graziano ghinassi and stefano cecchi university of florence – italy [email protected]
DESCRIPTION
Rapid assessment of seasonal in-field water management on micro irrigated annual and perennial crops in Central Italy. . Graziano Ghinassi and Stefano Cecchi University of Florence – Italy [email protected]. 7th Asian Regional Conference June 27, 2012 – Adelaide, Australia . - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Rapid assessment of seasonal in-field water management on micro irrigated annual and perennial crops in Central Italy.
Graziano Ghinassi and Stefano CecchiUniversity of Florence – Italy
7th Asian Regional Conference June 27, 2012 – Adelaide, Australia
Triennial research project on irrigation sustainability (S.E.Agr.I.T.) supported by the Regional Agency for Development and Innovation in the Agricultural and Forest Sector (ARSIA) of the Tuscan Region.
The project was carried out in the main irrigated areas of Tuscany.
the project
main irrigated areas in tuscany
investigated 1,200 ha of irrigated crops
Perennial Annual Horticultural
Investigate on-farm water use and management, in order to define guidelines for improving efficiency of irrigation water use at different scales
aim of the project
-University of Florence:
Department of Hydraulics
Department of Soil Sciences and Plant Nutrition
Department of Agricultural Economics
-University of Pisa:
National Laboratory of Irrigation, LNI (standard testing and certification of irrigation equipments)
project partners-universities
project partners-professional associations
-Professional Associations of Farmers:
ERATA
IRIPA
CIPA-AT
-Tuscan Regional Union of Water User Associations (URBAT)
Sample of 40 irrigated farms selected according to representative criteria:
size
cultivated crops
irrigation type
tenancy
labour
management
Selection supported by the professional Associations
farms sample
Composed of progressive steps on assessment and measurements of:
water withdrawals
crop water requirements
energy use
agronomical and economical evaluation of the farming practices
project arrangement
Intermediate step at irrigation unit level (on 18 farms):
measurement of working characteristics and performance of the irrigation system;
hydrological characterization of the soil;
monitoring of crop and climate evolution through the season.
project arrangement
1. system performance and irrigation management
Lab and field measurements (nominal to actual discharge);
Irrigation to avoid deficit irrigated zones.
Nominal discharge does not allow correct estimate of the average discharge of driplines
Nominal DRIPLINE MODEL discharge Average Max Min DUlq
(l/h·m) (l/h·m) (l/h·m) (l/h·m) (%)Model 1 3.80
From bench test at LNI 1.77 2.27 1.58 86.8From field measure 1.84 2.50 1.50 82.2
Modello 2 3.80From bench test at LNI 2.30 2.45 2.24 95.8
From field measure 2.26 2.50 2.01 90.5Model 3 3.67
From bench test at LNI 2.40 2.71 2.29 93.5From field measure 2.27 2.71 2.00 88.7
Model 4 3.67From bench test at LNI 1.97 2.95 1.57 76.4
From field measure 2.02 3.15 1.37 69.0…………. …..
…………… ….. …. ….. …..
Lab and field measurements (nominal to actual discharge)
Actual DUlq is below the potential as calculated according to the LNI bench results
Nominal DRIPLINE MODEL discharge Average Max Min DUlq
(l/h·m) (l/h·m) (l/h·m) (l/h·m) (%)Model 1 3.80
From bench test at LNI 1.77 2.27 1.58 86.8From field measure 1.84 2.50 1.50 82.2
Modello 2 3.80From bench test at LNI 2.30 2.45 2.24 95.8
From field measure 2.26 2.50 2.01 90.5Model 3 3.67
From bench test at LNI 2.40 2.71 2.29 93.5From field measure 2.27 2.71 2.00 88.7
Model 4 3.67From bench test at LNI 1.97 2.95 1.57 76.4
From field measure 2.02 3.15 1.37 69.0…………. …..
…………… ….. …. ….. …..
Lab and field measurements (nominal to actual discharge)
Dripline length (m)D
epth
(cm
)
Infiltrated water Active rootzone Average infiltration
Soil water infiltration along a dripline on flat ground
USED BY THE CROP
WASTED
Effective and inefficient irrigation
irrigation to avoid deficit irrigated zones
2. scope of the presentation
Describe an approach to investigate and assess in-field management of micro irrigation
3. materials & methods
Measurement and assessment on:3.1 DUlq target 3.2 Seasonal Net Irrigation Requirement (NIR)3.3 Seasonal Irrigation Supply (SIS)3.4 Irrigation performance - relative surplus
3.1 DUlq target
DUlq target= reasonable minimal target threshold of DUlq, set equal to 90% for irrigation of both annual and perennial crops, taking into account average farming conditions, cropping patterns and farmers skills;
DUlq target compared to values measured in the irrigation units;
Assessment of water supplied by system operating at DUlq target (ISDU90).
3.2 Seasonal Net Irrigation Requirement (NIR)
Calculated through the daily water budget referred to the soil depths explored by the active root system during the season;
Crop evapotranspiration (ETc) calculated by using the Eto FAO-Penman-Monteith equation and site specific crop coefficients (kc);
Effective rainfall (ER) assumed to be ≥5mm;
On mulched crops, total ETc and ER were reduced;
Climatic data yielded by meteorological stations which are part of the Agrometeorological Service of ARSIA.
19
3.3 Seasonal Irrigation Supply (SIS)
Seasonal irrigation supply on each micro irrigated unit estimated according to: -actual discharge under average working conditions (e.g., operating pressure);-irrigation time during the season.
3.4 Irrigation performance - relative surplus
relative irrigation surplus, either positive or negative, depending on system performance:
where:TRS= Technical Relative Surplus (%);SIS= Seasonal Irrigation Supply (mm);ISDU90= Irrigation Supply under the target DUlq (mm).
3.4 Irrigation performance - relative surplus
relative irrigation surplus, either positive or negative, depending on on-farm management:
where:MRS= Management Relative Surplus (%);SIS= Seasonal Irrigation Supply (mm);NIR= Net Irrigation Requirement (mm).
3.5 simplified water balance
NIR/DUlq ratio is the traditional approach to represent Gross Irrigation Requirement (GIR) to apply;
Evaluation of the components that over the season enter and leave the field allows to assess:
Efficiency of irrigation practice (NIR/SIS); Effectiveness of Irrigation Management (SIS/GIR),
under actual conditions.
Fates of water applied
Fates of water applied under drip irrigation
4. results and discussion-annual crops
CROP DN (l/h*m)
DM (l/h*m)
DUlq [/]
SIS (mm)
ISDU90
(mm) NIR
(mm) NIR/SIS
(%) GIR
(mm) SIS/GIR
(%)
Tomatoes 3.33 3.00 0.90 320 321 219 68.4 243 132 Watermelon1 2.18 2.22 0.83 96 89 78 81.3 94 102 Courgette1 3.73 4.02 0.56 150 99 102 68.0 182 82 Tomatoes 3.40 2.90 0.81 420 383 298 71.0 367 114 Melon1 2.18 1.71 0.85 72 69 70 97.2 82 88 Tomatoes 3.80 4.21 0.89 420 418 298 71.0 333 126 Celery 3.40 0.86 0.82 390 360 219 56.2 265 147 Tomatoes 3.00 3.22 0.50 410 247 135 32.9 269 153 Melon1 3.67 3.12 0.80 165 149 67 40.6 83 199 Watermelon 3.40 2.98 0.81 500 453 295 59.0 367 136 Melon 3.40 2.27 0.56 600 395 295 49.2 529 113 AVERAGE 0.76 322 271 189 63.2 249 127 1Black polyethylene mulched
CROP DN (l/h*m)
DM (l/h*m)
DUlq [/]
SIS (mm)
ISDU90
(mm) NIR
(mm) NIR/SIS
(%) GIR
(mm) SIS/GIR
(%)
Tomatoes 3.33 3.00 0.90 320 321 219 68.4 243 132 Watermelon1 2.18 2.22 0.83 96 89 78 81.3 94 102 Courgette1 3.73 4.02 0.56 150 99 102 68.0 182 82 Tomatoes 3.40 2.90 0.81 420 383 298 71.0 367 114 Melon1 2.18 1.71 0.85 72 69 70 97.2 82 88 Tomatoes 3.80 4.21 0.89 420 418 298 71.0 333 126 Celery 3.40 0.86 0.82 390 360 219 56.2 265 147 Tomatoes 3.00 3.22 0.50 410 247 135 32.9 269 153 Melon1 3.67 3.12 0.80 165 149 67 40.6 83 199 Watermelon 3.40 2.98 0.81 500 453 295 59.0 367 136 Melon 3.40 2.27 0.56 600 395 295 49.2 529 113 AVERAGE 0.76 322 271 189 63.2 249 127 1Black polyethylene mulched
CROP DN (l/h*m)
DM (l/h*m)
DUlq [/]
SIS (mm)
ISDU90
(mm) NIR
(mm) SIS/NIR
(%) GIR
(mm) SIS/GIR
(%)
Tomatoes 3.33 3.00 0.90 320 321 219 146 243 132 Watermelon1 2.18 2.22 0.83 96 89 78 123 94 102 Courgette1 3.73 4.02 0.56 150 99 102 147 182 82 Tomatoes 3.40 2.90 0.81 420 383 298 141 367 114 Melon1 2.18 1.71 0.85 72 69 70 103 82 88 Tomatoes 3.80 4.21 0.89 420 418 298 141 333 126 Celery 3.40 0.86 0.82 390 360 219 178 265 147 Tomatoes 3.00 3.22 0.50 410 247 135 304 269 153 Melon1 3.67 3.12 0.80 165 149 67 246 83 199 Watermelon 3.40 2.98 0.81 500 453 295 169 367 136 Melon 3.40 2.27 0.56 600 395 295 203 529 113 AVERAGE
0.76 322 271 189 170 249 127
1Black polyethylene mulched
4. results and discussion-annual crops
CROP DUlq [/]
NIR/SIS (%)
SIS/GIR (%)
Tomatoes 0.90 68.4 132 Watermelon 0.83 81.3 102 Courgette 0.56 68.0 82 Tomatoes 0.81 71.0 114 Melon 0.85 97.2 88 Tomatoes 0.89 71.0 126 Celery 0.82 56.2 147 Tomatoes 0.50 32.9 153 Melon 0.80 40.6 199 Watermelon 0.81 59.0 136 Melon 0.56 49.2 113
AVERAGE 0.76 63.2 127
4. results and discussion-perennial crops
CROP DN (l/h)
DM (l/h)
DUlq [/]
SIS (mm)
ISDU90
(mm) NIR
(mm) SIS/NIR
(%) GIR
(mm) SIS/GIR
(%) Vineyard1 2.3 2.13 0.80 - - 100 - 125 - Vineyard 1.6 1.73 0.93 100 103 100 100 108 93 Apple 3.8 3.07 0.93 425 438 452 94 486 87 Apple 3.8 2.93 0.76 425 366 336 126 442 96 Apple 3.8 2.62 0.80 100 90 336 30 420 24 Peach 8.0 8.27 0.60 180 126 164 110 273 66 Apple2 - 51.33 0.40 570 285 452 126 1130 50 AVERAGE 0.75 300 235 277 108 426 69
4. results and discussion-farmers’ self evaluation annual
CROP TRS(%)
MRS (%)
TSE MSE
Tomatoes 0 46 adequate adequate
Watermelon 8 24 adequate adequate
Courgette 52 48 adequate adequate
Tomatoes 10 41 adequate high
Melon 5 3 high adequate
Tomatoes 1 41 adequate adequate
Celery 8 78 adequate adequate
Tomatoes 66 203 high adequate
Melon 11 148 adequate adequate
Watermelon 10 69 adequate adequate
Melon 52 103 adequate adequate
AVERAGE 20 73
4. results and discussion-farmers’ self evaluation perennial
CROP TRS(%)
MRS (%)
TSE MSE
Vineyard -3 0 high high
Apple -3 -6 adequate adequate
Apple 16 26 adequate adequate
Apple 11 -70 adequate adequate
Peach 43 10 adequate adequate
Apple 100 26 adequate low
AVERAGE 27 -2
5. conclusions
Difference between nominal and actual discharge can affect irrigation efficiency and wastes of water, fertilizers and energy.
Farmers seem to pay little attention to system performance, especially when irrigating annual crops.
Poor technical performance not balanced by management in most cases, as indicated by the surplus indexes.
Farmers’ evaluation about on-farm irrigation seems to be based on yield response rather than on water use.
5. conclusions
Good technical and management performance on units adopting saving strategies, such as mulching, or devoted to typical crops such as Vineyard.
System DUlq is below the expected threshold.
Irrigation efficiency is far below the potential in the project areas.
Thank you for your attention