Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T18:21:11.290Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Water Duty Experiments with Sugarcane on Two Soils in Natal

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 October 2008

G. D. Thompson  and
P. J. M. De Robillard
G. D. Thompson
Affiliation:
South African Sugar Association Experiment Station, Mount Edgecombe, Natal
P. J. M. De Robillard
Affiliation:
South African Sugar Association Experiment Station, Mount Edgecombe, Natal
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The irrigation water treatments in three experiments were based on a ‘water duty’ principle. One cosec of water was assumed to be available to irrigate 96, 211, 326 or 442 acres, representing minimum irrigation cycle times of 5, 11, 17 and 23 days respectively. Each experiment included a rainfed control treatment. The plots were watered as indicated by a soil moisture profit and loss account, but never more frequently than the minimum cycle time would allow. The results showed that maximum productivity could be achieved on a sand when I cosec of water was used to irrigate approximately 200 acres, but on clay maximum productivity was obtained with the largest water duty (442 ac/cusec). Net photosynthetic efficiency reached 3·9 per cent in the most heavily irrigated crops, and rainfall efficiency fell from about 85 per cent for rainfed conditions to about 50 per cent when the maximum amount of irrigation water was applied.

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 4 , Issue 4 , October 1968 , pp. 295 - 310
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1968

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

REFERENCES

Anon. (1965). Annual Report, 1964–65, Exp. Stn. of the S.A. Sugar Association, 43.Google Scholar
Burr, G. O., Hartt, C. E., Brodie, H. W., Tanimoto, T., Kortschak, H. P., Takahashi, D., Ashton, F. H. & Coleman, R. E. (1957). Ann. Rev. Plant Physiol. 8, 275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Robillard, P. J. M. & Stewart, M. J. (1966). Proc. Annual Congress S. Afr. Sugar Tech. Ass. 40, 283.Google Scholar
Pearson, C. H. O. (1965). Proc. Annual Congress S. Afr. Sugar Tech. Ass. 39, 187.Google Scholar
Thompson, G. D., Gosnell, J. M. & De Robillard, P. J. M. (1967). Expl. Agric. 3, 223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar