Management Practices Using of Agricultural Drainage Water with Drip Irrigation for Crop Production and Lands Sustainability in Arid and Semi-Arid Areas
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
MANAGEMENT PRACTICES USING OF AGRICULTURAL DRAINAGE WATER WITH DRIP IRRIGATION FOR CROP PRODUCTION AND LANDS SUSTAINABILITY IN ARID AND SEMI-ARID AREAS Ali Heydar Nasrollahi1,*, Saeed Boroomand Nasab2, Abdol Rahim Hooshmand3 Abstract In addition to lack of water, other elements such as high temperature, severe salinity of soil and water quality create problems in arid and semi-arid areas. Nowadays restricted water resources having acceptable quality has resulted into the reuse of low quality water such as agricultural drainage water in these areas. The use of drainage water and saline water in agriculture requires different management practices on the farm, such as increasing the efficiency of water use, leaching and soil desalinization, in addition to proper drainage and other conventional methods. High efficiency Irrigation methods with such as drip irrigation are suitable solutions for the optimal use of these resources. This study was carried out to investigate the effects of drip irrigation management strategies using saline water on corn crop in the research farm of the Water Science Engineering faculty at Ahwaz, Shahid Chamran University. The experiment was performed on split plots based on a randomized complete block design. In this research the effects of three irrigation management options; that is mixing (M1), one-alternate mixing (M2) and half-alternate mixing(M3) of three levels of saline water (S2, S3 and S4) with the Karun river water (S1), and the reviewing of its effects on yield, irrigation water productivity of corn and soil salinity was investigated. Irrigation management strategies and salinity were the main factor and sub-factors. Salinity levels of S2, S3, and S4 were 4, 6 and 8 dS/m respectively. Results showed that the effects of management and salinity and their interaction on yield and water productivity were significant at levels of 5 percent. The application of the half-alternate (M3) method improved yield indexes, water productivity and the leaching of soil surface layers. The Model coefficients of yield- salinity were calculated under different management scenarios of drip irrigation. The yield reduction per unit increase in soil salinity in the plant root zone the mixing, one-alternate and half-alternate management strategies were calculated respectively as being at 9.86, 12.3 and 7.14 percent. The results of this research show that drip irrigation when applied with proper management is a safe method to reuse large amounts of drainages water volumes in arid and semi-arid regions. 1 Assistant Professor, Department of Water Engineering ,Faculty of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Lorestan University, Iran. *Corresponding author: [email protected], [email protected] 2 Professor of Irrigation Department, Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, Iran 3 Associate Professor of Irrigation Department, Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, Iran. 607 KEY WORDS: Water quality, Drainage water, Water reuse, Drip irrigation. Introduction In addition to the shortage of water, high temperature, severe salinity of the soil create problems in arid and semi-arid areas. Nowadays, drip irrigation can overcome particularly any environmental limitations for sustainable crop production. The Increasing water use efficiency in modern irrigation systems and the use of unconventional water resources such as saline and brackish water are the most effective strategies for optimal use of water resources in agriculture. In this regards, nowadays drip irrigation using saline water has been considered for various crops in many parts of the world (Wan et al., 2012; Wan et al., 2013). The studies show that drip irrigation can distribute water uniformly, and control the amount of water used precisely, moreover it aids in increasing plant yields, reducing evapotranspiration and percolation, and decreasing the dangers of soil degradation and salinity (Karlberg and Frits, 2004). Growth retardation is the most important response of plants to soil salinity. With an increasing solute concentration to more than the root threshold of the plant, the growth rate and plant size declines. Irrigation methods can affect the plant response to salinity. Drip irrigation, with its characteristic low rate of water usage and highly frequent irrigation applications over a long period of time, can retrain a high soil matric potential in the root zone thus compensating the decrease of osmotic potential introduced by the saline water irrigation regimen, and the constant high total water potential that is maintained for crop growth. At the same time, well-aerated conditions can be maintained under drip irrigation. Hanson et al. (2010), stated that the only way to solve the problem of soil salinity and drainage in California is the improving of irrigation methods such as the use of drip irrigation. Kang et al. (2010), studied the effects of drip irrigation with saline water on maize yield. Results indicate that irrigation water with a salinity <10.9 dS/m did not affect the growth of maize. As the salinity of irrigation water increases, seedling biomass, plant height, fresh and dry weight of maize decreases. The decreasing rate of the yield for every 1 dS/m increase in salinity of irrigation water was about 0.4–3.3%. Irrigation water use efficiency (IWUE) increased with the increase in the salinity of irrigation water when salinity was <10.9 dS/m. Wan et al. (2012), tested the feasibility of growing maize in a highly saline wasteland with drip irrigation. The results showed that drip irrigation created favorable soil conditions for maize growth through the forming and maintaining of a high moisture and low salinity region in the root zone when the SMP( soil matric potential) was maintained higher than −25 kPa. This research suggests that drip irrigation can be successfully used in dry and highly saline conditions after appropriate management strategies are adopted; therefore, Drip irrigation has been regarded as the most advantageous method for applying saline water to crops when proper management strategies are used. The irrigation water can be used in a mixture of saline water with fresh water (mixing) or saline water which can be applied in cycles with fresh water (alternative). The selection of an applicable strategy depends on many factors such as water salinity levels, availability of water with different qualities, the relative tolerance of the various crops at different stages of growth, soil properties and the cost-benefit analysis of each 608 strategy. Malash et al.(2005), The effect of two water management strategies i.e. alternate and mixed supply of fresh and saline water in six ratios applied through drip and furrow method on tomato yield and growth, and salt concentration in the root zone were investigated in Egypt. The highest yield obtained was due to the combination of drip system and mixed management practice using a ratio of 60% fresh water with 40% saline water. Abdel Gawad et al. (2005), In order to assess the effects of management on crop production with saline irrigation water, many experiments were conducted using mixing and alternating (cyclic) irrigation management techniques, along with traditional furrows and drip irrigation methods, using different water qualities, and different tomato varieties. The results showed that higher efficiency in water use and higher yields using drip irrigation and mixing management were obtained as compared to traditional methods and cyclic strategy. Maize tolerance threshold to water and soil salinity is 1.1 and 1.7 ds/m respectively, and it is therefore a moderately sensitive plant to salinity (Mass et al., 1983). Khuzestan is one of the most important regions where maize is cultivated in Iran ; whatsmore this region has the, greatest volume of saline water resources in Iran. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of drip irrigation with saline water utilizing irrigation management strategies, by mixing , one- alternate and half-alternate of saline water with fresh water, on the yield, and the irrigation water productivity of corn under salinie soil conditions. Materials and methods Experimental site and natural conditions The experiments were conducted in 2013 at the Agricultural Experimental Station of the Faculty of Water Sciences of the Shahid Chamran University in Ahvaz, Iran(latitude 31 North and longitude 41 East). Metrological data during the experimental period and soil characteristics are shown in tables 1 and 2, respectively. The soil at the experimental site was a silt loam type, and the electrical conductivity of saturated paste ranged between 2.5 and 3.45 dS.m-1. The total pan evaporation was 1407 mm during the whole growing season (Figure.1). Experimental design The experimental design was a split plot, in which, water management strategies were applied to the main plots and the subplots were irrigated with four salinity levels of irrigation water i.e. 2.5 (control), 4, 6, 8 dS/m as S1, S2, S3, S4, respectively. The experimental plots were arranged in a completely randomized block design with three replications. The management options were mixing (M1), one-alternate (M2) and half-alternate (M3) of three levels of saline water (S2, S3 and S4) with water abstracted from the Karun river (S1). Maize ( SC-704) was sown in 2.25×3.5m plots. The field area was 405 m2 including 36 plots where the distance between any two adjacent 609 plots was 1m. Irrigation water analysis are shown in Tables 3. Other practices such as pest control and fertilization were carried out during the season. Table 1. Weather data during maize growing period Month Temperature(ᵒC) Cumulative Relative Minimum Maximum rainfall (mm) humidity(%) July 24.4 50.2 0 78 August 22.6 48 0 85 September 20 46.4 0 91 October 9.6 42.4 0 78 November 9.4 33.8 56.7 96 Table 2. Soil properties in different soil layers. -3 -1 depth Soil texture ρb(gr.cm ) EC(ds.m ) PH F.C(%) P.W.P(%) 0-30 Si-L 1.4 2.5 7.5 32 15 30-60 Si-L 1.55 3.2 7.65 32 15 60-90 Si-L 1.6 3.45 7.8 32 15 Figure1.