Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Minimizing instrumentation requirement for estimating crop water stress index and transpiration of maize

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Irrigation Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Research was conducted in northern Colorado in 2011 to estimate the crop water stress index (CWSI) and actual transpiration (T a) of maize under a range of irrigation regimes. The main goal was to obtain these parameters with minimum instrumentation and measurements. The results confirmed that empirical baselines required for CWSI calculation are transferable within regions with similar climatic conditions, eliminating the need to develop them for each irrigation scheme. This means that maize CWSI can be determined using only two instruments: an infrared thermometer and an air temperature/relative humidity sensor. Reference evapotranspiration data obtained from a modified atmometer were similar to those estimated at a standard weather station, suggesting that maize T a can be calculated based on CWSI and by adding one additional instrument: a modified atmometer. Estimated CWSI during four hourly periods centered on solar noon was largest during the 2 h after solar noon. Hence, this time window is recommended for once-a-day data acquisition if the goal is to capture maximum stress level. Maize T a based on CWSI during the first hourly period (10:00–11:00) was closest to T a estimates from a widely used crop coefficient model. Thus, this time window is recommended if the goal is to monitor maize water use. Average CWSI over the 2 h after solar noon and during the study period (early August to late September, 2011) was 0.19, 0.57, and 0.20 for plots under full, low-frequency deficit, and high-frequency deficit irrigation regimes, respectively. During the same period (50 days), total maize T a based on the 10:00–11:00 CWSI was 218, 141, and 208 mm for the same treatments, respectively. These values were within 3 % of the results of the crop coefficient approach.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allen RG, Pereira LS, Raes D, Smith M (1998) FAO irrigation and drainage paper no. 56, crop evapotranspiration (Guidelines for computing crop water requirements), FAO Water Resources, Development and Management Service, Rome, Italy, pp 300

  • Allen RG, Wright JL, Pruitt WO, Pereira LS, Jensen ME (2007) Water requirements. In: Hoffman GJ, Evans RG, Jensen ME, Martin DL, Elliott RL (eds) Design and operation of farm irrigation systems, 2nd edn. American society of agricultural and biological engineers, St. Joseph, MI, pp 208–288

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Altenhofen J (1985) A modified atmometer for on-farm ET determination. Advances in evapotranspiration: proceedings of national conference on advances in evapotranspiration, American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, MI, USA, pp 177–184

  • ASCE-EWRI (2005) The ASCE standardized reference evapotranspiration equation. Task Committee on Standardization of Reference Evapotranspiration, Environment and Water Resources Institute of the ASCE

  • Bausch WC (1993) Soil background effects on reflectance-based crop coefficients for corn. Remote Sens Environ 46(2):213–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bausch WC, Trout T, Buchleiter G (2011) Evapotranspiration adjustments for deficit-irrigated corn using canopy temperature: a concept. Irrig Drain 60:682–693

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berrada A, Hooten TM, Cardon GE, Broner I (2001) Assessment of irrigation water management and demonstration of irrigation scheduling tools in the full service area of the Dolores project: 1996–2000, Part II: calibration of the watermark soil moisture sensor and ETgage atmometer. Technical report TR01-7. Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO

  • Broner I, Law RAP (1991) Evaluation of a modified atmometer for estimating reference ET. Irrig Sci 12:21–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CoAgMet (2011) Website accessed on Dec. 7, 2011. At: http://ccc.atmos.colostate.edu/~coagmet/

  • Colaizzi PD, Barnes EM, Clarke TR, Choi CY, Waller PM (2003a) Estimating soil moisture under low frequency surface irrigation using crop water stress index. J Irrig Drain Eng ASCE 129:27–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colaizzi PD, Barnes EM, Clarke TR, Choi CY, Waller PM, Haberland J, Kostrzewski M (2003b) Water stress detection under high frequency sprinkler irrigation with water deficit index. J Irrig Drain Eng ASCE 129:36–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ervin EH, Koski AJ (1997) A comparison of modified atmometer estimates of Turfgrass evapotranspiration with Kimberly-Penman alfalfa reference evapotranspiration. Int Turf Soc 8:663–670

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner BR, Nielsen DC, Shock CC (1992) Infrared thermometry and the crop water stress index. I. History, theory, and baselines. J Prod Agric 5(4):462–466

    Google Scholar 

  • Gávilan P, Castillo-Llanque F (2009) Estimating reference evapotranspiration with atmometers in a semiarid environment. Agric Water Manage 96:465–472

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gleason DJ, Andales AA, Bauder TA, Chávez JL (2013) Performance of atmometers in estimating reference evapotranspiration in a semi-arid environment. Agric Water Manage (in press)

  • Huete AR (1988) A soil-adjusted vegetation index (SAVI). Remote Sens Environ 25:295–309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Idso SB (1982) Non-water-stressed baselines: a key to measuring and interpreting plant water stress. Agric Meteorol 27:59–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Idso SB, Jackson RD, Pinter PJ Jr, Reginato RJ, Hatfield JL (1981) Normalizing the stress-degree-day parameter for environmental variability. Agric Meteorol 24(1):45–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Idso SB, Reginato RJ, Clawson KL, Anderson MG (1984) On the stability of non-water-stressed baselines. Agric Forest Meteorol 32:177–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Irmak S, Haman DZ, Bastug R (2000) Corn: determination of crop water stress index for irrigation timing and yield estimation of corn. Agron J 92:1221–1227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Irmak S, Dukes MD, Jacobs JM (2005) Using modified Bellani plate evapotranspiration gauges to estimate short canopy reference evapotranspiration. J Irrig Drain Eng ASCE 131(2):164–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson RD, Idso SB, Reginato RJ, Pinter PJ Jr (1981) Canopy temperature as a crop water stress indicator. Water Resour Res 17(4):1133–1138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Livingston BE (1935) Atmometers of porous porcelain and paper, their use in physiological ecology. Ecol 16(3):438–472

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahan JR, Young AW, Payton P (2012) Deficit irrigation in a production setting: canopy temperature as an adjunct to ET estimates. Irrig Sci 30:127–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen DC (1994) Non water-stressed baselines for sunflowers. Agric Water Manage 26:265–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Toole JC, Hatfield JL (1983) Effect of wind on the crop water stress index derived by infrared thermometry. Agron J 75:811–817

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steele DD, Stegman EC, Gregor BL (1994) Field comparison of irrigation scheduling methods for corn. Trans ASAE 37(4):1197–1203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stegman EC (1986) Efficient irrigation timing methods for corn production. Trans ASAE 29(1):203–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taghvaeian S, Chávez JL, Hansen NC (2012) Infrared thermometry to estimate crop water stress index and water use of irrigated maize in Northeastern Colorado. Remote Sens 4(11):3619–3637

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taghvaeian S, Chávez JL, Hattendorf MJ, Crookston MA (2013) Optical and thermal remote sensing of turfgrass quality, water stress, and water use under different soil and irrigation treatments. Remote Sens 5(5):2327–2347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • USDA-NASS (2012) Crop production 2011 summary. United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, January 2012. ISSN: 1057-7823, pp 95

Download references

Acknowledgments

The funding for this research experiment was provided by the Regenesis Management Group, LLC.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA

    Saleh Taghvaeian & José L. Chávez

  2. Water Management Research Unit, USDA-Agricultural Research Service, Fort Collins, CO, USA

    Walter C. Bausch, Kendall C. DeJonge & Thomas J. Trout

Authors
  1. Saleh Taghvaeian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. José L. Chávez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Walter C. Bausch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kendall C. DeJonge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Thomas J. Trout
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Saleh Taghvaeian.

Additional information

Communicated by E. Fereres.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Taghvaeian, S., Chávez, J.L., Bausch, W.C. et al. Minimizing instrumentation requirement for estimating crop water stress index and transpiration of maize. Irrig Sci 32, 53–65 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00271-013-0415-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00271-013-0415-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation