Response of Red Hot Pepper Plant (Capsicum annuum L.) to the Deficit Irrigation

Year 2006, Volume: 19 Issue: 1, 131 - 138, 01.06.2006

C. Gençoğlan İ. E. Akıncı K. Uçan S. Akıncı S. Gençoğlan

Abstract

The objectives of this study were to investigate the effects of five different irrigation levels (I1, I2, I3, I4 and I5) on fruit number (FN) of red hot pepper, fruit dry weight (FDW), dry yield (DY) using a line source sprinkler system and determine water production function of pepper in 1999 and 2000 growing season in Kahramanmaraş. The average water amounts applied to I1 (non-stressed) and I5 (stressed) for the two years were 913.4 and 295.7 mm. The evapotranspiration (Et) for peppers over the 2 years for I1 and I5 were 1056 and 446.6 mm, respectively. Mean FN, FDW and DY for I1 and I5 treatments were 46 and 14.5 fruit plant-1, 0.9 and 0.55 g fruit-1 and 1358 and 284 kg ha-1, respectively. Deficit irrigation significantly affected the FN and FDW and DY. The average FN increased over 3 times when comparing I1 with I5. The average FDW increased over 1.6 times when comparing I3 with I5. Linear water production functions were determined DY versus total irrigation water and Et. When irrigation water is plenty, the red hot pepper can be irrigated at the level of I1 and I2. When water source is scarce, pepper can be irrigated at the lower water level taking economic conditions into consideration.

Keywords

Red hot pepper, deficit irrigation, production, function, sprinkler

Kırmızı Acı Biber Bitkisinin (Capsicum annuum L.) Kısıntılı Sulamaya Tepkisi

Abstract

Bu çalışma, çizgi kaynaklı yağmurlama sulama sistemini kullanarak beş farklı su seviyesinin (I1, I2, I3, I4 and I5) kırmızı biber meyve sayısına (FN) meyve kuru ağırlığına (FDW), kırmızı kuru biber verimine (DY) etkisi ile suverim ilişkisini belirlemek amacıyla 1999 ve 2000 yıllarında Kahramanmaraş’ta yürütülmüştür. Tam su alan I ve en fazla su kısıntısı uygulanan I sulama konularına uygulanan iki yılın ortalaması sulama suyu miktarları sırasıyla 913.4 ve 295.7 mm’dir. Anılan sulama konularında belirlenen ortalama su tüketimleri sırasıyla 1056 ve 446.6 mm’dir. I1 ve I5 sulama konularında belirlenen ortalama FN, FDW ve DY değerleri sırasıyla 46 ve 14.5 meyve bitki-1, 0.9 ve 0.55 g bitki-1, 1358 ve 284 kg ha-1 olarak bulunmuştur. Kısıntılı sulama FN, DFW ve DY değerlerini istatistiksel olarak önemli derecede etkilemiştir. I1 sulama konusunda belirlenen FN değeri I5 sulama konusunda belirlenen FN değerinden 1.6 kat daha büyük olduğu bulunmuştur. DY ile toplam uygulanan sulama suyu ve Et arasında doğrusal su üretim fonksiyonları bulunmuştur. Kımızı acı biber su kaynağının bol olduğu koşullarda I1 ve I2 sulama düzeylerinde, kıt olduğu koşullarda ise daha düşük su seviyelerinde sulanabilir

Keywords

Kırmızı Acı Biber, Kısıntılı Sulama, Üretim Fonksiyonu, Yağmurlama

References

• References
• Alvino, A., Centritto, M. and De Lorenzi, F., 1994. Phytosynthesis Response of Sunlit and Shade Pepper Leaves at Different Positions in the Canopy Under two Water Regimes. Australia J. Plant Physiology. 21: 377-391.
• Anonymous. 1954. Diagnosis and Improvement of Saline and Alkali Soils. In: Agricultural Hand Book, (Ed. L.A. Richards), USSL.
• Antony, E. and Singandhupe, R.B., 2004. Impact of Drip and Surface Irrigation on Growth, Yield and WUE of Capsicum (Capsicum annum L.). Agric. Water Manage. 65:121-132.
• Beese, F., Horton, R. and Wierenga, P.J., 1982. Growth and Yield Response of Chili Pepper to Drip Irrigation. Agronomy Journal. 74: 556-571
• Bernstein, I. and Francois, L.E., 1973. Comparison of Drip, Furrow, and Sprinkler Irrigation. Soil Science. 115: 73-46
• Bresler, E., Dagan G. and Hanks, R.J., 1982. Statistical Analysis of Crop Yield Under Controlled LineSource Irrigation. Soil Science Society American J. 46:841-847.
• Della Costa, L. and Gianquinto, G., 2002. Water Stress and Watertable Depth Influence Yield, Water Use Efficiency, and Nitrogen Recovery in Bell Pepper: Lysimeter Studies. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 53:201-210.
• Dey Sarkar, A.K., Hoque, M.M., Shaheed, A. and Ahmed, M.U., 1996. Effect of Simulated Rain at Heading Stage on Grain Yield of Wheat. Rachis. 15(1/2): 60-61.
• Dimitrov, Z. and Ovtcharrova. A., 1995. The Productivity of Peppers and Tomatoes in Case of Insufficient Water Supply. In: ‘Proceedings of ICID Special Technical Session on the Role of Advanced Technologies in Irrigation and Drainage System’. Vol. 1ft9.1-ft9.5
• Doorenbos, J. and Kassam. A. H., 1979. Yield Response to Water. Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO). Irrigation and Drainage Paper 33, Rome.
• Gençoğlan, C., Akıncı, İ.E., Akıncı, S., Uçan K. and Baytorun. N.A., 2002. Effect of Different Irrigation Methods (Basin, furrow, sprinkler and drip) on Pepper Yield, Quality, Water Use Efficiency and Plant Mortality Caused by Root Rot. TÜBİTAK. Project No:TOGTAG/TARP-2088.
• Hanks, R.J., Sisson, D.V., Hurts R.L. and Humbard. K.D., 1980. Statistical Analysis of Results >From Irrigation Experiments Using the LineSource Sprinkler System. Soil Science Society American Journal. 44: 886-888
• Jaimez, R.E., Vielma, O., Rada F.and Garcia-Nunez. C., 2000. Effects of Water Deficit on the Dynamics of Flowering and Fruit Production in Capsicum Chinense Jacq in a tropical semiarid region of Venezuela. J. Agronomy Crop Science. 185: 113-119.
• James, D.W., Hanks R. J. and Jurinak. J.J., 1982. Modern irrigation soils. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
• Kanber, R., Yüksek, G., Eylen M. and Demiroz. C., 1980. The Effect of Irrigation Levels and Nitrogen Quantity on Pepper at Infected Lands by P. capsici Leonian Under Kahramanmaraş. Conditions. Tarsus Soil-Water Research Institute, General Publication No: 105, Report No: 55.
• Kang, S., Zhang, L., Hu, X., Li, Z. and Jerie, P., 2001. An improved Water Use Efficiency for Hot Pepper grown under controlled alternate drip irrigation on partial roots. Scientia Horticulturae. 89:257-267
• Keller, J. and Bliesner, R.D., 1990. Sprinkler and Trickle Irrigation. An avi Book Published by Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York
• O’Sullivan, J., 1979. Response of Pepper to Irrigation and Nitrogen. Can. J. Plant Science. 59: 10851091
• Ontai, S. L. and Bordovsky. J.P., 2003. Effect of Irrigation Application Devices on Boll Set, Cotton Yield and Fiber Quality. Texas Agricultural Experiment Station. The Texas A&M University System Halfway, TX.
• Pellitero, M., Pardo, A., Simon, A., Suso M. L. and Cerrolaza. A., 1993. Effect of Irrigation Regimes on Yield and Fruit Composition of Processing Pepper (Capsicum annuum L.). Acta Horti. 335: 257-263.
• Pill, W. G. and Lamberth. V.N., 1980. Effect of Soil Water Regime and Nitrogen Form on Blossomend Rot, Yield Water Relations, and Elemental Composition of tomato. Soil Science Society American J. 105(5): 730-734.
• Stegman, B.A., Hanks, R.J., Musick J.T. and Watts. D.G., 1981. Irrigation Water ManagementAdequate or Limited Water Irrigation Challenges at the 80’s Proceeding of the ASAE Second National Irrigation Symposium, Oct. 2023, 1980 Univ. of Nebraska. Pub. ASAE, St Joseph, MI. 154-165.
• Wierenga, P.J. and J.M.H. Hendrickx, 1985. Yield and Quality of Trickle-Irrigated Chile Peppers. Agricultural Water Management. 9: 339-356.