Transcript Diapositiva 1

Rapid assessment of seasonal in-field water management on
micro irrigated annual and perennial crops in Central Italy.
Graziano Ghinassi and Stefano Cecchi
University of Florence – Italy
[email protected]
7th Asian Regional Conference
June 27, 2012 – Adelaide, Australia
the project
Triennial research project on irrigation sustainability (S.E.Agr.I.T.)
supported by the Regional Agency for Development and
Innovation in the Agricultural and Forest Sector (ARSIA) of the
Tuscan Region.
The project was carried out in the main irrigated areas of Tuscany.
main irrigated areas in tuscany
investigated 1,200 ha of irrigated crops
Perennial
Annual
Horticultural
aim of the project
Investigate on-farm water use and management, in order to define
guidelines for improving efficiency of irrigation water use at
different scales
project partners-universities
-University of Florence:
Department of Hydraulics
Department of Soil Sciences and Plant Nutrition
Department of Agricultural Economics
-University of Pisa:
National Laboratory of Irrigation, LNI (standard testing and certification
of irrigation equipments)
project partners-professional associations
-Professional Associations of Farmers:
ERATA
IRIPA
CIPA-AT
-Tuscan Regional Union of Water User Associations (URBAT)
farms sample
Sample of 40 irrigated farms selected according to representative criteria:

size

cultivated crops

irrigation type

tenancy

labour

management
Selection supported by the professional Associations
project arrangement
Composed of progressive steps on assessment and measurements of:
 water withdrawals
 crop water requirements
 energy use
 agronomical and economical evaluation of the farming practices
project arrangement
Intermediate step at irrigation unit level (on 18 farms):
 measurement of working characteristics and performance of the irrigation
system;
 hydrological characterization of the soil;
 monitoring of crop and climate evolution through the season.
1. system performance and irrigation management
 Lab and field measurements (nominal to actual discharge);
 Irrigation to avoid deficit irrigated zones.
Lab and field measurements (nominal to actual discharge)
Nominal
DRIPLINE MODEL
discharge Average
(l/h·m)
(l/h·m)
Model 1
3.80
From bench test at LNI
1.77
From field measure
1.84
Modello 2
3.80
From bench test at LNI
2.30
From field measure
2.26
Model 3
3.67
From bench test at LNI
2.40
From field measure
2.27
Model 4
3.67
From bench test at LNI
1.97
From field measure
2.02
………….
…..
……………
…..
Max
(l/h·m)
Min
(l/h·m)
DUlq
(%)
2.27
2.50
1.58
1.50
86.8
82.2
2.45
2.50
2.24
2.01
95.8
90.5
2.71
2.71
2.29
2.00
93.5
88.7
2.95
3.15
1.57
1.37
76.4
69.0
….
…..
…..
Nominal discharge does not allow correct estimate of the
average discharge of driplines
Lab and field measurements (nominal to actual discharge)
Nominal
DRIPLINE MODEL
discharge Average
(l/h·m)
(l/h·m)
Model 1
3.80
From bench test at LNI
1.77
From field measure
1.84
Modello 2
3.80
From bench test at LNI
2.30
From field measure
2.26
Model 3
3.67
From bench test at LNI
2.40
From field measure
2.27
Model 4
3.67
From bench test at LNI
1.97
From field measure
2.02
………….
…..
……………
…..
Max
(l/h·m)
Min
(l/h·m)
DUlq
(%)
2.27
2.50
1.58
1.50
86.8
82.2
2.45
2.50
2.24
2.01
95.8
90.5
2.71
2.71
2.29
2.00
93.5
88.7
2.95
3.15
1.57
1.37
76.4
69.0
….
…..
…..
Actual DUlq is below the potential as calculated according to
the LNI bench results
irrigation to avoid deficit irrigated zones
Soil water infiltration along a dripline on flat ground
Depth (cm)
Dripline length (m)
USED BY THE CROP
WASTED
Effective and inefficient irrigation
Infiltrated water
Active rootzone
Average infiltration
2. scope of the presentation
Describe an approach to investigate and assess in-field
management of micro irrigation
3. materials & methods
Measurement and assessment on:
3.1 DUlq target
3.2 Seasonal Net Irrigation Requirement (NIR)
3.3 Seasonal Irrigation Supply (SIS)
3.4 Irrigation performance - relative surplus
3.1 DUlq target
DUlq target= reasonable minimal target threshold of DUlq, set equal to 90%
for irrigation of both annual and perennial crops, taking into account average
farming conditions, cropping patterns and farmers skills;
DUlq target compared to values measured in the irrigation units;
Assessment of water supplied by system operating at DUlq target (ISDU90).
3.2 Seasonal Net Irrigation Requirement (NIR)
Calculated through the daily water budget referred to the soil depths explored
by the active root system during the season;
Crop evapotranspiration (ETc) calculated by using the Eto FAO-PenmanMonteith equation and site specific crop coefficients (kc);
Effective rainfall (ER) assumed to be ≥5mm;
On mulched crops, total ETc and ER were reduced;
Climatic data yielded by meteorological stations which are part of the
Agrometeorological Service of ARSIA.
19
3.3 Seasonal Irrigation Supply (SIS)
Seasonal irrigation supply on each micro irrigated unit estimated according to:
-actual discharge under average working conditions (e.g., operating pressure);
-irrigation time during the season.
3.4 Irrigation performance - relative surplus
relative irrigation surplus, either positive or negative, depending on system
performance:
where:
TRS= Technical Relative Surplus (%);
SIS= Seasonal Irrigation Supply (mm);
ISDU90= Irrigation Supply under the target DUlq (mm).
3.4 Irrigation performance - relative surplus
relative irrigation surplus, either positive or negative, depending on on-farm
management:
where:
MRS= Management Relative Surplus (%);
SIS= Seasonal Irrigation Supply (mm);
NIR= Net Irrigation Requirement (mm).
3.5 simplified water balance
NIR/DUlq ratio is the traditional approach to represent Gross Irrigation
Requirement (GIR) to apply;
Evaluation of the components that over the season enter and leave the field
allows to assess:
 Efficiency of irrigation practice (NIR/SIS);
 Effectiveness of Irrigation Management (SIS/GIR),
under actual conditions.
Fates of water applied
Fates of water applied under drip irrigation
4. results and discussion-annual crops
CROP
Tomatoes
CROP
CROP
DN
(l/h*m)
DN
DN
3.33
(l/h*m)
(l/h*m)
Watermelon1
2.18
Tomatoes
3.33
Courgette1 1
3.73
Tomatoes
3.33
Watermelon1
2.18
Watermelon
2.18
Tomatoes
3.40
1
Courgette
3.73
1
Courgette
3.73
Melon1
2.18
Tomatoes
3.40
Tomatoes
3.40
1
Melon
2.18
Tomatoes
3.80
1
Melon
2.18
Tomatoes
3.80
Celery
3.40
Tomatoes
3.80
Celery
3.40
Celery
3.40
Tomatoes
3.00
Tomatoes
3.00
Tomatoes
3.00
Melon111
3.67
Melon
3.67
Melon
3.67
Watermelon
3.40
Watermelon
Watermelon
3.40
Melon
3.40
Melon
3.40
Melon
3.40
AVERAGE
AVERAGE
1AVERAGE
1 Black polyethylene mulched
Black polyethylene mulched
1Black polyethylene mulched
DM
(l/h*m)
DM
DM
3.00
(l/h*m)
(l/h*m)
2.22
3.00
4.02
3.00
2.22
2.22
2.90
4.02
4.02
1.71
2.90
2.90
1.71
4.21
1.71
4.21
0.86
4.21
0.86
0.86
3.22
3.22
3.22
3.12
3.12
3.12
2.98
2.98
2.27
2.27
2.27
DUlq
[/]
DUlq
DUlq
0.90
[/]
[/]
0.83
0.90
0.56
0.90
0.83
0.83
0.81
0.56
0.56
0.85
0.81
0.81
0.85
0.89
0.85
0.89
0.82
0.89
0.82
0.82
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.81
0.81
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.76
0.76
0.76
SIS
(mm)
SIS
SIS
320
(mm)
(mm)
96
320
150
320
96
96
420
150
150
72
420
420
72
420
72
420
390
420
390
390
410
410
410
165
165
165
500
500
600
600
600
322
322
322
ISDU90
(mm)
ISDU90
DU90
IS
321
(mm)
(mm)
89
321
99
321
89
89
383
99
99
69
383
383
69
418
69
418
418
360
360
360
247
247
247
149
149
453
453
395
395
395
271
271
271
NIR
(mm)
NIR
NIR
219
(mm)
(mm)
78
219
102
219
78
78
298
102
102
70
298
298
70
298
70
298
219
298
219
219
135
135
135
67
67
67
295
295
295
295
189
189
189
SIS/NIR
(%)
NIR/SIS
NIR/SIS
146
(%)
(%)
123
68.4
147
68.4
81.3
81.3
141
68.0
68.0
103
71.0
71.0
97.2
141
97.2
71.0
71.0
178
56.2
56.2
304
32.9
32.9
246
40.6
40.6
59.0
169
59.0
49.2
49.2
203
63.2
63.2
170
GIR
(mm)
GIR
GIR
243
(mm)
(mm)
94
243
182
243
94
94
367
182
182
82
367
367
82
333
82
333
333
265
265
265
269
269
269
83
83
83
367
367
367
529
529
249
249
249
SIS/GIR
(%)
SIS/GIR
SIS/GIR
132
(%)
(%)
102
132
82
132
102
102
114
82
82
88
114
114
88
126
88
126
147
126
147
147
153
153
153
199
199
199
136
136
136
113
113
127
127
127
4. results and discussion-annual crops
CROP
DUlq
[/]
NIR/SIS
(%)
SIS/GIR
(%)
Tomatoes
Watermelon
Courgette
Tomatoes
Melon
Tomatoes
Celery
Tomatoes
Melon
Watermelon
Melon
0.90
0.83
0.56
0.81
0.85
0.89
0.82
0.50
0.80
0.81
0.56
68.4
81.3
68.0
71.0
97.2
71.0
56.2
32.9
40.6
59.0
49.2
132
102
82
114
88
126
147
153
199
136
113
AVERAGE
0.76
63.2
127
4. results and discussion-perennial crops
CROP
Vineyard1
Vineyard
Apple
Apple
Apple
Peach
Apple2
AVERAGE
DN
DM
(l/h) (l/h)
2.3 2.13
1.6 1.73
3.8 3.07
3.8 2.93
3.8 2.62
8.0 8.27
51.33
DUlq
[/]
0.80
0.93
0.93
0.76
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.75
SIS
(mm)
100
425
425
100
180
570
300
ISDU90 NIR
(mm) (mm)
100
103
100
438
452
366
336
90
336
126
164
285
452
235
277
SIS/NIR
(%)
100
94
126
30
110
126
108
GIR SIS/GIR
(mm)
(%)
125
108
93
486
87
442
96
420
24
273
66
1130
50
426
69
4. results and discussion-farmers’ self evaluation annual
CROP
TRS
(%)
MRS
(%)
TSE
MSE
Tomatoes
0
46
adequate
adequate
Watermelon
8
24
adequate
adequate
Courgette
52
48
adequate
adequate
Tomatoes
10
41
adequate
high
Melon
5
3
high
adequate
Tomatoes
1
41
adequate
adequate
Celery
8
78
adequate
adequate
Tomatoes
66
203
high
adequate
Melon
11
148
adequate
adequate
Watermelon
10
69
adequate
adequate
Melon
52
103
adequate
adequate
AVERAGE
20
73
4. results and discussion-farmers’ self evaluation perennial
CROP
TRS
(%)
MRS
(%)
TSE
MSE
Vineyard
-3
0
high
high
Apple
-3
-6
adequate
adequate
Apple
16
26
adequate
adequate
Apple
11
-70
adequate
adequate
Peach
43
10
adequate
adequate
Apple
100
26
adequate
low
AVERAGE
27
-2
5. conclusions
 Difference between nominal and actual discharge can affect irrigation
efficiency and wastes of water, fertilizers and energy.
 Farmers seem to pay little attention to system performance, especially when
irrigating annual crops.
 Poor technical performance not balanced by management in most cases, as
indicated by the surplus indexes.
 Farmers’ evaluation about on-farm irrigation seems to be based on yield
response rather than on water use.
5. conclusions
 Good technical and management performance on units adopting saving
strategies, such as mulching, or devoted to typical crops such as Vineyard.
 System DUlq is below the expected threshold.
 Irrigation efficiency is far below the potential in the project areas.
Thank you
for
your attention