Microirrigation in Mulched Bed Production Systems: Irrigation Depths 1

Similar documents
Converting from seepage irrigation to plasticulture for vegetable production: A case study 1

How to Conduct an On-Farm Dye Test and Use the Results to Improve Drip Irrigation Management in Vegetable Production 1

The 1/128th of an Acre Sprayer Calibration Method 1

Irrigated Acreage in Florida: A Summary through

Uniformity of Sprinkler and Microirrigation Systems for Nurseries 1

Irrigation Scheduling for Tropical Fruit Groves in South Florida 1

Energy Requirements for Drip Irrigation of Tomatoes in North Florida 1

Pesticide Calibration Formulas and Information 1

Water Movement in Mulched Beds in Rocky Soils of Miami-Dade County 1

Irrigated Acreage in Florida 1

Alternatives of Low Cost Soil Moisture Monitoring Devices for Vegetable Production in South Miami-Dade County 1

Calculating Recommended Fertilizer Rates for Vegetables Grown in Raised-Bed, Mulched Cultural Systems 1

Water and Nitrogen BMPs for Tomato and Watermelon: Water Quality and Economics 1

Florida Agricultural Land Values Increase: 2000 Survey Results 1

2006 Florida Land Value Survey 1

Microirrigation On Mulched Bed Systems: Components, System Capacities, And Management 1

Screen Filters in Trickle Irrigation Systems 1

Field Evaluations of Irrigation Systems: Solid Set or Portable Sprinkler Systems 1

Chemical Injection Methods for Irrigation 1

Wetlands, 4-H Project Record Page 2

Groundwater Recharge from Agricultural Areas in the Flatwoods Region of South Florida 1

Converting from Gallons -- to Inches -- to Runtime Hours for Row Crop Drip Irrigation Systems

Production Budget for Tomatoes in Southwest Florida 1

Update and Outlook for 2005 of Florida's BMP Program for Vegetable Crops 1

Production Budget for Tomatoes in the Manatee-Ruskin Area of Florida 1

Stormwater as an Alternative Source of Water Supply: Feasibility and Implications for Watershed Management 1

Meeting US Nursery and Greenhouse Growers Needs with Water Conservation Extension Programs 1

Chemical Injection Methods for Irrigation 1

Chemical Injection Methods for Irrigation 1

Yield Response of Bell Pepper Cultivars to Foliar-applied 'Atonik' Biostimulant 1

Guide to OSHA Standard Storage and Handling of Liquefied Petroleum Gases 1

Nematode Assay Form 1

Farm Family Exposure to Glyphosate 1

How to Calibrate Your Fertilizer Spreader 1

Potassium Fertilizer Recommendations for Sugarcane on Florida Organic Soils 1

Michael Cahn, Barry Farrara, Tim Hartz, Tom Bottoms, and Mark Bolda

Rivulis. T-Tape Drip Tape. Irrigation. Product Line Information. Models. Applications. Options

Measuring Organic Matter in Everglades Wetlands and the Everglades Agricultural Area 1

Materials Handling - Florida Greenhouse Vegetable Production Handbook, Vol 2 1

Study Questions for the Certified Pesticide Applicator Examination: Natural Areas Weed Management 1

Review of Current Sugarcane Fertilizer Recommendations: A Report from the UF/IFAS Sugarcane Fertilizer Standards Task Force 1

Irrigation Management for Young Orchards

Selecting a Method for Sealing Ponds in Florida 1

SOP 22: Evaluation of design and operation of a micro irrigation system for potted plants

Growing Pomegranates in Florida: Establishment Costs and Production Practices 1

Cotton Cultural Practices and Fertility Management 1

Orchard Irrigation Determining the Application Rate & Uniformity of a Microirrigation System

Seed Piece Spacing Adjustment for Florida Chipping Potato 1

Florida Crystals Drip Irrigation Project Design and Pricing Assumptions Including Experimental Design Considerations

Use of Telone II and Temik 15G to Improve Yields and Returns of Cotton Grown in Northwest Florida Fields Infested with Reniform Nematodes 1

SOP 21: Evaluation of design and operation of a micro-sprinkler system

Adoption of Energy and Water-Conserving Irrigation Technologies in Florida 1

Economic Contributions of Agriculture, Natural Resources, and Food Industries in Florida in

Use of Telone II and Temik 15G to Improve Yields and Returns of Cotton Grown in Northwest Florida Fields Infested with Root-Knot Nematodes 1

Smart Irrigation Controllers: Operation of Evapotranspiration-Based Controllers 1

Basic Irrigation Scheduling in Florida 1

Florida Irrigation Systems 1

Sprinkler System Capacity. AE-91 (Revised), August 2005 Tom Scherer, Extension Agricultural Engineer

Blossom-End Rot in Bell Pepper: Causes and Prevention 1

Worker Protection Standard: Requirements for Commercial Pesticide Handler Employers 1

Vertical Distribution of Moisture in a Growing Sweet Corn Canopy During MicroWEX-4 1

Floriculture Crops Economic Outlook for 20141

Estimating Irrigation Water Requirements to Optimize Crop Growth

IFAS Standardized Fertilization Recommendations for Environmental Horticulture Crops 1

Irrigation Practices for Peaches in Florida 1

Creep Grazing for Suckling Calves A Pasture Management Practice 1

Archival copy: for current recommendations see or your local extension office.

Irrigation Scheduling for Urban and Small Farms

Small Acreage Irrigation Management

Best Management Practices in the Everglades Agricultural Area: Soil Testing 1

Vegetarian Newsletter

Florida Cow-Calf and Stocker Beef Safety and Quality Assurance Handbook: Record Keeping for Beef Quality Assurance 1

Economic Feasibility of Anaerobic Digestion To Produce Electricity on Florida Dairy Farms 1

Response of Tomato to Fertilization with Meister Controlled-Release Fertilizers George J. Hochmuth 1

Economic Impacts of Citrus Greening (HLB) in Florida, 2006/ /11 1

South Florida Tropical Fruit Grower Perspectives: Water Conservation Management Practices 1

Economic Impacts of Citrus Greening (HLB) in Florida, 2006/ /11 1

SOP 20: Evaluation of design and operation of a surface drip system

The Savvy Survey #11: Mail-Based Surveys 1

Process of Drying Post-Harvest Hops (Humulus lupulus) for Small-Scale Producers Using a Novel Drying Rig 1

Calibrating Field Sprayers

Efficiencies of Florida Agricultural Irrigation Systems 1

Farm Bill Survey: Florida Producer Views on Farm Programs and Budget Priorities, Commodity Programs and Risk Management Policy 1

South Florida ornamental plant grower perspectives: water conservation management practices 1

Sugarcane Variety Census: Florida

Tapered Lateral Design for Subsurface Drip Irrigation 1

Using Evapotranspiration Reports for Furrow Irrigation Scheduling IRRIGATION MANAGEMENT S E R I E S

Florida Consumer Preferences for Ornamental Landscape Plants 1

Response of Mulched Lettuce, Cauliflower, and Tomato to Megafol Biostimulant George J. Hochmuth 1

Brookdale Fruit Farm Inc

Relationship of Cow Size to Nutrient Requirements and Production Management Issues 1

Frost Protection Irrigation for Florida Peaches: Economic Considerations 1

Community CROPS Drip Tape Demonstration

Is It Still Profitable to Grow Lychee in Florida? 1

Environmental Controls - Florida Greenhouse Vegetable Production Handbook, Vol 2 1

Management of Soil and Water for Vegetable Production in Southwest Florida 1

Reducing Fumigant Application Rates and Soil Emissions with Plastic Mulch Technology 1

Irrigation of Lawns and Gardens 1

EC Furrow Irrigation of Nebraska Soils

Response of Mulched Tomato to Meister Controlled-Release Fertilizers George J. Hochmuth 1

Transcription:

AE72 Microirrigation in Mulched Bed Production Systems: Irrigation Depths 1 Gary A. Clark and Dorota Z. Haman 2 Microirrigation involves the slow, controlled application of water to a crop via small openings or orifices in a tube or emitter device. Therefore precise and accurate placement of water to the crop can be achieved through proper design, installation, and management. In sandy soil vegetable production systems the tubing is placed along the plant row either on or slightly below the soil surface. In mulched bed production systems, the tubing is used to maintain desirable moisture conditions within all or most of the bed. The intent of this publication is to provide the user with design and management information regarding the application rates and depths associated with microirrigation tubing and its use in mulched bed production systems. Tubing Characteristics Line source microirrigation tubing may be disposable or reusable and is generally made of plastic, although paper and rubber products have been used. Other characteristics of the tubing such as emission rate and longevity vary among manufacturers, however some similarities exist. Some types of tubing have emission openings which have been formed as part of the tubing during the extrusion process. They collapse when empty and are thus often referred to as tapes. This type of tubing is generally lightweight and considered to be disposable. Wall thickness may range from 4 mils for lightweight tubing to 15 mils for more durable tubing. Other manufacturers use physical emission devices which have either been welded into the tube (in-line emitters) or are attached to the outside of the tubing. These types of tubes are generally more durable and have wall thicknesses which may range from 15 mils to 50 mils or more. Wall thickness, which is related to tubing weight and to manufacturing characteristics, will influence the cost of the tube. In general, the cost of a tube increases as the weight of the tube and the number of required physical devices increases. Therefore, the tapes are usually less expensive. The water discharge characteristics of microirrigation tubes will depend upon the physical characteristics of the emission openings or emitter devices and the operating pressure of the system. In general, emitter discharge will increase as pressure increases. However, some emitters are designed to be pressure compensating such that the discharge rate remains relatively constant over a wide range of operating pressures. In addition, some tubes are designed to operate within low pressure ranges such as 6 to 15 psi, while other tubes are designed to operate within the 15 to 40 psi range. The discharge characteristics of a line source type of microirrigation tube must be known to determine application rates and for irrigation scheduling. These characteristics may be provided in terms of gallons per minute per 100 feet of run (gpm/100 feet) or in terms of gallons per hour (gph) per emitter. This publication will work with the units of (gpm/100 feet). However, if the emitter spacing is known, Table 1 can be used to convert from gph per emitter 1. This document is AE72, one of a series of the Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, UF/IFAS Extension. Original publication date August 1988. Revised March 1994. Reviewed August 2017. Visit the EDIS website at http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu. 2. Gary A. Clark, associate professor, Extension irrigation specialist, UF/IFAS Gulf Coast Research and Education Center; and Dorota Haman, professor, Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering; UF/IFAS Extension, Gainesville, FL 32611. The Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS) is an Equal Opportunity Institution authorized to provide research, educational information and other services only to individuals and institutions that function with non-discrimination with respect to race, creed, color, religion, age, disability, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, political opinions or affiliations. For more information on obtaining other UF/IFAS Extension publications, contact your county s UF/IFAS Extension office. U.S. Department of Agriculture, UF/IFAS Extension Service, University of Florida, IFAS, Florida A & M University Cooperative Extension Program, and Boards of County Commissioners Cooperating. Nick T. Place, dean for UF/IFAS Extension.

to (gpm/100 feet). This type of information should be provided by your irrigation supplier. Application Rates and Depths Irrigation scheduling involves the timing (frequency and duration) of irrigation events. Determination of the duration of irrigation events may be based on the availability of water or power, the size of the irrigated root zone and the available water holding capacity of the soil, the time required to supply a certain chemical through the system, or any combination of these and perhaps other factors. Knowledge of the rate of water application to the irrigated area will be in these scheduling procedures. The wetted width (Figure 1) of the irrigated area must be known to determine the rate of application. Soil type and compaction will influence the lateral movement of water away from an emitter. Do not use emitter or plant spacings as values for the wetted width. This property should be determined from field or laboratory observations. Sandy soils will generally have wetted widths in the range of 12 to 24 inches. Coarse sand may only have wetted widths of 12 inches while a finer textured loamy or clayey type of soil may have a wetted width of 36 inches or more. Once the wetted width is known, it can be combined with the tubing discharge characteristics to determine the application rate of water to the irrigated area (Table 2). Figure 1. Wetting patterns from line source emitters in (A) fine textured soils, and (B) coarse textured soils. Because the soil has a limited capacity to hold water, irrigation depths limit the duration of irrigation applications. The depth of application should not exceed the water holding capacity of the soil in the irrigated zone. The depth of this irrigated zone may be based on the entire root zone of the crop, an upper percentage of the root zone, or some other factor. Sometimes over-irrigation is necessary to move excess salts out of the root zone, however this is not the general practice. Irrigation depths (as applied to the irrigated areas) can be obtained from Table 3 by entering the system application rate from Table 2 along with the duration of application. If the depth of application exceeds the available water holding capacity of the irrigation zone, then the total irrigation duration should be scheduled into two, three, or more cycles of shorter duration. The timing of the start of each cycle should be such that the irrigation zone would have sufficient capacity to hold the water applied during that cycle. For example a two hour irrigation may need to be divided into two cycles, one in the morning for an hour and one in the afternoon for an hour. Sometimes irrigations are scheduled to apply a certain volume of water per bed, per 100 feet of bed, or per acre. It is still necessary to schedule these volumes of water such that over-irrigation does not occur. The wetted width and the volume of water to be applied in gallons per 100 feet of bed can be used in Table 4 to determine the application depth to the irrigated area. As before, if the volume to be applied exceeds the water holding capacity of the irrigated zone, then two or more shorter duration or smaller volume cycles may be necessary. Although microirrigation systems are designed to apply water only to the mulched beds, the gross acreage application depths are sometimes beneficial for budget or scheduling purposes. Table 5 can be used to obtain the application depth over the gross acreage as if all of the irrigation water were distributed uniformly over the entire area. The discharge per gross acre can be estimated by multiplying the length of tubing used per acre by the tubing discharge characteristics of the tube. The following equation can be used for this purpose: Q(acre) = Q(tube) * L(tube) 100 where Q(acre) =Discharge per gross acre (gpm/acre), Q(tube) =Tubing discharge per 100 feet (gpm/100 ft), and L(tube) =Length of tubing used per acre (feet). Example: A tube which discharges 0.48 gpm per 100 feet of length is used on a production system which uses 5800 feet of tubing per acre. The discharge per acre is: Q(acre) = 0.48 * 5800 100 = 27.8 gpm per acre Therefore, 10 acres of production requires a water delivery system capable of supplying 278 gpm. Summary Characteristics of line-source type of microirrigation tubing were presented in terms of application rates, depths, and system requirements. This information is supplied to help the irrigation system manager schedule and operate the system to optimal capacity. With proper management and operation, microirrigation systems can apply precise amounts of water to the crop for maximum effectiveness at high levels of efficiency. 2

Table 1. Emitter discharge in gallons per minute (gpm) per 100 feet of bed as related to gallons per hour (gph) per emitter. Emitter Discharge (gph) Emitter Spacing (in.) 9 12 15 18 21 24 30 Emitter Discharge (gpm/100 feet) 0.1 0.22 0.17 0.13 0.11 0.10 0.08 0.07 0.2 0.44 0.33 0.27 0.22 0.19 0.17 0.13 0.3 0.67 0.50 0.40 0.33 0.29 0.25 0.20 0.4 0.89 0.67 0.53 0.44 0.38 0.33 0.27 0.5 1.11 0.83 0.67 0.56 0.48 0.42 0.33 0.6 1.33 1.00 0.80 0.67 0.57 0.50 0.40 0.7 1.56 1.17 0.93 0.78 0.67 0.58 0.47 0.8 1.78 1.33 1.07 0.89 0.76 0.67 0.53 0.9 2.00 1.50 1.20 1.00 0.86 0.75 0.60 1.0 2.22 1.67 1.33 1.11 0.95 0.83 0.67 Table 2. Application rate to the irrigated area based on the wetted width and discharge rates of line source emitters. Wetted Width (ft.) Emitter Discharge gpm per 100 feet 0.25 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.50 Application Rate (inches/hour) 0.25 0.96 0.50 0.48 0.58 0.77 0.96 0.75 0.32 0.38 0.51 0.64 0.96 1.00 0.24 0.29 0.38 0.48 0.72 0.96 1.50 0.16 0.19 0.26 0.32 0.48 0.64 0.96 2.00 0.12 0.14 0.19 0.24 0.36 0.48 0.72 2.50 0.10 0.12 0.15 0.19 0.29 0.38 0.58 3.00 0.08 0.10 0.13 0.16 0.24 0.32 0.48 3

Table 3. Irrigated area depth of application (inches) based on application rate and time of operation. Time of Operation Minutes System Application Rate (in/hour) 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.75 1.00 Irrigated Area Application Depth (inches) 10 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.08 0.12 0.17 20 0.03 0.07 0.10 0.13 0.17 0.25 0.33 30 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.37 0.50 40 0.07 0.13 0.20 0.27 0.33 0.50 0.67 50 0.08 0.17 0.25 0.33 0.42 0.62 0.83 Hours 1.0 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.5 0.15 0.30 0.45 0.60 0.75 1.13 1.50 2.0 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.5 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.88 2.50 3.0 0.30 0.60 0.90 1.20 1.50 2.25 3.00 3.5 0.35 0.70 1.05 1.40 1.75 2.63 3.50 4.0 0.40 0.80 1.20 1.60 2.00 3.00 4.00 4.5 0.45 0.90 1.35 1.80 2.25 3.38 4.50 5.0 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.75 5.00 5.5 0.55 1.10 1.65 2.20 2.75 4.13 5.50 6.0 0.60 1.20 1.80 2.40 3.00 4.50 6.00 Table 4. Application depths (inches) to irrigated areas based on wetted width and volume of application. Volume Applied (gal per 100 ft) Wetted Width (feet) 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 Irrigated Area Application Depth (inches) 5 0.32 0.16 0.11 0.08 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.03 10 0.64 0.32 0.21 0.16 0.11 0.08 0.06 0.05 15 0.96 0.48 0.32 0.24 0.16 0.12 0.10 0.08 20 1.28 0.64 0.43 0.32 0.21 0.16 0.13 0.11 25 1.60 0.80 0.53 0.40 0.27 0.20 0.16 0.13 30 1.93 0.96 0.64 0.48 0.32 0.24 0.19 0.16 35 2.25 1.12 0.75 0.56 0.37 0.28 0.22 0.19 40 2.57 1.28 0.86 0.64 0.43 0.32 0.26 0.21 45 2.89 1.44 0.96 0.72 0.48 0.36 0.29 0.24 50 3.21 1.30 1.07 0.80 0.53 0.40 0.32 0.27 60 3.85 1.93 1.28 0.96 0.64 0.48 0.39 0.32 70 4.49 2.25 1.50 1.12 0.75 0.56 0.45 0.37 80 5.13 2.57 1.71 1.28 0.86 0.64 0.51 0.43 90 5.78 2.89 1.93 1.44 0.96 0.72 0.58 0.48 100 6.42 3.21 2.14 1.60 1.07 0.80 0.64 0.53 4

Table 5. Gross application depth (inches) over entire acreage. Run Time Discharge Per Gross Acre (gpm/acre) 10 20 30 40 50 60 80 100 Minutes Gross Application Depth (inches) 10 0.004 0.007 0.011 0.015 0.018 0.022 0.029 0.037 20 0.007 0.015 0.022 0.029 0.037 0.044 0.059 0.074 30 0.011 0.022 0.033 0.044 0.055 0.066 0.088 0.110 40 0.015 0.029 0.044 0.059 0.074 0.088 0.118 0.147 50 0.018 0.037 0.055 0.074 0.092 0.110 0.147 0.184 Hours 1.0 0.02 0.04 0.07 0.09 0.11 0.13 0.18 0.22 1.5 0.03 0.07 0.10 0.13 0.17 0.20 0.27 0.33 2.0 0.04 0.09 0.13 0.18 0.22 0.27 0.35 0.44 2.5 0.06 0.11 0.17 0.22 0.28 0.33 0.44 0.55 3.0 0.07 0.13 0.20 0.27 0.33 0.40 0.53 0.66 3.5 0.08 0.15 0.23 0.31 0.39 0.46 0.62 0.77 4.0 0.09 0.18 0.27 0.35 0.44 0.53 0.71 0.88 4.5 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.80 1.00 5.0 0.11 0.22 0.33 0.44 0.55 0.66 0.88 1.10 5.5 0.12 0.24 0.36 0.49 0.61 0.73 0.97 1.22 6.0 0.13 0.27 0.40 0.53 0.66 0.80 1.06 1.33 5