Monitoring urea concentration at different slope angles in drip fertigation

Kepp, Naila Cristina; Boas, Marcio Antonio Vilas; Haupentha, Soni Willian; Lopes, Allan Remor; Cossich, Vinicius

doi:10.4136/ambi-agua.2928

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

ARTICLES • Rev. Ambient. Água 18 • 2023 • https://doi.org/10.4136/ambi-agua.2928 copy

Monitoring urea concentration at different slope angles in drip fertigation

Monitoramento da concentração de ureia em diferentes inclinações na fertirrigação por gotejamento

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Abstract

The use of statistical process control tools in irrigation is becoming widespread as it allows for quick and effective investigation and detection of possible problems with drippers, especially when fertilizer is used in irrigation water and different slopes. Therefore, the research used statistical quality control charts to monitor urea concentration at different inclinations of the lateral line. The experiment was conducted in a protected environment at the Irrigation and Fertigation Laboratory - LIF) in the city of Cascavel, Paraná State, Brazil. It followed a randomized block design, in a 4x3 factorial arrangement, in which fertilizer concentrations were evaluated at three slope angles. Experimental plots were divided into two factors. The first is the type of water (clean water from an artesian well and water with a nitrogen fertilizer at 44% N) subdivided into four subplots, representing concentrations of urea (0, 2, 4, and 6 g L^-1). The second factor was slope angle and represented the sub-plots: uphill (2%), level (0%), and downhill (2%). The results show that Shewhart's statistical control charts were sensitive in observing the change in uniformity due to the increase in fertilizer concentration. Water with fertilizer (4 gL^-1) affected uniformity at all studied slope levels. The results also show that high concentrations of fertilizers change the pH of the water. The lowest urea concentrations showed the best distribution uniformity results.

Keywords:
control charts; drip irrigation; Shewhart; uniformity

Instituto de Pesquisas Ambientais em Bacias Hidrográficas Instituto de Pesquisas Ambientais em Bacias Hidrográficas (IPABHi), Estrada Mun. Dr. José Luis Cembranelli, 5000, Taubaté, SP, Brasil, CEP 12081-010 - Taubaté - SP - Brazil
E-mail: ambi.agua@gmail.com

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] ^*Corresponding author: Naila Cristina Kepp, e-mail: naila.goes@unioeste.br

Class	CUC (%)	DUC (%)
Excellent	> 90	> 90
Good	90 - 80	90 - 80
Regular	80 - 70	80 - 70
Bad	70 - 60	70 - 60
Unacceptable	<60	<60

Class	PUC (%)
Excellent	> 94
Good	86 - 94
Regular	80 - 86
Bad	70 - 80
Unacceptable	<70

Parameter	Clean water	2 g L^-1 urea	4 g L^-1 urea	6 g L^-1 urea
Total iron (mg L^-1)	0.02*	0*	0*	0*
Manganese (mg L^-1)	0.06*	0.02**	0.02**	0.04**
Suspended solids (mg L^-1)	40*	236	60	292
Electrical conductivity (dS m^-1)	0.058	0.070	0.072	0.076
pH	7.41*	7.51*	7.43*	7.75*
Calcium (mg L^-1)	2.95*	0	0	0
Magnesium (mg L^-1)	0.77*	0.78*	0.79*	0.80*
Total nitrogen (mg L^-1)	0.06	8.77	18.19	25.52

Variable		Data normality (p-value)		Min	1 Quartile	Median	3 Quartile	Max	Kruskal-Wallis (p-value)
DUC	Level system	0	0.009	93.39	95.12	96.31	96.78	97.47	<0.005
		2	0.008	78.95	84.73	86.56	87.59	96.85
		4	0.756	79.89	83.21	84.49	85.80	87.40
		6	0.089	63.11	76.98	80.13	85.28	90.83
CUC	Level system	0	0.007	93.39	95.11	96.27	96.80	97.47	<0.005
		2	0.007	88.41	91.97	93.15	93.51	95.11
		4	0.560	89.76	91.57	92.20	92.95	93.63
		6	<0.005	64.65	88.29	89.75	92.16	95.07
DUC	Uphill system	0	<0.005	95.51	96.66	97.26	97.44	97.70	<0.005
		2	<0.005	71.88	86.57	88.38	90.38	93.04
		4	0.171	86.70	89.16	89.91	92.43	93.73
		6	0.358	91.80	93.51	94.18	95.07	96.54
CUC	Uphill system	0	<0.005	92.97	93.99	95.50	95.93	96.32	<0.005
		2	<0.005	85.94	92.86	93.94	94.72	95.66
		4	0.075	86.70	89.16	89.91	92.43	93.73
		6	0.879	91.80	93.51	94.18	95.07	96.54
DUC	Downhill system	0	<0.005	83.59	92.46	93.47	93.78	96.13	<0.005
		2	0.020	83.42	89.09	91.12	92.04	93.11
		4	0.171	74.33	80.16	81.58	86.12	87.93
		6	0.011	86.94	90.17	90.70	91.63	92.74
CUC	Downhill system	0	<0.005	91.70	95.37	96.04	96.26	97.17	<0.005
		2	0.074	91.42	94.09	95.22	95.69	96.44
		4	0.075	86.70	89.15	89.91	92.43	93.73
		6	<0.005	93.16	94.97	95.26	95.49	96.19

Comparison			0 g L^-1	2 g L^-1	4 g L^-1	6 g L^-1
Comparison			P -Valor
UD (%)	Level	Uphill	0.0003	0.0074	0.0040	0.0000
	Level	Downhill	0.3125	0.0000	0.0416	0.0000
	Uphill	Downhill	0.0000	0.0055	0.2443	0.7415

Variável		Normality (p-value)		Autocorrelation
DUC	LEVEL	4	0,756	No
DUC	LEVEL	6	0,089	No
CUC	LEVEL	4	0,560	No
DUC	UPHILL	4	0,171	No
DUC	UPHILL	6	0,358	No
CUC	UPHILL	4	0,075	No
CUC	UPHILL	6	0,879	No
DUC	DOWNHILL	4	0,075	No
CUC	DOWNHILL	2	0,074	Yes
CUC	DOWNHILL	4	0,075	No

Treatment	Urea concentration	CUp
Level	0 g L^-1	99.18
Uphill		99.04
Downhill		98.64
Level	2 g L^-1	95.86
Uphill		98.66
Downhill		96.97
Level	4 g L^-1	98.54
Uphill		98.93
Downhill		96.97
Level	6 g L^-1	98.92
Uphill		98.32
Downhill		99.04

Treatment	Concentration	CUC	DUC	CUC	DUC
		PCI LCL = 90%	PCI LCL = 80%	PCI LCL = 90%	PCI LCL = 80%
Level	2 g L^-1	2.86	*	*	*
Level	4 g L^-1	1.15	*	*	1.28
Uphill		0.11	2.73	*	0.11
Downhill		0.06	1.33	*	0.11
Level	6 g L^-1	*	0.50	*	*
Uphill	6 g L^-1	1.24	4.25	0.10	1.99