HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Benjamin, J. G. Articles by Alonso, C. V. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Benjamin, J. G. Articles by Alonso, C. V. Agricola Articles by Benjamin, J. G. Articles by Alonso, C. V.

Leaching and Water Flow Patterns in Every-Furrow and Alternate-Furrow Irrigation

USDA-ARS Great Plains Systems Research Unit, Ft. Collins, CO 80522

C. V. Alonso

USDA National Sedimentation Lab., Oxford, MS 38655

*Corresponding author (benjamin{at}gpsrvl.colostate.edu).

ABSTRACT

Deep water percolation and chemical leaching is a recognized environmental problem with furrow irrigation. Alternate-furrow irrigation (AFI) was hypothesized as a method to increase water-use efficiency and decrease chemical leaching compared with every-furrow irrigation (EFI). The SWMS_2D finite-element model was used to investigate water and CaCl₂ movement in EFI and AFI with furrow-placed or ridge-placed fertilizer bands. Model simulations were conducted for a Crook loamy sand (mixed, mesic, Ustic Torripsamment) and a Nunn clay loam (fine, montmorillonitic, mesic Aridic Argiustoll). Water isolation zones occurred with AFI and EFI that contributed little to overall profile drainage. The soil water contents after infiltration and redistribution were more uniform for EFI than for AFI for both soils. Water distribution was more uniform with AFI in the clay loam than in the loamy sand. Chemical movement was least with AFI and CaCl₂ placement under the nonirrigated furrow. The greatest chemical leaching was predicted with furrow placement of CaCl₂ and EFI. Results with CaCl₂ suggest soluble chemicals or fertilizers placed under the nonirrigated furrow in loamy sand may not be available for plant uptake because the soil did not wet during irrigation. With either form of furrow irrigation, placement of a fertilizer in the ridge rather than in the furrow would decrease leaching of the fertilizer and keep the fertilizer in the root zone.

Received for publication August 23, 1993.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. Simunek, M. Th. van Genuchten, and M. Sejna Development and Applications of the HYDRUS and STANMOD Software Packages and Related Codes Vadose Zone J., May 27, 2008; 7(2): 587 - 600. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				W. B. Stevens, A. D. Blaylock, J. M. Krall, B. G. Hopkins, and J. W. Ellsworth Sugarbeet Yield and Nitrogen Use Efficiency with Preplant Broadcast, Banded, or Point-Injected Nitrogen Application Agron. J., August 10, 2007; 99(5): 1252 - 1259. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. Ruan, L. R. Ahuja, T. R. Green, and J. G. Benjamin Residue Cover and Surface-Sealing Effects on Infiltration: Numerical Simulations for Field Applications Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., May 1, 2001; 65(3): 853 - 861. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. A. Lehrsch, R.E. Sojka, and D.T. Westermann Nitrogen Placement, Row Spacing, and Furrow Irrigation Water Positioning Effects on Corn Yield Agron. J., November 1, 2000; 92(6): 1266 - 1275. [Abstract] [Full Text]