Southern Cooperative

Series Bulletin 363

Water and Nutrient Requirements

for Drip-Irrigated Vegetables
in Humid Regions
January 1992

Agricultural Experiment Station

Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
University of Florida
J.M. Davidson, Dean

<

Contents
Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..i
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....1
Water requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Tomato . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............................1
Nutrient requirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..3
Other vegetables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..6
Succession cropping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...6
Economic considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..7
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...7
Literaturecited
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...8
Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...10

Water and Nutrient Requirements

for Drip-Irrigated Vegetables
in Humid Regions

This publication was produced as a result of research conducted in Southern Regional Research Project
S-143, Trickle Irrigation in Humid Regions.

Dr. J. R. Fischer, Administrative Advisor, S-143

Dean and Director
South Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station
104 Barre Hall
Clemson Universi@
Clemson, SC 29634-0351

Additional copies of this publication maybe ordered horn C. M. HintOn, Publications Distribution Center,
IFAS Building 664, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611.

The Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences is an Equal Employment Opportunity - Af15.rmativeAction
Employer authorized to provide research, educational information and other services only to individuals and
institutions that fimction without regard to race, color, sex, age, handicap or national origin.

,... .
-------

.. .. -,.-.. .,------

. ., .... . .

P..

.,.

. .

. . . .

. .

. . .

. .

.,.... . .. -..-

. .. ..-

. .

Contributing authors
S. J. Locascio
University of Florida
Vegetable Crops Dept.
Gainesdle, FL 32611-0514
G. A. Clark, AA. Csizinszky, and C. D. Stanley
University of Florida
Gulf Coast Research & Education Center
Bradentm, FL 34203
S. M. C)lson and F. Rhoads
University of Florida
North Florida Research & Education Center
@iIICy,
FL 32351
A. G. Smajstrla
Universi@ of Florida
Agricultural Engineering Dept.
Gainesville, FL 32611-0361
G. Vellidis
Univerai@ of Georgia
Biological & Agricultural Engineering Department
Coastal Plain Experiment Station
1ifton, GA 31793-0748
R. J. Edling
Louisiana State University
Agricultural Engineering
Baton Rouge, LA 70803
H. Y. Hanna
Louisiana State University
port Sulphur, LA 70083
M. It. Goyal
University of Puerto Rico
College Station
BOX5984
Mayaguez, Puerto Rico 00681-5984
S. Crossman and A L Navarro
University of the Virgin Islands
Rural RQU@ 2, BOX10000
Krlgshill, St.Croix,VI 00850

Introduction

Water requirements

Vegetables grown in the humid regions of the

United States are grown with intensive production
practices. Soil fumigants, adequate rates of fertilizer, polyethylene mulch, close plant spacing, pest
management, and irrigation are used to obtain high
quality and maximum production. Although rainfall in the area is as much as 150 cm during the
year, distribution is not uniform throughout the
year. Most vegetables in these areas are grown
during the fall, winter, or early spring when rainfall is relatively low and irrigation is necess~ to
prevent plant water stress. .Tomato (.Lycopersicon
esculentum Mill.) yields in a&y year were tripled
with irrigation (Locascio and Myers, 1974).

Water requirements for commercially-grown

vegetables vary depending on a number of factors
including climate, soil type, crop grown, stage of
growth, and cultural practices. Water scheduling
with drip irrigation is critical to the successfid use
of the system. Studies have been conducted h
evaluate various systems to schedule water applications. Plant water use in relation to pan evaporation (PanW has been evaluated in research conducted in Florida and the Virgin Islands. With
Panm, water is applied to the crop based on a fraction of the amount of water evaporated from a U.S.
Weather Service Class A pan at the crop production
site. The use of tensiometera in scheduling water
application was also evaluated in Florida, Puerto
Rico, and the Virgin Islands. Work with tensiometers has dealt with water applications to maintain
the soil water tension above a specific point.

Sprinkler and seepage (subsurface) irrigation are

the most commonly used systems for vegetable production. Irrigation application efficiencies average
about 70% and 50%, respectively. With polyethylene-mulched vegetables, irrigation efficiency with
sprinkler irrigation averages about 50%. Both
methods require the use of relatively large quantities of water. Mean water application amounti of
4tn5cm wklbysprinkler and10ta 15cmwk-1
by seepage (subsurface) irrigation are commonly
used on mulched tomato (Persaud et al., 1976).
During very dry periods, 6 to 8 cm wkl maybe
required to maintain adequate soil moisture under
the mulch with sprinkler irrigation. In many areas
where vegetables are grown, water shortages are
becoming acute. In other areas, available water is
becoming saline because of salt water intrusion.
programs of water conservation are essential for
the continued successful production of vegetables in
many locations.

Tomato
Pan evaporation during in a typical spring
tomato season in Florida is about 45 to 50 cm
(20 inches). Rainfall is highly variable by location
and by season. Rainfall and PanETby 2-week periods during the 1988 and 1989 tomato seasons at
Gainesville, FL and Bradenton, FL are shown in
Table 1. Rainfall patterns varied during the 2 seasons but Panm values were similar. Early season
Panm WSEabout 4 tQ5 mm dal and late season
was about 6 mm. dal. Rainfall variation influences crop response to water quantity. Data are
summarized in Table 2 ii-em a 2-year study conducted at Quincy, FL on a tie sandy loam soil and
at Gainesville, FL on a fine sand (hcascio et al,,
1989). Early hit yields were similar with application of water quantities of 0.5 and 1.0 Panm (Table
2). However, total yields were significantly influenced by water quantity at both locations. On the
fine sandy loam soil at Quincy, the response to
water quantity interacted with year. In 1984, when
rainfall was relatively low except early in the season, total marketable yield was signifkantly greah
er with 1.0 Panm water quantity (69.4 t ha-l) than
with 0.5 PanET (62.5 t . hal). During the 1985 season, when rainfall quantities were high late in the
season, total yields were similar with application
of both water quantities. On the he sand at
Gainesdle, mean tot+ marketable yield for the
two seasons was 7.2 t. ha-l greater with application
of 0.5 than 1.0 Panm water quantity (Table 2). The
same water quantity applied in either 1 or 3 times
per day had similar effects on tit yields.

In recent years, drip (trickle or micro-) irrigation

has been shown to be a highljj efficient method of
applying water for vegetables (Locascio and Myers,
1974) with application amounts of only 2 to 2.5 cm o
WW for a tomato crop (1.acascio et al., 1989). The
development of this new system requires research
on the frequency, duration, and amount of water
application, nutrient sources, rates, placement and
time of application, information on water delivery
systems including emitter types, emitter spacing,
emitter locations, and economic considerations of
costs and returns.
The purpose of this publication is to summarize
information developed in the Southern Regional Research Project S-143, Trickle Irrigation in Humid
Regions on the efficient use of drip irrigation for
vegetables.
1

ture green fruit, fruit yield was not influenced by

total injected N rates of 170,255, and 340 kg ohal.
Method of scheduling water application had no significant effect on total marketable yield (Table 5)
but yield of large fruit was significantly greater
with the manual schedule with more water applied
than with the automatic schedule.

Since the use of 0,5 Panm resulted in higher fi-uit

production than use of 1.0 Papm at Gainesville,
studies were conducted to evaluate further reductions in water (Locascio and Smajstrla, 1989). Tomatoes were grown with water quantities of O, 0.17,
0.34 and 0.50 Panm. Marketable fruit of extralarge, large, and total yields were increased sigrriflcantly by irrigation (Table 3). Irrigation increased
marketable yields about 40% over the yield obtained with the non-irrigated treatment. Although
the yields of extra large and large fit tended to
increase with an increase in water quantity applied
from 0.17 to 0.50 Panm, only the total marketable
yield was increased significantly by water quantity.
Total yields increased linearly from 64.4 to 70.4 t
ha-l with an increase in applied water quantity. In
past work, tomato yields decreased slightly with an
increase in water quantity horn 0.5 to 1.0 Panm
(Table 2).

A study to compare subsurface irrigation and

drip irrigation for the production of tomatoes on a
sandy soil was performed in Immokalee, Fla. (Clark
et al., 1987a). Irrigation amounts were scheduled
in the dripirrigated plots to maintain soil water
tensions at 15 kpa or below using tensiometera
placed at 15 and 30-cm depths. Seepage irrigations
were managed to maintain a 0.38- to 0.45-m deep
water table. Yields and fruit size were greater with
drip irrigation than with seepage irrigation (Table 6).
Studies were conducted at Bradenton, Fla. during fall 1987 and spring and fall 1988. Tensiometers were used to maintain soil water tensions at
thresholds of 10 l@a and 15 kpa and N was injected into the irrigation water at 228 and 342
kg - hal (Clark et al., 1989). The irrigation water
quantities applied are summarized in Table 7. Tomato fruit yields were not influenced by N rates of
228 and 342 kg. hal during the 3 seasons or by irrigation treatment during the 2 fall seasons. During
spring 1988, however, the yield of large fi-uit and
the total marketable yielda were significantly
greater with 10 than 15 kpa soil water tension
(Table 8). The highest irrigation applications with
the 2 treatments were 33 cm and 20 cm of water,
respectively.

Data from research studies conducted at Quincy,

Fla. are shown in Table 4 (Rhoads and Olson,
1989). Irrigation quantities from 0.25 to 1.0 Panm
did not influence early marketable yield. However,
the relationship between amount of irrigation and
total marketable yield was quadratic. Highest
yields were produced with 0.75 and LO Panm irrigation. Average fit weights were greater with
0.75 and 1.0 Panm than with 0.25 and 0.50 Panm.
Daily application of water resulted in higher yields
than the same total water quantity applied 3 times
per week (data not shown) in one study and had no
effect in another study (Locascio et al., 1989). It
would appear from the present field studies and
those of others (Kafkafi and Bar-Yosef, 1980;
Locascio et al., 1981 and 1989) that tomato irrigation requirements are between 0.5 and 1.0 Panm on
iine sandy soils but are between 0.75 and LO Panm
on the iine sandy loam soils used in the present
studies.

Tomatoes and other vegetables are often grown

with drip irrigation on high water table soils.
Vellidis et al. (1987), constructed field lysimeters
that were instrumented to permit separate measurement of crop water use from drip irrigation and
horn the water table. Vellidis et al. (1988) reported
that 16 to 34 percent of tomato evapotranspiration
was obtained from a 72-cm deep water table even
though the crop was drip irrigated daily. The relative amount of water extracted fmm the water table
increased with plant growth and with soil waterholding capacity.

In a study conducted at Ruskin, Fla. on a Lskeland fine sand, drip-imigation scheduling and rate
of N injected into the irrigation water were studied
on tomaties (Clark et al., 1987). Seepage irrigation
was used for crop establishment then supplemental
irrigations were scheduled, 1) by use of manually
read tensiometers to maintain soil water tension at
15-cm soil depth at 10 to 15 kpa, and, 2) by use of
automatic switching tensiometera placed at both
15-cm and 30-cm depths set to provide irrigation at
15 kPa. Irrigation water quantities applied until
the first harvest were 6.8 cm (680,000 liters hal)
and 5.8 cm (580,000 liters hal) with the 2 treatment.s, respectively. In a one-pick harvest of ma-

Vellidis et al. (1990a) developed a data acquisition system to continuously measure soil water potentials under field conditions throughout the crop
growing season. The system used pressure transducers mounted on tensiometers and interfaced
with a microcomputer. In studies of tomato water

region of Puerto Rico during normal years (Goyal

and Gonzalez, 1988). During the dry years daily
net irrigation requirement was 3.8 mm in the
southcoast compared to 2.8 mm in the humid north
region of Puerto Rico. Tomato yields were highest
with irrigation scheduling based on tensiometers
placed at the 30-cm soil depth (Goyal and Rivera,
1985),

extraction patterns on fine sand soils, Vellidis et al.

(1990b) found that there was very little change in
soil water status at horizontal distances greater
than 25 cm from the drip irrigation lateral. They
demonstrated that frequent (daily or more ofin)
irrigations were needed to manage water and nutrients in this small soil volume.
In studies conducted in the Virgin Islands, tomatoes were grown on a Fredensborg clay loam soil to
evaluate the effects of irrigation scheduling at various soil water contents (Navarro, 1987; Navarro,
1989). Summer and fall planted tomato yields were
influenced by drip irrigation ratqs of 0.4,0.6,0.8,
and 1.0 Panm. In the summer, yields were significantly greater with 0.6 Panm than with zdl other
treatments, while in the fall, 0.8 Panm was the superior treatment (Table 9). The responses of RoYal
Chico and Tropic tomatoes to soil water tensions
of 20, 40, and 60 kPa plus a no irrigation treatment
were also evaluated. The highest yields of !Royal
Chico were with the 40 and 60 kpa treatments,
while the 20 kpa provided the highest Tropic
yields. Thus, cultivars varied in their response to
soil water tension (Table 10). !lkvo soil water contents and two emitter placements were utilized in
another study (Navarro and Newman, 1989). Soils
were maintained at 20 to 30 lips (high) and at 40 ta
50 kl?a (low). Emitter placement on the soil surface
or subsurface had no effect on yield (Table 11).
Yields were significantly higher with the high irrigation quantity than with the low quantity and
mean yields were 54.6 t ha-l and 45.4 t hsl,
respectively. Weekly Panm values during the crop
production season were 28.1 mm for Jan., 28.6 mm
for Feb. and 32 mm for Mar. Water quantities applied averaged 5.5 and 10.4 mm owld for the low
and higk irrigation treatments, respectively (Table
11). With the higher water quantity, 119 mm of
water was applied during the season or about 0.33
PanET. Water use efficiency was significantly
greater with the lower than higher water quantity
(Table 12). For each liter of irrigation water applied, fruit production was 128 g with 40 to 50 kYa
soil tension and 82 g with 20 to 30 kPa soil tension.

In Port Sulfim, La., tensiometers were placed

near tomato rows at 15-cm depth to schedule irrigation. Irrigation waEinitiated at either 10 or 30
kPa. Yields of extra large, large, and total fruit
were signii5cantly higher with the 10 than 30 kpa
treatment. Total yields of extra large and large
fruit were 47.9 and 43.5 t ha-l and were 43.3 and
38.9 t hd with the 10 and 30 kl?a treatments,
respectively.

Nutrient requirement
In addition to water management, successful tomato production is greatly affected by rate, composition, placement, and application time of fertilizer.
Because of the potential value of mulched tomatoes,
some producers may overfertilize to minimize risk
of low production due ti infertility. Although tomatoes are more tolerant of soluble salts than many
vegetables, damage can occur with excessive concentrations of fertilizer. If the soil in the bed under
the mulch is allowed to become dry, salts are concentrated and reductions in growth may occur.
Over-irrigation with drip irrigation can also reduce
yield by leaching soluble nutrients. This potential
injury and yield reduction can be minimized by
proper fertilizer use and water management.
Poorly drained Yiatwoods soils typically used
for tomato production in Florida are extremely acid
(pH 3,5 to 4.0) in the native state. The soil must be
limed to pH 6.0 to 6.5 for best tomato production.
At low pH levels, Al, Fe, and Mn are more soluble
and their toxici~ reduces tomato plant growth.
After liming, the risk of toxici@ of these elements is
reduced and the transformations of organic-N to
NH4-Nand NIV-N to NWN proceed more rapidly.

In Puerto Rico, studies were conducted to estimate total water consumption by tomato on a San
Anton loamy soil in semiarid (Juana Diaz) and humid (Isabela) locations. Average daily consumptive
water use of tomata (mm dayl) was estimated to
be 4.1 in the semiarid southcoast and 3.5 in the humid northwest of Puerto Rico. Average daily net
irrigation requirement of tomata (mm - da~l) was
3.0 in the semiarid region and 3.1 in the humid

The quantity and source of lime depends on soil

test results. Dolomitic limestone is applied or Mg
is added h the fertilizer where soil test low in Mg.
With high annual rainfall and low exchange capacity of these soils, soluble nutrients such as N and K
generally do not accumulate from season to season
and usua~y must be applied for each tomato crop.
In some acid soils, applied P can be leached and in
others, P is rapidly fied to unavailable forms. Fer-

tilizera generally must supply 90 to 95% of the

crops N needs and Ota 100% of the P, ~ and micronutrient requirements depending on soil test values. Marl and rock soils have high pH levels in
contrast to the pH of virgin flatwoods soils, but
they are also tiertile so that plant deficiencies of
all elements except Ca may occur without fertilization. Soil testing with a calibrated extraction solution should be used to determine fertilizer needs for
the crop.

Fertilizer application
Soluble nutrients are rapidly moved with the water front away from the point of application. Since
the zone nearest the drip tube is the most highly
leached, placement of the tube 8 to 10 cm away
from the plant has resulted in better plant growth
and nutrient uptake than with tubes placed nearer
the plant. Tubes placed fiu-ther away may not be
able ta provide water or nutrients to the roots near
the plant grown, especially in sandy soils.

The nutrient requirements of drip-irrigated tomato in Florida seems to be very similar to sprinkler and seepage-irrigated tomato. Fertilizer rate
studies with drip-irrigated tomati are not abundant. In studies by Persaud et al. (1976) on sandy
soils, chip-ifigated tomato yields increased lihearly
with an increase in N-K rats from 100-110 N-K to
300-330 kg N-K. ha-l. Work by Rhoads and Olson
(1988) on a sandy loam soil indicate that maximum
tomato yields can be produced with 134 to 224
kg. ha- N. With careful control of water applied,
excellent fit yields have been produced in Florida
with 220-220 kg N-K. ha-l,

Highest tomato yields were obtained when only

part of the nutrients were applied preplant as contrast to sll prephmt application (Locascio et al.,
1982). Thus, with drip irrigation on coarse textured soils testing low in ~ about 30-40% of the N
and ~ all the P, and micronutnents should be applied broadcast before bedding. & soon as the drip
system is operational, N and K should be applied
during the season with the water until the remaining 60-70% is applied, Research results showed
that no yield d.iRerences occurred when the additional N and K was applied weekly, biweekly or
daily. Amounts to be applied each week of the
growing season can be based on a percentage of the
total N and K to be injected. A general schedule
based on a 13-week season could be as follows: 2, 4,
6,8, 12.5>12.5, 12.5, 12.5,7.5, 7.5, 7.5, 7.5 and ()%0.
This schedule reflects the plant growth rate. In recent work with tomato in Florida (Dangler and
Locascio, 1990), tomato growth was similar with
the above schedule and with a constant amount of
8% weekly of the drip-applied N-K The schedule
can be modified to make it simpler, suit growers
schedules, or suit calibration of injection equipment. With the availability of microprocessors for
field use, injection of fertilizer can be done autirnatically. Nutrients move with the water front in
the soil, thus over-watering can result in moving
nutrients out of the root zone and may result in nutrient deficiencies.

In Port Sdfi.w, La., mulched tomatoes were

grown with a preplant application of 90-118-224 kg
N-P-K. ha, Sidedress applications of N at 13 and
26 kg. ha-l ffom ammonium nitrate were applied
weekly during the growing season. Fruit yields of
extra large, large and total fruit were higher with
the 26 than the 13 kg hal N sidedress rate.
In studies conducted near Charleston, S.C. on a
loamy he sand, drip-irrigated, polyethylenemulched tomatoes were grown h evaluate N rate,
K rate and N and K placement on plant nutrient
status, fruit yield, and fruit firmness (Karlen et al.,
1985). Jn one of 3 seasons, the yield of large fruit
was significantly higher with 202 kg. ha-l N than
with 134 kg ha-l and lowest with 67 kg hal.
Highest yields of extra large hit were produced in
2 of 3 years with 134 kg ha- N. The K rates of 46,
140, and 280 kg. hwl had no effect on yield nor did
band or broadcast placement of the N and K

In a heavier soil, or a soil that contains a heavy

subsoil near the surface, the use of the split application of N and K may not be of benefit. In studies
in Northwest Florida (Locascio, et al. 1989, Rhodes
and Olson, 1988) no yield di&erences occurred
when all N and K was appIied prepkmt or applications were split between preplant and fertigation.
In the heavier soil, the wetting pattern will spread
out more and the preplant applied broadcast nutrients can be utilized by the plant roots. This also
occurs in soils with shallow subsoils since the wetting pattern will be modified. In a sandy soil, it is
hard to keep even one side of a bed wet and in

Where micronutrients are lmown to be needed,

studies have shown that 1.0 kg. ha-l of Cu and B;
2 to 2.5 kg ha-l of Mn and h, 3.5 to 6 kg oha-l of
Fe, and 12 to 24 g ohal of Mo should be applied
(Olson and Lecascio, 1985). Sources can include
oxides, sulfates, ancilor chelates. Where tamatoes
have been planted before, Cu would not be needed
if Cu spray materials were used to control bacterial
diseases. Soil test results should be used to determine precise nutrient needs on a specific site.
4

curds and fewer culls than with all other treatments. Also, the total marketable weight of cauliflower was signMcantly greater for cauliflower
grown on the 20 cm high and 60 cm wide bed than
cauliflower grown on a 15 cm high and 76 cm wide
bed. Tomati marketable yields were not significantly affected by bed height and width with these
very high N-K rates. These results demonstrate
that a reduced bed size fi-om that commonly used
would not reduce production potential of these vegetables.

many instances the off tube side remains dry and

nutrients on that side will not be utilized.
In studies conducted in Puerto Rico during the
winter 1983-84 and 1984-85 seasons, tomata response to drip-applied N and polyethylene mulch
were evaluated. With the application of 300 kg
hal N from urea, Duke tomato production was
higher with part of the N applied by drip during the
n-week season than with all applied preplant
(Table 13). Yields were higher with 30 to 100% of
the N applied via drip than all applied preplsnt.
Also, yields were higher with polyethylene mulch
than with no mulch (Goyal et al., 1985; Lui et al.,
1987).

Seepage is often used for vegetable production on

very sandy soils in south Florida: This system not
only provides a means for irrigation for crop water
needs, but also provides a means of raising soil
moisture for land preparation (bed forming and fumigation). Since a drip system that is not permanently installed cannot provide water for land
preparation, a study was conducted comparing drip
for crop irrigation and seepage irrigation for land
preparation, with drip without seepage irrigation
(Csizinszky et al., 1986) for fall and spring season
tomato production. No yield advantage was detected for either irrigation treatments for any season. Investment costs for tomato production, however, are often greater than $8650. hal (plus picking and packing costs), and it was suggested that
when drip was used, seepage irrigation should be
available to ensure adequate initial soil moisture.
Normal weather patterns preceding a spring tomato crop in south Florida provide very little precipitation, so the need for seepage irrigation maybe
greatest during that production period.

Studies were conducted in the Virgin Islands to

evaluate the effect on tomato production of rates of
drip-applied fertilizer. The application of 2 rates
(3.0 and 1.5 kg - ha. irrigation-) of 20-9-17 (N-PK) on 2 irrigation schedules (0.8 and 0.6 pan~ did
not significantly influence N-69 tomati production
(Table 14). Also, yield of Tropic tomato was not
significantly influenced by the application of N and
P ta Supply 100-100-0, 200-100-0 and 200-200-0
kg oha N-P-K (Table 15). In a two-year study, the
response of N-69 tomato production to varying
rates of fertigated urea was investigated. Urea was
applied at O, 3.5, 7.1, and 14.2 kg N. hal. fertigation-l for 13 applications during 6 weeks (Navarro
and Collingwood, 1988). Treatments were irrigated
at 3.4 liters plantl weeld. Only plant height at
flowering was influenced in year 1 (Table 16). In
the second year, 9 fertigations were made at the
above N rates. Fruit yields were lowest with the no
N treatment and highest with the 14.2 and 3.5 kg .
N . ha- . fertigation treatment (Table 17).

Fertilizer sources
a. Nitrogen(N)- This element is most frequently
injected into drip systems because it is readily
leached and most soils are N ,deficient. Sources
for drip irrigation include ammonium nitrate,
potassium nitrate, and calcium nitrate (Locascio
et al., 1982). Research in north and west Florida
have shown no d.ifTerencesamong these sources.
Other sources such as anhydrous ammonia, aqua
ammonia and ammonium phosphate should be
used with caution due ti the toxicity and clogging hazards they present.

Vegetables produced in Florida are normally

grown on raised beds 76 to 90 cm wide and 20 cm
high. Kovach et al., 1983 investigated the effect of
both the bed width and height on cauliflower (Brassica olerai!ea L., Botrytis group) and tomato production in an effort to reduce the amount of polyethylene mulch needed and to improve soil moisture
when using a microirrigation system. Cauliflower
and tomato were grown on mulched beds with drip
irrigation to determine the effect of combinations of
bed heights (15 to 20 cm) and widths (60 and 90 CIU
for cauliflower, 60 and 70 cm for tomato) on crop
yield. The effect of differing amounts of N and K
(327-407, 395-490,462-575 kg. ha, respectively)
were also evaluated on tamatoes. Cauliflower
grown on a 20 cm high and 60 cm wide bed produced a significantly greater number of marketable

b. Phosphorus (P) - Injection of this element has

not been required. Properly applied preplant P
based on soil test will satisfi the plant needs.
P is limited in its movement in the soil and P
injected into the system may present clogging
problems.

c. Potassium (K) - This element is easily leached in

sandy soils and usually must be replenished to
maintain a proper K concentration for good crop
production. Sources include potassium sulfate,
I potassium chloride, or potassium nitrate.

Three N rates (O, 75, 150 kg hal) and two abdication methods (manual banding - split applied: ~
and fertigation for 12 weeks) were evaluated on
Yo1o Wonder bell pepper (Capsicum annuum L.)
production. Pepper yields ranged from 50 to 63 t
ha but were not influenced by either the method
or rate of N application (Table 20).

d. Micronutrients - Generally, micronutrienta are

applied preplant but at times it maybe necessary to add certain micronutrienti to correct a
problem. Chelates or sulfates of iron, zinc, copper, or manganese can be applied by fertigation.
Chelates are preferred since they are highly water soluble and will usually not cause clogging
problems that may occur with sulfate sources.

Succession cropping
The economic competitiveness of microirrigation
could be improved by increasing production, lowering the cost of materials, extending the useful life of
materials, or spreading the installation costs over
additional crops. A Florida study (Stanley and
Csizinszky, 1988) designed to evaluate continuous
cropping sequences (3 consecutive crops on the
same land ising the original polyethylene-mulched
beds and microirrigation tubing) showed that sequences using a fall season tomato crop followed by
a winter season crucifer crop [broccoli (Bnzssica
oleracea L. Italica group), cabbage U3rassica
oleracea L. Capitata group), or cauliflower (Brassica oleracea L. Botrytis group)] followed by a
spring season cucurbit crop [muskmelon (Cucwnis
melo L.), cucumber, or squash (Cucurbita pepo L.
var. melopepo)l had good production potential with
minimal additional fixed costs required for the second or third crops. Many cultural factors were
identified to ensure success of the system, including
the need to remove crop residue quickly to facilitate
the planting of the following crop, the need to minimize damage to polyethylene mulch, increased attention to clogging prevention, and the need for additional weed control.

I-ertilizer injection
The drip system must be allowed to reach the
working pressure of the tube before injection of the
fertilizer solution is started. The length of time
that fertilizer is injected into the system depends
on the amount of fertilizer solution to be injected
and the injection capacity of the system. Injection
time into the system should be at least the time it
t~es the fertilizer to reach the farthest emitting
orifice. This can be determined through use of a
dye or injecting chlorine and testing at intervals.
For the injected fertilizer to be equally distributed,
and to reduce clogging potential, irrigation water
must be run to flush fertilizers from the system after fertilization iqjection stops.

Other vegetables
In the Virgin Islands, sprinkler and drip irrigation methods were compared for Golden Queen
sweet corn (Zea mays L. var. rugosa) production.
Soil water tension was maintained at 20 to 30 EPa.
Yield with both irrigation methods were comparable but the amount of water used was greater for
the sprinkler irrigation method (Table 18). Over
50% more water was applied with sprinkler than
drip irrigation to produce comparable yields of
sweet corn. Water use efficiencies (WJE) were 43
and 21 kg marketable yield 1000 litersl irrigation
water for drip and sprinkler methods, respectively.

Broccoli, followed by tomato or squash and then

broccoli were produced in succession re-using the
same polyethylene-mulched beds at two locations
on different soil types (Clough et al., 1990). Firstcrop broccoli yields were earlier and greater with
drip than with overhead irrigation and increased
as N-K rate increased from 135-202 to 270-404 kg
ha. On a fine sandy soil at Gainesville, FL, fields
of broccoli as a third crop produced with residual or
concurrent fertilization increased with an increase
in N-K rate (Table 21). On a loamy fine sandy soil
at Quincy, FL, third crop yields of broccoli also increased as the rate of residual N-K increased (Table
22); yields of third crop broccoli did not respond to
rate of concurrently applied N-K, but yields were
higher with concurrent than with residual fertilization. With drip irrigation and concurrent weekly
fertigation, yields equalled or exceeded those
obtained with preplant fertilization and sprinkler
i.nigation.

Cucumber (Cucumis satiuus L.) response to drip

irrigation and black polyethylene mulch was evaluated with soil moisture maintained at 30 kpa
(Collingwood et al., 1989). Mulched cucumbers produced significantly superior yields, used less water,
and had a better water use efficiency as compared
to unmulched cucumbers (Table 19).

I
!

vary from about 3 to 6 mm dal. Based on Panm,

Economic considerations

water quantities required for most drip-irrigated

vegetables on most soils are about 0.5 to 1.0 Panm.
For a 0.75 Panm, water quantities would vary from
about 2.2 to 4 mm - dal and this water can be applied in 1 to 3 applications per day. With tensiometer scheduling, water is applied to maintain the
soil water tension below a specific point. On
coarse-textured soils, soil tension should be maintained below 10 to 15 I@a, 10 to 15 cm below the
drip emitters. On higher water holding capacity
soils, soil tensions can be 20 to 30 kl?a without resulting in plant water stress. When the soil water
tension reaches the specified value, water can be
applied in an amount about equal to 0.5 to 0.75
PanET.

Economic evaluations (Prevatt et al., 1981;

Prevatt et al., 1984) were performed comparing
drip irrigation with open ditch subirrigation, subsurface tile subirrigation, traveling gun, and center
pivot systems for annual fixed and operating costs
in Florida for vegetables. These studies assumed
equal crop production levels with all systems. Results (Table 23) showed that for a 40 ha production
area, drip and subsurface tile irrigation systems
were the most expensive (fixed cost) with the annual depreciation and interest on the initial investment being the primary factors causing the high
costs. The most common irrigation system for vegetables in Florida, open ditch seepage, had the lowest annual fixed costs, The annual operating costs
with drip were significantly lower than with all
other systems evaluated (about 50% of the operating costs of open ditch seepage) due to 1ower.water
requirements and pumping costs. However, the annual total costs (the sum of annual fixed costs and
operating costs) showed that open ditch seepage
subirrigation had a distinct economic advantage
over the other systems (Table 23).

Nutrient requirements for most drip-irrigated

vegetables are similar to those for seepage or sprinkler-irrigatedvegetables. Since soluble nutrients
are readily leached by drip irrigation, particularly
on coarse-textured soils, N and K application generally must be split to produce maximum yields. Less
soluble nutrienta such as P and micronutrients can
be applied preplant with 30 to 4070of the N and K
The remaining N and K can be tijected into the
drip lines throughout the growth of the crop. The
weekly amount can be applied in one weekly or 7
daily applications. On heavier soils, yields with
split N and K application maybe similar to yields
with all fertilizer applied preplant.

Summary
Although rainfall is abundant in humid regions,
distribution is not uniform and vegetables generally respond ta supplemental applications of water.
Drip irrigation is a highly efficient means of applying water and nutrients for high-value vegetables,
particularly those grown with polyethylene mulch.
Its proper use can result in vegetable production
equal to or higher than yield produced with seepage
or sprinkler irrigation with 20 to 50% as much
water.

Drip irrigation systems have an initial or fixed

expense as high as subsurface tile irrigation systems. Annual operating costs (not including management), however, are lower than overhead, open
ditch, or subsurface tile system due to lower water
requirements and lower pumping costs. Thus
drip irrigation will have the greatest economic benefits for high value vegetables grown when water
costs are high and the available water quantity is
limited.

Thewater quantity applied by drip irrigation can

be scheduled efficiently by use of a factor of pan
evaporation from a U.S. Weather Service Class A
pan at the production site or the use of tensiometers placed in the plant bed. Typical Panm values

...

Literature cited
Clark, G. A., D. Z. Haman, E. A. Hanlon, and G. J.
Hochmuth. 1987. Tensiometer control and
fertigation of micro irrigated tomatoes. Amer.
Sot. Agri. Engr. Paper No. 87-2520. ASAE St.
Joseph, MI. 16P.
ClarlL G. A., F. T. Izuno, P. H. Everett, and J.
Grimm. 1987a. Micro versus seepage irrigation
of tamatoes on sandy soils. Amer. Sot. Agri.
Engr. Paper No. 87:2525. ASAE St. Joseph, MI.
16p.
Clark, G. A, G. J. Hochmuth, E. A. Hanlon, C. D.
Stanley, D. N. Maynard, and D. Z. Haman.
1989. Water and fertilizer management of micro-irrigated tomato production on sandy soils in
southwest Florida. Final Report to Southwest
Florida Water Management District, Brooksville,
FL. 55p.
Clough, G. H., S. J. Locascio, and S. M. Olson.
1990. Yield of successively cropped polyethylene-mulched vegetables as affected by irrigation
method and fertilization management. J. Amer.
SOC.Hort. Sci. 115(6):884-887.
Collingwood, C. D., A. A Navarro, and S. M. A.
Crossman. 1989. Effect of black plastic mulch
on cucumber yield, water use, and economic returns, Proc. Caribbean Food Crops Society -25,
Guadaloupe, FWI. (In press).
Csizinszky, A. A., C. D. Stsmley, and A. J.
Overman. 1986. Response of two tomato cultivars to irrigation systems, fertilizer sources, and
plant spacings for three consecutive seasons.
Soil and Crop Sci. Sot. Fla. Proc. 46:1-4.
Dangler, J. M. and S, J. Locascio. 1990. Yield of
trickle-irrigated tomatoes as affected by time of
N and K application. J. Amer. Sot. Hort. Sci.
115(4):585-589.
Goyal, M. R. and E. A. Gonzalez, 1988. Water requirements for vegetable production in Puerto
Rico. Symposium on Irrigation and Drainage by
Am. Sot. Civil Engrs. at Lincoln - NE. July
1988. Pages 385-92.
Goyal, M. R. and L. E. Rivers. 1985. Trickle irrigation scheduling of vegetables. In: Proceedings of
Dripfickle ~gation
in Action Congress. Am.
Sot. Agric. Engr. II: 838-43.

Goyal, M. R., L. E. Rivera and C. L. Santiago.

1985, Nitrogen fertigation in drip irrigated peppers, tomatoes and eggplant. In: Proceedings of
Driptlrickle Irrigation in Action Congress. Am.
Sot. Agric. Engr. I: 388-92.
Kafkafi, U. and B. Bar-Yosef. 1980. Trickle irrigation and fertilization of tomatoes in highly calcareous soils. Agron. J. 72:893-897.
Karlen, D. L., C. R. Camp, and M. L. Robbins.
1985. Fresh-market tomato response to N and K
fertilization and water management practices.
Commun. in Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 16(1):71-81.
Kovach, S. P., A. A. Csizinszky, and C. D. Stanley.
1983. Effect of bed size and supplemental dry
fertilizer on yields of drip irrigated cauliflower
and tomato. Proc. Fla. State Hort. Sot. 96:9698.
Liu, L. C., M. Antoni - Padilla, M. R. Goyal and J.
Gonzalez. 1987, Integrated weed management
in transplanted tomatoes and peppers under drip
irrigation. J. Agric. U.P.R., 71(4): 349-58.
Lucascio, S. J. and A. G. Smajstila. 1989. Drip irrigated tomato as affected by water quantity and
N and K application timing. Proc. Fla. State
Hort. SOC. 102:307-309.
Locascio, S. J. and J. M. Myers. 1974. Tomato response to plug mix, mulch and irrigation method.
Proc. Fla. State Hort. Sot. 87:126-130.
Lacascio, S. J., J. M. Myers, and J. G. A Fiskell.
1982. Nitrogen application timing and source for
drip irrigated tomatoes. p. 323-328. In A. Scaife
(cd.) Proc. Ninth Intern. Plant Nutrition
Colloquium, Warwick Univ., England.
Locascio, S. J., J. M. Myers, and S. R. Kostewicz.
1981. Quantity and rate of water application for
drip irrigated tomatoes. Proc. Fla. State Hort.
SOC.94:163-166.
Locascio, S. J., S. M. Olson, and F. M. Rhoads.
1989. Water quantity and time of N and K application for trickle-irrigated tomatoes. J. Amer.
Sot. Hort, Sci. 114(2):265-268.
Navarro, A. A. 1987. Determination of the minimum irrigation requirements of tomatoes. Virgin Islands Perspective - Agricultural Rese=ch
Notes 2:24-27.

Navarro, A. A. 1989. Water A key to agricultural

productivity. Virgin Islands Agric. and Food
Fair Bulletin No 4:17-18.

Rhoads, F. M. and S. M Olson. 1988. Nitrogen fertilization of staked tomatoes in North Florida.
Soil and Crop Sci. Sot. Fla. Proc. 47:42-44,

Navarro, A. A. and C. D. Collingwood. 1988. Response of tomatoes to varying rates of urea applied via a trickle irrigation system. Proc. Caribbean Food Crops Society -24, Ocho Rios, Jamaica.

Stanley, C. D. and A. A. Csizinszky. 1988. Potential crop sequences for continuous production of
microirngated vegetables in southwest Florida,
USA Procee&ngs of the Fourth International
Micro-irrigation Congress, Albury, NSW, Australia. Vol. 1:7A-2.

Navarro, A. A. and J. Newman. 1989. Two drip

irrigation rates and two emitter placements on
tomato production. J. of Agric. Univ. Puerta
RiCO. 73 (l): 23-29.
Olson, S. M. and S. J. Locascio. 1985. Fertilizer
management with drip irrigation systems. Vegetable Crops Ext. Rpt. 85-2. p. 31-33. University
of Florida. Gainestile.
Persaud, N., S. J. Locaacio, and C. M. Geraldson.
1976. Effect of rate and placement of nitrogen
and potassium on yield of mulched tomato using
different irrigation methods. Proc. Fla. State
Hort. SOC.89:135-138.
Prevatt, J. W., C. D. Stanley, and A A. Csizinszky.
1981. & economic evaluation of three irrigation
systems for tomato production. Proc. Fla. State
Hort. SOC.94:166-168.
J. W., C. D. Stanley, and S. P. Kovach.
1984. & economic comparison of vegetable irrigation systems. Proc. Fla. State Hort. Sot.
97:213-215.

Prevatt,

Vellidis, G,, A. G. Smajstrla and F. S. Zazueta.

1987. Lysimeters for crop water use determinations under high water table conditions. Proc.
Fla. State Hort. Sot. 100:256-260.
Vellidis, G., A. G. Smqjstrla and F. S. Zazueta.
1988. Water use of drip irrigated tomatoes under high water table conditions. Proc. Fla. State
Hort. SOC. 101:376-380.
Vellidis, G., A G. Smajstrla and F. S. Zazueta.
1990a. Continuous soil water potential measurement with a microcomputer-based data acquisition system. Applied Engr. in Agric. 6(6):763768.
Vellidis, G., A. G. Smajstrla and F. S. Zazueta.
1990b. Soil water redistribution and extraction
patterns of drip-irrigated tomatoes above a shallow water table. Trans. ASAE. 33(5):1525-1530,

Tabla 1, Rainfall and Panm per two weak period during the 1986 end 1989
tomato seaaona at Gainaavllle, FL

Period

Rainfall
(cm)

Panm
(cm)

1988
17/4 - 30/4

2.0

01/5 -1415

0.9

8.9

15f5 - 28/5

0.8

8.4

7,1

2915- 11/6

4.8

8.9

12f6 - 25/6

2.3

8.9

26/6 - 09/7

(Total 1988)

11.8

8.9
G
1989

09/04 - 22/04

0.4

23/04 - 06/05

1.8

8.8

07/05 - 20/05

1.1

9.6

7.2

21/05 - 03/06

4.3

10.0

04/06 - 17/06

2.5

8.4

18/06 - 01/07

14.5

7.6

(Total 1989)

Table 1 centd. Rainfall and Panm par two weak period during the 19@8 and 1989 tomato seasons at Brsdenton,

Period

Panm
cm

Rainfall
cm

Rainfall
cm

Spring 1988

FL.

Panm
cm
Spring 1989

15/2-28/2

2.9

4.5

0.3

5.0

29/2-1 3/3

8.3

4.8

7.0

4.5

14J3-2713

5.1

5.9

0.5

6.7

28/3-1 0/4:

8.0

0.2

7.6

11/4-24/4

0.7

7.0

2.5

6.3

25/4-8/5

6.3

5.9

3.1

9.6

9)5-21 /5
Total
Fall 1989

Fall 1988
8/8-21/8

12.5

5.3

6.7

7.0

2218-419

17.4

5.3

18.8

3.8

5/9-1 8/9

32.4

5.6

13.9

4.3

19/9-211 O

0.4

6.8

16.0

4.8

3/1 O-16/1 O

1.5

6.6

1.4

6.4

1.6

6.0
5.8

17/1 0-30/1 o

5.1

31/1 o-1 3/1 1

7.3

4.2

0.3

14/1 1-27/11

4.6

3,7

1.2

Total

ZT6

10

4.3
=

Table 2. Main effects of water quantity on marketable

tomato fruit yiald during two seasons at two locations

in Fiorida.

Location
Water

Quincy

Gainesville

quantity

Yield (t. ha-)

Yield (t ha)

(Par f)

Early

Total

Early

0.5

22.9

61.0

8.0

94.7

1.0

24.2

62.4

8.6

Significance

NS

NS

NS

87.5
*

Total

Interactions between season and water quantity and between season and water frequencies were significant (**), data
provided in text.
YFvalues were significant at the 1?4.level (**) or not significant (NS).

Table 3. Main effects of water quantity on marketable

tomato yield at Gainesville,

Water
quantity
(PanH)

1988.

Marketable yield (t hal)

Ex. Iar.z

Large

Medium

Total

9.2

22.2

16.9

48.3

0.17

14.9

30.9

18.6

64.4

0.34

16.6

31.5

19.3

67.4

0.50

17.1

33.3

20.0

70.4

Signify
O vs water
Quantitv

NS

NS

NS

NS

L*

Mean fruit size for fruit categories were 205 g extra large, 150 g large and 115 g medium.
YFvalues were significant at the 5% level ~) or 1Y. level (**) and were linear (L) or not significant (NS).

Table 4. Effect of irrigation amount on early and total ma~etable

Quincv.

yield and average fruit weight et

Fruit

Water

weight

Yield (t. ha-)

quantity

(g fruitl)

(Pan)

Early

Total

0.25

16.8

42.4

187

0.50

13.7

48.9

176

0.75

16.8

62.1

198

1.00

17.5

61.4

Signif.

NS

201Y
*

Effects were not significant (NS) or significant at the 1% Ievelr) and were quadratic (Q).
yFruit weights for 0.75 and 1.00 Panm irrigation were greater than 0.25 and 0.50 irrigation.

11

..-

.,.

..-

. ... .

- .. .. . --- ,.- -- ..

Table 5. Markatabla yield of tomatoaa from the flrat harvest, Ruskin, FL.
%rina 1967.

Tensiometer
control

Total marketable
(t. ha)

Large fruit
(ts ha-)

Manual

20.6

5.0

Automatic

1?.8

3.5
*

Sismif?

NS

F values were not significant (NS) or significant at the 5/0

level ~).

Table 6. Ylald and size of marketable

tomato fruit grown with drip (micro) and seepage Irrlgatlon.

Immokalas,

Fla.

Yield (kg/ha)
Irrigation

Fruit size

method

Small

Medium

Drip

5488

13272

30380aw

491 40a

Seepage

7504

13944

21728b

431 76b

NS

Sifmif.w

NS

Large

Total

Small = 57 to 65 mm In diameter, medium = 64 to 71 mm in diameter, and large = 70 mm and larger in diameter.

Effects were not significant (NS) or significant at the 5% level ~).

Tabla 7. Seasonal quantities of Irrlgatfon water applied to the micro-lrrlgated

eprfng 1966, and fall 1966 crops.

(drip) plots after plant establishment

342 kg-N - ha-

228 kg N - ha
Season

------

10 kPa

15 kPa

10 kPa
.- . ..-

------

for the fall 1967,

-- Water depth (cm) -----------------

15 kPa
-----

25.8

16.0

26.9

16.4

Spring 1988

33.1

19.6

32.7

19.3

Fall 1988

24.4

6.3

25.31

Fall 1987

lDoes not include water applied for soil bedding and plant establishment.

12

3.7

Table 8. Main effects of N rate and water quantity on yield of large and total marketable
fruit during three seasons. Bradenton, Fla.

tomato

Season
Treatment

Fall 1987

Spring 1988
Total marketable

Fall 1988

yield (t hal)

N (kg - ha)
228

48.7

71.0

47.0

342

47.3

70.0

47.3

NS

NS

NS

10

49.2

73.5

45.5

15

46.7

67.5

48.8

F valu&
Soil tension (kPa)

F value

NS

NS

Large fruit (t h#)

N (kg - hal)
228

10.7

34.7

342

10.0

32.9

8.3

NS

NS

NS

10

11.2

39.1

10.3

15

9.4

28.5

9.1

F value

11.0

Soil tension (kPa)

F value

NS

NS

F values were not significant (NS) or were significant at the 5% level ~).

Table 9. Effact of water quantity on summer and fall tomato produotlon in St. Croix.

Yield (t ha)

Irrigation
(Pan~

Fall

Summer
13.OC

20.OC

0.6

25.4a

23.6b

0.8

2000b

30.2a

1.0

17.4b

17.6C

0.4

Mean separation by Duncans multiple range test, 5% level.

13

Table 10. Effect of twit water tension on yield of Roysl Chico and

Soil water

Troplc in St. Croix.

Royal Chico

Tropic

tension

Irrigation

Yield

Irrigation

Yield

(kPa)

(mm wlr)

(t. ha-)

(mm . wW)

(t Bha-)

No irrigation

17.6az

30.2b

60

6.4

25.6b

7.6

30.9b

40

6.6

28.7b

9.6

31.lb

20

17.3

20.7a

14.7

38.Oa

Mean separation by Duncans multiple range test, 5% Ievei.

Table 11. Effect of soil water tension and emitter placement

Mean weekly irrig.

Soil tension
(kPa)

on tomato yield, St. Croix.

(mm)
------

Emitter placement

(1 plant)
------

----

Surface

Subsurface

Mean

Yield (t ha) ---------------------

40 to 50

5.5

3.1

43.9

46.9

45.4a

20 to 30

10.4

5.9

54.3

55.0

54.6b

49.la

51 .Oa

Mean
Mean separation by F test, 5/0level.

Table 12. Water use efficiency of tomato production

Soil water

Irrigation

tension

quantity

(kPa)

(mm . wkl)

for two inigation

ratea and emitter placements.

Yield (g . liter irrig. water)

Emitter placement
Surface

Subsurface

Mean

40 to 50

5.5

133

124

128b

20 to 30

10.4

82

81

82a

102az

108a

Mean
Mean separation by F W3t,

5/0hd.

Tabie 13. Effects of the amount of N applied by drip irrfgetfon on tomato production

in Puerto Rico.

Fruit yield (t ha_)

N applied by drip

Polyethylene
mulch

(%.)

30

60

100

1984-85
Mulch

40.7

53.2

69.3

67.4

No mulch

28.8

46.2

53.2

60.0

1983-84
Mulch
No mulch

38.3
39.7

58.1

67.2

68.7

48.6

53.5

62.2

Percentage of 300 kg ha N applied by drip irrigation during an 11-week season.

14

Table 14. Effect of two irrigation and fertlgation

St. Croix.

Irrigation
(PanE~

rates on tomato production.

20-9-17
(kg - ha . irrigation-)

Yield
(t. ha_)

0.80

3.0

68,8

0.80

1.5

75.8

0.60

3.0

71.6

0.60

1.5

64.5

Treatment effects were not significant.

Table 15. Effect of fertillzsr rate on marttetsbfe

yield of tomato CV. Tropic. St Croix.

N-P-K
(kg . h-a)

Yield
(t ha)

100-100-0

34.3

200-100-0

33.4

200-200-0

29.9

ZTreatment effects were not significant.

Table 16. Influence of various rates of N from urea on growth and production of tomatoes (1966).

Plant at flowering
Nitrogen
(kg hal)

Height
(cm)

St Croix.

Fruit

Width
(cm)

Size

Yield
(t. hal)

(9)

71 .76alY

51.1

214

86.4

46.3

81.27a

53.1

199

92.2

92.5

75.58ab

50.9

199

88.7

63.16c

47.8

217

91.0

185.0

Mean separation by Duncans multiple range test, 5% level.

Table 17. Inffuancs of vsrfous rates of N from urea onproductlon

tomatoes (1969). St. Croix.

Nitrogen
(kg . ha_)

Yield
(t ha)

Fruit size
(9)

41 .9tY

208

32

53.3a

210

64

48.5ab

204

57.8a

207

128

of

Mean separation by Duncans multiple range test, 5% level.

15
.. --

----- ,-.-,. .-.

. ...

Tabla 18. Yield and water uaa afficlency

(WUE) of irrlgatad sweet corn. St. Croix.

Total Irrigation
(mm)

Treatment

Yield
(t ha-)

WUE
(kg 01000 liters)

Sprinkler

352

8.3

21

Drip

226

10.5

43

Table 19. Eifoot of mulchlng on cucumber

production.

Yield
(t. ha-l)

Treatment

St. Croix.

Fruit size

Water use
(m - ha-l)

(9)

WUE
(m tonl)

Mulch

34mlaz

206

674.2b

19.8b

No mulch

27.8b

210

893.8a

32.2a

Mean separation by F tf3St,5/0leVOl,

Tabla 20. Effeot of two application

methods and ratee of N on ball Wpar

Nitrogen

production.

St. Croix.

Yield

Fruit size

(t. hal)

(9)

(kg Bhal)

Placement

150-F=

Fertigate

56.8

128abw

150-B

Band

63.3

128ab

75-F

Fertigate

50.6

121ab

75-B

Band

58.9

134a

49.9

l18b

Fertigation for 12 weeks (F) and 50eAbanded preplant 50Yebanded at flowering (B).
Mean separation by Duncans multiple range test, 5% level.

Tabla 21. Third crop broccoli yield aa effeoted by interaction

Gaheavllla, fla., 1994.

Sequencez and irrigation

N-K application
Br-Tm-Br

time and rate

(kgs ha-l)

of Irrigation method, N-K rate, N-K time, and crop aequenca,

Overhead

Br-Sq-Br
Drip

Overhead

Drip

Yield (t ha)

Residual
135-202

2.4

0.8

4.8

0.4

270-404

6.3
.*

2.1

7.6

NS

1.5
*

Signif.Y
Concurrent
135-202

7.3

9.9

9.6

9.8

270-404

10.7

10.2

10.5

11.8

NS

NS

NS

Signif.

Br: broccoli, Tm: tomato, Sq: squash.

YFvalues were significant at the 5% level ~) or not significant (NS).

16

Table 22. Third crop broccoli yield as affected by interaction

19s4.
.-

of irrigation method, N-K rate, N-K the,

N-K application

and crop aequence,Qulncy,

Ft.,

Sequencez and irrigation

time and rate

Br-Tm-Br

(kg Bha)

Br-Sq-Br
Drip

Overhead

Residual

Overhead

Drip

Yield (t ha-)

135-202

4.8

3.9

4.9

2.4

270-404

3.6

5.6

7.1

5.8

Signif.Y

NS

NS

NS

135-202

12.9

11.2

10.5

11.3

270-404

9.0

12.3

10.3

12.9

Signif.

NS

NS

NS

Concurrent

Br: broccoli, Tm: tomato, Sq: squash.

YFvalues were significant at the 57. level

~)

or nOt Significant (NS).

Table 23. Annual fixed and varlabie coste of 5 vagetebla

Seepage
Item
Fixed cost

$8480

Irrigation systems assuming one crop per year (yieiding 2500 units per ha).

Subsurface
tile

Traveling
gun

Center
pivot

Drip

32733

12580

17663

33029

Variable cost

10208

7808

35482

24192

5130

Annual total costz

18688

40541

48062

41855

38159

467

1014

1202

1046

954

0.19

0.41

0.48

0.42

0.38

Annual total cost.

Total cost.

ha_l

unit yield-

Annual total cost is the sum of the annual fixed and variable costs for 40 ha.

17

. ,.-