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 Related articles in JEQ Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed 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 (5) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Shani, U. Articles by Dudley, L. M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Shani, U. Articles by Dudley, L. M. Agricola Articles by Shani, U. Articles by Dudley, L. M. Related Collections Water Management Best Management Practices Plant and Soil Interactions Root Growth/Water Uptake Models Vadose Zone Policy Analyses

Environmental Implications of Adopting a Dominant Factor Approach to Salinity Management

^a Department of Soil and Water Sciences, Faculty of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Sciences, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, P.O. Box 12, Rehovot 76100, Israel
^b Environmental Physics and Irrigation, Agricultural Research Organization, Gilat Research Center, D.N. Negev 85280, Israel
^c Utah State University, Department of Plants, Soils and Biometeorology, 4820 Old Main Hill, Logan, UT 84322-4820

View larger version (25K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Schematic illustration of yield response to combined water availability and salinity according to four approaches: (a) additive–compensative, (b) multiplicative–compensative, (c) multiplied piecewise linear relationships, and (d) dominant factor.

View larger version (26K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Yield (Y) response to combined salinity and water. Experimental (symbols) and computed (lines, assuming a dominant factor model) results for corn grown in field experiments in Logan, UT, and melons grown in field experiments in the Arava, Israel. Irrigation water quantity (I) is shown relative to potential evapotranspiration (E0). The term Ym is maximum yield and EC is electrical conductivity.

View larger version (23K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Yield (Y) response to combined salinity and nitrogen. Experimental (symbols) and computed (lines, assuming a dominant factor model) results for corn grown in greenhouse lysimeters in the Arava and in Rechovot, Israel, and onion grown in lysimeters in the Arava, Israel. From Shenker et al. (2003). The term Ym is maximum yield, and EC is electrical conductivity.

View larger version (25K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4. Yield (Y) response to combined salinity and excess boron. Experimental (symbols) and computed (lines, assuming a dominant factor model) results for tomato grown in greenhouse lysimeters and date palm grown in field lysimeters in the Arava, Israel. From Ben-Gal and Shani (2002) and Tripler (2004). The term Ym is maximum yield, and EC is electrical conductivity.

View larger version (26K): [in a new window]   Fig. 5. Comparison of the additive–compensative and multiplicative–compensative models with the dominant factor model for the melon data from Shani and Dudley (2001). The additive and multiplicative model results were taken from Dudley and Shani (2003). Experimental (symbols) and computed (solid lines, assuming dominant factor model; dashed lines, assuming additive compensation; dotted lines, assuming multiplicative compensation) results. The term I is irrigation quantity, E0 is potential evapotranspiration, Y is yield, Ym is maximum yield, and EC is electrical conductivity.