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 ISI Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (6) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Grant, R. F. Articles by Matthias, A. D. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Grant, R. F. Articles by Matthias, A. D. Agricola Articles by Grant, R. F. Articles by Matthias, A. D. Related Collections Agroclimatology Sorghum Evapotranspiration Models Root Growth/Water Uptake Models Plant and Environment Interactions Crop Ecology

Modeling Elevated Carbon Dioxide Effects on Water Relations, Water Use, and Growth of Irrigated Sorghum

^a Dep. of Renewable Resour., Univ. of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada T6G 2H1
^b USDA-ARS, U.S. Water Conserv. Lab., 4331 E. Broadway, Phoenix, AZ 85040
^c Lab. of Tree-Ring Res., Tucson, AZ 85721
^d Dep. of Soil, Water, and Environ. Sci., Univ. of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721
^e Maricopa Agric. Cent., Univ. of Arizona, Maricopa, AZ 85239
^f Dep. of Geogr., Arizona State Univ., Tempe, AZ 85287

View larger version (44K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Net radiation, latent heat (LE), and sensible heat (H) fluxes simulated (lines) and measured (symbols) over sorghum during day of year 247 to 251 (4–8 September) 1999 in the (a) control wet, (b) free air CO2 enrichment (FACE) wet, (c) control dry, and (d) FACE dry treatments. Downward fluxes (influxes) are positive, and upward fluxes (effluxes) are negative. For irrigation schedules, see Table 1.

View larger version (40K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Midday canopy water potential (C) simulated (lines) and measured (symbols) in sorghum during the growing seasons of (a) 1998 and (b) 1999 under control wet, free air CO2 enrichment (FACE) wet, control dry, and FACE dry treatments. Arrows indicate dates of irrigation in wet and dry treatments. For irrigation schedules, see Table 1. Measured data from Wall et al. (2001b).

View larger version (63K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3. (a) Air temperature and relative humidity (RH), (b) canopy water potential (C), (c) canopy conductance (gC), (d) difference in latent heat (LE) between free air CO2 enrichment (FACE) and control treatments, and (e) net ecosystem CO2 flux simulated (lines) and measured (symbols in Fig. 3d) during day of year 227 to 231 (15–19 August) 1999 under control wet and FACE wet treatments. For irrigation schedules, see Table 1.

View larger version (31K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4. Cumulative evapotranspiration simulated (lines) and measured (symbols) in sorghum during the growing seasons of (a) 1998 and (b) 1999 under control wet, free air CO2 enrichment (FACE) wet, control dry, and FACE dry treatments. For irrigation schedules, see Table 1. Measured data from Conley et al. (2001).

View larger version (35K): [in a new window]   Fig. 5. Aboveground phytomass simulated (lines) and measured (symbols) in sorghum during the growing seasons of (a) 1998 and (b) 1999 under control wet, free air CO2 enrichment (FACE) wet, control dry, and FACE dry treatments. For irrigation schedules, see Table 1. Measured data from Ottman et al. (2001).

View larger version (20K): [in a new window]   Fig. 6. Response of phytomass to seasonal irrigation amounts (sum of biweekly applications) simulated under current (1999) climate (closed symbols) and under changed (1999 + 3°C, Ca x 1.5) climate (open symbols).