2016-09-14T23:36:08+05:302016-09-14T23:35:50+05:302016-09-14T23:36:08+05:30Acrobat PDFMaker 11 for Worduuid:0f625fec-c2fe-4004-a5a0-dd400344cdabuuid:9ea2ba48-9ba1-498a-97b8-0c0d9a18befb5xmlThe beneficial effect of subsurface drip irrigation system on yield, fruit quality and leaf mineral content of Valencia orange treesHpAdobe PDF Library 11.0D:20160902171254BLACK EDITION - tum0r
International Journal of ChemTech Research CODEN (USA): IJCRGG, ISSN: 0974-4290, ISSN(Online):2455-9555 Vol.9, No.08 pp 70-76, 2016
The beneficial effect of subsurface drip irrigation system on yield, fruit quality and leaf mineral content of Valencia orange trees Genaidy E.A. Esmail*, Mohamed A. Merwad, Esam A.M. Mostafa, Mohamed M.S. Saleh Pomology Department, National Research Centre, Dokki, Giza, Egypt. Abstract: The effect of subsurface drip irrigation comparing with the surface one on yield, fruit quality and leaf mineral content of Valencia orange trees was studied. Trees were grown on sandy soil at the farm of National Research Centre, Nubaria district, Behaira governorate, Egypt. Three drip irrigation rates (12, 9, 6 drippers per tree) were used as surface or subsurface drip irrigation systems. From the obtained results, it could be concluded that subsurface drip irrigation system shows a positive effect on maximizing water use efficiency which detected as increasing the yield and fruit quality. In general, subsurface irrigation was more effective comparing with the surface one. In this concern, treatment of 12 drippers per tree under subsurface irrigation was the promising one comparing with the other treatments, since this treatment was the superior in increasing fruit number, fruit weight and yield per tree in both studied seasons, also improved both physical and chemical fruit quality of Valencia orange trees. Key words: Valencia orange – Subsurface irrigation – Yield – Fruit quality – Leaf mineral content. Introduction The global water crisis is one of the major environmental concerns in the world. In the arid and semi arid as well as sub-tropical regions, water shortage is a normal phenomenon and seriously limits the agricultural potential1. It should be noted that there is strong evidence of climate change that would lead to a further decrease of annual rainfall year by year2. Drought stress is the main problem, which was distributed widely throughout the world on the 1.2 billion ha in rain fed agricultural land3. Reactions of the plant affected by the amount of soil water are directly or indirectly. All physiological processes such as photosynthesis, transpiration, cell turgidity and the growth of tissues in plants are directly affected by the availability of water4. Drainage and evaporation play an important role in the loss of water. These reasons focus on the development of irrigation methods that reduce water use or to achieve maximum efficiency in the use of water. Therefore, it is proposed to find ways in which water available can benefit economically5. Drip irrigation has been used in horticultural operations since the middle of the 20th century6 and it is the most effective way to apply directly water and nutrients to plants and not only save water but also increases yields7, 8. In many less developed parts of the world, traditional methods of subsurface irrigation can help conserve scarce water resources. Subsurface irrigation systems are capable of applying small amounts of water directly to the plant root zone where the water is needed, and these small amounts can be applied frequently to maintain favorable moisture conditions in the root zone. Some of the potential benefits of subsurface irrigation are improvements in yield and quality and the reduction of production costsSo, the aim of this study is to maximize the water use efficiency and reduce the amount of irrigation water through using the subsurface irrigation system and evaluate its effect on the yield and fruit quality of Valencia orange trees grown under sandy soil conditions. Material and Methods This experiment was carried out during two successive seasons (2014 and 2015) to study the effect of subsurface drip irrigation comparing with the surface one on yield and fruit quality of Valencia orange trees grown on sandy soil, in orchard located at the National Research Centre farm, Nubaria district, Behaira governorate, Egypt. The trees were budded on Volkamer lemon (C. volkameriana) rootstock and planted at 5X5 meters apart under drip irrigation system. The results of soil analysis according to12 are given in Table 1 which shows that the texture of the soil is sandy. Table (1): Mechanical and chemical analysis of experimental soil Al-Emam Malek village, Al-Nubaria district, Al-Behaira Governorate.
Sand %
Silt %
Clay %
pH
Organic matter, %
CaCO3 %
E.C. dS/m
Soluble N, ppm
Available P, ppm
Exchangeable K, ppm
91.2
3.7
5.1
7.3
0.3
1.4
0.3
8.1
3.2
20
The experiment included six irrigation treatments as follows:
1. Surface irrigation with 12 drippers per tree (the orchard program).
2. Surface irrigation with 9 drippers per tree.
3. Surface irrigation with 6 drippers per tree.
4. Subsurface irrigation with 12 drippers per tree.
5. Subsurface irrigation with 9 drippers per tree.
6. Subsurface irrigation with 6 drippers per tree.
Note: Dripper discharge = 4 liters per hour. Each treatment was replicated six times on one tree plots and the randomized complete block design was arranged. The selected trees were seven years old and nearly uniform in vigor as possible. The fertilization program and other horticultural practices were the same for all trees under investigation. To determine leaf mineral content, about forty leaves were taken in late August in each season from tagged non-fruiting and non-flushing spring growth cycle13. Leaf samples were washed with tap water, then with distilled water and dried at 70oC finally ground and digested. The digested solution was used to determine N, P, K, Ca and Mg content as percentage on dry weight14. Total chlorophyll in the fresh leaf was determined as spad units (spad = 100 mg chlorophyll/gm fresh weight) by using Minolta chlorophyll meter (spad, 502). At the harvesting time (early April of each season), yield per tree was determined as number and weight of fruits (kg)/tree. For fruit properties determination, samples of ten fruits were taken from each replicate to determine the physical and chemical properties i.e. fruit length (cm), fruit diameter (cm), juice weight (gm), peel weight (gm), total soluble solids% and acidity content as the methods described15. The data were subjected to analysis of variance and Duncan's multiple range test was used to differentiate means16. Results Yield and fruit number: The fruit number per tree (Table 2) was different among irrigation water treatments in this study and the fourth treatment recorded the highest average of fruit numbers (291 and 310) during the first and second seasons, respectively. However, the differences were insignificant between fourth, fifth and sixth treatments in the first season. The lowest number of fruit was observed in the third treatment (116 and 123 in the first and second seasons, respectively). However, there was an increasing trend for this parameter in response to increase the amounts of irrigation water. It is clear from Table 2 that, the fruit weight was at the highest value (235 and 245 in the two seasons, respectively) when the plants irrigated using the subsurface drip irrigation with the rate of 12 drippers per tree without significant differences between 12 and 9 drippers per tree under the same system of irrigation. On the contrary, using surface drip irrigation system by 9 drippers per tree gave the lowest value of fruit weight (163 and 179 gm in the first and second seasons, respectively). The results in Table 2 show that fruit yield was increased gradually with increasing the amount of irrigation water and the maximum value of the average fruit yield per tree (67.60 and 76.34 kg/tree in the two seasons, respectively) was observed after using of 12 drippers per tree with subsurface irrigation system, while the lowest value was obtained with the surface irrigation (21.63 and 25.90 for first and second seasons, respectively). In another word, the fruit yield obtained by the subsurface drip irrigation was increased than the surface one by about 250 and 228% in the first and second seasons, respectively. The reduction in fruit yield average per tree across two seasons was observed due to the use of surface irrigation system compared with the subsurface one. Moreover, the reduction in the yield was more pronounced as a result of dripper numbers per tree because the amount of water that given for every tree was decreased too. From that the minimum value of fruit yield per tree (21.63 and 25.90 kg for both seasons, respectively) was found after using of 6 drippers per tree as surface irrigation system. Table 2: The effect of irrigation system on fruit number, fruit weight and fruit yield /tree of Valencia orange in the two studied seasons.
Treat.
Fruit number
Fruit weight (gm)
Fruit Yield /tree (kg)
1st season
2nd season
1st season
2nd season
1st season
2nd season
1
158 bc
165 d
173 c
203 b
27.01 d
33.48 d
2
135 c
145 e
163 c
179 c
21.64 d
25.97 e
3
116 c
123 f
188 bc
210 b
21.63 d
25.90 e
4
291 a
310 a
235 a
245 a
67.60 a
76.34 a
5
266 a
269 b
216 ab
239 a
53.74 b
64.49 b
6
241ab
254 c
169 c
182 c
38.22 c
46.24 c
Means in columns followed by the same letter are not statistically different at the 0.05 probability level. Fruit quality: Results in Table (3) show that using 12 drippers per tree as the subsurface water supplementary gave the maximum significant length of the fruit (8.5 cm) during both seasons compared with those produced with the other treatments except the fifth treatment because of the differences lacked significance in the first and second seasons. On the other hand, using 6 drippers per tree as surface and subsurface drip irrigation had lower average of fruit length (6.96 cm) in the first season; also the same situation was happened in the second season where the third treatment recorded the minimum average of fruit length (7.21 cm) compared with those produced by the other treatments (Table 3). In all cases, using subsurface irrigation produced longer fruit than did surface irrigation. Table 3 show that, fruit diameter was increased with increasing water irrigation amount with the subsurface drip irrigation system, so using 12 drippers per tree as subsurface soil gave the largest fruit diameter (7.8 cm) in both seasons, respectively and the same value of fruit diameter was found due to the fifth treatment in the second season. On the contrary, the smallest fruit diameter (6.7 and 6.8 cm) in both seasons was noticed when used 6 drippers per tree as surface irrigation. Regarding juice weight among irrigation treatments, the highest juice weight was produced with 12 drippers using the subsurface irrigation system (113 and 120 gm for both seasons, respectively) in compare with the other irrigation treatments (Table 3). Moreover, it was noticed that the lowest juice weight (74.5 and 81.67 gm) in the first and second seasons, respectively was recorded with the plants grown under 6 drippers per tree with surface irrigation in the first season and the same rate as subsurface in the second one. It is clear from the results in table 3 that the highest value of peel weight (98.33 and 108 gm) was observed with the trees irrigated with 12 drippers per tree under the subsurface drip irrigation. On the other side, the lowest value of peel weight (68.16 and 73.83gm) was found by using 6 drippers per tree with surface irrigation system. The statistical analysis of the obtained results in table 3 shows that, the differences among treatments regarding the TSS percentage were significant. The presented results in Table 2 clearly indicate that with increasing irrigation rate, TSS percentage was gradually decreased to reach its lowest value (12.7 and 13.8 % for the first season and second one, respectively) under the condition of 12 drippers per tree using subsurface irrigation system. On the other hand, the highest value of TSS percentage (14.9 and 15.4 %) was observed with the treatment of 6 drippers per tree using subsurface drip irrigation system. However, the differences between the third and the sixth treatments under the condition as 6 drippers per tree either as surface or subsurface irrigation systems were not statically significant during first and second seasons. Table 3 illustrate that the differences between treatments concerning acidity percentage were significant during both seasons. The maximum percentage of acidity (2.49 and 2.21 %) was recorded by the third treatment in the first and second seasons, respectively. In addition, the differences between the third and fourth treatments in the first season were insignificant and the same status was observed in the second season between all treatments, except the second one. The minimum percentage of the acidity (1.75 and 1.70 % during the two seasons, respectively) was found due to the second treatment (9 drippers per tree as surface irrigation). Table 3: The effect of irrigation system on fruit length (cm), fruit diameter (cm), juice weight (gm), peel weight (gm), TSS (%) and acidity (%) of Valencia orange in the two studied seasons.
Treat.
Fruit length (cm)
Fruit diameter (cm)
Juice wt. (gm)
Peel wt. (gm)
TSS (%)
Acidity (%)
1st season
2nd season
1st season
2nd season
1st season
2nd season
1st season
2nd season
1st season
2nd season
1st season
2nd season
1
7.9bc
8.1ab
7.1b
7.5ab
90.6bc
102.0abc
82.3b
80.5cd
13.0cd
13.8c
2.00bc
2.17a
2
7.8bc
7.2c
7.16 b
7.5ab
77.5c
98.33abc
77.5bc
89.5bc
13.7 bc
13.5c
1.75c
1.70b
3
6.9d
8.0b
6.7c
6.8c
74.5c
91.0bc
68.1c
73.8d
14.3a
15.0ab
2.49a
2.21a
4
8.5a
8.5a
7.8a
7.8a
113.8a
120.0a
98.3a
108.0a
12.7d
13.1c
2.19ab
2.15a
5
8.3ab
8.4a
7.4ab
7.8a
106.1ab
115.1ab
86.6ab
96.3b
13.4ecd
14.2bc
2.15b
2.09ab
6
6.96d
7.6bc
7.0bc
7.1bc
83.5c
81.6c
66.1c
79.8d
14.9a
15.4a
2.02bc
2.17a
Means in columns followed by the same letter are not statistically different at the 0.05 probability level. Leaf mineral and chlorophyll content: The results in table (4) show a significant difference in nitrogen content among the treatments. The highest value of nitrogen content (2.33 and 2.66 % in both seasons, respectively) was obtained from the tree leaves of the fifth treatment of 9 drippers per tree using the subsurface irrigation system. While, the lowest value of nitrogen content (1.46 and 1.50 % during both seasons, respectively) was found with the lowest number of drippers per tree (6 drippers) using the surface irrigation system. Table (4) show that, the fifth treatment recorded the highest significant values of phosphorus content in the Valencia tree leaves (0.33 and 0.41 % in both seasons, respectively) compared with the other studied treatments. On the other hand, the third treatment gave the minimum value of phosphorus content (0.12 and 0.15 % in both seasons, respectively). Leaf potassium content was increased when used the subsurface drip irrigation system and the maximum value of it (1.36 and 1.55 %) in the first and second seasons, respectively was noticed with the fifth treatment. Contrariwise, giving the minimum irrigation rate (6 drippers per tree) as the surface irrigation system gave the lowest value of leaf potassium content (0.59 and 0.67 %) in both seasons, respectively table (4). It appears from table (4) that, the minimum and maximum value of calcium content (2.15 and 2.37%) for the minimum and (3.26 and 3.48%) for the maximum were found with the third and fifth treatments in the first and second seasons, respectively. Concerning magnesium content in the leaves, Table 4 show that the highest magnesium content (0.72 and 0.85%) was recorded due to the fifth treatment (9 drippers/ tree) as subsurface irrigation in both studied seasons, while, he lowest value was obtained from the trees irrigated with 12 and 6 drippers as surface irrigation. This was true in the first and second seasons, respectively. As for total chlorophyll content, it is notice from table (4) that the chlorophyll was concentrated by decreasing the amount of irrigation water reached every tree. Thus, the highest value of total chlorophyll content (77.3 and 80 spad unit) in the first and second seasons, respectively) was found after using 6 drippers per tree with surface irrigation system. While the lowest value of the total chlorophyll content (60.3 and 63.00 spad unit) in both seasons, respectively was noticed with the fourth treatment (12 drippers per tree) using the subsurface drip irrigation system. Table 4: The effect of irrigation system on chlorophyll and leaf mineral content of Valencia orange in the two studied seasons.
Treat.
N %
P %
K %
Ca %
Mg %
Chlorophyll (Spad)
1st season
2nd season
1st season
2nd season
1st season
2nd season
1st season
2nd season
1st season
2nd season
1st season
2nd season
1
1.46d
1.50f
0.15ed
0.19d
0.72cd
0.77cd
2.38c
2.48c
0.33e
0.39e
62.6b
63.3c
2
1.62c
1.74e
0.10cd
0.20c
0.86c
0.91c
2.53c
2.58c
0.41d
0.51d
76.8a
78.6a
3
1.70c
1.87d
0.12e
0.15e
0.59d
0.67d
2.15d
2.37c
0.34e
0.38e
77.3a
80.0a
4
2.20b
2.56b
0.21bc
0.31b
1.2ab
1.33b
2.32a
3.58a
0.62b
0.69b
60.3b
63.0c
5
2.33a
2.66a
0.33a
0.41a
1.36a
1.55a
3.26a
3.48a
0.72a
0.85a
73.5a
76.0b
6
2.14b
2.30c
0.24b
0.32b
1.14b
1.38b
2.75b
3.02b
0.52c
0.62c
73.5a
75.6b
Means in columns followed by the same letter are not statistically different at the 0.05 probability level. Discussion Generally, using subsurface irrigation had a positive effect comparing with the surface one, since all subsurface treatments were more effective comparing with the surface drip irrigation. The advances of subsurface irrigation may be due to that the distribution uniformity of soil moisture was greatly improved on this property after the subsurface irrigation system was installed17. In this respect, the higher irrigation rate (12 drippers/tree) was more effective in increasing fruit yield per tree of Valencia orange in this study besides, improving physical and chemical fruit quality parameters such as fruit length, fruit diameter, Juice weight, peel weight, TSS and leaf mineral content, and these results could be due to the effect of subsurface irrigation on increasing vegetative growth, photosynthesis rate and fruit set. This led to an overall positive effect on total production per tree. In this concern, water use efficiency was increased mainly due to yield increase, not less water use18. This means that using the treatment of 12 drippers has a great effect on maximizing the water use efficiency sine it recorded the highest yield per tree. However, yield for over 30 crops was greater or equal using subsurface irrigation than that obtained with other irrigation methods and in most of the cases required less waterBigger fruit size may be due to the positive effect of water availability in the root growth zone. In this respect, the soil moisture contents of subsurface drip irrigated layer increased dramatically, while salts accumulated at the surface away from the emitters of subsurface drip irrigation22. The difference in weight was mostly because of the fruit water content so it inversely proportional with the TSS and acidity. Evidently water stress, besides reducing plant activity, causes a drop in fruit water content and fruit growth, which is partially reversible after removing the stress23. Fruit yield of cucumber was reduced due to decreasing amounts of water applied24. It’s observed a remarkable higher grain yield of wheat when grown along with irrigation25. The above mentioned results reflect the importance of water to the plant life and productivity. These results are in conformity with those of that low water availability adversely affects hormonal balance, plant development and assimilate translocation26. Higher values of leaf mineral content due to the subsurface irrigation may be attributed to that the fertilizers can be applied near the center of the crop root zone with subsurface irrigation11. However, Nitrogen fertigation of maize with subsurface irrigation can be effective in maintaining high grain yields while protecting the environment11. On the other hand, a study concluded that management practices which include application of natural clay deposits under subsurface drip irrigation have high potential for improving nutrient levels and consequently on the following growing crops22. Using the surface drip irrigation system provides costs but such methods allow significant losses of water through the evaporation. In this experiment, the use of subsurface drip irrigation system reduces these losses. Conclusion From the abovementioned results, it could be concluded that subsurface drip irrigation system had a positive effect on maximizing water use efficiency which detected as increasing the yield and fruit quality. In general, subsurface irrigation was more effective comparing with the surface one. In this concern, treatment of 12 drippers per tree under subsurface irrigation was promising one comparing with the other treatments, since this treatment increased fruit number, fruit weight and yield per tree in both studied seasons, also improved physical and chemical fruit quality of Valencia orange trees. However, using 12 drippers as subsurface drip irrigation increased yield by about 250 and 228% in the first and second seasons, respectively than the same rate as surface drip irrigation. Acknowledgements The authors are thankful to National Research Centre for funding this research through project ID 101-202-08. References
1. Ismail SM, Kiyoshi Ozawa (2009). Effect of irrigation interval on growth on characteristics, plant water stress tolerance and water use efficiency for Chile pepper. Thirteenth International Water Technology Conference, IWTC 13 2009, Hurghada, Egypt.
2. Kimura F (2007). Downscaling of the global warming projections to Turkey. In: The final report of the research project on the impact of climate changes on agricultural production system in arid areas (ICCAP). pp. 21-37.
3. Passioura J (2007). The drought environment: Physical, biological and agricultural perspectives. J. Exp. Bot., 58:113-117.
4. Sarker BC, M Hara, M Uemura (2005). Proline synthesis, physiological responses and biomass, yield of eggplants during and after repetitive soil moisture stress. Sci. Hort., 103: 387-402.
5. El-Habbasha SF; Okasha EM; Abdelraouf RE; Mohammed ASH (2015). Effect of Pressured Irrigation Systems, Deficit Irrigation and Fertigation Rates on Yield, Quality and Water use Efficiency of Groundnut. International Journal of ChemTech Research, 7 (01): 475-487.
6. Hillel D (2008). 40 Years of Drip Irrigation. CSA News. Vol. 53, No. 9, pp. 3-7.
7. Tiwari KN, A Singh, PK Mal (2003). Effect of drip irrigation on yield of cabbage (Brassica Oleracea L. var. Capitata) under mulch and non-mulch conditions. Agric. Water Manag., 58: 19-28.
8. Alaoui SM, Salghi R, Ayoub M, Abouatallah A, Jodeh S (2014). Impact of Drip Irrigation Scheduling on Yield Parameters in Tomato Plant (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) Under Unheated Greenhouse. International Journal of ChemTech Research, 6 (7): 3733-3741.
9. Toljander JF, JC Santos-González, A Tehler, RD Finlay (2008). Community analysis of Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and bacteria in the maize mycorrhizosphere in a long-term fertilization trial. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 65: 323–338.
10. Alguacil MM, E Díaz-Pereira, F Caravaca, DA Fernández, A Roldán (2009). Increased diversity of Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in a long-term field experiment via application of organic amendments to a semiarid degraded soil. Appl. Environ. Microbiol., 75: 4254–4263.
11. Lamm FR (2002). Advantages and Disadvantages of subsurface drip irrigation. The International Meeting on Advances in Drip/Micro Irrigation, Puerto de La Cruz, Tenerife, Canary Islands, December 2-5, 2002.
12. Wilde SA, RB Corey, JG Layer, GK Voigt (1985). Soil and Plant Analysis for tree culture. Published by Mohan Primlani, Oxford, IBH, Publishing Co., New Delhi, pp. 1-142.
13. Jones WW, TW Embleton (1960). Leaf analysis- nitrogen control program for oranges. Calif. Citrogr., 45 : 349- 353 (c.f. Hort. Abst. 31 : 3128).
14. Cottenie A, M Verloo, L Kiekens, G Velgle, R Amerlynuck (1982). Chemical Analysis of Plant and Soil, 43- 51. Laboratory of Analytical and Agroch. State Univ. of Belgium, Gent.
15. AOAC (1985). Official Methods of Analysis, A.O.A.C. 14th Ed., Benjamin Franklin Station Washington DC, USA. pp. 494-510.
16. Duncan DB (1955). Multiple range and multiple "F" tests. Biometrics, 11: 1-42.
17. Douglas L Kieffer (2009). Effect of Sub-surface Drip Irrigation and Shade on Soil Moisture Uniformity in Residential Turf. The 30th Annual Irrigation Show San Antonio, TX December 2-4.
18. Ayars JE, CJ Phene, RB Hutmacher, KR Davis, RA Schoneman, SS Vail, RM Mead (1999). Subsurface drip irrigation of row crops: A review of 15 years of research at the Water Management Research Laboratory. Agric. Water Management 42:1-27.
20. Ebtisam I.Eldardiry, Sabreen, Kh. Pibars, and M. Abd El-Hady (2015). Influence of irrigation deficit and humic acid on soil and canola growth characters and water use efficiency. International Journal of ChemTech Research, 8 (6): 505-513.
21. AA, El-Noemani, AAA, Aboellil and OM Dewedar (2015). Influence of irrigation systems and water treatments on growth, yield, quality and water use efficiency of bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) plants. International Journal of ChemTech Research, 8(12): 248-258.
22. Al-Omran AM, AS Sheta, AM Falatah, AR Al-Harbi (2007). Effect of subsurface amendments and drip Irrigation on tomato growth. Dirasat, Agricultural Sciences, Vol. 34, No. 1 and 2.
23. Proietti P, E Antognozz (1996). Effect of irrigation on fruit quality of table olives (Olea europaea), cultivar 'Ascolana tenera'. New Zealand Journal of Crop and Horticultural Science, 24: 175-181.
24. Randa HC, SJ Locasio (1988). Root growth and water status of trickle irrigated cucumber and tomato. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci., 113(6): 830-835.
25. Zhang X, S Chen, M Liu, D Pei, H Sun (2005). Improved water use efficiency associated with cultivars and agronomic management in the north China plain. Agron. J. 97:783–790.
26. Salisbury FB, CW Ross (1992). Environmental physiology: in: Plant Physiology. 4th Ed. pp. 549-600. Wadsworth Pub. Company. Belmont. CA. USA.