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

Cardenas, Bernardo; Dukes, Michael D.

doi:10.13031/aea.32.11196

Cited by 9 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 9 publications

(16 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The water savings achieved by the WRS treatment ranged between 18% and 29%, with an average of 22%. Under the plot conditions in the area and with RS set at 6 mm, water savings between 13% and 34% have been reported in previous studies Cardenas and Dukes, 2016a;Davis et al, 2009;McCready et al, 2009), similar to our results.…”

Section: Water Savingssupporting

confidence: 92%

“…Conversely, the most irrigation cycles were bypassed by the SMS-based treatments, with 56% on average. The statistical difference in bypassed events between SMS and RS has been reported in other studies Cardenas and Dukes, 2016a;McCready et al, 2009). This difference is explained by the dry-out period of the RS (i.e., the time that the RS remains in bypass mode after a rain event stops) relative to the dry-out period of the soil (i.e., the amount of time after a rain event stops until the soil reaches its management-allowable depletion point and requires irrigation).…”

Section: Bypassed Irrigation Cyclessupporting

confidence: 80%

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 Savingssupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: Bypassed Irrigation Cyclessupporting

confidence: 80%

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 70%: Agriculture, Horticulture and Recreation

2018

Smart Water Technologies and Techniques

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Irrigation scheduling technologies reduce water use and maintain turfgrass quality

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Smart irrigation controllers have demonstrated potential for turfgrass water conservation in humid and temperate environments but have not been comprehensively tested in arid environments. The objective of this study was to determine the accuracy of a wireless capacitance sensor over a wide soil moisture range and to ascertain if smart irrigation controllers resulted in water savings without reducing quality of tall fescue [Schedonorus arundinaceus (Schreb.) Dumort.] and bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon L.). A two-yr study was conducted to compare turfgrass quality, root morphology, and water use of plots irrigated with a constant run time to plots for which irrigation was scheduled using soil moisture sensors (SMS), evapotranspiration (ET) [Climate Logic (CL)] controllers, or 80% of historic ET (ET80) for tall fescue and 60% (ET60) for bermudagrass. Sensors accurately tracked soil moisture up to salinity levels of 4 dS m −1. Turf performance and root morphology were not affected by irrigation treatments for either grass. Compared to tall fescue plots irrigated with constant run time, plots irrigated using ET80 and CL required 38% less water, and SMS plots used 44% less than tall fescue. Scheduling bermudagrass irrigation by ET60, CL, and SMS resulted in a 29, 42, and 39% reduction in water applied compared to constant run time. The majority of water savings was in spring and fall. Water requirement for bermudagrass during the summer did not differ between the scheduling treatments. Our study confirms that smart irrigation controllers can be used as an effective measure to conserve water in an arid environment.

show abstract

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

Cited by 9 publications

References 9 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

The Other 70%: Agriculture, Horticulture and Recreation

Irrigation scheduling technologies reduce water use and maintain turfgrass quality

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About