1 / 14

By Owilla B. P. O., Machungo , C., Wanjogu R.K. National Irrigation Board

EVALUATION OF WATER PRODUCTIVITY AND WATER USE EFFICIENCY UNDER DIFFERENT IRRIGATION TECHNOLOGIES IN MWEA, BURA AND PERKERRA SCHEMES. By Owilla B. P. O., Machungo , C., Wanjogu R.K. National Irrigation Board. BACKGROUND.

emelda
Download Presentation

By Owilla B. P. O., Machungo , C., Wanjogu R.K. National Irrigation Board

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. EVALUATION OF WATER PRODUCTIVITY AND WATER USE EFFICIENCY UNDER DIFFERENT IRRIGATION TECHNOLOGIES IN MWEA, BURA AND PERKERRA SCHEMES By Owilla B. P. O., Machungo, C., Wanjogu R.K. National Irrigation Board

  2. BACKGROUND • Productivity of Kenya’s predominantly rain-fed agriculture is declining hence the call for irrigation expansion. • Kenya’s economy is sensitive agriculture by a factor of 1.6 (Owilla, 2009). • Irrigation increases crop yields by up to 400% . • Kenya is a water-scarce country with irrigation leading in consumptive use of water • Irrigation expansion must integrate WUE and WP (ASALs) • Drip and sprinkler systems are superior WUE and WP, but no trials have been done to quantify their water-saving potentials under local Scheme conditions

  3. OBJECTIVES • Determine water use efficiency of different irrigation methods in maize, NERICA 4, green grams, common beans, dolochos beans, cow peas and soya beans in Mwea, Perkerra and Bura Schemes • Determine water productivity of maize, NERICA 4, green grams, common beans, dolichos beans and soya beans in Mwea, Perkerra and Bura Schemes under different irrigation methods

  4. METHODS • Three treatments - drip, furrow and sprinkler- were used on four crops (maize, green grams, commom beans, soya beans, cow peas and rice) on plots of 3m by 3m; RCBD with 3 replications • Plotting was done with each irrigation system installed then the crops planted • Volume of water used: measured using Parshal flume; and application intervals determined by tensiometer; calibration of discharge rate of drip irrigation kit and sprinkler system • Standard agronomic practices carried out as recommended

  5. TREATMENTS • Irrigation system (IS) • Drip system • Furrow • Overhead sprinkler • Crops: Maize (DH04), Soya beans (Bossier), Common beans (Mwezimoja), Green grams (N26), Rice (NERICA 4)

  6. DATA COLLECTION • Soil physical/chemical analysis at start and end of trial • Meteorological data • Volume of water used measured using Parshal flume and application intervals determined by the help of tensiometer, discharge rate of drip irrigation kit and calibration of sprinkler system • Plant density • Crop vigor- plant height at 14 days interval • Time to 50% flowering • Time to 50% maturity • Days to harvesting • Yield in Kg/Ha

  7. DATA ANALYSIS • Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) using EXCEL STAT and GENSTAT and mean separations using Least Significance Difference (LSD)

  8. RESULTS-Mwea • No significant difference in IS/Crop applied to common beans and dolichos (p=0.060; 0.30)with mean height recorded at 53.14111±17.58777, LSD=75.67408 for drip, 48.20333±16.63171, LSD=71.56049 for furrow and in all the 3 diff types of irrigation 44.35±17.07635, LSD=73.47361 for sprinkler (fig)

  9. RESULTS-Mweacontd. • Effect of IS on common beans and dolichos beans not significant (p=0.30 and 0.06resp)

  10. RESULTS-Mweacontd. • Green grams not significant within the diff types of irrigation with mean height recorded at 27.89±9.80, LSD=42.18 for drip, 26.74±9.96, LSD=42.85 for furrow, and 27.40±9.09, LSD=39.10 for sprinkler

  11. RESULTS-Mweacontd. • Water use on maize was significant at p=0.000781 between the diff data collection dates but not significant within the diff types of irrigation with mean height recorded at 84.43556±29.46249, LSD=126.7669 for drip, 71.43444±24.68121, LSD=106.1947 for furrow, and 75.06111±23.33954, LSD=100.422 for sprinkler

  12. RESULTS-Mwea contd. • Water use efficiency on Soya bean was significant at p= 0.004014 between the diff data collection dates but not significant within the diff types of irrigation with mean height recorded at 115.3078±88.74869, LSD=381.8548for drip, 38.71111±12.75699, LSD=54.88891 for furrow, and 37.22778±11.83406, LSD=50.91786for sprinkler (fig)

  13. RESULTS-Mweacontd… • Water use on Nerica 4 was significant at p= 0.005982 between the diff data collection dates but not significant within the diff types of irrigation with mean height recorded at 27.92444±8.180193, LSD=35.19653 for drip, 27.60222±7.374973, LSD=31.73195 for furrow, and 28.43111±8.608463, LSD=37.03923 for sprinkler (fig)

  14. RECOMMEMDATIONS Two major implications for sustainable irrigation management: • Since irrigation methods affect various crops differently, (i.e. different methods needed for different crops), irrigation system design for a project should be guided by the proposed crops , NOT vice versa • Where a system has already been fixed, the crop combination should depend on their performance under the method of irrigation

More Related