| |
| DOI: | 10.13031/aea.32.11196 |
|---|
| Web URL(s): | http://elibrary.asabe.org/azdez.asp?JID=3&AID=46688&ConfID=aeaj2016&v=32&i=2&T=2&redirType=
Last checked: 07/05/2017
Requires: PDF Reader
http://elibrary.asabe.org/azdez.asp?JID=3&AID=46688&CID=aeaj2016&v=32&i=2&T=1&redirType=
Last checked: 07/05/2017 |
|---|
| Publication Type:
| Refereed |
|---|
| Author(s): | Cardenas, Bernardo;
Dukes, Michael D. |
|---|
| Author Affiliation: | Cardenas: Research Associate, Agricultural and Biological Engineering Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida; Dukes: Professor, Agricultural and Biological Engineering Department and Director, Center for Landscape Conservation and Ecology, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida |
|---|
| Title: | Field-plot study |
|---|
| Article Series: | Soil moisture sensor irrigation controllers and reclaimed water, part 1 |
|---|
| Section: | Natural resources & environmental systems
Other records with the "Natural resources & environmental systems" Section
|
|---|
| Source: | Applied Engineering in Agriculture. Vol. 32, No. 2, 2016, p. 217-224. |
|---|
| Publishing Information: | St. Joseph, Michigan: American Society of Agricultural Engineers |
|---|
| # of Pages: | 8 |
|---|
| Keywords: | TIC Keywords: Effluent water; Irrigation controllers; Irrigation scheduling; Irrigation water; Potable water; Soil moisture sensors; Turfgrass quality; Water use rate
|
|---|
| Abstract/Contents: | "Most soil moisture sensor systems (SMSs) marketed for landscape irrigation respond to the dielectric permittivity of the soil. Compared to potable water (PW), reclaimed water (RW) may contain more salts, which can modify the dielectric permittivity of the soil and, hence, alter the readings of SMSs when measuring the soil water content. The main objectives of this experiment were to evaluate the functionality of four SMS brands and to quantify potential irrigation savings. Secondary objectives were to analyze the behavior consistency of three units within a brand to control irrigation, and to compare the brands. The experiment was carried out in Gainesville, Florida, under turfgrass plots irrigated with PW in 2009 and RW with an average salinity of 0.75 dS/m during 2010. Four SMS brands (Acclima, AquaSpy, Baseline, and Dynamax) were selected and compared to a treatment without sensor feedback (WOS). Even though replicates of AquaSpy were statistically different under both PW and RW, all SMSs tested applied significantly less water than WOS. Water savings ranged 46%-78% under PW, and 45%-68% under RW. Therefore, SMSs can be a useful tool for conserving water on turfgrass irrigated with either PW or RW." |
|---|
| Language: | English |
|---|
| References: | 23 |
|---|
| See Also: | Original version appears in Soil Moisture Sensor Irrigation Controllers and Reclaimed Water; I: Field-Plot Study, 2015, [1], 14 pp., R=269543. R=269543
See also part 2 "Residential evaluation" Applied Engineering in Agriculture, 32(2) 2016, p. 225-234, R=282533. R=272533 |
|---|
| Note: | Tables
Graphs |
|---|
| ASA/CSSA/SSSA Citation (Crop Science-Like - may be incomplete):
Cardenas, B., and M. D. Dukes. 2016. Field-plot study. Appl. Eng. Agric. 32(2):p. 217-224. |
| Fastlink to access this record outside TGIF: https://tic.msu.edu/tgif/flink?recno=286203 |
| If there are problems with this record, send us feedback about record 286203. |
| Choices for finding the above item: |
|---|
| DOI: 10.13031/aea.32.11196 |
| Web URL(s):
http://elibrary.asabe.org/azdez.asp?JID=3&AID=46688&ConfID=aeaj2016&v=32&i=2&T=2&redirType=
Last checked: 07/05/2017
Requires: PDF Reader
http://elibrary.asabe.org/azdez.asp?JID=3&AID=46688&CID=aeaj2016&v=32&i=2&T=1&redirType=
Last checked: 07/05/2017 |
| 
MSU catalog number: b3269147 |
| Find from within TIC:
Physical sequential file in TIC. |
| Request through your local library's inter-library loan service (bring or send a copy of this TGIF record) |
