Laserfiche WebLink
<br />r- <br />0) <br />..1') <br />, ..-I <br /> <br />-, <br /> <br />,-, <br />.....- <br /> <br />Site <br />No. <br />(i n.) <br /> <br />11 conv.6/ <br />39 su...ge <br /> <br />15 conv. <br />41 su...ge <br /> <br />43 conv. <br />44 su...ge <br /> <br />45 conv. <br />46 su...ge <br /> <br />TABLE 9 <br />GRAND VALLEY SALINITY PROJECT <br />COMPARISON OF CONVENTIONAL AND SURGE IRRIGATION, 1990 <br /> <br />No. of <br />I ......g. <br /> <br />Field <br />Size <br />(ac.) <br /> <br />H...sl <br />acre <br /> <br />5 4.3 35 <br />5 7.5 33 <br />Diffe...ence 2 <br /> <br />8 18.9 43 <br />8 16.6 28 <br />Diffe...ence 15 <br /> <br />5Y 2.4 61 <br />5 4.8 35 <br />Diffe...ence 26 <br /> <br />5 5.6 34 <br />5 11.3 22 <br />Diffe...ence 12 <br /> <br />Conventional Ave...age 43 <br />Su...ge Ave...age 30 <br />Diffe...ence 13 <br /> <br />% Reduction 0... Savings~ <br /> <br />30 <br /> <br />I nf I owl <br /> <br />(in.) <br /> <br />37.1 <br />31.1 <br />6.0 <br /> <br />76.9 <br />49.3 <br />27.6 <br /> <br />65.8 <br />50.8 <br />15.0 <br /> <br />60.7 <br />39.2 <br />21.5 <br /> <br />60.1 <br />42.6 <br />17 .5 <br />29.1 <br /> <br />Outf I owl Inf i I t.3 <br /> <br />(i n.) <br /> <br />5.0 <br />9.6 <br />-4.6 <br /> <br />32.5 <br />16.9 <br />15.6 <br /> <br />16.2 <br />17.5 <br />-1.3 <br /> <br />28.2 <br />12.1 <br />16.1 <br /> <br />20.5 <br />14.0 <br />6.5 <br /> <br />31.7 <br /> <br />(i n.) <br /> <br />32.1 <br />21.5 <br />10.6 <br /> <br />44.4 <br />32.4 <br />12.0 <br /> <br />49.6 <br />33.3 <br />16.3 <br /> <br />32.5 <br />27.1 <br />5.4 <br /> <br />39.7 <br />28.6 <br />11. 1 <br /> <br />28.0 <br /> <br />Deepq <br />Pe...c. <br />(i n.) <br /> <br />10.3 <br />1.4 <br />8.9 <br /> <br />18.5 <br />9.0 <br />9.5 <br /> <br />28.8 <br />11. 1 <br />17.7 <br /> <br />16.4 <br />11. 1 <br />5.3 <br /> <br />18.5 <br />8.2 <br />10.3 <br /> <br />55.7 <br /> <br />App 1.5 <br />Eff. <br />(%) <br /> <br />58.8 <br />64.6' <br />+5.8 <br /> <br />33.7 <br />47.5 <br />+13.8 <br /> <br />31.6 <br />43.8 <br />+10.6 <br /> <br />26.5 <br />40.8 <br />+14.3 <br /> <br />37.7 <br />49.2 <br />+11.5 <br /> <br />1/ The amount of water appl ied to the field in acre inches per acre. <br />2/ Run-off values in acre inches per acre. A negative value indicates runoff from surge sites greater than from conventional sites. <br />3/ Infi Itration in acre inches per acre. <br />4/ Average deep percolation in acre inches per acre. <br />5/ A positive value indicates surge appl ication efficiency to be greater than conventional sites. <br />6/ Comparison sites (surge and conventional) establ ished in the same field but different locations. <br />~~ Data from five irrigations used for co~parison. Conventional site had five and surge had six irrigations during the season. <br />Percent reduction or savings in hours, water application, runoff, deep percolation etc. with use of surge irrigation system compared <br />to conventional irrigation. <br /> <br />30 <br />