Title: Water Conservation Through Furrow Diking
1Water Conservation Through Furrow Diking
2Water Sources
- Rainfall
- Not dependable
- Timing, amount, guarantee
- Irrigation
- Costly
- Limited (Source/Budget)
3Potential / Water Use Efficiency
- Peanut (62), Cotton (61), and Corn (86) are
Non-irrigated in US - Improve irrigation efficiency of surface applied
water -
4(No Transcript)
5Runoff and ponding are problems with
conventional furrows.
Erosion is a problem with sloped areas and heavy
precipitation.
6Furrow Diking
- Tillage management tool
- May be part of cultivation or done as early as
planting - Creates a series of basins and dams
- Provides more soil surface to absorb water
- Captures water for better distribution
7(No Transcript)
8(No Transcript)
9Furrow Dikes
- Previously used in Arid Regions
- Prevent loss to evaporation
- Promote infiltration by surrounding irrigation
water with soil - Applicable in Southeast
- With or without irrigation
- Economic and environmental benefit
10Basins are created and soil is loosened leaving a
rough surface.
11Research Objectives
- Evaluate furrow dikes in irrigated and
non-irrigated systems - Do they significantly contribute to water
availability? - Will this have economical impact?
12- Compare Irrigated and Dryland with and without
Furrow Dikes - Irrigated separately by diking
- Irrigator Pro software
- Peanut, Cotton, Corn
- Soil water potential
- 20, 40, 60 cm depths in crop row
13(No Transcript)
14Soil Surface
8 in
16 in
24 in
Watermark Sensors Soil Water Potential
15Soil Water Potential 8 Corn 2005
Blue arrows show dates where all plots were
irrigated. Red arrows show irrigation in
non-diked plots.
16Soil Water Potential 16 Corn 2005
Blue arrows show dates where all plots were
irrigated. Red arrows show irrigation in
non-diked plots.
17Soil Water Potential 24 Corn 2005
Blue arrows show dates where all plots were
irrigated. Red arrows show irrigation in
non-diked plots.
18Rainfall Accumulation Terrell County, GA 2005
H. Dennis
Centimeters
35 Rain events 22.8 inches during corn
season Non-diked had 5 irrigations 4.5
inches Furrow diked had 3 irrigations 2.5 inches
19(No Transcript)
20(No Transcript)
21Results - 2005
- Documented rapid soil moisture response
- Saved 2 irrigation in corn
- Peanut and cotton 1 irrigation
- Treatments had similar yield
- No adversity to furrow diking
222006 Southeast Drought
23Inches of Water Use (events) - 2006
24Soil Water Potential 8 Cotton 2006
25Soil Water Potential 8 Cotton 2006
Blue arrows show irrigation of diked plots. Red
arrows show irrigation of non-diked plots.
26- Irrigator Pro software
- Peanut, Cotton, Corn
- Irrigation levels
- 100, 66, 33, and dryland
- Diking used in each irrigation level
272006 Crop Yield
282006 Corn Yield
292006 Corn
302006 Cotton Yield
312006 Peanut Yield
32Results 2006
- Greater response after rain events/irrigation
resulting in longer maintenance of soil moisture - Saved 1 irrigation in cotton
- Cotton, Corn, and Peanut yield positively
influenced by furrow diking - Shows economical and environmental promise for
the future 2005 and 2006
33Southeast Watershed Rsch Lab
34(No Transcript)
35Simulated Rainfall at 2/ Hour
Plant available water is estimated assuming that
total ET is 0.25/day.
36(No Transcript)