Seepage vs. Center Pivot for Snap Bean Production in Florida · 2015-07-22 · Seepage vs. Center...

Seepage vs. Center Pivot for Snap Bean Production in Florida

Yuqi Cui, G. David Liu, Lincoln Zotarelli, Crystal A. Snodgrass, and Alan Jones UF-IFAS, Gainesville, FL 32611 Manatee County Extension, IFAS, Palmetto, FL 34221, and Jones Potato Farm, Parrish, FL 34219

INTRODUCTION RESULTS Snap Bean Yield & Quality

MATERIALS & METHODS

Water Usage

Seepage irrigation is the predominant irrigation for snap bean

production in Florida, but poses problems for water

conservation and quality.

Overhead irrigation has significantly greater water-use

efficiency than seepage irrigation, and can be used in snap

bean production.

Objective: to explore the feasibility of converting seepage to

central pivot irrigation for commercial snap bean production in

southwest Florida.

Flow meter

Center pivot irrigation systems can save over 50% of water compared to seepage irrigation. A more suitable fertilization program is required.

CONCLUSIONS

2014-2015 Growing Season

N Level in Soil at Harvest

Water Level

Field Measurements Level logger Rain gauge

Irrigation Variety Area

(ha)

Planting

Date Harvest Date

Seepage Caprice 4 2/18/2014 4/16/2014

Center pivot Caprice 69 2/2/2014 4/8/2014

Seepage irrigation was 0.1-0.2 m higher than center pivot irrigation in water table.

Soil Moisture

Biomass at Harvest

Soil moisture contents in the root-zone (top 12 inches) were greater for center pivot irrigation than for seepage irrigation.

No significant differences in NO3-N concentrations in the surface soil were observed between the seepage and center pivot plots at harvest (P>0.05).

Seepage Center pivot Data logger SPAD meter

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

At harvest, plants in seepage plots showed significantly higher dry weight of stems and leaves compared to that in center pivot irrigation plots (P<0.05).

Seepage irrigation showed significantly greater yield and Length/Diameter ratio (P<0.05).

The irrigation water usage for seepage plots was 57% more than center pivot plots. 0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Seepage Center pivot

KCl e

xtra

ctab

le N

O3-

N(m

g/kg

)

Treatment

Seepage Center pivot

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Seepage Center pivot

Dry

wei

ght (

g)/p

lant

Treatment

stems leaves pods

a

a

b

b

0

5

10

15

20

Seepage Center pivot

Leng

th/D

iam

eter

Treatment

a b

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

Seepage Center pivot

Yiel

d (k

g/ha

)

Treatment

a

b

110

22 25

149

149

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Seepage Center pivot

Ove

rall

wat

er u

sage

(mm

)

Treatment

rainfall

pivot

seepage

11%

13%

76%

-1.2

-1.0

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0.0 2/25 3/2 3/7 3/12 3/17 3/22 3/27 4/1 4/6 4/11 4/16

wat

er le

vel (

m)

Date

Seepage Center pviot

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45

2/25 3/4 3/11 3/18 3/25 4/1 4/8

Volu

met

ric m

oist

ure

cont

ent

(m3/

m3)

Date

80 cm 50 cm 30 cm 20 cm 10 cm

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45

2/25 3/4 3/11 3/18 3/25 4/1 4/8 4/15

Volu

met

ric m

oist

ure

cont

ent

(m3/

m3)

Date

This research was financially supported by Southwest Florida Water Management District (13C00000017). We thank Mr. David Fleming and Mr. Jesse Cavillo for helping with the research.

Seepage Center Pivot