STUDIES ON IRRIGATION AND FERTIGATION

MANAGEMENT ON CHILLI (CAPSICUM ANNUUM)

UNDER DRIP SYSTEM

M. Tech. (Agril. Engg.)

By

Brahmanapuduru. Gireesh

DEPARTMENT OF SOIL AND WATER ENGINEERING

SV COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING AND

TECHNOLOGY & RS, FACULTY OF AGRICULTURAL

ENGINEERING

INDIRA GANDHI KRISHI VISHWAVIDYALAYA

RAIPUR (Chhattisgarh)

2017

STUDIES ON IRRIGATION AND FERTIGATION

MANAGEMENT ON CHILLI (CAPSICUM ANNUUM)

UNDER DRIP SYSTEM

Thesis

Submitted to the

Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur

by

Brahmanapuduru. Gireesh

IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS

FOR THE DEGREE OF

Master of Technology

in

Agricultural Engineering

(Soil and Water Engineering)

Roll No: 220115026 ID No: 20151622702

JULY, 2017

i

Acknowledgement

I feel great pleasure in expressing my sincere and deep sense of gratitude to Dr.

Narendra Agrawal, Major Advisor and Chairman of my advisory committee, Assistant

Professor, Department of Soil and Water Engineering, DKSCARS, Bhatapara, IGKV,

Raipur, for his valuable guidance, constant inspirations and moral support throughout the

research work .

I am very thankful to Dr. V. K. Pandey, Dean and Dr. M. P. Tripathi, Head of

Department of Soil and Water Engineering, SV College of Agricultural Engineering and

Technology & Research Station, FAE, IGKV, Raipur for his constant encouragement during

project completion.

I like to express my gratitude to Dr. S. K. Patil, Hon’ble Vice Chancellor, Dr. S. S.

Shaw, Director of Instructions and Dr. J. S. Urkurkar, Director Research Services, IGKV,

Raipur for their administrative and technical help which facilitated my research work.

I have a great pleasure in expressing my sincere thanks to my advisory committee

members Dr. Jitendra sinha(Member from department), Er. P.S. Pisalkar(Member from

supporting department) and Dr. Samir kumar tamrakar (Member from other department) Dr.

M.P. Tripathi for their priceless guidance, worthy suggestions and constant encouragement

throughout the project.

I like to express my sincere thanks to Dr. R.B.Tiwari dean DKSCARS, Bhatapara.

Dr S. Patel, Head of Department of Agricultural Processing and Food Engineering and Dr. B.

P. Mishra, Head of Department of farm machinery and power Engineering for their kind

support and help at various stages of the study.

I am extremely thankful to all the faculty members, Dr. V. P. Verma, Er. A. P.

Mukharjee, Dr. A. K. Pali, Er. Dheeraj Khalkho, Er. P.K. Katre, Dr. Ajay Verma, Dr. S. V.

Jogdand, Dr. Rajesh Naik, Er. M. Quasim, Er. N. K. Mishra , Er. P. S. Pisalkar, Er. D.

Khokhar and Er. Yatnesh Bisen for their timely co-operation during the course of study.

I am thankful to all the technical and clerical staff members and other staff members

SVCAET & RS, Faculty of Agricultural Engineering for their kind support and help during

entire study.

ii

iii

CONTENTS

Chapter Title Page

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT i

TABLE OF CONTENT iii

LIST OF TABLES viii

LIST OF FIGURES x

LIST OF PLATES xi

LIST OF ABBREVATIONS ANS SYMBOLS xii

ABSTRACT xiv

I INTRODUCTION 1-4

II REVIEW OF LITERATURE 5-16

2.1 Design and hydraulic performance of drip irrigation

system. 5

2.2 Effect of irrigation methods on growth, yield and quality

of chilli 8

2.3 Effect of Fertilizer levels on growth and yield of chilli 11

2.4 Economics of split application of fertilizers in different

crops 13

III MATERIALS AND METHODS 17-44

3.1 Experimental site 17

3.2Weather and climate 17

3.3 Soil properties 18

3.4 Experimental details 19

3.5 Treatment details 21

3.6. RDF through WSF of Chilli 22

3.7 Nursery raising 22

3.8 Layout of experimental field 23

3.8.1 Field preparation 23

iv

3.8.2 Laying of surface drip irrigation 23

3.9 Transplanting of Chilli seedling 24

3.9.1 Gap fillings 24

3.10 Irrigation Scheduling 24

3.11 Drip irrigation 24

3.12 Fertilizer application 25

3.13 Assessment of crop water requirement 25

3.13.1 Crop factor (C) and Canopy factor (B) 25

3.13.2 Duration of irrigation 26

3.14 Furrow irrigation (Control) 26

3.15 Inter cultivation and weeding 26

3.16 Plant protection measures 27

3.17 Crop harvesting 27

3.18 Design of Drip Irrigation Systems 27

3.18.1 Design Procedure 27

3.18.2 Calculation of water requirement 28

3.18.3 Selection of Dripper 28

3.18.4 Design and Selection of Lateral 29

3.18.5 Design and Selection of Sub main 30

3.18.6 Design and Selection of Main line 30

3.18.7 Selection of Filter and Fertigation equipment 31

3.18.8 Selection of Pump 32

3.1789 Horse power calculation 32

3.18.10 Specification of drip irrigation system 35

3.19 Hydraulic calculation of drip irrigation 35

3.19.1 Measurement of discharge from emitters. 35

3.19.2 Uniformity coefficient : 36

3.19.3 Emission uniformity (EU) 37

3.20 Irigation efficiencies 37

3.20.1 Water use efficiency 38

3.20.2 Fertilizer use efficiency 38

v

3.21 Biometric parameters 39

3.21.1 Plant height 39

3.21.2 Number of primary and secondary branches per

plant 39

3.21.3 Stem girth 39

3.21.4 Days to 50 percent flowering 39

3.22 Yield and Yield parameters 41

3.22.1 No. of fruits per plant 41

3.22.2 Fruits Length 41

3.22.3 Diameter of the fruit 41

3.22.4. 100 fruit weight (g) 41

3.22.5 Fruits weight per plant (g) 41

3.22.6 Crop yield per hectare 41

3.23 Soil moisture measurement 42

3.24 Cost economics 43

3.24.1 Fixed cost 44

3.24.2 Operational cost 44

3.24.3 Total cost 44

3.25 Statistical analysis 44

IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 45-84

4.1 Water requirement of Chilli crop 45

4.2 Design and Hydraulic performance of Drip Irrigation

Systems 49

4.2.1 Calculation of Peak water requirement 49

4.2.2 Selection of Dripper 49

4.2.3 Design and Selection of Lateral 50

4.2.4 Design and Selection of Sub main 50

4.2.5 Design and Selection of Main line 51

4.2.6 Selection of Filter and Fertigation equipment 52

4.2.7 Selection of Pump 52

4.3 Hydraulic performance of drip irrigation system 53

4.3.1 Measurement of discharge from emitters 54

vi

4.3.2 Uniformity coefficient 54

4.3.3 Emission uniformity 56

4.3.4 Application efficiency 57

4.4 Biometric parameters 58

4.4.1 Plant height (cm) 58

4.4.2 Number of primary branches per plant 59

4.4.3 Number of secondary branches per plant. 60

4.4.4 Stem girth 69

4.4.5 Days to 50 % flowering 72

4.5 Yield and yield attributes 74-82

4.5.1 Number of fruits per plant 74

4.5.2 Fruit weight per plant 74

4.5.3 100-fruit weight (g) 75

4.5.4 Fruit length (cm) 79

4.5.5 Fruit Diameter (cm)

4.5.6 Fruit yield (t ha-1) 79

4.6 Soil moisture 81

4.7 Water use efficiency 84

4.8 Fertilizer use efficiency 85

4.9. Cost economics 85

4.9.1 Net returns and benefit-cost ratio 85

V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 86-91

REFERENCES 92-98

APPENDICES 98-113

Appendix - I 99-104

Appendix - II 105-

111

Appendix - III 112-

114

RESUME 115

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table Title Page

3.1. Soil characteristics of the experimental plot

18

3.2 Recommended dose fertilizer through water soluble fertilizer of

Chilli crop

22

3.3 Crop factor for tomato at different crop stages 26

3.4 Recommended classifications of emission uniformity. 37

4.1 Monthly depth of water applied (mm) to Chilli crop under different

levels of drip irrigation during rabi (Nov 2016- April 2017)

46

4.2 Depth of water applied in mm per day under different drip

irrigation levels averaged on monthly basis during rabi (Nov

2016-April 2017)

47

4.3 Design specification and head losses in sub main 50

4.4 Design and specification of main line 51

4.5 Specifications and Parts of Drip system 53

4.6 Average emitters flow rate(lph) under different operating

pressures

54

4.7 Uniform coefficient under different operating pressures 55

4.8 Emission uniformity under different operating pressures 56

4.9 Application efficiency of drip system 57

4.10

(a)

Effect of irrigation levels and fertilizer levels on plant height 62

4.10

(b)

Effect of irrigation levels and fertilizer levels on plant height 63

4.11

(a)

Effect of different irrigation levels and fertilizer levels on number

of primary branches per plant

64

4.11(b) Effect of different irrigation levels and fertilizer levels on number

of primary branches per plant

65

4.12

(a)

Effect of irrigation levels and fertilizer levels on secondary

branches

67

4.12

( b)

Effect of irrigation levels and fertilizer levels on secondary

branches

68

viii

Table Title Page

4.13

(a)

Effect of irrigation levels and fertilizer levels on stem girth 70

4.13

(b)

Effect of irrigation levels and fertilizer levels on stem girth 71

4.14 Effect of irrigation levels and fertilizer levels on 50 % flowering 73

4.15 Effect of irrigation levels and fertilizer levels on Yield and yield

parameters.

76

4.16 Effect of irrigation levels and fertilizer levels on fruit length and

fruit diameter

78

4.17 Effect of different irrigation levels and fertilizer levels on chilli

yield per hectare

82

4.18 Soil moisture content at different depths 83

4.19 Effect of different irrigation levels and fertilizer levels on crop

WUE and FUE

84

4.20 Economics of drip irrigation and fertilizer levels in chilli crop 86

ix

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Title Page

3.1 Design and layout of experimental field 20

3.2 CAD design and layout of drip irrigation system on different

crops

33

3.3 Drip irrigation system layout on field 34

4.1 Depth of water applied on monthly basis 30

4.2 Total depth of irrigation to the chilli crop 31

4.3 Average emitter discharge under different operating pressures 32

4.4 Daily average water applied to the crop 33

4.5 Uniformity coefficient of drip under different operating pressures 33

4.6 Emission uniformity of drip under different operating

pressures

34

4.7 Effect of irrigation levels and fertilizer levels on plant height

(cm) in chilli at harvest(160 DAT)

35

4.8 Effect of irrigation levels and fertilizer levels on Primary

branches in chilli at harvest(160 DAT)

36

4.9 Effect of irrigation levels and fertilizer levels on secondary

branches

37

4.10 Effect of irrigation levels and fertilizer levels on stem girth 38

4.11 Effect of irrigation levels and fertilizer levels on 50 %

flowering

39

4.12 Effect of irrigation levels and fertilizer levels on number of

fruits per plant

40

4.13 Effect of irrigation levels and fertilizer levels on fruit weight

per plant.

44

4.14 Effect of irrigation levels and fertilizer levels on 100 fruit weight 45

4.15 Effect of irrigation levels and fertilizer levels on Fruit length 46

4.16 Effect of irrigation levels and fertilizer levels on fruit

diameter

47

4.17 Effect of irrigation levels and fertilizer levels on chilli yield 48

x

LIST OF PLATES

Plates Title Page

3.1 VNR- Shilpa 435/7 hybrid variety Chilli seed 18

3.2 Nursery bed preparation 23

3.3 Watering after seeding 23

3.4 Laying of surface drip irrigation on Chilli field 23

3.5 Drip system head control unit 23

3.6 Transplanting chiili seedlings 24

3.7 Emitter Discharge 36

3.8 Plant biometric parameters 40

3.9 Chilli plant flowering stage 40

3.10 Crop Yield 42

3.11 Soil Moisture test 43

4.1 Fruit establishing stage 75

4.2 Fruit weight 75

4.3 Green chillies 79

4.4 Fruit picking 81

4.5 Head of the department field visit 86

4.6 Different growth stages of chilli crop 87

xi

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS

Abbreviation Description

0.6V Epan 60 percent volume irrigation of evapotranspiration

0.8V Epan 80 percent volume irrigation of evapotranspiration

1.0V Epan 100 percent volume irrigation of evapotranspiration

C.G. Chhattisgarh

C.W.R. Crop water requirement

CD Coefficient of deviation

Cm Centimeter

CPE Cumulative pan evaporation

Cv Coefficient of manufacturing variation

Dept. Department

Dia. Diameter

Ea Application efficiency

Engg. Engineering

EP Evaporation

Epan Evapotranspiration

ET Evapotranspiration

et al. Et alli (and others)

et.al. And others

ET0 Reference Evapotranspiration

etc. Etcetera

EU Emission uniformity

FAO Food and Agricultural Organization

Fig. Figure

FYM Farm yard manure

Ha Hectare

Hr Hour

xii

i.e. That is

IGAU Indira gandhi agricultural university

Kg/cm2 Kilogram per square centimeter

Kg/ha Kilogram per hectare

L Liter

LDPE Low density of polyvinyl ethylene

Lh-1 Liter per hour

M Meter

max. Maximum

min. Minimum

Mm Millimeter

Msl Mean sea level

PE Pan evaporation

pH Potential of hydrogen

PVC Poly vinyl chloride

Qha-1 Quintal per hectare

Qvar Emitter flow variation

Rs. Rupees

sec. Second

SPD Split plot design

Sr. No. Serial number

Tem. Temperature

Tha-1 Tonne per hectare

xiii

xiv

under drip system. The flow phenomena, design and hydraulic performance of drip

irrigation were evaluated at 0.9, 1.0 and 1.2 kg cm-2 operating pressures with 2 lph

emitter discharge. The soil moisture content at 15, 25 and 30 cm depth of the soil

was evaluated by gravimetric method. The hydraulic performance measures such

as uniformity coefficient, emission uniformity, and coefficient of manufacturing

variation at different operating pressure for inline drip irrigation at 0.9 kg cm-2 was

89.13 %, 85.7 % and 0.065 kg cm-2, respectively, similarly for the operating

pressure 1.00 kg cm-2, it was 92.5 %, 90.07% and 0.060 kg/cm2 and for 1.20 kg

cm-2 it was 96.30 %, 94.30% and 0.042 kg cm-2. The uniform coefficient, emission

uniformity, coefficient of manufacturing variation, application efficiency and

discharge variation are found excellent at 1.2 kg cm-2 operating pressure.

Fertilizers are increasingly used to increase investment by assuming that

production is high. But with the use of the excess fertilizer, the production is not

too high and soil health is also damaged. This results; it may be affected to the

future growing crops in the soil. There is no use of excess fertilizer in the

experiment done by various fertilizer levels in various water levels, it has been

proved that using excess fertilizers, may not effected the production. The

randomized block design has three drip irrigation levels (I1-60 per cent, I2-80 per

cent and I3-100 per cent of pan evaporation) and one control (furrow) irrigation

with three fertilizer levels (F1-100 per cent, F2-80 per cent and F3- 100 per cent of

RDF through drip) on growth and yield of Chilli. The research experiment results

revealed that application of 80 per cent ET with 100 per cent fertilizer level has

maximum yield, number of fruits per plant, fruit weight per plant, fruit diameter,

primary branches, secondary branches and stem girth were 24.80 t/ha, 78.44

numbers/plant, 261.35 g/plant, 1.18 cm, 11.8, 50.6 and 2.26 cm respectively and

minimum was found in control irrigation in all aspects of plant growth and yield

attribution. What these results says that, if they use excess water and fertilizers

beyond the decline, they will not more effect on the yield.

Chilli crop receiving irrigation supply at 80 per cent ET with a discharge

rate of 2 lph and 100 per cent fertilizer application has highest gross income

(Rs.496000 ha-1), net income (Rs. 397276 ha-1) and B:C ratio (4.02) than in other

treatment combinations.

xv

xvi

दाउ कल्याण स िंह कॉलेज, भाटापारा में एक क्षेत्र का प्रयोग ककया गया। ड्रिप स िंचाई के प्रवाह की घटनाएिं, ड्रिजाइन और हाइिोसलक प्रदर्शन का मूल्यािंकन 0.9, 1.0 और 1.2 ककग्रा/ ेमी2 ऑपरेटटिंग दबावों में 2 लीटर प्रति घिंटे के उत् जशक तनवशहन के ाथ ककया गया था। मदृा की 15, 25 और 30 ेंटीमीटर की गहराई पर समट्टी की नमी का मूल्यािंकन ग्राववइमेटटक ववधि द्वारा ककया गया था। 0.9 ककलो/ ेमी2 में इनलाइन ड्रिप स िंचाई के सलए अलग-अलग ऑपरेटटिंग दबाव में एकरूपिा गुणािंक, उत् जशन एकरूपिा, और गुणािंक के रूप में हाइिोसलक प्रदर्शन के उपाय क्रमर्ः 89.13%, 85.7% और 0.065 ककग्रा/ ेमी2, जै े ऑपरेटटिंग दबाव 1.00 ककग्रा/ ेमी2, यह 92.5%, 90.07% और 0.060 ककग्रा/ ेमी2 था और 1.20 ककग्रा/ ेमी2 के सलए यह 96.30%, 94.30% और ककग्रा/ ेमी2 था। एकरूपिा गुणािंक, उत् जशन एकरूपिा, ववतनमाशण ववववििा के गुणािंक, अनुप्रयोग दक्षिा और तनवशहन सभन्निा 1.2 ककग्रा/ ेमी2 ऑपरेटटिंग दबाव में उत्कृष्ट पाए जािे हैं। उच्च उपज के ललए ककसान बड़ी मात्रा में उर्वरक का इस्तेमाल करते हैं इ े तनवेर् badata है। लेककन अतिररक्ि उवशरक के उपयोग के ाथ, उत्पादन बहुि अधिक नहीिं है और समट्टी का स्वास््य भी क्षतिग्रस्ि है। इ े समट्टी में भववष्य की बढ़िी फ लों े प्रभाववि हो किा है। यह ाबबि हुआ है कक अतिररक्ि उवशरकों का उपयोग उत्पादन को प्रभाववि नहीिं कर किा है। यादृच्छिक ब्लॉक ड्रिजाइन में िीन ड्रिप स िंचाई का स्िर (II1-60 प्रतिर्ि, II2-80 प्रतिर्ि और I I3-100 प्रतिर्ि पैन र्ाष्प़ीकरण) और िीन तनयिंत्रणों (उवशरक स्िर) के ाथ एक तनयिंत्रण (नली) स िंचाई (एफ1-100 प्रतिर्ि, एफ2- समचश की वदृ्धि और उपज पर 80% और एफ3- 100% ड्रिप के माध्यम े आरिीएफ)। अनु िंिान प्रयोग के पररणाम बिािे हैं कक 80 प्रतिर्ि र्ाष्पन-उत्सजवन के ाथ 100 प्रतिर्ि उवशरक के स्िर में अधिकिम उपज, फल का संख्या प्रति पौिे , फल वजन

प्रति पौिे , फल व्या , प्राथसमक र्ाखाएिं, माध्यसमक र्ाखाएिं और स्टेम पररधि 24.80 टन/हेक्टेयर, 78.44 ग्राम/पौिा , 261,35 ग्राम/पौिे, 1.18 ेमी, 11.8 ेमी,, 50.6 ेमी, और 2.26 ेमी क्रमर्ः और न्यूनिम तनयिंत्रण स िंचाई में पौिे की वदृ्धि और उपज ववर्षेिा के भी पहलुओिं में पाया गया। निीजे ये कहिे हैं, यटद वे अधिक पानी और उवशरकों का उपयोग करिे हैं, िो वे उपज पर अधिक प्रभाव नहीिं पडगेा।

xvii

अन्य उपचार की तुलना में लमचव की फसल लसचंाई की आपूर्तव 80 प्रर्तशत पान-बाष्प़ीकरण पर 2 लीटर प्रर्त घंटा की दर से होत़ी है और 100 प्रर्तशत उर्वरक आर्ेदन में सबसे अधिक सकल आय (496000 हे -1), शुद्ि आय (3977276 हे -1) और ब़ी: स़ी अनुपात (4.02).

1

CHAPTER -I

INTRODUCTION

Chilli (Capsicum annumm L.) is a member of Solanaceae family,

extensively cultivated throughout tropical Asia and equatorial America for their

edible, pungent fruits. India is the largest producer and exporter of chillies, the

major chillies producing states are Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Maharashtra,

Orissa, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Madhya Pradesh, Rajastan, Gujarat and Assam,

Annual production of Andhra Pradesh is 5, 26, 171 tonnes.

Chilli is increasing in its popularity for its pungent fruits and is highest in

vitamins A, C, Iron and calcium. Chillies are used in making chilli vinegar, hot oil,

tomato sauces, rice dishes, soups, hot condiments such as samber, beans, corn and

curry powders. Chillies do well with several other spices including basil, ginger,

oregano, cilantro, cinnamon, black pepper, fennel and cumin.

As per Status of Horticulture in Chhattisgarh State the production of Chilli

comes under first position in spices. The status of Chilli in Chhattisgarh in terms of

area has increased about 40.60 per cent in last 5 years. In horticulture sector from

2004-05 to 2012-13 the production of vegetables is highest followed by fruits.

Vegetable production has been constantly increasing. The area of vegetables has

increased from 2004-05 to 2012-13 is 1.23 lakh ha to 3.70 lakh ha and production

has increased from 12.50 lakh Mt to 49.64 lakh Mt. As per Agricultural Statistics

2016 area under Chilli in Chhattisgarh State is 6939 ha and in Balodabazar district

395 ha area and the production of Chilli is 3039 Mt in CG and 209 Mt in

Balodabazar district.

India adopted significant policy reforms focused on the goal of food grain

self-sufficiency. This ushered in India's Green Revolution. It began with the

decision to adopt superior yielding, disease resistant wheat varieties in combination

with better farming knowledge to improve productivity. After the green revolution

has been more use of fertilizer to increase production, resulted in soil health is

damage beyond the requirement of the use of fertilizer.

2

Drip irrigation is one such hi-tech method receiving better acceptance and

adoption, particularly in areas of water scarcity. Micro irrigation is an effective

tool for conserving water resources and studies have revealed significant water

saving ranging between 40 and 70 per cent by drip irrigation compared with

surface irrigation. Therefore, the efforts are now warranted to harness the available

quantities of water and put them to efficient use to realize higher productivity per

drop (Solaimalai et al., 2005). In general, the farmers raise chilli crop by adopting

surface method of irrigation without any scientific basis in which appreciable

quantity of water is lost due to conveyance, evaporation and percolation resulting

in low application and distribution efficiencies. Drip irrigation is one of the latest

innovations for applying water to row planted, widely spaced crops, especially in

the water scarce areas. There can be considerable saving of water by adopting this

method since water can be applied almost precisely and directly in the root zone

without wetting the entire area. This technology not only uses each drop of water

most efficiently but also results in good crop growth and yield advantage due to

stable moisture content maintained always in the root zone of the crop by way of

frequent irrigation at shorter intervals.

Fertigation is a recent innovative cultural method, by which fertilizers are

applied along with irrigation water through drip system to get higher fertilizer use

efficiency besides increasing the crop yields. In India, fertigation practice is only

of recent interest, though this technology has been in use in many developed

countries notably in Israel and USA. Although only limited research works have

been done in India, the favourable results from these investigations have indicated

immense potential for practicing this technology throughout the country in

different crops. Improper management of water has contributed extensively to the

current water scarcity and pollution problems in many parts of the world, and is

also a serious challenge to future food security and environmental sustainability.

Addressing these issues requires an integrated approach to soil-water-plant-nutrient

management at the plant-rooting zone. One of these technologies is fertigation,

which is the direct application of water and nutrients to plants through a drip

irrigation system. The introduction of simultaneous micro-irrigation and fertilizer

application (fertigation) opens new possibilities for controlling water and nutrient

3

supplies to crops besides maintaining the desired concentration and distribution of

nutrients and water into the soil (Bar-Yosef, 1999).

When fertilizer is applied through drip, it is observed that beside the yield

increase about 30 per cent of the fertilizer could be saved (Sivanappan and

Ranghaswami, 2005). When nutrients are applied as broadcast or band placement,

due to various losses the fertilizer use efficiency could not be improved. But

fertigation pave the way to alter the application rates and frequency to suit the crop

requirement at different growth stages, which in-turn increases the fertilizer use

efficiency. Fertigation provides the essential nutrients directly to the active root

zone, thus minimizing the loss of expensive nutrients which ultimately helps in

improving the productivity and quality of farm produce. There was an increase in

the use efficiency of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium to 95, 45 and 80 per cent,

respectively (Satisha, 1997).

Drip irrigation, also known as trickle irrigation or micro irrigation is an

irrigation method that applies water slowly to the root zone of plants, through a

network of valves, pipes and emitters. The goal is to minimize water and fertilizer

usage. Adoption of micro irrigation might help in raising the irrigated area,

productivity of crops and water-use efficiency. The increase in yield as compared

to conventional irrigation method is from 20 to 100 per cent, whereas saving in

water ranges from 40 to 70 per cent in addition to 50 – 60 per cent saving in labour

(Sivanappan, 2004).

Efficient management of water resources is essential to meet the increasing

competition for water between agricultural and non-agricultural sectors and the

present day share of 80 per cent of water used for agriculture is anticipated to be

reduced by 70 per cent in the coming decade. This necessitates scientific

management of available water resources, particularly in agricultural sector.

Sustainability of any system requires optimal utilization of resources such as water,

fertilizer and soil. Apart from the economic considerations, the adverse effect of

injudicious use of water and fertilizers on the environment can have far reached

implications. There is a need to develop agro technologies, which will help in

sustaining the precious resources and maximize the crop production, without any

4

detrimental impact on the environment. The major factors limiting its large scale

adoption are high initial cost, lack of information on various aspects such as crop

water requirement, scheduling of irrigation and fertigation. So the literatures on

different aspects of drip fertigation have been reviewed hereunder.

Keeping in view the above discussed issues and as the available

information on water use efficiency and fertigation through drip in Chilli crop is

scanty and meagre, are initiated to arrive at proper water management technique

and nutrient management for Chilli crop with the following objectives.

1. To investigate hydraulic performance of drip irrigation on Chilli crop.

2. To study the effect of different levels of irrigation and frtigation on

productivity of crop.

3. To work out the economics of drip system for Chilli production.

5

CHAPTER-II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Field studies on the effect of irrigation and fertilizer levels on the

productivity of chilli (Capsicum annuum L.) under drip irrigation were conducted

during the year 2016-17. The pertinent literature is reviewed and presented in this

chapter, under following headings.

2.1 Design and hydraulic performance of drip irrigation system.

2.2 Effect of irrigation methods on growth, yield and quality of chilli

2.3 Effect of Fertilizer levels on growth and yield of chilli

2.4 Economics of split application of fertilizers in different crops

2.1 Design and hydraulic performance of drip irrigation system.

Sahu and Rao (2005) prepared irrigation schedules were scheduled using

ET values and soil characteristic data. The hydraulic performance of the system

was evaluated by measuring discharge variation among the different emitters,

estimating friction head losses in different components. The correlation was

developed between average discharge of emitters and pressure head. The

coefficient of uniformity (CU) and emission uniformity coefficient (EU) were also

estimated. The CU was found to be excellent (>95 percent) and EU was also found

to be reasonably good (>90 percent).

Valiantzas (2005) compared systematically the Hazen-Williams and Darcy-

weisbach Equations, leading to correction form for the Hazen-Williams coefficient.

In addition, a more accurate procedure assuming a power form function the Darcy-

weisbach Equations along irrigation laterals is also proposed. The systematic

analysis of various typical flow pipe irrigation situations (e.g., sprinkler irrigation

laterals of linear or radial-center pivot displacement, trickle irrigation laterals, and

manifolds) indicates that the friction loss along laterals calculated using the Darcy-

weisbach Equations closely follows a discharge power form function. The two

6

empirical parameters of the power function dependent on the specific pipe

characteristics as well as specific range of discharge values along the laterals. The

proposed analytical solution is extended to incorporate the local head loss, the

velocity head variation, and the outflow non uniformity along the sprinkler and

trickle irrigation laterals. The suggested direct computation solution is

demonstrated in two application example of sprinkler irrigation and drip irrigation

laterals and compared with accurate numerical solution.

Hezarjaribi et al. (2008) assessed the hydraulic performance of various

kinds of emitters at four levels of pressure (50, 100, 150 and 200 kPa) and

calculated the Coefficient of manufacturing variation, emitters discharge

coefficient and emitter discharge exponent, in order to establish the emitter’s flow

rate sensitivity to pressure and compared the results to the manufactures

specification. Results indicated that design should be based on reliable test data,

not on manufacture’s data; discharge of emitters was uniformly distributed at all

operating pressure.

Popale et al. (2011) conducted on the hydraulic performance of drip

irrigation system with two emission devices viz., online dripper (8 lph) and drip-in

dripper (1.3 lph) for varying pressure viz., 0.75, 1 and 1.25 kg/cm2. The result

revealed that different hydraulic measures such as uniformity coefficient, emission

uniformity and coefficient of variation at different operating pressure for online

drip irrigation at 0.75 kg/cm2 was 97.05%, 95.75% and 2.94%, respectively,

similarly for the operating pressure 1.00 kg/cm2, it was 97.99%, 97.08% and

2.00% and for 1.25 kg/cm2, it was 98.15%, 98.33% and 1.84% also for inline drip

irrigation uniformity coefficient, emission uniformity and coefficient of variation

for operating pressure 0.75 kg/cm2 was 97.25%, 98.72% and 2.74% and for

pressure 1.00 kg/cm2 it was 97.30%, 99.44% and 2.69%, respectively, and at 1.25

kg/cm2 it was 98.92%, 99.53% and 1.07 %, respectively. The above result shows

that the uniformity coefficient and emission uniformity increased while coefficient

of variation decreased as operating pressure increased for all emission devices.

7

Mangrio et al. (2013) conducted at the field station of Climate Change,

Alternate Energy and Water Resources Institute (CAEWRI), National Agricultural

Research Center (NARC), Islamabad, during 2013, regarding drip irrigation

system. Drip irrigation system depends on uniform emitter application flow. All

the emitters were tested and replicated thrice at pressure head (34 to 207Kpa) with

an increment of 34 Kpa. The minimum and maximum discharges were 1.32 - 3.52,

3.36 - 5.42, and 43.22 - 100.99 Lph, with an average of 2.42, 4.63 and 73.66 Lph,

for Bow Smith, RIS and Micro-tubing, respectively. It indicates that more than

90% of emission uniformity (EU) and uniformity coefficient (CU) for all Emitters,

which shows excellent water application with least standard deviation, ranging

0.12 to 2.37, throughout the operating pressure heads in all emitters. An average

coefficient of variation (CV) of all emitters were behaving less than 0.07,

indicating an excellent class at all operating pressure heads between 34 to 207 Kpa.

Moreover, the relationship of discharge and pressure of emitters indicates that

discharge increased with the increase of pressure head. The Q-H curve plays key

role in the selection of emitters.

Manisha et al. (2015) conducted at Faculty of Agricultural Engineering,

IGKV, Raipur to analyze the hydraulic performance drip irrigation system on

emitter discharge, coefficient of variation and emission uniformity. The objective

of this study were to collect discharge rate at four different pressure are 1.5, 1.2,

0.9 and 0.7 kg /cm2 to assess the hydraulic performance of drip irrigation system.

Result shows that the discharge flow rate of emitter is increased when the increase

of the pressure and the coefficient of variation is increased when the pressure is

decreased means the pressure directly affected the discharge rate of emitter. The

average emission uniformity coefficient observed at 1.5, 1.2, 0.9 and 0.7 kg /cm2

pressure was 95.04, 95.95, 94.44 and 87.63 percent respectively for 4lph.

2.2 Effect of irrigation methods on growth, yield and quality of chilli

Ertek et.al. (2007) study to determine the most suitable amount of applied

water and the interval of irrigation water for green pepper plants by using the pan

8

evaporation values in field condition. Irrigation was applied based on cumulative

class-A pan evaporation within the irrigation intervals.

Anitta Fanish et al (2011) Water is the most important and critical input in

man’s life especially in agriculture. Reduction in water consumption due to drip

method of irrigation over the surface method of irrigation varies from 30 to 70 per

cent and productivity gain in the range of 20 to 90 per cent for different crops. By

introducing drip irrigation, it is possible to increase the yield potential of crops by

three fold with the same quantity of water. All these emphasize the need for water

conservation and improvement in water-use efficiency to achieve “More Crop per

Drop of water”.

A’fifah et al. (2015) investigated the optimum fertigation requirement of

chilli based on different crop evapotranspiration (ETc 100, 125, 150 and 200) and

two different crop coefficients [single crop coefficient (single-Kc) and dual crop

coefficient (dual-Kc)] in the tropical climate. According to the experimental

results, chilli water requirement (ETc) using single-Kc and dual-Kc were 214 mm

and 324 mm, respectively during the growing period. Except maximum quantum

yield of PSII (Fv/Fm), no significant difference was observed by interaction

between different levels of fertigation and crop coefficients. The fresh fruit yield

and IUE values in this study showed that there were significant differences for the

interaction between different levels of fertigation and crop coefficients. The

combination treatment 200ETc with dual-Kc enhanced Pn, gs and produced

significantly higher fresh fruit yield. Thus, the findings of this study revealed that

chilli grown in soilless culture could be fertigated with 200ETc using dual-Kc

approach in tropical region for better plant growth, physiological activities and

yield.

Ravi Bhuriya et al. (2015) assessed the drip irrigation system is extremely

profitable as it saves 40-70 percent water as compared to surface irrigation method

i.e. flood, sprinkler, furrow, as the drip method reduces labour cost and protects the

plants from diseases by minimizing humidity in atmosphere. Besides, soluble

fertilizers can also be applied with irrigation water (Anonymous, 2006). Thus, drip

9

irrigation has become a means of hi-tech Agriculture/ Horticulture and precision

farming. The study found that higher number (68.34 per cent) of the respondents

had medium adoption level of drip irrigation system in study area followed by high

(18.33 per cent) and low (13.33 per cent) adoption. It was observed that, 100

percent of respondents expressed the benefit like cultivation of chilli by using Drip

irrigation system(DIS).

Ram Kumar et al. (2016) water is the vital source for crop production and

is the most limiting factor in Indian agricultural scenario. Though India has the

largest irrigation network, the irrigation efficiency does not exceed 40%. The

results shown the drip irrigation system of fruit characteristics recorded after every

picking and the average values are expressed under various treatments of fruit

yield and quality. At harvesting time, samples of green pepper fruits were

randomly harvested from each plot to measure fruit length and fruit diameter. In

addition, total weight of fruits in each treatment were recorded by harvesting

pepper fruits twice weekly and then the total yield as Kg/fed., was calculated. The

maximum yield of 900 gm/plant and minimum of yield 600 gm/plant and total

yield 52270 gm (52.270 kg).

Kapil Saroch et al. (2016) evaluate the effect of three drip irrigation

intervals viz. every alternate day irrigation, every third day irrigation and every 4th

day irrigation and three fertigation frequencies viz. once a week (every 7th day

with entire fertilizer dose in 13 equal splits), twice a week (every 3th day

fertigation with entire dose in 20 equal splits) and twice a month (every 15th day

with entire dose in 6 equal splits) along with a control at Palampur on a silty clay

loam soil. Results revealed that crop grown with 75% of recommended NPK

fertigation under gravity fed drip irrigation comparable brinjal fruit yield and gross

returns than the crop grown with recommended package of practices i.e.

fertilization with recommended NPK and surface irrigation of 5 cm at 7 day

interval. B: C ratio was significantly lower in the former treatment mainly due to

higher cost of soluble fertilizers. Increase in irrigation interval did not have any

significant effect on brinjal yield, gross returns, net returns and B: C ratio.

Irrigation interval of two days resulted in significantly higher WUE than irrigation

10

interval of either one day (8.68%) or three day (4.28%). Fertigation frequency of

twice a month resulted in significantly higher brinjal yield (16.86%) and water use

efficiency (19.28%) than fertigation frequencies of once a week and twice a week,

respectively.

Gulshan Mahajan et al. (2017) evaluate the effect of various levels of water

and N application through drip irrigation on red hot pepper yield, Water Use

Efficiency (WUE) and Nitrogen Use Efficiency (NUE). In this experiment various

combination of three irrigation treatments (Drip irrigation at 0.5 and 1.0xEpan,

check basin method of irrigation at 1.0xEpan) and three nitrogen levels (50, 75 and

100% of recommended nitrogen) were compared in split plot design having three

replications. The results revealed that when the same quantity of water and

nitrogen (100% of recommended) was supplied through drip irrigation system, it

increased the red hot pepper yield to 277.4 q ha-1 (an increase of 28.4%) under

check basin method of irrigation. In check basin method of irrigation, the highest

red hot pepper yield (216.1 q ha-1) obtained at 100% of recommended N, while in

drip irrigation at 1.0xEpan, the yield was highest at 75% of recommended N.

When half the recommended amount of N was supplied through drip at

0.5xEpan.,WUE and NUE increased by 232.1 and 38.7% over check basin method

of irrigation. At lower level of drip irrigation 0.5xEpan, Root length increased

significantly with drip irrigation treatments as compared to check basin method of

irrigation and found maximum (36.3 m) at lower level of drip irrigation 0.5xEpan.

Thus drip irrigation at 0.5x Epan is beneficial for red hot pepper in term of yield,

better morphological characters, viz, plant height, number of branches, root length,

size and weight of fruits along with 58.6% saving of irrigation water over check

basin method of irrigation.

2.3 Effect of Fertilizer levels on growth and yield of chilli

Vijayakumar et al (2010) conducted at Agricultural Research Station,

Bhavanisagar during 2007 and 2008 to maximize the water and fertilizer use

efficiencies in Chili crop. The experiments were laid out in factorial randomized

block design with nine treatments which included three irrigation levels 100, 75

11

and 50 per cent of PE along with three fertigation levels viz. 125, 100 and 75 per

cent of recommended N and K fertigation through drip irrigation and replicated

thrice. In chili, the highest yield was observed in drip irrigation at 75 per cent of

PE with fertigation of 75 per cent of recommended N & K with maximum shoot

length and higher number of branches during I and II crops. The highest nitrogen

and potassium use efficiency were observed in drip irrigation at 75 per cent of PE

with fertigation of 75 per cent of recommended N & K in both I and II crops with

maximum benefit-cost ratio of 3.2 and 2.8 during I and II crops respectively.

Ram et.al (2011) Precise management of irrigation quantity along with the

rate and timing of nutrient application are of critical importance to obtain desired

results in terms of productivity and nutrient use efficiency (NUE). The fertigation

allows application of right amounts of plant nutrients uniformly to the wetted root

volume zone where most of the active roots are concentrated and this helps

enhance nutrient use efficiency. It has been found to improve the productivity and

quality of crop produce along with improved resource use efficiency. Fertigation is

considered eco-friendly as it controls leaching of nutrients especially nitrogen (N)-

NO3. However, to get the desired results knowledge of the system and efficient

management are essential. A review is made of the current literature on the use of

fertigation covering various aspects of vegetable production including its

advantages and constraints to its adoption and nutrient behaviour especially at the

practical agriculture level in India.

Khalkho et al. (2013) experiment on chilli crop (variety – NS 1701) to

study the irrigation scheduling and effect of different soil moisture regime over the

yield and growth parameters of rabi chilli crop. The study was also undertaken to

determine the minimum irrigation to be given or supplied in order to achieve

significant returns from the crop along with identification of simple guideline for

determination of soil moisture status. Eight treatments of irrigation (T1 to T8)

including that of seven different available soil moisture (ASM) levels at 70% (T1),

60% (T2), 50% (T3), 40% (T4), 30% (T5), 20% (T6) and 10% (T7) along with one

12

treatment of furrow irrigation at different vegetative stages (T8) of chilli crop was

tested during rabi season. The results of this study showed that the irrigation at

60% ASM level gave the highest yield with 9.145 T ha-1 whereas the highest water

use efficiency (WUE) was shown by both the treatments T1 and T2 with 0.37 T

ha-cm-1. Results also show that there is a significant reduction in the yield of chilli

in treatment T6 of irrigation at 20% ASM (7.015 T ha-1). The results also showed

that chilli crop survives the moisture deficiency of 80% with substantial returns.

Nadiya Nesthad et al. (2013) conducted the experiment on impact of

fertigation and drip system layout at KCAET, Tavanur. The experiment were laid

out in factorial randomized block design with treatments which included three

irrigation levels 85, 75 and 65% of daily irrigation requirement and two different

drip system layout which were replicated thrice. In chilli maximum yield of 458

g/plant which is worked out as 18.32 t/ha was observed for the treatment T5. The

benefit cost ratio for treatment T5, 85 per cent of the irrigation requirement with

one lateral for each row of crop was 3.8 and treatment T6, 85 per cent of the

irrigation requirement with one lateral in between two rows of crop was 3.9. Even

though the yield for the treatment T5 was high, the benefit cost ratio stands high

for treatment T6. The high value of benefit cost ratio for treatment T6 was due to

the reduction in the quantity of material for drip irrigation system.

Paul et. al (2013) conducted on the loamy sand soil at Bhubaneswar in

eastern coastal of India for two years (2007-08 and 2008-09) to evaluate the yield,

water-use efficiency and economic feasibility of capsicum grown under drip and

surface irrigation with non-mulch and black Linear Low Density Poly Ethylene

(LLDPE) plastic mulch. Actual evapotranspiration for capsicum crop was

estimated using modified pan evaporation method. Effect of three irrigation levels

viz. VD, 0.8 VD and 0.6 VD (VD = full irrigation volume with drip) in

conjunction with LLDPE mulch and no mulch were studied on biometric and yield

response of capsicum crop. The highest yield (28.7 t/ha) was recorded under 100%

net irrigation volume with drip irrigation (VD) and plastic mulching as compared

to other treatments. This system increased the yield and net seasonal income by 57

% and 54 % respectively as compared to conventional surface irrigation without

13

mulch with a benefit cost ratio of 2.01. The benefit cost ratio was found to be the

highest (2.44) for the treatment VD without mulch. Drip irrigation system could

increase the yield by 28 % over surface irrigation even in the absence of mulch.

Similarly, LLDPE mulch alone could increase the yield by 13 % even in the

absence of drip irrigation system.

Imamsaheb et. al (2014) study was conducted with drip irrigation in crop

geometry for chilly, bhendi and capsicum crops during Kharif and Rabi season.

The pooled data revealed that the highest yield was obtained in treatments with 1.5

m drip lateral spacing with plant spacing of 20 x 72 cm for chilly and 2.5 m drip

lateral spacing with a plant spacing of 20 x 72 cm for bhendi which is higher by 55

per cent over control (Anonymous, 1995). Drip irrigation scheduling for brinjal,

okra, tomato and cabbage and fertigation for bitter gourd with irrigation scheduled

at 100, 80 and 60 per cent ET in main plots and irrigation intervals (daily, 1 and 2

days) in sub-plots showed that the yield of brinjal / okra was maximum at 80 per

cent ET (Anonymous, 2004).

Abdul Hakkim (2014) conducted to evaluate the effect of site specific drip

fertigation in completely randomized design (CRD) with six treatments and four

replications. Hybrid chilli (hot line) was used as the test crop. Fertigation was done

once in five days starting from 15 DAP up to 150 DAP. The different yield

parameters like fruit length, fruit girth, fruit weight and number of fruits per plant

also varied in the same trend as that of total green fruit yield. In case of low

fertility area, highest BCR was obtained for the treatment site specific drip

fertigation and daily drip irrigation (2.42) followed by the treatment site specific

drip fertigation and alternate day drip irrigation (2.25). The lowest BCR was

obtained under the treatment with manual application of fertilizer and alternate day

drip irrigation (1.91). In case of high fertility area, corresponding values of BCR

were 2.47. 2.43 and 2. 17 respectively.

Roma Kumari et al. (2014) conducted to study the influence of different

kinds and levels of fertilizers on water use efficiency of drip fertigated Sweet

pepper at the Research Farm of the Department of Soil and Water Engineering,

14

PAU, Ludhiana in the year 2012–2013. The drip fertigated treatments were T1

(WSF applied at 80% RDF (recommended dose of fertilizer)), T2 (WSF applied at

70% RDF), T3 (WSF applied at 60% RDF), T4 (Conventional fertilizer applied at

80% RDF), T5 (Conventional fertilizer applied at 70% RDF) and T6

(Conventional fertilizer applied at 60% RDF) and an additional control treatment

(with furrow irrigation and 100% traditional fertilizer) was used for comparison.

The irrigation was applied at 75% ETC. The percentage water saving for drip

fertigation treatment was 33.94% over the conventional irrigation. Out of all the

treatments, water use efficiency for T2 treatment was maximum (5.24 q/ha-cm)

which was significantly par with T4 (5.19 q/ha-cm) treatment. The minimum water

use efficiency was in conventional method (2.69 q/ha-cm). While, for drip

fertigated treatments, the minimum water use efficiency was in T6 treatment (3.25

q/ha-cm).The statistical analysis showed that the water use efficiency of T2 and T4

treatment were significantly superior than all other treatments.

Kohire Patil and Das (2015) conducted during the rabi season of 2008-09 to

study the effect of drip irrigation and fertilizer management on Capsicum at

Research area farms of Assam Agriculture University Jorhat (Assam) India. Result

reviled that the effect of drip irrigation and fertilizer management treatments (T3)

were significant in respect of percent nitrogen content both in plant (2.18%) and

fruits (1.19%). Similarly the highest uptake af p2o5 by plants (7.37 kg/ha) and by

fruits (3.64 kg/ha) k2o by plant (47.05 kg/ha) and by fruits (26.07 kg/ha) recorded

in treatment T3 at 100% EPR alone with the application of 75% RD of N and K

through drip. The total Uptake of N (69.16 kg/ha) p2o 5 (11.0 kg/ha) and K20

(73.12 kg/ha) were also significant over the treatment T9 (N-48.27 kg/ha)p2o 5

(7.41 kg/ha) and K2o (48.85 kg/ha) respectively. The nutrient status determined in

terms of available N, p2o 5, and K+O in kg/ha was significantly influenced by

different drip irrigation and fertilizer management significantly highest fruit yield

(87.20 q/ha) was recorded in drip irrigation at 100 EPR along application of 75 %

Rd of N through drip irrigation over treatments.

15

2.4 Economics of split application of fertilizers in different crops

Manjunatha (2001) studied the economic feasibility of micro irrigation

system for various vegetables and reported that the gross benefit: cost ratio of 2.56,

3.24, 3.19 and 2.49 were achieved for drip emitter, drip micro tubes, micro

sprinklers and surface irrigation, respectively. The net profit achieved per mm

application of water used for potato was highest for drip emitter (Rs. 377) followed

drip micro tube (Rs. 299), micro sprinkler (Rs. 203) and lowest in case of surface

irrigation (Rs. 151). Similar results were also reported for brinjal, chili and

cauliflower.

Rajbir Singh et al. (2009) conducted study to investigate water application of

different treatment of ET on tomato. Among different irrigation levels, drip

irrigation at 80 per cent ET resulted in higher net returns (Rs. 34431 ha-1) and

benefit cost ratio (1.76). The maximum net returns (Rs. 51386 ha-1) and benefit cost

ratio (2.03) was found with drip irrigation at 80 per cent ET coupled with

polyethylene mulch compared to other treatments. Drip irrigation besides giving a

saving of 38 percent water resulted into 55 per cent higher fruit yield compared to

surface irrigation.

Bhogi et al. (2011) conducted the experiment on brinjal under drip and

furrow irrigation with different recommended doses of fertilizer. The highest benefit

cost ratio was recorded in 100 per cent ET with 100 per cent recommended fertilizer

doses (4.99) as compare to furrow irrigation with 100 per cent fertilizer doses (3.72).

Mallikarjun et al. (2012) carried out experiment on onion with different level

of drip irrigation. The study reported that the treatment with 80 per cent ET showed

the maximum net returns (Rs. 246213 ha-1) as compare to surface irrigation (Rs.

105401 ha-1).

Mazhari (2014) determined that in order to improve irrigation efficiency,

reduce water consumption and increase farmers income in cotton planting, using of

plastic mulch on the culture rows to reduce evaporation from the soil surface and

sweating by weeds, and increase the crop yield. Research was conducted by using

16

split plot in a randomized complete block design (RCBD) with three main

treatments of irrigation periods of 6, 9 and 12 days and three level of secondary

treatments black plastic mulch, white plastic mulch and control treatment (without

using plastic sheets) with three replications. The kind of cover affected all three

factors, the amount of consumed water, yield and efficiency of water. It was found

that 5.23 ton ha-1 with irrigation period of 9 days using black mulch and economic

return was 194.6 per cent.

17

CHAPTER- II

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The experiment studies on irrigation and fertigation management on

chilli (capsicum annuum) under drip system was carried out during rabi

(September, 2016 to April, 2017) to find out appropriate irrigation level which

leads to higher water use efficiency and yield of Chilli, at research field, Dau

Kalyan Singh College of Agriculture and Research Station, Bhatapara,

Chhattisgarh. The details of location, climate, soil and materials used and

techniques adopted in the experiment are described in this chapter.

3.1 Experimental site

Bhatapara is situated in the Chhattisgarh plain zone which comes under

Zone I of Chhattisgarh state. This site is located at 21˚73' N latitude and 81˚93′ E

longitude and is at an elevation of 261 m above mean sea level (MSL). The field

experiment was laid out in a Randomized Block Design (RBD) having three

replications with ten treatments .

3.2 Weather and climate

The daily climatological data of maximum and minimum temperature, RH,

wind velocity and evaporation were recorded from the Meteorological Observatory

at the Dau Kalyan Singh Agricultural College and Research Station, Bhatapara.

The mean monthly maximum and minimum temperature, evaporation and relative

humidity are given in Appendix-I.

It is observed that during the period of study, the maximum temperature

varied between 22.83o C to 45.57o C from November 2016 to April 2017 whereas,

minimum temperature varied between 7.35oC to 29.11oC. Relative humidity

throughout the crop period varied between 7.93 to 91.42 percent. The average and

maximum relative humidity for different months varied from 54.4 to 91.42 percent.

The average values of open pan evaporation ranged from 2.4 to 8.0 mm day-1,

whereas average sunshine hours varied from 3.2 to 10.1 hours day-1, maximum

18

wind velocity during crop period was 3.9 km hr-1 and minimum was recorded 1.5

km hr-1.

3.3 Soil properties

The experimental field has Clay textured soil and a pH of 7.7 and electrical

conductivity of 0.75 dS m-1. Before transplanting, soil has available nitrogen

(266.5 kg ha-1), phosphorous (13.42 kg ha-1), and potassium (144.8 kg ha-1).

Table 3.1. Soil characteristics of the experimental plot

Soil characteristics Particulars Composition

Textural composition

Sand, (%) 14.68

Silt, (%) 40.10

Clay, (%) 46.32

Chemical properties

Available N, Kg/ha 266.5

Available P2O5, Kg/ha 13.45

Available K2O, Kg/ha 144.8

PH 7.70

EC (dSm-1) 0.75

Organic carbon (%) 0.42

S 25.9

Zn 0.67

B 2.62

Fe 8.74

Physical properties Bulk density, g/cc 1.42

19

3.4 Experimental details

Crop : Chilli (Capsicum Annuum)

Variety : Shilpa VNR-435/7 Hybrid

Experimental Area : 1150 m2 (46m×25m)

Bed width : 0.8 m

Bed Length : 25 m

Row to Row Spacing(Double row) : 1 m (0.3m Diagonally or zig-zag

planting on rows)

Plant Spacing : 0.45 m

Date of nursery sown : 20 October, 2016

Date of transplanting : 17th November, 2016

Design : Randomized Block Design (RBD)

Water source : Ground water

Plate.3.1 VNR- Shilpa 435/7 hybrid variety Chilli seed

20

21

Chilli was planted for utilizing four irrigation level by drip irrigation

were (0.6VEpan, 0.8VEpan and 1.0VEpan) and control by furrow irrigation. A

RBD with irrigation as main plot treatment and water soluble fertilizer as the

subplots treatments was utilized. The furrow irrigation system consisted of the

typical furrow method of irrigation with plants on the top of the bed.

3.5 Treatment details

The treatment included four irrigation levels as main plots, three types of

Fertilizer levels as sub plot treatment and three replication (R1,R2 and R3) in

RBD were adopted for the study. The layout of experiment is shown in Fig

3.1. The treatment details given below

I1F1= Drip irrigation at 60% CPE + 80% RDF through Water soluble fertilizer

I1F2 = Drip irrigation at 60% CPE + 100% RDF through Water soluble

fertilizer

I1F3 = Drip irrigation at 60% CPE + 120% RDF through Water soluble

fertilizer

I2F1= Drip irrigation at 80% CPE + 80% RDF through Water soluble fertilizer

I2F2 = Drip irrigation at 80% CPE + 100% RDF through Water soluble

fertilizer

I2F = Drip irrigation at 80% CPE + 120% RDF through Water soluble

fertilizer

I3F1 = Drip irrigation at 100% CPE + 80% RDF through Water soluble

fertilizer

I3F2 = Drip irrigation at 100% CPE + 100% RDF through Water soluble

fertilizer

I3F3 = Drip irrigation at 100% CPE + 120% RDF through Water soluble

fertilizer

I4 = Conventional method (control irrigation + Recommended dose for

fertilizer(RDF)).

22

3.6. RDF through WSF of Chilli

Recommonded dose: 200:125:125kg/ha (TNAU)

Table 3.2 Recommended dose fertilizer through water soluble fertilizer

of Chilli crop

3.7 Nursery raising

The soil was brought to fine tilth and raised seed beds of size(L×B×H)

10 × 1 × 0.12 m, two beds were prepared and well rotten powdered farmyard

manure @ 5 kg/bed was applied Chilli seeds were sown in rows 10 cm apart

and covered with a thin layer of soil. Immediately after sowing, the seed beds

were thoroughly drenched.

Schedule of

application

Duration

in days

Water soluble

fertilizer grades

Required Qty

(kg/ha)

Transplanting to

establishment

stage

10 19:19:19+13:00:45+

Urea

21.05+8.88+14.86

Flowering stage

30 12:61:00+13:00:45+

Urea

13.11+71.04+80.72

Fruit picking

30 19:19:19+13:00:45+

Urea

21.05+44.4+56.91

Alternate Days

08 12:61:00+13:00:45+

Urea

6.52+35.52+40,38

23

3.8 Layout of experimental field

3.8.1 Field preparation

The experimental field was prepared to a fine tilth by ploughing and

then followed by harrowing. The field was well pulverized with the help of

rotavator before transplanting. The layout of experimental plot was done as

per specification mentioned in the layout plan (Fig.3.3) with the help of

measuring tape, rope, bamboo pegs, and manual labors. Well rotten FYM was

spread in all the plots in equal quantity @ 40 q ha-1 and mixed thoroughly.

3.8.2 Laying of surface drip irrigation

Surface drip irrigation was used for the experiment. Laying was done

manually with on and off valves fixed for each bed (Plate 1).

Plate. 3.2 Nursery bed preparation Plate. 3.3 Watering after

seeding

Plate. 3.4 Laying of surface drip

irrigation on Chilli field

Plate. 3.5 Drip system head

control unit

24

3.9 Transplanting of Chilli seedling

About nearly three weeks healthy seedlings were transplanted on 18th

November, 2016 in the well prepared experimental plots. Single seedling was

planted as per the treatment combinations.

Plate. 3.6 Transplanting chiili seedlings

3.9.1 Gap fillings

The mortality of the seedling in the field was visualized from 5th day

after transplanting up to 10th day and gap filling was done by the seedlings

from the same nursery in order to maintain the desired plant density.

3.10 Irrigation Scheduling

Just after transplanting the field was given a light irrigation. Then later

irrigation was given as per irrigation treatments. The length of irrigation time

can be determined as follows:

3.11 Drip irrigation

Crop was irrigated by using drip irrigation system as per water

requirement of the crop. Crop water requirement was calculated for every day

with the help of meteorological data.

1napplicatio of Rate

trequiremenWater hours)(in timeIrrigation

25

3.12 Fertilizer application

Nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium were applied in the form of urea,

single superphosphate and muriate of potash, respectively. Application of

recommended fertilizer was done as per treatments in equal splits at 10-30

days interval (as for the crop requirement) through fertigation.

3.13 Assessment of crop water requirement

Among the various approaches for irrigation scheduling (Jadhav et al.,

2002), the water requirement of a plant was determined for drip irrigation.

E

C B A WR

------------- 2

Where,

WR = Water requirement of a plant, (mm/day)

A = Evaporation, (mm) = Pan coefficient (0.7) × Pan evaporation

B = Amount of area covered with foliage (canopy factor), fraction

C = Crop co-efficient, fraction

E = Efficiency of drip irrigation, (considered as 90 per cent)

The water requirement for each irrigation levels was worked out based

on the above equation and the same was considered for making supply of

irrigation.

3.13.1 Crop factor (C) and Canopy factor (B)

The values of the crop factor and canopy factor for different stages of

the tomato crop were selected based on the recommended values and are

presented in the Table 3.3.

26

Table 3.3 Crop factor for Chilli at different crop stages

3.13.2 Duration of irrigation

The quantity of water to be applied was computed every day as

explained above. For the known discharge rate of emitters (2 lph), the duration

of irrigation water was calculated using the following formula.

3(m) spacing Inline spacingDripper

)(lph dischargeDripper irrigation ofDuration

3.14 Furrow irrigation (Control)

The plants kept under flood irrigation were irrigated judiciously and

measured quantity of irrigation water was given according to the

meteorological parameters and calculated by using the formula. The irrigation

was applied every 6 to 7 days interval depends on the moisture level of soil.

3.15 Inter cultivation and weeding

Inter cultivation (Herbicides) was carried out thrice at 20, 45 and 60

days after transplanting followed by two hand weeding at 30 and 90 days after

transplanting (DAT).

Crop Stage No. of days Canopy factor Crop factor

Initial stage 0-30 0.45 0.5

Development

stage 30-70

0.7 0.9

Middle stage 100-130 0.90 1.1

Fruit Maturity 0.96 0.9-1.0

Harvest stage 0.98 0.9-1.0

27

3.16 Plant protection measures

To protect the crop from various diseases and insect applications of

insecticides and fungicides are done.

3.17 Crop harvesting

The crop was harvested manually depending upon the maturity of the

Chilli, when fruits were green and attained maximum size.

3.18 Design of Drip Irrigation Systems

The drip irrigation system design is an integration of the physical

components such as emitters, valves, fittings, pipes and control equipment into

a system arrangement to be able to meet the crop water requirements. Drip

irrigation uses a pressurized network generally at lower operating pressures

and rates of application. In the systems water requirement and design intervals

must first be evaluated. The emitters are then selected (according to their

operating pressure head, discharges and spacing) and the duration of irrigation

and number of applications per day are determined. Following this, the

discharge loads in the systems are planned in accordance with the layout of the

fields and sequence of irrigation. Appropriate design of drip irrigation system

is very essential to obtain proper performance and benefits. Each irrigation

system should be designed taking into consideration of agro climatic factors,

crop physiology, soil characteristics, water source and other engineering

factors.

3.18.1 Design Procedure

It is necessary to design a suitable and economically viable system to

deliver a predefined amount of water at the root zone of each plant at regular

intervals. In general, following steps are involved in design of drip irrigation

system.

1. Calculation of crop water requirement.

2. Selection of dripper.

3. Design and selection of lateral

4. Design and selection of sub main.

28

5. Design of selection of main line.

6. Selection of Filter and fertigation equipment.

7. Selection of pump.

8. Selection of other fittings and Accessories.

3.18.2 Calculation of water requirement

While designing the drip irrigation system, highest water required for

the plant throughout its lifecycle is considered for calculation of water

requirement. While calculating peak water requirement, peak rate of evapo-

transpiration is taken into consideration. Water requirement may vary

depending upon soil type, agro-climatic conditions, crop variety etc.

Peak water requirement (PWR).

4E

dcba lant)(lit/day/p PWR

Where,

a= Evapotranspiration

b= Crop factor

c= Canopy factor

d= Area of the plant

E= Efficiency of drip system

3.18.3 Selection of Dripper

Selection of drippers should be based on water requirement, soil type,

water availability, electricity availability etc. Drippers should be selected such

that it should emit enough water to fulfill water requirement within predefined

time.

29

spacingplant Plant to

dischargeDripper plant x per drippers No.of rate(SDR) discharge Specific

Water application rate (WAR) = No. of Drippers per plant × Dripper

discharge

raten applicatioWater

trequiremenWater hours)(in timeIrrigation

timeIrrigation

ty(hr)availabiliy Electricit sections Irrigation ofNumber

3.18.4 Design and Selection of Lateral

The laterals made up of LLDPE and the Length of lateral depends on

the specific discharge rate. Laterals are available in various sizes of 12 mm,

16 mm, 20 mm etc. Design the layout of the system considering maximum

lateral running length so as to obtain higher uniformity. The selection of

maximum lateral length is based on the Specific discharge rate ( SDR) for drip

irrigation lateral, sub main and main line design is mentioned in (Annexure-

II)

spacingplant Plant to

dischargeDripper plant x per drippers No.of (SDR) rate discharge Specific

Hazen Williams formula (C=150) for friction head losses in laterals

5D

Q35.5 h

4.871

1.852

f

L

hf = head loss in meters (water) over the length of pipe

L = length of pipe in meters

Q = volumetric flow rate, lit/sec

C = pipe roughness coefficient

d = inside pipe diameter, m

30

3.18.5 Design and Selection of Sub main

After finalizing Emitters and laterals, we have to decide the number of

sections, for the entire area, so that irrigation cycle can be completed in the

available time for operation. Design of sub main for the particular section is

based on both capacity and uniformity. Sub main size should be large enough

to deliver the required amount of water to irrigate subsequent part of the field.

Calculate the discharge for the respective section, and by referring Annexure-

II, decide the size of the sub main.

The Sub main made up of PVC and the Length of sub main depends on the

specific discharge rate.

main sub ofLength

dischargedripper plantper drippers No.of main subby covered plants No.ofmain sub of rate discharge Specific

Hazen Williams formula (C-150) for Friction head losses in Sub main

6D

Q35.5 h

4.871

1.852

f

L

Where,

hf = head loss in meters (water) over the length of pipe

L = length of pipe in meters

Q = volumetric flow rate, lit/sec

d = inside pipe diameter,

3.18.6 Design and Selection of Main line

After finalizing drippers, laterals and sub main sizes and locations, we

have to connect all the sub mains to the water source using the main line. Size

of mainline is decided by considering the quantity of water flowing through it.

It’s very important to decide how many sub mains are to be operated at one

time, and based on that the flow through the mainline is calculated and size of

mainline is designed for that flow using Annexure-II.

31

The Main line made up of PVC.

3600

dischargedripper plantper drippers No.of main subby covered plants No.ofmain subin Flow

Hazen Williams formula for Friction head losses in Sub main

7D

Q27.15 h

4.871

1.852

f

L

hf = head loss in meters (water) over the length of pipe

L = length of pipe in meters

Q = volumetric flow rate, lit/sec

D = inside pipe diameter, m

3.18.7 Selection of Filter and Fertigation equipment

After finalizing drippers, laterals and sub main and main line sizes , we

have to select suitable filter and venture based on the main line flow.

Filter capacity (m3/hr)= Qmain× 3.6

Where,

Qmain=Main line flow, lps

a) Venturi selection

The venturi selection depends on the main line flow, based on the main

line flow, the motive flow of venturi was measured by using flowing formula.

motive flow of venturi = Qmain

2 𝑜𝑟 3

32

3.18.8 Selection of Pump

Size of pump depends upon the flow of water required and total

pressure required at the pump to operate the irrigation system efficiently.

While designing the system from drippers to mainline, we have finalized the

system flow (Q). The pump should have the capacity to deliver this flow. The

required total head (H) of pump is the sum of all following heads, .

Total head requirement = (Suction + Delivery head) + Head losses in

filter + Head losses in main line + Operating pressure + Head losses in fitting

+ Venturi head

3.18.9 Horse power calculation

Discharge and total head of pump is finalized then, calculate the

approximate HP of pump using following formula,

ba75

H Q HP

Where,

Q = Required discharge

H = Required total head

a = Efficiency of motor( Assumed 85%)

b = Efficient of pump(Assumed 80%)

33

34

35

Fig. 3.3 Drip irrigation system layout on field

48 m

25 m

35

3.18.10 Specification of drip irrigation system

The detail of the drip irrigation system used for experimentation is given

below:

(A) Control Head

(1) Pump – 3 hp

(2) Filter - Screen filter

(B) Distribution Network

(1) Type of main line - PVC

(2) Size of main line - 63 mm

(3) Type of sub main line - PVC

(4) Size of sub main line -50 mm

(5) Type of lateral – LDPE

(6) Size of lateral – 12 mm

(7) Spacing between laterals – 1 m

(8) Type of emitters – Inline Emitters

(9) Operating head – 1 kg cm-2

3.19 Hydraulic calculation of drip irrigation

3.19.1 Measurement of discharge from emitters.

The inline dripper having discharge capacity of 2.0 lph were

tested at different operating pressure i.e, 0.9, 1.0 and 1.2 kg /cm2 and these

pressures are maintained by using control valve at head control unit and inlet

of each lateral. The operating pressure head was measured by pressure gauge.

Water was collected from drippers to confine the discharge into the glass

beaker directly. Irrigation water was supplied from a bore well, filtered

through an inline, 100 mesh screen. Test times varied with pressure and

drippers used and converted into discharge per hour.

36

3.19.2 Uniformity coefficient :

For determination of uniformity coefficient of emitter i.e. in-line drip

irrigation system, the catch beaker were placed at each selected emission

devices of selected laterals. The system was operated at pressure 0.9 kg/ cm2,

1.00 kg/cm2 and 1.2 kg/cm2. The water was allowed to emitter in the beaker

for 6 minutes continuously. The volume of water collected in the beaker was

measured with the help of measuring cylinder. The precipitation depth was

calculated by dividing the volume of collected water with cross sectional area

of beaker. These depth were used for computing the uniformity coefficient of

the emitter calculated by the equation given by Christiansen (Michael, 1978)

where,

UC = Uniformity coefficient (%)

m = Average of all observations.

n = Total number of observations.

X = Numerical deviation of individual observation from average depth.

8mn

X1100UC

37

Plate.3.7 Emitter Discharge

3.19.3 Emission uniformity (EU)

Emission uniformity is the measure of the uniformity of emitter

discharge from all the emitter of drip irrigation system and is the single most

important parameter for evaluating system performance. EU shows

relationship between minimum and average emitter (dischargeKarmeli and

Kelper (1975). Emission uniformity of the emitter was calculated by the

equation given below:

Minimum rate of discharge

EU = ———————————— x 100

Average rate of discharge

Table 3.4. Recommended classifications of emission uniformity.

3.20 Irrigation efficiencies

The application efficiency, distribution efficiency and water use

efficiency (WUE) for drip irrigation were computed under the following

section.

EU range Ratings

90 % or greater Excellent

80 - 90 % Good

70 - 80 % Fair

Less than 70 % Poor

38

(a) For drip irrigation method

The application efficiency of drip irrigation was computed using the

following equation (Nakayama and Bucks, 1986).

9 --------- 100V

Tq ee

min a

Where,

ea = Application efficiency, (per cent)

e = Total number of emitters,

qmin = Minimum emitters flow rate, (lph)

T = Total irrigation time, (h)

V = Total volume of water applied, (l)

3.20.1 Water use efficiency

The fruit yield obtained for each treatment was divided by the quantity

of water used consumptively for the respective treatments by this method.

Water use efficiency was worked out and expressed in kg per ha-mm of water

used.

(mm) used water ofamount Total

(kg/ha) Yieldmm)-(kg/haWUE

3.20.2 Fertilizer use efficiency

The fertilizer use efficiency was computed as described by Veeranna (2000).

(kg/ha) appliednutrient ofquantity Total

(kg/ha) YieldFUE

39

3.21 Biometric parameters

The following observations were recorded at intervals of 30, 60, 90,

120 and 160 days after transplanting on five randomly tagged competitive

plants from each plot of every replication for studying various characters i.e.

growth characters, flowering, quality characters, and yield.

3.21.1 Plant height

Plant height was recorded at intervals of 30, 60, 90, 120 and 160 days

after transplanting (DAT). Height was measured from the base of the plant to

the top of the plant with the help of meter scale.

3.21.2 Number of primary and secondary branches per plant

The numbers of primary and secondary branches were counted on each

plant emerging from the trunk and average was worked out.

3.21.3 Stem girth

Stem girth was recorded at intervals of 30, 60, 90, 120 and 160 days

after transplanting (DAT).

3.21.4 Days to 50 percent flowering

Days required to 50 per cent of plants get flowered in every plot were

counted and mean value was worked out.

40

Plate. 3.8 Plant biometric parameters

Plate. 3.9 Chilli plant flowering stage

41

3.22 Yield and Yield parameters

3.22.1 No. of fruits per plant

The fruits obtained from the selected five plants at harvest were

counted and averaged.

3.22.2 Fruits Length

The fruit length obtained from the selected five plants at harvest were

counted and averaged.

3.22.3 Diameter of the fruit

The Diameter of the fruits obtained from the selected five plants at

harvest were counted and averaged.

3.22.4. 100 fruit weight (g)

Weight of 100 fruits randomly selected from fruits of net plot and

expressed in grams.

3.22.5 Fruits weight per plant (g)

The Chillies obtained from all the pickings from the 5 selected plants

were mixed and the weight was recorded and expressed in grams.

3.22.6 Crop yield per hectare

Yield per hectare was calculated from the fruits yield per net plot.

42

Plate. 3.10 Crop Yield

3.23 Soil moisture measurement

Soil samples were collected randomly from the field at 15, 20 and 30

cm depth from the surface of the soil. Moisture content of the soil was

determined by gravimetric method using the following relation. The soil

samples of the experimental plots were collected from the specified locations

43

and moisture contents of each soil sample was determined using standard

methods.

10100W

W-W db) e(percentagcontent Moisture

2

21 X

Where,

W1 = Wet mass of soil, g

W2 = Dry mass of soil, g

Plate.3.11 Soil Moisture test

3.24 Cost economics

Economics of drip irrigation and furrow irrigation method with

Fertigation levels were worked out to compute the net returns and benefit-cost

ratio. For this purpose, the life period of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) items was

considered as 10 years (Safanotas and Dipoala, 1985) and that of the

submersible pump set was taken as 15 years (Sahay, 1986). One ha area, under

each treatment was considered for comparison. The fixed cost, operation cost

and total cost were worked out (Appendix III).

44

3.24.1 Fixed cost

Fixed cost consisted of interest on initial cost and depreciation on the

system. The interest calculated on the capital was at the rate of 12 per cent per

annum as per the prevailing bank rates. The depreciation on the system was

worked out as follows.

I - S

D = L

-------------11

Where,

D= Depreciation per annum, (Rs.)

I = Initial cost of system, (Rs.)

S= Salvage value (10 per cent of initial cost, Rs.)

L= Economic life period, years.

3.24.2 Operational cost

Operational cost is the amount which is actually paid by the farmer in

cash throughout the crop period for carrying various agricultural operations.

Total operational cost of the system is the operational cost plus interest on

operational cost at the rate of 12 per cent.

3.24.3 Total cost

Total cost is calculated by sum of fixed cost and operating cost.

3.25 Statistical analysis

The data of the observations made and characters studied were

statistically analyzed using Randomized Block Design (RBD), wherever the

results are significant, the critical difference at 5 per cent level was worked out

and presented. The data were analyzed by using ‘MS Excel’ software.

45

CHAPTER- VI

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The present investigation was carried out to study the "studies on

irrigation and fertigation management on chilli (capsicum annuum) under drip

system”. The results obtained from the study are presented under the following

headings.

1. Water requirement of Chilli crop

2. Design and Hydraulic performance of drip system

3. Biometric parameters of Chilli crop

4. Yield and yield parameters of Chilli crop

5. Water saving and water use efficiency (WUE)

6. Economical studies

4.1 Water requirement of Chilli crop

Before start of the experiment as applicable to all the treatments under

drip irrigation and control irrigation, moisture content were brought to the

level of field capacity so as to monitor the moisture depletion critically in all

the treatments. Subsequently, the irrigation water was delivered under drip

irrigation as per treatments and depth of irrigation was calculated (Appedix-I).

The amounts of water applied per month for different levels of drip irrigation

and control irrigation are presented in Table 4.1 and fig. 4.1. In drip irrigation

at 60 per cent PE, the monthly water requirement varied from 8.66 mm in

November, 2016 to 131.70 mm in April, 2017. In drip irrigation at 80 per cent

PE, the water requirement varied from 11.54 mm in November, 2016 to

175.60 mm in April, 2017. In drip irrigation at 100 per cent PE, the water

requirement varied from 14.43 mm in November, 2016 to 219.51 mm in April,

2017 and similarly in Control irrigation varied from 50 mm in November,

2016 to 266 mm in April, 2017 respectively. It was also observed that the

water requirement was minimum during the month of November, 2016 and

maximum during April, 2017. Total amount of water applied to the crop

46

depending on the irrigation levels are I1, I2, I3, and I4 with 441.28 mm, 592.81

mm, 735.47 mm and 961 mm depth of water respectively. Similar results have

been reported by Khalkho et al. (2013).

Table 4.1. Monthly depth of water applied (mm) to Chilli crop under

different levels of drip irrigation during rabi (Nov 2016- April 2017)

Months

Depth of water applied through Drip irrigation system

and Control irrigation at different irrigation levels, mm

I1

( 60% PE)

I2

( 80% PE)

I3

(100% PE)

I4

(Control)

November 8.66 11.54 14.43 50

December 34.94 46.58 58.23 90

January 60.98 81.31 101.64 160

February 89.30 119.07 148.84 155

March 115.70 158.70 192.84 240

April 131.70 175.60 219.51 266

Total 441.28 592.81 735.47 961

Per cent

saving over I3 40 19.4 00 00

Per cent

saving over I4 54.08 38.31 23.46 00

The depth of water applied per day averaged on monthly basis are

presented in (Table. 4.2) and fig. 4.3. It was observed that, the daily water

requirement averaged on monthly basis varied from 0.62 mm in November,

2016 to 4.39 mm in April, 2017 for drip irrigation at 60 per cent PE. For 80

per cent PE, it varied from 0.82 mm in November, 2016 to 5.85 mm in April,

2017 for 100 per cent PE it varied from 1.03 mm in November, 2016 to 7.32

mm in April, 2017. Similarly for Control irrigation, it varied from 3.51 mm in

November, 2016 to 8.87 mm in April, 2017.

47

Table 4.2. Depth of water applied in mm per day under different drip

irrigation levels averaged on monthly basis during rabi (Nov

2016-April 2017)

Months

Daily average water applied through drip irrigation and

control irrigation at different irrigation levels, mm/day

I1

( 60% PE)

I2

( 80% PE)

I3

(100% PE)

I4

(Control)

November,

2016 0.62 0.82 1.03 3.57

December,

2016 1.13 1.50 1.88 2.90

January, 2017 2.03 2.62 3.28 5.16

February, 2017 3.19 4.25 4.80 5.53

March, 2017

3.73 5.12 6.22 7.74

April 2017 4.39 5.85 7.32 8.87

Fig. 4.1. Depth of water applied on monthly basis

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

De

pth

of

irri

gati

on

, mm

Monthly water applied after DAT

I1 ( 60% PE) I2 ( 80% PE) I3 (100% PE) I4 (Control)

48

Fig. 4.2. Total depth of irrigation to the chilli crop

Fig. 4.3. Daily average water applied to the crop

0100200300400500600700800900

1000

( 60% PE) ( 80% PE) (100% PE) (Control)

I1 I2 I3 I4

De

pth

of

Irri

gati

on

, mm

PE Levels

Total depth of irrigation

I1 ( 60% PE)

I2 ( 80% PE)

I3 (100% PE)

I4 (Control)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

November, 16December, 16January, 17February, 2017March, 17 Apr-17

De

pth

of

wat

er,

mm

/day

Months of water applied to the crop

I1 ( 60% PE) I2 ( 80% PE) I3 (100% PE) I4 (Control)

49

4.2 Design and Hydraulic performance of Drip Irrigation Systems

4.2.1 Calculation of Peak water requirement

0.9

0.45110.988.7 lant)(lit/day/p PWR

=3.82 lit/day/plant

The peak water requirement of chilli crop at maximum growth period

was 3.82 lit/day/plant. Based on the maximum crop factor, canopy factor, crop

spacing and efficiency of drip system was find the PWR of the crop. The

selection of dripper and as well as the total design of drip system is depends

on PWR.

4.2.2 Selection of Dripper

The selected dripper having 2 lph discharge. it was selected based on

water requirement, soil type, water availability, electricity availability etc. so

that, it emit enough water to fulfill water requirement within predefined time.

Water application rate (WAR) = 1 × 2

= 2 lph

hr91.12

3.82 hours)(in timeIrrigation

14.31.91

6 sections irrigation of No.

The water application rate through drip is 2 lph, irrigation time was

1.91 hrs and we can irrigate the field maximum 3 sections, it's depends on the

electricity availability. Based on the irrigation time and water application rate,

the crop water requirement was full filled. Similar results have been reported

by Ram Kumar et al. (2016).

50

4.2.3 Design and Selection of Lateral

The maximum lateral length was selected, based on the specific

discharge rate curve or monograph for drip irrigation lateral, sub main and

main line design is mentioned in (Appendix-II).

mlph /44.4 (SDR) lateral of rate discharge Specific

The length of the lateral= 25m

Diameter of the lateral= 12 mm

Head losses in the pipe hf = 0.4 m

The length and diameter of the lateral depending on the specific

discharge rate. Where the SDR (4.44 lph/m) align in the curve is touching

under the head loss (hf) 2m, depending on the point and field's requirements,

the pipe length and diameter was selected.

Based on the SDR curve, 12 mm diameter of the lateral to be run

maximum up to 50 m at hf 2 m. The requirement of the lateral length based on

the field 25 m at hf 0.4 m.

4.2.4 Design and Selection of Sub main

Table: 4.3 Design specification and head losses in sub main

Section Sub

main

No.

Length Area covered

by s/m

M2

No. of plants

covered by

s/m

SDR of s/m

lph/m

Diameter

of s/m, mm

Hf

M

I 1 48 1200 2490 103.75 50 0.1

II 2 48 1200 2640 108.33 50 0.1

II 3 48 1200 2490 103.75 50 0.1

51

The drip design is designed with a combination of 3 crops, not just a

chilli crop. Another 2 crops under the water source were cauliflower and

potato. The crop and sub main line details are given above the table. 4.3.

The length and diameter of the sub main depending on the specific

discharge rate. Where the SDR (108.33 lph/m) align in the curve is touching

under the head loss (hf), depending on the point and field's requirements, the

pipe diameter and length was selected.

Based on the SDR curve, 50 mm diameter of the sub main to be run

maximum up to 90 m at hf 1.8 m. The requirement of the sub main length

based on the field 48 m at hf is 0.1 m. since three sections are irrigated one

after another. The sub main designed SDR curve mentioned in (Appendix- II)

4.2.5 Design and Selection of Main line

Table: 4.4 Design and specification of main line

Sectiom s/m

no.

From To Lenth of

main line,

m

SDR of

main line,

lps

Diameter

of main

line, mm

Class Hf,

m/1000m

Actual

Hf, m

I 1 s/m 1 Ws 50 1.38 63 III 3.4 0.17

II 2 s/m 2 Ws 75 1.44 63 III 3.5 0.26

III 3 s/m 3 Ws 100 1.38 63 III 3.4 0.34

Ws= Water source

As we irrigated one section (Chilli crop) at one time, therefore flow in sub

main line equal to flow in main line.

Flow in main line= 1.44 lps

The length and diameter of the main line depending on the specific

discharge rate. Where the SDR (1.44 lps) align in the curve is touching under

the head loss (hf), depending on the point and field's requirements, the pipe

diameter and length was selected. The details are given above the table. 4.4.

52

Based on the SDR curve, 63 mm diameter of the main line hf 3.5

m/1000 m. The requirement of the main line length based on the field at

section-I, Section-II and Section-III are 50 m, 75, m, 100 m respectively, at hf

is 0.17 m, 0.26 m, 0.34 respectively. so the maximum head loses(hf) 0.34 m

was taken for main line design. The main line designed SDR curve mentioned

in (Appendix- II)

4.2.6 Selection of Filter and Fertigation equipment

filter capacity(m3/hr)= 1.44× 3.6

= 5.18 m3 /hr

selected Jain screen filter meter 1.5"× 20", 10 m3/hr discharge with manual

manifold and manual back wash.

Head losses in filter (hf) = 5 m

The selection of filter according to the water source and the quality of

water. The water source is ground water and quality of water is good. Based

on the water quality and source of water, screen filter are sufficient.

a) Venturi selection

motive flow of venturi = 1.44

2 = 0.72 lps

Based on the motive flow of ventury, 3"/4 venturi complete assembly was

selected.

Head losses in venturi (hf)= 5 m

4.2.7 Selection of Pump

Total head requirement = 50+ 5+0.34+ 10+ 2+ 5

= 72.34 m

53

The total head losses in the drip design was 72.34 m. based on the head losses,

discharge and pump efficiency, horse power (HP) was calculated.

0.80.8575

72.34 1.44 HP

= 2.04 hp

2.04 hp was required for satisfactory operating of the drip system, but 3 hp

pump was already installed in the field. For that by using the over flow pipe,

to irrigate the other field.

Table.4.5. Specifications and Parts of Drip system

S. NO Drip parts Specifications

1 Emitters discharge 2 lph

2 No. of emitters 1700/ section

3 Laterals Diameter 12 mm

4 Laterals length 25 m

5 Total length of Laterals 675 m/ section

6 Sub main line diameter 50 mm

7 Sub main line length 48 m/ section

8 Total length of sub main 144 m

9 Main line diameter 63 mm

10 Main line length 100 m

11 Screen filter 1.5"×20"

12 Screen filter capacity 10 m3/hr

13 Venturi 3"/4

14 Pump 3 hp

15 Water source Ground water

16 Ground water available depth 50 m ( 165 feet's)

54

4.3 Hydraulic performance of drip irrigation system

The hydraulic performance of drip irrigation system was evaluated

through different operating pressures, uniform coefficient, emission

uniformity, coefficient of variation and irrigation efficiency at different

operating pressures. The results are discussed as follows:

4.3.1 Measurement of discharge from emitters

The discharge of emitters were operated at 3 different operating

pressures, they are 0.9, 1.0 and 1.2 kg/cm2. The discharges of emitters in drip

irrigation system were measured at different pressures with the help of

pressure gauge, and they were presented in Table 4.8. The discharge rate also

increased, when the pressures were increased from 0.90 to 1.2 kg/cm2.

Similarly, the pressure is decreased, the discharge of emitter also decreased.

At 1.2 kg/cm2 of maximum pressure , the discharge of 2 lph emitters got

discharge with 1.95 lph. When the pressure decreased from 1.2 to 1.0 kg/cm2

and 1.0 to 0.9 kg/cm2, then the discharge rate also decreased to 1.875 lph and

1.75 lph respectively. All these discharge variation data at different operating

pressures are presented in the table.4.6 and fig 4.4. Similar results have been

reported by Popale et al. (2011).

Table. 4.6 Average emitters flow rate(lph) under different operating

pressures

Emitter Average emitter flow rate (lph)

0.9 kg/cm2 1.0 kg/cm2 1.2 kg/cm2

2 lph 1.75 1.875 1.95

4.3.2 Uniformity coefficient

The maximum uniformity coefficient was 96.3 % at 1.2 kg/cm²

operating pressure in 2 lph emitter discharge. Similarly the uniform coefficient

were 92.25% at 1.0 kg/cm2 and 89.13% at 0.9 kg/cm2 operating pressure in 2

55

lph emitters respectively. The minimum Uniform coefficient was found at 0.9

kg/cm2 operating pressure with 89.13 %.

What this means is that the uniform coefficient increases as the

operating pressure increases accordingly operating pressure. At a particular

spacing, the average rate of discharge increased as the operating pressure head

increased due to constant emission point per unit length of lateral. Hence

uniformity coefficient increased as the operating pressure head increased for

all emission devices. The values of uniformity coefficient at different

pressures are given in Table. 4.7 and presented in fig. 4.5 . The results are in

uniformity with the finding of Popale et. al (2011), Sandeep Kumar and Pratap

Singh (2007).

Table. 4.7. Uniform coefficient under different operating pressures.

Operating pressure Uniform coefficient, %

2 lph emitters

1.2 (kg/cm2) 96.3

Classification Excellent

1.0 (kg/cm2) 92.5

Classification Excellent

0.9 (kg/cm2) 89.13

Classification Very good

56

Fig.4.4. Average emitter discharge under different operating pressures

Fig.4.5. Uniformity coefficient of drip under different operating pressures

1.6

1.65

1.7

1.75

1.8

1.85

1.9

1.95

2

0.9 kg/cm2 1.0 kg/cm2 1.2 kg/cm2

Em

itte

r d

isch

arg

e, l

ph

Operating pressure

0.9 kg/cm2 1.0 kg/cm2 1.2 kg/cm2

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

1.2(kg/cm2)

1.0(kg/cm2)

0.9(kg/cm2)

Un

iform

coef

fici

ent,

%

Emitter operating pressure

1.2 (kg/cm2) 1.0 (kg/cm2) 0.9 (kg/cm2)

57

4.3.3 Emission uniformity

Emission uniformity of the system decides the uniformity distribution

of discharge by each emitter or uniformity distribution of water to each crop.

The Drip irrigation system was operated at 0.9, 1.0 and 1.2 kg/cm2 operating

pressures for 2.0 lph dripper discharge at spacing of 40 cm.

Table. 4.8. Emission uniformity under different operating pressures

Operating pressure Emission uniformity

2 lph emitters

1.2 (kg/cm2) 94.3

Classification Excellent

1.0 (kg/cm2) 90.7

Classification Good

0.9 (kg/cm2) 85.7

Classification Good

The maximum emission uniformity was 94.3% at 1.2 kg/cm2 operating

pressure in 2 lph discharge emitters. similarly the emission uniformity were

90.7% and 85.7% at 1.0 and 0.9 kg/cm2 operating pressure in 2 lph emitters

respectively. What this means is that the emission increases as the operating

pressure increases. It is clear from the result (Table 4.8 with fig. 4.6) that

emission uniformity at 1.2 kg/cm2 operating pressure is best with 94.3 %. The

results are in uniformity with the finding of Popale et. al (2011), Sandeep

Kumar and Pratap Singh (2007).

58

Fig. 4.6. Emission uniformity of drip under different operating pressures

4.3.4 Application efficiency

The application efficiencies for different treatments are given in Table

4.9 It is observed that application efficiency ranged from 93.65 (100 per cent

PE) to 94.83 (60 per cent PE) for drip treatments. The higher application

efficiency in drip irrigation as may be due the fact that in drip irrigation

system the percolation losses below the crop root zone and runoff losses were

negligible, which resulted in more efficient application of the water.

Table.4.9. Application efficiency of drip system

Treatments Application efficiency (per cent)

Operating pressure 1.2 kg/cm2

I1 94.83

I2 94.56

I3 93.65

80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

1.2(kg/cm2)

1.0(kg/cm2)

0.9(kg/cm2)

Emis

sio

n u

nif

orm

ity,

%

Emitter operating pressures

1.2 (kg/cm2) 1.0 (kg/cm2) 0.9 (kg/cm2)

59

4.4 Biometric parameters

The effects of different irrigation levels and Fertilizer levels on

vegetative parameters of Chilli crop are presented below.

4.4.1 Plant height (cm)

The data on plant height as influenced by Irrigation levels and fertilizer

levels and their interactions on plant height recorded in different dates i.e. 30,

60, 90, 120 and 160 DAT (Table 4.10 (a), 4.10 (b) and (Fig. 4.7).

The irrigation levels and fertilizer levels was significantly influenced by the

plant height at 30,60,90,120 and 160 days after transplanting (DAT) of chilli.

Whereas, application of different levels of fertilizers had significant effect on

plant height of chilli.

The variation in plant height differed significantly due to interaction

effects. Significantly, the maximum plants height was 32.28 cm,46.22 cm,

57.03 cm, 70.8 cm and 74.23 cm respectively were recorded under the

treatment I3 followed by I2 (34.30 cm, 45.8 cm, 54.93 cm, 67.9 cm and 72.47

cm respectively) and I1(31.98 cm, 43.20 cm, 49.67 cm, 61.33 cm and 65.97

cm respectively). The plant height was minimum under the control irrigation I4

(28.48 cm, 36.20 cm, 45.23 cm, 53.40 cm and 57.63 cm respectively) at

different DAT. Due to the effect of fertilizer levels, significantly maximum

plant height was observed in treatment F3 (34.53 cm, 45.07 cm, 55.90 cm,

69.33 cm and 72.93 cm ) and followed by F2 (33.82 cm, 43.93 cm, 55.40 cm,

67.13 and 72.20 cm) at different dates i.e. 30, 60, 90, 120 and 160 DAT

respectively. The plant height was minimum at F1 (32.22 cm, 41.67 cm, 51.33

cm, 63.67 cm and 67.53 cm respectively).

The combination of irrigation and fertilizer levels effect on chilli crop,

the maximum plant height was found under the treatment level of I3F3 , 34.28

cm, 46.22 cm, 59.6 cm, 73.9 cm and 77 cm with the respective DAT and

minimum plant height found in control irrigation I4 , 28.43 cm, 36.20 cm,

45.23 cm, 53.40 cm and 57.63 cm with respect to the DAT. Plant height was

high in I3f3 at 30 DAT to harvesting time (160DAT), The maximum plant

60

height in I3f3 was 77 cm and followed by i3f2, i2f3, i2f2, i3f1, i2f1, i1f3, i1f2 and

i1f1 irrigation and fertilizer levels with plant height 75.5 cm, 74.6 cm, 74.5

cm, 70.2 cm, 68.3 cm, 67.2 cm, 66.6 cm and 64.1 cm at 160 DAT

respectively. The minimum plant height found in control irrigation I4 was

57.63 cm at 160 DAT and followed drip irrigation levels I1F1 (64.1 cm), I1F2

(66.6 cm), I1F3 (67.2 cm) 160 DAT respectively. Similar results have been

reported by Ram Kumar et al. (2016) and Vijayakumar et al. (2010).

4.4.2 Number of primary branches per plant

The data on total number of primary branches per plant at different

stages of crop growth as influenced by irrigation levels and fertilizers levels

are presented in Table 4.11(a), 4.11(b) and Fig. 4.8.

Significantly among irrigation levels, maximum number of primary

branches 3.0, 6.1, 8.67, 10.18 and 11.32 were recorded under the treatment I2

followed by I1 (2.47, 5.8, 7.43, 8.77 and 10.3) and I3(2.87, 5.9, 7.64, 8.66 and

8.7) respectively. The minimum number of primary branches were under the

control irrigation I4 (2, 4.2, 5.7, 6. and 7.2) respectively at different dates. Due

to effect of fertilizer levels, significantly maximum number of primary

branches were observed in treatment F3 (3.2, 5.93, 8.23,9.51 and 10.11) and

followed by F2 (2.77, 5.43, 8.17, 9.32 and 9.97) at different dates i.e. 30, 60,

90, 120 and 160 DAT respectively. The numbers of branches were minimum

in F1 (2.37, 5.17, 7.34, 8.43 and 9.32) at 30, 60, 90, 120 and 160 DAT

respectively. In the interaction effect maximum number of primary branches

ranged from 3.3 to 11.8 and 3.1 to 11.32 under the treatments I2F2 then

followed by I2F3 at 30 to 160 DAT respectively.

As regards of interaction effect significantly maximum number of

primary branches were recorded in treatment I2F2 (11.8) at 160 DAT, while

minimum number of primary branches were significant I1F1(8.5) at 160 DAT ,

similarly the minimum primary branches were found in control irrigation I4

(7.2) at 160 DAT. Due to the effect of irrigation levels, maximum number of

branches 11.8 were observed in treatment I2 followed by I1 (10.3), I3(8.7) and

minimum under treatments I4 (7.2) at 160 DAT. Among fertilizer levels,

61

maximum number of primary branches were recorded under the treatment F3

(10.11) and minimum under treatment F1 (9.32) at 160 DAT. especially the

control irrigation were very less primary branches (7.2 at 160 DAT) compared

to drip irrigation levels.

4.4.3 Number of secondary branches per plant.

The irrigation and fertilizer levels significantly effected on secondary

branches of chilli crop. The data on total number of secondary branches per

plant at different stages of crop growth as influenced by irrigation levels and

fertilizers levels are presented in Table 4.12(a), 4. 12(b) and Fig. 4.9.

The secondary branches of chilli crop, significantly depends on the

irrigation levels. The maximum number of secondary branches 13.77, 25.33,

37.63, 44.8 and 48.2 was recorded under the treatment I2 followed by I3 (12.11,

25.6, 37.97, 42.4 and 45.13) and I1 (9.83, 22.12, 32.1, 35.83 and 41.2)

respectively. The minimum number of secondary branches was under the

control irrigation I4 (5.7, 13.7, 19.2, 24.6 and 28) respectively at different

dates. Due to effect of fertilizer levels, significantly maximum number of

secondary branches were observed in treatment F2 (12.13, 25.77, 38.7, 43.12

and 46.33) and followed by F3 (12.9, 25.97, 37.03, 41.8 and 44,67) at different

dates i.e. 30, 60, 90, 120 and 160 DAT respectively. The numbers of

secondary branches were minimum in F1 (10.67, 21.37, 31.92, 38.1 and 42.63)

at 30, 60, 90, 120 and 160 DAT respectively.

As regards of interaction effect significantly maximum number of

secondary branches were recorded in treatment I2F2 (50.6) at 160 DAT, while

minimum number of primary branches were significant I1F1(38.5) at 160 DAT

, similarly the minimum secondary branches were found in control irrigation

I4(28) at 160 DAT.

62

Table. 4.10(a) Effect of irrigation levels and fertilizer levels on plant height

Treatments

30 DAT 60 DAT 90 DAT

Fertilizer levels

PE Level (%) F1 F2 F3 Mean F1 F2 F3 Mean F1 F2 F3 Mean

I1 30.75 32.4 32.8 31.98 39.5 41.3 43.2 43.2 48.2 49.8 51 49.67

I2 33.9 34.4 34.6 34.30 43.1 45.6 45.8 45.8 51.3 56.4 57.1 54.93

I3 32 34.65 36.2 34.28 42.4 44.9 46.22 46.22 54.5 57 59.6 57.03

Mean 32.22 33.82 34.53 41.67 43.93 45.07 51.33 54.40 55.90

For comparing the

mean of

Irrigation (I) Fertilizer(F) Irrigation (I) Fertilizer(F) Irrigation (I) Fertilizer(F)

SEM ± 0.7314 0.869 1.3667 1.310 0.6571 0.803

CD 2.602 3.923 2.405

SE(d) 1.229 1.853 1.136

C.V. 4.559 5.312 2.622

Irrigation levels Fertilizer Levels

I1 : 60% of PE through Drip F1 : 80% Recommended Dose for Fertilizer(RDF).

I2 : 80 % of PE through Drip F2 : 100% Recommended Dose for Fertilizer(RDF).

I3 : 100 % of PE through Drip F3 : 120% Recommended Dose for Fertilizer(RDF).

I4 : Control (Furrow) Irrigation.

63

Table. 4.10(b). Effect of irrigation levels and fertilizer levels on plant height

Treatment 120 DAT 160 DAT

Fertilizer levels

PE levels (%) F1 F2 F3 Mean F1 F2 F3 Mean

I1 59.6 61 63.4 61.33 64.1 66.6 67.2 65.97

I2 64 69 70.7 67.9 68.3 74.5 74.6 72.47

I3 67.1 71.4 73.9 70.8 70.2 75.5 77 74.23

Mean 63.57 67.13 69.33 67.53 72.20 72.93

For comparing the mean of Irrigation (I) Fertilizer(F) Irrigation (I) Fertilizer(F)

SEM ± 1.2542 1.363 0.3514 0525

CD 4.082 1.573

SE(d) 1.928 0.743

C.V. 3.676 1.308

Control Irrigation 30 60 90 120 160

I4 28.43 36.2 45.23 53.4 57.63

Irrigation levels Fertilizer Levels

I1 : 60% of PE through Drip F1 : 80% Recommended Dose for Fertilizer(RDF).

I2 : 80 % of PE through Drip F2 : 100% Recommended Dose for Fertilizer(RDF).

I3 : 100 % of PE through Drip F3 : 120% Recommended Dose for Fertilizer(RDF).

I4 : Control (Furrow) Irrigation.

64

Table 4.11 (a). Effect of different irrigation levels and fertilizer levels on number of primary branches per plant

Treatment 30 DAT 60 DAT 90 DAT

Fertilizer levels

PE levels (%) F1 F2 F3 Mean F1 F2 F3 Mean F1 F2 F3 Mean

I1 2 2 3.4 2.47 4.4 4.3 5.8 5.8 6.7 7.5 8.1 7.43

I2 2.6 3.3 3.1 3.00 5.8 6.5 6.1 6.1 8.2 9.2 8.6 8.67

I3 2.5 3 3.1 2.87 5.3 5.5 5.9 5.9 7.12 7.8 8 7.64

Mean 2.37 2.77 3.20 5.17 5.43 5.93 7.34 8.17 8.23

For comparing the mean

of

Irrigation (I) Fertilizer(F) Irrigation (I) Fertilizer(F) Irrigation (I) Fertilizer(F)

SEM ± 0.0869 0.093 0.0796 0.080 0.0687 0.058

CD 0.277 0.238 0.174

SE(d) 0.131 0.113 0.082

C.V. 5.936 2.563 1.311

Irrigation levels Fertilizer Levels

I1 : 60% of PE through Drip F1 : 80% Recommended Dose for Fertilizer(RDF).

I2 : 80 % of PE through Drip F2 : 100% Recommended Dose for Fertilizer(RDF).

I3 : 100 % of PE through Drip F3 : 120% Recommended Dose for Fertilizer(RDF).

I4 : Control (Furrow) Irrigation.

65

Table 4.11 (b). Effect of different irrigation levels and fertilizer levels on number of primary branches per plant

Treatment 120 DAT 160 DAT

Fertilizer levels

PE levels (%) F1 F2 F3 Mean F1 F2 F3 Mean

I1 7.9 8.62 9.8 8.77 8.5 9.1 10.3 10.3

I2 9.3 10.74 10.5 10.18 10.8 11.8 11.32 11.32

I3 8.1 8.6 8.23 8.31 8.66 9 8.7 8.7

Mean 8.43 9.32 9.51 9.32 9.97 10.11

For comparing the mean of Irrigation (I) Fertilizer(F) Irrigation (I) Fertilizer(F)

SEM ± 0.0565 0.056 0.0861 0.097

CD 0.167 0.289

SE(d) 0.079 0.137

C.V. 1.095 1.753

Control Irrigation 30 60 90 120 160

I4 2 4.2 5.7 6.8 7.2

Irrigation levels Fertilizer Levels

I1 : 60% of PE through Drip F1 : 80% Recommended Dose for Fertilizer(RDF).

I2 : 80 % of PE through Drip F2 : 100% Recommended Dose for Fertilizer(RDF).

I3 : 100 % of PE through Drip F3 : 120% Recommended Dose for Fertilizer(RDF).

I4 : Control (Furrow) Irrigation.

66

Fig.4.7 Effect of irrigation levels and fertilizer levels on plant height (cm) in

chilli at harvest(160 DAT)

Fig.4.8 Effect of irrigation levels and fertilizer levels on Primary branches in

chilli at harvest(160 DAT)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

I1 I2 I3 I4

Pri

mar

y B

ran

che

s

PE Levels

F1 F2 F3 I4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

I1 I2 I3 I4

Pla

nt

He

ght,

cm

PE Levels, %

F1 F2 F3 I4

67

Table.4.12 (a) Effect of irrigation levels and fertilizer levels on secondary branches

Treatment 30 DAT 60 DAT 90 DAT

Fertilizer levels

PE levels(%) F1 F2 F3 Mean F1 F2 F3 Mean F1 F2 F3 Mean

I1 8.2 10 11.3 9.83 19.5 21.8 25.2 22.17 28.6 33 34.7 32.10

I2 13.5 14 13.8 13.77 22 27.3 26.7 25.33 32.4 42.5 38 37.63

I3 10.32 12.4 13.6 12.11 22.6 28.2 26 25.60 34.9 40.6 38.4 37.97

Mean 10.67 12.13 12.90 21.37 25.77 25.97 31.97 38.70 37.03

For comparing the mean of Irrigation (I) Fertilizer(F) Irrigation (I) Fertilizer(F) Irrigation (I) Fertilizer(F)

SEM ± 0.1083 0.117 0.1316 0.123 0.1304 0.137

CD 0.351 0.37 0.41

SE(d) 0.166 1.798 0.175

C.V. 0.918 0.194 0.693

Irrigation levels Fertilizer Levels

I1 : 60% of PE through Drip F1 : 80% Recommended Dose for Fertilizer(RDF).

I2 : 80 % of PE through Drip F2 : 100% Recommended Dose for Fertilizer(RDF).

I3 : 100 % of PE through Drip F3 : 120% Recommended Dose for Fertilizer(RDF).

I4 : Control (Furrow) Irrigation.

68

Table 4.12 (b). Effect of irrigation levels and fertilizer levels on secondary branches

Treatment 120 DAT 160 DAT

Fertilizer levels

PE levels (%) F1 F2 F3 Mean F1 F2 F3 Mean

I1 32 37.4 38.1 35.83 38.5 40.1 41.7 41.7

I2 42.3 48 44.1 44.8 46.4 50.6 48.2 48.2

I3 40 44 43.2 42.4 43 48.3 44.1 45.13

Mean 38.1 43.13 41.8 42.63 46.33 44.67

For comparing the mean of Irrigation (I) Fertilizer(F) Irrigation (I) Fertilizer(F)

SEM ± 0.2053 0.255 0.3077 0.347

CD 0.764 1.039

SE(d) 0.361 1.121

C.V. 0.491 1.385

Irrigation levels Fertilizer Levels

I1 : 60% of PE through Drip F1 : 80% Recommended Dose for Fertilizer(RDF).

I2 : 80 % of PE through Drip F2 : 100% Recommended Dose for Fertilizer(RDF).

I3 : 100 % of PE through Drip F3 : 120% Recommended Dose for Fertilizer(RDF).

I4 : Control (Furrow) Irrigation.

69

Fig. 4.9 Effect of irrigation levels and fertilizer levels on secondary branches

4.4.4 Stem girth

The data on the effect of different levels of irrigation and fertilizers on stem

girth has been presented in Table 4.13(a), 4.13(b) and illustrated in Fig.4.10.

The stem girth varied significantly due to the effect of irrigation and

fertigation levels on chilli crop, the maximum stem girth of chilli crop ranges

from 0.88 to 2.12 cm at I2 based on the levels of irrigation. simillarly the

maximum effect of fertilizer levels on chilli crop ranges from 0.86 to 2.04 cm

at F2.

Comparing the effects of different irrigation and fertilizer levels, the

maximum stem girth (2.26 cm) was observed at I2F2, which was significantly

superior over that produced (2.1 cm and 2.02 cm) by I2F1 and I3F1 at 160 DAT

respectively. The minimum stem girth (1.92 cm) was measured in I1F1 at 160

DAT. The overall observations, the minimum stem girth was found in control

irrigation (1.58) at 160 DAT. The stem girth variations on chilli crop are

presented in table 4 and fig.2. Similar results have been reported by Nadiya

Nesthad et al. (2013)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

I1 I2 I3 I4

Seco

nd

ary

Bra

nch

es

PE Levels

F1 F2 F3 I4

70

Table 4.13 (a). Effect of irrigation levels and fertilizer levels on stem girth

Treatment

30 DAT 60 DAT 90 DAT

Fertilizer levels

PE levels (%) F1 F2 F3 Mean F1 F2 F3 Mean F1 F2 F3 Mean

I1 0.76 0.83 0.8 0.80 1.12 1.2 1.16 1.16 1.4 1.48 1.37 1.42

I2 0.83 0.94 0.86 0.88 1.26 1.24 1.25 1.25 1.61 1.5 1.48 1.54

I3 0.86 0.81 0.84 0.84 1.18 1.24 1.2 1.17 1.4 1.46 1.48 1.41

Mean 0.82 0.86 0.83 1.19 1.26 1.24 1.44 1.53 1.49

For comparing the mean

of

Irrigation (I) Fertilizer(F) Irrigation (I) Fertilizer(F) Irrigation (I) Fertilizer(F)

SEM ± 0.0226 0.020 0.0576 0.060 0.0696 0.074

CD 0.060 0.181 0.22

SE(d) 0.028 4.173 0.086

C.V. 8.524 0.104 8.634

Irrigation levels Fertilizer Levels

I1 : 60% of PE through Drip F1 : 80% Recommended Dose for Fertilizer(RDF).

I2 : 80 % of PE through Drip F2 : 100% Recommended Dose for Fertilizer(RDF).

I3 : 100 % of PE through Drip F3 : 120% Recommended Dose for Fertilizer(RDF).

I4 : Control (Furrow) Irrigation.

71

Table 4.13 (b). Effect of irrigation levels and fertilizer levels on stem girth

Treatment 120 DAT 160 DAT

Fertilizer levels

PE levels (%) F1 F2 F3 Mean F1 F2 F3 Mean

I1 1.78 1.81 1.78 1.79 1.92 1.94 1.93 1.93

I2 1.87 2.08 1.8 1.92 2.1 2.26 2 2.12

I3 1.88 1.8 1.84 1.84 2.02 1.92 2 1.98

Mean 1.84 1.90 1.81 2.01 2.04 1.98

For comparing the mean of Irrigation (I) Fertilizer(F) Irrigation (I) Fertilizer(F)

SEM ± 0.0647 0.051 0.0685 0.072

CD 0.153 0.217

SE(d) 0.072 4.903

C.V. 0.102 6.376

Irrigation levels Fertilizer Levels

I1 : 60% of PE through Drip F1 : 80% Recommended Dose for Fertilizer(RDF).

I2 : 80 % of PE through Drip F2 : 100% Recommended Dose for Fertilizer(RDF).

I3 : 100 % of PE through Drip F3 : 120% Recommended Dose for Fertilizer(RDF).

I4 : Control (Furrow) Irrigation.

Control Irrigation 30 DAT 60 DAT 90 DAT 120 DAT 160 DAT

I4 0.8 1.24 1.32 1.47 1.58

72

Fig. 4.10 Effect of irrigation levels and fertilizer levels on stem girth

4.4.5 Days to 50 % flowering

The data regarding number of days taken for 50 % flowering as

influenced by different irrigation and fertilizer levels are presented in Table

4.14 and depicted in Fig.4.11. Result revealed that the average number of days

required for 50 per cent flowering differed significantly due to different

treatments under study and it varied from 41.95 to 56.9 days after

transplanting in chilli crop depending upon the provision of irrigation and

fertilizer levels.

Among the fertilizer levels, the data recorded early (41.95 days) 50 per

cent flowering which stand significantly earliest as compared to those

recorded in control irrigation (56.9 days). The number of days recorded for 50

per cent flowering 56.90, 51.55, 50. 96 and 47.32 on irrigation levels I4, I1, I3

and I2 respectively. similarly the effect of fertilizer levels on chilli crop for 50

per cent flowering which stand significantly 53.46, 49.13 and 47.23 was

recorded under the fertilizer levels F1, F2 and F3 respectively. Application of

lower and higher doses of fertilizer appeared to cause delay in flowering

which might be due to inadequate and over doses of fertilizer as moderate

amount of fertilizer helped the plants to cause an early flowering. Shrivastava

(1996) .

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

I1 I2 I3 I4

Ste

m G

irth

PE Levels

F1 F2 F3 I4

73

Table. 4.14 Effect of irrigation levels and fertilizer levels on 50 % flowering

Fig. 4.11 Effect of irrigation levels and fertilizer levels on 50 % flowering

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

I1 I2 I3 I4

Day

s

PE Levels

F1 F2 F3 I4

Treatment Fertilizer levels

PE levels(%) F1 F2 F3 Mean

I1 51.75 49.5 53.4 51.55

I2 41.95 47.7 52.3 47.32

I3 48 50.2 54.67 50.96

Mean 47.23 49.13 53.46

For comparing the mean of Irrigation (I) Fertilizer(F)

SEM ± 1.0734 0.916

CD 2.743

SE(d) 1.296

C.V. 3.135

Control Irrigation 50 % Flowering, Days

I4 56.9

Irrigation levels Fertilizer Levels

I1 : 60% of PE through Drip F1: 80% Recommended Dose for Fertilizer(RDF).

I2 : 80 % of PE through Drip F2: 100% Recommended Dose for Fertilizer(RDF).

I3 : 100 % of PE through Drip F3: 120% Recommended Dose for Fertilizer(RDF).

I4 : Control (Furrow) Irrigation.

74

4.5 Yield and yield attributes

4.5.1 Number of fruits per plant

Data pertaining to number of fruits per plant are presented in Table 15

and depicted in Fig.12. In the main plot treatment with different irrigation

levels, treatment I2 (73.52) has recorded the maximum number of fruits per

plant followed by I3 (63.76) and I1 (61.26). The minimum fruits per plant 44

was found in Control irrigation (I4). Similarly, in the sub plot treatment with

different irrigation levels, treatment F2 (69.37) has recorded the maximum

number of fruits per plant followed by F3 (67.25), significantly in the

treatment F1 minimum number of fruits per plant were 61.91. The maximum

number of fruits per plant in the interaction of irrigation and fertilizer levels

were recorded 78.44 at I2F2 and followed by I2F3(74.80). similarly the

minimum fruits per plant in the interaction of irrigation and fertilizer levels

were recorded 54.2 at I1F1 after the control irrigation(I4). The results are in

accordance with the findings of Nadiya Nesthad et. al (2013) and Vijayakumar

et. al (2010).

4.5.2 Fruit weight per plant

Data pertaining to fruit weight per plant of chilli crop are presented in

Table 15. and depicted in Fig.13.The irrigation levels are significantly

influenced the fruit weight per plant of chilli, whereas, the application of

different levels of fertilizer had significant effect on fruit weight/plant of chilli.

Increase in fertilizer levels increased the fruit weight/plant of chilli. The

highest fruit weight per plant of 261.35 g was observed in I2F2 treatments and

lowest with 120.24 g in Control irrigation (I4). In the main plot treatment with

different irrigation levels, treatment I2 (238.85 gm) has recorded the maximum

fruit weight per plant followed by I3 (205.62 gm) and I1 (184.71 gm). The

minimum fruit weight per plant was recorded in the treatment I4 (120.24 gm).

Similarly, in the sub plot treatment with different fertilizer levels, treatment

F2 (224.15 gm) has recorded the maximum fruit weight per plant followed by

F3 (215.73 gm) and F1(189.36) fruit weights per plant were significant.

75

4.5.3 100-fruit weight (g)

The data on 100 fruit weight of chilli as influenced by moisture

regimes and levels of fertilizer are presented in Table 15, Fig. 14

The irrigation levels are significantly influenced the 100 fruits weight

of chilli, whereas, the application of different levels of fertilizer had

significant effect on 100 fruit weight of chilli. Increase in fertilizer levels

increased the 100 fruit weight of chilli. The highest 100 fruit weight of chilli

365.36 g was observed in I3F3 treatments and lowest with 276.32 gm in

Control irrigation (I4). In the main plot treatment with different irrigation

levels, treatment I3 (337.06 gm) has recorded the maximum 100 fruit weight

followed by I2 (326.62 gm) and I1 (302.44 gm). The minimum 100 fruits

weight was recorded in the treatment I4 (276.32 gm). Similarly, in the sub plot

treatment with different fertilizer levels, treatment F3 (333.76 gm) has

recorded the maximum 100 fruit weight followed by F2 (325.60 gm) and

F1(306.76 gm) 100 fruits weights were significant.

Plate.4.1 Fruit establishing stage Plate. 4.2 Fruit weight

76

Table. 4.15 Effect of irrigation levels and fertilizer levels on Yield and yield parameters.

Treatment

No. of fruits/ Plant Fruit weight/ Plant, g 100 Fruits weight, g

Fertilizer levels

PE levels (%) F1 F2 F3 Mean F1 F2 F3 Mean F1 F2 F3 Mean

I1 54.2 63.12 66.45 61.26 159.44 189.36 205.33 184.71 295.6 301.48 310.23 302.44

I2 67.32 78.44 74.80 73.52 212.12 261.35 243.10 238.86 315.82 338.34 325.70 326.62

I3 64.22 66.56 60.50 63.76 196.53 221.73 198.75 205.67 308.86 336.97 365.36 337.06

Mean 61.91 69.37 67.25 189.36 224.15 215.73 306.76 325.60 333.76

For comparing

the mean of

Irrigation (I) Fertilizer(F) Irrigation (I) Fertilizer(F) Irrigation (I) Fertilizer(F)

SEM ± 0.6522 0.717 0.9972 1.227 1.9749 2.439

CD 2.147 3.673 7.304

SE(d) 1.014 1.942 1.735

C.V. 1.058 3.450 1.331

Control Irrigation No. of fruits/ Plant Fruit weight/ Plant, (g) 100 Fruits weight, (g)

I4 44 120.24 276.32

Irrigation levels Fertilizer Levels

I1 : 60% of PE through Drip F1 : 80% Recommended Dose for Fertilizer(RDF).

I2 : 80 % of PE through Drip F2 : 100% Recommended Dose for Fertilizer(RDF).

I3 : 100 % of PE through Drip F3 : 120% Recommended Dose for Fertilizer(RDF).

I4 : Control (Furrow) Irrigation.

77

Fig. 4.12 Effect of irrigation levels and fertilizer levels on number of fruits

per plant

Fig. 4.13 Effect of irrigation levels and fertilizer levels on fruit weight per

plant.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

I1 I2 I3 I4

No

. of

Fru

its/

Pla

nt

PE Levels

F1 F2 F3 I4

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

I1 I2 I3 I4

Fru

it w

egh

t/ P

lan

t, g

PE Levels

F1 F2 F3 I4

78

Fig. 4.14 Effect of irrigation levels and fertilizer levels on 100 fruit weight

Table. 4.16 Effect of irrigation levels and fertilizer levels on fruit length and

fruit diameter.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

I1 I2 I3 I4

10

0 F

ruit

s w

egh

t.g

PE Levels

F1 F2 F3 I4

Irrigation levels Fertilizer Levels

I1 : 60% of PE through Drip F1: 80% Recommended Dose for Fertilizer(RDF).

I2 : 80 % of PE through Drip F2: 100% Recommended Dose for Fertilizer(RDF).

I3 : 100 % of PE through Drip F3: 120% Recommended Dose for Fertilizer(RDF).

I4 : Control (Furrow) Irrigation.

Treatments

Fruit length, cm Fruit Diameter, cm

Fertilizer levels

PE levels (%) F1 F2 F3 Mean F1 F2 F3 Mean

I1 5.82 6.10 6.23 6.05 1.09 1.08 1.13 1.1

I2 7.29 8.73 8.23 8.08 1.12 1.18 1.2 1.17

I3 8.03 8.68 8.94 8.55 1.15 1.2 1.18 1.18

Mean 7.05 7.84 7.80 1.12 1.15 1.17

For comparing

the mean of

Irrigation (I) Fertilizer(F) Irrigation (I) Fertilizer(F)

SEM ± 0.0402 0.042 0.0177 0.027

CD 0.127 0.082

SE(d) 0.060 1.000

C.V. 0.039 4.127

79

4.5.4 Fruit length (cm)

Length of fruit is one of the most important quality components that are

attributed to the size and appearance. The data on fruit length, presented in Table

4.16 and depicted in Fig. 4.15 showed marked variations due to different levels of

irrigation and fertilizer. The length of fruit in chilli varied from 5.06 to 8.94 cm

depending upon the irrigation levels and amount of fertilizers supplied through

different treatments. The maximum length of fruit was found in I3F3 (8.94 cm) and

minimum fruit length was 5.06 cm at Control irrigation(I4).

4.5.5 Fruit Diameter (cm)

The data on the effect of different levels of irrigation and fertilizer on fruit

girth has been presented in Table 4.16 and illustrated in Fig.4.16. Result revealed

that fruit girth varied significantly due to application of irrigation and fertilizer

levels on chilli crop and the diameter of chilli fruits ranges from 1.1 to 1.17 cm

based on the levels of irrigation.

Comparing the effects of different fertilizer levels, the maximum fruit girth (1.18

cm) was observed at F3 and followed by F2 (1.17 cm) and F1 (1.1 cm). The

maximum fruit diameter was 1.18 found in I4, I2F2 and I3F3. The minimum fruit

diameter was 1.1 cm found in I1F1.

The increase in fruit girth of chilli with increase in nutrient level is mainly

attributed to increased availability of nutrients essential for the growth and

development of crop plants.

Plate.4.3 Green chillies

80

Fig. 4.15 Effect of irrigation levels and fertilizer levels on Fruit length

Fig. 4.16 Effect of irrigation levels and fertilizer levels on fruit diameter.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

I1 I2 I3 I4

Fru

it L

en

gth

, cm

PE Lvels, %

F1 F2 F3 I4

1.02

1.04

1.06

1.08

1.1

1.12

1.14

1.16

1.18

1.2

I1 I2 I3 I4

Fru

it D

iam

ete

r, c

m

PE Lvels, %

F1 F2 F3

81

4.5.6 Fruit yield (t ha-1)

In Chilli crop, total green fruit yield is the cumulative effect of fruit yield

per plant which in turn depends on yield components viz., number of fruits per

plant, length of the fruits and fruit weight. The effect of different levels of

irrigation and fertilizer on fruit yield /t was recorded in Table 4.17 and illustrated

in Fig.4.17 Economic yield is the main criterion for the performance of any crop

and the results of present experiment showed that the irrigation and fertilizers

levels are resulted in significantly higher fruit yield over that observed in control

irrigation. The fruit yield ranges from 15.86 to 23.56 t ha-1. The variations in fruit

yield may be ascribed due to variations in growth and yield attributes which varied

due to irrigation and fertilizer application.

In case of irrigation levels, significantly maximum yield per hectare was

recorded in I2 (23.56 tonnes) followed by I3 ( 21.32 tonnes) and I1 (20.38 tonnes),

similarly lowest yield was recorded in I4 (15.86 tonnes). On other hand due to

effect of fertilizer maximum yield per hectare was recorded in F2 (22.46 tonnes)

followed by F3 (22.02 tonnes) followed by F1 (20.82 tonnes). Due to the interaction

effects, treatment I2F2 (24.80 tonnes) recorded the maximum yield per hectare

followed by I2F3 (23.82 tonnes), I3F3 ( 21.20 tonnes) and I1F1 (19.55 tonnes) The

minimum yield per hectare was recorded in I4 (15.86 tonnes), the other interaction

effects differed significantly in case of yield per hectare.

Plate.4.4 Fruit picking

82

Table 4.17 Effect of different irrigation levels and fertilizer levels on chilli

yield per hectare

Treatments

Yield (t/ha)

Fertilizer levels

PE levels (%) F1 F2 F3 Mean

I1 19.55 20.55 21.05 20.38

I2 22.06 24.8 23.82 23.56

I3 20.86 22.04 21.20 21.37

Mean 20.82 22.46 22.02

For comparing the mean of Irrigation (I) Fertilizer(F)

SEM ± 0.4364 0.457

CD 1.369

SE(d) 0.647

C.V. 3.740

Fig. 4.17 Effect of irrigation levels and fertilizer levels on chilli yield

0

5

10

15

20

25

I1 I2 I3 I4

Yie

ld, t/

ha

PE levels, %

F1 F2 F3 I4

Control Irrigation Yield (t/ha)

I4 15.86

83

4.6 Soil moisture

The soil moisture study was undertaken to know the effects of volume of water

applied under different levels of drip irrigation on soil moisture availability at crop

root zone at 15, 20 and 30 cm depth. (Table. 18).

The results indicated that variation in soil moisture availability was

significantly influenced by different irrigation levels compared to control irrigation

(I4). The variation in soil moisture due to effect of irrigation levels.

Among the irrigation levels, the soil moisture content was taken in different

depths at 15 cm, 25 cm and 35 cm on the basis of 60 per cent evapo-

transpiration(PE), 80 per cent PE, 100 per cent PE and control (furrow) irrigation.

According to the irrigation levels, The maximum soil moisture 30.15, 30.73 and

30.31 per cent at depths of 15 cm, 25 cm and 30 cm, which is registered in the

control irrigation (I4) and followed by I3 (27.76, 28.53 and 27.91 per cent) and I2

(27.10, 28.22 and 26.89 per cent ). The minimum soil moisture content was noted

in irrigation level I1 (26.03, 27.08 and 26,23 per cent) with respective depths.

Similar results have been reported by Khalkho et al. (2013).

Table. 4.18 Soil moisture content at different depths

S. No Irrigation levels Soil moisture (%) at different depths

15 cm 25 cm 35 cm

1 I1 26.03 27.08 26.23

2 I2 27.10 28.22 26.89

3 I3 27.76 28.53 27.91

4 I4 30.15 30.73 30.31

84

4.7 Water use efficiency

Efficient use of irrigation water has always been an important factor in

irrigation systems design and operation. As demands and coasts, both for water

itself and for energy to transport it

increased, improved efficiency in irrigation water use has become more critical.

Many studies have shown improved water use efficiency for drip irrigation as

compared to conventional irrigation techniques.

The yield obtained, volume of water applied to chilli crop and water use

efficiencies were calculated (Table 4.19).

The results indicates that the maximum WUE was recorded in treatment

I1F3 (47.70 kg/ha-mm) followed by I1F2 (46.57 kg/ha-mm), I1F1 (44.30 kg/ha-mm)

I2F2 (41.83 kg/ha-mm) and I2F3 (40.18 kg/ha-mm) . Similarly lowest WUE was

recorded in treatment I4 (16.5 kg/ha-mm).

Table 4.19 Effect of different irrigation levels and fertilizer levels on crop

WUE and FUE

Treatments Yield obtained

(t/ha)

Crop WUE

(kg/ha-mm)

Fertilizer use

efficiency (kg

yield/kg of

nutrient)

I1F1 19.55 44.30 54.30

I1F2 20.55 46.57 45.67

I1F3 21.05 47.70 38.98

I2F1 22.06 37.21 49.02

I2F2 24.8 41.83 55.11

I2F3 23.82 40.18 44.11

I3F1 20.86 28.36 57.94

I3F2 22.04 29.97 48.97

I3F3 21.20 28.83 39.26

I4 15.86 16.5 35.24

85

4.8 Fertilizer use efficiency

The results indicates that the maximum FUE was recorded in treatment I3F1

(57.94 kg/kg of N-1) followed by I2F2 (55.11 kg/kg of N-1) and I1F1 (54.30 kg/kg of

N-1). Similarly lowest FUE was recorded in treatment I4 (35.24 kg/kg of N-1).

Water use efficiency indicates yield produced per unit volume of water used. The

yield obtained, quantity of fertilizer applied to chilli crop and fertilizer use

efficiencies were calculated (Table 19). Similar results have been reported by

Vijaya kumar et al. (2010).

4.9. Cost economics

The determination of the benefit-cost ratio, the fixed cost, operating cost

and net returns were calculated for drip irrigation with fertilizer levels.

The life of the PVC pipe materials were taken as ten years. Interest at

twelve per cent of fixed cost was taken into consideration to work out the cost

economics. The economics of the irrigation system under study was worked out in

Rs.ha-1. The sample calculation and total cost are given in Appendix III.

4.9.1 Net returns and benefit-cost ratio

The net returns and benefit-cost ratio irrigation and fertilizer levels of chilli

crop under drip irrigation levels are presented in Table 20.

Among all the treatments the highest net return of Rs. 397276 ha-1 was

obtained from treatment of irrigation at 80 per cent PE with 100 per cent fertilizer

level, followed by the treatment of 80 per cent PE with 120 per cent fertilizer

level(Rs. 371376 ha-1) and the lowest net return was obtained in control irrigation

(Rs. 226929 ha-1) are given in table. 4.20.

Among all the drip irrigation treatments The highest benefit cost ratio was

found in 80 per cent PE in combination with 100 per cent fertilizer (4.02) followed

by 80 per cent PE 80 per cent fertilizer level (3.77). The highest net return was

obtained in 80 per cent PE in combination 100 per cent fertilizer (Rs. 397276 ha-1)

followed by 80 per cent PE in combination with 120 per cent fertilizer Rs.371376

86

ha-1). The lowest benefit cost ratio (2.51) was found in control irrigation (I4).

(Vijaya kumar et al (2010).

Table 4.20 Economics of drip irrigation and fertilizer levels in chilli crop

Treatments Crop yield

(t/ha)

Total

returns

(Rs/ha)

Cultivation

cost

(Rs/ha)

Net

returns

(Rs/ha)

Benefit

cost ratio

I1F1 19.55 391000 92424 298576 3.23

I1F2 20.55 411000 98724 312276 3.16

I1F3 21.05 421000 105024 315976 3.01

I2F1 22.06 441200 92424 349776 3.77

I2F2 24.8 496000 98724 397276 4.02

I2F3 23.82 476400 105024 371376 3.54

I3F1 20.86 417200 92424 324776 3.51

I3F2 22.04 440800 98724 342076 3.46

I3F3 21.20 424000 105024 318976 3.04

I4 15.86 317200 90271 226929 2.51

Plate. 4.5 Head of the department field visit

87

Plate. 4.6 Different growth stages of chilli crop

88

CHAPTER- V

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

A field experiment "studies on Irrigation and Fertigation Management

on Chilli (capsicum annuum) under Drip System” was conducted at Borsi

farm, Dav Kalyan Singh College of Agriculture and Research Station

(DKSCARS), Bhatapara during rabi 2016-17. The experiment was laid out in

RBD design with irrigation levels are I1 – 60 per cent PE level, I2 – 80 per

cent PE level, I3 – 120 per cent PE level and I4 control irrigation and the

fertilizer levels are F1 – 80 per cent, F2 – 100 per cent and F3 – 120 per cent

recommended dose of fertilizer (RDF) with ten treatment combinations,

replicated thrice. The results of experiments are summarized hereunder.

Drip irrigation discharge of 2.0 lph emitters was measured at 20

location points from the laterals in the field at three different operating

pressures (1.2, 1.0 and 0.9 kg/cm2) to check out the hydraulic performance of

drip irrigation system on the basis of co efficient of manufacturing variation,

emission uniformity, emitter flow variation, uniform coefficient and irrigation

efficiency.

The water requirement of chilli crop was low at initial stage and it

gradually increased in crop development stages, attained peak in Fruit

establishing season stage of crop. The net depth of water applied to chilli crop

during the period was 441.28 mm for 60 per cent PE, 592.81 mm for 80 per

cent PE, 735.47 mm for 100 per cent PE and 961 mm for control irrigation.

The water saved due to different levels of drip irrigation and control

irrigation treatments over 100 per cent PE through drip irrigation and control

irrigation were 40 per cent and 54.08 per cent under 60 per cent PE and 19.40

per cent and 38.31 under 80 per cent PE over the 100 per cent PE and control

irrigation. About 23.46 percent water saved in 100 percent PE compared to

control irrigation method. Thus the water saving varied from 19.40 to 40 per

cent due to different drip irrigation levels, similarly 23.46 to 54.08 per cent

water saved from drip irrigation levels, compare to control irrigation.

89

The growth components like plant height, number of branches per

plant, days to 50 per cent flowering and stem girth were significantly

influenced by irrigation levels and fertilizer levels. The maximum number of

primary branches , secondary branches per plant and stem girth was recorded

under drip irrigation with 100 percent fertilizer level at 80 per cent PE when

compared to other treatments throughout the growing period.

The maximum plant height was recorded in 100 per cent PE and

minimum in control irrigation. Among the fertilizer levels maximum plant

height was recorded in 120 per cent fertilizer at 100 per cent PE. The 50 per

cent flowering was found minimum days (41.95) in 80 per cent PE and among

the fertilizer 100 per cent RDF, similarly maximum days (56.9) found in

control irrigation.

The soil moisture was maximum in control irrigation and minimum in

60 per cent PE. Among the irrigation levels effects maximum moisture content

was recorded in control irrigation 30.15, 30. 73 and 30. 31 per cent at depths

of 15 cm, 25 cm and 35 cm, and followed by I3 and I2 irrigation levels. The

minimum soil moisture content was 26.03, 27.08 and 26.23 per cent in 60 per

cent PE (I1) at depths of 15 cm, 25 cm and 35 cm.

The highest yield was obtained in 80 per cent PE (81.17 t ha-1) with

100 per cent fertilizer level, followed by I2F3(23.82 t ha-1), I2F1(22.06 t ha-1)

and I3F2(22.04 t ha-1) . The minimum yield obtained from control irrigation

(I4) 15.86 t ha-1.

The highest water use efficiency was recorded in 60 per cent PE in

combination with 120 percent fertilizer (I1F3) 47.70 kg/ha-mm. Increased

water use efficiency with the decreased level of water input through drip was

noted. The least water use efficiency was found in control irrigation (I4) 16.5

kg/ha-mm. It was because of lesser yield obtained in the treatment.

The economic analysis of different drip irrigation levels and different

fertilize levels was carried out. The highest benefit cost ratio was found in 80

per cent PE in combination with 100 per cent fertilizer (4.02) followed by 80

per cent PE 80 per cent fertilizer level (3.77). The highest net return was

90

obtained in 80 per cent PE in combination 100 per cent fertilizer (Rs. 397276

ha-1) followed by 80 per cent PE in combination with 120 per cent fertilizer

Rs.371376 ha-1). The lowest benefit cost ratio (2.51) was found in control

irrigation (I4).

Following conclusions are drawn from the study.

1. Performance of inline drip irrigation system found good and needs to

be operated at 1.2 kg/cm2 pressure. Total amount of water applied at 60

per cent PE was 441.20 mm, 80 per cent PE was 592.81 mm, 100 per

cent PE was 735.47 mm and control irrigation (I4) was 961 mm.

2. Eighty per cent of PE through drip and hundred per cent fertilizer level

independently as well as jointly was effective to produce highest yield

of chilli. It had primitive effect on growth, flowering and fruit set,

quality of fruits.

Based on stage, highest amount of water applied in fruit

establishing stages and minimum in initial stage. Average fruit weight

of chilli at 80 per cent PE with 100 per cent fertilizer level can be used

to achieve higher average fruit weight.

3. Eighty per cent water of crop water requirement with 100 per cent

fertilizer gave highest B: C ratio (4.08) and W.U.E. (47.70 kg/ha-mm )

was maximum with 60 per cent PE with 120 per cent fertilizer level.

Suggestions for the future line of work

The present investigations suggest that chilli crop responded well to

drip irrigation with fertilizers. In the light of these findings further studies are

required on the following lines.

1. The experiment should be conducted during different season also to

see its effectiveness during different seasons.

91

2. The above treatments should be tested with different varieties of chilli

in different environment to assess the susceptibility of various varieties

/hybrids.

3. Studies on effect of different type and different colour mulches on

chilli crop in different agro climatic situations.

4. The experiment should be done in various seasons by various organic

manures.

92

REFERENCES

Abdul Hakkim, V.M. 2014. Effect of Site Specific Drip Fertigation on Yield

of Chilli, IOSR Journal of Engineering (IOSRJEN), ISSN (e):

2250-3021, ISSN (p): 2278-8719

A'fifah,R.A. Ismail, M R., Puteri, E.M.W., Abdullah, S.N., Berahim,Z.,

Bakhtiar, R., Kausar, H. 2015. Optimum fertigation requirement and

crop coefficients of chilli (Capsicum annuum) grown in soilless

medium in the tropic climate. International Journal of Agriculture &

Biology. 17: 80-88.

Anitta Fanish S, Muthukrishnan P , Santhi P (2011) Effect of Drip Fertigation

on field crops - A Review. Agric Rev. 32:14-25.

Anonymous, 2005, Agriculture, Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy,

Mumbai, pp. 229- 232.

Anonymous. 2012. Economic Survey of Himachal Pradesh 2011-12.

Economics and Statistics Department: 45

Bar-Yosef B 1999 Advances in fertigation. Advances in Agronomy 65: 1–77.

Basu, S.K. and A.K. De, 2003. Capsicum: Historical and botanical

perspectives. In: Capsicum: The genus Capsicum, pp: 1‒15. De, A.K.

(ed). Taylor & Francis, Ltd., London

Bhatnagar, P.R and R.C. Srivastava. 2003. Gravity-fed drip irrigation system

for hilly terraces of the northwest Himalayas. Irrig. Sci., 21: 151-

157.

Bhogi, B.H., Polisgowdar B.S. and Patil, M.G. (2011). Effectiveness and cost

economics of fertigation in Brinjal (Solanum melongena) under drip

93

and furrow irrigation. Karnataka Journal of Agricultural

Sciences.24: 666-667.

Bralts, V.F. and C.D. Kesner. 1983. Drip irrigation field uniformity

estimation. Trans. Of the Amer. Soc. Ag. Eng. 26:1369-1374.

Burt, C.M. and S.W. Styles. 2007. Drip and Micro Irrigation Design and

Management for Trees, Vines, and Field Crops. Practice plus

Theory. 4th Edition. ISBN 978-0-9643634-4-1. 396 p.

Capra A, Scicolone B. 1998. Water quality and distribution uniformity in

drip/trickle irrigation systems. Journal of Agricultural Engineering

Research, 70: 355−365.

crops. Agricultural Review 26(1): 1 – 13.

Decroix, M., and A. Malaval. 1985. Laboratory evaluation of trickle irrigation

equipment for field system design. In Proc. 3rd International

Drip/Trickle Irrigation Congress, 325-330. St. Joseph, Mich.: ASAE.

Ertek, A., Sensoy, S., Gedik, I. and Kucukyumuk, C. (2007). Irrigation

scheduling for Green Pepper (capsicum annuum L.) grown in field

conditions by using Class-A pan evaporation values. American-

Eurasian J.Agric. & Environ. Sci, 2(4): 349-358.

FAOSTAT, 2011. FAO Statistics Division. http://faostat.fa.org/site/567/

desktopDefault.aspx? Page ID=567#ancor (Accessed: 1 July 2013)

Gulshan Mahajan, Singh,K. G., Rakesh Sharda and Mukesh Siag, 2007.

Response of Red Hot Pepper (Capsicum annum L.) to Water and

Nitrogen under Drip and Check Basin Method of Irrigation. Asian

Journal of Plant Sciences, 6: 815-820.

Hezarjaribi, A., Dehghani, A. A., and Kiani, A. (2008). Hydraulic

Performance of Various Trickle Irrigation Emitters. Journals of

Agronomy, 7 (3): 265-271.

94

Imamsaheb, S.J., Hanchinmani, C.N. and Ravinaik, K. 2014. Impact of drip

irrigation and fertigation on growth, yield, quality and economic

returns in different vegetable crops. Asian J. Horticult., 9(2): pp.484-

491.

Jadhav, A. S., Patil, M. T. and Patil, P. V., 2002, Hi-tech floriculture and

vegetable project. International symposium on protected

cultivation of vegetables in mild winter climates, College of Agric.,

Pune. 71-72.

Jaimez, R.E., O. Vielma, F. Rada and C. Garcia-Nunez, 2000. Effects of water

deficit on the dynamics of flowering and fruit production in Capsicum

chinense Jacq in a tropical semiarid region of Venezuela. J. Agron.

Crop Sci., 185: 113‒119

Jat, M. L., Saharawat Y. S. and Gupta, R. (2011). Conservation agriculture in

cereal systems of south Asia: Nutrient management perspectives.

Kar. J. Agric. Sci. 24: 100-105.

Karmeli, D. and Keller, J. (1975). Trickle irrigation design. Rain Bird

sprinkling Manufacturing Corporation, Glendora, California, p 132.

Keller J., Bliesner R.D. (1990): Sprinkle and Trickle Irrigation. AVI Book.

Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.

Khalkho, D., Naik, R.K., Thakur, A.K., Bisen, Y., and Chandraker, A.K.

2014. Effective irrigation water management in Rabi Chilli for Bastar

agro climatic zone. Scientific Research and Essays. 8(48), pp. 2332-

2335.

Kohire Patil, V.O and Das. J.C. 2015. Effect of Drip Irrigation and Fertilizer

Management on Capsicum (Capsicum Annum L). Journal of

Agriculture and Veterinary Science. 8 (1): PP 10-13.

Mallikarjun Reddy, Ayyanagowadar, M. S., Nemicahndrappa, M.,

Balakrishnan, P., Patil, M. G. and Satishkumar, U., 2012, Techno

95

economic feasibility of drip irrigation for onion (Alluim cepa L.).

Karnataka J. Agric. Sci., 25(4): 475-478.

Manisha, Jitendra Sinha and Tripathi, M.P. 2015. Studies on hydraulic

performance of drip irrigation system under different operating

pressure. International Journal of Applied Engineering and

Technology. 5 (2): pp.58-63.

Manjunatha, M.V., Shukla, K.N., Chauhan, H.S., Singh, P.K. and Singh, R.

(2001). Economic feasibility of micro irrigation systems for various

vegetables. Proceedings of International Conference Micro and

Sprinkler Systems, Jalgoan, Maharashtra (INDIA). pp.357-364

Mazhari, 2014, Economic Analysis of the Use of Plastic Mulch in Cotton

Planting in Iran. J. Agric. Sci., 3(6): 218-221.

Michael, A.M.(1978). Irrigation theory and practices. Vikas Publishing

House Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. Pp. 662-681.

Mizyed, N. and E.G. Kruse (1989) Emitter discharge eval-uation of subsurface

trickle irrigation systems. Transactions of the ASAE, 32: 1223-

1228.

Nadiya N, Kurien EK, Mathew EK and Varughese A. 2013. Impact of

fertigation and drip system layout in performance of Chilli

(Capsicum annum). International J. of Engineering Res. and

Development 7: 85-88.

Nadiya N, Kurien EK, Mathew EK and Varughese A. 2013. Impact of

fertigation and drip system layout in performance of Chilli (Capsicum

annum). Inter-national J. of Engineering Res. and Development 7: 85-88.

Nakayama, F. S. and Bucks, D. A., 1986, Trickle irrigation for crop

production, design, operation and management. Elsevier Sci.

Publisher, Netherlands, 376-380.

96

Pau, J.C., Mishra, J.N., Pradhan, P.L., Panigrahi, B. Effect of drip and surface

irrigation on yield, wateruse- efficiency and economics of capsicum

(capsicum annum l.) Grown under mulch and non mulch conditions in

eastern coastal india. European Journal of Sustainable, 2,(1): 99-108

Payakhapaab, S., Boonyakiat, D. and Nikornpun, M. 2012. Evaluation of

Heterosis and Combining ability of Yield Components in Chillies. J.

Agricultural Science. 4(11): 154-161.

Popale PG, Bombale VT and Magar AP (2011). Hydraulic Performance of

Drip Irrigation System. Engineering and Technology in India

2(1&2) 24-28.

Ram Kumar, Ramesh Pal, Rajiv Kumar, Suraj Sagar, Ankur Singh Bist

(2016). Response of water use efficiency through fertigation on

growth and yield of chilli crop. International Journal of

Engineering Sciences & Research Technology,

Ram Kumar, Ramesh Pal, Rajiv Kumar, Suraj Sagar, Ankur Singh Bist, 2016,

Response of water use efficiency through fertigation on growth

and yield of chilli crop. International Journal of Engineering

Sciences & Research Technology, 5(12).

Ram, A., Jat, Suhas, P., Wani, Kanwar, L., Sahrawa, T., Piara singh and

Dhaka, B.L. 2011. Fertigation in Vegetable Crops for Higher

Productivity and Resource Use Efficiency. Indian Journal of

Fertilizer, 7(3): 22-37.

Ravi Bhuriya, Sandhya Choudhary, Swarnakar, V.K., 2012. Study of

Adoption Behaviour of Drip Irrigation System on Chilli Crop in

Barwani District of M.P. India Journal of Agriculture and Veterinary

Science, 8: pp. 12-14.

97

Roma Kumari, Arun Kaushal, Singh., K.G. 2014. Water Use Efficiency of

Drip Fertigated Sweet Pepper under the Influence of Different Kinds

and Levels of Fertilizers. Journal of Science and Technology. 7(10):

1538–1543.

Safanotas, J. E. and Dipoala, J. C., 1985, Drip irrigation of maize. In Proc. of

the 3rd Int. Drip/Trickle Irrigation Congress, California, USA, 2: 275-

278.

Sahay, J., 1986, Elements of pumps and tube wells, agro-book agency,

Jakkanpur, pp. 39.

Sahu, R. K. and Rao, V. N. (2005). Faculty of Agricultural Engineering IGKV

Raipur, Journal of Drainage and irrigation water management,

118-135

Saroch Kapil, Bhargava M, Sharma J. Diversification of existing rice (Oryza

sativa)-based cropping system for sustainable productivity under

irrigated conditions. Indian j. Agron. 2004; 50(2):86-88.

Satisha G C 1997 Fertigation – new concept in Indian Agriculture. Kissan

World 29-30.

Sivanappan K 2004 Irrigation and rainwater management for improving water

use efficiency and production in cotton crop. In: proceeding of

International Symposium on “Strategies for sustainable cotton

production. A global vision” November 23-25, UAS, Dharwad,

Karnataka.

Sivanappan R K and Ranghaswami M V 2005 Technology to take 100 tonnes

per acre in

Solaimalai A, Baskar M, Sadasakthi A and Subburamu K 2005 Fertigation in

high value

98

Sugarcane. Kisan World. 32(10): 35-38.

Valiantzas, J. D. (2005). Modified Hazen-Williams and Darcy-weisbach

Equations for Friction and Local head losses along Irrigation

Laterals. Journal of irrigation and drainage engineering, 131: 342-

350.

Veeranna, H. K., 2000, Effect of fertigation, irrigation and potassium levels on

the productivity of chilli (Capsicum annuum L.). Ph. D. Thesis,

University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore.

Vijayakumar, G., Tamilmani, D., Selvaraj, P. K. 2010. Maximizing Water and

Fertilizer Use Efficiencies under Drip Irrigation in Chili Crop, Journal

of Management & Public Policy, Vol. 2, No. 1 December

2010.

Wei Z, Tang Y, Zhao W & Lu B (2003). Rapid development technique for

drip irrigation, Rapid prototyping journal, 9(2): 104-110.

Wu, I.P. 1987. An assessment of hydraulic design of micro-irrigation systems.

Agricultural Water Management, 32: 275-284.

Young, L. L., R. J. Buhr, and C. E. Lyon, 1999. Effect of polyphosphate

treatment and electrical stimulation on postchill changes of

broiler breast meat. Poultry Sci. 78:267–271.

99

APPENDIX-I

Depth of water applied to Chilli crop under different levels of drip

irrigation and control irrigation during rabi (Nov 2016 - April 2017)

Water requirement of Chilli crop , mm/day

Dates

Pan

evaporation

mm/day

I1 60%

PE

I1 80%

PE

I3 100%

PE Control

17-Nov 6.00 0.63 0.84 1.05 30

18-Nov 5.98 0.63 0.84 1.05

19-Nov 5.97 0.63 0.84 1.04

20-Nov 5.98 0.63 0.84 1.05

21-Nov 5.85 0.61 0.82 1.02

22-Nov 5.82 0.61 0.82 1.02

23-Nov 5.91 0.62 0.83 1.03

24-Nov 5.90 0.62 0.83 1.03

25-Nov 5.79 0.61 0.81 1.01 20

26-Nov 5.78 0.61 0.81 1.01

27-Nov 5.77 0.61 0.81 1.01

28-Nov 5.82 0.61 0.81 1.02

29-Nov 5.90 0.62 0.83 1.03

30-Nov 6.00 0.63 0.84 1.05

01-Dec 6.14 0.64 0.86 1.07

02-Dec 6.36 0.67 0.89 1.11

03-Dec 6.31 0.66 0.88 1.10 20

04-Dec 6.15 0.65 0.86 1.08

05-Dec 6.00 0.63 0.84 1.05

06-Dec 5.96 0.63 0.83 1.04

07-Dec 5.90 0.62 0.83 1.03

100

08-Dec 5.90 0.62 0.83 1.03

09-Dec 5.83 0.61 0.82 1.02

10-Dec 5.73 0.60 0.80 1.00

11-Dec 5.73 0.60 0.80 1.00 20

12-Dec 5.84 0.61 0.82 1.02

13-Dec 5.92 0.62 0.83 1.04

14-Dec 5.85 0.61 0.82 1.02

15-Dec 5.79 0.61 0.81 1.01

16-Dec 5.70 0.60 0.80 1.00

17-Dec 5.60 1.65 2.20 2.75

18-Dec 5.53 1.63 2.17 2.71

19-Dec 5.52 1.62 2.17 2.71 25

20-Dec 5.54 1.63 2.17 2.71

21-Dec 5.49 1.62 2.15 2.69

22-Dec 5.50 1.62 2.15 2.69

23-Dec 5.47 1.61 2.14 2.68

24-Dec 5.75 1.69 2.25 2.82

25-Dec 5.88 1.73 2.31 2.88

26-Dec 5.74 1.69 2.25 2.81

27-Dec 5.57 1.64 2.18 2.73 25

28-Dec 5.67 1.67 2.22 2.78

29-Dec 5.82 1.71 2.28 2.85

30-Dec 5.83 1.71 2.29 2.86

31-Dec 5.95 1.75 2.33 2.92

01-Jan 6.04 1.78 2.37 2.96

02-Jan 6.11 1.79 2.39 2.99

03-Jan 6.06 1.78 2.38 2.97

04-Jan 5.88 1.73 2.30 2.88 35

101

05-Jan 5.80 1.71 2.27 2.84

06-Jan 5.89 1.73 2.31 2.89

07-Jan 5.99 1.76 2.35 2.93

08-Jan 5.89 1.73 2.31 2.89

09-Jan 6.15 1.81 2.41 3.01

10-Jan 6.00 1.76 2.35 2.94

11-Jan 5.83 1.71 2.29 2.86

12-Jan 5.63 1.65 2.21 2.76 35

13-Jan 5.52 1.62 2.16 2.70

14-Jan 5.47 1.61 2.14 2.68

15-Jan 5.59 1.64 2.19 2.74

16-Jan 5.77 1.70 2.26 2.83

17-Jan 6.15 1.81 2.41 3.02

18-Jan 6.12 1.80 2.40 3.00

19-Jan 6.00 1.76 2.35 2.94

20-Jan 6.06 1.78 2.37 2.97 45

21-Jan 6.15 1.81 2.41 3.01

22-Jan 6.14 1.81 2.41 3.01

23-Jan 6.13 1.80 2.40 3.01

24-Jan 6.11 1.80 2.40 2.99

25-Jan 6.17 1.81 2.42 3.02

26-Jan 6.24 2.88 3.84 4.81

27-Jan 6.47 2.99 3.99 4.98

28-Jan 6.18 2.85 3.81 4.76 45

29-Jan 6.03 2.79 3.72 4.65

30-Jan 6.15 2.84 3.79 4.74

31-Jan 6.32 2.92 3.89 4.87

01-Feb 6.53 3.02 4.02 5.03

102

02-Feb 6.46 2.99 3.98 4.98

03-Feb 6.36 2.94 3.92 4.90

04-Feb 6.36 2.94 3.92 4.89

05-Feb 6.52 3.01 4.02 5.02 50

06-Feb 6.80 3.14 4.19 5.23

07-Feb 6.71 3.10 4.13 5.17

08-Feb 6.73 3.11 4.15 5.18

09-Feb 6.87 3.17 4.23 5.29

10-Feb 6.90 3.19 4.25 5.31

11-Feb 6.84 3.16 4.22 5.27

12-Feb 6.93 3.20 4.27 5.33

13-Feb 7.06 3.26 4.35 5.44 50

14-Feb 7.04 3.25 4.34 5.42

15-Feb 6.96 3.22 4.29 5.36

16-Feb 6.89 3.18 4.25 5.31

17-Feb 6.91 3.19 4.26 5.32

18-Feb 7.08 3.27 4.36 5.45

19-Feb 7.10 3.28 4.37 5.47

20-Feb 7.12 3.29 4.38 5.48

21-Feb 7.29 3.37 4.49 5.62 55

22-Feb 7.41 3.42 4.56 5.71

23-Feb 7.32 3.38 4.51 5.64

24-Feb 6.92 3.20 4.26 5.33

25-Feb 6.81 3.15 4.19 5.24

26-Feb 7.00 3.24 4.31 5.39

27-Feb 7.17 3.31 4.41 5.52

28-Feb 7.19 3.32 4.43 5.54

01-Mar 7.66 3.54 4.72 5.90 55

103

02-Mar 7.81 3.61 4.81 6.02

03-Mar 7.96 3.68 4.90 6.13

04-Mar 7.88 3.64 4.85 6.07

05-Mar 7.79 3.60 4.80 6.00

06-Mar 7.66 3.54 4.72 5.90

07-Mar 7.78 3.59 4.79 5.99

08-Mar 7.54 3.48 4.64 5.80

09-Mar 7.95 3.67 4.90 6.12 60

10-Mar 7.98 3.69 4.91 6.14

11-Mar 7.80 3.60 4.80 6.00

12-Mar 7.57 3.50 4.66 5.83

13-Mar 7.24 3.34 4.46 5.57

14-Mar 7.40 3.42 4.56 5.69

15-Mar 7.50 3.47 4.62 5.78

16-Mar 7.58 3.50 4.67 5.84

17-Mar 7.90 3.65 4.86 6.08

60

18-Mar 8.22 3.80 5.06 6.33

19-Mar 8.18 3.78 5.04 6.30

20-Mar 7.98 3.69 4.92 6.15

21-Mar 7.87 3.63 4.85 6.06

22-Mar 8.10 3.74 4.99 6.24

23-Mar 8.46 3.91 5.21 6.51

24-Mar 8.65 3.99 5.33 6.66

25-Mar 8.78 4.06 5.41 6.76

65

26-Mar 8.77 4.05 5.40 6.75

27-Mar 8.80 4.02 5.37 6.71

28-Mar 8.97 4.10 5.47 6.83

29-Mar 8.92 4.08 5.44 6.80

30-Mar 9.03 4.13 5.51 6.89

31-Mar 9.17 4.19 5.59 6.99

104

01-April 9.46 4.32 5.77 7.21

02-April 9.58 4.38 5.84 7.30

65

03-April 9.56 4.37 5.83 7.29

04-April 9.60 4.39 5.85 7.32

05-April 9.72 4.45 5.93 7.41

06-April 9.79 4.48 5.97 7.46

07-April 9.79 4.48 5.97 7.46

08-April 9.69 4.43 5.91 7.38

09-April 9.45 4.32 5.76 7.20

10-April 9.09 4.16 5.54 6.93

68

11-April 9.08 4.15 5.53 6.92

12-April 9.13 4.18 5.57 6.96

13-April 9.26 4.24 5.65 7.06

14-April 9.24 4.23 5.63 7.04

15-April 9.38 4.29 5.72 7.15

16-April 9.34 4.27 5.70 7.12

17-April 9.36 4.28 5.71 7.13

68

18-April 9.68 4.43 5.90 7.38

19-April 9.74 4.46 5.94 7.43

20-April 9.75 4.46 5.94 7.43

21-April 9.81 4.49 5.98 7.48

22-April 10.13 4.63 6.18 7.72

23-April 9.92 4.54 6.05 7.56

24-April 9.79 4.48 5.97 7.46

25-April 9.65 4.42 5.89 7.36

65

26-April 9.81 4.49 5.98 7.48

27-April 9.74 4.45 5.94 7.42

28-April 9.72 4.45 5.93 7.41

29-April 9.84 4.50 6.00 7.50

30-April 9.88 4.52 6.03 7.53

105

APPENDIX -II

Flow Nomogram for Polyethylene Pipes

106

Fig. Specific discharge curve for lateral selection

107

Fig. Specific discharge curve for lateral selection

108

Fig. Specific discharge curve for sub main line

109

Fig. Specific discharge curve for sub main line

110

Fig. Specific discharge curve for sub main line

111

5. Specific discharge curve for selection of main line

Fig. Specific discharge curve for main line

112

APPENDIX -III

Cost economics of Chilli crop under drip irrigation

1) Initial cost of drip irrigation system, Rs. ha-1

S.

No.

Particulars Quantity Unit Rate/unit Total Cost

Rs.

1 Submersible pump 01 3 hp - 27854

2 Main line PVC (63 mm) 150 M 76 11400

3 Sub main PVC (50 mm) 200 M 69 13800

4 Inline laterals( with

emitters) 12 mm

5000 M 15.00 60000

5 Solvent cement 1 1 lit 320 320

6 Gromate take off 12 mm 100 Nos 3.00 300

7 Poly joiner 100 Nos 1.70 170

8 Poly end stop 100 Nos 1.50 150

9 PVC ball valve, 63mm 6 Nos 520 3120

10 PVC ball valve, 50 mm 6 Nos 337 2022

11 PVC plush valve 6 Nos 64.30 385.8

12 Air relief valve assembly 1 Nos 250 250

13 By pass assembly 1 Nos 1254.0 1254

14 CI NRV, 2" 1 Nos 2738.6 2738.6

15 PVC NRV, 63mm 1 Nos 374 374

16 Screen filter 1 Nos 9400 9400

17 Venturi complete

assembly, ¾”

1 Nos 750 750

18 CI- flange, 2" 4 Nos 161.75 647

19 GI Socket 1 Nos 36.9 36.9

113

20 GI Elbow 1 Nos 51.30 51.3

21 Rubber gasket 2" 3 Nos 16.5 49.5

22 PVC Reducer 63mm-50

mm

3 Nos 20 60

23 PVC Tee, 63mm 1 Nos 44 44

24 PVC Elbow, 63mm 6 Nos 39.00 234

25 PVC Elbow, 50mm 8 Nos 24.30 194.4

26 Pressure check Assembly 1 Nos 165 165

27 Nut and bolts 30 Nos 5 150

Total 135920.5

Fixed cost for drip irrigation

i) Interest on initial cost @ 12 per cent Rs. 16310

ii) Depreciation on a) PVC Rs. 2268

b) Submersible pump Rs. 1671

Total Rs. 20249

The system can be used for two seasons in a year. Therefore, the fixed cost for

one season would be

Rs. 20249/ 2 = Rs. 10124

114

2) Operating cost of drip irrigation with Fertilizer levels

S. No. Particulars

Total

Cost/ha Rs.

1 Ploughing 2500

2 Rotavator 3600

3 Manure spreading 3000

4 Bed preparation 1000

5 Planting 3600

6 Weeding 3000

7 Plant protection chemicals 20000

8 Spraying 3000

9 Harvesting 4000

10 Electricity charges 7400

11 Seed 6000

12 Fertilizers 31500

Total operating cost

88600