3.9 Article

REGULATED DEFICIT IRRIGATION AND DIFFERENT MULCH TYPES ON FRUIT QUALITY AND YIELD OF WATERMELON

Journal

REVISTA CAATINGA
Volume 30, Issue 2, Pages 437-446

Publisher

UNIV FED RURAL SEMI-ARIDO-UFERSA
DOI: 10.1590/1983-21252017v30n219rc

Keywords

Water deficit; Isareg model; Citrullus lanatus; Mulching

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The objective of this work was to assess the pulp resistance, soluble solids and yield of watermelon fruits grown under different irrigation managements (determined by the ISAREG model) and mulches, and their interactions. After a survey carried out on local producers, two experiments were conducted, using a completely randomized block design in split-plot arrangement with four replications, in the Teaching, Research and Extension Unit (UEPE) of the Federal Institute of Ceara (IFCE), Jaguaribe-Apodi Irrigation District (DIJA), State of Ceara, Brazil. The treatments consisted of four irrigation managements in the plots, M1 (100% of the available-water capacity (AWC) of the soil), M2 (80%), M3 (60%) and M4 (average water depth used by local producers) and four mulch types in the sub-plots, without mulching (C0) with rice husk (C1), white plastic (C2) and black plastic (C3) as mulches. The results were subjected to analysis of variance, and significant results were subjected to regression (irrigation managements), average test (mulches) and trend graphs (interaction between the factors). The irrigation management practiced during the watermelon crop cycle by the local producers of the Irrigation District of Jaguaribe-Apodi (DIJA) in the State of Ceara, Brazil, is not appropriated, since they usually apply more water than the highest water depth determined by the ISAREG model (100% of the AWC). The plants grown under irrigation water depth of 365.20 mm (M1) and soils with mulches of rice husk or white plastic had the highest yields and fruits with better quality of soluble solids and pulp resistance.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available