1432

. .
) -

.
. ( LF
:

Effect of Uniformity of Deficit Irrigation with Saline Water on Production

Abstract
The study aimed towards developing a computer model to be used for evaluating the
effect of water distribution uniformity of deficit irrigation with saline water on field crop
production. The development of the model is based on the concept of water balance in the
field. For the application of the model, corn crop (yellow maize) autumn season is selected
using ready data on reference evapotranspiration at the selected field site (North Jazirah
Project – Nineva). Moreover, published data on field sprinkler water distribution around
sprinkler head of stationary system are used. The main assumption upon which the model is
based is that, for a given case, irrigation water distribution and salinity are fixed for all
irrigations during the season. The results of the study revealed that the deficit in the yield

1
1432

ratio increases with the increase in moisture depletion ration and water salinity, but decreases
with the increase in the degree of irrigation uniformity. Furthermore, the effect of salinity on
production is greater with deficit irrigation, therefore a balance should be sought between
deficit irrigation level and water salinity on production under each case of irrigation non-
uniformity. Finally, the study showed that the leaching fraction increases as the degree of
irrigation uniformity deteriorates because deep percolation losses increase with the reduction
in uniformity.
.1

.
Deficit Irrigation
.[ 6 ]
[7 ]

.[13]

. [4 ]
.

.2
[10]

.
( %90 %80 %75 %65
(%90 %80 %70)
)
%30

2
1432

- - - )

)
) - ( 120
.

Christiansen ( )
-:
n
( xi x)
1
Ucc ( 1 ) 100 (1)
nx

-:
(%) Christiansen : Ucc
) :xi
:x
:n

[8 ]
× 12
18
3× 3
-
[ 15 ]

- -
-:

ETc ETo Kc (2)

-:
) - :ETc
) - :ETo
:Kc

3
1432

[2 ]
( )
[5 ]
) 15)
( 25) 45) ) 35)
.[12]
TAW
.
1.5
-

TAW 1000 fc wp Zr ( 3)

-
: fc

: wp

) : Zr

( 25)
. [5 ] ( 135)
-

RAW P TAW (4)

-
( p)
(ETc)
FAO . [5 ]
. (
.% 55

[5 ]
-

Dr ,i Dr ,i 1 P Ro Ii ETc ,i DPi -GWi (5)

4
1432

-:
) (i) : Dr ,i

) (i-1) : Dr ,i 1

) (i) :P
) (i) : Ro

) (i) : Ii

) (i) - : ETc ,i

) (i) : DPi

) (i :GWi
( )

(GW)

- .3

Ks (5 )

( Dr )
-:

TAW Dr
Ks ( 6)
TAW RAW
-
( - ) :Ks
) : TAW
) : RAW
) :Dr
Dr Ks
.RAW
Ks -
- -

5
1432

b
ks 1 Ece Ecethreshold ( 7)
100 * k y

- :Ks
(dS/m :Ece
( ds/m) :Ecethreshold
.% (ds/m Ece :b
:Ky

[3 ]
- Leaching Fraction(LF)
1 LF Eciw
Ece (8)
LF 5

( ds/m) : Eciw
deep ) (%) Leaching fraction ( ) :LF
[3 ]
( - ) (percolation
-
Ddw
LF (9)
Diw
-
) :Ddw
: Diw
[14]
( )

.( 4 )
-
- : [5 ]

b TAW Dr
KS 1 Ece Ecethreshold (10)
100 * k y TAW RAW

6
1432

) (Zea maize)
.[3](FAO,48
- -

ETadj K s ETc (11)

-
) ( - : ETadj

:Ks
[1 ]
-
. )
( ) Ece
( ETc – )
Ece
.(8) Ece
(5) ETc ,i (11) ETadj Ks

APD ( 3× 3 )
- (i)
APDi=(Dr/TAW)i × 100% (12)

APDi
.
[2]
-:

ya ET adj
1 Ky 1 (13)
ym ET c

-
) : ya
) ) : ym
) ) – :ETadj
)( ) - :ETc
:Ky
Di
TAW

7
1432

%30
-:
×( )=
- TAW
IV ( D*r Di ) TAW (14 )
-
) : IV
: Dr *
: Di
) :TAW

(800-700)

. [11 ]

.4
(%90 %80 %75 %65)
(%90 %80 %70)

%30 ( )
.
[14] [3 ]
- - - )
-
.ds/m (2-0.7) -
.ds/m (10-2 -
. ds/m (25-10 -
.ds/m (25) -
[3 ]
deep ) (LF) ( )
(LR) ( - ) (percolation
[9 ]

( ) (
(LF) (1)

8
1432

( )
( )

( )

0.2
0.18
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.1
0.08
Lf

0.06
0.04
0.02
0
50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Ucc%

. LF .( 1)

– (3) (2)
( Ucc
–
.(Ucc=100%)

9
1432

(Ucc=65%) (Ucc=75%) (Ucc=80%)

(Ucc=90%) (Ucc=100%)

730
700
670
640
-

610
580
550
ETadj

520
490
460
430
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
(%)

. - .( 2)

(Ucc=65%) (Ucc=75%) (Ucc=80%)

(Ucc=90%) (Ucc=100%)

0.95

0.9

0.85
(Ya/Ym)

0.8

0.75

0.7
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

(%)

. . ( 3)

( 7) (4)

.
(
10
1432

( ) (1) . (
.

(Dr=70%) (Dr=80%) (Dr=90%)

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5
(Ya/Ym)

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
(%) Ucc

. .(4)

(Dr=70%) (Dr=80%) (Dr=90%)

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5
(Ya/Ym)

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
(%) Ucc

. . (5)

11
1432

(Dr=70%) (Dr=80%) (Dr=90%)

1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
(Y a/Y m )

0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
(%) Ucc

. .(6)

(Dr=70%) (Dr=80%) (Dr=90%)

1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
(Y a /Y m )

0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
(%)Ucc

.(7)

12
1432

. .( 1 )

-:Di

60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Dr

* * 8 7 6 5 5 70%
* 6 4 4 4 4 4 80%
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 90%
* * 5 4 4 4 4 70%
* 5 4 3 3 3 3 80%
3 3 2 2 2 2 2 90%
* * 5 4 4 4 3 70%
* 4 4 3 3 3 3 80%
2 2 2 2 1 1 1 90%
.%30 *

.5

( ) -
.

.
( LF
(%90 %80 %70)
–

(Di )
. Dr

13
1432

.6
[1] FAO, (1974) .Crop water requirements .Irrigation and Drainage paper NO.24,Rome
,United Nations.
[2] FAO, (1979) .Yield response to water .Irrigation and Drainage paper NO.33, Rome
,United Nations.
[3] FAO,(1992).The use of saline waters for crop production .Irrigation and Drainage paper
NO.48, Rome, United Nations.
[4] FAO, (1992).Waste water treatment and use in agriculture. Irrigation and Drainage paper
NO.47, Rome, United Nations.
[5] FAO,(1998).Crop evapotranspiration guidelines computing crop water requirements
Irrigation and Drainage paper NO.56, Rome, United Nations.
[6] Kirda, C.(2002). Deficit irrigation scheduling based on plant growth stages showing
water stress tolerance. In: Deficit Irrigation Practices. Water Report NO.22. FAO, Rome,
Italy.
[7] Ragab, R.(1996).Constraint and applicability of irrigation scheduling under limited water
resource, variable rainfall and saline conditions. Water reports NO.8,FAO,Rome.
[8] Yasin, H.I.(1984) .Effect of riser height and pressure on uniformity of water distribution
under stationary sprinkler system. M.Sc.,University of Mosul, Iraq, (1984).
. " (1992 [9]
" " (2008 [10]
.
" " (1987) [11]

" " (2001) [12]

.
" " (1992) [13]
.(1992)
.1981 " " (1981) [14]
" " (2006) [15]
.

14
1432

.7

% . Ece b
% Di
Diw
) Ddw
Dp
Dr
% Dr *
ds/m Ece
ds/m Eciw
ds/m Ecethreshold
- ETc
( - ETadj

- ETo
GW
I
Iv
- Kc
- Ks
- Ky
% LR
% LF
- n
P
RAW
TAW
% Christiansen Ucc
ya
) ym
xi
x

15
1432

- fc

- wp

Zr

16