An Economic Comparison of Subsurface Microirrigation with Center Pivot Sprinkler Irrigation

Bosch, Darrell J.; Powell, N. L.; Wright, F. S.

doi:10.2134/jpa1992.0431

Cited by 30 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In a related publication, Mitchell and Tilmon (1982) suggested SDI as a good, economical, alternative irrigation system for small farmers in the U.S. This is because the components of SDI systems can be easily and economically designed to accommodate the field size (Bosch et al, 1992;O'Brien et al, 1998). Several early SDI corn studies (1989 to 1999) from Kansas were discussed by Lamm and Trooien (2003).…”

Section: Cornmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cotton, Tomato, Corn, and Onion Production with Subsurface Drip Irrigation: A Review

Lamm

2016

Trans.ASABE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. The usage of subsurface drip irrigation (SDI) has increased by 89% in the U.S. during the past ten years according to USDA-NASS estimates, and over 93% of the SDI land area is located in just tenubsurface drip irrigation (SDI), the application of irrigation below the soil surface by microirrigation emitters (ASAE, 2007) is growing in usage in the U.S. and around the world. In the ten-year period from 2003 to 2013, SDI in the U.S. increased by 89% from 164,017 to 310,361 ha ( fig. 1) according to USDA-NASS irrigation surveys (USDA-NASS, 2004, 2010. During the same period, SDI averaged approximately 25% of the surface drip irrigation (DI) land area. (Note: microsprinkler and bubbler irrigation are not included in these estimates). However, this comparison can perhaps be skewed by the fact that some of the reported SDI land area contains shallow, annually removed systems that are not intended for multi-year use. The focus of this review is primarily on deeper systems intended for multi-year use.SDI has been the subject of three review articles during the past 20 years: Camp (1998) provided an extensive characterization of the knowledge and studies that had been carried out to date, Rodriguez-Sinobas and Gil-Rodriguez (2012) concentrated on design, uniformity, and soil water redistribution aspects, and Devasirvatham (2009) focused on SDI for vegetable production. The status of the technology was also discussed in the 2000 and 2010 national irrigation symposiums sponsored by ASABE and the Irrigation Association (Camp et al., 2000;Lamm et al., 2012). The goal of this review is to augment and supplement those earlier articles with a focus on the important SDI crops currently grown in the U.S.In 2013, the ten U.S. states with the largest SDI area (289,812 ha) comprised over 93% of the total SDI area but had a wide variation in the ratio of SDI/(SDI+DI) land area ( fig. 2). The variation can probably be explained by the crop production in these states, with DI often used on higher-value crops (typically fruits, nuts, and vegetables) and SDI used on lesser-value commodity crops (e.g., corn, cotton, alfalfa, and other grain crops). There can be also the persistent perception that SDI is harder to manage, mainly because it provides fewer visual cues when irrigation problems are occurring. As a result, many producers growing the higher-value crops choose DI as a less risky option and because the cost of the irrigation system and its installation are not of paramount concern. When growing the lesservalue commodity crops with microirrigation, a deeper, multi-year SDI system that can be amortized over several years is often the only economical option for a producer. This is particularly true in the Great Plains region, where centerpivot sprinkler irrigation has a good economy of scale and where the major sprinkler manufacturers are located (Nebraska). Although the SDI land area in Nebraska and Kansas (near the center of the Great Plains) is relatively small 264TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASABE ( fig. 2), the land area using...

show abstract

Section: Cornmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cotton, Tomato, Corn, and Onion Production with Subsurface Drip Irrigation: A Review

Lamm

2016

Trans.ASABE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…O'Brien et al 1998 (14) suggests that sub‐surface drip systems are more economical than overhead sprinkler systems in fields smaller than 65 acres. Sub‐surface drip systems are more efficient at covering irregularly shaped field which would not be totally covered with overhead irrigation systems (1). Previous research in Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia demonstrated a positive response to sub‐surface drip irrigation in both cotton and peanut ( Arachis hypogaea L.) (1,7,8,11,13,18).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cotton Response to Sub-Surface Drip Irrigation, Planting Date, Cultivar, and Mepiquat Chloride

Nuti¹,

Collins

Jordan

et al. 2012

Crop Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Irrigated cotton acreage is limited in North Carolina. Research was conducted in North Carolina from 2004 to 2007 to define interactions of planting date with either mepiquat chloride application or cultivar under sub‐surface drip irrigation or no irrigation. In most instances planting date, cultivar or mepiquat chloride, and irrigation did not interact for seed cotton yield. While main effects of planting date and irrigation were often significant, mepiquat chloride did not affect cotton yield. Cotton response to irrigation and planting date was variable and was generally influenced by annual variability in rainfall. Results from these experiments suggest that sub‐surface drip irrigation improves cotton yield stability over the planting dates, mepiquat chloride applications, and cultivars tested. Additionally, cotton response to planting date was independent of irrigation treatment.

show abstract

“…Previous economic research reported that subsurface drip systems (SSDI) would be more profitable for small areas (<50 acre) because of their lower per‐acre investment and lower pumping costs compared with fixed or towable center‐pivot systems (2,21). Other research showed that as field size decreased, SSDI net returns increased (21).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Other research showed that as field size decreased, SSDI net returns increased (21). It was also noted that results were sensitive to SSDI life (less than 10 years), as well as changes in crop price and system components (2,23). Drip irrigation would be an acceptable choice for irregularly shaped fields where a full‐circle irrigation system cannot be installed.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Corn Yield and Economic Return with Nitrogen Applied Through Drip Tubing

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A two‐year project was established near Sasser, GA, to determine corn (Zea mays L) yield response to subsurface (SSDI) and surface (SDI) drip irrigation systems at various nitrogen fertilizer rates. Nitrogen was applied through the drip system at two nitrogen levels in three split applications. Supplemental dry N fertilizer was applied on the soil surface at three nitrogen rates. Corn grain yield, test weight, nitrogen efficiency, and gross and net revenue were determined for each treatment. Rainfall received during the growing season was 10.6 and 16.0 inches for 2006 and 2007, respectively. Irrigation applied during the growing season was 14.8 and 8.5 inches during 2006 and 2007, respectively. Yield was greater in 2006 (190 bu/acre) compared with 2007 (167 bu/acre). There was no yield difference between SSDI and SDI at associated nitrogen treatments. Corn yields were lower at a base of 100 lbs N/acre (177 bu/acre) compared with a base of 200 lbs N/acre (206 bu/acre). Corn yield did not increase at rates above 200 lbs N/acre with either SSDI or SDI applications. Nitrogen efficiency was greater at lower nitrogen rates and decreased as nitrogen rates increased. Highest crop yield occurred at 200 lbs N/acre with average net revenue of $706/acre.

show abstract

An Economic Comparison of Subsurface Microirrigation with Center Pivot Sprinkler Irrigation

Cited by 30 publications

References 2 publications

Cotton, Tomato, Corn, and Onion Production with Subsurface Drip Irrigation: A Review

Cotton, Tomato, Corn, and Onion Production with Subsurface Drip Irrigation: A Review

Cotton Response to Sub-Surface Drip Irrigation, Planting Date, Cultivar, and Mepiquat Chloride

Corn Yield and Economic Return with Nitrogen Applied Through Drip Tubing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About