Tomato yield, and water use efficiency as affected by nitrogen rate and irrigation regime in the central low lands of ethiopia

ABSTRACT Tomato yield can be increased by the application of optimum water and fertilizer. A field experiment was conducted in Efratana Gidim district, North Shewa, Amhara, Ethiopia, during

2019 and 2020. The objective was to determine the nitrogen (N) rate and irrigation regime for optimum tomato yield and water use efficiency (WUE). The experiment consisted of

three-irrigation regimes (75% ETc (Evapotranspiration from the crop), 100% ETc, and 125% ETc) and four nitrogen (N) rates (control; i.e. without N application1, 46 kg N ha−1, 92 kg N ha−1,

and 138 kg N ha−1). The treatments were laid out in a split-plot design with four replications. The Irrigation regime were assigned to the main plot, while the N rate were assigned to the

subplot. Data on growth, yield, and yield-related traits of tomatoes, include; plant height, number of fruit clusters per plant, fruit length, fruit diameter, number of marketable fruits,

number of un-marketable fruits, the total number of fruits, marketable fruit yield, un-marketable fruit yield, total yield were collected. The data were subjected to analysis of variance

using R studio. The results indicated that the experimental site had low total N content, and the application of N fertilizer significantly improved tomato yield. Increasing irrigation depth

also significantly increased tomato yield. The result indicated that the highest mean marketable fruit yield (35,903 kg ha−1) was obtained from the combined application of 125% ETc with 92 

kg N ha−1, while the lowest (13,655 kg ha−1) marketable fruit yield was obtained from 75% ETc with 92 kg N ha−1. The analysis of variance showed that the highest (5.4 kg m−3) WUE recorded

from 75% ETc with 46 kg N ha−1 increased WUE by 77% (2.4 kg m−3) compared with the lowest (2.3 kg m−3) WUE recorded from 125% ETc with 0 kg N ha−1. The partial budget analysis also indicated

that the highest net benefit (266,272 ETB (Ethiopian Birr) ha−1) and an acceptable marginal rate of return (1240%) for the invested capital was recorded from the combined application of

125% ETc with 92 kg N ha−1. Therefore, the application of 125% ETc with 92 kg N ha−1 resulted in the highest net benefit. SIMILAR CONTENT BEING VIEWED BY OTHERS INTERACTIVE EFFECTS OF

IRRIGATION AND FERTILIZATION ON THE GROWTH AND PHYSIOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF GREENHOUSE TOMATOES, _SOLANUM LYCOPERSICUM_ L. Article Open access 19 February 2025 ORGANIC AND IN-ORGANIC

FERTILIZERS EFFECTS ON THE PERFORMANCE OF TOMATO (_SOLANUM LYCOPERSICUM_) AND CUCUMBER (_CUCUMIS SATIVUS_) GROWN ON SOILLESS MEDIUM Article Open access 16 July 2022 MODIFIED PLANT

ARCHITECTURE INTEGRATED WITH LIQUID FERTILIZERS IMPROVES FRUIT PRODUCTIVITY AND QUALITY OF TOMATO IN NORTH WEST HIMALAYA, INDIA Article Open access 20 September 2021 INTRODUCTION The Tomato

(_Solanum lycopersicum_) is the most widely grown vegetable in the world. The crop is a source of vitamins, minerals and antioxidants, which are important for human diets. The crop also

contains lycopene, which is responsible for reducing different cancers and neurodegenerative diseases1 Ethiopia has an enormous potential for tomatoes production due to several attributed

that are favorable to their growth, such as soil, climate and topography2. The crop is one of the most profitable crop, providing a higher income for farmers. According to FAO3, the

production of Tomato is estimated to be 55,000 tons in 2013 but showed a decreasing trend compared with the production recorded in 2011 (81,738 tons). The possible reason attributed to

irrigation water, disease and pest (such as tutaabsoluta and late blight), poor agronomic practice, shortage of improved varieties, poor quality seed and post-harvest handling

practice4,5,6,7. Nutrients, especially nitrogen and Phosphorus, can be the major limiting factor for plant growth and development next to sunlight and water8,9. Nitrogen is essential for

building up of protoplasm and protein, which is responsible for cell division and initial meristematic activity (Singh and Kumer 1996). It also promotes flower and fruit setting of tomatoes.

Thus, nitrogen has a positive effect on tomato growth and development in soil with limited N supplies10. Next to nitrogen fertilizer, phosphorus containing fertilizers are the second most

important input for increasing crop production. A high level of phosphorus throughout the root zone is essential for rapid root development and for good utilization of water and other

nutrients by the plant. Tomatoes have the greatest demand for phosphorus at the early stages of development11,12. In Ethiopia, fertilizer rates, especially N and P were determined for

tomatoes in some parts of Ethiopia. But the rate, for instance, the fertilizer recommendation for N ranged between 56 and 230 kg ha−1 and for P ranged from 48 to 137 kg ha−113,14,15. The

probable reason for this attributed to soil and agro-ecological variability. Moreover, these recommendations were too general to use for specific areas. Urea is a type of nitrogen fertilizer

that can be used for tomato plants. Urea has some advantages over other forms of nitrogen fertilizer, such as: It is easy to handle, store and apply, it has a high nutrient analysis (46%

nitrogen) and a reasonable price, it poses no explosion hazards, unlike ammonium nitrate, it can increase crop yields by a great amount, especially when applied through drip irrigation, and

It can enhance the metabolism and growth rate of plants16. Ethiopia's rain fed agriculture is a major contributor to both the country's overall economy and food supply. Because of

this, the prosperity of agriculture has been heavily driven by rainfall availability. Given the country’s highly variable rainfall patterns, the unreliability of rainfall has negatively

affected Ethiopia’s economy in general and its agriculture sector in particular. Water scarcity, combined with low use of improved farm inputs, decreases crop yields, which leads to low crop

production, food insecurity, and poverty17. Therefore, the expansion of irrigation is essential to reducing crop failure risk and maintaining agricultural output18,19. Ethiopia has 5.3

million hectares of potential for irrigation, of which 3.7 million hectares can be developed using surface water sources and 1.6 million hectares with groundwater and rain water

management18,20,21,22, over which Over half of this is categorized under small-scale, which are often characterized by low water productivity23,24. Ethiopia began using conventional

irrigation techniques in the 1950s. Nowadays, several regions of the nation’s use modern irrigation techniques like drip and sprinkler irrigation18,25. Since irrigation uses a large volume

of water that is taken from many sources, effective water management and utilization are the primary challenges25. Many irrigation systems in Ethiopia including Eferatagidm for most crops

including tomatoes are traditional and not supported by research findings26. Therefore, the farmers had a low awareness of irrigation water management27. As the result, most farmers do not

have adequate facilities, knowledge, tools and skills to manage irrigation water. Some of the common challenges faced by farmers are: over or under irrigation, lack of irrigation scheduling

for most crops, poor irrigation infrastructure and inadequate water governance25,27,28. Combined management of irrigation water and soil fertility can increase the yield of tomatoes and the

percentage of water saving that can be utilized to irrigate more area27,29,30,31. Both under and over application of water to the tomato crop had a negative impact. Under application of

water can reduce photosynthesis, transpiration, stomatal conductance, leading to lower carbon assimilation and water use efficiency. Which also impaired nutrient uptake and transport,

especially calcium, which can cause physiological disorders such as blossom-end rot, growth cracks, and sun scald in the fruits32,33. Too much water can be detrimental to tomato plants, as

it can cause a number of problems, such as: root rot, blossom end rot, fruit cracking, and also resulted in sun scald. Therefore, tomato plant need to be well irrigated34. Therefore, optimum

application of irrigation water is mandatory35. In collaboration with AGP (Agricultural Growth program) our research center conducted production constraint assessment on AGP supported

district Eferatagidm. The result of the assessment indicated that; Onion and tomato were the most important vegetable crops and there was no fertilizer and irrigation water recommendation

for these crops. Thus, the present study was implemented with the objectives of determining nitrogen (N) rate and irrigation regime for optimum tomato yield, water use efficiency, and

economic return in Eferatagidm district and similar areas. MATERIALS AND METHODS DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA The experiment was conducted in the Efratana Gidm district, located in the

North Shewa Zone of the Amhara Regional State, during the irrigation season of 2019 and 2020. The Efratana Gidm district lies between 10° 5′ N–100 32′N and 39° 50′ E– 390 0′ E latitude and

longitude (Fig. 1). The altitude ranges from 1130 to 3515 m above sea level (masl) (Fig. 1). The topography of the district is generally rugged and broken, with many hills and ridges, making

most part of the area unsuitable for agriculture, even though cultivated. The district has minimum and maximum average annual temperatures of 12.6 °C and 29 °C, respectively. The average 40

 years’ annual rainfall is 1177.14 mm (Fig. 2). The major land use pattern of the district includes croplands 47%, forest and bush 23%, and grazing 10%. The district is well known for its

underground and surface water like rivers and streams. Nazero, Jewuha and Jara are the three big rivers known in the district. The dominant crops cultivated in the district are sorghum

(_Sorghum bicolor)_, tef (_Eragrostis tef_), maize (_Zea mays_), mung bean (_Vigna radiata_), haricot bean (_Phaseolus vulgaris)_, onion (_Allium cepa)_ and tomato (_Solanum lycopersicum)_.

Disease and pest, lack of access to improved technologies, shortage of post-harvest handling techniques of onion and tomato, and lack of fertilizer recommendations are some of the challenges

for crop production in the district4,36,37. The long term rain fall, maximum and minimum temperature of the district were presented in Fig. 2. TREATMENT, DESIGN, AND EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE

The treatments consisted of four levels of nitrogen (Control; i.e. without N application, 46, 92 and 138 kg N ha−1) and three levels of irrigation regime expressed as a percentage of

potential Evapotranspiration (ETc), i.e., IRR1 (75% ETc), IRR2 (100% ETc) and IRR3 (125% ETc). The base for selecting nitrogen rate was derived from the previous nitrogen recommendation and

to align the recommendation with the current fertilizer label (46 kg N with 100 kg urea). The experiment was laid out in a split plot design with four replications. The main plot was

assigned to the irrigation regime, while the sub-plot was assigned to the nitrogen rate. The experimental field was prepared following the conventional tillage practice before planting. The

space between blocks and plots were 1.5 and 1 m, respectively. Ridges were constructed between block and plot to control movement of water and fertilizer from one plot to the other. The

gross plot size for the main plot was 14.1 * 4 m (56.4 m2) and for the sub-plot was 2.4 * 4 m (9.6 m2), which is 4 rows and 8 plants per row. The harvestable plot size was 2 * 2.4 (4.8 m2).

The tomato varieties _Kochero_ and _Weyno_ were used as a test crop for the first and second year of the experiment, respectively. The reason for the varietal difference was attributed to

the unavailability of Kochero variety seeds in the market. The seeds were sourced from DBARC (Debra Birhan Agricultural Research Center), horticulture research case team. Seedlings were

grown on a seedbed for 1 month. The seedlings were supplied with nitrogen nutrient from urea. Uniform seedlings were transplanted and planted to the prepared ridges with spacing of 30 cm and

100 cm for plants and rows, respectively. The irrigation depth and frequency for each growing season were applied using FAO CROPWAT 8.1 model (Table 1). Then, the required amounts of

irrigation water applied for each treatment were calculated by multiplying the depth of irrigation water with the area of the plots. The water was applied using the cane method. The depths

of effective rainfall during the growth period (collecting on site by installing rain gauge) were deducted from the depth of irrigation water for the respective growth period (Table 2).

Disease and pest were regularly monitored, and treatment were applied based on the recommendations of research. An equal amount of phosphorus (40 kg P ha−1) was applied to all plots at

planting from TSP. Nitrogen from urea was applied in split half at planting and the rest half after 45 days after transplanting the seedlings. A rain gauge was installed in the experimental

field to collect rainfall data. The rainfall (effective rainfall) was deducted from the amount of irrigation water applied when it occurs in the irrigation interval. In 2019 and 2020

effective rainfall were recorded in a total of 11 and 9 days, respectively (Table 2). The long-term meteorological data of the station also indicated that the experimental area received

177.5 mm rain during these years (Fig. 2). The field performances of the experiment were presented in Figs. 4 and 5. SOIL SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS Composite surface soil samples were collected

from a depth of 0–20 cm before planting for the determination of soil physicochemical properties. The samples were air dried, ground, and passed through a 2 mm sieve for most parameters,

except for organic carbon (OC) and total nitrogen, which passed through a 0.5 mm sieve. The soil texture was determined by hydrometer method38. Soil pH was measured with a digital pH meter

potentiometerically in supernatant suspension of 1:2.5 soil to distilled water ratio39. The cation exchange capacity (CEC) was determined by a 1 M ammonium acetate method at pH 740, while

organic carbon (OC) was determined by the dichromate oxidation method41. Total N in the soil was measured by the micro kjeldhal method42. Available phosphorus was analyzed by the Olsen

method43 and measured colorimetrically by the ascorbic acid- molybdate blue method44. DATA COLLECTION The following data were collected at different growth stages of tomato, following

standard guidelines for research in Ethiopia45: * _Plant height (cm)_ Ten plants were selected randomly from each experimental plot to measure plant height by a steel tape from the ground to

the main apex during 50% flowering. The average values were considered for analysis. * _The number of fruit clusters_ The number of fruit clusters per plant were counted at physiological

maturity from randomly selected five plants. The average values were considered for analysis. * _Fruit length and diameter (cm)_ Ten fruits of varying sizes (very large, large, medium, small

and very small) were collected from each selected plant. The length and diameter of each fruit were measured using a digital caliper. The mean diameter of a fruit was obtained by adding the

diameter of all the selected fruits and then dividing the sum by the number of selected fruits. The average values were used for the analysis. * _Total number of fruit (ha__−1__)_ The sum

total number of fruits of successive harvests of pink to full-ripe stage, where dropped fruits were not considered at all. * _Marketable fruit yield (kg ha__−1__)_ Fruits whose diameter was 

> 3 cm and which were free of damage from the net plot area were considered marketable at each harvest using a sensitive balance. The total marketable fruit yield is the sum of successive

harvests. * _Unmarketable fruit yield (kg ha__−1__)_ Fruits whose diameter were ≤ 3 cm and which were damaged by insect, diseases, sun burn, etc. from the net plot area were considered as

unmarketable yield. The total unmarketable fruit yield is the sum of successive harvests. * _Total fruit yield (kg ha__−1__)_ This was obtained by adding average marketable and un marketable

fruit yield of successive harvests. * _Water use efficiency (kg m__−3__)_ was the ratio of water used by tomato crops to produce yield to the amount of water supplied by irrigation and

calculated by the following formula47 $$WUE = \frac{Y}{ET}$$ where WUE is the water use efficiency, Y is the marketable fruit yield of tomato (kg), ET is the evapotranspiration of the crop

and supplied with irrigation water (m−3) for the crop. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS After the homogeneity test, the collected data were subjected to an analysis of variance (ANOVA) to evaluate the

main and interaction effect of the factors (irrigation regime, and N rate) on the selected parameters using R studio during the first and second year. For the mean value, a split-split

analysis of variance was employed. In this case, variety was considered as a main plot factor, irrigation regime was considered as a split plot factor, and nitrogen rate as a split-split

plot factor. Whenever the treatment effects were significant, mean separation was performed using the Duncan’s multiple range test at a 5% level of significance. Correlation coefficients

were calculated to study the associative relations among the measurement parameters, according to Gomez and Gomez48. PARTIAL BUDGET ANALYSIS The economic analysis was done using a partial

budget analysis, based on the procedures described by CIMMYT49. For this analysis, the variable cost of fertilizer (31.5 Ethiopian birr (ETB) kg−1) and labor (150 ETB person day−1) were

considered at the time of planting and during other operations. The price of the tomato marketable fruit yield (8.5 ETB kg−1) was also taken into account. The return was calculated as total

gross return minus the total variable cost. Net benefits and costs that varied between treatments were used to calculate the marginal rate of return on invested capital as we transitioned

from a less costly to a costlier treatment. To draw farmers’ recommendations from the marginal analysis in this study, a 100% return on investments was used as a reasonable minimum

acceptable rate of return. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION PRE-PLANT SOIL PHYSICOCHEMICAL PROPERTIES (BEFORE PLANTING) The pre-sowing soil analysis result of selected soil-physicochemical properties

of the experimental soil is presented in Table 3. The analysis results indicate that the soil's textural class is clay (Table 3). This type of soil is high moisture holding capacity.

The mean pH of the soil was 7.2 which is in the neutral soil reaction50 and suitable for the production of most crops including tomatoes. The soil’s potential CEC (29.3 cmolc/kg) was in the

high range51. According to Tadesse, et al.52 the soil's organic carbon and total nitrogen content were in the low range (Table 3). Therefore, the application of N-containing fertilizer

is mandatory for increasing tomato yield. The exchangeable K content of the soil is rated as very high53. Similarly, Kassie et al.54 also reported that high K content in the study area.

According to the rating developed by Olsen43 for the irrigated area, the soil available P content of the experimental soil is high. The high phosphorus availability in irrigated lowland

Ethiopian soils is due to factors such as the soil’s geological origin, weathering processes, organic matter input, periodic flooding, microbial activity, and traditional agricultural

practices55. These factors contribute to nutrient-rich soil, accelerated nutrient release, and efficient nutrient cycling, maintaining high phosphorus levels beneficial for crop growth. The

same author classified the soil Olsen available P content of irrigated soil as < 12 mg kg−1 is low, 12–17 mg kg−1 marginal, 18–25 mg kg−1 is adequate and > 25 mg kg−1 is high.

Similarly, other authors also reported that the high available phosphorus content of the study area with a mean value of 36.55 mg kg−156,57,58. EFFECT OF VARIETY AND IRRIGATION REGIME ON

MEAN GROWTH, YIELD COMPONENT AND YIELD OF TOMATO The irrigation regime, including the type of irrigation system used, the level of deficit irrigation, and the soil moisture regime, can

significantly influence the yield of tomato crops. By optimizing these factors, it’s possible to maximize yield while conserving water resources59,60. In our study, we found that variety

significantly influenced most of the measured parameters. These included plant height (_P_ ≤ 0.01), fruit length (_P_ ≤ 0.001), fruit diameter (_P_ ≤ 0.001), marketable fruit yield (_P_ ≤ 

0.05), unmarketable fruit yield (_P_ ≤ 0.05), total yield (_P_ ≤ 0.05), and WUE (_P_ ≤ 0.01) (Table 6). The variety of a tomato plant can significantly affect its yield due to a combination

of genetic factors, environmental adaptability, resistance to threats, soil condition, and planting techniques61,62,63. Therefore, choosing the right variety for the specific growing

condition is crucial for maximizing yield. In general, Kochero variety demonstrated the highest yield across all levels of irrigation regimes and nitrogen fertilizer. Irrigation regime also

significantly influenced marketable fruit yield (_P_ ≤ 0.001), unmarketable fruit yield (_P_ ≤ 0.001) and total yield (_P_ ≤ 0.05) (Table 6). As the irrigation regime increased, so did the

total, marketable, and unmarketable fruit yield of tomatoes (Fig. 3). Applying 125% ETc resulted in total yield advantage of 22% (5831 kg ha−1) and 54% (11,219 kg ha−1) compared to 100% ETc

and 75% ETc, respectively. Similarly, the highest marketable fruit yield was obtained from the application of 125% ETc. This treatment increased the marketable fruit yield by 22% (5209 kg 

ha−1) and 56% (10,311 kg ha−1) compared to the application of 100% and 75% ETc, respectively (Fig. 3). The unmarketable fruit yield of tomatoes ranged from 3551 to 2643 kg ha−1 with the

application of 125% ETc and 25% ETc, respectively. In between these, the application of 100% ETc resulted in unmarketable fruit yield of 2929 kg ha−1, respectively (Fig. 3). Edossa et al.64

also reported that the highest (82 t ha−1) and lowest (49 t ha−1) total yield of tomatoes were recorded from full irrigation and from 60% of full irrigation depth. The application of 80% of

full irrigation resulted in total yield of 57 t ha−1. Indicating that tomato crop should be irrigated at full water requirement to get maximum fruit yield. Nevertheless, the irrigation

regime generated by FAO’s CROPWAT model results in a lower yield of tomatoes, requiring 25% more irrigation water than the model suggests. This discrepancy could be due to the model’s

reliance on local weather and soil data to calculate irrigation needs65. If these data are inaccurate or do not accurately reflect the actual conditions, the model’s may not lead to the

highest possible yield. The models takes into account the sensitivity of different growth stages of the crop to water stress66. However, if the crop is particularly sensitive to water

stress, providing extra water (125% of the recommended amount) might help the tomato to perform better and yield more67 The CROPWAT model also uses crop coefficient to adjust the reference

evapotranspiration to the crop evapotranspiration. If this coefficient does not accurately represent the crop’s water use, the model’s irrigation recommendation may not be optimal.

Nevertheless, Habtewold and Gelu68 reported that the higher marketable yield (36 t ha−1) and total yield (38 t ha−1) were obtained from 100% ETc, and the lowest marketable yield (19 t ha−1)

and total yield (25 t ha−1) were obtained from a deficit level of 50% ETc in Arbaminch Zuria district in SNNPR region68. Bekele69 also reported that a treatment receiving 100% ETc irrigation

level has a 7% and 15% yield increment as compared to 75% and 50% ETc irrigation levels, respectively. The same authors also reported that the application of 100% ETc level has a

significant yield difference with 50% ETc level, but is at par with that of 75% ETc level. Other authors also reported that marketable yield of tomatoes was significantly affected by the

amount of irrigation water applied60,70,71,72. Irrigation water application increased tomato yield by providing optimal moisture and nutrient availability for the plant growth and fruit

development73 (Figs. 4, 5). EFFECT OF NITROGEN FERTILIZER ON MEAN GROWTH, YIELD COMPONENT AND YIELD OF TOMATO The effect of different rate of nitrogen fertilizer was signification plant

height (_P_ ≤ 0.05), the number of fruit cluster per plant (_P_ ≤ 0.001), the number of unmarketable fruit (_P_ ≤ 0.01), the total number of marketable fruit (_P_ ≤ 0.01), the marketable

fruit yield (_P_ ≤ 0.001), the unmarketable fruit yield (_P_ ≤ 0.05), total fruit yield (0.001), and WUE (_P_ ≤ 0.01) (Table 6). The analysis indicated that the rate of N fertilizer

increased, almost of the collected parameters result also increased progressively (Tables 4, 5). The highest number of fruit cluster per plant (12), the total number of fruit (849,124), and

the marketable fruit yield (25,516 kg ha−1) were observed from the application of 138 kg N ha−1. This treatment increased the respective parameters by 23% (2), 75% (364,972), and 30% (5857 

kg ha−1) compared with the lowest result recorded from nitrogen unfertilized plot (Table 4). The highest value of number of unmarketable fruit yield (83,444) was observed from application of

92 kg N ha−1. This treatment increased the respective parameters by 103% (40,970) compared with the lowest yield observed from nitrogen unfertilized plot (Table 4). Other studies have also

shown that tomato yield tends to increase with nitrogen fertilizer in Ethiopia74,75,76,77. The positive effect of nitrogen on tomato yield and yield component is mainly because nitrogen is

one of the most limiting nutrients, affecting plant growth and yield worldwide78,79,80. Nitrogen is also a crucial nutrient for the physiological and metabolic process in a tomato, as it

increases the nitrogen uptake. Therefore, adequate nitrogen application in soil having low soil nitrogen increases tomato yield81,82,83. Tomato yield is adversely affected by poor soil

fertility management, especially nitrogen, and lack of site-specific fertilizers recommendations74,84,85,86,87. Our results also confirmed that the soil of the experimental site is low in

soil total nitrogen (Table 3). Therefore, the application of nitrogen containing fertilizer is mandatory for the test crop. The role of nitrogen application in increasing tomato yield is

well-documented74,76,88,89,90,91,92 and as the rate of nitrogen fertilizer increased, the yield of tomato also increased93. INTERACTION EFFECT OF IRRIGATION REGIME AND NITROGEN RATE ON MEAN

GROWTH, YIELD COMPONENT AND YIELD OF TOMATO Combined over years, our study found that only the number of fruit cluster per plant, the number of unmarketable fruit, the marketable fruit

yield, the total fruit yields, and WUE were significantly influenced by the interaction of irrigation regime and nitrogen rate (Table 6). Other parameters were not significantly influenced

by this interaction. The highest number of unmarketable fruit yield (118,986) was recorded from the combined application of 75% ETc with 92 kg N ha−1, while the lowest number of unmarketable

fruit (34,791) was recorded from 75% ETc with 0 kg N ha−1 (Table 5). Additionally, the highest (4160 kg ha−1) and lowest (4160 kg ha−1) yield of unmarketable fruit were recorded from the

combined application of 125% ETc with 92 kg N ha−1 and 75% ETc with 0 kg N ha−1, respectively The highest (35,903 kg ha−1) and lowest (13,655 kg ha−1) yield of marketable fruits were

recorded from the combined application of 125% ETc with 92 kg N ha−1 and 75% ETc with 92 kg N ha−1, respectively (Table 5). The result indicated that there was a consistent increase in yield

with increasing irrigation regime across all levels of nitrogen nutrients. However, the yield increment was not consistent across all levels of the irrigation regime with application of

nitrogen nutrients. This indicates that the yield of tomatoes is mainly determined by the application of irrigation water. Therefore, the best combination of these two factors for this study

area was found to be 125% ETc and 192 kg N ha−1. Similarly, various scholars reported the effect of irrigation water and nutrient on tomato yield64,75,94,95,96,97. In vegetable crop

production, nutrient, especially nitrogen and water management are related, and optimal management of one program requires good management of the other98. Du et al.78 reported that there was

a significant interaction between the amount of irrigation water and applied nitrogen on tomato yield. Our result also confirmed that the interaction of the irrigation amount and nitrogen

rate was significant. Tomato plants are sensitive to water stress97. Suboptimal application of nutrients and low soil fertility status, especially nitrogen and phosphorus also adversely

affect tomato yield99,100,101. Our result also indicated that the proper combination of nitrogen fertilizer (92 kg N ha−1) and irrigation water (125% ETc) can increase the yield of

marketable tomato by 163%. The interaction effect of the irrigation regime and nitrogen fertilizer affects tomato yield because different combinations of these factors influence soil

moisture, nutrient availability, plant growth, and fruit quality of tomatoes. Both irrigation water and nitrogen fertilizer are essential for tomato production, but they need to be applied

in appropriate amounts and forms to achieve optimal results30,94. PARTIAL BUDGET ANALYSIS According to the dominance analysis of the mean value; the application of 75% ETc with 92 kg N ha−1,

75% ETc with 138 kg N ha−1, 100% ETc with 0 kg N ha−1, 100% ETc with 138 kg N ha−1, 125% ETc with 0 kg N ha−1, 125% ETc with 46 kg N ha−1 and 125% with 138 kg N ha−1 were dominated by other

treatments (Table 8) and were removed from further economic analysis. The result indicated that the highest (266,272 ETB) and lowest (91,567) net benefit were recorded from the combined

application of 125% ETc with 92 kg N ha−1 and from 75% ETc with 92 kg N ha−1, respectively (Table 8). The Marginal Rate of Return (MRR) ranged from -1,140 with the combined application of

100% ETc with 92 kg N ha−1 to 3,890 with the combined application of 75% ETc with 92 kg N ha−1 (Table 8). Likewise, the combined application of 75% ETc with 46 kg N ha−1, 100% ETc with 46 kg

 N ha−1 and 125% ETc with 92 kg N ha−1 fulfilled the reasonable minimum acceptable rate of return (MRR) (100%). Therefore, the application of 125% ETc with 92 kg N ha−1 resulted in the

highest net benefit as well as an acceptable rate of return (1240%) for the invested capital. The application of 75% ETc with 46 kg N ha−1 also resulted in the highest MRR (3890%) with a

reasonable net benefit (180,458 ETB) and could be an alternative scenario if irrigation water is limited (Table 7). WATER USE EFFICIENCY Water Use Efficiency (WUE) is defined as the total

accumulated biomass per used unit of water applied102, indicating how effectively a crop uses water. WUE is a critical factor in agriculture, especially in areas where water is scarce. The

combined analysis indicated that WUE was significantly influenced by the application of nitrogen, irrigation regime, and their interaction (Table 6). This suggests that optimizing both

irrigation and nitrogen rate can improve WUE. The result showed that WUE increased with the application of nitrogen fertilizer (Fig. 6a). The application of 46, 92 and 138 kg N ha−1

increased WUE by 32% (1 kg m−3), 16% (0.6 kg m−3), and 19% (0.6 kg m−3), respectively, compared with the nitrogen-unfertilized control plot. Similarly, Cheng, et al.103 reported that water

use efficiency of tomato is improved by 21% with the application of nitrogen fertilizer. This is mainly because the application of nitrogen fertilizer can affect the water use efficiency of

tomato by influencing the water uptake, transpiration, and evaporation processes with optimal rate and timing of fertilizer104. The observed increase in WUE with nitrogen fertilizer

application sheds light on the importance of nitrogen management in agricultural sustainability. The positive impact on WUE at different nitrogen application rates demonstrates the potential

for optimizing nitrogen use to enhance resource efficiency105. Moreover, the specific magnitudes of WUE improvement associated with different nitrogen levels provide practical insights for

farmers and policymakers seeking to maximize productivity while minimizing environmental impact. Irrigation levels that are too high often result in surplus water runoff and evaporation

losses, particularly in systems that are not optimally managed. By curbing the volume of irrigation, farmers can limit these losses, ensuring a greater amount of water is available for plant

absorption and reducing overall water wastage. Over-irrigation has the potential to wash nutrients out of the soil, thereby reducing their accessibility to plants106. By judiciously

managing water application, farmers can sustain optimal nutrient levels in the root zone, fostering superior nutrient absorption by tomato plants and maximizing their growth potential.

Overwatering can foster conditions conducive to the proliferation of waterborne diseases and pests, such as root rot and fungal infections107. By embracing a more restrained irrigation

strategy, farmers can alleviate these risks, resulting in healthier plants and increased yields. In our study, there was inverse relation between irrigation regime and WUE (Fig. 6b).

Generally, a lower irrigation regime had higher WUE. This might be attributed to the fact that over irrigation can lead to water shortage. This excess water does not contribute to plant

growth or yield but is lost through runoff or deep percolation60. As a result, the WUE, which is the ratio of yield to water used, decreased as irrigation depth increase beyond the optimal

rate. Nutrient leaching due to over-irrigation can also cause nutrient leaching, where essential nutrients are washed away from the root zone. This can reduce plant growth and yield, further

decreasing WUE60. Deficit irrigation can induce water stress in plant, affecting their physiological process. For instance, when the plant consumption of irrigation water reduced from 100

to 50%, stomatal conductance of tomato decreased by 45%108. This can lead to reduced WUE. In our study, the highest WUE recorded from 75%% ETc increased WUE by 4%, and 7% compared with 100%

ETc and 125% ETc, respectively. The observed increase in WUE with reduced irrigation levels highlights the potential benefits of implementing deficit irrigation strategies in agricultural

systems. By optimizing water management practices, farmers can achieve higher crop yields while conserving water resources and promoting sustainable agriculture109. However, it's

essential to acknowledge that the optimal level of deficit irrigation may vary depending on factors such as crop type, soil characteristics, climate conditions, and management

practices110,111. Further research is needed to determine the specific thresholds and conditions under which deficit irrigation can maximize WUE without compromising crop productivity. The

analysis of variance showed that the highest WUE (5.4 kg m−3), recorded from 75% ETc with 46 kg N ha−1, increased WUE by 77% (2.4 kg m−3) compared with the lowest WUE (2.3 kg m−3) recorded

from 125% ETc with 0 kg N ha−1 (Fig. 7). This indicates that WUE can be improved by decreasing water application to the crop. At the same nitrogen rate (for instance, at 46 kg N ha−1), the

application of 75% ETc increased WUE by 21% (1 kg m−3), and 52% (1.8 kg m−3) compared with 100% and 125% ETc, respectively (Fig. 7). Under conditions of water scarcity, the optimal approach

involves applying 75% ETc with 46 kg N ha−1 due to its superior MRR and water conservation advantages. This allows for an additional irrigation potential of 0.25 and 0.5 ha of land compared

to applying 100% ETc and 125% ETc, respectively. Similarly, Dong et al.112 reported that the application of 50% of the estimated crop water requirement (CWR) of tomato resulted in the

highest WUE and marketable yield in Ethiopia. Other study also indicated that tomatoes crop irrigated at 80% reference crop evapotranspiration (ET0) and supplied with 180 kg N ha−1 under

drip fertigation had a satisfactory fruit yield of tomatoes104. This suggests that optimizing both irrigation and N rates can improve WUE. This mainly because different regimes can have

different impacts on the soil moisture, nutrient availability, plant growth, and fruit quality of tomatoes73. Improving the water use efficiency of tomatoes is important for several reasons.

First, it can help save water and reduce the pressure on water resources, especially in areas where water is scarce or expensive. Second, it can improve the yield and quality of tomatoes by

avoiding water stress or excess, which can affect the growth, development, and physiology of the plant. Third, it can enhance the profitability and sustainability of tomato production by

reducing the costs and environmental impacts of irrigation60,113. These results underscore the need for integrated approaches to agricultural management that consider multiple factors

simultaneously. By strategically adjusting nitrogen application and irrigation practices based on crop needs and environmental conditions, farmers can strive for greater WUE and overall

sustainability in agricultural production systems. Additionally, further research could delve deeper into the underlying mechanisms driving the observed responses, facilitating more targeted

management strategies in the future. CORRELATION AMONG PARAMETERS The correlation analysis indicated that WUE was significantly and positively correlated with total fruit yield (R = 

0.6852), marketable fruit yield (R = 0.7022), and the number of fruit cluster per plant (R = 0.3821) (Table 8). The plant height of tomato was significantly and positively correlated with

the number of fruit cluster per plant (R = 0.4808). There was a negative correlation between plant height and lateral branch length (R = − 0.4592) (Table 8). The number of fruit cluster per

plant was found to be significantly correlated with the number of marketable fruit (R = 0.348), the number of unmarketable fruit (R = 0.3024), the total number of fruit (R = 0.3666), the

total fruit yield (R = 0.5016), marketable fruit yield (R = 0.4704), and the unmarketable fruit yield (R = 0.4683). CONCLUSION In tomato farming, the interplay between nutrient, particularly

nitrogen, and water management is crucial. Our study found that both the irrigation regime and nitrogen application significantly impact tomato yield and water use efficiency (WUE). Optimal

results were achieved with a higher irrigation level (125% ETc) and optimal nitrogen application (92 kg N ha−1), yielding the highest marketable fruit yield and net return. However, in

water-limited conditions, a reduced irrigation level (75% ETc) with a lower nitrogen application (46 kg N ha−1) provided the highest WUE. Thus, we recommend the former for tomato production

in areas with sufficient water, and the latter as a viable alternative when irrigation water is scarce. DATA AVAILABILITY The data sets used during the current study are available from the

corresponding author on reasonable request. ABBREVIATIONS * ANOVA: Analysis of variance * ETc: Potential evapotranspiration from the crop * CIMMYT: International Maize and Wheat Improvement

Center * ETB: Ethiopian Birr * FAO: Food and agricultural organization of the united nation REFERENCES * Srinivasan, R. _Safer Tomato Production Techniques: A Field Guide for Soil Fertility

and Pest Management_. Vol. 10 (AVRDC-WorldVegetableCenter, 2010). * Hunde, N. F. Opportunity, problems and production status of vegetables in Ethiopia: A review. _J. Plant Sci. Res._ 4, 172

(2017). ADS  Google Scholar  * FAO, F. _Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations_. Rome. http://faostat.fao.org (2016). * Gemechis, A. O., Struik, P. C. & Emana, B. Tomato

production in Ethiopia: Constraints and opportunities. _Tropentag 2012, International Research on Food Security, Natural Resource Management and Rural Development. Resilience of

Agricultural Systems against Crises: Book of Abstracts_ 373 (2012). * Mohamed, S. et al. _Integrated Pest Management Manual for Tomato leaf miner (Tuta absoluta)_ (ISBN 978-9966-063-52-6,

2021). * Desneux, N. _et al._ Integrated pest management of _Tuta absoluta_: Practical implementations across different world regions. _J. Pest Sci._ 95, 1–23 (2022). Article  Google Scholar

  * Gemechu, G. E. & Beyene, T. M. Evaluation of tomato (_Solanum lycopersicum_ L. mill) varieties for yield and Fruit quality in Ethiopia. A review. _Evaluation_ 89 (2019). * Mahmud,

K., Makaju, S., Ibrahim, R. & Missaoui, A. Current progress in nitrogen fixing plants and microbiome research. _Plants_ 9, 97 (2020). Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar

  * Shrivastav, P. _et al._ Role of nutrients in plant growth and development. In _Contaminants in Agriculture: Sources, Impacts and Management_ 43–59 (2020). * Hokam, E., El-Hendawy, S.

& Schmidhalter, U. Drip irrigation frequency: The effects and their interaction with nitrogen fertilization on maize growth and nitrogen use efficiency under arid conditions. _J. Agron.

Crop Sci._ 197, 186–201 (2011). Article  Google Scholar  * Csizinszky, A. Production of tomato in open field. In _Tomatoes: Crop Production Science in Horticulture Series. CAB International.

Wallingford, Oxfordshire OX10 8DE, UK_, 257–256 (2005). * Solangi, F. _et al._ The global dilemma of soil legacy phosphorus and its improvement strategies under recent changes in

agro-ecosystem sustainability. _ACS Omega_ 8, 23271–23282 (2023). Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Wubengeda, A., Kassu, T., Tilahun, H., Yonase, D. & Dawit, H.

Determining of optimal irrigation regimes and NP fertilizer rate for potato (_Solanum tuberosum_ L). at Kulumsa, Arsi Zone, Ethiopia. _Acad. J. Agric. Res._ 4, 326–332 (2016). Google Scholar

  * Kebede, Y. A. G. Effect of blended NPS fertilizer rates on growth performance of tomato (_Solanum lycopersicum_ L.) at Wolaita Sodo University, Ethiopia (2019). * Beyene, N. & Mulu,

T. Effect of different level of nitrogen fertilizer on growth, yield and yield component of tomato (_Lycopersicon Esculentum_ Mill.) at West Showa Zone, Oromia, Ethiopia. _World J. Agric.

Sci._ 15, 249–253 (2019). CAS  Google Scholar  * Dimkpa, C. O., Fugice, J., Singh, U. & Lewis, T. D. Development of fertilizers for enhanced nitrogen use efficiency–trends and

perspectives. _Sci. Total Environ._ 731, 139113 (2020). Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Zewdie, M. C. _et al._ Pathways how irrigation water affects crop revenue of smallholder

farmers in northwest Ethiopia: A mixed approach. _Agric. Water Manag._ 233, 106101 (2020). Article  Google Scholar  * Gebul, M. A. Trend, status, and challenges of irrigation development in

Ethiopia—A review. _Sustainability_ 13, 5646 (2021). Article  Google Scholar  * Kafle, K., Omotilewa, O. & Leh, M. Who benefits from farmer-led irrigation expansion in Ethiopia? _African

Development Bank Working Paper_ (2020). * Awulachew, S. B. & Ayana, M. Performance of irrigation: An assessment at different scales in Ethiopia. _Exp. Agric._ 47, 57–69 (2011). Article

  Google Scholar  * Mekonen, B. M., Gelagle, D. B. & Moges, M. F. The current irrigation potential and irrigated land in Ethiopia: A review. _Asian J. Adv. Res._ 5, 274–281 (2022).

Google Scholar  * Negasa, G. GIS-based irrigation potential assessment for surface irrigation: The case of Birbir River Watershed, Oromia, Ethiopia. _Am. J. Civ. Eng._ 9, 127–137 (2021).

Article  Google Scholar  * Eriksson, S. (2012). * Derib, S. D., Descheemaeker, K., Haileslassie, A. & Amede, T. Irrigation water productivity as affected by water management in a

small-scale irrigation scheme in the Blue Nile basin, Ethiopia. _Exp. Agric._ 47, 39–55 (2011). Article  Google Scholar  * Eshete, D. G., Sinshaw, B. G. & Legese, K. G. Critical review

on improving irrigation water use efficiency: Advances, challenges, and opportunities in the Ethiopia context. _Water-Energy Nexus_ 3, 143–154 (2020). Article  Google Scholar  * Beyene, A.

_et al._ Estimating the actual evapotranspiration and deep percolation in irrigated soils of a tropical floodplain, northwest Ethiopia. _Agric. Water Manag._ 202, 42–56 (2018). Article 

Google Scholar  * Asmamaw, D. K. _et al._ Soil and irrigation water management: Farmer’s practice, insight, and major constraints in upper blue Nile basin, Ethiopia. _Agriculture_ 11, 383

(2021). Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Haileslassie, A. et al._ Institutions for Irrigation Water Management in Ethiopia: Assessing diversity and service delivery_. (International Livestock

Research Institute, 2016). * Temesgen, E. & Muluneh, M. _Synergistic Effects of Irrigation Water and Nitrogen Fertilizer on Tomato Yield Under Furrow Irrigation in Southern Ethiopia_.

Available at SSRN 4463257. * Huang, Y. _et al._ Interaction of the coupled effects of irrigation mode and nitrogen fertilizer format on tomato production. _Water_ 15, 1546 (2023). Article 

CAS  Google Scholar  * Ankush, A., Singh, V., Kumar, V. & Singh, D. P. Impact of drip irrigation and fertigation scheduling on tomato crop-An overview. _J. Appl. Nat. Sci._ 10, 165–170

(2018). CAS  Google Scholar  * Ahmad, H. & Li, J. Impact of water deficit on the development and senescence of tomato roots grown under various soil textures of Shaanxi, China. _BMC

Plant Biol._ 21, 1–16 (2021). Article  Google Scholar  * Srinivasa Rao, N., Bhatt, R. & Sadashiva, A. Tolerance to water stress in tomato cultivars. _Photosynthetica_ 38, 465–467 (2000).

Article  Google Scholar  * Johns, J. _Growing Tomatoes_ (Book Publishing Company, 2019). Google Scholar  * Wu, Y. _et al._ Combined effects of irrigation level and fertilization practice on

yield, economic benefit and water-nitrogen use efficiency of drip-irrigated greenhouse tomato. _Agric. Water Manag._ 262, 107401 (2022). Article  Google Scholar  * Chanyalew, Y., Wondale,

L., Tigabie, A., Legesse, A. & Getachew, T. _Participatory Agricultural Production System Analysis: Implication For Research and Development Intervention in North Shewa Zone_ (2018). *

Koye, T. D., Koye, A. D. & Mekie, T. M. Analysis of technical efficiency of irrigated tomato production in North Gondar Zone of Amhara Regional State, Ethiopia. _Lett. Spatial Resour.

Sci._ 15, 599–620 (2022). Article  Google Scholar  * Bouyoucos, G. S. Recalibration of the hydrometer methods for making mechanical analysis of soil. _Agron. J._ 43, 434–438 (1951). Article

  CAS  Google Scholar  * Van Reeuwijk, L. P. _Procedures for soil analysis_. 3 edn, (International Soil Reference and Information Center Wageningen (ISRIC), 1992). * Chapman, H. D. Cation

exchange capacity in methods of soil analysis. Part 2. _Agron. Monogr._ 9, 891–894 (1965). CAS  Google Scholar  * Walkley, A. & Black, I. A. An examination of the Degtjareff method for

determining soil organic matter, and a proposed modification of the chromic acid titration method. _Soil Sci._ 37, 29–38 (1934). Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar  * Jackson, M. L. _Soil

Chemical Analysis_ 498 (Prentice Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs. N.J. Sixth Printing 1970, 1958). * Olsen, S. R. _Estimation of Available Phosphorus in Soils by Extraction with Sodium

Bicarbonate_ (US Department of Agriculture, 1954). * Watanabe, F. & Olsen, S. Test of an ascorbic acid method for determining phosphorus in water and NaHCO3 extracts from soil. _Soil

Sci. Soc. Am. J._ 29, 677–678 (1965). Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar  * Abera, D. _et al._ _Guideline for Agronomy and Soil Fertility Data Collection in Ethiopia: National Standard_

(2020). * McMahon, G., Alexander, R. B. & Qian, S. Support of total maximum daily load programs using spatially referenced regression models. _J. Water Resour. Plan. Manag._ 129, 315–329

(2003). Article  Google Scholar  * Mahadeen, A. Y., Mohawesh, O. E., Al-Absi, K. & Al-Shareef, W. Effect of irrigation regimes on water use efficiency and tomato yield (_Lycopersicon

esculentum_ Mill.) grown in an arid environment. _Arch. Agron. Soil Sci._ 57, 105–114 (2011). Article  Google Scholar  * Gomez, K. A. & Gomez, A. A. _Statistical Procedures for

Agricultural Research_ (Wiley, Hoboken, 1984). Google Scholar  * CIMMYT. _From Agronomic Data to Farmer Recommendations: An Economics Training Manual_ (CIMMYT, 1988). * Hazelton, P. &

Murphy, B. _Interpreting Soil Test Results: What Do All the Numbers Mean?_ (CSIRO publishing, 2016). * Landon, J. R. _Booker Tropical Soil Manual: A Handbook for soil Survey and Agricultural

Land Evaluation in the Tropics and Subtropics_ (Routledge, London, 2014). Book  Google Scholar  * Tadesse, T., Haque, I. & Aduayi, E. _Soil, Plant, Water, Fertilizer, Animal Manure and

Compost Analysis Manual_ (1991). * Berhanu, D. A survey of studies conducted about soil resources appraisal and evaluation for rural development in Ethiopia. _Addis Ababa. 70p_ (1980). *

Kassie, K., Shewangizaw, B., Lema, G. & Tigabie, A. Verification of the effects of potassium, boron, and zinc containing fertilizers on Sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) yield at Kewot District,

North Shewa Zone, Ethiopia 154–161 (Amhara Agricultural Research Institute (ARARI), Bahir Dar, 2019). * Beyene, S., Regassa, A., Mishra, B. B. & Haile, M. _The Soils of Ethiopia_

(Springer, Berlin, 2023). Book  Google Scholar  * Temeche, D., Getachew, E. & Hailu, G. Research Article Effects of Nitrogen Fertilizer Quantity and Time of Application on Sorghum

(_Sorghum bicolor_ (L.) Moench) Production in Lowland Areas of North Shewa, Ethiopia (2021). * Tesfay, F., Kibret, K., Gebrekirstos, A. & Hadigu, K. M. Changes in selected soil

properties across a chronosequence of exclosures in the central dry lowlands of Ethiopia. _Eurasian J. Soil Sci._ 9, 173–185 (2020). CAS  Google Scholar  * Temeche, D., Getachew, E., Hailu,

G. & Abebe, A. Effect of sorghum-mung bean intercropping on sorghum-based cropping system in the lowlands of North Shewa, Ethiopia. _Adv. Agric. _2022 (2022). * Turhan, A., Kuscu, H.

& Asık, B. B. The influence of irrigation strategies on tomato fruit yield and leaf nutrient contents. _Gesunde pflanzen_ 74, 1021–1027 (2022). Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Mukherjee,

S., Dash, P. K., Das, D. & Das, S. Growth, yield and water productivity of tomato as influenced by deficit irrigation water management. _Environ. Process._ 10, 10 (2023). Article 

Google Scholar  * Rusu, O.-R. _et al._ Interaction effects of cultivars and nutrition on quality and yield of tomato. _Horticulturae_ 9, 541 (2023). Article  Google Scholar  * Kanski, L. _et

al._ Cultivation systems, light intensity, and their influence on yield and fruit quality parameters of tomatoes. _Agronomy_ 11, 1203 (2021). Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Stoleru, V. _et

al._ Yield and nutritional response of greenhouse grown tomato cultivars to sustainable fertilization and irrigation management. _Plants_ 9, 1053 (2020). Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed

Central  Google Scholar  * Edossa, E., Nigussie, D., Tena, A., Yibekal, A. & Lemma, D. Growth and physiological response of tomato to various irrigation regimes and integrated nutrient

management practices. _Afr. J. Agric. Res._ 9, 1484–1494 (2014). Article  Google Scholar  * Gabr, M.E.-S. Management of irrigation requirements using FAO-CROPWAT 8.0 model: A case study of

Egypt. _Model. Earth Syst. Environ._ 8, 3127–3142 (2022). Article  Google Scholar  * Gabr, M. E. Modelling net irrigation water requirements using FAO-CROPWAT 8.0 and CLIMWAT 2.0: A case

study of Tina Plain and East South ElKantara regions, North Sinai, Egypt. _Arch. Agron. Soil Sci._ 68, 1322–1337 (2022). Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Roja, M., Deepthi, C. &

DevenderReddy, M. Estimation of crop water requirement of maize crop using FAO CROPWAT 8.0 model. _Indian J. Pure. Appl. Biosci._ 8, 222–228 (2020). Article  Google Scholar  * Habtewold, M.

& Gelu, G. The response of tomato (_Lycopersicon Esculentum_), to deficit irrigation at Arbaminch Zuria Woreda in SNNPR, Ethiopia. _IJESC_ 9, 22583–22586 (2019). Google Scholar  *

Bekele, S. Response of tomato to deficit irrigation at Ambo, Ethiopia. _J. Nat. Sci. Res._ 7 (2017). * Kifle, T. Evaluation of tomato response to deficit irrigation at Humbon Woreda,

Ethiopia. _J. Nat. Sci. Res._ 8 (2018). * El Chami, A. _et al._ Optimization of applied irrigation water for high marketable yield, fruit quality and economic benefits of processing tomato

using a low-cost wireless sensor. _Horticulturae_ 9, 390 (2023). Article  Google Scholar  * Lovelli, S., Potenza, G., Castronuovo, D., Perniola, M. & Candido, V. Yield, quality and water

use efficiency of processing tomatoes produced under different irrigation regimes in Mediterranean environment. _Ital. J. Agron._ 12, 17–24 (2017). Google Scholar  * Welde, K., Gebremariam,

H. L. & Kahsay, K. D. Optimizing irrigation water levels to improve yield and water use efficiency of vegetables: Case study of tomato. _Sustain. Water Resour. Manag._ 5, 737–742

(2019). Article  Google Scholar  * Etissa, E., Dechassa, N., Alamirew, T., Alemayehu, Y. & Desalegn, L. Growth and yield components of tomato as influenced by nitrogen and phosphorus

fertilizer applications in different growing seasons. _Ethiop. J. Agric. Sci._ 24, 57–77 (2013). Google Scholar  * Benti, G., Degefa, G., Biri, A. & Tadesse, F. Performance evaluation of

tomato (_Lycopersicon esculentum_ Mill.) varieties under supplemental irrigation at Erer Valley, Babile District, Ethiopia. _J. Plant Sci._ 5, 1–5 (2017). Google Scholar  * Abera, D. _et

al._ Response of tomato (_Solanum lycopersicum_) to nitrogen and phosphorus under irrigation in Awash River Basin and Central Rift Valley of Ethiopia. _Results of Natural Resources

Management Research_ (2020). * Etissa, E., Dechassa, N., Alamirew, T., Alemayehu, Y. & Dessalegne, L. Response of fruit quality of tomato grown under varying inorganic N and P fertilizer

rates under furrow irrigated and rainfed production conditions. _Int. J. Dev. Sustain._ 3, 371–387 (2014). Google Scholar  * Du, Y.-D., Cao, H.-X., Liu, S.-Q., Gu, X.-B. & Cao, Y.-X.

Response of yield, quality, water and nitrogen use efficiency of tomato to different levels of water and nitrogen under drip irrigation in Northwestern China. _J. Integr. Agric._ 16,

1153–1161 (2017). Article  Google Scholar  * Li, H. _et al._ Optimizing irrigation and nitrogen management strategy to trade off yield, crop water productivity, nitrogen use efficiency and

fruit quality of greenhouse grown tomato. _Agric. Water Manag._ 245, 106570 (2021). Article  Google Scholar  * Li, C. _et al._ Integrated crop-nitrogen management improves tomato yield and

root architecture and minimizes soil residual N. _Agronomy_ 12, 1617 (2022). Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Akter, H., Tarafder, S., Huda, A. & Mahmud, A. Effect of prilled urea, urea

and NPK briquettes on the yield of bitter gourd in two upazillas of Jessore District. _J. Environ. Sci. Nat. Resour._ 8, 157–160 (2015). Google Scholar  * Xu, Y. _et al._ Carbon and nitrogen

metabolism in tomato (_Solanum lycopersicum_ L.) leaves response to nitrogen treatment. _Plant Growth Regul._ 100, 1–10 (2023). Article  Google Scholar  * Guo, L., Yu, H., Kharbach, M.

& Wang, J. The response of nutrient uptake, photosynthesis and yield of tomato to biochar addition under reduced nitrogen application. _Agronomy_ 11, 1598 (2021). Article  CAS  Google

Scholar  * Alia, M. E., Karimb, M. R., Talukderc, F. U. & Rahmanc, M. S. Growth and yield responses of tomato (_Lycopersicon esculentum_ Mill.) under different combinations of planting

times and fertilizers. _Rev. Food Agric._ 1, 74–81 (2020). Article  Google Scholar  * Ortas, I. Influences of nitrogen and potassium fertilizer rates on pepper and tomato yield and nutrient

uptake under field conditions. _Sci. Res. Essays_ 8, 1048–1055 (2013). CAS  Google Scholar  * Mohammed, T. _Response of Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) Varieties Toblended NPS Fertilizer

Rates at Dire Dawa, Eastern Ethiopia_ (Haramaya University, 2020). * Biramo, G., Abera, G. & Biazin, B. Effects of dry bioslurry and chemical fertilizers on tomato growth performance,

fruit yield and soil properties under irrigated condition in Southern Ethiopian. _Afr. J. Agric. Res._ 14, 1685–1692 (2019). Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Aman, S. & Rab, A. Response

of tomato to nitrogen levels with or without humic acid. _Sarhad J. Agric._ 29, 181–186 (2013). Google Scholar  * Weston, L. A. & Zandstra, B. H. Transplant age and N and P nutrition

effects on growth and yield of tomatoes. _HortScience_ 24, 88–90 (1989). Article  Google Scholar  * Bilalis, D. _et al._ Effects of organic and inorganic fertilization on yield and quality

of processing tomato (_Lycopersicon esculentum_ Mill.). _Folia Hortic._ 30, 321–332 (2018). Article  Google Scholar  * Kaniszewski, S. _et al._ Yield and quality traits of field grown tomato

as affected by cultivar and nitrogen application rate. _J. Agric. Sci. Technol._ 21, 683–697 (2019). Google Scholar  * Kebede, A. & Woldewahid, G. Fruit quality and net income response

of tomato (_Lycopersicon esculentum_ Mill.) to different levels of nitrogen and plant population in Alamata, Ethiopia. _Int. J. Sci. Technol. Res._ 3, 125–128 (2014). Google Scholar  *

Warner, J., Zhang, T. & Hao, X. Effects of nitrogen fertilization on fruit yield and quality of processing tomatoes. _Can. J. Plant Sci._ 84, 865–871 (2004). Article  Google Scholar  *

Wang, X. & Xing, Y. Evaluation of the effects of irrigation and fertilization on tomato fruit yield and quality: A principal component analysis. _Sci. Rep._ 7, 350 (2017). Article  ADS 

PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Xiukang, W. & Yingying, X. Evaluation of the effect of irrigation and fertilization by drip fertigation on tomato yield and water use efficiency

in greenhouse. _Int. J. Agron._ 2016 (2016). * Wu, Y. _et al._ Responses of growth, fruit yield, quality and water productivity of greenhouse tomato to deficit drip irrigation. _Sci.

Hortic._ 275, 109710 (2021). Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Berihun, B. Effect of mulching and amount of water on the yield of tomato under drip irrigation. _J. Hortic. For._ 3, 200–206

(2011). Google Scholar  * Hochmuth, G. & Hanlon, E. Commercial vegetable fertilization principles, University of Florida. _Soil Water Sci. Dep. Florida Coop. Extantion Serv. SL319_ 14,

186–201 (2010). Google Scholar  * Pandey, R., Solanki, P., Saraf, R. & Parihar, M. Effect of nitrogen and phosphorus on growth and yield of tomato varieties. _Punjab Vege. Grower_ 31,

1–5 (1996). Google Scholar  * Mehta, C., Srivastava, V., Singh, J. & Ram, M. Response of tomato (_Lycopersicon esculentum_ Mill.) varieties to N and P fertilization and spacing. _Indian

J. Agric. Res._ 34, 182–184 (2000). Google Scholar  * Balemi, T. Response of tomato cultivars differing in growth habit to nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizers and spacing on vertisol in

Ethiopia. _Acta Agric. Slov._ 91, 103–119 (2008). Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Bhattacharya, A. Nitrogen-use efficiency under changing climatic conditions. _Changing Climate and Resource

Use Efficiency in Plants_ 181–240 (2019). * Cheng, M. _et al._ Effects of nitrogen supply on tomato yield, water use efficiency and fruit quality: A global meta-analysis. _Sci. Hortic._ 290,

110553 (2021). Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Wang, X. _et al._ Root growth, fruit yield and water use efficiency of greenhouse grown tomato under different irrigation regimes and nitrogen

levels. _J. Plant Growth Regul._ 38, 400–415 (2019). Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar  * Ullah, H., Santiago-Arenas, R., Ferdous, Z., Attia, A. & Datta, A. Improving water use

efficiency, nitrogen use efficiency, and radiation use efficiency in field crops under drought stress: A review. _Adv. Agron._ 156, 109–157 (2019). Article  Google Scholar  * Fawzy, Z.

Effect of irrigation systems on vegetative growth, fruit yield, quality and irrigation water use efficiency of tomato plants (_Solanum lycopersicum_ L.) grown under water stress conditions.

_Acta Sci. Agric._ 3, 172–183 (2019). Google Scholar  * Mathews, D., Becker, J. O. & Tjosvold, S. A. Plant diseases. _Contain. Nurs. Bus. Manag. Manual Univ. Calif. Agric. Nat. Resour.

Publ._ 3540, 179–200 (2014). Google Scholar  * Giuliani, M. M. _et al._ Combined effects of deficit irrigation and strobilurin application on gas exchange, yield and water use efficiency in

tomato (_Solanum lycopersicum_ L.). _Sci. Hortic._ 233, 149–158 (2018). Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Chartzoulakis, K. & Bertaki, M. Sustainable water management in agriculture under

climate change. _Agric. Agric. Sci. Procedia_ 4, 88–98 (2015). Google Scholar  * Chai, Q. _et al._ Regulated deficit irrigation for crop production under drought stress. A review. _Agron.

Sustain. Dev._ 36, 1–21 (2016). Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Yu, L., Zhao, X., Gao, X. & Siddique, K. H. Improving/maintaining water-use efficiency and yield of wheat by deficit

irrigation: A global meta-analysis. _Agric. Water Manag._ 228, 105906 (2020). Article  Google Scholar  * Dong, L. _et al._ Optimization of irrigation water use efficiency evaluation

indicators based on DPSIR-ISD model. _Water Supply_ 20, 83–94 (2020). Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Liu, H. _et al._ Optimizing irrigation frequency and amount to balance yield, fruit

quality and water use efficiency of greenhouse tomato. _Agric. Water Manag._ 226, 105787 (2019). Article  Google Scholar  Download references ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors would like to thank

Debre Birhan Agricultural Research Center (DBARC) and Amhara Agricultural Research Institute (ARARI) for financing the activity. We are also thankful to all staffs of DBARC who participated

in this activity. AUTHOR INFORMATION AUTHORS AND AFFILIATIONS * Amhara Regional Agricultural Research Institute, Debra Birhan Agricultural Research Center, Debra Birhan, Ethiopia Beza

Shewangizaw, Kenzemed Kassie, Shawl Assefa, Getachew Lemma, Yalemegena Gete, Demisew Getu, Lisanu Getanh, Getanh Shegaw & Gebrehana Manaze Authors * Beza Shewangizaw View author

publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Kenzemed Kassie View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Shawl Assefa

View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Getachew Lemma View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar *

Yalemegena Gete View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Demisew Getu View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed 

Google Scholar * Lisanu Getanh View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Getanh Shegaw View author publications You can also search for this

author inPubMed Google Scholar * Gebrehana Manaze View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar CONTRIBUTIONS B.S.: conceived and designed the

experiments, performed the experiments, collect and analyze the data, interpreted the result, wrote the paper. K.K., S.A., G.L., Y.G., D.G., L.G., G.S. and G.M.: performed the experiments,

collect data, contributed reagents, materials, analysis tools, or data. Consent given. CORRESPONDING AUTHOR Correspondence to Beza Shewangizaw. ETHICS DECLARATIONS COMPETING INTERESTS The

authors declare no competing interests. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PUBLISHER'S NOTE Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional

affiliations. RIGHTS AND PERMISSIONS OPEN ACCESS This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution

and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if

changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the

material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will

need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. Reprints and permissions ABOUT THIS ARTICLE

CITE THIS ARTICLE Shewangizaw, B., Kassie, K., Assefa, S. _et al._ Tomato yield, and water use efficiency as affected by nitrogen rate and irrigation regime in the central low lands of

Ethiopia. _Sci Rep_ 14, 13307 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-62884-5 Download citation * Received: 07 September 2023 * Accepted: 22 May 2024 * Published: 10 June 2024 * DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-62884-5 SHARE THIS ARTICLE Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content: Get shareable link Sorry, a shareable link is not

currently available for this article. Copy to clipboard Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative KEYWORDS * Potential evapotranspiration from the crop (ETc) *

Yield * Nutrient * Water use efficiency