Comparison of different irrigation methods in terms of ... - CiteSeerX

8 downloads 6650 Views 142KB Size Report
572.17 mm in furrow irrigation and drip irrigation methods, respectively. Seasonal ... +90-332-223-2978; fax: +90-0332-241-0108; e-mail: [email protected].
Journal of Selcuk University Natural and Applied Science Online ISSN: 2147-3781 www.josunas.org

Comparison of different irrigation methods in terms of water use and yield in potato farming Duran YAVUZ* Mehmet KARA Sinan SUHERI Selcuk University Faculty of Agriculture Department of Farm Structure and Irrigation Abstract In this study, the effects of different irrigation methods on yield and yield components of potato and water use of methods were investigated. The methods which were used in this study were sprinkler, furrow and drip irrigation. The study was conducted in Konya Şeker Corporation’s experimental fields during the growth season of 2008 and 2009 in AlakovaKonya. The highest seasonal evapotranspiration through potato growth seasons was obtained from sprinkler irrigated plots with 670.23 mm when considering two years averages. The seasonal evapotranspirations were calculated as 618.30 mm and 572.17 mm in furrow irrigation and drip irrigation methods, respectively. Seasonal evapotranspirations were found 17.1% and 8.1% higher in sprinkler irrigation and furrow irrigation regarding to drip irrigation, respectively. It was found no significant differences on total tuber yield, number of tuber per plant, tuber diameter, tuber size, tuber dry mater ratio, tuber starch ratio and tuber protein ratio between sprinkler, furrow and drip irrigation methods statistically. But it was found significant relations between individual tuber weight, marketable tuber yield and irrigation methods at 5% level. Marketable tuber yield was found 11.5% and 5.0% higher in sprinkler and furrow irrigation than drip irrigation, respectively. The highest water use efficiency (WUE) and irrigation water use efficiency (IWUE) were obtained with drip irrigation plots while the lowest were obtained from sprinkler irrigation plots for both years. Mean WUE and IWUE was calculated as 8.32 kg/m3 and 7.51 kg/m3 in drip irrigation and 6.09 kg/m3 and 5.76 kg/m3 in sprinkler irrigation, respectively.

Key words: Irrigation method, Konya Plain, Potato,

Introduction Production of potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) takes a very important place in world agriculture, with a production potential of about 324 million t harvested and 18.6 million ha planted area. Potato is one of the main crops in Turkey where the production is about 4.30 million t harvested from 0.15 million ha (Anonymous, 2010). The Konya Plain where water resources are limited is consisted of 10% arable lands of Turkey and it has an arid climate. The total annual rainfall of the Konya Plain in terms of average long term records is 323 mm, and only 100-110 mm of which falls in plant growing season. Therefore agricultural diversity, yield and quality increase depends on irrigation in the plain. In other words, irrigation is an indispensable necessity for the vegetative production in the plain. The currently irrigated land is nearly 500 thousand ha in Konya plain (Kara et al., 2008). ——— *

Corresponding author. Tel.: +90-332-223-2978; fax: +90-0332-241-0108; e-mail: [email protected]

2

YAVUZ et al.

Potato farming needs irrigation in Konya Plain as all over the Turkey. Potato cultivation area in Konya has been expanding each year, and the potato cultivation area in 2009 was 8747 hectares, production quantity was 315 825 tones and average yield was 36.11 t/ha (Anonymous, 2011a). The potato is irrigated by sprinkler and furrow irrigation methods commonly in Konya Plain. The aim of this research was to find out the effects of sprinkler, furrow and drip irrigation on yield, yield components and water use of potato. Materials and Methods The research was conducted in the trial area of Konya Şeker Inc. in KonyaAlakova between years of 2008 and 2009. Konya Province, which is in the Central Anatolia Region, is located between the 36° 41′ and 39° 16′ North latitudes and 31° 14′ and 34° 26′ east longitudes, and the average altitude above sea level is 1016 m (Anonymous, 2011b). The climatologic data of trials years (in 2008–2009) were recorded at the portable meteorological station installed nearby the experimental area. The climatic parameters such as average temperature, relative humidity, precipitation and average wind speed during the experimental years were are given in Table 1. The physical characteristics of the soil at the experimental site was given in Table 2. The experimental site soils are silty loam at all horizons for two years. The dry soil bulk densities ranged from 1.30 to 1.37 g/cm3 and from 1.26 to 1.35 g/cm3 throughout the 1.2 m deep profile, respectively for 2008 and 2009. The total available soil water contents within the top 0.9 m of the soil profiles for years 2008 and 2009 are 135.6 mm and 132.3 mm, respectively. Table 1. Some climatic parameters of region for the experimental years Average Relative Precipitation Year Month temperature humidity (%) (mm) (°C) April 14.1 51.40 20.5 May 15.6 51.40 28.2 June 21.6 42.60 5.2 2008 July 23.3 39.10 14.8 August 23.9 41.70 0.0 September 18.8 54.10 73.4 April 10.1 66.49 57.8 May 14.6 59.48 47.2 June 20.4 46.87 11.8 2009 July 22.6 49.10 17.4 August 21.2 41.55 0.0 September 16.8 55.95 25.6

Average wind speed (m/s) 1.7 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.0 0.7 1.0 0.9 1.1 1.2 0.9 0.6

YAVUZ et al.

Available Soil Water Content

%

mm

%

mm

2008

Wilting Point (WP) 12.1 15.7 15.3 18.8

12.2 15.3 16.1 18.7

47.1 63.0 60.9 77.4 171.0 248.4 46.2 60.0 63.9 75.6 170.1 245.7

10.8 10.7 12.6 11.2

2009

Table 2. Physical properties of the experimental site Field Capacity Dry Profile Soil Bulk (FC) Years depth Classification density (cm) % mm (g/cm3) 0-30 Silty loam 1.30 22.9 89.4 30-60 Silty loam 1.34 26.3 105.9 60-90 Silty loam 1.33 27.9 111.3 90-120 Silty loam 1.37 30.1 123.6 Total (0-90 cm) 306.6 Total (0-120 cm) 430.2 0-30 Silty loam 1.26 24.3 91.8 30-60 Silty loam 1.31 26.1 102.6 60-90 Silty loam 1.32 27.3 108.0 90-120 Silty loam 1.35 29.2 118.2 Total (0-90 cm) 302,4 Total (90-120 cm) 420.6

3

42.3 42.9 50.4 46.2 135.6 181.8 45.6 42.6 44.1 42.6 132.3 174.9

12.1 10.8 11.1 10.5

Infiltration rate was determined by using double ring inflometer method. The basic infiltration rate was measured as 25mm/h. The infiltration rate for furrow irrigation was determined according the methodology that is stated by Yıldırım (2003). Irrigation water was taken from a deep well close to experimental site for both years. The water was analyzed according to methodology that is given Ayyıldız (1990). The water quality classification was determined as C2S1 in accordance with the U.S.A. salinity laboratory graph system (EC=0.625 dS/m, SAR= 0.61). There were no restriction on use for potato cultivation according to Şener (1983) and Mass (1990). The Russet Burbank variety which is mostly used in industry and frozen potato was used in the research. Potato was planted at depths of 0.15 – 0.20 m by the two-row mechanical potato drill machine on 22nd April, 2008 and on 28th April, 2009. The row spacing was 70 cm and plant spacing on rows was 35 cm. Prior the experiment, to provide homogenous emergence, irrigation water applied to whole area with the amount 45 mm and 40 mm in 2008 and 2009, respectively. For both years, first emergence was observed after the second half of May, but homogeny on plant emergence was observed in the last week of May. Ammonium Sulphate (21% nitrogen, 24% sulphur) was applied together with hoeing with the amount 60 kg per decare on 16th June, 2008 and 20th June, 2009. The experimental area was sprayed to control disease and pest when needed in both years. Irrigation was started on 25th of June, 1st June respectively in 2008 and 2009. Irrigation was ended on 27th August and 2nd September respectively in 2008 and 2009.

4

YAVUZ et al.

The field site is consisted of randomized complete block design with three replication. Irrigation interval for all of the irrigation methods was 7 days. The soil water content at the plant root depth was replenished to field capacity at each irrigation. The irrigation was started when the 50-55% of available water content was consumed. In sprinkler irrigation, PE pipes were used. The main and lateral lines consisted of PE pipes with 90 and 75 mm diameters, respectively. The sprinklers which has 5/4.2 mm nozzle and 0.55-0.60 l/sec flow rate while operating at 2 atm operation pressure and 20 m wetting diameter were used in the experiment. The average sprinkler pressure and sprinkler flow rate of the sprinkler irrigation system were determined by considering the principles suggested by Pereira (1990), Merriam & Keller (1978) and Keller & Bliesner (1990). Three different lateral lines were planned for the sprinkler irrigation method, and each of the lateral was 60 m long and had 6 sprinklers which were spaced at 10 meters Three lateral lines were located parallel and the distance between two laterals was 10 m. The plots were located among the laterals. Each plots consisted of 16 plant rows, and the width and length were 11.2 m and 15 m, respectively. To determine the application rate of sprinkler, the principles and methods suggested by Korukçu & Yıldırım (1981), Topak (1996) and Bahçeci & Aydın (2008) were considered. In furrow irrigation method, each plots consisted of 6 plant rows and the width and length of each plots were 4.2 m and 40 m, respectively. The close-ended furrows 0.7 m in width and 40 m in length for each plant row were constructed. Following the principles suggested by Yıldırım (2003), the furrow tests in furrow irrigation method were carried out considering 3 trial furrows. Irrigation water applied with nearly 0.500.60 l/sec flow rate to the furrows. Irrigation water was carried to the beginnings of furrows through a 63 mm PE pipe, and the pipe was drilled at the beginning of the each furrow, and then socket collars, ball valves and water flow meter were placed at beginning of the each furrow. Drip irrigation system consisted of; the control unit and distribution lines. The control unit contained a hydrocyclone, fertilizer tank, disk filter, control valves and manometer. The distribution system consisted of PE pipes which were used as the mainline (90 mm in diameter) and manifolds (63 mm in diameters), Irrigation lateral that were 16 mm in diameter and 40 m in length had inline emitters spaced 33 cm apart with a 4.0 l/h flow rate at the pressure of 1 atm. The lateral lines placed for each plant

YAVUZ et al.

5

rows. 3/4" water flow meters were placed for each plots in order to control the amount of water. Each plots consisted of 4 plant rows in drip irrigation system and the width and length of plots were planned as 2.8 m and 40 m, respectively. The soil water content at plant root depth was monitored with Delta-T ProfileProbe moisture meter. By using Delta T moisture meter, the water content of soil at 010, 10-20, 20-30, 30-40, 40-60, 60-100 cm layers was measured. Decreasing soil moisture at plant root zone depth (90 cm) during 7 day interval was calculated as depth (mm) (Equation 1). dn =

dn TKv MNv D

(TK v − MN v ) × D 10

(1)

: Irrigation water as depth (mm), : Soil moisture in field capacity by volume % (cm3/cm3), : Available soil moisture by volume % in the mentioned programme (at 7 day irrigation interval) (cm3/cm3), : Root zone depth (90 cm) In drip irrigation method, the irrigation water amount was calculated as m3 by

multiplying the moisture deficiency (mm) calculated through Equation 1 by plot area (m2) In sprinkler irrigation method, irrigation duration is calculated by dividing the amount of water stated as depth (Equation 1) by the average application rate of the system. In furrow irrigation method, the time of flow into a furrow is calculated in consideration of principles stated by Yıldırım (2003) and Balçın (2004). The evapotranspiration for each treatment was calculated in accordance with water budget (James, 1988) by considering soil moisture contents measured via ∆T Profile-Probe (Equation 2).

ET = I + R − D P ± ∆S ET I R Dp ∆S

(2)

: Evapotranspiration (mm), : Amount of irrigation water applied (mm), : Rainfall (mm), : Deep percolation, : Water content change in soil profile (mm).

The I value was calculated though the amount of irrigation water applied; the R value was calculated through the portable climate station installed into the testing area; the Dp value was calculated from samples taken from 90 and 120 cm depth before and

6

YAVUZ et al.

after irrigation through the gravimetric method. ∆S was measured from the soil moisture measurements before sowing and after harvest. Just before harvest, first rows from the each side of the plots were removed and the potato plant was harvested with a single row potato harvesting machinery on 15th September and 23rd September in 2008 and 2009, respectively. In order to determine the potato quality parameters, 10 sample plants from each plots were selected randomly. Physical and chemical quality factors were determined based on selected 10 potato plants (Anonymous, 2001; Önder et al., 2005). The quality factors of potato were selected in the consideration of Yılmaz (1993), Tunçtürk et al. (2003) and Ayas (2007). Water use efficiency (WUE) and irrigation water use efficiency (IWUE) were calculated in accordance with Equation 3 and 4

suggested by Tanner and Sinclair

(1983).

WUE =

WUE Ey ET

Ey ET : Water use efficiency (kg/m3) : Marketable yield (t/ha) : Evapotranspiration(mm)

IWUE =

(3)

Ey

I IWUE = Water use efficiency (kg/m3) I =Amount of irrigation water (mm)

(4)

The variance analysis was conducted on the collected data in order to determine the differences between yield and quality factors of potato statistically (Yurtsever, 1984; Düzgüneş et al., 1987). The variance analysis was conducted by using SPSS 13.0 computer programme.

Results The amounts of applied irrigation water are given in Table 3 and the seasonal evapotranspiration values are given in Table 4. The highest total and net irrigation water amount was observed in sprinkler irrigation method, and the lowest total and net irrigation water amount was observed in drip

YAVUZ et al.

7

irrigation method for both years. In 2008, the highest water application efficiency was calculated as 94,6% in drip irrigation method, on the other hand, the highest water application efficiency in 2009 was calculated as 94,8% in furrow irrigation method When the applied total irrigation water amounts are considered, it was found that 16.8% and 6.2% less irrigation water was applied in drip irrigation method as compared to the furrow and sprinkler irrigation method in 2008, respectively. In 2009, 20.3% and 8.6% less irrigation water was applied in drip irrigation method than sprinkler irrigation and furrow irrigation methods, respectively. Finally, when the averages of both years are taken into consideration, drip irrigation method needed 18.6% and 7.4% less irrigation water than sprinkler and furrow irrigation methods, respectively (Table 3). Table 3. Net and gross water amount applied to the treatments and Irrigation application efficiencies Total Irrigation Irrigation Irrigation Net Irrigation Years Treatments Water Water Loses Water Water (mm) (mm) (mm) Efficiency (%) Sprinkler 643.06 580.66 62.40 89.6 2008 Furrow 570.11 534.86 35.25 93.3 Drip 534.84 508.53 26.31 94.6 Sprinkler 625.20 572.22 52.98 90.9 2009 Furrow 544.72 518.30 26.42 94.8 Drip 498.09 464.35 33.74 92.6 Table 4. Seasonal Evapotranspiration of the Treatments. Soil Water Net Effective Content at Years Treatments Irrigation rainfall planting Water (mm) (mm) (mm/90cm) Sprinkler 580.66 62.9 274.24 2008 Furrow 534.86 62.9 274.24 Drip 508.53 62.9 274.24 Sprinkler 572.22 104.6 265.18 2009 Furrow 518.30 104.6 265.18 Drip 464.35 104.6 265.18

Soil Water Content at Harvest (mm/90cm) 252.11 257.36 264.13 267.24 266.12 271.34

Seasonal Evapotranspiration (mm) 665.69 614.64 581.54 674.76 621.96 562.79

As it is observed in Table 4, seasonal evapotranspiration in 2008 for the sprinkler, furrow and drip irrigation methods was 665.69, 614.64 and 581.54 mm, respectively. The maximum evapotranspiration was calculated in sprinkler irrigation method with the amount of 665.69 mm, and the minimum evapotranspiration was calculated in drip irrigation method with the amount of 581.54 mm. In 2009, seasonal evapotranspiration for the sprinkler, furrow and drip irrigation methods was 674.76, 621.96 and 562.79 mm, respectively. The maximum evapotranspiration was 674.76 mm and it was calculated in sprinkler irrigation method, and the minimum evapotranspiration was 562.79 mm and calculated for the drip irrigation method.

8

YAVUZ et al.

In

many

conducted

researches,

it

has

been

observed

that

seasonal

evapotranspiration of potato ranged from 350 mm to 800 mm depending on the climate and growing conditions (Doorenbos and Kassam, 1979; Fabeiro et al., 2001; Panigrahi et al., 2001; Ferreira and Carr, 2002; Shock et al., 2003). Yield and yield components of the treatments were given in Table 5. The highest average tuber yield in 2008 was obtained as 50.65t/ha through drip irrigation method, on the other hand, the lowest average tuber yield was obtained as 46.20 t/ha in sprinkler irrigation. In 2009, the average tuber yield was the highest in sprinkler irrigation method with 43.90 t/ha and the lowest average tuber yield was obtained in drip irrigation method with 42.28 t/ha. No significant differences were found between yield, yield components and irrigation methods statistically except for the factors of single tuber weight and marketable tuber yield. In fact, yield and some quality parameters of potato in drip irrigation method gave better results than those collected in sprinkler and furrow irrigation methods. Önder et al. (2005) determined that surface drip irrigation and subsurface drip irrigation methods did not significantly affect tuber yield under Turkey soil/climate conditions. Ünlü et al. (2006) compared sprinkler and drip irrigation methods for potato in the research which was conducted under the Central Anatolian conditions (NiğdeNevşehir) of Turkey. The results of the research did not reveal a statistically significant difference between sprinkler irrigation method and drip irrigation method in terms of tuber yield. Erdem et al. (2006) investigated the effects of drip and furrow irrigation methods on yield and water consumption of potato in the Thrace Region and the results showed that there were no significant differences among irrigation methods in terms of tuber yield and many quality parameters. In several conducted studies it was reported that irrigation methods did not have a significant effect on yield and quality parameters of potato (Phene, 1995; Weatherhead and Knox, 1998).

YAVUZ et al.

9

Table 5. Yield and yield components Years

Treatments Sprinkler Furrow Drip

2008

Sprinkler Furrow Drip

2009

Yield (t/ha)

Single Tuber Yield (g)

46.20 48.35 50.65 ns 43.90 42.98 42.28 ns

230.6 224.3 226.2 ns 222.2a 210.8a 186.1b 5%

No of Tuber for Each Plant 4.9 5.3 5.5 ns 4.8 5.1 5.6 ns

Tuber Diameter (cm)

Tuber Length (cm)

Marketable Yield (t/ha)

Tuber Dry Matter (%)

Starch Rate (%)

Protein Rate (%)

6.3 6.6 6.9 ns 5.9 5.7 5.6 ns

10.9 11.4 11.9 ns 10.3 9.9 9.4 ns

39.80b 43.79ab 47.50a 5% 37.39 38.19 38.59 ns

21.5 21.1 20.4 ns 20.6 20.2 20.5 ns

17.5 16.2 16.0 ns 17.9 15.5 16.7 ns

1.7 1.6 1.8 ns 1.6 1.8 1.7 ns

Irrigation water and yield correlations related to sprinkler, furrow and drip irrigation methods are given in Table 6. Table 6. Applied irrigation water amount and tuber yield Year

Treatments

2008

2009

average

Sprinkler Furrow Drip Sprinkler Furrow Drip Sprinkler Furrow Drip

Total Irrigation Water mm % 643.06 100.0 570.11 88.7 534.84 83.2 625.2 100.0 544.72 87.1 498.09 79.7 634.13 100.0 557.42 87.9 516.47 81.4

Net Irrigation Water mm % 580.66 100.0 534.86 92.1 508.53 87.6 572.22 100.0 518.30 90.6 464.35 81.1 576.44 100.0 526.58 91.4 486.44 84.4

Seasonal Evapotranspiration mm % 665.69 100.0 614.64 92.3 581.54 87.4 674.76 100.0 621.96 92.2 562.79 83.4 670.23 100.0 618.30 92.3 572.17 85.4

Total Tuber Yield t/ha % 46.20 91.2 48.35 95.5 50.65 100.0 43.90 100.0 42.98 97.9 42.28 96.3 45.05 97.0 45.66 98.3 46.47 100.0

Marketable Tuber Yield t/ha %. 39.80 83.8 43.79 92.2 47.50 100.0 37.39 96.9 38.19 99.0 38.59 100.0 38.60 89.7 40.99 95.2 43.05 100.0

When the averages of 2008 and 2009 are taken into consideration, it was found that the total irrigation water amounts applied though the sprinkler, furrow and drip irrigation methods are 634.13, 557.42 and 516.47 mm respectively, net irrigation water amounts

are

576.44,

526.58

and

486.44

mm,

respectively

and

seasonal

evapotranspirations are 670.23, 618.30 and 572.17 mm, respectively. The amount of applied total and net irrigation water is calculated 18.6% and 15.6% less in drip irrigation method when it is compared to sprinkler irrigation method in both years. Calculating the average of both years, it is found out that total tuber yields in sprinkler, furrow and drip irrigation methods are 45.05, 45.66 and 46.47 t/ha, respectively, and marketable tuber yields are 38.60, 40.99 and 43.05 t/ha, respectively. Marketable tuber yield produced from the unit area is more important than the total tuber yield in potato production. It was found that marketable tuber yield in sprinkler irrigation method is 10.3% less than drip irrigation method.

10

YAVUZ et al.

Irrigation water use and water use efficiencies were calculated by considering the applied total irrigation water amounts, evapotranspiration and marketable yield values and they are given in Table 7. For the average of both years, irrigation water use and water use efficiencies were calculated as the highest in drip irrigation method with 8.32 kg/m3 and 7.51 kg/m3, respectively and the lowest in sprinkler irrigation method with 6.09 and 5.76 kg/m3, respectively. Kashyap & Panda (2003), Yuan et al. (2003), Kang et al. (2004), Onder et al. (2005) and Ayas & Korukçu (2010) also reported similar findings for potato. Table 7. Irrigation water use and water use efficiencies on irrigation methods (kg/m3) Irrigation Water Use Water Use Years Treatments Efficiency Efficiency Sprinkler 6.19 5.98 2008 Furrow 7.68 7.13 Drip 8.88 8.17 Sprinkler 5.98 5.54 2009 Furrow 7.01 6.14 Drip 7.75 6.86 Sprinkler 6.09 5.76 Average Furrow 7.35 6.63 Drip 8.32 7.51 (1)

Discussion According to the results obtained from the study, there were no statistically significant differences and statistical differences among sprinkler, furrow and drip irrigation methods of potato production in terms of total tuber yield, number of yields per plant, tuber diameter, tuber dimension, tuber dry matter percentage, tuber starch ratio and tuber protein ratio with the exceptions of single tuber weight and marketable potato yield. Thus, any of sprinkler, furrow and drip irrigation methods can be applied with regard to the yield and quality factors in potato production if the factors which are effective on selection of irrigation method are appropriate, such as soil characteristics, water source, slope, quality of irrigation water, features of the climate, facility and operating condition. Sprinkler irrigation method is used to irrigate the potato plant in the Konya Plain. In a region like the Konya Plain where water sources are limited but irrigatable areas are abundant, irrigation water must be used in the most effective way. In this research, nearly 20% of irrigation water was saved in drip irrigation method when it is compared

YAVUZ et al.

11

to sprinkler irrigation method. For potato production, the application area of drip irrigation method must be extended in order to use limited water sources effectively in the plain.

References Anonymous, 2010. http://faostat.fao.org/faostat/collections?subset=agriculture Anonymous, 2011a. http://www.tuik.gov.tr/bitkiselapp/ Anonymous, 2011b. http://www.konya.gov.tr/goster.asp?baslik Ayas, S. & Korukçu, A. 2010. Water-yield relationships in deficit irragated potato. Journal of Agricultural Faculty of Uludag University, 24(2), 23-36. Ayas, S. 2007. Kısıntılı sulanan patatesin su-verim ilişkisi. Doktora Tezi, Uludağ Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Bursa. Ayyıldız, M. 1990. Sulama suyu kalitesi ve tuzluluk problemleri. Ankara Üniv. Ziraat Fak. Yayınları, No: 1196, Ankara. Bahçeci, İ. & Aydın, Ş. 2008. Mardin-Kızıltepe Ovası yarı taşınabilir yağmurlama sulama sistemlerinin bazı performans parametrelerinin belirlenmesi. Harran Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 12(1), 27-37. Balçın, M. 2004. Karık sulama sistemlerinde planlama ölçütlerinin değiştirilmesinin sulama performanslarına etkisi. Doktora tezi, Çukurova Üniv. Fen Bil. Enst. Adana. Doorenbos, J. & Kassam, A.H. 1979. Yield response to water. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper, No, 33, Rome, s 193. Düzgüneş, O., Kesici, T., Kavuncu, O. & Gürbüz, F. 1987. Araştırma Deneme Metodları (İstatistik Metodları II). Ank. Üniv. Zir. Fak. Yayınları, No. 1021, Ankara, s: 214. Erdem, T., Erdem, Y., Orta, H. & Okursoy, H. 2006. Water-yield relationships of potato under different irrigation methods and regimens. Sci. Agric. (Piracicaba, Braz.), 63 (3), 226-231. Fabeiro, C., Martin de Santa Olalla, F. & Juan, J.A. 2001. Yield and size of deficit irrigated potatoes. Agricultural Water Management, 48, 255-266. Ferreira, T.C. & Carr, M.K.V. 2002. Response of potatoes to irrigation and nitrojen in a hot, dry climate: I. Water use, Field Crops Research, 78, 51-64. Güngör, Y. & Yıldırım, O. 1989. Tarla sulama sistemleri. Ankara Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Yayınları, no 1155, Ankara. James, L.G. 1988. Principles of farm irrigation systems design. John Wiley and Sons. Inc. New York, s 543. Kara, M., Topak, R., Şahin, M., Süheri, S. & Yavuz, D. 2008. Konya Ovası’nda sulamada yeraltı suyu tüketimini azaltma çareleri. Konya Kapalı Havzası Yeraltı suyu ve Kuraklık konferansı, 11-12 Eylül 2008, Konya, 51-56. Kashyap, P.S. & Panda, R.K. 2003. Effect of irrigation scheduling on potato crop parameters under water stressed conditions. Agricultural Water Management, 59, 49-66. Keller, İ. & Bliesner, R.D. 1990. Sprinkle and trickle irrigation. Chapman and Hall, 115 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10003.

12

YAVUZ et al.

Korukçu, A. & Yıldırım, O. 1981. Yağmurlama sistemlerinin projelenmesi. Ankara Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi, Ankara. Mass, E.V. 1990. Crops salt tolerance. Agriculture Salinity Assessment and Management. American Society Civil Engineers, In: K.K. Tanji, New York, 262-334. Merriam, J.L. & Keller, J. 1978. Farm irrigation system evaluation. A Guide for Management: UTAH State University. Logan, UT, USA. Önder, S., Çalışkan, M.E., Önder, D. & Çalışkan, S. 2005. Different irrigation methods and water stress effects on potato and yield components. Agric. Water. Manag. 73, 73-86. Panigrahi, B., Panda, S.N. & Raghuwanshi, N.S. 2001. Potato water use and yield under furrow irrigation. Irrigation Science, v 20, 155-163. Pereira, L.S. 1990. Sprinkler and trickle irrigation systems. Design and Evaluation. Notes for Students. Dept. Agricultural Engineering of Technical University of Lisbon, Bari. Phene, C.J. 1995. Sustainability and potential of subsurface drip irrigation. Proceeding of the Fifth International Micro Irrigation Congress, Orlondo-Florida, pp. 359-367. Şener, S. 1983. Sulama suyunun özellikleri ve sınıflandırılması. Köy Hizmetleri Genel Müdürlüğü, Bölge Toprak Su Araştırma Enstitüsü Müdürlüğü, Genel yayın no:103, Teknik yayın no: 12, 66 s. Shock, C.C., Feibert, E.B.G. &Saunders, L.D. 2003. “Umatilla Russet” and “Russet Legend” potato yield and quality response to irrigation. Horticultural Science, v.38, 1117-1123. Tanner, C.B. & Sinclair, T.R. 1983. Efficient water use in crop production: Research or research? (Eds. H.M. Taylor et al.). Limitations to Efficient Water Use in Crop Production. Amer. Soc. Apron. Inc. 1-27. Topak, R. 1996. Konya-Çumra Ovasındaki yağmurlama sulamalarında uygulama sorunları. Doktora Tezi, Selçuk Üniv. Fen Bil. Enst, Konya Tunçtürk, M., Tunçtürk, R., Yıldırım, B. & Eryiğit, T. 2003. Değişik azot dozları ve sıra arası mesafelerinin patateste (Solanum tuberosum L.) verim ve kalite üzerine etkileri, Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi, 14(2), 95-104. Ünlü, M., Kanber, R., Şenyiğit, U., Onaran , H. & Diker, K. 2006. Trickle and sprinkler irrigation of potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) in the middle Anatolian Region in Turkey. Agric. Water. Manag. 79, 43-47. Weatherhead, K. & Knox, J.W., 1998. Irrigation potatoes: three trickle irrigation for potatoes. Irrigation News 27, 19-28. Yıldırım, O. 2003. Sulama sistemlerinin tasarımı. Ankara Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi, Ankara. Yılmaz, G. 1993. Bazı patates çeşit ve hatlarında genotip x çevre etkileşimleri üzerinde araştırmalar. Doktora Tezi, GOPÜ. Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Tokat, 212 s. Yuan, B.Z., Nishiyama, S. & Kang, Y. 2003. Effect of different irrigation regimes on the growth and yield of drip-irrigated potato. Agricultural Water Management, 63, 153-167. Yurtsever, N. 1984. Deneysel istatistik metodları. Toprak ve Gübre Araştırma Enstitüsü Yayınları, No, 121(56), Ankara.