Laserfiche WebLink
<br />(.0 <br />co <br /> <br />.....f) <br /> <br />\.:-4 <br /> <br />""j <br /> <br />.:' <br /> <br />At all fou... compa...ison sites, the ...eduction in wai;e... appl ication pe... <br />ac...e was di...ectly ...elated to the numbe... of hou...s of wate... applied pe... <br />ac...e. With su...ge, the ...eduction in hou...s pe... acr-e! of wate... applied <br />compa...ed to conventional i......igation va...ied f...om 2 to 26 hou...s. This <br />...elated to an ave...age savings of 30% 0'" 13 hou...s pe... ac...e of wate... <br />app I i cat ion with the use of su...ge systems <Tab I e ~I). Th i s means a <br />...eduction of about 29% in wate... application to the, field. Wate... <br />appl ication savings ...anged f...om 6.0 to 27.6 ac...e inches pe... ac...e with <br />an ave...age savings of 17.5 ac...e inches pe... ac...e (Table 9). <br /> <br />Compa...ison between su...ge and conventional <br />...eduction in tai Iwate... amount with su...ge. <br />...unoff, howeve..., on the ave...age the...e was <br />...eduction (Table 9) fo... the season, about <br /> <br />i......igation also showed a <br />Two surge sites had highe... <br />a 6.5 ac...e inches pe... ac...e <br />32% savings. <br /> <br />With ...educed wate... appl ication at su...ge sites, infi It...ated depth also <br />dec...eased by an ave...age of 11 inches pe... ac...e, about 28% savings <br /><Table 9). Reduction in infi It...ated depth va...ied f...om 5.4 ac...e inches <br />pe... ac...e to 16.3 ac...e inches. The ...eduction in infi It...ated depth also <br />helped ...educe deep pe...colation. Table 9 shows that deep pe...colation <br />...eduction is di...ectly p...opo...tional to infilt...ated depth. <br /> <br />Reduction in infi It...ated depth and deep pe...colation helped Inc...ease <br />appl ication efficiency by an ave...age of 11.5% at s:u...ge sites. The <br />diffe...ence in application efficiency between su...ge and conventional <br />sites va...ied f...om a low of 5.8% to a high of 14.3% fo... the season <br /><Table 9). <br /> <br />The diffe...ence in deep pe...colation ...eduction with use of su...ge <br />i......igation system va...ied f...om 5.3 ac...e inches to 17.7 ac...e inches pe... <br />ac...e. The site with the least deep pe...colation savings (46) also did <br />not have the fl...st i......igation monito...ed in the fall of the p...io... yea.... <br />Had fal I i......igation been monito...ed, the savings could have been <br />substantially mo...e since almost 50% of fall g...ain deep pe...colation <br />occu... by the end of the fi...st i......igation. The compa...ison shows that <br />deep pe...colation could be ...educed by about 10.3 ac...e inches pe... ac...e <br />with the use of su...ge systems, a savings of 55% fo... the season (Table <br />9) . <br /> <br />Reduction in deep pe...colation losses helps ...educe salt load to the <br />Colo...ado Rive.... Table 10 shows salt load cont...ibution by each of the <br />compa...ison sites and the ...eduction in salt tons pe... ac...e f...om su...ge <br />sites. The ...eduction va...ied f...om 1.81 tons to 6.~:4 tons pe... ac...e. On <br />the ave...age, 3.21 tons of salt pe... ac...e was p...evented f...om ente...ing <br />the Co I 0... ado R I ve... . Wit h s u ... 9 e i... ... i gat ion, the USDA co u Ide as i I Y <br />achieve the goal of 167,000 tons of salt load ...eduction annually in <br />the G...and Valley. <br /> <br />29 <br />