Irrigation Fundamentals R. Troy Peters, Ph.D. WSU Extension Irrigation Engineer
Demonstration
Composition of Soil Air Water Minerals (rocks)
Soil Water Saturation Field Capacity (FC) Excess Water Permanent Wilting Point (PWP) Available Soil Moisture Total pore space Unavailable Water Oven Dry
Field Capacity (FC):: Maximum amount of water that a soil can hold indefinitely against gravity (% of volume) Permanent Wilting Point (PWP):: The amount of water remaining i in the soil after plants can no longer pull water from the soil (wilt & die) Available Water (AW) = FC PWP Management Allowable Deficit (MAD):: percent deficit of Available Water (AW) that management will accept
Soil Texture and Available Water Soil Texture Available Water (AW) in/ft Coarse Sand 0.2-0.8 Fine Sand 0.7-1.0 Loamy Sandy 0.8-1.3 Sandy Loam 1.1-1.6 Fine Sandy Loam 1.2-2.0 Silt Loam 1.8-2.8 Silty Clay Loam 1.6-1.9 Silty Clay 1.5-2.0 Clay 1.3-1.8 Peat Mucks 1.9-2.9
Production Reduction Function 110% 100% 90% % of Maximum Pro oduction 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% FC MAD PWP 10% 0% 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% % of Available Water
Effective Rooting Zone
Water Balance SW 2 SW Rain Irrig. Capillary 1 ET DeepPerc Runoff
Variation in Crop Water Use from growing season to growing season Average Crop Water Use e Water Use Crop W Germination and Emergence Vegetative Growth Reproduction (seed set) Maturity and Senascence Growing Season
ET and Weather 040 0.40 0.35 030 0.30 0.25 ET (inches/da ay) 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00 4/10 5/10 6/09 7/09 8/08 9/07 10/07 Date
Avg. Crop Water Needs Water Use per Month (in) 14 12 10 8 6 4 Effective Precip Apples/Cherries Grapes Peas Walla Walla, WA 2 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Washington Ag Weather Network http://weather.wsu.edu/
AWN Models
Select Station and Dates
Water Use Select Crop
ET Report
Example Soil Water Budget Silt loam: AW = 2 in/ft Effective rooting depth: 2.5 ft Total water holding capacity: 2 in / ft x 2.5ft=5in MAD: 30% Irrigation Efficiency: 75% Soil water deficit at MAD: 5 in * 30% = 1.5 in
Example Soil Water Budget cont.. Daily ET rate: 0.25 in/day (or use actuals from web site) Time to dewater full profile to MAD: 1.5 in / 0.25 in/day = 6 days Irrigation Efficiency: 75% Irrigation Amount: 1.5 in / 75% = 2 in How long does it take to put on 2 in?
Good Irrigation Management 20 Field Capacity 15 MAD inche es of water 10 5 Wilting Point Irrigation + Rain 0 Neutron Probe Reading Deep Percolation -5 104 112 120 128 136 144 152 160 168 176 184 192 200 208 216 224 232 240 248 256 264 272 280 day of year
Poor Irrigation Management 20 FC 15 MAD inch hes of water 10 5 WP Irrigation + Rain 0 Neutron Probe Reading Deep Percolation -5 104 112 120 128 136 144 152 160 168 176 184 192 200 208 216 224 232 240 248 256 264 272 280 day of year
Methods Used in Washington to Determine When to Irrigate 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 Condi ition of Crop Feel of Soi il Person nal Calenda ar Decided by Irrig. Dist. Daily ET Reports Soil Mois sture Sensor Watch Neighbors Consultan nt Othe er Plant Mois sture Senso or Comp puter Models Number of Farms
Levels of Irrigation Scheduling Worst Same schedule all season / Guessing Kicking the dirt / Looking at the plants Look and feel method using shovel or soil probe Checkbook method / ET (AgWeatherNet) Soil moisture monitoring Neutron probe + checkbook Less Prof fitable More Prof fitable Gro owers Best
Irrigation Uniformity it and Efficiency i
Courtesy Michael Dukes Univ. Florida
Courtesy Michael Dukes Univ. Florida
Courtesy Michael Dukes Univ. Florida
Courtesy Michael Dukes Univ. Florida
Courtesy Michael Dukes Univ. Florida
Irrigation Efficiency Defined Efficiencyi WaterBenficiallyUsed WaterFlowingOntoField
Forms of Water Loss Wind Drift Droplet Evaporation Evaporation from Foliage Evaporation from Soil Surface Runoff Deep Percolation Overwatering Non Uniformity it
Irrigation Efficiencies i i Highly dependant on: System Design Management Maintenance Weather Operating Conditions
Irrigation Efficiencies Surface Irrigation Borders: Well graded and managed 60-80% Borders: Poorly graded and managed 30-60% Furrow: Well graded and managed 50-70% Furrow: Poorly graded d and managed 30-50% Furrow: Surge-flow with tail water recovery 60-90% Level Basins 75-95% Drip/Trickle 70-95%
Irrigation Efficiencies Sprinklers Sprinkler Type Range Average Hand-move 50-70% 65 Side-roll 50-70% 65 Solid Set 60-75% 70 Center Pivot 70-85% 75 Linear move 65-85% 75 Big Gun 55-65% 60
Improve Efficiencies By: Get a good design Maintain your system Replace worn nozzles Fix leaky pipes Improve management Irrigation Scheduling Operate at designed pressure and flow Irrigate on calm cool days Increase Application Rate
Why Should I Care?
You Can t Afford to Do it Wrong Even if the water is free, poor irrigation management th has very real costs Yields and quality are very strongly correlated with irrigation water management Expensive fertilizers washed out Environmental damage
Water Costs Assumptions: 50 acres 150 ft deep well sprinkler irrigating (80 psi required at pump) 50% irrigation efficiency (poor management) Growing corn (seasonal water req d: 36 in) Unnecessary energy costs paid $3,600 (compared to 80% efficiency)
Decrease your Irrigation Costs Lower the pumping pressure Lower flow rate (quantity of water pumped) p Better uniformity Better efficiency Irrigation scheduling saves water and increases yield
Decrease your Irrigation Costs Lower management time and labor requirements by upgrading your system Irrigate to take advantage of off-peak power rates Update or upgrade your pump (inefficient pumps p cost $) Pumps most efficient at designed flow and pressure
Benefits Most things that decrease your irrigation costs also benefit the environment More flow for fish, less dirty water returning to rivers Less consumption of energy Less fertilizer, pesticides in streams and groundwater More carbon sequestration ti (takes CO 2 out of the air) EQUIP (NRCS) money available ailable especially converting from surface to sprinkle or drip
But Make Some Real Money! Saving money small compared to the yield increases and crop quality improvements common from improved irrigation water management.
Soil Moisture Sensors
Soil Moisture Sensors Tensiometers Strengths Soil water tension (same as plant sees) Less expensive Widely used, studied and accepted Not affected by salinity Weaknesses Small sample area Indicates when to irrigate, not how much
Soil Moisture Sensors Neutron Probe Strengths Accurate Gives soil water content Large soil sample area Unaffected by salinity or temperature Repeatable Easy to sample at different depths Weaknesses Highly regulated (nuclear device) Can t leave in the field Expensive
Soil Moisture Sensors Resistance type Strengths Inexpensive Usable trends Give soil water potential (same as plant sees) Easy to log data Weaknesses Affected by salinity it Imperfect accuracy Samples small area
Soil Moisture Sensors Dielectric constant/capacitance Strengths Usable trends Gives soil water content Easy to log data (real-time) Weaknesses Imperfect accuracy Inconsistent (high variability) Small sample area Can be expensive Proper installation is critical, and difficult to do Affected by salinity and temperature
Soil Moisture Sensors Time Domain Reflectometry Strengths Accurate Not sensitive to temperature Soil independent Weaknesses Complicated to use Signal analysis equipment is expensive
Soil Moisture Sensors The Look and Feel Method Advantages Cheap Easy Forces you to get out in the field Weaknesses Subjective
Soil Moisture Sensors Summary Neutron Probe is still the best. All others are not as accurate, and are not as repeatable to varying degrees Most sensors will give a trend that is usable for irrigation i scheduling. Proper installation of sensors is critical and must be done right or data is worthless Not all sensors are suitable to all soil types
Washington Irrigation Guide http://www.wa.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/eng/irrigat ion_guide/index.html Extension Irrigation Publications http://pubs.wsu.edu/cgi-bin/pubs/index.htmlbin/pubs/index.html Web Soil Survey http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov