Abstract
Field data sets for seven irrigation events during maize growing season were collected for characterizing infiltration properties in variable Alternate, Fixed Alternate and Conventional Furrow Irrigation (AFI, FFI and CFI, respectively). Three various estimation methods; the two-point method and the INFILT and IPARM models; were used to estimate the infiltration parameters of the modified Kostiakov equation for alternate and conventional furrows and then compared with field results. Less runoff losses and larger infiltration were observed in alternate furrows as compared to conventional furrows due to increased lateral water movement to non-irrigated furrow. AFI had somewhat greater infiltration rate than FFI. The steady infiltration rate in AFI and FFI was higher than in CFI. The IPARM model had the most accurate and reliable performance relative to others in three irrigation treatments. However the two-point method also performed well. The INFILT model was not suitable on the experimental field studied and highly overestimated the infiltration for all irrigation treatments. The results indicated that measuring both advance and runoff data is necessary to achieve reasonable and precise infiltration parameters. Having different infiltration characteristics in alternate furrows, design variables of alternate furrow irrigation will be different from conventional furrow irrigation in the same field.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
