Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-wq484 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T16:23:10.462Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

IRRIGATION REQUIREMENTS ARE LOWER THAN THOSE USUALLY PRESCRIBED FOR A MAIZE CROP IN SOUTHERN BRAZIL

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 August 2018

LUIZ R. SOBENKO ,
TAMIRES T. SOUZA ,
ALEXANDRE O. GONÇALVES ,
VITOR J. M. BIANCHINI ,
EVANDRO H. F. M. SILVA ,
LAÍS T. SOUZA  and
FÁBIO R. MARIN Open the ORCID record for FÁBIO R. MARIN [Opens in a new window]
LUIZ R. SOBENKO
Affiliation:
Biosystems Engineering Department, University of São Paulo (USP), College of Agriculture “Luiz de Queiroz” (ESALQ), Av. Pádua Dias, 11, Piracicaba, SP 13418-900, Brazil
TAMIRES T. SOUZA
Affiliation:
Biosystems Engineering Department, University of São Paulo (USP), College of Agriculture “Luiz de Queiroz” (ESALQ), Av. Pádua Dias, 11, Piracicaba, SP 13418-900, Brazil
ALEXANDRE O. GONÇALVES
Affiliation:
Biosystems Engineering Department, University of São Paulo (USP), College of Agriculture “Luiz de Queiroz” (ESALQ), Av. Pádua Dias, 11, Piracicaba, SP 13418-900, Brazil
VITOR J. M. BIANCHINI
Affiliation:
Biosystems Engineering Department, University of São Paulo (USP), College of Agriculture “Luiz de Queiroz” (ESALQ), Av. Pádua Dias, 11, Piracicaba, SP 13418-900, Brazil
EVANDRO H. F. M. SILVA
Affiliation:
Biosystems Engineering Department, University of São Paulo (USP), College of Agriculture “Luiz de Queiroz” (ESALQ), Av. Pádua Dias, 11, Piracicaba, SP 13418-900, Brazil
LAÍS T. SOUZA
Affiliation:
Biosystems Engineering Department, University of São Paulo (USP), College of Agriculture “Luiz de Queiroz” (ESALQ), Av. Pádua Dias, 11, Piracicaba, SP 13418-900, Brazil
FÁBIO R. MARIN*
Affiliation:
Biosystems Engineering Department, University of São Paulo (USP), College of Agriculture “Luiz de Queiroz” (ESALQ), Av. Pádua Dias, 11, Piracicaba, SP 13418-900, Brazil
*
‡Corresponding author. Email: fabio.marin@usp.br
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Due to the lack of basic information on water required by maize (Zea mays L.) in Brazil, the large amount of water applied usually exceeds crop requirements, wasting water and energy. In this study, we measured crop evapotranspiration (ETc) as evaporative heat flux from a centre pivot-irrigated maize plantation in Southern Brazil during winter and summer seasons, using the Bowen ratio method to evaluate how the degree of canopy-atmosphere coupling affects crop water needs and irrigation management. Irrigation requirements were determined by comparing ETc with reference evapotranspiration (ETo), derived from the Penman–Monteith equation and expressed as the ETc/ETo (Kc) ratio. In this study, the average Kc values obtained were 1.31 and 0.90 for the winter and summer, respectively. Using aerodynamic and canopy resistance measurements, the decoupling factor (Ω) was computed. Ω values tending to zero (0.09 and 0.20 for winter and summer, respectively) showed that strong coupling of maize plants to the atmosphere and sensitivity to high air temperatures, vapour pressure deficits and wind speed caused variations in Kc in relation to ETo ranges. During the experimental period, the Kc value ranged from 0.92 when the ETo exceeded 4 mm d−1 to 1.64 when the ETo was less than 2 mm d−1.

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 55 , Issue 4 , August 2019 , pp. 662 - 671
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Agência Nacional de Águas (ANA). (2016). Levantamento da agricultura irrigada por pivôs centrais no Brasil – 2014: Relatório síntese. 33.Google Scholar
Allen, R. G., Pereira, L. S., Raes, D. and Smith, M. (1998). Crop evapotranspiration: Guidelines for computing crop water requirements. Irrigation and Drainage Paper 56, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy, 300.Google Scholar
Carvalho, J. R. P., Assad, E. D., Evangelista, S. R. M. and Pinto, H. S. (2013). Estimation of dry spells in three Brazilian regions-analysis of extremes. Atmospheric Research 132–133:12–21.Google Scholar
Choudhury, B. (1983). Simulating the effects of weather variables and soil water potential on a corn canopy temperature. Agricultural Meteorology 29:169–182.Google Scholar
Companhia Nacional de Abastecimento (CONAB). (2017). Acompanhamento da safra brasileira de grãos: Safra 2016/17. 144.Google Scholar
Denmead, O. T. and Shaw, R. H. (1962). Availability of soil water to plants as affected by soil moisture content and meteorological conditions. Agronomy Journal 45:385–390.Google Scholar
Djaman, K., Irmak, S., Rathje, W. R., Martin, D. L. and Eisenhauer, D. E. (2013). Maize evapotranspiration, yield production functions, biomass, grain yield, harvest index, and yield response factors under full and limited irrigation. Transactions of the ASABE 56 (2):273–293.Google Scholar
Doorenbos, J. and Pruitt, W. O. (1977). Crop water requirements. Irrigation and Drainage Paper 24 (rev.), Food and Agricculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy, 144.Google Scholar
Facchi, A., Gharsallah, O., Corbari, C., Masseroni, D., Mancini, M. and Gandolfi, C. (2013). Determination of maize crop coefficients in humid climate regime using the eddy covariance technique. Agricultural Water Management 130:131–141.Google Scholar
González, M. G., Ramos, T. B., Carlesso, R., Paredes, P., Petry, M. T., Martins, J. D., Aires, N. P. and Pereira, L. S. (2015). Modelling soil water dynamics of full and deficit drip irrigated maize cultivated under a rain shelter. Biosystems Engineering 132:1–18.Google Scholar
Hirasawa, T. and Hsiao, T. C. (1999). Some characteristics of reduced leaf photosynthesis at midday in maize growing in the field. Field Crops Research 62:53–62.Google Scholar
Irmak, S., Djaman, K. and Rudnick, D. R. (2016). Effect of full and limited irrigation amount and frequency on subsurface drip-irrigated maize evapotranspiration, yield, water use efficiency and yield response factors. Irrigation Science 34:271–286.Google Scholar
Jones, H. G. (1992). Plants and Microclimate: A Quantitative Approach to Environmental Plant Physiology. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kang, S., Gu, B., Du, T. and Zhang, J. (2003). Crop coefficient and ratio of transpiration to evapotranspiration of winter wheat and maize in a semi-humid region. Agricultural Water Management 59:239–254.Google Scholar
Marin, F. R. and Angelocci, L. R. (2011). Irrigation requirements and transpiration coupling to the atmosphere of a citrus orchard in Southern Brazil. Agricultural Water Management 98:1091–1096.Google Scholar
Marin, F. R., Angelocci, L. R., Nassif, D. S. P., Costa, L. G., Vianna, M. S. and Carvalho, K. S. (2016). Crop coefficient changes with reference evapotranspiration for highly canopy-atmosphere coupled crops. Agricultural Water Management 163:139–145.Google Scholar
Marin, F. R., Angelocci, L. R., Righi, E. Z. and Sentelhas, P. C. (2005). Evapotranspiration and irrigation requirements of a coffee plantation in Southern Brazil. Experimental Agriculture 41 (02):187–197.Google Scholar
Martin, T. A., Hinckley, T. M., Meinzer, F. C. and Sprugel, D. G. (1999). Boundary layer conductance, leaf temperature and transpiration of Abies amabilis branches. Tree Physiology 19:435–443.Google Scholar
McNaughton, K. G. and Jarvis, P. G. (1983). Predicting effects of vegetation changes on transpiration and evaporation. In Water Deficit and Plant Growth, 7, 1–47 (Ed Koslowski, T. T.). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Nassif, D. S. P., Marin, F. R. and Costa, L. G. (2014). Evapotranspiration and transpiration coupling to the atmosphere of sugarcane in Southern Brazil: Scaling up from leaf to field. Sugar Tech 16 (3):250–254.Google Scholar
Pereira, L. S., Cordery, I. and Iacovides, I. (2012). Improved indicators of water use performance and productivity for sustainable water conservation and saving. Agricultural Water Management 18:39–51.Google Scholar
Perez, P. C. F., Ibanez, M. and Rosell, J. (1999). Assessment of reliability of Bowen ratio method for partitioning fluxes. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 97 (3):141–150.Google Scholar
Piccinni, G., Ko, J., Marek, T. and Howell, T. (2009). Determination of growth-stage-specific crop coefficients (KC) of maize and sorghum. Agricultural Water Management 96:1698–1704.Google Scholar
Rosa, R. D., Paredes, P., Rodrigues, G. C., Fernando, R. M., Alves, I., Pereira, L. S. and Allen, R. G. (2012). Implementing the dual crop coefficient approach in interactive software: 2. Model testing. Agricultural Water Management 103:62–77.Google Scholar
Tardieu, F., Zhang, J. and Gowing, D. J. G. (1993). Stomatal control by both [ABA] in the xylem sap and leaf water status: A test of a model for droughted or ABA-fed field-grown maize. Plan, Cell and Environment 16:413–420.Google Scholar
Taylor, N. J., Mahohoma, W., Vahrmeijer, J. T., Gush, M. B., Allen, R. G. and Annandale, J. G. (2015). Crop coefficient approaches based on fixed estimates of leaf resistance are not appropriate for estimating water use of citrus. Irrigation Science 33 (2):153–166.Google Scholar
Turner, N. C. (1968). Stomatal resistance to transpiration in three contrasting canopies. Crop Science 9 (3):303–307.Google Scholar
Turner, N. C. (1974). Stomatal behavior and water status of maize, sorghum, and tobacco under field conditions. Plant Physiology 53:360–365.Google Scholar