Resource information
Irrigation is the most effective way to increase agricultural production. However, if inadequately employed, it can cause significant negative impacts to the environment. In this setting, this study aims at contributing to improving community selfmanagement of water resources by introducing IRRIGAMETRO® and IRRIPLUS® as tools to assist in irrigation and propose guidelines to practical use of these tools. In order to develop this study, the culture chosen was banana (Musa spp.) in its final stadium of development; the management system chosen was microsprinkler; five agricultural family properties (farms) located in the Sossego creek basin, Itarana, ES, Brazil were chosen as pilot. Irrigation practiced based on agriculturist s empirical experience (EXP) usually without any technical criteria were compared to irrigation procedures indicated by IRRIGAMETRO® based on references estimated by IRRIPLUS®. Due to paucity of meteorological data to estimate reference evapotranspiration (ETo), estimation adopted Hargreaves-Samani (HS) equation. However, this equation tends to overestimate ETo and, consequently, overestimate irrigation in relation to the method considered standard by FAO: the Penman-Monteith . Thus, a 15 to 30% range of error to employ HS was established, which was the basis for comparisons. Furthermore, the influence of qualitative improvement of water uniformity distribution coefficient (CUD) was also evaluated. The results of comparisons between EXP and IRRIGAMETRO® and IRRIPLUS® experiences showed that in only one farm irrigation carried out based on experience did not differ statistically (using Dunnett test at 5% of probability) from IRRIPLUS®. In all but one farm, there was difference in the average amount applied indicated by IRRIGAMETRO® compared to IRRIPLUS® and using the same statistical test. In four farms, IRRIGAMETRO® overestimated irrigation (from 5.8% to 39.4%) in relation to the error range of 30%. On the other hand, in all the five farms irrigation was underestimated (from 2.9 to 33.8%) if error range of 15% is considered. As far as EXP irrigation and IRRIPLUS® irrigation are concerned, the study verified that, in two farms, irrigation according to the first method was below (from 10.4 to 15.3%) the estimates by the second method, and for the other farms, it was above (25.8 to 39.2%) for error range of 15%. As for the range of 30%, irrigation according to EXP was overestimated (from 2.8 to 63.8%) compared to IRRIPLUS® in all the study farms. Distribution uniformity improvement allowed higher economy of water, from 42.1% when CUD of 56.1% was set to 95%; and lower economy (10.5%) when CUD of 85.6% was set to 95%. Regarding practical use of IRRIGAMETRO® and IRRIPLUS®, it is seen that for small farmers, the former is more recommended, because the latter requires more advanced training to be operated
