## 3 Results and Discussion
### Distribution Uniformity  
Mean DUpa (control) calculated with pa other than 80% differed from mean HHCU (Table 4), in agreement with the equation proposed by [PERSON] and [PERSON] [2]. With pa of 80%, DUpa and HHCU were similar and regarded as very good for sprinkler irrigation according to [19], whereas with pa > 80%, segments 5 and 9 had DUpa below 80%, the threshold recommended for sprinkler irrigation. The values obtained allowed us to adapt the DUpa equation proposed by [2] using HHCU. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Segments**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Designed Flow**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Actual Flow**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Actual Flow/**} \\ \cline{2-6}  & **m\({}^{3}\) h\({}^{-1}\)** & **CV** & **m\({}^{3}\) h\({}^{-1}\)** & **CV** & **Designed Flow Ratio** \\ \hline
1 & 0.27 & 36.16 & 0.3 & 44.47 & 1.11 \\
2 & 0.63 & 16.89 & 0.72 & 17.91 & 1.14 \\
3 & 1.08 & 11.48 & 1.28 & 12.16 & 1.19 \\
4 & 0.77 & 12.33 & 0.91 & 10.29 & 1.18 \\
5 & 1.08 & 11.74 & 1.27 & 11.74 & 1.18 \\
6 & 1.4 & 7.28 & 1.63 & 7.28 & 1.16 \\
7 & 1.59 & 4.87 & 1.87 & 4.87 & 1.18 \\
8 & 1.72 & 4.76 & 1.99 & 4.76 & 1.16 \\
9 & 2.00 & 4.18 & 2.21 & 4.18 & 1.11 \\
10 & 2.00 & 5.08 & 2.21 & 5.08 & 1.11 \\
11 & 2.04 & 15.75 & 2.14 & 4.35 & 1.05 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Theoretical and actual mean flows (m\({}^{3}\) h\({}^{-1}\)) for each segment and their corresponding coefficients of variation (CV). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Segments**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Operating Speeds**} \\  & **Wetted** & **Wetted** & **Average Application** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**100\%**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**50\%**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**25\%**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**15\%**} \\ \cline{3-8}  & **Width, m** & **Length, m** & **Rate, mm h\({}^{-1}\)** & **CI** & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Wetting Time, Minutes**} \\ \hline
1 & 8.7 & 24.1 & 5.7 & 7 & 51 & 98 & 349 & 482 \\
2 & 11.2 & 26.8 & 12.0 & 7 & 36 & 58 & 142 & 193 \\
3 & 14.5 & 34.2 & 15.4 & 7 & 17 & 32 & 65 & 111 \\
4 & 13.7 & 23.9 & 25.0 & 7 & 19 & 32 & 74 & 108 \\
5 & 14.3 & 55.2 & 32.1 & 7 & 14 & 25 & 56 & 83 \\
6 & 14.3 & 25.9 & 39.6 & 7 & 10 & 17 & 42 & 52 \\
7 & 14.5 &Conceptually, the DUpa equation means that for a given pa, the deficit between the desired net Id and the Id effectively stored in the soil increases with decreasing uniformity [2]. With a pa of 80%, DUpa is similar to HHCU, indicating the most adequately irrigated area. As pa decreases, a lower extra Id is necessary, but the proportion of under-irrigated area increases; this depends both on the sensitivity to water deficit and the economic value of the crop used [32]. Thus, to compare the different DUpa values calculated with the different Ids, position of sprinklers and phenological stages, a pa of 80% was used. The control condition (Figure 6a) indicates the water distribution model without crop, which presented values regarded as good to very good for the four Ids analyzed, according to the classification of [19]. This condition represents the optimum water distribution and can be used for comparison with respect to the DUpa obtained in the presence of the crop. The high DUpa obtained may be due to a correct design of the sprinkler package and wind speeds \(<\)3 m s\({}^{-1}\) during the trials, among other factors.