No abstract

A study was initiated in Fall 2006 in Raleigh, North Carolina to compare two types of commercially available irrigation control technologies, one based on estimates of evapotranspiration (ET) and the other based on feedback from soil moisture sensors. Water applied and turf quality from one ET-based system and two sensor-based systems were compared to a system using a standard time-based irrigation schedule. The effect of irrigation frequency was also a part of the study. Estimates of turf ET were obtained from the Penman-Monteith equation using on-site weather data, and also from an atmometer. Results from the twenty week evaluation in 2007 showed that on average the "add-on" soil-moisture-based system evaluated applied the least amount of water while the ETbased system evaluated applied the most water. Weekly irrigation frequencies used the least amount of water, followed by biweekly and daily frequencies in increasing amounts when averaged across all technologies. Minimally acceptable turf quality was maintained by all technologies and frequencies through most of the study, but turf quality declined substantially the last month of the study for the add-on system and standard timer-based system. The "on-demand" sensor-based system resulted in the best combination of water efficiency and turf quality.