LR-3851 [1-6]
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH COMMUNICATION CENTRE
Legume Research,
www.arccjournals.com/www.legumeresearch.in
Print ISSN:0250-5371 / Online ISSN:0976-0571
Improving productivity of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) under drip and micro sprinkler fertigation system Jeetendra Kumar Soni*, N. Asoka Raja and Vimal Kumar1 Department of Agronomy, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore-641003, Tamil Nadu, India. Received: 11-02-2017 Accepted: 11-08-2017
DOI: 10.18805/LR-3851
ABSTRACT A field investigation was carried out in farmer’s field at Pudhupalayam, TNAU, Coimbatore, during 2015, to improve the productivity of groundnut variety TMV 13 under drip and micro sprinkler fertigation system. The experiment was laid out in randomized block design (RBD) with three replications comprising of 11 treatments. Results indicated that maximum pod yield (3495 kg ha-1), haulm yield (6452 kg ha-1), harvest index (0.351) and shelling per cent (73.95 per cent) were obtained with drip irrigation at 100% PE with fertigation at 100% RDF as WSF (T1). The water saving achieved under drip irrigation was 40.08% and 55.06% at 100% and 75% PE, respectively, whereas, under micro-sprinkler, it was 25.10% and 43.83% at 100% and 75% PE, respectively over surface irrigation. Higher WUE of 19.28 kg/ha-mm recorded under drip irrigation at 75% PE with fertigation at 100% RDF as WSF (T2) followed by drip irrigation at 100% PE with fertigation at 100% RDF as WSF (T1: 15.88 kg/ha-mm). Highest NUE (23.30 kg kg-1 NPK ha-1) was recorded in drip irrigation at 100% PE with fertigation at 100% RDF as WSF (T1). Drip irrigation at 100% PE with fertigation at 100% RDF as WSF (T 1) recorded higher gross return (Rs. 254353 ha-1) and net return (Rs.134712 ha-1). Whereas, the benefit cost ratio was highest in micro sprinkler at 100% PE with fertigation at 100% RDF as WSF (T6: 2.41). The margin benefit cost ratio (MBCR) was recorded highest under micro sprinkler at 100% PE with fertigation at 100% RDF as WSF (T6: 2.53) as compared to all other treatments. Key words: Drip and micro sprinkler fertigation, Groundnut, NUE, Water saving, WUE, Yield INTRODUCTION Groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) is “king of oilseeds” as it is the world’s third most important source of vegetable protein and fourth most important source of edible oil belongs to the family Leguminosae. In India, it occupied an area of 4.59 m ha, having an annual production of 6.73million tonnes with an average productivity of 1465 kg ha-1, in Tamil Nadu it occupied an area of 0.34 m ha, with annual production of 0.92 million tonnes having the average productivity of 2753 kg ha-1 (Anonymous, 2017). It contains nearly 50 per cent oil, 25-30 per cent protein, 20 per cent carbohydrate and 5 per cent fibre and ash which make a substantial contribution to human nutrition (El-Habbasha, 2014).Water and fertilizer are the two basic inputs in irrigated agriculture, while the former is less costly than the later at present. The time is not too far off when water becomes scarce and costlier due to increased industrialisation, intensive agriculture and climate change.The irrigation can give maximum benefits to the crop only if the supply of nutrients during plant growth is maintained in the soil and vice-versa is also true. Development of appropriate watermanagement technologies to maximize the crop productivity
per drop of water is the need of the hour. The use of micro irrigation (drip and micro sprinkler system) offers a great degree of control over water and fertilizer application (fertigation) to meet the requirement of crops (Shivanand et al., 2012). Thus irrigation scheduling by micro irrigation systems are usually based on water requirement of the crop to maintain favourable soil water content in the root zone, for precise application of water soluble fertilizers and other agricultural chemicals. That helps to achieve yield gains up to 100 per cent, water savings up to 40 to 80 per cent, and associated fertilizer, pesticide and labour savings over conventional irrigation systems (Jain and Meena, 2015). With the clear vision of above these facts, the present investigation was conducted to improve the productivity of groundnut variety TMV 13 under drip and micro sprinkler fertigation system. MATERIALS AND METHODS A field experiment was conducted in farmer’s field at Pudhupalayam at Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, India during 2015. The texture of soil was sandy clay loam with slightly alkaline in pH (7.24), low organic
*Corresponding author’s e-mail:
[email protected] 1 Department of Agro Climate Research Centre, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore 641003, Tamil Nadu India.
2
LEGUME RESEARCH An International Journal
carbon (0.23 per cent), medium available N (305 kg ha-1), available P2O5 (20.12 kg ha-1) and available K2O (169.27 kg ha-1). Total rainfall of 4.3 mm was received during the cropping period. The daily mean maximum and minimum temperatures were 32.7°C and 21.3°C, respectively with mean pan evaporation per day was 5.6 mm, having the average relative humidity of 60.8 % during the cropping period. The experiment was laid out with groundnut variety TMV13 in a randomized block design (RBD) and replicated thrice that comprised 11 treatments viz., T1-DI at 100% PE + fertigation at 100% RDF with WSF T2- DI at 75% PE + fertigation at 100% RDF with WSF T3- DI at 100% PE + fertigation at 75% RDF with WSF T4- DI at 75% PE + fertigation at 75% RDF with WSF T5- DI at 100% PE + fertigation at 100% RDF with NF T6- Micro sprinkler at 100% PE + fertigation at 100% RDF with WSF T7- Micro sprinkler at 75% PE + fertigation at 100% RDF with WSF T8- Micro sprinkler at 100% PE + fertigation at 75% RDF with WSF T9- Micro sprinkler at 75% PE + fertigation at 75% RDF with WSF T10- Micro sprinkler at 100% PE + fertigation at 100% RDF with NF T11- Surface irrigation (5 cm depth) + soil application at 100% RDF with NF (Note- DI: Drip irrigation, PE: Pan Evaporation, RDF: Recommended dose of fertilizers, WSF: Water soluble fertilizers, NF: Normal fertilizers) The field was uniformly levelled and formed raised bed of 120 cm bed width and 30 cm furrow width for drip irrigation treatments, 360 cm bed width with 30 cm furrow
for micro sprinkler treatments and check basin was formed for control plot with row spacing of 30 x 10 cm was maintained, with bed size 28.8 m2 (drip: 24 x 1.2 m, micro sprinkler: 8 x 3.6 m) Figure 1, so as to have uniform population. The recommended dose of fertilizer (RDF) at 25: 50: 75 kg NPK ha-1 was applied. Drip and micro sprinkler irrigation was scheduled based on daily pan evaporation (PE) and fertigation on the basis of nutrient uptake pattern at different growth stage of groundnut as suggested by Loganathan and Krishnamoorthy (1977), at once in three days interval and the volume of irrigation water was calculated by using following formula: Volume of irrigation (V) = 3 days CPE × Kp × Kc × Area(m2) × Wp - ER Where, CPE - Cumulative pan evaporation for three days (mm); Kp - Pan factor (0.8); Kc - Crop coefficient; Wp - Wetted percentage (80%) for drip; 100% for micro sprinkler (As over lapping was 100%); Area - 28.8 m2; ER - Effective rainfall The surface irrigation was given at 0.8 IW/CPE ratio with 5 cm depth of water. The required quantity of water soluble fertilizers (WSF) viz., N, P2O5 and K2O were applied as urea (46:0:0), all 19 (19:19:19), MAP (12:61:0) and SOP (0:0:52) and normal fertilizers (NF) as urea, MAP and MOP (0:0:60) were used under drip and micro sprinkler whereas, for surface application urea, MOP and SSP (0:16:0) were used. Drip laterals of 16 mm outer diameter (OD) having 40 cm emitter spacing was fixed in the sub mains with a lateral spacing of 60 cm having two laterals per bed with a discharge rate of 4 lph at 1 kg cm-2, for irrigating 4 rows of crops whereas, under micro sprinkler system plane laterals of 16 mm OD was fixed in the sub mains with a lateral spacing of 3.2 m having one plane lateral per bed irrigating 12 rows of crops. On along the laterals, micro sprinkler had spaced at
Fig-1: Drip and micro sprinkler layout along with crop arrangement in individual plot
Vol. Issue , () Table 1: Pod yield, haulm yield, harvest index and shelling per cent as influenced by drip and micro sprinkler fertigation in groundnut Treatments Pod yield Haulm yield Harvest index Shelling (kg ha-1) (kg ha-1) per cent T1 DI at 100% PE + fertigation at 100% RDF with WSF 3495 6452 0.351 73.95 T2 DI at 75% PE + fertigation at 100% RDF with WSF 3183 5938 0.349 71.02 T3 DI at 100% PE + fertigation at 75% RDF with WSF 2611 5420 0.325 67.95 T4 DI at 75% PE + fertigation at 75% RDF with WSF 2292 4731 0.326 63.23 T5 DI at 100% PE + fertigation at 100% RDF with NF 2558 5354 0.323 66.89 T6 MS at 100% PE + fertigation at 100% RDF with WSF 2922 5596 0.343 68.32 T7 MS at 75% PE + fertigation at 100% RDF with WSF 2501 5260 0.322 65.00 T8 MS at 100% PE + fertigation at 75% RDF with WSF 2438 5094 0.324 64.85 T9 MS at 75% PE + fertigation at 75% RDF with WSF 2014 4598 0.305 62.13 T10 MS at 100% PE + fertigation at 100% RDF with NF 2311 4922 0.320 64.08 T11 SI (5 cm depth) + soil application at 100% RDF with NF 1902 4406 0.302 61.90 CD (P=0.5) 290 474 0.020 5.89 DI - Drip Irrigation, MS- micro sprinkler, WSF- Water soluble fertilizers, NF- Normal fertilizers, SI-Surface irrigation. Table 2: Water used, water saving, water and nutrient use efficiency in groundnut production as influenced by drip and micro sprinkler fertigation. Treatments Total water Water saving WUE(kg / NUE (kg kg-1 use (mm) over surface ha-mm) NPK ha-1) irrigation (%) T1 DI at 100% PE + fertigation at 100% RDF with WSF 220.17 40.08 15.88 23.30 T2 DI at 75% PE + fertigation at 100% RDF with WSF 165.12 55.06 19.28 21.22 T3 DI at 100% PE + fertigation at 75% RDF with WSF 220.17 40.08 11.86 23.21 T4 DI at 75% PE + fertigation at 75% RDF with WSF 165.12 55.06 13.88 20.38 T5 DI at 100% PE + fertigation at 100% RDF with NF 220.17 40.08 11.62 17.06 T6 MS at 100% PE + fertigation at 100% RDF with WSF 275.21 25.10 10.62 19.48 T7 MS at 75% PE + fertigation at 100% RDF with WSF 206.41 43.83 12.12 16.67 T8 MS at 100% PE + fertigation at 75% RDF with WSF 275.21 25.10 8.86 21.67 T9 MS at 75% PE + fertigation at 75% RDF with WSF 206.41 43.83 9.76 17.90 T10 MS at 100% PE + fertigation at 100% RDF with NF 275.21 25.10 8.40 15.41 T11 SI (5 cm depth) + soil application at 100% RDF with NF 367.44 5.18 12.68 DI - Drip Irrigation, MS- micro sprinkler, WSF- Water soluble fertilizers, NF- Normal fertilizers, SI-Surface irrigation. Data statistically not analysed
Fig-2: Quantity of water applied (lit per plant) under drip and micro sprinkler system based on cumulative crop evapotranspiration at once in three days in groundnut
Observation on yield was obtained after stripping, cleaning and drying of pods, the pod yield was recorded at 12% moisture, haulm yield was determined by subtracting pod yield from total biomass yield, harvest index by dividing the total biological yield (pod + haulm) from pod yield and the shelling per cent was determined by expressing weight of kernels as per cent of the weight of pods from which the kernels were shelled out. Total water use is calculated by the sum of irrigation water applied during crop growing period and effective rain fall. The water and nutrient use efficiency were determined by the pod yield that can be produced from a given quantity of water and nutrient applied, respectively. A well maintained micro irrigation system may have a life span of 7 years, hence for the present study, a life span of 7 years was considered for both drip and micro sprinkler for computation of annualized cost. The economics of different treatments was calculated by taking into account the various inputs required and outputs realized as per the prevailing cost of inputs and outputs during the respective years, the benefit cost ratio (BCR) was worked out by using the formula suggested by Palaniappan (1985) by dividing the total cost of cultivation from gross return and marginal benefit cost ratio (MBCR) calculated by taking the ratio of MBCR for drip=
Marginal benefit due to drip over control( ) Marginal cost due to drip over control( )
MBCR for micro sprinklet=
Marginal benefit due to micro sprinkler over control( ) Marginal cost due to sprinkler over control( )
marginal benefit to marginal cost obtained from different treatments with comparison to surface irrigation. All the data obtained were statistically analysed using the F test procedure given by Gomez and Gomez (1984). The critical difference (CD) values at P=0.05 were used for determining the significance of differences between treatment means. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Yield and harvest index: All the treatments had significant effect on pod, haulm yields, harvest index and shelling per cent of groundnut over control and the mean data pertaining to that are presented in Table 1.Significantly higher pod (3495 kg ha-1), haulm yields(6452 kg ha-1), harvest index (0.351) and shelling per cent (73.95 per cent) were obtained with drip irrigation at 100% PE with fertigation at 100% RDF as WSF (T1) over rest of the treatments, that were 83.7 per cent and 46.4 per cent,16.2 per cent and 19.5 per cent higher over the surface irrigation (T11), respectively. The increased responses are mainly attributed due to enhanced availability of water and nutrients through these systems from
1.90 1.53 0.92 0.50 0.96 2.53 1.50 1.61 0.34 1.64 -
1.5 m apart with a discharge rate of 44 lph at 1 kg cm-2 with diameter throw 3m.
MBCR
LEGUME RESEARCH An International Journal
Table 3: Economics of drip and micro sprinkler fertigation system with different levels of irrigation and fertigation in groundnut Treatments Cost of Gross return Net return B:C ratio Marginal cost Marginal cultivation (Rs. ha-1) (Rs. ha-1) (Rs. ha-1) benefit -1 (Rs.ha ) (Rs. ha-1) T1 DI at 100% PE + fertigation at 100% RDF with WSF 119641 254353 134712 2.13 60275 114598 T2 DI at 75% PE + fertigation at 100% RDF with WSF 119641 231708 112067 1.94 60275 91952 T3 DI at 100% PE + fertigation at 75% RDF with WSF 114735 190921 76185 1.66 55369 51165 T4 DI at 75% PE + fertigation at 75% RDF with WSF 114735 167570 52834 1.46 55369 27814 T5 DI at 100% PE + fertigation at 100% RDF with NF 108685 187114 78428 1.72 49319 47358 T6 Micro sprinkler at 100% PE + fertigation at 100% RDF with WSF 88250 212907 124657 2.41 28884 73152 T7 Micro sprinkler at 75% PE + fertigation at 100% RDF with WSF 88250 182967 94717 2.07 28884 43212 T8 Micro sprinkler at 100% PE + fertigation at 75% RDF with WSF 83244 178277 95033 2.14 23879 38522 T9 Micro sprinkler at 75% PE + fertigation at 75% RDF with WSF 83244 147869 64625 1.78 23879 8114 T10 Micro sprinkler at 100% PE + fertigation at 100% RDF with NF 77294 169142 91848 2.19 17929 29387 T11 Surface irrigation (5 cm depth) + soil application at 100% RDF with NF59366 139755 80389 2.35 DI - Drip Irrigation, MS- micro sprinkler, WSF- Water soluble fertilizers, NF- Normal fertilizers, SI-Surface irrigation. Data statistically not analysed
4
Vol. Issue , () the limited wetted area at regular intervals and higher solubility percentage of WSF has led to increased nutrient uptake which ultimately reflected in the yield and its parameters. These results are in conformity with Rank (2007); Vijayalakshmi et al., (2011). Water used, water saving, water and nutrient use efficiency: The total water use in drip irrigation at 100% and 75% PE was 220.17 mm and 165.12 mm respectively, while under micro sprinkler irrigation at 100% and 75% PE water requirement was 275.21 mm and 206.41 mm, respectively. Whereas, under surface irrigation, it was 367.44 mm (Table 2). Thus, the water saving achieved under drip irrigation was 40.08% and 55.06% at 100% and 75% PE, respectively. Compared to drip the water saving still lower under micro sprinkler with 25.10% and 43.83% at 100% and 75% PE, respectively over surface irrigation. The total water use was more under surface irrigation method compared to drip and micro sprinkler irrigation system, the quantity of water applied (lit per plant) under drip and micro sprinkler system based on cumulative crop evapotranspiration at once in three days depicted in Figure 2. The high requirement of total water under surface irrigation was mainly due to the loss of water through conveyance, seepage, percolation and high evaporation. Whereas with the introduction of drip and micro sprinkler to irrigate the crop, the water was applied based on evapotranspiration demand of the crop that to low application rate at frequent intervals matching the actual crop water needs at various crop growth stages. Under drip irrigation, only a portion of the soil surface around the crop was wetted, which resulted in reduced water requirement. Compared to drip irrigation, the water requirement under micro sprinkler was higher mainly due to evaporative losses after the spray and larger wetted area due to area irrigation. These were in conformity with findings of Krishnamurthi et al., 2003; El- Boraie et al. (2009). Increased WUE and NUE were registered with drip and micro sprinkler irrigation over to surface irrigation (Table 2). Higher WUE of 19.28 kg/ha-mm recorded under drip irrigation at 75% PE with fertigation at 100% RDF as WSF (T2) followed by drip irrigation at 100% PE with fertigation at 100% RDF as WSF (T1: 15.88 kg/ha-mm). Higher NUE (23.30 kg kg-1 NPK ha-1) was recorded in drip irrigation at 100% PE with fertigation at 100% RDF as WSF (T1) which
was statistically at par with drip irrigation at 100% PE with fertigation at 75% RDF as WSF(T3: 23.21 kg kg-1 NPK ha1 ). Surface irrigation (5 cm depth) at 0.8 IW/ CPE ratio with soil application at 100% RDF as NF (T 11) recorded significantly lowest WUE and NUE among all the treatments. The increase in WUE in drip irrigated treatments over micro sprinkler followed by surface irrigation was mainly due to a considerable saving of irrigation water, a greater increase in pod yield of the crop (Mathukia et al. 2014). The increased nutrient use efficiency with decrease in the nutrient requirements was due to more efficient utilization under drip and micro sprinkler system. Also, water soluble fertilizers have given higher nutrient use efficiency as compared to normal fertilizers with irrigation. This was attributed to the better availability of moisture and nutrients throughout growth stages in drip and micro sprinkler systems leading to better uptake of nutrients, production of dry matter and in turn economic yield as reported by Gupta et al. (2010). Economics: The economic analysis of the irrigation methods (Table 3) revealed that the cost of cultivation under drip irrigation with 100% RDF as WSF was higher (T1 and T2) than any other system. However, drip irrigation at100% PE with fertigation at 100% RDF as WSF (T1) recorded higher gross return (Rs.254353 ha-1) and net return (Rs.134712 ha-1). Whereas, the benefit cost ratio was highest in micro sprinkler at 100% PE with fertigation at 100% RDF as WSF (T6: 2.41). The margin benefit cost ratio (MBCR) was recorded highest under micro sprinkler at 100% PE with fertigation at 100% RDF as WSF (T6: 2.53) followed by drip irrigation at 100% PE with fertigation at 100% RDF as WSF (T1: 1.90) and micro sprinkler at 75% PE with 75% RDF as NF (T 9) recorded least 0.34 among all treatments. In drip and micro sprinkler fertigation recorded with higher gross and net income over the surface irrigation. Whereas, sometimes low B: C ratio under drip and micro sprinkler due to high initial investment cost. Considering gross B: C ratio, though these systems have recorded relatively lower B: C ratio in the first year compared to surface irrigation, longer life of these systems up to 7 years would result in higher water saving, additional area coverage and shorter payback period (2nd or 3rd year of investment) are the ultimate benefits that could be realised by farmers adopting these system in groundnut (Sameerkumar et al., 2016; Srijita Paul et al., 2016).
REFERENCES Anonymous. (2017). Area, production and productivity of groundnut in India and Tamil Nadu. https://www.indiastat.com/table/ agriculture/2/groundnut/19575/40535/data.aspx. El- Boraie, F.M., Abo-El-Ela, H.K. and Gaber, A.M. (2009). Water requirements of peanut grown in sandy soil under drip irrigation and biofertilization. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 3(1): 55-65. El-Habbasha, S.F., Okasha, E.M., Abdelraouf, R.E. and Mohammed, A.S.H. (2014). Effect of pressured irrigation systems, deficit irrigation and fertigation rates on yield, quality and water use efficiency of groundnut. International Journal of Chemical Technology Research, 07(01): 475-487. Gomez, K.A. and Gomez, A.A. (1984). Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research, 2nd Edn. John Wiley Sons, New York. Pp. 680. Gupta, A.J., Feza Ahmad, M. and Bhat, F.N. (2010). Studies on yield, quality, water and fertilizer use efficiency of capsicum under drip irrigation and fertigation. Indian Journal of Horticulture, 67(2): 213-218.
6
LEGUME RESEARCH An International Journal
Jain, N.K. and Meena, H.N. (2015). Improving productivity of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) by using water soluble fertilizer through drip irrigation. Indian Journal of Agronomy, 60(1): 109-115. Krishnamurthi, V.V., Manickasundaram, P., Vaiyapuri, K. and Gnanamurthy, P. (2003). Microsprinkler - A boon for groundnut crop, Agricultural Research Station, Bhavanisagar. Madras Agricultural Journal, 90(1-3): 57-59. Loganathan, S. and Krishnamoorthy, K.K. (1977). Total uptake of nutrients at different stages of the growth of groundnut and the ratios in which various nutrient elements exist in groundnut plant. Plant and Soil, 46: 565-570. Mathukia, R.K., Sagarka, B.K. and Davaria, R.L. (2014). Evaluation of micro-Irrigation, fertigation and weed management in summer groundnut. Innovare Journal of Agriculture Science, 2(2): 1-2. Palaniappan, S.P. (1985). Cropping Systems in the Tropics - Principles and Management, Wiley Eastern Ltd., New Delhi, p. 215. Rank, H.D. (2007). Summer groundnut crop performance and economics under micro sprinkler irrigation at various water application levels. Legume Research, 30(4): 261-265. Sameerkumar, D., Jayadeva, H.M., Jagadish, Chandrakant and Siddappa. (2016) Effect of micro sprinkler fertigation on yield, nutrient uptake, nutrient use efficiency and economics of groundnut. Advances in Life Sciences, 5(8): 3421-3425. Shivanand, H.K., Santosh, D.T., Madhusudhan, M.S. and Anilkumar Mane. (2012). Effect of micro irrigation on growth and yield of tomato under clay loam soil. Indian Journal of Horticulture, 2(3-4): 60-64. Srijita Paul, Mudalagiriyappa, Ramachandrappa, B.K., Nagaraju and Basavaraja, P.K. (2016). Influence of water soluble and normal fertilizers on yield, nutrient uptake and economics of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Green Farming, 7(2): 397-400. Vijayalakshmi, R., Veerabadran, V., Shanmugasundram, K. and Kumar, V. (2011). Micro-sprinkler irrigation and fustigation and land configuration as a best management technology package for groundnut. In: 8 th International Micro Irrigation Congress Innovation in Technology and Management of Micro-irrigation for Crop Production Enhancement 21 October 2011, Tehran, Iran, Pp: 200-207.
