EFFECT OF DEFICIT IRRIGATION ON THE PRODUCTIVITY AND CHARACTERISTICS OF TOMATO

Hassan, Ahmed. M.; Abuarab, Mohamed E.

doi:10.21608/mjae.2013.102037

EFFECT OF DEFICIT IRRIGATION ON THE PRODUCTIVITY AND CHARACTERISTICS OF TOMATO

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

Assist. Prof., Ag. Eng. Dept., Fac. of Ag., Cairo Univ., Egypt.

10.21608/mjae.2013.102037

Abstract

In order to assess the effect of water irrigation deficit during season on yield and mechanical damage of processing tomato, an open field experiment was carried out in two seasons 2010/2011 – 2011/2012. Four irrigation treatments were studied: (ET₁: 1 time potential crop evapotranspiration (ET_c), ET₂: 0.9 ET_c, ET₃: 0.8 ET_c and 0.7 ET_c, ET₄). The study investigated the yield and mechanical damage in packing cage under four levels of water requirements. Numerous mechanical impacts on fruit occurred with resulting mechanical damages of 15.9, 9.9, 7.1, and 9.5% for treatments ET₁, ET₂, ET₃, and ET₄, respectively. Total productions of tomato were 30.77, 29.50, 28.88 and 25.54 ton/fed, but net productions of tomato were 25.88, 26.58, 26.83 and 23.12 ton/fed for treatments ET₁, ET₂, ET₃ and ET₄, respectively. The bruised productions of tomatoes were 4.89, 2.92, 2.05 and 2.43 ton/fed for treatments ET₁, ET₂, ET₃ and ET₄, respectively. The net profit values for treatments ET₁, ET₂, ET₃ and ET₄ were 68990.7, 68841.5, 68644.2, and 59804.6 LE/fed, respectively. The amounts of water saved from ET₂ and ET₃ were 163.5 and 327 mm, respectively. The amount of water saved can be used to provide other areas to increase the production and thereby increase the water use efficiency.

Keywords

Main Subjects

Agricultural Irrigation and Drainage Engineering

References

Allen, R.G.; L.S. Pereira; D. Raes and M. Smith, 1998. Crop evapotranspiration. Guidelines for computing crop water requirements. FAO I. and Drain. Paper No. 56, FAO, Rome, Italy, 300.

Allende, A.; M. Desmet and E. Vanstreels. 2004. Micromechanical and geometrical properties of tomato skin related to differences in puncture injury susceptibility. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 34: 131-141.

Altisent, M. R. 1991. Damage mechanisms in the handling of fruits: Progress in agricultural physics and engineering. John Matthew (Ed.), Commonwealth Ag. Bur. (CAB) I. Willingford, UK: 231-255.

Bahnasawy, A. H. 2007. Some physical and mechanical properties of garlic. Int. J. Food Eng. 3: 1–18.

Bajema, R. H. and G. M. Hyde. 1998. Instrumented pendulum for impact characterization of whole fruit and vegetable specimen. Transactions of the ASAE 41: 1399-405.

Batu, A. 1998. Some factors affecting on determination and measurement of tomato firmness. Tropical J. of Ag. and Forestry, 22: 411-418.

Costa, J. M.; M.F. Ortuno and M. M. Chaves. 2007. Deficit irrigation as a strategy to save water: physiology and potential application to horticulture. Journal of Integrative Plant Biology 49: 1421–1434.

Dewulf, W.; P. Jancsok; B. Nicolai; D. D. Roeck and D. Briassoulis. 1999. Determining the firmness of a pear using finite element modal analysis. J. of Ag. Eng. Res., 74 (3): 217-224.

FAO 2010. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. http://www.faostat.fao.org. 16Aug. 2012.

Ghonimy, M. I. 2003. Analytical approach to energy balance in seed-bed preparation for corn crop. Misr J. Ag. Eng., 20 (1): 1-17.

Gonzalez J.J.; K.L. Mccarthy and M. J. Mccarthy. 1998. MRI method to evaluate internal structural changes of tomato during compression. J. Texture Stud. 29: 537-551.

Ibrahim, M. M. 2008. Determination of dynamic coefficient of friction for some materials for feed pellet under different values of pressure and temperature. Misr J. Ag. Eng., 25(4):1389-1409.

Joshi, D.C.; S.K. Das and R.K. Mukherjee. 1993. Physical properties of pumpkin seeds. Agric. Eng. 54: 219–229.

Lien, C. C.; C.Y. Ay and C. H. Ting. 2009. Non-destructive impact test for assessment of tomato maturity. J. Food Eng. 91(3): 402-407.

Linden, V. V.; N. Scheerlinck and M. Desmet. 2006. Factors that affect tomato bruise development as a result of mechanical impact. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 42: 260-270.

Lovelli, S.; M. Perniola; A. Ferrara and T. Di Tommaso. 2007. Yield response factor to water (Ky) and water use efficiency of Carthamus tinctorius L. and Solanum melongena L. Agric. Water Manage. 92, 73–80.

Mohsenin, N. N. 1986. Physical properties of plant and animal materials. Structure, physical characteristics and mechanical properties. 2^nd updated and revised ed. Gordon and Breach Sc. Pub. Inc. N. Y.

Topcu, S.; C. Kirda; Y. Dasgan; H. Kaman; M. Cetin; A. Yazici and M.A. Bacon, 2007. Yield response and N-fertilizer recovery of tomato grown under deficit irrigation. Europ. J. of Agron. 26: 64 –70.

USDA 1991. United States Standards for Grades of Fresh Tomatoes. http://www.ams.usda.gov/standards/tomatfrh.pdf. 3 Jul. 2012.

Zhiguo L.; L. Pingping and L. Jizhan. 2010. Effect of tomato internal structure on its mechanical properties and degree of mechanical damage. African J. of Biotec. Vol. 9(12): 1816-1826.