Abstract
On five plots under maize cultivation, each 1000 m 2 in area, comparison was made between four automatic irrigation methods. In three of the methods, the irrigation schedule depended upon gauges (tensiometers or electrical resistance probes) inserted in the cropped soil; the fourth method used a Class “A” evaporation pan; the fifth plot was irrigated in accordance with mean potential evapotranspiration. Both soil water uptake and plant growth were studied. The results indicated that tensiometer scheduling saved 30% of the irrigation water without any significant decrease in yield. On the other hand, with the commercial electrical resistance probes, the watering was not well suited to the plant needs and led to a 25% decrease in yield.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
