Laserfiche WebLink
<br />{){~ <br /> <br />~ <br />I" <br />Q"'.l, <br />y~ <br /> <br />TABLE 5 <br /> <br />GRANO VALLEY SALINITY PROJECT <br />COMPARISON OF CONVENTIONAL AND SURGE IRRIGATION, 1991 <br /> <br />Site <br />No. <br />(j n.) <br /> <br />11 <br />39 <br /> <br />61 <br />conv. <br />surge <br /> <br />15 <br />41 <br /> <br />conv. <br />SlJ rge <br /> <br />43 conv. <br />44 surge <br /> <br />.'~ f..., <br />'{/io:' <br /> <br />26 conv. <br />51 sur9,e <br /> <br />49 conv. <br />50 surge, <br /> <br />No. of <br />11"1"9. <br /> <br />Field <br />Size <br />(ac. ) <br /> <br />I rr. <br />hrsl <br />a.cre <br /> <br />6 4.3 <br />6 7.5 <br />Difference <br /> <br />53 <br />49 <br />4 <br /> <br />6 18.9 <br />6 16.6 <br />Difference <br /> <br />42 <br />27 <br />15 <br /> <br />77/ 2.4 97 <br />7 4.8 77 <br />Difference 20 <br /> <br />6 19.0 30 <br />6 9.6 22 <br />Difference 12 <br /> <br />4 8.8 37 <br />4 8 . 8 39, <br />Difference 2 <br /> <br />Conv. Average 52 <br />Surge Average 43 <br />Difference 9 <br /> <br />". 5' 81 <br />,. av I ngs <br /> <br />17 <br /> <br />Inf I owl <br /> <br />(i n.) <br /> <br />57.9 <br />54,9 <br />3,0 <br /> <br />69,5 <br />50,2 <br />19.3 <br /> <br />96.9 <br />81,4 <br />15.5 <br /> <br />32.5 <br />22.2 <br />10.3 <br /> <br />52,6 <br />55.0 <br />- 2.4 <br /> <br />61.9 <br />52.7 <br />9.2 <br /> <br />14,9 <br /> <br />Outflow2Infilt.3 <br /> <br />(i n.) <br /> <br />4.1 <br />12.4 <br />-8.3 <br /> <br />24.1 <br />14.8 <br />9.3 <br /> <br />39.5 <br />25.6 <br />13.9 <br /> <br />16.3 <br />9.8 <br />6.5 <br /> <br />7.1 <br />9.6 <br />-2.5 <br /> <br />18.2 <br />14.4 <br />3.8 <br /> <br />20.9 <br /> <br />( i n.) <br /> <br />53.8 <br />42.5 <br />11.3 <br /> <br />45.4 <br />35.4 <br />10.0 <br /> <br />57.4 <br />55.8 <br />1.6 <br /> <br />16.2 <br />12.4 <br />3.8 <br /> <br />45.5 <br />45.4 <br />0,1 <br /> <br />43.7 <br />38.3 <br />5.4 <br /> <br />12.4 <br /> <br />Deep4 <br />Perc. <br />(i n.) <br /> <br />16.0 <br />6.1 <br />9,9 <br /> <br />23.1 <br />14.5 <br />8.6 <br /> <br />29.0 <br />28.3 <br />0.7 <br /> <br />4.1 <br />2.1 <br />2.0 <br /> <br />30.9 <br />30.4 <br />0.5 <br /> <br />20.6 <br />16.3 <br />4.3 <br /> <br />20.9 <br /> <br />App 1.5 <br />Eff. <br />(%) <br /> <br />65.3 <br />66.3 <br />+1.0 <br /> <br />32.1 <br />41.6 <br />+9.5 <br /> <br />29.3 <br />33.8 <br />+4,5 <br /> <br />37.1 <br />46.3 <br />+9.2 <br /> <br />27.8 <br />27,2 <br />-0,6 <br /> <br />38.3 <br />43.0 <br />+4.7 <br /> <br />1/ The amount of water applied to the field in acre inches per acre, <br />2/ Run-off values in acre inches per acre. A negative value indicat.s runoff from surge sites great.r than fro. <br />conventional sites, <br />3/ Infiltration in acre inches per acre, <br />4/ Average deep percolation in acre inches per acr., <br />5/ A positive value indicates surge application .ffici.ncy to be greater than conventional sit.s, <br />6/ Comparison sit.s (surg. and conventionall .stabl ish.d in the same fi.ld but diff.rent locations. <br />7/ Data from five irrigations used for cooparison, Conv.ntional sit. had five and surge had six irrigations during the <br /> <br />season. <br />8/ p.rcent reduction Dr savings in hours, wat.r appl ication, runoff, de.p p.r,olation .tc. with us. of surge irrigation <br />system compared to convent i Dna I i rr i gat ion. <br /> <br />20 <br />