Skip to main content
Log in

Accounting for slow drainage and hysteresis in irrigation scheduling

  • Published:
Irrigation Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

Soils continue to drain for several days following irrigation. Water budgeting predictions can be improved by accounting for this, provided hysteresis is recognized in the “field capacity” condition. Uncertainty in this condition was evident in experiments comparing predicted soil water depletions with neutron probe measurements. Comparisons were made for potato, lettuce and calabrese crops, irrigated by hose-reel machine. Best agreement between measurements and predictions was obtained when excess water storage above a lower field capacity condition was allowed for; corresponding to minimum root mean square errors of 3.2 mm–6.2 mm. These were comparable to the practical limits of uncertainty associated with field depletion measurements.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Arya LM, Farrell DA, Blake GR (1975) A field study of soil water depletion patterns in presence of growing soybean roots: Determination of hydraulic properties of the soil. Soil Sci Soc Am Proc 39:424

    Google Scholar 

  • Baier W, Robertson GW (1966) A new versatile soil moisture budget. Can J Plant Sci 46:299

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell JP (1976) Neutron probe practice. Institute of Hydrology Report No 19. Wallingford

  • Bibby JS, Douglas HA, Thomasson AJ, Robertson JS (1982) Land capability classification for agriculture. Soil Survey of Scotland, Macaulay Institute, Aberdeen

    Google Scholar 

  • Brock TD (1981) Calculating solar radiation for ecological studies. Ecol Modelling 14:1

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassel DK (1974) In-situ unsaturated soil hydraulic conductivity for selected North Dakota soils. Bulletin 494, Agric Exp Stn, North Dakota State University, Fargo

    Google Scholar 

  • Doorenbos J, Pruitt WO (1977) Crop water requirements. FAO Irrig Drain Paper No 24, Rome

  • Francis PE, Pigeon JD (1982) A model for estimating soil moisture deficits under cereals in Britain. J Agric Sci 98:651

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner CKM, Field M (1983) An evaluation of the success of MORECS in estimating soil moisture deficits. Agric Meteorol 29:269

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall DGM, Reeve MJ, Thomasson AJ, Wright VF (1977) Water retention, porosity and density of field soils. Soil survey technical monograph 9, Harpenden

  • Harrington GJ, Heermann DF (1981) State of the art irrigation scheduling computer program. Proc ASAE Irrigation Scheduling Conference, St. Joseph, Michigan

  • Jensen ME, Wright JL, Pratt BJ (1971) Estimating soil moisture depletion from climate, crop and soil data. Trans ASAE 14:954

    Google Scholar 

  • Mason WK, Smith RCG (1981) Irrigation for crops in a sub-humid environment. III. An irrigation scheduling model for predicting soybean water use and crop yield. Irrig Sci 2:89

    Google Scholar 

  • Parkes ME (1978) Physically and conceptually-based models of soil water changes in freely drained field soils. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  • Parkes ME, Waters PA (1980) Comparison of measured and estimated unsaturated hydraulic conductivity. Water Resour Res 16:749

    Google Scholar 

  • Parkes ME (1987) The irrigation scheduling program user guide. SCAE Departmental Note 2, Midlothian

  • Peck AJ (1983) Field variability of soil physical properties. In: Hillel D (ed) Advances in Irrigation, vol 2. Academic Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Penman HL (1963) Vegetation and Hydrology. Commonwealth Bureau of Soils Technical Comm No 53, Harpenden

  • Peterson RG, Calvin LD (1965) Sampling. In: Black CA, Evans DD, White JL, Ensminger LE, Clark FE (eds) Methods of Soil Analysis, Am Soc Agron, Madison, Wisconsin

    Google Scholar 

  • Rolston DE, Singh S, Dakshinamurti A (1976) Evaluation of field methods for measuring or predicting soil water properties. J Indian Soc Soil Sci 24:101

    Google Scholar 

  • Schouten H (1985) Description of computer programme on irrigation scheduling. Land and Water Development Division, FAO, Rome

    Google Scholar 

  • Thom AS, Oliver HR (1977) On Penman's equation for estimating regional evaporation. Quart J R Meteorol Soc 103:345

    Google Scholar 

  • Vauclin M, Haverkamp R, Vachaud G (1984) Error analysis in soil water estimation. 2. Spatial standpoint. Soil Sci 39:141

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson KK, Reginato RJ, Jackson RD (1975) Soil water hysteresis in a field soil. Soil Sci Soc Am J 39:242

    Google Scholar 

  • Warrick AW, Mullen GJ, Nielsen DR (1977) Predictions of the soil water flux based on field-measured soil water properties. Soil Sci Soc J 41:14

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams J, Sinclair DF (1981) Accuracy, bias and precision. In: Greacen EL (ed) Soil water assessment by the neutron method. Division of Soils, CSIRO, Adelaide

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Parkes, M.E., Naysmith, D.B. & McDowall, M.A. Accounting for slow drainage and hysteresis in irrigation scheduling. Irrig Sci 10, 127–140 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00265689

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00265689

Keywords

Navigation