IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/agiwat/v96y2009i1p23-34.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Tomato yield, biomass accumulation, root distribution and irrigation water use efficiency on a sandy soil, as affected by nitrogen rate and irrigation scheduling

Author

Listed:
  • Zotarelli, Lincoln
  • Scholberg, Johannes M.
  • Dukes, Michael D.
  • Muñoz-Carpena, Rafael
  • Icerman, Jason

Abstract

Florida is the largest producer of fresh-market tomatoes in the United States. Production areas are typically intensively managed with high inputs of fertilizer and irrigation. The objectives of this 3-year field study were to evaluate the interaction between N-fertilizer rates and irrigation scheduling on yield, irrigation water use efficiency (iWUE) and root distribution of tomato cultivated in a plastic mulched/drip irrigated production systems. Experimental treatments included three irrigation scheduling regimes and three N-rates (176, 220 and 230 kg ha-1). Irrigation treatments included were: (1) SUR (surface drip irrigation) both irrigation and fertigation line placed right underneath the plastic mulch; (2) SDI (subsurface drip irrigation) where the irrigation line was placed 0.15 m below the fertigation line which was located on top of the bed; and (3) TIME (conventional control) with irrigation and fertigation lines placed as in SUR and irrigation being applied once a day. Except for the "TIME" treatment all irrigation treatments were controlled by soil moisture sensor (SMS)-based irrigation set at 10% volumetric water content which was allotted five irrigation windows daily and bypassed events if the soil water content exceeded the established threshold. Average marketable fruit yields were 28, 56 and 79 mg ha-1 for years 1-3, respectively. The SUR treatment required 15-51% less irrigation water when compared to TIME treatments, while the reductions in irrigation water use for SDI were 7-29%. Tomato yield was 11-80% higher for the SUR and SDI treatments than TIME where as N-rate did not affect yield. Root concentration was greatest in the vicinity of the irrigation and fertigation drip lines for all irrigation treatments. At the beginning of reproductive phase about 70-75% of the total root length density (RLD) was concentrated in the 0-15 cm soil layer while 15-20% of the roots were found in the 15-30 cm layer. Corresponding RLD distribution values during the reproductive phase were 68% and 22%, respectively. Root distribution in the soil profile thus appears to be mainly driven by development stage, soil moisture and nutrient availability. It is concluded that use of SDI and SMS-based systems consistently increased tomato yields while greatly improving irrigation water use efficiency and thereby reduced both irrigation water use and potential N leaching.

Suggested Citation

  • Zotarelli, Lincoln & Scholberg, Johannes M. & Dukes, Michael D. & Muñoz-Carpena, Rafael & Icerman, Jason, 2009. "Tomato yield, biomass accumulation, root distribution and irrigation water use efficiency on a sandy soil, as affected by nitrogen rate and irrigation scheduling," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 96(1), pages 23-34, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:agiwat:v:96:y:2009:i:1:p:23-34
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378-3774(08)00156-X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ayars, J. E. & Phene, C. J. & Hutmacher, R. B. & Davis, K. R. & Schoneman, R. A. & Vail, S. S. & Mead, R. M., 1999. "Subsurface drip irrigation of row crops: a review of 15 years of research at the Water Management Research Laboratory," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 1-27, September.
    2. Amayreh, Jumah & Al-Abed, Nassim, 2005. "Developing crop coefficients for field-grown tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) under drip irrigation with black plastic mulch," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 73(3), pages 247-254, May.
    3. Kirda, C. & Cetin, M. & Dasgan, Y. & Topcu, S. & Kaman, H. & Ekici, B. & Derici, M. R. & Ozguven, A. I., 2004. "Yield response of greenhouse grown tomato to partial root drying and conventional deficit irrigation," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 191-201, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Brinegar, Hilary R. & Ward, Frank A., 2009. "Basin impacts of irrigation water conservation policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 414-426, December.
    2. Zheng, Jianhua & Huang, Guanhua & Jia, Dongdong & Wang, Jun & Mota, Mariana & Pereira, Luis S. & Huang, Quanzhong & Xu, Xu & Liu, Haijun, 2013. "Responses of drip irrigated tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) yield, quality and water productivity to various soil matric potential thresholds in an arid region of Northwest China," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 181-193.
    3. Gong, Xuewen & Qiu, Rangjian & Sun, Jingsheng & Ge, Jiankun & Li, Yanbin & Wang, Shunsheng, 2020. "Evapotranspiration and crop coefficient of tomato grown in a solar greenhouse under full and deficit irrigation," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 235(C).
    4. Komlan Koudahe & Aleksey Y. Sheshukov & Jonathan Aguilar & Koffi Djaman, 2021. "Irrigation-Water Management and Productivity of Cotton: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-21, September.
    5. Lovelli, S. & Perniola, M. & Ferrara, A. & Di Tommaso, T., 2007. "Yield response factor to water (Ky) and water use efficiency of Carthamus tinctorius L. and Solanum melongena L," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 92(1-2), pages 73-80, August.
    6. Himanshu, Sushil Kumar & Ale, Srinivasulu & Bordovsky, James & Darapuneni, Murali, 2019. "Evaluation of crop-growth-stage-based deficit irrigation strategies for cotton production in the Southern High Plains," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 225(C).
    7. Haomiao Cheng & Qilin Yu & Mohmed A. M. Abdalhi & Fan Li & Zhiming Qi & Tengyi Zhu & Wei Cai & Xiaoping Chen & Shaoyuan Feng, 2022. "RZWQM2 Simulated Drip Fertigation Management to Improve Water and Nitrogen Use Efficiency of Maize in a Solar Greenhouse," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-14, May.
    8. Patanè, C. & Cosentino, S.L., 2010. "Effects of soil water deficit on yield and quality of processing tomato under a Mediterranean climate," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 97(1), pages 131-138, January.
    9. Gao, Yang & Yang, Linlin & Shen, Xiaojun & Li, Xinqiang & Sun, Jingsheng & Duan, Aiwang & Wu, Laosheng, 2014. "Winter wheat with subsurface drip irrigation (SDI): Crop coefficients, water-use estimates, and effects of SDI on grain yield and water use efficiency," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 1-10.
    10. Shrestha, N.K. & Shukla, S., 2014. "Basal crop coefficients for vine and erect crops with plastic mulch in a sub-tropical region," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 29-37.
    11. Jackson, T.M. & Hanjra, Munir A. & Khan, S. & Hafeez, M.M., 2011. "Building a climate resilient farm: A risk based approach for understanding water, energy and emissions in irrigated agriculture," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 104(9), pages 729-745.
    12. Ngouajio, Mathieu & Wang, Guangyao & Goldy, Ronald, 2007. "Withholding of drip irrigation between transplanting and flowering increases the yield of field-grown tomato under plastic mulch," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 87(3), pages 285-291, February.
    13. Sidhu, H.S. & Jat, M.L. & Singh, Yadvinder & Sidhu, Ravneet Kaur & Gupta, Naveen & Singh, Parvinder & Singh, Pankaj & Jat, H.S. & Gerard, Bruno, 2019. "Sub-surface drip fertigation with conservation agriculture in a rice-wheat system: A breakthrough for addressing water and nitrogen use efficiency," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 216(C), pages 273-283.
    14. Li, Li & Wang, Yaosheng & Liu, Fulai, 2021. "Alternate partial root-zone N-fertigation increases water use efficiency and N uptake of barley at elevated CO2," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 258(C).
    15. Li, Xiaoliang & Liu, Fulai & Li, Guitong & Lin, Qimei & Jensen, Christian R., 2010. "Soil microbial response, water and nitrogen use by tomato under different irrigation regimes," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 98(3), pages 414-418, December.
    16. Oweis, T.Y. & Farahani, H.J. & Hachum, A.Y., 2011. "Evapotranspiration and water use of full and deficit irrigated cotton in the Mediterranean environment in northern Syria," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 98(8), pages 1239-1248, May.
    17. Jackson, Tamara M. & Khan, Shahbaz & Hafeez, Mohsin, 2010. "A comparative analysis of water application and energy consumption at the irrigated field level," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 97(10), pages 1477-1485, October.
    18. Zhang, Tibin & Zou, Yufeng & Kisekka, Isaya & Biswas, Asim & Cai, Huanjie, 2021. "Comparison of different irrigation methods to synergistically improve maize’s yield, water productivity and economic benefits in an arid irrigation area," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 243(C).
    19. Chilin Wei & Yan Zhu & Jinzhu Zhang & Zhenhua Wang, 2021. "Evaluation of Suitable Mixture of Water and Air for Processing Tomato in Drip Irrigation in Xinjiang Oasis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-19, July.
    20. Li, Fusheng & Wei, Caihui & Zhang, Fucang & Zhang, Jianhua & Nong, Mengling & Kang, Shaozhong, 2010. "Water-use efficiency and physiological responses of maize under partial root-zone irrigation," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 97(8), pages 1156-1164, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:agiwat:v:96:y:2009:i:1:p:23-34. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/agwat .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.