trickle irrigation management for tomato crop under

TRICKLE IRRIGATION MANAGEMENT FOR TOMATO CROP UNDER DEFICIT IRRIGATION CONDITIONS By

ASSIM NASSER DARRAJ AL MANSOR B. Sc. Agric. Sc. (Agricultural Mechanization), Basra University, 1994.

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCES in Agricultural Science (On-Farm Irrigation and Drainage Engineering)

Department of Agricultural Engineering Faculty of Agriculture Ain Shams University

2015

Approval Sheet



This Thesis for Master degree has been approved by: Dr. Gamal Hassan El-Sayed …………….……………….. Emeritus Chief Researcher, Agricultural Engineering Research Institute, Agricultural Research Centre. Dr. Ahmed Abou-El Hassan Abdel-Aziz …………......………….….. Prof. of Agricultural Engineering, Faculty of Agriculture, Ain Shams University. Dr. Mahmoud Mohamed Hegazi …………...…………….….. Prof. Emeritus of Agricultural Engineering, Faculty of Agriculture, Ain Shams University. Dr. Abd El-Ghany Mohamed EL-Gindy …………....……………….. Prof. Emeritus of Agricultural Engineering, Faculty of Agriculture, Ain Shams University.

Date of Examination: 6 / 4 / 2015



Under the supervision of:

Dr. Abd El-Ghany Mohamed EL-Gindy Prof. Emeritus of Agricultural Engineering, Faculty of Agriculture, Ain Shams University (Principal Supervisor). Dr. Mahmoud Mohamed Hegazi Prof. Emeritus of Agricultural Engineering, Faculty of Agriculture, Ain Shams University. Dr. Khalid Faran Taher El-Bagoury Associate Prof. of Agricultural Engineering, Faculty of Agriculture, Ain Shams University.

ABSTRACT Assim Nasser Darraj Al-Mansor: Trickle Irrigation Management for Tomato Crop under Deficit Irrigation Conditions. Unpublished M. Sc. Thesis, Department of Agricultural Engineering, Faculty of Agriculture, Ain Shams University, 2015. The aim of this study to compare the effect of full irrigation and deficit irrigation, using surface and subsurface trickle irrigation systems on yield of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) and the irrigation water use efficiency. A field experiment was carried out on a clayey soil at the Experimental Farm of Faculty of Agriculture, Ain Shames University at Shoubra El-Khaymah, Qalyubia Governorate, Egypt. The daily crop water requirement for tomato was calculated by Penman-Monteith equation. The experiment was consisted of four irrigation water levels (T1:100% ETC; T2:85% ETC; T3:70% ETC and T4:55% ETC) accompanied with two kinds of trickle irrigation (S: surface and SS: subsurface). Deficit irrigation was applied during the whole growing season. The results showed that highest fruit yield (71.88 t ha-1) was recorded for T1 under subsurface trickle irrigation (SSTI), while the lowest fruit yield (45.77 t ha-1) was recorded for T4 under surface trickle irrigation (STI). The highest value for irrigation water use efficiency (IWUE) was found to be 18.80 kg m-3 for the T4 under SSTI treatment. Finally, it has been concluded that under conditions of water scarcity, especially in the Arab region, which suffers from water scarcity, can be used subsurface trickle irrigation technologies together with deficit irrigation strategies to improve irrigation water use efficiency and tomato yield under open field condition. Key words: Surface and Subsurface Irrigation, Water Productivity, Water stress.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This work would never have materialized without the contribution of many people to whom I have the pleasure of expressing my appreciation and gratitude. I would like to express my special thanks to my Thesis advisors Prof. Dr. Abd El-Ghany M. EL-Gindy, Prof. Dr. Mahmoud M. Hegazi, Dr. Khalid F. El-Bagoury and Dr. Salama A. Abd-El Hady, who accepted the challenge to guide me through the development of this thesis and who made it possible for me to complete the thesis. Their cooperation, wise advice, suggestion and guidance through the months have brought me to the point of successfully completion this Thesis work. It is my profound privilege to acknowledge gratitude to Prof. Dr. Ahmed A. Ibrahim, professor Emeritus of Soil Fertility and Plant Nutrition, Soil Science Dep., Fac. of Agric., Ain Shams Uinv., encouragement and valuable helping throughout this study. Great thanks to all staff members of Agricultural Engineering Dep., Fac. of Agric., Ain Shams Uinv., for kindness help. It is my prerogative to express my gratitude to my university, the Basra University, Iraq, for giving me the opportunity to study at Ain Shames University, Egypt. Last but not least, 1 would like to express my heartiest thanks and gratitude to my mother and father for their care and love, for remembering me in all their prayers and for believing in me. My last words of appreciation and respect are reserved to my beloved wife, Shereen, whom I left behind for months to complete my study.

CONTENTS No.

Title

Page

LIST OF TABLES

I

LIST OF FIGURES

II

LIST OF SYMBOLS

Ш

1.

INTRODUCTION

1

2.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

4

2.1.

Water scarcity in Arab Region:

4

2.2.

Tomato:

5

2.3.

Trickle irrigation system:

8

2.3.1. Evaluation of trickle irrigation:

13

2.4.

14

Trickle irrigation management:

2.4.1. Trickle irrigation scheduling:

14

2.4.2. Crop evapotranspiration (ETC):

15

2.4.3. Soil water availability:

18

2.4.4. Effective rooting depth:

02

2.4.5. Soil water balance:

21

2.5.

Full and deficit irrigation strategy:

23

2.6.

Management allowable deficit for tomato:

26

2.7.

Water use efficiency:

27

3.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

29

3.1.

Location and plant materials:

29

3.2.

Experimental design and treatments:

30

3.3.

Trickle irrigation components:

30

3.4.

Water regime treatments:

31

3.4.1. Evapotranspiration:

33

3.4.2. Trickle irrigation requirement:

34

3.5.

Evaluation parameters:

35

3.6.

Soil moisture measurement:

39

3.7.

Yield reductions and water saving determination:

42

3.8.

Fruit yield and water use efficiency:

42

3.9.

Tomato yield:

43

3.10. Data analysis:

43

4.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

44

4.1.

Crop evapotranspiration (ETC):

44

4.2.

Irrigation water applied (IWA):

46

4.3.

Trickle irrigation evaluation parameters:

48

4.4.

Soil moisture content:

50

4.5.

Trickle irrigation and tomato yield:

53

4.6.

Irrigation water use efficiency (IWUE):

56

5.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

58

6.

REFERENCES

61

ARABIC SUMMARY

I

LIST OF TABLES No.

Title

2.1 Summary of main crop parameters of tomato important for water management. 2.2 Values of Kr suggested by different authors (Andreas, 2002) 3.1 Some physical properties of soil. 3.2 Recommended classification of manufacturer’s coefficient of variation (Cv) (ASAE, 2006). 3.3 Recommended ranges of design emission uniformity (EU) (ASAE, 2006) 3.4 Estimation of main crop parameters of tomato important for water management and total irrigation requirements per season under full irrigation level. 4.1 Table 4.1: The average monthly values of daily air temperature (T), dew point relative humidity (RH), Wind speed (U), sunshine and reference evapotranspiration (ETO). 4.2 Cumulative crop water requirement and Irrigation water requirement of different irrigation treatments in growing season. 4.3 Data for estimating distribution uniformity for trickle irrigation system at the beginning and the end of the season. 4.4 Comparison of water productivity of irrigation levels for two types of trickle irrigation systems surface STI and subsurface SSTI. 4.5 Yield reduction and water saving for two type of trickle irrigation in relation irrigation deficit.

Page

71 71 29 36 38

41 44

47

49

54

56

II

LIST OF FIGURES No.

Title

2.1

Typical components of a trickle irrigation system (Schwankl and Hanson, 2007). Crop coefficients and growing period of tomato Source:

2.2 2.3 3.1

The root zone depicted as a reservoir with indication of the equivalent water depth (Wr) and root zone depletion (Dr) Layout of irrigation systems with experimental design.

Page 17 71 22 32

3.2

Root zone development functions for tomato according to 41 equation (Borg and Grimes 1986)

4.1

Reference evapotraspiration (ETo) and tomato crop evapotraspiration (ETc) for 2013/2014 cultivation season. Crop coefficients and growing period of tomato.

4.2 4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7 4.8

Cumulative irrigation after transplanting as affected by different irrigation scheduling methods during the tomato growth season. Deapth of irrigation water (mm/4 day) supply for fully (T1) and deficit irrigation (T2, T3 and T4) treatments along the growing season. Average soil moisture content values as percentage in weight under different irrigation treatments for SSTI systems during the growth stages of tomato crop. Average soil moisture content values as percentage in weight under different irrigation treatments for STI systems during the growth stages of tomato crop. Yield response to water applied under surface and subsurface trickle irrigation system. Irrigation water use efficiency (IWUE) for four irrigation level and two systems of trickle irrigation (STI and SSTI).

45 46 47

41

52

52

55 51

III

LIST OF SYMBOLS

Symbols Meaning A

area of plot (m2)

Cv

coefficient of variation

Dr DP

cumulative depth of evapotranspiration (depletion) from the root zone [mm] deep percolation [mm]

DU

distribution uniformity

Ea

application efficiency of the irrigation system

EU

the design emission uniformity

ET

evapotranspiration [mm day-1]

ETo

reference crop evapotranspiration [mm day-1]

ETc

crop evapotranspiration under standard conditions [mm day-1]

FAO

Food and Agriculture Organization

IRg

gross irrigation requirements (mm)

IRn

net irrigation requirement (mm)

Kc

crop coefficient [-]

Kr

soil evaporation reduction coefficient [-]

LR

leaching requirement

P

rainfall [mm], atmospheric pressure [kPa]

PE PVC

Poly Ethylene Poly Vinyl Chloride

Q

discharge of lateral in the plot (L/h)

qm

the average flow rate of the emitters in the lowest quartile, (l/h) the average flow rate of all emitters under test, (l/h).

qa

IV

RAW

readily available soil water of the root zone [mm]

RH

relative humidity [%]

RO

surface runoff [mm]

SMD

The Soil Moisture Deficit,

Tirr

time of irrigation (minute)

T

air temperature [°C]

Tdew

Dew point temperature [°C]

TAW

total available soil water of the root zone [mm]

t

time [hour]

W

soil water content [mm]

Zr

rooting depth [m]



soil water content [m3 (water) m-3 (soil)]

 FC

soil water content at field capacity [m3 (water) m-3 (soil)]

 WP

soil water content at wilting point [m3 (water) m-3 (soil)]

1.INTRODUCTION Water scarcity is an increasingly important issue in many parts of the world. This is especially the case in Arid Regions of Arab countries to frequent droughts and where restricted supply of good quality water is the most important factor limiting crop production. Most of the Arab countries are located in arid and Semi-Arid zones known for their scanty annual rainfall, very high rates of evaporation and consequently extremely insufficient renewable water resources (Al-Weshah, 2008). Iraq is facing water shortages and the problem is becoming more serious with time (Zakaria, et al., 2012). Despite this fact, none of the Iraqi farmers had yet used unconventional techniques to augment water resources to overcome water shortage problems. Insufficient water supply for irrigation will be the norm rather than the exception, and irrigation management will shift from emphasizing production per unit area towards maximizing the production per unit of water consumed (the water productivity) (Fereres and Soriano, 2007). According to Perry et al. (2009) switching from flood or furrow to low-pressure sprinkler systems reduces water use by an estimated 30%, while switching to trickle irrigation typically cuts water use by half. Often the terms drip and trickle irrigation are considered synonymous (ASAE, 2006; Simonne et al., 2012). In areas with dry and hot climates, trickle irrigation has improved WUE mainly by reducing runoff and evapotranspiration losses (Jones, 2004; Bhattarai et al., 2008). In Egypt, where water is scarce, trickle irrigation becomes an attractive alternative for conserving water (EI Awady et al., 2008). With the trickle irrigation systems, water and nutrients can be applied directly to the crop at the root level, having positive effects on yield and water savings and increasing the irrigation performance (Simonne et al., 2012).

Assim N. Al-Mansor, M.Sc., 2015

2

INTRODUCTION It has been found that subsurface drip irrigation reduced evaporation from the soil and increased the wetted soil volume and surface area more than surface systems allowing a deeper rooting pattern (Oliveira et al., 1996; Phene, 1995). Machado et al., (2003) indicate that subsurface trickle irrigation for tomatoes can contribute to increase the commercial production, without affecting fruit quality. Full irrigation is the practice of applying the amount of water to a crop equal to that removed from the field by evapotranspiration throughout the growing season. Full irrigation is considered a luxury use of water that can be reduced with minor or no effect on profitable yield (Kang and Zhang, 2004). According to Fereres and Soriano, (2007) there is needed to optimize water use in order to maximize crop yields under water deficit conditions. One of the means to improve water use efficiency is deficit irrigation (Topcu et al., 2007). Deficit irrigation has been practiced in different parts of the world (English and Raja, 1996; Oktem et al., 2003; Karam et al., 2005 and Ali et al., 2007). According to (Hassan, and Abuarab, 2013) It is possible to save water improving its use efficiency in processing tomato to achieve adequate fruit yield. Globally, tomato (Capsicum lycopersicum L.) is the second most important vegetable crop produced, following after potato. World tomato production is about 152 million tons produced on 4.4 million hectares (FAO STAT Database, 2011). Total crop water requirements for tomato ranges from 400 to 800 mm from emergence/transplanting to harvest, depending on climate, plant type, soil, irrigation and crop management (Battilani, et al. 2012). The tomato plant requires significant quantities of water, but not in excess, since tomato roots will not function under waterlogged conditions (Benton, 2008). Tomato plants can tolerate drought to some degree, therefore soil moisture levels can reach 50 percent of total Assim N. Al-Mansor, M.Sc., 2015

3

INTRODUCTION available water (TAW) without significant yield losses after the development of the canopy is completed (Battilani et al., 2012). Tomato plants are sensitive to water stress and show high correlation between evapotranspiration (ET) and crop yield (Nuruddin et al., 2003). The amount of water available to the tomato plant affects both fruit yield and quality (Benton, 2008). According to Shahein et al., (2012) It is possible to save water, improving its use efficiency for processing tomato at a low rate (80% ETc), to achieve adequate fruit yield, minimizing fruit losses and maintaining high fruit quality levels. The specific objectives of this study: 1-To determine the effect of water deficit (as quantified by different irrigation levels) on tomato yields. 2-To determine the optimum irrigation water use efficiency for the tomatoes crop. 3-To establish optimal water management strategies for tomato. 4- Comparison surface and sub-surface trickle irrigation under different irrigation level, and their interaction.


2.REVIEW OF LITERATURE 2.1.Water Scarcity in Arab Region: In irrigated agriculture this concern becomes more relevant because globally water for agriculture is the primary user of diverted water, reaching a proportion that exceeds 70–80% of the total water resources in the arid and semiarid zones (Fereres and Soriano, 2007). Most of the Arab countries are located in arid and semi-arid zones known for their scanty annual rainfall, very high rates of evaporation and consequently extremely insufficient renewable water resources (Al-Weshah, 2008). Water availability is generally the most important natural factor limiting the widespread and development of agriculture in arid and semi-arid regions (Bozkurt and Mansuroglu, 2011). IPCC (2007) estimated an increase in temperature in the Arab region of up to 2°C by 2030 and 4°C by 2100, with a reduction of water run-off of 20-30% by 2050, owing to rising temperatures, less precipitation and the likelihood of more frequent droughts .Water demand for irrigation may increase as transpiration increases owing to higher temperatures. According to Perry et al., (2009) as a consequence of climate change, some areas will receive higher rainfall but most of the currently waterscarce regions will become drier and warmer. The Arabic region is considered one of the most vulnerable regions to climate change impacts, on account of its water scarcity, which is the highest in the world (Elasha, 2010). The main water resources of Iraq (Tigris and Euphrates Rivers) suffer from severe reduction in their discharges due to construction dams on the both banks of Rivers inside Turkey and Syria (Zakaria, et al. 2012). Agricultural land had been reduced drastically due to water scarcity, despite this fact; none of the Iraqi farmers had yet used non-conventional


5 REVIEW OF LITERATURE techniques to augment water resources to overcome water shortage problems. Iraq depends mainly on Tigris and Euphrates Rivers to provide high percentage of agricultural water use for thousands years. At last years, Iraq is suffering from shortage in water resources due to global climate changes and unfair water politics of the neighboring countries, which affected the future of agriculture plans for irrigation, added to that the lack of developed systems of water management in the irrigation projects and improper allocation of irrigation water, which reduces water use efficiency and lead to losing irrigation water and decreasing in agricultural yield. (Al-haddad and Al-Safi, 2015) The demand for irrigation water in 2025 will increase in all the Arab countries and that will create a problem in allocation of water resources between different sectors. These reflect a threatening situation for water and food security in the Arab World during the current century. The Arab governments need to use adaptation measures to conserve water and avoid the wasteful use of water resources. Improving irrigation efficiency in Arabic countries using surface irrigation and improving agricultural practices techniques could help in preserving irrigation water. (Ouda et al., 2011) 2.2.Tomato: Globally, tomato (Capsicum lycopersicum L.) is the second most important vegetable crop produced, following after potato. World tomato production is about 152 million tons produced on 4.4 million hectares. (FAO STAT Database, 2011) Seedlings are commonly transplanted at the 4-5 true-leaf stage, 4 to 7 weeks after sowing. Plant spacing varies widely depending on conditions, seed or seedling cost, plant type and cultivars and local practices. Density Assim N. Al-Mansor, M.Sc., 2015

6 REVIEW OF LITERATURE ranges from 2 to 6 plants/m2 and row spacing ranges from 0.75 m to 1.6 m, with processing tomato often planted more densely than market tomato. Plant densities range from 12,150 to 36,900 plants/ha depending on the plant type whether determinate or indeterminate the former being mainly for processing and the latter for fresh market tomatoes. Generally, tomato starts to flower early, 25-40 days after transplanting or 35-50 days after emergence, depending largely on temperature. The life cycle varies from 95-115 days for processing tomato or up to more than 145 days for undetermined fresh market tomato. Optimum mean daily temperature for growth is from 18.5 to 25ºC with night temperatures between 18 and 21ºC. Tomato can be grown on a wide range of soils but it thrives under well drained, light, loam soil, with pH ranging from 5 to 7. (Benton, 2008) A good commercial fresh fruit yield ranges from 60 to 120 tone/ha for processing tomatoes and up to more than 150 tone/ha for fresh market cultivars. Yield can be much higher in greenhouse production for fresh markets. Soluble solids content of the juice of most widely used cultivars can vary between 4.2 and 5.5 percent. Factories requires a minimal quality for processing tomatoes: juice acidity must range between 0.34 and 0.40 g/100 ml, reducing sugars between 2.5 and 3.0 g/100 ml. (Battilani et al., 2012) Processing tomato consumes 400-800 mm of water from emergence /transplanting to harvest, depending on climate, plant type, soil, irrigation and crop management. Tomato plants can tolerate drought to some degree, therefore soil moisture levels can reach 50 percent of total available water (TAW) without significant yield losses after the development of the canopy is completed. It is important to maintain adequate soil moisture levels early in the life cycle, at transplanting, and from the first flower until complete fruit setting (e.g. of the fifth truss on the main axes). Irrigation can stop a few weeks prior to harvest, Assim N. Al-Mansor, M.Sc., 2015

7 REVIEW OF LITERATURE depending on soil water storage and rainfall expectancy. Over the peak growing period, maximum water use averages 4-7 mm/day in a sub humid climate, but can reach 8-9 mm/day in more arid areas. Over irrigation causes excessive leaf growth and plants high in vegetative vigor tend to produce low quality fruit because of reduced content of soluble solids. Moreover, excess water near harvest can cause nitrate accumulation in the fruit. For some cultivars, wide fluctuations in soil moisture levels during fruit maturation can cause fruit cracking, blotchy ripening, blossom-end rot and varied size and shape. (Battilani et al., 2012) The tomato plant needs plenty of water but not an excess because tomato roots will not function under water-logging (anaerobic) conditions. When the moisture level surrounding the roots is too high, epinasty, poor growth, later flowering, fewer flowers, and lower fruit set occurs; and fruit disorders such a fruit cracking will occur when water availability is inconsistent. Among environmental factors drought is a major limiting factor of tomato fruit growth and productivity thus the successful production of tomato requires irrigation. (Benton, 2008) Birhanu and Tilahun (2010) showed that almost all the plant attributes were directly related to water stress level. Irrigation level positively influenced marketable yield of tomato, with tomato yield decreasing as the water deficit level increased. Also recommended can help in the development of water management system for tomato production in the scenario of reduced water availability and enable the tomato growers to produce tomato with optimum yield by allowing little water stress without substantial yield reduction. Helyes et al. (1999) found that the Brix° of tomato fruits is often very high without irrigation, but decreased with irrigation. Tomato varieties


8 REVIEW OF LITERATURE vary in their soluble solids, from 4.5% to 7.0%, with much of the soluble component being either fructose or glucose. 2.3.Trickle Irrigation System: Often the terms drip and trickle irrigation are considered synonymous (ASAE, 2006; Simonne et al., 2012). According to ASAE (2006), trickle irrigation: The application of water to the soil surface as drops or tiny streams through emitters. For trickle, discharge rates for point-source emitters are generally less than 8 L/h (2 gal/h) for single-outlet emitters, and discharge rates for line-source emitters are generally less than 12 L/h, per meter (1 gal/h per foot) of lateral. According of Ayars et al. (2007) surface trickle irrigation uses emitters and lateral lines laid on the soil surface or attached aboveground on a trellis or tree. Surface drip irrigation has been primarily used on widely spaced perennial plants, but can also be used for annual row crops. Generally, discharge rates are less than 12 L/h for single-outlet, pointsource emitters and less than 12 L/h-m for line-source emitters. Advantages of surface microirrigation include the ease of installation, inspection, changing and cleaning emitters, plus the possibility of checking soil surface wetting patterns and measuring individual emitter discharge rates. El-Gindy and El-Araby, (1996) showed that, two field experiments were conducted at Maryout, Egypt, to evaluate the use of surface and subsurface drip irrigation for vegetable crops production. The soil was a typical Calciorthid, which was only marginally suitable due to salinity and high carbonate content. Irrigation water quality was moderate. Soil moisture, salinity, root density, yield, and water use efficiency were considered for cucumber (Cucumis sativus) under plastic and open field tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum) for both irrigation systems. Less salt accumulation and more dense roots were observed under sub-surface drip Assim N. Al-Mansor, M.Sc., 2015

9 REVIEW OF LITERATURE irrigation in both cucumber and tomatoes. Crop yield and water use efficiency were slightly higher when applying 4 liters/h daily through sub-surface drip irrigation. Therefore, sub-surface drip irrigation may be more suitable for vegetable production in the highly calcareous soil of Maryout. Irrigation scheduling in such soil was of major importance. Trickle irrigation can apply water both precisely and uniformly at a high irrigation frequency compared with furrow and sprinkler irrigation (Hanson and May, 2007). In areas with dry and hot climates, drip irrigation has improved WUE mainly by reducing runoff and evapotranspiration losses (Jones, 2004). In Egypt, where water is scarce, trickle irrigation becomes an attractive alternative for conserving water (EI Awady et al., 2008). According to Wichelns (2007) trickle irrigation may increase yield of fresh-market tomato in arid and semi-arid areas, whereas yields in humid and sub-humid regions may be similar between a trickle system and a carefully managed furrow system. Farmers can get higher prices with larger fruit and earlier marketability that can justify investment in trickle irrigation. Higher yields of fresh-market tomato were obtained with smaller water deliveries using. Thabet (2013) showed that trickle irrigation used 60% less water than surface irrigation whereas production was respectively 17.755 t ha-1 and 10.715 t ha-1 for trickle and surface irrigation for pepper crop. Tagar et al., (2012) reported that trickle irrigation generally achieves better crop yield and balanced soil moisture in the active root zone with minimum water loses. Hassanli et al. (2009) conducted a study to evaluate the effect of three irrigation methods subsurface trickle (SSTI), surface trickle (STI) and furrow irrigation (FI) on yields, water saving and irrigation water use efficiency (IWUE) on corn. The highest yield was obtained with SSTI and the lowest was obtained with the FI method. Assim N. Al-Mansor, M.Sc., 2015

10 REVIEW OF LITERATURE In subsurface trickle irrigation (SSTI), water is applied slowly below the soil surface through buried emitters. The discharge rates are in the same range as those for a surface trickle system. This method of application is not to be confused with sub-irrigation, in which the root zone is irrigated through or by water table control. SSTI systems have gained wider acceptance since earlier problems of emitter clogging have been reduced and improved methods of installation have been developed SSTI is now being installed on small fruit and vegetable crops, and field crops (cotton, corn, tomato, alfalfa). Advantages of SSTI include freedom from drip line installation at the beginning and removal at the end of the growing season, little interference with cultivation or other cultural practices, and possibly a longer operational life. (Ayars et al., 2007) Subsurface trickle has proven to be an efficient irrigation method with potential advantages of high water use efficiency, fewer weed and disease problems, less soil erosion, efficient fertilizer application, maintenance of dry areas for tractor movement at any time, flexibility in design, and lower labour costs than in a conventional trickle irrigation system. However, there are also potential disadvantages with SSTI, which mainly relate to poor or uneven surface wetting and risky crop establishment (Camp et al., 2000 and Lamm, 2002). The biophysical advantages for trickle system are the lower canopy humidity and fewer diseases and weeds (Camp and Lamm, 2003). Environmental benefits include the ability to manage nutrient and pesticide leaching and the threat to groundwater (Lamm, 2002). Ayars et al. (2007) many significant advances have been made in the design of microirrigation components. The basic components of a microirrigation (trickle irrigation) system include a pump, fertilizer injector, filters, distribution lines, emitters, and other control and monitoring devices. Assim N. Al-Mansor, M.Sc., 2015

11 REVIEW OF LITERATURE Polyethylene drip tubing with on-line drip emitters is very common, but built-in or fused-in drip emitters are also used. Filters, control and valve systems, injection systems, underground pipelines, and other components of drip irrigation systems are similar for both orchards and vineyards (Fig. 2.1). (Schwankl and Hanson, 2007) Lateral line delivers water to the emission devices from the sub main or direct from main line. The diameters used are 13, 16, and 22 mm, in or online drippers usually made of black liner low density polyethylene tubes (LLDPE) which is called P.E tubes. They can be surface or subsurface lines. Lateral spacing is generally one trickle line per row/bed or an alternative row/ bed with one trickle line per bed or between two rows. (Lamm and Camp, 2007)

Fig. 2.1: Typical components of a trickle irrigation system (Schwankl and Hanson, 2007). Assim N. Al-Mansor, M.Sc., 2015

12 REVIEW OF LITERATURE Phene et al. (1992) reported that, sub-surface trickle irrigation, in which the laterals are buried permanently at 20-60 cm below the soil surface, has been used to provide the control and uniformity of water and fertilizer distribution necessary to maximize tomato yield and water-use efficiency. EI Awady et al. (2003) reported that, evaporation decreased with increasing trickle line depth and evapotranspiration from sub-surface trickle irrigation could be reduced to 40 % when the trickle line is buried at a depth of 15 cm compared with irrigation from surface trickle line, with sorghum crop. They also added that sorghum growth increased by 69 % by weight under sub-surface trickle compared with surface trickle line. An overview of published studies shows that lateral spacing ranges from 0.25 to 5 m for SSTI, as determined by crop behavior, cultural practices soil and properties (Camp, 1998). Wider lateral spacing is practiced in heavy textured soil. Lateral spacing is generally one trickle line per row/bed or an alternative row/ bed with one trickle line per bed or between two rows (Lamm and Camp, 2007). The area wetted as a percent of the total crop area may range from a low of 20% for widely spaced crops, such as trees for irrigation in high rainfall regions, to a high of over 75% for row crops in low rainfall regions (ASAE, 2006). Generally, the soil moisture distribution under using 30-cm dripper spacing was better than of that under 50 cm (Badr and Abuarab, 2011). Proper emitter discharge rate shall be determined and specified Infiltration rates for different types of local, bare soils may be obtained from responsible agricultural technicians. In the absence of such advice, the proper emitter discharge rate may be estimated on the basis of past experience with similar soil types. In new areas field tests are recommended. The design operating pressure shall be in accordance with the recommendations of the manufacturers. The system operating Assim N. Al-Mansor, M.Sc., 2015

13 REVIEW OF LITERATURE pressure must compensate for pressure losses through system components and field elevation effects. (ASAE, 2006) 2.3.1.Evaluation of Trickle Irrigation: Irrigation uniformity is the most important indicator for evaluation of the irrigation system performance (Letey et al. 2000) and is affected by the field topography, hydraulic design of drip system as well as level of partial or complete clogging (Al-Amound, 1995). The evaluation of operating irrigation systems aims the understanding of the systems adequacy and determination of the necessary procedures for improving the system’s performance (Soccol et al., 2002). It is recommended that evaluation should be carried out soon after the system’s establishment, and periodically repeated, especially when considering systems, due to their sensitivity to operational conditions along the time (Keller and Bliesner, 1990). The main factors affecting trickle irrigation system uniformity are: (1) manufacturing variations in emitters and pressure regulators, (2) pressure variations caused by elevation changes, (3) friction head losses throughout the pipe network, (4) emitter sensitivity to pressure and irrigation water temperature changes, and (5) emitter clogging. (Similarly and Scicolone, 1998) According to (ASAE, 2006) the expected manufacturer’s coefficient of variation (Cv) should be available for new emitters operated at a constant temperature and near the design emitter operating pressure. Application efficiency relates to the actual storage of water in the root zone to meet the crop water needs in relation to the water applied to the field. It might be defined for individual irrigation or parts of irrigations (irrigation sets). Application efficiency includes any application losses to evaporation or seepage from surface water channels or furrows, any leaks Assim N. Al-Mansor, M.Sc., 2015

14 REVIEW OF LITERATURE from sprinkler or trickle pipelines, percolation beneath the root zone, drift from sprinklers, evaporation of droplets in the air, or runoff from the field. The field irrigation application efficiency for surface and subsurface trickle irrigation was average (85 and 90%) respectively. (Howell, 2003) 2.4.Trickle Irrigation Management: Trickle irrigation offers the potential for precise water management and divorces irrigation from the engineering and cultural constraints that complicate furrow and sprinkler irrigation. It also provides the ideal vehicle to deliver nutrients in a timely and efficient manner. However, achieving high water and nutrient-use efficiency while maximizing crop productivity require intensive management. Central to that management is appropriate irrigation scheduling, both in terms of timing and volume applied. There are two basic approaches to scheduling trickle irrigation: soil-moisture-based scheduling and a water-budget-based approach that estimates crop evapotranspiration. There are limitations to both methods, but when used together they are a reliable way to determine both quantity and timing of drip irrigation. (Hartz et al., 1999) 2.4.1.Trickle Irrigation Scheduling: Irrigation scheduling generally determines the time of the next event and the amount of water to apply. Trickle irrigation scheduling can employ techniques such as a soil water balance or an ET base, soil water sensing, or plant based water sensing that can be successful in most circumstances. However, each technique has limitations in specific situations. Therefore, two or more scheduling methods are recommended to check and verify field techniques, especially when so many field, soil, plant, and irrigation system performance variations are known to exist. (Howell and Meron, 2007) Information on optimal scheduling of limited amounts of water to maximize yields of high quality crops are essential if irrigation water is to Assim N. Al-Mansor, M.Sc., 2015

15 REVIEW OF LITERATURE be used most efficiently (Al-Kaisi et al., 1997). Scheduling for deficit irrigation is more challenging than for full irrigation. The manager must evaluate the level of soil water storage in the root zone, the level of the crop water stress, and how that level will affect the yield (Ragab, 1996). Sharaf and Hassan (2006) showed that irrigation scheduling methods have a significant effect on tomato yield and irrigation applied water. Irrigation scheduling and use of trickle irrigation are principal tools for striking this balance through improving water application and water utilization efficiencies (Simonne et al., 2012). Hoffman et al. (1990) categorized quantitative irrigation scheduling into three main groups; soil monitoring, plant monitoring and soil water balance computations. The meteorological method is also utilized as an irrigation scheduling method. Khalifa et al. (2014) recommended using the metrological based method for optimized amount of applied water that will keep the crop production and increase WUE (water use efficiency), (EUE energy use efficiency) and WAE (water application efficiency). 2.4.2.Crop Evapotranspiration (ETc): The most common procedure for estimating crop water use or crop evapotranspiration (ETc) is the crop coefficient (Kc) approach (Allen et al., 1998). The FAO Penman-Monteith method is recommended as sole method for determining (ETo) which has now become the standard for estimating reference crop evapotranspiration (Smith and Steduto, 2012).The equation utilizes standard agro-meteorological data of solar radiation (sunshine hours), air temperature, humidity and wind speed (Allen et al., 1998).


16 REVIEW OF LITERATURE Allen et al. (1998) defined the crop evapotranspiration (ETc) as the evapotranspiration from disease free, well fertilized crops, grown in large fields, under optimum soil water conditions, and achieving full production under the given climatic conditions. Crop evapotranspiration (ETc) also refers to the amount of water that is lost through evapotranspiration the following equation is used to calculate crop water requirements: ETc= ETo * Kc …………………….. 2.1 Where: ETc = crop evapotranspiration [mm], Kc = crop coefficient [dimensionless], and ETo = reference crop evapotranspiration [mm]. Also, Allen et al. (1998) stated that the Kc for any period of the season can be derived by assuming that, during the initial and midseason stage, Kc is constant and equal to the Kc value of the growth stage under consideration. During the crop development and late season stage, Kc varies linearly between the Kc at the end of the previous stage and the Kc at the beginning of the next stage, which is Kc end in the case of the late season stage (Fig. 2.2) and (Table 2.1).

Fig. 2.2: Crop coefficients (Kc) and growing period of tomato source: (Allen et al., 1998). Assim N. Al-Mansor, M.Sc., 2015

17 REVIEW OF LITERATURE Table 2.1: Summary of main crop parameters of tomato important for water management. Crop characteristic

Initial

Crop Develop.

Stage length, days

35

45

Depletion Coefficient, p

0.3

Root Depth, m Crop Coefficient, Kc

Midseason

Late

Total

70

30

180

>>

0.4

0.5

0.3

0.25

>>

>>

1

-

0.6

>>

1.15

0.7-0.9

-

0.4

1.1

0.8

0.4

1.05

Yield-Response Factor,Ky

(Source: FAOSTAT, 2011)

Allen et al. (1998) mentioned that soil evaporation from the exposed soil can be assumed to take place in two stages: an energy limiting stage, and a falling rate stage. When the soil surface is wet, Kr is 1. When water content in the upper soil it becomes limiting, Kr decreases and becomes zero when the total amount of water that can be evaporated from the topsoil is depleted. Andreas (2002) provides the reduction factors suggested by various researchers in order to account for the reduction in evapotranspiration in these study values of Kr suggested by (Keller and Karmeli, 1975) (Table 2.2).

ETcrop-loc = ETo x Kc x Kr

……………………… 2. 2

Where: ETcrop-loc= crop evapotranspiration localized irrigation systems (mm), ETo = Reference crop evapotranspiration (mm), Kc = Crop coefficient, and Kr = Ground cover reduction factor.


18 REVIEW OF LITERATURE Table 2.2: Values of Kr suggested by different authors (Andreas, 2002)

2.4.3.Soil Water Availability: Soil water availability refers to the capacity of a soil to retain water available to plants. After heavy rainfall or irrigation, the soil will drain until field capacity is reached. Field capacity is the amount of water that a well-drained soil should hold against gravitational forces, or the amount of water remaining when downward drainage has markedly decreased. In the absence of water supply, the water content in the root zone decreases as a result of water uptake by the crop. As water uptake progresses, the remaining water is held to the soil particles with greater force, lowering its potential energy and making it more difficult for the plant to extract it. Eventually, a point is reached where the crop can no longer extract the remaining water. The water uptake becomes zero when wilting point is reached. Wilting point is the water content at which plants will permanently wilt. As the water content above field capacity cannot be held against the forces of gravity and will drain and as the water content below wilting point cannot be extracted by plant roots, the total available water in the root zone is the difference between the water content at field capacity and wilting point (Allen et al., 1998): Assim N. Al-Mansor, M.Sc., 2015

19 REVIEW OF LITERATURE TAW = 1000 (θ FC - θWP) Zr

……………………… 2. 3

Where: TAW the total available soil water in the root zone [mm], θ FC the water content at field capacity [m3 m-3], θ WP the water content at wilting point [m3 m-3], Zr the rooting depth [m]. TAW is the amount of water that a crop can extract from its root zone, and its magnitude depends on the type of soil and the rooting depth. although water is theoretically available until wilting point, crop water uptake is reduced well before wilting point is reached. Where the soil is sufficiently wet, the soil supplies water fast enough to meet the atmospheric demand of the crop, and water uptake equals ETc. As the soil water content decreases, water becomes more strongly bound to the soil matrix and is more difficult to extract. When the soil water content drops below a threshold value, soil water can no longer be transported quickly enough towards the roots to respond to the transpiration demand and the crop begins to experience stress. The fraction of TAW that a crop can extract from the root zone without suffering water stress is the readily available soil water (Allen et al., 1998): RAW = p TAW ………………………… 2.4 Where: RAW the readily available soil water in the root zone [mm], p average fraction of Total Available Soil Water (TAW) that can be depleted from the root zone before moisture stress (reduction in ET) occurs [0-1]. The factor p differs from one crop to another. The factor p normally varies from 0.30 for shallow rooted plants at high rates of ETc (> 8 mm day-1) to 0.70 for deep rooted plants at low rates of ETc (< 3 mm day-1). A value of 0.50 for p is commonly used for many crops. Assim N. Al-Mansor, M.Sc., 2015

20 REVIEW OF LITERATURE RAW is similar to the term Management Allowed Depletion (MAD). However, values for MAD are influenced by management and economic factors in addition to the physical factors influencing p. Generally, MAD < RAW where there is risk aversion or uncertainty, and MAD > RAW where plant moisture stress is an intentional part of soil water management. (Allen et al., 1998) 2.4.4.Effective Rooting Depth: Crop rooting is an important factor in determining extractable soil water needed to schedule irrigations. The effective root depth is the depth that should be used to compute the volume of PAW in the soil reservoir. The effective root depth for a mature root zone is estimated to be one-half the maximum rooting depth. Effective root depth is further influenced by the stage of crop development. Effective root depths for most crops increase as atop growth increases until the reproductive stage is reached. After this time, effective root depth remains fairly constant. Irrigation scheduling should be based on effective root depth rather than maximum rooting depth. (Evans, et al., 1996) Tomato plants grown from seed develop a strong taproot that reaches a depth > 1.5 m in soils without impeding layers restricting root growth. However, most water and nutrient uptake occurs in the 0.2-0.75 m soil layer, where 50-80 percent of the roots concentrate. When soil receives water intermittently as rain or irrigation, the higher root length density is in the top 40 cm soil layer, where the majority of the active roots are concentrated. Trickle irrigation alters root development pattern; however, roots grow preferentially in wet soil, irrespective of the areas wetted by surface or subsurface trickle irrigation. (Battilani et al., 2012)


21 REVIEW OF LITERATURE Independent of the use of surface or subsurface trickle irrigation, roots grow preferentially around the wetted emitter area and concentrate within the top 40 cm of the soil profile (Oliveira et al., 1996; Machado et al., 2003). 2.4.5.Soil Water Balance: When calculating the soil-water balance, the amount of water stored in the root zone can be expressed as an equivalent water depth (Wr) or as root zone depletion (Dr). The total available soil water (TAW) is the amount of water held in the root zone between field capacity and permanent wilting point. At field capacity root zone depletion (Dr) is zero, and at permanent wilting point Dr is equal to TAW (Fig. 2.3). (Steduto and Raes, 2012) The most important components of the water budgeting model in cropped field condition are the accurate determination of soil evaporation, root water uptake and soil water content (Ji et al., 2007). Jones (2004) suggested that the water balance approach is not very accurate, but is sufficiently robust to be used under a wide range of conditions. It is prone to accumulative errors over time and often requires recalibration at intervals by using actual soil water measurements. Castel and Buj (1990) considered effective rain was all rain of less than 40 mm week-1, while (Domingo et al., 1996) considered effective rain was rain over 5 mm day-1 and less than 30 mm week-1. Moon and Van Der Gulik (1996) stated that the effective precipitation is ignored if it is under 5 mm/day as this amount is not likely to penetrate the soil surface and will be evaporated.


22 REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Fig. 2.4: The root zone depicted as a reservoir with indication of the equivalent water depth (Wr) and root zone depletion (Dr) (Steduto and Raes, 2012). Allen et al. (1998) defined capillary rise, the amount of water transported upwards by capillary rise from the water table to the root zone depends on the soil type, the depth of the water table and the wetness of the root zone. CR can normally be assumed to be zero when the water table is more than about 1 m below the bottom of the root zone. With groundwater tables within 1-1.5 m from the root zone, there is on most soil types some contribution by capillary movement of water towards the water needs of crops. Where, in this study groundwater was more than 2.5 m from root zone. Assim N. Al-Mansor, M.Sc., 2015

23 REVIEW OF LITERATURE 2.5.Full and Deficit Irrigation Strategy: Full irrigation is the practice of applying the amount of water to a crop equal to that removed from the field by evapotranspiration throughout the growing season. Full irrigation is considered a luxury use of water that can be reduced with minor or no effect on profitable yield (Kang and Zhang, 2004). Although full irrigation has the potential for the highest yield, water use efficiency may be reduced. Further, potential for erosion may increase, if precipitation occurs just after irrigation, depending on the mode of irrigation (Unger, 2006). Speelman et al. (2014) indicated that for all weather conditions the total farm income and the total cropped area under deficit irrigation were larger than those under full irrigation. Deficit irrigation (DI) has been widely investigated as a valuable and sustainable production strategy in dry regions. By limiting water applications to drought-sensitive growth stages, this practice aims to maximize water productivity and to stabilize rather than maximize yield Geerts and Raes, 2009). The classic DI strategy implies that water is supplied at levels below full crop evapotranspiration throughout the season (Costa et al., 2007 and Rowland et al., 2012). Deficit irrigation deliberately allows crops to sustain some degree of water deficit with some yield reduction and a significant reduction of irrigation water applied (Fereres and Soriano, 2007). Regulated Deficit Irrigation (RDI) is a modified DI in which water deficit is applied at certain periods of the growth stages of a crop to save water but still maintain yield (Costa et al., 2007 and Geerts and Raes, 2009). Deficit irrigation has been practiced in different parts of the world (English and Raja, 1996; Oktem et al., 2003; Karam et al., 2005; Ali et al., 2007 and Geerts and Raes, 2009).


24 REVIEW OF LITERATURE English (1990) A certain level of yield loss should be allowed for a given crop with higher returns gained from the diversion of irrigation water to other crops. This new concept of irrigation scheduling is given different names, such as regulated deficit irrigation, pre-planned deficit evapotranspiration and deficit irrigation. (English, 1990; English and Rajan, 1996) The economic and ecological advantage that could be derived from deficit irrigation is multifaceted. In economic terms, the potential benefits of deficit irrigation derive from three factors: increased irrigation efficiency, reduced costs of irrigation and the opportunity cost of water. Kirda, (2002) stated that the goal of deficit irrigation is to increase crop water use efficiency (WUE) by reducing the amount of water applied also he suggested that the reduction in yield may be small; relative to the benefit gained. The potential exists to divert saved water to irrigate other crops, which would otherwise be rain-fed under traditional practices. Also he proposed that where limited water resources are available, deficit irrigation is a feasible and acceptable option. Deficit irrigation strategies may optimize water potential in horticultural crops; however, its effect on crop yield and quality is crop specific. Dorji et al. (2005) compared traditional trickle system irrigation to deficit irrigation (DI) for hot pepper irrigation and found that water savings with DI were about 50% of traditional trickle irrigation. One of the means to improve water use efficiency is deficit irrigation (Topcu et al., 2007). According to Hassan and Abuarab (2013) it is possible to save water improving its use efficiency in processing tomato to achieve adequate fruit yield. Fereres and Soriano (2007) besides yield and quality reduction due to deficit irrigation in some crop species, the other consequence of deficit Assim N. Al-Mansor, M.Sc., 2015

25 REVIEW OF LITERATURE irrigation is the greater risk of increased soil salinity due to reduced leaching and its impact on the sustainability of irrigation. The management alternative of irrigation at 60% with EC of zero and 1 dS/m has resulted in maximum WUE (Al-Talib and Hachum, 2007). Another form of deficit irrigation system relatively newly introduced, is called controlled alternative irrigation or partial root zone drying (PRD) where alternate sides of the root system are irrigated during alternate periods (Wang et al., 2002; Chaves and Oliveira, 2004). In this irrigation system, the plant water status is ensured by the wet part of the root system, whereas the decrease in the water-use derives from the closure of the stomata promoted by dehydrating roots. The principle of PRD is that crop roots can produce signals during water stress and the signals can be transmitted to leaf stomata to control their apertures at optimum levels. Al-Talib and Hachum (2007) under deficit irrigation, soil moisture monitoring becomes extremely critical due to: 1. The issue of non-uniformity of irrigation water distribution in the field becomes more serious. Averaging a basically non-uniform deficit over the field may result in risky levels of under irrigation in parts of the field. Under surface irrigation, the deficit accumulates with time (i.e. along the season). However, under sprinkling and due to the effect of wind variation on water distribution, the risk of deficit accumulation is much less. 2. Salinity problem in water and soil becomes more pronounced. Maintaining a favorable salt balance in the root zone has a direct bearing on crop production and water use efficiency (yield per unit volume of water consumed by crop).


26 REVIEW OF LITERATURE 2.5.1.Management Allowable Deficit for Tomato: Hartz et al. (2005) indicated that tomatoes can tolerate a moderate degree of stress. Their research showed that tomatoes can tolerate depletion of 20-30% in available soil moisture in the active root zone with no yield loss. Soil water depletion levels during the different tomato growth periods should remain below 40% of available soil moisture content (a MAD of 60%). Tomato average yields were 24.19, 26.75 and 27.7 ton/fed corresponding to water balance with Penman-Monteith, water balance with evaporation pan and tensiometers, respectively. The averages of applied irrigation water were 2130, 2340 and 2445 m3/fed for the same previous order. (Sharaf and Hassan, 2006) Owusu-Sekyere et al. (2012) concluded that a 10-15% reduction in the amount or volume of water required while all other things been equal could be the best condition for tomato production if water economics is to be practiced to improve net profit of production. The water requirement for tomato in the Coastal Savannah zone of Ghana was found to be 302.98 mm while the corresponding Kc values are between 0.62 and 1.61 and suggest that 10-15% reduction of ETc of tomato will have no significant difference in growth and development while reduction of above 20% will have a negative effect on growth of tomato. According to Salghi, et al. (2014) the effect of irrigation frequencies on tomato yield is very moderate; it does not exceed 2% in daily basis. For week basis, some authors fined that irrigation frequency of 3-days increases the average of yield by 10%.


27 REVIEW OF LITERATURE 2.6.Water Use Efficiency: Efficient use of water by irrigation is becoming increasingly important, and alternative water application method such as trickle irrigation, may contribute substantially to the best use of water for agriculture and improving irrigation efficiency. The competition for water intensifies worldwide, water for food production must be used more efficiently (Steduto et al., 2007). Aziz et al. (1995) reported that “improving the water use efficiency of Egypt’s irrigation system offers the best solution to its problem of how to increase food production”. The term irrigation water use efficiency (IWUE) has been considerably less consistently defined and applied compared with WUE. IWUE is the crop yield increase attributed to irrigation alone. The irrigation water use efficiency (IWUE in kg/m3). (Howell, 2003) The WUE is initially used in agriculture system research, and is generally defined as the ratio of the amount of system output to the input or flux of water used in its production (Perry, 2007). Subsurface trickle irrigation (SSTI) is an adaptation of trickle irrigation, where the irrigation trickle tube is installed below the soil surface to reduce water losses due to soil evaporation thereby increasing water use efficiency (Ayars et al., 1999). The higher water use efficiency was obtained with SSTI as compared with STI system for all irrigation treatments (Nagaz et al., 2014). Irrigation can be an effective means to improve WUE through increased crop yields, especially in semiarid and arid environments (Howell, 2003). There are many ways to improve WUE by management practices, including tillage, irrigation scheduling, cultivar advances, and crop selection for area (Howell and Meron, 2007). It is expected that such a practice may increase irrigation-water-use efficiency (IWUE),


28 REVIEW OF LITERATURE leading to reduction in irrigation water requirement, while maintaining tomato yields (Zegbe et al., 2006). In areas with dry and hot climates, trickle irrigation has improved WUE mainly by reducing runoff and evapotranspiration losses (Jones, 2004; Bhattarai et al., 2008). With the trickle irrigation systems, water and nutrients can be applied directly to the crop at the root level, having positive effects on yield and water savings and increasing the irrigation performance (Simonne et al., 2012). According to Machado et al. (2003), in tomatoes, during the first stages of crop growth, subsurface trickle irrigation can increase the efficiency of water use when compared with surface trickle irrigation. It is possible to save water improving its use efficiency in processing tomato but water should be applied to the crop throughout the whole growing season, even at a low rate (80% ETc), to achieve adequate fruit yield, minimizing fruit losses and maintaining high fruit quality levels (Abuarab et al 2013). It is possible to save water, improving its use efficiency in processing tomato at a low rate (80% ETc), to achieve adequate fruit yield, minimizing fruit losses and maintaining high fruit quality levels. The effects of deficit irrigation on fruit quality were conversely of those on fruit yield, whereas the amount of water applied through drip irrigation increased, the percentage of solids level decreased, so the lowest TSS (5.867 % brix) value was corresponded to the full irrigation and calcium super phosphate fertilizer. (Shahein et al., 2012)


3.MATERIALS AND METHODS 3.1.Location and Plant Materials: The experiment was carried out under Experimental Station, Faculty of Agriculture, Shoubra El-Khaymah, Qalyubia Governorate, and longitude 31o.24 E, and mean altitude 26

open field conditions at Ain Shams University, at Egypt (latitude 30o.12 N, m above sea level). Some

samples were taken from two depths of the soil profile (0-30 cm) and (3060 cm) to determine the physical properties of the soil. Field Capacity (F.C.) and Permanent Wilting Point (P.W.P.) were determined according to Black, (1965). Data tabulated in Table (3.1). Irrigation water has been obtained from Nile river (located in the experimental area), with pH 6.84 and an average electrical conductivity of 0.63 dS/m. While, soil pH was 7.2 and EC was 2.64 dS/m. The cultivar Super Red Hybrid of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum. L.) was used for this experiment. Seedlings were transplanted at four-leaf stage (after 35 days from seed sowing) on 10 October, 2013 in a single plot. The plot consists of 4 rows (4.8 x 12 m). Rows were 120 cm apart with 60 cm between plants within the row on flat beds with 1 m bed centers giving a plant population of 13888 plants per hectare. Table 3.1: Some physical properties of soil. Depth Soil particle distribution % (cm) 0-30 30-60

Sand 24 27

Silt 36 32

Clay 40 41

Texture CL. CL.

F.C. %

P.W.P. %

B.d

θ at 33 kPa

θ at 1500 kPa

(g cm-3)

31.05 32.71

14.81 17.68

1.32 1.34

F.C. = field capacity, P.W.P. = permanent wilting point, were determined as percentage in weight, B.d = Bulk density and CL. = clay.

The plants were provided with optimal growing conditions and all the necessary requirements according to the Agriculture Ministry recommendations of the experimental regions. Harvest-ripe fruits were Assim N. Al-Mansor, M.Sc., 2015

30 MATERIALS AND METHODS manually picked and weighed, started on 15 February, 2014 and continued until the end of experiment. The middle four rows in each subplot were harvested by hand to determine tomato yield (t/ha), fruit number/m², fruit weight (g). 3.2.Experimental Design and Treatments: Experimental design illustrated at (Fig. 3.1) where, experiments were laid out in a Split Plot Design (SPD). In this experiment, the subplot treatment at different levels of irrigation and main plot treatment at two trickle irrigation systems (surface and subsurface) were utilized. The experiment consisted of four blocks (replicates) each subdivided into eight plots making up a total of 32 plots (16 with subsurface trickle irrigation and 16 with surface trickle irrigation). Each of the plots (treatments) per block comprised single beds (1.25 m * 6.0 m), with an area of 7.5 m2 per plot. 3.3.Trickle Irrigation Components: The used irrigation system was constructed and installed in the field before tomato transplanting. Fig. (3.1) illustrated Irrigation networks include the following components: 1) Control head: It was located at the water source supply. It consists of centrifugal pump 2"/2", driven by electric engine (pump discharge of 20 m3 /h and 26 m lift), screen filter 2" (120 mesh), back flow prevention device, pressure regulator, pressure gauges, flow-meter, control valves and chemical injection; 2) Main line: PVC pipes of 50 mm in diameter to convey the water from the source to the manifolds; 3) Manifold lines: PVC pipes of 50 mm in diameter were connected to the main line through control valves 1.5"; 4) Lateral lines: PE tubes of 16 mm in diameter were connected to the manifolds through beginnings stalled on manifolds lines; and Assim N. Al-Mansor, M.Sc., 2015

31 MATERIALS AND METHODS 5) Emitters: These emitters built in PE tubes 16 mm, (emitter discharge of 4 l h-1 at operating pressure 1 atm and 30 cm spacing in-between), according to Badr and Abuarab, (2011) the soil moisture distribution under using 30-cm dripper spacing was better than of that under 50 cm. For the subsurface trickle irrigated plots, trickle lines were installed to a depth of 20 cm according to (Phene et al. 1992). Plants were transplanted in single rows, with plants spaced 0.6 m within the rows. The field was irrigated immediately after transplantation to establish a good root to soil contact. After stand establishment on the 10 of October 2013, the first irrigation (11 mm) was applied to all the treatment plots to stabilize the soil water content in effective root depth. The irrigation water was supplied every four days. One lateral line was used for two plots on same line where divided to half surface and subsurface trickle irrigation. 3.4.Water Regime Treatments: The experiments consisted of four distinct irrigation treatments: the T1 treatment considered as full irrigation was irrigated when readily available water in the root zone has been depleted and plants in that treatment received 100% of accumulated crop evapotranspiration. Three additional treatments were irrigated at the same frequency as treatment TI but irrigation amount covered 55%, 70% and 85% of cumulated ETc. These treatments were identified as continuous deficit irrigation treatments. Water was applied as TI treatment during the transplanting period for 15 days after transplanting.


32 MATERIALS AND METHODS

Manifold lines, Ø,50 Lateral lines,16 Main Line, Ø,50 mm

6m 6m

10 m 1.25m

Fig.3.1: Layout of irrigation systems with experimental design. Assim N. Al-Mansor, M.Sc., 2015

33 MATERIALS AND METHODS 3.4.1.Evapotranspiration: The crop evapotranspiration (ETc) was estimated for daily time step by using reference evapotranspiration (ETO) combined with a tomato crop coefficient (Kc). ETo is estimated using daily climatic data collected from the meteorological station at the Farm of Faculty of Agriculture, Ain Shams University which is located at Shalakan, Qalubia Governorate, using the FAO-56 Penman-Monteith method (ETo-PM) given in Allen et al. (1998) (Eq 3.1). The mean data of 2008-2012 periods (5 years) was used for estimation of ETO and water use. Maximum temperatures during the growing period (October-March) ranged from 18 to 34°C, minimum temperature ranged from 10 to 22°C. Total rainfall was negligible in all years (< 20 mm). Crop coefficients vary between crops and crop growth stages. In this study the crop growth was divided into four growth stages and they were as follows (Allen et al., 1998): Initial stage; Developmental stage; Mid-stage and Late-season stage (Table 3.5).  900  0.408( Rn  G )    u2 (es  ea ) T  273   ……………. 3.1 ETo     (1  0.34u2 )

Where:

ETO Rn G

reference evapotranspiration [mm day-1], net radiation at the crop surface [MJ m-2 day-1], soil heat flux density [MJ m-2 day-1],

T u2 es ea es-ea

mean daily air temperature at 2 m height [°C], wind speed at 2 m height [m s-1], saturation vapor pressure [kPa], actual vapor pressure [kPa], saturation vapor pressure deficit [kPa], slope vapor pressure curve [kPa °C-1], and psychrometric constant [kPa °C-1].

 


34 MATERIALS AND METHODS 3.4.2.Trickle Irrigation Requirement: Crop evapotranspiration localized irrigation systems calculated by (Equation 3.3) and Kr suggested by (Keller and Karmeli, 1975) as tabulated in (Table 2.2): ETc-loc = ETo x Kc x Kr

…………………………… 3.2

Where: ETc-loc= crop evapotranspiration localized irrigation systems, mm day-1 ETo = Reference crop evapotranspiration, mm day-1 Kc = Crop coefficient, and Kr = Reduction factor (Keller and Karmeli, 1975). Net irrigation requirement can be calculated by: ……………. 3.3 Where: IRn =Net irrigation requirement (mm), Pe = Effective dependable rainfall (mm), Ge= Groundwater contribution from water table (mm) according to Allen et al. (1998) capillary rise can normally be assumed to be zero when the water table is more than about 1 m below the bottom of the root zone, Wb= Water stored in the soil at the beginning of each period (mm) the contribution of water stored in the soil is considered negligible, and LR = Leaching requirement (mm) = 10% of the total amount water delivered to treatments according to Phocaides, (2007) an excess amount of water, 10–15 percent, is applied during the irrigation where necessary for leaching purposes. In this way a portion of the water percolates through and below the root zone carrying with it a portion of the accumulated soluble salts. The leaching requirements (LR) are considered for the calculation of the gross irrigation application. Assim N. Al-Mansor, M.Sc., 2015

35 MATERIALS AND METHODS Assuming that Wb, Pe and Ge are zero in Eq. 3.3, then Equation becomes: IRn = ETc + LR(mm) ………………………… 3.4 Gross irrigation requirement (IRg) [mm/period] is the net irrigation requirement (IRn) of the crop plus the operating losses of the system: ……………………………. 3.5 Where: IRg = Gross irrigation requirements, mm/day, and Ea = application efficiency of the irrigation system (Clark et al. 2007). To calculate times of irrigation for any irrigation level: Tirr = ( IR ×A)/Q)×60 ………….………….. 3.6 Where: Tirr, time of irrigation (minute) IR, irrigation requirement for plot (mm) A area of plot (m2) Q , discharge of lateral in the plot (L/h)

3.5.Evaluation Parameters: 1.Manufacturer’s coefficient of variation (Cv): This is a measure of the variability of discharge of a random sample of a given make, model and size of emitter, as produced by the manufacturer and before any field operation or aging has taken place (ASAE, 2006).

Cv =

…………………………………… 3.7

Where: Assim N. Al-Mansor, M.Sc., 2015

36 MATERIALS AND METHODS x = the mean discharge of emitters in the sample S = the standard deviation of the discharge of the emitters in the sample …………………… 3.8

Where: xi = the discharge of an emitter n = the number of emitters in the sample ASAE (2006) the expected manufacturer’s coefficient of variation (Cv) should be available for new emitters operated at a constant temperature and near the design emitter operating pressure. A general guide for classifying Cv values is shown in (Table 3.3) Table 3.2: Recommended classification of manufacturer’s coefficient of variation (Cv) (ASAE, 2006).

2.Distribution uniformity (DU) of water was estimated along laterals of drip irrigation system in every plot area under pressure range of 1.0 bar by using 20 collection cans and following Equation (Merriam and Keller, 1978): DU = (qm / qa) 100 …………………….. 3. 9 Where: Assim N. Al-Mansor, M.Sc., 2015

37 MATERIALS AND METHODS DU = distribution uniformity, %; qm = the average flow rate of the emitters in the lowest quartile, (l/h); and qa = the average flow rate of all emitters under test, (l/h). To determine the mean emitter discharge (qa), the relative emitter discharge (R) and the reduction of discharge (qr) in percentage, the discharge of each emitter was measured at beginning of the experiments for emitters and at end of experiments for the same emitters, along laterals trickle irrigation system in every plot area under pressure range of 1.0 bar by using 20 collection cans. 3.Design Emission Uniformity (EU): To estimate design emission uniformity in terms of Cv and pressure variations at the emitter, the following equation is used according (ASAE, 2006): EU= 100×

…….………………….. 3. 10

Where: EU = the design emission uniformity, % n = for a point−source emitter on a perennial crop, the number of emitters per plant; Cv = the manufacturer’s coefficient of variation qm = the minimum emitter discharge rate for the minimum pressure in the subunit, L/h qa = the average or design emitter discharge rate for the subunit, L/h Table (3.4) shows recommended ranges of EU values by .


38 MATERIALS AND METHODS Table 3.3: Recommended ranges of design emission uniformity (EU) (ASAE, 2006)

4.Application efficiency (Ea): Application efficiency relates to the actual storage of water in the root zone to meet the crop water needs in relation to the water applied to the field. According to El-Meseery, (2003) application efficiency "AE" was calculated using the following relation: Ea = Vs/ Va *100 ………………………………………….. 3.11 Where: Ea = Application efficiency, (%), Vs = Volume of stored water in root zone (cm3) Va = Volume of applied water (cm3), Where: Vs = (θ1 – θ2) * Zr * ρ*A ……………………………….3.12 A = wetted surface area (cm2), Zr = Root zoon depth (cm), θ1 = Soil moisture content after irrigation (%), θ2 = Soil moisture content before irrigation (%), and ρ = Relative bulk density of soil (dimensionless). Assim N. Al-Mansor, M.Sc., 2015

39 MATERIALS AND METHODS 3.6.Soil Moisture Measurement: There are numerous techniques for evaluating soil moisture. Perhaps the most useful are gravimetric sampling. Gravimetric sampling involves collecting a soil sample from each 15-60 cm of the soil profile to a depth at least that of the root penetration. The soil sample of approximately 100200 gram is placed in an air tight container of known weight (tare) and then weighed. The sample is then placed in an oven heated to 105° C for 24 hours with the container cover removed. After drying, the soil and container are again weighed and the weight of water determined as the before and after readings. The dry weight fraction of each sample can be calculated using (Eq. 3.13). ......................... 3. 13

W=

The Soil Moisture Deficit, SMD, is a measure of soil moisture between field capacity and existing moisture content, θ i, multiplied by the root depth: SMD = (θ fc - θ i) * Zr .................................... 3. 14 Total available water (TAW) and readily available water (RAW) in the top 60cm of the root zone were calculated as (Allen et al., 1998): TAW = 1000(θ fc - θ

WP)

*Zr ......................... 3. 15

Where: TAW= the total available soil water in the root zone [mm], ƟFC = the water content at field capacity [m3 m-3], Ɵ WP = the water content at wilting point [m3 m-3], and Zr = the rooting depth [m].


40 MATERIALS AND METHODS RAW = p* TAW

…………………………………… 3. 16

Where: RAW = the readily available soil water in the root zone [mm], p = average fraction of Total Available Soil Water (TAW) that can be depleted from the root zone before moisture stress (reduction in ET) occurs [0-1] Soil depth of the effective root zone is automatically increased linearly with tomato crop coefficient from a minimum of 0.16 m at transplanting to a maximum of 0.80 m. (Borg and Grimes, 1986) developed a generalized formula for estimating the depth of rooting of a variety of crops. The form of the equation used to estimate the root depth (Zr) at any time is: Zr = Zmax

……………3. 17

Where Dag is the days after germination, Dmax is the number of days from germination until maximum effective rooting, the argument of the Sin function is in radians, Zmax is maximum root zone. Where, range of maximum effective rooting depth (Zr) for selected fully grown tomato crops and management allowed depletion (MAD) levels in percent with minimal reduction in ET rates. Adapted from (Doorenbos and Pruitt, 1977) and (Allen et al. 1998) Maximum rooting depth (Zr), 0.7-1.5 m and management allowed depletion, 40 %. The Borg and Grimes root growth function is illustrated in (Fig. 3.2).


41 MATERIALS AND METHODS 1 0.9

Root Depth (m)

0.8 0.7

0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 1

15

29

43

57

71

85

99

113

127

141

155

Day After Transplanting (day)

Fig. 3.2: Root zone development functions for tomato according to equation (Borg and Grimes 1986) Table 3.4: Estimation of main crop parameters of tomato important for water management and total irrigation requirements per season under full irrigation level. Growth stages of tomato Items

Int.

Dev.

Mid

Late

Oct.– Nov.

Nov.-Dec.

Dec.- Feb.

Feb. -Mar.

25

35

65

30

ETo (mm/day)

4.78

3.23

2.93

4.29

Crop coefficient, Kc

0.6

0.88

1.15

0.9

Reduction factor, Kr, %

0.24

0.7

0.82

0.9

LR, mm/day

0.07

0.16

0.30

0.35

0

0

0

0

331

572

2423

1209

No. of days/ stage

R , mm IRg, (m3 ha-1 / stage) 3

-1

IRg, (m ha /season)

4535

R= water received by plant from sources other than irrigation, mm (for example rainfall); IRg = Gross irrigation.


42 MATERIALS AND METHODS 3.7.Yield Reductions and Water Saving Determination: The reductions in the total fruit yield and water saving was calculated using the following equations as described by: Ry = Ws =

x 100 .………………………………. 3.18 x 100 …………………………….....

3.19 WSm=

x 10 ……………………. 3. 20

Where: Ry = Reduction in fruit yield %; YT1= Yield (ton) of T1 = full irrigation water requirement (control treatment), YT2, YT3 and YT4 = Yield of T2, T3 and T4 respectively (ton). Ws = Water saving %; WSm= Water saving m3, WT1 = water consumption (mm) of T1 = full irrigation water requirement (control treatment), WT2, WT3 and WT4 = water consumption of T1, T3 and T4 respectively (mm). 3.8.Fruit Yield and Water Use Efficiency: The values for fruit yield (kg/plant) and fruit number per plant are the means of eight plants per treatment. Individual fruit weight was calculated from 10 randomly chosen fruits per treatment at each harvest. Number of fruit per plant is the means of fruits of eight plants per treatment. Irrigation water use efficiency (IWUE) was determined by taking the ratio of the marketable yields (kg ha-1) and the total seasonal irrigation volume applied per ha (m3 ha-1). It was expressed as kg m-3 (Howell, 2003).


43 MATERIALS AND METHODS 3.9.Tomato Yield: Yield of the tomato plants was determined in terms of number of fruits/plant, mass of individual fruits, yield per plant and total yield (t/ha). Marketable and total fruit yield per hectare was worked out with the help of fruit yield per plot by using the following formula: …………………….. 3.21 Where: Yield, t/ha. 3.10. Data Analysis: Statistical analysis was performed on data. In experimental design models, the blocks were considered random effects while the irrigation types and the moisture levels (treatments) were fixed effects parameters. Statistical analyses were performed using SAS. Analysis of fruit yield, fruit quality and irrigation parameter were also conducted. Differences at P < 0.05 were considered statistically significant (Gomez and Gomez, 1984).


4.RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 4.1.Crop Evapotranspiration (ETC): The observed monthly average values of the climatic variables for experimental site are shown in (Table 4.1). These meteorological data were used to calculate the reference evapotranspiration ETO using speared sheet software based on modified FAO Penman-Monteith (Eq. 3.1). Table 4.1: The average monthly values of daily air temperature (T), dew point relative humidity (RH), Wind speed (U), sunshine and reference evapotranspiration (ETO). Months Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Fab. Mar.

T mean

Dew Point

RH mean

U mean

Sun Shine

ETc mean

(°C)

(°C)

%

km/h

hrs/day

mm/day

24.9 20.6 17.0 15.0 16.5 17.0

14.4 10.4 9.2 5.7 5.0 7.9

56.4 60.0 56.7 58.7 52.0 58.8

16.0 12.4 14.3 19.0 19.0 16.4

8.7 7.8 7.2 7.5 8.1 8.4

4.9 3.3 2.9 2.8 3.8 4.7

Fig. (4.1) illustrated reference evapotraspiration (ETO) and tomato crop evapotraspiration (ETC) for 2013/2014 cultivation season, where illustrated that the ETO values started to decrease gently from October when tomato cultivation starts then it increased rabidly to reach the optimum values in March at the end of tomato growth duration. These results are due to impact of climate change during the growing period. Tomato crop evapotranspiration ETC values during the growing period (October-March) where illustrated that the daily values of crop evapotranspiration were lower at the beginning of the growing season, and then increased as the plants grow up till it reached its peak in February. At the end of the season the rates declined as the crop matured. Assim N. Al-Mansor, M.Sc., 2015

45 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION These results indicated that the increase in evapotranspiration rates goes parallel to the increase in the vegetative growth of tomato plants. These findings agreed with Ayotamuno et al., (2007) and El-Bably (2007), who reported that the increment in water consumption depends on the availability of soil moisture in the root zone and plant growth stage. Fig. (4.2) showed that crop coefficient curve according to tomato plant growth stage for growing period (October-March). 7.00 ETo ETc

6.00

ET (mm/day)

5.00

4.00

3.00

2.00

1.00

0.00 156 151 146 141 136 131 126 121 116 111 106 101 96 91 86 81 76 71 66 61 56 51 46 41 36 31 26 21 16 11 6 1

Day After Transplanting (day)

Fig. 4.1: Reference evapotraspiration (ETO) and tomato crop evapotraspiration (ETC) for 2013/2014 cultivation season.


46 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

1.40 1.20

1.00

Kc

0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20

Initial stage Developmental stage

Mid-season stage

Late season stage

0.00 1

15

29

43

57 71 85 99 113 Day After Transplanting (day)

127

141

155

Fig. 4.2: Crop coefficients and growing period of tomato (OctoberMarch). 4.2.Irrigation Water Applied (IWA): The amounts of irrigation water under two trickle irrigation systems are shown in (Table 4.2). Results indicated that irrigation with applied water equals 100% of crop evapotranspiration resulted in higher amount of irrigation water applied due to the application of 100% of ETc, followed by 85%, then 70%, and 55% of ETc, respectively. During the entire season, treatments received different amounts of irrigation water according to the plant stage. Fig. (4.3) showed that the cumulative irrigation after transplanting as affected by different irrigation level during the tomato growth season. The first four irrigations were done without irrigation treatments, and then irrigation treatments started with the fifth irrigation as shown in Fig. (4.4) which shows depth of irrigation water for full and deficit irrigation treatments along the growing season. Water was supplied in the season between 10 October and 12 March (155 Assim N. Al-Mansor, M.Sc., 2015

47 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION days). Water supply was four days interval quantified by using valve and time o’clock for each treatment. The total water supply for full irrigation treatment (100% ETc) was estimated with 456 mm of water during the season. This result agreement with (Battilani et al., 2012) that total crop water requirements for tomato ranges from 400 to 800 mm from emergence/transplanting to harvest, depending on climate, plant type, soil, irrigation and crop management. Table 4.2: Under localized irrigation the cumulative crop water requirement and Irrigation water requirement of different irrigation treatments in growing season. Treatment T1 T2 T3 T4

ETc % 100 85 70 55

crop water requirement mm 375 319 263 206

Irr. water requirement mm 456 396 337 278

500 450 Applied Water (mm)

400 350 300 250 200

T1 T2 T3 T4

150 100 50 0 10-Oct

10-Nov

10-Dec

10-Jan

10-Feb

10-Mar

Day after transplanting

Fig. 4.3: Cumulative irrigation after transplanting as affected by different irrigation level during the tomato growth season. Assim N. Al-Mansor, M.Sc., 2015

48 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 20 Irrigation Deapth(mm/4day)

18 16 14

12 10

8

T1

6

T2

4

T3

2

T4

0 10-Oct

10-Nov

10-Dec

10-Jan

10-Feb

10-Mar

Day after transplanting

Fig. 4.4: Depth of irrigation water (mm/4 day) supply for fully (T1) and deficit irrigation (T2, T3 and T4) treatments along the growing season. 4.3.Trickle Irrigation Evaluation Parameters: Data for two trickle irrigation systems are presented in (Table 4.3) including the volume of receiving water through 20 cans, which were put below randomized 20 (Built-in) GR drippers, for surface and subsurface trickle irrigation, average of the lowest quarter was (3.62 and 3.52 l/h) and average of receiving water (3.98 and 3.89 l/h) respectively. The result of trickle irrigation evaluation parameters manufacturer’s coefficient (Cv) was 4% this is excellent according to recommended classification of manufacturer’s coefficient of variation (Cv) (ASAE, 2006), as shown in (Table 3.3). Distribution Uniformity (DU%) is a measure of the uniformity of emissions from all the emission points for field test. Distribution uniformity was calculated by dividing average rate of emitter discharge readings of the lowest one-fourth of the field data by average discharge rate of the emitters checked in the field. The distribution uniformity of Assim N. Al-Mansor, M.Sc., 2015

49 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION water in the trickle irrigation system is the most important factor in the evaluating the efficiency of the trickle irrigation system. Table 4.3: Data for estimating distribution uniformity for trickle irrigation system at the beginning and the end of the season. Cans number

At the beginning of the season test

At the end of the season test

Water Volume (l/h)

Water Volume (l/h)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

3.37 3.37 3.40 3.38 3.73 3.49 3.76 3.61 3.85 3.73 3.89 3.89 3.90 3.86 3.91 3.92 3.97 3.97 4.09 3.97 4.10 3.97 4.12 3.98 4.13 4.00 4.14 4.00 4.16 4.04 4.19 4.03 4.20 4.09 4.21 4.10 4.22 4.12 4.22 4.21 3.62 3.52 Aver. qn 3.98 3.9 Aver. qa 91.1 90.5 DU % EU % 85.9 85.4 Aver. qn: the average flow rate of the emitters in the lowest quartile; Aver. qa: the average flow rate of all emitters under test; DU: Emission uniformity, %; and EU: Design Emission Uniformity,%.


50 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Distribution uniformity of trickle irrigation at the beginning and the end of season in this study was high (91.01 and 90.5 %) respectively, this indicates the water distribution has positively affected. So, the decision to irrigate should be based upon an estimate of crop and soil water status, coupled with some soil moisture and economic return. The irrigation management holds account the requirements out of water for the crops. Design Emission Uniformity EU was (85.9 and 85.4%) at the beginning and the end of season respectively. This results in agreement with recommended ranges of design emission uniformity (EU) by (ASAE, 2006), as shown in (Table 3.4). 4.4.Soil Moisture Content: The average soil moisture content for two layers in the soil profile at (0-30, 30-60 cm), each layer is an average value of two readings from two sub-layers. Fig. (4.5 and 4.6) show the average soil moisture content values as percentage in weight under different irrigation treatments for two types of irrigation systems STI and SSTI. Soil water content readings started after transplanting until the end of the season, the average of readings for each stage of crop growth stages at transplanting (initial stage), development, midseason and harvest period of the tomato crop. Moisture was directly related to the amount of water applied at full or deficit-irrigated treatments and irrigation systems. Moisture in the soil profile initially showed higher moisture content in all the treatments due to the irrigation amount applied before transplanting to replenish the soil profile to field capacity and the all treatments at initial stage receive of the same quantity of water (100% of ETc) for 15 day after transplanting. Soil moisture content in root zone area for initial stage was averaged as 26.7% and 28.2%, respectively, for STI and SSTI as well as fraction of depletion (p) was averaged as 33% and 23%, respectively. The soil water depletion fraction for no-stress (p) is the Assim N. Al-Mansor, M.Sc., 2015

51 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION fraction of the total available soil water that a crop can extract from its root zone without experiencing water stress. The fraction for tomato crop 40% (Allen et al., 1998). The results showed for all irrigation treatments significant differences were also observed between the soil moisture content of the subsurface irrigated plots and those irrigated with the surface trickle system during the development, mid-season and harvest periods. SSTI had higher value of soil moisture content and the lowest percentage depletion than STI’s. This is due to reduce evaporation from soil surface by setting trickle line under soil surface. This result is consistent with (Douh et al., 2013). Subsurface trickle irrigation minimizes the evaporative loss. Also this is in agreement with EI-Awady et al. (2003) where reported that, evaporation decreased with increasing trickle line depth and evapotranspiration from sub-surface trickle irrigation could be reduced to 40 % when the trickle line is buried at a depth of 15 cm compared with irrigation from surface trickle line, with sorghum crop. The soil moisture content under full irrigation T1 (100% ETc) was higher than under deficit treatments for both irrigation systems. Soil moisture content data may help in explaining the severity of water stress among treatments. Fig. (4.5 and 4.6) illustrate of the soil moisture content for the root zone along with field capacity (FC), permanent welting point (PWP), total available water (TAW) and readily available water (RAW). For treatments (T1S, T1SS and T2SS) the soil moisture contents were always higher than RAW for whole growth stages, but under treatments (T4S, T3S and T4SS) soil moisture content were near (PWP) for whole growth stages except initial stage.


52 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 33

F.C. 31

Soil moisture %(w/w)

29

RAW T1SS

27

T2SS 25

T3SS

23

T4SS

TAW

21 19 17

P.W.P

15

Initial-S.

Dev.-S

Mid-S

Late-S

Growth Stages

Fig. 4.5: Average soil moisture content values as percentage in weight under different irrigation treatments for SSTI systems during the growth stages of tomato crop.

33

F.C.

Soil moisture % (w/w)

31 29

RAW T1S

27

T2S 25

T3S

23 21

T4S

TAW

19 17

PWP

15

Initial-S.

Dev.-S

Mid-S

Late-S

Growth stages

Fig. 4.6: Average soil moisture content values as percentage in weight under different irrigation treatments for STI systems during the growth stages of tomato crop. Assim N. Al-Mansor, M.Sc., 2015

53 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The soil water content for (T2S and T3SS) was near the (RAW) line without any serious water stress. These soil moisture content readings were in agreement with the crop stress coefficient values, which were less than one in the (T4S, T3S and T4SS). These results indicated that using only 55% of ETc under two systems of trickle irrigation and 70% of ETc under surface trickle irrigation for tomato production will result in a severe water stress, lower quantity of yield. 4.5.Trickle Irrigation and Tomato Yield: Data are presented in Table (4.4) and Fig. (4.7) showed that the tomatoes yield was higher using subsurface trickle irrigation compared to surface trickle irrigation. According to the experimental results, for surface and subsurface trickle irrigation, the functions were poly and the yield responded to the equation: For surface trickle irrigation, the yield responded to the equation: y = -0.0008x2 + 0.6864x - 84.662, Where: R² = 1. While, for subsurface trickle irrigation, the yield responded to the equation: y = -0.0002x2 + 0.236x+0.288, Where: R² = 0.995 The mean of tomato yields showed significant difference between surface and subsurface trickle irrigation where was 58.63 and 62.65 t ha−1, respectively. The results revealed, the average of tomato yield for full and deficit irrigation is improving by using subsurface trickle irrigation about 6.6% compared with surface trickle irrigation. This may be due to the high soil moisture content under SSTI compared with STI. These results are in agreement with those obtained for surface and subsurface trickle irrigation by other authors (El-Gindy and El-Araby, 1996; Machado et al., 2003; Amor and Amor, 2007). Assim N. Al-Mansor, M.Sc., 2015

54 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The study reveal that the tomatoes yield under surface and subsurface trickle irrigation decreased with water stress and this is in agreement with the findings of some studies on the response to water stress of tomato (Topcu et al., 2007; Kebebew and Tilahun, 2010; Hassan and Abuarab, 2013; Salghi, et al. 2014). However, the data indicated more clear differences among treatments in surface trickle irrigation (STI) and subsurface trickle irrigation (SSTI). The total fruit yield varied widely (66.0, 64.83, 57.93, and 45.78 t ha-1) under the STI and (71.88, 65.85, 60.68, and 52.20 t ha-1) under SSTI for (T1, T2, T3 and T4) respectively. The highest yield (66.0 and 71.88 t ha-1) respectively, for STI and SSTI was recorded in the control T1 (100% ETc). This result is due to the amount of water added to the first treatment (T1) is larger than the amount of water added to the other treatments. This result is in agreement with (Hassan and Abuarab, 2013) the irrigation up to (100% ETc) gave highest total tomato yields than that obtained under very stressful condition. Table 4.4: Comparison of water productivity of irrigation levels for two types of trickle irrigation systems surface STI and subsurface SSTI. Total water supply Treat. 3

-1

m ha season T1

4530

-1

STI

SSTI

Yield

IWUE

Yield

IWUE

(t/ha)

3

(kg/m )

(t/ha)

(kg/m3)

66.0 b

14.49 d

71.9 a

15.78 c

T2 3510 64.8 b 16.36 b 65.9 b 16.62 b T3 2940 57.9 d 17.19 ab 60.7 c 18.01 a T4 2370 45.8 f 16.48 b 52.2 e 18.80 a Mean 58.63B 16.13 B 62.65 A 17.03 A Means within each level of irrigation and type of irrigation system followed by different letters are statistically different at 0.05 P level (small letter) and (capital letter) according to Duncan test.


55 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 80 75 70

Yield (t/ha)

65 60 55

y = -0.0002x 2 + 0.2361x + 0.2884 R² = 0.9959

SSTI

y = -0.0008x 2 + 0.6864x - 84.662 R² = 1

STI

50 45 40 35 30 200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Seasonal Water Applied (mm)

Fig.4.7: Yield response to water applied under surface and subsurface trickle irrigation system. On the other hand, results are presented in Table (4.5), the highest potential reduction in the fruit yield (30.64% and 27.37%) respectively, for STI and SSTI was recorded with the lowest water treatment T4 (55% ETc), this due to the T4 was under water stress. These results indicated that the deficit irrigation T4 saved about (39%) of water this mean saved 1778 m3 can used this amount of saved water to produce more yield. The results showed no significant difference between the (66.0, 64.8 and 65.9 t ha-1) for (T1S, T2S and T2SS) respectively. However, the moderate water level (85% ETc) resulted in the lowest reduction in the fruit yield (1.87% and 8.38%) respectively, for STI and SSTI compared with control treatment (100% ETc). These results indicated that the moderate irrigation level T2 saved about 12.52% of water supplied with lowest reduction in fruit yield. This result in agreement with results of soil water content for (T2S and T2SS) where was near the (RAW) line without any serious water stress. This low percentage of water supplied reduced yield about (1.18 and 6.03 t) for STI and SSTI respectively, this detected under moderate water level treatment is acceptable for the farmer since it was Assim N. Al-Mansor, M.Sc., 2015

56 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION accompanied with saving roughly 12.52% of applied irrigation water this mean saved 593 m3 of irrigation water can be used to produce about 10 t of tomato yield. This finding can support the viewpoint of (Patane et al., 2011) that under water shortage in arid and semi-arid areas, maximizing water use is considered more valuable to the farmer than maximizing crop yield. Table 4.5: Yield reduction and water saving for two type of trickle irrigation in relation irrigation deficit. Treat. T1 T2 T3 T4

Yield reduction % STI 0 1.78 12.23 30.64

SSTI 0 8.38 15.58 27.37

Water saving

Water saving

% 0 13 26 39

m3 ha-1 season-1 0 593 1186 1778

4.6.Irrigation Water Use Efficiency (IWUE): Irrigation water use efficiency (IWUE) was the yield obtained divided by the amount of irrigation water applied expressed in kilograms per cubic meter of irrigation water. There was clear interaction between irrigation type and irrigation water level treatments for IWUE as shown in (Fig. 4.8). The IWUE values ranged from 14.49 kg m-3 to 18.80 kg m-3 depending on the interaction treatments. The highest IWUE value was 18.80 kg m-3 for SSTI under lowest water level T4 (55% ETc), while, the lowest IWUE value was 14.49 kg m-3 for STI under the highest water level T1 (100% ETc). Generally, IWUE of the various irrigation level treatments tended to increase with SSTI system compared to STI system irrigation water applied. This result due to the tomatoes yield was higher using subsurface compared to surface irrigation for same water level as shown in (Table 4.4). This result is in agreement with (Nagaz et al., 2014), the higher water use efficiency was obtained with SSTI as compared with STI system for all irrigation treatments. For irrigation level treatments in general, IWUE values decreased with increasing water Assim N. Al-Mansor, M.Sc., 2015

57 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION level. Water applied in STI was the same as those in SSTI treatment. It is possible to save water improving its use efficiency in processing tomato but water should be applied to the crop (85% ETc), to achieve adequate fruit yield, minimizing fruit losses. These results are in agreement with the previous findings in tomato cultivated under a wide range of deficit irrigation treatments (Ozbahce and Tari, 2010). The amount of water saving due to deficit irrigation is shown in (Table 4.5). Obviously deficit irrigation saves water but reduces yield. From above it is possible to save water improving its use efficiency in tomato to achieve adequate fruit yield these results are in agreement with (Abuarab, et al. 2013 and Hassan and Abuarab, 2013). The amount of water saved can be used to provide other areas to increase the tomato yield and consequence increase the IWUE. 20

18

IWUE (kg/m3)

16

14 12 10

STI

8

SSTI

6

4 2 0

T1

T2

T3

T4

Irrigation level

Fig.4.8: Irrigation water use efficiency (IWUE) for four irrigation level and two systems of trickle irrigation (STI and SSTI).


5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION As fresh water resources become scarce, it is difficult to irrigate crops to meet their full demand. The Arabic region is considered one of the most vulnerable regions to climate change impacts, on account of its water scarcity, which is the highest in the Arab world. Improvements to irrigation management are proposed as a way of increasing agricultural production and reducing the demand for water. One way to achieve greater water use efficiency in irrigation is switching from the less efficient flood or furrow system to more efficient systems such as trickle irrigation (surface, subsurface) or to adopt irrigation strategies, such as deficit irrigation, in order to maximize crop yield and or minimize water losses. The deficit irrigation (DI) strategy, in which irrigation is reduced below the evapotranspiration demand of the crop throughout the growing season, may be acceptable in the Arab region now to cut down water use and energy costs. However, it may be worthwhile to start thinking about it now to lay a strategy for the long term considering the rapidly growing demand for the groundwater due to the tremendous increase in water use for crops. The specific objectives of this study: 1- To determine the effect of water deficit (as quantified by different irrigation levels) and two type of irrigation (surface and sub-surface) on tomato yields. 2- To determine the optimum water use and water use efficiency for the tomatoes crop. 3- To establish optimal water management strategies for tomato for the purpose of achieving more WUE in limited water or water stressed environments. 4- Comparison surface and sub-surface drip irrigation under different irrigation level, and their interaction. Assim N. Al-Mansor, M.Sc., 2015

59 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION The experiment was carried out under open field conditions on a clayey soil at the Experimental station, Faculty of Agriculture, Ain Shames University at Shoubra El Khaymah, Qalyubia Governorate, in the winter season 2013/2014, to study the effect of full irrigation and deficit irrigation, using surface and subsurface trickle irrigation on yield of tomato and the irrigation water use efficiency. Irrigation water has been obtained from Nile river (located in the experimental area), with pH 7.2 and an average electrical conductivity of 0.63 dS/m. While, soil pH 6.84 and EC 2.64 dS/m. The cultivar super red hybrid of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum. L.) was used for this experiment. Seedlings were transplanted at four-leaf stage (after 35 days from seed sowing) on 10 October, 2013. The experiment was consisted of four irrigation water levels (T1: 100% ETc, T2: 85% ETc, T3: 70% ETc and T4: 55% ETc) accompanied with two types of trickle irrigation systems (S: surface and SS: subsurface). Deficit irrigation was applied during the whole growing season. The results of this study are summarized as follows: 1. Cumulative Irrigation water requirement of different irrigation treatments in growing season were (456, 396, 337 and 278 mm) for (T1, T2, T3 and T4) respectively. 2. Subsurface trickle irrigation (SSTI) had higher value of soil moisture content and the lowest percentage depletion than STI’s. This is due to reduce evaporation from soil surface by setting trickle line under soil surface. The soil moisture content under full irrigation T1 (100% ETc) was higher than under deficit treatments for both irrigation systems. 3. A full irrigation (100% ETc) is required to maximize yield in tomato cultivated in arid climate conditions, 4. The tomato yield was higher using subsurface trickle irrigation compared to surface trickle irrigation for fully and deficit irrigation, average of tomato yield for fully and deficit irrigation is increased by Assim N. Al-Mansor, M.Sc., 2015

60 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION using subsurface trickle irrigation about 6.6% compared with surface trickle irrigation, 5. The higher irrigation water use efficiency was obtained with SSTI as compared with STI system for all irrigation treatments, and 6. The moderate irrigation level T2 (85% ETc) saved about 12.52% of water supplied with lowest reduction in fruit yield (1.87% and 8.38) for (STI and SSTI) respectively. 7. The amount of saved water increased by deficit irrigation treatments, for T4 (55% ETc) producing about 69.4% of total fruit yield under STI led to save 39 % of irrigation water, while under SSTI producing about 72.3% of the total fruits yield saved same quantity of irrigation water. The adoption of deficit irrigation (DI) strategies where a 55% reduction of ETc restored is applied for the whole growing season could be suggested, especially in areas such as those of the Arab region, where water resources are increasingly scarce. Deficit irrigation could be a feasible irrigation technique for tomatoes production where the benefit from saving large amounts of water outweighs the decrease in total yield. Finally, based on the results, under conditions of water scarcity, especially in the Arab region, which suffers from water scarcity, subsurface trickle irrigation technologies together with deficit irrigation strategies can be used in order to improve irrigation water use efficiency and tomato yield under open field condition.


6. REFERENCES Abuarab, M.E.; M.M. Shahien and A.M. Hassan. 2013. Effects of regulated deficit irrigation and phosphorus fertilizers on yield, water use efficiency and total soluble solids of tomato ASABE Meeting Presentation Paper Number: 1559786:2-16. Al-Amound, A.I. 1995. Significance of energy losses due to emitter connections in trickle irrigation lines. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 60: 1- 5. Al-haddad, A. H. and A. I. B. Al-Safi. 2015. Scheduling of Irrigation and Leaching Requirements. Journal of Engineering Vol. 21, No. 3, pp:74-93. Ali, M. A.; M. R. Hoque; A. A. Hassan and A. Khair. 2007. Effects of deficit irrigation on yield, water productivity, and economic return of wheat. Agric. Water Manage. 92:151-161. Al-Kaisi, M.M.; A. Berrada and M. Stack. 1997. Evaluation of irrigation scheduling program and spring wheat yield response in Southwestern Colorado. Agricultural Water Management 34:137-148 Allen, R. G.; L. S. Pereira; D. Raes and M. Smith. 1998. Crop evapotranspiration: Guidelines for computing crop water requirements. Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 56. FAO, Rome, Italy, 300 p. Al-Talib, A.A. and A. Y. Hachum. 2007. Rationale of deficit irrigation planning and management. Al-Rafidain Engineering, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp: 85-103. Al-Weshah R. 2008. ISESCO Science and Technology Vision. 4(5): 48-54. Amor, M. A. and F. M. Amor. 2007. Response of tomato plants to deficit irrigation under surface or subsurface drip irrigation. Journal of Applied Horticulture. 9(2): 97-100. Andreas, P. S. 2002. Localized irrigation system planning, design, operation and maintenance; FAO Irrigation Manual Module 9:1-81. ASAE,. 2006. Design and installation of microirrigation systems ASAE, EP405.1 FEB03: 942-946.


62 REFERENCES Ayars JE; C.J. Phene; R.B. Hutmacher; K.R. Davis; R.A. Schoneman; S.S. Vail and R.M. Mead. 1999. Subsurface drip irrigation of row crops: a review of 15 years of research at the Water Management Research Laboratory. Agric Water Manage 42: 1-27. Ayars, J. E.; D. A. Bucks; F. R. Lamm and F. S. Nakayama. 2007. Introduction. Chapter 1 in Microirrigation for Crop Production - Design, Operation and Management. F.R. Lamm, J.E. Ayars, and F.S. Nakayama (Eds.), Elsevier Publications. pp. 1-26. Ayotamuno, J. M.; K. Zuofa; O. A.Sunday and B. R. Kogbara 2007. Response of maize and cucumber intercrop to soil moisture control through irrigation and mulching during the dry season in Nigeria. African Journal of Biotechnology Vol. 6 (5), pp. 509-515. Aziz, Y. A.; F. A. Zuberi and M. A. Bodia. 1995: A country paper on canal lining: the Egyptian experience. Proceedings of the International Workshop on Canal lining and Seepage. Lahore, Pakistan, 18-21: 137143. Badr A. E.; M. E. Abuarab. 2011. Soil moisture distribution patterns under surface and subsurface drip irrigation systems in sandy soil using neutron scattering technique .Springer-Verlag 2011. Irrig. Sci. (2013) 31:317–332. Battilani, A.; M. Henar Prieto; C. Argerich; C. Campillo and V. Cantore. 2012. Tomato. In: Steduto, P.; Hsiao, T.C.; Fereres, E. and Raes, D. (Eds.), Crop yield response to water. FAO, Irrig. and Drain. Paper 66. FAO, Rome: 192–198. Benton, J. 2008. Tomato plant culture: in the field, greenhouse, and home garden. By Taylor and Francis Group, LLC. 400 p. Bhattarai, S. P.; D. J. Midmore and L. Pendergast. 2008. Yield, water-use efficiencies and root distribution of soybean, chickpea and pumpkin under different subsurface drip irrigation depths and oxygation treatments in vertisols. Irrigation Science, 26: 439-450.


63 REFERENCES Birhanu, K. and K. Tilahun. 2010. Fruit yield and quality of drip irrigated tomato under deficit irrigation. African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development, Vol 10, No 2. pp. 2139-2151. Black, C. A. 1965. Methods of Soil Analysis Part 1, Amer. Soc. of Agro. No:9. Borg, H. and D.W. Grimes. 1986. Depth development of roots with time: An empirical description. Trans. ASAE. 29:194-196. Bozkurt S. and S. G. Mansuroglu. 2011. “The effects of drip line depths and irrigation levels on yield, quality and water use characteristics of lettuce under greenhouse condition”, African Journal Biotechno-logy vol. 10 Issue 17, pp 3370-3379. Camp, C.R. 1998. Subsurface drip irrigation: a review. Transactions of ASAE. American Society of Agricultural Engineers. 41: 1353-67. Camp, C. R; F. R. Lamm; R. G. Evans and C. J. Phene. 2000. Subsurface Drip Irrigation: Past, Present and Future. Transactions of the ASAE, 676: 363-372. Camp, C. R.; and F. R. Lamm. (2003). Irrigation systems: Subsurface drip. Encyclopaedia of Water Science Pp: 560-564. Castel, J.R. and Buj A. 1990. Response of Salustiana oranges to high frequency deficit irrigation. Irrig. Sci. 11, 121-127. Chaves, M. M. and M. M. Oliveira. 2004. Mechanisms underlying plant resilience to water deficits: Prospects for water saving-agriculture. J. Exp. Bot. 55 (407), 2365-2384. Clark, G.A.; D. Z. Haman; J. F. Prochaska and M. Yitayew. 2007. General system design principles, In: F.R. Lamm, J.E. Ayars, and F.S. Nakayama (eds.). Microirrigation for crop production. p. 161–219. Costa, J. M.; M. F. Ortuño and M. M. Chaves. 2007. Deficit Irrigation as a Strategy to Save Water: Physiology and Potential Application to Horticulture. Journal of Integrative Plant Biology, 49, 1421-1434.


64 REFERENCES Domingo, R.; M. C. Ruiz-Sánchez; M. J. Sánchezblanco and A. Torrecillas. 1996. Water relations, growth and yield of Fino lemon trees under regulated deficit irrigation. Irrig. Sci. 16, 115-123. Dorji, K.; M. H. Behboudian and J. A. Zegbe-Dominguez. 2005. Water relations, growth, yield, and fruit quality of hot pepper under deficit irrigation and partial rootzone drying. Sci. Hortic., 104: 137-149. Douh, B.; A. Boujelben; S. Khila and A. Bel Haj Mguidiche. 2013. Effect of subsurface drip irrigation system depth on soil water content distribution at different depths and different times after irrigation. Larhyss Journal, ISSN 1112-3680, No. 13: 7-16. EI-Awady, M.N., M. F. Abd-El Salam, M. M. EI-Nawawy and M. A. EI Farrah. 2003. Surface and subsurface irrigation effects on Spinach and sorghum. The IIth Annual Conference of Misr Society of Agric. Eng. Oct. 2003: 118-130. EI-Awady, M.N.; A.M. El Berry; M.A.I. Genaidy and A.M. Zayton. 2008. Mathematical model for predicting the Performance of trickle irrigation system. Misr J. Ag. Eng., 25(3): 837-860. Elasha, B.O. 2010. Mapping of climate change threats and human development impacts in the arab region. United Nations Development Programme Regional Bureau for Arab States Arab Human Development Report Research Paper Series: 1-40. El-Bably A. Z. 2007. Irrigation scheduling of some maize cultivars using class A pan evaporation in North Delta, Egypt. Bull. Fac., Agric., Cairo Univ., 58 (3): 222-232. El-Gindy, A. M. and A. M. El-Araby. 1996. Vegetable crops to response to surface and subsurface drip under calcareous soil. Proc. Int. Conf. on Evapotranspiration and Irrigation Scheduling: 1021–1028. El-Meseery, A.A., 2003. Effect of different drip irrigation systems on maize yield in sandy soil. The 11th Annual Conference of Misr Society of Agr. Eng., 15-16, 576- 594.


65 REFERENCES English, M. J. 1990. Deficit irrigation 1: Analytical framework. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering – ASCE, 116, (3): 399-412. English, M. J. and S. N. Raja. 1996. Perspectives on deficit irrigation. Agricultural Water Management, Vol. 32, No. 1: 1-14. Evans, R.; D. K. Cassel, and R. E. Sneed. 1996. Soil, Water, and Crop Characteristics Important to Irrigation Scheduling. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Cooperative Extension. Publication, No. AG 452-1. FAO., 2011. FAO STAT online database, available at link http://faostat.fao.org/. Accessed on December 2011. Fereres, F. and M. A. Soriano. 2007. Deficit irrigation for reducing agricultural water use. Journal of Experimental Botany, Vol. 58, No. 2: 147-159. Gomez, K. A. and A. A. Gomez. 1984. Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research, 2nd ed. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY, USA. Geerts, S. and D. Raes. 2009. Deficit Irrigation as an On-Farm Strategy to Maximize Crop Water Productivity in Dry Areas. Agricultural Water Management, 96, 1275-1284. Hanson, B. and D. May. 2007. The effect of drip line placement on yield and quality of drip irrigated processing tomatoes. Irrig. Drainage Syst. 21:109-118. Hartz, T. K; E. M. Miyeo; R.J. Mullen; M.D. Cahn; J. G. Valincia and K. L. Brttin. 1999. Potassium for maximum yield and fruit quality of processing tomato. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 124: 199- 204. Hartz, T.;P.R. Johanstone; D.M. Frencis and E.M. Miyao. 2005. processing tomato yield and fruit quality improved with Potassium fertigation. Hort. Scince (40) 6: 1862-1867. Hartz, T. and B. Hanson. 2009. Drip irrigation and fertigation management of processing tomato. Vegetable Research and Information Center, University of California, Davis: 1-11.


66 REFERENCES Hassan, A. M. and M. E. Abuarab. 2013. Effect of deficit irrigation water on the productivity and characteristics of tomato. Misr J. Ag. Eng., 30(2):403-424. Hassanli, A. M.; M. A. Ebrahimizadeh and S. Beecham. (2009). The effects of irrigation methods with effluent and irrigation scheduling on water use efficiency and corn yields in an arid region. Agricultural Water Management. (96): 93- 99. Helyes L; G. Varga; Z. Pék and J. Dimény. 1999. The simultaneous effect of variety, irrigation and weather on tomato yield. Acta. Hort., 487: 499– 505. Hoffman, G. J.; T. A. Howell; K. H. Solomon. 1990. Introduction In: G. J Hoffman, T. A Howell, K. H. Solomon. editors. Management of Farm Irrigation Systems. ASAE Monograph, American Society of Agricultural Engineering, MI. Howell, T. A. 2003. Irrigation efficiency. In Encyclopedia of Water Science: 467-473. Howell, T. A. and M. Meron. 2007. Irrigation scheduling. Micro-irrigation for crop production design, operation and management. Eds. Lamm, L. R., Ayars, J. E., and Nakayama, F. S. Elsevier: 61-130. IPCC. (Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change). 2007. IPCC fourth assessment report: Climate Change 2007 (AR 4) Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York: 434-506. Ji, X. B.; E. S. Kang; R. S. Chen; W. Z. Zhao; Z. H. Zhang and B.W. Jin. 2007. A mathematical model for simulating water balances in cropped sandy soil with conventional flood irrigation applied. Agricultural Water Management, 87(3), 337-346. Jones, H. G. 2004. Irrigation scheduling: advantages and pitfalls of plantbased methods. Journal of Experimental Botany, 55(407): 2427-2436. Kang, S. Z. and J. H. Zhang. 2004. Controlled alternate partial root-zone irrigation: Its physiological consequences and impact on water use efficiency. Journal of Experimental Botany, 55: 2437-2446. Assim N. Al-Mansor, M.Sc., 2015

67 REFERENCES Karam, F.; M. Randa; T. Sfeir; M. Oussama and R. Youssef. 2005. Evapotranspiration and seed yield of field grown soybean under deficit irrigation conditions. Agric. Water Manage. 75: 226 – 244. Kebebew, B. and K. Tilahun. 2010. Fruit yield and quality of drip-irrigated tomato under deficit irrigation, AJFAND Vol. 10 No. 2: 2139-2151. Keller, J. and D. Karmeli. 1975. Trickle irrigation design parameters. Trans. of ASAE, 17(4): 678-684. Keller, J. and R.D. Bliesner. 1990. Sprinkle and trickle irrigation, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York. 427–602. Khalifa, E. M.; M. K. El-Nemr; M. E. Meleha and M.M. Sharaf. 2014. Optimizing amount of applied water for drip irrigation system in North Nile Delta. Misr J. Ag. Eng., 31(3):765-780. Kirda, C., 2002. Deficit irrigation scheduling based on plant growth stages showing water stress tolerance. In deficit irrigation practices. C. Kirda; P. Moutonnet; C. Hera and D. R. Nielsen (eds).Water Report No. 22, FAO, Rome, 109 p. Lamm, F. R. (2002). Advantages and disadvantages of subsurface drip irrigation. Proc. Int’l Meeting on Advances in Drip/Micro Irrigation, Puerto de La Cruz, Tenerife, Canary Islands, December 2-5. Lamm, F. R. and C.R. Camp. 2007. Subsurface drip irrigation. Chapter 13 in Microirrigation for crop production, design, operation and management. F. R. Lamm, J. E. Ayars, and F. S. Nakayama (Eds.), Elsevier Publications. pp. 473-551. Letey, J; A. Dinar; C. Woodring and D.J. Oster. 2000. An economic analysis of irrigation sytem. Irrig. Sci. 11: 37–43. Machado, R. M. A.; M. Rosario; G. Oliveira and C. A. M. Portas. 2003. Tomato root distribution, yield and fruit quality under subsurface drip irrigation. Plant and Soil, Vol. 255, Issue 1 : 333-341. Merriam, J.; and J. Keller. 1978. Farm irrigation system evaluation. A Guide for Management, Agriculture and Irrigation Engineering Department, Utah State University. pp 120-230. Assim N. Al-Mansor, M.Sc., 2015

68 REFERENCES Moon, D. and W. Van Der Gulik, 1996: Irrigation scheduling using GIS. Evapotranspiration and irrigation scheduling. Proceedings of the Internati Conference. American Sociaty of Agricultural Engineers. San Antonio, Texas, USA, November 3-6: 644-649. Nagaz, K.; F. El-Mokh; M. M. Masmoudi and N. B. Mechlia. 2014. Effects of surface and subsurface drip irrigation regimes with saline water on yield and water use efficiency of potato in arid conditions of Tunisiai. Journal of Agriculture and Environment for International Development – JAEID, 108 (2): 227 – 246. Nuruddin, M. M.; C. A. Madramootoo and G. T. Dodds. 2003. Effects of water stress at different growth stages on greenhouse tomato yield and quality. Hort Science, 38: 1389-1393. Oktem, A.; M. Simsek and A. G. Oktem. 2003. Deficit irrigation effects on sweet corn (Zea mays saccharata Sturt) with drip irrigation system in a semi-arid region. I. Water-yield relationship. Agric. Water Manage, 61: 63-74. Oliveira, M. R. G.; A. M. Cataldo and C. A. M. Portas. 1996. Tomato root distribution under drip irrigation. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 121(4):644–648. Ouda, S.; F. Khalil; G. El Afendi and S. Abd El-Hafez. 2011. prediction of total water requirements for agriculture in the Arab world under climate change fifteenth International Water Technology Conference, IWTC-15 2011, Alexandria, Egypt. Owusu-Sekyere, J. D.; L. K. Sam-Amoah; E. Teye and B. P. Osei. 2012. Crop coefficient (kc), water requirement and the effect of deficit irrigation on tomato in the coastal savannah zone of Ghana. I.J.S.N., VOL. 3(1) pp: 83-87, ISSN 2229 – 6441. Ozbahce, A. and A. F. Tari. 2010. Effects of different emitter space and water stress on yield and quality of processing tomato under semi-arid climate conditions. Agric. Water Manage. vol. 97, Issue 9: 1405-1410.


69 REFERENCES Patane, C.; S. Tringali and O. Sortino. 2011. Effects of deficit irrigation on biomass, yield, water productivity and fruit quality of processing tomato under semi-arid Mediterranean climate conditions. Sci. Hort., 129:590596. Perry, C. 2007. Efficient irrigation; inefficient communication; flawed recommendations. Irrigation and Drainage 56 (4), 367–378 Perry, C.; P. Steduto; R. G. Allen and C. M. Burt. 2009. Increasing productivity in irrigated agriculture: Agronomic constraints and hydrological realities. Agric. Water Manage. Vol. 96, No. 11:1517-1524. Phene, C. J.; R. B. Hutmacher; K. R. Davis and R. L. McCormick. 1992. Water-fertilizer management of processing tomatoes. Acta-Horticulturae, 1990, No. 277, 137-143. Phene, C. J. 1995. The sustainability and potential of subsurface drip irrigation. In: Microirrigation for a Chaning World, Eds F. R. Lamn. Orlando, Florida, USA: 359-367. Phocaides, A. 2007. Technical handbook on pressurized irrigation techniques. 2nd Ed. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 195 p. Ragab, R. 1996. Constraints and applicability of irrigation scheduling under limited water resources, variable rainfall and saline conditions. In: (FAO) (ed.), Irrigation Scheduling: from Theory to Practice. Rome, Italy, pp. 149–165. Rowland, D. L.; W. H. Fairclotha; P. Payton; D. Tissue; T. Jason; A. Ferrell; R.B. Sorensen and C. L. Butts. 2012. Primed Acclimation of Cultivated Peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) through the Use of Deficit Irrigation Timed to Crop Developmental Periods. Agricultural Water Management, 113, 85-95. Salghi, R.; S. M. Alaoui; M. Ayoub; A. Abouatallah and S. Jodeh. 2014. Impact of drip irrigation scheduling on yield parameters in tomato plant (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) under unheated greenhouse. Int. J. Chem. Tech. Res., 6(7): 3733-3741. Assim N. Al-Mansor, M.Sc., 2015

70 REFERENCES Schwankl, L. J and B. R. Hanson. 2007. Surface drip irrigation. In: F. R. Lamm, J. E. Ayars, and F. S. Nakayama (eds.). Microirrigation for crop production. p: 431- 471. Shahein, M. M.; M. E. Abuarab and A. M. Hassan. 2012. Effects of regulated deficit irrigation and phosphorus fertilizers on water use efficiency, yield and total soluble solids of tomato. American-Eurasian J. Agric. and Environ. Sci., 12 (10): 1295-1304. Sharaf, G.A. and Hassan, Azza. 2006. Water Management and Irrigation Scheduling of Tomato by Water Balance. Irrigation and Drainage. Misr J. Ag. Eng., 23(3): 549- 570. Similarly, Capra A. and B. Scicolone. 1998. Water quality and distribution uniformity in drip/trickle irrigation systems., J. Agric. Eng. Res., 70: 355365. Simonne, E.; R. Hochmuth; J. Brem; W. Lamont; D. Treadwell and A. Gazula. 2012. Drip irrigation system for small conventional vegetable farms and organic. Vegetable Farms, University of Florida. IFAS Extension. HS1203. Smith, M. and P. Steduto. 2012. Yield response to water: the original FAO Water Production Function in: Steduto, P.; Hsiao, T.C.; Fereres, E. and Raes, D. (Eds.), Crop yield response to water. FAO, Irrig. and Drain. Paper 66. FAO, Rome: 6-12. Soccol, O.J; M.N. Ullman and J.A. Frizzone. 2002. Performance analysis of a trickle irrigation subunit installed in an apple orchard. Brazilian Archives of Biology and Technology, An International Journal, 45: 525530. Speelman, S.; K.S. Sadati; M. Sabouhi; M. Gitizadeh and B. Ghahraman. 2014. Optimal irrigation water allocation using a genetic algorithm under various weather conditions. Water, ISSN 2073-4441, 6, pp: 3068-3084. Steduto, P.; T.C. Hsiao and E. Fereres. 2007. On the conservative behavior of biomass water productivity. Irrig. Sci. 25:189-207. Assim N. Al-Mansor, M.Sc., 2015

71 REFERENCES Steduto, P. and D. Raes. 2012. Yield response to water of herbaceous crops: the Aqua Crop simulation model in: Steduto, P.; Hsiao, T.C.; Fereres, E. and Raes, D. (Eds.), Yield response to water: FAO Irrigation and Drainage, paper No. 66, FAO: Rome, Italy ISBN 978-92-5-107274-5:16-49. Tagar, A.; F.A. Chandio; I.A. Mari and B. Wagan. 2012, Comparative Study of Drip and Furrow Irrigation Methods at Farmer’s Field in Umarkot . International Science Index Vol. 6, No:9: 771-775. Thabet, M., 2013. Drip irrigation systems and water saving in arid climate:A case study from South Tunisia International Journal of Water Resources and Arid Environments ISSN 2079-7079, vol. 2 (4), pp: 226-230. Topcu, S. C.; Y. Kirda; H. Dasgan; M. Kaman; A. Yazici and M. A. Bacon. 2007. Yield response and N-fertilizer recovery of tomato grown under deficit irrigation. Europ. J. of Agron. 26: 64-70. Unger, W.P. 2006. Soil and water conservation handbook. Haworth Press Inc, Alice Street Binghamton, New York, 13904–1580. Wang, H.; C. Liu and L. Zhang. 2002. Water- saving agriculture in China: An overview. Adv. Agron. 75: 135-171. Wichelns, D. 2007. Economic implications of microirrigation. Lamm, F. R., J.E. Ayars and F. S. Nakayama 2007. Microirrigation for Crop Production Design, Operation, and Management Copyright Elsevier B.V. p 233. Zakaria S.; N.A. Al-Ansari; S. Knutsson and M. Ezz-Aldeen. (2012). Rain Water Harvesting and Supplemental Irrigation at Northern Sinjar Mountain, Iraq. J. Purity, Utility Reaction and Environment. Vol. 1 No. 3 May, 121-141. Zegbe, J.A.; M.H. Behboudian and B.E. Clothier. 2006. Yield and fruit quality in processing tomato under partial rootzone drying. European Journal of Horticultural Science 71, 252-258.


‫الملخص العربي‬

‫ادارة الري بالتنقيط لمحصول الطماطم تحت ظروف الري الناقص‬ ‫يعد نقص المياه من اهم العوامل المحددة ألنتاج المحاصيل في المناطق الجافة‬ ‫وشبة الجافة‪ ،‬اذ تعاني هذه المناطق من تغيرات واسعة في ظروف البيئة والمناخ‬ ‫وان شحة المياه التي أصبحت ظاهرة تستدعي الحلول لتوفير بعضا من مياه الري‬ ‫الحالية من خالل إيجاد أنظمة ري عالية الكفاءة ومنها الري بالتنقيط او استخدام‬ ‫تقنية الري الناقص والتي تهدف الى زيادة االنتاج لوحدة المياه‪.‬‬ ‫تهدف هذه الدراسه الى‪:‬‬ ‫‪ -1‬تحديد تاثير تطبيق كل من الري الناقص والري الكامل على محصول الطماطم‬ ‫)‪ (Solanum lycopersicum. L.‬صنف سوبر هايبرد ريد‪.‬‬ ‫‪ -2‬تحديد افضل كفاءة الستخدام مياه الري بأستخدام نظام الري بالتنقيط السطحي‪،‬‬ ‫وتحت السطحي النتاج محصول الطماطم‪.‬‬ ‫‪ -3‬تحديد افضل ادارة لمياه الري النجاز اكثر انتاجية لوحدة المياه‪.‬‬ ‫‪ -4‬مقارنة الري بالتنقيط السطحي وتحت السطحي تحت مستويات مختلفه للمياه‪.‬‬ ‫أجريت التجربه للموسم الشتوي ‪ 2114/2113‬في أرض طينيه في حقل تجارب‬ ‫كلية الزراعه ‪ -‬جامعة عين شمس ‪ -‬شب ار الخيمه ‪ -‬مصر‪ .‬أستخدم تصميم‬ ‫القطاعات المنشقه‪ ،‬كانت التربه طينيه القوام‪ ،‬وتم تقدير السعه الحقليه ونقطة‬ ‫الذبول الدائم في التربه‪ ،‬وباربع مكررات‪ .‬االحتياجات المائيه اليوميه لمحصول‬ ‫الطماطم حسبت بمعادلة بانمان مونتيث‪ ،‬وأستخدم معامل المحصول (‪ ،)kc‬وحسب‬ ‫مرحلة النمو للمحصول كما ورد في الفاو‪ ،65‬وأستخدم معامل التخفيض (‪،)kr‬‬ ‫أشتملت التجربه اربع معامالت للري وهي‪ (T4, T3, T2, T1):‬و تمثل (‪،%111‬‬ ‫‪ (% 66 ،%71 ،%56‬على التوالي من البخر‪ -‬نتح المحصولي )‪ (ETc‬لنبات‬ ‫الطماطم‪ ،‬و أستخدم نوعين لنظام الري بالتنقيط (السطحي وتحت السطحي)‪ ،‬وكان‬ ‫الري الناقص للموسم كامال‪ .‬وتم اجراء أختبار المعنويه ‪ p= 1.16‬لتأثير مستوى‬ ‫الري ونوع الري والتداخل بينهم‪.‬‬

‫‪2‬‬

‫وتتلخص نتائج الدراسة في االتي‪-:‬‬ ‫‪ -1‬كانت كمية مياه الري خالل الموسم (‪ 453, 397, 339, 280‬مم)‬ ‫للمعامالت )‪ (T1:100, T2:85, T3:70, T4:55 % ETc‬على التوالي‪.‬‬ ‫‪ -2‬كان لمستويات الري‪ ،‬ونوع الري تاثير على المحتوى الرطوبي بالتربة في‬ ‫مراحل نمو المحصول المختلفه‪ .‬فقد اظهرت النتائج ارتفاع نسبة الرطوبه بالتربه في‬ ‫نظام الري بالتنقيط تحت السطحي بالمقارنه بنظام الري بالتنقيط السطحي باالضافه‬ ‫الى أرتفاع نسبة الرطوبه مع نظامي الري السطحي وتحت السطحي في معاملة‬ ‫الري الكامل ‪ %111‬من البخر‪ -‬النتح بالمقارنه مع الري الناقص وانخفاض نسبة‬ ‫الرطوبه الى حد االجهاد المائي لكال النظامين تحت اقل مستوى للري الناقص‬ ‫‪ %66‬من البخر‪ -‬النتح‪ .‬وهذه النتائج تفسر تفوق انتاج الطماطم لنظام الري‬ ‫بالتنقيط تحت السطحي والري الكامل على نظام الري بالتنقيط السطحي والري‬ ‫الناقص‪.‬‬ ‫‪ -3‬هناك تفوق معنوي باالنتاج مع نظام الري بالتنقيط تحت السطحي على الري‬ ‫بالتنقيط السطحي‪ .‬حيث بلغت متوسط الزيادة بالمحصول لنظام الري بالتنقيط تحت‬ ‫السطحي على النظام السطحي ‪ % 5.5‬لجميع المعامالت (الري الكامل والناقص)‪.‬‬ ‫اما لمستويات الري فتشير النتائج الى تفوق معاملة الري الكامل على جميع‬ ‫معامالت الري الناقص ولكال النظامين السطحي وتحت السطحي ‪.‬‬ ‫‪ -4‬أزدياد في كفاءة أستخدام المياه مع انخفاض مستوى الري لكل من الري‬ ‫بالتنقيط السطحي وتحت السطحي وقد أظهر نظام الري بالتنقيط تحت السطحي‬ ‫تفوق معنوي بكفاءة أستخدام ماء الري على نظام الري بالتنقيط السطحي‪.‬‬ ‫‪ -6‬ان أستخدام الري بالتنقيط تحت السطحي عند مستوى ري (‪% 66 ،71 ،56‬‬ ‫‪ )ETc‬قد خفض من كمية االنتاج بمقدار (‪ )%27.4 ،16.5 ،5.4‬على التوالي‪،‬‬ ‫ووفر كمية مياه تصل(‪ )% 35.7، 26.5، 12.6‬على التوالي بالمقارنه بالري‬ ‫الكامل (‪ ،)ETc%111‬في حين أنخفض االنتاج في نظام الري بالتنقيط السطحي‬ ‫لنفس مستويات الري الى (‪ )% 31.5 ،12.2 ،1.5‬على التوالي بالمقارنه بالري‬ ‫الكامل ووفر كمية مياه (‪ (% 38.2 ،25.2 ،12.3‬على التوالي وهذه الكمية من‬ ‫المياه المرشدة يمكن أستخدامها في زراعة مساحات جديده لزيادة االنتاج وزيادة‬ ‫كفاءة أستخدام مياه الري‪.‬‬ ‫وفي الختام في ظل ظروف ندرة المياه خصوصا في المنطقه العربيه التي تعاني‬ ‫من شحه في الموارد المائيه من الممكن أستخدام نظام الري بالتنقيط تحت السطحي‬ ‫مع تقنية الري الناقص لتحسين كفاءة أستخدام المياه والعائد من محصول الطماطم‪.‬‬

‫ادارة الري بالتنقيط لمحصول الطماطم تحت ظروف الري الناقص‬

‫رسالة مقدمة من‬

‫عاصم ناصر دراج المنصور‬ ‫بكالوريوس علوم زراعية (المكننه الزراعيه) ‪ ،‬جامعة البصره ‪4991 ،‬‬

‫للحصول على‬

‫درجة الماجستير في العلوم الزراعية‬ ‫(هندسة الري والصرف الحقلي )‬

‫قسم الهندسة الزراعية‬ ‫كلية الزراعة‬ ‫جامعة عين شمس‬

‫‪2015‬‬

‫صفحة الموافقة على الرسالة‬

‫ادارة الري بالتنقيط لمحصول الطماطم تحت ظروف الري ألناقص‬ ‫رسالة مقدمة من‬

‫عاصم ناصر دراج المنصور‬ ‫بكالوريوس علوم زراعية (المكننه الزراعيه) ‪ ،‬جامعة البصره ‪4991 ،‬‬

‫للحصول على‬ ‫درجة الماجستير في العلوم الزراعية‬ ‫(هندسة الري والصرف الحقلي)‬ ‫وقد تمت مناقشة الرسالة والموافقة عليها‬ ‫اللجنة‪:‬‬ ‫‪...............................................‬‬ ‫د‪ .‬جمال حسن السيد‬ ‫رئيس بحوث متفرغ‪ ،‬معهد بحوث الهندسه الزراعيه‪ ،‬مركز البحوث الزراعيه‪.‬‬ ‫د‪ .‬احمد ابو الحسن عبد العزيز ‪................................................‬‬ ‫أستاذ الهندسة الزراعية‪ ،‬كلية الزراعة ‪ ،‬جامعة عين شمس‪.‬‬ ‫‪..................................................‬‬ ‫د‪ .‬محمود محمد حجازي‬ ‫أستاذ الهندسة الزراعية المتفرغ ‪ ،‬كلية الزراعة ‪ ،‬جامعة عين شمس‪.‬‬ ‫‪..................................................‬‬ ‫د‪ .‬عبد الغني محمد الجندي‬ ‫أستاذ الهندسة الزراعية المتفرغ ‪ ،‬كلية الزراعة ‪ ،‬جامعة عين شمس‪.‬‬

‫تاريخ المناقشة ‪2015/ 1 / 6 :‬‬

‫جامعة عين شمس‬ ‫كلية الزراعة‬

‫رسالة ماجستير‬

‫اسم الطالب‬ ‫عنوان الرسالة‬

‫‪:‬‬ ‫‪:‬‬

‫اسم الدرجة‬

‫‪:‬‬

‫عاصم ناصر دراج المنصور‬ ‫ادارة الري بالتنقيط لمحصول الطماطم تحت ظروف‬ ‫الري الناقص‬ ‫ماجستير في العلوم الزراعية (هندسة الري‬ ‫والصرف الحقلي)‬ ‫لجنة اإلشراف‪:‬‬

‫د‪ .‬عبد الغني محمد الجندي‬ ‫أستاذ الهندسة الزراعية المتفرغ ‪ ،‬قسم الهندسة الزراعية ‪ ،‬كلية الزراعة ‪ ،‬جامعة عين شمس‬ ‫(المشرف الرئيسي) ‪.‬‬ ‫د‪ .‬محمود محمد حجازي‬ ‫أستاذ الهندسة الزراعية المتفرغ ‪ ،‬قسم الهندسة الزراعية ‪ ،‬كلية الزراعة ‪ ،‬جامعة عين شمس‪.‬‬ ‫د‪ .‬خالد فران طاهر الباجوري‬ ‫أستاذ الهندسة الزراعية المساعد‪ ،‬قسم الهندسة الزراعية‪ ،‬كلية الزراعة‪ ،‬جامعة عين شمس‪.‬‬

‫تاريخ التسجيل ‪2042 /40 /15 :‬‬

‫الدراسات العليا‬ ‫ختم اإلجازة‬

‫أجيزت الرسالة بتاريخ‬ ‫‪2042 / /‬‬

‫موافقة مجلس الكلية‬ ‫‪2042 / /‬‬

‫موافقة مجلس الجامعه‬ ‫‪2042 / /‬‬