Water provision in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is the key factor in the development agricultural processes. A review of literature showed that the surface and sub-surface irrigation system has the potential to achieve high water use efficiency, as well as reduce drainage and runoff and the associated environmental risks. However, disadvantages of Drip Irrigation System (DIS) and Sub surface Irrigation System (SIS) include ‘tunnelling’, poor soil surface wetting. The research reported in this thesis, evaluated ways to overcome these problems, including product Kapillary Irrigation Sub-surface System (KISSS) that has a narrow band of impermeable material below the drip tape, and geotextile above which led soil water moved upward with capillary action greater than DIS and SIS. Therefore, the main objectives of this research were to study the feasibility of saving water through the use of kapillary irrigation compared to the conventional subsurface irrigation system, and to compare both subsurface irrigation systems with surface drip irrigation system. The study has also evaluated the effect of the amount of applied water on the efficiency of tested irrigation systems by studying soil moisture wetting patterns.

2. Comparative Study of the Effect of Kapillary, Conventional Sub-surface
and Surface Drip Irrigation Systems on Soil Moisture Patterns
‫الري‬ ‫ونظام‬ ‫التقليدي‬ ‫السطحي‬ ‫تحت‬ ‫و‬ ‫الشعري‬ ‫السطحي‬ ‫تحت‬ ‫الري‬ ‫نظم‬ ‫ألثر‬ ‫مقارنة‬ ‫دراسة‬
‫التربة‬ ‫في‬ ‫الرطوبي‬ ‫المحتوى‬ ‫توزيع‬ ‫أنماط‬ ‫على‬ ‫السطحي‬ ‫بالتنقيط‬
King Saud University
College of Food and Agriculture Sciences
Department of Agricultural Engineering
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirement for the Master’s Degree
Prepared by
Mohammed Elsiddig Ali Abass
Major supervisor
Prof. Hussein Mohammed Ali Al-Ghobari
6/1435H

3. Outline
 Introduction.
 Thesis question.
 Research Objectives.
 Materials and Methods.
 Results and Discussion.
 Conclusion.
 Recommendation.
6/1435H

4. Introduction
6/1435H
Abbreviations
KISSS Kappilary Irrigation Sub-surface Systems
DIS
SIS
Drip Irrigation System
Sub-surface Irrigation System

5. Introduction
6/1435H
Population Growth in the KSA (Walid, A. 2010)

6. Introduction
6/1435H
Water use by sector in the KSA (Walid, A. 2010)

7. Introduction
6/1435H
Average Renewable Water Share in KSA(Walid, A. 2010)

8. Introduction
6/1435H
Percentage of Drip Irrigation in KSA (Walid, A. 2013)

9. Introduction
DIS SIS KISSS
6/1435H

10. Introduction ( KISSS Overview)
6/1435H
A plastic tape
glued
A geo-textile
layer covers
the drip line

11. KISSS
6/1435H
Introduction ( KISSS Overview)

12. Thesis questions
Does (KISSS) offer any advantage over using (DIS) and
(SIS) with decreasing irrigation amount of water?
6/1435H

13. Research Objectives
 Study the distribution of moisture patterns of (KISSS) and
(SIS) at different soil depths under Riyadh conditions.
 Compare the patterns of soil moisture distribution of
(KISSS, SIS and DIS) using a SURFER10 computer
graphics software.
 Compare the effect of different irrigation systems and soil
depths on the amount of water stored in the soil profile.
6/1435H

14. Material and methods
 Experimental Site Location:
6/1435H

15. Material
KISSS REHN
 Laterals:
6/1435H

16.  Soil Moisture Sensor Waterscout SM100
Material
6/1435H

17. Material
 Computer Software
SURFER10 golden software
6/1435H

18. Experiments were designed for two levels of irrigation
emitter discharge 4 Liter/h for:
 Two hours of application time (Level1 - 100%).
 one hour of application time (Level2 - 50%).
Methods
6/1435H
(Depot Staff,2012)

19. Methods
 Field Layout:
6/1435H

20. Methods
 Field Layout:
DIS
DIS
DIS
DIS
DIS
DIS
6/1435H

21.  Soil sampling locations measurements in vertical and horizontal directions:
Methods
DIS
6/1435H
(10,7.5)
7.5cm
20cm
30cm
50cm
0cm 10cm 15cm 25cm

22.  Soil sampling locations measurements in vertical and horizontal directions:
Methods
SIS, KISSS (15) cm SIS, KISSS (25)cm
6/1435H
(10,7.5) (10,7.5)

23.  Field Evaluation of Water Application Uniformity
 Coefficient of Uniformity:
𝐶𝑢 = 1 − 𝑖=1
𝑖=𝑛
𝑋 𝑖−𝑋
𝑛.𝑋
∗ 100
 Distribution of Uniformity
𝐷 𝑢 = 1 −
𝑆 𝑑
𝑋
∗ 100
Methods
6/1435H
(Christiansen, 1942)
)Burt, et al. 1997).

24. Methods
 Statistical Analysis (Split-split plot design using Costat
software)
Main plots
(Irrigation systems: 5)
DIS KISSS15 SIS15 KISSS25 SIS25
Sub-plot
(Irrigation Levels: 2)
50% 100%
Sub-Sub-plot
(Measurement time: 2)
24h 48h after irrigation
Replication 3
Variables 16 points
6/1435H

25. Result and Discussion
 Soil analysis data:
Soil texture Coarse Sand 76.4%
Texture class = Sandy soil
Fine Sand 12.3%
Silt 7.5%
Clay 3.8%
6/1435H

26. Result and Discussion
 Laboratory Calibration of SM100 Sensor:
6/1435H
y = 1.710x0.712
R² = 0.869
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0
Volumetricwatercontent%
SM100 sensor reading

27. 30
45
60
75
90
105
24h 48h 24h 48h 24h 48h 24h 48h 24h 48h
DIS SIS15 SIS25 KISSS15 KISSS25
Cofficientuniformity%
Irrigation System
D7.5
D20
D30
D50
At (24, 48) after irrigation, at horizontal direction at different
depths
Result and Discussion
 Coefficient of Uniformity (Cu)
6/1435H

28. Result and Discussion
 Coefficient of Uniformity (Cu)
At 50% irrigation level, at vertical direction at
different distances from emitters
30
45
60
75
90
105
24h 48h 24h 48h 24h 48h 24h 48h 24h 48h
DIS SIS15 SIS25 KISSS15 KISSS25
Cofficientuniformity%
Irrigation system
D0
D10
D15
D25
6/1435H

29. Result and Discussion
 Coefficient of Uniformity:
DIS SIS15 SIS25 KISSS15 KISSS25
L50% 84.30 81.79 88.33 94.89 95.07
L100% 89.08 90.38 94.47 95.69 95.80
30
45
60
75
90
105
Coefficientofuniformity%
Irrigation System
L50%
L100%
Cu at horizontal direction at depths below soil surface
at 50 and 100 % irrigation levels
6/1435H

30. Result and Discussion
KISSS15
 Wetting Patterns
SIS15DIS
(50% Level of irrigation and at 48h after irrigation )
6/1435H

31. KISSS25
SIS25
Result and Discussion
 Wetting Patterns (50% Level of irrigation and at 48h after irrigation)
6/1435H

32. Result and Discussion
 Wetting Patterns (100% Level of irrigation and at 24h after irrigation)
KISSS15SIS15
DIS
6/1435H

33. KISSS25SIS25
Result and Discussion
 Wetting Patterns (100% Level of irrigation and at 48h after irrigation)
6/1435H

34. Irrigation System impact regardless of the amount of water and elapsed
time at a depth of 7.5cm
Result and Discussion
Irr.
System
Soil moisture at various distances from emitter
along the lateral
*D0 D10 D15 D25
KISSS15 28.13 a 28.20 a 28.11 a 27.54 a
KISSS25 26.62 b 27.18 b 26.75 b 26.90 b
DIS 19.96 c 19.54 c 17.95 c 17.17 c
SIS15 17.64 d 17.82 d 15.84 d 14.96 d
SIS25 15.02 e 14.90 e 13.90 e 13.49 e
Means followed by the same letter were not significantly different for
irrigation system based on Duncan’s multiple test at P≤ 0.05.
*D0 - D25 : various distances from emitter along the lateral
6/1435H

35. Irrigation System impact, regardless of the amount of water and elapsed
time at a depth of 20cm
Result and Discussion
Irr.
System
Soil moisture at various distances from emitter
along the lateral
*D0 D10 D15 D25
KISSS25 29.71 a 29.38 a 29.01 a 28.68 a
SIS15 22.94 b c 22.22 b 20.36 b 18.92 b
DIS 20.95 cd 19.80 c 19.73 bc 18.28 c
SIS25 20.26 d 19.38 cd 19.40 c 18.26 c
KISSS15 19.99 18.92 d 17.43 d 17.11 d
Means followed by the same letter were not significantly different for
irrigation system based on Duncan’s multiple test at P≤ 0.05.
*D0 - D25 : various distances from emitter along the lateral
6/1435H

36. Irrigation system impact, regardless of the amount of water and elapsed
time at a depth of 50cm
Result and Discussion
Irr. System
Soil moisture at various distances from emitter
along the lateral
*D0 D10 D15 D25
SIS25 25.51 24.36 22.98 21.06
SIS15 23.04 20.68 18.77 17.85
DIS 22.14 20.39 18.76 16.40
KISSS25 13.78 13.15 12.38 13.10
KISSS15 12.80 13.12 12.36 12.86
Means followed by the same letter were not significantly different from one
another based on Duncan’s multiple test at P≤ 0.05.
*D0 - D25 : various distances from emitter along the lateral.
6/1435H

37. Conclusions
 There were significant differences between irrigation levels (50
and 100%) at all irrigation systems used.
 There were significant differences between the elapsed time
measurements for 24 and 48h after irrigation.
 The Cu and Du values for KISSS system were higher compared to
the values of Cu and Du for DIS and SIS at horizontal direction at
different depths (7.5, 20, 30 and 50 cm) below soil surface.
6/1435H

38.  The best result for KISSS when installed at a depth 25cm. While
for SIS, the best result when installed at 15cm (SIS15), however
for SIS25 water moved downward and was lost by deep
percolation.
 The results also showed that at shallower depths and at 50%
irrigation level the KISSS gave higher moisture compared to DIS
and SIS at 100% irrigation level.
 These results indicated that savings in water use of up to 50%
were achieved using the KISSS.
Conclusions
6/1435H

39. Recommendations
 Installing the KISSS at depth commensurate with different crops
where the most of the distribution of moisture content is above
the emitters.
 Use of KISSS for landscaping and fields, because each emitter
acts as a point source of water and so the drip line gives rise to a
series of circular wetting patterns.
 Forthermore, this study recommended extending the study on
wetting patterns of KISSS on different types of soil.
6/1435H

41. 6/1435H
‫الماجستير‬ ‫رسالة‬ ‫على‬ ‫المشرف‬‫أ‬.‫د‬.‫الغباري‬ ‫محمد‬ ‫بن‬ ‫حسين‬.
‫اللجنة‬ ‫أعضاء‬:‫أ‬.‫د‬.‫عبدال‬‫ر‬‫العذبة‬ ‫حمن‬.‫و‬‫أ‬.‫د‬.‫العمود‬ ‫إبراهيم‬ ‫بن‬ ‫أحمد‬.
‫والزراعة‬ ‫األغذية‬ ‫علوم‬ ‫كلية‬ ‫عميد‬‫أ‬.‫د‬.‫البركة‬ ‫فهد‬.
‫الزراعية‬ ‫الهندسة‬ ‫قسم‬ ‫رئيس‬.‫أ‬.‫د‬.‫الهالل‬ ‫إبراهيم‬.
‫الزراعية‬ ‫الهندسة‬ ‫قسم‬ ‫منسوبي‬
‫الدقيقة‬ ‫الزراعة‬ ‫أبحاث‬ ‫كرسي‬ ‫على‬ ‫المشرف‬.‫أ‬.‫د‬.‫القعدي‬ ‫علي‬ ‫بن‬ ‫خالد‬.
‫الدقيقة‬ ‫الزراعة‬ ‫أبحاث‬ ‫كرسي‬ ‫منسوبي‬.
‫سعود‬ ‫الملك‬ ‫بجامعة‬ ‫والزمالء‬ ‫األصدقاء‬ ‫جميع‬.
‫والتقنية‬ ‫للعلوم‬ ‫العزيز‬ ‫عبد‬ ‫الملك‬ ‫مدينة‬‫لدعمه‬‫م‬‫البحثي‬ ‫المشروع‬
‫بالرقم‬(‫ت‬-‫ط‬-12-0935)