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 Similar articles in Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (5) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Bremer, D. J. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Bremer, D. J. Agricola Articles by Bremer, D. J. Related Collections Agroclimatology Turfgrass Management Water Use Soil Methods/Instrumentation Evapotranspiration Lysimeter/Rhizosphere Studies Turfgrass Maize Management

Evaluation of Microlysimeters Used in Turfgrass Evapotranspiration Studies Using the Dual-Probe Heat-Pulse Technique

Dep. of Horticulture, Forestry & Recreation Resources, 2021 Throckmorton Hall, Kansas State Univ., Manhattan, KS 66506

View larger version (31K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Comparisons of volumetric soil water content from DPHP sensors: A) among MSL and PSL containers and the Ambient soil [average 5, 15, and 25 cm (0- to 30-cm profile)]; and B) between MSNL and the Ambient soil [average 5 and 15 cm (0- to 20-cm profile)]. Vertical dashed lines highlight irrigation dates. Symbols (x) along the abscissa of each graph indicate significant differences between MSL and ambient soil (P < 0.05), and plus (+) indicates significant differences between both MSL and PSL and the ambient soil on a given day (at 1800 h).

View larger version (39K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Green leaf area index (A) and aboveground biomass (B) in MSL, PSL, MSNL, MFCL, and WPSL microlysimeters and in the surrounding turfgrass. Means in each plot (A and B) with the same letter are not significantly different (P < 0.05).

View larger version (40K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Comparisons of volumetric water content from DPHP sensors at 5 (A) and 15 cm (B) among MSL, PSL, MSNL, and Ambient soil, and at 25 cm (C) among MSL, PSL, and Ambient soil. Vertical dashed lines highlight irrigation dates. Symbols (plus-x) along abscissa of each graph indicate significant differences among three treatments (P < 0.05), and x indicates significant differences between two treatments on a given day (at 1800 h).

View larger version (28K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4. Comparisons of volumetric water content from DPHP sensors: A) among MSL and PSL containers and the Ambient soil [average 5, 15, and 25 cm (0- to 30-cm profile)]; and B) between MSNL and the Ambient soil [average 5 and 15 cm (0- to 20-cm profile)]. Vertical dashed lines highlight irrigation date. Symbols (x) along the abscissa of each graph indicate significant differences between MSL and ambient soil (P < 0.05), and plus (+) indicates significant differences between both MSL and PSL and the ambient soil on a given day (at 1800 h).

View larger version (36K): [in a new window]   Fig. 5. Comparisons of volumetric water content from DPHP sensors at 5 (A) and 15 cm (B) among MSL, PSL, MSNL, and Ambient soil, and at 25 cm (C) among MSL, PSL, and Ambient soil. Vertical dashed lines highlight irrigation date. Symbols (x) along abscissa of each graph indicate significant differences between MSL and Ambient soil (P < 0.05), diamond-x indicates significant differences between MSL and both Ambient soil and MSNL, and plus (+) indicates significant differences between both MSL and PSL and the Ambient soil on a given day (at 1800 h).

View larger version (18K): [in a new window]   Fig. 6. Comparison of volumetric water content (v) as determined by DPHP sensors and gravimetric (Lysimeter) methods for MSL (A), PSL (B), and MSNL (C) microlysimeters.