Evaluation of Furrow Irrigation Systems On Onion Yield and Water Use Efficiency at Mareko, Ethiopia
Evaluation of Furrow Irrigation Systems On Onion Yield and Water Use Efficiency at Mareko, Ethiopia
net/publication/369033749
CITATIONS READS
2 36
2 authors, including:
Tagesse Bekele
Southern Agricultural Research Institute (SARI)
12 PUBLICATIONS 7 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Tagesse Bekele on 06 March 2023.
Research Center, Irrigation and Drainage Research Program, Assistant Researcher, Worabe, Ethiopia
----------------------------------------------------------------------***---------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstract: Efficient use of water by irrigation system is So the only tool to overcome this phenomenon is the
becoming increasingly important in arid and semi-arid enhancing of water use efficiency, it is also called water
regions with limited water resources. Furrow irrigation is the productivity. The largest sector of water consumption is
most widely used system in Ethiopia and is characterized by agriculture, so increasing water use efficiency will not only
low efficiency. The objective of this research study was to increase agriculture production but will also save the water
investigate the effects of alternative and fixed furrow for other purposes.
irrigation system onion yield, WUE, irrigation water
productivity, and economic return as compared with In general, when water was insufficient for full irrigation
conventional method.This experiment was conducted for the relative onion yield (yield per unit water applied) under
last two years in Misrak Azernet Berbere woreda, Ethiopia. Alternative Furrow Irrigation was higher than Conventional
The experiment had three levels of treatments (alternative, Furrow Irrigation. In addition, [3]found that alternate
fixed and conventional irrigation system) and which were furrow irrigation and fixed furrow irrigation techniques led
arranged in RCBD with three replications. Different data were to a higher reduction of transpiration than photosynthesis
collected and analyzed using SAS software in probability of 5% and thus increased water use efficiency (WUE). The
confidence level. From the result water saved alternate economic and environmental benefits of using the
furrow and fixed irrigation with 20% and 30% could save Alternative Furrow Irrigation method are higher than
irrigation water applied. With respect to water use efficiency; conventional furrow irrigation methods because less water
alternative furrow irrigation results maximum values relative is applied and the economic return is higher [4].
to fixed and conventional irrigation in both years. In the case
of net return (NR) interaction of FFI and CFI, the highest was Onion is one of the important vegetable crops, and it yield
produced by alternate furrow AFI. Finally the finding and grade are very responsive to careful irrigation
indorses that farmers can practice alternate furrow scheduling and maintenance of optimum soil moisture [5].
irrigation (AFI) with 20% water saving as a best option, with The objective of this research study was to investigate the
maximum yield compared convectional furrow irrigation effects of alternative and fixed furrow irrigation system
having full water application. onion yield, WUE, irrigation water productivity, and
economic return as compared with conventional method.
Key Words: ETc, Furrow irrigation, Misrak Azernet, Onion,
Water use efficiency 2. Methodology
2.1 Description of the study area
1. INTRODUCTION
The research was conducted at farmers land located in the
Efficient use of water by irrigation system is becoming Misrak Azernet woreda to identify best furrow irrigation
increasingly important in arid and semi-arid regions with system on onion yield and water use efficiency which allow
limited water resources. Furrow irrigation is the most achieving optimum onion yield with economical water use
widely used system in Ethiopia and is characterized by low and improve land productivity in onion cultivation by
efficiency. One way to improve efficiency is reducing water promoting year round cultivation using irrigation. The study
use and consequently pumping costs without significantly site is located at an altitude 2483 m, longitude 007°51'17"N
reducing yield through the use of alternate furrow irrigation and latitude 038°02'45". The mean annual temperature
[1]. ranges from a minimum of 9.3°C to a maximum of 25.7°C.
To ensure food security it is must to use the water wisely in 2.2 Treatments and experimental design
order to enhance food production while save water as
much possible or in other words to increase water use The experiments were conducted in the different field for the
efficiency of field crops. Besides the increasing demand of 2-year period. Transplanting dates were 25 December and
water for other purposes (industry and domestic use), 18 December and harvest dates were 29 April and 09 May,
degradation of water quality will also limit the water respectively, for 2016/17 G.C and 2017/18 G.C. The
availability for agriculture sector in the coming future [2]. experimental design was a randomized complete bock
© 2019, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 7.34 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 612
International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 06 Issue: 08 | Aug 2019 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072
2.1
© 2019, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 7.34 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 613
International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 06 Issue: 08 | Aug 2019 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072
In crop production water productivity is defined as the ratio ΔVC= change in variable cost
of the yield produced from crops to the volume of water
required to produce those yield. Definitions of water 2.9 Data Analysis
productivity are varies with the background of the
researcher. [8] Give a number of strategies for enhancement Data was subjected to ANOVA using SAS statistical soft ware
of agricultural water productivity by integrating varietal based on randomized complete block design. Least
improvement and better resource management at plant Significant Difference (LSD at P=0.05) was employed to
level, field level and agro climatic level. identify different level of deficit irrigation that were
significantly different from other treatments.
Yield ( kg) 2.8
CWP 3 Result and discussion
ETc ( m3)
3.1 Soil Field And Laboratory Result For Experimental
Field
ETc= Seasonal crop water requirement, CWP= Crop water
productivity The soil samples were taken from two different fields in each
experimental season and the soil field and laboratory result
2.7 Agronomic Data Collection
is presented below in table:
The field data such as unit bulb weight and bulb yield weight
Table 3.1: Soil laboratory and field result
were taken from each plot. Unit bulb weight was taken by
random selection of plants from each plot by excluding the Soil parameters Results
border rows and border plants. At the end of the season the Moisture content (%) 8.91
amount of bulb yield produced was harvested and weighted Sand (%) 35.23
from each plot. The harvested yield was grouped based on its Clay (%) 36.23
quality for market according to the size and degree of Silt (%) 28.54
damage [10]. Textural class Clay loam
2.8 Economic Analysis Bulk density (gm/cm3) 1.01
Field capacity (%) 28.93
Economical evaluation of furrow irrigation systems is Permanent wilting point (%) 14.02
analyzing the cost that invested during growing season and Soil Infiltration rate (mm/day) 11.4
benefit gained from yield produced by application of water.
Marginal Rate of Return (MRR) was used for analysis 3.2 Applied irrigation water
following the CYMMYT method [10]. Economic water
In the two growing season the amount of irrigation water
productivity was calculated based on the information
applied on each treatment and amount of irrigation water
obtained at the study site: the size of irrigable area, the price
saved was presented in the discussion: The amount of
of water applied and the income gained from the sale of
irrigation water saved and amount of applied water (Wa)
onion yield by considering the local market price. Yield and
for each treatment are shown in Table. The seasonal
economic data was collected to evaluate the benefits of
amount of applied water in 2016/17 and 2017/18
application of different levels of water in deficit irrigation
respectively were 396.3mm (3963m3ha-1), 346.8mm
treatments. Economic data includes input cost like cost for
(3468m3ha-1), and 495.4 mm (4954m3ha-1) and 331.4mm
water (water pricing) and other costs. However, cost of
(3314m3ha-1), 290.0mm (2900m3ha-1), and 414.3 mm
water pricing and yield sale price were the only cost that
(4142m3ha-1) for alternative, fixed and conventional furrow
varies between treatments
irrigation systems respectively. This indicates that the AFI
The difference between net income of a treatment and its and FFI treatments saved water by approximately 20%, 30%
next higher variable cost treatment termed as change in net respectively, as compared to conventional Furrow Irrigation.
income (ΔNI). Higher net benefits may not be attractive if
they require very much higher costs [8]. Hence, it is required
to calculate marginal costs with the extra marginal net
income. The marginal rate of return (MRR) indicates the
increase of the net income, which is produced by each
additional unit of expenditures and it is computed as follows:
NI
MRR 2.9
VC
© 2019, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 7.34 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 614
International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 06 Issue: 08 | Aug 2019 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072
Table 3.2: Water applied, water saved and seasonal rain LSD(p<0.05)- least significant difference and NS-non-
fall with respect furrow irrigation application levels in significant.
2016/17G.C
In the second year (2017/18), irrigation methods showed
Trts rain Water Water water non-significance on total yield, unit bulb weight and water
fall applied saved(%) saved(mm) use efficiency. It may affected by rain fall contribution in the
(mm) (mm) study area.
AFI 133 396.3 20 99.2
FFI 133 346.8 30 148.6 Table 3.5: Combined effects of irrigation treatments on
CFI 133 495.4 - - total yield, unit bulb weight and water productivity of
onion
AFI= alternative furrow irrigation; FFI= fixed furrow
irrigation; CFI= conventional furrow irrigation Treatment Yield UBW WP(kg/m3)
(t/ha) (gm)
Table 3.3: Water applied, water saved and seasonal rain AFI 11.49 75.25a 3.20a
fall with respect deficit irrigation application levels in
2017/18 G.C FFI 9.54 61.25b 3.10a
CFI 9.87 68.91ba 2.25b
Treatments rain fall Water Water water CV (%) 15.71 9.02 14.31
(mm) applied saved saved(mm)
LSD NS 7.94 0.52
(mm) (%)
AFI 176 331 20 82.9 3.4 Economic analysis
FFI 176 290 30 124.3
CFI 176 414 - - The total cost mainly includes operating and variable costs.
AFI= alternative furrow irrigation; FFI= fixed furrow Operating costs (labor, land preparation, seeds, and
irrigation; CFI= conventional furrow irrigation fertilizers and implement costs) were based on the planted
area. Variable costs depended on the water unit price. But,
3.3 Onion response to furrow irrigation system assumption was made to the operating costs was constant
for all irrigation treatments. The indigenous farmers in the
In the first year (2016/17), irrigation methods showed study area do not pay for irrigation water of their farms.
significant difference on unit bulb weight and water use However, drinking water price was used which was
efficiency. But, irrigation methods has shown non- estimated to be 5 ETB m-3. Total water cost for season was
significance difference total yield in this year. In this year the calculated by multiplying the water unit price by the total
maximum yield of (9.93 ton/ha) was obtained from amount of irrigation water required for onion production.
alternative furrow irrigation system and the minimum Gross revenue has been calculated by multiplying total yield
(7.08ton/ha) was from conventional furrow system. in kg ha-1of onion market price per kilogram at time of
Alternative furrow system has showed the highest water use harvesting. The farm-gate price for onion in this study was
efficiency in contrasts to other treatments, as shown table. 11 ETB/kg.
Table3.4: Effects of irrigation treatments on total yield, Table 3.6: Net income generated and marginal rate of return
unit bulb weight and water productivity of onion in from each treatment per hectare of onion crop.
2016/17 G.C and 2017/18 G.C
Trt AW TY AY GI VC NI MRR
Irrigation Total Unit b Water M3/ha kg/ha kg/ha
Year Treatment Yield UBW WP CFI 7501
(t/ha) (gm) (kg/m3) 4548 9874 8887
97757 22740 7 0
AFI 9.93 73.33a 2.50a FFI 3184 9543 8589
9448 15920 7856 D
FFI 7.19 58.33b 2.10a AFI 11369 9550 7
2016/17 CFI 7.08 64.66a 1.43b 3638 11484 10336 6 18192 4 5
CV (%) 19.03 7.78 16.57
NB: AW=Applied water, OY= observed yield, GI= gross
LSD NS 11.54 0.75
income, VC= variable cost, NI= net income, MRR= marginal
AFI 13.04 77.16 3.90
rate of return and D = dominant treatment
FFI 11.89 64.16 4.10
2017/18 CFI 12.67 73.16 3.06 The result in the economic analysis indicated that the
CV(%) 12.95 8.80 12.40 alternative furrow irrigation was feasible economic
LSD NS NS NS advantage having net income of 95504.1 ETB and high value
AFI, FFI and CFI are alternate, Fxed and conventional furrow marginal rate of return.
irrigation, respectively. CV- coefficient of variance,
© 2019, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 7.34 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 615
International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 06 Issue: 08 | Aug 2019 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072
© 2019, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 7.34 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 616