Irrigation scheduling based on Crop Water Stress Index (CWSI) for cool and warm-season turf grass under subsurface-drip irrigation method

Yıl 2019, Cilt 24 Özel Sayı: 1st Int. Congress on Biosystems Engineering 2019, 24 - 40, 27.12.2019

Çayan Öncel Mladen Todorovıc Halim Orta

Öz

This study was conducted to determine irrigation scheduling based on the Crop Water Stress Index (CWSI) of cool (CS) and warm-season (WS) turf grass species under subsurface-drip irrigation method. The field experiment was carried out during the summer period of 2018 in the Agricultural Production and Research Centre (TURAM) of Silivri municipality, Istanbul,-Turkey (41°03ʹN; 28°00ʹE; 46 m a.s.l.). Specific objectives were to measure actual evapotranspiration (ETc) values for both turf grass species, to compare cool and warm season turf grass in the concept of ETc and their responses to different water levels, to determine CWSI values for both turf grass species under different irrigation scheduling and opportunity of using CWSI in irrigation timing, to compare ETc with reference to evapotranspiration (ETo) calculated with five different methods and to determine crop coefficient curve (kc) for experimental conditions, and to focus on the crop growing and irrigation management parameters under subsurface-drip irrigation method. Three irrigation strategies [I1:30%, I2:50%, and I3:70%) were tested in a split-plot randomized complete block design with three replications. These strategies corresponded, respectively, to 30%, 50% and 70% of total available soil moisture depletion at 0-30 cm of the effective root zone and returning soil moisture back to field capacity. The results indicated that colour, quality, fresh yield, dry matter yield, irrigation water use efficiency, water use efficiency, vegetation height and mowing were significantly different in terms of irrigation strategies for both species. The most appropriate irrigation strategies were I2:50% for CS and I3:70% for WS turf grass which corresponded to a CWSI of 0.47 and 0.45, respectively. The amount of applied irrigation water in WS turf grass was 53% less than in CS turf grass. Actual evapotranspiration was 26% lower for WS than for CS turf grass. The most suitable reference evapotranspiration (ETo) methods were Jensen-Haise (JH) and Penman-FAO modification (P-FAO) for both species, a crop coefficient (kc) curve was prepared based on those methodologies.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Landscape irrigation, irrigation scheduling, evapotranspiration, canopy temperature, water use efficiency, , crop coefficient

Kaynakça

• Allen, R. G., Pereira, L. S., Raes, D., & Smith, M. (2006). FAO56 Crop Evapotranspiration. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper. Rome: FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper.
• Avcıoglu, R. (1997). Çim Tekniği,Yeşil Alanların Ekimi, Dikimi ve Bakımı. Bornova/İzmir: Ege Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Tarla bitkileri Bölümü.
• Ayanoglu, H. (2018). Scheduling of cool and warm season turfgrass irrigated with sub-drip irrigation method. Namık Kemal University.
• Aydinsakir, K., Erdal, S., Buyuktas, D., Bastug, R., & Toker, R. (2013). The influence of regular deficit irrigation applications on water use , yield , and quality components of two corn ( Zea mays L .) genotypes. Agricultural Water Management, 128, 65–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2013.06.013
• Bezirgan, S. (2018). Irrigation Scheduling Of Cool And Warm Season Turfgrass Irrigated With Sprinkler Irrigation Method. Namık Kemal University.
• Bijanzadeh, E., Naderi, R., & Emam, Y. (2013). Determination of Crop Water Stress Index for Irrigation Scheduling of Turfgrass ( Cynodon dactylon L . Pers .) under Drought Conditions. Journal of Plant Physiology and Breeding, 3(2), 13–22.
• Blake, G. R. (1965). Bulk Density. In Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 1. Physical and Mineralogical Properties, Including Statistics of Measurement and Sampling (pp. 374–390). Minnesota. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronmonogr9.1.c30
• Brede, A. D., & Duich, J. M. (1984). Establishment Characteristics of Kentucky Bluegrass-Perennial Ryegrass Turf Mixtures as Affected by Seeding Rate and Ratio1. Agronomy Journal, 76(6), 875. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj1984.00021962007600060004x
• Emekli, Y., Bastug, R., Buyuktas, D., & Emekli, N. Y. (2007). Evaluation of a crop water stress index for irrigation scheduling of bermudagrass. Agricultural Water Management, 90(3), 205–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2007.03.008
• Heerman, D. F. (1985). ET in irrigation management. In Proceedings of the National Conference on Advances in Evapotranspiration (pp. 323–334). ASAE Publication.
• Idso, S. B., Jackson, R. D., Pinter Jr., P. J., Reginato, R. J., & Hatfield, J. L. (1981). Normalizing the stress degree day for environmental variability. Agric. Meteorol, 24, 45–55.
• Jalali-Farahani, H. R., Slack, D. C., Kopec, D. M., Matthias, A. D., & Brown, P. W. (1994). Evaluation of Resistances for Bermudagrass Turf Crop Water Stress Index Models. Agronomy Journal, 86(3), 574. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj1994.00021962008600030022x
• Kopec, D. M., & Umeda, K. (2015). Mowing Turfgrasses in the Desert (No. az1681-2015). Arizona. Retrieved from https://extension.arizona.edu/pubs/mowing-turfgrasses-desert
• ORTA, A. H. (1994). The effect of different irrigation methods on pepper (Capsicum annuum L.) Yield. Ankara University.
• Yurtsever, N. (1984). Deneysel İstatistik Metotları. NO:56, Ankara: KÖY HİZMETLERİ GENEL MÜDÜRLÜĞÜ YAYINLARI.
• Zhang, H., & Owesis, T. (1999). Water - yield relations and optimal irrigation scheduling o wheat in the Mediterranean region. Agric. Water Manag., 38(395–311).