DIFFERENT IRRIGATION SYSTEMS AFFECT THE YIELD AND WATER USE EFFICIENCYOF
KINNOW MANDARIN (CITRUS RETICULATA BLANCO.)
A. Raza1*, M. A. Zaka2, T. Khurshid3, M.
A. Nawaz4, W. Ahmed5, and M. B. S. Afzal1
1Citrus Research
Institute, Sargodha, Pakistan; 2Soil Salinity Research Institute,
Pindi Bhattian, Pakistan
3NSW Department of Primary Industries, 1998
Silver City Highway, Dareton, Australia.
4 Department of Horticulture, College of
Agriculture, University of Sargodha, Sargodha, Pakistan.
5 Pakistan Agriculture
Technology Transfer Activity (PAATA), CNFA, USAID, Lahore, Pakistan.
*Corresponding author’s email: razacri340@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
Considering
the scarce water resources, low average yield of citrus fruits, and haphazard
irrigation system adopted in Pakistan; a study was conducted on 25
year old Kinnow mandarin plants grafted onto Rough lemon (Citrus jambhiri Lush.) during 2011–2015. In this study four modes of irrigation that includes
drip irrigation (DI), full cover sprinkler (FCS), strip cover sprinkler (SCS) and
traditional flood irrigation (TFI) were used. The yield, quality and water use
efficiency (WUE) were evaluated. This study was conducted at Citrus Research
Institute (CRI), Sargodha, Pakistan. To monitor the moisture level in the soil,
tensiometers were installed in each block at the depth of 30, 60 and 90 cm in
the root zone. A flume meter was used to measure the total quantity of water
applied under flood irrigation system. The Kinnow plants growing under TFI
system produced a fruit yield of 26.12 t ha-1 (687 fruits tree-1 and 104.55 kgtree-1) and WUE was only 2.29 kg m-3, however 40.46% higher yield (1288 fruitstree-1 and 181kgtree-1) was obtained from plants grown under DI system compared with TFI and WUE
was 4.85 kgm-3. The 55% water saving was attained using DI compared
with TFI. Similarly, significantly higher yield of 28.45% (1029 fruit tree-1 and 151kgtree-1) and 27.19% (1045 fruit tree-1 and 147.92
kgtree-1was obtained by using FCS and SCS, respectively compared
with TFI, and WUE in FCS and SCS system was 3.03 kg m-3and 3.35 kg m-3,
respectively as compared with TFI (2.29 kg m-3). It is concluded
that DI is superior in terms of higher yield and WUE therefore for Kinnow
growers DI is recommended to get higher yield and enhance the WUE.
Keywords: citrus, irrigation methods, high
efficiency irrigation systems, yield, fruit quality.
https://doi.org/10.36899/JAPS.2020.5.0135
Published online June 25, 2020
INTRODUCTION
Citrus
is extensively cultivated (9.276 million hectares) fruit crop across the world
with an annual production of 146.60 million ton (AMIS, 2017). Citrus is also the
leading fruit crop of Pakistan. Citrus orchards are prevalent over an area of
0.195 million hectares with an annual production of 2.267 million tons (FAO, 2017).
Kinnow is the leading citrus cultivar in Pakistan and its share in the total
citrus fruit production exceeds 95% (Fateh et al.,
2017; Nawaz et al., 2008).
In Pakistan, total share of fruit crops in earning foreign exchange is 399.51
million US dollars (1.72 %); out of this 68.30 million US dollars are earned by
the export of Kinnow (TDAP, 2019)
Kinnow
is hybrid of two citrus cultivars; a King (Citrus nobilis) × Willow Leaf
(Citrus deliciosa) and belongs to family Rutaceae (Khalid, 2013). In Pakistan, district
Sargodha is very popular for the production of superior quality of Kinnow
fruit. Rough lemon is used as a rootstock predominantly in Punjab, Pakistan on a
commercial scale (Ahmed et al.,
2007; Khalid et al., 2012; Shireen et al., 2018).
The
flood irrigation system is adopted by farmers on large scale to irrigate the
Kinnow orchard. Flood irrigation system is considered sub-economical because of
maximum water losses and it is reported to damage citrus plants being the
source of disease inoculum or carries disease inoculum from diseased to healthy
plants (Savita and
Nagpal, 2012).
In the near future, the irrigated agriculture
need two-third increase in food production to meet the food requirement of
increasing population (Rockström et al.,
2007).
According
to a report, Pakistan is facing severe shortage of water, passed the water
stressed level and soon may be listed into water scarce country. In Asia,
Pakistan is being considered as worst performer in terms of water use (Mirjat et al.,
2011).
Citrus is not considered a water dependent crop but frequent irrigation is
important for its proper growth and development and quality fruit (Carr, 2012). According to a
report, peach trees irrigated frequently by drip irrigation performed better
and had an improved fruit size and yield compared with other methods of
irrigation. Frequent irrigation helped to maintain the high water status in
peach plants, thus improved plant performance (Bryla et al.
(2005).
Although
flood irrigation is considered as a low cost and easy method of irrigation to
orchards but it causes water losses, leaching of essential nutrients from the
root zone and transfer of soil borne fungal diseases (Singh and Sharma,
2012);
Shirgure et al., 2000). Traditional irrigation systems such as overhead
sprinkler and flooding system keep the soil, leaves and tree’s stem wet for a
longer period of time which may promote infection by molds and fungi. Flood
irrigation consumes extra water while the drip irrigation technique slowly supplies
measured quantity of water to the root zone of the plants, only (Kumar, 2016). Pressurized
irrigation system such as drip and sprinklers are modern methods of irrigation
through which a control and desired amount of water is applied to the orchard.
Besides water saving, the drip system also increases the fruit yield of citrus
fruits (Morgan et al.,
2010).
In drip irrigation system water is supplied frequently, often daily to maintain
favorable soil moisture conditions and prevent the plants from moisture-stress
and also to ensure proper use of water resources (Galande and
Agrawal, 2013).
Many
farmers in developed countries such as USA and Australia have already adopted
these modern techniques (Shirgure, 2012). Kumar et al.
(2008) stated that the real water saving would be more for row crops such as fruit
orchards, cotton, fennel, castor, and many vegetables. He further added that
under traditional irrigation system a large area between the plants row is
directly exposed to solar radiation and wind, and as a result the
non-beneficial evaporation would be a major component of the total water
depletion. Kanber et al.
(2007) have pointed out that enhancement in WUE depends on productivity gains depicted
by consistent increase in output per unit input and the irrigation technique.
Improved WUE in agriculture is important for water conservation and to obtain
higher yields. Modern irrigation technologies such as sprinkler and micro
irrigation are efficient and have the potential to substantially improve yield.
Furthermore, among pressurized irrigation systems, drip system ensures more
irrigation water saving compared with full cover and strip cover sprinklers (Kadyampakeni et
al., 2014).
According to the best of our knowledge, limited reports are available regarding
the impact of pressurized irrigation systems for fruit plants in Pakistan. This
study was conducted to assess the effect of pressurized irrigation systems on
the fruit yield and WUE of Kinnow mandarin under agro-climatic conditions of
Sargodha, Pakistan.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Experimental
area and design: The
study was conducted at CRI, Sargodha, Punjab, Pakistan (32° 4' ' N and 72° 40' ' E) on 25 years old Kinnow mandarin
plants. The plants were grafted onto rough lemon rootstock cultivated on silt
clay loam soil (soil characteristics of the experimental area are provided in
Table 1). The experiment duration was 4 years from 2011-2015. A 0.5 ha Kinnow
block with planting geometry of 6.1 m × 6.1 m square system, previously under
flood irrigation system was equally divided into three blocks. Four different
irrigation systems: drip irrigation (DI), full cover sprinkler (FCS), and strip
cover sprinkler (SCS) irrigation systems were established in each block
separately and for traditional flood irrigation (TFI) system a separate block
of 0.5 ha was selected as a control. Experiment was laid out according to
randomized complete block design (RCBD). Three plants were selected as a
treatment unit and each treatment was replicated four times. One complete row
between the experimental plants was kept as buffer line to eliminate any kind
of error caused by seepage effect. Each block of every irrigation system
received equal amount of nutrients including 1000 g nitrogen, 500 g phosphorus
and 500 g potash per plant, annually. All phosphorus and potash fertilizers were
applied in January whereas nitrogen (except drip irrigation system) was applied
in three equal splits (last week of February, last week of May and August. In
drip irrigation system nitrogenous fertilizer (Urea) was applied as fertigation.
Through fertigation, 20% N was applied before flowering (February to March),
60% N was applied from fruit setting to cell division and cell development
stage (April to June), and remaining 20% N was applied during late summer to
colour break stage (July to mid October).
Physiochemical
properties of the soil: The soil was silt clay loam. EC and pH indicated that
it was a normal but calcareous in nature. The phosphorus and potassium contents
were found in optimum range but organic matter percentage was in deficient
range (Table 1).
Irrigation
schedule: Irrigation
schedule for different irrigation systems such as DI, FCS and SCS was developed
on the basis of soil pit examination at experimental site and
evapotranspiration source from University of Agriculture Faisalabad, Pakistan.
Installation
of tensiometers and measurement of water discharge: Tensiometers were
installed in each block at 30 cm, 60 cm, and 90 cm soil depth to monitor the
moisture level in the soil. The irrigation was applied when tensiometer reading
reached above 40 centibars (an average reading of tensiometers which were
installed at 30 cm and 60 cm depth). A flume meter was used to measure the
total quantity of water applied under flood irrigation system. In DI system,
two drip lines were installed under the tree canopy along each tree row planted
in 6.1 m ×6.1 m distance. Each drip line had 15 pressure compensator drippers
with water discharge of 1.66 mmh-1, and 30 drippers were used for
each tree, therefore each tree received irrigation water of 49.8 mmh-1.
In FCS, one sprinkler with discharge of 5.5 mmh-1 was installed
within each tree row whereas in SCS, three sprinklers were installed under each
tree’s canopy with discharge of 3.5 mmh-1, and therefore, received
irrigation water of 10.5 mmh-1 tree-1. The total
operational hours per season were recorded and total irrigation water applied
to each pressurized system was calculated as:
Water
Use Efficiency (kg m-3): WUE was calculated using the following
formula:
Measurement
of yield and different fruit characteristics: At fruit maturity,
total fruit yield (kgtree-1) was determined by harvesting all fruits
on a tree. Fruit size (diameter) of one hundred fruits per tree at random was
measured with digital vernier caliper at maturity stage. Ten fruits tree-1 were collected for measuring the average fruit weight (gfruit-1) and
further used for physicochemical analysis of the fruit. Rotary squeezer was
used to extract the juice from the fruits. The juice was filtered using 0.8 mm
sieve. The weight of juice was measured using an electric balance and juice
percentage was calculated according to the following formula (Ahmed et al.,
2007):
The rag percentage
was determined using the following formula:
Total soluble
solids (TSS) were determined using a refractometer. The acidity was determined
by titration with 0.1 N NaOH using a known volume of representative sample of
the fruit juice. Phenolphthalein was used as an indicator to check the
persistent pink colour (Lacey et al.,
2009; Nawaz et al., 2008).
Statistical
analysis: The data were analyzed using Statistix software version 8.1 (Analytical
Software, Miller Landing Rd, Florida, USA). Four years data were
pooled and then analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed (Steel et al.,
1997). Treatment means were compared using Fishers least significant difference
test at P ≤ 0.05.
RESULTS
Yield and physicochemical properties of Kinnow fruit: Different
irrigation systems significantly affected the fruit yield and physicochemical
characteristics of Kinnow. Number of fruitstree-1 (1288) and fruit
yield (181kgtree-1) were significantly (P≤0.05) increased by using DI system followed by FCS (151 kg tree-1).
Different irrigation systems had no effect on individual fruit weight.
Fruit
diameter was significantly improved for the fruits obtained from the plants
irrigated with TFI system; however, the diameter of the fruits obtained from
plants irrigated by all other irrigation systems was not significantly different
(Table 4).
A gradual
increasing trend was observed on the yield during four years of this study in DI,
FCS and SCS irrigation systems. In TFI system, fruit yield during different
years of the study did not increase significantly. An average higher yield
(43.88 t ha-1) was found in drip irrigation system (40.46% higher)
compared with TFI system (26.12 t ha-1). Fruit yield was 28.45% and
27.19% higher in FCS and SCS irrigation systems, respectively compared with TFI
system (Table 5).
Juice
percentage was significantly (P ≤ 0.05) affected because of different
irrigation systems (Table 6). FCS and DI system produced significantly higher
fruit juice percentage of 48.70% and 47.68%, respectively whereas lower juice
percentage of 46.41% and 47.01% was observed for SCS irrigation system and TFI
system, respectively.
Total
water consumption and irrigation water saving in different irrigation systems: During the crop
season from 2011-15 the average water saving in drip irrigation system was 55%
and 30% in strip cover sprinkler irrigation system compared with flood
irrigation system. An economical water consumption was observed for drip
irrigation system (195.92 mm year-1 and total water 904.37 mmyear-1),
followed by strip cover sprinkler where irrigation water usage and total water
consumption was 300.89 mmyear-1and 1009.34 mmyear-1,
respectively. Full cover sprinkler and flood irrigation systems used
comparatively high delta of water compared with drip irrigation, strip cover
sprinkler irrigation system (Table 7).
Water
Use Efficiency (WUE) of different irrigation systems: Average WUE was
higher (4.85 kgm-3) for DI system followed by SCS irrigation system.
The better WUE of 10.65kg m-3, 9.99kg m-3 and 5.83 kg m-3 was observed for DI, SCS and FCS, respectively during 2013-14 (Fig. 1).
Table
1. Fertility status of experimental area (pretreatment).
Soil
depth (cm) |
pH |
EC (dS m-1) |
OM
(%) |
Av. P
(ppm) |
Av. K
(ppm) |
Texture |
0-15
15-30
30-60
60-90
90-120
120-150 |
7.9
8.0
8.0
7.9
8.0
7.8 |
0.15
0.11
0.09
0.10
0.09
0.08 |
0.90
0.65 |
20.20
14.16 |
168
75 |
Silt clay loam |
EC:
electrical conductivity, OM: organic matter, Av: average
Table 2.
Evapotranspiration, crop coefficient, monthly, and daily water requirement for
large citrus trees - 70% ground cover.
Month |
Evapotranspiration (mm) per day |
Crop Coefficient |
Monthly water requirements (full
production) (mm) |
Daily water requirement (full
production) (mm) |
January |
1.4 |
0.7 |
30 |
1 |
February |
2.2 |
0.7 |
48 |
1.5 |
March |
3.5 |
0.7 |
76 |
2.5 |
April |
4.8 |
0.7 |
101 |
3.4 |
May |
6.2 |
0.7 |
130 |
4.3 |
June |
6.5 |
0.7 |
141 |
4.6 |
July |
5.4 |
0.7 |
117 |
3.8 |
August |
4.9 |
0.7 |
106 |
3.4 |
September |
4.7 |
0.7 |
102 |
3.3 |
October |
3.3 |
0.7 |
69 |
2.3 |
November |
1.9 |
0.7 |
41 |
1.3 |
December |
1.5 |
0.7 |
32 |
1.1 |
Total
Crop Water Use: 994 mm or 9.9 ML/ha. Soil deficit is assumed to be 50 mm based
on soil pit.
Table 3. Approximate irrigation
requirement for drip, full cover sprinkler (FCS) and strip cover sprinkler
(SCS) irrigation systems.
Month |
Approximate irrigation requirement for
drip |
Approximate irrigation requirement for
FCS |
Approximate irrigation requirement for
SCS |
January |
10 h / 15 days |
10 h / 1 per month |
8h/ 1 per month |
February |
10 h / 10 days |
10 h / 1 per month |
8 h/ 15 days |
March |
10 h / 6 days |
10 h / 15 days |
8 h/ 10 days |
April |
10 h / 4 days |
10 h / 15 days |
8 h/ 7 days |
May |
10 h / 3 days |
10 h / 10 days |
8 h/ 5 days |
June |
10 h / 2 days |
10 h / 10 days |
8 h/ 5 days |
July |
10 h / 4 days |
10 h / 12 days |
8 h/ 6 days |
August |
10 h / 4 days |
10 h / 15 days |
8 h/ 7 days |
September |
10 h / 4 days |
10 h / 15 days |
8 h/ 7 days |
October |
10 h / 6 days |
10 h / 15 days |
8 h/ 10 days |
November |
10 h / 11 days |
10 h / 1 per month |
8 h/ 15 days |
December |
10 h / 13 days |
10 h / 1 per month |
8 h/ 1 per month |
It is assumed that
the drip system applies water to approximately 1/3 of the total area. Therefore
the root zone deficit becomes 50/3 = 16.6 (say 15 mm). The dripper application
rate is 1.66 mm/h. Therefore the largest irrigation volume that should be
applied is 15 mm or 15 mm/1.66 = 9 (say 10 hours). In FCS the sprinkler
application rate is 5.55 mm/h. Therefore the largest irrigation volume that
should be applied is 50 mm or 50mm/5.55 = 9 (say 10) hours. It is assumed that
the strip sprinkler system applies water to approximately 1/2 of the total
area. Root zone deficit becomes 50/2 = 25 mm. In SCS the sprinkler application
rate is 3.5 mm/h. Therefore the largest irrigation volume that should be
applied is 25 mm or 25 mm/3.5 = 7 (say 8) hours. Three times per year apply 12
hours to leach salts from the root zone.
Table
4. Effect of different irrigation systems on the fruit yield and yield
attributes.
Irrigation
systems |
No. fruit tree-1 |
Fruit yield (Kg tree-1 ) |
Fruit weight (g) |
Fruit diameter (mm) |
Drip
irrigation |
1228 A |
181.13 A |
152.14 A |
68.78 BC |
Full
cover sprinkler |
1029 B |
151.34 B |
149.15 A |
70.12 B |
Strip
cover sprinkler |
1045 B |
147.92 B |
155.18 A |
67.58 C |
Traditional
Flood irrigation |
687 C |
104.55 C |
152.34 A |
73.16 A |
CVa |
151.15 |
20.32 |
6.4606 |
2.12 |
aCoefficient of
variation. Means followed by the similar letters in the column do not differ at P ≤ 0.05.
Table 5. Impact of different irrigation systems on yield (t
ha-1) of Kinnow.
Irrigation systems |
2011-12 |
2012-13 |
2013-14 |
2014-15 |
Average |
Drip
irrigation (DI) |
28.75 |
32.37 |
49.66 |
64.74 |
43.88 |
Full
cover sprinkler (FCS) irrigation |
27.26 |
24.72 |
35.69 |
58.38 |
36.51 |
Strip
cover sprinkler (SCS) irrigation |
32.71 |
22.28 |
40.11 |
48.4 |
35.88 |
Traditional
flood irrigation (TFI) system |
30.02 |
23.72 |
23.65 |
27.11 |
26.12 |
Table
6. Effect of different irrigation systems on the physicochemical properties of
the Kinnow fruit.
Irrigation
systems |
Juice (%) |
Rag (%) |
Peel (%) |
TSS/Acidity ratio |
Drip
irrigation |
47.68 AB |
20.61 A |
31.70 A |
15.57 A |
Full
cover sprinkler |
48.70 A |
19.24 A |
32.07 A |
15.34 A |
Strip
cover sprinkler |
46.41 B |
20.90 A |
32.68 A |
15.90 A |
Traditional
flood irrigation |
47.01 B |
21.26 A |
31.75 A |
16.02 A |
CVa |
1.62 |
1.99 |
1.4 |
0.95 |
aCoefficient of
variation. Means followed by the similar letters in the column do not differ at P ≤ 0.05.
Table
7. Total water consumption by different irrigation systems.
Year |
Drip irrigation (DI) |
Full cover sprinkler (FCS) |
Strip cover sprinkler (SCS) |
Traditional flood irrigation(TFI) |
Rainfall |
Irrigation |
Total W |
Irrigation |
Total W |
Irrigation |
Total W |
Irrigation |
Total W |
|
mm |
2011-12 |
188.66 |
411.98 |
515.99 |
739.31 |
354.74 |
578.06 |
432.68 |
656.00 |
223.32 |
2012-13 |
338.62 |
755.62 |
951.36 |
1368.36 |
567.59 |
984.59 |
588.82 |
1005.82 |
417 |
2013-14 |
146.73 |
466.23 |
292.93 |
612.43 |
165.12 |
484.62 |
473.67 |
793.17 |
319.5 |
2014-15 |
109.65 |
1983.65 |
225.75 |
2099.75 |
116.10 |
1990.10 |
238.43 |
2112.43 |
1874 |
Average |
195.92 |
904.37 |
496.51 |
1204.96 |
300.89 |
1009.34 |
433.40 |
1141.86 |
708.45 |
Total
W (mm) = Irrigation + Rainfall
Table 8. Combined ANOVA
SOV |
MSE |
|
Number of fruit tree-1 |
Fruit yield |
Fruit dia. |
Fruit weight |
Juice % |
Peel % |
Rag % |
Treatment |
812691** |
15916.6** |
92.25** |
97.04 NS |
15.4329* |
3.287 NS |
12.573 NS |
Year |
2190685** |
29941.3** |
350.407** |
1539.65* |
36.8764* |
282.779** |
173.761** |
Treat*Year |
261837** |
4766.4** |
215.564** |
201.55* |
5.1074NS |
3.994 NS |
6.846 NS |
**Highly significant
at P≤0.005
*Significant at P≤
0.05
NS:
Non-significant
Figure
1. WUE (kg m-3) of different irrigation systems. A height of the
column represents the intensity of WUE.
DISCUSSION
Effect
of irrigation systems on the fruit yield and physicochemical properties of
Kinnow fruit: Pressurized
irrigation systems proved their advantage over flood irrigation system in terms
of yield. Among pressurized irrigation systems, the drip and strip cover
sprinkler performed better for producing higher fruit yield. Performance of
drip irrigation system was excellent in terms of yield because in drip system a
frequent irrigation supply was maintained in the active root zone of the tree
and therefore losses of essential nutrients because of leaching were reduced.
Another factor of increased fruit yield in drip irrigation system is
application of the nitrogen fertilizer through fertigation method (Shirgure, 2012). In pressurized irrigation
systems (DI, FCS and SCS irrigation system), yield was gradually increased from
1st year (2011) of experiment to the final year (2015) of the study.
This increase in yield can be attributed to maintenance of optimum moisture
level in the soil, suppression of weed growth and less disturbance of the roots (Panigrahi et
al., 2012) that promoted plant growth. Higher juice percentage was obtained from full
cover sprinkler and drip irrigation system whereas this was lower in strip and
flood irrigation systems. This might be due to larger sized fruit with higher
peel and rage percentage, therefore less juice percentage was produced (Sandhu, 1991). Holzapfel et al.
(2004) obtained higher yields in blueberry with drip irrigation system compared with
sprinkler systems with similar amounts of applied water. In our study, fruit
weight remained similar with all irrigation systems although fruits with larger
diameter (fruit size) were produced in flood irrigation system compared with
other irrigation system utilized in this study. This increase in fruit size
might be attributed to larger differences in fruit yield as compared to
pressurized irrigation systems (Guardiola and
García-Luis, 2000; Smith and Samach, 2013). Katuuramu et al.
(2011) and Meland (2009) also found
similar results for apple and concluded that size and weight of apple fruit
were affected by the crop load.
Total
water consumption in different irrigation systems and irrigation water saving: According to the
findings of our study, 55% water saving is achieved using drip irrigation
system and 35% water saving is achieved using strip cover sprinkler irrigation
system compared with TF. Sprinkler irrigation systems seems less suitable over
drip irrigation system because under hot and dry climatic conditions of
Pakistan temperature reaches to a maximum of 48-50 ºC, thus evaporation losses
are increased and a large amount of water cannot be available to the plants (Abbas and Fares,
2009).
Furthermore, maintenance cost of sprinkler irrigation system is also higher
compared with drip irrigation system. According to another report, water saving is generally higher for drip
irrigation systems compared with sprinkler irrigation systems (Kumar and van Dam,
2013).
With drip irrigation, water could be directly applied to the plants, preventing
non-beneficial evaporation. This will not be possible with sprinklers because
sprinklers wet the entire field area instead of the plant root zone (Viswanathan et
al., 2016).
Similarly, Fallahi et al.
(2010) observed that application of water using drip irrigation system, calculated
based on full ETc rate and adjusted for groundcover, results in major water
saving and improves the yield and fruit quality of apples. According
to Hijazi et al.
(2014) application of water by drip irrigation to olive trees also resulted in 34.40%
water saving and improved the fruit yield by up to 19.20% compared with surface
irrigation system using soil rings.
In
drip irrigation system, water is applied directly to the root zone of area drop
by drop in small amount thus subjected to less evaporation or deep percolation
below the active root zone, whereas sprinkler system spreads water directly
into the air thus water losses are increased. In this study, drip irrigation
system consumed minimum amount of irrigation water (195.92 mm) followed by
strip cover sprinkler (300.89 mm) compared with flood irrigation system (433.40
mm) (Table VII). Water consumption under flood irrigation system was higher
because in flood irrigation a huge amount of water had been applied to irrigate
the entire field without targeting the root zone of trees. Resultantly, a lot
of water is lost because of evaporation and deep percolation. Rainfall is the
major contributing factor that affects the irrigation water requirements. There
is greater difference in irrigation water consumption and rainfall
contribution. According to data, rainfall ranged from a minimum of 223 mm
during 2010-2011 to maximum of 1874 mm during 2014-2015. The highest rainfall
received during 2014-2015 could not be considered beneficial for orchards
because most of the rainfall occurred during two months (July to August,
2014-2015).
Water
Use Efficiency (WUE) of different irrigation systems: WUE depends upon
output [yield (t ha-1)] and input [total water (mm)] consumed. In
this study, WUE was higher for drip irrigation system (4.85 kg m-3)
followed by strip cover sprinkler irrigation system (3.55 kg m-3).
The improved WUE for drip irrigation system can be attributed to low potential
evaporative losses compared with sprinkler irrigation system. Similar results
were also reported by Maisiri et al.
(2005),
they observed that drip irrigation uses only 35% of the water compared with
surface irrigation system, providing higher IWUE (irrigation water use
efficiency). Similarly, Yin et al.
(2011) reported that drip irrigation system consumed only 21% to 29% of irrigation
water compared with micro sprinkler irrigation system, and WUE was improved by
167% to 234% with drip irrigation system compared with micro sprinkler
irrigation system. Fruit yield and fruit quality including firmness, color, and
size did not differ regardless of irrigation system. According to another
report, surface and drip
irrigation systems ensures 28% to 35% water saving compared with improved
graded furrows, and increase water productivity from 0.43 kg m-3 to
0.61 kg m-3 (Darouich et al.,
2014).
Conclusion: This
study shows that drip irrigation system improves the fruit yield of Kinnow and
ensures water saving. Moreover, higher WUE was also achieved by using drip
irrigation system compared with traditional flood irrigation system.
Consumptive use of water was the minimum in drip irrigation system followed by
strip cover sprinkler irrigation system. Taken together, drip irrigation is
recommended followed by strip cover sprinkler among the different pressurized
irrigation methods on the basis of good yield and higher WUE of Kinnow orchard.
Thus, citrus growers of Sargodha (Punjab, Pakistan) area can adopt drip
irrigation system to improve the Kinnow yield and WUE.
Acknowledgements: This
study was supported by Agriculture Sector Linkage Program (ASLP), Citrus
Project under Australian Aid Program. The authors are thankful to Prof. José
Eduardo Serrão, Department of General Biology, Federal University of Viçosa,
Brazil for improving the language of this manuscript.
Conflict
of interest: All
the authors declare no conflict of interest.
REFERENCES
- Abbas, F., and A. Fares (2009). Best management practices in citrus production. Tree Forestry Sci. Biotechnol. 3:1-11.
- Ahmed, W., M.A. Nawaz, M.A. Iqbal, and M. Khan (2007). Effect of different rootstocks on plant nutrient status and yield in Kinnow mandarin (Citrus reticulata Blanco). Pak. J. Bot. 39:1779-1786.
- AMIS. (2017). Agriculture Marketing Information Service, Agriculture Department, Government ofPakistan.http://www.amis.pk/Crop%20Data/2017/Area/Citrus.html.
- Bryla, D.R., E. Dickson, R. Shenk, R.S. Johnson, C. H. Crisosto, and T.J. Trout (2005). Influence of irrigation method and scheduling on patterns of soil and tree water status and its relation to yield and fruit quality in peach. Hort. Sci. 40:2118-2124.
- Carr, M. K. V. (2012). The water relations and irrigation requirements of citrus (Citrus spp.): a review. Exp. Agri. 48:347-377.
- Darouich, H.M., C.M. Pedras, J.M. Gonçalves, and L.S. Pereira (2014). Drip vs. surface irrigation: A comparison focusing on water saving and economic returns using multicriteria analysis applied to cotton. Biosystems Engineering. 122:74-90.
- Fallahi, E., D. Neilsen, G.H. Neilsen, B. Fallahi, and B. Shafii (2010). Efficient irrigation for optimum fruit quality and yield in apples. Hort. Sci. 45:1616-1625.
- FAO, 2017. FAO database. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome. http://fenixservices.fao.org/faostat/static/bulkdownloads/FoodBalanceSheets_E_Asia.zip (accessed on 30 October, 2019)
- Fateh, F.S., T. Mukhtar, M.R. Kazmi, N.A. Abbassi, and A.M. Arif (2017). Prevalence of citrus decline in district sargodha. Pak. J. Agri. Sci. 54:9-13.
- Galande, M.S., and D.G. Agrawal (2013). Embedded Controlled Drip Irrigation System. Int. J. of Emerging Trend. Technol. Computer Sci. 2: 37-41.
- Guardiola, J., and A. García-Luis (2000). Increasing fruit size in Citrus. Thinning and stimulation of fruit growth. Plant Growth Regulation. 31:121-132.
- Hijazi, A., M. Doghoze, N. Jouni, V. Nangia, M. Karrou, and T. Oweis (2014). Water Requirement and Water-use Efficiency for Olive Trees under Different Irrigation Systems. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Water Resources in the Mediterranean Basin.Marrakech, Morocco. 1-5.
- Holzapfel, E., R. Hepp, and M. Mariño (2004). Effect of irrigation on fruit production in blueberry. Agricultural Water Management. 67:173-184.
- Kadyampakeni, D.M., K.T. Morgan, A.W. Schumann, P. Nkedi-Kizza, and T.A. Obreza (2014). Water use in drip-and microsprinkler-irrigated citrus trees. Soil Sci. Soc. America J. 78:1351-1361.
- Kanber, R., M. Unlu, E. Cakmak, and M. Tuzun (2007). Water use efficiency in Turkey. Proceedings of 4th WASAMED (Water Saving in Mediterranean agriculture) Workshop. 178-189.
- Katuuramu, D., G.R. Nonnecke, and P.A. Domoto (2011). Influence of Crop Load on Tree Growth, Yield, and Fruit Quality of Scab Resistant Apples at Harvest. Lowa State Res. Farm Progr. Rep. RFR-A1135: 55-56.
- Khalid, S. (2013). Fruit quality and storability of Kinnow mandarin (Citrus reticulata Blanco) in relation to tree age. Doctoral dissertation. Uni. Agri., Faisalabad, Pakistan.
- Khalid, S., A.U. Malik, B.A. Saleem, A.S. Khan, M.S. Khalid, and M. Amin (2012). Tree age and canopy position affect rind quality, fruit quality and rind nutrient content of ‘Kinnow’mandarin (Citrus nobilis Lour× Citrus deliciosa Tenora). Sci Hort. 135:137-144.
- Kumar, M.D. (2016). Water Saving and Yield Enhancing Micro Irrigation Technologies in India: Theory and Practice. In Micro Irrigation Systems in India. Springer. 13-36.
- Kumar, M.D., H. Turral, B. Sharma, U. Amarasinghe, and O. Singh (2008). Water saving and yield enhancing micro irrigation technologies in India: When and where can they become best bet technologies. Managing water in the face of growing scarcity, inequity and declining returns: Exploring fresh approaches. 1:1-36.
- Kumar, M.D., and J.C. van Dam (2013). Drivers of change in agricultural water productivity and its improvement at basin scale in developing economies. Water International. 38:312-325.
- Lacey, K., N. Hancock, and H. Ramsey (2009). Measuring internal maturity of citrus. Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development. Government of Western Australia. Farmnote no. 354:1-4.
- Maisiri, N., A. Senzanje, J. Rockstrom, and S. Twomlow (2005). On farm evaluation of the effect of low cost drip irrigation on water and crop productivity compared to conventional surface irrigation system. Physic. Chemist. Earth, parts A/B/C. 30:783-791.
- Meland, M. (2009). Effects of different crop loads and thinning times on yield, fruit quality, and return bloom in Malus× domestica Borkh.‘Elstar’. J. Hort. Sci. Biotechnol. 84:117-121.
- Mirjat, M., M. Jiskani, A. Siyal, and M. Mirjat (2011). Mango production and fruit quality under properly managed drip irrigation system. Pak. J. Agri., Agril. Engg., Vet. Sci. 27:1-12.
- Morgan, K.T., L. Zotarelli, and M.D. Dukes (2010). Use of irrigation technologies for citrus trees in Florida. Hort. Technol. 20:74-81.
- Nawaz, M.A., W. Ahmad, S. Ahmad, and M.M. Khan (2008). Role of growth regulators on preharvest fruit drop, yield and quality in kinnow mandarin. Pak. J. Bot. 40:1971-1981.
- Panigrahi, P., A. Srivastava, and A. Huchche (2012). Effects of drip irrigation regimes and basin irrigation on Nagpur mandarin agronomical and physiological performance. Agri. Water Management. 104:79-88.
- Sandhu, S. (1991). Postharvest handling techniques for cv. Kinnow mandarin. Front. Tropic. Fruit Res. 321:747-755.
- Rockström, J., M. Lannerstad, and M. Falkenmar (2007). Assessing the water challenge of a new green revolution in developing countries. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 104: 6253-6260.
- Savita, G.S.V., and A. Nagpal (2012). Citrus diseases caused by Phytophthora species. GERF Bull. Biosci. 3:18-27.
- Shireen, F., M. J. Jaskani, M. A. Nawaz, and F. Hayat (2018). Exogenous application of naphthalene acetic acid improves fruit size and quality of Kinnow mandarin (Citrus reticulata) through regulating fruit load. J. Ani. Plant Sci. 28: 1080-1084.
- Shirgure, P., A. Srivastava, and S. Singh (2000). Water Management in Citrus-A Review. Agri. Rev. Agri. Res. Comm. Centre India. 21:223-230.
- Shirgure, P.S. (2012). Micro-irrigation systems, automation and fertigation in citrus. Scient. J. Rev. 1:156-169.
- Singh, S., and N. Sharma (2012). Research paper on drip irrigation management using wireless sensors. Int. J. Computer Networks Wireless Comm. 2:461-464.
- Smith, H.M., and A. Samach (2013). Constraints to obtaining consistent annual yields in perennial tree crops. I: Heavy fruit load dominates over vegetative growth. Plant Sci. 207:158-167.
- Steel, R. G. D., J. H. Torrieand D. A. Dickey (1997). Principals and Procedures of Statistics: A Biomaterial Approach. 3rd Edition. Megraw Hill; New York. 107–109 p.
- TDAP. (2019). Trade Development Authority of Pakistan, Agriculture Department, Government of Pakistan, https://www.tdap.gov.pk/tdap-statistics.php
- Viswanathan, P., M.D. Kumar, and A. Narayanamoorthy (2016). Micro Irrigation Systems in India, Emergence, Status and Impact. Springer; New York.
- Yin, X., C.F. Seavert, and J. le Roux (2011). Responses of irrigation water use and productivity of sweet cherry to single-lateral drip irrigation and ground covers. Soil Sci. 176:39-47.
|