Comparison of surge and continuous furrow methods for cotton in the Harran plain

Comparison of surge and continuous furrowmethods for cotton in the Harran plain

Riza Kanbera,*, Harun KoÈksala, Sermet OÈ ndera,Selim Kapurb, Sebahattin Sahanb

aDepartment of Irrigation and Drainage, Faculty of Agriculture, University of CËukurova, 01330 Adana, TurkeybDepartment of Soil Science, Faculty of Agriculture, University of CËukurova, 01330 Adana, Turkey

Accepted 12 April 2000

Abstract

This study compares surge ¯ow with conventional steady ¯ow irrigation in 130±160 m ®eld

lengths in order to analyze the potential of the former for reducing deep percolation and tailwater

runoff together with the improvement of irrigation ef®ciency. The ®eld experiment comprises of

four surge treatments with two in¯ow rates of 0.0498 and 0.12 m3/min (Q1 and Q2), and two cycle

ratios of 0.33 and 0.50 (CR1 and CR2), respectively, with 30 min on-times, along with two steady

¯ow treatments with the same in¯ow rates. Surge ¯ow irrigation of the level furrows was

successfully managed under the ®eld conditions with decreases in the total water applications

(2±22%) and the water intake (14±25%), except in the treatments of surge S11 (Q1 CR1) with 9%

increase in the latter together with 21±38% decrease in the tailwater runoff and 19±70% decrease in

the calculated deep percolation below the root zone of 1.20 m depending on in¯ow rates and cycle

ratios of the permeable Harran soils. Surge ¯ow reduced the water intake of a surface soil loosened

by tillage by 13±23% as compared to continuous ¯ow, thus manifesting an incomparable advantage

to the level furrow systems. # 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Surge ¯ow; Continuous furrow; Irrigation performances; In®ltration; Cotton

1. Introduction

Irrigation started in the Harran plain in the summer of 1995. A number of irrigation

problems related to soil properties and water quantity are foreseen to arise. Some of these

problems are the high infiltration rates of the soils (Karaata, 1984; Ersahin, 1990; DincË

Agricultural Water Management 47 (2001) 119±135

* Corresponding author. Tel.: �90-322-338-6313/6798; fax: �90-322-338-6386.

E-mail address: [email protected] (R. Kanber).

0378-3774/01/$ ± see front matter # 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

PII: S 0 3 7 8 - 3 7 7 4 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 1 0 2 - 5

et al., 1991) and the water scarcity problem (Tekinel et al., 1991). Approximately, 90% of

the irrigated lands in the Harran plain will utilize surface water application techniques

(CËetin, 1992). The most common conventional surface irrigation in the Harran plain uses

constant inflow rates into furrows during the irrigation event. This method was often

referred to large amounts of water losses by excessive runoff and deep percolation from

irrigated fields. Nevertheless, it is expected that surface irrigation techniques will

continue to be used in the future in The Harran plain and that these problems must be

addressed. Additionally, the water flow of 128 m3/s allocated for irrigation to the Harran

plain, with 140,000 ha of irrigated lands and high crop evapotranspiration rates, will not

meet the water requirements of the crops in the future (Tekinel et al., 1991).

Surface irrigation efficiency is maximum when systems are managed to minimize deep

percolation and runoff while meeting irrigation requirements. For these reasons, several

management techniques have been developed to reduce water losses during the irrigation

event. Some of these are the `cutback stream method', the `runoff recovery system', and

ìntermittent application of water' (Walker and Skogerboe, 1987). The intermittent

application of water has recently received more interest than the other methods.

The àdvance phase' in irrigation, which is defined as the time the water reaches the

end of the field, is very important for reducing water waste. A longer àdvance time',

normally, increases the water losses by deep percolation due to slow advance rates

(Rodrigues, 1989). Therefore, a high inflow is recommended to obtain a rapid stream

advance, thereby maximizing the uniformity of water infiltration. However, this large

stream size can result in excessive tailwater, especially when there is a high irrigation

requirement.

Surge irrigation, introduced by Stringham and Keller (1979), is defined as the

intermittent application of water to furrow, rills or borders in a series of relatively short

on- and off-time periods of constant or variable time spans (Humphreys, 1989). These

cyclic applications, generally, require some automation and are typically applied to field

through gated pipe systems or buried pipelines with risers.

Surge irrigation has been reported to increase advance rate, reduce total water required

for an irrigation (Bishop et al., 1981; Izuno and Podmore, 1986), increase efficiency,

reduce total irrigation time, and most importantly, decrease infiltration in soils which

have high intake when compared to continuous flow (Allen, 1980; Izuno et al., 1985;

Samani et al., 1985; Izuno and Podmore, 1986; USDA-SCS, 1986; Musick et al., 1987;

Westendorp and Podmore, 1987; Goldhammer et al., 1987a; Rodrigues, 1989). However,

Walker and Schlegel (1984) found no advantages for surge flow due to increased tailwater

runoff losses. Bishop et al. (1981), McCornick (1986) and Goldhammer et al. (1987b),

reported faster advance with surge flow than continuous flow, although others have found

slower or equal advance time with surge (Podmore and Duke, 1982; Podmore et al., 1983;

Yonts and Eisenhauer, 1989). Most investigators agree that the increased advance rates

and reduced water application amounts are primarily due to a reduction in the infiltration

rate under surge conditions (McCornick, 1986; Goldhammer et al., 1987a; Rodrigues,

1989). Numerous phenomena have been suggested as causes of the intake rate reduction

and their combined effect is defined as the `surge effect' (Malano, 1982; Blaire et al.,

1984; Samani et al., 1985; Jalali-Farahani et al., 1993a,b). As discussed in many papers,

there are significant disagreements among reported changes in the soil intake rate or

120 R. Kanber et al. / Agricultural Water Management 47 (2001) 119±135

hydraulic conductivity. For instance in clayey soils, the experimental results in surge flow

vary from nil reduction (Pitts and Ferguson, 1985) to a marked reduction in the intake rate

(Westfall, 1987; Goldhammer et al., 1987b; Coupal and Wilson, 1990). The adoption and

use of surge irrigation have been gaining popularity and steadily over continuous flow

surface irrigation techniques since the early 1980s in many areas of the world, but not in

Turkey.

The literature on surge irrigation indicates that this method can help save irrigation

water and increase the effective and efficient use of water. The scarcity of irrigation water

and high infiltration rates in the Harran plain have created a major interest in surge flow

due to its substantially reduced irrigation requirements and increasing application

efficiencies. The principal purpose of this research was to evaluate the surge flow effects

under practical field conditions of the Harran plain, and to determine the probable

reduction of intake and to apply efficiently irrigation compared with conventional

continuous flow applications in furrow irrigation on cotton.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Field site

The field experiment was conducted in 1991 and 1992 on the Harran soil series (Calcic

Xerosol-FAO/UNESCO, 1974; Vertic Xerochrept-USDA-NRCS, 1996) located at the

Koruklu Research Station of the Harran plain, Sanliurfa, in the GAP (Fig. 1). The soil

profile is uniformly clayey rich in smectite with blocky subsoil structure to a depth of

0.85±1.35 m. The soil contains 15±20% calcium carbonate which increases with depth.

The average available soil water capacity is 15% by volume for a profile available

capacity of 174 mm for 1.2 m. Soil properties such as field capacity, permanent wilting

point, bulk density and texture were obtained from systematically sampled soils from

depths of 0±0.30, 0.30±0.60 and 0.60±0.90 m at several plots of the experimental field.

Soil bulk density data were taken on several dates (before sowing, after each evaluated

irrigation and during harvesting) as cores of 100 cm3 volume in the furrow zone from

0±0.20, 0.20±0.31 and 0.31±0.53 m soil layers. Three or five cores from each layer per

treatment were taken on each date, oven dried and weighed for dry density.

Fig. 1. Location map of the study area.

R. Kanber et al. / Agricultural Water Management 47 (2001) 119±135 121

Tests were conducted on a 160 m long field with 0.7 m spaced furrows on 0.14% slope.

Following the pre-plant irrigation in mid April, cotton (c.v. Sayar-314) was planted in

furrow ridges at the end of April. Plant densities were 10.5 plants/m2 on an average. An

amount of 160 and 60 kg/ha nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizers, respectively, were

applied to obtain high yields. A lister was used once for construction of the furrows

before the first test and cultivation was not practiced during the irrigation seasons.

2.2. Treatments

Treatments of (a) surge irrigation (S) with two inflow rates of 0.05 m3/min (Q1) and

0.12 m3/min (Q2) and two different cycle ratios of 0.5 (CR1) and 0.3 (CR2) were

compared with (b) two conventional steady flow applications (C) with the same inflow

rates as in surge, C1 (Q1) and C2 (Q2). In 1992, the cycle ratio of 0.3 was changed to 0.33.

The on-time was 30 min for all surge treatments. Surge treatments were made by the

combination of the inflow rates and cycle ratios. These will be referred to as S11

(Q1 CR1), S12 (Q1 CR2), S21 (Q2 CR1), and S22 (Q2 CR2), respectively (Table 1). The

irrigation treatments were distributed in a randomized fashion. Three adjacent furrows

were employed in each treatment. The advance, tail runoff, soil water and yield data were

collected from one of the three furrows identically managed for surge and continuous

flow field strips. The stations along the furrows were located at 20 m intervals for

monitoring the advance phase. The flow advance in the furrows was measured up to

130 m in S11, S12 and C1 and 160 m in S21, S22 and C2 treatments.

2.3. Irrigation

Water was applied through gated plastic pipes connected to barrels in which a constant

hydraulic head was created to obtain a fixed flow rate. Obtaining the flow rates used in

the experiment, the holes of pipes were adjusted by gate plugs. The flow rates were

checked by volumetric methods during the tests. The tailwater runoff from all irrigated

furrows was measured with parshall flumes installed at the end of the furrows. In 1991,

the inflow to the furrows was stopped during the tests when the outflow rate reached a

constant level. A different approach was used for outflow duration in 1992. This was

determined by the intake opportunity time estimated by the adjusted infiltration functions

Table 1

Irrigation treatments

Flow rate Cycle ratio Symbol of treatmentsa

Q1 CR1 S11

CR2 S12

± C1

Q2 CR1 S21

CR2 S22

± C2

a The ®rst and second indices in the symbol of treatments show ¯ow rate and cycle ratio, respectively.


for each application. It was the time to replace the actual depleted soil water. Adjusted

infiltration functions were obtained only in the continuous flow furrow treatments.

Irrigations were applied at 8±10-day intervals when the available soil water content

was depleted to nearly 30% in the 1.2 m profile. During the irrigation seasons of 1991 and

1992, three and four irrigations were evaluated, after two pre-plant irrigations. While the

tests were carried out at the first, third, fifth, and seventh application; the same amount of

water was given to all plots with a sprinkler system. Based on the soil moisture content, the

soil moisture deficit (SMD) was determined by a gravimetric method at 1±2 days before

all the irrigations at three locations namely the head, middle, and end of the furrows. The

depletion level before the irrigations averaged 60% for surge and 68% for the steady flow

treatments. Irrigations were started as soon as the average water contents were measured in

the continuous furrows. Additional soil water data were taken between some irrigation

intervals. Data were collected at 0.3 m increments to a soil depth of 1.2 m. Soil water

contents to 1.2 m depth were used in water balance equations to calculate the seasonal

water use. Before each run, the topography of the furrows were measured to obtain the

average run slope. Profilemeter measurements were made in two different sections of the

furrows before and after each irrigation to evaluate furrow hydraulic characteristics.

2.4. In®ltration measurements

For obtaining the cumulative infiltration depths, infiltration tests were undertaken by

the blocked furrow and two-point volume balance methods. Before each application, the

blocked furrow infiltration tests were conducted at the same location of the furrow as

described by James (1988). The two-point volume balance model was applied during the

irrigations at the steady flow test furrows (Walker and Skogerboe, 1987). The time-based

Kostiakow model was used to obtain the infiltration function of the field. The coefficients

K and a of the infiltration functions were determined using linear regression techniques.

Coefficient K was adjusted by the actual average infiltrated depth using Walker and

Skogerboe's (1987) method.

The infiltration opportunity time defined here as the time during which water remained

standing at each station in the test furrows was obtained from the difference between the

recession and the advance times (Merriam et al., 1980). The tailwater runoff for each

treatment was estimated from an outflow hydrograph. In each test, after the flow advance

reached the end of the furrow, the outflow was measured by Parshall flumes as well as by

volumetric methods. The outflow hydrograph of the furrows was then obtained by

plotting the runoff versus time (Jensen, 1980). The infiltration depth at each station was

calculated by substituting the corresponding infiltration opportunity time into the

adjusted infiltration function (Walker, 1989). Deep percolation at each station and for

each treatment was estimated from the difference between the infiltrated depth for the

infiltration opportunity time and the required depth, SMD (Walker, 1989).

2.5. Data analysis

The water advance in surge flow was compared with continuous flow. One measure of

the relative performance of surge and continuous flow is the ratio of volumes of water


required to attain a given advance distance. The advance volume ratios were obtained by

the variable Ton approach (Goldhammer et al., 1987a) for the same furrow lengths

(volume ratio�vol. watersurge/vol. watercontinuous). Advance times were used to generate

this data.

The irrigation performance parameters which are used to compare the different

irrigation methods, such as the application efficiency (Ea), water requirement efficiency

(Er), infiltration efficiency (Ei), deep percolation ratio (DPR), tailwater ratio (TWR),

Christiansen uniformity coefficient (UCC), and distribution uniformity (DU) were

calculated using techniques and equations given by Walker and Skogerboe (1987),

Merriam et al. (1980) and Rodrigues (1989).

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Water application

The cumulative applied irrigation water and average irrigation water for the test runs

are shown in Fig. 2 and in Table 2, respectively. Observed differences in trial years are

associated to the different approaches used for the outflow time during the applications.

The first and seasonal applications varied depending on the inflow and cycle ratios. It can

be seen from Fig. 2 that the average irrigation water amount for the first application were

265 mm (C1) and 384 mm (C2) for steady flow, and 205 mm (S11), 179 mm (S12),

301 mm (S21), and 291 mm (S22) for surge flow treatments for the loosened soil.

Applications in the treatments with higher inflow rate were higher than those in the

others. In surge flow with a similar inflow rate, the amount of water applied was higher

with a larger cycle ratio than that with a small cycle ratio. The first seasonal irrigation

reconsolidated the loosened soil surface, and average irrigation water applied for each

event varied (Table 2) from 178 to 300 mm (C1 and C2) for continuous flows and from

140 to 237 mm (S12 and S22) for surge flow treatments. There was a declining tendency in

the applications of all treatments towards the end of the irrigation seasons, whereas in

some applications they were higher than the previous ones.

The surge flow treatments were successfully managed to reduce the average

cumulative steady flow applications of 1051 mm (C2) to 873 mm (S21) and 831 mm

(S22) with 17±21% reductions, and 625 mm (C1) to 611 mm (S11) and 490 mm (S12) with

1±22% reductions. These reductions were associated with the reduced water intake and

deep profile wetting.

3.2. The advance phase

The average first and seasonal net advance times are given in Table 2. Water advances

were the slowest for the first application for all treatments. The surge flow with the small

cycle ratio and high inflow rate has the greatest effect on reducing the advance time early

in the season. The reductions were 7% in S22 and 32% in S12 for the first application

compared to the continuous furrows of C2 and C1, respectively. The net advance time

decreased at the end of the irrigation season in all treatments. Generally, the seasonal


Fig. 2. Cumulative water application and intake for evaluated runs for surge and steady ¯ow treatments.

R.

Ka

nb

eret

al./A

gricu

ltura

lW

ater

Ma

nagem

ent

47

(2001)

119±135

125

average net advance time under surge flow was smaller than that in steady flow except for

S11, which has a larger cycle ratio and small inflow rate. The average seasonal net

advance time decreased 18% in S22 and 20% in S12 according to the results from C2 and

C1, respectively. Dominant smectite in the soil has a high shrinkage capacity, developing

large cracks in the profile, with water depletion that dominate the initial infiltration

process on the Harran soils, as also indicated by Manges and Hooker (1984) for surge

irrigation. The observed degree of cracking on soil surface for the second and the third

applications is larger than that of the first run. During the irrigation, some suspended soil

particles may be leached by the surge, closing the surface cracks and causing

consolidation. Thus, water could advance faster in the dry furrow sections and reach

farther and faster than the steady flows. Although large cracks were present, the faster

advance obtained for S12 and S22 treatments can be explained by having low cycle ratio

and filling of the cracks with soil particles (Humphreys, 1989). The effect of the cycle

ratio on the advance was found to be more important than that in the inflow rate.

Fig. 3 shows the change of advance volume ratios for the furrow lengths. The average

volume ratios in S12/C1 and S22/C2 decreased with distance from the inlet. In the first

Table 2

Summary of some observed data for treatments

Variable Flow rate, 0.0498 m3/min Flow rate, 0.12 m3/min

CR�0.5 CR�0.33 Constant CR�0.5 CR�0.33 Constant

S11 S12 C1 S21 S22 C2

Furrow Slope (%) 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14

Bulk density (Mg/m3)

Before sowing 1.32 1.32 1.32 1.32 1.32 1.32

Loosened soil, before irrigation 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24

After ®rst irrigation 1.27 1.32 1.36 1.34

Surface layer 1.26 1.32 1.34 1.32

Applied irrigation water (mm)

Average 174 140 178 249 237 300

Cumulative 611 490 625 873 831 1051

Water intake (mm)

Average 146 105 133 191 165 219

Cumulative 510 367 465 669 579 769

Sx (Q1)�12.96 aa ba aa

Sx (Q2)�12.33 ba ca aa

Tailwater runoff (mm)

Total 101 123 160 204 252 282

Deep percolation (mm)

Total 104 29 95 274 165 339

Advance, average, minimum

First irrigation 238 192 284 127 99 106

Seasonal 203 143 178 107 91 111

a Letters a, b and c indicate the cumulative water intake group which are statistically different at 5% level.


Fig. 3. Relationship between average advance volume ratios (vol. surge/vol. steady) for surge and steady ¯ows.

R.

Ka

nb

eret

al./A

gricu

ltura

lW

ater

Ma

nagem

ent

47

(2001)

119±135

127

applications, the volume ratios for surge flow with a small inflow rate were less than one

through the furrow length. The values of the volume ratio less than one show that less

water was needed for the surge flow than the continuous flow. At the end of the furrow,

the volume ratio was about 0.65, which may account for the surge effect on the water

advance. For the surge treatment having a larger inflow rate, the effect of the surge flow

advance acceleration is shown nearly at the end of the furrow length, which is irrigated by

surges more than two cycles. The 0.80 volume ratio obtained at the end of furrow can be a

more accepted value of surge effect on water advance. Seasonal volume ratios for S12/C1

were higher than that for the first irrigation. However, at the end of the furrow, the volume

ratio was 0.82, which is an acceptable value for the surge effect on the acceleration of the

water advance. For treatments with a high inflow rate, seasonal volume ratios were lower

for the first irrigation, which showed less water consumption in the surge flow for all the

seasonal applications. The seasonal volume ratios varied from 1.3 for the head of the

furrow to 0.80 for the end of the furrow length. The differences between the first and the

seasonal irrigations, obtained between treatments, having different inflow rates, can be

related to the treatments which have caused different velocities of consolidation due to

negative hydraulic gradients and surface sealing caused by soil particle migration

(Humphreys, 1989).

3.3. Water intake

The cumulative intake was reduced by surge flow from 465 mm for C1 to 510 mm for

S11 and to 367 mm for S12, and from 769 mm for C2 to 669 mm for S21 and to 579 mm

for S22 (Table 2). There were differences in the cumulative intake between treatments

depending on inflow rates and cycle ratios. The highest cumulative intake was obtained

for the treatments with high inflow rate. The highest intake with 510 mm in S11

(treatment with low inflow rate) may be due to the duration of water in the furrow during

the advance phase. This surge treatment has a high cycle ratio and slower advances

registered in both of the trial years. The effect of the surge flow on reducing intake was

highest early in the season. The reduction averaged 17 and 35% for S11 and S12 with low

inflow, and 13 and 25% for S21 and S22 with high inflow rates compared to steady flows.

The intake decreased with time in all treatments in the irrigation season. The average

intake decreased from 133 mm for C1 to 105 mm for S12 with 21% reduction, and

219 mm for C2 to 191 mm for S21 and to 165 mm for S22 with 13 and 25% reductions,

respectively, during the next evaluated irrigations.

The drying of the surface soil between surges, resulting in consolidation and reduced

intake during subsequent applications is a pronounced effect even when the soil surface is

in a loosened condition from initial tillage (Musick et al., 1987). Later in the season, the

reduced intake effect declines when the surface soil layer is consolidated from previous

irrigations. Dry bulk densities of compacted surface soils averaged to 1.32 Mg/m3 before

sowing, and 1.24 Mg/m3 for the loosened soil condition before the first evaluated

irrigation. After the first evaluated irrigation, the surface soil layer bulk densities in S12,

S22, C1 and C2 were 1.27, 1.36, 1.32, and 1.34 Mg/m3, respectively. The surface soil

densities in treatments remained at 1.26 Mg/m3 for S12, 1.34 Mg/m3 for S22, and

1.32 Mg/m3 for C1 and C2 for the other subsequent sampling dates throughout the


harvest. The increase in the bulk density from 1.24 Mg/m3 for the loosened surface layer

to 1.26±1.34 Mg/m3 for the consolidated surface soil after irrigation accounts for a

substantial reduction in macroporosity. This may account for the surge flow intake

reduction effect of about 21% in S12, 23% in S22 and 13% in S21 for nonconsolidated

surfaces compared to about 8% in S12, 12% in S21 and 20% in S22 intake reduction after

consolidation by irrigation.

3.4. Tailwater runoff

The cumulative tailwater runoff for treatments is shown in Fig. 4. The average runoff

totaled 123 and 252 mm or 25 and 30% for water applied for surge flow treatments S12

and S22, and 161 and 282 mm or 26 and 27% for steady flow C1 and C2, respectively.

Tailwater losses in steady flow treatments were higher than that in all of the surge flows

which used the same inflow rate with the continuous furrows. In S12 and S22 surge flow

treatments, less average tailwater losses were measured with 24 and 11%, respectively,

according to C1 and C2 steady flows. The reduced tailwater runoff volume in surge flows

can be attributed to the insufficient water and short total irrigation time applied in the

subsequent applications. Tailwater losses were higher in 1992 than those in 1991 for all

treatments because of the longer post-advance time used in irrigations. The post-advance

time varied from 128 to 220 min according to the infiltration opportunity time. The

higher inflow rate and cycle ratio increased the runoff losses in the treatments. The

tailwater for all treatments increased at the following applications, whereas the post-

advance time decreased. This may be due to the decrease in infiltration rate.

3.5. In®ltrated water and length-of-run distribution, and deep percolation

The average infiltrated water data calculated by adjusted infiltration functions after

applications indicated that the soil profiles under surge flows were slightly drier than the

steady flow treatments, especially in the S12 treatment (Fig. 5 and Table 2). Soil water

data were taken before the irrigation applications and used as an average. The average

soil moisture deficit (SMD) before irrigation events was 122 mm for the first application

and 123 mm for all the seasonal irrigations. Treatments, which have higher inflow rates,

have had higher infiltration rates. However, profile storage by irrigation was similar for

surge and steady flow treatments. Therefore, the average intake of 25% for S12 and 23%

for S22 had essentially no effect on profile storage behaviors along the furrow length.

The seasonal average infiltrated water depths in Fig. 5 indicated that the surge flow

was reduced variably with the length-of-run. Surge flows resulted in relatively uniform

soil water contents, while steady flows resulted in continuously decreasing water contents

down the field.

Deep percolation below the 1.2 m rooting depth, was measured from the soil moisture

deficit (SMD) by the average infiltrated water depth before and after irrigation events.

The average deep percolation totaled 29 and 165 mm or 6 and 20% for water applied in

surge flow treatments S12 and S22, and 95 and 339 mm or 15 and 32% for steady flow C1

and C2, respectively. Deep percolation losses in steady flows and the treatments, which

have higher inflow rates, were higher than that in the others. Surge flow reduced the


Fig. 4. Cumulative runoff for evaluated irrigations for surge and steady ¯ow treatments.

13

0R

.K

an

ber

eta

l./Ag

ricultu

ral

Wa

terM

an

agem

ent

47

(2001)

119±135

seasonal deep percolation. The reduction averaged 70% for S12 with low inflow, and 19

and 51% for S21 and S22 with high inflow rates compared to the steady flows. Higher

deep percolation losses were obtained in all treatments in the first application due to over

irrigation. However, surge flow, by substantially reducing excessive intake, reduced

average deep percolation for the evaluated irrigations from 23 to 6 mm for S12, and from

99 to 23 mm for S22. Highest deep percolations were obtained in 1992 than in 1991 due to

the longer post-advance time used in all treatments.

3.6. Irrigation performances

Irrigation performance parameters calculated for treatments are given in Table 3. In

1991, the average application efficiency for surge flows ranged from 64 to 73%, meaning

that 27±36% of the water applied was wasted or was not available for the crops. These

Fig. 5. In®ltrated depth along the furrow length for surge and steady ¯ows.


losses were 40±56% for C1 and C2 treatments, respectively (Ea were 60 and 46% for C1

and C2 with lower results). The average requirement efficiency was 100% in S11, S22 and

C2 and higher than 70% in S12, S21 and C1 treatments. However, Er was still in acceptable

limits for all treatments. The average infiltration efficiency was higher than 70% in all

treatments, except C2 with 54%.

The wasted water due to tailwater and deep percolation in surged flow ranged from 8%

(S11) to 33% (S21) and from 2% (S21 and S22) to 21% (S11), respectively. In continuous

flow, these values varied from 24 to 16% for C1 and from 14 to 40% for C2, respectively.

The highest wasted water from tailwater and deep percolation was obtained in S21 with

33% of TWR and in S11 with 21% of DPR.

It should be noted that the high DPR and TWR in continuous and surge flows, resulted

in a lower application efficiency. The uniformity coefficients (UCC and DU) ranging

from 69 to 94% are within the acceptable limits, except the DU value of S11. This shows

that decreasing the infiltration rate with time resulted in acceptable uniformity

coefficients even if there were significant differences in the opportunity time. However,

in the S11 treatment, the lowest DU value was obtained. This could be the result of the

higher deep percolation losses in this treatment.

According to the results in 1992, the average application efficiencies for surge

treatments changed from 45% in S21 to 69% in S12. This value ranged from 47 to 64% for

the continuous flow furrow. In treatments with higher inflow rates, the application

efficiency was less than that in others. This means that much of the water was not

available for the crop. The average requirement efficiency was 100% in C2, S21 and S22

Table 3

Estimated average irrigation performance parameters in percent for surge and steady ¯ows

Treatment Year Ea Er Ei TWR DPR UCC DU

C1 1991 60 89 81 24 16 90 83

1992 64 85 91 29 7 90 81

Average 62 87 86 26 12 90 82

S11 1991 71 100 77 8 21 82 69

1992 65 92 88 22 13 91 80

Average 68 96 83 15 17 87 75

S12 1991 73 70 91 18 9 88 79

1992 69 86 97 29 2 93 86

Average 71 78 94 24 5 91 83

C2 1991 46 100 54 14 40 94 88

1992 47 100 65 26 27 93 87

Average 47 100 60 20 33 94 88

S21 1991 66 81 83 33 2 94 89

1992 45 100 55 19 36 73 88

Average 55 91 69 26 19 84 89

S22 1991 64 99 80 32 2 92 84

1992 51 100 73 27 22 96 92

Average 58 100 77 30 12 94 88


and higher than 80% in S11, S12 and C1 treatments. The average maximum infiltration

efficiency was obtained from S12 with 97%, whereas the minimum value of Er was

measured in S21 with 55%.

There were no significant differences between the TWR values of treatments, except

S21 with 19%. The average tailwater losses were nearly 26% in the treatments. The

wasted water due to the tailwater and deep percolation in surge flows varied from 19%

(S21) to 29% (S12) and from 2% (S12) to 36% (S21), respectively. In continuous furrows,

these losses ranged from 7% (C1) to 27% (C2).

The highest loss of water was measured in C2 with a total of 53% and in S21 with a

total of 55%. It should be considered that the high DPR and TWR in continuous and surge

resulted in lower application efficiency. The uniformity coefficients (UCC and UD) in all

treatments are within acceptable limits with values higher than 80%.

4. Conclusions

Surge irrigation resulted in faster water advance than the continuous flow due to the

influence of the wetting and drying cycles on soil infiltration characteristics. The full

advance volume ratio of surge flow is smaller than that of steady flow. Therefore, less

water was consumed to attain a given advance distance. Thus, a better water distribution

in the soil profile and lower drainage volumes were observed.

Loosening soil with primary tillage increased the water intake rates, this, in turn,

reduced the excessive water use by 17±35%. On the other hand, small cycle ratios

reduced the water intake rates by 13±23% over the irrigation season. This result indicated

that for seasonal irrigations, the use of surge flow may not be a beneficial practice in

reducing water intake and may increase the tailwater runoff. However, in this study, the

average total runoff for 2 years was lower under surge because of insufficient water and

the short irrigation period applied. Thus, this study demonstrated that deep surge flow

decreased percolation losses and the reduction averaged from 19 to 70% compared to the

steady flows.

Based on this study, surge irrigation appears to be a promising alternative for

decreasing drainage volumes in the Harran plain where the soils have high infiltration

capacities. This is especially true for early-season irrigations where the high infiltration

rates can result in low application efficiencies with the conventional continuous flow

irrigation. However, more information is needed to establish the best management

practices in the field, including the optimum combination of inflow rates, cycle times,

number of surges, and relation with cut-back techniques along with the determination of

pore shape changes by image analysis of soil polished blocks between irrigation practices

and determination of particle sizes and shapes of transported particles along the furrows.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to express their gratitude to the University of CËukurova

Research Fund in Adana and to the British Council for supporting this project. Special


thanks are due to Mr. Andrew Picken and Nursel Akdemir, Ankara Office-BC for their

invaluable efforts.

References

Allen, L.N., 1980. Advance rates in furrow irrigation for cycled ¯ow. M.Sc. Thesis, Utah State University,

Logan, Utah.

Bishop, A.A., Walker, W.R., Allen, W.L., Poole, G.J., 1981. Furrow advance rates under surge ¯ow system. J.

Irrig. Drain. Div. IR3, 257±264.

Blaire, A.W., Smerdon, E.T., Rutledge, J., 1984. An in®ltration model for surge irrigation. In: ASCE

Proceedings of the Irrigation and Drainage Division Spec. Conference, Flagstaf, Arizona, USA, pp. 691±700.

CËetin, OÈ ., 1992. Comparison of different irrigation methods (furrow, trickle, LEPA, and sprinkler) for cotton

under Harran plain conditions. Final Report, Ministry of Rural Affairs, Sanliurfa, 84 pp.

Coupal, R.H., Wilson, P.N., 1990. Adopting water conserving irrigation technology. The case of surge irrigation

in Arizona. Agric. Water Manage. 18, 15±28.

DincË, U., Senol, S., Sayin, M., Kapur, S., Sari, M., Yegingil, I., Yesilsoy, M.S., CËolak, A.K., OÈ zbek, H., Kara, E.,

1991. The Physical, chemical, and biological properties and classi®cation-mapping of soils of the Harran

plain. In: Kapur, S. (Ed.), Soils of the Harran Plain. Final Report of the TOAG-534 Project, TUBITAK,

Ankara, pp. 1±10.

Ersahin, S., 1990. The relationship between some basic soil characteristics with in®ltration rates of important

and common six soil series at the Harran plain. M.Sc. Thesis, Graduate School of Science, CËukurova

University, Adana.

FAO/UNESCO, 1974. Soil map of the world 1/5.000.000. Legend, Vol. 1. UNESCO Paris Working Group on

Land Use Planning, Rome, 121 pp.

Goldhammer, D.A., Prichard, T., Cross, C., 1987a. Fundamentals of surge irrigation. Soil and Water 71, 2±12.

Goldhammer, D.A., Alemi, M.H., Phene, R.C., 1987b. Surge vs. continuous ¯ow irrigation. California Agric. 41,

29±32.

Humphreys, A.S., 1989. Surge irrigation. 1. An over-view. ICID Bull. 2, 35±48.

Izuno, F.T., Podmore, T.H., 1986. Surge irrigation management. Agric. Water Manage 11, 279±291.

Izuno, F.T., Podmore, T.H., Duke, H.R., 1985. In®ltration under surge irrigation. Trans. ASAE 3, 517±521.

Jalali-Farahani, H.R., Duke, H.R., Heerman, D.F., 1993a. Physics of surge irrigation. I. Quantifying soil physical

parameters. Trans. ASAE 36 (1), 37±44.

Jalali-Farahani, H.R., Heerman, D.F., Duke, H.R., 1993b. Physics of surge irrigation. II. Relationship between

soil physical and hydraulic parameters. Trans. ASAE 36 (1), 45±50.

James, L.G., 1988. Principles of Farm Irrigation System Design `̀ Surface Irrigation''. Wiley, New York, pp.

301±382.

Jensen, M.E. (Ed.), 1980. Design and operation of farm irrigation systems. ASAE monograph 3, St. Joseph,

Michigan, MI.

Karaata, H., 1984. Irrigation Guide of the Urfa-Harran Plain, Vol. 8. Soil and Water General, Directorate

Ministry of Agriculture, Ankara, 74 pp.

Malano, H.M., 1982. Comparison of the in®ltration process under continuous and surge irrigation. M.Sc. Thesis,

Department of Agricultural Irrigation Engineering, Utah State University, Logan, Utah, 107 pp.

Manges, H., Hooker, M.L., 1984. Field comparison of continuous surge, and cutback irrigation. ASAE Paper

No. 84-2093, ASAE, St. Joseph, MI, 14 pp.

McCornick, P.G., 1986. Evaluation and management of surge irrigation. M.Sc. Thesis, Department of

Agriculture and Chemical Engineering, Colorado State University, CO, 113 pp.

Merriam, J.L., Shearer, M.N., Burt, C.M., 1980. Evaluating irrigation system and practices. In: Jensen,

M.E. (Ed.), Design and Operation of Farm Irrigation Systems. ASAE monograph 3, St. Joseph, MI, pp.

721±760.

Musick, J.T., Walker, J.D., Schneider, A.D., Pringle, F.B., 1987. Seasonal evaluation of surge ¯ow irrigation for

corn. Appl. Eng. Agric. 3 (2), 247±251.


Pitts, D.J., Ferguson, J.A., 1985. A comparison of surge and continuous ¯ow furrow irrigation on clay soil with

¯at grade. ASAE Paper No. 85-2584, ASAE, St. Joseph, MI, 12 pp.

Podmore, T.H., Duke, H.R., 1982. Field evaluation of surge irrigation. ASAE Paper No. 82-2102, ASAE, St.

Joseph, MI, 15 pp.

Podmore, T.H., Duke, H.R., Izuno, F.T., 1983. Implementation of surge irrigation. ASAE Paper No. 83-2018,

ASAE, St. Joseph, MI, p. 10.

Rodrigues, C.M.M., 1989. Pulsed furrow irrigation evaluation. M.Sc. Thesis, Crand®eld Institute of Technology,

Silsoe College, Bedford, 58 pp.

Samani, Z.A., Walker, W.R., Willardson, L.S., 1985. In®ltration under surge ¯ow irrigation. Trans. ASAE 28 (5),

1539±1542.

Stringham, G.E., Keller, J., 1979. Surge ¯ow for automatic irrigation. In: ASCE Proceedings of the Irrigation

and Drainage Division Spec. Conference, Albaquerque, New Mexico, pp. 132±142.

Tekinel, O., CËevik, B., Kanber, R., Yazar, A., OÈ nder, S., KoÈksal, H., 1991. Determination of ef®cient irrigation

water for irrigation systems. In: Tekinel, O. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Workshop on Selection of Irrigation

Systems in the GAP Region, Adana, Turkey, 25±26 November 1990, pp. 1±18.

USDA-NRCS, 1996. Keys to Soil Taxonomy, 7th Edition. USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service,

Washington, DC, p. 644.

USDA-SCS, 1986. Surge Flow Irrigation Field Guide. USDA-SCS, Washington, DC, p. 32.

Walker, W.R., 1989. Guidelines for designing and evaluating surface irrigation systems. Irrig. Drain. Paper No.

45, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome, pp. 47±64.

Walker, J., Schlegel, N.R., 1984. Field testing of surge irrigation systems. In: Proceedings of the Surge Flow

Irrigation Conference, Texas Agricultural Extension Service, Midland, pp. IV±IV.11.

Walker, W.R., Skogerboe, G.V., 1987. Surge ¯ow surface irrigation. In: Surface Irrigation: Theory and Practices.

Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp. 212±234.

Westendorp, J.A., Podmore, T.H., 1987. Tailwater management with surge irrigation. In: James, L. (Ed.),

Proceedings of the Symposium on Irrigation Systems for the 21st Century, Portland, OR, 28±30 July. ASCE,

pp. 401±408.

Westfall, B.D., 1987. Effects of soils on surge ¯ow irrigation with cutback. M.Sc. Thesis, Utah State University,

Logan, Utah.

Yonts, C.D., Eisenhauer, D.E., 1989. Surge Irrigation. Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University

of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE, 8 pp.


Comparison of surge and continuous furrow methods for cotton in the Harran plain

Documents

Transcript of Comparison of surge and continuous furrow methods for cotton in the Harran plain