| Summary: | Potatoes are a high-value crop with a shallow root system and high fertilizer requirements. The primary emphasis in potato production is minimizing nitrogen-leaching losses from the shallow root zone through fertigation. Therefore, a field experiment was conducted for two consecutive years, 2018–2019 2019–2020 to assess the effect of nitrogen and irrigation amount and frequency on tuber yield, water balance components and water productivity of potatoes under surface and subsurface drip irrigation. The experiment was laid out in a split-plot design with three nitrogen levels (187.5 kg N ha<sup>−1</sup> (N<sub>1</sub>), 150 kg N ha<sup>−1</sup> (N<sub>2</sub>) and 112.5 kg N ha<sup>−1</sup> (N<sub>3</sub>)) in main plots and six irrigation levels in the subsurface (drip lines were laid at 20 cm depth) and one surface drip in subplots. Irrigation scheduling was based on 100% of cumulative pan evaporation at an alternate (I<sub>1</sub>) and two-day interval (I<sub>2</sub>), 80% of cumulative pan evaporation at an alternate (I<sub>3</sub>) and two-day interval (I<sub>4</sub>), 60% of cumulative pan evaporation at an alternate (I<sub>5</sub>) and two-day interval (I<sub>6</sub>) and 80% of cumulative pan evaporation at alternate days with surface drip (I<sub>7</sub>). Our results showed that potato transpiration was higher in N<sub>1</sub> and N<sub>2</sub> compared to N<sub>3</sub>, while soil evaporation was higher in N<sub>3</sub> over N<sub>1</sub> and N<sub>2</sub>. Irrigation regimes I<sub>5</sub> and I<sub>6</sub> had lower transpiration than I<sub>1</sub>, I<sub>2</sub>, I<sub>3</sub> and I<sub>7</sub>, while I<sub>7</sub> had more soil evaporation than I<sub>1</sub>, I<sub>2</sub> and I<sub>3</sub>. Leaf area index (LAI), dry matter accumulation (DMA), root mass density (RMD) and tuber yield in N<sub>1</sub> and N<sub>2</sub> were at par but significantly higher than N<sub>3</sub>. The LAI and DMA were statistically at par in I<sub>1</sub>, I<sub>2</sub> and I<sub>3</sub> but significantly higher than recommended irrigation (I<sub>7</sub>). Tuber yield was statistically at par in I<sub>1</sub>, I<sub>2</sub>, I<sub>3</sub> and I<sub>7</sub> but I<sub>3</sub> and I<sub>7</sub> saved 20% irrigation water compared to I<sub>1</sub> and I<sub>2</sub>. On the other hand, real water productivity (WP<sub>ET</sub>) under N<sub>1</sub> and N<sub>2</sub> were comparable in I<sub>3</sub> and I<sub>4</sub> but significantly higher than recommended practice (I<sub>7</sub>) as pooled evapotranspiration (ET) and soil evaporation (E) in I<sub>7</sub> were 19.5 and 20.6 mm higher, respectively, than in I<sub>3</sub>. Among interactive treatment combinations, N<sub>1</sub>I<sub>1</sub>, N<sub>1</sub>I<sub>2</sub>, N<sub>1</sub>I<sub>3</sub>, N<sub>1</sub>I<sub>7</sub>, N<sub>2</sub>I<sub>1</sub>, N<sub>2</sub>I<sub>2</sub> and N<sub>2</sub>I<sub>3</sub> recorded the highest tuber yields without any significant differences among them. Treatment N<sub>2</sub>I<sub>3</sub> saved 20% nitrogen and irrigation water compared to all other combinations. Water productivity in N<sub>1</sub> and N<sub>2</sub> was comparable in I<sub>3</sub> and I<sub>4</sub> but significantly higher than recommended practice (I<sub>7</sub>).
|
|---|