| The deficient of water resource has become a global issue. China is in particularly severe situation and ranks among the top 13 countries in the world. Being an important part of the urban greening ecosystem, the lawn area is growing rapidly with the acceleration of urbanization. However, the growth of lawn area leads to the huge increase of water demand. In order to solve the conflict between lawn irrigation water demand and the insufficient of water resource, the most efficient solution is to develop the water-saving irrigation. The material used in the study was mixed turf by tall fescue(Festuca arundinacea) and Kentucky bluegrass(poa pratensis), and setted two irrigation methods of moistube irrigation and micro sprinkler irrigation. It studies the indexes of the lawn with the two methods, including the appearance quality, the growth, soil environment, water consumption and more. By comparing the research indexes, it is to select the better water-saving irrigation of lawn. The main research achievements are as follows:1. Comparing with micro sprinkler irrigation, the lawn irrigated by moistube irrigation has better quality. The lawn average density of moistube irrigation was larger than micro sprinkler irrigation, and there was obvious difference between two treatments(p<0.05). With moistube irrigation, the average chlorophyll a content, average chlorophyll b content, average chlorophyll content and average uniformity were all larger than that of micro sprinkler irrigation, and there was no significant difference between two treatments(p>0.05). The leaf width was affected by its own biological characteristics, and it became wider with time passing by, so the difference was little. Average comprehensive score of moistube irrigation was significantly higher than micro sprinkler irrigation(p<0.05).2. The lawn grows better with moistube irrigation. There was great difference in the average turf growth rate and average clipping yield between the two treatments(p<0.01). The average regeneration speed was 0.29 cm/d and 0.20 cm/d respectively, and moistube irrigation was faster than micro sprinkler irrigation by 0.09 cm/d. The average clipping yield was 4.80 g/m2 and 3.67 g/m2 respectively, and moistube irrigation was 1.31 times of micro sprinkler irrigation. Average underground biomass was 373.6g/m2 and 303.2g/m2 respectively, and moistube irrigation was 1.23 times of micro-spray irrigation. Comparing the underground biomass proportion in every soil layer, moistube irrigation was less than micro sprinkler irrigation in 0 ~ 10 cm soil layer, while the proportion was on the contrary in the soil layers of 10 ~20 cm and 20 ~ 30 cm.3. Moistube irrigation better improves the soil environment than micro sprinkler irrigation. With moistube irrigation, the soil temperature diurnal range was little, the deep soil moisture content was increased, and the soil bulk density as well as the capillary porosity was good. In August, the average soil temperature of the 10 cm, 15 cm, 20 cm and 25 cm layers by moistube irrigation was higher than micro sprinkler irrigation, with no significant difference(p>0.05). In October, the average soil temperature in all layers by moistube irrigation was lower than micro sprinkler irrigation except for 10 cm layer, and there was no obvious difference between the two treatments(p>0.05). In August and October, the soil temperature diurnal range by moistube irrigation in 10 cm, 15 cm, 20 cm and 25 cm layers were lower than micro sprinkler irrigation. The average moisture content by moistube irrigation in 0~10cm, 10~20cm and 20~30 cm layers was respectively 16.23%, 19.15% and 16.86%. By micro sprinkler irrigation, the average moisture content in corresponding soil layers was respectively 18.75%, 14.11% and 10.61%. The moisture content by moistube irrigation was lower than micro sprinkler irrigation in the layer of 0~10 cm. Except for 25 th September and 10 th October, the difference of two irrigation methods was significant(p<0.01). In the layer of 10~20 cm and 20~30 cm, the water content by moistube irrigation was higher than micro sprinkler irrigation, and the difference was significant(p<0.01). During the experimental period, the average soil bulk density by moistube irrigation in 0~30 cm layer increased from 1.34 g/cm3 to 1.36 g/cm3, and it increased from 1.37 g/cm3 to 1.41 g/cm3 by micro sprinkler irrigation. Moistube irrigation was 3.5% lower than micro sprinkler irrigation. The average soil capillary porosity by moistube irrigation in 0~30 cm layer decreased from 42.15% to 40.99%, and it decreased from 40.53% to 39.15%by micro sprinkler irrigation. Moistube irrigation was 4.7% higher than micro sprinkler irrigation.4. The total irrigation water consumption of moistube irrigation and micro sprinkler irrigation was respectively 0.1425m3/m2.95 d and 0.487m3/m2.95 d. Moistube irrigation can save more water than micro sprinkler irrigation by 71%.5. The cost of those two irrigations was respectively 12 yuan/m2 and 20 yuan/m2, and the cost of moistube irrigation was only a 60% of micro sprinkler irrigation. Micro sprinkler irrigation cost 8 yuan/m2 higher than moistube irrigation.To comprehensively analyze the indexes of lawn quality, growth condition and soil physical property, the moistube irrigation is superior to micro sprinkler irrigation. Moreover, moistube irrigation can save water significantly and its cost is lower. Therefore, it is of greater value for lawn water-saving irrigation to apply moistube irrigation. |
PDF Full Text Request