cooperators and donations - ucanr
TRANSCRIPT
Verdegaal Brothers Fertilizer
SDI+ Electronics
Improving Pomegranate Fertigation and
Nitrogen Use Efficient with Surface and
Subsurface Drip Irrigation Systems
Contributing Research and Support Staff J.E. Ayars, C.J. Phene, D. Makus, D. Wang, G.S. Banuelos, S. Gao, A. Hendratna, K.R. Day, R. Schoneman, R. Tirado-Corbala, B. Phene, T.M. DeJong, H. Zhang, T. Centofani and UC-KARE Center and USDA-ARS-SJVASC
Supports/Contributors CDFA/Fertilizer Research and Education Program
PARAMOUNT Farming Company LAKOS Separators and Filtration
TORO Irrigation DOROT
SDI+ VERDEGAAL Brothers
Research Objectives
To optimize water-nitrogen interactions to improve Water-use and N-use efficiency of Pomegranate and minimize N leaching losses
a. Determine the effect of three rates of N-fertigation of pomegranate with Drip Irrigation and Subsurface Drip Irrigation on N leaching losses.
b. Determine the seasonal N requirement of DI- and SDI-fertigated pomegranates which improves NUE without yield reduction.
c. Determine if concentrations of macro-, micro-nutrients and healthy bioactive compounds in soil, peel and fruits are influenced by rates of N-fertigation of pomegranate with DI and SDI.
Randomized Complete Block
Design with Subsamples
Surface Drip
Subsurface Drip
50% N
100% N
150% N
Orchard Layout & Design
Five Replications
3.54 acres
16 x 12 ft. spacing
Nitrogen Treatments
Irrigation Treatments
BASIC SDI SYSTEM DESIGN
Installation of Subsurface Drip Irrigation (SDI) line at 20-22 in. depth
N-pHURIC
K2T Phos
Acid AN-20
Sand Media Filter
Lysimeter
Solution
Refill Tank
pH & ECw
meters
N1
SDI DI
N2
SDI DI
N3
SDI DI
Electro-Magnetic Flow Meters
To Lysimeter Refill Tank
Weighing lysimeter (4 x 2 x 2 m) resolution of 0.05 mm of
evapotranspiration
SMP sensor 0.6 m
SMP sensor 0.91 m
SMP sensor 1.22 m
SMP sensor 1.52 m
Water Balance, Evapotranspiration
and Crop Coefficient
Canopy coverage - September 25, 2014
IRRIGATION BY SDI SYSTEMS
0.00
2.50
5.00
7.50
10.00
12.50
15.00
17.50
20.00
22.50
4/30 5/15 5/30 6/14 6/29 7/14 7/29 8/13 8/28 9/12 9/27 10/12
Time, Date
Irr
igati
on
Wate
r, g
al.
/tr
ee
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
Irr
igati
on
Wate
r, m
m
Why is Irrigation Scheduling Important?
Computerized
Control System
Linked
To Real Time
ETc on
Lysimeter
Control System
POMEGRANATE WATER
BALANCE (in.)
Year ETo Precip. Irrig ETc* Drainage
2010 49.73 17.34 1.00 2.10 ???
2011 50.9 10.42 8.49 9.8 0
2012 54.6 8.97 17.7 19.7 0
2013 55 3.21 24.2 26.9 0
2014** 50.6 4.77 28.4 31.1 0
2011 ETc values from 5/1 to 12/8 only.
*Lysimeter ETc adjusted for orchard spacing
**2014 Values are from January 1 to September 21
Crop Evapotranspiration, ETc
Reference Evapotranspiration, ETo Crop Coefficient, kc
ETc = ETo * kc
CIMIS, California Irrigation Management
Information System (www.cimis.water.ca.gov)
The crop coefficient, kc, is
developed to relate ETo to the
crop
Crop Evapotranspiration, ETc
Reference Evapotranspiration, ETo Crop Coefficient, kc
The daily grass reference ET (CIMIS ETo)
and the orchard evapotranspiration (ETc)
measured hourly by the weighing lysimeter
were used to develop irrigation requirement
and crop coefficient for maturing
pomegranate.
0.0
00.2
00.4
00.6
00.8
01.0
01.2
01.4
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
163/1
3/9
3/17
3/25
4/2
4/10
4/18
4/26
5/4
5/12
5/20
5/28
6/5
6/13
6/21
6/29
7/7
7/15
7/23
7/31
8/8
8/16
8/24
9/1
9/9
9/17
Dail
y E
Tc &
ET
o (m
m)
2014 CIMIS ETo, Pomegranate ETc and Kc
CIMIS ETo (mm) ETc Kc (Ly, daily)C
rop
Co
effic
ien
t, Kc
0.0
00.2
00.4
00.6
00.8
01.0
01.2
01.4
02/29
3/8
3/16
3/24
4/1
4/9
4/17
4/25
5/3
5/11
5/19
5/27
6/4
6/12
6/20
6/28
7/6
7/14
7/22
7/30
8/7
8/15
8/23
8/31
9/8
9/16
9/24
10/
210/
10
2014 CIMIS ETo, Pomegranate ETc and Kc
Kc (Ly, daily)C
rop
Co
effic
ien
t, Kc
R² = 0.8292
0.0
00
.50
1.0
01
.50
2/2
9
3/9
3/1
8
3/2
7
4/5
4/1
4
4/2
3
5/2
5/1
1
5/2
0
5/2
9
6/7
6/1
6
6/2
5
7/4
7/1
3
7/2
2
7/3
1
8/9
8/1
8
8/2
7
9/5
9/1
4
9/2
3
10
/2
10
/11
2014 CIMIS ETo, Pomegranate ETc and Kc Kc (Ly, daily) Log. (Kc (Ly, daily))
Cro
p C
oe
fficien
t, Kc
Y = 0.547*ln(x) -2.1059
0.19
[VALUE]
0.40
0.48 0.55
0.61 0.67
0.72 0.76
0.80 0.84
0.88 0.92
0.95
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1-Mar 1-Apr 1-May 1-Jun 1-Jul 1-Aug 1-Sep 1-Oct
Cro
p C
oef
fici
ent,
Kc
Bi-monthly Pomegranate Kc
Bi-monthly Pomegranate Kc for
2014
1 – 15 Mar 0.19 15 – 30 Mar 0.30
1 – 15 Apr 0.40 16 – 30 Apr 0.48 1 – 15 May 0.55
16 – 30 May 0.61 1 – 15 Jun 0.67
16 – 30 Jun 0.72 1 – 15 Jul 0.76
16 – 30 Jul 0.80 1 – 15 Aug 0.84
16 – 30 Aug 0.88 1 – 15 Sep 0.92
16 – 30 Sep 0.95
Relative Soil Water Content as Affected by Soil Texture
-52.0
-50.0
-48.0
-46.0
-44.0
-42.0
-40.0
-38.0
-36.0
-34.0
-32.0
-30.0
-28.0
-26.0
-24.0
-22.01/0 1/15 1/30 2/14 2/29 3/15 3/30 4/14 4/29 5/14 5/29 6/13 6/28 7/13 7/28 8/12 8/27 9/11 9/2610/11SoilM
atricPoten
al,cb
2014AverageDailySoilMatricPoten al
SMP-24 SMP-36 SMP-48 SMP-60
LysimeterPump&TankfillProblems
3/24Irriga
onStarted
3/10TreeLeafout
4/11FullBloom
SMPControlZone
-1.30
-1.25
-1.20
-1.15
-1.10
-1.05
-1.00
-0.95
-0.90
-0.85
-0.80
-0.75
-0.70
-0.65
-0.60
-0.55
-0.501/0 1/15 1/30 2/14 2/29 3/15 3/30 4/14 4/29 5/14 5/29 6/13 6/28 7/13 7/28 8/12 8/27 9/11 9/2610/11
So
il H
ydra
uli
c G
rad
ien
t, c
b/
cm
2014 Daily Averaged Soil Hydraulic Gradient
HG 36-24 HG 48-36 HG 60-48
HG 48-
36
Zero
Drainage
HG 36-
24
HG 60-48
The Nitrogen Cycle
SOIL N FORMS
N2, NO, N2O, NO3,
NO2 , NH4
INPUTS
Rainfall
Irrigation
Bacterial Nitrification
Organic Matter
Mineralization
OUTPUTS
Denitrification
Leaching
Plant Consumption
Fixation
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
So
il D
epth
, in
Soil Nitrate, ppm
Soil Nitrate Profile, 12/2013
DI SDI
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80
Soil
Dep
th,
in
Soil Nitrate, ppm
Soil Nitrate Profile, 12/2013
DI-N1 SDI-N1 DI-N2 SDI-N2 DI-N3 SDI-N3
2013 Yields Marketable Total Irrigation Methods Yield lb/ac Yield, lb/ac
Surface Drip (DI) 29,231a 29,652a
Subsurface Drip (SDI) 30,834a 31,485a
Prob > "F" value NS NS Nitrogen Levels (N)
(N-1) 62 lb N/ac 28,930a 29,511a
(N-2) 149 lb N/ac 30,353a 30,861a
(N-3) 249 lb N/ac 30,934a 31,455a
Prob > "F" value NS NS
Effects of irrigation and nitrogen treatments on
WUE and NUE of pomegranate in 2013.
IRRIGATION WUE- WUE NUE-N1 NUE-N2 NUE-N3
TREATMENTS PRIME JUICE
lb/ac-in lb fruit/lb N/ac
DI 383a 165a 118a 67a 39a
SDI 456b 184a 132a 53b 41a
% SDI > DI 19.10% 11.50% 11.90% -20.90% 5.10%
Weed Biomass Study
Z LSMEAN separation at the probability shown.
Weed IR surface Seed bank
Effects: biomass temperature seeds g/m
2 (d.w. basis) (º C) (per 450 cc soil)
Irrigation method: (I)
Surface drip 569 aZ
49.9 b 15.3 a
Sub-surface drip 81 b 57.0 a 1.0 b Prob. > ‘F’ value: <0.0001 < 0.0001 <0.0001
Nitrogen rate: (N)
46 lbs/ac 250 b 53.7 ab 8.3 a
148 lbs/ac 416 a 55.2 a 9.7 a 249 lbs/ac 310 ab 51.6 b 6.5 a Prob. > ‘F’ value: 0.07 0.12 NS
I X N interaction: NS NS NS
Effects of Irrigation and Fertigation
Treatments on Residual Weed Biomass
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3
3.2
4/11 5/11 6/10 7/10 8/9 9/8
%
2012
N1 N2 N3
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3
3.2
4/11 5/11 6/10 7/10 8/9 9/8
%
2013
N1 N2 N3
TOTAL NITROGEN IN LEAF TISSUE (%)
N app
N app
42
44
46
48
50
52
54
56
58
60
62
64
4/11 5/11 6/10 7/10 8/9 9/8
%
2012
N1 N2 N3
N app
42
44
46
48
50
52
54
56
58
60
62
64
4/11 5/11 6/10 7/10 8/9 9/8
%
2013
N1 N2 N3
N app
TOTAL CARBON IN LEAF TISSUE (%)
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3
3.2
4/11 5/11 6/10 7/10 8/9 9/8
%
2014
TOTAL NITROGEN IN LEAF TISSUE (%)
N1 N2 N3
N app
42
44
46
48
50
52
54
56
58
60
62
64
4/11 5/11 6/10 7/10 8/9 9/8
%
2014
TOTAL CARBON IN LEAF TISSUE (%)
N1 N2 N3
N app
Analysis of Neutraceutical
Compounds in Pomegranates
1. No significant differences in pH and Soluble solids were measured between treatments.
2. Mineral Elements:
--In N1-SDI concentrations of Cu, Fe and Na > all other treatments.
--Concentration of Ni in N1-DI > all other treatments.
--B and Ca concentrations in juice of N1-DI and N1-SDI > N3-DI and N3-SDI.
--Mn concentration in N3-SDI > all other treatments.
--No significant differences were observed for all other elements..
3. No significant differences in total phenolics between treatments were observed.
4. No significant differences between treatments for all anthocyanins and non-anthocyanins
compounds were observed.
5. No significant difference in vitamin C was observed between treatments.
Conclusions
Following four and half years of intensive pomegranate irrigation and
fertigation research with high frequency surface drip irrigation (DI) and
subsurface drip irrigation (SDI), preliminary results have demonstrated
that the high frequency SDI system has the potential to provide:
1. More efficient water use efficiency (WUE) than DI,
2. Larger tree than DI,
3. Lower weed population and mass than DI,
4. Lower potential for nitrate-nitrogen (N) leaching than DI,
5. Improved orchard cultural practices, development and production
6. No significant differences in pomegranate fruit and juice quality.