Natl. Acad. Sci. Lett. (September–October 2013) 36(5):483–488 DOI 10.1007/s40009-013-0162-y
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Effect of Drip Fertigation Scheduling on Fertilizer Use Efficiency, Leaf Nutrient Status, Yield and Quality of ‘Shweta’ Guava (Psidium guajava L.) Under Meadow Orcharding Ramniwas • R. A. Kaushik • Sunil Pareek D. K. Sarolia • Virendra Singh
•
Received: 12 December 2012 / Revised: 9 March 2013 / Accepted: 1 May 2013 / Published online: 6 October 2013 Ó The National Academy of Sciences, India 2013
Abstract To find out the effect of drip fertigation scheduling on fertilizer use efficiency, leaf nutrient status, yield and quality of 3-year-old ‘Shweta’ guava (Psidium guajava L.) under meadow orcharding, 16 treatment combinations were tried. Treatments comprises with four irrigation [(basin (I0), 50 % (I1), 75 % (I2) and 100 % (I3) irrigation of irrigation water/cumulative pan evaporation)] and four fertigation levels [basal dose (F0), 50 % (F1), 75 % (F2) and 100 % (F3) water soluble fertilizers]. The experiments were laid out in factorial randomized block design. Seventy five percentage irrigation of irrigation water/cumulative pan evaporation through drip resulted in maximum yield with quality fruits, leaf nutrient status and fertilizer use efficiency with highest net return (Rs. 2,12,372.17). Use of 45, 20, 20 g NPK/plant/year produced fruit yield (29.81 t/ha), quality of fruits with maximum net return (Rs. 2,12,550.62). However, F1 (30, 10, 10 g NPK/ plant/year) exhibited highest fertilizer use efficiency (101.97 kg/ha). Interaction effect of irrigation and fertigation levels showed that 75 % irrigation of irrigation water/ cumulative pan evaporation ?75 % water soluble fertilizer produced maximum fruit yield (32.79 t/ha) with quality fruits and highest net returns (Rs. 2,44,073.07). However, maximum fertilizer use efficiency (103.23 kg/ha) was obtained in 75 % irrigation of irrigation water/cumulative pan evaporation ? 30, 10, 10 g NPK/plant/year water soluble fertilizer.
Ramniwas R. A. Kaushik S. Pareek (&) D. K. Sarolia V. Singh Department of Horticulture, Rajasthan College of Agriculture, Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology, Udaipur 313001, India e-mail:
[email protected]
Keywords Guava Fertigation Fertilizer use efficiency Meadow orchard Quality Yield
Introduction Guava is considered as an apple of the tropics, because of its richness in vitamins and minerals. Guava is a good source of thiamine (0.03–0.07 mg/100 g pulp), riboflavin (0.02–0.04 mg/100 g pulp) and vitamin C (75–260 mg/ 100 g pulp). Besides this, guava fruits also provide minerals like phosphorus (22.5–40.0 mg/100 g), calcium (10.0–30.0 mg/100 g) and iron (0.60–1.39 mg/100 g) [1]. The fruits are also used for jelly making and preparation of other kinds of preserved products. Irrigation and fertilizers are the most important inputs which directly affects the plant growth and development, yield and quality of produce. Application of irrigation water and fertilizers through drip are the most effective way of supplying water and nutrients to the plant roots, satisfying the plants’ total and temporal requirements of these two inputs. These inputs are effectively utilized by the plants as these are placed near crop root zone. The right combination of water and nutrients is the key for high yield and the quality of produce. Fertigation saves fertilizer as it permits applying fertilizer in small quantities at a time matching with the plants’ nutrient need. Besides, it is considered eco-friendly as it avoids leaching of fertilizers. Liquid fertilizers are best suited for fertigation. Fertigation is a new concept gaining momentum in India. The nutrient consumption per hectare and fertilizer use efficiency is very low in India. The main reasons for the low efficiency are the type of fertilizer used and its method of application adopted by Indian farmers. Farmers are using solid fertilizers for fruit crop production but these are not
123
484
totally water soluble and hence, are less available to the plants. Some of the fertilizers contain salts of sodium and chloride, which not only affect the quality and quantity of crop production but also harmful to the soil. Hence, there is a need to develop a suitable method of application of fertilizer through drip system, which will improve the quality and quantity of fruit crop production. Many researchers have reported the higher application efficiency of drip irrigation systems over the conventional basin irrigation systems [2–4] compared to drip and basin irrigation systems in fruit orchards and found that there was water savings of 40–60 % than basin irrigation methods. Irrigation requirement met through drip irrigation along with polythene mulch resulted in highest yield of guava (37.70 t/ha) with 164 % greater yield as compared to ring basin irrigation [5]. Further, fertigation ensures substantial saving in fertilizer usage and reduces leaching losses [6]. Similar to frequent application of water, optimum split applications of fertilizer improves quality and quantity of crop yield than the conventional practice. Higher guava yield through fertigation than basin irrigation has also been observed [7]. Guava is an important fruit crop grown in almost all parts of India and is one of the most preferred fruit crops in Southern Rajasthan. Due to lack of information on irrigation management techniques, the average yield of the crop in Southern Rajasthan is very low because of either excess or deficit soil moisture. The crop is generally grown with basin irrigation, which has low application efficiency. Many farmers in the state are now becoming interested in growing the crop with drip irrigation. However, some farmers in the state are reluctant to adopt drip technology due to lack of information on irrigation and fertigation scheduling techniques. Hence, the present study was undertaken to examine the yield, quality and fertilizer use efficiency using different irrigation and fertigation schedules by drip irrigation and to suggest the most efficient irrigation and fertigation schedule that would attain the highest yield and quality fruits with minimum losses of fertilizers from the crop.
Ramniwas et al.
The soil of the experimental field was clay loamy in texture, slightly alkaline in reaction (8.5 pH), low in available nitrogen (253.5 kg/ha), medium in organic-carbon (0.75 %), available phosphorus (27.5 kg/ha) and available potassium (271.4 kg/ha). Treatment Application There were four levels of irrigation, namely basin irrigation (I0), 50 % irrigation of irrigation water/cumulative pan evaporation (IW/CPE) (I1), 75 % irrigation of IW/CPE (I2) and 100 % irrigation of IW/CPE (I3) and four levels of fertigation viz., basal dose (60, 20, 40 g NPK/plant/year through solid fertilizers) (F0); 30, 10, 10 g NPK/plant/year through water soluble fertilizers (WSF) (F1), 45, 20, 20 g NPK/plant/year through WSF (F2) and 60, 30, 30 g NPK/ plant/year through WSF (F3). Therefore total 16 treatment combinations were applied. The experiment was laid out in factorial randomized block design with three replications and two plants were kept in each treatment. The irrigation was applied to guava plants as per treatments like basin irrigation on IW/CPE ratio of 0.8 and 5 cm depth at weekly interval. The drip irrigation was supplied at 1 day interval and USDA class A open pan evaporation was taken as the basis for scheduling of irrigations. The total quantity of water applied during 2009–10 was 2,025 l (basin irrigation), 949 l (I1), 1,277 l (I2) and 1,605 l (I3)/plant/year. Similarly, during 2010–11 the total quantity of water applied was 1,984 l, 928 l, 1,235 l and 1,542 l/plant/year in respective treatments. As per the treatments water soluble fertilizer grade (NPK-19:19:19) were applied in five splits from fruit set to maturity stage and remaining nitrogen were supplemented through urea. The basal dose (F0) of phosphorus and potassium were fully applied by ring method in the month of July, while nitrogen was applied in two split doses, one with basal dose in July and another after fruit setting in October through ring basin at 30 cm away from main trunk. Nitrogen was applied as urea, phosphorus as single super phosphate and potassium as muriate of potash. The plants were pruned twice a year in the months of February and September.
Materials and Methods Observations Recorded Location of Experiment The experiment was conducted during 2009–2010 and 2010–2011, on uniform 3-years-old ‘Shweta’ guava plants planted at the spacing of 2 9 1 m at horticulture farm of the Rajasthan College of Agriculture, Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology, Udaipur, Rajasthan, India. Experimental orchard is situated at 248340 N latitude and 738420 E longitude at an elevation of 582.17 meters above mean sea level.
123
Mature fruits were harvested periodically from each treatment separately and the weight was recorded with the help of single pan balance and expressed in kg. Further, fruits/ha were calculated by multiplying the fruit yield/plant to the number of plants/ha. All the observations regarding to biochemical characters were recorded from composite sample of 10 fruits. Total soluble solids (TSS) was measured by Erma Hand Refractometer (0–32° B). Total titrable acidity was determined by titrating fruit juice against
Effect of Drip Fertigation Scheduling on Fertilizer Use Efficiency
0.1 N NaOH in the presence of phenolphthalein indicator while sugars were estimated by colorimetric method suggested by AOAC. Fresh samples were used for the analysis of ascorbic acid content using 2,6-dichloro phenol indophenol dye [8]. To determine the leaf nutrient status of the plant, the third pair of leaves, recently matured were collected in June (before treatment) and January. The sample size was 25 leaves. Nitrogen was estimated by using Nesseler’s reagent colorimetric method [9], phosphorus by ammonium vanadomolybdo phosphoric acid yellow colour method and potassium by Flame photometer method [10]. The fertilizer use efficiency (FUE) was computed as described by Veeranna [11] and calculated as below.
485
Results and Discussion
irrigation provides a consistent moisture regime in the soil which might have accelerated root growth and resulted in optimum availability of nutrient and proper translocation of food materials which accelerated the fruit growth and development, consequently improved the quality characters in the fruits. The present results are supported by the finding of Shirgure et al. [13]. Among various fertigation levels, higher doses produced better quality fruits. It might be due to application of higher doses of fertilizers i.e., F2 and F3 maximized the growth of the plant and facilitated the accumulation of more carbohydrates into the fruit and during the subsequent fruit development such metabolites (starch) hydrolyzed into sugar that increased the TSS and decreased the acidity (Hulme, 1970). The results are supported by the finding of Rai et al. [14]. They reported that application of N and P (220 g/tree/year) significantly influenced TSS while ascorbic acid content was significantly affected by potassium and acidity were significantly influenced by phosphorus in litchi fruit and Ingle et al. [15] reported that maximum ascorbic acid content in the acid lime fruit was obtained under 100 % RDF (600 N ? 300 K g/plant). The interaction effect between fertigation and irrigation levels were found non-significant for chemical characteristics (TSS, acidity, ascorbic acid, total sugar). However, level I2F2 (75 % irrigation of IW/CPE ? 45, 20, 20 g NPK/plant/year) recorded better quality fruits. The results obtained are in accordance with the findings of Ahmad et al. [16]. Thakur and Singh [17] recorded the highest total soluble solids and reducing sugar with 100 % of recommended dose through fertigation and maximum acidity was observed under control (surface irrigation ? recommended dose) and the minimum value was recorded with 50 % of the recommended dose through fertigation in mango cv. Amrapali.
Quality Characteristics
Leaf Nutrient Status
The maximum TSS (14.108B), ascorbic acid (241.50 mg/ 100 g pulp), total sugar (9.81 %) and minimum acidity (0.32 %) was recorded in the fruits obtained under I2 (75 % irrigation of IW/CPE) as compared to basin irrigation [I0 (13.43 %, 234.83 mg/100 g pulp, 9.55 % and maximum acidity 0.35 %)]. Under fertigation levels maximum TSS (14.10 8B), ascorbic acid (241.92 mg/100 g pulp), total sugar (9.83 %) and minimum acidity (0.32 %) was recorded in F2 (45, 20, 20 g NPK/plant/year water soluble fertilizers) as compared to minimum in basal application (13.43 %, 233.96 mg/100 g pulp, 9.58 % and maximum acidity 0.35 %). The interaction effect of irrigation and fertigation levels was non-significant. Application of drip irrigation during experimentation effectively improved all quality components because drip
The different irrigation levels significantly affected nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium content of the leaves. Maximum total nitrogen (1.89 %) and potassium (1.27 %) content was recorded under treatment I2 (75 % irrigation of IW/CPE). However, maximum total phosphorus (0.264 %) was recorded in I3 (100 % irrigation of IW/CPE) as compared to minimum in basin irrigation I0 (1.81 %, 0.229 % and 1.21 %, respectively). Further, under fertigation levels F3 (60, 30, 30 g NPK/plant/year WSF) resulted in maximum total NPK (1.90 %, 0.256 % and 1.27 %, respectively) and minimum in F1 (30, 10, 10 g NPK/plant/year WSF). However, the interaction of irrigation and fertigation levels was found non-significant. Drip irrigation at frequent intervals provides a consistent moisture regime in the soil and therefore, roots remain
FUE ¼
Yield ðkg=haÞ : Total quantity of nutrient applied ðkg=haÞ
The relative economics of drip and different fertigation levels along with man power required for the irrigation, fertigation and weeding on the basis of cost of treatment on plot basis and converted into fruit yield/plant as well as per hectare. The net income was obtained by subtracting the treatment cost from gross income. It was expressed on net excess income over the control. Statistical Analysis The data obtained on various characters were subjected to factorial randomized block design analysis and interpretation of the data was carried out in accordance to Panse and Sukhatme [12]. ‘F-Test Analysis of Variance’ was used for statistical calculation and data were compared with ‘Duncans multiple range comparision’.
123
486
active for a longer period. The proper and continuous moisture in the soil also increased the availability of nutrients and translocation of food material which accelerates the vegetative growth of plants. Hegde and Srinivas [18] observed that banana plants under drip irrigation had increased nitrogen and potassium uptake. Optimum water content in the root zone may reduce the variations in nutrient concentration, thereby increasing their availability to plants and reducing their leaching beneath the root zone. Rana et al. [19] observed leaf N, P and K content of peach influenced with different drip irrigation levels with discharge rate of 1, 2 and 3 l per day and found that higher irrigation levels increased the nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium content of leaves. Leaf nutrient content (N, P, K, Ca and Mg) was maximum in alternate day drip irrigation and minimum under conventional method in aonla [20]. Koo [21] reported that fertigation increases the leaf nitrogen in orange. Shirgure et al. [22] reported that the per cent increase in leaf nitrogen content was more in case of 80 % nitrogen fertigation followed by 100 % nitrogen fertigation in acid lime plant. Similar results had been reported by Hegde and Srinivas [18] in banana. Leaf nitrogen was significantly lower only in the lowest nitrogen fertigation treatment in Starking Delicious apple tree treated with four nitrogen fertigation treatments in drip irrigation [23]. Chauhan and Chandel [24] tried four fertigation treatments in kiwifruit and found that leaf nutrient content (N, P, K) were significantly higher under fertigation with recommended dose of N, P, K. However, they did not try higher dose of N, P and K than recommended dose of N, P and K. Table 1. Fruit Yield The 2 year pooled data presented in Table 2 reveals that irrigation, fertigation level and their interaction resulted significant increase in the fruit yield/plant and per hectare. Among various level of irrigation maximum fruit yield was recorded in I2 (75 % irrigation of IW/CPE) (29.33 t/ha). Further, under fertigation level maximum fruit yield (30.04 t/ha) was obtained in F3 (60, 30, 30 g NPK WSF) which was at par with F2. Interaction of irrigation and fertigation resulted maximum fruit yield in I3F3 (100 % irrigation of IW/CPE ? 60, 30, 30 g NPK water soluble fertilizers) 6.59 kg/plant and 32.97 t/ha followed by in I2F2 (75 % irrigation of IW/CPE ? 45, 20, 20 g NPK water soluble fertilizers) 32.79 t/ha and minimum 25.00 t/ha in I1F0 (50 % irrigation of IW/CPE ? basal application of fertilizers). The results are in conformity with the findings of Biswas et al. [25] obtained higher yields (36.2–40.2 t/ha) from drip-irrigated plots at an IW:CPE ratio of 0.8 compared with those irrigated using a conventional system (31.2 t/ha)
123
Ramniwas et al. Table 1 Effect of drip fertigation levels and their interaction on TSS, acidity, ascorbic acid and total sugar of guava Treatment
TSS (%)
I0
13.43b
0.35a
I1
b
a
I2 I3
Acidity (%)
13.50
0.34
a
b
14.10 13.83a
0.32 0.32b
Ascorbic acid (mg/100 g)
Total sugar (%)
234.83c
9.55b
236.67
c,b
9.66b
a
9.81a 9.80a 0.038
241.50 240.29a,b
SEm?
0.083
0.004
1.103
CD at 5 %
0.234
0.010
3.119
0.106
Pr [ F
0.0001
0.0002
0.0171
0.0024
F0
13.43b
35.00a
233.96b
9.58b
F1
13.53b
33.00a,b
235.58b
9.62b
F2
a
241.92
a
9.83a
241.83
a
9.79a 0.038
F3
14.05
a
13.85
b
32.00
b
32.00
SEm?
0.083
0.004
1.103
CD at 5 %
0.234
0.010
3.119
0.106
Pr [ F
0.0003
0.0026
0.0010
0.0028
I0 (basin irrigation), I1 50 % irrigation of IW/CPE, I2 75 % irrigation of IW/CPE, I3 100 % irrigation of IW/CPE, F0 60, 20, 40 g NPK/ plant/year (basal dose), F1 30, 10, 10 g NPK/plant/year, F2 45, 20, 20 g NPK/plant/year, F3 60, 30, 30 g NPK/plant/year. Means with the same letter (a and b) are not significantly different (Duncan grouping)
in papaya. Patil and Patil [26] observed that guava fruit yield was highest (226.31 kg/tree) when irrigated at an IW: CPE ratio of 0.8 and Singh et al. [27] revealed that 164 per cent greater yield in case of drip (VD) as compared to that of ring basin irrigation (VRB) in guava. The treatment drip (VD) showed the highest (37.70 t/ha) yield and lowest yield (14.90 t/ha) was observed in ring basin (VRB) irrigation method. Patel and Patel [28] reported that the increase in yield was mainly because of better growth of the plant under optimum amount of nutrients in pomegranate crop. Firake and Kumbhar [29] yield obtained upon treatment with 100 % NPK RRSSF ? DI was significantly higher than 100 % NPK RRCF ? DI (11.88 vs. 9.54 t/ha) and was at par with 70 % N, 80 % P and K ? DI and 70 % NPK ? DI (11.27 and 10.81 t/ha, respectively) in pomegranate. Fertilizer use Efficiency Maximum FUE (69.57 kg/ha) was observed with treatment I2 (75 % irrigation of IW/CPE) and minimum (62.89 kg/ha) in I1 (50 % irrigation of IW/CPE) which was at par with I0 basin irrigation. Further, under fertigation levels the highest FUE of (101.97 kg/ha) was obtained with the treatment F1 (30, 10, 10 g NPK water soluble fertilizer) as compared to minimum (42.66 kg/ha) in F0 (basal dose of fertilizers application). The combination of irrigation and fertigation levels obtained maximum FUE (103.23 kg/ha)
Effect of Drip Fertigation Scheduling on Fertilizer Use Efficiency
487
Table 2 Effect of drip fertigation levels and their interaction on leaf NPK content, fruit yield, FUE and net returns in guava.Treatment Total N (%) I0
1.81a
Total P (%)
Total K (%)
Yield (tones/ha)
FUE (kg/ha)
Net return (Rs.)
0.229c
1.21b
26.47b
63.53b
1,76,961.53b
c
1.22
b
b
b
1,79,511.76b
0.254
1.27
a
29.33
a
69.57
2,12,372.17a 2,09,922.17a
1.85
a,b
I2
1.89
a
I3
1.87a
0.264a
1.27a
29.09a
68.84a
SEm?
0.012
0.002
0.007
0.384
0.777
3,839.75
CD at 5 %
0.035
0.006
0.018
1.086
2.197
10,862.06
I1
Pr [ F
0.233
b
26.05
a
62.89
\0.0001
\0.0001
\0.0001
\0.0001
F0
1.85c,b
0.233b
1.24b–c
25.60b
42.66d
1,81,994.24b
F1
1.81c
0.237b
1.22c
25.49b
101.97a
1,79,359.24b
a
b
2,12,550.62a
c
50.06 0.777
2,04,863.53a 3,839.75 10,862.06
F2 F3 SEm?
0.0074
1.88
a,b a
1.90 0.012
a
0.253
a
0.256 0.002
1.25
a,b a
1.27 0.007
29.81
a
30.04 0.384
70.14
CD at 5 %
0.035
0.006
0.018
1.086
2.197
Pr [ F
0.0011
\0.0001
0.0005
\0.0001
\0.0001
I0F0 I0F1 I0F2 I0F3
1.82 1.76 1.83 1.85
0.221 0.225 0.233 0.235
1.23 1.18 1.21 1.22
b
25.41
b
25.24
b
27.39
b
27.83
1,75,095.63b
a
1,71,741.88b
c
1,83,316.59b
e
1,77,692.00b
f
64.45 46.38
I1F0
1.85
0.225
1.21
25.00
41.67
1,77,710.44b
I1F1
1.81
0.226
1.20
25.44b
101.75a
1,80,481.70b
1.23
b
c
1,86,573.07b
e
1,73,281.81b
e
1,88,618.78b
a
1,84,181.70b
I1F2 I1F3 I2F0
1.86 1.90 1.86
0.240 0.242 0.239
1.25 1.26
b
\0.0001
f
42.36 100.95
\0.0001
27.04
b
26.71
b
26.09
b
63.63 44.51 43.48
I2F1
1.84
0.244
1.24
25.81
I2F2
1.91
0.264
1.28
32.79a
77.16b
2,44,073.07a
1.31
a
d
2,32,615.15a
I2F3
1.93
0.268
32.64
103.23
54.40
I3F0 I3F1
1.85 1.83
0.249 0.252
1.25 1.24
25.88 25.49b
43.14 101.97a
1,86,552.11b 1,81,031.70b
I3F2
1.90
0.275
1.27
32.01a
75.31b
2,36,239.74a
1.30
a
d
2,35,865.15a
I3F3 SEm? CD at 5 % Pr [ F
1.91 0.025 NS 0.9962
0.279 0.004 NS 0.7369
0.013 NS 0.7382
b
e
32.97
54.94
0.768
1.554
2.172
4.395
0.0142
0.0210
7,679.493 21,724.12 0.0142
I0 (basin irrigation), I150 % irrigation of IW/CPE, I275 % irrigation of IW/CPE, I3100 % irrigation of IW/CPE, F0 60, 20, 40 g NPK/plant/year (basal dose), F1 30, 10, 10 g NPK/plant/year, F2 45, 20, 20 g NPK/plant/year, F3 60, 30, 30 g NPK/plant/year. Means with the same letter (a, b, c and d) are not significantly different (Duncan grouping)
in the treatment I2F1 (75 % irrigation of IW/CPE ? 30, 10, 10 g NPK water soluble fertilizer) which was at par with I3F1 (101.97 kg/ha), I1F1 (101.75 kg/ha) and I0F1 (100.95 kg/ha) as compared to lowest FUE (41.67 kg/ha) was recorded in (I1F0) which was at par with I0F0, I2F0 and I3F0. The lower fertilizer use efficiency in surface method of irrigation might be due to non-uniform distribution and inadequate availability of nutrients and moisture in the root zone of a crop which is responsible for lower uptake of nutrients. The increase in fertilizer use efficiency in F1 may be attributed to the reduction in quantity of fertilizer added
in these treatments. The lowest FUE was recorded from the basal method application of fertilization was due to low efficient use of fertilizers by the plant which resulted in lower fruit yield of guava. These results are more or less similar to those reported by Sharma et al. [30] in grape and Kumar et al. [31] in banana. Relative Economics Net return was significantly affected by irrigation, fertigation and their interaction (Table 2). The irrigation level I2 (75 % irrigation of IW/CPE) recorded maximum net
123
488
return Rs. 2,12,372.17 as compared to I0 (basin irrigation) Rs.1,76,961.53. Under fertigation level F2 (45, 20, 20 g NPK/plant/year WSF) recorded maximum net return Rs. 2,12,550.62. Further interaction reveals that maximum net return (Rs. 2,44,073.07) in I2F2 (75 % irrigation of IW/ CPE ? 45, 20, 20 g NPK/plant/year WSF) followed by in I3F2 (Rs. 2,36,239.74) as compared to minimum in I0F3 (Rs. 1,71,741.88). However, under fertigation level water soluble fertilizers are given through drip are more expensive but the results are encouraging. Nevertheless, basal dose of N, P and K could be given through drip in the form of urea, single super phosphate and muriate of potash which is less expensive compared to the water soluble fertilizers used under the study. In turn, this may further increase the magnitude of net profit. Therefore, research on this line is called for. To sum up, for a grown up guava plants var. Shweta, the 75 per cent fertigation (45, 20, 20 g NPK/plant/year) water soluble fertilizer through drip may be recommended for more profitable yield without affecting fruit quality. The 75 % irrigation with alternate day drip was found optimum.
References 1. Singh G, Mishra AK, Hareeb M, Tandon DK, Pathak RK (2003) The guava extension bulletin. CISH, Lucknow 17:1 2. Salvin S, Baruah K, Bordoloi SK (2000) Drip irrigation studies in banana cv. Barjahaji (Musa AAA group, Cavendish sub-group). Crop Res 20:489–493 3. Bharambe PR, Mungal MS, Shelke DK, Oza SR, Vaishnava VG, Sondge VD (2001) Effect of soil moisture regimes with drip on spatial distribution of moisture, salts, nutrient availability and water use efficiency of banana. J Indian Soc Soil Sci 49:658–665 4. Agrawal N, Agrawal S (2007) Effect of different levels of drip irrigation on the growth and yield of pomegranate under Chhattisgarh region. Orissa J Hortic 35:38–46 5. Singh P, Singh AK, Sahu K (2006) Irrigation and fertigation of pomegranate cv. Ganesh in Chhattisgarh. Ind J Hortic 63: 148–151 6. Kumar A, Singh RK, Sinha AK, Singh HK, Mishra AP (2007) Effect of fertigation on banana through drip irrigation in North Bihar. J Res Birsa Agric Univ 19:81–86 7. Sharma S, Patra SK, Ray R (2011) Effect of drip fertigation on growth and yield of guava cv. Khaja. Environ Ecol 29:34–38 8. AOAC (1990) In: Offical methods of analysis. Association of official Agricultural Chemist. Benjamin Franklin Station, Washington, DC 9. Linder RC (1944) Rapid analytic methods for some of the more common substances of plant and soil. Plant Physiol 19:76–84 10. Richards LA (1968) In: Diagnosis and improvement of saline and alkaline soils. Oxford and IHB publishing Co., New Delhi 11. Veeranna HK (2000) Effect of fertigation, irrigation and potassium levels on the productivity of chilli (Capsicum annuum L.). Ph. D. Thesis, University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore
123
Ramniwas et al. 12. Panse VG, Sukhatme PV (1985) In: Statistical methods for Agriculture workers. ICAR, New Delhi, pp 145–155 13. Shirgure PS, Srivastava AK, Singh S, Pimpale AR (2004) Drip irrigation scheduling, growth, yield and quality of acid lime (Citrus aurantifolia). Indian J Agric Sci 74:92–94 14. Rai M, Dey P, Gangopadhyay KK, Das B, Nath V, Reddy NN, Singh HP (2002) Influence of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium on growth parameters, leaf nutrient composition and yield of litchi (Litchi chinensis). Indian J Agric Sci 72:267–270 15. Ingle HV, Ingle SH, Ghive D (2006) Fertigation studies in acid lime. Annals Plant Physiol 20:277–278 16. Ahmad MF, Samanta A, Jabeen A (2010) Response of sweet cherry (Prunus avium) to fertigation of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium under Kerawa land of Kashmir valley. Indian J Agric Sci 80:512–516 17. Thakur SK, Singh P (2004) Studies on fertigation of mango cv. Amrapali. Annals Agric Res 25:415–417 18. Hegde DM, Srinivas K (1991) Growth, yield and nutrient uptake and water use of banana crops under drip and basin irrigation with N and K fertilization. Tropical Agric 68:331–334 19. Rana GS, Sehrawat SK, Daulta SK, Beniwal BS (2005) Effect of drip irrigation and rootstocks on N, P and K leaf content in peach under high density plantation. Acta Hortic 696:223–226 20. Shukla AK, Pathak RK, Tiwari RP, Nath V (2001) Influence of irrigation and mulching on plant growth and leaf nutrient status of aonla (Emblica officinalis G.) under sodic soil. J Applied Hortic 2:37–38 21. Koo RCJ (1984) The important of ground coverage by fertigation for citrus on sandy soils. J Fertilizer Issues 1:75–78 22. Shirgure PS, Lallan R, Marathe RA, Yadav RP (1997) Effect of nitrogen fertigation on vegetative growth and leaf nitrogen content of acid lime (Citrus aurantifolia, Swingle). In: National Symposium on Citriculture, November 17–19, 1997, National Research Centre for Citrus, Nagpur, India 23. Klein I, Levin I, Bar-Yosef B, Assaf R, Berkovitz A (1989) Drip nitrogen fertigation of Starking Delicious apple trees. Plant Soil 119:305–314 24. Chauhan N, Chandel JS (2008) Effect of fertigation on growth, yield, fruit quality and fertilizer use efficiency of kiwifruit (Actinidia deliciosa). Indian J Agric Sci 78:389–393 25. Biswas RK, Rana SK, Mallick S (1999) Performance of drip irrigation in papaya cultivation in new alluvium agro-climatic zone of West Bengal. Annals Agric Res 20:116–117 26. Patil PV, Patil VK (1999) Influence of different soil water regimes on root distribution in guava. J Maharashtra Agric Univ 24:45–47 27. Singh BK, Tiwari KN, Chourasia SK, Mandal S (2007) Crop water requirement of guava (Psidium guajava L.) cv. KG/KAJI under drip irrigation and plastic mulch. Acta Hortic 735:399–405 28. Patel NM, Patel MM (1998) Water requirement of pomegranate (Punica granatum L.) cv. Ganesh for better yield under resource limited situations. National seminar on new horizons in production and post-harvest management of tropical and subtropical fruits, Delhi, Dec 8–9 29. Firake NN, Kumbhar DB (2002) Effect of different levels of N, P and K fertigation on yield and quality of pomegranate. J Maharashtra Agric Univ 27:146–148 30. Sharma J, Upadhyay AK, Shikhamany SD, Singh RK (2008) Effect of fertilizer application through irrigation water on Thompson seedless grape yield and fertilizer use efficiency. Acta Hortic 785:399–408 31. Kumar A, Kumar A, Singh HK, Kumari N, Kumar P (2009) Effect of fertigation on banana biometric characteristics and fertilizer use efficiency. J Agric Engng 46:27–31
