Technical Evaluation of Low Pressure Irrigation Pipe (Hydroflume) and Comparison with Traditional and Sprinkler Irrigation Systems

Transcription

1 International Journal of Agriculture and Crop Sciences. Available online at IJACS/2012/4-3/ ISSN X 2012 IJACS Journal Technical Evaluation of Low Pressure Irrigation Pipe (Hydroflume) and Comparison with Traditional and Sprinkler Irrigation Systems Ali Ghadami Firouzabadi Hamedan Agricultural Research and Natural Resources Center. Iran. P.O.X:887 Corresponding address: ABSTRACT: Scarcity of irrigation water and decreasing water resources are the most important limiting factors in crop production in most countries such as Iran. Therefore, studying about optimum use of water and increase of water use efficiency is necessary in agriculture part.use of low pressure Irrigation systems (hydro flume) is suggested for replacing traditional surface irrigation methods. The main aim of this research was to compare water distribution in hydro flume system with traditional and sprinkler irrigation systems. Thus, some farms in Kabodarahang plain were selected and evaluated. Water consumption, yield, irrigation efficiency and water productivity were evaluated. The results showed that most water losses in the studied farms which irrigated with hydro flume were deep percolation and in the farms irrigated with traditional furrow irrigation were runoff and deep percolation. The amount of runoff losses in traditional and hydro flume methods were 25.8 and 15 percent respectively. The average of potential efficiency low quarter, application efficiency of low quarter, distribution uniformity, and uniformity of Christiansen's coefficient in hydro flume method were 50, 48.2, 79.2, and 77 respectively. These parameters for traditional method were 44.8, 34.9, 87.65, and 89.1 respectively. These values for sprinkler method were 57.6, 56, 70.3, and 76.6 respectively. The amounts of water productivity in traditional, hydro flume and sprinkler irrigation systems were 1.2, 2.4 and 3.2 kg/m 3, respectively. Keywords: Technical evaluation, low pressure irrigation, Hydroflume, Traditional irrigation, Sprinkler irrigation INTROUCTION Crisis limitations water resources across the world, especially in the Iran during recent years is important and necessary action to increase water efficiency to be done. Using low-pressure irrigation pipes (Hydroflume) is one of effective actions for optimum use of water in the agriculture part. Using this system in order to prevent water loss and the uniform distribution and control of water is performed in the field. This study compared the distribution of irrigation water by using low-pressure pipes (Hydroflume) with traditional and sprinkler irrigation. Surface irrigation is the most common irrigation method and espite technology development and innovation in irrigation methods, more than 95 percent of irrigated lands have been used of surface irrigation. studies and Extensive research about to irrigation efficiency has been done in Iran and world. The results of studies in Iran showed that application efficiency; transmission and distribution efficiency of water is low and lower than the global average (Abbasi et al., 2009). Steigum (1983) expressed that any decision about the subject investment rate depends on the project profitability. Economic employers to finance new investments to profits obtained from the previous investment and credits are dependent. Tecle & Yitayew (1990) Believe that proper irrigation system to select only the one single purpose and it increased efficiency may lead to the selection item causing problems getting to be subdominant. They offered that to achieve various goals, several criteria should be used simultaneously to select the appropriate options to reach different goals be expressed. For this purpose, the Composing programming method was proposed by them.

2 (Howitt et al., 1990) expressed to Select the appropriate method of irrigation because of technical, economic, and social factor interactions, an integration method is necessary. According to conditions of time and spatial variable, select the optimum irrigation method is not so simple. Jibin & Foroud (2000) Two methods of irrigation, gated pipes and traditional irrigation in Hebei Lowland Plain of China was compared. The gated pipe system designed for basin irrigation was compared with conventional ditch basin irrigation in three wheat seasons. The gated pipe gave a water saving of 25-28%, a 19-29% increase in water use efficiency compared to conventional basin irrigation. Osman and Hassan (2003) in their research on wheat and maize using irrigation methods of gated pipe and traditional irrigation were performed and showed that the use of gated pipe was Caused significant decrease in water about 14.5 and 30 percent and increase in yield for wheat and corn about 65 and 116 percent. Shamili,( 2005)in research in Karun Culture and industry presented, that using of hydroflume Although have not significant differences with Siphon but gated pipe has not problems That there are in trickle and sprinkler irrigation. Minaei et al, 2005, In Research in the land in West Shybyh of Khuzestan province in iran, expressed that the use of low-pressure irrigation technically was appropriate and economical than other methods of irrigation. The advantages of low-pressure irrigation system are Increase in irrigation efficiency, reduce runtime, reduce the water volume required. Results of evaluations was made in the various world countries including Australia, China, Egypt and Iran indicate that use of gated pipe related to the traditional method reduced water consumption rate of 25 to 28 percent and increaseed water use efficiency about 30 percent (Karami & Samadi Bahrami, 2005). Rozati and Vailzadeh (2009) Were expressed using the pipes gated (Hydroflume) than the traditional method for water distribution, in addition to saving water and energy consumption is decreased 5 percent reduction in waste of land. The purpose of this research, technical and economic evaluation of irrigation using low-pressure pipe (Hydroflume) and compared with sprinkler irrigation (wheel move) and traditional irrigation in potato fields In some fields of potato, kabodarahng plain of Hamedan province in Iran MATERIALS AN METHOS Technical research methodology project This study was carried out in Kaboudarahang plain which is located in 52 km north-west of hamedan province with the average height of 1675 meters above sea level in the years from 2006 to For this purpose, fields selected by using simple random sampling and nessesry data were collected.characteristics of farms in tables 1 and 2 are mentioned. Evaluation of the farms were under potato cultivation in the three stages(early, mid and late season farming ). Technical evaluation was included Potential Efficiency Low Quarter, Application Efficiency Low Quarter, Uniformity Christian's Coefficient and istribution Uniformity. Moisture of field capacity and wilt point of moisture, soil texture and soil Bulk ensity was measured and chemical analysis of water and soil was done. Soil moisture fields before the assessment test to determine the soil moisture deficit was measured. In each traditional and Hydroflume irrigation advance and recession time noted and Irrigation water volume and runoff were measured with Washington State College Flume. epth of water stored in the soil, water volume and influence of deep percolation Using the following relations were calculated. s= ( θ θ ) ρ 2 1 b z (1) In which: s: epth of water stored in the soil 1 and 2 :respectively Volumetric soil moisture before and 24 hours after irrigation z: depth of root development b: Bulk ensity V = V V (2) p in out V p : volume of water penetration Vin: input water volume Vout: output water p= (3) p s Volume of water consumed during the farming season was determined with measured well flow and time of irrigation. At the end of season, yield of farms was determined by measurement. Fields of study were 109

3 selected close together. during the season no rainfall occurred in the study area.in order to calculate the technical indicators, the opportunity of influence on the advance and recession curves extracted and Equation of soil water penetration was determined by two points method. For evaluate sprinkler irrigation system (wheel move) some cans was set in the square network (3 3) between the three Sequential sprinkler (Alizadeh, 1995). The space of Sprinkler in wheel move systems was 12 meters. After testing, the required parameters according to the depth of water is collected in cans calculated. Wind and evaporation losses were calculated by the difference between distribution uniformity and yield potential of low quartile. Also other parameter such as : AELQ, PELQ, u And Cu were calculated for different irrigation systems. q AELQ = (4) r q PELQ = when q<sm (5) r SM PELQ = when q SM (6) r q u = (7) CU= ( i M ) N M (8) In which: q: average depth of low quarter r: average epth SM: soil moisture eficiet i: individual depth value M:average of all point depth N: the number of observation Table 1 - Physical and chemical properties of soil farms No farm Soil depth (cm) Irrigation systems Moisture saturation (%) Electrical conductivity *10 3 ph Percent neutral lubricating materials (%) Organic carbon (%) Available phosphorus (ppm) Available Potassium (ppm) Percent clay Percent silt Percent sand Soil texture Furrow Hydroflume Sprinkler Furrow Hydroflume Sprinkler

4 Table 2 - Some Physical farms studied and the amount of fertilizer consumption No farm Irrigation systems Furrow length (m) Furrow spacing (m) Area farms (ha) N fertilizer consumption (kg/ha) Phosphate consumption (kg/ha) Animal fertilizer consumption (ton/ha) 1 Furrow Hydroflume Sprinkler Furrow Hydroflume Sprinkler RESULTS AN ISCUSSION Technical evaluation Mean evaluation parameters for each of the farms in the study were presented (Table 3).The average potential efficiency (PELQ), application of low quartile (AELQ), distribution uniformity(u), uniformity coefficient Christiansen's, deep percolation losses and percentage of surface runoff in the traditional method in farm1 were calculated 38.4, 22.9, 92.6, 95.5, 40.8 and 35.9 espectively. Low potential efficiency in this field indicates weakness in the system desighn. The amount of 22.9 percent of AELQ that represents a high fatality of water as surface runoff or deep percolation (Table 3) Mean surface runoff and deep percolation losses in traditional irrigation system (Farm1) is 40.8 and 35.9 respectively. These values indicate the weakness in the system design and implementation of systems. Water distribution uniformity and coefficient of Christiansen's uniformity of water distribution in traditional irrigation is good and about 95.1 and 95.5 percent respectively (Table 3).The average potential efficiency, the low quartile application efficiency, distribution uniformity, uniformity coefficient Christiansen's, and percent eep percolation losses. surface runoff on water distribution using Hydroflume ( Farm No. 2) were 48.8, 47.9, 81.9, 72.9, 40.2 and 13.1 respectively. The average of potential efficiency in water distribution using Hydroflume( Farm No. 2) is 48.8 percent. the low value is signed of poor design. amount of application efficiency of this method is 47.9 percent that is closed to the value of potential efficiency (Table 3).Uniformity of water distribution and coefficient of Christiansen's by using hydroflume (Farm2) is acceptable and about 82 and 73 percent respectively (Table 3). Percentage of deep percolation losses in water distribution using hydroflume( Farm No. 2) is relatively large (40.2 percent). This work ue to High length of furrow that was too much time for water to reach the end Furrow and this causes loss of water was too as deep percolation. Surface runoff losses using Hydroflume is 13.1 percent. The average of potential efficiency, the lower quartile application efficiency, distribution uniformity, uniformity coefficient Christiansen's and wind and evaporation losses in sprinkler irrigation methods on the farm 3 were 64.5, 61.4, 77.7, 84.6 and 13.2 percent respectively (Table 3). In irrigation of the middle and End of season due to Irrigation wasn't sufficient that soil moisture deficit isn t recoveried, the amount of potential efficiency and the low quartile application efficiency is equal. Average summary technical evaluation of each irrigation method is presented in Table 4. the amount of potential efficiency for irrigation using Hydroflume is more than traditional method and less than sprinkler irrigation. This indicates better management of irrigation using Hydroflume to traditional. Irrigation application efficiency of low quarter with Hydroflume is almost 13 percent more than the traditional method. amount of deep percolation losses in traditional and hydroflume is high., which is due to inadequate length and discharge for Furrow( Table 4) Much lower potential efficiency and application efficiency of low quarter is due to the Inappropriate design and management of sprinkler irrigation system. NO farm Moisture before irrigation Weight (%) Table 3 - Results of technical evaluation of water distribution in the fields studied Moisture after SM PELQ AELQ U Cu eep Tail irrigation (mm) (%) (%) (%) (%) percolation water Weight(%) Ratio ratio Wind and evaporation loss (%) (%) (% )

5 Irrigation methods Table 4 - Summary of technical evaluation of water distribution in each of the irrigation methods eep Tail water PELQ Cu (% ) percolation (% ) U ratio (%) Ratio AELQ (%) Wind and evaporation loss (%) furrow hydroflume sprinkler Comparison of yield, water volume and water use efficiency in the different irrigation methods Average of yield, water volume and water use efficiency in traditional, sprinkler methods and water distribution using Hydroflume are presented in Table (5).The average of yield for water distribution using Hydroflume, traditional and sprinkler are 19.1, 30.5 and 23.5 tons per hectare respectively. The results showed that Irrigation with hydroflume and sprinkler increasd yield compared to the traditional method about 60 and 30 percent respectively. That is conformed with The results of Osman and Hassan (2003).Therefore, in the fields of interest facing Hydroflume because of better distribution of water in the field, better management and weed control, had the highest Yield. As the table (5) be observed, the average of water volume in the traditional irrigation methods and sprinkler and Hydroflume 16,400, 7288 and cubic meters per hectare respectively. This is due to deficet irrigation in sprinkler irrigation methods and High consumption of water in traditional method. Therefore, the use of irrigation pipes (hydroflume) relative to traditional methods decreased 21 percent in consumption water. Jibin and Foroud ( 2000) had reached similar results.the maximum of water use efficiency with 3.2 kg/m 3 belongs to sprinkler irrigation and the lowest of water use efficiency belongs to the traditional method (1.2 kg/m 3 ). Therefore, sprinkler method with 56 percent reduction in water consumption increased 166 percent in water use efficiency related to traditional method. also The water distribution using Hydroflume decreased 21.2 percent in water consumption, increased about 100 percent in water use efficiency than the traditional method. This showed the advantages of sprinkler and hydroflume methods than traditional irrigation. Table 5 - Comparison of amount of water, Yield and water use efficiency in different irrigation systems Irrigation methods amount of water (m 3 /ha) yield (kg/ha) water use efficiency(kg/m 3 ) traditional hydroflume sprinkler The average yield for each of the traditional, Hydroflume and Sprinkler irrigation systems was 19100, and kg per hectare respectively.crop yield in irrigation with Hydruflume related to sprinkler irrigation were higher 29.8 percent Therefore, gated pipe irrigation increased water productivity related to traditional method about percent. Sprinkler irrigation increased the water productivity related to the traditional irrigation 177 percent. Therefore, gated pipe irrigation increased water productivity related to traditional method about 134 percent. According to this index, Sprinkler irrigation increased the water productivity about 172 percent related to the traditional irrigation.therefore, productivity through this index of sprinkler irrigation method has been over the hydroflume irrigation and in hydroflume systems has been over the traditional method. 112

6 CONCLUSION The results of this study in any areas where the farmers due to various Reasons are not relish to pressurized irrigation methods, using gated pipe (Hydroflume) that proper distribution of water in the field, reducing water consumption and increase yield and water use efficiency are is recommended. In addition to the water crisis, we are facing the evidence showed that in the future not very far, With the energy crisis. evelopment methods such as irrigation with gated pipe while promoting efficiency, and also require less energy must be considered. REFRENCES Abbasi F, Sohrab F, Zarei G, Arasti A, Nayrizi S Analysis of irrigation efficiency in Iran. Final Research Report. IR Iran Water Resources Management Company. (in Farsi) Howitt RE, Wallender WW, Weaver T Economic analysis of irrigation technology selection: the effect of declining performance and management, in Social Economic and Institutional in Third World Irrigation Management, Ed. K.K. Sampth and R.A. Ouny, No. 15, Boulder and Oxford: Jibin L, Foroud N Evaluation of a gated pipe basin irrigation method in China. Osman, B. and Hassan, E Evaluation of surface irrigation using gated pipes techniques in field crops and old horticultural farm. Jihad-E Agricultural Organization of Hamedan Province Selected Statistics. Management plan and Planning Bureau of Statistics. ( in Farsi) Karami V, Samadi Bahrami R Improved surface irrigation methods by using gated pipes. Technical workshop automated surface irrigation. P: ( in Farsi) Minaei S, Behzadi M, Marofpore M Technical and economical evaluation of low pressure distribution systems with furrow and sprinkler irrigation system. Seminar of Mechanization of Surface Irrigation.Irincid.P: ( in Farsi) Rozati M, Vail zadeh N Use of gated irrigation system (Hydroflume) in irrigation farms, gardens and water. Second National Congress of the effects of drought and management strategies. Isfahan( in Farsi) Salemi H, Nikooie A, Rezvani M, Jafari A. M Technical and economical evaluation of sprinkler irrigation system of potato in Isfahan and Hamedan provinces. Final Research Report. No: 84/344. Agricultural Engineering Research Institue.Karaj. ( in Farsi) Shamili, M Reviewing the irrigation systems Karun Agro Industry Co. Technical workshop automated surface irrigation P: ( in Farsi) Sohrabi T, Asilmanesh R Technical and economical evaluation of center pivot with furrow irrigation system. Proceedings of the second national congress on soil & water issues.p: ( in Farsi) Steigum EJ A-financial theory of investment behavior. Economictrica, 51: Tecle A, Yitayew M Preference ranking of alternative irrigation technologies via a multicriterion decision-making procedure. Trans. ASAE, 33: