Effects of Subsurface Drip Irrigation on Salinity Dynamics, Water Productivity and Ratoon Sugarcane Yield

آب و خاک

Article 4, Volume 34, Issue 4 - Serial Number 72, September 2020, Pages 797-811   

Document Type: Research Article

DOI: 10.22067/jsw.v34i4.81423

Authors

A. Sheini-Dashtgol^{* 1}; Saeid Boroomand Nasab²; AbdAli Naseri³

¹Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz

²Professor, Faculty of Water Sciences Engineering, Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, Iran

³Shahid Chamran University, Ahwaz

Abstract

Introduction: Sugarcane fields of the southwest of Iran have heavy soil texture, high temperatures, hot and dry wind flow at spring and summer seasons. The electrical conductivity of irrigation water was considered about 1.1 dS.m-1, in basic designs of this irrigation method. In addition to sugarcane production, sugar is a fundamental good in the economic section of Iran. It has multiple use in food, medical and chemical industry, production of by-products such as feedstuffs, yeast and alcohol, wood and paper. Sugarcane requires lots of water during the growing period and sensitive to water stress and is not compatible with long duration of flooding. If groundwater rises and covers the root zone, crop yield decreases due to root rot. Significant benefits are identified in terms of increased yield, improved crop quality, reduction in applied water, and reduced agronomic costs for weed control, fertilization, and tillage. Improved water management is crucial for a sustainable future, and SDI will be one tool that is available to improve water productivity. The main advantages of SDI are related to water savings because water is applied directly to the crop’s root zone, which prevents losses due to direct evaporation from the soil and deep drainage, and, if properly managed, SDI allows for the maintenance of appropriate levels of soil moisture. Due to the water crisis in Iran, this study aimed to reduce the volume of consumed water and water productivity for sugarcane and sugar yield by managing water consumption using drip irrigation for the first time in the cultivation of sugarcane.
Material and Methods: According to recent droughts and severe water crises in Iran, subsurface drip irrigation was implemented in sugarcane for the first time. It seems that water consumed in subsurface drip irrigation is less than other methods. Therefore, its effect was investigated by 15, 20, and 30 cm depths and 75 cm space of subsurface emitters and comparison with control, on water productivity and sugarcane yield. An experiment based on randomized complete block design was carried out at the Sugarcane Research and Training Institute of Khuzestan in the South-West of Iran. After harvesting the plant field (start Ratoon), soil samples were collected at 0-30, 30-60, and 60-90 cm depths. In order to measure the bulk density of soil, samples were collected from the undistributed samples with sampler cylinders, and the texture was determined by the hydrometer method. To assess soil moisture percentage, pressure plate was used for determining content in field capacity (FC) and permanent wilting point (PWP) (the results were 25.1% and 12.9%, respectively). Emitters were pressure controlled emitter type, anti-siphon and the pressure at the pump station was 4.3 bar, and emitters with a flow 2.2 liter-1 and the depth of emitters pipes were 15, 20, and 30 cm from the surface soil. Depending on irrigation frequencies and irrigation water acidity, acid was injected into the irrigation water to prevent clogging of the emitters. After a specified time, it was discharged from the network.
Regarding the presence of algae in irrigation water, chlorine gas was used in acid filtration before irrigation in field capacity. Finally, the average quantity and quality functions and Water Productivity in subsurface drip irrigation were compared with compression irrigation. For data fitting and curves, EXCEL software was used, and SAS statistical software was used for statistical analysis. Also, to investigate the salinity distribution in drip irrigation, the mean soil samples were used during the sampling period. The figures were drawn using 8 Surfer software in two dimensions. In drawing the shapes, Craig’s introspection was used.
Results and Discussion: High evaporation, air temperature, and relatively low quality of irrigation water are the most important limiting factors for sugarcane irrigation in Khuzestan. It seems that according to the research records, the irrigation of subsurface drops with proper management is successful. Therefore, for this purpose, the effect of planting depth of 15, 20, and 30 and a distance of 75 cm drops and to compare with the regular irrigation of sugarcane lands as control (control), on water productivity and sugarcane yield complete random blocks was applied.
The results of the analysis of variance of quantitative traits showed significant effects of the planting depth of droplets, in terms of yield at the level of one percent and in terms of stem height traits, number of stems per hectare, and water efficiency per sugarcane and produced sugar, at the level of five percent. According to the results of qualitative traits, the effect of treatment of droplet implant depth in all traits was non-significant. At a depth of 20 cm, the highest efficiency of water production for sugarcane and sugar production were 1.6 and 0.73 kg / m3, respectively. The lowest water productivity for sugarcane and sugar produced in the control treatment was 4.2 and 0.51 kg / m3, respectively. As a result, water productivity in the treatment of selected index (planting depth of 20 cm) per sugarcane and produced sugar has resulted in an increase of more than 30% in water productivity compared to the usual irrigation of fields (control). The results of salinity distribution around the droplets also showed that under the conditions of irrigation of subsurface droplets with salt water, the lowest salinity values ​​were always seen as a range around the droplets. With increasing distance from the droplets, the salinity increased. More salts The drops are concentrated in the streams on both sides of the drops, The highest salinity occurred at the bottom of the furrow, and the lowest salinity was found on the ridge, where the drip pipe was planted and on either side of which there were two rows of reeds.
Conclusion: Subsurface drip irrigation is one of the most optimal irrigation methods that are almost unknown to sugarcane in the executive, research, and academic sectors, and has been implemented for the first time in sugarcane cultivation in Iran. Given the recent droughts and the crisis and water scarcity, and the importance of environmental issues, it will be invaluable to investigate further and apply them. In general, in this study, using a flow rate of 2.2 lit/hr and a space of 75 cm and an installation depth of 20 cm droplets, the highest quantitative and qualitative functions and the highest water productivity per sugar cane. And the sugar produced. Also, regardless of any deepening treatment, the drip irrigation system, compared to the conventional irrigation system, reduced water consumption by about 20% and water yield by 26% per sugarcane and sugar produced. According to the results and considering the uniformity of moisture distribution, soil surface salinity, lack of runoff, protection of the discharge pipe, removal of surface evaporation and sugarcane root development, depth of 20 cm, application of the discharge pipe with a distance of 75 cm drops on the hose with a flow rate of 2.2 lit/hr are recommended. Also, although the distribution of moisture onions is provided up to a distance of 80 cm, a shorter distance between the droplets, such as 60 cm with the above flow, needs further investigation.

Keywords

subsurface drip irrigation; Sugarcane yield; Emitters; Salinity dynamics; Water Productivity

References

Abbasi F., and Sheinidashtegol A. 2016. Assess and improve the management of furrow irrigation in irrigated fields of sugarcane in Khuzestan. Journal of Water and Soil Science (2)4: 109-121. (In Persian)

2. Anonymous. 1998-2018. ANOVA Report of sugarcane Research Institute of Khuzestan, Iran. (In Persian)

3. Bhingardeve S.D., Pawar D.D., Dinger S.K., and Hasure R.R. 2017. Water Productivity in Sugarcane under Subsurface Drip Irrigation. International Journal of Agriculture Sciences 9(29): 4377-4381.

4. Çolak Y.B., Yazar A., Gönen E., and Çağlar Eroğlu E. 2018. Yield and quality response of surface and subsurface drip-irrigated eggplant and comparison of net returns. Agricultural Water Management 206: 165–175.

5. Consoli S., Stagno F., Roccuzzo G., Cirelli G.L. and Intrigliolo, F. 2014. Sustainable management of limited water resources in a young orange orchard. Agricultural water management 132: 60-68.

6. Dalri A. B. and. Cruz R. L. 2008. Produtividade da cana-de-açúcar fertirrigada com N e K via gotejamento subsuperficial. Engieering Agrculture 28(3): 516–524. (In Portuguese)

7. ICUMSA (International Commission for Uniform Methods in Sugar Analysis). 2009. ICUMSA Methods book and ICUMSA supplement. Edt, Whalley, H.C.S. Elsevier publishing company, Amsterdam, London, New York. 420pp.

8. Javadi F., Moazed H., Haghnazari F., and Bait leteh R. 2011. Evaluation Water Productivity and Water Use Efficiency in the cultivation of sugar cane on the CP57-614 Variety in the agro-industry Hakim Farabi, the first national conference on strategies for achieving sustainable agriculture, PNU, Ahvaz. (In Persian)

9. Karlberg L., Rockstrom J., Annandale J.G., and Steyn J.M. 2007. Low-cost drip irrigation. A suitable technology for southern Africa: An example with tomatoes using saline irrigation water. Agricultural Water Management 89(1): 59-70.

10. Kandelous M.M., and Simunek J. 2010b. Numerical simulations of water movement in a subsurface drip irrigation system under field and laboratory conditions using HYDRUS-2D. Agricultural Water Management 97: 1070–1076.

11. Lamm F.R., and Cam C.C. 2007. Subsurface drip irrigation. Micro irrigation for crop production: Design, operation and management, F.R. Lamm, J.E. Ayars and F. S. Nakayama, eds., Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 618.

12. Leonardo N.S. dos Santosa., Edson E., Matsura Ivo Z., Gonc alves Eduardo A.A., Barbosa Aline A., Nazario Natalia F., Tuta Marcelo C.L., Elaiuy Daniel R.C., and Feitosa Allan C.M. de Sousa. 2016. Water storage in the soil profile under subsurface drip irrigation: Evaluating two installation depths of emitters and two water qualities, Agricultural Water Management n170: 91-98.

13. Martinez-Gimeno M.A., Bonet L., Provenzano G., Badal E., Intrigliolo D.S., and Ballester C. 2018. Assessment of yield and water productivity of clementine trees under surface and subsurface drip irrigation. Agricultural Water Management 206: 209–216.

14. Regina Celi M.P., Eduardo Augusto A.B., Flavio Bussmeyer A., Emilio S., and Tonny Jose A.S. 2015. Effects of Subsurface Drip Irrigation and Different Planting Arrangements on the Yields and Technological Quality of Sugarcane. ASCE, A5014001-1, Journal Irrigation Drainage Engineering.

15. Sedaghati N., Hosaini-Fard S., and Mohamadi Mohamad-Abadi. 2012. Compare the effect of surface and subsurface drip irrigation on growth and yield of pistachio trees, Journal of Soil and Water 26(3): 575-585. (In Persian)

16. Sheini- Dashtegol A., Kashkouli H.A., and Boroomand-Nasab S. 2009. The effects of every-other furrow irrigation on Water Use Efficiency and quality and quantity characteristics in South Ahvaz sugarcane fields, Journal of Soil and Water Sciences, Isfahan University of Technology year 13, 49: 45-57. (In Persian)

17. Skaggs TH., Trout TJ., Šimůnek J., and Shouse PJ. 2004. Comparison of HYDRUS-2D simulations of drip irrigation with experimental observations. Journal Irrigation Drainage Engineering 130: 304–310.

18. Surendran U., Jayakumar M., and Marimuthu S. 2016. Low cost drip irrigation: impact on sugarcane yield, water and energy saving in semiarid tropical agro ecosystem in India. Science of the Total Environment 573: 1430-1440.

19. Uribe R.A.M., Gava DE. C., Saad J.C.C., and Koll O.T. 2013. Ratoon sugarcane yield integrated drip irrigation and nitrogen fertilization. Eng. Agric., Jaboticabal 33(6): 1124-1133.