Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
Table 3.1
Impact of irrigation strategies on water saving, WUE, yield and/or quality of selective vegetable crops
Crop
Water applied (ET
c
,
mm)
Water
Saving
(%)
Full 100 %
Deficit
<100%
WUE
(± %)
Irrigation
Strategies
z
Yield and/or Quality Responses
Country
References
Artichoke
614
509
17
8
DFI + mulch (SDI) 75 % ET
c
decreased yield by 20 % USA
Shinohara et al. (
2011
)
Tomato
379
204
46
53
DFI (DI)
50 % ET
c
did not affect yield but
improved fruit quality (TSS and
ascorbic acid)
Italy
Patanè et al. (
2011
)
Pepper
360
272
25
4
DFI (DI)
75 % ET
c
decreased yield by 23 %.
DFI can be used cautiously in
water limited regions
Ethiopia Gadissa and Chemeda (
2009
)
Watermelon
395
298
25
− 16
DFI + mulch (SDI) 75 % ET
c
decreased yield by 36 %,
but increased fruit lycopene
content by 7 %
USA
Leskovar et al. (
2004
)
Potato
207
128
38
50
PRD (SDI)
PRD increased N content, starch
and antioxidant activity in
tubers, without reducing yield
Serbia
Jovanovic et al. (
2010
)
Onion
628
537
14
− 10
DFI (SDI)
75 % ET
c
caused modest reduction
in bulb yield. Flavor and nutri-
tional quality were maintained
USA
Leskovar et al. (
2011
)
Cabbage
y
400
240
40
156
DFI (DI)
60 % ET
c
increased yield by 54 %
India
Tiwari et al. (
2003
)
Cantaloupe
y
612
381
38
64
Mulch (SDI)
Mulch (SDI) increased yield by
40 %
USA
Leskovar et al. (
2001
)
Lettuce
y
271
171
41
52
(SDI)
SDI did not affect yield
USA
Hanson et al. (
1997
)
y
Furrow irrigation was used as control for cabbage, cantaloupe, and lettuce
z
DFI = deficit irrigation (less than 100 % ET
c
), SDI = subsurface drip irrigation, DI = drip irrigation, PRD = partial root drying
