1. Comparative Study of the Effect of Kapillary, Conventional Sub-surface and Surface Drip Irrigation Systems on Soil Moisture Patterns King Saud University College of Food and Agriculture Sciences Department of Agricultural Engineering Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Masters Degree Prepared by Mohammed Elsiddig Ali Abass Major supervisor Prof. Hussein Mohammed Ali Al-Ghobari 6/1435H

2. Outline Introduction. Thesis question. Research Objectives. Materials and Methods. Results and Discussion. Conclusion. Recommendation. 6/1435H 3. Introduction 6/1435H Abbreviations KISSS Kappilary Irrigation Sub-surface Systems DIS SIS Drip Irrigation System Sub-surface Irrigation System 4. Introduction 6/1435H Population Growth in the KSA (Walid, A. 2010) 5. Introduction 6/1435H Water use by sector in the KSA (Walid, A. 2010) 6. Introduction 6/1435H Average Renewable Water Share in KSA(Walid, A. 2010) 7. Introduction 6/1435H Percentage of Drip Irrigation in KSA (Walid, A. 2013) 8. Introduction DIS SIS KISSS 6/1435H 9. Introduction ( KISSS Overview) 6/1435H A plastic tape glued A geo-textile layer covers the drip line 10. KISSS 6/1435H Introduction ( KISSS Overview) 11. Thesis questions Does (KISSS) offer any advantage over using (DIS) and (SIS) with decreasing irrigation amount of water? 6/1435H 12. Research Objectives Study the distribution of moisture patterns of (KISSS) and (SIS) at different soil depths under Riyadh conditions. Compare the patterns of soil moisture distribution of (KISSS, SIS and DIS) using a SURFER10 computer graphics software. Compare the effect of different irrigation systems and soil depths on the amount of water stored in the soil profile. 6/1435H 13. Material and methods Experimental Site Location: 6/1435H 14. Material KISSS REHN Laterals: 6/1435H 15. Soil Moisture Sensor Waterscout SM100 Material 6/1435H 16. Material Computer Software SURFER10 golden software 6/1435H 17. Experiments were designed for two levels of irrigation emitter discharge 4 Liter/h for: Two hours of application time (Level1 - 100%). one hour of application time (Level2 - 50%). Methods 6/1435H (Depot Staff,2012) 18. Methods Field Layout: 6/1435H 19. Methods Field Layout: DIS DIS DIS DIS DIS DIS 6/1435H 20. Soil sampling locations measurements in vertical and horizontal directions: Methods DIS 6/1435H (10,7.5) 7.5cm 20cm 30cm 50cm 0cm 10cm 15cm 25cm 21. Soil sampling locations measurements in vertical and horizontal directions: Methods SIS, KISSS (15) cm SIS, KISSS (25)cm 6/1435H (10,7.5) (10,7.5) 22. Field Evaluation of Water Application Uniformity Coefficient of Uniformity: = 1 =1 = . 100 Distribution of Uniformity = 1 100 Methods 6/1435H (Christiansen, 1942) )Burt, et al. 1997). 23. Methods Statistical Analysis (Split-split plot design using Costat software) Main plots (Irrigation systems: 5) DIS KISSS15 SIS15 KISSS25 SIS25 Sub-plot (Irrigation Levels: 2) 50% 100% Sub-Sub-plot (Measurement time: 2) 24h 48h after irrigation Replication 3 Variables 16 points 6/1435H 24. Result and Discussion Soil analysis data: Soil texture Coarse Sand 76.4% Texture class = Sandy soil Fine Sand 12.3% Silt 7.5% Clay 3.8% 6/1435H 25. Result and Discussion Laboratory Calibration of SM100 Sensor: 6/1435H y = 1.710x0.712 R = 0.869 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 Volumetricwatercontent% SM100 sensor reading 26. 30 45 60 75 90 105 24h 48h 24h 48h 24h 48h 24h 48h 24h 48h DIS SIS15 SIS25 KISSS15 KISSS25 Cofficientuniformity% Irrigation System D7.5 D20 D30 D50 At (24, 48) after irrigation, at horizontal direction at different depths Result and Discussion Coefficient of Uniformity (Cu) 6/1435H 27. Result and Discussion Coefficient of Uniformity (Cu) At 50% irrigation level, at vertical direction at different distances from emitters 30 45 60 75 90 105 24h 48h 24h 48h 24h 48h 24h 48h 24h 48h DIS SIS15 SIS25 KISSS15 KISSS25 Cofficientuniformity% Irrigation system D0 D10 D15 D25 6/1435H 28. Result and Discussion Coefficient of Uniformity: DIS SIS15 SIS25 KISSS15 KISSS25 L50% 84.30 81.79 88.33 94.89 95.07 L100% 89.08 90.38 94.47 95.69 95.80 30 45 60 75 90 105 Coefficientofuniformity% Irrigation System L50% L100% Cu at horizontal direction at depths below soil surface at 50 and 100 % irrigation levels 6/1435H 29. Result and Discussion KISSS15 Wetting Patterns SIS15DIS (50% Level of irrigation and at 48h after irrigation ) 6/1435H 30. KISSS25 SIS25 Result and Discussion Wetting Patterns (50% Level of irrigation and at 48h after irrigation) 6/1435H 31. Result and Discussion Wetting Patterns (100% Level of irrigation and at 24h after irrigation) KISSS15SIS15 DIS 6/1435H 32. KISSS25SIS25 Result and Discussion Wetting Patterns (100% Level of irrigation and at 48h after irrigation) 6/1435H 33. Irrigation System impact regardless of the amount of water and elapsed time at a depth of 7.5cm Result and Discussion Irr. System Soil moisture at various distances from emitter along the lateral *D0 D10 D15 D25 KISSS15 28.13 a 28.20 a 28.11 a 27.54 a KISSS25 26.62 b 27.18 b 26.75 b 26.90 b DIS 19.96 c 19.54 c 17.95 c 17.17 c SIS15 17.64 d 17.82 d 15.84 d 14.96 d SIS25 15.02 e 14.90 e 13.90 e 13.49 e Means followed by the same letter were not significantly different for irrigation system based on Duncans multiple test at P 0.05. *D0 - D25 : various distances from emitter along the lateral 6/1435H 34. Irrigation System impact, regardless of the amount of water and elapsed time at a depth of 20cm Result and Discussion Irr. System Soil moisture at various distances from emitter along the lateral *D0 D10 D15 D25 KISSS25 29.71 a 29.38 a 29.01 a 28.68 a SIS15 22.94 b c 22.22 b 20.36 b 18.92 b DIS 20.95 cd 19.80 c 19.73 bc 18.28 c SIS25 20.26 d 19.38 cd 19.40 c 18.26 c KISSS15 19.99 18.92 d 17.43 d 17.11 d Means followed by the same letter were not significantly different for irrigation system based on Duncans multiple test at P 0.05. *D0 - D25 : various distances from emitter along the lateral 6/1435H 35. Irrigation system impact, regardless of the amount of water and elapsed time at a depth of 50cm Result and Discussion Irr. System Soil moisture at various distances from emitter along the lateral *D0 D10 D15 D25 SIS25 25.51 24.36 22.98 21.06 SIS15 23.04 20.68 18.77 17.85 DIS 22.14 20.39 18.76 16.40 KISSS25 13.78 13.15 12.38 13.10 KISSS15 12.80 13.12 12.36 12.86 Means followed by the same letter were not significantly different from one another based on Duncans multiple test at P 0.05. *D0 - D25 : various distances from emitter along the lateral. 6/1435H 36. Conclusions There were significant differences between irrigation levels (50 and 100%) at all irrigation systems used. There were significant differences between the elapsed time measurements for 24 and 48h after irrigation. The Cu and Du values for KISSS system were higher compared to the values of Cu and Du for DIS and SIS at horizontal direction at different depths (7.5, 20, 30 and 50 cm) below soil surface. 6/1435H 37. The best result for KISSS when installed at a depth 25cm. While for SIS, the best result when installed at 15cm (SIS15), however for SIS25 water moved downward and was lost by deep percolation. The results also showed that at shallower depths and at 50% irrigation level the KISSS gave higher moisture compared to DIS and SIS at 100% irrigation level. These results indicated that savings in water use of up to 50% were achieved using the KISSS. Conclusions 6/1435H 38. Recommendations Installing the KISSS at depth commensurate with different crops where the most of the distribution of moisture content is above the emitters. Use of KISSS for landscaping and fields, because each emitter acts as a point source of water and so the drip line gives rise to a series of circular wetting patterns. Forthermore, this study recommended extending the study on wetting patterns of KISSS on different types of soil. 6/1435H 39. 6/1435H .. . :.. ... . .. . ... . ... . . . (--12-0935)