Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
DWR Project Update and Best Practices for Improving Distribution Uniformity
Jacob Hernandez JH Ag Consulting
Introduction Jacob Hernandez, JH Ag Consulting, Central Coast,
California B.S. Soil Science Cal Poly, SLO Certified Crop Advisor Soil Moisture and Weather Station Design and Install Distribution Uniformity Evaluations NRCS Technical Service Provider, Nutrient and Irrigation
Management Plans Five years of grant writing experience
November 11-13, 2019 | San Luis Obispo, California
Ag Water Best Management Practice Adoption (AWBA)
Funded by CA Department of Water Resources Free Distribution Uniformity (DU) Evaluation of
one irrigation set Growers answer questionnaire about
environmental beliefs and are interviewed about irrigation practices
BMPs recommended Free technical assistance for three years 57 Vineyards evaluated 55 Growers interviewed
November 11-13, 2019 | San Luis Obispo, California
Distribution Uniformity (DU) Evaluation Methodology Developed by Cal Poly, Irrigation Training & Research Center (ITRC)
Importance of High DU
More effective, efficient and uniform distribution of water and chemicals through the drip irrigation system.
The Problem with Low DU Under irrigating as a result of nonuniformity reduces yield and quality of crops. The practice of off-setting poor distribution by applying more irrigation water results in higher costs in water,
power, and chemicals and possible negative impacts on yield and quality.
November 11-13, 2019 | San Luis Obispo, California
(12)
(21)
(24)
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
1.2
1.3
0% 50% 100%
Acre
Fee
t
Percent of Field Receiving Applied Water
DU = 0.78, 50% of Field Receives up to 22% less than the amount desired.
This is What 0.85 DU Looks Like
Emission Device Variation from Field Data Collected
Average Flow Rate 0.50 GPH
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.60
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
gph
psi
DU of 57 Vineyards Evaluated
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0.90 or more 0.81-0.89 0.80 or less
Num
ber o
f Vin
eyar
d ( 5
7 To
tal)
0.90 or more 0.81-0.89 0.80 or less
(12)
(21)
(24)
DU Vs Vineyard Age
R² = 0.019
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
DU
Vineyard Age (Years)
Causes of Nonuniformity in Project Vineyards
Pressure Differences 27%
Other Causes (Plugging)
69%
Unequal Spacing 3%
Unequal Drainage 1%
DU Degradation Due to Lack of System Maintenance
Most Common DU Problems Observed in This Project
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Plugging Hose inletpressure variation
Leaks Injector location Small wetted soilarea
Insufficientremoval of carbs.
w/ acid
High pressurelosses at pump
station
Low fieldpressures
Num
ber o
f Gro
wers
(57
tota
l)
(55)
(22)
(17)
(44)
(26) (25)
(49) (49)
High Pressure Pump stations Downstream ends of slopes
Low Pressure Uphill ends of slopes Plugging
Pressure Problems
Filtration Chemical Treatments Flushing
Plugging
Preventing Common DU Problems
November 11-13, 2019 | San Luis Obispo, California
Good initial design Appropriate hardware selection Regular service and maintenance
Participating growers agree to provide Water Use
Records for three growing seasons Recordkeeping methods. Calendar method Flow meter Software
Recordkeeping
Water use records for three years are requested as part of project
Majority of project growers report recording hours of operation
Of submitted records, about half report converting hours to acre-inches/acre Correlation between converting hrs -> ac-in/ac and higher
DU
Water Use Records
Irrigation Scheduling Moderate correlation between ET for scheduling and DU Moderate correlation between irrigation to prevent
leaching and DU
Soil Health
Other Considerations
Growers tended to be open to change No correlation between growers’ values and DU No correlation between endorsement of environmental
statements and DU Some difference between grower experience(age) and
endorsement of env. statements
Beliefs and Values
Participating AWBA growers were split into “Control” and “Treatment” groups Control – no “touches” Treatment – regular “touches” – phone check-ins, email, technical assistance
A random sample from each group was selected for a retest evaluation in summer 2019.
Retests – Summer 2019
First DU Average Retest DU Average
Treatment 0.51 0.86
Control 0.65 0.83
More Analysis – compare counties, management style Retest Beliefs Educational Outreach Mobile Irrigation Lab
What’s Next
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Water Quality Soil Analysis Pump Test DU Evaluation Energy Analysis
Num
ber o
f Gro
wers
(57
Tota
l)
(18)
(54)
What types of analysis are managers performing?
(53)
(48)
(26)
DU as a tool to measure basin health Incentivize DU Evaluation? Provide resources to lowest performing vineyards for
BMPs that increase DU
DU & SGMA
