Effects of limiting water on growth, development and yield of alfalfa grown in the Big Horn Basin,...

Effects of Limiting Water on Growth, Development

and Yield of Alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.)

Grown in the Big Horn Basin, Wyoming

Caleb Carter, M.S. Candidate

Outline

• Importance of alfalfa

• Agricultural water use

• Objectives

• Methodology

• Results

• Conclusions

A. Polvere, 2012

Alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.)

• Queen of forages

• Introduced to U.S. around 1850

• C3 perennial legume

• Has a high water use

(California Alfalfa and Forage Association, 2004)(Russelle, 2001)

Alfalfa Production in Wyoming

0

250

500

750

1,000

1,250

1,500

1,750

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Pro

du

ctio

n (

t y-1

x 1

00

0)

Wyoming Crop Production

Alfalfa

Hay

Corn

Sugarbeet

Wheat

0

300

600

900

1,200

1,500

1,800

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Rev

en

ue

($

x 1

00

,00

0)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Ha

Har

vest

ed

(x1

00

0)

Year(USDA NASS, 2012)

Municipal, Industrial, etc., 15%

Agriculture, 85%

(USDA NASS, 2012)

Definitions• Evapotranspiration (ET) – The sum of

evaporative losses of water from the soil surface (evaporation) and from the canopy (transpiration).

• Reference evapotranspiration (ETo) –. Evapotranspiration rate from a reference surface not short of water. Usually a hypothetical alfalfa or grass plant with specific characteristics.

• Crop evapotranspiration (ETc) – (Same as crop water use) Evapotranspiration from excellently managed, large, well-watered fields that achieve full production under the given climatic conditions.

• Water Use Efficiency (WUE) – Ratio between yield and the amount of water used to produce that yield.

𝑊𝑈𝐸 =𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑜𝑚𝑖𝑐 𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑

𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑢𝑠𝑒𝑑 (𝐸𝑇𝑐)A. Polvere, 2012

Study Objectives

1. Determine alfalfa’s water use (ETc) and water use efficiency (WUE) for conditions in the Big Horn Basin, Wyoming.

2. Quantify the effects of limiting water on the growth and forage quality of alfalfa.

3. Determine the economic impact of irrigation scheduling recommendations.

METHODOLOGY

UW Research and Extension Center, Powell, WY (PREC)

• 44° 45‘ 30” N, 108° 46‘ 36” W, 1344 masl

• Mean air temp: 8 to 10 °C

• Rainfall: avg. 173 mm

• 125 days frost free period

• Well drained Garland Loam (Fine-loamy over sandy or sandy-skeletal, mixed, superactive, mesic Typic Haplargids)

Experimental Design:Strip Plot – planted June 7, 2011

Neutron probe acces tube WatermarksShaw Mountaineer Lander

-------------------------------- 6.75 m --------------------------------

Zone 13

---

----

-- 1

1.5

m -

----

----

---

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

---

46

m -

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

-

43 2 3 4 51 8 9 10 116 79 10 11 12

------- 2.25 m --------

1 5 6 7 82 12111 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 6 71 2 3

Ro

ad

Zone 14 Zone 15 Zone 16

0.25ETc 0.50ETc 0.75ETc 1.00ETc

10 11 128 9412 5

Main treatments – Irrigation: • 6.75 m wide x 46 m long• 1.0 ETc, 0.75 ETc, 0.5 ETc and

0.25 ETc

Sub treatments – Alfalfa Varieties: • 2.25 m wide x 11.5 m long• Shaw, Lander and Mountaineer

Irrigation

• Subsurface Drip Irrigation (SDI)• Computerized control • 16 independent zones • Fertigation

Alfalfa Cultivars

Lander

Developed: • University of

Wyoming

Characteristics: • Resistant to

Brown Root Rot

Fall Dormancy: 3

Shaw

Developed: • Montana State

University/ NRCS Bridger Plants Center

Characteristics:• Dryland variety

Fall Dormancy: 3

Mountaineer

Developed : • Forage Genetics

International, Nampa, Idaho

Characteristics:• Multifoliate leaf

expression

Fall Dormancy: 4

(Ditterline et al., 2001)(R. Groose, 2008)

Automated Weather StationUW Res & Ext Center, Powell, WY

www.WAWN.netETo Calculation using the ASCE Modified Penman Monteith Equation

http://www.wawn.net/

ASCE EquationETo=

0.408∆ Rn−G +γ𝐶𝑛

T+273U2 es−ea

∆+γ 1+𝐶𝑑U2Where:• ETsz = standardized reference crop evapotranspiration for short (ETos) or tall (ETrs) surfaces

(mm d-1 for daily time steps or mm h-1 for hourly time steps),• Rn = calculated net radiation at the crop surface (MJ m-2 d-1 for daily time steps or MJ m-2 h-1

for hourly time steps),• G = soil heat flux density at the soil surface (MJ m-2 d-1 for daily time steps or MJ m-2 h-1 for

hourly time steps),• T = mean daily or hourly air temperature at 1.5 to 2.5-m height (°C), • u2 = mean daily or hourly wind speed at 2-m height (m s-1),• es = saturation vapor pressure at 1.5 to 2.5-m height (kPa), calculated for daily time steps as

the average of saturation vapor pressure at maximum and minimum air temperature,• ea = mean actual vapor pressure at 1.5 to 2.5-m height (kPa),• ∆ = slope of the saturation vapor pressure-temperature curve (kPa °C-1), • γ = psychrometric constant (kPa °C-1),• Cn = numerator constant that changes with reference type and calculation time step (K mm s3

Mg-1 d-1 or K mm s3 Mg-1 h-1) and• Cd = denominator constant that changes with reference type and calculation time step (s m-1).• Units for the 0.408 coefficient are m2 mm MJ-1.

(ASCE-EWRI, 2005)

Irrigation Calculations

• Crop water use (ETc): 𝐸𝑇𝑐 = 𝐾𝑐 × 𝐸𝑇𝑜

• Available Water (AW): 𝐴𝑊 = 𝐹𝐶 −𝑊𝑃

• Plant Available Water (PAW): 𝑃𝐴𝑊 =𝐴𝑊 × 𝑅𝑍

• Allowable Depletion (AD): 𝐴𝐷 = 𝑃𝐴𝑊 ×𝑀𝐴𝐷

• Soil moisture depletion = PAW – ETc

• Irrigation triggered when the soil moisture depletion<AD

A. Polvere, 2012

Soil Water Balance

Water Balance• Daily soil water balance – measure water in and out:𝐸𝑇𝐶,𝑖 = 𝐼𝑁,𝑖 + 𝑃𝑖 − 𝑅𝑂𝑖 − 𝐷𝑃𝑖 + 𝐶𝑅𝑖 ± (𝐷𝑖−1 − 𝐷𝑖)

– D (mm) soil water content assuming i is the current day and i−1 is the previous day

– P (mm) daily precipitation

– RO (mm) runoff

– IN (mm) net irrigation depth

– CR (mm) capillary rise

– ETC (mm) crop evapotranspiration

– DP (mm) is the deep percolation

𝐸𝑇𝐶,𝑖 = 𝐼𝑁,𝑖 ±(𝐷𝑖−1 − 𝐷𝑖)(Allen et al., 1998)

Actual Water Use (ETa)

• Actual water use only measured for the 2nd

and 3rd cuttings

• Used Neutron Probe:

– Releases neutrons at high speed

– Collide with H protons, return thermalized

– Measurements taken at 5 depths: • 20, 40, 60, 80 and 100 cm

http://www.rwma.com

Sample Neutron Probe Reading

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

De

pth

(cm

)

% Moisture

7/23/12

Full

75%

50%

25%

Estimated ETc

• Water use estimated for all cuttings as:

– ETc = Kc x ETo

• Used ETo from the weather station and crop coefficients (Kc) calculated from actual weather data.

WATERMARK Sensors• For irrigation scheduling purposes only

• Measure soil electric conductivity (EC), relate it to the matric potential of the soil (cb)

• 4 depths:o 15 cm

o 30 cm

o 60 cm

o 90 cm

Nutrient Qualityo DM – Dry Matter

o ADF – (Acid Detergent Fiber) cellulose + fiber + lignin

o NDF – (Neutral detergent fiber) total fiber or cell wall fraction

o CP – Crude protein

o TDN – Total Digestible Nutrients

o RFV – Relative Feed Value

http://www.foss.dk/

Measured with Near Infrared Reflectance Spectroscopy (NIRS)

EFFECTS OF LIMITING WATER ON WATER USE AND WATER USE EFFCIENCY OF ALFALFA

Weather2011 and 2012 weather compared to the long

term average (LTAvg)Max Temp (°C) Min Temp (°C) Precipitation (mm)

LTAvg 2011 2012 LTAvg 2011 2012 LTAvg 2011 2012

Jan 0.3 -0.5 4.7 -13.4 -12.2 -9.2 4.8 1.8 0.5

Feb 3.1 -2.3 3.5 -11.1 -14.8 -9.3 2.8 2.0 3.8

Mar 9.4 8.9 16.3 -5.8 -4.8 -1.4 7.1 6.4 10.7

Apr 14.6 11.9 17.9 -0.9 -1.8 1.2 12.7 26.3 4.8

May 19.5 15.1 20.2 4.9 4.2 4.5 37.1 78.0 20.1

Jun 24.8 24.5 29.4 9.0 8.5 11.3 33.3 6.1 8.1

Jul 29.7 32.5 32.9 11.9 13.5 14.4 22.1 1.3 4.6

Aug 29.3 31.1 30.5 10.5 11.9 11.7 11.9 9.9 0.5

Sep 22.7 25.9 26.1 5.1 6.7 7.6 17.0 12.7 2.5

Oct 15.0 16.9 14.1 -1.1 2.2 -0.5 15.5 35.8 5.1

Nov 6.7 5.6 8.3 -7.3 -7.4 -5.6 5.1 6.9 2.3

Dec 0.4 -0.4 0.7 -13.1 -12.0 -11.3 3.8 2.0 2.5

Average 14.6 14.2 17.1 -0.9 -0.4 1.1 Total 176 189 66

2012 Dry Matter Yield

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

100% 75% 50% 25%

DM

(kg

ha-1

)

a) 1st Harvest

a‡

a

b

b

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

100% 75% 50% 25%

b) 2nd Harvest

a

b

c

d

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

100% 75% 50% 25%

DM

(kg

ha-1

)

Irrigation Treatment

c) 3rd Harvest

ab

c

d

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

100% 75% 50% 25%


d) 4th Harvest

a a

b

b

DM= 21.48ETe - 284n = 45; R² = 0.58

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

0 100 200 300

DM

Yie

ld (

khh

a-1)

ETe (mm)

DM = 38.12xETa- 1212.7n = 45; R² = 0.82

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

0 100 200

DM

Yie

ld (

kg h

a-1)

ETa (mm)

DM = 17.32ETe + 609.33n = 46; R² = 0.83

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

0 100 200 300

DM

Yie

ld (

kg h

a-1

)

ETe (mm)

DM = 19.47ETe - 110.18n = 46;R² = 0.72

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

0 100 200

DM

Yie

ld (

kg h

a-1

)

ETa (mm)

‡Different letters within each harvest indicate significant difference (p<0.05) between irrigation treatments.

2012 Total Dry Matter Yield

0

4000

8000

12000

16000

20000

100% 75% 50% 25%

DM

(kg

ha-1

)


e) Total Harvest

b

c

d

a‡

DM = 22.32ETc - 404.15n = 46;R² = 0.83

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

0 200 400 600 800

DM

Yie

ld (

kg h

a-1)

ETc (mm)


Water Use of Alfalfa

Cut 2R2 = 0.94

Cut 3R2 = 0.96

0

1

2

3

4

5

0 1 2 3 4 5

Act

ual

WU

E (k

g m

-3)

Estimated WUE (kg m-3)

Water Use Efficiency

Cut 2R² = 0.99

Cut 3R² = 0.99

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 50 100 150 200 250

Act

ual

ET c

(mm

)

Estimated ETc (mm)

Water Use

Actual vs. Estimated ETc and WUE

100%1st

Harvest2nd

Harvest3rd

Harvest4th

Harvest Season

Date 6-June§ 12-July 21-Aug 11-Oct

WB 146 217

ASCE-PM 231 142

Total 231 146 217 143 737

75%1st

Harvest2nd

Harvest3rd

Harvest4th

Harvest Season

Date 6-June 12-July 21-Aug 11-Oct

WB 111 146

ASCE-PM 173 103

Total 173 111 146 103 533

50%1st

Harvest2nd

Harvest3rd

Harvest4th

Harvest Season


WB 84 101

ASCE-PM 116 70

Total 116 84 101 70 371

25%1st

Harvest2nd

Harvest3rd

Harvest4th

Harvest Season


WB 50 48

ASCE-PM 58 35

Total 58 50 48 35 191

Water Use (ETc)

• §First growth period assumed to begin on April 1st

2012 Water Use and

WUE

0

1

2

3

4

5

100% 75% 50% 25%

WU

E kg

m-3


1st Harvest

2nd Harvest

3rd Harvest

4th Harvest

ab

baa a b

a‡


• Larger variation in WUE for the 2nd and 3rd cuttings, in the middle of the season.

• Fully irrigated treatment showed higher WUE early in the season.

0

50

100

150

200

250

100% 75% 50% 25%W

ate

r U

se (

mm

)

1st cutting

2nd cutting

3rd cutting

4th cutting

EFFECTS OF LIMITING WATER ON GROWTH AND FORAGE QUALITY OF ALFALFA

Dry Matter Production

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

4/16 5/31 7/15 8/29 10/13

Yie

ld (

kg h

a-1

)

Shaw

0.25ET

0.50ET

0.75ET

1.00ET

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

4/16 5/31 7/15 8/29 10/13

Yie

ld (

kg h

a-1

)

Mountaineer

010002000300040005000

4/16 5/31 7/15 8/29 10/13

Yie

ld (

kg h

a-1

)

Date

Lander

• Mountaineer showed better yield for fully irrigated.

• Shaw showed better yield in deficit treatments.

2012 Forage Quality

15%

17%

19%

21%

23%

25%

27%

29%

31%

1st Harvest 2nd Harvest 3rd Harvest 4th Harvest

% Crude Protein

100%

75%

50%

25%

10%

20%

30%

40%


% Acid Detergent Fiber

100%

75%

50%

25%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%


% Neutral Detergent Fiber

100%

75%

50%

25%

89%

90%

91%

92%

93%

94%

95%


% Dry Matter

100%

75%

50%

25%

2012 Forage Quality

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%


% Total Digestible Nutrients

100%

75%

50%

25%

100

130

160

190

220

250


Realtive Feed Value

100%

75%

50%

25%

Quality Grade ‡RFV ADF % NDF % §TDN-100% TDN-90% Crude Protein %

Supreme >185 <27 <34 >62 >55.9 >22

Premium 170-185 27-29 34-36 60.5-62 54.5-55.9 20-22

Good 150-170 29-32 36-40 58-60 52.5-54.5 18-20

Fair 130-150 32-35 40-44 56-58 50.5-52.5 16-18

Low <130 >35 >44 <56 <50.5 <16

• USDA hay quality guidelines†:

†(Oregon Hay and Forage Association).

IRRIGATION SCHEDULING: POTENTIAL ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PRODUCER

2012 WATERMARKs

0

10

20

30

40

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

4/2 4/17 5/2 5/17 6/1 6/16 7/1 7/16 7/31

Irri

gati

on

am

ou

nt

(mm

)

Mat

irc

Po

ten

tial

(cb

) a) 100%

0

10

20

30

40

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

4/2 4/17 5/2 5/17 6/1 6/16 7/1 7/16 7/31

Irri

gati

on

am

ou

nt

(mm

)

Mat

irc

Po

ten

tial

(cb

) b) 75%

0

10

20

30

40

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

4/2 4/17 5/2 5/17 6/1 6/16 7/1 7/16 7/31

Irri

gati

on

Am

ou

nt

(mm

)

Mat

irc

Po

ten

tial

(cb

) c) 50%

0

10

20

30

40

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

4/2 4/17 5/2 5/17 6/1 6/16 7/1 7/16 7/31 Irri

gati

on

Am

ou

nt

(mm

)

Mat

irc

Po

ten

tial

(cb

)

Date

d) 25%

15 30 60 90 Irrigation Depth (mm)

• Soil moisture present at the beginning of the season.

• Reaction to irrigation.• Small irrigations early

in season.• 15 cm and 30 cm seem

to be best.

Economic Analysis

Irrigation applied

(mm) Yield (t ha-1)

Diesel @

$0.92 liter-1

Diesel @

$1.06 liter-1

Electricity @

$0.025 MJ-1

Baseline 762 15.2 $2,888.69 $2,874.91 $2,950.12

Recommendation 559 15.2 $2,914.41 $2,904.30 $2,959.45

Deficit Irrigation 356 11.1 $1,936.24 $1,929.81 $1,964.90

Irrigation applied

(mm) Yield (t ha-1) $157§ t-1 $242† t-1 $274‡ t-1

Baseline 762 15.2 $1,584.76 $2,888.69 $3,378.50

Recommendation 559 15.2 $1,610.48 $2,914.41 $3,404.22

Deficit Irrigation 356 11.1 $987.05 $1,936.24 $2,292.79

• Sensitivity to energy prices: Net revenue, not including overhead ($ ha-1):

• Sensitivity to hay prices: Net revenue, not including overhead ($ ha-1):

Describe the field

Potential $ Savings

Energy Price

Diesel @ $0.92 liter-1 Diesel @ $1.06 liter-1 Electricity @ $0.025 MJ-1

Recommendation (559 mm

applied and yields of 15.2 t ha-1) $25.72 $29.39 $9.34

Deficit Irrigation (356 mm

applied and yields of 11.2 t ha-1) -$952.45 -$945.11 -$985.21

Hay Price ($ t-1)

$156.53 t-1 $242.07 t-1 $274.20 t-1

Recommendation (559 mm

applied and yields of 15.2 t ha-1) $25.72 $25.72 $25.72

Deficit Irrigation 356 mm

applied and yields of 11.2 t ha-1) -$597.71 -$952.45 -$1,085.71

• Savings per ha relative to baseline (762 mm applied and yield of 15.2 t ha-1)†:

• Savings per ha relative to baseline (762 mm applied and yield of 15.2 t ha-1)‡:

• Potential savings over the whole field: $460 to $1,500 per year.

†Hay price fixed at $242.07 t-1

‡Energy price fixed at $1.06 liter-1

Conclusions

1. No significant differences found in yield, forage quality and WUE among varieties.

2. Significant difference between irrigation treatments for yield and WUE.

3. WUE and quality more affected by the time of the year than by the irrigation amount.

4. Similar, or better, alfalfa yields can be produced with less water, with proper irrigation scheduling.

5. Economic analysis showed large potential energy savings, ranging from $9 to almost $30 ha-1.

Literature Cited• Allen, R.G., L.S. Pereira, D. Raes, and M. Smith. 1998. Crop evapotranspiration: Guidelines for computing crop water requirements. FAO Irrigation and drainage paper

56. Irrigation and Drainage 300(56):1–15.

• California Alfalfa and Forage Association. 2004. Commodity Fact Sheet Alfalfa. California Foundation for Agriculture in the Classroom, Sacramento, CA.

• Ditterline, R.L., R.L. Dunn, S.D. Cash, D.M. Wichman, L.E. Welty, J.L. Bergman, J.L.A. Eckhoff, M.E. Majerus, J.G. Scheetz, L.K. Holzworth, K.R. Blunt, L.S. Strang, and J.

• North American Alfalfa Improvement Conference. 1999. Mountaineer. Description of Alfalfa Cultivars and Germplasms. Available at http://www.naaic.org/varietyaps/mountaineer.htm (verified 4 November 2012).

• Oregon Hay and Forage Association. USDA quality guidelines for alfalfa hay . Hay Quality Designations. Available at http://www.oregonhaygrowers.com/qualitytesting.html (verified 8 May 2013).

• Vavrovsky. 2001. Registration of `Shaw’ Alfalfa. Crop Science 41(1): 264–265Available at https://www.crops.org/publications/cs/articles/41/1/264 (verified 24 January 2012).

• Russelle, M. 2001. After an 8,000-year journey, the“ Queen of Forages” stands poised to enjoy renewed popularity. American Scientist 89:252.

• USDA NASS. 2012. USDA NASS Quickstats. Available at http://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/ (verified 17 March 2012).

• Walter, I.A., R.G. Allen, R. Elliott, M.E. Jensen, D. Itenfisu, B. Mecham, T.A. Howell, R. Snyder, P. Brown, S. Eching, T. Spofford, M. Hattendorf, R.H. Cuenca, J.L. Wright, and D. Martin. 2000. ASCE’S Standardized Reference Evapotranspiration Equation. p. 209–215. In National Irrigation Symposium. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, Phoenix, AZ, USA.

THANK YOU!

o Mike Killen and his crewo UW Agricultural

Experiment Stationo Advisor: Axel Garcia y

Garciao Co-advisors: Anowar Islam

& Kristi Hanseno Joan Tromble and Andrea

Piersono My family

QUESTIONS?

Effects of limiting water on growth, development and yield of alfalfa grown in the Big Horn Basin,...

Environment

Transcript of Effects of limiting water on growth, development and yield of alfalfa grown in the Big Horn Basin,...