Subsurface Drip and Overhead Irrigation Effects on Conservation-tilled Cotton in the San Joaquin Valley

Hollingsworth, Joy; Mitchell, Jeffrey P.; Munk, D. S.; Roberts, Ben; Shrestha, Anil

doi:10.1080/15427528.2014.881449

Cited by 6 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 18 publications

(26 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Subsurface drip irrigated cotton lint yields were 2%, 15%, and 19% greater than DI, surface gravity, and sprinkler irrigation, respectively, in these studies. Greater incidence of spider mites with SDI as compared to sprinkler irrigation was reported in a study in California (Hollingsworth et al, 2014) and was attributed to drier and dustier leaves with the SDI system. In that same study, although yield differences were slightly greater for the sprinkler system and weed plant densities were similar, there was much greater weed biomass under the sprinkler.…”

mentioning

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

mentioning

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

“…Similar amounts of water were applied to each of these crops in the overhead and drip systems. In 2011 and 2012, we found no differences due to irrigation system in crop growth, development and yield, or quality for cotton (Hollingsworth et al 2014). For onion, yields were not affected by irrigation in 2011 (39.4 t/ac for drip and 37.8 t/ac for overhead), but yields were higher in the overhead system in 2013 (28.3 t/ac for drip and 35.1 t/ac for overhead) .…”

Section: Irrigation Systems Performancementioning

confidence: 75%

“…Tomatoes, as mentioned above, are predominantly irrigated by SDI. Performance data for some of the crops in our study have been recently published elsewhere (Hollingsworth et al 2014;Mitchell et al 2014;Mitchell, Carter et al 2015); here, we summarize our evaluations of overhead irrigation.…”

Section: Irrigation Systems Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Precision overhead irrigation is suitable for several Central Valley crops

Mitchell

Shrestha²,

Hollingsworth

et al. 2016

Cal Ag

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Overhead systems are the dominant irrigation technology in many parts of the world, but they are not widely used in California even though they have higher water application efficiency than furrow irrigation systems and lower labor requirements than drip systems. With water and labor perennial concerns in California, the suitability of overhead systems merits consideration. From 2008 through 2013, in studies near Five Points, California, we evaluated overhead irrigation for wheat, corn, cotton, tomato, onion and broccoli as an alternative to furrow and drip irrigation. With the exception of tomato, equal or increased yields were achieved with overhead irrigation. Many variables are involved in the choice of an irrigation system, but our results suggest that, with more research to support best management practices, overhead irrigation may be useful to a wider set of California farmers than currently use it.A 1976 Scientific American article called center-pivot irrigation "perhaps the most significant mechanical innovation in agriculture since the replacement of draft animals by the tractor" (Splinter 1976). Patented in 1952 by Frank Zybach, a farmer in eastern Colorado, center-pivot systems are automated, precision irrigation water application machines typically made up of seven or eight connected pipes with drop hoses and sprinkler nozzles that rotate in a line around a pivot point. Linear move systems are similar but apply irrigation water in a straight line across a field. Together, center-pivot and linear move systems are known as overhead, or mechanized, irrigation systems and are the most prevalent form of irrigation system in the United States (NASS 2013). They account for the irrigation of 50.4% of total U.S. irrigated acreage.In Nebraska, the state with the highest crop acreage under irrigation, 70,000 overhead systems are used on more than 7.2 million acres -87% of the state's total irrigated land -and the remaining gravity irrigation systems are being rapidly replaced by overhead systems because of overhead systems' superior application precision and yield benefits (Pfeifer and Line 2009). In California, by contrast, roughly 350 overhead systems irrigate about 150,000 acres, just 2% of the state's total irrigated acreage. Technology adoptionSeveral factors may have contributed to the slow rate of adoption of overhead irrigation in California.First, difficulties encountered by early adopters of the technology led to overhead systems gaining an undeserved reputation for being unable to keep up with California's high crop evapotranspiration demands, losing unacceptably large amounts of water to evaporation, and being prone to getting stuck in muddy fields. While successful installations of center-pivot systems in recent years show that the technology can in fact work well in California, these negative perceptions persist.Incomplete coverage by center-pivot systems is another issue. With a standard center-pivot system, roughly 20%, or 33 acres, of a typical 160-acre (quarter section) field is unirrigated. ...

show abstract

“…Stated SDI benefits varied between studies but included yield increases (Sij et al, 2010;Lamm, 2016;Barnes et al, 2020;Sorensen et al, 2020), reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (Bronson et al, 2018), and greater profitability (Sij et al, 2010). Negative responses attributed to SDI included a reduction in small rainfall event utilization (Goebel and Lascano, 2019) and a greater incidence of spider mite damage (Hollingsworth et al, 2014). Additional information on cotton response to SDI and alternative irrigation systems from a global and longer-term perspective was provided by Lamm (2016).…”

Section: Sdi In Comparison To Alternative Irrigation Systems For Cotton Productionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A 2020 Vision of Subsurface Drip Irrigation in the U.S.

Lamm¹,

Colaizzi²,

Sorensen³

et al. 2021

Transactions of the ASABE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

HighlightsSubsurface drip irrigation (SDI) has continued to expand in irrigation area within the U.S. during the last 15 years.Research with SDI continues for multiple crop types (fiber, grain and oilseed, horticultural, forage, and turf).SDI usage on many crops has matured through research and development of appropriate strategies and technologiesDespite some persistent challenges to successful use of SDI, important opportunities exist for further adoption.Abstract. Subsurface drip irrigation (SDI) offers several advantages over alternative irrigation systems when it is designed and installed correctly and when best management practices are adopted. These advantages include the ability to apply water and nutrients directly and efficiently within the crop root zone. Disadvantages of SDI in commercial agriculture relative to alternative irrigation systems include greater capital cost per unit land area (except for small land parcels), unfamiliar management and maintenance protocols that can exacerbate the potential for emitter clogging, the visibility of system attributes (components and design characteristics) and performance, and the susceptibility to damage (i.e., rodents and tillage) of the subsurface driplines. Despite these disadvantages, SDI continues to be adopted in commercial agriculture in the U.S., and research efforts to evaluate and develop SDI systems continue as well. This article summarizes recent progress in research (2010 to 2020) and the status of commercial adoption of SDI, along with a discussion of current challenges and future opportunities. Keywords: Drip Irrigation, Irrigation, Irrigation systems, Microirrigation, SDI, Water management.

show abstract

Subsurface Drip and Overhead Irrigation Effects on Conservation-tilled Cotton in the San Joaquin Valley

Cited by 6 publications

References 18 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

Precision overhead irrigation is suitable for several Central Valley crops

A 2020 Vision of Subsurface Drip Irrigation in the U.S.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About