Effect of fertigation pattern and planting geometry on growth, yield and water productivity of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum)

S S MALI; B K JHA; S K NAIK; A K SINGH; AJAY KUMAR

doi:10.56093/ijas.v86i9.61522

Authors

S S MALI ICAR-Research Complex for Eastern Region, Research Centre, Ranchi, Jharkhand 834 010
B K JHA ICAR-Research Complex for Eastern Region, Research Centre, Ranchi, Jharkhand 834 010
S K NAIK ICAR-Research Complex for Eastern Region, Research Centre, Ranchi, Jharkhand 834 010
A K SINGH ICAR-Research Complex for Eastern Region, Research Centre, Ranchi, Jharkhand 834 010
AJAY KUMAR ICAR-Research Complex for Eastern Region, Research Centre, Ranchi, Jharkhand 834 010

https://doi.org/10.56093/ijas.v86i9.61522

Keywords:

Drip irrigation, Fertigation pattern, Planting geometry, Tomato, Water productivity

Abstract

Field study was conducted on a sandy loam soil during 2012-13 and 2013-14 in per-humid region of India to investigate the effects of fertigation patterns and planting geometries on crop growth, yield and water productivity (WP) of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) hybrid variety Swarna Sampada. Three fertigation patterns, viz. almost uniform dose per fertigation event (FP1), higher dose during initial stage of crop (FP2) and higher dose during mid- stage of crop (FP3) in combination with 4 planting geometries, viz. rectangular planting geometry with row-to-row and plant-to-plant spacing of 50 cm × 75 cm (S1) and three triangulated paired row (60 cm between paired row) planting geometries 40 cm × 70 cm (S2), 40 cm × 50 cm (S3) and 40 cm × 30 cm (S4) were evaluated in a split plot design replicated thrice. Effect of fertigation pattern was non-significant on crop growth. Whereas crop growth was negatively impacted by the higher plant densities (40 000 and 66 600 plants/ha under S3 and S4, respectively). The fertigation pattern FP3 recorded significantly highest average tomato yield of 79.2 tonnes/ha than those of FP1 and FP2. Triangulated planting geometries S2 and S3 recorded significantly higher fruit yield of tomato than S1 and S4 planting geometries. Higher WP of 13.4 kg/m3 recorded in FP3 in comparison to rest of the two fertigation patterns. Results revealed that fruit yield of tomato responded well when higher percentage of recommended dose is applied during mid-stage (10 to 16th week after transplanting) of the crop growth period. Triangulated arrangements of planting (S2 and S3) appeared to be the most effective in terms of fruit yield and WP of drip irrigated tomato. However, S2 may be preferred among all the planting geometries due to lesser plants/ha consequently requiring lesser inputs.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Abdel-Mawgoud A M R, El-Greadly N H M, Helmy Y I and Singer S M. 2007. Responses of tomato plants to different rates of humic-based fertilizer and NPK fertilization. Journal of Applied Sciences Research 3(2): 169–74.

Ali S M R.1997. Effect of plant population density on tomato. ARC Training Report, pp 1–3.

Allen R G, Pereira L S, Raes K and Smith M. 1998. Crop evapotranspiration—Guidelines for computing crop water requirements. FAO Irrigation and drainage paper 56, Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy.

Bodunde J G, Erinle I D and Eruotor P G. 1996. Selecting tomato genotypes for heat tolerance using Fasoulas’ line method. Proceeding of 14 HORTON conference. Ago-Iwoye, 1(4): 24–34.

Cetin O and Uygan D. 2008. The effect of drip line spacing, irrigation regimes and planting geometries of tomato on yield, irrigation water use efficiency and net return, Agricultural Water Management, 95: 949–58. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2008.03.002

Coock W P and Sanders D C. 1991. Nitrogen application frequency for drip irrigated tomatoes. HortScience 26:250–2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI.26.3.250

DeValerio J, Nistler D, Hochmuth R, and Simonne E. 2015. Fertigation for Vegetables: A Practical Guide for Small Fields. IFAS Extension, University of Florida. Available at http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/HS/HS120600.pdf.

Doorenbos J and Pruitt W. 1992. Crop Water Requirements. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 24, Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy.

El-Hendawy Salah E, El-Lattief E A, Ahmed M S and Schmidhalter U. 2008. Irrigation rate and plant density effects on yield and water use efficiency of drip-irrigated corn. Agricultural Water Management 95: 836–44. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2008.02.008

FAOSTAT. 2016. Food and Agricultural Organization. Online statistical database available at (http://faostat3.fao.org/ download/Q/QC/E).

Griesh M H and Yakout G M. 2001. Effect of plant population density and nitrogen fertilization on yield and yield components of some white and yellow maize hybrids under drip irrigation system in sandy soil. (In) Proceedings of the International Conference on Plant Nutrition—Food Security and Sustainability of Agro-ecosystems, Madrid, Spain, pp 810–1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47624-X_394

Hussen S, Kemalb, M and Wasiec M. 2013. Effect of intra-row spacing on growth and development of Tomato (Lycopersicum esculentum Mill) var. Roma VF, at the experimental site of Wollo University, South Wollo. Ethiopia International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research 10(1): 19–24.

Kanber R, Yazar A, Onder S and Koksal H. 1993. Irrigation response of Pistachio (Pistacia vera L.). Irrigation Science 14 (1): 7–14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00195000

Kultur F, Harrison H C and Staub J E. 2001. Spacing and genotype affect fruit sugar concentration, yield, and fruit size of muskmelon. HortScience 36: 274–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI.36.2.274

Miller R J, Rolston D E, Rauschkolb R S and DW, 1976. Drip application of nitrogen is efficient. California Agriculture. 30 (11): 16–8.

Mohamed M A M. 1999. ‘Effect of some agronomic practices on corn production (Zea mays L.) under drip irrigation system’. Ph D thesis, Faculty of Agriculture, Suez Canal University, Ismailia, Egypt, p 107.

Pankaj B and Narda, N K. 1998: The effect of different sizes and orientations of wetted soil volume on root density of trickle irrigated tomatoes. Annals of Biology (Hisar) 14(2): 155–9.

Paris H S, McCollum T G, Nerson H, Cantliffe D J and Karchi Z. 1985. Breeding of concentrated-yield muskmelons. Journal of Horticultural Sciences, 60: 335–9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14620316.1985.11515637

Rajput T B S and Patel Neelam. 2001. Moisture front advance studies under twin emitter drip irrigation system. Journal of Indian Water Resources Society 21(2): 79–88.

Soliman F H, Goda A S, Ragheb M M and Samia M A. 1995. Response of maize (Zea mays L.) hybrids to plant populations density under different environmental conditions. Zagazig Journal of Agriculture Research 22: 663–76.

Tabasi A, Nemati H and Akbari M. 2013. The effects of planting distances and different stages of maturity on the quality of thee cultivars of tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill). Notulae Scientia Biologicae, 5(3): 371–5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15835/nsb539091

Tuan N M and Mao N T. 2015. Effect of plant density on growth and yield of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) at Thai Nguyen, Vietnam. International Journal of Plant and Soil Science 7(6): 357–61. DOI: https://doi.org/10.9734/IJPSS/2015/18573