Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station Research Reports
Volume 1
Issue 5 Southwest Research-Extension Center Article 20
Reports
January 2015
Irrigation Scheduling Based on Soil Moisture Sensors and
Evapotranspiration
J. Aguilar
Kansas State University,
[email protected]D. Rogers
Kansas State University, [email protected]
I. Kisekka
Kansas State University, [email protected]
Follow this and additional works at: https://newprairiepress.org/kaesrr
Part of the Agronomy and Crop Sciences Commons, and the Bioresource and Agricultural Engineering
Commons
Recommended Citation
Aguilar, J.; Rogers, D.; and Kisekka, I. (2015) "Irrigation Scheduling Based on Soil Moisture Sensors and
Evapotranspiration," Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station Research Reports: Vol. 1: Iss. 5.
https://doi.org/10.4148/2378-5977.1087
This report is brought to you for free and open access by New
Prairie Press. It has been accepted for inclusion in Kansas
Agricultural Experiment Station Research Reports by an
authorized administrator of New Prairie Press. Copyright 2015
the Author(s). Contents of this publication may be freely
reproduced for educational purposes. All other rights reserved.
Brand names appearing in this publication are for product
identification purposes only. No endorsement is intended, nor
is criticism implied of similar products not mentioned. K-State
Research and Extension is an equal opportunity provider and
employer.
2015 SWREC
Agricultural Research
Irrigation Scheduling Based on Soil
Moisture Sensors and Evapotranspiration
J. Aguilar, D. Rogers, and I. Kisekka
Summary
Irrigation scheduling is crucial to effectively manage water resources and optimize
profitability of an irrigated operation. Tools that can be customized to a field’s char-
acteristics can greatly facilitate irrigation scheduling decisions. Soil moisture sensors
and the evapotranspiration (ET)-based KanSched are two of the tools that could be
implemented in an irrigated farm. Focusing on the installation of soil moisture sensors,
demonstration set-ups were established at the Southwest Research-Extension Center
plots in Garden City, Kansas, and in a producer’s field, each with three types of mois-
ture sensors at different depths. Among others, this project validates the importance
of moisture sensors being installed as early as possible in a representative location with
good soil-sensor contact. The moisture sensors, at the least, help in determining when
irrigation water should be applied or scheduled. Furthermore, in implementing an ir-
rigation schedule, the irrigation manager considers the irrigation system capacity, the
amount that can be efficiently applied, the soil intake rate, and other relevant factors.
Introduction
Faced with weather uncertainty and water supply limitations, irrigation scheduling
becomes extremely crucial in effective water management and profitability optimization
in an irrigated farm.
Irrigation scheduling involves determining when and how much water to apply to meet
specific management goals – generally to prevent yield-limiting crop water stress. Effec-
tive irrigation scheduling helps optimize profit while minimizing inputs such as water
and energy cost. The factors that affect irrigation scheduling include the type of crop,
stage of development, soil properties, soil-water relationships, availability of water sup-
ply, and weather conditions (temperature, wind, rainfall, and others) (Younker, 2012).
As the medium where water could be stored for the crops to extract, soil provides a
crucial interplay between the crop and water. The upper drained limit of root-zone soil
water is determined by the soil’s water-holding capacity — which, for irrigation water
management purposes, is known as field capacity. The desired lower limit for optimal
crop growth can be a more variable value depending on the crop, the stage of growth,
and management goal. Often it is referred to as the managed allowable depletion or
MAD. A common MAD is 50 percent of the total available soil water-holding capacity.
The normal goal of the irrigation scheduling procedure is to help the irrigation man-
Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service
1
2015 SWREC Agricultural Research
ager track the amount of water in reserve above a minimum soil water balance level to
prevent water stress to the growing crop (Rogers, 2012).
Evapotranspiration (ET), or crop water use, is a measure of the rate water is extracted
from the soil. The term combines two processes of water loss from the system, evapora-
tion — the loss of water from the soil and plant surface, and transpiration — the benefi-
cial use of water by the crop. This method of estimation is based on weather parameters
(e.g. solar radiation, temperature, humidity, wind speed) and crop growth stage.
The ET information can be used for irrigation scheduling by accounting for the water
balance in the soil profile. It is often described as being similar to a checkbook account-
ing procedure — except in this case, root zone soil water content, rather than money, is
the account balance. Deposits to the account would be effective rainfall and irrigation,
and withdrawal is the crop water use. Unlike a checkbook, if the account balance be-
comes too large, additional deposits are lost to surface water runoff or deep percolation.
If the balance is too low, optimal crop growth might not be achieved (Rogers 2012).
Knowing the amount of water in the soil at any time is the key to effective irrigation
scheduling. Soil water content could be measured directly, using manual gravimetric
sampling, and indirectly, using sensors such as neutron probe (NP) and time domain
reflectometry (TDR) (Chavez, 2012). For all practical purposes, soil moisture sensors
that indirectly measure water content operate based on surrogate properties (i.e. soil di-
electric permittivity, electrical resistance, and soil water potential, among others). They
are generally used for irrigation scheduling at the farmer’s field. Most of these sensors
have the advantage of being near real-time, automatic data logging, nondestructive, and
telemetry-compatible, as compared to gravimetric sampling. Commercially available soil
moisture sensors differ from each other mainly in operating frequency, sensing materi-
als and design, and multiple-sensing capabilities.
Soil Moisture Sensor-Based Scheduling
With advances in microcomputer and communication technology, a variety of soil sen-
sors are gaining momentum in the suite of irrigation tools. The main selling point for
this technology is telemetry and its continuous near real-time measurements delivered
to the irrigation manager through a computer or other handheld communication de-
vices. With the advancement in design and electronic components, some soil moisture
sensors have a smaller footprint on the field with sensors at multiple depths. However,
to be useful for management, soil water sensors must be accurate around 0.02 to 0.04
inch/inch (Evett, et al. 2014). Since soil water sensors typically are sensitive only to the
soil immediately around them — and since most sensors are small — it is prudent to
have two or more sensors installed at different depths. This not only reduces uncertainty
but also promotes understanding of soil water content changes in response to irrigation
and crop water uptake. Depths of 6 and 18 inches or 6 and 24 inches are common. In
general, irrigation events should be scheduled above the MAD of 50% water content for
the specific soil or 50% of the relative water used.
ET-Based Scheduling
In the early 1990s, K-State Research and Extension introduced an Excel spreadsheet
program to help facilitate ET-based irrigation scheduling. The program eventually
Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service
2
2015 SWREC Agricultural Research
evolved into KanSched. The features of KanSched have been shown to be useful to a
variety of climatic conditions and irrigation capacities.
KanSched is a free, user-friendly computer program that can be easily used to develop
an irrigation schedule (access KanSched at www.bae.ksu.edu/mobileirrigationlab).
KanSched has several versions (Excel – KanSched1, standalone program – KanSched2,
and web-based – KanSched3) to suit the needs and platforms of users. The KanSched3
program is currently available as a beta version and requires users to set up individual
accounts and identities. However, once done, KanSched3 appears very similar to the
KanSched2 standalone version (Rogers and Alam, 2007).
KanSched uses daily and field inputs to calculate ET. The field inputs can be tailored
to the individual field’s soil characteristics, emergence, maximum rooting depth, crop
characteristics, and crop coefficients, among others. The daily inputs are typically refer-
ence ET and rainfall, along with measured soil moisture content, if available (Figure
1). Reference ET could be taken from an ET gauge nearby, the SWREC Irrigation
website, or from the K-State Weather Data Library. After entering the field and daily
information, KanSched will automatically update the root zone water level and develop
a seasonal management chart that plots soil water values, rainfall, and irrigation amount
(Figure 2). Note that in the soil water chart, the cursor can be placed in the chart area
to get a date and soil water content value reading. These features of KanSched allow the
irrigation manager to manage the soil water content to the desired MAD.
Procedures
Telemetry does not address the other issues with soil water sensors, including accuracy
of the readings, optimum or representative site selections, and timely and proper field
installation. Focusing on the installation of soil moisture sensors, K-State Research
and Extension — in collaboration with the Ogallala Aquifer Program — established
demonstration plots, one in the Southwest Research-Extension Center research plots
and the other in a producer’s field. In each plot, three types of moisture sensors were
installed, specifically Decagon 10HS, Watermark, and Campbell Scientific’s CS655 at
1-, 2-, and 3-ft depths, along the corn rows.
Results and Discussion
The following are the summarized results of the study:
• Soil water sensors should be installed in the field as early as possible to achieve ad-
equate soil settling around the sensors.
• While good soil-sensor contact is important, some sensors are difficult to properly
install without disturbing the soil profile.
• The learning curve for some sensors is relatively steep, and establishing confidence
in the measured values takes time.
• After-sales support is vital in product selection.
• Soil sensor costs are associated with three components: equipment, installation, and
telemetry/service subscription.
• Cables must be protected from possible rodent damage by adequately burying them
or enclosing them in conduits.
Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service
3
2015 SWREC Agricultural Research
• A good representative location should also consider equipment size and traffic as
well as subsequent seasonal field operations.
It was evident that — among the different sensors — proper installation (i.e. good soil
contact and location at the right time) was the key to the optimum sensor performance.
Conclusion
Irrigation scheduling tools that can be customized to a field’s characteristics can greatly
facilitate the irrigation scheduling decision process. In implementing an irrigation
schedule, the irrigation manager also considers the system capacity, the amount that can
be efficiently applied, the soil intake rate, and other factors.
References
Aguilar, J.P., D.H. Rogers, I. Kisekka, and K. Shaw. 2014. In-field Demonstration and
Evaluation of Telemetric Soil Moisture Sensors. Poster Presentation. Ogallala
Aquifer Program Annual Meeting. Manhattan, Kansas, March 12–13, 2015.
Chavez, J.L. and S.R. Evett. 2012. Using Soil Water Sensors to Improve Irrigation
Management. Proceedings of the 24th Annual Central Plains Irrigation Confer-
ence, Colby, Kansas, February 21–22, 2012.
Evett, S.R., P.D. Colaizzi, R.C. Schwartz, and S.A. O’Shaughnessy. 2014. Soil Water
Sensing–Focus on Variable Rate Irrigation. Proceedings of the 26th Annual Cen-
tral Plains Irrigation Conference, Burlington, Colorado, February 25–26, 2014.
Rogers, D.H. 2012. Introducing the Web-based version of KanSched: An ET-based
Irrigation Scheduling Tool. Proceedings of the 24th Annual Central Plains Irriga-
tion Conference, Colby, Kansas, February 21–22, 2012.
Younker, B.J. 2012. Irrigation Scheduling: Crucial During a Drought. 2012 Press Re-
lease. Natural Resources Conservation Service. Accessed at http://www.nrcs.usda.
gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/ks/newsroom/?cid=nrcs142p2_033543.
Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service
4
2015 SWREC Agricultural Research
Figure 1. KanSched3 Budget page, where Reference ET, Rain, Gross Irrigation, and Mea-
sured Soil Water Available are entered daily.
Figure 2. KanSched3 soil water chart generated for the given field.
Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service
5
2015 SWREC Agricultural Research
Figure 3. Three different soil moisture sensors (Watermark, CS655, and Decagon 10HS)
installed at different depths (1, 2, and 3 feet) were established in the SWREC plot and a
farmer’s field.
Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service
