Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~ <br />'" ' <br />o <br />w. <br /> <br />t~t~; <br /> <br />Howeve~, sal inity levels measu~ed du~ing the sampl ing in the fall of <br />1991 gave a confusing pictu~e. Sites #11,13,15,16,21,32,43, and <br />45 had significantly highe~ salinity than measu~ed in the past. <br /> <br />Salinity levels measu~ed we~e about the same as levels measu~ed in <br />p~evious yea~s at one point in a field while the seco'nd pO,int had <br />significantly highe~ measu~ements this yea~ than in p~evious yea~s. <br />Salinity levels we~e highe~ at the uppe~ end of the field on 2 sites, <br />highe~ at the bottom of the field on 3 sites" and highe~ at both the <br />uppe~ end and the lowe~,end o"f the field on 3 sites. <br /> <br />Sites #43 and 45 have only been monito~ed fo~ two yea~s, the~efo~e it <br />is difficult to make any compa~isons. The application of h,igh amounts <br />of manu~e in the fall could have caused salinity levels to ~ise at <br />sit e # 32 i nth e up p e ~ 18 i n c h e s . At sit e s # 1 1, 1 3, 1 5 , 1 6, and 21, <br />the c~op is the same this yea~ as last yea~. !~~igation and management <br />was about the same this yea~ compa~ed to p~evious yea~s. <br /> <br />Two sites, #11 and 17, ,have been monito~ed fo~ eight yea~s. Sal inity <br />levels have changed ve~y little du~ing this pe~iod of time. The <br />i~~igation method (fu~~ow, sp~inkle~, o~ d~ip) has had litt,le effect <br />on sal inity t~ends. <br /> <br />. . '~'. <br />::';~..:. <br />.....::..::' <br /> <br />Since soi I sal inity is a dynamic so; I p~ope~ty, the sites need to be <br />Mon;to~ed seve~al yea~s to dete~minelong te~m t~ends which would be <br />mo~e meaningful than yea~ to yea~ compa~;sons. The~e does not appea~ <br />tOo be any t~end fo~ inc~ease o~ dec~ease in'soil salinity at this <br />time. <br /> <br />f. I~~igation Adequacies at Sites: Ove~use of wate~ IS p~evalent <br />th~oughout the G~and 'Va II ey be'cause of abundant supp I y of i nexpens i,ve <br />i~~igation wate~. Most p~oducers are not concerned about "i~~igation <br />wate~ management (!WM)" Ve~y few fa~me~s p~act i ce a high deg~ee of <br />IWM. A few fa~mers a~e concerned about paying ove~ag~ cost fo~ excess <br />irrigation water. . <br /> <br />Most ope~ato~s unde~ the M&E program, received individual i~~igation <br />summa~ies at least once du~ing the i~~igation season and then at the <br />end of the yea~. Data f~om their si~es we~e explained to them and <br />recommendations provided to Improve irrigation efficiencies, e.g., <br />better i~~igation scheduling, adjusting set times o~ inflow ~ates, <br />reducing or increasing time of set, and furrow flow or number of <br />fu~~ows. Befo~e the sta~t of the new i~~igation season, some <br />ope~ators ~eceived soil moisture deficit data to help them with thei~ <br />i~~igation management decisions. Very few ope~ato~s made any changes <br />to ihei~ existing i~~i9ation practices. <br /> <br />23 <br />