Evaluating Different Irrigation Volumes in Preparation for Use of recycled Irrigation Water
Vegetablesתחום או ענף ירקות
תאריך עדכון 9/4/2010
תיאור מלא Abstract
In recent years, the water reserves in the Arava have been relatively small compared to the increase in cultivated area. In order to conserve water and increase the efficiency of fertilizer use, two model cropping systems were established at Moshav Paran (Be'eri Farm and Stieglitz Farm), with the goal of conserving irrigation water and fertilizer by collecting and recycling of drainage water. The model systems were based on the use of detached substrate, from which drainage water is collected and recycled. A third of the total area was dedicated to detached substrateand two-thirds of the total area was dedicated to pepper grown in the ground. Crop relations were determined in order to allow for high irrigation volumes, to rinse the salts from the crop’s root zone and allow for the use of an irrigation regime with the standard water pressures required in detached substrate systems. The use of these water pressures is based on the fact that the root zone area in these systems is smaller than that of a crop planted in the ground, as well as the need for the necessary absorption area for volumes of water that are sufficient, yet no larger than necessary. All of this was done to ensure optimal performance of the growth medium.
The volumes of water used today are generally three times the evapotranspiration level (E3). This volume ensures the proper rinsing of salts from the growth medium, but also creates a demand for sufficientarea for absorption of the liquid drained from the growth medium. The smaller the ratio between the area in the soil-less growth medium system and the area in the cultivated-ground system, the greater the efficiency of the system. The necessary rinsing volumes (drainage) will also vary with the quality of the water. Today, the water that reaches the cultivated areas (before fertilization) has an electrical conductivity between 2.5 and 3.5 dS/m. When higher quality irrigation water is used, smaller volumes are necessary to rinse away the salts. Goal of the Experiment: Evaluation of the quality and quantity of drainage water recovered from different volumes of irrigation water. Evaluation of crop performance, in order to prepare a collection of data for use in making decisions regarding the use of recycled water.
The experiment was conducted at the Zohar Research Station in Sodom Valley, in a plastic-covered greenhouse. Pepper seedlings (cv. Celica, EZ Holland, Efal Israel) were planted in the greenhouse on 15 September 2008. Seedlings were planted into Perlite 2 growth medium in large, 80-L, 1-m-long growing containers, or about 53 L/m2 growing area. There were five replicates of each treatment; each treatment covered an area of 300 m2. Drainage water was collected in a hidden container that had a submerged pump. The collected water was then moved into an accumulation container, using double water meters. The examined variable was irrigation level; irrigation levels were determined according to the ET MAX (maximal evapotranspiration) observed. This amount was used to allocate the water, and was also used as the basis for the irrigation levels in all of the treatments. Four irrigation levels were evaluated in the experiment: ET1, ET2, ET3 and ET4.
In this experiment, the only treatment in which there was a yield difference was the ET1 irrigation treatment; this treatment received the smallest amount of water. The plants in the different irrigation treatments produced fruit at different times. The plants in the treatments that received smaller amounts of water produced fruit significantly earlier than those in the treatments that received the two highest levels of irrigation. The water drained from the ET1 and ET2 treatments had electrical conductivity levels between 6 and 8 dS/m. These levels indicate that this water is not suitable for use in recycled water systems. An attempt to dilute this water with regular water from the main supply was ineffective and wasteful. The ET3 treatment was the best, in terms of the use of recycled water, based on both the electrical conductivity of the drainage water and the levels of leaching, which were only 30% more than those of the ET2 treatment. (The water that was recovered from the ET2 treatment was not suitable for recycling). The best, recommended treatment from this experiment is also the current accepted practice in the model plots at Moshav Paran.
Email address of the writer: sab@inter.net.il
שפה English
מחבר Shabtai Cohen, Ami Maduel, Moran Kapun Patel, Rivka Offenbach, Yoram Zvieli, Israel Tzabari, Rami Golan, Eviatar Itiel, Alon Ben-Gal, Naftali Lazarovich
שנה 2010
שייכות yzvieli
תאריך יצירה 9/4/2010
תאריך עדכון 9/4/2010


