4.7 Article

Environmental and Economic Sustainability Assessment for Two Different Sprinkler and A Drip Irrigation Systems: A Case Study on Maize Cropping

Journal

AGRICULTURE-BASEL
Volume 9, Issue 9, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/agriculture9090187

Keywords

efficiency; footprint; indicators; hose-reel; center pivot; water consumption

Categories

Funding

  1. Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio di Padova e Rovigo (CARIPARO)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Water scarcity is worsened by climate change. Water savings can be reached by improving irrigation efficiency both on farm and on water supply. To do that, the choice of the best irrigation technology is not always straightforward, because farmers need to renew and implement farm infrastructures for irrigation. This study compares three irrigation systems, one drip irrigation and two sprinkler (center pivot and hose-reel) systems, on environmental, economic, and energetic performance under irrigated and non-irrigated maize cropping. The study combines impact and efficiency indicators, addressing a sustainability analysis for the irrigation practice under the three different irrigation systems. The sustainability for the irrigation systems was assessed using water-related indicators (water use efficiency, irrigation water use efficiency, and water footprint), biomass (crop growth rate, relative growth rate, harvest index, and yield response factor), and energy indicators (energy footprint, performance, and energy cost footprint) for the environmental aspect; and the economic-based indicators (water productivity and economic water footprint) for the economic aspect. Main results address the center pivot system as the best solution for irrigation practice since it demonstrated higher economic and environmental performance. Moreover, maize under the pivot system allowed a higher biomass production, economic benefits, and water use efficiency.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available