Polyethylene, compaction and chemical treatments to reduce the seepage losses from irrigation channels
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2014 |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | por |
Título da fonte: | Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira (Online) |
Texto Completo: | https://seer.sct.embrapa.br/index.php/pab/article/view/14683 |
Resumo: | Efficiency and costs of polyethylene, compaction or chemical treatment to reduce the seepage loss from irrigation channels built in a Dark-Red Latosol of Cerrado soil were compared. Reductions in hydraulic conductivity of 102 soll samples treated with different concentrations of NaOH or Na2CO3 suggested respectively the application of 3 and 4 g/l to reduce seepage loss from irrigation channels. Application of 25 l/m2 of NaOH on the soil samples caused reductions greater than 95% in the hydraulic conductivity. In the channels the reduction was 73% when the channel was allowed to dry and 75% when the seepage tests were conducted just after the chemical treatment. Application of 25 l/m2 of Na2CO3 imparted a similar reduction (81%) when the seepage tests were conducted just after the chemical treatment. When the channel was allowed to dry, the reduction was only 48%. It is possible that this low reduction was due to the soil structure already being modified before the chemical treatment with Na2CO3. Due to the lack of expansive clays in this soil and the precipitation of aluminum by sodium containing compounds, it is believed that the reductions on seepage loss were caused by blockage of macropores with, particles displaced from aggregates disrupted by the removal of cementing agents. Among the alternatives compared, the polyethylene was the best, since it completely stopped the seepage loss from the irrigation channel. The compaction, which raised the bulk density from 1.03 to 1.52 g/cm3 reduced approximately 90% the seepage loss. Comparing the costs, the polyethylene was 15 times more expensive than chemical treatment and 5 times more expensive than soil compaction. |
id |
EMBRAPA-4_40302f13b3eb4b79b7ed31410a63e818 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:ojs.seer.sct.embrapa.br:article/14683 |
network_acronym_str |
EMBRAPA-4 |
network_name_str |
Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira (Online) |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
Polyethylene, compaction and chemical treatments to reduce the seepage losses from irrigation channelsPolietileno, compactação e tratamento químico na redução das perdas de água por infiltração em canais de irrigaçãosoils; hydraulic conductivity; sodiumsolos; condutividade hidráulica; sódioEfficiency and costs of polyethylene, compaction or chemical treatment to reduce the seepage loss from irrigation channels built in a Dark-Red Latosol of Cerrado soil were compared. Reductions in hydraulic conductivity of 102 soll samples treated with different concentrations of NaOH or Na2CO3 suggested respectively the application of 3 and 4 g/l to reduce seepage loss from irrigation channels. Application of 25 l/m2 of NaOH on the soil samples caused reductions greater than 95% in the hydraulic conductivity. In the channels the reduction was 73% when the channel was allowed to dry and 75% when the seepage tests were conducted just after the chemical treatment. Application of 25 l/m2 of Na2CO3 imparted a similar reduction (81%) when the seepage tests were conducted just after the chemical treatment. When the channel was allowed to dry, the reduction was only 48%. It is possible that this low reduction was due to the soil structure already being modified before the chemical treatment with Na2CO3. Due to the lack of expansive clays in this soil and the precipitation of aluminum by sodium containing compounds, it is believed that the reductions on seepage loss were caused by blockage of macropores with, particles displaced from aggregates disrupted by the removal of cementing agents. Among the alternatives compared, the polyethylene was the best, since it completely stopped the seepage loss from the irrigation channel. The compaction, which raised the bulk density from 1.03 to 1.52 g/cm3 reduced approximately 90% the seepage loss. Comparing the costs, the polyethylene was 15 times more expensive than chemical treatment and 5 times more expensive than soil compaction.Foram comparados a eficiência e os custos do polietileno, da compactação e do tratamento químico para reduzir a perda de água por infiltração em canais de irrigação construídos em Latossolo Vermelho-Escuro de cerrado. As reduções ocorridas na condutividade hidráulica de 102 amostras de solo tratadas com diferentes soluções de NaOH e Na2CO3 sugeriram a aplicação de 3 e 4 g/l, respectivamente, para reduzir a perda de água por infiltração nos canais. Embora a aplicação de 25 l/m2 de NaOH tenha proporcionado redução de mais de 95% nas amostras em laboratório, nos canais esta redução foi de 73% quando foi permitido o secamento do leito, e 75% quando os testes foram conduzidos logo após a aspersão da solução no leito do canal. A aplicação de 25 l/m2 de Na2CO3 para tratamento dos canais proporcionou redução similar (81%) quando não foi permitido o secamento do leito do canal. Já com o leito do canal seco, a redução foi da ordem de 48% apenas. Acredita-se que esta menor redução seja devido à estrutura do solo já se encontrar modificada antes do tratamento com Na2CO3. Em face da ausência de argilas expansivas, bem como da precipitação de alumínio causada por compostos sódicos, acredita-se que as reduções ocorridas tenham sido causadas pelo entupimento de macroporos por partículas desagregadas pela remoção dos agentes cimentantes do solo. Das alternativas testadas, o polietileno foi o mais eficiente, pois reduziu completamente a perda de água por infiltração. Já a compactação, elevando de 1,03 para 1,52 g/cm3 a densidade do leito do canal, permitiu reduzir em aproximadamente 90% a perda de água por infiltração. Com relação aos custos, o polietileno revelou ser aproximadamente 15 vezes mais caro que o tratamento químico e 5 vezes mais caro que a compactação.Pesquisa Agropecuaria BrasileiraPesquisa Agropecuária BrasileiraLima, Luiz Antonio2014-04-17info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfhttps://seer.sct.embrapa.br/index.php/pab/article/view/14683Pesquisa Agropecuaria Brasileira; v.22, n.11/12, nov./dez. 1987; 1201-1207Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira; v.22, n.11/12, nov./dez. 1987; 1201-12071678-39210100-104xreponame:Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira (Online)instname:Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária (Embrapa)instacron:EMBRAPAporhttps://seer.sct.embrapa.br/index.php/pab/article/view/14683/8372info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess2014-10-14T19:53:24Zoai:ojs.seer.sct.embrapa.br:article/14683Revistahttp://seer.sct.embrapa.br/index.php/pabPRIhttps://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.phppab@sct.embrapa.br || sct.pab@embrapa.br1678-39210100-204Xopendoar:2014-10-14T19:53:24Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira (Online) - Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária (Embrapa)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Polyethylene, compaction and chemical treatments to reduce the seepage losses from irrigation channels Polietileno, compactação e tratamento químico na redução das perdas de água por infiltração em canais de irrigação |
title |
Polyethylene, compaction and chemical treatments to reduce the seepage losses from irrigation channels |
spellingShingle |
Polyethylene, compaction and chemical treatments to reduce the seepage losses from irrigation channels Lima, Luiz Antonio soils; hydraulic conductivity; sodium solos; condutividade hidráulica; sódio |
title_short |
Polyethylene, compaction and chemical treatments to reduce the seepage losses from irrigation channels |
title_full |
Polyethylene, compaction and chemical treatments to reduce the seepage losses from irrigation channels |
title_fullStr |
Polyethylene, compaction and chemical treatments to reduce the seepage losses from irrigation channels |
title_full_unstemmed |
Polyethylene, compaction and chemical treatments to reduce the seepage losses from irrigation channels |
title_sort |
Polyethylene, compaction and chemical treatments to reduce the seepage losses from irrigation channels |
author |
Lima, Luiz Antonio |
author_facet |
Lima, Luiz Antonio |
author_role |
author |
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv |
|
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Lima, Luiz Antonio |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
soils; hydraulic conductivity; sodium solos; condutividade hidráulica; sódio |
topic |
soils; hydraulic conductivity; sodium solos; condutividade hidráulica; sódio |
description |
Efficiency and costs of polyethylene, compaction or chemical treatment to reduce the seepage loss from irrigation channels built in a Dark-Red Latosol of Cerrado soil were compared. Reductions in hydraulic conductivity of 102 soll samples treated with different concentrations of NaOH or Na2CO3 suggested respectively the application of 3 and 4 g/l to reduce seepage loss from irrigation channels. Application of 25 l/m2 of NaOH on the soil samples caused reductions greater than 95% in the hydraulic conductivity. In the channels the reduction was 73% when the channel was allowed to dry and 75% when the seepage tests were conducted just after the chemical treatment. Application of 25 l/m2 of Na2CO3 imparted a similar reduction (81%) when the seepage tests were conducted just after the chemical treatment. When the channel was allowed to dry, the reduction was only 48%. It is possible that this low reduction was due to the soil structure already being modified before the chemical treatment with Na2CO3. Due to the lack of expansive clays in this soil and the precipitation of aluminum by sodium containing compounds, it is believed that the reductions on seepage loss were caused by blockage of macropores with, particles displaced from aggregates disrupted by the removal of cementing agents. Among the alternatives compared, the polyethylene was the best, since it completely stopped the seepage loss from the irrigation channel. The compaction, which raised the bulk density from 1.03 to 1.52 g/cm3 reduced approximately 90% the seepage loss. Comparing the costs, the polyethylene was 15 times more expensive than chemical treatment and 5 times more expensive than soil compaction. |
publishDate |
2014 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2014-04-17 |
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv |
|
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
https://seer.sct.embrapa.br/index.php/pab/article/view/14683 |
url |
https://seer.sct.embrapa.br/index.php/pab/article/view/14683 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
por |
language |
por |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
https://seer.sct.embrapa.br/index.php/pab/article/view/14683/8372 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Pesquisa Agropecuaria Brasileira Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Pesquisa Agropecuaria Brasileira Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Pesquisa Agropecuaria Brasileira; v.22, n.11/12, nov./dez. 1987; 1201-1207 Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira; v.22, n.11/12, nov./dez. 1987; 1201-1207 1678-3921 0100-104x reponame:Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira (Online) instname:Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária (Embrapa) instacron:EMBRAPA |
instname_str |
Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária (Embrapa) |
instacron_str |
EMBRAPA |
institution |
EMBRAPA |
reponame_str |
Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira (Online) |
collection |
Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira (Online) |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira (Online) - Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária (Embrapa) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
pab@sct.embrapa.br || sct.pab@embrapa.br |
_version_ |
1793416674497527808 |