Water Science The Issue 38 October 2005

SALINITY CONTROL AND WATER MANAGEMENT UNDER DIFFERENT IRRIGATION SYSTEMS

31
SALINITY CONTROL AND WATER MANAGEMENT UNDER
DIFFERENT IRRIGATION SYSTEMS
By
Abou El Azem, A . M
Associate Professor Researcher of Water Management and Irrigation Systems
Research Institute, National Water Research Center. Cairo, Egypt.
ABSTRACT
A study on salinity control and water
management as affected by different
irrigation systems i. e. surface trickle (ST),
subsurface trickle (SST), low pressure
sprinkler (LPS), medium pressure sprinkler
(MPS) and modified furrow (MF). It was
carried out at Wady EL Natrun Water
Requirement Research Station, EL Behera
Governorate, Egypt, in two successive
growing seasons 2003 / 2004 and 2004/2005.
The results obtained showed that total
soluble salts as average of both studied
seasons increased significantly with surface
trickle, subsurface trickle and low pressure
sprinkler systems. While it decreased
significantly with medium pressure sprinkler
and modified furrow systems. It increased
significantly also with increasing distances
from the emitter, the sprinkler or the bottom
of furrow, soil layers depths and used time
for all irrigation systems.
Predicting the critical time of salt
accumulation with regard to the tolerance of
cultivated crop (sugar beet) and selecting
the suitable time for leaching were
calculated by regression equations for ST,
SST, LPS, MPS and MF irrigation systems,
respectively.
The obtained results indicated also that
the maximum sugar beet root yield (35.10
ton / fed), sucrose (21.78%) and amount of
consumptive use (559.91mm) were
produced when using the minimum amount
of irrigation water applied (599.90mm) as
average of both studied seasons with SST
irrigation system. The highest sugar beet
root yield and sucrose % reduction which
were 33.39 and 16.12 percent due to using
MF irrigation system instead of the SST
irrigation system. Moreover, the same
irrigation system treatment recorded the
highest crop water use efficiency (14.93
kg/m
3
) and field water use efficiency (13.93
kg/m
3
) as average of both studied seasons.
More irrigation water was lossed while less
was consumed by the plants under the other
irrigation systems treatments (MF, MPS,
LPS and ST, respectively) compared to SST.
Therefore the highest water application
efficiency was recorded also by it, (93.33%)
as average of both studied seasons.
INTRODUCTION
Undoubtedly, the irrigation system, in
which the water is conveyed to a field, differed
to affect both the soil water relations i.e. water
losses, moisture availability and air water
balance and the salt accumulation in the
effective rot zone. The intensity of using both
modern and modified the conventional irrigation
systems are not only increasing but also
becoming a must. Reducing salt accumulation
and saving irrigation water are very important
objectives.
Shalhevet (1984), found that the choice
irrigation system may be guided three
considerations i.e. the distribution of salts and
waters in the soil, crop sensitivity to foliar
wetting and the extent of the damage to yield
and the ease with which high salt and matric
potential can be maintained in the soil.
Moore and Fitschen (1990), reported that
the subsurface trickle irrigation system caused
better water distribution and better water
management. They also added that the net
yield increased, compared with that in furrow
irrigation system.
Chartzoulakis and Michelakis (1990),
agreed that salinity of soil saturation extracted
under furrow, trickle , microtube, porous clay
tube and porous plastic tuber irrigation systems
decreased with depth.
Singh Saggu and Kaushal (1991),
found that the plant root zone under trickle
system remained almost salt free, while the
high EC values were recorded in it under the
furrow system. El Nagar (1995) stated that the
soil salinity profile differs distinctly among
various of irrigation systems due to the different
methods of water application.
Sugar beet (Beta vulgaris, L.) plays a
prominent role for sugar production in the world.
However, this crop has attracted the attention in
Egypt for sugar production in the last ten years
only and the government is pushing hard to
increase the areas those devoted to sugar beet
as well as the root and sugar yield per unit
area. This could be achieved through using the
best irrigation systems and adapting agricultural
practices for this important crop.
Sugar beet could be efficiently grown
under a wide range of irrigation water level
Water Science The Issue 38 October 2005
SALINITY CONTROL AND WATER MANAGEMENT UNDER DIFFERENT IRRIGATION SYSTEMS
32
where it is readily adapted to limited irrigation
because plants utilize deep stored soil water
and recover quickly following water stress
(Winter, 1980). Mohamed et. al (2000) found
that the maximum root and sugar yields as well
as water use efficiency (kg root and / or sugar /
m
3
water) were significantly obtained when
sugar beet watered constantly at 65% of the
field capacity.
The current work aims to study the effect
of using different irrigation systems i.e. surface
trickle, subsurface trickle, low pressure
sprinkler, medium pressure sprinkler and
modified furrow on both the salt distribution and
its accumulation rate within the soil profile, with
special reference for the prediction and
avoidance of soil salinity hazard for the different
grown crops and the water management, with
development a water application efficiency and
water use program that will provide maximum
yield per unit of water consumed by plants.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Two field experiments were conducted on
Water Management Research Station in Wady
EL Natrun, Behaira Governorate, Egypt during
two successive winter seasons 2003 / 2004 and
2004 / 2005. The experiments were performed
to find out the extent to which, salinity control
(salt distribution, salt accumulation rate within
the soil profile and the avoidance of soil salinity
hazard), water management (amount of
irrigation water applied, consumptive use,
irrigation application efficiency and both crop
and field water use efficiencies) and crop yield
of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L) (root yield and
sucrose%) were influenced by the different
irrigation systems.
The present work included five treatments
represented five irrigation systems, surface
trickle (ST), subsurface trickle (SST), low
pressure sprinkler (LPS), medium pressure
sprinkler (MPS) and modified furrow (MF). A
complete randomized blocks design of four
replications was used in both seasons. The five
irrigation systems treatments were randomized
in each plot.
Four both surface and subsurface trickle
irrigation systems blocks of 9 P. E. laterals of
12 mm diameter, 45 m long, 70 cm apart with
emitters which had 4 L / h discharge at 1 bar
pressure placed at 30 cm apart and the depth
of subsurface was approximately 15 cm. Four
low pressure sprinkler irrigation systems blocks
of 9 P. E. laterals of 50 mm diameter, 45 m
long , 5 m apart with sprinklers which had 100 L
/ h discharge at 2 bar pressure, placed at 5 m
apart. Four medium pressure sprinkler irrigation
systems blocks of 9 P. E. laterals of 75mm
diameter, 45 m long, 12 m apart with sprinklers
which had 3.5 m
3
/ h discharge at 3 bar
pressure placed at 12 m apart. The submain
line of each irrigation system was equipped with
a water meter and a pressure gauge. Four
modified furrow irrigation systems blocks of 9
furrows, 45 m long and 75 cm apart. The
uniformity of water application to the furrow can
increase by frequent regulation of the size
stream flowing into the furrow. For this purpose,
lightweight aluminum gated pipe was used.
Small and easily adjusted gates, with 75 cm
apart 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 guard
distance to avoid the overlapping or the
interactions of irrigation water.
Sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) variety Del
939 was used in both growing seasons. It was
sown on November 7
th
and 9
th
and harvested
took place on May 29
th
and 21
st
in both growing
seasons, respectively. The normal cultural
practices of growing sugar beet were followed
as recommended for the region.
Soil of experimental site in both seasons
were sandy in texture. Soil samples were
collected to determine physical characteristics
of the experimental site. The average values of
these measurements at different soil depths
down to 60 cm and the chemical analysis of
irrigation water are presented in Table 1
according to standard methods of Anonymous
(1989) and Peterson and Calvin (1965).
Parameters Studied:
Three major parameters were investigated.
These parameters were salinity control, water
management and crop yield. The
determinations were carried out on that three
parameters as follows:
1. Salinity Control
1.1 Salt Distribution
Soil samples were collected at three
periods i.e. initial state, midseason stage and
lateseason stage (0, 90 and 180 days from
cultivation, respectively) to determine the salt
distribution under each irrigation system
treatment. These soil samples were token to
represent different depths of (0 20), (20 40)
and (4060) cm at four distances from, the
emitter of both surface and subsurface trickle
(0, 10, 20 and 30 cm), the sprinkler of both low
and medium pressure sprinkler (0, 100, 200
and 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 electrical
conductivity (EC dS/m) was determined in 1:1
water soil extract of the studied samples using
the method proposed by Jakson (1967).
1.2. Salt Accumulation Rate Within The Soil
Profile
It was determined as the difference
between the mean values of the electrical
conductivity of soil extract 1 : 1 before
cultivation (initial state) and after 90 and 180
days from it (Midseason and lateseason state).
Water Science The Issue 38 October 2005
SALINITY CONTROL AND WATER MANAGEMENT UNDER DIFFERENT IRRIGATION SYSTEMS
33
1.3. The Avoidance Of Soil Salinity Hazard
It was determined by selecting the suitable
time for leaching when the soil reached to the
critical time of salt accumulation with regard to
the tolerance of cultivated crops. This was
calculated from the relationship 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 which was
determined from the experimental field data.
2. Water Management
2.1. Amount Of Irrigation Water Applied
The amount of irrigation water applied was
calculated in order to be given to the soil of
each irrigation system treatment when its soil
moisture content reach 70% from the available
water. The applied water at this situation is to
raise the soil moisture content to its field
capacity condition.
The depth of irrigation water applied was
calculated according to the equation given by
Israelsen Hansen (1962).
2.2. Consumptive Use
It was determined as the differences in soil
moisture content in the soil samples taken
immediately before irrigation and 48 hours later
from three successive soil depths (0 20), (20
40) and (40 60) cm.
Moisture content in the soil samples were
determined gravimetrically and calculated on
dry basis according to Garcia (1978).
Transformation to water depths were estimated
according to Israelsen and Hansen (1962).
2.3. Irrigation Application Efficiency:
The following concept of irrigation
application efficiency was developed to
measure and facus attention upon the efficiency
with which water delivered was being stored
within the root zone of the soil, where it could
be used by plants. The irrigation application
efficiency was calculated according to Micheal
(1978).
2.4. Water Use Efficiency
Crop and field water use efficiencies
defined as the total sugar beet root yield (kg)
per cubic meter of both water consumptive use
and water applied, respectively. Both of them
were calculated according to Jensen (1983)
3. Crop Yield
3. 1. Root Yield
At maturity, sugar beet roots of each
studied treatment plot were pulled off and
separated into roots and foliages, then cleaned
and weighted the roots.
3. 2. Sucrose Percentage
Sucrose content of the beet pulp was
determined by the methods described by Le
Docte (1927).
The results were subjected to the
standard analysis of variance procedure.
Values of L. S. D. were obtained whenever the
calculated F values were significant at 5% and
1% levels.(Sendecor and Cochran 1980).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
1. Salinity Control
1.1. Salt Distribution
Data in Table 2 show the average E.C
values which represent soil salinity distribution
at different studied positions and depths before
cultivation, 90 (midseason stage) and 180 days
(lateseason stage) of sugar beet as affected by
the five irrigation systems.
The results showed that the EC values in
the top soil layer (0 20) cm under all the
studied irrigation systems decreased by
decreasing the distances from emitter, sprinkler
and bottom of the furrow, while its values were
increased in the deeper soil layer (40 60) cm.
Moreover, the EC values over all the soil profile
layers, the distances from emitter, sprinkler and
bottom of the furrow and at each studied used
time under modified furrow irrigation system
treatment were decreased more than under the
other irrigation systems treatments.
Most of salts movement under surface
trickle, both low and medium pressure
sprinklers and modified furrow irrigation
systems treatments were in the first two layers
(0 20 and 20 40 cm) and concentrated in
the third layer (40 60 cm), while under the
subsurface trickle irrigation system treatment,
the salt movement was in the second layer (20
40 cm) and concentrated in the soil surface
just above the line source and the layer (40
60 cm) down it, the same trend was
approximately obtained by Abo Soliman, et al
(1996).
These can lead to conclude that the water
distribution which in turn governed by irrigation
system, the most effective variable in salt
distribution.
1.2. Salt Accumulation Rate Within The Soil
Profile
The effect of using different irrigation
systems on salt accumulation rate within the
soil profile under them was calculated as the
difference between the average EC values over
all the soil profile layers (Table 2) before
cultivation and after 90 and 180 days from it.
The results showed that irrigation systems
treatments had significant effect on salt
accumulation rate within the soil profile. Where
the salt accumulation was consistently
increased due to using most of the irrigation
systems and decreased due to using some of
Water Science The Issue 38 October 2005
SALINITY CONTROL AND WATER MANAGEMENT UNDER DIFFERENT IRRIGATION SYSTEMS
34
them. It was increased by about 28.17, 27. 80
and 13.11% after 90 days and 43.65, 41.08 and
28.79% after 180 days from cultivation under
using surface trickle, subsurface trickle and low
pressure sprinkler irrigation systems
treatments, respectively. While it was
decreased by about 4.80 and 15.98% after 90
days and 14.00 and 22.95% after 180 days
from cultivation under using medium pressure
sprinkler and modified furrow treatments,
respectively.
Also, the salt accumulation rate increased
or decreased significantly with used time until
the end of the experiment under all the studied
irrigation systems treatments.
Hence, it can be concluded that the main
factors that affected the salt accumulation rate
within the soil profile were the irrigation system
and the used time.
The previous discussion lead to the
conclusion that the irrigation systems caused
an accumulation of salt at different distances
and layer depths of soil profile and that
accumulation increased gradually with the used
time.
1.3. The Avoidance Of Soil Salinity Hazard
Results in Table 3 and Figure 1 show the
relationship 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.
The results showed that, the soil salinity
was directly related to used time under all the
different irrigation systems treatments. The
relations can be represented by linear
regression 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 0.0019X d. Medium pressure
sprinkler (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 predict
the critical time of salt accumulation with regard
to the tolerance of cultivated crops and
selecting the suitable time of leaching process
to avoid it. Where the calculated times that
raise the soil salinity to 4 dS/m under the
different irrigation systems treatments were
234.43, 278.18 and 413.16 days under surface
trickle, subsurface trickle and low pressure
sprinkler, respectively. Moreover, the other two
irrigation systems leached the salt out studied
depth.
It is clear that, using the modified furrow
and medium pressure sprinkler irrigation
systems, respectively considered as
appropriate systems to maintain uniform salt
distribution and acceptable salinity levels
directly in the plant root zone through the
growing season.
It can be concluded from the previous
discussion that the application of irrigation
water means an input of salts. Irrigation
systems, even if the water of excellent quality,
are a major source of soluble salts in the soil. If
soil salinization is to be avoided, these salts
have to be leached out of the root zone by
water percolating to the subsoil.
2.Water Management
2.1. Amount Of Irrigation Water Applied
Results in Table 4 and Figure 2 show the
amount of irrigation water (mm) delivered to
each irrigation system during the two growing
seasons of sugar beet crop 2003 / 2004 and
2004 / 2005.
The results showed that for each irrigation
system treatment the data for both growing
seasons were almost similar. The amounts of
irrigation water applied in both 2003/ 2004 and
2004/ 2005 seasons were (604.58 and 607.79
mm), (597.86 and 601.93 mm), (646.64 and
650.97 mm), (663.35 and 667.89 mm) and
(820.11 and 824.32 mm) for sugar beet
irrigated by surface trickle, subsurface trickle,
low pressure sprinkler, medium pressure
sprinkler and modified furrow irrigation systems
treatments, respectively. Same trend was
obtained by Doorenbos and Kassam (1986).
Moreover, the sugar beet irrigated by
modified furrow irrigation system in both
growing seasons received the highest amount
of irrigation water followed by which irrigated by
both medium and low pressure sprinkler
irrigation systems. On the other hand, the sugar
beet irrigated by both surface and subsurface
trickle irrigation systems treatments utilized the
lowest amount of irrigation water.
These results indicated that, saving water
through using both surface and subsurface
trickle and both low and medium pressure
sprinkler irrigation systems to irrigate sugar
beet instead of modified furrow irrigation system
were on expense of root yield / fed as well as
sucrose %, as these treatments increased both
yields.
From the previous discussion it can be
concluded that the changes in crop production
under each studied irrigation system treatment
are mainly due to the effect of not only how
much water was applied but also how water
was applied, where the amounts should have a
good distribution on and in the soil to be
sufficient to replace moisture consumed from
the root zone to avoid water stress on the
growing plants.
2.2. Consumptive Use.
Consumptive use values of sugar beet
plants from sowing to harvest as affected by
Water Science The Issue 38 October 2005
SALINITY CONTROL AND WATER MANAGEMENT UNDER DIFFERENT IRRIGATION SYSTEMS
35
different irrigation system in both studied
growing seasons are presented in Table 4 and
are illustrated in Figure 2.
The total consumptive use values of sugar
beet crop were 543.40, 549.97, 529.79, 520.00
and 505.93 mm in 2003/2004 season and
562.27, 569.85, 538.61, 533.98 and 516.52 mm
in 2004/2005 season for the plants irrigated by
both surface and subsurface trickle, both low
and medium pressure sprinkler and modified
furrow irrigation systems, respectively. The
highest values of water consumptive use were
obtained with plants irrigated by subsurface
trickle irrigation system while the lowest values
were obtained with which irrigated by modified
furrow irrigation system in both growing
seasons.
It is clear from the previous discussion that
values of seasonal consumptive use of sugar
beet plants grown under the five irrigation
systems were differed from each other under
the same conditions. This could be due to the
morphological characters of the plants itself and
to the evaporation from soil surface and deep
percolation out side the effective root zone
which was under the subsurface trickle system
less than the surface trickle, low pressure
sprinkler, medium pressure sprinkler and
modified furrow systems, respectively, thus the
values of water consumed by the plants under
subsurface trickle irrigation system increased
than the values under the other irrigation
systems in both growing seasons.
2.3. Irrigation Application Efficiency
Irrigation application efficiency as affected
by different irrigation systems in both studied
seasons are presented in Table 4.
The results indicated that the irrigation
application efficiency of sugar beet irrigated by
subsurface trickle irrigation system treatment
(91.99 and 94.67% for both seasons,
respectively) was higher than the other
treatments, while it was for which irrigated by
modified 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% in
2003/2004 season and 92.51, 94.67, 82.74,
79.95 and 62.66% in 2004/2005 season for
sugar beet irrigated by both surface and
subsurface trickle, both low and medium
pressure sprinkler and modified furrow irrigation
systems, respectively.
These indicated that all the sugar beet
irrigated by trickle and both sprinkler irrigation
systems treatments demonstrate clearly higher
irrigation application efficiency values in both
seasons of study than which irrigated by
modified furrow irrigation system treatment.
Similar trend was obtained by Bucks et al
(1974a). This increase in the irrigation
application efficiency could be mainly due to the
decrease of water losses.
2. 4. Water Use Efficiency.
In arid and semiarid regions and sandy soil
where water is a limiting factor. The primary
objective of management is to development a
water use program that will provide maximum
yield per unit of water consumed by plants.
Efficiencies of water use for both crop and field
as affected by different irrigation systems are
presented in Table 4 and are illustrated in
Figure 3. [
The results indicated that higher values of
both crop and field water use efficiencies
(14.84, 13.65, 15.01 and 14.21 kg/m
3
in both
2003/2004 and 2004/2005 seasons,
respectively) were obtained under subsurface
trickle irrigation system. While the modified
furrow irrigation system treatment induced
lower 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 the
conclusion that, the greatest values of them
were obtained from both trickle systems
treatments and the lowest values were
recorded with modified furrow system
treatment. Similar trend was obtained by Gupta
and Tyagi (1985)and Chartzoulakis and
Michelakis (1988).
It can be concluded that the irrigation of
sugar beet by subsurface trickle system was
the best treatment. This treatment resulted in
more water saving and achieved the good
production of root yield.
3.Crop Yield.
3.1. Root Yield.
Results presented in Table 4 show the root
yield in ton/fed as affected by different irrigation
systems in both seasons of study.
It is obvious from the results that root yield
was increased significantly when sugar beet
subjected to irrigate with subsurface trickle
system either in the first or in the second
studied seasons and the reduction in root yield
were more pronounced with irrigated by
modified furrow than with the other irrigated by
surface trickle and both low and medium
pressure sprinkler in both growing seasons.
Moreover, the highest root yield (34.28 and
35.92 ton /fed) in 2003/2004 and 2004/2005
seasons, respectively were pulled of when
sugar beet plants irrigated by subsurface trickle
irrigation system. While the lowest root yield
(22.78 and 23.98 ton/fed) in 2003/2004 and
2004/2005 seasons, respectively were pulled
off when irrigated by modified furrow system.
The increase in root yield by irrigation system
(i.e. subsurface trickle) might be attributed to be
the favourable effect of maintaining soil
moisture at no stress for the growth of sugar
beet plants with minimize the irrigation water
losses and maximize the irrigation application
efficiency.
Water Science The Issue 38 October 2005
SALINITY CONTROL AND WATER MANAGEMENT UNDER DIFFERENT IRRIGATION SYSTEMS
36
3.2. Sucrose Percentage
Results of sucrose percentage as affected
by different irrigation systems in the two
growing seasons of study are presented in
Table 4.
The results show that the different
irrigation systems treatments had significant
effect on sucrose percentage in both seasons.
Where the sucrose percentage was consistently
increased due to using subsurface trickle
irrigation system. It was increased from 17.93 to
21.56% in season 2003/2004 and from 18.60 to
22.00% in season 2004/2005 due to using
subsurface trickle instead of modified furrow
irrigation system.
The highest sucrose % was obtained when
sugar beet plants received the lowest amount of
irrigation water. While the lowest was recorded
at the plants received the highest amount of
irrigation water in both seasons. This result is in
accordance with those found by Carter et al
(1980), Hang and Miller (1986) and Mekki et
al (1994).
CONCLUSION
It can be concluded that using different
irrigation systems increased the soil salinity with
vertical distance from emitter, sprinkler and
bottom of furrow and with used time. It reached
a maximum at the soil surface directly above
the line in the subsurface trickle and at the
bottom of the wetted zone in both surface and
subsurface trickle and low pressure sprinkler
irrigation system. While it decreased in the plant
root zone with medium pressure sprinkler and
modified furrow irrigation systems.
Irrigated by subsurface trickle irrigation
system caused the lower amount of applied
water. While it caused the higher consumptive
use, irrigation application efficiency and both
crop and field water use efficiencies than the
surface trickle, both low and medium pressure
sprinkler and modified furrow irrigation systems,
respectively.
Sugar beet root yield and sucrose
percentage was increased also with subsurface
trickle, surface trickle, both low and medium
pressure sprinkler and modified furrow irrigation
systems, respectively.
REFERENCES
Abo Soliman, M. S.; H. A. Shams EL Din; S.
A. Hassanein and M. H. Hegazy (1996). Water
management for tomatoes production under
protected cultivation. Misr, J. Ag. Eng., Cairo
Univ. Irr. Conf. 3-4 April 1996.
Anonymous (1989). Standard methods for
examination water and wastwater. American
Public 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 cabbage
production. Agron. J. 66: 53 57.
Carter, J. M. ; M. E. Jensen and D. J. Traveller
(1980). Effect of mid to late season water
stress on sugar beet growth and yield. Agron .
J., 72 (5): 806 815.
Chartzoulakis, K. S. and N. G. Michelakis
(1988). Influence of different irrigation systems
on greenhouse tomatoes. Acta. Hort. No. 228,
97 104. Fourth International Sympasium. On
Water Supply And Irrigation In The Open And
Under Protected Cultivation, Padua, Italy, 26-28
Aug. 1985.
Chartzoulakis, K. S. and N. G. Michelakis
(1990). Effects of different irrigation systems on
root growth and yield of greenhouse cucumber.
Acta Hort., 278: 237 243.
Doorenbos, J. and A. H. Kassam (1986).
Yield response to water. Irrigation And
Drainage Paper No. 33. FAO. Rome, Italy.
EL Nagar, A. M. A. (1995). Efficiency of trickle
irrigation as a tool for development of desert
soil. Ph. D. Thesis, Fac. Of Agri. Cairo Univ.,
Egypt.
Garcia, I.(1978). Soil water laboratory manual.
Dept. Agric. And Chemical Engineering
Colorado State Univ., Fort Collins, Colorado, U.
S. A.
Gupta, R. K. and N. K. Tyagi (1985). Effect of
trickle and surface irrigation systems on water
use and salt accumulation. Indian Soc. Of Agr.
Eng. Proc. Of The Silver Jubilee Convention
Held 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). Response
of sugar beet to deficit high frequency sprinkler
irrigation. Agron. J., 78: 10-14.
Israelsen, O. W. and V. E. Hansen (1962).
Irrigation principles and practices. 3
rd
Edit.,
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 of
farm irrigation systems. Amr. Soc. Agric. Eng.
Michigan, U. S. A.
Le Docte, A. (1927). Commercial determination
of sugar in the beet root using the Sachs Le
Docte process, Int. Sug. J. 29: 488 492.
Mekki, B. B.; S. Y. Besheit and Maria G.
Beshay (1994). Effect of water stress and
spraying with bioregulator CKB 1709 on sugar
beet (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 and
practices. Vikas Publishing House. New Delhi.
Bombay.
Mohamed, K. A.; A. M. A. EL Shafai and I.
H. EL- Geddawy (2000). Effect of sowing pattern
and 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 can
industry. Proceeding Of The Third National
Irrigation Symposium. IA. ASAF. PP. 223-227.
Water Science The Issue 38 October 2005
SALINITY CONTROL AND WATER MANAGEMENT UNDER DIFFERENT IRRIGATION SYSTEMS
37
Peterson, R. G. and L. D. Calvin (1965).
Sampling INCA Blac. (ed) methods of soil
analysis. S. Am. Soc. Agron. 9 Modison WI.
Agron. 9: 54-71.
Sendecor, G. W. and W. G. Cochran (1980).
Statistical methods. 7
th
Iowa Univ., Press,
Amer., Iowa, U. S. A.
Shalhevet, J. (1984). Management of irrigation
with brackish water. In : Soil Salinity Under
Irrigation 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 and
furrow method. International J. Tropical Agri., 9
(3): 194 202.
Winter, R. S. (1980). Suitability of sugar beet
for limited irrigation in a semi arid climate.
Agron. J., 72 (1): 118 123.
-,'-!; =;---' _- ;-=--' ---=--' ,-' ;=- ~=- -'---'
- . ;,-' ;-' =' ---
,-' _,=; -'---' -,'-! ~;=- -)-
-'---' ~;=-- -;--' ,-,--' - -,'--' - --,-' ,~- -,;)-=
-';- --'--' ~'-----' ~,'=- ==-- ~',--' -- ~-,='
Q--~;--' J>= --,-' ,~- -,;)-= -,-=--' =-'=-- Q;,=--'
'* / '' ; '' / ' -,--' =;-- _- ;-=--' ~',--
~ -- - -; ---=- , ; =- ;'-=- ~' ,--' -- =---- -' ---' -,'-!;
-'--' ~' -'=--' ;--~ - ;-=- ~'; ,-~ -' , =-- J;~ =- -',,
-,=--' ~---; ~',--' -~;- J>= ~',,-- -,' _- --';~-'
' ~-=- ,-' ;=-- ~>-'- ~-= _- _-;V' --'--' _- ;-=-~
=-----'- ,-' ;'=- --'--' --'--'; _==~-' =-----'- ,-' ;'=-
==~-' ~=- ) _-- _-- ' '--,-- ;~ ( ;'=- --'--' --'--';
-=-- =~ ~=- Q,-'- ,-' ) ' ,'- ( ;'=- -',-' --'--';
=~;-- =~ ~=- Q,-'- ,-' ) * ,'- ( '=- ~-'=-' --'--'; ;
J---' =;==-'- ,-' ) ~'-';--' ~'- ,-~';--' ;'-=-~'- .(
- ~;- = ~;--- ----' _> -V' , --,- Q' -' ---' ~, )='
~=-; ==~-' =-----'- ,-' ;=- ;'-=-~'- '-;-- ~-', ~',--'
'-;-- ,--,--' J- Q-= _- -=-- =~ ~=- Q,-'; ==~-'
=~;-- =~ ~=- Q,-'- ,-' ;'=- ;'-=-~'- =;==-'- ,-';
~--,--' _-- J---' . Q- ---' Q- J- --'-,- '~-' '-;-- -', --;
_' =- ~' --= _ -- --' -,- 4-- -; = =-' _' -; Q' ~,-'; =-- --'
,-' ;=- --= ~=- ;'-=-~V' Q-,; -,--' .
-,--' =;-- Q- - =' --,V' ~V-' - ~'~ = -' -- ~, )='
) EC dS/m ( '=- ;'-=-~' Q-,; ,-' ; ) ;;- Q (
-' =-; ==~ -' ~=-; ==~ -' =-----'- , -' -'=- Q - J--
,-' ;'=-; =~;-- =~ ~=-; -=-- =~ ~=- Q,-'- ,-'
-7'- ~--,--' _-- ~-'- --'; J---' =;==-'- : -
= '` + `' Q ) R
2
= `'` (
= ''` + Q ) R
2
= ` (
= ''* + *^ Q ) R
2
= ^* (
= '' ' Q ) R
2
= `^' (
= '' *' Q ) R
2
= '' (
~~-' 4---; _>-V' ;-',-- ,=-' ~-;-' ---=- Q--- -!
~',--' ~=- ,-' ;=- --=- _>-V' 4-- J-~- --;- .
, -' ;' =-- ;, - --' --'--' Q' -' ---' ~, )=' ' --
- =-----'- Q- -='--! ~',--' -~;- J>= ~=-' ==~-' ~=
,;,-~-' -~-; ,-~-' ,=-- ,;-= .
;, - --' ~>-' --' _ - ,-~ -' , =-- ~' -'-- ~-= ~ - -;
~-;, ')-' Q- ;-,-'- -'- 4>)-~' J-- _--' ,-' ;'=- Q---
Q--- ,=V' ,-' ;=-- ;,- --' 4-- Q- , -'-- ~'--- J-'-
'~-' ~--,--' _- .
==~ -' =-----' - , -' ;' =-- ;, - --' 4 -- Q - _ --'
~=- Q,-'- ,-' ;'=-; -=-- =~ ~=- Q,-'- ,-' ;'=-;
~--,--' _-- J---' =;==-'- ,-' ;'=-; =~;-- =~ .
==~-' ~=- =-----'- ,-' ;'=- Q' '~-' -'---' ~,)=';
-=-~' --'-- _--'; ,-' -'-- -'~! --'-- _--' J=~ J-- -'-- ;'
=-----'- ,-' ;'=- Q- J-- -,'---'- 4--; J-=-'; J;~=--' Q-
=~ ~=-; -=-- =~ ~=- Q,-'- ,-' -'=-; ==~-'
~--,--' _-- J---' =;==-'- ,-' ;'=-; =~;-- .
Table 1: Soil physical and irrigation water chemical properties.
Soil depth (cm)
Properties
0-20
20-
40
40-60
Chemical
properties
Irrigation
water
Coars sand (%)
69.0
0
60.4
0
56.90 PH 8.45
Fine Sand (%)
26.9
0
36.0
0
40.70 EC (dS/m) 0.78
Silt (%) 2.10 2.60 1.40 CO
=
3 -
Clay (%) 2.00 1.00 1.00 HCO
-
3 3.85
CL
-
1.75
Field capacity by weight (%)
12.7
3
13.0
0
13.27
SO
=
4 2.40
Ca
++
0.95
Permanent wilting point by
weight (%)
5.50 5.10 4.10
Mg
++
1.09
Na
+
5.89
K
+
0.07
SAR 5.83
Available water (%) 7.23 7.90 9.17
Adj. SAR 13.41
(
m
e
q

/

L
)
Water Science The Issue 38 October 2005
SALINITY CONTROL AND WATER MANAGEMENT UNDER DIFFERENT IRRIGATION SYSTEMS
38
Table 2: The average soil salinity (EC dS/m) of both studied seasons under different irrigation
systems as affected by the distance from emitter, sprinkler and bottom of furrow
and the used time.
Used time (day) 0 (Initial state)
90 (Midseason
stage)
180 (Lateseason stage)
I
r
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
s
y
s
t
e
m
0
-
2
0
2
0
-
4
0
4
0
-
6
0
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
0
-
2
0
2
0
-
4
0
4
0
-
6
0
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
0
-
2
0
2
0
-
4
0
4
0
-
6
0
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
2.3
3
2.4
8
2.5
3
2.4
1
2.1
0
2.5
5
2.6
7
2.4
4
2.0
0
2.7
0
2.7
8
2.49
2.2
5
2.5
1
2.6
0
2.4
5
2.1
3
2.6
9
2.7
5
2.5
2
2.1
0
3.4
8
3.6
1
3.06
2.5
4
2.5
5
2.6
5
2.5
8
3.3
9
3.8
5
4.1
0
3.7
8
3.9
5
4.1
5
4.3
8
4.16
S
u
r
f
a
c
e

t
r
i
c
k
l
e
0
10
20
30
2.7
0
2.6
5
2.6
0
2.6
5
3.9
5
4.1
5
4.3
8
4.1
6
4.3
9
4.8
5
5.1
0
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
7
2.37
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
6
3.90
S
u
b
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
t
r
i
c
k
l
e
0
10
20
30
2.5
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
0
4.36
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
9
2.57
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
1
2.85
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
1
3.33
L
o
w

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
s
p
r
i
n
k
l
e
r 0
100
200
300
2.6
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
8
3.77
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
3
2.00
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
9
2.18
M
e
d
i
u
m

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
s
p
r
i
n
k
l
e
r 0
200
400
600
2.6
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
8
2.29
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
7
1.76
2.2
4
2.3
5
2.5
4
2.3
8
1.8
5
1.8
7
1.9
8
1.9
0
1.7
4
1.8
0
2.0
1
1.85
2.4
8
2.5
3
2.5
5
2.5
2
1.9
6
2.0
0
2.2
8
2.0
8
1.8
3
1.9
0
2.0
6
1.93
M
o
d
i
f
i
e
d

f
u
r
r
o
w
0
10
20
30
2.5
3
2.5
5
2.5
8
2.5
5
2.1
9
2.3
3
2.5
3
2.3
5
1.9
0
1.9
5
2.0
9
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 0.003 L. S. D of distance from emitter, sprinkler and bottom
of furrow (B) at 0.01 0.005 0.004
0.05 0.009 0.007
L. S. D of soil layer depth (C) at
0.01 0.012 0.01
0.05 0.004 0.003
l. S. D of A x B at
0.01 0.006 0.004
0.05 0.010 0.006
l. S. D of A x C at
0.01 0.013 0.008
0.05 0.009 0.005
L . S. D of B x C at
0.01 0.011 0.007
0.05 0.019 0.012
L . S. D of Ax B x C at
0.01 0.025 0.016
Water Science The Issue 38 October 2005
SALINITY CONTROL AND WATER MANAGEMENT UNDER DIFFERENT IRRIGATION SYSTEMS
39
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.
Irrigation
system
Distanc
e
(cm)
Linear regression
equation
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
Averag
e
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
Subsurfac
e
Trickle
Averag
e
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
Low
pressure
Sprinkler
Averag
e
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
Medium
pressure
Sprinkler
Averag
e
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
furrow
Averag
e
Y = 2.4033 0.0031 X 0.9511
Water Science The Issue 38 October 2005
SALINITY CONTROL AND WATER MANAGEMENT UNDER DIFFERENT IRRIGATION SYSTEMS
40
Table 4: Amount of water applied, consumptive use, irrigation application efficiency, root yield, sucrose % and
both crop and field water use efficiencies for sugar beet crop as affected by different irrigation
systems in both growing seasons.
Water Losses
T
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
s
S
e
a
s
o
n
s
A
m
o
u
n
t

o
f
w
a
t
e
r
a
p
p
l
i
e
d

(
m
m
)
C
o
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
v
e

u
s
e

(
m
m
)
(mm) (%)
I
r
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
(
%
)
R
o
o
t

y
i
e
l
d
(
t
o
n
/
f
e
d
)
S
u
c
r
o
s
e

(
%
)
C
r
o
p

w
a
t
e
r
u
s
e
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
(
k
g
/
m
3
)
F
i
e
l
d

w
a
t
e
r
u
s
e
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
(
k
g
/
m
3
)
2003/2004 604.58 543.40 61.18 10.12 89.88 32.14 20.73 14.08 12.66
Surface Trickle
2004/2005 607.79 562.27 45.52 7.49 92.51 33.33 21.00 14.11 13.06
2003/2004 597.86 549.97 47.89 8.01 91.99 34.28 21.56 14.84 13.65 Subsurface
Trickle 2004/2005 601.93 569.85 32.08 5.33 94.67 35.92 22.00 1501 14.21
2003/2004 646.64 529.79 116.85 18.07 81.93 29.53 19.89 13.27 10.87 Low pressure
Sprinkler 2004/2005 650.97 538.61 112.36 17.26 82.74 30.77 20.18 13.60 11.25
2003/2004 663.35 520.00 143.35 21.61 78.39 24.76 18.88 11.34 8.89 Median pressure
Sprinkler 2004/2005 667.89 533.98 133.91 20.05 79.95 25.89 19.21 11.54 9.23
2003/2004 820.11 505.93 314.18 38.31 61.69 22.78 17.93 10.72 6.61
Modified Furrow
2004/2005 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 0.05
2004/2005 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 1.46
L. 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
Water Science The Issue 38 October 2005
SALINITY CONTROL AND WATER MANAGEMENT UNDER DIFFERENT IRRIGATION SYSTEMS
41
Figure (1): Relationship between soil salinity (as average of EC ds/m of both studied
seasons) and used time as affected by different irrigation systems
y = 0.0061x + 2.5733
R
2
= 0.9726
0
1
2
3
4
0 50 100 150 200
Used time (day)
S
o
i
l

s
a
l
i
n
i
t
y

(
E
C

d
s
/
c
m
)
y = 0.0055x + 2.4683
R
2
= 0.96
0
1
2
3
4
0 50 100 150 200
used time (day)
s
o
i
l

s
a
l
i
n
i
t
y

(
E
C

d
s
/
c
m
)
y = 0.0038x + 2.4317
R
2
= 0.9983
0
1
2
3
4
0 50 100 150 200
used time (day)
s
o
i
l

s
a
l
i
n
i
t
y

(
d
s
/
m
)
y = -0.0019x + 2.5183
R
2
= 0.9681
0
1
2
3
4
0 50 100 150 200
used time (day)
s
o
i
l

s
a
l
i
n
i
t
y

(
d
s
/
m
)
y = -0.0031x + 2.4033
R
2
= 0.9511
0
1
2
3
4
0 50 100 150 200
used time (day)
s
o
i
l

s
a
l
i
n
i
t
y

(
d
s
/
m
)
(Subsurface trickle)
(Surface trickle)
(Medium pressure sprinkler) (Low pressure sprinkler)
(Modified furrow)
Water Science The Issue 38 October 2005
SALINITY CONTROL AND WATER MANAGEMENT UNDER DIFFERENT IRRIGATION SYSTEMS
42
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
Surface trickle Subsurface trickle Low pressure
sprinkler
Medium pressure
sprinkler
Modified furrow
Irrigation systems
W
a
t
e
r

a
m
o
u
n
t

(
m
m
)
Water applied at
2003/2004 season
Water applied at
2004/2005 season
Consumptive use at
2003/2004 season
Consuwptive use at
2004/2005 season
Fig. 2: Water applied and consumptive use of both growing seasons as
affected 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
a
t
e
r

u
s
e

e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
(
k
g
/
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 different
irrigation systems.