The primary production barrier in the arid and semi-arid regions of the eastern Hararghe zone is the issue of irrigation water scarcity. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of irrigation methods and mulching materials on water productivity, water retention and yield of tomato crop. The experiment was laid out in factorial design arranged in RCBD consisting of six treatments with three replication. The treatment combination were Conventional Furrow Irrigation with white plastic mulch (CFI+WPM), Conventional Furrow Irrigation with grass mulch (CFI+GM), Conventional Furrow Irrigation with no mulch (CFI+NM), alternative furrow irrigation with white plastic mulch (AFI+WPM), alternative furrow irrigation with grass mulch (AFI+GM) and alternative furrow irrigation with no mulch (AFI+NM). The finding shown that, Maximum yield (33.68 t/ha) was obtained by conventional furrow irrigation with grass mulch treatment while the lowest yield of 22.08 t/ha was obtained by alternative furrow irrigation with no mulch treatment. The study revealed that, Maximum water productivity (12.636 kg/m3) was obtained by application of alternative furrow irrigation with grass mulch treatment. Even though maximum yield was obtained by treatment of conventional furrow irrigation with grass mulch, irrigation water productivity of this treatment was not more attractive due to high consumption of irrigation water by conventional irrigation method. The economic analysis of this finding shown that, maximum benefit cost ratio (BCR) was obtained by alternative furrow irrigation with grass mulching treatment. In terms of increasing water holding capacity of the soil, white plastic mulch with conventional furrow irrigation produce maximum water retention. From the result minimum water retention was obtained by alternative furrow irrigation method with no mulch treatments. Based on result obtained, application of grass mulch with alternative furrow irrigation method was recommended as best technology for improving irrigation water productivity. Since grass mulch is applicable in both cost and availability, it should be practiced by all irrigation users.
| Published in | Hydrology (Volume 13, Issue 4) |
| DOI | 10.11648/j.hyd.20251304.13 |
| Page(s) | 234-241 |
| Creative Commons |
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited. |
| Copyright |
Copyright © The Author(s), 2025. Published by Science Publishing Group |
Irrigation Method, Mulching Materials, Water Productivity, Tomato
| [1] | B. T. Aliabadi, M. R. Hassandokht, H. Etesami, and H. A. Alikhani, “Effect of Mulching on Some Characteristics of Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) under Deficit Irrigation,” vol. 21, pp. 927–941, 2019. |
| [2] | A. Mukherjee, S. Sarkar, and P. K. Chakraborty, “Marginal analysis of water productivity function of tomato crop grown under different irrigation regimes and mulch managements,” Agric. Water Manag., vol. 104, pp. 121-127, 2012, |
| [3] | A. Sarkar, “irrigation frequency and mulch ce pt us t,” vol. 5260, no. September, 2017, |
| [4] | R. A. and Z. Tamiru, “Integrated Effect of Mulching and Furrow Methods on Tomato (Lycopersiumesculentum L) Yield and Water Productivity at,” vol. 9, no. 20, pp. 1-6, 2019. |
| [5] | P. Kundu, N. K. Adhikary, M. Saha, A. Ghosal, and N. C. Sahu, “The Effects of Mulches on Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum L.) in Respect of Yield Attribute in Ecosystem of Coastal Bengal,” vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 1-8, 2019, |
| [6] | J. I. A. Hao et al., “Effects of biodegradable mulch on soil water and heat conditions, yield and quality of processing tomatoes by drip irrigation,” 2020. |
| [7] | A. Muluneh, L. Stroosnijder, and S. Keesstra, “Adapting to climate change for food security in the Rift Valley dry lands of Ethiopia : supplemental irrigation, plant density and sowing date,” pp. 703-724, 2017, |
| [8] | B. Berihun, “Effect of mulching and amount of water on the yield of tomato under drip irrigation,” vol. 3, no. July, pp. 200-206, 2011. |
| [9] | O. and Selamawit, “Effect of Deficit Irrigation and Mulch on Field and Water Productivity of Tomato Under Drip Irrigation at Ambo,” vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 8-16, 2024. |
| [10] | L. Goel, V. Shankar, and R. K. Sharma, “Effect of organic mulches on agronomic parameters - A case study of tomato crop (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.),” pp. 297-307, 2020, |
| [11] | J. Xu et al., “Effect of Regulated Deficit Irrigation on the Growth, Yield, and Irrigation Water Productivity of Processing Tomatoes under Drip Irrigation and Mulching,” 2023. |
| [12] | I. Samui et al., “Yield Response, Nutritional Quality and Water Productivity of Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) are Influenced by Drip Irrigation and Straw Mulch in the Coastal Saline Ecosystem of Ganges Delta, India,” 2020. |
| [13] | Oiganji, “Vegetative Growth and Yield of Tomato as Affected by Water Regime and Mulching Oiganji Ezekiel *, O. I Jane**, H. O Sanusi***,” vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 43-53, 2019. |
| [14] | H. Zhang, G. Huang, X. Xu, and Y. Xiong, “Estimating Evapotranspiration of Processing Tomato under Plastic Mulch Using the SIMDualKc Model,” pp. 1-18, 2018, |
| [15] | A. Tagar, F. A. Chandio, I. A. Mari, and B. Wagan, “Comparative Study of Drip and Furrow Irrigation Methods at Farmer ’ s Field in Umarkot,” pp. 863-867, 2012. |
| [16] | M. Abdul, M. Senge, and M. Abdul, “International Soil and Water Conservation Research Mulching type-induced soil moisture and temperature regimes and water use ef fi ciency of soybean under rain-fed condition in central Japan,” Int. Soil Water Conserv. Res., vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 302-308, 2017, |
| [17] | M. Ayana, G. Teklay, M. Abate, and F. Eshetu, “Irrigation water pricing in Awash River Basin of Ethiopia : Evaluation of its impact on scheme-level irrigation performances and willingness to pay,” vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 554-565, 2015, |
APA Style
Ofga, L., Tade, A., Nur, J. (2025). On Farm Evaluation of Mulching Materials and Irrigation Methods on Water Productivity and Yield of Tomato. Hydrology, 13(4), 234-241. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.hyd.20251304.13
ACS Style
Ofga, L.; Tade, A.; Nur, J. On Farm Evaluation of Mulching Materials and Irrigation Methods on Water Productivity and Yield of Tomato. Hydrology. 2025, 13(4), 234-241. doi: 10.11648/j.hyd.20251304.13
Share This Article
Twitter
Linked In
Facebook
Copy
Download@article{10.11648/j.hyd.20251304.13,
author = {Lalisa Ofga and Ayela Tade and Jamal Nur},
title = {On Farm Evaluation of Mulching Materials and Irrigation Methods on Water Productivity and Yield of Tomato},
journal = {Hydrology},
volume = {13},
number = {4},
pages = {234-241},
doi = {10.11648/j.hyd.20251304.13},
url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.hyd.20251304.13},
eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.hyd.20251304.13},
abstract = {The primary production barrier in the arid and semi-arid regions of the eastern Hararghe zone is the issue of irrigation water scarcity. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of irrigation methods and mulching materials on water productivity, water retention and yield of tomato crop. The experiment was laid out in factorial design arranged in RCBD consisting of six treatments with three replication. The treatment combination were Conventional Furrow Irrigation with white plastic mulch (CFI+WPM), Conventional Furrow Irrigation with grass mulch (CFI+GM), Conventional Furrow Irrigation with no mulch (CFI+NM), alternative furrow irrigation with white plastic mulch (AFI+WPM), alternative furrow irrigation with grass mulch (AFI+GM) and alternative furrow irrigation with no mulch (AFI+NM). The finding shown that, Maximum yield (33.68 t/ha) was obtained by conventional furrow irrigation with grass mulch treatment while the lowest yield of 22.08 t/ha was obtained by alternative furrow irrigation with no mulch treatment. The study revealed that, Maximum water productivity (12.636 kg/m3) was obtained by application of alternative furrow irrigation with grass mulch treatment. Even though maximum yield was obtained by treatment of conventional furrow irrigation with grass mulch, irrigation water productivity of this treatment was not more attractive due to high consumption of irrigation water by conventional irrigation method. The economic analysis of this finding shown that, maximum benefit cost ratio (BCR) was obtained by alternative furrow irrigation with grass mulching treatment. In terms of increasing water holding capacity of the soil, white plastic mulch with conventional furrow irrigation produce maximum water retention. From the result minimum water retention was obtained by alternative furrow irrigation method with no mulch treatments. Based on result obtained, application of grass mulch with alternative furrow irrigation method was recommended as best technology for improving irrigation water productivity. Since grass mulch is applicable in both cost and availability, it should be practiced by all irrigation users.},
year = {2025}
}
TY - JOUR T1 - On Farm Evaluation of Mulching Materials and Irrigation Methods on Water Productivity and Yield of Tomato AU - Lalisa Ofga AU - Ayela Tade AU - Jamal Nur Y1 - 2025/12/26 PY - 2025 N1 - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.hyd.20251304.13 DO - 10.11648/j.hyd.20251304.13 T2 - Hydrology JF - Hydrology JO - Hydrology SP - 234 EP - 241 PB - Science Publishing Group SN - 2330-7617 UR - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.hyd.20251304.13 AB - The primary production barrier in the arid and semi-arid regions of the eastern Hararghe zone is the issue of irrigation water scarcity. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of irrigation methods and mulching materials on water productivity, water retention and yield of tomato crop. The experiment was laid out in factorial design arranged in RCBD consisting of six treatments with three replication. The treatment combination were Conventional Furrow Irrigation with white plastic mulch (CFI+WPM), Conventional Furrow Irrigation with grass mulch (CFI+GM), Conventional Furrow Irrigation with no mulch (CFI+NM), alternative furrow irrigation with white plastic mulch (AFI+WPM), alternative furrow irrigation with grass mulch (AFI+GM) and alternative furrow irrigation with no mulch (AFI+NM). The finding shown that, Maximum yield (33.68 t/ha) was obtained by conventional furrow irrigation with grass mulch treatment while the lowest yield of 22.08 t/ha was obtained by alternative furrow irrigation with no mulch treatment. The study revealed that, Maximum water productivity (12.636 kg/m3) was obtained by application of alternative furrow irrigation with grass mulch treatment. Even though maximum yield was obtained by treatment of conventional furrow irrigation with grass mulch, irrigation water productivity of this treatment was not more attractive due to high consumption of irrigation water by conventional irrigation method. The economic analysis of this finding shown that, maximum benefit cost ratio (BCR) was obtained by alternative furrow irrigation with grass mulching treatment. In terms of increasing water holding capacity of the soil, white plastic mulch with conventional furrow irrigation produce maximum water retention. From the result minimum water retention was obtained by alternative furrow irrigation method with no mulch treatments. Based on result obtained, application of grass mulch with alternative furrow irrigation method was recommended as best technology for improving irrigation water productivity. Since grass mulch is applicable in both cost and availability, it should be practiced by all irrigation users. VL - 13 IS - 4 ER -
Oromia Agricultural Research Institute, Fadis Agricultural Research Center, Harar, Ethiopia
Oromia Agricultural Research Institute, Fadis Agricultural Research Center, Harar, Ethiopia
Oromia Agricultural Research Institute, Fadis Agricultural Research Center, Harar, Ethiopia
Information