Yield and quality of potato tuber and its water productivity are influenced by alternate furrow irrigation in a raised bed system

Agricultural Water Management 224 (2019) 105750

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Agricultural Water Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/agwat

Yield and quality of potato tuber and its water productivity are influenced by alternate furrow irrigation in a raised bed system

T

Khokan Kumer Sarkera, , Akbar Hossainb, , Jagadish Timsinac, Sujit Kumar Biswasa, Bimal Chandra Kundud, Alak Barmane, Khandakar Faisal Ibn Murada, Farzana Aktera ⁎

⁎

a

Irrigation and Water Management Division, Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute (BARI), Gazipur, 1701, Bangladesh Bangladesh Wheat and Maize Research Institute (BWMRI), Dinajpur, 5200, Bangladesh c Soils and Environment Research Group, Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, University of Melbourne, Victoria, 3010, Australia d Tuber Crops Research Centre, BARI, Gazipur, Bangladesh e Soil Science Division, BARI, Gazipur, Bangladesh b

ARTICLE INFO

ABSTRACT

Keywords: Potato Tuber quality Water use efficiency Water-saving irrigation

Scarcity of irrigation water has now become the main constraint for crop production globally. Irrigation water scarcity becomes severe especially during the dry, winter season in South Asia, particularly in Bangladesh due to the decline in groundwater table and drying of surface water resources. In South Asian countries, potato is traditionally grown with furrow irrigation system in dry, winter season in which irrigation water is applied frequently to each and every furrow. Such irrigation method increases water use and lowers irrigation water productivity (WP). We hypothesized that potatoes grown on raised beds, and irrigation water applied to alternate furrows based on the principle of partial root-zone drying, would maintain yield, reduce water use and increase WP, and enhance the quality of potato tubers in drought-prone areas of South Asia. To test this hypothesis, an experiment was conducted in two consecutive dry, winter seasons (2015–16 and 2016–17) at the research field of Irrigation and Water Management Division of the Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute, Gazipur, Central Bangladesh and assessed crop dry matter and yields, water use and WP, quality, and nutrient concentrations of potato tubers in different irrigation treatments. The experiment consisted of two levels (first, three irrigation at critical growth stages and second, four irrigation at every 12–15 days interval) and three methods (AFI – alternate furrow irrigation; FFI - fixed furrow irrigation; and EFI – every furrow irrigation) of irrigation. Dry matter and tuber yield of potato did not differ significantly (P < 0.05) between AFI and EFI but differed significantly (P < 0.01) when compared to FFI. On average, AFI and EFI had tuber yield of 21.9 and 22.2 t ha−1 with three irrigation and 23.2 t ha−1 and 23.9 t ha−1 with four irrigation, respectively during 2016 and 2017 while AFI and EFI had WP of 14.8 kg m-3 and 9.89 kg m-3 with three irrigation and 14.9 kg m-3 and 9.96 kg m-3 with four irrigation, respectively during 2016 and 2017. On average, AFI saved irrigation water by 35% and irrigation water productivity significantly (P < 0.001) improved by 50% compared to EFI over two years. Total soluble sugar, as an indicator of tuber quality, also varied significantly (P < 0.01) between AFI (6.290 Brix) and EFI (6.370 Brix). Nutrient concentrations of potato tubers were not significantly different (P < 0.05) between irrigation treatments. Results demonstrate that the alternate furrow irrigation can maintain potato tuber yield, and reduce water use and increase irrigation water productivity of potato tubers compared to every or fixed furrow irrigation in Bangladesh. This irrigation method could potentially be an attractive alternative to every or fixed furrow irrigation in South Asian countries where irrigation water is limited and appropriate water-saving irrigation methods are not available.

Abbreviation: AFI, alternate furrow irrigation; BARI, Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute; FC, field capacity; EFI, every furrow irrigation; FFI, fixed furrow irrigation; DAP, days after planting; PRDI, partial root-zone drying irrigation; IWM, Irrigation and Water Management; RCBD, randomized complete block design; SWC, soil water contribution; TDM, total dry matter; TSS, total soluble solids; SCWU, seasonal crop water use; WP, water productivity; WUE, water use efficiency ⁎ Corresponding authors. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (K.K. Sarker), [email protected] (A. Hossain), [email protected] (J. Timsina). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2019.105750 Received 26 April 2019; Received in revised form 11 August 2019; Accepted 12 August 2019 Available online 21 August 2019 0378-3774/ © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Agricultural Water Management 224 (2019) 105750

K.K. Sarker, et al.

1. Introduction

rate of photosynthesis. Partial root-zone drying irrigation (PRDI), including alternate PRDI and fixed PRDI, are new water-saving irrigation techniques and could improve the WUE or WP of potato without significant yield reduction (Kang and Zhang, 2004). There are many studies about the effects of PRDI on crop physiology, growth, nutrient uptake and WUE (Yactayo et al., 2013; Hu et al., 2009; Li et al., 2007). Nutrient and water requirements are closely related. Fertilizer application is likely to increase the efficiency of crops in utilizing available water (Farooq et al., 2009). Transpiration is inhibited by drought but this may not necessarily affect nutrient uptake in a similar manner. Currently, it is evident that crop yield can be substantially improved by enhancing the plant nutrient efficiency under limited moisture supply (Fageria et al., 2008). The heterogeneous soil moisture distribution may affect soil enzymatic activities and crop water use. Organic N plays a major role in enhancing canopy WUE and soil enzymatic activities. Fertilization too can affect soil enzymatic activities (Li et al., 2010). Indeed, PRDI creates an uneven distribution of soil moisture that may affect many processes including many soil enzymatic activities (Wang et al., 2008). In the current changing climate scenario, the major challenge for the South Asia researchers is to develop an alternate system or method of irrigation water application which is energy, water and labor efficient, and can produce more with less cost or less water. Many studies have shown that furrow irrigation can reduce irrigation water and substantially improve the WUE (Ebrahimian and Playan, 2014; Koech et al., 2014; Reddi and Reddy, 2009; Jat et al., 2005). Growing potatoes with alternate furrow irrigation (AFI) in raised beds technique could be attractive to Bangladeshi and South Asia farmers due to its requirements for comparatively low initial capital and on-going maintenance costs and low energy, and its easiness in use by unskilled labor. However, AFI has not yet been investigated for potato cultivation in Bangladesh and large parts of South Asia. We hypothesize that AFI would maintain yield, reduce water use, and increase the irrigation WP for potato cultivation in drought-prone areas of Bangladesh where water resources are scarce. In response to this research gap, we compared the potato grown under raised beds with AFI together with every furrow irrigation (EFI) and fixed furrow irrigation (FFI) each with two levels of irrigation and assessed the dry matter production, tuber yield, water productivity, and N, P, K, Zn, B and total soluble solids (TSS) contents in potato tubers in the tropical Central Bangladesh.

Water is a valuable, precious and non-renewable natural resource which cannot be wasted. Scarcity of irrigation water has now become the main constraint for crop production during the dry, rabi (winter) season in South Asia (Murad et al., 2018; Islam et al., 2019). Irrigation water management, especially in the winter season, is now a challenging issue in targeting resource-constrained farmers with limited access to irrigation in areas of water scarcity of Bangladesh, a heavily-populated country in South Asia. Potato, being an important crop, both cultivated area and total production of potato have increased recently in Bangladesh due to its high demand (Saha et al., 2015). Now, Bangladesh is the seventh-largest potato producer (over 10 million tons) in the world and third-biggest in Asia in 2017. In Bangladesh, potato is primarily consumed as a vegetable, whereas it is a staple food crop in many countries (Khandker and Basak, 2018; www.potatopro.com). In other countries of South Asia also, the potato cropping area has been expanding rapidly (Bardhan Roy et al., 1999; Devaux et al., 2014). In many potato cropping areas in the world, global warming has negatively affected potato tuber yield (Thiele et al., 2010). Hijmans (2003) predicted that about 18–32% of potato yield would be reduced globally from 2010 to 2039 due to climate change effects. Increasing water use efficiency or water productivity (WUE/WP) in potato (tuber yield per amount of water applied) is becoming an important issue worldwide. Deficit irrigation (irrigated water below the maximum crop evapotranspiration) and partial root-zone drying (alternated irrigation of the root-zone by watering in one furrow and keeping dry the adjacent furrow until the next watering cycle) are reported as the promising irrigation techniques to save water with a concomitant increase in WUE or WP without significant tuber yield reduction (Jovanovic et al., 2010; Jensen et al., 2010; Xie et al., 2012). Several studies have shown that partial root drying technique can save water by 39–50% than a deficit or full irrigation (Yactayo et al., 2013). Xu et al. (2011) obtained higher tuber yield with partial root drying when water restriction was initiated soon after tuber initiation, both in the pot and in field trials. Traditionally, irrigating to each and every furrow is one of the oldest techniques of surface irrigation. This technique still remains a common method for irrigation of row crops across the world (Koech et al., 2014), including South Asia and in particular in Bangladesh. The traditional surface furrow irrigation method, however, uses a high amount of water and hence needs improvement to raise its water use efficiency (Sharma and Minhas, 2005; Jat et al., 2011; Sarker et al., 2016). On the other hand, drip irrigation has been found to be one of the most efficient irrigation methods globally, especially in the areas with limited and expensive water supplies (Hezarjaribi et al., 2008). However, considering the economic condition of farmers in Bangladesh and across South Asia, the drip irrigation system is expensive due to its high initial investments and will hardly be affordable by the small and medium farmers. Raised bed furrows, which are the improved and efficient versions of surface (flat) furrows, are small channels which can easily be made parallel to carry irrigation water and to provide a favorable environment for crop growth (Yactayo et al., 2013). The raised bed alternate furrow irrigation technique is established based on partial root-zone drying in soil that creates the root-to-shoot chemical signal. This process results in stomatal closure for reducing water loss. A small narrowing of the stomata opening may reduce water and nutrient loss without any significant effect on photosynthesis (Davies and Zhang, 1991). In the alternate furrow irrigation water is normally applied approximately to half of the root system while the remaining half is dried (Stikic et al., 2003). The alternate wetting and drying sides of the root system are alternated in a frequency according to crop growth stages and soil water balance (Yactayo et al., 2013). The understanding of this process is essential for the successful application of the alternate wetting and drying technique. Alternate partial root-zone irrigation may substantially reduce water loss but would have little effect on the

2. Materials and methods 2.1. Experimental site The study was conducted at the research field of Irrigation and Water Management (IWM) Division of Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute (BARI) in Gazipur (latitude and longitude of 23°59/ 19.40// N and 90°24/33.02// E, respectively) during the dry season (November-February) in 2015–2016 and 2016–2017. The soil was silt clay loam with an average gravimetric field capacity (FC) of 28% (weight basis) and mean bulk density of 1.5 g cm−3over 0–60 cm soil profile. The initial soil chemical properties of the experimental field at the 0–30 cm soil depth with 10 cm increment is shown in Table 1. Two years of weather data recorded during the crop growth period differed in the distribution of rainfall, maximum temperature and sunshine hours. Especially in the second year, sunshine hours and maximum temperature were higher than in the first year (Fig. 1). 2.2. Experimental design and treatment The experiment was laid out in randomized complete block design (RCBD) with six treatments replicated thrice. The treatments consisted of six combinations of two irrigation levels and three furrow irrigation methods. Two irrigation levels were, (i) irrigation at stolonization stage, 20–25 days after planting (DAP), tuber formation stage (40–45 2

Agricultural Water Management 224 (2019) 105750

K.K. Sarker, et al.

Table 1 Initial soil properties in the experimental plots before start of experiment in the year 2015. Soil depth (cm)

pH

OM (%)

Total N (%)

P (µ g–1 soil)

K (meq100g

0-10 10-20 20-30 Mean

6.91 6.98 6.99 6.96

1.26 0.89 0.75 0.97

0.07 0.05 0.04 0.05

32.08 24.28 21.14 25.83

0.14 0.15 0.16 0.15

DAP) and tuber enlargement stage (60–65 DAP) (I1), (ii) irrigation at every 12–15 days interval (I2). Three irrigation methods were, (i) alternate furrow irrigation (AFI), (ii) fixed furrow irrigation (FFI), (iii) every furrow irrigation (EFI). In AFI, irrigation was applied to alternate furrows while the in-between furrow keeps dry (Fig. 2B-a). In subsequent irrigation, water is applied to the alternate furrows that had been kept dry on the previous occasion; in EFI, it was applied to each furrow (Fig. 2B-c); while in FFI, it was applied to the fixed furrow keeps wet and the neighboring furrow keeps dry from first irrigation to last irrigation (Fig. 2B-b). At each irrigation event, water was applied up to 100% of field capacity (estimated at weight basis). The unit plot size was 27 square meter (5.4 m × 5 m).

–1

soil)

S (µ g–1 soil)

Zn (µ g–1 soil)

B (µ g–1 soil)

9.89 13.34 14.22 12.49

2.00 1.88 1.66 1.85

0.35 0.29 0.29 0.31

irrigation event. The soils were sampled from both the center of the raised beds and bottom of the furrows from 0–150, 150–300 and 300–450 mm soil depths at the time of planting to harvest. The soil samples were taken from each plot in 150 mm depth increment from the soil surface, well-mixed together, subsampled, weighed, dried at 105 °C for 72 h, and reweighed and gravimetric moisture content determined. The irrigation water requirement was calculated by the following formula (Michael, 1978; Majumdar, 2004; Sarker et al., 2016): n

I= n=i

Pwi × Bai × Di 100

(1)

Pw = FC – RL; where, I is depth of irrigation water to be applied within one irrigation cycle (mm); Bai is apparent specific gravity of the ith layer of the soil; Di is depth of the ith layer of the soil profile within the root zone to be irrigated (mm); FC is mean soil moisture content at field capacity on weight basis (%,); RL is residual gravimetric soil moisture level before each irrigation in the ith layer of soil profile (%); n is a number of soil layers in the root zone depth. The root zone depth was considered 450 mm with 150 mm depth increment from the soil surface. The calculated amount of irrigation water was measured by volumetric method and supplied to the experimental plot using a polyethene hose pipe connected to a water flow meter. Seasonal crop water use (SCWU) was estimated by the following Eq. (2) using the soil water balance approach (Michael, 1978; Onder et al., 2005; Ierna and Mauromicale, 2018).

2.3. Crop management A potato variety, ‘BARI Alu-28′ (cv. ‘Ladi Rossetta’), suitable for making chips was used in this study. Potatoes were planted on 23 November in 2015 and on 22 November in 2016, with the row to row (ridge-top center to ridge-top center) distance of 60 cm and plant to plant spacing of 25 cm. Potato tubers were planted manually by hand. At the time of plant establishment, the same amount of irrigation water was applied in every furrow in all treatments and the irrigation treatments were initiated after plant establishment. The recommended doses of fertilizers were nitrogen (N) at 120, phosphorus (P) at 30, potassium (K) at 100, sulfur (S) at 15, zinc (Zn) at 4, and boron (B) at 1.4 kg ha−1 and applied in the form of urea, triple super phosphate, muriate of potash, gypsum, zinc sulfate and borax, respectively (FRG, 2012). Decomposed cowdung was applied @ 5 t ha-1 before land preparation. Half of N and K and all P, S, Zn, B and cowdung were applied as basal below the soil surface as horizontal and vertical separation of tubers during planting (Fig. 2A). Remaining N and K were applied as sidedressing at 22–27 days after planting (DAP) during earthing up operation followed by irrigation. Adequate plant protection measures were taken whenever required.

SCWU= I+ Pe + Cr

Dp

Rs ±

SWC

(2)

where, I is irrigation water applied (mm) and Pe is effective rainfall (mm) estimated by using the USDA Soil Conservation Method (Smith, 1992). Cr is capillary rise (mm), Dp is deep percolation (mm) and Rs is surface runoff. In this study, there was no drainage during each irrigation event because irrigation water was based on soil water content and applied to field capacity only. Each treatment plot was separated by 1.5 m to prevent the lateral movement of water from one plot to another and hence there was no surface runoff. Hence, parameters were considered negligible and hence were not taken into account during calculation. SWC is the change in soil water contribution before

2.4. Soil moisture content, irrigation water application and water use Gravimetric soil moisture content was determined before each

Fig. 1. Mean monthly temperature of maximum and minimum, relative humidity (Rf, %), sunshine (SS) hour, pan evaporation (EV) and total monthly rainfall (Rf; mm) during the crop growing period in 2015–2016 and 2016–2017. 3

Agricultural Water Management 224 (2019) 105750

K.K. Sarker, et al.

Fig. 2. A: Schematic view of tuber planting with a horizontal separation of tuber and fertilizer placement below the soil surface. B: Photographic view of irrigation water applied at the experimental field plots in different irrigation methods: (a) Alternate furrow irrigation (AFI), (b) Fixed furrow irrigation (FFI) and (c) Every furrow irrigation (EFI) method.

planting and final harvest and followed the Eq. (3) (Michael, 1978). n

SWC =

MCpi

n=i

MChi

100

× Bai × Di

2.7. N, P, K, Zn, B and TSS content of tubers The quality parameters, total soluble solids (TSS, %) of tubers was determined in the laboratory of Post-Harvest Technology Division of BARI, Gazipur. Plant materials were dried at 600 - 650 C to constant weight. The concentration and recovery rate in potato tubers were determined at harvest. N, P, K, Zn and B contents were determined from dried grinding material in the laboratory of Soil Science Division, BARI, Gazipur. All samples were analyzed for total N by the Micro–Kjeldahl method (Bremner and Mulvaney, 1982). Each sample was digested with the concentration of H2SO4 in the presence of a K2SO4 catalyst mixture (K2SO4: CuSO4: Se = 10: 1: 0.1). Nitrogen in the digest was estimated by distillation with 10 N NaOH followed by titration of the distillate trapped in H3BO3 indicator solution with 0.01 N H2SO4. To determine P, K, S and Zn contents, each sample was digested with a di-acid mixture (HNO3-HClO4). P was determined colorimetrically with molybdovanadate solution using the yellow colour method (Yoshida et al., 1972). K was determined directly by flame photometry (model 240FS AA, 200 Series AA, product No. G8432A, Agilent Technologies, Malaysia) (Yoshida et al., 1972). Zn content in the digest was determined directly by an atomic adsorption spectrophotometer (model 55B, Varian Australia Pty. Ltd., Australia) (Yoshida et al., 1972). B concentration in the extract was measured directly with an atomic absorption spectrophotometer (model 55B, Varian Australia Pty. Ltd.) following the azomethine–H method (Page et al., 1982).

(3)

where, MCpi is soil water content before planting and MChi is soil water content at the final harvest in the ith layer of soil profile (%). 2.5. Dry matter content Dry matter of potato with partitioned to root, stem, leaf and tubers were measured at different intervals during the crop growing season. Three plants were randomly collected from each treatment at 22, 41, 63 and 85 DAP during 2015–2016 and 27, 42, 64 and 76 DAP during 2016–2017. The roots and tubers were collected and cleaned and washed with clean water. The dry matter of roots, stems, leaves and tubers were dried in the oven at 600 C until a constant weight was reached and expressed in g m−2. 2.6. Yield and water productivity Two rows from each treatment were randomly chosen to measure the number of tubers per plant. The number of tubers/plant and marketable tuber yield (t ha−1) were measured from the fresh weight from the plants harvested from the selected two rows of each plot. The potato was manually harvested on February 17 in both years. Field water productivity (WP) was calculated as the ratio of economic tuber yield (t ha−1) and SCWU, and expressed as kg m-3 by the Eq. (4). The watersaving was calculated according to the Eq. (5) (Sarker et al., 2016).

TY × 100 SCWU

(4)

SCWU in EFI SCWU in AFI or FFI SCWU in EFI

(5)

Water productivity, WP (kg m 3) =

Water

saving (%) =

2.8. Statistical analysis Data on tuber yield and yield attributes and water productivity were statistically analyzed to test the effects of irrigation levels and methods on these parameters using R statistical software version 3.1.2 (2014) developed by the R Foundation for Statistical Computing Platform (R core Team, 2014). All the treatment means were subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA) and analyzed following randomized complete block design (RCBD) and compared for any significant differences using Rstatistical models at P ≤ 0.05.

where, TY is tuber yield and AFI, FFI and EFI indicate the alternate furrow irrigation, fixed furrow irrigation and every furrow irrigation, respectively. 4

Agricultural Water Management 224 (2019) 105750

K.K. Sarker, et al.

Fig. 3. (a) Yearly mean values of total dry matter (TDM) at different growth stages of potato plants. (b) Mean values of total dry matter at different growth stages of potato among the treatments (TT) over two years of 2016 and 2017. Mean values within the treatments by different letters (a–c) are significantly different at the level of 5% (P < 0.05). TT indicates treatment (2 irrigation level × 3 irrigation methods). DAP indicates the days after planting. Here, analysis of variance (ANOVA) the significant test P values was shown ((* indicates P < 0.05, significance; ** indicates P < 0.01 significance and *** indicates P < 0.001 highly significance). Vertical bars indicate the error percentage (5%). AFI: Alternate furrow irrigation, FFI: Fixed furrow irrigation, EFI: Every furrow irrigation. I1: Three irrigation at different growth stages; I2: Irrigation at 12–15 days interval.

3. Results

methods (Figs. 4 and 5). At the later growth stages, the greater amount of dry matter was partitioned to tubers compared to that in the initial stage (Figs. 4 and 5). Thus FFI also significantly (P < 0.001) affected the TDM and its partitioning at different growth stages of potato plants.

3.1. Dry matter content The total dry matter (TDM) and dry matter partitioning of the potato plants as influenced by treatments at different growth stages over two years are presented in Figs. 3–5. There was a significant effect of the year (Fig. 3 a) on TDM and dry matter partitioning to root, leaf and tuber of potato plants (Fig. 4). There was a significant effect (P < 0.001) of the year (Fig. 3a) and treatment (Fig. 3b) on the TDM as well as dry matter partitioning to root, stem, leaf and tubers (Figs. 4 and 5) at different growth stages. The mean values over two years (2016 and 2017) indicate that TDM of the potato plants was significantly different (P < 0.001) among the treatments whereas the treatments AFI and EFI had no significant difference at the later growth stage (i.e., 76–85 DAP) (Fig. 3b). The results also indicate that the year and treatment effects had no significant differences at the harvesting stage. TDM was significantly lower in FFI than AFI and EFI when the number of irrigation events and the amount of applied water were reduced at different growth stages of potato plants. At 22–27 DAP, TDR was insignificantly lower by around 5% in AFI and significantly (P < 0.001) lower by around 14% in FFI compared to traditional EFI. At 41–42 DAP, the effect of the year had significant (P < 0.05) difference on TDM (Fig. 3a) but root, stem and tuber had no significant differences (Figs. 4 and 5). On the other hand, the irrigation level × method had highly significant (P < 0.001) at 41–42 DAP (Fig. 3b). Similarly, the interactive effect of year and treatment had a significant difference in TDM. At tuber development stage (63–64 DAP), the year had no significant difference on TDR (Fig. 3a) but the effect of treatment (Fig. 3b) and interactive effect of year and treatment had a significant difference on TDR and its partitioning to root, leaf and tuber. The results also indicated that the dry matter partitioning differed significantly among the

3.2. Tuber numbers and tuber yield The analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the mean values of tuber yield of potato is presented in Table 2. There was no significant year effect but a significant effect was recorded on tuber yield and tuber number of potato. Fresh potato tuber yields were significantly different among the treatments, although there were no significant differences between AFI (22.3 t ha−1)and EFI (23.1 t ha−1) with three irrigations and between AFI (23.9 t ha−1)and EFI (24.6 t ha−1) with four irrigations during 2016 (Table 2). Similar trends were observed during 2017 though total tuber yield in this year was slightly lower compared to that in 2016 when irrigated either three or four times. In 2017, fresh tuber weight/m2 and tuber yield varied significantly among the treat− ments but not between AFI (21.52 t ha−1)and EFI (21.49 t ha 1) with −1 three irrigations and between AFI (22.60 t ha ) and EFI (23.17 t ha−1) with four irrigations (Table 2). Tuber numbers per plant and tuber weight/m2 were not significantly different between AFI and EFI but were greater than that of FFI in both years. In the combined analysis, treatment means of yield contributing characters of potato plants insignificantly influenced between AFI and EFI when irrigated with I1 and I2 (Table 2). On an average, the total tuber yield produced almost similar in AFI by 21.89 and 22.22 t ha−1and EFI by 23.26 and 23.92 t ha−1 when irrigated with I1 and I2 over two the two growing seasons. In general, the tuber yield in FFI was significantly lower than AFI and EFI. On an average, AFI produced 2.1% lower tuber yield than EFI (Table 2) although AFI saved 35% irrigation water than EFI method (Table 3). This result indicates that irrigation levels and methods had a significant 5

Agricultural Water Management 224 (2019) 105750

K.K. Sarker, et al.

Fig. 4. Yearly mean values of dry matter partitioning in root, stem, leaf and tuber of potato plants at different growth stages of potato plants. Mean values within the treatments by different letters (a–c) are significantly different at the level of 5% (P < 0.05). Values are mean of three replication of each treatment. DAP indicates the days after planting. Vertical bars indicate the error percentage (5%). Here, analysis of variance (ANOVA) the significant test P values were shown (* indicates P < 0.05, significance; ** indicates P < 0.01 significance and *** indicates P < 0.001 highly significance). AFI: Alternate furrow irrigation, FFI: Fixed furrow irrigation, EFI: Every furrow irrigation.

effect on tuber production. The average tuber yield was related to the amount of water supply and distribution method.

3.4. Effect of irrigation levels and methods on N, P, K, Zn, B and TSS content of potato tuber The ANOVA showed that there was no significant effect of year on the concentration of N, K and B in potato tubers but had a significant effect on P, Zn and TSS (all P < 0.05) (Table 4). The concentrations of N, K, Zn and B had also insignificant differences among the treatments but the concentration of P and TSS had significant (P < 0.05) differences. The interactive effect of year and treatment had also no significant differences except TSS and P (Table 4). Except for Zn and P concentrations, N, K, B and TSS concentrations in potato tubers were also had non-significant variations among AFI, FFI and EFI (Table 4). Zn and B uptake in EFI and AFI had no significant differences but uptake was slightly higher in EFI compared to AFI with the increased number of irrigation events. The concentrations of nutrients between AFI and EFI had no significant differences when the potato was irrigated with three or four times in both years. These results indicate that EFI did not notably increase the contents of N, P, K, B and Zn in potato tubers with three and four irrigations and also did not decrease the contents in tubers with deficit water supply during the crop growth period. The content of TSS of the potato tuber was also not significantly different between AFI and EFI (Table 4).

3.3. Effect of irrigation levels and methods on water saving and water productivity Water productivity (WP) was estimated to describe the relationship between the tuber yield and the amount of water consumed. Seasonal crop water use (SCWU) and WP varied among the treatments due to the variation of irrigation water applied. AFI saved irrigation water by 34.7–35.4% and 35–37.9% compared to EFI when irrigation was applied at three critical stages and four irrigation at evey 12–15 days interval (Table 3). WP of AFI significantly (P < 0.001) increased as compared to those of EFI and FFI (Table 3). The highest WP was 15.13 −3 and 15.32 kg m−3 for AFI followed by 10.24 kg m and 10.26 kg m−3 −3 for EFI and 13.0 and 12.99 kg m for FFI with three and four irrigation, respectively during 2016. In 2017 also, WP of AFI increased substantially as compared to EFI and FFI (Table 3). The highest WP was 14.64 and 14.48 kg m−3 for AFI followed by 9.55 and 9.66 kg m−3 for EFI with three and four irrigation. On average, the highest WP was with AFI (14.89 kg m−3) and the lowest with EFI (9.9 kg m−3). AFI improved WP significantly (P < 0.001) by 47.7–53.2% and 49.3–49.9%, each compared to EFI with three and four irrigation, respectively (Table 3). The results indicate that AFI produced the highest water saving and WP as compared to EFI and FFI (Table 3). On average, the AFI saved around 35% seasonal irrigation water than EFI. On the other hand, WP was significantly (P < 0.001) increased in AFI by around 50% compared to EFI. EFI system noticeably resulted in the lowest WP but this technique also did not produce significantly higher tuber yield with three or four irrigations.

4. Discussion Potato has been playing an important role in the food security of Bangladesh as well as in South Asia. Productivity and quality of potato tubers largely depend on the precise use of irrigation water. The amount of water applied, and its timing and method of water application are vital for better growth of the potato plant and tuber yield (Ati 6

Agricultural Water Management 224 (2019) 105750

K.K. Sarker, et al.

Fig. 5. Mean values of dry matter partitioning in root, stem, leaf and tuber at different growth stages of potato plants among the treatments (2 irrigation levels and 3 methods) over two years of 2016 and 2017. Mean values within the treatments by different letters (a–c) are significantly different at the level of 5% (P < 0.05). Vertical bars indicate the error percentage (5%). Values are mean of three replication of each treatment. DAP indicates the days after planting. Here, analysis of variance (ANOVA) the significant test P values were shown ((* indicates P < 0.05, significance; ** indicates P < 0.01 significance and *** indicates P < 0.001 highly significance). AFI: Alternate furrow irrigation, FFI: Fixed furrow irrigation, EFI: Every furrow irrigation. I1: Three irrigation at different growth stages; I2: Irrigation at 12–15 days interval.

et al., 2012). As the availability of irrigation water is becoming scarce and expensive worldwide, it is important to find out the alternative ways of irrigation for meeting crop water requirement and high tuber yield. Despite the scarcity of irrigation water, it is possible to increase the potato productivity by adopting the modern irrigation techniques or methods during the growing season (Ati et al., 2012; Kashyap and Panda, 2003; Panigrahi et al., 2001). Consequently, the adoption of water-saving irrigation techniques such as the drip or sprinkler methods are increasingly being used in areas where irrigation water is limited. These techniques are well-proved in many countries to increase the yield and water productivity of different crops (Kang et al., 2004; Kumar et al., 2009; Ati et al., 2012). However, in Bangladesh and large parts of South Asia, these techniques have not been used in large scale as these need higher initial investments and technical knowledge, which most small to medium-scale farmers may not be able to afford or acquire. Such farmers need simple, easy to operate but efficient, and low-cost technology such as alternate furrow irrigation (AFI) or every furrow irrigation (EFI) which can use drastically less amount of water. The idea of AFI has been introduced from partial root-zone drying technique which significantly improves water use efficiency (WUE) without significant reduction in crop yield and quality (Majumdar, 2004; Reddi and Reddy, 2009; Sarker et al., 2016). In this study, we examined the AFI water-saving technique and compared it with EFI and FFI with two levels of irrigation to each technique on tuber yield, tuber quality and WP of potato at field conditions (Fig. 2). The results of this study indicate that among the three furrow irrigation techniques, AFI and EFI produced significantly higher dry matter yield of potato compared to the FFI technique. These results are in

agreement with the findings of Saha et al. (2015). The results also indicate that the AFI technique maintained desired yield when irrigation was applied in alternate furrows and kept the previously irrigated furrows dried. Earlier findings indicate that the WP of potatoes varied from 9 to 25 kg m−3 in different climates (Jovanovic et al., 2010; Ahmadi et al., 2010; Li et al., 2007). Islam et al. (1990) reported that irrigation at 40% depletion of available soil moisture produced maximum potato yield (22.3 t/ha) and WUE (8.1 kg m−3). In this study, the WP of potato tubers varied from 9.5 to 15.3 kg m−3 and tuber yield varied from 19.5 to 24.5 t ha-1 (Table 3) which are consistent with the above studies. Our results are also inconsistent to many other studies who have reported that WP of potato tubers is substantially improved under deficit irrigation technique compared with full irrigation (Ierna and Mauromicale, 2018; Badr et al., 2012; Darwish et al., 2006; Yuan et al., 2003). Mean values of over two years of this study indicated that AFI saved irrigation water by 35% and significantly improved WP by 50% compared to traditional EFI method of irrigation. Alternate drying irrigation technique has proved that it is an effective water-saving irrigation method not only for potato cultivation but also for other crops such as maize (Kang and Zhang, 2004) and tomato (Sarker et al., 2016). The AFI efficiently utilizes soil moisture and improves soil enzymatic activities (Li et al., 2010). Sarker et al. (2016) found that the alternate wetting and drying furrow irrigation technique saved irrigation water by 35–38% and improved WP by upto 40% compared to traditional EFI for tomato cultivation. Ierna et al. (2018) and Hatfield et al. (2001) suggested that WP could be increased from 25 to 40% through better agronomic practices which involve improved soil, tillage, nutrient and water management practices. In most cases, partial root drying 7

Agricultural Water Management 224 (2019) 105750

K.K. Sarker, et al.

root drying irrigation (Liu et al., 2005). In our study, the potato tuber yield was insignificantly decreased in the AFI compared to traditional EFI (Table 2). This might be due to the earlier soil drying and mild water stress effect on early growth for tuber initiation (Liu et al., 2005, 2006). The tuber yields and WP of potato were significantly reduced in FFI than AFI and EFI due to the effect of water stress on the growth of potato plant for fixed drying of soil during the growing period (Table 2). A successful AFI management depends on crops and cultivars, growing periods, evaporative demands, soil texture and soil water balance. The results indicate that irrigation level is also important and has significantly influenced on crop growth and yield. In other studies, the irrigation method had no significant effects on growth and tuber yields of potato but the irrigation levels significantly affected the tuber yield and yield contributing characters of potato (e.g., Onder et al., 2005). Tuber yield reduction could be avoided by controlling soil water as well as reducing N. In this study, basal fertilizers were placed below the soil surface as the lateral separation between potato seed and fertilizer (Fig. 2) which could reduce the losses of soil nutrients. Nutrient and water have close relationships so that sub-surface fertilizer application increases the crop nutrient efficiency in utilizing available water (Farooq et al., 2009). The drought-sensitive crops such as potato generally close their stomata when subjected to water stress (Ahmadi et al., 2010). Transpiration may be inhibited by alternate drying, but this may not necessarily affect nutrient uptake in a similar way. The technique of partial root drying increased the above-ground plant dry matter and tuber fresh weight compared to full irrigation due to the maintenance of the optimal range of soil water content (Shahnazari et al., 2007). The results reveal that total dry matter was significantly reduced in FFI than EFI but increased with these techniques when irrigation level was increased (Figs. 3 and 4). It indicates that the increase in water supply and fertilization led to greater total dry matter production in all growth stages of potato (Ierna and Mauromicale, 2018; Camargo et al., 2015). The results also reveal that AFI technique has a positive influence on total dry matter (Figs. 3a and 4) production and its partitioning (Figs. 3b and 5) due to reduced transpiration loss by slightly limiting stomata opening of the potato plant. Many studies indicate that the plant roots in drying soil produce a root hormonal signal to the shoot that may restrict the transpiration through stomata off-on, but continue allowing photosynthesis and growth and resulting in higher WUE (Davies and Zhang, 1991; Zhang and Davies, 1989). Therefore, it is evident that yields could be improved by enhancing the plant nutrient efficiency under controlled irrigation water supply. Several studies also demonstrated that AFI may improve product quality of potato plants (Zegbe et al., 2004;

Table 2 Effect of treatments on tuber yield and tuber number of potato during 2016 and 2017. Parameters Analysis test codes (P value) Year Treatment (Irrigation levels × Methods) Year × Treatment (Irrigation level s × Methods) Year of experimentation 2016 2017 CV (%) Treatments Means over two I1 AFI years FFI EFI I2 AFI FFI EFI CV (%) Year × Treatments AFI I1 FFI 2016 EFI AFI I2 FFI EFI AFI I1 FFI 2017 EFI AFI I2 FFI EFI CV (%)

Tuber number m−2

Tuber yield (t ha−1)

ns * ns

ns *** ns

52.22a 51.50a 9.27

22.31a 21.39a 7.21

51.44ab 48.58b 53.14ab 53.42ab 48.09b 56.54a 8.79

21.89b 19.48c 22.27b 23.26ab 20.35c 23.92a 5.78

51.11ab 49.03b 52.49ab 53.56ab 46.85b 60.30a 51.78abc 48.10c 53.79a 53.29ab 49.30bc 52.75ab 8.79

22.25abc 19.63c 23.05ab 23.908a 20.41bc 24.63a 21.52b 19.32c 21.49b 22.60ab 20.29c 23.17a 5.78

CV (%) means coefficient of variation. Mean values within the same columns by different letters (a–c) are significantly different at the level of 5% (P ≤ 0.05) within treatments. Values are mean of three replications of each treatment. Here, analysis of variance (ANOVA) the significant test P values were shown ((* indicates P ≤ 0.05, significance; *** indicates P ≤ 0.001, highly significance and P ≤ 0.05, no significance). AFI: Alternate furrow irrigation, FFI: Fixed furrow irrigation, EFI: Every furrow irrigation. I1: Three irrigation at different growth stages; I2: Irrigation at 12–15 days interval.

technique has shown a great potential to increase WUE and to maintain yield (Davies and Hartung, 2004; Sepaskhah and Ahmadi, 2010). On the other hand, the tuber yield of potatoes was decreased in the partial

Table 3 Number of irrigation event, amount of applied irrigation water, seasonal crop water use (SCWU) and water productivity (WP) and water saving of potato cultivation under two irrigation levels and three methods during 2016 and 2017. Year

*IR No of event

Treatments IR level

2016

2017

3

I1

4

I2

3

I1

4

I2

PEW (mm)

IR water (mm)

Pe (mm)

ΔSWC (mm)

SCWU (mm)

Tuber yield (t ha−1)

WP (kg m−3)

Water saving (%)

25 25 25 25 25 25 31 31 31 31 31 31

89 89 177 103 103 205 93 93 184 112 112 224

8 8 8 8 8 8 0 0 0 0 0 0

25 29 15 20 21 2 35 37 31 32 34 27

147 151 225 156 157 240 159 161 246 175 177 282

22.25abc 19.63c 23.05ab 23.908a 20.41bc 24.63a 21.52b 19.32c 21.49b 22.60ab 20.29c 23.17a

15.13a 13.00b 10.24c 15.32a 12.99b 10.26c 14.64a 12.8b 9.55c 14.48a 12.92b 9.66c

34.7 32.9 – 35.0 34.6 – 35.4 34.5 – 37.9 37.2 –

Method AFI FFI EFI AFI FFI EFI AFI FFI EFI AFI FFI EFI

*IR indicates irrigation. Mean values within the same columns by different letters (a–c) are significantly different at the level of 5% (P ≤ 0.05) within treatments. Values are mean of three replications of each treatment. PEW indicates plant establishment water which was applied during plant germination. Pe is effective rainfall, ΔSWC is the soil water contribution. AFI: Alternate furrow irrigation, FFI: Fixed furrow irrigation, EFI: Every furrow irrigation. I1: Three irrigation at different growth stages; I2: Irrigation at 12–15 days interval. 8

Agricultural Water Management 224 (2019) 105750

K.K. Sarker, et al.

Table 4 Analysis of N, P, K, Zn, B and TSS concentration and recovery rate in potato tubers at harvest as influenced by different irrigation levels and methods during 2016 and 2017. N (%)

P (%)

K (%)

Zn (ppm)

B (ppm)

TSS (0Brix)

ns ns ns

* * *

ns ns ns

** ns ns

ns ns ns

* * ***

2.26a 2.14a 5.95

0.20b 0.27a 29.31

1.34a 1.35a 11.39

25.92a 21.75b 8.01

8.46a 9.87a 27.99

5.86b 6.46a 9.67

AFI FFI EFI AFI FFI EFI

2.35a 2.07ab 2.33ab 2.36a 2.04b 2.07ab

0.20c 0.25ab 0.24abc 0.23bc 0.21bc 0.28a

1.43a 1.33ab 1.42a 1.22b 1.34ab 1.36a

22.63b 22.88b 22.43b 23.01b 25.65ab 26.43a

8.80a 8.98a 8.28a 10.04a 9.09a 9.80a

6.43a 5.87bc 6.22ab 6.15abc 5.75c 6.52a

AFI FFI EFI AFI FFI EFI AFI FFI EFI AFI FFI EFI

2.25a 2.29a 2.39a 2.24a 2.17a 2.24a 2.45ab 1.84c 2.27abc 2.48a 1.92bc 1.89c 11.49

0.173a 0.183a 0.170a 0.220a 0.203a 0.263a 0.24cd 0.32a 0.31ab 0.25bcd 0.22d 0.29abc 15.31

1.35a 1.37a 1.43a 1.28a 1.36a 1.27a 1.51a 1.28ab 1.40ab 1.15b 1.32ab 1.47a 8.57

23.46 b 24.40ab 23.38b 24.36ab 29.25ab 30.67 a 21.79abc 21.36c 21.47bc 21.66abc 22.05ab 22.19a 11.41

7.50 b 7.53 b 7.63 b 8.75ab 8.97ab 10.37a 10.10a 10.43a 8.93a 11.33a 9.20a 9.23a 18.93

6.3 ab 5.2 cd 6.6 a 5.8 bc 4.8 d 6.4 ab 6.57a 6.57a 5.80b 6.47a 6.73a 6.60a 6.28

Parameters Analysis test codes (P- value) Year Treatment (Irrigation levels × Methods) Year × Treatment (Irrigation levels × Methods) Year of experimentations 2016 2017 CV (%) Treatments Means over two years I1 I2 Year × Treatments 2016

I1 I2

2017

I1 I2

CV (%)

TSS, total soluble solids; CV (%), coefficient of variation. Mean values within the same columns by different letters (a–d) are significantly different at the level of 5% (P ≤ 0.05) within treatments. Values are mean of three replications of each treatment. Here, analysis of variance (ANOVA) the significant test P values were shown (* indicates P ≤ 0.05, ** indicates P ≤ 0.01; *** indicates P ≤ 0.001, highly significance and ns indicates no significance). AFI: Alternate furrow irrigation, FFI: Fixed furrow irrigation, EFI: Every furrow irrigation. I1: Three irrigation at different growth stages; I2: Irrigation at 12–15 days interval.

Shahnazari et al., 2007). We noticed that the potato plants with AFI showed green looking in all growth stages which might have contributed to the higher marketable tuber yields in AFI (Shahnazari et al., 2008). The possible reason could be that applying sub-surface fertilizers increased soil available P content during the entire growing season and restricted the phosphatase from roots, and thus could have maintained the energy level under stress conditions (Richardson et al., 2011). Alternate drying technique extends the root system to deeper layers and incites the initiation of secondary roots which can take up both water and nutrients from the soil and stimulate the growth of the plant (Kolbe and Stephan-Beckmann, 1997; Hu et al., 2009; Liu et al., 2005). The AFI technique increases N uptake and reduces NO3 leaching when irrigation water is alternately allowed to the wetted and dried sides of the root system during the growth stages of the crop (Skinner et al., 1999). Our study revealed that the water-saving technique of AFI did not significantly decrease the concentration of the nutrients of potato tubers compared to traditional EFI (Table 4). These results indicate that AFI and EFI notably increased TSS when irrigated with either three or four irrigations. Several studies also demonstrated that AFI can improve product quality of potato plants (Zegbe et al., 2004; Shahnazari et al., 2007). Nutrient losses could be reduced by reducing water application during the tuber initiation and lengthening of the potato growth period. Han and Kang (2002) reported that total N and P use efficiency was increased with the partial root drying technique compared to the traditional full irrigation. Prolonged soil drying may reduce the succulent roots for water conduction to main roots (Li et al., 2007). From the results of the fixed furrow and traditional furrow irrigation indicates that prolonged wetting and drying also may affect the quality and tuber yield of potato during the growing period. Alternately, wetting the soil may encourage the initiation and growth of secondary roots and therefore recover the roots’ sensitivity to soil drying. In

addition, alternate drying and wetting root system in soil may perform better use of soil nutrients in the whole root-zone area. Many studies have demonstrated that partial root drying technique has the potentiality to improve the grain, fruit and vegetable yields, and their quality (Zegbe et al., 2006; Leib et al., 2006; Shahnazari et al., 2007). Our study showed that though the potato tuber yields with the AFI and EFI techniques with three or four irrigations were not significantly different, AFI performed better in terms of reducing water use and increasing WP than EFI. Both AFI and EFI were superior to FFI in terms of tuber yield and WP parameters. Results also showed that the AFI watersaving technique imposed up to maturity can maintain tuber yields as that of EFI but can significantly reduce water use and increase WP of potato. From the results of this study and the above discussion, it can be inferred that the AFI has the potential to improve the WP of potato without significant yield loss. Therefore, it can be recommended as a useful irrigation water application method for potato crops grown in raised beds with furrows in the areas where irrigation water and water supplies are limited for sustainable potato production. 5. Conclusions The alternate furrow irrigation technique is a challenge to apply in field conditions for crop production without significant yield loss. In this study, we found that total dry matter yield of potato was not significantly different between alternate and every furrow irrigation techniques. Fresh yields of potato tubers were not statistically different between these techniques with three and four irrigations, although every furrow irrigation produced slightly higher tuber yield than alternate furrow irrigation. On average, alternate furrow irrigation, however, saved 35% water and resulted in 50% higher water productivity compared to every furrow irrigation. The N, P, K, Zn and B 9

Agricultural Water Management 224 (2019) 105750

K.K. Sarker, et al.

concentrations in potato tubers at harvest were similar for three methods of irrigation. Total soluble solids were nearly similar for alternate furrow and every furrow irrigation. The alternate furrow irrigation technique has the potential for application in a dry environment with limited water. This technique may be practiced by alternately irrigating one part of the root zone of the potato plant each time and may substantially improve the water productivity of potato without significant yield reduction. Due to the scarcity of irrigation water at present conditions, demonstrations are necessary to identify the role of alternate furrow irrigation technique for optimum plant growth and yield of potato and other raised bed row crops which can be adapted easily to the areas where water is limited and the water savings goals can be achieved. Further studies are required to understand the alternate furrow irrigation technique with various soil types and raised beds for improving the water productivity and tuber quality without drastically reducing the tuber yield in South Asia.

A.K., Bhattacharya, P.M., Dhar, T., Mitra, B., Kumar, S., 2019. Conservation agriculture based sustainable intensification: increasing yields and water productivity for smallholders of the Eastern Gangetic Plains. Field Crops Res. 238, 1–17. Islam, T., Sarkar, H., Alam, J., Rashid, H., 1990. Water use and yield relationships of irrigated potato. Agric. Water Manag. 18, 173–179. Jensen, C.R., Battilani, A., Plauborg, F., Psarras, G., Chartzoulakis, K., Janowiak, F., Stikic, R., Jovanovic, Z., Li, G.T., Qi, X.B., Liu, F.L., Jacobsen, S.E., Andersen, M.N., 2010. Deficit irrigation based on drought tolerance and root signalling in potatoes and tomatoes. Agric. Water Manag. 98 (3), 403–413. Jovanovic, Z., Stikic, R., Vucelic-Radovic, B., Paukovic, M., Brocic, Z., Matovic, G., Rovcanin, S., Mojevic, M., 2010. Partial root-zone drying increases WUE, N and antioxidant content in field potatoes. Eur. J. Agron. 33 (2), 124–131. Jat, M.L., Singh, S., Rai, H.K., Chhokar, R.S., Sharma, S.K., Gupta, K., 2005. Furrow irrigated raised bed (FIRB) planting technique foe diversification of rice-wheat system in Indo-Gangetic Plains. Jpn. Assoc. Int. Collab. Agric. For. 28 (1), 25–42. Jat, M.L., Gupta, R., Saharawat, Y.S., Khosla, R., 2011. Layering precision land leveling and furrow irrigated raised bed planting: productivity and input use efficiency of irrigated bread wheat in Indo-Gangetic Plains. Am. J. Plant Sci. 2, 578–588. Khandker, S., Basak, A., 2018. Scope for Potato Processing Industry in Bangladesh. /Scope for Potato Processing Industry in Bangladesh. Retrieved on 22 July 2019. https://www.daily-sun.com. Koech, R.K., Smith, R.J., Gillies, M.H., 2014. A real‑time optimisation system for automation of furrow irrigation. Irrig. Sci. 32, 319–327. Kang, S., Zhang, J., 2004. Controlled alternate partial root-zone irrigation: its physiological consequences and impact on water use efficiency. J. Exp. Bot. 55 (407), 2437–2446. Kolbe, H., Stephan-Beckmann, S., 1997. Development, growth and chemical composition of the potato crop (Solanum tuberosum L.). I. Leaf and stem. Potato Res. 40, 111–129. Kumar, S., Asrey, R., Mandal, G., Singh, R., 2009. Microsprinkler, drip and furrow irrigation for potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) cultivation in semiarid environment. Indian J. Agric. Sci. 79 (3), 165–169. Kashyap, P.S., Panda, R.K., 2003. Effect of irrigation scheduling on potato crop parameters under water stressed conditions. Agric. Water Manag. 59, 49–66. Kang, Y., Wang, F.X., Liu, H.J., Yuan, B.Z., 2004. Potato evapotranspiration and yield under different drip irrigation regimes. Irrig. Sci. 23 (3), 133–143. Li, F., Yu, J., Nong, M., Kang, S., Zhang, J., 2010. Partial root-zone irrigation enhanced soil enzyme activities and water use of maize under different ratios of inorganic to organic nitrogen fertilizers. Agric. Water Manag. 97 (2), 231–239. Liu, F., Jensen, C.R., Shahnazari, A., Andersen, M.N., Jacobsen, S.E., 2005. ABA regulated stomatal control and photosynthetic water use efficiency of potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) during progressive soil drying. Plant Sci. 168, 831–836. Liu, F., Shahnazari, A., Andersen, M.N., Jacobsen, S.E., Jensen, C.R., 2006. Effects of deficit irrigation (DI) and partial root drying (PRD) on gas exchange, biomass partitioning, and water use efficiency in potato. Sci. Hortic. 109, 113–117. Li, F., Liang, J., Kang, S., Zhang, J., 2007. Benefits of alternate partial root-zone irrigation on growth, water and nitrogen use efficiencies modified by fertilization and soil water status in maize. Plant Soil 295, 279–291. Leib, B.G., Caspari, H.W., Redulla, C.A., Andrews, P.K., Jabro, J., 2006. Partial root-zone drying and deficit irrigation of Fuji apples in a semi-arid climate. Irrig. Sci. 24, 85–99. Michael, A.M., 1978. Irrigation: Theory and Practice, 1st edition. Vikash Publishing House Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi. Majumdar, D.K., 2004. Irrigation Water Management: Principles and Practice, 3rd eds. Practice hill of India Private Limited, New Delhi 110001. Murad, K.F.I., Hossain, A., Fakir, O.A., Biswas, S.K., Sarker, K.K., Rannu, R.P., Timsina, J., 2018. Conjunctive use of saline and fresh water increases the productivity of maize in saline coastal region of Bangladesh. Agric. Water Manag. 204, 262–270. Onder, S., Caliskan, M.E., Onder, D., Caliskan, S., 2005. Different irrigation methods and water stress effects on potato yield and yield components. Agric. Water Manag. 73 (1), 73–86. Page, A.L., Miller, R.H., Keeney, D.R., 1982. Methods of Soil Analysis. Part-2, 2nd ed. American Society of Agronomy, Inc., 677 South Segoe Road, Madison, Wisconsin, USA. Panigrahi, B., Panda, S.N., Raghuwanshi, N.S., 2001. Potato water use and yield under furrow irrigation. Irrig. Sci. 20, 155–163. R Core Team, 2014. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria 2013. ISBN 3-900051-07-0. http://www.R-project.org/. Retrieved on 09 August 2019. Reddi, G.H.S., Reddy, T.Y., 2009. Efficient Use of Irrigation Water, 1st ed. Kalyani Publishers, New Delhi, pp. 110–112. Richardson, A.E., Lynch, J.P., Ryan, P.R., Delhaize, E., Smith, F.A., Smith, S.E., Harvey, P.R., Ryan, M.H., Veneklaas, E.J., Lambers, H., Oberson, A., 2011. Plant and microbial strategies to improve the phosphorus efficiency of agriculture. Plant Soil 349 (1–2), 121–156. Saha, R.R., Sarker, A.Z., Talukder, A.H.M.M.R., Akter, S., 2015. Annul Research Report 2015. Crop Physiology Division, BARI, Joydebpur, Gazipur. Sharma, B.R., Minhas, P.S., 2005. Strategies for managing saline/alkali waters for sustainable agricultural production in South Asia. Agric. Water Manag. 78 (1–2), 136–151. Smith, M., 1992. CROPWAT, A Computer Programme. Irrigation Planning and Management, FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper 46. Rome. Italy. . Stikic, R., Popovic, S., Srdic, M., Savic, D., Jovanovic, Z., Prokic, L., Zdravkovic, J., 2003. Partial root drying (PRD): a new technique for growing plants that saves and improves the quality of fruit. Bulgarian J. Plant Physiol. 164–171. Sepaskhah, A.R., Ahmadi, S.H., 2010. A review on partial root-zone drying irrigation. Int. J. Plant Prod. 4, 241–258. Shahnazari, A., Liu, F.L., Andersen, M.N., Jacobsen, S.E., Jensen, C.R., 2007. Effects of

Acknowledgements The study was based on the core-funded research programme of the Irrigation and Water Management (IWM) Research Division of the Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute (BARI), Ministry of Agriculture (MoA), Bangladesh. The authors would like to acknowledge the IWM Division under BARI, Gazipur for providing all facilities and sharing knowledge for sustaining irrigated agriculture in the areas where available water is limited to irrigation in Bangladesh. References Ati, A.S., Iyada, A.D., Najim, S.M., 2012. Water use efficiency of potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) under different irrigation methods and potassium fertilizer rates. Ann. Agric. Sci. 57 (2), 99–103. Ahmadi, S.H., Andersen, M.N., Plauborg, F., Poulsen, R.T., Jensen, C.R., Sepaskhah, A.R., Hansen, S., 2010. Effects of irrigation strategies and soils on field grown potatoes: yield and water productivity. Agric. Water Manag. 97, 1923–1930. Bremner, J.M., Mulvaney, C.S., 1982. Nitrogen-total. In: Page, A.L., Miller, R.H., Keeney, D.R. (Eds.), Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 2, 2nd ed. ASA, Madison, WI, pp. 595–623. Badr, M.A., El-Tohamy, W.A., Zaghloul, A.M., 2012. Yield and water use efficiency of potato grown under different irrigation and nitrogen levels in an arid region. Agric. Water Manag. 110, 9–15. Bardhan Roy, S.K., Walker, T.S., Khatana, V.S., Saha, N.K., Verma, V.S., Kadian, M.S., Haverkort, A.J., Bowen, W., 1999. Intensification of Potatoes in Rice-based Cropping Systems: A Rapid Rural Appraisal in West Bengal. Working Paper (CIP). 25p. http:// www.cipotato.org/library/pdfdocs/WP57661.pdf. Retrieved on 09 August 2019. . Camargo, D.C., Montoya, F., Ortega, J.F., Corcoles, J.I., 2015. Potato yield and water use efficiency responses to irrigation in semiarid conditions. Agron. J. 107, 2120–2131. Davies, W.J., Zhang, J., 1991. Root signals and regulation of growth and development of plants in drying soil. Ann. Rev. Plant Physiol. Plant Mol. Biol. 42, 55–76. Darwish, T.M., Atallah, T.W., Hajhasan, S., Haidar, A., 2006. Nitrogen and water use efficiency of fertigated processing potato. Agric. Water Manag. 85, 95–104. Davies, W.J., Hartung, W., 2004. Has extrapolation from biochemistry to crop functioning worked to sustain plant production under water scarcity? Proceeding of the Fourth International Crop Science Congress. www.cropscience.org.au/icsc. Devaux, A., Kromann, P., Ortiz, O., 2014. Potatoes for sustainable global food security. Potato Res. 57 (3–4), 185–199. Ebrahimian, H., Playan, E., 2014. Optimum management of furrow fertigation maximum water and fertilizer application efficiency and uniformity. J. Agric. Sci. Technol. 16, 591–607. FRG (Fertilizer Recommendation Guide), 2012. Bangladesh Agricultural Research Council (BARC). Farmgate, Dhaka, pp. 1215. Farooq, M., Wahid, A., Kobayashi, N., Fujita, D., Basra, S.M.A., 2009. Plant drought stress: effects, mechanisms and management. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 29 (1), 185–212. Fageria, N.K., Baligar, V.C., Li, Y.C., 2008. The role of nutrient efficient plants in improving crop yields in the twenty first century. J. Plant Nutr. 31 (6), 1121–1157. Hijmans, R.J., 2003. The effect of climate change on global potato production. Am. J. Potato Res. 80 (4), 271–279. Hezarjaribi, A., Dehghani, A.A., Helghi, M.M., Kiani, A., 2008. Hydraulic performance of various trickle irrigation emitters. J. Agron. 7 (3), 265–271. Han, Y.L., Kang, S.Z., 2002. Effects of controlled partial root-zone irrigation on root nutrition uptake of maize (Zea mays L.). Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Eng. 18, 57–59. Hatfield, J.L., Thomas, J.S., John, H.P., 2001. Managing soil to achieve greater water use efficiency: a review. Agron. J. 93, 271–280. Hu, T., Kang, S., Li, F., Zhang, J., 2009. Effects of partial root-zone irrigation on the nitrogen absorption and utilization of maize. Agric. Water Manag. 96, 208–214. Ierna, A., Mauromicale, G., 2018. Potato growth, yield and water productivity response to different irrigation and fertilization regimes. Agric. Water Manag. 201, 21–26. Islam, S., Gathala, M.K., Tiwari, T.P., Timsina, J., Laing, A.M., Maharjan, S., Chowdhury,

10

Agricultural Water Management 224 (2019) 105750

K.K. Sarker, et al. partial root-zone drying on yield, tuber size and water use efficiency in potato under field conditions. Field Crops Res. 100 (1), 117–124. Shahnazari, A., Ahmadi, S.H., Laerke, P.E., Liu, F., Plauborg, F., Jacobsen, S.E., Jensen, C.R., Andersen, M.N., 2008. Nitrogen dynamics in the soil–plant system under deficit and partial root-zone drying irrigation strategies in potatoes. Eur. J. Agron. 28 (2), 65–73. Sarker, K.K., Akanda, M.A.R., Biswas, S.K., Roy, D.K., Khatun, A., Goffar, M.A., 2016. Field performance of alternate wetting and drying furrow irrigation on tomato crop growth, yield, water use efficiency, quality and profitability. J. Integr. Agric. 15 (10), 2380–2392. Skinner, R.H., Hanson, J.D., Benjamin, J.G., 1999. Nitrogen uptake and partitioning under alternate-and every-furrow irrigation. Plant Soil 210, 11–20. Thiele, G., Theisen, K., Bonierbale, M., Walker, T., 2010. Targeting the poor and hungry with potato science. Potato J. 37, 75–86. Wang, J., Kang, S., Li, F., Zhang, F., Li, Z., Zhang, J., 2008. Effects of alternate partial root-zone irrigation on soil microorganism and maize growth. Plant Soil 302 (1–2), 45–52. www.potatopro.com, 2019. www.potatopro.com /world/potato-statistics Information Source for the global Potato Industry. World Statistics. The Potato sector. Retrieved on 22 July 2019. Xie, K., Wang, X.-X., Zhang, R., Gong, X., Zhang, S., Mares, V., Gavilán, C., Posadas, A.,

Quiroz, R., 2012. Partial root-zone drying irrigation and water utilization efficiency by the potato crop in semi-arid regions in China. Sci. Hortic. 134, 20–25. Xu, H.L., Qin, F.F., Xu, Q.C., Tan, J.Y., Liu, G.M., 2011. Applications of xerophyto-physiology in plant production–the potato crop improved by partial root zone drying of early season but not whole season. Sci. Hortic. 129 (4), 528–534. Yactayo, W., Ramírez, D.A., Gutiérrez, R., Mares, V., Posadas, A., Quiroz, R., 2013. Effect of partial root-zone drying irrigation timing on potato tuber yield and water use efficiency. Agric. Water Manag. 123, 65–70. Yoshida, S., Forno, A.D., Cock, J.A., Gomez, K.A., 1972. Physiological Studies of Rice, 2nd ed. International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), Los Baños, Philippines, pp. 70. Yuan, B.Z., Nishiyama, S., Kang, Y., 2003. Effects of different irrigation regimes on the growth and yield of drip irrigated potato. Agric. Water Manag. 63, 157–167. Zegbe, J.A., Behboudian, M.H., Clothier, B.E., 2004. Partial root-zone drying is a feasible option for irrigating processing tomatoes. Agric. Water Manag. 68, 195–206. Zegbe, J.A., Behboudian, M.H., Clothier, B.E., 2006. Responses of petopride processing tomato to partial root-zone drying at different phenological stages. Irrig. Sci. 24, 203–210. Zhang, J., Davies, W.J., 1989. Sequential responses of whole plant water relations to prolonged soil drying and the involvement of xylem sap ABA in the regulation of stomatal behaviour of sunflower plants. New Phytol. 113, 167–174.

11