Effect of different in situ water harvesting techniques and low cost ...

Effect…N. D. Polara et al.Andra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Orissa, Assam, Rjasthan, Maharashtra and Gujarat. The pleasant flavour andmild aroma have a universal acceptance as a table fruit. Moisture is the constraint in commercial cultivationof arid horticultural crops. Hence, the need of the hours is to develop technologies which not only requireslow water input but also have high water use efficiency. Moisture being a rare commodity in arid ecosystem,the first and foremost requirement is to conserve the available soil or rain water. For conservation of rainwater both in situ and ex situ technologies have been developed 1 . Work done at Aruppukottai (Tamil Nadu)and Anantapur (Andhra Pradesh) has indicated usefulness of in situ water harvesting technique for fruitproduction 2 .Scarcity of irrigation water at critical periods of crop growth is a limiting factors for successful cultivation ofthis crop in the arid and semi-arid region of Gujarat. Therefore, soil moisture conservation will definitelyhelp in augmenting production. In situ water harvesting and mulching influences the soil moisture, soiltemperature, suppress weed growth and maintains soil fertility. The present investigation was therefore,undertaken to assess the effect of in situ water harvesting techniques and mulching on growth and yield ofcustard apple.MATERIALS AND METHODSThe present study conducted for most suitable in situ water harvesting techniques and locally availablemulching materials in 5 years old custard apple cv. Sindhan local plant planted at 4 m x 4 m on ten farmer'sfield of Junagadh district in Randomized Block Design during three consecutive years. Treatments wereapplied before rainy season. The treatments consisting of Control (without mulching) (T 1 ), Circular basinwith 5 per cent slope (T 2 ), Crescent bunding across the nature slope of field (T 3 ) and Circular basin with 5per cent slope and mulching with locally available organic materials (T 4 ). Recommended dose of fertilizerfor custard apple was applied in each year i.e. FYM 10 kg plant -1 + 200 N g plant -1 + 100 P 2 O 5 g plant -1 +200 K 2 O g plant -1 . Full dose of FYM, P 2 O 5 , K 2 O and half dose of N were applied with onset of monsoon andremaining half dose of N was applied during fruit development stage. Initial and after harvest soil analysiswas carried out to know the status of soil chemical parameters like pH, EC, O.C., available N, P 2 O 5 and K 2 O.Observation on growth parameters, fruit quality, fruit yield and soil moisture content at different soil depthfrom October to March in all the year was carried out and analyzed statistically.RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONThe different in situ water harvesting techniques and mulching with locally available materials were foundsignificant for influencing the vegetative parameters of custard apple in three year pooled analysis dataexcept stem girth (Table 1). Treatment of circular basin with 5 per cent slope and mulching with locallyavailable materials produced maximum height (3.27 m) which was at par with treatment crescent bunding(3.14 cm). The same treatment also produced significantly highest plant spread in N-S and E-W direction.Fruit length (7.21 cm), fruit breathe (7.87 cm) and fruit weight (110.97 g) was found significantly highest inT 4 treatment, which was at par with T 3 treatment whereas fruit yield (16.08 kg plant -1 ) was significantlyhighest in T 4 treatment as compared to other treatments. Increased in fruit qualities and yield was might bedue to in situ water harvesting techniques and mulching in general, helped in conserving soil moisture byreduction of evaporation loss of water from the soil and more absorption of nutrients by plant.1608 J. Chem. Bio. Phy. Sci. Sec. D, 2013, Vol.3, No.2, 1607-1612

Effect… N. D. Polara et al.Table 1: Effect of in situ water harvesting and mulching on growth and yield of custard appleTreatments Plant height Stem girth Plant spread (m) Fruit weight (g) Fruit size (cm) Fruit yield(m)(cm)N-S E-W Length Breath (kg/plant)Control 2.91 20.95 2.47 2.41 105.76 6.55 7.28 14.62Circular basin 2.92 21.06 2.59 2.49 107.28 6.69 7.43 14.85with 5 %Crescent bunding 3.03 21.14 2.59 2.64 110.17 6.90 7.75 15.49Circular basin 3.15 21.97 2.71 2.69 110.97 7.21 7.87 16.08with 5 % slopand locallyavailable mulchS.Em.± 0.05 0.31 0.05 0.05 1.57 0.13 0.15 0.31CD at 5 % 0.15 NS 0.15 0.15 4.59 0.36 0.41 0.89CV % 7.85 6.46 8.71 10.00 6.58 8.45 8.60 9.431609 J. Chem. Bio. Phy. Sci. Sec. C,2013, Vol.3, No.2, 1607-1612.

Effect...N.D.Polara et al.It also adds organic matter in soil by decaying of organic mulches and improves soil biological activities.Our finding had close conformity with findings of Gupta 3 .In situ water harvesting treatment and mulching resulted in better moisture retention and causedimprovement in plant microclimate resulting in better vegetative growth and produced higher yield of bigsize fruits as compared to other treatmentsPareek 1 have reported that micro-catchment slopes greater than 5 per cent did not significantly affectrunoff at Jodhpur and that the highest ber yield were obtained when 0.5 per cent slopes had 8.5 m and 7m length of run and 72 m 2 and 54 m 2 catchment area per tree, respectively. Increase in fruit yield incustard apple with straw mulch also reported by Mandal and Chattopadhyay 4 and Keskar et. al. 5 .Maximum TSS (24.85 ºBrix), reducing sugar (16.69 %) and total sugar (17.91 %) were recorded undertreatment T 4 while ascorbic acid content was not significantly affected due to different treatments(Table 2). Treatment T 4 recorded highest N content (225.68 kg ha -1 ) and P 2 O 5 content (25.98 kg ha -1 ).Potash content was not significantly affected by different treatments (Table 3). Electrical conductivity,pH, and organic carbon were not affected due to various treatments.Table 2: Effect of in situ water harvesting and mulching on fruit quality in custard appleTreatments TSS (ºBrix) Reducing sugar(%)Total sugar (%)Control 23.80 15.91 17.21 35.69Circular basin with 5 % 24.33 16.05 17.60 35.96Crescent bunding 24.81 16.15 17.66 35.96Circular basin with 5 %slop and locally availablemulch24.85 16.69 17.91 36.36S.Em.± 0.27 0.19 0.20 0.65CD at 5 % 0.77 0.53 0.58 NSCV % 5.13 5.26 7.29 8.32Ascorbic acid(mg/100 g pulp)Soil moisture content during different period recorded from different soil depths as influenced bydifferent treatments are presented in Table 4. The data recorded on soil moisture at different depth of soilindicted that the content of soil moisture had increasing trend as per increase in soil depth. There wasdepletion of the soil moisture as advancement of season (i.e. it was highest in the month of October andlowest in the month of March) Treatment circular basin with 5 % slope and locally available mulchconserve more soil moisture percentage. Increased in soil moisture content with circular basin with 5 %slope and locally available mulch might be due to the increased in infiltration and percolation rate of soiland owing to resistance of runoff water and also mulching might have reduced the rate of evaporation ofsoil moisture from soil surface, thus retaining the soil moisture in the soil for longer time. Similar resultswere also reported by Chovatia et. al. 6 in ber under dryland condition.1610 J. Chem. Bio. Phy. Sci. Sec.C, 2013, Vol.3, No.2, 1607-1612.

Effect…N. D. Polara et al.Table 3: Effect of in situ water harvesting and mulching on available nutrients in custard appleTreatmentspH 2.5 EC (mmhoscm -2 )O.C.(%)AvailableN(kg ha -1 )AvailableP 2 O 5(kg ha -1 )AvailableK 2 O(kg ha -1 )Control 8.13 0.348 0.535 215.44 24.31 336.10Circular basin with 5 % 8.07 0.336 0.541 220.46 25.66 344.43Crescent bunding 8.05 0.330 0.534 221.74 25.14 337.89Circular basin with 5 % slopand locally available mulch8.01 0.335 0.548 225.68 25.98 340.90S.Em.± 0.10 0.009 0.01 3.15 0.41 4.27CD at 5 % NS NS NS 8.67 1.15 NSCV % 4.52 6.76 5.50 6.30 7.35 5.73Table 4: Average soil moisture content (%) under in situ water harvesting and mulchingtreatments in custard apple at varying soil depthTreatments October November20 cm 40 cm 60 cm 20 cm 40 cm 60 cmControl 18.0 18.8 19.0 14.0 16.1 17.3Circular basin with 5 % 18.8 19.4 19.0 14.4 16.1 17.3Crescent bunding 18.7 19.4 19.0 14.2 16.0 17.5Circular basin with 5 % slopand locally available mulch19.5 20.1 20.9 15.7 17.4 18.9DecemberJanuaryControl 11.0 12.7 13.3 07.2 11.1 12.0Circular basin with 5 % 11.4 14.5 15.4 07.4 11.7 13.3Crescent bunding 11.3 14.5 15.5 07.7 11.8 13.2Circular basin with 5 % slopand locally available mulch11.7 14.8 16.2 08.4 12.5 14.0FebruaryMarchControl 05.7 08.1 09.8 04.7 07.1 08.7Circular basin with 5 % 06.6 09.5 10.7 05.6 08.2 09.3Crescent bunding 06.6 09.4 10.8 05.7 08.2 09.4Circular basin with 5 % slopand locally available mulch07.2 11.0 11.6 06.0 10.0 10.51611 J. Chem. Bio. Phy. Sci. Sec. C,2013, Vol.3, No.2, 1607-1612.

Effect…N. D. Polara et al.REFERENCES1. O.P.Pareek, Irrigation management in fruit crops. In Singh, D.P. and Sharma, H.C. (eds.) ImportantAspect of on farm water management. CCS HAU, Hisar,1993.2. Anonymous, Proc. of 5 th National Workshop on Arid Zone Fruit Research, GAU, Sardarkrushinagar,July 6-9, 1989. Tech. Doc. No. 27, Hisar, India: Coordination Cell, AICRP on Arid Zone Fruits,ICAR,1989,3. J.P.Gupta, Water losses and their control in rainfed agriculture. In: Singh, R.P. (ed.) SustainableDevelopment of Dryland Agriculture in India. Jodhpur, India: Scientific Publishers, 1995, 169-176.4. A.Mandal. and P.K.Chattopadhyay, Growth and yield of custard apple as influenced by soil cover.Indian J Hort,1994, 51(2): 146-49.5. B.G. Keskar, D.P. Bhore, and S.R.masalekar, Effect of NAA and mulch on yield of custard apple.J Maharashtra agric Univ.1986, 11: 235-36.6. R.S.Chovatia, D.S. Patel, G.V. Patel, and N.K.Kalyana Sundaram, Effectiveness of mulches on ber(Zizyphus mauritiana L.) cv. Umran under dryland conditions. Annals of Arid Zone 1992,31(4): 301-02.Corresponding author: Dr. N. Joshi, Subject Matter Specialist, Krishi Vigyan Kendra, JunagadhAgricultural University, Amreli-365601 (Gujarat)1612 J. Chem. Bio. Phy. Sci. Sec.C, 2013, Vol.3, No.2, 1607-1612.