| |
| Web URL(s): | https://scisoc.confex.com/scisoc/2016am/webprogram/Paper100093.html
Last checked: 11/21/2016 |
|---|
| Publication Type:
| Report |
|---|
| Content Type: | Abstract or Summary only |
|---|
| Author(s): | Sandor, Daniel;
Karcher, Douglas E.;
Richardson, Michael D. |
|---|
| Author Affiliation: | University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR |
|---|
| Title: | Evaluation of irrigation sensors for lawn turf and potential water savings |
|---|
| Section: | Turfgrass ecology and management (student competition)
Other records with the "Turfgrass ecology and management (student competition)" Section
C05 turfgrass science
Other records with the "C05 turfgrass science" Section
|
|---|
| Meeting Info.: | Phoenix, Arizona: November 6-9, 2016 |
|---|
| Source: | ASA, CSSA and SSSA International Annual Meetings. 2016, p. 100093. |
|---|
| Publishing Information: | [Milwaukee, Wisconsin]: [American Society of Agronomy and the Entomological Society of America] |
|---|
| # of Pages: | 1 |
|---|
| Keywords: | TIC Keywords: Automatic irrigation; Cynodon dactylon; Irrigation scheduling; Quality evaluation; Rain sensors; Soil moisture sensors; Water conservation
|
|---|
| Abstract/Contents: | "Many homeowners with automated irrigation are unaware of how much water they actually apply during an irrigation event and could be wasting water. Rain sensors (RS) communicate with the irrigation timer to bypass irrigation following significant rainfall. Soil moisture sensors (SMS) provide the timer a real-time estimate of volumetric water content in the soil rootzone, which may prevent unnecessary irrigation. Previous research has observed significant water savings using SMS and RS, with minimal to no decline in acceptable turfgrass quality (TQ). Greater savings have been observed using SMS over RS, but both have shown significant savings compared to irrigation timers with no sensor device. It remains unknown how existing RS and new residential SMS models would behave in a temperate climate with fine textured soils. The objectives of this study are: 1) to evaluate the influence of irrigation sensors on TQ, and 2) evaluate the irrigation sensors for potential water savings. This study is conducted on Cynodon dactylon (L.) turf. Scheduled irrigation applies 1.3 cm water twice a week. Five irrigation treatments consist of two SMS models, two RS models, and a control (no sensor utilized). 2015 data observed significant water savings using SMS and RS with greater significant water savings observed among SMS. Acceptable TQ was observed among all treatments and no significant differences in TQ were observed among irrigation treatments. From the current observations, it appears a similar trend from the 2015 results will again be observed in terms of water savings and TQ by the end of the 2016 trial. From these observations SMS may significantly reduce water usage and associated financial fees, and simultaneously provide acceptable TQ." |
|---|
| Language: | English |
|---|
| References: | 0 |
|---|
| Note: | This item is an abstract only!
"35-8" |
|---|
| ASA/CSSA/SSSA Citation (Crop Science-Like - may be incomplete):
Sandor, D., D. E. Karcher, and M. D. Richardson. 2016. Evaluation of irrigation sensors for lawn turf and potential water savings. Agron. Abr. p. 100093. |
| Fastlink to access this record outside TGIF: https://tic.msu.edu/tgif/flink?recno=278098 |
| If there are problems with this record, send us feedback about record 278098. |
| Choices for finding the above item: |
|---|
| Web URL(s):
https://scisoc.confex.com/scisoc/2016am/webprogram/Paper100093.html
Last checked: 11/21/2016 |
| Find from within TIC:
Digitally in TIC by record number. |
| Request through your local library's inter-library loan service (bring or send a copy of this TGIF record) |
