Evaluation of the Effects of Irrigation and Inorganic Fertilizers Management on Yield and Water Productivity of Tomato

Zelalem Shelemew; Anbese Ambomsa; Bariso Bati; Dulo Husen; Ayub Jalde

doi:doi:10.11648/j.wros.20251404.13

Research Article |

| Peer-Reviewed

Evaluation of the Effects of Irrigation and Inorganic Fertilizers Management on Yield and Water Productivity of Tomato

Zelalem Shelemew^*

, Anbese Ambomsa

, Bariso Bati

, Dulo Husen

, Ayub Jalde

Published in Journal of Water Resources and Ocean Science (Volume 14, Issue 4)

Received: 11 July 2025 Accepted: 25 July 2025 Published: 12 August 2025

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

Efficient use of water and fertilizers by crops calls for revised or new agricultural crop management practices to sustain agricultural production. Improved irrigation and fertilizer management will be needed to reduce nutrient leaching from horticultural crops. Over-irrigation increases the leaching of nitrogen (nitrogen is very soluble in water) and hence the amount of applied nitrogen required for maximum yield. This experiment was conducted at Adami Tulu Agricultural Research Center with the objective of evaluating the effects of different irrigation levels and N-fertilizer rates on yield and yield components of tomato. The treatments of the experiment had factorial combinations of four irrigation levels of watering and five N-fertilizer amounts. The results revealed that different fertilizer rate produced higher tomato with the amount of water applied. The growth, yield and yield contributing characters like plant height, fruit length, fruit diameter, and fruit weight per plant were influenced significantly by different levels of irrigation and fertilizer rate. Whereas, the interaction between Irrigation levels and nitrogen rate were all also significant for all characters of yield components. Maximum grain yield of 115.64 qt ha^-1 was recorded in plots treated with nitrogen dose of 110 kg ha^-1 when compared to other treatments. Similarly, maximum tomato yield of 117.94 qt ha^-1 was recorded in 100% ETc of applied water while minimum yield of 89.4 and 108.70 qt ha^-1 was harvested from plots sown with 125% ETc water applied and application of 90 kg N ha^-1 respectively. It can be concluded from these results that 100% ETc of applied water and fertilizer N at the rate of 110 kg ha^-1 produced economical crop of tomato under climatic conditions of the study area.

Published in	Journal of Water Resources and Ocean Science (Volume 14, Issue 4)
DOI	10.11648/j.wros.20251404.13
Page(s)	107-117
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2025. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Irrigation Depth, Fertilizer Rate, Water Use Efficiency, Applied Water

1. Background

Worldwide, fresh water availability for irrigation is decreasing because of increasing competition from urban and industrial development, degrading irrigation infra-structure and water quality

[17]

. Full irrigation, with very low water productivity, has caused increasing in water requirement much than needed water

[18]

In semiarid and arid climatic conditions and occasionally even in humid climates, an optimum water supply depends on irrigation. Mostly, water is supplied by surface irrigation via open channels, flooding and furrows, but the efficiency of water use is rather low. Typically, one third to one half of the applied water, carrying with it considerable amounts of nutrients, may not be used by a crop. Water use efficiency is much higher in pressurized irrigation systems, ranging from 70% to 95%. Such systems allow for a good control of water and nutrient supply and minimize losses. Major constraints to the use of pressurized irrigation are the initial capital investment, maintenance costs and availability of expertise in the use of the system.

Improved irrigation and fertilizer management will be needed to reduce nutrient leaching from horticultural crops. This will probably involve applying fertilizer and water more frequently, but in smaller quantities than currently practiced. The result should more closely match water and fertilizer supply to crop demand. Over-irrigation increases the leaching of nitrogen (nitrogen is very soluble in water) and hence the amount of applied nitrogen required for maximum yield.

Plant nutrition is one of the significant factors affecting plant production. Nitrogen is among the essential elements for proper growth and development of plants and hence it is the yield-limiting factor in several areas especially in soils with low organic matter content

[19]

. Although N supply can improve productivity, the blanket recommendation for N fertilizer application is common in agricultural production

[16]

. Several studies have indicated that plant yield and plant N concentration can be increased by increasing N fertilization, but the NUE might be decreased

[30, 32]

. Previous findings have revealed that the PFP and AE reduced with an increase in N fertilizer rate and the highest marke yield and optimum economic yield were obtained with the N rates of 271 and 265 kg/ha, respectively

[14, 38]

Water stress is the other most important environmental factors that limit crop production

[10]

. On the other hand, too much use of irrigation water leads to inefficient water use

[39]

. Hence, for better tomato water use efficiency, emphasis should be given to the efficient use of water, both to get better yields and to optimize water use

[22]

. The research result by

[27]

indicated that the highest marketable yield was obtained by supplying 100% ETc amounted to 66.4 t/ha as the mean value of three cultivars, whereas only 6.21 t/ha was achieved in non-irrigated treatment (the control). However, WUE was highest in the treatment receiving 50% ETc and amounted to 1.09 kg/m³.

Both irrigation and nitrogen fertilizer applications are among the essential factors affecting the growth and fruit yield of tomato

[12, 25, 33, 2, 21, 7, 37]

. Moreover, several studies have investigated the interaction effects of irrigation and fertilization on NUE and WUE

[3-5, 8, 13, 34, 37, 40]

. Though nitrogen and water are key factors for tomato growth and yield, their optimum integration is not well identified, especially in the study area. Thus, optimizing irrigation level and nitrogen fertilizer rates are crucial for adopting them as a management tool for boosted tomato yield as well as for better nutrient and water use efficiencies. The present study was aimed to assess the effects of irrigation water and nitrogen fertilizer levels on tomato yield, nutrient residue, as well as water and nutrient use efficiencies.

Chemical pollution by nitrate and phosphorus in water bodies is increasing due to the extensive, uncontrolled application of fertilizers. Agricultural fertilizers currently stand as the main non-point source of water pollution. Nitrate pollution in groundwater was detected in 49 out of the 50 states of the USA in 1992

[20]

. Different authors have identified optimum surface fertigation techniques resulting in minimum fertilizer losses and maximum distribution uniformity of fertilizer

[28, 1, 29, 6]

. In addition, surface fertigation has been reported to lead to specific advantages as compared to the mechanical application of fertilizers. Among them: low energy and labor requirements; potential for small and frequent fertilizer applications; and reduction in soil compaction and crop damage resulting from machine traffic

[26]

Efficient use of water and fertilizers by crops calls for revised or new agricultural crop management practices to sustain agricultural production

[31]

. The increase in agricultural production in the world, including that in arid and semiarid areas, has been achieved through application of modern agricultural technologies, comprising a combination of irrigation and heavy doses of fertilizer

[11]

. As a result, as much as 40% of global food production derives from irrigated agriculture. However, a large amount of the irrigation water used is lost due to inappropriate irrigation practices.

Therefore, today’s agriculture sector faces a complex series of challenges to cope with the demands for sustainable management and production, which entails an increase in food production to ensure food security while using less water per unit of output

[36]

, and reducing nitrogen (N) fertilizer losses through leaching. This is particularly important in sub-Saharan Africa, where a major expansion in irrigated agricultural area is expected to occur in the near future, since only 7.7 million ha out of a potential 38 million ha are currently in operation.

Thus, to maximize the production and productivity of tomato, an experiment on fertilizer and water requirements of the crop should be done. Moreover, fertilizer requirements may be affected by amount and frequency of irrigation water. On the other hand water use efficiency is highly dependent on plant nutrient and, supply. Within this project was initiated with the objectives of evaluating the responses of tomato to amount of irrigation and rate of fertilizer application and determining optimum rate of inorganic fertilizer combined with optimum amount of water.

2. Materials and Methods

The activity was undertaken at Adami Tulu agricultural research center at on station for two consecutive years. It was conducted to evaluate the effect of the amount of water and inorganic fertilizer management on the yield and water productivity of processing tomato. The experiments were laid out in RCBD with three replications.

The treatments for the experiment consist of three levels of irrigation depths (D):

D1: 50% ETC,

D2: 75% ETC,

D3: 100% ETC,

D4: 125% ETC and

Three fertilizer rates (R):

R1: 100% of recommended fertilizer application

R2: 120% of recommended fertilizer application

R3: 110% of recommended fertilizer application

R4: 90% of recommended fertilizer application

R5: 80% of recommended fertilizer application

Urea was applied in split. The predetermined amount of irrigation water was applied to each plot using Parshall flume. Data were analyzed using SAS 9.2 statistical software.

Table 1. Treatment combination.

Treatments
T1	D1R1	T11	D3R1
T2	D1R2	T12	D3R2
T3	D1R3	T13	D3R3
T4	D1R4	T14	D3R4
T5	D1R5	T15	D3R5
T6	D2R1	T16	D4R1
T7	D2R2	T17	D4R2
T8	D2R3	T18	D4R3
T9	D2R4	T19	D4R4
T10	D2R5	T20	D4R5

The experimental field plot layouts were made by dividing the field into 3 blocks and 60 plots and each experimental plot has plot size of 3 m by 4 m. The plots and blocks were had a buffer zone of 1 m and 1.5 m between plots and blocks respectively.

Materials such as Parshal flume, double ring infiltrometer, Auger, core samplers, meter, pegs, meteorological data, Cropwat 8.0 software, and FAO publications were used. CROPWAT8.0 software is used to determine daily crop water requirement. The amounts of water supplied to each plot were measured using 3 inch calibrated standard Parshal flume. Double ring infiltrometer is used to determine soil infiltration rate. Auger and core samplers are used to take soil samples from the experimental field.

The experimental field was prepared by plowing with tractor driven implement. It was prepared thoroughly by harrowing, leveling and ridging manually. Tomato seed was used for the experiment. It was raised on nursery bed and transplanted to the experimental field plots. Furrows spaced at 70 cm will be used and transplanted at row and plant spacing of 70 and 30 cm, respectively. To ensure the plant establishment common irrigations were provided to all plots before commencement of the differential irrigation. All cultural practices other than variable factors are standard practices recommended for the area. Weeding and inter-row cultivations were performed by hand hoeing when deemed necessary. Disease and pest management were made as per recommendation of agronomist at the research center.

Crop water requirements (ETc) were calculated from climatic data by directly integrating the effect of crop characteristics into reference crop evapotranspiration. FAO Penman-Monteith method was used for determining reference crop evapotranspiration (ETo). The Penman-Monteith equation is given by equation:

ETo = \frac{0.408 ∆ (R_{n} - G) + γ \frac{900}{T + 273} U_{2} (e_{s} - e_{a})}{∆ + γ (1 + 0.34 U_{2})}

(1)

where:

ETo = Reference evapotranspiration (mm/day), R_n = Net radiation at the crop surface (MJ/m² per day), G = Soil heat flux density (MJ/m² per day), T = Mean daily air temperature at 2 m height (°C), U₂ = Wind speed at 2 m height (m/sec), e_s = Saturation vapor pressure (kPa), e_a = Actual vapor pressure (kPa), e_s - e_a = Saturation vapor pressure deficit (kPa), ∆ = Slope of saturation vapor pressure curve at temperature T (kPa/°C), γ = Psychrometric constant (kPa/°C).

Experimentally determined ratios of ETc and ETo, called crop coefficients (Kc), are used to relate ETc to ETo as given by equation:

ETc = ETo \times Kc

(2)

where: ETc = crop evapotranspiration (mm/day), ETo = reference crop evapotranspiration (mm/day) and Kc = crop coefficient.

Irrigation Requirement (IR) can be estimated from the expression:

IR = CWR-Effective rainfall(3)

Where, IR in mm, CWR in mm and effective rainfall which is part of the rainfall that entered into the soil and made available for crop production in mm.

Irrigation schedule, when to irrigate and how much water to apply per irrigation, is one of the most important tools for best management of irrigated agriculture. Irrigation schedule was worked out using CropWat 8 windows. In the model, one of the computation methods for the optimal irrigation scheduling for no yield reduction is the irrigation given at 100% readily available soil moisture depletion to refill the soil to its field capacity. The RAW will be computed from the expression:

RAW = p * TAW

(4)

where RAW in mm, p is in fraction for allowable soil moisture depletion for no stress, and TAW is total available water in mm.

The total Available soil Water (TAW) is computed from the soil moisture content at field capacity (FC) and permanent wilting point (PWP) using the following expression:

TAW = \frac{(FC - PWP) * BD * Dz}{100}

(5)

where FC and PWP in % on weight basis, BD is the bulk density of the soil in gmcm^-3, and Dz is the maximum effective root zone depth in mm.

The bulk density, BD, is the mass of a soil in a unit volume for undisturbed soil condition and is expressed on dry weight basis of the soil as:

BD = \frac{Ms}{Vs}

(6)

where Ms is the weight of oven dry soil, and Vs is the volume of the same soil in cm³.

Considering the daily CWR, TAW, Dz and p, the irrigation interval will be computed from the expression:

Interval (days) = \frac{RAW}{CWR}

(7)

where RAW in mm and CWR in mm day^-1.

The gross irrigation requirement, IRg, in a particular event will be computed from the expression:

IRg = \frac{Interval * CWR}{Ea}

(8)

where IRg is mm, interval in days, CWR in mm day^-1 and Ea is the Irrigation water application efficiency in fraction.

Data collected

Data that were taken includes, soil data, climatic data, Plant height, Number of Branch/plant, Number fruit per plant, Number of cluster per plant, fruit weight, fruit width, fruit length, and yield and water productivity. Data collected were subjected to analysis of variance using SAS 9.2 software. Whenever treatment effects were found to be significant, treatment means will be compared using the least significant difference (LSD) method.

3. Results and Discusions

Interaction effects of irrigation depth and fertilizer rate on total yield and fruit weight

There is significance difference on total yield on interaction effects, the highest total yield 91.43 Qt/ha were recorded on treatment 7 (T7: D2R2) which is the interaction effect of 75% ETC with 120% of recommended fertilizer application. Irrigation treatment due to the sufficient level of irrigation and optimal fertigation, which also resulted in the highest fruit yield

[15, 22-24]

and the lowest were recorded 64.16 Qt/ha on treatment 1 (T1:D1R1) which is the interaction effect of 50% ETC with 100% of recommended fertilizer application. There is only significance difference T7 with T1, T11, T12, T13, T14, T19 and T20. But there is no significance difference between other treatments. In line with the present study, Wang and Xing

[35]

reported higher tomato yield at moderate irrigation (75% ETc) interacted with a high fertilizer level (240 kg N/ha).

Table 2. The interaction effect of irrigation depth and fertilizer rate on total yield, fruit weight, fruit width and fruit length.

Treatments	Total yield	fruit weight (kg)	fruit width	fruit length
T1	64.164^b	0.13273^bdc	3.3600^fbedc	4.7267^bac
T2	79.634^ab	0.13833^abc	3.4933^bac	4.7600^bac
T3	80.378^ab	0.15657^a	3.7467^a	5.0733^a
T4	75.497^ab	0.14396^ab	3.4600^bdc	4.9133^bac
T5	80.359^ab	0.13991^abc	3.3733^fbedc	4.7667^bac
T6	73.508^ab	0.12731^bdc	3.3967^fbedc	4.7400^bac
T7	91.436^a	0.13408^bdc	3.4267^bedc	4.7467^bac
T8	73.833^ab	0.13269^bdc	3.3933^fbedc	4.7267^bac
T9	76.973^ab	0.13615^abcd	3.1867^fe	4.7533^bac
T10	82.648^ab	0.14337^ab	3.6133^ba	5.0000^ba
T11	64.801^b	0.11596^d	3.3867^fbedc	4.5800^c
T12	72.468^b	0.11536^d	3.3600^fbedc	4.5933^c
T13	70.105^b	0.13123^bdc	3.3000^fedc	4.9333^bac
T14	68.220^b	0.11730^d	3.1600^f	4.5667^c
T15	74.331^ab	0.13908^abc	3.5867^ba	4.8200^bac
T16	72.521^ab	0.12222^dc	3.2267^fed	4.7467^bac
T17	79.494^ab	0.12372^bdc	3.4067^fbedc	4.7733^bac
T18	78.062^ab	0.11733^d	3.3267^fedc	4.7933^bac
T19	72.403^b	0.12823^bdc	3.3800^fbedc	4.6800^bc
T20	70.831^b	0.12795^bdc	3.3800^fbedc	4.7867^bac
LSD	18.95	0.0209	0.2563	0.3714

The fruit weight on Table 2 shows there is highly significance difference between the treatments in interaction effects, the highest fruit weight 0.156 kg were recorded on treatment 3 (T3: D1R3) which is the interaction effect of 50% ETC with 110% of recommended fertilizer application and the lowest were recorded 0.115 kg on treatment 12 (T12:D3R2) which is the interaction effect of 100% ETC with 120% of recommended fertilizer application. There is significance difference T3, T4, T10 with T11, T12, T14 and T18. There is no significance difference between the treatments of T1, T2, T4, T5, T6, T7, T8, T9, T10, T13, T15, T17, T19 and T20.

Interaction effects of irrigation depth and fertilizer rate on fruit width and fruit length

There is highly significance difference on interaction effects between the treatments on fruit width, the highest fruit width 3.74 cm were recorded on treatment 3 (T3: D1R3) which is the interaction effect of 50% ETC with 110% of recommended fertilizer application and the lowest were recorded 3.16 cm on treatment 14 (T14:D3R4) which is the interaction effect of 100% ETC with 90% of recommended fertilizer application. There is highly significance difference between the treatments of T3, T10, and T15 with the treatments of T9, T14 and T16 but there is no significance difference between the treatments of T1, T5, T4, T6, T8, T11, T12, T13, T14, T17, T19 and T20.

There is also highly significance difference on fruit length in interaction effects between the treatments, the highest fruit length 5.07 cm were recorded on treatment 3 (T3: D1R3) which is the interaction effect of 50% ETC with 110% of recommended fertilizer application and the lowest were recorded 4.56 cm on treatment 14 (T14:D3R4) which is the interaction effect of 100% ETC with 90% of recommended fertilizer application. There is significance difference between the treatments of T3, T10 with T11, T12 and T14 but there is no significance difference among the treatments of T1, T2, T4, T5, T6, T7, T8, T9, T10, T13, T15, T16, T17, T18, T19 and T20.

Yield and yield parameters in the year 2021/22

Fruit width and Fruit length

As shown in Table 4 second year result the combined effect of irrigation depth with fertilizer rate application showed a significance difference on fruit width and fruit length. There is highly significance difference on treatment combination of T3 (D1R3: 50% ETc and 110% of fertilizer rate) with T11 (D3R1: 100% ETc and 100% of fertilizer rate), T15 (D3R5: 100% ETc and 80% of fertilizer rate), T16 (D4R1: 125% ETc and 100% of fertilizer rate), T17 (D4R2: 125% ETc and 120% of fertilizer rate) and T19 (D4R4: 125% ETc and 80% of fertilizer rate) and also there were significance difference shows on T11 (D3R1: 100% ETc and 100% of fertilizer rate) with that treatments of T5 (D1R5: 50% ETc and 80% of fertilizer rate), T8 (D2R3: 75% ETc and 110% of fertilizer rate) and T10 (D2R5: 75% ETc and 80% of fertilizer rate) on fruit width and the rest have no significant different between the treatment combination Table 5. The result in line with

[9, 15, 22]

an inadequate irrigation rate could decrease tomato yields to some extent while improving fruit quality.

The highest fruit width was gained 4.68 cm in treatment combination of T3 (D1R3: 50% ETc and 110% of fertilizer rate) followed by 4.43 cm, 4.31cm and 4.30cm from T10 (D2R5: 75% ETc and 80% of fertilizer rate), T1 (D1R5: 50% ETc and 80% of fertilizer rate) and T8 (D2R3: 75% ETc and 110% of fertilizer rate) respectively. The lowest were recorded 2.91 cm from treatment combination of T19 (D4R4: 125% ETc and 90% of fertilizer rate).

ANOVA analysis of fruit length indicated that there is also a significance on treatment combination of T3 (D1R3: 50% ETc and 110% of fertilizer rate) with T11 (D3R1: 100% ETc and 100% of fertilizer rate), T15 (D3R5: 100% ETc and 80% of fertilizer rate) and 100% of fertilizer rate), T17 (D4R2: 125% ETc and 120% of fertilizer rate) and T19 (D4R4: 125% ETc and 80% of fertilizer rate) and also there were significance difference showed that on T10 (D2R5: 75% ETc and 80% of fertilizer rate) with that treatments of T11 (D3R1: 100% ETc and 100% of fertilizer rate) and T19 (D4R4: 125% ETc and 80% of fertilizer rate).

The highest fruit length was recorded 5.34 cm in treatment combination of T3 (D1R3: 50% ETc and 110% of fertilizer rate) followed by 5.19 cm, 5.02 cm and 5.01 cm from T10 (D2R5: 75% ETc and 80% of fertilizer rate), T1 (D1R5: 50% ETc and 80% of fertilizer rate) and T2 (D1R2: 50% ETc and 120% of fertilizer rate) respectively. The lowest were indicated 3.37 cm from treatment combination of T19 (D4R4: 125% ETc and 90% of fertilizer rate).

The main effect of irrigation depth and fertilizer rate on Fruit width and length, fruit weight and total yield in 2021/22.

Fruit weight and Total yield

As shown in Table 4 there is significant difference on irrigation depth on fruit weight and total yield as main effect. Similarly 50% ETc showed that the highest fruit weight and total yield 1.99 kg and 121.26 Qt/ha and the least were recorded on 125% ETc 1.64 kg/plant and 89.4 Qt/ha and respectively. Even if the highest fruit weight and total yield were recorded on 50% ETc there is no significance difference with 100% ETc of water applied.

Fertilizer Rate: there is no significance difference on fruit weight per plant and total yield when applying different rate of fertilizer rate in the second year trial, but the highest fruit weight per plant and total yield were different with first year results which lies on 110% of recommended fertilizer rate application which were recorded 1.89 kg/plant and 115.64 Qt/ha on fruit weight per plant and total yield which shows an increasing trend from first year yield and the lowest fruit weight per plant 1.77 kg/plant and similarly low yield were recorded 108.7 Qt/ha of 90% of recommended fertilizer rate of application on both parameters.

Table 3. Interaction effect of irrigation depth and fertilizer rate on Fruit width and length, fruit weight and total yield.

Treatments		Fruit width (cm)	Fruit length (cm)	Fruit weight (kg/plant)	Total Yield (Qt/ha)
T1	D1R1	4.24^abc	5.02^abc	1.86^abc	121.35^ab
T2	D1R2	4.24^abc	5.01^abc	1.90^abc	101.96^ab
T3	D1R3	4.68^a	5.34^a	1.99^abc	113.23^ab
T4	D1R4	4.01^abcd	4.46^abcd	2.26^a	144.63^a
T5	D1R5	4.31^ab	4.93^abc	1.96^abc	125.12^ab
T6	D2R1	4.12^abc	4.88^abc	1.63^abc	112.89^ab
T7	D2R2	3.61^abcd	4.13^abcd	1.89^abc	131.18^ab
T8	D2R3	4.30^ab	4.75^abc	1.63^abc	119.71^ab
T9	D2R4	4.12^abc	4.73^abc	1.63^abc	111.10^ab
T10	D2R5	4.43^ab	5.19^ab	1.88^abc	100.98^ab
T11	D3R1	3.13^cd	3.81^cd	1.99^abc	93.24^ab
T12	D3R2	3.54^bcd	4.08^abcd	1.76^abc	111.93^ab
T13	D3R3	3.95^abcd	4.51^abcd	2.04^ab	143.23^a
T14	D3R4	3.76^abcd	4.43^abcd	2.09^ab	127.98^ab
T15	D3R5	3.49^bcd	3.93^bcd	1.75^abc	113.31^ab
T16	D4R1	3.55^bcd	4.10^abcd	1.61^abc	111.29^ab
T17	D4R2	3.57^bcd	4.27^abcd	1.58^bc	100.58^ab
T18	D4R3	3.65^abcd	4.17^abcd	1.91^abc	86.39^ab
T19	D4R4	2.91^d	3.37^d	1.33^c	51.11^b
T20	D4R5	3.81^abcd	4.41^abcd	1.77^abc	97.63^ab
LSD		1.12	1.26	0.68	85.01
CV		17.2	17.1	22.4	46.35

The combined effect of treatments showed that there is also a significance difference on both parameters fruit weight per plant and total yield. There is a significance difference on treatment combination of T4 (D1R4: 50% ETc and 90% of fertilizer rate) with T17 (D4R2: 125% ETc and 120% of fertilizer rate) and T19 (D4R4: 125% ETc and 90% of fertilizer rate) and also there is significance difference between T13 (D1R3: 50% ETc and 110% of fertilizer rate) and T14 (D3R4: 100% ETc and 90% of fertilizer rate) with T19 (D4R4: 125% ETc and 90% of fertilizer rate) on fruit weight per plant. The highest fruit weight per plant were gained 2.26 kg/plant from treatment combination of T4 (D1R4: 50% ETc and 90% of fertilizer rate) followed by 2.09 kg/plant and 2.04 kg/plant T14 (D3R4: 100% ETc and 90% of fertilizer rate) and T13 (D1R3: 50% ETc and 110% of fertilizer rate) respectively.

From Table 5 the combined effect of treatments showed that significance different on total yield. There is a significance difference in combined effect of T4 (D1R4: 50% ETc and 90% of fertilizer rate) and T13 (D1R3: 50% ETc and 110% of fertilizer rate) with that of T19 (D4R4: 125% ETc and 90% of fertilizer rate). The maximum yield 144.63 Qt/ha and 143.23 Qt/ha were gained on both from combined effect of T4 (D1R4: 50% ETc and 90% of fertilizer rate) and T13 (D1R3: 50% ETc and 110% of fertilizer rate) followed by 131.18 Qt/ha T7 (D2R2: 75% ETc and 120% of fertilizer rate) and the minimum were 51.11 Qt/ha recorded from T19 (D4R4: 125% ETc and 90% of fertilizer rate).

Plant height and Number of branch per plant

Combined effect of irrigation depth and fertilizer rate on plant height and number of branch per plant

The combined effect showed that there is a significance difference on plant height on both years. There is a significance difference on 1^st year analysis between the treatments of T11: D3R1: 100% ETc and 100% of fertilizer rate with that of treatments T3: D1R3: 50% ETc and 110% of fertilizer rate, T5: D1R5: 50% ETc and 80% of fertilizer rate, T9: D2R4: 75% ETc and 90% of fertilizer rate, T15: D3R5: 100% ETc and 50% of fertilizer rate, T16: D4R1: 125% ETc and 100% of fertilizer rate, T17: D4R2: 125% ETc and 120% of fertilizer rate and T18: D4R3: 125% ETc and 110% of fertilizer rate but the others haven’t shown any significance differences between the treatments. On the 2^nd year analysis there only shown significance difference between the treatments of T15: D3R5: 100% ETc and 80% of fertilizer rate and T3: D1R3: 50% ETc and 110% of fertilizer rate, but no significance difference on the rest treatments shows.

Table 4. Interaction effect of plant height and number of branches per plant.

Treatments		Plant height (cm)		Number of branches per plant (NBP)
Treatments		1^st year	2^nd year	1^st year	2^nd year
T1	D1R1	48.13^ab	60.13^ab	6.20^abc	4.00^bc
T2	D1R2	46.86^ab	65.00^ab	5.53^abc	4.40^ab
T3	D1R3	49.46^a	58.73^b	5.86^abc	3.80^c
T4	D1R4	47.00^ab	62.73^ab	5.60^abc	4.33^ab
T5	D1R5	48.53^a	61.33^ab	6.73^a	4.27^ab
T6	D2R1	47.06^ab	60.00^ab	5.60^abc	4.00^bc
T7	D2R2	46.73^ab	62.47^ab	5.66^abc	4.33^ab
T8	D2R3	44.86^ab	62.07^ab	6.20^abc	4.40^ab
T9	D2R4	50.20^a	62.27^ab	5.40^bc	4.27^ab
T10	D2R5	47.00^ab	64.60^ab	5.80^abc	4.20^abc
T11	D3R1	41.53^b	63.73^ab	5.13^bc	4.00^bc
T12	D3R2	46.20^ab	67.13^ab	5.33^bc	4.00^bc
T13	D3R3	44.66^ab	68.07^ab	5.80^abc	4.47^a
T14	D3R4	45.33^ab	66.33^ab	5.00^c	4.33^ab
T15	D3R5	49.33^a	68.73^a	5.80^abc	4.20^abc
T16	D4R1	50.40^a	66.27^ab	5.53^abc	4.27^ab
T17	D4R2	50.86^a	63.40^ab	6.40^ab	4.33^ab
T18	D4R3	49.60^a	64.47^ab	6.33^ab	4.33^ab
T19	D4R4	47.80^ab	62.93^ab	5.66^abc	4.40^ab
T20	D4R5	47.26^ab	64.00^ab	6.20^abc	4.33^ab
LSD		6.9	9.69	1.28	0.41
CV		8.8	9.19	13.3	5.9

The highest plant height was recorded on the 2^nd year trial analysis of on the treatments of 68.73 cm on T15: D3R5: 100% ETc and 80% of fertilizer rate applied followed by 68.07 and 67.13 on T13: D3R3: 100% ETc and 110% of fertilizer rate and T12: D3R2: 100% ETc and 120% of fertilizer rate respectively. The least was 58.73 cm on treatment of T3: D1R3: 50% ETc and 110% of fertilizer rate.

The combined effect on Table 4 shows there is highly significance difference between the treatments on number of branches per plant (NBP) on both years. There is a significance difference on treatment T5: D1R5 with T9: D2R4, T11: D3R1, T12: D3R2 and T14: D3R4 and also there is a significance shows between T17: D4R2, T18: D4R3 with that of T14: D3R4 on the 1^st year results. On the 2^nd year results the significance difference treatment showed differ with that of 1^st year these were T13: D3R3 with that of T11: D3R1, T12: D3R2, T6: D2R1, T1: D1R1 and T3: D1R3 and also significance difference shows on T3: D1R3 with most of the treatments showed on Table 4. On this table also the numbers of branches per plant of the 2nd year result were decreased from the 1^st year results. The highest numbers of branches per plant were recorded on the 1^st year result gained which was 6.73 on T5: D1R5 followed by 6.40 and 6.33 on T17: D4R2 and T18: D4R3 respectively. The lowest was 5.00 on T14: D3R4.

Even if the number of branches per plant were shows decreased in all treatments the highest 4.47 were recorded on treatment combination of T13: D3R3 followed by 4.40 the same value showed on three treatments which are on T2: D1R2, T8: D2R3 and T19: D4R4. The lowest treatment 3.80 was on T3: D1R3.

Number of cluster per plant and number of fruit per plant

The combined effect of irrigation depths and fertilizer rates on numbers of cluster per plant shows highly significance difference between the treatments on both years result. At the 1^st year T5: D1R5 and T18: D4R3 significantly different with that of T2: D1R2, T4: D1R4, T8: D2R3 and T11: D3R1. The combined effect also increased by somewhat at the 2^nd year of number of cluster per plants. The maximum were recorded 14.80 on T5: D1R5 followed by 14.46 of T18: D4R3 and the least were recorded 9.53 on T11: D3R1 at the 1^st year.

The 2^nd year results that shows significance difference between the treatments were T13: D3R3 with that of T1: D1R1, T6: D2R1 and T3: D1R3 and also there is significance between T15: D3R5 and T3: D1R3. The highest were recorded 17.53 on T13: D3R3 followed by 16.80 at T15: D3R5 and the least were 11.80 recorded from T3: D1R3.

Table 5. The interaction/combined effect of number of cluster per plant and number of fruit per plant.

Treatments		Number of cluster per plant (NCP)		Number of fruit per plant (NFP)
Treatments		1^st year	2^nd year	1^st year	2^nd year
T1	D1R1	11.86^bcde	12.4^bc	46.40^abc	35.40^ab
T2	D1R2	11.13^de	13.93^abc	44.60^bc	45.13^ab
T3	D1R3	14.13^abc	11.80^c	54.00^ab	32.27^b
T4	D1R4	11.66^cde	15.80^abc	44.46^bc	47.33^a
T5	D1R5	14.80^a	15.07^abc	58.93^a	45.67^a
T6	D2R1	12.00^bcde	12.40^bc	50.20^ab	36.13^ab
T7	D2R2	11.86^bcde	13.93^abc	46.53^abc	37.72^ab
T8	D2R3	11.46^cde	13.80^abc	43.05^bc	38.07^ab
T9	D2R4	14.06^abc	13.87^abc	49.71^ab	42.73^ab
T10	D2R5	13.13^abcd	13.87^abc	48.60^abc	35.93^ab
T11	D3R1	9.53^e	15.07^abc	35.40^c	42.53^ab
T12	D3R2	11.73^bcde	15.93^abc	45.06^bc	39.40^ab
T13	D3R3	12.73^abcd	17.53^a	49.00^ab	46.93^a
T14	D3R4	12.26^abcde	16.27^abc	44.66^bc	46.20^a
T15	D3R5	12.13^abcde	16.80^ab	52.60^ab	47.07^a
T16	D4R1	12.20^abcde	13.93^abc	48.93^ab	38.87^ab
T17	D4R2	12.53^abcd	13.87^abc	49.66^ab	39.27^ab
T18	D4R3	14.46^ab	13.60^abc	55.66^ab	44.60^ab
T19	D4R4	11.73^bcde	14.33^abc	47.90^abc	42.20^ab
T20	D4R5	12.06^abcde	16.13^abc	55.46^ab	47.47^a
LSD		2.78	4.92	13.46	13.24
CV		13.6	20.5	16.7	19.2

The number of fruit per plants on both year results shows a significance difference on the combined effect and also the values were decreased at the 2^nd year results. The treatments that have significant different between them were T5: D1R5 with that of T14: D3R4, T12: D3R2, T11: D3R1, T4: D1R4 and T5: D1R2 at the 1^st year result and the maximum number of fruit were 58.93 from T5: D1R5 followed by 55.66 and 55.46 of T18: D4R3 and T20: D4R5 respectively. The minimum were observed 35.40 on T11: D3R1.

The 2^nd year also showed that there is a significance difference between the treatments. The treatment that shows significance difference was T3: D1R3 with that of T4: D1R4, T5: D1R5, T13: D3R3, T14: D3R4, T15: D3R5 and T20: D4R5. The highest fruit 47.47 were gained from T20: D4R5 followed by 47.33 and 47.07 from T4: D1R4 and T15: D3R5 respectively. Similarly the lowest were 32.27 recorded on T3: D1R3.

4. Conclusion and Recommendation

High temperature and low humidity cause high crop evapotranspiration, therefore high amount of water has to be applied to meet the crop requirement. Since most of the soils in this area are sandy with low organic matter content and low water holding capacity (WHC), if water is applied more than the WHC of the soil, there will be water and nutrients loss due to leaching.

As conclusion the irrigation depth of 100% ETC observed the highest yield of tomato as compared with the others and as main effect of fertilizer rate when 110% of recommended fertilizer rate applied give the highest yield of tomato. The interaction effect of irrigation depth and fertilizer rate application the highest yield of tomato observed on treatment of (T13: D3R3) which is the interaction effect of 100% ETC with 110% of recommended fertilizer applied were recommended.

Abbreviations

D	Depth of Irrigation
R	Rate of Fertilizer
CWR	Crop Water Requirement
LSD	Least Significant Difference
PWP	Permanent Wilting Point
BD	Bulk Density

Acknowledgments

I wish to thank FAO (IVSCO) by providing financial assistance to conduct the field experiment. I also acknowledge Adami Tulu agricultural research center field assistants (especially to Aliyi Wayeso), researchers’ who participated in field data collection.

Author Contributions

Zelalem Shelemew: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing

Anbese Ambomsa: Data curation, Investigation, Supervision

Bariso Bati: Data curation, Funding acquisition, Project administration, Visualization

Dulo Husen: Data curation, Supervision

Ayub Jalde: Data curation, Supervision

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	Abbasi F, Simunek J, Genuchten V, Feyen J, Adamsen FJ, Hunsaker DJ, Strelkoff TS, Shouse P, 2003. Overland water flow and solute transport: model development and field-data analysis. J Irrig Drain Eng 129(2): 71-81.
[2]	Badr MA, Abou Hussein SD, El-Tohamy WA, Gruda N, 2010. Nutrient uptake and yield of tomato under various methods of fertilizer application and levels of fertigation in arid lands. Gesunde Pflanzen; 62: 11-9.
[3]	Badr MA, Abou-Hussein SD, El-Tohamy WA, 2016. Tomato yield, nitrogen uptake and water use efficiency as affected by planting geometry and level of nitrogen in an arid region. Agric Water Manage; 169: 90-7.
[4]	Bar-Yosef B, 1977. Trickle irrigation and fertilization of tomatoes in sand dunes: water, N, and P distributions in the soil and uptake by plants. Agron J; 69: 486-91.
[5]	Bar-Yosef B, Sagiv B, 1982. Response of tomatoes to N and water applied via a trickle irrigation system. I. Nitrogen. Agron J; 74: 633-7.
[6]	Burguete J, Zapata N, Garcia-Navarro P, Maikaka M, Playan E, Murillo J, 2009. Fertigation in furrows and level furrow systems. II: Field experiments, model calibration, and practical applications. J Irrig Drain Eng 135(4): 413-420.
[7]	Celette F, Gary C, 2013. Dynamics of water and nitrogen stress along the grapevine cycle as affected by cover cropping. Eur J Agron; 45: 142-52.
[8]	De Pascale S, Maggio A, Orsini F, Barbieri G, 2016. Cultivar, soil type, nitrogen source and irrigation regime as quality determinants of organically grown tomatoes. Sci Hortic (Amsterdam); 199: 88-94.
[9]	Du, T., Kang, S., Zhang, J. & Davies, W. J, 2015. Deficit irrigation and sustainable water-resource strategies in agriculture for China’s food security. J. Exp. Bot. 66, 2253-2269.
[10]	Gulen H, Eris A, 2004. Effect of heat stress on peroxidase activity and total protein content in strawberry plants. Plant Sci; 166: 739-44.
[11]	Janmohammadi, M., Amanzadeh, T., Sabaghnia, N. and Ion, V. 2016. Effect of nano-silicon foliar application on safflower growth under organic and inorganic fertilizer regimes. BotanicaLithuanica, 22(1), pp. 53-64.
[12]	Kirda C, Cetin M, Dasgan Y, 2004. Yield response of greenhouse-grown tomato to partial root drying and conventional deficit irrigation. Agric Water Manage; 69: 191-20.
[13]	Kumar S, Dey P, 2011. Effects of different mulches and irrigation methods on root growth, nutrient uptake, water-use efficiency and yield of strawberry. Sci Hortic (Amsterdam); 127: 318-24.
[14]	Liu K, Zhang TQ, Tan CS, 2011. Processing tomato phosphorus utilization and post-harvest soil profile phosphorus as affected by phosphorus and potassium additions and drip irrigation. CJSS; 91(3): 417-25.
[15]	Marouelli, W. A. & Silva, W. L. C, 2007. Water tension thresholds for processing tomatoes under drip irrigation in Central Brazil. Irrigation Sci 25, 411-418.
[16]	Min J, Zhao X, Shi WM, Xing GX, Zhu ZL, 2011. Nitrogen balance and loss in a greenhouse vegetable system in Southeastern China. Pedosphere; 21: 464-7.
[17]	Molden, D. 2007. Water for nutrients, water for life: a comprehensive Assessment of water management in agriculture. International Water Management Institute, London.
[18]	Nahvi, M., 2000. Determination of the suitable interval irrigation based on growth indices and yield on rice. M. Sc thesis. Islamic Azad University of Karaj. Iran.
[19]	Najafva DS, Ansari NA, Dehcordi FS, 2008. Effect of different levels of nitrogen fertilizer with two types of bio-fertilizers on growth and yield of two cultivars of tomato (Lycopersicone sculentum Mill). Asian J Plant Sci; 1-5.
[20]	Ongley ED, 1996. Control of water pollution from agriculture. FAO Irrig Drain Paper No. 55. FAO, Rome.
[21]	Ozbahce A, Tari AF, 2010. Effects of different emitter space and water stress on yield and quality of processing tomato under semi-arid climate conditions. Agric Water Manage; 97: 1405-10.
[22]	Patan’e C, Cosentino SL, 2010. Effects of soil water deficit on yield and quality of processing tomato under a Mediterranean climate. Agric Water Manage; 97(1): 131-8.
[23]	Patanè, C. & Saita, A, 2015. Biomass, fruit yield, water productivity and quality response of processing tomato to plant density and deficit irrigation under a semi-arid Mediterranean climate. Crop Pasture Sci 66, 224-234.
[24]	Patanè, C., Tringali, S. & Sortino, O, 2011. Effects of deficit irrigation on biomass, yield, water productivity and fruit quality of processing tomato under semi-arid Mediterranean climate conditions. Sci. Hortic 129, 590-596.
[25]	Payero JO, Melvin SR, Irmak S, Tarkalson D, 2006. Yield response of corn to deficit irrigation in a semiarid climate. Agric Water Manage; 84: 101-12.
[26]	Perea H, Strelkoff TS, Adamsen FJ, Hunsaker DJ, Clemmens AJ, 2010. Nonuniform and unsteady solute transport in furrow irrigation I: Model development. J Irrig Drain Eng 136(6): 365-375.
[27]	Perniola M, Rivelli AR, Candido V, 1994. Yield Response to Water and Stress Indexes on Tomato. Acta Hortic; (376): 215-26.
[28]	Playan E, and Faci JM, 1997. Border fertigation: field experiment and a simple model. Irrig Sci 17: 163-171.
[29]	Sabillon GN, and Merkley GP, 2004. Fertigation guidelines for furrow irrigation. Span J Agric Res 2: 576-587.
[30]	Seghatoleslami M, Kafi M, Majidi E, 2008. Effect of deficit irrigation on yield, WUE and some morphological and phenological traits of three millet species. Pak J Bot; 40: 1555-60.
[31]	Shrestha, R. K., Cooperband, L. R. and MacGuidwin, A. E. 2010. Strategies to Reduce Nitrate Leaching into Groundwater in Potato Grown in Sandy Soils: Case Study from North Central USA. American Journal of Potato Research, 87(3), pp 229-244.
[32]	Sun YJ, Sun YY, Li XY, Guo X, Ma J, 2009. Relationship of nitrogen utilization and activities of key enzymes involved in nitrogen metabolism in rice under water-nitrogen interaction. Zuo Wu Xue Bao; 35: 2055-63.
[33]	Topcu S, Kirda C, Dasgan Y, Kaman H. C, Yazici A Bacon M A, 2007. Yield response and N-fertiliser recovery of tomato grown under deficit irrigation. Eur J Agron; 26: 64-70.
[34]	Wang X, Li Z, Xing Y, 2015. Effects of mulching and nitrogen on soil temperature, water content, nitrate-N content and maize yield in the Loess Plateau of China. Agric Water Manage; 161: 53-64.
[35]	Wang X, Xing Y, 2017. Evaluation of the effects of irrigation and fertilization on tomato fruit yield and quality: a principal component analysis. Sci Rep; 7(1): 350.
[36]	Yihun, Y. M. 2015. Agricultural water productivity optimization for irrigated Teff (EragrosticTef) in water scarce semi-arid region of Ethiopia. IHE Delft Institute for Water Education.
[37]	Zhai Y, Yang Q, Hou M. The effects of saline water drip irrigation on tomato yield, quality, and blossom-end rot incidence. A case study in the south of china. PLoS One 2015; 10(11), e0142204.
[38]	Zhang TQ, Tan CS, Liu K, Drury CF, Papadopoulos AP, Warner J, 2010. Yield and economic assessments of fertilizer nitrogen and phosphorus for processing tomato with drip fertigation. Agron J; 102(2): 774-80.
[39]	Zheng J, Huang G, Jia D, 2015. Responses of drip irrigated tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) yield, quality and water productivity to various soil matric potential thresholds in an arid region of Northwest China. Agric Water Manage; 129: 181-93.
[40]	Zotarelli L, Dukes MD, Scholberg JMS, Munoz-Carpena R, Icerman J, 2009. Tomato nitrogen accumulation and fertilizer use efficiency on a sandy soil, as affected by nitrogen rate and irrigation scheduling. Agric Water Manage; 96: 1247-58.

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Shelemew, Z., Ambomsa, A., Bati, B., Husen, D., Jalde, A. (2025). Evaluation of the Effects of Irrigation and Inorganic Fertilizers Management on Yield and Water Productivity of Tomato. Journal of Water Resources and Ocean Science, 14(4), 107-117. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.wros.20251404.13

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Shelemew, Z.; Ambomsa, A.; Bati, B.; Husen, D.; Jalde, A. Evaluation of the Effects of Irrigation and Inorganic Fertilizers Management on Yield and Water Productivity of Tomato. J. Water Resour. Ocean Sci. 2025, 14(4), 107-117. doi: 10.11648/j.wros.20251404.13

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Shelemew Z, Ambomsa A, Bati B, Husen D, Jalde A. Evaluation of the Effects of Irrigation and Inorganic Fertilizers Management on Yield and Water Productivity of Tomato. J Water Resour Ocean Sci. 2025;14(4):107-117. doi: 10.11648/j.wros.20251404.13

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.wros.20251404.13,
  author = {Zelalem Shelemew and Anbese Ambomsa and Bariso Bati and Dulo Husen and Ayub Jalde},
  title = {Evaluation of the Effects of Irrigation and Inorganic Fertilizers Management on Yield and Water Productivity of Tomato
},
  journal = {Journal of Water Resources and Ocean Science},
  volume = {14},
  number = {4},
  pages = {107-117},
  doi = {10.11648/j.wros.20251404.13},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.wros.20251404.13},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.wros.20251404.13},
  abstract = {Efficient use of water and fertilizers by crops calls for revised or new agricultural crop management practices to sustain agricultural production. Improved irrigation and fertilizer management will be needed to reduce nutrient leaching from horticultural crops. Over-irrigation increases the leaching of nitrogen (nitrogen is very soluble in water) and hence the amount of applied nitrogen required for maximum yield. This experiment was conducted at Adami Tulu Agricultural Research Center with the objective of evaluating the effects of different irrigation levels and N-fertilizer rates on yield and yield components of tomato. The treatments of the experiment had factorial combinations of four irrigation levels of watering and five N-fertilizer amounts. The results revealed that different fertilizer rate produced higher tomato with the amount of water applied. The growth, yield and yield contributing characters like plant height, fruit length, fruit diameter, and fruit weight per plant were influenced significantly by different levels of irrigation and fertilizer rate. Whereas, the interaction between Irrigation levels and nitrogen rate were all also significant for all characters of yield components. Maximum grain yield of 115.64 qt ha-1 was recorded in plots treated with nitrogen dose of 110 kg ha-1 when compared to other treatments. Similarly, maximum tomato yield of 117.94 qt ha-1 was recorded in 100% ETc of applied water while minimum yield of 89.4 and 108.70 qt ha-1 was harvested from plots sown with 125% ETc water applied and application of 90 kg N ha-1 respectively. It can be concluded from these results that 100% ETc of applied water and fertilizer N at the rate of 110 kg ha-1 produced economical crop of tomato under climatic conditions of the study area.},
 year = {2025}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Evaluation of the Effects of Irrigation and Inorganic Fertilizers Management on Yield and Water Productivity of Tomato

AU  - Zelalem Shelemew
AU  - Anbese Ambomsa
AU  - Bariso Bati
AU  - Dulo Husen
AU  - Ayub Jalde
Y1  - 2025/08/12
PY  - 2025
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.wros.20251404.13
DO  - 10.11648/j.wros.20251404.13
T2  - Journal of Water Resources and Ocean Science
JF  - Journal of Water Resources and Ocean Science
JO  - Journal of Water Resources and Ocean Science
SP  - 107
EP  - 117
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2328-7993
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.wros.20251404.13
AB  - Efficient use of water and fertilizers by crops calls for revised or new agricultural crop management practices to sustain agricultural production. Improved irrigation and fertilizer management will be needed to reduce nutrient leaching from horticultural crops. Over-irrigation increases the leaching of nitrogen (nitrogen is very soluble in water) and hence the amount of applied nitrogen required for maximum yield. This experiment was conducted at Adami Tulu Agricultural Research Center with the objective of evaluating the effects of different irrigation levels and N-fertilizer rates on yield and yield components of tomato. The treatments of the experiment had factorial combinations of four irrigation levels of watering and five N-fertilizer amounts. The results revealed that different fertilizer rate produced higher tomato with the amount of water applied. The growth, yield and yield contributing characters like plant height, fruit length, fruit diameter, and fruit weight per plant were influenced significantly by different levels of irrigation and fertilizer rate. Whereas, the interaction between Irrigation levels and nitrogen rate were all also significant for all characters of yield components. Maximum grain yield of 115.64 qt ha-1 was recorded in plots treated with nitrogen dose of 110 kg ha-1 when compared to other treatments. Similarly, maximum tomato yield of 117.94 qt ha-1 was recorded in 100% ETc of applied water while minimum yield of 89.4 and 108.70 qt ha-1 was harvested from plots sown with 125% ETc water applied and application of 90 kg N ha-1 respectively. It can be concluded from these results that 100% ETc of applied water and fertilizer N at the rate of 110 kg ha-1 produced economical crop of tomato under climatic conditions of the study area.
VL  - 14
IS  - 4
ER  -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Zelalem Shelemew

Oromia Agricultural Research Institute, Adami Tulu Agricultural Research Center, Ziway, Ethiopia

Contact Email

http://orcid.org/0009-0003-5028-3854
Anbese Ambomsa

Oromia Agricultural Research Institute, Adami Tulu Agricultural Research Center, Ziway, Ethiopia

Contact Email

http://orcid.org/0009-0001-2176-0346
Bariso Bati

Oromia Agricultural Research Institute, Adami Tulu Agricultural Research Center, Ziway, Ethiopia

Contact Email

http://orcid.org/0009-0001-1320-5553
Dulo Husen

Oromia Agricultural Research Institute, Adami Tulu Agricultural Research Center, Ziway, Ethiopia

Contact Email

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1489-870X
Ayub Jalde

Oromia Agricultural Research Institute, Adami Tulu Agricultural Research Center, Ziway, Ethiopia

Contact Email

http://orcid.org/0009-0003-8921-2682

Download PDF

Submit an Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Shelemew, Z., Ambomsa, A., Bati, B., Husen, D., Jalde, A. (2025). Evaluation of the Effects of Irrigation and Inorganic Fertilizers Management on Yield and Water Productivity of Tomato. Journal of Water Resources and Ocean Science, 14(4), 107-117. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.wros.20251404.13

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Shelemew, Z.; Ambomsa, A.; Bati, B.; Husen, D.; Jalde, A. Evaluation of the Effects of Irrigation and Inorganic Fertilizers Management on Yield and Water Productivity of Tomato. J. Water Resour. Ocean Sci. 2025, 14(4), 107-117. doi: 10.11648/j.wros.20251404.13

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Shelemew Z, Ambomsa A, Bati B, Husen D, Jalde A. Evaluation of the Effects of Irrigation and Inorganic Fertilizers Management on Yield and Water Productivity of Tomato. J Water Resour Ocean Sci. 2025;14(4):107-117. doi: 10.11648/j.wros.20251404.13

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.wros.20251404.13,
  author = {Zelalem Shelemew and Anbese Ambomsa and Bariso Bati and Dulo Husen and Ayub Jalde},
  title = {Evaluation of the Effects of Irrigation and Inorganic Fertilizers Management on Yield and Water Productivity of Tomato
},
  journal = {Journal of Water Resources and Ocean Science},
  volume = {14},
  number = {4},
  pages = {107-117},
  doi = {10.11648/j.wros.20251404.13},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.wros.20251404.13},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.wros.20251404.13},
  abstract = {Efficient use of water and fertilizers by crops calls for revised or new agricultural crop management practices to sustain agricultural production. Improved irrigation and fertilizer management will be needed to reduce nutrient leaching from horticultural crops. Over-irrigation increases the leaching of nitrogen (nitrogen is very soluble in water) and hence the amount of applied nitrogen required for maximum yield. This experiment was conducted at Adami Tulu Agricultural Research Center with the objective of evaluating the effects of different irrigation levels and N-fertilizer rates on yield and yield components of tomato. The treatments of the experiment had factorial combinations of four irrigation levels of watering and five N-fertilizer amounts. The results revealed that different fertilizer rate produced higher tomato with the amount of water applied. The growth, yield and yield contributing characters like plant height, fruit length, fruit diameter, and fruit weight per plant were influenced significantly by different levels of irrigation and fertilizer rate. Whereas, the interaction between Irrigation levels and nitrogen rate were all also significant for all characters of yield components. Maximum grain yield of 115.64 qt ha-1 was recorded in plots treated with nitrogen dose of 110 kg ha-1 when compared to other treatments. Similarly, maximum tomato yield of 117.94 qt ha-1 was recorded in 100% ETc of applied water while minimum yield of 89.4 and 108.70 qt ha-1 was harvested from plots sown with 125% ETc water applied and application of 90 kg N ha-1 respectively. It can be concluded from these results that 100% ETc of applied water and fertilizer N at the rate of 110 kg ha-1 produced economical crop of tomato under climatic conditions of the study area.},
 year = {2025}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Evaluation of the Effects of Irrigation and Inorganic Fertilizers Management on Yield and Water Productivity of Tomato

AU  - Zelalem Shelemew
AU  - Anbese Ambomsa
AU  - Bariso Bati
AU  - Dulo Husen
AU  - Ayub Jalde
Y1  - 2025/08/12
PY  - 2025
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.wros.20251404.13
DO  - 10.11648/j.wros.20251404.13
T2  - Journal of Water Resources and Ocean Science
JF  - Journal of Water Resources and Ocean Science
JO  - Journal of Water Resources and Ocean Science
SP  - 107
EP  - 117
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2328-7993
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.wros.20251404.13
AB  - Efficient use of water and fertilizers by crops calls for revised or new agricultural crop management practices to sustain agricultural production. Improved irrigation and fertilizer management will be needed to reduce nutrient leaching from horticultural crops. Over-irrigation increases the leaching of nitrogen (nitrogen is very soluble in water) and hence the amount of applied nitrogen required for maximum yield. This experiment was conducted at Adami Tulu Agricultural Research Center with the objective of evaluating the effects of different irrigation levels and N-fertilizer rates on yield and yield components of tomato. The treatments of the experiment had factorial combinations of four irrigation levels of watering and five N-fertilizer amounts. The results revealed that different fertilizer rate produced higher tomato with the amount of water applied. The growth, yield and yield contributing characters like plant height, fruit length, fruit diameter, and fruit weight per plant were influenced significantly by different levels of irrigation and fertilizer rate. Whereas, the interaction between Irrigation levels and nitrogen rate were all also significant for all characters of yield components. Maximum grain yield of 115.64 qt ha-1 was recorded in plots treated with nitrogen dose of 110 kg ha-1 when compared to other treatments. Similarly, maximum tomato yield of 117.94 qt ha-1 was recorded in 100% ETc of applied water while minimum yield of 89.4 and 108.70 qt ha-1 was harvested from plots sown with 125% ETc water applied and application of 90 kg N ha-1 respectively. It can be concluded from these results that 100% ETc of applied water and fertilizer N at the rate of 110 kg ha-1 produced economical crop of tomato under climatic conditions of the study area.
VL  - 14
IS  - 4
ER  -

Copy | Download