Response of Hot Pepper (Capsicum Annuum L.) to Deficit Irrigation in Bennatsemay Woreda, Southern Ethiopia

Response of Hot Pepper (Capsicum Annuum L.) to Deficit Irrigation in Bennatsemay Woreda, Southern Ethiopia

• 1.
  Response of HotPepper (Capsicum Annuum L.) to Deficit Irrigation in Bennatsemay Woreda, Southern Ethiopia Response of Hot Pepper (Capsicum Annuum L.) to Deficit Irrigation in Bennatsemay Woreda, Southern Ethiopia Medihin Madebo Mada and Tadesse Mugoro Lebiso South Agricultural Research Institute (SARI), Jinka Agricultural Research Center, Irrigation and Drainage Research Program This study was conducted at Enchete kebele in Benna-Tsemay Woreda, South Omo Zone to evaluate the response of hot pepper to deficit irrigation on yield and water productivity under furrow irrigation system. The experiment comprised four treatments (100 % of ETc, 85% of ETc, 70 % of ETc and 50% of ETc), respectively. The experiment was laid out in RCBD and replicated four times. The two years combined yield results indicated that, the maximum total yield (20.38 t/ha) was obtained from 100% ETc while minimum yield (12.92 t/ha) was obtained from 50% of ETc deficit irrigation level. The highest WUE 5.22 kg/ha mm-1 was obtained from 50% of ETc. Treatment of 100% ETc irrigation application had highest benefit cost ratio (4.5) than all others treatments. Applying 50% of ETc reduce the yield by 37% when compared to 100 % ETc. Accordingly, to achieve maximum hot pepper yield in areas where water is not scarce, applying 100% ETc irrigation water application level throughout whole growing season under furrow irrigation system is recommended. But, in the study area water scarcity is the major limiting factor for crop production. So, it is possible to get better yield and water productivity of hot pepper when we apply 85% ETc irrigation water throughout growing season under furrow irrigation system. Key Words: Hot Pepper, Deficit Irrigation, Water productivity, Water use efficiency BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION In Ethiopia, irrigated agriculture is becoming main concern and strongly recognized to ensure the food security which is taken as a means to increase food production and self- sufficiency of the rapidly increasing population of the country. Accordingly, Ethiopia has planned to irrigate over 5 million hectares of the land with existing water resources (Awulachew et al., 2010). This expansion of irrigated agriculture to feed the ever-increasing population on one hand and the increasing competition for water due to the development of other water use sectors on the other hand necessitated the improvement of water use efficiencies in irrigated agriculture to ensure sustained production and conservation of this limited resource (Mekonen, 2011). Improving water use efficiency is an important strategy for addressing future water scarcity problem particularly in arid and semi-arid regions (Mdemu et al. 2008). Thus, water productivity is an indicator of agricultural productivity in relation to the crop’s consumptive use of water (WDR, 2003). As argued by the Geerts and Raes (2009), and FAO (2010), increasing crop water productivity can be an important pathway for poverty reduction. This would enable growing more food and hence feeding the ever increasing population of Ethiopia or gaining more benefits with less water thus enhancing the household income. Moreover, more water will be available for other natural and human uses. In this context, deficit irrigation provides a means of reducing water consumption while minimizing adverse effects on yield (Mermoud et al., 2005). Water scarcity is the most severe constraint for the development of agriculture in arid and semi-arid areas of the Ethiopia. *Corresponding Author: Medihin Madebo Mada, South Agricultural Research Institute (SARI), Jinka Agricultural Research Center, Irrigation and Drainage Research Program *Author Email: [email protected] Co-Author Email: [email protected] Research Article Vol. 8(2), pp. 305-311, April, 2021. © www.premierpublishers.org. ISSN: 2326-3997 World Research Journal of Agricultural Sciences
• 2.
  Response of HotPepper (Capsicum Annuum L.) to Deficit Irrigation in Bennatsemay Woreda, Southern Ethiopia Medihin and Tadesse 306 Benna-Tsemay Woreda is one district of South Omo Zone in Southern Region of Ethiopia where due to low and erratic rainfall; chronic drought and water scarcity is observed recurrently and upsetting agricultural productivity. The economy of the district is highly dependent on agriculture (livestock and crop production), which is in turn dependent on the availability of erratic rainfall and scarce water resources. As result, there was competition for water use between inhabitants for livestock as well as crop production. On the other hand, lack of improved small scale irrigation technologies, less irrigation water management practices and inadequate research supports are a major problem for efficient irrigation water use and agricultural production improvement in the area (Mugoro et al., 2020). The scarce water resources availability, growing competitions for water use and inefficient on-farm irrigation management practices during crop production in the area will reduce water availability for irrigated agriculture, then endangering food supplies and aggravating rural poverty. Thus, achieving greater water use efficiency will be a primary challenge in the near future in the study area. This calls the use of suitable techniques and practices that deliver a more accurate supply of water to crops. Deficit irrigation is one of the options and practices currently preferred in many parts of the world to maximize productivity per unit of water used in dry areas. Also, it is believed to improve water productivity without causing severe yield reductions; which the crop is exposed to a certain level of water stress either during a particular period or throughout the whole growing season. However, this option was not practically and scientifically experienced in the study area. Hence, practically investigating the effect of deficit irrigation on yield and water productivity of irrigated hot pepper was found to be important to utilize the limited water resource of the area without severely affecting the crop yield. Therefore, the objective of this study was to identify the level of deficit irrigation which allows achieving optimum yield and water use efficiency on hot pepper. MATERIALS AND METHODS Description of Study Area The experimental site is situated in the eastern part of Benna-Tsemay Woreda at Enchete kebele a distance of 82 km away from Jinka town, capital of South Omo Zone, Southern Ethiopia. Geographically, the experimental site is located at 5˚18’0’’ to 5˚31’33’’ N latitude and 36˚52’30’’ to 37˚5’0’’ E longitude, and at an altitude of 550 m above sea level. Agro-ecology of study area was arid and semi-arid with mean monthly maximum and minimum temperature of 38°c and 18°c, respectively and average rainfall pattern of 200 -578 mm. Figure 2.1: Study Area Map Experimental Design The experiment was laid out in randomized complete block design and four level treatments with four replications. The treatment was conducted under furrow irrigation method. The treatments were 100% ETc (full level), 85% of ETc, 70% of ETc and 50 % of ETc. The experimental field was divided into 16 plots and each plot size was 4m by 5m dimension. Space between rows and plants were 70 cm and 30 cm respectively.
• 3.
  Response of HotPepper (Capsicum Annuum L.) to Deficit Irrigation in Bennatsemay Woreda, Southern Ethiopia World Res. J. Agric. Sci. 307 Crop Data Maximum effective root zone depth (Rz) of hot pepper ranges between 0.5 -1m and has allowable soil water depletion fraction (P) of 0.25 (Andreas et al., 2002). Hot Pepper average Kc value was obtained from FAO irrigation and drainage paper (Allen et al., 1998). Yield data like marketable yield, unmarketable yield, total yield and other agronomic parameters were measured in the field. Crop Water Determination In this experiment, reference crop evapotranspiration (ETo) on daily basis was estimated by using FAO CropWAT software version 8.0 (Allen et al., 1998). The input data used to compute the ETo, was altitude, latitude, longitude and 20-years (1997-2016) climatic data of Weyito experimental site (monthly maximum and minimum temperature, relative humidity, wind speed, sunshine hours and rainfall) which was collected from National Meteorological Agency Hawassa Branch Directorate. Then, ETc = ETo x Kc …………………..2.1 Where: ETc = crop evapotranspiration, Kc = crop coefficient, and ETo = reference evapotranspiration. Irrigation Water Requirements Effective rainfall (Pe) which is part of the rainfall that entered into the soil and made available for crop production in mm. The effective rainfall can be calculated from the expression (Brouwer and Heibloem, 1986): Pe = 0.8 P – 25 if P > 75 mm/month.……2.2 Or Pe = 0.6 P - 10 if p < 75 mm/month…...…2.3 Irrigation Schedule The amount of water that can be extracted by plant roots is held in the soil in an ‘available’ form. The actual volume of water that can be obtained from the soil profile depends on the depth of the root system. All of the water found in the root zone may not be actually taken up by roots (Allen et al., 1998). Hence, the total available water (TAW), stored in a unit volume of soil, is approximated by taking the difference between the water content at field capacity (FC) and at permanent wilting point (PWP). Therefore, the total available water was expressed by (Jaiswal, 2003): TAW = (FC – PWP)* BD*Dz. …2.4 100 Where, TAW is total available water in mm/m, FC is field capacity and PWP is permanent welting point in percent (%) on weight basis, BD is the bulk density of the soil in gm/cm3 and Dz is the maximum effective root zone depth of hot pepper in mm. As revealed by FAO (1996), hot pepper is sensitive to water deficit and thus, for high yield, soil water depletion should not exceed 25% of the total available water (that is p = 0.25). Also, for maximum crop production, the irrigation schedule was fixed based on readily available soil water (RAW). The RAW is the amount of water that crops can extract from the root zone without experiencing any water stress. Therefore, RAW was computed from the expression (Allen et al., 1998): RAW = p * TAW …………………. 2.5 Where, RAW is readily available soil water in (mm), p is in fraction for allowable or permissible soil moisture depletion for no stress (for hot pepper P = 0.25) and TAW is total available water in (mm). Considering the daily ETc, TAW, Dz and p, the irrigation interval was computed from the expression (FAO, 2009): Interval (days) = RAW ETc ….................2.6 Where, RAW in mm and ETc in mm/day. Moreover, depth of irrigation (dnet) is amount of irrigation water that is to be applied at one irrigation and the readily available portion of the soil moisture (Demba, 2014). Accordingly; readily available soil water is the same as the net irrigation water application depth (dnet). Irrigation Application Efficiency and Gross Irrigation Application Depth Furrow irrigation could reach a field application efficiency of 65% when it is properly designed, constructed and managed. The average varies from 50% to70%. However, the more common figure is 60% (FAO, 2002). Moreover, the application efficiency of a short, end diked furrow is taken as 60% (Brouwer and Prins, 1989). Hence, for this particular experiment, irrigation efficiency was taken as 60% which is common for surface irrigation method in furrow irrigation. Based on net irrigation depth and irrigation application efficiency, the gross irrigation water requirement was calculated by the following formula (Brouwer and Prins, 1989): dg = dnet Ea …...…………………2.7 Where, dg is the gross irrigation depth in mm and Ea is the field irrigation application efficiency (60%). This calculated gross irrigation water was finally applied to experimental plots based on the treatment of the experiment. Irrigation Application Time The amount of irrigation water to be applied at each irrigation application was measured using 3-inch Parshall flume. The time required to deliver the desired depth of water into each plot was calculated using the equation (Kandiah, 1981):
• 4.
  Response of HotPepper (Capsicum Annuum L.) to Deficit Irrigation in Bennatsemay Woreda, Southern Ethiopia Medihin and Tadesse 308 t = dg×A 6×Q ................................................2.8 Where: dg = gross depth of water applied (cm), t = application time (min), A = Area of experimental plot (m2) and Q = flow rate (discharge) (l/s) The irrigation depth was converted to volume of water by multiplying it with area of the plot (Valipour, 2012). V = A* dg .…………...............................2.9 Where: V = Volume of water in (m3) A = Area of plot (m2) dg = Gross irrigation water applied (m) Water Use Efficiency The water use efficiency was calculated by dividing harvested yield in kg per unit volume of water used in m3. The crop water use efficiency is the yield harvested in kg per ha-mm of total water used. WUE = Y( kg ha ) ETc(mm) …………………….2.10 Where: WUE = crop water use efficiency (kg/ha-mm), Y = bulb yield in kg ha-1 and ETc = Crop evapotranspiration (mm) Data Collection Amount of applied water per each irrigation event was measured using calibrated Parshall flume. During harvesting stand count, weight of marketable fresh fruit yield, fruit number of marketable yield, unmarketable fruit weight and unmarketable fruit number were measured from the net harvested area of each plot. Statistical Analysis The collected data were analyzed using Statistical Agricultural Software (SAS 9.0) and least significance difference (LSD) was employed to see a mean difference between treatments and the data collected was statistically analyzed following the standard procedures applicable for RCBD with single factor. The treatment means that were different at 5% levels of significance were separated using LSD test. Partial Budget Analysis Grain yield data were economically evaluated using partial and marginal analysis for the feasibility of watering, labor and fertilizer application. In order to determine the profitability of hot pepper marketable yield produced from the different deficit irrigation levels, the following parameters were estimated: GM = TR – TVC……………………… 2.11 Where: GM = Gross margin (ETB/ha) TR = Total revenue (ETB/ha) TVC = Total variable cost (ETB/ha) Return/Birr invested = GM/Total fixed cost …….2.12 NR = GM – TFC Where: NR = Net return (ETB/ha) TFC = Total fixed cost (ETB/ha) TCP = TVC + TFC…………………….…2.13 Benefit-Cost ratio = NR/TFC……………2.14 RESULT AND DISCUSSION Soil Characterization of Experimental Site The result of laboratory soil analyses and field tests on physical and chemical characteristic, like, soil texture, BD, FC, PWP, soil pH, electrical conductivity (EC), organic carbon (OC) content, organic matter (OM) content and soil infiltration rate were discussed below. Soil Physical Properties The result of the soil textural analysis from the experimental site was presented in Table 3. The texture (40.8% sand, 32% silt, 27.2% clay), (38% sand, 38% silt, 24% clay), (45.6% sand, 30.8% silt, 23.6% clay) at a depth of 0 – 20 cm, 20 – 40 cm, 40 – 60 cm, respectively. Thus, according to USDA soil textural classification system, the soil of the experimental field could be classified as loam at all depths. Table 1: Particle size distribution of the experimental site Depth (cm) Particle size distribution (%) Textural Class Sand Clay Silt 0 – 20 40.8 27.2 32.0 Loam 20 – 40 38.0 24.0 38.0 Loam 40 – 60 45.6 23.6 30.8 Loam Average 41.5 24.9 33.6 Loam
• 5.
  Response of HotPepper (Capsicum Annuum L.) to Deficit Irrigation in Bennatsemay Woreda, Southern Ethiopia World Res. J. Agric. Sci. 309 Texture may affect the ease with which soil can be worked, the amount of water and air it holds and the rate at which water can enter and move through the soil. However, loam soils are best suited for crop production because sand, silt and clay together provide desirable characteristics (NRMD, 2011). The bulk density (BD), total available water (TAW), water content at field capacity (FC) and permanent wilting point (PWP) values were presented in Table 2. Table 2. Bulk densities, field capacity, permanent welting point and TAW of the soil Depth (cm) BD (g/cm3) FC (%) PWP (%) TAW (mm/depth) TAW (mm/m) 0 – 20 1.26 29.31 12.78 41.66 208.28 20 – 40 1.28 28.13 12.46 40.11 200.55 40 – 60 1.31 26.04 10.72 40.15 200.74 Average 1.28 27.83 11.98 40.64 203.18 The average soil bulk density is (1.28 g/cm3) and which was in suitable range for crop growth (NRMD, 2011). The average total available water (TAW) of experimental site was found to be 203.2 mm/m which was nearly upper range of loam soil (140 to 220 mm/m) (Majumdar, 2000). The average soil infiltration rate and the cumulative intake curves based on the test result of the soil were presented. The basic infiltration rate of the soil was about 27.3 mm/hr. This rate of infiltration is the characteristic of loam soils (Brouwer and Heibloem, 1986). Soil Chemical Properties As indicated in Table 3, the average pH value of the experimental site through the analyzed depth was found to be nearly alkaline, with average value of 7.83. The soil had an average electrical conductivity of 0.182 dS/m through 60 cm profile which is below the threshold value for yield reduction, i.e. 1.2 dS/m (Smith et al., 2011).The OM content and OC content of the soil had average values of 2.67% and 1.55%, respectively which indicates high soil fertility level (OC > 1%) and suitable for vegetable production (Basu, 2011). Table 3: Soil chemical properties of the experimental site Depth (cm) pH ECe (dS/m) OC (%) OM (%) 0 – 20 7.69 0.210 1.43 2.46 20 – 40 7.93 0.173 1.65 2.85 40 – 60 7.87 0.178 1.58 2.72 Average 7.83 0.182 1.55 2.67 Effect of Deficit Irrigation on Hot Pepper The combined result in (Table 2) shows that plant height was significantly affected by deficit irrigation level in cropping seasons. The highest plant height (85.75cm) was obtained in full irrigation level, while the lowest (72.43cm) was obtained within 50% deficit level. From these results it is clearly seen that as the deficit irrigation level decreased, the plant height also decreased. This result is in agreement with the findings of Aklilu (2009) and Takele (2009) who reported that the plant height of pepper decreased with decreased irrigation level. The result revealed that the effects of deficit irrigation level resulted significant variation in marketable fresh fruit yield. Higher marketable fresh fruit yield (18.14 t/ha) was obtained from full irrigation level where as the lowest marketable fruit yield (11.72 t/ha) was obtained from 50% of ETc. The result of unmarketable fresh fruit yields was significantly affected by deficit irrigation level whereas between 70% of ETc and 50% of ETc there was no significant difference. Total fresh fruit yield of hot pepper significantly affected by deficit irrigation levels. Higher total fresh fruit yield (20.38 t/ha) was obtained from 100% ETc where as the lowest total fresh fruit yield (12.92 t/ha) was obtained from 50% ETc. Table 4: The combined ANOVAs table of effects of deficit irrigation levels on fresh fruit yield and other yield parameters of hot pepper Treatment Plant Height (cm) Marketable yield (t/ha) Unmarketable yield (t/ha) Total yield (t/ha) 100% ETc 85.75a 18.14a 2.24a 20.38a 85% of ETc 80.00ab 16.64b 1.84b 18.49b 70% of ETc 76.55bc 14.28c 1.43c 15.71c 50% of ETc 72.43c 11.72d 1.20c 12.92d
• 6.
  Response of HotPepper (Capsicum Annuum L.) to Deficit Irrigation in Bennatsemay Woreda, Southern Ethiopia CV (%) 8.50 9.02 17.35 7.15 LSD (0.05) 6.86 1.40 0.31 1.24 *Means with the same letter (s) are not significantly different at P ≤ 0.05; LSD = least significant difference; CV = Coefficient of variation. Amount of Applied Water, Water Use Efficiency and Water Saved The combined result (Table 5) shows that the highest WUE was obtained in 50% of ETc while the lowest WUE was obtained in control 100% ETc. The results of this finding were in agreement with Saleh, (2010) and Adel et al., (2014) who reported that WUE values decreased with increasing irrigation water. Accordingly, when the deficit level increases the water productivity increases and, the yield and yield components decreases. Table 5: Applied water, water use efficiency, water saved and percent yield reduction Treatment Total yield (t/ha) AW (mm) WUE (kg/ha/mm) Yield reduction (%) Water saved (%) 100%ETc 20.38 499.2 40.8 0 0 85% of ETc 18.49 424.6 43.5 10 15 70% of ETc 15.71 349.7 44.9 23 30 50% of ETc 12.92 247.3 52.2 37 50 AW = Applied water and WUE = Crop water use efficiency Economic Analysis The cost benefit analysis depicted that the highest total cost (24662 ETB/ha) and the lowest (24351 ETB/ha) was incurred when 100% ETc and 50% ETc water applied respectively. The highest gross margin (117,712.9 ETB/ha) and the least (69,798.93 ETB/ha) was obtained from the 100% ETc and 50% water stress respectively. Furthermore the highest net return (111,462.9 ETB/ha) was recorded by full level, while the least net return (63,548.93 ETB/ha) was obtained by 50% water deficit. The highest of benefit -cost ratio 4.5 was recorded by 100% ETc of water application. Table 6: Partial budget analysis of hot pepper fresh marketable yield in response to deficit irrigation Treatments TY Qt/ha TR (ETB/ha) TVC (ETB/ha) TFC (ETB/ha) TCP (ETB/ha) GM (ETB/ha) Return (ETB) NR (ETB/ha) BC ratio 100%ETc 181.5 136125 18412 6250 24662 117713 18.8 111463 4.5 85% ETc 166.5 124875 18318 6250 24569 106556 17 100306 4.08 70% ETc 142.8 107100 18225 6250 24475 88875 14.2 82624.6 3.37 50% ETc 117.2 87900 18101 6250 24351 69799 11.16 63549 2.61 *TR= total revenue (ETB/ha), TVC = Total variable cost (ETB/ha), TFC = Total fixed cost (ETB/ha), TCP = Total cost of production (ETB/ha), GM = Gross margin (ETB/ha), NR = Net return (ETB/ha) and BCR = Benefit cost ratio, ETB = Ethiopian birr and ha = hectare CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION From the study it was observed that the highest yield was obtained from the treatment grown with no-stress (100% ETc) while the lowest was obtained from half of full irrigation level (50% of ETc). The severe reduction in total yield of 50% ETc was due to the low soil moisture through growth stage. The indicated that, the amount of saved water sharply increased by increasing deficit irrigation levels. That is producing about 63% of total fresh fruit yield led to save 50% of irrigation water, producing about 77% of the total fresh fruit yield saved about 30% of irrigation water, while producing about 90% of total fresh fruit yield led to save 15% of irrigation water. In conclusion, deficit irrigation could be a feasible irrigation technique for hot pepper production where the benefit from saving large amounts of water. Thus, the result indicates that the appropriate and economically viable way of applying 100% ETc in areas were no water stress required to increased production and productivity of hot pepper. As an option applying 85% ETc of irrigation in water stress areas was optimum means to increase production and productivity of hot pepper without affecting yield. REFERENCES Adel F. Ahmed, Hongjun Yu, Xueyong Yang, and Weijie Jiang, 2014. Deficit Irrigation Affects Growth, Yield, Vitamin C Content, and Irrigation Water Use Efficiency of Hot Pepper Grown in Soilless Culture. HORTSCIENCE 49(6):722–728. 2014. Aklilu, M. 2009. Effects of mulching and depth of irrigation application on water use efficiency and productivity of pepper under gravity drip irrigation, MSc. Thesis, Department of Irrigation Engineering, Haramaya University, Ethiopia. Allen, R., Pereira, L.A., Raes, D. and Smith, M. 1998. Crop evapotranspitation. Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 56. FAO, Rome.
• 7.
  Response of HotPepper (Capsicum Annuum L.) to Deficit Irrigation in Bennatsemay Woreda, Southern Ethiopia World Res. J. Agric. Sci. 311 Andreas, P. and F. Karen., 2002.Crop Water Requirements and Irrigation Scheduling.Irrigation Manual Module 4.Harare.P.86. Awulachew, Selesh Bekele; Teklu Erkossa and Regassa Namara. 2010. Irrigation potentialin Ethiopia, constraints and opportunities for enhancing the system. IWMI, Colombo, Sri Lanka. Basu, P. K. 2011. Methods Manual Soil Testing in India: Department of Agriculture and Cooperation Ministry of Agriculture Government of India New Delhi January, 2011. Brouwer, C. and K. Prins. 1989. Irrigation Water Management: Irrigation Scheduling. Training manual no. 4. FAO. Rome, Italy. Brouwer, C. and M. Heibloem. 1986. Irrigation Water Management: Irrigation Water Needs Training manual no. 3. FAO. Rome, Italy. David, K. Rop. Emmanuel, C. Kipkorir & John K. Taragon. 2016. Effects of Deficit Irrigation on Yield and Quality of Onion Crop. Journal of Agricultural Science; Vol. 8, No. 3; 2016. Demba Diakhate. 2014. Net Irrigation Requirements for Maize in Isra-Nioro, Province of Kaolack (Senegal) Agronomist engineer - PhD Candidate in Applied mechanization to the UEL –Brasil. Senegalese Institute of Agricultural Research (ISRA), Bambey in National Center of Agricultural Research. FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization). 2002. Deficit irrigation practices. Water report No.22. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations Rome, Italy. FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization). 2009. CropWat for windows version 8.0. FAO, Rome, Italy. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 2010. State of the World's Forests. FAO, Rome, Italy. Geerts, S. and Raes, D. 2009. Deficit irrigation as an on- farm strategy to maximize crop water productivity in dry areas: Agricultural water management, v. 96, no. 9, p.1275-1284. Jaiswal, P. C. 2003. Soil, plant and water analysis. Kalyani puplishers. New Delhi, India. Kandiah, A. 1981. A guide for measurement of irrigation water using Parshall flumes and siphons. Technical Bulletin no.1 Irrigation Agronomy Section Melka Werer Research Station Institute of Agricultural Research, FAO irrigation Specialist. Addis Ababa. Majumdar, D. K. 2000. Irrigation Water Management: Module 3 Irrigation Engineering Principles Version 2 CE IIT, Kharagpur by Prentice Hall of India. Mdemu, M.V. C. Rodgersa, P.L.G. Vleka and J.J. Borgadi. 2008. Water productivity (WP) in reservoir irrigated irrigation system in the upper east region (UER) of Ghana. Mekonen Ayana. 2011. Deficit irrigation practices as alternative means of improving water use efficiencies in irrigated agriculture: Case study of maize crop at Arba Minch, Ethiopia. African J. of Agri. Res. 6(2): 226-235. Mermoud, A. T.D. Tamini and H. Yacouba. 2005. Impacts of different irrigation schedules on the water balance components of an onion crop in a semi-arid zone. Agricultural Water Management 77(1–3): 282–293. Mugoro T, Assefa S, Getahun A (2020). Molecular Markers: Effect of Deficit Irrigation on Yield and Water Productivity of Onion (Allium cepa l.) under Conventional Furrow Irrigation System, in Bennatsemay Woreda, Southern Ethiopia. Journal of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, 1(1): 002- 013. NRMD (Natural Resources Management Directorate). 2011. Natural Resource Sector and the Ministry of Agriculture, Addis Ababab, Ethiopia. By Deutsche Gesells chaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH on behalf of the German Government. Saleh M. Ismail, 2010. Influence of Deficit Irrigation on Water Use Efficiency and Bird Pepper Production (Capsicum annuum L.) JKAU: Met., Env. & Arid Land Agric. Sci., Vol. 21, No. 2, pp: 29-43 (2010 A.D./1431 A.H.) DOI: 10.4197/Met. 21-2.3 Smith, R., A. Biscaro, M. Cahn, O. Daugovish, E. Natwick, J. Nunez, E. Takele, and T. Turini. 2011. Fresh- market bulb onion production in california. Publication 7242. University of California, Agricultural and Natural Resource Center. California. Takele Gadissa. 2009. Effect of drip irrigation levels and planting methods on yield and water use efficiency of pepper in Bako, Western Oromia, MSc. Thesis, Department of Irrigation Engineering, Haramaya University, Ethiopia. Accepted 7 October 2020 Citation: Medihin MM and Tadesse ML (2021). Response of Hot Pepper (Capsicum Annuum L.) to Deficit Irrigation in Bennatsemay Woreda, Southern Ethiopia. World Research Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 8(2): 305-311. Copyright: © 2021. Medihin and Tadesse. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are cited.