Field scale limited irrigation scenarios for water policy strategies

Klocke, N. L., Schneekloth, J. P., Melvin, S. R., Clark, R. T. and Payero, J. O. (2004) Field scale limited irrigation scenarios for water policy strategies. Applied Engineering in Agriculture, 20 5: 623-631. doi:10.13031/2013.17465

Attached Files (Some files may be inaccessible until you login with your UQ eSpace credentials)
Name Description MIMEType Size Downloads
UQ245194_OA.pdf Full text (open access) application/pdf 75.14KB 0

Author Klocke, N. L.
Schneekloth, J. P.
Melvin, S. R.
Clark, R. T.
Payero, J. O.
Title Field scale limited irrigation scenarios for water policy strategies
Journal name Applied Engineering in Agriculture   Check publisher's open access policy
ISSN 0883-8542
Publication date 2004-09-01
Sub-type Article (original research)
DOI 10.13031/2013.17465
Open Access Status File (Publisher version)
Volume 20
Issue 5
Start page 623
End page 631
Total pages 9
Place of publication St Joseph, MI, United States
Publisher American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers
Language eng
Formatted abstract
Approaches to reducing irrigation inputs to crops have been studied for the past 50 to 60 years in research settings. Fewer efforts have been made to document limited irrigation responses over a number of seasons on commercial fields. This study compared farm-based irrigation management (FARM) with best management practices (BMP), late initiation of irrigation (LATE), and a restricted allocation (ALLOC). These irrigation management strategies each occupied 1/8 of a center pivot system in southwest Nebraska in continuous corn production, on four cooperating farms, which were replicated at the same sites for 3 to 6 years. Irrigation variables were achieved by irrigating or not irrigating, or by speeding up or slowing down the center pivot. When the grain yields and irrigation amounts were normalized each year using the FARM treatment as the basis, on average for three of four locations, the BMP treatment yielded equal to the FARM treatment, the LATE treatment yielded 93% of the FARM treatment and the ALLOC yielded 84% of the FARM treatment. At the same time, it took 76% and 57% of the water for the LATE and ALLOC treatments, respectively, to achieve these yields. The adjusted gross returns (yield × price - irrigation treatment costs of the irrigation treatments were analyzed for each location. When the gross returns were normalized using the FARM treatment as the basis, FARM and BMP returns were equal across combinations of high and low input commodity prices and pumping costs. The LATE treatment gross return was 95% of FARM return. The gross return for the ALLOC treatment was 85% to 91% of the FARM treatment. The higher the water costs, the lower the difference between the highest and lowest returning water treatments. Relationships between evapotranspiration and grain yield were developed for two sites over the limited range of water applications of the projects. Regressions indicated more variability between the commercial field data and research plot environments. Much of this difference may have been due to yearly replication in this study rather than plot-to-plot replication in the research center study. Yield and irrigation data were normalized on the basis of the FARM treatment. Normalized yield - irrigation results over years and locations for three of the four locations showed declining yields as irrigation decreased. The same regression was used to normalize the locations with soil textures from fine sand to sandy loam, which suggested that the three locations behaved similarly with respect to the management treatments.
Keyword Limited irrigation
Water conservation
Water management
Irrigation scheduling
Irrigation requirements
Irrigation research
Irrigation systems
Q-Index Code C1
Q-Index Status Provisional Code
Institutional Status Non-UQ

Document type: Journal Article
Sub-type: Article (original research)
Collection: Queensland Alliance for Agriculture and Food Innovation
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 32 times in Thomson Reuters Web of Science Article | Citations
Scopus Citation Count Cited 39 times in Scopus Article | Citations
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Created: Wed, 10 Aug 2011, 18:54:52 EST by System User on behalf of Qld Alliance for Agriculture and Food Innovation