Click for new scientific resources and news about Corona[COVID-19]

Paper Information

Journal:   PAJOUHESH-VA-SAZANDEGI   WINTER 2009 , Volume 21 , Number IN AGRONOMY AND HORTICULTURE (SPECIAL ISSUE); Page(s) 153 To 162.
 
Paper: 

THE STUDY OF POSSIBILITY TO DECREASE OF IRRIGATION BORDERS WIDTH IN MATURE PISTACHIO (PISTACIA VERA L.) ORCHARDS

 
 
Author(s):  SEDAGHATI N.*, HOSSEINIFARD S.J., MOHAMMADI MOHAMMADABADI A.
 
* IRAN PISTACHIO RESEARCH INSTITUTE
 
Abstract: 

This research carried out on 30-years-old Ohadi cultivar in Kerman research station from 2002-2005. The soil texture was sandy loam and electrical conductivity (EC) of irrigation water was 3 dS/m. This study was based on randomized complete block design in split plot layout, with three replications and three irrigation methods including of border irrigation with border width one and two meters (M1 and M2 treatments) and flood irrigation (M3 treatment). Experimental treatments were irrigated with 30 and 60 days irrigation intervals (F1 and F2 treatments). Irrigation water amount was calculated based on the modified penman by FAO. In the end of each season some factors was measured including of nut fresh and dry weight, percentage of blank and unsplit pistachios, and number of nuts in ounce. MSTATC package be used for statistical analysis. For evaluation of salinity distribution in root zoon, EC measured in different distance from trees and depth of soil and salinity curve draw with Winsurf software. The results indicated M2F1 traement with 8.44Kg/tree and 2.41Kg/tree fresh and dry yield respectively, was the best treatment. Three-years average of fresh and dry yield for the irrigation at 30 days interval was more than 60 days interval. The M1F1 and M1F2 treatments had the minimum of yield. Our data related to amount of water saving in different treatment showed that with decreasing in width of irrigation border to 1m and 2m, 30% and 60% water saving happen in compare to flood irrigation, respectively. The most and least water use efficiency was for M1F1, 0.266Kg/m3 and M3F2, 0.119Kg/m3. However between irrigation border of 1m and 2m there was no significant difference. Salinity accumulation in middle of tree row and in below of mounds in irrigation border of 1m was more severity, however, in irrigation border of 2m not only there was not any salinity accumulation but also because of suitable irrigation and in base of water requirement and leaching requirement had a better condition in soil and root zoon of trees in compare to condition of before treating in control. Therefore with regard of all evaluated factor in this research irrigation border of 1m, although was significant some factors such as percentage of blank pistachio, nut indehiscence percentage, number of nut per ounce and more water saving in compare to control but because of salt accumulation in close to trees and below of mounds, it is not recommended. Regarding to the treatment of irrigation border of 2m not only about all of evaluated factors in compare to the control have not significant difference but also in some factors such as fresh and dry yield and salt accumulation have a better conditions and in point of view of water saving had 30% economy so was the best treatment and recommended to all of growers.

 
Keyword(s): BORDER IRRIGATION, ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, LEACHING, PISTACHIO, WATER USE EFFICIENCY
 
References: 
  • ندارد
 
  Persian Abstract Yearly Visit 87
 
Latest on Blog
Enter SID Blog