Potato response to phosphorus fertilizer and its effect on the quality and chemical composition under water regime conditions (https://doi.org/10.63386/595842)

By /

Hani Zarki Jaber Alkurdi

ABSTRACT

In terms of worldwide consumption, potatoes are the most significant food crop and are regarded as a key crop for food security. Potatoes require a significant amount of plant nutrients, especially phosphorus (P), due to inefficient soil P availability, making phosphorus management essential in potato production. A field experiment was conducted at Nubaria district (NRC Experimental and Production Station), El-Behera Governorate, Egypt, to evaluate the effects of different phosphorus rates (30, 40, and 50 kg/fed) and irrigation system (drip and sprinkler) under varying water regimes (85% and 70% of ETo) on potato nutrient content, growth, yield, and yield characteristics. The results indicated that drip irrigation had a significant positive effect on potato growth and yield, particularly under the 85% water regime. Increasing phosphorus levels improved yield and yield components, with the greatest improvements observed at 50 kg/fed. Future Perspective: Future research should focus on long-term studies exploring sustainable phosphorus management practices and the use of precision irrigation technologies. Additionally, exploring the interaction between phosphorus rates and other essential nutrients, as well as the role of advanced water-saving irrigation techniques, could further enhance potato yield and quality, contributing to more efficient agricultural practices and improved food security.

Keywords: Irrigation system, Nutrient content, Phosphorus fertilizer, Potato, Water regime, Yield parameters

ARTICLE HIGHLIGHTS

  • Potatoes are a critical global food crop and play a significant role in food security.
  • Potatoes have high nutrient demands, particularly phosphorus (P), due to inefficient P uptake from the soil.
  • A field experiment was conducted in Nubaria, Egypt, to assess the impact of phosphorus levels (30, 40, and 50 kg/fed) and irrigation system (drip vs. sprinkler) under different water regimes (85% and 70% of ETo) on potato growth and yield.
  • Drip irrigation, particularly at 85% water regime, significantly improved potato growth and yield compared to sprinkler irrigation.
  • Increasing the phosphorus rate positively affected yield and its components, with notable increases when P levels rose from 30 to 50 kg/fed.
  1. INTRODUCTION

Potatoes (Solanum tuberosum L.) are a globally significant food crop, playing a crucial role in food security due to their widespread consumption. However, potato plants have high nutrient requirements, particularly for phosphorus (P), a key nutrient often limited in soils. Efficient phosphorus management through fertilization is essential for optimizing potato production, as many soils lack sufficient phosphorus to support healthy crop growth. Phosphorus is vital for plant metabolism, facilitating cellular energy transfer and playing a critical role in tuber production, nutrient content, and disease resistance [1; 2].

In particular, potatoes are inefficient at absorbing phosphorus from the soil due to their high phosphorus demands, especially in arid and semi-arid regions where soils often contain high levels of calcium carbonate (CaCO3). This inefficiency can negatively affect the plant’s ability to develop and produce a healthy yield. Adequate phosphorus is required from the beginning of growth until maturity to enhance tuber development, improve solids content, and optimize the nutritional quality of the crop [1]. Moreover, phosphorus contributes to several metabolic processes in the plant, including the formation of nucleic acids, phosphoproteins, and coenzymes, which are all essential for growth. Proper phosphorus supply accelerates the development of plant parts and improves canopy formation, ultimately contributing to better tuber set and higher yields [3]. As phosphorus deficiency limits crop productivity, balanced fertilization practices are necessary to enhance potato yields [4].

In addition to phosphorus, potatoes require high levels of potassium (K), making them an indicator crop for potassium availability due to their large nutrient demands. Potatoes, rich in carbohydrates, vitamins (A, B, C), and micronutrients, rely on a well-balanced nutrient supply for optimal growth [5]. Fertilizer application, particularly nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), and potassium (K), significantly influences potato yield and its components [6]. Achieving optimal nutrient management is crucial for increasing crop yield and farm profitability, particularly in regions with nutrient-poor soils. Potatoes respond well to both inorganic and organic fertilizers, and high levels of N, P, and K are required for economic tuber production [7]. However, potassium deficiency, particularly in semi-arid conditions, remains a major limiting factor in potato production, [8].

Specific gravity and tuber dry matter percentage, which are important quality indicators for potatoes, are also positively influenced by P and K fertilization [9]. Potatoes with higher specific gravity are favored for processing into chips and French fries, highlighting the importance of nutrient management in producing high-quality tubers [10; 11].  The main objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of different phosphorus rates and irrigation system, under varying water regimes, on the nutrient content, growth, yield, and yield components of potato crops.

  • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • Field experiment

Field experiment was conducted at Nubaria district (National Research Centre Experimental and Predication Station, El-Behira Governorate, Egypt) to study the effect of irrigation system  (drip and sprinkler), and P fertilizer rates (30, 40; 50 kg/fed) under water regime (85 and 70 % from ETo).   

2.2 Irrigation system

Sprinkler irrigation (12 x 12 m, with discharge 0.85 m3 h-1) and drip irrigation (JR 30 cm among dripper, discharge, 4 liter/h) were employed. The study area is characterized by an overall hot and dry climate with few opportunities for precipitation, with an average annual rainfall of 38 mm between December and April. Average evaporation rates range from 2.3 to 7.6 mm/day, with January and July typically recording the lowest and highest air temperature values, respectively.

2.3 Soil preparation and potatoes planting

Before soil preparation, farmyard manure, ammonium sulfate (20.5% N), single superphosphate (15.5% P2O5) [12], [13]. Elemental sulfur, and potassium sulfate (50% K2O) were applied to the soil surface at the rates of 15 m³, 50, 200, 150, and 50 kg/fed, respectively [14], [15],. These materials were well mixed with the upper soil layer (30 cm). To ensure uniformity, potatoes (Solanum tuberosum L.) were selected and treated with fungicide (Fita fax capita 1%, 1.25 kg/ton). The standard land preparation procedures for potato fields were followed. Tubers were planted with a 75 x 30 cm spacing and at a depth of 10 cm. Fertilizer dosages, as recommended by the Agricultural Ministry, were applied [16], [17],. The fertilizer sources used were potassium nitrate (33% N) and urea, which contained 46% N [18], [19]. Irrigation water (0.58 dSm⁻¹, 7.65 pH) was applied based on the ETo ratio (NRC Farm Production Meteo Station) at 85% and 70%. The total water consumption during the potato growing season was 623.7 and 747.2 m³/fed, respectively, in accordance of [20], [21].

2.4 Soil physical and chemical properties

The experimental soil had the following average values: 7.98, 2.85, 1.65, 4.25, 0.15, 1.50, and 6.92; soil EC in 1:1 (dSm-1); bulk density (g/cm3); CaCO3 (%); total available nitrogen and organic matter percentage; and available P (ppm). Before cultivation, the experimental soil’s CaCO3 (4.56%), OM (0.86%), ECe (2.35 dSm–1 in a 1:1 soil extract, and pH (8.08 in a 1:2.5 soil:water ratio) were measured, [22]. The texture of soil is loamy sand. After determining the soil water retention at 0.1 (field capacity) and 15.0 (wilting point) bars, the amount of water that was projected to be available was subtracted, [22]. Water availability in the soil was determined by subtracting. Following, macronutrients (N, P, K, and Ca) and micronutrients (Fe, Mn, and Zn) were identified [23].

2.5 Plant and yield properties

Potato dry matter (Oven), starch, carbohydrate, total sugar, starch, and total sugar were determined according to standard methods described [24].

Specific gravity was determined after [25] and was computed using as follow:

Potato tubers were planted on 25 October 2023 and harvested at 15 April 2024 with a total growth period of 142 days. Tuber yield parameters such as length, diameter, fresh and dry weight as well as moisture content were recorded.

2.5 Statistical analysis

The data were subjected to the analysis of variance (ANOVA) appropriate to the split plot in a randomized complete block design applied after testing the homogeneity of error variances according to the procedure outlined [26]. The significant differences (LSD) between treatments were compared with the critical difference at 5% probability level [27].

  • RESULTS AND DISCUSSSION

Data showed the effect of the irrigation system and P fertilizer rate under different water regimes (85 and 70 % from ETo) on some potato yield characters (weight of tubers/plant, no. of tuber/plant, average tuber weight, yield, marketable yield and unmarketable yield) as in Tables (1, 2; 3).  The highest values of the studied potato characters were recorded at drip irrigation, WR 70 % and 50 kg P fertilizer, whereas, the lowest ones were attained at sprinkler irrigation, 85 % WR and 30 kg P fertilizer. Regarding to the main yield potato characters (yield ton/fed, marketable and unmarketable), data on hand revealed that P fertilizer 50 kg + water regime  85% gained higher than water regime 70% under drip irrigation for potato yield and marketable yield per ton/fed. Meanwhile the lowest values of unmarketable potato yield (required) were noticed at 30 kg P+ 85% water regime under drip irrigation system, but 40 Kg P +70%WR  under sprinkler irrigation have got the lowest values at all (0.601 ton/fed).

Data represented some potato yield characters (tuber diameter, tuber length, tuber volume and specific gravity as affected irrigation system s and P fertilizer rate under different water regime. One can be noticed that the highest values of the previous potato yield parameters were found the water regime 85% + 50 P kg followed by the water regime 70 % under drip irrigation.  The same trend was attained under sprinkler irrigation.  Also, data cleared that increased P kg was associated with the increase of the instigated potato yield characters mentioned above.  Meanwhile, the lowest values of the yield, marketable and unmarketable were recorded at sprinkler irrigation+ 70 % water regime and 30 Kg P.

Data represented the effect of the irrigation system s and water regime and P fertilizer rate on the potato dry matter, starch, carbohydrate, and sugar. The maximum values were obtained at 50 kg P+85 % water regime followed by 70 % water regime under drip irrigation while the opposite was true in minimum values which found sprinkler irrigation + 30 kg P + 85 % water regime, 30 kg P (70 %water regime), 30 kg P (70 % water regime) and 30 kg P (85% water regime) under sprinkler irrigation, respectively. Also, data noticed that the increase of P fertilizer led to increase in DM, starch, carbohydrate and total sugar under both studied irrigation system regardless applied water regime.

Data manifested in Table (2 a, b; c) showed the effect of the irrigation system and water regime and P fertilizer application rate on some macro and micronutrients in potato leaves.  Data on hand pointed out that 50kg P under 85% water regime followed by 70% water regime gained the highest values except Fe and Mn, where 40 kg P under 85 % water regime and water regime gained the highest values of the previous potato characters.  Same trend was observed   under sprinkler water regime without exception. It is easy to arrange values of the macro and micro nutrients in ascending order as follows: 50 kg P+85% WR +drip irrigation >50 kg P+70% WR +drip >50 kg P+85% water regime + sprinkler irrigation > 30 kg P+70% WR + sprinkler irrigation. Also, it is clear to mention that 30 kg P + 70 %WR + sprinkler irrigation recorded the lowest values of the previous potato plant characters.

In reference to the impact of water regime system on the dry matter, starch, carbohydrate, and total sugar content, available data showed that the highest values of the radius but parameters were achieved at the water regime method with increase percentages of 8.57, 12.76, and 2.21 percent, respectively. In the meantime, increased P rate was linked to an increase in the study yield but parameters where the increase in P fertilizer from 30 to 14 kg verified then combined with increase the percentage by about 6.45, 10.95, 1.79, 3.09% and from 40 to 50 d kg that have then to increase the led to increase the percentage why about eight point three, 97.97 comma 3.76 comma minus 1 going to all six percent respectively in the same sequences Tables (4, 5; 6).

According to the effect of water regime system on investigated macro and the micro nutrients contains data in table o showed that the highest values will record it at 50 Kg P and the lowest one was obtained after application of 30 kg P. Also, data noticed that the percentage of a change where 29.3 18.83 14.86, 32.4, second to all three, a living sex boy in 73, 29.03, 15.10% and 5.665, 4.69, 4.220 18.50 3 and it 0.69 comparing 40 kg P with 30 kg P and 50 with 40 kg P, respectively

The data presented in Table 1 demonstrated how irrigation methods and P fertilizer application rate interacted to affect WUE. It was observed that sprinkler irrigation was used in the same order as drip irrigation + 50 kg P fertilizer under 85% water regime. Additionally, the lowest WUE values were found when using sprinkler irrigation with 70% water regime. Potato WUE is significantly impacted by drip irrigation, which outperforms sprinkler irrigation by roughly 36.21%. In reference to the influence of P fertilizer application rates on potato WUE, the results demonstrated that an increase in P fertilizer was correlated with an increase in potato WUE values, with percentage increases of 34.11 and 14.29 following 40 and 50 kg of P fertilizer, respectively, compared to 30 kg P fertilizer.

Also, data showed the effect of various irrigation methods on quality and quantity of potato, such as no, of tuber/plant, tuber weight/plant and mean tuber weight, yield increased with increase P rates. Besant marketable tuber pointed out that irrigation method was superior and the recorded the highest values for all study yield parameters except average tuber with the rate of each change in percentage comparing drip with sprinkler irrigation were 4.65, 7.501, – 3.05, 11.97, 11.06 and 16.506% that is big table meanwhile increasing P a combined with increase in all the study yield characters that in table showed that increase in percentage by about 56.9, 16.85, 34.65, 41.50 for 50, 30 kg P fertilizer and 12, 105.62 comparing 40 kg P with control treatment and 9.44 20.60 – 9.06, 14.05, 17.60 and – 1.51 % comparing by 40 kg P, respectively. [3] Jenkins and Ali states that potato has strong requirement for phosphorus and adequate available phosphorus in the soil is critical for the early development of potato plants, tuber setting, and tuber maturity enhancement. They added phosphorus deficiency, in contrast, will markedly decrease tuber yield, quality, and size.

The results showed how the water regime and P application rates interacted to affect the DM, starch, carbohydrates, and total sugar content. The highest and lowest values were recorded after water regimes of 85% and 50% kg P application rate and 70% and 30% kg P application rate. It was found that increasing P by 20 kg increased the aforementioned potato yield attributes by around 16, 30, 7,: 6% for water regime 85% and 14, -2, 4, -2 for water regime 70%, respectively. The macro and micronutrient Table (7) illustrates the relationship between P application rates and water regime. Based on the available data, all stated values were better when P increased these data agreed with [28-36].

P cell division plays a major influence in how water regime affects P deficient plants, which typically show decreased root development [37]. They also mentioned that P has been connected to the production of tuber starch.  Application of P fertilizer often increases the number of tubers per plant [3; 38]. Rosen et al. [39] stated that the increase in tiny tuber count was countered by a decrease in large tuber count, although [40] reported that application P enhanced the proportion of large tubers harvested. Furthermore, while finding yield responses [41] noted that P did not influence the overall number of tubers. Tuber Caliber P can affect tuber quality in a number of ways, one of which is by raising the tuber’s specific gravity or dry matter [42]. The effects of P on tuber specific gravity that have been measured have been inconsistent, although it seems that if soil test P

Potato yield and yield component varied with N, P and K balanced, variety and soil characteristics [43].  The interaction of   K   and   N   also   produced significantly different marketable tuber numbers and plant height while K and P interaction provided significantly different total and marketable tuber numbers. The interaction of nitrogen and variety was also highly significant. P deficient plants, which generally exhibit reduced root development, are significantly impacted by P cell division in terms of water regime [37]. Additionally, they claimed that P has been linked to the tuber starch manufacturing process. The number of tubers per plant increases when P fertilizer is applied [3; 38]. Although [40] found that application P increased the proportion of large tubers harvested [39] claimed that the rise in small tuber count was offset by a decrease in large tuber count. Furthermore, [41] observed that P had no effect on the total number of tubers while discovering yield responses.

Data showed the interaction effect of three studied factors (irrigation methods, water regime and P application rates) on the macro (N, P, Ca and S) and micronutrients (Fe, Mn; Zn) contents in potato leaves as in Tables (7, 8; 9).  Data pointed out that the highest values of the studied plant nutrient were attained at 50 kg P+ Drip irrigation under 85 % water regime treatments. While the lowest ones were observed at 30 kg P + sprinkler irrigation under 70 water regime treatment.  With respect to the interaction effect of the P fertilizer application rates on the macro (N, P, Ca and S) and micronutrients (Fe, Mn; Zn) contents in potato leaves, data manifested in table 4b indicated that values under water regime at 85, 70, 85; 85 % for macronutrients, respectively. 

Whereas 85, 85; 70 % water regime gained the highest values of the Fe, Mn and Zn content, respectively. Also, it is clear to mention that P fertilizer application rate at 50 kg still gained the highest values for the previous plant nutrients and the opposite was true in case of 30 kg P. Table (9) showed the interaction effect of irrigation methods and water regime on the macro (N, P, Ca and S) and micronutrients (Fe, Mn; Zn) contents in potato leaves. Resulted data cleared that drip irrigation has a superior effect on the macro and micronutrients and scored the highest values of N, P; S and sprinkler irrigation got the highest values of the other studied nutriments.

According to [44], whereas potassium levels have enhanced potato tuber yields, phosphorus levels have increased the number of tubers per plant. The increasing tuber size, quantity of tubers per plant, or both may be the cause of this rise in potato yields. In addition to internal characteristics like dry matter content, growth cracks, hollow hearts, and internal bruises, tuber quality also includes external characteristics like tuber size, shape, skin and flesh color, depth of eyes, greening, and mechanical damage [45].They also mentioned how farming techniques, such as plant density, irrigation schedule, and fertilizer control, affect the quality of tubers. An appropriate phosphorus supply at tuber initiation guarantees that the right amount of tubers is generated.

CONCUSION
These findings indicate that whereas the interaction between the irrigation system and water regime treatments had a highly significant impact on the quantity of marketable tubers and plant height, the water regime alone did not influence any of the assessed parameters under investigation. An essential ingredient that improves potato output and quality is phosphorus. Because potatoes are a highly nutrient-rich crop, they require a suitable amount of mineral fertilizer for healthy growth and development. Research has been done on the effects of P on growth, specific gravity, sugar reduction, shelf life, yield, and others under different water regimes. Both of phosphate and irrigation systems had a considerable impact on the specific gravity of potato tubers. The growth, development, yields and quality of potatoes was found to be significantly affected by P application. The optimum dose of P was found to perform well; higher rates did not affect the parameters significantly.

REFERENCES

  1. Grant, C.A., D.N. Flaten, D.J. Tomasiewicz, and S.C. Sheppard (2001). The importance of early season phosphorus nutrition. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 81: 211–224.
  2. Abd El-Hady, M.; Amal M. Aziz; Ebtisam I. El-Dardiry and Wahba, M.M. (2018). The effect of gypsum formation and content on barley growth and yield under drip irrigation system. Bioscience Research,15(3):1816-1825.
  3. Jenkins, P.D., and H. Ali. 2000. Phosphate supply and progeny tuber numbers in potato crops. Annals of Applied Biology 136: 41–46.
  4. Moussa, S. and Shama, M. (2019). Mitigation the adverse effects of water regime irrigation water salinity on potato crop using potassium silicate foliar application. Middle East J. Appl. Sci. 9: 804–819.
  5. Zaheer, K. and Akhtar, M.H. (2016).Potato production, usage, and nutrition—A review. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 56: 711–721,
  6. Singh, S.K. and Lal, S.S. (2012). Effect of Potassium Nutrition on Potato Yield, Quality and Nutrient Use Efficiency under Varied Levels of Nitrogen Application. Potato J. 39: 155-165.
  7. Bansal, S.K. and Trehan, S.P. (2011). Effect of potassium on yield and processing quality attributes of potato. Karnataka J. Agric. Sci. 24: 48-54.
  8. Salim, B.B.M.; Abd El-Gawad, H.G. and Abou El-Yazied, A. (2014). Effect of foliar spray of different potassium sources on growth, yield and mineral composition of potato (Solanum tuberosum L.). Middle East J. Appl. Sci. 4:1197–1204.
  9. Malik, G.C. and Ghosh, D.C. (2002). Effect of fertility level, plant density and variety on growth and productivity of potato. Potato Glob. Res. Dev. 2: 866–871.
  10. Khan, M.Z.; Akhtar, M.E.; Safdar, M.N.; Mahmood, M.M.; Ahmad, S. and Ahmed, N. (2010). Effect of source and level of potash on yield and quality of potato tubers. Pak J. Bot 42: 3137- 3145.
  11. Trehan, S.P. (2007). Efficiency of potassium utilization from soil as influenced by different potato cultivars in the absence and presence of green manure (Sesbania aculeata). Advances. Horti. Sci. 21: 156-164.
  12. Mansour H. A. and Abdullah, S. A., 2012. “Water and fertilizers use efficiency of corn crop under closed circuits of drip irrigation system.” Journal of Applied Sciences Research, vol. 8, pp. 5485-5493.
  13. Abd-Elmabod, S. K., Hani, M. A., Abd El-Fattah, H., Zhenhua, Z., María, A.-R., Diego, d. l. R., and Antonio, J., 2019a. “Influence of irrigation water quantity on the land capability classification.” Plant Archives Supplement, vol. 2, pp. 2253-2261.
  14. Abd-Elmabod, S. K., Bakr, N., Muñoz-Rojas, M., Pereira, P., Zhang, Z., Cerdà, A., Jordán, A., Mansour, H., De la Rosa, D., et al., 2019b. “Assessment of soil suitability for improvement of soil factors and agricultural management.” Sustainability, vol. 11, pp. 1588-1599.
  15. Ghazzawy, H. S., Sobaih, A. E. E., and Mansour, H. A., 2022. “The Role of Micro-Irrigation Systems in Date Palm Production and Quality: Implications for Sustainable Investment.” Agriculture (Switzerland), vol. 12, p. 2018.
  16. Hellal, F., Hani, M., Mohamed, A.-H., Saied, E.-S., and Chedly, A., 2019a. “Assessment water productivity of barley varieties under water stress by AquaCrop model.” AIMS Agricultura and Food, vol. 4, pp. 501- 517.
  17. Mansour H.A., Abdel-Hady, M., Eldardiry, E. I., and Bralts, V. F., 2015a. “Performance of automatic control different localized irrigation systems and lateral lengths for emitters clogging and maize (Zea mays L.) growth and yield.” International Journal of GEOMATE, vol. 9, pp. 1545-1552.
  18. Mansour H. A., Abdel-Hady, M., Eldardiry, E. I., and Bralts, V. F., 2015b. “Performance of automatic control different localized irrigation systems and lateral lengths for Emitters clogging and maize (Zea mays L.) BD- GRowth and yield.” International Journal of GEOMATE, vol. 9, pp. 1545-1552.
  19. Mansour, H.A. Mehanna, H. M., El-Hagarey, M. E., and Hassan, A. S., 2015c. “Automation of mini-sprinkler and drip irrigation system.” Closed Circuit Trickle Irrigation Design: Theory and Applications, vol. 36, pp. 179-204.
  20. Mansour H.A., Tayel, M. Y., Lightfoot, D. A., and El-Gindy, A. M., 2015d. “Energy and water savings in drip irrigation systems.” Closed Circuit Trickle Irrigation Design: Theory and Applications, pp. 149-178.
  21. Eldardiry, E. E., Hellal, F., and Mansour, H. A. A., 2015. “Performance of sprinkler irrigated wheat – part ii.Closed circuit trickle irrigation design.” Theory and Applications, vol. 37, pp. 41-48.
  22. Klute, A., 1986. Water Retention: Laboratory Methods. In A. Klute (ed.), Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 1, Physical and MineralogicalMethods. 635-662, 9 ASA and SSSA, Madison, WI.
  23. Cottenie, A., M. verloo, L. Kiekens, G. Velgh and R. Camerlynck (1982). Chemical Analysis of Plant and Soils. Lab. Anal. Agrochem. State Univ. Gthent, Belgium.
  24. AOAC (2012), Official Methods of the Analysis of AOAC, International 19th Edition, AOAC International., Maryland 20877-2417, USA
  25. Murphy, H.J. and M.J. Goven. 1959. Nitrogen, spuds and specific gravity. Maine Farm Res. 7(1): 21–24.
  26. Snedecor, G. W. and Cochran, W. G. (1990). Statistical Methods 7th. Ed. Iowa State Univ., press. Ames,. Iowa, U.S.A
  • SAS Institute Inc. (2009). SAS 9.2 stored processes developer‘s guide. Cary, NC, USA.
  • Mansour H.A.and El-Melhem, Y. 2015. Performance of drip irrigated yellow corn: Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (Book Chapter), closed circuit trickle irrigation design: theory and applications. Apple Academic Press, Publisher: Taylor and Frances, pp. 219-232.
  • Mansour, H. A., 2015a. Design considerations for closed circuit design of drip irrigation system. Book Chapter, pp. 61-133.
  • Mansour, H. A., 2015b. “Performance automatic sprinkler irrigation management for production and quality of different Egyptian wheat varieties.” International Journal of ChemTech Research, vol. 8, pp. 226-237.
  • Mansour, Hu, J., Ren, H., Abdalla, N. O., Kheiry, Sameh, K., and Abd-Elmabod, 2019a. “Influence of using automatic irrigation system and organic fertilizer treatments on faba bean water productivity.” International Journal of GEOMATE, vol. 17, pp. 256-265.
  • Mansour H. A., Sameh AbdElmabod, K., and Engel, B. A., 2019b. “Adaptation of modeling to the irrigation system and water management for corn growth and yield.” Plant Archives, vol. 19, pp. 644-651.
  • Mansour, H. A., Abd-Elmaboud, S. K., and Saad, A., 2019c. “The impact of sub-surface drip irrigation and different water deficit treatments on the spatial distribution of soil moisture and salinity.” Plant Archives, vol. 19, pp. 384–392.
  • Mansour H. A., Abd-Elmabod, and Engel, B. A., 2019d. “Adaptation of modelling to irrigation system and water management for corn growth and yield.” Plant Archives, vol. 19, pp. 644-651.
  • Mansour, H. A. El-Hady, Eldardiry, E. I., and Aziz, A. M., 2019e. “Wheat crop yield and water use as influenced by sprinkler irrigation uniformity.” Plant Archives, vol. 19, pp. 2296–2303.
  • Mansour, H. A., Sameh, K., Abd-Elmabod, and AbdelGawad, S., 2019f. “The impact of sub-surface drip irrigation and different water deficit treatments on the spatial distribution of soil moisture and salinity.” Plant Archives. Supplement 2, pp. 384-392.
  • Stark, J.C., and S.L. Love. (2003). Tuber quality. In Potato production systems, ed. J.C. Stark and S.L. Love, 329–343. Moscow: University of Idaho Extension.
  • Allison, M.F.; Flowler, J.H. and Allen, E.J. (2011). Response of Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) to Potassium Fertilizers. The J. of Agric. Sci. 136: 407-426.
  • Rosen C. J.; Keith A. Kelling; Jeffery C. Stark and Gregory A. (2014). Optimizing Phosphorus Fertilizer Management in Potato Production. American Journal of Potato Research 91(2):145-160.
  • Freeman, K.L., P.R. Franz, and R.W. de Jong. (1998). Effect of phosphorus on the yield, quality and petiolar phosphorus concentrations of potatoes (cv. Russet Burbank and Kennebec) grown in the krasnozem and duplex soils of Victoria. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 38: 83–93.
  • Mohr, R.M. and Tomasiewicz, D.J. (2012). Effect of rate and timing of potassium chloride application on the yield and quality of potato (Solanum tuberosum L.‘Russet Burbank’). Can J. of Plant Sci. 92: 783-794.
  • Laboski, C.A.M., M.J. Repking, and T.W. Andraski. 2007. Potato responses to phosphorus fertilizer: 2006 results. Proceedings of the Wisconsin Annual Potato Meetings 20: 177–195.
  • Naz, F.; Ali, A.; Iqbal. Z.; Akhtar, N.; Asghar, S. and Ahmad, B. (2011). Effect of different levels of NPK fertilizers on the proximate composition of potato crop at Abbottabad. Sarhad J. Agric., 27: 353-356.
  • Abd El-Latif, K.M.; Osman, E.A.M.; Abdullah, R. and Abd El-Kader, N. (2011). Response of potato plants to potassium fertilizer rates and soil moisture deficit. Adv. Appl. Sci. Res. 2: 388–397.
  • Olanya, O.M.; Larkin, R.P.; Halloran, J.M. and He, Z. (2014). Relationships of crop and soil management systems to meteorological variables and potato diseases on a Russet Burbank cultivar. J. Agric. Meteorol. 70: 91–104.

Table 1: Effect of irrigation methods and phosphorus application rates on the potato yield, quality and water use efficiency under different water regime conditions.

Irrigation methodWater regime %P KgTuber characteristicsNo of  tubers /plantAverage tuber weight gTuber Yield ton/fedWater use efficiency Kg/m3
Diameter (cm)Length (cm)Volume (cm3/tuber)Specific gravity (g/cm3)Weight/plant (g)Marketableunmarketable
Drip              85306.207.10180.200.850564.256.3089.567.8950.9554.836
 407.808.90215.601.020852.157.50113.629.8953.8557.514
 508.109.60231.801.050955.458.60111.1012.5893.2618.661
Mean7.378.53209.200.973790.627.47104.7610.1262.6907.004
70305.806.70180.500.810554.306.2289.127.4580.6924.454
 406.808.40210.401.020895.687.85114.1010.2501.7336.548
 507.608.90227.301.040968.259.8598.3012.3801.4907.579
Mean6.738.00206.070.957806.087.97100.5010.0291.3056.194
Mean  7.058.27207.630.965798.357.72102.6310.0781.9986.599
Sprinkler              85305.946.85174.230.782554.256.2289.116.7851.6733.349
 406.457.85181.120.965865.356.89125.608.5502.7084.458
 507.348.67186.211.032935.448.12115.2010.9851.9105.106
Mean6.587.79180.520.926785.017.08109.978.7732.0974.304
70305.886.88166.250.798510.236.1882.567.3451.0073.307
 406.507.13175.631.004812.396.88118.0810.2580.6014.300
 507.447.44184.231.023889.748.55104.069.8542.1024.734
Mean6.617.15175.370.942737.457.20101.579.1521.2374.114
Mean  Mean6.597.47177.950.934761.237.14105.778.9631.6674.209
LSD5%Irrig. X water regime X P0.070.123.540.34111.310.783.851..130.781.71

Table 2: Effect of phosphorus application rates on the potato yield, quality and water use efficiency under different water regime conditions.

Water regime %P KgTuber characteristicsNo of  tubers /plantAverage tuber weight gTuber Yield ton/fedWater use efficiency Kg/m3
Diameter (cm)Length (cm)Volume (cm3/tuber)Specific gravity (g/cm3)Weight/plant (g)Marketableunmarketable
85    306.076.98177.220.82559.256.2689.347.341.314.09 
407.138.38198.360.99858.757.20119.619.223.285.99 
507.729.14209.011.04945.458.36113.1511.792.596.88 
Mean6.978.16194.860.95787.827.27107.369.452.395.65 
70    305.846.79173.380.80532.276.2085.847.400.853.88 
406.657.77193.021.01854.047.37116.0910.251.175.42 
507.528.17205.771.03929.009.20101.1811.121.806.16 
Mean6.677.58190.720.95771.777.59101.049.591.275.15 
LSD 5%Water relation0.110.370.98ns7.890.211.190.110.890.09 
P0.171.121.540.0913.250.981.370.721.720.26 
Interaction0.651.842.010.1717.381.372.151.342.110.41 

Table 3: Effect of irrigation methods on the potato yield, quality and water use efficiency under different water regime conditions

Irrigation methodsWater regime %Tuber characteristicsNo of  tubers /plantAverage tuber weight gTuber Yield ton/fedWater use efficiency Kg/m3
Diameter (cm)Length (cm)Volume (cm3/tuber)Specific gravity (g/cm3)Weight/plant (g)MarketableUnmarketable
Drip857.378.53209.200.97790.627.5104.7610.152.6980.20
706.738.00206.070.96806.087.9100.510.031.3188.49
Mean4.705.51138.220.64532.2315.168.4226.721.3356.23
Sprinkler856.587.79180.520.95785.017.1109.978.772.1080.45
706.617.15175.370.94737.457.2101.579.151.2488.10
Mean4.394.98118.630.62507.494.770.515.971.1156.18
LSD5%Irrigation methods0.210.454.25ns11.231.20.980.670.090.13
Water relation0.380.676.120.0414.981.71.380.981.130.21
Interaction0.510.878.390.1117.222.11.580.1091.640.38

Table 4: Effect of irrigation methods and phosphorus application rates on the potato yield, quality and water use efficiency under different water regime conditions.

Irrigation methodsWater regime  %P kg/fedDry matterStarchCarbohydrateTotal Sugar
%
Drip              853013.2544.3250.230.615
 4013.8555.6357.650.654
 5015.2258.4761.250.669
Mean14.1152.8156.380.646
703011.7538.6445.160.633
 4012.9841.1546.880.645
 5013.6542.6852.130.580
Mean12.7940.8248.060.619
Mean 13.4546.8252.220.633
Sprinkler              853011.3541.3148.320.601
 4012.1250.2345.350.611
 5013.4152.6744.160.623
Mean12.2948.0745.940.612
703011.8541.0847.120.612
 4012.3636.4544.360.627
 5013.1535.0844.010.638
Mean12.4537.5445.160.626
Mean 12.3742.8045.550.619
LSD5%Interaction 1.553.143.910.041

Table 5: Effect of phosphorus application rates on the potato yield, quality and water use efficiency under different water regime conditions.

Water regime %P kgDry matterStarchCarbohydrateTotal Sugar
%
85    3012.3042.8249.280.61
4012.9952.9351.500.63
5014.3255.5752.710.65
Mean13.2050.4451.160.63
70    3011.8039.8646.140.62
4012.6738.8045.620.64
5013.4038.8848.070.61
Mean12.6239.1846.610.62
 LSD5%Water regime0.981.121.870.06
P1.671.852.710.11
interaction1.892.343.850.31

Table 6: Effect of phosphorus application rates on the potato yield, quality and water use efficiency under different water regime conditions

Irrigation methodWater regime %Dry matterStarchCarbohydrateTotal Sugar
%
Drip8514.10752.80756.3770.646
7012.79340.82348.0570.619
Mean8.96731.21034.8110.422
Sprinkler8512.29348.07045.9430.612
7012.45337.53745.1630.626
Mean8.24928.53630.3690.412
 LSD5%Irrigation method0.3871.2311.850.011
Water regime0.7412.0152.340.027
interaction0.9772.3122.8710.041

CH: Carbohydrate

Table 7: Effect of irrigation methods and phosphorus application rates on the macro and micronutrients in potato leaves under different water regime conditions

Irrigation methodWater regime  %P kgMacronutrients %Micronutrients ppm
NPKCaFeMnZn
Drip              85    301.231.223.310.82210.3023.0126.15
401.631.414.021.12254.3630.1830.15
501.751.624.831.44287.3136.7732.23
Mean1.541.424.051.13250.6629.9929.51
70    301.221.203.280.80211.3522.1126.06
401.561.483.371.19246.2228.3928.44
501.611.574.331.54234.1232.4532.15
Mean1.461.423.661.18148.4927.6528.88
Mean1.501.423.861.15199.5728.8229.20
Sprinkler              85    301.211.163.350.78201.3122.1125.16
401.541.383.830.98231.2529.3429.85
501.681.484.251.21244.3832.1531.24
Mean1.481.343.810.99225.6527.8728.75
70    301.251.203.320.81208.1422.0325.64
401.631.414.010.96238.3527.2630.12
501.681.514.451.32245.1635.1433.24
Mean1.521.373.931.03230.5528.1429.67
 Mean  1.501.363.871.01228.1028.0129.21
LSD5%Interaction0.120.160.650.4511.354.561.67

Table 8: Effect of P fertilizer application rates on the macro and micronutrients content in potato leaves under different water regime conditions

Water regime  %P kgMacronutrients %Micronutrients ppm
NPKCaFeMnZn
85301.221.193.330.80205.8122.5625.66
 401.591.403.931.05242.8129.7630.00
 501.721.554.541.33265.8534.4631.74
Mean1.511.383.931.06238.1528.9329.13
70301.241.203.300.81209.7522.0725.85
 401.601.453.691.08242.2927.8329.28
 501.651.544.391.43239.6433.8032.70
Mean1.491.403.791.10230.5627.9029.28
 LSD 5%Water regime0.12ns0.110.041.360.180.09
 P0.170.100.150.112.470.270.16
 Interaction0.290.130.310.193.612.411.27

Table 9:  Effect of irrigation methods on the macro and micronutrients content in potato leaves under different water regime conditions

Irrigation methodWater regime %Macronutrients %Micronutrients ppm
NPKCaSFeMnZn
Drip851.531.4174.0531.1270.270250.6629.9929.51
701.461.4173.6601.1770.320230.5627.6528.88
Mean1.000.9442.5710.7680.197160.4119.2119.46
Sprinkler851.41.3403.8100.9900.257225.6527.8728.75
701.5201.3733.9271.0300.290230.5528.1429.67
Mean0.990.9042.5790.6730.182152.0718.6719.47
 LSD 5%Irrigationns0.1370.060.1120.0891.0230.351Ns
 Water regime0.120.2710.1170.2140.1211.0310.4570.108
Interaction0.1380.3870.2100.3540.2311.1250.5670.148
Original Version Master file -ZKG international GermanyDownload

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top