0% found this document useful (0 votes)
56 views9 pages

Performance Evaluation of Drip Irrigation Under High Density Planting of Papaya

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1/ 9

Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry 2018; 7(3): 2262-2270

E-ISSN: 2278-4136
P-ISSN: 2349-8234
JPP 2018; 7(3): 2262-2270 Performance evaluation of drip irrigation under
Received: 03-03-2018
Accepted: 04-04-2018 high density planting of papaya
Abhishek Ranjan
PhD Student, Vaugh School of Abhishek Ranjan, Dr. DM Denis, Himanshu Mishra and Ishika Singh
Agricultural Engineering and
Technology, SHUATS, Uttar
Abstract
Pradesh, India
Papaya (Carica papaya L.) belongs to family caricaceae is one of the most important remunerative fruit
Dr. DM Denis
crop cultivated throughout the tropical and subtropical region of our country. Drip irrigation is one of the
Dean, Vaugh School of most efficient methods of water application to crops. It has high water use efficiency and hence should be
Agricultural Engineering and adopted on a large scale for various horticultural crops like papaya. Drip irrigation method is very
Technology, SHUATS Uttar efficient for supplying irrigation water to the plant precisely to root zone. Drip water system applies
Pradesh, India water slowly to keep soil moisture within the desire range of plant growth. Therefore, these experiments
had been planned to be conducted for assessing the effect of drip irrigation on papaya in high density
Himanshu Mishra orchard with following objectives: To estimate uniformity coefficient of emitter discharge, To develop a
PhD Student, Vaugh School of relation between pressure and emitter discharge, To estimate crop water requirement of papaya under
Agricultural Engineering and high density planting, To calculate the cost of installation of drip irrigation for papaya. To evaluate the
Technology, SHUATS Uttar performance evaluation of drip irrigation system are Emitter discharge and operating pressure. Based on
Pradesh, India the results obtained, the following conclusions can be drawn: The uniformity coefficient was acceptable
(94.67 – 96.62 %) for all the pressure setting but was highest at 1 kg/cm2 (96.62 %). The variation of
Ishika Singh
PG Student, Vaugh School of
average discharge along the laterals was erratic, Coefficient of uniformity increases with decrease in
Agricultural Engineering and emitter flow variation and total cost of installation of drip irrigation system for papaya under high density
Technology, SHUATS Uttar planting was found to be 1, 87,575 Rs / ha.
Pradesh, India
Keywords: drip, tube well, electric motor, PVC and LLDPE pipe

Introduction
Papaya (Carica papaya L.) belongs to family caricaceae is one of the most important
remunerative fruit crop cultivated throughout the tropical and subtropical region of our
country. It is a native of tropical America and introduced from Philippines through Malaysia to
India during 16th century. Papaya has gained more importance owing to its palatability, fruit
ability throughout the year, early fruiting and highest productivity per unit area and
multifarious uses like food, medicine and industrial input. The fruit is rich source of vitamin
A, B and C. Green fruit papaya contain protease enzyme ‘papin’ which has diverse use in
pharmaceutical and food industries.
The area under papaya in India is 98000 ha and has production at 39.29 lakh tonnes with an
average productivity of 37.0 t/ha. It is mainly cultivated in Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat,
Karnataka, West Bengal, Chhattisgarh, Assam, Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu.
India is the second largest fruit producer in the world and Andhra Pradesh secure second
position in fruit production in India. Unfortunately productivity of all fruit in India is very low
as compared to other fruit growing countries of the world. Papaya responds well to water
management. The plant is highly sensitive to water logged condition and hence it is not
important to prevent wet condition in papaya irrigation. In well-drained soil, irrigation at
shorter interval during early crop stages result in good establishment and also encourages
better plant development on other hand.
Water is one the most important and unfortunately one of the scarce natural resource available
on earth. Drip irrigation is one of the most efficient methods of water application to crops. It
has high water use efficiency and hence should be adopted on a large scale for various
horticultural crops like papaya. It is the most efficient (90-95%), more uniform rate of water
application with less maintenance along with 20% to 70% water saving and increased crop
production prospects. This technology can be used to irrigate the crop with poor quality of
water. The system helps not only in water saving, but also in the growing crops in saline soils.
Correspondence Drip irrigation method is very efficient for supplying irrigation water to the plant precisely to
Abhishek Ranjan
PhD Student, Vaugh School of
root zone. In this method water is supplied at slower rate over a longer period of time at
Agricultural Engineering and regular intervals through low pressure delivery system to meet evapotranspiration demand of
Technology, SHUATS Uttar water. Drip water system applies water slowly to keep soil moisture within the desire range of
Pradesh, India plant growth.
~ 2262 ~
Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry

Therefore, these experiments had been planned to be irrigation (60% of water) with mulching gave the highest
conducted for assessing the effect of drip irrigation on papaya yield (812.42 q/ha), plant height (172.75 cm), girth (36.67
in high density orchard with following objectives: cm), leaf number (39.92), fruit length (23.04 cm) and
1. To estimate uniformity coefficient of emitter discharge. circumference (34.33 cm), fruit number (31.27 per plant),
2. To develop a relation between pressure and emitter fruit weight (1613.77 g), pericarp thickness (3.05 cm), total
discharge. soluble solid content (14.13%), net returns (Rs. 150409/ha),
3. To estimate crop water requirement of papaya under and benefit cost ratio (1:2.85), as well as the earliest flowering
high density planting. and fruit set (20 days earlier than the control). Drip irrigation
4. To calculate the cost of installation of drip irrigation for of 100% water resulted in the highest water use efficiency
papaya. (180.54 q ha-1 mm-1).
Suresh et al. (2004) [17] evaluated the effect of drip irrigation
Review of literature and mulching on the performance of papaya (Pusa Dwarf) on
Christiansen (1942) [5] define coefficient of uniformity (Cu) to calcareous soil in Andhra Pradesh, India during 2001 and
quantify the degree of flow variation, the mathematical 2001-02. The conducted experiments on irrigation treatments
relationship for Cu is given as: were drip irrigation with V volume of water (T1), drip
irrigation with 0.8 V volume of water (T2), drip irrigation
Cu = (1-dq/q)
with 0.6 V volume of water (T3), basin irrigation (T4), drip
Where, irrigation with V volume of water + mulch (T5), drip
q = mean emitter flow irrigation with 0.8 V + mulch (T6), drip irrigation with 0.6 V
dq = mean absolute variation from the mean emitter flow + mulch (T7) and, basin irrigation with V volume of water +
mulch (T8). They resulted the highest average fruit length of
Keller et al. (1974) suggested a simpler form for the emitter 86 cm in T5 and highest average fruit number per plant (24.1)
flow: was obtained with T6. They concluded that the highest
Q  K cH
x average fruit weight (0.97 kg), yield (23.2 kg/plant) was
obtained with T6 and B: C ratio was highest (10.96) under T6,
Where, while the lowest (4.56) was obtained under T4.
Q = average flow through emitter Goenaga et al. (2004) [9] stated that there is a scarcity of
KC =multiplying constant specific to emitter information regarding the optimum water requirement for
H = initial pressure at the head of lateral papaya (Carica papaya) grown under semiarid conditions
X = flow exponent, whose value depend on flow with drip irrigation in the tropics. They conducted two-year
study to determine water requirement, yield, and fruit quality
Srinivas (1996) [15] evaluated papaya water relations, growth, traits of papaya cv Red Lady subjected to five levels of
yield and water use under drip irrigation at different irrigation. The irrigation treatments were based on Class A
evaporation-replenishment rates (20, 40, 60, 80, 100 and pan factors that ranged from 0.25 to 1.25 in increments of
120% of United States Weather Bureau Class A Pan 0.25. Drip irrigation was supplied three times a week on
evaporation) with subsurface drip (at 250 mm depth in the alternate days. They concluded that significant effects of
soil) and surface drip irrigation at Bangalore, India between irrigation on number of fruits, yield and fruit length. Irrigation
1990 and 1992. He observed that increasing the evaporation- treatments did not have a significant effect on brix
replenishment rates from 20 to 120% increased the relative (sweetness). They also concluded that the marketable fruit
leaf water content by 13.2%, transpiration rate by 18.8%, weight (75 907 kg/ha) was obtained from plants irrigated
plant height by 21.9%, stem girth by 12.5%, fruit number by according to a pan factor of 1.25 and papaya grown under
88.3% and yield by 34.6%. The yield during the 36 months semiarid conditions should be irrigated according to a pan
after planting was 96.7 t/ha with 20% evaporation- factor of not less than 1.25.
replenishment rate and 130.2 t/ha with 120% evaporation- Coelho et al. (2007) [6] conducted a study at the Reconcavo
replenishment rate. Fruit yield differences above 60% Baiano (Bahia, Brazil) to evaluate the Sunrise Solo papaya
evaporation-replenishment rates were not significant. Water (Carica papaya) yield under different trickle irrigation
use from 0 to 36 months after planting increased with an systems. They treated with surface drip along plant rows (1),
increase in evaporation-replenishment rates (from 1651 mm surface drip between plant rows (2), buried-drip along plant
to 4208 mm at the 20% and 120% replenishment rates, rows (3), buried drip between plant row (4) and micro
respectively). Water-use efficiency (WUE) over this period sprinkler (one emitter for two plants). There were no
decreased from 58.6 to 30.9 kg ha-1 mm-1 at the 20% and significant differences among treatments in terms of plant
120% replenishment rates, respectively. He also concluded growth (stem diameter, plant height and total leaf area) on the
that subsurface drip irrigation resulted in significantly higher first year. They concluded that the differences among
yields (averaging 121.4 compared with 160.6 t/ha-1) and treatments were larger for leaf area, where treatments 5 and 1
WUE (averaging 40.6 compared with 37.2 kg ha-1 mm-1) showing higher values than the treatments. They resulted
than surface drip irrigation. micro sprinkler and surface drip irrigation along row crops
Narendra et al. (2002) examined the effects of irrigation (40, provided more adequate conditions for soil water distribution
60, 80, or 100% water through drip irrigation) with or without with cumulative productivities of 76.47 and 82.58 tonnes/ha,
mulching (with 25 micron thick black plastic mulch) on the respectively, which is about 38% more than the values
growth and yield of papaya cv. CO-2 in Raipur, Chhattisgarh, obtained from the other systems.
India. Basin irrigation with or without plastic mulch were Sandeep et al. (2008) [11] the study was conducted to evaluate
used as a control. Drip irrigation resulted in higher water use the head loss in main line and lateral line for drip irrigation
efficiency than basin irrigation. Increased yield and water use system. The study involved four types of emission devices
efficiency were obtained when drip irrigation was viz. dripper, micro-tube, drip-in and drip tape. The head loss
supplemented with mulching. They concluded that drip was calculated by measuring loss in pressure head in actual
~ 2263 ~
Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry

length of main and lateral line at four locations of the system


with different spacing and operating pressure head. The Description of the installed drip system and pumping unit
minimum and maximum head loss in main and lateral line
was for drippers and micro-tubes, respectively. Empirical
equations for head loss combined for all emission devices and
individual for each emission device were developed.

Materials and Methods


This chapter deals with description of materials used and
methods for collection of data to analyze the performance
evaluation and crop water requirement of drip irrigation under
high density planting of papaya.

Experimental site
Fig 3.2: Detailed Layout of experimental plot
The field investigation was conducted at water management
plot of South upland adjoining to ANGRAU farm during
March to November, 2016. It lies at 25.98 0N latitude, 85.670S In this section, the detailed information about the installed
longitudes and at an altitude of about 52.00 meter above the system and pumping unit are presented. The detailed
sea level. The field has an approximate uniform topography information about main line, submain, laterals, emitters,
with deep and well drained sandy loam soil. filters and pumping unit are also given.

Climate Mainline
The climate of the study area is humid subtropical and Main line (160 mm PVC pipe, 6 kg/cm2) was laid beneath the
receives fairly good amount of south west monsoon. The ground surface on the normal land slope at a depth of 60 cm.
average annual rainfall in the area is 1620 mm. Out of which Filters and bypass assemblies were at a distance of 1 m from
nearly 1026 mm (80.78%) occurs in the monsoon months. the papaya plot. The main line was joined with the screen
The average minimum and maximum temperatures during the filter the total length of main pipe from screen filter to sub
hottest months of May to June goes up to 3 0– 4 0C and 430 - main was measured as 24m.
44 0C respectively. The metrological data such as
temperature, rainfall and pan evaporation during crop period Submain
were obtained from metrological observatory located at about The sub main line (75 mm PVC pipe, 6 kg/cm2) was also laid
0.5 km away from the experimental site. on the normal slope and 60 cm below the ground surface the
total length of sub main was 21 m.
The one flush valve was installed at the end of the sub main.
Water table condition
The water table fluctuates from 1.0 m to 6.0 m depending Before starting the pump, the end plug was opened to remove
upon the rainfall pattern and pumping rate. The highest the entrapped air from the drip irrigation line.
position of water table is during monsoon which slowly drops
to an alarming limit during summer season. Laterals
For laterals (16 mm LLDPE, 2.6 kg/cm2) pipes were laid over
the ground surface. The laterals were connected to sub main
Experimental field layout
A plot of size 47 m × 20.5 m was selected with papaya and lateral length for papaya crop was 46 m and the number
plantation. The whole plot was divided into two parts along of laterals was 12.
the length separated by sub main. The row to row and plant to
plant spacing was 1.7 m×1.3 m. Emitters
Emitters were fitted on laterals near the plant of papaya. The
emitters were fitted to the laterals after making a hole on the
Water source
An existing shallow tube well available near the site was used laterals at a distance equal to the plant spacing. Total number
as the source of irrigation water. The diameter of the tube well of emitters were used in the papaya plot was 432. The end of
was 8 inch and a submersible pump was used for water lifting. each laterals were closed with an end plug.

Filter
A metal screen filter of Jain irrigation make with 50 m3/ hr
capacity was provided on the delivery side to check the flow
of impurities and suspended sand particles in the mainline so
that clogging of emitters are minimized.

Pumping unit
The pump used was a submersible which gives the water
supply at desired pressure. The pump is driven by 20 HP
electric motor. The pump supplies the irrigation water through
the filter to the main line. There was bypass assembly and the
venture assembly for regulation of pressure and application of
fertilizers through the system.

Fig 3.1: Laying of laterals in Papaya plot

~ 2264 ~
Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry

Where,
Cu
= Uniformity coefficient for lateral (%)
q = Mean emitter discharge of the lateral.
δq = Average of the absolute deviation of emitter discharge
from the mean emitter discharge of the lateral.
Uniformity coefficient for the whole plot, Cu

 q 
C u  1    100
 q 
  … 3.4

Fig 3.3: Screen fileter and pressure guage Where,


Cu = uniformity coefficient for whole plot, (%)
Performance evaluation q = Mean lateral discharge of the plot.
To evaluate the performance of the system pump was started  qp= Average of the absolute deviation of lateral discharge
and all the leakages from the various points were checked from the mean lateral discharge of the plot.
properly. Dust and other foreign materials entered into the Emitter flow variation for individual laterals,
system were removed through the flush. After five minutes,
flush valve were closed and the drip irrigation system was
operated for the evaluation of its performance. The data on q  q 
qv     100
max min

the following parameters were collected for performance  


 q max 
evaluation of drip irrigation system. … 3.5
1. Emitter discharge
2. Operating pressure Where,
The procedure followed for evaluating the various Qmax = Maximum emitter discharge along the laterals.
parameters is given below qmin = Minimum emitter discharge along the laterals.

Emitter discharge measurement Pressure-discharge relationship


After removing the entrapped air from the different Pressure discharge relationship was established by using the
components of the system like main, sub main and laterals equation given by Keller (1974). This is given below:
through flush valve and attending the stable flow condition at
q  K  H
x
a desired operating pressure, the observation were taken.
The discharge was collected in small beakers 100 ml for a … 3.6
fixed duration of 60 seconds of various operating pressures Where,
viz. , 0.6, 0.8, 1.0, 1.2 kg/cm2 and was measured by a Q = Average flow rate through the emitter
measuring flask. The various emitter locations were selected K = Multiplying constant specific to the emitter
randomly and thus the observation were taken for the emitters H = Initial pressure head of lateral
at serials 1, 4, 8, and 16 for both eastern and western X = Flow component, whose value depends on the flow
segments. The laterals number 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12 regime
were selected for the observation.
The mean emitter discharge for the individual laterals: Water requirement
Water was supplied to plants by drip irrigation system. The
n volume of water was supplied in the drip irrigation system
qi
q   n
according to consumptive use of the plant. The consumptive
use of the plant is a plant function, surface are covered by the
i0
... 3.1
plant and evaporation rate. According to the Ministry of
Agriculture, Department of Agriculture and Co-operation,
Where,
Horticulture Division, New Delhi. The daily water
qi = Discharge of individual emitter
requirement or consumptive use of the plants can be
n = No. of emitters.
calculated as under.
And the mean emitter discharge for the whole plot,
V  E  K  K  K  A
m
qi
p c p r
… 3.7
q   m
… 3.2
i0 Net volume of water Vn, to be applied could be expressed as
Where,
qi = Discharge of individual laterals Vn  V  R e  A
… 3.8
m = No. of laterals
Uniformity coefficient of individual laterals The total volume of water applied per plot per day.
Total volume = Vn × no of plant
 q 
C u   1    100 Where,
 q  ... 3.3 V = Water requirement or consumptive use of the plant
~ 2265 ~
Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry

( l /plant/day) Pressure discharge relationship


Ep = Pan evaporation (mm/day) From the fig. 4.1, it is clear that emitter discharge increases
Kp = Pan factor (its value is taken as 0.8 for USWB type exponentially with increase in pressure head. The maximum
pan) mean emitter discharge (5.22 lph) was found at 1.2 kg/cm2
Kr = Coverage factor (taken to be 0.75) and minimum mean emitter discharge (3.55 lph) at 0.6
A = Row spacing × plant spacing (m2) kg/cm2. The value of ke and x were found to be 1.284 and
Re = Effective rainfall (cm) 0.5672 respectively by the regression of pressure head and
Kc = Crop coefficient of fully grown plant. mean emitter discharge. The emitter flow function for the plot
‘A’ when multiplied by Kr will yield the wetted area under is established as:
drip irrigation.
q  1 . 284 H
0 . 5672

… 4.1
Cost of installation for papaya crop
The cost of installation is divided in two parts i.e., fixed cost
and variable cost. The fixed cost includes the cost of filters,
bypass assembly, fertilizer injector etc. This cost do not
depends on the extent of area covered.
Apart from the filters, bypass assembly, fertilizer injector etc.,
there are some components to be installed whose cost depends
on the area to be covered. The cost of these components is
known as variable cost. This includes the cost of emitters,
laterals, flush valve end plug, sub main, pipelines etc.

Results and Discussion


This chapter is concerned with the result obtained and
discussion related with the evaluation of the performance of Fig 4.1: Variation of emitter discharge with operating pressure
drip irrigation system and crop water requirement under high
density planting of papaya. The mean emitter discharge and The mean emitter flow for the individual laterals and the
coefficient of uniformity and pressure discharge relationship whole plot was determined and a relationship between emitter
has been calculated for whole plot. Crop water requirement discharges was established as shown in fig. 4.1, which
for papaya under high density has also been calculated. statistics the standard relationship (equation 3.2).
Finally the cost of installation of drip irrigation system for
papaya under high density has been calculated. Uniformity coefficient and emitter flow variation
The uniformity coefficient for the individual laterals and the
Performance evaluation of the system whole plot was calculated at different operating pressure are
For evaluating the hydraulic performance, the drip irrigation presented in table 4.1.
system was operated at different pressures viz., 0.6, 0.8, 1.0 The emitter flow variation for individual laterals and the
and 1.2 kg/cm2, and emitter discharge was measured. The whole plot were also determined and was correlated with
uniformity coefficient was also determined. uniformity coefficient. It was found that the uniformity
coefficient is decreasing with increase in emitter flow
Emitter discharge variation but, at some critical points, it fails as its equation
The emitter discharge obtained at different atmospheric involves the discharge of only two points or laterals i.e.,
pressure viz., 0.6, 0.8, 1.0 and 1.2 kg/cm2 is presented in table maximum and minimum discharge and does not account for
4.1. the discharge at other points or laterals.
From the table 4.1, it can be observed that the variation in the It was found that that the uniformity coefficient varied from
discharge has no relation with the location of the laterals 94.67 per cent to 96.62 per cent and emitter flow variation
which may be due to variation in the entrance losses and other (qvar) varied from 5.03 to 2.59 per cent which is within the
hydraulic properties of the individual emitter. Taking the plot recommended range.
as a whole the mean emitter discharge at the operating The maximum uniformity coefficient (96.62%) was found at a
pressure 0.6, 0.8, 1.0 and 1.2 kg/cm2 observed to be 3.55, pressure 1.0 kg/cm2 with emitter flow variation 2.39%. From
4.14, 4.64, and 5.22 lph respectively. this pressure, the uniformity coefficient was decreasing with
either increase or decrease in pressure. The result obtained at
different pressure is tabulated below:

Table 4.1: Average discharge (lph) and Uniformity Coefficient (%) at different Operating Pressure (kg/cm2)
Serial No. Operating Pressure (kg/cm2) Average discharge(lph) Uniformity Coefficient (%)
1 0.6 3.55 94.67
2 0.8 4.14 95.85
3 1.0 4.64 96.62
4 1.2 5.22 96.56

~ 2266 ~
Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry

Fig 4.2: Discharge variation along the laterals through Fig 4.3: Discharge variation along the submain through drippers
laterals

Table 4.2(a): Emitter discharge (lph) at operating pressure 0.6 kg/cm2


Emitter
Lateral No. qavg δq Cu qvar
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 3.56 3.78 3.46 3.56 3.74 3.54 3.86 3.24 3.59 0.150 95.80 16.062
2 3.74 3.54 3.62 3.24 3.96 3.64 3.62 3.84 3.65 0.147 95.95 18.181
3 3.25 3.86 3.68 3.58 3.42 3.84 3.74 3.52 3.61 0.168 95.32 15.803
4 3.68 3.46 3.28 3.34 3.3 3.94 3.82 3.42 3.53 0.212 93.98 16.751
5 3.85 3.28 3.8 3.82 3.46 3.58 3.92 3.12 3.60 0.243 93.23 20.40
6 3.41 3.66 3.34 3.64 3.26 3.62 3.56 3.24 3.46 0.153 95.56 16.475
7 3.36 3.48 3.64 3.24 3.92 3.98 3.48 3.36 3.55 0.216 93.90 18.592
8 3.48 3.24 3.72 3.58 3.82 3.68 3.52 3.28 3.54 0.16 95.48 15.183
9 3.6 3.82 3.24 3.56 3.54 3.12 3.34 3.84 3.50 0.205 94.13 18.75
10 3.26 3.72 3.52 3.28 3.98 3.24 3.68 3.26 3.49 0.232 93.34 18.59
For whole plot 3.55 0.189 94.67 5.034
qavg = mean emitter discharge
Cu = coefficient of uniformity
δq = average of the absolute deviation of emitter discharge from the mean emitter discharge of the lateral
qvar = emitter flow variation (%)

Table 4.2(b) Emitter discharge (lph) at operating pressure 0.8 kg/cm2


Lateral No. Emitter qavg δq Cu qvar
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 3.98 3.86 4.32 4.46 4.28 3.94 3.82 4.44 4.13 0.237 94.25 14.349
2 4.02 4.24 4.16 3.94 4.16 4.36 3.92 3.88 4.08 0.145 96.45 16.009
3 4.42 4.12 3.96 4.26 4.38 3.92 4.06 4.46 4.19 0.182 95.65 12.107
4 3.92 3.96 4.24 4.56 3.82 4.44 4.24 4.12 4.16 0.207 95.01 16.228
5 4.26 4.36 4.04 3.86 4.18 4.28 3.84 4.26 4.13 0.166 95.97 16.926
6 4.36 4.08 3.86 3.92 4.42 3.98 4.28 4.12 4.12 0.169 95.89 12.669
7 4.12 4.24 3.98 4.32 4.18 4.68 3.96 4.26 4.21 0.157 96.26 15.384
8 3.94 4.08 4.16 4.24 3.96 4.28 4.36 4.12 4.14 0.167 97.16 9.633
9 4.48 4.26 4.02 4.12 3.98 4.36 3.92 4.06 4.15 0.162 96.08 12.5
10 4.02 4.28 3.86 4.28 4.06 3.94 4.38 3.84 4.08 0.173 95.75 12.328
For whole plot 4.14 0.171 95.85 3.200
qavg = mean emitter discharge
Cu = coefficient of uniformity
δq = average of the absolute deviation of emitter discharge from the mean emitter discharge of the lateral
qvar = emitter flow variation (%)

Table 4.2(c) Emitter discharge (lph) at operating pressure 1.0 kg/cm2


Emitter
Lateral no. qavg δq Cu qvar
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 4.96 4.56 4.48 4.72 4.68 4.9 4.62 4.52 4.68 0.135 97.16 9.677
2 4.38 4.54 4.64 4.86 4.64 4.52 4.84 4.76 4.64 0.129 97.21 9.876
3 4.56 4.68 4.96 4.72 4.58 4.64 4.48 4.52 4.64 0.108 97.67 9.677
4 4.64 5.02 4.6 4.28 4.58 4.32 4.86 4.56 4.60 0.174 96.21 14.741
5 4.86 4.38 4.44 4.92 4.64 4.54 4.62 4.26 4.58 0.177 96.12 13.414
6 4.98 5.12 4.72 4.34 4.68 4.72 4.58 4.24 4.67 0.214 95.41 17.187
7 4.82 4.64 4.96 4.38 4.64 4.82 4.92 4.38 4.65 0.185 96.05 16.693
8 4.62 4.56 4.82 4.76 4.58 4.42 4.96 4.62 4.66 0.134 97.12 10.887
~ 2267 ~
Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry

9 5.06 4.56 4.34 4.48 4.68 4.82 4.76 4.58 4.66 0.17 96.35 14.229
10 4.56 4.72 4.38 4.82 4.64 4.92 4.68 4.42 4.64 0.142 96.93 10.975
For whole plot 4.64 0.157 96.62 2.396
qavg = mean emitter discharge
Cu = coefficient of uniformity
δq = average of the absolute deviation of emitter discharge from the mean emitter discharge of the lateral
qvar = emitter flow variation (%)

Table 4.2(d): Emitter discharge (lph) at operating pressure 1.2 kg/cm2


Emitter
Lateral no. qavg δq Cu qvar
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 5.66 4.82 5.2 5.38 5.5 4.96 5.2 5.14 5.23 0.210 95.97 14.840
2 5.12 4.8 5.6 5.18 5.34 5.24 5.12 5.56 5.24 0.191 96.35 14.285
3 5.24 5.3 5.28 5.5 5.12 4.78 5.8 5.2 5.27 0.192 96.35 17.586
4 5.38 5.24 4.82 4.96 5.46 5.2 5.22 5.34 5.20 0.156 96.98 16.721
5 5.02 5.36 5.1 4.96 5.3 5.48 5.26 5.48 5.24 0.163 96.87 9.489
6 5.1 5.24 5.54 5.12 4.9 5.38 5.32 5.46 5.25 0.167 96.81 16.552
7 5.34 5.5 5.18 4.84 4.72 5.28 5.36 5.24 5.18 0.201 96.10 14.181
8 5.2 5.28 5.42 4.9 5.48 4.82 5.18 5.12 5.17 0.171 96.69 12.043
9 5.12 5.46 5.58 5.6 4.98 5.12 5.26 5.26 5.29 0.186 96.47 16.0714
10 5.04 5.24 5.32 5.12 5.46 4.94 5.24 4.92 5.16 0.155 96.99 9.890
For whole plot 5.22 0.179 96.56 2.595
qavg = mean emitter discharge
Cu = coefficient of uniformity
δq = average of the absolute deviation of emitter discharge from the mean emitter discharge of the lateral
qvar = emitter flow variation (%)

Table 4.3: Weekly, Rain fall, Pan Evaporation crop water requirement of papaya
Volume
Rainfa Pan Crop Pan Coverage Area under Requirement
applied
Week ll Evaporation Coefficient Coefficie Coefficient One Papaya (V)
( Vn) l/Plan
( mm) (mm/week) (Kc)* nt (Kp)** ( Kr) plant,m2( A) l/Plant/week
/week
3.3.16 to 7.3.16 0 9.6 0.6 0.8 0.75 2.21 7.63 7.63
8.3.16 to 15.3.16 0 43.5 0.6 0.8 0.75 2.21 34.60 34.60
16.3.16 to 22.3.16 0 25.4 0.6 0.8 0.75 2.21 20.20 20.20
23.3.16 to 31.3.16 2.5 43.1 0.6 0.8 0.75 2.21 34.29 28.77
1.4.16 to 7.4.16 18.0 26.6 0.6 0.8 0.75 2.21 21.16 0
8.4.16 to 15.4.16 0.0 46 0.6 0.8 0.75 2.21 36.59 36.60
16.4.16 to 22.4.16 12.0 43.1 0.6 0.8 0.75 2.21 34.29 7.77
23.4.16 to 30.4.16 14 47.1 0.6 0.8 0.75 2.21 37.47 6.53
1.5.16 to 7.5.16 9.5 32.1 0.7 0.8 0.75 2.21 29.80 8.80
8.5.16 to 15.5.16 3.2 52.8 0.7 0.8 0.75 2.21 49.00 41.93
16.5.16 to 22.5.16 37.6 36 0.7 0.8 0.75 2.21 33.41 0.0
23.5.16 to 31.5.16 100.8 53.2 0.7 0.8 0.75 2.21 49.38 0.0
1.6.16 to 7.6.16 0 32.7 0.7 0.8 0.75 2.21 30.35 30.35
8.6.16 to 15.6.16 36.6 50.5 0.7 0.8 0.75 2.21 46.87 0.0
16.6.16 to 22.6.16 55.1 28.3 0.7 0.8 0.75 2.21 26.27 0.0
23.6.16 to 30.6.16 207.6 45.2 0.7 0.8 0.75 2.21 41.95 0.0
1.7.16 to 7.7.16 152.2 19.9 0.7 0.8 0.75 2.21 18.47 0.0
8.7.16 to 15.7.16 32.8 36.4 0.8 0.8 0.75 2.21 38.62 0.0
16.7.16 to 22.7.16 55.8 23.6 0.8 0.8 0.75 2.21 25.03 0.0
23.7.16 to 31.7.16 58.4 33.7 0.8 0.8 0.75 2.21 35.75 0.0
1.8.16 to 7.8.16 76.9 20.1 0.8 0.8 0.75 2.21 21.32 0.0
8.8.16 to 15.8.16 39 15.9 0.8 0.8 0.75 2.21 16.87 0.0
16.8.16 to 22.8.16 125.5 7 0.8 0.8 0.75 2.21 7.42 0.0
23.8.16 to 31.8.16 13.2 18.6 0.8 0.8 0.75 2.21 19.73 0.0
1.9.16 to 7.9.16 69.9 16.1 0.8 0.8 0.75 2.21 17.07 0.0
8.9.16 to 15.9.16 46.6 31.2 0.8 0.8 0.75 2.21 34.00 0.0
16.9.16 to 22.9.16 67.6 23.6 0.8 0.8 0.75 2.21 25.03 0.0
23.9.16 to 30.9.16 6.3 32.1 0.8 0.8 0.75 2.21 34.05 20.12
1.10.16 to 7.10.16 0 37.8 1 0.8 0.75 2.21 50.12 50.12
8.10.16 to
14 33.12 1 0.8 0.75 2.21 43.91 12.98
15.10.16
16.10.16 to
0 17.5 1 0.8 0.75 2.21 23.20 23.21
22.10.16
23.10.16 to
0 46.3 1 0.8 0.75 2.21 61.39 61.39
31.10.16
Total 1255.1 1004.43 391.03 1.767

~ 2268 ~
Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry

Irrigation requirement of papaya under high density to the crop. The water requirement by drip irrigation in
The weekly irrigation requirement of the papaya crop was papaya plant for the time of fruiting was 1004 liters per plant.
estimated using equations (3.7) and is shown in table 4.2. The volume of water applied by drip irrigation was 391 liters
Whenever there was an excess rainfall in a particular month per plant.
as compared to crop water requirement, no water was applied

Fig 4.4: Crop water requirement and volume applied through drip system

Cost of installation of drip irrigation system known as variable cost. This includes the cost of emitters,
The cost of installation is divided in two parts i.e., fixed cost laterals, flush valve end pluck, submain, main pipelines etc.
and variable cost. The fixed cost includes the cost of filters, Both the fixed cost and variable cost were calculated
bypass assembly, fertilizer injector etc. This cost do not separately and then added to get the total cost of installation
depends on the extent of area covered. of drip irrigation system for papaya under high density.
Apart from the filters, bypass assembly, fertilizer injector etc.,
there are some components to be installed whose cost depends Fixed cost
on the area to be covered. The cost of these components is

Table 4.4(a) Calculation of fixed cost


Sl. No Components Unit Quantity Unit cost (Rs.) Amount (Rs.)
1 Jain super clean filter
No. 1 6863.00 6863.00
2 Venturi mainfold No. 1 4401.00 4401.00
3 Venturi assembly No. 1 984.00 984.00
4 Gun metal valve No. 2 8853.00 17706.00
5 By pass assembly No. 1 2332.00 2332.00
Total 32286.00
Installation charges 12.5 % on material value = 4035.50 Rs.
VAT @ 4 % = 1291.44 Rs.
Hence, Total fixed cost = 37612.44 Rs.
Variable cost

Table 4.4(b) Calculation of variable cost


Sl. No Components Unit Quantity Unit cost (Rs.) Amount (Rs.)
1 Main m. 24 191.00 4584.00
2 Submain m. 21 91.00 1916.00
3 Plain laterals m. 552 8.00 4416.00
4 J tyrbo key dripper No. 432 3.25.00 1404.00
5 Flush valve No. 1 85.00 85.00
Total 12400.00
Installation charges 12.5 % on material value = 1550.37 Rs.
VAT @ 4 % = 496.12 Rs.
Thus, Total variable cost = 14449.74 Rs.
Variable cost per hectare =149963 Rs.
Total cost of installation for papaya plot under high density is 187575 Rs / ha.

Summary and Conclusions orchard. Accommodation of the maximum possible number of


In a world of explosive demographic growth, it is very plant per unit area to get maximum possible profit per unit
difficult to keep the pace of production of food in particular area of tree volume without impairing the soil fertility status
with the growing needs for food. Every means must, is called high density planting.
therefore, be sought to increase agricultural production. Drip irrigation method has prove its superiority over
Therefore, we should efficiently utilize water, which is a conventional method of irrigation, especially fruit and
precious natural resource. vegetable crops. It is very efficient for supplying irrigation
India is the second largest fruit producer in the world. water to the plant precisely to root zone. In this method water
Unfortunately productivity of all fruit in India is very low as is supplied at slower rate over a longer period of time at
compared to other fruit growing countries of the world. It is regular intervals through low pressure delivery system to meet
major cause of advocating the adsorption of higher density evapotranspiration demand of water.
~ 2269 ~
Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry

Volume of water approaching the consumptive use of plants, 5. Christiansen JE. Irrigation by sprinkler university of
thereby minimizing such conventional losses as a deep California. College of Agricultural, Ag. Exp.Sta. Berkej,
percolation, runoff, and soil water evaporation. Drip water Bulletin. 1942, 670.
system applies water slowly to keep soil moisture within the 6. Coelho. Filho MA, Coelho EF. Growth and yield of
desire range of plant growth. irrigated papaya under different micro-irrigation system.
The experiment was conducted with the following specific IRRIGA. 2007; 12(4):519-531.
objective: 7. Doorenbos J, Pruitt WO. Crop Water Requirements. FAO
1. To estimate uniformity coefficient of emitter discharge. Irrigation & Drainage Paper No. 1977, 24.
2. To develop a relation between pressure and emitter 8. Ghanshyam Deshmukh MK, Hardaha, KP. Mishra.
discharge. Parameters design of drip fertigation system for papaya
3. To estimate crop water requirement of papaya under high (Carica papaya Linn.) Crop. Ind. J Sci. Res. and Tech.
density planning. 2014; 2(5):1-4
4. To calculate the cost of installation of drip irrigation for 9. Goenaga R, Rivera E, Almodovar C. Yield of papaya
papaya. irrigated with fractions of Class A pan evaporation in a
semiarid environment. Journal of Agriculture of the
A papaya plot of size 47 m × 20.5 m was selected to evaluate University of Puerto Rico. 2004; 88(1/2):1-10.
the performance of the drip irrigation system and crop water 10. Keller J, Karmeli D. Trickle irrigation design parameters.
requirement of papaya under high density planting. The field Trans. ASAE 1974; 17(4):678 -684.
investigation was conducted at water management plot of 11. Kumar, Sandeep and Singh, Pratap. Evaluation of head
South upland adjoining to ANGRAU farm during March to loss in drip irrigation system. Journal of Agricultural
November, 2016. The plot was of uniform topography and Engineering, New Delhi. 2008; 45(2):54-57.
soil was porous, well drained with good tilt. 12. Panse VG, Sukhatme PV. Statistical Methods for
In order to evaluate the performance of drip system, the Agricultural Workers. ICAR, New Delhi. Piper, C.S.,
emitter discharge at different emitter location on the emitter 1966, Soil and plant Analysis, Hans Publication,
on the laterals were noted. Then the mean emitter discharge Bombay, 1989.
and uniformity coefficient for all the laterals and the whole 13. Sadarunnisa SC, Madhumathi, Babu KH, Sreenivasulu B
plot was calculated. All the observation taken at different & Krishna MR. Effect of fertigation on growth and yield
pressure viz, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0 and 1.2 kg/cm2. The weekly water of papaya cv. Red Lady. Acta Horticulturae. 2010;
requirement or consumptive use of the plant was also 851:395-400.
calculated. The cost of installation of drip irrigation system of 14. Singh HK, Singh AKP. Effect of fertigation on
papaya plot was also calculated. phenological characteristics of papaya with drip
Based on the results obtained, the following conclusions can irrigation. Journal of Interacademicia. 2011; 15(3):388-
be drawn: 392.
1. The uniformity coefficient was acceptable (94.67 – 96.62 15. Srinivas K. Growth, yield and water use of papaya under
%) for all the pressure setting but was highest at 1 kg/cm2 drip irrigation. Indian Journal of Horticulture. 1996;
(96.62 %). 53:19-22.
2. The variation of average discharge along the laterals was 16. Srinivas K. Growth, yield and quality of banana in
erratic. That means, it has no relation with the location of relation to N fertigation. Tropical Agriculture. 1997;
drippers on the lateral and pressure. 74(4):260-264.
3. Coefficient of uniformity increases with decrease in 17. Suresh R, Saha DP. Effect of mulching and drip irrigation
emitter flow variation. on papaya in calcareous soil of North Andhra Pradesh.
4. The weekly water requirement of each plant varied from Progressive Horticulture. 2004; 36(1):76-81.
7.42 L. to 61.39 L. depending upon the climatic 18. Tiwari AK. Annual Report, plasticulture Development
conditions and growth of plant. The total water Centre, College of Agricultural Engineering, Rajendra
requirement per plant found to be 1004.43 L. Agricultural University, Pusa, Samastipur Andhra
5. Total cost of installation of drip irrigation system for Pradesh, 1998-99; 52.
papaya under high density planting was found to be 1, 19. Tumbare AD, Bhoite SU. Optimization of liquid fertilizer
87,575 Rs / ha. for banana under drip irrigation. Indian J. Agril.
Sciences., 2001; 71(12):772-773
References 20. Wadatkar SB, Ingle PM, Nachane VM, Deshmukh MM,
1. Agrawal N, Dubey P, Sharma HG, Dixit A. Effect of Hiwase SS. Estimation of irrigation water requirement
irrigation and mulches on the growth and yield of papaya. under drip irrigation system for seasonal crops. Annals of
Plant Archives. 2002; 2(2):197-202. Plant Physiology. 2005; 19(2):175-177.
2. Biswas RK, Rana SK, Mallick S. Performance of drip 21. Zimmerman TW. Papaya growth in double-row systems
irrigation in papaya cultivation in new alluvium Agro- established during the dry season. Acta Horticulture.
climatic zone of West Bengal. Annals of Agricultural 2005; 851:263-270.
Research. 1999; 20(1):166-167.
3. Chaudhri SM, Shinde SH, Dahiwalkar SD, Danawale NJ,
Shirsath HK, Berad SM. Effect of fertigation through
drip on productivity of papaya. Journal of Maharashtra
Agricultural Universities. 2001; 26(1):18-20.
4. Choudhary ML, Kadam US. Micro irrigation for cash
crops. Westvill Publishing House, New Delhi. 2000, 166.

~ 2270 ~

You might also like