Please wait a minute...
Journal of Arid Land
Journal of Arid Land  2025, Vol. 17 Issue (6): 791-807    DOI: 10.1007/s40333-025-0080-0     CSTR: 32276.14.JAL.02500800
Review article     
Improving water productivity of sprinkler-irrigated cumin through deficit irrigation in arid areas
Hari Mohan MEENA*(), Deepesh MACHIWAL, Priyabrata SANTRA, Vandita KUMARI, Saurabh SWAMI
Division of Natural Resources, Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR)-Central Arid Zone Research Institute (CAZRI), Jodhpur 342003, India
Download: HTML     PDF(981KB)
Export: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)      

Abstract  

Integrating sprinkler with deficit irrigation system is a new approach to improve crop water productivity and ensure water and food security in arid areas of India. This study undertook a field experiment of sprinkler-irrigated cumin (variety GC-4) with a mini-lysimeter setup at an experimental research farm in Jodhpur, India during 2019-2022. Four irrigation treatments T1, T2, T3, and T4 were designed at irrigation water/cumulative pan evaporation (IW/CPE) of 1.0, 0.8, 0.6, and 0.4, respectively, with three replications. Daily actual crop evapotranspiration (ETc) was recorded and weekly soil moisture was monitored over the crop growth period. Quantities of applied water and drainage from mini-lysimeters were also measured at every irrigation event. Yield of cumin was recorded at crop maturity. Furthermore, change in farmer's net income from 1-hm2 land was computed based on the cost of applying irrigation water and considering yield variations among the treatments. Results indicated the highest mean seasonal actual ETc (371.7 mm) and cumin yield (952.47 kg/hm2) under T1 (with full irrigation). Under T2, T3, and T4, the seasonal actual ETc decreased by 10.4%, 27.6%, and 41.3%, respectively, while yield declined by 5.0%, 28.4%, and 50.8%, respectively, as compared to the values under T1. Furthermore, crop water productivity of 0.272 (±0.068) kg/m3 under T2 was found relatively higher in comparison to other irrigation treatments, indicating that T2 can achieve improved water productivity of cumin in arid areas at an optimum level of deficit irrigation. The results of cost-economics indicated that positive change in farmer's net income from 1-hm2 land was 108.82 USD under T2, while T3 and T4 showed net losses of 5.33 and 209.67 USD, respectively. Moreover, value of yield response factor and ratio of relative yield reductions to relative ETc deficits were found to be less than 1.00 under T2 (0.48), and more than 1.00 under T3 (1.07) and T4 (1.23). This finding further supports that T2 shows the optimized level of deficit irrigation that saves 20.0% of water with sacrificing 5.0% yield in the arid areas of India. Findings of this study provide useful strategies to save irrigation water, bring additional area under irrigation, and improve crop water productivity in India and other similar arid areas in the world.

Key words： cumin crop      crop water productivity      crop evapotranspiration      deficit irrigation      mini-sprinkler irrigation      yield response factor     
Received: 23 October 2024      Published: 30 June 2025
Corresponding Authors: *Hari Mohan MEENA (E-mail: Hari.Meena5@icar.gov.in; hmmeena82@gmail.com)
Service
E-mail this article
Add to my bookshelf
Add to citation manager
E-mail Alert
RSS
Articles by authors
Hari Mohan MEENA
Deepesh MACHIWAL
Priyabrata SANTRA
Vandita KUMARI
Saurabh SWAMI
Cite this article:

Hari Mohan MEENA, Deepesh MACHIWAL, Priyabrata SANTRA, Vandita KUMARI, Saurabh SWAMI. Improving water productivity of sprinkler-irrigated cumin through deficit irrigation in arid areas. Journal of Arid Land, 2025, 17(6): 791-807.

URL:

http://jal.xjegi.com/10.1007/s40333-025-0080-0     OR     http://jal.xjegi.com/Y2025/V17/I6/791

Month Period (or year) Maximum temperature (°C) Minimum temperature (°C) Relative humidity (%) Wind speed
(m/s)		 Precipitation (mm)
November 1991-2020 31.6 15.5 39.6 0.6 1.8
2019 29.8 18.6 54.8 0.8 1.4
2020 29.6 14.8 41.5 0.6 0.0
2021 31.0 15.8 37.2 0.4 0.0
December 1991-2020 27.2 11.7 43.3 0.7 1.2
2019 24.5 11.5 48.5 0.7 0.3
2020 26.9 12.3 41.6 0.6 0.0
2021 25.0 12.9 43.3 0.5 2.4
January 1991-2020 24.9 10.3 45.7 0.8 4.1
2020 22.8 10.3 55.1 0.8 1.6
2021 24.5 10.5 48.1 0.6 0.0
2022 21.9 10.1 57.6 0.6 14.0
February 1991-2020 28.3 13.0 39.5 0.9 4.0
2020 28.4 12.9 44.7 0.6 0.0
2021 30.9 13.5 38.0 0.4 0.0
2022 28.7 13.6 38.6 0.7 0.0
March 1991-2020 34.0 18.2 31.0 1.1 3.7
2020 30.5 17.5 39.8 1.2 11.4
2021 36.0 19.7 29.0 0.9 0.0
2022 37.0 20.8 26.1 0.8 0.0
Table 1 Long-term means of climate variables during 1991-2020 and short-term climate variable values in the study years 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2022) for the five months of the crop growth period (November-March) at the experimental site
Soil depth Proportion of soil particles (%) Bulk density (g/cm3) Field capacity (%) Permanent wilting point (%)
Clay Silt Sand
0-10 cm 7.5 10.8 81.7 1.65 8.98 3.44
10-20 cm 8.3 6.7 85.0 1.66 8.59 3.48
20-30 cm 9.6 7.5 82.9 1.62 9.76 3.87
Table 2 Soil physical properties of the experimental site
Fig. 1 Soil moisture dynamics under different irrigation treatments (T1-T4) during the crop growth period of 2019-2021 (a1-a4), 2020-2021 (b1-b4), and 2021-2022 (c1-c4). T1, T2, T3, and T4 were designed at irrigation water/cumulative pan evaporation (IW/CPE) of 1.0, 0.8, 0.6, and 0.4, respectively. Error bars mean standard errors.
Fig. 2 Daily actual crop evapotranspiration (ETc) dynamics under different irrigation treatments (T1, T2, T3, and T4) during the crop growth period of 2019-2021 (a1-a4), 2020-2021 (b1-b4), and 2021-2022 (c1-c4). OPE, open pan evaporation.
Treatment Actual ETc (mm) Crop yield (kg/hm2) Crop water productivity (kg/m3)
T1 371.7±10.4a 952.47±238.07a 0.257±0.069
T2 333.0±5.6a 904.80±216.94b 0.272±0.068
T3 272.7±22.6b 682.13±160.71c 0.253±0.071
T4 218.3±27.1b 468.20±39.29d 0.218±0.048
Table 3 Seasonal actual ETc, crop yield, and crop water productivity under four irrigation treatments
Treatment Water saving Decrease
in actual ETc		 Decease in
yield		 Reduction in cost of water application Additional income from saved water Combined irrigation benefits Monetary loss due to yield reduction Change in net income of farmer
% mm mm % kg/hm2 USD/hm2 USD/hm2 USD/hm2 USD/hm2 USD/hm2
T2 20.0 38.67 10.40 5.0 47.67 12.74 175.86 188.61 79.79 108.82
T3 40.0 99.00 26.64 28.4 270.34 32.62 414.53 447.16 452.49 -5.32
T4 60.0 153.33 41.26 50.8 484.27 50.53 550.35 600.88 810.55 -209.67
Table 4 Costs and benefits under deficit irrigation along with change in farmer's net income from 1-hm2 land
Fig. 3 Relationship between relative deficit in actual ETc (1-(ETa/ETm)) and relative reduction in crop yield (1-(Ya/Ym)) indicating the overall crop yield response factor. ETa is actual ETc under three deficit irrigation treatments (T2, T3, and T4); ETm is the maximum actual ETc under T1; Ya is the actual crop yield obtained under three deficit irrigation treatments (T2, T3, and T4); Ym is the maximum crop yield obtained under T1.
Treatment Actual ETc (mm) Maximum actual ETc (mm) Relative deficit in actual ETc Actual
crop yield (kg/hm2)		 Maximum
crop yield (kg/hm2)		 Relative reduction in
crop yield		 Crop yield response factor
T1 371.67 371.67 - 952.47 952.47 - -
T2 333.00 371.67 0.10 904.80 952.47 0.05 0.48
T3 272.67 371.67 0.27 682.13 952.47 0.28 1.07
T4 218.33 371.67 0.41 468.20 952.47 0.51 1.23
Table 5 Crop yield response factor under different irrigation treatments (averaged over three crop growth periods)
Fig. 4 Scatter diagram between crop yield with actual ETc (a) and amount of applied irrigation water (b) during the three crop growth periods
Fig. 5 Scatter diagram between actual ETc and amount of applied irrigation water during the entire crop growth period
[1]   Ali M H. 2010. Fundamentals of Irrigation and On-farm Water Management: Volume 1. New York: Springer Science,1-560.
[2]   Aliabadi F H, Lebaschi M H, Shiranirad A H, et al. 2008. Effects of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi, different levels of phosphorus and drought stress on water use efficiency, relative water content and proline accumulation rate of coriander (Coriandrum sativum L.). Journal of Medicinal Plants Research, 2(6): 125-131.
[3]   Allen R G, Howell T A, Pruitt W O, et al. 1991. Lysimeters for Evapotranspiration and Environmental Measurements:Proceedings of the International Symposium on Lysimetry. New York: American Society of Civil Engineers, 444.
[4]   Attia A, El-Hendawy S, Al-Suhaibani N, et al. 2021. Evaluating deficit irrigation scheduling strategies to improve yield and water productivity of maize in arid environment using simulation. Agricultural Water Management, 249: 106812, doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2021.106812.
[5]   Bettaieb I, Knioua S, Hamrouni I, et al. 2011. Water-deficit impact on fatty acid and essential oil composition and antioxidant activities of cumin (Cuminum cyminum L.) aerial parts. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 59(1): 328-334.
doi: 10.1021/jf1037618 pmid: 21141890
[6]   Bondok M Y, El-Sharkawy A F. 2014. Management of sprinkler irrigation system for cumin in Old Valley. Egyptian Journal of Agricultural Research, 92(3): 1047-1062.
[7]   Cetin O, Akinci C. 2022. Water and economic productivity using different planting and irrigation methods under dry and wet seasons for wheat. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 20(5): 844-856.
doi: 10.1080/14735903.2021.1999682
[8]   Dar E A, Mehdi M, Ahmad M, et al. 2019. Cumin: the flavour of Indian cuisines-history, cultivation and uses. Chemical Science Review Letters, 8(29): 129-135.
[9]   Doorenbos J, Kassam H A. 1979. Yield Response to Water. Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 33. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
[10]   Droogers P, Bastiaanssen W. 2002. Irrigation performance using hydrological and remote sensing modeling. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, 128(1): 11-18.
[11]   Ghamarnia H, Jafarizade M, Meri E, et al. 2013. Lysimetric determination of Coriandrum sativum L. water requirement and single and dual crop coefficients in a semiarid climate. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, 139(6): 447-455.
[12]   Ghamarnia H, Miri E, Ghobadei M. 2014. Determination of water requirement, single and dual crop coefficients of black cumin (Nigella sativa L.) in a semi-arid climate. Irrigation Science, 32: 67-76.
[13]   Gonçalves J M, Muga A P, Horst M G, et al. 2011. Furrow irrigation design with multicriteria analysis. Biosystems Engineering, 109(4): 266-275.
[14]   Harisha C B, Asangi H, Singh R, et al. 2017. Irrigation management for higher productivity in seed spices-a review. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences, 6(6): 2334-2345.
[15]   Hassan F A S, Ali E F. 2014. Impact of different water regimes based on class-A pan on growth, yield and oil content of Coriandrum sativum L. plant. Journal of the Saudi Society of Agricultural Sciences, 13(2): 155-161.
[16]   Hassan F A S, Ali E F. 2016. Water requirements of drip irrigated cumin and their effects on growth, yield and some physiological as well as biochemical parameters. Research Journal of Pharmaceutical Biological and Chemical Sciences, 7(3): 178-191.
[17]   Jangir R P, Jat B L, Rathore M S. 2007. Comparative efficacy of sprinkler and surface methods of irrigation in cumin (Cuminum cyminum) under arid western Rajasthan conditions. Indian Journal of Agronomy, 52(1): 83-85.
[18]   Jensen M E, Burman R D, Allen R G. 1990. Evapotranspiration and Irrigation Water Requirements. ASCE Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practices No. 70. New York:American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 332.
[19]   Kamkar B, Daneshmand A R, Ghooshchi F, et al. 2011. The effects of irrigation regimes and nitrogen rates on some agronomic traits of canola under a semiarid environment. Agricultural Water Management, 98(6): 1005-1012.
[20]   Khajehpour M R. 1986. Principle of Crop Production. Isfahan: Jehad-e-Daneshgahi of Isfahan University of Technology.
[21]   Kheir A M, Alrajhi A A, Ghoneim A M, et al. 2021. Modeling deficit irrigation-based evapotranspiration optimizes wheat yield and water productivity in arid regions. Agricultural Water Management, 256: 107122, doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2021.107122.
[22]   Kumar M, Kumar P, Bohra P C. 2009. Effect of land use systems on soil properties and relationship between soil organic carbon and available nutrients in typical arid soils of Rajasthan. Annals of Arid Zone, 48(1): 25-28.
[23]   Kumar R, Pareek N K, Rathore V S, et al. 2019. Effect of irrigation and nitrogen application on water productivity and performance of cotton (Gossypium sp.). Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 18(3): 282-287.
[24]   Kumar R, Naresh R, Rani S, et al. 2023. Effect of wind speed on distribution uniformity and uniformity coefficient of sprinkler irrigation system in Western Haryana. Environment and Ecology, 41(4B): 2742-2747.
[25]   Kumar R S, Kundu S, Kundu B, et al. 2021. Emerging typology and framing of climate-resilient agriculture in South Asia. In: LetcherT M. TheImpacts of Climate Change. London: Elsevier, 255-287.
[26]   Kunapara A N, Subbaiah R, Prajapati G V, et al. 2016. Influence of drip irrigation regimes and lateral spacing on cumin productivity. Current World Environment, 11(1): 333-337.
[27]   Lal Mehriya M, Geat N, Sarita, et al. 2020. Response of drip irrigation and fertigation on cumin yield, quality, and water-use efficiency grown under arid climatic conditions. Agronomy, 10(11): 1711, doi: 10.3390/agronomy10111711.
[28]   Li R, Jiang Z T. 2004. Chemical composition of the essential oil of Cuminum cyminum L. from China. Flavour and Fragrance Journal, 19(4): 311-313.
[29]   Liu Z P, Jiao X Y, Zhu C L, et al. 2021. Micro-climatic and crop responses to micro-sprinkler irrigation. Agricultural Water Management, 243: 106498, doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2020.106498.
[30]   Machiwal D, Meena H M, Singh D V, et al. 2024. Trend identification in groundwater levels and exploring linkages with rainfall and irrigated areas in arid region of Rajasthan, India. Journal of Agricultural Engineering (India), 61(3): 1853, doi: 10.52151/jae2024613.1853.
[31]   Malhotra S K, Mehta R S, Meena S S, et al. 2009. Response of sprinkler, drip and surface irrigation in seed spices. Proceeding of IIIrd World Aqua Congress on Enhancing Water Use Efficiency. New Delhi: Aqua Foundation, 16-20.
[32]   Meena H M, Singh R K, Santra P. 2015. Design and development of a load-cell based cost effective mini-lysimeter. Journal of Agricultural Physics, 15(1): 1-6.
[33]   Meena H M, Santra P, Singh R K. 2021a. Quantification of water productivity and economics of irrigation in summer clusterbean (Cyamopsis tetragonoloba) in hot arid region of India. Indian Journal of Soil Conservation, 49(2): 106-111.
[34]   Meena H M, Singh R K, Burman U. 2021b. Determination of actual evapotranspiration for summer clusterbean (Cyamopsis tetragonoloba) using mini-lysimeters in hot arid zone of India. Legume Research, 44(3): 302-307.
[35]   Meena H M, Singh R K, Santra P, et al. 2025. Assessment of evapotranspiration, water productivity and yield response factor for groundnut under deficit irrigation using lysimeter in a hot arid ecosystem. Journal of Agricultural Engineering (India), 62(1): 167-177.
[36]   Meena M D, Vishal M K, Khan M A. 2021c. Market arrivals and prices behavior of cumin in India. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences, 10(1): 528-536.
[37]   Mehta R S, Malhotra S K, Meena S S. 2014. Growth and yield of cumin as influenced by irrigation and nutrient levels with varying crop geometry. Indian Journal of Horticulture, 71(3): 433-436.
[38]   Miller Jr R G. 1997. Beyond ANOVA:Basics of Applied Statistics. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRC, 336.
[39]   Mohamed A E, Hamed A M N, Ali A A M, et al. 2019. Effect of weather conditions, operating pressure and riser height on the performance of sprinkler irrigation system. IOSR Journal of Agriculture and Veterinary Science, 12(1): 1-9.
[40]   Olle M, Bender I. 2010. The content of oils in umbelliferous crops and its formation. Agronomy Research, 8(3): 687-696.
[41]   Ozer H, Coban F, Sahin U, et al. 2020. Response of black cumin (Nigella sativa L.) to deficit irrigation in a semi-arid region: Growth, yield, quality, and water productivity. Industrial Crops and Products, 144: 112048, doi: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2019.112048.
[42]   Pereira L S, Cordery I, Iacovides I. 2012. Improved indicators of water use performance and productivity for sustainable water conservation and saving. Agricultural Water Management, 108: 39-51.
[43]   Rao S S, Singh Y V, Regar P L, et al. 2010. Effect of micro irrigation on water productivity of cumin (Cuminum cyminum) at varying fertility levels. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 80(6): 507-511.
[44]   Rathore V S, Nathawat N S, Bhardwaj S, et al. 2021. Optimization of deficit irrigation and nitrogen fertilizer management for peanut production in an arid region. Scientific Reports, 11(1): 5456, doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-82968-w.
[45]   Ravindran P N, Babu N K, Shiva K N, et al. 2006. Advances in Spices Research: History and Achievements of Spices Research in India since Independence. Jodhpur: Agrobios, 994.
[46]   Saeedinia M, Tarnian F, Hosseinian S H, et al. 2018. Estimation of the evapotranspiration and crop coefficient of chamomile (Matricaria chamomilla L.) and cumin (Cuminum cyminum L.) in Khorram Abad region. Water and Irrigation Management, 8(1): 165-175.
[47]   Santra P, Meena H M, Yadav O P. 2021. Spatial and temporal variation of photosynthetic photon flux density within agrivoltaic system in hot arid region of India. Biosystems Engineering, 209: 74-93.
[48]   Saranya R, Kumari N, Gurjar D, et al. 2025. Navigating Alternaria blight in cumin over the decades: A critical review for arid and semi-arid regions of India. Annals of Arid Zone, 64(1): 57-67.
[49]   Sharma S S, Jajoria D K, Sharma R P, et al. 2019. Cumin (Cuminum cyminum L.) cultivation in Rajasthan as an opportunity-A soil and climatic suitability evaluation. Advances in Bioresearch, 10(5): 5-11.
[50]   Singh R, Lal G, Maheria S P, et al. 2015. Effect of irrigation techniques and planting methods on yield and water productivity of cumin (Cuminum cyminum L.). International Journal of Seed Spices, 5(1): 92-94.
[1] Durdiev KHAYDAR, CHEN Xi, HUANG Yue, Makhmudov ILKHOM, LIU Tie, Ochege FRIDAY, Abdullaev FARKHOD, Gafforov KHUSEN, Omarakunova GULKAIYR. Investigation of crop evapotranspiration and irrigation water requirement in the lower Amu Darya River Basin, Central Asia[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2021, 13(1): 23-39.
[2] ChengYi ZHAO, Yu SHENG, Yilihm·Yimam. Quantifying the impacts of soil water stress on the winter wheat growth in an arid region, Xinjiang[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2009, 1(1): 34-42.