Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-zzh7m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T12:07:12.065Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Responses of Sugarcane to Supplementary Irrigation on Two Soils in Natal

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 October 2008

G. D. Thompson
Affiliation:
South African Sugar Association Experiment Station, Mount Edgecombe, Natal
J. M. Gosnell
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

Summary

Supplementary irrigation experiments were conducted on a Clansthal sand and a Windermere clay. Irrigation treatments were based on the application of 1 inch of water when the soil moisture deficit reached 2·5, 3·5, 4·5 and 5·5 in. in 7 ft of soil on the sand, and 1·00, 1·75, 2·50 and 3·25 in. in 2 ft of soil on the clay. Each experiment included a dryland control and soil moisture was estimated weekly in each plot with a neutron probe. The results showed that there were significant linear increases in yield with increasing quantities of water applied. The crops exploited soil moisture to a depth of 6 ft in the sand and 3 ft in the clay, even with the maximum water treatments. Under dryland conditions, on the sand the crop exploited soil moisture to the wilting point only in the surface foot of soil, but on the clay the crop extracted moisture held at tensions greater than 15 bars in the top 3 ft of soil. The conclusions are that, where available water for supplementary irrigation is limited, heavy soils should be irrigated in preference to sandy soils, and that the most efficient use of both rainfall and irrigation water is achieved when 1 cusec is used to irrigate about 200 acres.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1967

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. (1966). Annual Report 1965–6, Expt. Stn. of the S.A. Sugar Association, p. 47.Google Scholar
Beater, B. E. (1955). Proc. Annual Congress S. Afr. Sugar Tech. Ass. 29, 113.Google Scholar
Cackett, K. E. (1964). Rhod. J. Agr. Res. 2, 56.Google Scholar
Campbell, R. B., Chang, J. H. & Cox, D. C. (1959). Proc. Int. Soc. Sugar Cane Tech. 10, 637.Google Scholar
Dagg, M. & Hosegood, P. H. (1962). E. Afr. Agric. For. J. 27 (Special issue), 129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Robillard, P. J. M. & Stewart, M. J. (1966). Proc. Annual Congress S. Afr. Sugar Tech. Ass. 40, 283.Google Scholar
Hill, J. N. S. (1966). Proc. Annual Congress S. Afr. Sugar Tech. Ass. 40, 276.Google Scholar
Thompson, G. D. (1965). Proc. I.S.S.C.T. 12th Congress, Puerto Rico.Google Scholar
Thompson, G. D. and Collings, D. F. (1963). Bull. 17 of the Experiment Station of the S.A. Sugar Ass.Google Scholar