Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorWatson, J.*
dc.contributor.authorSheedy, M.*
dc.contributor.editorSilvertooth, Jeffen_US
dc.date.accessioned2012-02-09T17:10:16Z
dc.date.available2012-02-09T17:10:16Z
dc.date.issued1995-03
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10150/210312
dc.description.abstractIrrigation scheduling, by keeping track of irrigation applications, soil storage and crop water use, has been computerized by a number of different individuals. A key component of the computerized methods is the estimation of a reference crop evapotranspiration rate. Complaints about one such method, AZSCHED, led the authors to compare the reference crop evapotranspiration values calculated by AZSCHED with those calculated by a second procedure available used by AZMET. Results of the comparison indicated that no significant difference existed between methods, for either a traditionally "long season", or a contemporary "short season" growing period. AZSCHED did estimate crop water use to be about 5% - 8% more than AZMET, an amount that is not of importance considering the irrigation inefficiencies created by field non-uniformities. Experience by the authors indicates that inappropriate selection of irrigation efficiencies and/or soil water holding capacity may be the main cause of user complaints.
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.publisherCollege of Agriculture, University of Arizona (Tucson, AZ)en_US
dc.relation.ispartofseries370099en_US
dc.relation.ispartofseriesSeries P-99en_US
dc.subjectAgriculture -- Arizonaen_US
dc.subjectCotton -- Arizonaen_US
dc.subjectCotton -- Irrigationen_US
dc.titleCrop Water Use Estimatesen_US
dc.typetexten_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.journalCotton: A College of Agriculture Reporten_US
refterms.dateFOA2018-06-17T22:12:49Z
html.description.abstractIrrigation scheduling, by keeping track of irrigation applications, soil storage and crop water use, has been computerized by a number of different individuals. A key component of the computerized methods is the estimation of a reference crop evapotranspiration rate. Complaints about one such method, AZSCHED, led the authors to compare the reference crop evapotranspiration values calculated by AZSCHED with those calculated by a second procedure available used by AZMET. Results of the comparison indicated that no significant difference existed between methods, for either a traditionally "long season", or a contemporary "short season" growing period. AZSCHED did estimate crop water use to be about 5% - 8% more than AZMET, an amount that is not of importance considering the irrigation inefficiencies created by field non-uniformities. Experience by the authors indicates that inappropriate selection of irrigation efficiencies and/or soil water holding capacity may be the main cause of user complaints.


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
370099-175-177.pdf
Size:
32.89Kb
Format:
PDF

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record