Tools for Irrigation Stewardship Lyndon Kelley, MSU Extension Thanks to Dr. Steve Miller - MSU Ag...

Tools for Irrigation Stewardship Lyndon Kelley, MSU Extension

Thanks to

Dr. Steve Miller - MSU Ag EngineeringDr. Ted Loudon - MSU Ag EngineeringDr. Ron Goldy - MSU ExtensionDr. Jeff Andreasen – MSU Geography

Size , Scale and Make-up

County Irrigated Acres

St Joseph 104,000

Montcalm 47,000

Branch 39,300

Kalamazoo 29,600

Cass 25,400

Van Buren 23,900

Berrien 19,200

Allegan 15,300

Ottawa 13,500

Calhoun 10,400

Tuscola 5,800


LaPorte 32,400

Knox 24,600

Elkhart 23,500

LaGrange 21,700

Jasper 20,600

St. Joseph 19,500

Pulaski 19,200

Kosciusko 19,100

Fulton 16,200

Starke 11,100

Bartholomew 9,100

2002 Agricultural Census

Michigan – 452,000 acres Indiana 313,000 acres



%

St Joseph 104,000 23.0

Montcalm 47,000 10.4

Branch 39,300 8.7

Kalamazoo 29,600 6.6

Cass 25,400 5.6

Van Buren 23,900 5.3

Berrien 19,200 4.2

Allegan 15,300 3.4

Ottawa 13,500 3.0

Calhoun 10,400 2.3

Tuscola 5,800 1.3

Sum

mar

ized

fro

m 2

002

Agr

icul

tura

l Ce

nsus

Michigan – 452,000 acres Indiana 313,000 acres


%

LaPorte 32,400 10.4

Knox 24,600 7.8

Elkhart 23,500 7.5

LaGrange 21,700 6.9

Jasper 20,600 6.6

St. Joseph 19,500 6.2

Pulaski 19,200 6.1

Kosciusko 19,100 6.1

Fulton 16,200 5.2

Starke 11,100 3.5

Bartholomew 9,100 2.9

11 Counties = 69.2 % of total11 Counties = 73.8 % of total


Summarized from 2002 Agricultural Census

Indiana / Michigan Similarities • Predominantly Sandy Loam soils Irrigated• Water availability – abundant to scarce• Heavy irrigation - St. Joseph River basin• Knox / Montcalm – geographic, Veg. outliers • Irrigated crops make-up – Corn (commercial,

seed,)- soybeans, vegetables, alfalfa, ornamentals

• Water Regulation – modified riparian rights


Summarized from 2002 Agricultural Census

Indiana / Michigan Differences • Indiana has a heavier emphasis on irrigated corn

• Michigan has a heavier emphasis on irrigated vegetables

• Indiana has a more mature and less complicated water use regulation system (registration, complaints, reporting)

Targeted Audience Related to Irrigation

Producers• Field crop production• Vegetable production• Small fruit and tree fruit• Turf and ornamentals

Contractors of irrigated crop• Seed corn production companies• Vegetable and fruit processor / contractors

Technical Irrigation Issues

• Tools for Irrigation Stewardship – Getting the most out of the water we use

• Helping producers to understand the water cycle for their farms.

• Working with irrigation equipment suppliers to help the irrigation related industries move economically and environmentally forward.

Tools for Irrigation Stewardship

1. Irrigation System Uniformity

2. Preventing Irrigation Runoff (comparing irrigation application rate to soil infiltration rate)

3. Irrigation Scheduling

4. Backflow protection

5. Avoiding water use conflicts

6. Record keeping

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

Inch

es o

f W

ater

Corn Water UseNormal Rainfall

Crop need15.6” total

Normal rainfall34.6

Needed Irrigation5.5”

Equip Groundwater Conservation Program

An NRCS Program to support Irrigation System Evaluations and

System Corrections

Equip Groundwater Conservation Program - Michigan

• Qualifications– System must have been in place for at least 2 years– Must use irrigation scheduling (Computerized or

Paper System)– System uniformity coefficient must be below 85% to

enter, and above 85% to qualify for payments.– Need to have an irrigation conservation plan

• Write up that describes system, water source, how the irrigation is applied,

EQIP Groundwater Conservation Program - Michigan

• Compensation:– A one time payment of $50/acre. – A maximum of 160 acres per producer can be

enrolled in this program.– Funds for this program are split between irrigation

management and dairy plate water cooler 100% water recovery, total funds available somewhere between $380,000.

– See you local NRCS office.– Deadline to signup for this program will be March 15,

2007 at the Montcalm County NRCS Office.

Conservation Security ProgramReward the best, Inspire the rest.

1. Trend in Agriculture Government program is away from Subsidy based, toward Environmental protection.

2. Contracts for 5 or 10 years and payments of 2-8$/ acre (or more) are expected.

3. Available in counties starting in a rotational basis.

4. Farm must first meet soil erosion and water quality concerns.

Conservation Security ProgramReward the best, Inspire the rest.

1. Two years of prior practice record will be required.

2. Irrigation scheduling.

3. Irrigation system evaluation.

4. Records: water use, scheduling decisions, system repairs, evaluation data & modifications.

Irrigation System Uniformity

An 1” application should be 1” everywhere in the irrigated field

•10% or less deviation from the average is ideal.•Over applied area will likely be over applied each application•Under applied areas will likely be under applied each application

A 30% deviation on a field in an 8” irrigation application year will have areas receiving as little as 5.6” and as great as 10.4”

Repair all visible system leaks and problems first.

Irrigation System Uniformity

Basic system evaluation

Collect enough uniform container to to place every 10 feet the length of the system or across the application pattern.

Spread the container every ten feet from the center point to the outside edge of the application area.

Run the machine at standard setting over the container.

Measure and record the water volume caught by each container

Note sample point varying greater than 50% of the average.

• Michigan Groundwater Stewardship Technicians• Irrigator trainings ( MSU Ext., MGSP, NRCS )• Private consultants

Irrigation System Uniformity -Options

Catch Can Volume (ml)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

Distance from Pivot (ft)

Can

Volu

me (

ml)

Catch Can Volume (ml)

Tower 1

Tower 3

Tower 5

Tower 7 Tower

8

Sprinkler overlap with end gun

http://web1.msue.msu.edu/stjoseph/anr/anr.htm

Preventing Irrigation Runoff (comparing irrigation application rate to soil

infiltration rate)

Preventing Irrigation Runoff (comparing irrigation application rate to soil

infiltration rate)

Sprinkler package or nozzle selection along with pressure dictates water application rate .

Factors that increase runoff :

•Small Wetted area or throw of sprinkler•Low Pressure •Larger applications volumes•Soil compaction•Heavy soils•Slope•Row hilling

Instructions for completing the Evaluating Potential Irrigation Runoff form :

1. Identify the areas of the irrigated field that has the lowest

infiltration rates. (heavy soils, slopes, surface compaction).

2. Select a transit line in the wetted area just behind the machine that covers the identified lowest infiltration rates of the field identified above.

Instructions for completing the Evaluating Potential Irrigation Runoff form – continued

3. Pace or measure 50 feet between observations starting at

the pivot point and progressing to the furthest reaches of the machine.

4. Record observations for each location; look at several (4-5 areas) representing the row contour and differences in row traffic of the location. Record any specific concerns that may affect the application (drips or leaks) or affect the soils ability to take in water (compaction, row contours)

Key for Observation column A- no observed puddling, ponding or sheen between rows B- puddling, ponding or sheen between rows identified, but no observed runoff or flow of water C-observed runoff or flow of water

Irrigation Scheduling Right to Farm GAAMPs

• Irrigation scheduling for each unit or field

• Irrigation scheduling is the process of determining when it is necessary to irrigate and how much water to apply

• Irrigation water is applied to replace the water used by the plant.

Irrigation Scheduling

• Method to determine the appropriate amount of water to be applied to a crop at the correct time to achieve healthy plants and conserve water

• Can measure soil moistureOr• estimate evapotranspiration (ET) using weather

data

Potential ET measured by weighing lysimeter

Determining irrigation requirements

• The plant water requirement includes the water lost by evaporation into the atmosphere from the soil and soil surface

• and by transpiration, which is the amount of water used by the plant.

• The combination of these is evapotranspiration (ET).

Meteorologically, ET depends on…

Evapotranspiration (ET) = fn (net radiation) +

fn (temperature) +

fn (wind speed) +

fn (air humidity)

Irrigation Scheduling Checkbook Method

Primary Factors

• Know available soil water for each unit

• Known depth of rooting for each crop

• Know allowable soil moisture depletion at each stage of plant growth

• Use evapotranspiration data to estimate crop water use

• Measure rainfall in each field

• Use container capacity for nursery crops

Think of your soil as a bank

Rainfall and irrigation water are deposit into the bank

Plant water use is a removal from the bank

Think of your soil as a bank

Intake rate:Water applied faster than the soil intake rate is lost.

Deletion:Plants may can pull out only 30 – 60% of the water

Water holding capacity:The soil (bank) can hold only a given volume of water before it allow it to pass lower down.

Rooting depth:The plant can only get water to the depth of it’s roots.

Soil type :Heavier soil can hold more water / foot of depth than light soils

Water lost from the bottom of the profile can wash out (leach) water soluble nutrients and pesticides.

Soil Name

Depth

Inches

Available water holding capacity

Average Available water holding capacity

Ave. Available water holding capacity

( 24 in.)


( 36 in.)

Oshtemo 0 - 14

14 – 35

35 - 60

0.10 – 0.15

0.12 – 0.19

0.06 – 0.10

0.125

0.155

0.08

14” x 0.125=1.75

10” x 0.155=1.55

-----------------------

= 3.3

14” x 0.125= 1.75

21” x 0.155= 3.26

1” x 0.08 = 0.08

-----------------------

= 5.09

Spinks 0 – 10

10 – 26

26 - 60

0.08 – 0.10

0.08 – 0.10

0.04 – 0.08

0.09

0.09

0.06

10” x 0.09= 0.9

14” x 0.09= 1.26

-----------------------

= 2.16

10” x 0.09= 0.9

16” x 0.09= 1.26

8” x 0.06= 0.48

-----------------------

= 2.64

Calculating Water Holding Capacity

Soil Name

Depth

Inches

Available water holding capacity

Average Available water holding capacity


( 24 in.)


( 36 in.)

Bronson 0 - 10

11 – 26

27 – 34

35 - 60

0.13 – 0.15

0.12 – 0.18

0.06 – 0.08

0.02 – 0.04

0.14

0.15

0.07

0.03

10” x 0.14=1.4

14” x 0.15=2.7

-----------------------

= 4.1

10” x 0.14=1.4

16” x 0.15= 3.26

8” x 0.07 = 0.56

2” x 0.03 = 0.06

-----------------------

= 5.28

Spinks 0 – 10

10 – 26

26 - 60

0.08 – 0.10

0.08 – 0.10

0.04 – 0.08

0.09

0.09

0.06

10” x 0.09= 0.9

14” x 0.09= 1.26

-----------------------

= 2.16

10” x 0.09= 0.9

16” x 0.09= 1.26

8” x 0.06= 0.48

-----------------------

= 2.64

Calculating Water Holding Capacity

Available Water Holding Capacity

Soil Type/ depth

Bronson Capac Oshtemo Spinks

0”to 6”0”to 6”

.84” .84”

1.2”1.2”

.75”

.75”.54”.54”

6”to 12”0”to 12”

.86”1.70”

1.2”2.4”

.75”1.50”

.54”1.08”

12’ to 18”0”to 18”

.90”2.60”

.99”3.39”

.87”2.37”

.54”1.62”

18’ to 24”0” to 24”

.90”3.50”

.99”4.38”

.93”3.30”

.54”2.16”

24’ to 30”0” to 30”

.58”4.80”

.99”5.37”

.93”4.23”

.42”2.58”

30” to 36” 0”to 36”

.34”5.14”

.93”6.30”

.86”5.06”

.36”2.94”

Irrigation Scheduling Checkbook Method

–University of Minnesota

• Items to Conduct Checkbook Irrigation Scheduling

o Two or more rain gauges o Max-Min thermometer or access to local

temperature reports o Soil probe or in field moisture sensors o Daily crop water use table or local ET hotline or

website report o Soil water balance worksheets o Estimate of soil moisture holding capacity

Rain Gauges

• Basic unit – 2 inch opening

• Cost less than $10• One rain gauge for

each 40 acres.• Recording rain gauge

cost $50 - $100

Jun 21Jun 22Jun 23Jun 24Jun 25Jun 26

757585757575

.17

.17

.20

.20

.17

.17

501.5

3.0

-0--0--0--0--0--0-

2.232.061.891.691.492.071.90

0.75

Frasier 60”SW 1/4

30”


757585757575

.17

.17

.20

.20

.17

.17

501.5

3.0

-0--0--0--0--0--0-

2.232.061.891.691.492.071.90

0.75

Frasier 60”SW 1/4

30”


757585757575

.17

.17

.20

.20

.17

.17

501.5

3.0

-0--0--0--0--0--0-

2.232.061.891.691.492.071.90

0.75

Frasier 60”SW 1/4

30”

0.770.941.111.311.510.931.10

Average Water Use for Christmas trees (estimated at 1 inch/week) in inches/day

Ave.Temp

May1

2 3 4 Jun5

6 7 8 Jul9

10 11 12 Aug13

14 15 16 Sep17

50-59 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14

60-69 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14

70-79 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14

80-89 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14

90-99 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14

Estimate of daily ET at 1 inch per week Estimate

Table 9. Average water use for any other crops when at full canopy at different times of the season

Daily high

Temp

May1

2 3 4 Jun5

6 7 8 Jul9

10 11 12 Aug13

14 15 16 Sep17

50-59 .06 .07 .07 .08 .08 .08 09 .09 09 09 09 .08 .08 .08 07 .07 06

60-69 .09 .10 .11 .11 .12 .12 .13 .13 .13 .13 .13 .12 .12 .12 .11 .10 .09

70-79 .12 .14 .14 .15 .15 .15 .17 .17 .17 .17 .17 .16 .16 .16 .14 .13 .12

80-89 .15 .17 .18 .18 .19 .19 .20 .20 .21 .21 .21 .20 .20 .20 .17 .16 .15

90-99 .18 .20 .21 .22 .22 .22 .24 .24 .25 .25 .25 .24 .24 .23 .21 .19 .18

Source: Data estimates full potential of daily ET per week by Killen, and was placed in the above table by Wright in January 2002.

Crop Water use curve

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Weeks after emergence

Wa

ter

us

e (

inc

he

s)

Series1

Series2

Series3

Series4

Series5

Field beans Soys

Corn

Alfalfa

Field beans

Corn

Soys

Potato

Alfalfa

From Minnesota Extension bulletin “Irrigation Scheduling”, assuming temperature 80-89

Estimates of ET

• Net radiation

• Max and min temperatures

• Relative humidly

• Wind

Purdue Agronomy web site – MichIna Irrigation Scheduler: Est. From High / Low temp. & date

www.agry.purdue.edu/irrigation/IrrDown.htm

Estimates of ET

U of Wisconsin web site -Next/rad radar : http://www.soils.wisc.edu/wimnext/

• Net radiation• Max and min temperatures• Relative humidly• WindProvides the maximum water removal for the

day

http://www.soils.wisc.edu/wimnext/



Converting acre inches to gallonsfor trickle irrigation

• Calculate the % of area covered by trees (% of area you intend to water / tree )• One acre = 43,560 sq.ft.• One acre inch = 27,154 gallons

Example:The large tree you are watering have a diameter of 6.5 ft.

6.5 ft. x 6.5 ft. = 42 sq.ft. roughly 1/1000 of an acre 26 to 27 gallon / tree

(include uncontrolled grass or weed area that is watered in tree area)

Irrigation Scheduling Checkbook Challenges

Errors will accumulate over time -Weekly ground truthing needed

Rainfall variability is more than often considered

Only "effective” rainfall and irrigation should be considered

Only water entering root zone is "effective”

Methods to Estimate Soil Moisture

• Feel an Appearance

• Electrical resistance – electrodes on blocks in soil

• Tensiometers – measures soil moisture tension

• Other probes – Nuetron, TDR

Squeeze, Feel and Look

Not very accurate

Doesn’t sample the entire root zone

Experience with the site important

Gravimetric Moisture sampling

The standard for accuracy by which other are measured.

• Known volume of soil

• Wet weight compared to dry weight

• Used to calibrate other systems

• Very time consuming

Tensiometers

Soil water deficit estimates in inches per foot for various soil tensions.

Soil tension--centibars

Soil texture 10 30 50 70 100 200 1500*

Coarse sand 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.7

Fine sand 0 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.9 1.1

Loamy sand 0 0.4 0.5 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.4

Sandy loam 0 0.5 0.7 0.9 1 1.3 1.7

Loam-Clay

Clay loams 0 0.2 .5 0.8 1.0 1.6 2.4

*1500 centibars is permanent wilting point and the soil water deficit value is equal to the soil's total available water holding capacity.

Tensiometers

Good low tech system

Common problem is to break tension and loose reading near wilt point

Must be installed with the tip in good contact with the soil

Allow to come into equilibrium(few hours to a few days)

Resistance

Resistance Blocks

Delmhorst Instrument Co.

MEA

Resistance Blocks

Good Soil Contact Important

Some Last Only One Season (gypsum)

Good in Fine Textured Soils

Readings Vary With Soil Type

Neutron Probe

New Mexico State UniversityWashington State University

Neutron Probe

Probe emits neutrons that interact with soil hydrogen which is primarily present in soil water

Fast and Accurate (except in the top 8”)

Expensive - $4000+

Radiation Hazard (need a license)

Time Domain

Reflectometry

Mesa Systems Co.

Time Domain Reflectometry

Difficult to install

Accurate

Useful for all soil types

Expensive: $6000 - $7000

TDR devices send electrical pulses into the soil and measure the velocity of the reflected wave

Frequency

Domain

Reflectometry

Frequency Domain Reflectometry

Determines soil Electrical Capacitance by measuring the difference between an emitted signal and the returning signal

Proper installation of access tubes important. (No air between tube and soil)

Need to establish baseline readings at installation

Rapid and Accurate but a little pricey ~$5000

Tube installation can be difficult (clay/stones)

Tube removal can be difficult

DEVICENP TDR GS AP AQ TM GB WB

INITIAL COST 3 1 8 2 7 8 8 8

FIELD SITE SETUP REQUIREMENTS

7 3 10 3 10 7 6 6

OBTAINING A ROUTINE READING

8 8 1 8 4 10 8 8

INTERPRETATION OF READINGS

10 10 10 10 3 5 3 5

ACCURACY 10 10 10 8 2 7 2 3

MAINTENANCE 9 9 8 9 7 3 9 9

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS 2 8 5 8 9 7 5 8

COMPOSITE RATING 49 49 52 48 42 47 41 47

NP - Neutron ProbeTDR -Time Domain ReflectometryGS - Gravimetric SamplingAP - Troxler Sentry 200-AP

AQ - Aquaterr ProbeTM - TensiometerGB - Gypsum BlockWB - Watermark Block

Qualitative evaluation of soil water monitoring devices.

A score of 1 is least favorable while a score of 10 is most favorable.

Are appropriate backflow prevention devices in place and properly maintained if fertigation or chemigation is used?

2.9 Irrigation Management Practices

Backflow prevention safety devices are used and properly maintained if fertigation or chemigation are used.

Are appropriate backflow prevention devices in place and properly maintained if fertigation or chemigation is used?


Distance requirements between well and contamination, and agricultural chemical/fertilizer storage and preparation areas are at least 150 feet from the well.

Irrigation management to Protect Groundwater

• Backflow protection with Air gap and vacuum relief

-required for chemigation and fertigation- good idea for all systems.-Interlocks between nitrogen pump and

irrigation pump.-Backflow protection between injection point

and supply tank.

Chemigation / Fertigation Systems - Safety Interlock

Are split applications of nitrogen fertilizer

used when nitrogen is used in irrigated field?


Split applications of nitrogen fertilizer are used when nitrogen is used in an irrigated field. N application does not exceed MSU recommendation.

SUBSURFACE DRIP

21% not irrigated

Subsurface Drip Irrigation

Subsurface Drip Surface Drip

Except for cost, well water is the preferredwater source for irrigation.

A well owner may not diminish the use of well water of his neighbors

If a neighbor’s well use is impaired youlegally must rectify the situation if responsible.

Avoiding water use conflicts

Legal aspects – groundwater useGood irrigator response to neighbor’s

well problems:

A B C D

GFE

• pump from another location –

(There is no restriction on transport or use from other locations from wells).

Riparian Doctrine –Surface Water -Reasonable use rule- allowing diminished flow for extraordinary use such as recreational, municipal, industrial or agriculture use, as long as other riparian owner Natural Uses where not impaired

-Extraordinary uses have been considered equal.

Proactive Options for Agricultural

Consider Using Surface Water ACT 177, P.A. 2003 only affect well water use

Proactive Options for Agricultural

Legal aspects of groundwater use have not changed – A well owner may not diminish the use of well water of his neighbors

A prudent response to a neighbors substantiated

complaint of being negatively effect by an irrigation well is to offer to deepen their well and consider it an irrigation cost

Identify the neighbor you may affect and layout a plan of action to prevent or provide remediation of the problem if it occurs.

Proactive Options for Agricultural Identify the neighbor you may affect and layout a plan of action for

remediation of the problem if it occurs.

• You can get scanned well logs off of the internet (1999 and older) by Township and section at:– www.deq.state.mi.us/well-logs

• Well logs that are 2000 and newer are available on WELLOGIC at:– http://dwrp.deq.state. mi.us/wellogic– You need a username and password for wellogic, (issued to registered well drillers and agencies)

Does your well affect

neighbors?

Zone of influence

Groundwaterflow direction

GroundwaterFlow

Irrigationwell

Home well

Home well

Zone of influence

Home well

Irrigationwell

GW DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCESS: PA. 177

COMPLAINTFILING

COMPLAINTVERIFICATION

ON-SITEINVESTIGATION

RESOLUTION

CIRCUITCOURT APPEAL

DEQISSUESORDER

PROPOSEREMEDY

WELL DRILLERS ASSESSMENT

PROACTIVE GROUNDWATER DISPUTE RESOLUTION

Identify neighbor your Well may effect

Formal complaint filing avoided Large well user pays

RESOLUTION

Well driller proposes remedy

Contact well driller

for assessmentof well

Circuit court avoided

Devise a plan for them to contact you if Well problems arise

If a well proble

m arises

Farmer is a neighborhoo

dhero

Tools for Irrigation Stewardship Lyndon Kelley, MSU Extension Thanks to Dr. Steve Miller - MSU Ag...

Documents

Transcript of Tools for Irrigation Stewardship Lyndon Kelley, MSU Extension Thanks to Dr. Steve Miller - MSU Ag...