Kati Migliaccio, PhD PE Agricultural and Biological Engineering

Kati Migliaccio, PhD PE
Agricultural and Biological
Engineering
1
• Some claim that J. Lessler of Buffalo, New York was the first to
be awarded the patent in 1891, while others that inventor J.H.
Smith completed the first rotary lawn sprinkler in 1897
• In 1932 California fruit farmer Orton Englehardt invented the
first prototype of the impact sprinkler, that the sprinkler took off
and became available to the general public
• Automated irrigation systems
• Rain sensors
• Soil water sensors and ET measurements
• Measurement and control using soil water and ET
• Wireless signaling and more!
2
• Automation of residential irrigation
increase water volumes applied due
to the ‘set and forget’ mentality that
developed
• Miami-Dade County water
restrictions: 2 day a week watering;
no watering allowed between 10am
and 4pm
Credits: Michael Gutierrez
3
• Use some type of soil water sensor or soil moisture sensor to
allow or bypass irrigation events (measurement and control)
• The sensor acts as a switch
• Different types exists – but generally use a sensor with TDT or
TDR technology
4
• Signal based
• Receive weather data from remote source on daily basis to
update irrigation schedule (measurement and control)
• Annual fee for data, more accurate ET estimation
• On-site weather based or stand-alone
• Uses an on-site sensor to estimate ET and update irrigation
schedule (measurement and control)
• No annual fee for data, less accurate ET estimation
5
• Cardenas-Lailhacar et al. 2008
• Rain sensor resulted in 34% less water applied than that without
the rain sensor
• Most soil water based irrigation systems recorded water savings
ranging from 69 to 92% for three of four systems tested
6
• McCready et al. 2009
• Reductions in irrigation applied were
as follows: 7–30% for rain sensor
based treatments, 0–74% for soil
water-based treatments, and 25–62%
for ET-based treatments
• Medium threshold setting
(approximately field capacity) soil
water based treatment resulted in
good turf grass quality while reducing
irrigation water use compared to set
schedule by 11–53%
7
• Cardenas-Lailhacar et al.
2010
• Tested different soil water
sensor smart controllers and
rainfall sensors
• 13-24% less water applied with
rain sensors than without a rain
sensor
• 16 to 83% water savings with
smart controllers compared to no
rain sensor depending on the
time of year and controller
8
• Wiring
• Check and double check with manufacturers' instructions
• Sensor placement
• Root zone of irrigated plant
• Not close to obstacles that could hinder reading
• Consider differences in the landscape – want to make sure nothing goes
dry
• Lightning
• Check after any storm – breakers, reset buttons, and fried equipment
9
• Longevity of the company and equipment
• Sensor performance has been tested by a reliable and
impartial source
• Workable in the system
• Environmental characteristics
• Maintenance
10
• Davis et al. 2009; Tested 3 different ET controllers.
• ET controllers averaged 43% savings compared to a set
schedule treatment without a rain sensor and were twice as
effective at reducing irrigation compared to a rain sensor
• Water conservation
potential of controllers in
landscapes will depend
on irrigator habits and
preferences; need “real
world” evaluation
11
• Davis and Dukes 2010
• Two controller program settings impacted results: crop
coefficients and soil type
• Incorporation of site specific rainfall measurements necessary
(rain sensor)
12
Romero and Dukes 2009
Crop coefficients are dependent on ET
equation used, location, and crop
13
• Clay, sand, silt, loam
14
15
The method used (or equation used) to estimate ET
Crop coefficients
Signal-based vs. on-site weather
Site limitations
Longevity of company and equipment
Performance has been tested by a reliable source for your area
– consider ET equations used
• Maintenance
•
•
•
•
•
•
16
• Currently have 15 soil water sensor and 2 ET smart controller
research study sites installed through project funded by MiamiDade County Water and Sewer
• Average savings are currently 34% for SWS and ? for ET
controller
17
• Are smart technologies worth the time/effort/money? (handout)
• What have we learned that might be helpful to others?
(handout)
• Resources
• http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu
• Mary McCready and UCU
• www.greenyardsmiami.blogspot.com
• Dr. Dukes web site and virtual field days
• http://abe.ufl.edu/mdukes/Controllers/index.shtml
• http://vfd.ifas.ufl.edu/turfgrass/smart_water_application.shtml
18
•
•
•
•
Miami-Dade County Extension Service
Mary McCready
Miami-Dade County Water & Sewer
Michael Gutierrez, Nicole Dobbs
Disclaimer: The equipment presented in this presentation are examples should
not be viewed as recommendations by UF.
Contact:
Kati Migliaccio
klwhite@ufl.edu
http://trec.ifas.ufl.edu/kwm
19