
The present experiment was conducted to study water and nitrogen requirement
of drip-irrigated Capsicum grown in naturally ventilated polyhouse.

4.2 MATERIALS AND METHODS

The experiment was conducted in a naturally ventilated polyhouse at the research
farm of the Department of Soil and Water Engineering at Punjab Agricultural Uni-
versity (PAU), Ludhiana during 2005–2007. Ludhiana is located 30°54″N latitude
and 75°48″E longitude with altitude of 247 m above mean sea level. It represents
semi arid and sub tropical climate with typical monsoon conditions.
A semicircular shaped polyhouse covering a floor area 6.25 × 16 m (100 m2)
with sidewall ventilation was used for the study. The orientation of the polyhouse
was east-west direction. The polyhouse was covered with an ultra violet (UV) sta-
bilized low-density polyethylene film having 200-micron thickness. The Capsicum
cultivar’s Bharath (F1 hybrid), widely grown by the farmers in polyhouse was used.
The soil of the experimental plot was loamy sand in texture having pH 8.2 and
electrical conductivity (EC) of 0.14 mmhos/cm. The soil was low in organic carbon
(0.36%). The soil was low in available nitrogen (244.8 Kg.ha–1) and very high in
phosphorus (65.0 Kg.ha–1) and potassium (240 Kg.ha–1). The experiment consisted
of 6 treatments. One N level (100% of recommended dose) was tested against check
basin methods of irrigation at recommended dose of N, when the crops was sown
at recommended spacing of 60 × 30 cm2 both inside and outside the polyhouse in
randomized block deign design. In check-basin method (surface flooding) method
the irrigations were provided on the basis of 1.0 cumulative pan evaporation (Epan).
The details of the treatments are given below:
T1 – Polyhouse crop + drip irrigation (0.5 × E pan) + 100% N
T2 – Polyhouse crop + drip irrigation (0.75 × E pan) + 100% N
T3 – Polyhouse crop + drip irrigation (1.0 × E pan) + 100% N
T4 – Non-Polyhouse crop + drip irrigation (0.5 × E pan) + 100% N
T5 – Polyhouse crop + Surface irrigation (1.0 × E pan) + 100% N broadcast
T6 – Non- Polyhouse crop + Surface irrigation (1.0 × Epan) + 100% N broadcast.
The irrigation with drip system was done on alternate day on the basis of pan
evaporation value of the previous day, while in surface irrigation method; the water
depth was 50 mm. In normal sowing, the distance between the rows was 60 cm and
plant-to-plant spacing was 30 cm. However, in paired sowing, the row-to-row space
among paired rows was 45 cm and row-to-row spacing between pairs was 75 cm but
plant-to-plant spacing was 30 cm. So in paired sowing, total number of rows and as
well as plants were same. In all the treatments, a basal dose of FYM @ 50 t/ha was
also applied before sowing of crop. As indicated by the soil test, soil at the experi-
Performance of Greenhouse Sweet Pepper 45

mental plot was rich in phosphorous and potassium hence these fertilizers were not
applied. However, the recommended nitrogen fertilizers in Capsicum @ 125 kg N/
ha was applied in three equal split doses. The capsicum seed was sown in the last
week of September for raising nursery on a raised bed inside the polyhouse. The
nursery was transplanted in the first week of November during both the years. Other
cultural operations were same in all the treatments and were attended regularly.
The drip irrigation system consisted of polyethylene laterals of 12 mm in diam-
eter, laid parallel to crop rows (each lateral served 2 rows of crop). The laterals were
provided with inline emitters with a discharge of 2 L/h capacity at 0.3 m apart along
the length of the lateral. The different levels of water supply were maintained by
managing the irrigation time of the system. In drip irrigation system, N was applied
at 15 days interval in ten equal doses of N starting from 30 days after transplanting.
In the polyhouse, first picking of Capsicum fruit was started in the first fortnight of
February and in all 16 pickings of polyhouse Capsicum were done and the last pick-
ing ended in the second fortnight of May. The fruits were picked at 45 days after
anthesis, at green mature stage for quality testing. Ten fruits were picked at random
from each plot. Fruit weight, Capsaicin content, ascorbic acid and chlorophyll con-
tent were determined using standard procedure.

4.3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The uniformity coefficients of drip system were 89.6% for the first year and 88.4%
for the second year. The high values of uniformity coefficient indicate an excel-
lent performance of irrigation system in polyhouse in supplying water uniformly
throughout the lateral lines. Malik et al. [8, 9] observed uniformity coefficient for
the same system to the tune of 90 ± 3 and 89 ± 3% at the beginning and termination
of the experiment, respectively.

4.3.1 FRUIT YIELD

In general polyhouse crop resulted an increase in yield at all the levels of irrigation
and fertigation, compared to the surface irrigated crop that was grown outside the
polyhouse, though the response was comparatively high when irrigation was applied
through drip at 0.75 × Epan. Higher yield under polyhouse may be due to favorable
environment at the early stages of Capsicum (especially in the month of December
and January, when the day and night temperature are very low). Climatic data in
the polyhouse (Table 4.1) revealed that the soil temperature and air temperature in
the polyhouse remained at an average 3.9������������������������������������������
°C����������������������������������������
and 3.2��������������������������������
°C������������������������������
higher, respectively in poly-
house than the outdoor environment. The relative humidity inside the polyhouse
was 10.84 units higher inside the polyhouse but the light intensity reduced by an
average of 12,990 lux (Table 4.1), which caused a favorable microclimate for poly-
house Capsicum. These results are in conformity with Chandra et al. [4], who also
46 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

observed that green house crop of Capsicum gave better growth especially in the
early stage and resulted in more early and total yield.

TABLE 4.1 Soil and Air Temperature, Relative Humidity and Light Intensity: Inside/
Outside the Polyhouse

Period Soil temperature Air temperature Relative Light intensity

humidity
Inside Outside Inside Outside Inside Outside Inside Outside
°C % lux
Nov 30.5 29.3 32.0 28.5 82.6 66.4 12,935 24,370
1–15
Nov 27.0 23.9 28.0 24.9 80.0 65.3 15,642 25,767
16–30
Dec 24.5 19.8 24.9 20.7 76.2 70.3 15,836 25,803
1–15
Dec 23.2 21.2 24.0 19.6 78.7 73.8 11,861 19,677
16–31
Jan 25.4 19.1 23.1 17.9 80.0 71.2 10,120 18,256
1–15
Jan 25.8 21.8 23.0 20.1 79.2 72.1 11,355 22,478
16–31
Feb 24.6 20.7 25.7 22.7 90.2 77.3 15,525 27,492
1–15
Feb 25.8 20.6 27.8 23.9 85.7 75.2 14,658 24,675
16–28
Mar 29.5 25.9 28.5 24.3 82.9 70.3 17,840 33,462
1–15
Mar 33.6 29.8 32.5 28.7 78.7 64.4 18,929 31,489
15–31
Apr 36.0 34.1 36.6 35.0 56.8 45.7 20,787 34,349
1–15
Apr 38.5 36.4 39.8 37.8 47.6 35.7 23,189 37,600
16–30
May 43.0 36.9 40.1 38.3 60.0 48.2 35,967 57,547
1–15
Performance of Greenhouse Sweet Pepper 47

TABLE 4.1 (Continued)

Period Soil temperature Air temperature Relative Light intensity

humidity
Inside Outside Inside Outside Inside Outside Inside Outside
°C % lux
May 44.8 38.7 40.0 38.6 68.5 57.5 36,957 60,503
16–31

TABLE 4.2 Effects of Treatments On Different Parameters of Polyhouse Capsicum Pooled

Data (2005–2006 and 2006–2007)
Treat- Fruit Fruit Fruit Pooled Pooled Capsa- Ascor- Chloro- Dry
ments yield length weight water WUE icin bic acid phyll matter
applied content content content
t.ha–1 cm g cm t/ha- % mg/100 mg/g %
cm mL

T1 56.9 6.6 50.6 31.0 1.84 0.26 106.0 0.014 7.3

P.H.C+d
T2 63.2 6.8 50.8 44.0 1.44 0.25 106.4 0.013 7.2
P.H.C+d
T3 62.0 8.4 48.3 57.0 1.09 0.24 104.1 0.014 7.1
P.H.C+d
T4 43.5 5.2 43.1 51.0 0.85 0.23 98.1 0.012 7.8
N.P.H.C+d
T5 45.6 6.2 46.2 68.0 0.67 0.23 102.2 0.012 7.0
P.H.C
T6 25.9 4.3 40.3 62.0 0.42 0.22 96.1 0.011 8.40
N.P.H.C
LSD (0.05) 3.1 2.5 3.17 - - 0.02 4.27 0.01 0.70
P.H.C = Polyhouse crop; N.P.H.C. = Non-polyhouse crop.

With same quantity of water (1.0×Epan) and nitrogen was applied through drip
irrigation, the data in Table 4.2 revealed that in polyhouse Capsicum a significantly
higher yield (62.0 t ha–1) was obtained as compared to 45.6 t ha–1 and 25.9 t ha–1 in
check basin method of irrigation when the crop was sown both inside and outside the
polyhouse, respectively. Nimje and Shyam [10] also reported that polyhouse capsi-
cum gave 2.5–3.0 times higher yield as compared to open field cultivation. When
the quantity of water applied through drip irrigation was reduced to 0.75xEpan,
48 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

Capsicum yield increased further (63.2 t ha–1) significantly as compared to check

basin method of irrigation at the same level of nitrogen. The yield was significantly
reduced when irrigation was applied at 0.5×Epan along with fertigation of 100% rec-
ommended nitrogen (56.9 t ha–1). The best treatment of drip irrigation at 0.75×Epan
along with fertigation of 100% nitrogen resulted increase in fruit yield by 38.6%
over control of recommended practices inside the polyhouse and by 144% over
control of recommended practices outside the polyhouse respectively. The increased
yield under drip irrigation system might have resulted due to better water utilization
[11], higher uptake of nutrients and excellent soil-water-air relationship with higher
oxygen concentration in the root zone [2]. Under control treatments, both inside and
outside the polyhouse, surface irrigation not only resulted in wastage of water due
to deep percolation below root zone, but also sets a chain of undesirable reaction
such as leaching of available plant nutrients and consequently development of soil
problems and poor aeration resulting in reduced yield.

4.3.2 WATER USE EFFICIENCY (WUE)

Drip irrigation both at 0.5 × Epan and 0.75 × Epan registered much higher WUE as
compared to control practices both inside and outside the Polyhouse. For all levels
of fertigation, drip irrigation at 0.5 × Epan gave maximum WUE of 1.84 t/ha-cm,
followed by 0.75 × Epan with 1.44 t t/ha-cm. At 1.0 × Epan, the WUE was 1.08 t/
ha-cm. The drip irrigation at 0.75 × Epan with fertigation treatments giving a sav-
ing of 35.3% of irrigation water resulted in 38.6% higher fruit yield as compared to
recommended practices inside the Polyhouse. Since, the rate of water loss through
evaporation from soil surface was much lower under drip irrigation; hence, WUE
was higher as compared to surface irrigation. Malik and Kumar [8] also made simi-
lar observations on WUE of drip irrigation in pea.

4.3.3 QUALITY CHARACTERISTICS

The investigated factors significantly influenced some quality parameters of sweet
pepper (Table 2). Polyhouse environment significantly improved the ascorbic acid
content (102.2 mg/100 ml juice) of crop as compared to the outside field crop (96.4
mg/100 mL of juice). The results confirm the findings of Howard et al. [6] who
reported that greenhouse environment has favorable influence on the ascorbic acid
content of the capsicum fruit. Further drip irrigation enhanced the ascorbic acid
in the fruit to 108.4 mg/100 ml juice as compared to surface method of irrigation
(102.2 mg/100 mL juice) inside the polyhouse. Howard et al. [6] also reported that
the trickle irrigated crop of sweet/bell pepper at green mature stage recorded total
ascorbic acid content of 97.5 to 108.7 mg/100 g of the fruit in different varieties of
the crop. The chlorophyll content in the fruit did not differ significantly among the
different drip irrigation treatments inside the polyhouse, though it was significantly
Performance of Greenhouse Sweet Pepper 49

superior to the surface irrigated crop. Results revealed that polyhouse drip irrigated
crop was significantly better than the surface irrigated field crop. The dry matter
content was comparatively less in the drip-irrigated crop as compared to the surface
irrigated crop. Thus the fruits with less dry matter eventually contain more moisture
percent and remain fresh for longer duration. Gornat et al. [5] also reported similar
results where moisture content in trickle-irrigated crop was 93% at green mature
stage of the fruit.

4.4 SUMMARY
A two-year study was conducted during 2005–2007 in Department of Soil and Water
Engineering, at Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana to investigate the effects
of irrigation and fertigation on Polyhouse Capsicum. Drip irrigation at 0.75 Epan
along with fertigation of 100% recommended nitrogen resulted an increase in fruit
yield by 38.6% over control (recommended practices) inside the polyhouse and by
144% over control (recommended practices) outside the polyhouse, respectively.
The drip irrigation at 0.75 Epan irrespective of fertigation treatments gave an irriga-
tion water saving of 35.3% and resulted in 38.6% higher fruit yield as compared
to recommended practices inside the polyhouse. Polyhouse Capsicum fruits were
found to be superior to fruits of open field crop in view of fruit weight, Capsaicin
content, ascorbic acid content and chlorophyll content. Further, drip irrigation and
fertigation in polyhouse crop caused significantly improvement in all the quality
characteristics.

KEYWORDS

•• anthesis
•• ascorbic acid content
•• basal dose
•• Capsaicin
•• Capsicum
•• check basin method
•• chlorophyll content
•• drip irrigation
•• electrical conductivity
•• farm yard manure, FYM
•• fertigation
•• fertilizer
•• genotype
50 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

•• green house
•• loamy sand
•• naturally ventilated polyhouse
•• paired sowing
•• pan evaporation
•• polyhouse farming
•• polyhouse technology
•• randomized block deign
•• sidewall ventilation
•• tropical climate
•• water use efficiency

REFERENCES
1. Aldrich, R. A., Bartok, J. W. (1989). Polyhouse Engineering. North-east Regional Agricultural
Engineering Service, Cooperative Extension, Ithaca, NY.
2. Bafna, A. M., Daftardar, S. Y., Khade, K. K., Patel, V. V., Dhotre, R. S. (1993). Utilization of
nitrogen and water by Capsicum under drip irrigation system. Journal Water Management,
1(1), 1–5.
3. Buttery, B. R., Buzzel, R. I. (1984). Maximizing crop productivity in crop physiology-advanc-
ing frontiers. Oxford and IBH Publishing Company New Delhi, pages 227–280.
4. Chandra, Pritam, Sirohi P. S., Behera, T. K., Singh, A. K. (2000). Cultivating vegetables in
polyhouse. Indian Horticulture, 45(3), 17, 32.
5. Gornat, B., Goldberg, D., Rimon, D., Asher, Ben. J. (1973). The physiological effect of water
quality and method of application on Capsicum, cucumber and pepper. Journal of American
Society for Horticultural Science, 98(2), 202–205.
6. Howard, L. R., Smith, R. T., Wagner, A. B., Villalon, B., Burns, E., E, (1994). Provitamin A
and ascorbic acid content of fresh pepper and processed Jalpenos. Journal of Food Science,
59(2), 362–65.
7. Irena, Rylski, (1973). Effect of night temperature on shape and size of Capsicum annum L.
Journal of American Society for Horticultural Science, 98(2), 149–152.
8. Malik, R. S., Kumar, K., Bhandari, A. R. (1994). Effect of urea application through drip irriga-
tion system on nitrate distribution in loamy sand soils and pea yield. J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci.,
42(2), 6–10.
9. Malik, R. S., Kumar, K. (1996). Effect of drip irrigation levels on yield and water use effi-
ciency of pea. J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci., 44(3), 508–509.
10. Nimje, P. M., Shyam, M. (1991). Greenhouse as an alternative technology for commercial
vegetable production. Indian J. Agricultural Sciences, 61(3), 185–189.
11. Manfrinato, H. A. (1971). Effect of drip irrigation on soil water plant relationship. Second
International Drip Irrigation Congress, 446–451.
12. Papadouplous, K. (1992). Fertigation of vegetables in plastic house: present situation and
future aspects. Acta Horticulture, No. 323.
13. Steve, S., Linn, M., Hubbel, J. N., Tsou, C. S. (1983). Drip irrigation and Capsicum yield
under tropical conditions. Hort. Science, 18(4), 460–461.
CHAPTER 5

NITROGEN FERTIGATION IN DRIP

IRRIGATED CAULIFLOWER
CHETAN SINGLA and KAMAL G. SINGH

5.1 INTRODUCTION
Cauliflower (Brassica Oleracea var. Botrys Linn.) is very popular vegetable crop
and grown widely in northern India. Assured irrigation and nitrogen are the pre-
requisites for proper growth and development of cauliflower plant [1]. In India, the
mid and late season cultivars are more popular and cultivated on a large scale. Due
to glut in the market, these cultivars do not fetch lucrative prices to the growers.
The cauliflower crop can be raised four times in a year. However, the production
of early cauliflower is highly profitable due to nonavailability of the produce from
other parts of the country. Inspite of its great importance in bringing good returns to
the farmers, very scanty information is available on the agronomical aspects of this
crop in greenhouses.
Therefore, this study is designed to evaluate suitable irrigation and nitrogen
strategies for getting optimum curd yield of early cauliflower using drip irrigation
system in a fan pad cooled greenhouse and naturally ventilated greenhouse.

5.2 MATERIALS AND METHODS

A field study on fertigation of cauliflower (Brassica Oleracea var. Botrys Linn.)
using drip irrigation system was undertaken during summer season of 2002 at the
Irrigation Research Farm of the Department of Soil and Water Engineering, Punjab
Agricultural University (PAU), Ludhiana in fan pad cooled greenhouse and natu-
rally ventilated greenhouse, respectively.
There were three irrigation levels (W1 = 0.5 W/CPE, W2 = 0.75 W/CPE and W3 =
1.00 W/CPE) with three rates of nitrogen application 50% (N1), 75% (N2) and 100%
(N3) of the recommended dose (125 kg/ha). Nitrogen was applied in three splits, that
is, 50% of the dose at planting time, 25% at 30 days after planting (DAP) and remain-

*In this chapter, the currency is expressed in Indian Rupees (1.00 US$ = Rs. 60.93; 1.00 Rs. = 0.02 US$).
52 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

ing 25% at 60 DAP. Nine treatment combinations were replicated thrice [2]. The mea-
sured quantity of irrigation water was applied through drip irrigation system.
The soil at the experimental field was sandy loam, having pH 8.5 and available
N, P, K 51.6, 80.6 and 148.9 kg/ha, respectively. The water content (volume basis,
cm3/cm3) was 0.1739 at – 0.03 MPa (field capacity) and 0.0523 at – 1.5 MPa (per-
manent wilting point) in 0–30 cm soil depth. The bulk density was 1.58 g/cm3. The
transplanting was done on 17 July of 2002. The harvesting of marketable curds com-
menced at 80 days after transplanting (DAT) and was completed within four weeks.

5.3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

5.3.1 CURD YIELD

Cauliflower yield as influenced by the application of different doses of nitrogen
(N) and irrigation water is presented in Table 1. The total cumulative pan evapora-
tion was 534 mm. The amount of water applied at 0.5, 0.75 and 1.0 IW/CPE was
26.70, 40.05 and 53.40 cm, respectively. The amount of fertilizer applied at 50, 75
and 100% of recommended dose was 62.50, 93.75 and 125 kg/ha. Tables 5.1 and
5.2 reveal that cauliflower yield was highest under irrigation schedule based on IW/
CPE = 0.5 and 100% of recommended dose of N, which was at par with other drip
irrigation treatments. This treatment (IW/CPE = 0.5 and 100% of recommended
dose of nitrogen, that is, 125 kg/ha) established its superiority by yielding 120.7 per
100 kg/ha and 105.5 per 100 kg/ha as compared to other eight treatments in fan pad
cooled greenhouse and naturally ventilated greenhouse, respectively. An irrigation
schedule based on IW/CPE = 0.5 secured yields compared to values for IW/CPE
= 0.75 and IW/CPE = 1.0. These results depicted that low water and high fertilizer
treatment by drip irrigation were superior to other treatments. It might be due to the
fact that optimum requirement of water was met by just IW/CPE = 0.5 (less amount
of water) rather than ratio of 1.0 (high amount of water) and 0.75 (medium level of
water).

5.3.2 EFFECTS OF NITROGEN ON YIELD

As the quantity of applied nitrogen is increased from 50% to 100% of the recom-
mended dose, the yield goes on increasing (Tables 5.1 and 5.2). In fan pad cooled
greenhouse, the yield increased from 93.95 per 100 kg/ha to 106.6 and 120.7 per
100 kg/ha indicating 13.46 and 28.47% increase at N levels of 93.75 and 125 kg/ha,
respectively on irrigation with IW/CPE=0.5. While irrigating with IW/CPE=0.75
and 1.0. The relative yield increase was 23.53, 27.52 and 13.13, 20.20% over the
Nitrogen Fertigation in Drip Irrigated Cauliflower 53

nitrogen level of 62.5 kg/ha at the respective nitrogen levels. Similarly in naturally
ventilated greenhouse, the yield increase was 13.50, 18.75 and 8.17, 9.77 over the
nitrogen level of 62.5 kg/ha with the increased levels of nitrogen, while irrigating
with IW/CPE = 0.5 and 0.75.

5.3.3 EFFECTS OF IRRIGATION ON YIELD

The yield of cauliflower curd was more with IW/CPE = 0.5 as compared to IW/CPE
= 0.75 and 1.0 at all levels of nitrogen fertilizers (Tables 5.1 and 5.2). Irrigation
schedule based on IW/CPE = 0.5 established its superiority by yielding 93.95, 116.6
and 120.7 per 100 kg/ha in fan pad cooled greenhouse and 88.88, 100.88 and 105.5
q/ha in naturally ventilated greenhouse.

TABLE 5.1 Effects of Different Treatments on Cauliflower Yield in Greenhouse

Cooled by Fan Pad

Irrigation Crop Yield,

N fertilizer levels, %
levels, IW/CPE ratio 100 kg/ha

F1 = 50 94.0

T1 = 0.5 116.6
F2 = 75

F3 = 100 120.7

F1 = 50 93.9

T2 = 0.75 F2 = 75 116.0

F3 = 100 119.7

F1 = 50 91.7

T3 = 1.0 F2 = 75 103.7

F3 = 100 110.2

LSD, P = 0.05 — N.S.

54 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

TABLE 5.2 Effects of Different Treatments on Cauliflower Yield in Naturally Ventilated

Greenhouse

Crop Yield,
Irrigation levels, IW/CPE ratio N fertilizer levels, %
100 kg/ha
F1 = 50 88.9
T1 = 0.5 F2 = 75 100.9

F3 = 100 105.6

F1 = 50 88.0
T2 = 0.75 F2 = 75 95.19
F3 = 100 105.4
F1 = 50 79.6
T3 = 1.0 F2 = 75 76.1
F3 = 100 92.6

LSD, P = 0.05 — N.S.

TABLE 5.3 Irrigation Water Used and Water-Use Efficiency (WUE) of Cauliflower in Fan-
Pad Cooled Greenhouse

Treatments Water used Yield WUE

cm 100 kg/ha kg/(ha-cm)

W1N1 26.7 94.0 351.8

W1N2 26.7 116.6 436.7

W1N3 26.7 120.7 452.6

W2N1 40.0 93.9 234.5

W2N2 40.0 116.0 289.6

W2N3 40.0 119.7 299.0

W3N1 53.4 91.7 171.6

W3N2 53.4 103.7 194.2

W3N3 53.4 110.2 206.3

Nitrogen Fertigation in Drip Irrigated Cauliflower 55

TABLE 5.4 Irrigation Water Used and Water-Use Efficiency of Cauliflower In Naturally
Ventilated Greenhouse

Treatments Water used Yield, WUE,

100 kg/ha kg/ha-cm

cm 100 kg/ha kg/(ha-cm)

W1N1 26.7 88.9 332.9

W1N2 26.7 100.9 377.8

W1N3 26.7 105.6 395.3

W2N1 40.1 88.0 219.7

W2N2 40.1 95.19 237.7

W2N3 40.1 105.4 263.2

W3N1 53.4 79.6 149.0

W3N2 53.4 76.1 142.4

W3N3 53.4 92.6 173.3

5.3.4 WATER USE EFFICIENCY (WUE) OF CAULIFLOWER

Total water used during the crop period and the WUE were determined for different
treatments and presented in Tables 5.3 and 5.4. The treatment having the maximum
WUE was considered superior to other treatments, though treatments were statisti-
cally insignificant. The WUE with respect to yield indicated that it was low when
irrigations were scheduled at 0.75 and 1.0 IW/CPE. As WUE is a function of crop
yield and water used, the decrease in crop yield with increase in water application
reduced the WUE under IW/CPE= 0.75 and 1.0. However, at IW/CPE = 0.5, the
yield increased linearly with water application and WUE. The WUE at this treat-
ment (W1N3) was 452.05 kg/(ha-cm) in fan pad cooled greenhouse and 395.31 kg/
(ha-cm) in case of naturally ventilated greenhouse with water saving of 52.43% as
compared to conventionally grown cauliflower.

5.4 SUMMARY
Since greenhouse technology has recently been introduced, very limited work has
been done for the standardization of different techniques of growing early vegetable
crops in greenhouse. Early cultivars of cauliflower are tropical in nature, requir-
56 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

ing comparatively higher temperature for reproductive onset and, therefore, these
are grown during July–August allowing sufficient vegetative growth. But high
monsoon rains coinciding with the period of cropping quite frequently disturb the
growth and development of the crop in open field.
A field study on fertigation of cauliflower (Brassica Oleracea var. Botrys Linn.)
using drip irrigation system was undertaken with three rates of nitrogen application
(100%, 75% and 50%) of recommended dose applied in three splits, that is, 50% of
the dose at planting time, 25% at 30 days after planting and remaining 25% at 60
days after planting. Three levels of irrigation at IW/CPE (irrigation water to cumula-
tive pan evaporation ratio) were 0.5, 0.75 and 1.0 in fan pad cooled greenhouse and
naturally ventilated greenhouse. The maximum yield of 120.7 per 100 kg/ha and
105.5 per 100 kg/ha of early cauliflower was obtained at IW/CPE = 0.5 and 100% of
recommended nitrogen dose in fan pad cooled greenhouse and naturally ventilated
greenhouse respectively.

KEYWORDS

•• cauliflower
•• crop yield
•• cumulative pan evaporation, CPE
•• curd yield
•• days after planting, DAP
•• days after transplanting, DAT
•• drip irrigation
•• fan pad cooled greenhouse
•• field capacity, FC
•• greenhouse
•• irrigation schedule
•• irrigation water, IW
•• IW/CPE ratio
•• marketable curd
•• naturally ventilated greenhouse
•• permanent wilting point, PWP
•• vegetable crop
•• water use efficiency, WUE
Nitrogen Fertigation in Drip Irrigated Cauliflower 57

REFERENCES
1. Sharma, R. P., Arora, P. N. (1987). Response of mid-season cauliflower to irrigation, nitrogen
and age of seedlings. J. Vegetable Sci., 14(1), 1–6.
2. Singla, Chetan, (2003). Studies on crop water requirements and fertigation options for off-
season drip irrigated cauliflower in a green house. Unpublished M. Tech Thesis, Punjab Agri-
cultural University, Ludhiana, India.
This page intentionally left blank
CHAPTER 6

EVALUATION OF IRRIGATION
STRATEGIES FOR WHEAT
KAMAL G. SINGH and A. K. TIWARI

6.1 INTRODUCTION
Economically, optimum irrigation practice under limited supplies involves reducing
water use from maximizing level of yield at which marginal cost equals the value of
the marginal product [1]. This requires an appropriate schedule of water application
satisfying the question of how much to apply and when to apply. Therefore, this
study aims at: (a) Maximum water use efficiency (WUE), (b) Maximum yields of
the crop, and (c) Maximum net return to the farmer.

6.2 MATERIALS AND METHODS

Different types of response functions were developed to predict yield and irrigation
water input. A quadratic response function was selected based on the F and r values
to fix the level of irrigation application for optimum yield. Keeping this amount of
water (34.2 cm) in view, a replicated field experiment was conducted and water was
applied at 3 levels of irrigation by 4 irrigation-scheduling techniques namely: (i) Ir-
rigation based on growth stages, (ii) irrigation based on pan evaporation ratio, (iii)
stress day index method, and (iv) difference between canopy and air temperature
(Table 6.1).
The evaluation of physical characteristics of soil included field capacity, per-
manent wilting point and bulk density. From these 12 treatments the one which
was statistically significant and had maximum water use efficiency (T8) was se-
lected. Based on this treatment, an irrigation-scheduling model was proposed after
calculating the sensitivity factor. Both parametric and nonparametric statistical tests
satisfied the model predictions. The developed model was used to apportion known
quantities of water in a season for getting the optimum yield.

*In this chapter, the currency is expressed in Indian Rupees (1.00 US$ = Rs. 60.93; 1.00 Rs. = 0.02 US$).
60 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

6.3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

6.3.1 DEVELOPMENT OF THE RESPONSE FUNCTION FOR WD

With the available data, least square regression technique was used to develop: lin-
ear, quadratic, square root and exponential type response functions (Anonymous,
1972–1983). Considering F values, all the response functions were significant at
P = 1.00%. However, R2 value for the quadratic response function was maximum.
Therefore, the quadratic response function was selected.

Y = 0.9922 + 1.721 WD – 0.017498 (WD)2, R2 = 0.55 (1)

where: Y is yield in 100 kg per ha; and WD is the total depth of water applied in cm.
From Eq. (1), WD = 49.19 cm, which is the total amount of water needed for getting
maximum yield in a growing season including the moisture profile. Taking the aver-
age value of moisture profile as 15 cm, the seasonal irrigation depth was:

WD = 49.19 – 15 = 34.19 cm (2)

Keeping this irrigation depth in consideration, water application was planned to

evaluate different irrigation scheduling techniques. Statistical analysis was done for
grain yield to test the variability among the treatments. Table 6.1 shows that the
treatments T2, T3, T5, T6, T8, T10, T11 and T12 are statistically significant at 5%
level of significance. The maximum WUE was obtained in T8. Therefore, T8 was
selected as the best. Based on this treatment, the model was used to apportion the
seasonal water supply for optimum yield.

TABLE 6.1 Water application, Crop Yield and Water Use Efficiency in Different Treatments,
Wheat Crop

Technique Irrigation Profile Total Grain Harvest WUE

depth, WD moisture water yield index
use use

cm cm cm 100 kg/ — Kg/(ha-cm)

ha

T1 Growth stage:
6,5,5,5,5 10.72 36.72 31.06 33.98 84.5
Initial

T2 Growth stage:
6,5,6,7,7 9.83 40.83 41.5* 41.06 101.64
CRI, tillering,
Evaluation of Irrigation Strategies for Wheat 61

TABLE 6.1 (Continued)

Technique Irrigation Profile Total Grain Harvest WUE

depth, WD moisture water yield index
use use

cm cm cm 100 kg/ — Kg/(ha-cm)

ha

T3 Growth stage: 6,7,7,7,7 9.52 43.62 43.86* 42.40 100.78

Joining, boot-
ing & grain
filling

T4 IW/PE = 0.9 6,4,4,4,4,4 11.37 37.37 34.82 36.93 93.17

T5 IW/PE 6,6,6,6 13.26 37.26 42.70* 40.09 113.08

T6 IW/PE 6,8,8 13.89 35.89 38.54 40.28 107.38

T7 Stress Day
6,4,4.4,4.4,4 9.67 39.67 38.09 38.50 96.01
Index: 35%

T8 Stress Day
6,6,6,6 10.75 34.75 41.18 41.39 118.50**
Index: 50%

T9 Stress Day
6,8,8,8 9.39 39.39 34.00 36.77 86.46
Index: 65%

T10 Tc-Ta > 0 6,4,4,4,4,4 12.75 36.75 39.74* 41.8 107.23

T11 Tc-Ta 6,6,6,6 12.83 36.83 39.40 42.28 106.97

T12 Tc-Ta 6,8,8,8 11.40 41.40 43.17* 41.18 104.27

Tc = Canopy temp.; Ta = Air temp.; IW = Irrigation water; PE = Potential ET.

* Significant at 5%level; and ** Maximum water use efficiency.
62 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

FIGURE 6.1 Sensitivity factor at different growth stages for wheat crop.

6.3.2 DEVELOPMENT OF THE MODEL FOR ESTIMATING

YIELD
For the development of the model, sensitivity factor (bi) was calculated [2] as given
in Table 6.2. The column 4 in Table 6.2 represents time corresponding to various
stages of the crop for a 15-day growing period. A graph was plotted between the
percentage of the growing season and the sensitivity factor (Fig. 6.1). The Eq. (3)
was developed using least square technique:

bi = 0.0051311089 + 0.04320788 G – 0.0006948206 G2 + 0.000002596119 G3, R2

= 0.87

= 0.51311089×10–2 + 0.43207884×10–1G – 0.69482066×10–3 G2 + 0.25961199×10–

5
G3 (3)
where: G = percentage of the growing season; and bi = sensitivity factor (Table 6.2).
Evaluation of Irrigation Strategies for Wheat 63

TABLE 6.2 Sensitivity Factor For Wheat

Crop growth No. of days from % of length of bi

stage sowing growing season, G Eq. (3)

1 Sowing 0 – –

Crown root 28 18.50 0.610

2
initiation

3 Jointing 72 47.60 0.640

4 Booting 97 64.20 0.816

5 Dough 121 80.17 0.207

6 Finish 151 100 —

6.3.3 APPORTIONING OF AVAILABLE SEASONAL IRRIGATION

SUPPLY FOR OPTIMUM YIELD
The following response function was developed to allocate the given quantity of
water in a season:

[Y/Yo] = [1–(1 – xi)2bi] (4)

where: Y = Actual yield per 100 kg/ha; Yo = Maximum yield, per 100 kg/ha; xi =
Ratios of water applied (W) to cumulative pan evaporation (P), W/P; and bi = Crop
stage sensitivity factor given by Eq. (3). We want to maximize Y in Eq. (4), where:

Y = Yo[1 – (1 – x1)2]0.59[1 – (1 – x1)2]0.786[1 – (1 – x1)2]0.64[1 – (1 – x1)2]0.61 (4)

Subject to the condition so that:

W1 + W2 + W3 + W4 = W (5)

where: W1, W2, W3, and W4 are amounts of water applied in four stages of growth.
Water must be applied in such a manner that it is not wasted at all. This implies that
depth of water applied does not exceed the field capacity in the active crop root
zone.
Since x = W/P, Eq. (5) can be rewritten as:

P1x1 + P2x2 + P3x3 + P4x4 = W (6)

where: P1, P2, P3 and P4 are cumulative pan evaporation depths, from the date of
previous irrigation during the corresponding (first, second, third and fourth) irriga-
64 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

tion periods, respectively. Values of P1 for four stages are P1 = 6.3, P2 = 6.8, P3 =
7.4, and P4 = 8.0.
Yield will be maximized, when the water is allocated so that the marginal prod-
ucts (i.e., first derivative of yield with respect to water applied in each pe-
riod) are equal, as described below:
dY dY dY dY dY
= = = =
dW 1 dW 2 dW 3 dW 4 dW

dY dY dY dY dY
Or (1 / P1) dW 1 = (1 / P 2) dW 2 = (1 / P3) dW 3 = (1 / P 4) dW 4 = (1 / P) dW (7)

To solve the objective function (Eq. (4)), exhaustive search method was employed
using the constraints in Eqs. (6) and (7). Results are discussed for the three zones,
as shown in Fig. 6.2.

6.3.3.1 ZONE I
If one decides to produce, he must produce up to the level of input, where average
product portion (APP) is the highest. In other words, if the product has a value (input
use), it should be continued until Zone II is reached. Since the efficiency of the vari-
able inputs keep increasing throughout the Zone I, it is not reasonable to stop using
an input when its efficiency on all the units used is increasing.

6.3.3.2 ZONE II
In this zone, the total product is increasing. The marginal product keeps decreasing
but remains positive and less than the APP. The average product also decreases.

6.3.3.3 ZONE III

In this zone of response function, the total product is decreasing and the marginal
product portion (MPP) is negative. Since additional quantities of input reduced the
total output in this zone, it is not profitable even if additional amount of water is
available, free of cost. It is, therefore, called as irrational zone of production, for
example, if one operates in this region, it will be irrational because of the double loss
that may incur (e.g., reduced production and unnecessary additional cost of input).
The above discussion leads to the conclusion that the farmer, who wants to max-
imize the profit, must operate in Zone II of the physical response function (Fig. 6.2).
Evaluation of Irrigation Strategies for Wheat 65

FIGURE 6.2 Total average and marginal productivity of water versus water available
for the season (cm) (Note: 1.00 Q = 1.00 quintal = 100 kg).

TABLE 6.3 Proposed Schedule For Different Quantities of Seasonal Water Supplied to
Achieve Optimum Yield

Water X1 X2 X3 X4 W1 W2 W3 W4 Yield Avg. Marg-inal

applied yield yield

cm cm 100 100 Kg/ 100 Kg/

Kg/ha ha [(ha)(2.5
cm)]

5.0 0.15 0.20 0.20 0.15 0.945 1.36 1.48 1.20 2.87 1.43 3.88

7.5 0.20 0.35 0.30 020 1.26 2.38 2.22 1.60 6.75 2.25 5 24

10.0 0.34 0.40 0.40 030 1.89 2.72 2.96 2.40 11.99 92.99 6.42
66 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

TABLE 6.3 (Continued)

12.5 0.55 0.55 0.45 0.25 3.46 3.74 3.33 2.00 18.41 3.68 6.37

15.0 0.65 0.60 0.55 0.35 4.09 4.08 4.07 2.08 24.78 4.13 6.04

17.5 0.70 0.75 0.60 0.45 4.41 5.10 4.44 3.60 30.82 4.40 —

20.0 0.80 0.80 0.75 0.50 5.04 5.44 5.55 4.00 35.82 4.47 5.00

22.5 0.90 0.90 0.75 0.65 5.67 6.12 5.55 5.20 39.86 4.42 4.04

25.0 0.85 0.90 0.85 0.90 5.35 6.12 6.29 7.20 42.69 4.26 2.83

27.5 0.95 0.95 0.95 1.00 5.98 6.46 7.03 8.00 44.21 4.01 1.52

28.5 0.85 0.95 0.90 1.25 5.35 6.46 6.66 10.00 42.34 3.52 -1.87

6.3.4 USE OF MODEL FOR PREDICTING IRRIGATION LEVELS

OF ECONOMIC RELEVANCE
The model developed has been used to apportion hypothetical limited quantities of
water in a growing season. The results are given in Table 6.3. From Fig. 6.2, it is
clear that the region of 21.66 cm to 28.33 cm of irrigation water input is the area of
economic relevance. Thus the producers, who want to maximize their productivity
of water, must operate in this economic region (Zone II) with the maximum produc-
tivity at 27.5 cm level. However, the irrigation level for maximum profit may lie
beyond this level of maximum productivity or water.

6.3.5. USE OF MODEL FOR YIELD PREDICTION

Since the model needs irrigation water to pan evaporation ratio data, all the 12 treat-
ments were transformed to corresponding depth of irrigation water to evaporation
ratios, assuming the variations in these values is minimum, year after year. The sen-
sitivity factor was calculated using Eq. (4) for each of the treatments. The predicted
yields for all 12 treatments have been compared in Table 6.4.

TABLE 6.4 Comparison of Observed and Predicted Values of Yield

Treatment Observed Predicted Difference

T1 31.06 38.66 –7.60

T2 41.50 43.66 –1.96

T3 43.86 43.72 0.14

Evaluation of Irrigation Strategies for Wheat 67

TABLE 6.4 (Continued)

T4 34.82 43.28 –8.46

T5 42.70 43.68 –0.98

T6 38.54 43.90 –5.36

T7 38.09 43.99 –5.90

T8 41.18 42.61 –1.43

T9 34.06 44.20 –10.14

T10 39.74 37.54 2.20

T11 39.40 40.35 –0.95

T12 43.17 42.12 1.05

6.3.6 VALIDATION OF THE MODEL

The validity of the response function developed was tested by the t-test (Parametric
test) and Wilconox signed rank test (Non-parametric test).
The observed and the predicted values are given in Table 6.4. From the data in
Table 6.4, it is clear that the predicted and observed yields compare reasonably all
other treatments, except for the treatment T4 and T9 (where the predicted yields
are much higher than the observed yields). Wide variation in T4 and T9 may be at-
tributed to experimental errors. Therefore, further tests were applied for neglecting
these two treatments:
a. t-test: t-calculated = 2.06; t – tabulated at 5% = 2.26. The difference be-
tween the two values is negligible.
b. Wilconox signed rank test: t-calculated = 12; t-tabulated at 5% = 8. Hence,
the model is good enough for predicting the yield.
Following two equations were used for a test of degree of variation between
observed and predicted yields:

RES = ∑ [Yobserved − Ypredicted ] = −20.79 (8)

RESabsolute = ∑ [Yobserved − Ypredicted ] = 27.57 (9)

where: RES = Sum of residuals; and RESabsolute = Sum of absolute residuals. Com-
paring the sum of residuals in Eqs. (8) and (9), we observe a large negative value of
68 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

RES, indicating that the model is slightly over predicted, in large number of cases.
The value of stress day factor is obtained by dividing the average stress day index
for 50% depletion of available soil moisture (which is equal to 0.09139) by the crop
susceptibility factor for a day.

6.4 CONCLUSIONS
For better planning of water use, irrigation can be applied, when the value of stress
day factor is greater than the observed value of the soil moisture status in the field
on the same day. Otherwise irrigation is postponed till the value of stress day factor
(calculated) becomes greater than the observed soil moisture status in the field.
To apply a known quantity of water in a season for getting the optimum yield,
the proposed irrigation scheduling model can be employed which apportions differ-
ent amounts of available seasonal water supplies to get the optimum yield.
The present irrigation scheduling, model can be used for other crops by replac-
ing the water yield production function of wheat crop by the crop under consid-
eration, provided the crop susceptibility factor is known. Stress day factor can be
taken as standard from past experience or published literature.

6.5 SUMMARY
An alternative schedule for optimum yield from seasonal water supply level was
worked out using IW/PE ratio (which proved to be the next best), directly using
the technique in this study. Four irrigation-scheduling techniques (Crop Growth
Stages, Irrigation Water to Pan Evaporation Ratio, Stress Day Index, and Canopy-
Air Temperature Difference) each with three irrigation levels have been evalu-
ated using a replicated field experiment in randomized block design. From the
12 treatments, the ‘Stress Day Index’ method with 50% depletion of available
soil moisture was statistically superior, and had maximum water use efficiency.
A water input yield response model was developed for this irrigation schedule.
Both parametric and nonparametric statistical tests satisfied the model predictions
when applied to the data of remaining 11 irrigation treatments. The model was
also used for apportioning known quantities of seasonal irrigation supplies for
obtaining the optimum yield.
Evaluation of Irrigation Strategies for Wheat 69

KEYWORDS

•• air temperature
•• canopy temperature
•• crop growth stage
•• irrigation scheduling
•• irrigation water
•• marginal yield
•• optimum yield
•• pan evaporation
•• response function
•• seasonal irrigation
•• sensitivity factor
•• stress day factor
•• stress day index
•• sum of residuals, RSS
•• water use efficiency, WUE
•• Wilcoxon signed rank test

REFERENCES
1. Anonymous, (1972–1983). Annual Progress Report of ICAR Integrated Project for Research
on Water Management and Soil Salinity. Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana.
2. Nairizi, S., Rydzewski, J. R. (1977). Effects of Soil Moisture Stress On Crop Yield. Exp. Ag-
ric. 13, 51–59.
70 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

APPENDIX I: PHOTOS OF FIELD EXPERIMENT ON DRIP

IRRIGATED WHEAT
CHAPTER 7

EVAPOTRANSPIRATION ESTIMATIONS
USING CLIMATOLOGICAL
APPROACHES
KAMAL GURMIT SINGH and PAWANPREET KAUR

7.1 INTRODUCTION
Punjab is called the land of irrigated agriculture with 85% of its cultivable area
under irrigation. This high percentage of area under irrigation reveals that Punjab
has exploited a considerable part of its water resources for irrigation purposes. But
irrigation practices adopted by farmers of Punjab are generally arbitrary and not
necessarily based on actual water needs of a crop. Therefore, proper management
of water resources had become a matter of vital concern for increasing crop pro-
duction further, on one hand, and to prevent the exhaustion of underground water
resources, on the other hand. Evapotranspiration (ET) is the best criterion which
needs to be estimated on a scientific basis so that the required amount of water can
be applied to the crop at the proper time, taking into account the effective rainfall
and irrigation application efficiency. One of the methods of ET estimation is ly-
simetery. However, its immobility and high cost restrict its utility. The evaluation
of ET by an empirical method is simple and easy to use. The empirical formulae
use standard climatological data as the inputs. However, all the proposed em-
pirical formulae hold good in the respective localities where these methods were
developed, and cannot be extended beyond these locations. Therefore, a suitable
method for determining ET for Punjab is needed to have a reliable estimate with
available meteorological data.
Therefore, this study was planned: To evaluate the existing modified empirical
approaches for estimation of ET; and to compare and suggest the suitable methods
under the climatic conditions of Punjab – India.

*In this chapter, the currency is expressed in Indian Rupees (1.00 US$ = Rs. 60.93; 1.00 Rs. = 0.02 US$).
72 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

7.2 MATERIALS AND METHODS

Following empirical formulae [4] were selected for estimation of ET: (i) Blaney-
Criddle method; (ii) Radiation method; (iii) Modified Penman method; and (iv) Pan
evaporation method.

7.2.1 BLANEY–CRIDDLE METHOD

This method represents a mean value over the given month as below:

PET = C [P (0.46T + 8)], mm/day (1)

where: PET = reference crop evapotranspiration in mm/day for the month consid-
ered; T = mean daily temperature in°C for the month considered; P = mean daily
percentage of total annual day time hours for a given month and latitude; and C
= adjustment factor which depends relative humidity, sunshine hours and daytime
wind speed.

7.2.2 RADIATION METHOD

PET = C (W.Rs) (2)

where: PET = reference crop evapotranspiration in mm/day for the periods con-
sidered; Rs. = solar radiation in equivalent evaporation in mm/day; W = weighing
factor which depends on temperature and altitude; and C = adjustment factor which
depends on mean humidity and daytime wind conditions

7.2.3 MODIFIED PENMAN METHOD

PET = C [W.Rn + (1–W).f(u) (ea–ed)] (3)

where: PET = reference crop evapotranspiration in mm/day; W = temperature re-

lated weighing factor; Rn = net radiation in equivalent evaporation in mm/day; f(u)
– wind related function; (ea-ed) = difference between the saturation vapor pressure
at the mean air temperature and the mean actual vapor pressure of air in mbar.

7.2.4 PAN EVAPORATION METHOD

The following curvilinear relationship relating the ratio of potential evapotranspira-
tion to pan evaporation (PET/EP) and time t (days after seeding) was used [1]:
Evapotranspiration Estimations Using Climatological Approaches 73

[PET/EP] = 0.56 + 0.021 t – 0.000125t2, R2 = 0.98. (4)

where: t = time following seeding; and EP = Pan evaporation in mm/day.

7.2.5 ESTIMATION OF ACTUAL EVAPOTRANSPIRATION

ETcrop = Kc × PET (5)

To find the final value of Kc, the crop season is divided into four stages. The four
stages in crop development are initial stage, mid-season stage, crop development
stage, and late season stage. Crop coefficient value is determined from the crop
coefficient curve [2] for whole growing season.

7.2.6 DATA COLLECTION

The input data (temperature, relative humidity, rainfall, wind speed, and sunshine
hours) were those recorded in meteorological observatory at Punjab Agricultural
University, Ludhiana. Crop evapotranspiration for the Lysimeter study for the pe-
riod November 1980 to April 1981 was taken from Singh [3].

7.2.7 COMPUTER PROGRAM

Computer program in FORTRAN-77 was developed for the calculation of PET val-
ues for period November 1980 through April 1981 for the four methods (Blaney
Griddle method, Radiation method, Modified Penman method, Pan evaporation
method). The estimations were made for the year 1980–1981, because lysimeter
data was available for this period only.

7.3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

7.3.1 COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT ET METHODS

The 15 days average PET computed with various empirical methods are given in
Table 7.1. The Table 7.1 reveals that in the initial stages of crop growth ET values
were quite high except in case of Pan evaporation method. During the peak growth
period, radiation and Modified Penman method showed a sharp rise in ET values.
During first 15 days of February, there was a fall in ET values. This may be due to
rainfall or cloudy conditions during those days. In general, radiation method showed
highest values while Pan evaporation showed lowest value during the whole season.
Values of Modified Penman method and Blaney-Criddle method are comparable
74 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

but for the whole season. Blaney-Criddle method underestimates the ET values as
compared to Modified Penman method.

TABLE 7.1 Estimated Potential Evapotranspiration (mm/day) With Different Methods

During Wheat Growing Period (Crop was Sown on November 16)

Date Days Blaney- Radiation Modified Pan evaporation

Criddle method Penman method
method method
Nov. 16–30 15 2.853 3.554 3.096 1.986
Dec. 1–15 30 2.406 3.685 2.919 2.154
Dec. 16–30 45 1.704 3.139 2.225 1.805
Dec. 31–Jan. 14 60 2.117 2.090 1.835 1.817
Jan. 15–29 75 1.710 2.758 2.034 1.655
Jan. 30–Feb. 13 90 1.710 2.304 2.031 1.756
Feb. 14–28 105 2.290 2.999 2.57 2.285
Mar. 1–15 120 2.270 3.101 3.07 2.097
Mar. 16–30 135 3.553 4.022 3.685 2.947

7.3.2 COMPARISON OF ET ESTIMATIONS WITH

LYSIMETER ET
Lysimeter values are accurate representation of water use by the crop. Therefore, the
estimations with climatic approaches were compared with the lysimeter data. The
values of ET calculated by four different methods and actual lysimeter ET are given
in Table 7.2. The ET estimated by Blaney-Criddle method ranges from 0.998 mm/
day to 3.197 mm/day. The values underestimate the lysimeter values in the initial
stages, but at the end of season it exceeds lysimeter values. ET estimated by Radia-
tion method ranges from 1.289 mm/day to 3.619 mm/day. The values nearly match
the lysimeter values, and only at the end of wheat season the ET value exceeds that
may be due to high solar radiation in the month of March–April. ET estimated by
Modified Penman methods ranges from 1.084 mm/day to 3.316 mm/day. As the
temperature increases in March–April, temperature related factors also show in-
crease in these values. Hence the ET value exceeds lysimeter value. ET estimated
by Pan evaporation method ranges from 0.695 mm/day to 3.252 mm/day. The values
underestimated the lysimeter observations for the whole season except in month of
March–April.
Evapotranspiration Estimations Using Climatological Approaches 75

TABLE 7.2 Actual Evapotranspiration and Calculated Evapotranspiration (mm/day) During

Wheat Growing Period (Crop was Sown on November 16)

Date Kc Blaney- Radiation Modified Pan Actual

Criddle method Penman evaporation ET
method method method lysimeter

Nov. 16–30 0.35 0.99 1.294 1.084 0.695 1.01

Dec. 1–15 0.35 0.842 1.289 1.022 0.754 1.71

Dec. 16–30 0.55 0.937 1.726 1.224 0.993 1.94

Dec. 31–Jan. 14 0.82 1.736 1.714 1.505 1.490 1.75

Jan. 15–29 1.05 1.795 2.896 2.136 1.737 2.31

Jan. 30–Feb. 13 1.05 1.795 2.419 2.132 1.844 3.37

Feb. 14–28 1.05 2.404 3.149 2.70 2.399 3.67

Mar. 1–15 1.05 2.383 3.256 3.224 3.252 1.20

Mar. 16–30 0.9 3 .197 3.619 3.316 2.652 1.65

Mar. 31–Apr. 9 0.62 2.851 2.805 2.330 1.173 1.63

TABLE 7.3 Cumulative Evapotranspiration (mm/day) Values by Different Methods For

Entire Crop Season

Days Blaney- Radiation Modified Pan evaporation Lysimeter

Criddle method Penman method
method method
15 14.97 19.41 16.26 10.43 15.15
30 27.60 38.75 31.59 21.74 40.80
45 41.65 64.64 49.95 36.30 69.90
60 67.70 90.35 72.53 58.98 96.15
75 94.62 133.79 104.57 85.04 130.80
90 121.55 170.07 136.55 112.70 181.00
105 157.61 217.31 177.04 148.68 206.40
120 193.35 266.15 225.39 197.46 254.40
135 241.31 320.46 275.14 237.24 279.15
145 284.07 362.50 310.10 254.84 303.60
76 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

7.3.3 COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT METHODS FOR

ESTIMATING CUMULATIVE EVAPOTRANSPIRATION (CET)
The CET values for the entire crop-growing season are given in Table 7.3. Radiation
method and lysimeter gave nearly equal values during initial stage of crop growth.
CET values calculated by Modified Penman method are nearly equal to lysimeter
during initial and then final stage of crop growth. For the rest of season, Modified
Penman values underestimate the lysimeter values. Pan evaporation method gave
the lowest CET values. From the data in Tables 7.1 to 7.3, it is also clear that lysim-
eter and Modified Penman gave nearly equal values. Therefore, Modified Penman
method may be a reliable method to calculate CET. Under the situations of avail-
ability of minimum data, Radiation method may be more suitable.

7.3.4 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The t-test at 5% level of significance was used to establish the validity of the ET val-
ues with climatological approaches versus lysimetric data. The calculated t-values
were 0.91, 0.80, 0.19 and 2.35 for Blaney-Criddle, Radiation, Modified Penman
and Pan evaporation method, respectively. Whereas, t-value at 5% level of signifi-
cance and seven degree of freedom was 1.73. Therefore, Pan evaporation method
is discarded as its t-value is more than t-value; and Blaney-Criddle, Radiation and
Modified Penman methods are acceptable.

7.4 CONCLUSIONS
Modified Penman and radiation methods to estimate ET showed close resemblance
with lysimeter data. But Radiation method appears to be better as if enough data
is not available. It is concluded that modified penman method is best for calculat-
ing cumulative evapotranspiration, whereas radiation method is best for calculating
daily/fortnightly evapotranspiration (for insufficient data).

7.5 SUMMARY
Four modified empirical methods (Blaney-Criddle method, Radiation method,
Modified Penman method and Pan evaporation methods of determining potential
evapotranspiration) were compared. The potential evapotranspiration values calcu-
lated by these methods were multiplied by crop coefficient to find the actual evapo-
transpiration and these actual ET values were compared with lysimeter data. The
study suggested that Modified Penman method is best for CET and radiation method
is best for calculating the daily/fortnightly evapotranspiration.
Evapotranspiration Estimations Using Climatological Approaches 77

KEYWORDS

•• cabbage
•• Blaney-Criddle method
•• climatological approaches
•• effective rainfall
•• evapotranspiration, ET
•• irrigation application efficiency
•• irrigation practices
•• lysimeter
•• mean actual vapor pressure
•• mean air temperature
•• mean daily temperature
•• Modified Penman method
•• net radiation
•• Pan evaporation, Epan
•• Radiation method
•• relative humidity
•• saturation vapor pressure
•• sunshine hours
•• water resources

REFERENCES
1. Arora, V. K., Prihar, S. S., Gajri, P. R. (1987). Synthesis of a simplified water use simulation
model for predicting wheat yields. Water Resource Rev., 23(5), 903–910.
2. Kumar, Anchal (1983). Simulation of soil moisture profiles under cropped conditions. M.
Tech. Thesis, Soil and Water Engineering, College of Agricultural Engineering, PAU, Ludhi-
ana.
3. Singh, Awadh Bihari (1982). To find an empirical method of computing potential evapotrans-
piration under climatic conditions of Punjab. M. Sc. Thesis, Department of Agricultural Me-
teorology, PAU, Ludhiana.
4. Singh, Kamal Gurmit, Pawanpreet Kaur (2002). Evaluation of modified climatological ap-
proaches for the estimation of evapotranspiration. J. Res. Punjab Agric. Univ., 39(1), 97–106.
This page intentionally left blank
CHAPTER 8

ADVANCES IN MICRO IRRIGATION

FOR ENHANCING RESOURCE USE
EFFICIENCY
KAMAL G. SINGH

8.1 INTRODUCTION
It is estimated that world population will grow from 7.0 billion in 2011 to 7.5 billion
in 2020. While there is an ever-increasing demand for food, total agricultural land
area on earth will not grow from current level of 5.0 billion hectares. In order to
ensure food security and nutrition demand, productivity of land has to be increased
in the rate of 40–50% in next 10 years by using appropriate technologies of which
micro irrigation is very important. Water happens to be the far most crucial input
in agriculture sector, which consumes about 90% of the total water resources. In
India, including Punjab, the traditional practices of irrigation are still followed in
which the overall efficiency is only 30–50%. World Water Council 2000 observed
“the present water crisis is the result of the poor management of available water
resources that has created an artificial gap between demand and supply of water.”
Agriculture, being the major consumer of water is responsible to a great extent for
the current mismanagement of water resources and consequently a sufferer also. But
to meet the increasing food grains need of growing population from the same land
area, the need of efficient utilization of all inputs to agriculture especially water is
imperative [1–6].

8.1.1 MICRO IRRIGATION IN THE WORLD

Of total 300 million ha of area under irrigation globally, only 45 million ha, that is,
15% is currently under micro irrigation. Of this 80% is under sprinkler irrigation,
including Pivot irrigation and 20% is under drip irrigation. Though India has the
largest irrigated area at 69 million ha yet it has only 4–5 million ha, that is, less than
7% under micro irrigation.

*In this chapter, the currency is expressed in Indian Rupees (1.00 US$ = Rs. 60.93; 1.00 Rs. = 0.02 US$).
80 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

8.1.2 PRESENT AGRICULTURE SCENARIO OF INDIA

In India, the current agriculture scenarios followed are: (i) shrinking per capita wa-
ter availability; (ii) lowering sectoral availability of water; (iii) lower irrigated area;
(iv) lower productivity; (v) small land holding. Here, the problem is not water avail-
ability but inefficient management of available water resources. Precision farming
techniques with optimum use of input resources is one of the solutions. In view of
the urgent need to maximize use of the available resources, it is imperative to reduce
the use of resources by adopting efficient /advanced methods of irrigation like drip,
sprinkler, and micro sprinklers. By introducing the advanced irrigation methods, in
addition to maximizing nutrient use efficiency, more and more cultivated areas can
be brought under irrigation resulting in good quality increased agriculture produc-
tion.

8.1.3. WHY MODERN IRRIGATION TECHNOLOGIES?

1. Water is vital input with 80% its consumption in agriculture sector.
2. The productivity of irrigated land is low compared to its potential.
3. The productivity per unit water is very low.
4. Water available for irrigation is becoming scare.
5. Decline in water table – 0.55 m/year in central Punjab.
6. The predominance of soils with low water retention capacities and very low
hydraulic conductivities makes an ideal case for light and frequent irriga-
tions, that is, Micro-irrigation
7. Micro irrigation will increase the irrigation cover using existing available
water.
8. Micro irrigation with fertigation will enhance production per unit input in
nutrient poor low dense soils.

8.2 MICRO IRRIGATION

Drip/Trickle irrigation represents one of the fastest expanding technologies in mod-
ern irrigated agriculture with a great potential of achieving high effectiveness of
water use. Crop coverage under drip irrigation in India is shown in Fig. 8.1. Drip
irrigation basically involves the slow application of water in the form of discrete
drops, continuous drops, tiny streams or miniature sprays through mechanical de-
vices called emitters or applicators located at selected points along water delivery
lines where the water infiltrates the soils. The efficiencies of different irrigation sys-
tems are given in Table 8.1. Total area under micro irrigation in India is 7.2% where
as world average is 15% of the irrigated area. The Department of Soil and Water En-
gineering PAU, Ludhiana is working on micro irrigation since many years and has
Advances in Micro Irrigation for Enhancing Resource Use 81

developed irrigation and fertigation schedules for pepper, Potatoes, Tomato, egg-
plant, early cauliflower, cotton and sugarcane. Results are discussed in this chapter.

TABLE 8.1 Irrigation Efficiencies For Different Methods of Irrigation

Type Irrigation efficiency, %

Surface Sprinkler Drip

Conveyance efficiency 40–50 (Canal) 100 100

60–70 (Well)

Application efficiency 60–70 70–80 90

Surface water moisture evaporation 30–40 30–40 20–25

Overall efficiency 30–35 50–60 80–90

FIGURE 8.1 Percentage distribution of crop coverage under drip irrigation in India.

8.3 AUTOMATION OF DRIP IRRIGATION SYSTEM

Manual operation of the routine practices in agriculture requires lot of attention and
care. Also it is difficult to perform desired jobs efficiently and precisely. Ultimately
82 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

this may result in lower crop production, nonuniform growth and poor quality. Au-
tomation provides a faster, precise and reliable operation.
Automation of micro irrigation system refers to operation of the system with
no or minimum manual intervention (Fig. 8.2). The introduction of automation in
irrigation system has increased application efficiency and drastically reduced labor
requirement. The automation is adopted due to:
1. Automation eliminates manual operations
2. Possibility to change frequency of irrigation and fertigation process and also
to optimize these processes
3. Adoption of advanced crop systems and new technologies, especially new
crops system that are complex and difficult to operate manually
4. Use of water from different sources and increased water and fertilizer use
efficiency
5. Smooth and efficient system operation
6. Optimizing energy requirements and increase yield

FIGURE 8.2 Automation of drip irrigation system.

Advances in Micro Irrigation for Enhancing Resource Use 83

FIGURE 8.3 Solenoid valves for an electronic controller.

8.3.1 TYPES OF AUTOMATION SYSTEMS

8.3.1.1 TIME BASED SYSTEM

In this system, time is the basis for operation. The basic objective is to prepare a
schedule based on crop water requirements. The operation sequence will be set by
user as desired.

8.3.1.2 VOLUME BASED SYSTEM

In this type, every section will receive the preset volume of water. This is possible
with the help of two methods: (i) Electronic Control, and (ii) Mechanical Control
(AMV).

8.3.1.2.1 ELECTRONIC CONTROL

Water meter is an essential component in this method, which gives the feedback to
controller, after the preset water volume is delivered. One after the other, every sec-
tion receives the preset water quantity (Fig. 3).
84 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

8.3.1.2.2 MECHANICAL CONTROL (AMV)

This is known as sequential irrigation system. Here controller is not required. Auto-
matic metering valves are interconnected in series. The required quantity has to be
set on each AMV. One after the other, all AMVs will operate and deliver the reqd.
water quantity. After the last AMV is closed, the pump also shuts off.

8.3.1.3 SENSOR-BASED SYSTEM

In this system, sensors give feedback to controller, depending on which the control-
ler initiates various actions as required.

8.3.1.3 FEATURES OF TIME-BASED IRRIGATION CONTROLLERS

1. Cyclic programming/interval programming.
2. Water window management.
3. Cycle and soak by station.
4. Easily upgradeable for remote control.
5. Global or program level seasonal adjustment.
6. Compatibility with evapotranspiration system, central control and sensors.

8.3.1.2 FEATURES OF VOLUME OR SENSOR BASED

CONTROLLERS (FIG. 8.4)
1. Flexibility of start times and cycles.
2. Sequential programming.
3. Powerful software to monitor and control the complete operation of the sys-
tem.
4. Fully automatic, or manual override operation options.
5. Powerful battery backup.
6. Event logbook to record the last 100 system events (complete/partial log-
ging options).
7. Large, easy to read, wide-angle LCD display.
8. Compatibility with wireless and central control systems
Advances in Micro Irrigation for Enhancing Resource Use 85

FIGURE 8.4 Sensor based controllers for automation.

8.3.2 BASIC PRINCIPLES OF OPERATION

8.3.2.1 SYSTEM COMPONENTS OF AN AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION

SYSTEM (FIG. 8.5)
1. Controller controls whole automation system. According to the signals re-
ceived from sensor, open or close solenoid valve through solenoid coil as
shown in Fig. 8.6, we generally use (i) electromechanical, and (ii) electronic
controls.

FIGURE 8.5 Components of an automatic system.

86 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

FIGURE 8.6 Irrigation controllers.

2. Sensors produce electrical signals directly related to parameter to be mea-

sured. Available sensors: (i) tensiometer; (ii) dielectric sensor; (iii) thermal
soil matric potential sensor; (iv) Gypsum block soil water sensor; and (v)
TDR based sensor (Fig. 8.7).

FIGURE 8.7 Soil moisture sensors.

3. Control valves are solenoid or hydraulic valves open or close according to

command by solenoid coil, which converts electrical pulses in to hydraulic
pulses to operate control valves (Fig. 8.8).
Advances in Micro Irrigation for Enhancing Resource Use 87

FIGURE 8.8 Solenoid valves and hydraulic valves.

4. Water meter: Measure the rate of flow of water.

5. Pump: Lift the water from source and circulate through system.

8.4 SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT OF MI

By converting 0.10 million ha land area under micro irrigation:
1. total water saving is 347 million Cu. meters/annum.
2. fertilizer saving of Rs. 1.05 billions.
3. saving of 27.1 million KWH of energy per year worth Rs. 70 million by
pumping less water.
4. employment generation of 0.125 million person.
5. saving on infra-structural investment on Major irrigation projects (for
saved) – 2.65 billions.

8.5 FUTURE STRATEGIES FOR PROMOTING DRIP IRRIGATION

In view of the fact that India has a potential of bringing 69 m-ha under drip ir-
rigation especially for horticultural crops, following strategies have to be adopted
to conserve precious water resources with simultaneous increase in horticultural
production.
1. Initial cost needs to be lowered and loans at concessional rates be provided
instead of popular scheme of free power and water to the farmers.
2. The procedure of processing of subsidy cases must be simplified so that
these are finalized within one month.
3. More efficient filter(s) need to be designed to prevent clogging of the sys-
tem.
4. Rural unemployed educated youth may be provided training in operation
and maintenance of the system.
5. After sales service and supply of spares need to be strengthened at the block/
tehsil level
88 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

6. Special incentives in the form of priority release of connection to the farm-

ers desirous of installing this system for orchards by the State Electricity
Board should be given.

8.6 SUMMARY
World’s water crisis is a fact. According to the International Water management In-
stitute (IWMI), one-third of the world’s population will face absolute water scarcity
by the year 2025. Policy makers, researchers, NGOs, and farmers are pursuing vari-
ous technical, institutional and policy interventions to meet this crucial challenge in
the twenty-first century. Micro irrigation technology has now become a time tested
tool for making efficient use of water and fertilizers as well as for improving the
farm productivity and should be promoted for addressing the needs for Food Se-
curity, Water Security and Environmental Security. Micro irrigation technologies
constitute one such intervention with the ability to use water efficiently in irrigated
agriculture in order to produce ‘more crop per drop.’ Further, it can raise incomes
through improved crop yields and outputs; enhance food security of households and
ensure environmental protection. There is an increasing trend to shift from manual
to automatic operations. Irrigation can be almost totally automated by using micro
irrigation system. Accurate and precise application rates, increased yields, saving
in water and energy, reduced labor cost, minimized return flow, improved pest and
disease control are among the major advantages that are offered by adopting auto-
mation techniques in micro irrigation.

KEYWORDS

•• drip automation
•• drip irrigation
•• environment protection
•• FAO
•• food security
•• IARI
•• ICID
•• IWMI
Advances in Micro Irrigation for Enhancing Resource Use 89

•• labor cost
•• micro irrigation
•• mulching
•• plastics
•• precision farming
•• return flow
•• sensor based irrigation
•• water crisis
•• water technology center, WTC
•• World Water Council, WWC

REFERENCES
1. Anonymous, (2006–2012). Annual progress reports of AICRP on “Application of Plastics in
Agriculture.” Department of Soil and Water Eng., P.A.U. Ludhiana – India.
2. Anonymous, (2011). Proceedings of the National seminar on Advances in Micro Irrigation.
Organized by NCPAH, Ministry of Agriculture, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and PFDC, WTC,
IARI, New Delhi on Feb 15–16.
3. FAO, Water Report/Aquastat.
4. Kulkarni, S. A., Reinders, F. B., Ligetvari, F. Global scenario of sprinkler & micro irrigated
areas. <ICID.ORG>.
5. MoWR, (2002). National water policy. Government of India, New Delhi.
6. Rajput, T. B. S., Neelam Patel, (2001). Drip Irrigation Manual. Water Technology Center,
IARI, New Delhi.
This page intentionally left blank
CHAPTER 9

MICRO IRRIGATED SUGARCANE IN

INDIA: A REVIEW
ARUN KAUSHAL, RAHUL PATOLE, and KAMAL G. SINGH

9.1 INTRODUCTION
Sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.) has a unique role in sustaining agro indus-
trial economic growth in India. In the world, India is second largest producer of sug-
arcane with estimated production of 348.2 million tons per year [38]. This produc-
tion accounts for approximately one fifth of total production 1743.1 million tons in
the world. Sugarcane is an important raw material for production of sugar, industrial
alcohol, filter cake (a fertilizer), bagasse (fuel), cattle feed and paper industry. Sugar
industry adds Rs. 30,000 crore to the Indian economy and there are about 3.5 crore
farmers engaged in sugarcane cultivation.
In India, sugarcane is cultivated in about 4.1 million ha, however the average
yield is only about 69 tons per ha [11]. One of the main reasons of low yield is scar-
city of water. Sugarcane, being a long duration crop, produces huge amount of bio-
mass, and requires large quantity of water and is mostly grown as an irrigated crop.
It is important to judiciously use the already existing water resources by adopting
appropriate irrigation technology that not only increases sugarcane production per
unit area but also per unit of water used. Thus a scientific and efficient management
of water is needed especially in hot dry months of premonsoon period, to enhance
water use efficiency (WUE) and cane yield, which is possible by micro irrigation.
In this chapter, sugarcane cultivation is reviewed under micro/drip or trickle
irrigation.

9.1.1 WATER REQUIREMENTS OF SUGARCANE

The water requirement of sugarcane is high; and against the background of the rapid
decline in irrigation water potential and low WUE of flood (conventional) method
of irrigation, micro irrigation is known to save a substantial amount of water and
helps to increase the productivity as reported by several workers [24, 27, 31–33].

*In this chapter, the currency is expressed in Indian Rupees (1.00 US$ = Rs. 60.93; 1.00 Rs. = 0.02 US$).
92 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

The water requirement of sugarcane in Akola – India has been estimated by Zade
[38]. The average weekly values of reference evapotranspiration (ETo) were cal-
culated by modified Penman formula and distribution was fitted for the same. The
70% probability value of ET for sugarcane was 2065.3 mm while the total water
requirement was 1633.41 mm.
Gulati and Nayak [9] studied effects of irrigation and planting dates on growth,
cane yield and WUE of sugarcane in Orissa – India, during 1994–1996. The study
reported four irrigation levels (IW/CPE ratio of 0.6, 0.8, 1.0 and 1.2) and six dates of
planting (October, November, December, January, February and March). The high-
est cane yield of 156.65 t ha–1 was recorded from planting sugarcane during the
third week of October at 1.2 = IW/CPE, with the corresponding irrigation and water
requirements of 132 and 218 cm. The crop extracted more moisture from the 0–30
cm soil depth in all treatments.
Arulkar et al. [2] reported the water requirement estimation of sugarcane crop
from climatological data by probability analysis at Nagpur district of India. Week-
ly rainfall data for the 25 years were analyzed and rainfall curves were drawn at
various probability levels. The values of weekly reference evapotranspiration were
calculated by using weather data: relative humidity, temperature, wind speed and
cloudiness. Crop coefficient values were determined to get water requirement of
sugarcane. Annual reference evapotranspiration and crop water requirement were
2126 and 1982 mm, respectively.
The application of water balance studies in irrigated sugarcane from Karnataka
– India has been reported by Rajegowd et al. [25]. It was observed that the crop
coefficient value during initial stage was 0.5 and then gradually increased during
vegetative phase and reached maximum during flowering and reproductive phase
and decreased to 0.6 after the maturity. The available water holding capacity of the
soil was approximately 116 mm for 100 cm soil depth. The total water requirement
was 1346 mm. The results indicated that the irrigated sugarcane planted during the
month of July with field capacity can grow without any further irrigation until De-
cember. Under the annual rainfall of 844 mm in the zone, the annual surplus was ap-
proximately 138 mm; the total water available for the crop growth from the rainfall
was approximately 818 mm. The additional need of approximately 529 mm was met
through supplement irrigation.
Kumar et al. [15] conducted experiment on probabilistic irrigation water require-
ment of major crops at Udham Singh Nagar district of Uttaranchal state – India. The
water requirement was estimated using daily rainfall and observed Class A pan data.
The irrigation water requirements of sugarcane were calculated at 50 and 80% prob-
ability of occurrence of the effective rainfall. The seasonal average water irrigation
requirement was 1119 mm for sugarcane crops at 80% probability.
The water requirement for seasonal and annual sugarcane crop (per plant basis)
using open pan evaporation method from Akola, Maharashtra was reported by Ingle
[10]. Sugarcane crop water requirement (WR) increased from 0.52 L.day–1 to 11 L.
day–1 on 21 MW (meteorological week), and then decreased gradually to 1.80 L
Micro Irrigated Sugarcane in India: A Review 93

day–1 at 26 MW. The maximum WR for Suru and Adsali sugarcane were 122 and
148 m3.day–1.ha–1, respectively.
Larger yield in sugarcane depends on the availability of adequate quantity of
water, Water is most important input in an assured sugarcane production system,
especially in area, where sugarcane production suffers due to scarcity and or irregu-
lar distribution of rainfall specially from mid April to end of June (before the onset
of monsoon). Micro irrigation is a method by which one can overcome scarcity of
water for sugarcane crop.

9.1.2 ADVANTAGES OF MICRO IRRIGATION IN SUGARCANE

In micro irrigation system, water is applied in the form of drops directly to the plant
through emitters from which it drops into the soil slowly and frequently to keep the
soil moisture within the desired range for healthy plant growth so that the plant do
not experience any moisture stress throughout the life cycle. It is particularly suited
to soil with very low and very high infiltration rates under conditions of water scar-
city and in area where drainage of excess water is difficult.
Advantages of micro irrigation in sugarcane are as follows: saving of irrigation
water; low fertilizer/nutrient loss due to localized application and reduced leaching;
high water application efficiency; grading of the field not necessary; ability to irri-
gate irregular shaped fields; allows better use of recycled water; moisture within the
root zone can be maintained at field capacity; less weed growth; soil type plays less
important role in frequency of irrigation; minimized soil erosion; highly uniform
distribution of water, that is, controlled by output of each nozzle; lower labor cost;
variation in supply can be regulated by valves and drippers; fertigation can easily
be included with minimal waste of fertilizers; foliage remains dry thus reducing the
risk of disease and decreased energy costs due to reduced pumping time to irrigate a
given design area. It leads to optimum soil water air relations contributing to better
germination, uniform field emergence and maintenance of optimum plant popula-
tion with higher cane and sugar yields.

9.2 MICRO IRRIGATED SUGARCANE

9.2.1 INDIAN SCENARIO
Three levels of for surface irrigation (low, medium and high) were compared, based
on IW/CPE ratio of 0.75, 1.00 and 1.25, respectively, and ratios of 0.40, 0.55 and
0.70, respectively, for micro irrigation by Ahluwalia et al. [1] for sugarcane. The
medium level of irrigation for surface irrigation method (IW/CPE = 1.00) was the
optimum level in terms of cane yield (81.4 t ha–1) and WUE (0.484 tons per ha-cm).
While the low level of irrigation was the optimum level of drip-irrigated sugarcane
in terms of cane yield (80.6 t ha–1) and WUE (0.779 tons per ha-cm). The micro
94 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

irrigation resulted in saving of water by 38.0% with consequent increase of 60.9%

in WUE over the surface irrigation. Juice extraction percentage in surface irrigated
sugarcane was higher than in the drip-irrigated crop. The sugar yield with micro ir-
rigation was higher than that with surface method.
Shinde and Jadhav [32] compared drip irrigated sugarcane with conventional
irrigated in a study carried out at Pune, Maharashtra, India. Different surface and
subsurface micro irrigation methods were compared with conventional irrigation.
The results indicated that the automatically controlled micro irrigation used up to
56% less water, increased yield up to 52% and increased WUE by about 2.5–3 folds.
The effect of fertigation and planting techniques on yield and quality of sug-
arcane under micro irrigation on a Vertisol in Maharashtra was studies by Bhoi et
al. [4]. Sugarcane was grown in paired rows (75 cm), four rows (90 cm) and drip
irrigated. Fertilizer N (Nitrogen) was applied through micro irrigation in 4, 10 and
20 splits. Mean cane yield of 171.4 t ha–1 was found highest with four row plant-
ing and 20 splits. Paired row planting with 20 splits of N produced similar yield of
169.9 t ha–1.
The influence of planting techniques and fertigation through micro irrigation on
yield, quality and economics of sugarcane has been reported by Shinde et al. [33]
from Rahuri, Maharashtra, on seasonal sugarcane and its ratoon. Planting technique
of one skipped furrow (90 cm) after four planted furrows gave higher cane yield
(mean 151.57 t ha–1), net returns (Rs 44,451 ha–1) and B:C ratio (1:75) than paired
row planting. Fertigation of liquid fertilizers through micro irrigation gave 25%
fertilizer saving and 20.74% higher yield. Kumar et al. [14] reported on evalua-
tion of micro irrigation systems adopted for sugarcane crop in Vertisols. Among the
two systems of micro irrigation evaluated for sugarcane crops in Karnataka, India
(1994), both micro tube and bi-wall systems of micro irrigation were found to be
suitable for sugarcane crops. The micro tube system was more efficient, recording
higher growth and yield parameters, as compared to the bi-wall system of micro
irrigation.
The field performance of pressure compensating, nonpressure compensating and
inline micro irrigation systems in sugarcane crop has been compared with furrow
irrigation by Shinde and Jadhav [31]. The results revealed that pressure compensat-
ing and inline micro irrigation systems saved irrigation water up to 50% along with
17 to 20% increase in cane yield. The commercial cane sugar production of more
than 16 t ha–1 and 93% uniformity of water distribution were observed in pressure
compensating and inline micro irrigation systems.
Raskar and Bhoi [21] studied effects of source and levels of fertigation with
modified planting techniques on yield and quality of sugarcane under micro irri-
gation. The results of the first two trials indicated 19 to 25% higher cane yield in
one row skip after four row planting with micro irrigation than conventional plant-
ing under surface irrigation. In the third trial sugarcane yield and commercial cane
sugar (CCS) yield increased with increase in levels of fertilizer and was maximum
Micro Irrigated Sugarcane in India: A Review 95

in 125% fertilizer levels (157 and 17 t ha–1). However, the yield obtained due to
application of 75 and 100% recommended dose of water soluble fertilizer was on
par, indicating 25% savings in fertilizer. Among the various sources, yield of water
soluble fertilizer (146 t ha–1) was at par with the yield obtained by fertigation of
urea, di-ammonium phosphate and Muriate of potash. The overall increase in cane
yield and total water savings by use of micro irrigation ranged from 20 to 30% and
42 to 52%, respectively. The WUE ranged from 10.17 to 14.03 100 kg per ha-cm as
in micro irrigation compared to 4.82 to 6.00 100 kg per ha-cm in surface method.
The opinions of drip adopters about nature and extent of benefits due to micro
irrigation system used for sugarcane crop of a total of 102 sugarcane farmers from
20 villages employing micro irrigation for sugarcane have been compiled by Chavai
et al. [5] from Maharashtra. The major benefits reported by majority of the farmers
were: savings in water ranging from 20 to 60%, in labor and fertilizer, reduction in
weed intensity and increase in sugarcane yield.
The scheduling of drip irrigated sugarcane using the index tensiometer method
has been reported by Muthy et al. [20]. An array of eight tensiometers was used to
schedule irrigation and was compared to the water budget method over one crop
cycle (plant cane and 8 ratoons). More water was applied with index tensiometer,
on average an additional amount of 165 mm.yr–1. This resulted in extra cane yields
of 11.6 tons ha–1.yr–1. The efficiency of irrigation water use with tensiometer and
water budget was 0.055 and 0.051 tons.(ha–1 mm–1), respectively. In addition to this
higher irrigation water use efficiency, the financial analysis showed net profit of
approximately MUR 11,400 ha–1.yr–1 in favor of the index tensiometer technique.
Scheduling micro irrigation of sugarcane using tensiometers was found to be a vi-
able practice.
Four specific irrigation schedules for sugarcane crop through drip system viz., I1
(0.6, 0.8, 1.0, 0.8, etc.), I2 (0.8, 1, 1.2, 0.6, etc.), I3 (1.0, 1.2, 0.8, 0.6, etc.), through
drip and I4 (1.00 etc.), by gravity flow permuted with fertilizer treatments viz., appli-
cation of RDF (F1, 250:115:115 NPK) through soil, F2 (100% RDF), F3 (80% RDF)
and F4 (60% RDF) have been reported by Digrase et al. [7]. Results showed that
drip irrigation produced significantly higher cane yield (162 tons.ha–1) than gravity
irrigation (96 tons.ha–1). Irrigations applied through drip at I2 schedule (0.8, 1.0, 1.2,
0.6, etc.) proved significantly superior to the rest of the schedules. It required 1981
ha-mm water against 2549 ha-mm in gravity flow to maximize the yield. Applica-
tion of 80% recommended dose of fertilizers produced higher cane yields than its
application at RDF through soil, resulting in 20% saving in fertilizer cost. The sug-
arcane crop responded quadratically to irrigation water and fertilizers. The resource
use efficiency under drip was appreciably higher than gravity flow.
Narayanamoorthy [21] reported 23% higher yield, 44% water saving and
1059 kwh.ha1 electricity saving with micro irrigation in comparison with flood
method of irrigation for sugarcane production in India.
96 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

The feasibility of micro irrigation for sugarcane in Haryana has been reported
by Goel et al. [8]. A field experiment was conducted to effects of compare drip (1.0
and 0.8 IW/CPE ratio) and furrow (1.0 IW/CPE ratio) irrigation on water use, yield,
juice quality and net returns of sugarcane. As compared to furrow irrigation, micro
irrigation at 1.0 = IW/CPE ratio increased cane yield, number of millable cane,
sugar yield, WUE and nutrient content in the index leaf of plant ratoon. The net
profit under micro irrigation method was insignificant (Rs. 1610 ha–1) for plant crop
and Rs. 1820 ha–1 for first ratoon crop).
Sosa et al. [35] studied the response of sugarcane to distinct micro irrigation
thresholds. Rainfall during the period was 1246 mm, and the irrigation treatments
applied were none, and treatments that consumed 10, 30 or 50% of the water used
(irrigation thresholds of 90, 70 and 50%). The results showed that all the irrigated
plots gave better growth and yield than the nonirrigated plot, and better sugar con-
tents and yields. The best treatment was the 10% irrigation (threshold 90%) but this
was not significantly different from the 30% (threshold 70%) treatment, although
it was significantly different from the 50% (threshold 50%) treatment, and the 30%
(threshold 70%) and 50% (threshold 50%) treatments were not significantly differ-
ent.
The effects of fertigation on emission uniformity of micro irrigation system for
sugarcane have been reported by Kadam [12]. The recommended dose (RD) of NPK
nutrients for sugarcane was applied in the form of commercially available water
soluble fertilizers through micro irrigation system. The entire fertilizer dose of NPK
was applied in ten equal splits at fortnightly interval. Each level of application was
considered as separate treatment: T1 = 10%RD, T2 = 20%RD, T3 = 30%RD, T4 =
40%RD, T5 = 50%RD, T6 = 60%RD, T7 = 70%RD, T8 = 80%RD, T9 = 90%RD, and
T10 = 100%RD. The average discharges before and after application of fertigation
was recorded and analyzed to assess the percent reduction in discharge and emis-
sion uniformity. The average reduction in initial discharge was 8.8%. The reduction
in initial discharge is suggestive to have one acid treatment at the end of the season
when the quality of irrigation water is C3S1 and water soluble fertilizer as acidic.
The field emission uniformity values were in the range of 90–93% with an average
value of 92% for the entire unit. The percent reduction in field emission uniformity
was to the extent of 3.5% at the end of passing of 100% of RD. The reduction in
discharge and the variation in EU were due to the variation in discharge of emitters
due to clogging. It was found that the source of water was mainly responsible for
clogging of emitters. The analysis of deposits in emitters and laterals revealed that
the dissolved salts in water source dominated by carbonates, bicarbonates, chlorides
and sulfates of calcium and magnesium are responsible for the emitter clogging.
Thus, the reduction in discharge and emission uniformity was attributed to the water
quality (C3S1) and not to the fertigation.
The socio economic analysis of micro irrigation in sugarcane at Tamil Nadu was
reported by Shanthy and Kumar [30]. Results from the study concluded that micro
Micro Irrigated Sugarcane in India: A Review 97

irrigation for sugarcane cultivation is a valuable technology and that in the long run
it was economical to lay a drip system for sugarcane.
Ravikumar et al. [28] from Coimbatore has evaluated a fertigation schedule
for sugarcane using a vadose zone flow and transport model, HYDRUS-2D, and
showed that the urea requirement can be reduced by 30% while at the same time
providing enough N for its assimilation at all stages of crop growth.

9.2.2 WORLD SCENARIO

Brazil is the largest producer of sugarcane in the world. Nunes et al. [23] conducted
a study on the effect of sub superficial micro irrigation system at three spacing of
dripping tubes and four planting densities of sugarcane crop at North-east Brazil.
The results indicated that smallest spacing between dripping tubes increased sug-
arcane’s yields. Highest yields were achieved when a 1.0×1.0 m2 and 1.2×1.2 m2
between plant rows and dripping tubes were used, attaining yields of 136.9 and
154.7 tons ha–1, respectively, which corresponded to a 32.0 and 35.0% increase in
relation to the same cropping system under dry farm conditions. The uses of double
sugarcane rows (1.4×0.6 m2) and (1.2×0.8 m2), with 2.0 m spaced dripping tubes
had attained the lowest yields, however, it still exceeded in 15.6 tons ha–1 the yield
of non-irrigated plots.
Romero et al. [29] conducted a study on the effects of trickle irrigation (with
drip lines buried in all the furrows, with drip lines buried in alternate furrows and
with drip lines buried in alternate inter-furrows) for sugarcane crop at Argentina.
The population, weight and height of stalks and crop yield increased under all the
drip irrigated treatments. Trickle irrigation with drip lines buried in all the furrows
resulted in the highest increase in crop production (55%).
The sensitivity analysis of sugar cane productions with drip irrigation and grav-
ity irrigation has been compared by Torres et al. [36] in Mexico. Three variables
were considered: cane production per hectare (made sensitive to low prices), selling
price of sugarcane per ton (made sensitive to low prices), and variations in direct
costs of production (made sensitive to high prices). The three variables showed sig-
nificant differences, with favorable results for the micro irrigation system over the
gravity irrigation system.
Kwong et al. [16] reported after conducting a study in Mauritius that drip ferti-
gation may be used as a mean for reducing fertilizer nitrogen in sugarcane. Under
the soil and climatic conditions that prevailed at the study site, fertilizer-N use was
reduced by 30%. The growth pattern (as reflected by tiller density and leaf area
development) and sugarcane yields from drip fertigation applied at the rate of 80 kg
of N.ha–1 per year were not inferior to those obtained with the standard practice of
burying 120 kg of N ha–1 per year along the cane rows.
Wei et al. [37] conducted a study on water requirement and effects of fertilizer
on sugarcane in China. It was reported that distribution of rainfall in spring, autumn
98 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

and winter did not satisfy the water requirement of sugarcane, as it provided only
74, 69 and 36% of the water requirement of sugarcane at the seedling, tillering and
maturity stages, respectively. Fertigation enhanced sugarcane fertilizer and WUE.
The irrigated sugarcane production functions from South Africa were report-
ed by Lecler [17]. The typical practice of increasing irrigation water application
amounted to account for low irrigation uniformity. The results indicated that the
maximum crop yields in Komatipoort required at least 1150 mm of irrigation water
on shallow, 0.6 m deep sandy clay loam soils compared with only 900 mm on 1.2 m
deep sandy clay loam soils.
The irrigation scheduling in sugarcane based on atmospheric evaporative de-
mand (AED) from Australia has been reported by Attard et al. [3]. Two alterna-
tive scheduling techniques were developed that use simple tables and computerized
systems based on AED, knowledge of crop response to water stress, and soil water
holding capacity. The simple scheduling tables indicated that irrigation should be
as frequent as 10 days prior to the wet season and as infrequent as 21 days after the
wet season.
Brouwers et al. [5] compared the mineral nitrogen contents in cane cropped
in vertisols of Sudan and Guadeloupe as influenced by urea application manage-
ment. The effects of two methods of urea application management on soil mineral
N levels in ratoon cane at two sites were measured and compared. Both experiment
sites received different irrigation practices. In Sudan (site S), cane is grown under
furrow irrigation, and urea is broadcast and then buried on the rows by hilling up.
In Guadeloupe (site G), cane is grown rain-fed with complementary micro irriga-
tion, and urea is broadcast on and near the cane rows. Site G results showed that one
week after urea application, all applied N was recovered in the topsoil. At site S,
however, only 70% N was recovered. The results also revealed that at site S, where
yield was higher, the amount of mineral N in the topsoil was at a higher level than
the preapplication amount for a far longer period than at site G. Of the application
methods tested, the best commercial practice to extend the time that mineral N is at
an adequate level in the rooting zone, and thus enhancing cane yield, appears to be
hilling-up of the cane rows after broadcasting the urea.

9.3 DRIP FERTIGATION IN SUGARCANE

Micro irrigation systems provide a convenient method of applying fertilizers and
chemicals with irrigation, which is called fertigation using special devices. The fer-
tigation devices include pressure differential systems (fertilizer tank), suction pro-
duced by a venturi principle (venturi injectors) and pumps (diaphragm or piston or
electrically operated). The fertilizer unit is an integral part of control head. Drip fer-
tigation may be used as a mean for reducing fertilizers in sugarcane. For sugarcane
crop, the Fertilizer N was reduced by 30% in a study conducted by Kwong et al.
[16]. Shinde et al. [33] studied the influence of planting techniques and fertigation
Micro Irrigated Sugarcane in India: A Review 99

through micro irrigation on yield, quality and economics of sugarcane by conduct-

ing a field experiment in Maharashtra, on seasonal sugarcane and its ratoon. Plant-
ing technique of one skipped furrow (90 cm) after four planted furrows gave higher
cane yield (mean 152 t ha–1), net returns (Rs. 44,451 ha–1) and B:C ratio (1:75) than
the paired row planting. Fertigation of liquid fertilizers through micro irrigation
gave 25% fertilizer saving and 20.74% higher yield.
Mahendran and Dhanalakhmi [18] reported effects of crop geometry and drip
fertigation on growth and yield of sugarcane crop in a field experiment conducted at
Madurai, Tamil Nadu. The experiment consisted of surface irrigation at 0.75 = IW/
CPE ratio to a depth of 6 cm (T1), micro irrigation in paired row (60:100) at 100%
crop evapotranspiration (ETc) with and without fertigation (T2 and T3), micro irriga-
tion in 80 cm spacing at 50, 75 and 100% ETc with fertigation (T4, T5, T6), micro ir-
rigation in 120 cm spacing at 50, 75 and 100% ETc with fertigation (T7, T8, T9). Fer-
tigation was given at biweekly intervals starting from 15 days after planting (DAP)
onwards up to 150 DAP in 10 equal splits. Growth parameters such as germination
percentage, plant height, tiller production, leaf area index and dry matter production
were higher in 120 cm spaced sugarcane under micro irrigation at 100%ETc level
with fertigation. The same treatment recorded higher yield attributes like number of
millable canes, millable cane length and girth. Higher cane and sugar yield of 182
and 26 t ha–1 were recorded in drip and fertigation plots, respectively, at 100% ETc
level fewer than 120 cm spacing.
Rajanna and Patil [24] studied the effects of fertigation on yield and quality of
sugarcane in a medium black soil at Belgaum district of Karnataka – India. N and
K were applied at recommended rates of 250 and 185 kg ha–1, respectively. N was
applied at 6-day intervals starting from 30 DAP to 240 DAP. Results showed that
fertigation through micro irrigation produced a 24% higher yield, and saved 47%
water compared to recommended fertilizer rate applied with surface irrigation (107
t ha–1). Quality parameters such as brix, pol and percentage commercial cane sugar
were not affected by fertigation.
Shukla et al. [34] reported that the potassium (K) fertigation in sugarcane in-
creased the number of buds per stubble, number of stalks, dry matter accumulation,
number of millable canes and individual cane weight in ratoon cane. Potassium
content of stubble was increased by 16.7% with K fertigation. The content of reduc-
ing sugars in buds at the time of ratoon initiation was improved significantly with
K fertigation. Ratoon cane yield increased by 15.2% (74.1 t ha–1) while sugar yield
increased by 13.9% (8.2 t ha–1) as compared with control with K fertigation.

9.4 ECONOMIC VIABILITY OF DRIP IRRIGATED SUGARCANE

Economic viability of sugarcane has been established with micro irrigation as em-
phasized in this section. More and Bhoi [19] studied the economic analysis of Suru
sugarcane (CO86032) and its ratoon under micro irrigation and wide row planting
100 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

system. There were 12 treatment combinations involving three row spacing’s (150,
180 and 270 cm), two planting techniques (single row and paired row), and two
intercrops (cucumber and watermelon). Additional two control treatments of plant-
ing systems without intercrops (100×30 cm spaced normal planting with surface
irrigation and 90×30 cm spaced four-row planting with micro irrigation) were also
included for comparison. The irrigations were scheduled with drip system in all the
treatments on alternate day on the basis of cumulative pan evaporation (CPE), while
in surface irrigation, irrigations were scheduled at 75 mm CPE with 8 cm depth. In
wide-spaced paired row planting at 75–150 and 90–180 cm, 19.92 and 12.97% high-
er cane yield with 54.50 and 54.24% saving in irrigation water over 100 cm spaced
normal planting was recorded. The net profit/cm of water in paired row planting
of 75–150 and 90–180 cm were Rs. 676.53 and Rs. 752.63 with benefit:cost (B:C)
ratio of 2.09 and 2.18, respectively, which were higher than 100×30 cm normal
planting (Rs 284.05 net profit and 2.31 B:C ratio) and 90×30 cm 4 row planting (Rs
526.32 net profit and 1.38 B:C ratio).
Raskar and Bhoi [28] conducted a study on response of sugarcane to planting
materials, interrow spacing, and fertilizer levels under micro irrigation. The re-
sponse of sugarcane to intrarow spacing (30, 60 and 90 cm), fertilizer treatments
(75, 100 and 125% of the recommended fertilizer rate) and source of planting mate-
rial (tissue culture plantlets and polybag settlings) were studied under micro irriga-
tion. Sugarcane yield, commercial cane sugar, gross monetary net returns and WUE
increased with increasing intrarow spacing and fertilizer rate, and were higher with
the use of polybag settlings.
The economics of micro irrigation in sugarcane cultivation using data collected
from a case study in Sivagangai district, Tamil Nadu, India has been reported by
Narayanamoorthy [22]. Results showed productivity gains of 54% and water saving
of 58% due to micro irrigation over flood irrigation. Discounted cash flow analysis
suggested that investment in micro irrigation in sugarcane cultivation was economi-
cally viable even without subsidy. The benefit-cost ratio varies from 1.98 to 2.02
without subsidy and 2.07 to 2.10 with subsidy at different rates of discount. Simi-
larly, Torres et al. [36] from Mexico have also reported favorable economic results
for the micro irrigation system over the gravity irrigation system.

9.5 DISADVANTAGES OF MICRO IRRIGATION

There is a Chinese proverb: “You can’t expect both ends of a sugarcane are as
sweet.” So, along with the advantages of drip-irrigated sugarcane, as mentioned
in this chapter, there are certain disadvantages of micro irrigation like initial high
installation cost. The other unfavorable factors are as follows; the sun can affect the
micro irrigation components shortening the usable life; clogging may occur if the
water is not properly filtered and the equipment not properly maintained; drip lateral
causes extra clean up costs after harvest; waste of water, time and yield may occur
Micro Irrigated Sugarcane in India: A Review 101

if system is not installed properly; germination problems may occur in lighter soils
as subsurface drip irrigation may be unable to wet the soil surface for germination.
Most drip systems are designed for high efficiency, meaning little or no leaching
fraction. Without sufficient leaching, salts applied with the irrigation water may
build up in the root zone, usually at the edge of the wetting pattern. On the other
hand, micro irrigation avoids the high capillary potential of traditional surface-ap-
plied irrigation, which can draw salt deposits up from deposits below.

9.6 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE PROSPECTS

Sugarcane is an important cash crop in India. Surface irrigation is the prevalent
irrigation method. Micro irrigation in sugarcane is a relatively new innovative tech-
nology that can conserve water, energy and increase profits. Thus, micro irrigation
may help solve three of the most important problems of irrigated sugarcane: water
scarcity, rising pumping (energy) costs and depressed farm profits in India. The ap-
plication of micro irrigation in sugarcane has convincingly shown that the technique
results in high WUE, saves water, reduces fertilization requirement, provides better
quality crop and higher yield. However, if not installed properly, it may result in
waste of water, time and yield. Application of micro irrigation requires careful study
of all the relevant factors like land topography, soil, water, crop and agro-climatic
conditions, and suitability of micro irrigation system and its components. The sub-
sidy and technical support to farmers may be an incentive to adopt this method in
India on a large scale. Adoption of micro irrigation (surface or subsurface) system
in sugarcane cultivation is technically feasible and economically viable and needs
to be vigorously followed.

9.7 SUMMARY
Sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.), a major cash crop in India, has a unique
role in sustaining agro industrial economic growth. Sugarcane being a long dura-
tion crop produces huge amount of biomass, and requires large quantity of water
(1100–2200 mm) and is mostly grown as an irrigated crop using surface irrigation.
The micro irrigation adoption in sugarcane increases WUE (60–200%), saves water
(20–60%), reduces fertilization requirement (20–33%) through fertigation, produc-
es better quality crop and increases yield (7–25%) as compared with conventional
irrigation. However, if not installed properly, it may result in wastage of water, time,
money and yield. The subsidy and technical support to farmers acts as an incentive
to adopt this method on a large scale in India. Adoption of micro irrigation (surface
or subsurface) system in sugarcane is technically feasible and economically viable
and needs to be vigorously followed.
102 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

KEYWORDS

•• available water holding capacity

•• bagasse
•• cane yield
•• cash crop
•• cattle feed
•• climatological data
•• drainage
•• drip irrigation
•• drippers
•• fertigation
•• fertilizer
•• field capacity
•• filter cake
•• industrial alcohol
•• infiltration rate
•• IW/CPE ratio
•• long duration crop
•• micro irrigation
•• nutrient loss
•• open pan evaporation
•• paper industry
•• scarcity of water
•• soil erosion
•• sugar
•• sugarcane
•• surface irrigation
•• valves
•• water application efficiency
•• water balance
•• water requirement
•• water use efficiency, WUE
Micro Irrigated Sugarcane in India: A Review 103

REFERENCES
1. Ahluwalia, M. S., Singh, K. J., Singh, B., Sharma, K. P. (1998). Influence of drip irrigation on
water use and yield of sugarcane. Intern. Water and Irrig. Rev., 18, 12–17.
2. Arulkar, K. P., Hiwase, S. S., Deogirikar, A. A. (2004). Water requirement estimation from
climatological data by probability analysis for sugarcane crop in Nagpur district. News Agric.,
15, 75–78.
3. Attard, S., Inman, J., Bamber, N. G., Engelke, J. (2003). Irrigation scheduling in sugarcane
based on atmospheric evaporative demand. In: Proc. Australian Society of Sugar Cane Tech-
nologists, Queensland – Australia. pp. 35–38.
4. Bhoi, G., Bankar, M. C., Raskar, B. S., Shinde, S. H. (1999). Effect of fertigation and planting
techniques on yield and quality of Suru sugarcane under drip irrigation. Indian Sugar, 49(7),
487–492.
5. Brouwers, M., Vassal-Courtaillac, N., Osman, A. A. (2008). Mineral nitrogen contents in
cane-cropped Vertisols of Sudan and Guadeloupe as influenced by urea application manage-
ment. In: Proc. Annual Congress South African Sugar Technologists Association, South Af-
rica. 343–347.
6. Chavai, A. M., Sadaphal, S. S., Bhange, S. B., Gurav, B. S. (2003). Opinions of the drip adopt-
ers about nature and extent of benefits due to drip irrigation system used for sugarcane crop.
Cooperative Sugar, 34, 961–962.
7. Digrase, L. N., Sondge, V. D., Sawant, B. P. (2004). Optimization of irrigation water and fertil-
izer use for seasonal sugarcane (CO-7714) through drip irrigation system on Vertisols. J. Soils.
Crops, 14, 273–277.
8. Goel, A. C., Kumar, V., Dhindsa, J. P. (2005). Feasibility of drip irrigation in sugarcane in
Haryana. Indian Sugar, 55, 31–36.
9. Gulati, J. M., Nayak, B. C. (2002). Growth cane yield and WUE of sugarcane as influenced by
irrigation and planting dates. Indian J. Agron., 47, 114–119.
10. Ingle, P. M. (2007). Estimation of water requirement for seasonal and annual crops using open
pan evaporation method. Karnataka J. Agric. Sci., 20, 676–679.
11. Jain Irrigation System, Ltd, (2011). Modern irrigation and fertigation methodologies for high-
er yields in sugarcane. <http://jisl.co.in/PDF/ crop/sugarcane cultivation.pdf>.
12. Kadam, S. A. (2009). Effect of fertigation on emission uniformity of drip irrigation system.
International J. Agric. Eng., 2, 72–74.
13. Kaushal, A., Patole, R., Kamal G. Singh, (2012). Drip irrigation in sugarcane: A review.
<www.arccjournals.com>, Agric. Reviews, 33(3), 211–219.
14. Kumar, B. M., Murthy, K. N., Chandrappa, H. (2000). Evaluation of drip irrigation systems
adopted for sugarcane crop in Vertisols. J. Environ. Ecology, 182, 365–366.
15. Kumar, Y., Singh, J. K., Shashi, K. (2005). Probabilistic irrigation water requirement of major
crops of Udham Singh Nagar district of Uttaranchal State. In: Drainage and Irrigation Water
Management by Kumar, V., Singh, J., Bhakar, S. R. (eds), 80–88. Himanshu Publications,
New Delhi.
16. Kwong, K., Paul, J. P., Deville, J., 1999). Drip fertigation a means for reducing fertilizer nitro-
gen to sugarcane. Expl. Agric., 35, 31–37.
17. Lecler, N. L. (2009). Irrigated sugarcane production functions. In: Proc. of the Annual Congr.
South African Sugar Tech Association, Darban, South Africa. pages 604–607.
18. Mahendran, S., Dhanalakhmi, M. (2003). Effect of crop geometry and drip fertigation on
growth and yield of sugarcane crop. In: Souvenir 65 Annual Convention of the Sugar Tech-
nologists Association of India. Bhubaneshwar, Orissa, India. pp. 80–87.
19. More, S. M., Bhoi, P. G. (2004). Economics analysis of Suru sugarcane (CO-86032) and its
ratoon under drip irrigation and wide row planting system. Indian Sugar, 54, 447–452.
104 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

20. Muthy, N. K., Piat, B., Cheong, L. R. (2003). Scheduling drip irrigation of sugar cane using
the index tensiometer method a viable practice. Revue Agricole et Sucriere de l’ Ile Maurice,
82, 31–36.
21. Narayanamoorthy, A. (2004). Impact assessment of drip irrigation in India the case of sugar-
cane. Develop. Policy Rev., 22, 443–462.
22. Narayanamoorthy, A. (2005). Economics of drip irrigation in sugarcane cultivation case study
of a farmer from Tamil Nadu. Indian J. Agric. Econ., 60, 235–248.
23. Nunes, F. J., Simoes, A. L., Sousa, A. R., Maiciel, G. A., Franca, J. G. (2003). Sugarcane yields
at several crop spacing and drip irrigation rows under the dry rain forest climate conditions of
Pernambuco State North-east Brazil. Pesqu. Agropec. Pema., 14, 71–79.
24. Rajanna, M. P., Patil, V. C. (2003). Effect of fertigation on yield and quality of sugarcane.
Indian Sugar, 52, 1007–1011.
25. Rajegowd, M. B., Muralidhara, K. S., Ravindrababu, B. T. (2004). Application of water bal-
ance studies in irrigated sugarcane. J. Agrometeorology, 6, 138–141.
26. Raskar, B. S., Bhoi, P. G. (2003). Response of sugarcane to planting materials, inter row spac-
ing’s and fertilizer levels under drip irrigation. Indian Sugar, 53, 685–690.
27. Raskar, B. S., Bhoi, P. G. (2001). Productivity of sugarcane as influenced by planting tech-
niques and sources of fertigation under drip irrigation. Indian Sugar, 50, 801- 810.
28. Ravikumar, V., Vijayakumar, G., Simunek, J., Chellamutthu, S., Santhi, R., Appavu, K. (2011).
Evaluation of fertigation scheduling for sugarcane using a casdose zone flow and transport
model. Agric. Water Manage., 98, 1431–1440.
29. Romero, E. R., Scandaliaris, J., Sotomayor, L., Alonso, L. (2003). Results of the first experi-
ence of drip irrigation on sugarcane in Tucuman Argentina. Revista Industrial Agricola de
Tucuman, 80, 5–9.
30. Shanthy, T. R., Kumar, S. R. (2010). Socio economic analysis of drip irrigation in sugarcane.
Cooperative Sugar, 41, 41–44.
31. Shinde, P. P., Jadhav, S. B. (2000). Water management with drip irrigation system for sugar-
cane. In: Proc. 62 Annual Convention Sugar Technologists Association of India, Agra, India.
pp. 36–41.
32. Shinde, P. P., Jadhav, S. B. (1998). Drip in sugarcane an experience in India. In: Proc. Interna-
tional Agricultural Engineering Conference, Bangkok, Thailand. pp. 734–747.
33. Shinde, S. H., Dahiwalkar, S. D., Berad, S. M. (1999). Influence of planting technique and
fertigation through drip on yield quality and economics of sugarcane. J. Maharashtra Agric.
Univ., 24, 276–278.
34. Shukla, S. K., Yadav, R. L., Singh, P. N., Singh, I. (2009). Potassium nutrition for improving
stubble bud sprouting dry matter partitioning nutrient uptake and winter initiated sugarcane
(Saccharum spp. hybrid complex) ratoon yield. Europ. J. Agron., 30, 27–33.
35. Sosa, F. A., Roberto, F. L., Hernandez, C. F., Morandini, M., Agustin, S. G., Hasan, A. J.,
Romero, E. R. (2008). Response of sugarcane to distinct drip irrigation thresholds. Advanced
Agroindustrial, 29, 36–39.
36. Torres, S. G., Prado-Vazquez, V. H., Rivera-Espinoza, M. P. (2010). Sensibility analysis of
sugar cane productions with two irrigation technologies (drip and gravity) in Zapotiltic Jalisco
Mexico. Revista Mexicana de Agronegocios, 14(26), 193–201.
37. Wei, T. H., Qiang, Z. L., Rulin, Z., Meifu, H. (2008). Water requirement of sugarcane and ef-
fect of application of fertigation on sugarcane. South-west China J. Agric. Sci. 21, 1381–1384.
38. Wikipedia, (2011). Sugarcane. <http://en. wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugarcane>.
39. Zade, M. R., Hiwase, S. S., Deshmukh, M. M. (2001). Probability estimation of water require-
ment of major crops of Akola. PKV. Res. J., 25, 30–34.
CHAPTER 10

DRIP IRRIGATION DESIGN FOR

SUGARCANE
POOJA BEHAL and KAMAL G. SINGH

10.1 INTRODUCTION
Drip irrigation is one of the most recent developments in irrigation methods. It was
originally developed in Israel by Simca Bloss in 1959. This method proved very
economical in water use and also produced higher yield with good quality water.
The water demand has increased many folds due to improvement in agricultural
production technology in the last few decades. The pumping cost has increased sub-
stantially with the inflation of machinery prices and enhancement in diesel and elec-
tric energy price. This has made the water not only scarce but also a costly resource.
Because of the anticipated shortage of this vital agriculture input, we have always
been endeavoring to increase our water resources.
The choice of any irrigation system depends on number of factors such as topog-
raphy (land surface configuration), soil type (i.e., texture, structure, depth), stream
size (i.e., flow rate of irrigation water available), economic viability (benefit – cost
rates), farmer’s capacity to meet initial investment and social acceptance of the sys-
tem.
Drip irrigation is one of the latest methods of irrigation, which is becoming in-
creasingly popular in areas with scarcity of irrigation water and salt problem. This is
also called trickle irrigation system or localized irrigation system. Drip irrigation is
very well suited for widely spaced high value crops. The required quantity of water
is applied daily at the root zone of plants through a network of piping system. The
key to the success of drip irrigation in the arid region is the fact that both water and
nitrogen fertilizers are applied frequently in small quantities to meet the needs of the
plant. This is a continuous balance of water, air and fertilizer in the entire life cycle
to the plant; resulting in the optimum growth, better fruiting and early maturity of
crop.
The main characteristics of drip system consist of uniform, small continuous
flow and reduced surface wetting around plants. Greater application efficiency is

*In this chapter, the currency is expressed in Indian Rupees (1.00 US$ = Rs. 60.93; 1.00 Rs. = 0.02 US$).
106 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

obtained due to better placement of water near the roots in precise quality. The
reduced surface wetting reduces surface evaporation. For widely spaced crops like
fruit trees, the system may be even more economical than other method of irrigation.
The comparative merits and demerits of surface, sprinkler and drip irrigation
methods reveal that drip irrigation method is most efficient method of irrigation
having irrigation efficiency of about 90% compared to sprinkler method with about
70–80% and conventional method of surface irrigation having about 40–50%. Al-
though drip method is the most efficient method yet it can be recommended and
utilized only under particular situation in certain pockets of Punjab because of high
initial cost and other limitations. Even under most suitable and favorable situations
for drip irrigation method, the farmers have not adopted drip irrigation method. The
reasons for this are that farmers do not realize the importance and value of irrigation
water available from canal and tubewell source, as they get electric powers for mo-
tors at a cheap flat rate.
Keeping in view the water scarcity, topography and water quality, Kandi areas
and south western districts of Punjab are most suitable areas especially, where fruit
trees can be grown for drip irrigation system [6, 7, 10, 14]. The existing paddy –
wheat cropping system in subtropical parts of northern India leads to hastening of
water table declines, deterioration of soil health, increased incidence of insect/pests,
and weeds and reduced availability of protein rich legumes and oil seed crops. Sug-
arcane is emerging as an alternative to the paddy-wheat cropping system and has a
unique role of play in sustaining agro-industrial economic growth of our country
[17]. The potential sugarcane production depends upon optimum availability of wa-
ter throughout the crop growth period. Sugarcane is the most important cash crop
sugarcane is adapted to a range of tropical and subtropical climates and can be suc-
cessfully grown on all types of soil ranging from sandy to clay loam.
The total area under sugarcane in the world was 19.90 million ha during 1998
with the production of 1,254.94 million tones of sugarcane. The area under sugar-
cane increased almost 1.5 times from 156,000 ha in 1966–1967 to 235,000 ha in
1996–1997. Sugarcane is the most important sugar crop contributing more than 62%
of the world sugar production. Sugarcane occupied about 96 thousand hectares in
Punjab during 2005–2006. The average cane yield is 601 quintals per hectare. The
average sugar recovery was 9.8%. Before recommending the adoption of drip irriga-
tion system for sugarcane it is necessary that drip system be properly designed and
its economic viability is worked out.
Keeping the above facts in consideration, the present study was taken up with
following objectives. To design the drip method of irrigation for sugarcane; and to
determine the cost estimation of drip irrigation.
Drip Irrigation Design for Sugarcane 107

10.2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Hapase et al. [4] revealed that the surface and subsurface drip (B1-wall) with daily
irrigation and paired row planting is effective to save water upto 50–55%, better
crop growth response and about 2.7 times increase in water-use efficiency.
Shih [16] in a study conducted at University of Florida compared the difference
in sugarcane yield and water-use efficiency between drip irrigation and subirriga-
tion using a lysimeter system. The average sugarcane yield under drip irrigation was
significantly high than that under subirrigation.
Jones et al. [5] reported an increase in cane yield by more than 20% while re-
ducing the water use of almost 40% with drip as compared with surface irrigation
method. Drip irrigated fields were reported to have produced 22% more sugar yield
per hectare.
Parikh et al. [12] in field experiments on sugarcane in Gujarat compared drip
irrigation method with the furrow irrigation. Drip irrigation, at IW/CPE ratio of 0.3
and 0.6, gave cane yield of 106.4 t/ha and 120.5 t/ha, respectively, compared with
79.4 t/ha under furrow irrigation at IW/CPE ratio of 0.75. Studies also revealed that
drip irrigation consumed 7.6–50% less water than furrow irrigation.
Batta and Singh [2] Studied the efficiency of water use investigation in the
Jordan Valley project were determined by the evaluation of project efficient (Ep).
This included the irrigation system efficiency (Es) and field application efficiency
(Ea). Evaluation included the comparison of open causal with surface irrigation ver-
sus pressurized pipes with sprinkles on drip irrigation system. Ep for open surface
causals with surface irrigation under citrus was 53% for vegetables, it was 42%
for pressurized pipe system, Ep was 68% and 70% for sprinkler and drip irrigation
methods, respectively. Es varies from 65% for an open causal to 77% for pressur-
ized pipe projects. The Ea was 82% for surface irrigation on citrus and 64% for
vegetables. Under drip irrigation it was found to be 91% for vegetables. The low
Es value for the causal was attributed to water theft, measurement loss and leakage.
Ahire et al. [1] using two irrigation methods, that is, trickle and surface observed
that trickle irrigation system produced higher number of tubers per plant (5.58),
larger size of tubers (16.08 cm), more weight of tubers per plant (145.68) and higher
tuber yield (20.43 t/ha) as compared to surface irrigation. Also trickle irrigation
saved 46% irrigation water over surface irrigation.
Tumbare et al. [19] studied the liquid fertilizer through trickle system to Okra
crop. The treatments consisted of five fertigation levels, that is, 125, 100, 75, 50 and
25% of recommended dose of solid fertilizer with surface irrigation method. They
found that 75% of recommended dose of liquid fertilizer through trickle system was
equally to produce yield equal to that of conventional method of irrigation resulting
in 25% saving in fertilizer than band placement of fertilizer.
Singh and Sharma [18] on water economy and yield aspects of the crop and little
attention has been paid to the study of plant growth parameters under K fertiga-
108 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

tion and they failed to relate them with the yield variation. These parameters help
in assessing the performance of a crop under various agronomic and management
practices. Accordingly this study was taken up on economizing K through a suitable
irrigation method like trickle irrigation using fertigation.
Sharma and Singh [15] studied the effects of NPK fertigation and planting pat-
terns on yield and economics of potato through drip irrigation. Fertigation using
trickle irrigation where fertilizer is delivered along with water to the growing crops
is an innovative technique to use fertilizers in the most effective manner. Phospho-
rus has not been generally recommended for application by trickle irrigation system
because of its supposedly high clogging potential and limited movement in the soil.
Singh et al. [8] Studied the effect of P fertigation on potato. Crop using di-
ammonium phosphate as P fertilizer. Trickle fertigated treatments were compared
with conventional method of fertilizer application in terms of biometric parameters
as well as available P. It was found that plant performance parameters like leaf area,
dry matter accumulation and yield attributes had much higher values in P-fertigated
crop than furrow irrigated and conventionally fertilized crop. Available P was also
more in the entire soil profile under trickle-fertigated treatment.
Kaur et al. [9] Studied K-fertigation with 100, 75 and 50% of the recommended
dose of muriate of Potash (200 kg/ha) in potato using trickle and furrow method of
irrigation. The results showed leaf area index, dry matter accumulation and yield
attributes to much higher in trickle method. Also, the trickle-fertigated gave higher
proportion of (A&B) grade tubers than furrow irrigated and conventionally fertil-
ized crop. For the same fresh tuber yield, about 50% of potassium fertilizer could be
saved adopting trickle fertigation instead of conventional fertilization.

10.3 COMPONENTS OF THE MICRO IRRIGATION SYSTEM

A drip irrigation system consists essentially of a main line, submains, laterals, and
emitters. The main line delivers water to the submain, and the submains in to the
laterals. The emitters, which are attached to the laterals, distribute water for irriga-
tion. The mains, submains and laterals are usually made of black, PVC (Poly Vinyl
Chloride) tubing’s. The emitters are also usually made of PVC material. PVC ma-
terials are preferred for drip system as it can withstand saline irrigation water and
is also not affected by chemical fertilizers. Auxiliary components are valve, pres-
sure regulator, filter, pressure gauge, and fertilizer application components. Brief
description of the components of typical drip irrigation systems is given in the fol-
lowing sections.

10.3.1 PUMPING SET

It should be able to cater the required amount of water at desired operating pres-
sure. The pressure necessary to force water through the components of the system,
Drip Irrigation Design for Sugarcane 109

including the fertilizer tank, filter unit, mainline, lateral and the nozzle, is obtained
by a pump of suitable capacity. Centrifugal pumps are generally used in drip system.

10.3.2 PIPELINE
Mainline delivers water to submain and submain to lateral. The main and submain
are made up of black; PVC (Polyvinyl chloride) and lateral lines are made up of PE
(Polyethylene) Plastics with carbon black, which makes it water resistant. They are
also not affected by the reaction of any chemical fertilizer. The variation is lateral
pressure is 0.15 to 1.75 kg/cm2 pressure goes on decreasing as it move from submain
to lateral and their emitters.

10.3.3 EMITTERS
Emitters are fixed on lateral line for discharge of water to plants. It should be in
expensive, durable reliable and provide uniform discharge. Some of the more dis-
tinctive emitters designs are the short path long path, small orifice, vertex, pressure
compensating self flushing, perforated single and double chamber tubing or mini-
mum sprinklers used in spray irrigation depending upon emission point, mode of
operation. Depending upon the emission point above or below the soil surface, the
drip irrigation system is classified as: surface trickle irrigation system; and subsur-
face trickle irrigation system.

10.3.3.1 SURFACE TRICKLE IRRIGATION SYSTEM (DRIP)

These are the emitters and lateral lines that are laid on the soil surface. Surface
trickle has been primarily used on widely spaced plants but can also be used for row
crops. Generally in this case discharge rates are less than 12 L/hr for single outlet
point source emitter and less than 12 L/hr/m for line source emitter. The advantages
of trickle irrigation system includes the case of installation, inspection, changing
and cleaning emitters, plus possibility of checking soil surface wetting patterns and
measuring individual discharge rate.

10.3.3.2 SUBSURFACE TRICKLE IRRIGATION SYSTEM

In this system water is applied slowly below the surface through emitter’s with
discharge rate in the same range as a surface trickle system. The advantages of sub-
surface trickle irrigation include freedom from achieving of the lateral lines at the
beginning and removing them at the end of growing season, little interference with
intercultural and other cultural practices.
110 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

Now-a-days, the combination of subsurface and surface irrigation system has

been tried, where lateral lines are buried and emitters are located above the soil
surface through the use of riser fittings.

10.3.4 CLASSIFICATION OF DRIP IRRIGATION SYSTEM

10.3.4.1 POINT SOURCE

Point source emitter discharge water flows through individual or multiple outlet,
which are spread in 1 m open point source and generally used for trees.

10.3.4.2 LINE SOURCE

The line source, emitter having perforated holes or pores which discharge water at
close spacing are used usually for small fruit, trees, vegetables or closed spaced row
crops.

10.3.4.3 SPRAY
Spray emitters apply water to soil in the form of small spray. The air is instrumental
in distributing the water. They have high discharge rate (175 L/hr) and is used for
irrigating widely spaced crops. The main disadvantages of spray system are high
evaporation loss particularly when plants are young.

10.3.4.4 FILTERS
Filter is used to remove impurities for preventing blockage. A two-stage filter is usu-
ally provided. It consists of one coarse filter and one fine filter.

10.3.4.5 SAND FILTER

Pressure type, high flow sand or mix bed filters are the more popular ones and grav-
ity operating sand filters has low flow rates and thus require large surface area to
produce equivalent volume of the filtered water and pressurized filter and are not
widely used. Filter capacity is designed in terms of volume of flow per unit time per
unit bed area. In pressurized filters full depth of sand is used.
Drip Irrigation Design for Sugarcane 111

10.3.4.6 SCREEN FILTERS

These are most commonly used filters. In this water comes from inside of the screen
and exist from the periphery. Others are designed with water flowing in opposite
direction when properly sized and maintained, screen filters do an adequate job of
separating suspended particular from water, but there are limited in their load ca-
pacity. For removing large organic debris such as leaves and weeds nonpressurized
gravity screen filters are installed in an irrigation canal before the pump in take or
delivery system. In case of extremely high-suspended load smaller screen openings
have been used to remove gravel, sand and silt.

10.3.4.7 CYCLONIC OR CENTRIFUGAL FILTERS

They are used in the line system, which are used to remove suspended particles
(having specific gravity greater than water). Their operational principle is entirely
different from the screen or sand filters.

10.3.4.8 VALVES
Valves are the integral part of trickle irrigation system. The nature of the valves for
a given installation will depend upon the automation degree of pressure regulator
and number of sets required. Types of valves used in drip irrigation system: Manual
valves, automatic valves, check valves, and air release valve.

10.3.4.8.1 MANUAL VALVES

They include gate, globe, butterfly and ball valves. Butterfly valves are commonly
used in the larger size. Manual valve are generally troubles free and require little
maintenance or service throughout the life of the system.

10.3.4.8.2 AUTOMATIC VALVES

These are found at pump and filter stations to regulate mainline pressure, control
backwash cycle in the filters or control flow through branching mainlines. Automat-
ic valve require periodic maintenance to assure satisfactory operation. Maintenance
schedules depend on the use of the valves and the cleanliness of the water.

10.3.4.8.3 CHECK VALVES

Check valves are normally used only at pump station. Air release and vacuum relief
valves are located at high points on main, submain and lateral.
112 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

10.3.4.8.4 AIR RELEASE VALVE

Air release valves are generally placed at high points in mainline, submain and
pump station. They release entrapped air as system. Startup and allow air to enter
the pipeline under conditions of negative pressure. They are of two types: (i) large
orifice type, which seals completely when the pipeline is pressurized; (ii) combina-
tion of large and small orifice type, which release entrapped air while the system,
is operation.

10.3.4.9 FERTILIZER TANK

Fertilizer tank is provided at the head of drip irrigation system for supplying fertil-
izers in solution directly to the field along with irrigation water. By connecting fer-
tilizers tank with the irrigation water supply we can save the cost of labor required
for applying fertilizer to the field.

10.4 METHODS AND MATERIALS

10.4.1 DESIGN PROCEDURE OF INLINE DRIP IRRIGATION

SYSTEM

10.4.1.1 SELECTION OF SYSTEM CAPACITY

Drip Irrigation System shall have the capacity adequate to fulfill 90% of daily peak
water requirements within the designed area and in a stipulated time period usually
not more than 16 h of operation per day. The system capacity should include an al-
lowance for losses of time in related operations. The capacity of the system should
match with the available quantity of water in the source. In case of a bore well (tube
well), system should be designed to match the recharging rate of water. Similarly,
in case of Pond, Canal, Reservoir, system should be designed to match the available
flows.

10.4.1.2 ESTIMATION OF PEAK WATER REQUIREMENT OF CROP

(PWR)

PWR = ET0 × KC × AW (1)

where: ET0 = reference evapotranspiration during peak water demand period, mm/
day; Kc = crop coefficient; and AW = wetted area as a percentage of total area at
maturity. Wetted area is the area which is shaded due to its canopy cover when the
sun is over head, which depends on the stage of crop growth.
Drip Irrigation Design for Sugarcane 113

10.4.2 SELECTION OF EMITTING DEVICES OR DRIPPERS

There are numerous varieties of drippers/inline tubes available, with different dis-
charge rates, features, functions, characteristics and suitability to different crops.
The selection of emitting devices are based on peak water requirements of crop,
age and root zone, soil type, topography, soil water holding capacity and infiltration
rate, hydraulic conductivity, life expectancy and cost economy. However, an ideal or
perfect emitting devices or drippers should meet the following requirements:
a. Should be inexpensive, durable and serviceable.
b. Should have relatively low discharge rate to keep the system cost low.
c. Should have discharge variation not more than +10%.
d. Should have relatively large cross sectional area and flow path to avoid
clogging
e. Should preferably have turbulent flow path and pressure compensation ac-
tion in undulated and sloping areas.
f. Should not create runoff within the immediate application area.

10.4.2.1 SELECTION AND DESIGN OF LATERALS

Laterals are the conduits, which carry water from submain, and feed the emitters and
are available in different sizes 12 mm, 16 mm, 20 mm, etc. Emitting devices/Drip-
pers can be fitted at determined spacing as per the requirements of crops. In case
of Inline Drip Tubing, dripper intervals and discharge has to be determined before
designing of system. As the laterals are significant with regard to pressure varia-
tion, proper evaluation of fractional head losses in the laterals is essential to achieve
higher uniformity. Pressure variation 5 to 20% and discharge variation 5 to 10%
throughout the system should be maintained in a range. The size, allowable length
and frictional losses of laterals have to be determined by nomograms or charts and
design guidelines provided by the manufacturer for their specific emitting devices.

10.4.2.2 SELECTION AND DESIGN OF SUBMAINS

Submain (PVC/HDPE) carries water from main line and distributes among the later-
als. The size, length and frictional head losses of submain have to be determined by
nomograms or charts & design guidelines provided by the manufacturer or by using
Hazen William equation and limiting the frictional head losses within the limit of
design tolerance of the particular emitting devices as specified by the manufacturer.
114 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

10.4.2.3 SELECTION AND DESIGN OF MAIN LINE

Mainline carries water from source to submain. The size of mainline is determined
by considering the quantity of water flowing through it, length and path or mainline,
elevation of ground, velocity, safety parameters, cost economy and nomograms pro-
vided by the manufacturer. While designing the mainline following points should
be kept in mind:
a. Permissible velocity: Should not exceed 1.5 meter per second.
b. Friction head losses: Should be limited to 5 to 20 meters per 1000 m length
of pipe.
c. Economic size: Should include low initial investment; Low annual and low
power cost.
d. Elevation and class of pipe: Use of optimum pressure rating (class) of Pipes.
Run the mainline as straight and shortest as possible with due consideration
for the field slopes.
e. Control measures: Provide air release cum vacuum breaker; non-return
valves or check valves; and pressure sustaining valves, etc., at appropriate
locations based on the engineering requirements.

10.4.2.4 SELECTION AND DESIGN OF FILTRATION UNIT

Drip irrigation systems are characterized by large numbers of emitting devices, hav-
ing fairly smaller flow paths. Because of the smaller flow path and orifice, they
are more susceptible to clogging due to presence of physical impurities, organic/
inorganic precipitates, silts, clay, sand, suspended particles, etc. A properly designed
filtration system is the key to long-term successful operation of drip irrigation sys-
tems. The selection and design of filtration system is based on:
(a) Source and quality of water.
(b) Type, size and concentration of physical impurities.
(c) Design system flow (filtration capacity).
(d) Type of irrigation system.
(e) Workability of filtration system.
(f) Ease for handling, cleaning, maintenance and repairing.
(g) Filtration media and low frictional losses.
(h) Initial and maintenance costs including power costs.
Normally three types of filtration systems are used for drip irrigation system:

10.4.2.4.1 HYDRO CYCLONE FILTER

It is also known as Centrifugal Filter or Sand Separator, and is used to separate the
sand, silt or particles heavier than water but cannot remove algae, fibers, clay, etc. It
is used immediately after the pump deliver as a primary filtration system for waters
Drip Irrigation Design for Sugarcane 115

with heavy loads of suspended impurities and particulate matter in water sources
such as Canals, Dam or Reservoir, Rivers, Ponds, Open Wells, etc.

10.4.2.4.2 SAND MEDIA FILTERS

Sand Media Filters are the most effective in removal of all types of physical impuri-
ties – organic/inorganic, algae, silt, clay and suspended particles, etc., as they are
three-dimensional filters. Sand filters are recommended for all types of drip irriga-
tion system. Especially it is recommended in case of open well, river, canal, dam,
water sources and where the quality of water in source is expected to vary with
seasonal rainfall and runoff.

10.4.2.4.3 SCREEN/MESH FILTER

Screen/mesh filter is the simplest of the entire filter and also costs less compared to
all other filters. But these filters cannot filter algae, fine silt, trash, etc. It is normally
used in case of clean water source with no presence of algae; clay and suspended
particles usually for bore wells.

10.4.2.5 SELECTION AND DESIGN OF PUMP

Pump Unit is an electromechanical device, which lifts water from one level to an-
other level and provides the required pressure. Pump unit must be capable of sup-
plying required pressure and discharge for efficient functioning of system. Pump
unit can be selected and designed by calculating total had and discharge required for
efficient operation of the system. Total head required for the system is calculated as:

Total head = (Suction + Delivery) + Filtration Losses + Frictional Losses in Main

Line + 10 m Operating Pressure + Fitting Losses + Venturi Head + Elevation (if
any) (2)

where: Suction = vertical distance between water level to center to of pump; Deliv-
ery = vertical distance between center of pump to ground level; Filtration Losses =
friction head losses in different types of filters (It is assumed 2 m for type of filter
unit, that is, Hydro cyclone, Sand and Screen Filters. If these are connected in series,
then sum of frictional head losses of these three filters is 6 m); Friction Head Losses
accruing in mainline; Operating pressure is the recommended operating pressure
given by the manufacture at which system has to be operated and designed (in gen-
eral, 10 m or 1 kg/cm2 of pressure is required for nonpressure compensating drip-
pers and 15 m or 1.5 kg/cm2 for pressure compensating drippers); Fittings Losses
(friction head losses occur in fittings like bends, elbows tees, reducers, valves, other
fittings, etc. and is assumed to 2 m for overall operation); Venturi head is required to
116 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

operate venturi type fertilizer applicator, as recommended by the manufacturer (it is

assumed to be 5 m for manually operated venturi system); and Elevation = vertical
distance between ground level near the source (as considered above) to the high-
est level of ground. With total head and discharge required, we can calculate horse
power of the pump for efficient operation of drip irrigation system.

HP = [Q × H]/[75 × a × b] (3)

where: Q = discharge required in liters per second; H = total head required in meters;
a = efficiency of motor (assumed 85%); and b = efficiency of pump (assumed 80%).

10.5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

10.5.1 DESIGN OF INLINE DRIP SYSTEM

The system has been designed for two hectares under sugarcane.
Area of farm: 200 m × 100 m = 20,000 m2 = 2 ha
Location: Ludhiana, Punjab, India
Soil: Clay
Row-to-row spacing: 90 cm (0.9 m)
Sufficient quantity of water is available for irrigation.
Step 1: Calculate peak water requirement of sugarcane, use Eq. (1).
ET0 = 10.03 mm/day (From Table 10.1)
Crop Coefficient = 1.10 (From Table 10.2)
PWR = 10.03 × 1.10 × 0.6 = 6.61 L per day per m2.
Step 2: Water availability check and number of operations.
Total water requirement for entire field of 200 m × 100 m = 200 × 100 m2 ×
6.61 L per day per m2 = 132,200 L per day.
Since sufficient quantity of water is available, entire field can be irrigated at a
time.
Step 3: Selection and Design of Drip line: We will use inline drip tubing of 16
mm class 2.
Dripper Spacing: 50 cm
Discharge: 2 L per hour per dripper
Operating pressure: 10 m or 1 kg/cm2
Outer Diameter: 16 mm
Inner Diameter: 14 mm
Maximum length of drip line is 96 m at 10% discharge variation and 121 m at
20% discharge variation. Actual length in field is 100 m, the discharge variation will
be 10.50%.
Total length of inline tubing = (Area in m2)/(Spacing between adjacent tubes or
laterals)
Drip Irrigation Design for Sugarcane 117

= (200 × 100 m2)/(0.90 m) = 22,222 m

Add 2% for temperature stress and snacking = 0.02 × 22,222 = 444 m

Total length of inline tube = 22,222 + 444 = 22,666 m
Total flow of water = Total length (m) × discharge per meter
= 22,666 × 4 L per hour per meter = 90,664 L per hour
Total flow Q, liters per second = Flow in liter per hour/3600
= 90,664/3600 = 25.2 L per second

TABLE 10.1 Normal Monthly Pan Evaporation (mm) Data For Ludhiana, India [11]

Month 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Average

Jan. 37.1 47.5 24.2 57.8 39.2 41.14

Feb. 76.0 60.6 66.3 65.9 50.5 63.86

Mar. 132.6 127.3 108.2 130.6 86.5 117.04

Apr. 214.0 234.0 211.1 236.3 215.5 222.38

May 303.9 319.2 324.8 323.9 283.1 310.98

Month 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Average

Jun. 188.8 241.0 279.0 236.0 302.8 249.52

Jul. 114.3 230.3 138.5 213.4 139.6 167.22

Aug. 140.9 168.1 125.0 125.1 141.6 140.14

Sep. 151.4 115.0 115.5 142.6 121.4 129.18

Oct. 106.1 102.6 106.2 876.6 102.2 100.94

Nov. 80.7 65.4 65.2 66.0 78.6 71.18

Dec. 49.7 42.6 39.0 38.3 43.6 42.64

TABLE 10.2 Peak Period Crop Coefficients of Selected Crops, India

Crop Crop coefficient

Beans, green 0.90

Cabbage 0.80

Citrus, kinnow 0.60

Corn, Sugarcane 1.10

118 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

TABLE 10.1 (Continued)

Corn, sweet 0.95

Cotton, beans, potato, tomato peas 1.00

Grapes 0.70

Melons, peanuts, lettuce 0.95

Onion, Green 0.80

Onion, dry 0.90

Pea 0.95

Pecans, almonds, apricots, peaches 0.75

Peeper 0.80

Walnuts apples 0.85

Watermelon 0.85

Source: Rajput and Patel [13].

Step 4: Design of Submain: Submain is a conduit, which carries water from

main line and distributes among the laterals or dripper lines. Assume the submain is
placed along 200 m side. Calculate standard discharge rate (SDR) in the submain in
liters per hour per meter.
SDRsubmain = (Total flow in submain × 3600)/(length of submain in m)
= [25.2 × 3600]/200 = 543 L per hour per meter = Total flow in submain (lps).
The required size of the submain line is 75 mm diameter. Here the submain
length is three segments each of 66.66 m in length. Friction head losses in submain
= 1.4 m for 66.66 m length and 75 mm size.
Submain Design Check:
Friction Head loss in submain should not exceed 20% of operating pressure (i.e.,
10 m × 0.20 = 2 m). It is also known as design tolerance. Since the friction head in
submain is less than design tolerance, Design is safe. As three submains are of same
length and flow, therefore size and friction head loss for each submain will also be
same.
Step 5: Design of Mainline: Main line is a conduit, which feeds water from wa-
ter source to submains. In this design, mainline is connected to three submains from
water source as far as possible in a straight line. For ease of operation of system, we
prefer to operate the each submain separately.
Flow, lps = (453 × 66.6)/3600 = 8.38 lps
The required size of the mainline is 90 mm. The results are summarized as fol-
lows:
Drip Irrigation Design for Sugarcane 119

Operation From To Distance Flow Main Size Friction

section (m) (lps) (mm) head loss
(m)
I S/M3 S/M2 67 m 8.38 90 0.804
II S/M2 S/M1 67 m 8.38 90 0.804
III S/M1 Well 100 m 8.38 90 1.200
Total frictional 2.808 m
head loss, m

Step 6: Pump Design (Eqs. (2) and (3)):

(Suction + Delivery) head = 5 m (assumed).
Friction head required loss in filter unit = 2 m for screen filter only.
Friction head loss in main line = 2.8 m
Operating Pressure = 10 m given by manufacturer
Friction head loss in fitting = 2 m (assumed
Pressure head required for venturi = 5 m (assumed).
Elevation (up ward if any) = Field is flat = 0 m
Total head required for the system, H, Eq. (2) = 5 + 2 + 2.8 + 10 + 2 + 5 + 0 =
26.8 = 27 m
From Eq. (3):
HP = (Q × H)/(75 × a × b) = (8.38 × 27)/(75 × 0.80 × 0.85) = 4.19 = 4 HP
KW = 0. 746 × HP = 0.746 × 4 = 2.98 KW
(Note: Please check the performance chart of pump to know available or manu-
facturing HP of pump set).
Application rate of system = (Total flow, lps × 3600)/(total area, m2)
= (25.18 × 3600)/(200 × 100) = 4.53 lph per m2
Irrigation duration, hours = (Crop water requirement)/(System application rate)
= (8.38 L per day per m2)/(4.53 lph per m2) = 1.84 h
Total irrigation hours at peak water requirement stage = 1.84 hrs. × 3 times
operation
= 5.52 h = 6 h.

10.6 COST ESTIMATION OF DRIP IRRIGATION SYSTEM

Table 10.3 indicates installation cost of different components of a drip irrigation
system in this study for 200 × 100 m2 of sugarcane. All package practices were ac-
cording to the bulletin by Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana [11].
120 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

TABLE 3 Cost estimation of drip irrigation system.

Item Specification Unit price Qty. Total Cost

Rs. Rs.
Main line 90 × 10 kg/cm2 Rs.81.05/m 234 m 18965.7
Submain line 75 × 6 kg/cm2 Rs.40.40 200 m 8080
Lateral 16 mm dia. Rs.9.00 per m 22666 203,994
Control valve 63 mm dia. 636.75 each 1 636.75
Sand filter 3
25 m /hour 17,500 each 1 17,500
Fertilizer tank FT (mini) 7300 each 1 7300
Pumping unit Motor (Mono block 10,000 each 1 10,000
pump) + starter and
accessories
M i s c e l l a n e o u s Fitting and accessories 26,647.6
charges (Fitting @ 10% of total cost of
charges) system
Govt. VAT @ 4% 11,724.9
Installation cost of drip irrigation system for 200 m × 100 m (2 ha) of 304,848.9
sugarcane
Installation cost of drip irrigation system for of sugarcane, Rs./ha 152,424.45

10.7 SUMMARY
Drip irrigation system is one of the most advance methods of irrigation. It is very
economical in area having undulating topography where cost of land leveling is
high. As the initial cost of drip system is very high, therefore this system is most
economical for widely spaced orchards and crops having high value. A drip irriga-
tion system for sugarcane (200 m × 100 m) has been designed. The cost of installa-
tion of drip irrigation system for 1 ha of sugarcane was found to be Rs. 152,424.45.
The cost of installation of drip irrigation system is on higher side because the water
source is assumed at one end of field, which increases the length of main and sub-
main and the total cost includes the cost of pumping unit also.
Drip Irrigation Design for Sugarcane 121

KEYWORDS

•• application efficiency
•• drip irrigation
•• economic viability
•• electric energy
•• emitter
•• Israel
•• okra
•• pumping unit
•• Punjab
•• soil depth
•• soil structure
•• soil texture
•• stream size
•• submain
•• sugarcane
•• topography
•• widely spaced orchards

REFERENCES
1. Ahire, N. R., Bhoi, P. G., Solanke, A. V. (2000). Effect of row spacing and planting system
on growth and yield of potato under surface and drip irrigation J. Indian Potato Assoc., 27(1–
2):59–60.
2. Batta, R. K., Singh, N. (1998). Drip irrigation to sugarcane: Indian experience. Proc. National
Seminar on Micro-Irrigation Research in Indian Status and perspective for the twenty-first
century, Bhubaneswar – India. pp. 133–147.
3. Lenka, D. (1991). Irrigation and Drainage, Kalyani Publishers, New Delhi.
4. Hapase, D. G., Deshmukh, A. S., Gynjal, B. B., Shinde, P. P. (1988). Evaluation of Micro
Irrigation System in Sugarcane Agriculture. Proceedings of XI International Congress on the
use of Plastics in Agriculture.
5. Jones, C. A., Santo, L. P., Kigton, G., Gascho, G. (1990). Irrigation of agricultural crops. Am.
Soc. of Agronomy, 835–854.
6. Michael, A. M. (1978). Irrigation – Theory and Practices. Vikas Publication House Pvt. Ltd.
Masjid Road, Jangpura, New Delhi.
7. Michael, A. M., Ojha, T. P. (1966). Principles of Agricultural Engineering, Volume II. Jain
Brothers, Jaipur.
8. Singh, Harjinder, Narda, N. K., Chawla, J. K. (2004). Efficacy on phosphorus through trickle
fertilation of potato. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 74(8), 476–478.
122 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

9. Kaur, Mandeep, Narda, N. K., Chawla, J. K. (2005). Irrigation and potassium management in
trickle fertigated potato. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 75(5), 290–291.
10. Nakayama, F. S., Bucks, D. S. (1986). Trickle Irrigation For Crop Production. American
Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph – MI – USA. 383 pages.
11. Package of Practices for Kharif Crops of Punjab (2006). Punjab Agricultural University,
Ludhiana, India. 25–40.
12. Parikh, M. M., Srivastava, P. K., Sawani, N. G. (1992). Response of Sugarcane crop of
drip method of irrigation. Co-operative Sugar, 23(10), 673–677.
13. Rajput, T. B. S., Patel, Neelam, (2001). Drip Irrigation Manual. Water Technology Cen-
tre, Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi.
14. Reddy, K. S., Reddy, G. P. (1995). Micro irrigation for water scarce areas. Yojaina Maga-
zine, June, 39.
15. Sharma, R. C., Singh, B. P. (2003). Effect of NPK fertigation and planting patterns on
yield and economics of potato under drip irrigation. Journal of Indian Potato Associa-
tion, 30(1–2), 69–70.
16. Shih, S. F. (1988). Sugarcane yield, Biomass and water use efficiency. Transaction of
ASAE, 31(1), 142–148.
17. Sidhu, G. S., Waraitch, K. S. (2002). Sugarcane Production and Protection Technologies.
Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana.
18. Singh, N., Sharma, R. C. (2002). Effect of drip irrigation on yield, quality and economy
of potato. In: Proceedings of International Agronomy Congress on Balancing Food and
Environmental Security -A Continuing Challenge, held during 26–30 November at New
Delhi – India. 347–348.
19. Tumbare, A. D. (1999). Effect of liquid fertilizer through drip Irrigation on growth and
yield of Okra. Indian Journal of Agronomy, 44, 176–178.
CHAPTER 11

DESIGN AND COST ESTIMATION

OF MICRO-SPRINKLER IRRIGATION
SYSTEM FOR CHILI
SATWINDER SINGH and KAMAL G. SINGH

11.1 INTRODUCTION
Micro irrigation is one of the most recent developments in irrigation methods [1, 2].
It was originally developed in Israel by Simca Bloss in 1959. This method proved
very economical in water use and also produced higher yield. The water demand has
increased many folds due to improvement in agricultural production technology in
the last few decades. The pumping cost has increased substantially with the inflation
of machinery prices and enhancement in energy prices. This has made the water not
only scare but also a costly resource. Because of the anticipated shortage of this vital
agricultural input, we have always been endeavoring to increase the water resources.
The choice of any irrigation system depends on number of factors such as topog-
raphy (land surface configuration), soil type (i.e., texture, structure, depth), stream
size (i.e., flow rate of irrigation water available), economic viability (benefit–cost
ratio), farmer’s capacity to meet initial investment, and social acceptance of the
system.
Micro irrigation is one of the latest methods of irrigation and is becoming in-
creasingly popular in areas with scarcity of water and salt problem. This is also
called tickle irrigation system or localized irrigation system.
Micro sprinkler irrigation is very well suited for widely spaced high value crops
and trees. The required quantity of water of water is applied daily near the root zone
through a network of piping system. The soluble fertilizers are fertigated frequently
in small quantities to meet the needs of the crop. There is a continuous balance of
water, air and fertilizer in the entire life cycle of plant; resulting in the optimum
growth, better fruit quality and early maturity of crop.

*In this chapter, the currency is expressed in Indian Rupees (1.00 US$ = Rs. 60.93; 1.00 Rs. = 0.02 US$).
124 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

The main characteristics of micro sprinkler irrigation system consist of uniform,

small continuous flow and reduced surface wetting around plants. Greater applica-
tion efficiency is obtained due to better placement of water near the roots in pre-
cise quantity. The reduced surface wetting reduces surface evaporation. For widely
spaced crops like fruit trees, the system is even more economical than other methods
of irrigation.
The comparative merits and demerits of surface, drip and micro sprinkler irriga-
tion methods reveal that micro sprinkler irrigation method is most efficient method
of irrigation having irrigation efficiency of about 90% as compared to ordinary
sprinkler method with about 70–80% and conventional method of surface irrigation
having about 40–50%. Although micro sprinkler method is the most efficient meth-
od, yet it can be recommended and used only under particular situations in certain
pockets of Punjab because of high initial cost and other limitations. Even under most
suitable and favorable situations for micro sprinkler irrigation method, the farmers
have not adopted micro sprinkler irrigation. The reasons for this are that farmers
don’t realize the importance and value of irrigation water available from canal and
tube well source, as they get electric power at a cheap flat rate.
Keeping in view the water scarcity, topography and water quality, south western
districts of Punjab are most suitable areas, especially where fruit trees can be grown
under micro sprinkler irrigation system. The existing paddy-wheat cropping system
in subtropical parts of northern India leads to hastening of water table declines,
deterioration of soil health, increased incidence of insect/pests, weeds and reduced
availability of protein rich legumes and oil seed crops. Sugarcane is emerging as an
alternative to the paddy-wheat cropping system and has a unique role to play in sus-
taining agro-industrial economic growth of India. The potential sugarcane produc-
tion depends on optimum availability of water throughout the growth period. Sug-
arcane is the most important cash crop. Sugarcane is adapted to a range of tropical
and subtropical climates and can be successfully grown on all types of soils ranging
from sandy to clay loam.
The total area under sugarcane in the world was 19.90 million ha during 1998
with production of 1254.94 ha in 1966–1967 to 235,000 ha in 1996–1997. Sugar-
cane contributes more than 62% of the world sugar production. Sugarcane occupied
about 96 thousand hectares in Punjab during 2005–2006. The average sugarcane
yield is 60,100��������������������������������������������������������������
kg�����������������������������������������������������������
per ha. The average sugar recovery was 9.8%. Before recom-
mending the adoption of micro sprinkler irrigation system for sugarcane, it is neces-
sary that drip system is properly designed and its economic viability is evaluated.
At Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Rahuri (Maharashtra – India), studies
indicated that the efficiency of the sprinkler system is higher than the border method
of irrigation. The water application, distribution, storage and water use efficiency
(WUE) were higher for sprinkler irrigation with 13.9% increase in yield. Indian
National committee on the use of plastics in agriculture has also reported supremacy
of sprinkler over conventional irrigation methods for certain crops.
Design and Cost Estimation of Micro-Sprinkler Irrigation 125

Keeping above facts in consideration, the present study was taken up: to design
the micro sprinkler irrigation system for chili crop; and to estimate the cost of micro
sprinkler irrigation system.

TABLE 11.1 Water Use in Sprinkler Versus Surface Method

Crop Water depth, cm Water saved,

%
Sprinkler Surface irrigation
irrigation

Bajra (Pearl millet) Barley 7.82 17.78 56

Gram

Cotton 29.05 40.64 29

Jowar (Sorghum) 11.27 25.40 56

Potato 30.00 60.00 50

Wheat 14.52 33.02 56

11.2 ADVANTAGES OF MICRO SPRINKLER IRRIGATION SYSTEM

1. Micro-sprinkler applies less water per unit area than drop emitters because
they spread water over a large area.
2. Micro-sprinkler prevents runoff and erosion in heavy soils.
3. Even distribution of water since droplet size is small.
4. Less evaporation losses as compared to conventional sprinkler due to low
height.
5. Simple assembly and operation, needs little or no maintenance.
6. Useful for fruits trees and orchards below the canopy.
7. Can be used in green house and nurseries.
8. Soils having high infiltration rate can be efficiently irrigated.

11.3 DISADVANTAGES
1. High initial cost.
2. Micro-sprinkler requires larger diameter of lateral than drip system.
3. Cannot be used for delicate flowering plants.
4. There are chances to soft fruits in dwarf plants.
126 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

11.4 COMPONENTS OF MICRO-SPRINKLER IRRIGATION

SYSTEM
The basic components of all micro/mini sprinkler irrigation system are: main line,
submain, microsprinklers, laterals, micro sprinkler head (sprinkler nozzle), stake for
sprinkler, ball valve, flush valve, air release valve, pressure gauge, gromet and take
off for LDPF lateral, fertilizer applicator, check valve, pumping unit, and filtration
system.

11.5 DESIGN OF MICRO SPRINKLER SYSTEM

Steps in design of microsprinkler are:
1. Determination of water requirement.
2. Selection of sprinkler.
3. Layout of sprinkler system.
4. Selection and design of lateral.
5. Selection and design of sub main.
6. Selection and design of mainline.
7. Selection of pump.
8. Calculation of irrigation time.

11.5.1 DETERMINATION OF WATER REQUIREMENT

Determination of water requirement is one of the basic needs for crop planning
and for designing of sprinkler irrigation system. Water requirement includes the
losses due to evapotranspiration (ET) or consumptive use (CU) plus losses during
the application of irrigation water. By using sprinkler system, we are applying water
directly to the soil, so that we can reduce conveyance losses. Water requirement for
orchards (tree crops) is estimated as:

WR = {(crop area x P.E x Pc x Kc) × (% wetted area)}/Uc (1)

where: crop area = plant-to-plant spacing multiplied by row-to-row spacing, m2;

P.E.= pan evaporation, mm/day; Pc = crop coefficient, depends on foliage charac-
teristics, stage of growth; and Uc = uniformity coefficient of microsprinkler. Percent
wetted area is the area, which is shaded due to canopy cover when the sun is over-
head. Table 11.2 shows average values of percent wetted area for different orchards.
Design and Cost Estimation of Micro-Sprinkler Irrigation 127

TABLE 11.2 Percent Wetted Area of Various Crops Under Drip Irrigation

Crop Wetted area (%)

Banana 50 to 60

Chilies 75

Grapes 50 to 60

Lime 20

Orange 30

Pomegranate 20

Sugarcane 60 to 70

Vegetables 60 to 70

For row crops, the water requirement is calculated per unit area per day as fol-
lows:
Method I

Volume of water required per unit area per day = Net water depth x percent wetted
area (2)

where: net depth of water or crop evapotranspiration of the crop (ETc) = PE × Pc ×

Kc; P.E. = pan evaporation, mm/day; Pc = pan coefficient, average value is 0.72; and
Kc = crop factor.
Method II

Water requirement (lit/day/plant)= [crop area × P.E × Kc × % wetted area]/Uc (3)

Method III

Volume of water (lit/day/dripper) = S1 × Ss × PE × Pc × Kc % wetted area (4)

where: S1 = lateral spacing along the submain, m; and Ss = sprinkler spacing along
the lateral, m. If data on evaporation rate is not available, then the average evapora-
tion can be assumed between 6 to 8 mm/day depending on the season and location.
In case of row crops, generally paired row or skip row plantation method is most
suitable for sprinkler irrigation. In this method, the entire strip of paired row needs
to be irrigated and hence the wetted area should be calculated for this paired row
128 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

strip excluding the area in between the paired rows. In case of narrow row crops, the
following crop factors are recommended:
Crop growth stage Crop factor

Emergence to early growth 0.3 to 0.5

Initial period of growth 0.6 to 0.7

Major crop growth period 0.8 to 0.9

Flowering and fruiting stage 1.0 to 1.15

Harvesting stage 0.8

11.5.2 SELECTION OF MINI SPRINKLER NOZZLE

The selection of sprinkler nozzle depends upon the crop water requirement and soil
infiltration rate. The sprinkler nozzle should supply enough water to the plant. Gen-
erally the spray pattern of sprinkler is affected by operating pressure. Therefore,
before selecting a particular type of microsprinkler using existing pump, it must be
ensured that: the sprinkler will get enough pressure, the sprinkler should give uni-
form and constant discharge and it should not vary significantly because of minor
differences in pressure head. The nozzle cross sectional area should be large in order
to reduce the clogging problem.

11.5.3 LAYOUT OF MINI SPRINKLER SYSTEM

The design of sprinkler system mainly depends on the layout of laterals, submains
and mainline. The layout is considered in relation with dimensions, area topography
of the field. The length of submain and mainline depends on dimensions and shape
of the field. The layout of the system should be such so that it should require mini-
mum length of submain, it should be laid at the center of the plot. As a thumb rule, if
the land is undulating, the submain and mainline should be laid along the slope and
laterals should be laid along the contour line, that is, across the major slope to have
minimum variation in pressure and discharge. The layout is also dependent on the
location of the water source and quantity of water available for irrigation.
Wind speed and direction has direct effect on uniformity coefficient. Wind di-
rection decides the positioning of lateral as well as the spacing between the laterals
and sprinkler. Usually laterals should be positioned across the direction of wind,
when slope is not constraint.
Design and Cost Estimation of Micro-Sprinkler Irrigation 129

11.5.4 SELECTION AND DESIGN OF LATERALS

For microsprinkler system, the lateral may be of small diameter, made up of low
density polyethylene (LDPE) or linear low density polyethylene (LLDPE) of 16 or
20 mm in diameter. The lateral may also be made up of PVC pipes with small riser
heads. The LDPE laterals are connected to submain by using rubber grommet and
take off. The size and length of lateral is decided by the discharge of the sprinkler
and number of sprinkler on one lateral.

11.5.4.1 CALCULATION OF FLOW RATE

Q1 = ns x qs (5)

where: Q1 = flow rate of one lateral, lit/hr; ns = number of sprinklers on one lateral;
and qs = nominal discharge of sprinkler, lit/hr.

11.5.4.2 LATERAL HEAD LOSS CALCULATIONS

The diameter of lateral is usually selected such that the difference in the discharge
between two extreme sprinklers operating simultaneously should not exceed 10%
and pressure head difference should not exceed 20% of average operating head. The
allowable head loss for level area should be divided between the lateral and submain
lines as follows:

ΔH1 = 55% of ΔHs and ΔHsm = 45% of ΔHs (6)

where: ΔHs = total allowable difference in pressure head in submain and lateral, m;
ΔH1 = head loss in lateral, m; and ΔHsm = the head loss in submain, m. For example,
if microsprinkler has operating pressure of 2 kg/cm2 (20 m), then total allowable
head loss is 20% of 20 m = 4 m. Then head loss in lateral should is 55% of 4 m =
2.2 m and head loss in submain should be 45% of 4 m = 1.3 m. The Hazen Williams
equation is most commonly used for calculation of head losses in pipes:

ΔH1 = K × (Q1/c)1.852 × D1 –4.871 × L1 × F (7)

where: ΔH1 = head loss in lateral, m; K = constant = 1.21 × 1010; Q1 = flow rate in
the lateral, lit/sec; C = the friction loss coefficient, depends on the roughness of pipe
material; D1 = inside diameter of lateral, mm; F = the outlet factor depending on
number of outlets; and L1 = length of lateral, m.
130 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

11.5.5 SELECTION AND DESIGN OF SUBMAIN

Submain is generally made up of PVC (polyvinyl chloride) pipes of 32 mm, 40
mm, 50 mm, 63 mm or 75 mm in diameter. The design of submain is based on both
capacity and uniformity. Capacity implies that the submain size should be large
enough to deliver required amount of water to irrigate the subsequent part of the
field. Uniformity means that the submain should be designed to maintain the al-
lowable pressure variation, so that flow into all lateral lines will have an acceptable
variation. Submain supplies water to individual lateral. Design of submain is similar
to that of lateral, however it differs in that the spacing between outlets is greater and
large flow rates are involved. The size and length of submain is determined by num-
ber of laterals and distance between laterals. Usually in a flat field, the position of
the submain should be located at the center of the plot. On slopping field, the lateral
lines should be laid along the contour lines and the submain along the slope, as far
as possible. Flow rate and length of submain is calculated as follows:

Qsm = N1 × Qa (8)

Lsm = N1 × S1 (9)

where: Qsm = flow rate in the submain, lit/sec; N1 = number of laterals on the sub-
main; Qa = average flow rate of laterals, lit/sec; Lsm = length of sub main, m; and S1
= average spacing between laterals on the submain. The friction loss for the submain
is calculated as:

ΔHsm = K × (Qsm/c)1.852 × Dsm–4.871 × Lsm × F (10)

where: F = outlet factor; and Lsm = length of submain, m.

11.5.6 SELECTION AND DESIGN OF MAINLINE

Generally the size of mainline is one size higher than submain. The size of main line
is decided by flow rate of all the submains. The sizes of mainline are 40 mm, 50 mm,
63 mm, 75 mm, 90 mm or 110 mm, etc. The head loss is calculated by using Hazen
and Williams equation:

ΔHm = 15.27 {Qm1.852/Dm4.871}Lm (11)

ΔHm = K (Qm/C)1.852 Dm–4.871 × Lm (12)

where: Qm = total discharge of mainline, lit/sec; Dm = inside diameter of mainline,

cm; Lm = length of mainline, m; ΔHm = head loss in mainline, m; and for C = 150; K
Design and Cost Estimation of Micro-Sprinkler Irrigation 131

= constant = 1.21 × 1010; C = friction coefficient for continuous section of pipe and
depends on pipe material; and Dm= inside diameter of mainline, mm.

11.5.7 PUMP SIZE

To determine the pump size, consider the following two equations:
Total head of pump (H) = suction head + delivery head + filter losses + mainline
loss + operating pressure + fitting loss + venture head loss + elevation difference
(13)

H.P. = (Q.H./75.ηmotor. ηpump) (14)

where: filter losses are assumed to be 2 m for screen filter (disc filter) and 2 m for
sand filter; operating pressure is about 1.5 kg/cm2 (15 m); fitting loss = 2 m; Venturi
head loss = 5 m; Q = maximum flow rate of system, lit/sec; H = total head of the sys-
tem, m with Eq. (13); ηmotor = motor efficiency = 80%; and ηpump = pump efficiency =
75%; and H.P. = pump horse power.

11.5.8 CALCULATION OF IRRIGATION TIME

Irrigation rime for tree crop (hours) = water requirement (lit/day/tree)/application

rate (mm/hr)

Irrigation time for row crops (hours) = water requirement (li/day/area)/application

rate (mm/hr) (15)

Application rate is calculated by dividing the discharge of sprinkler to the sprin-

kler spacing along the lateral and submain.

11.6 DESIGN OF MICRO SPRINKLER SYSTEM: CASE STUDY

11.6.1 DESIGN DATA
1. Size of the field = 1 ha
2. Assume square plot of 100 m × 100 m
3. Crop is chili
4. Crop spacing = 30 cm × 45 cm × 75 cm
5. Pan evaporation = 8 mm/day
6. Area to be wetted as a percentage of total area = 75%
132 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

7. Availability of electricity per day = 12 h

8. Soil type is sandy loam
9. Topography of field is slightly undulating with 1% slope
10. Uniformity coefficient = 85%
11. Water source is well at the corner of the field
12. Well depth = 10 m
13. Harzen Williams constant, C = 150 for PVC pipe and 140 for LLDPE pipes
14. Assume crop coefficient as 0.8 and pan coefficient as 0.7, for entire growing
season

11.6.2 DESIGN PROCEDURE

Step 1. Volume of water = [crop area (m2) × P.E. × Pc × Kc % wetted Area]/Uc = (0.3
× 0.45 × 8 × 0.7 × 0.75)/0.85 = 0.53 lit/day/plant, volume of water needed.
Step 2. Selection of Microsprinkler: For economic design of microsprinkler sys-
tem, the paired row planting is adopted, in which one lateral for two rows of plants
is provided. From the wide range of micro sprinkler available with the manufacturer,
the microsprinkler having maximum radius of throw with minimum discharge can
be selected. From Table 11.3, select micro sprinkler of 83 lit/hr discharge having
radius of throw of 3 m, considering 100% coverage and 50% overlapping between
the microsprinkler, the spacing between microsprinkler of 3 m.
Then, application rate = 83 /(3×3) = 9.2 mm/hr.
Step 3. Selection and Design of Lateral: To divide the flow into two sections,
install the submain at the center of the field. For economic design, divide the area
into four sections.
1. Length of lateral on one side of submain = 25 m
2. No. of microsprinklers on one lateral at a spacing of 3 m = 25/3 = 8.3 = 8 m
(Approx.)
3. Actual spacing between the microsprinkler = 3.12 m
4. Discharge rate of lateral = 83 x 8 = 664 lit/hr = 0.184 lit/sec
5. Select 16 mm diameter lateral
Using Hazen Williams equation, head loss due to friction is:
ΔH1 = K × (Q1/c)1.852 × D1–4.871 × L1 × F = 1.21 × 1010 (0.184/140)1.852 × 13.8–4.871
× 25 × 0.41 = 1.62 m
As the calculated head loss is nearly equal 10% of operating pressure, the lateral
of 16 mm size is sufficient to carry the flow.
Step 4. Selection and Design of Submain: Use four submains of 50 m length
each.
1. Length of submain = 50 m
2. Distance between two lateral on one side of submain = (2 × 0.45) + (2 ×
0.225) + 1
= 2.35 m
TABLE 11.3 Size of Sprinkler Nozzles and Mini Sprinklers, India

Operating Nozzle color and size

pressure Kg/cm2
Black Blue Green Red White Violet Yellow
0.85 mm 1.0 mm 1.2 mm 1.4 mm 1.6 mm 1.8 mm 2.0 mm

Flow lps Rad m Flow lps Rad Flow lps Rad m Flow lps Radm Flow Radm Flow Rad Flow Radm
m lps lps m lps

1.5 33 3.0 44 3.25 64 3.5 90 4.0 116 4.4 150 4.5 185 4.7

2.0 39 3.3 50 3.75 75 4.2 100 4.4 135 4.6 175 4.8 215 5.2

2.5 43 3.3 56 3.85 83 4.5 115 4.7 150 5.0 195 5.2 238 5.4

Available sizes of micro sprinklers in the market, India

Design and Cost Estimation of Micro-Sprinkler Irrigation

1.0 28 1.9 98 3.3 67 2.84 43 2.4

1.5* 36 2.2 122 3.7 83 3.35 54 2.9

2.0 41 2.5 148 3.9 97 3.65 63 3.2

*Recommended operating pressure = 1.5 kg/cm2; Rad = Radius of throw in meters.

133
134 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

3. No. of laterals on one side of submain = 50/2.35 = 21.27 = say 21

4. No. of laterals on both side of submain = 21 × 2 = 42
5. Discharge rate of submain = 42 × 0.184 = 7.73 lit/sec
6. Outlet factor (for 42 outlets) for submain = 0.361.
Select 63 mm diameter of submain, that is, inside diameter of submain = 58.8
mm. Using Hazen and Williams equation, head loss due to friction is:
ΔHsm = K × (Qsm/c)1.852 × Dsm–4.871 × Lsm × F = 1.21 × 1010 (7.73/150)1.852 × 58.8–4.871 ×
50 × 0.361 = 2.15 m

As the calculated head loss is within desired limit, the design is accepted. Sub-
main is a conduit, which carries water from main line and distributes among laterals
of dripper lines. Assume the submain has to be placed along 100 m side. Calculate
SDR (standard discharge rate is submain in liter per hour per meter)
SDR of submain = 3600 × (Total flow in submain, lps)/(Submain length in me-
ter) = (7.73 × 3600)/100 = 278.28 L per hour per meter
The required size of the submain line is 75 mm in diameter. Here the submain
length consists of 4 segments each of 25 m length. Friction head loss in submain =
1.4 m for submain for 25 m length and 75 mm size.
Submain Design Check:
Friction head loss in submain should not exceed 20% of operating pressure (10
m × 0.20 = 2 m). It is also known as design tolerance. Since the friction head in
submain is less than design tolerance, design is safe.
Step 5. Selection and Design of Mainline: Operating two submains at a time.
1. Length of mainline = 75 m
2. Discharge rate of mainline = 7.73 × 2 = 15.46 lit/sec
3. Select main line of 90 mm in diameter.
Main line is a conduit, which feeds water from water source to submains. In this
design, mainline is connected to submains from water source as far as possible in
a straight line. To operate the system, we prefer to operate the each submain sepa-
rately.

Flow (lps) = (278.28 × 66.6)/3600 = 5.14 lps

Therefore, the required size of the mainline is 90 mm with Inside diameter of

85.8 mm. Using Hazen Williams equation, head loss due to friction is:

ΔHm = K (Qm/C)1.852 Dm–4.871. Lm = 1.21 × 1010 (15.46/150)1.852 85.8–4.871 × 75 = 5.11

m

This calculated head loss of mainline should be added, while selecting the total
head of the pump.
Step 6. Pump Size:
Design and Cost Estimation of Micro-Sprinkler Irrigation 135

Total head of pump (H) = suction head + delivery head + filter losses + mainline
loss + operating pressure + fitting loss + venture head loss + elevation difference =
10 + 15 + 5.11 + 2 + 2 + 5 = 39.11 m
For Q = 15.46 lit/sec, h = 39.11 m, motor efficiency = 80%, pump efficiency =
75%, we have:
H.P. = (Q.H./75.ηmotor. ηpump) = (15.46 × 39.11)/(75 × 0.80 × 0.75) = 13.43
Adding 10% for unforeseen losses,
H.P. = 13.43 × 1.1 = 14.77 = say 15 H.P.

Step 7: Irrigation time: It is the ratio of volume of water applied for four plants
to the discharge rate dripper.
IR = (0.53 × 16)/9.2 = 0.92 hrs. 55 min for one shift of two submain.
Total irrigation time = 2 × 55 min = 110 min = 1 hr, 50 min.

11.7 COST ESTIMATION OF MICRO-SPRINKLER FOR ONE HA

AREA
The cost of micro sprinkler system depends on the spacing between micro-
sprinklers, discharge of microsprinklers and other factors. However, maximum care
should be taken to reduce the cost of the system without affecting plant population
and uniformity coefficient. The calculations are shown in Table 11.4.

TABLE 11.4 Cost of Installation of Micro Sprinkler Irrigation System For One Hectare
Under Chili Cultivation

Items Quantity Rate (Rs./-) Amount (Rs./-)

PVC pipe 90 mm 180 m 80 per m 14,400/-
PVC pipe 63 mm 204 m 40 per m 8,160/-
LLDPE lateral 16 mm 4500 m 7 per m 31,500/-

Micro-sprinkler, 1350 each 1000 9 per No. 12150/-

83 lit/hr extension tube, 6 m 3.5 per No. 3,500/-
mm
Screen/ disc filter, 40 m3/hr 1 each 5000 per No. 5,000/-
Ball valve, 63 mm 4 each 350 per No. 1,400/-
Flush valve, 63 mm 4 each 200 per No. 800/-
Filter and accessories, @ of @ 10% 7,691/-
10% of above.
Total 84,601/-
136 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

KEYWORDS

•• design
•• flow rate
•• irrigation time
•• micro sprinkler irrigation system
•• mini sprinkler nozzle selection
•• mini sprinkler system layout
•• pump size
•• water requirement

REFERENCES
Goyal, Megh R. (2014). Management of Drip/Trickle or Micro Irrigation. Oakville, ON, Canada:
Apple Academic Press Inc.
Goyal, Megh R., (2015). Research Advances in Sustainable Micro Irrigation, Volumes 1 to 10.
Oakville, ON, Canada: Apple Academic Press Inc.

APPENDIX I: PHOTOS OF DRIP IRRIGATION COMPONENTS

CHAPTER 12

DEVELOPMENT OF LOW PRESSURE

FERTIGATION INJECTOR
SANTOSH KUMAR, KAMAL G. SINGH, and CHETAN SINGLA

12.1 INTRODUCTION
There has been a tremendous growth in fertilizer use throughout the world in the
twentieth century. By the end of twentieth century, developing countries had in-
creased the utilization of fertilizers to 60% of the world’s fertilizer use and produced
55% of total nitrogenous fertilizer [9]. Drip irrigation offers several advantages like
high irrigation efficiency, labor and energy savings, improvement in quality and
yield of produce and opportunity to manipulate inputs, as per the crop demands,
over the conventional irrigation method. Black [1], Miller et al. [8], Kaneworthy [6]
and Smith et al. [12] indicated that there was a saving of up to 50% of the fertilizer,
when applied through a drip irrigation system.
Fertigation is the technique of supplying water-soluble fertilizers to crops
through an irrigation system. It has become a common practice in modem agri-
culture. Fertigation through drip irrigation can save fertilizers from 25 to 50% [5].
Fertilizers can be injected into irrigation system by three principal methods: (i) by-
pass tank, (ii) venturi, and (iii) pumps. The venturi is considered as the best method
of fertigation. The main limitations of venturi are large pressure drop and high head
requirement for its operation. Lewitt [7] gave the mathematical equation for mea-
surement of flow by pipe orifice. Ree [10] indicated that shop- built orifices, when
used without correcting to true diameter, may yield errors in a discharge estimate
as large as 15% for the 2.54 cm diameter orifice and 6% for the three larger (4.44,
6.35, 8.89 cm) orifices [13].
Eisenhauer and Bockstadter [4] studied injection pump flow considerations for
center pivots with corner watering systems and concluded that injecting chemicals
at constant rate into center pivot equipped with either guns or swing-booms resulted
in systematic chemical application rate errors due to the variable wetted radius of
the irrigation system. Replogle and Wahlin [11] constructed a special venturi meter

*In this chapter, the currency is expressed in Indian Rupees (1.00 US$ = Rs. 60.93; 1.00 Rs. = 0.02 US$).
138 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

from a plastic pipefitting and attempted to address the economic limitations, and
fouling water management requirements. Thirty venturi meters were constructed. It
was established that individual calibrations were not required for effective applica-
tion in irrigation practice. Camp et al. [2] conducted an experiment to develop a
variable rate, digitally controlled metering device to permit variable flow of a fluid.
The device consisted of a reservoir that was alternatively filled and emptied at a rate
dependent upon a digital pulse from an external source.
These studies show that there are number of methods such as by-pass tank,
venturi and injection pump for fertigation. The most commonly used device for
fertilizer application is the venturi that requires1 kg/cm2 to 4 kg/cm2 for operation.
Therefore, the authors developed low head injector for fertigation through a drip
irrigation system. It will be useful for small and marginal farmers and green houses.

12.2 MATERIAL AND METHODS

The orifice meter was developed based on Bernoulli’s Theorem, which is defined
as an increase in the water speed occurs simultaneously with a decrease in pressure
or a decrease in the potential energy [3, 13, 14], due to total constant energy at any
point along the stream line:

P1/w + V12/2 g + Z1 = P2/w + V22/2 g + Z2 = Constant (1)

Substitution for Z1 = Z2 for a horizontal orifice and V1 = (a2 V2)/a1 in Eq. (1), we
get:

h = V22/2 g [1 – (d/D)4] (2)

V2 = {(2 gh)/(1 – (d/D)4)}0.5 (3)

The theoretical discharge (Qth) = a2 V2 = a1 V1 is:

Qth = a2 {(2 gh)/(1 – (d/D)4)}0.5 (4)

For an orifice of area a2:

Qact = (Cd) a2{(2 gh)/(1 – (d/D)4)}0.5 (5)

Qact = Qe × N or (6)

Cd = Qact/Qth (7)
Development of Low Pressure Fertigation Injector 139

In Eqs. (1) to (7), a1 is the cross-sectional area of inlet pipe (mm2); a2 is the cross-
sectional area of orifice meter (mm 2); D is the diameter of inlet pipe (mm); d is
the diameter of orifice meter (mm); V1 is the velocity of water approaching orifice
meter (m/s); V2 is the velocity of water through orifice meter (m/s); p1 is the pres-
sure of fluid before orifice meter (kg/cm2); p2 is the pressure of fluid after orifice
meter (kg/cm2); h is the measured difference of pressure (cm); w is the unit weight
of water (kg/cm3); Qth is theoretical discharge rate without the equipment (lph); Qact
is the actual rate of discharge rate with equipment (lph); Cd is the orifice coefficient
of discharge; N is the total number of emitters in a given area of fertigation; and Qe
is the emitter discharge rate (lph).
For losses due to passage of the liquid through the orifice, the actual rate of
discharge is obtained by Eq. (5). Due to drop in pressure in the orifice meter, water-
soluble fertilizer was injected the orifice meter. Then, it was mixed with the water
flowing through the orifice meter. The discharge rate at the outlet is given by Eq. (6).
The coefficient of discharge for an orifice meter is defined in Eq. (7).

TABLE 12.1 Various Sizes of the Developed Orifice Meters

Diameter of Diameter of fertilizer

Orifice Thickness
orifice injection hole
size
mm mm mm

O1 25.40 3.18 1.59

O2 19.05 3.18 1.59

O3 12.70 3.18 1.59

O4 9.53 3.18 1.59

O5 12.70 2.38 1.59

O6 12.70 1.59 1.59

140 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

FIGURE 12.1 Different thickness of fabricated orifice meters.

12.3 DESIGN OF EQUIPMENT FOR FERTIGATION

Various sizes of orifice meters in this study are given in Table 12.1. The figures
of different thicknesses of orifice meter are given in Fig. 12.1. With decrease in
diameter, the injection rate was increased (continuity equation in one dimension).
By keeping the diameter of orifice meter constant (3.18 mm), the thickness of the
orifice meter was varied to get the optimal value. Hole of 1.59 mm of fertilizer in-
jector was drilled just at the edge of the orifice meter. A plastic tube was connected
from the orifice meter to the fertilizer tank, which was placed at a height of one
meter above the ground. The pressure drop and fertilizer injection rates values were
recorded. The difference between inlet pressure and outlet pressure was measured
by the difference in height of a mercury manometer with two limbs. This pressure
gradient is related by the following equation:

h = R{(Sm/S) − 1} (8)

where: h = pressure head in cm; R = reading of the U-tube manometer, cm; Sm =

specific gravity of mercury; and S = specific gravity of water.
The tests on this equipment were conducted to determine the injection rate
through the different sizes of the orifice meter. After preparing the fertilizer solution,
the water flowing through orifice meter was allowed through the orifice area. All
developed orifice meters were tested under different inlet discharge rates and rates
of fertigation. All orifice meters were tested for areas of 450 m2, 300 m2 and 150 m2.
Development of Low Pressure Fertigation Injector 141

12.4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

The developed orifice meters were evaluated for inlet pressure of 0.42 to 0.944 kg/
cm2 and three areas of orifice of 150 m2, 300 m2, and 450 m2. The orifice meter hav-
ing maximum injection rate and the corresponding operating pressure for different
orifice meters are given Table 12.2. The maximum injection rate depends on the
outlet pressure for a specific inlet pressure. The best fit equation of average injection
rate and outlet pressure for six orifice meters (01–06) are given below:
For orifice meter 01:
S = 2292.1 P2 − 924.74 P + 99.326, R2 = 0.9448
For orifice meter 02:
S = 45937 P2 − 12,322 P + 833.65, R2 = 1
For orifice meter 03:
S = 1498.1 P2 − 573.94 P + 64.788, R2 = 0.9778
For orifice meter 04:
S = 1541.7 P2 − 519.09 P + 58.239, R2 = 0.9956
For orifice meter 05:
S = 1061.9 P2 − 409.21 P + 47.007, R2 = 0.9517
For orifice meter 06:

S = 4610.1 P2 − 1105.1 P + 84.857, R2 = 0.9952 (9)

where: S = average injection rate, lph; and P = outlet pressure, kg/cm2.

TABLE 12.2 Maximum Injection Rates and the Corresponding Operating Pressures For
Different Orifice Meters (1 to 6)

Size Operating pressure

Maximum Inlet Outlet

Thickness Diameter injection rate pressure pressure
Orifice
meter mm lph kg/cm2

1 25.4 3.18 24.82 0.772 0.117

2 19.05 3.18 12.00 0.784 0.124

3 12.7 3.18 45.00 0.702 0.037

4 9.53 3.18 27.70 0.795 0.102

5 12.7 2.38 15.00 0.830 0.108

6 12.7 1.59 27.67 0.944 0.078

142 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

12.4.1 COST ESTIMATION OF THE BEST DEVELOPED ORIFICE

METER
The materials used were two pieces of flanges with thickness 12.7 mm (Rs.150.00),
900 mm length of GI pipe with diameter of 12.7 mm (Rs. 30.00), and two 12.7
mm diameter elbows (Rs. 100.00). The total cost of the system including the best-
developed orifice meter was Rs. 300.00.

12.5 CONCLUSIONS
The performance of all developed orifice meters were tested at a pressure < 1 kg/
cm2, while the venturi operates at 1 to 4 kg/cm2. The orifice meter with 12.7 mm
thickness and 3.18 mm diameter was found the best with maximum fertilizer ap-
plication rate of 45 lph at an inlet pressure of 0.72 kg/cm2. The orifice meter was
found economical than the most commonly used devices (the venturi). The cost of
the orifice meter was around Rs. 300.00, whereas the cost of the venturi is about Rs.
1048.00 for same purpose of fertigation.

12.6 SUMMARY
The methods of fertilizer application through drip irrigation are by-pass tank, ven-
turi and pump system. The venturi is most commonly used for fertigation. The main
limitations of the venturi are large pressure drop and high-required pressure head.
Therefore, an orifice meter was developed for fertigation, which operates at inlet
pressure <1 kg/cm2.
Six different sizes of orifice meter were developed and evaluated at the Research
Farm of Department of Soil and Water Engineering, Punjab Agricultural University,
Ludhiana – India. Four orifices had a diameter of 3.18 mm and thickness of 25.4,
19.05, 12.7, and 9.53 mm. Two orifices with diameters of 2.38 mm and 1.59 mm
and with a thickness of 12.7 mm were evaluated at pressure of 0.42 to 0.944 kg/cm2.
The maximum injection rate was 45 lph with the orifice meter having a diameter
of 3.18 mm and thickness of 12.7 mm at an inlet pressure of 0.702 kg/cm2. This was
found to be best. The developed equipment was also suitable for farmers having
small land holdings or in a greenhouse.
Development of Low Pressure Fertigation Injector 143

KEYWORDS

•• by-pass tank
•• center pivot
•• drip irrigation
•• fertigation
•• fertilizer application
•• fertilizer injector
•• fruit tree
•• greenhouse
•• injection pump
•• injection rate
•• metering device
•• nitrogen
•• orifice meter
•• pipe orifice
•• pump system
•• small land holding
•• trans critical flow
•• trickle irrigation
•• venturi meter

REFERENCES
1. Black, J. D. F. (1976). Trickle Irrigation – A Review. Hort. Abstract, 46(1), 69–74.
2. Camp, C. R., Sadler, E. J., Evans, D. E., Usrey, L. J. (2000). Variable rate, digitally controlled
metering device. Applied Engineering in Agriculture, 16(1), 39–44.
3. Chanson, H. (2009). Trans-critical flow due to channel contraction. Journal of Hydraulic En-
gineering ASCE, 135(12), 1113–1114.
4. Eisenhauer, D. E., Bockstadter, T. L. (1990). Injection pump flow considerations for center
pivots with corner watering systems. Transactions in Agriculture, 33, 162–166.
5. Haynes, R. J. (1985). Principles of fertilizer use for trickle irrigated crops. Fert. Res., 6, 235–
255.
6. Kenworthy, A. L. (1979). Applying nitrogen to fruit trees through trickle irrigation system.
Acta. Hort., 89, 107–110.
7. Lewit, E. H. (1952). The mathematical equation for measurement of flow by pipe orifice.
Hydraulics and Fluid Mechanics Handbook. 752 pp.
144 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

8. Miller, R. J., Rolston, D. E., Rauschkolb, R. S., Wolfe, D. W. (1976). Drip application of ni-
trogen. California Agri., 30(11), 16–18.
9. Rajput, T. B. S., Patel, N. (2002). Fertigation Theory and Practices. Publication No. IARI/
WTC/2001/2 by Water Technology Centre, IARI, New Delhi, 56 pages.
10. Ree, W. O. (1977). How accurate are shop-made orifice plates. Transactions of the ASAE,
20(2), 298–300.
11. Replogle, J. A., Wahlin, B. (1994). Venturi meter constructions for plastic irrigation pipe lines.
Applied Engineering in Agriculture, 10(1), 21–26.
12. Smith, M. W., Kenworthy, A. L., Bedford, C. L. (1979). The response of fruit trees to injection
of nitrogen through trickle irrigation. Jr. Amr. Soc. Hort. Sci., 104, 311–313.
13. Thomas, J. T. (1985). Orifice plates for furrow flow measurement: Part 1: Calibration. Trans-
actions ASAE, 24(1), 103–111.
14. Yuan, Z., Choi, C. Y., Waller, P. M., Colaizzi, P. (2000). Effects of liquid temperature and
viscosity on venturi injectors. Transactions of ASAE, 43(6), 1441–1447.

APPENDIX I: INJECTORS FOR FERTIGATION

 PART II
MICRO IRRIGATION SCHEDULING
This page intentionally left blank
CHAPTER 13

SIMULATION OF SALT DISTRIBUTION

AND MOISTURE WETTING PATTERNS
IN DRIP IRRIGATED TOMATO
D. D. NANGARE and KAMAL G. SINGH

13.1 INTRODUCTION
Water scarcity is becoming one of the major limiting factors to economic develop-
ment and welfare in most parts of the semiarid regions of the world. In India, about
one third of geographical area has been classified as arid and semiarid regions. The
arid regions are mostly confined to western and northwestern Rajasthan and extend
to some parts of the states of Haryana, Punjab and Gujarat. The entire arid and
semiarid region is characterized by low rainfall and has the problems either of water
scarcity or poor quality ground water. The regions identified for poor quality water
are major parts of Rajasthan, Gujarat, Haryana, North Western UP and South West-
ern parts of Punjab.
The use of alkali ground waters constitutes a major threat to irrigated agricul-
ture in semiarid parts especially south Asia [66]. High incidence (30–50%) of these
waters is found in semiarid parts (annual rainfall 500–700 mm), which are the most
intensively cultivated areas in the Indo-Gangetic plains. Soil properties and perme-
ability are adversely affected by irrigation with sodic water [71] in the arid and
semiarid region. Poor quality water constitutes 32–84% of ground water surveyed in
different parts of India is related either saline or alkali [65]. Farmers of these regions
are compelled to use poor quality water to irrigate crops due to inadequate availabil-
ity of good quality water. In southwestern Punjab, the quality of underground water
is marginal and unfit for irrigation [18]. The 22% ground water is fit, 31% marginal
and 47% water is unfit for irrigation due to poor quality. Brackish groundwater
with high EC (0.2–12.6 dSm–1) and RSC ranging from 0.3 to 35.1 mel–1 has been
observed in this zone [45]. Saline water irrigation is practiced in several regions
of the world [87], where water scarcity prevents the use of freshwater for irriga-

*In this chapter, the currency is expressed in Indian Rupees (1.00 US$ = Rs. 60.93; 1.00 Rs. = 0.02 US$).
148 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

tion. Utilization of saline water for irrigation is associated with salt accumulation
in the soil, which might be harmful to plants, and reduces yields [7, 17, 56, 82, 94,
115]. The salt effects on physiological process result from lowering of the soil water
potential and the toxicity of specific ions. On the other hand, it has been reported
that nontoxic highly saline water has an agricultural potential. By using low quality
water for irrigation, it would be possible to extend the normal growing season, thus
targeting markets when the demand is especially high. The use of saline drainage
water for irrigation has the environmental advantages of reducing the nonsaline wa-
ter requirement for salt-tolerant crops and decreasing the volume of drainage water
requiring disposal or treatment. When water resources are limited and the cost of
nonsaline water becomes prohibitive, crops of moderate to high salt tolerance can
be irrigated with saline water especially at later growth stages, provided appropriate
irrigation methods and management practices are used. There are also a number of
social and economic benefits that encourage the use of saline water for agricultural
purposes. Saline water improved the welfare for local communities, as the use of
a nonconventional water resource for irrigation will reduce the stress that exists on
conventional freshwater supplies. Moreover, using saline water is a way to mitigate
shortages of irrigation water within local communities and reduce conflict over wa-
ter resources. Additionally, it might also allow irrigated agriculture to take place in
areas where it is currently not possible due to the lack of good quality water.
In irrigated agriculture, any shift from freshwater to saline water irrigation incurs
a yield reduction, but it enables more freshwater to be allocated for other purposes.
The greatest risk for the farmer using saline water is that of salinization, which may
lead to crop failure. The yield of crops irrigated with saline water could be enhanced
substantially, if an additional source of good quality water were available for use at
critical times during the season. The successful use of low-quality water requires
the selection of salt tolerant crops, the application of a suitable water management
strategy, the choice of the most appropriate irrigation systems, water management
practices, irrigation system, soil type and salinity distribution affect crop productiv-
ity. There is a necessity of development of proper irrigation management practices
so that poor quality water can be used in conjunction with good quality water with
minimum adverse effect on crop yield. The irrigation water can be used as a mixture
of saline water with fresh water (blending or mixing) or saline water can be applied
in cycles with fresh water. The practical strategies include the mixing of water of
varying quantity or cyclic use of fresh and saline water [86] and proper management
and use of drip irrigation system [65].
The use of drip irrigation system has great potential in arid and semiarid regions
particularly for light textured soils. Drip irrigation has been shown to be the most
useful irrigation technique when irrigating with saline water [29] as it avoids the leaf
injury to plants and improves the yield, WUE and quality of vegetables [108]. If irri-
gation can be managed in a way such that it provides high soil moisture content and
consequently high soil water potential within the whole root zone then the osmotic
Simulation of Salt Distribution and Moisture Wetting Patterns 149

effects will be damped. Moreover, when saline water is skillfully used for irrigation,
it can be beneficial for agricultural production, particularly in fruits and vegetables.
A regular and frequent water supply is possible with the drip system for crop pro-
duction. Also the use of drip system raises the threshold limits of salt tolerance in
crops by modifying the pattern of salt distribution and maintaining the higher matric
potential in the root zone [64].
In India, crop yield is about doubled and water productivity increase ranges
from 40 to 250%, when conventional irrigation is replaced with drip irrigation [76].
In addition, as competition for fresh water increases, water of better quality is pri-
marily used for domestic purposes, whereas water of lower quality is often used for
irrigation [51]. Therefore, one of challenge for the future was to maintain or even
increase crop production with less water that may often be of poor quality, that is,
saline water.
The level of salinity that can be tolerated in the soil water (hence in the irrigation
water) will depend not only on the salt tolerance of the crop to be grown, but also
on the initial salt content and distribution of salinity in the soil profile, amount and
frequency of irrigation, the extent to which the soil water is depleted between irriga-
tions and on the water content and hydraulic properties of the soil. In drip irrigation
increased irrigation frequency typically results in a decreased depth of rooting and
an increase in the mean salt concentration in the upper, main part of the root zone.
Thus, the net result of increasing irrigation frequency may increase soil salinity and
causes its deleterious effects on crop growth. The net overall effect of saline water
irrigation on osmotic and matric-potentials is not easy to predict. This is an area of
understanding that needs improvement. Additional research should be carried out to
predict as to how much irrigation frequency can be increased to reduce salinity and
water stresses on crop production. Studies on moisture and salt distribution under
drip irrigation with different salinity levels and discharge rates of emitters and their
influence on crop growth, yield and quality are also important. These studies are
essential towards the development of improved water management technology in
areas having problem of water scarcity and poor water quality. Therefore, there is a
need to develop criteria for the use of saline water under drip irrigation with differ-
ent mixing ratios of saline ground water and fresh canal water to improve quality of
vegetables with minimum reduction in yield [17, 56, 82, 94, 115].
Keeping the above in view, this chapter discusses the research results to: (i)
study the salt and moisture distribution patterns with different salinity levels of ir-
rigation water under drip irrigation and its effect on yield and quality of tomato crop;
(ii) simulate salt distribution, moisture wetting pattern and crop yield for tomato
crop; and (iii) validate the model with experimental data.
150 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

13.2 LITERATURE REVIEW

13.2.1 DRIP IRRIGATION WITH SALINE WATER

Rhoades et al. [86, 87] recorded an increase in the quality of wheat, melon and al-
falfa with the use of saline irrigation water. Shelf-life of fruits was not affected by
saline treatments, whereas the yield and fruit size were found lower than fruits those
from the control treatments. Further, increase in salinity increased the soluble solids
concentration and slightly improved the appearance of muskmelons. Shannon and
Grieve [97] examined the salinity problems which occur in irrigated agriculture and
studied salt tolerance of fruits and vegetables, and cyclic reuse of saline water to de-
termine the potential for growing leafy vegetables using relatively saline irrigation
water. They found that crop yields were less affected by saline water if it was ap-
plied later in the season. In most cases vegetables grown at high salinity were found
darker green, which would enhance their marketability. Irrigation with saline water
with high in sulfates seemed to enhance the flavor of leafy cruciferous vegetables.
Amor et al. [8] suggested that that the response of melons to salinity depends on
the duration of exposure to saline water. Salinity treatments increased fruit reducing
sugars, acidity, and total soluble solids. Fruit yield reduction at each salinization
time was correlated with salinity levels and concluded that brackish waters can be
used for growing melon with minimum yield losses if concentration and duration
of exposure are carefully monitored. Cuarter and Rafael [26] reviewed the effect
of salinity on tomato plant growth, fruit production, cultural techniques which can
be applied to alleviate the negative effects of salinity on tomato crop. They found
that an increase of EC of irrigation water 1 dS/m resulted in reduction of about
9–10% yield. Salinity enhanced tomato fruit taste by increasing both acids and sug-
ars. Firmness was found unchanged or slightly lowered. They reviewed in details
effect of salinity on seed germination, root development, shoot development, and
yield related characteristics and fruit quality under different salinity levels of irriga-
tion water.
Cucci et al. [27] found that tomato yield generally decreases if a threshold salin-
ity level is exceeded and further subsequent fruit deterioration in quality (increase
in fiber content, size reduction, shorter storing period) causes economic damage.
Salinity can induce some qualitative improvements such as better color and taste,
increased soluble solids, reduced sugars with positive effects on dry matter and fruit
cracks but got reduced yield and size of fruits. In Spain, Franco et al. [34] indi-
cated that tomato yield per plant was found higher and fewer fruits were affected
by blossom-end rot (BER) at the higher irrigation rate. No significant effects were
found on macronutrient content in leaves and fruits. N concentration in the fruit
was significantly increased in the water stressed plants. The Ca concentration in the
stylar portion of mature fruits, which is related to the incidence of BER, was not
significantly affected by irrigation rate. As regards micronutrients, only the Fe (in
leaves and fruits of the first truss), Cu (in leaves of the first truss), Zn (in leaves and
Simulation of Salt Distribution and Moisture Wetting Patterns 151

fruits of the first truss, and leaves of the fifth truss) and Mn (in leaves of the first
truss) concentrations differed significantly. The total free amino acid leaf content
was similar in both irrigation treatments. Pascale et al. [73] found that electrical
conductivity of the saturated-soil extract (ECe) between 1.9 dS m–1 (treatment 0%)
and 4.2 dS m–1 (treatment 1%), the marketable yield decreased by about 65% and
the marketable root number m–2 by 57%. The N concentration was increased from
2.53 to 3.32 g 100 g–1 dry matter (leaf) and from 1.28 to 1.47 (root) with increased
soil salinity. Na and Cl concentrations of leaf and root were doubled in plants grown
on soil with the highest salinity. The threshold value was found 2.0 dS m–1 and yield
was reduced at the rate of 28% per unit increase in soil salinity. The rate of yield
reduction was higher than those reported in literature for sensitive crops.
Cuartero et al. (1999) found that salinity reduced tomato seed germination and
lengthens the time needed for germination. A yield was reduced when plants were
grown with a nutrient solution of 2.5 dS/m or higher. An increase of 1 dS/m above
the 3.0 dS/m nutrient solution resulted reduction in yield of about 9–10%. At low
EC, yield reduction was caused mainly by reduction in the average fruit weight. At
high EC, yield reduction was caused mainly by declining number of fruits. Root
growth, which slowed down when salinity reaches 4–6 dS/m. Salinity raised Na+
concentration in roots and leaves of tomato plants. Salinity enhanced tomato fruit
taste by increasing both sugars and acids, fruit shelf life and firmness were un-
changed or slightly lowered, but the incidence of blossom end rot was found much
higher in salinity treatment. Pascale et al. [74] found that salinity and water stress
limited plant gas exchanges and reduced growth, and increased the concentrations
of Na+ and Cl– ions in the plant’s vegetative and reproductive tissues. However, the
effects of salinity stress were found mostly apparent at higher salinity levels (0.5 and
1% NaCl), regardless of irrigation levels.
In South Portugal, Beltrao et al. [15] showed that for lower water salinity lev-
els (from 1 up to 3 dS/m), cabbage yield decreased about 40% at the higher plant
population density. However, at the lower plant density, cabbage yield decreased
only about 20%. Yield decreased was found almost linearly with the increase of
salinity; however, between 1 and 6 dS/m, yield reduction was found higher, as well
as from 9.6 to 11 dS/m. Wang and Shanon [113] determined the characteristics of
salt distributions under drip and sprinkler irrigation regimes and correlated these
distributions and irrigation methods with salt concentrations in soybean plants. They
observed that differences in irrigation methods affect plant salt uptake during irriga-
tion with brackish saline water. The results showed that more salt accumulated in the
soil profile in the drip than in the sprinkler irrigation plot. Under salinity treatment,
higher concentrations of Na+ were found in roots than in leaves or stems, and sig-
nificantly higher concentrations of Ca2+ were found in plant leaves than in the stems
or roots. Higher concentrations of Cl– were found in leaves and stems in sprinkler
than drip irrigation plots, indicating strong foliar uptake of Cl–. For irrigation with
saline water, drip irrigation was found more suitable for salt sensitive plant species
152 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

susceptible to foliar salt damage. Sprinkler irrigation can be used for more salt toler-
ant plants and can create more leaching, leaving less residual salt in the soil profile
at the end of the growing season.
Sharma [100] compared the surface methods with the high-energy pressurized
irrigation methods and found sprinkler and drip are more efficient methods for ap-
plication of marginal quality of water, as it can be adequately controlled. Sprinkler
irrigation causes leaf burn but helps in uniform distribution of water on undulating
soils with the increase in efficiency of salt leaching. The regular and frequent sup-
ply is possible with drip irrigation, as it will not cause the leaf injury to plants with
application of saline water. Drip irrigation enhances the threshold limits of salt tol-
erance by modifying the pattern of salt distribution and maintenance of constantly
higher matric potential. In Maharashtra – India, Kadam and Patel [48] found that
the yield of tomato decreased with increased in saline water level from 0.21 dS/m
to 9.5 dS/m, the reduction in yield ranged from 3.13 to 24%. The acidity and total
soluble solid and lycopene contents were found increased with increased in saline
water level. However, the pH of fruit juice decreased with increased water salinity.
For young lemon trees at Jorden valley, Abu Awwad [1] found that the increase in
irrigation water salinity by 3.7 times increased the crop root zone salinity by about
3.8–4.1 times. The higher salt concentration at soil surface was due to higher evapo-
ration rates for wetted areas. The salt concentration followed bulb shape of wetted
volume under trickle irrigation.
In Brazil, Amorin et al. [9] indicated that garlic plants were found relatively tol-
erant to salinity at the bulb formation stage and initial growth up to 30 days of plant-
ing (DAP). During the final stage (90–120 DAP), wetting of the leaves affected the
growth of aerial parts and the number of garlic cloves. The salinity levels affected
aerial parts during the period 30–60 DAP, while the bulb was affected only between
60–90 DAP. The most sensitive phase of bulb growth to salinity was observed the
last 30 days of the crop cycle. Malash et al. [62] showed that salinity at 4 and 6 dS/m
decreased total yield, marketable yield, number of fruits and average fruit weight
in all genotypes of tomato. However, irrigation with saline water up to 6 dS/m in-
creased fruit total soluble solids (TSS), vitamin C, and dry matter contents in all
genotypes. Fruit acidity was also enhanced by salinity although 4 dS/m level gave
the most acid fruits. Salinity had no significant effect on fruit firmness and storage
ability. It was also observed that the reduction in yield in the salt tolerant genotypes,
was mainly due to the reduction in fruit weight rather than fruit number.
Oron et al. [70] found reasonable yield of pear by using the saline water through
subsurface drip irrigation (SDI). Moisture distribution under SDI was better ad-
justed to root pattern in order to counteract osmotic effects of the soil salinity in
comparison to commercial drip irrigation. Saline water particularly tends to increase
sugar content and acidity of the Pear fruits using SDI. For a tomato crop (Marmande
Raf) growing in an unheated plastic greenhouse, Restuccia et al. [85] showed that
the total yield accumulated over the harvest periods was significantly higher for
1.6 dS/m than 6.0 dS/m and for 100% ETM+Lr than 100% ETM. The plants ir-
Simulation of Salt Distribution and Moisture Wetting Patterns 153

rigated with both high saline concentration of water and high water supply (100%
ETM+Lr), crop yield was found similar to that observed on plants grown under
low salinity (1.6 dS/m) and 100% ETM but without considering Lr requirements.
Fruit quality (dry matter content, reducing sugar concentration, and firmness) was
improved with greater salinity, but was unaffected by water irrigation regime with
the exception of dry matter. It was found that using an irrigation regime equivalent
to 100% ETM+Lr reduces the negative influence induced by high salinity of the
irrigation water on yield, while maintaining the beneficial effect on fruit quality.
For two sun-cured tobacco genotypes, Angelino et al. [10] indicated that the soil
EC was increased with increase of the salinity of the irrigation water. The soil water
content increased with increasing salinity and during the growth season. Increasing
salinity progressively reduced the leaf turgor pressure and enhanced the cellular
osmotic adjustment. In Italy for Sicilian winter melon, Incalcaterra et al. [44] found
that the vegetative parameters at 60 and 70 days after transplanting (DAT) were
slightly influenced by the treatments. At 80 DAT, plant length was positively af-
fected by increasing amount of irrigation water, but was significantly reduced as
salinity increased. Plants irrigated with 40 L of saline water recorded higher early
and total yields, and fruits of better quality than those irrigated with lower volumes
of good quality water.
Lei et al. [53] conducted the experiment on drip irrigation for watermelons with
saline water in the Hetao Region, China and showed that the yield was increased and
the quality improved under drip irrigation, as compared with control, with the high-
est increases in both yield and quality in the 60% treatment. The water production
efficiency was 39.2 kg m−3, respectively. The results suggested that drip irrigation of
watermelon with saline water was feasible in the region. Lei et al. [54] studied the
suitability of honeydew melons drip-irrigated with saline groundwater in Changsh-
eng experimental Station in Nei Menggu (China). Results showed that the yield and
the quality increased those under treatments of drip irrigation, as compared with
control. The highest increase in yield was found in 60% Epan treatment. The water
production efficiency was 18.0 kg/m3 at 60% Epan. It was observed that a higher
amount of salts were leached beyond the root zone under the treatments with 60 and
90% of evaporation, which suggested the feasibility of drip-irrigating honeydew
melons can be grown in the saline soils with saline water.
Olympios et al. [69] found that salinity negatively affected the plant size and
total fruit weight. There were a 20.3, 30.2 and 49.0% reduction in the yield, and 2.9,
12.2 and 20.1% reduction in the plant height as compared with the control for 3.7,
5.7 and 8.7 dS/m, respectively. In contrast, fruit number was significantly reduced
only at 8.7 dS/m. The average fruit weight was reduced at highest salinity level
especially when applied at an early growth stage. They observed that when good
quality water was applied at the beginning of growth, followed later by salinity,
the negative effect on plant height, shoot fresh and dry weights, leaf area, yield,
average fruit weight and the percentage of fruits with BER was less severe. In con-
154 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

trast, when saline water was applied at the early stages of growth, followed by good
quality water, the effect on plant parameters (total yield, average weight of fruits
and blossom-end rot) was more severe. The longer was the duration of saline ap-
plication, the more severe was the reduction in leaf area than the control. Increased
salinity (various concentrations) increased soluble solids, Na, K, Cl contents of the
fruits, irrespective of the time of application.
Sharma et al. [102] conducted an experiment in Bikaner, Rajasthan, India, dur-
ing 1999–2002 on saline and BAW mixed irrigation indicated that the salinity of
mixed water had significant effect on groundnut pod yield. The maximum average
pod yield (42 per 100 kg/ha) was observed with canal water, while 34 per 100 kg/
ha pod yield was obtained with BAW (ECiw 2.5 dS/m). Approximately, 18.3, 51.1,
59.7 and 79.3% reduction in groundnut pod yield was observed at ECiw 3.75, 5.0,
6.25 and 7.5 dS/m, respectively, compared to BAW. Similarly, kernel weight per
plant and number of kernels per plant were reduced as the EC of the mixed water
increased from 2.5 to 7.5 dS/m. For wheat, the maximum grain yield (36 per 100
kg/ha) was recorded with canal water. There was a reduction of 12.5, 22.9, 35.5 and
46.7% in wheat grain yield at ECiw 3.75, 5.0, 6.25 and 7.5 dS/m, respectively, com-
pared to BAW. Plant height, ear length and number of tillers per plant reduced with
increasing the salinity of mixed water. The soil EC also increased from 0.16 to 1.26
dS/m with an increase in the salinity of irrigation water after three years of rotation
of experimentation, whereas there was little increase in pH.
Singh and Sanwal [107] tested the suitability of high frequency drip irrigation
with the depths of irrigation as 25%, 50%, 75% and 100% of the maximum crop wa-
ter requirement using saline/sodic drainage effluent as the irrigation water supply,
and compared the results with traditional methods of surface irrigation for tomato
using drip irrigation and traditional surface irrigation (rectangular check basin).
High frequency drip irrigation gave better results with saline/sodic water, compared
to other methods of irrigation. This can be attributed to its frequent water application
and specialized salt and water distribution in the crop root zone. The highest crop
yield of 22.05 t/ha was obtained for good quality canal water with daily drip irriga-
tion of water application. The highest crop yield for surface irrigation was found
19.82 t/ha for good quality canal water with 82.7 cm depth of water application.
Yazar et al. [114] evaluated the maize yield and WUE in relation to salt con-
centration level of irrigation water applied with trickle irrigation in Turkey. Saline
irrigation water with ECw of 3.0, 6.0, 9.0, and 12.0 dS/m along with canal water
of 0.5 dS/m was used. In addition, three treatments were included by applying 10%
leaching fraction to 0.5, 6.0, and 12.0 dS/m treatments after flowering. There was
no significant difference in maize grain yield among the treatments. The highest
yield of 8875 kg/ha was obtained in plots irrigated with canal water. In soil profile,
salt concentration increased with increasing salinity of irrigation water. Higher salt
concentration on the top layer was due to higher evaporation rate from the wetted
surface. Applying a leaching fraction of 10% after flowering did not affect the salt
Simulation of Salt Distribution and Moisture Wetting Patterns 155

distribution profile significantly in the treatments. There were no significant differ-

ence in dry matter production levels, WUE, 1000-grain weight, and harvest index
among the salinity treatments. Gawad et al. [35] assessed the effects of management
of crop production to obtain a better understanding of irrigation with saline water
(8 ds/m) and role of crop tolerance to salinity using mixing and cyclic irrigation
management with furrow and drip irrigation methods. It was found higher WUE
with drip irrigation over traditional methods and higher sugar content in tomato
fruit grown using saline irrigation water compared with that irrigated with nonsaline
(1ds/m) water.
Malash et al. [61] studied the performance of two water management strate-
gies, that is, alternate and mixed supply of fresh (canal water 0.5 ds/m) and saline /
drainage water (4.2–4.8 ds/m) applied through drip and furrow method on tomato
yield and growth in Nile Delta, Egypt. The mixed water management practice gave
higher growth and yield than alternate irrigation. Sharma and Minhas [101] gave
the strategies for managing saline/alkali water for sustainable agricultural produc-
tion in South Asia. Rui et al. [93] evaluated tomato rooting patterns, yield and fruit
quality in a field trial under three irrigation regimes 0.6 (D1), 0.9 (D2) and 1.2 ETc
(D3)] and three drip irrigation depths surface (R0), subsurface at 20 cm depth (R1)
and subsurface at 40 cm depth (R2). The behavior of the root system in response to
the irrigation treatments was evaluated using mini-rhizotrons installed between two
plants, near the plant row. Root length intensity (La), length of the root per unit of
mini-rhizotron surface area (cm/cm2) was measured at four crop stages. It was found
that most of the root system was concentrated in the top 40 cm of the soil profile for
all treatments, where the root-length density was found ranged from 0.5 cm/cm3 to
1.4 cm/cm3. The response of tomato fruits to an increase in the water applied was
similar in quantitative and qualitative terms for the different drip irrigation depths.
Water applied by drip irrigation had the opposite effect on commercial yield and
soluble solids (°Brix), however, yield in terms of total soluble solids was the same
for the 0.9 and 1.2 ETc.
Badr and Taalab [14] found that the yield reduction due to saline water use was
minimal under 2 l/h, which gave better water and salt distribution in the root zone.
The growth and yield performance of tomatoes irrigated through subsurface drip
was found lower when compared with surface drip irrigation. The maximum tomato
yield was obtained under surface drip irrigation applied at 2 l/h while the lowest
yield was observed when water applied at 8 l/h with subsurface irrigation. Tomato
production was found almost 16.4% lower with the highest discharge rate compared
with the lowest rate while the yield reduction was found more pronounced with
subsurface drip irrigation and found that 24.7% lower than with surface drip irriga-
tion. Chauhan et al. [21] evaluated the response of potato (Solanum tuberosum),
sunflower (Helianthus annus) and Sesbania (Sesbania sesban) to green manure and
the combined use of good quality canal water (CW, ECcw 1.1 dS/m, RSC nil, SAR
1.8) and an alkali water (AW, ECaw 3.6 dS/m, RSC 15.8 me/L, SAR 12.4) on a well-
156 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

drained sandy loam soil (ECe 2.5 dS/m, pH 7.9, exchangeable sodium percentage,
ESP 5.3). They found that increase in soil pH (8.9–9.1), salinity (4.7–5.1 dS/m) and
sodicity (ESP 25–41) as a consequence of irrigation with alkali water affected the
growth and yields of all crops. The sustainability yield index (SYI) when irrigated
with AW was 0.063 and 0.133 for potato and sunflower, respectively, indicating
that these crops should not be irrigated with such high alkalinity waters. The SYI
of potato improved to 0.703, 0.642, 0.442 and 0.579, respectively, with the cyclic
1CW:1AW, 2CW:2AW, 2AW:2CW and CWp:AWs treatments. The values of SYI
were found 0.633 and 0.415 for potato when irrigated with blends of CW and AW in
the ratio 2:1(2CW:1AW) and 1:2 (1CW:2AW), respectively. The SYI for sunflower
was found ranged between 0.481–0.736 and 0.512–0.592 for cyclic use and blend-
ing but was reduced to 0.394 with 4AW:2CW in cyclic use mode. The relative yields
was found (compared to CW) ranged between 65–85 and 61–94% for cyclic use
and 66–83 and 71–81% for blended waters in potato and sunflower, respectively. In
terms of potato grade, considerable deterioration in produce quality was observed.
Weight loss on storage as well as the smaller seeds and lower oil content was ob-
served in sunflower [22].
Dehghanisanij et al. [30] conducted field experiments using saline water for
maize at the Arid Land Research Center, Tottori University, Japan, Variables affect-
ing soil water content (theta w) and soil solute salinity (ECw), including time after
irrigation and crop growth stages; early (ES), mid (MS) and late (LS) stages, were
investigated at different radius from the emitter (lateral pipe) and found that theta w
and ECw increased in the order: ES<MS<LS. The interaction between theta w and
ECw for a given radius and different crop growing stages showed that the influence
of theta w on ECw was restricted to a small radius of approximately 20 cm from
the emitter, which decreased further to only 10 cm during LS. Beyond this range,
increasing theta w was not enough to significantly affect ECw. The information
obtained from this research was essential for the design, operation and management
of saline water use with drip irrigation system in sand dune fields. Kadam et al. [47]
conducted a study in Maharashtra, India to evaluate the effects of saline water (S0,
best available canal water, EC 0.21 dS/m; and S1, saline water, EC 2.0 dS/m); and
fertigation (100, 75 and 50% recommended urea applied) through drip irrigation on
the yield and yield components of eggplant. N content in the plant and fruit at har-
vest was found highest under S0 + F1 (1.60 and 2.81%). P content was found highest
in plant and fruit under S0 and F1 (0.46 and 0.77%, respectively). K content was
higher under S0 (2.46 and 3.56%) than under S0 (2.87 and 3.96%) in the plant and
fruit, respectively. K content observed decreased with decreasing fertilizer level.
At the Hatfield Experimental Farm in Pretoria – South Africa, Karlberg et al.
[49] used two low-cost drip irrigation systems with different emitter discharge rates
(0.2 and 2.5 l h−1) to irrigate tomatoes with three different salinity levels (0, 3 and
6 dS m−1) of water along with plastic mulch to minimize soil evaporation was com-
pared to a “bare soil” or uncovered treatment. An average yield of 75 Mg.ha−1 was
Simulation of Salt Distribution and Moisture Wetting Patterns 157

recorded for all treatments and seasons, which can be compared with the average
marketable yield for South Africa of approximately 31.4 Mg ha−1. Even at the high-
est irrigation water salinity (6 dS/m), a yield above the average marketable yield
was achieved, indicating that low-cost drip irrigation works well in combination
with saline water. The study showed that the choice of drip irrigation system with
regard to discharge rate was of minor importance when irrigating with saline wa-
ter. However, combining low-cost drip irrigation with plastic mulch increased the
yield on an average 10 Mg ha−1 for all treatments. Nagaz et al. [68] conducted field
study to determine the effect of irrigation regimes with saline water (3.25 ds/m) on
soil salinity, yield and WUE of potato in southern Tunisia. Highest EC values were
found at about 20 and 10 cm from emitters, respectively for 100 and 40 L. The yields
were highest under 100 L although no significant difference was observed with daily
irrigation regime at 100%. Full irrigation with daily application resulted in lowest
WUE values because of highest evaporative losses.
Badr et al. [13] compared the effect of drip irrigation over other irrigation meth-
ods with fresh and saline water on the performance of field-grown cantaloupe. The
fresh water was applied at crop water requirement, 1.0 ETc (as a control) and saline
water (3.8 dS/m) applied at amounts equivalent to 1.0 ETc, 1.2 ETc and 1.4 ETc, re-
spectively. Saline water significantly depressed cantaloupe total yield but the reduc-
tion was minimal under 1.4ETc irrigation regime. Total yield with saline water was
almost 18–32% lower than with fresh water but offered several benefits as the abso-
lute exportable yield was equaled to that of the control but the export rate was ob-
served 90% versus 72%, respectively. However, saline water provided an attractive
compromise between fruit size and quality. Plants irrigated with saline water were
extremely high export rates. Saline water contributed markedly to the improvement
of fruit quality by increasing total soluble solids and sugar contents. The use of mild
saline water for irrigation is an attractive approach to optimize cantaloupe produc-
tion with taking advantage of saline water effects on crop quality. Malash et al. [60]
studied the use of nonconventional water resources including saline drainage water,
brackish groundwater and treated wastewater to irrigate tomato using drip and fur-
row irrigation systems. They found that the growth parameters, yield, and WUE
were greater for drip irrigated tomato plants than furrow-irrigated plants. However,
furrow irrigation produced higher individual fruit weight. The electrical conductiv-
ity of the soil solution (extracted 48 h after irrigation) showed greater fluctuations
when cyclic water management was used compared to those plots irrigated with
blended water. Soil moisture was at a minimum in the root zone (20–40 cm layer),
but showed a gradual increase at 40–60 and 60–90 cm and was stable at 90–120 cm
depth. Soil water content was decreased gradually as the distance from the irrigation
water source increased.
Harbi et al. [41] investigated the effects of water quality and subsurface drip
irrigation management on the growth and yield of tomato under greenhouse condi-
tions. Two water qualities (fresh and saline water with EC of 1.2 and 4.7 dS m–1,
158 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

respectively) along with two different irrigation frequencies (three and six days/
week) and three irrigation rates (2, 4 and 6 lph) were used. It was found that the
saline irrigation water having an EC of 4.7 dS/m significantly decreased average
fruit weight and total yield which was decreased by 62.3 and 24.3%, respectively,
compared to irrigation with fresh water having an EC of 0.5 dS/m. Irrigating tomato
using subsurface drip irrigation for six days/week significantly stimulated number
of leaves, enhanced fruit size and increased total yield 26.4% (from 98 to 133 t/ha)
compared to irrigation for three days/week. No significant differences were found
in total yield when irrigated with rate of 4 and 6 lph. The irrigation with fresh water
using subsurface drip irrigation for six days week with a rate of 6 lph gave the best
results in respect to total yield.

13.2.2 SALT AND MOISTURE DISTRIBUTION IN DRIP

IRRIGATION WITH SALINE WATER
Shalhevet [96] studied major issues regarding the use of marginal quality water for
crop production. In irrigation requirement, crop water production function-relating
yields to evapotranspiration are not influenced by water salinity and reduction of
water uptake with increasing salinity is the result of reduction of growth. Singh et al.
[104] developed a simulation model for assessing water quality to judge its suitabil-
ity for irrigation. The model, which classifies the water, determines the potential of
water for direct application and also evaluates management strategies based on con-
junctive use of canal and saline water. This developed model is useful for predicting
irrigation schedules as well as crop root zone salinity on land irrigated with saline
water. Coelha and Ore [24] concluded that analytical solution for study and transient
flow conditions predicted reasonably well measured distribution of water content
and matrix potential in the absence of plants and that the study flow conditions were
seldom realized under practical drip irrigation. The transient flow solutions provide
more realistic distribution of soil water dynamics and introducing uptake terms to
transient analytical solutions provided a simple and effective framework for captur-
ing soil water dynamics in presence of pant roots [106].
Philip [75] studied the effect of root water extraction on wetted regions from
continuous trickle sources. A model was introduced with moisture dependent root
water extraction rate, so that the spatial distribution of uptake is no longer a datum
but emerges as part of the solution. For a diversity of conditions, he obtained simple
steady solutions describing interactions between continuous sources and regions
of wetting and water extraction. It was shown that as root uptake increases, the
region decreases markedly in size and becomes more symmetrical in the vertical;
for sources at depths that are small relative to the sorptive length, interaction with
the surface becomes important; surface evaporation losses significantly reduce the
region and increase asymmetry; with nonevaporating surfaces, the region is larger
and more symmetrical. He also observed that in wet regions close to the source we
Simulation of Salt Distribution and Moisture Wetting Patterns 159

may expect that root density is large and that roots take up water readily, while the
converse is true for the drier regions far from the source. Jinguan et al. [46] devel-
oped root water extraction model to incorporate the effect of soil water deficit and
plant root distribution on plant transpiration of annual crops. They used ratio of
actual to potential cumulative transpiration to determine leaf area index at optimum
soil water conditions. The developed numerical model was applied to simulate soil
water movement with root water uptake and found that simulated soil matrix poten-
tial, soil water content and cumulative evapotranspiration had reasonable agreement
with measured data. Khumoetsile and Ore [52] reviewed dynamics of water uptake
and solute in-situ soil with introducing nutrient in the root zone with different irriga-
tion methods and quality of irrigation water.
Lubana et al. [57, 106] presented an extensive review of research on model-
ing of various processes associated with moisture distribution patterns under point
source trickle emitters. The review promoted better understanding to facilitate more
rational analysis of soil water dynamics process. He presented review pertaining to
the modeling of infiltration, wetted soil volume in trickle irrigation, emitter spacing,
moisture distribution pattern and plant water uptake, which is very useful for further
research study.
Fares et al. [32] used a water flow and solute transport numerical model, HY-
DRUS-2D, to demonstrate the performance of drip irrigation with three different
soil types. Results showed that with sandy soil, the waterfront moves vertically;
with loam and clay soils, water front movement was a multidirectional process.
Compared to sands, the same drip system can cover twice and 1.5 times as much
horizontal area in clay and loamy soils, respectively. It was found that drip irrigation
systems work better with loamy and clay soils than sandy soils.
Assouline [12] compared three-emitter discharges 0.25, 2 and 8 lph on different
aspects of water regime for corn drip irrigated daily. He observed that drip irrigation
tends to increase the yield and higher relative water content values at 0–30 cm soil
depth. The relative yield was found statistically insignificant under field conditions.
Numerical solution with HYDRUS-2D showed that micro drip irrigation leads to
smallest wetted volume with the less extreme water gradients both in horizontal
and vertical directions. The driest profile was obtained at lowest application rates
compared to higher application rates.
LuDian et al. [58] studied infiltration simulation to study water movement and
solute transport in a film drip irrigation system as affected by dripping rate, accu-
mulated infiltration, initial soil moisture content, initial soil salt content, etc. Results
showed that water content around the dripper increased with increasing dripping
rate, which deferred the formation of a desalinization zone where crops can grow.
It was also found that an increase in accumulated infiltration increased the volume
of wetted soil and favored the formation of a desalinization zone. The increase in
initial soil salt content decreased the desalinization coefficient. This study provided
useful data for the design of a film drip irrigation system. Ragab [77] developed
SALTMED model, which forms an integrated approach that accounts for water,
160 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

crop/soil and field managements. The developed model can be used for a variety
of irrigation systems, soil types, soil stratifications, crops and trees, water man-
agement strategies (blending or cyclic), leaching requirements and water quality.
Water and solute transport, evapotranspiration and crop water uptake phenomenon
were considered in developing the model. The model successfully illustrated the
effects of the irrigation system, the soil type, the salinity level of irrigation water on
soil moisture and salinity distribution, leaching requirements, and crop yield. Claire
et al. [23] highlighted the impacts of soil properties on water and solute transport
from buried trickle emitters. They analyzed effects of soil hydraulic properties, soil
layering, trickle discharge rate, irrigation frequency, and timing of nutrient applica-
tion on wetting patterns and solute distribution; and showed that trickle irrigation
can improve plant water availability in medium and low permeability fine-textured
soils, providing that design and management are adapted to account for their soil
hydraulic properties. The results demonstrated the need to account for differences in
soil hydraulic properties and solute transport, which will help in designing irrigation
and fertigation management strategies.
Cote et al. [25] incorporated soil water and solute transport properties and soil
profile characteristics in the design and management of trickle systems. The analysis
addresses the influence of soil hydraulic properties, soil layering, trickle discharge
rate, irrigation frequency, and timing of nutrient application on wetting patterns and
solute distribution. It was observed that: (1) trickle irrigation can improve plant
water availability in medium and low permeability fine-textured soils, providing
that design and management are adapted to account for their soil hydraulic proper-
ties; (2) in highly permeable coarse-textured soils, water and nutrients move quickly
downwards from the emitter, making it difficult to wet the near surface zone if
emitters are buried too deep; and (3) changing the fertigation strategy for highly
permeable coarse-textured soils to apply nutrients at the beginning of an irrigation
cycle can maintain larger amounts of nutrient near to and above the emitter, thereby
making them less susceptible to leaching losses. Feng et al. [33] used computer
simulation model to evaluate the consequences of different management strategies
on crop yield and salt distribution in the soil profile. The simulated salt distribution
from ENVIROGRO model was compared with measured distribution at the end of
growing season from an experiment having different EC of irrigation water and irri-
gation interval. The agreement between the measured and simulated salt distribution
were found better for larger irrigation intervals than shorter ones. Huang et al. [43]
studied water and salt movement in soil at Takelamakan desert of China, after irriga-
tion with saline groundwater with an EC value of 6.3 mS cm–1. They found that EC
value of the soil solution reduced obviously in the upper part of the layer and was
almost the same as that of before irrigation in the lower part of the layer. Twenty-
four hours after irrigation, the amount of salt contained in the soil solution in 0–150
cm layer was less than that of before irrigation, while 144 h after irrigation, it was
found only 53.46% of that of before irrigation.
Simulation of Salt Distribution and Moisture Wetting Patterns 161

Li et al. [55, 56] used HYDRUS-2D software for water and nitrate transport
in soil from a point source of ammonium nitrate. In the model, simulated wetting
dimensions of soil volume and distributions of water content and nitrate concentra-
tions in soil were compared with data obtained from laboratory experiments con-
ducted on a loam and a sandy soil. An excellent agreement was obtained between
the simulated results and the measured data. Then, the verified model was used to
simulate water and nitrate distributions for various initial conditions and fertigation
strategies. They suggested strategies of first applying water for one-fourth of the
total irrigation time, then applying fertilizer solution for one-half of the total ir-
rigation time, followed by applying water for the remaining one-fourth of the total
irrigation time will useful for keeping the most nitrate close to the source. Ragab et
al. [78, 79] calibrated SALTMED model in Egypt and Syria using 100% fresh water
treatment with the drip irrigation. The calibration was focused on yield prediction
instead of calibration against water uptake/transpiration and soil moisture and salin-
ity contents as yield finally depends on water uptake and moisture distribution. The
model proved its ability to handle several hydrodynamic processes acting at same
time. The model successfully predicted the impact of salinity on yield, water uptake,
soil moisture and salinity distribution in the Floradade variety of tomato, which is
salt tolerant and grown in the Mediterranean region. It was found that the relation
between both yield and water uptake as a function of salinity of irrigation water was
nonlinear and was a polynomial function of the fourth order. The model gave better
research tool to field mangers to manage their water, crop and soil in an effective
way to save water and protect the environment.
Razuri et al. [83] modeled soil salinity in a loamy soil in Valley of Quibor,
Venezuela, using the prediction model LEACHM. The experiment was conducted
in a heavy fine, isohyperthermic Typic Haplocambids soil, having an electric con-
ductivity (EC) of 6.5 dS/m, with dominancy of calcium sulfates. The saline water
classified as C3S1 was applied with drip irrigation with high frequency of appli-
cation. The experimental results showed that maintaining soil water near to field
capacity minimizes the EC in the crop root zone by means of the prediction model
LEACHM.
Ben Asher et al. [16] evaluated soil water atmosphere and plant (SWAP) and
SWAPd model for various salinity of irrigation water levels for grapevines under
arid conditions in drip irrigation. They tested salinity treatments of 1.8, 3.3 and
4.8 dS/m on production parameters of grapevines. SWAP simulated higher water
contents than SWAPd. Singh et al. [105] simulated soil wetting depth and width
under subsurface drip irrigation with line source of water application. They found
no significant difference between predicted and observed values of wetting width
and depth. Karlberg et al. [50] developed a drip-irrigation module and included in
an ecosystem model and tested on two independent datasets, spring and autumn, on
field grown tomato. Simulated soil evaporation correlated well with measurements
for spring (2.62 mm.d–1 compared to 2.60 mm.d–1). Changes in soil water content
were less well portrayed by the model (spring r2 = 0.27; autumn r2 = 0.45). Simula-
162 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

tions showed that saline water irrigation (6 dS m–1) caused reduced transpiration,
which led to higher drainage and soil evaporation, compared with fresh water. They
also found that covering the soil with plastic mulch resulted in an increase in yield
and transpiration. The simulations indicated that the emitter discharge rate did not
have any impact on the partitioning of the incoming water to the system. The model
proved to be a useful tool for evaluating the importance of specific management
options.
Ouda et al. [72, 94] used a “wheat-Stress” model to predict wheat yields under
the following hypothetical situations: (1) reducing the amount of irrigation water by
20%; (2) using saline water for irrigation. Results showed that the model prediction
gave good agreement with actual yield, for both varieties, that is, Sakha 93 and Giza
168 over the two growing seasons. Results indicated that the yield of both variet-
ies was reduced under deducting 20% of irrigation water by 8.62 and 8.76% for
Sakha 93 and Giza 168, respectively. Furthermore, using saline water for irrigation
reduced wheat yield by 4.14 and 4.38% for Sakha 93 and Giza 168, respectively.
Water consumptive use under total irrigation was reduced by 18.54 and 11.64%
for both growing seasons, respectively, under saving 20% of total water irrigation.
Whereas under saline water irrigation, water consumptive use was reduced by 15.02
and 11.93% for both growing seasons, respectively.
Raine et al. [80] studied water and associated solute movement within the root
zone under precision irrigation applications, in Australia. They estimated that 10%
of the irrigated land area (producing as much as 40% of the total annual revenue
from irrigated land) can be adversely affected by root zone salinity resulting from
the adoption of precision irrigation. A review of soil–water and solute movement
under precision irrigation systems highlights the gaps in current knowledge includ-
ing the mismatch between the data required by complex, process-based soil–water
or solute simulation models and the data that is easily available from soil survey and
routine soil analyzes. Other major knowledge gaps identified were: (a) effect of root
distribution, surface evaporation and plant transpiration on soil wetted patterns; (b)
accuracy and adequacy of using simple mean values of root zone soil salinity levels
to estimate the effect of salt on the plant; (c) fate of solutes during a single irriga-
tion and during multiple irrigation cycles; and (d) effect of soil heterogeneity on the
distribution of water and solutes in relation to placement of water. Opportunities
for research investment wee identified across a broad range of areas including: (a)
requirements for soil characterization; (b) irrigation management effects; (c) agro-
nomic responses to variable water and salt distributions in the root zone; (d) poten-
tial to scale or evaluate impacts at various scales; (e) requirements for simplified
soil–water and solute modeling tools; and (f) the need to build skills and capacity in
soil–water and solute modeling.
Wallender et al. [89, 110, 111] developed a flow and reactive-salt conceptual
model for drip irrigated table grapes for understanding the complexity in the pro-
cesses involved in the system as well as to provide management guidelines for farm-
ers, district water management personnel and consultants. The developed model
Simulation of Salt Distribution and Moisture Wetting Patterns 163

predicted the distribution of salts along the vine row and between the rows during
the growing season, as affected by reactivity of salts of the applied irrigation water
as well as rate and duration of drip application. The model predicted remarkable
agreement between measured and simulated salinity. The developed model can pre-
dict soil water quantity and quality outcomes for possible land and water manage-
ment scenarios.
Wang Dan et al. [112] investigated distribution characteristics of different salt
ions in the soil under drip irrigation with saline water in North China. The experi-
ment included five treatments, in which controlled mineralization degrees of irriga-
tion water were 1.1 dS/m(K1), 2.2 dS/m(K2), 2.9 dS/m(K3), 3.5 dS/m(K4) and 4.2
dS/m(K5), respectively. It was found that the transferring velocity and distribution
characteristic of salt ions were affected by water distribution in the soil under drip
irrigation condition. Ca2+ Mg2+ and SO42– were easily leached by irrigation water
and distributed mainly outside the moist volume, while HCO3–, Na+ and Cl– mainly
distributed in the moist volume. During the growing period, HCO3–, Na+ and Cl– in-
creased slightly though the total salt content within the soil profile did not increase.
Zhou et al. [116] studied a two-dimensional (2D) root water uptake model based
on soil water dynamic and root distribution of grape vine. The soil water dynamic
model of APDI (APRI-model) was developed based on the 2D root water uptake
model and soil evaporation function combined with average measured soil moisture
content at 0–10 cm soil layer. Soil water dynamic in APDI was simulated by Hy-
drus-2D model and APRI-model. The simulated soil water contents by two models
were compared with the measured value. The results showed that the values of root-
mean-square-error (RMSE) range from 0.01 to 0.022 cm3/cm3 for APRI-model,
and from 0.012 to 0.031 cm3/cm3 for Hydrus-2D model. The average relative error
between the simulated and measured soil water content is about 10% for APRI-
model, and from 11% to 29% for Hydrus-2D model, indicating that two models
performed well in simulating soil moisture dynamic under the APDI. The APRI
model was more suitable for modeling the soil water dynamics in the arid region
with greater soil evaporation and uneven root distribution.
Ainechee et al. [5] investigated water movement in three soil types from a point
source. They found that the surface wetted radius increased with an increase in ap-
plication rate. A good relationship was found between the surface wetted radius and
the volume of water applied. Predictability of model was 96.8 and 95.3%, respec-
tively, for prediction of wetted width and depth. The results showed good agreement
for all application rates. Golabi et al. [37] verified SALTMED model in irrigation
management in semiarid area of south west of Iran to predict soil salinity changes
due to irrigation water quality in sugarcane. They compared simulation results with
actual results using maximum error, root mean square error, coefficient of deter-
mination, modeling efficiency, coefficient of residual mass and ANOVA table. The
results indicated that there was no significant difference between simulation and
measurement data. The overall results of this research confirmed that SALTMED
164 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

model could be used successfully as tool for irrigation and drainage of sugarcane
farms in Khuzestan province of Iran.
Roberts et al. [88] conducted study at the University of Arizona Maricopa Ag-
ricultural Center for predicting salt movement and accumulation with SDI using
HYDRUS-2D model for crops of cantaloupe, melon and broccoli with two tape
depths (18 and 25 cm), two different germination practices (germination with SDI
and with sprinklers) along with two water salinity (1.5 and 2.6 dS/m). Predicted
saturated paste electrical conductivity (ECe) values from HYDRUS-2D were sig-
nificantly correlated with actual ECe data obtained from field experiments (r2 = 0.08
to 0.93). After season one, the correlation coefficients were found highly variable,
with the majority of model ECe values being higher than field data. Second season
results indicated a much stronger relationship, with R2 values gave as high as 0.93.
Model predictions for season two showed under prediction of ECe when compared
with actual ECe. Relationships between predicted ECe and actual ECe resulted in a
slope of nearly 1.0 for all treatments and y-intercept was −1 dS/m.
The review of the past work done on drip irrigation with saline water found
major gap in generating information on influence of discharge rate of emitters, ir-
rigation levels and blending of fresh and saline water on growth and quality of fruits
and vegetables for the semiarid regions of Punjab. Also, soil moisture and salinity
distribution resulting from these influences have not been established under drip ir-
rigation with saline water for tomato crop in the region.
Therefore, the research study in this chapter was conducted with a view to simu-
late salt and moisture distribution; and to study its effect on yield and quality of drip
irrigated tomato with saline water.

13.3 MATERIAL AND METHODS

13.3.1 LOCATION AND CLIMATE
A field experiment was conducted at research farm of Central Institute of Post-
Harvest Engineering and Technology (CIPHET), Abohar – Punjab – India during
December 2008 to June 2009. Abohar is located at south-western part of Punjab
with latitude of 30°4′ N and longitude of 74°21′ E and with mean sea level of 185
m. The climate of Abohar is semiarid with hot summer and cold winter. The average
annual rainfall is 300–400 mm.

13.3.2 SOIL CHARACTERISTICS

The soil samples were taken 0–15, 15–30, 30–45, 45–60 and 60–90 cm depth for
determining the soil characteristics. The soil at the experimental site is sandy loam.
The physicochemical properties of soil at the research site are given in Table 13.1.
Simulation of Salt Distribution and Moisture Wetting Patterns 165

TABLE 13.1 Physio-Chemical Properties of Soil At Experimental Site

Depth Sand Silt Clay EC pH Bulk

cm % % % dS/m density g/
cm3

0–15 76.57 8.02 15.41 0.15 8.52 1.69

15–30 77.92 7.69 15.39 0.13 8.63 1.71

30–45 78.21 7.35 14.44 0.13 8.70 1.82

45–60 76.96 8.36 14.68 0.14 8.70 1.79

60–90 78.28 8.18 13.54 0.15 8.63 1.76

13.3.2.1 SOIL MOISTURE RETENTION CURVE

The moisture retention curves were developed for the soil at 0–30, 30–60 and 60–90
cm depth with pressure plate apparatus. The pressure plate apparatus run for the
pressure ranging from 1/3 to 15 atmospheres. The developed moisture retention
curves are shown in Fig. 13.1. The field capacity (1/3 atm) and wilting point (15
atm) of soil at 0–30 cm depth were 13.30% and 3.52% on dry weight basis, respec-
tively.

FIGURE 13.1 Water retention curves for the soils at different depths at experimental site.
166 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

FIGURE 13.2 Infiltration rate of soil at experimental site.

13.3.2.2 BULK DENSITY

The soil bulk density was determined by core cutter method. The bulk densities of
soil at different depths are presented in Table 13.1.

13.3.2.3 INFILTRATION RATE OF SOIL

The soil infiltration rate was determined by using double ring cylinder infiltrometer.
The infiltration rate of soil against time is depicted in Fig. 13.2. The basic infiltra-
tion rate of soil at experimental site was 2.43 cm/hr. The saturated hydraulic con-
ductivity for sandy loam soil was determined by auger-hole method and was found
620 mm/day. The saturated and residual moisture content for sandy loam soil were
found 0.41% and 0.065%, respectively. The K-q and D-q relations developed for
sandy loam soil at experimental site and are given in Table 13.2.

TABLE 13.2 Soil Hydraulic Characteristics at Experimental Site

Depth Diffusivity Hydraulic conductivity

0–30 cm D(q) = 13.53 exp(12.84*q) K(q) = 1.5E-5 exp (34*q)

30–60 cm D(q) = 12.65 exp(11.64*q) K(q) = 1.3E-5 exp (33.6*q)

60–90 cm D(q) = 14.12 exp(13.06*q) K(q) = 1.6E-5 exp (34.1*q)

Simulation of Salt Distribution and Moisture Wetting Patterns 167

13.3.3 EXPERIMENTAL LAYOUT

The drip irrigation system was installed at research farm of Central Institute of Post
Harvest Engineering and Technology (CIPHET), Abohar (Punjab). The total area
of the experimental site was 60 × 30 m2. The area was divided into five subplots
for irrigating crop with fresh and saline water with five different salinity levels,
separately. Each plot was subdivided into nine lines with three replications (three
discharges × three irrigation levels). Thus, each plot was 5 m2. There were 135 com-
binations with three replications for the whole experiment. The treatment details of
the experiment presented as follows:

13.3.3.1 DIFFERENT SALINITIES OF WATER

T1 100% fresh water. T2 75% fresh + 25% saline water.
T3 50% fresh + 50% saline water. T4 25% fresh + 75% saline water.
T5 100% saline water.

13.3.3.2 THREE DISCHARGE RATES OF INLINE EMITTERS

Q1 = 1.2 lph. Q2 = 2.4 lph. Q3 = 4.2 lph.
Three IW/CPE ratios: I1 = 0.6, I2 = 0.8, and I3 = 1.0

13.3.3.3 INSTALLATION OF DRIP IRRIGATION SYSTEM

The drip irrigation system was installed as per layout. Three inline dripper discharg-
es were used for the study. After the installation of drip irrigation system (Fig. 13.3),
it was tested for design discharge, uniformity of emitters and for clogging prob-
lem. At a pressure of 1 kg/cm2 the average discharge per emitter was measured and
the Christiansen uniformity coefficient was worked for analyzing the uniformity of
emitter discharge. The Christiansen uniformity coefficient was calculated as given
below:

 ∆q  (1)
Euc = 1 − 
 q 
where: Euc = Christiansen uniformity coefficient; Δq = Mean absolute de-
viation of the emitter flow from the mean value (l/min); andq = Average
discharge (l/min). The average uniformity coefficient was observed to be 98.65%
at pressure of 1 kg/cm2.
168 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

FIGURE 13.3 View of drip irrigation system at the site.

13.3.3.4 PREPARATION OF WATER/EXPERIMENTAL SETUP

The canal (fresh) and tube well (saline) water were both available at the experimen-
tal site. The fresh water was used from the water tank constructed at CIPHET, Abo-
har farm. The groundwater in the CIPHET farm was saline in nature. The tube well
saline water was pumped for mixing as per given ratio with fresh water and made
five different salinities of water. The view of experimental setup for mixing and
storing of mixed water in storage tank are shown in Figs. 13.4 and 13.5. One tank of
2000-liters capacity was used for preparing mixture of fresh and saline water as per
given ratio and then this mixed water was transferred to storage tank. Four storage
tanks of 2000-liters capacity were put on the platform near the experimental site and
these are used storing the water of different ratio. The separate valves were used for
these tanks and these are connected to the inlet of pump. During the irrigation, only
one valve of the storage tank was opened at a time for irrigating crop with given
mixture of water. The characteristics of mixed irrigation water at different salinity
ratios are given in Table 13.3.
Simulation of Salt Distribution and Moisture Wetting Patterns 169

TABLE 13.3 Characteristics of Water Used For Irrigation

Treatment EC pH Co3– HCo3– Cl– Ca2+ Mg2+ Na+ K+ SAR

dS/m
me/L

100% F 0.38 7.51 Nil 2.00 1.00 1.60 0.80 1.60 0.17 1.46

75% F + 6.30 7.66 Nil 3.00 30.50 7.00 12.00 12.24 0.49 3.97
25% S

50% F + 9.10 7.77 Nil 3.00 46.50 9.20 19.80 14.40 0.64 3.78
50% S

25% F + 14.70 7.84 Traces 4.00 76.00 16.00 32.80 21.84 0.88 4.42
75% S

100% S 19.50 7.79 Traces 4.00 107.00 20.60 46.60 29.12 1.09 5.02

F = Fresh canal water, and S = Tube well saline water.

13.3.4 RAISING OF CROP

13.3.4.1 NURSERY PRODUCTION

The nursery of Golden seed hybrid tomato (GC1500) was raised in the poly house
constructed at CIPHET, Abohar according to the package of practices of PAU, Lud-
hiana [11]. Tomato seeds were sown in the month of November 2008 after treating
seeds with thiram @ 3 gm/kg. After one week, the plants were drenched with thiram
@ 4 gm/L. Adequate moisture was maintained in the seed bed throughout growing
period.

13.3.4.2 FIELD PREPARATION

The field operation like plowing and harrowing was done. The recommended dose
of farm yard manure (FYM) was added in the soil. As per recommendation of PAU
packaging practices for vegetable crops, NPK applied in band in form of urea and
DAP (Di-ammonium Phosphate) before transplanting.

13.3.4.3 TRANSPLANTING
The tomato seedlings were transplanted in the field on 31st December of 2008. The
row-to-row and plant-to-plant spacing was 1 m and 0.30 m, respectively. The tomato
seedlings were covered with polyethylene sheets forming low tunnels to protect the
crop from cold winter during January to mid-February 2009.
170 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

13.3.4.4 IRRIGATION APPLICATION

Fresh water was applied through drip irrigation to tomato crop. At early stage, fresh
water with equal quantity applied to all plots. After establishing seedlings at early
stage, the fresh water is applied to all plots as per three irrigation levels. To avoid the
water stress to plants due to high salinity of water and heavy cold in early stage after
transplanting, the mixed water treatment was started after 45 days. Treatment wise
volume of irrigation water applied per plant through drip irrigation was estimated
on the basis of spacing, pan evaporation, pan factor and crop coefficient. Based on
discharge capacity of emitters, the drip system was operated for determined time to
apply given volume of water per plant. In drip-irrigated treatments, water was ap-
plied for three different irrigation levels IW/CPE ratio of 0.60, 0.8 and 1.00. Drip
irrigation water was applied after 10 mm cumulative pan evaporation. Total volume
of water applied per plant was calculated [63] as below:
Ac × CPE × kp × kc × ( IW CPE ) × Aw
Vd = (2)
Euc
where: Vd = volume of water applied per plant in drip irrigation system [l]; Ac =
cropped area (m2) which is calculated by row-to-row spacing (m)x plant-to-plant
spacing (m); CPE = cumulative pan evaporation (mm) after which the drip irriga-
tion was applied; Kp = pan factor of 0.7; Kc = crop coefficient (the crop coefficient
curves for tomato indicated in Fig. 13.6); IW/CPE = ratio of irrigation water to
cumulative pan evaporation; Aw = fractional wetted area which was taken as 75%
(0.75); and Euc = christiansen uniformity coefficient with Eq. (1).

FIGURE 13.4 View of experimental setup for mixing of saline and fresh water.
Simulation of Salt Distribution and Moisture Wetting Patterns 171

FIGURE 13.5 View of experimental setup for storing mixed water.

FIGURE 13.6 Crop coefficient curve for tomato [104].

The time of irrigation for operating drip system per application was calculated
as given below:
Vd
T (drip ) = (3)
qe
where: T (drip) = drip irrigation time, hours; Vd = volume of water applied per plant
in drip irrigation system; and qe = average emitter discharge, lph. The irrigation
duration in each treatment was determined. The starting and end time of operation
172 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

of system in each treatment was recorded and it was used as input parameter in the
model.

13.3.4.5 FERTIGATION
The 50% N was applied at the time of transplanting and remaining 50% N in the
form of urea was fertigated in 10 splits.

13.3.4.6 CULTURAL PRACTICES

The weeding operation was carried out at every 30 days interval after transplanting.
To protect the plants from harsh winter, the crop was covered with polyethylene
sheet in the form low tunnel during evening/night hours (Fig. 13.7). When there was
clear sunshine, these covers were removed during day time. To protect the plants
from early blight disease due to high humidity inside plastic cover, alternate spray
of M-45 and Bavistin was done at 10 days interval. When plant showed the late
blight symptoms in the last week of March, the Redomil spray followed by 3 sprays
of M-45 at weekly interval was done to protect the crop. When fruiting started, the
fruits were protected from stem borer larva attack by spraying Endosulphon as per
recommendation.

13.3.4.7 HARVESTING
The fruits were harvested from plants, when fruit color changed from orange to red.
The pickings were done at 3–4 days interval.

13.3.5 EXPERIMENTAL OBSERVATIONS

13.3.5.1 SOIL MOISTURE DISTRIBUTION

The soil moisture distributions were studied in plots, where water was applied at
IW/CPE ratio of 0.8 through three emitters. The soil moisture (m3/m3) at depth of 10,
20, 30, 40, 60 and 100 cm was determined by using Delta T device moisture meter
(Fig. 13.8). The PR-1 access tubes were installed at 0, 10, 20 and 30 cm from the
plant or emitter source in plots T1 to T5 (Fig. 13.8). The soil moisture distribution
profile was studied at 30 days interval during growth period.

13.3.5.2 SALT DISTRIBUTION

The EC distribution was studied in plots where water was applied at IW/CPE ratio
of 0.8. The soil sampling was done from 0, 10, 20 and 30 cm horizontally and at
Simulation of Salt Distribution and Moisture Wetting Patterns 173

depth of 15, 30, 45, 60 and 75 cm. The soil sampling was done at 30 days interval to
study the effects of different salinity of water application in soil profile. The EC was
determined by using portable soil water analysis kit using the standard procedure.

13.3.5.3 GROWTH PARAMETERS

For comparing the plant performance, various biometric observations like plant
height, ground cover were monitored at regular interval.
Plant Height: The five plants in each treatment were selected at random and
height of plant was measured from base of plant to axil of the last unfolded leaf after
30 days interval.
Ground Cover: The area covered by the crop measured by counting squares of
rectangular frame. By viewing the canopy of the plants through wooden frame and
then counting the sections more than half filled with leaf, percent ground cover was
calculated by counting number of sections.

FIGURE 13.7 View of tomato field with low tunnels during winter.

FIGURE 13.8 Delta-T device moisture meter with PR-1 probe; Access tubes fixed in the
field near plant for measurement of soil moisture (Extreme right).
174 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

Plant Dry Matter Accumulation: The dry matter accumulation of plants was
determined for each treatment. The three plants were cut from the surface and these
were first air dried and then oven dried at 60���������������������������������������
°C�������������������������������������
to get constant weight. The dry mat-
ter accumulation of plants was determined at 30 days interval.
Tomato Yield: The three plants were selected for yield from each replication.
The average yield after last picking was taken for each plot. The data on yield of all
the plants of each treatment plot were recorded and total yield in t/ha worked out.

13.3.5.4 FRUIT QUALITY PARAMETERS

Total soluble solids for each treatment were determined by digital handheld refrac-
trometer (ERMA, made in Japan) with the scale of 0–32 °Brix and expressed as
°Brix at room temperature. The three fully matured fruits were selected from each
replicated treatment. Juice was extracted from these fruits and TSS was determined.
The acidity of fruits was determined for each treatment. The three fully matured
fruits were selected from each replicated treatment and juice was extracted from
these fruits. About 5 mL of this juice was taken and titrated against N/10 NaOH
solution with phenolphthalein as indicator and pink color as end point. The volume
of NaOH recorded and acidity was computed as follows [81]:

 0.0064.X .100 
Acidity (gm/100 ml of juice) =   (4)
 Y
where: X = mL of N/10 NaOH used; and Y = mL of sample taken for titration.
The ascorbic acid in tomato was determined by using 2–6 dichlorophenol-indo-
phenol (dye) visual titration method, described by Ranganna [81]. The three fully
matured fruits were selected from each treatment and juice was extracted from
fruits. The ascorbic acid was determined by using the following formula.
Ascorbic acid = [(DF × volume make up × Titration reading × 100) ÷ (Sample
weight × aliquote taken for estimation)] (5)

where: DF = dye factor.

Firmness of Fruit: The textural properties like fruit firmness of matured tomato
were determined using textural analyzer. The representative samples of fruits were
selected from each treatment.

13.3.6 METEOROLOGICAL DATA

The meteorological data included: rainfall, temperature, relative humidity, and wind
speed and pan evaporation during crop period (Table 13.4). The data were collected
from mini observatory at CIPHET, Abohar and PAU regional fruit research station,
Abohar.
Simulation of Salt Distribution and Moisture Wetting Patterns 175

TABLE 13.4 Monthly meteorological data at experimental site (2009).

Month Average temperature Pan Average relative Rainfall

evaporation humidity
Maximum Minimum

°C mm % mm

January 19.9 6.8 34.5 75.3 17.4

February 22.8 8.8 50.2 71.6 34.1

March 30.9 10.8 70.9 64.4 17.9

April 42.2 15.7 134.8 41.5 13.8

May 44.3 22.2 291.6 35.6 4.9

June 42.4 27 250.2 36.7 0

13.3.7 SIMULATION OF SALT AND MOISTURE DISTRIBUTION

The SALTMED model was used for simulating the data of the experiment [77].
Model predictions provide a glimpse into the future. SALTMED model offers an
integrated water management scheme for crop, water and field using saline water. It
is used to test the model performance and its ability to predict the final yield, plant
water uptake, soil moisture and salinity profiles under different irrigation water sa-
linity levels, water management strategies, irrigation systems.

13.3.7.1 THE BASIC EQUATIONS FOR SALTMED MODEL

The SALTMED model includes different key processes like: evapotranspiration,
plant water uptake, water and solute transport under different irrigation systems, and
drainage. A brief description of each process is presented below:

13.3.7.1.1 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION
The evapotranspiration has been calculated using the Penman–Monteith equation
according to the modified version of FAO-56 [7], as below:
900
0.408∆ ( Rn − G ) + γ u2 (es − e a )
ETo = T + 273 (6)
∆ + γ (1 + 0.34u2 )
176 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

where: ETo is the reference evapotranspiration, (mm); Rn is the net radiation, (MJ
m–2 day–1); G is the soil heat flux density, (MJ m–2 day–1); T is the mean daily air
temperature at 2 m height, (°C); Δ is the slope of the saturated vapor pressure curve
(kPa C–1); g is the psychometric constant, 66 Pa°C–1; es is the saturated vapor pres-
sure at air temperature (kPa); ea is the prevailing vapor pressure (kPa); and u2 is the
wind speed at 2 m height (m s–1). The crop evapotranspiration ETc is calculated as,

ETc = ETo (Kcb + Ke) (7)

where: Kcb is the crop transpiration coefficient also known as basal crop coefficient;
and Ke is the soil evaporation coefficient. The values of Kcb and Kc, for each growth
stage and the duration of each growth stage for different crops, were taken from
FAO-56. Ke is calculated according to FAO-56 [7], and Kcb and Kc are adjusted ac-
cording to FAO-56 [7] for wind speed and relative humidity different from 2 m s–1
and 45%, respectively.

13.3.7.1.2 EFFECTIVE RAINFALL

The part of the rainfall that is available for infiltration through the soil surface is
defined as effective rainfall. It is estimated in the model in three ways: (i) as a per-
centage of total rainfall; (ii) calculated according to the FAO-56 [7] procedure; and
(iii) Taken to be equal to total rainfall. For the present study, the effective rainfall
was taken to be 20% of total rainfall [31].

13.3.7.1.3 PLANT WATER UPTAKE IN THE PRESENCE OF SALINE WATER

The actual water uptake rate (S, d–1) formula for the SALTMED model is
given below:
S max (t )
S ( z, t ) = [ ]λ ( z , t )
a (t )h + π 3
1+ ( ) (8)
π 50 (t )
where: S (z, t)= water uptake mm/day; l(z) = 5/3L for z≤0.2L; l(z) = 25/12L × (1–z
/L) for 0.2L £ z£L; l(z) = 0.0 for z > L; Smax(t) is the maximum potential root water
uptake at the time t; z is the vertical depth taken positive downwards; l(z, t) is the
depth and time dependent fraction of total root mass; L is the maximum rooting
depth; h is the matric pressure head; and p is the osmotic pressure head. The p50(t)
is time-dependent value of the osmotic pressure at which Smax(t) is reduced by 50%,
and a(t) is a weighing coefficient that accounts for the differential response of a crop
to matric and solute pressure. The coefficient a(t) equals p50(t)/h50(t), where h50(t) is
the matric pressure at which Smax(t) is reduced by 50%. These p50 and h50 values were
taken for tomato crop from FAO-48 [87].
Simulation of Salt Distribution and Moisture Wetting Patterns 177

13.3.7.1.4 MAXIMUM WATER UPTAKE

The maximum water uptake Smax(t) is calculated as:

Smax(t) = ETo(t)*Kcb(t) (9)

13.3.7.1.5 ROOTING DEPTH

The rooting depth follows same pattern as the crop coefficient, Kc. It can be de-
scribed by following equation [77]:

Root depth(t) = {[Root depthmin+ (root depthmax – root depthmin)] × Kc(t)}/Kcmax (10)

The maximum root depth was obtained from the experiment.

13.3.7.2 RELATIVE AND ACTUAL CROP YIELD

There is a unique and strong relationship between water uptake and biomass produc-
tion. Hence, the final yield, the relative crop yield (RY) is estimated as the sum of
the actual water uptake over the season divided by the sum of the maximum water
uptake under no stress condition as:
ΣS ( x , z , t )
RY =
ΣS max ( x, z , t ) (11)

The actual yield AY was obtained by:

AY = RY*Ymax (12)

where: Ymax is the maximum yield obtainable in a given region under optimum and
stress-free condition. We used the maximum yield obtained under fresh water treat-
ment during simulation.

13.3.7.3 WATER AND SOLUTE FLOW

The water flow in soils is described mathematically by Richard’s equation. It is a
partial nonlinear differential equation in time and space. It is based on Darcy’s law
and mass continuity.

13.3.7.3.1 DARCY’S LAW

∂H
q = − K ( h) (13)
∂Z
178 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

where: q is the water flux; K(h) is the hydraulic conductivity as a function of soil
water pressure head; Z is the vertical coordinate directed downwards with its origin
at soil surface; and H is the hydraulic head, which is the sum of the gravity head, z,
and the pressure head, y:

H=ψ + z (14)

13.3.7.3.2 RICHARD’S EQUATION

The vertical transient-state flow water in a stable and uniform segment of the root
zone can be described by a modified Richard’s equation as:

∂θ ∂  ∂(ψ + z ) 
= −  K (θ ) − Sw
∂t ∂z  ∂z  (15)

where: q is volume wetness; t is the time; z is the depth; K(q) is the hydraulic con-
ductivity (a function of wetness); y is the matrix suction head; and Sw is the sink term
representing extraction by plant roots. The movement of solute in the soil system,
its rate and direction depends greatly on the path of water movement, but it is also
determined by diffusion and hydrodynamic dispersion. By the combination of the
diffusion, the dispersion and the convection, the overall flux of solute J can be ob-
tained according to Hillel [42] as:
∂θ −
J = − ( Dh + DS ) + v θC (16)
∂x
where: C is the concentration of solute in the flowing water; v¯ is the average veloc-
ity of the flow; Ds is the solute diffusion in soil which decreases due to the fact that
the liquid phase occupies only a fraction of soil volume, and also due to the tortuous
nature of the path. It can, therefore, be expressed according to the following equa-
tion, where D0 is the diffusion coefficient:

Ds = DOθξ (17)

7
θ 3
ξ= (18)
θs2
where: x is the tortuosity, an empirical factor smaller than unity, which can be ex-
pected to decrease with decreasing q [103]. The convection flux generally causes
hydrodynamic dispersion too, an effect that depends on the microscopic non-unifor-
mity of flow velocity in the various pores. Thus a sharp boundary between two mis-
cible solutions becomes increasingly diffuse about the mean position of the front.
For such a case, the diffusion coefficient has been found by Bresler [19] to depend
linearly on the average flow velocity v¯, as follows:
Simulation of Salt Distribution and Moisture Wetting Patterns 179

Dh = αν (19)

where: a is an empirical coefficient.

13.3.7.3.3 MASS TRANSFER EQUATION

If one takes the continuity equation into consideration, one-dimensional transient
movement of a noninteracting solute in soil can be expressed as:
∂(θC ) ∂ ∂C ∂(qC )
= ( Da )− − SS (20)
∂t ∂Z ∂Z ∂Z

where: C is the concentration of the solute in the soil solution; q is the convective
flux of the solution; Da is a combined diffusion and dispersion coefficient; and Ss is a
sink term for the solute representing root adsorption/uptake. Under irrigation from a
trickle line source, the water and solute transport can be viewed as two-dimensional
flow and simulated by a ‘plane flow’ model involving the Cartesian coordinates x
and z, as emitters are close enough and equally spaced in tomato crop. Also their
wetting pattern overlaps. For a stable, isotropic and homogeneous porous medium,
the two dimensional flow of water in the soil can be described according to Bresler
[19] as:
∂θ ∂ ∂ψ ∂ ∂(ψ + z )
= [ K (θ ) ] + [ K (θ ) ] (21)
∂t ∂x ∂x ∂z ∂z
where: x is the horizontal coordinate; z is the vertical ordinate (considered to be
positive downward); and K(q) is the hydraulic conductivity of the soil. Considering
isotropic and homogeneous porous media with principal axes of dispersion oriented
parallel and perpendicular to the mean direction of flow, the hydrodynamic disper-
sion coefficient Dij can be defined as follows:
Dij = λT | V | δ ij + (λ L − λT )VV
i j / | V | + Ds (θ ) (22)

where: lL is the longitudinal dispersivity of the medium; λT is the transversal dis-

persivity of the medium; δij is Kronecker delta (i.e., δij = 1 if i = j and δij =0 if i≠0);
Vi and Vj are the i-th and j-th components of the average interstitial flow velocity
V, respectively; and Ds (q) is the soil diffusion coefficient as defined by Eq. (18).
Interstitial flow velocity V is given as:

V = vx2 + v y2 (23)

If one considers only flow in the two dimensions and substituting Dij in Eq. (20), the
salt flow equation becomes:
∂(Cθ ) ∂ ∂C ∂C ∂ ∂C ∂C
= ( Dxx + Dxz − qxC ) + ( Dzz + Dzx − qz C ) (24)
∂t ∂x ∂x ∂z ∂z ∂z ∂x
180 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

The Eq. (21) and solute flow Eq. (24) were solved numerically using the initial and
boundary conditions.
Boundary and Initial conditions for two dimensional water flow:
W = domain [0£ x £ X; 0£ z ≤Z]:

q(x, z,0) = θn (x, z) for t=0 (25a)

∂θ
= 0; x = 0, x = X ;0 ≤ z ≤ Z ;0 ≤ t ≤ T
∂x (25b)

∂θ
= 0;0 ≤ x ≤ X ;0 ≤ z ≤ Z ;0 ≤ t ≤ T (25c)
∂z

q = θs; 0£ x £ r(t); z = 0; 0£ t £ T (25d)

∂H
E − K (θ s ) = 0 r(t)£ x £ X; z=0; 0 £ t £ T (25e)
∂z

ρ (t )
 ∂H  1
∫  E − K (θ s ) ) ∂z  dx =
 
f (t ) ; z=0; 0 < t £ T (25f)
0 2
where: f(t) = dripper discharge per unit length of the strip; T = end time of infiltra-
tion; θn = initial soil water content; θs = saturated water content; r(t) = the length of
the ponded or water saturated area; and E = evaporation.
Boundary and Initial conditions for solute flow c(x, z, t) under plane flow
conditions from trickle source:
∂c
= 0; at x = 0 and x = X for t ³ 0 (26a)
∂x

∂c
= 0; at z = Z for t ³ 0
∂z
(26b)

 ∂c ∂c 
−  Dxz ( x,0, t ) + Dzz ( x,0, t )  + q z ( x,0, t )c( x,0, t ) = 0 for X³ x > [r(t)] (26c)
 ∂ x ∂z 

 ∂c ∂c 
−  Dxz ( x,0, t ) + Dzz ( x,0, t )  + q z ( x,0, t )c( x,0, t ) = qz ( x,0, t )C0 (t )
 ∂x ∂z 

for 0 £ x £ [r(t)] (26d)

Simulation of Salt Distribution and Moisture Wetting Patterns 181

c(x, z = 0, t>0)= C0(t) for 0 £ x £ [r(t)] (26e)

ρ (t )
 ∂c ∂c  1
∫ 0
[ − Dxz ( x,0, t ) + Dzz ( x,0, t ) ] + qz ( x, o, t )c( x,0, t )dx = f (t )C0 (t )
 ∂ x ∂ z  2 (26f)

and finally the initial conditions are: c(x, z,0) = cn(x, z) in W, for t = 0, where: qz(x,0,
t) is specific downward water flux at soil surface as given by Darcy’s law; C0 solute
concentration at the inlet of trickling water; Cn(x, z) is predetermined initial soil so-
lution concentration; Dxz(x,0, t), Dzz(x,0, t) are hydrodynamic dispersion coefficients
at the soil surface; and the sum of diffusion and mechanical dispersion coefficients
is given by Dij (the Eq. (22)). For solving the water and solute transport equations
two soil water relations namely the soil moisture–water potential relation and the
soil water potential–hydraulic conductivity relation were used. They were taken ac-
cording to Van Genuchten [109] as:

q(h) = θr – [(θs-θr)/(1 – |αh|n) m) 2 (27)

K(h) = KsKr(q) – KsSe1/2[1-(1-Se1/m)m]2 (28)

where: θr and θs denote the residual and the saturated moisture contents, respective-
ly; Ks and Kr are the saturated and relative hydraulic conductivities, respectively; a
and n are the shape parameters, m = 1–1/n; Se is effective saturation or normalized
volumetric soil water content; and a and n are empirical parameters. The soil water
potential and hydraulic conductivity as functions of effective saturation are given by
van Dam et al. [28] as:

Se = (q–θr)/(θs–θr) (29)

h(Se) = [(S–1/m–1)1/n] /α

K (Se) =KsSe1/2 [1–(1–Se1/m)m]2

The values of θr, θs, q, Ks, water content at field capacity, and wilting point were ob-
tained from soil field studies at the site. The values of bubbling pressure and l pore
size distribution index for sandy loam soil were obtained from the model’s database.
The constants n and m were given as n = l+ 1 and m = l/n.

13.3.7.4 MODEL INPUT PARAMETERS

1. Plant characteristics for each growth stage include the crop coefficient, Kc,
Kcb, root depth and lateral expansion, crop height and maximum/potential
182 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

final yield observed in the region under optimum conditions. Most of the
data on Kc, Kcb and root depth was obtained from FAO 48 [87] and through
experiment.
2. Soil characteristics include depth of each soil horizon, saturated hydrau-
lic conductivity, saturated soil moisture content, salt diffusion coefficient,
longitudinal and transversal dispersion coefficient, initial soil moisture and
salinity profiles, tabulated data of soil moisture versus soil water potential
and soil moisture versus hydraulic conductivity. The data on saturated hy-
draulic conductivity, saturated soil moisture content, initial soil moisture
and salinity profile relation between soil moisture and soil matric potential,
soil moisture and hydraulic conductivity obtained from the experiment.
3. Meteorological data include daily values of temperature (maximum and
minimum), relative humidity, net radiation, wind speed, and daily rainfall.
It was obtained from meteorological observatory at CIPHET, Abohar and
Regional fruit research station, Abohar.
4. Water management data include the date and amount of irrigation water ap-
plied and the salinity level of each applied irrigation, wetting fraction and
frequency of irrigation. These data were collected during the experiment
period.
5. Model parameters include the number of compartments to be fixed in both
vertical and horizontal direction in soil domain, tortuosity parameters, up-
take parameters, diffusion parameters, position of plant relative to irrigation
source and maximum time step for calculation.

13.3.7.5 MODEL OUTPUT PARAMETERS

The model gave output in the form of text and graphical files. These include hori-
zontal and vertical distribution of soil moisture, soil salinity profile, crop transpira-
tion, bare soil evaporation, leaching requirements, irrigation amounts, Kc, Kcb, root
depth and final yield.

13.3.7.6 CALIBRATION AND VALIDATION OF SALTMED MODEL

The SALTMED model is calibrated below 100% fresh water treatment for final
yield, because yield depends on soil moisture and salinity in the soil profile. The
calibrated model was then used to predict final yield for different ratios of fresh sa-
line water and also for different discharge rates of emitters. The predicted yield was
then compared with the observed yield and the model was validated.
Simulation of Salt Distribution and Moisture Wetting Patterns 183

13.3.8 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The growth and quality parameter data were subjected to statistical analysis using
factorial randomized block design with analysis of variance (ANOVA) techniques.
For the factorial RBD, irrigation levels, discharge rates and salinity treatments were
considered as three factors. The individual factor and their interaction were tested at
5% level of significance of difference.

13.3.9 TESTING OF GOODNESS OF FIT OF MODEL

The model was used for simulating the soil moisture and salt distribution profile in
15 treatment combinations for irrigation level of 0.8 in tomato crop. The criteria are
described below for testing the goodness of fit of model.

RE = 100 × [Oi – Pi]/[Oi]

(30)

∑ RE
ARE = i =1 (31)
N

RMSE =
∑(p i − oi ) 2
N (32)

where: RE = relative error; Oi = observed value; and Pi = simulated value; ARE =

Average Relative error; N = number of pairs of observed and simulated values; and
RMSE =Root mean square error. To get a relative idea of deviation in observed
and simulated values within the profile of one treatment, the term relative error is
more appropriate and average relative error was used to compare the relative error
among treatments. The relative error and average relative error are also called ab-
solute percent deviation and absolute average percent deviation. Relative root mean
square error is defined below:

RMSE *100
RRMSE =
Omean
(33)

where: RRMSE = Relative root mean square error; and Omean = Observed mean.
To get a relative idea of deviation in values, the term RRMSE is more appropriate
than RMSE as it gives the percentage error between observed and predicted values.
RRMSE approaching zero indicates a perfect fit.
184 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

13.4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This research study consisted of five levels of saline irrigation water, which was pre-
pared by mixing saline (tube well) water and fresh (canal) water with five different
ratios 100% fresh (T1), 75% Fresh and 25% saline (T2), 50% fresh and 50% saline
(T3), 25% fresh and 75% saline (T4) and 100% saline (T5). Fresh water was ap-
plied to all treatment plots during first 45 days to avoid stress to plant in early stage
because of harsh cold winter in this region. The mixed water was applied through
drip irrigation with three types of inline drippers with three discharge rates (1.2, 2.4,
and 4.2 lph). The various observations recorded during the experimentation were
analyzed and the results are presented and discussed in this section.

13.4.1 TOMATO GROWTH PARAMETERS

13.4.1.1 PLANT HEIGHT

The Figs. 13.9–13.11 show plant heights for 30, 60, 90 and 120 days after trans-
planting (DAT). The results showed that plant height was affected by different treat-
ments. The plant height varied from 60.8 to 87 cm under different treatments at 120
DAT. The plant height was affected by different salinity treatments except at 90
DAT. There was no significant difference in plant height among T1 to T4 up to 30
DAT, because fresh water was applied to all plots at early stage up to 45 DAT. The
maximum height was observed in plots irrigated with fresh water T1 followed by
T2, T3, T4 and T5. The significant difference was found in plant height at irrigation
levels I1 and I3 on 30 DAT. The average maximum height of 77.8 cm was found at
120 DAT under treatment T1 followed by treatment T2, T3, T4 and T5. The average
minimum height was 64 cm in T5 treatment at 120 DAT. The highest salinity levels
reduced the plant height compared to fresh water treatment (Fig. 13.9). These find-
ings are in close proximity with Malash et al. [60]. The plant height was reduced by
17.45% in T5 compared to T1 after 120 DAT.
The effects of three discharge rates on plant height at different DAT are pre-
sented in Fig. 13.10. The plant height was not significantly different up to 60 DAT
in Q1, Q2 and Q3. The significant differences were found after 60 DAT, when irriga-
tion was applied at different discharge rates. The maximum height was observed at
discharge rate of emitter Q3 followed by Q2 and Q1 in all DAT.
The effects of different irrigation levels on plant height at different DAT are
presented in Fig. 13.11. The maximum average height was in irrigation level I2
followed by I3 and I1 at 90 DAT. There was no significant difference in interaction
IxT except 60 DAT. The above results were in line with Sharda [99] and Agrawal
et al. [3].
Simulation of Salt Distribution and Moisture Wetting Patterns 185

FIGURE 13.9 Effects of five ratios of saline water on plant height of tomato crop.

FIGURE 13.10 Effects of three discharge rates of emitter on plant height of tomato crop.
186 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

FIGURE 13.11 Effects of three irrigation levels on plant height of tomato crop.

13.4.1.2 PERCENT GROUND COVER

The data recorded for average percent ground cover (PGC) under different salinity
ratios, discharge rates and irrigation levels for 30, 60, 90 and 120 DAT are presented
in Table 13.5. There was no significant difference found in ground cover under dif-
ferent salinity ratios up to 60 DAT. After that it tends to decrease with increasing
salinity levels.
It was observed from the Table 13.5 that the PGC increased up to 90 DAT,
thereafter it tends to decrease at slower rate. The PGC goes on decreasing because
fruits are at mature stage. The PGC showed significant difference among the salinity
ratios up to 30 DAT. The PGC was found maximum at 0.8 and 1.0 irrigation levels
compared to 0.6 (I1) irrigation level. At 30 DAT, there was no significant differ-
ence in plant cover among discharge rates of emitter (Q1, Q2 and Q3). Due to low
evapotranspiration from the crop during winter, no variation was found in PGC.
After 60 DAT, the significant difference in PGC were found among irrigation lev-
els, discharge rates and salinity treatments. The PGC decreased with increasing the
saline water ratios. The maximum PGC of 49.5% was found in treatment I3Q1T2
after 60 DAT. The PGC was maximum in T1 followed by T2, T3, T4 and T5 treat-
ment. Among the irrigation levels, PGC was maximum at I3 level followed by I2
and I1. There was significant difference between I1 and I3. After 90 DAT, the same
trend was observed. This implies that PGC decreased with increasing salinity ratios.
It also increased with increasing discharge rates and irrigation levels. The PGC was
maximum of 93.67% in I2Q2T1. After 90 DAT, the PGC was found decreasing in all
treatment. This is because of increasing salinity levels in the soil due to application
of saline water continuously causes osmotic stress and thus reduced water uptake
and growth. Also, during reproductive stage of crop, the shredding of leaves occur.
These findings are in agreement with those reported by Sharda [99] and Cetin and
Demet [20]. The PGC after 120 DAT was maximum at Q2 followed by Q3 and Q1.
Simulation of Salt Distribution and Moisture Wetting Patterns 187

The significant difference was found between irrigation levels, discharge rates and
salinity ratios. It was maximum of 79.33% at I2Q3T1.

TABLE 13.5 Effects of Irrigation Levels, Discharge Rates, Fresh and Saline Water Ratios
(Salinity Levels) on Percent Ground Cover at Different DAT
Irrigation Discharge Fresh and Percent ground cover
levels rate (Q) saline water
(I) ratio (T)
lph F:S 30 60 90 120
0.6 = I1 1.2 100: 0 = T1 12.27 43.33 91.00 74.33
= Q1 75:25 = T2 12.57 43.00 88.67 72.33
50:50 = T3 11.73 41.17 88.17 70.33
25:75 = T4 13.33 40.67 89.00 68.00
0: 100 = T5 10.80 38.50 87.33 67.67
I1Q1 Mean 12.1 41.3 88.8 70.5
2.4 100: 0 12.50 45.85 91.33 78.33
= Q2 75:25 12.90 44.33 90.67 77.67
50:50 12.27 40.50 89.00 75.00
25:75 13.53 39.83 90.00 71.67
0: 100 12.13 39.67 88.00 71.33
I1Q2 Mean 12.7 42.0 89.8 74.8
4.2 100: 0 12.93 46.50 93.00 80.67
= Q3 75:25 12.78 45.67 92.67 77.00
50:50 11.67 44.00 91.33 75.33
25:75 12.00 42.17 90.00 71.00
0: 100 13.03 40.83 89.67 72.67
I1Q3 Mean 12.5 43.8 91.3 75.3
I1 Mean 12.4 42.4 90.0 73.6
188 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

TABLE 13.5 (Continued)

0.8 = I2 1.2 100: 0 14.67 44.67 91.33 76.67

75:25 13.60 46.50 90.00 72.67
50:50 12.07 42.00 89.00 70.67
25:75 13.87 41.00 87.33 68.00
0: 100 12.43 40.00 87.33 69.33
I2Q1 Mean 13.3 42.8 89.0 71.5
2.4 100: 0 15.00 45.83 93.67 79.00
75:25 13.33 45.33 93.33 78.33
50:50 11.77 45.33 92.00 75.33
25:75 13.83 44.17 91.33 74.33
0: 100 13.00 39.67 89.17 73.33
I2Q2 Mean 13.4 44.1 91.9 76.1
4.2 100: 0 14.50 47.83 93.33 79.33
75:25 14.33 46.17 92.00 78.00
50:50 12.00 46.67 91.50 75.67
25:75 12.67 42.33 88.00 72.67
0: 100 13.33 41.67 89.67 73.67
I2Q3 Mean 13.4 44.9 90.9 75.9
I2 Mean 13.4 43.9 90.6 74.5
Simulation of Salt Distribution and Moisture Wetting Patterns 189

TABLE 13.5 (Continued)

1 = I3 1.2 100: 0 13.67 46.33 90.33 74.33

75:25 13.83 49.50 89.33 72.00
50:50 11.33 43.33 88.67 68.00
25:75 13.10 41.67 88.00 65.67
0: 100 11.50 41.00 87.00 68.00
I3Q1 Mean 12.7 44.4 88.7 69.6
2.4 100: 0 14.17 47.00 93.00 77.00
75:25 11.67 46.67 92.33 75.67
50:50 12.33 43.83 91.00 74.33
25:75 12.80 44.67 90.33 72.67
0: 100 11.87 41.67 87.33 70.00
I3Q2 Mean 12.6 44.8 90.8 73.9
4.2 100: 0 14.00 47.67 91.67 77.67
75:25 12.40 45.60 91.67 75.00
50:50 11.00 48.83 88.00 74.00
25:75 13.67 43.93 88.33 71.00
0: 100 12.93 41.73 89.00 70.00
I3Q3 Mean 12.8 45.6 89.7 73.5
I3 Mean 12.7 44.9 89.7 72.4
Average 12.8 43.7 90.1 73.5
LSD (T) 0.65 1.00 1.68 2.14
LSD (Q) NS 0.77 1.30 1.66
LSD (I) 0.50 0.77 NS 1.66
LSD
(IxT) NS NS NS NS
LSD
(QxT) 1.73 NS NS NS
LSD
(IxQxT) NS NS NS NS
190 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

13.4.1.3 DRY MATTER OF TOMATO PLANTS

The dry matter accumulation of tomato plants under different salinity ratios of irri-
gation along with three discharge rates and three irrigation levels at 60, 90, 120 and
150 DAT is shown in Figs. 13.12–13.14. The dry matter of tomato increased with
increase in DAT up to 120 DAT. After that it goes on decreasing. The maximum dry
matter accumulation was observed in I3Q2T2 in 120 DAT. After 90 DAT, the plant
dry weight decreased with increase in salinity levels of irrigation water under all dis-
charge rates of emitters. After 90 DAT, discharge rate of emitters showed significant
effect on dry matter. Dry matter decreased with decreasing discharge rate. But the
same trend was not observed after 120 and 150 DAT. The maximum dry matter was
observed in T1 and minimum in T5 except on 120 DAT. On 120 DAT, minimum dry
matter was observed in T3 treatment. After harvest of tomato crop, it was found that
the dry matter decreased with increasing salinity levels, increasing discharge rate
and increasing irrigation levels. These results are in close proximity with Malash et
al. [60] and Reina Sanchez et al. [84]. The dry matter was maximum in I1Q1T1 and
minimum in I3Q2T5 treatment after 150 DAT. Saline water reduced water uptake,
transpiration and net CO2 assimilation, which in turn reduce the growth and trans-
port of nutrients into the plants [90]. Reduction in leaf area index (LAI) reduces
light interception and thus reduces dry matter [4, 56].

FIGURE 13.12 Dry matter accumulation at different salinity ratios and discharge rate of
emitters at I1.
Simulation of Salt Distribution and Moisture Wetting Patterns 191

FIGURE 13.13 Dry matter accumulation at different salinity ratios and discharge rate of
emitters at I2.

FIGURE 13.14 Dry matter accumulation at different salinity ratios and discharge rate of
emitters at I3.

13.4.1.4 PLANT YIELD

Plant yield data under different salinity levels, irrigation levels and discharge rate
of emitters were shown in Figs. 13.15–13.17. It was found that the plant yield de-
192 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

creased with increase in salinity levels of irrigation water significantly. The maxi-
mum plant yield of 3.91�����������������������������������������������������
kg��������������������������������������������������
/plant was in I3Q2T1 followed by I3Q1T1. The mini-
mum plant yield of 1.60 kg/plant was in I1Q3T5 treatment. The irrigation levels I2
and I3 showed significant increase in plant yield over I1. The plant yield increased
with increasing irrigation level from I1 to I3, and irrigation levels I2 and I3 were
found as par with each other. It is also clear from data analysis that the plant yield
significantly decreased with increase in discharge rates. The plant yield was maxi-
mum under Q1 discharge rate followed by Q2 and Q3 in each salinity treatment
T1 to T5. These findings are in close proximity with Badr and Taalab [14], who
reported that the maximum yield was obtained with surface drip irrigation applied
at 2 lph and lowest yield was obtained at 8 lph with surface drip irrigation in saline
water. The average plant yield decreased by 11.51, 25.84, 32.67, and 44.38% in T2,
T3, T4 and T5, respectively. The interaction of irrigation levels and discharge rates
showed significant effect on plant yield. The yield reduction in saline water mainly
was caused due to reduction in fruit size and weight. These findings are agreement
with Reina-Sanchez, et al. [84], Malash [60] and Romero-Aranda et al. [91, 92]
(Figs. 13.18–13.20).

FIGURE 13.15 Plant yield at different salinity ratios and discharge rates at irrigation level
I1.
Simulation of Salt Distribution and Moisture Wetting Patterns 193

FIGURE 13.16 Plant yield at different salinity ratios and discharge rates at irrigation level
I2.

FIGURE 13.17 Plant yield at different salinity ratios and discharge rates at irrigation level
I3.
194 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

FIGURE 13.18 Total yield at different salinity ratios and discharge rates at irrigation level
I1.

FIGURE 13.19 Total yield at different salinity ratios and discharge rates at irrigation level
I2.
Simulation of Salt Distribution and Moisture Wetting Patterns 195

FIGURE 13.20 Total yield at different salinity ratios and discharge rates at irrigation level
I3.

13.4.1.5 TOTAL YIELD

The total yield (t/ha) of tomato is presented in Figs. 13.21–13.23. It is clear from
these figures that the total yield decreased with increase in salinity levels of irriga-
tion water. As compared with T1, total yield decreased by 10.20% in T2, 21.44%
in T3, 29.21% in T4 and 36.83% in T5. The maximum yield of 63.41 t/ha and
minimum of 31.74 t/ha was in I2Q1T1and I1Q3T5 treatments, respectively, which
confirms the results with Malash et al. [62]. The yield increased with increase in
irrigation levels and decreased with increase in discharge rates in all salinity treat-
ments, T1 to T5. The irrigation levels were not significant. But the discharge rate
was significant with each other. The Q1 gave more yield compared to Q2 and Q3
discharge rates. The salinity treatments T1 to T5 were significant to each other.
The interaction IxQxT was significant which shows I2Q1T1 gave maximum yield
of 63.41 t/ha. In T2 treatment, I2xQ2 gave maximum yield 56.49 t/ha, which was
significantly different with I2Q1T1. The best yield of 39.47 t/ha was observed T5
treatment in I1xQ1, which was significantly different with other salinity treatments.
In fresh water treatment T1 with Ec of 0.38 dS/m, the yield increased with increase
in IW/CPE ratios from 0.6 to 0.8. The IW/CPE ratio of 0.8 followed by 1.0 and 0.6
was found best. The IW/CPE ratio of 0.8 and 1.0 was found at par with each other.
The irrigation level of 0.8 with 1.2 lph discharge rate was best for T1 treatment,
which gave maximum yield of 63.41 t/ha. In treatment T1, the yield decreased with
increase in discharge rate of emitters. The discharge rate of 1.2 lph was found best
followed by 2.4 and 4.2 lph. The discharge rate of 1.2 and 2.4 lph were found at par
with each other. In treatment T2 with Ec of 6.3 dS/m, the IW/CPE ratio of 0.8 and
discharge rate of 2.4 lph was found best. The discharge rates of 1.2 and 2.4 lph were
196 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

significantly different. Also, IW/CPE ratio of 0.6, 0.8 and 1.0 were significantly dif-
ferent to each other. The maximum yield under this treatment was reduced by 10.9%
compared to best treatment under fresh water whereas the quality parameters TSS,
acidity and ascorbic acid improved compared to T1.In treatment T3 with EC of 9.1
dS/m. The yield was found maximum under irrigation level 0.6 and discharge rate of
2.4 lph. The maximum yield under this treatment was reduced by 23.38% compared
to T1 with better quality of tomato compared to T1. In treatment T4 with Ec of 14.5
dS/m, the yield was maximum under irrigation level 0.6 and discharge rate 1.2 lph
and which was reduced by 28.62% compared to best yield under T1. The irrigation
levels were found at par with each other. The discharge rate 1.2 lph and 2.4 lph were
significantly different with each other. The discharge rate 2.4 lph and 4.2 lph were
at par with each other. In 100% saline water treatment T5 with EC of 19.5 dS/m, the
yield was maximum under I1xQ1 with reduction of 37.75% compared to fresh water
treatment. The statistically no significant differences were found in three irrigation
levels. The discharge rate of 1.2 and 2.4 lph were found as par with each other and
were significantly different with 4.2 lph. The above findings are in line with Sandra
Krauss et al. [95].

13.4.1.6 WATER USE EFFICIENCY (WUE)

Table 13.6 indicates the WUE for different salinity ratios treatments, discharge rates
and irrigation levels presented in Table 13.6. It can be observed from the data in his
table that the WUE was decreased with increase in salinity ratios/salinity levels of
irrigation water. There was significant difference among the salinity treatments (T1,
T2, T3, T4 and T5). The average maximum WUE of 1.22 t/ha-cm was found in T1
followed by 1.10 t/ha-cm, 0.97 t/ha-cm. 0.88 t/ha-cm and 0.774 t/ha-cm found under
treatment T2, T3, T4 and T5, respectively. The irrigation levels and discharge rate
of emitters have shown the significant effects on WUE of tomato crop. The WUE
decreased with increasing irrigation levels from I1 to I3. Also, the average WUE
decreased with increase in discharge rate of emitters under given treatment combi-
nation. The interaction IxT and IxQxT had shown the significant effect on WUE. In
IxT interaction, I1T1 has shown maximum of 1.54 t/ha-cm and minimum of 0.58
t/ha-cm in I3T5 treatment. In IxQxT interaction, the I1Q2T1 has given maximum
WUE of 1.56 t/ha-cm and minimum of 0.56 t/ha-cm in I3Q3T5. The interaction
WUE under I1Q1T1, I1Q2T1 and I1Q3T1 were as par with each other.
Simulation of Salt Distribution and Moisture Wetting Patterns 197

TABLE 13.6 Effects of Irrigation Levels, Discharge Rate and Fresh and Saline Water Ratio
(Salinity Levels) on WUE of Tomato

Irrigation levels (I) Discharge rate (Q), Fresh and saline WUE
lph water ratios (T) (t/ha-cm)
F: S
0.6 1.2 100: 0 1.53
75:25 1.44
50:50 1.36
25:75 1.27
0: 100 1.11
I1Q1 Mean 1.34
2.4 100: 0 1.56
75:25 1.44
50:50 1.37
25:75 1.15
0: 100 0.89
I1Q2 Mean 1.28
4.2 100: 0 1.55
75:25 1.27
50:50 1.23
25:75 1.15
0: 100 1.04
I1Q3 Mean 1.25
I1 Mean 1.29
198 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

TABLE 13.6 (Continued)

0.8 1.2 100: 0 1.28

75:25 1.09
50:50 0.93
25:75 0.89
0: 100 0.75
I2Q1 Mean 0.99
2.4 100: 0 1.20
75:25 1.14
50:50 0.88
25:75 0.77
0: 100 0.74
I2Q2 Mean 0.95
4.2 100: 0 1.15
75:25 1.00
50:50 0.89
25:75 0.77
0: 100 0.68
I2Q3 Mean 0.90
I2 Mean 0.94
1 1.2 100: 0 0.98
75:25 0.83
50:50 0.72
25:75 0.65
0: 100 0.61
I3Q1 Mean 0.76
2.4 100: 0 0.89
75:25 0.82
50:50 0.71
25:75 0.61
0: 100 0.59
I3Q2 Mean 0.72
Simulation of Salt Distribution and Moisture Wetting Patterns 199

TABLE 13.6 (Continued)

4.2 100: 0 0.86
75:25 0.88
50:50 0.66
25:75 0.61
0: 100 0.56
I3Q3 Mean 0.71
I3 Mean 0.73
Grand Mean 0.99
LSD (T) 0.031
LSD (Q) 0.024
LSD (I) 0.024
LSD (IxT) 0.054
LSD (QxT) NS
LSD (IxQxT) 0.094

13.4.2 QUALITY PARAMETERS OF TOMATO

The attributes of quality of tomato fruits such as TSS, acidity and ascorbic acid were
studied and given as under.

13.4.2.1 TOTAL SOLUBLE SOLIDS (TSS)

Table 13.7 shows effects of irrigation levels, discharge rate of emitters and ratios of
fresh and saline water on TSS of tomato fruits. It can be observed in Table 13.7 that
the TSS of tomato fruits significantly different with T1, T2, T3 and TSS of fruits
were found as par in T4 and T5 treatments. Reduced water uptake in plants irrigated
by saline water led to increases in solute concentrations (particularly sugars) and
hence increased TSS contents. TSS increased with increase in salinity of irrigation
water, that is, T1 to T5 under all Q1, Q2, and Q3 and for all irrigation levels I1,
I2 and I3. These results confirms with the findings of Yurtseven et al. [115], and
Malash et al. [60, 62]. The average value of TSS was maximum in Q1 followed by
Q2 and Q3. Q1 was significantly different from Q3. Q1 and Q2 treatment and Q2
and Q3 was par with each other. In irrigation levels, average TSS was maximum
in I1 followed by I2 and I3. These results are in close proximity with Hanson et al.
[39, 40]. The irrigation level I1 was significantly different with I3. The I2 and I3 are
200 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

observed as par with each other. The maximum TSS of 6.9 was in I1Q1T5 treatment
followed by I1Q2T1. The minimum TSS was in tomato irrigated with 100% fresh
water in all irrigation levels. Reduced water uptake in plants irrigated by saline wa-
ter led to increase in solute concentrations (particularly sugars) and hence increased
TSS contents with increase in salinity of water.

13.4.2.2 ACIDITY
The effects of irrigation levels, discharge rate of emitters and fresh and saline water
ratios on acidity of tomato fruits are shown in Table 13.8. It can be observed that the
acidity of tomato fruits increased with increase in saline water ratio. The similar trend
was reported by Magan et al. [59]. There was significant difference in acidity of tomato
among T1, T3, T4 and T5. T1 and T2 treatments were par with each other. Among the
irrigation levels and discharge rate of emitters, there was no significant difference in
acidity of tomato fruits. But average acidity was increased with increase in irrigation
levels and decreased with increasing discharge rate of emitters. The average acidity was
maximum in 0.818% at I2Q1T5 and minimum of 0.689% in I3Q3T1, which confirms
the findings of Mitchell et al. [67].

TABLE 13.7 Effects of Irrigation Levels, Discharge Rate and Fresh and Saline Water Ratios
(Salinity Levels) on Average TSS (°Brix) of Tomato Fruits

Irrigation levels (I) Discharge rate Fresh and saline water TSS, °Brix
(Q), lph ratios (T)

0.6 1.2 100:0 5.8

75:25 6.1

50:50 6.2

25:75 6.5

0:100 6.9

I1Q1 Mean 6.3

2.4 100:0 5.7

75:25 6.0

50:50 6.2

25:75 6.3

0:100 6.4
Simulation of Salt Distribution and Moisture Wetting Patterns 201

TABLE 13.7 (Continued)

I1Q2 Mean 6.1

4.2 100:0 5.5

75:25 5.8

50:50 6.2

25:75 6.3

0:100 6.4

I1Q3 Mean 6.0

I1 Mean 6.1

0.8 1.2 100:0 5.5

75:25 5.9

50:50 6.1

25:75 6.4

0:100 6.6

I2Q1 Mean 6.1

2.4 100:0 5.3

75:25 5.9

50:50 6.2

25:75 6.4

0:100 6.5

I2Q2 Mean 6.0

4.2 100:0 5.0

75:25 5.6

50:50 5.9

25:75 6.1

0:100 6.2

I2Q3 Mean 5.8

202 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

I2 Mean 6.0

1 1.2 100:0 5.4

75:25 5.9

50:50 6.2

25:75 6.3

0:100 6.4

I3Q1 Mean 6.1

2.4 100:0 5.3

75:25 5.8

50:50 5.9

25:75 6.0

0:100 6.1

I3Q2 Mean 5.8

4.2 100:0 5.2

75:25 5.6

50:50 5.8

25:75 5.9

0:100 5.9

I3Q3 Mean 5.7

I3 Mean 5.9

Grand Mean 6.0

LSD (T) 0.27

LSD (Q) 0.22

LSD (I) 0.22

LSD (IxT) NS

LSD (QxT) NS

LSD (IxQxT) NS
Simulation of Salt Distribution and Moisture Wetting Patterns 203

TABLE 13.8 Effects of irrigation levels, discharge rate and fresh and saline water ratios
(salinity levels) on average acidity of tomato fruits.

Irrigation levels (I) Discharge rate Fresh and saline water Acidity, %
(Q), lph ratios (T)
F:S

0.6 1.2 100:0 0.695

75:25 0.708

50:50 0.735

25:75 0.789

0:100 0.801

I1Q1 Mean 0.746

2.4 100:0 0.674

75:25 0.710

50:50 0.727

25:75 0.741

0:100 0.785

I1Q2 Mean 0.727

4.2 100:0 0.651

75:25 0.668

50:50 0.697

25:75 0.725

0:100 0.745

I1Q3 Mean 0.697

I1 Mean 0.723
204 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

0.8 1.2 100:0 0.684

75:25 0.733
50:50 0.755
25:75 0.783
0:100 0.818
I2Q1 Mean 0.755
2.4 100:0 0.668
75:25 0.698
50:50 0.752
25:75 0.778
0:100 0.795
I2Q2 Mean 0.738
4.2 100:0 0.658
75:25 0.687
50:50 0.720
25:75 0.769
0:100 0.797
I2Q3 Mean 0.726
I2 Mean 0.740
1 1.2 100:0 0.715
75:25 0.742
50:50 0.758
25:75 0.769
0:100 0.812
I3Q1 Mean 0.759
2.4 100:0 0.683
75:25 0.723
50:50 0.738
25:75 0.744
0:100 0.754
I3Q2 Mean 0.728
Simulation of Salt Distribution and Moisture Wetting Patterns 205

4.2 100:0 0.689

75:25 0.705

50:50 0.726

25:75 0.775

0:100 0.797

I3Q3 Mean 0.739

I3 Mean 0.742

Grand Mean 0.735

LSD (T) 0.051

LSD (Q) NS

LSD (I) NS

LSD (IxT) NS

LSD (QxT) NS

LSD (IxQxT) NS

TABLE 13.9 Effects of Irrigation Levels, Discharge Rate and Fresh and Saline Water Ratios
(Salinity Levels) on Ascorbic Acid of Tomato Fruits

Irrigation levels (I) Discharge rate (Q), Fresh and saline water Ascorbic acid,
lph ratios (T) mg/100 g

0.6 1.2 100:0 29.23

75:25 32.76

50:50 34.98

25:75 35.08

0:100 36.80

I1Q1 Mean 33.8

206 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

2.4 100:0 30.18

75:25 31.33

50:50 35.10

25:75 38.04

0:100 40.04

I1Q2 Mean 34.9

4.2 100:0 31.55

75:25 31.85

50:50 32.63

25:75 38.35

0:100 40.06

I1Q3 Mean 34.9

Average 34.5

0.8 1.2 100:0 31.48

75:25 33.23

50:50 34.54

25:75 37.86

0:100 40.68

I2Q1 Mean 35.6

2.4 100:0 32.36

75:25 32.76

50:50 33.15

25:75 35.18

0:100 37.93

I2Q2 Mean 34.3

4.2 100:0 24.78

75:25 30.21

50:50 32.13

25:75 35.20

0:100 37.44
Simulation of Salt Distribution and Moisture Wetting Patterns 207

I2Q3 Mean 32.0

I2 Mean 33.1

1 1.2 100:0 30.78

75:25 37.16

50:50 37.41

25:75 38.85

0:100 38.98

I3Q1 Mean 36.6

2.4 100:0 32.89

75:25 35.80

50:50 37.23

25:75 38.65

0:100 40.89

I3Q2 Mean 37.1

4.2 100:0 28.88

75:25 35.06

50:50 36.75

25:75 37.44

0:100 39.36

I3Q3 Mean 35.5

I3 Mean 36.4

Grand Mean 34.7

LSD (T) 3.19

LSD (Q) NS

LSD (I) NS

LSD (IxT) NS

LSD (QxT) NS

LSD (IxQxT) NS
208 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

13.4.2.3 ASCORBIC ACID

The effects of salinity levels, irrigation levels and discharge rate of emitters on
ascorbic acid of tomato fruits are presented in Table 13.9. It is clear in Table 13.9
that the ascorbic acid increased with increase in salinity levels of irrigated water
significantly. The similar trend was reported by Sandra et al. [95]. The average value
of ascorbic acid was minimum of 30.23 mg/100 g under treatment T1 and maximum
of 39.87 mg/100 g under T5 treatment. The values of T1 and T2 were par with each
other. Also T3 andT4 were par with each other. It was observed that there was no
significant effect in ascorbic acid when applying irrigation at different discharge
rates and with different irrigation levels. It can be concluded that the ascorbic acid
decreased with increase in discharge rate of emitters. The maximum ascorbic acid
was found when irrigated with discharge rate of Q1 followed by Q2 and Q3.

13.4.2.4 PH OF TOMATO FRUITS

It can be observed from Table 13.10 and Fig. 13.21 that the pH decreased with in-
crease in salinity levels, which confirm the finding of Yurtseven et al. [115]. The pH
also increased with increasing the discharge rates. The maximum and minimum pH
were 4.29 and 3.89 in I2Q1T1 and I3Q3T5 treatment, respectively. The pH below
4.5 is desirable to prevent proliferation microorganisms in processed products [36].

TABLE 13.10 pH of Tomato Fruit Under Different Salinity Ratios (Salinity Levels) With
Different Discharge Rate and Irrigation Levels

Treat- I1 I2 I3
ment
Q1 Q2 Q3 Mean Q1 Q2 Q3 Mean Q1 Q2 Q3 Mean

T1 4.13 4.17 4.19 4.16 4.06 4.2 4.29 4.18 4.09 4.12 4.1 4.10

T2 4.06 4.05 4.09 4.07 4.12 4.21 4.08 4.14 4.12 4.23 4.12 4.16

T3 4.06 4.1 4.09 4.08 4.08 4.1 4.02 4.07 4.04 4.03 4.02 4.03

T4 4 4.01 3.97 3.99 4.01 4 4.03 4.01 4.08 4.04 4.05 4.06

T5 3.98 3.95 3.92 3.95 3.96 3.97 3.92 3.95 3.95 3.91 3.89 3.92

Mean 4.05 4.06 4.05 4.05 4.05 4.1 4.07 4.07 4.06 4.07 4.04 4.05
Simulation of Salt Distribution and Moisture Wetting Patterns 209

FIGURE 13.21 pH of tomato fruits under different salinity ratios of irrigation water,
discharge rates of emitters and irrigation levels.

13.4.2.5 FIRMNESS OF TOMATO FRUITS

The firmness of tomato fruits was determined with the help of textural analyzer.
Table 13.11 shows data of firmness of tomato fruits. It can be observed that the firm-
ness of fruits increased with increase in salinity treatment up to 50:50 ratio. After
that it again decreased. The firmness of 808 g was maximum in T3 treatment and
minimum of 314.29 and 334.70 in T1 and T2 treatments, respectively. These results
are in line with Sharaf and Hobson [98]. The firmness in T3 treatment significantly
differs from T1, T2, T4 and T5. The firmness in T1 and T2 treatment was par with
each other. The firmness of fruits decreased when discharge rate irrigation increased
from Q1 to Q3. The overall firmness was better under I1Q1T3 and lowest firmness
was found in I3Q3T5.
210 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

TABLE 13.11 Effects of Irrigation Levels, Discharge Rate and Fresh and Saline Water
Ratios (Salinity Levels) on Average Firmness of Tomato Fruits
Irrigation levels (I) Discharge rate Fresh and saline Firmness (g)
(Q), lph water ratios (T)
F:S
0.6 1.2 100:0 349.64
75:25 253.84
50:50 986.80
25:75 539.41
0:100 470.58
I1Q1 Mean 520.053
2.4 100:0 318.59
75:25 335.98
50:50 996.42
25:75 421.82
0:100 364.65
I1Q2 Mean 487.493
4.2 100:0 247.00
75:25 274.66
50:50 645.38
25:75 326.32
0:100 376.34
I1Q3 Mean 373.940
I1 Mean 460.495
0.8 1.2 100:0 225.64
75:25 475.25
50:50 811.36
25:75 440.69
0:100 288.51
I2Q1 Mean 448.291
Simulation of Salt Distribution and Moisture Wetting Patterns 211

2.4 100:0 371.00

75:25 374.96
50:50 709.13
25:75 480.77
0:100 375.29
I2Q2 Mean 462.228
4.2 100:0 423.10
75:25 357.51
50:50 754.78
25:75 644.73
0:100 345.68
I2Q3 Mean 505.158
I2 Mean 471.892
1 1.2 100:0 305.39
75:25 374.63
50:50 688.95
25:75 564.46
0:100 452.33
I3Q1 Mean 477.149
2.4 100:0 278.98
75:25 219.55
50:50 826.59
25:75 414.63
0:100 434.86
I3Q2 Mean 434.923
4.2 100:0 309.31
75:25 346.00
50:50 852.62
25:75 453.12
0:100 351.50
I3Q3 Mean 462.509
212 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

I3 Mean 458.193
Grand Mean 463.527
LSD (T) 55.98
LSD (Q) NS
LSD (I) NS
LSD (IxQ) 75.11
LSD (QxT) 96.96
LSD (IxQxT) 167.94

13.4.3 SIMULATION OF YIELD, MOISTURE AND SALT

DISTRIBUTION
SALTMED model developed by Ragab [77] was used for simulating the soil
moisture and salt distribution in the soil profile irrigated with saline water for
tomato crop. The input data used for the model were climate data, irrigation
data, crop parameter and soil parameter. The climate data at the site included:
maximum and minimum temperature, relative humidity, sunshine hours, and
wind speed and pan evaporation data. Sunshine hours and radiation data were
obtained from observatory of Regional fruit research station, Abohar. Following
assumptions were made to simulate the model:
1. the soil is isotropic and homogeneous porous medium and Darcy’s law is
applicable in both saturated and unsaturated zones.
2. the soil has initially uniform water and salt content.
3. the rooting depth follows the same pattern as the crop coefficient.
The model is calibrated for soil moisture, soil salinity and yield. It is decided
first to calibrate the model against the final yield as yield depends on soil moisture
and salinity in the soil profile. The model was calibrated at 100% fresh water treat-
ments. The following data were used in the calibration:
1. Meteorological data were obtained from the Regional fruit research station,
Abohar and also from the mini observatory at CIPHET, Abohar.
2. The irrigation data showing measurement of average flow rate of emitters
during each irrigation, duration of each irrigation and salinity of applied
water during each irrigation. The data were collected from the field experi-
ment.
3. Crop parameters: maximum plant height, rooting depth, length of each
growth stage, planting date, harvesting date were based on the direct field
measurements. The crop coefficient values such as Kc, Kcb and Fc were
based on FAO 56 [7] paper for tomato crop. The η50 and p50 parameters
were obtained from FAO 48 [87], Rhoades [86].
Simulation of Salt Distribution and Moisture Wetting Patterns 213

4. Soil parameters data such as saturated and unsaturated hydraulic conduc-

tivity were obtained from the field and laboratory experiments. Initial soil
moisture and salinity profile were based on the data collected in the field
before start of experiment.
5. Model parameters such as diffusion coefficient, tortuosities were taken from
model data base. Plant position (Dripper position) was selected as per the
experiment layout, which is fixed near to plant. The numbers of cells in
vertical and horizontal directions were taken according to Ragab [77]. The
calculations were performed over 20 cells in horizontal and 40 cells in ver-
tical direction. Thus, each cell is 2.5×2.5 cm2 (i.e., field domain is 100×50
cm2).
During calibration, the model requires daily values of plant parameters such
as crop coefficient kc and kcb and rooting depth etc. These parameters were not
available on daily basis. But, the model generates the daily values by interpolation
between the values given for each growth stage. The interpolated calibrated crop
coefficient kc and kcb and rooting depth are shown in Fig. 13.22. Once all input
data of meteorology, irrigation, crop, soil and model have been entered, the calibra-
tion process starts. The process of calibration was carried out: First using initial
measured values of crop and soil parameters; and then by gradually changing the
values of crop parameters one at a time until calibrated yield equal or near equal to
observed one. The calibration was carried out for fresh water treatment T1I2Q1 as it
gives the maximum yield. The initial crop and soil parameters taken for calibration
are shown in Table 13.12. The Fig. 13.23 shows the calibration against crop yield
under drip irrigation for the tomato crop under T1Q1 treatment at experimental site.

FIGURE 13.22 Calibrated crop parameters for tomato crop.

214 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

TABLE 13.12 Initial Crop and Soil Parameters

Parameters Crop and soil parameters Values

Crop Kc (crop coefficient) Initial 0.6

Mid 1.2

End 0.8

Kcb (crop transpiration coefficient) Initial 0.18

Mid 1.1

End 0.7

Maximum crop height, cm 80

Maximum depth of crop, cm 80

Soil Saturated moisture content, m3/m3 0.41

Pore size distribution index 0.332

FIGURE 13.23 Crop yield obtained by calibration with 100% fresh water with drip
irrigation.

In Fig. 13.22, the center line represents the ratio of actual to potential water
uptake. On the harvest day, cumulative ratio of actual to potential water uptake is
Simulation of Salt Distribution and Moisture Wetting Patterns 215

used as the reduction factor. When this reduction factor if multiplied by maximum
yield obtained for this tomato crop, one can obtain the actual yield (Section 13.3 in
this chapter). The calibrated yield for drip irrigation under discharge rate of emitter
Q1 (1.2 lph) was observed as 60 t/ha. These values were identical to the maximum
observed yield, that is, 63.41 t/ha for same treatment with the deviation of 5.38%.
It was seen from the Fig. 13.23 that the simulated yield was not subjected to water
stress, as actual and calibrated yield were found nearly equal to observed one.

13.4.3.1 VALIDATION OF THE MODEL FOR CROP YIELD

With the calibrated crop and soil parameters, the model predicted the crop yield
under different treatment of salinity ratios (T1 to T5) and the discharge rates (Q1,
Q2 and Q3) over the season for three irrigation levels (I1, I2, I3). The predicted
and observed yield data are presented in Tables 13.13–13.15. It can be seen from
the Table 13.13 that at irrigation level I1, the relative error was minimum of 1.36%
in the treatment T1 and maximum of 23.62% was in treatment T5 (irrigation with
100% saline water). The positive difference in deviation in T1, T2, T4 and T5 means
that observed yield is more than the predicted yield. In the observed yield, the yield
decreased with increase in rate of discharge of emitters within the treatments except
in T1Q2, T4Q2 and T5Q2. The simulated yield decreased with increase in discharge
rate of emitters from 1.2 lph to 4.2 lph in each treatment. The average relative er-
ror among all salinity treatments and discharge rates under irrigation level I1 was
10.86%.
In irrigation level I2 (Table 13.14), the minimum and maximum relative error of
−0.82 and 17.32% was in T1Q2 and T4Q1 treatment. The observed and simulated
yield was decreased with increase in salinity treatments. The average relative error
was 8.79% considering all discharge rates and salinity treatments.
The relative error in observed and simulated yield under drip irrigation with
different mixing ratios of saline and fresh water and discharge rates of emitters in
I3 are presented in Table 13.15. It was found that the predicted and observed yield
was decreased with increase in salinity of irrigation water. In irrigation level I3, the
minimum and maximum relative error of 1.56 and 14.90 was for T2Q2 and T5Q3,
respectively. The average relative error under I3 level was 8.12% considering all
T-Q combinations.
The performance of the model tested by regression analysis for crop yield be-
tween the observed and simulated yield for all irrigation and discharge rate levels.
The good agreement was found with correlation coefficient r2 of 0.896 and is shown
in Fig. 13.24. The graphical representation of the actual and potential water uptake
(actual yield obtained by the model for treatment T2Q1 in irrigation level I1 and
level I3) are presented in Figs. 13.25 and 13.26 that indicates predicted yield of 48 t/
ha in I1 and 55 t/ha in I3, respectively. The observed and predicted yield under drip
216 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

irrigation with different ratios of salinity of water and discharge rates at irrigation
level I1, I2 and I3 are presented in Figs. 13.27 to 13.29.

TABLE 13.13 Relative Error in Observed and Simulated Yield Under Drip Irrigation with
Different Mixing Ratios of Saline and Fresh Water and Discharge Rates of Emitters in I1

Simulated Observed Relative

Treatment Discharge rate
yield yield error
Q1 53.7 54.44 1.36
Q2 53.23 55.53 4.14
T1 Q3 53 55.03 3.69
Q1 47.76 51.2 6.72
Q2 46.85 51 8.14
T2 Q3 44.3 45.12 1.82
Q1 43.2 48.20 10.37
Q2 42.53 48.59 12.47
T3 Q3 40.58 43.66 7.05
Q1 35.56 45.27 21.45
Q2 33.32 40.73 18.19
T4 Q3 31.78 40.84 22.18
Q1 32.23 39.47 18.34
Q2 30.67 31.74 3.37
T5 Q3 28.2 36.92 23.62
ARE 10.86
RMSE 5.60
RRMSE 12.23

TABLE 13.14 Relative Error in Observed and Simulated Yield Under Drip Irrigation With
Different Mixing Ratios of Saline and Fresh Water and Discharge Rates of Emitters in I2

Discharge Simulated Observed Relative

Treatment rate yield yield error

Q1 60 63.41 5.38

Q2 60 59.51 –0.82

T1 Q3 59.72 55.27 –8.05

Simulation of Salt Distribution and Moisture Wetting Patterns 217

Q1 51.57 54.01 4.52

Q2 48.05 56.5 14.96

T2 Q3 46.52 49.72 6.44

Q1 43.86 45.93 4.51

Q2 44.83 43.74 –2.49

T3 Q3 42.54 44.05 3.43

Q1 36.48 44.14 17.35

Q2 33.41 38.41 13.02

T4 Q3 32.17 38.14 15.65

Q1 33.57 37.23 9.83

Q2 31.27 36.59 14.54

T5 Q3 30.2 33.89 10.89

ARE 8.79

RMSE 4.48

RRMSE 9.60

TABLE 13.15 Relative Error in Observed and Simulated Yield Under Drip Irrigation with
Different Mixing Ratios of Saline and Fresh Water and Discharge Rates of Emitters in I3

Predicted Observed Relative

Treatment Discharge rate yield yield error

Q1 58.78 62.94 6.61

Q2 60 56.86 –5.52

T1 Q3 60 55.41 –8.28

Q1 54.75 52.63 –4.03

Q2 52.5 53.33 1.56

T2 Q3 51.1 52.82 3.26

218 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

Q1 50.48 46.33 –8.96

Q2 47.52 45.45 –4.55

T3 Q3 45.31 42.32 –7.07

Q1 38.78 41.7 7.00

Q2 35.84 39.38 8.99

T4 Q3 34.23 39.33 12.97

Q1 33.69 39 13.62

Q2 32.29 37.76 14.49

T5 Q3 30.45 35.78 14.90

ARE 8.12

RMSE 3.83

RRMSE 8.20

FIGURE 13.24 Simulated and observed yield (t/ha) under different treatments.
Simulation of Salt Distribution and Moisture Wetting Patterns 219

FIGURE 13.25 Crop yield predicted by the model for treatment T2Q1 in irrigation level I1.

FIGURE 13.26 Crop yield predicted by the model for treatment T2Q1 in irrigation level I3.
220 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

FIGURE 13.27 Simulated and observed yield under drip irrigation with different salinity
ratios at different discharge rates of emitters at irrigation level I1.

FIGURE 13.28 Simulated and observed yield under drip irrigation with different salinity
ratios at different discharge rates of emitters at irrigation level I2.

FIGURE 13.29 Simulated and observed yield under drip irrigation with different salinity
ratios at different discharge rates of emitters at irrigation level I3.
Simulation of Salt Distribution and Moisture Wetting Patterns 221

13.4.4 SIMULATION OF THE SOIL MOISTURE DISTRIBUTION

IN SOIL PROFILE
The model runs for simulating the soil moisture and salt distribution with initial
moisture content and with initial salinity in the soil profile which was measured
layer wise in the field on first day of start of model. The model run for treatment
T1Q1 as the same treatment was used for calibrating the yield. The model gave the
soil moisture and salinity on daily basis in the grid form within the domain. The
model runs from first day to 65 days. On 65th day the observed and simulated values
of soil moisture were compared. At each grid point, the relative error between the
observed and simulated was calculated.
In TiQ1, it was observed that the relative error was minimum 2.91% at 30 cm
depth and 30 cm away from drippers. The maximum relative error was 18.87% at
60 cm depth and 60 cm away from dripper. The overall average relative error was
7.38% during calibration (Table 13.16).

TABLE 13.16 Simulated and Observed Values of Soil Moisture During Calibration in
T1Q1 Treatment

Depth P O P O RE, P O P O RE, %

cm RE, % % RE, %
0 0 10 cm 10 cm 20 20 cm 30 30 cm
cm cm cm cm

10 0.251 0.245 –2.657 0.250 0.239 –4.471 0.247 0.237 –4.177 0.242 0.235 –3.284

20 0.249 0.240 –3.411 0.248 0.230 –7.796 0.245 0.223 –9.735 0.240 0.222 –8.049

30 0.242 0.233 –3.777 0.241 0.232 –3.881 0.239 0.232 –3.019 0.237 0.230 –2.913

40 0.236 0.284 16.886 0.236 0.276 14.608 0.235 0.276 14.861 0.235 0.214 –9.876

60 0.323 0.345 6.360 0.323 0.345 6.357 0.323 0.332 2.668 0.324 0.399 18.868

P: predicted O: observed

13.4.5 VALIDATION FOR SOIL MOISTURE DISTRIBUTION

The calibrated parameter was used to generate the data of the soil moisture and
salinity distribution. The data of soil moisture and EC in the soil profile observed
depth wise on 65th day was used as initial value in each treatment T-Q combina-
tions for predicting the soil moisture and EC on 7th April 2009 by running the model
for one month considering start of simulation date as 65th (6th March 2009). The
observed and simulated values of soil moisture in soil profile, relative error and
average relative error in T-Q combinations treatments for irrigation level I2 were
determined during validation as on 7th April 2009.
222 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

13.4.5.1 SOIL MOISTURE DISTRIBUTION UNDER IRRIGATION

WITH FRESH WATER
It can be observed from Fig. 13.30 that the observed soil moisture (m3/m3) decreased
with increase in the depth up to 30 cm depth and then it increased with the depth.
The soil moisture decreased along the lateral distance from the emitter. The soil
moisture in soil profile varied from 0.213 to 0.424. When irrigation is applied at
Q1 discharge rate, the soil moisture of 0.22 was observed near the emitter source
up to lateral distance of 20 cm and vertical distance of about 20 cm. When water
was applied at discharge Q2, the moisture was spread laterally more as compared
to Q1. The soil moisture was 0.23 up to 10 cm depth. In Q3, moisture content was
spread laterally more near the surface as compared to Q1 and Q2. The average soil
moisture of 0.25 was at the surface near to emitter source and along lateral distance
of 25 cm. A close match was found between the observed and predicted values of
moisture content in the soil profile in the upper 20–40 cm layer compared to lower
profiles. In the lower profiles, moisture content increased because the water table at
the experimental site was at 120 cm depth. The capillary action causes to increase
the moisture up to depth of 60 cm from the surface.

13.4.5.2 SOIL MOISTURE DISTRIBUTION UNDER 75:25

(FRESH:SALINE WATER, T2) TREATMENT
It was observed from Fig. 13.31 that in treatment T2 for discharge rates Q1, Q2 and
Q3, the soil moisture decreased with depth vertically up to 30 cm depth and then it
increased with depth. The soil moisture was decreased with increase in lateral dis-
tance. In T2 treatment, the soil moisture varied from 0.212 to 0.42. The minimum
relative error of −1.052% was in Q3 at 30 cm depth below the emitter. The moisture
accumulation was more in Q1 as compared to Q2 and Q3 at lower depth. The soil
moisture at 30 cm depth and 10 cm distance was 0.23 in Q1. The discharge rate has
its effect on moisture spreading. The low discharge rate emitters reduce formation
of the saturated zone below the emitters. The moisture at depth of 60 cm was in-
creased due to capillary action. The higher discharge rate emitter spreads water on
the surface having shallow depth. A close match was found between the observed
and predicted values of soil moisture in soil profile up to 40 cm depth with minimum
deviation of 1.3% in Q1 and maximum deviation of 10.04% in Q2.
Simulation of Salt Distribution and Moisture Wetting Patterns 223

FIGURE 13.30 Observed (dotted) and predicted (solid) contours of soil moisture (m3/m3)
distribution profile under: (a) Q1, (b) Q2, and (c) Q3 for treatment T1 on 97th days after
transplanting (DAT).

FIGURE 13.31 Observed (dotted) and predicted (solid) contours of moisture distribution
profile under: (a) Q1, (b) Q2, and (c) Q3 for treatment T2 on 97th DAT.
224 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

FIGURE 13.32 Observed (dotted) and predicted (solid) contours of moisture distribution
profile under: (a) Q1, (b) Q2, and (c) Q3 discharge rates, for treatment T3 on 97th DAT.

FIGURE 13.33 Observed (dotted) and predicted (solid) contours of moisture distribution
profile under: (a) Q1, (b) Q2, and (c) Q3 discharge rates for treatment T4 on 97th DAT.
Simulation of Salt Distribution and Moisture Wetting Patterns 225

FIGURE 13.34 Observed (dotted) and predicted (solid) contours of moisture distribution
profile under: (a) Q1, (b) Q2, and (c) Q3 discharge rates for treatment T5 on 97th DAT.

13.4.5.3 SOIL MOISTURE DISTRIBUTION AT 50:50 RATIO

(FRESH:SALINE WATER) TREATMENT
From Fig. 13.32, it was observed that the soil moisture varied from 0.212 and 0.377.
The maximum soil moisture was 0.28 in Q3 discharge rate near emitter source and
up to 10 cm depth compared to Q1 and Q2. In all discharge rates, the soil moisture
was decreased with increase in the depth in soil profile up to 30 cm depth and also
along the lateral distance. The average moisture content in soil profile was more
in Q1 compared to Q2 and Q3. The irrigation water spread laterally more in Q3 as
compared to Q1 and Q2. The minimum deviation of 0.535% in soil moisture was in
Q3 at 30 cm depth below the emitter (at 0 cm lateral distance). The maximum devia-
tion of 23.95% was in Q2 at 30 cm distance and at 60 cm depth.

13.4.5.4 SOIL MOISTURE DISTRIBUTION AT 25:75 (FRESH:SALINE

WATER) RATIO
It was observed from Table 13.16 and Fig. 13.25 that the soil moisture decreased
vertically up to of 40 cm depth in Q1 and Q2. In T4 treatment, soil moisture varied
from 0.211 to 0.344. Then, it was increased with increasing the depth. The soil mois-
ture was decreased along the lateral distance. The moisture was higher at 0–10 cm
depth and 45–60 cm depth. The minimum deviation in soil moisture was 1.607% in
Q2 at 10 cm distance and at 40 cm depth. The maximum deviation of 19.53% was
226 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

at 40 cm depth below the emitter. A close match was found between observed and
predicted soil moisture in Q1 compared to Q2 and Q3.

13.4.5.5 SOIL MOISTURE DISTRIBUTION AT IRRIGATION WITH

100% SALINE WATER
It was observed from Fig. 13.34 that the soil moisture varied from 0.213 to 0.351.
The soil moisture was maximum of 0.274 in Q3 near the emitter source up to 10
cm depth. The soil moisture was decreased with increase in depth and along lateral
distance. The minimum deviation of 1.187% was at Q1 compared to Q2 and Q3. At
lower depth, moisture was observed more due to capillary action of ground water.
The maximum moisture was 0.27 in Q3 discharge rate along 10 cm distance and at
depth of 10 cm.
These results are in close proximity with those of Badr and Taalab [13], Ah
Koon et al. [4] and Hanson et al. [39, 40].

13.4.6 SALINITY DISTRIBUTION IN SOIL PROFILE

The contour maps of observed salinity in soil profile during crop period over the
season at 30 90 and 150 DAT for three discharge rates and for five salinity ratios of
irrigation water are depicted in Figs. 13.35–13.43. It was observed that the salinity
increased laterally with increase in lateral distance and also with increase in depth
below soil surface in all five salinity ratios. At low discharge rates, salts moved
away from the emitter and also below the root zone. Thus, salts concentrate at the
bottom of the root zone in T1 treatment.
In treatment T1, with Q1 discharge rate (Fig. 13.35), the salts concentrated at
bottom at 75 cm depth and 30 cm away from emitter source after 30 DAT. The salt
accumulation in the root zone profile increased with increase in duration of crop. Af-
ter 90 DAT, the EC was increased along the lateral distance. It was increased to 1.2
and 3.5 dS/m after 90 and 150 DAT at 45–60 cm depth, respectively. The same trend
was found in T2 and T3. In T1Q3 after 90 DAT, the salt concentration was about 2–3
dS/m at 10–20 cm depth and 20 cm away from emitters At 15–30 cm depth, more
water moves laterally than vertically, the salts were accumulated at the top within
15 cm and below 60 cm. After 15 cm depth, the EC decreased with increase in depth
up to 60 cm, and then it goes on increasing with depth. The lower discharge rate
keep salts away from emitter at deeper depth compared to higher discharge rates.
At higher salinity ratios, higher discharge rate spreads water on the surface and thus
increase in accumulation of salts on surface due to high evaporation rates. Also salt
accumulation increased in the soil profile with increase in salinity ratio and increase
in duration of crop in each treatment. The results confirm the findings of Hanson et
al. [39].
Simulation of Salt Distribution and Moisture Wetting Patterns 227

Therefore in surface drip irrigation, it can be concluded that soil salinity in-
creased throughout the growing season in all treatments. Saline water irrigation
produced three salinity zones: upper salinity zone near soil surface with high con-
centration; a wide intermediate zone where salinity levels are low near the dripper
at the surface; and lower zone where the salinity levels increases with depth and
with distance from the water source. However, the decreasing the discharge rates of
applied water resulted in lower average salinity profiles and led to reduction in soil
salinity at the end of the growing season compared to higher discharge rates. The
higher discharge rate developed higher salt concentration in the root zone near the
soil surface due to shallow wetted depth promote salt accumulation at the soil sur-
face due to salt build up by evaporation components. This effect showed in the yield
of crop, because lower discharge rate increased the yield as compared to higher
discharge rates. The above results are in line with Badr and Taalab [13].

13.4.7 VALIDATION OF MODEL FOR EC DISTRIBUTION

The model validated for the EC distribution data along with simulated and observed
values, relative error are plotted in Fig. 13.44. It can be observed from Fig. 13.36
that in T1Q1 treatment, the simulated EC and observed EC was decreased with in-
crease in depth up to 45 cm and then it increased up to 75 cm depth and up to 20 cm
lateral distance. The maximum EC in the soil profile was 2.17 dS/m at 30 cm lateral
distance and 75 cm depth. The minimum EC was observed at 45 cm depth and 10
cm away from the emitter. With discharge rate Q2, the maximum EC was observed
at 75 cm depth below the emitter. The EC goes on increasing with increasing the
lateral distance on the surface. The salts were accumulated at 30 cm depth and up
to 20 cm lateral distance. With Q3 discharge rate, maximum EC was 30 cm depth
below the emitter (0 cm lateral distance) because at Q3 water spreads laterally more
than vertically, the soil moisture with discharge rate Q3 remains at shallow depth.
In T2 treatment (Fig. 13.45) with discharge rate Q1, the maximum EC was in
the soil profile at 75 cm below the emitter. The salinity was increased with increase
in distance laterally up to 20 cm distance. With Q2 discharge rate, the maximum
EC of 7.8 dS/m was at 75 cm depth and 30 cm away from the emitter source. In
Q3 discharge rate, the maximum EC of 5.98 dS/m was at 75 cm depth and 20 cm
distance from emitter.
In T3 treatment (Fig. 13.46) with discharge rate Q1, the maximum EC of 11.65
dS/m was at 75 cm depth. The EC observed values were decreased with increase in
the lateral distance. With Q2 discharge rate, the maximum EC of 11.43 was at 75
cm depth below the emitter. The EC was increased with increasing the depth in soil
profile. With Q3 discharge rate, the maximum EC of 7.93 dS/m was at 75 cm depth
at 20 cm distance.
In T4 treatment (Fig. 13.47) with discharge rate Q1, it was observed that the EC
was decreased with increase in depth up to 45 cm depth and again it increased with
228 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

depth up to 75 cm. The maximum EC of 12.34 dS/m was at 20 cm distance and 75

cm depth. At Q2 discharge rate, the same trend was observed as Q1 and it was maxi-
mum of 12.62 dS/m at 75 cm depth below the emitter. With increase in the discharge
rate Q3, EC increased along the lateral distance up to 20 cm and again it decreased
up to 30 cm. The maximum EC of 12.33 dS/m was at 75 cm depth, as the salts are
concentrated at 75 cm depth.
In T5 treatment (Fig. 13.48) with discharge rate Q1, it was observed that EC
decreased with increase in depth up to 45 cm depth and again it increased with depth
up to 75 cm. The maximum of EC of 22.25 dS/m was at 20 cm distance and 75 cm
depth. At Q2 discharge rate, the same trend was observed as Q1 and maximum ob-
served EC of soil 22.35 dS/m was at 30 cm distance and 75 cm depth. With increas-
ing discharge rate Q3, the EC increased along the lateral distance at depth of 75 cm.
It can be concluded that the salts were concentrated at top of soil surface due
to high evaporative demand. In between, salt concentration was decreased with in-
crease in soil depth. At bottom, salts increased with increase in depth. These findings
are in close proximity with those of Hanson et al. [38] and Badr and Taalab [13].

FIGURE 13.35 Observed salinity distribution in soil profile during crop period in T1Q1
treatment: (a) 30 DAT, (b) 90 DAT, and (c) 150 DAT.
Simulation of Salt Distribution and Moisture Wetting Patterns 229

FIGURE 13.36 Observed Salinity distribution in soil profile during crop period in T1Q2
treatment: (a) 30 DAT, (b) 90 DAT, and (c) 150 DAT.

FIGURE 13.37 Observed Salinity distribution in soil profile during crop period in T1Q3
treatment: (a) 30 DAT, (b) 90 DAT, and (c) 150 DAT.
230 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

FIGURE 13.38 Observed salinity distribution in soil profile during crop period in T2Q1
treatment: (a) 30 DAT, (b) 90 DAT, and (c) 150 DAT.

FIGURE 13.39 Salinity distribution in soil profile during crop period in T2Q2 treatment
after: (a) 30 DAT, (b) 90 DAT, and (c) 150 DAT.
Simulation of Salt Distribution and Moisture Wetting Patterns 231

FIGURE 13.40 Salinity distribution in soil profile during crop period in T2Q3 treatment
after: (a) 30 DAT, (b) 90 DAT, and (c) 150 DAT.

FIGURE 13.41 Salinity distribution in soil profile during crop period in T3Q1 treatment:
(a) 30 DAT, (b) 90 DAT, and (c) 150 DAT.
232 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

FIGURE 13.42 Salinity distribution in soil profile during crop period in T3Q2 treatment
after: (a) 30 DAT, (b) 90 DAT, and (c) 150 DAT.

FIGURE 13.43 Salinity distribution in soil profile during crop period in T3Q3 treatment
after: (a) 30 DAT (b) 90 DAT (c) 150 DAT.
Simulation of Salt Distribution and Moisture Wetting Patterns 233

FIGURE 13.44 Observed (dotted) and predicted (thick) contours of soil salinity profile
under: (a) Q1, (b) Q2, and (c) Q3 discharge rates on 97th day for treatment T1.

FIGURE 13.45 Observed (dotted) and predicted (thick) contours of soil salinity profile
under: (a) Q1, (b) Q2, and (c) Q3 discharge rates on 97th day for treatment T2.
234 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

FIGURE 13.46 Observed (dotted) and predicted (thick) contours of soil salinity profile
under: (a) Q1, (b) Q2, and (c) Q3 discharge rates on 97th day for treatment T3.

FIGURE 13.47 Observed (dotted) and predicted (thick) contours of soil salinity profile
under: (a) Q1, (b) Q2, and (c) Q3 discharge rates on 97th day for treatment T4.
Simulation of Salt Distribution and Moisture Wetting Patterns 235

FIGURE 13.48 Observed (dotted) and predicted (thick) contours of soil salinity profile
under: (a) Q1, (b) Q2, and (c) Q3 discharge rates on 97th day for treatment T5.

13.4.8 TESTING OF GOODNESS OF FIT OF MODEL

To evaluate the model performance, the average relative error between the observed
and simulated values of soil moisture and salinity were calculated and these are
given in Tables 13.17 and 13.18, respectively. The performance of the model was
also tested by regression analysis between the observed and simulated moisture and
salinity in the profile (Figs. 13.49 and 13.50), respectively. The average relative
error between simulated and observed values of soil moisture in soil profile varied
from 7.57 to 14.64, RMSE varied from 0.0269 to 0.0517, and RRMSE varied from
10.22 to 18.68 with R2 = 0.735. The average relative error between simulated and
observed values of salinity (EC) in soil profile varied from 12.68 to 21.22, RMSE
varied from 0.248 to 1.24 and RRMSE varied from 7.65 to 27.01% good agreement
with R2 = 0.928.
236 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

TABLE 13.17 Average Relative Error, RMSE and RRMSE Between the Simulated and
Observed Values of Moisture Content in the Soil Profile During Validation

Treatments Average relative error RMSE RRMSE

T1Q1 10.63 0.0313 12.63

T1Q2 13.50 0.0390 15.65

T1Q3 9.69 0.0269 10.22

T2Q1 7.57 0.0287 10.91

T2Q2 7.63 0.0288 11.17

T2Q3 11.04 0.0424 15.92

T3Q1 7.67 0.0296 11.15

T3Q2 9.21 0.036 14.15

T3Q3 14.15 0.0517 17.94

T4Q1 12.06 0.0479 18.68

T4Q2 13.05 0.044 16.26

T4Q3 14.64 0.0512 18.04

T5Q1 9.84 0.0475 18.38

T5Q2 11.71 0.0485 17.96

T5Q3 13.05 0.0493 17.72

Overall 11.03 0.040 15.12

TABLE 13.18 Average Relative Error, RMSE and RRMSE Between the Simulated and
Observed Values of Salinity (Ec) in the Soil Profile During Validation

Treatments Average relative error RMSE RRMSE

T1Q1 17.19 0.354 24.83
T1Q2 16.02 0.248 18.48
T1Q3 18.92 0.317 20.97
T2Q1 17.88 0.349 8.28
T2Q2 17.48 0.424 10.34
T2Q3 18.09 0.511 12.49
T3Q1 16.75 0.453 10.56
Simulation of Salt Distribution and Moisture Wetting Patterns 237

T3Q2 17.91 0.478 11.84

T3Q3 14.20 0.323 7.65
T4Q1 17.93 1.17 25.43
T4Q2 18.35 0.727 16.02
T4Q3 12.68 0.493 10.91
T5Q1 15.21 0.642 12.87
T5Q2 17.67 1.05 22.52
T5Q3 21.22 1.24 27.01
Overall 17.16 0.585 16.01

FIGUR 13.49 Observed and simulated values of soil moisture for all different salinity and
discharge rate treatments.

FIGURE 13.50 Observed and simulated values of EC for different salinity and discharge
rate treatments.
238 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

13.4.9 INTERPRETATION OF STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF YIELD

DATA
The observed yield data was statistically analyzed. The ANOVA are presented in
Appendix B. It was found that there was significant difference in discharge rate of
emitters on yield of crop. Also, the interaction IxQxT was found significant. The
significant difference was found between the each salinity of irrigation water treat-
ments. The best IxQxT in each salinity treatments was taken for comparing the yield
of crop along with the quality parameters of the tomato and these are presented in
Table 13.20.

TABLE 13.19 Yield and Quality Parameters of Tomato With Best Combinations of
Discharge Rates and Irrigation Levels Under Different Salinity of Water Treatments

Best Treatment Yield WUE Decrease TSS Acidity Ascorbic

in yield acid

t/ha t/ha-cm % °Brix % mg/100 g

T1I2Q1 63.41 1.56 - 5.5 0.684 31.48

(0.38 ds/m)

T2I2Q2 56.49 1.14 10.91 5.9 0.698 32.76

(6.30 dS/m)

T3I1Q2 48.56 1.37 23.38 6.2 0.737 35.10

(9.1 dS/m)

T4I1Q1 45.26 1.27 28.62 6.5 0.789 35.08

(14.7 dS/m)

T5I1Q1 39.47 1.11 37.75 6.9 0.801 36.80

(19.5 dS/m)

Best treatment: T1I2Q1, (0.38 ds/m)

It was observed from Table 13.19 that the best treatment among all salinity treat-
ments was T1I2Q1, which gave maximum yield. The WUE under best treatment in
each salinity shows that the maximum WUE was in T1 followed by T3, T4, T2 and
T5.
When fresh water is available, the yield got maximum at irrigation level of 0.8
and applying irrigation water with 1.2 discharge rate with WUE of 1.56 t/ha-cm.
The yield is increased with increase in irrigation level from 0.6 to 1.0. The irriga-
tion level 0.8 was found best followed by 1.0 and 0.6. The yield decreased with
Simulation of Salt Distribution and Moisture Wetting Patterns 239

increase in salinity treatments. The quality parameters were increased with increase
in application of saline water. When 100% saline irrigation was applied, there was
about 37.75% yield reduction compared to fresh water but it improved the quality of
tomato fruits. When available irrigation water at EC of 6.3 dS/m, the best yield can
be obtained with irrigation level 0.8 and 2.4 discharge rate of emitters with 10.91%
reduction in yield but reducing the WUE to 26%. The TSS, acidity and ascorbic
acid increased in treatment T2 compared to T1. When the irrigation water at 9.1
salinity was available, I1Q2 combination gave the best yield with reduction in yield
of 23.38% with significant increase in quality parameters compared to T1 reducing
the WUE of 12.17% compared to T1. When the salinity ratios in irrigation water
was at 14.7 dS/m, the I1Q1 combination was best for getting maximum yield with
the given salinity treatment. Therefore, considering the objective in our mind about
yield reduction, WUE and quality, the discharge rate and irrigation levels can be
decided to get maximum yield from availability of different quality of saline water.

13.5 CONCLUSIONS
Based upon this research study, the following specific conclusions are drawn:
1. The average relative error between simulated and observed values of soil
moisture in soil profile varies from 7.57 to 14.64%, RMSE varies from
0.0269 to 0.0517, and RRMSE varies from 10.22 to 18.68% with R2 = 0.735.
The overall average of relative error, RMSE and RRMSE were 11.03%,
0.04 and 15.12%, respectively.
2. The average relative error between simulated and observed values of salin-
ity (EC) in soil profile varies from 12.68 to 21.22, RMSE varies from 0.248
to 1.24 and RRMSE varies from 7.65 to 27.01% with good agreement with
R2 = 0.928. The overall average of relative error, RMSE and RRMSE were
17.16%, 0.585 and 16.01%, respectively.
3. The relative error for crop yield varies from 1.36 to 23.62, 0.82 to 17.32
and 1.56 to 14.90 at irrigation levels I1, I2 and I3, respectively with R2 =
0.893.The average relative error for crop yield was 10.86, 8.79 and 8.12%
in different salinity and discharge rate treatments at irrigation levels I1, I2
and I3, respectively. The RRMSE for crop yield was 12.23, 9.60 and 8.20 at
irrigation level of I1, I2 and I3, respectively.
4. In 100% fresh water treatment with EC of 0.38 dS/m, the yield was maxi-
mum compared to saline water treatment. The maximum yield of 63.41 t/ha
was in fresh water treatment at irrigation level 0.8 and discharge rate of 1.2
lph.
5. If available water is of 6.3 dS/m (with 75:25% of Fresh:Saline), then IW/
CPE ratio of 0.8 and discharge rate of 2.4 lph gave best result. The maxi-
mum yield under this treatment was reduced by 10.91% but gave better
240 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

quality parameters (TSS, acidity and ascorbic acid) compared to 100% fresh
water treatment.
6. In 50:50% (Fresh:Saline) water with EC of 9.1 dS/m, the yield was maxi-
mum at irrigation level 0.6 and discharge rate 2.4 lph. The maximum yield
under this treatment was reduced by 23.38% but quality of tomato was im-
proved compared to T1 and T2.
7. In treatment 25:75% (F:S) T4 with EC of 14.5 dS/m, the yield was maxi-
mum at irrigation level 0.6 and discharge rate 1.2 lph; was reduced by
28.62% compared to 100% fresh water treatment.
8. In 100% saline water treatment (T5) with EC of 19.5 dS/m, the yield was
maximum under irrigation level 0.6 and discharge rate of 1.2 lph or 2.4 lph,
with reduction of 37.75% compared to fresh water treatment.
9. The average plant yield was significantly different among all salinity treat-
ments. The plant yield was reduced by 44.52% under 100% saline water
treatments as compared to 100% fresh water treatment. The plant yield was
reduced by 11.27% when irrigated with 25% saline water as compared to
100% fresh water.
10. The discharge rate of 1.2 lph gave maximum yield when 100% fresh water
used for irrigation compared to 4.2 lph. The 1.2 and 2.4 lph discharge rate
were at par and it can be used for irrigating tomato crop with 100% fresh
water.
11. A lower rate of water application of 1.2 lph reduces the salinity in the soil
profile as compared to higher discharge rates of 2.4 and 4.2 lph, because
the salts accumulate on the periphery of water front outside the root zone of
crop with 1.2 lph discharge rates.
12. TSS was maximum when irrigated with 100% saline water with irrigation
level of 0.6 and discharge rate of 1.2 lph and was minimum under fresh wa-
ter. The TSS of tomato fruit was increased with decrease in irrigation levels
and discharge rates.
13. The average acidity of tomato fruits increased with increase in salinity
treatment and irrigation levels and decreased with increase in discharge
rates. An average acidity of 0.818% was maximum when irrigated with
100% saline water at irrigation level of 0.8 with discharge rate of 1.2 lph
and minimum was 0.689% when irrigated with fresh water at irrigation
level of 1.0 and discharge rate of 4.2 lph.
14. The average value of ascorbic acid was minimum of 30.23 mg/100 g and
was maximum of 39.87 mg/100 g under fresh water and 100% saline water
treatments, respectively. No significant effects were found in ascorbic acid
when irrigation was applied at three different discharge rates.
15. The WUE in tomato crop decreased with increase in salinity ratios/salinity
levels of irrigation water. The maximum and minimum WUE of 1.22 t/ha-cm
and 0.714 t/ha-cm were under treatment T1 and T5, respectively. The WUE
Simulation of Salt Distribution and Moisture Wetting Patterns 241

decreased with increasing irrigation levels from I1 to I3. In 100% fresh water
treatment, maximum WUE of 1.56 t/ha-cm was found when irrigated at ir-
rigation level I1 with discharge rate of 2.4 lph.
It is recommended that if fresh water is available for irrigation, the maximum
yield can be obtained by applying water with discharge rate of 1.2 lph at IW/CPE =
0.8. To get better quality of tomato with reduction in yield of 11% compared to fresh
water, it is recommended that the mixing of 75% fresh and 25% saline water with
EC of 6.3 dS/m can be applied with discharge rate of 2.4 lph and IW/CPE = 0.8.
The increase in salinity ratio increased the quality of tomato but reduced the yield.
Therefore, keeping in mind the availability of both fresh and saline water, these
values of yield reduction and quality of tomato, the discharge rate and IW/CPE ratio
are recommended.

13.6 SUMMARY
Drip irrigation is one of the efficient methods of irrigation, which is especially use-
ful in water scarcity areas with poor quality of irrigation water. The increased use of
drip irrigation improves the sustainability of irrigation system around the world. The
frequent application of water through drip system results in maintenance of high
matric potential and results in better tolerance of crop to irrigation with saline water.
When saline water is applied through drip irrigation, many management practices
need to be modified such as salinity levels, irrigation method and water manage-
ment practices.
Using low quality irrigation water with drip irrigation, prevents possible damage
to the foliage compared to sprinkler irrigation and because of salt accumulated at the
wetting front, soil salinity in the root zone is found near to the initial salinity of the
irrigation water when irrigation water is managed properly. Mathematical models
and laboratory experiment that describe water and solute transport in the soil are
available. However, the soil salinity transport studies at field level are limited. Also,
the water application rate is one of the factors, which determines the soil moisture
and salt distribution around the dripper and related root distribution and plant water
uptake patterns. The discharge rate of emitters as well as salinity levels in irrigation
water has influence on the distribution of soil moisture and salt in the root zone. The
characteristics of soil moisture and salt distribution influence the growth and yield
of crop substantially.
In southwestern Punjab, canal water is mostly used for the irrigation. If canal
water is not sufficient, the tube-well water is used to meet the water requirement
of crop. The quality of subsurface ground water is not very good in this region. In
order to study effects of different salinity levels of irrigation water on yield and
quality of tomato crop, the experiment was conducted at research farm of Central
Institute of Post-Harvest Engineering and Technology (CIPHET), Abohar – India.
The five levels of saline water were used for irrigation with drip system. The saline
242 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

water used for irrigation was prepared by mixing saline (tube-well) and fresh (canal)
water in five different ratios: 100% fresh (T1), 75% Fresh+25% saline (T2), 50%
Fresh+50% saline (T3), 25% fresh+75% saline (T4), and 100% saline water (T5).
The mixed water was applied with three different discharge rates of inline emitters
of 1.2 lph, 2.4 lph and 4.2 lph. The average salinity of irrigation water (ECw) was
measured under different salinity ratios and it was found to be 0.38, 6.30, 9.1, 14.7,
19.5 dS/m in T1, T2, T3, T4 and T5, respectively. The soil moisture and salinity dis-
tribution influenced by different discharge rates of emitters and salinity of irrigation
water during the experimental period were studied.
Tomato hybrid seedlings were transplanted in the field. The seedlings were cov-
ered with polyethylene by low tunnel during winter. The cultural practices as rec-
ommended by PAU, Ludhiana were followed during experimentation. The crop was
irrigated with five different salinity of mixed water. Drip irrigation considered was
a line source as the wetting pattern of tomato plants overlap over each other. The
planar two dimensional flow models were used for simulation. The plant growth
parameters were plant height, percent ground cover, dry matter, plant yield, total
yield under different salinity levels and rate of water application that were recorded
during the growing period. Also, the quality parameters such as TSS, acidity, pH,
ascorbic acid, firmness were studied. The WUE under different salinity and dis-
charge rate of emitters were studied after harvest of crop.
Models can be useful tools in agricultural water management. They cannot only
help in irrigation scheduling and crop water requirement calculations but also can
be used to predict yields and soil salinization. Most of the models were earlier used
for the study are single process oriented. Ragab [77] developed SALTMED model
which uses well established water and solute transport, evapotranspiration and crop
water uptake equations. The evapotranspiration has been calculated using Penman-
Monteith equation. The actual water uptake in the presence of saline water is deter-
mined. The salt and water transport were determined by well-established Richard’s
equation for two-dimensional flows and dispersion convection equation, respective-
ly. The water and solute flow equations were solved numerically using finite differ-
ence explicit scheme in the model itself. SALTMED model was used in the study for
simulating salt and moisture distribution and crop yield. The necessary data required
for simulating and validating salt and moisture distribution in tomato crop was col-
lected through the experiment. The model regime uses climate data files, irrigation
data files, crop data and soil data files. The crop parameters data such as maximum
height, root depth, the values of Kc at different growth periods were collected from
literature and the actually conducting experiment. Soil parameters data such as sat-
urated hydraulic conductivity and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity were based
on field measurement and moisture retention curves based on laboratory measure-
ments. The initial soil moisture and salinity in the soil profile were observed in the
field. The model runs initially with given parameters to get values of simulated soil
moisture and salinity in the soil profile on daily basis.
Simulation of Salt Distribution and Moisture Wetting Patterns 243

The model was calibrated against the final yield under fresh water treatment T1
and discharge rate Q1 as it gave maximum yield. The soil moisture and salt distribu-
tion data were collected during each growth stage for each treatment combinations
in the field. The soil moisture data was calibrated for 65th day for the T1Q1 treat-
ment, which gave the higher yield. It was validated at middle of growth stages at
97th day for soil moisture and salt distribution, respectively. The model was tested
for goodness of fit using relative error (RE), average relative error (ARE), root mean
square error (RMSE) and relative root mean square error (RRMSE).

KEYWORDS
•• acidity
•• arid region
•• ascorbic acid
•• average relative error, ARE
•• canal water
•• Central Institute of Post-Harvest Engineering and Technology, CI-
PHET
•• days after transplanting, DAT
•• discharge rate
•• dry matter
•• emitter
•• firmness
•• fresh water
•• ground cover
•• ground water
•• growing period
•• irrigated agriculture
•• irrigation
•• moisture wetting pattern
•• permeability
•• plant growth parameter
•• plant height
•• plant yield
•• rainfall
•• relative error, RE
244 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

•• relative root mean square error, RRMSE

•• root mean square error, RMSE
•• saline water
•• salt distribution
•• SALTMED model
•• saturated hydraulic conductivity
•• semiarid region
•• sodic water
•• soil moisture
•• soil profile
•• tomato
•• total yield
•• unsaturated hydraulic conductivity
•• water application
•• water scarcity
•• water use efficiency, WUE

REFERENCES
1. Abu-Awwad, A. M. (2001). Influence of different water quantities and qualities on lemon trees
and soil salt distribution at the Jordan Valley. Agri. Water Manage., 52, 53–71.
2. Agrawal, M. C., Khanna, S. S. (1983). Efficient soil and water management in Haryana. Bul-
letin Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar, India. pp. 118.
3. Agrawal, P. N., Purohit, R. C., Singh, J. (2003). Effect of water salinity on tomato under drip
irrigation. Proceedings of 37th ISAE Annual Convention and symposium held at Udaipur, on
January 29–31.
4. Ah-Koon, P. D., Gregory, P. J., Bell, J. P. (1990). Influence of drip irrigation emission rate on
distribution and drainage of water beneath a sugar cane and a fallow plot. Agri. Water Mangt.,
17, 267–282.
5. Ainechee, G. S., Boroomand, N., Behzad, M. (2009). Simulation of Soil Wetting Pattern un-
der Point Source Trickle Irrigation. J. App. Sci., 9, 1170–1174.
6. Alarcon, J. J., Bolarin, M. S., Sanchez-Blanco, M. J., Torrecillas, A. (1994). Growth, yield
and water relations of normal fruital and cherry tomato cultivars irrigated with saline water. J.
Hortic. Sci., 69(2), 283–288.
7. Allen, R. G., Pereira, L. S., Raes, D., Smith, M. (1998). Crop Evapotranspiration, Irrigation
and Drainage paper No. 56. FAO, Rome, Italy, 300 pp.
8. Amor, F., Martinez, V., Cerda, A. and del-Amor, F. M. (1999). Salinity duration and concentra-
tion affect fruit yield and quality, and growth and mineral composition of melon plants grown
in perlite. Hort. Sci., 34(7), 1234–1237.
Simulation of Salt Distribution and Moisture Wetting Patterns 245

9. Amorin, A., Fernandes, P. D., Gheyi, H. R., Azevedo, N. C., Amorim, J. R., Azevedo, N. C.
(2002). Effect of irrigation water salinity and its mode of application on garlic growth and
production. Pesquisa Agropecuaria Brasileira, 37, 167–176.
10. Angelino, G., Ascione, S., Ruggiero, C. (2003). Growth and water relations of sun-cured to-
bacco irrigated with saline water. Beitrage zur Tabakforschung International, 20(6), 394–401.
11. Anonymous, (2008). Package of practices for cultivation of vegetables. pp. 21–27. Punjab
Agricultural University, Ludhiana.
12. Assouline, S. S., Cohen, D. M., Hardod, T., Rosner, M. (2002). Micro drip irrigation for field
crops: effects on yield, water uptake and drainage in sweet corn. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 66, 228–233.
13. Badr, M. A., Hussein, S. D. (2008). Yield and fruit quality of drip-irrigated cantaloupe under
salt stress conditions in an arid environment. Australian J. Basic Applied Sci., 2(1), 141–148.
14. Badr, M. A., Taalab, A. S. (2007). Effect of drip irrigation and discharge rate on water and sol-
ute dynamics in sandy soil and tomato yield. Australian J. Basic Applied Sci., 1(4), 545–552.
15. Beltrao, J., Faria, J., Miguel, G., Chaves, P., Trindade, D., Ferreira-Jones, H. G. (2000). Cab-
bage yield response to salinity of trickle irrigation water. Acta Hort., 537, 641–645.
16. Ben-Asher, J., van, D., Feddes, R. A., Jhorar, R. K. (2006). Irrigation of grapevines under
saline water II: Mathematical simulation of grapevine growth and yield. Agric. Water Mangt.,
83, 22–29.
17. Bielorai, H., Shalhevet, J., Levy, Y. (1978). Grapefruit response to variable salinity in irriga-
tion water and soil. Irrig. Sci., 1, 61–70.
18. Brar, J. S., Singh, B. (1993). Underground irrigation water quality in south-western Punjab. J.
Res. Punjab Agric. Univ. 30(1–2):15–23.
19. Bresler, E. (1975). Two-dimensional transport of solute during nonsteady infiltration for a
trickle source. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 39, 604–613.
20. Cetin, Oner and Demet, U. (2008). The effect of drip line spacing, irrigation regime
and planting geometries of tomato on yield, irrigation WUE and net return. Agric. Water
Mangt., 95, 949–958.
21. Chauhan, S. K., Chauhan, C. P., Minhas, P. S. (2007). Effect of cyclic use and blending of
alkali and good quality waters on soil properties, yield and quality of potato, sunflower and
Sesbania. Irrig. Sci., 26, 81–89.
22. Choudhary, O. P., Ghuman, B. S., Josan, A. S., Bajwa, M. S. (2006). Effect of alternating ir-
rigation with sodic and nonsodic waters on soil properties and sunflower yield. Agric. Water
Mangt., 85, 151–156.
23. Claire, M., Cote, K. L., Bristow, P. B., Charles, W., Freeman, J., Cook, C., Eter, J. T. (2003). Analy-
sis of soil wetting and solute transport in subsurface trickle irrigation. Irrig. Sci. 22, 143–156.
24. Coelha, F. E., Or, D. (1997). Application of analytical solutions for flow from point sources to
drip irrigation management. J. Am. Soc. Soil Sci., 61, 1331–1341.
25. Cote, C. M., Bristow, K. L., Charles W., Cook, C., Thorburn, P. J. (2003). Analysis of soil
wetting and solute transport in subsurface trickle irrigation. (Special issue: Micro-irrigation:
advances in system design and management). Irrig. Sci. 22, 143–156.
26. Cuarter, J., Rafael, F. M. (1999). Tomato and salinity. Scientia Hort., 78, 83–125.
27. Cucci, G., Cantore, V., Boari, F., Caro, A., Ferreira, M. I. (1999). Water salinity and influence
of SAR on yield and quality parameters in tomato. Acta Hort., 537, 663–70.
28. Dam, van, J. C., Stricker, J. N. M., Droogers, P. (1994). Inverse method to determine soil
hydraulic functions from multistep outflow experiments. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 58, 647–652.
29. Dasberg, S., Or, D. (1999). Drip Irrigation. Springer–Verlag, Berlin, 162 pp.
30. Dehghanisanij, H., Yamamoto, T., Inoue, M., Akbari, M. (2007). Water flow and solute trans-
port under drip irrigation in sand dune field. J. Applied Sci., 7(20), 2997–3005.
31. Dunage, V. S., Balakrishnan, P., Patil, M. G. (2009). WUE and economics of tomato using drip
irrigation under net house conditions. Karnataka J. Agric. Sci., 22(1), 133–136.
246 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

32. Fares, A., Parsons, L. R., Wheaton, T. A., Morgan, K. T., Simunek, J., Genuchten, M. T.
(2001). Proceedings of the Florida State Horticultural Society, 114, 22–24.
33. Feng, G. L., Mairi, A., Letey, J. (2003). Evaluation of the model for irrigation management under
saline conditions: II salt distribution and rooting pattern effects. Soil. Sci. Soc. Am. J., 67, 77–80.
34. Franco, J. A., Perez-Saura, P. J., Fernandez, J. A., Parra, M., Garcia, A. L. (1999). Effect of two
irrigation rates on yield, incidence of blossom-end rot, mineral content and free amino acid
levels in tomato cultivated under drip irrigation using saline water. J. Hort. Sci. and Biotech.,
74(4), 430–435.
35. Gawad, G., Abdel, A. A., Gaihbe, A., Kadouri, F. (2005). The effects of saline irrigation water
management and salt tolerant tomato varieties on sustainable production of tomato in Syria
(1999–2002). Agric. Water Mangt., 78, 39–53.
36. Giordano, L. B., Silva, J. B. C., Barbosa, V. (2000). Tomato for industrial processing. EM-
BRAPA, CNPH, Brasilia, pages 36–59.
37. Golabi, M., Naseri, A. A., Kashkuli, H. A. (2009). Evaluation of SALTMED model perfor-
mance in irrigation and drainage of sugarcane farms in Khuzestan province of Iran. J. Food
Agric. Environ., 7(2), 874–880.
38. Hanson, B., Don, M. (2007). The effect of drip line placement on yield and quality of drip-
irrigated processing tomatoes. Irrig. Drainage Syst., 21, 109–118.
39. Hanson, B., Hutmacher, R. B., May, D. M. (2006). Drip irrigation of tomato and cotton under
shallow saline ground water conditions. Irrig. Drain. Syst. 20, 155–175.
40. Hanson, B., May, D. (2004). Effect of subsurface drip irrigation on processing tomato yield,
water table depth, soil salinity and profitability. Agric. Water Mangt., 68, 1–17.
41. Harbi, A. L., Wahb, A. R., Allah, M. A., Omran, A. M., 2009. Effects of salinity and irrigation
management on growth and yield of tomato grown under greenhouse conditions. Acta Hort.,
807(1), 201–206.
42. Hillel, D. (1977). Computer Simulation of Soil Water Dynamics: A Compendium of Recent
Work. IDRC, Ottawa, Canada, 214 pp.
43. Huang, Q., Sheng Xiu, S. Y., Huang, Q., Song, Y. D. (2003). The movement of water and salt
in sandy land after irrigated with saline water. Acta Pedologica Sinica. 40(4), 547–553.
44. Incalcaterra, G., Curatolo, G., Iapichino, G., Pardossi, A., Tognoni, F. (2003). Influence of the
volume and salinity of irrigation water on winter melon (Cucumis melo inodorus Naud) grown
under plastic tunnel. Acta Hort. 609, 423–427.
45. Jain, A. K., Kumar, R. (2007). Water management issues – Punjab, North-West India. Indo-US
Workshop on Innovative E-technologies for Distance Education and Extension/Outreach for
Efficient Water Management, March 5–9, ICRISAT, Patancheru/Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh,
India.
46. Jinguan, W., Renduo, Z., Shengxiang, G. (1999). Modeling salt water movement with water
uptake by roots. Plant and Soil, 215, 7–15.
47. Kadam, J. R., Bhingardeve, S. D., Walke, V. N. (2007). Effect of saline water and fertigation
on the yield contributing parameters of eggplant. International J. Agric. Sci., 3(1), 162–164.
48. Kadam, J. R., Patel, K. B. (2001). Effect of saline water through drip irrigation system on yield
and quality of tomato. J. Mah. Agric. Univ., 26(1), 8–9.
49. Karlberg, L., Per-Erik, J., David, G. (2007). Model-based evaluation of low-cost drip-irriga-
tion systems and management strategies using saline water. Irrig. Sci., 25, 387–399.
50. Karlberg, L., Rockström, J., Annandale, G., Martin, S. (2007). Low-cost drip irrigation: A suit-
able technology for southern Africa, an example with tomatoes using saline irrigation water.
Agric. Water Mangt., 89(1/2):59–70.
51. Khroda, G. (1996). Strain, social and environmental consequences and water management in
the most stressed water systems in Africa. In: Rached, E., Rathgeber, E., D. B. Brooks (Eds.),
Simulation of Salt Distribution and Moisture Wetting Patterns 247

Water Management in Africa and the Middle East – Challenges and opportunities, IDRC,
Canada. pp. 295.
52. Khumoetsile, M., Dani, O. (2000). Root zone solute dynamics under drip irrigation: A review.
Plant and Soil, 163–190.
53. Lei, T., Xiao, J., Mao, J., Wang, J., Liu, Z., Zhang, J., 2003a. Effect of drip irrigation with
saline water on WUE and quality of watermelons. Water Resources Mangt., 17, 395–408.
54. Lei, T., Xiao, J., Mao, J., Wang, J., Liu, Z., Zhang, J., 2003b. Experimental investigation into
effects of drip irrigation with saline groundwater on WUE and quality of honeydew melons in
Hetao Region, Inner Mongolia. Trans. of Chinese Soc. of Agri. Eng., 19(2), 80–84.
55. Li, J., Zhang. J., Rao, M. (2005). Modeling of water flow and nitrate transport under surface
drip fertigation. Trans. of the ASAE, 48(2), 627–637.
56. Li, J., Stanghellini, C. (2001). Analysis of the effect of EC and potential transpiration on veg-
etative growth of tomato. Sci. Hortic., 89(1), 9–21.
57. Lubana, P. P. S., Narda, N. K. (2001). Modeling Soil water dynamics under trickle emitters: A
Review. J. Agric. Eng. Res., 78(3), 217–232.
58. LuDian, Q., Wang, Q., Wang, W. Y., Shao, M. A. (2002). Factors affecting soil water move-
ment and solute transport for film drip irrigation. Acta Pedologica Sinica, 39(6), 794–801.
59. Magan, J. J., Gallardo, M., Thompson, R. B., Lorenzo, P. (2008). Effect of salinity on fruit
yield and quality of tomato grown in soil-less culture in greenhouse in Mediterranean climate
conditions. Agric. Water Mangt., 95, 1041–1055.
60. Malash, N. M., Flowers, T. J., Ragab, R. (2008). Effect of irrigation methods, management
and salinity of irrigation water on tomato yield, soil moisture and salinity distribution. Irrig.
Sci., 26, 313–323.
61. Malash, N. M., Flowers, T. J., Ragab, R. (2005). Effect of irrigation systems and water
management practices using saline and nonsaline water on tomato production. Agric Water
Mangt., 78, 25–38.
62. Malash, N. M., Ghaibeh, A., Abdelkarim, G., Yeo, A., Flowers, T. J., Ragab, R., Cuartero, J.,
Aksoy, U., Anac, D. (2002). Effect of irrigation water salinity on yield and fruit quality of
tomato. Acta Hort. 573, 423–434.
63. Mane, M. S., Ayare, B. L., Magar, S. S. (2008). Principles of Drip Irrigation System. pp. 191.
Jain Brothers Publishers, New Delhi.
64. Meiri, A., Plantz, Z. (1985). Crop production and management under saline conditions. Plant
Soil, 89, 253–271.
65. Minhas, P. S. (1996). Review – saline water management for irrigation in India. Agri. Water
Management, 30, 1–24.
66. Minhas, P. S., Bajwa, M. S. (2001). Use and management of poor quality waters for the rice–
wheat based production system. J. Crop Prod. 4, 273–305.
67. Mitchell, J. P., Shenna, C., Grattan, S. R., May, D. M. (1991). Tomato fruit yield and quality
under water deficit and salinity. J. Am. Soc. Horti. Sci., 116, 215–221.
68. Nagaz, K., Mohamed, M. M., Netij, B. M. (2007). Soil salinity and yield of drip irrigated po-
tato under different irrigation regimes with saline water in arid conditions of southern Tunisia.
J. Agric. 6(2), 324–327.
69. Olympios, C. M., Karapanos, I. C., Lionoudakis, K., Apidianakis, I., Pardossi, A., Serra, G.,
Tognoni, F. (2003). The growth, yield and quality of greenhouse tomatoes in relation to salin-
ity applied at different stages of plant growth. Acta Hort., 609, 313–320.
70. Oron, G., DeMalach, Y., Gillerman, L., David, I., Lurie, S. (2002). Effect of Water Salinity and irriga-
tion technology on yield and quality of Pear. Biosystems Engineering, 81(2), 237–247.
71. Oster, J. D., Jaiwardhane, N. S. (1998). Agricultural management of sodic soils in summer. Naidu,
M. E. (Eds.) Sodic Soils: Distribution, Processes, Management and Environmental Consequences.
Oxford University. 125–147.
248 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

72. Ouda, A. H. (2006). Predicting the effect of water and salinity stresses on wheat yield and
water needs. J. Applied Sci. Res., 2(10), 746–750.
73. Pascale, S., Barbieri, G., Pascale, S., Ferreira, M. I., Jones, H. G. (2000). Yield and quality
of carrot as affected by soil salinity from long-term irrigation with saline water. Acta Hort.,
537(2), 621–628.
74. Pascale, S., Ruggiero, C., Barbieri, G., Pascale, S., Ferreira, M. I., Jones, H. G. (2000). Effects
of irrigating pepper (Capsicum annuum L.) plants with saline water on plant growth, water use
efficiency, and marketable yield. Acta Hort., 537(2), 687–695.
75. Philip, J. R. (1997). Effect of root water extraction on wetted regions from continuous irriga-
tion sources. Irrigation Sci., 17, 127–135.
76. Postel, S., Polak, P., Gonzales, F., Keller, J. (2001). Drip irrigation for small farmers: A new
initiative to alleviate hunger and poverty. Water Int., 26(1), 3–13.
77. Ragab, R. (2002). A holistic generic integrated approach for irrigation, crop and field manage-
ment: the SALTMED model. Environmental Modeling and Software, 17, 345–361.
78. Ragab, R., Malash, N., Gawad, G., Abdel, A. A., Ghaibah, G., 2005a. A holistic generic inte-
grated approach for irrigation, crop and field management, I: The SALTMED model and its
calibration using field data from Egypt and Syria. Agric. Water Management, 78, 67–88.
79. Ragab, R., Malash, N., Gawad, G., Abdel, A. A., Ghaibah, G., 2005b. A holistic generic in-
tegrated approach for irrigation and field management, II: The SALTMED model validation
using field data of five growing seasons from Egypt and Syria. Agric. Water Management, 78,
89–107.
80. Raine, S. R., Meyer, W. S., Rassam, D. W., Hutson, J. L., Cook, F. J. (2007). Soil – water and
solute movement under precision irrigation: knowledge gaps for managing sustainable root
zones. Irrig. Sci. 26, 91–100.
81. Ranganna, B. (1986). Manual of analysis of fruit and vegetable products. Tata McGraw-Hill
Publisher, New Delhi.
82. Rawls, W. J., Brakensiek, D. L. (1989). Estimation of soil water retention and hydraulic prop-
erties. In: Unsaturated Flow in Hydrological Modeling by Morel-Seytoux, H. (Ed.). NATO
ASI Series 275. Kluwer Academic, London, pages 275–300.
83. Razuri, R. L., Linares, D. J., Rosale, J. G., Romero, C. E., Hernandez J. D.,
2005. Validation of the model LEACM to predict the salinity in a soil of the Valley de Quibor,
in the onion crop under drip irrigation. Revista Forestal Latinoamericana, 38, 97–118.
84. Reina-Sanchez, A., Romero-Aranda, R., Cuartero, J. (2005). Plant water uptake and WUE of
greenhouse tomato cultivars irrigated with saline water. Agric. Water Mangt., 78, 54–66.
85. Restuccia, G., Marchese, M., Mauromicale, G., Restuccia, A., Battaglia, M., Malfa, G., Lipari,
V., Noto, G., Leonardi, C. (2003). Yield and fruit quality of tomato grown in greenhouse with
saline irrigation water. Acta Hort., 614(2), 699–704.
86. Rhoades, J. D., Bingham, F. T., Latey, J., Hoffman, G. J., Dedrick, A. R., Pinter, P. J., Peproyl,
J. A. (1989). Use of Saline Drainage Water for Irrigation: Imperial Valley Study. Agric. Water
Mangt., 16, 25–36.
87. Rhoades, J. D., Kandiah, A., Mashak, A. M. (1992). The use of saline waters for crop produc-
tion. Irrigation and Drainage Paper 48. FAO, Rome Italy, pages 150.
88. Roberts, T., Lazarovitch, N., Warrick, A. W., Thompson, T. L. (2009). Modeling salt accu-
mulation with subsurface drip irrigation using HYDRUS-2D. J. Am. Soil. Sci. Soc. 73(1),
233–240.
89. Robinson, R. R. (2007). Drip irrigation water and salt flow model for table grapes in Coachella
Valley, California. Irrig. Drainage Syst., 21, 79–95.
90. Romero-Aranda, R., Sorai, T., Cuartero, J. (2001). Tomato plant–water uptake and plant–wa-
ter relationships under saline growth conditions. Plant Sci., 160, 265–272.
Simulation of Salt Distribution and Moisture Wetting Patterns 249

91. Romero-Aranda, R., Sorai, T., Cuartero, J. (2000). Tomato plant-water uptake and plant-water
relationships under saline growth conditions. Plant Sci., 160, 265–272.
92. Romero-Aranda, R., Sorai, T., Cuartero, J. (2002). Greenhouse mist improves yield of tomato
plants grown under saline conditions. J. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci., 127, 644–648.
93. Rui M A., Machado, Maria R G and Oliveira (2005) Tomato root distribution, yield and fruit
quality under different subsurface drip irrigation regimes and depths. Irrig Sci., 24, 15–24.
94. Samiha, A., El Fetouh, O. (2007). Predicting the effect of water and salinity stresses on yield
and water consumption of wheat. International J. Natural and Eng. Sci., 1, 45–50.
95. Sandra, K., Wilfried, H. S., Johanna, G., Markus, W. (2006). The Influence of different electri-
cal conductivity values in a simplified recirculating soilless system on inner and outer fruit
quality characteristics of tomato. J. Agric. Food Chem., 54(2), 441–448.
96. Shalhevet, J. (1994). Using water of marginal quality for crop production: major issues. Agric.
Water Mangt., 25, 233–269.
97. Shannon, M. C., Grieve, C. M. (2000). Options for using low-quality water for vegetable
crops. Hort. Sci., 35(6), 1058–1062.
98. Sharaf, A. R., Hobson, G. E. (1986). Effect of salinity on the yield and quality of normal and
nonripening mutant tomatoes. Acta Hortic., 190, 175–181.
99. Sharda, R. (2008). Development of Soil Water Dynamics Model For Subsurface Drip Irriga-
tion. PhD dissertation. Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, India.
100. Sharma, B. R. (2001). Availability, status of development and opportunities for augmentation
of ground water policy initiative. CSSRI, Karnal, India. November, 6–7. pp. 1–18.
101. Sharma, B. R., Minhas, P. S. (2005). Strategies for managing saline/alkali waters for sustain-
able agricultural production in South Asia. Agric. Water Mangt. 78, 136–151.
102. Sharma, Y., Tiwari, C., Verma, B. L., Singhania, R. A., Sharma, Y. (2003). Effect of mixing of
saline and canal water on yield of groundnut and wheat. Crop Research, HAU, Hisar, 26(2),
249–253.
103. Simunek, J., Suarez, D. L. (1994). Two-dimensional transport model for variably saturated
porous media with major chemistry. Water Resources Res., 30, 1115–1133.
104. Singh, C. S., Gupta, S. K., Sewa, R. (1996). Assessment and management of poor quality
water for crop production, A simulation model (SWAM). Agric. Water Mangt., 30, 25–40.
105. Singh, D. K., Rajput, T. B. S., Singh, D. K., Sikarwar, H. S., Sahoo, R. N., Ahmad, T. (2006).
Simulation of soil wetting pattern with subsurface drip irrigation from line source. Agric.
Water Managt., 83, 130–34.
106. Singh, P. P. S. (1995). Development of a soil water dynamics model for determining wetting
pattern of point source trickle emitters. Ph.D. Thesis, 136 pp. Punjab Agric. Univ., Ludhiana,
141004, India.
107. Singh, P., Sanwal. S. (2003). Efficient use of saline drainage effluent with high frequency drip
irrigation. International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage (ICID), New Delhi – India.
152 pages.
108. Singh, S. D., Gupta, J. P., Singh, P. (1978). Water economy and saline water use by drip ir-
rigation. Agronomy J. 70, 948–951.
109. Van Genuchten, Th, M. (1980). A closed-form equation for predicting the hydraulic conduc-
tivity of unsaturated soils. Soi. Sci. Soc. Am. J., 44, 892–898.
110. Wallender, W. W., Tanji, K. K., Clark, B., Hill, R. W., Stegman, E. C., Gilley, J R., Lord,
J. M., Wang, D., Shannon, M. C. (2000). Salt distribution and plant uptake under drip and
sprinkler irrigation with saline water. National Irrigation Symposium Proceedings of the 4th
Decennial Symposium, Phoenix, Arizona, USA, 612–617.
111. Wallender, W. W., Tanji, K. K., Clark, B., Hill, R. W., Stegman, E. C., Gilley, J. R., Lord,
J. M., Robinson, R. R. (2007). Drip irrigation water and salt flow model for table grapes in
Coachella Valley, California. Irrig. Drainage Syst., 21, 79–95.
250 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

112. Wang, D., Kang, Y. H., Wang, S. (2007). Distribution characteristics of different salt ions in soil
under drip irrigation with saline water. Trans of Chinese Soc. of Agric. Eng., 23(2), 83–87.
113. Wang, D., Shannon, M. C. (2000). Salt distribution and plant uptake under drip and sprinkler
irrigation with saline water. National Irrigation Symposium. Proceedings of the 4th Decen-
nial Symposium, Phoenix, Arizona, USA. pp. 612–617.
114. Yazar, A., Gencel, B., Sezen, M. S. (2003). Corn yield response to saline irrigation water ap-
plied with a trickle system. J. Food Agric. And Envir., 1(2), 198–202.
115. Yurtseven, E., Kesmez, G. D., Unlukara, A. (2005). The effect of water salinity and potas-
sium levels on yield, fruit quality and water consumption of native central anatolian tomato
species (Lycopercicon esculantum). Agric. Water Managt., 78, 128–135.
116. Zhou, Q., Shaozhong, K., Lu, Z., Li, F. (2007). Comparison of APRI and Hydrus-2D models
to simulate soil water dynamics in a vineyard under alternate partial root zone drip irrigation.
Plant Soil, 291, 211–223.

APPENDIX I: PHOTOS OF DRIP IRRIGATED TOMATO

CHAPTER 14

WATER USE EFFICIENCY FOR SWEET

PEPPERS
A. S. LODHI, ARUN KAUSHAL, and KAMAL G. SINGH

14.1 INTRODUCTION
Sweet pepper (Capsicum annuum L. var. grossum) or also called bell pepper is one
of the most popular and high value vegetable crop grown throughout the world [9].
Sweet pepper is more sensitive to environment, especially soil moisture and tem-
perature. Soil moisture is one of the predominant factors influencing sweet pepper
productivity [6] and drip irrigation is the best alternative. Hanson et al. [4] indicated
that the consumed water in the drip method is 40% less than that of the furrow
method. Ngouajio et al. [11] showed that drip irrigation reduced water consumption
by 20% compared to the furrow irrigation.
This study has been planned with the objective to determine the impact of irriga-
tion regimes on growth, yield and WUE of sweet pepper.

14.2 MATERIALS AND METHODS

A Field experiment was conducted at the Research Farm of the Department of Soil
and Water Engineering, PAU, Ludhiana, India. Ludhiana is situated at latitude of
30°54’N and longitude of 75°48’E and at a mean height of 247 meters above sea
level. This place is characterized by very hot and dry summer (April to June) fol-
lowed by a hot and humid monsoon period and cold winters during December to
January. The average rainfall of the area is 600 mm most of which is received during
the monsoon season. Average minimum and maximum temperature in the region
varies from 3°C in winter to 43°C in summer season, respectively.
Mechanical properties of experimental field were determined by standard meth-
ods and are given in Table 14.1.

*In this chapter, the currency is expressed in Indian Rupees (1.00 US$ = Rs. 60.93; 1.00 Rs. = 0.02 US$).
252 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

TABLE 14.1 Soil Characteristics at Experimental Site

Soil depth (cm) % of Texture

Sand Silt Clay
0–15 70.75 18.46 10.79 Sandy loam
15–30 70.17 18.08 11.75 Sandy loam

Table 14.2 shows the initial levels of nitrogen (N), phosphorous (P), potassium
(K), organic carbon, pH and electrical conductivity of the soil that were determined
by standard methods and as reported by the Department of Soils, PAU, Ludhiana.
Water samples were analyzed for carbonates, bicarbonate, chloride, Ca-Mg, re-
sidual sodium carbonate and Electrical Conductivity (EC) etc. by titration method to
check if the water was fit for irrigation purpose [3]. It was found that all the param-
eters of irrigation water were within the safe limits (Table 14.3).

TABLE 14.2 Initial Fertility Status of Soil

Soil depth Fertility (Kg/ha) Organic C pH EC

(cm) (%) mmho/cm
N P K

0–15 Low 30.5 480 0.27 8.9 0.21

15–30 Low 31.75 322.5 0.12 8.8 0.16

TABLE 14.3 Irrigation Water Quality Parameters

Car- Bicar- Chlo- Calcium- Residual Sodi- EC

bonate bonate ride Magnesium um Carbonate micro-mhos/
(meq/L) (meq/L) (meq/L) (meq/L) (meq/L) cm)

Nil 7.4 1.4 7.0 0.4 914

The experimental area was tilled twice with a disc harrow followed by a cultiva-
tor and planking. The soil at the experiment field was sandy loam having pH of 8.9.
The soil was low in organic carbon and available nitrogen, medium in phosphorous
and high in potash. As per the recommendation of Punjab Agricultural University,
Ludhiana in its “Package of Practices for Vegetable Crops,” [1] the farm yard ma-
nure at the rate of 55t/ha was added to the field, one month before the field prepara-
Water Use Efficiency for Sweet Peppers 253

tion so that it could thoroughly mix in the soil and get decomposed by the time of
sowing of crop.
Sweet pepper seeds were planted in nursery trays in polyhouse in October 2008
and the seedlings were transplanted in November 2008. In paired sowing, 60 cm
wide beds were raised, row-to-row spacing between paired rows was 45 cm and row
space between pairs was 75 cm but plant-to-plant spacing was 30 cm. Irrigation was
applied as per treatments. In the single furrow, the row-to-row spacing was 60 cm
and plant-to-plant spacing was 30 cm.
A field plot measuring approximately 550.8 m2 (54 m×10.2 m) was prepared
and the experiment was laid out in split plot design keeping five irrigation treat-
ments in main plots and three different heights of low tunnel in sub plots and repli-
cated three times. The three different low tunnel height treatments were 45 cm, 60
cm and 75 cm.
Out of the five treatments, three were drip irrigated and two were furrow irrigat-
ed. After the installation of drip irrigation system, it was tested for design discharge,
uniformity of emitters and for clogging problem. At a pressure of 1 kg/cm2 the aver-
age discharge per emitter was measured and the Christiansen uniformity coefficient
was found as 98.4%:

 ∆q 
Euc = 1 −
 q  (1)

where: Euc= Christiansen uniformity coefficient; Δ q = mean absolute deviation of

the emitter flow from the mean value (L/min); and q = average discharge (L/min).
In drip irrigation treatments, water was applied for three different irrigation levels at
IW/CPE ratio of 0.60, 0.75 and 0.90. Drip irrigation was applied after 10 mm cumu-
lative pan evaporation. Total volume of water applied per plant was calculated as:
Ac × CPED × ( IW CPE ) × Aw
Vd = (2)
Euc
where: Vd = volume of water applied per plant in drip irrigation system (liter); Ac=
Cropped area (m2) which is calculated by row-to-row spacing (m) × plant-to-plant
spacing (m); CPED = The desired cumulative pan evaporation (mm) after which
the drip irrigation was applied; IW/CPE = Ratio of irrigation water to cumulative
pan evaporation; Aw = Fractional wetted area which was taken as 75% (075); Euc=
Christiansen uniformity coefficient. The time of irrigation for operating drip system
per application was calculated as:
Np × Vd
T (drip ) =
Ne × qe (3)

where: T(drip) = drip irrigation time (hrs.); Np = Number of plants per lateral; Vd =
volume of water applied per plant in drip irrigation system (liter); Ne = number of
254 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

emitters in one lateral; and qe = average emitter discharge (L/h). In furrow irrigation
treatment, water was applied using siphon tubes having discharge of one liter/sec for
both furrow irrigation with paired and single row planting. Irrigation water was ap-
plied after 30 mm cumulative pan evaporation for both furrow-irrigated treatments.
The furrow irrigation time was calculated as:
d ×w×l
T ( furrow) =
q × 360
(4)

where: T(furrow) = furrow irrigation time (hrs.); d = depth of water to be applied

(cm); w = furrow spacing (m); l = furrow length (m); and q = discharge from siphon
tube (L/sec). The irrigation time was calculated by Eqs. (3) and (4) for drip and fur-
row irrigation, respectively (Table 14.4).

TABLE 14.4 Irrigation Time For Different Irrigation Treatments

Irrigation treatment Water applied after CPE Time of water applica-

(mm) tion

I1 10.0 49 min. 23 sec.

I2 10.0 1 hr. 2 min.

I3 10.0 1 hr. 14 min.
I4 30.0 3 min. 4 sec.

I5 30.0 6 min. 7 sec.

Five plants were tagged randomly in each subplot to measure height, leaf area
index (LAI), dry matter accumulation (DMA), days to flowering, days to fruit ini-
tiation and days to fruit maturity. Cumulative number of fruits harvested from each
subplot was found by counting the fruits in various picking stages till the end of crop
season. Five fruits were selected from each subplot and measurements of length and
girth at the maximum point and average fruit length and girth in cm was calculated.
The fruits from each subplot were picked at green mature stage and weighed at each
picking. The weight of all the pickings were added and yield per plant was worked
out and subsequently the yield per hectare was calculated.
Water Use Efficiency for Sweet Peppers 255

The data were analyzed using ANOVA. For the split plot design, irrigation treat-
ments were considered as main plots and different low tunnel heights as subplot.
The significance of differences was tested at 5% level.

14.3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

14.3.1 GROWTH PARAMETERS
Among all the irrigation treatments, drip irrigation with I3 ratio gave the highest
plant height and LAI throughout the season followed by I2, I1, I4 and I5. This
may be due to better moisture distribution in drip irrigation than the conventional
irrigation [5]. While drip irrigation with 0.75 IW/CPE ratio gave the highest DMA
throughout the season followed by drip irrigation at 0.90 IW/CPE ratio, drip irriga-
tion at 0.60 IW/CPE ratio, furrow irrigation paired row planting and furrow irriga-
tion single row planting (Table 14.5).

14.3.2 PHENOLOGY
Among all the irrigation treatments, drip irrigation with I1 gave the minimum num-
ber of days to flowering, fruiting and fruit maturity followed by I2, I3, I4 and I5.
This may be due to deficient irrigation water in I1 treatment. The results are in line
with that of Khan et al. [7], who reported that the plants under any kind of stress
conditions tends to have a shortened life span and try to complete the life cycle in
hasten which causes the lowest days to flowering, fruiting.

14.3.3 YIELD AND YIELD ATTRIBUTES

Among all the irrigation treatments, I2 treatment gave the highest number of fruits
per plant, fruit length and girth, mean sweet pepper yield followed by I3, I1, I4 and
I5. Moisture at optimum level enhances the cell metabolism resulting in an increase
in released energy, which induces growth [12]. Best drip irrigated treatment (i.e.,
drip irrigation, IW/CPE= 0.75) gave an increase of 30.67% over the furrow irrigated
paired row planting and an increase of 33.74% over furrow irrigated single row
planting.
256 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

TABLE 14.5 Effects of Irrigation Regimes on Growth and Yield of Sweet Pepper

Treatments Plant height (cm) Leaf area Dry matter

index accumula-

tion (gm)
Growth parameters
I1 56.93 4.12 90.55
I2 58.83 4.17 94.50
I3 60.78 4.26 92.55
I4 56.26 4.05 88.60
I5 55.08 3.98 87.73
CD (5%) 1.33 0.15 0.63
Phenology
Treatments Days to flowering Days to fruit Days to

initiation fruit matu-

rity
I1 82.60 89.15 114.37
I2 87.35 94.46 119.20
I3 93.42 100.28 124.20
I4 95.20 101.60 124.57
I5 95.97 102.88 125.37
CD (5%) 1.50 1.92 2.19
Yield and yield Attributes
Treatments Number Average fruit size Yield

of fruits (100 kg/

per plant ha)

Fruit length (cm) Fruit girth
(cm)
I1 9.56 5.78 18.17 222.46
I2 10.07 6.38 20.41 288.11
I3 9.70 5.83 18.98 276.95
I4 9.48 5.65 17.99 220.48
I5 9.38 5.53 17.88 215.42
CD (5%) 0.12 0.14 0.39 5.00
Water Use Efficiency for Sweet Peppers 257

14.3.4 IRRIGATION WATER SAVING UNDER DRIP

IRRIGATION
Quantity of water applied under different irrigation treatments is presented in Table
13.6. The highest amount of irrigation water was 78 cm in furrow irrigation and
lowest water was applied in drip irrigation IW/CPE = 0.60 (I1). The percentage
saving was 39.72% for irrigation treatment I2 (drip irrigation, IW/CPE=0.75) over
the conventional furrow irrigated treatments. All the drip irrigated treatments saved
considerable amount of water over furrow irrigation [8, 10].

TABLE 13.6 Comparison of Irrigation Water Use in Different Irrigation Treatments

Irrigation Pre- ir- Depth of Total num- Total depth Percentage

treatment rigation water per ber of ir- of irriga- saving over
depth irrigation rigations tion (cm) furrow irriga-
(cm) (cm) tion

I1 3 0.45 77 38.21 51.01%

I2 3 0.57 77 47.01 39.72%

I3 3 0.68 77 55.82 28.44%

I4 and I5 3 3.00 25 78.00 —

14.3.5 WATER USE EFFICIENCY (WUE)

WUE was calculated by dividing pepper yield with water used and the results are
given in Table 14.7. The data given in the table clearly revealed that WUE in I2 gave
the highest value followed by I3, I1, I4 and I5. Among the treatments with good
yield and less irrigation water used gave higher WUE due to optimum moisture
present in the soil. The results are in line with that of Antony and Singandhupe [2].
258 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

TABLE 14.7 Comparison of WUE (q/ha/cm) With Different Irrigation Regimes

Treatments I1 I2 I3 I4 I5 CD (5%)
WUE 5.82 6.12 4.96 2.82 2.76 0.09
100 kg/(ha-cm)

14.4 CONCLUSIONS
The highest plant height and leaf area index were observed in I3 treatments while
the highest DMA, highest number of fruit per plant, maximum fruit length, fruit
girth and highest sweet pepper yield were observed in I2 treatments. The lowest
number of days to flowering, fruit initiation and fruit maturity were observed in I1
treatment. Drip irrigated treatments gave better yield than furrow irrigation. Best
drip irrigated treatment (I2) gave an increase of 30.67% over I4 treatment and an
increase of 33.74% over I5 treatment. The percentage of water saving for drip irriga-
tion treatments I1, I2 and I3 were 51.01%, 39.72% and 28.73%, respectively over
the furrow irrigation treatment. The WUE was highest I2 treatment among the all
irrigation treatments.

14.5 SUMMARY
Field experiment was conducted in the Department of Soil and Water Engineering,
PAU, Ludhiana. Drip and furrow irrigation methods were used to study effects on
growth and yields of the sweet pepper using split plot design. The irrigation treat-
ments were: drip irrigation with IW/CPE ratio of 0.60(I1), drip irrigation with IW/
CPE ratio of 0.75(I2), drip irrigation with IW/CPE ratio of 0.90(I3), furrow irriga-
tion with paired row planting (I4) and furrow irrigation with single row planting
(I5). The dry matter accumulation, number of fruits per plant, fruit size, total yield
and WUE were observed highest in I2 treatments. The highest plant height and leaf
area index were observed in I3 treatment. The minimum number of days to flower-
ing, fruit initiation and fruit maturity were observed in I1 treatment. There were
significant effects of irrigation on leaf area index, plant height, dry matter accumu-
lation, and number of days to flowering, fruit initiation, fruit maturity, fruit girth,
number of fruits per plant, fruit length, yield and WUE. Best drip irrigated treat-
ment I2 gave an increase of 30.67% over I4 and an increase of 33.74% over I5. The
percentage of water saving for drip irrigation treatment I1, I2 and I3 were 51.01%,
39.72% and 28.73%, respectively, over the furrow irrigation treatment. Irrigation
treatment I2 gives maximum yield and highest WUE.
Water Use Efficiency for Sweet Peppers 259

KEYWORDS

•• days to flowering
•• drip irrigation
•• dry matter accumulation
•• fruit girth
•• fruit initiation
•• fruit length
•• fruit maturity
•• growth
•• irrigation
•• leaf area index
•• number of fruits
•• plant height
•• sweet pepper
•• vegetables
•• water use efficiency
•• yield

REFERENCES
1. Anonymous, (2008). Package of Practices for Vegetable Crops. pp. 20–25. Punjab
Agricultural University, Ludhiana.
2. Antony, E., Singandhupe, R. B. (2004). Impact of drip and surface irrigation on
growth, yield and WUE of capsicum (Capsicum annuum L.). Agricultural Water Man-
agement, 65, 121–132.
3. Das, D. K. (2002). Introductory Soil Science. pp. 238. Kalyani Publishers, Delhi,
India.
4. Hanson, B. R., Schwankl, L. J., Schulbach, K. F., Pettygrove, G. S. (1997). A com-
parison of furrow, surface drip, and subsurface drip irrigation on lettuce yield and
applied water. Agricultural Water Management, 33, 139–157.
5. Hsaio, T. C. (1993). Growth and productivity of crops in relation to water status. Acta Horti-
culturae, 331, 137–48.
6. Kaushal, A., Lodhi, A. S., Singh, K. G. (2011). Economics of growing sweet pepper under low
tunnels. Progressive Agriculture, 11(1), 67–72.
7. Khan, M. H., Chattha, T. H., Saleem, N. (2005). Influence of different irrigation intervals on
growth and yield of bell pepper (Capsicum annuum grossum). Research Journal of Agricul-
ture and Biological Science, 1, 125–128.
8. Locascio, J. S. (2005). Management of Irrigation for Vegetables: Past, Present, Future. Hort
Technology, 15(3), 482–485.
260 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

9. Lodhi, A. S., Kaushal, A., Singh, K. G. (2013). Effect of irrigation regimes and low tunnel
heights on microclimatic parameters in the growing of sweet peppers. International Journal
of Engineering Science Invention, 2(7), 20–29.
10. Mane, M. S., Ayare, B. L., Magar, S. S. (2006). Principles of Drip Irrigation System. pp. 32.
Jain Brothers publication, New Delhi, India.
11. Ngouajio, M., Wang, G., Goldy, R. (2007). Withholding of drip irrigation between transplant-
ing and flowering increases the yield of field-grown tomato under plastic mulch. Agricultural
Water Management, 87, 285–291.
12. Pandey, V., Ahmed, Z., Tewari, H. C., Kumar, N. (2005). Effect of greenhouse models on
plant-growth and yield of capsicum in North-west Himalayas. Indian Journal of Horticul-
ture, 62, 312–313.
CHAPTER 15

IRRIGATION WATER REQUIREMENTS

OF GREEN PEA
KAMAL G. SINGH, MUKESH SIAG, and G. MAHAJAN

15.1 INTRODUCTION
Peas occupy an important place among vegetable crops in the submountainous re-
gion of India. Being a cool weather-loving crop, it occupies a place of prominence
among winter vegetables in kandi area, because the kandi area is cooler as compared
to other pea-growing regions of Punjab. But, due to various physiographic con-
straints, existing legal constraints and the present method of utilization, the utiliz-
able water for irrigation is very limited. In the present day context, improvements in
irrigation practices are needed to increase crop production and to sustain the produc-
tivity level. Therefore, drip irrigation is a most efficient method of irrigation, which
optimizes the use of irrigation water by providing it uniformly and directly to the
roots of the plants. Drip irrigation can be helpful in kandi area where water is scarce
and very expensive to pump and the fields have uneven topography. Irrigation with
drip may be more efficient in kandi area due to precise application of water because
evaporation is reduced, runoff is reduced or eliminated, deep percolation is reduced,
and irrigation uniformity is improved so it is no longer necessary to “over water”
parts of a field to adequately irrigate the more difficult parts. The major drawback of
the drip irrigation system is its high initial investment; however, cost can be recov-
ered in a short span if proper water and nutrient management and design principles
are followed. Among the various components of the drip irrigation system, the cost
of the lateral is a major factor, which influence the total system cost. Any effort
made to reduce the length of lateral per unit area will result in reduction of system
cost. Many scientists reported that drip irrigation in vegetable crops is very eco-
nomical by reducing the cost and water use by 50%, when these crops were planted
in paired row patterns [1, 3]. With drip irrigation, precise application of nutrients is
possible. Fertilizer costs and nitrate losses can be reduced and nutrient applications
can be better timed to needs of a crop. The response of pea to the combined effect of

*In this chapter, the currency is expressed in Indian Rupees (1.00 US$ = Rs. 60.93; 1.00 Rs. = 0.02 US$).
262 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

drip with different levels of irrigation in conjunction with different nitrogen levels
and their economic feasibility are not well known. The information on seasonal
water requirement of pea crop under drip irrigation is not available.
This study was conducted to evaluate the yield response and economic viability
of drip irrigation in combination with different nitrogen levels.

15.2 MATERIALS AND METHODS

15.2.1 EXPERIMENTAL SETUP

The field experiment was conducted at the research farm of Department of Soil and
Water Engineering, PAU, Ludhiana during to study the water and nutrient require-
ments of green pea. The experiment consisted of 11 treatments (Table 15.1): Three
levels of irrigation (1.0 Epan, 0.75 Epan and 0.5 Epan); three levels of nitrogen
(100, 75 and 50% of recommended dose of N) that were tested against two check
basin methods of irrigation at recommended dose of N when the crops were sown in
either paired row or single row (conventional method) in randomized block design.
In check-basin method (surface flooding), the irrigations were provided on the basis
of 1.0 × cumulative pan evaporation (Epan).
The pea cultivar Punjab 88 was sown in the second week of October. In normal
sowing, the distance between the rows was 30 cm and plant-to-plant spacing was
10 cm. However, in paired sowing, the row-to-row spacing between paired rows
was 30 cm and row-to-row spacing between pairs was also 10 cm but plant-to-plant
spacing space was 30 cm. Thus, in paired row sowing total as well as number of
rows and plants were same. The recommended fertilizers in pea were 50 kg N and
67.5 kg P2O5/ha. Whole of the phosphorus was basal applied (before sowing of crop)
in all the treatments. In all the treatments, a basal dose of FYM @ 20t/ha was also
applied before sowing. Other cultural operations were same in all treatments.
The drip system consisted of polyethylene laterals of 12 mm in diameter, laid
parallel (each lateral served 2 rows of crop). The laterals were provided with on-
line emitters of 3 lph capacity at 30 cm apart. The different levels of water supply
were maintained by managing the number of holes in each lateral. In drip irrigation
system, N was fertigated at 10 days interval in six equal doses of N starting from 30
days after sowing (DAS).

15.2.2 BENEFIT COST ANALYSIS

To calculate the net return of green pea, the cost of different inputs like expenses
incurred on preparation of field, plowing, seed, sowing, cost of fertilizers, manure
and their application, weeding, crop protection measure and cost of irrigation water,
harvesting and selling prices were taken from the Department of Agricultural Eco-
nomics, PAU, Ludhiana. Market prices were taken to compute cost of drip irrigation
Irrigation Water Requirements of Green Pea 263

system. The subsidy of Rs. 25,000 per hectare was deducted from the fixed cost of
drip irrigation system. An additional cost of operation and maintenance of drip ir-
rigation system at Rs. 500 per month was added to the cost of cultivation for drip
system. The annual cost of drip irrigation system was divided equally between the
three crops that can be taken in a sequence round the year. The seasonal cost of drip
irrigation includes depreciation, prevailing bank rate of interest (8%/year/crop). The
useful life of main line, sub main, fertilizer tank, valve, filter and pumping unit was
considered 20 years, while the cost of inbuilt drip was considered 10 years. The
maximum yields obtained under drip and check basin method of irrigation were
taken to find out the net returns per hectare and then the net income under both sys-
tems of irrigation for pea crop have been compared and analyzed.

15.3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

15.3.1 GREEN PEA YIELD

The Table 15.1 revealed that for same quantity of water and nitrogen fertigation a sig-
nificantly higher pod yield 121.8 per 100 kg/ha was obtained as compared to 113.0
per 100 kg/ha and 96.8 per 100 kg/ha in check basin method of irrigation when the
crop was sown in paired rows and in single row respectively. It further revealed that
when the quantity of water through drip irrigation was reduced, the pod yield of pea
increased significantly as compared to check basin method of irrigation at the same
level of nitrogen. A significant increase in pod yield was observed with increase in
N application when drip irrigation was based at 0.5 Epan. However, when drip ir-
rigation was based at 0.75 Epan and 1.0 Epan, the pea yield increased significantly
at 100% of recommended nitrogen, while statistically same when N applied at 50%
and 75% of recommended N, respectively. At recommended nitrogen, when drip ir-
rigation and fertigation was done at 0.5 Epan, pea pod yield was highest (154.3 per
100 kg/ha) and increased by 36.5% and 59.4% over check basin method of irrigation
when the crop was sown in paired or single rows, respectively. At recommended
nitrogen, further increase in water supply caused reduction in yield.

15.3.2 SAVINGS IN WATER AND NITROGEN

Table 15.1 depicts the amount of water applied to the different irrigation treatments
for pea crop. When 100% of recommended nitrogen was applied through drip at low
level of irrigation, maximum yield of 154.3 per 100 kg/ha was obtained and water
used for this treatment was 13.4 cm along with maximum WUE (1151 kg/(ha-cm))
and nitrogen use efficiency (6.17 100 kg/kg of N). At low level of drip irrigation,
49.6% of water was saved as compared to conventional irrigation method. Drip ir-
rigation at 0.5 Epan caused maximum WUE and nitrogen use efficiency at all the
levels of nitrogen as compared to drip irrigation at 0.75 Epan and 1.0 Epan
264 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

TABLE 15.1 Effects of Different Treatments on Yield, Water Use Efficiency and Nitrogen
Use Efficiency of Green Pea

Treatments Yield Irrigation WUE Nitrogen use

water applied efficiency
100 kg/ha cm kg/(ha-cm) 100 kg/(kg
of N)
Drip at 0.5 Epan + 50% 113.6 13.4 848 4.54
recommended N + PR
Drip at 0.5 Epan + 75% 137.4 13.4 1025 5.50
recommended N + PR
Treatments Yield Irrigation WUE Nitrogen use
water applied efficiency
100 kg/ha cm kg/(ha-cm) 100 kg/(kg
of N)
Drip at 0.5 Epan + 154.3 13.4 1151 6.17
100% recommended
N + PR
Drip at 0.75 Epan + 113.9 17.1 666 3.04
50% recommended N
+ PR
Drip at 0.75 Epan + 119.4 17.1 698 3.18
75% recommended N
+ PR
Drip at 0.75 Epan + 138.0 17.1 807 3.68
100% recommended
N + PR
Drip at 1.0 Epan + 50% 101.7 20.8 489 2.03
recommended N + PR
Drip at 1.0 Epan + 75% 111.9 20.8 538 2.24
recommended N + PR
Drip at 1.0 Epan + 129.8 20.8 624 2.60
100% recommended
N + PR
Surface irrigation 113.0 27.0 419 2.26
at 1.0 Epan + 100%
recommended N + PR
Irrigation Water Requirements of Green Pea 265

TABLE 15.1 (Continued)

Surface irrigation 96.8 27.0 359 1.94

at 1.0 Epan + 100%
recommended N + NS
LSD (0.05) 14.9 — — —
PR = Paired rows,
NS= Normal sowing

TABLE 15.2 Economic Analysis of Drip Irrigation versus Check Basin Method of Irrigation
For Green Pea

Parameters Drip irrigation Check basin

irrigation
Rs. Rs.
1. Main line, Sub main, Fertilizer tank, Control — —
valve, Filter, Pumping unit
a. Fixed cost 60,000 Nil
b. Life (years) 20 Nil
c. Depreciation per crop (taking 3 crops per 1000 Nil
year: (Bottle gourd-okra-green pea)
d. Interest (at 8% per year) per crop 534 Nil
e. Total (c + d) 1534 Nil
2. Laterals with inbuilt emitters — —
a. Fixed cost 1,66,680 Nil
b. Life (years) 10 Nil
c. Depreciation per crop (taking 3 crops per 5556 Nil
year: (Bottle gourd-okra-green pea)
d. Interest (at 8% per year) per crop 1481.6 Nil
e. Total (c + d) 7037.6 Nil
3. Cost of cultivation (Rs./ha) 64,500 62,500
1. Seasonal cost = 1(e) + 2 (e) + 3 73,071 62,500
2. Yield of produce (100 kg/ha) from Table 1 154.3 96.8
3. Selling price (Rs./100 kg) 950 950
4. Income from the produce in Rs. = (5×6) 1,46,585 91,960
5. Net seasonal income, Rs.= (7 – 4) 73,514 29,460
266 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

15.3.3 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

To calculate the net return for drip irrigated green pea, the cost of different inputs
and outputs were recommended by Department of Agricultural Economics, PAU,
Ludhiana. These values were used for calculating the net income from green pea
crop. Table 15.2 depicts the cost of different components for the drip irrigation and
net return from the crop. Table 15.2 shows that net seasonal income from green pea
was Rs. 73,514 and Rs. 29,640 per ha for drip and check basin method of irrigation,
respectively. In green pea, the net increase in income by drip irrigation method was
40.1% more as compared to check basin method of irrigation and further increase in
yield is possible where water is scarce by increasing the area under cultivation with
the saved amount of water. These results are in conformity with Raina et al. [2], who
also reported higher pea yield, water use efficiency (WUE) and benefit-cost ratio
under drip irrigation system.

15.4 SUMMARY
The research was undertaken to evaluate the effects of various levels of water and N
fertigation on yield and water use efficiency of green pea crop. In this experiment,
various combination of three levels of water (Epan × 1.0, Epan × 0.75 and Epan ×
0.5) and three levels of N (100, 75 and 50% of recommended N of 45 kg/ha) through
drip were compared with check basin method of irrigation at two method of plant-
ing (normal sowing NS; and paired sowing, PS). The highest yield (154.3 per 100
kg/ha) was observed when 100% of recommended N was fertigated through drip
irrigation at lower level of irrigation (0.5 × Epan). This increase in yield was 36.5%
and 59.4% over check-basin method of irrigation, when the crop was sown in paired
rows and normal sown, respectively. The study further revealed that the increase in
N through fertigation caused increase in yield at all the levels of drip irrigation (0.5
Epan, 0.75 Epan and 1.0 Epan), but the magnitude of increase was highest at lowest
level of water supply. Further results revealed that WUE and nitrogen use efficiency
also improved significantly with drip irrigation system.

KEYWORDS

•• benefit–cost ratio, BCR

•• bottle guard
•• check basin
•• drip irrigation
Irrigation Water Requirements of Green Pea 267

•• fertigation
•• green pea
•• nitrogen use efficiency
•• paired row
•• plastic mulch
•• water requirement
•• water supply
•• water use efficiency

REFERENCES
1. Kumar, A., Singh, A. K. (2002). Improving nutrient and water use efficiency through fertiga-
tion. J. Water Management, 10, 42–48.
2. Raina, J. N., Thakur, B. C., Bhandari, A. R. (1998). Effect of drip irrigation and plastic mulch
on yield, water use efficiency and benefit: cost ratio of pea cultivation. J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci.,
46, 562–567.
3. Tiwari, K. N., Mal, P. K., Singh, R. M., Chattopadhyay, P. (1998). Response of okra to drip
irrigation under mulch and no-mulch condition. Agricultural Water Management, 38, 91–102.
This page intentionally left blank
CHAPTER 16

IRRIGATION SCHEDULING OF
CAULIFLOWER
CHETAN SINGLA, KAMAL G. SINGH, and NILESH BIWALKAR

16.1 INTRODUCTION
The cauliflower (Brassica oleracea L.) plant belongs to the family cruciferae. Its
varieties are very responsive to temperature, photoperiod and irrigation. Early va-
rieties if sown late produce “button” head and late varieties if sown early will go
on giving leafy growth and will produce curds very late. It is one of the most im-
portant winter vegetables of India. India produces 4.694 million metric tons (Mmt)
per year of cauliflower from 0.256 million-ha area with an average productivity of
about 18.3 mt/ha. The major cauliflower producing states are Punjab, Bihar, Uttar
Pradesh, Orissa, West Bengal, Assam, Haryana and Maharashtra. Advance technol-
ogy for cauliflowers cultivation is use of Hybrid seeds and drip irrigation. In the
plains, it is available from September to May. It is consumed as a vegetable in cur-
ries, soups and pickles.
Since greenhouse technology has recently been introduced in Punjab, very lim-
ited work has been done for the standardization of different techniques of growing
of early vegetable crops in greenhouse. Early cultivars of cauliflower are tropical in
nature requiring comparatively higher temperature for reproductive onset and there-
fore, these are grown during July–August allowing adequate growth. However, high
moisture rains coinciding with the period of cropping frequently disturb the growth
and development of the crop in open.
Crop production functions represent empirical relationships between the crop
yields and the inputs [2]. These functions are the tools in the hands of the planners
for the efficient management of cropping systems, in India, for any situation. Arkley
[1] found a linear relationship between water transpired and dry matter of the crop

*Authors acknowledge the financial support and other facilities received from AICRP on Application of
plastics in agriculture, Punjab Agriculture University, Ludhiana.
**In this chapter, the currency is expressed in Indian Rupees (1.00 US$ = Rs. 60.93; 1.00 Rs. = 0.02
US$).
270 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

yield, both in humid and semiarid locations. Arkley [1] also indicated advantages of
empirical crop yield water use in making water allocations and management deci-
sions in an intelligent way, particularly in situations of irrigations water shortage for
agriculture purpose. According to Ayer [2] and Reddy [3], optimum application of
water may be less than the water required, to ensure that water is nonlimiting.
This chapter discusses the research study the response cauliflower to drip ir-
rigation levels and nitrogen fertilizer through the modeling approach. In this study,
water and fertilizer use optimization functions were developed for cauliflower pro-
duction.

16.2 MATERIALS AND METHODS

A field study of fertigation of drip irrigated cauliflower (Brassica oleracea var.
botrytis Linn.) was undertaken during summer season at the Irrigation Research
Farm of the Department of Soil and Water Engineering, PAU, Ludhiana – India.
There were three irrigation levels at (irrigation water to cumulative pan evapora-
tion ratio) IW/CPE = 0.5 (W1), 0.75 (W2) and 1.0 (W3) with three rates of nitrogen
application 100% (N3), 75% (N2) and 50% (N1) of recommended dose of Nitrogen.
Nine treatments were replicated thrice. The soil at the experimental field was sandy
loam with a pH of 8.5. The harvesting of marketable curbs was commenced 80 days
after transplanting (DAT) and was completed within four weeks. With this data,
multivariant production functions were fitted:

Y = F (WN/P) (1)

where: Y is the Yield of cauliflower, per 100 kg/ha; W is the irrigation water ap-
plied, cm; N is the nitrogen level in kg/ha; P is the quantity of other fixed input; and
slash (/) denotes that only W and N are variable inputs. The general function was
expressed in the form of:

Y = ac + a1W + a2N + a3Nn + a4Wn (2)

where: ac represents the combined effect of all fixed inputs; a1, a2, a3 and a4 are re-
gression coefficients; and n is the exponent. The Eq. (1) was fitted to data for Y, W
and N with exponent values of n = 1, 2, 0.0.75 and 0.50 to give linear, quadratic,
three halves and square root functions, respectively, using least square multiple re-
gression analysis. The generalized forms of equations were:

Linear: Y = ac + a1W + a2N

Quadratic: Y = ac + a1W + a2N + a3N2 + a4W2

Irrigation Scheduling of Cauliflower 271

Three halves: Y = ac + a1W + a2N + a3N0.75 + a4W0.75

Square root: Y= ac + a1W + a2N + a3N0.50 + a4W0.50 (3)

where: Y = predicted yield of cauliflower (100 kg/ha); W = total water use (cm); N
= nitrogen level (kg/ha); and a1 to a4 = regression coefficients; and ac = regression
constant.
The linear, quadratic, square root and three halves functions were fitted for cauli-
flower crop and the best fit was selected. Least square approximation technique was
used for fitting these functions. For best-fitted functions, yield was determined. Dur-
ing field experimentation, the completely randomized design (CRD) was followed
in this study. The data collected for all the dependent parameters were analyzed
statistically with computer program CPCSI. The analysis of variance was performed
and the critical difference at 5% level of significance was calculated for testing the
significance of difference between different treatments of irrigation and fertilizer.

16.3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

16.3.1 CURD YIELD

Cauliflower yield as influenced by the application of different doses of nitrogen and
irrigation water is presented in Table 16.1. The total cumulative pan evaporation was
534 mm. The amount of water applied at 0.5, 0.75 and 1.0 IW/CPE was 26.70, 40.05
and 53.40 cm, respectively. The amount of nitrogen fertilizer applied at 50, 75 and
100% of recommended dose was 62.50, 93.75 and 125 kg of N/ha. Tables 16.1 and
16.2 reveal that highest yield of cauliflower was recorded under irrigation schedule
based on IW/CPE ratio of 0.5 and 100% of recommended dose of nitrogen which
was comparable with other drip irrigation treatments. This treatment (IW/CPE =
0.5 and 100% of recommended dose of nitrogen, that is, 125 kg/ha) established its
superiority by yielding 120.7 per 100 kg/ha and 105.5 per 100 kg/ha as compared to
other eight treatments in fan pad cooled greenhouse and naturally ventilated green-
house respectively. These findings show that an irrigation schedule based on IW/
CPE ratio of 0.5 secured yields as high as that of higher ratio for 0.75 and 1.0. These
results depicted that low water and high fertilizer treatment by drip irrigation were
superior to other treatments. It might be due to the fact that optimum requirement of
water was met by just IW/CPE = 0.5 (less amount of water) rather ratio of 1.0 (high
amount of water) and 0.75 (medium level of water).
272 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

TABLE 16.1 Effects of Different Treatments on Cauliflower Yield in Fan Pad Cooled
Greenhouse

N fertilizer Yield in greenhouse

Irrigation levels levels (%) (100 kg/ha)
(IW/CPE) 1st year 2nd year 3rd year
0.50 = I1 50 = N1 92 95.9 93.95
75 = N2 115 118.2 116.60
100 = N3 120 121.4 120.70
0.75 = I2 50 94 93.8 93.90
75 117 115 116.00
100 120 119.5 119.75
1.00 = I3 50 91 92.32 91.66
75 103 104.4 103.70
100 110 110.36 110.18
C.D. at N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S.
P = 0.05%

TABLE 16.2 Effects of Different Treatments on Cauliflower Yield in Naturally Ventilated

Greenhouse

N fertilizer Yield in greenhouse

Irrigation levels levels (%) (100 kg/ha)
(IW/CPE) 1st year 2nd year 3rd year
0.50 50 86.07 91.70 88.88
75 100.4 101.36 100.88
100 105.15 105.95 105.95
0.75 50 87.00 89.00 88.00
75 93.00 97.36 95.19
100 106.40 104.40 105.40
1.00 50 79.40 79.76 79.58
75 75.58 76.54 76.06
100 91.00 94.10 92.55
C.D. at N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S.
P = 0.05%
Irrigation Scheduling of Cauliflower 273

16.3.2 EFFECTS OF N ON YIELD

Table 16.1 reveals that, as the quantity of applied nitrogen was increased from 50
to 100% of the recommended dose, the yield goes on increasing. In fan pad cooled
greenhouse, the yield increased from 93.95 to 106.6 and 120.7 per 100 kg/ha indi-
cating 13.46 and 28.47% increase at nitrogen levels of 93.75 and 125���������������
kg������������
/ha, respec-
tively, at irrigation with IW/CPE = 0.5. While at irrigation with IW/CPE = 0.75 and
1.0, the relative yield increase was 23.53, 27.52 and 13.13, 20.20% over the nitrogen
level of 62.5 kg/ha at the respective nitrogen levels. Similarly in naturally ventilated
greenhouse, the yield increase was 13.50, 18.75 and 8.17, 9.77% over the nitrogen
level of 62.5 kg/ha, at irrigation levels of IW/CPE = 0.5 and 0.75.

16.3.3 EFFECTS OF IRRIGATION ON YIELD

Tables 16.1 and 16.2 reveals that the yield of cauliflower curd was more with IW/
CPE = 0.5 as compared to IW/CPE = 0.75 and 1.0 for all levels of nitrogen fertiliz-
ers. Irrigation schedule based on IW/CPE = 0.5 established its superiority by yield-
ing 93.95, 116.6 and 120.7 per 100 kg/ha in fan pad cooled greenhouse and 88.88,
100.88 and 105.5 per 100 kg/ha in naturally ventilated greenhouse.

TABLE 16.3 Water Use Efficiency of Cauliflower in Fan Pad Cooled Greenhouse

Treatments Water used Mean yield WUE

cm 100 kg/ha Kg/(ha-cm)
W1N1 26.70 93.95 351.8
W1N2 26.70 116.60 436.70
W1N3 26.70 120.90 452.05
W2N1 40.05 93.90 234.45
W2N2 40.05 116.00 289.63
W2N3 40.05 119.75 299.00
W3N1 53.40 53.40 53.40
W3N2 53.40 53.40 194.19
W3N3 53.40 53.40 206.32
274 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

TABLE 16.4 Water Use Efficiency of Cauliflower in Naturally Ventilated Greenhouse

Mean Water Use

Water used Yield Efficiency kg/
Treatments (cm) 100 kg/ha (ha-cm)
W1N1 26.70 88.88 332.88
W1N2 26.70 100.88 377.82
W1N3 26.70 105.55 395.31
W2N1 40.05 88.00 219.72
W2N2 40.05 95.19 237.67
W2N3 40.05 105.40 263.17
W3N1 53.40 79.58 149.02
W3N2 53.40 76.06 142.43
W3N3 53.40 92.55 173.31

TABLE 16.5 Values of Constants and Coefficients FOR yield of Cauliflower in Different
Mathematical Models in Fan Pad Cooled Greenhouse

Model ac a1 a2 a3 a4 R2

Linear 85.034 –0.321 0.362 — — 0.89

Square root –115.88 –0.321 –1.897 — 43.05 0.95

Three halves –48.28 –0.321 –4.133 — 18.55 0.95

Quadratic 34.81 –0.321 1.519 — –0.0062 0.95

Irrigation Scheduling of Cauliflower 275

TABLE 16.6 Values of Constants and Coefficients For Yield of Cauliflower in Naturally
Ventilated Greenhouse

Model ac a1 a2 a3 a4 R2
Linear 91.913 –0.588 0.237 — — 0.88

Square root 197.80 –0.588 1.425 — –22.6429 0.91

Three halves 162.027 –0.588 2.600 — –9.75385 0.91

Quadratic 118.33 –0.588 0.372 — 0.00325 0.91

TABLE 16.7 Actual and Predicated Yield of Cauliflower With Prediction Models For FAN
pad Cooled Greenhouse
Treat- Water Nitrogen Field Predicted yield (100 kg/ha) RMSE
ment needed level yield Linear Square Quad- Three
Root ratic halves
(cm) (kg/ha) 100 kg/ 5.89
ha (Linear)
W2N1 40.05 62.5 93 94.8 93.04 92.77 92.64 4.18 (Square
root)
Treat- Water Nitrogen Field Predicted yield (100 kg/ha) RMSE
ment needed level yield Linear Square Quad- Three
(cm) (kg/ha) 100 kg/ Root ratic halves 5.89
ha (Linear)
W2N2 40.05 93.75 115.6 106.1 110.26 110.12 110.05 4.27
(Quadratic)
W2N3 40.05 125 119.7 117.4 115.4 115.4 115.5 4.28 (Three
halves)
276 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

TABLE 16.8 Actual and Predicated Yield of Cauliflower With Prediction Models For
Naturally Ventilated Greenhouse
Treat- Water Nitrogen Field Predicted yield (100 kg/ha) RMSE
ment needed level yield Linear Square Quad- Three
(cm) (kg/ha) 100 kg/ root ratic halves 5.76
ha (Linear)
W2N1 40.05 62.5 88.0 83.17 84.08 84.25 84.25 5.85
(Square root)
W2N2 40.05 93.75 99.19 90.58 88.38 88.51 88.45 5.72
(Quadratic)
W2N3 40.05 125 105.4 97.98 99.01 99.10 98.96 5.80 (Three
halves)

16.3.4 WATER USE EFFICIENCY (WUE) OF CAULIFLOWER

Total water used during the crop period and WUE for different treatments are pre-
sented in Tables 16.3 and 16.4. The amount of water used varied, depending upon
the different treatments and the system used. The WUE with respect to yield in-
dicated that it was low when irrigations were scheduled at 0.75 and 1.0 IW/CPE.
As WUE is a function of crop yield and water used, the decrease in crop yield
with increase in water application reduced the WUE under IW/CPE = 0.75 and 1.0.
However, at IW/CPE = 0.5, the yield was increased linearly with water application,
and WUE. The WUE at this treatment (W1N3) was 452.05 kg/(ha-cm) in fan pad
cooled greenhouse and 395.31 in naturally ventilated greenhouse with water saving
of 52.43% as compared to conventionally grown cauliflower.
Regression coefficients and constants for all production functions for yield are
shown in Tables 16.5 and 16.6. Cauliflower yield showed a declining response to
irrigation water applied, showing negative regression coefficients in all the produc-
tion functions (Tables 16.5 and 16.6). This implies that cauliflower does not need
higher amount of water for its optimum yield, as indicated by reduction in yield
at IW/CPE = 1.00. It can be observed that quadratic, square root and three halves
functions were the best fit to the data, because the regression coefficients for these
functions were significant at high value of R2.
The measured and predicted values of yield for regression models in different
treatments are presented in Tables 16.7 and 16.8. Table 16.1 shows that yield was
maximum at 100% of nitrogen dose and IW/CPE = 0.5. To evaluate the overall
performance of all the models, the root mean square error (RMSE) between the
measured and predicted values was calculated:

RMSE=∑ [(O – P)2/N] (4)

Irrigation Scheduling of Cauliflower 277

where: O = observed value (100 kg/ha); P = predicted value (100 kg/ha); and N =
total number of observations.
After comparing the linear, square root, three halves and quadratic models,
square root model was the best model in fan pad cooled greenhouse. In general, pre-
dicted values are in close agreement with the experimental results in all the models;
and more closely with the square root model. The value of RMSE varied from 4.18
to 5.89 in fan pad cooled greenhouse and 5.72 to 5.85 in naturally ventilated green-
house. Square root model (RMSE = 4.18) and quadratic model (RMSE = 5.72) were
best-fitted models for fan pad cooled greenhouse and naturally ventilated green-
house, respectively.

16.4 CONCLUSIONS
The maximum yield was 120.7 and 105.5 per 100 kg/ha of recommended nitrogen
dose in fan pad cooled greenhouse and naturally ventilated greenhouse, respectively.
For assessing the impact of irrigation levels and nitrogen dosages on crop yield, the
square root model was the best prediction model with R2 =0.956 in fan pad cooled
greenhouse (RMSE = 4.18) and quadratic model with R2 = 0.901 in naturally venti-
lated greenhouse (RMSE = 5.72). The quadratic models having negative regression
coefficients also indicated a declining response to amount of irrigation water. Curd
yield was increased with increased rates of nitrogen. WUE was highest with IW/
CPE = 0.5 and 100% rate of nitrogen.

16.5 SUMMARY
A field study on fertigation of drip irrigated cauliflower (Brassica oleracea var.
botrytis Linn.) was conducted with three rates of nitrogen application (100%, 75%
and 50%) of recommended dose applied in three splits, that is, 50% of the dose at
planting time, 25% at 30 days after planting and remaining 25% at 60 days after
planting; and with three levels of irrigation at (irrigation water to cumulative pan
evaporation ratio) IW/CPE= 0.5, 0.75 and 1.0 in fan pad cooled greenhouse and
naturally ventilated greenhouse, respectively. Various predication models were lin-
ear, quadratic, square root and three halves that govern the relationship between
irrigation water, nitrogen fertilizer and the yield in respect of off-season cauliflower.
The studies reveal that the yield 120.7 and 105 per 100 kg/ha of early cauli-
flower were maximum under irrigation schedule based on IW/CPE = 0.5 and 100%
of recommended nitrogen dose in both the greenhouses. Square root model was the
best prediction model for assessing the impact of irrigation water and nitrogen dose
on crop yield, with R2 = 0.956 in fan pad cooled greenhouse (RMSE = 4.18) and
with R2 = 0.901 in naturally ventilated greenhouse (RMSE = 5.72). The prediction
model indicates that cauliflower shows a declining response to amount of irrigation
278 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

water having negative regression coefficients. The crop response was positive to
nitrogen application in square root model, indicating its favorable effect on crop
yield at higher dosages.

KEYWORDS

•• cauliflower
•• crop response
•• crop yield
•• drip irrigation
•• fan pad cooled greenhouse
•• irrigation schedule
•• linear model
•• naturally ventilated greenhouse
•• nitrogen level
•• prediction functions
•• root mean square error
•• square root model
•• yield

REFERENCES
1. Arkley, R. J. (1963). Relationships between plant growth and transpiration. Hilgardla, 34,
559–584.
2. Ayer, H. W., Hoyt, P. G., Cotner, M. L. (1980). Crop water production functions in economic
analysis. Proc. Irrig. Drain. Spec. Conf., Am. Soc. Civ. Eng., pages 346–364.
3. Reddy, Y. M., Sankara, G. H. (1977). Crop yield water use production functions. Proceedings
of the national Seminar on Technology for Agricultural Development held at Chandigarh by
the Institution of Engineers India) 9–11 April.
4. Rao, Siva K. S. V. V. (1987). Irrigated crop management through production functions. J.
Agric. Eng., 24(3), 317–322.
5. Rao, V., Raikhelkar, S. V., Sondge, V. D. (1994). Effect of irrigation and fertilization on yield
and its components in sesame. Indian J. Agric. Sci., 64(2), 93–100.
6. Shivakumar, H. K., Ramachandrappa, D. K., Nanjappa, H. V., Sreenivas, B. T., Aravinda, M.
K. (2001). Production functions for irrigation water and planting methods in sunflower. Crop
Res., 21(2), 139–142.
7. Selvaraj, P. K., Krishnamurthy, V. V., Manickasundram, P., Martin, G., Ayyaswamy, M.
(1996). Effect of irrigation schedules and nitrogen levels on the yield of turmeric through drip
irrigation. Madras Agric. J., 84(6), 347–348.
Irrigation Scheduling of Cauliflower 279

APPENDIX I: PHOTOS OF DRIP IRRIGATED CAULIFLOWER

This page intentionally left blank
 PART III
MULCHING AND CROP PERFORMANCE
This page intentionally left blank
CHAPTER 17

USE OF MULCHES IN SOIL MOISTURE

CONSERVATION: A REVIEW
SUSHANT MEHAN and KAMAL G. SINGH

17.1 INTRODUCTION
Mulch is a protective covering, usually of organic matter such as leaves, straw, or
peat, placed around plants to prevent the evaporation of moisture, and the growth of
weeds. The word mulch has probably been derived from the German word “molsch”
means soft to decay, which apparently referred to the gardener’s use of straw and
leaves as a spread over the ground as mulch [1].
Mulching reduces the deterioration of soil by way of preventing the runoff and
soil loss, minimizes the weed infestation and checks the water evaporation. Thus,
it facilitates for more retention of soil moisture and helps in control of temperature
fluctuations, improves physical, chemical and biological properties of soil, as it adds
nutrients to the soil and ultimately enhances the growth and yield of crops. Further,
reported that mulching boosts the yield by 50–60% over no mulching under rain-fed
situations [2, 24, 43].

17.2 CLASSIFICATION OF MULCHES

Advancement in plastic chemistry has resulted in development of films with optical
properties that are ideal for a specific crop in a given location. Horticulturists need
to understand the optimum above and below ground environment of a particular
crop before the use of plastic mulch. These are two types.
Photo-degradable plastic mulch: This type of plastic mulch film gets de-
stroyed by sun light in a shorter period.
Bio-degradable plastic mulch: This type of plastic mulch film is easily de-
graded in the soil over a period of time.

*In this chapter, the currency is expressed in Indian Rupees (1.00 US$ = Rs. 60.93; 1.00 Rs. = 0.02 US$).
284 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

17.2.1 COLOR OF FILM

Soil environment can be managed precisely by a proper selection of plastic mulch
composition, color and thickness. Films are available in variety of colors including
black, transparent, white, silver, blue red, etc. But the selection of the color of plas-
tic mulch film depends on specific targets. Generally, the following types of plastic
mulch films are used in horticultural crops.
1. Black plastic film: It helps in conserving moisture, controlling weed and
reducing outgoing radiation.
2. Reflective silver film: It generally maintains the root-zone temperature
cooler.
3. Transparent film: It increases the soil temperature and preferably used for
solarization.
Apart from the above classification there is another way of classifying Methods
in mulching [2, 3]:
1. Surface mulching: Mulches are spread on surface to reduce evaporation
and increase soil moisture.
2. Vertical mulching: It involves opening of trenches of 30 cm. depth and 15
cm width across the slope at vertical interval of 30 cm.
3. Polythene mulching: Sheets of plastic are spread on the soil surface be-
tween the crop rows or around tree trunks.
4. Pebble mulching: Soil is covered with pebbles to prevent transfer of heat
from atmosphere.
5. Dust mulching: Interculture operation that creates dust to break continuous
capillaries, and deep and wide cracks thus reducing evaporation from the
exposed soil areas.
6. Live vegetative barriers on contour key lines not only serve as effective
mulch when cut and spread on ground surface, but also supply nitrogen to
the extent of 25 to 30 kg per ha, besides improving soil moisture status.

17.3 EFFECTS OF MULCHES ON SOIL MOISTURE

CONSERVATION
Water is essential for growth and development. It is also a major cost in agri-
cultural systems. The success of many agricultural forms relies on conservative and
efficient use of water. Moisture retention is undoubtedly the most common reason
for which mulch is applied to soil.
Ingman [25] claimed that the use of things made with plastic or plastic compo-
nents have become a routine part of our daily lives. In a similar way, over the past
50 years world agricultural systems have rapidly adopted the use of many types of
plastic products to grow the food we eat because of the productive advantages they
afford. Plastic use in agriculture (plasticulture) continues to increase every year in
Use of Mulches In Soil Moisture Conservation: A Review 285

its worldwide use despite the many negative factors of plastic waste disposal and
the ever-diminishing supply of petroleum. There is a common lack of awareness
regarding what plastic mulch is, and also a lack of applied research of its use in agri-
cultural communities. However, the use of plastic mulch may actually be one of the
most significant water conservation practices in modern agriculture: quite possibly
surpassing the water savings of drip irrigation. Even though most of the world’s use
of freshwater is spent for irrigation purposes, little research explores how plastic
mulch use as a water conservation practice may influence the current and future
status of water resources. He used a multidisciplinary approach to understand why
Chinese farmers on the margins of the Gobi desert continue to use plastic mulch,
and in particular, how its use may relate to water conservation [25]. Next, the study
asks to what extent the plasticization of agriculture may influence the income and
standard of living for agricultural communities. He was able to prove the role of
plastic mulch in conserving soil moisture.
Mulch is used to protect the soil from direct exposure to the sun, which would
evaporate moisture from the soil surface and cause drying of the soil profile. The
protective interface established by the mulch stops raindrop splash by absorbing the
impact energy of the rain, hence reducing soil surface crust formation. The mulch
permits soil surface to prevent runoff allowing a longer infiltration time. These fea-
tures result in improved water infiltration rates and higher soil moisture. An aux-
iliary benefit of mulch reducing soil splash is the decreased need for additional
cleaning prior to processing of the herb foliage [7]. Organic and inorganic mulches
have shown to improve the soil moisture retention. This increased water holding
ability enables plants to survive during dry periods. The use of plastic mulch can be
improved if under-mulch irrigation is used in combination with soil moisture moni-
toring. The influence of rainfall events is not as great when plastic mulch is used, ne-
cessitating active irrigation management. Under mulch, irrigation of vegetable crops
has been shown to improve crop yields more than overhead irrigation systems [16].
Mulch enables the soil moisture levels to maintain for longer periods. In some cases
while providing improved moisture conditions within the soil, the mulch changes
microclimate so that it uses more water [15, 53], thus negating the initial benefits.
Plastic mulch conserved 47.08% of water and increased yield by 47.67% in tomato
when compared to nonmulched control [20]. Plastic mulching resulted in 33 to 52%
more efficient use of irrigation water in bell pepper compared to bare soil.
The conservation of soil moisture through mulching is one of the important best
management practices (BMP). The microclimatic conditions are favorably affected
by optimum degree of soil moisture. When soil surface is covered with mulch helps
to prevent weed growth, reduce evaporation and increase infiltration of rainwater
during growing season.
Different mulching materials helped bell pepper (C. annuum cv. California Won-
der) to perform better at water deficits from 25–75% and plastic mulch had highest
water use efficiency. Treatment receiving mulch recorded significantly higher net
286 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

returns and benefit – cost ratio (1.80) compared to control as a result of soil water
conservation. A 34–50% reduction in soil water evaporation was observed as a re-
sult of crop residue mulching. Mulch slows down evaporation and reduces the irri-
gation requirement [9, 27]. Liu et al. [31 to 34] also reported that mulching improves
the ecological environment of the soil and increases soil water contents.
Plastic mulch helps prevent soil water loss during dry years and sheds excessive
water away from the crop root zone during periods of excessive rainfall. This can
reduce irrigation frequency and amount of water. It may help to reduce the incidence
of moisture related physiological disorders such as blossom end rot on tomato, fruit
cracking in lime and pomegranate. Research has shown that mulch provides many
benefits to crop production through soil and water conservation, enhanced soil bi-
ological activity and improved chemical and physical properties of the soil [19].
Cooper [17], Menezes et al. [38], Chung [14] and Aliudin [5] reported that mulches
conserved more soil moistures, enhanced vegetative growth and yield of garlic.
Adeoye [4] recorded high moisture content up to a depth of 60 cm in grass-
mulched soil together with good infiltration and reduced evaporation. Chen [13]
also reported high water content in the top 5 cm of soil (an increase of 4.7% in
clayey, 3.1% in loamy and 0.8–1.8% in sandy soil) with polyethylene mulch from
sowing to the emergence of groundnut seedlings [44].
According Bhelia [9], increased plant dry weight for mulched plants was due to
the capabilities of mulch to maintain soil moisture as well as increased efficiency in
water uptake by plants. The growth and leaf yield of mulberry appears to be direct
reflection of the soil moisture status.
Orzolek et al. [41] observed that use of polyethylene mulch in the field, increase
in the soil temperature especially in early spring, reduced weed problems, and in-
creased moisture conservation, reduction in certain insect pest, higher crop yield and
more efficient use of soil nutrients. Sood and Sharma [47] reported similar benefi-
cial effects of mulching through improvement of soil.
The rate of evaporation and water losses in agricultural land depends on a num-
ber of factors, from which the irrigation methods are very important. Open ditches
and flooded basins experience evaporation losses ranging from 10 to 40% [50]. The
use of mulches helps to conserve water, by reducing evaporation from soil surface,
cooling soil, controlling weed growth, reducing soil erosion, and compaction [46,
48, 50]. The mulches compose of organic, inorganic (natural) and man-made ma-
terials. Organic mulches are readily available, provide nutrients, and do not added
chemicals to the environment [45].
Budelman [12] examined the impact of three types of organic mulches on sur-
face soil temperature reduction and moisture conservation on a sandy soil (85%
sand) during a 60-day dry period. According to him, the initial impact ranged from a
reduction in soil temperature of 5.6–9.8°C and an increase in soil moisture from 4%
to 5.6% for different mulches applied in this experiment [35].
Use of Mulches In Soil Moisture Conservation: A Review 287

Not all types of mulches are appropriate that can be used with any irrigation
systems. For instance, natural or organic mulches slow down the water movement in
surface irrigation. Drip irrigation systems are often effective when used in conjunc-
tion with any type of mulches, particularly with plastic mulches [36]. In contrast,
plastic mulches can readily be used in conjunction with surface irrigation systems
such as furrow irrigation to save water by reducing evaporation losses.
Plastic mulches may be clear, black or any color type. Short wave rays of sun
penetrate in clear plastic and warm up the soil (+10°C) and the long wavelengths
reradiating from the soil, that is also trapped, can intensify the situation. In this case,
evaporating water causes greenhouse effects that in turn increases early growth in
cool season, but also stimulates weed growth under clear plastic. Black plastic is
heated due to short wave absorption which in turn warm soil (+6°C) by conduction
and increases many crop yield and control weed growth [46].
Plastic mulch seems to be one of the effective ways to conserve water in the
soil reservoir to be up-taken gradually by plants. Plastic mulch is spread over the
soil surface to trap the heat and accelerate the rate of soil warming and cause early
harvest of crop product.
Combination of plastic mulch and drip irrigation was popularized in USA for
more than two decades and recently in some parts of Iran, due to “quicker to market”
benefit of faster seed germination and plant growth. To determine yield, quality, and
water use efficiency (WUE) of muskmelon, six irrigation systems including drip
and furrow with mulch on Cucumis melo L. group Cantalupensis, Caravelle were
evaluated by Leskovar et al. [31]. The results showed that the average water applied
for drip systems was 53% lower than that for conventional furrow systems, and
WUE was 2.3-folds more. However, the combination of plastic and furrow irriga-
tion has not yet been fully examined in the field to find if there is any effect on soil
water conservation and likelihood increase in yield of cucumber and tomato crops.
The purpose of this study was to find the effect of plastic mulch use with furrow irri-
gation on cucumber and tomato yield in the field at flowering and production stages.
Plastic film mulch technology is a cropping system feature for water saving
that is used extensively in arid and semiarid areas of northwest China [37]. When
evaporative demand is fairly strong, film mulching can greatly reduce soil water
evaporation. However, research on water flow beneath and through various open-
hole ratios of the perforated film mulches is limited, and questions concerning soil
water flow and soil heat transfer for this type of water-saving system remain unan-
swered. It is, therefore, very important to perform research on soil water evaporation
and soil temperature distribution with various open-hole ratios of the perforated
plastic mulches. Yi et al. [52] conducted a series of soil water evaporation experi-
ments using different open-hole ratios of perforated plastic mulches. The columns
received mulches with various open-hole ratios: 0% (covered with a solid plastic
mulch), 1.39%, 2.84%, 7.24%, 30.5%, and 100% (non mulched bare surface). In
conjunction with the water movement of evaporation from film open-hole stud-
288 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

ies, soil temperature distributions were also analyzed. Their measurements indi-
cated that film open-hole mulch had a restraining effect on evaporation and that the
restraining effect decreased with the increase in open-hole ratios. Compared with
bare soil evaporation, the percentage of evaporation reduction rates for open-hole
ratios of 0%, 1.39%, 2.84%, 7.24%, and 30.5% were 69.26%, 33.09%, 22.80%,
20.05%, and 11.82%, respectively. The results showed a linear relationship between
cumulative water evaporation and square root of time for the different open-hole
ratios of the perforated plastic mulches, and the coefficients of the linear function
were significant. On this basis, mathematical relations of relative evaporation rate
and evaporation based on hole areas of perforated plastic mulches were analyzed
and discussed. These results extend the Gardner evaporation equation to bare soils
[22] to include water evaporation from soils covered by various perforated plastic
mulches. The resulting equations presented in this study provide an approach for
describing evaporation from plastic mulch covered soil. The annual evaporative de-
mand of arid and semiarid regions near Xinjiang in northwest China exceeds 2000
mm, whereas annual precipitation is less than 200 mm. Thus, a great need exists in
the area to make efficient use of all agricultural water.
Plastic mulch can also increase soil temperature, and the increase in soil temper-
ature can cause changes in soil water distribution [34]. Thus the coupled transport of
water and heat in soils should be researched in order to understand the fundamental
features of soil water evaporation with different open-hole ratios of plastic mulch.
Research regarding bare soil water evaporation has been conducted by experi-
mental methods, theoretical analysis, and numerical calculation [6, 10, 11, 21, 22,
23, 29, 39, 40, 42, 45, 48]. The evaporation equation for bare soils developed by
Gardner [23] is one of the most popular equations for calculation of soil water evap-
oration. He found that cumulative evaporation was a linear function of the square
root of time. Behzad [8] comparing his study with the previous studies concluded
that using clear plastic mulch conjunction with furrow irrigation system had signifi-
cant effect on soil moisture retention by 74.4%. No significant water conservation
was considered under black plastic mulch in his study. Considerable yield incre-
ments (60 and 48.7%) and (65.8 and 46.7%) were achieved for tomato and cucum-
ber crops under both clear and black plastic mulches, respectively, at flowering and
production stages. A more field study is recommended to understand the effect of
furrow irrigation with plastic mulches on water conservation.
Organic vegetable producers in drier, cooler climates such as ours on the front
range of Colorado like to use black polyethylene plastic film as mulch on vegetable
row crops for multiple reasons. McDonald [27] suggested that when drip irrigation
is laid underneath the plastic film, it delivers water and fertilizer to the plants and
evaporation is reduced. But, because there is no surface evaporation of water, it is
easy to over-irrigate crops. For this reason, a moisture probe should be used to check
root zone moisture levels.
Use of Mulches In Soil Moisture Conservation: A Review 289

In addition to providing water conservation, this synthetic mulch controls weeds

and warms the soil, making for an earlier crop. The black plastic mulch can be
covered with hay or straw to protect crops from excessive heat later in the summer.
In addition to black plastic film which can only be used one season, black wo-
ven landscape cloth is often used [28], which can be reused up to seven years. Or-
ganic mulches such as straw, hay, grass clippings, pine needles, and leaves also
conserve moisture. These organic mulches add organic matter to the soil after they
decompose. However, one needs to pay attention how different organic mulches can
change the soil chemistry. Finally, green living mulches, or cover crops, can help to
conserve moisture if the right cover crop is used for the right agricultural crop under
given soil and climate conditions.
According to a research conducted by Chakraborty [18], it is concluded that
mulching is one of the important agronomic practices in conserving the soil mois-
ture and modifying the soil physical environment. Field experiments were conduct-
ed in a sandy loam soil to evaluate the soil and plant water status in wheat under
synthetic (transparent and black polyethylene) and organic (rice husk) mulches
with limited irrigation and compared with adequate irrigation with no mulch (con-
ventional practices by the farmers). Though all the mulch treatments improved the
soil moisture status, rice husk was found to be superior in maintaining optimum
soil moisture condition for crop use. The residual soil moisture was also minimum,
indicating effective utilization of moisture by the crop. The plant water status, as
evaluated by relative water content and leaf water potential, was favorable. Specific
leaf weight, root length density and dry biomass were also greater in this treatment.
Optimum soil and canopy thermal environment of wheat with limited fluctuations
were observed, even during dry periods. This produced comparable yield with less
water use, enhancing the water use efficiency. Therefore, it may be concluded that
under limited irrigation condition, mulching will be beneficial for wheat as it is
able to maintain better soil and plant water status, leading to higher grain yield and
enhanced water use efficiency.

17.4 CONCLUSIONS
Use of moisture conservation measures is a prime need of the hour. There is an
urgent need to evaluate methods to prevent excessive loss of water from soil sur-
face, which can otherwise be used by the crop for its physiological development.
Mulching has been advocated as an effective practice for conserving soil moisture.
It works as an insulating barrier which checks evaporation from soil surface. More-
over, use of polyethylene mulch has been reported to conserve soil moisture appre-
ciably. Hence, under prevailing drought and water scarcity conditions, conservation
of soil moisture and to ensure availability of soil moisture to crop is of greater im-
portance [51]. The black polyethylene mulch also reduces all types of weeds in addi-
tion to soil moisture conservation. Therefore, black plastic mulch is more beneficial.
290 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

17.5 SUMMARY
India is an agricultural economy, which focuses on various water conservation strat-
egies, due to limited water resources. Moreover, most of these resources are either
out of reach for agricultural use or not in proper condition to be used directly. There
is considerable loss from soil surface. It has now become the need of an hour to
save the water, which has been wasted recklessly. Mulching is a technique that can
help to conserve water. Besides, mulching helps in weed management as well. This
helps in retaining best soil structure for the crop growth. Mulches prevent surface
runoff over soil, prevents water splashing, maintains optimum soil temperature and
soil water content, thereby providing best suitable environment for crop growth.
The review in this chapter deals with various aspects of mulches in soil moisture
conservation.

KEYWORDS

•• agricultural economy
•• mulching
•• open-hole ratio
•• soil moisture conservation
•• soil structure
•• soil temperature
•• transpiration
•• water management
•• water splashing
•• water use efficiency
•• weed management

REFERENCES
1. Abdul-Baki, A., Spence, C. (1992). Black polyethylene mulch doubled yield of fresh-market
field tomatoes. Hort Science, 27, 787–789.
2. Abu-Awwad, A. M. (1998). Effect of mulch and irrigation water amounts on soil evaporation
and transpiration. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science, 181, 55–59.
3. Abu-Awwad, A M. (1999). Irrigation water management for efficiency water use in mulched
onion. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science, 183, 1–7.
4. Adeoye, K. B. (1984). Influence of grass mulch on soil temperature, soil moisture and yield
of maize and gero millet in a savanna zone soil. Samaru Journal of Agricultural Research, 2,
87–97.
Use of Mulches In Soil Moisture Conservation: A Review 291

5. Aliudin, T. (1986). Effect of Soil tillage and Application of Mulch on Yield of Field Grown
Garlic. Buletin-Penelitian-Hortikultura, 8, 12–15.
6. Bachmann, J., Horton, R., van der Ploeg R. R. (2001). Isothermal and non isothermal evapora-
tion from four sandy soils of different water repellency. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 65, 1599–1607.
7. Barker, A. V. (1990). Mulches for Herbs. The Herb Spice and Medicinal Plant Digest, 8(3),
1–6.
8. Behzad, Ghorbani, (2004). Evaluation of plastic mulch effects on cucumber and tomato yield
at flowering and production stages. Proceedings of ICID Interregional Conference on food
production and water: social and economic issues of irrigation and drainage, Moscow, Russia,
5–11 September, pp. 2.1.3.
9. Bhelia, H. S. (1988). Tomato response to trickle irrigation and black polythlene mulch. Jour-
nal American Society of Horticultural Science, 113, 543–546.
10. Black, T. A., Gardner, W. R., Thurtell, G. W. (1969). The prediction of evaporation, drainage,
and soil water storage for a bare soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc., 33, 655–660.
11. Brisson, N., Perrier, A. (1991). A semiempirical model of bare soil evaporation for crop simu-
lation models. Water Resour. Res., 27, 719–727.
12. Budelman, A. (1989). The performance of selected leaf mulches in temperature reduction and
moisture conservation in the upper soil stratum, Agro. Syst., 8, 53–66.
13. Chen, Z. (1985). Polythene mulched groundnut development in Guanzhou city. Peanut Sci-
ence Technology, 3, 34–37.
14. Chung, D. H. (1987). Effect of polyethylene film mulching, sulfur application and different
levels of nitrogen and potassium on growth, flower stalk elongation, bulbing and leaf tip
yellowing of garlic (Allium sativum cv. Enizing). Journal of Korean Society of Horticultural
Science 28, 1–8 pages.
15. Clark, J. R., Moore J. N. (1991). Southern high bush blueberry response to mulch. HortTech-
nology, 1(1), 52–54.
16. Clough, G H., Locascio S. J., Olson S. M. (1990). Yield of successively cropped polyethylene-
mulched vegetables as affected by irrigation method and fertilization management. Journal
American Society for Horticultural Science, 115, 884–887.
17. Cooper A. J. (1973). Root Temperature and Plant Growth- A Review. Commonwealth Bureau
of Horticulture and Plantation Crops, East Malling, Maidstone, Kent, UK.
18. Debashis, Chakrabortya, Shantha Nagarajanb, Pramila Aggarwala, Gupta, V. K., Tomara, R.
K., Garg, R. N., Sahooa, R. N., Sarkarc, A., Chopra, U. K., Sundra, K. S., Kalra, N. (2012).
Effect of mulching on soil and plant water status, and the growth and yield of wheat (Triticum
aestivum L.) in a semiarid environment. Division of Agricultural Physics, Indian Agricultural
Research Institute, New Delhi 110012.
19. Dilip, K. G., Sachin S. S., Rajesh Kumar, (1990). Importance of mulch in crop production.
Indian J. Soil Cons., 18, 20–26.
20. Friake, N. N., Bangal, G. B., Kenghe, R. N., More, G. M. (1990). Plastic tunnel and mulches
for water conservation. Agricultural Engineering Today, 14(3–4):35–39.
21. Fritton, D. D., Kirkham, D., Shaw, R. H. (1970). Soil water evaporation, isothermal diffusion,
and heat and water transfer. Soil. Sci. Soc. Am. Proc., 34, 183–189.
22. Gardner, H. R., Gardner, W. R. (1969). Relation of water application to evaporation and stor-
age of soil water. Soil. Sci. Soc. Am. Proc., 33, 192–196.
23. Gardner, W. R. (1959). Solutions of the flow equation for the drying of soils and other porous
media. Soil. Sci. Soc. Am. Proc., 23, 183–187.
24. Goswami, S. B., Saha, S. (2006). Effect of organic and inorganic mulches on soil-moisture
conservation, weed suppression and yield of elephant-foot yam (Amorphophallus peoniifo-
lius). Indian J. Agron., 51(2), 154–156.
292 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

25. Ingman, M. (2012). The Role of plastic mulch as a water conservation practice for desert.
Oasis Communities of Northern China Mark Ingman’s thesis defense for his MS in Water
Resources Policy and Management.
26. Jack, C. V., Brind W. D., Smith R. (1955). Mulching Tech. Comm. No. 49, Commonwealth
Bulletin of Soil Science, UK.
27. McDonald, K. (2013). Thirty-five Water Conservation Methods for Agriculture, Farming, and
Gardening. Part II.
28. Kratsch, H. (2007). Water-wise landscaping: Mulch. HG/Landscaping/2007–01pr, Utah State
University.
29. Lascano, R. J., C. H. M. van Bavel, (1986). Simulation and measurement of evaporation from
a bare soil. Soil. Sci. Soc. Am. J., 50, 1127–1133.
30. Leskovar, D. I., Ward, J. C., Sprague, R. W. (2001). Yield, quality, and water use efficiency
of muskmelon are affected by irrigation and transplanting versus direct seeding. HortScience,
36(2), 282–289.
31. Li, M. S. (2006). Effect of drip emitter discharge on the soil moisture, heat, solutes dynamics
and crop water use under drip irrigation with plastic mulch. North-west A & F University, pp.
20–60.
32. Li, S. X., Wang, Z. H., Li, S. Q., Gao, Y. J., Tian, X. H. (2013). Effect of plastic sheet mulch,
wheat straw mulch, and maize growth on water loss by evaporation in dry land areas of China.
Agricultural Water Management, 116, 39–49.
33. Li, Y., Wang, Q. J., Wang, W. Y. (2005). Distribution and movement characteristics of soil
water and soil salt during evaporation from perforated plastic mulch. Plant Nutrition and
Fertilizing Science, 11(2), 187–193.
34. Li, Y., Wang, Q. J., Wang, W. Y. (2005). Soil evaporation under perforated plastic mulch.
Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 16(3), 445–449.
35. Louise, E. B., Lassoie, J. P., Fernandes, E. C. M. (1999). Agroforestry in Sustainable Agricul-
tural Systems. CRC Press, Boca Raton, New York, Washington, D. C., p 53–54.
36. Mata, V. H., Nunez, R. E., Sanches, P. (2002). Soil temperature and soil moisture in Serrano
pepper (Capsicum annuum L.) with fertigation and mulching. Proceeding of the 16th Interna-
tional Pepper Conference Tampico, Tamaulipas, Mexico, November 10–12.
37. Men, Q., Li, Y., Feng, G. (2003). Effects of plastic film mulch patterns on soil surface evapora-
tion. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage, 22(2), 17- 20.
38. Menezes, S. M., Navais D. E., Sontos H. L., Dos M. A. (1974). The effect of nitrogen fertiliza-
tion, plant spacing and mulching on the yield of garlic cultivar Amarante. Revista Ceres, 21,
203–211.
39. Milly, P. C. D. (1984). A simulation analysis of thermal effects on evaporation from soil. Water
Resour. Res., 20, 1087–1098.
40. Munley, W. G. Jr., Hipps, L. E. (1991). Estimation of regional evaporation for a tall grass prai-
rie from measurements of properties of the atmospheric boundary layer. Water Resour. Res.,
27, 225–230.
41. Orzolek, M. D., Murphy J., Ciardi J. (1993). The effect of colored polyethylene mulch on the
yield of squash, tomato and cauliflower. Final Report to the Pennsylvania Vegetable Market-
ing and Research Commodity Board. The Pennsylvania State University, USA.
42. Philip, J. R. (1957). Evaporation, moisture and heat fields in the soil. J. Meteorol., 14, 354–
366.
43. Qi, G. P. (2008). Combined mechanism of root-soil water-salt in drip irrigation under mulch
on saline-alkaline land. Gansu Agriculture University, pp. 19–45.
44. Ramakrishna, A., Tam, H. M., Wani, S. P., Long, T. D. (2006). Effect of mulch on soil tem-
perature, moisture, weed infestation and yield of groundnut in northern Vietnam. Field Crops
Res., 95, 115–125.
Use of Mulches In Soil Moisture Conservation: A Review 293

45. Reynolds, W. D., Walker, G. K. (1984). Development and validation of a numerical model
simulating evaporation from short cores. Soil. Sci. Soc. Am. J., 48, 960–969.
46. Robinette, G. O., Sloan, K. W. (1984). Water Conservation Landscape Design and Manage-
ment. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, Berkshire, England, p: 147–158.
47. Sood, B. R., Sharma V. K. (1996). Effect of intercropping and planting geometry on the yield
and quality of forage maize. Forage Research, 24, 190–192.
48. Suleiman, A. A., Ritchie, J. T. (2003). Modeling soil water redistribution during second-stage
evaporation. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 67, 377–386.
49. Thurston, H. D. (1997). Mulch systems – sustainable methods for tropical agriculture. West-
view Press, A Division of HarperCollins Publishers, Inc., Colorado, USA, 19–29.
50. Vickers, A. (2001). Water Use Conservation. Water Flow Press, Amherst, Massachusetts,
USA, 215–217 & 380.
51. Yadahalli, G. S., Vidyavathi G. Y and Srinivasareddy, G. V. (2011). Mulching: One of the
means to mitigate drought. Agrobios Newsletter, 9(10), 36–37.
52. Yi, L., Mingan Shao, Wenyan Wang, Robert Q. Wang, (2003). Open-hole ratios: effects of
perforated plastic mulches on soil water evaporation. Horton Soil Science, 168(11), 751–758.
53. Zajicek, J M and Heilman J. L. (1991). Transpiration by crape myrtle cultivars surrounded by
mulch, soil and turf grass surfaces. Hort. Science, 26(9), 1207–1210.
This page intentionally left blank
CHAPTER 18

PERFORMANCE OF DRIP IRRIGATED

GROUNDNUT
ANGREJ SINGH, KAMAL G. SINGH, RAMESH. P. RUDRA, and
PRADEEP K. GOEL

18.1 INTRODUCTION
Groundnut (Arachis hypogea L.) can be grown over a wide range of climatic condi-
tions. It has been reported that under low temperature conditions, polythene mulch
applied at beginning of crop growth accelerated emergence, seedling growth, flow-
ering and increased pod number and 100 seed mass of groundnut by increasing soil
temperatures. The normal planting time of spring groundnut in Punjab is February
and its harvesting coincides with the onset of the monsoon which results in signifi-
cant harvest losses. The soil temperature is quite low under Punjab conditions in the
months of January and February so groundnut germination is affected. The plastic
mulches are known for the increase in soil temperature and for conserving higher
soil moisture in the root zone. Therefore, this study explores possibility of planting
groundnut in the month of January and harvesting it before the onset of the rainy

18.2 MATERIALS AND METHODS

A field experiment was conducted during winter/spring season of 2007 and 2008
in the department of Soil and Water Engineering, Punjab Agricultural University
Ludhiana. The soil of the experimental plot was loamy sand, with pH 8.2 and EC
of 0.14 mmhos/cm. Soil was low in organic carbon (0.36%), available N (244.8 kg
ha–1), high in available P (25.0 kg ha–1) and medium in available K (240 kg ha–1).
The experiment was laid in factorial split plot design with three factors viz.
method of planting (Flat and Bed), mulches (Transparent plastic mulch (15 µ),
black biodegradable mulch(15 µ), and no mulch) and two dates of sowing (23 Jan

*In this chapter, the currency is expressed in Indian Rupees (1.00 US$ = Rs. 60.93; 1.00 Rs. = 0.02 US$).
296 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

2007 and 27 Jan 2008) as D1 and (22 Feb 2007 and 15 Feb 2008) as D2. All the treat-
ments were replicated thrice.
The recommended dose of nitrogen fertilizer @ 15 Kg N/ha (33 Kg urea/ha) was
applied as basal dose at the time of sowing. The crop was sown as per treatment after
giving heavy pre sowing irrigation. Flat sowing was done at spacing of 30 × 15 cm2
while bed planting was done at 45 × 10 cm2. The plot size was 4.5 × 2.7 m2. The seed
of groundnut variety SG-99 was hand dibbled at the desired spacing. The mulches
were applied on the same day after sowing and were removed after one month from
date of sowing. The crop was given one hand weeding 30 DAS. The irrigation was
applied using drip irrigation system at IW/CPE ratio of 0.75. During both the years
D1 was harvested in 2nd week of June and D2 was harvested in 4th week of June.

18.3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The data on soil temperature revealed that morning soil temperature recorded at
7.30 a.m. was 1.2–1.5°C higher in biodegradable mulch and 2.4–3.1°C higher under
plastic mulch as compared to no mulch plots during 2007 and 2008, respectively.
The increase in afternoon (14.30 hrs.) temperature in biodegradable and plastic
mulch film as compared to the no mulch plot was 1.3 and 2.1°C in 2007 and 1.5
and 2.0°C during 2008, respectively. The results are in line with those obtained by
Huwenguang et al. [1], and Kumar and Ngachan [2].
The planting methods significantly affected the germination percentage (Table
18.1) and recorded 3.7% higher germination in bed planting as compared to flat
planting method. The data on number of mature pods/plant, single/double seeded
pods and shelling percent did not differ significantly at the time of harvest. The
100-kernel weight was significantly higher in flat planting than bed planting system.
This may be because from the edges of bed, the pegs take more time to contact the
ground as compared to flat soil surface, so effective time for seed maturity in pod
was comparatively less in bed planting system. The results confirm the findings of
Kumar and Ngachan [2].

TABLE 18.1 Groundnut Germination, Yield Attributes and Yield As Influenced by Planting
Method, Mulch and Dates of Sowing*

Treatment Germination Percen- No. of mature 100 kernel Shelling Pod

(%) tage of pods/plant weight percentage yield,
30 DAS mature (g) per 100
pods kg/ha

At Single Double
harvest

Bed planting 57.7 71.4 9.4 23.9 63.8 62.6 30.7

Performance of Drip Irrigated Groundnut 297

TABLE 18.1 (Continued)

Flat planting 54.0 69.9 9.0 24.3 64.9 63.3 33.6

CD (p=0.05) 2.5 NS NS NS 1.10 NS 1.63

No mulch 38.3 69.7 8.2 22.7 61.6 60.5 30.3

Plastic mulch 68.1 77.7 9.5 25.4 66.6 65.3 33.2

Biodegradable 61.1 75.4 10.0 24.2 64.9 63.2 32.9

mulch

CD (p=0.05) 3.0 6.34 1.02 1.16 1.35 1.40 1.99

D1 31.0 59.9 8.9 23.6 63.8 62.4 29.5

D2 80.7 62.9 9.5 24.6 64.9 63.5 33.9

CD (p=0.05) 2.3 NS NS NS NS NS 1.60

*Pooled data 2007–2008.

The application of biodegradable mulch and plastic mulch film improved the
groundnut germination. The early germination may be due to increased soil tem-
perature and favorable soil moisture in the seeding zone. At the time of harvest
the percentage of mature pods was significantly higher under plastic mulch film as
compared to no mulch but at par with biodegradable mulch. The no. of mature pods/
plant, 100-kernel weight and shelling % were significantly better both under the
plastic and biodegradable mulch as compared to no mulch (Table 18.1). The highest
pod yield of 33.2 q/ha was obtained under plastic mulch was at par with the biode-
gradable mulch, but both the mulches were significantly superior to the no mulch
conditions. The results confirm the findings of Subrahmaniyan and Kaliaselvan [4,
5], and Raskar and Bhoi [3].
Planting date had a significant influence on the germination percentage. The
mid February sown crop recorded significantly higher germination percentage as
compared to January (4th week) sown crop (Table 18.1). The reduced germination
in January sown crop is mainly due to low temperature. The planting dates did not
have any significant effect on the yield attributes of groundnut. However, pod yield
was significantly higher in the second date of sowing. This may be because of the
cumulative effect of the yield attributes and due to extremely cold winters during
2008 in which first date-sown crop remained under frost spell for more than two
weeks resulting in reduced plant stand and hence poor yield.
298 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

18.4. SUMMARY
The application of biodegradable and plastic mulch increased the pod yield of
groundnut to the tune of 8.6 and 9.6% over the control plot. The yield reduction due
to early planting was 15%, which is considered as better option if the crop damage
(quality deterioration) by rain is considered.

KEYWORDS

•• biodegradable mulch
•• crop damage
•• germination
•• groundnut
•• mulch
•• planting date
•• planting method
•• plastic mulch
•• pod yield

REFERENCES
1. Huwenguang, Duan, S. Sui, Q. (1995). High-yield technology for groundnut. International
Arachis Newsletter, 15, 14–15.
2. Kumar, S., Ngachan, S. V. (2001). Performance of winter groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.)
with polythene mulch under rained condition of Manipur valley. Indian J. Agron., 46, 151–
155.
3. Raskar, B. S., Bhoi, P. G. (2003). Response of summer groundnut ( Arachis hypogaea) to ir-
rigation regimes and mulching. Indian J. Agron., 48, 210–213.
4. Subrahmaniyan, K., Kalaiselvan, P. (2005). Flowering behavior and reproductive growth of
polyethylene film mulched groundnut (Arachis hypogaea) intercropped with cotton (Gossy-
pium hirsutum) under irrigated situation. Indian J. Agron., 50, 126–128.
5. Subrahmaniyan, K., Kalaiselvan, P., Balasubramanian, T. N. (2008). Micro climate variations
in relation to different types of polyethylene film mulch on growth and yield of groundnut
(Arachis hypogaea). Indian J. Agron., 53, 184–188.
CHAPTER 19

PERFORMANCE OF DRIP IRRIGATED

POTATO
AMANPREET KAUR CHAWLA and KAMAL G. SINGH

19.1 INTRODUCTION
Agricultural crop production is witnessing a rapid transition to agricultural com-
modity production and in this emerging global economic order, potato is appearing
as an important crop, poised to sustain and diversify food production in this mil-
lennium. India, the biggest producer after Russia and China, has 128.48 thousand
hectare under potato crop with an annual output of 23,271.8 thousand metric tons. In
Punjab, potato is most prominent crop in winter occupying an area of 66.5 thousand
hectare with the total production of 1,382.6 thousand metric tons and with an aver-
age yield of 20,791 Kg/ha [22].
Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) a rich source of starch, vitamins especially B1
and C and minerals, is one of the rare noncereal food that can meet the nutritional
requirements of the fast growing population particularly in developing countries
where it has not yet been adopted as a staple food. In India, about 98% of the crop
production is used for table purpose, where as in developed countries about 15%
is used for processing purpose. Potato production is seasonal and quiet fluctuating
causing large variations in its prices in India [22, 23].
The alternative use of potatoes as processed food can help to stabilize the potato
production vis-à-vis its prices. The major bottleneck for potato processing is suit-
ability of tuber for processing. The quality requirements for processing depends
mainly upon dry matter and reducing sugar content as these determine the yield,
texture and quality of processed products. A dry matter content of 18–20% and re-
ducing sugar less than 0.25% is desirable for processing [21]. Prevailing night tem-
perature during tuberization affects the quality parameters. If the night temperature
is less than 10°C, the dry matter content is low (<18%) and reducing sugar content
is more than 0.25%, where as night temperature of 10–12°C improves the quality
parameters and bring these parameters near the threshold limit. Further increase in

*In this chapter, the currency is expressed in Indian Rupees (1.00 US$ = Rs. 60.93; 1.00 Rs. = 0.02 US$).
300 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

the night temperature above 12°C, favors the quality parameters to remain within
the desirable limits. However, tuber yield is inversely affected with the increase in
night temperature.
If some agro-techniques are developed which can maintain the optimum tempera-
ture for quality parameters while optimizing the tuber yield, the potato cultivation can
become more remunerative. Mulches are known to modify soil hydrothermal condi-
tions. Mulches act as covering soil surface vapor barriers or reflective materials that
can help in checking evaporation by reducing the intensity with which external factors,
such as radiations and wind act upon soil surface. Therefore, the use of mulches results
in moisture and heat conservative and retard weed growth. Mulches also reduce soil
and water losses considerably thus allowing more water intake into soil. Today differ-
ent type of mulches such as polyethylene (PE), biodegradable and organic mulches are
available. Due to high specific heat of water it is known to stabilize the temperature.
Maintenance of soil moisture content at higher levels raises the minimum soil tem-
perature [12]. This task can be better accomplished by drip method of irrigation, which
supplies water in relatively less quantity but frequently in the root zone only.
Drip irrigation is an efficient method of water application and represents a defi-
nite advancement in irrigation technology with wider applications. This system typi-
cally applies water from a point source called emitter/dripper on daily basis under
low pressure and at slow rate to the root zone to keep the soil always in wet condi-
tion or near field capacity. It offers considerable flexibility in fertigation because
of frequent or nearly continuous application of plant nutrients along with irrigation
water. Adoption of this irrigation technology has not only ensured better crop yields
but also better quality produce.
Studies on the use of mulches along with drip irrigation for vegetable crop es-
pecially potato are very few. Therefore, the present study was planned with the fol-
lowing objectives:
1. to modify the hydrothermal soil environment using mulches during tuber-
ization and drip irrigation for quality potato production.
2. to study the effect of conditions so obtained on the tuber yield and quality of
drip irrigated potatoes.

19.2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE

19.2.1 EFFECTS OF MULCHING ON POTATO CROP
Covering the soil surface with any material, which may be organic or synthetic
in nature, is known to conserve the soil moisture, obstruct the irradiation of heat
from the soil and suppress the weed. Several investigators have observed the favor-
able effect of mulches on the soil and plant parameters. Awan [2] indicated that an
increase in soil temperature from mulching caused significant increase in potato
yields. Mulching also helped in the conservation of soil moisture.
Performance of Drip Irrigated Potato 301

Grewal and Singh [12] found the possibility of manipulating hydrothermal re-
gime of the soil with different organic mulches in order to improve the quality and
yield of potato. They observed that mulches lower the maximum soil temperature at
a depth of 10 cm by 1.5°C during autumn and 3.5°C during spring. Midmore et al.
[17] reported that mulch maintains soil moisture reserves more effectively than bare
soil. It was further reported that mulches retained more heat in the soil at night when
combined with agronomic practices and thus increase soil heat retention [22, 23].
Khalak and Kumaraswamy [14] reported an increase in the tuber yield and pro-
motion of plant growth. It was observed that mulches help to improve the growth
components like dry matter accumulation/plant, plant height, shoots/plant and leaf-
area duration. Jain et al. [13] reported the increase in yield and the water use ef-
ficiency by using the plastic mulch on potato crop as compared to the nonmulched
crop. Chandra et al. [7] reported an increase in tuber number and weight/plant, tuber
yield and size owing to mulches that provide congenial environment for tuber de-
velopment by maintaining soil temperature in optimum range and conserving soil
moisture. It was further found that canopy temperature was lower in mulch treat-
ment during early phase of crop growth.
Lamont et al. [16] reported that row covers had no significant effect on yield
and grades of the crop. All the mulch treatments significantly increased market-
able yields compared to no mulch treatments. Sahoo et al. [19] revealed that plastic
mulching increases the tuber yield and plant height of potatoes and water use ef-
ficiency. The transparent and black polyethylene film mulches increase total tuber
yield by 16% and 8%, respectively, and average tuber weight by 14% and 12%,
respectively, compared with no mulch (21.6 t/ha and 72.2 g/tuber).

19.2.2 EFFECTS OF DRIP IRRIGATION ON POTATO

Water is known to stabilize the temperature due to its high specific heat. Drip meth-
od of irrigation can better accomplish the task of maintaining soil moisture as it
can supply water frequently in relatively less quantity in the root zone only. Awari
and Hiwase [3] reported an increase in growth, leaf area, tuber yield and water use
efficiency with drip irrigation compared with furrow/basin irrigation. Chawla and
Narda [8, 9, 10] observed increased value of root density in the top layer of trickle ir-
rigated potato crop as compared with furrow irrigation. An increase of 40% in tuber
yields with trickle irrigation than furrow irrigation was also observed in the same
study. Ahire et al. [1] observed that drip irrigation system produced higher number
of tubers per plant (5.58), larger size of tubers (16.08 cm), more weight of tubers per
plant (145.5 g) and higher tuber yield (20.43t/ha) as compared to surface irrigation
in potato crop. Drip irrigation saved 46% irrigation water over surface irrigation.
Chawla and Narda [8] showed that leaf area index, percent ground cover and
dry matter accumulation were higher in the trickle irrigated than in conventionally
irrigated potato crop which in-turn increased the tuber yield. Jain et al. [13] reported
302 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

greater water saving by reducing the conveyance, application and deep percola-
tion losses, in trickle irrigation as compared to surface irrigation. The increase in
plant height, number of branches and yield of potato was also observed. Chawla and
Narda [9] indicated that about 30% of water saving could be done using trickle irri-
gation in comparison to furrow irrigation on potato crop. It was further reported the
increased yield of fresh tubers with trickle irrigation. Singh et al. [20] revealed that
the drip irrigation produced significantly higher tuber yield of potato by improving
the crop water use efficiency as compared to conventional furrow method.

19.2.3 EFFECTS OF MULCHING AND DRIP IRRIGATION ON

OTHER CROPS
Easson [11] reported that mulching increased yield by 2–4 t/ha and dry matter con-
tent and advanced maize maturity, particularly in crops sown early. Palada et al. [18]
revealed that the use of mulches and drip irrigation lead to the increased total num-
ber and weight of fruits of bell pepper. Also mulching resulted in more efficient use
(35%) of irrigation water compared to bare plots and 33–46% increase in economic
returns from bell pepper production.
Waterer [23] reported that plastic mulches improved stand establishment and
fruit yields relative to nonmulches control. Clear mulch was observed superior to
black plastic in some cases. Khan [15] observed increased pod yield of groundnut
and higher water use efficiency were recorded under plastic mulches. Minimum
depletion of moisture was also observed in plastic mulches.
Suresh and Kumar [21] studied the effects of drip irrigation and mulches on
the performance of pointed gourd. It was observed that drip irrigation and mulches
resulted in the greatest fruit length (9.53 cm), fruit circumference (5.35 cm), num-
ber of fruits per vine (165), fruit weight (51.0 g), yield per vine (7.90 kg), yield per
hectare (19.75tons), benefit cost ratio (9.18) and net profit (Rs. 690/mm of water).
Verma [22] indicated that drip irrigation and polyethylene mulch besides the 55.6%
water saving has also resulted to 37% higher crop yield compared with surface ir-
rigation only for capsicum crop.

19.3 MATERIALS AND METHODS

To investigate the effect of mulches on potato, field studies were undertaken using
drip and conventional methods of irrigation. Plant growth parameters like leaf area,
dry matter accumulation, yield and quality attributes of drip irrigated were com-
pared with conventionally irrigated potato crop.
Field studies on potato crop were conducted at the Research Farm of the De-
partment of Soil and Water Engineering, PAU Ludhiana from October 2006–Janu-
ary 2007 using mulches with drip and conventional irrigation system. Ludhiana is
situated at 30°56′ N latitude, 70°52′ longitude and 247 m above mean sea level.
Performance of Drip Irrigated Potato 303

The summers of Ludhiana are quite hot and winters are equally cold. Soil physio-
chemical properties at field site are given in Table 19.1.

TABLE 19.1 Soil Characteristics At the Experimental Site

Soil depth, (cm) Percentage of Texture

Sand Silt Clay

0–15 69.19 20.68 10.12 Sandy Loam

15–30 69.00 19.28 11.72 Sandy Loam

To check the level of initial N, P and K in the soil, it was considered appropriate
to have the soil tested for initial fertility. The initial fertility status of soil is given
in Table 19.2. The results showed that there was no need to add KCI (Muriate of
Potash) to the soil because the soil had sufficient K content.

TABLE 19.2 Initial Status of Soil Fertility

Soil depth (cm) (kg/ha) Organic C –pH EC (ds/cm)

N P K (%)
0–15 Medium 11 187.5 0.64 8.3 0.8
15–30 Medium 8 157.5 0.52 8.4 0.7

Drip irrigation system with inline emitters was installed at the site. A plot mea-
suring 864 m2 (having 36 subplots each measuring 24 m2) was used for drip-irrigated
crop and on other side a plot measuring 288 m2 (having 12 subplots each measuring
24 m2) was used for conventionally irrigated crop. Henceforth, the former would
be termed as drip irrigated plot while the latter one as conventionally irrigated plot.
Prior to the installation of drip irrigation system, it was tested for design dis-
charge and also to rectify of emitters if any. It was found that at a pressure of 1.5 kg/
cm2 the average discharge per emitter was 2.01/hr. And during the entire course of
investigation, the system was operated at this pressure.
In the field experimental layout, mulches (after 50 days of planting) and irriga-
tion (drip and conventional) were studied. Drip irrigation was having three levels,
that is, low, medium and high, based on IW/CPE ratio of 0.6, 0.8 and 1.0, respec-
tively. The 80% of area was considered for irrigation water requirement.
304 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

19.3.1 CONVENTIONAL IRRIGATION TREATMENT

At the time of sowing 100% of recommended dose of DPA and 50% of urea was
applied after 50 days of planting. Irrigation was applied using (IW/CPE) = 1, where
IW is irrigation water and CPE is cumulative pan evaporation. The crop was con-
ventionally irrigated, that is, by flooding through siphon tubes, having discharges of
1 lps, which were run for 2.0 min; and six siphon tubes of discharges 1 lps (one in
each row) were used to flood one plot of 24 m2 during each irrigation.

19.3.1.1 LOW LEVEL DRIP IRRIGATION TREATMENT (LDI)

In this treatment, irrigation was applied by adopting IW/CPE = 0.6 and the system
was run for 30 min during each irrigation for 12 plots.

19.3.1.2 MEDIUM LEVEL DRIP IRRIGATION TREATMENT (MDI)

In this treatment, irrigation was applied by adopting IW/CPE = 0.8 and the system
was run for 45 min during each irrigation for 12 plots.

19.3.1.3 HIGH LEVEL DRIP IRRIGATION TREATMENT (HDI)

In this treatment, irrigation was applied by adopting IW/CPE = 1.0 and the system
was run for 55 min during each irrigation for 12 plots.
A 75% of recommended dose of urea was applied in all the drip-irrigated treat-
ments as this dose gave maximum yield when applied with drip irrigation. Whole
or DAP and 50% of urea (out of 75% of recommended dose of urea) was applied at
the time of sowing, while remaining 50% of urea was fertigated in four equal splits
after 45 days of planting at an interval of 10 days.

19.3.2 MULCHING TREATMENTS

In all irrigation treatments, three types of mulches, that is, plastic mulch (15 micron
thickness and 5 m long), biodegradable mulch (15 micron thick and 5 m long) and
organic mulch (rice straw) were used to modify the hydrothermal regime of the
soil. Out of total of 48 plots, 12 plots at random were left nonmulched in all above
treatments. This experiment had a total of 16 treatments and with three replications.

19.3.3 CROP CULTIVATION

The experimental area measuring about 1200 m2 was tilled twice with a disc harrow
followed by a cultivator and planking. Farm yard manure (FYM) @ 50 t/ha based on
Performance of Drip Irrigated Potato 305

“Package of Practices of PAU for Vegetables and Horticultural Crops” was added
about one month prior to the field preparation so that it got decomposed and mixed
up thoroughly in the soil by the time of sowing.
Certified seed of potato (Solanum tuberosum L. variety Kufri Sutlej) was spread
in the shade to break its dormancy and then treated with Emissan @ 5 g/L just two
days before sowing. The experimental field was divided into two parts. One part
(which was further divided into three parts each having 12 plots) was kept for drip
irrigated potato and the other part (having 12 plots) was kept for conventionally ir-
rigated potato. To get the required amount of N and P in the soil, 120 kg of DAP/
ha and half of 120 kg/ha of urea were applied to the field before placement of seed.
The potato seed was placed at 20 cm spacing along markings with 60 cm row-to-row
spacing in each plot. The seeds were then covered with soil and irrigated by flooding
to ensure uniform germination. Planting was done in the second week of October.
As per the recommendations of PAU, full package of plant protection measures
were adopted during the growth period of crop so as to have a disease free and weed
free crop

19.3.4 FERTIGATION PLAN

Bucks and Nakayama [4] have listed factors, which act as a guide while selecting
fertilizer for application through the drip system of irrigation. Any chemical added
to drip system of irrigation must meet the following criteria:
1. Should not corrode or clog any component of the system;
2. Be safe for field use;
3. Be water soluble; and
4. Not react adversely with salts or other chemicals present in the irrigation
water.
Urea fulfills the above-mentioned requirements and is well suited for injection
into drip irrigation. It is relatively soluble in water. It dissolves in nonionic form so
that it does not react with other substances in irrigation water. Thus it is not likely
to cause precipitation problem and will move deeper into the soil profile. Therefore,
urea was selected as a source of N-fertigation.
Fertilizer through drip irrigation can be applied by three principal methods: (i)
pressure differential; (ii) venturi (vacuum) pump; and (iii) a metering pump. In the
present study, venturi system was used. It was fitted on the suction side of the mono
block pump used for lifting water from the storage tank and delivering it to the drip
system. The quantity of urea to be applied on any fertigation day was first dissolved
in a small quantity of water and then the solution was made up to 10 L. The intake
pipe of the venturi was kept immersed in the fertilizer solution. The solution was
sucked in through this intake pipe and delivered to the system after passing through
the filter. The system was run for different durations (as mentioned earlier) for each
drip irrigated treatment which was calculated on the basis of cumulative pan evapo-
306 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

ration (CPE): 0.6, 0.8 and 1.0 times of CPE and accordingly for different irrigation
treatments.
In drip irrigation, the single most important factor is water quality being pumped
into the irrigation system. Water samples were analyzed for suspended solids, dis-
solved solids, pH, carbonates, Ca, Mg, Iron and Electrical Conductivity, etc., ac-
cording to the criteria given by Bucks and Nakayama [4] for classification of irriga-
tion water. It was found that all the parameters of irrigation water were within the
safe limits.
Bucks et al. [4–6] recommended that drip lines should be flushed at least once
after every six months of use. The laterals were flushed with water before use to
remove the previous sediment build-up. By this method, already-clogged emitters
were partially opened-up.

19.3.5 MULCHING
Mulches were applied over the whole field after 50 days of planting. Three types of
mulches, that is, plastic, biodegradable and organic mulches were applied over each
irrigation treatment with three replications. Some of the plots were left nonmulched
in each treatment. Mulching was done in the 1st week of December. Thermometers
were installed at a depth of 15 cm in 32 plots (both mulched and nonmulched), to
evaluate the effects of mulches on soil temperature. The minimum temperature was
recorded at 6:30 a.m. and maximum temperature was recorded at 2:30 p.m.

19.3.6 BIOMETRIC PARAMETERS

Different crop parameters like plant height, leaf area index (LAI), dry matter accu-
mulation (DMA), yield and quality parameters were measured at different intervals
during the crop season to compare different treatments and effects of mulches. Plant
height, LAI and DMA were measured at an average interval of two weeks. The num-
ber of haulms per plant was measured 10 days before harvesting. Temperature was
recorded daily. Yield and quality attributes were studied at the end of the season.
Plant height: Height of five plants at random from each of the irrigation treat-
ments was measured at 30, 45, 60, 75, and 90 days after planting and then arithmetic
mean was found to get an average value of plant height.
Leaf area index (LAI): Two plants from each treatment were taken at
30,45,60,75 and 90 days after planting and green leaves were removed from the
shoots. The leaf area was measured using LI 3050. An electronic leaf area meter
(Model LI 3000 with conveyor belt) and the average of the two readings was taken.
Leaf area index was then calculated as the ratio of leaf area of a plant to ground area
(row-to-row spacing × plant-to-plant spacing) commanded by that plant.
Performance of Drip Irrigated Potato 307

Dry matter accumulation (DMA): The plant leaves along with shoots and
branches were first air dried and then oven dried at 60°C to a constant weight to
record the dry matter accumulation of plants at 30, 45, 60, 75, and 90 days after
planting.
Number of haulms per plant was observed after 80 days of planting, that is, 10
days before harvesting. Average data of five plants at random from each irrigation
treatment under different mulches was recorded for this purpose.
Crop yield: The potato crop was dug out manually from each treatment 100
days after planting. Yield was noted for every plot separately and fresh tubers were
graded in three lots according to the average size: A grade – each tuber weighing
more than 50 g; B grade – weighing between 20–50 g; and C grade – weighing less
than 20 g. Grade wise tubers corresponding to each treatment were weighed and
added up for calculating total yield for each plot. Then average yield (100 kg/ha)
was calculated for each treatment.

19.3.7 FRUIT QUALITY

Fresh potato tubers were collected from each treatment and were immediately ana-
lyzed for biochemical properties (dry matter content and reducing sugar). Reduc-
ing sugar content was estimated immediately after the harvesting of the crop using
Uristix method. Potato tubers were cut into two pieces and then a strip was placed
over it for 30 seconds. The color of the strip changed and was matched with the
color displayed on the strip bottle and % reducing sugar was noted accordingly. Two
samples from each plot were taken and the average of two values was calculated,
which represented the value of reducing sugar content for the same plot.
To determine the dry matter content of potato tubers, the tubers were cut into
small pieces and put into petri dishes. Each petri dish was weighed before and after
adding the sample to it. This sample was then oven dried at 65°C for 24 h. The petri
dishes were again after drying. The percent dry matter content was calculated by
using the following formula.

DMC (%) = (Final weight/Initial weight) × 100 (1)

19.3.8 PROCESSING ATTRIBUTES

To study the effects of various treatments on processing qualities of potato tubers,
the B grade (medium size) tubers were processed into chips after 100 days of plant-
ing. Randomly selected five tubers per sample were sliced into chips (about 1.4
mm thickness) with hand operated rotary slicer. From these 15 slices, 3 slices per
tuber were taken and washed with water. After drying with paper napkins, these
308 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

were fried in the refined oil at 180°C temperature and organolaptic evaluation was
done. Organolaptic observations were recorded to study the consumer preference
for processed product. For this purpose, a panel of five judges was set up to evaluate
various samples. A testing format was prepared based on attributes such as flavor,
texture, appearance and overall acceptability. The chips were evaluated according to
1–9 Hedonic Scale Sensory Evaluation Form. The grades were recorded.

19.3.9 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

For the purpose of statistical analysis, mulches were considered as main treatments
and irrigation levels as subtreatments. Therefore, analysis was done on the basis of
split plot design.

19.4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

19.4.1 PLANT HEIGHT

The Figs. 19.1–19.3 indicate the variation of plant height for the drip irrigated crop
and conventionally irrigated crop as observed during the crop growth season. These
figures indicate that during the growth phase, plant grew slowly in the beginning in
all the treatments and thereafter showed a rapid increase in later stages. All the treat-
ments showed a maximum plant height in the growth period between 60–75 days
after planting followed by decline thereafter in senescence period.
Figure 19.4 shows the mean potato height of drip irrigated crop (averaged over
all the treatments) and conventional irrigated crop. It clearly revealed that through-
out the crop season, plant height in drip irrigation treatments was higher as com-
pared to conventionally irrigated crop. Among all the drip irrigation treatments, HDI
gave the maximum plant height throughout the season followed by MDI and LDI
treatment. The difference in plant height after 60 days of planting was more pro-
nounced, that is, drip irrigated crop had greater height as compared with control.
This may be due to the application of split dose of nutrient along with the drip irri-
gation throughout the crop season, which helped in better growth of crop and hence
led to greater height. In the later stages, plant height in both the case showed decline
because of maturity.
Performance of Drip Irrigated Potato 309

FIGURE 19.1 Variation of plant height with days after planting: Conventional and LDI.

FIGURE 19.2 Variation of plant height with days after planting: Conventional vs. MDI.
310 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

FIGURE 19.3 Variation of plant height with days after planting: Conventional vs. HDI.

FIGURE 19.4 Variation of plant height with days after planting: Conventional vs. Average
DI.
Performance of Drip Irrigated Potato 311

19.4.2 LEAF AREA INDEX (LAI)

The Figs. 19.5–19.7 show the values of LAI for all the drip-irrigated treatments and
the conventional irrigated crop, during the growing season. These figures depict
that during the growth phase, LAI increased in the beginning at a slow rate till 30
DAP, after which it showed a rapid increase between 30 and 60 DAP. It peaked at
around 70 DAP in all the treatments followed by an abrupt decline thereafter in the
senescence phase. The initial slow growth rate of leaf area of the plant was getting
established. Once the plants got established, the growth of leaf area was resulted
because of root development and proliferation that increased the uptake of nutrients.
Leaf area declined during the late season owing to shedding of leaves as the potato
crop reaches physiological maturity after 70 DAP.
The highest LAI of 3.6 was observed for treatment HDI at 75 DAP, that is, when
irrigation was applied at IW/CPE = 1.0. The fresh tuber yield was directly correlated
to LAI, since yield was the highest for the treatment corresponding to the highest
value of LAI. In conventional treatment, the yield was less owing to low value of
LAI of 2.7 at 75 DAP. When canopy was well developed and well spread like that in
the drip plots, the leaves synthesized carbohydrates at a fast rate, which were trans-
located to the tubers and thus contributed towards the increased yield.
Figure 19.8 compares LAI for the drip-irrigated crop (averaged over all the treat-
ments) with that of conventionally irrigated crop. It clearly shows that LAI of drip
irrigated potato crop remained higher after 40 DAP than the conventionally irrigated
crop, indicating thereby that the number of leaves (though not counted) as well as
the canopy spread, had consistently been much higher in drip crop as compared to
the conventional crop. This factor later on contributed towards higher yield of crop
from the drip irrigated crop.

FIGURE 19.5 Variation of leaf area index with days after planting: Conventional vs. LDI.
312 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

FIGURE 19.6 Variation of leaf area index with days after planting: Conventional vs. MDI.

FIGURE 19.7 Variation of leaf area index with days after planting: Conventional vs. HDI.
Performance of Drip Irrigated Potato 313

FIGURE 19.8 Variation of leaf area index with days after planting: Conventional vs.
Average DI.

19.4.3 DRY MATTER ACCUMULATION (DMA)

The Figs. 19.9–19.11 show the DMA of the above ground parts under different treat-
ments, during the advancement of crop season. These figures show that the DMA
of the crop increased with the crop season because of increasing uptake of nutrients
and spreading of canopy. The maximum DMA of 28.9 g/plant was observed in the
treatment HDI, which was closely followed by the treatment MDI (24.2 g/plant)
on 75 DAP. At 45, 60 and 75 DAP, HDI showed higher value of DMA than other
treatments.
The dry matter accumulation averaged for all the drip treatments was compared
with conventional treatment in Fig. 19.12. The DMA in drip-irrigated crop was al-
ways higher than conventional crop throughout the season. The better performance
of drip irrigated treatments over the conventional irrigated treatments may be due
to the split dose of nutrient which might have increased the fertilizer use efficiency
along with higher water use efficiency in drip irrigated crop due to better manage-
ment of moisture and nutrients. Average value of DMA for drip-irrigated treatments
was about 1.3 times the conventional irrigated crop at the end of the season. The
DMA decreased slightly in all the treatments at around 90 DAP because of maturity
and senescence period. DMA and LAI behaved in an identical fashion for the drip
irrigated and the conventional treatments.
314 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

FIGURE 19.9 Variation of Dry matter accumulation with days after planting: Conventional
vs. LDI

FIGURE 19.10 Variation of dry matter accumulation with days after planting: Conventional
vs. MDI.
Performance of Drip Irrigated Potato 315

FIGURE 19.11 Variation of dry matter accumulation with days after planting: Conventional
vs. HDI.

FIGURE 19.12 Variation of dry matter accumulation with days after planting: Conventional
vs. Average DI.
316 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

19.4.4 NUMBER OF HAULMS PER PLANT

The average data recorded for the number of haulms per plant is given in Table
19.3. The data revealed that the number of haulms per plant was more in case of
drip-irrigated crop as compared to conventional irrigated crop. Also, the mulches in-
creased the number of haulms. Plastic and biodegradable mulches gave comparable
number of haulms while organic mulch gave less number. It was observed that all
the drip irrigation treatments gave higher number of haulms per plant as compared
to conventional treatment.

TABLE 19.3 Average Number of Haulms Per Plant For Potato Crop
Treatments Plastic mulch Biodegradable Organic mulch No mulch
mulch
LDI 4.5 4.3 4.1 4.8

MDI 5.1 4.0 4.2 4.3

HDI 5.2 5.5 4.5 4.4

Conventional 3.7 3.7 3.1 4.0

TABLE 19.4 Statistical Analysis of Number of Haulms Per Plant

Mulch, M Irrigation treatment, I

Conventional Medium High Low Mean, I
Drip irrigation, DI
Plastic 3.7 5.1 5.2 4.5 4.6
Biodegradable 3.7 4.0 5.5 4.3 4.4
Organic 3.1 4.2 4.5 4.1 3.9
No mulch 4.0 4.3 4.4 4.8 4.4
Mean, M 3.6 4.4 4.9 4.4
I = 0.041 at CD (5%); M = 0.392 at CD (5%); IxM = NS; I = Irrigation, and M = Mulch.

Statistical analysis for different irrigation treatments and different mulch treat-
ments given in Table 19.4 revealed that there was a significance effect of irrigation
and mulches on number of haulms per plant while the interaction of irrigation level
and mulching was found to be non significant.
Performance of Drip Irrigated Potato 317

19.4.5 EFFECTS OF MULCHING ON SOIL TEMPERATURE

The minimum and maximum soil temperature data were recorded for the whole crop
season. The Figs. 19.13–19.16 represent the average data recorded before the applica-
tion of mulches and the data of temperature after the application of mulches (after 50
days after planting) for different mulches including no mulch. The diurnal variation
in soil temperature revealed that the soil temperature was the lowest in early morning
hours, that is, 6:30 a.m., thereafter it increased up to 2:30 p.m. and reached the maxi-
mum at 2:30 p.m. A gradual decrease was observed from 2:30 p.m. onwards.
In the beginning when the mulches were not applied and also the canopies were
not fully developed, there was no significant difference in the soil temperature among
various treatments. But at later stages, when the mulches were applied and also the
crop was fully developed (canopy cover fully developed, that is, canopy cover fully
developed), it affected the soil temperature in different treatments. It might be due to
the application of mulches to maintain soil temperature and also radiation reaching the
ground surface was affected by different canopy structures. The minimum tempera-
ture data showed that the mulches increased the minimum soil temperature by 2 to 3°C
and thus helped to maintain required soil moisture within the soil.
The graphs between minimum soil temperature and days after mulches were
applied (three days average) for different type of mulches including control under
different treatments are shown in Figs. 19.13–19.16. The figures revealed that in all
the irrigation treatments, the plastic mulch increased the minimum temperature to
an optimum level that is required for better growth of crop, which further helped in
increasing the yield of crop, the highest yield was obtained from the treatment under
plastic mulch. A possible reason for this may be the more favorable soil moisture
and more favorable condition, which produce vigorous growth of crop.
Biodegradable mulch was found to be helpful in maintaining the soil tempera-
ture and hence the soil moisture followed by organic mulch while the control was
having the lowest minimum temperature. The mulches thus improved the quality
and quantity of the yield. The reason might be that the mulches maintained the soil
moisture and thus improved the growth. The pooled analysis revealed that mulches
increased the yield over no mulch. Singh et al. [20] also reported 26% increase in
yield of potato owing to mulch.
318 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

FIGURE 19.13 Variation of temperature with days after mulching for LDI: Four mulching
treatments.

FIGURE 19.14 Variation of temperature with days after mulching for MDI: Four mulching
treatments.
Performance of Drip Irrigated Potato 319

FIGURE 19.15 Variation of temperature with days after mulching for HDI: Four mulching
treatments.

FIGURE 19.16 Variation of temperature with days after mulching for conventional
irrigation: Four mulching treatments.
320 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

19.4.6 CROP YIELD

Average fresh tuber yield is given in the Table 19.5. The table shows that higher
yield was recorded in the drip-irrigated plots under mulches. The highest yield of
331.5 per 100 kg/ha was obtained from the HDI drip irrigated plot under plastic
mulch followed by 309.3 per 100 kg/ha from the same irrigation treatment under
biodegradable mulch, while a yield of 188.8 per 100 kg/ha was obtained from the
nonmulched conventionally irrigated treatment.

TABLE 19.5 Average Yield (100 kg/ha) of Potato

Treatment Plastic Biodegradable Organic mulch No mulch

mulch mulch
LDI 269.4 252.5 278.3 156.7
MDI 298.1 274.4 299.4 257.4
HDI 331.5 309.3 296.3 262.4
Conventional 227.8 248.1 240.3 188.8

On the overall, the yield obtained from the drip-irrigated crop was higher as
compared to conventional plots. Table 19.6 presents the statistical analysis of yield
data. It revealed that the interaction of mulches and drip irrigation had a significant
effect on yield of the crop. The yield obtained from the drip irrigated plots under
mulches was higher than the yield obtained from the conventionally irrigated non-
mulched crop.

TABLE 19.6 Statistical Analysis of Yield (100 kg/ha)

Mulch, M Convent- Medium High Low Mean

ional
Plastic 227.8 298.1 331.5 269.4 281.7
Biodegradable 248.1 274.4 309.3 252.5 271.1
Organic 240.3 299.4 296.3 278.3 278.6
No mulch 188.8 257.4 262.4 156.7 216.3
Mean 226.3 282.3 299.3 299.9
CD (5%), I = 13.76,
CD (5%), M = 13.28,
CD (5%), IxM =
26.56; I = Irrigation
and M = Mulch.
Performance of Drip Irrigated Potato 321

The maximum yield obtained in drip irrigation under mulching may be due to
the availability of uniform moisture in the soil wetted by drippers, along with better
moisture conservation, proper utilization of nutrients and less weed growth around
the potato plant. Similar results were obtained by Jain et al. [13].

19.4.6.1 EFFECTS OF MULCHING

The average yield data for potato crop under different irrigation treatments with var-
ious mulches are given in Table 19.7. The Table 19.7 shows that the yield recorded
from drip irrigation under mulched conditions was higher as compared to mulched
conditions under conventional irrigation. The highest average yield was 299.7 per
100 kg/ha in the treatment under plastic mulch with drip irrigation, thus showing
32.9% increase followed by organic and biodegradable mulches with an increase of
29.2% and 23.6%, respectively, over no mulch drip irrigated crop.
Table 19.7 shows that drip irrigated crop under all types of mulches gave com-
parable yield while the nonmulched crop under drip irrigation gave much less yield,
that is, 225.5 per 100 kg/ha. The overall mean yield (based on average of all the
mulched drip irrigated treatments) was 289.9 per 100 kg/ha which was 28.6% high-
er than the nonmulched drip irrigated crop. It can be concluded that the average
mulched drip irrigated crop yield (289.9 per 100 kg/ha) was 21.4% higher than the
conventionally irrigated mulched crop yield (238.7 per 100 kg/ha) and 53.5% higher
than conventionally irrigated nonmulched crop yield (188.8 per 100 kg/ha).

TABLE 19.7 Average Yield (100 kg/ha) of Potato Under Mulching

Treatment Fresh yield (100 kg/ha) % increase over no mulch

Average for Conventional Average for Conventional

all DI all DI

Plastic mulch 299.7 227.8 32.9 20.7

Biodegradable 278.7 248.1 23.6 31.4
mulch
Organic mulch 291.3 240.3 29.2 27.3
Average mulch 289.9 238.7 28.6 26.4
No mulch 225,5 188.8
322 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

Statistical analysis showed that there was a significant difference between the
yields obtained from the mulched and nonmulched treatments. The differences
within the three mulch treatments were not so significant and out of the three mulch-
es plastic mulch was found to be the best to obtain the higher yield. This indicates
that the total tuber yield of fresh potatoes were higher under mulching compared to
control treatments.

19.4.6.2 EFFECTS OF DRIP IRRIGATION ON POTATO YIELD

Table 19.8 includes average yield of fresh tubers of potato for all irrigation and
mulching treatments. The table indicates that the highest yield was 312.3 per 100 kg/
ha in treatment HDI under mulches against of 238.7 per 100 kg/ha in conventional
irrigated mulched plots, registering an increase of 30.8%. The overall mean yield
(based on average of all the drip irrigated mulched treatments) was 289.9 per 100
kg/ha, which was 21.4% higher than conventional irrigated mulched plots. Even
the lowest average yield of 266.7 per 100 kg/ha (LDI) in drip irrigated mulched
treatment was higher than the control. It can be concluded that the drip irrigated
nonmulched crop yield (225.5 per 100 kg/ha) was 19.4% higher than conventional
irrigated nonmulched yield (188.8 per 100 kg/ha). Therefore, by applying 25% less
fertilizer than the recommended dose of nitrogen, increased yield can be obtained by
using drip irrigation under mulching.

TABLE 19.8 Average Yield (q/ha) of Potato on Irrigation Basis

Treatment Fresh tuber yield (100 kg/ha) % increase over conventional

Average of all No mulch Average of No mulch

mulches all mulches

LDI 266.7 156.7 11.7 -

MDI 290.6 257.4 21.7 36.3
HDI 312.3 262.4 30.8 38.9
Average DI 289.9 225.5 21.4 19.4
Conventional 238.7 188.8

It can be concluded that there was significant difference among various irriga-
tion treatments. Tuber yield obtained from the drip-irrigated treatment was signifi-
cantly different from conventional treatment. Out of the three drip irrigation treat-
ments, HDI was the best followed by MDI, indicating higher tuber yield of fresh
tubers against conventional grown potato.
Performance of Drip Irrigated Potato 323

19.4.7 GRADING OF POTATO

The grade wise tuber yield data for potato crop is given in Table 19.9. It may be seen
that the treatment HDI had the highest percentage of grade-A tubers and was best
in terms of total yield followed by MDI treatment with 47.6 grade-A tubers. It was
also observed that all drip-irrigated treatments gave higher percentage of grade-A
tubers but conventional treatment gave much less percentage of grade-A tubers.
Also it was found that HDI was the best in terms of LAI and DMA. Therefore, it
may be concluded that the yield and plant growth parameters like LAI and DMA
were directly correlated.

TABLE 19.9 Average Yield (100 kg/ha) of Potato

Treatment Grade wise produce*(100 kg/ha)

A B C
LDI 104.9 (43.7%) 96.6 (40.3%) 38.4 (15.99%)
MDI 134.5 (47.9%) 110.9 (39.3%) 36.9 (13.2%)
HDI 152.6(51.1%) 108.4 (36.3%) 38.9 (12.9%)
Average DI 130.7 (47.6%) 105.3 (38.6%) 38.1 (13.9%)
Conventional 85.5 (38.7%) 95.5 (42.2%) 42.6 (20.0%)
*Grade A >50 g; Grade B 20–25 g; and Grade C < 20 g.

All the drip-irrigated treatments gave higher percentage of grade-A tubers as

compared to grade-B and grade-C tubers. Comparing the grade wise average per-
centage of drip irrigated potato and conventionally irrigated potato, it was observed
that drip irrigated crop gave higher percentage of grade-A tubers, and convention-
ally irrigated crop gave higher percentage of grade-B and grade-C tubers. Therefore,
it can be concluded that by using less amount of water and fertilizer in potato crop,
increased yield with better quality of crop can be obtained with drip irrigation.
Pie diagram in Fig. 19.17 shows the percentage distribution of grade-wise pro-
duces of potato tubers for drip irrigated and conventional irrigated plots. The dia-
gram illustrates that the drip irrigated crop had more percentage of grade-A tubers
than conventional irrigated potatoes. On an average, drip irrigated crop had 47.6%
of grade-A size, 38.6% of grade-B size and only 13.9% of grade-C size tubers as
compared to 38.7%, 42.2% and 20.0%, respectively, in conventional treatment.
This shows that conventionally irrigated crop had higher proportion of medium
sized potato tubers, where as drip irrigated potatoes comprised of higher proportion
of grade-A potatoes, which resulted in higher yield. Thus drip irrigation in addition
to increase in total yield of potato crop, also improved the fruit quality in terms of
324 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

size. It also saves money in terms of applied fertilizer, because the yield and grade-A
sized tubers in 75% of recommended dose were higher than 100% of N application.
The maximum yield in HDI treatment can be attributed to the efficient utilization of
applied fertilizer under drip irrigation as compared to conventional irrigation.

FIGURE 19.17 Percentage distribution of grade wise produce in potatoes: top – average of
all drip irrigation treatments; and bottom – conventional irrigation.

19.4.8 FRUIT QUALITY

19.4.8.1 DRY MATTER CONTENT
Dry matter content is one of the most important quality factors in potato intended
for processing by frying. The average data for dry matter content (%) of potato crop
is given in Table 19.10. It can be observed that the optimum dry matter content
of 15–21% was observed in all drip irrigated treatments, while lower dry matter
content was observed in the conventional treatment. The HDI and MDI gave better
values of dry matter content than LDI under all mulch treatments. While the values
obtained in LDI were higher (21.1% and 21.5% under plastic and organic mulch,
Performance of Drip Irrigated Potato 325

respectively) than the optimum ranges (18.20%), the values obtained from conven-
tional irrigated crop under biodegradable and organic mulch were much less (16.3%
and 16.4%, respectively) than the optimum range because of which poor quality of
chips were obtained. The average lowest value of dry matter content 14.9% was
obtained with no mulch, conventionally irrigated treatment.

TABLE 19.10 Average Dry Matter Content % For Potato Crop

Treatments Plastic mulch Biodegradable Organic No mulch

mulch mulch
LDI 21.1 19.9 21.5 21.0
MDI 19.0 19.1 18.9 15.3
HDI 20.1 18.7 18.6 16.3
Conventional 15.3 16.3 16.4 14.9

TABLE 19.11 Statistical Analysis of Dry Matter Content

Conventional Medium High Low Mean

Plastic 15.3 19.0 20.1 21.1 18.9
Biodegradable 16.3 19.1 18.7 19.9 18.5
Organic 16.4 18.9 18.6 21.5 18.9
No mulch 14.9 15.3 16.3 21.0 16.9
Mean 15.7 17.7 18.5 21.3
CD (5%), I =
2.11, CD (5%),
M = NS, CD
(5%), IxM = NS;
I = Irrigation and
M = Mulch.

Statistical analysis of dry matter content (Table 19.11) showed that the irriga-
tion played significant role in improving the dry matter content of crop while the
mulches had no significant effect on dry matter content. Also, the interaction of ir-
rigation and mulches had nonsignificant effect on dry matter content.

19.4.8.2 REDUCING SUGAR CONTENT

The average data on reducing sugars is presented in Table 19.12, which revealed that
the plastic mulch reduced the reducing sugar to a lower level than the biodegrad-
326 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

able and organic mulch. Under LDI, MDI, HDI and conventional treatments, the
average reducing sugar content were lower 0.067, 0.058, 0.067 and 0.075 in plastic
mulch; followed by 0.075, 0.083, 0.067 and 0.083 in biodegradable mulch; and
0.142, 0.100, 0.116 and 0.092 in organic mulch; and no mulch had higher reducing
sugar values of 0.208, 0.192, 0.183 and 0.125, respectively. Good quality of chips
was obtained from the potato with lower values of reducing sugar content. Statisti-
cal analysis of reducing sugar content is presented in Table 19.13. The data revealed
that mulches played significant role in affecting reducing sugar content in tubers
while different irrigation treatments had no effect on the reducing sugar content.
The effect of interaction of mulches in irrigation was no significant for reducing
sugar content.

TABLE 19.12 Average Content of Reducing Sugar For Potato Crop

Treatments Plastic Biodegradable Organic No mulch

mulch mulch mulch
LDI 0.067 0.075 0.142 0.208
MDI 0.058 0.083 0.100 0.192
HDI 0.067 0.067 0.116 0.183
Conventional 0.075 0.083 0.092 0.125

TABLE 19.13 Statistical Analysis of Reducing Sugar Content

Conventional Medium High Low Mean

Plastic 0.075 0.058 0.075 0.067 0.069
Biodegradable 0.083 0.083 0.067 0.075 0.077
Organic 0.092 0.100 0.117 0.142 0.113
No mulch 0.125 0.191 0.183 0.208 0.177
Mean 0.093 0.108 0.110 0.123
CD (5%), I =
NS, CD (5%),
M = 0.023,
CD (5%),
IxM = NS; I =
Irrigation and
M = Mulch.
Performance of Drip Irrigated Potato 327

19.4.9 QUALITY OF PROCESSING

To check the suitability of potato for processing, it was considered appropriate to
test the quality of produce under mulched and nonmulched treatments. For this,
chips for tubers obtained under each treatment were fried and organolaptic evalu-
ation was recorded. According to these observations, chips obtained from all the
mulched treatments were found better in all respects, that is, color, texture, taste
and acceptability than the nonmulched treatment. The overall acceptability of all
mulched treatments rated was 7–8, while nonmulched bagged lower rating of 6–7
in organolaptic evaluations. Thus the mulches improved the processing quality of
potato.

19.4.10 WATER SAVING UNDER DRIP IRRIGATION

Drip irrigation saves water, ensures better yield and better quality of produce. Most
of the research studies in this system are directed towards on these aspects.
In this study, the total quantity of water used by the crop comprised of two
components: water used by the crop consumptively and preemergence irrigation
that was provided to the entire field after sowing to ensure uniform germination.
Fertilizer was applied along with the irrigation and the crop was harvested before
the attack of frost. Also, the rainwater was excluded, as it was common to both the
drip and conventional methods.

19.4.10.1 CONSUMPTIVE USE

Quantity of water applied under drip irrigation was based on IW/CPE ratio of 0.6,
0.8 and 1.0 for different irrigation treatments (classified as low, medium and high),
respectively. The total cumulative pan evaporation for the entire crop season was
16.3 cm of water.
The quantity of water used consumptively by the crop under LDI treatment =
16.3 × 0.6 = 9.78 cm
Pre emergence irrigation = 3 cm
Therefore, total water used (QL) = 9.78 + 3 = 12.78 cm
Similarly, water used under MDI (QM) = 16.04 cm
And water used under HDI (QH) = 19.30 cm

19.4.10.2 QUANTITY OF WATER USED IN FURROW IRRIGATION

During each irrigation, water was applied with the help of siphon tubes of 1 lps
discharge (1 in each row and 6 rows in one plot of 24 m2). Irrigation was applied for
two minutes in each plot (12 plots) and 7 such irrigations were applied. Therefore,
total quantity of water delivered under conventional treatment:
328 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

QF = (1×60 lpm)× (6 rows)× (2.0 min.)×(12plots)×(7 irrigations)

= 60480 L = 60.48 m3 or 60.48×100/288 = 21.0 cm
Total water used including 3 cm preemergence irrigation = 21+3 = 24 cm
The percentage saving in irrigation water using drip irrigation can be worked
out as under:
Water saving in HDI treatment = [(QF–QH)/ QF] × 100 = [(24–19.3)/24] × 100
= 19.58%
Similarly, water saving were 33.3% in LDI and 46.6% in MDI, respectively.
Also the results are in tune with the findings of Suresh et al. [21], who reported sav-
ing of 40–60% by drip irrigation.

19.4.10.3 WATER USE EFFICIENCY (WUE)

Quantity of water used along with yield and WUE for various treatments are given
in Table 19.14.

TABLE 19.14 Yield, Quantity of Water Used, and Water Use Efficiency of Potato For
Various Treatments

Treatments Yield Water WUE

(100 kg/ha) used (cm) 100 kg/(ha-cm)
LDI 239.2 12.8 18.7
MDI 282.3 16.0 17.6
HDI 299.9 19.3 15.5
Average DI 273.8 16.0 17.1
Conventional 226.3 24.0 9.4

WUE of all the drip-irrigated treatments was higher than the furrow irrigation. It
was found that average WUE of drip-irrigated treatments was about 2.0 times than
that of conventional treatment (9.4 per 100 kg/ha-cm). These results are in agree-
ment with Chawla [8] and Singh [20], who reported more than double water use
efficiency of drip treatment as compared to furrow treatment in potato.

19.5 SUMMARY
Field studies to observe the effects of mulches and drip irrigation on potato (Sola-
num tuberosum L.) were undertaken using different type of mulches (plastic, bio-
degradable and organic) and irrigation levels (LDI, MDI and HDI based on 0.6, 0.8
and 1.0 IW/CPE ratios, respectively). Performance of drip irrigated mulched crop
was compared with drip irrigated nonmulched and conventionally irrigated mulched
and nonmulched crop. In drip-irrigated plots, there were three (LDI, MDI and HDI)
Performance of Drip Irrigated Potato 329

irrigation treatments. In all the three treatments, 75% of recommended dose of urea
was applied. Out of 75%, 50% of urea was applied at the time of sowing, serving
as a base dose and remaining 50% was applied in four equal splits starting 45 days
of planting at an interval of 10 days, while 100% of DAP was applied at the time of
sowing. In all the drip irrigation treatments, plastic mulch, biodegradable mulch and
organic mulch were used after 50 days of planting, that is, at the time of tuberization.
Various plant performance parameters, that is, plant height, leaf area index, dry
matter accumulation were measured at 15 days interval during the crop growth sea-
son. Number of haulms per plant were counted 10 days before harvesting, while
yield and quality attributes, that is, dry matter content and reducing sugar content
were determined only at the end of season.
Daily soil temperature data was recorded to study the effects of different mulches
on crop growth. The usual plant protection measures were undertaken to have a dis-
ease-free and healthy crop. The crop performance parameters were also statistically
analyzed. The following important conclusions were drawn from the present study.
1. Plant height throughout the growth season was more in drip-irrigated crop
than the conventionally irrigated crop. The maximum plant height of 64.4
cm was observed in HDI treatment at 75 DAP as compared to 53.8 cm for
conventional treatment.
2. The maximum leaf area index of 3.6 was observed in HDI treatment at 75
DAP as compared to 2.7 for the conventionally irrigated crop. This fact
accounts for higher dry matter accumulation in the same treatment. There
was a marginal decrease in leaf area index of all treatments around 90 DAP
which may be attributed to physiological maturity and senescence.
3. Highest DMA of 28.9 g/plant at 75 DAP was observed in HDI treatment
as compared to 17.7 g/plant at 75 DAP in case of conventional treatment.
Average value of DMA for drip-irrigated crop was about 1.3 times the con-
ventional irrigated crop at the end of the season.
4. Plastic mulch increased the minimum soil temperature by 2–3°C and
brought it to an optimum range (10–12°C), that is, required for better crop
growth, which further helps in improving quality of crop.
5. Plastic mulch with drip irrigation resulted in 32.9% increase in yield over
nonmulched drip irrigated crop, followed by organic and biodegradable
mulch with 29.9% and 23.6%, respectively. The average yield of all three
mulch treatments under drip irrigation was 28.6% higher than the no mulch
drip irrigation treatment.
6. The highest yield of 312.3 per 100 kg/ha was obtained under HDI treatment
(averaged over all mulches) against a yield of 238.7 per 100 kg/ha realized
for the conventionally irrigated mulched potato, registering an increase of
30.8%.
7. The average (of all the treatments) mulched drip irrigated crop yield (289.9
per 100 kg/ha) was 53.5% higher than the conventionally irrigated non-
mulched crop (188.8 per 100 kg/ha).
330 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

8. Drip irrigated potato with mulch had 47.6% of A grade, 38.6% of B grade
and 13.9% of C grade tubers as compared to conventionally grown mulched
crop which had respectively 38.7, 42.2 and 20.0% of A, B and C grade tu-
bers, respectively.
9. Mulches improve the processing quality of potatoes. The optimum range
(18.20%) of dry matter content for best processing quality of potato was
obtained from all the drip irrigated treatments compared to conventional
treatment that gave lower dry matter content value. The average lowest dry
matter content 14.97% was obtained from no mulch conventionally irri-
gated treatment.
10. The dry matter content values obtained in LDI were higher (21.1% and
21.5% under plastic and organic mulch, respectively) than the optimum
range (18.20%). The values obtained from conventional irrigated crop un-
der biodegradable and organic mulch were much less (16.3% and 16.4%,
respectively) than the optimum range and was found that poor quality of
chips were obtained.
11. Plastic mulches lowered the reducing sugar content to an optimum range
(<0.25). It was 0.067, 0.058, 0.067 and 0.075 in LDI, MDI, HDI and con-
ventional treatments, respectively, followed by biodegradable and organic
mulches in which it was 0.075, 0.083, 0.067 and 0.083 and 0.142, 0.100,
0.116 and 0.092, respectively. Thus mulching improves the processing qual-
ity of potato resulting with better – quality chips.

KEYWORDS

•• biodegradable mulch
•• conventional irrigation
•• cumulative pan evaporation, CPE
•• days after planting, DAP
•• drip irrigation
•• dry matter accumulation, DMA
•• dry matter content
•• furrow irrigation
•• haulms per plant
•• high drip irrigation, HDI
•• irrigation water, IW
•• leaf area index, LAI
•• low drip irrigation, LDI
•• medium drip irrigation, MDI
•• organic mulch
Performance of Drip Irrigated Potato 331

•• pan evaporation
•• plastic mulch
•• polyethylene film
•• potato processing
•• reducing sugar content
•• soil temperature
•• water use efficiency, WUE

REFERENCES
1. Ahire, N. R., Bhoi, P. G., Solanke, A. V. (2000). Effect of row spacing and planting system on
growth and yield of potato under surface and drip irrigation. Journal of Indian Potato Associa-
tion, 27, 59–60.
2. Awan, Abdul Bari, (1964). Influence of mulch on soil moisture, soil temperature and yield of
potatoes. American Potato Journal, 4, 337–339.
3. Awari, H., W., Hiwase, S. S. (1994). Effect of irrigation systems on growth and yield of potato.
Annals of Plant Physiology, 8, 185–187.
4. Bucks, D. A., Nakayama, F. S. (1980). Injection of fertilizer and other chemicals for drip ir-
rigation. Proc. Agri. Turf. Irrig. Cong., Houston, TX, USA.
5. Bucks, D., A, Nakayama, F. S., Gilbert, R. G. (1979). Trickle irrigation water quality and
preventive maintenance. Agri. Water Mgmt., 2, 149–162.
6. Bucks, D. A., Nakayama, F. S., Warrick, A. W. (eds), (1982). Principles, Practices and Poten-
tialities of Trickle Irrigation. In: Advances in Irrigation by Daniel Hillel, Vol. I: 220–290.
7. Chandra, S., Singh, R. D., Bhatnagar, V. K., Bishit, J. K. (2002). Effect of mulch and irrigation
on tuber size, canopy temperature, water use and yield of potato (Solanum tuberosum). Indian
Journal of Agronomy, 47, 443–448.
8. Chawla, J. K., Narda, N. K. (1999). Root growth characteristics and tuber yield of trickle
fertigated potatoes. Journal of Agricultural Engineering, 36, 65–78.
9. Chawla, J., K, and Narda, N. K. (2000). Growth parameters of trickle fertigated potato (Sola-
num tuberosum). Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 70, 747–752.
10. Chawla, J. K., Narda, N. K. (2001). Economy in water and fertilizer use in trickle fertigated
potato. Irrigation and Drainage, 50, 129–137.
11. Easson, D. L. (2000). Annual Report Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland. No.
1999–2000, 41–49.
12. Grewal, S. S., Singh, N. T. (1974). Effect of organic mulches on the hydrothermal regime of
soil and growth of potato crop in Northern India. Plant and Soil, 40, 33–47.
13. Jain, V. K., Shukla K. N., Singh, P. K. (2001). Response of potato under drip irrigation and
plastic mulching. In: Micro Irrigation by Eds. Singh, H. P., Kaushish, S. P., Kumar, A., Mur-
thy, T. S., Proceedings National Congress on Micro Irrigation by IARI, New Delhi, 413–417.
14. Khalak, A., Kumaraswamy, A. S. (1992). Effect of irrigation schedule and mulch on growth
attributes and dry-matter accumulation in potato (Solanum tuberosum). Indian Journal of
Agronomy, 37, 510–513.
15. Khan, A. R. (2002). Mulching effects on soil physical properties and peanut production. Ital-
ian Journal of Agronomy, 6, 113–118.
332 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

16. Lamont, W. J. Jr., Orzolek, M. D., Dye, B. (2002). Production of drip irrigated potatoes as af-
fected by plastic mulches and row covers. Journal of vegetable crop production, 8, 39–47.
17. Midmore, D. J., Berrios, D., Roca, J. (1986). Potato (Solanum spp.) in hot tropics, II: Soil
temperature and moisture modification by mulch in contrasting environments. Field Crop
Research, 15, 97–108.
18. Palada, M. C., Davis, A. M., Crossman, S. M. A. (2002). Comparison of organic and synthetic
mulch for bell pepper production at three levels of drip irrigation. Proceedings of the 113th
Annual Meeting Hort. Soc., Lake Buena Vista, Florida, USA, 23–25 July.
19. Sahoo, R. C., Mohapatra, B. K., Khanda, C. M., Lenka, D. (2002). Water use efficiency and
yield of potato as influenced by plastic mulching. Crop Res., 24, 338–342.
20. Singh, N. T., Sood, M. C., Sharma, R. C. (2002). Effect of irrigation levels, cultural practices
and nitrogen application on potato production under drip and sprinkler methods of irrigation.
Potato Global Research and Development, II:923–925.
21. Suresh, R., Kumar, A. (2006). Effect of drip irrigation and mulches on pointed gourd in calcar-
eous soil in North Bihar. Indian Journal of Soil Conservation, 34, 83–85.
22. Verma, S. C. (1991). Potato Processing in India. Technical Bulletin 34, Central Potato Re-
search Institute (CPRI), Shimla, India, 34 pages.
23. Waterer, D. (2000). Influence of soil mulched and method of crop establishment on growth
and yields of pumpkins. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 80, 385–388.
 PART IV
CROP SEQUENCE AND ECONOMICS
This page intentionally left blank
CHAPTER 20

EVALUATION OF DIFFERENT CROP

SEQUENCES USING DRIP IRRIGATION
SYSTEM
A. K. SAINI and KAMAL G. SINGH

20.1 INTRODUCTION
Water is one of the vital inputs for agricultural production. The availability of water
is decreasing every year due to increased demand of water for agriculture, industrial
and domestic’s activities. Due to the inefficient use of water in the agriculture sector,
water table all over the Punjab has declined very rapidly during the last two decades.
That means availability of water in crop production is becoming a constraint imply-
ing that irrigation water must be used efficiently by adopting advanced irrigation
methods. Drip irrigation is one of the fastest expanding technologies in modern
irrigated agriculture with great potential to achieve savings in water and fertilizer.
A research study revealed that when the same quantity of water was used through
drip and furrow irrigation for potato crop, drip irrigation resulted in higher number
of tubers/plant, yield/plant and number of marketable tubers/plant [1]. Shelke et
al. [3] reported that the water saving under drip irrigation was 24% and increase
in yield by 13.4% over surface irrigation method for banana. Sivakumar et al. [4]
reported that for the sunflower crop drip irrigation at 0.5 Epan was more economi-
cal with a shortest payback period of 0.49 year under paired row planting method.
Chawla and Narda [2] reported water and fertilizer savings of 30% and 70% re-
spectively with comparable yield levels under trickle fertigated crop as compared to
furrow-irrigated crop of potatoes. These studies revealed that drip irrigation system
caused a substantial saving of irrigation water and increase in yield.
This research study evaluates the yearly performance of drip irrigation system
for different crop sequences.

*In this chapter, the currency is expressed in Indian Rupees (1.00 US$ = Rs. 60.93; 1.00 Rs. = 0.02 US$)
336 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

20.2 MATERIALS AND METHODS

A field study was conducted at the research farm of Department of Soil and Water
Engineering at Punjab Agricultural University (PAU), Ludhiana for two consecu-
tive years (2002–2004). Different crop sequences consisted of only vegetable crops,
only field crops, and a combination of vegetable and field crops, as follows:
1. Cauliflower – Hybrid chili
(October–February) (March–October)
2. Sunflower – Maize – Potato
(January–May) (June–September) (October–December)
3. Sunflower – Cotton
(January–May End) (May End –December)
A built-in type of drip irrigation system, was used to irrigate the crop, with a
dripper spacing of 30 cm. Three levels of drip irrigation scheduling were selected on
the basis of IW/CPE ratios (ratio of irrigation water applied to cumulative pan evap-
oration): 0.5 (low), 0.75 (medium) and 1.0 (high). The 10 mm depth of irrigation
water was applied during irrigation. The interval between the two irrigations varied
depending upon the IW/CPE ratio for different treatments of irrigation. Irrigation to
furrow irrigated plots were based on the recommendations in package practices by
the university (PAU, Ludhiana). If the effective rainfall was less than 10 mm, it was
considered that irrigation was equal to the effective rainfall; and if effective rainfall
was more than 10 mm, it was considered as irrigation equal to 10 mm.
The experiment was laid out in randomized block design with 4 treatments for
each crop and each treatment was replicated thrice. The size of each plot was 5.10
× 2.70 m2 for hybrid chili and cauliflower; 5.10 × 3.6 m2 for sunflower and potato
crop; 5.1 × 3.0 m2 for maize and 5.1 × 4.05 m2 for cotton. The soil at the experimental
site was sandy loam, having pH 8.5 and available N, P, K of 51.6, 80.6 and 148.9 kg/
ha, respectively. For the 0–30 am soil depth, the water content (volume basis) was
0.1739 cm3/cm3 at – 0.03 MPa (field capacity), and 0.0523 cm3/cm3 at – 1.5 MPa
(permanent wilting point). The soil bulk density was 1.58 g/cm3. Recommended
dose of fertilizer was applied according to the package of practices for cultivation of
vegetables and field crops of PAU. To reduce the number of lateral lines, the recom-
mended single row planting method was altered to paired row planting method for
all crops and yield of all the crops were obtained on per plot basis, as shown below:

20.2.1 CROP RECOMMENDED SPACING PAIRED ROW

PLANTING
Hybrid chili and Cauliflower 45×30 cm, 60:30×30 cm
Sunflower and Potato 60×30 cm, 90:30×30 cm
Maize 50×22 cm, 75:25×22 cm
Cotton 67.5×15 cm, 90:45×15 cm
Evaluation of Different Crop Sequences Using Drip Irrigation System 337

Paired row planting method was used for all the crop sequences, because this
will decrease the cost of lateral line to half. The treatments are listed below:
T1 = Paired row planting, drip irrigated at low level of irrigation, IW/CPE = 0.5
T2 = Paired row planting, drip irrigated at medium level of irrigation
IW/CPE=0.75
T3 = Paired row planting, drip irrigated at high level of irrigation, IW/CPE=1.0
T4 = Paired row planting, irrigated as per recommended practices by PAU.

20.3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The average yield, irrigation water applied and water use efficiency for all the three
sequences are presented in Tables 20.1–20.6. Table 20.1 revealed a nonsignificant
difference for average fruit length among the irrigation treatments for chili crop.
Statistically, there was significant increase in yield within drip irrigation treatments
as well as when compared to furrow irrigation method. Drip irrigation at low level
of irrigation gave 16% more yield as compared to drip irrigation at high level of ir-
rigation. This may be due to the fact that chili crop is sensitive to excess moisture
condition. Similarly, drip irrigation at low level of irrigation gave 29% more yield
and saved 63% of irrigation water as compared to furrow irrigation method. Water
use efficiency was maximum at low level of drip irrigation and was 252% higher
compared to furrow irrigation method.
Table 20.2 depicts the variation in head diameter, head weight and yield in dif-
ferent irrigation treatments for cauliflower crop. Statistically, head diameter of cau-
liflower was significantly higher in T1 as compared to other treatments. Similarly,
head weight was also significantly higher in drip irrigation treatments. Head weight
at low level of drip irrigation was 35.4% more as compared to furrow irrigation
method. The increase in the yield with drip irrigation was due to the higher number
of heads and head weights. Drip irrigation at low level of irrigation gave 38% higher
yield and saved 40% of irrigation water as compared to furrow irrigation. The water
use efficiency with drip irrigation at low level of irrigation was 130% more as com-
pared to conventional furrow irrigation method.

TABLE 1 Average Fruit Length, Yield, Irrigation Water Applied and WUE of Chili Under
Drip and Furrow Irrigation

Treatments Average fruit Yield Water depth IWUE

length (cm) (t/ha) applied (cm) (kg/ha-cm)
T1 4.47 21.91 31.9 687
T2 4.38 20.11 42.8 470
T3 4.36 18.85 53.8 350
T4 4.26 16.96 87.0 195
CD at 5% NS 0.746
C.V. 2.71 0.192
338 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

TABLE 20.2 Head Diameter, Head Weight, Yield, Irrigation Water Applied and IWUE of
Cauliflower Under Drip and Furrow Irrigation

Treatments Head Head Yield Water IWUE

diameter weight (t/ha) depth (kg/ha-cm)
(cm) (gm) applied
(cm)
T1 22.7 272.5 23.55 12.6 1869
T2 21.3 265.2 23.50 14.9 1577
T3 21.3 250.8 23.03 17.2 1339
T4 20.4 201.2 17.07 21.0 813
CD at 5% 0.41 4.59 2.01
C.V. 0.96 0.93 0.462

TABLE 20.3 Head Diameter, Yield, Irrigation Water Applied and IWUE of Sunflower
Under Drip and Furrow Irrigation

Treatments Head Yield Water depth IWUE

diameter (cm) (t/ha) applied (cm) (kg/ha-cm)
T1 20.2 2.83 28.4 100
T2 20.2 2.83 36.6 77
T3 19.1 2.64 44.9 59
T4 18.8 2.53 60.0 42
CD at 5% NS 0.118
C.V. 5.77 0.218

TABLE 20.4 Yield, 1000 Grain Weight, Mean Cob Length, Irrigation Water Applied and
IWUE of Maize Under Drip and Furrow Irrigation

Treatments Mean cob 1000 grain Yield (t/ Water IWUE

length (cm) weight ha) depth (kg/ha-cm)
(gm) applied
(cm)
T1 13.3 203.7 3.11 17.3 180
T2 13.2 201.8 3.10 21.9 142
T3 13.5 197.2 2.87 26.5 108
T4 13.1 182.8 2.60 36.5 71
CD (5%) 0.19 NS NS
C.V. 0.72 5.91 0.763
Evaluation of Different Crop Sequences Using Drip Irrigation System 339

TABLE 20.5 Plant Height, Dry Matter, Yield, Irrigation Water Applied and IWUE of Potato
Under Drip and Furrow Irrigation

Treatments Final plant Dry Yield Water IWUE (kg/ha-

height (cm) matter (t/ha) depth cm)
(gm) applied
(cm)
T1 48.3 25.3 25.32 13.4 1890
T2 47.8 25.7 25.13 14.8 1698
T3 48.6 26.5 25.54 16.2 1577
T4 48.0 24.2 24.96 21.0 1188
CD at 5% NS
C.V. 0.458

TABLE 20.6 Plant Height, Dry Matter, Yield, Irrigation Water Applied and IWUE of Cotton
Under Drip and Furrow Irrigation

Treatment Final plant Dry matter Yield Water IWUE (kg/

height (cm) (gm/plant) (t/ha) depth ha-cm)
applied
(cm)
T1 94.2 83.6 1.75 15.0 116.6
T2 96.5 76.6 1.84 19.8 92.7
T3 97.0 93.1 1.88 24.0 78.5
T4 92.0 86.6 1.84 31.0 58.3
CD at 5% NS
C.V. 6.39

TABLE 20.7 Yield and Depth of Water Applied of All Three Crop Sequences

Crop Yield (t/ha) Depth of water applied (cm)

Drip Furrow Yield Drip Furrow Water
increase, saving,
% %
Cauliflower 23.55 17.07 37.96 12.6 21.0 40.33
Cotton 1.75 1.837 –4.84 15.0 31.0 51.61
Hybrid chili 21.91 16.96 29.2 31.9 87.0 63.33
Maize 3.11 2.60 19.62 17.3 36.5 52.60
Potato 25.32 24.96 1.44 13.4 21.0 36.19
Sunflower 2.83 2.53 11.86 28.4 60.0 52.67
340 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

Table 20.3 indicates statistically nonsignificant differences in head diameter

among all different irrigation treatments for sunflower crop. Drip irrigation at low
level of irrigation gave statistically more yield and saved 53% water as compared to
furrow irrigation. The water use efficiency at low level of drip irrigation was 138%
higher as compared to conventional furrow irrigation method.
Table 20.4 revealed statistically nonsignificant differences in 1000-grain weight
and yield among all irrigation for maize crop. Drip irrigation at low level of irriga-
tion saved 52% water as compared to furrow irrigation method. Water use efficiency
with drip irrigation at low level of irrigation was 153% more as compared to furrow
irrigation method.
Table 20.5 shows statistically significant differences in yield for all irrigation
treatments for potato crop. Drip irrigation at low level of irrigation saved 38% of
water and 3.6 q/ha more yield as compared to conventional furrow irrigation meth-
od.
Table 20.6 indicates nonsignificant differences in cotton yield and final plant
height between drip and conventional furrow irrigated treatments. Drip irrigation at
low level of irrigation saved substantial quantity of water as compared to conven-
tional furrow irrigation. Hence, with the major objective of saving water without
affecting yield, drip irrigation at low level of irrigation can be adopted.
Table 20.7 shows drip-irrigated and furrow irrigated treatments having maxi-
mum yield and amount of water applied for all the crops. Data revealed that cauli-
flower-hybrid chili (vegetable crop sequence) was best because there was significant
increase in yield as well as substantial amount of water saving. Whereas in other
crop sequences, there was substantial amount of water saving without affecting the
yield. Thus drip irrigation is also beneficial for field crops in water scarcity areas

20.4 SUMMARY
A field study on drip irrigation was conducted for different crop sequences consist-
ing of only vegetable crop, only field crops and combination of vegetable and field
crops. The study revealed that cauliflower-hybrid chili (vegetable crop sequence)
with drip irrigation at low level of irrigation (IW/CPE=0.50) gave more yield and
saving of water as compared to other crop sequences. The other crop sequences
which comprised of vegetable and field crops showed nonsignificant increase in
yield with drip irrigation as compared to furrow irrigation, but resulted in substantial
water saving without affecting the crop yield.
Evaluation of Different Crop Sequences Using Drip Irrigation System 341

KEYWORDS

•• banana
•• cauliflower
•• chili
•• crop sequences
•• drip irrigation
•• field crops
•• furrow irrigation
•• irrigation
•• paired row planting
•• plant height
•• potato
•• sunflower
•• vegetable
•• water saving
•• water use efficiency

REFERENCES
1. Boujelben, A. M., Barek, K., Chartzoulakis, K. S. (1997). Potato crop response to drip irriga-
tion system. Acta Horti., 449(I), 241–243.
2. Chawla, J. K., Narda, N. K. (2001). Economy in fertilizer use in trickle fertigated potato. J.
Irrigation and Drainage, 50, 129–137.
3. Shelke, D. K., Vaishnava, V. G., Oza, S. R., Jadhav, G. S. (1999). Management of irrigation in
banana through drip irrigation systems. J. Maharashtra Agric. Univ., 23(3), 317–318.
4. Sivakumar, H. K., Ramachandrappa, B. K., Nanjappa, H. V. (2001). Economics of drip irriga-
tion in Sunflower. Karnataka J. Agric. Science, 14(4), 924–927.
This page intentionally left blank
CHAPTER 21

ECONOMICS OF DRIP IRRIGATED

CROP SEQUENCES
A. K. SAINI, KAMAL G. SINGH, and M. SIAG

21.1 INTRODUCTION
Water is one of the primary inputs in agricultural production. Efficient and proper
utilization of this scarce resource is crucial for increasing agricultural production.
This can be achieved by adopting methods having higher water application and dis-
tribution efficiencies. The modern methods of irrigation (sprinkler irrigation; drip
irrigation and microsprinkler irrigation) are becoming increasingly popular. Appli-
cation efficiency varies from 90 to 95% with these modern irrigation methods as
compared to 50–60% in conventional irrigation systems.
With drip irrigation, there are substantial water savings as well as increase in
yield. Grimes et al. [5] reported substantially higher tomato yield in drip-irrigated
plots over furrow-irrigated plots. Jadhav et al. [6] reported that there was a saving
of 31.5% of water by drip method and benefit-cost ratio for tomato was 5.15 com-
pared to 2.96 for flood method. Sivakumar et al. [7] reported that for sunflower drip
irrigation at 0.5 Epan was more economical with a shortest payback period of 0.49
year under paired row method planting. Chawla and Narda [4] indicated water and
fertilizer savings to the extent of 30% and 70%, respectively with comparable yield
under trickle fertigated potatoes as compared to furrow-irrigated crop.
The United States Department of Commerce [1], in its comprehensive market
assessment of drip irrigation systems in India, has reported that increase in yield un-
der drip irrigation system ranged as high as 100% in bananas, 40–50% in sugarcane,
pomegranate, tomato and chilly and around 25% in grapes, cotton and groundnut.
In these crops, the irrigation water saving was from 40 to 70% compared to con-
ventional methods. The pay back period ranged from 1 to 4 years only for different
crops.
The drip irrigation is well suited for high value crops and was found economi-
cally viable for crops having wider row-to-row and plant-to-plant spacing. In case
of closely spaced crops, installation of drip irrigation system is quite expensive. But

*In this chapter, the currency is expressed in Indian Rupees (1.00 US$ = Rs. 60.93; 1.00 Rs. = 0.02 US$).
344 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

the use of drip irrigation in vegetables not only saves water use but also increases
yield with good quality produce. Since the use of drip irrigation system requires a
high initial investment, it is not a viable option to use the system only once a year for
taking a single crop. Therefore the present study was conducted to identify different
field and vegetable crops, which may be grown with drip irrigation method using
agronomically feasible and economically viable crop sequences so that this system
can be used effectively and efficiently throughout the year. This study presents the
economical analysis of different crop sequences.

21.2 MATERIALS AND METHODS

The experiments were conducted at Punjab Agricultural University – Ludhiana with
the following crop sequences consisting of field and vegetable crops:
1. Cauliflower – Hybrid chili
(October–Feb.) (March–October)
2. Sunflower – Maize – Potato
(January–May) (June–September) (October–December)
3. Sunflower – Cotton
(January–May End) (May End–December)
The first crop sequence comprised of vegetable crops only, whereas the sec-
ond sequence consisted of both vegetable (potato) and field crops (sunflower and
maize), and the third crop sequence included only field crops. Within the same se-
quence, the crops having almost the same row-to-row spacing were taken so that the
same lateral network in drip irrigation can be used throughout the year.
Treatments for different crops: In case of drip irrigation, paired row planting
on raised beds was adopted so that two rows were irrigated with a single lateral drip
line, in order to optimize the cost of drip irrigation. In case of surface irrigation,
paired row planting was done because it use less quantity of water as compared
to single row planting method without any adverse effects on crop yield [2]. All
the treatments were replicated thrice and experiment was conducted for two years
(2002–2003 and 2003–2004). The recommended package of practices for the differ-
ent crops by Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana was followed. The treatments
were:
T1 = Drip irrigated, paired row planting, IW/CPE is 0.50
T2 = Drip irrigated, paired row planting, IW/CPE is 0.75
T3 = Drip irrigated, paired row planting, IW/CPE is 1.00
T4 = Surface irrigated, paired row planting, IW/CPE is 1.00
Cost of laterals varied from crop to crop depending upon the row-to-row spac-
ing. The subsidy of Rs. 25,000/- per hectare was deducted from the cost of drip
irrigation system. Cost of cultivation and selling price of produce was taken as
per statistics provided by Department of Agricultural Economics, PAU, Ludhiana
Economics of Drip Irrigated Crop Sequences 345

[3]. An additional cost of operation and maintenance of drip irrigation system @

Rs.500/- per month per hectare was added to the cost of cultivation for drip system.
Crop yield was taken from experimental data from two years of study.
Depending upon the number of crops per sequence, the annual cost of drip ir-
rigation system was divided equally among these crops. The duration of the indi-
vidual crop was not considered for distributing the annual cost of drip irrigation
system; because the net returns from the complete crop sequence were compared by
taking the total annual cost of the drip system.

21.3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Each crop was sown twice for two consecutive years hence two sets of data were
generated. Paired row planting method was used for both drip and surface irrigation
treatments. For individual crops, the trends observed were similar during both the
years. The yields and water savings (with respect to conventional surface irrigation)
achieved for all the crops are shown in Table 21.1.

TABLE 21.1 Yield and Water Saving For Different Crops Under Various Treatments

Treatments Yield (100 kg/ha)

Cauliflower Chilly Cotton Sunflower Maize Potato
T1 235.5 219.1 17.48 28.3 31.1 253.2
(40.0) (63.3) (51.6) (52.6) (52.6) (36.2)

T2 235.0 201.1 18.36 38.3 31.0 251.3

(29.0) (50.8) (36.1) (39.0) (40.0) (29.5)

T3 230.3 188.5 18.84 26.4 28.7 255.4

(18.1) (38.2) (22.6) (25.1) (27.4) (22.8)

T4 170.7 169.6 18.37 25.3 26.0 249.6

Values in parenthesis are water savings in percent.

Table 21.1 concludes that:

1. There is a significant saving of water in T1, T2 and T3 as compared to con-
ventional irrigation treatment T4. Saving of water is maximum in T1 treat-
ment where water application was restricted to 50% of the accumulated pan
evaporation.
2. There is a significant increase in yield under drip irrigation system for cauli-
flower and hybrid chili crops as compared to conventional irrigation where-
346 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

as for other crops, yield difference under drip and conventional irrigation
methods are relatively same.

21.3.1 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

Economic viability of the drip irrigation system was performed for two different
situations.

21.3.1.1 CASE I – UNLIMITED WATER

Tables 21.2–21.4 show the calculations of net returns for the three different crop
sequences for conventional and drip irrigation systems. All cost and incomes are for
one-hectare area. Table 21.5 gives a summary of the net income from different crops
individually and from the crop sequences.

TABLE 21.2 Economic Analysis of Drip Irrigation Versus Conventional Irrigation For
Cauliflower – Hybrid Chili Crop Sequence

Parameters Cost (Rs.)

Drip Conventional
Cauliflower
1 Main line, submain, fertilizer tank, Nil
control valve, filters, pumping unit,
etc. 52,470
20
a) Fixed cost 1312
1312
b) Life (years)
2624
c) Depreciation per crop
d) Interest (10% per year) per crop
e) Total (c+d)
2 Laterals with inbuilt drippers Nil
a) Fixed cost 98,200
b) Life (years) 10
c) Depreciation per crop 4910
d) Interest (10% per year) per crop 2455
e) Total (c+d) 7365
3 Cost of cultivation 56,557 53,557
4 Seasonal total cost {1(e)+2(e) + 3} 66,546 53,557
Economics of Drip Irrigated Crop Sequences 347

5 Yield (100 kg) 235.5 170.7

6 Selling price (Rs./100 kg) 400 400
7 Income from produce (6 × 7) 94,200 68,280
8 Net seasonal income (8 – 4) 27,654 14,723
Hybrid Chili
1 Main line, submain, fertilizer tank, 2624 Nil
control valve, filters, pumping unit,
etc.
2 Laterals with inbuilt drippers 7365 Nil
3 Cost of cultivation 41,665 38,665
4 Seasonal total cost {1+2+ 3} 51,654 38,665
5 Yield of produce (100 kg) 219.1 169.6
6 Selling price (Rs./100 kg) 350 350
7 Income from produce (6 × 7) 76,685 59,360
Parameters Cost (Rs.)
Drip Conventional
8 Net seasonal income (8–4) 25,031 20,695
Cauliflower – Hybrid Chili
Total cost 118,200 92,222
Total income 170,885 127,640
Net income 52,685 35,418
Benefit–Cost ratio 1.45:1 1.38:1

TABLE 21.3 Economical Analysis of Drip Irrigation Verses Conventional Irrigation For
Sunflower-Maize-Potato Crop Sequence

Different Components Taken Cost (Rs.)

Drip Conventional
Sunflower
1 Main line, submain, fertilizer tank, Nil
control valve, filters, pumping unit,
etc. 52,470
a) Fixed cost 20
b) Life (years) 875
c) Depreciation per crop 875
d) Interest (10% per year) per crop 1750
e) Total (c+d)
348 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

TABLE 21.2 (Continued)

2 Laterals with inbuilt drippers Nil

a) Fixed cost 85,000
b) Life (years) 10
c) Depreciation per crop 2834
d) Interest (10% per year) per crop 1417
e) Total (c+d) 4251
3 Cost of cultivation 14,710 12,710
4 Seasonal total cost {1(e)+2(e) + 3} 20,711 12,710
5 Yield of produce (100 kg) 28.3 25.3
6 Selling price (Rs./100 kg) 1200 1200
7 Income from produce (6 × 7) 33,960 30,360
8 Net seasonal income (8–4) 13,249 17,650
Different Components Taken Cost (Rs.)
Drip Conventional
Maize
1 Main line, submain, fertilizer tank, 1750 Nil
control valve, filters, pumping unit,
etc.
2 Laterals with inbuilt drippers 4251 Nil
3 Cost of cultivation 17,325 15325
4 Seasonal total cost {1+2+ 3} 23,326 15325
5 Yield of produce (100 kg) 31.1 26.0
6 Selling price (Rs./100 kg) 600 600
7 Income from produce (6 × 7) 21,660 18600
(+ by products @ Rs. 3000/ha)
8 Net seasonal income (8–4) –1666 3275
Potato
1 Main line, submain, fertilizer tank, 1750 Nil
control valve, filters, pumping unit,
etc.
2 Laterals with inbuilt drippers 4251 Nil
3 Cost of cultivation 44,103 42103
4 Seasonal total cost {1+2+ 3} 50,104 42103
5 Yield of produce (100 kg) 255.4 249.6
6 Selling price (Rs./100 kg) 250 250
Economics of Drip Irrigated Crop Sequences 349

TABLE 21.3 (Continued)

7 Income from produce (6 x 7) 63,850 62400

8 Net seasonal income (8 – 4) 13,746 20297
Sunflower-Maize-Potato
Total cost 94,141 70,138
Total income 11,9470 11,1360
Net income 25,329 41,222
Benefit – cost ratio 1.26:1 1.58:1

TABLE 21.4 Economical Analysis of Drip Irrigation Verses Conventional Irrigation For
Cotton-Sunflower Crop Sequence

Different Components Taken Cost (Rs.)

Drip Conventional
Cotton
1 Main line, submain, fertilizer tank, con- Nil
trol valve, filters, pumping unit, etc.
52,470
a) Fixed cost 20
1312
b) Life (years)
1312
c) Depreciation per crop
2624
d) Interest (10% per year) per crop
e) Total (c+d)
2 Laterals with inbuilt drippers Nil
a) Fixed cost 67,400
b) Life (years) 10
c) Depreciation per crop 3370
d) Interest (10% per year) per crop 1685
e) Total (c+d) 5055
3 Cost of cultivation 19,485 16,485
4 Seasonal total cost {1(e)+2(e) + 3} 27,164 16,485
5 Yield of produce (100 kg) 18.84 18.37
6 Selling price (Rs./100 kg) 1800 1800
7 Income from produce (6 × 7) 33,912 33,066
8 Net seasonal income (8–4) 6748 16,581
350 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

TABLE 21.4 (Continued)

Sunflower
1 Main line, submain, fertilizer tank, 2624 Nil
control valve, filters, pumping unit, etc.
2 Laterals with inbuilt drippers 5055 Nil
3 Cost of cultivation 15,710 12,710
4 Seasonal total cost {1+2+ 3} 23,389 12,710
5 Yield of produce (100 kg) 28.3 25.3
6 Selling price (Rs./100 kg) 1200 1200
7 Income from produce (6 × 7) 33,960 30,360
8 Net seasonal income (8–4) 10,571 17,650
Cotton-Sunflower
Total cost 50,553 29,195
Total income 67,872 63,426
Net income 17,319 34,231
Benefit – cost ratio 1.34:1 2.17:1

Table 21.5 shows net returns per hectare for three crop sequences (both
under drip and conventional irrigation) outlined for economical analysis. The
analysis clearly shows an increase in income under drip irrigation for the veg-
etable crop sequence of cauliflower and hybrid chili. The extra cost due to drip
irrigation is exceeded by additional returns due to higher production. However,
in the second and third crop sequences, which consisted mainly of field crops,
the net return under drip irrigation was less than that under conventional sur-
face irrigation. This was mainly due to insignificant increase in yield under drip
irrigation and hence the additional cost of installation of drip system reduced
the net returns as compared to conventional furrow irrigation. Therefore, it may
be concluded from the present study that adoption of drip irrigation system was
economically viable for vegetable crop sequence but not for crop sequences
with field crops.
Economics of Drip Irrigated Crop Sequences 351

TABLE 21.5 Comparison of Net Profit For Different Crop Sequences Under Unlimited
Water Supply

Crops included in Net income (Rs.)

different sequences Drip Conventional
Cauliflower-Hybrid Chili
Cauliflower 27,654 14,723
Hybrid chili 25,031 20,695
Net income from sequence 52,685 35,418

Sunflower-Maize-Potato
Sunflower 13,249 17,650
Maize −1666 3275
Potato 13,746 20,297
Net income from sequence 25,329 41,222

Sunflower-Cotton
Sunflower 10,571 17,650
Cotton 6748 16,581
Net income from sequence 17,319 34,231

21.3.1.2 CASE II – LIMITED WATER

The total water saving for T1 treatment under different crop sequences and addi-
tional area that can be irrigated has been presented in Table 21.6.

TABLE 21.6 Total Water Requirement For the Different Crop Sequence

Crop sequence Water requirement Saving Additional

(m3/ hectare) over the area
Drip Conventional conventional irrigated
system with drip
(m3/ha) (hectare)
Sunflowe –cotton 2840+1500 6000+3100 4760 1.100
=4340 =9100
Cauliflower- 1260+3190 =4450 2100+8700 6350 1.420
hybrid chili =10800
Sunflower-maize- 2840+1730+1340 6000+3650+ 5840 1.000
potato =5910 2100
=11750
352 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

Tables 21.7–21.9 show the calculations of net returns for different crop sequenc-
es for both conventional and drip irrigation system taking into consideration the
additional area that can be irrigated by saving in water by drip irrigation method.
Again all cost and incomes are for one hectare.

TABLE 21.7 Net Return From Cauliflower–Hybrid Chili Crop Sequence Under Drip and
Conventional Furrow Irrigation Method With Water as a Limiting Factor

Different Components taken Cost (Rs.)

Drip Conventional

Cauliflower

1 Seasonal total cost 66,546 53,557

2 Yield of produce (100 kg) 235.5 170.7

3 Selling price (Rs./100 kg) 400 400

4 Income from produce (2 × 3) 94,200 68,280

5 Net seasonal income (5 – 1) 27,654 14,723

Different Components taken Cost (Rs.)

Drip Conventional

Hybrid chili

1 Seasonal total cost 51,654 38,665

2 Yield of produce (100 kg) 219.1 169.6

3 Selling price (Rs./100 kg) 350 350

4 Income from produce (2 × 3) 76,685 59,360

5 Net seasonal income (5 – 1) 25,031 20,695

Cauliflower – Hybrid chili

Net income/ha 52,685 35,418

Additional area irrigated (ha) 1.42 -

Additional income 74,813

Total income 127,498 35,418

Economics of Drip Irrigated Crop Sequences 353

TABLE 8 Economic Analysis of Drip Versus Conventional Irrigation For Sunflower-Maize-

Potato Crop Sequence With Water as a Limiting Factor

Different Components taken Cost (Rs.)

Drip Conventional

Sunflower

1 Seasonal total cost 20,711 12,710

2 Yield (100 g) 28.3 25.3

3 Selling price (Rs./100 kg) 1200 1200

4 Income from produce (6 × 7) 33,960 30,360

5 Net seasonal income (8 – 4) 13,249 17,650

Maize

1 Seasonal total cost 23,326 15325

2 Yield (100 kg) 31.1 26.0

3 Selling price (Rs./100 kg) 600 600

4 Income from produce (6 × 7) 21,660 18,600

(+ by products @ Rs. 3000/ha)

5 Net seasonal income (8 – 4) –1666 3275

Potato

1 Seasonal total cost 50,104 42,103

2 Yield (100 kg) 253.2 249.6

3 Selling price (Rs./100 kg) 250 250

4 Income from produce (6 × 7) 63,300 62,400

5 Net seasonal income (8 – 4) 13,196 20,297

Sunflower-maize-potato

Net income/ha 24779 44,282

Additional area irrigated, ha 1.005 -

Additional income 24902 -

Total income, Rs. 49,681 44,282

354 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

TABLE 21.9 Economical Analysis of Drip Irrigation Verses Conventional Irrigation For
Cotton-Sunflower Crop Sequence

Different Components Taken Cost (Rs.)

Drip Conventional

Cotton

1 Seasonal total cost 27,164 16,485

2 Yield (100 kg) 17.48 18.37

3 Selling price (Rs./100 kg) 1800 1800

4 Income from produce (6 x 7) 31,464 33,066

5 Net seasonal income (8 – 4) 4300 16,581

Sunflower

1 Seasonal total cost 23,389 12,710

2 Yield (100 kg) 28.3 25.3

3 Selling price (Rs./100 kg) 1200 1200

4 Income from produce (6 × 7) 33,960 30,360

5 Net seasonal income (8 – 4) 10,571 17,650

Cotton-sunflower

Net income/ha 14,871 34,231

Additional area irrigated, ha 1.120 -

Additional income, Rs. 16,656

Total income, Rs. 31,527 34,231

Table 21.10 gives a comparison of net income from different crop sequences un-
der both drip and conventional irrigation system. The table shows that under water
scarcity situation, adoption of drip irrigation system gives very high returns with
vegetable crop sequence as compared to that obtained with conventional irrigation
system. Adoption of drip irrigation under water scarcity conditions also becomes
viable for field crop sequences, as net incomes under drip irrigation are comparable
with conventional irrigation.
Economics of Drip Irrigated Crop Sequences 355

TABLE 21.10 Net Income For Different Crop Sequences Under Limited Water

Net income (Rs.)

Crop included in different sequences
Drip Conventional
Cauliflower-hybrid chili 127,498 35,418
Sunflower-maize-potato 49,681 44,282
31,527 34,231
Sunflower-cotton

21.4 CONCLUSIONS
1. Utilizing the drip irrigation system round the year for different crops, re-
duces its annual cost and hence can help in making the system viable.
2. Under unrestricted water supply, drip irrigation is viable for the crop se-
quence of cauliflower-hybrid chili but not for crop sequences with field
crops.
3. Under water scarce conditions, adoption of drip irrigation system is also vi-
able for crop sequence with field crops.

21.5 SUMMARY
A drip irrigation system was evaluated for vegetable crop sequence, vegetable and
field crop sequence and only field crop sequence. Economic analysis of these crop
sequences was performed for two different situations.
Under unlimited water supplies: Out of three crop sequences, vegetable crop
sequence of cauliflower-hybrid chili gave maximum net return with drip irrigation
method as compared to other crop sequences with drip and conventional irrigation
method. The net return for this crop sequence with drip irrigation method was 1.49
times higher as compared to conventional irrigation method.
Under Limited water supplies: Drip irrigation method gave substantially high-
er net returns for vegetable crop sequence, because water saved with drip irrigation
method can be used to irrigate the additional area. The net return with drip was 3.6
times higher as compared to conventional irrigation method. Other crop sequences
with drip irrigation method also gave nearly equivalent net return as compared to
conventional method of irrigation.
356 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

KEYWORDS

•• cauliflower
•• conventional irrigation
•• cotton
•• crop sequence
•• drip irrigation
•• fertigation
•• maize
•• micro irrigation
•• micro sprinkler
•• net profit
•• net return
•• plastics
•• potato
•• soil water
•• sprinkler irrigation
•• sunflower
•• vegetable crop
•• water application
•• water distribution

REFERENCES
1. Anonymous, (1999). India – Drip and Micro Irrigation Systems – Market Assessment. STAT.
US Department of Commerce, 202, 482.
2. Anonymous, (2000). Annual progress report on: Application of plastics in Agriculture. De-
partment of Soil and Water Eng., P. A. U., Ludhiana – India.
3. Anonymous, (2004). Unpublished report of Department Economics, P. A. U., Ludhiana.
4. Chawla, J. K., Narda, N. K. (2001). Economy in fertilizer use in trickle fertigated potato. Ir-
rigation and Drainage, 50, 129–137.
5. Grimes, D. W., Miller, R. J., Sehweeers, V. H., Smith, R. B., Wiley, P. L. (1972). Soil strength
modification of root development and soil water extraction. California Agricultural Journal,
26, 12–14.
6. Jadhav, S. S., Gutal, G. B., Chougale, A. A. (1990). Cost economics of drip irrigation system
for tomato crop. Proceedings of the 11th International Congress on the Use of Plastics in Ag-
riculture, March, New Delhi, India. pp. B.171–B.176.
7. Sivakumar, H. K., Ramachandrappa, B. K., Nanjappa, H. V. (2001). Economics of drip irriga-
tion in Sunflower. Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 14(4), 924–927.
CHAPTER 22

ECONOMICS OF DRIP IRRIGATED

CLOSELY SPACED CROPS
KAMAL G. SINGH, H. A. W. S. GUNATHILAKE,
RAMESH P. RUDRA, and PRADEEP K. GOEL

22.1 INTRODUCTION
Cost of a drip irrigation system is comprised of: the capital investment; cost due to
water pump, head control components, main line, laterals, emitters; installation cost;
the operating cost of pumping energy, pump maintenance, lateral maintenance; and
system operating labor cost, etc. Comparatively, the capital cost is predominant in
any drip irrigation system. Therefore, in designing the system, the priority is given
to plot an optimal geometrical layout of the system (lateral spacing and emitter spac-
ing) without affecting the number of plants (plant density).
Efficient application of water through drip irrigation system depends on the un-
derstanding of hydraulics of moisture advance in horizontal and vertical directions
within the soil profile. The flow phenomenon in a drip irrigation system is a function
of application rate and duration of irrigation, both of which are of paramount impor-
tance in the design of a drip irrigation system. Several studies have been conducted
to investigate the soil wetting and water front advance within the soil profile under
point source of water application. It is reported that the rate of horizontal water
movement in the soil and metric potential at different distances from the dripper
are functions of soil type and drip discharge rate. It was also reported that increase
in drip discharge rate resulted in an increase in the horizontal wetted area and a de-
crease in the depth of wetted soil [1, 2, 5]. Goel et al. [3] studied the effects of drip
discharge rate on the soil moisture distribution patterns under bare soil conditions
using 12, 8, 4 and 2 lph discharge rates of drippers operated for 25, 37.5, 75 and
150 min, respectively, with the aim to provide equal quantity of water. They found
that in the beginning the water at higher application rate saturated the soil near the
dripper and infiltration was slower; whereas the water penetrated deeper with lower

*In this chapter, the currency is expressed in Indian Rupees (1.00 US$ = Rs. 60.93; 1.00 Rs. = 0.02 US$).
358 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

application rate because of availability of more time for infiltration. Sharma et al.
[7] studied two dimensional moisture movement flow under soil tank model and re-
ported the shape of moisture movement to be semielliptical. Similar works have also
been reported by Brandt et al. [1], Kaul [4] and Sivanappan et al. [8]. For closely
spaced field crops, it is important to determine the optimal spacing of laterals and
drippers.
The present study attempts at developing rational criteria for determining the
optimal spacing of laterals and drippers of a drip system so that the drip irrigation
technology is an economically viable for closely spaced field crops.

22.2 DEVELOPMENT OF DESIGN CRITERIA FOR THE

ESTIMATION OF THE CAPITAL COST
The least cost drip system will be the one where lateral spacing is kept correspond-
ing to the operation irrigation time that results into maximum horizontal advance
of soil moisture but this system will not be the most efficient as it will result into
avoidable deep percolation losses. To avoid the percolation losses, the maximum
permissible vertical advance should not be allowed to exceed the root zone depth
of the crop. Therefore, the operation time of the system must be adjusted so that the
vertical moisture advance remains within the crop root zone. Horizontal advance
corresponding to the operation duration of the system that results into a vertical
advance equal to the root zone depth therefore be considered as the maximum al-
lowable lateral spacing [6].

22.2.1 CASE STUDY

A field of 80 m length and 40 m width, having sandy loam soils was considered for
designing the drip irrigation system using the developed design criteria for irrigat-
ing okra crop. The crop root zone depth was 40 cm. Drippers of 2 and 4 lph were
considered for determining the optimal spacing of drippers and laterals for most
economic drip system. Kaul and Michael [4] developed the relationships between
horizontal and vertical advance of soil moisture front with operation time of the drip
system for sandy loam soils. The Eqs. (1) and (2 )present the relationships between
horizontal moisture advance and operation time of the system for dripper discharges
of 2 and 4 lph, respectively:
Ha2 + 2.03 × 10−3 T2 – 3.06 T − 250 = 0 (1)

Ha2 + 3.33 × 10−3 T2 – 4.99 T − 500 = 0 (2)

Va = 4.037 T0.444 (3)

Economics of Drip Irrigated Closely Spaced Crops 359

Va = 5.164 T0.424 (4)

where: Ha = horizontal advance, cm; and T = operation time, min.; and Va = verti-
cal advance, cm. The relationships between vertical moisture front advance with
operation time of the system for dripper discharges of 2 and 4 lph are expressed in
Eqs. (3) and (4).
Horizontal and vertical advance of moisture fronts were estimated using Eqs.
(1)–(4) at different times of operation of the drip system (30, 60, 90, 120, 150, 180,
210, 300, 480, 720 and 780 min.) under the dripper discharge of 2 and 4 lph. Since
the horizontal moisture front moves equally on either side of the dripper, the hori-
zontal moisture spread was taken equal to twice the horizontal advance (estimated
from the above relationships), for the purpose of determining the lateral spacing.
Based on the lateral spacing and the field, length number of laterals required in the
field was calculated. Twenty percent overlap was taken in determining the num-
ber of drippers. The number of drippers was therefore calculated taking the dripper
spacing equal to 80% that of the lateral spacing.

22.3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Maximum lateral spacing and maximum irrigable root zone depth under dripper dis-
charge of 2 and 4 lph and for different operating durations of a drip system from 30
min to 210 min are presented in Table 22.1. Increasing operating time from 30 min
to 210 min resulted into larger allowable lateral spacing for 2 and 4 lph from 37.0
to 56.7 and 50.8 to 74.9 cm, respectively (Table 22.1). Higher dripper discharge at-
tained the maximum allowable lateral spacing in lesser duration of operation of the
system. However, it may be noted in Table 1 that the vertical advance of moisture
did not stabilize and kept increasing with increasing dripper discharge and increas-
ing operation time. Vertical advance of moisture reached the root zone depth of 40
cm in operation time of 180 min and 120 min under the dripper discharges of 2 and
4 lph (Table 22.1), respectively.

TABLE 22.1 Maximum Lateral Spacing and Vertical Depth Under the Given Application
Rates

Operation time Maximum lateral spacing Maximum root zone depth

(min) under dripper discharge (vertical advance) of moisture
(cm) (cm)
2.0 lph 4.0 lph 2.0 lph 4.0 lph
30 37.0 50.8 18.3 21.6
60 42.0 56 24.9 29.0
90 45 60.7 29.8 34.5
360 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

120 48.5 64.8 33.8 38.9

150 51.5 68.5 37.3 42.8
180 54.2 71.8 40.5 46.2
210 56.7 74.9 43.4 49.4
300 60.9 82.4 50.7 58.0
480 70.7 92.2 62.5 70.8
720 74.8 97.2 74.8 84.0
780 74.8 97.2 77.5 86.9

Based on the values, the maximum allowable lateral spacing (Table 22.1), num-
ber of laterals required in the field (80 m × 40 m) under different discharge and op-
eration time were determined and are presented in Table 22.2. As mentioned earlier,
the total number of drippers required in the field was estimated based on the as-
sumption of 20% overlap. Total number of drippers required under different dripper
discharge and operation time is also presented in Table 22.2.
Total length of laterals and the number of the drippers may decrease with increas-
ing dripper discharge and operation time. Minimum length of the laterals (4240 m)
and number of drippers (7102) were observed in case of operation time of 210 min. It
may be noted in Table 2 that operation time more than 720 min did not result in any
reduction in the required length of lateral and number of drippers. However, further
increase in operation time resulted in the deep percolation losses (Table 22.1).
Optimal operation durations of drip system for 2 and 4 lph were 180 and 120 min
based on the crop root zone (Table 22.1). The length of laterals and number of drip-
pers required at optimal operation durations for 2 and 4 lph are presented in Table
22.3. It is evident in Table 22.3 that drip system with 4 lph drippers will be the most
economical compared to drippers of 2 lph.

TABLE 22.2 Total Length Laterals and Total Number of Drippers For a Field of 80 m × 40
m Under Different Operating Times and Dripper Discharges

Discharge Operation No. of No. of emitters/ Total length of Total

(lph) time laterals lateral laterals number of
(min.) (m) emitters
2 30 108 270 8640 29,160
2 60 95 238 7600 22,610
2 90 89 222 7120 19,758
2 120 82 206 6560 16,892
2 150 78 194 6240 15,132
2 180 74 185 5920 13,690
Economics of Drip Irrigated Closely Spaced Crops 361

2 210 71 176 5680 12,496

2 300 66 164 5280 10,824
2 480 57 141 4560 8037
2 720 53 134 4240 7102
2 780 53 134 4240 7102
4 30 79 196 6320 15,484
4 60 71 179 5680 12,709
4 90 66 165 5280 10,890
4 120 62 154 4960 9548
4 150 58 146 4640 8468
4 180 56 139 4480 7784
4 210 53 134 4240 7102
4 300 49 121 3920 5929
4 480 43 108 3440 4644
4 720 41 103 3280 4223
4 780 41 103 3280 4223

TABLE 22.3 Overall Capital Cost (Rs.) of the Drip System

Dripper Operation Length Number of Cost of Total cost

discharge time (min) of drippers installation (IR)
(lph) laterals (IR)
(m)
2-On-line 180 5920 13,690 2000 83,141
2-In-line 180 5920 - - 69,760
4-On-line 120 4960 9548 1700 64,109
4-In-line 120 4960 - - 58,480
*Cost of laterals (Online) poly tube IR = Rs. 7.00/m
Cost of laterals (Inline) IR = Rs. 11.75/m
Cost of emitters IR = Rs. 2.90/each on November 9, 2008.

Therefore, in capital cost-wise the most economical drip system for the giv-
en field is 4Lph dripper system; installed at 64.8 cm lateral spacing; operated for
120 min (02 h) duration.
362 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

22.4 SUMMARY
The present study attempts at developing economic criteria for developing the drip
system for closely spaced field crops. Water front advance under a point source of
water application depends on soil type, dripper discharge and the operation time of
the system. Larger operation time results into larger lateral spacing but may simul-
taneously result into deep percolation losses because of consequential larger vertical
advances. Horizontal advance corresponding to the operation duration of the system
that results into a vertical advance equal to the root-zone depth should therefore be
considered as the maximum allowable lateral spacing. The procedure of determin-
ing the optimal spacing of laterals and drippers has been discussed for irrigating
okra crop in sandy loam soils. Optimal duration of operation of drip irrigation sys-
tem for 2 and 4 lph drippers were 180 and 120 min based on the horizontal and ver-
tical advance of soil moisture. Drip irrigation system with 4 lph dripper discharge,
laterals spaced at 64.8 cm apart was most economical system for irrigating a crop of
40 cm root zone depth in sandy loam soils.

KEYWORDS

•• capital investment installation

•• closely spaced crop
•• drip irrigation
•• duration of irrigation
•• emitter spacing
•• head control
•• horizontal advance
•• infiltration
•• installation cost
•• labor cost
•• lateral maintenance
•• lateral spacing
•• main line
•• micro irrigation
•• moisture distribution pattern
•• moisture front advance
•• okra
•• operating cost
•• optimal geometrical layout
Economics of Drip Irrigated Closely Spaced Crops 363

•• optimal spacing
•• pump maintenance
•• pumping energy
•• root-zone depth
•• sandy loam
•• soil moisture
•• trickle irrigation
•• trickle source
•• vertical advance
•• water pump
•• wetted area

REFERENCES
1. Brandt, A., Bresler, E. N., Ben-Asher, J., Goldberg, D. (1971). Infiltration from a trickle
source-1. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc., 35, 683–689.
2. Bresler, E., Heller, J., Diner, N., Ben-Asher, J. (1971). Infiltration from a trickle source-II. Soil
Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc., 35.
3. Goel, A. K., Kumar, R. (1993). Effect of drip discharge rate on soil moisture distribution pat-
tern. J. Water Management, 1(1), 50–51.
4. Kaul, R. K., Michael, A. M. (1986). Moisture front advance under a point source of water ap-
plication. J. Agric. Eng. XIIX(2).
5. Keller, J., Karmeli, D. (1974). Trickle Irrigation Design. page 135. Rain Bird Sprinkler Manu-
facturing Corporation, CA.
6. Patel, N., Rajput, T. B. S. (2001). Minimization of cost of drip system for field crops. In:
Singh, H., P, Kaushish, S. P., Kumar, A., Murthy, T. S., Samuel, J. C. (eds), Micro Irrigation.
pp. 569–573.
7. Sharma, K. N., Paul, J. C., Nayak, S. C., Mohanty, D. (1997). Water movement in soil from
drip source. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 4, 134–142.
8. Sivanappan, R. K. (1987). Status and prospects of drip irrigation in India. Proceedings of Na-
tional Seminar on Use of Plastics in Agriculture, held at New Delhi, during February, 13–28.
This page intentionally left blank
CHAPTER 23

ECONOMICS OF DRIP IRRIGATED

CAULIFLOWER-CHILI SEQUENCE
KAMAL G. SINGH, G. MAHAJAN, and MUKESH SIAG

23.1 INTRODUCTION
Viewed from the perspective of water stress due to lowering of ground water table,
the purpose of irrigation is to keep water status at a level that maximize yield within
the constraints of irrigation supply and weather. In this connection, drip irrigation is
a relatively new technology of irrigation especially in water scarcity areas. The sys-
tem has proved its superiority over other conventional methods of irrigation, espe-
cially in vegetable crops owing to precise application of water in the root zone. The
major drawback of the drip irrigation system is its high initial investment; however,
cost can be recovered in a short span if proper water management and design prin-
ciples are followed. Among the various components of the drip irrigation system,
the cost of the lateral is a major factor, which influences the total cost of installation.
Any effort made to reduce the length of lateral per unit area will result in reduction
of system cost. Many scientists reported that drip irrigation in chill-cauliflower is
very economical by reducing the cost and water use by 50%, when these crops were
planted in paired row patterns [1, 2]. Further, it has been observed that it is not a
viable option to use the drip irrigation system only once a year for taking a single
crop. Therefore, the present study was conducted to study the yield response and
economic viability of drip irrigation system in cauliflower-hybrid chili sequence.

23.2 MATERIALS AND METHODS

23.2.1 EXPERIMENTAL SETUP

The field experiment was conducted at the research farm of Department of Soil and
Water Engineering, PAU, Ludhiana for cauliflower-hybrid chili sequence. Cauli-
flower (cultivar PG 26) and hybrid chili (cultivar, CH-1) were used in this study. The

*In this chapter, the currency is expressed in Indian Rupees (1.00 US$ = Rs. 60.93; 1.00 Rs. = 0.02 US$).
366 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

experimental set up included 5 treatments comprising of: three levels of drip irriga-
tion (1.0 Epan, 0.75 Epan and 0.5 Epan) and two check basin methods of irrigation
when the crops were sown in either paired row or single row in randomized block
design with three replications. In normal sowing method, both the crops were sown
in sequence at a spacing of 45 cm between row-to-row and 30 cm between plant-to-
plant. However, in paired sowing, the row-to-row spacing between paired rows was
30 cm and row spacing between pair rows was 60 cm but plant-to-plant spacing was
kept same as 30 cm. Therefore, in paired sowing total as well as number of rows and
plants were same. As there was one lateral for two rows of each pair, the number of
lateral, cost and water needs were reduced to 50%.
In check-basin method (surface flooding), the irrigations were provided on the
basis of 1.0 cumulative pan evaporation (Epan). In both the years, cauliflower culti-
var PG 26 was sown in the first week of October. Whereas, hybrid chili (CH-1) was
sown in the first week of March in both the years. Both the crops were raised with
recommendations in package of practices of PAU. The recommended fertilizers in
cauliflower were 125 kg N and 62.5 kg P2O5/ha. The recommended fertilizers in
hybrid chili were 75 kg N and 25 kg P2O5/ha. All phosphorus dose was basal applied
(before transplanting of each crop) in all the treatments. The drip system consisted
of polyethylene laterals of 12 mm in diameter that were laid parallel (each lateral
served 2 rows of crop). The laterals were provided with online emitters of 3 L/hour
capacity at 0.3 m apart.

23.2.2 BENEFIT COST ANALYSIS

To calculate the net return from different crop sequence, the cost of different inputs
included: expenses incurred on preparation of field, plowing, seed, sowing, cost of
fertilizers, manure and their application, weeding, crop protection measure and cost
of irrigation water, harvesting and selling prices; and these were based on the data
from the Department of Agricultural Economics, PAU, Ludhiana. Market prices
were taken to compute cost of drip irrigation system. Cost of laterals varied from
crop to crop depending upon row-to-row spacing.
The subsidy of Rs. 25,000 per hectare was deducted from the cost of irrigation
system. An additional cost of operation and maintenance of drip irrigation system @
Rs. 500 per month was added to the cost of cultivation for drip system. The annual
cost of drip irrigation system was divided equally between the two crops. The sea-
sonal cost of drip irrigation included: depreciation, prevailing bank rate of interest
(8%/year/crop). The useful life was 20 years for main line, sub main, fertilizer tank,
valve, filter and pumping unit; and while for inbuilt drippers, it was considered 10
years. Economic analysis was done for two different situations, that is, for water
hunger area and for unlimited water supply. Under unlimited water supply situation,
comparisons were made for the same area (1 ha) under drip and conventional system
of irrigation. The maximum yield obtained under drip and conventional method of
Economics of Drip Irrigated Cauliflower-Chili Sequence 367

irrigation was taken to find out the net returns per hectare and then the net income
under both systems of irrigation for different crop sequences was compared and
analyzed. For water hunger area, it was assumed that the water saved per hectare
using drip irrigation system for cauliflower-hybrid chili sequence can be used to
bring additional area under irrigation using the same sequence; and the additional
income generated was added to calculate the net return under drip irrigation system.
This income was compared with the per hectare income generated from conven-
tional surface irrigation method. Whereas maximum yield of different crops under
conventional irrigation was taken; and in case of drip irrigation the yield from best
treatment was considered. The best treatment was the one that gave maximum water
saving and an additional area can be brought under the crops with the water saving.

23.3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

23.3.1 EFFECTS OF IRRIGATION LEVELS ON CAULIFLOWER-

CHILI SEQUENCE
The Table 23.1 indicates that drip irrigation at 0.5 Epan caused significantly higher
cauliflower (198.2 100 kg) and hybrid chili (219.1 100 kg) yield as compared to
check basin method of irrigation when both the crops were sown in either paired
rows or in normal sowing method. Normal sown crop under check basin method
of irrigation produced 26.1% and 25.8% lesser cauliflower and hybrid chili yield,
respectively than the paired sown crop, although the same quantity of water was
applied. In cauliflower, drip irrigation at all the levels of irrigation (0.50 Epan, 0.75
Epan and 1.0 Epan) proved significantly superior over check basin method of irriga-
tion, when the crop was sown either normally or in paired rows.

TABLE 23.1 Effects of Different Treatments on Water Use Efficiency, Cauliflower and
Hybrid Chili Yield in Cauliflower-Hybrid Chili Sequence
Treatments Cauliflower yield (100 kg/ha) Hybrid Chili yield (100 kg/ha)
Year I Year II Mean Mean Year I Year II Mean Mean
WUE WUE
100 kg/ 100 kg/
(ha-cm) (ha-cm)
D 0.5 Epan 235.0 161.48 198.2 15.7 176.6 261.5 219.1 6.89
PR (13.32) (11.90) (12.6) (29.3) (34.4) (31.8)
D 0.75 Epan 235.0 154.44 194.2 13.0 159.2 243.0 201.1 4.71
PR (14.98) (14.80) (14.9) (38.9) (46.6) (42.7)
368 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

TABLE 23.1 (Continued)

D 1.0 Epan 230.3 145.40 187.8 10.9 157.4 219.8 188.5 3.51
PR (16.64) (17.80) (17.2) (48.6) (58.9) (53.7)
C.B. 1.0 170.7 86.74 128.7 6.27 143.6 195.5 169.6 1.75
Epan PR (20.0) (21.0) (20.5) (94.0) (100.0) (97.0)
C.B. 1.0 102.3 88.0 95.1 4.63 141.7 110.0 125.9 1.30
Epan NS (20.0) (21.0) (20.5) (94.0) (100.0) (97.0)
LSD (0.05) 40.4 30.6 - - 14.2 36.2 - -
D = Drip irrigation, C.B. = Check basin, PR = Paired rows, NS = Normal sowing.
Values in parentheses indicate irrigation water applied to crop in cm

Drip irrigated cauliflower crop resulted in statistically same yield at all the lev-
els of irrigation with maximum water use efficiency (15.7 per 100 kg/ha-cm) at 0.5
Epan. In hybrid chili crop, drip irrigated crop at 0.5 and 0.75 Epan gave significantly
more yield over check basin method of irrigation, when the crop was sown either
normally or in paired rows. The highest chili yield obtained, when the crop was drip
irrigated at 0.5 Epan with maximum water use efficiency (6.89 per 100 kg/ha-cm).
It was observed that drip irrigated chili crop resulted in statistically same yield at
all the levels of irrigation (0.50 Epan, 0.75 Epan and 1.0 Epan). Further, the study
indicates that as the water supply increased through drip irrigation in both the crops,
the water use efficiency was decreased.

23.3.2 BENEFIT COST ANALYSIS

Table 23.2 presents the economic analysis of drip versus check basin method of ir-
rigation for cauliflower-hybrid chili sequence. For computing economic benefits in
both the drip irrigated crops, the treatment which gave maximum yield and water
saving were selected. As in both the crops, drip irrigation at 0.5 Epan caused highest
yield with maximum water use efficiency. Therefore, yields under these treatments
were selected for computing the economics in both the crops. It was observed that
the net seasonal income was higher in drip-irrigated crops. In cauliflower, due to
lesser yield in check basin method, the net return was negative, while it was profit-
able in drip-irrigated crop and the net profit was Rs. 12,734/ha. In hybrid chili, net
profit was observed in both the methods of irrigation, but further it was more in drip-
irrigated crop (Rs. 25,031/ha) than check basin method of irrigation (Rs. 20,695/ha).
Further analysis showed that cauliflower-hybrid chili sequence gave net return of
Rs. 37,765/ha in drip irrigation method as compared to Rs. 18,618/ha in check basin
method of irrigation.
Economics of Drip Irrigated Cauliflower-Chili Sequence 369

The net return was also computed in view of water hunger area. In water hun-
ger area, it was assumed that due to limited water supply, 1.65 ha more area (Table
23.3) can be irrigated due to drip irrigation under the cauliflower-hybrid chili se-
quence, which otherwise remain barren (un cultivated). The additional income from
the more area (1.65 ha) was added to calculate the net return. It was seen in Table 3
that in water hunger area, the net return boosted to Rs. 100,077 from Rs. 37,765 in
drip irrigation.

TABLE 23.2 Economic Analysis of Drip Versus Check Basin Method of Irrigation For
Cauliflower-Hybrid Chili Sequence

Parameters Drip Check

basin
Cauliflower
1. Seasonal total cost (Rs./ha) 66,546 53,557
2. Yield of produce (100 kg/ha) 198.2 128.7
3. Selling price (Rs./100 kg) 400 400
4. Income from produce (2x3) (Rs./ha) 79,280 51,480
5. Net seasonal income (4–1) (Rs./ha) 12,734 –2,077
Parameters Drip Check
basin
Hybrid chili
1. Seasonal total cost (Rs./ha) 51,654 38,665
2. Yield of produce (q/ha) 219.1 169.6
3. Selling price (Rs./q) 350 350
4. Income from produce (2x3) (Rs./ha) 76,685 59,360
5. Net seasonal income (4–1) (Rs./ha) 25,031 20,695
Cauliflower-hybrid chili
1. Net income/ha (Rs.) 37,765 18,618
2. Additional area irrigated (ha) 1.65 -
3. Additional income 62,312 -
4. Total Net income 100,077 18,618
370 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

TABLE 23.3 Total Water Requirement for the Cauliflower-Chili Sequence in Different
Irrigation Methods

a. Water requirement of cauliflower-hybrid chili sequence in drip 1260 + 3180

irrigation method (m3/ha) = 4440
b. Water requirement of cauliflower-hybrid chili sequence in check 2050 + 9700
basin method of irrigation (m3/ha) = 11,750
c. Saving of water due to drip irrigation over the check basin 7310
method of irrigation (m3/ha) = b – c
d. Additional area that can be irrigated with drip irrigation (ha) 1.65

It can be concluded that drip irrigation is very useful method of irrigation in

cauliflower-hybrid chili sequence in terms of higher yield and water saving. In water
hunger area, its use can bring a revolution in vegetable sequence and can improve
the economic conditions of the farmers of that area.

23.4 SUMMARY
A field experiment was conducted at the research farm of Department of Soil and
Water Engineering, PAU, Ludhiana to study the response of cauliflower-hybrid chili
sequence to drip irrigation and also to study the economic feasibility of drip irriga-
tion system. The results revealed that in hybrid chili crop, drip irrigation at lowest
level of irrigation (0.5 Epan) caused highest yield (219 per 100 kg/ha) with highest
water use efficiency and proved significantly better than all other levels of drip irri-
gation including check basin method of irrigation. In cauliflower crop, the yield was
statistically same at all the levels of drip irrigation, but significantly more than check
basin method of irrigation when the crop was sown normal or in paired row pattern.
Under unlimited water supply, the economic analysis indicated that drip irriga-
tion in cauliflower-hybrid chili sequence gave a net return of Rs. 37,565/ha as com-
pared to Rs. 18,618/ha in check basin method of irrigation. However, under limited
water supply or in water scarcity areas, drip irrigation boosted the net return to the
tune of Rs. 100,077 due to increase in yield resulted from additional area covered
under irrigation.
Economics of Drip Irrigated Cauliflower-Chili Sequence 371

KEYWORDS

•• benefit cost ratio

•• cauliflower
•• check basin irrigation
•• chili
•• crop sequence
•• drip irrigation
•• economics
•• Epan
•• limited water supply
•• liquid fertilizer
•• nitrogen
•• okra
•• paired row pattern
•• water requirement
•• water saving
•• water scarcity

REFERENCES
1. Singh, V. Y., Joshi, N. L., Singh, D. V., Saxena, A. K. (1999). Response of chili to water and
nitrogen under drip and check basin method of irrigation. Ann. Arid Zone, 38, 9–13.
2. Tumbare, A. D., Shinde B. N., Bhoite, S. V. (1999). Effects of liquid fertilizers through drip
irrigation on growth and yield of okra. Indian J. Agron., 44, 176–178.
This page intentionally left blank
APPENDICES

(Modified and reprinted with permission from: Megh R. Goyal, 2012. Appendi-
ces. Pages 317–332. In: Management of Drip/Trickle or Micro Irrigation edited by
Megh R. Goyal. New Jersey, USA: Apple Academic Press Inc.)

APPENDIX A

CONVERSION SI AND NON-SI UNITS

To convert the Column 1 in To convert the Column 2

the Column 2 Column 1 Column 2 in the Column 1
Unit Unit
Multiply by SI Non-SI Multiply by

LINEAR
0.621 —— kilometer, km (103 m) miles, mi —————— 1.609
1.094 —— meter, m yard, yd —————— 0.914
3.28 —— meter, m feet, ft ——————— 0.304
3.94 × 10–2 — millimeter, mm (10–3) inch, in —————— 25.4

SQUARES
2.47 ——hectare, he acre ——————— 0.405
2.47 —— square kilometer, km2 acre ——————— 4.05 × 10–3
0.386 ——– square kilometer, km2 square mile, mi2 ———— 2.590
2.47 × 10–4 — square meter, m2 acre ——————— 4.05 × 10–3
10.76 ——– square meter, m2 square feet, ft2 ————– 9.29 × 10–2
1.55 × 10–3 — mm2 2
square inch, in ————– 645

CUBICS
9.73 × 10–3 — cubic meter, m3 inch-acre —————– 102.8
35.3 ——– cubic meter, m3 cubic-feet, ft3 ————— 2.83 × 10–2
6.10 × 104 — cubic meter, m3 cubic inch, in3 ———— 1.64 × 10–5
374 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

2.84 × 10–2 —liter, L (10–3 m3) bushel, bu —————— 35.24

1.057 ——– liter, L liquid quarts, qt ———— 0.946
3.53 × 10–2 —liter, L cubic feet, ft3 ————– 28.3
0.265 ——– liter, L gallon ——————– 3.78
33.78 ——– liter, L fluid ounce, oz ———— 2.96 × 10–2
2.11 ——liter, L fluid dot, dt ————— 0.473

WEIGHT
2.20 × 10–3 —gram, g (10–3 kg) pound, ——————– 454
3.52 × 10–2 —gram, g (10–3 kg) ounce, oz —————— 28.4
2.205 —— kilogram, kg pound, lb —————– 0.454
10–2 —— kilogram, kg quintal (metric), q ——— 100
1.10 × 10–3 — kilogram, kg ton (2000 lbs), ton ——— 907
1.102 —— mega gram, mg ton (US), ton ————– 0.907
1.102 —— metric ton, t ton (US), ton ————– 0.907

YIELD AND RATE

0.893 ——kilogram per hectare pound per acre ———— 1.12
7.77 × 10–2 — kilogram per cubic meter pound per fanega ——— 12.87
1.49 × 10–2 — kilogram per hectare pound per acre, 60 lb —– 67.19
1.59 × 10–2 — kilogram per hectare pound per acre, 56 lb —– 62.71
1.86 × 10–2 — kilogram per hectare pound per acre, 48 lb —– 53.75
0.107 ——liter per hectare galloon per acre ——— 9.35
893 ———ton per hectare pound per acre ——— 1.12 × 10–3
893 ———mega gram per hectare pound per acre ——— 1.12 × 10–3
0.446——ton per hectare ton (2000 lb) per acre —– 2.24
2.24 ———meter per second mile per hour ———— 0.447

SPECIFIC SURFACE
10 ——— square meter per square centimeter per
kilogram gram —————— 0.1
103 ——— square meter per square millimeter per
kilogram gram —————— 10–3

PRESSURE
9.90 ——— megapascal, MPa atmosphere ————– 0.101
10 ——— megapascal bar —————— 0.1
Appendices 375

1.0 ——— megagram per cubic gram per cubic

meter centimeter ————– 1.00
2.09 × 10–2 — pascal, Pa pound per square feet —— 47.9
1.45 × 10–4 — pascal, Pa pound per square inch —– 6.90 × 103

To convert the Column 1 To convert the Column 2 in

in the Column 2 Column 1 Column 2 the Column 1
Unit Unit
Multiply by SI Non-SI Multiply by

TEMPERATURE
1.00 (K-273)— Kelvin, K centigrade, °C ——– 1.00 (C+273)
(1.8 C + 32)— centigrade, °C Fahrenheit, °F ——– (F–32)/1.8

ENERGY
9.52 × 10–4 — Joule J BTU —————— 1.05 × 103
0.239 ——– Joule, J calories, cal ———— 4.19
0.735 ——– Joule, J feet-pound ———— 1.36
2.387 × 105 — Joule per square meter calories per square centimeter — 4.19 × 104
105 ——— Newton, N dynes —————– 10–5

WATER REQUIREMENTS
9.73 × 10–3 — cubic meter inch acre ————— 102.8
9.81 × 10–3 — cubic meter per hour cubic feet per second —— 101.9
4.40 ——— cubic meter per hour galloon (US) per minute — 0.227
8.11 ——— hectare-meter acre-feet ————— 0.123
97.28 —— hectare-meter acre-inch ————— 1.03 × 10–2
8.1 × 10–2 — hectare centimeter acre-feet ————— 12.33

CONCENTRATION
1 ———— centimol per kilogram milliequivalents per
100 grams ————– 1
0.1 ——— gram per kilogram percents ————— 10
1 ———— milligram per kilogram parts per million ——— 1
376 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

NUTRIENTS FOR PLANTS

2.29 ——– P P2O5 ——————– 0.437
1.20 ——– K K2O ——————– 0.830
1.39 ——– Ca CaO ——————– 0.715
1.66 ——– Mg MgO —————— 0.602

NUTRIENT EQUIVALENTS

Conversion Equivalent
Column A Column B A to B B to A
N NH3 1.216 0.822
NO3 4.429 0.226
KNO3 7.221 0.1385
Ca(NO3)2 5.861 0.171
(NH4)2SO4 4.721 0.212
NH4NO3 5.718 0.175
(NH4)2 HPO4 4.718 0.212
P P 2O 5 2.292 0.436
PO4 3.066 0.326
KH2PO4 4.394 0.228
(NH4)2 HPO4 4.255 0.235
H3PO4 3.164 0.316
K K 2O 1.205 0.83
KNO3 2.586 0.387
KH2PO4 3.481 0.287
KCl 1.907 0.524
K2SO4 2.229 0.449
Ca CaO 1.399 0.715
Ca(NO3)2 4.094 0.244
CaCl2 × 6H2O 5.467 0.183
CaSO4 × 2H2O 4.296 0.233
Mg MgO 1.658 0.603
MgSO4 × 7H2O 1.014 0.0986
Appendices 377

S H2SO4 3.059 0.327

(NH4)2 SO4 4.124 0.2425
K2SO4 5.437 0.184
MgSO4 × 7H2O 7.689 0.13
CaSO4 × 2H2O 5.371 0.186

APPENDIX B
378 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

APPENDIX C

PERCENTAGE OF DAILY SUNSHINE HOURS: FOR NORTH AND

SOUTH HEMISPHERES

Latitude Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
NORTH
0 8.50 7.66 8.49 8.21 8.50 8.22 8.50 8.49 8.21 8.50 8.22 8.50
5 8.32 7.57 8.47 3.29 8.65 8.41 8.67 8.60 8.23 8.42 8.07 8.30
10 8.13 7.47 8.45 8.37 8.81 8.60 8.86 8.71 8.25 8.34 7.91 8.10
15 7.94 7.36 8.43 8.44 8.98 8.80 9.05 8.83 8.28 8.20 7.75 7.88
20 7.74 7.25 8.41 8.52 9.15 9.00 9.25 8.96 8.30 8.18 7.58 7.66
25 7.53 7.14 8.39 8.61 9.33 9.23 9.45 9.09 8.32 8.09 7.40 7.52
30 7.30 7.03 8.38 8.71 9.53 9.49 9.67 9.22 8.33 7.99 7.19 7.15
32 7.20 6.97 8.37 8.76 9.62 9.59 9.77 9.27 8.34 7.95 7.11 7.05
34 7.10 6.91 8.36 8.80 9.72 9.70 9.88 9.33 8.36 7.90 7.02 6.92
36 6.99 6.85 8.35 8.85 9.82 9.82 9.99 9.40 8.37 7.85 6.92 6.79
38 6.87 6.79 8.34 8.90 9.92 9.95 10.1 9.47 3.38 7.80 6.82 6.66
40 6.76 6.72 8.33 8.95 10.0 10.1 10.2 9.54 8.39 7.75 6.72 7.52
42 6.63 6.65 8.31 9.00 10.1 10.2 10.4 9.62 8.40 7.69 6.62 6.37
44 6.49 6.58 8.30 9.06 10.3 10.4 10.5 9.70 8.41 7.63 6.49 6.21
46 6.34 6.50 8.29 9.12 10.4 10.5 10.6 9.79 8.42 7.57 6.36 6.04
48 6.17 6.41 8.27 9.18 10.5 10.7 10.8 9.89 8.44 7.51 6.23 5.86
50 5.98 6.30 8.24 9.24 10.7 10.9 11.0 10.0 8.35 7.45 6.10 5.64
52 5.77 6.19 8.21 9.29 10.9 11.1 11.2 10.1 8.49 7.39 5.93 5.43
54 5.55 6.08 8.18 9.36 11.0 11.4 11.4 10.3 8.51 7.20 5.74 5.18
56 5.30 5.95 8.15 9.45 11.2 11.7 11.6 10.4 8.53 7.21 5.54 4.89
58 5.01 5.81 8.12 9.55 11.5 12.0 12.0 10.6 8.55 7.10 4.31 4.56
60 4.67 5.65 8.08 9.65 11.7 12.4 12.3 10.7 8.57 6.98 5.04 4.22
SOUTH
0 8.50 7.66 8.49 8.21 8.50 8.22 8.50 8.49 8.21 8.50 8.22 8.50
5 8.68 7.76 8.51 8.15 8.34 8.05 8.33 8.38 8.19 8.56 8.37 8.68
10 8.86 7.87 8.53 8.09 8.18 7.86 8.14 8.27 8.17 8.62 8.53 8.88
15 9.05 7.98 8.55 8.02 8.02 7.65 7.95 8.15 8.15 8.68 8.70 9.10
20 9.24 8.09 8.57 7.94 7.85 7.43 7.76 8.03 8.13 8.76 8.87 9.33
25 9.46 8.21 8.60 7.74 7.66 7.20 7.54 7.90 8.11 8.86 9.04 9.58
30 9.70 8.33 8.62 7.73 7.45 6.96 7.31 7.76 8.07 8.97 9.24 9.85
Appendices 379

32 9.81 8.39 8.63 7.69 7.36 6.85 7.21 7.70 8.06 9.01 9.33 9.96
34 9.92 8.45 8.64 7.64 7.27 6.74 7.10 7.63 8.05 9.06 9.42 10.1
36 10.0 8.51 8.65 7.59 7.18 6.62 6.99 7.56 8.04 9.11 9.35 10.2
38 10.2 8.57 8.66 7.54 7.08 6.50 6.87 7.49 8.03 9.16 9.61 10.3
40 10.3 8.63 8.67 7.49 6.97 6.37 6.76 7.41 8.02 9.21 9.71 10.5
42 10.4 8.70 8.68 7.44 6.85 6.23 6.64 7.33 8.01 9.26 9.8 10.6
44 10.5 8.78 8.69 7.38 6.73 6.08 6.51 7.25 7.99 9.31 9.94 10.8
46 10.7 8.86 8.90 7.32 6.61 5.92 6.37 7.16 7.96 9.37 10.1 11.0

APPENDIX D

3PSYCHROMETRIC CONSTANT (Γ) FOR DIFFERENT ALTITUDES

(Z)
γ = 10–3 [(Cp.P) ÷ (ε.λ)] = (0.00163) × [P ÷ λ]
γ, psychometric constant [kPa C–1] ε, ratio molecular weight of water
cp, specific heat of moist air = 1.013 vapor/dry air = 0.622
[kJ kg–1 °C–1] λ, latent heat of vaporization
P, atmospheric pressure [kPa]. [MJ kg–1]
= 2.45 MJ kg–1 at 20 °C.
Z γ z γ z γ z γ
(m) kPa/°C (m) kPa/°C (m) kPa/°C (m) kPa/°C
0 0.067 1000 0.060 2000 0.053 3000 0.047
100 0.067 1100 0.059 2100 0.052 3100 0.046
200 0.066 1200 0.058 2200 0.052 3200 0.046
300 0.065 1300 0.058 2300 0.051 3300 0.045
400 0.064 1400 0.057 2400 0.051 3400 0.045
500 0.064 1500 0.056 2500 0.050 3500 0.044
600 0.063 1600 0.056 2600 0.049 3600 0.043
700 0.062 1700 0.055 2700 0.049 3700 0.043
800 0.061 1800 0.054 2800 0.048 3800 0.042
900 0.061 1900 0.054 2900 0.047 3900 0.042
1000 0.060 2000 0.053 3000 0.047 4000 0.041
380 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

APPENDIX E

SATURATION VAPOR PRESSURE [ES] FOR DIFFERENT

TEMPERATURES (T)

Vapor pressure function = es = [0.6108]*exp{[17.27*T]/[T + 237.3]}

T es T es T es T es
°C kPa °C kPa °C kPa °C kPa
1.0 0.657 13.0 1.498 25.0 3.168 37.0 6.275
1.5 0.681 13.5 1.547 25.5 3.263 37.5 6.448
2.0 0.706 14.0 1.599 26.0 3.361 38.0 6.625
2.5 0.731 14.5 1.651 26.5 3.462 38.5 6.806
3.0 0.758 15.0 1.705 27.0 3.565 39.0 6.991
3.5 0.785 15.5 1.761 27.5 3.671 39.5 7.181
4.0 0.813 16.0 1.818 28.0 3.780 40.0 7.376
4.5 0.842 16.5 1.877 28.5 3.891 40.5 7.574
5.0 0.872 17.0 1.938 29.0 4.006 41.0 7.778
5.5 0.903 17.5 2.000 29.5 4.123 41.5 7.986
6.0 0.935 18.0 2.064 30.0 4.243 42.0 8.199
6.5 0.968 18.5 2.130 30.5 4.366 42.5 8.417
7.0 1.002 19.0 2.197 31.0 4.493 43.0 8.640
7.5 1.037 19.5 2.267 31.5 4.622 43.5 8.867
8.0 1.073 20.0 2.338 32.0 4.755 44.0 9.101
8.5 1.110 20.5 2.412 32.5 4.891 44.5 9.339
9.0 1.148 21.0 2.487 33.0 5.030 45.0 9.582
9.5 1.187 21.5 2.564 33.5 5.173 45.5 9.832
10.0 1.228 22.0 2.644 34.0 5.319 46.0 10.086
10.5 1.270 22.5 2.726 34.5 5.469 46.5 10.347
11.0 1.313 23.0 2.809 35.0 5.623 47.0 10.613
11.5 1.357 23.5 2.896 35.5 5.780 47.5 10.885
12.0 1.403 24.0 2.984 36.0 5.941 48.0 11.163
12.5 1.449 24.5 3.075 36.5 6.106 48.5 11.447
Appendices 381

APPENDIX F

SLOPE OF VAPOR PRESSURE CURVE (Δ) FOR DIFFERENT

TEMPERATURES (T)
∆ = [4098. e°(T)] ÷ [T + 237.3]2
= 2504{exp[(17.27T) ÷ (T + 237.2)]} ÷ [T + 237.3]2
T Δ T Δ T Δ T Δ
°C kPa/°C °C kPa/°C °C kPa/°C °C kPa/°C
1.0 0.047 13.0 0.098 25.0 0.189 37.0 0.342
1.5 0.049 13.5 0.101 25.5 0.194 37.5 0.350
2.0 0.050 14.0 0.104 26.0 0.199 38.0 0.358
2.5 0.052 14.5 0.107 26.5 0.204 38.5 0.367
3.0 0.054 15.0 0.110 27.0 0.209 39.0 0.375
3.5 0.055 15.5 0.113 27.5 0.215 39.5 0.384
4.0 0.057 16.0 0.116 28.0 0.220 40.0 0.393
4.5 0.059 16.5 0.119 28.5 0.226 40.5 0.402
5.0 0.061 17.0 0.123 29.0 0.231 41.0 0.412
5.5 0.063 17.5 0.126 29.5 0.237 41.5 0.421
6.0 0.065 18.0 0.130 30.0 0.243 42.0 0.431
6.5 0.067 18.5 0.133 30.5 0.249 42.5 0.441
7.0 0.069 19.0 0.137 31.0 0.256 43.0 0.451
7.5 0.071 19.5 0.141 31.5 0.262 43.5 0.461
8.0 0.073 20.0 0.145 32.0 0.269 44.0 0.471
8.5 0.075 20.5 0.149 32.5 0.275 44.5 0.482
9.0 0.078 21.0 0.153 33.0 0.282 45.0 0.493
9.5 0.080 21.5 0.157 33.5 0.289 45.5 0.504
10.0 0.082 22.0 0.161 34.0 0.296 46.0 0.515
10.5 0.085 22.5 0.165 34.5 0.303 46.5 0.526
11.0 0.087 23.0 0.170 35.0 0.311 47.0 0.538
11.5 0.090 23.5 0.174 35.5 0.318 47.5 0.550
12.0 0.092 24.0 0.179 36.0 0.326 48.0 0.562
12.5 0.095 24.5 0.184 36.5 0.334 48.5 0.574
382 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

APPENDIX G

NUMBER OF THE DAY IN THE YEAR (JULIAN DAY)

Day Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1 1 32 60 91 121 152 182 213 244 274 305 335
2 2 33 61 92 122 153 183 214 245 275 306 336
3 3 34 62 93 123 154 184 215 246 276 307 337
4 4 35 63 94 124 155 185 216 247 277 308 338
5 5 36 64 95 125 156 186 217 248 278 309 339
6 6 37 65 96 126 157 187 218 249 279 310 340
7 7 38 66 97 127 158 188 219 250 280 311 341
8 8 39 67 98 128 159 189 220 251 281 312 342
9 9 40 68 99 129 160 190 221 252 282 313 343
10 10 41 69 100 130 161 191 222 253 283 314 344
11 11 42 70 101 131 162 192 223 254 284 315 345
12 12 43 71 102 132 163 193 224 255 285 316 346
13 13 44 72 103 133 164 194 225 256 286 317 347
14 14 45 73 104 134 165 195 226 257 287 318 348
15 15 46 74 105 135 166 196 227 258 288 319 349
16 16 47 75 106 136 167 197 228 259 289 320 350
17 17 48 76 107 137 168 198 229 260 290 321 351
18 18 49 77 108 138 169 199 230 261 291 322 352
19 19 50 78 109 139 170 200 231 262 292 323 353
20 20 51 79 110 140 171 201 232 263 293 324 354
21 21 52 80 111 141 172 202 233 264 294 325 355
22 22 53 81 112 142 173 203 234 265 295 326 356
23 23 54 82 113 143 174 204 235 266 296 327 357
24 24 55 83 114 144 175 205 236 267 297 328 358
25 25 56 84 115 145 176 206 237 268 298 329 359
26 26 57 85 116 146 177 207 238 269 299 330 360
27 27 58 86 117 147 178 208 239 270 300 331 361
28 28 59 87 118 148 179 209 240 271 301 332 362
29 29 (60) 88 119 149 180 210 241 272 302 333 363
30 30 — 89 120 150 181 211 242 273 303 334 364
31 31 — 90 — 151 — 212 243 — 304 — 365
Appendices 383

APPENDIX H

STEFAN-BOLTZMANN LAW AT DIFFERENT TEMPERATURES (T):

[σ*(TK)4] = [4.903 × 10–9], MJ K–4 m–2 day–1
where: TK = {T[°C] + 273.16}
T σ*(TK)4 T σ*(TK)4 T σ*(TK)4
Units
°C MJ m–2 d–1 °C MJ m–2 d–1 °C MJ m–2 d–1
1.0 27.70 17.0 34.75 33.0 43.08
1.5 27.90 17.5 34.99 33.5 43.36
2.0 28.11 18.0 35.24 34.0 43.64
2.5 28.31 18.5 35.48 34.5 43.93
3.0 28.52 19.0 35.72 35.0 44.21
3.5 28.72 19.5 35.97 35.5 44.50
4.0 28.93 20.0 36.21 36.0 44.79
4.5 29.14 20.5 36.46 36.5 45.08
5.0 29.35 21.0 36.71 37.0 45.37
5.5 29.56 21.5 36.96 37.5 45.67
6.0 29.78 22.0 37.21 38.0 45.96
6.5 29.99 22.5 37.47 38.5 46.26
7.0 30.21 23.0 37.72 39.0 46.56
7.5 30.42 23.5 37.98 39.5 46.85
8.0 30.64 24.0 38.23 40.0 47.15
8.5 30.86 24.5 38.49 40.5 47.46
9.0 31.08 25.0 38.75 41.0 47.76
9.5 31.30 25.5 39.01 41.5 48.06
10.0 31.52 26.0 39.27 42.0 48.37
10.5 31.74 26.5 39.53 42.5 48.68
11.0 31.97 27.0 39.80 43.0 48.99
11.5 32.19 27.5 40.06 43.5 49.30
12.0 32.42 28.0 40.33 44.0 49.61
12.5 32.65 28.5 40.60 44.5 49.92
13.0 32.88 29.0 40.87 45.0 50.24
13.5 33.11 29.5 41.14 45.5 50.56
14.0 33.34 30.0 41.41 46.0 50.87
384 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

14.5 33.57 30.5 41.69 46.5 51.19

15.0 33.81 31.0 41.96 47.0 51.51
15.5 34.04 31.5 42.24 47.5 51.84
16.0 34.28 32.0 42.52 48.0 52.16
16.5 34,52 32.5 42.80 48.5 52.49

APPENDIX I

THERMODYNAMIC PROPERTIES OF AIR AND WATER

1. Latent Heat of Vaporization (λ)

λ = [2.501–(2.361 × 10–3) T]
where: λ = latent heat of vaporization [MJ kg–1]; and T = air temperature [°C].
The value of the latent heat varies only slightly over normal temperature ranges.
A single value may be taken (for ambient temperature = 20 °C): λ = 2.45 MJ kg–1.
2. Atmospheric Pressure (P)

P = Po [{TKo–α(Z–Zo) } ÷ {TKo}](g/(α.R))

where: P, atmospheric pressure at elevation z [kPa]

Po, atmospheric pressure at sea level = 101.3 [kPa]
z, elevation [m]
zo, elevation at reference level [m]
g, gravitational acceleration = 9.807 [m s–2]
R, specific gas constant == 287 [J kg–1 K–1]
α, constant lapse rate for moist air = 0.0065 [K m–1]
TKo, reference temperature [K] at elevation zo = 273.16 + T
T, means air temperature for the time period of calculation [°C]
When assuming Po = 101.3 [kPa] at zo = 0, and TKo = 293 [K] for T = 20 [°C], above
equation reduces to:

P = 101.3[(293–0.0065Z) (293)]5.26
3. Atmospheric Density (ρ)

ρ = [1000P] ÷ [TKv R] = [3.486P] ÷ [TKv], and TKv = TK[1–0.378(ea)/P]–1

where: ρ, atmospheric density [kg m–3]
R, specific gas constant = 287 [J kg–1 K–1]
Appendices 385

TKv, virtual temperature [K]

TK, absolute temperature [K]: TK = 273.16 + T [°C]
ea, actual vapor pressure [kPa]
T, mean daily temperature for 24-hour calculation time steps.
For average conditions (ea in the range 1–5 kPa and P between 80–100 kPa), TKv
can be substituted by: TKv ≈ 1.01 (T + 273)
4. Saturation Vapor Pressure function (es)

es = [0.6108]*exp{[17.27*T]/[T + 237.3]}
where: es, saturation vapor pressure function [kPa]
T, air temperature [°C]
5. Slope Vapor Pressure Curve (Δ)
∆ = [4098. e°(T)] ÷ [T + 237.3]2
= 2504{exp[(17.27T) ÷ (T + 237.2)]} ÷ [T + 237.3]2
where: Δ, slope vapor pressure curve [kPa C–1]
T, air temperature [°C]
e°(T), saturation vapor pressure at temperature T [kPa]
In 24-hour calculations, Δ is calculated using mean daily air temperature. In
hourly calculations T refers to the hourly mean, Thr.
6. Psychrometric Constant (γ)

γ = 10–3 [(Cp.P) ÷ (ε.λ)] = (0.00163) × [P ÷ λ]

where: γ, psychometric constant [kPa C–1]
cp, specific heat of moist air = 1.013 [kJ kg–1 °C–1]
P, atmospheric pressure [kPa]: equations 2 or 4
ε, ratio molecular weight of water vapor/dry air = 0.622
λ, latent heat of vaporization [MJ kg–1]

7. Dew Point Temperature (Tdew)

When data is not available, Tdew can be computed from ea by:

Tdew = [{116.91 + 237.3Loge(ea)} ÷ {16.78–Loge(ea)}]

where: Tdew, dew point temperature [°C]
ea, actual vapor pressure [kPa]
For the case of measurements with the Assmann psychrometer, Tdew can be cal-
culated from:

Tdew = (112 + 0.9Twet)[ea ÷ (e° Twet)]°.125–[112–0.1Twet]

386 Best Management Practices for Drip Irrigated Crops

8. Short Wave Radiation on a Clear-Sky Day (Rso)

The calculation of Rso is required for computing net long wave radiation and for
checking calibration of pyranometers and integrity of Rso data. A good approxima-
tion for Rso for daily and hourly periods is:

Rso = (0.75 + 2 × 10–5 z)Ra

where: z, station elevation [m]
Ra, extraterrestrial radiation [MJ m–2 d–1]
Equation is valid for station elevations less than 6000 m having low air turbid-
ity. The equation was developed by linearizing Beer’s radiation extinction law as a
function of station elevation and assuming that the average angle of the sun above
the horizon is about 50°.
For areas of high turbidity caused by pollution or airborne dust or for regions
where the sun angle is significantly less than 50° so that the path length of radiation
through the atmosphere is increased, an adoption of Beer’s law can be employed
where P is used to represent atmospheric mass:

Rso = (Ra) exp[(-0.0018P) ÷ (Kt sin(Φ))]

where: Kt, turbidity coefficient, 0 < Kt < 1.0 where Kt = 1.0 for clean air and
Kt = 1.0 for extremely turbid, dusty or polluted air.
P, atmospheric pressure [kPa]
Φ, angle of the sun above the horizon [rad]
Ra, extraterrestrial radiation [MJ m–2 d–1]
For hourly or shorter periods, Φ is calculated as:
sin Φ = sin φ sin δ + cos φ cos δ cos ω
where: φ, latitude [rad]
δ, solar declination [rad] (Eq. (24) in Chapter 3)
ω, solar time angle at midpoint of hourly or shorter period [rad]
For 24-hour periods, the mean daily sun angle, weighted according to Ra, can be
approximated as:

sin(Φ24) = sin[0.85 + 0.3 φ sin{(2πJ/365)–1.39}–0.42 φ2]

where: Φ24, average Φ during the daylight period, weighted according to Ra [rad]
φ, latitude [rad]
J, day in the year
The Φ24 variable is used to represent the average sun angle during daylight hours
and has been weighted to represent integrated 24-hour transmission effects on 24-
hour Rso by the atmosphere. Φ24 should be limited to >0. In some situations, the esti-
mation for Rso can be improved by modifying to consider the effects of water vapor
on short wave absorption, so that: Rso = (KB + KD) Ra where:
KB = 0.98exp[{(–0.00146P) ÷ (Kt sin Φ)}–0.091{w/sin Φ}0.25]
Appendices 387

where: KB, the clearness index for direct beam radiation

KD, the corresponding index for diffuse beam radiation
KD = 0.35–0.33 KB for KB > 0.15
KD = 0.18 + 0.82 KB for KB < 0.15
Ra, extraterrestrial radiation [MJ m–2 d–1]
Kt, turbidity coefficient, 0 < Kt < 1.0 where Kt = 1.0 for clean air and Kt = 1.0 for
extremely turbid, dusty or polluted air.
P, atmospheric pressure [kPa]
Φ, angle of the sun above the horizon [rad]
W, perceptible water in the atmosphere [mm] = 0.14 ea P + 2.1
ea, actual vapor pressure [kPa]
P, atmospheric pressure [kPa]

APPENDIX J
This page intentionally left blank