Growth, yield and water use efficiency response of greenhouse-grown hot pepper under Time-Space deficit irrigation

Greenhouse-grown hot pepper was used to investigate the effect of Time-Space deficit irrigation (TSDI), a newly developing irrigation technique based on regulated deficit irrigation (RDI) and partial rootzone drying (PRD), by measuring plant growth, yield and irrigation water use efficiency. The treatments consisted of factorial combinations of three factors, organized following an orthogonal L(9) (3)(4) test design with four growing stages. Three irrigation strategies (conventional furrow irrigation with full-water when soil water content was lower by 80% of field capacity (F), conventional furrow irrigation with 50% of full-water (D) and alternate furrow irrigation with 50% of full-water (P)) as the main plot factor were applied to select the optimum irrigation parameter at different stages of crop development, the treatment in which irrigation water was applied to both sides of root system when soil water content was lower by 80% of field capacity during all stages was considered as control (FFFF). Water consumption showed some significant effect of irrigation treatment during the growing period of different drought stress patterns application, and therefore decreased in these treatments to a level around 54.68-70.33% of FFFF. Total dry mass was reduced by 1.17-38.66% in TSDI treatments compared to FFFF. However, the root-shoot ratio of FFFF was lower than other treatments and the differences from FFFF and other TSDI treatments were statistically significant. The highest total fresh fruit yield (19.57T ha(-1)) was obtained in the FFFF treatment. All deficit irrigations increased the water use efficiency of hot pepper from a minimum of 1.33% to a maximum of 54.49%. At harvest, although there was difference recorded as single fruit weight and single fruit volume were reduced under the TSDI treatments, total soluble solids concentration of fruit harvested under the water-deficit treatments were higher compared to FFFF. (C) 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.