Research Article Evaluation of the Effect of Irrigation...

Research ArticleEvaluation of the Effect of Irrigation andFertilization by Drip Fertigation on Tomato Yield andWater Use Efficiency in Greenhouse

Wang Xiukang1 and Xing Yingying12

1College of Life Science Yanrsquoan University Yanrsquoan Shaanxi 716000 China2Key Laboratory of Agricultural Soil and Water Engineering in Arid and Semiarid Areas of Ministry of EducationNorthwest AampF University Yangling Shaanxi 712100 China

Correspondence should be addressed to Wang Xiukang wangxiukang126com

Received 30 January 2016 Revised 11 June 2016 Accepted 14 June 2016

Academic Editor Othmane Merah

Copyright copy 2016 W Xiukang and X YingyingThis is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons AttributionLicense which permits unrestricted use distribution and reproduction in any medium provided the original work is properlycited

The water shortage in China particularly in Northwest China is very serious There is therefore great potential for improvingthe water use efficiency (WUE) in agriculture particularly in areas where the need for water is greatest A two-season (2012and 2013) study evaluated the effects of irrigation and fertilizer rate on tomato (Lycopersicum esculentum Mill cv ldquoJinpeng 10rdquo)growth yield and WUE The fertilizer treatment significantly influenced plant height and stem diameter at 23 and 20 days aftertransplanting in 2012 and 2013 respectively As individual factors irrigation and fertilizer significantly affected the leaf expansionrate but irrigation times fertilizer had no statistically significant effect on the leaf growth rate at 23 days after transplanting in 2012 Drybiomass accumulation was significantly influenced by fertilizer in both years but there was no significant difference in irrigationtreatment in 2012 Our study showed that an increased irrigation level increased the fruit yield of tomatoes and decreased theWUEThe fruit yield andWUE increased with the increased fertilizer rate WUE was more sensitive to irrigation than to fertilization Anirrigation amount of 151 to 208mm and a fertilizer amount of 454 to 461 kgsdothaminus1 (nitrogen fertilizer 2135ndash217 kgsdothaminus1 phosphatefertilizer 1067ndash108 kgsdothaminus1 and potassium fertilizer 1334ndash1356 kgsdothaminus1) were recommended for the drip fertigation of tomatoesin greenhouse

1 Introduction

Technologies such as drip irrigation and fertigation canimprove WUE and decrease salinization while maintainingor increasing yields [1] Fertigation is an agricultural watermanagement technology that supplies water and fertilizersimultaneously in a drip irrigation system feeding a crop byinjecting soluble fertilizers into water and then transportingthem into the root zone [2] Fertigation which can improvethe efficiency of irrigation water and fertilizer is a new fertil-ization method of precision agriculture [3] In the late 1970sthe use of fertigation technology was widespread in Chinaparticularly in the North andNorthwest regions where watershortage is very serious [4] In drip fertigation systems whichcombine drip irrigation with fertilizer application the fruityield of tomato was 20ndash30 higher in drip fertigation than

in furrow irrigation [5] It is well known that water andfertilizer are the twomain factors limiting vegetable and cropproduction in arid and semiarid regions [6ndash8]

Tomato is one of themost popular and widely grown veg-etables in the world The first reason for this is that tomatoesare beneficial to our heath and are good sources of provita-mins 120573 carotene and vitamin C The second reason is thattomatoes are particularly rich sources of lycopene which is avery powerful antioxidant and helps prevent the developmentof many forms of cancer [9ndash12] Hence this vegetable is gain-ing importance in both developing and developed countriesand efforts are being made to improve the quality and quan-tity of tomato production [13ndash15] Of course water supply isimportant for tomato yield quantity and quality Increasingthe water supply increases fruit yield but significantly reducesthe brix lycopene and total polyphenol contents of fruits the

Hindawi Publishing CorporationInternational Journal of AgronomyVolume 2016 Article ID 3961903 10 pageshttpdxdoiorg10115520163961903

2 International Journal of Agronomy

Water meter

Check valve Fertigation equipmentDrip irrigation tubing Drip irrigation tubingBull-plugged Bull-plugged

Ball valve Ball valveD

rip ir

rigat

ion

pipe

W2F1 W2F3 W2F2 W1F1 W1F2 W1F3 W3F3 W3F1 W3F2

Figure 1The layout of experiment included water sources water meter check valve fertigation equipment and ball valve and drip irrigationpipe positions of different treatments in greenhouse

ascorbic acid content is significantly higher under optimumwater supply conditions [16ndash18] Water stress is one of themost important environmental factors that regulate plantgrowth and development and limit plant production [19]

Tomato responds well to fertilizer application and isreported to be a heavy feeder of nitrogen (N) phosphorus(P) and potassium (K) fertilizer [5] It is partially compatiblewith drip irrigation which is a very efficient use of waterand nutrients [20 21] Previous studies have suggested thatthe N use efficiency and N agronomic efficiency decreasedwith increases in fertilizer N rate and that the N rateof 271 kgsdothaminus1 produced the highest marketable yield and265 kgsdothaminus1 produced the optimum economic yield [22 23]Nitrogen phosphorus and potassiumare essential for tomatoproduction [24] and the recommended balanced rates of fer-tilization include twice as muchN as P and K [25] Accordingto the literature the application of deficit irrigation at theseedling stagemay not significantly influence the total yield ofgreenhouse tomato [26]The excessive use of irrigation waterleads to low water productivity and deterioration [27] Tomaximize tomato water productivity priority must be givento the efficient use of water both to improve yields and tocontrol water use byminimizing nonbeneficial water use [28]

Therefore the development of efficient agricultural wateruse is not only necessary but also feasible being critical toimprove the fruit yield and WUE To obtain high yieldsand maximum profits in commercial tomato production theoptimal management of both fertilizer and water is requiredPrevious studies have focused on the influence of irrigationamount and fertilizer rate on tomato growth fruit yield andquality Meanwhile it is necessary to select an optimal com-bination of irrigation and fertilization to improve agriculturalwater and fertilizer management practices Therefore theaim of this study is to explore the effect of irrigation andfertilization on the growth yield and quality of tomato withfertigation by drip irrigation and to make recommendationsregarding the strategies for growing greenhouse tomatoes

2 Materials and Methods

21 Experimental Site and Treatments The tomatoes plant(Lycopersicum esculentumMill cv ldquoJinpeng 10rdquo) was used for

our experiment in the greenhouse located at the Key Labora-tory of Agricultural Soil and Water Conservation Engineer-ing in Arid Areas (34∘201015840N 108∘041015840E and altitude 521m)Shaanxi Province China The topsoil (0ndash80 cm) has a bulkdensity of 142 gsdotcmminus3 a pH of 812 and a field capacityof 25 cm3sdotcmminus3 an organic matter content of 138 gsdotkgminus1a total nitrogen content of 082 gsdotkgminus1 an available phos-phorus content of 132 gsdotkgminus1 an available potassium con-tent of 1058 gsdotkgminus1 and an available nitrogen content of7412mgsdotkgminus1

In this experiment nine treatments were designed withthree different irrigation levels (W1 100 ET

119888

W2 75 ET119888

W3 50 ET

119888

) and fertilizer levels (F1 N240-P2

O5

120-K2

O150 kgsdothaminus1 F2 N180-P2

O5

90-K2

O1125 kgsdothaminus1 F3N120-P

2

O5

60-K2

O75 kgsdothaminus1)Theexperimentwas organizedusing a randomized block design with three replicationseach plot was 6m long 125m wide and 225 (3 times 6 times 125 =225)m2 in area Total 9 divided and ridged experimentalplots were divided by a water barrier sheet A mosaiccolumn emitter type drip irrigation tape (Hebei GreenWaterConservancy Engineering Co Ltd Shijiazhuang HebeiProvince China) was used in this experimental irrigationsystem with an external diameter of 16mm drip tape emitterspacing of 30 cm a head flow of 2 L hminus1 and a drip irrigationoperating pressure of 03MPa (Figure 1)

22 Crop Management Harvesting and Measurements Thetomato seedlings were transplanted on 21 Mar 2012 and31 Mar 2013 The furrow-film mulch was cultivated by thelocal traditional planting patterns and calendars using tomatoridging in a tube with a two-line spaced layout the tubeswere placed 50 cm apart with a 45 cm planting distance and78 plants in each experimental plot Drip fertigation wasperformed using a fertilizer of urea (46 N) diammoniumphosphate (44 P

2

O5

) and potassium chloride (60 K2

O)This fertilizer was applied five times at the recovering stagethe blossoming and bearing fruits stage the first fruit enlarge-ment period the second fruit enlargement period and thethird fruit enlargement period and the fertilization ratio was1 1 2 2 2 for those applications

The plant height in each treatment was measured every15 to 20 days after transplanting The height of 3 randomly

International Journal of Agronomy 3

selected plants from each experimental unit was measuredthree times per month from the soil level to the growingpoint

Changes in stem diameter were continuously recordedduring the treatment period using a shrinkage-typemicrodis-placement detector (Portable Battery Internal ResistanceTester JZ-1A Peking 2010) All of the measurements wererecorded three times and the pattern of response was similarin all

The number of leaves longer than 20mmwas determinedonce every 2weeks and themaximal leaf widthwasmeasuredfor every leaf The leaf area was estimated by multiplying theproduct of leaf length and leaf width by a conversion factorestimated from the destructive sampling

Plants were harvested in three replicates and separatedinto roots leaves fruits and stemThe plant parts were driedin an open-air draught oven at 75∘C for 72 h to estimate thedry weight

Ripe tomatoes were harvested and fresh total yield andtotal number of tomatoes from all of the plants in each plotwere determined The fruit yield was measured throughoutthe crop Fruits were harvested twice a week for a period of 9weeks and were separated into marketable and total yields

23 Irrigation Management Irrigation treatments were ini-tiated using the surface drip irrigation system during trans-planting and the irrigation amount was 40mm Irrigationwas applied using a subsurface drip system based on thedaily crop evapotranspiration (ET

119888

) which was calculated asa product of the reference evapotranspiration (ET

0

) and thestage-specific crop coefficients (119870

119888

)The FAO 56 Penman-Monteith method is recommended

as the standard method for ET0

estimation [29 30]Fernandez et al reported the FAO 56 Penman-Monteithequationwith a fixed aerodynamic resistance of 295 smminus1 canbetter estimate daily ET

0

in greenhouse [31]

ET0

=

048Δ (119877119899

minus 119866) + 120574 (628 (119879 + 273)) (119890119904

minus 119890119886

)

Δ + 628120574

(1)

where 119877119899

is the net radiation (MJmminus2 dminus1) 119866 is the soilheat flux (MJmminus2 dminus1) Δ is the slope of the saturated vapourpressure curve (kPa ∘Cminus1) 120574 is the psychometric constant(kPa ∘Cminus1) 119890

119904

is saturation vapour pressure (kPa) 119890119886

is actualvapour pressure (kPa) and 119890

119904

minus 119890119886

(VPD) is the vapour pres-sure deficit (kPa) The calculation procedures of parameters119877119899

119866 119890119904

119890119886

Δ 120574 and119879were described in FAO56 [31 32]Theaverage daily environmental condition at different growthstages of tomato inside the greenhouse and the seasonalvariation of daily ET

0

are calculated using (1) (Figure 2)The 119870

119888

values were as follows 119870119888 ini = 05 119870119888mid = 085

and 119870119888 end = 06 [32] The irrigation amounts of the W1 W2

and W3 treatments were respectively 26200 20650 and15100mm in 2012 and 27980 21985 and 15985mm in 2013The irrigation frequency and total amount of water appliedduring the full irrigation treatment are given in Figure 3

20122013

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

324 47 421 55 519 62 616 630 714 728310

Dai

lyET

0(m

m dminus

1)

Figure 2 Daily variation of the reference evapotranspiration (ET0

)against days for the tomatoes growing seasons of 2012 and 2013

Thewater use efficiency (WUE)was determined using thefollowing equation [33 34]

WUE = 119884ET119888

times 100 (2)

where WUE is measured in kgsdotmminus3 119884 is the total fruit yield(tsdothaminus1) and ET

119888

is the crop water consumption (mm)

24 Statistical Analysis Analysis of variance was conductedon the plant height stem diameter dry biomass accumula-tion and distribution in different organs using a two-wayanalysis of variance (SAS GLM procedure version 92 SASInstitute Ltd NorthCarolina USA) Duncanrsquosmultiple rangetests were considered significant when 119901 lt 005

3 Results

31 Plant Height Stem Diameter and Leaf Growth Rate Theeffects of irrigation amount and fertilizer rate on plant heightat the whole growth stages are shown in Table 1 In 2012the results show that the single factors of irrigation amountor fertilizer application rate very significantly affected plantheight at 23 days after transplanting and the interactionbetween irrigation and fertilization had an obvious effectThe highest plant height was 408 cm in the W2F1 treatmentwhich was significantly higher than that of the other plantsAt 37 days after transplanting the average added values ofplant height in W3 (408 cm) were 69 and 103 higherthan those in the W1 and W2 treatments in 2012 During therecovering stage the rate of plant height increase was fasterand with the advancement of the blossoming and bearingfruits stage the rate of increase decreased by 53 days aftertransplanting The average plant height in W3 was higherthan that in the W1 treatment but there was no significantplant height difference among the irrigation treatments 70days after transplanting In addition irrigation times fertilizerhad no statistically significant effect on plant height


2012

Irrigation amountDaily average temperature


2013

310 324 47 421 55 519 62 616 630 7140

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

324 47 421 55 519 62 616 630 7143100

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Irrig

atio

n am

ount

(mm

)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35Ir

rigat

ion

amou

nt (m

m)

Dai

ly av

erag

e tem

pera

ture

(∘C)

Dai

ly av

erag

e tem

pera

ture

(∘C)

Figure 3 In tomato growing season the distribution of daily average temperature irrigation interval and numbers were recorded in thestudy years

Table 1 The effects of irrigation amount and fertilizer rate on plant height of tomato (cm)

Treatments 2012 201323D 37D 53D 70D 20D 40D 60D 80D

W1F1 35cd 712cd 102d 1258b 239bc 709ab 939bcd 1125ab

W1F2 357cd 725bcd 109abc 1341ab 241bc 686abc 1015a 1174a

W1F3 343d 703cd 105bcd 130ab 232bc 678abc 88cde 112ab

W2F1 408a 765ab 1105ab 1403a 297a 684abc 941bcd 1115ab

W2F2 372bc 725bcd 1035cd 1315ab 30a 741a 872de 1104ab

W2F3 343d 683d 1005d 1277ab 261b 62cd 862e 1102ab

W3F1 38b 73abcd 1135a 1351ab 231bc 638bcd 975ab 1133ab

W3F2 355cd 78a 115a 1369ab 246bc 643bcd 952abc 113ab

W3F3 341d 738abc 111ab 1321ab 228c 597d 921bcde 107b

119901 value of significance testIrrigation lowastlowast NS lowastlowastlowast NS lowastlowastlowast lowastlowast lowast NSFertilizer lowastlowastlowast lowast NS NS lowast lowast lowast NSIrrigation times fertilizer lowast NS lowast NS NS NS NS NSD is the days after transplanting and columns with the same letter represent values that are significant at the 5 probability level ldquolowastlowastlowastrdquo means 119901 lt 0001ldquolowastlowastrdquo means 0001 lt 119901 lt 001 ldquolowastrdquo means 001 lt p lt 005 and ldquoNSrdquo means 119901 gt 005

Theplant stemplays a very important role in plant anchor-age and in the movement and transport of water solutes andnutrients Importantly the stem functions in photosynthesisand nutrient storage The effects of irrigation and fertilizeron tomato stem diameter at the whole growth stages areshown in Table 2 At 23 days after transplanting the higheststem diameter was 89mm in 2012 and 68mm in 2013The fertilizer treatment very significantly influenced thetomato stem diameter irrigation times fertilizer significantlyinfluenced the stem diameter and irrigation treatment hadno statistically significant effect in 2012 In 2013 the singlefactors of irrigation or fertilizer very significantly (119901 lt 001)affected the stem diameter but irrigation times fertilizer had nostatistically significant effect In addition the rate of stemdiameter increase decreased obviously at 37 days after trans-planting and the added values of stem diameter ranged from09 to 22mm at the blossoming and bearing fruits stage Theaverage stem diameter in F3 was significantly lower than that

in the F1 and F2 treatments and the fertilizer treatment verysignificantly influenced the tomato stem diameter By 53 daysafter transplanting the rate of stem diameter increase hadundergone a steady decline and the added value ranged from06 to 11mm The influence of stem diameter on fertiliza-tion was greater than that on irrigation throughout the entirestage

The major function of leaves is to take in carbon dioxidefor photosynthesis the process of converting light energy intochemical energy The effects of irrigation and fertilization onthe leaf growth rate at the whole growth stages are shown inFigure 4The overall pattern of change in the leaf growth ratewas represented by positive-negative and single-peak curvesin both yearsThe single factors of irrigation or fertilizer verysignificantly affected the leaf expansion rate but irrigation timesfertilizer had no statistically significant effect on the leafgrowth rate at 23 days after transplanting The highest leafexpansion rate was 45 cm2sdotleafminus1sdotdayminus1 at 23minus37 days after


Table 2 The effects of irrigation and fertilizer on stem diameter tomato (mm)

Treatment 2012 201323D 37D 53D 70D 20D 40D 60D 80D

W1F1 846ab 1066a 1098a 1228ab 785a 874bc 1095ab 1218ab

W1F2 766cd 958bc 101abc 113bcd 728b 914ab 1168a 1288a

W1F3 745d 857cde 96bcd 1101cd 684bc 78d 1055ab 1126bc

W2F1 89a 1015ab 1074ab 1247a 729b 889bc 991bc 1133bc

W2F2 813bcd 916bcde 1011abc 116abc 709bc 959a 1137a 1143bc

W2F3 649e 844de 926cd 1039d 68bc 737d 901c 1045c

W3F1 839abc 933bcd 998abcd 1186abc 662cd 787d 907c 1178b

W3F2 803bcd 893cde 953cd 1084cd 624de 844c 943c 1054c

W3F3 594e 821e 891d 1029d 596e 665e 793d 925d

p value of significance testIrrigation NS lowast NS NS lowastlowastlowast lowastlowastlowast lowastlowastlowast lowastlowastlowast

Fertilizer lowastlowastlowast lowastlowastlowast lowastlowast lowastlowastlowast lowastlowast lowastlowastlowast lowastlowastlowast lowastlowastlowast

Irrigation times fertilizer lowastlowast NS NS NS NS NS NS NSD is the days after transplanting and columns with the same letter represent values that are significant at the 5 probability level ldquolowastlowastlowastrdquo means 119901 lt 0001ldquolowastlowastrdquo means 0001 lt 119901 lt 001 ldquolowastrdquo means 001 lt 119901 lt 005 and ldquoNSrdquo means 119901 gt 005

W1F

2

W1F

3

W2F

1

W2F

2

W2F

3

W3F

1

W3F

2

W3F

3

W1F

1

90d70d

53d37d23d

minus2

0

2

4

6

Leaf

gro

wth

rate

(cm2

leafminus1

dayminus

1)

(a) 2012

W1F

1

W1F

2

W1F

3

W2F

1

W2F

2

W2F

3

W3F

1

W3F

2

W3F

3

minus2

minus1

0

1

2

3

4

5Le

af g

row

th ra

te (c

m2

leafminus1

dayminus

1)

100d80d

60d40d20d

(b) 2013

Figure 4 The effects of irrigation and fertilizer on tomato leaf growth rate

transplanting The highest average leaf expansion rate wasproduced in the F2 treatment and the fertilizer amount verysignificantly affected the leaf expansion rate in 2012 The leafarea continued to increase but the rate of increase decreasedin 37minus53 days after transplanting

32 Dry Biomass Accumulation The effects of irrigationand fertilizer on tomato dry biomass accumulation and thedistribution in different organs are shown in Table 3 Thehighest dry biomass accumulation in theW1F1 treatment was12 tsdothaminus1 which was significantly higher than that in the othertreatments the fertilizer treatment significantly influenceddry biomass accumulation but the irrigation treatment hadno statistically significant effect in either year The average

root dry biomass in W1 (2219 kgsdothaminus1) was 7 and 204higher than that in the W2 and W3 treatments and the sameas the stem and fruit dry biomass There was no significantdifference between the W1 and W2 treatments and theaverage dry biomass accumulation in W1 was 6 and 6higher thanW2 in 2012 and 2013 respectively With the sameirrigation amount the dry biomass accumulation in the F2treatment was higher than that in the F1 and F3 treatments

33 Tomato Yield The interactions between irrigation andfertilizer treatments were important for tomato yield andthe single factors of irrigation or fertilizer very significantly(119901 lt 001) affected the fruit yield in two consecutive years(Figure 5) The highest fruit yield was 967 tsdothaminus1 in the W1F1


Table 3 Effects of irrigation and fertilizer on tomato dry biomass accumulation and distribution in different organs

Year Treatment Dry biomass accumulation (kgsdothmminus2) Distribution in different organs ()Fruit Stem Leaf Root Total Fruit Stem Leaf Root

2012

W1F1 6219a 2922a 2635a 247a 12023a 517bcd 243ab 219ab 21a

W1F2 5828b 2785ab 2552a 223b 11389b 512d 244ab 224ab 2a

W1F3 5100d 2660ab 2172b 195c 10127c 504d 263a 214bc 19ab

W2F1 5615bc 2504bc 2573a 230b 10922b 514cd 229bc 236a 21a

W2F2 5475c 2221cd 2309b 215b 10221c 536bc 217c 226ab 21a

W2F3 5030de 1993de 1720c 174d 8917e 564a 223bc 193de 2a

W3F1 5119d 2231cd 2247b 197c 9794cd 523bcd 228bc 23ab 2a

W3F2 4984de 2221cd 1849c 194c 9247de 539b 24abc 20cd 21a

W3F3 4722e 1876e 1460d 140e 8198f 576a 229bc 178e 17b

119901 value of significance testIrrigation lowastlowast lowast lowast lowastlowast lowastlowast lowastlowast lowast lowast lowastlowast

Fertilizer lowastlowastlowast NS lowast lowast lowast lowastlowastlowast NS lowast lowast

Irrigation times fertilizer lowastlowastlowast NS lowast NS NS lowastlowastlowast NS lowast NS

2013

W1F1 5100a 1818c 1973a 254c 9145a 558abc 199d 216bcd 28b

W1F2 4781ab 2106a 2031a 330a 9248a 517c 228abc 22bc 36a

W1F3 4090bc 1663d 1965a 209d 7927bc 515c 21bcd 248a 26b

W2F1 4461abc 1477e 1757b 217d 7913bc 563ab 187d 222b 27b

W2F2 4300bc 1960b 1809b 306b 8375b 513c 234ab 216bcd 37a

W2F3 3707c 1772cd 1394d 193d 7066d 524bc 251a 197d 27b

W3F1 4087bc 1692d 1498cd 197d 7473cd 546bc 227abc 201cd 26b

W3F2 3945c 1502e 1607c 151e 7206cd 547bc 209cd 223b 21c

W3F3 3740c 1168f 1243e 139e 6290e 594a 186d 198d 22c

119901 value of significance testIrrigation lowastlowastlowast lowast lowast lowastlowast lowastlowast lowastlowastlowast lowast lowast lowastlowast


Irrigation times fertilizer lowastlowastlowast NS lowast NS NS lowastlowastlowast NS lowast NSColumns with the same letter represent values that are significant at the 5 probability level ldquolowastlowastlowastrdquo means 119901 lt 0001 ldquolowastlowastrdquo means 0001 lt 119901 lt 001 ldquolowastrdquomeans 001 lt 119901 lt 005 and ldquoNSrdquo means 119901 gt 005

treatment which was 97 and 177 higher than that inW2F1 and W3F1 in 2012 The same result was produced in2013 and the highest fruit yield was 971 tsdothaminus1 in the W1F1treatment which was 125 and 199 higher than that inW2F1 and W3F1 In both years the results indicated that theincreased irrigation level and fertilizer rate increased the fruityield of tomatoes The mean fruit yield of the W1 treatmentwas 889 tsdothaminus1 in 2012 which was 6 and 135 higher thanthat in W2 and W3 The mean fruit yield in the F1 treatmentwas 879 tsdothaminus1 in 2012 which was 39 and 124 higher thanthat in F2 and F3 The results indicated that fruit yield had aslightly higher sensitivity to treatment with irrigation than tothat with fertilization

34 Water Use Efficiency The effects of irrigation and fertil-izer on the WUE are shown in Figure 6 The irrigation treat-ment significantly affected the WUE The results showed asignificant negative correlation between WUE and irrigationamount The highest WUE was obtained in the W3F1 treat-ment and was 45 kgsdotmminus3 and 477 kgsdotmminus3 in 2012 and 2013

respectively When the irrigation amount decreased theWUE increased The average WUE in the W3 treatment was273and 187higher than that in theW1 andW2 treatmentsin 2012 and the same result was observed in 2013 Therewas a positive correlation between the WUE and fertilizeramount the average WUE in the F3 treatments was 148and 107 higher than that in the F1 and F2 treatments in2012 The results indicated that the WUE was more sensitiveto irrigation than fertilizer

35 Recommended Levels of Irrigation and Fertilization Theregression model was used to predict the effect of anunknown dependent variable on the fruit yield and WUEgiven the values of the independent variables of irrigationamount and fertilizer levelThe fertilizer and irrigation supplyaffected the fruit yield and WUE with a very significantinteraction between them in both years In the two successivegrowing seasons the extreme calculation results showed thatthe fruit yield peaked at the maximal irrigation amountwhile the WUE peaked at the minimal irrigation amount


600

500

400

300

200

Fertilizer amount (kgha)150

200

250

300

Irrigation amount (mm)

50

60

70

80

90

100Yi

eld

(tha

)

(a) 2012

600

500

400

300

200


200

250

300


50

60

70

80

90

100

Yiel

d (t

ha)

(b) 2013

Figure 5 The effects of irrigation and fertilizer on tomato fruit yield in 2012 and 2013

cde

f

c cde

aab

e fg

c de

a ab

2012 2013

Wat

er u

se effi

cien

cy (k

g mminus3)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

W1F

2

W1F

3

W2F

1

W2F

2

W2F

3

W3F

1

W3F

2

W3F

3

W1F

1

Figure 6 The effects of irrigation and fertilizer on water useefficiency in 2012 and 2013 the same letter represents values that aresignificant at the 5 probability level

Therefore the tomato yield andWUE cannot simultaneouslyreach their maxima

When the WUE was maximal irrigation was minimaland the fertilizer amountwas close tomaximalTherefore it isnecessary to perform further studies on the input of irrigationand fertilizer which affect fruit yield and WUE

In our study a multiple regression analysis was used todevelop a hypothesis in which fruit yield and WUE wereequally important (120582

1

= 1205822

= 05) The relationships amongirrigation fertilizer and the weighted fruit yield and WUEwere determined using the following equations

2012119884 = 118 minus 483 times 10minus3119882+ 762 times 10minus4119865 + 680

times 10minus6

1198822

minus 142 times 10minus6

1198652

+ 362

times 10minus6

119882119865


times 10minus5

1198822


1198652

+ 302

times 10minus6

119882119865

(3)

where 119884 is the optimization value considering the fruit yieldand WUE (tsdothaminus1)119882 is the irrigation amount (mm) and 119865is the fertilizer amount (kgsdothaminus1)

The optimal value of the target function was calculatedby MATLAB The irrigation amount and fertilizer amountwere 151mm and 4536 kgsdothaminus1 (nitrogen phosphorus andpotassium fertilizers were 2135 1067 and 1334 kgsdothaminus1resp) in 2012 respectively The irrigation amount and fer-tilizer amount were 2078mm and 46108 kgsdothaminus1 (nitro-gen phosphorus and potassic fertilizers were 217 108 and1356 kgsdothaminus1 resp) in 2013 respectively

4 Discussion

The relationships between the growth indexes and the irri-gation amount and fertilizer level were statistically analyzedand the positive correlation was significant In two con-secutive years the plant height and leaf growth rate werehigher in W2F1 than in the other treatments at 23 days aftertransplanting which may be due to water consumption Theresults were the same as those of Zhu et al [35] who reportedthat higher levels of irrigation can inhibit plant heightincrease It is of great importance to study the growth andsoil water required for tomato drymatter accumulation underirrigation and fertilization strategies with drip irrigation astoo much water can cause excessive vegetative growth themost important thing is the proper proportion of irrigationand fertilizer [36] There was a positive correlation betweendry matter accumulation and fertilizer amount and fertilizertreatment was more sensitive to dry matter accumulationthan irrigation treatment During the growth period the leafgrowth rate increased rapidly at first and then the rate of


increase decreased and the growth plateaued There was nosignificant difference between the irrigation treatment andleaf growth rate and the same result was obtained as withdry matter accumulation Crop evapotranspiration is closelyrelated to crop growth and water consumption during cropgrowth which is irreversible The result was same as thatof Wang et al [37] the tomato dry matter accumulationwas mainly due to irrigation and fertilization and there wasno significant difference in the dry matter accumulation atthe whole growth stage Fertilization was more sensitive tofruit yield than irrigation and the irrigation treatment wasmore sensitive than the interaction between irrigation andfertilization [38]

The results showed that irrigation and fertilization hadsignificant effects on tomato yield and the effects of the inter-action between irrigation and fertilizer were very significantThe same results were obtained in greenhouse that there wasa significant difference in the tomato yield in the irrigationand fertilization treatments due to irrigation fertilizer andthe interaction between the two factors [39] However in thisexperiment the interaction between irrigation and fertiliza-tion was more sensitive than the single factors of fertilizationor irrigation the reason for this resultmay be that the effect ofthe interaction between water and fertilizer was obvious andcould be used in further studies on the effect of the interactionbetween irrigation and fertilization on tomato growth

The results showed that different irrigation and fertil-ization supplies significantly affected the WUE and that theeffect of irrigation treatment on theWUEwas significantTheinfluence of the interaction between irrigation and fertiliza-tion on the WUE was not significant however the effect ofirrigation treatment on the WUE was greater than the effectof fertilization Javanmardi and Kubota [40] and Maria doRosario et al [41] reported that fertilizer improved theWUEunder the same irrigation level fertilization could effectivelyimprove the WUE This result is consistent with our experi-mental results There are two reasons explaining why fertil-ization improved the WUE One reason might be that fertil-ization can promote tomato root growth and developmentthereby improving the root systemrsquos capacity to absorb waterand nutrients [42] Another reason may be that tomato waterconsumption improved during growth causing the roots nearsoil water movement to increase the efficiency of soil waterabsorption and to further improve the WUE of the soil

5 Conclusions

Generally it is difficult to obtain the maximal WUE andthe maximum yield simultaneously Reducing the amountof irrigation water will result in higher WUE based on thischaracteristic the highest WUE and fruit yield cannot occurat the same time According to this characteristic tomatoesrequire fertilizer andwater at the same timeThe tomato yieldand WUE are equally important and the tomato yield andWUE coefficients are each 05 An irrigation amount of 1511to 2078mm and a fertilizer amount of 4536 to 4611 kgsdothaminus1for greenhouse tomato surface drip fertigation are recom-mended (nitrogen fertilizer 2135ndash217 kgsdothaminus1 phosphate

fertilizer 1067minus108 kgsdothaminus1 and potassium fertilizer 1334ndash1356 kgsdothaminus1)

Competing Interests

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interestsregarding the publication of this paper

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by Specialized Research Fundfor the Doctoral Program of Yanrsquoan University (205040119205040123) Shaanxi Province High-Level University Con-struction Special Fund Projects of Ecology (2012SXTC03)and Special Scientific Research Project in Shaanxi ProvinceDepartment of Education (16JK1853)

References

[1] S PhuntshoH K Shon S Hong S Lee and S Vigneswaran ldquoAnovel low energy fertilizer driven forward osmosis desalinationfor direct fertigation evaluating the performance of fertilizerdraw solutionsrdquo Journal of Membrane Science vol 375 no 1-2pp 172ndash181 2011

[2] J Hagin and A Lowengart ldquoFertigation for minimizing envi-ronmental pollution by fertilizersrdquo Fertilizer Research vol 43no 1ndash3 pp 5ndash7 1996

[3] T A Howell ldquoEnhancing water use efficiency in irrigatedagriculturerdquo Agronomy Journal vol 93 no 2 pp 281ndash289 2001

[4] J Li J Zhang and L Ren ldquoWater and nitrogen distributionas affected by fertigation of ammonium nitrate from a pointsourcerdquo Irrigation Science vol 22 no 1 pp 19ndash30 2003

[5] S S Hebbar B K Ramachandrappa H V Nanjappa and MPrabhakar ldquoStudies on NPK drip fertigation in field growntomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill)rdquo European Journal ofAgronomy vol 21 no 1 pp 117ndash127 2004

[6] Z Hou P Li B Li J Gong and Y Wang ldquoEffects of fertigationscheme on N uptake and N use efficiency in cottonrdquo Plant andSoil vol 290 no 1-2 pp 115ndash126 2007

[7] K O Burkey F L Booker W A Pursley and A S HeagleldquoElevated carbon dioxide and ozone effects on peanut II Seedyield and qualityrdquo Crop Science vol 47 no 4 pp 1488ndash14972007

[8] E Baldi GMarcolini M Quartieri G Sorrenti andM TosellildquoEffect of organic fertilization on nutrient concentration andaccumulation in nectarine (Prunus persica var nucipersica)trees the effect of rate of applicationrdquo ScientiaHorticulturae vol179 pp 174ndash179 2014

[9] G Evgenidis E Traka-Mavrona and M Koutsika-SotiriouldquoPrincipal component and cluster analysis as a tool in theassessment of tomato hybrids and cultivarsrdquo InternationalJournal of Agronomy vol 2011 Article ID 697879 7 pages 2011

[10] I K Arah H Amaglo E K Kumah and H Ofori ldquoPreharvestand postharvest factors affecting the quality and shelf life ofharvested tomatoes a mini reviewrdquo International Journal ofAgronomy vol 2015 Article ID 478041 6 pages 2015

[11] W You and A V Barker ldquoEffects of soil-applied glufosinate-ammonium on tomato plant growth and ammonium accumu-lationrdquo Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis vol35 no 13-14 pp 1945ndash1955 2004


[12] S De Pascale A Maggio V Fogliano P Ambrosino andA Ritieni ldquoIrrigation with saline water improves carotenoidscontent and antioxidant activity of tomatordquo The Journal ofHorticultural Science and Biotechnology vol 76 no 4 pp 447ndash453 2001

[13] G Farre G Sanahuja S Naqvi et al ldquoTravel advice on the roadto carotenoids in plantsrdquo Plant Science vol 179 no 1-2 pp 28ndash48 2010

[14] H Zhao Y-C Xiong F-M Li et al ldquoPlastic film mulch forhalf growing-season maximized WUE and yield of potato viamoisture-temperature improvement in a semi-arid agroecosys-temrdquo Agricultural Water Management vol 104 pp 68ndash78 2012

[15] G Mahajan and K G Singh ldquoResponse of Greenhouse tomatoto irrigation and fertigationrdquo Agricultural Water Managementvol 84 no 1-2 pp 202ndash206 2006

[16] F Favati S Lovelli F Galgano VMiccolis T Di Tommaso andV Candido ldquoProcessing tomato quality as affected by irrigationschedulingrdquo Scientia Horticulturae vol 122 no 4 pp 562ndash5712009

[17] J PMitchell C Shennan S RGrattan andDMMay ldquoTomatofruit yields and quality under water deficit and salinityrdquo Journalof the American Society for Horticultural Science vol 116 no 2pp 215ndash221 1991

[18] V Dewanto X Wu K K Adom and R H Liu ldquoThermalprocessing enhances the nutritional value of tomatoes byincreasing total antioxidant activityrdquo Journal of Agricultural andFood Chemistry vol 50 no 10 pp 3010ndash3014 2002

[19] HGulen andA Eris ldquoEffect of heat stress on peroxidase activityand total protein content in strawberry plantsrdquo Plant Sciencevol 166 no 3 pp 739ndash744 2004

[20] K Liu T Q Zhang C S Tan and T Astatkie ldquoResponses offruit yield and quality of processing tomato to drip-irrigationand fertilizers phosphorus and potassiumrdquo Agronomy Journalvol 103 no 5 pp 1339ndash1345 2011

[21] A S Isah E B Amans E C Odion and A A Yusuf ldquoGrowthrate and yield of two tomato varieties (Lycopersicon esculentummill) under green manure and NPK fertilizer rate Samarunorthern guinea savannardquo International Journal of Agronomyvol 2014 Article ID 932759 8 pages 2014

[22] K Liu T Q Zhang and C S Tan ldquoProcessing tomatophosphorus utilization and post-harvest soil profile phosphorusas affected by phosphorus and potassium additions and dripirrigationrdquo Canadian Journal of Soil Science vol 91 no 3 pp417ndash425 2011

[23] T Q Zhang C S Tan K Liu C F Drury A P Papadopoulosand J Warner ldquoYield and economic assessments of fertilizernitrogen and phosphorus for processing tomato with drip ferti-gationrdquo Agronomy Journal vol 102 no 2 pp 774ndash780 2010

[24] H Kuscu A Turhan and A O Demir ldquoThe response ofprocessing tomato to deficit irrigation at various phenologicalstages in a sub-humid environmentrdquo Agricultural Water Man-agement vol 133 pp 92ndash103 2014

[25] F He Q Chen R Jiang X Chen and F Zhang ldquoYield andnitrogen balance of greenhouse tomato (Lycopersicum esculen-tumMill) with conventional and site-specific nitrogenmanage-ment in Northern Chinardquo Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystemsvol 77 no 1 pp 1ndash14 2007

[26] J Chen S Kang T Du R Qiu P Guo and R ChenldquoQuantitative response of greenhouse tomato yield and qualityto water deficit at different growth stagesrdquo Agricultural WaterManagement vol 129 pp 152ndash162 2013

[27] J Zheng G Huang D Jia et al ldquoResponses of drip irrigatedtomato (Solanum lycopersicum L) yield quality and water pro-ductivity to various soil matric potential thresholds in an aridregion of Northwest Chinardquo Agricultural Water Managementvol 129 pp 181ndash193 2013

[28] C Patane and S L Cosentino ldquoEffects of soil water deficit onyield and quality of processing tomato under a Mediterraneanclimaterdquo Agricultural Water Management vol 97 no 1 pp 131ndash138 2010

[29] M T CastellanosM J CabelloM C Cartagena AM TarquisA Arce and F Ribas ldquoNitrogen uptake dynamics yield andquality as influenced by nitrogen fertilization in lsquoPiel de saporsquomelonrdquo Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research vol 10 no 3pp 756ndash767 2012

[30] R Qiu J Song T Du et al ldquoResponse of evapotranspirationand yield to planting density of solar greenhouse grown tomatoin northwest Chinardquo Agricultural Water Management vol 130pp 44ndash51 2013

[31] M D Fernandez S Bonachela F Orgaz et al ldquoErratum tomeasurement and estimation of plastic greenhouse referenceevapotranspiration in a Mediterranean climaterdquo Irrigation Sci-ence vol 29 no 1 pp 91ndash92 2011

[32] R G Allen L S Pereira D Raes and M Smith Crop Evapo-transpirationmdashGuide-lines for Computing Crop Water Require-ments FAO Irrigation and drainage paper no 56 FAO RomeItaly 1998

[33] Z Wang Z Liu Z Zhang and X Liu ldquoSubsurface dripirrigation scheduling for cucumber (Cucumis sativus L) grownin solar greenhouse based on 20 cm standard pan evaporationin Northeast Chinardquo Scientia Horticulturae vol 123 no 1 pp51ndash57 2009

[34] F Wang S Kang T Du F Li and R Qiu ldquoDetermination ofcomprehensive quality index for tomato and its response to dif-ferent irrigation treatmentsrdquo Agricultural Water Managementvol 98 no 8 pp 1228ndash1238 2011

[35] G-L Zhu Y-Y Hu and Q-R Wang ldquoNitrogen removal per-formance of anaerobic ammonia oxidation co-culture immobi-lized in different gel carriersrdquo Water Science amp Technology vol59 no 12 pp 2379ndash2386 2009

[36] W Xiukang L Zhanbin and X Yingying ldquoEffects of mulchingand nitrogen on soil temperature water content nitrate-N con-tent andmaize yield in the Loess Plateau of ChinardquoAgriculturalWater Management vol 161 pp 53ndash64 2015

[37] C Wang W Liu Q Li et al ldquoEffects of different irrigationand nitrogen regimes on root growth and its correlation withabove-ground plant parts in high-yielding wheat under fieldconditionsrdquo Field Crops Research vol 165 pp 138ndash149 2014

[38] R B Singandhupe G G S N Rao N G Patil and P S Brah-manand ldquoFertigation studies and irrigation scheduling in dripirrigation system in tomato crop (Lycopersicon esculentum L)rdquoEuropean Journal of Agronomy vol 19 no 2 pp 327ndash340 2003

[39] A Ozbahce and A F Tari ldquoEffects of different emitter spaceandwater stress on yield and quality of processing tomato undersemi-arid climate conditionsrdquo Agricultural Water Managementvol 97 no 9 pp 1405ndash1410 2010

[40] J Javanmardi and C Kubota ldquoVariation of lycopene antiox-idant activity total soluble solids and weight loss of tomatoduring postharvest storagerdquoPostharvest Biology andTechnologyvol 41 no 2 pp 151ndash155 2006


[41] G O Maria do Rosario A M Calado and C A M PortasldquoTomato root distribution under drip irrigationrdquo Journal of theAmerican Society for Horticultural science vol 121 no 4 pp644ndash648 1996

[42] A M K Nassar S Kubow and D J Donnelly ldquoHigh-throughput screening of sensory and nutritional characteristicsfor cultivar selection in commercial hydroponic greenhousecrop productionrdquo International Journal of Agronomy vol 2015Article ID 376417 28 pages 2015

Submit your manuscripts athttpwwwhindawicom

Nutrition and Metabolism

Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014


Food ScienceInternational Journal of

Agronomy


International Journal of



Microbiology

The Scientific World JournalHindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom

Applied ampEnvironmentalSoil Science

Volume 2014

AgricultureAdvances in


PsycheHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

BiodiversityInternational Journal of


ScientificaHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

GenomicsInternational Journal of


Plant GenomicsInternational Journal of


Biotechnology Research International


Forestry ResearchInternational Journal of


Journal of BotanyHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

EcologyInternational Journal of


Veterinary Medicine International


Cell BiologyInternational Journal of


Evolutionary BiologyInternational Journal of



Water meter

Check valve Fertigation equipmentDrip irrigation tubing Drip irrigation tubingBull-plugged Bull-plugged

Ball valve Ball valveD

rip ir

rigat

ion

pipe

W2F1 W2F3 W2F2 W1F1 W1F2 W1F3 W3F3 W3F1 W3F2

Figure 1The layout of experiment included water sources water meter check valve fertigation equipment and ball valve and drip irrigationpipe positions of different treatments in greenhouse

ascorbic acid content is significantly higher under optimumwater supply conditions [16ndash18] Water stress is one of themost important environmental factors that regulate plantgrowth and development and limit plant production [19]

Tomato responds well to fertilizer application and isreported to be a heavy feeder of nitrogen (N) phosphorus(P) and potassium (K) fertilizer [5] It is partially compatiblewith drip irrigation which is a very efficient use of waterand nutrients [20 21] Previous studies have suggested thatthe N use efficiency and N agronomic efficiency decreasedwith increases in fertilizer N rate and that the N rateof 271 kgsdothaminus1 produced the highest marketable yield and265 kgsdothaminus1 produced the optimum economic yield [22 23]Nitrogen phosphorus and potassiumare essential for tomatoproduction [24] and the recommended balanced rates of fer-tilization include twice as muchN as P and K [25] Accordingto the literature the application of deficit irrigation at theseedling stagemay not significantly influence the total yield ofgreenhouse tomato [26]The excessive use of irrigation waterleads to low water productivity and deterioration [27] Tomaximize tomato water productivity priority must be givento the efficient use of water both to improve yields and tocontrol water use byminimizing nonbeneficial water use [28]

Therefore the development of efficient agricultural wateruse is not only necessary but also feasible being critical toimprove the fruit yield and WUE To obtain high yieldsand maximum profits in commercial tomato production theoptimal management of both fertilizer and water is requiredPrevious studies have focused on the influence of irrigationamount and fertilizer rate on tomato growth fruit yield andquality Meanwhile it is necessary to select an optimal com-bination of irrigation and fertilization to improve agriculturalwater and fertilizer management practices Therefore theaim of this study is to explore the effect of irrigation andfertilization on the growth yield and quality of tomato withfertigation by drip irrigation and to make recommendationsregarding the strategies for growing greenhouse tomatoes

2 Materials and Methods

21 Experimental Site and Treatments The tomatoes plant(Lycopersicum esculentumMill cv ldquoJinpeng 10rdquo) was used for

our experiment in the greenhouse located at the Key Labora-tory of Agricultural Soil and Water Conservation Engineer-ing in Arid Areas (34∘201015840N 108∘041015840E and altitude 521m)Shaanxi Province China The topsoil (0ndash80 cm) has a bulkdensity of 142 gsdotcmminus3 a pH of 812 and a field capacityof 25 cm3sdotcmminus3 an organic matter content of 138 gsdotkgminus1a total nitrogen content of 082 gsdotkgminus1 an available phos-phorus content of 132 gsdotkgminus1 an available potassium con-tent of 1058 gsdotkgminus1 and an available nitrogen content of7412mgsdotkgminus1

In this experiment nine treatments were designed withthree different irrigation levels (W1 100 ET

119888

W2 75 ET119888

W3 50 ET

119888

) and fertilizer levels (F1 N240-P2

O5

120-K2

O150 kgsdothaminus1 F2 N180-P2

O5

90-K2

O1125 kgsdothaminus1 F3N120-P

2

O5

60-K2

O75 kgsdothaminus1)Theexperimentwas organizedusing a randomized block design with three replicationseach plot was 6m long 125m wide and 225 (3 times 6 times 125 =225)m2 in area Total 9 divided and ridged experimentalplots were divided by a water barrier sheet A mosaiccolumn emitter type drip irrigation tape (Hebei GreenWaterConservancy Engineering Co Ltd Shijiazhuang HebeiProvince China) was used in this experimental irrigationsystem with an external diameter of 16mm drip tape emitterspacing of 30 cm a head flow of 2 L hminus1 and a drip irrigationoperating pressure of 03MPa (Figure 1)

22 Crop Management Harvesting and Measurements Thetomato seedlings were transplanted on 21 Mar 2012 and31 Mar 2013 The furrow-film mulch was cultivated by thelocal traditional planting patterns and calendars using tomatoridging in a tube with a two-line spaced layout the tubeswere placed 50 cm apart with a 45 cm planting distance and78 plants in each experimental plot Drip fertigation wasperformed using a fertilizer of urea (46 N) diammoniumphosphate (44 P

2

O5

) and potassium chloride (60 K2

O)This fertilizer was applied five times at the recovering stagethe blossoming and bearing fruits stage the first fruit enlarge-ment period the second fruit enlargement period and thethird fruit enlargement period and the fertilization ratio was1 1 2 2 2 for those applications

The plant height in each treatment was measured every15 to 20 days after transplanting The height of 3 randomly








119888


0


119888




0

in greenhouse [31]

ET0

=

048Δ (119877119899

minus 119866) + 120574 (628 (119879 + 273)) (119890119904

minus 119890119886

)

Δ + 628120574

(1)

where 119877119899


119904



119904

minus 119890119886


119866 119890119904

119890119886


0


119888




20122013

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

324 47 421 55 519 62 616 630 714 728310

Dai

lyET

0(m

m dminus

1)




WUE = 119884ET119888

times 100 (2)


119888



3 Results



2012



2013

310 324 47 421 55 519 62 616 630 7140

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

324 47 421 55 519 62 616 630 7143100

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Irrig

atio

n am

ount

(mm

)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35Ir

rigat

ion

amou

nt (m

m)

Dai

ly av

erag

e tem

pera

ture

(∘C)

Dai

ly av

erag

e tem

pera

ture

(∘C)









W2F3 343d 683d 1005d 1277ab 261b 62cd 862e 1102ab
















W2F3 649e 844de 926cd 1039d 68bc 737d 901c 1045c



W3F3 594e 821e 891d 1029d 596e 665e 793d 925d




W1F

2

W1F

3

W2F

1

W2F

2

W2F

3

W3F

1

W3F

2

W3F

3

W1F

1

90d70d

53d37d23d

minus2

0

2

4

6

Leaf

gro

wth

rate

(cm2

leafminus1

dayminus

1)

(a) 2012

W1F

1

W1F

2

W1F

3

W2F

1

W2F

2

W2F

3

W3F

1

W3F

2

W3F

3

minus2

minus1

0

1

2

3

4

5Le

af g

row

th ra

te (c

m2

leafminus1

dayminus

1)

100d80d

60d40d20d

(b) 2013









2012


W1F2 5828b 2785ab 2552a 223b 11389b 512d 244ab 224ab 2a

W1F3 5100d 2660ab 2172b 195c 10127c 504d 263a 214bc 19ab


W2F2 5475c 2221cd 2309b 215b 10221c 536bc 217c 226ab 21a




W3F3 4722e 1876e 1460d 140e 8198f 576a 229bc 178e 17b




2013






W2F3 3707c 1772cd 1394d 193d 7066d 524bc 251a 197d 27b


W3F2 3945c 1502e 1607c 151e 7206cd 547bc 209cd 223b 21c

W3F3 3740c 1168f 1243e 139e 6290e 594a 186d 198d 22c









600

500

400

300

200


200

250

300


50

60

70

80

90

100Yi

eld

(tha

)

(a) 2012

600

500

400

300

200


200

250

300


50

60

70

80

90

100

Yiel

d (t

ha)

(b) 2013


cde

f

c cde

aab

e fg

c de

a ab

2012 2013

Wat

er u

se effi

cien

cy (k

g mminus3)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

W1F

2

W1F

3

W2F

1

W2F

2

W2F

3

W3F

1

W3F

2

W3F

3

W1F

1





1

= 1205822



times 10minus6

1198822


1198652

+ 362

times 10minus6

119882119865


times 10minus5

1198822


1198652

+ 302

times 10minus6

119882119865

(3)



4 Discussion






5 Conclusions



Competing Interests


Acknowledgments


References















































Journal of




Agronomy





Microbiology




Volume 2014































119888


0


119888




0

in greenhouse [31]

ET0

=

048Δ (119877119899

minus 119866) + 120574 (628 (119879 + 273)) (119890119904

minus 119890119886

)

Δ + 628120574

(1)

where 119877119899


119904



119904

minus 119890119886


119866 119890119904

119890119886


0


119888




20122013

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

324 47 421 55 519 62 616 630 714 728310

Dai

lyET

0(m

m dminus

1)




WUE = 119884ET119888

times 100 (2)


119888



3 Results



2012



2013

310 324 47 421 55 519 62 616 630 7140

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

324 47 421 55 519 62 616 630 7143100

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Irrig

atio

n am

ount

(mm

)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35Ir

rigat

ion

amou

nt (m

m)

Dai

ly av

erag

e tem

pera

ture

(∘C)

Dai

ly av

erag

e tem

pera

ture

(∘C)









W2F3 343d 683d 1005d 1277ab 261b 62cd 862e 1102ab
















W2F3 649e 844de 926cd 1039d 68bc 737d 901c 1045c



W3F3 594e 821e 891d 1029d 596e 665e 793d 925d




W1F

2

W1F

3

W2F

1

W2F

2

W2F

3

W3F

1

W3F

2

W3F

3

W1F

1

90d70d

53d37d23d

minus2

0

2

4

6

Leaf

gro

wth

rate

(cm2

leafminus1

dayminus

1)

(a) 2012

W1F

1

W1F

2

W1F

3

W2F

1

W2F

2

W2F

3

W3F

1

W3F

2

W3F

3

minus2

minus1

0

1

2

3

4

5Le

af g

row

th ra

te (c

m2

leafminus1

dayminus

1)

100d80d

60d40d20d

(b) 2013









2012


W1F2 5828b 2785ab 2552a 223b 11389b 512d 244ab 224ab 2a

W1F3 5100d 2660ab 2172b 195c 10127c 504d 263a 214bc 19ab


W2F2 5475c 2221cd 2309b 215b 10221c 536bc 217c 226ab 21a




W3F3 4722e 1876e 1460d 140e 8198f 576a 229bc 178e 17b




2013






W2F3 3707c 1772cd 1394d 193d 7066d 524bc 251a 197d 27b


W3F2 3945c 1502e 1607c 151e 7206cd 547bc 209cd 223b 21c

W3F3 3740c 1168f 1243e 139e 6290e 594a 186d 198d 22c









600

500

400

300

200


200

250

300


50

60

70

80

90

100Yi

eld

(tha

)

(a) 2012

600

500

400

300

200


200

250

300


50

60

70

80

90

100

Yiel

d (t

ha)

(b) 2013


cde

f

c cde

aab

e fg

c de

a ab

2012 2013

Wat

er u

se effi

cien

cy (k

g mminus3)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

W1F

2

W1F

3

W2F

1

W2F

2

W2F

3

W3F

1

W3F

2

W3F

3

W1F

1





1

= 1205822



times 10minus6

1198822


1198652

+ 362

times 10minus6

119882119865


times 10minus5

1198822


1198652

+ 302

times 10minus6

119882119865

(3)



4 Discussion






5 Conclusions



Competing Interests


Acknowledgments


References















































Journal of




Agronomy





Microbiology




Volume 2014

























2012



2013

310 324 47 421 55 519 62 616 630 7140

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

324 47 421 55 519 62 616 630 7143100

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Irrig

atio

n am

ount

(mm

)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35Ir

rigat

ion

amou

nt (m

m)

Dai

ly av

erag

e tem

pera

ture

(∘C)

Dai

ly av

erag

e tem

pera

ture

(∘C)









W2F3 343d 683d 1005d 1277ab 261b 62cd 862e 1102ab
















W2F3 649e 844de 926cd 1039d 68bc 737d 901c 1045c



W3F3 594e 821e 891d 1029d 596e 665e 793d 925d




W1F

2

W1F

3

W2F

1

W2F

2

W2F

3

W3F

1

W3F

2

W3F

3

W1F

1

90d70d

53d37d23d

minus2

0

2

4

6

Leaf

gro

wth

rate

(cm2

leafminus1

dayminus

1)

(a) 2012

W1F

1

W1F

2

W1F

3

W2F

1

W2F

2

W2F

3

W3F

1

W3F

2

W3F

3

minus2

minus1

0

1

2

3

4

5Le

af g

row

th ra

te (c

m2

leafminus1

dayminus

1)

100d80d

60d40d20d

(b) 2013









2012


W1F2 5828b 2785ab 2552a 223b 11389b 512d 244ab 224ab 2a

W1F3 5100d 2660ab 2172b 195c 10127c 504d 263a 214bc 19ab


W2F2 5475c 2221cd 2309b 215b 10221c 536bc 217c 226ab 21a




W3F3 4722e 1876e 1460d 140e 8198f 576a 229bc 178e 17b




2013






W2F3 3707c 1772cd 1394d 193d 7066d 524bc 251a 197d 27b


W3F2 3945c 1502e 1607c 151e 7206cd 547bc 209cd 223b 21c

W3F3 3740c 1168f 1243e 139e 6290e 594a 186d 198d 22c









600

500

400

300

200


200

250

300


50

60

70

80

90

100Yi

eld

(tha

)

(a) 2012

600

500

400

300

200


200

250

300


50

60

70

80

90

100

Yiel

d (t

ha)

(b) 2013


cde

f

c cde

aab

e fg

c de

a ab

2012 2013

Wat

er u

se effi

cien

cy (k

g mminus3)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

W1F

2

W1F

3

W2F

1

W2F

2

W2F

3

W3F

1

W3F

2

W3F

3

W1F

1





1

= 1205822



times 10minus6

1198822


1198652

+ 362

times 10minus6

119882119865


times 10minus5

1198822


1198652

+ 302

times 10minus6

119882119865

(3)



4 Discussion






5 Conclusions



Competing Interests


Acknowledgments


References















































Journal of




Agronomy





Microbiology




Volume 2014
































W2F3 649e 844de 926cd 1039d 68bc 737d 901c 1045c



W3F3 594e 821e 891d 1029d 596e 665e 793d 925d




W1F

2

W1F

3

W2F

1

W2F

2

W2F

3

W3F

1

W3F

2

W3F

3

W1F

1

90d70d

53d37d23d

minus2

0

2

4

6

Leaf

gro

wth

rate

(cm2

leafminus1

dayminus

1)

(a) 2012

W1F

1

W1F

2

W1F

3

W2F

1

W2F

2

W2F

3

W3F

1

W3F

2

W3F

3

minus2

minus1

0

1

2

3

4

5Le

af g

row

th ra

te (c

m2

leafminus1

dayminus

1)

100d80d

60d40d20d

(b) 2013









2012


W1F2 5828b 2785ab 2552a 223b 11389b 512d 244ab 224ab 2a

W1F3 5100d 2660ab 2172b 195c 10127c 504d 263a 214bc 19ab


W2F2 5475c 2221cd 2309b 215b 10221c 536bc 217c 226ab 21a




W3F3 4722e 1876e 1460d 140e 8198f 576a 229bc 178e 17b




2013






W2F3 3707c 1772cd 1394d 193d 7066d 524bc 251a 197d 27b


W3F2 3945c 1502e 1607c 151e 7206cd 547bc 209cd 223b 21c

W3F3 3740c 1168f 1243e 139e 6290e 594a 186d 198d 22c









600

500

400

300

200


200

250

300


50

60

70

80

90

100Yi

eld

(tha

)

(a) 2012

600

500

400

300

200


200

250

300


50

60

70

80

90

100

Yiel

d (t

ha)

(b) 2013


cde

f

c cde

aab

e fg

c de

a ab

2012 2013

Wat

er u

se effi

cien

cy (k

g mminus3)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

W1F

2

W1F

3

W2F

1

W2F

2

W2F

3

W3F

1

W3F

2

W3F

3

W1F

1





1

= 1205822



times 10minus6

1198822


1198652

+ 362

times 10minus6

119882119865


times 10minus5

1198822


1198652

+ 302

times 10minus6

119882119865

(3)



4 Discussion






5 Conclusions



Competing Interests


Acknowledgments


References















































Journal of




Agronomy





Microbiology




Volume 2014



























2012


W1F2 5828b 2785ab 2552a 223b 11389b 512d 244ab 224ab 2a

W1F3 5100d 2660ab 2172b 195c 10127c 504d 263a 214bc 19ab


W2F2 5475c 2221cd 2309b 215b 10221c 536bc 217c 226ab 21a




W3F3 4722e 1876e 1460d 140e 8198f 576a 229bc 178e 17b




2013






W2F3 3707c 1772cd 1394d 193d 7066d 524bc 251a 197d 27b


W3F2 3945c 1502e 1607c 151e 7206cd 547bc 209cd 223b 21c

W3F3 3740c 1168f 1243e 139e 6290e 594a 186d 198d 22c









600

500

400

300

200


200

250

300


50

60

70

80

90

100Yi

eld

(tha

)

(a) 2012

600

500

400

300

200


200

250

300


50

60

70

80

90

100

Yiel

d (t

ha)

(b) 2013


cde

f

c cde

aab

e fg

c de

a ab

2012 2013

Wat

er u

se effi

cien

cy (k

g mminus3)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

W1F

2

W1F

3

W2F

1

W2F

2

W2F

3

W3F

1

W3F

2

W3F

3

W1F

1





1

= 1205822



times 10minus6

1198822


1198652

+ 362

times 10minus6

119882119865


times 10minus5

1198822


1198652

+ 302

times 10minus6

119882119865

(3)



4 Discussion






5 Conclusions



Competing Interests


Acknowledgments


References















































Journal of




Agronomy





Microbiology




Volume 2014

























600

500

400

300

200


200

250

300


50

60

70

80

90

100Yi

eld

(tha

)

(a) 2012

600

500

400

300

200


200

250

300


50

60

70

80

90

100

Yiel

d (t

ha)

(b) 2013


cde

f

c cde

aab

e fg

c de

a ab

2012 2013

Wat

er u

se effi

cien

cy (k

g mminus3)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

W1F

2

W1F

3

W2F

1

W2F

2

W2F

3

W3F

1

W3F

2

W3F

3

W1F

1





1

= 1205822



times 10minus6

1198822


1198652

+ 362

times 10minus6

119882119865


times 10minus5

1198822


1198652

+ 302

times 10minus6

119882119865

(3)



4 Discussion






5 Conclusions



Competing Interests


Acknowledgments


References















































Journal of




Agronomy





Microbiology




Volume 2014




























5 Conclusions



Competing Interests


Acknowledgments


References















































Journal of




Agronomy





Microbiology




Volume 2014



























































Journal of




Agronomy





Microbiology




Volume 2014
























Research Article Evaluation of the Effect of Irrigation...

Documents

Transcript of Research Article Evaluation of the Effect of Irrigation...