• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Historic note
 Title Page
 Contributing authors
 Table of Contents
 Main














Group Title: Research Report - University of Florida Agricultural Research and Education Center ; GC1982-2
Title: summary of results from water research projects supported by the Southwest Florida Water Management District and conducted at the AREC-Bradenton, ARC-
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00056135/00001
 Material Information
Title: summary of results from water research projects supported by the Southwest Florida Water Management District and conducted at the AREC-Bradenton, ARC-
Series Title: Research Report - University of Florida Agricultural Research and Education Center ; GC1982-2
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Creator: Stanley, Craig D.
Publisher: Agricultural Research and Education Center, IFAS, University of Florida
Publication Date: 1982
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00056135
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 62394846

Table of Contents
    Historic note
        Historic note
    Title Page
        Title page
    Contributing authors
        Page i
    Table of Contents
        Page ii
    Main
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
Full Text





HISTORIC NOTE


The publications in this collection do
not reflect current scientific knowledge
or recommendations. These texts
represent the historic publishing
record of the Institute for Food and
Agricultural Sciences and should be
used only to trace the historic work of
the Institute and its staff. Current IFAS
research may be found on the
Electronic Data Information Source
(EDIS)

site maintained by the Florida
Cooperative Extension Service.






Copyright 2005, Board of Trustees, University
of Florida




o00

L 77


Bradenton AREC Research Report GC19{;2-2


iHarch 1982


A SUii!ARY OF RESULTS FROi: UATER RESEARCH PROJECTS
SUPPORTED BY THE SOUTHWEST FLORIDA UATER iA:'AAGE;Ei:T DISTRICT
AfD CONDUCTED AT THE AREC-BPADEINTOi, ARC-DOVER, AN\D ARC-Ii'C0KALEE


C. D. Stanley, Editor


Agricultural Research and Education Center
IFAS, University of Florida
Eradenton, Florida











Contributinq-Authors for this Publication


AREC-Bradenton

Csizinszky, A. A., Asst. Horticulturist. Production systems, crop management
and post harvest studies on vegetable crops.

Geraldson, C. h., Soils Chemist. Soil nutritional problems and their relationship
with cultural methods for vegetable production.

Harbaugh, B. K., Asso. Ornamental Horticulturist. Development of cultural systems
for floricultural crops encompassing media, nutrition, photoperiod, growth
regulators, herbicides and handling techniques.

Hlarlowe, George A., Jr., Extension Vegetable Specialist. Develop extension
educational programs and cooperative research on vegetable crops of
southwest Florida.

Overman, A. J., Nematoloqist. Etiology and control of nematode problems of
ornamentals and vegetables.

Prevatt, J. i., Area Extension Economist. Extension farm management educational
programs in agriculture and cooperative research on production economics of
vegetables and ornamentals.

Stanley, C. D., Asst. Prof. in Soil-Water Relations. Research and extension pro-
grams on water requirements, water use efficiency and water quality problems
of commercial ornamental, vegetable and other crops of south Florida.

Waters, Hill E., Horticulturist and Center Director. Administration, soils and
plant nutrition.


ARC-Dover

Albregts, E. E., Horticulturist. Administration, soil and plant nutrition and
horticultural problems in strawberries and vegetables.
Howard, C. H., Plant Pathologist. Strawberry breeding and etioloay and control
of vegetable diseases with emphasis on strawberry crops.

ARC-Immokalee

Everett, P. If., Soils Chemist. Administration, plant nutrition of vegetables
and agronomic crops, tomato variety evaluations and machine-harvest.















TABLE OF CO.JTENiTS


PACE


Contributing Authors for this Publication ...............................


Introduction ......... .....................................................


VEGETABLE RESEARCH ............ ........................................
Irrigation Systems Comparisons ...........................................
Ditch (Seep) Subirrigation .............................................
Trickle Irrigation .....................................................
Subsurface Tile Subirrigation ..........................................
Water Requirement Conclusions ...........................................
Subirriqation Water Recycling ............................................


ORNAiiEiiTAL RESEARCH ...............
Potted Ornamentals ..............
Irrigation Systems Comparisons
Overhead Irrigation ...........
Capillary Ilat Irrigation ......
Individual Tube Irrication ....
Handwater Irrigation .........
Water Requirement Conclusions ...
Field-Grown Ornamentals .........
Irrigation Systems Comparisons
Later Requirement Conclusions


STRAWBERRY RESEARCH ........................................
Drip Irrigation .........................................
Intermittent Overhead Irrigation ........................
Plant Establishment ............ ....................
Frost Protection .....................................


SU iARY ............ .........................................................


LIST OF PUBLICATIOC IS .......... ..............................................


................... 5
................... 5
................... 5
................... 5
................... 5
................... 6
................... G
................... 7
................... 7
................... 7



................... 9
................... 9
................... 9
................... 9
. **....****....** 9


..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............







IiTRODUCTIOIl
The purpose of this research report is to present a condensed general summary
of research results and conclusions for research projects supported by the Southwest
Florida Uater management District (S;WFWtHID) and conducted at the IFAS-Agricultural
Research and Education Center at Bradenton and Agricultural Research Centers at
Dover and Irmokalee for the time period 1976-31. This research involves water-related
work for vegetable, ornamental and strawberry crops.

From the onset of research project support agreements between IFAS personnel
and SUJFIJIMD, the objectives of the research have been twofold. The first objective
was to provide the regulatory branch of the SUFLD information that could aid in
the decision-making process for water permit allocations. This research involves
determining water requirements for specific crops and irrigation systems in use
presently, and all the various factors which contribute to changing water needs.
The second objective was to investigate the use of low volume irrigation systems
not commonly in use and determine the advantages and disadvantages (cultural,
economic, practical, etc.) of these systems. This research involves providing
information on alternative water conserving irrigation systems and what a producer
could expect frcm L'ch systems. This research tends to promote water conservation
as well as provide answers to questions that may not be important now, but very well
could be in the future. This research gives the producer information which he can
use for decisions in the event that he were faced with water supply or allocation
problems, which in turn may influence permitting.

Overall, the research involves investigating present problems as well as poten-
tial problems of the future. Research results will be presented separately for each
main commodity area.

VEGETABLE RESEARCH
Irrigation Systems Comparisons

This section contains conclusions from research which directly or indirectly
dealt with irrigation system comparisons. A brief outline containing advantages
and disadvantages is presented for each system, followed by discussion.

Ditch (seep) Subirrigation

The advantages of this system include:
1) most economically feasible
2) low maintenance
3) attains high level of crop production
4) provides optimal growing conditions for plants

The disadvantages of this system include:
1) uses large volumes of water
2) uses large amounts of energy
3) requires large amounts of fertilizer
This system is the conventional choice for the majority of vegetable growers in
the S'.'F.;:. Historically, this system developed basically because of the shallow
vater table characteristics of many soils of the area along with a plentiful supply
of water. As stated previously, this system requires a large amount of water, energy,
and fertilizer to operate. At the present time it is highest yielding and most
economically feasible irrigation system available.








Trickle Irrigation

The advantages of this system, include:
1) low volume water user (> 50% savings over seep)
2) potentially provides more crop and water control
3) potentially less environmental pollution
4) potentially fewer disease and insect problems

The disadvantages of this system include:
1) economically unjustified
2) management problems
3) existing designs appear to be inadequate
') thus far, lower production than seep irrigation
5) limited usefulness in field preparation (bedding, fumigation, etc.)
6) trafficability
7) sandblasting of crop
") clogging of trickle tubes

This system is used in many parts of the world where water supplies are severely
limited. This system has the potential of providing actual water needs to a crop
when it needs it, thus substantially reducing the total water applied. Water is only
applied to the soil area where the crop grows, again resulting in water savings.
Two main disadvantages make trickle irrigation appear less desirable overall. First,
the costs of this system are too great, presently; mainly the costs of materials and
installation. The second disadvantage is the lack of adequate equipment, presently,
which deliver the water effectively to the plants in the sandy soils of southwest
Florida. This disadvantage may be overcome by more intense management, although at

ie present time, field crop yield levels have not attained the levels reached using
ditch subirrigation.

Subsurface Tile Subirrigation

The advantages of this system include:
1) yields comparable to seep in normal rainfall years
2) provides for rapid drainage in the event of excessive rain
3) utilizes less water than seep (30-40% less)
4) very good runoff control
5) completely closed irrigation system

The disadvantages of this system include:
1) yields much lower in dry seasons
2) not economically justified
3) requires a different type of management than seep or trickle irrigation
4) requires large amounts of fertilizer
5) difficult to maintain proper water table height even in normal years
This system is not a new system, although the materials involved (plastic perfor-
ated drain pipe vs. clay tile) have changed in recent years. The value of this system
in conjunction with the mulched bed culture for vegetables has shown to somewhat equal
in yield potential in normal rainfall years. Water savings are substantial mainly
because of increased control of runoff. Because this system can double as a drainage
system, the removal of excessive water caused by heavy rains is afforded to a greater
I agree with this system compared to the others. Still, this system, like trickle, is
Pstly for materials and installation. It also has shown some problems with main-
taining proper water table heights during dry seasons. These problems may be design
problems which can be overcome with cultural modifications.








From a grower standpoint, the ditch system appears the most feasible choice
for the present situation. Overall, considering advantages and disadvantages, the
Switch (seep) r' irrigation system is currently most feasible since it costs less
to own and operate and provides excellent crop yield potential when managed proper-
ly. If, in the event that energy costs for pumping become so great or reduced
availability of water supplies occurs, the other two systems may become more feasible.

Iater Requirement Conclusions

Certain factors must be kept in mind when trying to determine the water require-
ments for the different irrigation systems. First, the season in which the crop is
grown must be considered, since water requirements differ between fall and spring
seasons. Second, the amount of water needed to prepare the land for cultivation
and plant growth (bed-forming, fumigation, etc.) must be considered. For the soils
studied, this amount appears to be from C-10 inches. This involves irrigating a
field up to a month before croppina begins. This is one area which makes trickle
irrigation less desirable since there is no way to get adequate amounts of water
to the soil prior to fumigation with this system. This water usually is applied
using subirrigation.

The third main consideration must be the type of system that is being used to
deliver the water and its requirements. Based on research measurements, for ditch
subirrigation an average of GO inches for a 100-day tomato crop has been observed.
This amount, however, can range from: 40-80 inches due to soil, season, rainfall
prior to growing season, crop (season length), anu rainfall during the season. The
factor of the soil deals mainly with the level of the natural water table. Some
soils have characteristically high water tables; thus, less water is required to
build the water table to the point needed for crop growth than in soils with lower
natural water tables.

Seasonal characteristics such as rainfall during the growing season and rain-
fall prior to the growing season can be important since these have an effect on
the natural water table level. Rainfall during a "normal season" probably doesn't
contribute substantially to the operation of the subirrigation systems beyond what
the system would have provided anyway. The amount of water above this amount is
excess and would need to be removed. Rainfall prior to the nrowini season plays
an important part in determining where the natural water table level will be and
affects how much water must be added to raise the natural water table level to the
desired level for land preparation and crop production.

Based on experiments conducted at the AREC-Bradenton, the water requirements
for subsurface tile subirrigation average around 35 inches with a range from 25-50
inches, again, due to the factors discussed for the ditch system. A large differ-
ence between ditch and tile irrigation is the runoff where < 5% can be expected from
a properly managed tile system compared to 15-30% for ditch irrigation.

By far, the lowest water requiring system is the trickle system. These amounts
range from 15-30 inches depending upon crop and length of season. This amount is in
addition to the amount needed for field preparation which is the same as the other
two systems. Trickle irrigation requires only the mulch-covered bedded area be
irrigated with essentially no runoff.

Research has demonstrated substantial differences in water requirement between
systems, but concern for possible yield reductions with water conserving systems
must be considered. As discussed earlier, yields generally have been lower with
the low volume systems compared to the ditch system. The magnitude of these differ-
ences seems to depend upon season more than other factors.







Limited research on reducing water applied with any given system has shown that
with no irrigation at all, yields for tomatoes, peppers, and sweet corn were reduced
from 23-75%. This reduction, again, would depend greatly on the season and where
the natural water table level was located. With trickle irrigation reducing water
application from twice the potential evapotranspiration rate (ET) to one times the
ET (a reduction of 50%) has caused a yield reduction of 25% for tomatoes.

Proper management of any irrigation system can reduce the amount of water re-
quired. One area of concern with the ditch (seep) irrigation system is that of
runoff. Total elimination of runoff for this system seems unfeasible since the
amount of water required to maintain the water table at the desired level changes
with a 24-hour period. Also, when runoff is eliminated, yield reductions occur
toward the end of the field that the irrigation water flows. This occurs mainly
because in order for a field to be adequately irrigated, an area beyond the borders
of the field must also be kept irrigated. ;inimization of runoff can be accomplished
through proper management, however.

Subirrigation Water Kecycling

Research was conducted on a water recovery system using a semi-closed delivery
system installed at AREC-Bradenton. This system consisted of delivering water to
the fields (for ditch (seep) irrigation) through PVC pipes, collecting runoff in
two catch basins, and recycling this water to a holding pond for reuse as irrigation
water. Results showed that pumping from the deep well was reduced by 62% with 30%
of the total water applied being recovered. An economic analysis, however, showed
that the cost of such a system was on the other hand not justified by the water
savings. The semi-closed delivery system was cost justified especially if a
grower was to remain on a piece of land for several years.







ORIAMENTAL RESEARCH
Potted Ornamentals

Irrigation System Comparisons

This section will deal with a discussion of the research on different irriaa-
tion systems available to growers of potted ornamental crops. An outline containing
the advantages and disadvantages of each system will be followed by a brief discus-
sion of each system.

Overhead Irrigation

The advantages of this system include:
1) economical
2) low maintenance
3) provides frost protection

The disadvantages of this system include:
1) high water user
2) more disease problems
3) uneven water and fertilizer distribution
4) fertilization practices interrupted by rain

Overhead irrigation is one of the most common systems used by growers since it
provides both irrigation and frost protection. It is an extremely large water user
for two main reasons. First, it waters the entire area when the only area requiring
water is that occupied by the pots; and second, the resistance of water entering the
pots is increased by the foliage on the plants being watered. These two factors,
along with increased evaporation and drift, cause the amount of water required to
maintain the pots at adequate moisture to be estimated at 18 times what is required
by the plants. This irrigation method was developed because of low costs, ease of
operation and unrestricted availability of water.

Capillary Nlat Irrigation

The advantages of this system include:
1) low volume water user
2) low labor intensive (easily automated)
3) equal water distribution
4) more rapid growth (optimum soil water constantly)
5) keeps foliage dry (disease prevention)
The disadvantages of this system include:
1) costly
2) design problems
3) increased management problems
4) additional maintenance problems
5) new production system
6) potential disease problems
7) excessively succulent plant growth
c) root ranar1eme!nt problems
9) not practical for large pots
10) plant quality control problems
11) provides no frost protection








This type of irrigation is a relatively new system which operates on the
Principle of maintaining proper pot moisture levels by placing pots on a clothlike
mat saturated with water. Water moves into the pots by capillary action as the
plant needs it.

This type of system uses significantly less water than overhead. When managed
properly, the efficiency of the system approaches 95-100%.

At present time, this system is costly to purchase and requires reorientation
to management, but shows very ruch promise for the future. If the lifetime of the
mat material can be increased, it would be very cost effective because of its low
labor requirement.

Individual Tube Irrigation

The advantages of this system include:
1) low volume water user
2) low labor intensive (easily automated)
3) equal water distribution
4) more efficient fertilizer use
5) foliage remains dry (disease prevention)

The disadvantages of this system include:
1) initial cost
2) additional maintenance problems (plunging, water quality, insect
damage to system, etc.)
3) design problems
4) plant quality control problems
5) not practical for small pots
6) provides no frost protection

This is another relatively new system which affords substantial water savings
compared to overhead irrigation. It utilizes individual tubes placed in each pot
to supply the pot the water that is needed, when it is needed. The advantages and
disadvantages for this efficient system are self-explanatory. Flany greenhouse
growers are using this system although it does have a high investment cost. It,
like the capillary mat system, requires a low labor input.

Handwater Irrigation

The advantages of this system include:
1) low volume water user (compared to overhead)
2) each pot treated individually
3) low investment costs
The disadvantages of this system include:
1) high labor costs
2) more water required than mat or Chapin systems

Handwatering is only of practical value to very small operations since it
requires a high labor input which more than overrides the extremely low materials
cost. It does afford high water savings compared to overhead and has the added
advantage that each pot is treated independent of the others so that greater care
for the plants may be accomplished. This system is much too expensive to operate
for the large producers.








Water Requirement Conclusions'

Results show that the capillary rmat and tube systems use approximately 5Z of
the water required by the overhead irrigation system. This is mainly due to the
fact that the overhead system irrigates the entire area, anJ the mat and tube
systems irrigate only the pots. The problem of restriction of entry of water into
the pots also adds to inefficient water use by the overhead system. Handwatering
uses 10-15% more water than the tube or mat systems, but only 6% of the water
needed for overhead irrigation.

A major consideration for water required to produce potted plants with any
system is that amount used for frost protection. This amount was not included in
the plant use estimates above. This amount would depend on the structure used and
the particular season, as well as length and severity of the cold period. Trickle
or tube systems cannot be used for this purpose and this may limit acceptance in
areas with frequent frosts.

iiuch work has been done on modeling evapotranspiration requirements for potted
ornamentals which could be of use to both growers and regulatory personnel at SJUFUtD.
This type of work would aid growers in making decisions on how much to water based
on plant type, season, and stage of growth. These models would also aid estimation
of total yearly water requirements based on projected plans for production by the
grower crop.

Since the relatively new systems require a completely different management
scheme, research developing production systems for the capillary mat and tube
irrigation systems have been worked out for several plant species. The avail-
ability of this type of data increases the acceptance of any new system. In
addition to this, economic analyses of the cost it;Jplications for the various
systems has been performed which again aids in producers making management
decisions for irrigation systems.


Field-Grown Ornaiientals


Irrigation System Comparisons

Tle two main systems evaluated were overhead versus trickle irrigation. How-
ever, subirrigation is commonly used by some growers, often in conjunction with
overhead irrigation. Since the subirrigation and trickle irrigation systems have
been discussed with respect to advantages and disadvantages in the vegetable pro-
duction section, the characteristics of these systems won't be discussed again here.

Overhead irrigation developed in the cut flower industry mainly because of
operation, frost protection, rooting cuttings, and unrestricted quantities of water.
The advantages and disadvantages for cut flower production are the same as discussed
in the potted ornamental irrigation section. It's inefficiency occurs due to the
requirement that the total area cropped and uncropped must be irrigated while with
trickle irrigation, only the cropped area is irrigated.








Water Requirement Conclusions

Experiments with trickle irrigation growing cut flower chrysanthemums showed
that water requirements for a 12-week crop ranged from 15-30 inches (not including
water needed for plant establishment and frost protection) with the same quality
production as with overhead. Using a commonly applied amount of water using over-
head, this amount represents a 70-80% savings during growth cycle.

An additional amount of water is required for land preparation, establishment
of plants, and, when needed, frost protection. It is for these operations that
trickle irrigation has not proven to be effective. Land preparation irrigation
cannot be done by trickle irrigation, so it would seem that a combination of
irrigation systems may be required. The amount, if applied with seep irrigation,
ranges from b-10 inches and would be less for overhead irrigation. Land preparation
involves keeping the soil moist enough to form beds and fumigate for at least 2
weeks prior to cropping. Trickle irrigation is also not practical for frost pro-
tection or plant establishment since the foliage must be wetted in order for either
operation to be successful.

Yield relationships with restricted water applications have been evaluated for
trickle-irrigated chrysanthemums. This type of information can be of value for
projecting impacts of restricted water on crop production.








STRA'JBERRY RESEARCH
Hater for strawberry production is coirnonly applied with overhead irrigation,
mainly because it is the best system for frost protection and it is required for
plant establishment. Results presented here involve techniques or alternative
irrigation systems which potentially decrease the amount of water that needs to
be applied.

Drip Irrigation

The amount of moisture needed for polyethylene mulched beds set with fruited
strawberry plants with drip irrigation appears to be the pan evaporation rate for
the area. This is for well-drained soil (such as Scranton fine sand) for the
period of November through !larch. During April or later, about 1I. times the pan
evaporation rate was needed. This is assuming no other irrigation is applied
(such as for frost protection). In addition, a very well-drained soil (Lakeland
fine sand with no organic matter) would require more, and a less well-drained soil
(0iyakka fine sand) would require less water. For trials during 1900 and 1981 with
drip and overhead irrigation, about 90 inches per acre of water was used with
overhead sprinkler irrigation and 14.5 inches per acre with drip. To the amount
of water used by the drip system must be added the water for establishing plants
and that used for frost protection. Approximately 25 inches of water were required
to establish plants and about 20 inches for continuously-applied water for frost
protection. no fruit yield differences were obtained because of irrigation systems.

Intermittent Overhead Irrigation

SPlant Establishment

Commonly, strawberry plants are continuously overhead irrigated during the day
to establish transplants and prevent foliage loss. The research results presented
here discuss intermittent irrigation which can save substantial amounts of water.

With intermittent irrigation, application needn't start until the plants begin
to wilt in the morning. Irrigation was applied for 5 minute time periods and re-
mained off until plants became dry, whereupon irrigation was resumed again. The
length of the cycles depends on the weather conditions. Hot, windy, and dry weather
require longer "on" cycles and shorter "off" cycles while little irrigation may be
needed on cool, humrid days. The use of 7-min. "on" and 10-min. "off" cycles was
shown to be sufficient under most dry conditions.

One of the benefits of this irrigation technique (beside water savings) is that
less fertilizer is leached with intermittent irrigation so that lower amounts can
be applied initially. Uater and the energy used to pump the water were reduced by
50%.
Frost Protection

The use of overhead irrigation for frost protection usually is applied contin-
uously. The results presented here deal with using intermittent irrigation to
decrease water application and still protect the crop.
S Irrigating before the air temperature drops below 2F with the "off" cycle not
longer than 15 min. resulted in < 5% damage to flowers and at air temperatures > 300F
no damage resulted. Continued research is being conducted as to what the best irri-
gation cycles to use are. The amount of water saved using this technique is directly
related to the "off" cycle time period.






-10-


SUViHARY

The results presented in this report represent a very general and brief summary
of project accomplishments. Any information presented here can be expanded into
greater detail by contacting the individual researchers involved on the various
projects or by contacting the ARCC at Bradenton.

The last section of this report contains the list of publications resulting
from conclusions from projects supported by SUFW1JlD. liot included are oral presen-
tations (> 100 in total) given by researchers at producer and scientific meetings
to disseminate information generated from SUWFWRD-supported projects.
***


LIST OF PUBLICATIOn'S
Albregts, E. E. and C. [3. Howard. 1979. Effect of two and four row beds with drip
irrigation on strawberry fruiting response. Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 92:73-74.

Albregts, E. E. and C. F1. Howard. 1978. Influence of fertilizer sources and drip
irrigation on strawberries. Proc. Soil and Crop Sci. Soc. Fla. 37:159-162.

Csizinszky, A. A. 1979. Calculation of irrigation water for seep irrigated land
from riser flow rates. Bradenton AREC Res. Rept. GC1979-12.

Csizinszky, A. A. 1979. Calculation of row feet and plant numbers in tomato fields.
Bradenton AREC Res. Rept. GC1979-11.

Csizinszky, A. A. 1979. Considerations in calculating and reporting water applica-
tion rates for drip irrigated lands. Bradenton AREC Res. Rept. GC1979-13.

Csizinszky, A. A. 1979. Comparison of yield and water use of broccoli, sweet corn,
and zucchini squash with seep and drip irrigation methods. Bradenton AREC Res.
Rept. GC1979-14.

Csizinszky, A. A. 1979. The importance of irrigation frequency and fertilizer place-
ment in growing vegetables with drip irrigation. Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc.
92:76-80.

Csizinszky, A. A. 1980. Response of tomatoes to fertilizer rates and within-row
plant spacing in two and four-row production systems. Proc. Fla. State Hort.
Soc. 93:241-243.

Csizinszky, A. A. 1960. Yield and water use of vegetable crops with seepage and
drip irrigation systems. 43rd Proc. Fla. Acad. Sci. Soc. 43:285-292.

Csizinszky, A. A. 1981. Response of -a fall crop of green peppers to seepane.and
high frequency trickle irrigation a preliminary report. Bradenton AREC
Res. Rept. GC1931-13.
SCsizinszky, A. A. 1981. Effect of fertilizer placement methods on cabbage yields
with seepage and trickle irrigation. AREC Bradenton Res. Rept. GC19G1-12.

Csizinszky, A. A. and A. J. Overman. 1981. Exploratory investigation on the response
of mulched, staked tomato to drip irrigation, tube placement, and type and
quantity of fertilizer. Bradenton AREC Res. Rept. GC1981-9.





-11-

Csizinszky, A. A. and A. J. Overman. 1978. Variation in soil moisture, pH and total
soluble salt content of to ato fields under full-bed plastic mulch with drip
irrigation. Proc. 14th Watl. Plastics Conf:167-179.

Csizinszky, A. A. and A. J. Overman. 197G. Effect of drip irrigation tube place-
ment, type and quantity of fertilizer on yields of broccoli and cauliflower
under full-bed plastic rulch culture. Proc. Soil and Crop Sci. Soc. Fla.
30:4G-G5.

Everett, P. H. 1978. Fertilizing tomatoes or cucumbers as second crops on plastic
mulched beds. Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 91:317-319.
(Also in Citrus and Vegetable magazine, Dec. 1973, p 37).

Geraldson, C. i. 1980. Vegetable production from the spodosols of peninsular
Florida. Soil and Crop Sci. Soc. of Fla. Proc. 40:4-3.

Geraldson, C. Hi. 1930. Importance of water control for tomato production using
the gradient-mulch system. Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 93:278-279.

Geraldson, C. iA. 1979. Relevance of water and fertilizer to production and effi-
ciency of tomatoes and pepper. Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 92:74-75.

Harbaugh, B. K., J. W. Prevatt and J. A. Otte. 19G0. Selecting an irrigation system.
Florida Ornamental Growers' Assn. Newsletter Vol. 3(4):6. July-August 19M0.

Harbaugh, B. K., J. U. Prevatt and J. A. Otte. 1930. Irrigation systems for pot-
plant production in Florida economic and horticultural implications.
Bradenton ATLEC Res. Rept. GC1900-1. 11 pp

Harbaugh, B. K., C. D. Stanley, and J. F. Price. 1962. Effects of trickle irriga-
tion rates on chrysanthemum cut-flower production. HortScience (in press).

Harbaugh, B. K. and G. J. Uilfret. 1979. Spray chrysanthemum production with
controlled-release fertilizer and trickle irrigation. Journal Am. Soc.
Hort. Sci. 105:367-371.

Harbaugh, B. K. and G. J. Uilfret. 1979. nini-pot mums production practices
using capillary mat irrigation and slow release fertilizer. Bradenton AREC
Res. Rept. GC1979-7.

Hiarlowe, G. A., Jr. 1977. Water concerns of the Florida Vegetable Industry. Am.
Soc. of Civil Engineers, Florida Section. College of Engineering USF, Tampa,
Proc. of Workshop on Florida Water Problems.

Harlowe, Georne A., Jr. 1970. Uater for people or for food? Vegetarian Newsletter,
[larch.

larlowe, George A., Jr. 197C. Water conservation in the early growth of vegetables.
Vegetarian newsletterr, April.
Iarlowe, G. A., Jr. and A. J. Overman. 1977. A rationale for the determination of
irrigation needs of vegetable crops grown with seep irrigation. Bradenton AREC
Res. Rept. GC1977-8.

i tte, J. A., J. 0. Jackson, R. T. hontgomery, and M. T. Pospichal. 1978. Estimated
investment in PVC pipe water conveyance systems for southwest Florida seep
irrigated tomato fields, 1978. FRED, IFAS, Econ. Info. Res. Rept. 111.





-12-


Overman, A. J. 1974. I:ematicides in linear drip irrigation for full-bed mulch of
tomato. Proc. Soil 9 Crop Sci. Soc. Fla. c7:197-200.


SOverman, A. J.
Proc. Fla.


1976. Efficacy of soil fumigants applied via a drip irrigation system.
State Hort. Soc. 69:72-74.


Ovenran, A. J. 1977. Crop response to nematicides and drip irrigation on sandy soil.
Proc. VII International Agricultural Plastics Conf.:172-179.

Overman, A. J. 1978. Crop response to SHDC applied through a drip irrigation system.
Proc. 14th national Agri. Plastics Congress:128-136.

Overman, A. J. 1901. Soil fumigation via drip irrigation under full-bed mulch culture
for row crops. Proc. Soil F Crop Sci. Soc. Fla. 41:(in press).

Overman, A. J. and F. G. l'artin. 1978. A survey of soil and crop management practices
in the Florida tomato industry. Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 91:294-297.

Overman, A. J., F. G. ilartin, J. L. Green and A. U. Engelhard. 1979. The influence of
linear drip irrigation placement in mulched and nonmulched soils on chrysanthemum
production and nutrient distribution. Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 92:322-326.


Prevatt, J.
County


U. 19d0. Installing or replacing an irrigation system. Hillsborough
Extension Newsletter, The Water Line, Vol. 1, io. 1. Jan. 1980.


Prevatt, J. Walter, Brent K. Harbaugh and John Otte. 1979. A cost appraisal of capil-
lary mat, tube weight, handwater and overhead irrigation system used in potted
chrysanthemum production. Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 92:306-308.


*revatt, J. .I, C. D. Stanley and U. E. Jaters,
ance and recoverysystem for seep irrigatic

Price, J. F., B. K. Harbaunh and C. D. Stanley,
rates on leafminer and mite populations.


S1980. Evaluation of a water convey-
)n. Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 93:253-256.

S1932. Effects of trickle irrigation
HortScience (in press).


Rogers, J. S. and G. A. Harlowe, Jr. 1976. Water needs of Florida vegetable crops.
IFAS later Res. Council.

Rosenbaum, S. E., B. K. Harbaugh, T. A. iell and G. J. Wilfret. 1979. Growth responses
of potted chrysanthemum to controlled release fertilizers with two irrigation systems.
Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 92:360-363.
Stanley, C. D. and B. K. Harbaugh. 1980. Preliminary studies on soil-water movement from
trickle irrigation lines on a ]yakka fine sand. Bradenton AREC Res. Rept. GC1980-7.


Stanley, C. D. and B. K. Harbaugh. 19;1.
trickle line on yield characteristics
GC1981-10.


The effect of distance between plants and
of chrysanthemums. Bradenton AREC Res. Rept.


Stanley, C. D. and B. K. Harbaugh. 1981. A rapid and simple method for determining
evapotranspiration requirements for potted ornamental crops. Proc. Fla. State
Hort. Soc. 94: (in press).
nley, C. D., J. S. Rogers, J. UI. Prevatt and U. E. Waters. 1980. Subsurface drain-
age and irrigation for tomatoes. Soil & Crop Sci. Soc. of Fla. Proc. 40:92-95.
hilfret, G. J. and B. K. Harbaugh. 1977. Evaluation of poinsettia cultivars grown on
two irrigation systems. Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 90:309-311.




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs