Residential Irrigation Water Use in the Central Piedmont of North Carolina. II: Evaluation of Smart Irrigation Technologies

Nautiyal, Mayank; Grabow, Garry L.; Huffman, Rodney L.; Miller, Grady L.; Bowman, Daryl T.

doi:10.1061/(asce)ir.1943-4774.0000820

Cited by 17 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In Orange County, Florida, when homeowners received on-site educational training and optimized programming of their SMS, Davis and Dukes (2015) reported 34% to 52% water savings over 21 months of data collection in flatwood soils. In North Carolina, SMS treatments resulted in average water savings of 39% in plot conditions (Grabow et al, 2013); in residential settings, 42% water savings were achieved over a 20-week study period (Nautiyal et al, 2015). In Colorado, Qualls et al (2001), using SMS to control urban landscape irrigation, reported an irrigation reduction of 27% compared to the theoretical requirement.…”

Section: Water Savingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In those latter studies, the authors reported no moisture stress nor turf quality reductions, while at the same time SMS eliminated unnecessary irrigation. In North Carolina, Grabow et al (2013) reported water savings of 39% for SMS and -11% for ET controllers in plot conditions, while Nautiyal et al (2015) indicated 42% savings with SMS and 22% reduction in irrigation with ET controllers in residential settings.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Irrigation Savings from Smart Irrigation Technologies and a Smartphone App on Turfgrass

Cardenas¹,

Migliaccio²,

Dukes³

et al. 2020

Transactions of the ASABE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

HighlightsAll tested smart irrigation technologies regulated irrigation based on real-time soil moisture and weather conditions.Treatments based on SMS, ET, or smartphone app applied less water than the comparison treatment by 51% to 63%, 28% to 66%, and 51% to 63%, respectively.The payback period for the different technologies ranged between 0 and 12 months.Abstract. A plot study comparing a variety of irrigation scheduling technologies was conducted in Gainesville, Florida, from 2015 to 2017. Our study objectives were to: (1) compare the ability of different irrigation scheduling technologies to bypass scheduled irrigation cycles and/or decrease water application; and (2) compare water savings. Twelve irrigation scheduling treatments were investigated, with each replicated three or four times. Treatments included time-based schedules without sensor feedback (WOS), with a rain sensor, deficit irrigation with a rain sensor, and non-irrigated. Also included were three soil moisture sensor (SMS) based treatments, three weather or ET-based treatments (ET), and two smartphone app-based treatments. Significant differences in turfgrass quality among all treatments (including non-irrigated) were not observed during the testing periods, which tended to be wetter than normal. Compared to WOS, the SMS, ET, and smartphone app treatments achieved water savings of 51% to 63%, 28% to 66%, and 51% to 63%, respectively, depending on treatment specifics. Inclusion of additional practices, such as a split irrigation strategy (half in the morning and half in the evening) and seasonal deficit irrigation, were shown to be advantageous in an area where rainfall is frequent and a substantial contributor to plant water needs. The SMS treatments saved water by bypassing scheduled irrigation cycles, the ET controllers saved water mainly through lower application depths, while the app-based treatments saved water through a combination of bypassing and applying lower irrigation depths. The payback period for the evaluated scheduling technologies ranged between 0 and 12 months. Financial and practical considerations should be included when recommending or acquiring one of these irrigation scheduling technologies. Keywords: Evapotranspiration controllers, Smart irrigation controllers, Smartphone apps, Soil moisture sensors.

show abstract

Section: Water Savingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Irrigation Savings from Smart Irrigation Technologies and a Smartphone App on Turfgrass

Cardenas¹,

Migliaccio²,

Dukes³

et al. 2020

Transactions of the ASABE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The other three controllers overirrigated the turfgrass. An SMS and ET controller were evaluated against a timer with historical based runtimes and a non-intervention timer group on residential sites in North Carolina (Nautiyal et al, 2015). The SMS homes reduced irrigation by 42% compared to the non-intervention homes.…”

Section: Controller Literature Since 2011mentioning

confidence: 99%

Two Decades of Smart Irrigation Controllers in U.S. Landscape Irrigation

Dukes¹

2020

Transactions of the ASABE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

HighlightsSavings numbers in new studies across multiple soil types and climates are similar to those summarized in 2011 and are summarized here as 51% in research plot studies and 30% in single-family homes.Studies of the human factors have begun showing how important the users are to success of the technology.Education in implementation remains important to achieve potential water conservation.Abstract. Smart irrigation controllers, such as evapotranspiration (ET) and soil moisture sensor (SMS) controllers, have become commonly available from virtually all irrigation controller manufacturers. This review summarizes the literature since the Fifth Decennial National Irrigation Symposium (NIS) concerning these controllers in research studies and pilot implementations. Studies have expanded to multiple climates throughout the U.S. on a variety of soils and plant types. When these devices are implemented properly on sites that have potential irrigation savings (i.e., excess irrigation), they are able to reduce irrigation while maintaining plant quality. The level of reduction depends on many factors, including the amount of excess irrigation, climate, plant type, and human interaction with the technology. When studies report positive savings, the levels documented here range from 40% to 61% (51% avg.) in plot studies and from 28% to 32% (30% avg.) in residential studies. Of 17 identified studies in the past decade, five reported negative savings, and in most cases those results were due to ET controllers installed on sites with little excess irrigation or controller programming that was not optimized for savings. New trends in the industry include Wi-Fi signal-based ET controllers with smartphone app capability, an upcoming standard for SMS controllers, as well as smart controllers becoming mandatory in areas of the U.S. As identified in the Fifth Decennial NIS, it remains important to implement controllers on sites with the potential for irrigation reduction as well as proper implementation with the best current information. Finally, there is a need to understand human interaction with these devices because improper programming can make the difference between a water-saving device and ineffective technology with a dissatisfied customer. Keywords: ET controller, Landscape irrigation, Smart controller, SMS, Soil moisture sensor, Soil water sensor.

show abstract

“…In North Carolina residences, when compared to other PW conservation methods/technologies, the SMS treatment achieved the maximum water savings: 42% less than the control group (Nautiyal et al, 2014).…”

mentioning

confidence: 90%

Soil Moisture Sensor Irrigation Controllers and Reclaimed Water; Part I: Field-plot Study

Cardenas¹,

Dukes²

2016

Appl. Eng. Agric.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Residential Irrigation Water Use in the Central Piedmont of North Carolina. II: Evaluation of Smart Irrigation Technologies

Cited by 17 publications

References 15 publications

Irrigation Savings from Smart Irrigation Technologies and a Smartphone App on Turfgrass

Irrigation Savings from Smart Irrigation Technologies and a Smartphone App on Turfgrass

Two Decades of Smart Irrigation Controllers in U.S. Landscape Irrigation

Soil Moisture Sensor Irrigation Controllers and Reclaimed Water; Part I: Field-plot Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About