Hilgardia
Hilgardia
Hilgardia
University of California
Hilgardia

Sudangrass uses water at rates similar to alfalfa, depending on location

Author

Mark E. Grismer

Author Affiliations

M.E. Grismer is Professor of Hydrology, and Biological and Agricultural Engineering, UC Davis.

Publication Information

Hilgardia 55(4):44-48. DOI:10.3733/ca.v055n04p44. July 2001.

PDF of full article, Cite this article

Abstract

Although sudangrass hay is the second largest forage crop (next to alfalfa), grown south of Sacramento and its planted area has quadrupled in the past decade, little information is available about its water use or relative water value. We would expect the sudangrass yield-water use relationship to be similar to that of alfalfa. Limited data suggest that under moderate soil salinity conditions in the Imperial Valley, sudangrass water-use efficiency (WUE–-the ratio of hay yield to water used) approximates the low end of measured alfalfa WUE. However, when we account for an estimated salinity-induced yield loss of 15% in the Imperial Valley, sudangrass WUE approximates the high end of measured alfalfa WUE. In order to better characterize the relationship between water use and crop production, as well as develop information about the relative water value associated with sudangrass-hay production, we compared hay yields and prices with estimated crop water use from 1988 to 1999 in Merced and Stanislaus, Riverside and San Bernardino, and Imperial counties. Linear regression analysis between yield and crop water use from the five-county dataset resulted in different WUE values depending on whether or not the Imperial Valley data was included. Variability in the crop-yield-to-water-use ratio from year to year was greatest in Imperial County and least in Merced and Stanislaus counties, while irrigation-water values (not including production costs) for sudangrass hay were lowest with the greatest variability in the northern counties.

References

Allen RG, Periera LS, Raes D, Smith M. Crop Evapotranspiration — Guidelines for Computing Crop Water Requirements. Irrigation and Drainage Paper 56. 1998. Rome: FAO/UN.

Asseng S, Hsiao TC. Canopy CO2 assimilation, energy balance and water-use efficiency of an aifalfa crop before and after cutting. Field Crops Res. 2000. 67:191-206. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-4290(00)00094-0

Ayer HW, Hoyt PG. Crop-water production functions: Economic implications for Arizona. 1981. Tech Bull 242, Arizona Ag Exp Station and USDA-ERS.

Bali KM, Grismer ME, Tod IC. Reduced-runoff irrigation of sudangrass hay; Imperial Valley, CA. ASCE J Irrig Drain Eng. 2001. 127(3):123-130. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9437(2001)127:3(123)

Grismer ME. Alfalfa-hay yield, water use and water value in the Western states. ASCE J Irrig & Drain Engrg. 2001. 127(3):131-139. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9437(2001)127:3(131) PubMed PMID: 18335486

Jensen ME. Water-use assessment of the Imperial Irrigation District. 1995. Internal report to ilD (as reported in Putnam and Kallenbach 1997).

Li X, Feng Y, Boersma L. Comparison of osmotic adjustment responses to water and temperature stresses in spring wheat and sudangrass. Annal Botany. 1993. 71(4):303-310. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbo.1993.1039

Putnam D, Kallenbach R. Growers face critical juncture in desert forage production. Cal Ag. 1997. 51(3):12-16.

Grismer M. 2001. Sudangrass uses water at rates similar to alfalfa, depending on location. Hilgardia 55(4):44-48. DOI:10.3733/ca.v055n04p44
Webmaster Email: sjosterman@ucanr.edu