Research Article

Effect of Tillage, Irrigation, and Nutrient Levels on Growth and Yield of Sweet Potato in Rice Fallow

Table 9

Effect of different treatments on consumptive use of water by sweet potato in rice fallow during 2008-2009.

TreatmentMoisture contribution from profile storage (mm)Evaporation (mm)Effective rainfall (mm)Consumptive use (mm)Water use efficiency (kg mm−1)
0–15 cm15–30 cm30–45 cm45–60 cmTotal

Method of tillage
Minimum tillage39.133.933.328.9135.226.75.9167.855.7
(28.9)*(25.1)(24.6)(21.4)(100.0)
Conventional34.931.730.528.5125.725.25.9156.877.5
(27.8)(25.2)(24.3)(22.7)(100.0)
LSD ( 𝑃 = 0 . 0 5 )11.03.7

No. of irrigation
325.124.924.522.296.714.85.9117.471.2
(26.0)(25.7)(25.3)(23.0)(100.0)
534.533.132.228.5128.324.65.9158.867.6
(26.9)(25.8)(25.1)(22.2)(100.0)
745.243.640.936.6166.338.65.9210.860.8
(27.2)(26.2)(24.6)(22.0)(100.0)
LSD ( 𝑃 = 0 . 0 5 )4.72.8

Nutrient levels (kg ha−1)
0-0-032.231.430.927.8122.326.05.9154.260.0
(26.3)(25.7)(25.3)(22.7)(100.0)
37.5-25-37.534.733.832.929.6131.126.05.9163.066.7
(26.5)(25.8)(25.1)(22.6)(100.0)
75-50-7537.536.335.029.1137.926.05.9169.873.0
(27.2)(26.3)(25.4)(21.1)(100.0)
LSD ( 𝑃 = 0 . 0 5 )2.81.7

*Percentage values are given within parentheses.