Name: Gemael Barbosa Lima
Type: MSc dissertation
Publication date: 27/08/2013
Advisor:

Namesort descending Role
Edmilson Costa Teixeira Advisor *

Examining board:

Namesort descending Role
Daniel Rigo Internal Examiner *
Edmilson Costa Teixeira Advisor *
Edvaldo Fialho dos Reis Co advisor *

Summary: 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.
Keywords: Water handling in agriculture, family farming, IRRIGÂMETRO®,
IRRIPLUS®.

Access to document

Acesso à informação
Transparência Pública

© 2013 Universidade Federal do Espírito Santo. Todos os direitos reservados.
Av. Fernando Ferrari, 514 - Goiabeiras, Vitória - ES | CEP 29075-910