World Research Journal of Agricultural Sciences

Vol. 8(2), pp. 305-311, April, 2021. © www.premierpublishers.org. ISSN: 2326-3997

Research Article

Response of Hot Pepper (Capsicum Annuum L.) to Deficit

Irrigation in Bennatsemay Woreda, Southern Ethiopia
Medihin Madebo Mada and Tadesse Mugoro Lebiso
South Agricultural Research Institute (SARI), Jinka Agricultural Research Center, Irrigation and Drainage Research
Program

This study was conducted at Enchete kebele in Benna-Tsemay Woreda, South Omo Zone to
evaluate the response of hot pepper to deficit irrigation on yield and water productivity under
furrow irrigation system. The experiment comprised four treatments (100 % of ETc, 85% of ETc,
70 % of ETc and 50% of ETc), respectively. The experiment was laid out in RCBD and replicated
four times. The two years combined yield results indicated that, the maximum total yield (20.38
t/ha) was obtained from 100% ETc while minimum yield (12.92 t/ha) was obtained from 50% of
ETc deficit irrigation level. The highest WUE 5.22 kg/ha mm-1 was obtained from 50% of ETc.
Treatment of 100% ETc irrigation application had highest benefit cost ratio (4.5) than all others
treatments. Applying 50% of ETc reduce the yield by 37% when compared to 100 % ETc.
Accordingly, to achieve maximum hot pepper yield in areas where water is not scarce, applying
100% ETc irrigation water application level throughout whole growing season under furrow
irrigation system is recommended. But, in the study area water scarcity is the major limiting
factor for crop production. So, it is possible to get better yield and water productivity of hot
pepper when we apply 85% ETc irrigation water throughout growing season under furrow
irrigation system.

Key Words: Hot Pepper, Deficit Irrigation, Water productivity, Water use efficiency

BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
In Ethiopia, irrigated agriculture is becoming main concern
and strongly recognized to ensure the food security which
is taken as a means to increase food production and self-
sufficiency of the rapidly increasing population of the
country. Accordingly, Ethiopia has planned to irrigate over
5 million hectares of the land with existing water resources
(Awulachew et al., 2010). This expansion of irrigated
agriculture to feed the ever-increasing population on one
hand and the increasing competition for water due to the
development of other water use sectors on the other hand
necessitated the improvement of water use efficiencies in
irrigated agriculture to ensure sustained production and
conservation of this limited resource (Mekonen, 2011).
Improving water use efficiency is an important strategy for
addressing future water scarcity problem particularly in
arid and semi-arid regions (Mdemu et al. 2008). Thus,
water productivity is an indicator of agricultural productivity
in relation to the crop’s consumptive use of water (WDR,
2003). As argued by the Geerts and Raes (2009), and FAO
(2010), increasing crop water productivity can be an
important pathway for poverty reduction. This would
enable growing more food and hence feeding the ever
increasing population of Ethiopia or gaining more benefits
with less water thus enhancing the household income.
Moreover, more water will be available for other natural
and human uses. In this context, deficit irrigation provides
a means of reducing water consumption while minimizing
adverse effects on yield (Mermoud et al., 2005).
Water scarcity is the most severe constraint for the
development of agriculture in arid and semi-arid areas of
the Ethiopia.
*Corresponding Author: Medihin Madebo Mada, South
Agricultural Research Institute (SARI), Jinka Agricultural
Research Center, Irrigation and Drainage Research
Program
*Author Email: medimadebo@gmail.com
Co-Author Email: tademugoro@gmail.com

Response of Hot Pepper (Capsicum Annuum L.) to Deficit Irrigation in Bennatsemay Woreda, Southern Ethiopia
Medihin and Tadesse 306
Benna-Tsemay Woreda is one district of South Omo Zone
in Southern Region of Ethiopia where due to low and
erratic rainfall; chronic drought and water scarcity is
observed recurrently and upsetting agricultural
productivity. The economy of the district is highly
dependent on agriculture (livestock and crop production),
which is in turn dependent on the availability of erratic
rainfall and scarce water resources. As result, there was
competition for water use between inhabitants for livestock
as well as crop production. On the other hand, lack of
improved small scale irrigation technologies, less irrigation
water management practices and inadequate research
supports are a major problem for efficient irrigation water
use and agricultural production improvement in the area
(Mugoro et al., 2020).
The scarce water resources availability, growing
competitions for water use and inefficient on-farm irrigation
management practices during crop production in the area
will reduce water availability for irrigated agriculture, then
endangering food supplies and aggravating rural poverty.
Thus, achieving greater water use efficiency will be a
primary challenge in the near future in the study area. This
calls the use of suitable techniques and practices that
deliver a more accurate supply of water to crops.
Deficit irrigation is one of the options and practices
currently preferred in many parts of the world to maximize
productivity per unit of water used in dry areas. Also, it is
Figure 2.1: Study Area Map
Experimental Design
The experiment was laid out in randomized complete block
design and four level treatments with four replications. The
treatment was conducted under furrow irrigation method.
The treatments were 100% ETc (full level), 85% of ETc,
Response of Hot Pepper (Capsicum Annuum L.) to Deficit Irrigation in Bennatsemay Woreda, Southern Ethiopia
believed to improve water productivity without causing
severe yield reductions; which the crop is exposed to a
certain level of water stress either during a particular
period or throughout the whole growing season. However,
this option was not practically and scientifically
experienced in the study area. Hence, practically
investigating the effect of deficit irrigation on yield and
water productivity of irrigated hot pepper was found to be
important to utilize the limited water resource of the area
without severely affecting the crop yield. Therefore, the
objective of this study was to identify the level of deficit
irrigation which allows achieving optimum yield and water
use efficiency on hot pepper.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Description of Study Area
The experimental site is situated in the eastern part of
Benna-Tsemay Woreda at Enchete kebele a distance of 82
km away from Jinka town, capital of South Omo Zone,
Southern Ethiopia. Geographically, the experimental site is
located at 5˚18’0’’ to 5˚31’33’’ N latitude and 36˚52’30’’ to
37˚5’0’’ E longitude, and at an altitude of 550 m above sea
level. Agro-ecology of study area was arid and semi-arid
with mean monthly maximum and minimum temperature
of 38°c and 18°c, respectively and average rainfall pattern
of 200 -578 mm.
70% of ETc and 50 % of ETc. The experimental field was
divided into 16 plots and each plot size was 4m by 5m
dimension. Space between rows and plants were 70 cm
and 30 cm respectively.
World Res. J. Agric. Sci. 307
Crop Data
Maximum effective root zone depth (Rz) of hot pepper
ranges between 0.5 -1m and has allowable soil water
depletion fraction (P) of 0.25 (Andreas et al., 2002). Hot
Pepper average Kc value was obtained from FAO
irrigation and drainage paper (Allen et al., 1998). Yield data
like marketable yield, unmarketable yield, total yield and
other agronomic parameters were measured in the field.
Crop Water Determination
In this experiment, reference crop evapotranspiration
(ETo) on daily basis was estimated by using FAO
CropWAT software version 8.0 (Allen et al., 1998). The
input data used to compute the ETo, was altitude, latitude,
longitude and 20-years (1997-2016) climatic data of
Weyito experimental site (monthly maximum and
minimum temperature, relative humidity, wind speed,
sunshine hours and rainfall) which was collected from
National Meteorological Agency Hawassa Branch
Directorate.
Then, ETc = ETo x Kc …………………..2.1
Where: ETc = crop evapotranspiration, Kc = crop
coefficient, and ETo = reference evapotranspiration.
Irrigation Water Requirements
Effective rainfall (Pe) which is part of the rainfall that
entered into the soil and made available for crop
production in mm. The effective rainfall can be calculated
from the expression (Brouwer and Heibloem, 1986):
Pe = 0.8 P – 25 if P > 75 mm/month.……2.2
Or
Pe = 0.6 P - 10 if p < 75 mm/month…...…2.3
Irrigation Schedule
The amount of water that can be extracted by plant roots
is held in the soil in an ‘available’ form. The actual volume
of water that can be obtained from the soil profile depends
on the depth of the root system. All of the water found in
the root zone may not be actually taken up by roots (Allen
et al., 1998). Hence, the total available water (TAW),
stored in a unit volume of soil, is approximated by taking
the difference between the water content at field capacity
(FC) and at permanent wilting point (PWP). Therefore, the
total available water was expressed by (Jaiswal, 2003):
TAW = (FC – PWP)* BD*Dz. …2.4
100
Where, TAW is total available water in mm/m, FC is field
capacity and PWP is permanent welting point in percent
(%) on weight basis, BD is the bulk density of the soil in
gm/cm3 and Dz is the maximum effective root zone depth
of hot pepper in mm.
Response of Hot Pepper (Capsicum Annuum L.) to Deficit Irrigation in Bennatsemay Woreda, Southern Ethiopia
As revealed by FAO (1996), hot pepper is sensitive to
water deficit and thus, for high yield, soil water depletion
should not exceed 25% of the total available water (that is
p = 0.25). Also, for maximum crop production, the irrigation
schedule was fixed based on readily available soil water
(RAW). The RAW is the amount of water that crops can
extract from the root zone without experiencing any water
stress. Therefore, RAW was computed from the
expression (Allen et al., 1998):
RAW = p * TAW …………………. 2.5
Where, RAW is readily available soil water in (mm), p is in
fraction for allowable or permissible soil moisture depletion
for no stress (for hot pepper P = 0.25) and TAW is total
available water in (mm). Considering the daily ETc, TAW,
Dz and p, the irrigation interval was computed from the
expression (FAO, 2009):
RAW
Interval (days) = ….................2.6
ETc
Where, RAW in mm and ETc in mm/day. Moreover, depth
of irrigation (dnet) is amount of irrigation water that is to be
applied at one irrigation and the readily available portion of
the soil moisture (Demba, 2014). Accordingly; readily
available soil water is the same as the net irrigation water
application depth (dnet).
Irrigation Application Efficiency and Gross Irrigation
Application Depth
Furrow irrigation could reach a field application efficiency
of 65% when it is properly designed, constructed and
managed. The average varies from 50% to70%. However,
the more common figure is 60% (FAO, 2002). Moreover,
the application efficiency of a short, end diked furrow is
taken as 60% (Brouwer and Prins, 1989). Hence, for this
particular experiment, irrigation efficiency was taken as
60% which is common for surface irrigation method in
furrow irrigation. Based on net irrigation depth and
irrigation application efficiency, the gross irrigation water
requirement was calculated by the following formula
(Brouwer and Prins, 1989):
dnet
dg = …...…………………2.7
Ea
Where, dg is the gross irrigation depth in mm and Ea is the
field irrigation application efficiency (60%). This calculated
gross irrigation water was finally applied to experimental
plots based on the treatment of the experiment.
Irrigation Application Time
The amount of irrigation water to be applied at each
irrigation application was measured using 3-inch Parshall
flume. The time required to deliver the desired depth of
water into each plot was calculated using the equation
(Kandiah, 1981):
Medihin and Tadesse 308

dg×A different at 5% levels of significance were separated using

t= ................................................2.8
6×Q LSD test.
Where: dg = gross depth of water applied (cm), Partial Budget Analysis
t = application time (min),
A = Area of experimental plot (m 2) and Grain yield data were economically evaluated using partial
Q = flow rate (discharge) (l/s) and marginal analysis for the feasibility of watering, labor
and fertilizer application. In order to determine the
The irrigation depth was converted to volume of water by profitability of hot pepper marketable yield produced from
multiplying it with area of the plot (Valipour, 2012). the different deficit irrigation levels, the following
parameters were estimated:
V = A* dg .…………...............................2.9
GM = TR – TVC……………………… 2.11
Where: V = Volume of water in (m 3)
A = Area of plot (m2) Where: GM = Gross margin (ETB/ha)
dg = Gross irrigation water applied (m) TR = Total revenue (ETB/ha)
TVC = Total variable cost (ETB/ha)
Water Use Efficiency
Return/Birr invested = GM/Total fixed cost …….2.12
The water use efficiency was calculated by dividing NR = GM – TFC
harvested yield in kg per unit volume of water used in m3.
The crop water use efficiency is the yield harvested in kg Where: NR = Net return (ETB/ha)
per ha-mm of total water used. TFC = Total fixed cost (ETB/ha)
kg
TCP = TVC + TFC…………………….…2.13
Y( )
WUE = ha
…………………….2.10
ETc(mm) Benefit-Cost ratio = NR/TFC……………2.14
Where: WUE = crop water use efficiency (kg/ha-mm), Y =
bulb yield in kg ha-1 and RESULT AND DISCUSSION
ETc = Crop evapotranspiration (mm)
Soil Characterization of Experimental Site
Data Collection
The result of laboratory soil analyses and field tests on
Amount of applied water per each irrigation event was physical and chemical characteristic, like, soil texture, BD,
measured using calibrated Parshall flume. During FC, PWP, soil pH, electrical conductivity (EC), organic
harvesting stand count, weight of marketable fresh fruit carbon (OC) content, organic matter (OM) content and soil
yield, fruit number of marketable yield, unmarketable fruit infiltration rate were discussed below.
weight and unmarketable fruit number were measured
from the net harvested area of each plot. Soil Physical Properties
Statistical Analysis The result of the soil textural analysis from the
experimental site was presented in Table 3. The texture
The collected data were analyzed using Statistical (40.8% sand, 32% silt, 27.2% clay), (38% sand, 38% silt,
Agricultural Software (SAS 9.0) and least significance 24% clay), (45.6% sand, 30.8% silt, 23.6% clay) at a depth
difference (LSD) was employed to see a mean difference of 0 – 20 cm, 20 – 40 cm, 40 – 60 cm, respectively. Thus,
between treatments and the data collected was statistically according to USDA soil textural classification system, the
analyzed following the standard procedures applicable for soil of the experimental field could be classified as loam at
RCBD with single factor. The treatment means that were all depths.

Table 1: Particle size distribution of the experimental site

Depth Particle size distribution (%) Textural
(cm) Sand Clay Silt Class
0 – 20 40.8 27.2 32.0 Loam
20 – 40 38.0 24.0 38.0 Loam
40 – 60 45.6 23.6 30.8 Loam
Average 41.5 24.9 33.6 Loam

Response of Hot Pepper (Capsicum Annuum L.) to Deficit Irrigation in Bennatsemay Woreda, Southern Ethiopia
 World Res. J. Agric. Sci. 309

Texture may affect the ease with which soil can be worked, and clay together provide desirable characteristics
the amount of water and air it holds and the rate at which (NRMD, 2011). The bulk density (BD), total available water
water can enter and move through the soil. However, loam (TAW), water content at field capacity (FC) and permanent
soils are best suited for crop production because sand, silt wilting point (PWP) values were presented in Table 2.

Table 2. Bulk densities, field capacity, permanent welting point and TAW of the soil
Depth BD FC PWP TAW TAW
(cm) (g/cm3) (%) (%) (mm/depth) (mm/m)
0 – 20 1.26 29.31 12.78 41.66 208.28
20 – 40 1.28 28.13 12.46 40.11 200.55
40 – 60 1.31 26.04 10.72 40.15 200.74
Average 1.28 27.83 11.98 40.64 203.18

The average soil bulk density is (1.28 g/cm 3) and which
was in suitable range for crop growth (NRMD, 2011). The
average total available water (TAW) of experimental site
was found to be 203.2 mm/m which was nearly upper
range of loam soil (140 to 220 mm/m) (Majumdar, 2000).
The average soil infiltration rate and the cumulative intake
curves based on the test result of the soil were presented.
The basic infiltration rate of the soil was about 27.3 mm/hr.
This rate of infiltration is the characteristic of loam soils
(Brouwer and Heibloem, 1986).
Soil Chemical Properties
As indicated in Table 3, the average pH value of the
experimental site through the analyzed depth was found to
be nearly alkaline, with average value of 7.83. The soil had
an average electrical conductivity of 0.182 dS/m through
60 cm profile which is below the threshold value for yield
reduction, i.e. 1.2 dS/m (Smith et al., 2011).The OM
content and OC content of the soil had average values of
2.67% and 1.55%, respectively which indicates high soil
fertility level (OC > 1%) and suitable for vegetable
production (Basu, 2011).

Table 3: Soil chemical properties of the experimental site

Depth pH ECe OC OM
(cm) (dS/m) (%) (%)
0 – 20 7.69 0.210 1.43 2.46
20 – 40 7.93 0.173 1.65 2.85
40 – 60 7.87 0.178 1.58 2.72
Average 7.83 0.182 1.55 2.67

Effect of Deficit Irrigation on Hot Pepper
The combined result in (Table 2) shows that plant height
was significantly affected by deficit irrigation level in
cropping seasons. The highest plant height (85.75cm) was
obtained in full irrigation level, while the lowest (72.43cm)
was obtained within 50% deficit level. From these results
it is clearly seen that as the deficit irrigation level
decreased, the plant height also decreased. This result is
in agreement with the findings of Aklilu (2009) and Takele
(2009) who reported that the plant height of pepper
decreased with decreased irrigation level. The result
revealed that the effects of deficit irrigation level resulted
significant variation in marketable fresh fruit yield. Higher
marketable fresh fruit yield (18.14 t/ha) was obtained from
full irrigation level where as the lowest marketable fruit
yield (11.72 t/ha) was obtained from 50% of ETc. The
result of unmarketable fresh fruit yields was significantly
affected by deficit irrigation level whereas between 70% of
ETc and 50% of ETc there was no significant difference.
Total fresh fruit yield of hot pepper significantly affected by
deficit irrigation levels. Higher total fresh fruit yield (20.38
t/ha) was obtained from 100% ETc where as the lowest
total fresh fruit yield (12.92 t/ha) was obtained from 50%
ETc.

Table 4: The combined ANOVAs table of effects of deficit irrigation levels on fresh fruit yield and other yield
parameters of hot pepper
Treatment Plant Marketable Unmarketable Total yield
Height yield yield (t/ha)
(cm) (t/ha) (t/ha)
100% ETc 85.75a 18.14a 2.24a 20.38a
85% of ETc 80.00ab 16.64b 1.84b 18.49b
70% of ETc 76.55bc 14.28c 1.43c 15.71c
50% of ETc 72.43c 11.72d 1.20c 12.92d

Response of Hot Pepper (Capsicum Annuum L.) to Deficit Irrigation in Bennatsemay Woreda, Southern Ethiopia
CV (%) 8.50 9.02 17.35 7.15
LSD (0.05) 6.86 1.40 0.31 1.24
*Means with the same letter (s) are not significantly different at P ≤ 0.05; LSD = least significant difference; CV = Coefficient
of variation.

Amount of Applied Water, Water Use Efficiency and
Water Saved
The combined result (Table 5) shows that the highest WUE
was obtained in 50% of ETc while the lowest WUE was
obtained in control 100% ETc. The results of this finding
were in agreement with Saleh, (2010) and Adel et al.,
(2014) who reported that WUE values decreased with
increasing irrigation water. Accordingly, when the deficit
level increases the water productivity increases and, the
yield and yield components decreases.

Table 5: Applied water, water use efficiency, water saved and percent yield reduction
Treatment Total yield AW WUE Yield reduction (%) Water saved
(t/ha) (mm) (kg/ha/mm) (%)
100%ETc 20.38 499.2 40.8 0 0
85% of ETc 18.49 424.6 43.5 10 15
70% of ETc 15.71 349.7 44.9 23 30
50% of ETc 12.92 247.3 52.2 37 50
AW = Applied water and WUE = Crop water use efficiency

Economic Analysis
The cost benefit analysis depicted that the highest total
cost (24662 ETB/ha) and the lowest (24351 ETB/ha) was
incurred when 100% ETc and 50% ETc water applied
respectively. The highest gross margin (117,712.9
ETB/ha) and the least (69,798.93 ETB/ha) was obtained
from the 100% ETc and 50% water stress respectively.
Furthermore the highest net return (111,462.9 ETB/ha)
was recorded by full level, while the least net return
(63,548.93 ETB/ha) was obtained by 50% water deficit.
The highest of benefit -cost ratio 4.5 was recorded by
100% ETc of water application.

Table 6: Partial budget analysis of hot pepper fresh marketable yield in response to deficit irrigation
Treatments TY TR TVC TFC TCP GM Return NR BC
Qt/ha (ETB/ha) (ETB/ha) (ETB/ha) (ETB/ha) (ETB/ha) (ETB) (ETB/ha) ratio
100%ETc 181.5 136125 18412 6250 24662 117713 18.8 111463 4.5
85% ETc 166.5 124875 18318 6250 24569 106556 17 100306 4.08
70% ETc 142.8 107100 18225 6250 24475 88875 14.2 82624.6 3.37
50% ETc 117.2 87900 18101 6250 24351 69799 11.16 63549 2.61
*TR= total revenue (ETB/ha), TVC = Total variable cost (ETB/ha), TFC = Total fixed cost (ETB/ha), TCP = Total cost of
production (ETB/ha), GM = Gross margin (ETB/ha), NR = Net return (ETB/ha) and BCR = Benefit cost ratio, ETB =
Ethiopian birr and ha = hectare

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
From the study it was observed that the highest yield was
obtained from the treatment grown with no-stress (100%
ETc) while the lowest was obtained from half of full
irrigation level (50% of ETc). The severe reduction in total
yield of 50% ETc was due to the low soil moisture through
growth stage. The indicated that, the amount of saved
water sharply increased by increasing deficit irrigation
levels. That is producing about 63% of total fresh fruit yield
led to save 50% of irrigation water, producing about 77%
of the total fresh fruit yield saved about 30% of irrigation
water, while producing about 90% of total fresh fruit yield
led to save 15% of irrigation water.
In conclusion, deficit irrigation could be a feasible irrigation
technique for hot pepper production where the benefit from
saving large amounts of water. Thus, the result indicates
that the appropriate and economically viable way of
applying 100% ETc in areas were no water stress required
to increased production and productivity of hot pepper. As
an option applying 85% ETc of irrigation in water stress
areas was optimum means to increase production and
productivity of hot pepper without affecting yield.
REFERENCES
Adel F. Ahmed, Hongjun Yu, Xueyong Yang, and Weijie
Jiang, 2014. Deficit Irrigation Affects Growth, Yield,
Vitamin C Content, and Irrigation Water Use Efficiency of
Hot Pepper Grown in Soilless Culture. HORTSCIENCE
49(6):722–728. 2014.
Aklilu, M. 2009. Effects of mulching and depth of irrigation
application on water use efficiency and productivity of
pepper under gravity drip irrigation, MSc. Thesis,
Department of Irrigation Engineering, Haramaya
University, Ethiopia.
Allen, R., Pereira, L.A., Raes, D. and Smith, M. 1998. Crop
evapotranspitation. Irrigation and
Drainage Paper No. 56. FAO, Rome.

Response of Hot Pepper (Capsicum Annuum L.) to Deficit Irrigation in Bennatsemay Woreda, Southern Ethiopia
World Res. J. Agric. Sci. 311
Andreas, P. and F. Karen., 2002.Crop Water Requirements
and Irrigation Scheduling.Irrigation Manual Module
4.Harare.P.86.
Awulachew, Selesh Bekele; Teklu Erkossa and Regassa
Namara. 2010. Irrigation potentialin Ethiopia,
constraints and opportunities for enhancing the
system. IWMI, Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Basu, P. K. 2011. Methods Manual Soil Testing in India:
Department of Agriculture and Cooperation Ministry
of Agriculture Government of India New Delhi
January, 2011.
Brouwer, C. and K. Prins. 1989. Irrigation Water
Management: Irrigation Scheduling. Training
manual no. 4. FAO. Rome, Italy.
Brouwer, C. and M. Heibloem. 1986. Irrigation Water
Management: Irrigation Water Needs Training
manual no. 3. FAO. Rome, Italy.
David, K. Rop. Emmanuel, C. Kipkorir & John K. Taragon.
2016. Effects of Deficit Irrigation on Yield and
Quality of Onion Crop. Journal of Agricultural
Science; Vol. 8, No. 3; 2016.
Demba Diakhate. 2014. Net Irrigation Requirements for
Maize in Isra-Nioro, Province of Kaolack (Senegal)
Agronomist engineer - PhD Candidate in Applied
mechanization to the UEL –Brasil. Senegalese
Institute of Agricultural Research (ISRA), Bambey
in National Center of Agricultural Research.
FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization). 2002. Deficit
irrigation practices. Water report No.22. Food and
Agricultural Organization of the United Nations
Rome, Italy.
FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization). 2009. CropWat
for windows version 8.0. FAO, Rome, Italy.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 2010. State of
the World's Forests. FAO, Rome, Italy.
Geerts, S. and Raes, D. 2009. Deficit irrigation as an on-
farm strategy to maximize crop water productivity in
dry areas: Agricultural water management, v. 96,
no. 9, p.1275-1284.
Jaiswal, P. C. 2003. Soil, plant and water analysis. Kalyani
puplishers. New Delhi, India.
Kandiah, A. 1981. A guide for measurement of irrigation
water using Parshall flumes and siphons. Technical
Bulletin no.1 Irrigation Agronomy Section Melka
Werer Research Station Institute of Agricultural
Research, FAO irrigation Specialist. Addis Ababa.
Majumdar, D. K. 2000. Irrigation Water Management:
Module 3 Irrigation Engineering Principles Version
2 CE IIT, Kharagpur by Prentice Hall of India.
Mdemu, M.V. C. Rodgersa, P.L.G. Vleka and J.J. Borgadi.
2008. Water productivity (WP) in reservoir irrigated
irrigation system in the upper east region (UER) of
Ghana.
Mekonen Ayana. 2011. Deficit irrigation practices as
alternative means of improving water use
efficiencies in irrigated agriculture: Case study of
maize crop at Arba Minch, Ethiopia. African J. of
Agri. Res. 6(2): 226-235.
Response of Hot Pepper (Capsicum Annuum L.) to Deficit Irrigation in Bennatsemay Woreda, Southern Ethiopia
Mermoud, A. T.D. Tamini and H. Yacouba. 2005. Impacts
of different irrigation schedules on the water balance
components of an onion crop in a semi-arid zone.
Agricultural Water Management 77(1–3): 282–293.
Mugoro T, Assefa S, Getahun A (2020). Molecular
Markers: Effect of Deficit Irrigation on Yield and Water
Productivity of Onion (Allium cepa l.) under
Conventional Furrow Irrigation System, in
Bennatsemay Woreda, Southern Ethiopia. Journal of
Agricultural and Biological Engineering, 1(1): 002-
013.
NRMD (Natural Resources Management Directorate).
2011. Natural Resource Sector and the Ministry of
Agriculture, Addis Ababab, Ethiopia. By Deutsche
Gesells chaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit
(GIZ) GmbH on behalf of the German Government.
Saleh M. Ismail, 2010. Influence of Deficit Irrigation on Water
Use Efficiency and Bird Pepper Production (Capsicum
annuum L.) JKAU: Met., Env. & Arid Land Agric. Sci.,
Vol. 21, No. 2, pp: 29-43 (2010 A.D./1431 A.H.) DOI:
10.4197/Met. 21-2.3
Smith, R., A. Biscaro, M. Cahn, O. Daugovish, E. Natwick,
J. Nunez, E. Takele, and T. Turini. 2011. Fresh-
market bulb onion production in california. Publication
7242. University of California, Agricultural and
Natural Resource Center. California.
Takele Gadissa. 2009. Effect of drip irrigation levels and
planting methods on yield and water use efficiency of
pepper in Bako, Western Oromia, MSc. Thesis,
Department of Irrigation Engineering, Haramaya
University, Ethiopia.
Accepted 7 October 2020
Citation: Medihin MM and Tadesse ML (2021). Response
of Hot Pepper (Capsicum Annuum L.) to Deficit Irrigation
in Bennatsemay Woreda, Southern Ethiopia. World
Research Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 8(2): 305-311.
Copyright: © 2021. Medihin and Tadesse. This is an
open-access article distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits
unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original author and source are cited.