Diagnosis of Irrigation Management in the Industrial Tomato Crop in Goiás, Brazil

• Main Authors: Jose Alves Jr, Carolina C.R. Sena, Marcus V.H. Domingos, Fabio M. Knapp, Fillipe P. Almeida, Rafael Battisti, Derblai Casaroli, Adao W.P. Evangelista
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: AIDIC Servizi S.r.l. 2021-07-01
• Series: Chemical Engineering Transactions
• Online Access: https://www.cetjournal.it/index.php/cet/article/view/11754

The irrigation management practices by the producers of industrial tomatoes have been done in an empirical way, which can harm the crop yield and the water resources. Thus, this study aimed to analyze water use, comparing the irrigation management that the producer uses with what should be carried out in the cycle of industrial tomatoes in Goiás. For this purpose, fourteen industrial tomato production areas were monitored during the 2018, 2019, and 2020 harvest. The applied irrigation depths were recorded using rain gauges installed in the cultivation areas. The water demands were estimated from the crop coefficients recommended by Embrapa and by the reference evapotranspiration according to the Penman-Monteith Model, obtained from meteorological data from stations installed in loco. The results showed that water demands ranged from 269.2 to 422.6 mm between 109 and 131 days of the cycle. The diagnosis revealed that there were errors in the irrigation management in all evaluated areas when analyzing the total water applied in the cycle. The average error was 83.3 mm for excess (57% of areas) and 31.1 mm for deficit (43% of areas). The phenological cycle of the crop was divided into four phases. On average, there was excess in two phases, error for the deficit in one phase, and correct irrigation in other. In phase I, there was 35.7% correct irrigation, 50% (35.0 mm) of error for excess, and 14.3% (17.9 mm) of error for the deficit. In phase II, 14.3% of correct irrigation were observed, 85.7% (46.9 mm) of error for excess. In phase III, there was 7.1% of correct irrigation, 14.3% (44.7 mm) of error for excess, and 78.6% (38.2 mm) of error for the deficit. There was 21.4% correct irrigation in phase IV, 42.9% (44.8 mm) of error for excess, and 35.7% (22.1 mm) of error for the deficit.