Y. AYRANCI1 and H. ALTUNLU2
1 Mugla Sitki Kocman University, Datca Kazim Yilmaz Polytechnic, 48900 Datca-Mugla-Turkey
2 Mugla Sitki Kocman University, Ortaca Polytechnic, 48600 Ortaca-Mugla-Turkey
AYRANCI, Y. and H. ALTUNLU, 2016. Portable canal irrigation compared to drip irrigation for tomatoes (Lycopersicum esculentum Mill.) Production in greenhouse condition. Bulg. J. Agric. Sci., 22: 665–672
This study examined the effects of the Portable Canal Irrigation method, a new alternative method to Drip Irrigation, and of the effects of different irrigation intervals on the growth, yield and quality of tomato (Lycopersicum esculentum Mill.) under greenhouse conditions in the Mediterranean Region of Turkey in the 2011 growing season. In this study, the treatment types used were: (i) Portable Canal Irrigation method with a 3-day irrigation interval, (ii) Portable Canal Irrigation method with a 6-day irrigation interval, (iii) Portable Canal Irrigation method with a 9-day irrigation interval and (iv) Drip Irrigation method with a 3-day interval (control). There were no statistical differences in the growth and yield of tomato plants between Drip Irrigation and Portable Canal Irrigation 1 treatments (P < 0.05). The irrigation intervals of Portable Canal Irrigation methods were signifi cant in total tomato yields and marketable yields. The Portable Canal Irrigation 1 and Portable Canal Irrigation 3 treatments produced maximum and minimum yields (mean of both autumn and spring experiments) 3.81 kg plant–1 and 3.10 kg plant-1, respectively. By comparing Portable Canal Irrigation with Drip Irrigation, we concluded that Portable Canal Irrigation has some advantages. Those are; its prevention of weed growth, its lack of a need for energy, its maintenance of the water level in the root area by decreasing evaporative losses from the soil surface due to its mulching effect, and the fact that it produces the greater yield (3.81 kg plant–1) from Drip Irrigation (3.6 kg plant–1) in greenhouse tomato production.