Sprinkler Irrigation Changes Maize Canopy Microclimate and Crop Water Status, Transpiration, and Temperature

Cavero, J.; Medina, Eva T.; Puig, M.; Martı́nez-Cob, Antonio

doi:10.2134/agronj2008.0224x

Cited by 63 publications

(61 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefore, relative humidity and VPD could affect the time required for water vapor to be restored to the level of the surrounding atmosphere following irrigation. For all of the tests, restoration required approximately 2.3 to 4.0 h ( Figure 4); this duration was similar to that for observations based on maize [52,57,58] and alfalfa [16].…”

Section: Water Vapor Dynamics and Meterorologysupporting

confidence: 77%

Dynamics of Water Vapor Content around Isolated Sprinklers: Description and Validation of Model

Jiao

Wang

2017

Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Irrigation consumes considerable water to satisfy the current food demand. An improvement in water use efficiency for irrigation is essential. Wind drift and evaporation losses reduce the water use efficiency of center pivot irrigation systems in arid and semi-arid areas. In this paper, a model of water vapor dynamics during and after overhead sprinkler irrigation was developed and validated by experimental data using a center pivot simulator and a water vapor measuring system. The model was represented as an exponential equation during irrigation and a logistic equation after irrigation. The water vapor dynamics measured next to and 2 m from the sprinkler were well-fitted with the developed model. Model performance was good according to evaluations of the Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency coefficient, with values of 0.961 and 0.934 for estimations next to the sprinkler and 2 m from the sprinkler, respectively. Results showed that both modeled and observed water vapor dynamics increased rapidly as irrigation started, and then leveled off to maximum values. After irrigation, the water vapor dynamics started to decrease gradually, and eventually decreased rapidly. The decreasing rate stopped when the water vapor content was restored to the level of the surrounding atmosphere. The model parameters showed that the maximum increases in water vapor content were from 2.506 to 6.476 g m −3 for the area next to the sprinkler, and 1.277 to 3.380 g m −3 for the area 2 m from the sprinkler, under the influence of vapor pressure deficits. The increasing and decreasing rates of the dynamics during and after irrigation were influenced by temperature, relative humidity, and vapor pressure deficits, according to Pearson's correlations. A period of 2.3 to 4.0 h was required to restore water vapor to the atmospheric level.

show abstract

Section: Water Vapor Dynamics and Meterorologysupporting

confidence: 77%

Dynamics of Water Vapor Content around Isolated Sprinklers: Description and Validation of Model

Jiao

Wang

2017

Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A secondary effect that would have acted to reduce T was that the canopy was cooled by the irrigation, which would have reduced the vapor pressure gradient by depressing the sub-stomatal vapor pressure. Decreases of in-canopy vapor pressure deficit and of corn (Zea mays L.) T during, and shortly after, irrigation were reported by Cavero et al [34], Martinez-Cob et al [35], and Tolk et al [36]. Decreases in T compensated for evaporation of canopy-intercepted water, which helped to improve irrigation application efficiency.…”

Section: E + T = Etmentioning

confidence: 84%

“…Separation of E and T is essential for evaluating crop growth and water use models that attempt to model WUE [29]; such models are increasingly needed to discriminate between alternative management schemes for increasing WUE. Measurement of E from the soil surface of irrigated crops with micro-lysimeters [30][31][32][33] and estimation of T using heat balance sap flow gages [34][35][36] have both been shown to be successful. Rarely, all three components, i.e., ET, E and T were concurrently measured.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaporative loss from irrigated interrows in a highly advective semi-arid agricultural area

Agam

Evett

Tolk

et al. 2012

Advances in Water Resources

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tAgricultural productivity has increased in the Texas High Plains at the cost of declining water tables, putting at risk the sustainability of the Ogallala Aquifer as a principal source of water for irrigated agriculture. This has led area producers to seek alternative practices that can increase water use efficiency (WUE) through more careful management of water. One potential way of improving WUE is by reducing soil evaporation (E), thus reducing overall evapotranspiration (ET). Before searching for ways to reduce E, it is first important to quantify E and understand the factors that determine its magnitude. The objectives of this study were (1) to quantify E throughout part of the growing season for irrigated cotton in a strongly advective semi-arid region; (2) to study the effects of LAI, days after irrigation, and measurement location within the row on the E/ET fraction; and (3) to study the ability of microlysimeter (ML) measures of E combined with sap flow gage measures of transpiration (T) to accurately estimate ET when compared with weighing lysimeter ET data and to assess the E/T ratio. The research was conducted in an irrigated cotton field at the Conservation & Production Research Laboratory of the USDA-ARS, Bushland, TX. ET was measured by a large weighing lysimeter, and E was measured by 10 microlysimeters that were deployed in two sets of 5 across the interrow. In addition, 10 heat balance sap flow gages were used to determine T. A moderately good agreement was found between the sum E + T and ET (SE = 1 mm or $10% of ET). It was found that E may account for >50% of ET during early stages of the growing season (LAI < 0.2), significantly decreasing with increase in LAI to values near 20% at peak LAI of three. Measurement location within the north-south interrows had a distinct effect on the diurnal pattern of E, with a shift in time of peak E from west to east, a pattern that was governed by the solar radiation reaching the soil surface. However, total daily E was unaffected by position in the interrow. Under wet soil conditions, wind speed and direction affected soil evaporation. Row orientation interacted with wind direction in this study such that aerodynamic resistance to E usually increased when wind direction was perpendicular to row direction; but this interaction needs further study because it appeared to be lessened under higher wind speeds.

show abstract

“…The frequent use of sprinkler irrigation system causes surface wetting intense. Thus, when the crop does not provide full surface coverage, soil evaporation losses are inevitable (López-Urrea et al, 2009, Cavero et al, 2009). …”

Section: Water Use Efficiencymentioning

confidence: 99%

Crop Evapotranspiration and Water Use Efficiency

Bezerra¹

2012

Irrigation Systems and Practices in Challenging Environments

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sprinkler Irrigation Changes Maize Canopy Microclimate and Crop Water Status, Transpiration, and Temperature

Cited by 63 publications

References 41 publications

Dynamics of Water Vapor Content around Isolated Sprinklers: Description and Validation of Model

Dynamics of Water Vapor Content around Isolated Sprinklers: Description and Validation of Model

Evaporative loss from irrigated interrows in a highly advective semi-arid agricultural area

Crop Evapotranspiration and Water Use Efficiency

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About