WFL Publisher
Science and Technology
Helsinki, Finland e-mail: info@world-food.net
www.world-food.net
1
2
3
1 Department of Water Engineering, Faculty of Agriculture, Khorasgan (Isfahan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, P. O.
81595-158, Iran. 2 Department of Water Engineering, Faculty of Agriculture, Shahrekord University, Shahrekord, Iran.
3 Young
Research Club, Khorasgan (Isfahan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran. *e-mail: payam.najafi@gmail.com
Received 18 July 2011, accepted 20 September 2011.
Abstract
In order to assess the subsurface drip irrigation (SDI) system on growth and yield components of grape, field experiment was designed with five treatments and three replications. The same irrigation set time and irrigation frequencies were used for each treatment, but different irrigation water volumes were measured due to use of different manifold pressures head compared to the field system pressure. Growth parameters and yield data were collected during the experimental period. Based on the results of this research, application of SDI caused better condition for grape growth parameters, especially compared to bubbler irrigation and surface drip irrigation (DI). Furthermore, application of SDI in 60 cm depth caused highest yield component and therefore highest water use efficiency compared with bubbler, DI, furrow irrigation and SDI in 30 cm depth.
Key words: Subsurface drip irrigation system, grape, yield, crop production, Iran.
Introduction
Subsurface drip irrigation (SDI) is defined as application of water below the soil surface through emitters, with discharge rates generally in the same range as drip irrigation 1 . Earlier, “sub- irrigation” and “subsurface irrigation” sometimes referred to both
SDI and sub-irrigation (water table management), and “drip/trickle irrigation” could include either surface or subsurface drip/trickle irrigation, or both. Other definitions of SDI require drip lateral placement below specified depths, such as normal tillage depths or a depth that would ensure use for several years.
SDI has been generally used to describe drip/trickle application equipment installed below the soil surface only for the past 15-20 years 4 .
A large number of studies were presented about this system in the last 10 years.
The studies of Ayers et al. 3 show that SDI has advantages including improved water and nutrient management, potential for improved yields and crop quality, greater control on applied water resulting in less water and nutrient loss through deep percolation and reduced total water requirements. Najafi and
Tabatabaei 6 s howed that the application of this SDI in depth of 15 cm for the potato (cv. Marfona and Navita), tomato and eggplant significantly increased water use efficiency as result of decreasing surface evaporation in subsurface drip irrigation in comparison to furrow irrigation and surface drip irrigation. Also, in subsurface drip irrigation in 15 cm depth, irrigation water and nutrient are injected directly to root zone of the above mentioned crops.
The main objective of this research was estimating of the effects of SDI application on growth and yield parameters of grape.
Materials and Methods
Subsurface drip irrigation systems were installed in a field planted with grapevine in spring 2007, at a 440 m 2 area, located in the
Zarinshahr, Isfahan, Iran. A field experiment was carried out during
2007- 2010. The field was divided into three blocks. Each block had five beds, 24 m long. Each plot consisted of one continuous bed along the field length. A randomized block design used in
2010 consisted of five irrigation treatments with three replications.
The treatments were as following: bubbler irrigation (BI), surface drip irrigation (DI), subsurface drip irrigation in 30 cm depth (SDI
30 subsurface drip irrigation in 60 cm depth (SDI
),
60
) and furrow irrigation (FI).
The same irrigation set time and frequencies were used for each treatment, but different irrigation water volumes were measured due to use of different manifold pressures head compared to the field system pressure. Total applied water of each treatment was measured at the inlet of the blocks. The growth and yield data collected in the plots are presented in Table 1.
Results and Discussion
Growth parameters of grape under different irrigation treatments are shown in Figs 1 and 2. In May, when the shoots have not grown, there is no statistical difference in the treatments. After growing the shoot and the treatment affecting on the factor, significant difference in the treatments were seen (Fig. 1). The results show that SDI
60
has the maximum SL. In SDI
60
, the water is directly injected to the root zone and most of the water is adsorbed by the roots. In BI the irrigation water is put on the soil surface and a considerable amount of water will be lost due to soil surface evaporation.
Srinivas et al. 10 also reported that total water-use was reduced to nearly 32% under drip irrigation. The same results can be seen for twig length (TL) (Fig. 2). Maximum TL was seen in
SDI60 with 5 percent significant level, while minimum TL occurred in BI. Based on these results, it could be concluded that the plant growth occurred in deeper subsurface drip irrigation and
260 Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment, Vol.10 (1), January 2012

Table1. The growth parameters and yield components of grape.
Parameters
Shoot Length at may
Shoot Length at July
Twig Length
Fresh Weight of Panicle
Dry Weight of Panicle
Largest Number of Berry per
Panicle
Smallest Number of Berry per
Panicle
Average Weight of Berry
Berries Weight in the Largest
Panicle
Berries Weight in the Smallest
Panicle
Unit Abbreviation
Cm gr
N gr gr
SL (2)
FWP
LNB
WB
BWSP
300
250
200
150
100 a a ab ab
SL (1) SL (1) b ab
50
0
BI FI
Treatment
Figure 1. Comparison of shoot length (SL) at two stages of measurement.
160
140
120
100
80
60 a ab ab b ab
40
20
0
FI
Treatment
Figure 2. Comparison of twig length (TL) application of other systems such as bubbler, furrow and surface drip irrigation caused obtaining less growth parameters.
Components of fruit yield under different irrigation treatments are shown in Figs 3 to 6. In Fig. 3, the fresh weight of panicles
(FWP) and dry weight of panicles (DWP) were compared in different irrigation treatments. The same trend of growth parameters could be seen in weight of panicles. Largest FWP was seen in SDI60 as compared to other treatments and with significant difference at 5 percent level as compared to BI and DI. Largest weights of DWP occurred in SDI treatments with significant difference as compare to DI and BI.
Srinivas et al. 10 al so reported that drip irrigation recorded markedly higher vine growth, bunch weight and yield. In addition, the FWP and DWP had almost the same trend in Fig. 3.
Fig. 4 shows number of berries in the largest and the smallest panicle (LNB and SNB). LNB and SNB were slightly lower in BI and FI than in DI, SDI30 and SDI60, but no significant difference was observed. The LNB and SNB didn’t show any significant difference under studied irrigation treatments. It means that irrigation methods didn’t affect the number of berries in panicle. b ab
1200
900 a
FWP DWP ab a
600
300 a a b b ab
0
BI FI
Treatment
Figure 3. Comparison of fresh weight of panicles
(FWP) and dry weight of panicles (DWP) per vine.
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0 a a
LNB a
SNB a a a a a a
BI FI
Treatment
Figure 4. Comparison of largest and smallest berry number per panicle (LNB and SNB).
2.5
2
1.5
1 a a ab b ab
0.5
0
Treatment
Figure 5. Comparison of average weight of one berry (WB).
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
BWLP BWSP b a a a a b b b b ab
Treatment
Figure 6. Comparison of berries weight in the largest and smallest panicle (BWLP and BWSP).
The average weight of one berry (WB) had significant difference at 5 percent level. Based on Fig. 5, SDI60 gained 76% WB compared to BI and it also had significant difference compared to BI and DI.
SDI60 gained 27% and 11% more than FI and SDI30, respectively.
Grape yield increases of 4 to 7% for SDI compared to DI were attributed to better plant water status and less surface evaporation 5 . Although the quantity of LNB and SNB didn’t have any significant difference, berry quality of SDI60 was better than in other treatments. Berries weight in largest and smallest panicle
(BWLP and BWSP) under different irrigation methods (Fig. 6) show that SDI60 gained 64, 66, 1 and 6 percent more than BI, DI,
SDI30 and FI, respectively.
Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment, Vol.10 (1), January 2012
261

Conclusions
Water shortage is an important limiting factor in crop production in the arid and semi arid regions of Iran where agriculture relies heavily on irrigation. Based on this fact that SDI system has higher irrigation efficiency than other irrigation systems 6 and according to presented results (Figs 3 to 6), SDI60 had the highest yield components, so this treatment had the highest efficiency of water use. Injection of irrigation water in sub surface soil, where the volume of root has highest density, caused more water and nutrition availability through root zone and better condition for growth and yield parameters. In addition, the studies 2, 8, 9 in dicated that the partial drying in soil surface may influence the micro- meteorological conditions such as solar radiation, canopy temperature and relative humidity; and light microclimate of canopy was changed, thus more sunlight reached to the fruit epidermis to make the fruit mature earlier. Application of subsurface drip irrigation in 60 cm depth caused very little soil surface evaporation, therefore the relative humidity and canopy temperature decrease around the grapevine. Thus subsurface drip irrigation saved irrigation water, improved the water use efficiency and fruit quality of grape without detrimental effect on the fruit yield in arid region.
References
1 ASAE 1999. Soil and Water Terminology. S526.1. ASAE Standards.
ASAE, St. Joseph, Mich.
2 Du, T., Kang, S., Zhang, J., Li, F. and Yan, B. 2008. Water use efficiency and fruit quality of table grape under alternate partial root-zone drip irrigation. Agricultural Water Management 95:659-668.
3 Ayars, J. E., Phene, C. J., Hutmacher, R. B., Davis, K. R., Schoneman,
R. A., Vail, S. S. and Mead, R. M. 1999. Subsurface drip irrigation of row crops: A review of 15 years of research at the Water Management
Research Laboratory. Agricultural Water Management 42:1-27.
4 Camp, C. R., Lamm, F. R., Evans, R. G. and Phene, C. J. 2000. Subsurface drip irrigation - past, present and further. Proceedings of the 4 th
Decennial National Irrigation Symposium, Nov 14-16:363-372.
5 Lamm, F. R., Ayars, J. E. and Nakayama, F. S. 2007. Microirrigation for
Crop Production: Design, Operation, and Management. Elsevier,
Technology & Engineering, 618 p.
6 Najafi, P. and Tabatabaei, S. H. 2007. Effect of using subsurface drip irrigation and ET-HS model to increase WUE in irrigation of some crops. Irrigation and Drainage 56(4):477–486.
7 De Wrachien, D. and Fasso, C. A. 2002. Conjunctive use of surface and groundwater: Overview and perspective. Irrigation and Drainage 51:1–
15.
8 Sharp, R. E. and LeNoble, M. E. 2002. ABA, ethylene and the control of shoot and root growth under water stress. J. Exp. Bot. 53(366):33–37.
9 Sharp, R. E., LeNoble, M. E., Else, M. A., Thorne, E. T. and Gherardi,
F. 2000. Endogenous ABA maintains shoot growth in tomato independently of effects on plant water balance: Evidence for an interaction with ethylene. J. Exp. Bot. 51(350):1575–1584.
10 Srinivas, K., Shikhamany, S. D. and Reddy, N. N. 1999. Yield and water-use of ‘Anab-e-Shahi’ grape (Vitis vinifera) vines under drip and basinirrigation. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 69(1):21-23.
262 Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment, Vol.10 (1), January 2012