| |
| Web URL(s): | http://www.paceturf.org/member/Documents/0409.pdf
Last checked: 10/18/2005
Requires: PDF Reader
Access conditions: Item is within a limited-access website |
|---|
| Publication Type:
| Report |
|---|
| Author(s): | Gelernter, Wendy;
Stowell, Larry J. |
|---|
| Author Affiliation: | PACE Turfgrass Research Institute, San Diego, California |
|---|
| Title: | Irrigation management: Assumptions vs. reality |
|---|
| Source: | PACE Insights. Vol. 10, No. 9, 2004, p. 1-4. |
|---|
| Publishing Information: | San Diego, California: PACE Turfgrass Institute |
|---|
| # of Pages: | 4 |
|---|
| Keywords: | TIC Keywords: Irrigation; Water use; Evapotranspiration rate; Irrigation water; Soil testing; Water testing; Soil moisture; Soil water relations; Drought stress; Irrigation systems; Precipitation rate; Penetrometers; Nitrogen; Nitrogen availability; Effluent water; Evapotranspiration
|
|---|
| Abstract/Contents: | Discusses common assumptions regarding irrigation management and the realities related to these assumptions. Mentions the effect of envirotranspiration (ETs) rates on irrigation demands. States that "similar ETs from one year to the next do not necessarily result in similar water use patterns...because although ET contributes to the amount of water used on a golf course, it is only one of the many possible factors that contribute to overall water demand." Also states that although ETs are "a good starting point for determination of your irrigation needs, complete reliance on ETs ignores the fact that there are many other factors involved in creating water demand." Mentions other sources to help determine water demand for a specific year. Discusses problems caused by irrigation systems that do not deliver the amount of water they are programmed to. States that "computerized irrigation systems cannot be trusted to deliver a specific amount of water nor can [they] be expected to deliver it uniformly. Without constant monitoring, problems will develop." Discusses techniques for monitoring irrigation from a computerized system, including using a cone penetrometer to "rapidly [evaluate] soil mosture content...[and the] use of catch-cans in problem spots to ensure that the correct amounts of water are being delivered." Emphasizes the importance of monitoring nitrogen levels in irrigation water to prevent turf damage. States that there should be "no more than 6 ppm plant available nitrogen" in water samples." Presents solutions to avoid reaching the 20 ppm plant available nitrogen threshold including monitoring soils for high nitrogen levels, stopping fertilizer application "until soil nitrogen levels fall below 20 ppm," "consider removal of clippings," and "consider a different water source" if the previous techniques "fail to decrease soil nitrogen levels below 20 ppm." |
|---|
| Language: | English |
|---|
| References: | 0 |
|---|
| See Also: | Other items relating to: Disasters - Drought |
|---|
| Note: | Pictures, color
Tables
Graphs |
|---|
| ASA/CSSA/SSSA Citation (Crop Science-Like - may be incomplete):
Gelernter, W., and L. J. Stowell. 2004. Irrigation management: Assumptions vs. reality. PACE Insights. 10(9):p. 1-4. |
| Fastlink to access this record outside TGIF: https://tic.msu.edu/tgif/flink?recno=105069 |
| If there are problems with this record, send us feedback about record 105069. |
| Choices for finding the above item: |
|---|
| Web URL(s):
http://www.paceturf.org/member/Documents/0409.pdf
Last checked: 10/18/2005
Requires: PDF Reader
Access conditions: Item is within a limited-access website |
| Find from within TIC:
Digitally in TIC by record number. |
| Request through your local library's inter-library loan service (bring or send a copy of this TGIF record) |
