Irrigation Science

, Volume 31, Issue 2, pp 169–178 | Cite as

Determining FAO-56 crop coefficients for peanut under different water stress levels

  • Ayman A. Suleiman
  • Cecilia M. Tojo Soler
  • Gerrit Hoogenboom
Original Paper
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Accurate estimates of peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) water requirements are needed for water conservation. The objective of this study was to evaluate the FAO-56 crop coefficients for peanut grown under various levels of water stress in a humid climate. Two experiments were conducted in three automated rainout shelters located at the University of Georgia Griffin Campus in Griffin, Georgia, USA in 2006 and 2007. Irrigation was applied when the modeled soil water content in the effective root zone dropped below a specific threshold of the available water content (AWC). The irrigation treatments corresponded to irrigation thresholds (IT) of 40, 60 and 90% of AWC. The soil water balance was used to compute observed evapotranspiration (ET cm) from measured soil water content at six different soil depths. The length of the four developmental stages was different than the values listed in FAO-56. The 2-year average absolute relative error of K cini was 8, 19 and 6% for 40, 60 and 90% IT, respectively. For the 90% IT, the FAO-56 K cmid and K cend were almost identical to the 2-year averages of the observed K cmid and K cend, respectively. The findings of this study confirmed that the FAO-56 procedure was reasonably accurate for estimating peanut ET under water stress in a humid climate.

Keywords

Soil Water Content Irrigation Treatment Crop Coefficient Rainout Shelter Water Stress Level 
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was partially supported by State and Federal funds allocated to Georgia Agricultural Experiment Stations Hatch project GEO01654 and a special grant from the US Department of Agriculture-National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA).

References

  1. Abou Kheira AA (2009) Macromanagement of deficit-irrigated peanut with sprinkler irrigation. Agric Water Manag 96:1409–1420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen RG, Pereira LA, Raes D, Smith M (1998) Crop evapotranspiration. FAO irrigation and drainage paper 56. FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
  3. Allen RG, Walter IA, Elliot R, Howell T, Itenfisu D, Jensen M (2005) The ASCE standardized reference evapotranspiration equation. ASCE-EWRI task committee final report. http://www.kimberly.uidaho.edu/water/asceewri/; last verified on 10 May 2011
  4. Bandyopadhyay PK, Mallick S, Rana SK (2005) Water balance and crop coefficients of summer-grown peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) in a humid tropical region of India. Irrig Sci 23(4):161–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Banterng P, Patanothai A, Pannangpetch K, Jogloy S, Hoogenboom G (2003) Seasonal variation in the dynamic growth and development traits of peanut lines. J Agric Sci 141:51–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beasley J (2003) 2003 Peanut crop year in review. In: Brenneman TB, Butts CL (eds) 2003 Georgia peanut research-extension report. http://www.ars.usda.gov/sp2UserFiles/Place/66040000/Researchandextensionreports/2003GAReport.pdf; last verified on 1 Dec 2010
  7. Beasley JP (2006) Irrigation strategies. In: Garcia AGY, Guerra LC, Suleiman A (eds) 2006 Peanut update, the university of Georgia, cooperative extension. CAES, pp 6–7Google Scholar
  8. Black CR, Tang DY, Ong CK, Solon A, Simmonds LP (1985) Effects of soil-moisture stress on the water relations and water-use of groundnut stands. New Phytol 100(3):313–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boote KJ, Ketring DL (1990) Peanut. In: Stewart BA, Nielson DR (eds) Irrigation of agricultural crops. ASA-CSSA-SSSA, Madison, pp 675–717Google Scholar
  10. Farm and Ranch Irrigation Survey (2008) NASS USDA http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Online_Highlights/Farm_and_Ranch_Irrigation_Survey/fris08_1_27.pdf; last verified on 10 May 2011
  11. Garcia AYG, Guerra LC, Suleiman AA, Paz JO, Hoogenboom G (2007) Peanut water use under optimum conditions of growth and development: a simulation approach. In: Proceedings of the Georgia water resources conference, March 27–29, GeorgiaGoogle Scholar
  12. Garcia AGY, Guerra LC, Hoogenboom G (2008) Impact of generated solar radiation on simulated crop growth and yield. Ecol Model 210:312–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Grabow GL, Huffman RL, Evans RO, Jordan DL, Nuti RC (2006) Water distribution from a subsurface drip irrigation system and drip line spacing effect on cotton yield and water use efficiency in a coastal plain soil. Trans ASABE 49(6):1823–1835Google Scholar
  14. Haro RJ, Dardanelli JL, Otegui ME, Collino DJ (2008) Seed yield determination of peanut crops under water deficit: soil strength effects on pod set, the source–sink ratio and radiation use efficiency. Field Crop Res 109:24–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Harrison KA (2001) Agricultural irrigation trends in Georgia. In: Hatcher KJ (ed) Proceedings of the 2001 Georgia water resources conference. The University of Georgia, Athens, pp 114–117Google Scholar
  16. Hoogenboom G (2000) The Georgia automated environmental monitoring network 2000. In: Proceedings of the preprints 24th conference on agricultural and forest meteorology. American Meteorological Society, Boston, pp 24–25Google Scholar
  17. Hoogenboom G (2001) Weather monitoring for management of water resources. In: Proceedings of the Georgia water resources conference. Institute of Ecology, The University of Georgia, Athens, pp 778–781Google Scholar
  18. Hoogenboom G, Jones JW, Wilkens PW, Porter CH, Batchelor WD, Hunt LA, Boote KJ, Singh U, Uryaseva O, Bowen WT, Gijsman AJ, Du Toit AS, White JW, Tsuji GY (2004) Decision support system for agro technology transfer version 4.0. [CD-ROM]. University of Hawaii, HonoluluGoogle Scholar
  19. Howell TA, Evett SR, Tolk JA, Schneider AD (2004) Evapotranspiration of full-deficit irrigated, and dry land cotton on the northern Texas high plains. J Irrig Drain Eng 130(4):227–285Google Scholar
  20. Hunsaker DJ (1999) Basal crop coefficients and water use for early maturity cotton. Trans ASAE 42(4):927–936Google Scholar
  21. Ishag HM (1982) The influence of irrigation frequency on growth and yield of groundnuts (Arachis hypogaea L.) under arid conditions. J Agric Sci 99:305–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jones JW, Hoogenboom G, Porter CH, Boote KJ, Batchelor WD, Hunt LA, Wilkens PW, Singh U, Gijsman AJ, Ritchie JT (2003) The DSSAT cropping system model. Eur J Agron 18:235–265Google Scholar
  23. Jongrungklang N, Toomsan B, Vorasoot N, Jogloy S, Kesmala T, Patanothai A (2008) Identification of peanut genotypes with high water use efficiency under drought stress conditions from peanut germplasm of diverse origins. Asian J Plant Sci 7:628–638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kato T, Kamichika M (2006) Determination of a crop coefficient for evaporation in a sparse sorghum field. J Irrig Drain Eng 55:165–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Leong SK, Ong CK (1983) The influence of temperature and soil water deficit on the development and morphology of peanuts (Arachis hypogaea L.). J Exp Bot 34:1551–1561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mohan S, Arumugam N (1996) Comparison of methods for estimating REF-ET: discussion. J Irrig Drain Eng 122(6):361–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Patel MS, Golakiya BA (1988) Effect of water stress on yield attributes and yield of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Indian J Agric Sci 58:701–703Google Scholar
  28. Paz JO, Fraisse CW, Hatch LU, Garcia y Garcia A, Guerra LC, Uryasev O, Bellow JG, Jones JW, Hoogenboom G (2007) Development of an ENSO-based irrigation decision support tool for peanut production in the southeastern US. Comput Electron Agric 55(1):28–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Reddy TY, Reddy VR, Anbumozhi V (2003) Physiological responses of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) to drought stress and its amelioration: a critical review. Plant Growth Regul 41:75–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ritchie JT (1998) Soil water balance and plant water stress. In: Tsuji GY, Hoogenboom G, Thornton PK (ed) Understanding options for agricultural production. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 41–54. ISBN:0-7923-4833-8Google Scholar
  31. Ritchie JT, Gerakis A, Suleiman AA (1999) Simple model to estimate field-measured soil water limits. Trans ASABE 42(6):1609–1614Google Scholar
  32. Rowland DL, Sorensen RB, Butts CL, Faircloth WH (2006) Determination of maturity and degree day indices and their success in predicting peanut maturity. Peanut Sci 33:125–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sammis TW, Mapel CL, Lugg DG, Lansford RR, McGuckin JT (1985) Evapotranspiration crop coefficients predicted using growing degree-days. Trans ASAE 18(3):773–780Google Scholar
  34. Songsri P, Jogloy S, Holbrook CC, Kesmala T, Vorasoot N, Akkasaeng C, Patanothai A (2009) Association of root, specific leaf area and SPAD chlorophyll meter reading to water use efficiency of peanut under different available soil water. Agric Water Manag 96:790–798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Stirling CM, Black CR, Ong CK (1989) The response of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) to timing of irrigation: II. 14C partitioning and plant water status. J Exp Bot 40:1363–1373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Suleiman AA, Hoogenboom G (2007) Comparison of Priestley-Taylor and FAO-56 Penman-Monteith for daily reference evapotranspiration estimation in Georgia, USA. J Irrig Drain Eng 133(2):175–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Suleiman AA, Ritchie JT (2003) Modeling soil water redistribution under second stage evaporation. Soil Sci Soc Am J 67(2):377–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Suleiman AA, Tojo Soler CM, Hoogenboom G (2007) Evaluation of FAO-56 crop coefficient procedures for deficit irrigation management of cotton in a humid climate. Agric Water Manag 91:33–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tsuji GY, Uehara G, Balas S (eds) (1994) DSSAT version 3, vol. 2. International Benchmark Sites Network for Agrotechnology Transfer, University of Hawaii, HonoluluGoogle Scholar
  40. United States Department of Agriculture (2008) Crop production 2008 summary. January 2009. NASS. USDA. http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/CropProdSu//2000s/2009/CropProdSu-01-12-2009.pdf; last verified on 10 May 2011
  41. United States Department of Agriculture (2009) Statistical bulletin 2009. http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Georgia/Publications/Annual_Statistical_Bulletin/2009/Section5.pdf; last verified on 10 May 2011
  42. Willmott CJ (1982) Some comments on the evaluation of model performance. Bull Am Metro Soc 63(11):1309–1313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. World Meteorological Organization (1981) Guide to agricultural meteorological practices, 2nd edn. WMO 134. World Meteorological Organization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  44. Wright GC, Hubic KT, Farquhar GD (1991) Physiological analysis of peanut cultivar response to timing and duration of drought stress. Aust J Exp Agric 42(3):453–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ayman A. Suleiman
    • 1
    • 2
  • Cecilia M. Tojo Soler
    • 2
    • 3
  • Gerrit Hoogenboom
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Land, Water and Environment, Faculty of AgricultureUniversity of JordanAmmanJordan
  2. 2.Department of Biological and Agricultural EngineeringUniversity of GeorgiaGriffinUSA
  3. 3.AgWeatherNetWashington State UniversityProsserUSA

Personalised recommendations