Subsurface Drip Irrigation: Status of the Technology in 2010

Lamm, Freddie R.; Bordovsky, James P.; Schwankl, Larry; Grabow, Garry L.; Enciso-Medina, J.; Peters, R. Troy; Colaizzi, Paul D.; Trooien, Todd P.; Porter, Dana

doi:10.13031/2013.41387

Cited by 48 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The status of the technology was also discussed in the 2000 and 2010 national irrigation symposiums sponsored by ASABE and the Irrigation Association (Camp et al, 2000;Lamm et al, 2012). The goal of this review is to augment and supplement those earlier articles with a focus on the important SDI crops currently grown in the U.S.…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

Cotton, Tomato, Corn, and Onion Production with Subsurface Drip Irrigation: A Review

Lamm

2016

Trans.ASABE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. The usage of subsurface drip irrigation (SDI) has increased by 89% in the U.S. during the past ten years according to USDA-NASS estimates, and over 93% of the SDI land area is located in just tenubsurface drip irrigation (SDI), the application of irrigation below the soil surface by microirrigation emitters (ASAE, 2007) is growing in usage in the U.S. and around the world. In the ten-year period from 2003 to 2013, SDI in the U.S. increased by 89% from 164,017 to 310,361 ha ( fig. 1) according to USDA-NASS irrigation surveys (USDA-NASS, 2004, 2010. During the same period, SDI averaged approximately 25% of the surface drip irrigation (DI) land area. (Note: microsprinkler and bubbler irrigation are not included in these estimates). However, this comparison can perhaps be skewed by the fact that some of the reported SDI land area contains shallow, annually removed systems that are not intended for multi-year use. The focus of this review is primarily on deeper systems intended for multi-year use.SDI has been the subject of three review articles during the past 20 years: Camp (1998) provided an extensive characterization of the knowledge and studies that had been carried out to date, Rodriguez-Sinobas and Gil-Rodriguez (2012) concentrated on design, uniformity, and soil water redistribution aspects, and Devasirvatham (2009) focused on SDI for vegetable production. The status of the technology was also discussed in the 2000 and 2010 national irrigation symposiums sponsored by ASABE and the Irrigation Association (Camp et al., 2000;Lamm et al., 2012). The goal of this review is to augment and supplement those earlier articles with a focus on the important SDI crops currently grown in the U.S.In 2013, the ten U.S. states with the largest SDI area (289,812 ha) comprised over 93% of the total SDI area but had a wide variation in the ratio of SDI/(SDI+DI) land area ( fig. 2). The variation can probably be explained by the crop production in these states, with DI often used on higher-value crops (typically fruits, nuts, and vegetables) and SDI used on lesser-value commodity crops (e.g., corn, cotton, alfalfa, and other grain crops). There can be also the persistent perception that SDI is harder to manage, mainly because it provides fewer visual cues when irrigation problems are occurring. As a result, many producers growing the higher-value crops choose DI as a less risky option and because the cost of the irrigation system and its installation are not of paramount concern. When growing the lesservalue commodity crops with microirrigation, a deeper, multi-year SDI system that can be amortized over several years is often the only economical option for a producer. This is particularly true in the Great Plains region, where centerpivot sprinkler irrigation has a good economy of scale and where the major sprinkler manufacturers are located (Nebraska). Although the SDI land area in Nebraska and Kansas (near the center of the Great Plains) is relatively small 264TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASABE ( fig. 2), the land area using...

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 98%

Cotton, Tomato, Corn, and Onion Production with Subsurface Drip Irrigation: A Review

Lamm

2016

Trans.ASABE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Irrigated systems have become increasingly complex, and partnering with industry for technology development may be a way to maximize impact by incorporating best management practices into user-friendly industry decision support systems (e.g., smart phone apps for irrigation monitoring and control) and into the technology sold by industry to farmers (e.g., soil, plant, and weather sensing systems integrated into VRI systems). The OAP consortium partners have tried to fill some of these technology transfer gaps with major efforts concerning SDI in 2009-2010 (Lamm et al, 2012) and again for center-pivot irrigation in 2017-2018. A discussion of the center-pivot technology transfer effort is provided by Lamm et al (2019b).…”

Section: Future Policy and Partneringmentioning

confidence: 99%

Past, Present, and Future of Irrigation on the U.S. Great Plains

Evett¹,

Colaizzi²,

Lamm

et al. 2020

Transactions of the ASABE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Highlights Irrigation is key to the productivity of Great Plains agriculture but is threatened by water scarcity. The irrigated area grew to >9 million ha since 1870, mostly since 1950, but is likely to decline. Changes in climate, water availability, irrigated area, and policy will affect productivity. Adaptation and innovation, hallmarks of Great Plains populations, will ensure future success. Abstract. Motivated by the need for sustainable water management and technology for next-generation crop production, the future of irrigation on the U.S. Great Plains was examined through the lenses of past changes in water supply, historical changes in irrigated area, and innovations in irrigation technology, management, and agronomy. We analyzed the history of irrigated agriculture through the 1900s to the present day. We focused particularly on the efficiency and water productivity of irrigation systems (application efficiency, crop water productivity, and irrigation water use productivity) as a connection between water resource management and agricultural production. Technology innovations have greatly increased the efficiency of water application, the productivity of water use, and the agricultural productivity of the Great Plains. We also examined the changes in water stored in the High Plains aquifer, which is the region’s principle supply for irrigation water. Relative to other states, the aquifer has been less impacted in Nebraska, despite large increases in irrigated area. Greatly increased irrigation efficiency has played a role in this, but so have regulations and the recharge to the aquifer from the Nebraska Sand Hills and from rivers crossing the state. The outlook for irrigation is less positive in western Kansas, eastern Colorado, and the Oklahoma and Texas Panhandles. The aquifer in these regions is recharged at rates much less than current pumping, and the aquifer is declining as a result. Improvements in irrigation technology and management plus changes in crops grown have made irrigation ever more efficient and allowed irrigation to continue. There is good reason to expect that future research and development efforts by federal and state researchers, extension specialists, and industry, often in concert, will continue to improve the efficiency and productivity of irrigated agriculture. Public policy changes will also play a role in regulating consumption and motivating on-farm efficiency improvements. Water supplies, while finite, will be stretched much further than projected by some who look only at past rates of consumption. Thus, irrigation will continue to be important economically for an extended period. Sustaining irrigation is crucial to sustained productivity of the Great Plains “bread basket” because on average irrigation doubles the efficiency with which water is turned into crop yields compared with what can be attained in this region with precipitation alone. Lessons learned from the Great Plains are relevant to irrigation in semi-arid and subhumid areas worldwide. Keywords: Center pivot, Crop water productivity, History, Sprinkler irrigation, Subsurface drip irrigation, Water use efficiency.

show abstract

“…Adoption of SDI has increased greatly in recent years, from an estimated 8,000 to 10,000 ha in 2000 to over 180,000 ha in 2019 in the Texas High Plains alone (HPWD, 2019). The rapid adoption has occurred despite several issues, including greater initial costs, poor germination during drought conditions, and the need for rodent control (Lamm, 2009;Lamm et al, 2012). Solutions to these issues would likely further increase the adoption of SDI.…”

Section: Gravitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Forty Years of Increasing Cotton’s Water Productivity and Why the Trend Will Continue

Barnes¹,

Campbell²,

Vellidis³

et al. 2020

Applied Engineering in Agriculture

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Highlights Over the last 40 years the amount of irrigation water used by cotton in the United States has decreased while yields have increased leading to a large increase in crop water productivity (CWP). Many factors have contributed to improved CWP, such as improvements in water delivery systems. Irrigation scheduling technologies have also contributed to improved CWP; however, farmer adoption of advanced scheduling technologies is still limited and there is significant room for improvement. Increased yields from improved cultivars without an increase in water requirements has also been important for CWP. Continued developments in sensor technologies and improved crop simulation models are two examples of future strategies that should allow the U.S. cotton industry to continue an upward trend in CWP. Abstract. Over the last 40 years the amount of irrigation water used by cotton in the United States has decreased while yields have increased. Factors contributing to higher water productivity and decreased irrigation water use include migration of cotton out of the far western U.S. states to the east where more water requirements are met by rainfall; improved irrigation delivery systems with considerable variation in types and adoption rates across the U.S.; improved irrigation scheduling tools; improved genetics and knowledge of cotton physiology, and improved crop models that can help evaluate new irrigation strategies rapidly and inexpensively. The considerable progress over the last 40 years along with the promise of emerging technologies suggest that this progress will continue. Keywords: Cotton, Crop water productivity, Irrigation, Sustainability, Water use efficiency.

show abstract

Subsurface Drip Irrigation: Status of the Technology in 2010

Cited by 48 publications

References 17 publications

Cotton, Tomato, Corn, and Onion Production with Subsurface Drip Irrigation: A Review

Cotton, Tomato, Corn, and Onion Production with Subsurface Drip Irrigation: A Review

Past, Present, and Future of Irrigation on the U.S. Great Plains

Forty Years of Increasing Cotton’s Water Productivity and Why the Trend Will Continue

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About