This article is made freely available as part of this journal's Open Access: ID | AHMED ManuscriptRef.1-ajiras090616 |
1. Irrigation and Drainage Engineering Department | Agricultural Engineering Research Institute | Giza | Egypt |
2. Agricultural Engineering Department | King Saud University | P.O. Box 2460 | Riyadh 11451 | |Saudi Arabia |
Authors Copyright © 2015: | Ahmed Zakaria Dewidar |
American Journal of Innovative Research & Applied Sciences
Share us on Social Media Links:
| ISSN: 2429-5396 (e) | www.american-jiras.com | Copyright © 2016, ajiras, Atlantic Center for Research Sciences, All Rights Reserved |
| Web Site Form: v 0.1.05 | JF 22 Cours, Wellington le Clairval, Lillebonne | France |
American Journal of innovative
Research & Applied Sciences
ISSN 2429-5396 (Online)
| INCOMING ARTICLES | Am. J. innov. res. appl. sci. Volume 2, Issue 6, Pages 247-256 (April 2016)
| June | VOLUME 1 | N° 6| 2016 |
Field Water Savings Associated with Satellite-Based ET Irrigation Controllers in Arid Regions
| Ahmed Zakaria Dewidar |. Am. J. innov. res. appl. sci. 2016; 2(6):247-256.
| PDF FULL TEXT | |Received | 09 June 2016| |Accepted | 11 June 2016| |Published 19 June |
Background: Smart irrigation techniques became lately an essential and vital tool for irrigation water scheduling in water-scarce dry areas to improve irrigation efficiency, producing more agricultural goods with less water input. Objective: This study was conducted to investigate the effects of two evapotranspiration based irrigation controllers (ET controllers) on agronomical characteristics and water use of irrigated tomato compared to a time-based irrigation controller under drip irrigation system. Material and methods: Experimental site was located at educational station of King Saud University on a sandy loam textured soil. Two brands of ET controllers were selected based on positive water savings results in arid climates. Two types of ET controllers were tested: Weathermatic SL1600; Hunter pro C. Each treatment was replicated three times for a total of nine blocks, which were irrigated through individual irrigation systems. Treatments were compared to each other and to a time-based schedule. Results: The results showed that ET controllers adjusted their irrigation schedules to the climatic demand and applied water less than water scheduled by a time clock controller (control treatment). Data revealed that the considerably water saving over the entire study period was obtained by Hunter (28%). Weathermatic reflected a similar trend to water savings with similar statistical results (27%) when compared to control, but it was poorer than Hunter treatment. Water productivity was significantly increased by 64% and 50%, respectively under Hunter and Weathermatic systems as compared to control. Moreover, the highest physiological parameters, was obtained from Hunter pro C followed by Weathermatic SL 1600 treatment as compared to control. Conclusion: Irrigation scheduling using surface drip and sensor-based irrigation systems demonstrated that ET controllers could achieve higher levels of water savings and water efficiency while maintaining competing yield.
Keywords: Smart controllers, water productivity, water savings, drip irrigation.