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