Irrigation Science

, Volume 29, Issue 1, pp 27–43 | Cite as

Water use, crop coefficients, and irrigation management criteria for camelina production in arid regions

  • D. J. HunsakerEmail author
  • A. N. French
  • T. R. Clarke
  • D. M. El-Shikha
Original Paper


Camelina sativa (L.) Crantz is an oilseed crop touted as being suitable for production in the arid southwestern USA. However, because any significant development of the crop has been limited to cooler, rain-fed climate-areas, information and guidance for managing irrigated-camelina are lacking. This study measured the crop water use of a November-through-April camelina crop in Arizona using frequent measurements of soil water contents. The crop was grown under surface irrigation using five treatment levels of soil water depletion. The seed yields of treatments averaged 1,142 kg ha−1 (8.0% seed moisture) and were generally comparable with camelina yields reported in other parts of the USA. Varying total irrigation water amounts to treatments (295–330 mm) did not significantly affect yield, whereas total crop evapotranspiration (ETc) was increased for the most frequently irrigated treatment. However, total ETc for the camelina treatments (332–371 mm) was markedly less than that typically needed by grain and vegetable crops (600–655 mm), which are commonly grown during the same timeframe in Arizona. The camelina water-use data were used to develop crop coefficients based on days past planting, growing degree days, and canopy spectral reflectance. The crop coefficient curves, along with information presented on camelina soil water depletion and root zone water extraction characteristics will provide camelina growers in arid regions with practical tools for managing irrigations.


Normalize Difference Vegetation Index Soil Water Content Irrigation Treatment Crop Coefficient Crop Height 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



The authors sincerely thank the dedicated technical support provided by Suzette Maneely, Don Powers, and Bill Luckett. This work also would not have been possible without the support of the University of Arizona, Maricopa Agricultural Center staff, particularly Bob Roth, Greg Main, and Clint Jones.


  1. Allen RG, Pereira LS, Raes D, and Smith M (1998) Crop evapotranspiration: guidelines for computing crop water requirements. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 56. FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
  2. Bausch WC, Neale CMU (1989) Spectral inputs improve corn crop coefficients and irrigation scheduling. Trans ASAE 32(6):1901–1908Google Scholar
  3. Brown PW (1989) Accessing the Arizona Meteorological Network (AZMET) by computer. Extension Report No. 8733. University of Arizona, TucsonGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown PW (1991) Normal values of heat unit accumulation for southern Arizona. Extension Report No. 190041. University of Arizona, TucsonGoogle Scholar
  5. Browne LM, Conn KL, Ayer WA, Tewari JP (1991) The camelexins: new phytoalexins produced in the leaves of Camelina sativa (cruciferae). Tetrahedron 47(24):3909–3914CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Budin JT, Breene WM, Putnam DH (1995) Some compositional properties of camelina (Camelina sativa L. Crantz) seeds and oils. J Am Chem Soc 72(3):309–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Doorenbos J, Pruitt WO (1977) Crop water requirements. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 24. FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
  8. Erie LJ, French OF, Bucks DA, Harris K (1982) Consumptive use of water by major crops in the southwestern United States. Conservation Research Report No. 29. USDA, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  9. Fox FA, Scherer T, Slack DC, Clark L (1992) Arizona irrigation schedule (AZSCHED, version 1.01): users manual. Cooperative Extension. University of Arizona, TucsonGoogle Scholar
  10. French AN, Hunsaker D, Thorp K, Clarke T (2009) Evapotranspiration over a camelina crop at Maricopa, Arizona. Ind Crops Prod 29(2–3):289–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gee GW, Bauder JW (1986) Particle-size analysis. In: Klute A (ed) Methods of soil analysis. Part I. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, pp 383–411Google Scholar
  12. Gonzalez-Dugo MP, Mateos L (2008) Spectral vegetation indices for benchmarking water productivity of irrigated cotton and sugarbeet crops. Agric Water Manage 95(1):48–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Howell TA, Evett SR, Tolk JA, Schneider AD (2004) Evapotranspiration of full-, deficit-irrigated, and dryland cotton on the Northern Texas High Plains. J Irrig Drain Eng 130(4):277–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hunsaker DJ, Pinter PJ Jr, Kimball BA (2005) Wheat basal crop coefficients determined by normalized difference vegetation index. Irrig Sci 24(1):1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hunsaker DJ, Fitzgerald GJ, French AN, Clarke TR, Ottman MJ, Pinter PJ Jr (2007) Wheat irrigation management using multispectral crop coefficients. I. Crop evapotranspiration prediction. Trans ASABE 50(6):2017–2033Google Scholar
  16. Hurtaud C, Peyraud JL (2007) Effects of feeding camelina (seeds or meal) on milk fatty acid composition and butter spreadability. J Dairy Sci 90:5134–5145CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Jensen ME, Burman RD, Allen RG (1990) Evapotranspiration and irrigation requirements. ASCE Manuals and Reports on Eng Practices, No. 70. ASCE, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Lovett JV, Duffield AM (1981) Allelochemicals of Camelina sativa. J Appl Ecol 18:283–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Martin DL, Gilley JR (1993) Irrigation water requirements. Part 623, national engineering handbook, chap 2. USDA-SCS, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  20. McVay KA, Lamb PF (2008) Camelina production in Montana. Field Crops Extension Report No. D-16. Montana State University, BozemanGoogle Scholar
  21. Neter J, Wasserman W, Kutner MH (1985) Applied linear statistical models. RD Irwin, Inc., HomewoodGoogle Scholar
  22. Nielsen EL, Pavlista A, Margeim J, Hergert G, Isbell T, Khu D (2008) Camelina sativa growth with limited irrigation (abstract). In: 2008 Joint Annul Meeting of the ASA-SSSA-CSSA. 5–9 October 2008, Houston, Am Soc Agron, Madison, Abstract No. 543-3Google Scholar
  23. Pilgeram AL, Sands DC, Boss D, Dale N, Wichman D, Lamb P, Lu C, Barrows R, Kirkpatrick M, Thompson B, Johnson DL (2007) Camelina sativa, a Montana omega-3 fatty acid and fuel crop. In: Janick J, Whipkey A (eds) Issues in new crops and new uses. ASHS Press, Alexandria, pp 129–131Google Scholar
  24. Post DF, Mack C, Camp PD, Sulliman AS (1988) Mapping and characterization of the soils on the University of Arizona, Maricopa Agricultural Center. In: Proceedings of hydrology and water resources in Arizona and the Southwest. University of Arizona, Tucson, pp 49–60Google Scholar
  25. Putnam D, Budin J, Field L, Breene W (1993) Camelina: a promising low-input oilseed. In: Janick J, Simon JE (eds) New crops. Wiley, New York, pp 314–322Google Scholar
  26. Sammis TW, Mapel CL, Lugg DG, Lansford RR, McGucin JT (1985) Evapotranspiration crop coefficients predicted using growing-degree-days. Trans ASAE 28(3):773–780Google Scholar
  27. Slack DC, Martin EC, Sheta AE, Fox F Jr, Clark LJ, Ashley RO (1996) Crop coefficients normalized for climatic variability with growing-degree days. In: Camp CR, Sadler EJ, Yoder RE (eds) Proceedings of international conference on evapotranspiration and irrigation scheduling. 3–6 November 1996, San Antonio. ASAE, St JosephGoogle Scholar
  28. Vollmann J, Moritz T, Kargl C, Baumgartner S, Wagentristl H (2007) Agronomic evaluation of camelina genotypes selected for seed quality characteristics. Ind Crops Prod 26(3):270–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Zubr J (1997) Oil-seed crop: Camelina sativa. Ind Crops Prod 6(2):113–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Zubr J (2003) Qualitative variation of Camelina sativa seed from different locations. Ind Crops Prod 17(3):161–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© US Government 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. J. Hunsaker
    • 1
    Email author
  • A. N. French
    • 1
  • T. R. Clarke
    • 1
  • D. M. El-Shikha
    • 2
  1. 1.Arid Land Agricultural Research CenterUSDA-ARSMaricopaUSA
  2. 2.Maricopa Agricultural CenterUniversity of ArizonaMaricopaUSA

Personalised recommendations