Micro irrigation for enhancing water productivity in field crops
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Micro irrigation for enhancing water productivity in field crops






Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



0 Embeds 0

No embeds



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • Microirrigation (drip, trickle, mist, bubbler, etc) supplies water in precise amounts at low flow rates to soil at the base of the irrigated plants. Systems may be “point source” systems, where the plants are widely separated in widely spaced rows. Here the inter-row areas are left dry for improved weed control. This is the most common type of emission system for orchards and landscape irrigation. <br />
  • Drip irrigation Maharashtra-1.54 lakh ha .India-3.55 lakh ha . Sprinkler irrigation. Madhya Pradesh-1.49 lakh ha .India-6.58 lakh ha <br />
  • Area under micro irrigation has been increased almost six folds during last 20 years-from 1.1 mha in 1986 to 6.1 mha at present <br />
  • Some other general uses of microirrigation <br />
  • Drip irrigation is defined as the precise, slow and frequent application of water through point or line source emitters on or below the soil surface at a small operating pressure (20-200 Kpa) and at a low discharge rate (1 to 8 LPH), resulting in partial wetting of the soil surface”. <br />
  • Depending upon the placement of the emitters in the plastic/polyethylene distribution line, the drip system can be broadly categorized as <br />
  • yield was estimated to be 25% greater when employing drip irrigation. The results (table 1) indicated that even with increased fixed and capital expenditures, drip irrigation would produce a greater net operating profit (approximately12%) than the furrow-irrigated model. Note that economics are not the only parameters considered when contemplating changing irrigation method. <br />
  • When rainfall does not meet the crop water requirement, the gap is the irrigation water requirement. When the irrigation water requirement is supplied indeed, growing conditions are optimal (provided that other factors like nutrient availability are optimal as well). If the irrigation requirement is not met or only partly, the yield is likely to be lower than optimal. The yield reduction depends on the volumes and timing of the water shortages. <br />
  • Water applied (spray, jet, fog, mist) to the soil surface at low pressure (normally less than about 1 gal/min per spray applicator) <br />
  • experiment indicated that we could reduce water use by half and, more importantly, increase yields from the 1,350 lb lint/acre plateau for furrow irrigation to more than 1,800 lb lint/acre with drip (table 1). By burying the drip lines 8-10 inches under each row, we discovered that crops could be watered up with the <br /> system and still have adequate clearance to run tractor <br />

Micro irrigation for enhancing water productivity in field crops Micro irrigation for enhancing water productivity in field crops Presentation Transcript

  • Shantappa Duttarganvi II year Ph. D PHD11AGR1007
  • Introduction Irrigation scenario Classification Drip irrigation Sprinkler irrigation LEPA & LESA Conclusion
  • (m ha) Geographical area  Gross cultivable area  Gross irrigated area  Net irrigated area  329 190 76 56 Ratio Kharif Rabi Net Sown area to operational land (%) 87 57 Irrigated 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 world 7th International micro-irrigation congress, 2011
  •  Delivery of water at low flow rates through various types of water applicators by a distribution system located on the soil surface, beneath the surface or suspended above the 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 chemigation  Reduced weed growth and disease problems
  •  High initial cost  Susceptible to clogging  Ponding & runoff on heavy soils  May require better management  Restricted root development
  • Fruits Hilly / Undulating Areas Vegetables Deserts Spices Cereals Forests Micro Irrigation Oilseeds Flowers Saline Water Sugarcane Pulses Cotton With Major/ Medium Irrigation
  • Components of micro irrigation system 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 drip Water applied through small emitter openings (<3 gal/hr/emitter) Most prevalent type of micro irrigation Can inspect, check wetting patterns and measure emitter discharges
  • Subsurface drip Water applied through small emitter openings below the soil surface Basically 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
  • Classification of drip lines  Point source Line source
  • 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 installation
  • Drip irrigation system to the field
  • Economic comparison of drip and furrow irrigation methods Economic activity evaluated for each scenario Drip Irrigated Percentage as Compared to the Same FurrowIrrigated Farm Model, 2000 Yield +25% Chemicals -18% Fertilizer -26% Capital +47% Fixed costs +19% Net operating profit +12% Jerry, 2010
  • Grain yield and Water use efficiency (WUE) of Green gram under drip irrigation Treatment WUE Grain yield Straw yield Quantity of (kg/ha) (kg/ha) water (mm) (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 - - Gujara t Patel et al. (1996)
  • Effect of drip irrigation on yield, oil content and WUE of Sunflower Seed 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 Treatment Bangalore Shivakumar et al. (2000)
  • Effect of irrigation methods on quality parameters, water-use efficiency and yield of Cotton WUE (kg/hamm) Total water applied (mm) Saving of water surface method (%) Seed index (%) Lint index (g) Oil content (%) Seed cotton yield (kg/ha) Drip 0.4 CPE 5.39 3.52 18.8 1096 3.01 364 46.2 Drip 0.6 CPE 5.79 3.76 19.8 1431 3.05 471 30.9 Drip 0.8 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 - - Treatment 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 Treatments Surface method Micro sprinkler 100% PE Micro sprinkler 80% PE Micro sprinkler 60% PE Micro sprinkler 40% PE Micro sprinkler 100% ETc Micro sprinkler 80% ETc Micro sprinkler 60% ETc Micro sprinkler 40% ETc CD at 5% Bhavanisagar (TN) Yield (kg/ha) 2797 2860 3823 3407 2992 Total water used (mm) 409.2 558.1 510.7 467.6 412 WUE (kg/ha-mm) 6.8 5.12 7.48 7.29 7.26 3324 502.28 6.62 3130 3047 2770 153 462.46 426.26 379.55 6.77 7.15 5.85 Krishnamurthi et al., 2003
  • Growth and yield attributes of Chilli as influenced by micro- irrigation systems Plant height at harvest (cm) No. of branches/pla nt 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 0.25 Treatments Shinde et al.,1999
  • Average cotton yields and water application comparisons Irrigation system Cotton yields Water lint (lb/acre) 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 Application Low- Elevation Spray Application Low –Elevation precision Application Sub- Surface Drip Irrigation
  • Selection of the Systems
  • Contd…
  • Possibilities of adapting micro irrigation Drip irrigation  All type of crops except some close spaced crops  Well and tank irrigation  Suitable for all types of soils – sandy, clay and saline Sprinkler irrigation  Close spaced crops  Well, tank and canal irrigation  Suitable for all types of soils – coarse sandy soils
  • Salt movement under irrigation with saline water Subsurface Drip Salt accumulation leached radially outward from drip tubing Sprinkler/Flood Salt accumulation leached downward by successive water applications
  • Comparative efficiency of irrigation systems Surface Sprinkler Drip irrigation 30 - 40% 60 - 70% 80 - 90%
  • Relative Irrigation Efficiencies (%) under Different Methods of irrigation Sivanappan, 1997
  • Effect of micro irrigation in different crops on water saving and crop 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% Bangalore Cotton Gujarat Cotton 25% 22-26% Coimbatore Maize 32-43% 35-39% Bangalore Red gram, Cotton 51% 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% Coimbatore Cotton 30-36% 25-27% Madurai Groundnut 30-38% 50-55% Lahore(Pakistan) Rice, Wheat 26-35% Reddy and Thimmegowda(1997) Shiyani et al. (1999) Anitta Fanish and Muthukrishnan(2011) Ramachandrappa and Havanagi(1983) Rajendran et al. (2012) Vijayalaksmi et al. (2003) Kahlowan et al. (2006) 13-16%
  • DESIGN AND MANAGEMENT ISSUES  Clogging  Physical (mineral particles)  Chemical (precipitation)  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
  • Back washing in sand filters Filters
  • 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 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
  • Conclusion