Turfgrass is a major part of the landscape in North Carolina with its acreage equal to 44% of the stateâs harvested crop acreage. Proper irrigation of residential, industrial and commercial turf areas is required to ensure healthy and acceptable turf quality. With increasing competition for water resources and better turf quality, an efficient irrigation control technology is essential in meeting the dual goals of water conservation and turf quality. The objective of the research was to compare two general types of commercially available irrigation control technologies; one based on estimates of evapotranspiration (ET) and the other based on feedback from soil moisture sensors. Water application and turf quality resulting from using these technologies were compared to results from using a standard time-based irrigation schedule. The study also incorporated the effect of irrigation frequency. The experimental area, located at North Carolina State University Lake Wheeler Turf Field Laboratories, Raleigh, North Carolina, consisted of forty 4-m x 4-m plots established to âConfederateâ tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea Schreb) using sod. There were ten treatments combining control type and watering frequency (3 technologies x 3 frequencies + 1 on-demand technology) with four replicates in a randomized complete block design. Technologies included three systems: a time-based system, a soil-moisture-based âadd-onâ system, an ET-based system each with three frequencies: once per week, twice per week and seven days per week irrigation, and a soil-moisture-based âwater on-demandâ system which was allowed to schedule irrigation everyday. Rain sensors were connected to the timer-based and ET-based systems to prevent irrigation in case of rainfall. The add-on soil-moisture-based system applied the least amount of water while the ET-based technology applied the most water averaged across frequencies. Once a week irrigation frequency applied the least amount of water, and daily irrigation frequency applied the most when averaged across all technologies. Minimally acceptable turf quality was met by all the treatments when averaged over the duration of the study period, although during the last month of the study some technologies, especially the timer-based and add-on systems had noticeably drought stressed plots. In general, the ET-based system and the water on-demand system had the best turf quality. The water on-demand system resulted in the best combination of water use efficiency and turf quality. Canopy temperatures were measured once a week and there were significant differences in canopy temperature among treatments averaged over the season. The ET system plots had the lowest canopy temperature while the add-on system plots had the highest canopy temperature. Also there was no significant difference between mean weekly reference ET estimates from an atmometer and Penman-Montieth reference ET estimates using a weather station at the site.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:NCSU/oai:NCSU:etd-01252008-171457 |
| Date | 29 January 2008 |
| Creators | Vasanth, Arjun |
| Contributors | Rodney L. Huffman, Aziz Amoozegar, Grady L. Miller, Daniel C. Bowman, Garry L. Grabow |
| Publisher | NCSU |
| Source Sets | North Carolina State University |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | text |
| Format | application/pdf |
| Source | http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/theses/available/etd-01252008-171457/ |
| Rights | unrestricted, I hereby certify that, if appropriate, I have obtained and attached hereto a written permission statement from the owner(s) of each third party copyrighted matter to be included in my thesis, dis sertation, or project report, allowing distribution as specified below. I certify that the version I submitted is the same as that approved by my advisory committee. I hereby grant to NC State University or its agents the non-exclusive license to archive and make accessible, under the conditions specified below, my thesis, dissertation, or project report in whole or in part in all forms of media, now or hereafter known. I retain all other ownership rights to the copyright of the thesis, dissertation or project report. I also retain the right to use in future works (such as articles or books) all or part of this thesis, dissertation, or project report. |
Page generated in 0.0019 seconds