Soil salinity under deficit drip irrigation of potato and millet in in an arid environment

Kamel Nagaz, Fathia El Mokh, Mohamed Moncef Masmoudi, Netij Ben Mechlia

Abstract


The influence of deficit irrigation (DI) with saline water on soil salinity in a drip-irrigated potato and millet fields was investigated. We had compared proportional soil salinity developed under Full and DI under drip irrigation. For both experiments, the treatments were (1) Full, control treatment where rooting zone soil water content was increased to field capacity at each irrigation; (2) DI80; (3) DI60 and DI40; 20, 40 and 60% deficit irrigation compared to Full treatment were applied, respectively. Soil salinity was assessed using the isosalinity maps constructed with grid soil sampling of plant root zone at harvest. Results show that high spatial variability was observed in salinity along soil profiles when applying saline water with drip irrigation for potato. For the DI40 and DI60 treatments, high soil salinity was recorded in the upper soil layer close to the emitter. Increase of soil salinity within soil depths of 30 cm or below was also observed under DI60 and DI40 treatments. The lowest increase was noted under the full treatment. Surface soil salinity was somewhat higher under DI60 and DI40 compared with that of full and DI80 irrigation treatments. The distribution of salts around the dripper changes during the crop season according to applied irrigation treatments, with overall higher concentrations between the drippers and towards the margin of wetted band. Iso-salinity maps at harvest of potato showed that the surface layer of 30 cm depth had the lowest salinity which gradually increased at deeper zones irrespective of the treatment. Salt accumulation essentially occurred at wetting front between the drippers and the plant row. Although salt accumulation was relatively highest along the row under DI treatments, the area of accumulation was relatively shifted toward the center between the rows and the drip line. The results also show the importance of the potato cropping season to benefit from the leaching of soluble salts with the received rainfall. For millet experiments, salinity was lowest under emitters and highest midway to the margin of wetted bands and higher soil salinity was maintained in the root zone with deficit irrigation treatments than full irrigation. Millet and potato yields were highest under Full treatment. Yields decreased almost linearly when applied water was reduced. However, reduction in quality was significantly important for DI60 and DI40. The analysis outcome of the crops sensitivity to salt indicated respectively for autumn, winter and spring potato and millet crops that thresholds are close to the value calculated from published salt tolerance data (1.9, 1.55, 1.85 vs. 1.7 dS/m for potato and 3.46 vs. 3.65 dS/m for millet) but the slopes are considerably steeper (34, 54, 47 vs. 12%; 17 vs. 6.7%), apparently because of the combined effect of salinity and water stresses. The results provide information’s to farmers for formulating improved planning regarding irrigation management practices. The results support the practicality of using the full irrigation (100% of ETc) methodology to optimize irrigation with saline water for potato and millet production and to control soil salinity. Under situations of water shortage, the deficit irrigation strategy (DI80 and DI60) is recommended as a tool to schedule irrigation of potato and millet crops in arid regions of Tunisia.

Full Text:

PDF

References


Allen R.G., Pereira L.S., Raes D., Smith M., 1998. Crop evapotranspiration: guidelines for computing crop water requirements. FAO Irrigation and Drainage, Paper No. 56, pp. 300. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.

Bazza M., 1999. Improving irrigation management practices with water-deficit irrigation. In: Kirda, C., Moutonnet, P., Hera, C., Nielsen, D.R. (Eds.), Crop Yield Response to Deficit Irrigation. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 49-71.

Bresler E., 1975. Two-dimensional transport of solutes during nonsteady infiltration from trickle source. Soil Science Society America Proc., 39, 604-613.

Eck H.V., Mathers A.C., Musick J.T., 1987. Plant water stress at various growth stages and growth and yield of soybean. Field Crop Res. 17, 1-16.

English M.J., 1990. Deficit irrigation. I. Analytical framework. J. Am. Soc. Civil Eng., 116, 399-412.

English M., Raja S.N., 1996. Perspectives on deficit irrigation. Agric. Water Manage. 32, 1-14.

English M., Nakamura B., 1989. Effects of deficit irrigation and irrigation frequency on wheat yields. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng., 115 (2), 172-184.

Fabeiro C., Martin De Santa Ollala F., De Juan J.A., 2001.Yield and size of deficit irrigated potatoes. Agri. Water Manage., 48, 255-266.

FAO 2002. Deficit irrigation practices. Water Report No. 22.

Fereres E., Soriano M.A., 2007. Deficit irrigation for reducing agricultural water use. Journal of Experimental Botany, 58(2), 147-159.

Ghinassi G., Trucchi P., 2001. Deficit irrigation trials on maize in a Mediterranean semi-arid environment. Int. Water Irrig., 21 (1), 12-17.

Hattendorf M.J., Dedelfs M.S., Amos B., Stone L.R., Given R.E., 1988. Comparative water use characteristics of six row crops. Agron. J., 80, 80-85.

Hajor, A.S., L.S. Al-Hatalani and O.A. Khafagi, (1996). A comparative study on salt tolerance of millet (Pennisetum glaucum L.) and sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L.). Alexandria Journal of Agriculture Res., 41, 23-39.

Ibrahim Y.M., Marcarian V., Dobrenz A.K., 1985. Evaluation of drought tolerance in pearl millet under sprinkler irrigation gradient. Field Crops Res., 11, 233-240.

Kang S., Shi W., Zhang J., 2000. An improved water-use efficiency for maize grown under regulated deficit irrigation. Field Crops Res., 67, 207-214.

Kirda C., Moutonnet P., Hera C., Nielsen D.R., 1999. Crop Yield Response to Deficit Irrigation. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.

Kirda C.R., 2002. Deficit irrigation scheduling based on plant growth stages showing water stress tolerance. In: Deficit Irrigation Practices, FAO Water Reports 22, pp. 3-10.

Kirnak H., Tas I., Kaya C., Higgs D., 2002. Effects of deficit irrigation on growth, yield, and fruit quality of eggplant under semi-arid conditions. Austr. J. Agric. Res., 53, 1367-1373.

Maas E.V., Hoffman G.J., 1977. Crop salt tolerance: Current assessment. J. Irrig. Drain. Div. Am. Soc. Civ. Eng., 103, 115-134.

Mahalakshmi V., Bidinger F.R., 1986. Water deficit during panicle development in pearl millet: Yield compensation by tillers. J. Agric. Sci., 6,113-119.

Mao X., Liu M., Wang X., Liu C., Hou Z., Shi J., 2003. Effects of deficit irrigation on yield and water use of greenhouse grown cucumber in the North China Plain. Agric. Water Manage., 61, 219-228.

Radhouane L., Mellouli H.J., 2007. Effets d’un stress hydrique sur les rendements de deux écotypes locaux de mil (Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br.). Cahiers Agricultures, 16 (1), 17-22.

Sammis T.W., 1980. Comparison of sprinkler, trickle, subsurface and furrow irrigation methods for row crops. Agron. J., 72, 701-704.

Shock C.C., Zalewski J.C., Stieber T.D., Burnett D.S., 1992. Impact of early-season water deficits on Russet Burbank plant development, tuber yield and quality. Am. P. J., 69, 793-803.

Shock C.C., Feibert E.B.G., Saunders L.D., 1998. Potato yield and quality response to deficit irrigation. HortScience, 33, 655-659.

Singh B., Bhumbla D.R., 1968. Effect of quality of irrigation water on soil properties. J. Res. Punjab Agric Univ., 5, 166-172.

Singh, S.D., J.P. Gupta and P. Singh, (1977). Water economy and saline water use by drip irrigation. Agronomy J., 70, 948-951.

van Oosterom E.J., O’Leary G.J., Carberry P.S., Craufurd P.Q., 2002. Simulating growth, development, and yield of tillering pearl millet. III. Biomass accumulation and partitioning. Field Crops Res., 79, 85-106.

Zhang Y., Kendy E., Qiang Y., Changming L., Yanjun S., Hongyong S., 2004. Effect of soil water deficit on evapotranspiration, crop yield, and water use efficiency in the North China Plain. Agric. Water Manage., 64, 107-122.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12895/jaeid.20171.600