Volume 2, Issue 3, August 2017, Page: 123-131
Comparative Performance Evaluation of Alternate and Convectional Furrow Irrigation under Different Water Application Level on Cabbage Water Use Efficiency and Economic Analysis
Jemal Nur Hassene, Oromia Agricultural Research Institute, Fedis Agricultural Research Centre, Agricultural Engineering Research Process, Harar, Ethiopia
Mukerem Taha Seid, College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences, School of Rural Development and Agricultural Extension, Haramaya University, Dire Dawa, Ethiopia
Received: Apr. 10, 2017;       Accepted: Apr. 24, 2017;       Published: Jun. 20, 2017
DOI: 10.11648/j.ajere.20170203.15      View  2171      Downloads  256
Abstract
Suitable irrigation method with application level is essential for adaptation and adoption in the areas where water resources are limited. Therefore, a field experiment was conducted to test the performance of alternate furrow irrigation (AFI or FFI) and convectional furrow irrigation (CFI) with three water application level on crop, yield response, water use efficiency and cost benefit analysis of cabbage. The experiment had two factors, factorial design arranged in Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) with nine treatments of three replicate. The treatment namely three furrow Irrigation method alternative Furrow Irrigation (AFI), Fixed Furrow Irrigation (FFI) and Convectional Furrow Irrigation methods (CFI) and three application levels full (100%), three forth 75% and half 50% of full ETc (crop water requirement). The result shows CWUE, IWUE and EWP were highly significantly (P<0.01) affected by both IMs and ALs. The highest and the lowest mean crop and irrigation water use efficiency (CWUE and IWUE), and economic water productivity (EWP) were recorded by AFI and CFI irrigation. Whereas, under ALs the highest and the lowest mean CWUE, IWUE and EWP were recorded by 50% and 100% ETc Application depth. Maximum water saved resulted from AFI and FFI, with 50%, 75% and 100% ETc application depth was equally computed as 58.33%, 37.50% and 16.67% which could irrigate additional area of 0.20, 0.60 and 1.40 ha for each treatment respectively. Contrarily yield reduction was higher in FFI followed by AFI and CFI with the same ALs. NR (net return) produced per hectare was higher in CFI followed by AFI and FFI. In case of BCR, AFI with 75% and 50% ETc was higher than FFI followed and the smallest by CFI of 50% and 75% ETc deficit level. Hence yield reduction and NR incurred by alternate (AFI and FFI) were compensated from additional irrigable area by diverting the water and labour saved. Generally from over all investigation of CWUE, IWUE, EWP, NR and BCR alternative furrow irrigation method (AFI) was better than FFI and CFI for the water scarce area.
Keywords
Alternate Furrow Irrigation, Deficit Levels, Cabbage Crop, Water Use Efficiency, Economic Analysis
To cite this article
Jemal Nur Hassene, Mukerem Taha Seid, Comparative Performance Evaluation of Alternate and Convectional Furrow Irrigation under Different Water Application Level on Cabbage Water Use Efficiency and Economic Analysis, American Journal of Environmental and Resource Economics. Vol. 2, No. 3, 2017, pp. 123-131. doi: 10.11648/j.ajere.20170203.15
Copyright
Copyright © 2017 Authors retain the copyright of this article.
This article is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Reference
[1]
"Morison, J. I. L., N. R. Baker, P. M. Mullineaux, and W. J. Davies. 2008. Improving water use in crop production. Phil. Trans. Royal Soc. B 363: 639–658.
[2]
Evans, R. G. and E. J. Sadler. 2008. Methods and technologies to improve efficiency of water use. Water Resources Res. 44: 1–15.
[3]
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2002. Crops and drops: Making the best use of water for agriculture Natural Resources Environ. Dept., FAO, Rom.
[4]
Tiercelin, J. R., Vidal, A., 2006. Traiteıd’Irrigation, ´ 2nd Ed. Paris, France.
[5]
Burt, C. M., Clemmens, A. J., Strelkoff, T. S., Solomon, K. H., Bliesner, R. D., Hardy, L. A., Howell, T. A., Eisenhauer, D. E., 1997. Irrigation performance measures: efficiency and uniformity. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 123, 423–442.
[6]
Ampas, V., Baltas, E., 2009. Optimization of the furrow irrigation efficiency. Glob. NEST J. 11 (4), 566–574.
[7]
Du, T. S., Kang, S. Z., Sun, J. S., Zhang, X. Y., Zhang, J. H., 2010. An improved water use efficiency of cereals under temporal and spatial deficit irrigation in north China. Agric. Water Manag. 97 (1), 66–74.
[8]
Horst, M. G., Shamutalov, S. S., Pereira, L. S., Goncalves, J. M., 2005. Field assessment of the water saving potential with furrow irrigation in Fergana, Aral Sea basin. Agric. Water Manag. 77 (1–3), 210–231.
[9]
Mashori, A. S., 2013. Evaluation of the performance of the alternate furrow irrigation under climatic conditions of Sindh. In: M. E. Thesis. Sindh Agriculture University, Tandojam, Pakistan Mitchell, J. P., Shennan, C., Grattan, S. R. & May, D. M., Tomato fruit yields and quality under water deficit and salinity. J Amer Soc Hort Sci, 116, pp. 215-221, 1991.
[10]
Mitchell, J. P., Shennan, C., Grattan, S. R. & May, D. M., Tomato fruit yields and quality under water deficit and salinity. J Amer Soc Hort Sci, 116, pp. 215-221, 1991.
[11]
Behboudian, M. H. & Mills, T. M., Deficit irrigation in deciduous orchards. Hort Rev, 21, pp. 105-131, 1997.
[12]
Slatni, A., Zayanib, K., Zairia, A., Yacoubia, S., Salvadorc, R. & Playánc, E., Assessing alternate furrow strategies for potato at the Cherfech irrigation district of Tunisia. Biosystems Engineering, 108(2), pp. 154-163, 2011.
[13]
Nelson, D. J. & Al-Kaisi, M. M., Agronomic and economic evaluation of various furrow irrigation strategies for corn production under limited water supply. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 66(2), pp. 114-120, 2011.
[14]
Michael, A. M. 1997. Irrigation Theory and Practice. Pashurati Printers, Delhi.
[15]
Israelsen, O. W., and V. E. Hansen. 1980. Irrigation Principles and Practices. Jonsen Wiley and Sons, Inc. New York, London
[16]
Li, A., E. Eneji, L. Duan, S. Inanaga, and Z. Li. 2005. Saving irrigation water for winter wheat.
[17]
Horton D., 1982. Partial budget analysis for on farm potato research. Technical information bulletin 16. International potato center. Lima, Peru with phosphorus application the north China plain. Journal of Plant Nutrition 28: 2001-2010.
[18]
Gençoglan, C., and A. Yazar. 1999. The effects of deficit irrigations on corn yield and water use efficiency. Turkish J. Agric. Forest. 23: pp 233–241.
[19]
Zelalem shelemew. 2015. Response of maize to deficit irrigation under three furrow irrigation systems in adami tulu rift valley Central Ethiopia. M. SC. Thesis. Alemaya University, Ethiopia.
[20]
Awad Abd El-Halim. 2013. Impact of alternate furrow irrigation with different irrigation intervals on yield, water use efficiency, and economic return of corn. Chilean Journal of Agricultural Research 73(2) April-June 2013. Tanta University, Faculty of Agriculture, Tanta, Egypt.
[21]
Li F, C. Wei, F. Zhang, J. Zhang, M. Nong, S. Kang. 2010a. Water-use efficiency and physiological responses of maize under partial root-zone irrigation. Agrc, Water Manag 97: 1156–1164. doi:10.1016/j.agwat.2010.01.024.
[22]
Zhang, J., S. Kang, Z. Liang., Y. Z. Pan, P. Shi, Y. H. Pan, Z. S. Liang, X. T. Hu, 2000. Soil water distribution, uniformity and water use efficiency under alternate furrow irrigation in arid areas. Irrig. Sci. 19: 181-190.
[23]
Kassaw Beshaw. 2011. Evaluation of alternate and surge flow furrow irrigation methods for onion production at humbo, southern Ethiopia. Msc.thesis, Haramaya University, Haramaya
[24]
Kirnak H., S. Demir, I. Tas, M. Cakmakli. 2002. Response of different irrigation water applications on yield and growth of lettuce grown in greenhouse. J Agric Fac Harran Uni. 6(1-2), 47-54.
[25]
Shahnazari, A., Liu, F., Andersen, M. N., Jacobsen, S. E., Jensen, C. R., 2007. Effects of partial root-zone drying on yield, tuber size and water use efficiency in potato under field conditions. Field Crops Research, 100: 117-124.
[26]
Kadayıfcı A, GI. Tuylu, Y. Uçar, B. Çakmak. 2004. Effects of mulch and irrigation water amounts on lettuce's yield, evapotranspiration, transpiration and soil evaporation in Isparta location, Turkey. Journal of Biological Science 4(6): 751-755.
[27]
Ahmadi, S. H., M. N, Andersen, F., Plauborg, R. T., Poulsen, C. R., A. R., Jensen, Sepaskhah, S., Hansen, 2010b. Effects of irrigation strategies and soils on field grown potatoes: Yield and Water Productivity. Agricultural Water Management, DOI 10.1`016/j.agwat.2010.07.007.
[28]
Guang-Cheng, S., Zhan-Yua, Z., Nac, L., Shuang-Ena, Y., Weng-Ganga, X., 2008. Comparative effects of deficit irrigation (DI) and partial root zone drying (PRD) on soil water distribution, water use, growth and yield in greenhouse grown hot pepper. Scientia Horticulturae, 119: 11-16.
[29]
Mandefro Chala and Kokobe W/Yohannes. 2015. Effect of irrigation application levels on yield and water productivity of drip irrigated lettuce (Lactuca sativa l.), Gedio zone, southern Ethiopia. International journal of basic and applied sciences vol. 4. No. 4 2015. Pp. 229-234 (online version available at: www.crdeep.com)
[30]
Pfeiffer L. and Y. C. Lin. 2014. Does efficient irrigation technology lead to reduced groundwater extraction? Empirical evidence, J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 67, 189–208, Roi: 10.1016/j.jeem.2013.12.002, 3596, 3615.
[31]
Shah, T. 2014. Groundwater governance and irrigated agriculture, TEC background papers no. 19, Tech. Rep. 19, Global Water Partnership Technical Committee, Stockholm, Sweden. Pp. 3615.
[32]
Li-Song Tang, Yan Li, Jianhua Zhang. 2005. Physiological and yield responses of cotton under partial root zone irrigation. Field crop research article in press. www.elsevier.com/locate/fcr. Fukang Station of Desert Ecology, Xinjiang Institute of Ecology and Geography, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 40-3 South Beijing Road, Urumqi, Xinjiang 830011, China.
[33]
Pravukalyan Panigrahi, Narendra Nath Sahu. Sanatan Pradhan. (2011). Evaluating partial root-zone irrigation and mulching in okra (Abelmoschus esculentus L.) under a sub-humid tropical climate. Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development in the Tropics and Subtropics. Vol. 112 No. 2 (2011) 169–175.
[34]
Siyal A. A., Mashori A. S, Bristow, K. L., Van Genuchten M. Th. 2016. Alternate furrow irrigation can radically improve water productivity of okra. Agricultural Water Management. Journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/agwat
[35]
Doorenbos, J. and A. H. Kassam, 1979. Yield response to water. Irrigation and Drainage paper 33, FAO, Rome.
[36]
Hutton RJ, Loveys BR (2011). A partial root zone drying irrigation strategy for citrus—effects on water use efficiency and fruit characteristics. Agrc Water Manag. 98: 1485–1496. doi:10.1016/j.agwat.2011.04.010.
[37]
Yactayo W, D. A., Ramírez, R., Gutiérrez, V., Mares, A., Posadas, R., Quiroz., (2013) Effect of partial root-zone drying irrigation timing on potato tuber yield and water use efficiency. Agrc. Water Manag. 123: 65–70. doi:10.1016/j.agwat.2013.03.009.
[38]
Yang QL, F. C., Zhang, X. G., Liu, Z. Y., Ge. (2012b). Effects of controlled alternate partial root-zone drip irrigation on apple seedling morphological characteristics and root hydraulic conductivity. Chin J Appl Eco 23: 1233–1239. "
Browse journals by subject