Michael A. H. Bekken, Dimitrios Pavlou, Jingyi Huang, Chase M. Straw, Christopher J. Kucharik, Douglas J. Soldat
{"title":"利用三种不同复杂程度的水平衡模型量化高尔夫球场水利用效率","authors":"Michael A. H. Bekken, Dimitrios Pavlou, Jingyi Huang, Chase M. Straw, Christopher J. Kucharik, Douglas J. Soldat","doi":"10.1002/glr2.70013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Three water balance models were used to quantify water use efficiency on 71 golf courses in the United States. The golf courses were separated into five geographic regions.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>The United States Golf Association (USGA), Tipping-Bucket (TB), and Agro-IBIS (AG) water balance models were used to estimate golf course water requirements. Actual water use was divided by the water requirement from each model to generate three water efficiency scores for each golf course (WES<sub>USGA</sub>, WES<sub>TB</sub>, and WES<sub>AG</sub>).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>The mean WES<sub>USGA</sub> was 1.16, the mean WES<sub>TB</sub> was 1.25, and the mean WES<sub>AG</sub> was 1.17. Thus, golf courses in this study used between 16% and 25% more water than predicted by the three models. The coefficients of variation of WES<sub>USGA</sub>, WES<sub>TB</sub>, and WES<sub>AG</sub> were all 0.45 or higher, indicating that some golf courses used significantly more or less water than predicted by the models. Rooting depth, irrigated area, and soil texture were especially important modeling parameters for the golf course water requirement calculations.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>While onsite evaluation should still be carried out to verify the assumptions made by the water balance models, the models are promising tools to quickly identify golf course superintendents who are likely to be using water efficiently and those who could use less.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":100593,"journal":{"name":"Grassland Research","volume":"4 3","pages":"223-234"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/glr2.70013","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Quantifying golf course water use efficiency using three water balance models of varying complexity\",\"authors\":\"Michael A. H. Bekken, Dimitrios Pavlou, Jingyi Huang, Chase M. Straw, Christopher J. Kucharik, Douglas J. Soldat\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/glr2.70013\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background</h3>\\n \\n <p>Three water balance models were used to quantify water use efficiency on 71 golf courses in the United States. The golf courses were separated into five geographic regions.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>The United States Golf Association (USGA), Tipping-Bucket (TB), and Agro-IBIS (AG) water balance models were used to estimate golf course water requirements. Actual water use was divided by the water requirement from each model to generate three water efficiency scores for each golf course (WES<sub>USGA</sub>, WES<sub>TB</sub>, and WES<sub>AG</sub>).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>The mean WES<sub>USGA</sub> was 1.16, the mean WES<sub>TB</sub> was 1.25, and the mean WES<sub>AG</sub> was 1.17. Thus, golf courses in this study used between 16% and 25% more water than predicted by the three models. The coefficients of variation of WES<sub>USGA</sub>, WES<sub>TB</sub>, and WES<sub>AG</sub> were all 0.45 or higher, indicating that some golf courses used significantly more or less water than predicted by the models. Rooting depth, irrigated area, and soil texture were especially important modeling parameters for the golf course water requirement calculations.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>While onsite evaluation should still be carried out to verify the assumptions made by the water balance models, the models are promising tools to quickly identify golf course superintendents who are likely to be using water efficiently and those who could use less.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":100593,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Grassland Research\",\"volume\":\"4 3\",\"pages\":\"223-234\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/glr2.70013\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Grassland Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/glr2.70013\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Grassland Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/glr2.70013","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Quantifying golf course water use efficiency using three water balance models of varying complexity
Background
Three water balance models were used to quantify water use efficiency on 71 golf courses in the United States. The golf courses were separated into five geographic regions.
Methods
The United States Golf Association (USGA), Tipping-Bucket (TB), and Agro-IBIS (AG) water balance models were used to estimate golf course water requirements. Actual water use was divided by the water requirement from each model to generate three water efficiency scores for each golf course (WESUSGA, WESTB, and WESAG).
Results
The mean WESUSGA was 1.16, the mean WESTB was 1.25, and the mean WESAG was 1.17. Thus, golf courses in this study used between 16% and 25% more water than predicted by the three models. The coefficients of variation of WESUSGA, WESTB, and WESAG were all 0.45 or higher, indicating that some golf courses used significantly more or less water than predicted by the models. Rooting depth, irrigated area, and soil texture were especially important modeling parameters for the golf course water requirement calculations.
Conclusions
While onsite evaluation should still be carried out to verify the assumptions made by the water balance models, the models are promising tools to quickly identify golf course superintendents who are likely to be using water efficiently and those who could use less.