PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS OF SELF –
COMPENSATING GATED PIPE FOR IMPROVING
SURFACE IRRIGATION EFFICIENCY
By Ahmed Faris El-Shafie (EL-Shafie, A. F.)
1 of 18
More Related Content
PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS OF SELF – COMPENSATING GATED PIPE FOR IMPROVING SURFACE IRRIGATION EFFICIENCY
1. Misr J. Ag. Eng., July 2009 1318
PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS OF SELF –
COMPENSATING GATED PIPE FOR IMPROVING
SURFACE IRRIGATION EFFICIENCY
EL-Shafie, A. F.1
; O.M. Beder 2
; M. M. Hussein 3
; A.M. El-Gindy 4
ABSTRACT
Rationalizing irrigation water and maximizing water use efficiency
became the priority of irrigation planners and users under Egyptian
conditions. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate adjusted of
self-compensating gated pipe for modified surface irrigation and to
evaluate the pepper yield response and water use efficiency under three
irrigation system (drip irrigation ,traditional gated pipe and modified
gated pipe) and three water treatments (100, 75 and 50% of ETC) in old
land conditions of Egypt. Hereby field experiments were carried out at
the Experimental Farm of Faculty of Agriculture, Ain Shams University,
Kalubia Governorate, which represents alluvial soils, for two successive
growing seasons 2006 and 2007. Results revealed that. In laboratory
experiments of self-compensating gated pipe out let average discharge
from 29 L/min were obtained at pressure range of (2 – 9 kPa) with
coefficients of variation less than 0.9%. Uniform discharge was obtained
at modified gated pipe under pressure range of 45-90 cm. Corresponding
field data were similar to laboratory data. Regular uniform water flow
from gates and regular uniform pressure head from each outlet was
obtained along line at modified gated pipe under constant pressure.
Regular advance times approximately was obtained in modified gated
pipe along furrows (0.6, 1.5, 2.6, 4, 5.4 and 6.7 min) at the first furrow
and (0.7, 1.7, 3, 4.5, 6.2 and 7.7 min) in the end furrow at distance in
meter (4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24 m) respectively the same trend of recession
1-Researcher Assistant, Water Relations and Field Irrig. Dept., National Research Center
2-Lec., Agric. Eng. Dept., Fac. of Agric., Ain Shams Unvi.
3-Prof. Water Relations and Field Irrig. Dept., National Research Center.
4-Prof. Agric. Eng. Dept., Fac. of Agric., Ain Shams Unvi.
Misr J. Ag. Eng., 26(3): 1318- 1335 IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE
2. Misr J. Ag. Eng., July 2009 1319
time (min).Uniformity coefficient of distribution (CUD) along traditional
and modified gated pipe was 82.7% and 96.3%, respectively. The highest
total fresh pepper fruit yields (14319.5 kg/fed) with 75% of ETC under
modified gated pipe, respectively. Water use efficiency treatment 50 % of
ETC under drip irrigation was the superior in WUE (5.7 kg/m3
).
INTRODUCTION
ile Valley and Delta soils are mainly irrigated based on surface
irrigation system which is with quiet low efficiency that ranged of
about 47 up to 50%. Due to limited water resources, arid climate
and fast increasing of in population, more water is required for
eliminating the demand available balance gape. Therefore, developing
surface irrigation by using gated-pipes technique provides an important
tool to improve its performance. Uniform water flow may be regulated by
adjusting the size of the outlet opening manually with some difficulties,
which may be reducing water application. Osman, 2000 mentioned that
good design of gated pipes with precision land -leveling may improve the
water distribution uniformity and save irrigation water by about 12 and 29
% in cotton and wheat, resp. El-Sayed, 1998 found
that the required head to efficiency. Short flexible sieves may be attached
to the outlets to dissipate energy and minimize erosion at furrow inlets.
Operate the GP is 50 cm or less under alluvial soil conditions. El-Gindy
et al., 2000 found that by using gated pipe, irrigation significantly
affected fruit shape homogeneity and specific weights of fruit and
pericarp. Osman, 2003 conducted two field experiments for two growing
seasons (2000 and 2002) to investigate the response of field crops and old
Mango farm to the modified surface irrigation system with gated pipes
comparing with traditional, to determine the actual water requirements
and economical efficiency, for some field crops such as cotton, wheat,
corn and rice crops. Results indicated that by using gated pipes, the
highest cotton, wheat, corn and rice yield, were obtained (61.1, 65.2, 116
and 53.6 %) when compared to the traditional irrigation system.
Meanwhile, water saving was (29.64, 29.9, 14.5 and 19.7 %) in cotton,
wheat, corn and rice compared with traditional (flooding) system. Water
use efficiencies for an improved surface irrigated cotton, wheat; corn and
rice were higher than traditional system, by (129, 137, 154.4 and 79.4 %),
N
3. Misr J. Ag. Eng., July 2009 1320
respectively. The same results showed that using gated pipes obtained the
highest mango yield by 37.2% technique. Also, water was saved by
19.8% in mango compared with traditional system. Water utilization
efficiency by using improved surface irrigated mango with gated pipes,
increased by 70.7% compared with traditional system. El- Awady et al.,
2004 stated that the hydraulics characteristics of rectangular – gated pipes
were studied by observing the distribution uniformity of flow, pressure
along pipe and the discharge coefficient for the gate. Results included: (1)
laboratory work to calibrate sliding gates under different pressures, outlet
areas and discharge coefficients, (2) theoretical determination of suitable
outlet area to give high distribution uniformity by a new mathematical
approach, and (3) field work to examine the results under calculated
outlet areas along 6" (150 mm) gated pipe. Results also showed great
agreement the theoretical gated pipe flow rate, based on newly derived
equation and the corresponding fieldwork. El- Awady et al., 2005 stated
that the hydraulic and engineering factors affecting the design of a Self-
Compensating Gated Outlet (SCGO) found that the Average discharges
from 10.75 to 21.7 L/min were obtained at pressure range of (2 – 9 kPa)
coefficients of variation of less than 0.9 %, and head exponent close to
zero. Mathematical model & dimensional analysis approach could be
used to predict the designed gate outlet discharge with correlation range
of 96- 99% between measured and calculated data.
The main objectives of this study:
To evaluate adjusted and self-compensating gated pipe for modified
surface irrigation and evaluated the pepper yield response and improve
water use efficiency under three water treatments (100, 75 and 50% of
ETC) in old land of Egypt.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Experimental site:
Field experiments were carried out in the Experimental Farm of Faculty
of Agriculture, Ain Shams University, El-Kanater city, Kalubia
Governorate, to study the performance analysis of self-compensating
gated pipe, traditional gated pipe and effect of irrigation system (drip
4. Misr J. Ag. Eng., July 2009 1321
irrigation ,traditional gated pipe and modified gated pipe) and water
requirements on yield and water use efficiency of pepper crop.
Some physical properties of the soil:
Soil particle size distribution was carried out using Pipette method after
(Gee and Bauder, 1986). Soil bulk density (B.D) was measured after
(Black and Hartage, 1986). Soil moisture content at field capacity (F.C)
and permanent wilting point (P.W.P) were measured according to
(Walter and Gardener, 1986).
Table 1. Some soil physical properties of the soil:
Soil depth,
cm
Particle Size Distribution, % FC PWP AW
BD
(g /cm3
)
Texture
classCoarse
Sand
Fine
Sand
Silt Clay θw %
0-15 0.81 27.8 41.44 29.95 35.45 19.2 16.25 1.25 C.L
15-30 0.7 27.5 41 30.6 35.2 19.44 15.76 1.26 C.L
30-45 0.61 27.8 38.45 33.14 34.7 19.8 14.9 1.28 C.L
FC: Field capacity; PWP: permanent Welting point (Fc and PWP) were determined as percentage in weight;
B.D: Bulk density; AW: Available water; CL: Clay loam
Some chemical properties of soil:
Some chemical properties of the soil were measured such as:
Soil pH and EC were measured in 1:2.5 soils: water suspension and in
soil past extract, respectively. Soluble cations and anions were determined
by titration methods and flame photometer according to Jackson (1967).
Some chemical properties of the soil are presented in Table (2).
Table 2. Some chemical analysis of the soil:
Sample
depth, cm
pH
1:2.5
ECe
dS/m
1:5
Soluble Cations, meq/L Soluble Anions, meq/L
Ca+2
Mg+2
Na+
K+
CO3
--
HCO3
-
SO4
--
Cl-
0-15 7.9 0.26 0.41 0.47 0.43 0.19 - 0.64 0.36 0.50
15-30 7.8 0.25 0.46 0.35 0.50 0.17 - 0.76 0.15 0.57
30-45 7.6 0.26 0.55 0.54 0.61 0.2 - 0.78 0.34 0.78
Some chemical properties of irrigation water:
Chemical analyses of irrigation water were carried out by using the
standard methods and they are presented in Table (3).
Table 3. Some chemical analysis of irrigation water.
pH
EC
dS/m
Soluble Cations, meq/L Soluble Anions, meq/L
SAR
Ca+2
Mg+2
Na+
K+
HCO3
-
SO4
--
Cl-
7.37 0.85 1.72 0.85 4.78 0.85 2.18 0.14 5.88 4.22
5. Misr J. Ag. Eng., July 2009 1322
Irrigation systems:
Control head is located at the source of the water supply. It consists of
centrifugal pump (80 m3
/h discharge,30 HP and 50 m lift), control value,
pressure gauges, P.V.C pipes main line were used to convey the water
from the water source to the main control points in the field. Three
irrigation systems were selected to irrigate pepper plants. The first is
surface built in drip lines system (GR, 4 L/h) with 50cm emitters spacing
(SDI) 16mm laterals were used at 60 cm spacing. The second system is
modified gated pipe with self- compensating gate outlet (SCGO) Gated
pipe body was made of a P.V.C of 63 mm diameter gates diameters is 63
mm distance between gates along line was 60 cm The third system is
traditional Gated pipe body was made of a P.V.C of 63 mm diameter
gates distance between gates along line was 60 cm.
Components of the designed (SCGO).
The developed self-compensating gate outlet (SCGO) consists of four
parts, as shown in Figs. 1 and 2.
Gated outlet body: The gate outlet body was made of a P.V.C pipe of 63
mm out side diameter. The total length of the gate cutlet body is 35cm.
The grooved disk rests at 10 cm from the body end. 2) Grooved disk: A
P.V.C disk of 58.64 mm diameter of variable thickness was inserted
inside the gate outlet body. Four similar radial grooves were formed on
the surface of the disk to perform the compensating action together with a
rubber membrane. 3) Rubber membrane: of 52.25 mm diameter, 3.38mm
thickness and stiffness of 26.27 N/cm. 4) Pin: A P.V.C pin of 4 mm
diameter was made to fasten rubber membrane with grooved disk.
Laboratory experiments
Laboratory apparatus was used to measure pressure range from 20-90 cm
with an accuracy of 10cm consisting of water manometer and water
reservoir with an over flow pipe to establish constant head devise for
(SCGO) calibration as shown in fig.3.
6. Misr J. Ag. Eng., July 2009 1323
Fig.1 Grooved disk detail
Fig.2 Gate outlet assembly section
Fig.3 schematic laboratory apparatus constructed for gated orifice
test.
Irrigation water requirement calculation:
Irrigation water requirements for pepper were calculated according to the
local weather station data at Shalakan affiliated to the Central Laboratory
for Agricultural Climate (C. L. A. C), Ministry of Agriculture and Land
Reclamation. Irrigation water requirement for pepper crop was calculated
from the following equation (Vermeiren and Jobling, 1980):
IR = (ET0 x Kc x Kr / Ei) + LR
Where: IR = Irrigation water requirements.
ET0 = Reference evapotranspiration mm/day
Kc = Crop coefficient fore pepper crop.
Kr = Reduction factor due to ground cover.
P.V.C
Gated
P.V.C
support
Grooved
disk
Grooved
disk
Rubber
Tested gate
Control Valve 2''
Pizometric tube
Tank of
water
7. Misr J. Ag. Eng., July 2009 1324
Ei = Irrigation system efficiency.
LR = Leaching requirements.
Water treatments:
Three water application rates were applied for irrigating pepper crop: i.e.
50 %, 75 % and 100 % of water requirements of pepper crop ETC
Table (4): Average actual application water treatments of tow
seasons:
Fig. (4) The layout of the experimental design of irrigation systems
Irrigation system Water
treatments
Actual application m3
/fed
Drip irrigation system 100% 3092
75% 2319
50% 1546
Modified gated pipe 100% 4066
75% 3050
50% 2033
Traditional gated pipe 100% 4608
75% 3456
50% 2304
Modified
gated pipe
Traditional
gated pipe
75 % ETC
50 % ETC
100% ETC
Pump
100 % ETC
100% ETC50% ETC
50 % ETC
75 % ETC
75 % ETC
24 m
11 m
Ø110
mm
Ø75
mm
Surface Drip
8. Misr J. Ag. Eng., July 2009 1325
Measurements and Calculations:
Laboratory experiments
Gate discharge
The discharge of gate was determined at different pressure-heads.
The following formulas were used to calculate average discharge and
discharge range.
q min. + q max.
q mean. = * 100
2
q min. or max - q mean.
q rang +% = * 100
q mean
qav = ∑q / n
Where: q: discharge, L/min, n: number of measured points, q min.: mean
discharge, L/min, q min.: minimum discharge, L/min, q max: maximum
discharge, L/min, ∑q: summation of discharge, L/min, qav.: average
discharge, L/ min, and q rang +: discharge variation, %.
Coefficient of variation
Hydraulic design of drip irrigation lateral-line is usually based on a design
criterion (El- Awady et al., 1976 and Wu et al., 1979) using an emitter
flow variation.
MCV = (s/q)
"s" is the standard deviation of emitter flow and "q" is the mean emitter
flow. The manufacture coefficient of variation (MCV) ranges, in general,
from 0.5 to 0.2 for different emitters and lateral-lines (Solomon, 1979
and Bralts, 1978). The AENRI-LOFTI-MSAE Standard
(dremtest2002) interpreted MCV as follows "<0.1 → GOOD, 0.1-0.2
→ AVERAGE, and > 0.2 → UNSATISFACTORY.
Manufacturing coefficient was calculated for the designed gate outlet to
determine its effect on the total variation caused along lateral-line.
9. Misr J. Ag. Eng., July 2009 1326
Field experiments
1- Hydraulic performance analysis:
a- Measuring discharge along line of traditional and modified of
gated pipe under different operating pressure range from (45-
90) cm using piezometer tube.
b- Measuring discharge and pressure head of gates outlet along
pipe line of traditional and modified gated pipe under constant
pressure.
c- The advance time (min), and recession time (min) and of water
were recorded at seven points at equal distances along each
furrow of traditional and modified gated pipe.
d-Uniformity coefficient was calculated by using the Christiansen
uniformity coefficient "CU" (Perold, 1977 and AENRI-
LOFTI-MSAE, 2002)
CU= (1- | δ | ) *100
Where: CU: uniformity coefficient
| δ | :Absolute mean deviation of discharge on along line of pipe
2- Economic yield kg/fed
3-Water use efficiency:
Water use efficiency is an indicator of efficiency of irrigation unit for in
creasing crop yield. Water use efficiency of yield was calculated from
Marketable pepper yield (kg)
WUE kg/m3
=
Irrigation water quality (m3
)
RESULTS AND DISCCUSSION
Laboratory experiments
Hydraulic characteristics of designed gate:
Fig. 5 shows that self compensating gate outlet discharge slightly
increased by increasing pressure in the range (2-9kPa) with gate outlet
discharge of 29 lit/min for design geometries that reflect the effect of
compensation action caused by grooved disk and rubber diaphragm on
discharge regulation.
10. Misr J. Ag. Eng., July 2009 1327
Fig. 5. Effect of pressure on measured discharge for self
compensating gate outlet.
Hydraulic characteristic details are summarized in Table 5, showing the
manufacture coefficient of variation 0.09 % when gate outlet discharges
29 lit/min. The manufacture variation may be due to the hand making of
disk groove. Variations are within "GOOD" category according to
AENRI – LOFTI – MSAE standard (2002). Head exponent is 0.1841
showing an acceptable compensating degree for tested gate outlets.
Table (5): The hydraulic characteristic details for developed of
modified gated pipe
Gate av.
q.,
lit/min.
Discharge, LPM
*C.V **δq
Min.
q
Max.
q
mean
+q
range
%
29 13 29 21 38.1 0.09 1.923
* Coefficient of variation, ** Standard deviation
Field experiments
1- Hydraulic performance analysis:
Measuring discharge along line under different operating pressure
Fig. 6 and 7 show the effect of different operating pressure head on
discharge from each outlet along line of traditional and modified gated
pipe (LPM) (Average discharges modified gated pipe of 15 gates a long
line between 1.8 – 2 L / m) at pressure head range of 45-90 cm uniform
discharge was obtained at modified gated pipe under pressure range of
45-90 cm.
Measuring discharge and pressure head of gates outlet along pipe line
under constant pressure
Fig 8 and 9 show that uniform water flow and uniform pressure head from
each outlet is unregulated along line of traditional gated pipe but uniform
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90
h cm
qlit/min
11. Misr J. Ag. Eng., July 2009 1328
1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
gate number
Dischargeofgatedpipe(l/min)
45 cm 50 cm 55 cm 60 cm 65 cm
70 cm 75 cm 80 cm 85 cm 90 cm
water flow and uniform pressure head from each outlet is regulated a long
line of modified gated pipe
.
Fig.6 Discharge of traditional gated pipe (LPM) under operating
pressure head rang from (45-90) cm.
Fig. 7 Discharge of modified gated pipe (LPM) under operating
pressure head rang from (45-90 cm).
Fig.8. Discharge of gates outlet (LPM) a long pipe line of traditional
and modified gated pipe.
1.80
1.82
1.84
1.86
1.88
1.90
1.91
1.93
1.95
1.97
1.99
2.01
2.03
2.05
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
gate number
Dischargeofgatedpipe(l/min)
45 cm 50 cm 55 cm 60 cm 65 cm
70 cm 75 cm 80 cm 85 cm 90 cm
0
10
20
30
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
No. of gates
.Dischargeofgates
outlet(LPM)
Traditional GP Modified GP
12. Misr J. Ag. Eng., July 2009 1329
Fig. 9. Pressure head (cm) of gates outlet a long pipe line of
traditional and modified gated pipe.
Data presented in Tables 6 and 7 show that advance time (min) of water
along each furrow of traditional and modified gated pipe along of pipe. In
traditional GP advance time increased from (0.5, 1.1, 2.1, 3.2, 4.3 and 5.4
min) at the first furrow to (1.4, 3.2, 4.8, 8.7, 11.8 and 14.6 min) in the end
furrow at distance in meter (4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24 m), respectively. On the
other hand, there are regular advance times approximately in modified GP
along furrows (0.6, 1.5, 2.6, 4, 5.4 and 6.7 min) at the first furrow and
(0.7, 1.7, 3, 4.5, 6.2 and 7.7 min) in the end furrow at distance in meter (4,
8, 12, 16, 20, 24 m), respectively. This may be due to uniform of
discharge and pressure head along pipe line, are shown Figures 8 and 9.
The same trend of recession time (min) in traditional and modified gated
pipe at the first furrow and the end furrow at distance in meter (4, 8, 12,
16, 20, 24 m), are shown Tables 8 and 9.
Table (6): Time of advance (min) of water along each furrows of
traditional gated pipe along of pipe.
Distance
in meter
Time of advance, min
No. of furrow
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
4 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.4
8 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 2.0 2.2 2.5 3.2
12 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.8 3.1 3.1 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.8
16 3.2 3.4 3.8 4.2 4.7 4.7 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.3 6.0 6.8 8.7
20 4.3 4.7 5.2 5.7 6.5 6.5 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 7.2 8.1 9.3 11.8
24 5.4 5.7 6.4 7.0 8.0 8.0 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.9 10.1 11.5 14.6
0
20
40
60
80
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
No. of gates
Pressurheadofgates
outlet(cm)
Traditional GP Modified GP
13. Misr J. Ag. Eng., July 2009 1330
Table (7): Time of advance (min) of water along each furrows of
modified gated pipe along of pipe.
Table (8): Time of recession (min) of water along each furrows of
traditional gated pipe along of pipe.
Distance
in
meter
Time of recession, min
No. of furrow
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
4 125 127 127 129 129 129 130 130 130 130 130 130 131 131 131
8 131 132 132 133 135 135 132 132 132 132 132 132 133 133 133
12 133 134 133 134 135 135 134 134 134 134 134 134 135 134 134
16 134 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 136 136 137
20 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 136 137 138
24 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 137 137 138 140 140
Table (9): Time of recession (min) of water along each furrows of
modified gated pipe along of pipe.
Distance
in
meter
Time of recession, min
No. of furrow
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
4 123 123 126 126 126 126 126 129 129 129 129 129 129 129 129
8 130 130 133 133 133 133 133 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135
12 130 130 133 133 133 133 133 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135
16 135 135 134 134 134 134 134 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135
20 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135
24 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135
Distance
in
meter
Time of advance, min
No. of furrow
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
4 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7
8 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.7
12 2.6 2.6 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 3.0 3.0 3.0
16 4.0 4.0 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.5 4.5 4.5
20 5.4 5.4 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 6.2 6.2 6.2
24 6.7 6.7 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.7 7.7 7.7
14. Misr J. Ag. Eng., July 2009 1331
Average of the two growing season
12299.1
11057.5
8763.3
12303.8
14319.5
10833.2
9433.7 8762.9 8199.4
0
3000
6000
9000
12000
15000
18000
100% 75% 50% 100% 75% 50% 100% 75% 50%
Drip Modified GP Traditional GP
Yieldkg/fed
Uniformity coefficient
Uniformity coefficient of distribution (CUD) along line of traditional and
modified gated pipe it was found (82.7 and 96.3 %), respectively revert
that increase because modified gated pipe contain self compensating
pressure perform increase of uniform discharge of gates outlet along
pipe line. The uniformity considered "GOOD" values for modern
irrigation systems according to AENRI – LOFTI – MSAE standard
(2002).
Economic yield kg/fed
Concerning combined analysis Average the two growing season of fresh
yield/fed data illustrated in Fig. (10) showed that the effect of irrigation
systems and water regimes on fresh yield/fed of pepper. Generally the
highest value (14319.5 kg/fed) under modified GP irrigation system by
irrigated 75% ETC. The modified GP gave the superior in fresh pepper
yield (12303.8, 14319.5 and 10833.2 kg/fed) by irrigated 100%, 75% and
50% ETC treatments, respectively. Followed by drip irrigation system
(12299.1, 11057.5 and 8763 kg/fed) by irrigated 100%, 75% and 50%
ETC treatments respectively. While traditional GP irrigation system came
later (9433.7, 8762.9 and 8199.4 kg/fed) by irrigated 100%, 75% and
50% ETC treatments, respectively. This might concluded that irrigated by
75% ETC under modified GP irrigation system induced the same effect on
yield of pepper crop. Klar and Jadoski (2004) found that the drought
stress caused significant on production and quality of sweet pepper.
Sezen, et al. (2006) reported that poly normal relations were found
between pepper yield and total water use for each irrigation treatments in
both seasons.
.
Fig. 10 Effect of irrigation systems and water treatments on Yield
15. Misr J. Ag. Eng., July 2009 1332
Water use efficiency kg/m3
Concerning combined analysis. Effect of irrigation system and water
regimes are presented in Fig. (11). Data in dictated that WUE under the
different system and water. Generally the highest value (5.7 kg/m3) under
drip irrigation system by irrigated 50% ETC. The drip irrigation gave the
superior in WUE (4, 4.8 and 5.7 kg/m3) by irrigated 100%, 75% and 50%
ETC treatments, respectively. Followed by modified GP irrigation system
(3, 4.7 and 5.3 kg/m3) by irrigated 100%, 75% and 50% ETC treatments,
respectively. While traditional GP irrigation system came later (2, 2.5 and
3.6 kg/m3) by irrigated 100%, 75% and 50% ETC treatments,
respectively. This might concluded that irrigated by 50% ETC under drip
irrigation system induced the same effect on WUE of pepper crop. Data
also noticed that the effect induced by water stress under drip irrigation
was less than those caused under modified GP irrigation system and
traditional GP irrigation system under latter more less than modified GP
irrigation system. Abd-rabbo, et al. (2006) of treatment under drip
irrigation gaves WUE (2.40 kg/m3). El-Dakrorry (2008) showed that in
the 1st season, surface drip irrigation exhibited the high values of WUE
but in the 2nd season, the two drip irrigation was equal. However, the
lowest significant vales were by furrow irrigation, whereas gated pipe
ranked in between.
Fig. 11 Effect of irrigation systems and water treatments on Water
Use efficiency.
Average of the two growing season
4.0
4.8
5.7
3.0
4.7
5.3
2.0 2.5
3.6
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
100%
75%
50%
100%
75%
50%
100%
75%
50%
Drip Modified GP Traditional GP
WUEkg/m3
16. Misr J. Ag. Eng., July 2009 1333
REFERENCES
Abd-rabbo, M. A; Hassanain, M. K. and Medany, W. A:(2006).
Improve in WUE for drip irrigation of maize in Egypt. J. Appl.
Sci, 21(11B) : 478 – 485.
AENRI-LOFTI-MASE (2002). Standard for irrigation dripper testing,
Code No. ir/dr/em/test/2002, The Ag. Eng. Res. Inst. Irrig. Proj.
– Misr Soc. Ag. Eng. Standard: 5p.
Black, G. R. and K. Hartage (1986). Bulk density Methods of Soil
Analysis. Part1 A gron. 2nd
ed. 363-376. ASA and SSSA,
Madison, WI (c. ed. Klute, R.).
Bralts, V. (1978). The effect of emitter flow variation on the design of
single and dual chamber drip irrigation system. M. Sc. Th.,
Hawaii U.: 30-45.
El- Awady, M.N.; G.W. Amerhom, and M. S. Zaki (1976). Trickle
irrigation trail on pea in conditions typical of Qalubia, Egypt. J.
Hort. Sc., 3(1): 99-110.
El- Awady, M. N.; M. T. El- Tanawy: S. S. Hassan and A. O. M. El-
Ashhhab (2004). Water- flow uniformity through irrigation
gated – pipes. http//www.yahoo.com.
El- Awady, M. N.; A. M. El- Lithy and M. A. Osama (2005). Design
and testing of self- compensating outlet for irrigation gated pipe.
MISR J. Ag. Eng., 22(3) 775-791.
El-Dakroury, M.A. (2008). Influence of different irrigation systems and
treatments on productivity and fruit quality of some bean
varieties. M.Sc. Thesis, Faculty of Agriculture Ain Shams
University. Cairo, Egypt.
El-Gindy, A.M.; E.A. El-Sahar and A.A. Abdel-Aziz (2000). Physical
and mechanical properties of mango fruits under different
irrigation systems. Annals-of-Agricultural-Science- Cairo 1: 71-
91.
El-Sayed,-G-H (1998). Hydraulic studies for gated pipes distribution
system. Egyptian-Journal-of-Agricultural-Research. 1998;
76(1): 387-403
17. Misr J. Ag. Eng., July 2009 1334
Gee, G. W. and J. W. Bauder (1986). Particle size analyses. Methods of
Soil Analysis. Part 1 Agron. 2nd
ed. 383-412 ASA and SSSA,
Madison, WI (c. ed. Klte, R.)
Gencoglan, C; I.E. Akinci; S.Akinci; S.Gencoglan and K.Ucan (2005).
Effect of different irrigation methods on yield of red hot pepper
and plant mortality caused by Phytophthora capsiciLeon.
Journal-of-Environmental-Biology; 26(4): 741-746
Jackson, M. L. (1967). Soil chemical Analysis, Prentice Hall,
Inc.,Englewood Cliffs, USA, 54-56.
Klute, A. and C. Dirksen (1986). Hydraulic conductivity and diffusivity.
Laboratory methods. P687-734 Methods of soil analysis. Part 1.
Agronomy 2nd
edition. ASA and SSSA, Madison, WI. In A.
Klute. led)
Osman, H.E (2000). Gated pipes techniques for improved surface
irrigation. Annals of Agricultural Science Cairo 1: 145-155.
Osman, H.,(2003). Improved-irrigation – technologies - and- methods:
Research, development and testing Proceedings ICID-
International-workshop,-Montpellier,France,-14-19-
September;1-17
Perold, P. K. (1977). Design of irrigation pipe laterals with multiple
outlets, ASCE, 103 (Ir2): 179 – 195.
Sezen, S.M; A.Xazar; and S.Eker, (2006). Effect of drip irrigation
regimes on yield and quality of field grown bell pepper.
Agric.Water Manag, 81:115-131.
Solomon, K. (1979). Manufacturing variation of trickle emitters, Trans.
of the ASAE. 22 (5): 1034 – 1038.
Vermeiren, I. and G. A. Jobling (1980). Localized irrigation: design
installation, operation, and evaluation. Irrigation and Drainage
paper No. 36. FAO Rome. 203 pages.
Walter, H; and Gardener. (1986). Water content. Methods of Soil
Analysis. Part 1 Agron. 2nd
ed. 493-544 ASA and SSSA,
Madison, WI (C. F. Klute, R).
Wu, I. P., T. A.Howell, and E. A. Hilar (1979). Hydraulic design of drip
irrigation systems, Tech. Bull. No. 105, Westren Reg. Res. Proj.
W – 128 Report, Hawaii Ag. Exp. St., Hawaii U.: 80 pp.