Journal of Plant Nutrition PLANT NUTRITION IN RESPONSE TO DRIP ...

This article was downloaded by: [Indian Agricultural Statistics Reseach Institue] On: 01 June 2015, At: 23:55 Publisher: Taylor & Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Plant Nutrition Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/lpla20

PLANT NUTRITION IN RESPONSE TO DRIP VERSUS BASIN IRRIGATION IN YOUNG ‘NAGPUR’ MANDARIN ON INCEPTISOL a

a

a

P. Panigrahi , A. K. Srivastava , A. D. Huchche & Shyam Singh

a

a

National Research Centre for Citrus , Nagpur , India Published online: 19 Jan 2012.

To cite this article: P. Panigrahi , A. K. Srivastava , A. D. Huchche & Shyam Singh (2012) PLANT NUTRITION IN RESPONSE TO DRIP VERSUS BASIN IRRIGATION IN YOUNG ‘NAGPUR’ MANDARIN ON INCEPTISOL, Journal of Plant Nutrition, 35:2, 215-224, DOI: 10.1080/01904167.2012.636124 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01904167.2012.636124

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions

Journal of Plant Nutrition, 35:215–224, 2012 C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC Copyright ISSN: 0190-4167 print / 1532-4087 online DOI: 10.1080/01904167.2012.636124

Downloaded by [Indian Agricultural Statistics Reseach Institue] at 23:55 01 June 2015

PLANT NUTRITION IN RESPONSE TO DRIP VERSUS BASIN IRRIGATION IN YOUNG ‘NAGPUR’ MANDARIN ON INCEPTISOL

P. Panigrahi, A. K. Srivastava, A. D. Huchche, and Shyam Singh National Research Centre for Citrus, Nagpur, India

2

Evaluation of drip irrigation treatments scheduled at 40, 60, 80, and 100% of alternate day cumulative pan evaporation (Ecp) against basin irrigation method was undertaken in 1-year-old ‘Nagpur’ mandarin (Citrus reticulata Blanco) trees budded on rough lemon [Citrus jambhiri (L)] rootstock on an alkaline Inceptisol soil type for three seasons during 2003–2005. Growth responses showed significantly (P ≤ 0.05) higher annual increase in tree height (0.44–0.50 m), scion girth (37–45 mm), and canopy volume (0.508–0.986 m 3) under drip-irrigation except irrigation at 40% Ecp, compared to tree height (0.40 m), scion girth (36 mm), and canopy volume (0.463 m 3) under basin irrigation. The highest magnitude of increase in different growth parameters was observed with drip irrigation at 80% Ecp, which produced the net water saving of 32% over basin irrigation method. Response on leaf nutrient composition under drip irrigation at 80% Ecp likewise produced the similar response, [2.27% nitrogen (N), 1.98% potassium (K), and 121.8 ppm iron (Fe)], significantly (P ≤ 0.05) higher than under basin irrigation (1.12% N, 1.04% K, and 98.3 ppm Fe), with other nutrients, e.g., phosphorus (P), manganese (Mn), copper (Cu), and zinc (Zn) remained unaffected. Keywords:

Nagpur mandarin, drip irrigation, growth, plant nutrition, central India

INTRODUCTION Basin and furrow irrigation are the most widely adopted method of irrigation in perennial crops including citrus (Fereres et al., 2003). Response of drip-irrigation on better plant nutrition, tree growth, and quality yield along with water economy is well recognized in different citrus cultivars across various citrus growing regions of the world (Germanà et al., 1992; Qui˜ nones et al., 2003). The shortage of water is emerging as the major abiotic constraint limiting the productivity potential of citrus orchards in Received 24 November 2009; accepted 1 June 2011. Address correspondence to A. K. Srivastava, National Research Centre for Citrus, Post Box No. 464, Shankarngar Post Office, Amravati Road, Nagpur 440 010, Maharashtra, India. E-mail: aksrivas [email protected]

215


216

P. Panigrahi et al.

many arid and semiarid regions (Abu-Awwad, 2001; Yang et al., 2002; Singh and Srivastava, 2004). In these regions, drip irrigation has been observed very effective in combating such irrigation water shortage. Scheduling irrigation is considered the most vital to make drip system efficient, as excessive or sub-optimum irrigation, both have detrimental effects on available supply of nutrients in soil vis-à-vis growth and productivity parameters of citrus (Davies and Albrigo, 1994). Various methods based on viz., crop coefficient (Germanà and Continella, 2002), soil water potential (Chartzoulakis et al., 1999), soil moisture depletion (Peres, 1987), plant water potential (Intrigliolo et al., 2000), and meteorological parameters (Germanà et al., 1992) are popularly used for irrigation scheduling in citrus, with each having certain distinctive merits over others in terms of maintaining better plant nutrition and optimum productivity on sustained basis. Central India is globally the only commercially important citrus belt, where soil water deficit stress is adopted in the absence of low temperature stress, sufficient for induction of flowering in ‘Nagpur’ mandarin (Citrus reticulata Blanco) on smectite rich black clay soil with rhizosphere clay content varying from 350.0 to as high as 600.0 g kg−1 (Srivastava et al., 2000). Such clay texture of soil, consumes large amount of irrigation water through flooding or any other surface method of irrigation including basin, border or furrow system. Moreover, due to small size and uncertain location of the root zone, supply level of nutrients in soil is considered critical in addition to irrigation requirement during 4–5 pre-bearing years of young plantation. Researches on the response of drip irrigation in relation to soil fertility changes dictating the performance of young mandarin cultivars are very limited. In this background, studies were carried out to evaluate basin irrigation versus pan evaporation-based-drip irrigation using young ‘Nagpur’ mandarin as a test crop on an alkaline clay Inceptisol under hot sub-humid tropical climate of central India. MATERIALS AND METHODS Experimental Set-Up Field experiment was conducted at the Experimental Farm of National Research Centre for Citrus, Nagpur (21◦ 08 45 N latitude;79◦ 02 15 E longitude and 340 MSL altitude), India for three seasons, each starting with January up to December for 2003–2004, 2004–2005, and 2005–2006 using 1-year-old ‘Nagpur’ mandarin (Citrus reticulata Blanco) plants budded on rough lemon (Citrus jambhiri Lush) rootstock spaced 6 m apart at row-to-row and plant-to-plant distance. Five irrigation treatments, consisted of drip irrigation at 40% of alternate day cumulative pan evaporation DI at 40% Ecp, DI at 60% Ecp, DI at 80% Ecp, DI at 100% Ecp, and basin irrigation in a


Drip vs. Basin Irrigation in Mandarin

217

circular ring of radius 0.3 m from perimeter of trees, were imposed on the experimental trees during the watering period (1 November–30 June) of each growing season. An experimental block, consisting of 357 trees in 17 rows was divided into four equal size plots with 3 rows of trees in each plot, and then each plot was further divided into five equal subplots of size 18 m x 18 m, with a buffer line of tree in between each plot as well as subplot. Borderline trees of the block were not considered for experiment. Treatments were applied to each block in a randomized complete block design with nine trees per replication in three adjacent rows within a sub-plot. The experimental soil was alkaline (pH 8.04) having EC of 0.24 ds m−1 and clay loam texture (31.65% sand, 23.6% silt, and 44.8% clay). The field capacity (−33 kPa) and permanent wilting point (−1500 kPa) of the soil were estimated as 24.8% and 15.7%, respectively, on weight basis considering 1.18 g cm−3 as bulk density. The mean daily USWB Class-A pan evaporation rate (Ep) varied from 1.8 mm in December to 13.5 mm in May with average annual rainfall of 909 mm, the major part of which is received during monsoon period (July–October). The capillary rise in root zone of the trees was neglected due to perennially deep ground water level (12–20 m from ground surface). All the experimental trees were raised on uniform cultural practices. Irrigation quantity for different drip irrigation treatments was calculated using the formula (Germanà et al., 1992) V = S × Kp × KC × (Ecp − ER)/r where, V is the irrigation volume (l/tree), S the tree canopy area (m2), Kp the pan factor (0.7), Kc the crop factor (0.6), Ecp the cumulative class-A pan evaporation for two consecutive days (mm), ER the cumulative effective rainfall for corresponding two days (mm), and r the water application efficiency of irrigation system (≈ 90%). Surface runoff during the experimental period was observed negligible within the experimental plot size (Panigrahi et al., 2006), and the subsurface drainage below 0.15 m soil depth was nil as evident from the variation in soil moisture at 0.3 m depth computed after each rainfall, suggesting effective rainfall ≈ rainfall. All the drip irrigation treatments were scheduled through two 4 l h−1 pressure compensated online dripper per tree, placed at 20 cm radial distance from tree trunk. Basin irrigation method was maintained at 50% depletion of available soil moisture (23.9%, v/v) considering 0–0.15 m rhizosphere depth. Gate valves and water meters were provided at the inlet end of sub-mains to regulate the quantity of water to be delivered to each treatment. Observations and Analysis of Collected Samples The soil moisture content was monitored twice a week before irrigation at 0.15 m and 0.30 m depth by gravimetric method and neutron moisture


218

P. Panigrahi et al.

meter (Troxler Model-4300, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA), respectively, at 0.30 m distance from the tree trunk. The vegetative growth parameters viz., tree height (from ground surface to top of crown), stem height (from ground surface to base of first branch on stem), tree spread (north-south × east-west), stock girth, and scion girth were recorded. Tree spread was expressed as canopy volume using the formulae 0. 5233 H W2, where H stands for tree height – stem height and W for canopy diameter, as suggested by Obreza (1991). Index leaf samples were subjected to analysis of different nutrients [nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), potassium (K), iron (Fe), manganese (Mn), copper (Cu), and zinc (Zn)] using standard procedures (Srivastava et al., 2001). Similarly, soil samples at 0.20 m depth below the perimeter of trees were collected and analyzed for pH, electrical conductivity (EC), and available nutrients (N, P, K, Fe, Mn, Cu and Zn) as per standard procedures (Page et al., 1982). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Variation in Water Application The estimated volume of monthly (December–May) irrigation water under drip irrigation treatments increased non-proportionately with increasing monthly cumulative pan evaporation, despite a proportionate (4:6:8:10) pan evaporation scheduling. These observations were attributed to marked differences in incremental tree canopy spread over time. The total amount of applied water was computed to be 53.0 (40% Ecp.), 85.6 (60% Ecp.), 113.4 (80% Ecp.), and 141.0 (100% Ecp.) m3 ha−1 yr−1 under drip irrigation treatments compared to 149.8 m3 ha−1 yr−1 with basin irrigation. Earlier studies demonstrated a sharp reduction of water consumption up to 25–30% in lemon grown in central Iran (Abu-Awwad, 2001), 40% in ‘Verna’ lemon in Spain (Sáchez-Blanco et al., 1989), and 15% in ‘Salustian’ orange in Spain (Castel and Buj, 1990) through drip over conventional basin method of irrigation. These variations are governed by the nature of citrus cultivar used under varied soil-climate, and method adopted in scheduling irrigation. Soil Moisture Variation Variation in mean monthly soil moisture within 0.15 m depth (Figure 1a) indicated a much higher moisture content with drip irrigation at 100% Ecp (28.1%–31.4%) compared to either at 40% Ecp drip irrigation (22.3–27.8%) or basin irrigation treatment (24.3–27.9%). While within 0.15–0.30 m depth, soil moisture varied in the range 27.7–30. 3% with drip irrigation at 100% Ecp as compared to 30.7–31.7% under basin irrigation method (Figure 1b). The soil moisture content at 0.l5 m depth increased invariably in all the treatments during January–February due to some un-seasonal rains (11 mm). Wider soil moisture fluctuation was observed between two consecutive

219

Drip vs. Basin Irrigation in Mandarin 33

Soil moisture at 0.15m depth (% v/v)

FC

29 27 25 23 FC: Field capacity PWP: Permanent wilting point

21 19

PWP

17

40% Ecp

60% Ecp

100% Ecp

Basin irrigation

80% Ecp

15 Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

Months

33

31

Soil moisture at 0.3 m depth (% v/v)


31

FC 29

27

25

FC: Field capacity PWP: Permanent wilting point

23

21

19

PWP

17

40% Ecp

60% Ecp

100% Ecp

Basin irrigation

80% Ecp

15

Nov.

Dec.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr

May

June

Months

FIGURE 1 Mean soil moisture variations at A) 0.15m depth and B) 0.30m depth under different drip irrigation regimes and basin irrigation method in various months.

measurements under basin irrigation than any of the drip irrigation treatments, due to higher rate of evapo-transpiration (ET) of trees with comparatively larger wetted soil surface area under basin irrigation method (Castel et al., 1987).


220

P. Panigrahi et al.

Among different drip irrigation treatments, the soil water fluctuation at 0.15 m depth increased progressively with increasing irrigation levels, indicating the positive correlation of ET of trees with irrigation level, even with low volume irrigation. The soil moisture fluctuation under different drip irrigation treatments was almost nil at higher soil depth of 0.30 m with marginally higher variation under basin irrigation method, suggesting the concentration of effective root zone within top 0.15 m of soil profile under drip irrigation treatments (Figure 1). The fluctuation of soil moisture at 0.3 m under basin irrigation method was lower during the month November–March (Epan, 2.5–5.6 mm day−1) than April–June (Epan, 6–13 mm day−1) on account of higher percolation triggered by higher application of irrigation water during summer months of April–June. Changes in Soil Properties and Leaf Nutrients Changes in soil pH and cation composition of soil in response to drip irrigation are very common (Treder, 2005). The reduction of soil pH (8.2 to 7.5) and EC (0.20 to 0.14 dSm−1) set up the conditions ideally suited (Table 1) for improvement in supply level of available nutrients like N, K, Fe, Mn, and Zn in soil (Tables 2 and 3). Nutrient composition of index leaves, an alternative index to fruit yield during pre-bearing years, was significantly (P < 0.05) affected by different treatments (Table 4). The leaf N (2.27%) and K (1.98%) under drip irrigation at 80% Ecp were higher than N (1.12%) and K (1.04%) content under basin irrigation method. The leaching loss + of nitrate (NO− 3 ) and K from the effective root zone of trees under the influence of high available moisture maintained through basin irrigation contributed to lower acquisition of N and K by the plants (Qui˜ nones et al., 2003). In our studies, treatments involving drip irrigation at 80–100% Ecp accumulated much higher concentration of Fe2+ in leaves with concomitant TABLE 1 Changes in soil properties in response to different treatments (pooled analysis of three seasons) EC (dSm−1)

pH Treatment DI at 40% Ecp DI at 60% Ecp DI at 80% Ecp DI at 100% Ecp Basin irrigation LSD0.05

A

B

A

B

8.1a 8.0a 8.0a 8.2a 8.0a ns

8.0c 7.4cd 7.5bc 7.6b 8.0a 0.10

0.25a 0.24a 0.22a 0.26a 0.24a ns

0.24a 0.22b 0.18c 0.14d 0.22b 0.015

A: initial values; B: final values; DI: drip irrigation. Means (2003–2005) within a column followed by same letters do not differ significantly at