IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/agiwat/v182y2017icp94-102.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effects of different irrigation water and nitrogen levels on the water use, rose flower yield and oil yield of Rosa damascena

Author

Listed:
  • Ucar, Yusuf
  • Kazaz, Soner
  • Eraslan, Figen
  • Baydar, Hasan

Abstract

This study aimed to determine the effects of different irrigation water amounts and nitrogen doses on flower and oil yields and water use in Rosa damascena in Isparta which is located in the Mediterranean Region of Turkey. Different water and nitrogen doses were applied to the Rosa damascena plant, and the drip irrigation method was used at 10-day intervals. The treatments included four different irrigation water amounts [T0 (kcp0: 0.00), T1 (kcp1: 0.40), T2 (kcp2: 0.80), and T3 (kcp3: 1.20) as crop-pan coefficients] and four different nitrogen doses (N0:0kgha−1,N1: 80kgha−1,N2: 160kgha−1,N3: 240kgha−1, and pure substance). The experiment was conducted in a randomized block factorial design with 3 replicates. The seasonal evapotranspiration, water use efficiency, irrigation water use efficiency and yield response factor (ky) varied between 346.2 and 614.7mm, between 4.87 and 13.86kgm−3, between 8.05 and 32.18kgm−3, and between 0.92 and 1.59, respectively. The different irrigation water amounts and nitrogen doses did not have a significant effect on flower yield in 2010, but had a significant effect (P<0.01) in 2011 and 2012. The flower yield ranged from 2339 to 3046kgha−1, 2215 to 6373kgha−1, 2104 to 6616kgha−1 in 2010, 2011 and 2012, respectively. Similarly, the effects of different irrigation amounts and nitrogen doses on the rose oil yield were significant in 2011 and 2012 (P<0.01) but not in 2010. The rose oil yield was 1.10–1.66kgha−1, 1.13–3.42kgha−1, 0.72–2.89kgha−1 in 2010, 2011, and 2012, respectively. The results of this study showed that the increasing irrigation water amounts and nitrogen doses significantly increased the flower yield. Considering yield and water use efficiency, it was concluded that the most efficient irrigation scheduling was T1 and that the most efficient nitrogen doses were N2 and N3.

Suggested Citation

  • Ucar, Yusuf & Kazaz, Soner & Eraslan, Figen & Baydar, Hasan, 2017. "Effects of different irrigation water and nitrogen levels on the water use, rose flower yield and oil yield of Rosa damascena," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 182(C), pages 94-102.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:agiwat:v:182:y:2017:i:c:p:94-102
    DOI: 10.1016/j.agwat.2016.12.004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378377416304930
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.agwat.2016.12.004?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Feng Qu & Jingjing Jiang & Jiwen Xu & Tao Liu & Xiaohui Hu, 2019. "Drip irrigation and fertilization improve yield, uptake of nitrogen, and water-nitrogen use efficiency in cucumbers grown in substrate bags," Plant, Soil and Environment, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 65(6), pages 328-335.
    2. Zhou, Xuan & Wang, Ruoshui & Gao, Fei & Xiao, Huijie & Xu, Huasen & Wang, Dongmei, 2019. "Apple and maize physiological characteristics and water-use efficiency in an alley cropping system under water and fertilizer coupling in Loess Plateau, China," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 221(C), pages 1-12.
    3. Feng Qu & Jiao Zhang & Xueqiang Ma & Junzheng Wang & Zixing Gao & Xiaohui Hu, 2020. "Effects of different N, P, K and Ca levels on tomato yield, quality and fertiliser use efficiency," Plant, Soil and Environment, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 66(11), pages 569-575.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:agiwat:v:182:y:2017:i:c:p:94-102. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/agwat .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.