Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-01T22:05:41.626Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Stomatal Infiltration Measurements as an Indicator of the Water Requirement and Timing of Irrigation for Cotton*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 October 2008

M. Ofir ,
E. Shmueli  and
S. Moreshet
M. Ofir
Affiliation:
Division of Irrigation, The Volcani Institute of Agricultural Research, Rehovot, Israel
E. Shmueli
Affiliation:
Division of Irrigation, The Volcani Institute of Agricultural Research, Rehovot, Israel
S. Moreshet
Affiliation:
Division of Irrigation, The Volcani Institute of Agricultural Research, Rehovot, Israel
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The single-liquid infiltration method of measuring stomatal opening was adapted as a practical field method for determining the time of irrigation of cotton. A number of different liquids, leaf positions and times of measurement were tested and the most sensitive method was selected on the basis of the results. No stomatal response was found while soil moisture was depleted to one-third of available water. A steep reduction in stomatal opening was observed with further drying of the soil. Some results are presented from an irrigation experiment where irrigation control by infiltration method was compared with other methods. The practical possibilities in the use of the method in field practice are discussed.

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 4 , Issue 4 , October 1968 , pp. 325 - 333
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

Cope, F. & Trickett, E. S. (1965). Soils Fertil., 28, 201.Google Scholar
Fuchs, M. & Stanhill, G. (1963). Israel J. agric. Res. 13, 63.Google Scholar
Heath, O. V. S. (1959). In: Plant Physiology, ed. by Steward, F. C., 2, 193.Google Scholar
Magness, J. R. & Furr, J. R. (1930). Proc. Amer. Soc. hort. Sci. 27, 207.Google Scholar
Maximov, N. A. & Zernova, L. K. (1936). Pl. Physiol. 11, 651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oppenheimer, H. R. (1951). Palest. J. Bot. Rehovot Ser. 8, 32.Google Scholar
Oppenheimer, H. R. & Elze, D. L. (1941). Palest. J. Bot. Rehovot Ser. 4, 20.Google Scholar
Philip, J. R. (1966). Ann. Rev. Plant Physiol. 17, 245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shimshi, D. (1963). Pl. Physiol. 38, 709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shmueli, E. (1953). Bull. Res. Counc. Israel 3, 228.Google Scholar
Waggoner, P. E. (1965). Crop. Sci. 5, 291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar