EFFECT OF DEFICIT IRRIGATION ON THE PRODUCTIVITY AND CHARACTERISTICS OF TOMATO
Hassan, A., Abuarab, M. (2013). EFFECT OF DEFICIT IRRIGATION ON THE PRODUCTIVITY AND CHARACTERISTICS OF TOMATO. EKB Journal Management System, 30(2), 403-424. doi: 10.21608/mjae.2013.102037
Ahmed. M. Hassan; Mohamed E. Abuarab. "EFFECT OF DEFICIT IRRIGATION ON THE PRODUCTIVITY AND CHARACTERISTICS OF TOMATO". EKB Journal Management System, 30, 2, 2013, 403-424. doi: 10.21608/mjae.2013.102037
Hassan, A., Abuarab, M. (2013). 'EFFECT OF DEFICIT IRRIGATION ON THE PRODUCTIVITY AND CHARACTERISTICS OF TOMATO', EKB Journal Management System, 30(2), pp. 403-424. doi: 10.21608/mjae.2013.102037
Hassan, A., Abuarab, M. EFFECT OF DEFICIT IRRIGATION ON THE PRODUCTIVITY AND CHARACTERISTICS OF TOMATO. EKB Journal Management System, 2013; 30(2): 403-424. doi: 10.21608/mjae.2013.102037

EFFECT OF DEFICIT IRRIGATION ON THE PRODUCTIVITY AND CHARACTERISTICS OF TOMATO

Misr Journal of Agricultural Engineering
Article 8, Volume 30, Issue 2, April 2013, Page 403-424  XML PDF (860.86 K)
Document Type: Original Article
DOI: 10.21608/mjae.2013.102037
View on SCiNiTO View on SCiNiTO
Authors
Ahmed. M. Hassan; Mohamed E. Abuarab
Assist. Prof., Ag. Eng. Dept., Fac. of Ag., Cairo Univ., Egypt.
Abstract
In order to assess the effect of water irrigation deficit during season on yield and mechanical damage of processing tomato, an open field experiment was carried out in two seasons 2010/2011 – 2011/2012. Four irrigation treatments were studied: (ET1: 1 time potential crop evapotranspiration (ETc), ET2: 0.9 ETc, ET3: 0.8 ETc and 0.7 ETc, ET4). The study investigated the yield and mechanical damage in packing cage under four levels of water requirements. Numerous mechanical impacts on fruit occurred with resulting mechanical damages of 15.9, 9.9, 7.1, and 9.5% for treatments ET1, ET2, ET3, and ET4, respectively. Total productions of tomato were 30.77, 29.50, 28.88 and 25.54 ton/fed, but net productions of tomato were 25.88, 26.58, 26.83 and 23.12 ton/fed for treatments ET1, ET2, ET3 and ET4, respectively. The bruised productions of tomatoes were 4.89, 2.92, 2.05 and 2.43 ton/fed for treatments ET1, ET2, ET3 and ET4, respectively. The net profit values for treatments ET1, ET2, ET3 and ET4 were 68990.7, 68841.5, 68644.2, and 59804.6 LE/fed, respectively. The amounts of water saved from ET2 and ET3 were 163.5 and 327 mm, respectively. The amount of water saved can be used to provide other areas to increase the production and thereby increase the water use efficiency.
Keywords
Mechanical damage; physical properties; mechanical properties; yield; tomato; deficit irrigation
References

Allen, R.G.; L.S. Pereira; D. Raes and M. Smith, 1998. Crop evapotranspiration. Guidelines for computing crop water requirements. FAO I. and Drain. Paper No. 56, FAO, Rome, Italy, 300.

Allende, A.; M. Desmet and E. Vanstreels. 2004. Micromechanical and geometrical properties of tomato skin related to differences in puncture  injury susceptibility. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 34:  131-141.

Altisent, M. R. 1991. Damage mechanisms in the handling of fruits: Progress in agricultural physics and engineering. John Matthew (Ed.), Commonwealth Ag. Bur. (CAB) I. Willingford, UK: 231-255.

Bahnasawy, A. H. 2007. Some physical and mechanical properties of garlic. Int. J. Food Eng. 3: 1–18.

Bajema, R. H. and G. M. Hyde. 1998. Instrumented pendulum for impact characterization of whole fruit and vegetable specimen. Transactions of the ASAE 41: 1399-405.

Batu, A. 1998. Some factors affecting on determination and measurement of tomato firmness. Tropical J. of Ag. and Forestry, 22: 411-418.

Costa, J. M.; M.F. Ortuno and M. M. Chaves. 2007. Deficit irrigation as a strategy to save water: physiology and potential application to horticulture. Journal of Integrative Plant Biology 49: 1421–1434.

Dewulf, W.; P. Jancsok; B. Nicolai; D. D. Roeck and D. Briassoulis. 1999. Determining the firmness of a pear using finite element modal analysis.  J. of Ag. Eng. Res., 74 (3): 217-224.

FAO  2010.  Food  and  Agriculture  Organization  of  the  United  Nations. http://www.faostat.fao.org. 16Aug. 2012.

Ghonimy, M. I. 2003. Analytical approach to energy balance in seed-bed preparation for corn crop. Misr J. Ag. Eng., 20 (1): 1-17.

Gonzalez J.J.; K.L. Mccarthy and M. J. Mccarthy. 1998. MRI method to evaluate internal structural changes of tomato during compression. J. Texture Stud. 29: 537-551.

Ibrahim, M. M. 2008. Determination of dynamic coefficient of friction for some materials for feed pellet under different values of pressure and temperature. Misr J. Ag. Eng., 25(4):1389-1409.

Joshi, D.C.; S.K. Das and R.K. Mukherjee. 1993. Physical properties of pumpkin seeds. Agric. Eng. 54: 219–229.

Lien,  C. C.; C.Y. Ay and C. H. Ting. 2009. Non-destructive impact test for assessment of tomato maturity. J. Food Eng. 91(3): 402-407.

Linden, V. V.; N. Scheerlinck and M. Desmet. 2006. Factors that affect tomato  bruise development as a result of mechanical impact. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 42: 260-270.

Lovelli, S.; M. Perniola; A. Ferrara and T. Di Tommaso. 2007. Yield  response factor to water (Ky) and water use efficiency of Carthamus tinctorius L. and Solanum melongena L. Agric. Water Manage. 92,  73–80.

Mohsenin, N. N. 1986. Physical properties of plant and animal materials. Structure,  physical  characteristics  and  mechanical  properties.  2nd updated and revised ed. Gordon and Breach Sc. Pub. Inc. N. Y.

Topcu, S.; C. Kirda; Y. Dasgan; H. Kaman; M. Cetin; A. Yazici and M.A. Bacon, 2007. Yield response and N-fertilizer recovery of tomato grown under deficit irrigation. Europ. J. of Agron. 26: 64 –70.

USDA 1991. United States Standards for Grades of Fresh Tomatoes. http://www.ams.usda.gov/standards/tomatfrh.pdf. 3 Jul. 2012.

Zhiguo L.; L. Pingping and L. Jizhan. 2010. Effect of tomato internal structure on its mechanical properties and degree of mechanical damage. African J. of Biotec. Vol. 9(12): 1816-1826.

Statistics
Article View: 126
PDF Download: 142