Advertisement

Irrigation Science

, Volume 26, Issue 4, pp 313–323 | Cite as

Effect of irrigation methods, management and salinity of irrigation water on tomato yield, soil moisture and salinity distribution

  • N. M. Malash
  • T. J. Flowers
  • R. Ragab
Original Paper

Abstract

The increasing demand for irrigation water to secure food for growing populations with limited water supply suggests re-thinking the use of non-conventional water resources. The latter includes saline drainage water, brackish groundwater and treated waste water. The effects of using saline drainage water (electrical conductivity of 4.2–4.8 dS m−1) to irrigate field-grown tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill cv Floradade) using drip and furrow irrigation systems were evaluated, together with the distribution of soil moisture and salt. The saline water was either diluted to different salinity levels using fresh water (blended) or used cyclically with fresh water. The results of two seasons of study (2001 and 2002) showed that increasing salinity resulted in decreased leaf area index, plant dry weight, fruit total yield and individual fruit weight. In all cases, the growth parameters and yield as well as the water use efficiency were greater for drip irrigated tomato plants than furrow-irrigated plants. However, furrow irrigation produced higher individual fruit weight. The electrical conductivity of the soil solution (extracted 48 h after irrigation) showed greater fluctuations when cyclic water management was used compared to those plots irrigated with blended water. In both drip and furrow irrigation, measurements of soil moisture one day after irrigation, showed that soil moisture was higher at the top 20 cm layer and at the location of the irrigation water source; soil moisture was at a minimum in the root zone (20–40 cm layer), but showed a gradual increase at 40–60 and 60–90 cm and was stable at 90–120 cm depth. Soil water content decreased gradually as the distance from the irrigation water source increased. In addition, a few days after irrigation, the soil moisture content decreased, but the deficit was most pronounced in the surface layer. Soil salinity at the irrigation source was lower at a depth of 15 cm (surface layer) than that at 30 and 60 cm, and was minimal in deeper layers (i.e. 90 cm). Salinity increased as the distance from the irrigation source increased particularly in the surface layer. The results indicated that the salinity followed the water front. We concluded that the careful and efficient management of irrigation with saline water can leave the groundwater salinity levels unaffected and recommended the use of drip irrigation as the fruit yield per unit of water used was on average one-third higher than when using furrow irrigation.

Keywords

Saline Water Leaf Area Index Drip Irrigation Total Soluble Solid Fruit Yield 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Abouzaid AM (2002) An Economic evaluation of different irrigation systems within the different agricultural regions in Egypt. M.Sc. thesis, Faculty of Agriculture, Minoufiya University, pp 170Google Scholar
  2. Abuawwad AM, Hill RW (1991) Tomato production and soil salt distribution under line-source trickle irrigation. J Agron Crop Sci- Z Acker Pflanzenbau 167(3):188–195Google Scholar
  3. Alarcon JJ, Bolarin MS, Sanchez-Blanco MJ, Torrecillas A (1994) Growth, yield and water relations of normal fruital and cherry tomato cultivars irrigated with saline water. J Hortic Sci 69(2):283–288Google Scholar
  4. Bouwer H (1994) Irrigation and global water outlook. Agric Water Manage 25:221–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Del Amor FM, Martinez V, Cerda A (2001) Salt tolerance of tomato plants as affected by stage of plant development. Hortscience 36(7):1260–1263Google Scholar
  6. Dinar A, Letey J, Vaux HJ (1986) Optimal ratios of saline and nonsaline irrigation waters for crop production. Soil Sci Soc Am J 50(2):440–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Elamin EA, Al- Wehaibi NS (2005) Alternate use of good and saline irrigation water (1:1) on the performance of tomato cultivar. J Pl Nutr 28(6):1061–1072CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Grattan SR, Shennan C, May D, Roberts B, Borin M, Sattin, M (1994) Utilizing saline drainage water to supplement irrigation water requirements of tomato in a rotation with cotton. In: Proceedings of the 3rd congress of the European Society for Agronomy, Padova University, Abano-Padova, Italy, 18–22 September 1994, pp 802–803Google Scholar
  9. Hanson B, May D (2004) Effect of subsurface drip irrigation on processing tomato yield, water table depth, soil salinity, and profitability. Agric Water Manage 68(1):1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hebbar SS, Ramachandrappa BK, Nanjappa HV, Prabhakar M (2004) Studies on NPK drip fertigation in field grown tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.). European J Agron 21(1):117–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kutuk C, Cayci G, Heng LK (2004) Effects of increasing salinity and N-15- labeled urea levels on growth, N uptake, and water use efficiency of young tomato plants. Aust J Soil Res 42(3):345–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Li YL, Stanghellini C (2001) Analysis of the effect of EC and potential transpiration on vegetative growth of tomato. Sci Hortic 89(1):9–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Maggio A, De Pascale S, Angelino G, Ruggiero C, Barbieri G (2004) Physiological response of tomato to salin irrigation in long-term salinized soils. Eur J Agron 21(2):149–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Naresh RK, Minhas PS, Goyal AK, S.Chauhan C.P, Gupta RK (1993) Production potential of cyclic irrigation and mixing of saline and canal water in Indian mustard (Brassica juncea) and pearl millet (Pennisetum typhoides) rotation. Arid Soil Res Rehabil (India) 7(2):103–111Google Scholar
  15. Ragab R (1997) Constraints and applicability of irrigation scheduling under limited water resources, variable rainfall and saline conditions. In: Smith M, Pereira LS, Berengera J, Itier B, Goussard J, Ragab R, Tollefson L, Van Hofwegen P (eds) 1997. Irrigation scheduling from theory to practice. FAO water reports No. 8. FAO, Rome, pp 149–165Google Scholar
  16. Ragab R (Ed) (2005) Advances in integrated management of fresh and saline water for sustainable crop production: Modelling and practical solutions. International J Agric Water Manage (Special Issue) 78(1–2):1–164. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  17. Romero-Aranda R, Sorai T, Cuartero J (2001) Tomato plant–water uptake and plant–water relationships under saline growth conditions. Plant Sci 160:265–272PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Singandhupe RB, Rao G, Patil NG, Brahmanand PS (2003) Fertigation studies and irrigation scheduling in drip irrigation system in tomato crop. Eur J Agron 19(2):327–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Snedecor GW (1956) Statistical methods, 5th edn. Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa, p 534Google Scholar
  20. Steel RGD, Torrie JH (1981) Principales and procedures of statistics, a biometrical approach. 2nd edn. By Mc Grow. Hill international book Company, Singapore, pp 633Google Scholar
  21. Yadav BR, Paliwal KV (1990) Growing vegetables with saline water. Indian Hortic 35(3):11–13Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of HorticultureMenofiya UniversityShibin El KomEgypt
  2. 2.Plant Physiology, School of Life ScienceUniversity of SussexBrighton, East SussexUK
  3. 3.Head of Water, Soil and LandscapeCenter for Ecology and HydrologyWallingfordUK

Personalised recommendations