Effects of Irrigation Method and Water Flow Rate on Irrigation Performance, Soil Salinity, Yield, and Water Productivity of Cauliflower

被引:8
|
作者
Okasha, Abdelaziz M. [1 ]
Deraz, Nehad [1 ]
Elmetwalli, Adel H. [2 ]
Elsayed, Salah [3 ]
Falah, Mayadah W. [4 ]
Farooque, Aitazaz Ahsan [5 ,6 ]
Yaseen, Zaher Mundher [7 ,8 ]
机构
[1] Kafrelsheikh Univ, Fac Agr, Dept Agr Engn, Kafr Al Sheikh 33516, Egypt
[2] Tanta Univ, Fac Agr, Dept Agr Engn, Tanta 31527, Egypt
[3] Univ Sadat City, Environm Studies & Res Inst, Evaluat Nat Resources Dept, Agr Engn, Sadat City 32897, Egypt
[4] AL Mustaqbal Univ Coll, Bldg & Construct Engn Technol Dept, Hillah 51001, Iraq
[5] Univ Prince Edward Isl, Fac Sustainable Design Engn, Charlottetown, PE C1A 4P3, Canada
[6] Univ Prince Edward Isl, Sch Climate Change & Adaptat, Charlottetown, PE C1A 4P3, Canada
[7] Univ Kebangsaan Malaysia, Fac Sci & Technol, Dept Earth Sci & Environm, Bangi 43600, Selangor, Malaysia
[8] Al Ayen Univ, Sci Res Ctr, New Era & Dev Civil Engn Res Grp, Thi Qar 64001, Iraq
来源
AGRICULTURE-BASEL | 2022年 / 12卷 / 08期
关键词
irrigation methods; water productivity; cauliflower; distribution uniformity; soil salinity; ALTERNATE-FURROW IRRIGATION; USE EFFICIENCY; CLIMATE-CHANGE; MANAGEMENT; MULCH;
D O I
10.3390/agriculture12081164
中图分类号
S3 [农学(农艺学)];
学科分类号
0901 ;
摘要
Water scarcity is a major constraint for food production, particularly in arid and semi-arid environments. In this regard, selecting the best irrigation technique is crucial to overcome water scarcity and enhance water productivity (WP) with no significant yield loss. This study aimed to assess the impact of irrigation techniques of every furrow irrigation (EFI), alternate furrow irrigation (AFI), and drip irrigation (DI), as well as the flow rate, on irrigation system performance parameters, yield, water productivity of cauliflower crop and soil salinity during the two successive growing seasons of 2017/2018 and 2018/2019 under field conditions. The treatments comprised three different irrigation inflow rates: Q1 = 0.47 L/s, Q2 = 0.95 L/s, and Q3 = 1.43 L/s. For both investigated seasons, the AFI + Q3 treatment produced the best water distribution uniformity (DU) and water application efficiency (AE) of 85.10% and 72.73%, respectively, of the surface irrigation, and DI methods across the two growing seasons produced the highest DU of 95%. DI produced the highest cauliflower curd yield (18.12 Mg/fed), followed by EFI + Q3 (12.285 Mg/fed) and AFT + Q3 (11.905 Mg/fed). The maximum mean WP value of 10.6 kg/m(3) was recorded with DI, followed by AFI + Q3 (6.24 kg/m(3)), across the two growing seasons. DI, AFI + Q3, AFI + Q2, AFI + Q1, EFI + Q3, and EFI + Q2 saved irrigation water by 32.63, 28.71, 21.22, 18.04, 10.48, and 3.18%, respectively, compared with EFI + Q1 across the two growing seasons. During both seasons, the average value using the drip irrigation system was 3.60 dS/m. Considering the annual leaching requirements of soil, climate change conditions, and fixed costs, we recommend the use of a drip irrigation system in clayey soil to produce cauliflower, followed by the use of the alternative furrow irrigation method to enable the aeration of the same soil for a lower cost.
引用
收藏
页数:18
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Effects of various soil water potential thresholds for drip irrigation on soil salinity, seed cotton yield and water productivity of cotton in northwest China
    Xiao, Chao
    Ji, Qingyuan
    Zhang, Fucang
    Li, Yi
    Fan, Junliang
    Hou, Xianghao
    Yan, Fulai
    Liu, Xiaoqiang
    Gong, Kaiyuan
    AGRICULTURAL WATER MANAGEMENT, 2023, 279
  • [2] Impact of irrigation volume and water salinity on winter wheat productivity and soil salinity distribution
    Wang, Xiangping
    Yang, Jingsong
    Liu, Guangming
    Yao, Rongjiang
    Yu, Shipeng
    AGRICULTURAL WATER MANAGEMENT, 2015, 149 : 44 - 54
  • [3] Responses of cotton yield and water productivity to irrigation management: assessment of economic costs, interactive effects of deficit irrigation water and soil types
    Zhangjin, Rajesh Kumar
    Soothar, Rajesh Kumar
    Shar, Sajid Usman
    Alharthi, Badr
    Shaikh, Irfan Ahmed
    Laghari, Mehmood
    Das Suthar, Jhaman
    Samoon, Alina
    Jamali, Nasir Ali
    Fiaz, Sajid
    Soomro, Abdul Saboor
    Shah, Tawaf Ali
    Ram, Bhagat Kanwar
    DISCOVER LIFE, 2025, 55 (01)
  • [4] Effects of salinity and irrigation water management on soil and tomato in drip irrigation
    Noshadi, M.
    Fahandej, S.
    Sepaskhah, A. R.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PLANT PRODUCTION, 2013, 7 (02) : 295 - 312
  • [5] Irrigation, tillage and mulching effects on soybean yield and water productivity in relation to soil texture
    Arora, V. K.
    Singh, C. B.
    Sidhu, A. S.
    Thind, S. S.
    AGRICULTURAL WATER MANAGEMENT, 2011, 98 (04) : 563 - 568
  • [6] Irrigation rate and timing effects on Arizona cotton yield, water productivity, and fiber quality
    Thorp, K. R.
    Thompson, A. L.
    Bronson, K. F.
    AGRICULTURAL WATER MANAGEMENT, 2020, 234
  • [7] Modeling the Effects of Irrigation Water Salinity on Growth, Yield and Water Productivity of Barley in Three Contrasted Environments
    Hammami, Zied
    Qureshi, Asad S.
    Sahli, Ali
    Gauffreteau, Arnaud
    Chamekh, Zoubeir
    Ben Azaiez, Fatma Ezzahra
    Ayadi, Sawsen
    Trifa, Youssef
    AGRONOMY-BASEL, 2020, 10 (10):
  • [8] EFFECT OF SOIL WATER POTENTIAL THRESHOLD FOR IRRIGATION ON CRANBERRY YIELD AND WATER PRODUCTIVITY
    Pelletier, V.
    Gallichand, J.
    Caron, J.
    TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASABE, 2013, 56 (06) : 1325 - 1332
  • [9] Evaluation of irrigation water salinity and leaching fraction on the water productivity for crops
    Ning, Songrui
    Zhou, Beibei
    Wang, Quanjiu
    Tao, Wanghai
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL AND BIOLOGICAL ENGINEERING, 2020, 13 (01) : 170 - 177
  • [10] Crop yield and water productivity under salty water irrigation: A global meta-analysis
    Cheng, Minghui
    Wang, Haidong
    Fan, Junliang
    Wang, Xiukang
    Sun, Xin
    Yang, Ling
    Zhang, Shaohui
    Xiang, Youzhen
    Zhang, Fucang
    AGRICULTURAL WATER MANAGEMENT, 2021, 256