World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology 69 2012

Comparative Study of Drip and Furrow

Irrigation Methods at Farmer’s Field in Umarkot
A. Tagar, F. A. Chandio, I. A. Mari, B. Wagan
Abstract—An experiment was conducted on the comparative Therefore it is dire need to adopt modern efficient irrigation
study of drip and furrow irrigation methods at the farmer’s field in methods like sprinkler and drip. Sprinkler irrigation method
Umar Kot. The total area under experiment about 4000m2 was offers several advantages over surface irrigation methods,
divided into two equal portions. One portion about 40m X 50m was
including higher water use efficiency, better fertilizer
occupied by drip and the other portion about 40m X 50m by furrow
irrigation method. Soil at the experimental site was clay loam in application and high yield [2]. However, high wind velocity
texture for 0-60cm depth; average dry bulk density and field capacity and use of saline water may restrict its application in arid
was 1.16g/cm3 and 28.5% respectively. The results reveal that the regions. Drip irrigation method is not affected by high wind
drip irrigation method saved 56.4% water and gave 22% more yield velocity as it applies water directly to the root zone of plants
as compared to that of furrow irrigation method. Higher water use [3]. Its major advantages as compared to other methods
efficiency about 4.87 was obtained in drip irrigation method; whereas
include: higher crop yields, saving in water, increased fertilizer
lower water used efficiency about 1.66 was obtained in furrow
irrigation method. The present study suggests farming community to use efficiency, reduced energy consumption, tolerance to
adopt drip irrigation method instead of old traditional flooding windy atmospheric conditions, reduced labor cost, improved
methods. diseased and pest control, feasible for undulating sloppy lands,
suitability on problem soils and improved tolerance to salinity
Keywords—Drip and furrow irrigations methods, water saving, [4].In a study [5] reported that drip irrigation generally
yield of tomato crop. achieves better crop yield and balanced soil moisture in the
active root zone with minimum water losses. On the average,
I. INTRODUCTION drip irrigation saves about 70 to 80% water as compared to

W ATER is essential substance for sustaining life on the

earth. Its consumption by the agriculture sector
continues to dominant the overall requirements of water.
conventional flood irrigation methods [2]. [6] found from his
experiments that the potato yield was 588.0 quintals/ha with
drip irrigation method compared to 507.8 quintals/ha with
Moreover the increasing population, urbanization and furrow mode and 561.6 quintals/ha with sprinkler irrigation.
unsustainable consumption of water have further imposed the Moreover [7] found that yield was higher by 18-42% and
greater demands on water in arid and semi regions of the water use efficiency by 35 to 103% in drip mode. There are
country. Thus it becomes indispensable to properly manage some disadvantages inherent with this technology such as;
water at all levels in order to fulfill their food and fiber emitter clogging, which may be removed by the use of good
requirements. Management of water resources at macro level quality filtration system and high material and installation cost,
is quite costly and time taking, even though unavoidable. On this is also solved, because Federal government has introduced
the contrary the management of water at field level is relatively a project worth 17.5 billion rupees to help the farmers by
inexpensive, more feasible, and easily workable and can be paying 80% of total cost. In past many studies have been
implemented in short span of time. conducted on drip irrigation method, even this farmers
In Pakistan, generally traditional flood irrigation methods community prefer to adopt traditional flood irrigation methods.
(basin, border and furrow) are used to irrigate crops, wherein Therefore this technology needs extensive publicity among the
the entire soil surface is almost flooded without considering local farmers in the country for future adoption. Keeping the
the actual consumptive requirements of the crops. These above facts in view the present study was conducted on the
practices have created the problems of waterlogging and comparative study of drip and furrow irrigation methods at the
salinity and reduction in the overall irrigation efficiency hardly farmer’s field in Umar Kot. Main objective of this study were
up to 30 percent [1]. to compare water saving, increase in yield and water use
efficiency of drip and furrow irrigation methods and to suggest
guidelines for farming community.

A. A. Tagar is PhD scholar at college of Engineering Nanjing Agricultural II. MATERIALS AND METHODS
University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, P. R. China (phone: 008613914706344; e-mail:
tagarahmed@ [Link]).
F. A. Chandio is PhD scholar at college of Engineering Nanjing A. Experimental Site
Agricultural University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, P. R. China An experiment was conducted at Dr. Abdul Hafeez
I. A. Mari is PhD scholar at college of Engineering Nanjing Agricultural
University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, P. R. China
Halepoto Farm at Faqeer Ali Bux Halepoto village, taluka
B. Wagan is PhD scholar at college of Water Conservancy and Umer Kot, district Umer Kot.
Hydropower Engineering, Hohai University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, P. R. China.

863
 World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology 69 2012

B. Preparation of land For this purpose the containers were placed under emitters
Since the land at the experimental site was uncultivated for to collect the water flowing through them. The collected water
about two years. Therefore it was ploughed twice by disk in a given time was then measured using a graduated cylinder.
plough followed by rotavator. Then a soaking-doze of 100 mm E. Coefficient of variation (cv)
was applied to the entire field when the soil came into the
There are certain variations in everything in the world; no
workable condition, it was ploughed again with cultivator and
two things are really identical. Likewise no two emitters are
then leveled. The aim of the study was to compare the drip and
identically manufactured; there would be a little variation
furrow irrigation methods with regard to water saving, increase
between them. Therefore coefficient of variation is used to
in yield and water use efficiency of drip and furrow irrigation
evaluate the flow rate uniformity of the emitters that was also
methods. For this purpose the total area under experiment
done in the present research work. Following formula was
about 4000 m2was divided into two portions equally. One
used to calculate the coefficient of variation [8].
portion about 40 X 50 m2 was occupied by drip and the other
portion about 40 X 50 m2 by furrow irrigation method as σ
Cv = x100 (1)
shown in figure 1 & 2. qav
C. Installation of drip irrigation system F. Emission uniformity (EU)
Drip irrigation system was installed in the experimental field EU is the ratio between the average discharge in the quarter
by Jaffer Brothers (PVT) LTD. This system consists of 110 receiving less water and the average discharge at the system
mm PVC pipe mainline connected to 63 mm PVC pipe sub- level. It is used to describe the predicted emitter flow variation
main line, which was connected to 16 mm Jain Turbo Type along a lateral line and can be assumed as synonymous to that
lateral line with 0.004 m3/hr drippers. The distance between of distribution uniformity (DU). The formula was used to
row to row and plant to plant was kept 0.9 and 0.5 m, calculate emission uniformity [9].
respectively. In all total 44 laterals were laid on the ground
surface along the lines of plants each 50 m long with 100  
Cv qm
emitters. EU = 1001.0 − 1.27 1  (2)
  qa
 n2 
Where;
σ = Standard deviation

n 2

∑ (qi − qav )
σ= i =1
(3)
n
Cv = Coefficient of variation
Fig. 1 Layout of drip irrigation System n = No. of emitters
qm =Minimum flow
qa = Average flow
[Link] of furrow irrigation system
For furrow irrigation system, furrows and ridges were
prepared by furrow maker. The row to row and plant to plant
distance was same as in drip irrigation. In all the total number
of furrows and ridges was 44 and 44 respectively. The length
of each furrow and ridge was 50 m, while each ridge was
comprised of 100 plants.
[Link] sampling
After the preparation of land, composite soil samples were
collected at 0-15, 15-30, 30-45 and 45-60 cm depths for the
Fig. 2 Layout of furrow irrigation system determination of soil texture, dry bulk density and field
capacity. The following procedures were adopted for the
[Link] of drip irrigation system analysis each parameter.
As mentioned earlier that the drip irrigation system was
installed by Jaffer Brothers, therefore its coefficient of I. Soil texture
variation and emission uniformity was determined in order to Soil texture was determined by Bouyoucous hydrometer
ascertain the performance of system. method in the laboratory of land and water management
department.

864
 World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology 69 2012

J. Dry bulk density (2) 40-80 kg/ac Phosphorous (P2O5)

To determine the dry bulk density of the soil, composite soil (3) 30-60 kg/ac Potassium (K2O).
samples were taken at the depths of 0-15, 15-30, 30-45 and 45- Schedule of Fertilizer Application
60 cm with the help of core sampler of known diameter from Fertilizer before transplanting
both plots of the experimental field. These samples were 0% N, 100% P2O5 40% K2O
labeled, packed and brought to the laboratory where they were First top dressing 10 days after sowing
placed in an oven for 24 hours at 105oC. After 24 hours dry 33% N, 0% P2O5 30% K2O
weight of each sample was measured with the help of electric Second top dressing 25 days after sowing
balance. Then following relation was used to calculate dry 33% N, 0% P2O5 30% K2O
bulk density of the soil. Third top dressing 40 days after sowing
33% N, 0% P2O5 0% K2O
Dry bulk density (ρ d ) =
Dry weight of soil
Total volume of soil
(4) [Link] Saving (%)
The water saving in drip over furrow irrigation system was
K. Field capacity
calculated as under:
The field capacity of the soil was determined by Veihmeyer
and Hendricksen method.
WS (%) =
(Wa − Wb ) × 100 (7)
L. Water sampling Wa
In order to determine the quality of irrigation water, three Where,
water samples were collected at start, middle and end of the WS = Water saving (in %)
experiment. These samples were analyzed for ECw, pH, SAR Wa = Total water used in furrow irrigation system (m3/ha)
and RSC. Wb = Total water used in drip irrigation system (m3/ha)
M. Sowing of crop and application of water P. Yield of crop
As recommended by [4] irrigation water was applied at 50% After picking, the tomatoes were packed in the polyethylene
deficit of soil moisture content, and the subsequent irrigations bags. The yield was then measured in kg / ha for each drip and
were applied accordingly. Therefore in drip irrigation system, furrow irrigated plot.
water was applied to soil at the rate of 0.004 m3 per hour The increase in yield (%) was computed as under:
through all the emitters. When the soil reached at field
Increasein yield (% ) =
(Y1 - Y2) (8)
capacity condition, tomato seedlings were sown by hand under × 100
Y1
each emitter. Likewise in furrow irrigation system, water was Where,
applied to all furrows, when the soil reached at field capacity Y1 = Total yield obtained in drip irrigation system (kg/ha)
condition, tomato seedlings were sown by hand. Irrigation Y2 = Total yield obtained under furrow irrigation system
water was measured using cutthroat flume in furrow irrigation (kg/ha)
system, while in drip irrigation system water was measured by
the flow meter installed in the sub-main. [Link] use efficiency
Following formula was used to identify to soil moisture The water use efficiency (WUE) of drip and furrow
deficit level; irrigation systems were calculated by using following formula;

SMD = θ f − θ o (5)
WUE =
Y
(9)
WR
θ=
(Ww − Wd ) × 100 Where;
(6) WUE = Water use efficiency (Kg/m3)
Wd Y = Yield of crop (Kg/hec)
Where, WR = Total water consumed for crop production
SMD = Soil moisture deficit level (m3/hec)
θf = Moisture content at field capacity (%)
θo = Moisture content at 50 % SMD III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
θ = Moisture content on dry weight basis (%)
Ww = Wet weight of soil (g) A. Soil characteristics
Wd = Oven dry weight of soil (g) Soil characteristics such as soil texture, dry bulk density and
N. Fertilizers and manures field capacity of the experimental site for the depths of 0-15,
15-30, 30-45 and 45-60 cm are depicted in Table I. It is
Fertilizers were applied to each plot as recommended by
evident from Table 1, that the soil texture of the experimental
OFWM-VI (2005). The following fertilizers were applied: site was clay loam; av. dry bulk density was 1.16 g/cm3 and
(1) 30-50 kg/ac Nitrogen (N) field capacity 28.5%.

865
 World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology 69 2012

TABLE I [Link] water used

SOIL CHARACTERISTICS
Total volume of water applied to the crop under drip
Sr.
Parameters Soil Characteristics irrigation system was 468.95 m3. It was further calculated as
No. 2344.75 m3/hec. Similarly total volume of water applied to the
crop under furrow irrigation system was 1076 m3. It was
1 Soil Texture Clay Loam further calculated as 5380.0 m3/hec as shown in figure 3.
2 Dry Bulk Density 1.16 g/cm3
These results reveal that total volume of water used under drip
irrigation system was less as compared to furrow irrigation
3 Field Capacity 28.5% system.
6000
B. Performance of drip irrigation system 5380

5000
The coefficients of variation and emission uniformity of
randomly selected laterals were determined in order to test the 4000
performance of the drip irrigation system.

m3/hac
The results are presented in Table 2, which show that the 3000
2344.75
coefficient of variation of randomly selected laterals was 0.64,
2000
0.82, 0.73, 0.78 and 0.71 respectively. Likewise the emission
uniformity of randomly selected laterals was 90.85, 88.11, 1000
89.24, 88.5 and 89.5 % respectively. These results suggest
that the system was working satisfactorily according to its 0
Drip Furrow
design. Irrigation system

Fig. 3 Total water used in drip over furrow irrigation system

TABLE II
DATA SHOWING MINIMUM DISCHARGE, AVERAGE DISCHARGE, STANDARD E. Crop yield
DEVIATION, COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION AND EMISSION UNIFORMITY Yields of tomato crop under drip and furrow irrigation
Sample ECw pH SAR RSC systems are plotted in Figure 4. It is obvious from Figure 4 that
No. (mmhos/cm total yield of crop under drip irrigation system was 2288 kg.
)
This was further calculated as 11440 kg/hec. Similarly total
1 600 7.6 2.2 0.0
yield of crop under furrow irrigation system was 2156 kg. This
2 560 7.6 2.0 0.0 was further calculated as 8945 kg/hec. These results suggest
that total yield of crop under drip irrigation system was more
3 520 7.6 2.1 0.0 as compared to furrow irrigation system.

14000
C. Water quality
12000 11440
In order to find out the quality of irrigation water used in
10000
drip and furrow irrigation methods, three water samples were 8945

collected at start, middle and end of the experiment. The 8000

kg/ha

results of these samples are shown in Table 3. These results 6000

indicate that irrigation water used through the experiment was 4000

suitable for irrigation. 2000

0
TABLE III Drip Furrow
IRRIGATION WATER QUALITY Irrigation system

Lateral Minim Avera ∑(q- Stan Coefficient Emissi Fig. 4 Yields of crop in drip over furrow irrigation system
No. um ge qav)2 dard of on
Discha Disch devi Variation Unifor F. Water saving, increase in yield and water use efficiency
rge arge ation (Cv) mity
Drip irrigation method saved 56.4% water and gave 22%
qm qav σ (EU)
(lit/hr) more yield as compared to that of furrow irrigation method as
1 3.92 3.962 0.065 0.02 0.6436 90.85 shown in fig. 5.
1 55 Likewise higher water use efficiency about 4.87 was
10 3.90 3.962 0.107 0.03 0.8253 88.11 obtained in drip irrigation method; whereas lower water use
3 22
20 3.91 3.975 0.085 0.02 0.73 89.24
efficiency about 1.66 was obtained in furrow irrigation method
91 as presented in Fig. 6. This may be because in drip irrigation
30 3.90 3.967 0.097 0.03 0.786 88.5 method water is applied directly in the root zone of crop.
9 12 Hence conveyance, evaporation and percolation losses reduced
40 3.91 3.974 0.081 0.02 0.71 89.5 to larger extent.
8 86

866
 World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology 69 2012

60 56.4 SUGGESTIONS
50
In the present study drip irrigation method gave overall
better performance with respect to water saving, increase in
40
yield and water use efficiency. Therefore present study
Percentage (%)

30
suggests farming community to adopt drip irrigation method
22 instead of old traditional flooding methods.
20

10 REFERENCES
[1] Ishfaq, M. 2002. “Water New Technology”. Global Water Institute,
0
Lahore, Pakistan.
Water saving Yield increased
[2] Camp, C.R., E. J. Sadler, W. J. Busscher, R. E. Sojlka and D. L. Karrlin
Fig. 5 Water saving and yield of crop in drip over furrow irrigation (2001) “ Experiencing with sprinkler irrigation for agronomic crops in
system the southeastern USA.
[3] Sharma, B. R. 2001. Availability, status and development and
6
opportunities for augmentation of groundwater resources in India.
4.87
Proceeding ICAR-IWMI Policy Dialogue on Ground Water
5
Management, November 6-7, 2001 at CSSRI, Karnal pp. 1-18.
[4] Michael, A.M. 2008. “Irrigation Theory and Practice”, Second
4
edition (revised and enlarged) Vikas Publishing House PVT. Ltd,
3

Delhi, India.
kg / m

3
[5] Yildirim, O. and A. Korukcu, (2000). “Comparison of Drip, Sprinkler
2 1.66
and Surface Irrigation Systems in Orchards”. Faculty of Agriculture,
University of Ankara, Ankara Turkey. 47p.
1 [6] Singh, N., Sood M.C. and Lal, S.S. (2005. “Evaluation of Potato Based
Cropping Sequences under Drip, Sprinkler and Furrow Methods of
0 Irrigation”, Potato Journal, Vol. 32, No ¾, pp 175-176.
Drip (WUE) Furrow (WUE)
[7] Ibragimov, N., Evtt, S.R. Esanbekov, Y., Kamilov, B.S., Mirzaev, L.,
Fig. 6 Water use efficiency in drip over furrow irrigation system and Lamers, J.P.A. (2007), “Water Use Efficiency of Irrigated Cotton
in Uzbekistan under Drip and Furrow Irrigation”, Agricultural Water
These findings are in agreement with those found by [10] Management, Vol. 90, No.1/2, pp. 335-238.
who suggested that drip irrigation is suitable for row crops and [8] ASAE (2002). “Design and installation of micro irrigation systems”.
ASAE EP 405.1 Dec.01, pp. 903–907.
all types of soils, even on highly sloping terrain. Crops like [9] Keller, J., and Bliesner, R. D. 1990. Sprinkler and trickle
chillies, brinjal, radish, beetroot, tomato, Lady’s finger, irrigation, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
sugarcane, banana and grapes, but no rice, can be grown with [10] Sivanappan, R.K. and D. Chandrasekaran. 1976. “Drip irrigation– A
drip irrigation. While [11] conducted a study to compare the Novel method to save the water”. J. of Indian Central Board of
irrigation and Power, Vol. 33. No. 4.
crop response under trickle and furrow irrigation methods. He [11] Sammis. T.W., (1980), “Comparison of Sprinkler, trickle and
reported that the yield under trickle irrigation was more than Furrow Irrigation Method for Row Crops”, Agron. J., No. 72, pp.
twice in comparison to the yield by furrow methods. Similarly 701-704.
[12] conducted research on tomato crop. They found that [12] Bogle, C.R. Hartz. T.K. and Nunez, C. (1989) “Comparison of
subsurface Trickle and furrow irrigation on Plastic Mulched and Bare
trickle irrigation required 45% less water and produced 22% Soil for Tomato Production”, Journal of the American Society for
higher yield than furrow irrigation. In a study [13] reported Horticulture Science, Vol. 114, No.1 pp. 40-43.
that yield and water use efficiency of summer and winter [13] Yaseen, S.., Rao M. Ishtiaque, and Memon., (1992), “An Evaluation of
vegetable crops was significantly higher in drip than in furrow Trickle Irrigation System under Irrigated Agriculture of Sindh”, Journal
of Drainage and Reclamation, Vol. 5, No. 1 & 2, Drainage and
irrigation method. Also [14] conducted an experiment on Reclamation Institute of Pakistan, Tanodjam, pp. 14-19.
mango. They found that 49% water was saved in trickle [14] Nisar. A.M. et al (1995), “Comparative Study of Trickle and Furrow
irrigation as compared to furrow irrigation; moreover; the Irrigation Methods on Growth and Water Use Efficiency of Mango
water use efficiency was higher with trickle irrigation. Orchard”, Mehran University research journal, Vol. 15No.2, pp.
243-48.

IV. CONCLUSIONS
Following conclusions and suggestions were drawn from the
present study:
• The drip irrigation system was working satisfactorily
according to its design.
• Drip irrigation method saved 56.4% water and gave 22%
more yield as compared to that of furrow irrigation method.
• Higher water use efficiency about 4.87 was obtained in drip
irrigation method; whereas lower water use efficiency about
1.66 was obtained in furrow irrigation method.

867