Legume Research

  • Chief EditorJ. S. Sandhu

  • Print ISSN 0250-5371

  • Online ISSN 0976-0571

  • NAAS Rating 6.80

  • SJR 0.391

  • Impact Factor 0.8 (2024)

Frequency :
Monthly (January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November and December)
Indexing Services :
BIOSIS Preview, ISI Citation Index, Biological Abstracts, Elsevier (Scopus and Embase), AGRICOLA, Google Scholar, CrossRef, CAB Abstracting Journals, Chemical Abstracts, Indian Science Abstracts, EBSCO Indexing Services, Index Copernicus
Submit

Full Research Article

Green and Blue Water Footprint for Groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) under Irrigation Scheduling and Nutrient Management Practices

P. Balasubramanian1, R. Babu2, C.R. Chinnamuthu3, P.P. Mahendran4, K. Kumutha5
1Horticultural Research Station, TNAU, Ooty-641 003, Tamil Nadu, India.
2Coconut Research Station, TNAU, Veppankulam- 614 906, Tamil Nadu, India.
3Department of Agronomy, TNAU, Coimbatore-641 003, Tamil Nadu, India.
4Department of Soils and Environment, Agriculture College and Research Institute, TNAU, Madurai-625 104, Tamil Nadu, India.
5Department of Agricultural Microbiology, Agriculture College and Research Institute, TNAU, Madurai-625 104, Tamil Nadu, India.

  • Submitted11-10-2021|

  • Accepted03-02-2022|

  • First Online 28-03-2022|

  • doi 10.18805/LR-4812

ABSTRACT

Background: Water shortage is a key obstacle to the sustainable supply of food to the world and Indian population, since largest consumptive water use. This research paper determines he water footprint of green and blue water for groundnut under an irrigated conditions during different seasons. 

Methods: The field experiments were conducted at Agricultural College and Research Institute, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Madurai, Tamil Nadu during summer, kharif and rabi 2016-2018. The experiments were laid out in a split-plot design with three replications. The main plot consisted of three levels of irrigation scheduling namely 0.8, 0.6 and 0.4 IW/CPE ratios and sub-plots comprised of four nutrient management practices viz., 75% of RDF with 5 tones/ha of charred rice husk, 50% of RDF with 5 tones/ha of charred rice husk, 75% of RDF with 5 tones/ha of charred rice husk along with seed treatment of Arbuscular mycorrhiza and 50% of RDF with 5 tones/ha of charred rice husk along with seed treatment Arbuscular mycorrhiza.

Result: The study revealed that the growth attributes, pod yield and haulm yield, rain and irrigation water content and water use studies of groundnut were registered higher with irrigation scheduling at 0.8 IW/CPE ratios along with the application of 75% RDF and 5 tones/ha of charred rice husk as basal with seed treatment of Arbuscular mycorrhiza. The higher green water content has been recorded with irrigation scheduling at 0.6 and 0.4 IW/CPE ratios during summer’ and kharif’ 2017. The higher blue water content was recorded under irrigation scheduling at 0.8 IW/CPE ratios during all three seasons.

INTRODUCTION

Groundnut is one of the most important oilseed crops among the oilseeds. India ranks first in the area and third in productivity next to the USA and China. Hence, the availability of water and nutrients is the main factor, which has that determines the productivity of the groundnut specially during flowering and peg formation stage (Balasubramanian et al., 2020). Agriculture stands as the largest consumptive water user worldwide: it needs massive amounts of water to produce agricultural products (Hoekstra et al., 2011), based on the studies of virtual water performed laid out the concept of water footprint. This term is defined as the total volume of freshwater used during the production and consumption of goods and services, measured at the place, where the product was produced (Chapagain and Hoekstra, 2008). Water consumptive use is measured in terms of the water volume consumed and evaporated per unit of time. Water foot has been split into three components as green, blue and grey water. Green water the portion of rainfall that is stored as moisture in the soil (Falkenmark and Rockstrom, 2006) and blue water (surface and groundwater) refer to consumption/evapotranspiration during the production of a good.
 
In Madurai, Tamil Nadu, the groundnut crop is mainly produced under irrigated conditions. The region produces about 65% of groundnut production; this fact leads farmers to look for the best conditions that rainfall could provide. The geographical location of this zone provokes that potential evapotranspiration is higher than precipitation. Therefore, crop yield is almost always lower than potential. This research article sets out to characterize the green and blue water of groundnut crop produced in the respective region.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Field experiments were conducted at Agricultural College and Research Institute, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Madurai, Tamil Nadu on groundnut during summer, kharif and rabi seasons for the year 2016-2018. The average meteorological weather conditions, total rainfall was 129.0, 372.8 and 16.6 mm, average temperature range of 23.4 and 37.8oC and the daily pan evaporation was 6.2 mm during summer, kharif and rabi 2017 in the crop growing period. The soil was sandy loam in texture, which belongs to vylogam series. The experiments were laid out in a split-plot design with three replications. The main plots consisted of three levels of irrigation scheduling as I1- 0.8, I2- 0.6 and I3- 0.6 IW/CPE ratio and subplots comprised of four levels of nutrient management namely N1 - 75% of RDF + 5 tones/ha of charred rice husk, N2 - 50% of RDF + 5 tones/ha of charred rice husk, N3 - 75% of RDF + 5 tones/ha of charred rice husk with seed treatment of Arbuscular mycorrhiza and N4 - 50% of RDF + 5 tones/ha of charred rice husk with seed treatment of Arbuscular mycorrhiza. A short duration (100-110 days) bunch variety of groundnut VRI-2 was used as a test variety. Scheduling of irrigation was computed using the evaporation data observed from the Agromet observatory at AC and RI, Madurai. Triple channel layout was adopted for main plot treatments to eliminate the effect of lateral seepage. For one irrigation, 50 mm of water was applied using parshall flume. Soil amendment i.e., charred rice husk was applied at 5 tones/ha (moisture-free) incorporated well in the field before sowing of crops. The green and blue water can be calculated as follows (Falkenmark and Rockström., 2004):
       
  
             
 
The green and blue footprint in crop water use (m-3 ha-1) were calculated by the accumulation of daily evaporation (mmday-1) over the complete growing period in which ET green represents green water evapotranspiration and ET blue represents blue water evapotranspiration. Factor 10 is mean to convert water depths in mm into volume per land surface in m-3 ha-1. The summation is done over the period from the day of planting (day 1) to the day of harvest (lgp stands for the length of the growing period in days). Growth parameters like plant height, dry matter production and pod and haulm yield were recorded and the experimental data collected were subjected for statistical analysis as suggested by Gomez and Gomez (1984).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Number of irrigations applied as per irrigation scheduling
 
Within the treatments, irrigation scheduling at 0.8 IW/CPE ratio requires more water (400 mm) with a total of eight irrigation during summer 2017. Whereas, scheduling of irrigation at 0.6 and 0.4 IW/CPE ratio each required five irrigations of 250 mm. During kharif 2017, 0.4 and 0.8 IW/ CPE irrigation schedule with 100 and 200 mm of water with two and four irrigations were applied, respectively. In the crop of rabi’ 2017, scheduling of irrigation at 0.8 IW/CPE ratio required 450 mm, whereas, with 0.6 IW/CPE applied 350 mm and 0.4 IW/CPE used 250 mm during the crop season and the data are presented in Table 1.
 

Table 1: Number of irrigations applied as per the irrigation scheduling during summer, kharif and rabi’ 2017.


 
Growth attributes
 
Plant height and dry matter production were influenced by irrigation scheduling and nutrient management practices (Table 2). The significantly taller plants of 52.79, 51.21 and 50.06 cm and dry matter production of 5328, 5076 and 5323 kg ha-1 at harvest during kharif, rabi and summer, respectively were observed with irrigation scheduling of 0.8 and 0.6 IW/CPE each with 75 and % RDF + 5 tones/ha of charred rice husk along with seed treatment of Arbuscular mycorrhiza and which was comparable with each other. The increased soil moisture availability to the crop might have provided optimum moisture supply and uptake by the crop resulting in increased cell division, stem elongation and finally increased plant height and dry matter production. Further, conjugation of Arbuscular mycorrhiza could have paved to create more adsorptive surface for the uptake of nutrients by the crop. Earlier work of Ahlawat and Gangaiah (2010) collaborate with the above results. The lower plant height was observed with irrigation scheduling at 0.4 IW/CPE which was due to the decreased soil moisture availability has resulted in stunted growth, probably with decreased absorption of water, leading to poor growth during all the seasons. Similar work has been reported by Hassan et al., (2016).
 

Table 2: Effect of irrigation scheduling and nutrient management practices on plant height (cm) and dry matter production (kg ha-1) of groundnut at harvest during kharif, rabi and summer’ 2017.


 
Pod and haulm yield
 
Irrigation scheduling and nutrient management practices also significantly influenced the pod yield, irrigation scheduling at 0.8 IW/CPE ratio with 75% RDF + 5 tones/ha of charred rice husk along with seed treatment of Arbuscular mycorrhiza recorded the higher pod yield and haulm yield of 2099 and 5062 kg ha-1, 2063 and 5083 kg ha-1 and 2003 and 4984 kg ha-1 respectively (Table 3). This was comparable with irrigation scheduling of 0.6 IW/CPE ratio with 75% RDF + 5 tones/ha of charred rice husk along with seed treatment of Arbuscular mycorrhiza. This could due to the incorporation of rice husk as basal That increased the water and nutrients availability for longer period and enhanced the yield. The lower pod yield of 1288, 1206 and 1236 kg ha-1 and haulm yield of 3768, 4016 and 4023 during kharif, rabi and summer, respectively. The presence of growth-promoting substances due to colonization of Arbuscular mycorrhiza promoted plant growth and could have increased chlorophyll production by boosting the photosynthetic process and stimulating vegetative growth. Thus, an overall plant performance would have enhanced and finally reflecting through increased production of haulm were observed with irrigation scheduling at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio with 50% RDF + 5 tones/ha of charred rice husk during all the seasons. The results were in similarity to the findings of Gouda et al., (2018).
 

Table 3: Effect of irrigation scheduling and nutrient management practices on pod yield (kg ha-1) and haulm yield (kg ha-1) of groundnut during kharif, rabi and summer’ 2017.


 
Green and blue water
 
The green and blue water, were calculated from the volume of water used in different irrigation scheduling during summer, kharif and rabi seasons are presented in Table 4. Among the different treatments, 0.6 IW/CPE ratio recorded higher green water of 1320 m-3 ha-1 during summer. The lowest green water was recorded with 0.8 IW/CPE ratio with a value of 740 m-3 ha-1. During kharif season, at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio was recorded highest green water with the value of 3106 m-3 ha-1. Among the irrigation scheduling, 0.8 IW/CPE ratio recorded the lowest green water with a value of 2408 m-3 ha-1. Irrigation scheduling of 0.8 IW/CPE ratio was showed more blue water with a value of 4000, 2000 and 4500 m-3 ha-1 during summer, kharif and rabi season, respectively. Whereas, the lowest blue water was observed with 0.4 IW/CPE ratio in summer, kharif and rabi season. Comparing these results with those obtained in this study, it was found some similarity in the green water footprints by Mekonnen and Hoekstra, (2010).
 

Table 4: Estimation of green and blue water for groundnut crop during summer, kharif and rabi 2017.


 
 
Water use efficiency
 
As regards to water use efficiency, the highest water use efficiency was registered with 0.8 IW/CPE ratio and application of 75% of RDF with 5tones/ha charred rice husk along with seed treatment of Abuscular mycorrhiza with a value of 4.35, 7.37, 5.27. Invariably in all the seasons, irrigation scheduling of 0.4 IW/CPE ratio with an application of 50% of RDF and 5 tones/ha charred rice husk registered the lowest water use efficiency and the data are furnished in Table 5. Hence, it can be very well stated that the application of charred rice husk improved the water retention in the soil as compared to control. Earlier studies by Karam et al., (2009) had shown that the application of charred rice husk resulted in a reduction of water through evaporation due to improvement in soil physical properties such as increased soil aggregations and improved water holding capacity.
 

Table 5: Effect of irrigation scheduling and nutrient management practices on water use efficiency (kg ha-1mm-1) and water productivity (` m-3) of groundnut during summer, kharif and rabi’ 2017


 
Water productivity
 
The data on water productivity are furnished in Table 5. Irrigation scheduling of 0.6 IW/CPE ratio with an application of 75% of RDF along with the application of 5 tones/ha charred rice husk registered the higher water productivity of ₹ 285.40 and ₹ 256.71 m-3 during summer and kharif season, respectively. Whereas, irrigation scheduling of 0.8 IW/CPE ratio and application of 50% of RDF with 5 tones/ha charred rice husk recorded the lower value of ₹ 202.26 and ₹ 217.29 during summer and rabi season, respectively. Similar results were observed by Prajapati et al., (2007).

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

None.

REFERENCES


  1. Ahlawat, I.P.S. and Gangaiah, B. (2010). Response of Bt cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) hybrids to irrigation. Indian Journal of Agricultural Science. 80(4): 271-274.

  2. Balasubramanian, P. Nethaji Mariappan, V.E., Keisar Lourdusamy, D., Chinnamuthu, C.R. and Swetha, S. (2020). Peanut as a smart food and their nutrients aspects in planet: A review. Agricultural Reviews. 41(4): 403-407.

  3. Chapagain, A.K. and Hoekstra, A.Y. (2008). The global component of freshwater demand and supply: An assessment of virtual water flows between nations as a result of trade in agricultural and industrial products. Water Int. 33: 19-32.

  4. Falkenmark, M. and Rockströ, J. (2004). Balancing Water for Man and Nature: The New Approach to Ecohydrology. Earth Scan. U.K.

  5. Falkenmark, M. and Rockstrom, J. (2006). The new blue and green water paradigm: Breaking new ground for water resources planning and management. J. Water Resour. Plan. Manag. 132: 129-132.

  6. Gomez, K.A. and Gomez, A.A. (1984). Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research. New Delhi, India. John Wiley. 680p.

  7. Gouda, S., Kerry, R.G., Samal, D., Mahapatra, G.P., Das, G. and Patra, J.K. (2018). Application of Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria in Agriculture. Advances in Microbial Biotechnology Current Trends and Future Prospects. Edition: pp. 73-83. 

  8. Hassan, S.F., Shadha, A.A., Layla, I.M. and Musaab, A.Y. (2016). Response of cotton to potassium levels under water regime. International Journal of Applied Agricultural Science. 2(4): 56-63.

  9. Hoekstra, A.Y., Chapagain, A.K., Aldaya, M.M. and Mekonnen, M.M. (2011). The Water Footprint Assessment Manual: Setting the Global Standard. Earthscan. London, UK.

  10. Karam, F., Masaad, R., Bachour, R., Rhayem, C. and Rouphael, Y. (2009). Water and radiation use efficiencies in drip- irrigated pepper (Capsicum annuum L): Response to full and deficit irrigation regimes. European Journal of Horticultural Science. 74(2): 79-85.

  11. Mekonnen, M.M. and Hoekstra, A.Y. (2010). A global and high- resolution assessment of the green, blue and grey water footprint of wheat. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 14: 1259-1276.

  12. Prajapati, M.R., Patel, V.T., Chaudhary, N.V. and Soni, M.C. (2007). Constraints experienced by growers in adoption of recommended chilli technology. Gujarat Journal of Extension Education. 12 and 13: 56-58.
Reviewed By

Download Article
In this Article
    Contact us
    Follow us

    Editorial Board

    View all (0)