Journal of Resources and Ecology ›› 2019, Vol. 10 ›› Issue (5): 504-510.DOI: 10.5814/j.issn.1674-764X.2019.05.005
• Human Activities and Ecosystem • Previous Articles Next Articles
Received:
2018-11-27
Accepted:
2019-04-08
Online:
2019-09-30
Published:
2019-10-11
Contact:
Masoud MASOUDI
Masoud MASOUDI, Reza ZARE. Different Irrigation Methods and Their Comparisons Based on the Parametric Evaluation Method in Khosouyeh Dam Subbasin, Iran[J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2019, 10(5): 504-510.
Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX
URL: http://www.jorae.cn/EN/10.5814/j.issn.1674-764X.2019.05.005
Capability index | Definition | Symbol |
---|---|---|
> 80 | Highly Suitable | S1 |
60-80 | Moderately Suitable | S2 |
45-59 | Marginally Suitable | S3 |
30-44 | Currently Not Suitable | N1 |
< 29 | Permanently Not Suitable | N2 |
Capability index | Definition | Symbol |
---|---|---|
> 80 | Highly Suitable | S1 |
60-80 | Moderately Suitable | S2 |
45-59 | Marginally Suitable | S3 |
30-44 | Currently Not Suitable | N1 |
< 29 | Permanently Not Suitable | N2 |
Soil depth (cm) | Rating for gravity irrigation (%) | Rating for drop irrigation (%) |
---|---|---|
<20 | 30 | 30 |
20-50 | 60 | 70 |
50-80 | 80 | 90 |
80-100 | 90 | 100 |
>100 | 100 | 100 |
Soil depth (cm) | Rating for gravity irrigation (%) | Rating for drop irrigation (%) |
---|---|---|
<20 | 30 | 30 |
20-50 | 60 | 70 |
50-80 | 80 | 90 |
80-100 | 90 | 100 |
>100 | 100 | 100 |
Textural classes | Rating for gravity irrigation | Rating for drop irrigation | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Fine gravel (%) | Coarse gravel (%) | Fine gravel (%) | Coarse gravel (%) | |||||||
<15 | 15-40 | 40-75 | 15-40 | 40-75 | <15 | 15-40 | 40-75 | 15-40 | 40-75 | |
Clay Loam (CL) | 100 | 90 | 80 | 80 | 50 | 100 | 90 | 80 | 80 | 50 |
Silty Loam (SiL) | 100 | 90 | 80 | 80 | 50 | 100 | 90 | 80 | 80 | 50 |
Sandy Clay Loam (SCL) | 95 | 85 | 75 | 75 | 45 | 95 | 85 | 75 | 75 | 45 |
Loam (L) | 90 | 80 | 70 | 70 | 45 | 90 | 80 | 70 | 70 | 45 |
Silty Loam (SiL) | 90 | 80 | 70 | 70 | 45 | 90 | 80 | 70 | 70 | 45 |
Silty (Si) | 90 | 80 | 70 | 70 | 45 | 90 | 80 | 70 | 70 | 45 |
Silty Clay (SiC) | 85 | 95 | 80 | 80 | 40 | 85 | 95 | 80 | 80 | 40 |
Clay (C) | 85 | 95 | 80 | 80 | 40 | 85 | 95 | 80 | 80 | 40 |
Sandy Clay (SC) | 80 | 90 | 75 | 75 | 35 | 95 | 90 | 85 | 80 | 35 |
Sandy Loam (SL) | 75 | 65 | 60 | 60 | 35 | 95 | 85 | 80 | 75 | 35 |
loamy Sand (LS) | 55 | 50 | 45 | 45 | 25 | 85 | 75 | 55 | 60 | 35 |
Sandy (S) | 30 | 25 | 25 | 25 | 25 | 70 | 65 | 50 | 35 | 35 |
Textural classes | Rating for gravity irrigation | Rating for drop irrigation | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Fine gravel (%) | Coarse gravel (%) | Fine gravel (%) | Coarse gravel (%) | |||||||
<15 | 15-40 | 40-75 | 15-40 | 40-75 | <15 | 15-40 | 40-75 | 15-40 | 40-75 | |
Clay Loam (CL) | 100 | 90 | 80 | 80 | 50 | 100 | 90 | 80 | 80 | 50 |
Silty Loam (SiL) | 100 | 90 | 80 | 80 | 50 | 100 | 90 | 80 | 80 | 50 |
Sandy Clay Loam (SCL) | 95 | 85 | 75 | 75 | 45 | 95 | 85 | 75 | 75 | 45 |
Loam (L) | 90 | 80 | 70 | 70 | 45 | 90 | 80 | 70 | 70 | 45 |
Silty Loam (SiL) | 90 | 80 | 70 | 70 | 45 | 90 | 80 | 70 | 70 | 45 |
Silty (Si) | 90 | 80 | 70 | 70 | 45 | 90 | 80 | 70 | 70 | 45 |
Silty Clay (SiC) | 85 | 95 | 80 | 80 | 40 | 85 | 95 | 80 | 80 | 40 |
Clay (C) | 85 | 95 | 80 | 80 | 40 | 85 | 95 | 80 | 80 | 40 |
Sandy Clay (SC) | 80 | 90 | 75 | 75 | 35 | 95 | 90 | 85 | 80 | 35 |
Sandy Loam (SL) | 75 | 65 | 60 | 60 | 35 | 95 | 85 | 80 | 75 | 35 |
loamy Sand (LS) | 55 | 50 | 45 | 45 | 25 | 85 | 75 | 55 | 60 | 35 |
Sandy (S) | 30 | 25 | 25 | 25 | 25 | 70 | 65 | 50 | 35 | 35 |
CaCO3 (%) | Rating for gravity irrigation | Rating for drop irrigation |
---|---|---|
<0.3 | 90 | 90 |
0.3-10 | 95 | 95 |
10-25 | 100 | 95 |
25-50 | 90 | 80 |
>50 | 80 | 70 |
CaCO3 (%) | Rating for gravity irrigation | Rating for drop irrigation |
---|---|---|
<0.3 | 90 | 90 |
0.3-10 | 95 | 95 |
10-25 | 100 | 95 |
25-50 | 90 | 80 |
>50 | 80 | 70 |
EC (ds m-1) | Rating for gravity irrigation | Rating for drop irrigation | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
C, SiC, S, SC textures | Other textures | C, SiC, S, SC textures | Other textures | |
< 4 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
4-8 | 90 | 95 | 95 | 95 |
8-16 | 80 | 50 | 85 | 50 |
16-30 | 70 | 35 | 75 | 35 |
> 30 | 60 | 20 | 65 | 20 |
EC (ds m-1) | Rating for gravity irrigation | Rating for drop irrigation | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
C, SiC, S, SC textures | Other textures | C, SiC, S, SC textures | Other textures | |
< 4 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
4-8 | 90 | 95 | 95 | 95 |
8-16 | 80 | 50 | 85 | 50 |
16-30 | 70 | 35 | 75 | 35 |
> 30 | 60 | 20 | 65 | 20 |
Drainage classes | Rating for gravity irrigation | Rating for drop irrigation | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
C, SiC, SC textures | Other textures | C, SiC, SC textures | Other textures | |
Well drained | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
Moderately drained | 80 | 90 | 100 | 100 |
Imperfectly drained | 70 | 80 | 80 | 90 |
Poorly drained | 60 | 65 | 70 | 80 |
Very poorly drained | 40 | 65 | 50 | 65 |
Drainage status not known | 70 | 80 | 70 | 80 |
Drainage classes | Rating for gravity irrigation | Rating for drop irrigation | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
C, SiC, SC textures | Other textures | C, SiC, SC textures | Other textures | |
Well drained | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
Moderately drained | 80 | 90 | 100 | 100 |
Imperfectly drained | 70 | 80 | 80 | 90 |
Poorly drained | 60 | 65 | 70 | 80 |
Very poorly drained | 40 | 65 | 50 | 65 |
Drainage status not known | 70 | 80 | 70 | 80 |
Slope classes (%) | Rating for gravity irrigation | Rating for drop irrigation | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Non-Terraced | Terraced | Non-Terraced | Terraced | |
0-1 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
1-3 | 95 | 95 | 100 | 100 |
3-5 | 90 | 95 | 100 | 100 |
5-8 | 80 | 95 | 90 | 100 |
8-16 | 70 | 85 | 80 | 90 |
16-30 | 50 | 70 | 60 | 70 |
>30 | 30 | 50 | 40 | 50 |
Slope classes (%) | Rating for gravity irrigation | Rating for drop irrigation | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Non-Terraced | Terraced | Non-Terraced | Terraced | |
0-1 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
1-3 | 95 | 95 | 100 | 100 |
3-5 | 90 | 95 | 100 | 100 |
5-8 | 80 | 95 | 90 | 100 |
8-16 | 70 | 85 | 80 | 90 |
16-30 | 50 | 70 | 60 | 70 |
>30 | 30 | 50 | 40 | 50 |
Suitability | Drop irrigation | Gravity irrigation | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Area (ha) | Ratio (%) | Area (ha) | Ratio (%) | |
N2 | 172098 | 77.73 | 218040 | 98.48 |
N1 | 13403 | 6.05 | 3362 | 1.52 |
S3 | 27510 | 12.43 | — | — |
S2 | 8391 | 3.79 | — | — |
Total | 221402 | 100 | 221402 | 100 |
Suitability | Drop irrigation | Gravity irrigation | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Area (ha) | Ratio (%) | Area (ha) | Ratio (%) | |
N2 | 172098 | 77.73 | 218040 | 98.48 |
N1 | 13403 | 6.05 | 3362 | 1.52 |
S3 | 27510 | 12.43 | — | — |
S2 | 8391 | 3.79 | — | — |
Total | 221402 | 100 | 221402 | 100 |
Class of land unit | Gravity irrigation | Drop irrigation | Class of land unit | Gravity irrigation | Drop irrigation | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CI | Suitability class | CI | Suitability class | CI | Suitability class | CI | Suitability class | ||
1 | 3.27 | N2 | 3.52 | N2 | 20 | 9.36 | N2 | 10.23 | N2 |
2 | 7.48 | N2 | 9.50 | N2 | 21 | 4.68 | N2 | 5.11 | N2 |
3 | 3.27 | N2 | 3.52 | N2 | 22 | 4.68 | N2 | 5.11 | N2 |
4 | 23.30 | N2 | 28.20 | N2 | 23 | 3.27 | N2 | 1.80 | N2 |
5 | 3.27 | N2 | 3.52 | N2 | 24 | 5.46 | N2 | 2.86 | N2 |
6 | 10.92 | N2 | 9.55 | N2 | 25 | 6.17 | N2 | 56.90 | S3 |
7 | 6.48 | N2 | 64.00 | S2 | 26 | 3.78 | N2 | 50.50 | S3 |
8 | 2.80 | N2 | 3.78 | N2 | 27 | 5.76 | N2 | 56.00 | S3 |
9 | 3.27 | N2 | 3.52 | N2 | 28 | 3.24 | N2 | 31.50 | N1 |
10 | 3.27 | N2 | 3.52 | N2 | 29 | 0.76 | N2 | 16.06 | N2 |
11 | 5.46 | N2 | 5.88 | N2 | 30 | 5.18 | N2 | 25.20 | N2 |
12 | 4.68 | N2 | 59.50 | S2 | 31 | 2.80 | N2 | 3.78 | N2 |
13 | 4.16 | N2 | 57.80 | S3 | 32 | 4.68 | N2 | 6.30 | N2 |
14 | 2.10 | N2 | 1.80 | N2 | 33 | 2.80 | N2 | 3.78 | N2 |
15 | 2.10 | N2 | 2.26 | N2 | 34 | 30.12 | N1 | 35.28 | N1 |
16 | 3.27 | N2 | 2.86 | N2 | 35 | 3.27 | N2 | 28.00 | N2 |
17 | 4.21 | N2 | 4.60 | N2 | 36 | 8.73 | N2 | 10.58 | N2 |
18 | 20.40 | N2 | 24.70 | N2 | 37 | 5.46 | N2 | 5.88 | N2 |
19 | 5.46 | N2 | 5.88 | N2 |
Class of land unit | Gravity irrigation | Drop irrigation | Class of land unit | Gravity irrigation | Drop irrigation | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CI | Suitability class | CI | Suitability class | CI | Suitability class | CI | Suitability class | ||
1 | 3.27 | N2 | 3.52 | N2 | 20 | 9.36 | N2 | 10.23 | N2 |
2 | 7.48 | N2 | 9.50 | N2 | 21 | 4.68 | N2 | 5.11 | N2 |
3 | 3.27 | N2 | 3.52 | N2 | 22 | 4.68 | N2 | 5.11 | N2 |
4 | 23.30 | N2 | 28.20 | N2 | 23 | 3.27 | N2 | 1.80 | N2 |
5 | 3.27 | N2 | 3.52 | N2 | 24 | 5.46 | N2 | 2.86 | N2 |
6 | 10.92 | N2 | 9.55 | N2 | 25 | 6.17 | N2 | 56.90 | S3 |
7 | 6.48 | N2 | 64.00 | S2 | 26 | 3.78 | N2 | 50.50 | S3 |
8 | 2.80 | N2 | 3.78 | N2 | 27 | 5.76 | N2 | 56.00 | S3 |
9 | 3.27 | N2 | 3.52 | N2 | 28 | 3.24 | N2 | 31.50 | N1 |
10 | 3.27 | N2 | 3.52 | N2 | 29 | 0.76 | N2 | 16.06 | N2 |
11 | 5.46 | N2 | 5.88 | N2 | 30 | 5.18 | N2 | 25.20 | N2 |
12 | 4.68 | N2 | 59.50 | S2 | 31 | 2.80 | N2 | 3.78 | N2 |
13 | 4.16 | N2 | 57.80 | S3 | 32 | 4.68 | N2 | 6.30 | N2 |
14 | 2.10 | N2 | 1.80 | N2 | 33 | 2.80 | N2 | 3.78 | N2 |
15 | 2.10 | N2 | 2.26 | N2 | 34 | 30.12 | N1 | 35.28 | N1 |
16 | 3.27 | N2 | 2.86 | N2 | 35 | 3.27 | N2 | 28.00 | N2 |
17 | 4.21 | N2 | 4.60 | N2 | 36 | 8.73 | N2 | 10.58 | N2 |
18 | 20.40 | N2 | 24.70 | N2 | 37 | 5.46 | N2 | 5.88 | N2 |
19 | 5.46 | N2 | 5.88 | N2 |
[1] | Abd El-Aziz S . 2018. Evaluation of land suitability for main irrigated crops in the North-Western region of Libya. Eurasian Journal of Soil Science, 7(1):73-86. |
[2] | Albaji M, Boroomand Nasab S, Moravej K . 2007. Land Suitability Evaluation for Surface and Drip Irrigation in Shavoor Plain. Iran Journal of Applied Sciences, 8(4):654-659. |
[3] | Albaji M, Boroomand Nasab S, Naseri A , et al. 2010. Comparison of different irrigation methods based on the parametric evaluation approach in Abbas plain—Iran. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering. 136(2):131-136. |
[4] | Albaji M, Golabi M, Hooshmand A R , et al. 2016. Investigation of surface, sprinkler and drip irrigation methods using GIS. Jordan Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 12:211-222. |
[5] | Bagherzadeh A, Paymard P . 2015. Assessment of land capability for different irrigation systems by parametric and fuzzy approaches in the Mashhad Plain, northeast Iran. Soil and Water Research, 10:90-98. |
[6] | Barberis A, Minelli S . 2005. Textbook of land evaluation in the Shenyang County, Shanxi Province, China. Institute of Agronomic Overseas, Florence, Italy, 19:56-94. |
[7] | Bazzani F, Incerti F . 2002. Textbook of land evaluation in the province of larache, Morocco. Institute of Agronomic Overseas, Florence, Italy, 17:29-48. |
[8] | Bienvenue J S, Ngardeta M, Mamadou K . 2003. Textbook of land evaluation in the province of Thies, Senegal. Institute of Agronomic Overseas, Florence, Italy, 23:112-127. |
[9] | Bond W J. . 2002. Assessing site suitability for effluent plantion in: soil physical measurement and interpretative for land evaluation. CSIRO Publishing, 351-359. |
[10] | Briza Y, F Dileonardo, Spisni A . 2001. Textbook of land evaluation in the province of Ben Slimane, Morocco. Institute of Agronomic Overseas, Florence, Italy, 21:28-53. |
[11] | Chen D, De Bari C, De Santis S , et al. 2006. Land Evaluation in Danling County, Sichuan Province, China. Institute of Agronomic Overseas, Florence, Italy, 26:1-151. |
[12] | Dengiz O, Usul M . 2018. Multi-criteria approach with linear combination technique and analytical hierarchy process in land evaluation studies. Eurasian Journal of Soil Science, 7(1):20-29. |
[13] | Dengiz O . 2006. A Comparison of different irrigation methods based on the parametric evaluation approach. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, 30:21-29. |
[14] | Fatapour E, Eslami H . 2014. Locating suitable areas for pressurized irrigation systems using GIS. Bulletin of Environment, Pharmacology and Life Sciences, 3:153-156. |
[15] | Gholami A, Delavari A . 2012. Evaluation of the two methods of surface and drip irrigation based on the Parametric System. Journal of Basic and Applied scientific Research, 2(6):5988-5992. |
[16] | Hired C, Thamson A, Beer I . 1996. Selection and monitoring of site intended for irrigation whit claimed water in proceedings, water TECH Sydney. Australian water and wastewater association, Sydney, Australia. |
[17] | Jokar P, Masoudi M, Fallah Shamsi S R , et al. 2015. Developing a model for ecological capability evaluation of ecotourism—A case study of Jahrom Township, Iran. International Journal of Scientific Research in Environmental Sciences, 3(1):1-8. |
[18] | Kazemia H, Akincib H . 2018. A land use suitability model for rainfed farming by Multi-criteria Decisionmaking Analysis (MCDA) and Geographic Information System (GIS). Ecological Engineering, 116:1-6. |
[19] | Masoudi M. . 2010. Risk assessment and remedial measures of land degradation, In Parts of Southern Iran. Lambert Academic Publishing (LAP), Germany. |
[20] | Masoudi M, Jokar P, Sadeghi M . 2017. Land use planning using a quantitative model and Geographic Information System (GIS) in Darab County, Iran. Journal of Materials and Environmental Sciences, 8:2975-2985. |
[21] | Masoudi M, Jokar P . 2017. A new model for desertification assessment using Geographic Information System (GIS) —A case study of Runiz Basin, Iran. Polish Journal of Ecology, 65:236-246. |
[22] | Mbodj C, Mahjoub I, Sghaiev N . 2004. Textbook of land evaluation in the Oued Rmel Catchment, Tunisia. Institute of Agronomic Overseas, Florence, Italy, 21:41-72. |
[23] | Sys C, Van Ranst E, Debaveye J . 1991. Land evaluation, part l, principles in land evaluation and crop production calculations. Agricultural Publications, Nr. 7, G.A.D.C, Brussels, Belgium. |
[24] | Tesafi M . 2002. Land suitability system for spate irrigation schemes in Eritrea. Soil Use and Management, 18:77-78. |
[1] | GU Changjun, ZHANG Yili, LIU Linshan, LI Lanhui, ZHANG Binghua. Comprehensive Evaluation of the Suitability of Agricultural Land in Myanmar [J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2018, 9(6): 609-621. |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||