MODELING WATER AND FERTILIZER MOVEMENT IN DRIP

FERTIGATED GUAVA(PSIDIUMGUAJAVA).
Junaid N Khan1

1
Professor and Head, College of Agricultural Engineering and Technology, SKUAST-Kashmir.

Abstract
The paper examines the effect of three soil matric potentials (SMP) treatments {I1(-20 kPa), I2(-40 kPa),
I3(-60 kPa)} and three fertigation levels {F1(100%), F2(80%), F3(60%) recommended dose of fertilizer}
under drip irrigation conditions on water balance, root uptake and leaching of N, P and K for 214 days
simulation period for guava plants. The study involved field experimentation for two years 2011-12 and
2012-13 on guava crop under drip fertigation scheme. Soil matric potential (SMP) based irrigation
scheduling under drip fertigation system for guava crop results in appropriate application of irrigation
water. Field data were collected on spatial and temporal distribution of water and available nutrients N, P
and K in the growing season to calibrate and validate the solute transport model. The model predictions
of water content and nutrient distribution are found to be in very good agreement with the observed data.
The presented two dimensional modeling approach provides information to improve fertigation practices
that is being adopted in the field. The water balance indicated that as the amount of applied irrigation
water increased the leaching fraction also increased. However, for -40kPa SMP leaching fraction of 14.4
% was less than that for -60kPa soil matric potential, because the duration and amount of irrigtion
application for -40kPa was smaller than that for -60kPa SMP. The mass balance indicated that N-
leaching increased with the increase in soil matric potential. The mass balance for P and K- leaching also,
increased with the increase in soil matric potential. Maximum amount of N—leaching 52.7 % was
observed for I1F3 treatment and minimum amount 26.4% was observed for I3F1 treatment. Increasing the
rate of fertilizer application resulted in decrease in leaching percentage for all the fertilizers, as the
amount of fertilizer leached varied slightly with the change in fertilizer concentration.
Author Keywords: Fertigation, Guava, Nutrient Leaching, Soil matric potential, Simulation, Water
Balance.

INTRODUCTION

Dwindling water supply and environmental pollution due to application of excess

fertilizers and agricultural chemicals are the two of the major problems of agriculture. The per
unit capita availability of potable water is reducing each year thus causing greater stress on
available water resources. Ground water contamination due to nitrate pollution has increased
considerably in the last four decades. In India about 90% of available water is used in irrigation
sector while only 2% and 8% are used in industry and domestic purposes respectively
(FAOSTAT 2010). Out of the gross cultivated area of 172 Mha in India, only 37% (65 Mha) is
under irrigation (Tiwariet al.2010). The total annual utilizable water resource is estimated at
(112.2 Mha m), of which only (70 Mha- m) is utilized for irrigation. Even if the entire available
water is utilized for irrigation using present methods of irrigation, about 50% of cultivated area
will remain rainfed, as enormous quantity of water is wasted with these methods, which have
low efficiency in the range of 40 – 55% (Michael 2008).

Micro irrigation with fertigation provides an effective and cost-efficient way to supply
water and nutrients to crops (Bar-Yosef 1999). However, less than optimum management of
micro irrigation systems resulting in excessive water and fertilizer applications may result in
inefficient water and nutrient use, thereby diminishing expected yield benefits and contributing
to ground water pollution. The quality of soils, ground, and surface waters is specifically
vulnerable in climatic regions where agricultural production occurs mostly by irrigation (Hanson
et al. 2006). Application of uniform and sufficient water for good crop establishment is one of
the most challenging issues of the drip irrigation system. Under drip fertigation, irrigation
frequency increases hence infiltration period becomes an important part of the irrigation cycle.
Under this method, ponding zone developed in the vicinity of the emitter is strongly related to
the emitter discharge rate and soil hydraulic properties. Consequently, emitter discharge rate
(Bersler 1975), and related root distribution and plant water uptake pattern (Phene et al. 1991)
are considered as important factors, which govern the soil moisture regime around the emitter. A
properly designed drip fertigation system delivers water and nutrients at a rate and frequency,
which optimizes crop water and nutrient uptake, while minimizing leaching of nutrients and
chemicals from the root zone of agricultural fields (Gardenas et al. 2005). Accurate knowledge
of soil water and solutes distribution in the root zone is therefore essential for the design and
management of surface drip irrigation system. The knowledge can be obtained either by the field
experiments or through modeling. There is a meager data available for movement of water and
solute under drip irrigation system for guava crop.
 Numerous studies using tensiometers to measure soil moisture potential (SMP) and
schedule irrigation have been reported (Jordi et al. 1995; Clark et al. 1996; Erika et al. 1999;
Shock et al. 2000; Bob 2004; Wang F X et al. 2007; Wang D et al. 2007; Liu et al. 2012). After
comparing four irrigation-scheduling methods, Shae et al. (1999) suggested tensiometer based
irrigation produce yields and quality equivalent to those from reference treatments with
significant savings in seasonal irrigation totals. Irrigation scheduling based on soil water
moisture sensors requires that the soil water status be maintained within a range that is optimal
for plant growth (Abrisqueta et al. 2012).

Conducting field experiments in large number of soils with varying emitter discharge
rates to investigate water and nutrient distribution for evolving appropriate design and
management option is a costly and time consuming affair. A properly calibrated and validated
flow and solute transport model can reduce time and cost required for studying the water and
nutrient dynamics under drip irrigation system. Models provide an understanding of the
relationship amongst the amount and timing of water and nutrients application, the crop water
uptake, yield and soil hazard and groundwater pollution (Antonopoulus 2001). However
selection of an appropriate model is very important. Several models have been developed to
simulate water flow, nutrient transport, heat flux, crop water and nutrient uptake and biological
transformation of nutrients in the soil (Bergstom et al. 1991; Jarvis 1995; Gabriella and Kenjeni
1996, Breve et al. 1997 and Lafolie et al. 1997). Although they are easy to implement, they deal
mainly with the design considerations of the drip source. Hydrus-2D ( Simunek et al. 2006) has
been used extensively for evaluating solute movement strategies and the effects of soil hydraulic
properties, soil layering, dripper discharge rates, irrigation frequency, and timing of nutrient
applications on wetting patterns and solute distribution (e.g. Cote et al. 2003; Gardenas et al.
2005; Ajdary et al. 2007; Patel and Rajput 2010, RaviKumar et al. 2011). Hanson et al. (2006)
also used the numerical model for developing short term fertigation strategies.

The objective of the study is to calibrate and validate the solute transport model for
fertilizer leaching in drip irrigated guava. The results of the study should be of great help in
selecting appropriate irrigation and fertigation strategies to minimize nutrient leaching and obtain
higher yield for guava plants.
MATERIALS AND METHODS

Experimental site and climate

The experiment was performed at the farmland of the Department of Soil and Water
Engineering, at Punjab Agricultural University. The university is located in Ludhiana, Punjab
state, Northwest India (30º 56ʹ N, 75º 52 ʹ E, 247 m above sea level). In Ludhiana, winters are
cold and summers are extremely hot, average annual maximum and minimum temperature is
about 29.8 ºC and 16.5 ºC respectively. Annual precipitation mean for the last five years was
about 434.1 mm, which is mainly concentrated from June to September. This region has a typical
monsoon climate. The soil at the experimental field is sandy loam (clay 9.8%, silt 14.6% and
sand 76.7%) having field capacity (19.21%) and bulk density (1.43 g cm-3).

Treatment application

Guava (cv. Allahbadsafeda) plants were transplanted at a spacing of 6 m x 5 m during

March 2009 on 0.18 ha area. The recommended fertilizer dose of 100% included, 138 g of N,
244 g of P and 360 g of K for 4 year old plants. The dose applied to each plant was based on this
recommended dose of fertilizer application (Singh and Singh 2007). Three soil matric potentials
of -20 kPa, -40 kPa and -60 kPa were designed for irrigation to the guava plant. Irrigation
duration for delivery of water to different treatments was controlled with the help of gate valve
provided at the inlet of each plant. Each plant was provided with 5 drippers of 4 l h -1 discharge
rate. The fertigation was provided at the start of the irrigation treatment. Three fertigation
concentrations were devised based on 100%, 80% and 60% recommended fertilizer application
rate to the guava plants. Experiments were laid out in Factorial Randomized block design (RBD)
with three replications having 18 treatments. Each replication consisted of one guava plant.
Details of the experimental layout are shown in Fig. 1. Standard cultural practices for guava crop
cultivation were followed as per the recommendations (Singh et al 2007).

A total of 36 tensiometers two each for the treatments designed were inserted at different
depths (20, 30, 40 and 50 cm) and at different radial distances from emitter. However, the
tensiometer was found to be working satisfactorily at 20 cm depth and just below the emitter.
The soil moisture characteristic curve for sandy loam soil for variation of moisture content at
different pressure heads was developed through pressure plate technique. The soil moisture
characteristic curve for top layer (0-20cm) is given in Fig 2. The various irrigation treatments
were selected due to variation of soil moisture content from the field capacity level. The three
irrigation treatments were selected on the basis of 20%, 35% and 55% decrease in moisture
content from the field capacity level of the soil.

The frequency of irrigation was dependant on the readings of the tensiometer i.e. when
the particular reading was obtained the plants were irrigated. Generally, it took 1.25 hrs for dial
gauge reading to move from its present location to higher matric potential of -10kPa for I1
irrigation treatment. Similarly, it took 1.5 -2.5 hrs for dial gauge reading to move from its
targeted reading to higher matric potential of -10kPa for I2 and I3 irrigation treatment
respectively. The duration of irrigation application as calculated from the soil moisture
characteristic curve was 1hr 8 min for I1 irrigation treatment, 2 hr 3 minutes for I2 irrigation
treatment and 2 hr 42 minutes for I3 irrigation treatment. The calculation of time of irrigation was
done based on the moisture content at field capacity level and moisture content at that particular
soil moisture potential. The depth of the root zone and wetted area of the canopy were also
considered for calculation of amount of irrigation to be given to a particular soil moisture
potential irrigation treatment. However, irrigation application was done for 1-2 hrs for I1
irrigation treatment and for 1-4 hrs for I2 and I3 irrigation treatments.

Governing Flow Equation

Water movement in a partially saturated rigid porous medium is described by a modified

form of the Richard’s equation using the assumptions that the air phase plays an insignificant
role in the liquid flow process and the water flow due to thermal gradients can be neglected
(Simunek et al., 2006).
𝜕𝜃 𝜕 𝜕ℎ 𝜕 𝜕ℎ
= [𝐾(ℎ) ] + [𝐾(ℎ) + 𝐾(ℎ)] − 𝑆 (1)
𝜕𝑡 𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑧 𝜕𝑧

Where θ = volumetric water content [L3 L-3]; h= Water pressure head [L]; S = Sink term [L3 L-
3 -1
T ] (The flow equation incorporates a sink term to account for water uptake by plant roots) x=
spatial coordinates [L] (Positive upwards). T = Time [T]; α = Angle between the flow direction
and vertical axis; K = unsaturated hydraulic conductivity function [LT-1]. Hydrus assumes that
the vertical coordinate z is directed positive upwards.

Soil hydraulic model

vanGenuchten (1980) proposed the following equations for soil hydraulic properties. The soil
water retention, θ (h), and hydraulic conductivity, K (h) are given:

𝜃
𝑠− 𝑟 𝜃
𝜃(ℎ) = {𝜃𝑟 + [1+|𝛼ℎ|𝑛 ]𝑚
𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑛ℎ < 0 (2)

𝜃(ℎ) = {𝜃𝑠 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑛ℎ ≥ 0

2
𝑚
𝐾(ℎ) = 𝐾𝑠 𝑆𝑒𝑙 [1 − ( 1
] (3)
1 − 𝑆𝑒𝑚 )

𝜃−𝜃𝑟 1
𝑆𝑒 = ,𝑚 = 1−𝑛 (4)
𝜃𝑠−𝜃𝑟

Where,  s = Saturated water content, [-],  r = Residual water content, [-] , a =Parameter in the

soil water retention function [L-1], m and n = Empirical parameters [-], hs = air-entry value [L],

S e = Effective water content [-], K s = Saturated hydraulic conductivity [L/T], K r = Relative

hydraulic conductivity [-], K k (hk ) = Unsaturated hydraulic conductivity at pressure head hk [L/T]

Governing solute transport Equation

The model assumes that solutes can exist in all the three phases (Liquid, solid and
gaseous) and that the decay and production process can be different in each phase. Interactions
between the solid and liquid phases may be described by non-linear equilibrium equations, while
interactions between the liquid and gaseous phase are assumed to be linear and instantaneous.
The solutes are transported by convection and dispersion in the liquid phase, as well as by
diffusion in the gas phase. The partial differential equations governing non-equilibrium chemical
transport of solutes involved in a sequential first-order decay chain during transient water flow in
a variably saturated rigid porous medium is given as (Simunek and Van Genuchten, 1995)

𝜕𝜃𝑐1 𝜕𝜌𝑠1 𝜕𝑎𝑣 𝑔1 𝜕 𝜕𝑐1 𝜕 𝑔 𝜕𝑔1 𝜕𝑞𝑐1

+ + = (𝜃𝐷1𝑤 )+ (𝑎𝑣 𝐷1 )− − 𝑆𝑐𝑟,1 −
𝜕𝑡 𝜕𝑡 𝜕𝑡 𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑥
 −(𝜇𝑤,1 + 𝜇 ′ 𝑤,1 )𝜃𝑐1 − (𝜇𝑠,1 + 𝜇 ′ 𝑠,1 )𝜌𝑠1 − (𝜇𝑔,1 + 𝜇 ′𝑔,1 ) 𝑎𝑣 𝑔1 + 𝛾𝑤,1 𝜃 +

𝛾𝛾𝑠,1 𝜌 + 𝛾𝑔,1 𝑎𝑣 (5)

𝜕𝜃𝑐𝑘 𝜕𝜌𝑠𝑘 𝜕𝑎𝑣 𝑔𝑘 𝜕 𝜕𝑐𝑘 𝜕 𝑔 𝜕𝑔𝑘 𝜕𝑞𝑐𝑘

+ + = (𝜃𝐷𝑘𝑤 )+ (𝑎𝑣 𝐷𝑘 )− − 𝑆𝑐𝑟,1
𝜕𝑡 𝜕𝑡 𝜕𝑡 𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑥

−(𝜇𝑤,𝑘 + 𝜇′𝑤,𝑘 )𝜃𝑐𝑘 − (𝜇𝑠,𝑘 + 𝜇′𝑠,𝑘 )𝜌𝑠𝑘 − (𝜇𝑔,𝑘 + 𝜇′𝑔,𝑘 )𝑎𝑣 𝑔𝑘

+ 𝜇 ′ 𝑤,𝑘−1 𝜃𝑐𝑘−1 + 𝜇 ′ 𝑠,𝑘−1 𝜌𝑠𝑘−1 + 𝜇 ′𝑔,𝑘−1 𝜃𝑎𝑣𝑔𝑘−1 + 𝛾𝑤,𝑘 𝜃 + 𝛾𝛾𝑠,𝑘 𝜌

+ 𝛾𝑔,𝑘 𝑎𝑣 (6)

Where c, s, and g are solute concentrations in the liquid [ML-3],solid [MM-1], and gaseous [ML-
3
], phases, respectively; q is the volumetric flux density [LT-1], µw, µs, and µg are the first order
rate constants for solutes in the liquid, solid, and gas phases [T-1], respectively; µ’w, µ’s and µg’
are similar first order rate constants providing connections between individual chain species, γ w,
γs, and γg are zero order rate constants for the liquid [ML-3], solid [T-1], and gas [ML-3T-1] phases,
respectively; ρ is the soil bulk density[ML-3], av is the air content [L3/L-3], S is the sink term in
the water flow equation(5.1), cr is the concentration of the sink term [ML-3], Dw is the dispersion
coefficient [L2T-1] for the liquid phase, Dg is the dispersion coefficient [L2T-1] for the gas phase;
the subscript k represents the kth chain number, and ns is the number of solutes involved in the
chain reaction. The nine zero and first order rate constants in (6) may be used to represent a
variety of reactions or transformations including biodegradation, volatilization, and precipitation.

Initial and boundary conditions

Urea, Mono Ammonium Phosphate and Muriate of potash were used to supply N, P and
K respectively. Total urea, mono-ammonium phosphate and muriate of potash were applied
twice in a week at nearly four days interval. Solutes were applied with irrigation water and third
type cauchy boundary conditions were used to prescribe the concentration of flux along the
boundary of the dripper.
The simulations were carried out with a variable flux boundary condition for 25 cm at the
surface and atmospheric boundary conditions (BC) for 50 cm at the surface of the soil (Fig 3).
Left and right boundaries of the flow domain were considered no flux of water. A free drainage
was applied at bottom boundary (z=-100 cm) of the flow domain. The irrigation was
implemented by applying variable flux BC to an area of 1600 cm2 at the surface of the soil below
the canopy area. The initial water content in the flow domain was set equal to (I = -200 cm) for I1
irrigation treatment, (I= -400 cm) for I2 irrigation treatment and (I= -600 cm) for I3 irrigation
treatment.

During fertigation, solutes are applied with irrigation water and third type boundary
conditions are used to prescribe the concentration flux along the boundary of the dripper. Third
type (cauchy type) boundary conditions are given by equation:

𝜕𝐶𝑖 𝜕𝑐
[𝜃𝐷𝑟𝑟 + 𝜃𝐷𝑟𝑧 ] + 𝑞𝑟 𝐶 = 𝑞𝑟 𝐶0 (7)
𝜕𝑟 𝜕𝑧

𝜕𝐶𝑖 𝜕𝑐
[𝜃𝐷𝑟𝑟 + 𝜃𝐷𝑟𝑧 ] + 𝑞𝑟 𝐶 = 𝑞𝑧 𝐶0 (8)
𝜕𝑧 𝜕𝑧

The dispersion tensor has the following components

𝑞2 𝑞2
𝜃𝐷𝑥𝑥= 𝜀𝐿 |𝑞|𝑥 + 𝜀𝑇 |𝑞|𝑥 + 𝜃𝜏𝐷0 (9)

𝑞2 𝑞2
𝜃𝐷𝑧𝑧= 𝜀𝐿 |𝑞|𝑧 + 𝜀𝑇 |𝑞|𝑧 + 𝜃𝜏𝐷0 (10)

𝑞𝑥 𝑞𝑧
𝜃𝐷𝑥𝑧= (𝜀𝐿 − 𝜀𝑇 ) |𝑞|
(11)

Where C0 = Initial concentration of the incoming fluid, C= Solute concentration in the soil water,
(ML-3], |𝑞| is the absolute value of the volumetric flux density (cm/d), qxand qz are the
volumetric flux densities in x and z directions (cm/day). 𝜀𝐿 and𝜀𝑇 are the longitudinal and
transverse dispersivities (cm), respectively, D0 is the coefficient of the molecular diffusion for
solute in free water (cm2/d), and 𝜏 is the tortousity factor. Dxx, Dzz and Dxz are the components of
the dispersion tensor, [L2T-1]

Estimation of Evaporation and Transpiration

The reference evapotranspiration (ET) of the guava plant was estimated using FAO-56
Penman Monteith method (Allen et al. 1998). The crop coefficient (Kc) for different months of
guava crop were considered based on local studies carried out in India (Singh et al. 2007). The
actual evapotranspiration was estimated by multiplying reference evapotranspiration and crop
coefficients for different months.

ET0 = 0.408 ∆ (Rn –G) + γ 900 u2 (es – ea)

T+273 . (12)
∆ + γ (1+0.34) u2

Where ET0 = Reference evapotranspiration [mm/day] ; Rn = net radiation at the crop

surface [MJ m-2 day-1]; G = soil heat flux density [MJ m-2 day-1];T = mean daily air temperature
at 2m height [ºC]; U2 = wind speed at 2m height [m s-1]; es = saturation vapour pressure [kPa]; ea
= saturation vapour pressure [kPa]; es-ea = saturation vapour pressure deficit [kPa]; ∆ =Slope
vapour pressure curve [kPa ºC-1] ; γ = psychrometric constant [kPa ºC-1] ;V = Net irrigation
water requirement (l day-1) ; Kc = crop coefficient.The meteorological conditions which
prevailed during the crop season during which the study was conducted are given in Table 1. The
actual evapotranspiration as calculated by FAO Penman-Monteith method for the year 2011 and
2012 was 248.7 mm and 282.3 mm, respectively. This was found to be higher that actual water
requirement based on soil matric potential. The irrigation amount given to guava plants on the
basis of soil matric potential was 197.8 mm and 170.2 mm for no-mulch and mulch conditions
for I1 irrigation treatment. The irrigation requirements for different treatments i.e. three levels of
irrigation (I1, I2 and I3) and mulch and no mulch condition of the plants is given in Fig. 4.

Potential soil evaporation

In the present investigation for the computation of the potential soil evaporation in the
presence of crop canopy, the approach described by Ritchie (1972) has been used and is
represented by equation given below when the aerodynamic effect on potential
evapotranspiration is neglected under crop canopy.

  
E ps =    Rn  e −  LAI
  +  (13)

∆=2.00[0.00738Tmean+0.8072]7–0.00116 (14)

γ= (Cp*P)/ (L*ε) (15)

 P=1013-0.1055*Em (16)

L=595-0.51*Tmean (17)

Where, Eps= Potential soil evaporation, (mm/day), β = Coefficient, LAI = Leaf Area Index, Rn =
net radiation above the canopy, (mm/day), ∆ = Slope of the saturation vapour pressure
temperature curve, (mbºC-1) curve, γ = Psychrometric constant, (mbºC-1), Tmean = mean air
temperature (ºC), Em = Elevation of location above mean sea level, (m), L= latent heat of
vaporization, (calg-1), ε = ratio of molecular weights of the water and dry air, 0.622, P = local
atmospheric pressure, (m), Cp = specific heat constant of air, 0.2396 (calg-1ºC-1).

Potential crop transpiration

Potential evapotranspiration was partitioned to obtain the potential crop transpiration as
follows:

Ptr = Pet − E ps
(18)

Where, Ptr = Potential crop transpiration, (mm/day), Pet = Potential evapotranspiration, (mm/day)

and E ps = Potential soil evaporation, (mm/day). The potential soil evaporation, potential

transpiration, irrigation and rainfall occurring during growing period of the crop growth during
the year 2012 is given in Fig. 5.

Results and Discussion

Mass Balance
The mass balance was predicted for all the three fertilizers i.e., Nitrogen, Phosphorous
and Potassium. The overall leaching results are presented in Table 3. The total amount of
fertilizer applied throughout the growing period was considered as the input for the model. The
effective fertilizer leaching was computed from the mass leaving the bottom of the simulated
domain during the 214 days simulation period. To find the leaching amount of each treatment the
amount of fertilizer leaching below 100 cm depth and amount of fertilizer applied gave the
leaching fraction in percentage. The mass balance showed that N- leaching increased with the
increase in soil matric potential. The mass balance for P and K - leaching also, increased with
the increase in soil matric potential. Application of more irrigation water resulted in greater
leaching fraction for all the fertilizers. The leaching percentage of N, P and K varied from 32.9-
52.7%; 7.9-22.7%; 17.7- 49.4% respectively. Maximum amount of N—leaching 52.7 % was
observed for I1F3 treatment and minimum amount 32.9% was observed for I3F1 treatment.
Increasing the rate of fertilizer application resulted in increase in leaching fraction for all the
fertilizers as the amount of fertilizer leached varied slightly with the change in fertilizer
concentration. The leaching amount (mg cm-1) slightly increased with the increase in the
fertilizer concentration. Similarly, the root water uptake (mg cm-1) for all the fertilizers
moderately increased with the increase in the fertilizer concentration. The accumulated
concentration of N, P and K was maximum for 100% fertilizer application and minimum for
60% recommended dose of fertilizer application. The leaching showed a cyclic behavior caused
by periodic equation, with flux values increasing as the as the available water increased (Hanson
et al, 2008).
The fertilizer use efficiency (FUE) was calculated as the ratio of mass of fertilizer uptake
to the mass applied. The FUE of N, P and K varied from 35.6-54.6%; 12.2-17.9%; 14.6-20.2%
respectively. The maximum fertilizer use efficiency was observed for I2F3 treatment. The
fertilizer use efficiency for nitrogen uptake was slightly lower than those found by Hanson et al.
(2006) The higher FUE for -40 kPa SMP treatment was because under this the irrigation
interval and duration was lesser than -60 kPa SMP. However, under -20 kPa irrigation interval
frequent application of water was there although the duration of application was lesser than -40
kPa SMP. The minimum fertilizer use efficiency was observed for I1F1 treatment for all the
fertilizers. Decreasing the fertilizer amount resulted in increased fertilizer use efficiency.

Conclusions
The water requirements as calculated from FAO-56 PM equation was greater than that
observed from matric potential based irrigation scheduling. Tensiometer based irrigation
scheduling can be efficiently used for horticultural crops like guava with significant savings in
seasonal irrigation totals.
The nutrient movement under fertigation is very complex and depends on many factors,
such as soil temperature, PH, water content, initial nutrient concentration and, soil and plant
characteristics. Also, the temporal and spatial variations of these factors are highly dynamic.
Many factors cannot be accurately quantified. The objective of this work was to evaluate the
nutrient dynamics, root uptake and leaching of nutrients by the guava crop grown under drip
irrigation with mathematical modeling. Calibration and validation results showed that Hydrus –
2D can be used for simulation of water and nutrient leaching.
The results showed that the, most of ammonium because of its absorption to the soil
remained in top soil layers, with low concentration near the edges. Nitrate mass accumulated in
the soil profile, moving down to depths deeper than 100 cm. Potassium and phosphorous
followed a similar trend with maximum concentration in the top soil layer. Irrigation treatment of
-40 kPa was found to the best for irrigation application as leaching percentages where lower
under this type of irrigation application. The irrigation treatment best suited the duration,
frequency and time of irrigation application. Seasonal nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium
leaching was highest for I1F3 which indicated that application of more fertilizer did not result in
more leaching. The maximum FUE was observed for treatment I2F3. This included the treatment
where irrigation was applied at -40 kPa SMP and fertilizer was applied at 60 % recommended
dose of fertilizer application.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The study forms part of the works of project on precision farming and development centre
sponsored by National Committee on Plasticulture Applications in Horticulture (NCPAH)
Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, Govt. of India (GOI), New
Delhi.

References
Abrisqueta, I., Vera, J., Tapia, L. M., Abrisqueta, J. M., and Ruiz S M C. (2012). “Soil water content
criteria for peach trees water stress detection during the post harvest period.” Agric. Water
Manage. 104: 62-67.
Antonopoulus, V. Z. (2001). “Simulation of water and nitrogen balances of irrigation and fertilized corn
crop.” J. Irrig Drain Engg127(2): 77-83.
Ajdary, K., Singh, D. K., Singh, A. K., and Khanna, M. (2007). “Modeling of nitrogen leaching
from experimental onion field under drip fertigation.” Agri Water Manage 89: 15-28.
Allen, G. R., Pereira, L. S., Raes, D., and Smith, M. (1998).“Crop Evapotranspiration.
 Guidelines for computing crop water requirements.” Irrigation and Drainage paper No. 56 FAO
Rome, Italy, p. 300
Bar -Yosef, B. (1999). “Advances in fertigation.”AdvAgron 65: 1-75.
Bergstrom, L., Johnsson, H., and Torstensson, G. (1991). “Simulation of soil nitrogen dynamics
using the SOILN model.” Fer Res 27: 181-88.
Bob, W. (2004). “Scheduling water application on drip irrigated sugarcane. Agric. Water Manage. 32: 37-
48.
Bresler, E. (1975). “Two dimensional transport of solutes during non steady infiltration from a trickle
source.”Proc Soil Sci. Soc. Ame. 39: 604-613.
Breve, M. A., Skaggs, R. W., Parsons, J. E., and Gillian, J. W. (1997). DRAINMOD-N a
nitrogen model for artificially drained soils.” Trans ASAE. 40(4): 1067-1075.
Clark, G. A., Albregts, E. E., Stanley, C. D., Smasjstrla, A. G., and Zazueta, F. S. (1996). “Water
requirements and crop coefficients of drip irrigated strawberry plants.” Trans. ASAE 39 (3): 905-
913.
Cote C M, Bristow K L, Charlesworth P B, Cook F J and Thorbron P J (2003) Analysis of soil
wetting and solute transport in subsurface trickle irrigation. Irrig.Sci. 22: 143-156.
Erika, K., Schmidt, G., and Buckner, U. (1999). “Scheduling strawberry irrigation based upon tensiometer
measurement and climatic water balance model.” Sci. Hort. 81: 409-424.
Food and Agricultural Organization (2010) website http://www.faostat.com September 2011.
Gabriella, B., and Kenjeni, L. (1996). “Analysis and field evaluation of the CERES models soil
components: nitrogen transfer and transformations.” Soil SciSoc Am J. 60: 142-49.
Gardenas, A. I., Hopman, J. W., Hanson, B. R., and Simunek, J. (2005). “Two dimensional
modeling of nitrate leaching for various fertigation scenarios under micro irrigation.”
Agri Water Manage 74(3): 219-42.
Genuchten, V. (1980). “A closed form equation for predicting the hydraulic conductivity of
unsaturated soils.” Soil Sci Soc. Am. J. 44: 892-898.
Hanson, K., Simunek, J., and Hopmans, J. W. (2006).” Numerical modeling of urea-
ammonium-nitrate fertigation under micro irrigation.” Agri. Water Manage. 86: 102-113.
Hanson, B., Hopmans, J. W., and Simunek, J. (2008). “Leaching with subsurface drip irrigation
under saline, shallow groundwater conditions.” Vadose zone J. 7(2): 810-18
Jarvis, N. J. (1995). “Simulation of soil water dynamics and herbicide persistence in a silty loam
Soil using the MACRO model.”Ecol Model 81: 97 -109.
Jordi, G., Oriol, M., Lucila, C., and Lydia, S. (1995). “Nitrate leaching and strawberry
production under drip irrigation management.” Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 56: 121-135.
Lafoli, F., Bruckler, L., de-Cockborne, A. M., and Loboucarie, C. (1997). “Modeling the water
transport and nitrogen dynamics in irrigated salad crops.” Irri. Sci. 17: 95-104.
Liu, H., Yang, H., Zheng, J., Jia, D., Wang, J., Li, Y., and Huang, G. (2012). “Irrigation
scheduling strategies based on soil matric potential on yield and fruit quality of mulched
– drip irrigated chilli pepper in Northwest China.” Agril. Water Manage. 115: 232-241.
Kadale, A. S. (2002). “Simulation of crop response under different fertigation options for
nitrogenous fertilizers in trickle irrigated tomatoes.” PhD. Dissertation. Punjab
Agricultural University, Ludhiana, India.Pp:195.
Michael, A. M. (2008) Irrigation: Theory and Practice.Pp: 768 Vikas Publishing House Pvt. Ltd.
New Delhi.
Patel, N., and Rajput, T. B. S. (2010). “Effect of subsurface drip irrigation system in nitrate
leaching.” J Agri. Engg.47(1): 40-45.
Phene, C. J., Davis, K. R., Hutchmaker, R. B., Yosef, B., Meek, D. W., and Misaki, J. (1991).
“Effect of high frequency surface and subsurface drip on root distribution of sweet corn.”
Irrg. Sci. 12: 135-140.
Tiwari, K. N., Maji, M. K., Biswas, U., and Mal, P. K.. (2010). “Studies on nitrate – nitrogen
movement under subsurface drip irrigation in potato.” J AgriEngg47(2): 26-30.
Ravikumar, V., Vijayakumar, G., Simunek, J., Chellamuthu, S., Santhi, R., and Appavu, K.
(2010). “Evaluation of fertigation scheduling for sugarcane using a vadose zone flow and
transport model.” Agri. Water Manage. 98: 1431-40.
Ritche, J. T. (1972). “Model for Predicting evaporation from a row crop with incomplete cover.”
Water Resour. Res. 8: 1024-1213.
Shae, J. B., Steele, D. D., and Gregor, B. L. (1999). “Irrigation scheduling methods for potatoes
in the Northern Great Plains.” Trans. ASAE 42 (2): 351-360.
Shock, C. C., Feibert, Erick, B. C., and Saunders, L. D. (2000). “Irrigation criteria for drip
irrigated onions.” Hortscience, 35 (1): 63-66.
Simunek, J., Genuchten, V., and Sejna, M. (2006). “The Hydrus software package for simulating
the two and three dimensional movement of water, heat and multiple solutes in variably
saturated media.” Technical manual.Version 1.0.PC Progress, Prague, Czech Republic.
Simunek, J., Huang, K., and Genuchten V. (1995). “The SWMS_3D code for simulating water
flow and solute transport in two-dimensional variably saturated media.” Version 1.0.Res. Rep.
139. U. S. Salinity Lab., Riverside, CA.
Singh, H. P., and Singh, G. (2007). “Nutrient and Water Management in Guava” Acta Hort. 735:
Pp: 389-98.
Singh, B. K., Tiwari, K. N., Chourasia, S., and Mandal, S. (2007). “Crop water requirement of
guava (Psidiumguajava L.) Cv. Kg/kaji under drip irrigation and plastic mulch.”ActaHort 735:
Pp: 399-405.
Wang, D., Kang, Y., and Wan, S. (2007). “Effect of soil matric potential on tomato yield and
water use under drip irrigation condition.”Agril. Water Manage. 87: 180-186.