Agronomy: Response of Drip Irrigation and Fertigation On Cumin Yield, Quality, and Water-Use E Arid Climatic Conditions

agronomy
Article Article
Response
Article
of Drip
Response
Irrigation
of Drip
and Fertigation
Irrigation and
on Fertigation on
Response of Drip Irrigation and Fertigation on Cumin
Cumin Yield,Article
Quality,
Cumin Yield,
and Water-Use
Quality, and Efficiency
Water-Use Efficiency
Yield, Quality, and Water-Use
Article Efficiency Grown under
Grown under
Arid Arid
Grown
ClimaticClimatic
Response under Conditions
of Drip
ConditionsArid
Response Climatic
Irrigation ofandConditions
Drip
Fertigation
Irrigation on
and Fertigat
Moti Lal MehriyaCumin Yield, Quality,
Moti Lal Mehriya 1,*, Neelam
Moti
1,Geat
Lal1,Mehriya
Sarita 2, Hari
1,*, Neelam
Cuminand
Singh 3Geat
, Mohamed Yield,
1, SaritaA.
Water-Use
2, Hari
Mattar Quality,Efficiency
Singh
4 and
and Water-Use Ef
3, Mohamed A. Mattar 4 and
*, Neelam Geat 1 ,5,6,Sarita 2 , Hari Singh 3 , Mohamed A. Mattar 4 and
Hosam O. Elansary * 5,6, Hosam O. Elansary *
Hosam O. Elansary 5,6, *
1
1
Grown under
Agricultural Research Station, Mandor,
Agricultural
Agriculture
1
AridGrown Climatic
ResearchUniversity,
Station, Mandor,
under
Jodhpur
Conditions
Agriculture
Arid
342304, Rajasthan,
University,
Climatic Conditions
India;
Jodhpur 342304, Rajasthan, India;
Agricultural Research Station, Mandor, Agriculture University, Jodhpur 342304, Rajasthan, India;
nilugeat@gmail.com
nilugeat@gmail.com nilugeat@gmail.com
2 College of2 Agriculture,
Moti 2Lal
Jodhpur,
Mehriya
College
Agriculture
1,*, NeelamMoti
of Agriculture,
University,
Geat
Jodhpur,
Lal
1, Sarita
Jodhpur
Mehriya
Agriculture
342304,
2, Hari1,*, Singh
Rajasthan,
Neelam
University,
3, Mohamed
Geat 1, Sarita
A. Mattar
2, Hari Singh
4 and 3, Mohamed A. M
College of Agriculture, Jodhpur, Agriculture University, Jodhpur 342304,India; Jodhpur 342304,
Rajasthan, India; Rajasthan, India;
Hosam saritachoudhary739@gmail.com
saritachoudhary739@gmail.com O. Elansary * 5,6, Hosam O. Elansary * 5,6,
saritachoudhary739@gmail.com
3
3 Krishi Vigyan Kendra,
Krishi Sirohi,
Vigyan 3 Agriculture
KrishiSirohi,
Kendra,
1 Agricultural VigyanUniversity,
Kendra,
Agriculture Sirohi,
Jodhpur Agriculture
342304,
University, Rajasthan,
Jodhpur University,
342304, India;
Jodhpur
Rajasthan, 342304,
India; Rajasthan, India;India;Jodhpur 342304
Research Station, Mandor,
1 Agricultural
Agriculture
Research University,
Station, Jodhpur
Mandor, 342304,
Agriculture
Rajasthan,
University,
hsagro666@gmail.com
hsagro666@gmail.com hsagro666@gmail.com
4 Department 2 of 4Agricultural Engineering, King SaudRiyadh
University,
4 Department of Agricultural Engineering,
Department
College King
of Agricultural
of Agriculture, Saud University,
Jodhpur, Engineering,
2 Agriculture
College KingRiyadh
11451,
of Agriculture,Saud
University,Saudi 11451,
Arabia;Saudi
University,
Jodhpur,
Jodhpur Arabia;
Riyadh
342304,
Agriculture11451,
Rajasthan, Saudi
India;Arabia;
University, Jodhpur 342304, Rajast
mmattar@ksu.edu.sa
mmattar@ksu.edu.sa mmattar@ksu.edu.sa
saritachoudhary739@gmail.com saritachoudhary739@gmail.com
5 PlantDepartment,
5 Plant Production Production5 Department, College of Food and Agriculture Sciences, King Saud University,
3 KrishiCollege
Plant Production
Vigyan ofKendra,
Food and
Department,
Agriculture
Sirohi, College
Sciences,
Agriculture
3 Krishi of Food
Vigyan King
University, and
Kendra,Saud Agriculture
University,
Jodhpur
Sirohi, Sciences,
342304, Riyadh
Agriculture KingIndia;
Rajasthan, SaudJodhpur
University, University, Riyadh
342304, Rajastha
Riyadh
11451, Saudi Arabia 11451, Saudi Arabia
11451, Saudi Arabia
6
Floriculture,
6 Floriculture, Ornamental Ornamental
4 Horticulture,
Horticulture,
6 Floriculture,
and Garden
Ornamental and Horticulture,
DesignGarden Design
4 Department, andDepartment,
Faculty
Garden Faculty
ofDesign
Agricultureof (El-Shatby),
Agriculture
Department, (El-Shatby),
Faculty of Agriculture (El-Shatby),
Department of Agricultural Engineering,
DepartmentKing of
Saud
Agricultural
University, Engineering,
Riyadh 11451,
King Saudi
SaudArabia;
University, Riyadh 11451, S
Alexandria University, Alexandria 21545, Egypt
Alexandria University, Alexandria Alexandria
21545,
mmattar@ksu.edu.sa Egypt
University, Alexandria 21545,
mmattar@ksu.edu.saEgypt
* Correspondence: mlmehriya@gmail.com (M.L.M.); helansary@ksu.edu.sa (H.O.E.);
* Correspondence: mlmehriya@gmail.com
* Correspondence:
5 Plant Production (M.L.M.); mlmehriya@gmail.com
Department,helansary@ksu.edu.sa
College
5 Plant of Food(M.L.M.);
Production (H.O.E.);
and helansary@ksu.edu.sa
Tel.: +966-581216322
Department,
Agriculture Sciences,
College ofKing
Food(H.O.E.);
Saud Tel.: +966-581216322
andUniversity,
Agriculture Riyadh
Sciences, King S
Tel.: +966-581216322 (H.O.E.)
(H.O.E.) (H.O.E.)
11451, Saudi Arabia 11451, Saudi Arabia

Received: 18Received: 182020;
September 2020;218
Accepted: 22020;
November 2020; 4Published: 42020
November 2020 and
6 Floriculture, Ornamental Horticulture,
6 Floriculture,
and Garden
Ornamental
Design Horticulture,
Department, Faculty
Garden
of Agriculture
Design
September Accepted:
Received: November
September 2020;Published:
Accepted: 2November
November 2020; Published: 4 November 2020 Department,
(El-Shatby),Faculty
Alexandria University, Alexandria Alexandria
21545, Egypt University, Alexandria 21545, Egypt
Abstract: A three-year * Correspondence:
field
Abstract:
experiment A mlmehriya@gmail.com
three-year
was *
conducted
Abstract: A three-year field experiment was conducted atfieldCorrespondence:
(M.L.M.);
experiment
at the mlmehriya@gmail.com
helansary@ksu.edu.sa
Agricultural
was theconducted
Research
Agricultural (H.O.E.);
(M.L.M.);
at Station
the Tel.:
Agricultural
Research of Station +966-581216322
Research
of (H.O.
Station of
Mandor, Jodhpur,
Mandor,Rajasthan, (H.O.E.)
Jodhpur,Mandor,
under arid
Rajasthan,Jodhpur,
climatic
under Rajasthan,
arid (H.O.E.)
conditions
climatic under
in the
arid
conditionsrabiclimatic
season
in conditions
the rabiof 2016–2019
seasonin ofthe
withrabi
theseason
2016–2019 withofthe2016–2019 with the
objectives of evaluating
objectives theobjectives
ofReceived: effect
evaluating 18of thedrip
ofeffect
September evaluating
irrigation
of drip
2020; the
and effect
fertigation
irrigation
Accepted:
Received: of and
2 November
18 drip levels
irrigation
fertigation
September 2020; on
2020; cuminand
levels
Published:
Accepted:fertigation
plant
on 2growth,
cumin
4 November
Novemberlevels
plant on cumin
growth,
20202020; Published:plant growth,
4 Novembe
yield, oil content,
yield, oilwater-use
content, yield, efficiency,
water-useoil content,
and water
efficiency, water-use
and productivity.
water efficiency, Theand
productivity. pooled
water data
The pooled productivity.
revealed that
data revealed Thethe pooled
that thedata driprevealed that the
drip irrigation at 0.6at
irrigation cumulative
Abstract:
0.6 drip irrigation
cumulative pan evaporation
A three-year
pan at 0.6field
evaporationcumulative
(CPE) (CPE) recorded
experiment
Abstract: panAevaporation
recorded significantly
was
three-year
conducted
significantly (CPE)
higher
field recorded
plant
atexperiment
higher the height
significantly
Agricultural
plant was conducted
height Research
(31.4 higher
cm), at plant
Station height
the Agricult
of
(31.4 cm), umbels plant −1
Mandor,
−1 (31.4
(50.4), cm),
umbellates
Jodhpur, umbels plant
umbel
Rajasthan, −1
−1 (5.07),
−1 (50.4),
under
Mandor, seeds
umbellates
arid umbel
Jodhpur,
climatic
umbels plant (50.4), umbellates umbel (5.07), seeds umbel (5.34), test weight (4.60 g), seed yield −1
umbel
−1 (5.34),
Rajasthan,
conditions−1 test
(5.07), weight
under
in seeds
the (4.60
arid
rabi umbel g),
season
climatic −1 (5.34),
of test
conditions
2016–2019 weight
inwith
the (4.60
the
rabi g),
sea
seed yield (1063
(1063 kgkg ha −1
ha objectives
−1 ),), gross
seedreturn
yield (1063
((₹ 172,600
of evaluating kg ha ha),
the −1 −1 ),gross
),net
effect
−1 ofreturn
objectives
net return (₹
((₹ 113,500
dripofirrigation172,600and
evaluating
113,500 ha
ha −1)),effect
)and
net benefit,
thefertigation
−1
−1
and return
of drip (₹and
levels
benefit, 113,500
irrigation
and oncostcumin haand
−1
ratio ) and
plant benefit,levels
fertigation
growth, and
cost ratio (2.9)
(2.9)over
overdrip fertigation
yield,
drip cost
oilratio
fertigation atat
content,(2.9)
0.4 CPE
over
CPEand
0.4water-use drip
andsurface
fertigation
yield, irrigation
efficiency,
surface oil at 0.4
content,
and
irrigation with
CPE
water 0.8
and
0.8CPE.
water-use
with surface
productivity.
CPE. The irrigation
efficiency,
The fertigation
The and with
pooled
fertigation water
data
with0.8 CPE. Thethat
productivity.
revealed
80% fertigation
The
the pool
with 80% recommended
recommended dripdose with
dose ofoffertilizer
80%
irrigation recommended
(RDF)
at 0.6
fertilizer being
cumulative
(RDF) being dose
at at
drip parofpar
pan with
fertilizer
irrigation 100%
evaporation
with (RDF)
at
100% RDF
0.6RDF being
recorded
(CPE)
cumulative at par
recorded
recorded a pan
significantly
with 100% RDFhigher
a significantly
evaporation recorded
(CPE) plant a significantly
recorded height signific
higher number
number of umbels (31.4plant
of umbels higher
cm), −1
plant −1
number
(50.0),
umbels (50.0), of
plant umbels
umbellates
−1 (50.4),
umbellates plant
umbel
(31.4
umbellates
umbel −1
−1 −1
cm),(5.03),
(50.0),
umbelsumbel
(5.03),seeds
umbellates
plant
−1
seeds umbellate
(5.07),
−1 (50.4),umbel
seeds
umbellate −1
(5.24),
(5.03),
umbellates
−1 umbel
−1 −1
(5.24),testseeds
(5.34),
umbel umbellate
test
−1
test weight(5.07),
weight seeds (5.24),
(4.60
−1 g), test
umbel −1 (
weight (4.67 g), seed

(4.67 g), seedyield
seed (1052
weight
yield yield kg
(1052 (4.67
hakg
(1063 ),g),
−1kg
ha −1−1
seed
gross
ha yield
),),return
gross
gross seed(1052
(₹ 170,900
return
return yieldkg ha
((₹(1063ha
−1),
−1),
172,600
170,900 gross
kgnet ha
ha −1
ha−1return
return
),),),net
−1 gross
net (₹
(₹return
111,700
return170,900
return ((₹ha
ha
(₹ 113,500 −1),
), net
172,600
−1
111,700 ha−1 ha −1
return
) −1
ha and (₹ return
), ),net 111,700
benefit, and(₹ha −1),
113,5
and benefit andcost ratiocost
benefit (2.9)
cost and
ratioover
ratio benefit
(2.9) fertigation
(2.9) over
over cost ratio
drip with
fertigation (2.9)
60%
costover
fertigation
with RDF
ratio
60% at RDF fertigation
0.4and
(2.9)
CPE control.
over
and and with
drip Maximum
surface
control. 60%
fertigation
Maximum RDFwater-use
irrigation atand
0.4
with
water-use control.
CPE Maximum
0.8efficiency
and
CPE. surface
The fertigation water-use
irrigation with
efficiency (5.7 ha−1
(5.7 kg ha −1 mm
with −1efficiency
−1)80%
)and water
andrecommended
water (5.7 kg ha(39.04%)
saving
saving (39.04%)
−1 mm
dose of−1)
with was
and
fertilizer
was 80% water
observed saving
recommended
observed (RDF) under
being
under (39.04%)
drip
atdose
drip par irrigation
of was
with observed
fertilizer
irrigation 100% at
at 0.4RDF 0.4
(RDF)
CPE under
beingdrip
recorded
followed atapar irrigation
significantly
with 100% at 0.4
RD
CPE followed by 0.6 CPEhigher(4.8CPE kg−1followed
ha
number −1 mm−1 of
by 0.6 CPE (4.8 kg ha mm and 18.86%, respectively).−1by 0.6
and
umbels CPE
18.86%,
plant(4.8
higher−1 kg ha
respectively).−1 mm
number
(50.0), of
umbellates
−1 and 18.86%,
umbels umbel plant respectively).
−1 (5.03),
−1 (50.0), seedsumbellates
umbellate umbel
−1 (5.24),
−1 (5.03),
test seed
weight (4.67 g), seed yield (1052 weight kg ha (4.67 g), seed
−1), gross returnyield(₹(1052 170,900 kg haha−1−1),), net
gross return
return (₹ (₹111,700
170,900 ha−1 ha),−1), n
Keywords:Keywords:
cumin; dripcumin; irrigation;
and Keywords:
drip fertigation;
benefit costcumin;
irrigation; net
drip return;
ratiofertigation;
(2.9) irrigation;
andnet
over WUE;
benefitfertigation;
return;
fertigationyield WUE;
cost with
rationet
yield
60%return;
(2.9) RDFoverWUE;
and yield
fertigation
control. with Maximum 60% RDF water-use
and contr
efficiency (5.7 kg ha−1 mm−1) and efficiency
water saving (5.7 kg (39.04%)
ha−1 mm−1was ) and observed
water saving under (39.04%)
drip irrigationwas observed
at 0.4 un
CPE followed by 0.6 CPE (4.8 kg CPE hafollowed
−1 mm−1 and by 0.6 CPE (4.8
18.86%, kg ha−1 mm−1 and 18.86%, respectively).
respectively).
1. Introduction
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Keywords: cumin; drip irrigation;
Keywords:
fertigation;
cumin;
netdrip
return;
irrigation;
WUE; yield
fertigation; net return; WUE; yield
Humans have Humansbeen have
usingbeen
cumin using
Humans cumin
(Cuminum
have been (Cuminum
cyminum) cyminum)
using cumin
in culinary in
(Cuminum culinary
dishes dishes
cyminum)
since insince
ancient ancient
culinary
times for times
dishes for ancient times for
since
a variety ofa medicinal
variety of purposes
medicinal purposes
a variety
from of fromissues
digestive
medicinal digestive
purposes issues
fromto
to respiratory respiratory
digestive
conditions. conditions.
issues Cumin, Cumin,
to respiratory
a flowering a flowering
conditions. Cumin, a flowering
plant in theplant
family in Apiaceae,
the family Apiaceae,
plant
nativein from native
the family from east Mediterranean
east Mediterranean
Apiaceae, nativeto East
fromIndia
easttoMediterranean
Eastanti-inflammatory
has India has anti-inflammatory
to East India and
and has anti-inflammatory and
antiviral properties.
antiviral properties. Cumin Cumin
antiviral has beneficial
has beneficial
properties. effects
effects
Cumin ininhas
curing
curing tastelessness,
beneficial
tastelessness, poor
effects indigestion,
poor curing cardiovascular poor digestion,
digestion,
tastelessness,
disease,
cardiovascular swellings,
disease, vomiting,
swellings,
cardiovascular
Humans andbeen
vomiting,
have chronic
disease,
andusingfever
chronic in
swellings,
cumin humans
fever
Humans
(Cuminum[1,2].cyminum)
vomiting,
in humans
have Cumin
and
[1,2].
been seeds
chronic
Cumin
using have
fever
in cumin innutritional
seeds
culinary humans
have since
(Cuminum
dishes quality
[1,2].
cyminum) Cumin
ancient seeds
in times forhave
culinary dish
a variety
Agronomy 2020, 10, x; doi: FOR PEER
of medicinal
Agronomy
REVIEW
purposes a variety
from digestive
2020, 10, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW
of medicinal
issuespurposes
to respiratory
from digestive
conditions.
issues
Cumin,
to respiratory
a flowering
www.mdpi.com/journal/agronomywww.mdpi.com/journal/agronomy
condit
plant in the family Apiaceae, native plant from
in theeast
family
Mediterranean
Apiaceae, native
to Eastfrom
India
easthas
Mediterranean
anti-inflammatory
to Eastand
India h
Agronomy 2020, 10, 1711; doi:10.3390/agronomy10111711
antiviral properties. Cumin antiviral has beneficial
properties.effects
Cuminin www.mdpi.com/journal/agronomy
curing
has beneficial
tastelessness,
effectspoorin digestion,
curing tastele
cardiovascular disease, swellings, cardiovascular
vomiting, and disease,
chronic
swellings,
fever in vomiting,
humans and [1,2].chronic
Cuminfever
seedsinhave
humans
Agronomy 2020, 10, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW
Agronomy 2020, 10, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/agronomy ww
Agronomy 2020, 10, 1711 2 of 16
i.e., 100 g of seed include energy 370 kcal, dietary fiber 10.5 g, proteins, 22.27 g fat, 44.24 g carbohydrates,
and 10.5 g fiber, as well as vitamins and minerals [3]. Several studies have revealed that cumin seeds
can also increase vitamin C intake [4,5]. The presence of vitamin C in cumin seeds allows the spice to
serve as an immune system booster [6]. The cumin seeds also contain about 2.5 to 3.6% essential oil
which has a typical odor and a little bitter taste and is used in perfumery and for flavoring liquors and
cordials [7].
In India, cumin is commonly grown in the arid and semi-arid area of the western part of the
country. Rajasthan and Gujarat together contribute more than 95% of the Indian production. Cumin is
concentrated in the districts of Jodhpur, Jalore, and Barmer contributing to 70% of the total area of
the Rajasthan state [8]. The water requirements of cumin are lower than those of many other spices.
The optimum growth temperature ranges are between 25 and 30 ◦ C. Cumin crop requires a moderately
cool and dry climate for good growth and production. High humidity, cloudy weather, more dew,
and unseasonal rain after flowering of the crop are detrimental to cumin crop [9]. When humidity
is more in atmosphere after flowering, the incidence of the disease is increased. Cumin is especially
sensitive to Alternaria blight and Fusarium wilt [10]. In arid and semi-arid areas of the western
part of the country, water is one of the main constraints in crop production due to deficit annual
rainfall. The limited quantity of water available for irrigation calls for an urgent need for water-saving
technology for improving the water productivity of cumin in water-scarce areas. Drip irrigation
systems offer higher water-use efficiency on account of reduced losses such as evaporation, runoff,
and percolation as compared to other irrigation systems. Drip irrigation systems also reduce the over
exploitation of ground water [11,12]. The low water-requiring crops such as cumin must be greatly
influenced by this water management strategy. There are reports that drip irrigation systems improve
the water-use efficiency (WUE) by improving the yield with a minimum use of water [13].
Providing crop nutrients along with water through the fertigation method ensures a uniform
and timely supply of nitrogen (N) without contamination of the environment through the leaching
process [14]. Fertigation improves fertilizer-use efficiency and maintains nutritional balance and
nutrient concentration at optimum levels. It saves energy and labor, provides opportunities to apply the
nutrient at critical stages of crop growth, and results in high-quality crop productivity. Drip fertigation
reduces ground water contamination with chemical fertilizers, retards incidence of pest or disease,
escapes foliage burn, and avoids runoff. Drip fertigation also plays an important role in effective
weed management and successful crop cultivation in undulating fields [15]. Several studies on drip
fertigation at various parts of India on different vegetable crops have shown that the drip fertigation
technique reduces fertilizer requirement by 40–60%, saves water by 20–60%, and increases the yield
by 15–50% over the other methods of irrigation and fertigation [16,17]. The application of water and
nutrient simultaneously to plants through fertigation enhances the photosynthesis process as plants
produce new tissues to enhance biomass production [18]. Therefore, a field study was conducted
to evaluate the potential of drip irrigation and fertigation on cumin yield, quality (oil content),
and water-use efficiency grown under an arid zone of Rajasthan, India.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Field Experiment Site and Details

A field experiment was carried out during three consecutive rabi seasons of 2016–2017, 2017–2018,
and 2018–2019 at the Agricultural Research Station, Mandor (Agriculture University, Jodhpur, India)
to study the effect of drip irrigation and fertigation levels on seed yield and quality of cumin.
Factorial randomized block design with three replications was used to design the field experiment.
The treatments consisting of three drip irrigation levels, i.e., drip irrigation at 0.4 cumulative pan
evaporation (CPE) (I0.4 ), drip irrigation at 0.6 CPE (I0.6 ), and drip irrigation at 0.8 CPE (I0.8 ), and three
fertigation levels, i.e., fertigation with 60% recommended dose of fertilizer (RDF) (F60 ), fertigation with
80% RDF (F80 ), and fertigation with 100% RDF (F100 ) and one control (surface irrigation at 0.8 CPE
Agronomy 2020, 10, 1711 3 of 16
Agronomy 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 16

with 100% RDF). Cumin variety GC-4 was sown on 11th November in 2016, 6th November in 2017 and
−1
3rd November in 2018. Sowing was done manually by using a 12 kg ha seed rate with a rows spaced
2017 and 3rd November in 2018. Sowing was done manually by using 2 a 12 kg ha−1 seed rate with a
of 30 cm apart and 1.5–2.5 cm depth. The area of each plot was 12.6 m . The average2 crop duration of
rows spaced of 30 cm apart and 1.5–2.5 cm depth. The area of each plot was 12.6 m . The average crop
cumin was 127 days.
duration of cumin was 127 days.
2.2. Soil Analysis
2.2. Soil Analysis
The available nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium present in soils were determined by using
standardTheprotocols
availableofnitrogen,
Subbiah andphosphorus,
Asija [19],and potassium
the Olsen method present in soils
[20], and were determined
the flame photometer methodby using
standard protocols of Subbiah and Asija [19], the Olsen method [20], and
of Standfold and English [21], respectively. The pH and organic carbon of soil were also tested before the flame photometer
method
sowing theofcrop
Standfold
according and to
English [21], respectively.
the standard protocols ofThe Singh pHetand organic
al. [22] carbon of
and Walkley andsoilBlack
were[23],
also
tested before sowing the crop according to the standard protocols of Singh
respectively. Soil testing results revealed that the available nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium et al. [22] and Walkley
and Black
content [23], respectively.
in experimental Soil testing
soils were 170 kg results
ha−1 , 26revealed
kg ha−1 ,that
andthe 391available
kg ha−1 , nitrogen,
respectively.phosphorus,
The organicand
potassium
carbon and pH content
of theinexperimental
experimental soils
soils were
were 170 kg
0.13% andha
−1
8.00,, 26respectively.
kg ha , and 391 kg ha , respectively.
−1 −1
The organic carbon and pH of the experimental soils were 0.13% and 8.00, respectively.
2.3. Meteorological Observation and Cumulative Pan Evaporation
2.3. Meteorological Observation and Cumulative Pan Evaporation
The periodical mean weekly weather parameters for the period of the experimentation recorded
The periodical mean
at the meteorological weeklyofweather
observatory the Indianparameters
Council for the period ofResearch—Central
of Agricultural the experimentation Aridrecorded
Zone
at the meteorological
Research observatory of
Institute, (ICAR-CAZRI) the Indian
Jodhpur Council
(Figure of Agricultural
1). Daily and monthly Research—Central
mean values ofArid Zone
climatic
Research Institute, (ICAR-CAZRI) Jodhpur (Figure 1). Daily and
parameters namely, maximum and minimum temperatures, relative humidity, and rainfall were monthly mean values of climatic
parameters
observed namely, maximum
in observatory; however, and minimumpan
cumulative temperatures,
evaporation relative humidity,
was calculated daily andwithrainfall were
the open
observed in observatory;
pan evaporimeter method. however, cumulative pan evaporation was calculated daily with the open
panTheevaporimeter
maximum method.temperatures during 2016, 2017, and 2018 of the crop-growing period were 32.6,
The29.4
35.5, and maximum temperatures
◦ C; however, duringvalues
corresponding 2016, for2017, and 2018temperatures
minimum of the crop-growing
were 8.8, period
8.2, andwere
10.1 32.6,
◦ C.
35.5,
The and 29.4
annual °C; however,
rainfall corresponding
at the experimental valuesthe
site during forcrop-growing
minimum temperatures
period waswere 8.8, 8.2,
23.3 mm andthe
during 10.1
°C. The annual rainfall at the experimental site during the crop-growing
first year of the experiment, but in the next two years, no rainfall was received. The maximum andperiod was 23.3 mm during
the first year
minimum of the
relative experiment,
humidity duringbuttheincrop-growing
the next twoperiodyears,wereno rainfall
89.00%was andreceived.
12.00% inThe maximum
2016, 72.00%
and minimum relative humidity during the crop-growing period were
and 12.00% in 2017, and 68.00% and 22.00% in 2018, respectively. Relative humidity was the highest89.00% and 12.00% in 2016,
in
72.00%during
January and 12.00%
all theinthree
2017,years
and 68.00% and 22.00% in 2018, respectively. Relative humidity was the
of the experiment.
highest in January during all the three years of the experiment.
Figure1.1.Weather
Figure Weatherparameters
parametersduring
duringthe
thecrop-growing
crop-growing period.
period.
2.4. Water and Fertilizer Application

Drip laterals with a Hydrogol integral extruded (In-line) emitter were used, which have a
discharge rate of 3.5 liter h−1 water at 2 kg cm−2 input pressure in a drip system. The internal diameter
of the drip lateral was 12 mm. Drip irrigation was scheduled at 4 days after the preceding irrigation
with 1.5 kg cm−2 output pressure on the basis of cumulative pan evaporation (CPE) of 0.4, 0.6, and
Agronomy 2020, 10, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/agronomy

Article
Response of 2020,
Agronomy Drip10, 1711Irrigation and Fertigation on
Article 4 of 16
Cumin Yield, Quality,

Response andofWater-Use
2.4. Water and Fertilizer Application
Drip Irrigation Efficiency and Fertigation on
Grown under Arid
Drip laterals withClimatic
Cumin Yield,
a Hydrogol Conditions
Quality,
integral and
extruded (In-line) Water-Use
emitter Efficiency
were used, which have a discharge
−1 −2
rate of 3.5 L h water at 2 kg cm input pressure in a drip system. The internal diameter of the
Moti Lal Mehriya *, Neelam
1,
drip lateral
Grown
wasGeat , Sarita
12 mm.
under
1
Drip irrigation
Arid
, Hari Singh 2 Climatic
was, scheduled
Mohamed A.4Mattar
at
3 Conditions
andthe preceding irrigation with
days after
4
Hosam O. Elansary 5,6,* −2

1.5 kg cm output pressure on the basis of cumulative pan evaporation (CPE) of 0.4, 0.6, and 0.8.
Moti Lal Mehriya 1,*, Neelam Geat 1, Sarita 2, Hari Singh 3, Mohamed A. Mattar 4 and
1 Agricultural The
Research Station, of
application surface
Mandor, irrigationUniversity,
Agriculture (check basin irrigation
Jodhpur 342304,method) was
Rajasthan, done on a basis of 0.8 CPE.
India;
Hosam O. Elansary 5,6,*
Three levels of fertigation, 60, 80 and 100% recommended dose of fertilizer (RDF), were applied through
nilugeat@gmail.com
soluble fertilizers
2 College of Agriculture, Jodhpur, i.e., urea and
1 Agricultural
Agriculture urea phosphate
Research
University, Station,
Jodhpur (16:44:0)
Mandor,
342304, in six splits
Agriculture
Rajasthan, at different
University,
India; Jodhpurstages i.e.,
342304, 10% at India;
Rajasthan,
15 days after
saritachoudhary739@gmail.com sowing (DAS), 10%
nilugeat@gmail.comat 30 DAS, 30% at 45 DAS, 30% 60 DAS, 10% at 75 DAS, and 10% at
90Kendra,
DAS. ASirohi,
recommended −1 −1
3 Krishi Vigyan Agriculturedose of fertilizer 30 kg N haRajasthan,
2 College of Agriculture, Jodhpur, Agriculture
University, Jodhpur 342304, andUniversity,
20 India;
kg P2 OJodhpur
5 ha in342304,
surface irrigation
Rajasthan, was
India;
given through ureasaritachoudhary739@gmail.com
hsagro666@gmail.com and single super phosphate as a basal dose.
3 Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Sirohi, Agriculture University, Jodhpur 342304, Rajasthan, India;
4 Department of Agricultural Engineering, King Saud University, Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia;
2.5.
mmattar@ksu.edu.saAnalyses of Plant Growth, Biomass, and Yield
hsagro666@gmail.com
Department ofand
Agricultural Engineering, KingSaud
SaudUniversity,
University,Riyadh
Riyadh −1
plant11451, Saudi Arabia;
5 Plant Production Department, 4College ofplant
Food Agriculture Sciences,
The observations on height, branch plant−1 , King
and number of umbels were recorded
11451, Saudi manually
Arabia mmattar@ksu.edu.sa
on five randomly selected representative plants from each plot of each replication separately,
5 Plant Production Department, College of Food and Agriculture Sciences, King Saud University, Riyadh
6 Floriculture, Ornamental Horticulture,
and the yield-attributing and Garden Design Department, Faculty of Agriculture (El-Shatby),
character and yield were also recorded as per the standard method. Harvesting
Alexandria University, Alexandria11451, Saudi
21545, Arabia
Egypt
was done on 186 March 2017, 8 March 2018, and 11 March 2019. The seed and straw yield were
Floriculture,
* Correspondence: mlmehriya@gmail.com Ornamental
(M.L.M.); Horticulture, and
helansary@ksu.edu.sa GardenTel.:
(H.O.E.); Design Department, Faculty of Agriculture (El-Shatby),
+966-581216322
recorded from the net plot area of each treatment. The volatile oil in cumin was estimated by using
(H.O.E.) Alexandria University, Alexandria 21545, Egypt
Clevenger’s apparatus [24].
* Correspondence: mlmehriya@gmail.com (M.L.M.); helansary@ksu.edu.sa (H.O.E.); Tel.: +966-581216322
Received: 18 September 2020; Accepted: 2 November 2020; Published: 4 November 2020
(H.O.E.)
2.6. Analysis of Water Studies
Abstract: A three-year field Received:
experiment was conducted
18 September at the Agricultural
2020; Accepted: 2 November 2020; Research Station
Published: of
4 November 2020
Water-use efficiency (WUE) was calculated by using following formula given by Viets [25] and
Mandor, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, under arid climatic conditions in the rabi season of 2016–2019 with the
expressed in kg ha−1 mm−1 .
objectives of evaluating the effect Abstract:
of drip A irrigation
three-yearand field experiment
fertigation levelswasonconducted
cumin plant at the Agricultural Research Station of
growth,
Mandor, Jodhpur,
yield, oil content, water-use efficiency, Rajasthan,−1 underThe aridpooled
climaticdata conditions inthat
the rabi
the season of 2016–2019 with the
WUE =and Seedwater
yieldproductivity.
(kg ha )/Actual Evapotranspiration revealed (mm) (1)
objectives of evaluating the effect of drip
drip irrigation at 0.6 cumulative pan evaporation (CPE) recorded significantly higher plant height irrigation and fertigation levels on cumin plant growth,
(31.4 cm), umbels plant −1 yield,
Water productivity oil
(50.4), umbellates content,
(economic) water-use
umbelthat −1 (5.07), efficiency,
seeds umbel
is a function and
−1
of gross water
(5.34),
income productivity.
testand
weightvolume The
(4.60ofg), pooled data
total water usedrevealed that the
seed yield (1063 kg haand
by crop −1), grossdrip irrigation
return
expressed in ((₹ m −3at) 0.6ha
172,600 cumulative
−1), net return pan(₹ evaporation
113,500 ha−1(CPE)) and recorded
benefit, and significantly higher plant height
(31.4 cm), umbels plant −1 (50.4), umbellates umbel−1 (5.07), seeds umbel−1 (5.34), test weight (4.60 g),
cost ratio (2.9) over drip fertigation at 0.4 CPE and surface irrigation with 0.8 CPE. The fertigation
−1 −3
with 80% recommended dose seed yieldproductivity
Water
of fertilizer (1063
(RDF)kg ha−1
being =), gross
atGross
par with return
income100% ((₹ ha
172,600
RDF ha−1used
)/Water
recorded ), anet return
(m ). (₹ 113,500 ha−1)(2)
significantly and benefit, and
higher number of umbels plant cost−1ratio
(50.0),(2.9) over drip umbel
umbellates fertigation at 0.4
−1 (5.03), CPEumbellate
seeds and surface irrigation
−1 (5.24), test with 0.8 CPE. The fertigation
2.7.seed
weight (4.67 g), Economics Analysis
yield (1052withkg80% ha−1recommended
), gross returndose of fertilizer
(₹ 170,900 ha−1),(RDF) being (₹
net return at par withha
111,700 100%
−1), RDF recorded a significantly
and benefit cost ratio

An economic higher
(2.9) over number
fertigation
analysis was doneofwith
umbels60% plant
to compare RDF −1
theand (50.0), umbellates
control.
returns of the Maximum
various umbel −1 (5.03), seeds
dripwater-use
irrigation umbellate−1 (5.24), test
and fertigation
efficiency (5.7levels.
kg ha−1Net
mm weight
−1) and
return waswater(4.67 g), seed
saving
determined by yield
(39.04%) (1052observed
was
subtracting kg
theha
−1
total), under
grossof
costs return
drip (₹ 170,900
irrigation
production at ha
from the),gross
0.4 −1 net return
income (₹ 111,700 ha−1),
CPE followeddetermined
by 0.6 CPE (4.8from and habenefit
kgcumin−1 mm−1cost
seedand yield.ratio
The(2.9)
18.86%, over
respectively).
cost of waterfertigation
for eachwith 60% RDF
irrigation and control.
treatment Maximum water-use
was calculated
by multiplying the efficiency
cost of (5.7 kgvolume
a unit ha mm
−1
of )water
−1 and waterand the saving (39.04%) of
total quantity was observed
irrigation under
water drip irrigation at 0.4
required
Keywords: cumin; drip CPE
irrigation; followed
fertigation; by 0.6
net CPE
return; (4.8 kg
WUE; ha −1 mm−1 and 18.86%, respectively).
yield
for the cumin crop. Additionally, the cost of urea and urea phosphate fertilizer for each fertigation
treatment was calculated. All other production costs including labor (land preparation, seeds, sowing,
weeding, fertilizer Keywords:
application,cumin; drip irrigation;
spraying fertigation;
and harvesting), net return;
chemicals WUE; yield
(insecticides and pesticides), and
the drip irrigation system (low-density polyethylene pipe for main, sub-mains, and laterals, filters,
1. Introductionfertilizer unit, pressure gauges, control valves, water meter, drippers, and other accessories) were
Humans have computed on thecumin
been using basis of depreciation
(Cuminum cost ofinthe
cyminum) whole dishes
culinary drip system.
since ancient times for
1. Introduction
a variety of medicinal purposes from digestive issues to respiratory conditions. Cumin, a flowering
2.8. Statistical Analysis
plant in the family Apiaceae, nativeHumans from east have been using cumin
Mediterranean to East (Cuminum cyminum) in culinary
India has anti-inflammatory anddishes since ancient times for
antiviral properties. Cumin a variety
has of medicinal
beneficial purposes
effects in from
curing digestive issues
tastelessness, to respiratory
poor
The experimental data recorded in various observations were statistically analyzed conditions.
digestion, Cumin, a flowering
in accordance
cardiovascularwith disease, plant
the swellings,
‘Analysis of in the
vomiting, family
Variance’and Apiaceae, native
chronic fever
technique from east
in humans
as described Mediterranean
[1,2]. Cumin
by Panse to East India
seeds have
and Sukhatme has anti-inflammatory
[26]. The critical and
difference (CD)antiviral properties.
for the treatment
Agronomy 2020, 10, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW
Cumin was
comparisons hasworked
beneficial effects in
out wherever the curing
variancetastelessness,
www.mdpi.com/journal/agronomy
poor digestion,
ratio (F test) was
cardiovascular disease, swellings, vomiting, and chronic fever in humans
found significant at a 5% level of probability. To elucidate the nature and magnitude of treatments [1,2]. Cumin seeds have
effects, summary tables2020,
Agronomy along10, with
x; doi: SEm± CD (p = 0.05) were prepared.
andREVIEW
FOR PEER www.mdpi.com/journal/agronomy
Agronomy 2020, 10, 1711 5 of 16
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Effect of Drip Irrigation Levels on Cumin Plant Growth, Yield-Attributing Characteristics, and Yield
The study revealed that the application of drip irrigation significantly increased the growth and
yield parameters viz. plant height (cm), branches plant−1 , number of umbels plant−1 , number of
umbellates umbel−1 , number of seeds umbellet−1 , and test weight (g) during all three experimental
years. The highest plant height (31.4 cm) was obtained with drip irrigation at 0.6 CPE (I0.6 ), which was
at par with drip irrigation at 0.8 CPE. The number of branches plant−1 was observed as significantly
enhanced in all drip irrigation regimes over surface irrigation at a CPE of 0.8 (Table 1). Among the
different drip irrigation regimes, no significant difference was observed with respect to the number
of branches plant−1 . The number of umbels plant−1 and umbellates umbel−1 were significantly
increased by the application of all drip irrigation regimes over the surface irrigation at a CPE of 0.8.
The application of drip irrigation at 0.6 and 0.8 CPE significantly increased umbels plant−1 by 9.32%
and 5.85% over drip irrigation at 0.4 CPE (I0.4 ) and 34.04% and 29.78%, over surface irrigation at CPE
of 0.8, respectively. Drip irrigation at 0.6 CPE increased the number of seeds umbellet−1 by 5.03%
and 13.61% over the drip irrigation at 0.4 CPE and surface irrigation at a CPE of 0.8, respectively.
The maximum number of umbellates umbel−1 was observed under an application of drip irrigation
at 0.6 CPE (5.07), which was at par with drip irrigation at 0.8 CPE (5.00). On a yearly average,
seeds umbellet−1 increased significantly under drip irrigation at 0.6 CPE over the rest of the treatments.
The test weight of cumin seeds increased significantly with the application of drip irrigation at 0.6 CPE
over the rest of the treatments and the percentage increase in test weight was 15.28% over surface
irrigation. ANOVA for cumin plant growth and yield attributes showed that although irrigation (I) and
Fertigation treatments were highly significant (5% probability), their interaction (F × I) was significant
(5% probability) only for plant height, umbellate umbel−1 , and seeds umbellate−1 (Table 1). The yield
of cumin increased significantly with the application of drip irrigation over surface irrigation (Table 2).
Table 1. Effect of drip irrigation and fertigation levels on the growth and yield attributes of cumin
(pooled data of three years).
Plant Number of Number Number of Number Test

Treatment Height Branches of Umbels Umbellate of Seeds Weight
(cm) plant−1 plant−1 umbel−1 umbellate −1 (g)
Irrigation levels
Drip irrigation at 0.4 CPE (I0.4 ) 29.8 6.90 46.1 4.93 5.06 4.44
SEm± 0.2 0.08 0.5 0.02 0.03 0.04
CD (p = 0.05) 0.6 0.27 1.7 0.08 0.10 0.13
Fertigation levels
Fertigation with 60% RDF (F60 ) 29.9 3.48 45.9 4.94 5.13 4.35
Fertigation with 80% RDF (F80 ) 31.1 3.52 50.0 5.03 5.24 4.67
Fertigation with 100% RDF
30.9 3.46 49.5 5.04 5.23 4.46
(F100 )
SEm± 0.2 0.04 0.5 0.02 0.03 0.04
CD (p = 0.05) 0.6 0.12 1.7 0.08 0.10 0.13
Control vs. Others
Surface irrigation at 0.8 CPE
27.4 3.26 37.6 4.60 4.70 3.99
with 100% RDF (S0.8 F100 )
Others 30.6 3.49 48.4 5.00 5.20 4.49
SEm± 0.3 0.06 0.9 0.04 0.05 0.07
CD (p = 0.05) 1.0 0.20 3.0 0.14 0.17 0.23
C.V
Fertigation (F) * * * * *
Irrigation (I) * * * * *
Fertigation × Irrigation (I × N) * * *
Control/others * * * * * *
Significant at * 5% probability level.
Agronomy 2020, 10, 1711 6 of 16
Table 2. Effect of drip irrigation and fertigation levels on yield and oil content of cumin (pooled data of three years).
Seed Yield (Kg/ha) Oil Content (%)

Treatment
2016–2017 2017–2018 2018–2019 Pooled 2016–2017 2017–2018 2018–2019 Pooled
Irrigation levels
Drip irrigation at 0.4 CPE (I0.4 ) 1252 857 695 934 3.53 3.51 3.21 3.42
SEm± 21.5 30.7 15.6 14.4 0.07 0.07 0.10 0.04
CD (p = 0.05) 64.0 91.1 46.4 40.8 0.20 0.21 0.29 0.12
Fertigation levels
Fertigation with 60% RDF (F60 ) 1292 887 717 966 3.64 3.53 3.28 3.48
Fertigation with 80% RDF (F80 ) 1372 1005 780 1052 3.67 3.56 3.34 3.52
Fertigation with 100% RDF
1357 1001 782 1046 3.43 3.51 3.44 3.46
(F100 )
SEm± 21.5 30.7 15.6 14.4 0.07 0.07 0.10 0.04
CD (p = 0.05) 64.0 91.1 46.4 40.8 0.20 0.21 0.29 0.12
Control vs. Others
Surface irrigation at 0.8 CPE
824 539 530 631 3.35 3.30 3.13 3.26
with 100% RDF (S0.8 F100 )
Others 1340 964 760 1021 3.58 3.53 3.36 3.49
SEm± 27.8 39.6 20.2 24.9 0.09 0.09 0.13 0.06
CD (p = 0.05) 82.6 117.6 59.9 70.7 0.25 0.28 0.38 0.20
C.V 5.60 6.17 8.93
Fertigation (F) * * * * *
Irrigation (I) * * * *
Fertigation × Irrigation (I × N) * * *
Control/others * * * * *
Agronomy 2020, 10, 1711 7 of 16
Our results revealed that drip irrigation at 0.6 CPE (I0.6 ) enhanced the plant height by 15% and
5.36% over surface irrigation at CPE of 0.8 and drip irrigation at 0.4 CPE, respectively. These results
are in close agreement with the results of Kunapara et al. [27], who reported that the highest plant
height was observed at 0.8 Irrigation water/Crop evapotranspiration (IW/ETc) ratio. Drip irrigation
significantly enhanced the number of branches per plant. It might be attributed to the availability
of sufficient soil moisture for plant growth through drip irrigation, which led to an enhanced leaf
area index and accelerated photosynthetic rate. In our present study, maximum cumin seed yield
was recorded with an application of drip irrigation at 0.8 CPE followed by drip irrigation at 0.6 CPE
during each experimental year except for 2016–2017. The lowest plant height and seed yield were
obtained at 0.4 CPE due to an insufficient availability of water compared to the requirement of the crop.
It might be due to excessive irrigation along with better nutrition leading to vegetative growth and a
shortened reproductive phase [28]. The reduction in the yield with surface irrigation was due to less
relative leaf water content and water potential. Yield attributes and yield increased due to better water
utilization and uptake of nutrients and an excellent soil–water air relationship with higher oxygen
concentration in the root zone. Another reason might also be due to the optimum moisture conditions
in the entire root zone of the crop, which enhance the physiological activities of plants resulting in
increased dry matter accumulation [29]. Bafna et al. [30] and Raina et al. [31] observed that frequent
water application maintained the soil moisture almost near the field capacity; thereby, the crop did not
experience moisture stress during the growth period.
Similar findings have been reported by Lal et al. [32], who revealed that irrigation regimes
0.6 IW/CPE ratio with drip irrigation had superior seed yields of fenugreek. Kunapara et al. [33]
reported that an application of drip irrigation with 0.8 IW/ETc yielded higher seed yield, plant height,
and dry matter in cumin. Kanwar et al. [34] reported that drip irrigation at 75% CPE recorded the
highest growth and yield, but it was on par with drip irrigation at 50% CPE. Various studies have
reported that an increased number of irrigations at 0.6 CPE or 0.8 CPE is beneficial for achieving higher
seed yield [35–39]. Jat et al. [40] found that scheduling irrigation through drip at a 0.8 IW/CPE ratio with
paired row planting was at par with 1.0 IW/CPE ratio that recorded significantly higher seed and straw
yields as well as growth and yield attributes. Similar results were also obtained by Godara et al. [41] and
Meena et al. [42]. Many researchers reported that irrigating crop with drip irrigation gave better seed
yield as compared to surface irrigation [13,43–45]. Overall, the drip irrigation has a regulating effect on
reducing energy use and soluble nutrient losses, creating well-aerated conditions, minimizing over
irrigation, and increasing water-use efficiency by maintaining high soil matric potential in the root zone
of the plant [46,47]. Drip irrigation enhances yield with low water availability because the congenial
conditions for better growth are maintained in the root zone throughout the crop growth period [27].
3.2. Effect of Fertigation Levels on Cumin Plant Growth, Yield-Attributing Characteristics, and Yield
In the present investigation, there was a significant influence of different fertigation levels on plant
growth and yield parameters viz. plant height (cm), number of umbels plant−1 , umbelletsumbel−1 ,
seeds umbellate−1 , test weight (g), seed, straw, and biological yield of cumin except for the number
of branches per plant−1 during the mean of experimental years (Table 1). The maximum number of
branches plant−1 (3.52) was recorded with fertigation with 80% RDF, but there was no significant
difference within fertigation levels. An application of fertigation with 80% RDF significantly increased
umbels plant−1 by 8.93% and 32.97%, respectively, over the fertigation with 60% RDF and surface
irrigation with 100% RDF. Maximum numbers of umbellates umbel−1 (5.04) were recorded with an
application of fertigation with 100% RDF and seeds umbellate−1 with fertigation with 80% RDF as the
mean over the years. The test weight of cumin seeds was significantly increased with the application
of fertigation with 80% RDF, and the percentage increase in test weight was 17.04, 7.35, and 4.70% over
surface irrigation with 100%, fertigation with 60%, and 100% RDF. The yield of cumin significantly
increased with the application of different levels of fertigation over the control (Table 2). ANOVA results
Agronomy 2020, 10, 1711 8 of 16
showed that fertigation (F), irrigation (I), and their interaction (F × I) were significant (5% probability)
for cumin seed yield (Table 2).
Our results revealed that the maximum plant growth and cumin seed yield was recorded with the
application of fertigation with 80% RDF followed by fertigation with 100% RDF during all the years of
the experiment. Plant height was significantly influenced by fertigation with 80% RDF and increased
by 4.01% and 13.50% over fertigation with 60% RDF and surface irrigation with 100% RDF, respectively,
which was at par with fertigation with 100% RDF. Kanwar et al. [34] and Honnappa et al. [48] reported
that an application of fertilizers at 100% RDF recorded the highest plant height and was at par with
fertigation at 75% RDF in fenugreek. The reason behind the higher yield is maintaining an optimum
level of moisture in the rhizosphere zone by a controlled application of water through drip that favored
the mineralization of inorganic nutrients and resulted in better growth and development of the crop;
or, this might be due to an application of water-soluble forms of nutrients under each treatment,
while treatments that received higher fertigation levels showed more yield [49]. The increasing levels
of fertigation limited the fertilizers to the moist zone of the soil, where the active root zones are
concentrated, thus leading to an enhanced better availability of nutrients, superior vegetative growth,
and finally yield [50]. A similar influence of fertigation on the growth and yield in crops was reported
by Godara et al. [41], Meena et al. [42], and Koyani et al. [51].
Overall, drip fertigation is a highly efficient method for fertilizer application, as it minimizes
losses and the adverse environment effects on crop production. Both water and nutrients applied
through irrigation will be efficiently used by the plants for photosynthesis, thereby causing greater
synthesis, translocation, and accumulation of carbohydrates [18,52]. Various studies have evaluated
that fertigation is the only replacement of the conventional method that can achieve higher fertilizer-use
efficiency, reduce water and fertilizer application, and lead to higher economic returns [53–60].
3.3. Effect of Drip Irrigation Levels on Oil Content of Cumin Seed

In experimental results, the highest oil content in cumin seed was observed under drip irrigation
at 0.6 CPE in two experimental years, but in 2016–2017, it was observed under drip irrigation at 0.8 CPE.
There were no significant differences among the treatments (Table 2). The application of drip irrigation
at 0.6 CPE increased the oil content by 8.58% over surface irrigation. It has been reported that the
essential oil yields per plant increase significantly with the increasing water regimes regarding the
crop water need, but the linalool content of oil was reduced when increasing the irrigation level [61].
Jordan et al. [62] and Khazaie et al. [63] found that the irrigation regime had no significant effect on
Thymus hyemalis, Thymu vulgaris, and Hyssopus officinalis essential oil content. Naresha et al. [64]
conducted a field experiment to evaluate the quality, yield, and economics of rabi groundnut as
influenced by irrigation scheduling and phosphogypsum levels. The highest oil content and oil
yield were obtained with moisture regimes at 1.0 IW/CPE, and the maximum oil content was found
with 40 kg S ha−1 . These results were in close confirmity with the result of Chattopaddhyay and
Ghosh [65] and Patel et al. [66]. Meena et al. [12] reported that the oil content of seed was not influenced
significantly due to drip irrigation treatments in fennel.
3.4. Effect of Fertigation Levels on Oil Content of Cumin Seed

The highest oil content in cumin seed was observed with an application of fertigation with 80%
RDF during 2016–2017, 2017–2018, and in year averages, except for 2018–2019, where the highest oil
content was recorded with fertigation with 100% RDF. There was no significant difference within all
fertigation levels. In 2016–2017, 2017–2018, and 2018–2019, the determined cumin oil content was
3.67%, 3.56%, and 3.34% under fertigation with 80% RDF, respectively (Table 2). ANOVA results
showed that fertigation and irrigation and their interaction (F × I) were not significant (5% probability)
for oil content in cumin seed (Table 2).
During the experimental year 2018–2019, the reduction in oil content was thought to be the result of
unsuitable weather conditions. The increased temperature and water stress during grain filling might
Hosam O. Elansary 5,6,* Hosam O. Elansary 5,6,*
1 Agricultural Research Station,1 Mandor,
Agricultural
Agriculture
ResearchUniversity,
Station, Mandor,
Jodhpur Agriculture
342304, Rajasthan,
University,
India;
2 College of Agriculture, Jodhpur,
2 College
Agriculture
of Agriculture,
University,
Jodhpur,
Jodhpur Agriculture
342304, Rajasthan,
University,
India;
saritachoudhary739@gmail.com
Agronomy 2020, 10, 1711 saritachoudhary739@gmail.com 9 of 16
3 Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Sirohi, 3 Agriculture
Krishi Vigyan University,
Kendra, Sirohi,
Jodhpur Agriculture
342304, Rajasthan,
University,
India;
be a major
4 Department of cause of reduced
Agricultural oil concentration.
Engineering,
4 Department King The lowest
of Agricultural
Saud University, oil content
Engineering,
Riyadh King was
11451, Saud recorded
Saudi Arabia;in Riyadh
University, treatment surface
11451, Saudi Arabia;
irrigation at
mmattar@ksu.edu.sa0.8 CPE with 100% RDF. The
mmattar@ksu.edu.sa reduction in oil content due to higher nitrogen doses was due
to the
5 Plant fact thatDepartment,
Production extra available
5 Plantnitrogen
CollegeProduction
of Foodenhances
and the degradation
Department,
AgricultureCollege
Sciences, of carbohydrates
of Food
King and
SaudAgriculture (tri-carboxylic
University, Riyadh Kingcycle)
Sciences, Saud University, Riyadh
to acetyl
11451, CoA, thereby enabling
Saudi Arabia processes
11451, Saudi Arabia of reductive amination and transamination to produce
more amino
6 Floriculture, acids [67]
Ornamental 6and causeand
Horticulture, increased
Floriculture, Garden seedHorticulture,
Ornamental
Design protein content
Department, and withofaDesign
Faculty
Garden corresponding
Agriculture
Department, decrease
(El-Shatby),
Faculty ofinAgriculture (El-Shat
seed oil University,
Alexandria content [68]. JainAlexandria
et al.
Alexandria [69] Egypt
21545, revealed drip
University, fertigation
Alexandria andEgypt
21545, irrigation interval effects on growth,
* Correspondence:
productivity, mlmehriya@gmail.com
* Correspondence:
nutrient, and (M.L.M.);
water economy mlmehriya@gmail.com
in summer peanut and (M.L.M.);
(H.O.E.);helansary@ksu.edu.sa
observedTel.:that
+966-581216322 (H.O.E.); Tel.: +966-581216322
the oil and moisture
(H.O.E.) (H.O.E.)
contents in kernels did not differ significantly due to various fertigation schedules.
Received: 18 September 2020; Accepted:
Received:218November
September2020;
2020;Published:
Accepted:42November
November2020
2020; Published: 4 November 2020
3.5. Economic Analysis in Relation to Drip Irrigation
Abstract: TheA three-year
CPE (0.4, 0.6,field Abstract:
andexperiment A three-year
0.8)-based was
drip conductedfield enhanced
irrigation experiment
at the Agricultural
thewas grossconducted
Research
returns, at Station
net the Agricultural
returns, of
and B:C Research Station
Mandor, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, Mandor,
under arid
Jodhpur,
climaticRajasthan,
conditions under
in the
arid
rabiclimatic
season
ratio as compared to surface irrigation (Table 3). The highest gross return and B:C ratio was observed conditions
of 2016–2019 in the
withrabi
the season of 2016–2019 with
objectives of evaluating
in an application of the
drip objectives
effect of drip
irrigation ofatevaluating
irrigation
0.8 CPE during the
andeffect
fertigation
of driplevels
two experimental irrigation
on cumin
years, andbutfertigation
plant
in 2016, growth,
thelevels
higheston cumin plant grow
yield,gross
oil content,
returns,water-use
net returns,yield,
efficiency,
andoil content,
B:C and water
ratio water-use
were productivity.
efficiency,
observed Theand
with pooled
drip water dataproductivity.
irrigation revealed
at 0.6 CPE that
Thethepooled3).data revealed that
(Table
drip Both
irrigation at 0.6 cumulative
treatments were at drip
parirrigation
pan
withevaporation
eachatother
0.6 cumulative
(CPE)
duringrecorded
thepan mean evaporation
significantly
of the years. (CPE)
higher
Therecorded
plant height
lowest significantly
value of net higher plant he
(31.4 return
cm), umbels
and B:C plant
ratio was (31.4
−1 (50.4), cm), umbels
umbellates
observed in surfaceplant
umbel (5.07),
−1−1 (50.4),seeds
irrigation umbellates
and umbel
drip umbel
−1 (5.34),
irrigation −1 test
at(5.07),
0.4 weight
CPE.seeds
The (4.60
umbel g),−1 (5.34),
pooled data test weight (4.60
seed showed
yield (1063 kg
a maximumha −1), gross
seed return
yield (1063
(₹ 172,600
( 170,900kg ha ha −1
−1),
−1),
gross
net
), net return
return (₹
(₹ 113,500
172,600
( 111,700 ha
ha −1
−1)),and
−1
), and benefit cost ratioha−1) and benefit,
net benefit,
return (₹
and113,500
cost ratio (2.9) over
(2.9) with drip fertigation
fertigation cost 80%
with ratioat(2.9)
RDF0.4 followed
CPE
overand dripbysurface
fertigationirrigation
fertigation at with
0.4 with
CPE100% 0.8
and RDFCPE.
surface Theirrigation
(Table fertigation
3). ANOVA with for0.8 CPE. The fertiga
with gross
80% recommended
return and netdose with
of fertilizer
returns 80% recommended
showed (RDF) beingdose
that irrigation at par of with
(I), fertilizer
100%
fertigation, (RDF)
RDF
andbeing
recorded
theirat par
a significantly
with 100%
interaction (F × I) RDF
wererecorded a significa
higher number of umbels plant
higher
equally significant (5% probability). number
−1 (50.0), of umbels
umbellates plant
umbel −1 (5.03),
−1 (50.0), seeds
umbellates umbellate umbel (5.24),
−1 −1 (5.03),
testseeds umbellate−1 (5.24),
weight (4.67 g), seed
In our presentyield (1052
weight
study, thekghighest
(4.67
ha ),g),gross
−1 seedreturn
pooled yield (1052
B:C ratio kg ha
(₹ 170,900
was ha),which
−1
2.9, −1 ),
gross
net was
return
return equal(₹
(₹ 111,700
170,900
at bothha ha
0.6 ),IW/ETc
−1
−1 ), net return (₹ 111,700 h
and and
benefit cost ratio
0.8 IW/ETc. Our (2.9) andover
economic benefit
fertigation
resultscostareratio
with (2.9)
in close 60%agreement
over
RDF fertigation
andwith control.
thewith Maximum
study 60% RDFwater-use
of Kunapara and et control.
al. [27],Maximum water
efficiency (5.7 kg hathemm
who reported −1 −1efficiency
) andB:C
highest water(5.7
ratio kg ha(39.04%)
saving
(2.39) atmm
−1 −1) was
0.8 IW/ETcand water
observed
with saving under
a lateral (39.04%)
drip irrigation
spacing was observed
of 0.6 mat in
0.4cumin.
under drip irrigation at
CPE Jat
followed by 0.6
et al. [40] alsoCPE
found (4.8
CPE kg followed
that ha −1 mm−1by
drip and
irrigation 0.618.86%,
CPE
at an (4.8
IW/CPE kg haratio
respectively).
−1 mm−1 and 18.86%, respectively).
0.8 with paired row planting, being at
par with 0.8 IW/CPE ratio in normal row planting and 1.0 IW/CPE ratio in normal and paired row
Keywords:
planting,cumin; drip irrigation;
recorded Keywords:
significantly fertigation;
cumin;
higher net
drip
net return;
irrigation;
returns WUE;
and afertigation;
yieldratio over
B:C net return;
0.4 andWUE; yield ratios
0.6 IW/CPE
with normal and paired row planting. The cost of this treatment was comparatively lower than its
additional income, which led to more returns under this treatment. Our results were also similar with
the findings of Rao et al. [70] in cumin.
Humans have been using cumin Humans (Cuminum
have been
cyminum)
using cumin
in culinary
(Cuminum
dishescyminum)
since ancient
in culinary
times for
dishes since ancient times
a variety of medicinal purposes
a variety
fromof digestive
medicinal
issues
purposes
to respiratory
from digestive
conditions.
issuesCumin,
to respiratory
a flowering
conditions. Cumin, a flowe
plant in the family Apiaceae,plant
native
in from
the family
east Mediterranean
Apiaceae, nativeto East
fromIndia
east Mediterranean
has anti-inflammatory
to East India
and has anti-inflammatory
antiviral properties. Cumin antiviral
has beneficial
properties.effects
Cuminin hascuring
beneficial
tastelessness,
effects poor
in curing
digestion,
tastelessness, poor digest
cardiovascular disease, swellings,
cardiovascular
vomiting,disease,
and chronic
swellings,
fevervomiting,
in humans and
[1,2].
chronic
Cuminfever
seeds
in humans
have [1,2]. Cumin seeds h
Agronomy 2020, 10, x; doi: FOR PEER
Agronomy
REVIEW2020, 10, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/agronomywww.mdpi.com/journal/agron
Received: 18 September 2020; Accepted: 2 November
Received:
2020; Published:
18 September
4 November
2020; Accepted:
2020 2 November 2020; Published: 4 November 2020
Abstract: A three-year field experiment wasAbstract: conducted A three-year

at the Agricultural
field experimentResearchwas Station
conducted
of at the Agricultural Research Station
Mandor, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, under arid climatic Mandor,
conditions
Jodhpur,
in theRajasthan,
rabi season underof 2016–2019
arid climatic with conditions
the in the rabi season of 2016–2019 with t
Agronomy 2020, 10, 1711 objectives of evaluating the effect of drip irrigation objectives andoffertigation
evaluatinglevels the effect
on cuminof drip plant
irrigation
growth, and fertigation levels10 on
of 16cumin plant grow
yield, oil content, water-use efficiency, and water yield,productivity.
oil content, water-use
The pooled efficiency,
data revealed
and water that the
productivity. The pooled data revealed that t
drip irrigation at 0.6 cumulative pan evaporation drip irrigation
(CPE) recordedat 0.6 cumulative
significantlypan higher
evaporation
plant height (CPE) recorded significantly higher plant heig
Table 3. Economics of drip irrigation and fertigation levels in cumin (pooled data of three years).
(31.4 cm), umbels plant−1 (50.4), umbellates umbel (31.4−1cm), umbels
(5.07), seedsplant
umbel −1 (50.4),
−1 (5.34),umbellates
test weight umbel
(4.60−1 g),
(5.07), seeds umbel−1 (5.34), test weight (4.60
seed yield (1063 kg ha −1
Gross ), gross
Returnsreturn
(×10 (₹ ha
3 172,600
−1seed
) ha
yield
−1), net
(1063
return
kg ha (₹Net
−1113,500
), gross
Returns ha
return
−1 ) and
(×10 3(₹ ha
172,600
benefit,
−1 ) ha
and −1), net return
B:C (₹ 113,500 ha−1) and benefit, a
Treatment
cost ratio (2.9) over drip2017–2018
2016–2017 fertigation at 0.4 CPE
2018–2019 cost
andratio
surface
Pooled (2.9) irrigation
over drip with
2016–2017 fertigation
0.8 CPE.
2017–2018 at2018–2019
0.4
TheCPE fertigation
and surface irrigation
Pooled Pooled with 0.8 CPE. The fertigati
with 80% recommended dose of fertilizer (RDF) withbeing
80%atrecommended
par with 100%dose RDFof recorded
fertilizera (RDF)
significantly
being at par with 100% RDF recorded a significan
Irrigation levels
higher number of umbels plant−1 (50.0), umbellates higher numberumbel−1of(5.03),
umbels seedsplant umbellate
−1 (50.0),−1umbellates
(5.24), test umbel−1 (5.03), seeds umbellate−1 (5.24), te
Drip irrigation at 0.4 CPE (I0.4 ) 212.8 128.6 114.6 152.0 154.2 70.1 56.1 93.5 2.6
weight (4.67 g), seed yield (1052 kg ha−1), gross weight
return(4.67
(₹ g), seed ha
170,900 yield (1052
−1), net kg ha
return (₹−1),
111,700
gross return
ha−1), (₹ 170,900 ha−1), net return (₹ 111,700 ha
Drip irrigation at 0.6 CPE (I0.6 ) 237.1 151.1 129.8 172.6 178.0 91.9 70.6 113.5 2.9
and (Ibenefit
Drip irrigation at 0.8 CPE cost
233.6ratio (2.9) over fertigation
131.7 and withbenefit
60% RDFcost ratio
and control.
(2.9)94.5 overMaximum
fertigation
71.9water-use
with113.460% RDF2.9and control. Maximum water-u
0.8 ) 154.2 173.2 173.8
SEm± efficiency (5.7 kg
3.7 ha −1 mm−1) and water saving
4.6 2.6 efficiency
(39.04%)
2.3 (5.7
waskg ha
observed
3.7 −1 mm−1 under
) and
4.6 drip
water irrigation
saving
2.6 (39.04%)
at 0.4
2.3 was observed under drip irrigation at 0
CD (p = 0.05)CPE followed by 10.90.6 CPE (4.8 13.7kg ha−1 mm 7.7 CPE
−1 and followed
18.86%, by 0.6 CPE (4.8 kg ha mm and 18.86%, respectively).
respectively).
10.9 13.7 −1 7.7
−1 6.4
Fertigation levels
Keywords: cumin; drip irrigation; fertigation;Keywords:
net return;cumin;
WUE; yield
drip irrigation; fertigation; net return; WUE; yield
Fertigation with 60% RDF (F60 ) 219.7 133.1 118.4 157.0 161.3 74.7 60.0 98.7 2.7
SEm± 3.7 4.6 2.6 2.3 3.7 4.6 2.6 2.3
CD (p = 0.05)
1. Introduction 10.9 13.7 7.7 1. Introduction
6.5 10.9 13.7 7.7 6.5
Control vs. Others
Humans have been using cumin (Cuminum cyminum) Humans in have
culinary
been using
dishescumin
since (Cuminum
ancient timescyminum)
for in culinary dishes since ancient times f
Surface irrigation ata 0.8 CPE of medicinal purposes from digestive
variety a variety
issues to
of respiratory
medicinal purposes
conditions.
fromCumin,
digestive
a flowering
issues to respiratory conditions. Cumin, a floweri
140.1 80.8 87.5 102.8 96.1 36.7 43.4 58.7 2.3
with 100% RDF (S0.8 F100 )
plant in the family Apiaceae, native from east plant
Mediterranean
in the familyto East
Apiaceae,
India has
native
anti-inflammatory
from east Mediterranean
and to East India has anti-inflammatory a
Others 227.8 144.6 125.3 165.9 168.7 85.5 66.2 106.8 2.8
SEm± antiviral properties.
4.7 Cumin 5.9 has beneficial
3.3 antiviral
effects
3.9 properties.
in curing
4.7 Cumin
tastelessness,
has
5.9 beneficial
poor3.3 digestion,
effects
3.9 in curing tastelessness, poor digestio
CD (p = 0.05)cardiovascular disease,
14.0 swellings,
17.6 vomiting,
9.9 cardiovascular
and chronic
11.2 fever
disease,
in
14.0 humans
swellings,
[1,2].
17.6 vomiting,
Cumin seeds
9.9 and chronic
have
11.2 fever in humans [1,2]. Cumin seeds ha
C.V 5.01 9.98 6.36 6.80 17.12 12.10
Agronomy 2020, 10, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW Agronomy 2020, 10, x; doi: FOR PEER
www.mdpi.com/journal/agronomy
REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/agrono
Fertigation (F) * * * * * * *
Irrigation (I) * * * * * * * *
Fertigation × Irrigation (I × N) * * * * * *
Control/others * * * * * * * *
Agronomy2020,
Agronomy 10,x1711
2020,10, FOR PEER REVIEW 11of
11 of16
16
3.6.Economic
3.6. EconomicAnalysis
Analysisin
inRelation
RelationtotoFertigation
FertigationLevels
Levels
Inour
In ourpresent
presentstudy,
study, in
in terms
terms of
of application
applicationof offertigation,
fertigation,the thehighest
highestgross
grossreturn,
return,net
netreturn,
return,
and benefit cost ratio was observed with the application of fertigation with 80%
and benefit cost ratio was observed with the application of fertigation with 80% RDF. These findingsRDF. These findings
are in
are in agreement
agreement with
with Sadarunnisa
Sadarunnisa et et al.
al. [71],
[71],who
whoreported
reportedthat
thatthetheB:C
B:Cratio
ratiowas
wasthe
thehighest
highest (1.49) in
(1.49)
turmeric supplied with 75% RDF through fertigation. Giana et al. [72] reported
in turmeric supplied with 75% RDF through fertigation. Giana et al. [72] reported that the drip that the drip fertigation
at 75% RDFatrecorded
fertigation 75% RDFthe significantly
recorded highest nethighest
the significantly returns net
andreturns
B:C ratioandofB:C
fennel,
ratiowhereas it remained
of fennel, whereas
equally effective with drip fertigation at 100% over surface irrigation with conventional
it remained equally effective with drip fertigation at 100% over surface irrigation with conventional fertilization.
Some studiesSome
fertilization. also reported
studiesa also
superiority
reported of drip fertigation over
a superiority conventional
of drip fertilization
fertigation in terms of
over conventional
productivity and economics [38,39,73–75].
fertilization in terms of productivity and economics [38,39,73–75].
3.7. Water Studies
3.7. Water Studies
The water use in 0.8 CPE levels of drip as well as surface irrigation was recorded as the highest
The water use in 0.8 CPE levels of drip as well as surface irrigation was recorded as the highest
among all the levels of irrigation (Figure 2a). A minimum quantity of water (170.4 mm) was used
among all the levels of irrigation (Figure 2a). A minimum quantity of water (170.4 mm) was used in
in drip irrigation at 0.4 CPE. In the experimental study, water-use efficiency ranged from 3.8 to
drip irrigation at 0.4 CPE. In the experimental study, water-use efficiency ranged from 3.8 to 5.5 kg
5.5−1kg ha−1−1 mm−1 for drip irrigation as compared to 2.3
−1 kg ha
−1
−1 mm−1 under conventional method of
ha mm for drip irrigation as compared to 2.3 kg ha mm under conventional method of surface
surface irrigation. The highest water-use efficiency was recorded with drip irrigation at the 0.4 CPE
irrigation. The highest water-use efficiency was recorded with drip irrigation at the 0.4 CPE level and
level and the lowest under surface irrigation at 0.8 CPE (Figure 2b). The highest economic water
the lowest under surface irrigation at 0.8 CPE (Figure 2b). The highest economic water productivity
productivity (892 m−3 ) was recorded with drip irrigation at 0.4 CPE as compared to surface irrigation
(892 m−3) was recorded with drip irrigation at 0.4 CPE as compared to surface irrigation and increased
and increased levels of drip irrigation (Figure 2a). The drip irrigation at 0.4 CPE recorded the highest
levels of drip irrigation (Figure 2a). The drip irrigation at 0.4 CPE recorded the highest water saving
water saving (64%) compared to surface irrigation at 0.8 CPE (Figure 2b).
(64%) compared to surface irrigation at 0.8 CPE (Figure 2b).
Figure
Figure 2.
2. Effect dripirrigation
Effect of drip irrigationlevels
levelsonon water
water use,
use, water
water productivity,
productivity, water-use
water-use efficiency,
efficiency, and
and water
savingsaving
water (pooled data ofdata
(pooled threeofyears). (a): water
three years). (a):used
waterand water
used andproductivity; (b): Water
water productivity; useWater
(b): efficiency
use
and waterand
efficiency saving.
water saving.
In our
In our present
present investigation,
investigation,we wefound
foundthat
thatdripdripirrigation
irrigationincreased
increasedthe thewater-use
water-useefficiency,
efficiency,
water productivity,
water productivity, and
and water
water saving
saving over
over the
the surface
surface irrigation.
irrigation. DripDrip irrigation
irrigation at
at 0.4
0.4 CPE
CPE (I
(I0.4
0.4))show
show
better water-use efficiency as compared to other regimes of drip irrigation and
better water-use efficiency as compared to other regimes of drip irrigation and surface irrigation. surface irrigation.
Savedwater
Saved waterwith
withdrip
dripirrigation
irrigationatat0.4
0.4CPE
CPE (I)0.4and
(I0.4 ) and
0.60.6
CPECPE
(I0.6(I) 0.6
was ) was
109 109
mmmm andand
52.752.7
mm mm overover
the
surface irrigation at 0.8 CPE (S 0.8), respectively. Bhunia et al. [36] also found that drip irrigation levels
from 0.6 to 1.0 ETc saved water by 261.84 to 76.4 mm over surface irrigation, which used 540 mm of
Agronomy 2020, 10, 1711 12 of 16
the surface irrigation at 0.8 CPE (S 0.8 ), respectively. Bhunia et al. [36] also found that drip irrigation
levels from 0.6 to 1.0 ETc saved water by 261.84 to 76.4 mm over surface irrigation, which used
540 mm of water. This increase in water saving might be due to the efficient use of water, which was
applied to maintain the appropriate soil moisture along with the maximum yield obtained with the
minimum quantity of water. The quantity of water was almost as per the crop need in case of drip
irrigation. Similar findings have also been reported by Datta and Chatterjee [76] in fenugreek and
Bandyopadhyay et al. [77] in wheat.
The irrigation water-use efficiency depends on irrigation level. A uniform distribution of water
in the root zone increases various physiological processes, minimizes the leaching losses of water,
enhances the rate of photosynthesis, and enables efficient plant nutrient uptake, due to which the seed
yield increases. The increased irrigation levels must have enhanced nutrients availability leading to
better root development, which extracted more soil moisture. It might also be due to more vegetative
growth under an adequate supply of water, which in turn increased the evapotranspiration losses.
Irrigation scheduling in a micro irrigation system provides water to the plants, which matches the crop
evapotranspiration rate and provides optimum irrigation at critical growth stages, resulting in high
water-use efficiency [78–81].
Higher water-use efficiency with a lower level of drip irrigation might be due to a greater increase
in seed production as compared to an increase in water use [82]. Surface irrigation obtained lower
water-use efficiency due to a loss of irrigation water from sandy loam soil through deep percolation,
reduced irrigation runoff, and the irrigation of a smaller portion of soil volume, which resulted in higher
water use but minimum economic yield. Singh et al. [13] also revealed improved water productivity
by the drip irrigation method against the surface irrigation method. It is also proven that the highest
irrigation water productivity was recorded at 0.8 IW/CPE treatments and it reduced as the irrigation
level increased [70].
4. Conclusions
Drip irrigation and fertigation constitute the potential agronomic intervention that significantly
enhanced the cumin plant growth, yield, oil content in cumin seeds, water-use efficiency,
and nutrient-use efficiency. The application of drip irrigation at 0.6 CPE significantly increased
the number of umbels per plant and number of seeds per umbellate over the other treatments. Whereas,
the number of umbellates per umbel was significantly enhanced by the application of all drip irrigation
regimes over the surface irrigation at 0.8 CPE. The maximum cumin seed yield was recorded with
an application of drip irrigation at 0.8 CPE followed by drip irrigation at 0.6 CPE. The oil content in
cumin seed was increased with respect to drip irrigation. The application of drip irrigation at 0.6 CPE
increased the oil content by 8.58% over surface irrigation. The application of drip irrigation showed
more gross return and a higher B:C ratio than surface irrigation. The plant growth, yield, and oil
content in cumin seed were also significantly enhanced by fertigation with 80% RDF. In terms of
application of fertigation, the highest gross return, net return, and B:C ratio was recorded with the
application of fertigation at 80% RDF. Therefore, fertigation along with drip irrigation is an important
agronomic intervention to enhance the cumin productivity and profitability.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, M.A.M., N.G., Data curation, S., H.S.; Funding acquisition, H.O.E.;
Investigation, M.L.M., N.G., S., H.S.; Methodology, S., H.S.; Software, H.O.E.; Validation, M.L.M.; Visualization,
H.O.E.; Writing—review and editing, N.G., H.O.E. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding: This work was supported by the Deanship of Scientific Research at King Saud University through
research group number RG-1440-012. This research was funded by the Mission for Integrated Development of
horticulture, Department of Agriculture & Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi.
Acknowledgments: The authors extend their appreciation to the Deanship of Scientific Research at King Saud
University (RG-1440-012) and also thank Ministry of Agriculture, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi and Agriculture
University Jodhpur.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Agronomy 2020, 10, 1711 13 of 16
References
1. Morshedi, D.; Aliakbari, F.; Tayaranian-Marvian, A.; Fassihi, A.; Pan-Montojo, F.; Pérez-Sánchez, H.
Cuminaldehyde as the major component of Cuminum cyminum, a natural aldehyde with inhibitory effect on
alpha-synuclein fibrillation and cytotoxicity. J. Food Sci. 2015, 80, H2336–H2345. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
2. Wei, J.; Zhang, X.; Bi, Y.; Miao, R.; Zhang, Z.; Su, H. Anti-inflammatory effects of cumin essential oil
by blocking JNK, ERK, and NF-κB signaling pathways in LPS-stimulated RAW 264.7 cells. Evid. Based
Complement. Altern. Med. 2015. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. Merah, O.; Sayed-Ahmad, B.; Talou, T.; Saad, Z.; Cerny, M.; Grivot, S.; Evon, P.; Hijazi, A. Biochemical
composition of cumin seeds, and biorefining study. Biomolecules 2020, 10, 1054. [CrossRef]
4. Al-Kassi, G.A.M. Effect of feeding cumin (Cuminum cyminum) on the performance and some blood traits of
broiler chicks. Pak. J. Nutr. 2010, 9, 72–75. [CrossRef]
5. Khan, S.H.; Anjum, M.A.; Parveen, A.; Khawaja, T.; Ashraf, N.M. Effects of black cumin seed (Nigella sativa L.)
on performance and immune system in newly evolved crossbred laying hens. Vet. Q. 2013, 33, 13–19.
[CrossRef]
6. Fatima, T.; Beenish, B.N.; Gani, G.; Qadri, T.; Bhat, T.A. Antioxidant potential and health benefits of cumin.
J. Med. Plants 2018, 6, 232–236.
7. Singh, R.P.; Gangadharappa, H.V.; Mruthunjaya, K. Cuminum cyminum-A popular spice: An updated review.
Pharmacogn. J. 2017, 9, 292–301. [CrossRef]
8. Jaganmohan, M. Production of Cumin Seed India 2019 by State. Available online: https://www.statista.com/
statistics/870972/cumin-production-by-state-india (accessed on 11 August 2020).
9. Khosh-Khui, M.; Bonyanpour, A.R. Effects of some variables on seed germination and seedling growth of
cumin (Cuminum cyminum L.). Int. J. Agric. Res. 2010, 5, 365–369.
10. Kamkar, B.; Koocheki, A.; Mahallati, M.N.; Da Silva, J.A.T.; Moghaddam, P.R.; Kafi, M. Fungal diseases and
inappropriate sowing dates, the most important reducing factors in cumin fields of Iran, a case study in
Khorasan provinces. Crop Prot. 2011, 30, 208–215. [CrossRef]
11. Maheria, S.P.; Lal, G.; Mehta, R.S.; Meena, S.S.; Saxena, S.N.; Sharma, Y.K.; Kant, K.; Meena, R.S.; Vishal, M.K.;
Singh, R. Enhancing water use efficiency in cumin (Cuminum cyminum L.). Int. J. Seed Spices 2012, 2, 34–38.
12. Meena, M.; Sagarka, B.K.; Man, M.K. Influence of drip irrigation along with nitrogen levels on yield attributes,
yield and quality parameters of rabi drill fennel (Foeniculum vulgare Mill). Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. Appl. Sci.
2017, 6, 2115–2121. [CrossRef]
13. Singh, R.; Lal, G.; Maheria, S.P.; Choudhary, S.; Mehta, R.S.; Singh, B. Effect of irrigation techniques and
planting methods on yield and water productivity of cumin (Cuminum cyminum L.). Int. J. Seed Spices 2015,
5, 92–94.
14. Asad, M.E.; Clemente, S.R.; Gupta, A.D.; Loof, R.; Hansen, K.G. Impacts of fertigation via sprinkler irrigation
on nitrate leaching and corn yield in an acid-sulphate soil in Thialand. Agric. Water Manag. 2002, 52, 197–213.
[CrossRef]
15. Elfving, D.C. Crop response to trickle irrigation. Hortic. Rev. 1982, 4, 1–48.
16. Kumar, A.; Singh, A.K. Improving nutrient and water use efficiency through fertigation. J. Water Manag.
2002, 10, 42–48.
17. Clark, G.A.; Stanley, C.D.; Maynard, D.N.; Hochmuth, G.J.; Hanlon, E.A.; Haman, D.Z. Water and fertilizer
management of micro irrigated fresh market tomatoes. Trans. ASAE 1991, 34, 429–435. [CrossRef]
18. Loganathan, V.; Latha, K.R. Effect of drip fertigation on nutrient uptake and seed yield of pigeonpea
[Cajanus cajan (L.) Mill sp.] under western agro climatic zones of Tamil Nadu. Legume Res. 2016, 39, 780–785.
19. Subbiah, B.; Asija, G. A rapid procedure for the estimation of available nitrogen in soils. Curr. Sci. 1956, 25,
259–260.
20. Olsen, S.R.; Cole, V.C.; Watamable, F.S.; Dean, L.A. Estimation of Available Phosphorus in Soil by Extraction with
NaHCO3 Circular; United States Department of Agriculture: Washington, DC, USA, 1954; p. 939.
21. Standfold, S.; English, L. Use of flame photometer in rapid soil test for K and Ca. Agron. J. 1949, 41, 446–447.
22. Singh, D.; Chhonkar, P.K.; Pandey, R.N. Soil Reaction in Soil, Plant, Water Analysis Method: Manual; ICAR-IARI:
New Delhi, India, 1999.
23. Walkley, A.; Black, I.A. An examination of the Degtjareff method for determining soil organic matter, and a
proposed modification of the chromic acid titration method. Soil Sci. 1934, 37, 29–38. [CrossRef]
Agronomy 2020, 10, 1711 14 of 16
24. Association of Official Analytical Chemists. Official Method of Analysis; AOAC: Champaign, IL, USA, 1990.
25. Viets, F.G. Fertilizers and the efficient use of water. In Advances in Agronomy; Academic Press: Cambridge,
MA, USA, 1962; Volume 14, pp. 223–264.
26. Panse, V.G.; Sukhatme, P.V. Statistical Methods for Agricultural Workers; Indian Council of Agricultural
Research: New Delhi, India, 1985; pp. 87–89.
27. Kunapara, A.N.; Subbaiah, R.; Prajapati, G.V. Response of trickle irrigation regimes and lateral spacing on
cumin productivity under triangular emitter configurations. J. Pharmacogn. Phytochem. 2018, 7, 1832–1835.
28. Sharma, S.; Patel, R.H.; Sharma, O.P. Effect of irrigation scheduling and organic manures on moisture
extraction pattern, consumptive use, water use efficiency and yield of fenugreek. Int. J. Seed Spices 2016, 6,
13–18.
29. Lal, G.; Saini, I.P.; Mehta, R.S.; Maheria, S.P.; Sharma, Y. Effect of irrigation and different seed treatment
methods on growth and yield of fenugreek (Trigonella foenum-graecum L.). Int. J. Seed Spices 2013, 3, 29–33.
30. Bafna, A.M.; Dafturdar, S.Y.; Khade, K.K.; Patel, P.V.; Dhatre, R.S. Utilization of nitrogen and water by tomato
under drip irrigation system. J. Water Manag. 1993, 1, 1–5.
31. Raina, J.N.; Thakur, B.C.; Verma, M.L. Effect of drip irrigation and polyethylene mulch on yield, quality and
water use efficiency of tomato. Indian J. Agric. Sci. 1999, 69, 430–433.
32. Lal, G.; Singh, R.; Metha, R.S.; Meena, N.K.; Maheriya, S.P.; Choudhary, M.K. Study on irrigation levels based
on IW/CPE ratio and irrigation methods on growth and yield of fenugreek (Trigonella foenium-graecum L.).
Legume Res. 2019. [CrossRef]
33. Kunapara, A.N.; Subbaiah, R.; Prajapati, G.V.; Makwana, J.J. Influence of drip irrigation regimes and lateral
spacing on cumin productivity. Curr. World Environ. 2016, 11, 333–337. [CrossRef]
34. Kanwar, K.; Harisha, C.B.; Singh, R.; Aadityendra. Growth, seed yield, protein content and water use
efficiency of fenugreek (Trigonella foenum graceum L.) as influenced by drip irrigation regimes and fertigation
levels. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. Appl. Sci. 2018, 7, 997–1003. [CrossRef]
35. Lakpale, R.; Shrivastava, G.K.; Tripathi, R.S. Effect of irrigation schedule on growth, yield and economics of
spice crops. Indian J. Agric. Sci. 2007, 77, 170–173.
36. Bhunia, S.R.; Verma, I.M.; Sahu, M.P.; Sharma, N.C.; Balai, K. Effect of drip irrigation and bioregulators on
yield, economics and water use of fenugreek (Trigonella foenum-graecum). J. Spices Aromat. Crops 2015, 24,
102–105.
37. Bhunia, S.R.; Chauhan, R.P.S.; Yadav, B.S. Effect of nitrogen and irrigation on water use, moisture-extraction
pattern, nutrient uptake and yield of fennel (Foeniculum vulgare). Indian J. Agron. 2005, 50, 73–76.
38. Singh, J.; Babar, S.; Deshmukh, R.; Bharambe, P.R.; Singandhupe, R.B. Drip fertigation effect on yield,
water use efficiency and economics of bt cotton in semi-arid region. PKV Res. J. 2012, 36, 27–31.
39. Solanki, R.M.; Vasava, M.S.; Gohil, B.S. Influence of drip irrigation and fertility levels on growth, yield and
water use efficiency of drilled rabi fennel (Foeniculum vulgare mill.). Int. J. Sci. Environ. Technol. 2017, 6,
1972–1978.
40. Jat, M.L.; Shivran, A.C.; Puniya, M.M.; Boori, P.K.; Ola, B.L.; Verma, H.P. Effect of drip irrigation scheduling
on growth and seed production of fennel (Foeniculum vulgare Mill.) under semi-arid agro-climatic condition.
Int. J. Seed Spices 2015, 5, 67–73.
41. Godara, S.R.; Verma, I.M.; Gaur, J.K.; Bairwa, S.; Yadav, P.K. Effect of different levels of drip irrigation along
with various fertigation levels on growth, yield and water use efficiency in fennel (Foeniculum vulgare Mill.).
Asian J. Hortic. 2013, 8, 758–762.
42. Meena, M.; Sagarka, B.K.; Das, T.; Poonia, T.C. Effect of drip irrigation and nitrogen levels on growth
parameters and yield of drilled rabi fennel (Foeniculum vulgare Mill.) in Saurashtra region of Gujarat.
Res. Environ. Life Sci. 2016, 9, 97–99.
43. Pandey, A.K.; Singh, A.K.; Kumar, A.; Singh, S.K. Effect of drip irrigation, spacing and nitrogen fertigation
on productivity of Chilli (Capsicum annum L.). Ecol. Environ. 2013, 31, 139–142.
44. Sampath, K.T.; Krishnaswamy, S.; Veerbadran, V.; Shyamsundar, K. Effect of drip, surface irrigation method
on yield and yield attributing characters in summer cotton. Res. Crops 2006, 7, 120–122.
45. Veerputhrin, R.; Karadsamy, O.S.; Suredrasingh, S.D. Effect of drip irrigation and fertigation on growth,
yield of hybrid cotton. J. Agric. Resour. Manag. 2002, 1, 88–97.
46. Wang, J.D.; Gong, S.H.; Sui, J.; Xu, H.; Yu, Y.D. Effects of drip irrigation frequency on the farmland soil water
heat distribution and spring maize growth in North Chin. Trans. CSAE 2008, 24, 39–45.
Agronomy 2020, 10, 1711 15 of 16
47. Gao, J.P.; Zhang, W.Z.; Sui, C.H.; Yao, C.; Gao, M.C.; Zhao, M.H. Relationship between temperature difference
and yield and quality of rice at jointing and booting stage under water stress. J. Nucl. Agric. Sci. 2016,
30, 596–604.
48. Honnappa, A.; Harisha, C.B.; Singh, R. Precision irrigation and fertigation for higher productivity and water
use efficiency in fenugreek (Trigonella foenum-graecum L.) in semi-arid conditions of Rajasthan. Bioscan 2017,
12, 591–594.
49. Jangir, R.P.; Jat, B.L.; Rathore, M.S. Comparative efficacy of sprinkler and surface methods of irrigation in
cumin (Cuminum cyminum) under arid western Rajasthan condition. Indian J. Agron. 2007, 52, 83–85.
50. Mahalakshmi, M.; Kumar, N.; Jeyakumar, P.; Soorianathasundaram, K. Fertigation Studies in Banana under
high density planting system. South Indian Hortic. 2001, 49, 80–85.
51. Koyani, C.R.; Chovatia, P.K.; Gohil, G.S. Effect of nitrogen and phosphorus on growth, yield attributes
and yields of rabi fennel (Foeniculum vulgare Mill). In Agriculture towards a New Paradigm of Sustainability;
Excellent Publishing House: New Delhi, India, 2014; pp. 167–171.
52. Ghanta, P.K.; Dhua, R.S.; Mitra, S.K. Effect of varying levels of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium on
growth, yield and quality of papaya (Carica papaya L.). Ann. Agric. Res. 1995, 16, 405–408.
53. Manohar, K.R. Evolution of Capsicum (Capsicum annum) Genotypes and Effect of Source of Fertilizers and
Levels of Fertigation under Cost Effective Green House. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Agricultural Sciences,
Bangalore, India, 2002.
54. Basavaraju, T.B.; Bhagya, H.P.; Prashanth, M.; Arulraj, S.; Maheswarappa, H.P. Effect of fertigation on the
productivity of coconut. J. Plant. Crops 2014, 42, 198–204.
55. Mmolawa, K.; Or, D. Water and solute dynamics under a drip-irrigated crop: Experiments and analytical
model. Trans. ASAE 2000, 43, 1597–1608. [CrossRef]
56. Mohammad, M.J. Utilization of applied fertilizer nitrogen and irrigation water by drip-fertigated squash as
determined by nuclear and traditional techniques. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 2004, 68, 1–11. [CrossRef]
57. Mohammad, M.J. Squash yield nutrient content and soil fertility parameters in response to fertilizer
application and rates of nitrogen fertigation. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 2004, 68, 99–108. [CrossRef]
58. Shigure, P.S.; Lallan, R.; Marathe, R.A.; Yadav, K.P.; Ram, L. Effect of nitrogen fertigation as vegetative growth
and leaf nutrient content of acid lime (Citrus aurantifolia, Swingle) in Central India. Indian J. Soil Conserv.
1999, 27, 45–49.
59. Balasubramanian, V.S.; Palanaiappan, S.P.; Chelliah, S. Increasing water use efficiency through fertigation in
cotton. J. Indian Soc. Cotton Improv. 2000, 25, 92–95.
60. Harisha, C.B.; Diwakar, Y.; Aishwath, O.P.; Singh, R.; Asangi, H. Soil fertility and micronutrient uptake
by fennel (Foeniculum vulgare Mill.) as influenced by micronutrients fertilization. Environ. Ecol. 2017,
35, 514–518.
61. Laribi, B.; Bettaieb, I.; Kouki, K.; Sahli, A.; Mougou, A.; Marzouk, B. Water deficit effects on caraway
(Carum carvi L.) growth, essential oil and fatty acid composition. Ind. Crops Prod. 2009, 31, 34–42. [CrossRef]
62. Jordan, M.J.; Martinez, R.M.; Cases, M.A.; Sotomayor, J.A. Watering level effect on Thymus hyemalislange
essential oil yield and composition. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2003, 51, 5420–5427. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
63. Khazaie, H.R.; Nadjafi, E.; Bannayan, M. Effect of irrigation frequency and planting density on herbage
biomass and oil production of thyme (Thymus vulgaris) and hyssop (Hyssopus officinalis). Ind. Crops Prod.
2008, 27, 315–321. [CrossRef]
64. Naresha, R.; Laxminarayana, P.; Suneetha Devi, K.B.; Sailaja, V. Quality, yield and economics of rabi
groundnut as influenced by irrigation scheduling and phosphogypsum levels. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol.
Appl. Sci. 2018, 7, 3292–3303. [CrossRef]
65. Chattopaddhyay, S.; Ghosh, G.K. Response of rapeseed to various sources and levels of sulphur in red and
lateritic soils of west Bengal, India. Int. J. Plant Anim. Environ. Sci. 2012, 2, 50–59.
66. Patel, G.N.; Patel, P.T.; Patel, P.H.; Patel, D.M.; Patil, D.K.; Patil, R.M. Yield attributes, yield, quality and
uptake of nutrients by summer groundnut, Arachis hypogaea L. as influenced by sources and levels of sulphur
under varying irrigation schedules. J. Oilseeds Res. 2009, 26, 119–122.
67. Satyanarayan, V.; Reddy, E.V.R.; Dutt, K. Effect of graded levels of N, P, plant spacing on sunflower.
J. Oilseed Res. 1986, 3, 116–119.
Agronomy 2020, 10, 1711 16 of 16
68. Premi, O.P.; Kandpal, B.K.; Rathore, S.S.; Shekhawat, K.; Chauhan, J.S. Green manuring, mustard residue
recycling and fertilizer application affects productivity and sustainability of Indian mustard (Brassica juncea L.)
in Indian semi-arid tropics. Ind. Crops Prod. 2013, 41, 423–429. [CrossRef]
69. Jain, N.K.; Meena, H.N.; Bhaduri, D.; Yadav, R.S. Drip fertigation and irrigation interval effects on growth,
productivity, nutrient, and water economy in summer peanut. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2018,
49, 2406–2417. [CrossRef]
70. Rao, S.S.; Singh, Y.V.; Regar, P.L.; Chand, K. Effect of micro-irrigation on productivity and water use of cumin
(Cuminum cyminum) at varying fertility levels. Indian J. Agric. Sci. 2010, 80, 507–511.
71. Sadarunnisa, S.; Madhumathi, C.; Rao, G.S.; Sreenivasulu, B. Effect of fertigation on growth and yield of
turmeric cv. Mydukur. J. Hortic. Sci. 2010, 5, 78–80.
72. Giana, G.K.; Shivran, A.C.; Verma, H.P. Effect of drip irrigation and fertigation on yield and economics of
fennel. Int. J. Chem. Stud. 2019, 7, 52–54.
73. Ankush, S.S. Yield, quality, nutrient and water use efficiency of tomato as affected by different fertigation
rates through drip irrigation system. Indian J. Agric. Res. 2017, 51, 478–482.
74. Pawar, D.D.; Dingre, S.K.; Surve, U.S. Growth, yield and water use in sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum)
under drip Fertigation. Indian J. Agron. 2013, 58, 396–401.
75. Rathore, S.S.; Shekhawat, K.; Kandpal, B.K.; Premi, O.P. Micro-irrigation and fertigation improves gas
exchange, productivity traits and economics of Indian mustard (Brassica juncea L. Czern) and Cosson)
under semi-arid conditions. Aust. J. Crop Sci. 2014, 8, 582–595.
76. Datta, S.; Chatterjee, R.; Sinha, A.C. Effect of irrigation level on growth, yield and evapo-transpiration in
coriander. Indian J. Hortic. 2006, 63, 428–432.
77. Bandyopadhyay, K.K.; Ghosh, P.K.; Hati, K.M.; Mishra, A.K. Efficient utilization of limited available water in
wheat through proper irrigation scheduling and integrated nutrient management under different cropping
systems in a vertisol. J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci. 2009, 57, 121–128.
78. Wang, X.; Yanyan, S.; Ying, S.M.J.; Jun, G.; Zhang, Q. Recovery of 15N-labeled urea and soil nitrogen
dynamics as affected by irrigation management and nitrogen application rate in a double rice cropping
system. Plant Soil 2001, 343, 195–208. [CrossRef]
79. Kar, G.; Singh, R.; Verma, H.N. Phenological based irrigation scheduling and determination of crop coefficient
of winter maize in rice fallow of eastern India. Agric. Water Manag. 2005, 75, 169–183. [CrossRef]
80. Turner, N.C. Crop water deficits: A decade of progress. Adv. Agron. 1987, 39, 1–51.
81. Kipkorir, E.C.; Raes, D.; Massawe, B. Seasonal water production functions and yield response factors for
maize and onion in Perkerra, Kenya. Agric. Water Manag. 2002, 56, 229–240. [CrossRef]
82. Mehta, R.S.; Patel, B.S.; Singh, R.K.; Meena, S.S.; Malhotra, S.K. Growth and yield of fenugreek
(Trigonella foenum-graecum L.) as influenced by irrigation levels and weed management practices. J. Spices
Aromat. Crops 2010, 19, 14–22.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional
affiliations.
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Agronomy: Response of Drip Irrigation and Fertigation On Cumin Yield, Quality, and Water-Use E Arid Climatic Conditions

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Agronomy: Response of Drip Irrigation and Fertigation On Cumin Yield, Quality, and Water-Use E Arid Climatic Conditions

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

agronomy

weight (4.67 g), seed

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Field Experiment Site and Details

Agronomy 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 16

2.4. Water and Fertilizer Application

Agronomy 2020, 10, x; doi: FOR PEER REVIEW www.mdpi.com/journal/agronomy

Cumin Yield, Quality,

Hosam O. Elansary 5,6,* −2

and benefit cost ratio

3. Results and Discussion

Plant Number of Number Number of Number Test

Seed Yield (Kg/ha) Oil Content (%)

3.3. Effect of Drip Irrigation Levels on Oil Content of Cumin Seed

3.4. Effect of Fertigation Levels on Oil Content of Cumin Seed

Abstract: A three-year field experiment wasAbstract: conducted A three-year

You might also like