Laserfiche WebLink
<br />'~ <br />~ <br />,C) . <br />C' <br />:--~ <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />vi neya...ds in the <br />maintenance only <br />The soil p...ofile <br /> <br />Valley. As a ...esult, wate... was appl ied fo... plant <br />as indicated by low wate... application (Appendix A) <br />was neve... fi lied to meet c...op wate... ...equi ...ements. <br /> <br />Soi I sal inity testing in 1987 showed that the...e was a sl ight inc...ease <br />in salt bui Id-up at site 17. The mino... inc...ease in deep pe...colation <br />in 1988 did not show any dec...ease in salinity at site 17. The...e was a <br />dec...ease in deep pe...colation and soil salinity at site 17 in 1989. <br />Site 28 had an inc...ease in deep pe...colation in 1989, howeve..., soil <br />sa Ii n i ty dec...eased in the top 6 inches but i nc...eased be I ow the 6 <br />inches depth. At site 28, soi I sal inity has been steadi Iy inc...easing <br />below the 6 inches depth since 1987 (Refe... to pa...t 2 of this ...epo...t) <br /> <br />Site 28 had no deep pe...colation In 1988: had 9.3 inches In 1987. <br />The...e was some deep pe...colation in 1989 towa...ds the end of the season <br />(Refe... to Appendix A). The g...owe... did not sta...t the fi...st i......igation <br />ti I I the end of May and by then the soi I moistu...e deficit had ...un ove... <br />7 inches. Du...ing the fi...st half of the season the soi I p...ofi Ie neve... <br />got fill ed and the mo i stu...e needs of the p I ants we...e neve... met. The <br />p...oduce... indicated that because of f...eeze damage he did not want too <br />much leafy g...owth so that any ene...gy saved could be used fo... plant <br />heal ing and development. <br /> <br />The ETa fo... both sites was ve...y low in 1989, on I y about 21 inches <br />because of st...ess due to low wate... app I i cat i on. The ETa is a p...oduct <br />of potential ET, c...op coefficient and adjustment facto... fo... st...ess and <br />0... excessive moistu...e. In the past, the ave...age ETa was 27.4 inches <br />in 1988, 33.0 inches in 1987 and 40.7 inches In 1986 <Table 6}. In <br />1989, no c...op was ha...vested f...om site 28 and at site 17, only a few <br />plants p...oduced some g...apes. <br /> <br />Both p...oduce...s were given ir...igation monito...ing data and soi I moistu...e <br />deficit info...mation towa...ds the end of the i......igation season. Both <br />p...oducers we...e p...ovided some technical help on i......igation wate... <br />management. The p...oduce... at site 28, f...equently ...efe......ed to the data <br />p",ovlded to him. He also ...efe......ed to the g...ape IWM cha...t developed by <br />the local M&E staff to help with his wate... management decisions. both <br />g...owe...s have ...equested that they be p...ovided with soi I moistu...e <br />deficit data befo...e the sta...t of the next i......igation season. <br /> <br />Beans: One bean field, site 32 was monito...ed in 1989. This field was <br />In onions in 1988. Site 32 had 9 i......igations du...ing the season. A <br />tota I of about 47 inches of wate... was app lied to the fie I d and about <br />18 inches was lost as deep pe...colation <Table 2}. Of this 18 inches, <br />app...oximately 3 inches was acceptable deep pe...colation fo... sal inity <br />cont...o I (Tab I e 4). The ...ema i n i ng 15 inches was excess deep <br />pe...colation that the plants could not use. <br /> <br />App...oximately 84% of deep pe...colation losses occu......ed by the end of <br />the fi...st i......igation (Table 8). As a ...esult, the application <br />efficiency fo... the fi...st ir...igation was about 8%, which ...esulted in <br />ove...a II eff i c i ency of about 42% fo... the site (Append i x A). The...e was <br /> <br />22 <br />