Horticultural Growers’ Willingness to Adopt Recycling of Irrigation Water

Cultice, Alyssa K.; Bosch, Darrell J.; Pease, James W.; Boyle, Kevin J.; Xu, Weibin

doi:10.1017/aae.2016.2

Cited by 7 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 14 publications

(15 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For the small and large simulated nurseries constructed from average characteristics of nurseries surveyed by Cultice et al (2016), with sufficient on-farm groundwater access and nonrestrictive regulations, well water was the most cost-effective water source. Recycling in these ''typical'' example nurseries was not cost-effective because of regrading costs, recapture pond excavation costs, and opportunity costs of the production area sacrificed for excavation of the pond.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Partial budgets were constructed for all case study nurseries based on the reported amount of irrigation water needed with and without recycling. Although the Cultice survey (Cultice et al, 2016) identified several nurseries relying exclusively on captured and recycled rainfall for irrigation, these eight case nurseries in the present study employ recycling to varying degrees. VA-2, VA-3, and MD-2 use recycled rainfall and irrigation runoff for all their water needs ( Table 1).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…In addition, two simulated nurseries representing characteristics and practices in survey responses were constructed (Cultice et al, 2016). The simulated nurseries were constructed to analyze the recycling decision from the perspective of a typical nursery using well water as its principal water source.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Costs of Capturing and Recycling Irrigation Water in Container Nurseries

Ferraro

Bosch

Pease

et al. 2017

horts

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the future, the U.S. ornamental horticulture industry may be faced with limited water resources and increased requirements to reduce pollution runoff from production areas. The concerns are most evident to outdoor, uncovered container crop production, which relies on daily irrigation. Capture of precipitation and irrigation runoff from ornamental horticulture nurseries to be recycled as irrigation could potentially generate cost savings relative to the cost of alternative water sources. Existing nurseries may incur large investment costs to modify their infrastructure for water capture to recycle. These added costs must be compared with costs of alternative sources such as off-farm municipal or on-farm well water. Using both existing case nurseries and simulated nurseries, this study employed partial budgeting for comparison of annual costs of recapture and recycling to the alternatives of either municipally delivered water or on-farm well extraction. On-site visits were conducted at mid-Atlantic ornamental horticulture operations that recycle water currently to gather data for constructing budgets and to determine factors that enhance or inhibit nursery adoption of recycling. The partial budgeting analysis was followed by breakeven analysis with regard to costs of regrading, pond excavation, and opportunity costs of land to isolate their effects on the nursery adoption decision. Six of eight case nurseries currently obtaining from 20% to 100% of their irrigation needs from recycled water achieve lower production costs as a result of recycling compared with using alternative municipal or well water sources. Recycling would also reduce pollution runoff as water containing nutrients and chemicals would be retained for reuse on the farm rather than being discharged to public water bodies. Two case nurseries and two simulated nurseries that were constructed based on average conditions for nurseries participating in a mail survey see higher production costs as a result of recycling. The cost of land regrading for water recapture, excavating the recapture pond, and the opportunity cost of production area occupied by the recapture pond are critical for determination of the least cost outcome. Public funding incentives for water collection and recycling could motivate increased water conservation and reduced pollution runoff within the horticulture industry.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Costs of Capturing and Recycling Irrigation Water in Container Nurseries

Ferraro

Bosch

Pease

et al. 2017

horts

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Cultice (2013) conducted a mail survey of mid-Atlantic irrigated nursery producers to determine irrigation practices and used a conditional logit model to estimate the impacts of disease probability, drought probability, and water-recycling cost on producers' WTP to adopt water-recycling techniques and practices. Of 260 irrigated nurseries, 55% reported that they did not capture any irrigation runoff, and only 14% captured all irrigation runoff (Cultice et al, 2016). Only six irrigated nurseries (2.3%) sourced all their irrigation water from captured runoff.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In some cases, the increased risk of water-borne plant pathogens spreading through recycled water has impeded WRT adoption and associated social benefits from reduced water pollution (Hong and Moorman, 2005;von Broembsen, 1998). In addition, the concern about production cost increases associated with WRT, and the uncertainty of revenue enhancement discourage many growers from implementing the new technology (Cultice et al, 2016).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Recycling Irrigation Water on Ornamental Nursery Operations: Could Consumer Premiums Compensate for Grower Adoption Costs?

Cao

Bosch

Pease

2017

horts

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The U.S. nursery and greenhouse industry is facing twin challenges of reduced water availability and increased pressure to mitigate pollution from horticultural production. Water-recycling technology (WRT) has been adopted by some nursery producers to improve crop water productivity and to enhance water supply security. This study estimated the economic feasibility of WRT adoption if producers received some portion of retail price premiums for eco-labeled products. Three annual bedding plants, Geraniums (Pelargonium spp.), Petunias (Petunia spp.), and Chrysanthemums (Chrysanthemum spp.) and three broadleaf evergreen plants, Azaleas (Rhododendron spp.), Holly (Ilex spp.), and Boxwood (Buxus spp.) were analyzed based on their sales in the study region of Virginia (VA), Maryland (MD), and Pennsylvania (PA). Of the eight case study nurseries and two synthesized nurseries examined, five showed increased net costs with recycling. However, in almost all cases for which at least a portion of a retail consumer premium was returned to growers, the premium was adequate to compensate for recycling investment costs.

show abstract

Diversity of Phytophthora, Pythium, and Phytopythium Species in Recycled Irrigation Water in a Container Nursery

Redekar

Eberhart

Parke

2019

Phytobiomes Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recycling of irrigation water increases disease risks due to spread of waterborne oomycete plant pathogens such as Phytophthora, Pythium, and Phytopythium. A comprehensive metabarcoding study was conducted to determine spatial and temporal dynamics of oomycete communities present in irrigation water collected from a creek (main water source), a pond, retention reservoirs, a chlorinated water reservoir, and runoff channels within a commercial container nursery in Oregon over the course of 1 year. Two methods, filtration and leaf baiting, were compared for the detection of oomycete communities. Oomycete communities in recycled irrigation water were less diverse but highly enriched with biologically active plant pathogens as compared with the creek water. The filtration method captured a larger portion of oomycete diversity, while leaf baiting was more selective for plant-associated oomycete species of Phytophthora and a few Pythium and Phytopythium species. Seasonality strongly influenced oomycete diversity in irrigation water and detection with leaf baiting. Phytophthora was the major colonizer of leaf baits in winter, while all three genera were equally abundant on leaf baits in summer. The metabarcoding approach was highly effective in studying oomycete ecology, however, it failed to distinguish some closely related species. We developed a custom oomycete internal transcribed spacer (ITS)1 reference database containing shorter sequences flanked by ITS6 and ITS7 primers used in metabarcoding and used it to assemble a list of indistinguishable species complexes and clusters to improve identification. The predominant bait-colonizing species detected in recycled irrigation water were the Phytophthora citricola-complex, Phytophthora syringae, Phytophthora parsiana-cluster, Phytophthora chlamydospora, Phytophthora gonapodyides, Phytophthora irrigata, Phytophthora taxon Oaksoil-cluster, Phytophthora citrophthora-cluster, Phytophthora megasperma-cluster, Pythium chondricola-complex, Pythium dissotocum-cluster, and Phytopythium litorale.

show abstract

Horticultural Growers’ Willingness to Adopt Recycling of Irrigation Water

Cited by 7 publications

References 14 publications

Costs of Capturing and Recycling Irrigation Water in Container Nurseries

Costs of Capturing and Recycling Irrigation Water in Container Nurseries

Recycling Irrigation Water on Ornamental Nursery Operations: Could Consumer Premiums Compensate for Grower Adoption Costs?

Diversity of Phytophthora, Pythium, and Phytopythium Species in Recycled Irrigation Water in a Container Nursery

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About