Vol. 9(1), pp. 31-36, January 2021
DOI: 10.14662/ARJASR2020.790
Copy�right 2021
Author(s) retain the copyright of this article
ISSN: 2360-7874
http://www.academicresearchjournals.org/ARJASR/Index.htm
 

Research paper

Evaluation of Alternate Furrow Deficit Irrigation for Water Productivity of Potato in Ziway Dugda District of Ethiopia

 

Samuel Lindi*¹, Bakasho Iticha*², Mehiret Hone*³

 

*Kulumsa Agricultural Research Center, P.O.Box 489, Asella, Ethiopia

Corresponding author's email: - samuellindi5@gmail.com

 

Accepted 28 October 2020

Abstract

 

The experiment was conducted at Ziway Dugda district with the Objectives of the study were to evaluation deficit irrigation practice and optimize water productivity under small scale farmer. Two types of furrow irrigation methods (100% ETc alternate furrow and 100% ETc conventional furrow irrigation) were evaluated in a plot size of 10mx10m. The comparison of the experiment shows that the maximum and minimum tuber yield (15.78 and 14.15ton/ha) was obtained at conventional and alternate furrow irrigation methods, respectively. On the other hand, the maximum and minimum water productivities of 6.81 kg/m3 and 3.59kg/m3 were obtained at 100% ETc alternate and 100% ETc conventional Furrow irrigation method respectively. 100% ETc AFI treatment saves about 50% of irrigation water than 100% ETc CFI for the production of potato. A deficit of irrigation water by 50% recorded yield loss of 10.33%. Therefore, in areas having enough irrigation water resources, farmers can use 100%ETc CFI for maximum potato yield production, nonetheless under limited irrigation water resource 100% ETc AFI method is an appropriate method, which can save about 50% of irrigation water.

Keywords: Water Productivity, Deficit Irrigation, Alternate Furrow and Conventional Furrow Irrigation Method
 

How to cite this article (APA Style): Samuel, L., Bakasho, I., Mehiret, H. (2021). Evaluation of Alternate Furrow Deficit Irrigation for Water Productivity of Potato in Ziway Dugda District of Ethiopia. Acad. Res. J. Agri. Sci. Res. 9(1): 31-36