HortTechnology

G
July/Sept. 1996 6(3) 155
Design
Considerations for
Vegetable Crop Drip
Irrigation Systems
Gary A. Clark
1
and
Allen G. Smajstrla
2
Additional index words. microirrigation,
irigation management, water management
Summary. Proper design and installation
are essential to provide a drip irrigation
system that can be managed with minimal
inputs and maximum profit. Because drip
irrigation can apply precise amounts of
water and chemicals, constraints
associated with the plants, soil, water
supply, and management must be
considered in the design, installation, and
management processes.
P
r ocedur es that ar e appr opr i ate
i n one l ocati on or wi th certai n
croppi ng systems may not work
as wel l i n other l ocati ons or for
other crops. As a resul t, systems and
management gui del i nes vary consi derabl y and
general l y are customi zed for each croppi ng sys-
tem. Usabl e water from soi l moi sture can range
from 2% by i rri gated vol ume on very sandy soi l s
to more than 10% on heavi er, fi ne- textured soi l s.
Irri gati on schedul es based on soi l condi ti ons,
crop evapotranspi rati on, tubi ng di scharge charac-
teri sti cs, and other system properti es can range
from three cycl es per day to once every 3 days.
Choi ce of dri p tubi ng may i ncl ude l ow- fl ow, cl osel y
spaced emi tters or hi gh- fl ow emi tters on greater
spaci ngs and shoul d be based on the soi l condi -
ti ons, pl ant spaci ng, avai l abl e water suppl y, pump
capaci ty, and management practi ces. Fi nal l y, thor-
ough water treatment and the correct fi l trati on
system are i mperati ve for the successful operati on
of al l dri p i rri gati on systems.
Eval uati ons of vegetabl e crop producti on
under dri p i rri gati on compared wi th other i rri ga-
ti on methods have demonstrated equal or i m-
proved crop yi el d and qual i ty wi th reduced water
and ferti l i zer i nputs (Cl ark et al ., 1991; Locasci o
and Myers, 1974; Locasci o and Smaj strl a, 1989;
Locasci o et al ., 1989; Myers and Locasci o, 1972;
Pi tts and Cl ark, 1991). Other advantages i ncl ude
mul ti pl e croppi ng opti ons (Stanl ey et al ., 1991)
and reduced bed wi dths to mi ni mi ze pl asti c and
soi l fumi gati on costs (Cl ark and Maynard, 1992),
both of whi ch provi de economi c i ncenti ves to
vegetabl e growers. However, the typi cal l y hi gh
conversi on costs for i rri gati on systems (Prevatt et
al ., 1992) general l y have retarded l arge- scal e adop-
ti on of dri p i rri gati on when other l ess costl y i rri ga-
ti on systems are i n pl ace.
A successful dri p i rri gati on system requi res
proper desi gn, i nstal l ati on, and operati on, whi ch,
i n turn, requi re i nformati on on the water source,
fi el d, and crop. Water source i nputs i ncl ude qual -
i ty and quanti ty. Important fi el d i nputs i ncl ude the
soi l types and thei r rel ated hydraul i c properti es,
the l ength and wi dth, the sl ope(s), and the l ocati on
of the fi el d wi th respect to the i rri gati on pump and
water source. Soi l s wi th l ow water- hol di ng capaci -
ti es have l i mi ted wetti ng patterns from poi nt- source
dri p emi tters (Cl ark et al ., 1993; Vi ctor and Cl ark,
1991) and requi re speci al consi derati on regardi ng
the pl acement of dri p l ateral s and emi tters (Pi tts et
al ., 1989). The type of crop and pl anti ng date(s)
strongl y i nfl uence subsequent management and
i rri gati on schedul i ng. Al l of thi s i nformati on i s
requi red to properl y si ze the pump, pi pe network,
dri p i rri gati on l ateral s, fi l trati on system, and chemi -
cal i nj ecti on system (Fi g. 1). Ferti gati on system
desi gn and management (Dangl er and Locasci o,
1990; Locasci o et al ., 1989) are other factors that
requi re careful consi derati on when vegetabl e crop
dri p i rri gati on systems are desi gned.
Many dri p i rri gati on systems have been i n-
stal l ed and are i n use. However, poor desi gns
resul t i n poor uni formi ty of appl i ed water. Further-
more, schedul i ng does not al ways consi der the
rel ati onshi ps between soi l properti es, crop devel -
opment, and evaporati ve demand. Therefore, ef-
forts to compensate for these condi ti ons i ncl ude
l i beral management wi th respect to appl i cati ons of
water and ferti l i zer, subsequentl y i ncreasi ng the
operati ng cost of these systems. The obj ecti ve of
thi s paper i s to provi de general desi gn and man-
agement consi derati ons for dri p i rri gati on of shal -
l ow- rooted vegetabl e crops.
Soil and plants
Water movement and di stri buti on i n the soi l
from dri p emi tters i s i nfl uenced pri mari l y by the
hydraul i c properti es of the soi l . Maxi mum l ateral
wetti ng fronts from dri p emi tters can range from 6
to 12 i nches on very sandy soi l s and from 16 to 32
i nches on fi ner- textured si l t and cl ay soi l s (Bar-
Yosef and Shei khol sl ami , 1976; Cl ark et al ., 1993;
Kel l er and Bl i esner, 1990; Vi ctor and Cl ark, 1991).
The l ateral movement of water combi ned wi th the
depth of the root zone defi ne the soi l vol ume that
i s wetted by the dri p system (Fi g. 2). Wetted
vol umes associ ated wi th surface dri p i rri gati on
systems on vegetabl e crops wi th shal l ow root
systems often can be esti mated usi ng the pattern
shown i n Fi g. 3. However, the di stri buti on of water
wi thi n the wetted soi l vol ume i s vari abl e and
1
Associ ate professor, Bi ol ogi cal and Agri cul tural
Engi neeri ng, Kansas State Uni versi ty, Manhattan, KS.
2
Professor, Agri cul tural and Bi ol ogi cal Engi neeri ng
Department, Uni versi ty of Fl ori da, Gai nesvi l l e, FL.
Kansas Agri cul tural Experi ment Stati on contri buti on
no. 96- 290- J.
The cost of publ i shi ng thi s paper was defrayed i n part
by the payment of page charges. Under postal
regul ati ons, thi s paper therefore must be hereby
marked adverti sement sol el y to i ndi cate thi s fact.
Fig. 1. General components of a vegetable crop
drip irrigation system.
HortTechnology
G
July/Sept. 1996 6(3) 156
Vegetable Production Using Plasticulture
depends on the soi l and i rri gati on management.
As a resul t of soi l wetti ng characteri sti cs, di screte
row systems used i n vegetabl e producti on, and
dri p tubi ng di scharge characteri sti cs, i t i s gener-
al l y easi er to di scuss i rri gati on requi rements and
schedul es i n vol umetri c uni ts rather than depth
uni ts. For exampl e, Tabl e 1 assumes a uni form
water di stri buti on for the pattern defi ned i n Fi g. 3
and provi des esti mates of the vol ume of avai l abl e
soi l water i n gal l ons per 100 feet of row l ength as
a functi on of wetted radi us and avai l abl e water
capaci ty (%). Tabl e 2 can be used wi th other
wetti ng patterns based on the cross- secti onal area
of the speci fi c pattern.
Avai l abl e water [ (AW) the di fference between
fi el d capaci ty (FC) and permanent wi l ti ng poi nt,
(WP)] ranges from 3% to 5% for sandy soi l s and
up to 20% for very fi ne- textured soi l s. Because
many vegetabl e crops are sensi ti ve to even short-
term water defi ci ts, whi ch can occur rapi dl y wi th
shal l ow root systems, the usabl e water (UW) often
i s taken as 33% to 50% of AW. As the soi l water
amount i s depl eted bel ow the UW l evel , the re-
mai ni ng water i s hel d more ti ghtl y by the soi l and
i t i s more di ffi cul t for the pl ants to extract. Thus, the
pl ant may undergo mi l d stress and cel l growth and
devel opment may decl i ne.
From Tabl es 1 and 2, a sandy soi l wi th a 6%
AW hol di ng capaci ty and a 12- i nch wetted radi us
has 71 gal l ons AW/ 100 ft of bed l ength. Thi s soi l
woul d provi de onl y 20 to 35 gal l ons usabl e water/
100 ft of bed l ength before the next i rri gati on. Wi th
dai l y crop water requi rements of 60 to 80 gal l ons/
100 ft, thi s provi des onl y a 2- h reserve of UW
duri ng peak evapotranspi rati on (ET) peri ods. Con-
versel y, a heavi er l oamy soi l wi th a 12% AW
hol di ng capaci ty and a 15- i nch wetted radi us has
220 gal l ons AW/ 100 ft of bed l ength. Thi s soi l
woul d provi de 70 to 100 gal l ons/ 100 ft of UW,
suffi ci ent to meet the dai l y crop water demand.
Average reference evapotranspi rati on (ET
o
)
l evel s duri ng the vegetabl e croppi ng seasons i n
the Uni ted States typi cal l y range from 0.10 to 0.25
i nches/ d i n humi d cl i mates, wi th peaks reachi ng
0.35 to 0.45 i nches/ d i n wi ndy, ari d cl i mates
(Jones et al ., 1984; van Bavel , 1966). Because
many vegetabl e producti on areas are i n peak pro-
ducti on duri ng the months of hi gh evaporati ve
demand, crop water requi rements are often hi gh.
Crop water- use coeffi ci ents (kc) are defi ned as the
rati os of the crop water requi rement (ET
c
) to ET
o
and are used to esti mate ET
c
from measured or
tabul ated hi stori cal ET
o
val ues. Tomato, water-
mel on, and many other vegetabl e crops have peak
kc val ues near 1.0, resul ti ng i n water use rates
equal to the ET
o
l evel duri ng those growth peri ods.
Tabl e 3 can be used to convert from ET
c
or
desi red appl i cati on depth i n i nches to vol umetri c
uni ts of gal l ons per 100 feet of bed l ength. For
exampl e, a dai l y i rri gati on need of 0.20 i nches on
a fi el d wi th a bed spaci ng of 5 ft converts to 62
gal l ons of water/ 100 ft of bed. However, soi l s wi th
l ow water- hol di ng capaci ty and onl y 20 to 35
gal l ons/ 100 ft of UW may requi re two or three
i rri gati on cycl es per day for crops sensi ti ve to
water defi ci ts and havi ng shal l ow root systems. In
addi ti on, because crop ET fol l ows the di urnal fl ux
of sol ar radi ati on (Zur and Jones, 1981), 30% to
40% of the dai l y ET can occur duri ng the 2- h
peri od encompassi ng sol ar noon. Thi s pattern of
water use can resul t i n short- term crop water stress
i f i rri gati ons are not schedul ed properl y to provi de
suffi ci ent soi l moi sture duri ng that peri od for such
sensi ti ve systems. In general , when l i mi ted root
zone and soi l water- hol di ng capaci ti es requi re the
schedul i ng of frequent, short- durati on i rri gati ons,
suffi ci ent ti me must be provi ded between cycl es
for pl ants to use appl i ed water and nutri entsto
avoi d deep percol ati on and l eachi ng.
Excess water appl i cati ons al so can cause
probl ems. Over- i rri gati on duri ng any one appl i ca-
ti on potenti al l y can l each sol ubl e pl ant nutri ents,
such as N and K, from the root zone, parti cul arl y on
soi l s wi th l ow cati on exchange capaci ty (CEC).
When sal i ne i rri gati on water sources are used,
l eachi ng may be necessary to remove harmful sal t
accumul ati ons by addi ng from 5% to 25% extra
water to an i rri gati on cycl e. The actual l eachi ng
amount depends on the sal i ni ty l evel of the i rri ga-
ti on water and the sal t tol erance of the crop (Hoffman
et al ., 1990; Nakayama and Bucks, 1986; Sanchez
and Si l vertooth, 1996).
Soi l physi cal and hydraul i c characteri sti cs
must be consi dered to determi ne the opti mum
pl acement of dri p l ateral s and emi tters and the
maxi mum run ti me per cycl e. Dri p emi tters shoul d
be wi thi n 4 to 6 i nches of pl ants and pl ant rows.
Lateral dri p l i nes may be pl aced on the surface or
buri ed to mai ntai n the tube i n the desi red l ocati on
(el i mi nates surface movement). Buri ed tubes
shoul d be no more than 1 to 2 i nches deep on
sandy soi l s. Deeper emi tter pl acement may be
used on heavi er soi l s; however, the effecti ve root
system and soi l hydraul i c properti es al so must be
consi dered. Thus, even on heavi er soi l s, dri p
tubes general l y are not buri ed deeper than 6 i nches
for most vegetabl e crops.
Dai l y system run ti mes of 20 to 40 mi n/ cycl e
may be necessary duri ng pl ant establ i shment to
ensure movement of appl i ed water i nto i mmature
root systems. Subsequent maxi mum run ti mes per
i rri gati on cycl e shoul d be based on dri pper di s-
charge, soi l properti es i ncl udi ng water movement,
and pl ant rooti ng characteri sti cs. If the extent of
water movement from dri ppers i s not known, i t can
be detected vi sual l y by di ggi ng a smal l trench
perpendi cul ar to the tube or el ectroni cal l y by usi ng
a di gi tal vol t- ohm meter wi th heavy el ectri cal wi re
or brazi ng rods used as pai red el ectrodes (Fi g. 4).
A measure of soi l resi stance between each pai r of
el ectrodes i s recorded before i rri gati on and then
fol l owed wi th successi ve soi l resi stance measure-
Fig. 2. Cutaway of a drip-irrigated plastic-mulch
bed showing the wetting pattern on a sandy
soil.
Fig. 3. Diagram of a half-cylinder wetted soil
volume.
HortTechnology
G
July/Sept. 1996 6(3) 157
ments duri ng i rri gati on. Soi l resi stance wi l l drop
when the wetti ng front approaches the el ectrodes.
Thus, the ti me requi red for the water to move to
certai n l ateral and verti cal posi ti ons can be deter-
mi ned for the speci fi c fi el d condi ti ons. For wetted
radi i and depths of 10 to 12 i nches, typi cal maxi -
mum run ti mes can range from 40 mi n for coarse-
textured sands to 80 mi n for fi ne- textured sands.
System run ti mes per cycl e i n excess of those on
sandy soi l s typi cal l y do not i ncrease l ateral wetti ng
di stances and can move water and sol ubl e nutri -
ents bel ow the pl ant root zone. Maxi mum run
ti mes on very heavy soi l s can be 6 to 8 h, but must
be managed to mai ntai n appl i ed water and crop
nutri ents wi thi n the managed crop root zone. Thi s
al so can be checked wi th tensi ometers, gypsum
bl ocks, a capaci tance probe, or some other soi l
moi sture sensor.
Drip tubing
Dri p i rri gati on tubi ng i s avai l abl e i n vari ous
wal l thi cknesses, emi tter spaci ngs, and water di s-
charge capaci ti es. Products may be cl assed as
tubes, whi ch typi cal l y have i nserted or attached
emi tters, and tapes, whi ch typi cal l y have emi tters
formed from the tubi ng materi al duri ng the manu-
facturi ng process (Fi g. 5). Dri p tube products
typi cal l y are made from pol yethyl ene tubi ng that i s
fl exi bl e and does not col l apse when depressur-
i zed. Most dri p tape products col l apse when not
pressuri zed and have wal l thi cknesses from 4 mi l for
l i ght- wei ght products to 20 or 25 mi l for the very
heavy- wei ght products. Vegetabl e crop producti on
systems general l y use dri p tapes that are medi um
wei ght wi th wal l thi cknesses of 8 to 12 mi l .
Emi tter spaci ng wi l l affect the cost of tubes or
tapes that use emi tters that are i nserted or at-
tached. Conversel y, emi tter spaci ng has l i ttl e ef-
fect on dri p tapes wi th emi tters mol ded i nto the
tubi ng. Cl ose emi tter spaci ngs of 8 to 12 i nches
are preferred for cl osel y spaced (i n- row) vegetabl e
crops. Emi tter spaci ngs of 18 to 24 i nches may be
acceptabl e for use wi th crops that have greater
pl ant spaci ngs and on cl ay or l oam soi l s. Emi tter
spaci ngs greater than 24 i nches rarel y are used
because wi der spaci ngs can resul t i n greater vari -
abi l i ty i n avai l abi l i ty of water and i nj ected nutri ents
for cl osel y spaced vegetabl e crops.
Dri p emi tter di scharge rates commonl y range
from 0.15 gal l ons/ h to more than 1.0 gal l ons/ h
under operati ng pressures that typi cal l y range
from 6 to 15 psi for tapes and 15 to 25 psi for tubes.
In addi ti on, the combi nati on of emi tter di scharge
rate, spaci ng, and fi el d sl ope wi l l i nfl uence the
maxi mum l ength of run for each l ateral l i ne. Typi -
cal l engths of runs may range from 250 ft for hi gh-
fl ow, cl osel y spaced products, to 1000 ft or more
for l ow- fl ow emi tters on greater spaci ngs.
A common tape arrangement for vegetabl e
crops uses a 10 psi operati ng pressure wi th 0.30
gal l on/ h dri ppers on a 12- i nch spaci ng and resul ts
i n a rated tape di scharge of 30 gal l ons/ h (0.5
gal l ons/ mi n) per 100 ft of l ength. Usi ng hi gher
fl ow- rate dri ppers for vegetabl es produced on
sandy soi l s may restri ct run ti mes to onl y 30 mi n/
cycl e because of the l ow water- hol di ng capaci ty of
the soi l and shal l ow root zones. As a resul t, these
short operati on ti mes woul d not be suffi ci ent for
most chemi cal i nj ecti on systems to i nj ect and ful l y
purge chemi cal s from the pi pe network i nto the
soi l . Purge cycl es can requi re from 20 to more than
60 mi n dependi ng on the pi pe network, system
fl ow rates, and l ocati on of the chemi cal i nj ector.
Therefore, l ow- fl ow dri p products that can extend
the l ength of the i rri gati on cycl e may be more
desi rabl e for those fi el d and crop characteri sti cs.
In general , l ow- fl ow dri ppers may be more
sui tabl e for very sandy soi l s, but may constrai n the
system to onl y one or two i rri gati on zones per
pump stati on based on crop ET, tubi ng di scharge
rate, and soi l condi ti ons. Some l ow- fl ow products
di scharge 12 to 15 gal l ons/ h per 100 ft of l ength,
Table 1. Volume of soil water stored in a half-cylinder distribution pattern (Fig. 3) (gallons/100
feet of length).
Soil water Wetted radius (inches)
capacity (%) 3 6 9 12 15 18
Soi l water vol (gal l ons/ 100 ft of l ength)
3 2.2 9 20 35 55 79
4 3.0 12 26 47 74 106
5 3.5 15 33 59 92 132
6 4.5 18 40 71 110 159
8 6.0 24 53 94 147 212
10 7.0 29 66 118 184 265
12 9.0 36 80 142 220 318
Table 2. Volume of soil water stored (gallons/100 feet of length) for various wetting pattern cross-
sectional areas and soil water capacity levels.
Soil water Wetted cross-sectional area (inches
2
)
capacity (%) 25 50 75 100 250 500
Soi l water vol (gal l ons/ 100 ft of l ength)
3 3.9 7.8 12 16 39 78
4 5.2 10 16 21 52 104
5 6.5 13 20 26 65 130
6 7.8 16 23 31 78 156
8 10 21 31 42 104 208
10 13 26 39 52 130 260
12 16 32 47 62 156 312
Fig. 4. Wetting front measurement and detection using a digital volt-ohm meter and paired
electrodes.
Table 3. Conversion from crop water use or irrigation application in depth units (inches) to volume
(gallons/100 feet of bed length) for various bed spacing (center to center) arrangements.
Bed spacing Crop water use or irrigation depth (inches)
(f t ) 0. 05 0. 10 0. 15 0. 20 0. 25 0. 30
Gal l ons/ 100 ft of bed l ength
3 9 19 28 37 47 56
4 13 25 37 50 62 75
5 16 31 47 62 78 93
6 19 37 56 74 93 112
HortTechnology
G
July/Sept. 1996 6(3) 158
Vegetable Production Using Plasticulture
acre woul d be 29 gal l ons/ mi n (from Tabl e 5). Next,
i f an exi sti ng wel l and pump system coul d del i ver
a peak di scharge of 300 gal l ons/ mi n at the re-
qui red pressure, a 10.3- acre i rri gati on zone coul d
be used (300 gal l ons/ mi n di vi ded by 29 gal l ons/
mi n per acre from Tabl e 5 = 10.3 acres). If a hi gher
fl ow rate tube, such as 30 gal l ons/ h (0.5 gal l ons/
mi n) per 100 ft, were used, then the system woul d
requi re 44 gal l ons/ mi n per acre, and the maxi mum
si ze of the i rri gati on zone woul d be l i mi ted to 6.8
acres (300 gal l ons/ mi n/ 44 gal l ons/ mi n per acre =
6.8 acres).
Filtration systems
Parti cul ate matter i n the i rri gati on water may
cl og the ti ny ori fi ces i n the emi tters of dri p i rri ga-
ti on systems. Therefore, properl y fi l tered water i s
essenti al for the sustai ned operati on of most dri p
i rri gati on systems. The choi ce of fi l trati on system
wi l l depend upon the qual i ty and type of water
suppl y (surface or groundwater, and suspended
materi al s) as wel l as on the type of emi tters. Some
emi tters can pass l arger parti cl es than others. In
general , most parti cl es l arger than 0.003 to 0.006
i nches or parti cl es l arger than one- tenth of the
passage di ameter shoul d be removed. Most emi t-
ter and/ or dri p tubi ng manufacturers provi de fi l tra-
ti on recommendati ons and general l y wi l l them i n
terms of a mesh si ze (such as 200 mesh) for use
wi th thei r dri p i rri gati on product. Tabl e 6 can be
used to convert from screen mesh si ze to openi ng
si ze.
If the water source i s a surface suppl y, such
as a pond, canal , or ri ver, then medi a (sand) fi l ters
shoul d be used to remove organi c matter, such as
al gae and other suspended materi al s. Because
sand and other parti cul ate matter can escape the
medi a fi l ter through the backwash cycl e, a medi a
fi l ter shoul d be fol l owed wi th a screen or grooved
di sk fi l ter. When groundwater (i .e., pumped from
wel l s) i s used as the water source, a screen or
grooved di sk fi l ter al one may be adequate. Be-
cause most sands are greater than 0.1 mm i n si ze,
these parti cl es wi l l be fi l tered wi th a 180- to 200-
mesh or equi val ent screen. However, i f excessi ve
sand i s bei ng pumped from the wel l , then a vortex-
type sand separator can be requi red as a pri mary
fi l ter to remove most of the suspended sand pri or
to a secondary screen or di sk fi l ter.
whi ch cl osel y matches peak ET rates of some
vegetabl e crops. Low- fl ow dri ppers al so permi t
greater l ateral l engths for gi ven emi tter spaci ngs
and uni formi ty al l owances. However, because of
the smal l fl ow paths, these dri ppers are suscep-
ti bl e to cl oggi ng and requi re hi gh mai ntenance.
Pump capacity
Requi red pump capaci ty may be di ctated by
the si ze of each i rri gati on zone and water di scharge
rate of the dri p system or by the l i mi tati ons of the
water suppl y. The si ze of each zone i s not as
i mportant as the l i near feet of tubi ng per acre or per
zone. Tabl e 4 can be used to determi ne dri p tubi ng
di scharge rates i n gal l ons/ h per 100 feet of tube for
di fferent emi tter di scharge rates and spaci ng com-
bi nati ons. Then, Tabl e 5 can be used to determi ne
the l i near feet of tubi ng per acre for di fferent bed or
tube spaci ngs, and to determi ne the requi red pump
capaci ty per acre for di fferent tubi ng di scharge
rates.
For exampl e, i f a vegetabl e producti on fi el d
was formed wi th beds on 5- ft centers and a di s-
charge rate of 20 gal l ons/ h (0.33 gal l ons/ mi n) per
100 ft tubi ng were used, the requi red di scharge per
Table 5. Conversion from bed spacing to linear feet of tubing per acre and to required pump discharge (gallons/min per acre) for different drip tubing
discharge rates.
Bed
spacing Linear feet Drip tubing discharge (gallons/h per 100 ft)
(feet) per acre 15 20 25 30 35 40 50 75
Gal l ons/ mi n per acre
3 14520 36 48 60 73 85 97 121 182
4 10890 27 36 45 54 64 73 91 136
5 8712 22 29 36 44 51 58 73 109
6 7260 18 24 30 36 42 48 61 91
Fig. 5. Drip tapes and emission patterns.
Table 4. Conversion from drip emitter spacing and discharge rate to tubing discharge rate
(gallons/h per 100 feet).
Emitter spacing Drip emitter discharge (gallons/h)
(i nches) 0. 15 0. 20 0. 30 0. 50 0. 75 1. 00
Gal l ons/ h per 100 feet
8 23 30 45 75 113 150
12 15 20 30 50 75 100
16 11 15 23 38 56 75
18 10 13 20 33 50 67
24 8 10 15 25 38 50
HortTechnology
G
July/Sept. 1996 6(3) 159
Because pressure of 3 to 10 psi typi cal l y i s
l ost across the fi l ters, thi s l oss must be i ncl uded i n
the overal l system desi gn. The manufacturer of the
fi l trati on system shoul d suppl y thi s i nformati on
wi th the speci fi cati ons. Pressure l oss wi l l i ncrease
as the fi l ter begi ns to cl og and thi s must be
consi dered i n desi gn and management. Measure-
ment of pressure drop usi ng pressure gauges
pl aced on ei ther si de of the fi l trati on system can
i ndi cate when cl eani ng of fi l ters i s necessary.
Peri odi c and routi ne cl eani ng wi l l remove the
accumul ated materi al s, thus mi ni mi zi ng the asso-
ci ated pressure l oss. Cl eani ng can be performed
manual l y or automati cal l y.
For addi ti onal and more detai l ed i nforma-
ti on on system desi gn and management the reader
i s di rected to Howel l et al . (1980), Nakayama and
Bucks (1986), Hoffman et al ., (1990), and Kel l er
and Bl i esner (1990).
Literature Cited
Bar- Yosef, B. and M. R. Shei khol sl ami . 1976.
Di stri buti on of water and i ons i n soi l s i rri gated and
ferti l i zed from a tri ckl e source. Soi l Sci . Soc. Amer.
J. 40:575- 582.
Cl ark, G.A., C.D. Stanl ey, D.N. Maynard, G.J.
Hochmuth, E.A. Hanl on, and D.Z. Haman. 1991.
Water and ferti l i zer management of mi croi rri gated
fresh market tomatoes. Trans. Amer Soc. Agr. Eng.
34(2):429435.
Cl ark, G.A. and D.N. Maynard. 1992. Vegetabl e
producti on on vari ous bed wi dths usi ng dri p i rri -
gati on. Appl . Eng. Agr. 8(1):2932.
Cl ark, G.A., C.D. Stanl ey, and F.S. Zazueta. 1993.
Qual i tati ve sensi ng of water movement from a
poi nt- source emi tter on a sandy soi l . Appl . Eng.
Agr. 9(3)299303.
Dangl er, J.M. and S.J. Locasci o. 1990. Yi el d of
tri ckl e i rri gated tomatoes as affected by ti me of N
and K appl i cati on. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci . 115:585
589.
Hoffman, G.J., J.D. Rhoades, J. Letey, and F.
Sheng. 1990. Sal i ni ty management, p. 667715.
In: Hoffman, Howel l , and Sol omon (eds.). Man-
agement of farm i rri gati on systems. Amer. Soc.
Agr. Eng. Monogr., Amer. Soc. Agr. Eng., St.
Joseph, Mi ch.
Howel l , T.A., D.S. Stevenson, F.K. Al j i bury, H.M.
Gi tl i n, I.P. Wu, A.W. Warri ck, and P.A.C. Raats.
1980. Desi gn and operati on of tri ckl e (dri p) sys-
tems, p. 663720. In: M.E. Jensen (ed.). Desi gn
and operati on of farm i rri gati on systems. Amer
Soc. Agr. Eng. Monogr. 3. Amer. Soc. Agr. Eng.,
St. Joseph, Mi ch.
Jones, J.W., L.H. Al l en, S.F. Shi h, J.S. Rogers,
L.C. Hammond, A.G. Smaj strl a, and J.D. Martsol f.
1984. Esti mated and measured evapotranspi ra-
ti on for Fl ori da cl i mate, crops, and soi l s. Fl a.
Coop. Ext. Ser. Bul . 840.,Gai nesvi l l e.
Kel l er, J. and R.D. Bl i esner. 1990. Spri nkl e and
tri ckl e i rri gati on. Van Nostrand Rei nhol d, New
York.
Locasci o, S.J. and J.M. Myers. 1974. Tomato
response to pl ug mi x, mul ch and i rri gati on method.
Proc. Fl a. State Hort. Soc. 87:126130.
Locasci o, S.J., S.M. Ol son, and F.M. Rhoads.
1989. Water quanti ty and ti me of N and K appl i ca-
ti on for tri ckl e- i rri gated tomatoes. J. Amer. Soc.
Hort. Sci . 114:265268.
Locasci o, S.J. and A.G. Smaj strl a. 1989. Dri p
i rri gated tomato as affected by water quanti ty and
N and K appl i cati on and ti mi ng. Proc. Fl a. State
Hort. Soc. 102:307309.
Myers, J.M. and S.J. Locasci o. 1972. Effi ci ency of
i rri gati on methods for strawberri es. Proc. Fl a. State
Hort. Soc. 85:114117.
Nakayama, F.S. and D.A. Bucks. 1986. Tri ckl e
i rri gati on for crop producti on. El sevi er Sci ence
Publ i shers, Amsterdam, The Netherl ands.
Pi tts, D.J. and G.A. Cl ark. 1991. Compari son of
dri p i rri gati on to subi rri gati on for tomato produc-
ti on i n southwest Fl ori da. Appl . Eng. Agr. 7(2):177
184.
Pi tts, D.J., C.E. Arnol d, and J.M. Gri mm. 1989.
Infl uence of l ateral tubi ng l ocati on and number on
growth and yi el d of tomatoes wi th mi cro i rri gati on.
Proc. Fl a. State Hort. Soc. 102:304307.
Prevatt, J.W., G.A. Cl ark, and C.D. Stanl ey. 1992.
A comparati ve cost anal ysi s of vegetabl e i rri gati on
systems. HortTechnol ogy 2:9194.
Sanchez, C.A. and J.C. Si l vertooth. 1996. Manag-
i ng sal i ne and sodi c soi l s for produci ng horti cul -
tural crops. HortTechnol ogy 6:99107.
Stanl ey C.D., A.A. Csi zi nszky, G.A. Cl ark, and J.W.
Prevatt. 1991. Sequenti al croppi ng for vegetabl e
producti on usi ng mi croi rri gati on on sandy soi l s i n
southwestern Fl ori da. HortTechnol ogy 1:7276.
van Bavel , C.H.M. 1966. Potenti al evaporati on:
The combi nati on concept and i ts experi mental
veri fi cati on. Water Res. Res. 2(3)455467
Vi ctor, P.R. and G.A. Cl ark. 1991. Uni formi ty of
soi l moi sture i n mi croi rri gated pl asti c mul ched
beds. Soi l and Crop Sci . Soc. Fl a. Proc. 50:912.
Zur, B. and J. W. Jones. 1981. A model for the
water rel ati ons, photosynthesi s, and expansi ve
growth of crops. Water Res. Res. 17(2):311320.
Table 6. Screen mesh numbers and corre-
sponding opening sizes.
Mesh Size of opening
size inches mm m
40 0.0165 0.42 420
80 0.0071 0.18 180
120 0.0049 0.125 125
150 0.0041 0.105 105
180 0.0035 0.089 89
200 0.0029 0.074 74
270 0.0021 0.053 53