Research Article
Markos Habtewold*
Markos Habtewold*
Corresponding Author
Small Scale Irrigation Water Management Research Program, South Ethiopia Agricultural Research Institute, Areka Agricultural Research Center, P. O. Box-79 Areka Ethiopia.
E-mail:-markokam@yahoo.com, Tel.: +251931318341
Demeke Mengist
Demeke Mengist
Small
Scale Irrigation Water Management Research Program, South Ethiopia Agricultural
Research Institute, Areka Agricultural Research Center, P. O. Box-79 Areka
Ethiopia.
Abstract
The
rising competition for irrigation water necessitates the adoption of scheduling
measures that promote efficient water application methods. Irrigation
scheduling is becoming more popular as a means of reducing extra water
consumption without negatively affecting output in the context of improving
water use productivity. This study was
aimed at the effect of irrigation scheduling on the pod yield of hot pepper and
water productivity. The result revealed that irrigation scheduling technology
significantly affects the yield of hot pepper and water productivity. Maximum
pod yield (96.67Qt/ha) was acquired at 100% of Maximum Allowable Depletion
(MAD) and minimum pod yield practice (88.00Qt/ha) obtained from farmers’
practices. Higher (2.21kg/m3) and lower (1.62kg/m3) water
productivity were acquired at 100%MAD and farmer practices respectively.
Economic analysis indicates that, 474,518ETB/ha and 419,300ETB/ha acquired at
100%MAD and Farmers practice respectively. Irrigation scheduling technology
manages scarce water resource, time and increases pod yield and water
productivity. Therefore, it was recommended irrigating hot pepper in a fixed
intervals of five days at the initial period and seven days for the rest of
three growing periods to save irrigation water, labor costs, increase economic income, pod yield and
water productivity.
Abstract Keywords
Irrigation water amount, irrigation interval, hot pepper
yield, water productivity, net benefits.
1. Introduction
The
farming sector is under increasing pressure to efficiently utilize existing
water for irrigation to produce additional food to meet the growing global
population due to increased water demand from factories and municipal sectors [1]. The
purpose of agricultural water management is to minimize losses of water and
maximize transpiration, which is the beneficial loss of water due to its direct link to dry matter production [2].
Irrigation scheduling technology has conventionally aimed to achieve an optimum
water supply for productivity, with soil water content being maintained close
to field capacity. In many ways, irrigation scheduling can be regarded as a
mature research field which has moved from innovative science into the
refinement of existing practical applications. Nevertheless, in recent years
there has been a wide range of proposed novel approaches to irrigation
scheduling that have not yet been widely adopted; many of these are based on
sensing the plant response to water deficits rather than sensing the soil
moisture status directly [3]. Irrigation
scheduling methods are based on two approaches, soil measurements and crop
monitoring [4]. Irrigation scheduling
involves determining both the timing of irrigation and the quantity of water to
apply. Efficient scheduling of irrigation water applications gives the highest
return for the least amount of water [5].
Therefore, this study was conducted to evaluate, demonstrate, and assess the
effect of irrigation regime on hot pepper yield and water productivity.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Description of the study site
The study was conducted at the Gordena Irrigation Scheme, in Belela Kebele, Tembaro Special District, Kembata Tembaro Zone, Southern Ethiopia (Fig 1). The scheme was constructed by the Participatory Small Scale Irrigation Development Program (PASIDP-II) and managed by the community. The experimental research was done in collaboration with Participatory Small Scale Irrigation Program-II and Southern Agricultural Institute. The study site was geographically located at a latitude of 07.217°, and a longitude of 037.595°E with an elevation of 1459 m. a. m. s. l in low land agro-ecology. The irrigation scheduling technology on the hot pepper (local variety) was selected for the demonstration according to farmers’ selection and previous habit, quantity, agro ecological suitability and practices.
Figure 1. Map of the study area
2.2. Experimental design and treatments
The
design of the experimental layout is laid in Randomized Complete Block Design
(RCBD). The treatments were 100%MAD and farmers practice (farmers irrigating
with community schedule) and farmers were used as replications. Spacing between
plot to plot, plant to plant and furrow to furrow were 100cm, 30cm and 70cm
respectively. The recommended fertilizer was NPSB (200kg/ha) and Urea
(100kg/ha) for hot pepper (Local varieties) and Urea was applied during the
first weeding based regional recommendation for the crop.
2.3. Soil physical and chemical
properties
Soil
physical, and chemical properties affect many processes in the soil that make
it suitable for agricultural practices and other purposes. Soil texture can
have a profound effect on many other properties and is considered among the
most important physical properties. The textural class of the soil is clay loam
and its bulk density is 1.04g/cm3 as shown in Table 1. Well drained
loamy soil is one the optimal ecological requirements for pepper production.
Table 1. Soil physical properties
Soil Physical parameters |
Bd (g/cm3) |
FC (%) |
PWP (%) |
|||
Sand |
Silt |
Clay |
Textural class |
|
|
|
34 |
26 |
40 |
Clay Loam |
1.04 |
38 |
25 |
The pH value of the soil was (5.59) which is found under range (5.5-7) for optimal ecological requirement of the pepper [6]. The electric conductivity of the soil (ECe) value was (0.64dS/m), as illustrated in Table 2 which was, below a (1.5 dS/m) threshold value for soil salinity for the hot pepper grown worldwide [7].
Table 2. Soil chemical properties
Chemical Parameters |
pH |
ECe (dS/m) |
OM (%) |
OC (%) |
Values
|
5.59 |
0.64 |
3.89 |
2.26 |
2.4. Crop
water requirement
This is the total amount of water needed to grow a given crop from sowing/planting to maturity [8]. Crop water requirements are expressed usually in mm/day, mm/month or mm/season and they are used for the management purposes: in the estimation of irrigation water requirements, irrigation scheduling and water delivery scheduling [9]. To determine crop water requirement, it is important to consider the effect of crop coefficient (Kc) and the effect of climate on crop water requirement, which is the reference crop evapotranspiration (ETo) [10] as indicated in Table 3.
Table 3. Mean monthly ETo of the study area
Months |
ETo mm/day |
December |
3.74 |
January |
3.87 |
February |
4.14 |
March |
4.32 |
April |
3.91 |
May |
3.43 |
June |
3.15 |
July |
2.61 |
August |
2.78 |
September |
3.19 |
October |
3.67 |
November |
3.91 |
Average |
3.56 |
Crop water requirement can be
calculated as:
ETc = [ETo * Kc]
Where:
ETc-Crop
evapotranspiration,
ETo-Reference
evapotranspiration,
Kc-Crop
Coefficient
2.5. Irrigation Water Application
This
is defined as the total amount of water needed to grow and produce a given crop
with irrigation in a given location [8]. Irrigation water was applied to the
field by using the following equations:
Where:
Md-Dry
mass of the soil,
V-Volume
of core sampler
TAW
= [FC-PWP] * Rz * Bd
Where:
TAW-Total
Available Water,
FC-Field
Capacity,
PWP-Permanent
Wilting Point,
Rz-Root
zone
RAW=[TAW
* P]
Where:
RAW-Readily
Available Water,
P (%)-Allowable Soil Depletions
Where:
I-Irrigation
interval,
NI-Net
Irrigation
Where:
t-time
of application (min),
A-
Area plot (m2),
GI-Gross
Irrigation (cm),
Q-Flow
discharge (l/sec)
Where:
Ea-Application Efficiency
2.6.
Water productivity
Water productivity plays a crucial role
in modern agriculture to increase yield production both under rain fed and
irrigated conditions. Water productivity with dimensions of kg/m3 is
defined as the ratio of the mass of marketable yield (Y) to the volume of water
consumed by the crop (Wa). Mathematically, water productivity can be
represented as follows in equation [11].
Where
WP-Water Productivity (Kg/m3),
Y-Economic Yield (kg),
Wa-Total Water applied (m3)
2.7. Partial budget analysis
It
was carried out to compare the effects of water applied, input cost, and return
to the producers among different treatments. Economic analysis was employed as
suggested by [12]. To determine water
application levels based on cost and benefits and recommend feasible
treatments.
2.8. Data collection and analysis
Data collected from the field for the analysis were irrigation water applied for water productivity, number of pods per plant, plant height, pod length, pod weight and total fresh yield. Analysis was carried out to compare the treatment effect on yield and water productivity of hot pepper. All relevant variables were subject to analysis of variance (ANOVA) that is appropriate for Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) [13]. The combined analysis of variance across years was conducted by using the analysis for Statistix software version 10 to determine the differences among treatment effects.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Effects of irrigation scheduling on hot pepper yield
The maximum yield (96.67Qt/ha) was obtained from 100%MAD technology and minimum (88Qt/ha) was acquired from farmer practices with 9.85% yield advantages as shown in Table 4.
Table 4. Intermediate Result of one year data
Trts | NPPP | PH (cm) | PL (cm) | PW (gm) | TY (Qt/ha) | WP (kg/ha) |
100%MAD | 81.07 | 62.33 | 9.87 | 316.67a | 96.67 | 2.21a |
Farmer Practices | 61.60 | 57.33 | 9.03 | 231.67b | 88.00 | 1.62b |
Grand Mean | 71.33 | 59.83 | 9.45 | 274.20 | 92.33 | 1.92 |
CV | 15.41 | 7.38 | 2.16 | 3.41 | 4.92 | 8.35 |
LSD (5%) | NS | NS | NS | 32.86 | NS | 0.56 |
Trts-Treatments, NPPP- Number of Pods per Plant, PH- Plant Height, PL-Pod Length, PW-Pod Weight, TY- Total Yield, WP-Water Productivity |
The pod yield acquired from the study was higher than the previous study of Malka-Shote variety (30.95Qt/ha) [14] and the local variety (53.66Qt/ha) [15]. The yield obtained from the study was higher than other the same studies of (13.05Qt/ha) [16]. The result as compared to other studies indicates that the environment is more favorable for hot pepper production under irrigation scheduling. Application irrigation scheduling intervals was at five days in the initial stage and seven day intervals in the rest of development, mid and late stages of the growing period were appropriate for hot pepper production. The higher water productivity (2.21 kg/m3) for fresh hot pepper was recorded using 100%MAD at 30% of depletion factor, which is the appropriate value for utilization efficiency for fresh hot pepper containing about 90% moisture varies between 1.5 and 3.0 kg/m3 [17]. Physical performance photo of hot pepper at the field and data collection was indicated in Figs. 2 and 3 below are real experiment.
Figure 2. Field performance of hot pepper during stand and yield data collection
Figure 3. Collected pods of hot pepper and measuring yield data collection
Irrigation day interval affects water productivity and yield of hot pepper. Irrigation scheduling technology saves total seasonal irrigating days and depth of water as shown in Table 5. There was nine days irrigation round difference occurred between scheduling technology and farmers practices.
Table 5. Irrigation water depth and frequencies
Growing period | Irrigation intervals | Irrigation rounds(days) | Irrigation Water Depth(mm) | ||
100%MAD | FP | 100%MAD | FP | ||
Initial | Five days | 5 | 7 | 114.97 | 135.95 |
Development | Seven days | 5 | 8 | 114.97 | 155.37 |
Mid stage | Seven days | 5 | 6 | 114.97 | 116.53 |
Late stages | Seven days | 4 | 7 | 91.98 | 135.95 |
Total | 19 | 28 | 436.9 | 543.8 |
As the study indicates, irrigation scheduling technology saves water depth applied as compared to farmers’ practices. Water saved through reducing the irrigation duty can be used for irrigation when needed for extra production. It is recognized that appropriate irrigation scheduling should lead to improvements in irrigation management performance, especially at farm level. As a Table 6 revealed that 106.9mm water was saved through irrigation scheduling technology with an advantage 19.7% over farmers’ practices.
Table 6. Advantages of water saved through irrigation scheduling over farmer practices
Treatments | Total water(mm) | Water saved (mm) | Advantages (%) |
100%MAD | 436.9 | 106.9 | 19.7 |
Farmer Practice | 543.8 | - | - |
Partial budget analysis as shown in Table 7 indicates that, 474,518ETB/ha and 419,300ETB/ha on the seasonal market acquired from 100%MAD and Farmers practice respectively. The income acquired was very interesting economic advantage for famers to improve their livelihood. The benefit cost ratio (B: C) of the two treatments were (9.98) from 100%MAD and (7.5) from the farmers’ practices, which indicates profitability or cash flow from the project. Therefore, the project is expected to deliver a positive net present value to a firm and its investors with (B: C) greater than one.
Table 7. Benefit cost ratio analysis on (ha) bases
Variable | Cost (ETB) Items | 100%MAD | Farmers Practice |
| Seed | 15,600 | 15,600 |
Land preparation | 4800 | 4300 | |
Fertilizer | 5700 | 5700 | |
Pesticide chemicals | 5000 | 7000 | |
Watering | 7800 | 14400 | |
Harvesting | 3600 | 3900 | |
Transporting to market | 5000 | 5000 | |
Total Cost (ETB) |
| 47,500 | 55,900 |
Yield(kg/ha) | 9667 | 8800 | |
10% Adjusted yield(kg/ha) | 8700.7 | 7920 | |
Gross revenue (ETB/ha) | 522,018 | 475,200 | |
Net Benefit (ETB/ha) | 474,518 | 419,300 | |
Benefit Cost Ratio | 9.98 | 7.50 |
Randomly farmers preferred irrigation scheduling technology by considering different criteria’s of comparison and the technology ranked first as shown in Table 8. The criteria’s considered were labor saving, water saving, pod increment, crop adaptation for the technology and ease for handlings.
Table 8. Farmers’ perception on irrigation scheduling technology
Treatments | Labor saving | Water saving | Yield increment | Adaptation of crop through irrigation | Technology easiness for handling | Grand Total | Ranking |
100%MAD | 21 | 18 | 15 | 16 | 12 | 82 | 1 |
FP | 7 | 10 | 13 | 12 | 16 | 58 | 2 |
Criteria used on irrigation technology selection and participants feedback (N=28) |
4. Conclusions
Irrigation amount and time of application enable the farmer to schedule water rotation among the various fields to minimize crop water stress and maximize yields. Hot pepper is an economically and traditionally feasible an important crop mainly for small-scale farmers as a daily food. Local farmers economically benefited from the irrigated pepper production through irrigation scheduling technology. Irrigation scheduling saves vitally time, water, labor and increases farm gate income with higher pod yield and water productivity. Scheduling technology is also an important technology for different planning strategies under irrigated crop production and managing water sustainably. Improving water productivity has vital advantages in small-scale irrigated hot pepper production that ensures food security and livelihood. Therefore, irrigation scheduling should be recommended for increasing both fresh pod yield and water productivity in the areas.
Authors’ contributions
Proposal development, field work, data analysis, data interpretation, draft preparation, final manuscript written, edited and resubmitted, M.H.; Field follow up and data collections, D.M.
Acknowledgements
Authors would like to thank, Participatory Small Scale Irrigation Development Program (PASIDP-II) for allocating research expenditures and Areka Agricultural Research Center for overall facilitation and logistic provisions. Our gratitude also goes to Tembaro Special District Agricultural Office for unreserved support and follow up all field works.
Funding
The authors appreciated Participatory Small Scale Irrigation Development Program (PASIDP-II) for funding the field research work.
Availability of data and materials
All necessary data will be made available on request according to the journal policy.
Conflicts of interest
No potential conflict of interest was reported from the author(s).
References
1. |
Demo,
A.H.; Tsehai, K.K. Effect of irrigation and mulch levels on growth and yield
components, yield, and water use efficiency of hot pepper (capsicum annuum L) in Eastern
Ethiopia. Cog. Food Agric. 2024,10(1), 2347913.
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2024.2347913. |
2. |
Adimassu,
Z.; Richard, A.; Eric, N. Effect of the Wetting Front Detector (WFD)
irrigation scheduling on yield and water productivity of Pepper in the Upper
East Region of Ghana. International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, 2020.
https://hdl.handle.net/10568/108417. |
3. |
Jones, H.G. Physiological mechanisms
involved in the control of leaf water status: implications for the estimation
of tree water status. 1985, Acta Hort. 171, 291–296. https://doi.org/10.17660/actahortic.1985.171.27 |
4. |
Hoffman, G.J.; Howell, T.A.; Solomon,
K.H. Management of farm irrigation system. American Society of Agriculture
Engineers. 1990, St. Joseph, Mi. (USA). ISBN 0-929355-11, ISSN 3. p.1094. |
5. |
Werner, H. Measuring Soil Moisture
for Irrigation Water Management. 2002, Cooperative extension service/FS 876,
5. |
6. |
JICA and MoA. The Project for
Smallholder Horticulture Farmer Empowerment through Promotion of
Market-Oriented Agriculture (Ethio-SHEP). 2019. |
7. |
Özdemir,
B.; Özgecan, Z.; Tanyolaç, K.U.; Onus, A.N. Evaluation of salinity tolerance
level of some pepper (Capsicum annuum L.) Cultivars. Int.
J. Agric. Inn. Res. 2016, 5(2), 247-251. |
8. |
Obalum,
S.E.; Azuka, C.V. Quantitative dimensions to systematic implementation of
irrigation technology in tropical African agriculture. 2021, In: Eze S.C. and
Obalum S.E. (eds.), Handbook of Practical Agriculture: A Production of the
Faculty of Agriculture, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, 2nd edition (pp.
108-119), University of Nigeria Press Limited, Nsukka, Nigeria. |
9. |
Todorovic, M. Crop water
requirements. In: Water Encyclopedia: Surface and Agricultural Water. 2005,
(Jay H. Lehr, Jack Keeley, and Eds.), AW-59, p.557-558, John Wiley & Sons
Publisher, USA. |
10. |
Doorenbos, J.; Pruitt, W.O.
Guidelines for predicting crop water requirements. FAO Irrigation and
Drainage Paper.1977, No. 24.FAO, Rome, Italy. 179 p. |
11. |
Ali,
M.H.; Talukder, M.S.U. Increasing water productivity in crop production-A
Synthesis. Agric. Water Manage. 2008, 95 (11), 1201-1213.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2008.06.008 |
12. |
CIMMYT (International Maize and Wheat
Improvement Center). From agronomic data to farmer recommendations: An
economics training manual. Completely Revised Edition. CIMMYT, D.F, Mexico.
1988, ISNB 968-6127-28-3. |
13. |
Gomez and Gomez. Statistical Procedures for Agricultural
Research. $540. $7G65 1983 630'.72 83-14556. Printed in United States
of America.1984, 10 9 8 7 6 5
4 3 2 1 |
14. |
Yemane,
K. Evaluation of hot pepper varieties (capsicum species) for growth, dry pod
yield and quality at M/Lehke District, Tigray Ethiopia. IJEDR – Int. J. Eng. Dev. Res. 2017,
5(3), 144-152. |
15. |
Getahun,
D.; Habtie, B. Growth and yielding potential of hot pepper varieties under
rain-fed production at Woreta, North western Ethiopia. 2017. 3(3), 11-18.
http://dx.doi.org/10.20431/2454-6224.0303002. |
16. |
Gelu, G.; Dane, C.; Ayza, A.;
Habtewold, M. Optimal agricultural water allocation for enhanced productivity
of hot pepper (Capsicum annum L) and economic gain: an experimental
study from Southern Ethiopia. 2024, Cog. Food Agric. 2024, 10 (1), 2313045,
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2024.2313045 |
17. |
Doorenbos, J.; Kassam, A.H.;
Bentvelsen, C.L.M.; Branscheid, V.; Plusje, G.M.J.A.; Smith, M.;
Uittenbogaard G.O.; Van Der Wal, H.K.; Food and agricultural Organization.
Irrigation and Drainage paper, 33 Rome. 1986, ISSN, 0254-5284. |
This work is licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution
4.0
License (CC BY-NC 4.0).
Abstract
The
rising competition for irrigation water necessitates the adoption of scheduling
measures that promote efficient water application methods. Irrigation
scheduling is becoming more popular as a means of reducing extra water
consumption without negatively affecting output in the context of improving
water use productivity. This study was
aimed at the effect of irrigation scheduling on the pod yield of hot pepper and
water productivity. The result revealed that irrigation scheduling technology
significantly affects the yield of hot pepper and water productivity. Maximum
pod yield (96.67Qt/ha) was acquired at 100% of Maximum Allowable Depletion
(MAD) and minimum pod yield practice (88.00Qt/ha) obtained from farmers’
practices. Higher (2.21kg/m3) and lower (1.62kg/m3) water
productivity were acquired at 100%MAD and farmer practices respectively.
Economic analysis indicates that, 474,518ETB/ha and 419,300ETB/ha acquired at
100%MAD and Farmers practice respectively. Irrigation scheduling technology
manages scarce water resource, time and increases pod yield and water
productivity. Therefore, it was recommended irrigating hot pepper in a fixed
intervals of five days at the initial period and seven days for the rest of
three growing periods to save irrigation water, labor costs, increase economic income, pod yield and
water productivity.
Abstract Keywords
Irrigation water amount, irrigation interval, hot pepper
yield, water productivity, net benefits.
This work is licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution
4.0
License (CC BY-NC 4.0).
Editor-in-Chief
Prof. Dr. Gian Carlo Tenore
This work is licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
License.(CC BY-NC 4.0).