Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
l
1
concentrations. Each field varied in size from 5 to 10 ha. The fields are
near the cites of Goggin, Marting, and LaMesa, NM. The soils ranged from clay to loamy
fine sand.
Producers provided onion yields for each field. These values were used to estimate Et
from the evapotranspiration production function (Etpf) (Al-Jamal et al., 1999b). After
harvesting, each field was divided into four sections. Two sets of soil samples were taken
from the middle third of the field in each section, mixed and combined. Samples were
taken in 15 cm increments, from depths of 15180 cm, using a 7.62 cm diameter bucket
auger. Gravimetric soil moisture was computed for each soil sample immediately after
collecting the soil samples from each field. The soil samples also were analyzed for Cl
ions. An above-ground plant sample was taken from a 150 cm40 cm area from each
field before harvesting the onions. These samples were taken from the same locations
where soil sampling occurred. The planting and harvesting dates for the study fields were
determined by the procedures and recommended management practices for New
Mexico's Mesilla valley.
The chloride estimate was adjusted for each field by subtracting the amount of chloride
taken up by the crop from the total amount of chloride in the water source. The amount of
chloride taken up by the crop was calculated by multiplying the crop dry biomass by the
plant chloride concentration. Biomass was calculated from onion yield and the harvesting
index. The harvesting index for onions was 0.66. The groundwater level was measured
during soil sampling, and the water table was 180 cm below some fields. The Lf was used
to estimate the seasonal IE, where IE equals one minus the Lf. The Lf in this experiment
was estimated using chloride as a tracer (Al-Jamal et al., 1997). Irrigation water use
efficiency and WUE were estimated as indicated above. A thorough discussion of the
methodology of this study was presented by Al-Jamal et al. (1997).
3. Results and discussion
Shallow-rooted crops such as onions are generally more difficult to irrigate and have
lower IE values than deep rooted crops. The IEs for furrow-irrigated onion fields in the
Mesilla valley were computed using measured Lf values. The Lf values below the root
zone were determined from Pratt's chloride trace technique (Pratt et al., 1978). These
values ranged from 0.18 for the clay soil to 0.21 for the loamy sand onion fields.
Consequently, IE values ranged from 0.82 to 0.79 (Fig. 1). Using furrow irrigation, the
258 M.S. Al-Jamal et al. / Agricultural Water Management 46 (2001) 253266
IEs for onions were high, because the farmers have limited water resources and they used
the concept of deficit irrigation to irrigate their onion crops. However, yields were 50% of
maximum yield obtained on the subsurface drip irrigated plots, Fig. 2.
Fall onions in Las Cruces are irrigated with a combination of surface and ground water.
During the winter months, the surface irrigation system is shut down and the Ec of the
ground water is 2.4 dS m
1
. The surface irrigation system is turned on in March and the
Ec of the surface water is 0.93 dS m
1
. Leaching is required to maintain a low salt levels
in the root zone. A Lf of 0.2 is required for a average surface and ground water salinity
level of 1.7 dS m
1
in the irrigation water near Las Cruces (Sammis and Herrera, 1994).
If the Lf is not sufficient, salt will begin to build in the root zone, resulting in lower yields
and onions are sensitive to soil salinity (ECe) (Doorenboss and Kassam, 1986).
Fig. 1. The relationship between irrigation efciency and the amount of water applied for onion crops under
different irrigation methods and soil types.
Fig. 2. The relationship between irrigation efciency and onion yield under different irrigation methods and soil
types.
M.S. Al-Jamal et al. / Agricultural Water Management 46 (2001) 253266 259
Consequently, for surface and sprinkler irrigation systems that have one dimensional flow
regimes, a IE higher than 0.8 in the Las Cruces area would cause yield reduction due to
salt stress.
Onion IEs, grown using subsurface drip irrigation, ranged from 45% for non-stressed
treatments to 77% for stressed treatments (Fig. 1) with yields at this stress level
comparable to the furrow irrigated yields. However, the maximum yield of
91,170 kg ha
1
obtained from the subsurface drip system resulted in an IE or 45%
(Fig. 2). The large amount of excess water was needed to wet the soil profile to the full
width of the beds using the subsurface irrigation system. When the outer two row of
onions received water at the root plate, which is near the surface, the onions root system
developed fully resulting in the largest yield levels.
Reasonable IE values can be obtained under a subsurface drip system by stressing the
onion crops outer two rows and getting lower yields (Fig. 2). Another solution may be to
place the drip tubing at a shallower depth or to place the drip laterals on the soil surface.
Producers in fields with coarsely textured soil under subsurface drip irrigation could
install two laterals per bed instead of one, and bury these laterals at a shallow depth.
Installing two laterals per bed will reduce the amount of applied water necessary to water-
up the bed and, consequently, minimize the deep percolating water.
An economic analysis (Buchanan, 1997) on converting 4.04 ha from flood irrigation to
drip irrigation operated at an IE of 45% resulted in a yearly net cash inflow (revenues less
down payment, operating cost, loan payments, and taxes) of US$ 4166 ha
1
per year for a
system of inline pressure compensating emitters that was designed for a life of 15 years.
The return on the investment was 27%. If two drip lines are installed and the IE raised to
90% then the return on investment is 23% because the net cash year inflow decrease to
US$ 3660 ha
1
per year. The net cash inflow would be the same if low cost biwall tubing
were installed instead of inline pressure compensating emitters, because the biwall tubing
would have to be replaced every 2 years compared to the 15 year life expectancy of the in
line emitter system. Putting in a second drip line to increase the IE is not cost effective at
the current cost of water. This economic analysis does not include a cost for producing
drainage water and assumes the yearly cost of irrigation water of only US$
0.42 ha
1
cm ha
1
which is the cost to pump ground water or the cost of surface water
without a surface storage system. If the drip system is operated at an IE of 0.77 then the
yield decreases to the level achieved under surface irrigation and the installation of a drip
system in not economical.
Deciding what is the proper depth of drip tubing placement is a major concern with any
drip system. This decision is based on the soil type and structure as well as the depth of
the roots. The amount of water applied to wet the soil surface at planting depends on
many factors, including: the contact between buried drip line and depth of the drip line;
the soil hydraulic conductivity. The amount of water applied by the drip irrigation system
varied from 8 to 43 cm during the establishment stage because of difference in soil tilth at
planting.
To date, research evaluating drip laterals has been focused on final yield. For onions,
research has shown that drip laterals buried at 0.1 m in a clay loam soil result in high
yield (57,000 kg ha
1
) (Bucks et al., 1981). The highest yield in the Las Cruces drip
irrigation experiment on a sandy loam soil, 91,170 kg ha
1
, was obtained with the lateral
260 M.S. Al-Jamal et al. / Agricultural Water Management 46 (2001) 253266
tubing buried at 0.08 m. The research seems to indicate that maximum yields would be
obtained when drip laterals are placed at a shallow depth (0.080.1 m) for onions in all
soil textures. Trying to place the drip tubing shallower than 0.08 m to increase IE cannot
be accomplished because the drip tubing would be caught and destroyed by the farming
equipment when the onions are lifted prior to harvesting.
Onion IE values ranged from 88 to 100%, when grown using sprinkler irrigation at
Farmington, NM, Fig. 1. A Lf of 0.05 is required to maintain the salt balance for a salinity
level of 0.7 dS m
1
in the irrigation water near Farmington, which is normally
accomplished by winter rains requiring no leaching during the irrigation season. The
highest yield was obtained with an IE of 93% because the sprinkler system applied water
as a one dimension flow pattern at the surface and excess water was not needed to be
applied to cause subbing of water into the onion root plate as was the case in using a drip
irrigation system. Using Buchanon's economic model (1997), but substituting the cost of
a sprinkler system for the drip system, resulted in a net cash inflow of US$ 6160 ha
1
per
year and a return on investment of 36%. The return on investment is higher for the
sprinkler system because the sprinkler system only cost US$ 3833 ha
1
compared to the
drip system cost of 15,500 ha
1
. The costs include the cost of installing a pump for the
irrigation system. The highest economic return on a sprinkler irrigation system will occur
when applying 843 mm of water at Farmington and 978 mm at Las Cruces which will
result in an IE of 93% on a sandy loam soil. The IE of 93% for the sprinkler system is
based on water reaching the ground and not the water discharged by the sprinkler system.
Evaporation loss will decrease the IE if the IE is based on water discharged by the
sprinklers. The decrease will depend on many climatic variables that effect the
evaporation loss and the sprinkler nozzle characteristics. In order for the sprinkler system
operation to achieve an IE of 93% and for this IE to be the optimal economical operation
level, the sprinkler system uniformity coefficient defined as 100 (1coefficient of
variation) must be 95% Wu (1988).
The amount of water applied to onions depends on many factors, including daily Et
and IE. Frequency and amount of application must be timed to prevent stress (Abdul-
Jabbar et al., 1983). A good irrigation scheduling program using tensiometers or a
climate based water balance model will be needed to achieve a IE of 93% and not stress
the crop for moisture. The highest IE under a sprinkler system usually is only 80% in
farmers field when no irrigation scheduling procedures are used. The economic analysis
for both the drip and sprinkler irrigation systems includes the cost of irrigation
scheduling.
The IWUE values give a complete analysis of water resource use so that government
regulators and conservationist knows how to influence farmers in the selection of the
irrigation system they use and the irrigation management system they apply when making
irrigation decisions. The IWUE values under furrow irrigation on farmers fields were low
(0.05 t ha
1
mm
1
of applied water) because the crops were stressed for water resulting
in a high evapotranspiration/transpiration ratio. Even with the deficit irrigation
management system, 20% of the irrigation water went to deep drainage losses and was
not used as transpiration to increase yields (Fig. 3). The maximum furrow IWUE value
(0.104 t ha
1
mm
1
of applied water) reported in the literature by Ells et al. (1993) also
occurred under deficit irrigation, but the high value was achieved on an experimental plot
M.S. Al-Jamal et al. / Agricultural Water Management 46 (2001) 253266 261
where small frequent irrigation would have resulted in a high IE and high IWUE. (Fig. 4)
not achievable in large farmers fields.
The IWUE for subsurface, drip-irrigated onions ranged from 0.059 to
0.04 t ha
1
mm
1
with an average value of 0.047 t ha
1
mm
1
(Fig. 3). The evaporation
component of the evapotranspiration process remained similar for all the plots so as
additional irrigation water was applied, an increase percentage of the irrigation water
went to deep drainage decreasing IWUE. When the drip irrigation yields were similar to
the furrow irrigation yields, the IWUE were similar, but as yields increase by applying
more water through the drip system, IWUE decreased. Consequently, on a sandy loam
field, farmers are financially better off installing a drip irrigation system and managing it
for maximum yield, where for water conservation agencies, furrow irrigation run under
deficit irrigation conditions results in the best use of the water, because the farmer cannot
afford to operate the drip system at a IWUE of 0.059 t ha
1
mm
1
.
Converting from flood irrigation to sprinkler irrigation is the best method to apply the
irrigation water based on IWUE calculations and economic analysis if some form of
irrigation scheduling is practiced to achieve high IWUE. The IWUE values obtained from
Fig. 3. The relationship between water applied and irrigation water use efciency for onion crops.
Fig. 4. The relationship between onion yield and irrigation water use efciency.
262 M.S. Al-Jamal et al. / Agricultural Water Management 46 (2001) 253266
the sprinkler system increased linearly as the amount of irrigation water applied increased
to 844 mm (Fig. 3). The yield increased as well (Fig. 4) because the percentage of the
applied water used as transpiration increase as less deficit irrigation was practiced. The
highest IWUE value (0.084 t ha
1
mm
1
) was observed when the sprinkler system, was
operated under non deficit irrigation conditions and IE of 97% (Figs. 3 and 4). The results
obtained from this study were similar to those observed by Ellis et al. (1986).
The WUE for onions within a specific location and environment should be linear,
regardless of the irrigation method used, because the evapotranspiration water production
function generally is a linear model. That is, WUEDry yield/Etb1(b0/Et). The WUE
for onions obtained at Farmington by using sprinkler irrigation increased linearly from
0.0019 to 0.009 t ha
1
mm
1
of Et as the Et increased (Fig. 5), because the Etpf (Fig. 6)
is linear. The Etpf intercept (Fig. 6) represents the evaporation component. For stressed
irrigation treatments, in which most of the applied water was lost as evaporation; the
evaporation-to-evapotranspiration component was maximum. Consequently, the WUE
Fig. 5. The relationship between evapotranspiration and water use efciency for onions at Farmington.
Fig. 6. The evapotranspiration production function for onion crop at Farmington based on dry ungraded yield.
M.S. Al-Jamal et al. / Agricultural Water Management 46 (2001) 253266 263
was very low (Fig. 5). On the other hand, for the nonstressed irrigation treatments, in
which most of the applied water was used for transpiration; the transpiration-to-
evapotranspiration component was maximum. Consequently, evaporation losses were
small, and WUE was maximum (Fig. 5).
Since WUE can be improved by either increasing dry yield or decreasing Et, these
factors might be used by crop breeders to decrease the water use of crops, while
maintaining yield and quality. Dry yield is affected by the rate of photosynthesis.
Stressing a crop (still a common practice used by some farmers in NM) causes the
stomates to close and reduces the rate of photosynthesis and yield potential. Only by
breeding, for onion varieties that transpire less water while maintaining photosynthesis
rate, can WUE be increased. Irrigation management can decrease the evaporation
component. But the most effective way to decrease evaporation is to bury the drip line
deep and prevent water from subbing to the surface. However, this is a fatal management
decision when growing onions, because for the root of onions to grow, the base plate must
be kept wet and this can only happen if the water subs to the surface. Consequently, the
potential to increase WUE with a drip system for deep rooted crop does not exist when
growing onions.
4. Conclusions
Irrigation efficiency under a drip irrigated onion field are going to be low when using a
buried drip irrigation system and operating the system for maximum yield. However,
economic analysis indicates that this is the irrigation management practice that should be
followed by farmers until the cost of water increases considerable. Using a sprinkler
system can increase yield and maintain a high IE compared to furrow and drip irrigation.
The IWUE using the sprinkler system was higher compared to the subsurface drip and
furrow irrigation methods which indicates that if you are trying to conserve water, then a
sprinkler irrigation system should be used with some form of irrigation scheduling. If you
are trying to maximize yield , then this will be achieved by using a drip irrigation system.
In addition, WUE cannot be improved by letting onions suffer from water stress.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by the New Mexico State University's Agricultural
Experiment Station.
References
Abdul-Jabbar, A.S., Sammis, T.W., Lugg, D.G., Kallsen, C.E., Smeal, D., 1983. Water use by alfalfa, corn and
barley as inuenced by available soil water. Agric. Water Manage. 6, 351363.
Al-Jamal, M.S., Sammis, T.W., Ball, S., Smeal, D., 1999a. Yield-based irrigated onion crop coefcients. Appl.
Eng. Agric. ASAE, in press.
264 M.S. Al-Jamal et al. / Agricultural Water Management 46 (2001) 253266
Al-Jamal, M.S., Sammis, T.W., Ball, S., Smeal, D., 1999b. Computing the crop water production function for
onion. Agric. Water Manage., in press.
Al-Jamal, M.S., Sammis, T.W., Jones, T., 1997. Nitrogen and chloride concentration in deep soil cores related to
fertilization. Agric. Water Manage. 34, 116.
American Society of Civil Engineers., 1978. Describing irrigation efciency and uniformity. J. ASCE Irrig.
Drain. Div. 104 (IR1), pp. 3541.
Battikhi, A.M., Abu-hammad, A.H., 1994. Comparison between the efciencies of surface and pressurized
irrigation systems in Jordan. Irrig. Drain. Syst. 8, 109121.
Begg, J.E., Turner, N.C., 1976. Crop water decits. Adv. Agron. 28, 161217.
Bogle, C.R., Hartz, T.K., Nunez, C., 1989. Comparison of subsurface trickle and furrow irrigation on plastic-
mulched and bare soil for tomato production. J. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 114 (1), 4043.
Bucks, D.A., Erie, L.J., French, O.F., Nakayama, F.S., Pew, W.D., 1981. Subsurface trickle irrigation
management with multiple cropping. Trans. ASAE 24, 14821489.
Buchanan, J., 1997. Drip-cost.xls http://weather.nmsu.edu/teaching_material/tutorials.html.
Chimonides, S.J., 1995. Irrigation management under water shortage conditions. In: Tsiourtis, N.X. (Ed.),
Water Resources Management Under Drought or Water Shortage Conditions. Balkema, Rotterdam,
pp. 7378.
Doorenboss, J., Kassam, A.H., 1986. Yield response to water, FAO Irrig. Drain. Paper No. 33.
Ellis, J.E., Kruse, E.G., McSay, A.E., Neale, C.M.U., Horn, R.A., 1986. A comparison of ve irrigation methods
on onions. Hort. Sci. 21 (6), 13491351.
Ells, J.E., McSay, A.E., Soltanpour, P.N., Schweissing, F.C., Bartolo, M.E., Kruse, E.G., 1993. Onion irrigation
and nitrogen leaching in the Arkansas valley of Colorado. Hort. Technol. 3 (2), 184187.
Evans, L.T., Wardlaw, I.F., 1976. Aspects of the comparative physiology of grain yield in cereals. Adv. Agron.
28, 301359.
Fischer, R.A., Turner, N.C., 1978. Plant productivity in the arid and semi-arid zones. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol.
29, 277317.
Hanks, R.J., Keller, J., Rasmussen, V.P., Wilson, G.D., 1976. Line source sprinkler for continuous variable
irrigation-crop production studies. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 40, 426429.
Howell, T., 1994. Irrigation engineering, evapotranspiration. In: Arntzem, C.J., Ritter, E.M. (Eds.),
Encyclopaedia of Agricultural Science. Vol. 2, pp. 591600.
Howell, T.A., Cuenca, R.H., Solomon, K.H., 1990. Crop yield response. In: Hoffman, G.J., Howell, T.A.,
Soloman, K.H. (Eds.), Management of Farm Irrigation Systems. ASAE, St. Joseph, MI.
Howell, T.A., Evett, S.R., Tolk, J.A., Schneider, A.D., Steiner, J.L., 1996. Evapotranspiration of corn-Southern
High Plains. In: Proceedings of the Conference on International Evapotranspiration and and Irrigation
Schedule. ASAE, San Antonio, TX, pp. 381387.
Jensen, M.E., Harrison, D.S., Korven, H.C., Robinson, F.E., 1981. The role of irrigation in food and ber
production. In: Jensen, M.E. (Ed.), Design and Operation of Farm Irrigation Systems. ASAE Monograph No.
3, pp. 1541.
Jensen, M.E., Sletten, W.H., 1965. Evapotranspiration and soil moisture-fertilizer interrelations with irrigated
grain sorghum in the Southern High Plains. US Dept. Agric. Conserv. Res. Rep. 5.
Lamm, F.R., Manges, H.L., Ston, L.R., Khan, A.H., Rogers, D.H., 1995. Water requirement of subsurface drip-
irrigated corn in northwest Kansas. Trans. ASAE 38 (2), 441448.
McGuckin, J.T., Mapel, C., Lansford, R., 1987. Optimal control of irrigation scheduling using a random time
frame. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 69, 123133.
Oster, J.D., Meyer, L., Hermsmeier, L., Kaddah, M., 1986. Field studies of irrigation efciency in Imperial
Valley. University of California, Berkeley Hilgardia 54 (7), 115.
Pratt, P.F., Lund, L.J., Rible, J.M., 1978. An approach to measuring leaching of nitrate from freely drained
irrigated elds. In: Nielsen, D.R., Mac Donald, J.G. (Eds.), Nitrogen in the Environment, Vol. 1. Nitrogen
Behavior in Field Soil. Academic press, New York, pp. 223265
Sammis, T.W., 1980. Comparison of sprinkler, trickle, subsurface and furrow irrigation methods for row crops.
Agron. J. 72, 701704.
Sammis, T.W., Herrera, E., 1994. Leaching requirements of pecan and fruit trees. Cooperative Extension
Service, College of Agricultural and Home Economics, New Mexico State University, Guide H-644.
M.S. Al-Jamal et al. / Agricultural Water Management 46 (2001) 253266 265
Sammis, T.W., Mapel, C.L., Lugg, D.G., Lansford, R.R., McGucin, J.T., 1985. Evapotranspiration crop
coefcients predicted using growing-degree-days. Trans. ASAE 28 (3), 773780.
Sammis, T.W., Wu, I.P., 1986. Fresh market tomato yields as affected by decit irrigation using a micro-
irrigation system. Agric. Water Manage. 12, 117126.
Sinclair, T.R., Tanner, C.B., Bennett, J.M., 1984. Water-use efciency in crop production. Bio Sci. 34, 3640.
Wu, I.-P., 1988. Linearized water application function for drip irrigation schedules. Trans. ASAE 31 (6),
17431749.
Wu, I.-P., 1995. Optimal scheduling and minimizing deep seepage in microirrigation. Trans. ASAE 38 (5),
13851392.
Viets, F.G., 1965. Increasing water use efciency by soil management. In: Pierce, W.H., Kirkham, D. (Eds.),
Plant Environment and Efcient Water Use, pp. 259274.
Zalidis, G., Dimitriads, X., Antonopoulos, A., Geraki, A., 1997. Estimation of a network irrigation efciency to
cope with reduced water supply. Irrig. Drain. Syst. 11, 337345.
266 M.S. Al-Jamal et al. / Agricultural Water Management 46 (2001) 253266