• Home
  • Browse
    • Current Issue
    • By Issue
    • By Author
    • By Subject
    • Author Index
    • Keyword Index
  • Journal Info
    • About Journal
    • Aims and Scope
    • Editorial Board
    • Publication Ethics
    • Peer Review Process
  • Guide for Authors
  • Submit Manuscript
  • Contact Us
 
  • Login
  • Register
Home Articles List Article Information
  • Save Records
  • |
  • Printable Version
  • |
  • Recommend
  • |
  • How to cite Export to
    RIS EndNote BibTeX APA MLA Harvard Vancouver
  • |
  • Share Share
    CiteULike Mendeley Facebook Google LinkedIn Twitter
Journal of the Advances in Agricultural Researches
arrow Articles in Press
arrow Current Issue
Journal Archive
Volume Volume 30 (2025)
Volume Volume 29 (2024)
Volume Volume 28 (2023)
Volume Volume 27 (2022)
Issue Issue 4
Issue Issue 3
Issue Issue 2
Issue Issue 1
Volume Volume 26 (2021)
Volume Volume 25 (2020)
Volume Volume 24 (2019)
Volume Volume 23 (2018)
Volume Volume 22 (2017)
Volume Volume 21 (2016)
Volume Volume 20 (2015)
Volume Volume 19 (2014)
Abou Kamer, M., Khalil, G., yousry, M. (2022). Yield and Quality Performance of Some New Sweet Melon Lines Under Water Stress Conditions. Journal of the Advances in Agricultural Researches, 27(1), 148-161. doi: 10.21608/jalexu.2022.114554.1036
Mohamed E. Abou Kamer; Gamal Abdel-Nasser Khalil; Mona Mohamed yousry. "Yield and Quality Performance of Some New Sweet Melon Lines Under Water Stress Conditions". Journal of the Advances in Agricultural Researches, 27, 1, 2022, 148-161. doi: 10.21608/jalexu.2022.114554.1036
Abou Kamer, M., Khalil, G., yousry, M. (2022). 'Yield and Quality Performance of Some New Sweet Melon Lines Under Water Stress Conditions', Journal of the Advances in Agricultural Researches, 27(1), pp. 148-161. doi: 10.21608/jalexu.2022.114554.1036
Abou Kamer, M., Khalil, G., yousry, M. Yield and Quality Performance of Some New Sweet Melon Lines Under Water Stress Conditions. Journal of the Advances in Agricultural Researches, 2022; 27(1): 148-161. doi: 10.21608/jalexu.2022.114554.1036

Yield and Quality Performance of Some New Sweet Melon Lines Under Water Stress Conditions

Article 11, Volume 27, Issue 1 - Serial Number 102, March 2022, Page 148-161  XML PDF (550.91 K)
Document Type: Research papers
DOI: 10.21608/jalexu.2022.114554.1036
View on SCiNiTO View on SCiNiTO
Authors
Mohamed E. Abou Kamer1; Gamal Abdel-Nasser Khalilorcid 2; Mona Mohamed yousry email 3
1Cross-Pollination Vegetable Dept., Horticulture Research Institute; A.R.C., Egypt.
2Faculty of Agriculture Saba Basha Bolkely P.O. 21531
3Faculty of Agriculture Saba- Basha Alexandria University
Abstract
sweet melon is an important crop in Egypt in terms of cultivated area, total production, and consumption, whether domestic or export, in addition to its high nutritional value and high water content. One of the main reasons that hinder the horizontal agricultural expansion is the shortage of irrigation water. Therefore, this study was conducted under the drip irrigation system to legalize the use of irrigation water and increase water use efficiency through evaluating the number of sweet melon inbred lines that could maintain an acceptable level of productivity and quality characteristics under water shortage conditions. Seven inbred lines (genetic material) of sweet melon named: New Matrouh line (L1), Mass Matrouh line (L2) as a local ecotype, orange line (L3), Sandafa line (L4) as a local ecotype, Primal line (L5), Ideal line (L6)  and Kooz Assal Assuit line (L7) as a local ecotype were planted under drip irrigation system during the summer seasons of 2017 and 2018. The experiment took place at the Experimental Farm, Faculty of Agriculture, Saba-Basha, Alexandria University, Egypt. Three irrigation rate treatments (40%, 70%, and 100% of ET0) were performed. The gained results revealed that the best results for plant length (cm) trait were achieved with the treatment of 100 % of evapotranspiration. Many branches/plant traits scored the highest mean values with the treatment of 40 % of evapotranspiration. Total fruit yield/plant (kg) character and its component traits [ no. of fruits/plant and average fruit weight (g)] were significantly affected by both studied variables (sweet melon genotypes and irrigation rates). As for the main effect of irrigation rates on total fruit yield/plant (kg) and its component traits, there is a significant and direct proportional relationship between the independent variable (irrigation rates) and dependent one (studied characters) during the two studied seasons. The significantly highest mean values for total fruit yield/f were scored at 100 % of irrigation rate during the two seasons, followed with the treatment 70 % of irrigation rate; while 40 % of irrigation rate treatment possessed the lowest mean values in this respect. Most studied fruit characteristics were not significantly affected by different tested irrigation rates from 100% down to 70%.  The significantly lowest values for fruit characteristics were scored at 40% irrigation rate treatment. The results of the irrigation water use efficiency (IWUE) of the tested lines proved that the line Ideal (L6) is the best line under the conditions of irrigation shortage supply. Through the gained results over the two seasons of this investigation, it is recommended to select the inbred line "Ideal" (L6) because it is characterized by high productivity (kg/plant) at 100% irrigation rate or when there is a shortage of water supply (70% or even 40% of evapotranspiration) compared with other tested sweet melon genotypes; In addition to, its distinctiveness, to some extent, in their fruit characteristics.
Keywords
Sweet melon; inbred lines; water stress; irrigation rate; and irrigation water use efficiency (IWUE)
Main Subjects
Horticulture
Full Text

INTRODUCTION

Melon (Cucumis melo, L.), or sweet melon 2n = 2X = 24, is considered one of the most important crops of the cucurbita family, which enjoys a high market and export value (Naroui et al., 2015). Like many fruits and vegetables, melon is mostly water. One cup of fresh melon has 144 calories, 6% of your daily serving of fiber, zero fat, and cholesterol. Also provides 100% of the daily value for vitamin C, a powerful antioxidant that keeps the cells from damage. Melon contains vitamin A, which keeps the eyes, skin, bones, and immune system healthy. It also contains about 12% of recommended daily potassium, important for your heart, muscles, and blood pressure. Melon is also full of vitamins and minerals like folic acid, calcium, zinc, copper, and iron (Abdel-Aziz and Sadik, 2017 and Tabassum et al., 2021). The area cultivated locally in Egypt with cantaloupe and melon reached in the year 2019, 67836 fed. with a total production of 742570 tons with an average production of about 10.4 tons / fed. Most of this area is in newly reclaimed lands, which suffer greatly from the shortage of irrigation water, whether in terms of quality or quantity. Concerning the global cultivated area with all types of melon was 2569180 fed. with the average total productivity of 27501360 tons with average productivity of 10.7 tons/fed (FAOSTAT, 2020).

Many studies showed that there were significant increases in root length and decrease in shoot length under drought stress (Turkan et al., 2004). It is recognized that photosynthetic efficiency is the first physiological target of environmental stress, such as high temperatures, lack of water in the soil, and salinity (Liu and Huang 2008). Biotic and abiotic stresses are the most important factors that severely limit plant growth and metabolism (Makbul et al., 2011 and Giordano et al., 2021). A large proportion of cultivated land in the world is affected by poor quality or scarcity of water in the first place. Water scarcity is a major limiting factor in crop production (Wahb-Allah et al., 2011). Tolerance of drought is an important trait that has a linkage with yield and its components, so to improve this trait, underwater stress requires fundamental changes in the set of relevant attributes, finally emerging as something named drought tolerance (Maleki et al., 2013). Hence, the outstanding performance in light of the low amount of water is necessary to sustain the increasing demand in food production in many regions in the world. The future of irrigated agriculture poses the need to develop irrigation strategies using saline and deficit irrigation water to fulfill the food and fiber production gap, to ensure long-term sustainability in irrigated agriculture (Kuşçu et al., 2015 and Kapoor et al., 2020). In general, melon is known to be moderately resistant to drought. It has been shown that drought stress causes several types of damage such as growth inhibition. Therefore, this investigation is concerned to evaluate new sweet melon inbred lines, aiming at the possibility of expanding sweet melon cultivation in areas where is a shortage of irrigation water capable of meeting the growing needs for sweet melon, whether in the local or foreign markets.

 

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Location and date of the experiment

This experiment was carried out during two successive summer seasons of 2017 and 2018, at the Experimental Farm, Faculty of Agriculture, Saba-Basha, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt. Sowing was accomplished on the 1st of April and 15th of March for the summer seasons 2017 and 2018, respectively.

 

Genetic material source

Seven inbred lines of sweet melon (Cucumis melo, L., 2n=2 X =24) named as; New Matrouh line (L1), Mass Matrouh line as a local ecotype (L2), orange line (L3), Sandafa line as a local ecotype (L4), Primal line (L5), Ideal line (L6) and  Kooz Assal Assuit line as a local ecotype (L7). The previously mentioned inbred lines were kindly supplied by the breeding program for Improving the Cucurbitaceae Vegetables Project, Horticultural Research Institute, Agriculture Research Center, Egypt.

 

The soil of the experimental site

Some physical and chemical analyses of the experimental soil are presented in Table 1. Soil analysis demonstrated that the experimental soil has a sandy clay loam texture.


 

Table (1). Some physical and chemical properties of the experimental soil for the summer season in 2017.

 

Particle distribution

Sand

%

Silt

%

Clay

%

Texture class

pH

(1:1, water suspension)

EC (dS/m-1)

(1:1, water extract)

O.M.

%

Total CaCO3

%

55.9

20.4

23.7

Sand Clay Loam

7.8

0.44

0.30

32.0

Chemical analyses

Soluble cations (meq/L)

Soluble anions (meq/L)

Ca++

Mg++

Na+

K+

HCO3-

Cl-

SO4--

1.70

2.04

1.30

0.19

5.45

1.48

0.19

Nutrient available (mg kg-1)

KCl-extractable  (N)

NaHCO3 extractable  (P)

NH4-Ac-extractable  (K)

116.3

21.0

430.0

                       

 

Agricultural operations:

Seeds were sown on 209 cells tray on 1st April and on 15th March of seasons 2017 and 2018, respectively. Seedlings were transplanted 23-25 days after sowing. Two seedling were planted in each hole in terraces with a width of 1.5 m and a length of 30 m . After 35 days of planting the plants were thinned so that each hole became one plant, the experiment has been cultivated in three replicates, each replicate containing fifteen plants. Phosphorus fertilizer was applied at the rate of 150 kg/fed. in the form of mono-calcium phosphate (15.5 % P2O5) at soil preparation, plus 5 tons/fed. of compost were added. Nitrogen fertilizer was applied throughout the drip irrigation system at the rate of 50 kg N/fed. in the form of ammonium sulfate (21.0% N) after 30 days of planting. Potassium fertilizer was added at the rate of 50 kg K /fed in the form of potassium sulfate (48% K2O) throughout the drip irrigation system. The total amount of drip irrigation at different treatments was calculated. The irrigation numbers, the time, and the water quantity (m3); in every irrigation, are expressed in terms of time based on the rate of water flow through the drippers (4L/h.).The common cultural practices were carried out according to the recommended practices for commercial sweet melon production in the area.

Irrigation regime

A drip irrigation system was designed for the experiment. Distribution lines consisted of PVC pipe manifolds for each plot. The diameter of the polyethylene laterals was 16 mm and each lateral irrigated one plant row. The inline emitter discharge rate was 4 L h-1.

The values of reference evapotranspiration (ET0) were calculated using the Penman-Monteith method (Allen et al., 1998) with climatic conditions (Table 2) obtained for the experimental site (NASA, 2021) according to the following equation (Eq. 1):

 

 

 

Where:

ET0

Reference evapotranspiration, mm day-1

Rn

Net radiation at the crop surface, MJ m-2 day-1,

G

Soil heat flux density, MJ m-2 day-1, Generally very small and assumed to be zero).

T

Mean daily air temperature at 2.0 m height, °C,

U2

Wind speed at 2 m height, m s-1,

es

Saturation vapor pressure at 1.5 to 2.5m height, kPa,

ea

Actual vapor pressure at 1.5 to 2.5m height, kPa,

es -ea

Saturation vapor pressure deficit, kPa,

 

Slope vapor pressure curve, kPa°C-1,

g

Psychrometric constant, kPa°C-1.

 


Table (2). Some climatic conditions of the experimental site during the 2017 and 2018 growing seasons

 

Month

2017 Growing season

Pe

Mm

U2

m/s

RHm

%

Tdew

C°

Tx

C°

Tn

C°

Tm

C°

P

kPa

RA

MJ/m2/day

ET0

mm/season

April

51.51

3.98

69.61

12.37

21.32

15.66

18.22

101.52

36.59

173.17

May

0.05

3.81

68.43

15.43

24.92

19.07

21.78

101.33

39.98

228.39

June

4.09

3.83

67.59

18.01

27.68

22.14

24.66

101.18

41.19

208.96

 

2018 Growing season

March

2.04

4.03

63.94

11.19

21.66

15.23

18.19

101.34

32.79

116.05

April

2.68

3.67

66.90

13.29

23.03

16.82

19.61

101.32

36.56

206.14

May

0.00

3.93

69.26

16.93

25.90

20.34

22.84

101.05

39.96

236.28

June

0.01

3.65

65.98

18.69

28.25

23.01

25.48

101.02

41.19

227.63

 

The crop evapotranspiration (ETc) is the daily use of water by sweet melon and calculated using the following equation (Allen et al., 1998), Eq. 2:

 

 

 

Where:

Kc is the crop coefficient

The crop coefficient (Kc) values for different growth stages of the sweet melon (Allen et al., 1998) are shown in Table (4).

 

 

Table (3). Crop coefficient of sweet melon according to the growth stages

 

Growing stage

Kc value

Initial stage

0.50

Mid-stage

1.05

End-stage

0.70

 

The crop water requirements were calculated according to the Penman-Monteith equation (Allen et al., 1998) using the following equation (Cuenca, 1989), Eq. 3:

 

 

 

 

ETdrip is the crop water requirements under the drip irrigation system.

Kr is the reduction factor that reflects the percentage of irrigation treatments.

 

Irrigation water – use efficiency or water productivity (IWUE):

                Irrigation water–use efficiency (IWUE) or water productivity (WP) was calculated as kg of fruits fresh weight yield produced per one cubic meter of applied water (Doorenbos and Kassem, 1979; Ahmed, 1987 and Sharma et al., 2015), Eq.4.

 

                                                                      Total fruit yield (kg/fed)

IWUE (kg/m3) =    ----------------------------------------------

                                                               Applied irrigation water (m3/fed)

 

Measurements and data recorded

The plant measurements were recorded for vegetative characters, flowering date, and maturity date; average plant length (cm), the average number of branches/plant, flowering date (days), and fruit maturity date (days). The yield and yield components as total fruit yield/plant (kg), number of fruits/plant, and average fruit weight/plant (g) were recorded. The fruit characteristics such as fruit shape index were calculated as reported by Winiger and Ludwing (1974). Placenta hardness is graded on a scale from 1 to 10; whereas 1 denotes the soft placenta hardness and 10 refers to the extremely placenta hardness. Fruit netting degree: was graded on a scale from 1 to 10; 1 denotes the extremely smooth fruit skin, while 10 denotes the heavily rough skin fruit. Fruit skin color: was graded on a scale from 1 to 10; 1 denotes green skin, while 10 denotes yellow skin. Fruit total soluble solids (T.S.S.) were determined using the Zeiss hand refractometer and fruit moisture content was determined by oven drying.

Experimental design and statistical analysis

The experimental design was presented as a split-plot design with three replicates. Three irrigation rate treatments are named: I1 (40% of the ET0), I2 (70% of The ET0), and I3 (100% of the ET0) were assigned in the main plots, whereas, seven sweet melon genotypes were, randomly, distributed in the sub-plots. The collected data from the experiment were statistically analyzed using the analysis of variance method (Statistix, 2010). Comparisons among the means of different clones were carried out, using the Least Significant Differences (LSD) test procedure at p ≤ 0.05 level of probability, as explained by using Snedecor and Cochran (1980).

 

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

1. Mean performances of the vegetative growth parameters, flowering and fruiting duration of sweet melon genotypes

The results presented in Table (4) are the averages of plant length, the number of main branches/plant, flowering, and fruiting duration as affected by sweet melon genotypes, irrigation rates (% ET0), and their combinations during the first and second seasons (2017 and 2018).

By comparing the performance averages of different traits it can be cleared that plants treated by irrigation rate (I3) and (I2) scored the tallest plants and highest branches number in the two seasons of study 2017 and 2018. Concerning flowering and fruiting duration irrigation rate (I1) enhanced the early flowering and reduced maturity duration for fruits (44.28 and 41.85 days) for the first female flower appearance for the two seasons of study 2017 and 2018, respectively and  (84.19 and 84.85) days for first fruit was picked for two seasons of the study 2017 and 2018 respectively.

Concerning the performance of lines under study, L5 had the tallest plants (225.44 cm) in S1 2017, and L6 (212 cm) in S2 2018. L2 scored the highest branches number (5 and 4.77 branches in the two seasons of study). Regarding the flowering date, L7 scored the earliest flowering date (with 43.33 days to first flower appearance in S1 2017) and L6 (with 41.66 days to first flower appearance in S2 2018). In the maturity of fruit duration, L5 had the earliest maturity duration (with 84.66 and 83.88 days to first fruit picked in the two seasons of study). For irrigation rate x Lines interaction, in general, L4 and L5 in irrigation rate I3 (100 % of field capacity) scored the tallest plants in S1 2017, and L3 and L4 in S2 2018. But in irrigation rate I1 (40% of field capacity) L5 had the tallest plant (204.33 cm) in S1 2017 and L6 (182 cm) in S2 2018. L2 and L6 in irrigation rate I2 (70% of field capacity) scored the biggest branches number in S1 2017, and L6 in S2 2018. But in Irrigation rate I1 (40% of field capacity) L7 had the highest branches number (4 branches) in S1 2017 and L1, L6, and L7 (4 branches) in S2 2018. Regarding flowering date duration trait, L6 in irrigation rate I2 (70% of field capacity) had the earliest flowering date (41 days to first flower appears) in S1 2017, and L1 in irrigation rate I3 (100 % of field capacity) had the earliest flowering date (39.33days) in S2 2018. In the fruiting duration trait, L1 and L5 in irrigation rate I1 (40 % of field capacity) have the earliest fruiting duration in S1 2017, but L6 in I2 (70% of field capacity) has the earliest duration in S2 2018 Generally, the obtained data of Table (4) indicated that irrigation of the tested lines with the treatment of irrigation rate 40%  leads to an early yield during the two study seasons; regardless of its quantity, compared with the other tested treatments of  70% and 100% irrigation rates. Similar results were found by Sebnem (2012), Tschoeke et al., (2015), Rad et al., (2017) and Giordano et al., (2021) reported that the thirst or scarcity of water increases vegetative growth, such as plant height and the number of branches. Also, it was noticeable that early flowers appeared on plants and the speed of fruit ripening in an attempt for the plant to preserve its genes and pass them on to future generations in the event of exposure to unfavorable conditions. Seleiman et al., (2021) observed that the water scarcity in the soil harms the hormonal balance in the plant and causes reduced transfers from root to leaves and the accumulation of some acids in the leaves. It was noticed that increasing the concentration of some ions has a special effect on the activity of enzymes in the plant, therefore, the effectiveness of the dehydrogenase enzyme in the plant decreases when the water in the medium is decreased, this explains the decrease that occurs in the number of branches and the length and vegetative characteristics in general. Sebnem, (2012), Haitham et al., (2019), and Ashraful et al., (2020); where the authors reported that the performance of genotype differed from one irrigation rate to another because the durability of water scarcity varies from one genotype to another and this often may be largely due to hereditary reasons. The growth reduction that followed drought stress may be taken place to a massive and irreversible expansion of stomatic cells produced by less meristematic divisions, inhibition of cell expansion. It is well-known water stress resulted in less water content in tissues, which less in the turgor pressure of the cell, and the expansion of the cell, producing a decline in plant progress (Shao et al., 2007).


 


 

Table (4).  Averages of the vegetative growth characters, flowering and fruiting duration of seven sweet melon genotypes as affected by three irrigation rates during two successive seasons of 2017 and 2018


Seasons

2017

2018

Treatments

Vegetative measurements

Flowering and fruiting duration

Vegetative measurements

Flowering and fruiting duration

plant length

(cm)

No. of  branches/

plant

Days for first female flowering

(days)

Fruit maturity

(days)

plant length

(cm)

No. of branches/

plant

Days for first female flowering

(days)

Fruit maturity

(days)

Irrigation rates

40% (I1)

184.33c

4.09b

44.28b

84.19b

160.52c

3.76b

41.85b

84.85c

70% (I2)

211.52b

5.09a

45.23a

87.14a

198.90b

4.95a

44.23a

88.85b

100% (I3)

231.04a

4.95a

46.04a

88.90a

242.95a

4.76a

45.19a

91.95a

Genotypes (Sweet melon inbred lines)

Matrouh (L1)

195.11bc

4.55a

43.44cd

85.55b

185.44b

4.33ab

43.33b

89.11a

Mass Matrouh (L2)

213.77ab

5.00a

47.88b

89.00a

195.55ab

4.77a

45.88a

91.11a

orange line (L3)

188.88c

4.77a

44.33c

90.88a

205.00ab

4.33ab

42.77bc

91.55a

Sandafa (L4)

213.33ab

4.66a

49.88a

85.88b

204.55ab

3.88b

46.77a

89.22a

Primal (L5)

225.44a

4.55a

43.44cd

84.66b

198.33ab

4.44ab

42.22cd

 83.88b

Ideal (L6)

213.33ab

4.77a

44.00cd

84.77b

212.00a

4.77a

41.66d

85.11b

Kooz Assal Assuit (L7)

212.88ab

4.66a

43.33d

86.44b

204.66ab

4.88a

43.66b

89.88a

Irrigation rates x Genotypes

I1×L1

167.00h

3.66c

43.33efg

83.00ef

150.00ij

4.00cde

39.33j

82.00hi

I1×L2

186.66fgh

4.33abc

43.66def

82.00f

146.66j

3.33e

41.00g-j

81.66hi

I1×L3

171.66gh

4.33abc

43.33efg

91.33ab

 170.00gj

3.66de

40.66hij

88.66c-f

I1×L4

188.33fgh

4.00bc

47.66bc

84.33ef

158.33hij

3.66de

42.00f-j

85.33f-i

I1×L5

204.33def

3.66c

42.66fg

82.00f

166.66g-j

3.66de

42.00f-j

84.33f-i

I1×L6

191.66efg

4.00bc

46.00cd

83.66ef

182.00f-i

4.00cde

44.33d-h

87.66d-g

I1×L7

180.66fgh

4.66abc

43.33efg

83.00ef

150.00ij

4.00cde

43.66d-i

84.33f-i

I2×L1

205.00def

5.33ab

43.33efg

87.00be

189.66eh

4.66bc

44.66dg

90.33be

I2×L2

215.66bcde

5.66a

49.66ab

92.33a

205.00def

5.66a

47.33ad

95.00ab

I2×L3

196.66ef

4.66abc

44.33def

90.33a-d

190.66e-h

4.66bc

42.33e-j

91.66bcd

I2×L4

205.00def

4.66abc

50.66a

86.33def

182.00fi

4.33cd

48.66abc

89.00cf

I2×L5

226.66abcd

4.66abc

44.66def

85.33ef

195.00efg

5.33ab

43.00ej

84.33fi

I2×L6

215.66bcde

5.66a

41.00g

83.33ef

210.00def

4.66bc

40.33ij

81.33i

I2×L7

216.00bcde

5.00abc

43.00efg

85.33ef

220.00cde

5.33ab

43.33e-i

90.33b-e

I3×L1

213.33cde

4.66abc

43.66def

86.66cde

216.66cde

4.33cd

46.00b-e

95.00ab

I3×L2

239.00ab

5.00abc

50.33a

92.66a

235.00bcd

5.33ab

49.33ab

96.66a

I3×L3

198.33ef

5.33ab

45.33cde

91.00abc

254.33ab

4.66bc

45.33c-f

94.33ab

I3×L4

246.66a

5.33ab

51.33a

87.00b-e

273.33a

3.66de

49.66a

93.33abc

I3×L5

245.33a

5.33ab

43.00efg

86.66cde

233.33bcd

4.33cd

41.66f-j

83.00ghi

I3×L6

232.66abc

4.66abc

45.00def

87.33b-e

244.00abc

5.66a

40.33ij

86.33e-h

I3×L7

242.00a

4.33abc

43.66def

91.00abc

244.00abc

5.33ab

44.00d-i

95.00ab


Means followed by the same alphabetical letter within a column for each parameter are not significantly different from each other at the 0.05 level of probability by L.S.D. test procedure.


2. Mean performances of the yield and its component characters of sweet melon genotypes

Mean performances of yield components characters presented in Table (5) from comparing in general between three irrigation rate it can be concluded that plants which treated by irrigation rate (I2) and (I3) (70% and 100% from field capacity) scored the highest average fruit weight, fruit number and total fruit yield/plant in two study seasons 2017 and 2018.

Concerning the performance of lines under study, L6 had the highest average fruit weight, fruit number, and total yield (kg)  (720.44 g, 5 fruits, and 3.64 kg) in S1 2017)  and L6 (777.00 g) for

 

 

average fruit yield, L5 (4.88 fruits) for fruits number and L3 (3.25 kg) for total yield/plant in S2 2018. Concerning irrigation rate x Lines interaction, in general L3 in irrigation rate I3 (100 % of field capacity) scored the highest average fruit yield in S1 2017 and S2 2018  (861.66 g and 983.33 g respectively) and L6 in irrigation rate I3 (100 % of field capacity) gave the highest fruit number and total fruit yield in S1 2017, in S2 2018,  L3 in irrigation rate I3 scored the highest average fruit weight (983.33 g) and total yield/plant (4.56 kg). for the number of fruits/plant in 2018,  L7 in irrigation rate I2 and L5 in irrigation rate I3 have the highest scored. Leskovar et al., (2001) concluded that plants that are exposed to unusual conditions such as intense lighting, extreme cold, heat severe thirst, drowning, radiation, pollution, whether with toxic gases or an increase in the concentration of a certain gas like ozone, pathogen incidence. All those and other environmental stressors stimulate the production of the so-called active oxygen species. This is responsible for genes present in salt-tolerant plants that are capable of adapting under stress conditions, This explains the superiority of some strains over others under the same stress conditions, for example in Irrigation rate I1 (40% of field capacity) L6 had the highest average fruit weight and total yield/plant (kg) (493 g and 2.29 kg in S1 2017) (513 g and 2.05 kg in S2 2018).  L2 scored the highest fruit number (5 fruits) in S1 2017 and L5 (4.33 fruits) in S2 2018 under the most water-scarce conditions. These results were in harmony with those found by Abd El-Mageeda and Semida (2015) , Widaryanto et al., (2017) and Kapoor et al., (2020). The yield and its components are among the traits that are severely affected by the shortage of water, but the comparison between the genotypes in the severity of their tolerance to water scarcity is useful in the different breeding programs that aim to produce strains that can stabilize with economic production under less favorable conditions such as irrigation water shortage. Ghosh et al., (2000) explained that the decline happened in total yield due to water stress may be ascribed to the lessening in leaf area due to fewer and small leaves, and the increase in stomatal resistance and gas exchange; along with, the reduction in transpiration ratio, which all resulting in a decline in photosynthesis.

 


 

Table (5). Averages of yield and yield components of seven sweet melon genotypes as affected by three irrigation rates during two successive seasons of 2017 and 2018

 

Seasons

2017

2018

Treatments

yield components characters

yield components characters

Average fruit weight (g)

No. of fruits/ plant

Total yield

(kg)/

plant

 average fruit weight (g)

No. of fruits/

Plant

Total yield

(kg)/

Plant

Irrigation rates

40% (I1)

425.42c

4.04b

1.72c

426.19c

3.52c

1.50c

70% (I2)

660.71b

4.52ab

3.00b

677.38b

4.66a

3.15b

100% (I3)

753.47a

4.71a

3.57a

850.00a

4.42b

3.69a

Genotypes (Sweet melon inbred lines)

Matrouh (L1)

554.77de

4.44ab

2.44c

648.88b

4.00bc

2.67bc

Mass Matrouh (L2)

631.11bc

5.11a

3.25ab

656.66b

4.33ab

3.00ab

orange line (L3)

696.11ab

4.00bc

2.87bc

751.66a

4.22b

3.25a

Sandafa (L4)

617.77cd

3.88bc

2.43cd

626.66bc

3.55c

2.26c

Primal (L5)

542.22e

5.00a

2.71c

528.33d

4.88a

2.62bc

Ideal (L6)

720.44a

5.00a

3.64a

777.77a

4.44b

3.08ab

Kooz Assal Assuit (L7)

530.00e

3.55c

1.96d

568.33cd

4.04ab

2.62bc

Irrigation rates x Genotypes

I1×L1

388.33ef

4.33a-d

1.68hi

390.00j

3.33ef

1.28h

I1×L2

433.33ef

5.00ab

2.16gh

418.33hij

2.66f

1.14h

I1×L3

476.66e

3.33de

1.60hi

500.00ghi

3.66def

1.82gh

I1×L4

470.00e

3.33de

1.57hi

400.0ij

3.33ef

1.53h

I1×L5

363.33f

5.00ab

1.82hi

361.66j

4.33b-e

1.54gh

I1×L6

493.00e

4.66abc

2.29e-h

513.33gh

4.00cde

2.05fgh

I1×L7

353.33f

2.36e

0.92i

400.00ij

3.33ef

1.53h

I2×L1

596.66d

4.66abc

2.82d-g

656.66f

4.33b-e

2.84def

I2×L2

636.66d

5.00ab

3.19b-e

638.33f

3.66def

3.63a-d

I2×L3

750.00bc

4.00bcd

3.00d-g

771.66de

4.33b-d

3.35bcd

I2×L4

626.66d

4.00bcd

2.49d-h

633.33f

3.66def

2.35efg

I2×L5

600.00d

5.33a

3.21b-e

621.66f

5.00abc

3.10cde

I2×L6

810.00ab

5.00ab

4.05ab

790.00d

4.33b-e

3.43bcd

I2×L7

605.00d

3.66cd

2.22fgh

630.00f

5.33ab

3.37bcd

I3×L1

679.33cd

4.33a-d

2.95d-g

900.00bc

4.33b-e

3.88abc

I3×L2

823.33ab

5.33a

4.40a

913.33bc

4.66a-d

4.23ab

I3×L3

861.66a

4.66abc

4.01abc

983.33ab

4.66a-d

3.77a-d

I3×L4

756.66abc

4.33a-d

3.24bcd

846.66cd

3.66def

3.08cde

I3×L5

663.33cd

4.66abc

3.11c-f

601.66fg

5.33ab

3.20cde

I3×L6

858.33a

5.33a

4.57a

1030.00a

5.66a

4.56a

I3×L7

631.66d

4.33a-d

2.74d-g

675.00ef

4.66a-d

3.14cde

Means followed by the same alphabetical letter within a column for each parameter are not significantly different from each other at the 0.05 level of probability by L.S.D. test procedure.

 

3. Mean performances of fruit characteristics of sweet melon genotypes

Performances of the plant under different irrigation treatments in fruit measurements are presented in Table (6) from comparing characters performance under the three irrigation rates it can be noticed that plants which treated by irrigation rate (I3) (100% from field capacity) scored the highest values of all fruit measurements in the two seasons of study 2017 and 2018.

Concerning the Mean performance of lines under study, L6 had the highest netting degree (8.44) in S1 2017 and L5 and L7 (8.88) in S2 2018. L6 exhibited an oval shape index and by that this characteristic is less affected by environmental conditions, it was constant in the two seasons. Most yellow darkness was found in L6 in S1 2017  and L7 in S2 2018 (9 in two seasons). In total soluble solids, L5 scored the highest values in two seasons of the study S1 2017 and S2 2018 (13.31 and 13.71% respectively), highest moisture content was exhibited by L6 in two seasons S1 2017 and S2 2018 (93.15 and 94.07 respectively). Irrigation rate x Lines interaction, lines which outperformed under the most severe stress conditions (I1 = 40% from field capacity), were L4 in fruit netting degree (8.33), L6 in fruit shape index (1.28), L1, L2, and L4 in skin color (8 degrees for the darkness of yellow color), L5 in total soluble solids percentage % (12.13) and L6 in moisture content % (92.3%) on S1 2017. In S2 2018, L5 in fruit netting degree (7.66), L6 in fruit shape index (1.03), L7 in skin color and total soluble solids (7.66 and 12.36 respectively), and L4 in moisture content % exhibited the highest values overall lines on the study, Hence, it can be said that these traits cannot be neglected except for the fruit shape index, as it characterizes the variety or strain and is fairly stable under any circumstances. These results were in disagreement with those found by Erdem et al., (2001) and Erdem and Yuksel (2003) on watermelon. The authors found a positive relationship between water shortage and traits like total soluble solids content; where the increasing of shortage irrigation water rate led to an increase in the percentage of the total soluble solids (T.S.S.). The results of this study are in agreement with those found by Ashraful et al., (2020); where the authorsfound that the fruit quality characteristics were strongly affected by the shortage of irrigation water rates and also by the increase in the amount of irrigation water. It is necessary to moderate the amount of irrigation water so that an increase will also work to disrupt these characteristics.  The results of this experiment confirmed that the fruit shape index trait did not affect by the tested water rates as this trait is considered one of the genetic traits that distinguish each genotype and is almost unaffected by the environmental conditions (irrigation water rates) to a large extent; as also illustrated by Henane et al., (2015).

 



 

Table (6): Averages of fruit characteristics of seven sweet melon genotypes as affected by three irrigation rates during two successive seasons of 2017 and 2018

 

Seasons

2017

2018

 

fruit characteristics

fruit characteristics

Treatments

Fruit netting degree

Fruit shape index

Skin color

T.S.S

%

Moisture content%

Fruit netting degree

Fruit shape index

Skin color

T.S.S

%

Moisture content%

Irrigation rates

40% (I1)

7.14b

1.08a

7.52b

10.45c

90.94b

6.09c

1.01c

6.76b

11.18b

91.41b

70% (I2)

9.14a

1.06a

8.76a

12.52b

93.40a

8.76b

1.08b

9.19a

12.89a

92.91a

100% (I3)

9.23a

1.08a

9.28a

13.45a

93.92a

9.23a

1.13a

9.42a

13.06a

93.59a

Genotypes (Sweet melon inbred lines)

Matrouh (L1)

7.88b

1.08c

8.55a

12.2b

92.78a

8.11ab

1.15b

8.77a

12.54b

91.87c

Mass Matrouh (L2)

8.33ab

1.14b

8.33a

12.44ab

92.58a

8.33ab

1.15b

8.55a

12.95ab

92.75bc

orange line (L3)

8.55ab

1.04d

8.33a

12.27b

92.34a

7.44bc

1.02c

8.77a

13.40ab

92.52bc

Sandafa (L4)

9.22a

1.02d

8.33a

10.51c

92.75a

6.88c

1.01cd

6.88b

9.92c

93.58ab

Primal (L5)

8.66ab

1.02d

8.33a

13.31a

92.98a

8.88a

0.97d

8.66a

13.71a

92.16c

Ideal (L6)

8.44ab

1.21a

9.00a

11.15c

93.15a

7.66bc

1.22a

8.55a

10.78c

94.07a

Kooz Assal Assuit (L7)

8.44ab

1.01d

8.77a

13.12ab

92.68a

8.88a

0.99d

9.00a

13.35ab

91.55c

Irrigation rates x Genotypes

I1×L1

6.33d

1.09def

8.00a-d

11.33hk

90.77de

5.33gh

1.06e

6.66efg

11.36d-g

89.38f

I1×L2

6.66cd

1.16bcd

7.33cd

10.26jkl

90.16de

6.00fgh

1.03ef

6.33fg

10.9fgh

90.09ef

I1×L3

7.66bcd

1.02eh

8.00ad

10.10kl

90.05e

6.66efg

0.97fgh

7.00d-g

12.3cf

91.16def

I1×L4

8.33abc

1.03eh

8.00ad

8.70m

91.42b-e

4.66h

0.97fgh

5.66g

9.36h

93.46ad

I1×L5

8.00ad

0.98h

6.33d

12.13ei

90.89cde

7.66cde

0.98fgh

6.66efg

11.53dg

91.9be

I1×L6

6.33d

1.28a

7.66bcd

9.33im

92.30a-d

5.33gh

1.03ef

7.33def

10.46gh

92.84ad

I1×L7

6.66cd

1.03eh

7.33cd

11.33hk

90.99cde

7.00def

0.99e-h

7.66def

12.36cf

91.02def

I2×L1

8.33abc

 1.08ef

8.33abc

12.20di

93.50ab

9.33ab

1.24b

9.66ab

13.40bc

92.21ae

I2×L2

9.33ab

1.10cde

8.00ad

12.70cg

93.96a

9.33ab

1.16cd

9.66ab

14.00abc

94.16ab

I2×L3

8.66ab

1.02eh

8.00ad

13.20ae

93.26ab

6.33efg

0.92h

9.33abc

14.36ab

93.24ad

I2×L4

10.00a

1.02eh

8.66abc

11.03ijk

93.01abc

8.66abc

1.02ef

8.00cde

 10.03gh

93.38a-d

I2×L5

9.00ab

1.01fgh

9.33ab

13.56abc

93.83a

9.66ab

1.00efg

9.33abc

14.26ab

91.42cf

I2×L6

9.00ab

1.18b

9.66a

11.46gj

93.26ab

8.33bcd

1.22bc

8.33bcd

11.16eh

94.64a

I2×L7

9.66ab

1.02eh

9.33ab

13.50ad

92.97abc

9.66ab

0.99eh

10.00a

13.03bcd

91.34c-f

I3×L1

9.00ab

1.10de

9.33ab

13.06bf

94.06a

9.66ab

1.15d

10.00a

12.86be

94.03ab

I3×L2

9.00ab

1.16bcd

9.66a

14.36ab

93.67ab

9.66ab

1.26b

9.66ab

13.96abc

94.01ab

I3×L3

9.33ab

1.09def

9.00abc

13.53ad

93.72a

9.33ab

1.17cd

10.00a

13.53abc

93.16a-d

I3×L4

9.33ab

1.02eh

8.33abc

11.80fi

93.84a

7.33c-f

1.03ef

7.00d-g

10.36gh

93.76abc

I3×L5

9.00ab

1.07efg

9.33ab

14.23ab

94.23a

9.33ab

0.94gh

10.00a

15.33a

93.16ad

I3×L6

10.00a

1.17bc

9.66a

12.66ch

93.88a

9.33ab

1.41a

10.00a

10.73fgh

94.73a

I3×L7

9.00ab

0.99gh

9.66a

14.53a

94.07a

10.00a

0.98fgh

9.33abc

14.66ab

92.29ae

                               

Means followed by the same alphabetical letter within a column for each parameter are not significantly different from each other at the 0.05 level of probability by L.S.D. test procedure.

 

 

4. Water requirements

The crop water requirements of sweet Melon as calculated with the Penman-Monteith method (Allen et al., 1998) using the local climatic conditions during the growth stages of Melon are presented in Table (7).

The water requirements of Melon were calculated as 3007.1, 2105.0, and 1202.8 m3/ha in the first season and 2417.3, 1692.1, and 966.9 m3/ha in the second season corresponding to 100, 70, and 40% of the ET0, respectively.

According to the obtained data, the late season or maturity stage of sweet melon has the highest water requirements, followed by the fruiting stage. This result may be due to that the maturity stage needs more water for fruit turgidity and maturity.

 


 

 

Table (7): Crop water requirements (m3/ha) during growth stages of Sweet Melon

 

2017 growing season

Irrigation deficit (% of ETo)

Growth Stages

100%

70%

40%

Initial (Germination)

450.2

315.1

180.1

Development(Vegetative)

699.1

489.4

279.6

Mid (Fruiting)

1298.4

908.9

519.4

Late (Maturity)

559.4

391.6

223.8

Total

3007.1

2105.0

1202.8

2018 growing season

Irrigation deficit (% of ETo)

Growth Stages

100%

70%

40%

Initial (Germination)

316.3

221.4

126.5

Development(Vegetative)

579.6

405.7

231.8

Mid (Fruiting)

997.1

698.0

398.9

Late (Maturity)

524.4

367.0

209.7

Total

2417.3

1692.1

966.9

 

Irrigation Water-Use Efficiency (IWUE)

                When water is the limiting factor of crop production, water stress can improve WUE, so that available water is better allocated. Irrigation Water Use Efficiency (IWUE) is calculated as the harvested yield (kg) / amount of irrigation water (m3) according to the recommendations of the Food and Agriculture Organization (Doorenbos and Kassam, 1979). Among the many biotic and abiotic factors, the most important factors affecting productivity as well as the quality of production are the responsible and optimal management of water (Bhriguvanshi et al., 2012 and Tabassum et al., 2021).

The applied irrigation water was accounted as 3112.4, 2178.7, and 1244.9 m3/ha in the first season and 2659.1, 1861.3, and 1063.6 m3/ha in the second season for 100, 70, and 40% of the ET0 irrigation treatments, respectively.

The data of irrigation water-use efficiency (IWUE) is presented in Table (8). The results indicated that IWUE was significantly affected by irrigation levels, in which the recorded values increased with decreased irrigation levels. The irrigation level of 2178.7 and 1861.3 m3/ha (70% of ET0) in the two seasons possessed the highest values of IWUE (29.29 and 39.85 kg/m3, respectively). As seen from Table (8), the IWUE ranged between 24.19 and 29.29 kg/m3 in the first season and between 32.19 and 39.85 kg/m3 in the second season. Decreasing the irrigation water level resulted in a significant effect on IWUE.

In addition, IWUE was significantly (p<=0.05) affected by sweet Melon genotypes (Table, 8). The IWUE ranged between 18.49 and 36.14 kg/m3 in the first season and between 29.60 and 39.80 kg/m3 in the second season. The highest values attained for line L6 in both seasons and the lowest values attained with line L7 in the first season, but L4 has the lowest value in the second season.

As for the interaction between irrigation water treatments and sweet melon genotypes, the obtained data of Table (8) showed that IWUE was significantly affected (p ≤ 0.05) with these two independent variables during the two study seasons. The L6 and L3 genotypes with 70% of ET0 significantly gave the highest IWUE (39.58 kg/m3) in the first season. The line L2 gave the highest value of IWUE (45.88 kg/m3) followed by the line L6 which gave 43.35 kg/m3 for the IWUE in the second season. The high values for the IWUE regarding line L6 under water shortage conditions during the two study seasons could be attributed to the effect of the genotypic characteristic of this line.

The lower values of IWUE for the deficit irrigation treatment may be due to the lower values of sweet melon yield in both seasons. It can be concluded that sweet Melon is sensitive to water stress.

 



 

Table (8). Gross yield and Irrigation Water-Use Efficiency (IWUE) of  Sweet Melon as affected by irrigation deficit, genotypes, and their interactions.

 

Treatments

Total Yield (ton/ha)

IWUE (kg/m3)

Total Yield (ton/ha)

IWUE (kg/m3)

 

2017

2018

Irrigation rates (% of ET0)

40% (I1)

37.84 c

28.47 a

34.22  c

32.80 b

70% (I2)

65.94 b

29.29 a

69.36 b

39.85 a

100% (I3)

78.63 a

24.19 b

81.27 a

32.19 c

Genotypes

Matrouh (L1)

54.63 cd

25.11 b

58.67 d

32.23 e

Mass Matrouh (L2)

71.50 ab

32.24 a

66.00 c

35.59 b

orange line (L3)

63.14 bc

27.65 b

67.83 b

40.15 a

Sandafa (L4)

53.53 d

24.08 b

51.04 f

29.60 f

Primal (L5)

59.69 cd

27.52 b

57.49 e

33.18 d

Ideal (L6)

80.00 a

36.14 a

71.35 a

39.8 a

Kooz Assal Assuit (L7)

43.12 e

18.49 c

58.96 d

34.07 c

Irrigation rates X Genotypes

40%

L1

36.96 hi

27.81 de

28.16 p

26.99 m

L2

47.52 fghi

35.75 abc

25.08 q

24.03 m

L3

35.20 hij

26.48 def

40.04 n

38.37 f

L4

34.54 ij

25.99 def

33.66 o

32.26 j

L5

40.04 ghi

30.12 cd

33.88 o

32.47 j

L6

50.38 defgh

37.91 ab

45.10 m

43.22 bc

L7

20.24 j

15.23 h

33.66 o

32.26 j

70%

L1

64.04 bcdef

27.56 de

62.48 k

35.89 h

L2

70.18 bc

31.17 bcd

79.86 e

45.88 a

L3

66.00 bcd

39.58 a

73.70 g

42.34 d

L4

54.78 cdefg

24.33 defg

51.70 l

29.70 k

L5

70.62 b

31.37 bcd

68.20 ij

39.18 e

L6

89.10 a

39.58 a

75.46 f

43.35 b

L7

48.84 efghi

21.69 efgh

74.14 g

42.59 cd

100%

L1

64.90 bcde

19.96 fgh

85.36 c

33.81 i

L2

96.80 a

29.78 cd

93.06 b

36.85 g

L3

88.22 a

27.14 de

100.32 a

39.73 e

L4

71.28 b

21.93 efgh

67.76 j

26.84 m

L5

68.42 bc

21.05 efgh

70.40 h

27.88 l

L6

100.54 a

30.93 bcd

82.94 d

32.85 j

L7

60.28 bcdef

18.54 gh

69.08 i

27.36 lm

Means followed by a similar letter within a column for each parameter are not significantly different from each other at the 0.05 level of probability by L.S.D. test procedure.

 

Thus, the main concern of deficit irrigation is that it maximizes water productivity, although some reduction in yields is observed. In regions where water is the limiting factor for crop production, maximizing water productivity by deficit irrigation is often more economically profitable for a farmer than maximizing yield.

Results of irrigation water use efficiency (IWUE); which were presented in (Table, 8), the importance of water deficit to obtain high yields and better usage of water, and this can be mainly attributed to adequate and homogeneous moisture distribution in the root zone in improving crop resistance to water stress (Abdelhamid et al., 2013 and Rahimizadeh et al., 2007).

                Increases in water productivity under insufficient irrigation can be attributed to several reasons, one of which is that the negative effect of drought stress during certain growth stages on the division of biomass between reproductive and vegetative biomass (harvest index) is reduced (Fereres and Soriano, 2007; Reynolds and Tuberosa, 2008) due to increased reproductive organs (Karam et al., 2014). In this respect, Steduto et al., (2007) stated that increasing water production for net assimilation of biomass while relieving drought stress or increased crop hardening occurs due to the conservative behavior of biomass growth in response to transpiration. Water productivity for the net assimilations of biomass is increased due to the synergy between irrigation and fertilization (Steduto and Albrizo, 2005). Negative agronomic conditions are avoided during crop growth, such as pests, diseases, anaerobic conditions in the root zone due to waterlogging (Pereira et al., 2002; Geerts et al., 2008 and Tabassum et al., 2021).

 

 

 

CONCLUSION

water stress is referred to as a limited water supply to plant roots, which reduces the rate of transpiration in plants. It is mainly caused by a water deficit as a result of drought conditions. The thirst or scarcity of water increases vegetative growth, such as plant height and the number of branches. Also, it was noticeable that early flowers appeared on plants and the speed of fruit ripening in an attempt for the plant to preserve its genes and pass them on to future generations in the event of exposure to unfavorable conditions. Yield and its components are among the traits that are severely affected by the shortage of water, but the comparison between the genotypes in the severity of their tolerance to water scarcity is useful in the different breeding programs that aim to produce strains that can stabilize with economic production under unfavorable conditions such as lack of irrigation water. Fruit quality is strongly affected by the shortage in the amount of water and also by the increase in the amount of irrigation water, it is necessary to moderate the amount of irrigation water so that an increase will also work to disrupt these characteristics. There are characteristics such as the fruit shape index that are not affected by the amount of water as it is one of the characteristics of the variety.

 

References
REFERENCES

Abd El-Mageeda, T. A. and W. M. Semida (2015). Effect of deficit irrigation and growing seasons on plant water status, fruit yield, and water use efficiency of squash under saline soil. Scientia Horticulturae 186. 89–100

Abdel-Aziz, A. (2017).  Sadik  Effect of Water and Salt Stresses on Productivity of Cantaloupe in Ismailia Soil Egypt. J. Soil Sci. Vol. 57, No. 2, pp. 201-214

Ahmed, A. A. G. (1987). Evaluation of surge irrigation for different field crops. Ph.D. Thesis, Fac. of Agric. Alex. Univ.

Allen, R.G., Pereira, L.S., Raes, D., Smith, M. (1998). Crop evapotranspiration guidelines for computing crop water requirements. FAO Irrigation and drainage paper 56. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome.

Ashraful, A., H. Bambang, U. Hayat U, R. S. Krishna and A. Datta (2020). Effects of Silicon on Growth, Yield and Fruit Quality of Cantaloupe under Drought Stress. 2(4). 1955-1969.

Cuenca, R.H. (1989). Irrigation system design: An engineering approach. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, 552.

Doorenbos, J. and A.H. Kassam (1979). Yield response to water. FAO Irrigation and Drainage, Paper 33, Rome, 193 p.

FAOSTAT (2020). https://www.fao.org/faostat, (2020).

Flexas, J., J. Bota, F. Loreto, G. Coranic and T.D. Shakey (2004). Diffusive and metabolic limitation to photosynthesis under drought and salinity in C3 plants. J. Pl. Biol., 6: 269-279.

Ghosh, S.G., K. Asanuma, A. Kusutani and M. Toyota (2000). Effect of moisture stress at different growth stages on the amount of total nonstructural carbohydrate, nitrate reductase activity, and yield of potato. Japanese J. Trop. Agric., 44(3): 158-166.

Giordano, M., S. A., Petropoulos, and Y. Rouphael (2021). Response and defence mechanisms of vegetable crops against drought, heat and salinity stress. Agriculture 11:463. doi: 10.3390/agriculture11050463.

Haitham, M. A. E., R. M. Peiró, B. Picó and C. Esteras (2019). Drought tolerance assessment of melon germplasm searching for adaptation to climate change. 14(27). 1180-1196.

Henane,  I.,  N. Mezghani  ,  I. Tlili  , T. Rhim  ,  I. Ghezal  , K. Arfaoui  ,  H. Jebari    (2013).  Agro-morphological characterization and assessment of variability in lo-cal  germoplasm  of Cucumis  melo L.  in  Tunisia. Journal  of  Biodiversity  and  Environmental  Sci-ences 3(12): 198–207.

Kapoor, D., S. Bhardwaj, M. Landi,  A. Sharma, M.  Ramakrishnan  and A. Sharm (2020). The impact of drought in plant metabolism: how to exploit tolerance mechanisms to increase crop production. Appl. Sci. 10:5692. doi: 10.3390/app10165692.

Kuşçu, H., A. Turhan, , N. Özmen, , P. Aydınol, , H. Büyükcangaz and A.O. Demir (2015) Deficit irrigation effects on watermelon (Citrullus vulgaris) in a sub humid environment. J. of Animal & Plant Sci., 25(6), 1652-1659.

Leskovar, D. I., J. C. Ward, and R. W. Sprague (2001). Yield, Quality, and Water Use efficiency of muskmelon are affected by irrigation and transplanting versus direct seeding. HortiSci. 36(2):286-291.

Liu, X. E., B. Huang (2008). Photosynthetic acclimation to high temperatures associated with heat tolerance in creeping bentgrass. Journal of Plant Physiology, 165(18): 1947-1953.

Makbul, S, N. Saruhan Guler, N. Durmuş, S. Guven (2011). Changes in anatomical and physiological parameters of soybean under drought stress. Turk J Bot 35: 369– 377.

Maleki, A., R. Naderi, A. Naseri, A. Fathi, S. Bahamin and R . Maleki (2013) . Physiological performance of soybean cultivars under drought stress. Bull. Env. Pharmacol. Life Sci., 2 (6): 38-44.

Naroui, M.R., S. Koohkan, H. R. Fanaei and M. R. Pahlavan (2015). Application of Artificial Neural Networks to predict the final fruit weight and random forest to select important variables in native population of melon (Cucumis melo L.). Scientia Horticulturae 181: 108–112. DOI: 10.1016/j. scienta.2014.10.025.

NASA (2021). NASA Prediction of  Worldwide Energy Resources. The Power Project.  https://power.larc.nasa.gov/data-access-viewer/. (Accessed on 5 June 2021).

Paryy, M.A.J., P.J. Madgwick, J.F.C. Carvalho and P.J. Andralogic (2007). Prospects for increasing photosynthesis by overcoming the limitations of Rubisco. J. Agric. Sci., 45: 31-43.

Rad, M. R. N., M. M. Ghasemi, J. A. Koohpayegan (2017). Evaluation of melon (Cucumis melo. L) genotypes aiming effective selection of parents for breeding directed at high yield under drought stress condition J. of Hort. Res., 25(1):125–134.

Sebnem, K. (2012). Effects of drought and salt stresses on growth, stomatal conductance, leaf water and osmotic potentials of melon genotypes (Cucumis melo L.). African J. of Agric. Res.. 7(5). 775-781.

Sebnem, K. (2012). Effects of drought and salt stresses on growth, stomatal conductance, leaf water and osmotic potentials of melon genotypes (Cucumis melo L.). African J. of Agric. Res. 7(5), 775-781.

Seleiman, M. F.  , N. Al-Suhaibani  , N. Ali, M. Akmal, M. Alotaibi , Y. Refay , T. Dindaroglu (2021). Drought stress impacts on plants and different approaches to alleviate Its adverse effects. J. of Palnts. 10(259: 2-25.

Sharma, B.R., D. Molden and S. Cook (2015). Water use efficiency in agriculture: measurement, current situation and trends. In. Drechsel, P, Heffer, P., Magan, H., Mikkelsen, R., Wichlens, D. (Eds.) Managing Water and Fertiliser for Sustainable Intensification. Paris, France: Int. Fertilizer Association. pp. 39-64.

Shao, H., S. Jiang, F.Li, L. Chu, C. Zhao, M. Shao and X. Zhao (2007). Some advances in plant stress physiology and their implications in system biology era. Biointerafaces, 54: 33-36.

Snedecor, G. H. and W. C. Cochran (1980). Statistical Methods. 7th ed. Iowa State University press, Ames., Iowa, U.S.A.

Statistix (2008). Statistix 10.0. Statistix for Windows. Analytical Software.

Szamosi, C., I. Solmaz, N. Sari, C. Bársony (2010). Mor-phological  evaluation  and  comparison  of  Hungar-ian   and   Turkish    melon   (Cucumis   melo L.) germplasm. Scientia  Horticulturae  124(2):  170–182. DOI: 10.1016/j.scienta.2009.12.024.

Tabassum, S., A. Ossola, R. Marchin, D. S. Ellsworth, and M. Leishman (2021). Assessing the relationship between trait-based and horticultural classifications of plant responses to drought. Urban For. Urban Green. 61:127109. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127109.

Torkadi, S. S, A. M. Musmade, and K. K. Mangrave (2007). Genetic variability studies in muskmelon (Cucumis melo L.). J. Soils Crop, 17:308-311.

Turkan, I., M. Bor, F. Ozdemir, H. Koca (2004). Differential responses of lipid peroxidation and antioxidants in the leaves of drought tolerant P. acutifolius gray and drought-sensitive P. vulgaris L. subjected to polyethylene glycol mediated water stress. Plant Sci 168: 223–231.

 Wahb-Allah, M. A, A. A. Alsadon and A. A. Ibrahim (2011). Drought Tolerance of Several Tomato Genotypes under Greenhouse Conditions.  World Applied Sciences Journal 15 (7): 933-940, 2011ISSN 1818-4952.

Widaryanto, E., K. P. Wicaksono and H. Najiyah (2017). Drought Effect Simulation on the Growth and Yield Quality of Melon (Cucumis melo L.), J. Agron 16(4): 147-153.

Wininger, k. F.A. and J.W. Ludwing (1974). Methodem der qualitats burteilung bei kartoffeln fur den menschlincher. Konsum. Potato Res., 17:434-465.

Statistics
Article View: 515
PDF Download: 462
Home | Glossary | News | Aims and Scope | Sitemap
Top Top

Journal Management System. Designed by NotionWave.