VEGETOS: An International Journal of Plant ResearchOnline ISSN: 2229-4473
Print ISSN: 0970-4078

All submissions of the EM system will be redirected to Online Manuscript Submission System. Authors are requested to submit articles directly to Online Manuscript Submission System of respective journal.

Research Article, Vegetos Vol: 30 Issue: 2

Performance of Groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L) Under Drip and Micro Sprinkler Fertigation System

Jeetendra Kumar Soni1* and Asoka Raja N2

1Department of Agronomy, CCS Haryana Agricultural University, Haryana, India

2Kumaraguru Institute of Agriculture, Erode, Tamil Nadu, India

*Corresponding Author : Jeetendra Kumar Soni
Department of Agronomy, CCS Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar-125004, India
Tel: +91-9424710312
E-mail: [email protected]

Received: January 23, 2017 Accepted: March 28, 2017 Published: March 31, 2017

Citation: Soni JK, Asoka Raja N (2017) Performance of Groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L) Under Drip and Micro Sprinkler Fertigation System. Vegetos 30:2. doi: 10.5958/2229-4473.2017.00134.3

Abstract

A field investigation was carried out at TNAU, Coimbatore, during 2015 to evaluate the performance of drip and micro sprinklers fertigation on groundnut. The experiment consisted of 11 treatments, three replications with two irrigation levels (100% and 75% PE), two fertigation levels (100% and 75% RDF), two irrigation systems (drip and micro sprinkler) and one surface irrigation with soil application of recommended doses of fertilizer (RDF). The use of drip and micro sprinkler system offers a great degree of control over water and fertilizer application (fertigation), which helps to meet the requirement of crops. The analysis of the data of moisture content was done before and after irrigation and soil moisture contour maps for longitudinal cross section of the soil moisture were plotted by using software ‘SURFER’. It was observed that under drip and micro irrigation, the moisture content was near to the field capacity with little fluctuation in between before and after irrigation whereas, under surface irrigation from 48 hours after irrigation, there was sharp decline in soil moisture content with time. Significantly higher plant height (15.72, 30.61, 39.20 and 40.17 cm), leaf area index (LAI) (1.85, 2.95, 3.86 and 3.42) and dry weight per plant (7.09, 19.28, 26.55 and 27.48 g) were recorded at (30, 60, 90 days after sowing (DAS) and harvest, respectively) and pod yield (3495 kg ha-1) under drip irrigation at 100% PE with fertigation at 100% RDF with WSF, as compared to all other treatments and lowest under surface irrigation.

Keywords: Drip and micro sprinkler; Fertigation; Groundnut; Soil moisture; Pod yield

Introduction

Groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.), is the kingpin among the oilseed crops, popularly known as “wonder nut”, “poor man’s cashew nut” and “king” of oilseeds. It is grown on 24.59 m ha worldwide with a total production of 40.47 million tonnes and productivity of 1640 kg ha-1. In India, it occupied an area of 5.53 m ha, having annual production of 7.4 million tonnes with an average productivity of 1338 kg ha-1 [1]. It occupies a predominant position in Indian oilseed economy. Due to inconsistency in pods yield, it is continue to be an unpredictable legume. Water and fertilizers are the most important management factors by which farmers can control the plant growth and yield, which helps to achieve sustained crop production. Uniform distribution of water by appropriate irrigation system is essential to harness potential crop yield. Thus, the use of micro irrigation system comprises drip and micro sprinkler system offers a great degree of control over water and fertilizer application to meet the requirement of crops. Irrigation scheduling by these systems are usually based on water requirement of crop to maintain favourable soil water content in the root zone [2], that helps to achieve sustained growth and yield gains up to 100 per cent, water savings upto 40 to 80 per cent, and associated fertilizer, pesticide and labour savings over conventional irrigation systems [3]. In view of the above, an investigation was undertaken to assess performance of groundnut under drip and micro sprinkler fertigation system with comparison to the conventional system.

Materials and Methods

A field experiment was conducted in farmer’s field at Pudhupalayam, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, during 2015. The soil was sandy clay loam with slightly alkaline in pH (7.24), low organic carbon (0.23 per cent) and medium available N (305 kg ha-1), available P2O5 (20.12 kg ha-1), available K2O (169.27 kg ha-1). A total rainfall of 4.3 mm was received during the cropping period. The daily mean maximum and minimum temperatures were 32.7˚C and 21.3˚C, respectively with mean pan evaporation per day was 5.6 mm having average relative humidity of 60.8 per cent during the cropping period. The experiment was laid out with groundnut variety TMV13 in a randomized block design (RBD) and replicated thrice comprised 11 treatments viz.,

T1 - DI at 100% PE + fertigation at 100% RDF with WSF

T2- DI at 75% PE + fertigation at 100% RDF with WSF

T3- DI at 100% PE + fertigation at 75% RDF with WSF

T4- DI at 75% PE + fertigation at 75% RDF with WSF

T5- DI at 100% PE + fertigation at 100% RDF with NF

T6- Micro sprinkler at 100% PE + fertigation at 100% RDF with WSF

T7- Micro sprinkler at 75% PE + fertigation at 100% RDF with WSF

T8- Micro sprinkler at 100% PE + fertigation at 75% RDF with WSF

T9- Micro sprinkler at 75% PE + fertigation at 75% RDF with WSF

T10- Micro sprinkler at 100% PE + fertigation at 100% RDF with NF

T11- Surface irrigation (5 cm depth) + soil application at 100% RDF with NF

(Note- DI: Drip irrigation, PE: Pan Evaporation, RDF: Recommended dose of fertilizers, WSF: Water soluble fertilizers, NF: Normal fertilizers).

Field and drip and micro sprinkler fertigation system layout

The field was ploughed and uniformly leveled. Raised bed of 120 cm bed width and 30 cm furrow width for drip irrigation treatments, 360 cm bed width with 30 cm furrow for micro sprinkler treatments and check basin for control plot were formed, having row spacing of 30 × 10 cm, with bed size 28.8 m2 (drip: 24 × 1.2 m, micro sprinkler: 8 × 3.6 m), so as to have uniform population. The recommended dose of fertilizer (RDF) was 25: 50: 75 kg NPK ha-1.

Irrigation and fertigation

Drip and micro sprinkler irrigation was based on daily pan evaporation (PE) and fertigation was based on nutrient uptake pattern at different growth stage of groundnut s suggested by Loganathan and Krishnamoorthy [4], at once in three days interval and the volume of irrigation water was calculated by using following formula:

Volume of irrigation (V) = 3 days CPE × Kp × Kc × Area (m2) × Wp - ER

Where,

CPE - Cumulative pan Evaporation for three days (mm); Kp - Pan factor (0.8);

Kc - Crop coefficient; Wp - Wetted percentage (80%) for drip; 100% for micro sprinkler (As over lapping was 100%); Area - 28.8 m2; ER - Effective rainfall

The surface irrigation was given at 0.8 IW/CPE ratio with 5 cm depth of water. The required quantity of water soluble fertilizers (WSF) viz., N, P2O5 and K2O were applied as urea (46:0:0), all 19 (19:19:19), MAP (12:61:0) and SOP (0:0:52) were used under drip and micro sprinkler whereas, for surface application urea, MOP and SSP (0:16:0) were used. The water source from bore well was pumped through 7.5 HP motor and it was conveyed to the main field using 63 mm outer diameter (OD) PVC pipes after filtering through hydro cyclone and disc filter. For fertigation, ¾” ventury was installed with 1 Hp booster pump before disc filter with regulating valves. From the end of mainline, sub mains of 40 mm diameter PVC pipes were connected. Drip laterals of 16 mm OD having 40 cm emitter spacing was fixed in the sub mains with a lateral spacing of 60 cm having two laterals per bed with a discharge rate of 4 litre per hour (lph) at 1 kg cm-2 and each plot consists of two laterals for irrigating 4 rows of crops whereas, under micro sprinkler system plane laterals of 16 mm OD was fixed in the sub mains with a lateral spacing of 3.2 m having one plane lateral per bed. On along the laterals micro sprinkler had spaced at 1.5 m apart with a discharge rate of 44 lph at 1 kg cm-2 with diameter throw 3m and each plot consists of one lateral for irrigating 12 rows of crops.

Soil moisture dynamics

Water distribution in soil profile is presented by contour maps. Soil samples for gravimetric moisture determination were taken using a screw auger. Soil samples were taken at 3 points from emitters horizontally (0, 15 and 30 cm) as well as 2 points vertically (each at 15 and 30 cm) below the surface (from drip system) and 3 points from micro sprinkler horizontally (0, 75 and 150 cm) as well as 2 points vertically (each at 15 and 30 cm) below the surface whereas, for surface irrigation single points at the centre of plot as well as 2 points vertically (each at 15 and 30 cm). Sampling was made before and after irrigation. The wet weight (Ww) was determined and the samples were oven dried at 105oC for 24 hours [5]. Graphical software package “SURFER” was used to show the three dimensional view of soil moisture distributions vertically and horizontally from the emitter. The per cent of moisture content (% Mc) on dry weight basis was calculated as:

% Mc = [(Ww – Dw) / Dw] x 100

Where, Ww= Wet weight (g); Dw = Dry weight (g)

Crop growth parameters

The plant height (cm), leaf area index and dry weight per plant (g) at 30, 60, 90 DAS and at harvest stage were recorded from five randomly selected plants of each replications. The plant height was measured from ground level to the tip of the main stem, the leaf area index was worked out by measuring the length and width of the fully expanded apical leaflet of the third tetra foliate leaf as suggested by Padalia and Patel [6]. Whereas, dry weight per plant was down by carefully pulling out of selected plants from the each plot than samples were initially air dried in shade, thereafter oven dried at 65ºC ± 5ºC till the samples attained a constant weight and weighed.

Pod yield

Pod yield in kg/ha was obtained after stripping, cleaning and drying, the pod yield was recorded at 12% moisture.

Statistical analysis

The data were subjected to statistical analysis by Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) using AGRES. Mean differences were tested by ‘F’ test at (5%) level of significance (LOS). Critical difference (CD) at 5% level of significance was used for comparison among treatments. The data were statistically analysed by using the standard procedure as suggested by Gomez and Gomez [7].

Results and Discussion

Soil moisture dynamics

Under drip irrigation moisture content estimated before irrigation at various horizontal distances from the emitter point indicated that the moisture content decreased as the distance from the emitters’ increased and similar trend of moisture distribution pattern was recorded after irrigation (Table 1 and Figure 1). Moisture distribution pattern after irrigation indicated that up to 30 cm away from the lateral, the soil moisture content was nearer to field capacity (i.e. 22.85%) ranged from 23.00 to 22.70% in 0-15 cm to 15- 30 cm depth at 100% PE and 22.77 to 22.38% in 0-15 cm to 15- 30 cm depth at 75% PE. Moisture content before irrigation was reduced to little below the field capacity ranged from 19.83-20.20% in 0-15 cm to 15- 30 cm depth at 100% PE and 19.47-19.73% in 0-15 cm to 15- 30 cm depth at 75% PE. It was also observed that before irrigation moisture content increases as depth increases from 15 to 30 cm, but reverse was observed at after irrigation. Unlike drip system, moisture content under micro sprinkler irrigation estimated before irrigation at various horizontal distances from the micro sprinkler head point indicated that it increase as the distance from micro sprinkler head increased and similar trend of moisture distribution pattern was recorded just after irrigation (Table 1 and Figure 2). Moisture distribution pattern after irrigation indicated that up to 150 cm away from the lateral, the soil moisture content was in and around the field capacity (i.e. 22.85%) ranged from 22.25 to 22.70% in 0-15 cm to 15- 30 cm depth at 100% PE and 22.18 to 22.07% in 0-15 cm to 15- 30 cm depth at 75% PE. Moisture content before irrigation was reduced to little below the field capacity ranged from 19.63 to 19.15% in 0-15 cm to 15- 30 cm depth at 100% PE and 19.56-19.02% in 0-15 cm to 15- 30 cm depth at 75% PE. Irrespective of treatments in micro sprinkler, it was observed that soil moisture content increases with increasing distance from micro sprinkler head up to 150 cm, but as depth increases from 15 to 30 cm soil moisture content decreases. Under surface irrigation (Table 2), it was noticed that 48 hours after irrigation when field attained its field capacity, soil moisture content was recorded 22.70% at 0-15 cm to 22.00% at 15-30 cm depth, but there after sharp decline in soil moisture content was noticed as days proceeds and before irrigation it ranged from 18.02% at 0-15 cm to 18.90% at 15-30 cm depth. Soil moisture distribution is mainly dependent on the rate of application, soil texture and initial moisture content present in the soil, under micro sprinkler irrigation, soil moisture content increases as distance from operating head of micro sprinkler increases due to effect of over lapping from nearby operating head, whereas in case of surface irrigation, higher fluctuation in the soil moisture content from day of irrigation until next irrigation was due to the longer interval between two successive irrigations which causes fluctuation in field capacity to stress conditions [2].

Figure 1: Soil moisture dynamics under drip irrigation. 1a: Soil moisture content at 100% PE before irrigation. 1b: Soil moisture content at 100% PE after irrigation 1c: Soil moisture content at 75% PE before irrigation. 1d: Soil moisture content at 75% PE after irrigation.

Figure 2: Soil moisture dynamics under micro sprinkler. 2a: Soil moisture content at 100% PE before irrigation. 2b: Soil moisture content at 100% PE after irrigation. 2c: Soil moisture content at 75% PE before irrigation. 2d: Soil moisture content at 75% PE after irrigation.

Depth (cm) Drip irrigation Micro sprinkler irrigation
100 % PE 75% PE 100 % PE 75% PE
0 cm 15 cm 30 cm 0 cm 15 cm 30 cm 0 cm 75 cm 150 cm 0 cm 75 cm 150 cm
Before irrigation
0-15 20.30 19.90 19.30 20.00 19.50 18.90 19.57 19.63 19.69 19.56 19.59 19.52
15-30 20.60 20.30 19.70 20.20 19.80 19.20 19.10 19.16 19.20 19.08 19.12 18.87
After irrigation
0-15 23.90 22.80 22.30 23.20 22.90 22.22 22.20 22.25 22.30 22.15 22.18 22.20
15-30 23.60 22.50 22.00 22.80 22.40 21.95 22.10 22.19 22.21 22.03 22.05 22.13

Table 1: Soil moisture content (%) in drip and micro sprinkler plot before and after irrigation.

Depth (cm) Before irrigation After irrigation
0-15 18.02 22.80
15-30 18.90 22.00

Table 2: Soil moisture content surface irrigation (5 cm depth) at 0.8 IW/ CPE ratio before and after irrigation.

Crop growth parameters

Under the drip and micro sprinkler fertigation with different sources and levels of fertilizer showed its significant effect on plant height, leaf area index (LAI) and dry weight per plant of groundnut at 30, 60, 90 DAS and at harvest stages and mean data are presented in Table 3 and Figure 3.

Figure 3: Crop growth parameters at harvest and pod yield as influenced by drip and micro sprinkler fertigation in groundnut.

Treatments Plant height (cm) LAI Dry weight per plant (g)
30 DAS 60 DAS 90 DAS 30 DAS 60 DAS 90 DAS 30 DAS 60 DAS 90 DAS
T1 15.72 30.61 39.2 1.85 2.95 3.86 7.09 19.28 26.55
T2 15.08 29.9 37.25 1.76 2.78 3.67 6.96 18.41 25.2
T3 14.37 28.04 35.89 1.71 2.54 3.6 6.28 16.51 22.59
T4 13.05 25.31 33 1.66 2.39 3.41 5.56 14.49 19.2
T5 14.12 27.86 35.2 1.74 2.51 3.57 6.15 16.25 22.2
T6 14.58 29.28 36.5 1.81 2.82 3.75 6.63 17.96 24.57
T7 14.01 27.27 34.32 1.71 2.48 3.51 6.18 16.31 22.29
T8 13.79 26.76 33.92 1.7 2.43 3.48 5.98 15.7 21.4
T9 12.51 24.39 32.23 1.6 2.38 3.38 5.42 14.02 18.57
T10 13.37 25.82 33.12 1.69 2.41 3.43 5.78 15.44 21.04
T11 11.63 22.34 30.06 1.49 2.31 3.22 4.85 12.46 16.31
CD (P=0.5) 1.29 2.42 2.8 0.12 0.2 0.24 0.67 1.77 2.41

Table 3: Plant height, LAI and dry weight per plant as influenced by drip and micro sprinkler fertigation at 30, 60 and 90 DAS in groundnut.

The higher plant height of 15.72, 30.61, 39.20 and 40.17 cm was obtained by drip irrigation at 100% PE with fertigation at 100% RDF as WSF (T1) at 30, 60, 90 DAS and at harvest respectively, this was at par with drip irrigation at 75% PE with fertigation at 100% RDF as WSF (T2) and micro sprinkler at 100% PE with fertigation at 100% RDF as WSF (T6) at all the growth stages but significantly superior over rest of the treatments. The frequent irrigation and optimum soil moisture under drip and micro sprinkler irrigation might have led to effective absorption and utilization of available nutrients and better proliferation of roots resulting in quick canopy growth [8], which would have accelerated the production of growth regulators such as auxins (IAA) and cytokinins which in turn stimulated the action of cell elongation and cell division and resulted in increased plant height [9]. LAI witnessed an increase gradually from 30 DAS to 90 DAS and declined thereafter irrespective of the treatments. Drip irrigation at 100% PE with fertigation at 100% RDF as WSF (T1) registered higher LAI at 30, 60, 90 DAS and at harvest of 1.85, 2.95, 3.86 and 3.42 respectively, which was statistically on par with micro sprinkler at 100% PE with fertigation at 100% RDF as WSF (T6) and drip irrigation at 75% PE with fertigation at 100% RDF as WSF (T2) at all the growth stages. The least LAI was registered in surface irrigation (5 cm depth) at 0.8 IW/ CPE ratio (T11) with 1.49, 2.31, 3.22 and 2.82 during crop period at 30, 60, 90 DAS and at harvest stages, respectively. The higher production of number of leaves with more number of branches, which leads to higher LAI [10].

The dry weight per plant during crop period was the higher under drip irrigation at 100% PE with fertigation at 100% RDF as WSF (T1) with DMP of 7.09, 19.28, 26.55 and 27.48 g plant-1 on 30, 60, 90 DAS and at harvest stages respectively. This treatment was at par with drip irrigation at 75% PE with fertigation at 100% RDF as WSF (T2) and micro sprinkler at 100% PE with fertigation at 100% RDF as WSF (T6) at all the growth stages but significantly superior over rest of the treatments. This was mainly due to optimum moisture supply and timely nutrient application which could have enhanced the assimilatory efficiency resulting in increased number of leaves per plant, better branching and LAI which contributed for higher dry matter production as well as promoted the activity of photosynthesis and simultaneous accumulation of dry matter [11].

Pod yield

Among the all treatments, under drip irrigation at 100% PE with fertigation at 100% RDF as WSF (T1) was recorded significantly highest pod yield (3495 kg ha-1) followed by drip irrigation at 75% PE with fertigation at 100% RDF as WSF (T2: 3183 kg ha-1) and micro sprinkler at 100% PE with fertigation at 100% RDF as WSF (T6: 2922 kg ha-1). Significantly lowest pod yield (1902 kg ha-1) was recorded under surface irrigation (5 cm depth) at 0.8 IW/ CPE ratio with soil application at 100% RDF as NF (T11) (Figure 3). It was mainly attributed due to enhanced availability of water and nutrients through these systems from the limited wetted area at regular intervals and higher nutrients availability led to increased nutrient uptake which ultimately reflected in the yield. These results are in conformity with Vijayalakshmi et al. [12].

Conclusion

On the basis of the studies it was observed that under drip and micro sprinkler fertigation provide the optimum soil moisture near to the field capacity and timely nutrients availability to the crop throughout its life cycle, which helps to increase the plant height, leaf area index and dry weight per plant that ultimately boost the plant productivity of groundnut. Among the all treatments drip irrigation at 100% PE with fertigation at 100% RDF as WSF was performed best followed by drip irrigation at 75% PE with fertigation at 100% RDF as WSF and micro sprinkler at 100% PE with fertigation at 100% RDF as WSF.

References

Track Your Manuscript

H5 Index

SCImago Journal & Country Rank