J1_4

(online) = ISSN 2285 – 3642

ISSN-L = 2285 – 3642

Journal of Economic Development, Environment and People

Volume 1, Issue 1, 2012

URL: http://jedep.spiruharet.ro

e-mail: office_jedep@spiruharet.ro

 

 

 

Irrigation, a Component of the Sustainable Agriculture

in North Western Romania in the Context of the Climate Change

                                                                                    UDK 631. 67 : 551. 583 (498)

 

Prof. Cornel Domuţa, PhD, Vasile Bara, Maria Şandor, Bara Vasile, Şandor

Maria, Bara Camelia, Domuţa Cristian, Bara Lucian, Borza Ioana, Brejea

, Gitea Manuel, Vuşcan Adrian

University of Oradea, Romania

 

          Abstract

             The paper is based on the researches carried out during 1976-2010 in the long term trial placed on the prelvosoil from Agricultural Research and Development Station Oradea. The main field crops of the area (wheat, maize, sunflower, soybean, bean, potato, sugarbeet, alfalfa) were studied. Based on the soil moisture determination ten to ten days, the soil water reserve was maintained between easily available water content and field capacity on the watering depth. Pedological and strong pedological drought (the decrease of the soil water reserve on watering depth bellow easily available water content, bellow wilting point respectivelly) were registered every year. The use of the irrigation determined the improve of the water/temperature+light (Domuta climate index) report, the increase of the daily and total water consumption, yield gains very significant statistically, the improve of the yields stability and yields quality, the increase of the water use efficiency. The use of the good soil management didn’t worsen the soil structure and the chemical  and biological parameters of the soil were improved. The researches sustain the irrigation opportunity for sustainable agriculture in the North-Western Romania.

 
          Keywords: irrigation, yield level, soil water content, pedological drought

 
          JEL Classification: Q15, Q54, Q25.

 

          The appearance of the sustainable agriculture concept is belong to the United National Conference for Human Environment from Stockholm in 1972 and “Broundland Report” of ONU Conference on Enviroment and Development from Rio de Janeiro. These were the crucial moments in definition of the development sustainable concept, especially sustainable agriculture. The researchers who published about this problem were Tinbergen (1956), Odum (1971), Clarck and Mun (1986), Hall (1995) and all (Domuţa C., 2009b).

          There was in Romania in 1999 a reference moment regarding this problem, Hera.Cr, organized the symposium ”The performant sustainable agriculture”, scientifical manifestation of Plant Crop Section belonged to ASAS “Gheorghe Ionescu Şişeşti”. Many and interesting papers were presented in the symposium; those written by Puia and Soran, Toncea, Săulescu, Iliescu, Sin, Picu Hera 1999). Budoi and Penescu (1996), Guş and all (1998) in the treatises of Soil Management had an important contribution in knowledge of this concept, too. All these papers sustain the crop rotation like central pivot and presume a variating structure of crops. In this system, the organic fertilization it’s very important, the chemical fertilization can be used with moderate rates, the soil tillage must be right executed, the plants protection is realised by integrated management; all this things assured the conservation of the soil, water and biodiversity reserve and obtaining an ecological and profitable yields.

         If it’s used correctly, the irrigation is a component of sustainable agriculture (Doorembos and Kassam, 1986, Doorembos and Pruitt, 1992, Domuţa C., 2005,2009).

 

         Material and method

         The researches were obtained in Oradea in the north part of Crişurilor Plain during 1976-2010, in a long term trial on preluvosoil.

         On the ploughed depth, the preluvosoil has a hydraulic conductivity with big value, median on 20-60 cm depth and very small below 60 cm depth. On 0-20 cm depth the soil is small settled (BD = 1,41 g/cm3) and very settled on the irrigation depth of the crops studied and on the depth (0-150 cm) for soil water balance. Field capacity (Fc) is median on the all soil profile and wilting point (Wp) has a median value till 80 cm depth and big value below this depth. Easily available water content (Wea) was established by formula(Botzan 1966, Grumeza and all, 1989):

                  Wea = Wp + 2/3 (Fc - Wp);

         Soil reaction is low acid, the humus content (1,8%) is small and the total nitrogen content (0,127-0,156 ppm) is small- median; the mobile potassium content is small – median, too. The annual fertilization with the doses specifical for irrigated crops increased the phosphorus content from 22.0 ppm to 150,8 ppm.

         The water sources for irrigation is water ground (15 cm depth). The irrigation water has a low natrium content (12.9 %), the salinization potential is low (CSR = -1.7) and SAR index (0.52) is low too.

          The irrigation equipment of the research field permitted to measure exactly and to distribute uniformelly the irrigation water.

          Soil moisture determined ten to ten days maintaining the soil water resrve on irrigation depth (0-50 cm for wheat and bean; 0-75 cm for maize, soybean, sunflower, potato, sugarbeet, alfalfa 1st year, maize for silo; 0-100 cm for alfalfa 2nd year) between easily available wter content and field capacity.

            

                Domuţa Climate Index was calculated after following formula:

 

                          

         Were:

         W = water (irrigation, rainfalls, water ground)

         A = air humidity, %

         Σt = the sum of monthly average temperature, °C;

         Sb = sun brilliance, hours

 

         The climate characterization after ICD value is: < 3 exces droughty; 3.1-5.0 very droughty; 5.1-7.0 droughty; 7.1-9 median droughty; 9.1-12 median wet; 12.1-15 wet I; 15.1-18 wet II; 18.1-25 – wet III; > 25 excess wet.

         The crops technologies wished to be the optimum one, for this part of the country. Crop rotation used were: alfalfa 1st year – alfalfa 2nd year- maize – bean – wheat – soybean – sugarbeet – sunflower – potato. The fertilization system had a rate of 40 t/hamanure for sugarbeet and potato and annual medium rate on crop rotation of N 140 kg/ha a.s., P 110 kg/ha a.s. and K 90 kg/ha a.s. were used. (Brejea R., 2010)

         The structure of soil was determined with Cseratzki method and water consumption with soil water balance method; balance depth was 0 –150 cm.(Domuţa C., 1995, 2003, 2009a)

         The water use efficiency was calculated like report between the yield and water consumption (Borza I., 2007)

 

         Results and discussions

         The influence of irrigation on soil

          A right leading of irrigation regime (through maintaining the soil water reserve between easily available water content and field capacity on irrigation depth), the application of melioration crop rotation and a organo-mineral system of fertilization for irrigated crops determined the realization of structured degree of 35.98%, with 3% bigger than structured degree determined in unirrigated wheat- maize rotation. In unirrigated melioration crop rotation the structured degree (47,52%) was bigger than the wheat – maize crop rotation with 34% (table 1).

Table 1

The influence of the melioration crop rotation and irrigation on macrostructure stability of the preluvosoil, Oradea 1976-2010

 

 

Nr. crt

 

 

Crop rotation

Ø 5 mm

Ø 2 mm

Ø 1 mm

Ø 0.25 mm

Σ

 

Agreg %

Dif.

%

 

Agreg %

Dif.

%

 

Agreg %

 

Dif. %

 

Agreg %

Dif.

%

 

Agreg %

Dif.

%

 

1

Wheat-maize unirrigated

 

1.93

 

100

 

1.76

 

100

 

2.45

 

100

 

29.12

 

100

 

35.26

 

100

 

2

Melioration unirrigated

 

3.93

 

204

 

0.96

 

55

 

1.96

 

80

 

40.67

 

139

 

47.52

 

134

 

3

Melioration irrigated

 

0.56

 

29

 

0.63

 

36

 

1.12

 

48

 

33.42

 

114

 

35.98

 

103

 

          The pedological drought

 

          The periods with soil water reserve on watering depth below easily available water content on irrigation depth was considered the pedological drought. (Domuţa C, 1995).

         The pedological drought was present in each of 35 years reseached, the maximum frequency at wheat crop was established in June in wheat and in August in maize, sugarbeet and alfalfa. In potato the maximum frequency (92%) was registered in July (table 2).

          In other years, soil water reserve on irrigation depth decreased below wilting point.

 

Table 2

Monthly situations of periods with soil water reserve below easily available water content on                                                       irrigation depth in main crops, in unirrigated conditions from Oradea, 1976-2010

 

 

Nr. crt

 

Crop

 

Specif.

Month

IV

V

VI

VII

VIII

IX

 

1

 

Wheat

1

12

21

24

10

-

-

2

82

96

100

70

-

-

 

2

 

Maize

1

2

8

13

23

29

25

2

21

46

79

88

100

92

 

3

 

Sugarbeet

1

6

10

21

26

28

24

2

39

48

87

87

100

96

 

4

 

Potato

1

6

8

17

24

21

-

2

35

54

83

92

83

-

5

 

Alfalfa 1st year

1

5

12

19

27

29

27

2

35

65

96

96

100

100

 

          1= Number of days with soil water reserve below easily available water content

          2 = Frequency of days with soil water reserve below easily available water content

 

 The irrigation influence on microclimate

          The irrigation determined the improve of microclimate conditions. The value of report water/temperature + light (Domuţa Climate Index, ICD) calculated for irrigated maize crop was bigger with 135% in August, 115% in July, 49% in June and 32% in May. In irrigated maize, the microclimate was characterized “median wet” vs “median droughty” in May, “wet II” vs “median wet” in June, “wet III” vs “median droughty” in July, “wet I” vs “droughty” in August (table 3).

 Table 3

The modifications of the water/temperature + light report (Domuţa Climate Index/ICD)

under the influence of the irrigation in maize crop, Oradea 1976-2010

 

 

 

Variant

V

VI

VII

VIII

ICD

%

ICD

%

CD

%

ICD

%

Unirrigated

8.9

100

10.7

100

8.6

100

6.3

100

Irrigated

11.8

132

15.91

149

18.5

215

14.8

235

Variation interval of differences

0-383

0-302

0-795

28-3126

 

           The irrigation influence on water consumption

          The irrigation determined the increase of the values of daily water consumption. In this case the total water consumption had values bigger than total water consumption of unirrigated crops, the differences was registered between 36.6% (wheat) and 108.4% (maize for silo double crop).

         The most important part from total water consumption was covered with rainfalls registered in the period of the vegetation crops. For the assurance of optimum water consumption of these crops (maintaining the water reserve below easily available water content anf field capacity) the irrigation was necessary every year; the participation averages in the covering sources have values between 33.7% (wheat) and 58.7% (maize for silo double crop); the maximum values of the variation interval were registered between 61.0% (maize) and 103.2% (maize for silo double crop), (table 4).

Table 4

The water consumption Σ (e + t) and the covering sources, Oradea 1976-2010

 

 

 

 

 

Crop

Σ(e+t),m3/ha

Covering sources of Σ(e+t) optimum, m3/ha

 

 

 

Unirrigated

 

 

 

Irrigated

Difference Irrigated- Unirrigated

%

 

 

 

Ri-Rf

 

 

 

Rv

Σm

 

m3/ha

 

%

Variation interval

%

1.Wheat

3138

4289

36.6

535

2307

1447

33.7

0-61.8

2.Maize

4253

6223

46.3

509

3237

2477

39.8

13.5-61.0

3.Sunflower

3947

5900

49.5

933

2798

2169

36.8

6.2-63.0

4.Soybean

3828

5826

52.2

563

3049

2214

38.0

9.4-61.5

5.Bean

3211

4184

30.3

324

2472

1388

33.2

7.0-71.4

6.Sugarbeet

4618

6992

51.4

840

3459

2694

38.5

8.3-67.9

7.Potato

3803

5292

39.2

516

2953

1823

34.4

7.1-61.1

8.Alfalfa 1st year

4681

6698

43.0

525

3578

2595

38.7

9.1-64.7

9.Alfalfa 2nd year

5074

7791

53.5

945

3796

3050

39.1

14.3-61.2

10.Maize for silo

2nd crop

 

1378

 

2872

 

108.4

 

-145

 

1333

 

1685

 

58.7

 

10.5-103.2

             Ri-Initial reserve; Rf-Final reserve, Rv-Rainfalls from vegetation period; Σm- Irrigation rate

         The irrigation influence on yields level

         The average of the yields obtained during 1976-2010 in irrigation conditions were bigger than in unirrigated conditions, the relative differences registered had the values between 39% (wheat) and 127% (maize for silo double crop).

         The amplitude of the variation interval for yield differences between two variants was 104% at sunflower, 116% at wheat crop, 176 % alfalfa crop 2nd year, 218% sugarbeet crop, 291% at alfalfa 1st year, 353 % soybean, 358 % at potato, 800 % at bean, 806% maize for corn and 25745% at maize for silo double crop (table5).

Table 5

     The level of yields in main crop, in irrigated and unirrigated conditions, Oradea 1976-2010

 

 

Crop

 

 

Variant

Yield level

Average

Variation interval

kg/ha

%

kg/ha

%

 

1.Wheat

Unirrigated

4547

100

2736-7100

100

Irrigated

6343

139

3993-8300

     105-221

 

2.Maize

Unirrigated

6608

100

1510-12600

100

Irrigated

      11993

181

17880-16480

    107-912

 

3.Soybean

Unirrigated

1836

100

300-3400

100

Irrigated

3087

168

1380-4080

107-460

 

4.Bean

Unirrigated

1439

100

180-2720

100

Irrigated

2170

151

1321-3770

105-905

 

5. Sun flower

Unirrigated

2289

100

1350-3140

100

Irrigated

3394

148

1757-4580

106-210

 

6.Sugar beet

Unirrigated

39895

100

18960-80900

100

Irrigated

64453

162

44850-87800

109-327

 

7.Potato

Unirrigated

24137

100

11500-43700

100

Irrigated

38284

159

20670-66050

106-464

 

8. Alfalfa 1st year

Unirrigated

45472

100

18500-89800

100

Irrigated

69905

154

30500-120850

113-404

 

9. Alfalfa 2nd year

Unirrigated

60953

100

29500-118590

100

Irrigated

96822

159

57000-145420

119-295

 

10. Maize for silo 2nd crop

Unirrigated

13890

100

0-31000

100

Irrigated

31470

227

10160-44640

115-25860

 

         The influence of irrigation on yield stability

         The quantification of the yield stability was made using the “standard deviation” indicator. In all crops, the irrigation determined the increase of yield stability, the differences between standard deviations for irrigated and unirrigated conditions was 8.7% (sunflower) and 50.4% (maize for silo double crop) (table 6).

 Table 6

Standard deviation in unirrigated and irrigated crops, Oradea 1976-2010

 

 

Variant

Crops for grain

Wheat

Maize

Sunflower

Soybean

Bean

Kg/ha

%

Kg/ha

%

Kg/ha

%

Kg/ha

%

Kg/ha

%

Unirrigated

922

100

3271

100

580

100

814

100

820

100

Irrigated

642

69.6

1879

57.4

530

91.3

547

67.2

680

82.9

Crops for stalk and roots

 

Variant

Sugarbeet

Potato

Alfalfa 1st year

Alfalfa 2nd year

Maize for silo 2nd crop

Kg/ha

%

Kg/ha

%

Kg/ha

%

Kg/ha

%

Kg/ha

%

Unirrigated

9240

100

9440

100

37950

100

30160

100

9310

100

Irrigated

6920

79.9

5480

58.1

33630

88.6

25720

85.3

4620

49.6

 

          The influence of irrigation on quality of yield

          In irrigated maize, the quantity of total nitrogen in grain was bigger than unirrigated maize with 19.7%. Taking in consideration the yield differences between irrigated and unirrigated maize, results much more protein (135.4%) in irrigated conditions,(table 7).

The participation of the big potato in the yield of the irrigated variant was of 84.4% with 11.6% more than unirrigated variant (table 8).

 Table 7

           The influence of irrigation on protein content in maize corn, Oradea 1987-2010

 

 

Variant

Total nitrogen content in maize grain

The protein content in grains

%

%

Kg/ha

Unirrigated

1.42

100

556.94

Irrigated

1.70

119.7

1311.52

   The improve of the yield quality was registered in soybean and sugarbeet, too (Domuţa

   Cr., 2010).

 
Table 8

The influence of the irrigation on the big tuberous participation from potato crop, Oradea

1976-2010

 

 

 

Variant

The big tuberous participation

Variation interval of big tuberous participation

Values %

%

Kg/ha

Unirrigated

75.6

100

71.6-82.5

Irrigated

84.4

111.6

80.1-92.4

 

          The influence of irrigation on water use efficiency

          Excepting the sunflower crop, in all the crops, the irrigation determined the improve of water use efficiency, for 1m3 water consumpted was obtained a bigger quantity of the main yield than unirrigated conditions, the relative differences had medium values between 2% (wheat) and 25% (maize for silo double crop), (table 9).

Table 9

Irrigation influence on water use efficiency, Oradea 1976 – 2010

 

 

 

Variant

Crops for grain

Wheat

Maize

Sunflower

Soybean

Bean

Kg/m3

%

Kg/m3

%

Kg/m3

%

Kg/m3

%

Kg/m3

%

Unirrigated

1.45

100

1.55

100

0.58

100

0.48

100

0.45

100

 

Irrigated

1.48

102

1.93

125

0.58

100

0.53

110

0.52

115

Crops for stalk and roots

 

Variant

Sugarbeet

Potato

Alfalfa 1 st year

Alfalfa 2nd year

Maize for silo double crop

Kg/m3

%

Kg/m3

%

Kg/m3

%

Kg/m3

%

Kg/m3

%

Unirrigated

8.64

100

6.35

100

9.71

100

11.94

100

10.08

100

Irrigated

9.22

106.7

7.23

114

10.44

108

12.42

104

10.95

109

 

          Correlations from soil –water- plant- atmosphere system

          Over the years was quantified the correlations from soil – water – plant-atmosphere system for all researched crops (Domuţa, 1995, 2009, Domuţa Cr., 2010). In this paper were presented the correlations at one of important crop in this area which is maize.

         Between number of days with water reserve below easily available water content and yield, respectively water use efficiency and between number of days with water reserve on irrigation depth below wilting point and yield determined an inverse links, statistically very significantt. Between number of days with water reserve below easily available water content and yield gain obtained using the irrigation was quantified a direct link, statistically very significant.

          A direct links, statistically very significant were quantified between microclimate conditions and yield, respectively between water consumption and yield. These correlations sustained the need of irrigation in maize from this area. (table 10).

Table 10

Correlation in the soil – water – plant – atmosphere system in maize,

Oradea 1976-2010

 

Nr. crt.

Correlation

Regression function

Correlation coefficient

Correlation between soil moisture  stress and yield

1

Nr.of days with WR<WP x yield

y = 601,33 x0,9047x

R = 0,88 ooo

2

Nr. of days with WR<Wea x yield

y = 158,88 e-0,0148x

R = 0,66 ooo

3

Nr. of days with WR<Wea x WUE

y = 3,5236 e-0,0144x

R = 0,62 oo

4

Nr. of days with WR<Wea x spor yield.

y = 0,0935 x-0,0127

R = 0,78 xxx

Correlation between microclimate and yield

5

ICD x yield

y=-0,2931x2+13,57x-21,108

R = 0,88xxx

    WR = water reserve on 0-75 cm depth; WP = wilting point; WEA = easily available water content;

    WUE = water use efficiency; kg/m3; ICD = Domuţa Climate Index.

 

         Conclusions

         The paper is based on the researches carried out during 1976-2010 in Oradea, in a long term trial at ten different crops.

          The presence of irrigation in the components of the sustainable agriculture is sustained by following arguments:

·  The evolution of the soil structure. In the conditions when was used alfalfa as ameliorativ crop rotation, and the fertilization system included manure, the structured degree (35.98%) was maintaining to the level of the structure degree from crop rotation unirrigated wheat- maize (35.26%);

      • The decrease of soil water reserve on watering depth below easily available water content every year and in other years even below wilting point level;

      • The droughty microclimate of unirrigated crops and the positive influence of the irrigation on water/ temperature + light report (Domuta climate index);

      • The improve of the crops water consumption; the differences in comparison with unirrigated crops were between 36.6% (wheat) and 108,4% (maize for silo double crop). The optimum water consumption can be assured using the irrigation only. This participation in the covering sources was between 33.2% (sunflower ) and 58.7% (maize for silo double crop).

      • The highest level of yields; median differences, were between 39% (wheat) and 127% (maize for silo double crop). The maximum values of the variation interval are between 110% (sunflower) and 25760 (maize for silo double crop). The quality of yield is better than unirrigated conditions;

      • A better stability of the yield, standard deviation values were smaller than unirrigated conditions with relative values between 8,7% (sunflower) and 50,4% (maize for silo double crop);

      • The increasing of water use efficiency with values between 2% (wheat) and 25% (maize);

      • The correlations from soil-water-plant-atmosphere system:

      • The inverse correlations between number of days with pedological drought and yield, respectively water use efficiency;

      • The direct correlations between number of days with pedological drought and yield gain obtained using the irrigation;

       • The direct correlations between water/temperature + light report (Domuţa Climate Index) and yield, respectively between water consumption and yield.


References:

 

1.  Budoi Gh., Penescu A, 1996, Agrotehnica, Ed. Ceres, Bucureşti

2.  Botzan M., 1966, Culturi irigate. Editura Agro-Silvică, Bucureşti

3. Borza I., 2006, Cercetări privind influenţa unor măsuri fitotehnice asupra eficienţei valorificării        apei de către cultura porumbului in condiţiile Campiei Crişurilor, Teză de doctorat Universitatea de Ştiinţe Agricole şi Medicină Veterinară Cluj-Napoca.

4. Borza I., 2007, Valorificarea apei de către cultura porumbului din Campia Crişurilor. Editura Universităţii Oradea

5.  Brejea R, 2010, Ştiinţa solului Editura Universităţii Oradea

6.  Canarache A., 1990, Fizica solurilor agricole. Editura Ceres, Bucureşti

7.  Domuţa C., 1995, Contribuţii la stabilirea consumului de apă al principalelor culture din Campia Crişurilor. Teza de doctorat. ASAS “Gheorghe Ionescu Şişeşti”, Bucureşti

8.  Domuţa C. and all., 2001, Researches regarding the crop water requirement in main crop from Western Romania. Proceed ICID, International Symposium,Brno and Prague

9.  Domuţa C., 2003, Oportunitatea irigaţiilor in Campia Crişurilor. Ed. Universităţii din Oradea

10.Domuţa C., 2005, Irigarea culturilor, Ed. Universităţii din Oradea

11.Domuţa C., 2009, Irigarea culturilor, Ed. Universităţii din Oradea

12.Domuţa C. (cord), 2009 Irigaţiile in Campia Crişurilor, Ed. Universităţii din Oradea

13.Domuţa Cr. 2010, Cercetări privind influenţa irigaţiei asupra culturilor de porumb, soia şi sfeclă de zahăr in condiţiile Campiei Crişurilor, Teză de doctorat Universitatea de Ştiinţe Agricole şi   Medicină Veterinară Cluj-Napoca

14.Domuţa C., Domuţa Cr., 2010 Irigarea porumbului in Campia Crişurilor

15.Doorembos J.and Kassam A.M., 1986, Yield response to water, FAO, Rome

16.Doorembos J. and Pruitt W.O., 1992, Crop water requirement FAO, Rome

17.Grumeza N., Merculiev O., Klepş Cr. şi colab., 1989, Prognoza şi programarea udărilor in     sistemele de irigaţii. Editura Ceres, Bucureşti

18. Guş P. şi colab., 1998, Agrotehnica, Editura Risoprint

19.Hera Cr., 1999, Agricultura durabilă performantă . Ed. Agris-Redacţia revistelor agricole        Bucureşti

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




Copyright (c)




INDEXING

 

Environmental Science Journals,<br /> Natural Science Journals, SciTech Journals, Illustrata: Natural Science ICV 2015: 81.51DOAJREPEC   citefactor researcherid ECONBIZ ERIHPLUS     Sherpa" researchbib Gale Base    

Ulrichs     Stanford    

cornelniv    oclc     Toc     google
    ez3     ilinois sjif ohs 




Administred: Rocsana B. Manea Tonis

http://icourses.wix.com/itmk 

.