Purpose: to study the effect of soil moisture regime on sweet potato yield in Rostov region. An overview of sweet potato (Ipomea batatas Lam.) cultivation in the world and prospects for its cultivation in Russia is provided.
Materials and methods. Sweet potato variety Sukhumsky was planted according to the scheme with a row spacing of 1.3 m and a distance in a row of 0.3 m, the planting rate of seedlings was about 26 thousand plants per 1 ha. Planting in the field was carried out when the soil temperature at a depth of 0.1 m reached 15–16 °C from 16th to 18th May, 2024, in ridges covered with polyethylene film with cuts. The film completely covered the row spacings. The soil moistening regime was studied with maintaining the pre-irrigation moisture threshold in the control variant 1 (1.0 m) of 80 % of the lowest moisture capacity in the 0.6 m layer, in variant 2 the irrigation rate was reduced to 0.8 m, in variant 3 – to 0.6 m. Irrigation was carried out by drip irrigation systems. Observations and records were carried out according to generally accepted methods.
Results. It was found that with drip irrigation systems with maintaining soil moisture above 80 % of the lowest moisture capacity, sweet potato plants increase growth and development indicators and plant weight to a greater extent, a decrease in the irrigation rate and soil moisture in variant 2 to 0.8 m, in variant 3 – to 0.6 m leads to a decrease in plant weight.
Conclusions. In dry year conditions (hydrothermal coefficient equal to 0.44) more favorable conditions are created by maintaining soil moisture above 80 % of the lowest moisture capacity in the 0.6 m layer throughout the growing season, sweet potato yield can reach 70–75 t/ha.
sweet potato, Ipomea batatas Lam., irrigation regime, plant survival, plant weight, tubers, yield, yield increase
Zolotukhin D. V., Balakay G. T. The influence of moisture regime on sweet potato yield in Rostov region. Ways of Increasing the Efficiency of Irrigated Agriculture. 2025;95(1):91–102. (In Russ.).
1. Srivastava A.K., Gaiser T., Paeth H., Ewert F., 2012. The impact of climate change on Yam (Dioscorea alata) yield in the savanna zone of West Africa. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, vol. 153, pp. 57-64, DOI: 10.1016/j.agee.2012.03.004.
2. Okongor G., Njoku C., Essoka P., Efiong J., 2021. Climate variability and yam production: Nexus and projections. Sarhad Journal of Agriculture, vol. 37, DOI: 10.17582/journal.sja/2021/37.2.406.418, EDN: GUKEXL.
3. Campbell B.M., Thornton P., Zougmoré R., van Asten P., Lipper L., 2014. Sustainable intensification: What is its role in climate smart agriculture? Current Opinion in Environ-mental Sustainability, vol. 8, pp. 39-43, DOI: 10.1016/j.cosust.2014.07.002.
4. Bini V., 2018. Food security and food sovereignty in West Africa. African Geographical Review, vol. 37, pp. 1-13, DOI: 10.1080/19376812.2016.1140586.
5. Owusu Danquah E., Danquah F.O., Frimpong F., Dankwa K.O., Weebadde C.K., Ennin S.A., Asante M.O.O., Brempong M.B., Dwamena H.A., Addo-Danso A., Nyamekye D.R., Akom M., Opoku A.Y., 2022. Sustainable intensification and climate-smart yam production for improved food security in West Africa: A review. Frontiers in Agronomy, vol. 4, DOI: 10.3389/fagro.2022.858114, EDN: EROUBG.
6. Owusu Danquah E., Ennin S.A., Acheampong P.P., 2017. Integrated soil nutrient man-agement options for sustainable yam production. Agronomie Africaine, vol. 29, no. 2, spec. iss., pp. 69-81.
7. Garnett T., Appleby M.C., Balmford A., Bateman I.J., Benton T.G., Bloomer P., Burlingame B., Dawkins M., Dolan L., Fraser D., Herrero M., Hoffmann I., Smith P., Thornton P.K., Toulmin C., Vermeulen S.J., Godfray H.C.J., 2013. Sustainable Intensification in agriculture: Premises and policies. Science, vol. 341, no. 6141, pp. 33-34, DOI: 10.1126/science.1234485.
8. Ennin S.A., Issaka R.N., Acheampong P.P., Numafo M., Owusu Danquah E., 2014. Mechanization, fertilization and staking options for environmentally sound yam production. African Journal of Agricultural Research, vol. 9, pp. 2222-2230, DOI: 10.5897/AJAR2014.8487.
9. Zhou M., Sun Y., Wang Sh., Liu Q., Li H., 2023. Photosynthesis product allocation and yield in sweet potato in response to different late-season irrigation levels. Plants, vol. 12, no. 9, 1780 р., https:doi.org/10.3390/plants12091780, EDN: ZDDLJG.
10. Zhou M., Hu S., Wang Sh., Yin T., Liu Q., Li H., 2024. Sweet potato yield and quality characteristics affected by different late-season irrigation levels. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, vol. 104, no. 9, pp. 5207-5218, DOI: 10.1002/jsfa.13350, EDN: TIKKJK.
11. Jeronimo C.R., Augusto D.G.S., Cherene G.J., 2024. Effect of different irrigation levels on the productivity of two sweet potato varieties (Ipomoea batata). International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research, vol. 6, no. 4, DOI: 10.36948/ijfmr.2024.v06i04.25121, EDN: MAJFGM.
12. Tolubanwo S.E., Okereke N.A.A., Nwandikom G.I., Oti N.N., Madubuike C.N., 2021. The effect of irrigation scheduling and mucuna pod granule on yield of orange fleshed sweet potato (Ipomoea batata). International Journal of Research and Scientific Innovation, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 196-201, DOI: 10.51244/ijrsi.2021.8313, EDN: FOCXSG.
