4.7 Article

Actual evapotranspiration and dual crop coefficients for dry-seeded rice and hybrid maize grown with overhead sprinkler irrigation

期刊

AGRICULTURAL WATER MANAGEMENT
卷 136, 期 -, 页码 1-12

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.agwat.2014.01.005

关键词

Maize; Dry-seeded rice; Overhead sprinkler irrigation; Crop evapotranspiration; Dual crop coefficient

资金

  1. Bayer CropScience
  2. Kellogg Company

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In lieu of the decreasing availability of water for irrigated rice, we examined two alternatives to traditional rice cultivation on puddled and saturated soil-maize and dry-seeded rice production grown with an overhead sprinkler irrigation system. We characterized the inter-seasonal daily variations of actual crop evapotranspiration (ET), transpiration (T), and evaporation (E) using the eddy covariance (EC) technique during 2011 and 2012 dry seasons. The average growing season ET rate of maize was 3.90 mm d(-1) in 2011 and 3.74 mm d(-1) in 2012. For the dry-seeded rice, the average growing season ET rate was 4.36 mm d(-1) in 2011 and 4.13 mm d(-1) in 2012. Growing season ET of maize (484 mm) and dry-seeded rice (523 mm) in 2011 were higher than during 2012 (453 mm for maize and 475 mm for dry-seeded rice) because of higher net radiation (R-n) in 2011. Partitioning ET showed that T accounted for 66-74% of seasonal ET for maize and 53-60% for dry-seeded rice. On average, dry-seeded rice had 6.5% more ET than maize due to higher irrigation water inputs. The average total water input (irrigation + precipitation) for maize was 618 mm while that of the dry-seeded rice was 908 mm. The large difference between crop coefficient (K-c) and basal crop coefficient (K-cb) values during the initial and crop development stages of both maize and dry-seeded rice provides a good opportunity to optimize irrigation water input by designing a more efficient irrigation schedule that is appropriate to the water needs of the crops. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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