Excessive water use and soil erosion from furrow irrigation are two of the most serious
management problems on irrigated silt loam soils in southern Idaho, U.S.A. These problems
are especially serious on croplands planted to dry beans. In conventional bean
production, fields are irrigated before planting to wet the entire soil surface. It is not
unusual for farmers to apply as much as 30 cm of water over the entire field during a
single preplanting irrigation.

Results from this study showed that planting beans in the bottom of pre-irrigated
furrows without soaking completely between the furrows reduced preplanting water
application by 60%. The continuing within-row treatments reduced irrigation water use
by 42% compared to conventional irrigation practices. Total bean yields on the preplanting,
within-row treatments were not significantly different from the conventional
treatments

Berg, R.D.

Rasmussen, W.W.

USDA - ARS - NWISRL

WITHIN-ROW IRRIGATION SAVES WATER ON CROPLANDSW.W. RASMUSSEN and R.D. BERGSnake River Conservation Research Center, Agricultural Research Service, United StatesDepartment of Agriculture, Kimberly, ID 83341 (U.S.A.)(Accepted 19 September 1985)ABSTRACTREPRINTED FROM:Agriculturalwater managementNwee rneentr.ELSEVIERELSEVIER SCIENCE PUBLISHERS, AMSTERDAMAgriculturalwater managementEditor-in-Chief:J. Wesseling, Institute for Land and Water Management Research, Staringgebouw, P.O. Box 35,6700 AA Wageningen, The NetherlandsAims and scope.Agricultural Water Management is concerned with the publication of scientific papers of internationalsignificance to the management of agricultural water. The scope includes such diverse aspects asirrigation and drainage of cultivated areas, collection and storage of precipitation water in relation tosoil properties and vegetation cover, the role of ground and surface water in nutrient cycling, waterbalance problems, exploitation and protection of water resources, control of flooding, erosion anddesert creep, water quality and pollution both by, and of, agricultural water, effects of land uses onwater resources, water for recreation in rural areas, and economic and legal aspects of water use.Basic soil-water-plant relationships will be considered only as far as is relevant to agricultural watermanagement.Submission of articles.Manuscripts should be submitted in triplicate to the Editorial Secretariat, Agricultural WaterManagement, ElsevierScience Publishers BM., P.O. Box 330, 1000 AH Amsterdam, The Netherlands.AGRICULTURAL WATER MANAGEMENT HAS NO PAGE CHARGESA DETAILED GUIDE TO AUTHORS AND A FREE SAMPLE COPY OF THE JOURNALARE AVAILABLE ON REQUESTAgricultural Water Management, 11 (1986) 31-37	 31Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam — Printed in The NetherlandsWITHIN-ROW IRRIGATION SAVES WATER ON CROPLANDSW.W. RASMUSSEN and R.D. BERGSnake River Conservation Research Center, Agricultural Research Service, United StatesDepartment of Agriculture, Kimberly, ID 83341 (U.S.A.)(Accepted 19 September 1985)ABSTRACTRasmussen, W.W. and Berg, R.D., 1986. Within-row irrigation saves water on croplands,Agric. Water Manage., 11:31--37.Excessive water use and soil erosion from furrow irrigation are two of the most seriousmanagement problems on irrigated silt loam soils in southern Idaho, U.S.A. These prob-lems are especially serious on croplands planted to dry beans. In conventional beanproduction, fields are irrigated before planting to wet the entire soil surface. It is notunusual for farmers to apply as much as 30 cm of water over the entire field during asingle preplanting irrigation.Results from this study showed that planting beans in the bottom of pre-irrigatedfurrows without soaking completely between the furrows reduced preplanting waterapplication by 60%. The continuing within-row treatments reduced irrigation water useby 42% compared to conventional irrigation practices. Total bean yields on the pre-planting, within-row treatments were not significantly different from the conventionaltreatments.INTRODUCTIONIrrigation induoed soil erosion from furrow irrigated cropland is a seriousmanagement problem on Portneuf silt loam soil (Durixerollic Calciorthid)in southern Idaho, U.S.A.Irrigated crop land planted to dry field beans are highly susceptibleto soil erosion. The conventional practice for bean production is to wetthe entire field surface with a preplant irrigation. This irrigation occursafter seed preparation tillage operations when the soil is loose and highlyerodable (Fig. 1). The large volume of water used in conventional irrigationpractices often causes considerable within furrow soil erosion.A 3-year study was conducted to evaluate the effects of controlled within-row irrigation on seasonal water use and dry bean yields. Preplanting irriga-tion and planting within the seed-row, and continuing within-row irrigationtrials were tested on Portneuf silt loam soil.0378-3774186/$03.50	 f 1986 Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.32Fig. 1. Furrow irrigation after a conventional preplanting irrigation on a bean field.STUDY METHODSThree irrigation-planting treatments were applied for three seasons on fourfields located at the University of Idaho Experiment Station, and the SnakeRiver Conservation Research Center located at Kimberly, ID. The plotswere arranged in a randomized block pattern with three treatments and threereplications. The plots were 36.6 m long in the 1st and 3rd year, and 51.9 mlong the 2nd year. All plots were four rows wide, each row 61 cm apart.Irrigation water was applied by a multiset surface irrigation system,which permits the application of small quantities of water at controlledrates to short furrow segments (Rasmussen et al., 1973). Controlled irriga-tion reduces water loss and can improve uniformity of water applications.All the plots were located on fields having 0.5-1.0% slopes. Plots weretreated with a pre-emergence herbicide for weed control. The unconventionalirrigation and planting treatments consisted of irrigating in small furrows,and planting dry beans in the bottom of the furrows (Fig. 2).Conventional irrigation treatmentSufficient irrigation water was applied in standard furrows spaced 61 cmapart to wet the entire soil surface between furrows. After the field hadCONVENTIONAL IRRIGATION AND PLANTING4;..	 A'.... .....	 ......- n ....	 ...-	 .....WITHIN-ROW IRRIGATION AND PLANTING UNTIL LAY8Y-7-7-1/•••WITHIN-ROW IRRIGATION FOR FULL SEASON33dried sufficiently, the beans were seeded into the moist soil between thefurrows. Before bean emergence the field surface was lightly harrowed tocontrol weeds. When the bean plants were 15-20 cm high the plots werecultivated, and irrigation furrows were re-formed between the rows. Thebean plots were irrigated every 7-10 days for the remainder of the growingseason.Preplanting irrigation within-row treatmentA single pre-planting irrigation was applied in small furrows spaced thesame as in the conventional irrigation treatment to sufficiently wet the soil15-20 cm laterally, and 20-25 cm vertically into the upper soil profile.After 2-3 days for drying, beans were seeded directly into the moist furrowbottoms. Field plots were harrowed for weed control. When the plantswere 15-20 cm high they were cultivated, and standard irrigation furrowswere formed between the bean rows.Sometimes a single within-row irrigation will not sustain the bean plantsFig. 2. Three irrigation treatments: conventional, within-row, and continuous within-row for full season.34until the final cultivation when furrows are formed between the rows. Apractice that was successful in several tests was to irrigate the small beanplants within the rows with several light irrigations. Small quantities ofwater were applied to avoid washing out the bean plants. When the beanswere 15-20 cm high they were cultivated, and furrows formed betweenthe rows. Conventional irrigation practices were then continued for theremainder of the season for both practices.Preplanting, continuing within-row irrigation treatmentPreplanting irrigation and planting procedures were the same as within-row treatments. After bean emergence a light cultivation between the beanrows was applied. Care was taken to avoid moving soil into furrows. Plotswere not harrowed on this treatment because of the continuing irrigationsin the furrows where the beans had been seeded and were growing (Fig.3). The only weed control was a pre-emergence herbicide. Light irrigationswere applied directly into the bean furrows every 3-4 days for the remainderof the growing season.Fig. 3. Continuous within-row irrigation of dry beans.36RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONSDuring the first season, small red dry beans were planted in all plots.Total water applied was 173 cm in ten irrigations during the season on theconventional treatment compared to a low of 74 cm applied in 19 lightirrigations on the continuing within-row irrigation treatment (Table 1).The preplanting, within-furrow irrigation treatment required 60% Lesswater and 69% less irrigation time than the conventional preplanting irriga-tion (Table 1). The bean yields on all plots were low because of a lateplanting and an early killing frost. There were no significant differencesin yield between treatments (Table 1).TABLE 1Effect of irrigation treatments on dry bean productionTreatment	 Growing	 Seasonal	Seasonal	Beanseason	 irrigations	 water	 yield(year)	 applications	 (kg/ha)(cm/ha)Conventionalirrigation practices	 1	 10	 173.0	 18702 a*	 9	131.0	29982	 9	133.6	34233	 8	137.9	3694Preplanting irrigationwithin plant row	 1	 10	160.5	 17702 a 	11	124.8	29902	 9	129.2	30623	 8	 112.9	3575Preplanting irrigationcontinuing within-row	 1	 19	 74.0	 19672a	 11	 111.6	28452	 14	82.1	31913	 11	 66.5	2964*Treatments were conducted on two fields during the 2nd year. Small red dry beanswere grown in field 2, and pinto 114 beans were grown in field 2 a.The second season, treatments were applied on two fields planted to smallred and Pinto 114 field beans. The seasonal water application was 131-133cm with nine irrigations on the conventional plots compared to 82-112cm on the continuing within-row irrigation plots with 11-14 light irriga-tions (Table 1). The preplanting, within-row treatment required 40% lessirrigation water than the conventional irrigation (Table 1). The pinto beanyields were slightly less than those of the small red beans, but there wereno significant yield differences among the three treatments.The third season small red dry beans were planted in all plots. The single36preplanting, within-row irrigation required 74% less irrigation water than theconventional irrigation treatment (Table 2). The seasonal water applicationwas 138 cm on the conventional treatments with eight irrigations, and 66.5cm on the continuing within-row treatments with eleven light irrigations.The bean yields were significantly lower on the continuing within-rowtreatments than the conventional and preplant within-row treatments.This low yield only occurred during the third year, and we do not knowwhy.TABLE 2Three-year preplanting irrigation treatments (single irrigation)Treatment Duration ofirrigation (h)Irrigation waterapplied (cm)Conventional preplanting irrigationYear1 6.00 5.382 6.25 5.503 10.00 10.80Mean 7.42 7.23Preplanting irrigation within-furrowYear1 2.00 2.542 3.00 3.303 2.00 2.80Mean 2.33 2.88During the preplanting, within-row irrigation treatments, water wasapplied in the small preformed furrows for 1-2 h. Since only a small volumeof soil in the seed bed was wetted, the average depth of water applied was2.5-3.3 cm compared to 5.4-10.8 cm conventional preplanting irrigationtreatments.In the continuing within-row irrigations on long runs, silt depositionsfrom furrow erosion caused some water damming and overflow after twoor three in-row irrigations. On steeper slopes this may not be a problem.Within-row irrigation would reduce erosion by slowing the water velocity.A specially designed bean cutter would be needed to cut the beans withinrows.Light, frequent, within-row irrigations provided adequate water to thebean plants during the root development. Water quantity was reduced60% during the preplanting, within-row irrigation compared to conventionalirrigation. The within-row irrigation will reduce nitrogen leaching from the37soil, conserve water, and greatly reduce water runoff and soil erosion duringthe preplant irrigation, or until the final cultivation. At the final cultivation,plants are hilled, and new irrigation furrows are formed between the plantrows. During water short seasons or in areas where water is pumped andirrigation costs are high, the within-row irrigation technique would be verybeneficial.The results of this research show that these unconventional irrigationand planting treatments used in conjunction with the multiset surfaceirrigation system or a more recent automatic system called cablegation(Kemper et al., 1981) could produce equal stands of dry beans. This systemcould be applied to other furrow irrigated farm crops with similar waterrequirements. In undeveloped countries that have limited irrigation waterand a shortage of agricultural land, the within-row irrigation practices couldbe very beneficial.REFERENCESKemper, W.D., Heinemann, W.H., Kincaid, D.C. and Worsteil, R.V., 1981. CablegationI: cable controlled plugs in perforated supply pipes for automatic furrow irrigation.Trans. ASAE, 24: 1526-1532.Rasmussen, W.W., Bondurant, J.A. and Berg, R.D., 1973. Multiset surface irrigationsystem. ICI]) Bulletin International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage, NewDelhi, India, pp. 48-52.NOTE TO CONTRIBUTORSA detai led Guide for Authors is available upon request and is also printed in the first volume to appeareach year. You are kindly asked to consult this guide. Please pay special attention to the followingnotes:Types of papers published in the journal- papers reporting results of original research - review articles - short communications -editorials- book reviews news and announcements.LanguageThe official language of the journal is English.Preparation of the text(a)The manuscript should include at the beginning an abstract of not more than 400 words.(b)It should be typewritten with double spacing and wide margins. Words to be printed in italicsshould be underlined. SI units should be used throughout.(c)The title page should include: the title, the name(s) of the author(s), and their affiliation(s).(d)Submit original plus 2 copies of manuscript (original illustrations or computer printouts plus2 photocopies - for photographs, 3 prints should be supplied).References(a) References in the text should be cited as the name of the author(s), followed by the year ofpublication.(b)The reference list should be in alphabetical order and on sheets separate from the text.TablesTables should be compiled on separate sheets. A title should be provided foreach table and all tablesshould be referred to in the text.Illustrations(a) Illustrations should be numbered consecutively and referred to in the text. All illustrations (linedrawings, computer printouts and photographs) should be submitted separately, unmountedand not folded.(b)Drawings should be fully annotated, the size of the lettering being appropriate to that of thedrawings, but taking into account the possible need for reduction in size (preferably not morethan 5096). The page format of the journal should be considered when designing drawings.(c)Photographs must be of good quality, printed on glossy paper.(d)Figure captions should be supplied on a separate sheet.Reprints and page chargesThere is no page charge. Fifty reprints of each article published will be supplied free of charge.Additional reprints can be ordered on a reprint order form which is included with the proofs.All contributions will be carefully refereed for international relevance and quality.Submission of an article is understood to imply that the article is original and unpublished and is notbeing considered for publication elsewhere.ALSO FROM ELSEVIERAGRICULTURAL ECONOMICSAGRICULTURE, ECOSYSTEMS AND ENVIRONMENTANIMAL FEED SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGYANIMAL REPRODUCTION SCIENCEAPPLIED ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR SCIENCEAQUACULTUREAQUATIC BOTANYCOMPUTERS AND ELECTRONICS IN AGRICULTUREECOLOGICAL MODELLINGENERGY IN AGRICULTUREEXPERIMENTAL AND APPLIED ACAROLOGYFIELD CROPS RESEARCHFISHERIES RESEARCHFOREST ECOLOGY AND MANAGEMENTLANDSCAPE AND URBAN PLANNINGLIVESTOCK PRODUCTION SCIENCEPREVENTIVE VETERINARY MEDICINERECLAMATION & RE VEGETATION RESEARCHSCIENTIA HORTICULTURAESOIL & TILLAGE RESEARCHVETERINARY IMMUNOLOGY AND IMMUNOPATHOLOGYVETERINARY MICROBIOLOGYVETERINARY PARASITOLOGYVETERINARY RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS• FULL DETAILS AND A FREE SAMPLE COPY AVAILABLE ON REQUEST •ELSEVIER SCIENCE PUBLISHERSP.O. Box 330, 1000 AR Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Within-Row Irrigation Saves Water on Croplands

Northwest Irrigation & Soils Research Laboratory Publications

https://eprints.nwisrl.ars.usda.gov/id/eprint/455/1/573.pdf

Within-Row Irrigation Saves Water on Croplands

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

USDA - ARS - NWISRL

Northwest Irrigation & Soils Research Laboratory Publications