Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 3 – uploaded by Maria Dolores Fernández

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
LSD Least significant difference (P <0.05); NS No significant differences (P< 0.05) “Values within a column followed by different letter are significantly different (P < 0.05) Table 3 Total irrigation water applied, fresh weight of total and marketable fruits, vegetative, generative and shoot biomass and harve: index (HI) of tomato and green bean crops irrigated using the values of ET, and ET,, respectively

Table 3 LSD Least significant difference (P <0.05); NS No significant differences (P< 0.05) “Values within a column followed by different letter are significantly different (P < 0.05) Table 3 Total irrigation water applied, fresh weight of total and marketable fruits, vegetative, generative and shoot biomass and harve: index (HI) of tomato and green bean crops irrigated using the values of ET, and ET,, respectively

Related Figures (7)

Table 1 Crop, variety, date of sowing (S) or transplanting (7) and end of the cycle, and plant density of the greenhouse experiments carried out at EL Ejido, Almeria
Table 1 Crop, variety, date of sowing (S) or transplanting (7) and end of the cycle, and plant density of the greenhouse experiments carried out at EL Ejido, Almeria
Table 2 Maximum cumulative soil-water deficits (mm) occurred during each of the 15 consecutive cycles (1988-2002) for the mait greenhouse crops on the Almeria coast
Table 2 Maximum cumulative soil-water deficits (mm) occurred during each of the 15 consecutive cycles (1988-2002) for the mait greenhouse crops on the Almeria coast
S: Spring; A: Autumn; W: Winter
S: Spring; A: Autumn; W: Winter
melon crops, but in these experiments the amount of water applied at each irrigation event to the crops irri- gated using the historical values of ET was chosen within the calculated ET, confidence interval
melon crops, but in these experiments the amount of water applied at each irrigation event to the crops irri- gated using the historical values of ET was chosen within the calculated ET, confidence interval
The potential use of ET), data for irrigation sched- uling of greenhouse vegetable crops was first evaluated theoretically. Overall, the simulated seasonal ET; values for different crop cycles from 41 greenhouses monitored over Six consecutive cropping seasons were not signifi- cantly different from the simulated seasonal ET, values (Fig. 1). Therefore, the ET, appears to be a useful tool for estimating seasonal crop-water requirements of greenhouse vegetable crops. However, differences be- tween ET; and ET, values can occur throughout the crop cycle and induce transient soil-water deficits affecting crop productivity. In addition, the simulated values of MCSWD occurred in each of the 15 consecutive growth cycles were determined for the main greenhouse
The potential use of ET), data for irrigation sched- uling of greenhouse vegetable crops was first evaluated theoretically. Overall, the simulated seasonal ET; values for different crop cycles from 41 greenhouses monitored over Six consecutive cropping seasons were not signifi- cantly different from the simulated seasonal ET, values (Fig. 1). Therefore, the ET, appears to be a useful tool for estimating seasonal crop-water requirements of greenhouse vegetable crops. However, differences be- tween ET; and ET, values can occur throughout the crop cycle and induce transient soil-water deficits affecting crop productivity. In addition, the simulated values of MCSWD occurred in each of the 15 consecutive growth cycles were determined for the main greenhouse
LSD Least significant difference (P<0.05); NS No significant differences (P< 0.05) Table 5 Water-use efficiency (g 1~') based on shoot biomass (WUE,) and total fresh fruit weight (WUE, of green bean, sweet pepper and melon crops irrigated using the values of ET; and ET,, respectively
LSD Least significant difference (P<0.05); NS No significant differences (P< 0.05) Table 5 Water-use efficiency (g 1~') based on shoot biomass (WUE,) and total fresh fruit weight (WUE, of green bean, sweet pepper and melon crops irrigated using the values of ET; and ET,, respectively
LSD Least significant difference (P <0.05); NS No significant differences (P< 0.05) “Values within a column followed by different letter are significantly different (P < 0.05) Table 4 Total irrigation water applied, fresh weight of total and marketable fruits; vegetative, generative and total shoot biomass; and crop-harvest index (HI, g g_') of sweet pepper, zucchini and melon crops, each irrigated using the values of ET, and ET,, respectively
LSD Least significant difference (P <0.05); NS No significant differences (P< 0.05) “Values within a column followed by different letter are significantly different (P < 0.05) Table 4 Total irrigation water applied, fresh weight of total and marketable fruits; vegetative, generative and total shoot biomass; and crop-harvest index (HI, g g_') of sweet pepper, zucchini and melon crops, each irrigated using the values of ET, and ET,, respectively
Related topics:
Irrigation water use efficiencyIrrigation ManagementIrrigation SchedulingSoil Water Balance
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved