MICRO IRRIGATION PRACTICES IN TOMATO - Management, Performance, and Applications of Micro Irrigation Systems - page 192

Mulching treatment for various irrigation scheduling rates represents that imposi-
tion black plastic mulch (LDPE) decrease the days for harvesting the fruits. This fact
is true for both the years of data and also for the mean value (Tables 2 to 4). Number
of fruits per plant in treatment T 5 (100% irrigation requirement through drip irrigation
with LDPE mulch) was recorded highest (45.4 for 2006 and 46.0 for 2007 with a mean
value of 45.7), which is 15.2, 14.7 and 14.9% higher compared to the values in treat-
ment T1 (100% irrigation requirement through drip irrigation without LDPE mulch)
for the corresponding years in sequence. As regards to number of branches per plant,
maximum value of the mean of two years data was recorded in T 5 (28.8) followed by
T 6 (27.6) and lowest value in T 4 (20.5).
The results also show that the infl uence of mulch on growth of the plants in terms
of number of branches per plant, which is also high. The reader can observe in Table
3 that the number of branches per plant for treatment T1 is 24.1 compared to 28.8 for
treatment T5. This trend is true for all other treatments with mulch and nonmulch con-
ditions. The highest increase in yielding attributing parameters in treatment T 5 might
be due to availability of soil moisture as well as optimum temperature as compared to
all other treatments. The lowest value of the yield attributing parameters in treatment
T4 may be due to unfavorable moisture regime (moisture stress or excess moisture)
in the soil through surface irrigation and competition of weeds for nutrients. All the
yield-attributing characters are signifi cantly higher in treatment T 5 compared to other
treatments. Mulch has signifi cant effect on yield attributing characters than nonmulch
treatments.
The crop yield was 18.8 t/ha in 2006 and 19.2 t/ha in 2007, respectively, with a
mean value of 19.0 t/ha. The corresponding values were 16.5, 17.5 and 17.0 t/ha for
treatment T1; 12.0, 12.8 and 12.4 t/ha for treatment T4; and 12.5, 13.0 and 12.8 t/ha
for treatment T8, respectively. Therefore, this study reveals that mulching has a great
effect on the crop yield. The data represents that imposition of mulch in the crop en-
hances the crop yield by increasing 11.8% yield for the treatment T5 and for furrow
irrigation method (surface irrigation), the yield increase was 3.2% for the treatment T8
over the treatment T4 (See Table 4).
Irrigation scheduling also had a great infl uence on the crop yield. Irrigation with
100%, 80% and 60% irrigation requirements with mulch and nonmulch conditions,
recorded lower crop yield in sequence. For example, the mean crop yield in treatment
T1 was 9.7% higher than treatment T2 and 23.2% higher than the treatment T3 (Table
4). Similarly, with the incorporation of mulch, the mean crop yield of treatment T5
was 11.7% higher than treatment T6 and 26.7% higher than the treatment T7. When
we compare the mean yield data, it is observed that the drip irrigation has a signifi cant
effect on augmenting the yield over the conventional furrow irrigation. For example,
the mean yield of tomato with 100% irrigation requirement without mulch has 37.1%
increase than the furrow-irrigated treatment without any mulch.
The low yield recorded under surface irrigation method may be due to water stress
during critical growth period, coupled with aeration problem in fi rst few days immedi-
ately after irrigation. Also due to heavy application of irrigation water, the availability
of nutrients for crop growth was less due to leaching and also due to heavy weed infes-