Full TGIF Record # 252040
Item 1 of 1
Web URL(s):https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11252-014-0361-4
    Last checked: 10/06/2017
    Access conditions: Item is within a limited-access website
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs11252-014-0361-4.pdf
    Last checked: 10/06/2017
    Requires: PDF Reader
    Access conditions: Item is within a limited-access website
Publication Type:
i
Refereed
Author(s):Bijoor, Neeta S.; Pataki, Diane E.; Haver, Darren; Famiglietti, James S.
Author Affiliation:Bijoor and Famiglietti: UC Center for Hydrologic Modeling and Department of Earth System Science, University of California, Irvine, CA; Pataki: Department of Biology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City UT; Haver: University of California Cooperative Extension, Costa Mesa, CA
Title:A comparative study of the water budgets of lawns under three management scenarios
Source:Urban Ecosystems. Vol. 17, No. 4, December 2014, p. 1095-1117.
Publishing Information:Andover, Hants, United Kingdom: Chapman and Hall
# of Pages:23
Keywords:TIC Keywords: Comparisons; Evapotranspiration rate; Irrigation efficiency; Irrigation practices; Irrigation requirements; Soil moisture; Urban habitat; Water budget; Water management
Abstract/Contents:"The fate of irrigation in urban ecosystems is highly uncertain, due to uncertainties in urban ecohydrology. We compared irrigation rates, soil moisture, evapotranspiration (ET), stomatal conductance, and water budgets of landscape ecosystems managed with different turfgrass species and irrigation technologies. The 'Typical' landscape had a cool-season fescue and was irrigated by an automatic timer. The 'Alternative1' landscape had a warm-season paspalum and a 'smart' soil moisture sensor-based irrigation system. The 'Alternative2' landscape had a cool-season native sedge and a 'smart' weather station-based drip irrigation system. ET was measured with a portable closed chamber and modeled using a Penman-Monteith approach, and the two methods agreed well. The water applied to the Alternative1 was 54 % less than the water applied to the Typical landscape, and the water applied to the Alternative2 was 24 % less. Soil moisture was similar in the Typical and Alternative2, while Alternative1 was drier in spring. The stomatal conductance of sedge was lower than the other two species, but its ET was not lower due to higher leaf area. Irrigation efficiencies (ET/applied irrigation) were 57 - 58 %, 86 - 97 %, and 78 - 80 % for the Typical, Alternative1, and Alternative2 landscapes, respectively. Runoff was less than 2 % in each landscape, and excess irrigation primarily drained below the root zone. Differences in irrigation efficiency between landscapes were due mainly to irrigation application, which varied more than species water use. Smart irrigation systems provided substantial water savings relative to a timer-based system, and prevented significant drainage losses. The utilization of smart sensors was more important than the choice of turfgrass species for irrigation efficiency."
Language:English
References:82
Note:Equations
Pictures, b/w
Tables
Graphs
ASA/CSSA/SSSA Citation (Crop Science-Like - may be incomplete):
Bijoor, N. S., D. E. Pataki, D. Haver, and J. S. Famiglietti. 2014. A comparative study of the water budgets of lawns under three management scenarios. Urban Ecosystems. 17(4):p. 1095-1117.
Fastlink to access this record outside TGIF: https://tic.msu.edu/tgif/flink?recno=252040
If there are problems with this record, send us feedback about record 252040.
Choices for finding the above item:
Web URL(s):
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11252-014-0361-4
    Last checked: 10/06/2017
    Access conditions: Item is within a limited-access website
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs11252-014-0361-4.pdf
    Last checked: 10/06/2017
    Requires: PDF Reader
    Access conditions: Item is within a limited-access website
Find Item @ MSU
MSU catalog number: b4896713
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)