Suitable inflow rate and furrow length for simplified surge flow irrigation

  • Junya OnishiEmail author
  • Hiroshi Ikeura
  • Gaukhar K. Paluashova
  • Yulia I. Shirokova
  • Yoshinobu Kitamura
  • Haruyuki Fujimaki


In the arid lands covering Uzbekistan, furrow irrigation with low application efficiency is still widely used due to a lack of funds and shortage of labor. To save water and prevent secondary salinization caused by excessive irrigation, it is important to adopt low-cost and easy water-saving irrigation methods. Onishi et al. (2017) proposed simplified surge flow (SF) irrigation that does not require expensive equipment and merely divides the water supply into two phases at 1-day intervals. This study investigated the suitable inflow rate and furrow length of simplified SF to improve water application efficiency in Uzbekistan. Five experimental plots (total area of 2,250 m2, with 25 furrows) were set up, and the inflow rates for two plots were 5 Ls−1 (F5.0) and that for the others were 1.7 Ls−1 (F1.7). The conventional irrigation method (F5.0C and F1.7C) and simplified SF (F5.0S and F1.7S) were applied to cases of furrow length of 100 m under each inflow rate. In addition, simplified SF was applied on a 50-m furrow at F1.7 (F1.7S-50). In the first irrigation using simplified SF, water was supplied from the start point of the furrow (0 m) for half of the furrow length (50 m, 25 m). In the second irrigation, water was supplied from the start point to the end of the furrow (100 m, 50 m). The application efficiency in F1.7S and F1.7S-50 was higher than that in F1.7C and F1.7C-50, and the highest was in F1.7S-50. The water supply duration was shorter in F5.0S, but the total volume of supplied water was larger than that of F1.7C. These results indicate that shortening furrow length might be an effective way to save water using simplified SF with a low inflow rate, and in contrast, that it is necessary to extend furrow length with a high inflow rate.


Arid land Salinization Water saving Furrow irrigation Surge flow irrigation 


  1. Alan RM, Karen S (1994) Surge flow and alternating furrow irrigation of peppermint to conserve water. Central Oregon Agricultural Research Center Annual Report 1993, AES OSU, Special Report 930, pp 79–87Google Scholar
  2. Ayers SR, Westcot WD (1994) Water quality for agriculture, 2. Salinity problems, 2.4 Management of salinity problems. FAO, Irrigation and drainage paper, 29 Rev. 1, 2.4. Accessed 10 August 2018.
  3. Brouwer C, Prins K, Kay M, Heibloem M (1985) Irrigation methods Chapter 3. Furrow irrigation. FAO Irrigation water management Training manual No. 5. Accessed 1 August 2018. 3. furrow irrigation
  4. Devkota M, Gupta KR, Martius C, Lamers APJ, Devkota PK, Sayre DK, Vlek GLP (2015) Soil salinity management on raised beds with different furrow irrigation modes in salt-affected lands. Agric Water Manag 152:243–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. FAO (2002) The salt of the earth: hazardous for food production. Accessed 1 August 2018.
  6. FAO (2011) The state of the world’s land and water resources for food and agriculture (SOLAW). ROME, FAO, p 30Google Scholar
  7. Horst GM, Shamutalov SS, Goncalves MJ, Pereira SL (2005) Surge flow irrigation for water saving. Irrigation management for combating desertification in the Aral Sea basin. Assessment and tools, Findings of the Cooperative EU research project, pp 225–246. Accessed 10 Aug 2018
  8. Ikeura H, Yamamoto T, Inoue M, Wei J (1998) Water application efficiency of small-strip border irrigation method on sandy field in Mu Us Shamo Desert -aiming for effective use of groundwater resource for irrigation -. Japanese Society of Irrigation, Drainage and Rural Engineering No.197, pp109-116 (In Japanese) Google Scholar
  9. Karen F (2013) Irrigation in Central Asia in figures. FAO Water Reports 39, AQUASTAT Survey-2012, pp 68–196Google Scholar
  10. Martin CR, Glover-Cutter K, Baldwin CJ, Dombrowski EJ (2012) Identification and characterization of a salt stress-inducible zinc finger protein from Festuca arundinacea BMC Research. Notes 5:66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Onishi J, Ikeura H, Yamanaka I, Kitamura Y, Fujimaki H (2017) Water-saving effect of simplified surge flow irrigation on irrigated farmlands in arid areas -case study in the republic of Uzbekistan-. J Arid Land Stud 27–3:91–101 (In Japanese) Google Scholar
  12. Shirokova IY, Morozov NA (2006) Salinity of irrigated land of Uzbekistan: causes and present stage. Sabkha Ecosystems Volume II West and Central Asia, Springer, pp 249–259Google Scholar
  13. Siyal AA, Mashori SA, Bristow LK, van Genuchten TM (2016) Alternate furrow irrigation can radically improve water productivity of okra. Agric Water Manag 173:55–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Walker RW (1989) Guidelines for designing and evaluating surface irrigation systems 1.3 Advantages and disadvantages of surface irrigation. FAO Irrigation and drainage paper No. 45. Accessed 1 August 2018.
  15. Wang W, Vinocur B, Altman A (2003) Plant responses to drought, salinity and extreme temperatures towards genetic engineering for stress tolerance. Planta 218:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The International Society of Paddy and Water Environment Engineering 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Junya Onishi
    • 1
    Email author
  • Hiroshi Ikeura
    • 1
  • Gaukhar K. Paluashova
    • 2
  • Yulia I. Shirokova
    • 2
  • Yoshinobu Kitamura
    • 3
  • Haruyuki Fujimaki
    • 4
  1. 1.Rural Development DivisionJapan International Research Center for Agricultural SciencesTsukubaJapan
  2. 2.Research Institute of Irrigation and Water Problem in UzbekistanTashkentUzbekistan
  3. 3.International Platform for Dryland Research and Education (IPDRE)Tottori UniversityTottori-shiJapan
  4. 4.Arid Land Research CenterTottori UniversityTottori-shiJapan

Personalised recommendations