Scientia Horticulturae 120 (2009) 325–329

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Scientia Horticulturae
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/scihorti

Effectiveness of water pillow irrigation method on yield and water use efficiency
on hot pepper (Capsicum annuum L.)
Sinan Gercek a,*, Nuray Comlekcioglu b, Murat Dikilitas c
a
Department of Agricultural Structures and Irrigation, Faculty of Agriculture, Harran University, Eyyubiye, Sanliurfa, Turkey
b
Department of Horticulture, Faculty of Agriculture, Harran University, Eyyubiye, Sanliurfa, Turkey
c
Department of Plant Protection, Faculty of Agriculture, Harran University, Eyyubiye, Sanliurfa, Turkey

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: A study was conducted to elucidate the effect of water pillow (WP) irrigation method, a new alternative
Received 4 March 2008 method to furrow irrigation, on the yield and water use efficiency (WUE) of hot pepper in a semi-arid
Received in revised form 4 November 2008 climatic condition. In this research, treatments used were: (i) WP method and its 7-day irrigation
Accepted 20 November 2008
interval (WP7), (ii) WP method and its 9-day irrigation interval (WP9), (iii) WP method and its 11-day
irrigation interval (WP11) and (iv) furrow irrigation (FI) method and its 5-day irrigation interval (control)
Keywords: were employed. Although the plants were grown under different irrigation methods and interval
Water pillow irrigation method
conditions, there were no statistical differences in yield and biomass of hot pepper plants between FI and
Pepper
WP treatments (P < 0.05). Water use efficiency (WUE) and irrigation water use efficiency (IWUE) values
Water use efficiency
significantly increased with the application of WP irrigation method (P < 0.05). The highest WUE and
IWUE values obtained from WP11 treatment in both years. As a result, we conclude that WP method is a
way to save water and increase the yield in semi-arid areas where climatic conditions require repeated
irrigation in the hot pepper production area.
ß 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Water pillow (WP) is a novel irrigation method, combines drip

Water is the source of life and has a special place in our planet.
Its specialty does not depend on its availability in nature; in fact, it
is highly demanded even if water resources are not limited.
However, the world now faces very serious global warming, and
therefore, concern of newer and more efficient irrigation methods
is in demand. In modern agriculture, irrigation should be practiced
optimally by modern irrigation methods for a sustainable
agriculture, especially where water resources are limited. Ironi-
cally, in semi-arid climatic regions, farmers tend to prefer
traditional irrigation methods which require more water to
modern irrigation methods such as drip irrigation. The expensive
initial cost of modern irrigation methods, and lack of skilled
irrigators, and so many other reasons put the farmers off using
more efficient irrigation systems. In addition, inappropriate
surface irrigation is also responsible for water logging and salinity
problems. Many researches stated that drip irrigation accompany-
ing with black plastic mulches have many beneficial effects such as
conserving the soil moisture, suppressing weed growth, moderat-
ing soil temperature, and increasing yields (Hanada, 1991; Tiwari
et al., 2003; Li et al., 2004).
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +90 414 2470384; fax: +90 414 2474480.
E-mail address: sinangercek@yahoo.com (S. Gercek).
irrigation and mulching, and can be used to irrigate crops grown in
rows. The main components of the WP method are black
polyethylene pipes that should be usable for at least two years,
and laterals (Gerçek, 2006). The diameter of the pipe should almost
cover the row spacing; in this way, the water content in the root zone
in the intervals between irrigation and the maximum mulching
effect throughout the growing season can be sustained. The plastic
pipe was pierced along the bottom with holes of 1-mm diameter.
The design and inter-spacing of the holes depends on the soil
infiltration capacity. Before installing the pipe, to achieve a more
uniform water distribution along the row, land should be levelled.
Then, the pipe is laid on the soil surface and both the ends are
blocked by tying with a rope. The plastic pipes are remained over the
soil surface throughout the growing season. For irrigation practice,
one end of the pipe is opened and water is introduced through the
lateral pipe, and is then closed again. In the WP method, there are
two following irrigation phases, filling and trickling. Filling is done
only once and the phase can be quite short, depending on the rate of
discharge. However, if the amount of irrigation water needed is
greater than the maximum volume of the pipe, water has to be added
to the pipe for the continuing irrigation. For example, a pipe 30 cm in
diameter and 50 m in length is filled within 6 min with a 10 l s1
discharge. The trickling phase is quite lengthy and takes up 24 h due
to seeping out of water in the pipe onto the soil surface under the
action of gravity (Fig. 1).

0304-4238/$ – see front matter ß 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.scienta.2008.11.028
326 S. Gercek et al. / Scientia Horticulturae 120 (2009) 325–329
Fig. 1. Trickling of water from micro holes into the soil surface.
In summary, significant advantages of this method may be
listed as: (i) WUE can easily be increased by decreasing evaporative
losses from the soil surface due to its mulching effect of the plastic
pipe, (ii) it provides longer irrigation intervals, (iii) it does not use
external energy during irrigation, and (iv) its initial cost is lower
when compared to drip irrigation method as well as its easy-
installation and operation.
In this study, the efficiency of newly developed method, WP,
was aimed to test with different irrigation intervals and compared
with furrow irrigation (FI) on yield and WUE of hot pepper grown
under semi-arid climatic conditions, which could be a limiting
factor for the growth of pepper.
2. Materials and methods
The field experiment was conducted between June and October
in both during 2004 and 2005 at the Experimental Farm of
Agricultural Faculty, in a semi-arid zone, Sanliurfa, Turkey. This
station has latitude of 378080 N and, a longitude of 388460 E and is at
464 m above mean sea level. The long-term average annual
precipitation, temperature and relative humidity are 424 mm,
28 8C, and 40%, respectively. The soil is a clay loam textured, deep
and well drained with average values of 60% clay, 32% silt, and 8%
sand between 0 and 90 cm of depth. Within the same soil depth,
average field capacity, permanent wilting point, dry bulk density,
and pH were 32%, 22.3%, 1.38 g cm3, and 7.3, respectively. Water
was obtained from a deep well for which pH and the average EC
values were 7 and 0.31 dS m1, respectively. Before plantation, a
good land levelling was made for even water distribution.
Additional fertilizers were made on the basis of soil analysis.
All treatment plots received the same amount of total fertilizer
(220 kg ha1 N; 60 kg ha1 P2O and 300 kg ha1 K2O5). All
recommended phosphorus, the required seasonal potassium
(1/3) and nitrogen (1/3) were top dressed as a granular fertilizer
to the field. The remaining nitrogen and potassium were mixed
with the irrigation water once a month throughout the cropping
season into the plots.
The local seed population was used in the experiment. The
seeds were sown in trays on 23rd of February and the seedlings
were raised in a greenhouse until transplanting into the field in
both years. Pepper seedlings were transplanted into the field on
May 13 in 2004 and 2005. The plants were then planted in 70 cm
spaced rows and 50 cm apart in each bed. In order for a good plant
establishment, the plots were irrigated every 4 days as pre-
treatment irrigations. Irrigation water was applied equally to all
treatment plots. The total amount of pre-treatment irrigation
water was 91 mm and 125 mm in 2004 and 2005, respectively. The
irrigation scheduling for the experiments began on 17th June in
2004 and on 5th July in 2005.
The experimental design was a completely randomized block
design with two irrigation methods composed of water pillow
(WP) and furrow irrigation (FI) methods (control). In the WP
method, there were three irrigation intervals, 7 days (WP7), 9 days
(WP9), and 11 days (WP11). FI was made every 5-day interval
practice; this was due to the climatic conditions such as low
humidity, high temperature, and wind speed, which led to more
frequent irrigation schedule in this semi-arid area.
Each plot was 25.5-m long and 2.8-m wide containing four rows
(the center two rows was harvested for the yield assessment), and
a buffer zone spacing of 1 m was provided between plots and 1.4 m
between replication. The plastic pipe used was 0.3 mm thick and
38 cm in diameter (almost covers 85% of the 70 cm row spacing)
with 1-mm diameter holes along the bottom. The space between
holes was 50 cm and the discharge rate for each hole was averaged
2.13 l h1 (Fig. 2).
Soil water content was determined by a gravimetric sampling
method one day before irrigation at depths of 0–30 cm, 30–60 cm
and 60–90 cm to determine the amount of irrigation water to be
applied. To do this, the empty pipe was moved gently to one side
and replaced carefully after the sampling. The amount of irrigation
water applied to each plot was measured by a flow meter. Harvests
were made at maturity four times each experimental year. For
biomass, four plants were uprooted randomly from each treatment
after final harvest, and total fresh weights, roots, shoots and leaves
of each plant were partitioned, weighed and recorded individually.
Soil temperature at 30 cm depth near the root zone was measured
after 24 h following the irrigation with TES–1307 Data logging K/J
Thermometer having a stem length of 30 cm and accuracy of 1.0%
of dial range at any point of dial.
Irrigation water use efficiency (IWUE), water use efficiency
(WUE), and irrigation water compensation for plant water
consumption (Irc) were calculated using Eq. (1), (2) and (3),
respectively (Howell et al., 1990).
Y
IWUE ¼ (1)
I
Y
WUE ¼ (2)
ET
I
Irc ¼  100 (3)
ET
where IWUE is irrigation water use efficiency (kg ha1 mm1),
WUE is water use efficiency (kg ha1 mm1), Irc is irrigation water
compensation for plant water consumption (%), Y is fresh green
yield (kg ha1), I is total amount of applied irrigation water (mm),
and ET is total evapotranspiration (mm).
Determination of soil water content and evapotranspiration
(ET) calculations were done from sowing until harvest. ET was
calculated for each treatment via a water balance equation
 S. Gercek et al. / Scientia Horticulturae 120 (2009) 325–329 327

Fig. 2. Details of a WP experimental sub-plot (not to scale).

(Doorenbos and Kassam, 1988). Monitoring the soil water content
in the plots revealed that deep percolation below 90 cm depth was
negligible. Since there was no rainfall during the period of
experiments, runoff was not considered. Therefore, ET can be
calculated as follows:
ET ¼ I  DSW
where DSW is the soil water content changes (mm) within the
90 cm soil profile (mm).
Benefit–cost analysis was carried out to determine the
economic feasibility of using WP irrigation method (Tiwari
et al., 2003). The seasonal cost of WP method includes depreciation
and maintenance of the system. The useful life of plastic pipe was
considered to be two years. The cost of pepper production includes
expenses incurred in field preparation, cost of seeds, sowing,
hoeing, fertilizer, irrigation, and harvesting. The Benefit–cost
analysis, net profit per mm of water used, the total cost of
production and net return from cultivation of pepper over 1 ha
were then estimated (Table 2). The data were subjected to the
variance analyses using TARIST (Acikgoz et al., 2004) statistical
software. Treatment means were compared using least significant
difference (LSD) test (a = 0.05).
3. Result and discussions
3.1. Yield and biomass
The average yield of pepper obtained from the results of two
years, irrigation frequencies and amounts were presented in
(4) Table 1. Pepper fruit yield ranged from 34.1 (WP11) to 41.6
(WP7) kg ha1 in 2004. The maximum yield was obtained from
WP7 treatment, followed by WP9, FI and WP11 in 2004. Although
there was a high amount of irrigation water quaint between the FI
and WP treatments, there was no statistical significant difference
found between the irrigation amount and the yield interactions in
both years (P < 0.05). No stress signs on the pepper plant
throughout the growing season were observed for all treatments
in two years. Higher water productivity in case of different WP
irrigation treatments was obviously due to higher yields accom-
panied by saving of irrigation water and mulch effect of plastic
pipes as compared to the FI method. In the 2005 growing season,
the maximum and minimum yields obtained from the same
treatments showed similarity as in those of the first year (Table 1).
Yield values showed significant differences between the years. This
may be due to the flower losses caused by unexpected and sudden
temperature rises in 2005. However, when the years were

Table 1
Details of irrigation, yield, biomass, water use efficiency (WUE), irrigation water use efficiency (IWUE) and irrigation water compensation (Irc) data of pepper in different
irrigation treatments.

Year Treatments Irrigation Irrigation Applied ET Yield Biomass WUE IWUE Irc (%)
interval (days) number water (mm) (mm) (t ha1) (g) (kg ha1 mm1) (kg ha1 mm1)

2004 FI 5 23 1897 1947 35.2 1017 18.0 18.5 94

WP7 7 17 1232 1262 41.6 973 33.0 33.7 98
WP9 9 14 942 1017 38.5 923 37.8 40.8 93
WP11 11 11 797 887 34.1 915 38.4 42.8 90

2005 FI 5 20 1539 1640 30.2 808 18.4 19.6 94

WP7 7 15 1087 1136 30.4 799 26.7 27.9 96
WP9 9 12 870 938 29.5 707 31.4 33.9 93
WP11 11 10 725 810 28.5 660 35.2 39.3 90
328 S. Gercek et al. / Scientia Horticulturae 120 (2009) 325–329
considered individually, it was seen that WP irrigation systems
provided considerable water saving in comparison to FI irrigation
system. This is particularly important to prove the effectiveness of
WP irrigation system in terms of saving water. The total biomass of
pepper based on two-year results was given in Table 1. Also,
although applied water amounts and interval were different by
treatments, there was no significant difference between irrigation
amount and total biomass interaction as between irrigation
amount and total biomass interaction in both years (P < 0.05).
These results were in agreement with those of others indicating
that the incorporation of drip irrigation with black plastic mulch
culture increased the yield of crops and water use efficiency.
Sammis and Wu (1986) for tomato, Tiwari et al. (2003) for cabbage
found similar findings. The work of Herrera et al. (2002) was also in
agreement with our findings. They stated that the mulching
materials reduced water lost through evaporation and increased
root dry weight in pepper.
3.2. Soil temperature
Soil temperature tended to increase by the black plastic pipe
used in this study due to its mulch effect. The mean soil
temperatures at 30 cm depth for the FI, WP7, WP9, and WP11
treatments in 2004 were 28.8, 29.1, 29.2 and 29.2 8C, respectively
(Fig. 3, only FI and WP7 data were presented and WP9 and WP11
data were similar to WP7). The soil temperature was slightly lower
in the FI treatment than that of WP in both years. The mean soil
temperature difference between FI and WP treatments was 1.9 in
2004. There were no significant differences among the WP
treatments (WP7, WP9 and WP11) in soil temperature in both
years. In general, irrigation water temperature in plastic pipes
increased from 23.1 to 30.1 8C in daytime. The higher soil
temperatures of WP plots were consistent with the results of
Choi and Chung (1997), Park et al. (1996) and Hanada (1991). The
results clearly showed that plastic pipes also had a mulch effect in
the increment of soil temperature. Again many researchers
indicated that mulch raises the soil temperature and affects on
promote crop development, earlier harvest, and increase yields.
Niu et al. (1998) showed that improved soil water and
temperature with polythene mulches better seedling emergence
in spring wheat, while Hu et al. (1995) recorded earlier seedling
Fig. 3. Soil temperature at 30 cm depth in the FI and WP7 treatments, WP9 and WP11
treatments were similar with WP7 treatment in 2004 and 2005.
emergence, enhanced crop growth and nodule development in
groundnut.
3.3. Water use efficiencies and soil water content
The total water use under different quantities of water applied
through WP and furrow irrigation treatments, WUE, IWUE and Irc
values were also presented in Table 1. WUE values varied from 18
to 38.4 kg ha1 mm1 in 2004 and from 18.4 to 35.2 kg ha1 mm1
in 2005. The maximum WUE value (38.4 kg ha1 mm1) was
obtained in WP11 treatment, followed by WP9, WP7 and FI
treatments in 2004. In 2005 growing season, the maximum
WUE value (35.2 kg ha1 mm1) was obtained in WP11 treatment,
followed by WP9, WP7 and the FI treatments. The maximum IWUE
value was obtained in WP11 treatment followed by WP9, WP7 and
FI treatments in both experimental years. These quite remarkable
high values of WUE and IWUE for different quantities of water
applied through the WP irrigation method were reversely
proportional to the quantity of water applied through the WP
method. Treatments with lower amount of water had generally
higher WUE and IWUE values than FI. WUE and IWUE values of FI
were considerably lower than those of all WP treatments. These
might be the results of mulch effect provided by WP method.
Mulches greatly retarded the loss of moisture from the soil. As a
result, higher and uniform soil moisture regime is maintained
reducing the irrigation frequency. Reduction in evaporation loss
through mulch was responsible for higher WUE of the pepper crop.
These results were in agreement with the other studies which
indicated that the incorporation of drip irrigation with black plastic
mulch culture increased the yield of crops and WUE in the works of
Sammis and Wu (1986) for tomato, Antony and Singandhupe
(2004) for pepper, Ramakrishna et al. (2006) for groundnut, and
Yuan et al. (2006) for cucumber. On the other hand, irrigation
water compensation values (Irc) varied from 90 to 94% in both
experimental years. Irrigation water consumption, Irc, was, in
general, higher in the treatments irrigated with high amount of
water than those irrigated with low amount of water. Irc values of
the FI treatment were higher than those of the WP treatments
(Table 1). This might be due to the fact that plants did not suffer
from water deficit with short irrigation intervals. For example,
Radin et al. (1989) reported that frequent irrigations prevented the
large fluctuation in plant water stress. In a similar way, our results
suggested that WP might be applied in water-limited areas to save
water and prevent fluctuations caused by infrequent irrigations
without resulting in any significant yield reduction.
The total seasonal ET under different WP and FI treatment
values were also presented in Table 1. The measured seasonal ET
values for hot pepper were ranged from 1947 to 887 mm in 2004
and from 1640 to 810 mm in 2005. The highest and the lowest
seasonal ET values were obtained from FI and WP11 plots in both
years, respectively. In all WP treatments, the ET values were clearly
less than that of the FI treatment in both years. The fact is that
mulching effect of plastic pipe prevents soil water evaporation, and
therefore helps retain soil moisture. Thus, in general, higher water
content was always observed in the 0–90 cm soil layer of the WP
plots compared to that of the FI plot. The study showed that the soil
water content in the root zone of the FI treatment plot was reduced
from field capacity to wilting point, whereas the water content in
the WP7 and WP9 treatment plots remained well above the wilting
range with 7- and 9-day irrigation intervals. Before irrigation, soil
water content was always higher in the WP7 (24.5–26.1%) and WP9
treatment plots (24.0–25.5%) than that of the FI treatment plots
(23.5–24.2%). Also, the water content of the WP11 treatment plot
(22.3–23.8%) was close to that of the FI treatment plot (23.5–
24.2%). In this study, higher water productivity accompanied by
higher yields for the WP treatments probably resulted from saving
 S. Gercek et al. / Scientia Horticulturae 120 (2009) 325–329 329

Table 2
Economic analysis of various treatments of pepper cultivation in both the years.

No. Cost economics Treatments

FI WP7 WP9 WP11

1
1 Seasonal cost of WP system (US$ ha ) – 1380 1380 1380
2 Seasonal cost of cultivation (US$ ha1) 5696 5116 5050 4912
3 Seasonal total cost (US$ ha1) 5696 6496 6430 6292
4 Water used (mm) 1718 1160 906 761
5 Yield (t ha1) 32.7 36 34 31.3
6 Revenue of production (US$ t ha1) 8167 9000 8500 7825
7 Profit (US$) (6–3) 2471 2500 2070 1533
8 Benefit–cost ratio (6/3) 1.43 1.38 1.32 1.24
9 Net profit per mm of water used (US$) (7/4) 1.44 2.15 2.28 2.01
10 Yield per mm of water used (t ha1 mm1) (5/4  1000) 19 31 37.5 41.1

irrigation water through the mulching effect and reduced weed
density as compared to the FI method. These results agree with
those reported by Li et al. (2004).
3.4. Economic analysis
Table 2 presents economic analysis of production pepper from
per hectare. The profit was found to be highest (US$ 2500) for the
treatment (WP7) followed by the treatment FI (US$ 2471). The net
profit per mm of water used was obtained to be highest (US$ 2.28)
in case of WP9 treatment followed by 2.15 for WP7 treatment and
followed by 2.01 for WP11 treatment. The lowest one was found by
the FI treatment (US$ 1.44). While the highest yield per unit
quantity of water used was 41.1 kg ha1 mm1 for the treatment
WP11, the lowest was 19 kg ha1 mm1 for the treatment FI.
Seasonal cost of cultivation such as plant protection by herbicides,
hoeing, labour and irrigation application in WP method is less than
FI method. In addition, the effective use of water and soil resources
is increasingly becoming more important. In terms of applied
water amounts throughout the season, there is a quite difference
between FI and WP treatments (Table 1). For example, a two-year
difference between the WP11 and FI treatments is 957 mm. This
value is more than applied water amounts to the WP9 and WP11
throughout the season. However, as increasing opportunity cost of
the limited water resources including its economic cost is of
concern, it could be said that the WP method is more suitable about
sustainable agriculture.
4. Conclusion
According to the results of this research, although applied
irrigation water and irrigation intervals were distinct between the
FI and WP treatments in 2004 and 2005 growing season, there
were no significant differences between irrigation amount–yield
and irrigation amount–biomass interactions in both years
(P < 0.05). In general, this study showed that WP irrigation
method has more advantages in yield and higher WUE than that of
FI method. Considering the drought and limited available water
conditions in many parts of the world, the WP11 irrigation regime
could be recommended in case of pepper irrigation under semi-
arid climatic belt. In our findings, WP11 treatment is a way to save
water up to 125% with only 5% reduction in yield in comparison to
FI method. In addition, the mulch effect of WP method prevents
growing weeds; therefore, use of herbicides would also be
lessened. This could contribute to shift from high-input to organic
agriculture. Among other management strategies in optimizing the
environmental conditions for plant growth, further studies on the
performance of WP method with different crops, soils and climatic
conditions would be carried out to evaluate the more beneficial
sides of this method such as the control of disease spread and
salinity.
References
Acikgoz, N., Ilker, E., Gokcol, A., 2004. Biyolojik araştırmaların bilgisayarda değer-
lendirilmeleri. Ege Üniversitesi Tohum Teknoloji ve Uygulama ve Araştırma
Merkezi Yay, Izmir.
Antony, E., Singandhupe, R.B., 2004. Impact of drip and surface irrigation on growth,
yield and WUE of capsicum (Capsicum annum L). Agric. Water Manage. 65, 121–
132.
Choi, B.H., Chung, K.Y., 1997. Effect of polythene-mulching on flowering and yield of
groundnut in Korea. Int. Arachis Newslett. 17, 49–51.
Doorenbos, J., Kassam, A.H., 1988. Yield response to water: irrigation and drainage.
FAO Paper 33, p193.
Gerçek, S., 2006. Water pillow: a new irrigation method. Pak. J. Appl. Sci. 6 (2), 315–
317.
Hanada, T., 1991. The effect of mulching and row covers on vegetable production.
Extension Bulletin, ASPAC No. 332, p. 22.
Herrera, A.L., Martinez, A.D., Bravo-Lozano, A.G., 2002. Pepper production as influ-
enced by irrigation frequency and plastic mulch. In: Proceedings of the 16th
International Pepper Conference Tampico, Tamaulipas, Mexico, November 10–
12.
Howell, T.A., Cuence, R.H., Solomon, K.H., 1990. Crop yield response. In: Hoffman,
G.J., et al. (Eds.), Management of Farm Irrigation Systems. Monograph, vol. 9. St.
Joseph, MI, pp. 93–122.
Hu, W., Duan, S., Sui, Q., 1995. High yield technology for groundnut. Int. Arachis
Newslett. 15 (Suppl.), 1–22.
Li, F.M., Wang, P., Wang, J., Xua, J.Z., 2004. Effects of irrigation before sowing and
plastic film mulching on yield and water uptake of spring wheat in semiarid
Loess Plateau of China. Agric. Water Manage. 67, 77–88.
Niu, J.Y., Gan, Y.T., Zhang, J.W., Yang, Q.F., 1998. Postanthesis dry matter accumula-
tion and distribution in spring wheat mulched with plastic film. Crop Sci. 38,
1562–1568.
Park, K.Y., Kim, S.D., Lee, S.H., Kim, H.S., Hong, E.H., 1996. Differences in dry matter
accumulation and leaf area in summer soybeans as affected by polythene film
mulch. RDA J. Agric. Sci. 38, 173–179.
Radin, J.W., Mauney, J.R., Kerridge, P.C., 1989. Water uptake by cotton roots during
fruit filling in relation to irrigation frequency. Crop Sci. 29, 1000–1005.
Ramakrishna, A., Tam, H.M., Wani, S.P., Long, T.D., 2006. Effect of mulch on soil
temperature, moisture, weed infestion and yield of groundnut in northern
Vietnam. Field Crops Res. 95, 115–125.
Sammis, T.W., Wu, I.P., 1986. Fresh market tomato yields as affected by deficit
irrigation using a micro-irrigation system. Agric. Water Manage. 12, 117–126.
Tiwari, K.N., Singh, S., Mal, P.K., 2003. Effect of drip irrigation on yield of cabbage
(Brassica oleracea L. var. capitata) under mulch and non-mulch conditions.
Agric. Water Manage. 58, 19–28.
Yuan, B.Z., Sun, J., Kang, Y., Nishiyama, S., 2006. Response of cucumber to drip
irrigation water under a rainshelter. Agric. Water Manage. 81, 145–158.