IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/agiwat/v96y2009i10p1409-1420.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Macromanagement of deficit-irrigated peanut with sprinkler irrigation

Author

Listed:
  • Abou Kheira, Abdrabbo A.

Abstract

Precision irrigation management and scheduling, as well as developing site- and cultivar-specific crop coefficient (Kc), and yield response factor to water deficit (ky) are very important parameters for efficient use of limited water resources. This study investigated the effect of deficit irrigation, applied at different growth stages of peanut with sprinkler irrigation in sandy soil, on field peanut evapotranspiration (ETc), yield and yield components, and water use efficiencies (IWUE and WUE). Also, yield response factor to water deficit (ky), and site- and cultivar-specific Kc were developed. Four treatments were imposed to deficit irrigation during late vegetative and early flowering, late flowering and early pegging, pegging, and pod formation growth stages of peanut, and compared with full irrigation in the course of the season (control). A soil water balance equation was used to estimate crop evapotranspiration (ETc). The results revealed that maximum seasonal ETc was 488mm recorded with full irrigation treatment. The maximum value of Kc (0.96) occurred at the fifth week after sowing, this value was less than the generic values listed in FAO-33 and -56 (1.03 and 1.15), respectively. Dry kernels yield among treatments differed by 41.4%. Deficit irrigation significantly affected yields, where kernels yield decreased by 28, 39, 36, and 41% in deficit-irrigated late vegetative and early flowering, late flowering and early pegging, pegging, and pod formation growth stages, respectively, compared with full irrigation treatment. Peanut yields increased linearly with seasonal ETc (R2=0.94) and ETc/ETp (R2=0.92) (ETp=ETc with no water stress). The yield response factor (ky), which indicates the relative reduction in yield to relative reduction in ETc, averaged 2.9, was higher than the 0.7 value reported by Doorenbos and Kassam [Doorenbos, J., Kassam, A.H., 1979. Yield response to water. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper 33, Rome, Italy, 193 pp.], the high ky value reflects the great sensitivity of peanut (cv. Giza 5) to water deficit. WUE values varied considerably with deficit irrigation treatments, averaging 6.1 and 4.5kgha-1mm-1 (dry-mass basis) for pods and kernels, respectively. Differences in WUE between the driest and wettest treatment were 31.3 and 31.3% for pods and kernels, respectively. Deficit irrigation treatments, however, impacted IWUE much more than WUE. Differences in IWUE between the driest and wettest treatment were 33.9 and 33.9% for pods and kernels, respectively. The results revealed that better management of available soil water in the root zone in the course of the season, as well as daily and seasonal accurate estimation of ETc can be an effective way for best irrigation scheduling and water allocation, maximizing yield, and optimizing economic return.

Suggested Citation

  • Abou Kheira, Abdrabbo A., 2009. "Macromanagement of deficit-irrigated peanut with sprinkler irrigation," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 96(10), pages 1409-1420, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:agiwat:v:96:y:2009:i:10:p:1409-1420
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378-3774(09)00147-4
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Reddy, C. Raghava & Reddy, S. Rami, 1993. "Scheduling irrigation for peanuts with variable amounts of available water," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 1-9, March.
    2. Elliott, Ronald L. & Harp, Sam L. & Grosz, Gerald D. & Kizer, Michael A., 1988. "Crop coefficients for peanut evapotranspiration," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 155-164, December.
    3. Norton, Nancy A. & Clark, Richard T. & Schneekloth, Joel P., 2000. "Effects Of Alternative Irrigation Allocations On Water Use, Net Returns, And Marginal User Costs," 2000 Annual Meeting, June 29-July 1, 2000, Vancouver, British Columbia 36322, Western Agricultural Economics Association.
    4. Jain, L. L. & Panda, R. K. & Sharma, C. P., 1997. "Water stress response function for groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.)," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 197-209, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Sun, Tao & Li, Geng & Ning, Tang-Yuan & Zhang, Zhi-Meng & Mi, Qing-Hua & Lal, Rattan, 2018. "Suitability of mulching with biodegradable film to moderate soil temperature and moisture and to increase photosynthesis and yield in peanut," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 208(C), pages 214-223.
    2. Mandal, K.G. & Thakur, A.K. & Mohanty, S., 2019. "Paired-row planting and furrow irrigation increased light interception, pod yield and water use efficiency of groundnut in a hot sub-humid climate," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 213(C), pages 968-977.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kashyap, P. S. & Panda, R. K., 2003. "Effect of irrigation scheduling on potato crop parameters under water stressed conditions," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 49-66, March.
    2. Mandal, K.G. & Thakur, A.K. & Mohanty, S., 2019. "Paired-row planting and furrow irrigation increased light interception, pod yield and water use efficiency of groundnut in a hot sub-humid climate," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 213(C), pages 968-977.
    3. Sezen, S. Metin & Yucel, Seral & Tekin, Servet & Yıldız, Mehmet, 2019. "Determination of optimum irrigation and effect of deficit irrigation strategies on yield and disease rate of peanut irrigated with drip system in Eastern Mediterranean," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 221(C), pages 211-219.
    4. Kang, Shaozhong & Gu, Binjie & Du, Taisheng & Zhang, Jianhua, 2003. "Crop coefficient and ratio of transpiration to evapotranspiration of winter wheat and maize in a semi-humid region," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 239-254, April.
    5. Daryanto, Stefani & Wang, Lixin & Jacinthe, Pierre-André, 2017. "Global synthesis of drought effects on cereal, legume, tuber and root crops production: A review," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 179(C), pages 18-33.
    6. Liu, Cong & Li, Kaiwei & Zhang, Jiquan & Guga, Suri & Wang, Rui & Liu, Xingpeng & Tong, Zhijun, 2023. "Dynamic risk assessment of waterlogging disaster to spring peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) in Henan Province, China," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 277(C).
    7. Panda, R. K. & Behera, S. K. & Kashyap, P. S., 2003. "Effective management of irrigation water for wheat under stressed conditions," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 37-56, November.
    8. Payero, José O. & Tarkalson, David D. & Irmak, Suat & Davison, Don & Petersen, James L., 2008. "Effect of irrigation amounts applied with subsurface drip irrigation on corn evapotranspiration, yield, water use efficiency, and dry matter production in a semiarid climate," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 95(8), pages 895-908, August.
    9. Zhao, Wenzhi & Liu, Bing & Zhang, Zhihui, 2010. "Water requirements of maize in the middle Heihe River basin, China," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 97(2), pages 215-223, February.
    10. Sepaskhah, Ali R. & Andam, M., 2001. "Crop coefficient of sesame in a semi-arid region of I.R. Iran," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 49(1), pages 51-63, July.
    11. Behera, S.K. & Panda, R.K., 2009. "Integrated management of irrigation water and fertilizers for wheat crop using field experiments and simulation modeling," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 96(11), pages 1532-1540, November.

    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:96:y:2009:i:10:p:1409-1420. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.