RESEARCH ARTICLE

Effect of Drip Fertigation Scheduling on Fertilizer Use Efficiency,Leaf Nutrient Status, Yield and Quality of ‘Shweta’ Guava(Psidium guajava L.) Under Meadow Orcharding

Ramniwas • R. A. Kaushik • Sunil Pareek •

D. K. Sarolia • Virendra Singh

Received: 12 December 2012 / Revised: 9 March 2013 / Accepted: 1 May 2013 / Published online: 6 October 2013

� The National Academy of Sciences, India 2013

Abstract To find out the effect of drip fertigation

scheduling on fertilizer use efficiency, leaf nutrient status,

yield and quality of 3-year-old ‘Shweta’ guava (Psidium

guajava L.) under meadow orcharding, 16 treatment

combinations were tried. Treatments comprises with four

irrigation [(basin (I0), 50 % (I1), 75 % (I2) and 100 % (I3)

irrigation of irrigation water/cumulative pan evaporation)]

and four fertigation levels [basal dose (F0), 50 % (F1),

75 % (F2) and 100 % (F3) water soluble fertilizers]. The

experiments were laid out in factorial randomized block

design. Seventy five percentage irrigation of irrigation

water/cumulative pan evaporation through drip resulted in

maximum yield with quality fruits, leaf nutrient status and

fertilizer use efficiency with highest net return (Rs.

2,12,372.17). Use of 45, 20, 20 g NPK/plant/year produced

fruit yield (29.81 t/ha), quality of fruits with maximum net

return (Rs. 2,12,550.62). However, F1 (30, 10, 10 g NPK/

plant/year) exhibited highest fertilizer use efficiency

(101.97 kg/ha). Interaction effect of irrigation and fertiga-

tion levels showed that 75 % irrigation of irrigation water/

cumulative pan evaporation ?75 % water soluble fertilizer

produced maximum fruit yield (32.79 t/ha) with quality

fruits and highest net returns (Rs. 2,44,073.07). However,

maximum fertilizer use efficiency (103.23 kg/ha) was

obtained in 75 % irrigation of irrigation water/cumulative

pan evaporation ? 30, 10, 10 g NPK/plant/year water

soluble fertilizer.

Keywords Guava � Fertigation � Fertilizer use efficiency �Meadow orchard � Quality � Yield

Introduction

Guava is considered as an apple of the tropics, because of

its richness in vitamins and minerals. Guava is a good

source of thiamine (0.03–0.07 mg/100 g pulp), riboflavin

(0.02–0.04 mg/100 g pulp) and vitamin C (75–260 mg/

100 g pulp). Besides this, guava fruits also provide min-

erals like phosphorus (22.5–40.0 mg/100 g), calcium

(10.0–30.0 mg/100 g) and iron (0.60–1.39 mg/100 g) [1].

The fruits are also used for jelly making and preparation of

other kinds of preserved products.

Irrigation and fertilizers are the most important inputs

which directly affects the plant growth and development,

yield and quality of produce. Application of irrigation

water and fertilizers through drip are the most effective

way of supplying water and nutrients to the plant roots,

satisfying the plants’ total and temporal requirements of

these two inputs. These inputs are effectively utilized by

the plants as these are placed near crop root zone. The right

combination of water and nutrients is the key for high yield

and the quality of produce. Fertigation saves fertilizer as it

permits applying fertilizer in small quantities at a time

matching with the plants’ nutrient need. Besides, it is

considered eco-friendly as it avoids leaching of fertilizers.

Liquid fertilizers are best suited for fertigation. Ferti-

gation is a new concept gaining momentum in India. The

nutrient consumption per hectare and fertilizer use effi-

ciency is very low in India. The main reasons for the low

efficiency are the type of fertilizer used and its method of

application adopted by Indian farmers. Farmers are using

solid fertilizers for fruit crop production but these are not

Ramniwas � R. A. Kaushik � S. Pareek (&) �D. K. Sarolia � V. Singh

Department of Horticulture, Rajasthan College of Agriculture,

Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology,

Udaipur 313001, India

e-mail: sunil_ciah@yahoo.co.in

123

Natl. Acad. Sci. Lett. (September–October 2013) 36(5):483–488

DOI 10.1007/s40009-013-0162-y

totally water soluble and hence, are less available to the

plants. Some of the fertilizers contain salts of sodium and

chloride, which not only affect the quality and quantity of

crop production but also harmful to the soil. Hence, there is

a need to develop a suitable method of application of fer-

tilizer through drip system, which will improve the quality

and quantity of fruit crop production.

Many researchers have reported the higher application

efficiency of drip irrigation systems over the conventional basin

irrigation systems [2–4] compared to drip and basin irrigation

systems in fruit orchards and found that there was water savings

of 40–60 % than basin irrigation methods. Irrigation require-

ment met through drip irrigation along with polythene mulch

resulted in highest yield of guava (37.70 t/ha) with 164 %

greater yield as compared to ring basin irrigation [5].

Further, fertigation ensures substantial saving in fertil-

izer usage and reduces leaching losses [6]. Similar to fre-

quent application of water, optimum split applications of

fertilizer improves quality and quantity of crop yield than

the conventional practice. Higher guava yield through

fertigation than basin irrigation has also been observed [7].

Guava is an important fruit crop grown in almost all

parts of India and is one of the most preferred fruit crops in

Southern Rajasthan. Due to lack of information on irriga-

tion management techniques, the average yield of the crop

in Southern Rajasthan is very low because of either excess

or deficit soil moisture. The crop is generally grown with

basin irrigation, which has low application efficiency.

Many farmers in the state are now becoming interested in

growing the crop with drip irrigation. However, some

farmers in the state are reluctant to adopt drip technology

due to lack of information on irrigation and fertigation

scheduling techniques. Hence, the present study was

undertaken to examine the yield, quality and fertilizer use

efficiency using different irrigation and fertigation sched-

ules by drip irrigation and to suggest the most efficient

irrigation and fertigation schedule that would attain the

highest yield and quality fruits with minimum losses of

fertilizers from the crop.

Materials and Methods

Location of Experiment

The experiment was conducted during 2009–2010 and

2010–2011, on uniform 3-years-old ‘Shweta’ guava plants

planted at the spacing of 2 9 1 m at horticulture farm of

the Rajasthan College of Agriculture, Maharana Pratap

University of Agriculture and Technology, Udaipur, Ra-

jasthan, India. Experimental orchard is situated at 248340Nlatitude and 738420E longitude at an elevation of 582.17

meters above mean sea level.

The soil of the experimental field was clay loamy in

texture, slightly alkaline in reaction (8.5 pH), low in

available nitrogen (253.5 kg/ha), medium in organic-car-

bon (0.75 %), available phosphorus (27.5 kg/ha) and

available potassium (271.4 kg/ha).

Treatment Application

There were four levels of irrigation, namely basin irrigation

(I0), 50 % irrigation of irrigation water/cumulative pan

evaporation (IW/CPE) (I1), 75 % irrigation of IW/CPE (I2)

and 100 % irrigation of IW/CPE (I3) and four levels of

fertigation viz., basal dose (60, 20, 40 g NPK/plant/year

through solid fertilizers) (F0); 30, 10, 10 g NPK/plant/year

through water soluble fertilizers (WSF) (F1), 45, 20, 20 g

NPK/plant/year through WSF (F2) and 60, 30, 30 g NPK/

plant/year through WSF (F3). Therefore total 16 treatment

combinations were applied. The experiment was laid out in

factorial randomized block design with three replications

and two plants were kept in each treatment. The irrigation

was applied to guava plants as per treatments like basin

irrigation on IW/CPE ratio of 0.8 and 5 cm depth at weekly

interval. The drip irrigation was supplied at 1 day interval

and USDA class A open pan evaporation was taken as the

basis for scheduling of irrigations. The total quantity of

water applied during 2009–10 was 2,025 l (basin irriga-

tion), 949 l (I1), 1,277 l (I2) and 1,605 l (I3)/plant/year.

Similarly, during 2010–11 the total quantity of water

applied was 1,984 l, 928 l, 1,235 l and 1,542 l/plant/year

in respective treatments. As per the treatments water sol-

uble fertilizer grade (NPK-19:19:19) were applied in five

splits from fruit set to maturity stage and remaining

nitrogen were supplemented through urea. The basal dose

(F0) of phosphorus and potassium were fully applied by

ring method in the month of July, while nitrogen was

applied in two split doses, one with basal dose in July and

another after fruit setting in October through ring basin at

30 cm away from main trunk. Nitrogen was applied as

urea, phosphorus as single super phosphate and potassium

as muriate of potash. The plants were pruned twice a year

in the months of February and September.

Observations Recorded

Mature fruits were harvested periodically from each treat-

ment separately and the weight was recorded with the help

of single pan balance and expressed in kg. Further, fruits/ha

were calculated by multiplying the fruit yield/plant to the

number of plants/ha. All the observations regarding to

biochemical characters were recorded from composite

sample of 10 fruits. Total soluble solids (TSS) was mea-

sured by Erma Hand Refractometer (0–32� B). Total ti-

trable acidity was determined by titrating fruit juice against

484 Ramniwas et al.

123

0.1 N NaOH in the presence of phenolphthalein indicator

while sugars were estimated by colorimetric method sug-

gested by AOAC. Fresh samples were used for the analysis

of ascorbic acid content using 2,6-dichloro phenol indo-

phenol dye [8]. To determine the leaf nutrient status of the

plant, the third pair of leaves, recently matured were col-

lected in June (before treatment) and January. The sample

size was 25 leaves. Nitrogen was estimated by using

Nesseler’s reagent colorimetric method [9], phosphorus by

ammonium vanadomolybdo phosphoric acid yellow colour

method and potassium by Flame photometer method [10].

The fertilizer use efficiency (FUE) was computed as

described by Veeranna [11] and calculated as below.

FUE ¼ Yield ðkg=haÞTotal quantity of nutrient applied kg=hað Þ :

The relative economics of drip and different fertigation

levels along with man power required for the irrigation,

fertigation and weeding on the basis of cost of treatment on

plot basis and converted into fruit yield/plant as well as per

hectare. The net income was obtained by subtracting the

treatment cost from gross income. It was expressed on net

excess income over the control.

Statistical Analysis

The data obtained on various characters were subjected to

factorial randomized block design analysis and interpreta-

tion of the data was carried out in accordance to Panse and

Sukhatme [12]. ‘F-Test Analysis of Variance’ was used for

statistical calculation and data were compared with ‘Dun-

cans multiple range comparision’.

Results and Discussion

Quality Characteristics

The maximum TSS (14.108B), ascorbic acid (241.50 mg/

100 g pulp), total sugar (9.81 %) and minimum acidity

(0.32 %) was recorded in the fruits obtained under I2 (75 %

irrigation of IW/CPE) as compared to basin irrigation [I0

(13.43 %, 234.83 mg/100 g pulp, 9.55 % and maximum

acidity 0.35 %)]. Under fertigation levels maximum TSS

(14.10 8B), ascorbic acid (241.92 mg/100 g pulp), total

sugar (9.83 %) and minimum acidity (0.32 %) was recor-

ded in F2 (45, 20, 20 g NPK/plant/year water soluble fer-

tilizers) as compared to minimum in basal application

(13.43 %, 233.96 mg/100 g pulp, 9.58 % and maximum

acidity 0.35 %). The interaction effect of irrigation and

fertigation levels was non-significant.

Application of drip irrigation during experimentation

effectively improved all quality components because drip

irrigation provides a consistent moisture regime in the soil

which might have accelerated root growth and resulted in

optimum availability of nutrient and proper translocation of

food materials which accelerated the fruit growth and

development, consequently improved the quality characters

in the fruits. The present results are supported by the

finding of Shirgure et al. [13].

Among various fertigation levels, higher doses produced

better quality fruits. It might be due to application of higher

doses of fertilizers i.e., F2 and F3 maximized the growth of

the plant and facilitated the accumulation of more carbo-

hydrates into the fruit and during the subsequent fruit

development such metabolites (starch) hydrolyzed into

sugar that increased the TSS and decreased the acidity

(Hulme, 1970). The results are supported by the finding of

Rai et al. [14]. They reported that application of N and P

(220 g/tree/year) significantly influenced TSS while

ascorbic acid content was significantly affected by potas-

sium and acidity were significantly influenced by phos-

phorus in litchi fruit and Ingle et al. [15] reported that

maximum ascorbic acid content in the acid lime fruit was

obtained under 100 % RDF (600 N ? 300 K g/plant).

The interaction effect between fertigation and irrigation

levels were found non-significant for chemical character-

istics (TSS, acidity, ascorbic acid, total sugar). However,

level I2F2 (75 % irrigation of IW/CPE ? 45, 20, 20 g

NPK/plant/year) recorded better quality fruits. The results

obtained are in accordance with the findings of Ahmad

et al. [16]. Thakur and Singh [17] recorded the highest total

soluble solids and reducing sugar with 100 % of recom-

mended dose through fertigation and maximum acidity was

observed under control (surface irrigation ? recommended

dose) and the minimum value was recorded with 50 % of

the recommended dose through fertigation in mango cv.

Amrapali.

Leaf Nutrient Status

The different irrigation levels significantly affected nitro-

gen, phosphorus and potassium content of the leaves.

Maximum total nitrogen (1.89 %) and potassium (1.27 %)

content was recorded under treatment I2 (75 % irrigation of

IW/CPE). However, maximum total phosphorus (0.264 %)

was recorded in I3 (100 % irrigation of IW/CPE) as com-

pared to minimum in basin irrigation I0 (1.81 %, 0.229 %

and 1.21 %, respectively). Further, under fertigation levels

F3 (60, 30, 30 g NPK/plant/year WSF) resulted in maxi-

mum total NPK (1.90 %, 0.256 % and 1.27 %, respec-

tively) and minimum in F1 (30, 10, 10 g NPK/plant/year

WSF). However, the interaction of irrigation and fertiga-

tion levels was found non-significant.

Drip irrigation at frequent intervals provides a consistent

moisture regime in the soil and therefore, roots remain

Effect of Drip Fertigation Scheduling on Fertilizer Use Efficiency 485

123

active for a longer period. The proper and continuous

moisture in the soil also increased the availability of

nutrients and translocation of food material which accel-

erates the vegetative growth of plants. Hegde and Srinivas

[18] observed that banana plants under drip irrigation had

increased nitrogen and potassium uptake. Optimum water

content in the root zone may reduce the variations in

nutrient concentration, thereby increasing their availability

to plants and reducing their leaching beneath the root zone.

Rana et al. [19] observed leaf N, P and K content of peach

influenced with different drip irrigation levels with dis-

charge rate of 1, 2 and 3 l per day and found that higher

irrigation levels increased the nitrogen, phosphorus and

potassium content of leaves. Leaf nutrient content (N, P, K,

Ca and Mg) was maximum in alternate day drip irrigation

and minimum under conventional method in aonla [20].

Koo [21] reported that fertigation increases the leaf

nitrogen in orange. Shirgure et al. [22] reported that the per

cent increase in leaf nitrogen content was more in case of

80 % nitrogen fertigation followed by 100 % nitrogen

fertigation in acid lime plant. Similar results had been

reported by Hegde and Srinivas [18] in banana. Leaf

nitrogen was significantly lower only in the lowest nitrogen

fertigation treatment in Starking Delicious apple tree

treated with four nitrogen fertigation treatments in drip

irrigation [23]. Chauhan and Chandel [24] tried four fer-

tigation treatments in kiwifruit and found that leaf nutrient

content (N, P, K) were significantly higher under fertiga-

tion with recommended dose of N, P, K. However, they did

not try higher dose of N, P and K than recommended dose

of N, P and K. Table 1.

Fruit Yield

The 2 year pooled data presented in Table 2 reveals that

irrigation, fertigation level and their interaction resulted

significant increase in the fruit yield/plant and per hectare.

Among various level of irrigation maximum fruit yield was

recorded in I2 (75 % irrigation of IW/CPE) (29.33 t/ha).

Further, under fertigation level maximum fruit yield

(30.04 t/ha) was obtained in F3 (60, 30, 30 g NPK WSF)

which was at par with F2. Interaction of irrigation and

fertigation resulted maximum fruit yield in I3F3 (100 %

irrigation of IW/CPE ? 60, 30, 30 g NPK water soluble

fertilizers) 6.59 kg/plant and 32.97 t/ha followed by in I2F2

(75 % irrigation of IW/CPE ? 45, 20, 20 g NPK water

soluble fertilizers) 32.79 t/ha and minimum 25.00 t/ha in

I1F0 (50 % irrigation of IW/CPE ? basal application of

fertilizers).

The results are in conformity with the findings of Biswas

et al. [25] obtained higher yields (36.2–40.2 t/ha) from

drip-irrigated plots at an IW:CPE ratio of 0.8 compared

with those irrigated using a conventional system (31.2 t/ha)

in papaya. Patil and Patil [26] observed that guava fruit

yield was highest (226.31 kg/tree) when irrigated at an IW:

CPE ratio of 0.8 and Singh et al. [27] revealed that 164 per

cent greater yield in case of drip (VD) as compared to that

of ring basin irrigation (VRB) in guava. The treatment drip

(VD) showed the highest (37.70 t/ha) yield and lowest

yield (14.90 t/ha) was observed in ring basin (VRB) irri-

gation method. Patel and Patel [28] reported that the

increase in yield was mainly because of better growth of

the plant under optimum amount of nutrients in pome-

granate crop. Firake and Kumbhar [29] yield obtained upon

treatment with 100 % NPK RRSSF ? DI was significantly

higher than 100 % NPK RRCF ? DI (11.88 vs. 9.54 t/ha)

and was at par with 70 % N, 80 % P and K ? DI and 70 %

NPK ? DI (11.27 and 10.81 t/ha, respectively) in

pomegranate.

Fertilizer use Efficiency

Maximum FUE (69.57 kg/ha) was observed with treatment

I2 (75 % irrigation of IW/CPE) and minimum (62.89 kg/ha)

in I1 (50 % irrigation of IW/CPE) which was at par with I0

basin irrigation. Further, under fertigation levels the

highest FUE of (101.97 kg/ha) was obtained with the

treatment F1 (30, 10, 10 g NPK water soluble fertilizer) as

compared to minimum (42.66 kg/ha) in F0 (basal dose of

fertilizers application). The combination of irrigation and

fertigation levels obtained maximum FUE (103.23 kg/ha)

Table 1 Effect of drip fertigation levels and their interaction on TSS,

acidity, ascorbic acid and total sugar of guava

Treatment TSS

(%)

Acidity

(%)

Ascorbic acid

(mg/100 g)

Total

sugar (%)

I0 13.43b 0.35a 234.83c 9.55b

I1 13.50b 0.34a 236.67c,b 9.66b

I2 14.10a 0.32b 241.50a 9.81a

I3 13.83a 0.32b 240.29a,b 9.80a

SEm? 0.083 0.004 1.103 0.038

CD at 5 % 0.234 0.010 3.119 0.106

Pr [ F 0.0001 0.0002 0.0171 0.0024

F0 13.43b 35.00a 233.96b 9.58b

F1 13.53b 33.00a,b 235.58b 9.62b

F2 14.05a 32.00b 241.92a 9.83a

F3 13.85a 32.00b 241.83a 9.79a

SEm? 0.083 0.004 1.103 0.038

CD at 5 % 0.234 0.010 3.119 0.106

Pr [ F 0.0003 0.0026 0.0010 0.0028

I0 (basin irrigation), I1 50 % irrigation of IW/CPE, I2 75 % irrigation

of IW/CPE, I3 100 % irrigation of IW/CPE, F0 60, 20, 40 g NPK/

plant/year (basal dose), F1 30, 10, 10 g NPK/plant/year, F2 45, 20,

20 g NPK/plant/year, F3 60, 30, 30 g NPK/plant/year. Means with the

same letter (a and b) are not significantly different (Duncan grouping)

486 Ramniwas et al.

123

in the treatment I2F1 (75 % irrigation of IW/CPE ? 30,

10, 10 g NPK water soluble fertilizer) which was at par

with I3F1 (101.97 kg/ha), I1F1 (101.75 kg/ha) and I0F1

(100.95 kg/ha) as compared to lowest FUE (41.67 kg/ha)

was recorded in (I1F0) which was at par with I0F0, I2F0

and I3F0.

The lower fertilizer use efficiency in surface method of

irrigation might be due to non-uniform distribution and

inadequate availability of nutrients and moisture in the root

zone of a crop which is responsible for lower uptake of

nutrients. The increase in fertilizer use efficiency in F1 may

be attributed to the reduction in quantity of fertilizer added

in these treatments. The lowest FUE was recorded from the

basal method application of fertilization was due to low

efficient use of fertilizers by the plant which resulted in

lower fruit yield of guava. These results are more or less

similar to those reported by Sharma et al. [30] in grape and

Kumar et al. [31] in banana.

Relative Economics

Net return was significantly affected by irrigation, ferti-

gation and their interaction (Table 2). The irrigation level

I2 (75 % irrigation of IW/CPE) recorded maximum net

Table 2 Effect of drip fertigation levels and their interaction on leaf NPK content, fruit yield, FUE and net returns in guava.Treatment

Total N (%) Total P (%) Total K (%) Yield (tones/ha) FUE (kg/ha) Net return (Rs.)

I0 1.81a 0.229c 1.21b 26.47b 63.53b 1,76,961.53b

I1 1.85a,b 0.233c 1.22b 26.05b 62.89b 1,79,511.76b

I2 1.89a 0.254b 1.27a 29.33a 69.57a 2,12,372.17a

I3 1.87a 0.264a 1.27a 29.09a 68.84a 2,09,922.17a

SEm? 0.012 0.002 0.007 0.384 0.777 3,839.75

CD at 5 % 0.035 0.006 0.018 1.086 2.197 10,862.06

Pr [ F 0.0074 \0.0001 \0.0001 \0.0001 \0.0001 \0.0001

F0 1.85c,b 0.233b 1.24b–c 25.60b 42.66d 1,81,994.24b

F1 1.81c 0.237b 1.22c 25.49b 101.97a 1,79,359.24b

F2 1.88a,b 0.253a 1.25a,b 29.81a 70.14b 2,12,550.62a

F3 1.90a 0.256a 1.27a 30.04a 50.06c 2,04,863.53a

SEm? 0.012 0.002 0.007 0.384 0.777 3,839.75

CD at 5 % 0.035 0.006 0.018 1.086 2.197 10,862.06

Pr [ F 0.0011 \0.0001 0.0005 \0.0001 \0.0001 \0.0001

I0F0 1.82 0.221 1.23 25.41b 42.36f 1,75,095.63b

I0F1 1.76 0.225 1.18 25.24b 100.95a 1,71,741.88b

I0F2 1.83 0.233 1.21 27.39b 64.45c 1,83,316.59b

I0F3 1.85 0.235 1.22 27.83b 46.38e 1,77,692.00b

I1F0 1.85 0.225 1.21 25.00b 41.67f 1,77,710.44b

I1F1 1.81 0.226 1.20 25.44b 101.75a 1,80,481.70b

I1F2 1.86 0.240 1.23 27.04b 63.63c 1,86,573.07b

I1F3 1.90 0.242 1.25 26.71b 44.51e 1,73,281.81b

I2F0 1.86 0.239 1.26 26.09b 43.48e 1,88,618.78b

I2F1 1.84 0.244 1.24 25.81b 103.23a 1,84,181.70b

I2F2 1.91 0.264 1.28 32.79a 77.16b 2,44,073.07a

I2F3 1.93 0.268 1.31 32.64a 54.40d 2,32,615.15a

I3F0 1.85 0.249 1.25 25.88b 43.14e 1,86,552.11b

I3F1 1.83 0.252 1.24 25.49b 101.97a 1,81,031.70b

I3F2 1.90 0.275 1.27 32.01a 75.31b 2,36,239.74a

I3F3 1.91 0.279 1.30 32.97a 54.94d 2,35,865.15a

SEm? 0.025 0.004 0.013 0.768 1.554 7,679.493

CD at 5 % NS NS NS 2.172 4.395 21,724.12

Pr [ F 0.9962 0.7369 0.7382 0.0142 0.0210 0.0142

I0 (basin irrigation), I150 % irrigation of IW/CPE, I275 % irrigation of IW/CPE, I3100 % irrigation of IW/CPE, F0 60, 20, 40 g NPK/plant/year

(basal dose), F1 30, 10, 10 g NPK/plant/year, F2 45, 20, 20 g NPK/plant/year, F3 60, 30, 30 g NPK/plant/year. Means with the same letter (a, b, c

and d) are not significantly different (Duncan grouping)

Effect of Drip Fertigation Scheduling on Fertilizer Use Efficiency 487

123

return Rs. 2,12,372.17 as compared to I0 (basin irrigation)

Rs.1,76,961.53. Under fertigation level F2 (45, 20, 20 g

NPK/plant/year WSF) recorded maximum net return Rs.

2,12,550.62. Further interaction reveals that maximum net

return (Rs. 2,44,073.07) in I2F2 (75 % irrigation of IW/

CPE ? 45, 20, 20 g NPK/plant/year WSF) followed by in

I3F2 (Rs. 2,36,239.74) as compared to minimum in I0F3

(Rs. 1,71,741.88).

However, under fertigation level water soluble fertiliz-

ers are given through drip are more expensive but the

results are encouraging. Nevertheless, basal dose of N, P

and K could be given through drip in the form of urea,

single super phosphate and muriate of potash which is less

expensive compared to the water soluble fertilizers used

under the study. In turn, this may further increase the

magnitude of net profit. Therefore, research on this line is

called for.

To sum up, for a grown up guava plants var. Shweta, the

75 per cent fertigation (45, 20, 20 g NPK/plant/year) water

soluble fertilizer through drip may be recommended for

more profitable yield without affecting fruit quality. The

75 % irrigation with alternate day drip was found optimum.

References

1. Singh G, Mishra AK, Hareeb M, Tandon DK, Pathak RK (2003)

The guava extension bulletin. CISH, Lucknow 17:1

2. Salvin S, Baruah K, Bordoloi SK (2000) Drip irrigation studies in

banana cv. Barjahaji (Musa AAA group, Cavendish sub-group).

Crop Res 20:489–493

3. Bharambe PR, Mungal MS, Shelke DK, Oza SR, Vaishnava VG,

Sondge VD (2001) Effect of soil moisture regimes with drip on

spatial distribution of moisture, salts, nutrient availability and

water use efficiency of banana. J Indian Soc Soil Sci 49:658–665

4. Agrawal N, Agrawal S (2007) Effect of different levels of drip

irrigation on the growth and yield of pomegranate under Chhat-

tisgarh region. Orissa J Hortic 35:38–46

5. Singh P, Singh AK, Sahu K (2006) Irrigation and fertigation of

pomegranate cv. Ganesh in Chhattisgarh. Ind J Hortic 63:

148–151

6. Kumar A, Singh RK, Sinha AK, Singh HK, Mishra AP (2007)

Effect of fertigation on banana through drip irrigation in North

Bihar. J Res Birsa Agric Univ 19:81–86

7. Sharma S, Patra SK, Ray R (2011) Effect of drip fertigation on

growth and yield of guava cv. Khaja. Environ Ecol 29:34–38

8. AOAC (1990) In: Offical methods of analysis. Association of

official Agricultural Chemist. Benjamin Franklin Station, Wash-

ington, DC

9. Linder RC (1944) Rapid analytic methods for some of the more

common substances of plant and soil. Plant Physiol 19:76–84

10. Richards LA (1968) In: Diagnosis and improvement of saline and

alkaline soils. Oxford and IHB publishing Co., New Delhi

11. Veeranna HK (2000) Effect of fertigation, irrigation and potas-

sium levels on the productivity of chilli (Capsicum annuum L.).

Ph. D. Thesis, University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore

12. Panse VG, Sukhatme PV (1985) In: Statistical methods for

Agriculture workers. ICAR, New Delhi, pp 145–155

13. Shirgure PS, Srivastava AK, Singh S, Pimpale AR (2004) Drip

irrigation scheduling, growth, yield and quality of acid lime

(Citrus aurantifolia). Indian J Agric Sci 74:92–94

14. Rai M, Dey P, Gangopadhyay KK, Das B, Nath V, Reddy NN,

Singh HP (2002) Influence of nitrogen, phosphorus and potas-

sium on growth parameters, leaf nutrient composition and yield

of litchi (Litchi chinensis). Indian J Agric Sci 72:267–270

15. Ingle HV, Ingle SH, Ghive D (2006) Fertigation studies in acid

lime. Annals Plant Physiol 20:277–278

16. Ahmad MF, Samanta A, Jabeen A (2010) Response of sweet

cherry (Prunus avium) to fertigation of nitrogen, phosphorus and

potassium under Kerawa land of Kashmir valley. Indian J Agric

Sci 80:512–516

17. Thakur SK, Singh P (2004) Studies on fertigation of mango cv.

Amrapali. Annals Agric Res 25:415–417

18. Hegde DM, Srinivas K (1991) Growth, yield and nutrient uptake

and water use of banana crops under drip and basin irrigation

with N and K fertilization. Tropical Agric 68:331–334

19. Rana GS, Sehrawat SK, Daulta SK, Beniwal BS (2005) Effect of

drip irrigation and rootstocks on N, P and K leaf content in peach

under high density plantation. Acta Hortic 696:223–226

20. Shukla AK, Pathak RK, Tiwari RP, Nath V (2001) Influence of

irrigation and mulching on plant growth and leaf nutrient status of

aonla (Emblica officinalis G.) under sodic soil. J Applied Hortic

2:37–38

21. Koo RCJ (1984) The important of ground coverage by fertigation

for citrus on sandy soils. J Fertilizer Issues 1:75–78

22. Shirgure PS, Lallan R, Marathe RA, Yadav RP (1997) Effect of

nitrogen fertigation on vegetative growth and leaf nitrogen con-

tent of acid lime (Citrus aurantifolia, Swingle). In: National

Symposium on Citriculture, November 17–19, 1997, National

Research Centre for Citrus, Nagpur, India

23. Klein I, Levin I, Bar-Yosef B, Assaf R, Berkovitz A (1989) Drip

nitrogen fertigation of Starking Delicious apple trees. Plant Soil

119:305–314

24. Chauhan N, Chandel JS (2008) Effect of fertigation on growth,

yield, fruit quality and fertilizer use efficiency of kiwifruit (Ac-

tinidia deliciosa). Indian J Agric Sci 78:389–393

25. Biswas RK, Rana SK, Mallick S (1999) Performance of drip

irrigation in papaya cultivation in new alluvium agro-climatic

zone of West Bengal. Annals Agric Res 20:116–117

26. Patil PV, Patil VK (1999) Influence of different soil water

regimes on root distribution in guava. J Maharashtra Agric Univ

24:45–47

27. Singh BK, Tiwari KN, Chourasia SK, Mandal S (2007) Crop

water requirement of guava (Psidium guajava L.) cv. KG/KAJI

under drip irrigation and plastic mulch. Acta Hortic 735:399–405

28. Patel NM, Patel MM (1998) Water requirement of pomegranate

(Punica granatum L.) cv. Ganesh for better yield under resource

limited situations. National seminar on new horizons in produc-

tion and post-harvest management of tropical and subtropical

fruits, Delhi, Dec 8–9

29. Firake NN, Kumbhar DB (2002) Effect of different levels of N, P

and K fertigation on yield and quality of pomegranate. J Maha-

rashtra Agric Univ 27:146–148

30. Sharma J, Upadhyay AK, Shikhamany SD, Singh RK (2008)

Effect of fertilizer application through irrigation water on

Thompson seedless grape yield and fertilizer use efficiency. Acta

Hortic 785:399–408

31. Kumar A, Kumar A, Singh HK, Kumari N, Kumar P (2009)

Effect of fertigation on banana biometric characteristics and

fertilizer use efficiency. J Agric Engng 46:27–31

488 Ramniwas et al.

123