Impact of three irrigation scheduling tools on irrigation and alfalfa productivity under center pivots

Jonathan Holt, Matt Yost, Jody Gale, Mark Nelson, Trent Wilde, Kalen Taylor, Earl Creech, Burdette Barker
{"title":"Impact of three irrigation scheduling tools on irrigation and alfalfa productivity under center pivots","authors":"Jonathan Holt,&nbsp;Matt Yost,&nbsp;Jody Gale,&nbsp;Mark Nelson,&nbsp;Trent Wilde,&nbsp;Kalen Taylor,&nbsp;Earl Creech,&nbsp;Burdette Barker","doi":"10.1002/saj2.70101","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Determining the amount and timing of irrigation events using scientific irrigation scheduling (SIS) may help optimize water use. Soil moisture sensors, commercial irrigation schedulers, and water balance programs are common SIS tools. These three methods were evaluated to test their impact on alfalfa (<i>Medicago sativa</i>) mass, nutritive value, and irrigation productivity, in comparison to experience-based irrigation depths chosen by cooperating growers. Trials were conducted at 10 farms across central Utah in 2019. Trials were repeated at nine of these farms in 2020 and six in 2021. Alfalfa mass was measured in a total of 47 cuttings from across all these fields over 3 years. The three SIS methods only impacted alfalfa mass in five cuttings, and it occurred inconsistently at various fields and years. Three cuttings had improved mass with SIS methods and two had reduced production. Forage nutritive value was more often impacted by SIS method than mass, but impacts were rarely large enough to change forage market value. Applied water was lower with most SIS methods than the grower control in 2019 and 2021 but not 2020. This was influenced heavily by the drought conditions and water restrictions during the latter 2 years of this study. As one of the first studies to directly compare how four irrigation scheduling methods for center pivots affect crop production and irrigation levels, results indicated that all three SIS approaches had comparable performance, and in some situations (especially wet years) could reduce applied water by 6%–25% without impacting alfalfa mass or nutritive value.</p>","PeriodicalId":101043,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings - Soil Science Society of America","volume":"89 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings - Soil Science Society of America","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://acsess.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/saj2.70101","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Determining the amount and timing of irrigation events using scientific irrigation scheduling (SIS) may help optimize water use. Soil moisture sensors, commercial irrigation schedulers, and water balance programs are common SIS tools. These three methods were evaluated to test their impact on alfalfa (Medicago sativa) mass, nutritive value, and irrigation productivity, in comparison to experience-based irrigation depths chosen by cooperating growers. Trials were conducted at 10 farms across central Utah in 2019. Trials were repeated at nine of these farms in 2020 and six in 2021. Alfalfa mass was measured in a total of 47 cuttings from across all these fields over 3 years. The three SIS methods only impacted alfalfa mass in five cuttings, and it occurred inconsistently at various fields and years. Three cuttings had improved mass with SIS methods and two had reduced production. Forage nutritive value was more often impacted by SIS method than mass, but impacts were rarely large enough to change forage market value. Applied water was lower with most SIS methods than the grower control in 2019 and 2021 but not 2020. This was influenced heavily by the drought conditions and water restrictions during the latter 2 years of this study. As one of the first studies to directly compare how four irrigation scheduling methods for center pivots affect crop production and irrigation levels, results indicated that all three SIS approaches had comparable performance, and in some situations (especially wet years) could reduce applied water by 6%–25% without impacting alfalfa mass or nutritive value.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

三种灌溉调度工具对中心支点下灌溉和苜蓿生产力的影响
利用科学灌溉计划(SIS)确定灌溉事件的数量和时间有助于优化用水。土壤湿度传感器,商业灌溉调度和水平衡程序是常见的SIS工具。对这三种方法进行了评估,以测试它们对苜蓿(Medicago sativa)质量、营养价值和灌溉生产力的影响,并与合作种植者选择的经验灌溉深度进行了比较。2019年,在犹他州中部的10个农场进行了试验。2020年在其中9个农场重复试验,2021年在6个农场重复试验。在3年的时间里,对所有这些田地的47根插枝进行了苜蓿质量测量。3种SIS方法仅在5个插枝中对苜蓿质量产生影响,且在不同的田地和年份中产生的影响不一致。使用SIS方法,三颗岩屑的质量得到改善,两颗降低了产量。与质量相比,SIS法对饲料营养价值的影响更大,但影响很少大到足以改变饲料市场价值。2019年和2021年,大多数SIS方法的施水量低于种植者对照,但2020年没有。这在很大程度上受到本研究后2年干旱条件和限水的影响。作为第一个直接比较四种中心枢纽灌溉调度方法如何影响作物产量和灌溉水平的研究之一,结果表明,所有三种SIS方法都具有相当的性能,并且在某些情况下(特别是潮湿年份)可以减少6%-25%的施水量而不影响苜蓿质量或营养价值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信