## 4 Conclusions  
The application efficiency equation of [PERSON] and Bliesner was adapted for use with a center pivot system, incorporating two important components of losses: the retention of irrigation water in residues and leaf interception. The decrease in uniformity was also adjusted with a quadratic equation considering days after emergence as an independent variable. However, with mean uniformity distribution as low as 35%, the uniformity in the soil was 97.5%. Since the adjusted distribution uniformity is the most influential component in the revised equation of application efficiency, it might not be valid for fine-texture soils. It was demonstrated that variations in intensities along the pivot, from 5.7 to 77.4 mm h\({}^{-1}\), did not influence the uniformity of distribution. The different irrigation  
\begin{table} \begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**eld, mm** & **Dc, mm** & **de** & **H, m** & **DM, ton/ha** & **PRR** & **LI** & **DUpa** & **DDUpa, \%** & **DUpaaj** & **Re** & **REa, \%** \\ \hline
10 & 4.7 & 30 & 1 & 10 & 0.926 & 0.967 & 0.85 & \(-9\) & 0.77 & 0.98 & 68 \\
10 & 4.7 & 30 & 1 & 15 & 0.901 & 0.967 & 0.85 & \(-9\) & 0.77 & 0.98 & 66 \\
10 & 4.7 & 30 & 1 & 20 & 0.876 & 0.967 & 0.85 & \(-9\) & 0.77 & 0.98 & 64 \\
15 & 6.0 & 40 & 1 & 10 & 0.957 & 0.906 & 0.85 & \(-16\) & 0.71 & 0.98 & 61 \\
15 & 6.0 & 40 & 1 & 15 & 0.941 & 0.906 & 0.85 & \(-16\) & 0.71 & 0.98 & 60 \\
15 & 6.0 & 40 & 1 & 20 & 0.924 & 0.906 & 0.85 & \(-16\) & 0.71 & 0.98 & 59 \\
25 & 9.9 & 50 & 1 & 10 & 0.982 & 0.929 & 0.85 & \(-25\) & 0.64 & 0.98 & 57 \\
25 & 9.9 & 50 & 1 & 15 & 0.972 & 0.929 & 0.85 & \(-25\) & 0.64 & 0.98 & 56 \\
25 & 9.9 & 50 & 1 & 20 & 0.962 & 0.929 & 0.85 & \(-25\) & 0.64 & 0.98 & 56 \\
40 & 20.9 & 70 & 1 & 10 & 0.997 & 0.895 & 0.85 & \(-49\) & 0.43 & 0.98 & 38 \\
40 & 20.9 & 70 & 1 & 15 & 0.990 & 0.895 & 0.85 & \(-49\) & 0.43 & 0.98 & 38 \\
40 & 20.9 & 70 & 1 & 20 & 0.984 & 0.895 & 0.85 & \(-49\) & 0.43 & 0.98 & 37 \\ \hline  & & & & & & & & & & & \\ \end{tabular} \begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**eld, mm** & **Dc, mm** & **de** & **H, m** & **DM, ton/ha** & **PRR** & **LI** & **DUpa** & **DDUpa, \%** & **DUpaaj** & **Re** & **REa, \%** \\ \hline
10 & 4.7 & 30 & 1 & 10 & 0.926 & 0.967 & 0.85 & \(-9\) & 0.77 & 0.98 & 68 \\
10 & 4.7 & 30 & 1 & 15 & 0.901 & 0.967 & 0.85 & \(-9\) & 0.77 & 0.98 & 66 \\
10 & 4.7 & 30 & 1 & 20 & 0.876 & 0.967 & 0.85 & \(-9\) & 0.77 & 0.98 & 64 \\
15 & 6.0 & 40 & 1 & 10 & 0.957 & 0.906 & 0.85 & \(-16\) & 0.71 & 0.98 & 61 \\
15 & 6.0 & 40 & 1 & 15 & 0.941 & 0.906 & 0.85 & \(-16\) & 0.71 & 0.98 & 60 \\
15 & 6.0 & 40 & 1 & 20 & 0.924 & 0.906 & 0.85 & \(-16\) & 0.71 & 0.98 & 59 \\
25 & 9.9 & 50 & 1 & 10 & 0.982 & 0.929 & 0.85 & \(-25\) & 0.64 & 0.98 & 57 \\
25 & 9.9 & 50 & 1 & 15 & 0.972 & 0.929 & 0.85 & \(-25\) & 0.64 & 0.98 & 56 \\
25 & 9.9 & 50 & 1 & 20 & 0.962 & 0.929 & 0.85 & \(-25\) & 0.64 & 0.98 & 56 \\
40 & 20.9 & 70 & 1 & 10 & 0.997 & 0.895 & 0.85 & \(-49\) & 0.43 & 0.98 & 38 \\
40 & 20.9 & 70 & 1 & 15 & 0.990 & 0.895 & 0.85 & \(-49\) & 0.43 & 0.98 & 38 \\
40 & 20.9 & 70 & 1 & 20 & 0.984 & 0.895 & 0.85 & \(-49\) & 0.43 & 0.98 & 37 \\ \hline  & & & & & & & & & & \\ \end{tabular}   
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**eld, mm** & **Dc, mm** & **de** & **H, m** & **DM, ton/ha** & **PRR** & **LI** & **DUpa** & **DDUpa, \%** & **DUpaaj** & **Re** & **REa, \%** \\ \hline
10 & 4.7 & 30 & 1 & 10 & 0.926 & 0.967 & 0.85 & \(-9\) & 0.77 & 0.98 & 68 \\
10 & 4.7 & 30 & 1 & 15 & 0.901 & 0.967 & 0.85 & \(-9\) & 0.77 & 0.98 & 66 \\
10 & 4.7 & 30 & 1 & 20 & 0.876 & 0.967 depths (40, 24, 12 and 6 mm) also had no effect on uniformity up to an advanced vegetative stage (V\({}_{10}\)), when uniformity decreased significantly at a depth of 6 mm. This change in uniformity relative to plant development stage can be a management criterion to be considered. In a tall-growing crop like corn, a minimum distance of 0.40 m between sprinkler height and canopy is necessary to reduce interference in the trajectory of droplets.