Every-Other Furrow Irrigation of Corn

Fischbach, Paul E.; MuUiner, H. R.

doi:10.13031/2013.36874

Cited by 13 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Repeatedly irrigating the same furrow yielded 6210 kg ha −1 vs. 6140 kg ha −1 (NS) when irrigating alternating furrows. Fischbach and Mulliner (1974) also reported similar corn yields when either the same furrow or alternating furrows were irrigated.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 71%

“…Corn grain yield was similar whether irrigating every or every second furrow in small plots in Colorado (Benjamin et al, 1997). Fischbach and Mulliner (1974) grew corn for grain in a silt loam in Nebraska by irrigating every second furrow. Their yields were similar regardless of irrigation water positioning (i.e., positioning water in the same furrow or alternating furrows).…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Nitrogen Placement, Row Spacing, and Furrow Irrigation Water Positioning Effects on Corn Yield

2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

gation management can also lessen NO 3 -N leaching (Robbins and Carter, 1980). Irrigation must be managed Furrow irrigation often leaches NO 3 -N. We hypothesized that carefully to maximize N fertilizer use efficiency and banding and sidedressing N fertilizer on a nonirrigated side of a minimize NO 3 -N leaching, particularly where N fertilcorn (Zea mays L.) row would maintain yield and decrease NO 3 -N leaching. In a 2-yr field study in southern Idaho on a Portneuf silt izer at nominal, economic rates is sidedressed near corn loam (coarse silty, mixed, superactive, mesic Durinodic Xeric Haplo- (Russelle et al., 1981). For irrigated corn production in calcid), we evaluated the effects of (i) N placement (broadcast vs. eastern Nebraska, sidedressing N at the eight-leaf banded), (ii) row spacing (0.76 m vs. a modified 0.56 m), and (iii) growth stage held mineral N (NO 3 -N ϩ NH 4 -N) in irrigation water positioning (applying water to the same side or alterthe upper portion of an irrigated, fertile silty clay loam nating sides of a row with successive irrigations) on field corn yield (Russelle et al., 1981). It may be possible to band and and N uptake. We irrigated every second furrow nine times in 1988 and later sidedress N fertilizer on a nonirrigated, or dry seven times in 1989. Compared with broadcasting, banding maintained furrow, side of a corn (or other crop) row and then grain yield in 1988 and increased it by 11% in 1989. Where N was irrigate the other side (Fig. 1) to reduce leaching by banded in 0.56-m rows in 1989, silage yield when only the nonfertilizedminimizing the contact between the applied N and the furrow was irrigated was 22.9 Mg ha Ϫ1 , which was 22% greater than when alternating furrows were irrigated. Compared with 0.56-m rows,

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 71%

mentioning

confidence: 98%

Nitrogen Placement, Row Spacing, and Furrow Irrigation Water Positioning Effects on Corn Yield

2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They found that this irrigation method decreased water evaporation from the soil surface and aUowed the soil to hold more water after a rain event. Other studies by Sepaskhah and Parand (2006) showed that deep percolation was reduced when the EOF irrigation method was compared to the every-furrow (EF) method, but yields were significantly different, with the EF method having a greater yield than the EOF on clay loam soUs, However, other studies showed that both EOF and EF irrigation methods produced similar yields (Benjamin et al, 1998;Fischbach et al 1974). It was also found that at lower water application rates, the EOF method would produce greater grain yield than the same application rate of the EF method, but at higher water application rates, the EOF method yields were not significantly different than EF yields.…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

Agronomic and economic evaluation of various furrow irrigation strategies for corn production under limited water supply

Nelson¹,

Al‐Kaisi²

2011

Journal of Soil and Water Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…Many investigators (e.g. Grimes et al, 1968;Fischbach and Mulliner, 1974;Stewart et al, 1981;Musick and Dusek, 1982;Samadi and Sepaskhah, 1984;Crabtree et al, 1985;Hodges et al, 1989;Graterol et al, 1993;Stone and Nofziger, 1993;Sepaskhah and Kamgar-Haghighi, 1997) have used wide-spaced furrow irrigation or skipped crop rows (alternate furrow irrigation, AFI) as a means to improve water-use effi ciency (WUE). In AFI, some furrows are irrigated, while adjacent furrows are not, and WUE is increased mainly by reduced evaporation from the soil surface, as in the case of drip irrigation.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Alternate Furrow Irrigation with Different Irrigation Intervals for Maize (Zea mays L.)

Sepaskhah

Khajehabdollahi

2005

Plant Production Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Every-Other Furrow Irrigation of Corn

Cited by 13 publications

References 0 publications

Nitrogen Placement, Row Spacing, and Furrow Irrigation Water Positioning Effects on Corn Yield

Nitrogen Placement, Row Spacing, and Furrow Irrigation Water Positioning Effects on Corn Yield

Agronomic and economic evaluation of various furrow irrigation strategies for corn production under limited water supply

Alternate Furrow Irrigation with Different Irrigation Intervals for Maize (Zea mays L.)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About