Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
TABLE 6
(Continued)
Treatments
Yield, t/ha
Water requirement, cm
Water-use-efficiency,
t/ha/cm
T 4
12.8
30.0
0.430
T 5
19.2
25.0
0.768
T 6
17.4
24.2
0.719
T 7
15.3
23.2
0.659
T 8
13.0
28.0
0.464
SE (m)
0.456
0.13
0.243
CD (0.05)
1.312
0.38
0.441
Crop water requirement is less in treatment T3 compared to T1 for both the years.
The crop water requirement for T3 was 23.3 T3 in 2006 and 24.1 in 2007, respectively,
with a mean value of 23.7 cm. The mean water requirement in T3 was 8.5% more than
T1 and 4.4% more than T2. The reason of low water requirement in T3 may be due
to higher application of irrigation since we have to supply 100% irrigation in T1 and
80% irrigation requirement in T2, and in treatment T3 we are applying only 60% ir-
rigation requirement at each irrigation. Comparing the water requirement of drip and
furrow irrigation, it is observed that the furrow irrigation required higher amount of
water than the drip system for both the years. In treatment T4 which is furrow irrigated
treatment without mulch, the mean water requirement of the crop was 29.7 cm, which
is 14.7, 19.8 and 25.3% higher as compared to treatments T1, T2 and T3, respectively.
The reasons of obtaining higher water requirement in furrow irrigation may be due to
higher application rate than the actual crop requirement resulting deep percolation and
runoff. However, because of some limitations, deep percolation study in various treat-
ments could not be carried out.
TABLE 7
Mean yield, water requirement and water-use-efficiency of tomato for different
treatments.
Treatments
Yield, t/ha
Water requirement,
cm
Water-use-efficiency,
t/ha/cm
T 1
17.0
25.9
0.656
T 2
15.5
24.8
0.625
T 3
13.8
23.7
0.582
T 4
12.4
29.7
0.418
T 5
19.0
24.9
0.763
 
Search WWH ::




Custom Search