Published in Indian Journal of Fertilizer (2011), Volume 7, No 3, Page 22-37

Archived in the Open Access institutional repository of the ICRISAT

This is author version post print archived in the official Institutional

Repository of ICRISAT www.icrisat.org

Fertigation in Vegetable Crops for Higher Productivity and Resource Use

Efficiency

RAM A. JAT1, SUHAS P. WANI1,

KANWAR L. SAHRAWAT1 PIARA SINGH1 and B.L. DHAKA2

1
International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT),
Patancheru, Hyderabad 502 324

2
Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology, Udaipur (Rajasthan)
313 0013

Abstract: Precise management of irrigation quantity along with the rate and
timing of nutrient application are of critical importance to obtain desired results in
terms of productivity and nutrient use efficiency (NUE). The fertigation allows
application of right amounts of plant nutrients uniformly to the wetted root volume
zone where most of the active roots are concentrated and this helps enhance
nutrient use efficiency. It has been found to improve the productivity and quality
of crop produce along with improved resource use efficiency. Fertigation is
considered eco-friendly as it controls leaching of nutrients especially nitrogen
(N)-NO3. However, to get the desired results knowledge of the system and
efficient management are essential. A review is made of the current literature on
the use of fertigation covering various aspects of vegetable production including
its advantages and constraints to its adoption and nutrient behaviour especially
at the practical agriculture level in India.

Introduction

In agriculture water and nutrients are the two most critical inputs and their
efficient management is important not only for higher productivity but also for
maintaining environmental quality. Among the various irrigation methods used for
water application, micro irrigation systems (MIS) particularly, drip and sprinkler
methods seem most efficient and increasingly adopted worldwide. The decade
1990-2000, witnessed a quantum leap in expansion of micro irrigation technology
(Table 1), both in developed and developing countries. The area under micro
irrigation increased almost six fold during last 20 years – from1.1 million ha
in1986 to 6.1 million ha at present. In case of micro irrigation, the highest
coverage is in Americas (1.9 Mha) followed by Europe and Asia (1.8 Mha each),
Africa (0.4 Mha), and Oceania (0.2 Mha) (1). Applying plant nutrients by
dissolving them in irrigation water (termed as fertigation) particularly with the drip
system is a most efficient way of nutrient application. Fertigation has the potential
to supply a right mixture of water and nutrients to the root zone, and thus meeting
plants’ water and nutrient requirements in most efficient possible manner (2).
Fertigation allows an accurate and uniform application of nutrients to the wetted
area where most active roots are concentrated. Therefore, it is possible to
dispense adequate nutrient quantity at an appropriate concentration to meet the
crop demand during a growing season. Since fertigation was first used in Israel in
1969 for tomato grown on sand dunes in a field experiment (3), the area under
fertigation has since increased rapidly worldwide. The rapid development of
trickle irrigation and fertigation systems in many parts of the world followed
demands to minimize water loss in agriculture, which arose from the shortage of
water caused by increasing household and industrial demands, and the urge to
expand area under irrigation. Development was also driven by increasing labour
costs, demands to prevent pollution and to minimize soil erosion, increasing
compulsion to use saline water sources, and unfavourable soil quality. However,
as against approximately 80% of the irrigated land in Israel under fertigation,
there is negligible share of fertigation in India. Therefore, this review has been
undertaken to bring all information on fertigation of vegetables to popularize the
use of fertigation for an efficient use of water and nutrients in eco- friendly
manner.

Benefits of fertigation:

1. Higher nutrient use efficiency: Nutrient use efficiency by crops is greater

under fertigation compared that under conventional application of fertilizers to
the soil.
2. Less water pollution: Intensification of agriculture led by use of irrigation
water and indiscriminate use of fertilizers has led to the pollution of surface
and ground waters by chemical nutrients. Fertigation helps lessen pollution of
water bodies through the leaching of nutrients such as N and potassium (K)
out of agricultural fields.
3. Higher resource conservation: Fertigation helps in saving of water,
nutrients, energy, labor and time.
4. More flexibility in farm operations: Fertigation provides flexibility in field
operations e.g. nutrients can be applied to the soil when crop or soil
conditions would otherwise prohibit entry into the field with conventional
equipment.
5. Efficient delivery of micronutrients: Fertigation provides opportunity for
efficient use of compound and ready-mix nutrient solutions containing small
concentrations of micronutrients, which are otherwise very difficult to apply
accurately to the soil when applied alone.
6. Healthy crop growth: When fertigation is applied through the drip irrigation
system, crop foliage can be kept dry thus avoiding leaf burn and delaying the
development of plant pathogens.
7. Helps in effective weed management: Fertigation helps to reduce weed
menace particularly between the crop rows. Use of plastic mulch along with
fertigation through drip system allows effective weed control in widely spaced
crops.

8. Effective use of undulating soils: The ability of MIS to irrigate undulating

soils makes it possible to bring such land under cultivation, which otherwise
remain as wastelands or used as pasturelands.
9. Reduced soil compaction: In MIS reduced need for surface traffic
movement during irrigation and nutrient application helps to reduce soil
compaction.
However, when fertigation is combined with the use of plastic cover over crop
rows; it can bring extra benefits like:

1. Reduction in the evaporational losses of water from the soil surface.

2. Development of salinity on soil surface is delayed.
3. Prevents weed preponderance and consequent reduction in herbicide use.
4. Soil temperature is also regulated when clear or reflecting type of plastic
sheets are used.
However, to get maximum benefit of fertigation, care must be taken while
selecting the fertilizer and injection equipment and the management and
maintenance of the system.

Fertigated nutrients: Eventhough all soluble plant nutrients can be applied

through fertigation with drip irrigation, but N and K remain the main nutrients,
which can be applied more efficiently, because they move readily with the
irrigation water. Fertigation with phosphorus (P) and most micronutrients is not
very satisfactory as the carriers of these nutrients move rather poorly with water
in the soil and thus do not reach the root zone. Besides, the use of fertigation to
apply P and micronutrients together with Ca and Mg may cause precipitation and
blockage of the emitters (4). However, Kafkafi (5) argued that application of P via
drip irrigation is more efficient than by the conventional application to soil,
because fertigation supplies P directly to the active roots zone, which enables its
immediate uptake, before it undergoes transformations especially fixation in the
soil. When the conditions require that P be applied by fertigation, it should be
applied alone and the irrigation water should be acidified to prevent clogging of
the emitters (6). The soluble forms of the three lesser macronutrients (secondary)
– calcium, magnesium and sulphur – do exist but these are much more
expensive, not always compatible with mixes and can cause precipitation and
clogging. The conventional forms of these nutrients- lime, gypsum and dolomite
should be spread in the normal way. When micronutrients need to be applied
through fertigation, fully soluble sources or chelates should be used.

Fertilizers for MIS -solubility, compatibility and rate & frequency of

application:

Selection and compatibility of fertilizers:

Liquid fertilizers are best suited for fertigation as they readily dissolve in irrigation
water. In developing countries like India however, inadequate availability and the
high cost of liquid fertilizers restrict their use. Fertigation using granular fertilizers
poses several problems including differences in solubility in water, compatibility
among different fertilizers and problems in filtration of undissolved fertilizers and
impurities. Different granular fertilizers have different solubility in water, which is
further affected by irrigation water temperature. When the solutions of two or
more fertilizers are mixed together, one or more of them may tend to precipitate if
the fertilizers are not compatible with each other. Therefore, such fertilizers may
be unsuitable for simultaneous application through fertigation and would have to
be applied separately (7).For example, when (NH4)2SO4 and KCl are mixed
together in the tank, the solubility of the mixture is considerably reduced due to
the formation of K2SO4. Other unusable mixtures include calcium nitrate with any
phosphates or sulfates, magnesium sulfate with di- or mono-ammonium
phosphate, phosphoric acid with iron, zinc, copper and manganese sulfates, etc.

The problem of precipitation and incompatibility among solid fertilizers can be

minimised by using two fertilization tanks to separate the fertilizers that interact
and cause precipitation, e.g. placing in one tank the calcium, magnesium and
microelements, and in the other tank the phosphorus and the sulfate sources.

Nitric or phosphoric acids are used to lower the pH level in fertigation. Their
advantage, besides the dissolution of basic precipitates in the line is that they
also supply the plants with the essential nutrients, and thereby replace N and P
fertilizers. With the use of saline water and in calcareous clay soils, nitric acid
increases Ca dissolution and thereby minimizes salinity injury due to Ca/Na
competition and also reduces chloride salinity in the root zone, as the nitrate
counterbalances excess chloride (8).
Papadopoulos and Ristimäki(9) found that urea phosphate as a source of P gave
higher yield of both tomato and eggplant as compared to mono-ammonium
phosphate and di-ammonium phosphate even when P2O5 supplied was 25%
less. Most probable explanation is the "double acidification effect" of the urea
phosphate fertilizer. Potassium nitrate is the recommended source of potassium
for use in fertigation programs because of its solubility and added bonus of
providing N. It is, however, the most expensive of the K fertilizers.

Fertigation nutrient amount: The scheduling of nutrient application through drip

irrigation system is vital to get the higher crop productivity and NUE and reduce
losses of nutrients through leaching. To get desired results, it is pertinent to know
how much amount of nutrients should be applied through fertigation. Dangler and
Locascio(10) reported that tomato yields were lower with application of 100%
recommended dose of N and K as preplant, compared to when 50% of
recommended dose of N and K was applied by fertigation. On a coarse -textured
soil, the preplant application of all the P and 40% of the N and K, with 60% of the
N and K fertigated with drip irrigation gave higher yield of tomato than the
application of whole amount of N and K as preplant (11,12). In a coarse-textured
soil, it is essential to supply only part of the N-K requirement via fertigation and to
avoid over irrigation and to apply remaining amount of nutrients as preplant. With
part of the nutrients applied at planting nutrient leaching losses are reduced and
NUE is increased which results into higher yields as compared to when all the
nutrients are applied either preplant or through the drip system. However, (12)
found that in fine-textured soils yields were higher when 100% of the nutrients
were applied before planting than when all or parts of the nutrients were applied
by fertigation. Preplant incorporation of N and K in the root zone provides
nutrients for early growth during a period when irrigation may not be required and
before fertigation begins to supply nutrients throughout the bed as crop growth
continues. Hartz (13) reported that for celery, the better approach would be to
either eliminate the practice of top-dressing, or top-dress only a token amount
(22.4- 56.0 kg N/ha), concentrating instead on applying more N through
fertigation later in the season when the crop is better able to utilize it. Application
of 100 % of recommended dose of fertilizers (RDF) through fertigation improved
tomato yield by 21.95 % and 8.49% over fertigation of 50 and 75% RDF,
respectively (14). When percentages of fertigated N and K were increased above
75% RDF, yields were increased in sandy loam soil (15).

Rate and frequency of nutrient application during fertigation: The amount of

nutrient to be applied during any given fertigation and the total amount to be
applied during the crop season depends on the frequency of fertigation, soil type,
nutrient requirements of the crops depending on their physiological stage (Table
2 and 3) and nutrient availability in the soil (17, 18). As the nutrients applied to
soil by the fertilizers are not fully available to the plant due to leaching, run-off,
volatilization and adsorption losses, corrections need to be made according to
the use efficiency of nutrients. According to Hartz (13) the two major factors
determining the appropriate N fertigation rate are: level of residual soil NO3-N
present and the degree of nutrient leaching expected. In-season soil testing,
through conventional laboratory analysis or by the ‘quick test’ procedure (see
13), the amount of soil residual NO3-N can be determined. As long as the
residual NO3-N in the wetted root zone is >15-20 mg/kg, little or no additional
fertigated N is necessary in celery (13). Further, he also observed that in a typical
field situation, each inch of leaching would remove between 11.20- 28.0 N/ha
from the crop root zone. In fields in which leaching is difficult to control (for
example very sandy soils) or where excessive irrigation is deliberately applied to
overcome poor water distribution uniformity, or to control salinity, one may need
to compensate for NO3-N leaching losses. In such situations, the fertigation
frequency as well as the amount applied may need to be increased to prevent
transient N deficiency. Obviously, NO3-N leaching from heavy rain may also
require additional fertigation.

Monitoring crop N status through petiole NO3-N analysis can be very efficient to
determine the rate of nutrient application. Petiole sampling can help identify fields
in which N availability is low, and thereby to take corrective action necessary.
Petiole NO3-N in excess of 6,000 ppm indicates adequate N availability. As
values decrease below 6,000 ppm, the likelihood of restricted N availability
affecting plant growth increases (13). For example, the daily application rate of
fertigation for lettuce and tomato crops changed during the growing season
(Figure 1) and thus it is important to apply nutrients by following plant daily
demand according to nutrient uptake.

Vegetative period:

High demand for NPK

Fruit ripening:

High demand for N and

K, reduced demand for
P

Figure 1: Rates of uptake of N, P and K during different physiological growth stages of tomato
and lettuce. DAT is days after transplanting of the vegetable crops. Source: (19).
Fertilizers can be injected into the irrigation system at various frequencies such
as once a day, on alternate days or even once a week. The frequency depends
on irrigation scheduling, soil type, daily nutrient requirement of crop, system
design and the farmers’ preference (11). In any case, it is extremely important
that the nutrients applied in any fertigation cycle are not subject to leaching either
during that fertigation or during subsequent fertigations. Smaller the root volume,
higher is the frequency of fertigation. The effectiveness of fertigated N will be
maximized if it is injected at the end of the irrigation run, with only a 30-40 minute
period of clear water to flush the fertilizer from the system. With good irrigation
control, fertigation once a week can be as effective as fertigation with each
irrigation in celery (13). Sousa et al (20) found advantage of fertigation at 0.5 and
1-day intervals compared with at 5-days interval for the surface drip-irrigated
melon grown on a sandy soil. Marketable yield and fruit size of subsurface drip-
irrigated tomato were significantly higher with daily compared with biweekly or
monthly fertigation on a loamy sand soil (21). Similarly, tomato yield was
significantly different when N was fertigated at 5-day interval compared with at 9-
day via a surface drip system (22). Badr and El-Yazied (23) found that N rate and
fertigation frequency resulted in significant differences in N uptake, N recovery
and N use efficiency (NUE). Total N uptake was appreciably higher with
increasing N rate and with more frequent than with less frequent fertigation. The
average N recovery across fertigation frequency was 60 and 54 % and NUE was
221 and 194 kg yield/kg N with 200 and 300 kg N/ha applied, respectively (Table
4). They also observed that found that total tomato yield and yield components
were responsive to N rate and to decreased fertigation frequency. The total fruit
yields averaged (67.75, 65.13 and 63.29 t/ha) under the frequencies of 1, 3 and 7
day, respectively were significantly higher than with frequency of 14 days (54.32
t/ha) (Table 4). Wide differences in leaf N concentration were observed in the
early vegetative stage, which was mainly dependent on the rate of N supply.
Although these differences gradually disappeared as the season progressed, the
differences in plant size remained until the end of the season. However, daily,
alternate day and weekly fertigation did not significantly affect yield in onion (24).
The highest yield was recorded in daily fertigation, followed by alternate day
fertigation, while the lowest yield was obtained in monthly fertigation frequency.
Application of 3.4 kg/ha urea in daily fertigation resulted in highest yield of onion
with least amount of NO3 -N leaching. Thompson et al (25) also reported that for
subsurface drip-irrigated broccoli grown in a sandy loam or similar textured soils,
fertigation frequency is not a critical management variable affecting crop yield
and quality. Similarly, the yields of surface drip-irrigated pepper (Capsicum
annum L.) were not affected by the fertigation interval (11 or 22 days) on a loamy
sand soil (26). Locascio and Smajstrla (27) also reported no significant effect of
fertigation frequency on tomato yield.

Watering schedule: As the water soluble nutrients move with the wetting front,
precise management of irrigation quantity alongwith rate and timing of nutrient
application are critical to get desired results in terms of productivity and NUE. To
minimize leaching losses of the soluble nutrients applied through drip irrigation
and to maximize crop production, precise management of water application is
essential since over-irrigation results in nutrient leaching and reduced yields (28).
Even with fertigation, over-irrigation can result in severe nutrient deficiencies and
reduced crop yields, e.g. excessive drip irrigation reduced tomato yield (29). Drip
irrigation can be scheduled by matching a predetermined proportion of the water
evaporated from a US weather service class A evaporation pan (E pan) (30, 31),
which provides a measure of evapotranspiration (ET). Locascio et al; (81) found
that yield of polythene-mulched tomato was high when irrigated at 1.0 E pan than
at 2.0 E pan. On a coarse–textured soil, yield of a spring tomato crop was higher
when irrigated at 0.5 than at 1.0 E pan, whereas on a fine textured soil, tomato
yield was similar under irrigation at 0.5 and 1.0 E pan (29, 32) with water
application rates of 20 to 30 cm/ha. Pitts and Clark (33) found that tomato water
requirements varied from 1.2 E pan early in the season to 0.8 E pan during fruit
development. However, water scheduling according to pan evaporation often
over-estimates early crop water needs. When tensiometer scheduling of water at
10 to 15 k Pa was used, less water was applied than with 0.75 E pan application.
In tomato, water used per crop was 30 cm with water scheduled to replace 0.75
E pan and 17 cm when irrigation was scheduled by means of magnetic switching
tensiometers to apply sufficient water to maintain soils at 10 k Pa (34, 35). In
addition to tensiometers, soil water sensors and other techniques like granular
matrix sensors (GMSs) (36) and time-domain reflectometry (TDR) (37) can also
be used to determine the time of irrigation. Soluble dyes can be applied with the
irrigation water to track the depth of water and soluble-nutrient movement (38,
39).

Direct soil moisture monitoring is the essential safeguard to avoid over- or under-
watering. Among the common soil moisture monitoring techniques available, the
use of tensiometers is among the best options for monitoring drip-irrigated celery
(13). Tensiometers should be installed in the plant row, approximately 10-12
inches deep. To ensure that the readings are representative of the whole field
installing instruments in different parts of the field is ideal.

Response of vegetable crops to fertigation:

The available literature provides sufficient evidence in favour of increased

productivity of vegetable crops due to fertigation. The yield of okra under
conventional method of fertilization with 100% of recommended dose of fertilizers
and under fertigation with 60% of recommended dose of fertilizers was not
significantly different (23.0 t/ha and 23.1 t/ha in the year 2000 and 23.56 t/ha and
23.35 t/ha in the year 2001) (7). This indicates that a saving of 40% in fertilizer
use may be achieved if applied through fertigation without affecting the okra
yields. More than 16% increase in yield under fertigation (25.21% in the year
2000 and 16.59% in the year 2001) was observed as compared broadcasting
method of fertilizer application when 100% recommended dose of fertilizers was
applied. Similar results of increase in productivity of chilly crop due to fertigation
were reported by (40).

Fertigation irrespective of the combination of fertilizers has been found superior

to the soil application of fertilizers. With only 50% of recommended N through
fertigation, higher yield of tomato and egg plant was obtained compared to
application of full amount of N through conventional method, suggesting that N is
more efficiently utilized when applied with the irrigation water (9). Tu et al (41) in
a 4-year (1998-2001) investigation carried out in south-western Ontario, USA
found that (a) drip-irrigation and fertigation significantly increased tomato yield
over the non-treated control, (b) percentage of tomato fruit with blossom-end rot
was reduced significantly to the negligible level in the drip-irrigated and fertigated
treatments, and (c) drip-fertigation provided significant yield advantage over drip-
irrigation only in the year when rainfall was below normal during the periods of
flowering, fruit set and fruit growth, as experienced in the 2001 season. Darwish
et al (42) studied the impact of N fertigation in potato and reported that fertigation
with continuous N feeding through drip system based on actual N demand and
available N in the soil resulted in 55% N recovery; and for spring potato crop in
this treatment, 44.8% N need was met from the soil N and 21.8% from the
irrigation water. Higher N input increased not only the N derived from fertilizers,
but also the residual soil N. Irrigation at 100% PE + fertigation with 100% N and
K and, 50% PE + fertigation with 100% N and K being at par recorded 67.06%
and 65.78%, respectively higher pod yield of chilli as compared to surface
irrigation at 0.90 IW/CPE ratio + entire NPK as soil application (Table 5).
However, fertigation of 125% of N and K led to marginal decrease in chilli pod
yield over fertigation of 100% of N and K. Fertigation of 75%, 100% and 125% N
and K registered 50.6, 66.8 and 58.6% increase in pod yield, respectively over
soil application of 100% N and K + surface irrigation (Table 6). Hence,
irrespective of the fertilizer dose, there was marked increase in pod yield under
fertigation. In green house grown tomato when the same quantity of water and N
was applied through drip irrigation a significantly higher tomato yield (68.5 t/ha)
was obtained as compared to the yield of 58.4 t/ha and 43.1 t/ha in check basin
method of irrigation when the crop was sown both inside and outside the
greenhouse, respectively (Table 7). Drip irrigation at 0.5 x E pan along with
fertigation of 100% N resulted in increased fruit yield by 59.5% and 116.2% over
the control with recommended practices inside and outside the greenhouse,
respectively. Under control treatments, both inside and outside the greenhouse,
surface irrigation not only resulted in wastage of water through deep percolation
below root zone, but also resulted in the leaching of available plant nutrients,
poor aeration and reduced yield. They also found that drip irrigation at 0.5 x E
pan in the greenhouse caused an increase in the TSS up to 5.70o brix. In drip
irrigation when water was applied in lesser amount, sugar imported by fruits via
phloem was concentrated, which helped in increasing the TSS content and pH of
tomato. These results are in conformity with those reported by (45). Further drip
irrigation at 0.5 x E pan in the greenhouse caused an increase in ascorbic acid
content of tomato by 85.9% over the outdoor surface irrigated crop due to less
amount of water available to the fruits at shorter interval, which caused osmotic
adjustment in the pericarp of tomato and resulted in higher ascorbic acid content
and pH (46). Size of the greenhouse drip irrigated tomato at 0.5 x E pan
irrespective of fertigation increased by 48.5% over the surface irrigated
greenhouse crop and by 122.8% over the surface irrigated outdoor crop,
respectively (Table 7). The root length of plants under drip irrigation at 1.0 x E
pan was less compared to that under drip irrigation at 0.5 x E pan. Osmotic
adjustment and prolonging root cell expansion (47) were ascribed as the causes
for increased root length in mildly stressed plants as compared to well-watered
plants (48). Bafna et al. (49) reported 41% increase in tomato yield under N
application along with drip irrigation at Navsari, Gujarat.

Garlic crop grown under furrow irrigation took up 64 kg P 2O5/ha, while under
fertigation the crop took up 89 kg P2O5/ha (50). The respective crop yields were
19.1 and 29 t/ha. Thus, higher yield potential of the crop under fertigation
increased P demand of plants by almost 50%. Highest yield of 36.29 t/ ha of
fresh tubers was obtained under trickle irrigation as compared to 21.5 t /ha for
the furrow irrigated crop (51). Application of 125% recommended dose of water
soluble fertilizer with fertigation gave the highest yield of onion seed and
improved the yield contributing parameters such as plant height, number of
umbels per plot, number of umbels per plant, diameter of umbel and reduced the
time to 50% flowering, but the yield was at par with 100% recommended dose of
water soluble fertilizers with fertigation (Table 8). Singh et al (53) reported 115.37
and 17.32% increase in broccoli yield with fertigation over drip irrigation and
check basin method, respectively. The corresponding values for radish were
47.57 and 8.83% (Table 9). Significant increase in growth parameters (plant
height, LAI, fruit dry weight, total dry weight), yield components (number of fruits
/plant, mean fruit weight, fruit yield/plat) and total fruit yield was observed with the
application of 100% RDF through fertigation over furrow and drip irrigation and
soil application of fertilizers (14). The increased yield under fertigation might have
resulted due to better water utilization (54), higher uptake of nutrients (49) and
excellent soil–water–air relationship with higher oxygen concentration in the root
zone (55).

Bhakare and Fatkal (52) recorded the benefit cost (B:C) ratio of Rs. 3.30 under
100% RDF applied through water soluble fertilizers in fertigation as against Rs.
2.78 in 100% RDF with conventional fertilizer application and surface irrigation.
Similarly, Muralikrishnasamy et al (43) found B:C ratio of Rs. 1.87 with drip
irrigation at 75% PE +100% N and K through fertigation over Rs. 1.77 with
surface irrigation at 0.90 IW/CPE ratio+ entire NPK as soil application

Fertigation and resource use efficiency:

The fertigation allows application of right quantity of nutrients uniformly to the

wetted root volume, where the active roots are concentrated and this helps
enhance fertilizer use efficiency. This in turn allows reducing the amount of
fertilizer to be applied and ultimately the production costs. Stark et al (56) used
continuous fertigation of surface drip irrigated tomato on sandy soils and they
reported NUE of 60 % even at 600 kg N/ha application. Bhakare and Bhatkal (52)
observed highest FUE when 50% RDF was applied through drip irrigation (Table
8). They found lowest FUE when 100% RDF was applied through conventional
fertilizer application method and irrigation water was applied by surface
application. FUE was significantly higher in 100% NPK fertigation (138 kg
yield/kg NPK) compared to furrow irrigation (81), drip irrigation (103), 50% NPK
fertigation (114) and 75% NPK fertigation (127) in tomato (14). This was due to
better availability of moisture and nutrients throughout the growth stages in drip
and fertigation system leading to better uptake of nutrients and production of
tomato fruits. Fertigation saves fertilizer nutrients as it permits applying fertilizer
in small quantity at a time matching with the plants nutrient need thus, leading to
higher NUE (40, 52). Frequent supply of nutrients with irrigation water in
fertigation treatments significantly increased NPK uptake and recovery over drip
and furrow irrigation (14). The applied NPK in soluble form in fertigation
treatments may have been distributed better through root zone of tomato than
soil applied treatments, thus producing more available amounts for plant uptake.

Bhakare and Bhatkal (52) reported 40% saving of water due to fertigation over
conventional fertilizer application and surface irrigation (Table 8). They also
recorded WUE of 2.37 kg/ha-mm with 125% RDF applied through water soluble
fertilizers with drip irrigation compared to 0.90 kg/ha-mm with 100% RDF through
conventional fertilizers + surface irrigation. Singh et al (53) reported 41 and 51%
saving in water and 187.69 and 123.14% increase in WUE due to fertigation in
broccoli and radish, respectively over check basin method of irrigation (Table 9).
Similarly, drip irrigation at 50% PE + 100% N and K through fertigation recorded
highest water use efficiency, water productivity and water saving in chilli over
farmers’ practice of surface irrigation (0.9 IW/CPE ratio) + entire NPK as soil
application (Table 5). Water and fertilizer savings to the extent of 30 and 70%,
respectively with comparable yield levels was possible under the trickle fertigated
crop as compared to the furrow irrigated crop of potato (51). Higher WUE and
water saving has been reported by other workers also (14, 58, 59).

Nutrient dynamics under fertigation:

Review of available literature gives sufficient indications that fertigated nutrients

remain concentrated near the point of application and thus help in greater
nutrient recovery due to improved nutrient availability in the root zone compared
to conventional method of fertilization. Fertigation has been found to help in
uniform distribution of fertigated nutrients in the crop root zone (Figure 2).
Fertigation maintained higher concentration of NO3-N around roots of tomato at a
depth of 0-25 cm soil layer particularly with 75% (240 mg/kg soil) and 100%
fertigation rates (280 mg/kg soil), compared to entirely soil applied treatments in
furrow (54 mg/kg soil) and drip irrigation (75 mg/kg soil), where most of NO3-N
moved to deeper soil layer (25-50 cm) (14). Higher NO3-N was recorded at the
end of irrigation at 25-50 cm soil layer, in drip and furrow irrigation, which
indicates a potential leaching risk. Singh et al (53) observed that when N was
applied through fertigation in sprouting broccoli, ammonium form of N dominated
in the upper soil layer and almost all the N applied remained confined to the root
zone. At harvest (8 days after last fertigation), the maximum NO3- N
concentration was found within the 30-50 cm layer. In the conventional method of
irrigation (check basin method), the nitrate-N dominated and a significant amount
was lost through leaching. Under the check basin method, NO3- -N moved to
deeper layer with the advance of the crop stage and at the harvest, the NO3-N
peak was found in the 70-90 cm layer, indicating leaching loss of N from the root
zone. Leaching losses of N were also observed in the treatment in which the
fertilizer was applied on soil and water given through drip system. Similarly,
under fertigation the peak values of NO3-N for the points below the emitter (27.16
g/g of dry soil) and 15 cm away from emitter (29.15 g/g of dry soil) was much
higher than those of other points farther away from emitters (ranging from 12.74
to 14.26 g/g of dry soil).

In the case of NH4+-N, maximum concentration in fertigation was in the surface

layers i.e., between 0-40 cm layers with peak values in the surface layer and
decreasing with depth. At the start of experiment NH4+ -N concentration in the
deeper layer was low. But the differences further increased towards the end of
the experiment for all fertigation treatments both horizontally and vertically,
indicating high concentration in the root zone. Whereas in drip system, except for
the point near the emitter, the NH4+ -N concentration did not show any marked
difference and was similar throughout the profile. In check basin method, the
peak values were always found between 20-50 cm depth with minimum NH4+ -N
concentration in the surface (1-10 cm), which was in sharp contrast to fertigation
and drip system, where maximum NH4+ -N concentration was always found in the
surface layers. These results indicate that unlike the conventional methods of
irrigation in fertigation maximum amount of applied N remains concentrated near
the point of application.

Badr and El-Yazied (23) reported considerable influence of combinations of four

fertigation frequencies (1, 3, 7, and 14 day intervals) and two N rates (200 and
300 kg N/ha) on NO3-N distribution in the soil profile. In lower soil profiles (50-70
cm soil depth) residual soil NO3-N concentration under high N rate (300 kg/ha)
was only marginally affected in daily, 3 day and weekly fertigation frequencies
(15, 17 and 21 mg N/kg soil, respectively). However, NO3-N concentration at the
corresponding depth was found high in biweekly fertigation frequency (80 mg N
kg/soil). In the upper part of the soil profile NO3-N was dispersed more uniformly
under daily application, while NO3-N distribution showed a zone of leached N soil
in the immediate vicinity of the drip line for the less frequent application with a
zone of nitrate beyond the leached soil. This may be due to the relatively long
irrigation time after fertigation in less frequent fertigated treatments which caused
leaching of N from the upper soil layers. Reducing the time interval between
successive fertigation application to maintain continuous, optimal water regime in
the root zone, may also reduce the variations in nutrient concentration, thereby
increasing their availability to plants and reducing their leaching beneath the root
zone.

Fate and transport of NO3-N is strongly dependent on the soil water content and
its movement (61). Water mass flow is the major factor responsible for NO 3-N
movement in the soil and it can move fast enough with moving water to deeper
soil layers. Li et al (62, 63) found that NO3-N ion is very mobile in the soil and
fertigation treatments maintained high concentration of NO3-N at shallow depth.

The mobility of phosphate ion in soils is of primary importance in plant nutrition.

Shedeed et al (14) reported that phosphate transport in soil applied treatments
was too slow for the average rate of root growth into the soil, since P fertilizers
are prone to fixation at the point of application. Most of the applied P may be
turned to non-soluble form in a short time after its application, and the observed
concentrations build up in the upper soil layer could affect root growth and create
unfavorable conditions for P uptake. The accumulation of available P at 25-50 cm
was tended to be higher in fertigation treatments (8-15 mg kg/soil) because of
frequency of fertigation and complete solubility of phosphoric acid compared to
soil application in furrow and drip irrigation (3 mg/kg soil) (14).Research done by
others (64, 23) has also shown that the mobility of P can be increased when they
are applied via fertigation.

Surface irrigation Drip Fertigation

irrigation

(Leaching) (Localized) (Uniform )

Figure 2: Nutrient dynamics under surface irrigation, drip
irrigation and fertigation, respectively.
(Source: WTC, TNAU)

Singh et al (53) observed that in fertigation treatment, K was confined to the root
zone of the radish crop, while it moved in significant quantities beyond the root
zone in the conventional method (furrow irrigation). Movement beyond the root
zone was also observed in the soil-based fertilizer application with water through
drip system but to a lesser a degree. Shedeed et al (14) have also reported K
leaching losses when soil applied in furrow and drip irrigated tomato compared to
K fertigation. They found that fertigation with water soluble fertilizers registered
higher available K concentration (194-272 kg/soil) than furrow or drip irrigation. In
sandy soil with low CEC and K fixation, potassium ions move along with water
and thus, it will be prudent to apply K fertilizers through drip irrigation in more
splits to achieve maximum nutrient use efficiency (65, 66).
Frequent supplementation of nutrients with irrigation water increased the
availability of N, P and K in the root zone and which in turn influenced the yield
and quality of tomato (14).

Chemical and biological aspects in fertigation:

Effective fertigation requires an understanding of rate of plant growth including

nutrient requirements and rooting patterns, soil chemistry such as solubility and
mobility of the nutrients, fertilizers chemistry (mixing compatibility, precipitation,
clogging and corrosion) and the quality of water used especially pH, electrical
conductivity, salt and sodium hazards and toxic ions (4).

Temperature and fertilizer solubility: Atmospheric temperature plays critical

role in the solubility of fertilizers (Table 10). The fertilizer solutions stored during
the summer may form precipitates in the autumn due to the diminution of the
solubility when the temperatures decrease. Therefore dilution of the solutions
stored, is necessary at the end of the summer.

Water quality and fertilizer solubility: Irrigation waters containing high amount
of calcium, magnesium and bicarbonates (hard water) and with high pH cause
problems like formation of precipitates in the fertilization tank and clogging of the
drippers and filters. Waters with high calcium content and bicarbonates used for
the fertigation of sulphate containing fertilizers leads to the formation of
precipitate of CaSO4,clogging the drippers and filters of the system. The use of
urea for fertigation with such water induces the precipitation of CaCO3 because
the urea increases the pH of the solution. Besides, irrigation water temperature
and pH also affect the solubility. It may be necessary to lower the pH of the
irrigation water to about 5.5 to keep P in the solution during the fertilizer injection,
and to prevent blockage of the emitters. P application as phosphoric acid is
preferable during the cold weather. It serves to remove precipitates and to supply
P to the slow growing roots.
NH4/NO3 ratio and other nutrient uptake: The main factor affecting pH in the
rhizosphere is NH4/NO3 ratio in the irrigation water, especially in sandy soils with
low buffering capacity. The N form absorbed by plant affects the production of
carboxylates and the cation-anion balance in the plant. When NH4 absorption is
predominant, the plants absorb more cations than anions, and excrete H + ions
through roots in the soil which decreases the rhizosphere pH. Due to ammonium
or nitrate nutrition a fluctuation of the order of 1.5 units in the pH of soil volume
around the roots has been reported (68). According to Ganmore-Neumann and
Kafkafi (69, 70), NH4 is an undesirable source of N for tomato and strawberries
when the temperature in the root zone is greater than 30°C, because it
adversely affects the root growth and pant development. Uptake of NH4 as
nitrogen source by plants decreases the uptake of other cations like Ca2+, Mg2+
and K+. Some plants such as tomato are very sensitive to high ammonium
concentration near the roots; therefore nitrate rich solutions should be selected
(71). At elevated root zone temperature, ammonium might damage the roots by
competing with the sugar needed for root respiration. However in cold root
zones, the ammonium is a safe N source since less sugar is consumed for
respiration by root cells (70).

When NO3- anion is absorbed, the plant takes up more anions than cations and
the excess of anions is palliated by a greater synthesis of carboxylates. During
the carboxylation process, dicarboxylic acids (citric, malic, etc.) and OH- are
produced. Both the carboxylates and the hydroxyls can be exuded by the roots
into the soil. The exuded OH- increases the pH of the rhizosphere. Carboxylate
exudation by the roots increases P availability by releasing the phosphate
specifically adsorbed on iron oxides and clays micelles in the soil solution. The
carboxylates can also increase the availability of Fe and P through chelation, for
example, citrate forms a chelate with Ca and releases P from calcium phosphate
(72, 4).
Therefore, NO3- nutrition should be preferred over ammonium nutrition due to
greater organic acid synthesis and enhanced anion uptake. However, nutrition
with 100% nitrates would increase rhizospheric pH to undesirable levels - values
of more than 8 have been registered - and this would decrease the availability of
P and micronutrients by precipitation (4). Therefore, it is recommended to use N
as mixture with 80% as NO3- and 20% as NH4+ for optimal results. Plant
sensitivity to the N form increases particularly, during the fruiting stage (73).

Water quality, crop susceptibility and fertilizer selection: Crops vary widely
in their tolerance to salts. Fertilizers being salts, increase the EC of the irrigation
water. When brackish waters having EC > 2 dS/m with high salinization hazard
are used for irrigation in crops sensitive to salinity, the amount of accompanying
ions added with the N or K must be decreased (4). For example in crops
sensitive to chloride, KNO3 is preferred over KCl as a source of K to avoid
chloride accumulation in the soil solution. Similarly in the greenhouse crops
grown in containers with very restricted root volume, fertilizers with low salt index
should be used. Sodium fertilizers (NaNO3 or NaH2PO4) are unsuitable due to an
adverse effect of Na on the hydraulic conductivity of the soil and toxic effect on
plant growth and development.

Subsurface drip irrigation and fertigation

Yield responses from various crops indicate that crop yield under subsurface drip
was greater than or equal to that obtained with other irrigation methods, including
surface drip. Laterals can be installed at depths ranging from 0.02 to 0.70 m and
lateral spacing range from 0.25 to 5.0 m. The deep position of tricklers
significantly increases the P and K contents at the center of the root zone. The
enhanced concentration apparently stimulates plant rooting, which together with
the higher nutrient activity in the soil solution, increase P and K uptake rates,
which in turn facilitate greater dry matter production and commercial yield than
that, obtained with surface trickler placement (74). Thompson et al (25) found
that for broccoli production with subsurface-drip irrigation on sandy loam or finer
soils, fertigation can be applied as infrequently as monthly, without compromising
crop yield or quality, or causing excessive N losses. In addition to cost
effectiveness and energy saving, the subsurface drip fertigation has added
agronomic advantages over the surface drip fertigation including higher NUE and
reduced evaporation and weed germination as the surface 4-5 cm soil layer
remains dry.

Fertigation in greenhouse crops

When vegetables are grown in greenhouses, fertigation remains the most

effective way of water and nutrient application not only for agronomic benefits but
also for technical feasibility. In greenhouses growing plants in containers allows
the collection of the leaching water and its comparison with the applied fertigation
solution. The measurement of pH, electrical conductivity (EC) and nutrient
concentration in the leached solution indicates whether the fertilizer applied is in
optimum, excess or lower quantity, and therefore allows for the consecutive
correction of the fertigation regime (4). It is recommended to collect the leached
solution from the containers and the solution that leaves the drippers to compare
the pH and EC of both the solutions on a daily basis. Automatic computerized
devices that measure pH and EC of both solutions can be used to automatically
correct the next irrigation solution according to optimal values entered
beforehand.

Electric Conductivity: A higher value of EC in the leached solution than in the

applied solution indicates that the plant absorbs more nutrients than water,
therefore we must apply greater amount of water to the plant. If the difference
between the EC of the leached solution and the fertigation solution is more than
0.4-0.5 dS/m, we must apply a leaching irrigation in order to wash the excess
salts (4).

Chlorides: An impaired management of the irrigation regime may lead to an

unwanted accumulation of Cl ions in the irrigation water. If the Cl concentration in
the leachate is higher than the Cl concentration in the incoming solution and>
50mg/L, it indicates a chloride accumulation in the root zone. It requires applying
irrigation without fertilizers to leach the chlorides below root zone.

pH: The optimum pH of the irrigation solution must be around 6 and the pH of the
leaching solution should not exceed 8.5. An alkaline pH of the leaching water
indicates that pH in the root zone reached a value that would cause P
precipitation and decrease micronutrient availability. When pH of the leachate
water is higher than 8.5, it is essential to adjust the NH4/NO3 ratio of the
fertigation solution by increasing slightly the proportion of NH4 over NO3.

Methods of fertigation

Four methods of fertigation used are:

1. Continuous application: Fertiliser is applied at a constant rate from start to the

end of the irrigation cycle. The total amount of fertilizers is injected regardless
of water discharge rate.

2. Three-stage application: Irrigation starts without fertilisers. Injection begins

when the ground is wet. Injection is stopped before the irrigation cycle is
completed. Remainder of the irrigation cycle allows the fertiliser to be flushed
out of the system for the system cleansing.
3. Proportional application: The injection rate is proportional to the water
discharge rate, e.g. one liter of fertilizer solution is mixed into 1000 litres of
irrigation water. This method has the advantage of being extremely simple
and allows for increased fertigation during the periods of high water demand
and when most amounts of nutrients are required.

4. Quantitative application: Nutrient solution is applied in a calculated amount to

each irrigation block, e.g. 20 litres to block A, 40 litres to block B. This method
is suited to automation and allows the placement of the nutrients by
controlling precisely.

Constraints and their solution for successful adoption of fertigation:

1. The high cost of establishing fertigation systems has confined this irrigation
method to locations where labour is expensive, water is scarce, and the crops
grown have a rich market that can cover high investment. This has prevented
a large scale adoption of this technology in countries like India where majority
of farmers are resource poor.

The high cost of fertigation through drip system can be brought down by
adopting the cost reduction measures like use of micro tubes (Figure 3) and
adoption of paired row system and through other innovative approaches. .
Under paired row system one drip line is laid out in between two rows of the
crop. Besides, the government might enhance the amount of subsidy given
particularly to small and marginal farmers.
 Figure 3: Cost reduction in drip lay out with micro tubes in the
turmeric crop. (Source: 60)

2. Clogging of lines: Precipitation of insoluble di-calcium phosphate, di-

magnesium phosphate and calcium carbonate, could develop when high pH
water is used. Iron phosphate, originating from wells containing divalent iron,
might precipitate in drip lines even at low water pH. Water containing high
concentration of Mg ions might cause ammonium magnesium phosphate
precipitation in the fertilizer tank. Fertigation increases the quantity of nutrients
present in an irrigation system and this can lead to increased bacteria, algae
and slime in the system which can cause clogging of the system.

In the case of clogging of the drip system by bicarbonate precipitation, the use
of fertilizers with acid reaction partially corrects this problem. However, acid
fertilizers cause corrosion of the metallic components of the irrigation system
and damage the cement and asbestos pipes. Therefore, a periodic injection of
acid in the fertigation system is recommended to dissolve the precipitated
material and unclog the drippers. The acids like phosphoric, nitric, sulphuric
and chlorhydric acid can be used for this purpose. However, HCl is preferred
due to its low cost. Acid injection through the system will also remove
 bacteria, algae and slime. The irrigation and injection system should be
carefully washed after the injection of the acid.

Bacteria, algae and slime in the system can be removed at regular intervals
by injection of chlorine or acid through the system. Chlorine injection should
not be used while fertiliser is being injected into the system as the chlorine
may tie up these nutrients making them unavailable to the plant. Systems
should always be flushed of nutrients before completion of irrigation. Before
commencing a fertigation program, fertiliser compatibilities and solubility
should be checked.

3. Salt injury: The salts accumulated at the wet zone periphery can reach very
high levels and a single flush of rain could wash this salt into the root zone
and cause considerable damage to plants. In an arid climate zone, where the
evaporation rate is high, mobile nutrient anions (NO3- and Cl-) together with
the cations Na+ and Ca2+ may accumulate around the wet zone periphery on
the soil surface. This zone of highly concentrated soluble salts is detrimental
to young seedlings because their restricted root system might be exposed to
high salt concentrations, even with good quality water.

A correct irrigation management under saline conditions includes water

application over the evaporation needs of the crop so that there is excess
water to pass through beyond the root zone and carrying away the salts with
it. This leaching prevents excessive salt accumulation in the root zone and is
referred as leaching requirement (75). Further, there is a competitive
antagonistic effect between NO3- and Cl- anions; the presence of Cl- ion
reduces the absorption of NO3- and vice versa (76). Therefore, under saline
conditions, the damage by salinity can be reduced by fertilizing with NO3-. The
NO3- ions will be preferably absorbed over the Cl- ions.
4. Nutrient deficiency: On heavy clay soils, a zone of water ponding might
develop under the trickler outlets. In this wet soil volume, at high soil
temperature, local anaerobic conditions might cause severe nitrate-N loss by
denitrification (77). Under such conditions, plants might suffer from N
deficiency even if they receive regular N supply through fertigation. In such
cases, low concentration of N in the form of urea or ammonium sources in the
irrigation solution might prevent N loss by denitrification and the resulting N
deficiency. The rate of water discharge from a dripper should not exceed the
rate of water entry into the soil from a point source. The hydrolysis of applied
urea can result in ammonia toxicity and loss of N as NH3 volatilization, but
acidification of the irrigation water prevents loss of N from urea by ammonia
volatilization.

5. Oxygen deficiency: Maintenance of the water potential by frequent irrigation

at continuous low water tension, especially in clay soils might lead to a sub-
optimal supply of oxygen in the root zone (78). Roots respond within minutes
to a reduction in oxygen supply by cessation of root extension, and the
elongation zone of a cotton root, for example, dies after only 30 minutes
without oxygen (79). Under drip irrigation, oxygen might be excluded from the
saturation zone when there is a continuous supply of water at higher regime in
the wet soil volume. Therefore, to safeguard the plants against sub-optimal O2
supply, the delivery of optimum amount of H2O through drip system is
essential.

Conclusions:

Fertigation provides a variety of benefits to the users like high crop productivity
and quality, resource use efficiency, environmental safety, flexibility in field
operations, effective weed management, and successful crop cultivation on fields
with undulating topography. Fertigation is considered eco-friendly as it avoids the
leaching of nutrients especially N-NO3 (80). Fertigation has been found as one of
most successful way of water and nutrient particularly N, K and micronutrient
application through drip system. Yield advantages have been reported across the
wide range of crops under diverse agro-climatic situations. Vegetables have
been found particularly responsive to fertigation due to their wide spacing nature,
continuous need of water and nutrients at optimal rate to give high yield with
good quality, high capital turn over to investments and may be their cultivation by
more skilled farmers. Eventhough the initial cost of establishing the fertigation
system is higher but in long term basis it is economical compared to conventional
methods of fertilization as it brings down the cost of cultivation. However, to get
the desired results it requires higher management skills at operator level like
selection of fertilizers, timing and rate of fertilizer injection, watering schedule, as
well as the maintenance of the system. Users may face some practical problems
in the field like clogging of emitters, salt injury to the plants, and wilting of
individual plants due to nutrient deficiency and restricted root respiration because
of water logging particularly in heavy clay soils. But such problems can be
overcome through effective management skills of the users which build up over
the time with the use of the system. Therefore, to make the agriculture
sustainable and economically viable and to ensure food and nutritional security of
the burgeoning population there is need to promote the fertigation at large scale
by the concerned stakeholders.

Future needs:

There is need to develop recommendations for the most suitable fertilizer

formulations including the basic nutrients (NPK) and microelements according to
the local soil type, climate, crops and their physiological stages, and other factors
like nutrient mobility in the soil and salinity. Further, there is need to work on
reducing the initial cost of establishment through continuous research and
development in technology which suits best to Indian conditions.
References:

1. Reinders, F.B. Micro-irrigation: World overview on technology and utilization.

Keynote address at the opening of the 7th International Micro-Irrigation
Congress in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia (2007).
http://www.icid.org/nletter/micro_nl2006_4.pdf.

2. Patel, N. and Rajput, T. B. S. Effect of fertigation on growth and yield of onion.

Micro Irrigation, CBIP Publication, no 282, p 451.(2001).

3. Sagiv, B. and Kafkafi, U. Fertilization and manuring of pepper plants in sandy

sois. Hassadeh, 56 (10): 1726-1730 (in Hebrew). (1976).

4. Imas, P. Recent techniques in fertigation of horticultural crops in Israel. In IPI-

PRII-KKV Workshop on: Recent Trends in Nutrition Management in
Horticultural crops, 11-12 February 1999. Dapoli, Maharashtra, India.
(1999). http://www/ipipotash.org/presentn/qaknhc.html.

5. Kafkafi, U. Global aspects of fertigation usage. In fertigation: optimizing the

utilization of water and nutrients (Imas, P. and Price, R, eds.),
fertigation proceedings: selected papers of the IPI-NATESC -CAU-
CAAS international symposium on fertigation, Beijing, China, 20-24
september, 2005.
http://www.ipipotash.org/udocs/IPI_Proceeedings_Fertigation_Symposi
um_China_Sept_05.pdf

6. Rolston, D.E., Rauschkolb, R.S., Phene, C.J., Miller, R.J., Urier, K., Carlson,
R.M., and Hinderson, D.W. Applying nutrients and other chemicals to
 trickle irrigated crops. California Division of Agricultural Sciences
Bulletin 1893. (1981).

7. Patel, N. and Rajput, T.B.S. IE (I) Journal.AG, Vol 85, pp. 50-54 (2004).

8. Xu, G.H., Magen, H., Tarchitzky, J. and Kafkafi, U. Adv agron 68:97-150
(2000).

9. Papadopoulos, I. and Ristimäki Leena, M. Nitrogen and phosphorus fertigation

of tomato and eggplant. In: ISHS Acta Horticulturae 511: XXV
International Horticultural Congress, Part 1: Culture Techniques with
Special Emphasis on Environmental Implications - Nutrient
Management (2000). Accessed at
http://www.actahort.org/books/511/index.htm, dated 09/10/2010.

10. Dangler, J.M., and Locasio, S.J. J Americ Soc for Horticul Sci 115:585-589
(1990).

11. Locascio, S.J. and Smajstrla, A.G. Drip irrigated tomato as affected by water
quantity and N and K application timing. In Proceedings of the Florida
State Horticultural Society 102:307-309 (1989).

12. Locascio, S.J., Hochmuth, G.J., Rhoads, F.M., Olson, S.M., Smajstrla, A.G.
and Hanlon, E.A. Hort Science 32; 230-235 (1997).

13. Hartz, T. Drip irrigation and fertigation management of celery. Celery Grower
Guidelines. Vegetable Research and Information Center (2000).
Accessed at
http://www.irrometer.com/pdf/research/Drip_Irrigation_Fertigation_Man
agement_%20Celery-Celery_Grower_guidelines.pdf, dated 10/06/2010.

14. Shedeed, S. I., Zaghloul, S. M., Yassen, A. A. Ozean Journal App Sci
2(2):139-147 (2009).
15. Aramini, G., Catania, F., Colloca, L., Oppedisano, R. and Paone, R. Colture-
Protette 24 (5), 83–86 (1995).

16. Scaife, A. and B. Bar Yosef. 1995. Fertilizing for high yield and quality
vegetables. IPI bulletin 13, Basel, Switzerland.

17. Khan, M. M., Shivashankar, K., Farooqui, A. A., Krishna Manohar, Kariyanna,
R. and Sreerama, R. Research highlights of studies on fertigation in
horticultural crops. PDC, GKVK, UAS Bangalore, p 28 (2001).

18. Hartz, T.K., and Hochmuth, G.J. Hort. Tech. 6:168-172 (1996).

19. Silver, A. 2010. Fertigation: complimentary step for maximizing fertilizer use
efficiency and crop productivity. Paper presented during International
Conference on Plant Nutrition jointly organized by Infinitus Agri and
ICRISAT, Hyderabad during August 11-13, 2010 at ICRISAT,
Patancheru, Hyderabad.

20. Sousa, V.F., Coelho, E.F. and Souza, V.B. Pesquisa Agropecuaria Brasileira
34(4): 659-664 (1999).

21. Cook, W.P. and Sanders, D.C. Hort. Sci. 26: 250-252(1991).

22. Nwadukwe, P.O. and Chude, V.O. Nutr Cycl in Agroecosyst. 40 (2): 85-88
(1994).

23. Badr, M.A. and Abou El-Yazied, A.A. Aust J Basic and App Sci, 1(3): 279-
285 (2007).

24. Patel, N. and Rajput, T.B.S. Ind J. Agric. Sci., 75, (11): 725-730 (2005).
25. Thompson, Thomas L., White, Scott A., Walworth, James and Sower, Greg J.
Fertigation Frequency for Subsurface Drip-Irrigated Broccoli. Soil
Science Society of America Journal 67:910-918 (2003).

26. Neary, P.E., Storlie,C.A. and Paterson, J.W. In Microirrigation for a changing
world: Conserving resources/preserving the environment. (Lamm, F.R.
ed), pp. 187–193. ASAE Publ. 4–95. ASAE, St. Joseph, M (1995).

27. Locascio, S.J., and Smajstrla, A.G. In Microirrigation for a changing world:
Conserving resources/preserving the environment. (Lamm, F.R. ed),
pp. 175-180. ASAE Publ. 4–95. ASAE, St. Joseph, M (1995).

28. Bar- Yosef, B. Agronomy Journal 69:486-491 (1977).

29. Locascio, S.J., Olson, S.M. and Rhoads, F.M. J of the Americ Soc of Horticul
Sci 114:265-268 (1989).

30. Phene, C.J., Hoffman, G.J., Austin, R.S. Transactions of the American
Society of Agricultural Engineers 16: 773-776 (1973).

31. Smajstrla, A.G., Zazueta, F.S., Clark, G.A., and Pitts, D.J. Irrigation
scheduling with evaporation pans. Florida Cooperative Extension
Service Bulletin 254. University of Florida, Gainesvlle, Fla (2000).

32. Olson, S.M., and Rhoads, F.M. Proceedings of the Florida state Horticultural
Society 94: 163-166 (1981).

33. Pitts, D.J., and Clark, G.A. Applied Engineering in Agriculture 7:177-184
(1991).

34. Locascio, S.J. and Smajstrla, A.G. J of the Americ Soc of Horticul Sci 121:63-
68 (1996).
35. Smajstrla, A.G. and Locascio, S.J. Automated drip irrigation scheduling of
tomato using tensiometers. p. 845-850. In: Camp, C.R.E.J. Sadler, and
R.E. Yoder (eds.). Evapotranspiration and irrigation scheduling.
American Society of Agricultural Engineering San Antonio, TX (1996).

36. Eldredge, E.P, Shock, C.C. and Stieber, T.E. Agronomy Journal 85:1228-
1232 (1993).

37. Topp, G.C., Davis, J.L., Bailey, W.G. and Zebchuk, W.D. Canad J of Soil Sci
64: 313-321 (1984).

38. Eger, J.E., Gilreath, J.P. and Noling, J.W. Effect of irrigation times on wetting
patterns in Florida vegetable sols. In Proceedings of the Annual
International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and
Emission Reduction, San Diego, pp. 48-1to 48-4 (2001).

39. Simonne, E.H., Studstill, D.W., Hochmuth, R.C., McAvoy, G., Dukes, M.D.
and Olson, S. Proceedings of the Florida State Horticultural Society
116:88-91 (2003).

40. Veeranna H K, Khalak Abdul , Farooqui, A A and Sujith G M .Effect of

Fertigation with Normal and Water-soluble Fertilizers Compared to Drip
and Furrow Methods on Yield Fertilizer and Irrigation Water Use
Efficiency in Chilli. Micro Irrigation, CBIP Publication, no 282, p.
461(2001).

41. Tu, J. C., Liptay, A., Tan, C.S., Drury, C.F. and Reynolds, D. Effect of drip
irrigation and drip fertigation on yield of processing tomato in south-
western Ontario. ISHS Acta Horticulturae 635: XXVI International
Horticultural Congress: Managing Soil-Borne Pathogens: A Sound
Rhizosphere to Improve Productivity in Intensive Horticultural Systems
 (2000). Accessed at http://www.actahort.org/books/511/index.htm,
dated 09/10/2010.

42. Darwish, T., Atallah, T., Hajhasan, S. and Chranek, A. Nutr Cycl in
Agroecosyst. 67(1):1-11 (2003).

43. Muralikrishnasamy, S., Veerabadran, V., Krishnasamy, S., Kumar, V., and
Sakthivel, S. Drip irrigation and fertigation in chillies (capsicum
annuum). 7th International Micro Irrigation Congress.
http://www.google.co.in/#hl=en&source=hp&biw=1020&bih=535&q=DRI
P+IRRIGATION+AND+FERTIGATION+IN+CHILLIES&btnG=Google+S
earch&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=DRIP+IRRIGATION+AND+FERTIGATION
+IN+CHILLIES&gs_rfai=&fp=9bd00777b959aeb1.

44. Mahajan, G. and Singh, K.G. Agricultural water management 8 4:2 02 – 2 06

(2006).

45. Elkner, K. and Kaniszewski, S. Acta Horti. 379, 175-180 (1995).

46. Mitchell, J.P., Shennan, C., Grattan, S.R. Physiol. Plant. 83, 177-185 (1991).

47. Sharp, R.E., Hsiao, T.C., Silk, W.K. Plant Physiol. 93, 1337-1346 (1990).

48. Jupp, A.P., Newman, E.I. New Phytol. 105, 393–402 (1987).

49. Bafna, A.M., Daftardar, S.Y., Khade, K.K., Patel, V.V., Dhotre, R.S. J. Water
Manage. 1 (1):1–5 (1993).

50. Castellanos, J.Z., Ojodeagua, J.L., Mendez, F., Villalobos-Reyes, S., Badillo,
V., Vargas, P. and Lazcano-Ferrat, I.Better Crops International 15 (2):
21-23( 2001).
51. Chawla, J.K. and Narda, N.K. Irrigation and Drainage 50 (2):129-137 (2001).

52. Bhakare, B.D. and Fatkal, Y.D. J of water manageme 16(1) pp. 35-39 (2008).

53. Singh, A.K., Chakraborty, D., Mishra, P., and Singh, D.K. Nitrogen and
potassium dynamics in fertigation systems. In 17th WCSS, Thailand, 14-
21 August, 1045: 1-10 (2002).

54. Manfrinato, H.A. Effect of drip irrigation on soil water plant relationship.
Second International Drip Irrigation Congress, pp. 446–451 (1971).

55. Gornat, B., Goldberg, D., Rimon, D. and Asher Ben, J. J. Am. Soc. Horti. Sci.
98 (2), 202–205 (1973).

56. Stark, J.C., W.M. Jarrell, J. Letey, and N. Valoras. Agron. J. 75:672–
676(1983).

57. Bhoi, P. G., Pawar, D. D., Raskar, B. S., Bangar, A. R. and Shinde, S. H.
Effects of Water-soluble Fertilizers through Drip on Growth Yield and
Quality of Suru Sugarcane. Micro Irrigation, CBIP Publication, no 282, p
520 (2001).

58. Rhoads, F.M., Olson, S.M., Hochmuth, G.J. and Hanlon, E.A. Yield and
petiole-sap nitrate levels of tomato with N rates applied preplant or
fertigated. Soil Crop Sci. Soc. Fla. Proc. 55:9-12 (1996).

59. Singandhupe, R.B., Rao, G.G., Patil, N.G. and Brahmanand, P.S. Europ. J.
Agron., 19: 327-340 (2003).

60. Water Technology Centre, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore,

India. Expanding drip fertigation technology. Accessed at,
http://www.tnau.ac.in/tech/swc/fertigation.pdf
61. Santos, D.V., Sousa, P.L. and Smith, R.E. Agricultural Water Manage, 32:
293-306 (1997).
62. Li, J., Zhang, J. and Ren, L. Irrig. Sci., 22: 19-30 (2003).

63. Li, J., Zhang, J. and Rao, M. Agricultural Water Management, 67: 89-
104(2004).
64. Vasane, S.R., Bhoi, P.G., Patil, A.S. and Tumbare, A.D. J. Maharashtra
Agric. Univ. 21 (3): 488-489 (1996).

65. Hanson, B.R., Simunek, J. and Hopmans, J.W. Agricultural Water

Management, 86: 102-113 (2006).

66. Rivera, R.N., Duarte, S.N., DE Miranda, J.H. and Botrel, T.A. Eng. Agríc.,
Jaboticabal, 26 (2): 388-394 (2006).

67. Wolf, B., Fleming, J. and Batchelor, J. Fluid fertilizer manual. Vol. 1. National
fertilizer solutions Associatio, Peoria, II (1985).

68. Barber, S.A. Soil Nutrient Availability: A Mechanistic Approach. John Wiley
and Sons, Inc., NY. (1984).

69. Ganmore-Neumann, R. and Kafkafi, U. Agron. J. 72:758-761(1980).

70. Ganmore-Neumann, R. and Kafkafi, U. Agron. J. 75: 941-947(1983).

71. Kafkafi, U., Walerstein, I., and Feigenbaum, S. J of Agricul Res 21;13-30
(1971).
72. Imas, P., Bar-Yosef, B., Kafkafi, U. and Ganmore-Neumann, R. Plant and
Soil 191: 27-34(1997).
73. Xu, G.H., Wolf, S., and Kafkafi, U. J of Plant Nutri 24:1099-1116 (2001).

74. Hernandez, J.J.M., Bar-Yosef, B., and Kafkafi, U. Irrig Sci. 12:153-159
(1999).
75. Rhoades, J.D. and J. Loveday. Salinity in irrigated agriculture. In: Irrigation of
Agricultural Crops. B.A. Stewars and D.R.Nielsen (Eds.). ASA-CSAA-
SSSA, Madison, WI. pp 1089-1142(1990).

76. Imas, P. 1991. Yield-Transpiration relationships under different nutrition

conditions. M.Sc. Thesis, presented to the Hebrew University of
Jerusalem.

77. Bar-Yosef, B. Advances in Agronomy. 65:1-77 (1999).

78. Silberbush, M., Gornat, M., and Goldberg, D. Plant and Soil 52:507-514
(1979).

79. Klepper, B. 1991. Irrig Sci 21:13-30 (1991).

80. Shivashankar K., Khan M. M. and Farooqui A. A. Fertigation Studies with

Water Soluble NPK Fertilizers in Crop Production.UAS Bangalore, p 32
(1998).

81. Locascio, S.J., Myers, J.M. and Kostewicz, S.R. Quantity and rate of water
application for drip irrigated tomatoes. Proceedings of the Florida State
Horticultural Society 94:163-166 (1981).
Table1- Utilization of Micro-Irrigation in world.

Year 1981 1986 1991 2000 2006

Area (ha) 436 590 1 030 578 1 826 287 3 201 300 6 089 534

% increase 136.1 77.2 75.3 90.2

Source: (1)
Table 2- Daily consumption rate of nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P) and potassium (K) (kg ha-1 day-
1
) of selected vegetables grown under drip irrigation after emergence or planting
Days Tomato Tomato
Eggplant Broccoli Melon
planting/ greenhouse industry
emergence N P K N P K N P K N P K N P K
1-10 1.00 0.10 2.00 0.10 0.02 0.10 0.05 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.15 0.03 0.10
11-20 1.00 0.10 4.00 0.50 0.05 0.30 0.10 0.01 0.00 0.07 0.01 0.02 0.20 0.03 0.25
21-30 1.00 0.10 3.50 1.00 0.16 2.00 0.20 0.01 0.30 1.08 0.12 0.74 0.35 0.07 0.60
31-40 2.50 0.20 3.50 2.80 0.19 2.30 0.25 0.01 0.80 1.22 0.13 0.91 0.90 0.18 1.45
41-50 2.50 0.40 5.50 4.50 0.75 8.00 3.20 0.02 4.90 1.75 0.20 1.35 1.30 0.25 3.00
51-60 2.50 0.60 6.00 6.50 0.80 8.50 2.90 0.08 7.20 1.04 0.13 3.04 2.50 0.25 6.00
61-70 2.50 0.30 4.00 7.50 1.80 9.00 0.25 0.09 1.30 3.02 0.36 4.34 4.30 0.35 7.00
71-80 2.50 0.30 6.00 3.50 0.50 4.50 0.25 0.05 0.50 3.41 0.46 3.95 2.40 0.45 8.00
81-90 1.50 0.30 0.10 5.00 0.50 9.20 0.25 0.05 0.50 2.79 0.38 4.09 1.20 0.43 7.50
91-100 1.50 0.10 0.10 8.00 0.89 9.00 0.25 0.05 0.50 2.09 0.32 3.13 1.00 0.27 3.50
101-110 1.00 0.10 0.10 - - - 0.25 0.09 2.00 0.93 0.18 2.74 0.50 0.13 1.00
111-120 1.00 0.10 1.00 - - - 1.20 0.15 3.00 0.20 0.09 0.96 0.30 0.07 0.05
121-130 1.50 0.20 1.00 - - - 2.40 0.27 3.00 0.18 0.09 0.48 - - -
131-150 1.50 0.35 1.30 - - - 2.60 0.31 3.00 0.15 0.04 - - - -
151-180 4.00 0.50 3.80 - - - 2.30 0.38 1.60 - - - - - -
181-200 2.00 0.30 3.00 - - - 1.90 0.35 1.60 - - - - - -
TOTAL 450 65 710 393 59 520 290 33 380 202 26 165 151 25 385
variety F-144 VFM82-1-2 Black Oval Woltam Galia
Date em./pl. 25 Sep** 27 Mar* 10 Sep** 30 Aug** 14 Jan
Harvest selective 18 Jul selective 17 Jan selective
Plants/ha 23,000 50,000 12,500 33,000 25,000
Soil Sandy clay sandy loam sandy
Yield (t/ha) 195 160 51 13 56
* emergence ** planting
Source: (16)
Table 3- Nutrient requirement of open field tomato according to its physiological stages.
Ratio Kg/ha/day
Physiological Stage Days
N P2O5 K2O N P2O5 K2O
Planting - Flowering 25 1 1 1 1.6 1.6 1.6
Flowering - Fruit Set 20 1 0.5 1.5 2.1 1.0 3.1
Fruit Set- Fruit Ripening 25 1 0.3 2 2.8 0.6 5.6
Fruit Ripening-Harvest 35 1 03 2 3.6 0.6 7.2
Total 105 280 90 500
Fertilization program:
Physiological Stage Fertilizers kg/ha/day **
Planting-Flowering 20-20-20 8
Flowering - Fruit Set 14-7-21 15
Fruit Set- Fruit Ripening 14-3-28 20
Fruit Ripening-Harvest 14-3-28 26
** Plants are irrigated every 3-5 days in heavy soils, and every 2-3 days in light soils. To
calculate the fertilizer dose at each irrigation, multiply the daily amount of fertilizer by the
days interval between irrigation cycles. Source: (4)
Table 4- Nitrogen (N) uptake, N recovery and NUE by tomato plants as influenced by N application rate and
fertigation frequency (the results are the mean of two seasons).

N rate Fertigation Tomato yield (t/ha) Mean Fruit yield N uptake (kg/ha) N NUE
kg/ha frequency fruit (kg/plant) recover
Fruits shoots weight Leaves Fruits Total y%
(g)

200 Daily 52.54 3.45 85.8 1.75 56 103 159 68 240

3 days 50.76 3.38 83.6 1.63 51 99 150 64 231

Weakly 49.18 3.29 82.3 1.63 45 93 138 58 223

Biweekly 42.37 2.80 79.0 1.39 34 85 119 48 189

300 Daily 67.75 4.11 97.9 2.27 68 147 215 64 211

3 days 65.13 3.95 94.7 2.13 62 135 197 58 202

Weakly 63.29 3.87 93.5 2.02 56 127 183 53 196

Biweekly 54.35 3.30 104.8 1.76 43 103 146 41 166

CD (P=0.05) 4.76 0.38 16.4 0.15 7 16 24 - 14

Source: (23)
Table 5- Effects of drip fertigation on dry pod yield, water saving, water use efficiency, water productivity and B:C ratio
in chillies ( the results are the pooled means).

Treatments Dry pod % water WUE Water B:C

yield savings (kg/ha produ ratio
(kg/ha) over /mm) ctivity
farmers’ (Rs/m
3
method )

Surface irrigation at 0.90 IW/CPE ratio+ entire NPK as soil application 1327 - 2.3 2.0 1.77

Drip irrigation at 100% PE + 75% N and K through fertigation 1989 - 3.1 2.5 1.67

Drip irrigation at 100% PE + 100% N and K through fertigation 2217 - 3.4 3.2 1.86

Drip irrigation at 100% PE + 125% N and K through fertigation 2117 - 3.3 2.9 1.78

Drip irrigation at 75% PE + 75% N and K through fertigation 1993 15.9 4.1 3.3 1.67

Drip irrigation at 75% PE +100% N and K through fertigation 2222 15.9 4.6 4.2 1.87

Drip irrigation at 75% PE + 125% N and K through fertigation 2123 15.9 4.4 3.8 1.78

Drip irrigation at 50% PE + 75% N and K through fertigation 2015 36.9 6.0 4.9 1.69

Drip irrigation at 50% PE + 100% N and K through fertigation 2200 36.9 6.5 6.0 1.85

Drip irrigation at 50% PE + 125% N and K through fertigation 2075 36.9 6.1 5.2 1.74

SEd 86

CD(p=0.05) 186

Source: (43)
Table 6- Dry pod yield increase (%) due to fertigation and drip irrigation systems
Treatments % increase in dry pod Treatments % increase in dry pod
yield due to fertigation yield due to drip irrigation
over soil application of over soil application of
100% N and K 100% N and K

Fertigation of Drip irrigation

50.6 58.8
75% N and K at 50% PE

Fertigation of Drip irrigation

66.8 59.2
100% N and K at 75% PE

Fertigation of Drip irrigation

58.6 58.0
125% N and K at 100% PE

Source: (43)
Table 7- Effect of fertigation and irrigation scheduling on the quality parameters of greenhouse- grown tomato.

Treatments Pooled Tomato Root Pooled TSS Ascorbic pH

fruit fruit length WUE (0 acid
yield size (m) (t/ha-mm) brix) (mg/100
(t/ha) (cm3) ml
of juice)

T1 G.H.C. + Drip irrigation 0.5 x Epan + 100% N 93.2 36.6 49.3 0.224 5.70 42.2 4.29

T2 G.H.C. + Drip irrigation 0.5 x Epan + 125% N 95.9 36.0 49.2 0.231 5.69 42.2 4.29

T3 G.H.C. + Drip irrigation 0.5 x Epan + 150% N 76.8 35.8 42.7 0.185 5.68 42.1 4.28

T4 G.H.C. + Drip irrigation 1.0 x Epan + 100% N 68.5 34.8 23.0 0.088 5.54 41.6 4.27

T5 G.H.C. + Drip irrigation 1.0 x Epan + 125% N 75.6 35.2 21.7 0.097 5.54 41.6 4.28

T6 G.H.C. + Drip irrigation 1.0 x Epan + 150% N 72.6 35.3 20.7 0.093 5.58 41.5 4.27

T7 G.H.C. + Control (100% N + surface irrigated) 58.4 24.3 20.4 0.073 5.18 37.6 4.17

T8 N.G.H.C + Control (100% N + surface irrigated) 43.1 16.2 16.6 0.053 4.64 22.7 3.90

LSD (0.05) 7.5 2.5 3.0 - 0.14 1.5 0.08

G.H.C, Greenhouse crop; N.G.H.C., non-Greenhouse crop.

Source: (44)
Table 8- Effects of surface and drip irrigation with fertigation on onion seed yield
parameters, B:C ratio, water saved, water use efficiency and fertiliser use efficiency

Treatments Onion B:C ratio Water WUE Fertilizer use

seed (Rs/ Re saved (%) (kg/ha- efficiency
yield invested) mm) (kg seed/kg
(t/ha) nutrient
applied)

100% RDF CFA + SI 0.66 2.78 - 0.90 2.62

100% RDF CFA + DI 0.76 2.84 39.88 1.75 3.05

100% RDF + N through 0.81 3.01 39.88 1.86 3.24

DI

125% RDF* + DI 1.03 3.27 39.88 2.37 3.31

100% RDF* + DI 1.00 3.30 39.88 2.30 4.01

75% RDF* + DI 0.91 3.14 39.88 2.09 4.87

50% RDF* + DI 0.80 2.85 39.88 1.83 6.38

S.E. + 0.01 - - -

CD at 5% 0.03 - - -

RDF – Recommended dose of fertilizer; CFA- Conventional fertilizer application; SI-

Surface irrigation; DI- Drip irrigation * RDF applied through water soluble fertilizers

Source: (52)
Table 9- Yield and water use efficiency (WUE) of broccoli and radish under various
treatments.

Treatments Broccoli Radish

Water Water
Yield WUE Yield WUE
applied applied
(Kg/ha) (kg/ha/mm) (Kg/ha) (kg/ha/mm)
(mm) (mm)

Fertigation 4301 217 18.70 15200 205 74.15

Drip
2343 217 10.87 11200 205 54.63
irrigation

Check basin 1997 306 6.50 10300 310 33.23

Source: (53)

Table 10- Fertilizer salt solubility in water (g/100 g water) at various temperatures
Temperature KCl K2SO4 KNO3 NH4NO3 Urea
10°C 31 9 21 158 84
20°C 34 11 31 195 105
30°C 37
Source: (67)