365-1 University: Questions From Turfgrass Scientists and Managers.

See more from this Division: C05 Turfgrass Science
See more from this Session: Symposium--Making Sense Out of Water Sense; Stakeholders Drive Their Points Into the Heart of the Issues
Wednesday, October 24, 2012: 9:05 AM
Millennium Hotel, Grand Ballroom B, Second Floor
Share |

David Kopec, Plant Science Department, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ
The EPA WaterSense Water Budget Tool has raised questions from the scientific community regarding some of its components and the resulting outcomes for the “end” user.  General assumptions of “plant water requirement" replacement values based on crop coefficient values (Kc), have been widely available in the scientific literature for turf, but data availability and applications of Kc values for trees and shrubs in “mixed landscapes” across the nation and in numerous climatic zones is a major concern.  Other questions relating to the model include (1) why is the landscape water allowance (LWA) automatically a 30% reduction of Ref ETo; (2) if turf water use allotments are based on respective Kc values, lower water use values will result since published Kc values for turfgrass originated as the ratio of turfgrass water use to 100% Ref ETo, and not from the LWA, which is reduced in the model early on as 70% of Ref ETo; (3) how does the model generate yearly water use allotments from the single highest calendar month for Ref ETo and rainfall for that month; (4) why is a “fixed” spray head the only option for irrigation type in a turfgrass area; (5) to what extent does having non-irrigated trees and shrubs in the model affect the turfgrass water allotment. These are some of major questions that the scientific community has regarding the existing EPA WaterSense Water Budget Tool.
See more from this Division: C05 Turfgrass Science
See more from this Session: Symposium--Making Sense Out of Water Sense; Stakeholders Drive Their Points Into the Heart of the Issues