JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURE

PJ PALGO JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURE ISSN 2476-8359 Volume 3 Issue 6,December 2016.Page 207-211 http://www.palgojournals.org/pja/inex.htm Corresponing Authors Email: aambush99@gmail.com WATER PRODUCTIVITY OF TOMATO (Lycopersicon esculentum) UNDER SUDAN DRY LAND CONDITIONS Aam Bush Aam* 1, Amir Bakheit Saee2, Abelmoneim Elamin Mohame 2, Zuhier Yassien Mohame 1, Ali Wiaa 2 an Tawfeeg Mahmou 3 Department of Agricultural Engineering, Faculty of Natural Resources an Environmental Stuies, University of Peace, Suan 1. Department of Agricultural Engineering, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Khartoum, Suan 2. Ministry of Agriculture, South Darfur State, Nyala, Suan 3. Accepte 11 December, 2016 This stuy was carrie out to etermine water prouctivity of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) uner south Darfur State (Nyala) conitions locate at longitue 24o 53 E, latitue 12o 3 N an altitue 674 amsl, uring the winter season 2013/014 in an area of 0.42ha. Meteorological ata such as rainfall, temperature, humiity, win spee an sunshine hours were obtaine from local meteorological station an use to etermine the irrigation requirement through CROPWAT moel using Penman Monteith equation for proucing tomato. Two irrigation systems (rip an furrow) were use to apply full crop water requirement (100% ETc). Water istribution uniformity (Du%), application efficiency (Ea%) an water prouctivity (kg/m3) were etermine from fiel ata collecte uring the stuy perio. SAS statistical package was use to analyze the ata. The variations among the means were checke by the least significant ifference (LSD). The results showe that, water prouctivity significantly (P 0.05) affecte by water istribution uniformity an application efficiency. The highest water prouctivity (20.5 kg/m3) was obtaine uner rip irrigation system, while the lowest mean values (9.2kg/m3) was recore in furrow irrigation system. It is conclue that water prouctivity can be maximize by the following proper technical guielines for system management, operation an scheuling. KEYWORDS: Water prouctivity; Tomato; Drip irrigation system 1. INTRODUCTION With growing water scarcity an increasing competition among water using sectors, innovations are neee to increase irrigation water prouctivity an to provie water savings (Mohamme an Saleh, 2011). Micro Irrigation systems are excellent management tool to meet the increasing eman of water for foo prouction an sustainability of the agricultural sector. Drip irrigation system can play a significant role in overcoming the scarcity of water mostly in water shortage areas to uniformly istribute water in agricultural fiels especially where water is limite (Megersa an Abulahi, 2015). The optimum use of irrigation water is a funamental aspect to reach a sustainable agriculture (Ortega, 2002). Drip irrigation system is wiely recognize as potentially one of the most efficient irrigation methos. However, potential efficiency is often not achieve mainly ue to issues relate to esign or maintenance of rip irrigation. Poor technical skills of farmers to assess the crop water requirements an to monitor the soil moisture conitions in the fiel are also limiting factors to wie aaptability of rip irrigation (Darouich et al., 2014). Non-uniformity in rip irrigation system potentially ue to pressure ifferences, unequal rainage an unequal application rate also hiner to achieve full efficiency of system (Bush et al., 2016). The causes of non-uniformity inclue unequal rainage an unequal application rates. Application uniformity may be irectly relate to yiel (Burt, 2004). Tomato (Solanum lycopersicon L.) is one of the most wiely grown vegetables in the worl (Alomran, et al., 2012). Different irrigation techniques are available to irrigate crops, but not all of them are suitable for irrigation of tomato. If water can be applie efficiently in an irrigate fiel, water is save an both crop quantity an quality are increase. The rip irrigation is one of the most efficient irrigation systems that are use to irrigate tomato. Abelgawa et al. (2005) reporte that water prouctivity was higher with rip irrigation over traitional methos. In Suan the total area uner irrigation which is almost entirely uner surface methos is estimate to be about two million hectares while area uner rip irrigation system is estimate to be about 13000 hectares less than 1% mainly in the Northern, River Nile an

208.Palgo J. Agriculture Khartoum states. Taking into consieration that there is little information regaring the operation an management of the rip system in Suan an the limite scope uner which these systems are use now. Irrigation water management involves the manage allocation of water an relate inputs in irrigate crop prouction, such as economic returns which are enhance relative to available water. Irrigation water is manage to conserve water supplies, reuce water-quality impacts an improve proucer net returns. Proucers may reuce water use per hectare by applying less than full cropconsumptive requirements (eficit irrigation), shifting to alternative crops or high yiel varieties of the same crop that use less water, or aopting more efficient irrigation technologies (Virupakshagowa et al., 2014). Water prouctivity significantly affecte by the climate change especially in ari an semi-ari regions (Aam, 2014). The changes in cultural practices an crop rotations increase the water prouctivity effectively. Garcia et al. (2009) reveale that, water prouctivity is influence by management practices, location of the farm, local weather conitions of the irrigate schemes, soil texture, water applie, istance of water resource from farm, water logging, timeliness of planting ate, planting epth, quality of tillage practices, new see varieties, applie fertilizers, experience of farmers an extension services which affect plant growth an evelopment an ultimately yiel. Low water prouctivity is normally associate with poor timing an a lack of uniformity in water applications, which leaves parts of the fiel over or uner irrigate relative to crop nees (Shajari et. al., 2008). Water prouctivity in aition to high prouction costs, low prices an high taxes ha all resulte in a general eterioration of the agricultural sector. This has contribute in converting agriculture from an attractive business to a repellent activity an cause many farmers to abanon agriculture an migrate to cities. Low water prouctivity of tomato is one of the major problems that are facing agricultural prouction in the Suan an the quantity of irrigation water applie epens on the farmer s jugment an the plantations either receive irrigation water in excess or less than require (Bush an Mohame 2016). Hence, stuies on water prouctivity an management of water application methos for tomato are highly neee. Therefore the objective of this stuy was to investigate water prouctivity of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) uner Southern Darfur State (Nyala) conitions, Suan. 2. MATERIALS AND METHODS 2.1Experimental area The experimental work was carrie out to etermine water prouctivity of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) uner south Darfur State (Nyala) conitions locate at longitue 24o 53 E, latitue 12o 3 N an altitue 674 amsl, uring the winter season 2013/014 in an area of 0.42ha. Meteorological ata such as rainfall, temperature, humiity, win spee an sunshine hours were obtaine from local meteorological station an use to etermine the irrigation requirement through CROPWAT moel using Penman Monteith equation for proucing tomato. Two irrigation systems (rip an furrow) were use to apply full crop water requirement (100% ETc). During stuy perio limite annual rainfall was recore with short intense thuner storms. The mean annual rainfall is about 500mm. This means that water is eficient an crop prouction must be base on irrigation. 2.2 Description of rip irrigation system Drip irrigation system consiste of a hea control unit, filter, pressure gauges, fertilizer injector, pressure regulators an polyvinyl chlorie (PVC) istribution network. The istribution network consiste of a main line (16 cm iameter), sub main (6 cm iameter) an 20 laterals per sub main (2.5 cm iameter). Turbo pressure compensating emitter was installe in the laterals. 2.3 Parameters for Emitters Evaluation Following parameters were use to evaluate rip irrigation system: 2.3.1 Uniformity of water application (CU%) Christiansen s (CU %) valuates the mean eviation, which is presente in ASAE Stanars (2008) as follows: CU % = 100 [1-1/nqa _(i=1)^n qi-qa ].. (1) qa = the average emitter ischarge rate (m3/h). qi = the flow rate of the emitter (m3/h). 2.3.2 Distribution uniformity (DU %) Low quarter istribution uniformity DU% (Merriam an Keller, 1978) as applie to all types of irrigation systems can be

Aam et al 209. expresse as follows: DU=100q_m/q_a.....(2) qm = the average flow rate of the emitters in the lowest quarter(m3/h). qa = the average emitter ischarge rate (m3/h). 2.3.3 Scheuling uniformity (SU) SU=1/DU.. (3) DU= Distribution uniformity (ecimal). 2.3.4 The coefficient of variation of emitter flow (CV%) The coefficient of variation of emitter flow (CV%) evaluates the variability of flow an was compute by iviing the stanar eviation by the average emitter ischarge rate. Manufacturers usually publish the coefficient of variation for each of their proucts an the system esigner must consier this source of variability (ASAE, 2008). CV can be expresse as: CV=S_q/q_a... (4) CV = the coefficient of variation of emitter flow. Sq = the stanar eviation of emitter flow rate. qa = the average emitter ischarge rate (m3/s). S_q= (1/(n-1)) _(i=1)^n (q_i-q_a)... (5) 2.4 Crop water requirement of Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) Estimation of alfalfa water requirement (ETc) is erive from crop evapotranspiration (crop water use) which is the prouct of the reference evapotranspiration (ETo) an the crop coefficient (Kc). The reference evapotranspiration was estimate base on the FAO Penman-Monteith equation, using climatic ata (Hanson an May, 2004) as follows: ETc = ETo*Kc.. (6) ETc = Crop evapotranspiraion (mm/ay). ETo = Reference evapotranspiration (mm/ay). Kc = Crop Coefficient (imensionless). 2.5 Water measurement The amounts of irrigation water were measure by flow meters, which were fixe in the main line to rea the cumulative amount of water before an after each irrigation event. 2.6 Measurement of rainfall Daily rainfall is measure using the stanar orinary rain gauge expose 1 m above level groun away from builings an trees. The iameter of the stanar gauge is 5 inches (12.7 cm). There is a measuring Jar calibrate to rea the rainfall in mm this Jar shoul only be use with 5in iameter rain gage. A recoring rain gauge is use to give a continuous recor of rainfall to type of rain gauges is very important because it gives the intensity of rainfall (Aam, 2014). 2.6.1 Effective rainfall Effective rainfall is efine as the fraction of rainfall that is effectively intercepte by the vegetation or store in root zone an use by the plant soil system for evapotranspiration. It can be estimate by the following equation mentione by Aam (2014): Pef = E. Ptot + A (7) Pef = Effective rainfall over the growing season.

210.Palgo J. Agriculture E = Ratio of consumptive use of water (cubic) to Ptot.65. Ptot = Total rainfall over the growing season. A = Average irrigation application. 2.7 Water prouctivity (kg/m3) Water prouctivity (WP) was etermine from fiel ata collecte uring the stuy perio. Accoring to Virupakshagowa et. al. (2014) irrigation water prouctivity (kg/ m3) was etermine by iviing yiel (kg/ha) to the consumptive use (m3/ha). Water prouctivity (kg/m3) = yiel (kg/ha)/consumptive use (m3/ha)... (8) 2.8 Data analysis A computer program (SAS statistical package) was use to analyze the ata. The variations among means were checke by the least significant ifference (LSD). 3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 3.1 Effect of irrigation water management on the hyraulic performance As shown in Table 1. the hyraulic performance were significantly (P 0.05) affecte by the management of irrigation system. In rip irrigation system, proper technical guielines for system management, operation an scheuling were evelope an followe. The highest values of system performance were recore in rip irrigation system as compare to furrow irrigation system. The superiority of rip irrigation over furrow irrigation system may be attribute to the fact that, rip irrigation system applie the require amount of water with high efficiency. Non-uniformity in irrigation system potentially ue to pressure ifferences, unequal rainage an unequal application rate also hiner to achieve full efficiency of system (Bush et al., 2016). 3.2 Effect of irrigation systems on water prouctivity (kg/m3) Water prouctivity significantly (P 0.05) affecte by two irrigation systems an irrigation management (Table 1 an Fig. 1). Drip irrigation system recore the highest mean values of water prouctivity, while furrow irrigation system ranke the least. Due to their high efficiency an goo management, rip irrigation system provie the crop with aequate water requirement at the root zone as compare to furrow irrigation. The results agree with the results obtaine by Garcia et al. (2009) an Aam (2014) who reveale that, water prouctivity is influence by management practices, irrigation systems, location of the farm, local weather conitions of the irrigate schemes, soil texture, water applie, istance of water resource from farm, water logging, timeliness of planting ate, planting epth, quality of tillage practices, new see varieties, applie fertilizers, experience of farmers an extension services which affect plant growth an evelopment an ultimately yiel. ity tiv u c ro p a n c e n a rm fo er p lic u ra y H Table 1. Effect of irrigation water management the hyraulic performance Irrigation Performance of irrigation systems system Cu% Du% Su Ea% Water prouctivity (Kg/m 3 ) Drip 90 a 87 a 1.15 b 80 a 20.5 a Furrow 58 b 55 b 1.82 a 60 b 9.2 b LSD 13.8 13.3 0.53 11.4 5.7 Means followe by the same letter (s) in the same column are not significantly ifferent at P 0.05. 9 0 8 0 7 0 6 0 5 0 4 0 3 0 2 0 1 0 0 C u % D u % S u E a % W P I r r i g a t i o n s y s t e m s ( K g / m 3 ) D r i p Figure 1. Effect of irrigation systems on water prouctivity (kg/m3) F u r r o w

Aam et al 211. CONCLUSION Proper technical guielines for system management, operation an scheuling significantly increase the tomato prouctivity (Kg/m3). REFERENCES Abelgawa, G.; Arslan, A.; Gaihbe, A. an Kaori, F. (2005). Effect of Saline Irrigation Water Management an Salt Tolerant Tomato Varieties on Sustainable Prouction of Tomato in Syria. J. of Agric. Water Managegment, 73: 39-53. Aam, H.S. (2014). Agroclimatology, Crop Water Requirement an Water Management. 2n Eition. University of Gezira Press, Suan. Alomran, A.M.; Al-Harbi, A.A.; Wahb-Allah, M.A.; Alwabel, M.A.; Naeem, M.E. an Al-Eter, A. (2012). Management of Irrigation Water Salinity in Greenhouse Tomato Prouction uner Calcareous Sany Soil an Drip Irrigation. J. Agr. Sci. Tech. Vol. 14: 939-950. ASAE Stanars. 50th E. (2008). EP 405. Design an installation of microirrigation system. St. Joseph, Mich,: ASAE Burt, C. M. 2004. Rapi fiel evaluation of rip an microspray istribution uniformity. Irrig. Drain.Sys. 18(4): 275-297. Bush, A. A. an Mohame, A.E. (2016). Effect of Irrigation Systems an Irrigation Water Regime on the Vegetative Growth of Date Palm (Phoenix actylifera) Plantation uner Khartoum State Conitions, Suan. SUST Journal of Agricultural an Veterinary Sciences (SJAVS) Vol. 17 No.(1) ISSN: 1858 6775. Bush, A.A.; Mohame, A.E.; Ali, A.B. an Hong, L. (2016). Effect of ifferent operating pressures on the hyraulic performance of rip irrigation system in Khartoum State conitions Journal of Environmental an Agricultural Sciences (ISSN: 2313-8629). Darouich, H.M., C.M.G. Peras, J.M. Goncalves an L.S. Pereira. 2014. Drip vs. surface irrigation: A comparison focussing on water saving an economic returns using multicriteria analysis applie to cotton. Biosyst. Eng. 122:74-90. Hanson, B.R. an May, D.M. (2004). Crop Coefficient of Drip Irrigate Processing Tomatoes. ASAE/CSAE Annual Intrernational Meeting. Sponsore by ASAE/CSAE. Fairmont Chateau Laurier, the Westin an Government Centre. Ottawa, Ontario, Canaa. Paper No. 042087. Megersa, G. an J. Abulahi. 2015. Irrigation system in Israel: A review. Int. J. Water Resour. Environ. Eng. 7(3): 29-37. Merriam, J.L. an Keller, L. (1978). Farm irrigation system evaluation: A guie for management. Utah State University, Logan, Utah. Dept. of Agricultural an Irrigation Engineering. Mohamme H. an Saleh M. (2011). Effects of Precision Irrigation on Prouctivity an Water Use Efficiency of Alfalfa uner Different Irrigation Methos in Ari Climates. Journal of Applie Sciences Research, 7(3): 299-308. Ortega, J.F.; Tarjuelo, J.M. an De Juan, J.A. (2002). Evaluation of Irrigation Performance in Localize Irrigation System of Semiari Regions (Castilla-La Mancha, Spain). Agricultural Engineering International: the Cigr Journal of Scientific Research an Development. Manuscript LW 01 007. Vol. I. Ortega, J.F.; Tarjuelo, J.M. an De Juan, J.A. (2002). Evaluation of Irrigation Performance in Localize Irrigation System of Semiari Regions (Castilla-La Mancha, Spain). Agricultural Engineering International: the Cigr Journal of Scientific Research an Development. Manuscript LW 01 007. Vol. I. Shajari, S.; Bakhshooeh, M. an Soltani, R. (2008). Enhancing Irrigation water prouctivity uner prouction risk. Evience from wheat farms in Iran. American-Eurasian Journal of Agricultural an Environmental Sci. 1:36-41. Virupakshagowa, C.; Khali, A.; Rangaswamy, M.; ElKamil H. M.; Samy M.; Ali, A.; Chanrashekhar M.; Biraar, M. an Prasanna H. G. (2014). Assessing Agricultural Water Prouctivity in Desert Farming System of Saui Arabia. Journal of Selecte Topics in Applie Earth Observations an Remote Sensing, 3: 1-14.