HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text Free Full Text (PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Dudley, L. M. Articles by Shani, U. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Dudley, L. M. Articles by Shani, U. GeoRef GeoRef Citation Agricola Articles by Dudley, L. M. Articles by Shani, U. Related Collections Water Stress Plant and Soil Interactions Root Growth/Water Uptake Models

Modeling Plant Response to Drought and Salt Stress

Reformulation of the Root-Sink Term

^a Dep. of Plants, Soils, and Biometeorology, 4820 Old Main Hill, Utah State Univ., Logan, UT 84322-4820
^b Dep. of Soil and Water Sci., Faculty of Agricultural, Food, and Environmental Sci., POB 12, Rehovot 76100, Israel

View larger version (17K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Measured and predicted yield by the potential-flow model with Hmin = -60 m.

View larger version (28K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Measured and transpiration-apportioning model predicted relative yield with (a) h50 = 50 = -45 m and (b) h50 = -15 m and 50 = -45 m.

View larger version (17K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Measured and potential-flow and transpiration-apportioning model (combined) predicted relative yield with Hmin = -15 m and 50 = -45 m.

View larger version (17K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4. Measured and predicted relative yield pairs are compared with a 1:1 line for all treatments. The regression equation for the three models were as follows: (a) potential-flow (PF) model, y = 0.8741x + 0.0251, r2 = 0.9209; (b) transpiration-apportioning (TA) model, y = 0.9283x + 0.0476, r2 = 0.9005; and (c) combined (PFTA) model, y = 0.9909x + 0.0430, r2 = 0.9471.

View larger version (47K): [in a new window]   Fig. 5. The predicted evolution of the water content at three locations in the profile for (a) the potential-flow model, (b) the transpiration-apportioning model, and (c) the combined model for irrigation equal to pan evaporation and an irrigation water salinity of 6.0 dS m-1.

View larger version (27K): [in a new window]   Fig. 6. The predicted evolution of the salt content (a noninteractive tracer) at three locations in the profile for the potential-flow model (a) the transpiration-apportioning model (b) and the combined model (c) for irrigation equal to pan evaporation and an irrigation water salinity of 6.0 dS m-2.

View larger version (38K): [in a new window]   Fig. 7. The predicted evolution of the water content at three locations in the profile for (a) the potential-flow model, (b) the transpiration-apportioning model, and the combined model (c) for irrigation equal to 40% of pan evaporation and an irrigation water salinity of 6.0 dS m-1.

View larger version (28K): [in a new window]   Fig. 8. The predicted evolution of the salt content (a noninteractive tracer) at three locations in the profile for (a) the potential-flow model, (b) the transpiration-apportioning model, and (c) the combined model for irrigation equal to 40% of pan evaporation and an irrigation water salinity of 6.0 dS m-1.

View larger version (23K): [in a new window]   Fig. 9. A comparison of the measured and transpiration-apportioning or combined model predicted salt profile at melon harvest for the 6.0 dS m-1 salinity treatments with (a) irrigation equal to pan evaporation and (b) 40% of pan evaporation. The cross symbol for the measured data is positioned at the mean and the width of the cross indicates the standard deviation.