Micro irrigation for enhancing water productivity in field crops
-
date post
14-Sep-2014 -
Category
Business
-
view
2.212 -
download
3
description
Transcript of Micro irrigation for enhancing water productivity in field crops
Shantappa DuttarganviII year Ph. DPHD11AGR1007
Introduction
Irrigation scenario
Classification
Drip irrigation
Sprinkler irrigation
Conclusion
LEPA & LESA
Geographical area 329 Gross cultivable area 190 Gross irrigated area 76 Net irrigated area 56
(m ha)
Ratio Kharif RabiNet Sown area to operational land (%) 87 57Irrigated Land to Net Sown Area (%) 42 67
Micro irrigation area in different states (2010)Micro irrigation area in different states (2010)
Source : Proceedings of national seminar on advances in micro irrigation, 2011
Area under micro-irrigation in the Area under micro-irrigation in the worldworld
7th International micro-irrigation congress, 2011
Delivery of water at low flow rates through various types Delivery of water at low flow rates through various types of water applicators by a distribution system located on of water applicators by a distribution system located on the soil surface, beneath the surface or suspended above the soil surface, beneath the surface or suspended above the groundthe ground
Apply water in precise:
◦ Time◦ Location◦ Quantity
Advantages of micro irrigation Water & fertilizer operating cost savings
Ability to apply saline water
Operate on steep slopes and rough terrain
Reduced evaporation & soil water near FC
Easy to automate
Adaptable for chemigationAdaptable for chemigation
Reduced weed growth and disease problemsReduced weed growth and disease problems
High initial costHigh initial cost
Susceptible to clogging
Ponding & runoff on heavy soils
May require better management
Restricted root developmentRestricted root development
Hilly /Undulating
Areas
Deserts
Saline Water
With Major/ Medium
Irrigation
Fruits Vegetables
Forests
Flowers
Cereals
Oilseeds
Pulses Cotton
Spices
Sugarcane
Micro Irrigation
Components of micro irrigation Components of micro irrigation systemsystem
Source: Jain irrigation
Types of Micro irrigation systems
Types of micro-irrigation Drip irrigation Surface drip & Subsurface drip Sprinkler irrigation
Rotating head system Perforated pipe system Based on portability
Portable & Semi portable system Solid set system & Permanent system
LEPA (Low- elevation precision applicators)LESA (Low energy spray applicators)
Drip Irrigation
Surface dripWater applied through small emitter openings
(<3 gal/hr/emitter)Most prevalent type of micro irrigationCan inspect, check wetting patterns and
measure emitter discharges
Subsurface dripWater applied through small emitter openings below
the soil surfaceBasically a surface system that's been buried
(few inches to a couple feet)Permanent installation
SUBSURFACE DRIP IRRIGATION
Advantages High & uniform water application Lower pressure & power requirements No dry corners Adaptable to automation
Disadvantages High initial cost Water filtration required Complex maintenance requirements
Flushing, Chlorination and Acid injection
Emitter Layouts
Many configurations are designed to increase per cent of wetted area
Rate of flow per lateral & total pipe length
Point source Line source
Classification of drip lines
Point source system-online drippers The emitters are inserted on the outside of the distribution line Here the emitters work under a pressure of 0.5 to 1.5 kg/cm2 with a flow rate of 2 to 8 lph
LINE SOURCE SYSTEM/INLINE DRIPPERS
Drippers are inserted into the tube at the time of manufacturing the lateral tubes in the factory The drippers are inserted at desired intervals as per the crop and soil requirements Line source emitters are suitable for close grown row crops and in gardens The dripper spacing is more with a discharge ranging from less than 1 to 4 lph
Its major disadvantage is the difficulty in de clogging
Nutrient distribution pattern
Trenching across the drip tubing for PVC pipe installationTrenching across the drip tubing for PVC pipe installation
Drip irrigation system to the field
Economic comparison of drip and furrow Economic comparison of drip and furrow irrigation methodsirrigation methods
Economic activity evaluated for each scenario
Drip Irrigated Percentage as Compared to the Same Furrow-Irrigated Farm Model, 2000
Yield +25%
Chemicals -18%
Fertilizer -26%
Capital +47%
Fixed costs +19%
Net operating profit +12%
Jerry, 2010
EFFECT OF DRIP FERTIGATION ON YIELD AND WATER PRODUCTIVITY OF MAIZE
Ponnuswamy and Santhi (2008)Coimbatore
Grain yield and Water use efficiency (WUE) of Green gram under drip irrigation
TreatmentGrain yield
(kg/ha)Straw yield
(kg/ha)Quantity of water (mm)
WUE
(kg/ha mm)
IW/CPE ratio
I1: 0.30 545 1794 130 4.61
I2: 0.45 695 2231 180 4.52
I3: 0.60 962 3076 280 4.36
I4: 0.75 1102 3423 330 4.34
CD at 5% 92.08 295.72 - -
Patel et al. (1996)Gujarat
Effect of drip irrigation on yield, oil content and WUE of Sunflower
TreatmentSeed yield
(q/ha)
Stover yield (q/ha)
Total water used (mm)
Oil content (%)
WUE
(kg/ha-mm)
Drip at 0.5 Epan
35.25 35.00 412.85 42.19 8.54
Drip at 0.6 Epan
35.84 38.09 457.68 41.70 7.81
Drip at 0.8 Epan
30.87 34.70 548.64 40.96 5.62
Weekly surface irrigation at 0.8 Epan
31.75 33.40 548.64 41.37 5.79
CD at 5% 1.29 NS - 0.78 0.260
Bangalore Shivakumar et al. (2000)
Effect of irrigation methods on quality parameters, water-use efficiency and yield of Cotton
TreatmentSeed index (%)
Lint index
(g)
Oil content
(%)
Seed cotton yield
(kg/ha)
WUE (kg/ha-
mm)
Total water
applied (mm)
Saving of water surface method
(%)
Drip0.4 CPE
5.39 3.52 18.8 1096 3.01 364 46.2
Drip0.6 CPE
5.79 3.76 19.8 1431 3.05 471 30.9
Drip0.8 CPE
6.10 3.83 20.0 1535 2.67 578 14.5
Alternate furrow
5.75 3.65 19.0 1348 3.33 413 38.9
Surface irrigation
5.83 3.67 19.1 1375 2.02 675 -
CD at 5% 0.39 0.12 0.16 92 0.20 - -
Sagarka et al., 2002
Irrigation requirement = crop water requirement – effective rainfall
Sprinkler Irrigation
Micro spray/ micro jets
Discharge: 1gal/min/spray applicator Low operating pressure requirements of from 0.8 to 1.5
kg/cm2, low water application rates and suitability for stony or very coarse sandy soils
Objective: To emit water in the form of small droplets without causing any misting
• These are highly useful for high discharge requirements in case of orchards and also where the crop canopy as well as the root zone spread is more
• They are normally, designed to spray water to cover an area of 1 to 6 meters with a flow rate varying from 20 lph to 120 lph
RAIN GUN
Most suitable for a variety of climates like tropical, temperate and humid climates as in India
Light in weight and easy to install Uniform distribution profile with adjustable jet Long life span and low maintenance Better pattern coverage & good performance in
windy conditions
Effect of micro sprinkler irrigation on yield and water productivity of Groundnut
Effect of micro sprinkler irrigation on yield and water productivity of Groundnut
TreatmentsYield
(kg/ha)Total water used
(mm)WUE
(kg/ha-mm)Surface method 2797 409.2 6.8Micro sprinkler 100% PE 2860 558.1 5.12Micro sprinkler 80% PE 3823 510.7 7.48Micro sprinkler 60% PE 3407 467.6 7.29Micro sprinkler 40% PE 2992 412 7.26Micro sprinkler 100% ETc
3324 502.28 6.62
Micro sprinkler 80% ETc 3130 462.46 6.77Micro sprinkler 60% ETc 3047 426.26 7.15Micro sprinkler 40% ETc 2770 379.55 5.85CD at 5% 153 Krishnamurthi et al., 2003Bhavanisagar (TN)
Growth and yield attributes of Chilli as influenced by micro- irrigation systems
TreatmentsPlant height at harvest
(cm)
No. of
branches/plant at harvest
Yield of chilli (t/ha)
T1-Control 78.5 11.9 8.19
T2-Rotary micro-sprinkler
87.9 15.8 11.05
T3- Stationary micro-sprinkler
80.4 15.2 10.60
T4-Strip tape 77.5 13.9 9.90
T5-Turbokey 79.2 15.0 10.21
T6- Micro-tube 78.8 12.5 9.86
S.E. ± 2.99 0.51 0.08
CD at 5% 8.87 1.50 0.25Shinde et al.,1999
Average cotton yields and water application comparisons
Irrigation system
Cotton yields lint (lb/acre)
Water applied (Inches)
Yield to water use ratio (lb/inch)
Furrow 1350 65 20.0
Sprinkler 1200 42 29.0
Drip 1890 32 59.0
Howard Wuertz, 2010
LEPA & LESA
LEPA
(Low- elevation precision applicators)
95 to 98% efficiency
LESA (Low energy spray applicators) Efficiency 90%
Schneider, 2000
Depth of soil-water content at different irrigation regimes and in different micro-irrigation methods
Medium-low Elevation Spray ApplicationLow- Elevation Spray ApplicationLow –Elevation precision ApplicationSub- Surface Drip Irrigation
Selection of the Systems
SELECTION OF THE SYSTEMS
Contd…
Possibilities of adapting micro irrigationPossibilities of adapting micro irrigation
Drip irrigationAll type of crops
except some close spaced crops
Well and tank irrigation
Suitable for all types of soils – sandy, clay and saline
Sprinkler irrigationClose spaced
cropsWell, tank and
canal irrigationSuitable for all
types of soils – coarse sandy soils
Salt movement under irrigation with saline waterSalt movement under irrigation with saline water
Salt accumulation leached downward by successive water applications
Salt accumulation leached Salt accumulation leached radially outward from drip radially outward from drip tubingtubing
Subsurface DripSubsurface Drip Sprinkler/FloodSprinkler/Flood
Surface 30 - 40%Sprinkler 60 - 70%Drip irrigation 80 - 90%
Comparative efficiency of irrigation systems
Relative Irrigation Efficiencies (%) under Relative Irrigation Efficiencies (%) under Different Methods of irrigationDifferent Methods of irrigation
Sivanappan, 1997
Effect of micro irrigation in different crops on water saving and crop Effect of micro irrigation in different crops on water saving and crop yield (from past research studies)yield (from past research studies)
Name of researcher Location Crop Water saving Crop yield
Jadhav et al. (1990) Haryana Tomato 31% 50%
Hapase et al.(1992) Maharashtra Sugarcane 50-55% 12-37%
Reddy and Thimmegowda(1997)
Bangalore Cotton 13-16%
Shiyani et al. (1999) Gujarat Cotton 25% 22-26%
Anitta Fanish and Muthukrishnan(2011)
Coimbatore Maize 32-43% 35-39%
Ramachandrappa and Havanagi(1983)
BangaloreRed gram,
Cotton51% 24, 49, 131%
Anon. (1993) Junagadh Groundnut 42% 40-46%
Veeraputhiran et al. (2012) Madurai Sugarcane 31% 30-33%
Sagarkar et al. (2002) Gujarat Cotton 38-46%
Rajendran et al. (2012) Coimbatore Cotton 30-36% 25-27%
Vijayalaksmi et al. (2003) Madurai Groundnut 30-38% 50-55%
Kahlowan et al. (2006) Lahore(Pakistan) Rice, Wheat 26-35%
MAINTAINANCE OF MICRO IRRIGATION EQUIPMENTS
DESIGN AND MANAGEMENT DESIGN AND MANAGEMENT ISSUESISSUES
CloggingClogging Physical (mineral particles)Physical (mineral particles) Chemical (precipitation)Chemical (precipitation) Biological (slimes, algae, etc.)Biological (slimes, algae, etc.)
Chlorination
When the source of irrigation water is a dam, river, irrigation channel, etc., chlorination is recommended which kills bacteria, algae and other organic matter.
Acidification
Injection of 30% HCl is recommended for removal of precipitated calcium salts on the inner surface of the drip system.
Types of filtration systems Types of filtration systems
Back washing in sand filters Filters
Dublin Principles (ICWE, 1992)Dublin Principles (ICWE, 1992)Freshwater is a finite vulnerable resource, essential to
sustain life, development and environment
Water development and management should be based on a participatory approach involving users, planners and policy makers at all levels
Women play a central part in the provision, management and safeguarding of water
Water has an economic value in all its competing uses and should be recognized as an economic good
Future line of workFuture line of work
Creating awareness about importance of improving water productivity through micro irrigation is need of the hour
Need for development of low cost micro irrigation systems for wider adaptability
Optimization of level of nutrients and irrigation water through micro irrigation in different crops
Creating awareness about importance of improving water productivity through micro irrigation is need of the hour
Need for development of low cost micro irrigation systems for wider adaptability
Optimization of level of nutrients and irrigation water through micro irrigation in different crops
Conclusion