No abstract

Estimation of Evapotranspiration is important for determining the agro-climatic potential of a particular region, water requirement of field crops, irrigation scheduling and suitability of crops or varieties, which can be grown successfully with the best economic returns and therefore numerous models have been developed for determining evapotranspiration. The performance evaluation of commonly used reference evapotranspiration (ET0) estimation methods like FAO 56 Penman-Monteith, Samani and Hargreaves, Makkink, Blaney Criddle, Jensen-Haise, Priestly-Taylor, FAO 24 radiation and Modified Penman Monteith method based on their accuracy of estimation has been undertaken in this study. The inter-relationship between FAO-56 Penman-Monteith method and other reference evapotranspiration (ET0) estimation method is also determined in this study. The results showed that Blaney Criddle method, Modified Penman method, Jensen-Haise method and Priestly-Taylor method are the alternative methods to Penman-Monteith method for better estimate of ET0 for the Junagadh city of Gujarat, India.

No abstract

Efforts were made to develop a hand tool for harvesting of lime fruits. Initially, survey was done to collect the data regarding traditional kagzilime fruit harvesting device adopted by the farmers. The problems faced with the traditional tool for lime fruit harvesting are alleviated in the JAU–Lime harvester by providing catching unit, fruit collecting mouth and conveyance pipe which reduces losses in terms of immature lime fall out and spoilage. It was compared with the traditional one in terms of number of fruits harvested per unit time, spoilage and immature fruit losses during harvesting. The average fruit harvesting capacity was recorded as 6.85 kg hr-1 and 7.83 kg hr-1 for JAU–Lime harvester and traditional harvester, respectively. The collected fruits were kept in same environment for 11 days to find the number of fruits spoiled. It was observed that up to 8th day after harvesting, no spoilage was recorded in the lime harvested by JAU-Lime harvester. It was also recorded that after 11 days nearly 36.67% of limes were spoiled from the lots which were harvested by the traditional harvester. Average fruit spoilage was observed to be 15.45 and 2.12% in traditional harvester and JAU–Lime harvester, respectively. It was also observed that due to pulling effect, an average 3.84% immature fruits fall on the ground surface, while harvesting by traditional harvester compared to 1.37% in case of JAU–Lime harvester. 1