Irrigation water conservation by using wide-spaced furrows

Stone, John F.; Reeves, H. E.; Garton, James E.

doi:10.1016/0378-3774(82)90009-9

Cited by 26 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Ibrahim et al (2010) reported that the AFI method had higher CWP compared with the CFI method. Stone et al (1982) and Slatni et al (2011) reported that AFI resulted in a slight decrease in crop yield but an increased water productivity. Rafiee and Shakarami (2010) also reported that AFI enables more efficient use of irrigation water but with a lower crop yield associated with some water stress compared to CFI.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Alternate furrow irrigation can radically improve water productivity of okra

Siyal

Mashori

Bristow

et al. 2016

Agricultural Water Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Alternate furrow irrigation (AFI) is gaining interest as a means of saving water while minimising loss in crop production. Given the potential water savings of AFI, a field experiment was conducted in the Tandojam region of Pakistan by growing okra with AFI and conventional furrow irrigation (CFI) in which every furrow is irrigated. Our results show that total irrigation water applied in the AFI treatment was roughly half (248 ± 2.9 mm) that applied to the CFI treatment (497 ± 1.7 mm). Despite the very significant reduction in irrigation water used with AFI there was a non-significant (p>0.05) reduction (7.3 %) in okra yield. As a result, we also obtained a significantly (p<0.001) higher crop water productivity (CWP) of 5.29 ± 0.1 kg m -3 with AFI, which was nearly double the 2.78 ± 0.04 kg m -3 obtained with CFI. While this reduction in yield and/or potential income may appear small, it could be critical to the welfare of individual farmers, who may as a result hesitate to make changes from CFI to AFI if they are worse off than farmers who don't adopt AFI. This situation exists because current water charges are based on crop and land area rather than the volume of water being accessed for irrigation. Transitioning from the current crop and land area based method of charging for water to a volumetric method may require investment in irrigation system changes and may take time to accomplish. These are important lessons for other countries, and particularly developing countries who are trying to improve the environmental, social and economic performance of their irrigated systems. We recommend that further studies be carried out using AFI to determine whether similar water savings and flow-on benefits can be achieved across a wide range of cropping systems in arid and semiarid environments.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Alternate furrow irrigation can radically improve water productivity of okra

Siyal

Mashori

Bristow

et al. 2016

Agricultural Water Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The improved methods are suited to medium-to fine-textured soils (Stone et al 1979). Most of the soils (Cambrothids) under cotton in this zone are in the mediumtextured range.…”

Section: Seed-cotton Yieldmentioning

confidence: 98%

Evaluation of methods for irrigation of cotton (gossypium hirsutum) in a canal-irrigated area of southwest Punjab, India

Aujla

Singh

Vashist

et al. 1991

UASR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Field experiments were conducted for 3 years (1987)(1988)(1989) at Regional Research Station, Bathinda, representing a canal irrigated area of southwest Punjab. The effects of four irrigation methods were studied: flooding, irrigation to each furrow, irrigation to alternate furrows, and irrigation to furrows between paired crop rows, on water economy, growth, and yield of cotton. Irrigation water saving by the modified water delivery treatments, in comparison with flood irrigations, was in the order alternate furrows > single furrow between paired rows > every furrow. Alternate furrow irrigation required about 50% of the water required for flooding with little or no loss in productivity.

show abstract

“…Skip row irrigation is a best management practice (BMP) where water is applied to every other furrow and has an effect on yield, infiltration, irrigation water use efficiency (IWUE), and net returns on crops and soil textures common to the Mid‐Southern USA. For moderately and poorly drained soils, infiltration and horizontal movement of water is greater for skip row irrigation, whereby corn, soybean, sorghum ( Sorghum bicolor L.), and cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum L.) yield is maintained relative to applying water to every furrow (Golzardi et al, 2017; Stone et al, 1979). In well‐drained, course‐textured soils, yield loss can occur in skip row irrigation when crop water demand is not met due to excessive vertical movement of water below and minimal lateral movement of water into the rooting zone (Ebrahimian, 2014).…”

Section: Useful Conversionsmentioning

confidence: 99%