Sustainable irrigation method is now essential for adaptation and adoption in the areas where water resources are limited. Therefore, a field experiment was conducted to test the performance of alternate wetting and drying furrow irrigation (AWDFI) on crop growth, yield, water use efficiency (WUE), fruit quality and profitability analysis of tomato. The experiment was laid out in randomized complete block design with six treatments replicated thrice during the dry seasons of 2013-2014 and 2014-2015. Irrigation water was applied through three ways of furrow: AWDFI, fixed wetting and drying furrow irrigation (FWDFI) and traditional (every) furrow irrigation (TFI). Each irrigation method was divided into two levels: irrigation up to 100 and 80% field capacity (FC). Results showed that plant biomass (dry matter) and marketable fruit yield of tomato did not differ significantly between the treatments of AWDFI and TFI, but significant difference was observed in AWDFI and in TFI compared to FWDFI at same irrigation level. AWDFI saved irrigation water by 35 to 38% for the irrigation levels up to 80 and 100% FC, compared to the TFI, respectively. AWDFI improved WUE by around 37 to 40% compared to TFI when irrigated with 100 and 80% FC, respectively. Fruit quality (total soluble solids and pulp) was found greater in AWDFI than in TFI. Net return from AWDFI technique was found nearly similar compared to TFI and more than FWDFI. The benefit cost ratio was viewed higher in AWDFI than in TFI and FWDFI by 2.8, 8.7 and 11, 10.4% when irrigation water was applied up to 100 and 80% FC, respectively. Unit production cost was obtained lower in AWDFI compared to TFI and FWDFI. However, AWDFI is a useful water-saving furrow irrigation technique which may resolve as an alternative choice compared with TFI in the areas where available water and supply methods are limited to irrigation.

The no-till seeders of various soil opener configurations have been shown to produce various soil physical responses in relation to soil and climate conditions, thus affecting crop performance in permanent raised beds (PRB) systems. This is particularly important in arid Northwest China where large volumes of residue are retained on the soil surface after harvest. In Zhangye, Gansu Province, China, a field trial assessed the effects of three typical (powered-chopper, powered-cutter and powered-disc) PRB no-till seeders and one traditional seeder on soil disturbance, residue cover index, bulk density, fuel consumption, plant growth, and subsequent yield. In general, seedbed conditions and crop performance for PRB notill seeders seeded plots were better than for traditional seeded plots. In PRB cropping system, the powered-chopper seeder decreased mean soil disturbance and increased residue cover index compared to powered-disc and -cutter seeders. However, the results indicated that soil bulk density was 2.3-4.8% higher, soil temperature was 0.2-0.6°C lower, and spring wheat emergence was 3.2-4.7% less. This was attributed to greater levels of residue cover and firmer seedbeds. Spring maize and wheat performance in the powered-cutter and -disc treatments was better (non-significant) than poweredchopper treatment. So powered disc no-till seeder, which generally provided the best planting condition and the highest yield, appeared to be the suitable seeder in heavy residue cover conditions. Considering the precision requirements for soil disturbance and residue cover, the powered strip-chopping no-till seeder could be a suitable option for PRB cropping system in Northwest China. Although these results are preliminary, they are still valuable for the design and selection of no-till seeders for PRB cropping systems in arid Northwest China.