Potato Research

, Volume 62, Issue 4, pp 465–484 | Cite as

Improvement of Water Productivity, Economics and Energetics of Potato through Straw Mulching and Irrigation Scheduling in Indian Punjab

  • A. S. BrarEmail author
  • G. S. Buttar
  • H. S. Thind
  • K. B. Singh


A field experiment was conducted to assess the effect of straw mulching and irrigation scheduling on water balance, economics and energetics of potato during 2013–2014 and 2014–2015. The experiment was laid out in a split plot design with mulch levels (no mulch and mulch 6.25 t ha−1) in the main plots and four irrigation schedules {ridge planting furrow irrigation (RPFI), bed planting furrow irrigation (BPFI), ridge planting drip irrigation (RPDI) and bed planting drip irrigation (BPDI)} in the subplots. Straw mulching resulted in 19.0% higher potato tuber yield than no mulch as a result of 36.2 mm higher transpiration and 44.2 mm lower soil evaporation. Energy productivity (EP) and energy use efficiency (EUE) were also significantly higher with straw mulch than no mulch with US$498 ha−1 higher net returns in pooled data of both years. Drip irrigation of beds and ridges resulted in 34.9% and 26.4% higher tuber yields, respectively, than furrow irrigation along with savings of 23.3 and 53.3 mm irrigation water, respectively. Seasonal transpiration was 31.0 and 31.7% higher in ridge- and bed-planted drip-irrigated crops, respectively, than furrow-irrigated crops in pooled data. Apparent and real water productivities were significantly higher in drip irrigated crops compared to furrow irrigated crops. RPDI and BPDI crops gave US$612 and US$876 ha−1 higher net returns with 35.7 and 28.8% higher EUE than RPFI and BPFI, respectively.


Drip irrigation Furrow irrigation Potato productivity Straw mulching 



The authors are grateful to the Department of Science and Technology, Government of India, New Delhi, for providing financial assistance to carry out these investigations in the form of PURSE Project.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Allen RG, Pereira LS, Raes D, Smith M (1998) Crop evapotranspiration—guidelines for computing crop water requirements. FAO Irrigation and drainage paper 56. Food and Agriculture Organization, RomeGoogle Scholar
  2. Alva AK, Hodges T, Boydston RA, Collins HP (2002) Effect of irrigation and tillage practices on yields of potato under high production conditions in the pacific northwest. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal 133:1451–1460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brar SK, Mahal SS, Brar AS, Vashist KK, Sharma N, Buttar GS (2012) Transplanting time and seedling age affect water productivity, rice yield and quality in north-west India. Agric Water Manag 115:217–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brar AS, Buttar GS, Sharma R (2018) Water and energy productivity of rice as influenced by duration of cultivars, dates of transplanting and irrigation regime in north-western India. Paddy Water Environ 16:655–663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burlingame B, Mouille B, Charrondiere R (2009) Nutrients, bioactive non-nutrients and anti-nutrients in potatoes. J Food Compos Anal 22:494–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Demircan V, Ekinci K, Keener MH, Akbolat D, Ekinci C (2006) Energy and economic analysis of sweet cherry production in Turkey: a case study from Isparata province. Energy Convers Manag 47:1761–1769CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Döll P (2009) Vulnerability to the impact of climate change on renewable groundwater resources: a global-scale assessment. Special issue: focus on groundwater resources, climate and vulnerability. Environ Res Lett 4:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Esengun K, Gunduz O, Erdal G (2007) Input-output energy analysis in dry apricot production of Turkey. Energy Convers Manag 48:592–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Essah SYC, Honeycutt CW (2004) Tillage and seed sprouting strategies to improve potato yield and quality in short season climate. Am J Potato Res 81:177–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. FAOSTAT (2017) FAO statistical database. Accessed 23 Aug 2017
  11. Gundogmus E (2006) Energy use on organic farming: a comparative analysis on organic versus conventional apricot production on small holding in Turkey. Energy Convers Manag 47:3351–3359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Han M, Zhao C, Feng G, Yan Y, Sheng Y (2015) Evaluating the effects of mulch and irrigation amount on soil water distribution and root zone water balance using HYDRUS-2D. Water 7:2622–2640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kaur A, Brar AS (2016) Influence of mulching and irrigation scheduling on productivity and water use of turmeric (Curcuma longa L.) in north-western India. Irrig Sci 34:261–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. King BA, Tarkalson DD, Bjorneberg DL, Taberna JP Jr (2011) Planting configuration effect on yield response of russet Norkotah to irrigation and nitrogen under high application rate sprinkler irrigation. Am J Potato Res 88:799–802CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kumari S (2012) Influence of drip irrigation and mulch on leaf area maximization, water use efficiency and yield of potato (Solanum tuberosum L.). J Agric Sci 4:71–80Google Scholar
  16. Li SX, Wang ZH, Li SQ, Goa YJ, Tian XH (2013) Effect of plastic sheet mulch, wheat straw mulch and maize growth on water loss by evaporation in dryland area of China. Agric Water Manag 116:39–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Maraux F, Lafolie F (1998) Modelling soil water balance of a maize-sorghum sequence. Soil Sci Soc Am J 62:75–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mohammadi A, Tabatabaeefar A, Shahin SH, Rafiee SH, Keyhani A (2008) Energy use and economical analysis of potato production in Iran a case study: Ardabil province. Energy Convers Manag 49:3566–3570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Panesar BS, Bhatnagar AP (1994) Energy norms for inputs and outputs of agricultural sector. In: Energy management and conservation in agricultural production and food processing, USG Publisher & Distributors, Ludhiana, pp 5–16Google Scholar
  20. Panigrahi B, Roy DP, Panda SN (2010) Water use and yield response of tomato as influenced by drip and furrow irrigation. Int Agric Eng J 19:1–12Google Scholar
  21. Rana RK (2011) Status of Punjab state in Indian potato processing industry. Indian J Agril Mktg 25:1–17Google Scholar
  22. Sahoo P, Brar AS, Sharma S (2018) Effect of methods of irrigation and sulphur nutrition on seed yield, economic and bio-physical water productivity of two sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) hybrids. Agric Water Manag 206:158–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sandhu SS, Mahal SS, Vashist KK, Buttar GS, Brar AS, Singh M (2012) Crop and water productivity of bed transplanted rice as influenced by various levels of nitrogen and irrigation in Northwest India. Agric Water Manag 104:32–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sethi RR, Mandal KG, Sarangi A, Behra A, Aggarwal R, Brar AS, Sahu AS, Bandyopadhyay KK, Ambast SK (2016) Simulating paddy crop response to irrigation using FAO AquaCrop model: a case study. J Food Agric Environ 14:99–103Google Scholar
  25. Singh KB, Jalota SK, Gupta RK (2015) Soil water balance and response of spring maize (Zea mays) to mulching and differential irrigation in Punjab. Indian J Agron 60:279–284Google Scholar
  26. Tarkalson DD, King BA, Bjorneberg DL, Taberna JP Jr (2011) Evaluation of in-row plant spacing and planting configuration for irrigated Russet Burbank, Russet Norkotah and Ranger Russet potatoes. Am J Potato Res 88:201–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. UNWWD (2008) United Nations world water day report Accessed 22 March 2008

Copyright information

© European Association for Potato Research 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. S. Brar
    • 1
    Email author
  • G. S. Buttar
    • 1
  • H. S. Thind
    • 2
  • K. B. Singh
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of AgronomyPunjab Agricultural UniversityLudhianaIndia
  2. 2.Department of Soil SciencePunjab Agricultural UniversityLudhianaIndia
  3. 3.Department of Soil and Water EngineeringPunjab Agricultural UniversityLudhianaIndia

Personalised recommendations