Optimal agricultural water allocation for enhanced productivity of hot pepper (Capsicum annum L) and economic gain: an experimental study from Southern Ethiopia

Figures & data

Figure 1. Map of the study site.

Figure 2. Average daily climatic element over experimentation period.

Table 1. Soil physical and chemical properties of the study area.

S. no	Parameters	Value (amount)
1	Texture	Clay
3	Field capacity (%)	42%
4	Permanent wilting point (%)	29.8%
5	Available water (cm/m)	12

Table 2. Irrigation treatments impact on yield and related components of hot pepper at A/Minch Zuria in 2019, dry cropping season.

Treatment	PH (cm)	BN (no)	PPP	Yld
140% MAD	56.01c	16.5	11.58b	11.25b
120% MAD	53.63c	16.25	16.57a	12.73a
100% MAD	58.13bc	18	15.32a	13.05a
80% MAD	62.45ab	17.15	11.69b	11.93ab
60% MAD	64.85a	16.33	11.62b	8.85c
Mean	59.01	16.85	13.4	11.56
CV	6.77	7.26	15.12	6.81
LSD	6.02	NS	2.76	1.19

Note: PH: plant height in cm; BN: bunch number (number); PPP: pods per plan in cm; Yld: yield in ton/hectare.

Table 3. Irrigation treatment impact on yield and related components of hot pepper at A/Minch Zuria in 2021, dry cropping season.

Treatment	PH	BN	PPP	Yld
140% MAD	63.04	16.5b	11.1b	11.15b
120% MAD	62.5	17.7ab	14.75a	12.97a
100% MAD	63.38	19a	16.57a	13.29a
80% MAD	61.7	17.65ab	9.75b	12.68ab
60% MAD	60.85	16.5b	8.6b	10.32c
Mean	62.29	17.48	12.2	12.08
CV	4.59	5.73	6.32	3.59
LSD (0.05)	NS	1.51	9.68	0.64

Note: PH: plant height in cm; BN: bunch number (number); PPP: pods per plan in cm; Yld: yield in ton/hectare.

Table 4. Effects on hot pepper water productivity (WP) at Chano Mile in 2019.

Treatment	Yld	WP
140% MAD	11.25	20.77b
120% MAD	12.7	24.76a
100% MAD	13.05	23.63a
80% MAD	11.93	21.23ab
60% MAD	8.85	19.26b
CV	11.56	18.3
LSD	6.81	5.56

Note: Yld: yield (quantal/ha); WP: water productivity (kg/ha-mm).

Table 5. Hot pepper water productivity (WP) at Chano Mile in 2021.

Treatment	Yld	WP
140% MAD	11.15b	20.96ab
120% MAD	12.97	24.72a
100% MAD	13.29	24.32a
80% MAD	12.68	22.23ab
60% MAD	10.32	16.49b
CV	12.08	17.2
LSD	3.59	8.4

Note: Yld: yield (t/ha) WP: water productivity (kg/ha-mm); CV: coefficient of variance; LSD: least square difference.

Figure 3. (a) Gross and net irrigation requirement through growth irrigation event. (b) Net irrigation requirement across growth season of hot pepper. (c) Gross irrigation requirement.

Figure 4. Soil moisture depletion level status through growth season of 80, 60, 100%, 140 and 120 MAD, respectively.

Table 6. Irrigation demand and irrigation event per each treatment.

Treatment	Seasonal irrigation demand
	Net irrigation requirement (mm/season)	Gross irrigation requirement (mm/season)	Irrigation event
140 % MAD	145	263.64	5
120% MAD	190	3461.1	7
100% MAD	390	428.6	10
80% MAD	390	431.2	15
60% MAD	390	537.6	24

Table 7. Economic analysis of the treatments.

Treatments	Average yield (kg/ha)	Total cost (US$/ha)	Total benefit (US$/ha)	Net benefit (US$/ha)	Benefit-cost ratio
120% MAD	11,250	1029.3	12,825.2	11,795.96	12.5
100% MAD	12,700	998.7	12,147	11,148.05091	12.2
140 % MAD	12,050	954.8	11,318	10,363.14049	11.9
80% MAD	11,930	1039.7	11,975	10,935.22909	11.5
60% MAD	8850	1115.31	8539.34	7424.087273	7.7

Note: 1 kg of hot pepper =1US$.

Data availability statement

The data of this experimental work will be provided up on reasonable request for research purposes. The data will be shared via email address of corresponding author.