Effects of Different Emitter Spaces and Irrigation Levels on Yield and Yield Components of Processing Tomato

Abstract

: Bu çalışma, 2004-2005 (2 yıl) yılları arasında, Konya ekolojik koşullarında salçalık domatesin (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill cv. Shasta) toplam meyve verimi (TFY), salçalık meyve verimi (PFY), salça verimi (PO) ve bazı kalite kriterleri (ortalama meyve ağırlığı-MFW, meyve çapı-FD, meyve delinme direnci-PV, pH, toplam suda çözünebilir katı madde-TSS ve askorbik asit içeriği-AA) üzerine farklı damlatıcı aralığı ve su stresinin etkisini araştırmak amacı ile yürütülmüştür. Deneme Tesadüf Bloklarında Bölünmüş Parseller Deneme Deseni’nde ve 3 tekerrürlü olarak kurulmuştur. Lateraller her bitki sırasına bir lateral olacak şekilde yerleştirilmiştir. Denemenin ana konuları 3 farklı damlatıcı aralığı 25 cm, 50 cm ve 75 cm (A,B ve C koşulları) şeklinde oluşturulurken; alt konuları da 4 farklı sulama suyu; I1= (tam sulanan) 0-60 cm’deki eksik nemin 7 günde bir tarla kapasitesine tamamlanması, I2= %25 kısıntı, I3= %50 kısıntı ve I4= %75 olacak şekilde kısıntı konularından oluşturulmuştur. İki yıllık deneme sonuçlarına göre; her iki yılda da ana konuların en iyi toplam meyve verimi (51.8.-52.4 t ha-1) ve salçalık meyve verimi (47.2-49.3 t ha-1) A konusundan elde edilmiştir (p?0.01). Diğer taraftan, alt konularda en yüksek TFY (66.2-66.8 t ha-1), PFY (60.7-63.7 t ha-1) ve PO (11.4-12.4 t ha-1) I1 konusundan elde edilmiştir. MFW, FD ve TSS uygulamalardan etkilenmiştir (p?0.05). Yüksek stress koşullarında suda çözünebilir katı madde içeriği artmıştır. Deneme yıllarında, A konusunun sulama suyu miktarı sırasıyla 250-376 mm ve su tüketim miktarı 414-425 mm olmuştur. Alt konulardan I1 konusunun sulama suyu mikarı ise 426-587 mm iken su tüketimi 520-623 mm’dir.

Keywords

• damlatıcı aralığı,sulama düzeyi, salçalık domates, verim, kalite

Farklı Damlatıcı Aralıklarının ve Sulama Düzeylerinin Salçalık Domatesin Verim ve Kalite Bileşenleri Üzerine Etkisi

Öz

This study was carried out in order to determine the effects of different emitter spaces and water stress on total fruits yield (TFY); yield suitable for processing (PFY) and paste output (PO) of processing tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill cv. Shasta) and some quality characteristics (mean fruit weight-MFW, fruit diameter-FD, penetration value of fruit-PV, pH, total soluble solids-TSS and ascorbic acid-AA contents) under ecological conditions of Konya Plain in 2004 and 2005 years. The randomized split block experimental design with three replications was applied in the study. Drip irrigation laterals were arranged in such a way that every row had one lateral. Emitter spacing of 25, 50 and 75 cm (A, B and C respectively) were the main treatments while four levels of water supply irrigation at 7 days intervals with water amount enough to fill the soil depth of 0-60 cm till field capacity (I1), and 25, 50 and 75% decreased water supply levels (I2, I3 and I4) were applied as sub treatments of the experiment. According to results of the main treatments for two years showed that the highest total fruits yield (51.75-52.43 t ha-1), as well as yield suitable for processing (47.23-49.33 t ha-1) were obtained from A treatment (p

Anahtar Kelimeler

• emitter space, irrigation level, processing tomato, yield, quality

Kaynakça

1. Anonymous, 2008. Agricultural Structure and Production. Government Statistic Inst. of Prime Minister Pub. (http://www.tuik.gov.tr).
2. Balçın, M. and Güleç, H., 1998. Irrigation scheduling of drip-irrigated evaporation in Tokat region (in Turkish). Soil and Water Sources Research Result Report, Tokat- Turkey. using class A pan
3. Tomato. 23-27 Nov. 1993, Sorrento, Italy. Acta
4. Horticulturae, No: 376, 285-290.
5. Candido, V., Miccolis V. and Perniola, M., 2000. Effects of irrigation regime on yield and quality of processing tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) cultivars. III International Symposium on Irrigation of Horticultural Crops. Acta Hort., (ISHS) 537:779- 788
6. Çetin, Ö., Uygan, D., Boyacı, H. and Yıldırım, O., 2002a. Effects of different irrigation treaments on yield and quality of drip-irrigated tomatoes under Eskisehir conditions (in Turkish). IV. Vegetable Agriculture Symposium. 17-20
7. September, Bursa-Turkey.
8. Çetin, Ö., Yıldırım, O., Uygan, D. and Boyacı, H., 2002b. Irrigation scheduling of drip-irrigated tomatoes using class A pan evaporation. Turk. J. Agric. For. 26: 171-178.

9. Hanson B.R., May D.M., and Schwankl L.J., 1997. Drip irrigation of processing tomatoes. In ‘ASAE Annual International Meeting’. Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA, 10–14 August, 1997.
10. Howell, T.A., Cuenca, R.H. and Solomon, K.H., 1990. Crop Yield Response. Management of Farm Irrigation Systems (Ed. Hoffman et al.). ASAE, 311- 312
11. http://www.actahort.org/books/335/335_16.htm
12. Howell, T.A., 2006. Challenges in increasing water use efficiency in irrigated agriculture. In: The proceedings of International Symposium on Water and land Management For Sustainable Irrigated Agriculture, April 4-8, 2006, Adana-Turkey.
13. Jadhaw, S.S., Gutal, G.B. and Chougule, A.A., 1990. Cost economies of the drip irrigation system for tomatoes crop. Department of Agricultural Engineering, College of Agriculture, Pune, India.
14. Keller, J. and Bliesner, R.D., 1990. Sprinkle and trickle irrigation (Chapman and Hall: New York).
15. May, D.M., 1993. Moisture stress to maximize processing tomato yield and fruit quality. International Symposium on Irrigation of Horticultural Crops. 1 April1993. http://www.actahort.org/books/335/335_67.htm
16. Mbarek, K.B. and Bouljelben, A., 2004. Behavior of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill) and red pepper (Capsicum annum L.) crops under greenhouse conditions conducted in single and twin rows. Tropicultura 22 (3), 97-103.
17. Oweis, T.Y., Shatanawi, M.R. and Ghavi, I.O., 1988. Optimal irrigation management for protected tomato in the Jordan Valley. Dirasat: Human and Social Sciences 15, 104-118.
18. Özbahçe, A., 2003. The problems of processing tomato agriculture and the solution proposals. Agriculture Associations Union in Turkey. Pub.No: 141, Ankara.
19. Sanders, D.C., Howell, T.A., Hile, M.M.S., Hodges, L., Meek, D. and Phene, C.J., 1989. Yield and quality of processing tomatoes in response to irrigation rate and schedule. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science 114, 904–908.
20. Tan, C.S., 1995. Effect of drip and sprinkler irrigation on yield and quality of five tomatoes cultivars in Southeastern Ontario. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 1995, 75: 1, 225-230.
21. Tekinel, O., Kanber, R., Önder, S., Baytorun, N. and Baştuğ, R., 1989. The effects of trickle and conventional irrigation meyhods on some crop yields and water use efficiency under Çukurova conditions. Irrigation: Theory and practice (edited by Rydzewski, J.R. and Ward, C.F.J. 1989) 641-651, Southampton, UK.
22. Yıldırım, O., 1996. Irrigation Techniques of Horticultural Crops (in Turkish). Ankara University, Agricultural Faculty, Publication Number 1438/420, p.188.
23. Yıldırım, O., 2003. Design of irrigation systems (in Turkish). Ankara University, Agricultural Faculty, Publication No: 11536/489, Ankara-Turkey.
24. Yohannes, F. and Tadesse, T., 1998. Effect of drip and furrow irrigation and plant spacing on yield of tomato at Dire Dawa, Ethiopia. Agricultural Water Management, Volume 35, Issue 3, 201-207.
25. Yrisarry, B.J.J., Losada, P.M.H. and Podriguez, A.R., 1993. Response of processing tomato to three different levels of water and nitrogen applications. International Horticultural Crops. 1 April 1993. on Irrigation of
26. Yurtsever, N., 1984. Experimental Statistics Methods (in Turkish). Republic of Turkey, Ministry of Agriculture The Former General Directorate of Rural Service, Soil-Fertilizer Research Inst. Pub. No: 121, Techniques Pub. No: 56, Ankara-Turkey.