Advances in Modern Irrigation Systems

This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by professional essay writers.

20 October 2021

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

Get custom essay

96 writers online


Irrigation methods must be a related agent to give options to the growing need of food, and to the advancement, sustainability and effectivity of the agricultural sector. The design, administration, and operation of watering systems are essential components to realize an environment friendly use of the water resources and the success within the production of crops.The aim of this paper is to evaluate the advances made in watering systems as well as decide the principal necessities and procedures that let enhancing the style and management of the watering systems, based mostly upon the essential precept that they help in to establish agriculture extra successfully and sustainable.

The advances and administration of watering techniques at farm level is a component of the very first significance for the rational use of water, economic development of the agriculture and its ecological sustainability.

Secret words: Irrigation, Design, Water Management, Operation Systems


Water needed by crops is supplied by nature in theform of precipitation, however when it ends up being restricted or its distribution doesn’t correspond with demand peaks, it is then essential to provide it synthetically, by irrigation.

A variety of watering strategies are readily available, and the selection of 1 relies upon upon aspects corresponding to water availability, crop, soil qualities, land topography, and related expense. In the longer term, irrigated farming would require to provide two-thirds of the increase in food required by a larger population (English et al., 2002). The rising dependence on irrigated agriculture accompanies an accelerated competitors for water and elevated consciousness of unintentional unfavorable penalties of unhealthy style and management (Cai et al.

, 2003) Optimum management of offered water sources at farm level is needed since of accelerating demands, restricted resources, water desk variation in area and time, and soil contamination (Kumar and Singh, 2003).

Efficient water management is doubtless considered one of the key parts in successful operation and management of irrigation schemes. Irrigation technology has made important advances in recent years. Criteria and procedures have been developed to improve and rationalize practices to use water, by way of soil leveling, irrigation system design, discharge laws, adduction structures, and control tools. However, in many areas these advances aren’t yet available at the farm stage. Irrigation methods are selected, designed and operated to produce the irrigation necessities of each crop on the farm whereas controlling deep percolation, runoff, evaporation, and operational losses, to ascertain a sustainable manufacturing process. Playán and Mateos (2006) mentioned that modernized irrigation systems at farm stage implies deciding on the appropriate irrigation system and strategy based on the water availability, the characteristics of local weather, soil and crop, the financial and social circumstances, and the constraints of the distribution system.

Efficient irrigation tools usually is obtainable in two broad categories—drip and sprinkler irrigation. Both of these areas have several sub-types of kit in them. Within drip irrigation are floor drip equipment, subsurface drip tools and micro sprays/sprinklers. This category of drip irrigation and notably subsurface drip irrigation (SDI) is amongst the most exciting and latest applied sciences in irrigation. Drip irrigation has attracted large curiosity by teachers, who measure the performance of drip systems and promote drip as a water financial savings know-how. Sprinkler gear can be damaged down into several subcategories together with wheel traces, strong set and hand transfer pipe, touring weapons, and mechanical transfer irrigation (MMI) techniques, which embody center pivots and linear move equipment.

While older and less enthusiastically embraced by lecturers than drip irrigation, sprinkler systems and particularly MMI methods have turn out to be the main expertise used in giant agricultural purposes for efficient irrigation. With the appearance of Low Energy Precision Application (LEPA) configurations within the 1980’s, MMI techniques achieve irrigation efficiencies rivaling subsurface drip. Both of those ‘best in class’ technologies have been extensively compared to conventional gravity move irrigation. Both techniques can demonstrate considerably higher overall efficiency than conventional irrigation methods. Rarely have drip irrigation and MMI been immediately compared to one another. The balance of this paper will draw comparisons between these two kinds of irrigation systems, and explore how applicable every expertise is for numerous kinds of farming operations.


Up so far, our dialogue on advances in irrigation has focused on water savings. In the irrigation industry, water financial savings is most incessantly measured as application efficiency. Application effectivity is the fraction of water stored within the soil and out there for use by the crop divided by the total water applied. For subsurface drip irrigation (SDI), this theoretical efficiency can be as high as one hundred pc, and LEPA purposes in MMI similarly lead to utility efficiency of as a lot as 98% (D. Rogers, 2012). While application effectivity is an efficient start line in understanding irrigation efficiency, efficiency measurements underneath perfect situations on a test plot hardly tell the entire story about irrigation efficiency. In general, we will analyze irrigation performance in five categories as proven below


Researchers typically give the edge to subsurface drip irrigation SDI when they evaluate water effectivity. According to the IrrigationAssociation, subsurfacedrip irrigation (SDI) installations, if properly managed, can achieve 95% water efficiency (James Hardie, 2011). This excessive level of water effectivity isapproximately the identical as what a LEPA heart pivot or linear system achieves, at 90-95%, and undoubtedly higher than the 75-85% efficiency of heart pivot with the obsolete water utility method of impression sprinklers mounted to the top of the MMI system’s pipe. Gravity flow installations are usually round 40%-50% efficient. For the aim of a farmer’s consideration, LEPA and SDI techniques may be thought of as having equivalent potential efficiency. Once the system is installed, water efficiency is in the arms of the farmer.

While data on this subject is troublesome to search out, it seems that evidently farmers habitually over-apply water to their fields with all forms of irrigation tools together with gravity circulate. Irrigators may be predisposed to larger over-application with SDI, for the explanation that farmer can not see the water application occurring. Both methods will profit from extra refined data on evapotranspiration and plant health to permit extra precise software of water and scale back over-application. SDI methods sometimes require periodic cleaning and flushing to forestall root ingression and plugging. Such flushing is not a requirement with MMI gear. This water requirement isn’t thought of in effectivity calculations.


In most circumstances, the contribution that an irrigation system could make to reaching optimum crop yields is by delivering water to vegetation once they want it and by applying water uniformly over the world of the field. However, when the obtainable water provide is inadequate to totally meet the water wants of a crop, then the very best crop yields will be achieved by the irrigation system with the very best application effectivity. Uniform water software by MMI techniques is decided by sprinkler bundle design and by the rate at which the gear moves throughout the sector. Both of those elements mustbe personalized to fit the soil type and water holding capability of every subject. MMI specialists right now have an excellent understanding of the relationship between soil type, water holding capacity, gear velocity, and sprinkler bundle design, and they have even developed several computer packages to generate extremely uniform patterns of water distribution for low stress and LEPA techniques.


Changes within the elevation of terrain can beaccommodated by means of pressure regulators. Uniformity of MMI techniques is pretty constant over time. Variations amongst particular person nozzles is significantly decreased by the movement of the equipment and by the overlap between the wetted diameters of soil irrigated by each particular person sprinkler head. Typical water software uniformity levels are in the 90-95% vary and are fairly constant over time (Scherer, 1999). In functions with excessive levels of abrasives current in the water, sprinkler packages should be replaced and redesigned each few years to take care of watering uniformity. Drip techniques can be designed to have excessive levels of uniformity. A typical design targets uniformity ranges within the 85% vary. SDI design is not as standardized as MMI system design is, and consequently the water software of any drip system is extremely depending on the ability and data the technician who designed it. Unlike MMI methods, drip system uniformity can change substantially over time if correct upkeep isn’t performed to the drip set up.

This is particularly difficult for subsurface techniques, whose emitters are more doubtless to suck in soil which cannot then be simply removed by hand for the reason that emitters are buried underground. According to a South African research published in 2001, field examinations of drip methods present that water utility uniformity deteriorates considerably over time.The research was done on surface drip installations, and within the opinions of the authors, signifies an issue which may be even more extreme in SDI purposes (Koegelenberg et al 2011). System availability and controllability is generally good with each MMI and SDI techniques, since both offer the flexibility to irrigate a minimum of once each 24 hours. The exception to this may be with towable pivots, where use of the equipment on multiple fields may limit its availability. Both methods support using sophisticated automatic controls and distant management and monitoring.

Both techniques help the ‘spoon feeding’ of fertilizer to the crop, however special care should be taken with SDI systems to make sure that injected fertilizers do not trigger clogging of the system. For SDI methods, soil salinization can additionally be a significant downside in areas where salts are current in irrigation water. As salts build up in soil, crop yields decrease. MMI techniques are often, conversely, used to remediate salt build-up by flushing the salts beneath the basis zone of crops. Based on a evaluate of accessible literature, itappears that in non-water limited applications, SDI and MMI methods produce equal yields, though the center pivot will use barely more water in those comparisons because of losses fromsurface evaporation. In water restricted purposes, SDI techniques produce barely greater yields. Over time, SDI system upkeep is of great significance. A lapse in system maintenance can lead to a major and permanent degradation of watering uniformity, which in turn causes completely higher water consumption and lower crop yields.


A lot of conflicting info exists regarding the costs of both SDI and MMI systems. As a common rule of thumb, installed prices for subsurface drip systems are 50-100% larger than a center pivot on a relatively giant area (greater than 50ha).(O’Brien et al 1998). Cost depends on numerous elements including: availability of proper energy, filtration type used in the drip system, the worth of set up labor, towable vs. non-tow pivots, shape of the field and space irrigated sort of drip equipment (pressure compensated vs. non-pressure compensated) and the use of linear move gear, or corner arm extensions on a middle pivot. Also essential to the long-term cost is the expected life. Center pivots have an average life expectancy of 25 years with minimal maintenance expenses, sometimes lower than 1% per yr of the unique value. In a few installations the place the supply water is corrosive to provoke steel, it is necessary for the client to maneuver to corrosion resistant merchandise similar to aluminum, chrome steel, or polyethylene lined techniques. Under the correct soil circumstances and maintenance regimes, SDI installations can also exhibit lengthy life.

Some research installations have surpassed 20 years of utilization with nonetheless functioning methods. Critical to the person is the power to maintain water application uniformity throughout the lifetime of an irrigation system. In most commercial installations, drip systems performance degrades with time due to plugging, root intrusion, and pest injury. Diagnosis and repair of SDI system problems can be costly and challenging to carry out. Typical maintenance prices vary from 3% to 10% per 12 months of the original system cost. Another advantage of MMI expertise is its portability. It is not uncommon for a center pivot to be moved a number of instances during its anticipated service life. Some types of MMI gear are designed as towable gear, allowing them to be easily movedfrom field to subject between growingseasons and even in the course of the growingseason.


The tools maintains a reasonably high resale value because of this portability. SDI methods, excluding some filtration and management parts, are usually not salvageable or resell in a position in any respect. In addition to upkeep and restore costs, the opposite important system operating value is power used to pump water and area labor. Energy prices are associated to the amount of water pumped and the stress required. Research reveals that these two costs are practically equal for SDI and MMI techniques. Center pivot and linear techniques at analysis plots usually pump barely more volume of water then SDI systems, but SDI pump outlet pressures are sometimes higher (3 bar vs. 1.5-2 bar).

Labor costs range relying upon the in-field conditions and the choice of control systems. One 1990 article exhibits pivots to require three hours per hectare, whereas drip requires 10 hours per hectare.(Kruse et al, 1990). Even in trouble-free installations of equal management sophistication, SDI seems to require more labor due to its often required maintenance cycle. MMI systems do not require so much day-to-day maintenance, however they do generally shut down, particularly on very heavy soils because of tires changing into stuck in deep wheel tracks.


Different crop particular characteristics favor one system type over another. While there are workarounds for both products for most of those points, they’re often costly and difficult to implement. Drip methods or micro-irrigation are sometimes most well-liked by growers when crop top could additionally be a problem for mechanical systems as over cashew nut timber, or with planting patterns not conducive to above ground cell irrigation equipment as with vineyards. Some irrigators also favor drip for delicate crops, similar to some flowers, that could presumably be damaged by LEPA equipment, or where direct utility of water to the fruit would possibly cause beauty harm, as with tomatoes.

Although many growers choose drip techniques for these conditions, MMI systems have been successfully used on all. MMI systems are most popular where surface water application isrequired to germinate seed as with carrots and onions, significantly in sandy soils. MMI methods also have a bonus in applying foliar herbicides and pesticides, and can be used for crop coolingin temperature delicate crops such as corn. MMI methods are alsomore adaptive to crop rotations, as the crop row spacing isn’t pre-determined as it’s in SDI methods.


While both forms of techniques require significant departure from traditional irrigation practices, SDI methods clearly require the next stage of self-discipline and common maintenance than MMI techniques. The consequences of not adapting to new management practices are generally direr for SDI techniques additionally. SDI farms must commit to the common cleaning and flushing procedures described by the system designer and the tools producers. A lapse in correct management can lead to everlasting degradation of system performance. MMI users should carry out annual preventative upkeep corresponding to topping off oil in gearboxes and checking tire inflation ranges, but the consequences of poor administration are usually simply nuisance shut downs, which usually could be rapidly and inexpensively remedied.

A particular downside that faces house owners of MMI gear in some third world countries is theft, significantly theft of motors, controls and copper wire. To combat this drawback, a variety of variations have been made to reduce the chance of theft on the system. Typically, the manufacturer can advise the farmer tips on how to reduce the chance of theft particularly installations and areas. MMI techniques are much less flexible in phrases of subject configuration and water infrastructure. Farmland laid out in 2 hectare plots with canals serving the person fields, for example, are tough to adapt to MMI techniques. The table beneath shows the summary of the previous discussion evaluating the MMI and SDI applied sciences.

Analysis of SDI and MMI System Performance|

Water Efficiency

SDI has barely higher efficiency than LEPA (95% vs. 90-95%) in research set up. * No identified research but evaluate actual on-farm efficiency| Crop Yields * SDI performs higher in research checks when water availability is the limiting factor, in any other case yields are equal between the two methods. * Uniformity of SDI techniques seems to degrade over time, favoring MMI. * Designs of SDI systems are critical to reaching good preliminary water uniformity. * Where salinity is a problem, MMI methods have a transparent edge.| Cost * Center pivots and linears are less expensive to install on massive plots, and have the next resale value. * SDI systems become extra value aggressive in small fields and irregularly formed fields. * MMI methods have long lives (25 years on average). SDI can have a lifetime of 10-15 years if correct maintenance is performed. * Ongoing upkeep costs of SDI are 3-5 instances greater than MMI.

Operating costs for vitality are related between the 2 applied sciences, however MMI methods typically require a lot much less labor.| Crop Specific * SDI is often favored on tall everlasting crops, significantly when the field is not laid out to make use of mechanized methods. * MMI systems are most well-liked in sandy soils the place floor software is important for germination. * Mechanized systems assist foliar software of chemical compounds and crop cooling. * Mechanized methods are most popular the place there are frequent crop rotations.| Farm Management * SDI systems are much less adaptive and forgiving to poor management practices. * Theft is a matter for mechanized systems in some third world markets. * SDI is more versatile for some existing infrastructure|


A modern irrigation design is the end result of a thought process that selects the configuration and the bodily parts in mild of a well-defined and practical operational plan which is predicated on the service idea. * Modern schemes consist of several levels which clearly outlined interfaces. * Each stage is technically capable of present dependable, well timed, and equitable water supply providers to the next stage. That is, each has the correct varieties, numbers, and configuration of gates, turnouts, measurement units, communications methods and other means to manage flow charges and water levels as desired. * Modern irrigation schemes are aware of the needs of the end users. Good communication methods exist to offer the necessary data, control, and feedback on system status. * The hydraulic design is robust, within the sense that it will perform nicely in spite of altering channel dimensions, siltation, and communication breakdowns. Automatic gadgets are used the place applicable to stabilize water ranges in unsteady flow situations.



During the last three decades, micro irrigation systems made main advances in know-how improvement and the uptake of the know-how increased from three Mha in 2000 to more than 6 Mha in 2006. Micro-irrigation is an irrigation technique that applies water slowly to the roots of crops, by depositing the water either on the soil surface or on to the foundation zone, via a network of valves, pipes, tubing, and emitters (see Figure below).

Fig. 1: Components of a micro-irrigation system


Drip irrigation was utilized in historic occasions by filling buried clay pots with water and permitting the water to steadily seep into the soil. Modern drip irrigation began its improvement in Germany in 1860 when researchers started experimenting with sub irrigation using clay pipe to create mixture irrigation and drainage methods. In 1913, E.B. House at Colorado State University succeeded in making use of water to the root zone of crops without raising the water desk. Perforated pipe was launched in Germany in the 1920s and in 1934; O.E. Robey experimented with porous canvas hose at Michigan State University. With the appearance of modern plastics during and after World War II, major enhancements in drip irrigation grew to become potential. Plastic micro tubing and varied types of emitters started for use within the greenhouses of Europe and the United States. A new technology of drip irrigation was then introduced in Israel by Simcha Blass and his son Yeshayahu.

Instead of releasing water through tiny holes, blocked simply by tiny particles, water was launched via bigger and longer passage ways by using friction to gradual the water circulate price inside a plastic emitter. The first experimental system of this type was established in 1959 in Israel by Blass, the place he developed and patented the first practical surface drip irrigation emitter. The Micro-sprayer idea was developed in South Africa to contain the mud on mine heaps. From here much more superior developments occurred to make use of it as a technique to use water to primarily agricultural crops.


The advantages of drip irrigation are as follows:

  • Sophisticated technology
  • Maximum manufacturing per mega litre of water
  • Increased crop yields and profits
  • Improved high quality of production
  • Less fertilizer and weed management costs
  • Environmentally accountable, with decreased leaching and run-off
  • Labour saving
  • Application of small amounts of water extra frequent


The disadvantages of micro-irrigation are as follows:

  • Expensive
  • Need managerial skills
  • Waste: The plastic tubing and “tapes” generally final 3-8 seasons before being replaced
  • Clogging
  • Plant performance: Studies point out that many crops grow better when leaves are wetted as well


The greatest single change because the first irrigation symposium is the amount of land irrigated with center-pivot and linear-move irrigation machines. As beforehand said, heart pivots had been used on almost half of the irrigated land in the U.S. in 2008 (USDA-NASS, 2012). Technology for controlling and working middle pivots has steadily advanced. Kranz et al. (2012) describe how operators can now talk with irrigation machines by cellphone, satellite radio, and internet-based techniques. New sensors are being developed to collect soil or crop info that can be utilized for managing
irrigation. As Evans and King (2012) noted that integrating data from varied sensors and methods into a decision support program will be critical to highly managed, spatially varied irrigation.

Technology has allowed irrigators to exactly control irrigation. However, know-how to exactly apply irrigation water is wasted if the water doesn’t infiltrate into soil the place it was applied. King and Bjorneberg (2012) characterize the kinetic vitality utilized to the soil from widespread center-pivot sprinklers and relate this power to runoff and soil erosion to improve center-pivot sprinkler choice. Finally, Martin et al. (2012) describe the wide variety of sprinkler packages out there for mechanical-move irrigation machines and how those sprinkler packages are chosen.

Above Left: A Field VISION control panel operates considered one of his pivots Above Right: A laptop display show showing the precise place of the irrigation pivot, together with how a lot water is being sprayed on the crop

  • A Zimmatic Pivot Irrigation System
  • An Irrigation Field Covered by a Center Pivot Irrigation System
  • A Center Pivot Irrigation System in Action


The success or failure of any irrigation system depends to a big extent on careful choice, thorough planning, correct design and effective administration. One thing we can be sure of, the calls for of irrigated agriculture will certainly not diminish, they will certainly improve virtually exponentially. Advanced floor irrigation will nonetheless dominate as the first irrigation method, but with the current tendencies, the area under micro-irrigation will continue to expand. Both subsurface drip and mechanical move irrigation methods have a reliable place in agricultural water conservation plans for the lengthy run. Both methods offer important potential water utility discount, in addition to yield improvements over traditionally managed irrigation fields. In basic, mechanized systems are best suited for: broad area crops in giant fields, new land development, and sandy soils.

SDI systems are best suited for small and irregular fields, current small-scale infrastructure, and sure specialty crops. These revolutionary technologies require important funding. In most elements of the world this means authorities assist and incentives. Mexico and Brazil are two main countries in offering efficient incentives to farmers to put cash into modern environment friendly agricultural irrigation. In addition to the gear itself, each applied sciences require efficient coaching of farmers and farm management to ensure it’s successfully used. Poor management can simply offset most of the water saving and yield gains made attainable by the tools. Employing the trendy expertise obtainable for water-efficient irrigation is clearly a key to over coming the global challenges of water scarcity. Irrigation is the primary consumer of water on Earth; Modern irrigation is the potential reply to the issue of world water scarcity.


  1. English, M.J., K.H. Solomon, and G.J. Hoffman. 2002.
  2. A paradigm shift in irrigation management. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 128:267-277. Evans, R. G. and B. A. King. 2012.
  3. Site-specific sprinkler irrigation in a water-limited future. Trans. ASABE 55(2): 493-504. Cai, X., D.C. McKinney, and M.W. Rosegrant. 2003.
  4. Sustainability analysis for irrigation water administration within the Aral Sea area. Agric. Syst. 76:1043-1066. James Hardie. 2011.
  5. Drip Irrigation for Landscaping: An Introductory Guide,26, in Irrigation Association, “Agricultural Hardware,” Agricultural School of Irrigation, 17 King, B. A. and D. L. Bjornberg.2012.
  6. Droplet kinetic energy of moving spray-plate center-pivot irrigation sprinklers. Trans. ASABE 55(2): 505-512. Koegelenberg, F. and R. Reinders. 2011. Performance of Drip Irrigation Systems under Field Conditions (South Africa: Agricultural Research Center-Institute for Agricultural Engineering). Kranz, W. L., R. G. Evans, and F. R. Lamm. 2012.
  7. A evaluation of center-pivot irrigation management and automation technologies. Applied Eng. in Agric. 28(3): (in press) Kruse, A., B.A. Stewart, and R.N. Donald. 1990. Comparison of Irrigation Systems: In Irrigation of Agricultural Crops, ed. (Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy, 1990), 475-505. Kumar, R. and J. Singh. 2003.
  8. Regional water administration modeling for choice support in irrigated agriculture. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 129:432-439. Martin, D. L., W. R. Kranz, A. L. Thompson, and H. Liang. 2012. Selecting sprinkler packages for heart pivots. Trans. ASABE
    55(2): 513-523. O’Brien .E. 1998.
  9. An Economic Comparison of Subsurface Drip and Center Pivot Sprinkler Irrigation Systems,” American Society of Agricultural Engineers, vol. 14(4), (1998): 391-398. Playán, E., and L. Mateos. 2006.
  10. Modernization and optimization of irrigation systems to extend water productivity. Agric. Water Manage. eighty:100-116. Rogers, D. 2012.
  11. LEPA Irrigation Management for Center Pivots. Irrigation Association Online; available from; Internet; accessed 15 October 2012 Scherer, 1999.
  12. Sprinkler Irrigation Systems (Ames, IA: Midwest Plan Service, Iowa State University, USDA-NASS. 2012.
  13. Farm and ranch irrigation survey. Washington, D.C.: USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service. Available at: Accessed eleven October 2012
Cite this page

Advances in Modern Irrigation Systems. (20 October 2021). Retrieved from

"Advances in Modern Irrigation Systems" StudyScroll, 20 October 2021,

StudyScroll. (2021). Advances in Modern Irrigation Systems [Online]. Available at: [Accessed: 25 June, 2022]

"Advances in Modern Irrigation Systems" StudyScroll, Oct 20, 2021. Accessed Jun 25, 2022.

"Advances in Modern Irrigation Systems" StudyScroll, Oct 20, 2021.

"Advances in Modern Irrigation Systems" StudyScroll, 20-Oct-2021. [Online]. Available: [Accessed: 25-Jun-2022]

StudyScroll. (2021). Advances in Modern Irrigation Systems. [Online]. Available at: [Accessed: 25-Jun-2022]

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get your custom essay..

get custom paper

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy.