Effects of Irrigation Programs Formed by Different Approaches on the Yield and Water Consumption of Black Cumin (Nigella sativa L.) under Transition Zone in the West Anatolia Conditions

Abstract

This study was carried out to determine the effects of different irrigation programs obtained by pan evaporation and water balance methods on some yield and vegetative parameters and water consumption of black cumin in the experiment field located in the center of Cobanlar District in Afyonkarahisar, Turkey during 2013 and 2014 growing seasons. In the experiment, the irrigation treatments were formed with 3 different irrigation intervals (SA3: 3 days, SA5: 5 days, and SA10: 10 days) and 4 different irrigation water levels as 0% (I0: non-irrigated) 50%, 75% (I50, I75: deficit irrigation) and 100% (I100: full irrigation) of the cumulative evaporation amount measured from class A pan in the first year and, of the required water amount to replenish the available soil moisture to the field capacity in the 0.60 m soil depth in the second year. The highest and the lowest evapotranspiration (ET) values were determined as 387.6 mm in SA3-I100 and as 166.9 mm in I0, respectively. The highest seed yield was obtained in SA5-I100 with an amount of 1700.6 kg ha-1 while the lowest seed yield was obtained in I0 with an amount of 722.2 kg ha-1. The highest total water use efficiency (WUE) and irrigation water use efficiency (IWUE) values were calculated from SA5-I50 as 5.11 kg ha-1 mm-1 and 4.80 kg ha-1 mm-1, respectively. While the yield response factor values (ky) were obtained as 0.75 (SA3), 0.80 (SA5) and 0.50 (SA10) for different irrigation interval, the mean ky value was determined as 0.68 according to all treatments of both years. Since the values of the yield and vegetative parameters and ET in same irrigation programs formed by two different methods were close to each other, the both methods can be used for irrigation of black cumin. 

Keywords

• Evapotranspiration; Drip irrigation; Water use efficiency; Yield response factor

References

1. Ahmed N U & Haque K R (1986). Effect of row spacing and time of showing on the yield of black cumin (Nigella sativa L.). Bangladesh Journal of Agricural Research 11(1): 21-24
2. Akgoren G (2011). Agricultural features of some black cumin (Nigella sativa L.) populations. MSc Thesis, Osman Gazi University (Unpublished), Eskisehir
3. Al-Kayssi A, Shibab R M & Mustafa S H (2011). Impact of soil water stress on Nigellone oil content of black cumin seeds grown in calcareous-gypsifereous soils. Agricultural Water Management 100: 46-57
4. Baydar H (2013). The Science and Technology of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants. 1st Ed. Süleyman Demirel University, Isparta
5. Doorenbos J & Pruitt W O (1977). Crop water requirements. Irrigation and Drainage Paper, No. 24 FAO, Rome, pp. 179 Doorenbos J & Kassam A H (1986). Yield response to water. Irrigation and Drainage Paper, No. 33. FAO, Rome, pp. 193
6. El-Mekawy M A M (2012). Growth and yield of Nigella sativa L. plant influenced by sowing date and irrigation treatments. American-Eurasian Journal of Agriculture & Environmental Science 12(4): 499-505
7. English M & Raja S N (1996). Perspectives on deficit irrigation. Agricultural Water Management 32: 1-14 Ghamarnia H & Jalili Z (2013). Water stress effects on different Black cumin (Nigella sativa L.) components in a semi-arid region. International Journal of Agronomy and Plant Production 4(4): 753-762
8. Ghamarnia H, Khosravy H & Sepehri S (2010). Yield and water use efficiency of (Nigella sativa L.) under different irrigation treatments in a semi arid region in the West of Iran. Journal of Medicinal Plants Research 4(16): 1612-1616

9. Howell T A, Cuenca R H & Solomon K H (1990). Crop yield response. In: Management of Farm Irrigation Systems. ASAE, Madison, Wisconsin, pp. 312
10. James L G (1988). Principles of farm irrigation system design. John Wiley and Sons. Inc., New York, pp. 543 Kalcin F T (2003). Effect of plant density on yield and yield components on two black cumin species (Nigella sativa L. Nigella damascen a L.). MSc Thesis, Ankara University (Unpublished), Ankara
11. Kanber R (1984). Çukurova koşullarında açık su yüzeyi buharlaşmasından yararlanarak birinci ve ikinci ürün yerfıstığının sulanması [in Turkish]. Bölge Topraksu Araştırma Enstitüsü Yayınları 114(64), Tarsus, Türkiye
12. Kanber R (1997). Irrigation. 1st Ed. Cukurova University, Academic Press, Adana, pp. 140-142 Kanber R (2010). Field Irrigation Systems. 1st Ed. Cukurova University, Academic Press, Adana, pp. 402-490
13. Kumar S A (2009). Plants-based Medicines in India. Retrieved in February, 15, 2013 from http://pib.nic.in/ feature/feyr2000/fmay2000/f240520006.html
14. Ozel A, Demirel U, Guler I & Erden K (2009). Effect of different row spacing and seeding rates on black cumin (Nigella sativa L.) yields and some agricultural characters. University of Harran Journal of the Faculty of Agriculture 13(1): 17-25
15. Panda R K, Behera S K & Kashyap P S (2004). Effective management of irrigation water for maize under stressed conditions. Agricultral Water Management 66: 181-203
16. Safaei Z, Azizi M, Maryam Y, Aroiee H & Davarynejad G (2014). The effect of different irrigation intervals and anti-transpiration compounds on yield and yield components of black cumin (Nigella sativa L.). International Journal of Advanced Biological and Biomedical Research 4(2): 326-335
17. Taqi H (2013). Determination of important agricultural and quality characters of some black cumin (Nigella sativa L.) populations under Samsun ecological conditions. MSc Thesis, Ondokuz Mayıs University (Unpublished), Samsun
18. TUIK (2015). Turkish Statistical Institute, Retrieved in February, 20, 2015 from http://www.tuik.gov.tr/
19. Wang Z, Liu Z, Zhang Z & Liu X (2009). Subsurface drip irrigation scheduling for cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.) grown in solar greenhouse based on 20 cm standard pan evaporation in Northeast China. Scientia Horticulturae 123: 51-57
20. Yazar A, Sezen S M & Gencel B (2002). Drip irrigation of corn in the Southeast Anatolia project (GAP) area in Turkey. Irrigation and Drainage 51: 293-300