ASSESSMENT OF LOW HEAD IRRIGATION SYSTEMS AND SOIL MULCHING TO SAVE WATER FOR MAIZE CULTIVATION | ||||
| Misr Journal of Agricultural Engineering | ||||
| Article 1, Volume 40, Issue 3, July 2023, Page 161-172 PDF (1.83 MB) | ||||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||||
| DOI: 10.21608/mjae.2023.209600.1097 | ||||
 View on SCiNiTO | ||||
| Authors | ||||
M. A. Rashad1; A. M. Zedan   2; M. S. Salman3; A. F. Khedr4
| ||||
| 1Prof. of Irrig. and Drain. Eng., Ag. Eng. Dept., Fac. of Ag., Suez Canal U., Egypt. | ||||
| 2Prof. of Irrig. and Drain. Eng., Ag. Eng. Dept., Fac. of Ag., Zagazig U., Egypt. | ||||
| 3Researcher at the Plant Protection Institute, Agricultural Research Center (A.R.C.), Cairo, Egypt. | ||||
| 4Assoc. Prof. of Irrig. and Drain. Eng., Ag. Eng. Dept., Fac. of Ag., Suez Canal U., Egypt. | ||||
| Abstract | ||||
| Irrigation techniques are critical in reducing water consumption while maintaining or improving yield. A simple low-head bubbler with a high-water application uniformity (CU) of greater than or equal to 85 % was developed as an alternative to traditional furrow irrigation for producing intensive crops. For the evaluation of four bubbler designs with drip and furrow irrigation systems for maize production, a 20m lateral length was employed. The bubblers had two inside diameters (ID) of 8.8 and 13.6mm, each at a distance of 2 and 4m. The field application efficiency (Ea) of the different irrigation systems was estimated. For drip irrigation, it was (92.3%), while for furrow irrigation, it was only (63%). The two bubbler sizes, 8.8mm and 13.6mm, had better application efficiency at a short interval distance of 2m (80 and 82%), respectively. Then, compare the effects of different plastic mulch (M) and plastic mulch plus straw (M+S) soil covers to uncovered (Un) soil in terms of maize crop yield and water use efficiency (WUE). with (M), the WUE of grain and straw were for instance, under drip, bubbler 13.6mm at 2, bubbler 8.8mm at 2m, bubbler 13.6mm at 4m, furrow, and bubbler 8.8mm at 4m, in descending order, (0.92 and 0.98), (0.89 and 0.93), (0.79 and 0.91), (0.77 and 0.89), (0.72 and 0.87), and (0.70 and 0.85kg/m3, respectively. With the evaluated irrigation systems, the WUE values for (Un) and covered by (M+S) exhibit the same pattern as covered by M. | ||||
| Keywords | ||||
| Drip; Bubbler; Furrow; Maize; Soil covers | ||||
| References | ||||
|
Ainechee, G.; S. B. Nasab and M. Behzad (2009). Simulation of soil wetting pattern under point source drip irrigation. Appli. Sci., 9(6): 1170-1174.
Brouwer, C.; Prins, C. and Heibloem, M. (1989). Irrigation Water Management: Irrigation Scheduling. Training manual no. 4. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome (Italy).
Eduardo, A. H.; P. Alejandro; L. Ignacio; S. Aureo and F. István (2009). Design and management of irrigation systems. CHILEAN J. Agric. Res., 69(1): 17 - 25.
El-Hendawy, S. E. and U. Schmidhalter (2010). Optimal coupling combinations between irrigation frequency and rate for drip-irrigated maize grown on sandy soil. Agric. Water Manag., Elsevier, 97(3): 439 - 448.
English, M. J.; K. H. Solomon and G. J. Hoffman (2002). A paradigm shift in irrigation management. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 128: 267 - 277.
Golden Software (2000). Contouring and 3D-surface mapping for scientists and engineers Version 8. Golden Software, (Inc., www. goldensoftware. com).
Ibragimov, N.; S. R. Evett; Y. Esanbekov; B. S. Kamilov; L. Mirzaev and J. P. A. Lamers (2007). Water use efficiency of irrigated cotton in Uzbekistan under drip and furrow irrigation. Agric. Water Manage. 90:112 - 120.
Khan, A. G.; Anwar-ul-Hassan; M. Iqbal and E. Ullah (2015). Assessing the performance of different irrigation techniques to enhance the water use efficiency and yield of maize under deficit water supply. Soil Environ., 34(2): 166 - 179.
Khedr, A. F. (2018). Influence of mulching systems on soil temperature, production and water use efficiency under drip irrigation system. Misr Journal of Agricultural Engineering, 35(2): 537 - 556.
Merriam, J. L. and J. Keller (1978). Farm Irrigation System Evaluation: A Guide for Management 3rd ed. Logan, Utah: Agricultural and Irrigation Engineering Department, Utah State University, PP: 271.
Ngigi, S. N. (2008). Technical evaluation and development of low-head drip irrigation systems in Kenya. Irrigation and Drainage. 57: 450 - 462.
Norwood, C. A. (2000). Water use and yield of limited-irrigated and dryland corn. Soil Science Society of American Journal., 64: 365 - 370.
Rashad, M. A.; A. M. I. Zedan and A. F. Khedr, A. F. (2021). Creating software to design a low-head bubbler irrigation system as an alternative to traditional furrow irrigation. J. of Soil Sciences and Agricultural Engineering, Mansoura Univ., 12(11): 797 - 803.
Shan, Y.; Q. Wang and C. Wang (2011). Simulated and measured soil wetting patterns for overlap zone under double points sources of drip irrigation. African Journal of Biotechnology, 10(63): 13744 - 13755.
Solomon, K. H. (1983). Irrigation uniformity and yield theory. Ph.D. dissertation, Agric. and Irrig. Eng. Dept., Utah State Univ., Logan UT, 287 pp.
Cseko, G., & Hayde, L. (2004). Danube Valley: History of irrigation, drainage and flood control. New Delhi, India: International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage.
FAO. (2021). AQUASTAT database. Rome, Italy: Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations
UNESCO (2001). Securing the Food Supply. Paris, United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization. | ||||
|
Statistics Article View: 463 PDF Download: 264 |
||||
