English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

A computer model was used to predict irrigation rates and numbers of emitters or microsprayers required to trickle irrigate Redskin/Nemaguard peach trees. Irrigation rates were 0, 50%, and 100% of the predicted requirement based on a crop coefficient of 50, 80, 100, 80, and 50 percent of pan evaporation for the tree's canopy area for May, June, July, August and Sept. respectively. Full irrigation (100% of predicted) was applied through 6, 8L/hr emitters or one 48L/hr microsprayer. Half the predicted rate was applied through 6, 4L/hr emitters or 1 24L/hr microsprayer. Control trees received no supplemental irrigation. Microsprayers height was adjusted to wet a surface area comparable to the 6 emitters. There was no significant difference in fruit size or yield based on emitter vs microsprayers, but fruit size and total yield was increased in direct proportion to irrigation rate. There was no treatment effect on tree pruning weights. Moisture measurements indicated that trees de-watered the soil efficiently enough that water never moved below the 30 cm level in spite of the fact that up to 260 liters per tree per day were applied in mid-summer.

MICROSPRAYER VS. EMITTERS FOR IRRIGATING PEACH TREES WHEN USING A COMPUTER MODEL TO PREDICT APPLICATION RATES