Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T13:24:13.886Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dynamic Variable Rate Irrigation – A Tool for Greatly Improving Water Use Efficiency

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2017

V. Liakos ,
W. Porter ,
X. Liang ,
M. A. Tucker ,
A. McLendon  and
G. Vellidis
V. Liakos*
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, University of Georgia, Tifton, GA, USA
W. Porter
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, University of Georgia, Tifton, GA, USA
X. Liang
Affiliation:
Department of Plant, Soil and Entomological Sciences, University of Idaho, Aberdeen, ID, USA
M. A. Tucker
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, University of Georgia, Tifton, GA, USA
A. McLendon
Affiliation:
McLendon Acres, Leesburg, GA, USA
G. Vellidis
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, University of Georgia, Tifton, GA, USA
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

This paper will present a dynamic Variable Rate Irrigation System developed by the University of Georgia. The system consists of the EZZone management zone delineation tool, the UGA Smart Sensor Array (UGA SSA) and an irrigation scheduling decision support tool. An experiment was conducted in 2015 and 2016 in two different peanut fields to evaluate the performance of using the UGA SSA to dynamically schedule Variable Rate Irrigation (VRI). For comparison reasons strips were designed within the fields. These strips were irrigated according to either UGA SSA or Irrigator Pro recommendations. The results showed that Irrigator Pro is a conservative irrigation method which results in high yields. On the other hand the UGA SSA recommendations worked very well with the VRI system and in both years it recommended an average of 25% less irrigation water than the Irrigator Pro.

Keywords

prescriptionpeanutswater use efficiencycenter pivotdecision support system
Type
Precision Irrigation
Information
Advances in Animal Biosciences , Volume 8 , Special Issue 2: Papers presented at the 11th European Conference on Precision Agriculture (ECPA 2017), John McIntyre Centre, Edinburgh, UK, July 16–20 2017 , July 2017 , pp. 557 - 563
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Car, NJ, Christen, EW, Hornbuckle, JW and Moore, GA 2012. Using a mobile phone short messaging service (SMS) for irrigation scheduling in Australia—farmers’ participation and utility evaluation. Computer and Electronics in Agriculture 84, 132–143.Google Scholar
Inman-Bamber, NG, Attard, SJ, Verrall, SA, Webb, WA and Baillie, C 2007. A web-based system for scheduling irrigation in sugarcane. In Proceedings of International Society of Sugar Cane Technology, 26, CDROM.Google Scholar
Liakos, V, Vellidis, G, Tucker, M, Lowrance, C and Liang, Xi 2015. A decision support tool for managing precision irrigation with center pivots. In: Precision Agriculture 2015; Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on Precision Agriculture, JV Stafford (Ed.), July 12-16, Volcani Center, Israel, pp. 677–684.Google Scholar
Liang, X, Liakos, V, Wendroth, O and Vellidis, G 2016. Scheduling irrigation using an approach based on the van Genuchten model. Agricultural Water Management 176, 170–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowrance, C, Fountas, S, Liakos, V and Vellidis, G 2016. An Online Tool for Delineating Management Zones. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Precision Agriculture. Monticello, IL: International Society of Precision Agriculture.Google Scholar
Richards, QD, Bange, MP and Johnston, SB 2008. HydroLOGIC: an irrigation management system for Australian cotton. Agricultural Systems 98, 40–49.Google Scholar
Smith, M 1992. CROPWAT, A computer program for irrigation planning and management, No. 46. FAO Irrigation and Drainage.Google Scholar
Steduto, P, Hsiao, TC, Raes, D and Fereres, E 2009. AquaCrop—the FAO crop model to simulate yield response to water: I. Concepts and underlying principles, American Society of Agronomy 101, 426–437.Google Scholar
Stockle, CO, Donatelli, M and Nelson, R 2003. CropSyst, a cropping systems simulation model. European Journal of Agronomy 18, 289–307.Google Scholar
Thysen, I and Detlefsen, NK 2006. Online decision support for irrigation for farmers. Agricultural Water Management 86, 269–276.Google Scholar
Vellidis, G, Tucker, M, Perry, C, Reckford, D, Butts, C, Henry, H, Liakos, V, Hill, RW and Edwards, W 2013. A soil moisture sensor-based variable rate irrigation scheduling system. In: Precision Agriculture 2013; Proceedings of the 9th European Conference on Precision Agriculture J.V. Stafford (Ed.), July 7-11, Lleida, Spain, pp. 713–720.Google Scholar