Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorKhaled M. Bali
dc.contributor.authorDaniel Putnam
dc.contributor.authorDong Wang
dc.contributor.authorSultan Begna
dc.contributor.authorBrady Holder
dc.contributor.authorAbdelmoneim Zakaria Mohamed
dc.contributor.authorLuke Paloutzian
dc.contributor.authorHelen E. Dahlke
dc.contributor.authorMohamed Galal Eltarabily
dc.date.accessioned2025-04-20T10:32:58Z
dc.date.available2025-04-20T10:32:58Z
dc.date.copyright9/24/2024 12:00:00 AM
dc.date.issued2024
dc.identifier.otherJIDEDH.IRENG-10213.pdf
dc.identifier.urihttp://yetl.yabesh.ir/yetl1/handle/yetl/4304935
dc.description.abstractA four-year research experiment was conducted on sandy loam soil at the University of California Kearney Agricultural Research and Extension Center in Parlier, California, to investigate the effect of midsummer deficit irrigation on alfalfa yield, irrigation water productivity (IWP), and crop water productivity (CWP). The experiment was a randomized block design with two treatments: full and deficit irrigations with three replications. Applied irrigation water was measured using flow meters and soil matric potentials were monitored using watermark soil moisture sensors. Actual evapotranspiration (ETa) values were estimated from Tule Technologies stations. The deficit irrigation treatments resulted in 454, 706, 625, and 815 mm of irrigation water savings as compared to the full irrigation treatments in 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2022, respectively. These values represent 30.3%, 40.9%, 37.0%, and 49.1% of the applied water savings. Alfalfa yield in the deficit treatments was reduced by 3.94, 2.04, 1.25, and 0.40  Mg  ha−1; the equivalent of 18.1%, 11.1%, 7.1%, and 3.0% of the yield for the full irrigation treatment for the four years: with an average reduction of 10.7%. IWP was higher when deficit irrigation was implemented and resulted in 17.09, 16.11, 15.40, and 15.54  kg  ha−1  mm−1, in 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2022, respectively. The production function using applied irrigation water (IW, mm) was: Y(yield  in  Mg  ha−1)=0.50×(IW)2−1,633.75×(IW)+1,338,472 and Y=−0.1137×(IW)2+233.55×(IW)−103,036 for the full and deficit irrigation treatments, respectively. CWP was 18.6, 16.4, 14.9, and 12.3  kg  ha−1  mm−1 for fully irrigated treatments, and 15.2, 14.9, 14.3, and 12.6  kg  ha−1  mm−1 for the deficit irrigation treatments, for 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2022, respectively. Results from this work provide growers with viable deficit irrigation practices that could be implemented during drought periods.
dc.publisherAmerican Society of Civil Engineers
dc.titleMidsummer Deficit Irrigation of Alfalfa for Water Conservation in the San Joaquin Valley of California
dc.typeJournal Article
dc.journal.volume150
dc.journal.issue6
dc.journal.titleJournal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering
dc.identifier.doi10.1061/JIDEDH.IRENG-10213
dc.journal.fristpage04024029-1
dc.journal.lastpage04024029-14
dc.page14
dc.treeJournal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering:;2024:;Volume ( 150 ):;issue: 006
dc.contenttypeFulltext


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record