Effects of Furrow Irrigation Methods and Mulching on Growth, Yield and Water Use Efficiency of Tomato at Bakotibe, Western Shoa

Eshetu Mekonnen^1*, Habtamu Bedane² and Gudeta Genemo^2
*Correspondence: Eshetu Mekonnen, Oromia Agricultural Research Institute, Bako Agricultural Engineering Research Center, P.O. Box 07, West Shoa, Azerbaijan, Email:

Keywords

Dry furrow irrigation • Conventional irrigation • Sustainable irrigation • Wet furrow irrigation.

Background and Justification

Tomato is one of the most important and widely grown vegetable in Ethiopia. Fresh, processing and cherry types are produced in the country. Small-scale farmer produces the bulk of fresh market tomatoes. Processing types are mainly produced in large-scale horticultural farms. It is an important cashgenerating crop to small scale farmers and provides employment in the production and processing industries. It is also important source of vitamin A and C as well as minerals. Farmers are interested in tomato production more than any other vegetables for its multiple harvests potential of year round production, which results in high profit per unit area. The Production of the tomato crop in most of western Shewa had been limited by several factors among which are irrigation water management and environmental factors that include temperature, humidity and rainfall. Sometimes, many of the farmers can’t able to provide irrigation due to unavailability of irrigation facilities and scarcity ofirrigation water. Under this situation mulching and alternate furrow irrigation could be a good substitute means of irrigation to save soil moisture. Proper irrigation managementincreases the water use efficiency; consequently, the production per unit of water will be increased. The degradable mulch has been designed to be incorporated into the soil profile, eliminating the need for polyethylene mulch removal at the end of the growing season [1]. It is one of the agricultural practices that take into account the preservation of the environment compared with polyethylene mulch, which is one of the recognized priorities in the world. Investigations of degradable mulch have proven their favorable impact on crop yields and the ecosystem [2,3]. Benefits of mulch include the enhancement of soil structure, soil fertility [4] and preservation of environmental quality [5]. The development towards optimum utilization of irrigation is to irrigate alternate furrows [6]. It is presumed that irrigating alternative furrows can help to save irrigation water both by minimizing evaporative loss from plant leaf due to reduced stomatal opening with absence of visible leaf water deficit and by reducing deep percolation losses at the same time. Kang et al. applied surge flow to alternate furrows in cotton fields. The performance of alternate furrow irrigation considerably increased and provided the highest water productivity (0.61 kg/m3) and irrigation application efficiency (85%) as compared to the conventional furrow irrigation. The aim of this study was therefore, to determine the combined effect of cover crop residue and irrigation method practices on water use efficiency of tomato crop.

Objective

To study the effects of furrow irrigation methods and mulching on the growth, yield and water use efficiency of tomato.

Materials and Methods

Experimental site description

The study was conducted at ganda Oda Haro, Bako Tibe, West Shoa. Bako is located at 9˚ 08' N latitude and 37 ˚ 03' E longitude; 251 km from Addis Ababa. The altitude was ranged from 1670 to 1690 m.a.s.l. The mean annual rainfall is about 1237 mm, with a peak in July.

Experimental design and treatments

The experimental unit arranged in two-way Randomized Complete Block Design and replicated three times. The treatments for the experiment was consist of two levels of furrow irrigation methods (conventional furrow and alternate furrow irrigating methods) and three levels of mulches (maize mulch, soya bean and wheat mulches). The experimental field consisted of 24 plots with a dimension of 5 mx6 m.

Estimation of crop water requirements

The actual crop evapotranspiration was (ETa) computed by multiplying the reference evapotranspiration (ETo) with crop coefficient (Kc) for different growth stages of the crop. ETo was calculated on a daily basis from daily meteorological data using the CROPWAT 8.0 model. The model uses FAO Penman-Monteith equation, which was accepted as standard method to calculate reference evapotranspiration.

Irrigation water use efficiency

Irrigation water use efficiency (IWUE) was calculated as the ratio between the yields harvested (kg) and the total volume of water applied (m³)

Water application efficiency(Ea)

It is the ratio of the volume of water stored in the subject region to the volume of water diverted into the subject region.

Ea =Ws/Wf ×100

Where, W_f = water stored in crop root zone, cm

W_f = water delivered at the head end of the furrows, cm.

Laboratory analysis of soil samples

The pH in H₂O under this study area is ranged in optimum value. An electric conductivity of 0.0355 ms/cm lies in the range which is <3 ms/cm, hence the soil samples are non- saline soils as per the rating suggested by Jones (2003). The total nitrogen of study area as suggested by [7] rated as high percent which is suitable for plant growth (Table 1).

Key: FC=Field capacity, PWP=Permanent wilting point, SCL=Sandy clay loam

The soil texture class changed with depth from clay in surface horizon to sandy clay loam in sub-surface at this experimental area. The value of average bulk densities (1.315 g/cm³) observed in these soils was within the normal range of mineral (Table 2).

Management practice of the tomato crop

The plots were weeded three times and chemicals were sprayed against fungus, fruit worms and pests. Standard Parshall flume was installed near the up-stream of the experimental field to measure irrigation water applied. The time required to apply the desired depth of water controlled by stopwatch. For the conventional furrow method, water was allowed to the end of the furrows with initial stream size maintained. For the alternate furrow method, intervening furrows were irrigated while the others were left dry for an irrigation event.

Data management and analysis

All relevant data were recorded, stored and managed in Microsoft excel. The collected data were arranged and organized for the suitability of statistical analysis and finally analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed using R software. Lest significant difference (LSD) at 5% level significance was used to make mean separation among treatments.

Results and Discussion

The tomato crop was irrigated sixteen times Table 3 (trice in the initial, four times in the development stage, five times in the mid stage and four in the late stage). The highest evapotranspiration values for the irrigated treatments occurred in the mid stage (Figure 1).

*= significant at 95%, **=significant at 99%, ***= significant at 99.9% and NS= non-significant

Number of fruit per plant

Table 4 shows that, conventional furrow irrigation method was highly significant (55.667) in number of fruit per plant than alternate irrigation method (39.833). In Table 5, it was found that all treatments of mulching material were significantly increased the average number of fruit per plant of tomato than bare soil treatment. Highestnumber of branch per fruit was recorded at (59) soybean and (58.3) wheat mulch while the lowest number of fruit per plant was recorded at (29.13) alternate furrow irrigation method without mulch. This agrees with the report of [8] who reported that natural mulches such as leaf, rice straw, dead leaves and compost increase fruit per plant, length, and yield.Similarly reported that mulching with straw produced the highest number of clusters and fruits per plant.

Plant height

Plant height was statistically analyzed as shown in Tables 4. Plant height was highly significantly affected by irrigation method. Conventional irrigation method (88.433 cm) was highly significant in plant height than alternate irrigation method (72.850 cm). Table 5 shows the highest plant height of 84.867cm was obtained with soybean mulch , which agrees with the report of [9] who stated that tomato plants subjected to mulching exhibited the highest plant height when compared with control.For mulching treatments, results are in line with [10] who reported that, leaf area and plant height were significantly affected by the mulching treatments.

Number of branch per plant

The result of our discussion revealed that (Table 4); conventional furrow irrigation method was highly significant in number of branch per plant than alternate irrigation method. However, numerically the highest number of fruits per plant was found from the treatment (9.10 & 9.033) wheat and soybean mulch respectively. Observed that mulching significantly increased the number of fruits per plant compared to the bare soil.

Fruit yield

There was a significant reduction in yield of over by adopting alternate furrow irrigation as against the conventional furrow irrigation method. The conventional furrow method with mulching of the furrow proved higher yielding. From Table 4 we conclude that, application of soybean, wheat and maize mulch resulted in a yield increase of over that obtained from bare soil. Among all mulching treatments, maximum fruit yield were recorded in treatment soybean (88004.5 kg/ha) and wheat mulch (87074 kg/ha). Significantly lowest (35911 kg/ha) fruit yield was recorded from alternate furrow irrigation method with no mulch (Table 5). Results seem to suggest that there is potential for cover crop residue to increase tomato yields. Incorporating soybean and wheat mulch have improved the tomato crop as well as water content explaining the higher yields obtained in these treatments. It has been observed elsewhere that mulch increased soil nutrients availability to plant roots, leading to higher grain yield [11-13].

Crop water use efficiency

From table 4 we conclude that, Alternate irrigation method (16.241 kg/m3) was highly significant in crop water use efficiency than conventional furrow method (14.004 kg/m3). Moreover, tomato crop water use efficiency was highly significant influenced due to different mulch materials (Table 4). The presence of mulching reduce evaporation from the wet soil surface, which supporting the findings by [14]. In contrast to this, table 5shows the interaction effect of the mulchtypeshad no significant effect on crop water use efficiency of tomato.

Irrigation Water use efficiency

Data introduced in Tables 5 showed that, the highest water use efficiency of 17.701 kg/ha/m3 and 17.37 kg/ha/m3 was obtained with alternate furrow irrigation method under soybean and wheat straw mulch respectively. So far, alternate furrow irrigation has been investigated in several cereal crops and grapes [15,16]. Compared to conventional furrow irrigation, alternate furrow irrigation saved 20–33% irrigation water shortened the time required for irrigation and substantially improved water use efficiency. No significant differences were observed for the interaction effect among mulch treatments. These results are in agreement with those of [10]. Data introduced in (Table 4) cleared that irrigation water use efficiency of mulched treatments were significantly higher than bare soil treatments. The result is in line with that of [17,18] who reported that irrigation water use efficiency under different mulches treatments are effective in reducing soil evaporation, and increasing plant water use efficiency.

Application efficiency

From our result we observed that (Table 4), Alternate furrow irrigation system (73.623%) were highly significant higher in water application efficiency than conventional furrow irrigation method (69.297%). Mulching materials are highly significant in water application efficiency than bare soil (treatment without mulch). Table 5 shows the highest (78.257%) water application efficiency was resulted from alternate furrow irrigation method with wheat mulch while the lowest (62.647) was recorded undertreatment conventional furrow method with bare soil. In coincidence with this result [19] reported that furrow irrigation application efficiencies range was found to be 65.26%- 81.96%. Research shows that use of surface mulch can result in storing more irrigation water in soil by reducing runoff, increasing infiltration and decreasing evaporation [20]. The interaction effect between different mulches and furrow has not significantly different from each other in water application efficiency.

Conclusions and Recommendations

Increasing water use efficiency by planting with mulch could potentially allow year-round planting by farmers. Planting tomatoeswith alternate furrow irrigation method by incorporating mulching material was found to increase water use efficiency significantly during the dry season.Our study confirms that, the most successful tomato production occurs on soybean and wheat mulch. Therefore, based on our findings, we recommend that soybean and wheat mulch are the best for tomato production in our experimental area. Moreover, our study demonstrates that good results can be obtained with maize mulches. The poorest results were obtained for alternate furrow irrigation method those cultivated on bare soil with no mulch. Finally we recommend at scarcity of water; farmers can use alternate furrow irrigation method with wheat or soybean mulch to achieve high water use efficiency. However, if there is excess amount of water farmers can use conventional furrow irrigation method with wheat or soybean mulch. The test crop of our experiment was galila variety tomato; it is better if the test should be extended to other tomato variety and commercial crops.

References

1. Subrahmaniyan K and Zhou W. “Soil temperature associated with degradable, non-degradable plastic and organic mulches and their effect on biomass production, enzyme activities and seed yield of winter rapeseed”. Sustain Agric 32(2008): 611-627.
2. Kasirajan S and Ngouajio M. “Polyethylene and biodegradable mulches for agricultural applications: a review”. Agron Sustain Dev 32(2012): 501-529.
3. Siwek P, Libik A, Kalisz A and Zawiska I. “The effect of biodegradable nonwoven direct covers on yield and quality of winter leek”. Folia Hortic 25(2013): 61-65.
4. 4.Lu C, Watkins K, Teasdale J and Abdul Baki A. “Cover crops in sustainable food production”. Food Rev Int 16(2000):121-157.
5. 5.Yadav R, Dwivedi B and Pandey S. “Rice–wheat cropping system: Assessment of sustainability by green manuring & chemical fertilizer inputs”. Field Crops Res 65(2000): 15-30.
6. Zhang J, Kang S, Liang Z and Pan Y, et al. “Soil water distribution, uniformity and water use efficiency under alternate furrow irrigation in arid areas”. Irrig Sci 19(2000): 181-190.
7. Tekalign T. “Soil, water, fertilizer, animal manure and compost analysis”. Working Document No.13. Int. Livestoc Res Cent for Afric, Addis Ababa (1991).
8. 8.Akhtar S, Wahid A, Akram M and Rausl E. “Some growth, photosynthetic and anatomical attributes of sugarcane genotypes under NaCl salinity”. Int J Agric Biol 3(2001): 439-443.
9. 9.Liasu M and kabir K. “Influence of Lithonia divers folia leaf mulch& Fertilizer appplication on Growth & Yield of Potted Tomato Plants”. Am -Eurasian J Agric Environ Sci 2(2007): 335.
10. Yaseen R, Shafi J, Ahmad W and Rana M, et al. “Effect of deficit irrigation and mulch on soil physical”. Sci 19(2014): 37-45
11. Liu J, S Xu, G Zhou and H Lu. “Effects of transplanting multi-cropping spring maize with plastic film mulching on the ecological effect, plant growth and grain yield”. J Hubei Agricoll 2(2002): 100-102.
12. Bhatt R, Khera K and Arora S. “Effect of tillage & mulching on yield of corn in sub-mountaneous rainfed, Punjab, India”. Int J Agric Biol 6(2004): 126-128
13. Olfati J, Peyvast A and Nosrati-Rad Z. “Organic Mulching on Carrot Yield and Quality”. Int J Veg Sci 14(2008): 362-368.
14. Tindall J, Beverly B and Radcliffs D. “Mulch effect on soil properties and tomato growth using micro-irrigation”. Agronom 83(1991): 1028-1034.
15. Du T, Kang S, Yan B and Zhang. “Alternate Furrow Irrigation: A Practical Way to Im-prove Grape Quality and Water Use Efficiency in Arid Northwest China”. J Integr Agric 12(2013): 509-519.
16. Jia D, Dai X, Men H and He M. “Assessment of winter wheat (Triticumaestivum L.)Grown under alternate furrow irrigation in northern China: Grain yield and water use efficiency. Cana-dian”. J Plant Sci 94(2014): 349-359.
17. Hou Y, Wang F, Han J and Kang S, et al. “Duration of plastic mulch for potato growth under drip irrigation in Northwest China”. Agric Meteor 150(2010): 115-121.
18. Debashis C, Shantha N, Pramila A and Gupta V, et al. “Effect of mulching on soil and plant water status, and the growth and yield of wheat (Triticumaestivum L.) in a semi-arid environment”. Agric Water Manag 95(2008): 1334.
19. Manisha L. “Performance evaluation of furrow irrigation system for brinjal with different mulches”. Department of soil and water engineering svcaet & research station faculty of agricultural engineering indira gandhi krishivishwavidyalayaraipur (chhattisgarh) (2016).
20. Ji N Unger. “Soil water accumulation under different precipitation, potential evaporation, and straw mulch conditions”. Soil Sci Soc Am J 65(2001): 442-448.