salinity control and water management under

8/2/2019 Salinity Control and Water Management Under

1/12

Water Science The Issue 38 October 2005

SALINITY CONTROL AND WATER MANAGEMENT UNDER DIFFERENT IRRIGATION SYSTEMS 31

SALINITY CONTROL AND WATER MANAGEMENT UNDERDIFFERENT IRRIGATION SYSTEMS

By

Abou El Azem, A . M

Associate Professor Researcher of Water Management and Irrigation SystemsResearch Institute, National Water Research Center. Cairo, Egypt.

ABSTRACTA study on salinity control and water

management as affected by differentirrigation systems i. e. surface trickle (ST),subsurface trickle (SST), low pressuresprinkler (LPS), medium pressure sprinkler(MPS) and modified furrow (MF). It wascarried out at Wady EL Natrun WaterRequirement Research Station, EL Behera

Governorate, Egypt, in two successivegrowing seasons 2003 / 2004 and 2004/2005.

The results obtained showed that totalsoluble salts as average of both studiedseasons increased significantly with surfacetrickle, subsurface trickle and low pressuresprinkler systems. While it decreasedsignificantly with medium pressure sprinklerand modified furrow systems. It increasedsignificantly also with increasing distancesfrom the emitter, the sprinkler or the bottomof furrow, soil layers depths and used timefor all irrigation systems.

Predicting the critical time of salt

accumulation with regard to the tolerance ofcultivated crop (sugar beet) and selectingthe suitable time for leaching werecalculated by regression equations for ST,SST, LPS, MPS and MF irrigation systems,respectively.

The obtained results indicated also thatthe maximum sugar beet root yield (35.10ton / fed), sucrose (21.78%) and amount ofconsumptive use (559.91mm) wereproduced when using the minimum amountof irrigation water applied (599.90mm) asaverage of both studied seasons with SSTirrigation system. The highest sugar beet

root yield and sucrose % reduction whichwere 33.39 and 16.12 percent due to usingMF irrigation system instead of the SSTirrigation system. Moreover, the sameirrigation system treatment recorded thehighest crop water use efficiency (14.93kg/m

3) and field water use efficiency (13.93

kg/m3) as average of both studied seasons.

More irrigation water was lossed while lesswas consumed by the plants under the otherirrigation systems treatments (MF, MPS,LPS and ST, respectively) compared to SST.Therefore the highest water applicationefficiency was recorded also by it, (93.33%)

as average of both studied seasons.

INTRODUCTIONUndoubtedly, the irrigation system, in

which the water is conveyed to a field, differedto affect both the soil water relations i.e. waterlosses, moisture availability and air waterbalance and the salt accumulation in theeffective rot zone. The intensity of using bothmodern and modified the conventional irrigation

systems are not only increasing but alsobecoming a must. Reducing salt accumulationand saving irrigation water are very importantobjectives.

Shalhevet (1984), found that the choiceirrigation system may be guided threeconsiderations i.e. the distribution of salts andwaters in the soil, crop sensitivity to foliarwetting and the extent of the damage to yieldand the ease with which high salt and matricpotential can be maintained in the soil.

Moore and Fitschen (1990), reported thatthe subsurface trickle irrigation system causedbetter water distribution and better water

management. They also added that the netyield increased, compared with that in furrowirrigation system.

Chartzoulakis and Michelakis (1990),agreed that salinity of soil saturation extractedunder furrow, trickle , microtube, porous claytube and porous plastic tuber irrigation systemsdecreased with depth.

Singh Saggu and Kaushal (1991),found that the plant root zone under tricklesystem remained almost salt free, while thehigh EC values were recorded in it under thefurrow system. El Nagar (1995)stated that the

soil salinity profile differs distinctly amongvarious of irrigation systems due to the differentmethods of water application.

Sugar beet (Beta vulgaris, L.) plays aprominent role for sugar production in the world.However, this crop has attracted the attention inEgypt for sugar production in the last ten yearsonly and the government is pushing hard toincrease the areas those devoted to sugar beetas well as the root and sugar yield per unitarea. This could be achieved through using thebest irrigation systems and adapting agriculturalpractices for this important crop.

Sugar beet could be efficiently grownunder a wide range of irrigation water level


2/12


SALINITY CONTROL AND WATER MANAGEMENT UNDER DIFFERENT IRRIGATION SYSTEMS32

where it is readily adapted to limited irrigationbecause plants utilize deep stored soil waterand recover quickly following water stress(Winter, 1980). Mohamed et. al (2000) foundthat the maximum root and sugar yields as wellas water use efficiency (kg root and / or sugar /m

3water) were significantly obtained when

sugar beet watered constantly at 65% of thefield capacity.

The current work aims to study the effectof using different irrigation systems i.e. surfacetrickle, subsurface trickle, low pressuresprinkler, medium pressure sprinkler andmodified furrow on both the salt distribution andits accumulation rate within the soil profile, withspecial reference for the prediction andavoidance of soil salinity hazard for the differentgrown crops and the water management, withdevelopment a water application efficiency andwater use program that will provide maximumyield per unit of water consumed by plants.

MATERIALS AND METHODSTwo field experiments were conducted on

Water Management Research Station in WadyEL Natrun, Behaira Governorate, Egypt duringtwo successive winter seasons 2003 / 2004 and2004 / 2005. The experiments were performedto find out the extent to which, salinity control(salt distribution, salt accumulation rate withinthe soil profile and the avoidance of soil salinityhazard), water management (amount ofirrigation water applied, consumptive use,irrigation application efficiency and both cropand field water use efficiencies) and crop yield

of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L) (root yield andsucrose%) were influenced by the differentirrigation systems.

The present work included five treatmentsrepresented five irrigation systems, surfacetrickle (ST), subsurface trickle (SST), lowpressure sprinkler (LPS), medium pressuresprinkler (MPS) and modified furrow (MF). Acomplete randomized blocks design of fourreplications was used in both seasons. The fiveirrigation systems treatments were randomizedin each plot.

Four both surface and subsurface trickle

irrigation systems blocks of 9 P. E. laterals of12 mm diameter, 45 m long, 70 cm apart withemitters which had 4 L / h discharge at 1 barpressure placed at 30 cm apart and the depthof subsurface was approximately 15 cm. Fourlow pressure sprinkler irrigation systems blocksof 9 P. E. laterals of 50 mm diameter, 45 mlong , 5 m apart with sprinklers which had 100 L/ h discharge at 2 bar pressure, placed at 5 mapart. Four medium pressure sprinkler irrigationsystems blocks of 9 P. E. laterals of 75mmdiameter, 45 m long, 12 m apart with sprinklerswhich had 3.5 m

3/ h discharge at 3 bar

pressure placed at 12 m apart. The submainline of each irrigation system was equipped witha water meter and a pressure gauge. Fourmodified furrow irrigation systems blocks of 9

furrows, 45 m long and 75 cm apart. Theuniformity of water application to the furrow canincrease by frequent regulation of the sizestream flowing into the furrow. For this purpose,lightweight aluminum gated pipe was used.Small and easily adjusted gates, with 75 cmapart between them, in the pipe facilitate control

of the size of stream delivered to the furrow.Thirteen meters were left between each

irrigation system treatments as a guarddistance to avoid the overlapping or theinteractions of irrigation water.

Sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) variety Del939 was used in both growing seasons. It wassown on November 7

thand 9

thand harvested

took place on May 29th

and 21st

in both growingseasons, respectively. The normal culturalpractices of growing sugar beet were followedas recommended for the region.

Soil of experimental site in both seasonswere sandy in texture. Soil samples werecollected to determine physical characteristicsof the experimental site. The average values ofthese measurements at different soil depthsdown to 60 cm and the chemical analysis ofirrigation water are presented in Table 1according to standard methods of Anonymous(1989) and Peterson and Calvin (1965).

Parameters Studied:

Three major parameters were investigated.These parameters were salinity control, watermanagement and crop yield. Thedeterminations were carried out on that threeparameters as follows:

1. Salinity Control

1.1 Salt Distribution

Soil samples were collected at threeperiods i.e. initial state, midseason stage andlateseason stage (0, 90 and 180 days fromcultivation, respectively) to determine the saltdistribution under each irrigation systemtreatment. These soil samples were token torepresent different depths of (0 20), (20 40)and (4060) cm at four distances from, theemitter of both surface and subsurface trickle

(0, 10, 20 and 30 cm), the sprinkler of both lowand medium pressure sprinkler (0, 100, 200and 300 cm and 0, 200, 400 and 600 cm,respectively) and the bottom of modified furrow(0, 10, 20 and 30 cm).

Soil salinity expressed as electricalconductivity (EC dS/m) was determined in 1:1water soil extract of the studied samples usingthe method proposed by Jakson (1967).

1.2. Salt Accumulation Rate Within The SoilProfile

It was determined as the differencebetween the mean values of the electrical

conductivity of soil extract 1 : 1 beforecultivation (initial state) and after 90 and 180days from it (Midseason and lateseason state).


3/12



1.3. The Avoidance Of Soil Salinity HazardIt was determined by selecting the suitable

time for leaching when the soil reached to thecritical time of salt accumulation with regard tothe tolerance of cultivated crops. This wascalculated from the relationship between soil

salinity as average of both studied seasons (Y,in EC dS /m) and used time (x, in days) underthe different irrigation systems which wasdetermined from the experimental field data.2. Water Management

2.1. Amount Of Irrigation Water Applied

The amount of irrigation water applied wascalculated in order to be given to the soil ofeach irrigation system treatment when its soilmoisture content reach 70% from the availablewater. The applied water at this situation is toraise the soil moisture content to its fieldcapacity condition.

The depth of irrigation water applied wascalculated according to the equation given byIsraelsen Hansen (1962).

2.2. Consumptive UseIt was determined as the differences in soil

moisture content in the soil samples takenimmediately before irrigation and 48 hours laterfrom three successive soil depths (0 20), (20 40) and (40 60) cm.

Moisture content in the soil samples weredetermined gravimetrically and calculated ondry basis according to Garcia (1978).

Transformation to water depths were estimatedaccording to Israelsen and Hansen (1962).

2.3. Irrigation Application Efficiency:

The following concept of irrigationapplication efficiency was developed tomeasure and facus attention upon the efficiencywith which water delivered was being storedwithin the root zone of the soil, where it couldbe used by plants. The irrigation applicationefficiency was calculated according to Micheal(1978).

2.4. Water Use Efficiency

Crop and field water use efficienciesdefined as the total sugar beet root yield (kg)per cubic meter of both water consumptive useand water applied, respectively. Both of themwere calculated according to Jensen(1983)

3. Crop Yield

3. 1. Root Yield

At maturity, sugar beet roots of eachstudied treatment plot were pulled off andseparated into roots and foliages, then cleanedand weighted the roots.

3. 2. Sucrose Percentage

Sucrose content of the beet pulp wasdetermined by the methods described by LeDocte (1927).

The results were subjected to thestandard analysis of variance procedure.Values of L. S. D. were obtained whenever thecalculated F values were significant at 5% and1% levels.(Sendecor and Cochran 1980).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION1. Salinity Control

1.1. Salt Distribution

Data in Table 2 show the average E.Cvalues which represent soil salinity distributionat different studied positions and depths beforecultivation, 90 (midseason stage) and 180 days(lateseason stage) of sugar beet as affected bythe five irrigation systems.

The results showed that the EC values in

the top soil layer (0 20) cm under all thestudied irrigation systems decreased bydecreasing the distances from emitter, sprinklerand bottom of the furrow, while its values wereincreased in the deeper soil layer (40 60) cm.Moreover, the EC values over all the soil profilelayers, the distances from emitter, sprinkler andbottom of the furrow and at each studied usedtime under modified furrow irrigation systemtreatment were decreased more than under theother irrigation systems treatments.

Most of salts movement under surfacetrickle, both low and medium pressuresprinklers and modified furrow irrigationsystems treatments were in the first two layers(0 20 and 20 40 cm) and concentrated inthe third layer (40 60 cm), while under thesubsurface trickle irrigation system treatment,the salt movement was in the second layer (20 40 cm) and concentrated in the soil surfacejust above the line source and the layer (40 60 cm) down it, the same trend wasapproximately obtained by Abo Soliman, et al(1996).

These can lead to conclude that the waterdistribution which in turn governed by irrigationsystem, the most effective variable in saltdistribution.1.2. Salt Accumulation Rate Within The Soil

Profile

The effect of using different irrigationsystems on salt accumulation rate within thesoil profile under them was calculated as thedifference between the average EC values overall the soil profile layers (Table 2) beforecultivation and after 90 and 180 days from it.

The results showed that irrigation systemstreatments had significant effect on saltaccumulation rate within the soil profile. Where

the salt accumulation was consistentlyincreased due to using most of the irrigationsystems and decreased due to using some of


4/12



them. It was increased by about 28.17, 27. 80and 13.11% after 90 days and 43.65, 41.08 and28.79% after 180 days from cultivation underusing surface trickle, subsurface trickle and lowpressure sprinkler irrigation systemstreatments, respectively. While it was

decreased by about 4.80 and 15.98% after 90days and 14.00 and 22.95% after 180 daysfrom cultivation under using medium pressuresprinkler and modified furrow treatments,respectively.

Also, the salt accumulation rate increasedor decreased significantly with used time untilthe end of the experiment under all the studiedirrigation systems treatments.

Hence, it can be concluded that the mainfactors that affected the salt accumulation ratewithin the soil profile were the irrigation systemand the used time.

The previous discussion lead to theconclusion that the irrigation systems causedan accumulation of salt at different distancesand layer depths of soil profile and thataccumulation increased gradually with the usedtime.1.3. The Avoidance Of Soil Salinity Hazard

Results in Table 3 and Figure 1 show therelationship between soil salinity as average ofboth studied seasons (Y, in EC dS/m) and usedtime (x, in days ) under the different irrigationsystems.

The results showed that, the soil salinitywas directly related to used time under all the

different irrigation systems treatments. Therelations can be represented by linearregression equations as:

a. Surface trickle Y = 2.57 + 0.0061X(R

2= 0.9726)

b. Subsurface trickle Y = 2.47 + 0.0055X(R

2= 0.9600)

c. Low pressure sprinkler Y = 2.43 + 0.0038X(R

2= 0.9983)

Y = 2.52 0.0019Xd. Medium pressuresprinkler (R

2= 0.9681)

e. Modified furrow Y = 2.40 0.0031X(R

2= 0.9511)

Where:

Y: Soil salinity (EC dS/m).X: Time (days)

This relationship was calculated to predictthe critical time of salt accumulation with regardto the tolerance of cultivated crops andselecting the suitable time of leaching processto avoid it. Where the calculated times thatraise the soil salinity to 4 dS/m under thedifferent irrigation systems treatments were234.43, 278.18 and 413.16 days under surfacetrickle, subsurface trickle and low pressuresprinkler, respectively. Moreover, the other two

irrigation systems leached the salt out studieddepth.

It is clear that, using the modified furrowand medium pressure sprinkler irrigationsystems, respectively considered asappropriate systems to maintain uniform saltdistribution and acceptable salinity levelsdirectly in the plant root zone through thegrowing season.

It can be concluded from the previousdiscussion that the application of irrigationwater means an input of salts. Irrigationsystems, even if the water of excellent quality,are a major source of soluble salts in the soil. Ifsoil salinization is to be avoided, these saltshave to be leached out of the root zone bywater percolating to the subsoil.

2.Water Management

2.1. Amount Of Irrigation Water Applied

Results in Table 4 and Figure 2 show theamount of irrigation water (mm) delivered toeach irrigation system during the two growing

seasons of sugar beet crop 2003 / 2004 and2004 / 2005.

The results showed that for each irrigationsystem treatment the data for both growingseasons were almost similar. The amounts ofirrigation water applied in both 2003/ 2004 and2004/ 2005 seasons were (604.58 and 607.79mm), (597.86 and 601.93 mm), (646.64 and650.97 mm), (663.35 and 667.89 mm) and(820.11 and 824.32 mm) for sugar beetirrigated by surface trickle, subsurface trickle,low pressure sprinkler, medium pressuresprinkler and modified furrow irrigation systemstreatments, respectively. Same trend was

obtained by Doorenbos and Kassam (1986).Moreover, the sugar beet irrigated bymodified furrow irrigation system in bothgrowing seasons received the highest amountof irrigation water followed by which irrigated byboth medium and low pressure sprinklerirrigation systems. On the other hand, the sugarbeet irrigated by both surface and subsurfacetrickle irrigation systems treatments utilized thelowest amount of irrigation water.

These results indicated that, saving waterthrough using both surface and subsurfacetrickle and both low and medium pressuresprinkler irrigation systems to irrigate sugarbeet instead of modified furrow irrigation systemwere on expense of root yield / fed as well assucrose %, as these treatments increased bothyields.

From the previous discussion it can beconcluded that the changes in crop productionunder each studied irrigation system treatmentare mainly due to the effect of not only howmuch water was applied but also how waterwas applied, where the amounts should have agood distribution on and in the soil to besufficient to replace moisture consumed fromthe root zone to avoid water stress on thegrowing plants.2.2. Consumptive Use.

Consumptive use values of sugar beetplants from sowing to harvest as affected by


5/12



different irrigation system in both studiedgrowing seasons are presented in Table 4 andare illustrated in Figure 2.

The total consumptive use values of sugarbeet crop were 543.40, 549.97, 529.79, 520.00and 505.93 mm in 2003/2004 season and562.27, 569.85, 538.61, 533.98 and 516.52 mmin 2004/2005 season for the plants irrigated byboth surface and subsurface trickle, both lowand medium pressure sprinkler and modifiedfurrow irrigation systems, respectively. Thehighest values of water consumptive use wereobtained with plants irrigated by subsurfacetrickle irrigation system while the lowest valueswere obtained with which irrigated by modifiedfurrow irrigation system in both growingseasons.

It is clear from the previous discussion thatvalues of seasonal consumptive use of sugarbeet plants grown under the five irrigation

systems were differed from each other underthe same conditions. This could be due to themorphological characters of the plants itself andto the evaporation from soil surface and deeppercolation out side the effective root zonewhich was under the subsurface trickle systemless than the surface trickle, low pressuresprinkler, medium pressure sprinkler andmodified furrow systems, respectively, thus thevalues of water consumed by the plants undersubsurface trickle irrigation system increasedthan the values under the other irrigationsystems in both growing seasons.

2.3. Irrigation Application Efficiency

Irrigation application efficiency as affectedby different irrigation systems in both studiedseasons are presented in Table 4.

The results indicated that the irrigationapplication efficiency of sugar beet irrigated bysubsurface trickle irrigation system treatment(91.99 and 94.67% for both seasons,respectively) was higher than the othertreatments, while it was for which irrigated bymodified furrow irrigation system treatment(61.69 and 62.66% for both seasons,respectively) lower than the other treatments.The irrigation application efficiency values were

89.88, 91.99, 81.93, 78.39 and 61.69% in2003/2004 season and 92.51, 94.67, 82.74,79.95 and 62.66% in 2004/2005 season forsugar beet irrigated by both surface andsubsurface trickle, both low and mediumpressure sprinkler and modified furrow irrigationsystems, respectively.

These indicated that all the sugar beetirrigated by trickle and both sprinkler irrigationsystems treatments demonstrate clearly higherirrigation application efficiency values in bothseasons of study than which irrigated bymodified furrow irrigation system treatment.Similar trend was obtained by Bucks et al(1974a). This increase in the irrigationapplication efficiency could be mainly due to thedecrease of water losses.

2. 4. Water Use Efficiency.

In arid and semiarid regions and sandy soilwhere water is a limiting factor. The primaryobjective of management is to development awater use program that will provide maximumyield per unit of water consumed by plants.

Efficiencies of water use for both crop and fieldas affected by different irrigation systems arepresented in Table 4 and are illustrated inFigure 3. [

The results indicated that higher values ofboth crop and field water use efficiencies(14.84, 13.65, 15.01 and 14.21 kg/m

3in both

2003/2004 and 2004/2005 seasons,respectively) were obtained under subsurfacetrickle irrigation system. While the modifiedfurrow irrigation system treatment inducedlower values (10.72, 6.61, 11.05 and 6.93 kg/m

3

in both 2003/2004 and 2004/2005 seasons,respectively).

In general the results lead to theconclusion that, the greatest values of themwere obtained from both trickle systemstreatments and the lowest values wererecorded with modified furrow systemtreatment. Similar trend was obtained by Guptaand Tyagi (1985)and Chartzoulakis andMichelakis (1988).

It can be concluded that the irrigation ofsugar beet by subsurface trickle system wasthe best treatment. This treatment resulted inmore water saving and achieved the goodproduction of root yield.

3.Crop Yield.

3.1. Root Yield.

Results presented in Table 4 show the rootyield in ton/fed as affected by different irrigationsystems in both seasons of study.

It is obvious from the results that root yieldwas increased significantly when sugar beetsubjected to irrigate with subsurface tricklesystem either in the first or in the secondstudied seasons and the reduction in root yieldwere more pronounced with irrigated bymodified furrow than with the other irrigated by

surface trickle and both low and mediumpressure sprinkler in both growing seasons.Moreover, the highest root yield (34.28 and35.92 ton /fed) in 2003/2004 and 2004/2005seasons, respectively were pulled of whensugar beet plants irrigated by subsurface trickleirrigation system. While the lowest root yield(22.78 and 23.98 ton/fed) in 2003/2004 and2004/2005 seasons, respectively were pulledoff when irrigated by modified furrow system.The increase in root yield by irrigation system(i.e. subsurface trickle) might be attributed to bethe favourable effect of maintaining soilmoisture at no stress for the growth of sugarbeet plants with minimize the irrigation water

losses and maximize the irrigation applicationefficiency.


6/12



3.2. Sucrose Percentage

Results of sucrose percentage as affectedby different irrigation systems in the twogrowing seasons of study are presented inTable 4.

The results show that the different

irrigation systems treatments had significanteffect on sucrose percentage in both seasons.Where the sucrose percentage was consistentlyincreased due to using subsurface trickleirrigation system. It was increased from 17.93 to21.56% in season 2003/2004 and from 18.60 to22.00% in season 2004/2005 due to usingsubsurface trickle instead of modified furrowirrigation system.

The highest sucrose % was obtained whensugar beet plants received the lowest amount ofirrigation water. While the lowest was recordedat the plants received the highest amount ofirrigation water in both seasons. This result is inaccordance with those found by Carter et al

(1980), Hang and Miller (1986) and Mekki etal (1994).

CONCLUSIONIt can be concluded that using different

irrigation systems increased the soil salinity withvertical distance from emitter, sprinkler andbottom of furrow and with used time. It reacheda maximum at the soil surface directly abovethe line in the subsurface trickle and at thebottom of the wetted zone in both surface andsubsurface trickle and low pressure sprinklerirrigation system. While it decreased in the plantroot zone with medium pressure sprinkler and

modified furrow irrigation systems.Irrigated by subsurface trickle irrigation

system caused the lower amount of appliedwater. While it caused the higher consumptiveuse, irrigation application efficiency and bothcrop and field water use efficiencies than thesurface trickle, both low and medium pressuresprinkler and modified furrow irrigation systems,respectively.

Sugar beet root yield and sucrosepercentage was increased also with subsurfacetrickle, surface trickle, both low and mediumpressure sprinkler and modified furrow irrigationsystems, respectively.

REFERENCES

Abo Soliman, M. S.; H. A. Shams EL Din; S.A. Hassanein and M. H. Hegazy (1996). Watermanagement for tomatoes production underprotected cultivation. Misr, J. Ag. Eng., CairoUniv. Irr. Conf. 3-4 April 1996.Anonymous (1989). Standard methods forexamination water and wastwater. AmericanPublic Health Association Washington DC. 17

th

ed.Bucks, D. A.; L. J. Erie and O. F. French(1974a). Quantity and frequency of trickle and

furrow irrigation for efficient cabbageproduction. Agron. J. 66: 53 57.

Carter, J. M. ; M. E. Jensen and D. J. Traveller(1980). Effect of mid to late season waterstress on sugar beet growth and yield. Agron .J., 72 (5): 806 815.Chartzoulakis, K. S. and N. G. Michelakis(1988). Influence of different irrigation systemson greenhouse tomatoes. Acta. Hort. No. 228,

97 104. Fourth International Sympasium. OnWater Supply And Irrigation In The Open AndUnder Protected Cultivation, Padua, Italy, 26-28Aug. 1985.Chartzoulakis, K. S. and N. G. Michelakis(1990). Effects of different irrigation systems onroot growth and yield of greenhouse cucumber.Acta Hort., 278: 237 243.Doorenbos, J. and A. H. Kassam (1986).Yield response to water. Irrigation AndDrainage Paper No. 33. FAO. Rome, Italy.EL Nagar, A. M. A. (1995). Efficiency of trickleirrigation as a tool for development of desertsoil. Ph. D. Thesis, Fac. Of Agri. Cairo Univ.,

Egypt.Garcia, I.(1978). Soil water laboratory manual.Dept. Agric. And Chemical EngineeringColorado State Univ., Fort Collins, Colorado, U.S. A.Gupta, R. K. and N. K. Tyagi (1985). Effect oftrickle and surface irrigation systems on wateruse and salt accumulation. Indian Soc. Of Agr.Eng. Proc. Of The Silver Jubilee ConventionHeld In Bhopal. India, 29 31 October 1985.Vol . 2. Soil And Water Eng. 1985. 11-28-11-33.Bhopal. India.Hang, A. N. and D. E. Miller (1986). Responseof sugar beet to deficit high frequency sprinklerirrigation. Agron. J., 78: 10-14.Israelsen, O. W. and V. E. Hansen (1962).Irrigation principles and practices. 3

rdEdit.,

John Willey And Sons Inc., New York.

Jackson, M. L. (1967). Soil chemical analysis.Prentice Hall Of India Pvt Ltd, New Delhi.

Jensen, M. E. (1983). Design and operation offarm irrigation systems. Amr. Soc. Agric. Eng.Michigan, U. S. A.

Le Docte, A. (1927). Commercial determinationof sugar in the beet root using the Sachs LeDocte process, Int. Sug. J. 29: 488 492.

Mekki, B. B.; S. Y. Besheit and Maria G.

Beshay (1994). Effect of water stress andspraying with bioregulator CKB 1709 on sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris L.) II Root yield, root quality,consumptive use and water use efficiency.Egypt. J. Appl. Sci., (4): 93-104

Micheal, A. M. (1978). Irrigation theory andpractices. Vikas Publishing House. New Delhi.Bombay.

Mohamed, K. A.; A. M. A. EL Shafai and I.H. EL- Geddawy (2000). Effect of sowing patternand irrigation on yield and quality of sugar beet.Egypt. J. Appl. Sci., 15 (2): 56-67.

Moore, R. and J. Fitschen (1990). The drip

irrigation revolution in the Hawauan sugar canindustry. Proceeding Of The Third NationalIrrigation Symposium. IA. ASAF. PP. 223-227.


7/12



Peterson, R. G. and L. D. Calvin (1965).Sampling INCA Blac. (ed) methods of soilanalysis. S. Am. Soc. Agron. 9 Modison WI.Agron. 9: 54-71.

Sendecor, G. W. and W. G. Cochran (1980).Statistical methods. 7

thIowa Univ., Press,

Amer., Iowa, U. S. A.

Shalhevet, J. (1984). Management of irrigationwith brackish water. In : Soil Salinity UnderIrrigation Processes And Management.Shainberg. I. And Shalhevet, J. (eds.), Springer Verlag. 229-317.

Singh - Saggu, S. and M. P. Kaushal (1991).Fresh and saline water irrigation through drip andfurrow method. International J. Tropical Agri., 9(3): 194 202.

Winter, R. S. (1980). Suitability of sugar beetfor limited irrigation in a semi arid climate.Agron. J., 72 (1): 118 123.

.

--

//

)(

)( )().(

.

.

) EC dS/m() (

:-

=+)R2=(=+)R2=(=+)R2=(=)R2=(

=)R2=(

.

.

.

.

.

Table 1: Soil physical and irrigation water chemical properties.

Soil depth (cm)

Properties

0-2020-40

40-60Chemical

properties

Irrigationwater

Coars sand (%)69.0

060.4

056.90 PH 8.45

Fine Sand (%)

26.9

0

36.0

0 40.70 EC (dS/m) 0.78Silt (%) 2.10 2.60 1.40 CO

=3 -

Clay (%) 2.00 1.00 1.00 HCO-3 3.85

CL-

1.75Field capacity by weight (%)

12.73

13.00

13.27SO

=4 2.40

Ca++

0.95Permanent wilting point byweight (%)

5.50 5.10 4.10Mg

++1.09

Na+

5.89

K+

0.07

SAR 5.83

Available water (%) 7.23 7.90 9.17

Adj. SAR 13.41

(meq/L)


8/12



Table 2: The average soil salinity (EC dS/m) of both studied seasons under different irrigationsystems as affected by the distance from emitter, sprinkler and bottom of furrowand the used time.

Used time (day) 0 (Initial state)90 (Midseason

stage)180 (Lateseason stage)

Irriga

tion

sys

tem

0-2

0

20-4

0

40-6

0

Average

0-2

0

20-4

0

40-6

0

Average

0-2

0

20-4

0

40-6

0

Average

2.33

2.48

2.53

2.41

2.10

2.55

2.67

2.44

2.00

2.70

2.78

2.49

2.25

2.51

2.60

2.45

2.13

2.69

2.75

2.52

2.10

3.48

3.61

3.06

2.54

2.55

2.65

2.58

3.39

3.85

4.10

3.78

3.95

4.15

4.38

4.16

Surface

trickle

0102030

2.70

2.65

2.60

2.65

3.95

4.15

4.38

4.16

4.39

4.85

5.10

4.78

2.2

0

2.0

5

2.3

6

2.2

0

2.3

3

2.0

0

2.5

4

2.2

9

2.5

6

1.8

8

2.6

72.37

2.3

3

2.2

0

2.4

8

2.3

4

2.5

9

2.4

0

2.7

5

2.5

8

3.0

0

2.7

7

3.1

8

2.98

2.4

8

2.3

9

2.6

0

2.4

9

2.9

5

3.5

8

3.9

4

3.4

9

3.4

7

3.8

8

4.3

63.90

Su

bsur

face

trickle

0

1020

302.5

5

2.5

1

2.7

0

2.5

9

3.4

8

3.9

5

4.4

0

3.9

4

4.0

0

4.3

7

4.7

04.36

2.2

3

2.0

0

2.4

4

2.2

2

2.1

0

2.1

8

2.5

8

2.2

9

2.0

0

2.4

3

3.2

92.57

2.4

8

2.2

5

2.5

8

2.4

4

2.3

3

2.4

0

2.6

7

2.4

7

2.3

0

2.7

3

3.5

12.85

2.5

7

2.3

9

2.6

3

2.5

3

2.5

0

2.7

8

3.7

5

3.0

2

2.4

5

3.3

3

4.2

13.33

Lowpressure

sprin

kler 0

100

200

3002.6

0

2.4

7

2.6

8

2.5

8

2.5

7

3.3

0

3.8

8

3.2

5

2.5

5

3.9

7

4.7

83.77

2.3

0

2.2

1

2.5

0

2.3

4

2.0

5

2.1

0

2.3

7

2.1

7

1.8

7

2.0

0

2.1

32.00

2.4

2

2.3

9

2.6

3

2.4

8

2.2

5

2.2

8

2.3

1

2.2

8

2.0

0

2.1

5

2.2

4

2.13

2.6

1

2.4

4

2.6

6

2.5

7

2.4

2

2.5

0

2.5

2

2.4

8

2.0

5

2.2

0

2.2

92.18

Me

diumpressure

sprink

ler 0

200400

6002.6

5

2.5

0

2.6

8

2.6

1

2.5

0

2.5

8

2.6

9

2.5

9

2.1

1

2.2

8

2.4

82.29

2.2

3

2.2

5

2.4

8

2.3

2

1.8

0

1.8

5

1.9

6

1.8

7

1.6

7

1.7

4

1.8

71.76

2.24

2.35

2.54

2.38

1.85

1.87

1.98

1.90

1.74

1.80

2.01

1.85

2.48

2.53

2.55

2.52

1.96

2.00

2.28

2.08

1.83

1.90

2.06

1.93

Mo

difiedfurrow

0

10

20

302.53

2.55

2.58

2.55

2.19

2.33

2.53

2.35

1.90

1.95

2.09

1.98

0.05 0.005 0.003

L. S. D of irrigation system (A) at 0.01 0.007 0.004

0.05 0.004 0.003L. S. D of distance from emitter, sprinkler and bottom

of furrow (B) at 0.01 0.005 0.0040.05 0.009 0.007

L. S. D of soil layer depth (C) at0.01 0.012 0.01

0.05 0.004 0.003l. S. D of A x B at

0.01 0.006 0.004

0.05 0.010 0.006l. S. D of A x C at

0.01 0.013 0.008

0.05 0.009 0.005L . S. D of B x C at

0.01 0.011 0.007

0.05 0.019 0.012L . S. D of Ax B x C at

0.01 0.025 0.016


9/12



Table 3: Relationships between soil salinity as average of both studied seasons (Y, in EC dS/m)and used time (X, in days) under the different irrigation systems.

Irrigationsystem

Distanc

e(cm)

Linear regressionequation

Correlation

coefficient(R

2)

0 Y = 2.4067 + 0.0004 X 0.9796

10 Y = 2.3717 + 0.0034 X 0.8348

20 Y = 2.7167 + 0.0088 X 0.9176

30 Y = 2.7983 + 0.0118 X 0.9450

Surface

Trickle

Average

Y = 2.5733 + 0.0061 X 0.9726

0 Y = 2.2017 + 0.0009 X 0.9988

10 Y = 2.3133 + 0.0036 X 0.9796

20 Y =2.5883 + 0.0078 X 0.9449

30 Y = 2.7450 + 0.0098X 0.9157

Subsurface

Trickle

Average

Y = 2.4683 + 0.0055 X 0.9600

0 Y = 2.1850 + 0.0019 X 0.8929

100 Y = 2.3817+ 0.0023X 0.8046

200 Y = 2.5600 + 0.0044 X 0.9834

300 Y = 2.6050 + 0.0066 X 0.9947

Lowpressure

Sprinkler

Average

Y =2.4317 + 0.0038 X 0.9983

0 Y = 2.3400 0.0019 X 0.9957

200 Y = 2.4717 0.0019 X 0.9932

400 Y = 2.6050 0.0022 X 0.9119

600 Y = 2.6567 0.0018 X 0.7967

Mediumpressure

Sprinkler

Average

Y = 2.5183 0.0019 X 0.9681

0 Y = 2.2633 0.0031 X 0.8906

10 Y = 2.3083 0.0029 X 0.8201

20 Y = 2.4717 0.0033 X 0.9255

30 Y = 2.5783 0.0032 X 0.9712

Modified

furrowAverag

eY = 2.4033 0.0031 X 0.9511


10/12



Table 4: Amount of water applied, consumptive use, irrigation application efficiency, root yield, sucrose % andboth crop and field water use efficiencies for sugar beet crop as affected by different irrigationsystems in both growing seasons.

Water Losses

Treatments

S

easons

Am

ountof

water

app

lied(mm)

Consumptiv

eu

se(mm)

(mm) (%)Ir

rigation

ap

plication

ef

ficiency

(%)

Rootyield

(ton/fed)

Sucrose(%)

Cr

opwater

use

ef

ficiency

(kg/m

3)

Fieldwater

use

ef

ficiency

(kg/m

3)

2003/2004 604.58 543.40 61.18 10.12 89.88 32.14 20.73 14.08 12.66Surface Trickle2004/2005 607.79 562.27 45.52 7.49 92.51 33.33 21.00 14.11 13.062003/2004 597.86 549.97 47.89 8.01 91.99 34.28 21.56 14.84 13.65Subsurface

Trickle 2004/2005 601.93 569.85 32.08 5.33 94.67 35.92 22.00 1501 14.212003/2004 646.64 529.79 116.85 18.07 81.93 29.53 19.89 13.27 10.87Low pressure

Sprinkler 2004/2005 650.97 538.61 112.36 17.26 82.74 30.77 20.18 13.60 11.252003/2004 663.35 520.00 143.35 21.61 78.39 24.76 18.88 11.34 8.89Median pressure

Sprinkler 2004/2005 667.89 533.98 133.91 20.05 79.95 25.89 19.21 11.54 9.232003/2004 820.11 505.93 314.18 38.31 61.69 22.78 17.93 10.72 6.61

Modified Furrow2004/2005 824.32 516.52 307.80 37.34 62.66 23.98 18.60 11.05 6.93

2003/2004 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **F

2004/2005 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **2003/2004 1.16 1.46 0.65 0.37 0.70 0.90 0.96 0.91 1.04

L. S. D at 0.052004/2005 0.69 1.00 0.46 0.37 0.66 0.56 0.61 0.38 0.57

2003/2004 1.62 2.05 0.90 0.52 0.98 1.27 1.35 1.27 1.46L. S. D at 0.01

2004/2005 0.96 1.40 0.65 0.52 0.92 0.78 0.85 0.53 0.80


11/12



Figure (1): Relationship between soil salinity (as average of EC ds/m of both studiedseasons) and used time as affected by different irrigation systems

y = 0.0061x + 2.5733

R2 = 0.9726

0

1

2

3

4

0 50 100 150 200

Used time (day)

Soilsalin

ity(ECds/cm)

y = 0.0055x + 2.4683R2 = 0.96

0

1

2

3

4

0 50 100 150 200

used time (day)

so

ilsa

lin

ity

(ECds

/cm

)

y = 0.0038x + 2.4317

R2

= 0.9983

0

1

2

3

4

0 50 100 150 200

used time (day)

so

ilsa

lin

ity

(ds/m

)

y = -0.0019x + 2.5183

R2

= 0.9681

0

1

2

3

4

0 50 100 150 200

used time (day)

so

ilsa

lin

ity

(ds/m

)

y = -0.0031x + 2.4033

R2

= 0.9511

0

1

2

3

4

0 50 100 150 200

used time (day)

so

ilsa

lin

ity

(ds

/m)

(Subsurface trickle)(Surface trickle)

(Medium pressure sprinkler)(Low pressure sprinkler)

(Modified furrow)


12/12



0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

Surface trickle Subsurface trickle Low pressure

sprinkler

Medium pressure

sprinkler

Modified furrow

Irrigation systems

Wateramount(mm)

Water applied at

2003/2004 season

Water applied at

2004/2005 seasonConsumptive use a t

2003/2004 seasonConsuwptive use at

2004/2005 season

Fig. 2: Water applied and consumptive use of both growing seasons asaffected by different irrigation systems.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Surface trickle Subsurface

trickle

Low pressure

sprinkler

Medium pressure

sprinkler

Modified furrow

Irrigation systems

W

ateruseefficiency(kg/m

2)

Crop Water use efficiency at 2003/2004

Crop Water use efficiency at 2004/2005

Field water use efficiency at 2003/2004

Field water use efficiency at 2004/2005

Fig. 3: Efficiencies of water use for both crop and field as affected by differentirrigation systems.

salinity control and water management under

Documents