Detailed Explanation of Key Technical Points for Deep-Buried Drip Irrigation in Cotton
To achieve full seedling emergence in a single sowing, strong seedlings, and early development of cotton, and to realize high yield and high efficiency, the following key techniques should be well implemented: 1. Select high-yield and disease-resistant varieties. The main varieties demonstrated and planted on a large scale in our county include Jiza No. 1, Ji 2000, Ji 228, Hengmian 4, etc. 2. Scientific balanced fertilization. It is necessary to master the combination of organic fertilizer and chemical fertilizer...
I. Overview of Buried Drip Irrigation1. Installation site of buried drip irrigation: No. 1 Farm, Team 4, Fifth Lateral, area 13 hectares, soil texture is loam.
2. Installation method: The buried system was modified on the third sub-main pipe of the original conventional drip irrigation in Team 4, Fifth Lateral. The lateral pipe selected was 1.1 L/hour, buried below 35 cm from the ground surface. Six branch pipes were installed on the sub-main pipe, controlled by 6 pressure regulating valves.
3. The sowing method for buried drip irrigation was two-film ten-row machine-picked cotton, with a lateral pipe spacing of 1.52 m, and one lateral pipe serving four rows of cotton.
II. Basic Information of the Experiment
1. The experiment set buried drip irrigation as one treatment, 13 hectares, and conventional drip irrigation as the control, one treatment, 8.3 hectares.
2. The sowing method for buried drip irrigation was two-film ten-row (machine-picked cotton). The lateral pipe layout was buried at 35 cm below the ground surface, adopting a one-pipe-four-row arrangement. The sowing method for conventional drip irrigation was two-film ten-row (machine-picked cotton). The lateral pipe layout was surface-laid, adopting a one-pipe-two-row arrangement.
3. Buried drip irrigation treatment: the drip irrigation tape was laid from April 11 to 16, and cotton was sown from April 21 to 23. For the conventional drip irrigation treatment, cotton was sown from April 21 to 23.
4. Cotton variety tested: Xinluzao 10.
III. Experimental Results and Analysis
1. Changes in the wetting front. The changes in the wetting front of the buried drip irrigation treatment were the same as those of conventional drip irrigation in loam soil, both being horizontally elliptical in shape. The difference was the different lateral pipe layout positions. For buried drip irrigation, the downward infiltration depth was greater than the upward infiltration height. The larger the water volume, the deeper the downward infiltration depth. Therefore, the single irrigation volume of buried drip irrigation should not be too large; otherwise, deep percolation will occur.
2. Water dripping time and water volume of buried drip irrigation and conventional drip irrigation during the whole growth period. The two drip irrigation treatments shared one filtration system, and water dripping was carried out synchronously. Water dripping began on May 25 and stopped on August 23. The buried drip irrigation treatment used 182 cubic meters of water per 667 sq m during the whole growth period, while the conventional drip irrigation treatment used 270 cubic meters per 667 sq m. The buried drip irrigation treatment used 88 cubic meters less water per 667 sq m than the conventional drip irrigation treatment.
3. Material usage of the two drip irrigation methods. The lateral pipe usage of the buried drip irrigation treatment was 438 m per 667 sq m, while that of the conventional drip irrigation treatment was 920 m per 667 sq m. The buried drip irrigation treatment used 482 m less lateral pipe per 667 sq m than the conventional drip irrigation treatment, saving 52.4% of lateral pipe. For the cost of materials used per 667 sq m, the buried drip irrigation treatment was 82.32 yuan, while the conventional drip irrigation treatment was 142.09 yuan. Compared with the conventional drip irrigation treatment, the buried drip irrigation treatment cost 59.77 yuan less per 667 sq m in materials, saving 42%.
4. Effects of the two drip irrigation methods on cotton growth, development and yield
Under the condition that the number of retained seedlings per 667 sq m was basically the same in the buried drip irrigation treatment and the conventional drip irrigation treatment, the buried drip irrigation treatment had 0.2 more bolls per plant, 0.2 g higher single boll weight, and 15 kg higher seed cotton yield per unit area than the conventional drip irrigation treatment.
5. Economic benefit analysis
The value of the yield increase in the buried drip irrigation treatment was 45 yuan per 667 sq m. Adding the 59.77 yuan saved on lateral pipes and accessories per 667 sq m and 22 yuan saved on water fees, the total direct economic benefit increased by the buried drip irrigation treatment per 667 sq m was 126.77 yuan more than that of the conventional drip irrigation treatment.
IV. Conclusion
1. From the above experimental results, it can be seen that the shape of the wetting front of buried drip irrigation is the same as that of conventional drip irrigation. Buried drip irrigation is suitable for clay soil and loam soil, and is not suitable for use on sandy soil.
2. Buried drip irrigation has significant effects in saving water, saving materials and increasing yield, and is worth large-scale promotion.
V. Shortcomings of Buried Drip Irrigation and Improvement Measures
1. Because sowing and lateral pipe burial were not carried out synchronously, the lateral pipes and crop planting rows were misaligned, resulting in uneven water and fertilizer supply to crops during water dripping and uneven growth.
2. During water dripping, salt and alkali are easily brought to the surface, which has a certain impact on crop growth at the seedling stage.
3. For the one-pipe-four-row configuration mode, it is more suitable for machine-picked cotton planting. If the lateral pipe layout density is increased, it can be suitable for planting under multiple modes.
4. When laying drip irrigation tape for buried drip irrigation, it should be done in autumn. In this way, not only is there no need to re-level the land in spring, but sowing is also not affected.