BIBLIOGRAPHY CADPINO, CAJOJO L. APRIL 2007. ...
BIBLIOGRAPHY
CADPINO, CAJOJO L. APRIL 2007. Performance of Celery (‘Tall Utah’) as
Affected by Volume and Frequency of Irrigation. Benguet State University, La Trinidad,
Benguet.
Adviser: Percival B. Alipit, PhD
ABSTRACT
The study was conducted at the Balili Experimental Station of Benguet State
University, La Trinidad, Benguet from October 2006 to February 2007 to determine the
effects of volume and frequency of irrigation on the yield of celery, establish the best
volume of water to apply; and the best interval of irrigation for the crop under the
conditions of the locality, and determine the economics of celery production as affected
by the irrigation treatments.
Results revealed that volume and interval of irrigation significantly affected leaf
length, circumference of the bunch and petiole length at harvest in celery ‘Tall Utah’.
Marketable, total and computed yields were significantly higher in plants with an
irrigation volume of 5 li/m2 water applied every two days interval and 10 li/m2 water
applied every four days.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
i
Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
i
Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ii
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7
Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Leaf Length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10
Bunch Circumference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10
Petiole Length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10
Yield . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11
Soil Moisture Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13
Cost and Return Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13
Other Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13
Documentation of the Study through Pictures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
15
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
16
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
16
ii
Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
16
LITERATURE CITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
17
APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
18
iii
INTRODUCTION
Vegetable growing is number one industry and the main sources of income of
Benguet farmers. In many parts of the country, vegetable constitutes a large part of a
diet. Some vegetables are salad crops suited for the climate of the province and one of
them is celery.
Celery (Apium graveolens) is a native of Mediterranean and adjacent areas. It is a
mesophyte. This is distinctly a cool season crop, which thrives best on sandy or silt loam
soil with sufficient organic matter and a soil pH ranging from 6.0 to 6.8 (Knott and
Deanon, 1967).
Although it is a minor crop in the Philippines, celery is considered an important
commercial crop around the world because it is utilized in homes and restaurants as
appetizers, flavoring herb for broth, soups, dressings as well as excellent vegetable either
stewed or creamed, and as salads (Thompson and Kelly, 1959). It is also a good source
of vitamin C, calcium, and food energy (Knott and Deanon,1967).
Celery has a broad vegetative growth and extensive root system, thus requires adequate
water supply. Most farmers in the locality do not follow an irrigation program for the
vegetable crops that they grow in terms of the volume of water to apply and the interval
of irrigation. However, improper irrigation practices could result to under or over supply
of water leading to poor crop stand. Results of this study, therefore, could serve as guide
on appropriate irrigation practices in celery production for our vegetable growers.
The study was conducted at the Balili Experimental Station of Benguet State University,
La Trinidad, Benguet from October 2006 to February 2007 to determine the effects of
volume and frequency of irrigation on the yield of celery, establish the best amount of
Performance of Celery (‘Tal Utah’) as Affected by Volume
and Frequency of Irrigation /Cajojo L. Kadpino. 2007
2
water to apply and interval of irrigation for the crop under the conditions of the locality,
and determine the economics of celery production as effected by irrigation.
Performance of Celery (‘Tal Utah’) as Affected by Volume
and Frequency of Irrigation /Cajojo L. Kadpino. 2007
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Water is precious component of human life. The ways by which it sustains
everyday activities are innumerable. In the field of agriculture, particularly irrigation
systems and irrigated farm units, essentiality of water has forced men to manage it
effectively (PCARRD, 1983).
Schwab (1993) said that irrigation provides one of the greatest opportunities for
increasing crop production as well as improving germination, controlling air temperature,
and applying chemicals with the irrigation water. If the annual rainfall is less than 250
mm, irrigation becomes a necessity. Moreover, if rainfall is from 250 to 500 mm, then
crop production is limited unless the land is irrigated; and when rainfall is more than 500
mm, irrigation is often required for maximum production.
Whether a crop is planted in the humid east with modem water pivot sprinkler
system or in a desert land which is converted to bush productive land, the basic needs are
the same: productive soils, adequate drainage, and a reliable supply of good quality
water. Schwab (1993) added that relatively large quantities of water are required to
satisfy the needs of the crop and to supply convergence, evaporation and seepage losses.
Hansen (1997) stated that the need for irrigation has been brought forcibly to the attention
of farmers throughout the world because of severe droughts that have affected several
areas. Although sufficient rainfall may be available for the growing of crops in normal
years, it has been found through costly experience that short periods without rainfall have
ruined crops that would otherwise have brought ample returns to the farmers.
Linsley (1992) stated that water application during irrigation of the soil enters the
Performance of Celery (‘Tal Utah’) as Affected by Volume
and Frequency of Irrigation /Cajojo L. Kadpino. 2007
4
plants in the form of extract water from the soil for their growth. The soil actually serves
as a reservoir in which water is stored for use by plants between irrigation. The storage
and movement of their soil water are important factors in irrigation planning. Irrigation
must be scheduled according to water accessibility and crop need, knowing when to
irrigate and how much water is required. If adequate water supplies are available,
irrigation is usually provided to obtain optimum or maximum yield. However, over
irrigation should be avoided as this can decrease yield by increasing soil erosion.
According to Knott (1957), frequency of irrigation depends on the total supply of
available moisture reached by the roots and the amount of water used. The field is
affected by soil type, depth of wetted soil and dispersion of roots. The latter is influenced
by weather conditions and the age of the crop.
In addition to these, Thompson and Kelly (1959) claimed that the frequency of
watering and the quantity of water that should be applied depend on the depth of soil
which the roots penetrates, utilization of water by the crop and loss of water in proportion
to the surface of the soil.
Donahue (1970) reported that there are still variations due to the differences in the
soil temperature, relative humidity, wind movement, and soil fertility. Plant growth is
affected by the concentration of the soil solution is the saline soil as well as the lack of
moisture tension and suction. The concentration depends on the amount of water to
dissolve salts.
Moreover, Briggs and Shants (1973) stated that water requirement is profoundly
affected by atmosphere conditions. One of the conditions is relative different periods of
the year show great differences. The lower the relative humidity at a given temperature,
Performance of Celery (‘Tal Utah’) as Affected by Volume
and Frequency of Irrigation /Cajojo L. Kadpino. 2007
5
evaporation, and transpiration rate increase temperature; and decrease with increase in
relative humidity.
Ware (1975) found that to maintain succulence and tenderness, the plant usually
requires a continuous supply of water through its development. Furthermore, Buckman
and Brady (1969) reported that large quantities of water must be supplied to satisfy the
water requirements of growing plants. Soil moisture helps control other important
components essential to normal plant growth, soil aeration and soil temperature.
On the other hand, Chapman and Carter (1976) also stated that the amount of water used
is directly related to the yield in all crops, as yield increases, total water used increases
because more water is needed for increased plant growth with in the limits of available
moisture and others.
However, Chapman and Carter (1976) reported that excessive moisture can
reduce crop yield. They point out that yield reduction due to excessive moisture is related
to poor aeration of the soil and reduced oxygen supply for the plant respiratory needs.
Similarly, the Agro-Industrial Guide as cited by Somera (1981), reported that frequency
of irrigation is dependent upon the type of soil, amount of rainfall, condition of the crop
and variety.
According to Malamug (1987), the plan for water generally specifies the rules for
water allocation, relating to both amounts and timing, and the roles of all those
concerned. Plans for irrigation system maintenance usually include provision for routine
and special activities that are accompanied by the specification of duties for the
individuals and groups who are assigned responsibilities.
Irrigation is an essential requirement in the farm when rainfall is not available.
Performance of Celery (‘Tal Utah’) as Affected by Volume
and Frequency of Irrigation /Cajojo L. Kadpino. 2007
6
Without the irrigation water, the selection of the varieties, application of adequate
fertilizer, insect and disease control and the practice of improved cultural management
alone can not insure the production of crops with maximum economic returns. Caoili et
al. (1997) as cited by Sayucop (2004), stated that adequate supply of irrigation water
makes the soil more workable; maintain a favorable condition in the soil for the plant
growth, dissolve effectively the native and applied fertilizers thereby, making it readily
available for plants.
At present, the need for water in agriculture is even greater. In many places,
rainfall is either too little or too unreliable to guarantee a good harvest, so irrigation
seemed to be the ideal solution for feeding a hungry planet. As a result of dependence on
irrigated crops, agriculture takes a major of the plant supply of fresh water and the major
problem in agriculture is irrigation, food storage and transportation in many nations
(Anon, 2001) as cited by Sayucop (2004).
Very recently, Sayucop (2004) revealed that irrigation interval did not
significantly affect maturity of heads in cabbage heading percentage, and weight of non-
marketable heads. Head size was significantly larger with two days irrigation interval.
Head weight, marketable, total, and computed yields were significantly higher in plants
irrigated every two or four days. He added that, a positive return on investment (ROI)
was obtained with four days irrigation and every two days irrigation frequency.
Performance of Celery (‘Tal Utah’) as Affected by Volume
and Frequency of Irrigation /Cajojo L. Kadpino. 2007
7
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Materials
The materials used were celery seeds (‘Tall Utah), fertilizers, fungicides, insecticides,
chicken manure, bamboo, 15 liter pail and transparent plastic sheets as cover for the
seedlings.
Methods
Experimental design and treatments. The experiment was laid out following the
randomized complete block design (RCBD) with four replications.
Code
Irrigation Volume (li/m2)
Frequency (day intervals)
I1
5
2
I2
10
4
I3
15
6
I4
20
8
Growing seedlings. The seeds were sown ahead of time in a well-prepared seedbed
under a plastic tunnel. One month after emergence, the seedlings were pricked. After
another month, the pricked seedlings were transplanted.
Land preparation. An area of 80 m2 was prepared for the study. The area was divided
into four blocks with four plots per block with a dimension of 1 m x 5 m each. Each plot
was applied with decomposed chicken dung at the rate of one- half kerosene can (16 li
capacity). The chicken dung was mixed thoroughly with the soil before transplanting.
Performance of Celery (‘Tal Utah’) as Affected by Volume
and Frequency of Irrigation /Cajojo L. Kadpino. 2007
8
Irrigation. Irrigation was done just after transplanting and every other day for two times
after which the irrigation treatments were imposed.
Care and maintenance. All other recommended practices required in the production of
celery like cultivation, pest control, and fertilizer application were uniformly employed to
all treatment plots.
Data gathering. The data gathered and subjected to variance analysis and mean
separation test by Duncan's multiple range test (DMRT) were as follows:
1. Leaf length (cm). Ten sample plants were measured from the base of the leaf petioles
up to the tip the leaf during harvest.
2. Circumference of the bunch (cm). This was taken by individually measuring ten
sample plants per treatment plot with the use of measuring tape .
3. Soil moisture content (%). The soil moisture content before irrigation in each
treatment was taken using the formula:
Moisture content (%) = Fresh weight - Oven dry weight ¸ Oven dry weight x 100
4. Length of petioles (cm). This was measured from the base of the leaf petiole up to the
node where first leaflets arise from ten sample plants per treatment at harvest.
5. Average weight of plants (g). This was taken by dividing the total weight of plants
per plot by the number of plants harvested per plot.
6. Total yield per plot (kg). This was the weight of all the plants harvested in each plot.
7. Non-marketable yield per plot (kg). This was the weight of plants that are very small,
Performance of Celery (‘Tal Utah’) as Affected by Volume
and Frequency of Irrigation /Cajojo L. Kadpino. 2007
9
with deformities, and severely damaged by insects and diseases.
8. Marketable yield per plot (kg). This was the weight of plants without deformities or
damages that could be sold in the market.
9. Computed yield (t/ha). The yield per plot was converted to yield per hectare by
multiplying with 2,000 plots based on the plot size used.
10. Economic analysis. All expenses incurred in the study were recorded. The return on
investments (ROI) was computed using the formula:
ROI= Gross Sales - Expenses ¸ Expenses x 100
11. Documentation of the study through pictures.
11. Other observations.
Performance of Celery (‘Tal Utah’) as Affected by Volume
and Frequency of Irrigation /Cajojo L. Kadpino. 2007
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Leaf Length
Table 1 shows that significantly longer leaves were obtained with irrigation at 5 li/m2
every two days and 10 li/m2 every four days. This indicate that more frequent irrigation
enhances growth of leaves in celery.
Bunch Circumference
The circumference of the bunch was significantly wider with 5 li/m2 applied every two
days and 10 li/m2 every four days (Table 2). Circumference of the bunch decreases as the
volume of water increased with longer irrigation intervals.
Petiole Length
As shown in Table 3, length of petiole was significantly longer when applied with 5 li/m2
every two days and irrigation at 10 li/m2 every four days. Applying irrigation water at
lower volume but more frequently promoted elongation of the petiole. This result is
desirable since longer plants in celery is preferred in the local market.
Table 1. Leaf length
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
════
IRRIGATION VOLUME (li/m2)
FREQUENCY (day intervals)
MEAN (cm)
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
────
5
2
58.92a
10
4
58.68a
15
6
56.74b
Performance of Celery (‘Tal Utah’) as Affected by Volume
and Frequency of Irrigation /Cajojo L. Kadpino. 2007
20
8
55.96b
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
════
Means with a common letter are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
Table 2. Circumference of the bunch
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
════
IRRIGATION VOLUME (li/m2)
FREQUENCY (day intervals)
MEAN (cm)
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
────
5
2
15.18a
10
4
14.50ab
15
6
13.83bc
20
8
13.65c
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
════
Means with a common letter are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
Table 3. Petiole length
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
════
IRRIGATION VOLUME (li/m2)
FREQUENCY (day intervals)
MEAN (cm)
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
────
5
2
23.71a
10
4
22.95ab
15
6
22.56b
20
8
22.54b
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
════
Means with a common letter are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
Performance of Celery (‘Tal Utah’) as Affected by Volume
and Frequency of Irrigation /Cajojo L. Kadpino. 2007
12
Yield
Average plant weight, marketable, total and computed yield were significantly higher
with irrigation at 5 li/m2 every two days (Table 4). There were no significant differences
observed on non-marketable yield. Findings show that yield of celery increased with
lower volume of water applied but with more frequent applications since it is a shallow-
rooted crop.
Performance of Celery (‘Tal Utah’) as Affected by Volume
and Frequency of Irrigation /Cajojo L. Kadpino. 2007
Table 4. Yield
═════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
═════
IRRIGATION FREQUENCY AVERAGE
MARKETABLE
NON-MARKETABLE
TOTAL COMPUTED
VOLUME (li/m2) (day intervals) PLANT
(kg/plot)
(kg/plot)
(kg/plot) MARKETABLE
WEIGHT (g)
(t/ha)
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
─────
5
2
288.75a
20.80a
0.80a
21.60a
41.60a
10
4
249.50b
17.98b
0.85a
18.83b
35.95b
15
6
221.25c
14.88c
1.08a
15.95c
29.75c
20
8
205.75c
13.75c
1.08a
14.83c
27.50c
═════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
═════ In a column, means with a common letter are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
14
Soil Moisture Content
The moisture content of the soil did not differ significantly before the imposition of the
irrigation treatments (Table 5).
Cost and Return Analysis
The cost and return analysis in celery production as affected by volume and frequency of
irrigation is shown in Table 6. Negative return on investment (ROI) were obtained from
all the treatments. This is so because the price of celery at the time harvest was only PhP
6.00/kg.
Other Observations
The identified insect pests infesting the plants were leafminers and cutworms. As to the
diseases observed, leafspot and leaf blight were noted. Control preventive measures were
done to minimize pests damage in the crop.
Table 5. Soil moisture content
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
════
IRRIGATION VOLUME (li/m2)
FREQUENCY (day intervals)
MEAN (%)
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
────
5
2
32.53a
10
4
32.56a
15
6
32.72a
20
8
31.78a
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
════Means with a common letter are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
Performance of Celery (‘Tal Utah’) as Affected by Volume
and Frequency of Irrigation /Cajojo L. Kadpino. 2007
15
Table 6. Economic analysis
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
════
IRRIGATION VOLUME/FREQUENCY
───────────────────────────────────────────────
PARTICULARS
5 li/m2/2 days 10 li/m2/4 days 15 li/m2/6 days 20 li/m2/8 days
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
────
Yield (kg/20m2)
83.20
71.90 59.50 55.00
Gross sales (PhP)
499.20
431.40 357.00
330.00
Expenses (PhP)
Seeds
12.50
12.50 12.50 12.50
Chicken manure 37.50
37.50 37.50 37.50
Lime
23.75
23.75 23.75 23.75
D-10
34.38
34.38 34.38 34.38
46-0-0
25.00
25.00 25.00 25.00
14-14-14
22.50
22.50 22.50 22.50
Trigard 93.75
93.75 93.75 93.75
Gasoline
112.00
104.00 96.00 88.00
Labor
300.00
225.00 135.00 120.00
Transportation 25.00
25.00 25.00 25.00
Total Expenses (PhP) 686.38
603.38 505.38
482.38
Net income (PhP)
-187.18
-171.98 -148.38
-152.38
ROI (%)
-27.27
-28.50 -29.36 -31.60
Rank
1
2
3
4
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
════
Note: Selling price was PhP 6.00/kg
Documentation of the Study
through Pictures
Figure 1 shows an overview of the experimental plants and the harvested bunch produced
from the four irrigation volume and frequency of intervals.
Performance of Celery (‘Tal Utah’) as Affected by Volume
and Frequency of Irrigation /Cajojo L. Kadpino. 2007
16
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Summary
The study was conducted at the Balili Experimental Station of Benguet State University,
La Trinidad, Benguet from October 2006 to February 2007 to determine the effects of
volume and frequency of irrigation on the yield of celery, establish the best volume of
water to apply; and the best interval of irrigation for the crop under the conditions of the
locality, and determine the economics of celery production as affected by the irrigation
treatments.
Results reveal that leaf and petiole length and the circumference of the bunch were
significantly longer with irrigation at 5 li/m2 every two days or 10 li/m2 every four days.
Marketable yield at 41.60 t/ha was, however, significantly higher when irrigation was
done at 5 li/m2 every two days.
Return on investment was negative all the irrigation treatments on account of the low
market price at harvest time. Nevertheless, it was less negative with irrigation at 5 li/m2
every two days.
Conclusion
It is therefore concluded that application of irrigation water in celery should be done at 5
li/m2 water every two days to promote vegetative growth and obtain higher yield.
Recommendation
Based on the results of this irrigation study on celery, irrigation water at 5 li/m2 applied
two days is recommended.
Performance of Celery (‘Tal Utah’) as Affected by Volume
and Frequency of Irrigation /Cajojo L. Kadpino. 2007
LITERATURE CITED
BRIGGS, L. and SHANTZ. 1973. Water requirement of plants. USDA-BPI Bull. 285.
BUCKMAN, H.C. and N.C. BRADY. 1969. The Nature and Properties of Soils. New
York: Mac Millan Book Co. Pp. 152-161.
CHAPMAN, S.R. and L.P. CARTER. 1976. Crop Production, Principles and Practices.
San Francisco: W.H. Freeman and Co. P. 419.
DONAHUE, R. and J.C. SHICKLUNA. 1970. An Introduction to Soils and Plant
Growth. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Inc. Pp. 211, 214-216.
HANSEN, V.E. et al. 1997. Irrigation and Practices. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Pp. 3-6.
KNOTT, J.E. 1957. Vegetable Production in Southeast Asia. UPLB, Los Baños,
Laguna. P. 3.
KNOTT, T.E. and J.E. DEANON. 1967. Vegetable Production in Southeast Asia.
UPLB, Los Baños, Laguna. P. 83.
LINSLEY, R.K. et al. 1992. Water Resource Engineering. New York: Mc Granhill,
Inc. Pp. 2-3.
MALAMUG, J.J.F. 1987. Operations performance study for increasing dry season water
availability of a resevoir type communal irrigation system. MS Thesis.
CLSU, Muñoz, Nueva Ecija. P. 3.
PCARRD. 1983. Philippine Recommends for Irrigation Management Lowland Crops
Condition. Vol. 1. UPLB, Los Baños, Laguna. Pp. 1-3.
SCHWAB, G.O. et al. 1993. Soil and Water Conservation Engineering. New York:
John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Pp. 3-4.
SAYUCOP, H. 2004. Performance of cabbage ‘Scorpio’ as affected by frequency of
irrigation. BS Thesis. BSU, La Trinidad, Benguet. Pp. 7-8.
SOMERA, A.B. 1981. Effects of water stress on two varieties of bulb onion. MS
Thesis.
MSAC, La Trinidad, Benguet. P. 60.
THOMPSON, J.H. and C. KELLY. 1959. Vegetable Crops. New York: McGrawhill
Book Co., Inc. Pp. 137-143.
WARE, G.W. 1975. Producing Vegetable Crops. Illinois: The Interstate Printers and
Pub., Inc. Pp. 41, 251.
Performance of Celery (‘Tal Utah’) as Affected by Volume
and Frequency of Irrigation /Cajojo L. Kadpino. 2007
APPENDICES
Appendix Table 1. Leaf length (cm)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
══════
R E P L I C A T I O N
TREATMENT
─────────────────────────── TOTAL
MEAN
I
II III
IV
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
─────
I1
59.83 60.35 59.10 56.41
235.69
58.92
I2
59.70 59.88 58.30 56.85
234.73
58.68
I3
58.38 59.28 56.65 52.63
226.94
56.74
I4
56.32 56.59 57.15 53.79
223.85
55.96
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
═════
Analysis of Variance
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
══════
Source of
Degrees of
Sum of
Mean Computed TABULAR F
variation
freedom
squares square
F
0.05
0.01
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
───── Replication 3
40.670 13.557
Factor A
3
25.392 8.464 10.58** 3.86
6.99
Error
9
7.202 0.800
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
─────
Total
15
73.264
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
══════
** = Highly significant
Coefficient of variation = 1.55%
Performance of Celery (‘Tal Utah’) as Affected by Volume
and Frequency of Irrigation /Cajojo L. Kadpino. 2007
19
Appendix Table 2. Circumference of the bunch (cm)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
══════
R E P L I C A T I O N
TREATMENT
─────────────────────────── TOTAL
MEAN
I
II III
IV
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
─────
I1
14.65 16.12 15.01 14.93
60.71
15.18
I2
13.66 14.52 15.37 14.45
58.00
14.50
I3
13.07 13.73 14.69 13.82
55.31
13.83
I4
13.47 13.54 13.70 13.87
54.58
13.65
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
═════
Analysis of variance
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
══════
Source of
Degrees of
Sum of
Mean Computed TABULAR F
variation
freedom
squares square
F
0.05
0.01
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
───── Replication 3
2.125 0.708
Factor A
3
5.847 1.949 8.69** 3.86
6.99
Error
9
2.019 0.224
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
─────Total
15
9.991
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
══════** = Highly significant
Coefficient of variation =
3.32%
Performance of Celery (‘Tal Utah’) as Affected by Volume
and Frequency of Irrigation /Cajojo L. Kadpino. 2007
20
Appendix Table 3. Petiole length (cm)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
══════
R E P L I C A T I O N
TREATMENT
─────────────────────────── TOTAL
MEAN
I
II III
IV
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
─────
I1
24.06 24.44 23.94 22.40
94.84
23.71
I2
23.30 23.93 22.31 22.24
91.78
22.95
I3
23.25 23.30 22.70 21.00
90.25
22.56
I4
23.24 22.21 22.41 22.28
90.14
22.54
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
═════
Analysis of variance
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
══════
Source of
Degrees of
Sum of
Mean Computed TABULAR F
variation
freedom
squares square
F
0.05
0.01
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
─────
Replication 3
5.942 1.981
Factor A
3
3.598 1.199 4.09* 3.86
6.99
Error
9
2.639 0.293
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
───── Total
15
12.179
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
══════
* = Significant
Coefficient of variation = 2.36%
Performance of Celery (‘Tal Utah’) as Affected by Volume
and Frequency of Irrigation /Cajojo L. Kadpino. 2007
21
Appendix Table 4. Marketable yield (kg/plot)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
══════
R E P L I C A T I O N
TREATMENT
─────────────────────────── TOTAL
MEAN
I
II III
IV
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
─────
I1
21.8 19.6 19.8
22.0
83.20
20.80
I2
17.5 17.6 19.0
17.8
71.90
17.98
I3
15.0 14.0 15.0
15.5
59.50
14.88
I4
14.0 13.4 13.5
14.1
55.00
13.75
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
═════
Analysis of variance
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
══════
Source of
Degrees of
Sum of
Mean Computed TABULAR F
variation
freedom
squares square
F
0.05
0.01
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
─────
Replication 3
3.165 1.055
Factor A
3
121.515 40.505 77.23** 3.86
6.99
Error
9
4.720 0.524
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
───── Total
15
129.400
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
══════
** = Highly significant
Coefficient of variation = 4.30%
Performance of Celery (‘Tal Utah’) as Affected by Volume
and Frequency of Irrigation /Cajojo L. Kadpino. 2007
22
Appendix Table 5. Non-marketable yield (kg/plot)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
══════
R E P L I C A T I O N
TREATMENT
─────────────────────────── TOTAL
MEAN
I
II III
IV
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
─────
I1
1.0
0.8
0.7
0.7
3.20
0.80
I2
0.5
0.7
1.0
1.2
3.40
0.85
I3
1.0
1.0
1.3
1.0
4.30
1.08
I4
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.1
4.30
1.08
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
═════
Analysis of variance
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
══════
Source of
Degrees of
Sum of
Mean Computed TABULAR F
variation
freedom
squares square
F
0.05
0.01
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
─────
Replication 3
0.095 0.032
Factor A
3
0.255 0.085 2.19ns 3.86
6.99
Error
9
0.350 0.039
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
─────
Total
15
0.700
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
══════
ns = Not significant
Coefficient of variation = 20.76%
Performance of Celery (‘Tal Utah’) as Affected by Volume
and Frequency of Irrigation /Cajojo L. Kadpino. 2007
23
Appendix Table 6. Average weight of the plants (g)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
══════
R E P L I C A T I O N
TREATMENT
─────────────────────────── TOTAL
MEAN
I
II III
IV
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
─────
I1
303.0 272.0 275.0 305.0
1155.0
288.75
I2
243.0 244.0 264.0 247.0
998.0
249.50
I3
222.0 208.0 226.0 229.0
885.0
221.25
I4
208.0 200.0 204.0 211.0
823.0
205.75
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
═════
Analysis of variance
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
══════
Source of
Degrees of
Sum of
Mean Computed TABULAR F
variation
freedom
squares square
F
0.05
0.01
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
─────
Replication 3
636.688 212.229
Factor A
3
15938.188 5312.729 52.17** 3.86
6.99
Error
9
916.563 101.840
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
─────
Total
15
17491.438
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
══════
** = Highly significant
Coefficient of variation = 4.18%
Performance of Celery (‘Tal Utah’) as Affected by Volume
and Frequency of Irrigation /Cajojo L. Kadpino. 2007
24
Appendix Table 7. Total yield (kg/plot)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
══════
R E P L I C A T I O N
TREATMENT
─────────────────────────── TOTAL
MEAN
I
II III
IV
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
─────
I1
22.8 20.4 20.5 22.7
86.40
21.60
I2
18.0 18.3 20.0 19.0
75.30
18.83
I3
16.0 15.0 16.3 16.5
63.80
15.95
I4
15.0 14.4 14.7 15.2
59.30
14.83
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
═════
Analysis of variance
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
══════
Source of
Degrees of
Sum of
Mean Computed TABULAR F
variation
freedom
squares square
F
0.05
0.01
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
─────
Replication 3
3.725 1.242
Factor A
3
111.055 37.018 59.07** 3.86
6.99
Error
9
5.640 0.627
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
───── Total
15
120.420
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
══════
** = Highly significant
Coefficient of variation = 4.45%
Performance of Celery (‘Tal Utah’) as Affected by Volume
and Frequency of Irrigation /Cajojo L. Kadpino. 2007
25
Appendix Table 8. Computed yield (t/ha)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
══════
R E P L I C A T I O N
TREATMENT
─────────────────────────── TOTAL
MEAN
I
II III
IV
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
─────
I1
43.6 39.2 39.6
44.0
166.40
41.60
I2
35.0 35.2 38.0
35.6
143.80
35.95
I3
30.0 28.0 30.0
31.0
119.00
29.75
I4
28.0 26.8 27.0
28.2
110.00
27.50
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
═════
Analysis of variance
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
══════
Source of
Degrees of
Sum of
Mean Computed TABULAR F
variation
freedom
squares square
F
0.05
0.01
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
─────
Replication 3
12.660 4.220
Factor A
3
486.060 162.020 77.23** 3.86
6.99
Error
9
18.880 2.098
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
───── Total
15
517.600
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
══════
** = Highly significant
Coefficient of variation = 4.30%
Performance of Celery (‘Tal Utah’) as Affected by Volume
and Frequency of Irrigation /Cajojo L. Kadpino. 2007
26
Appendix Table 9. Soil moisture content (%)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
══════
R E P L I C A T I O N
TREATMENT
─────────────────────────── TOTAL
MEAN
I
II III
IV
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
─────
I1
37.48 31.50 31.80 29.34
130.12
32.53
I2
33.86 34.76 31.55 29.26
129.43
32.36
I3
37.06 31.89 31.17 30.76
130.88
32.72
I4
32.97 32.48 31.46 30.20
127.11
31.78
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
═════
Analysis of variance
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
══════
Source of
Degrees of
Sum of
Mean Computed TABULAR F
variation
freedom
squares square
F
0.05
0.01
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
─────
Replication 3
63.329 21.110
Factor A
3
1.988 0.663 0.28ns
3.86
6.99
Error
9
21.493 2.388
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
─────
Total
15
86.810
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
══════
ns = Not significant
Coefficient of variation = 9.62%
Performance of Celery (‘Tal Utah’) as Affected by Volume
and Frequency of Irrigation /Cajojo L. Kadpino. 2007
CADPINO, CAJOJO L. APRIL 2007. Performance of Celery (‘Tall Utah’) as
Affected by Volume and Frequency of Irrigation. Benguet State University, La Trinidad,
Benguet.
Adviser: Percival B. Alipit, PhD
ABSTRACT
The study was conducted at the Balili Experimental Station of Benguet State
University, La Trinidad, Benguet from October 2006 to February 2007 to determine the
effects of volume and frequency of irrigation on the yield of celery, establish the best
volume of water to apply; and the best interval of irrigation for the crop under the
conditions of the locality, and determine the economics of celery production as affected
by the irrigation treatments.
Results revealed that volume and interval of irrigation significantly affected leaf
length, circumference of the bunch and petiole length at harvest in celery ‘Tall Utah’.
Marketable, total and computed yields were significantly higher in plants with an
irrigation volume of 5 li/m2 water applied every two days interval and 10 li/m2 water
applied every four days.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
i
Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
i
Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ii
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7
Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Leaf Length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10
Bunch Circumference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10
Petiole Length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10
Yield . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11
Soil Moisture Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13
Cost and Return Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13
Other Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13
Documentation of the Study through Pictures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
15
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
16
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
16
ii
Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
16
LITERATURE CITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
17
APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
18
iii
INTRODUCTION
Vegetable growing is number one industry and the main sources of income of
Benguet farmers. In many parts of the country, vegetable constitutes a large part of a
diet. Some vegetables are salad crops suited for the climate of the province and one of
them is celery.
Celery (Apium graveolens) is a native of Mediterranean and adjacent areas. It is a
mesophyte. This is distinctly a cool season crop, which thrives best on sandy or silt loam
soil with sufficient organic matter and a soil pH ranging from 6.0 to 6.8 (Knott and
Deanon, 1967).
Although it is a minor crop in the Philippines, celery is considered an important
commercial crop around the world because it is utilized in homes and restaurants as
appetizers, flavoring herb for broth, soups, dressings as well as excellent vegetable either
stewed or creamed, and as salads (Thompson and Kelly, 1959). It is also a good source
of vitamin C, calcium, and food energy (Knott and Deanon,1967).
Celery has a broad vegetative growth and extensive root system, thus requires adequate
water supply. Most farmers in the locality do not follow an irrigation program for the
vegetable crops that they grow in terms of the volume of water to apply and the interval
of irrigation. However, improper irrigation practices could result to under or over supply
of water leading to poor crop stand. Results of this study, therefore, could serve as guide
on appropriate irrigation practices in celery production for our vegetable growers.
The study was conducted at the Balili Experimental Station of Benguet State University,
La Trinidad, Benguet from October 2006 to February 2007 to determine the effects of
volume and frequency of irrigation on the yield of celery, establish the best amount of
Performance of Celery (‘Tal Utah’) as Affected by Volume
and Frequency of Irrigation /Cajojo L. Kadpino. 2007
2
water to apply and interval of irrigation for the crop under the conditions of the locality,
and determine the economics of celery production as effected by irrigation.
Performance of Celery (‘Tal Utah’) as Affected by Volume
and Frequency of Irrigation /Cajojo L. Kadpino. 2007
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Water is precious component of human life. The ways by which it sustains
everyday activities are innumerable. In the field of agriculture, particularly irrigation
systems and irrigated farm units, essentiality of water has forced men to manage it
effectively (PCARRD, 1983).
Schwab (1993) said that irrigation provides one of the greatest opportunities for
increasing crop production as well as improving germination, controlling air temperature,
and applying chemicals with the irrigation water. If the annual rainfall is less than 250
mm, irrigation becomes a necessity. Moreover, if rainfall is from 250 to 500 mm, then
crop production is limited unless the land is irrigated; and when rainfall is more than 500
mm, irrigation is often required for maximum production.
Whether a crop is planted in the humid east with modem water pivot sprinkler
system or in a desert land which is converted to bush productive land, the basic needs are
the same: productive soils, adequate drainage, and a reliable supply of good quality
water. Schwab (1993) added that relatively large quantities of water are required to
satisfy the needs of the crop and to supply convergence, evaporation and seepage losses.
Hansen (1997) stated that the need for irrigation has been brought forcibly to the attention
of farmers throughout the world because of severe droughts that have affected several
areas. Although sufficient rainfall may be available for the growing of crops in normal
years, it has been found through costly experience that short periods without rainfall have
ruined crops that would otherwise have brought ample returns to the farmers.
Linsley (1992) stated that water application during irrigation of the soil enters the
Performance of Celery (‘Tal Utah’) as Affected by Volume
and Frequency of Irrigation /Cajojo L. Kadpino. 2007
4
plants in the form of extract water from the soil for their growth. The soil actually serves
as a reservoir in which water is stored for use by plants between irrigation. The storage
and movement of their soil water are important factors in irrigation planning. Irrigation
must be scheduled according to water accessibility and crop need, knowing when to
irrigate and how much water is required. If adequate water supplies are available,
irrigation is usually provided to obtain optimum or maximum yield. However, over
irrigation should be avoided as this can decrease yield by increasing soil erosion.
According to Knott (1957), frequency of irrigation depends on the total supply of
available moisture reached by the roots and the amount of water used. The field is
affected by soil type, depth of wetted soil and dispersion of roots. The latter is influenced
by weather conditions and the age of the crop.
In addition to these, Thompson and Kelly (1959) claimed that the frequency of
watering and the quantity of water that should be applied depend on the depth of soil
which the roots penetrates, utilization of water by the crop and loss of water in proportion
to the surface of the soil.
Donahue (1970) reported that there are still variations due to the differences in the
soil temperature, relative humidity, wind movement, and soil fertility. Plant growth is
affected by the concentration of the soil solution is the saline soil as well as the lack of
moisture tension and suction. The concentration depends on the amount of water to
dissolve salts.
Moreover, Briggs and Shants (1973) stated that water requirement is profoundly
affected by atmosphere conditions. One of the conditions is relative different periods of
the year show great differences. The lower the relative humidity at a given temperature,
Performance of Celery (‘Tal Utah’) as Affected by Volume
and Frequency of Irrigation /Cajojo L. Kadpino. 2007
5
evaporation, and transpiration rate increase temperature; and decrease with increase in
relative humidity.
Ware (1975) found that to maintain succulence and tenderness, the plant usually
requires a continuous supply of water through its development. Furthermore, Buckman
and Brady (1969) reported that large quantities of water must be supplied to satisfy the
water requirements of growing plants. Soil moisture helps control other important
components essential to normal plant growth, soil aeration and soil temperature.
On the other hand, Chapman and Carter (1976) also stated that the amount of water used
is directly related to the yield in all crops, as yield increases, total water used increases
because more water is needed for increased plant growth with in the limits of available
moisture and others.
However, Chapman and Carter (1976) reported that excessive moisture can
reduce crop yield. They point out that yield reduction due to excessive moisture is related
to poor aeration of the soil and reduced oxygen supply for the plant respiratory needs.
Similarly, the Agro-Industrial Guide as cited by Somera (1981), reported that frequency
of irrigation is dependent upon the type of soil, amount of rainfall, condition of the crop
and variety.
According to Malamug (1987), the plan for water generally specifies the rules for
water allocation, relating to both amounts and timing, and the roles of all those
concerned. Plans for irrigation system maintenance usually include provision for routine
and special activities that are accompanied by the specification of duties for the
individuals and groups who are assigned responsibilities.
Irrigation is an essential requirement in the farm when rainfall is not available.
Performance of Celery (‘Tal Utah’) as Affected by Volume
and Frequency of Irrigation /Cajojo L. Kadpino. 2007
6
Without the irrigation water, the selection of the varieties, application of adequate
fertilizer, insect and disease control and the practice of improved cultural management
alone can not insure the production of crops with maximum economic returns. Caoili et
al. (1997) as cited by Sayucop (2004), stated that adequate supply of irrigation water
makes the soil more workable; maintain a favorable condition in the soil for the plant
growth, dissolve effectively the native and applied fertilizers thereby, making it readily
available for plants.
At present, the need for water in agriculture is even greater. In many places,
rainfall is either too little or too unreliable to guarantee a good harvest, so irrigation
seemed to be the ideal solution for feeding a hungry planet. As a result of dependence on
irrigated crops, agriculture takes a major of the plant supply of fresh water and the major
problem in agriculture is irrigation, food storage and transportation in many nations
(Anon, 2001) as cited by Sayucop (2004).
Very recently, Sayucop (2004) revealed that irrigation interval did not
significantly affect maturity of heads in cabbage heading percentage, and weight of non-
marketable heads. Head size was significantly larger with two days irrigation interval.
Head weight, marketable, total, and computed yields were significantly higher in plants
irrigated every two or four days. He added that, a positive return on investment (ROI)
was obtained with four days irrigation and every two days irrigation frequency.
Performance of Celery (‘Tal Utah’) as Affected by Volume
and Frequency of Irrigation /Cajojo L. Kadpino. 2007
7
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Materials
The materials used were celery seeds (‘Tall Utah), fertilizers, fungicides, insecticides,
chicken manure, bamboo, 15 liter pail and transparent plastic sheets as cover for the
seedlings.
Methods
Experimental design and treatments. The experiment was laid out following the
randomized complete block design (RCBD) with four replications.
Code
Irrigation Volume (li/m2)
Frequency (day intervals)
I1
5
2
I2
10
4
I3
15
6
I4
20
8
Growing seedlings. The seeds were sown ahead of time in a well-prepared seedbed
under a plastic tunnel. One month after emergence, the seedlings were pricked. After
another month, the pricked seedlings were transplanted.
Land preparation. An area of 80 m2 was prepared for the study. The area was divided
into four blocks with four plots per block with a dimension of 1 m x 5 m each. Each plot
was applied with decomposed chicken dung at the rate of one- half kerosene can (16 li
capacity). The chicken dung was mixed thoroughly with the soil before transplanting.
Performance of Celery (‘Tal Utah’) as Affected by Volume
and Frequency of Irrigation /Cajojo L. Kadpino. 2007
8
Irrigation. Irrigation was done just after transplanting and every other day for two times
after which the irrigation treatments were imposed.
Care and maintenance. All other recommended practices required in the production of
celery like cultivation, pest control, and fertilizer application were uniformly employed to
all treatment plots.
Data gathering. The data gathered and subjected to variance analysis and mean
separation test by Duncan's multiple range test (DMRT) were as follows:
1. Leaf length (cm). Ten sample plants were measured from the base of the leaf petioles
up to the tip the leaf during harvest.
2. Circumference of the bunch (cm). This was taken by individually measuring ten
sample plants per treatment plot with the use of measuring tape .
3. Soil moisture content (%). The soil moisture content before irrigation in each
treatment was taken using the formula:
Moisture content (%) = Fresh weight - Oven dry weight ¸ Oven dry weight x 100
4. Length of petioles (cm). This was measured from the base of the leaf petiole up to the
node where first leaflets arise from ten sample plants per treatment at harvest.
5. Average weight of plants (g). This was taken by dividing the total weight of plants
per plot by the number of plants harvested per plot.
6. Total yield per plot (kg). This was the weight of all the plants harvested in each plot.
7. Non-marketable yield per plot (kg). This was the weight of plants that are very small,
Performance of Celery (‘Tal Utah’) as Affected by Volume
and Frequency of Irrigation /Cajojo L. Kadpino. 2007
9
with deformities, and severely damaged by insects and diseases.
8. Marketable yield per plot (kg). This was the weight of plants without deformities or
damages that could be sold in the market.
9. Computed yield (t/ha). The yield per plot was converted to yield per hectare by
multiplying with 2,000 plots based on the plot size used.
10. Economic analysis. All expenses incurred in the study were recorded. The return on
investments (ROI) was computed using the formula:
ROI= Gross Sales - Expenses ¸ Expenses x 100
11. Documentation of the study through pictures.
11. Other observations.
Performance of Celery (‘Tal Utah’) as Affected by Volume
and Frequency of Irrigation /Cajojo L. Kadpino. 2007
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Leaf Length
Table 1 shows that significantly longer leaves were obtained with irrigation at 5 li/m2
every two days and 10 li/m2 every four days. This indicate that more frequent irrigation
enhances growth of leaves in celery.
Bunch Circumference
The circumference of the bunch was significantly wider with 5 li/m2 applied every two
days and 10 li/m2 every four days (Table 2). Circumference of the bunch decreases as the
volume of water increased with longer irrigation intervals.
Petiole Length
As shown in Table 3, length of petiole was significantly longer when applied with 5 li/m2
every two days and irrigation at 10 li/m2 every four days. Applying irrigation water at
lower volume but more frequently promoted elongation of the petiole. This result is
desirable since longer plants in celery is preferred in the local market.
Table 1. Leaf length
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
════
IRRIGATION VOLUME (li/m2)
FREQUENCY (day intervals)
MEAN (cm)
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
────
5
2
58.92a
10
4
58.68a
15
6
56.74b
Performance of Celery (‘Tal Utah’) as Affected by Volume
and Frequency of Irrigation /Cajojo L. Kadpino. 2007
20
8
55.96b
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
════
Means with a common letter are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
Table 2. Circumference of the bunch
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
════
IRRIGATION VOLUME (li/m2)
FREQUENCY (day intervals)
MEAN (cm)
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
────
5
2
15.18a
10
4
14.50ab
15
6
13.83bc
20
8
13.65c
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
════
Means with a common letter are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
Table 3. Petiole length
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
════
IRRIGATION VOLUME (li/m2)
FREQUENCY (day intervals)
MEAN (cm)
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
────
5
2
23.71a
10
4
22.95ab
15
6
22.56b
20
8
22.54b
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
════
Means with a common letter are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
Performance of Celery (‘Tal Utah’) as Affected by Volume
and Frequency of Irrigation /Cajojo L. Kadpino. 2007
12
Yield
Average plant weight, marketable, total and computed yield were significantly higher
with irrigation at 5 li/m2 every two days (Table 4). There were no significant differences
observed on non-marketable yield. Findings show that yield of celery increased with
lower volume of water applied but with more frequent applications since it is a shallow-
rooted crop.
Performance of Celery (‘Tal Utah’) as Affected by Volume
and Frequency of Irrigation /Cajojo L. Kadpino. 2007
Table 4. Yield
═════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
═════
IRRIGATION FREQUENCY AVERAGE
MARKETABLE
NON-MARKETABLE
TOTAL COMPUTED
VOLUME (li/m2) (day intervals) PLANT
(kg/plot)
(kg/plot)
(kg/plot) MARKETABLE
WEIGHT (g)
(t/ha)
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
─────
5
2
288.75a
20.80a
0.80a
21.60a
41.60a
10
4
249.50b
17.98b
0.85a
18.83b
35.95b
15
6
221.25c
14.88c
1.08a
15.95c
29.75c
20
8
205.75c
13.75c
1.08a
14.83c
27.50c
═════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
═════ In a column, means with a common letter are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
14
Soil Moisture Content
The moisture content of the soil did not differ significantly before the imposition of the
irrigation treatments (Table 5).
Cost and Return Analysis
The cost and return analysis in celery production as affected by volume and frequency of
irrigation is shown in Table 6. Negative return on investment (ROI) were obtained from
all the treatments. This is so because the price of celery at the time harvest was only PhP
6.00/kg.
Other Observations
The identified insect pests infesting the plants were leafminers and cutworms. As to the
diseases observed, leafspot and leaf blight were noted. Control preventive measures were
done to minimize pests damage in the crop.
Table 5. Soil moisture content
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
════
IRRIGATION VOLUME (li/m2)
FREQUENCY (day intervals)
MEAN (%)
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
────
5
2
32.53a
10
4
32.56a
15
6
32.72a
20
8
31.78a
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
════Means with a common letter are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
Performance of Celery (‘Tal Utah’) as Affected by Volume
and Frequency of Irrigation /Cajojo L. Kadpino. 2007
15
Table 6. Economic analysis
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
════
IRRIGATION VOLUME/FREQUENCY
───────────────────────────────────────────────
PARTICULARS
5 li/m2/2 days 10 li/m2/4 days 15 li/m2/6 days 20 li/m2/8 days
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
────
Yield (kg/20m2)
83.20
71.90 59.50 55.00
Gross sales (PhP)
499.20
431.40 357.00
330.00
Expenses (PhP)
Seeds
12.50
12.50 12.50 12.50
Chicken manure 37.50
37.50 37.50 37.50
Lime
23.75
23.75 23.75 23.75
D-10
34.38
34.38 34.38 34.38
46-0-0
25.00
25.00 25.00 25.00
14-14-14
22.50
22.50 22.50 22.50
Trigard 93.75
93.75 93.75 93.75
Gasoline
112.00
104.00 96.00 88.00
Labor
300.00
225.00 135.00 120.00
Transportation 25.00
25.00 25.00 25.00
Total Expenses (PhP) 686.38
603.38 505.38
482.38
Net income (PhP)
-187.18
-171.98 -148.38
-152.38
ROI (%)
-27.27
-28.50 -29.36 -31.60
Rank
1
2
3
4
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
════
Note: Selling price was PhP 6.00/kg
Documentation of the Study
through Pictures
Figure 1 shows an overview of the experimental plants and the harvested bunch produced
from the four irrigation volume and frequency of intervals.
Performance of Celery (‘Tal Utah’) as Affected by Volume
and Frequency of Irrigation /Cajojo L. Kadpino. 2007
16
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Summary
The study was conducted at the Balili Experimental Station of Benguet State University,
La Trinidad, Benguet from October 2006 to February 2007 to determine the effects of
volume and frequency of irrigation on the yield of celery, establish the best volume of
water to apply; and the best interval of irrigation for the crop under the conditions of the
locality, and determine the economics of celery production as affected by the irrigation
treatments.
Results reveal that leaf and petiole length and the circumference of the bunch were
significantly longer with irrigation at 5 li/m2 every two days or 10 li/m2 every four days.
Marketable yield at 41.60 t/ha was, however, significantly higher when irrigation was
done at 5 li/m2 every two days.
Return on investment was negative all the irrigation treatments on account of the low
market price at harvest time. Nevertheless, it was less negative with irrigation at 5 li/m2
every two days.
Conclusion
It is therefore concluded that application of irrigation water in celery should be done at 5
li/m2 water every two days to promote vegetative growth and obtain higher yield.
Recommendation
Based on the results of this irrigation study on celery, irrigation water at 5 li/m2 applied
two days is recommended.
Performance of Celery (‘Tal Utah’) as Affected by Volume
and Frequency of Irrigation /Cajojo L. Kadpino. 2007
LITERATURE CITED
BRIGGS, L. and SHANTZ. 1973. Water requirement of plants. USDA-BPI Bull. 285.
BUCKMAN, H.C. and N.C. BRADY. 1969. The Nature and Properties of Soils. New
York: Mac Millan Book Co. Pp. 152-161.
CHAPMAN, S.R. and L.P. CARTER. 1976. Crop Production, Principles and Practices.
San Francisco: W.H. Freeman and Co. P. 419.
DONAHUE, R. and J.C. SHICKLUNA. 1970. An Introduction to Soils and Plant
Growth. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Inc. Pp. 211, 214-216.
HANSEN, V.E. et al. 1997. Irrigation and Practices. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Pp. 3-6.
KNOTT, J.E. 1957. Vegetable Production in Southeast Asia. UPLB, Los Baños,
Laguna. P. 3.
KNOTT, T.E. and J.E. DEANON. 1967. Vegetable Production in Southeast Asia.
UPLB, Los Baños, Laguna. P. 83.
LINSLEY, R.K. et al. 1992. Water Resource Engineering. New York: Mc Granhill,
Inc. Pp. 2-3.
MALAMUG, J.J.F. 1987. Operations performance study for increasing dry season water
availability of a resevoir type communal irrigation system. MS Thesis.
CLSU, Muñoz, Nueva Ecija. P. 3.
PCARRD. 1983. Philippine Recommends for Irrigation Management Lowland Crops
Condition. Vol. 1. UPLB, Los Baños, Laguna. Pp. 1-3.
SCHWAB, G.O. et al. 1993. Soil and Water Conservation Engineering. New York:
John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Pp. 3-4.
SAYUCOP, H. 2004. Performance of cabbage ‘Scorpio’ as affected by frequency of
irrigation. BS Thesis. BSU, La Trinidad, Benguet. Pp. 7-8.
SOMERA, A.B. 1981. Effects of water stress on two varieties of bulb onion. MS
Thesis.
MSAC, La Trinidad, Benguet. P. 60.
THOMPSON, J.H. and C. KELLY. 1959. Vegetable Crops. New York: McGrawhill
Book Co., Inc. Pp. 137-143.
WARE, G.W. 1975. Producing Vegetable Crops. Illinois: The Interstate Printers and
Pub., Inc. Pp. 41, 251.
Performance of Celery (‘Tal Utah’) as Affected by Volume
and Frequency of Irrigation /Cajojo L. Kadpino. 2007
APPENDICES
Appendix Table 1. Leaf length (cm)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
══════
R E P L I C A T I O N
TREATMENT
─────────────────────────── TOTAL
MEAN
I
II III
IV
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
─────
I1
59.83 60.35 59.10 56.41
235.69
58.92
I2
59.70 59.88 58.30 56.85
234.73
58.68
I3
58.38 59.28 56.65 52.63
226.94
56.74
I4
56.32 56.59 57.15 53.79
223.85
55.96
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
═════
Analysis of Variance
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
══════
Source of
Degrees of
Sum of
Mean Computed TABULAR F
variation
freedom
squares square
F
0.05
0.01
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
───── Replication 3
40.670 13.557
Factor A
3
25.392 8.464 10.58** 3.86
6.99
Error
9
7.202 0.800
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
─────
Total
15
73.264
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
══════
** = Highly significant
Coefficient of variation = 1.55%
Performance of Celery (‘Tal Utah’) as Affected by Volume
and Frequency of Irrigation /Cajojo L. Kadpino. 2007
19
Appendix Table 2. Circumference of the bunch (cm)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
══════
R E P L I C A T I O N
TREATMENT
─────────────────────────── TOTAL
MEAN
I
II III
IV
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
─────
I1
14.65 16.12 15.01 14.93
60.71
15.18
I2
13.66 14.52 15.37 14.45
58.00
14.50
I3
13.07 13.73 14.69 13.82
55.31
13.83
I4
13.47 13.54 13.70 13.87
54.58
13.65
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
═════
Analysis of variance
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
══════
Source of
Degrees of
Sum of
Mean Computed TABULAR F
variation
freedom
squares square
F
0.05
0.01
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
───── Replication 3
2.125 0.708
Factor A
3
5.847 1.949 8.69** 3.86
6.99
Error
9
2.019 0.224
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
─────Total
15
9.991
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
══════** = Highly significant
Coefficient of variation =
3.32%
Performance of Celery (‘Tal Utah’) as Affected by Volume
and Frequency of Irrigation /Cajojo L. Kadpino. 2007
20
Appendix Table 3. Petiole length (cm)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
══════
R E P L I C A T I O N
TREATMENT
─────────────────────────── TOTAL
MEAN
I
II III
IV
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
─────
I1
24.06 24.44 23.94 22.40
94.84
23.71
I2
23.30 23.93 22.31 22.24
91.78
22.95
I3
23.25 23.30 22.70 21.00
90.25
22.56
I4
23.24 22.21 22.41 22.28
90.14
22.54
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
═════
Analysis of variance
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
══════
Source of
Degrees of
Sum of
Mean Computed TABULAR F
variation
freedom
squares square
F
0.05
0.01
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
─────
Replication 3
5.942 1.981
Factor A
3
3.598 1.199 4.09* 3.86
6.99
Error
9
2.639 0.293
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
───── Total
15
12.179
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
══════
* = Significant
Coefficient of variation = 2.36%
Performance of Celery (‘Tal Utah’) as Affected by Volume
and Frequency of Irrigation /Cajojo L. Kadpino. 2007
21
Appendix Table 4. Marketable yield (kg/plot)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
══════
R E P L I C A T I O N
TREATMENT
─────────────────────────── TOTAL
MEAN
I
II III
IV
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
─────
I1
21.8 19.6 19.8
22.0
83.20
20.80
I2
17.5 17.6 19.0
17.8
71.90
17.98
I3
15.0 14.0 15.0
15.5
59.50
14.88
I4
14.0 13.4 13.5
14.1
55.00
13.75
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
═════
Analysis of variance
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
══════
Source of
Degrees of
Sum of
Mean Computed TABULAR F
variation
freedom
squares square
F
0.05
0.01
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
─────
Replication 3
3.165 1.055
Factor A
3
121.515 40.505 77.23** 3.86
6.99
Error
9
4.720 0.524
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
───── Total
15
129.400
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
══════
** = Highly significant
Coefficient of variation = 4.30%
Performance of Celery (‘Tal Utah’) as Affected by Volume
and Frequency of Irrigation /Cajojo L. Kadpino. 2007
22
Appendix Table 5. Non-marketable yield (kg/plot)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
══════
R E P L I C A T I O N
TREATMENT
─────────────────────────── TOTAL
MEAN
I
II III
IV
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
─────
I1
1.0
0.8
0.7
0.7
3.20
0.80
I2
0.5
0.7
1.0
1.2
3.40
0.85
I3
1.0
1.0
1.3
1.0
4.30
1.08
I4
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.1
4.30
1.08
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
═════
Analysis of variance
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
══════
Source of
Degrees of
Sum of
Mean Computed TABULAR F
variation
freedom
squares square
F
0.05
0.01
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
─────
Replication 3
0.095 0.032
Factor A
3
0.255 0.085 2.19ns 3.86
6.99
Error
9
0.350 0.039
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
─────
Total
15
0.700
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
══════
ns = Not significant
Coefficient of variation = 20.76%
Performance of Celery (‘Tal Utah’) as Affected by Volume
and Frequency of Irrigation /Cajojo L. Kadpino. 2007
23
Appendix Table 6. Average weight of the plants (g)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
══════
R E P L I C A T I O N
TREATMENT
─────────────────────────── TOTAL
MEAN
I
II III
IV
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
─────
I1
303.0 272.0 275.0 305.0
1155.0
288.75
I2
243.0 244.0 264.0 247.0
998.0
249.50
I3
222.0 208.0 226.0 229.0
885.0
221.25
I4
208.0 200.0 204.0 211.0
823.0
205.75
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
═════
Analysis of variance
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
══════
Source of
Degrees of
Sum of
Mean Computed TABULAR F
variation
freedom
squares square
F
0.05
0.01
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
─────
Replication 3
636.688 212.229
Factor A
3
15938.188 5312.729 52.17** 3.86
6.99
Error
9
916.563 101.840
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
─────
Total
15
17491.438
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
══════
** = Highly significant
Coefficient of variation = 4.18%
Performance of Celery (‘Tal Utah’) as Affected by Volume
and Frequency of Irrigation /Cajojo L. Kadpino. 2007
24
Appendix Table 7. Total yield (kg/plot)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
══════
R E P L I C A T I O N
TREATMENT
─────────────────────────── TOTAL
MEAN
I
II III
IV
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
─────
I1
22.8 20.4 20.5 22.7
86.40
21.60
I2
18.0 18.3 20.0 19.0
75.30
18.83
I3
16.0 15.0 16.3 16.5
63.80
15.95
I4
15.0 14.4 14.7 15.2
59.30
14.83
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
═════
Analysis of variance
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
══════
Source of
Degrees of
Sum of
Mean Computed TABULAR F
variation
freedom
squares square
F
0.05
0.01
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
─────
Replication 3
3.725 1.242
Factor A
3
111.055 37.018 59.07** 3.86
6.99
Error
9
5.640 0.627
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
───── Total
15
120.420
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
══════
** = Highly significant
Coefficient of variation = 4.45%
Performance of Celery (‘Tal Utah’) as Affected by Volume
and Frequency of Irrigation /Cajojo L. Kadpino. 2007
25
Appendix Table 8. Computed yield (t/ha)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
══════
R E P L I C A T I O N
TREATMENT
─────────────────────────── TOTAL
MEAN
I
II III
IV
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
─────
I1
43.6 39.2 39.6
44.0
166.40
41.60
I2
35.0 35.2 38.0
35.6
143.80
35.95
I3
30.0 28.0 30.0
31.0
119.00
29.75
I4
28.0 26.8 27.0
28.2
110.00
27.50
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
═════
Analysis of variance
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
══════
Source of
Degrees of
Sum of
Mean Computed TABULAR F
variation
freedom
squares square
F
0.05
0.01
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
─────
Replication 3
12.660 4.220
Factor A
3
486.060 162.020 77.23** 3.86
6.99
Error
9
18.880 2.098
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
───── Total
15
517.600
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
══════
** = Highly significant
Coefficient of variation = 4.30%
Performance of Celery (‘Tal Utah’) as Affected by Volume
and Frequency of Irrigation /Cajojo L. Kadpino. 2007
26
Appendix Table 9. Soil moisture content (%)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
══════
R E P L I C A T I O N
TREATMENT
─────────────────────────── TOTAL
MEAN
I
II III
IV
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
─────
I1
37.48 31.50 31.80 29.34
130.12
32.53
I2
33.86 34.76 31.55 29.26
129.43
32.36
I3
37.06 31.89 31.17 30.76
130.88
32.72
I4
32.97 32.48 31.46 30.20
127.11
31.78
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
═════
Analysis of variance
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
══════
Source of
Degrees of
Sum of
Mean Computed TABULAR F
variation
freedom
squares square
F
0.05
0.01
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
─────
Replication 3
63.329 21.110
Factor A
3
1.988 0.663 0.28ns
3.86
6.99
Error
9
21.493 2.388
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
─────
Total
15
86.810
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
══════
ns = Not significant
Coefficient of variation = 9.62%
Performance of Celery (‘Tal Utah’) as Affected by Volume
and Frequency of Irrigation /Cajojo L. Kadpino. 2007
Document Outline
- Performance of Celery (�Tall Utah�) asAffected by Volume and Frequency of Irrigation.
- BIBLIOGRAPHY
- ABSTRACT
- TABLE OF CONTENTS
- INTRODUCTION
- REVIEW OF LITERATURE
- MATERIALS AND METHODS
- RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
- SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
- LITERATURE CITED
- APPENDICES