SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
vol.29 número1Determinación de tasas de erosión neta de suelo utilizando 137Cs en un agroecosistema de laderaProductividad del agua de riego en cultivos seleccionados de la región central de Cuba índice de autoresíndice de materiabúsqueda de artículos
Home Pagelista alfabética de revistas  

Servicios Personalizados

Revista

Articulo

Indicadores

  • No hay articulos citadosCitado por SciELO

Links relacionados

  • No hay articulos similaresSimilares en SciELO

Compartir


Revista Ciencias Técnicas Agropecuarias

versión On-line ISSN 2071-0054

Rev Cie Téc Agr vol.29 no.1 San José de las Lajas ene.-mar. 2020  Epub 01-Mar-2020

 

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Determining of Hydric and Energetic Efficiency of Localized Irrigation under Greenhouse Conditions

Dr.C. Norge Tornés OliveraI  * 

MSc. Yarisbel Gómez MasjuanI 

Ing. Eduart Myor RoblesI 

Dr.C Oscar Brown ManriqueII 

I Universidad de Granma (UDG), Facultad de Ciencias Técnicas, Bayamo, Granma, Cuba.

II Universidad de Ciego de Ávila Máximo Gómez Báez (UNICA), Centro de Estudios Hidrotécnicos (CEH), Ciego de Ávila, Cuba.

ABSTRACT

The investigation was developed in the UEB of Protected and Semi-Protected Crops, belonging to the Agricultural Enterprise “Paquito Rosales Benítez”, located in Veguitas Town, Yara Municipality, Granma Province, with the objective of determining the hydric and energetic efficiency of localized irrigation under greenhouse conditions. For the calculation of the different indicators, two greenhouses were selected, one of them was planted with cucumber and another one was planted with pepper. Localized irrigation evaluation was carried according to American Society of Agricultural Engineers from United States, through their standard ASAE EP-438 methodology. The parameters of quality of irrigation and of hydraulic characterization of the system, confirmed the good functioning of it. Energy cost was 210.00 CUP ha -1 for cucumber crop and of 378.00 CUP ha -1 for pepper crop. The cost of the energy to produce one ton was 4.69 CUP t -1 for the cucumber crop and of 10. 46 CUP t -1 for the pepper crop. Higher water productivity was guaranteed in cucumber crop (40, 7 kg m -3 ) than the pepper crop (17, 91 kg m - 3). Water productivity in monetary terms was of 129.83 CUP m -3 and 81.14 CUP m -3 for the cucumber crop and pepper crop, respectively.

Keywords: operation diagram; energy; water productivity

INTRODUCTION

According to Laura and López (2017), the interest of localized irrigation is due to that it increases water use efficiency and reduces operating costs. This method of irrigation constitutes an improvement in water application to the plant. As all invention, it requires an adequate management that guarantees the return of investment. Therefore, it is convenient to evaluate an installation to check the designing criteria and to monitor the obstruction in emitters by means of tests of uniformity evaluation.

On the other hand, Tarjuelo et al. (2015) and Stambouli et al. (2014), consider it is important to accomplish a routine of evaluation to determine the energetic efficiency of an irrigation system and to help in the process of decision-making, considering the improvements in the system of water distribution, to optimize the consumption of energy and the economic planning.

In the future, due to the limitations of water and energy, the reserved zones of production will increase in the agricultural areas (Brenon et al., 2018) and with that, there will be the need to explore new technologies and methodologies for handling irrigation systems. With hydric efficiency studies in installations of irrigation, it is possible to check the functioning of pumping equipment, to identify deficiencies and to propose the correspondent improvements, viable from economic point of view (Rios et al., 2016). This work aimed at determining hydric and energetic efficiency of localized irrigation under greenhouse conditions.

METHODS

Localization of the Experimental Test

The investigation was carried out in the UEB of Protected and Semi-Protected Crops, belonging to the Agricultural Enterprise “Paquito Rosales Benítez”, Yara Municipality, in Granma Province.

Field Methodology

For the calculation of the different indicators two cultivation greenhouses were selected, one planted of cucumber (Cucumis sativus L. hybrid HS-008) (Greenhouse 1) and another one planted of pepper (Capsicum annuum hybrid LDPS) (Greenhouse 2). Each greenhouse had a productive area of 0, 0540 ha. Pepper was planted on November 20, 2017 and had a 70-day cycle and cucumber was planted on January 17, 2018 and had a 70-day cycle too. There were twelve lateral lines per greenhouse, with a longitude of 45 m and 100 droppers each. A daily irrigation was applied during 15 min.

The characteristics of the motor pump set are described in the following Table:

TABLE 1 Motor pump set characteristics 

Motor pump set Pe kW Pf kW PMankW Q( L S1 )
Submersible pump T.4-33 6,50 5,53 4,85 10

Note:  Pe means electric power; Pf arrow power; Pm manometric power; Q discharge.

The evaluation of the localized irrigation was carried out, according to the American Society of Agricultural Engineers, Microirrigation Committee, through its standards ASAE EP 438 (1998). For the calculation of pressures a model EN837 gauge was utilized. Dripper discharges were calculated by measuring discharge method. Electric measurements in the motor were made with UT-232 Digital Amperometric Clamp.

Calculation of Quality Irrigation Parameters

The evaluation of the parameters of quality of irrigation was carried out according to the ASAE methodology (1998). The following indicators were calculated:

CU=HLqH¯100 (1)

UDLq=HLqH¯100 (2)

UE=11,27*CVe*HLqH¯*100 (3)

Ush=1CVqh100 (4)

US=1CV100 (5)

where:

CU

is the uniformity coefficient, %;

H Lq

average irrigation water applied in the least irrigated quarter, cm -3 ;

H¯

mean irrigation water collected in all catch cans within the area cm -3 ;

UD Lq

distribution uniformity,

UE

uniformity of absolute emission, %;

CV

variation coefficient due to flow intensities, %;

U sh

statistical uniformity due to hydraulics, %;

CVqh=Shh¯

variation coefficient of the emitter discharge due to hydraulics;

S h

standard deviation of the pressure load m.c.a

h¯

mean of the pressure load m.c.a;

US

statistical uniformity, %.

Evaluation and Improvement of Irrigation

Net irrigation requirement (Dn=1L planta-1), was obtained from Technical Handbook of Organoponics and Intensive Orchards (2000). To calculate gross irrigation requirement (Dt=Dn/0,9 L planta-1) an efficiency of 90% was considered.

For the adjustment of the normal distribution function to the farm data, the volume of relative irrigation (Hr) was calculated dividing each irrigation depth (Hi) by H¯ and it was defined that each measurement represents the area of irrigation equally. The fraction of area irrigated (f) was obtained dividing each area (Ai) by the total area (At). In order to check if data obtained could be adequately model with a normal distribution, Normality Test using the Shapiro-Wilk Statistics (W) was carried out and to prove if it was reasonable that obtained data came from the adjusted distribution Kolmogorov Smirnov's Test was carried out. The statistical package Statgraphics 18 Centurion was utilized.

In order to elaborate the operation diagram of the irrigation in terms of normal distribution, four variables were utilized, one independent, Hr, and three dependents, f, application efficiency (EA) and the coefficient of deficit (Cd).

For the calculation of EA, the following expression was utilized:

EA=1+XfUDLq11,27UDLq11,2712πex22 (6)

where:  X=HH¯S typified variable; S the standard deviation of volumes applied, cm 3

For the calculation of  cd the following expression was utilized:

cd=1EA  Hr  (7)

Calculations of the indicators of energetic consumption were carried out according to López et al. (2012) methodology:

EB=PMantr   (8)

PMan=γQgHman1000  (9)

ECc=EB Cc (10)

ECha=ECcA   (11)

ECm3=ECc Va (12)

where:

EB

pumping energy, kWh;

PMan

water energy, kW;

γ

specific mass of water, kg m -3 ;

Q

pump discharge, m 3 s -1 ;

g

gravity acceleration, m s -2 ;

Hman

total dynamic load of pumping, m.c.a;

t r

irrigation time, h;

ECc

energy consumed in the crop cycle, kWh;

Cc

crop cycle, d ;

EC ha

energy consumed per hectare, kWh ha -1 ;

A

cultivated area, ha;

EC m 3

energy consumed per cubic meter, kWh m -3 .

Calculation of Indicators of Productivity and Efficient Use of Water

The calculation of the indicators of productivity and efficient use of water was carried out according to Salazar et al. (2014) methodology:

RR=PA (13)

PAR=PVa  (14)

EUA=VaP (15)

where:

R

crop yield, t ha -1 ;

P

agricultural production, t;

PAR

irrigation water productivity, kg m -3 ;

Va

volume of water applied, m 3 ;

EUA

water use efficiency, m 3 t -1 .

Calculation of Economic Indicators

The calculation of economic indicators was carried out using the following equation:

CEha=EChaPe (16)

CEm3=ECm3Pe (17)

CEt=ECcPPe (18)

CAt=VaPPa (19)

PA=IVa (20)

where:

CE ha

energy cost per hectare, CUP ha -1 ;

Pe

energy price (0. 027 CUP kWh -1 );

CE m 3

specific cost for cubic meter of water, CUP m -3 ;

EC t

energy cost per ton, CUP m -3 ;

EC t

water irrigation cost per ton, CUP t1 ;

 Pa

water irrigation price (0.025 CUP m -3 );

PA

water productivity, CUP m -3 ;

I

gross income, CUP.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Analysis of Irrigation Quality Parameters

The CU values obtained were 90% and 81% for the Greenhouses 1 and 2, respectively (Table 2). The average value was 85%; therefore, the grade of acceptability is good according to Rodrigo et al. (1992) and Álvaro (2014) opinions.

TABLE 2 Uniformity coefficient, variation of flow of the emitter and uniformity distribution values 

Description CU (%) UD qL (%) UE (%) U sh (%) Us (%)
Greenhouse 1 90 84,90 74,48 87,32 87,04
Greenhouse 2 81 92,64 73,82 84,31 79,74
Average 85 88,77 74,15 85,815 83,39

The CU is as much a measure of the irrigation uniformity as an indicator of the technical status of the system. A low value of the CU can be caused by any obstruction, either physical, chemical or biological and in such cases, it will be necessary to accomplish preventive or cleanliness treatments. The values obtained reflect that these deficiencies do not exist, due to the realization of preventive treatments.

The uniformity of distribution UD Lq , had better behavior in Greenhouse 2 (92, 64%) compared to the value obtained in Greenhouse 1 (84, 90%), which is because average irrigation water applied in the least irrigated quarter, was lower in Greenhouse 2. It should be noted that high values of uniformity do not necessarily imply good irrigation management. A high value of uniformity can, under certain circumstances, be associated with an unsatisfactory irrigation.

The values of UE, U sh and Us obtained in Greenhouse 1 surpassed those of Greenhouse 2 (Table 2). The smallest differences (3, 01%) were observed in U sh , this is due to the fact that the pressures are less variable than the flows, because of that the difference of Us was 7,3%. The intermediate value corresponded to UE (4, 66%), which is justified because the product of the factors of this indicator takes into account the variability due to the manufacture of the emitter and pressure changes in the system (Turégano, 2014). According to the criteria of Carmenates et al. (2014), the acceptability of the method would be regular, since the uniformity of emission does not exceed 75%.

Analysis of the Evaluation and Improvement of Irrigation

From the construction of the standardized non-dimensional distribution curve, a group of important parameters in irrigation can be identified (Figure 1). The curve of this function generally has an S shape and, as the uniformity improves, it becomes more horizontal. In this case, the curve does not have an S shape, which is due to the localized irrigation characteristic of presenting high values of uniformity, average   CU (85%) and average UD Lq (88,77%).

FIGURE 1 Adjustment of the normal distribution function to the field data. 

In this evaluation it was proved that applying a net dose of 1 L plant -1 , it was guaranteed that 64% of the least irrigated area received that dose. It should be noted that this result is very difficult to achieve in the methods of superficial irrigation and sprinkling, mainly due to the problems of uniformity.

The average heights discharged were similar, 1,17 and 1,19 L plant -1 , for Greenhouses 1 and 2, respectively. More water was applied (17% and 19% for Greenhouses 1 and 2, respectively) when comparing average heights discharged with the net dose. When analyzing the total dose, the result showed the same tendency 30% and 32% increase in relation to the net dose for Greenhouses 1 and 2, respectively.

The irrigation operation diagram (Figure 2), relates the independent result of each relative irrigation volume, H r , with the parameters dependent on its application. Although a greater number of variables can be considered, only three were analyzed, to facilitate the opposing application trends.

Thus, high values of application efficiency, EA, correspond to fractions of adequately irrigated small area, f. Of particular interest was the relationship between H r and the deficit coefficient Cd. Both values show similar trends of increase or decrease depending on H r ; however, in practice this is a problem, considering that increasing the EA means increasing areas with water deficits in the field and, consequently, affecting crop yield. The same result is obtained if the Cd is increased to increase the EA.

An example application of the diagram using the results of Greenhouse1 is as follows: if it is considered not to have deficits during irrigation, it would be necessary to apply 1,06 times the average height discharged or average dose 1,30 L plant -1 (Figure 1) and more than 80% of the area adequately irrigated or irrigated in excess would be achieved. If it is considered to achieve an efficiency of 100%, it would be necessary to apply 0,96 times the average height discharged or average dose 1, 30 L plant -1 (Figure 1) and it would be possible to properly irrigate 50% of the area.

FIGURE 2 Operation diagram of the irrigation normal distribution function. 

Energy Analysis of Irrigation

The EB for irrigation reached a value of 0, 60 kWh for Greenhouses 1 and 2, respectively (Table 3). This result is justified because the pump works with the sums of the loads and the water volumes of both greenhouses, which are equal, achieving an equitable distribution of energy.

The indicator ECc showed a difference of 33, 6 kWh Cc -1 , this is due to the difference in crop cycle (56 d). A similar behavior was observed in EC ha which had a difference of 622, 22 kWh ha -1 for the same reasons as ECc; the indicator EC m3 showed a difference of 0,02 kWh m -3 ,given by the discharge variability of the emitters (Table 3). These results are similar to those reported by Pérez et. al (2016) and Rocamora et. al (2006) in audits made to the Communities of Irrigators in Spain.

TABLE 3 Values of the energy consumed 

Description EB  kWh  ECc kWh Cc 1 ECha kWh ha1 ECm3 kWh m3
Greenhouse 1 0,60 42,00 777,78 0,71
Greenhouse 2 0,60 75,60 1400,00 0,69

Analysis of Productivity and Water Use Efficiency

The yield obtained in Greenhouse 1 was 44, 7 t ha -1 and in Greenhouse 2 of 36, 11 t ha -1 with a difference of 8, 59 t ha -1 (Figure 3). It is necessary to point out that statistical tests were not carried out on this variable because they are crops that, genetically, have different potential yields. When analyzing  PAR , it was observed that the crop established in Greenhouse 1 (cucumber) was more productive than the one established in Greenhouse 2 (pepper), when 22, 79 kg m-3, exceeded it. In the EUA indicator, the behavior was different, that is, pepper exceeded the water needs by 31, 25 m 3 t -1 (Figure 3); however, when it is referred to water use efficiency, cucumber continues with better results. This allows ensuring that for a situation of water resource limitation, it would be more convenient to sow cucumbers than peppers, since a greater volume of production is guaranteed with less water. Fernández (2006) had different results from those of this investigation when reporting values of 33,2 and 21,0 kg m -3 of cucumber and pepper, respectively. This difference obeys to the planting time of both experiments.

FIGURE 3 Crop yield values and water use indicators. 

Economic Analysis of Irrigation

The CE ha varied between 210.00 CUP ha -1 (cucumber) and 378.00 CUP ha -1 (pepper) (Table 4). This result is justified by the difference in the crop cycle, explained above. The CE m 3 corresponds to EC m3 (indicator explained in Table 2); therefore, it has a difference of 0.01 CUP m -3 .

TABLE 4 Values of economic indicators 

Description CEha  CUP ha1 CEm3  CUP m3 CE t CUP t1 CAt  CUP t1 PA UP m3
Greenhouse 1 210.00 0.19 4.69 0.61 129.83
Greenhouse 2 378.00 0.18 10.46 1.39 81.14

To produce a ton of cucumber, 4.69 CUP, was spent for energy, while 10.46 CUP t -1 was spent for pepper. In relation to the cost of water to produce a ton of cucumber only 0.61 CUP is required and for pepper 0.39 CUP t -1 . These values are low for the price of water in Cuba.

Water productivity showed that cucumber crop produced 129.83 CUP m -3 while pepper crop 81.14 CUP m -3. It should be noted that the cultivation of cucumber had higher yields and better prices.

CONCLUSIONS

The parameters of irrigation quality and hydraulic characterization of the system confirmed the proper functioning of the system.

The cost of energy was 210.00 CUP ha-1 for cucumber and 378.00 CUP ha-1 for pepper; while the cost of energy to produce a ton was 4.69 CUP ha-1 for cucumber and of 10.46 CUP ha-1 for pepper.

Cucumber crop guaranteed higher production volumes (40,7 kg m-3) than pepper (17,91 kg m-3) for equal water consumption.

Water productivity in monetary terms was of 129.83 CUP m-3 and 81.14 CUP m-3 for the cucumber crop and pepper crop, respectively.

REFERENCES

APAZA, L.G.; BLANCO, L.C.: “Evaluación de uniformidad del sistema presurizado de riego por goteo”, Apthapi, 3(3): 740-750, 2017a, ISSN: 2519-9382. [ Links ]

APAZA, L.G.; BLANCO, L.C.: “Evaluación de uniformidad del sistema presurizado de riego por goteo”, Apthapi, 3(3): 740-750, 2017b, ISSN: 2519-9382. [ Links ]

ASAE: Field Evaluation of Microirrigation Systems, Ed. American society of agricultural engineers, microirrigation committee, ASAE Standard EP458 DEC98 ed., USA, 1998, ISBN: 13: 978-1892769572. [ Links ]

BARBOSA, D.S.B.; COLOMBO, A.; DE SOUZA, G.. N.J.; BAPTISTA, B. da S.V.; ARAÚJO, A.: “ENERGY EFFICIENCY OF A CENTER PIVOT IRRIGATION SYSTEM”, Engenharia Agrícola, 38(2): 284-292, 2018, ISSN: 1809-4430, E-ISSN: 0100-6916, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1809-4430. [ Links ]

CARMENATES, H.D.; MUJICA, C.A.; DANIUBIS P. L.; PANEQUE, R.P.: “Evaluación de los parámetros de manejo de los sistemas de microirrigación mediante el criterio de Merrian y Keller”, Revista Ciencias Técnicas Agropecuarias, 23(1): 37-40, 2014, ISSN: 1010-2760, E-ISSN: 2071-0054. [ Links ]

FERNÁNDEZ, M.D.: “Eficiencia en el uso del agua en distintos sistemas hortícolas”, Tecnoambiente:, 16(160): 131-134, 2006, ISSN: 1133-4665. [ Links ]

LÓPEZ, M.; MUJICA, A.; BROWN, O.; CASTELLANO, L.: “Evaluación del consumo energético de las máquinas de pivotes centrales eléctricas en la empresa cultivos varios la Cuba provincia Ciego de Ávila”, Revista Ciencias Técnicas Agropecuarias, 21(Esp.): 30-34, 2012, ISSN: 1010-2760, E-ISSN: 2071-0054. [ Links ]

MINAG: Manual técnico de organopónicos y huertos intensivos, Ed. Agroinfor, Grupo Nacional de Agricultura Urbana, La Habana, Cuba, 176 p., 2000, ISBN: 959-246-030-2. [ Links ]

PÉREZ, S.M.; SÁNCHEZ, R.F.J.; RAMOS, H.M.; LÓPEZ, J.A.: “Modeling irrigation networks for the quantification of potential energy recovering: a case study”, Water, 8(6): 234, 2016, ISSN: 2073-444, DOI: 10.3390/w8060234. [ Links ]

RÍOS, F.J.L.; TORRES, M.M.; RUIZ, T.J.; TORRES, M.M.: “Eficiencia y productividad del agua de riego en trigo (Triticum vulgare) de Ensenada y Valle de Mexicali, Baja California, México”, Acta universitaria, 26(1): 20-29, 2016, ISSN: 0188-6266, DOI: 10.15174/au. [ Links ]

ROCAMORA, O.C.; ABADÍA, S.R.; CÁMARA, Z.J.; MELIÁN, N.A.; PUERTO, M.H.; RUIZ, C.A.: Eficiencia energética en regadío: Auditorías Energéticas en Comunidades de Regantes, Inst. Universidad Miguel Hernández. Escuela Politécnica Superior de Orihuela, Costa Rica, 5 p., 2008. [ Links ]

RODRIGO, L.J.; HERNÁNDEZ, J.A.; GONZÁLEZ, J.: Riego localizado, Ed. Ediciones Mundi-Prensa, Centro Nacional de Tecnología de Regadíos, España, 403 p., 1992, ISBN: 978-84-7114-397-6. [ Links ]

SALAZAR, M.R.; ROJANO, A.A.; LÓPEZ, C.I.L.: “La eficiencia en el uso del agua en la agricultura controlada”, Tecnología y ciencias del agua, 5(2): 177-183, 2014, ISSN: 2007-2422. [ Links ]

STAMBOULI, T.; FACI, J.M.; ZAPATA, N.: “Water and energy management in an automated irrigation district”, Agricultural Water Management, 142: 66-76, 2014, ISSN: 0378-3774, DOI: 10.1016/j.agwat.2014.05.001. [ Links ]

TARJUELO, J.M.; RODRIGUEZ, D.J.A.; ABADÍA, R.; CAMACHO, E.A.; ROCAMORA, C.; MORENO, M.A.: “Efficient water and energy use in irrigation modernization: Lessons from Spanish case studies”, Agricultural Water Management, 162: 67-77, 2015, ISSN: 0378-3774. [ Links ]

TURÉGANO, P.V.: Modelización del comportamiento hidráulico de una subunidad de riego localizado, Universidad Politécnica de Valencia, PhD. Thesis, Valencia, España, 323 p., 2014. [ Links ]

6The mention of trademarks of specific equipment, instruments or materials is for identification purposes, there being no promotional commitment in relation to them, neither by the authors nor by the publisher.

Received: January 25, 2019; Accepted: December 19, 2019

*Author for correspondence: Norge Tornés Olivera, e-mail: ntorneso@udg.co.cu

Norge Tornés Olivera, Profesor Titular, Vicedecano de Formación, Universidad de Granma (UDG), Facultad de Ciencias Técnicas, Bayamo, Granma, Cuba, e-mail: ntorneso@udg.co.cu

Yarisbel Gómez Masjuan, Profesor Auxiliar, Departamento de Producción Agrícola, Universidad de Granma (UDG). Cuba, e-mail: ygomezg@udg.co.cu

Eduart Myor Robles, Ingeniero Agrícola, Departamento de Ingeniería Agrícola, Universidad de Granma (UDG). Cuba, e-mail: emayorr@udg.co.cu

Oscar Brown Manrique, Profesor Titular. Centro de Estudios Hidrotécnicos (CEH), Universidad de Ciego de Ávila Máximo Gómez Báez (UNICA). Cuba, e-mail: obrown@ingenieria.unica.cu

The authors of this work declare no conflict of interests.

Creative Commons License This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License