It is commonly known that furrow irrigation is a less efficient method of irrigation than a sprinkler center pivot system, but many fields' irregular shapes prevent the use of center pivot irrigation. Restricted water aUocations of surface and subsurface water are forcing farmers to implement irrigation strategies that will reduce water application on furrow-irrigated fields. The study site was located in south central Nebraska. The objective of this study was to evaluate two irrigation scheduling scenarios; (1) the every-furrow irrigation method with 50% (0.5), 70% (0.7), and 90% (0.9) field capacity (FC) treatments and (2) the every-furrow (EF) irrigation method compared to the every-other-furrow (EOF) method with both using the 75%) field capacity (0.75 FC) treatment effects on corn {Zca mays L.) yield, net econon-iic return, and residual soU nitrate-nitrogen. The experii-nental design was a randomized complete block with three replications. Grain yield showed no significant difference in both years for aU irrigation treati-nents. Irrigation water application with the 0.5 FC strategy reduced the amount of apphed water by approximately 70% and 200% compared to 0.7 FC and 0.9 FC, respectively, in both years. The water savings with the EOF method over the EF method was 23%.The economic return with 0.5 FC was 6% to 13% and 36% to 69% over 0.7 and 0.9 FC irrigation treatments, respectively. The 0.5 FC strategy showed no significant reduction in nitrate-nitrogen loss over 0.7 FC and 0.9 FC, while the EOF method reduced soil nitrate-nitrogen loss by 11% to 26% over the EF irrigation method in both years. The average economic return over two years with the 0.5 FC strategy was 9.5% and 52.5% over 0.7 FC and 0.9 FC irrigation treatments, respectively, whUe the average economic return with the EOF method over the EF method was 9,5%. Findings demonstrated that economic and environmental benefits of using 0.5 FC or the EOF method is much superior to other furrow irrigation strategies, especially in areas with Hniited water resources where less efficient irrigation methods may lead to significant water loss.
Aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) can provide a means of storing water for irrigation in agricultural areas where water availability is limited. A concern, however, is that the injected water may lead to a degradation of groundwater quality. In many agricultural areas, nitrate is a limiting factor. In the Umatilla Basin in north central Oregon, shallow alluvial groundwater with elevated nitrate-nitrogen of <3 mg/L to >9 mg/L is injected into the Columbia River Basalt Group (CRBG), a transmissive confined aquifer(s) with low natural recharge rates. Once recovery of the injected water begins, however, NO3 -N in the recovered water decreases quickly to <3 mg/L (Eaton et al. 2009), suggesting that NO3 -N may not persist within the CRBG during ASR storage. In contrast to NO3 -N, other constituents in the recovered water show little variation, inconsistent with migration or simple mixing as an explanation of the NO3 -N decrease. Nitrogen isotopic ratios (δ(15) N) increase markedly, ranging from +3.5 to > +50, and correlate inversely with NO3 -N concentrations. This variation occurs in <3 weeks and recovery of <10% of the originally injected volume. TOC is low in the basalt aquifer, averaging <1.5 mg/L, but high in the injected source water, averaging >3.0 mg/L. Similar to nitrate concentrations, TOC drops in the recovered water, consistent with this component contributing to the denitrification of nitrate during storage.
The community of Springfield, Oregon, has a 20‐year history of proactively protecting its drinking water sources. This article discusses recent projects in Springfield that demonstrate how other communities can refine and maximize the effectiveness of source water protection strategies.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.