SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
vol.28Digitalización y canales de comercialización alternativos en la cadena hortifrutícola uruguaya: Perspectivas de los principales actoresRegulación epigenética y memoria: posibles aplicaciones en la vid en Uruguay índice de autoresíndice de materiabúsqueda de artículos
Home Pagelista alfabética de revistas  

Servicios Personalizados

Revista

Articulo

Links relacionados

Compartir


Agrociencia Uruguay

versión On-line ISSN 2730-5066

Agrocienc. Urug. vol.28  Montevideo  2024  Epub 01-Dic-2024

https://doi.org/10.31285/agro.28.1448 

Articles

Capillary rise quantification improves irrigation performance in pear orchards

Cuantificar el aporte capilar mejora el desempeño del riego gravitacional en pe-rales

Quantificar a contribuição capilar melhora o desempenho da irrigação gravitacional em pereiras

1Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA), INTA EEA Alto Valle, General Roca, Río Negro, Argentina, manueco.lucia@inta.gob.ar

2Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA), INTA IPAF Patagonia, Plottier, Neuquén, Argentina


Abstract

The shallow water table in Río Negro and Neuquén valley causes a capillary rise (CR) that modifies the water content in soil profile. Therefore, irrigation performance is expected to be affected by the capillary water input into the root zone. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of CR on surface irrigation performance during 2020-2021 growing season in a pear orchard. In a Bartlett pear orchard planted in 2003, three irrigation moments were evaluated, and irrigation sheets were calculated to obtain efficiency. Water table level (WTL) was measured monthly in an open aquifer piezometer. CR was calculated with the software UPFLOW. Soil water content was measured with a Frequency Domain Reflectometry (FDR) sensor at: 0.20 m, 0.40 m, and 0.60 m. Water use efficiency (WUE) and water productivity were calculated using pear crop yield and the irrigation sheets applied and the crop water demand, respectively. WTL was shallower in spring than in the rest of the season. The mean depth fluctuated between 0.70-1.20 m during spring, affecting irrigation performance. Data of FDR deepest sensor showed an increase of soil moisture due to CR. Capillary contribution negatively affects irrigation efficiency if it is not included in the water balance. Irrigation schedules can be re-arranged considering soil moisture and CR. In this way, the necessary water sheets could be applied in each crop development stage adjusted to water demand. Improving irrigation performance and WUE enables a sustainable water management strategy in pear production.

Keywords: water use efficiency; water productivity; water table level

Resumen

La napa freática superficial del Alto Valle causa un ascenso capilar (AC) que en primavera y otoño modifica el balance hídrico del suelo. El objetivo es evaluar el efecto del AC sobre el desempeño del riego superficial durante una tempo-rada de crecimiento en perales Bartlett. Se evaluaron tres momentos de riego, de septiembre a abril (temporada 2020-2021) y se calcularon las láminas de riego para obtener las eficiencias. El nivel freático (NF) se midió mensualmente en un freatímetro. El AC se calculó con el software UPFLOW. El contenido de agua del suelo se midió con sensores de reflectometría de dominio de frecuencia (FDR) a: 0,20 m, 0,40 m y 0,60 m. La eficiencia del uso del agua (EUA) y la productividad del agua (PA) se calcularon utilizando el rendimiento del cultivo, las láminas de riego aplicadas y la demanda de agua del cultivo. El NF fue más superficial en primavera que durante el resto de la temporada. La pro-fundidad media fluctuó entre 0,70-1,20 m a inicio de la primavera. Los datos del sensor FDR más profundo mostraron un aumento de la humedad del suelo debido al AC, que afecta negativamente al desempeño del riego si no se incluye como componente del balance hídrico. Programar el riego considerando la humedad del suelo y el AC permite aplicar láminas de agua según sean necesarias en cada etapa de desarrollo del cultivo. Mejorar el desempeño del riego y la EUA resulta en una estrategia de gestión sostenible del agua en la producción de peras.

Palabras clave: eficiencia en el uso del agua; productividad del agua; nivel freático

Resumo

O lençol freático superficial do Vale Superior provoca uma ascensão capilar (AC) que na primavera e no outono modi-fica o equilíbrio hídrico do solo. Objetivo: avaliar o efeito da AC no desempenho da irrigação superficial durante o período vegetativo em peras 'Bartlett'. Foram avaliados três momentos de irrigação, de setembro a abril (safra 2020-2021) e calculadas as folhas de irrigação para obtenção das eficiências. O lençol freático (NF) foi medido mensal-mente em freatímetro. A AC foi calculada com o software UPFLOW. O conteúdo de água no solo foi medido com sen-sores de reflectometria no domínio da frequência (FDR) em: 0,20 m, 0,40 m e 0,60 m. A eficiência do uso da água (EUA) e a produtividade da água (AP) foram calculadas usando o rendimento das culturas, as taxas de irrigação apli-cadas e a demanda de água das culturas. O NF foi mais raso na primavera do que durante o resto da temporada. A profundidade média oscilou entre 0,70-1,20 m no início da primavera. Os dados do sensor FDR mais profundo mos-traram um aumento na umidade do solo devido à AC, o que afeta negativamente o desempenho da irrigação se não for incluído como um componente do balanço hídrico. Programar a irrigação considerando a umidade do solo e a AC permite a aplicação de lâminas de água conforme necessário em cada etapa do desenvolvimento da cultura. A me-lhoria do desempenho da irrigação e da WUE resulta numa estratégia sustentável de gestão da água na produção de peras.

Palavras-chave: eficiência no uso da água; produtividade da água; nível do lençol freático

1. Introduction

Surface water sources such as lakes, rivers and reservoirs are showing fast changes all around the world, and one in five river basins show considerable fluctuations in surface water levels in the last 5 years. Extreme climatic events cause water to be more scarce and more unpredictable. Among the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 6 seeks to support countries in monitoring water- and sanitation-related issues to assure water availability, integrated management, and sanitation1.

Climate change events have reached Alto Valle of Río Negro and Neuquén (AVRNyN) as climatic variability, extreme climatic events occurrence, and water scarcity 2)(3)4)(5) . Extreme climatic events include the diminution of rainfall and snowfall in the high mountains, causing a decrease in the river flows of the basin that provides irrigation water to the area. Water scarcity has reached a 13-year period between 2010 and 2023, affecting the basin water balance. Irrigation water management in arid regions is a relevant aspect for the development and maintenance of sustainable agro-ecosystems and water resources preservation.

Irrigation performance improvement is one of the challenges of integrated water resource management. The agriculture sector had the highest increase in water resources efficiency use (20%) since 2015, compared to the industry (13%) and service sectors (0.3%)6. Irrigation efficiency has been the most used approach to assess irrigation performance. The traditional methodology to evaluate field irrigation efficiency considers aspects of the field, the soil, and the irrigation practice, focused on a field scale7. However, irrigation efficiency assessment is a better indicator when it considers a basin perspective and regional characteristics of the environment8.

AVRNyN is a 100,000 ha irrigated region located in the Argentinian arid diagonal. Most of the area is surface irrigated and the main crops are pip and stone fruits, with 37,837 ha planted9. Water table raise is a consequence of the irrigation system operation in AVRNyN. It is mainly caused by the losses of the distribution channels and by the low field irrigation efficiency, and occasionally affected by river flows 10)(11) 12. In AVRNyN, capillary rise as a consequence of the shallow water table negatively affects irrigation efficiency performance. Additionally, according to the previous evaluations developed, irrigation efficiency can be improved by modifying some management aspects such as irrigation extent and frequency 13)(14) .

Although irrigation efficiency standards have been largely developed and studied in different locations and conditions, simulation models do not consider capillary rise as a relevant factor 15)(16) 17. In AVRNyN the existence of a shallow water table modifies the soil water balance. As the water table has a seasonal variation, the capillary rise contribution to the soil water balance is not uniform throughout the year.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of capillary rise on surface irrigation performance during a growing season in a pear orchard, and to calculate water use efficiency and water productivity for local conditions.

2. Materials and methods

Capillary rise was estimated between September 2020 and April 2021. Irrigation sheets were calculated considering capillary rise. Water use efficiency and water productivity were obtained.

2.1 Experimental plot

This is a case study and was carried out in a pear orchard located at INTA Experimental Station (39°01’40” S; 67°44’35” W, mean elevation 240 m, General Roca, Argentina). The 1.8 ha study plot was planted in 2003 with Bartlett (Pyrus communis Williams Bon Chretien) pears on seedling rootstock. The orchard rows have West-East orientation and less than 0.05% slope in the same direction, suitable for surface irrigation. Soil profile is heterogeneous, medium-fine textured with low organic matter, slightly alkaline and non-saline or sodic. Tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea Schreber) and other spontaneous vegetation cover the alleys. To the west of the plot, there is a poplar windbreak; to the east and south side, there are other pear plots. Between-row spacing is 4 m and the intra-row tree spacing is 2 m. Trees are trained as modified trellis (palmette).

2.2 Irrigation performance

Field work was carried out to obtain infiltration, soil moisture, flow capacity inflow, irrigation extent, size of the irrigated plot (length, width, and number of simultaneously irrigated rows), and longitudinal slope of the plot. Seven irrigations were performed during the season; three of them were fully evaluated with the following methodology. For the rest of the irrigation performances an average gross sheet was estimated. Field irrigation efficiency was evaluated according to the standards of the American Society of Agricultural Engineering18 and Walker and Skogerboe15, adapted and described by Morabito and Schilardi19.

Performance indicators were obtained from irrigation sheets and water volumes. Application efficiency (AE) is defined as the quotient between the volume of water stored in the soil profile explored by the roots of the pear trees and the volume of water entered into the irrigated plot. Storage efficiency (SE) is represented by the sheet stored in the soil profile after an irrigation event with respect to the sheet that needs to be stored. Deep percolation (DP) is the ratio between percolated water sheet and applied irrigation sheet. A summary of irrigation sheets and irrigation standards is presented in Table 1.

Table 1: Irrigation sheets and irrigation standards summary 

(I)dr and dinf are equivalent when there is no foot drain.

2.3 Capillary rise and deficit aeration

Capillary rise (CR) and Deficit aeration (DA) were estimated with UPFLOW software20. The information used was environmental conditions, water table level (WTL), volumetric water content (VWC) in the topsoil, crop evapotranspiration (ETc), and soil texture, among others. To estimate crop water demand, ETo was obtained from the weather station located in the experimental station with Penman-Monteith methodology and local crop coefficients (kc) were used 21)(22) 23. A steady state condition was assumed, so that the calculated flux was in equilibrium with the crop (ETc) demand and the soil water conditions in the topsoil20. WTL was measured weekly with an acoustic probe in an opened piezometer in accordance with the methodology described by Mañueco13. Frequency domain reflectometry (FDR) soil moisture sensors (ECH2O EC-5, METER Group, Inc., USA) were installed at 0.20, 0.40, and 0.60 m depth to measure volumetric water content of the soil profile. All sensors recorded hourly to a data logger, and data was presented as daily and 10-day media.

Soil water content at field capacity was determined by the soil moisture sensors records. With the hourly data, water outflow curves were made starting with the irrigation day and observing the point in which the excess water was drained, determined by the inflection point and the rate of downward movement decreased, within the 48-72 h22. Water content at field capacity (θFC) was thus determined and water content at wilting point (θWP) was estimated using texture reference tables24. Readily available water (RAW) was calculated considering a p factor of 0.524. The active roots of the pear trees were located between 0.2 and 1 m soil depth and irrigation sheets were calculated using Z=0.8 m.

2.4 Water use efficiency and water productivity

Water use efficiency (WUE) and water productivity (WP) were calculated using yield and irrigation sheets applied and crop water demand, respectively, as considered by Caviglia and others25, Van Halsema and Vincent7, and Neffen26. To obtain yield, trees were harvested from the last week of January to the first week of February to collect all the fruits that reached commercial size (>65 mm of fruit diameter).

Water productivity is the ratio between the product or accumulated biomass and the water consumed. This approach supposes that sub-optimal yields are due to lack of irrigation, and considers water as any other input for the crop and can be transformed into an increasing yield. In terms of the pear production process, it can be obtained as:

Eq. 1 

Water use efficiency considers a water management perspective. It can be calculated as the ratio between the product or accumulated biomass and the water available or applied (db=gross sheet). It can be calculated as:

Eq. 2 

3. Results

Volumetric water content (VWC) of the soil profile was graphed from the records of the soil moisture sensors at 0.20, 0.40, and 0.6 m depth. The difference between Field capacity (FC) and Wilting point (WP) is the Total available water (TAW) of the soil profile. Readily available water (RAW) was set as 50% of the TAW. The records from the sensors threw back the pattern of the irrigation scheme behavior (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Volumetric water content of the soil and water table level. The circles indicate the irrigation efficiency evaluation moments in October, December, and January 

Water table level (WTL) was shallower in spring than in the rest of the season. Average depth in early spring fluctuated between 0.70-1.20 m. Soil water content of the deeper sensors (0.4 and 0.6 m) was higher than soil water content at 0.2 m, especially during the early spring when WTL was shallower. During that period, soil water content was over the Field capacity (FC) threshold, indicating a waterlogged condition due to capillary rise (Figure 1).

Soil water balance for a pear crop is presented in Table 2. Estimating irrigation needs based on daily or monthly average values is insufficient to adjust the surface irrigation schedule. Therefore, the average of 10-day periods, 3 periods each month, was used. The water demand for the growing season expressed as crop evapotranspiration (ETc) was 1036 mm. According to the capillary rise estimation, the water table contribution was 436 mm, which represents 42% of the ETc. However, as WTL has a seasonal pattern, CR is proportionally higher in spring, when compared to ETc. In this period, the poor aeration values (86 and 74%) calculated with the Upflow software (Table 2) and the soil moisture values recorded by FDR sensors (Figure 1) show a waterlogged condition.

Table 2: Soil-crop water balance and Capillary rise quantification for 2020-2021 seasons. Months were divided into three equal periods to schedule surface irrigation. VWC and ETc are the average of each period. Capillary rise and Deficient aeration were the results of the Upflow simulation software 

Year 10-day period VWC 0.20 m (m 3 m -3 ) ETc (mm day -1 ) Capillary rise q (mm day -1 ) Deficient aeration (%)
2020 Sep-03 0.291 2.2 2.2 16
Oct-01 0.312 1.8 1.8 86
Oct-02 0.307 2.5 2.5 74
Oct-03 0.341 2.5 2.4 12
Nov-01 0.284 3.2 2.1 4
Nov-02 0.332 3.3 1.8 0
Nov-03 0.250 4.0 1.9 0
Dec-01 0.320 7.0 2.0 1
Dec-02 0.261 6.6 2.0 1
Dec-03 0.319 7.9 2.1 5
2021 Jan-01 0.255 8.5 2.1 4
Jan-02 0.318 8.4 2.0 4
Jan-03 0.316 7.8 2.0 4
Feb-01 0.308 6.3 1.8 0
Feb-02 0.249 6.5 1.8 0
Feb-03 0.242 6.5 1.8 0
Mar-01 0.240 3.9 1.8 0
Mar-02 0.268 4.0 1.8 0
Mar-03 0.335 3.7 1.7 0
Apr-01 0.268 2.6 1.8 0
Apr-02 0.257 2.5 2.3 7
Apr-03 0.369 1.9 1.9 8
1036 436

Irrigation performance intends to evaluate the water application practices in terms of well-timing and sufficiency. To standardize that evaluation, irrigation sheets and irrigation standards were obtained. Seven irrigations were done during the growing season, and three of them were evaluated with the complete evaluation efficiency methodology (Figure 1 and Table 3). The gross sheet estimated for the rest of the irrigation performances was 150 mm each. Further, the gross sheet for the season was 1164 mm.

Table 3: Irrigation sheets (mm) and irrigation standards (%) of the three irrigations evaluated in October, December, and January in a surface irrigated pear crop 

Thresholds defined by Roscher27 were used to assess irrigation performance for surface irrigation (see Table S1 in Supplementary material). Application efficiency (AE) compares gross sheet and replacement sheet. Irrigation events of October, December and January reached an application efficiency of 52%, 86% and 34%, respectively (Table 3). The difference between the gross sheet and the replacement sheet resulted in the bad managed performance observed in October and January. Thus, AE calculated for irrigation events of December can be qualified as “good managed”, whereas the October and January irrigation performances were “bad managed”27.

Storage efficiency (SE) obtained in all three cases exceeded 100%, suggesting that the irrigation practices were sufficient to replenish the necessary water in the soil profile to reach the state of field capacity. Deep percolation (DP) was 48%, 14% and 68% in October, December, and January, respectively, showing an excess of applied water (Table 3).

In October, irrigation sheets turned out to be higher than needed, as shown in Figure 1, with the waterlogged soil water content. Capillary contribution negatively affected irrigation efficiency, pointing out a badly-timed irrigation, not needed yet, or needed but with a lower sheet. In January, the percolation sheet was twice the replacement sheet, indicating that irrigation time was too long, and a large amount of water was lost by percolation.

Water productivity (WP) was calculated using the yield of the pear crop and the crop evapotranspiration of the season (WP=38000 kg/1036 mm), resulting in 37 kg.mm-1. Water use efficiency (WUE) was calculated with the sum of the sheets (db) of the seven irrigations applied during the season (WUEdb=38000 kg/1164 mm). The result of this theoretical approach is WUEdb=32 kg.mm -1. When CR during October´s irrigation was quantified, irrigation schedule could be improved and WUE increased up to 38.8 kg.mm-1.

4. Discussion

The result of this study shows that capillary rise significantly increases soil moisture, especially in spring, covering the pear crop water needs during that period. Therefore, it might be possible to decrease gross sheets or even dispose of spring irrigation. Additionally, WUEdb might also be enhanced by improving irrigation performance. This is in accordance with other regional results 13)(22) 28.

Water table contribution represents 42% of the total ETc, but it represents the whole ETc of the early spring (September and October). This situation caused a waterlogged condition in the soil profile, confirmed by soil moisture sensors and deficient aeration percentage. The same situation was reported by Galeazzi and Aruani28, where 36% of the crop water demand was complemented by groundwater8. Moreover, the influence of CR in the root zone was previously estimated in one season in a pear orchard22 and during three seasons in a cherry orchard13.

According to Roscher27, the irrigation event of December can be qualified as “good managed” as the threshold was above 75%. The irrigation performances of October and January were “bad managed”, as thresholds were below 60%. Application efficiency depends on different factors; in this study, “bad managed” irrigation in October occurred because the soil was waterlogged. Whereas “bad managed” irrigation in January can be explained by the gross sheet that was three times higher than the replacement sheet needed. Low irrigation performance is usually associated with the irrigation method and management 7)(8) . Long irrigations are related to low efficiency performances and can be easily improved by adjusting plot irrigation management 29)(30) . However, adjusting irrigation schedules according to soil water content is an appropriate tool to improve irrigation efficiency.

Generally, an improvement of WUE is associated to deficit irrigation and yield reduction 31)(32)33)(34) . Similar values of WUE (28.6 and 31.9 kg.mm-1) were calculated in two consecutive years in pear trees without deficit irrigation, and they improve WUE by different levels of deficit irrigation35. In this study, WUE was 32 kg.mm-1 and the possibility of improving WUE (38.8 kg.mm-1) is associated with the supply of water due to capillary rise in the root zone. This supports the idea that crop water requirement is satisfied not only by irrigation, but also by groundwater contribution 8)(22) 27, allowing to space irrigations in spring without diminishing yield. WUE can be improved even over WP, as the gross sheet needed to be provided by irrigation if CR is quantified and considered into the water balance could be lower than ETc.

5. Conclusions

Irrigation efficiency assessments enabled to review structural issues as drainage systems and irrigation domain. The adjustment of the irrigation frequency in spring would positively impact irrigation performance, considering the water table capillary impute. In this study, the influence of the capillary rise in soil moisture and consequently in irrigation efficiency was quantified and analyzed. Considering a field scale, irrigation schedules can be re-arranged to consider soil moisture and capillary rise and apply the necessary water sheets for each crop development stage and water demand. From a basin perspective, irrigation water requirements are not only the water needed for a specific crop, but also a contribution from the irrigation system to the landscape.

Irrigation planning aims to ensure that irrigation is sufficient, well-timed, and uniform. However, a field perspective is insufficient, and a basin perspective is needed to obtain integral and long-lasting improvements. Thus, improving irrigation performance and water use efficiency enables a sustainable water management strategy in pear production. This plays a significant role in ensuring sustainable water use and maintaining productivity of crops.

Acknowledgements:

This research was supported by the Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA).

References

1. FAO; UN Water. Progress on change in water-use efficiency: global status and acceleration needs for SDG indicator 6.4.1. Rome: FAO; 2020. 90p. Doi: 10.4060/cb6413en. [ Links ]

2. Autoridad Interjurisdiccional de las Cuencas de los Ríos Limay, Neuquen y Negro. Informe hidrometeorológico: año 2021/22 Cuencas de los ríos Limay, Collón Curá y Neuquén. Argentina: AIC; 2021. 107p. [ Links ]

3. Rodriguez A, Muñoz Á. Variabilidad agroclimática en el Alto Valle de Río Negro y Neuquén: análisis de los últimos 50 años (Internet). Buenos Aires: Ediciones INTA; 2022 (cited 2024 Jul 16). 69p. Available from: Available from: http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12123/13123Links ]

4. Rodriguez AB, Mañueco ML, Muñoz AR. Ciclo de disertaciones sobre cambio climático y ambiente en la producción frutícola: Alto Valle de Río Negro y Neuquén (Internet). Río Negro: INTA; 2022 (cited 2024 Jul 16). 24p. Available from: Available from: http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12123/13233Links ]

5. INTA. Aportes para repensar los sistemas productivos norpatagónicos en un contexto de déficit hídrico y cambio climático. Río Negro: INTA ; 2022 (cited 2024 Jul 16). 29p. Available from: Available from: https://repositorio.inta.gob.ar/xmlui/handle/20.500.12123/13276Links ]

6. Gillet V, Biancalani R. Guidelines for calculation of the agriculture water use efficiency for global reporting: the agronomic parameters in the SDG indicator 6.4.1: yield ratio and proportion of rainfed production. Rome: FAO ; 2021. 48p. Doi: 10.4060/cb8768en. [ Links ]

7. Van Halsema G, Vincent L. Efficiency and productivity terms for water management: a matter of contextual relativism versus general absolutism. Agric Water Manag. 2012;108:9-12. Doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2011.05.016. [ Links ]

8. Pereira LS, Alves I, Paredes P. Crop and landscape water requirements. In: Goss MJ, Oliver M, editors. Encyclopedia of Soils in the Environment. 2nd ed. Vol. 5, Soil Physics. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2023. p. 571-92. Doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-822974-3.00044-6. [ Links ]

9. Servicio Nacional de Sanidad y Calidad Agroalimentaria. Anuario Estadístico 2023: Centro Regional Patagonia (Internet). Río Negro: SENASA; 2024 (cited 2024 Jul 22). 128p. Available from: Available from: https://www.argentina.gob.ar/sites/default/files/anuario_estadistico_crpn_senasa_2023-1.pdfLinks ]

10. Horne FJ, Alvarez O, Galeazzi JO, Polla G, Stangaferro S. Análisis y elaboración de datos freatimétricos e hidroquímicos del Alto Valle de Rio Negro. Argentina: Universidad Nacional del Comahue; 1992. 47p. [ Links ]

11. Marizza M, Galeazzi J, Vives L, Nitman J. Modelación del flujo subterráneo en un área piloto del alto valle de Río Negro (Argentina). In: Mariño E, Schulz CJ, editors. Aportes de la Hidrogeología al Conocimiento de los Recursos Hídricos. Vol. 2. Santa Rosa: Amerindia Nexo Di Napoli; 2009. p. 497-504. [ Links ]

12. Montenegro A. Análisis de la incidencia de factores que intervienen en la sustentabilidad del agro sistema frutícola en “Colonia la Lucinda (Rio Negro)” (grade’s thesis). Neuquén (AR): Universidad Nacional del Comahue; 2014. 147p. [ Links ]

13. Mañueco ML. Comportamiento de niveles freáticos y efecto de su variación estacional sobre el desarrollo y manejo agronómico de cerezos (Prunus avium L.) (master’s thesis). Mendoza (AR): Universidad Nacional de Cuyo, Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias; 2020. 115p. [ Links ]

14. Escuela Laboratorio Movil de Irrigacion. Protocolo para la evaluación de riego por superficie. San Juan: PROSAP; 2016. 10p. [ Links ]

15. Walker R, Skogerboe GV. Surface irrigation: theory and practice. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall; 1987. 386p. [ Links ]

16. Walker R. Guidelines for designing and evaluating surface irrigation systems. Rome: FAO ; 1989. 137p. [ Links ]

17. Bautista E, Walker WR. Advances in estimation of parameters for surface irrigation modeling and management. In: 5th National Decennial Irrigation Conference Proceedings; 2010 December 5-8; Phoenix Convention Center, Phoenix, Arizona USA. Saint Joseph: ASABE; 2010. 16p. [ Links ]

18. ASAE. Evaluation of irrigation furrows: EP419.1. St. Joseph: ASAE; 1993. 7p. [ Links ]

19. Morabito J, Schilardi C. Evaluacion del desempeño en riegos por superficie: apuntes de curso de posgrado de Maestría de Riego y Drenaje. Mendoza: Universidad Nacional de Cuyo; 2013. 58p. [ Links ]

20. Raes D, De Nys E, Deproost P. UPFLOW, a model to assess water and salt movement form a shallow water table to the topsoil. In: Vers une maîtrise des impacts environnementaux de l'irrigation actes de l'atelier du PCSI, 28-29 mai 2002, Montpellier, France. Montpellier: CIRAD; 2003. p. 8. [ Links ]

21. Requena AM, Mañueco ML, Montenegro A, Castillo E. Coeficientes de cultivos de manzanos y perales en el Alto Valle del Rio Negro. General Roca: Ediciones; 2016. 5p. [ Links ]

22. Mañueco ML, Rodriguez A, Montenegro A, Galeazz J, Del Brio D, Curetti M, Muñoz A, Raffo MD. Quantification of capillary water input to the root zone from shallow water table and determination of the associated Bartlett pear water status. Acta Hortic. 2021;(1303):227-34. Doi: 10.17660/ActaHortic.2021.1303.33. [ Links ]

23. Allen RG, Pereira LS, Raes D, Smith M. Crop evapotranspiration: guidelines for computing crop water requirements. Rome: FAO ; 1998. 300p. [ Links ]

24. Pereira LS, De Juan Valero JA, Picornell Buendia MR, Tarjuelo Martin-Benito JM. El riego y sus tecnologías. Albacete: Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha; 2010. 296p. [ Links ]

25. Caviglia OP, Sadras VO, Andrade FH. Intensification of agriculture in the south-eastern Pampas: I. Capture and efficiency in the use of water and radiation in double-cropped wheat-soybean. Field Crops Res. 2004;87(2-3):117-29. [ Links ]

26. Neffen E. Alternativas de manejo en riego por surco para el cultivo de maíz (Zea mays l) en el valle inferior del Rio Negro (master’s thesis). Mendoza (AR): Universidad Nacional de Cuyo, Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias ; 2020. 124p. [ Links ]

27. Roscher K. Surface irrigation: characteristics, design and performance. Wageningen: Agriculture University; 1985. 45p. [ Links ]

28. Galeazzi JO, Aruani MC. Manejo del riego en pera (pyrus communis) cv. Williams cultivada en suelo con capa freática poco profunda. Chil J Agric Anim Sci. 2019;35(2):151-62. [ Links ]

29. Mañueco ML, Guiñazu M, Montenegro A, Daga G. Evaluación del riego por superficie mediante el uso de sensores en el alto valle del río negro y neuquén. In: XII Congreso de AgroInformática (CAI 2020) - JAIIO 49 (Modalidad virtual) (Internet). 2020 (cited 2024 Jul 16) Available from: Available from: https://49jaiio.sadio.org.ar/pdfs/cai/CAI_50.pdfLinks ]

30. Schilardi C, Morabito JA, Vallone RC. Surface Irrigation Performance in the Upper Tunuyán River Basin Mendoza, Argentina. Acta hortic. 2011;(889):513-9. [ Links ]

31. Liu J, Hu T, Feng P, Wang L, Yang S. Tomato yield and water use efficiency change with various soil moisture and potassium levels during different growth stages. PLoS One. 2019;14(3):e0213643. Doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0213643. [ Links ]

32. Cheng M, Wang H, Fan J, Zhang S, Liao Z, Zhang F, Wang Y. A global meta-analysis of yield and water use efficiency of crops, vegetables, and fruits under full, deficit and alternate partial root-zone irrigation. Agric Water Manag . 2021;248:106771. Doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2021.106771. [ Links ]

33. Tong X, Wu P, Liu X, Zhang L, Zhou W, Wang Z. A global meta-analysis of fruit tree yield and water use efficiency under deficit irrigation. Agric Water Manag . 2022;260:107321. Doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2021.107321. [ Links ]

34. Vita Serman F, Orgaz F, Starobinsky G, Capraro F, Fereres E. Water productivity and net profit of high-density olive orchards in San Juan, Argentina. Agric Water Manag . 2021;252:106878. Doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2021.106878. [ Links ]

35. Zhao Z, Wang W, Wu Y, Xu M, Huang X, Ma Y, Ren D. Leaf physiological responses of mature pear trees to regulated deficit irrigation in field conditions under desert climate. Sci Hortic. 2015;187:122-30. [ Links ]

Transparency of data Available data: The entire data set that supports the results of this study was published in the article itself.

Author contribution statement Mañueco M. L.: Conceptualization; Investigation; Writing-original draft Guiñazu, M.: Investigation; Writing-review & editing Muñoz, A.: Data curation Del Brío, D.: Data curation; Writing-review & editing Curetti, M.: Writing-review & editing Raffo, M. D.: Conceptualization; Methodology; Writing-review & editing

Editor The following editor approved this article:Mónica M. Barbazán (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0028-4870) Universidad de la República, Facultad de Agronomía, Montevideo, Uruguay

Supplementary material

Table S1: Qualification of application, storage and distribution efficiencies on the field scale for surface irrigation methods(27)  

Parameter Bad Satisfactory Good
EAP ≤ 60% 60-75% ≥ 75%
EAL ≤ 80% 80-90% ≥ 90%
EDI < 80% 80-90% > 90%

Received: February 21, 2024; Accepted: July 12, 2024

Creative Commons License This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License