Western Kansas Research-Extension Centers

CIG-Mobile Drip Irrigation reference and Other Resources

CIG-Mobile Drip Irrigation References and Other Resources

Title: Mobile Drip Irrigation Evaluation in Corn

Excerpts:

The experiment was conducted at the Kansas State University Southwest Research-Extension Center near Garden City, Kansas. Soil water evaporation was measured using four-inch mini lysimeters.

  • compared soil water evaporation under MDI and in-canopy spray nozzles to evaporation in MDI lower than spray
  • evaluated soil water redistribution under MDI at 60-inch dripline lateral spacing
  • compared corn grain yield, water productivity, and irrigation water use efficiency
    • In general, no significant difference
    • At 600 gpm: spray nozzles corn yields > MDI corn yields
    • At 300 gpm: MDI corn yields >spray nozzles corn yields
  • compared end-of-season profile soil water under MDI and in-canopy spray at two well capacities 300 and 600 gpm
    • Mobile Drip Irrigation soil water > in-canopy spray nozzles soil water in the 8 foot.

Citation: Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station Research Reports: Vol. 2: Iss. 7. https://doi.org/10.4148/ 2378-5977.1253 https://newprairiepress.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1253&context=kaesrr

 

Title: Revisiting precision mobile drip irrigation under limited water

Excerpts:

  • The experiment was conducted at the K-State SWRE Center near Garden City, Kansas, 2015, for corn
  • Compared soil water evaporation under MDI and LESA→ MDI evaporation < LESA evaporation
  • Assessed soil water redistribution under MDI→ There was adequate redistribution of soil water in the subsurface.
  • Compared end-of-season profile soil water under MDI and LESA at two irrigation capacities 3.1 and 6.2 mm/day
    • for 3.1 mm/day→ soil water under MDI> soil water under LESA
  • The MDI system prevented deep wheel tracks and its redesign eliminated emitter clogging and reduced the frequency of the drip lines moving into the crop.

Citation: Kisekka, I., Oker, T., Nguyen, G. et al. Revisiting precision mobile drip irrigation under limited water. Irrig Sci 35, 483–500 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00271-017-0555-7

 

Title: Evaluation of dynamic uniformity and application efficiency of mobile drip irrigation

Excerpts:

The experiment was conducted at the K-State SW Research-Extension Center near Garden City, Kansas

  • The coefficient of uniformity of the 3.8 L/h and 7.6 L/h MDI was 93.8% and 93.7%, respectively, and 95.1% for LEPA, and 83.8% for LESA.
  • Application efficiencies for the 3.8 L/h and 7.6 L/h MDI, LEPA and LESA were 76.1, 96.8, 98.4 and 51.2%, respectively.
  • No significant differences in the amount of water stored in the soil profile between MDI, LESA and LEPA.
  • No significant differences in mean seasonal Advanced Difference Vegetative Index (ADVI) and Normalized Difference Vegetative Index (NDVI) between MDI, LESA and LEPA.
  • MDI can adapt the high efficiency of traditional drip irrigation to center pivot systems

Citation: Oker, T.E., Kisekka, I., Sheshukov, A.Y. et al. Evaluation of dynamic uniformity and application efficiency of mobile drip irrigation. Irrig Sci 38, 17–35 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00271-019-00648-0

  

Title: Evaluating Soil Water Redistribution under Mobile Drip Irrigation, Low-Elevation Spray Application, and Low-Energy Precision Application Using HYDRUS

Excerpts:

The experiment was conducted at the K-State SW Research-Extension Center near Garden City, Kansas

  • MDI driplines and LEPA showed the highest lateral soil water redistribution
  • The mean soil water contents for MDI1, MDI2, LEPA, and LESA at a depth of 30 cm were 0.31, 0.31, 0.31, and 0.33 cm3⋅cm−3 respectively
  • The results indicated greater nonuniformity under MDI than under LESA.
  • The results also showed that the MDI water redistribution pattern was similar to that of LEPA, but horizontal uniformity was less than with LESA.
  • MDI had 48% and 19% less runoff potential compared with LEPA and LESA, respectively.
  • Soil water redistribution uniformity under MDI was less than under LESA and LEPA, it enabled better infiltration and lessened runoff potential

Citation: Oker, T. E., Sheshukov, A. Y., Aguilar, J., Rogers, D. H., & Kisekka, I. (2021). Evaluating Soil Water Redistribution under Mobile Drip Irrigation, Low-Elevation Spray Application, and Low-Energy Precision Application Using HYDRUS. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, 147(6), 04021016. https://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29IR.1943-4774.0001553

 

Title: EVALUATION OF MOBILE DRIP IRRIGATION (MDI) AND OTHER SPRINKLER PACKAGES

Excerpts:

The experiment was conducted in different farms

  • The yield data in 2016 at the SWREC plots showed that there was barely any difference between the MDI treatments, bubbler and sprays at the higher well capacities (600 and 300 gpm).
  • At the 600 gpm, spray seem to have a significant advantage with the MDI with 2gpm hose. However, at the 150 gpm well capacity, the spray did show a significant disadvantage or yield penalty compare with most of the other treatments.
  • In 2016, the center pivots in the fields incurred substantial repair costs particularly related to wheels and wheel drive train.
  • If one considers the profit above variable expenses, there is slight advantage in using the MDI ($366 and $478) compared with spray nozzles ($351 and $475). However, if you consider the water use in the computation, then the profit per acre-inch per acre now becomes favorable for spray.
  • The hose has consistently had the lowest yield while the bubbler had consistently higher yields.
  • By reduced the application rates in the MDI by 20 and 30 percent, the MDI did suffer yield losses. However, the water use efficiency was greater in the MDI compared with the spray.
  • The bubbler package did have the lowest yield and the fixed spray had the highest yield in most instances and new introduced i-wob package was in between. However, the reason of these result could be the run-offs that come from the others span since the field had slope.
  • In the flat farms, the bubbler package, i-wob and fixed spray did have the highest yield respectively

Citation: Aguilar, J., Rogers, D. H., Oker, T., & Kisekka, I. (2019). Evaluation of mobile drip irrigation (MDI) and other sprinkler packages. In Proc. 31ST Annual Central Plains Irrigation Conference (pp. 98-107). https://www.ksre.k-state.edu/irrigate/oow/p19/Aguilar19.pdf

 

Title: Mobile Drip Irrigation for Water Limited Crop Production: Initial Results

Excerpts:

  • Soil water evaporation was lower under MDI compared to LESA by an average of 35%.
  • Soil water was greatest at the mid-point between two drip line laterals spaced 60 inches apart at a depth of approximately 20–24 inches that indicate drip line spacing of 60 inches is adequate for silt loam soils of southwest Kansas.
  • The effect of irrigation application method (MDI versus spray nozzles [LESA]) on yield at high (600 gpm) and low (300 gpm) well capacities was not statistically significant.
  • The effect of application method on water productivity and irrigation water use efficiency was not significant.
  • Under low well capacity (300 gpm), mobile drip irrigation had more soil water compared to spray nozzles.

Citation: Aguilar, J.; Oker, T.; and Kisekka, I. (2019) "Mobile Drip Irrigation for Water Limited Crop Production: Initial Results," Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station Research Reports: Vol. 5: Iss. 7. https://doi.org/10.4148/2378-5977.7816

  Title: Evaluation of maize production under mobile drip irrigation

Excerpts:

The experiment was conducted at the K-State SW Research-Extension Center near Garden City, Kansas

  • Differences in grain yield between irrigation application devices were not significant, but there were differences between irrigation capacities.
  • There were no significant differences in monthly biomass yield between the application devices but there were significant differences in biomass yield between irrigation capacities.
  • There were no significant differences in LAI between both the application devices and irrigation capacities.
  • There were no significant differences in water use efficiency between the application technologies, however, differences between irrigation capacities were significant
  • Generally, crop biophysical measurements under MDI were not significantly different from those under LEPA and LESA
  • Any marginal benefits of MDI were likely masked by rainfall, thus further evaluation of MDI is recommended under conditions of less applied water than LEPA or LESA accompanied by low rainfall.

Citation: Oker, T. E., Kisekka, I., Sheshukov, A. Y., Aguilar, J., & Rogers, D. H. (2018). Evaluation of maize production under mobile drip irrigation. Agricultural Water Management, 210, 11-21. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378377418304797

 

Title: Comparing Mobile Drip Irrigation to Low Elevation Spray Application in Corn

 

Excerpts:

The experiment was conducted at SW Research-Extension Center near Garden City, Kansas

  • Results indicate grain yield was not significantly different between MDI and LESA due to the above normal rainfall received during the 2015 growing season .
  • The effect of application method on water productivity and irrigation water use efficiency was also not significant.
  • Water productivity and irrigation water use efficiency were higher under the 300 gpm study compared to the 600 gpm, implying that water was used more efficiently as the number of irrigation applications decreased.

 

Citation: Kisekka, I., Oker, T., Nguyen, G., Aguilar, J., & Rogers, D. Comparing Mobile Drip Irrigation to Low Elevation Spray Application in Corn. https://www.irrigation.org/IA/FileUploads/IA/Resources/TechnicalPapers/2016/ComparingMobileDripIrrigationtoLowElevationSprayApplicationinCorn.pdf

 

Title: Efficient Irrigation Technologies for Corn—A Comparison

Excerpts:

The experiment was conducted at K-State Northwest Research-Extension Center near Colby, KS

  • Irrigation amounts were similar for the SDI and MDI systems when comparing the equivalent capacities.
  • Averaging 13.3 and 11.4 inches per acre. When averaged over the six-year period, SDI and MDI corn grain yields were 242.5 and 239.2 bu/a, respectively.
  • Total crop water use was less for SDI than for MDI
  • There was greater soil water depletion with MDI than with SDI.
  • Crop water productivity was greater with SDI than with MDI.

 

Citation: Lamm, F. R., & O'Brien, D. M. (2022). Efficient Irrigation Technologies for Corn—A Comparison. Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station Research Reports, 8(8), 6. https://newprairiepress.org/kaesrr/vol8/iss8/6/

 

Title: Development and evaluation of mobile drip irrigation with center pivot machine.

Excerpts:

  • The advantages of the mobile drip irrigation system are its low-pressure requirements up to 50 kPa, low evaporation losses, and its success in the irrigation of many crops.
  • The soil moisture content after irrigation by use of MDI system showed high uniformity in the area between drip tubes. For the same area, the mobile drip irrigation system needs approximately 1.35 to 1.74% of the polyethylene tubes that would be needed in a stationary drip irrigation system.

Citation: Derbala, A., & Sourell, H. (2002). Development and evaluation of mobile drip irrigation with center pivot machine. In Proceedings 8th International Congress on Mechanization and Energy in Agriculture, Kușadası, Turkey, 15-17 October 2002 (pp. 290-296). Ege University, Faculty of Agriculture. https://www.cabdirect.org/cabdirect/abstract/20023175226

 

Title: Economic feasibility of conversion to mobile drip irrigation in the Central Ogallala region

Excerpts:

Compared MDI and LESA

  • Using a 3% discount rate, under the medium level of investment cost ($371 per hectare), a discounted payback period of 4.9, 9.0, and 6.3 years is required for corn, cotton, and sorghum/wheat, respectively.
  • As the cost per hectare to convert an existing center pivot drops to $185 per hectare, the payback period also drops to 2.3, 4.2, and 3.0 years, respectively.
  • producers growing higher water use crops are able to recover the costs of the conversion to MDI through increased water use efficiency quicker than producers growing medium and lower water use

Citation: Reynolds, S., Guerrero, B., Golden, B. et al. Economic feasibility of conversion to mobile drip irrigation in the Central Ogallala region. Irrig Sci 38, 569–575 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00271-020-00667-2

 

Title: DESIGN AND EVALUATION OF MOBILE DRIP IRRIGATION SYSTEM

Excerpts:

  • The MDI technology increased system application efficiency through precision drip irrigation with the slow methodical release of water and nutrients directly to the soil area for optimal plant growth.
  • The MDIS was evaluated at four system speeds of 5, 10, 15, and 20 and three types of drip tubes
  • The results showed that the classification of all used drip tubes was fully pressure compensating and the application efficiency of MDIS was higher than 82%.
  • Results obtained the mathematical relationships which describe wetting front advance in horizontal ''H'', vertical ''V'', and diagonal ''D'' directions in loamy sand soil.

 

Citation: Khairy, M. F. A., Zabady, F. E., & Fayed, M. H. (2016). Design and evaluation of mobile drip irrigation system. Misr Journal of Agricultural Engineering, 33(4), 1329-1350. https://journals.ekb.eg/article_97604.html

 

 

Title: Mobile drip irrigation (MDI): Clogging of high flow emitters caused by dragging of driplines on the ground and by solid particles in the irrigation water

Excerpts:

The experiment was conducted at University of São Paulo, Brazil.

  • Mobile drip irrigation (MDI) system evaluated for clogging resistance.
  • Dragging of driplines did not cause emitter clogging under dynamic conditions.
  • Keeping MDI driplines in the field under static condition caused significant clogging.
  • High-flow emitters were resistant to clogging by solid particles in irrigation water.

 

Citation:

Coelho, R. D., de Almeida, A. N., de Oliveira Costa, J., & de Sousa Pereira, D. J. (2022). Mobile drip irrigation (MDI): Clogging of high flow emitters caused by dragging of driplines on the ground and by solid particles in the irrigation water. Agricultural Water Management, 263, 107454. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378377422000014

 

Title: Mobile drip irrigation - an alternative to irrigation with nozzles.

Excerpts:

  • The paper identifies the main characteristic values for the selection of a system, along with how to appraise their applicability.

 

Citation: Sourell, H. (2000). Mobile drip irrigation-an alternative to irrigation with nozzles. In 6th International Micro-irrigation Congress (Micro 2000), Cape Town, South Africa, 22-27 October 2000 (pp. 1-9). International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage (ICID). https://www.cabdirect.org/cabdirect/abstract/20013065719

 

Title: Mobile Drip Irrigation for Pivots and Laterals

Excerpts:

  • The paper identifies potential advantage and disadvantage of MDI system, and explain adaptations and considerations and managements.

Citation: Yost, M., Holt, J., Reid, C., Winward, D., Allen, N., & Creech, E. (2019). Mobile Drip Irrigation for Pivots and Laterals. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3011&context=extension_curall

 

 

Title: Performance of Precision Mobile Drip Irrigation in the Texas High Plains Region

Excerpts:

The experiment was conducted at Bushland, Texas

  • Grain yield and yield components were similar among application treatment methods.
  • WUE was similar for the MDI treatment plots compared with LEPA and LESA during the wet growing seasonGrain yield and yield components were similar among application treatment methods.
  • MDI demonstrated improved WUE during the drier year

Citation: O’Shaughnessy, S. A., & Colaizzi, P. D. (2017). Performance of precision mobile drip irrigation in the Texas High Plains region. Agronomy, 7(4), 68. https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4395/7/4/68

 

Title: Mobile Drip Irrigation (MDI)

Excerpts:

  • MDI is able to get 10-25% more water to the soil per gallon of water pumped than traditional MESA sprinklers.
  • MDI has been found to use less water than LESA, and a similar amount of water compared with LEPA, and LESA has been shown to use about 18% less water than MESA.
  • MDI had 35% less evaporation from the soil surface compared with LESA.
  • MDI will have less runoff than LESA or especially LEPA.
  • If growers do not have runoff problems then they will likely be more interested in the lower cost methods of LESA or LEPA.

Citation: Molaei, B., Peters, R. T., & Kisekka, I. (2019). Mobile drip irrigation (MDI). https://engagement.oregonstate.edu/sites/default/files/documents/33601/mdi.pdf

 

Title: Drip Irrigation Technology: Principles, Design, and Evaluation

Excerpts:

  • This chapter describes the different types of drip irrigation system and ultra-low drip irrigation (ULDI) system and mobile drip irrigation system (MDIS) and those concepts, design and characteristics and history of these new types in Egypt.

Citation: Fayed, M. (2020). Drip Irrigation Technology: Principles, Design, and Evaluation. Technological and Modern Irrigation Environment in Egypt, 275-303. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-30375-4_13

 

Title: Mobile Drip Irrigation Transforming Center Pivots Through Drip Technology

Excerpts:

  • By replacing the sprinkler systems of a center pivot with lines of tubing with drip emitters, application efficiency can be improved to levels that are comparable to subsurface drip irrigation.
  • Evaporative loss of irrigation water after being applied to the soil surface are also reduced with trials showing up to 35% reduction in evaporation with MDI when compared to traditional nozzles.
  • Mobile Drip Irrigation systems can operate at pressures as low as 68 kPa (10 PSI) and have great success with low-capacity water.
  • Mobile drip irrigation has shown the ability to decrease pumping costs, reduce runoff of water, decrease rutting of wheel tracks by the drivelines of pivots, as well as reduce wear on mechanical parts of the pivot when compared to traditional sprinklers.
  • With comparable efficiency to subsurface drip irrigation at a lower price point, and the fact that it can adapted to existing irrigation systems, MDI has been shown to be an effective system on a variety of crops and in multiple regions of the world as it can be customized to fit the operation needs.

Citation: Jenkins, Z. S., & Teeter, M. J. (2021). Mobile Drip Irrigation Transforming Center Pivots Through Drip Technology. In 6th Decennial National Irrigation Symposium, 6-8, December 2021, San Diego, California (p. 1). American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers. https://elibrary.asabe.org/abstract.asp?aid=52906

 

Title: CENTER PIVOT PRECISION MOBILE DRIP IRRIGATION

Excerpts:

The experiment was conducted at Hoxie, KS at DLS Farms.

  • There was no positive or negative impact on yield from those plots that were irrigated with the PMDI system versus a standard drop nozzle system.
  • Emitter flow was decreased in PMDI compared with nozzle flow which was likely due to emitter clogging.
  • Clogging of the emitters over the life of the system along with puncturing of the hoses from wildlife appear to be two negatives of the system, while one benefit of the system was the reduced wheel pivot tracks when the PMDI system is used to water crops near the pivot wheel.

Citation: Olson, B. L., & Rogers, D. (2007). Center pivot precision mobile drip irrigation. In 2007 Central Plains irrigation conference proceedings, Kearney, Nebraska, February 27-28. Colorado State University. Libraries. https://mountainscholar.org/bitstream/handle/10217/205845/113_2007OlsonCenter.pdf?sequence=1