4.6 Article

Quantifying Evapotranspiration and Drainage Losses in a Semi-Arid Nectarine (Prunus persica var. nucipersica) Field with a Dynamic Crop Coefficient (Kc) Derived from Leaf Area Index Measurements

期刊

WATER
卷 14, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/w14050734

关键词

irrigation (I); canopy cover fraction (c); soil moisture

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study introduced a dynamic K-c approach based on LAI observations to improve water balance computations. The use of dynamic K-c resulted in estimates with low bias, and irrigation efficiency could be enhanced by reducing irrigation amounts and increasing frequency.
Quantifying evapotranspiration and drainage losses is essential for improving irrigation efficiency. The FAO-56 is the most popular method for computing crop evapotranspiration. There is, however, a need for locally derived crop coefficients (K-c) with a high temporal resolution to reduce errors in the water balance. The aim of this paper is to introduce a dynamic K-c approach, based on Leaf Area Index (LAI) observations, for improving water balance computations. Soil moisture and meteorological data were collected in a terraced nectarine (Prunus persica var. nucipersica) orchard in Cyprus, from 22 March 2019 to 18 November 2021. The K-c was derived as a function of the canopy cover fraction (c), from biweekly in situ LAI measurements. The use of a dynamic K-c resulted in K-c estimates with a bias of 17 mm and a mean absolute error of 0.8 mm. Evapotranspiration (ET) ranged from 41% of the rainfall (P) and irrigation (I) in the wet year (2019) to 57% of P + I in the dry year (2021). Drainage losses from irrigation (DR_I) were 44% of the total irrigation. The irrigation efficiency in the nectarine field could be improved by reducing irrigation amounts and increasing the irrigation frequency. Future studies should focus on improving the dynamic K-c approach by linking LAI field observations with remote sensing observations and by adding ground cover observations.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据