WSP04649 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . C'? Cq OJ C::,l :"j -' stations was made avai lable to 1 local T.V. station on a dai Iy basis, Monday th~ough F~iday; 2 ~adio stations and 2 weekly news pape~s. The ET data we~e also p~ovided to p~oduce~s that had monito~ing sites. Du~ing the g~owing season, these p~oduce~s we~e given i~~igation monito~ing data eve~y few weeks and if possible p~IO~ to the next i~~igation. The monito~ing data p~ovided info~mation on c~op ET, so; mo i stu~e ba lance, the amount of wate~ app lied and ~unoff, deep pe~colation, hou~s pe~ set etc. A few p~oduce~s did use the info~mat;on to help them with thei~ i~~igation scheduling. Atmomete~: No atmomete~ study was done in 1989 because past studies indicated that the atmomete~ ET was within +10% of the calculated ET using Penman equation. Also, the studies indicated that the atmomete~ could be used as a tool fo~ i~~igation scheduling. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Table 2 summa~izes the seasonal data obtained f~om the 19 i~~igation monito~ing sites. Data f~om site 13 is not included in the Table since inflow volume data f~om the fi~st 3 i~~igations we~e inaccu~ate due to p~oblems with the magnetic flow senso~ at the site. The data on Table 2 rep~esents the total flows on and off the field fo~ al I i~~igations du~ing the 1989 i~~igation season. The sites we~e selected to ~ep~e5ent a typical c~oss section of the i~~igation systems, c~ops, soi Is, and management levels expected in -the G~and Va I ley. Table 2 not only shows the 1989 seasonal data f~om the 19 monito~ing sites but also shows b~eakdown of data by c~ops and i~~igation systems. The amounts in the p~ecipitation and ETa columns va~y fo~ each site because of the length of ~eco~d fo~ diffe~ent crops. Some of the va~iations a~e due In pa~t to the diffe~ent c~ops and climatic va~iations at each location. The numbe~s in the Table ~ep~esent the accumulated rainfal I and ETa f~om planting date to ha~vest date. The 1989 irrigation season was dry towards the end of the irrigation season. The average annua I prec i p i tat i on in the Va II ey is about 8 Inches. Data f~om the 2 SCS weathe~ stations located in the Valley Indicated that east end received about 6 inches of p~ecipitation and the west end about 4.5 inches in 1989. The d~y weather extended the I r~ I gat i on season about a month wh i ch sta~ted i n Ap~ i I and ended in Octobe~. The month of Februa~y was colde~ than no~mal with f~igid tempe~atures du~ing the first part of the month. The frigid tempe~atu~es caused seve~e damages to peaches, ap~icots, cher~ies and g~apes and production was down drastically fo~ Mesa county in 1989. As a ~esu I t of the f~eeze, 100% of f~u i t buds fo~ peaches and ap~icots were dest~oyed (pe~sonal communication with Rocky Renquist, Orchard Mesa Expe~iment station, Grand Junction). 9