Water Conservation Through Furrow Diking

1
Water Conservation Through Furrow Diking
2
Water Sources

• Rainfall
• Not dependable
• Timing, amount, guarantee
• Irrigation
• Costly
• Limited (Source/Budget)

3
Potential / 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)
5
Runoff and ponding are problems with
conventional furrows.
Erosion is a problem with sloped areas and heavy
precipitation.
6
Furrow 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)
9
Furrow 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

10
Basins are created and soil is loosened leaving a
rough surface.
11
Research 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)
14
Soil Surface
8 in
16 in
24 in
Watermark Sensors Soil Water Potential
15
Soil Water Potential 8 Corn 2005
Blue arrows show dates where all plots were
irrigated. Red arrows show irrigation in
non-diked plots.
16
Soil Water Potential 16 Corn 2005
Blue arrows show dates where all plots were
irrigated. Red arrows show irrigation in
non-diked plots.
17
Soil Water Potential 24 Corn 2005
Blue arrows show dates where all plots were
irrigated. Red arrows show irrigation in
non-diked plots.
18
Rainfall 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)
21
Results - 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

22
2006 Southeast Drought
23
Inches of Water Use (events) - 2006
24
Soil Water Potential 8 Cotton 2006
25
Soil 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

27
2006 Crop Yield
28
2006 Corn Yield
29
2006 Corn
30
2006 Cotton Yield
31
2006 Peanut Yield
32
Results 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

33
Southeast Watershed Rsch Lab
34
(No Transcript)
35
Simulated Rainfall at 2/ Hour
Plant available water is estimated assuming that
total ET is 0.25/day.
36
(No Transcript)