## 4 Discussions  
The new layout demonstrated less investment and costs requirement compared to the split lateral layout. The omission of the mainline caused a more than 40% reduction in the length of the pipes and minimized the number of hydrants, while less fittings were required. Although the items prices differ in various regions, nonetheless since the evaluation is based on ratio, the hypothesis clarification is valid. Analyzing the results showed that the cost-effectiveness on the capital cost for CPL will lead to a shorter break-even point. It means the investments will be returned to the investor within a shorter time. This is critical due to the importance of the first years for yeoman financially. Hence, a cheaper pressured system can reduce the smallholding financial stresses to implement such projects. Moreover, since there was a 7% decrease of yearly expenses for CPL, therefore during a longer time period this layout is more efficient than a conventional split lateral design. While actual soil moist distribution uniformity might be higher than the can's results [40], distribution uniformity demonstrated the feasibility of the system with an acceptable level of performance. The impacts of the wind were negligible in this experiment but for areas affected by wind, to minimize the evaporation loss and wind drift, the start point of the CPL lateral at the farm corner needs to be shifted, which avoids the wind affecting uniformity of irrigation. The move must be opposite to the wind direction in accordance with its velocity [41]. This is an influencing factor in smaller plots since the wind will severely affect smallholding areas [42], especially on the sprayers. In case of any deficiency, re-nozzling might be the solution as the system performance was found to be highly sensitive to the sprinkler/sprayer type. The sprinklers selection accuracy can also balance the irrigated water over the land surface, which causes yield variation avoidance. With regards to the labor requirements, CPL needs equal manpower, although the number of system working hours is about 9.5% higher. Operating the system during the current experiment showed that the required manual work in CPL is the same in terms of labor traveling distance for transferring pipes, the number of pipes that need to be picked up and transferred and number of uncoupling during one revolution. For CPL in each irrigation cycle, the labor needs to transfer 7 pieces of pipes for 7 times (49), however in split lateral the farmer carries 6 pieces for 8 times (48) while both need to travel for almost 900 m. The labor fee is not considered in the total cost as chiefly employing labor for small farms is not justifiable. Altogether, based on the outcomes the beneficial advantages of CPL design highlighted are:  
1. A reduction in total required tubing (up to 40%) in square form lands. 2. Reducing the quantity and size of needed fittings. 3. Reducing the hydrants to 1 only. 4. Set-move simplicity that going from one side of the farm to another is not needed. 5. Ease of operation with elimination of jointing the lateral to several hydrants. 6. Minor need of maintenance. 7. The layout matches smallholding requirements. 8. No farm leveling is needed since the transfer is manual. 9. Lower capital and annual expenses. This new layout has some limitations and disadvantages as well listed and are discussed here:  
1. A Quadrat circular irrigation pattern that causes 79% of the farm to be irrigated is good enough. Nevertheless, using the foldable corner catcher pipe will rather cover the entire corner area. In particular, the manual process of the system offers an easy use of the corner arm, as and when it is required, enhances the irrigable field without complexity. Applying big guns (part-circle sprinklers) on the lateral endpoint which can cover an extensive area same as in center pivot is an alternative too. Overall around 5% of the farm will not be well irrigated and will almost have rain fed like yield. 2.