Response of tomato to varying levels of fertigation
| dc.contributor.advisor | Jaikumaran, U | |
| dc.contributor.author | Rajaseelan Kingsly, D | |
| dc.contributor.author | KAU | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2020-12-11T05:22:20Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2020-12-11T05:22:20Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2002 | |
| dc.description | MSc | en_US |
| dc.description.abstract | A field experiment was conducted during 2000-2001 at the Agricultural Research Station, Mannuthy, Thrissur to find out growth and yield as well as water use and nutrient relations of tomato, as influenced by different levels of fertigation i.e. continuous nutrition through drip irrigation. The experiment consisted of combinations of three levels of irrigation (0.3,0.6 and 0.9 PE) through drip system and three levels of fertilizer (100, 50 and 150% recommended dose) supplied through drip irrigation. The fertilizer nutrients were supplied in progressive increments for sixty days and the fertigated treatments were mulched using black HDPE sheet. A control treatment, which received 20 mm surface irrigation through furrow method once in three days along with normal soil application of fertilizer without mulch cover was also included to compare with fertigation treatments. The experiment was laid out at randomised block design with three replications. The tomato CV Shakthi was tried in the experiment. The results revealed that the growth parameters viz., plant height, Leaf Area Index (LAI) and ~eaf Area Duration (LAD) were higher in the fertigated treatments than in the control crop. The respective values were 50.48 cm, 5.60 and 113.4 in case offertigated crops and 48.52 cm, 5.46 and 110.9 for the control crop, when observed at final growth stage. The control crop had a significant rooting pattern with higher vertical length (26.8 cm), lateral length (15 cm) and root dry weight of (8.2 g) than the fertigated treatments which had the respective values of 18.65 cm, 11.00 cm and 3.9 g. The ferigated crop produced maximum fruit set of 56.5 per cent and 36 numbers of fruits plant" with mean yield of 31.51 t ha-I. The respective values for the control crop were 42.6 per cent, 22 and 19.31 t ha" only. The treatment which received 150 per cent fertilizer dose with 0.6 PE irrigation gave a maximum yield of37.3 t ha-I which was 93 per cent more than the control crop. This level of production was comparable with that of the crop receiving 100 or 150 per cent recommended dose of fertilizers with irrigation at 0.9 PE through drip. The TSS content was not influenced by different treatments, but higher acidic fruits were produced by the control crop. The fertigated crops in general contained more nutrients in their biomass compared to control crop. The highest NPK content in plant was recorded at 60 DAP and at the stage these nutrient contents were 4.9,0.285 and 3.13 per cent in case offertigated crops and the respective values in control crop were 4.0, 0.245 and 3.07 per cent. The fruit cracking and bacterial wilt incidence were not affected by various treatments. But 72 per cent of control crop suffered by leaf curl virus disease but only 40 per cent, in case of fertigated plants. The mean soil temperature upto 30 cm depth increased "<-;- under mulched conditions over control treatment during morning (7.;3<) 1ST) and 'L.C;;- evening (2.:Mt 1ST) by 3.3°C and 2.6°C respectively. While control crop received 700 mm of water, the crop irrigated through the drip at 0.9, 0.6, 0.3 PE received 506, 358 and 210 mm of water. Field water use efficiency was the highest in the treatment which received 100% fertilizer with 0.3 PE irrigation (14.62 kg fruit per m-3 of water). As the irrigation levels reduced and fertilizer application increased FWUE was increased. The moisture content of the soil was more at 15 cm depth both at 15 and 30 cm radial distances, in all irrigation levels. The economic analysis indicated that the crop under recommended dose of fertilizer with 0.9 PE irrigation gave a maximum BC ratio of 1.92 followed by the crop raised under 150 per cent fertilizer dose with 0.6 PE irrigation (1.91). The saving of water through respective treatments, when compared to control enabled 0.38 and 0.95 ha to be additionally brought under irrigated tomato, if respective treatments were employed. The investigation led to the conclusion that fertigation is a sound technology and produceshigh yields in tomato. If water is not a limiting factor, adopt irrigation at 0.9 PE using 100 per cent recommended dose of fertilizer and if water availability is - constrained, adopt irrigation at 0.6 PE using 150 per cent recommended dose of fertilizer to reap rich harvest. | en_US |
| dc.identifier.citation | 171936 | en_US |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://krishikosh.egranth.ac.in/handle/1/5810156520 | |
| dc.keywords | Agronomy | en_US |
| dc.language.iso | English | en_US |
| dc.publisher | Department of Agronomy, College of Horticulture, Vellanikkara | en_US |
| dc.sub | Agronomy | en_US |
| dc.theme | Tomato to varying levels of fertigation | en_US |
| dc.these.type | M.Sc | en_US |
| dc.title | Response of tomato to varying levels of fertigation | en_US |
| dc.type | Thesis | en_US |