Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T09:06:14.687Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The role of decoupling factor on sugarcane crop water use under tropical conditions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 January 2019

Daniel Silveira Pinto Nassif Open the ORCID record for Daniel Silveira Pinto Nassif [Opens in a new window] ,
Leandro Garcia da Costa Open the ORCID record for Leandro Garcia da Costa [Opens in a new window] ,
Murilo dos Santos Vianna Open the ORCID record for Murilo dos Santos Vianna [Opens in a new window] ,
Kassio dos Santos Carvalho Open the ORCID record for Kassio dos Santos Carvalho [Opens in a new window]  and
Fabio Ricardo Marin Open the ORCID record for Fabio Ricardo Marin [Opens in a new window]
Daniel Silveira Pinto Nassif*
Affiliation:
Federal University of São Carlos, Center of Natural Sciences, Buri SP, Brazil
Leandro Garcia da Costa
Affiliation:
University of São Paulo, ‘Luiz de Queiroz’ College of Agriculture, Piracicaba SP, Brazil
Murilo dos Santos Vianna
Affiliation:
University of São Paulo, ‘Luiz de Queiroz’ College of Agriculture, Piracicaba SP, Brazil
Kassio dos Santos Carvalho
Affiliation:
University of São Paulo, ‘Luiz de Queiroz’ College of Agriculture, Piracicaba SP, Brazil
Fabio Ricardo Marin
Affiliation:
University of São Paulo, ‘Luiz de Queiroz’ College of Agriculture, Piracicaba SP, Brazil
*
*Emails: [email protected], [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The expansion of sugarcane crop to regions with lower water supply in Brazil has increased the importance of correct estimation of crop water requirements. Currently, the irrigation management is generally done using the crop coefficient (Kc) based on the FAO 56 bulletin. Kc is used to determine the potential water demand of the crop for a given period of time and is considered constant for each crop stage. However, some recent studies have shown that Kc can be significantly variable under different evapotranspiration (ETo) rates. This paper aimed to analyse sugarcane water consumption at different scales: plant (sap flow measurements by energy balance method); canopy (Bowen ratio energy balance method); and plant–atmosphere coupling (infrared gas analyser) to reduce the uncertainties on the irrigation practices. Measurements were taken at two experimental sites, where a modern Brazilian cultivar CTC 12 was grown under drip irrigation and an old main Brazilian cultivar (RB867515) was grown under sprinkler irrigation by a central pivot. The mean crop evapotranspiration (ETc) values by the Bowen ratio energy balance method were 2.92 and 3.68 mm d−1 for RB867515 and CTC 12, respectively, resulting in a mean Kc of 0.99 at the full vegetative growth stage. Kc values were dependent on ETo and varied between 0.2 and 1.7 for both cultivars. This occurred in a crop coupled to the atmosphere (Ω = 0.37) and was the same found in other coupled crops such as coffee and citrus. In conclusion, the sugarcane Kc for southeast Brazil presented temporal variability due to coupling conditions according to reference evapotranspiration, and this should be considered in irrigation management.

Keywords

IrrigationWater use efficiencyVariable crop coefficient
Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 55 , Issue 6 , December 2019 , pp. 913 - 923
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allen, R.G., Pereira, L.S., Howell, T.A. and Jensen, M.E. (2011). Evapotranspiration information reporting: II. Recommended documentation. Agricultural Water Management 98, 921–929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, R.G., Pereira, L.S., Raes, D. and Smith, M. (1998). Irrigation and Drainage. Rome: FAO, Irrigation and Drainage Paper 56: 22p.Google Scholar
Angelocci, L.R., Marin, F.R., Oliveira, R.F. and Righi, E.Z. (2004). Transpiration, leaf conductance, and atmospheric water demand relationship in an irrigated acid lime orchard. Brazilian Journal of Plant Physiology 16, 53–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boehringer, D., Zolnier, S., Ribeiro, A. and Steidle Neto, A.J. (2013). Sugarcane sap flow determination by energy balance method. Agricultural Engineering 33, 237–248. (abstract in English).Google Scholar
Cabral, O.M., Rocha, H.R., Gash, J.H., Ligo, M.A.V., Tatsch, J.D., Freitas, H.C. and Brasilio, E. (2012). Water use in a sugarcane plantation. Global Chance Biology Bioenergy 4, 555–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chabot, R., Bouarfa, S., Zimmer, D., Chaumont, C. and Moreau, S. (2005). Evaluation of the sap flow determined with a heat balance method to measure. Agricultural Water Management 75, 10–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eksteen, A., Singels, A. and Ngxaliwe, S. (2014). Water relations of two contrasting sugarcane genotypes. Field Crops Research 168, 86–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inman-Bamber, N.G. and McGlinchey, M.G. (2003). Crop coefficients and water-use estimates for sugarcane based on long-term Bowen ratio energy balance measurements. Field Crops Research 83, 125–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inman-Bamber, N.G. and Smith, D.M. (2005). Water relations in sugarcane response to water deficits. Field Crops Research 92, 185–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarvis, P.G. (1985). Coupling of transpiration to the atmosphere in horticultural crops: The omega factor. Acta Horticulturae 171, 187–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarvis, P.G. and McNaughton, K.G. (1986). Stomatal control of transpiration: Scaling up from leaf to field. Advances in Ecological Research 15, 1–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Machado, R.S., Ribeiro, R.V., Marchiori, P.E.R., Machado, D.F.S.P., Machado, E.C. and Landell, M.G.A. (2009). Biometric and physiological responses to water deficit in sugarcane at different phenological stages. Brazilian Journal of Agricultural Research 44, 1575–1582. (abstract in English).Google Scholar
Marin, F.R. and Angelocci, L.R. (2011). Irrigation requirements and transpiration coupling to the atmosphere of a citrus orchard in Southern Brazil. Agricultural Water Management 98, 1091–1096.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marin, F.R., Angelocci, L.R., Coelho Filho, M.A. and Villa Nova, N.A. (2001). Construction and evaluation of an aspirated thermocouple psychrometer. Scientia Agricola 58, 839–844. (abstract in English).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marin, F.R., Angelocci, L.R., Righi, E.Z. and Sentelhas, P.C. (2005). Evapotranspiration and irrigation requirements of a coffee plantation in Southern Brazil. Experimental Agriculture 41, 187–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marin, F.R., Ribeiro, R.V., Angelocci, L.R. and Righi, E.Z. (2008). Sap flow by heat balance method: Theoretical basis, data quality and practical aspects. Bragantia 67, 1–12. (abstract in English).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marin, F.R., Thornburn, P.J., Nassif, D.S.P. and Costa, L.G. (2015). Sugarcane model intercomparison: Structural differences and uncertainties under current and potential future climates. Environmental Modelling & Software 72, 372–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marin, F.R., Angelocci, L.R., Nassif, D.S.P., Costa, L.G., Vianna, M.S. and Carvalho, K.S. (2016). Crop coefficient changes with reference evapotranspiration for highly canopy-atmosphere coupled crops. Agricultural Water Management 163, 139–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNaughton, K.G. and Jarvis, P.G. (1991). Effects of spatial scale on stomatal control of transpiration. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 54, 279–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nassif, D.S.P., Marin, F.R. and Costa, L.G. (2014). Evapotranspiration and transpiration coupling to the atmosphere of sugarcane in Southern Brazil: Scaling up from leaf to field. Sugar Tech 16, 250–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olivier, F.C. and Singels, A. (2012). The effect of crop residue layers on evapotranspiration, growth and yield of irrigated sugarcane. Water South Africa 38, 77–86.Google Scholar
Pereira, A.R. (2004). The Priestley-Taylor parameter and the decoupling factor for estimating reference evapotranspiration. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 125, 305–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perez, P.J., Castellvi, F., Ibañez, M. and Rosell, J.I. (1999). Assessment of reliability of Bowen ratio method for partitioning fluxes. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 97, 141–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, J., Nayamuth, R.A., Batchelor, C.H. and Soopramanien, G.C. (1990). Plant-water relations of sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.) under a range of irrigated treatments. Agricultural Water Management 17, 95–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sakuratani, T. (1981). A heat balance method for measuring water sap flow in the stem of intact plant. Journal of Agricultural Meteorology 39, 9–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sakuratani, T. and Abe, J. (1985). A heat balance method for measuring water sap flow in the stem of intact plants and its application to sugarcane plants. Japan Agriculture Research Quarterly 19, 92–97.Google Scholar
Silva, T.G.F., Moura, M.S.B., Zolnier, S., Soares, J.M., Vieira, V.J.S. and Júnior, W.G.F. (2012). Water requirement and crop coefficient of irrigated sugarcane in a semi-arid region. Brazilian Journal of Environmental and Agricultural Engineering 16, 64–71. (abstract in English).Google Scholar
Smith, D.M., Inman-Bamber, N.G. and Thorburn, P.J. (2005). Growth and function of the sugarcane root system. Field Crops Research 92, 169–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steduto, P. and Hsiao, T.C. (1998). Maize canopies under two soil water regimes: II. Variation in coupling with the atmosphere and the role of leaf area index. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 89, 201–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vianna, M.D.S. and Sentelhas, P. (2015). C. Performance of CSM-CANEGRO under operational conditions and its use for determining the saving irrigation impact in sugarcane. Sugar Tech 18, 75–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeggaf, A.T., Takeuchi, S., Dehghanisanij, H., Anyyoji, H. and Yano, T. (2008). A Bowen ratio technique for partitioning energy fluxes between maize transpiration and soil surface evaporation. Agronomy Journal 100, 988–996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar