Author Contributions
S.A.B. has contributed to the conceptualization, methodology, investigation, data collection and acquisition, data analysis, writing the original draft manuscript in scientific content. P.S. contributed to the methodology and editing of the manuscript. A.W.W. contributed to the data collection framework, data analysis and review and editing of the manuscript. T.S.S. contributed to the conceptualization, methodology, methods of data presentation, visualization, supervision and in rewriting the manuscript to the scientific content. M.R.R. contributed to the conceptualization, methodology, design of the experiment and manuscript editing. S.A.T. contributed to the conceptualization, methodology, data collection and acquisition framework, visualization, supervision, project administration, funding acquisition and rewriting the manuscript to the scientific content.
Figure 1.
The location and geographical distribution of on-farm experimental plots in Dengeshita kebele (administrative unit smaller than district), in Northwestern Ethiopia, the state of Amhara. Some of the plots are within the Biranti watershed and the rest outside the watershed. The plots are located near the farmers’ homes (Source: Ethiopian Mapping Agency).
Figure 1.
The location and geographical distribution of on-farm experimental plots in Dengeshita kebele (administrative unit smaller than district), in Northwestern Ethiopia, the state of Amhara. Some of the plots are within the Biranti watershed and the rest outside the watershed. The plots are located near the farmers’ homes (Source: Ethiopian Mapping Agency).
Figure 2.
Average depth of irrigation per application for garlic crop since planting for the three treatments (T
1, T
2, and T
3). The treatments T
1, T
2, and T
3 are described in
Table 4.
Figure 2.
Average depth of irrigation per application for garlic crop since planting for the three treatments (T
1, T
2, and T
3). The treatments T
1, T
2, and T
3 are described in
Table 4.
Figure 3.
Cumulative estimated evapotranspiration (ETc), depth of irrigation application, and rainfall for (a) onion (2016/2017), and (b) garlic (2017/2018) vegetables; * T1: conservation agriculture with irrigation water amount and scheduling managed by estimated evapotranspiration; T2: conventional tillage with irrigation water amount and scheduling managed by estimated evapotranspiration and; T3: conservation agriculture with irrigation water amount and scheduling managed by farmers’ practices.
Figure 3.
Cumulative estimated evapotranspiration (ETc), depth of irrigation application, and rainfall for (a) onion (2016/2017), and (b) garlic (2017/2018) vegetables; * T1: conservation agriculture with irrigation water amount and scheduling managed by estimated evapotranspiration; T2: conventional tillage with irrigation water amount and scheduling managed by estimated evapotranspiration and; T3: conservation agriculture with irrigation water amount and scheduling managed by farmers’ practices.
Figure 4.
Soil moisture of T1 and T2 treatments for garlic crop measured at the top 20 cm soil layer before and after irrigation water application. Region A indicates the soil moisture gained in T1 over T2 after irrigation, Region B is common for the two treatments, and Region C indicates the soil moisture deficit of T2 before irrigation. * T1: conservation agriculture with irrigation water amount and scheduling managed by estimated evapotranspiration; T2: conventional tillage with irrigation water amount and scheduling managed by estimated evapotranspiration. T1-BI = soil moisture (%) before irrigation for (T1) treatment; T1-AI = soil moisture (%) after irrigation T1 treatment. T2-BI = soil moisture (%) before irrigation for (T2) treatment; T2-AI = soil moisture (%) after irrigation T2 treatment.
Figure 4.
Soil moisture of T1 and T2 treatments for garlic crop measured at the top 20 cm soil layer before and after irrigation water application. Region A indicates the soil moisture gained in T1 over T2 after irrigation, Region B is common for the two treatments, and Region C indicates the soil moisture deficit of T2 before irrigation. * T1: conservation agriculture with irrigation water amount and scheduling managed by estimated evapotranspiration; T2: conventional tillage with irrigation water amount and scheduling managed by estimated evapotranspiration. T1-BI = soil moisture (%) before irrigation for (T1) treatment; T1-AI = soil moisture (%) after irrigation T1 treatment. T2-BI = soil moisture (%) before irrigation for (T2) treatment; T2-AI = soil moisture (%) after irrigation T2 treatment.
Figure 5.
Soil moisture dynamics at 10 cm, 20 cm, and 30 cm soil depths for T1 and T2 treatments under garlic crop experiment. T1-10, T1-20, and T1-30 indicates soil moisture measurements at 10 cm, 20 cm, and 30 cm depth for conservation agriculture (T1); and T2-10, T2-20, and T2-30 indicate soil moisture measurements at 10 cm, 20 cm, and 30 cm for conventional tillage (T2), monitored once every 10 days after planting of garlic.
Figure 5.
Soil moisture dynamics at 10 cm, 20 cm, and 30 cm soil depths for T1 and T2 treatments under garlic crop experiment. T1-10, T1-20, and T1-30 indicates soil moisture measurements at 10 cm, 20 cm, and 30 cm depth for conservation agriculture (T1); and T2-10, T2-20, and T2-30 indicate soil moisture measurements at 10 cm, 20 cm, and 30 cm for conventional tillage (T2), monitored once every 10 days after planting of garlic.
Figure 6.
Onion height measured at 10-day intervals after transplanting and responses to conservation agriculture among treatments, * T1: conservation agriculture with irrigation water amount and scheduling managed by estimated evapotranspiration; T2: conventional tillage with irrigation water amount and scheduling managed by estimated evapotranspiration and; T3: conservation agriculture with irrigation water amount and scheduling managed by farmers’ practices.
Figure 6.
Onion height measured at 10-day intervals after transplanting and responses to conservation agriculture among treatments, * T1: conservation agriculture with irrigation water amount and scheduling managed by estimated evapotranspiration; T2: conventional tillage with irrigation water amount and scheduling managed by estimated evapotranspiration and; T3: conservation agriculture with irrigation water amount and scheduling managed by farmers’ practices.
Figure 7.
Garlic height measured at 10-day intervals after transplanting and responses to conservation agriculture among treatments, * T1: conservation agriculture with irrigation water amount and scheduling managed by estimated evapotranspiration; T2: conventional tillage with irrigation water amount and scheduling managed by estimated evapotranspiration and; T3: conservation agriculture with irrigation water amount and scheduling managed by farmers’ practices.
Figure 7.
Garlic height measured at 10-day intervals after transplanting and responses to conservation agriculture among treatments, * T1: conservation agriculture with irrigation water amount and scheduling managed by estimated evapotranspiration; T2: conventional tillage with irrigation water amount and scheduling managed by estimated evapotranspiration and; T3: conservation agriculture with irrigation water amount and scheduling managed by farmers’ practices.
Table 1.
Mean and standard deviation of physical and chemical properties of the soil from samples collected in 30 plots and at two depths of the experimental plots.
Table 1.
Mean and standard deviation of physical and chemical properties of the soil from samples collected in 30 plots and at two depths of the experimental plots.
Soil Parameter | Soil Depth |
---|
0–30 cm | 30–60 cm |
---|
pH (H2O) 1:2.5 | 6.0 ± 0.7 | 5.7 ± 0.7 |
Cation Exchange Capacity CEC, cmol kg−1 | 25.0 ± 4.7 | 24.0 ± 4.7 |
Available phosphorus P, mg kg−1 | 20.0 ± 14.1 | 6.9 ± 3.0 |
Available potassium K, g kg−1 | 1.0 ± 0.6 | 0.7 ± 0.4 |
Total Nitrogen, TN, g kg−1 | 0.2 ± 0.1 | 0.2 ± 0.1 |
Field Capacity FC, cm3 cm−3 | 31.0 ± 3.5 | 28.0 ± 1.4 |
Permanent wilting point PWP, cm3 cm−3 | 22.0 ± 4.2 | 21.5 ± 2.3 |
Clay, g kg−1 | 39.0 ± 18.0 | 16.3 ± 4.4 |
Silt, g kg−1 | 25.0 ± 4.9 | 23.3 ± 3.1 |
Sand, g kg−1 | 36.0 ± 19.0 | 60.3 ± 6.1 |
Bulk Density, g cm−3 | 1.1 ± 0.1 | 1.1 ± 0.2 |
Table 2.
Crop stages, length of the growing period in days, and crop coefficients.
Table 2.
Crop stages, length of the growing period in days, and crop coefficients.
Year | Crop Type | Crop Parameters | Growth Stages |
---|
Initial | Development | Mid-Season | End |
---|
2017 | Onion | Length of growth (days) | 20 | 45 | 35 | 20 |
Crop coefficient (Kc) | 0.7 | 0.7–1.05 | 1.05 | 0.7 |
2018 | Garlic | Length of growth (days) | 20 | 50 | 30 | 20 |
Crop coefficient (Kc) | 0.7 | 0.7–0.95 | 0.95 | 0.7 |
Table 3.
Experimental onion and garlic varieties, management activities, date of operation, and method of cultivation performed at the study site (2016 to 2018 years) over the growing seasons.
Table 3.
Experimental onion and garlic varieties, management activities, date of operation, and method of cultivation performed at the study site (2016 to 2018 years) over the growing seasons.
Year | Crop | Activities | Date (Day/Month/Year) | Method |
---|
2016/2017 | Adama Red Onion (Allium cepa L.) | Seedling | 2/11/2016 | Manual |
Tillage * | 25/9/2016–30/3/2016 | Oxen and Manual |
Transplanting | 20/12/2016 | Manual |
Mulch application ** | 1/5/2017 | Manual |
Irrigation | 20/12/2017–20/3/2017 | watering-Can |
weeding/hoeing * | 20/1/2017, 29/2/2017, 16/3/2017 | Manual |
Harvesting | 22/3/2018–25/3/2017 | Manual |
2017/2018 | Local garlic (Allium Sativium L.) | Tillage * | 9/10/2017–14/10/2017 | Oxen and Manual |
Planting | 18/10/2017 | Manual |
Mulch application ** | 27/10/2017 | Manual |
Irrigation | 27/10/2017–26/1/2018 | watering-Can |
weeding/hoeing * | 27/11/2017, 29/12/2017, 16/1/2018 | Manual |
Harvesting | 26/2/2018 | Manual |
Table 4.
Applied water (mm) to each growth stages of onion and garlic vegetables and the variations using analysis of variance (α = 0.05) *.
Table 4.
Applied water (mm) to each growth stages of onion and garlic vegetables and the variations using analysis of variance (α = 0.05) *.
Treatment * | Crop Stages |
---|
Initial | Development | Mid-Season | End | Total |
---|
Onion in 2016/2017 |
T1 | 136 a* | 219 a** | 122 a | 42 a | 520 a |
T2 | 136 a | 219 a | 122 a | 42 a | 520 a |
T3 | 157 b | 213 a | 141 b | 36 a | 548 a |
P-value | 0.04 | 0.80 | 0.09 | 0.50 | 0.40 |
LSD(α = 0.05) | 20.80 s | 35.4 ns | 23.0 ns | 19.2 ns | 66.8 ns |
Garlic in 2017/2018 |
T1 | 48 a | 120 a | 59 a | 33 a | 260 a |
T2 | 55 ab | 142 ab | 73 ab | 39 ab | 309 ab |
T3 | 70 b | 194 c | 86 bc | 50 bc | 420 c |
P-value | 0.0025 | 0.0004 | 0.017 | 0.015 | 0.00095 |
LSD(α = 0.05) | 15.14 | 43.6 15.14 | 22.52 | 15.91 | 87.72 |
Table 5.
Irrigation interval, depth of water application, and the total number of irrigations practiced for onion and garlic production.
Table 5.
Irrigation interval, depth of water application, and the total number of irrigations practiced for onion and garlic production.
Treatment | Irrigation Interval (days) | Irrigation Depth per Application (mm) | Number of Irrigations |
---|
Onion—2016/2017 |
T1 * | 2 | 5–8 | 80–70 |
T2 | 2 | 5–8 | 80–70 |
T3 | 1–4 | 4–10 | 90–60 |
Garlic—2017/2018 |
T1 | 3 | 6–8 | 40 |
T2 | 3 | 8–10 | 40 |
T3 | 2–4 | 5–13 | 50 |
Table 6.
Average irrigation water applied yield, productivity, and irrigation water use efficiency (IWUE) values for each treatment. Significant and mean differences among treatments were performed using analysis of variance (α = 0.05) and Tukey Least Significant Difference (LSD) method *.
Table 6.
Average irrigation water applied yield, productivity, and irrigation water use efficiency (IWUE) values for each treatment. Significant and mean differences among treatments were performed using analysis of variance (α = 0.05) and Tukey Least Significant Difference (LSD) method *.
Treatments | Applied Water (mm) | Yield (kg) | Yield (t ha−1) | IWUE (kg m−3) |
---|
Onion 2016/2017 |
T1 | 520 a | 54.7 a | 24.3 a | 4.42 a |
T2 | 520 a | 40.1 b | 17.9 b | 3.24 b |
T3 | 548 a | 65.1 c | 14.9 b | 2.40 b |
P-value | 0.4 | <0.01 | 0.12 | 0.00004 |
LSD (0.05) | 66.8 | 8.5 | 3.4 | 0.77 |
Garlic 2017/2018 |
T1 | 260 a | 15.2 a | 5.3 a | 1.9 a |
T2 | 309 ab | 11.0 bc | 3.8 a | 1.2 bc |
T3 | 420 c | 12.6 ac | 3.8 a | 1.3 c |
P-value | 0.00095 | <0.01 | 0.187 | 0.006 |
LSD (0.05) | 87.7 | 3.1 | 1.7 | 0.5 |
Table 7.
Comparisons of experimental findings in applied irrigation water (mm), yield (t ha−1), and IWUE (kg m−3) under irrigated onion and garlic experimental studies.
Table 7.
Comparisons of experimental findings in applied irrigation water (mm), yield (t ha−1), and IWUE (kg m−3) under irrigated onion and garlic experimental studies.
References | Location | Type of Experiment | Experimental Crop | Treatment Type | Irrigation Method | Applied Water (mm) | Yield (t ha−1) | IWUE (kg m−3) |
---|
[46] | Los Ebanos, Texas, USA | commercial | onion | irrigation methods | surface drip | 359 | 62.9 | 17.5 |
[46] | Los Ebanos, Texas, USA | commercial | onion | irrigation methods | furrow | 677 | 28.7 | 4.2 |
[47] | Arkansas, USA | commercial | onion | irrigation methods | furrow | 640 | 35.0 | 5.5 |
[4] * | Sekota, Ethiopia | station | onion | irrigation scheduling | Drip | 278 | 25.0 | 9.0 |
[27] | Abohar, Punjab, India | station | onion | deficit irrigation | Micro-sprinkler | 275 | 19.0 | 6.9 |
[27] | Abohar, Punjab, India | station | onion | deficit irrigation | Micro-sprinkler | 467 | 36.0 | 7.7 |
[31] | India | station | onion | deficit irrigation | Subsurface | 563 | 44.4 | 7.9 |
[31] | India | station | onion | deficit irrigation | Subsurface drip | 328 | 28.1 | 8.6 |
[46] | Los Ebanos, Texas, USA | station | onion | deficit irrigation | Subsurface drip | 389 | 42.0 | 10.8 |
[46] | Los Ebanos, Texas, USA | station | onion | deficit irrigation | Subsurface drip | 292 | 39.0 | 13.4 |
[44] | Turkey | GH pot 1 | onion | deficit irrigation | sprinkler | 190–680 | 4.4–27 | 2.2–5.6 |
[45] | Jima, Ethiopia | On-farm | onion | Variety | Drip | 315 | 6.9 | 2.2 |
[48] | California, USA | On-farm | Garlic | Irrigation Interval | 1 week | 350 | 21.3 | 6.1 |
[48] | California, USA | On-farm | Garlic | irrigation interval | 1.5 week | 300 | 19.1 | 6.4 |
[29] | Mymensingh, Bangladesh | station | Garlic | CA | drip | 446 | 7.8 | 1.7 |
[29] | Mymensingh, Bangladesh | station | Garlic | CA | drip | 546 | 6.8 | 1.2 |
[34] | Kadawa, Nigeria | station | Garlic | planting spacing | drip | 425 | 15.3 | 3.6 |
[49] | Pune, India | station | Garlic | Deficit irrigation | Micro sprinkler | 249 | 7.5 | 3.0 |
[49] | Pune, India | station | Garlic | Deficit irrigation | Micro sprinkler | 374 | 10.8 | 2.9 |
[49] | Pune, India | station | Garlic | Deficit irrigation | Micro sprinkler | 498 | 12.9 | 2.6 |