ed Irrigation Technologies

esearch, Palmerston North, New Zealand

versity, Bedford, UK
University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, QLD, Australia r 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Contenido
Introduction......................................................................................................................................................................
Irrigated Areas and Volumes Abstracted.........................................................................................................................
Improving Irrigation Efficiency.......................................................................................................................................
Summary..........................................................................................................................................................................
Technological Advances in Irrigation Application Methods............................................................................................
Section Overview.............................................................................................................................................................
Surface Irrigation.............................................................................................................................................................
Sprinkler Systems............................................................................................................................................................
(a) (b).......................................................................................................................385
Microirrigation Systems...................................................................................................................................................
Technological Advances in Irrigation Management........................................................................................................
Section Overview.............................................................................................................................................................
Advances in Irrigation Scheduling...................................................................................................................................
Soil Moisture Mapping....................................................................................................................................................
Wireless Sensor Networks...............................................................................................................................................
Precision Irrigation Management.....................................................................................................................................
Other Advanced Irrigation Developments.......................................................................................................................
Section Overview.............................................................................................................................................................
Modernization of Irrigation District Networks.................................................................................................................
Smart Water Metering......................................................................................................................................................
Partial Root Zone Drying and Regulated Deficit Irrigation.............................................................................................
Applied Machine Vision of Plants for Irrigation Management........................................................................................
Fertigation and chemigation.............................................................................................................................................
Future Directions – Emerging Risks, Technical Challenges, and Future Developments.................................................
Section Overview.............................................................................................................................................................
Emerging Risks................................................................................................................................................................
Drivers for Change...........................................................................................................................................................
Future Developments.......................................................................................................................................................
Summary..........................................................................................................................................................................
References........................................................................................................................................................................

Glossary
379 Water: Advanced Irrigation Technologies

Chemigation: The injection of water-soluble chemicals, such as herbicides and pesticides,

through an irrigation system for application to the land using the irrigation system.
Feedback control: A control system that monitors the effect on the system that it controls and
modifies output accordingly; for example, a system that controls irrigation application rate based
on real-time soil moisture monitoring.
Fertigation: The injection of water-soluble fertilizer products through an irrigation system for
application to the land using the irrigation system.
Microirrigation: Microirrigation, also known as drip or trickle irrigation, is an irrigation method
that drips water slowly onto plant roots, either via the soil surface or directly onto the root zone,
through a system of pipes, valves, tubing, and emitters.
Partial root zone drying: A potential water-saving irrigation strategy which irrigates only one side
of a root system, potentially saving 50% water with no impact on yield. This is because plant
water potential equilibrates with the wettest part of the soil. There is some evidence to show that
this effect is not long term.

Introduction

Limited opportunities to expand the volume of global freshwaters allocated to irrigation means
that advanced irrigation technologies, aiming to improve efficiency of existing systems are
needed, timely, and are of paramount importance.
There is little scope for greater use of allocated global freshwaters for irrigation, due to
unprecedented expansion since the 1950s, plus other multiple demands on that resource to meet
higher living standards: projected as þ400% (manufacturing), þ140% (thermal electricity
generation), and þ130% (domestic use) by 2050 (OECD, 2012).
Providing for a further 2 billion people by 2050 will challenge our ability to manage and restore
natural assets, including freshwaters, on which life depends (OECD, 2012). Irrigation will need to
support a projected 50% increase in global food supply to feed the additional 2 billion people
(Jury and Vaux, 2007).

Irrigated Areas and Volumes Abstracted

Globally, agriculture is the largest user of freshwater, with irrigation withdrawals representing
approximately three-quarters (70%) of the total freshwater use (Fischer et al., 2007). Of this,
only-one half is estimated to reach the crop – the remainder is lost during storage, conveyance, or
as subsurface drainage after application (Jury and Vaux, 2007). In many developing countries, the
proportion used in agriculture is upwards of 80% of withdrawals (Turral et al., 2010) highlighting
the dependence on water for food crop production in rural-based economies (Knox et al., 2012).
Recent food shortages and commodity price spikes have raised questions regarding food
security at both global and national scales (IAASTD, 2009). In this context, securing adequate
water of sufficient quantity and quality for agriculture will be essential in meeting future food
demands for a growing population with increasingly diverse dietary requirements. Augmentation
methods, such as rainwater harvesting, are necessary to boost freshwater supplies (see e.g., Figure
1), but improving the efficiency of use is of paramount importance to assist sustainable use of this
resource. Agriculture sits at the interface between the environment and society, so any increase in
water use will need to take into account the consequent impacts on freshwater ecosystems and the
multifunctional nature and diversity of benefits that irrigated agriculture provides, not just to food
production (Knox et al., 2010).
The value of using freshwaters for irrigation should include not only direct benefits to the
party who stands to gain from the product but also the wider ecological consequences of these
decisions, and the social goals being served by the decision (Costanza et al., 1997). Owing to
this, there will be greater government and regulatory demands for

378 Encyclopedia of Agriculture and Food Systems, Volume 5

doi:10.1016/B978-0-444-52512-3.00087-5
 Water: Advanced Irrigation Technologies

(a) (b)

Figure 1 Rainwater harvesting schemes supplement freshwater allocations for irrigation (Left: Opuha
Dam, New Zealand, photo: Opuha Water
Ltd.; Right: Arvari River, India). Photo: C. Glendenning

environmental protection of freshwaters, adding further competition for agricultural demands.

Irrigated croplands globally have increased from approximately 100 Mha in 1950 to 275 Mha
in 2000 (Lal, 2009), being twice as productive as nonirrigated croplands. However, meeting
future food demand will be significantly more challenging than in the 1960s when the first Green
Revolution occurred, and agricultural efficiency was generally low everywhere (Jury and Vaux,
2007). Once surface waters become fully allocated, communities turn to groundwaters with less
tangible accompanying ecosystem services. The unprecedented demands on global groundwaters
for food production has led to overdrafting (rate of extraction4rate of recharge), which is
calculated to be as much as 163 km 3 per year, with approximately 80% of this occurring in India
and China (Postel, 1999). The implications of this are that close to 500 million people are being
fed by a water supply that could disappear in the near future.
Seckler et al. (1999) estimated that up to 25% of India’s grain harvest could be in jeopardy
due to declining freshwater resources. China increasingly faces water shortage and food security
challenges, with the area of land irrigated in 2003 having increased 3.5 times since 1949, and
75% of its grain crop being dependent on irrigation.

Improving Irrigation Efficiency

Increases in the productivity (defined as the amount of yield per unit of land, ton ha 1) of irrigated
land through changes in management and improvements in efficiency offer the greatest potential
for global water savings (e.g., Sadler et al., 2005), because irrigated agriculture is the dominant
consumptive user of water.
Seckler et al. (1999) estimated the average irrigation efficiency (water required for 100% yield
divided by irrigation withdrawals) for 118 countries around the world in 1990 as 43%, and
showed that increasing irrigation effectiveness to 70% would produce a total water saving of 944
km3 per year and reduce the need for development of further water supplies for all sectors in 2025
by approximately 50%. In reality, when
Growth in irrigated area (%)
4

1 Green
Revolution

0
1800 1850 1900 1950 2000
381 Water: Advanced Irrigation Technologies

Year
Figure 2 Reported rate of growth (% per annum) in the global irrigated area over the past 200
years. Modified from Jury, W.A., Vaux, H.J., 2007. The emerging global water crisis: Managing
scarcity and conflict between water users. Advances in Agronomy 95, 1–76.

freshwater resources are limited, it is possible that saved water will be directed elsewhere to
increase overall productivity. The efficiency gains enable increased food production, but do not
address the need to allocate freshwaters for irrigation at a sustainable rate. Efficiency gains
therefore need to be accompanied by catchment regulation to maintain a sustainable total
allocation of freshwaters for irrigation (Perry, 2007).
Irrigation efficiency will become increasingly important as constraints deepen on further
expansion of irrigation. There is also growing evidence that the expansion of irrigated lands,
which has been steadily rising since the 1950s, has slowed as we enter the twenty-first century
(Figure 2; Jury and Vaux, 2007).
To create efficiency gains, innovative irrigation technologies will therefore be required:

• more uniform application of water (Burt et al., 1997);

• reduction of evaporation or runoff losses (Burt et al., 1997); • improvement of sprinklers by
lowering the spray to reduce air losses and kinetic energy of impact (Jury and Vaux,
2007);
• improvement of irrigation scheduling and water delivery timing to reduce water losses, as
well as addressing crop sensitivity at certain developmental stages (Jury and Vaux, 2007);

• use of soil monitoring and PET estimates to ensure that correct amounts of water are applied
at the correct time (Jury and Vaux, 2007);
• correct tillage and field preparation to enhance infiltration and reduce evaporative losses
(Wallace and Batchelor, 1997); and

• development of canal linings and other repair measures to improve the efficiency of water
supply from source to field, which is estimated to average approximately 70% globally (Bos,
1985).

Summary
There is much evidence in the scientific literature which confirms that global agriculture will
face a major challenge over the next few decades – supplying more food to meet increasing
demands while simultaneously reducing its environmental impact (Beddington, 2010; OECD,
2012). Dwindling water supplies, an increasing frequency of droughts, and longer term
uncertainties associated with a changing climate, all mean irrigated agriculture needs to do more
with less. This implies both increasing water productivity (ton ha 1) and raising the economic
benefits attributed to irrigated production (US$ per m3) (Monaghan et al., 2013).
Farmers and agribusinesses are under pressure to reduce production inputs and costs. There
are, not surprisingly, a number of emerging risks – climate change, demands for greater
environmental protection, and increasing competition for water resources.
Future advances in irrigation management are likely to provide still more precision, greater
automation, and increasingly ingenious and efficient irrigation options to farmers. The challenge
will be to meet farmer demands for smart irrigation management in an increasingly water-
constrained world.
This article therefore discusses the latest technologies designed to improve the application of
water by irrigation systems both at the farm-scale and at larger regional schemes. It presents the
latest advances, such as precision tools, remote sensing and web enablement. Finally, it presents
an insight into future needs and trends for advanced irrigation technologies.

Technological Advances in Irrigation Application Methods

Section Overview
The traditional irrigation application methods (surface and pressurized) are now dated
technologies and are at the limit of their irrigation performance under current management
 Water: Advanced Irrigation Technologies

practices. Future gains in performance can be achieved both through improved design and
through the use of advanced technologies and management, in particular the use of adaptive
control. The goal is for these adaptive control systems to automatically and continuously
readjust the irrigation

Figure 3 Surface irrigation of sugarcane in Swaziland. Gravity fed furrow irrigation schemes are
widespread in Africa although some are being converted into either pressurized sprinkler or drip
irrigation to improve efficiency and manage limited water resources. Photo: J. Knox.

application system to a desired performance, and account for any variability (temporal or spatial)
in crop water requirements or water intake across the field.
This section describes research directed at modernizing the application methods, and focuses
on both the factors that limit performance and the simulation tools and control systems that aim to
deliver the needed improvements in this performance.

Surface Irrigation
Introduction
In various types of surface irrigation (e.g., Figure 3), the furrows, bays (border dykes), or basins
serve both as a means to convey water across the field and as a surface through which infiltration
occurs. The soil infiltration characteristic more than any other factor serves to determine the level
of performance or efficiency achievable from surface irrigation. The soil infiltration characteristic
can vary both across the field and also from one irrigation event to the next (Walker, 1989;
McClymont and Smith, 1996; Emilio et al., 1997; Gillies, 2008). Khatri and Smith (2006) and
Gillies (2008) identified this variability as a major physical constraint in achieving higher
irrigation performance in furrow-irrigated fields.
In surface irrigation, infiltration variability causes nonuniformity in water absorption rates and
furrow stream advance rates (Trout, 1990). Furrow irrigation efficiency is further compounded by
the furrow-to-furrow inflow variability in both gated pipe and siphon tube operated systems
(Trout and Mackey, 1988). For example, in a typical field under furrow irrigation, it is very
difficult to identify one furrow that is representative of the entire field. Therefore, any field
evaluation of infiltration characteristics based on measurements from only a single furrow is
unlikely to give an accurate estimation of irrigation performance (Schwankl et al., 2000; Langat
et al., 2008; Gillies, 2008).
Well-designed and managed precision surface irrigation systems thus have the potential to
address both spatial and temporal variations in soil infiltration through the appropriate use of
simulation, optimization, and adaptation, that is, through real-time control.

Simulation
Software packages for simulating surface irrigation hydraulics have been developed to accurately
simulate the depth of water applied over the field. The two most commonly used models to date
are SIRMOD (Walker, 1989) and WinSRFR (Bautista et al., 2009) largely because of their ready
availability. Other similar models that have been reported include BORDEV and FURDEV
(Zerihun and Feyen, 1996) and that of Mailhol and Gonzalez (1993).
383 Water: Advanced Irrigation Technologies

The software is typically based on a numerical solution of the full hydrodynamic (St. Venant)
equations (see Walker and Skogerboe, 1989), or, in the case of WinSRFR, of a reduced form of
these equations (the zero-inertia approximation). In all cases their accuracy is limited only by the
accuracy of the input parameters, in particular the soil infiltration parameters and the resistance
provided by the surface roughness of the furrow or bay (represented by the Manning’s n
parameter (Limerinos, 1970)).
Depths of infiltration can be calculated at a fine spacing along the length of a furrow or bay.
Across the field the scale is determined by the width of the irrigation unit (furrow or bay). In
either case, the prediction scale is finer than the scale at which applications can be controlled or
managed. Therefore, typically an average infiltration characteristic for the entire furrow or bay is
used, and this may lead to infiltration being under- and overestimated in many parts of the field
(Emilio et al., 1997) due to small-scale variations in the infiltration characteristics. The
parameters are usually estimated from measurements (inflow, advance, flow depth, and runoff)
taken during an irrigation event. Methods of estimation range from direct solution as in the two-
point method of Elliott and Walker (1982) to more data intensive but robust methods involving
error minimization techniques as in the volume balance-based Infiltration PARameter Model
(IPARM) (Gillies and Smith, 2005; Gillies et al., 2007) or the multilevel method of Walker
(2005).
The analytical irrigation model of Austin and Prendergast (1997) differs from the other
simulation models in that it employs an analytic solution of the kinematic equations and a simple
linear infiltration function. However, its use is limited to bay irrigation of cracking clay soils, and
its accuracy is inevitably limited in some field situations.
An example of simulation in the improvement of surface irrigation performance is the use of
the IRRIMATETM suite of tools (Raine and Walker, 1998; Smith et al., 2005), which is now an
accepted practice in the Australian cotton industry. IRRIMATE is a process of field measurement,
evaluation, simulation, and optimization that uses data from a measured irrigation to evaluate the
performance of that irrigation and to provide advice on the best management of future irrigation
events (which in any case could be occurring under different soil conditions). The IRRIMATE
system currently employs IPARM (Gillies and Smith, 2005; Gillies et al., 2007) to determine the
infiltration parameters from measurements of the irrigation advance and runoff. These parameters
are then used in the simulation model SIRMOD in which the optimization (selection of the best
or preferred irrigation flow rate and/or time to cut off) is a manual trial and error process. These
are two significant limitations of the system.
The recently developed Surface Irrigation Simulation Calibration and Optimization (SISCO)
model, which was applied in an evaluation of bay irrigation in the Goulburn Murray Irrigation
District of Southern Australia by Smith et al. (2009) and Gillies et al. (2010), removes these
limitations. As with earlier models, it employs a solution of the full hydrodynamic equations to
simulate the irrigation advance and recession and provides an estimate of the irrigation
performance. However, it is also self-calibrating in that it performs the inverse solution for the
infiltration parameters from any of a wide selection of measured data including the irrigation
advance, runoff, recession, and depth data; and optimizes the irrigation against user-de fined
objectives that involve some combination of the usual performance measures.
Understanding and accommodating spatial and temporal variability of infiltration in furrow
irrigation is another unique feature of the SISCO model. Given some knowledge of the
variation in the infiltration characteristics across a group of furrows or across a number of
irrigation events (e.g., Gillies et al., 2008, 2011), the model allows selection of the flow rate and
time to cut off that give the best overall irrigation performance for the entire group of furrows.

Automation and control of surface irrigation

Automation and adaptive real-time control has been proposed for the management of temporal
variability of infiltration characteristics (e.g., Emilio et al., 1997; Mailhol and Gonzalez, 1993;
Khatri and Smith, 2006). It can provide an even higher level of irrigation performance than the
traditional evaluation (as demonstrated by Raine et al., 1997; Smith et al., 2005; Khatri and
Smith, 2007) along with substantial labor savings.
Control systems used in surface irrigation can be implemented at diverse levels of
sophistication and can be manual or automatic. Automation is not essential to the achievement
of efficient surface irrigation; however, it does provide convenience, reduced labor
requirements, and greater certainty over the control of irrigation durations.
The use of irrigation evaluations to modify future irrigations (e.g., the IRRIMATE process)
is essentially an example of temporally separate feedback control where data from one event are
used to control the next or future events. Real-time control as applied to surface irrigation
 Water: Advanced Irrigation Technologies

implies that measurements taken during an irrigation event are processed and used for the
modification and optimization of the same irrigation event. The real-time control system
monitors the advance of water along the furrow or bay, and through a simulation process
modifies the management variables (flow rate and time to cut off) accordingly before the end of
that particular irrigation event. If the management variables are continually and automatically
varied it is a form adaptive control.
Adaptive or real-time control of furrow irrigation potentially leads to higher irrigation
efficiencies and hence substantial water savings by better matching the irrigation to the
prevailing soil conditions.

Figure 4 Rubicon farm channel actuator (left) and bay inlet actuator (right). Photos: Rubicon Water.
Automated feedback control systems have been attempted for various configurations of
surface irrigation (e.g., Clemmens, 1992; Hibbs et al., 1992; Humpherys, 1995a–c; Niblack and
Sanchez, 2008; Uniwater, 2008). In these cases the response being sensed was the water
advance down the field, where the sensing was by contact (Humpherys and Fisher, 1995) or
noncontact (Lam et al., 2007) means. In most cases, the control systems were able to deliver
better irrigation performance (typically measured by higher application efficiencies) than the
conventionally managed systems. Furrow irrigation has seen little automatic control compared
with other surface irrigation techniques. Humpherys (1969) observed that border and basin
irrigation systems are generally better suited to automation and control than furrow because the
inflow into the bay is more easily controlled. Some previous attempts at furrow irrigation
automation and control include surge flow irrigation systems (Walker, 1989; Mostafazadeh-Fard
et al., 2006), and conventional continuous flow (Hibbs et al., 1992; Lam et al., 2007).
A significant challenge in controlling surface irrigation is to obtain the data needed by the
control system in sufficient time to control the irrigation. An example of this is provided by
Hibbs et al. (1992), who developed an adaptive control system based on measurements of the
outflow at the downstream end of the furrow. However, the system is impractical because in
most surface irrigation systems the control decisions need to be made long before the
occurrence of any outflow.
All these cases can be considered a form of adaptive control where the response being
sensed is the water advance down the field and the output is the depth of water applied and the
usual performance measures of efficiency and uniformity (rather than a crop response). Systems
such as these account for the temporal variation in soil moisture deficits and soil hydraulic
properties. Varying the management to accommodate spatial variations in the soil infiltration
characteristic is usually not considered. Despite the published research, few if any of these
systems have been commercialized.
Recently, Khatri and Smith (2006, 2007) established the basis for the practical real-time
control of furrow irrigation, involving the following:
385 Water: Advanced Irrigation Technologies

• continuous measurement of that inflow through inference from measurements of pressure in

the supply system;

• measurement of the advance down the furrows at a single point about midway through each
irrigation;

• real-time estimation of the soil moisture deficit and the current infiltration parameters from
that observation of the irrigation advance; and

• real-time simulation and optimization of the irrigation for selection of the time to cut off that
will give maximum performance for that irrigation.

Preliminary trials of this system, Koech (2012) show that the irrigation cutoff times predicted
were shorter than those used by the farmer in irrigating the remainder of the field. This translated
to reduced runoff, deep percolation, and higher application efficiencies as a direct result of real-
time optimization. The system proposed has been kept simple, by using a fixed inflow and
varying only cutoff time, to encourage implementation of the system. Although the real-time
optimization can be operated as a manual system the greatest benefits occur when it is integrated
with automation. The current phase of development of this system is the integration with the
Rubicon Water FarmConnects system (Figure 4). The FarmConnects system combines short-range
radio telemetry, solar power, mobile telecommunications, and cloud software on the internet to
automate and remotely control surface irrigation.
In all these systems, the focus is on the control of the individual irrigation event. Although
this is an important aspect to improve precision of surface irrigation delivery it is not

Figure 5 Uniform center pivot irrigation on a sugarcane crop (left) (Photo: J. Knox), and variable rate center pivot irrigation

sufficient. These systems require comprehensive decision support to provide the seasonal water
management that will deliver maximum water use efficiency.

Sprinkler Systems
Sprinkler or ‘overhead’ irrigation systems deliver water to the plant from above, and may be solid
set, motorized with a boom with sprinklers attached, or hand moved, for example, rain guns. In
comparison to surface irrigation systems, these systems commonly require a power source to
move, and provide greater control of the applied water depths and position (see Figures 5 and 6).

Sprinkler pattern simulation

Prediction of how adjacent sprinklers overlap to give the pattern of application is essential to the
design of effective sprinkler irrigation systems. In its simplest form it involves the overlapping of
known patterns such as in the package SpacePro (Cape, 1998) to select the nozzle size and
spacing for a given application. Here the objective is to maximize the uniformity of applied
depths. It relies on knowledge of the sprinkler patterns for the given nozzle, pressure, and height
above ground. Wind effects are typically ignored and the answer is relatively insensitive to
uncertainties in the individual sprinkler pattern used in the analysis (Christiansen, 1941).
 Water: Advanced Irrigation Technologies

Simulation of sprinkler distribution patterns can not only provide input data for use in models
such as SpacePro but also the basis for decision-support models for sprinkler systems in the
development and application of optimum irrigation management strategies. Central to an accurate
simulation of sprinkler distribution patterns is the prediction of the impact of wind (speed and
direction) on the overlapped pattern. In general, higher wind speeds lengthen the sprinkler
distribution pattern downwind, shorten the distribution pattern upwind, and narrow the
distribution pattern normal to the wind direction (Figure 7; Shull and Dylla, 1976). Greater
overlap of adjacent sprinkler patterns is thus required to obtain acceptable uniformity.

Figure 6 Overhead irrigation on onions using a mobile hosereel fitted with a boom. These
methods are used on high value crops on light soils where small, frequent applications help to
avoid soil and crop damage. Photo: J. Knox.

Simulation of sprinkler irrigation distribution patterns in windy conditions has evolved

significantly over the past two decades. Two major approaches have been used: a deterministic
approach, which applies traditional ballistic theory to calculate the flight trajectories of
individual water droplets; and empirical methods, which involve extrapolation from measured
sprinkler distribution patterns for various wind speeds and directions for the same nozzle,
pressure, and trajectory angle.
An example of the empirical approach is the work of Richards and Weatherhead (1993) and
Al-Naeem (1993), both of whom used measured wind-affected patterns to determine six
empirical factors that are then used to adjust any no-wind pattern for that sprinkler to deal with
the effects of wind. This same approach was extended in the TRAVGUN model of Smith et al.
(2008), which used field-measured transects of applied depths from passes of a traveling
irrigator first to calculate the no-wind sprinkler pattern and second to determine the six factors
(Figure 8). Output from the model is
−1 −1
mm hr 1−4 4−7 7−10 10−13 13−16 16−19 19−22 22−25 mm hr 1−4 4−7 7−10 10−13 13−16 16−19 19−22 22−25
47.5 47.5

37.5 37.5

27.5 27.5

17.5 17.5

7.5 7.5

−2.5 −2.5

−12.5 −12.5

−22.5 −22.5

−32.5 −32.5

−42.5 −42.5

−47.5 −37.5 −27.5 −17.5 −7.5 2.5 12.5 22.5 32.5 42.5 −47.5 −37.5 −27.5 −17.5 −7.5 2.5 12.5 22.5 32.5 42.5
387 Water: Advanced Irrigation Technologies
(a) (b)

Figure 7 (a) Measured spray pattern for a rain gun sprinkler with a wind speed of 3.58 m s1 (left) and
(b) predicted spray pattern for a rain gun sprinkler with a wind speed of 3.58 m s1. Reproduced from
Smith, R.J., Gillies, M.H., Newell, G., Foley, J.P., 2008. A decision support model for travelling gun
irrigation machines. Biosystems Engineering 100 (1), 126–136.

45
Measured data (scaled)
Predicted transect
40 No wind

35

30
Depth (mm)

25

20

15

10

0
−60 −40 −20 0 20 40

Distance from travel lane (m)

Figure 8 Fit of the TRAVGUN model to a wind affected transect, following calibration. Reproduced
from Smith, R.J., Gillies, M.H., Newell, G., Foley, J.P., 2008. A decision support model for travelling gun
irrigation machines. Biosystems Engineering 100 (1), 126–136.

an estimate of the uniformity of applications for any selected wetted sector angle, lane spacing,
travel direction, and wind speed and direction. The user can change the various operating
parameters such as the lane spacing and sector angle to identify the optimum values for those
parameters.
An advance on this notion was reported by Ghinassi (2010), where the performance of a
traveling gun sprinkler is maximized by real-time variation of pressure, travel speed, wetting
angle, and speed of rotation.
The SIRIAS model (Carrion et al., 2001; Montero et al., 2001) reflects the latest thinking in
simulation using sprinkler droplet ballistics. To simulate the wind-affected pattern for a single
sprinkler, SIRIAS requires a radial leg pattern measured in still air (for the given sprinkler, nozzle
height, and pressure). The model uses an inverse solution to determine the droplet size
distribution that would give that sprinkler pattern and then uses that distribution in the prediction
of the wind-affected pattern. It has been validated for a wide range of nozzles and con figurations
(e.g., Montero et al., 2001). The patterns predicted by SIRIAS can then be used in packages such
as SpacePro to determine the overlap patterns for whole systems.
For the large mobile center pivot and lateral move systems, models that predict sprinkler
patterns to estimate the uniformity of applications along the machine provide an alternative
simpler method to field trials using large numbers of catch cans. However, field trials add value as
they also assess machine maintenance issues, such as blocked sprinklers and hoses. Examples of
this type of model are those of Smith (1989) and Thompson et al. (2000). Both used a similar
statistical description of the droplet size distribution and combined the ballistic model with the
 Water: Advanced Irrigation Technologies

overlap along the machine and aggregation of the pattern in the travel direction. An alternative
approach was used in the mBOSS model of Foley (2011), who applied the overlap and
aggregation to windaffected patterns imported from SIRIAS.
Ballistic models typically assume that the jet from the nozzle breaks up into the assumed drop
size distribution instantaneously or at some defined distance from the nozzle. In either case drag
coefficients are modified in a calibration process designed to make the measured and predicted
sprinkler patterns match. In an attempt to overcome this deficiency, Grose et al. (1998) used a
three-dimensional twophase plume, which consisted of modeling the interaction of the jet with
the surrounding air, simulating the separation of the jet into individual droplets. However, this
approach has not gained any acceptance.
Unless the break-up of the stream can be predicted from the fundamental fluid mechanics as
attempted by Grose et al. (1998), any ballistic model requires a droplet size distribution for the
particular nozzle type and size, and pressure to be used in the simulation. Obtaining these data is
still relatively difficult, time consuming, and expensive.
In all the above models, the usual purpose is estimation of the uniformity of applications and
the selection of appropriate nozzles and nozzle spacing. Although their accuracy is limited
primarily by the accuracy of the ballistic models (including the use of time and vertically
averaged wind speeds and directions), they are sufficiently accurate for research and design
purposes. However, none are sufficiently accurate to predict applications at particular points in an
irrigated field with confidence; hence they are not suitable for use in a farming decision support
system for precision irrigation.
To counter the adverse effect of wind on sprinkler patterns, Ozaki (1999) developed a
prototype robotic self-traveling sprinkler system that controls the nozzle sector and trajectory
angles and the water supply instantaneously in response to windy conditions to minimize the
distortion of the sprinkler pattern by wind and the amount of wasted water.

Spatially varied applications – Center Pivot and Lateral

Move Machines
The development of mobile sprinkler systems has provided a level of convenience and
efficiency as well as the greatest potential for uniform applications, although they need to be
well designed and maintained to achieve this potential. For example, in a study of 39 machines,
Foley (2011) showed that less than one-third were operating to specification. In addition these
machines are readily adaptable to deliver spatially varied applications.
The ultimate performance from these types of machine occurs through the adoption of low-
energy precision application (LEPA) technology (Lyle and Bordovsky, 1981, 1983). The LEPA
system involves the use of very low pressure sprays or bubblers located just above the soil
surface on the end of long drop tubes. Efficiency is improved through the reduction of spray
drift and canopy interception and evaporation. Spatial uniformity is also higher than for
machines fitted with conventional sprinklers.
Research into precision irrigation sprinkler systems was initiated in the USA in the early
1990s. Initially this work focused on the modification of center pivot and lateral move irrigation
machines to apply spatially varied applications of water and nitrogen (Evans et al., 1996; Duke
et al., 1997; Heermann et al., 1997; Sadler et al., 1997, 2000; Camp and Sadler, 1998; Camp et
al., 1998; King and Wall, 1998), with the system control often based on stored databases of
spatially referenced data. Readers are referred to Camp et al. (2006) and Evans and King (2012)
for comprehensive reviews of research undertaken in this field. More recently, the emphasis has
shifted to the purpose and performance of spatially varied irrigations. Examples of this work
include King et al. (2005), Sadler et al. (2005), Camp et al. (2006), Chavez et al. (2006), and
Dukes and Perry (2006). Perry et al. (2003) showed substantial amounts of water conservation
for center pivots, and later Han et al. (2009) developed and tested equipment and software for
variable rate irrigation (VRI) application of water using a lateral move irrigation system.
An interesting use of a system designed for spatially varied applications was provided by
Chavez et al. (2010). In this case, the spatially variable capacity was used to compensate for
nonuniformity inherent in the irrigation applications from the machine by providing greater
uniformity.
Various technologies have been used to deliver VRI applications, including

• multiple discrete fixed-rate application devices operated in combination to provide a range of

application depths (see McCann et al., 1997; Camp and Sadler, 1994);
389 Water: Advanced Irrigation Technologies

Node Node Node Node

Figure 9 Schematic diagram of individual sprinkler control on a center pivot using GPS and wireless node technology (Ava
precisionirrigation.co.nz).

(a) (b)

Figure 10 (a) Drip irrigation used for pasture establishment in South Australia. (b) Taps control water supply to the drip ta
depth, with pressure compensating emitters at 0.4 m spacing releasing water at 1 l h 1. Photos: L. Finger.
• flow interruption to fixed-rate devices to provide a range of application depths that depend
on pulse frequency (see Evans and Harting, 1999); or

• variable-aperture sprinklers with time-proportional control (see King and Kincaid, 2004;
King et al., 1997).

Research to date has resulted in the development of prototype systems for variable rate
application, with increasing commercial uptake of these products in the past few years.
Appropriate decision-support systems, particularly those that incorporate the outputs from real-
time monitoring technologies have not reached an equivalent stage of development. Evans et al.
(1996) acknowledged that the greatest difficulty faced in the implementation of spatially varied
irrigation is associated with determining appropriate prescriptions for the application of water
and nutrients. This issue is discussed further in Section Technological Advances In Irrigation
Management.
Examples of commercial systems for control of variable applications from center pivot
machines are the Farmscan 7000 VRI system developed in Australia and a similar system
developed in New Zealand by Precision Irrigation (Precision Irrigation, 2014). The New
Zealand system was released into the market in 2008, and incorporates individual sprinkler
control using wireless nodes and GPS technology (Figure 9).

Microirrigation Systems
Microirrigation systems are typically designed to wet only the soil zone occupied by plant roots
and to maintain this at or near an optimum moisture level, using emitters spaced along drip lines.
The obvious advantages of microirrigation include a smaller wetted surface area, reduced
evaporation from the soil surface, reduced weed growth, and potentially improved water
 Water: Advanced Irrigation Technologies

application uniformity within the crop root zone by better control over the location and volume of
application (see e.g., Figure 10).
A particular benefit of microirrigation (also known as drip or trickle) is the ability to apply
small amounts of water at short intervals. This provides scope to maintain the soil at a specified
moisture content for part or all of the season and hence the opportunity for increased
effectiveness of rainfall during the irrigation season. However, the low soil moisture

ExperienceGypsum block
EvaporationCapacitance
Tensiometer
Figure 11 Application efficiencies varying with the method of scheduling irrigations for drip-irrigated vines in the Sunraysia region of Victoria,
Australia. Reproduced from Schache, M., 2011. Identifying best management practice through irrigation benchmarking: Would you like probes
with your drippers? In: Irrigation Australia, 2011 Irrigation & Drainage Conference, Launceston, Tasmania. Mascot, NSW, Sydney: Irrigation
Australia
Limited.

deficits maintained under such systems also limit opportunities for any excess rainfall to be stored
in the soil. This can reduce the amount of effective rainfall and exacerbate runoff and nutrient
leaching.
The potential efficiency of microirrigation systems is often quoted as being greater than 90%.
Losses of water in microirrigation systems occur principally through evaporation from the soil
surface, surface runoff, and deep drainage. Evaporation losses are generally small due to the
limited wetted surface area and the absence of ponded surface water due to the low discharge
rates. The application of water usually occurs beneath the crop canopy, either directly onto or
beneath the soil surface, further reducing the potential for evaporative loss. Runoff losses are also
usually small due to the low application rates. However, as with all irrigation systems, the ability
to achieve high levels of efficiency is more a function of the management of the system rather
than some inherent property of the system. For example, Shannon et al. (1996) found that drip
irrigation application efficiencies under commercial conditions in the Bundaberg area ranged
from 30% to 90%. Given the nature of the system, these losses were most likely from
overirrigation and deep percolation. Similarly, Schache (2011) found application efficiencies of
drip-irrigated vineyards in the Sunraysia region of Southern Australia to range from 25% to 100%
(Figure 11). In this case, the identified causal factor was the method used for irrigation
scheduling, with grower experience (subjective approaches) faring worst when compared with
more scientific (objective) methods. Similar experiences were also observed in drip-irrigated
crops under supplemental irrigation conditions (Knox and Weatherhead, 2005).
Placement of the drip lines is an important consideration in achieving high efficiencies. For
example, Henderson et al. (2008) demonstrated a 25% gain in efficiency when drip lines were
placed adjacent to each row of broccoli rather than between every second row.
391 Water: Advanced Irrigation Technologies

Dominant causes of nonuniform applications under microirrigation systems are pressure

variations along the lateral pipelines, variability in the emitters occurring during manufacture,
and blockage of the emitters. Extensive evaluations of the uniformities of applications from
microirrigation systems have been conducted in the USA (e.g., Hanson et al., 1995) using
mobile field laboratories. These have shown that emission uniformities are less than desirable
with commercial systems commonly operating with an emission uniformity (Eu) of less than
80%. This is supported by Australian data from McClymont et al. (2009) and Hornbuckle et al.
(2009), who reported distribution uniformities as low as 32% from a sample of dripirrigated
vineyards in Southern Australia. These observations highlight the need for improved design and
in-field evaluation, diagnosis, and correction of microirrigation systems if their potential for
precision irrigation is to be realized.
Systems for recording and reporting the results of performance evaluations of
microirrigation systems are available, for example, Hornbuckle et al. (2009). However, these do
not provide diagnostic capability and cannot be readily integrated with the software used for
system management.
Microirrigation systems also have greater potential for accurate irrigation delivery than other
systems. They are easily controlled and are commonly automated on a time, soil moisture, or
time–temperature basis (e.g., Phene and Howell, 1984; Meron et al., 1996; Dukes and
Scholberg, 2004; Wanjura et al., 2004; Evett et al., 2006). They also lend themselves to
adaptive control and have the potential to apply spatially variable applications at a range of
scales from individual laterals to individual emitters. Variable rate-controllers that respond to
real-time sensing and decision making are particularly applicable to microirrigation systems.
They have not been used to apply water variably down an individual lateral or drip line, and
would require additional modification for this to occur.
Research into precision irrigation for microirrigation systems has been undertaken primarily
in horticultural crops including viticulture (Ooi et al., 2008; Capraro et al., 2008a,b) and fruit
tree orchards (Coates et al., 2004; Uniwater, 2008; Adhikari et al., 2008).
Capraro et al. (2008a,b) utilized closed-loop irrigation control systems with moisture
measurements in the root zones to maintain the soil moisture level around a set value. Regulated
deficit irrigation (RDI) strategies were incorporated within the irrigation control system to
achieve particular quality targets, that is, the enological quality of the grapes.
Coates et al. (2004, 2005, 2006) focused their efforts on the development of a spatially
variable microsprinkler system that would allow for management of individual trees in an
orchard. More specifically, the objective was to supply water and dissolved chemical fertilizers
differentially to one or more individual trees fed by a single microsprinkler drip line.
Preliminary results show that spatially variable management at this scale is possible. Another
example of sensor-based control of spatially varied applications from a microsprinkler system is
provided by Torre-Neto et al. (2000).
More recently, Ooi et al. (2008) developed and tested an automated irrigation system for
microirrigation. Two irrigation controllers – a soil-moisture-based controller and an ET-based
controller – were integrated into a wirelessly networked irrigation control system in an apple
orchard and a commercial vineyard. Results have shown that automated irrigation using closed-
loop control systems improved water productivity by 73% compared with manual irrigation
(Uniwater, 2008). These results demonstrate the potential of closed-loop irrigation control for
irrigators at the lower end of the spectrum to ‘leapfrog’ rapidly to the upper end of the efficiency
spectrum. For those irrigators already at the upper end of the spectrum, adoption of the
technology would lead to substantial labor and time savings.

Technological Advances in Irrigation Management

Section Overview
This section covers the following aspects:

• advances in irrigation scheduling,

• soil moisture mapping, • wireless sensor networks (WSNs), and
• precision irrigation management.
The technological advances in irrigation systems described in Section Technological
Advances in Irrigation Application Methods must be accompanied by state-of-the-art decision
 Water: Advanced Irrigation Technologies

support tools to determine when to turn on the irrigator and how much irrigation to apply;
aiming to maximize any benefits gained from the investment in new technology.
Decisionsupport tools either evolve alongside equipment development because the new
equipment provides new and enabling methods for optimizing irrigation timing, placement, and
amounts, or they may develop independently and be appropriate for use with a range of
different types of irrigation systems.
Advanced irrigation scheduling (Section Section Overview) therefore aims for accurate
placement of optimized amounts of irrigation at critical times. This, in turn, is primarily
determined by crop water demand and soil moisture supply; and new sensor technologies are
being used to define crop demand and soil moisture supply at high spatial and temporal resolution
(Greenwood et al., 2010). Knowledge of daily crop water demand is useful, but monitoring soil
moisture supply to crop provides a predictive tool for scheduling. Section Advances in Irrigation
Scheduling discusses these latest developments in soil moisture mapping; Section Soil Moisture
Mapping describes methods to update static maps at regular time intervals.
Recent WSN technological advances and their commercial availability provide the means for
site-specific monitoring to inform irrigation management decisions. These technological advances
include smart integration of sensors, wireless nodes (for communication), internet- and cellular-
enabled transfer, and processing and reporting protocols. A specific example, the sensor web
enablement (SWE), an initiative of the Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) will be discussed in
Section Wireless Sensor Networks.
The term ‘precision irrigation’ reflects the precision agriculture concept, applying GPS with
sensors to prescribe inputs in the right place, at the right time, and in the right amount. Precision
agriculture addresses in-field variability, largely ignored until the 1980s, and new GPS-enabled
technologies are enabling precise irrigation management tools, which will be discussed in Section
Wireless Sensor Networks.

Advances in Irrigation Scheduling

Designers typically plan for the peak flow rate of a new irrigation system to meet the seasonal
crop water requirements for the area to be irrigated plus any freshwater allocation requirements.
Once in place, appropriate scheduling tools are then used to assess seasonal changes to daily
evapotranspiration (ET) demands from specific crops, and irrigation is then scheduled
accordingly.
Advanced technologies for assessing regional ET losses include remote sensing by satellite or
airborne scanners (e.g., Gonzalez-Dugo et al., 2006). Multispectral satellites, such as advanced
very high resolution radiometer, moderate resolution imaging spectroradiometer (MODIS), and
Landsat TM (Thematic Mapper), have been used since the 1970s to estimate ET. These systems
are generally limited by their spatial (30 m–1 km pixel) and spectral (5–36 band) resolutions.
However, maturation of imaging spectrometry technology combined with greater availability of
airborne imaging spectrometer data present new opportunities for improved accuracy of ET
estimates by airborne remote sensing. These researchers tested the ‘gold standard’ of airborne
imaging spectroscopy, NASA’s airborne visible/infrared imaging spectrometer, which has 224
spectral bands at 10-nm intervals, and concluded that imaging spectrometers are suitable for
determining ET and understanding associated physiological processes, although they are limited
by spatial extent, and at present are most appropriate for regional estimates rather than site (field)-
based estimates.
Site-specific irrigation scheduling is frequently based on soil water balance models that
determine a daily soil moisture deficit using soil, crop, climate, and latitude inputs (Allen et al.,
1998), with a modeled daily ET value. A critical soil moisture deficit is used for timing irrigation
events. Such traditional modeling tools are very useful but do not easily address commonly
encountered within-field variability, and cannot easily account for factors such as ponding due to
soil compaction, high water tables, variable crop growth due to shading, etc. Advanced
scheduling tools need to address within-site variability due to these factors, that is, topographic
relief, short-range changes in soil depth, texture and moisture storage capability and management
effects including tillage, fertility, pests, and various irrigation system characteristics (Sadler et al.,
2005; Green et al., 2006; De Jonge et al., 2007; Evans et al., 2012) and technologies are
emerging to address the challenge (e.g., Peters and Evett, 2007, 2008).
Site-specific crop stress measurements (Green et al., 2006; Peters and Evett, 2007, 2008) have
been trialed for improved irrigation scheduling. Peters and Evett (2008) used a ‘temperature-time-
threshold method.’ Crop leaf temperature is used as an indicator of crop stress, which is measured
393 Water: Advanced Irrigation Technologies

on a fully automated center-pivot irrigation system, where infrared thermocouple thermometers

are attached to the trusses of the pivot. A field datalogger is accessed once a day to assess whether
canopy temperature is above threshold level. Another novel method determines time for irrigation
from crop stress assessed indirectly through soil moisture measurements. Onset of crop stress is
indicated by a reduced apparent daily crop water uptake (Thompson et al., 2007).
Soil moisture monitoring tools for triggering irrigation are perhaps the most widely used and
most important tools for irrigation scheduling (Fang et al., 2007) and a range of new improved
sensors for monitoring soil water are now available (Cardenas-Lailhacar et al., 2010). Improved
accuracy of soil moisture sensors is obtained by site-specific calibration and ensuring good soil
contact on installation (Greenwood et al., 2010). Recent advances have been made to link soil
moisture monitoring sites automatically to software decision tools linked to irrigation systems.
Blonquist et al. (2006) installed a soil moisture sensor (time domain transmission) to log
volumetric soil water content compared with an irrigation threshold, and connected this to a
solenoid valve on the irrigation line supplying water to the irrigation system. This system applied
53% less water than under the conventional method. Kim et al. (2009) also linked soil moisture
monitoring equipment to software control of a site-specific precision linear-move sprinkler
irrigation system.
Other technologies have been developed for other methods of irrigation application. In surface
irrigation schemes, where farmers receive a fixed amount of water during a fixed period, site-
specific scheduling is limited. Here regional scheduling tools become important; and GIS-
integrated tools have been developed for equitable irrigation supply to account for variability in
soil and crop conditions, unreliable intake of water into the main canal, absence of storage
reservoirs, and uneven distributions of water into tertiary canals (Rowshon et al., 2009). The GIS
tool links field irrigation demand predictions and then simulates and recommends optimal
irrigation supply strategies in the Tanjung Karang Irrigation Scheme for rice growers in Malaysia.
Australian researchers have developed an integrated model for simulating border-check
irrigation of dairy pastures that combines a biophysical model of the soil–plant–climate
interaction with a hydraulic irrigation model, which models infiltration and movement of water
through the soil matrix (Douglas et al., 2010). This model was used to assess how pasture
production varied with irrigation management, such as irrigation duration, to improve overall
scheduling of irrigation within the scheme.
An Australian review of software tools for on-farm water management (Inman-Bamber and
Attard, 2005) lists a number of irrigation scheduling software packages that are increasingly
being integrated into irrigation control via web and cellular control systems. Hornbuckle et al.
(2009) describes a remote sensing method for assessing within-field crop health variations
(using NDVI) and links this to reference ET values from nearby weather stations to provide
field-specific scheduling information. This crop coefficient derivation process uses a short
message service (SMS) to provide information through a simple mobile phone text message
service to irrigators on a daily basis. Such technologies enable real-time adaptive control
systems for irrigation application (Smith et al., 2010). Adaptive control means that scheduling
parameters are based on feedback from the process (Fig. Smith et al., 2010, p. 62) aiming for
continued system improvements.
These scheduling methods assess crop and soil status, as well as other management effects –
regional and some site specific – to improve scheduling tools. Site-specific measurements are
obviously preferable and the next section explains how mapping tools can be combined with
site-specific measurements to (1) optimize positioning of the sensors and (2) provide a map of
soil or crop condition to add further refinement to decision support tools and technologies for
irrigation scheduling.

Soil Moisture Mapping

Recent technological advances in GPS-enabled proximal (ground-based) sensing methods are
providing rapid affordable mapping methods of land, soil, and crops to inform irrigation
management decisions. For example, electromagnetic induction (EM) surveys typically use
very accurate positioning equipment (e.g., real-time kinematic differential GPS, RTKDGPS),
quantifying soil spatial variability at resolutions of o10 m, and simultaneously providing a
digital elevation map (DEM) with an accuracy of o0.1 m.
The EM sensor measures soil apparent electrical conductivity (EC) which is influenced by
soil texture and moisture in nonsaline soils (e.g., Sudduth et al., 2005; Brevik et al., 2006). Soil
EM maps provide the basis for targeted soil sampling
 Water: Advanced Irrigation Technologies

Figure 12 (a) Soil EC map, (b) available water-holding capacity map, and (c) derived soil water status map. Reproduced from Hedley, C.B., Yule,
I.J., 2011. Soil water status maps for variable rate irrigation. In: Clay, D., Shanahan, J., Pierce, F. (Eds.), GIS Applications in Agriculture – Nutrient
Management for Improved Energy Efficiency. Third Book in CRC GIS in Agriculture Series. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, pp. 173–190.
strategies to sample the full range of likely soils encountered in the area of interest. An area of
50 ha can easily be mapped in one day, by pulling the sensor behind an all-terrain vehicle, with
on-board GPS, datalogger, and field computer.
Topographic features that are likely to influence irrigation efficiency (e.g., slope, aspect, and
slope angle) can be derived from the DEM, and used in conjunction with EC to derive optimal
sampling and monitoring positions (Minasny and McBratney, 2006).
The EM map is not only used to select soil moisture monitoring sites, but can also be used to
calibrate soil EC values against soil available water-holding properties (Waine et al., 2000;
Godwin and Miller, 2003; Hedley and Yule, 2008; Hedley and Yule, 2009) so that a soil
available water-holding capacity map can be produced, for spatial irrigation scheduling (Figure
12). Hezarjaribi and Sourell (2007) also used EM mapping to define zones for targeted soil
sampling to assess soil AWC.
Triantafilis et al. (2009) describe how EM surveys employing root-zone sensing Geonics
EM38 and vadose-zone sensing Geonics EM31 sensors are related to subsurface soil properties
such as texture, moisture, and depth to water table; and are used to define management classes
for precision management. Sherlock and McDonnell (2003) found that EM38 data could explain
470% of gravimetrically determined soil moisture variance.
Primary terrain attributes derived from the DEM, collected as part of the EM survey, or by
other means, include surface derivatives such as slope, aspect, and curvature (Bishop and
Minansy, 2006). Secondary terrain attributes are calculated from a combination of two or more
primary terrain attributes to model spatial variation of processes across a landscape, the most
commonly used being the ‘topographic wetness index,’ which is defined by Moore et al. (1991)
as the natural logarithm of specific catchment area divided by the tangent of the slope, and
another being the SAGA wetness index (Olaya and Conrad, 2009).
Other methods that show promise for mapping soil moisture over large areas include airborne
and spaceborne remote sensing by passive microwave radiometry or active radar instruments.
However, both methods are highly sensitive to surface roughness and their effectiveness is
limited to flat and bare ground studies (Jonard et al., 2011; Kseneman et al., 2012), despite the
advantage that they are not influenced by cloud cover.
Ground-based versions of these sensors (ground penetrating radar and L-band radiometer) are
required for site-specific irrigation management, and these sensors are available, and have been
tested on a vehicle for mapping soil moisture in a field. Differences observed between the two
methods were related to different sensitivities to surface roughness, and different exploration
depths; these technologies require further development before becoming commercially viable.
The sensor data were calibrated against TDR-derived soil moisture measurements at each
position, and 20% of the reference TDR data was required to produce a good roughness
calibration model for the entire field, to correct the sensor data.
395 Water: Advanced Irrigation Technologies

Other methods for mapping spatial heterogeneity of soil moisture include electrical resistivity
tomography (Kelly et al., 2011). While a strength of this method is its excellent vertical
resolution, a weakness is that electrode arrays are inserted into the ground for imaging and the
method cannot be mobilized. However, Kelly et al. (2011) used it to delineate zones of excessive
water loss due to deep drainage, and this technology is therefore an advanced irrigation
management technology. Kelly et al. (2011) used the information to position monitoring sensors
to assist irrigation scheduling.
Soil moisture mapping aids advanced irrigation scheduling because this scheduling directly
measures the amount of

Figure 13 Schematic diagram for a wireless sensor network (WSN) suitable for irrigation control. Adapted from Ruiz-Garcia
Barreiro, P., Robla, J.I., 2009. A review of wireless sensor technologies and applications in agriculture and food industry:
and
current trends. Sensors 9, 4728–4750.

available water left in a soil profile at any one time, and the rate at which it is being used by the
crop. It therefore directly monitors crop water use (Thompson et al., 2007) and soil water storage
under any irrigation system, and provides information in a digital form and can be used for open-
loop or closed-loop decision support tools.
Recent technological advances in WSNs provide the tool for real-time high-resolution soil
moisture monitoring within each management zone defined by the EM survey so that soil
moisture maps can be updated on a daily basis and used either for direct control of irrigation
systems or for informing land managers.

Wireless Sensor Networks

The high spatial resolution provided by GPS-enabled sensing methods (Section Advances in
Irrigation Scheduling) can be further refined by smart WSN technologies, and these technologies
are rapidly developing from off-line sensors using field loggers with manual downloading to
wireless on-line sensor networks, within interoperable and autonomous sensor webs (see Figure
13). The sensor web concept is based on the SWE framework of the OGC. Within this
framework, standard protocols, interfaces and web services to discover, task, exchange, and
process data from different sensors and sensor networks have been defined (Thessler et al., 2011).
Irrigation benefits from the resulting high temporal measuring resolution with real-time data
transfer from spatially optimized management zones, and spatiotemporal models can be produced
to update static maps, on a daily basis, for improved irrigation scheduling (Hedley et al., 2013).
These recent innovations in low-voltage sensor and wireless technologies combined with
advances in internet and cellular communication technologies offer opportunities for
development and application of real-time management systems for agriculture (Evans et al.,
2012; Pierce and Elliott, 2008; O’Shaughnessy and Evett, 2010; Coates and Delwiche, 2009).
Ruiz-Garcia et al. (2009) reported that wireless sensor technologies are entering a new phase
as a consequence of decreasing costs, increasingly smaller sensing devices, and achievements in
frequency technology and digital circuits. Nodes, each with sensors attached, wirelessly form the
most efficient communication network to send data to a base station where they are stored and
can be accessed remotely.
Alternatively, the data are transmitted via internet or cellular means to a secure database for
storage, manipulation, and informing irrigation schedules. Owing to a large number of sensors
and differing accompanying protocols, a coherent infrastructure is required to treat sensors in an
interoperable, platform-independent and uniform way. Standardized access to sensor
observations and sensor metadata provided by the OGC compliant Sensor Observation Service
 Water: Advanced Irrigation Technologies

(Broring et al., 2011) acts as a mediator between a client and a sensor data archive or a real-
time sensor system.
WSN technologies have significant potential to monitor inherent soil variability present in
fields with more accuracy than existing systems. Thus, the benefit for the producers is a better
decision support system that allows maximized productivity while saving water. Installation of
WSNs is easier than the existing wired systems and sensors can be more densely deployed to
provide local, detailed data; rather than irrigating an entire field in response to broad sensor
data, each section could be activated based on local sensors.
Vellidis et al. (2008) developed a prototype of smart sensor array for scheduling irrigation in
cotton. The system integrates moisture sensors, thermocouples, and radio frequency
identification (RFID) tags. Qian et al. (2007) designed a new groundwater-monitoring
instrument based on WSN that monitors groundwater table and temperature through a sensor.
An embedded single chip processes the monitoring data and a GSM data module transfers the
data wirelessly. Bogena et al. (2007) evaluated a low-cost soil water content sensor in a
wireless network application, and Kim et al. (2009) developed an in-field WSN for
implementing site-specific irrigation control in a linear move irrigation system. Communication
signals from the sensor network and irrigation controller to the base station were successfully
interfaced using low-cost bluetooth wireless radio communication. Hedley et al. (2013) used a
wireless soil moisture sensor network optimally positioned into EM-defined management zones
to inform a precision irrigation scheduling tool (Figure 14). The WSN monitored soil moisture
and depth to water table, the latter providing a means of calculating the contribution of a high
water table for subirrigating the crop.
Underground systems for monitoring soil conditions, such as water and mineral content, to
provide data for appropriate irrigation and fertilization are emerging (Akyildiz and Stuntebeck,
2006) and these systems can also be used for monitoring the

(a) Wireless in-field nodes with (b) Base station at pivot

sensors attached

Modem

Base Web
station server

(d) Pivot control - soil zones (c) Standard web browser

Figure 14 Flowchart to show WSN for precision irrigation scheduling. Reproduced from Hedley, C.B., Roudier, P., Yule, I.J., Ekanayake, J.,
Bradbury, S., 2013. Soil water status and water table modelling using electromagnetic surveys for precision irrigation scheduling. Geoderma
199,
22–29.
397 Water: Advanced Irrigation Technologies

presence and concentration of various toxic substances in soils near rivers and aquifers, where
chemical runoff could contaminate drinking water supplies. Another application can be
landslide prediction by monitoring soil movement.
Further recent WSN technological advances for irrigation scheduling include

• energy-efficiency gains using adaptive decentralized reclustering protocols for node

communications (Bajaber and Awan, 2011; Nesa Sudha et al., 2011);

• algorithm development for handling orphaned nodes for optimal restoration into the network
(Maheswararajah et al., 2011);

• inclusion of wireless lysimeters for real-time online soil drainage monitoring (Kim et al.,
2011); and
• incorporation of bluetooth and RFID technologies for automated data capture and
identification applications (Kim et al., 2009; Ruiz-Garcia et al., 2009).

Precision Irrigation Management

Available water supplies for irrigation are becoming increasingly limited globally and this will
force major changes to the design and management of water delivery for on-farm irrigation
management, as discussed elsewhere in the article (Section Simulation). Section Simulation
discusses a technology that will potentially play an important role in future irrigation
management of limited water supplies: site-specific variable-rate sprinkler irrigation or
‘precision irrigation’ modification of self-propelled center-pivot and linear-move systems
(Hedley and Yule, 2009; Evans and King, 2012) (see Figure 15). These systems are particularly
suited to site-specific management approaches because of their current level of automation and
large area coverage with a single lateral pipe. Where sprinklers are modified for site-specific
control, new opportunities arise to conserve water, reduce plant stress at localized positions, and
reduce nutrient leaching and drainage.
Trials in New Zealand have shown that water savings are typically between 10% and 25%
where variable soils occur under one system, and further savings are made by excluding irrigation
from tracks, waterways, yards, sheds, and other unproductive areas (Hedley and Yule, 2011).
Management systems being developed alongside these precision irrigation systems include
EM mapping to derive management zones with real-time soil moisture monitoring within each
zone. The Valley VRI system uses CropMetrics, a system that derives EM and landscape change
layer to identify water-holding capacity variability across the field. These data layers are
delivered through a ‘Virtual Agronomist,’ where the degree of field variability is used to decide
on irrigation management strategies. The amount of variability relates to the amount of
opportunity present, that is, the higher the variability the greater the opportunity for variable rate
to benefit. Varying application rates increase input efficiency and improve yield production.
Findings from a modeling study by Hedley and Yule (2009) at five case-study sites in New
Zealand found that where soil available water-holding capacity varied by 50 mm under one
irrigation system then the potential water savings were approximately 10%, and variation by 4100
mm gave a potential water saving of Z15%. Savings are potentially greater in humid temperate
regions (where some rainfall occurs during the irrigation season) in comparison with arid regions,
where the main benefit of VRI for variable soils is a staggered start to irrigation at the beginning
of the irrigation season, plus different watering strategies for soils of contrasting textural and
drainage properties. Research has also been conducted to introduce wireless soil moisture sensor
networks into EM and landscape-derived management zones for provision of real-time digital soil
moisture information to the VRI controller. VRI control is established on-site or remotely through
a software package with internet or cellular connection.
Smart phone applications are being derived for irrigation control and management, which is
often more suited to operational farmer use, than a computer sitting back in the farm of fice. The
WaterBee system has been developed in Europe independently from a VRI system, and is the
result of a project undertaken by a team of 10 partners from eight European countries targeting
a sustainable solution to contribute to reducing freshwater use by the agricultural sector. WSNs
send readings to a soil-moisture model that automatically adapts irrigation requirements to
different irrigation installations, and it is suggested that this WaterBee system will achieve real
water savings while enhancing crop quality.
 Water: Advanced Irrigation Technologies

The importance of scale in precision irrigation

One of the most important areas that may be ignored or oversimplified in precision irrigation is
in choosing an appropriate scale at which variable rate (or other) technologies should be
implemented. It is quite feasible to map spatial soil variabilities and crop canopy differences at
high resolution,

Figure 15 Variable rate irrigator, with sprinklers switched off as the irrigator crosses a farm track,
saves water and reduces lameness risk in dairy cows. Photo: C.B. Hedley.

Table 1 Spatial scales of common irrigation systems

and to engineer an application system to apply water variably. However, it is much more dif ficult
to explain scientifically the reasons for underlying heterogeneity in crop growth and link this with
confidence to decisions on variable water application. Deciding on the appropriate scale for
applying water needs to be informed by a thorough understanding of the consequences of soil and
crop variability on yield. Advances in precision agriculture thus need to be integrated with
equivalent knowledge in precision irrigation to identify the appropriate scale(s) for system
implementation. Although it may be technically and practically possible to apply water variably,
it may not be economically beneficial or agronomically sensible (see Table 1).

Other Advanced Irrigation Developments

Section Overview
System Spatial unit Order of magnitude of spatial scale
(m2)
Surface – furrow Single furrow 1000
Surface – furrow Set of furrows 50 000
Surface – bay Bay 10 000–50 000
Sprinkler – solid set Wetted area of single sprinkler 100
Center pivot, lateral move Wetted area of single sprinkler 100
LEPAa – bubbler Furrow dyke 1
Traveling irrigator Wetted area of single sprinkler 5000
Drip Wetted area of an emitter 1–10
Microspray Wetted area of a single spray 20
a
Abbreviation: LEPA, low-energy precision application.
Source: Smith, R.J., Raine, S.R., McCarthy, A.C., Hancock, N.H., 2009. Managing spatial and temporal variability in irrigated agriculture through adaptive
control, Australian Journal of Multi-Disciplinary Engineering 7 (1), 79−90.
This section provides an introduction to a selection of other advanced irrigation technologies
including the modernization
of irrigation district networks and the use of smart meters to improve the monitoring of water
usage at the farm and field levels. Selected on-farm irrigation technologies to improve crop water
productivity using partial root zone drying (PRD) and deficit irrigation strategies, vision sensing
399 Water: Advanced Irrigation Technologies

of crop responses for irrigation management, and the application of fertigation and chemigation
are also discussed. This section covers the following aspects:

• modernization of irrigation district networks,

• smart water metering,
• PRD and RDI,
• applied machine vision of plants for irrigation management, and

• fertigation and chemigation.

Modernization of Irrigation District Networks

The modernization of irrigation districts often involves converting the water distribution network
from intermittent to ‘on-demand’ water supply for farmers. On-demand irrigation schemes supply
water to the farm via either gravity-fed channels or pressurized pipe networks. The conveyance
efficiency of pressurized pipe networks are normally significantly greater (of order 30%) than for
channel systems. Pressurized water at the farm gate also provides farmers with an incentive to
convert existing on-farm surface irrigation systems to potentially more efficient sprinkler or
microirrigation systems.
The change from intermittent to on-demand water supply has implications not only for water
use efficiency but also for irrigated crop productivity and energy usage. For example, although
modernization of irrigation districts in Southern Spain has reduced the amount of water diverted
to farms for irrigation, consumptive water use has increased, mainly due to a change in crop
rotation (Rodriguez-Diaz et al., 2011). However, in this area, the costs for system operation and
maintenance have increased dramatically (B400%), primarily due to increasing energy
consumption for pumping (Rodriguez-Diaz et al., 2011).
In Southern Australia, Jackson et al. (2010) found that conversion to pressurized irrigation
methods reduced energy consumption in regions where groundwater is used, the result of an
increase in efficiency of water use. They also suggested that conversion of on-demand gravity-fed
systems into pressurized networks is generally not appropriate where surface water supply is
available. In these cases, regional investments should focus on improving the volumetric
efficiency of the channel network and avoid increased energy requirements (Jackson et al., 2010).
However, in the Harvey Irrigation district in Western Australia (Harvey Water, 2012), the
availability of elevated surface water dams close to lower elevation farms has provided the
opportunity to convert a channel distribution system into a pressurized piped network that does
not require pumping. Here, increased volumetric distribution efficiencies have provided water for
alternative uses, whereas the delivery of low-cost pressurized water on farm has enabled the
conversion of irrigation application systems and the establishment of higher value horticultural
crops.
The service performance of water supply schemes is a function of the scheme and component
capacities as well as the irrigation demand. Perez-Urrestarazu et al. (2009) observed that on-
demand systems should be designed to deliver water with flow rates and pressures required by
on-farm irrigation systems, taking into account the time, duration, and frequency as de fined by
the farmers. However, due to the probabilistic nature of users irrigating simultaneously (Anwar et
al., 2006) these systems are often designed with excessive distribution capacity, making them
more expensive than intermittent systems
(Planells-Alandi et al., 2001). Similarly, pump-pressurized, ondemand systems are commonly
designed and operated to supply the target pressure in each component of the pipe network
irrespective of the water supplied. Sectoring, where farmers are organized to use water in turns,
has been shown (Carrillo Cobo et al., 2011) to be one of the most effective methods of reducing
energy consumption in pressurized, on-demand irrigation networks. Computational tools
involving integrated geographic information systems, real-time monitoring, and modeling of
hydraulic data with decision support systems are also being used (e.g., Perez-Urrestarazu et al.,
2012) to improve the operational performance of pressured irrigation networks.
An alternative approach has been taken in the modernization of the open-channel delivery
systems in Southern Australia. Here the decision was made to retain the open earthen channels
and to seek the efficiency gains through automation along with rationalization of the network
involving retirement of some smaller channels and some limited gravity pipelining and channel
lining to reduce seepage losses. The classical ideas from system identification and control are
 Water: Advanced Irrigation Technologies

used to automate the channels to provide a near on-demand system (Mareels et al., 2003, 2005;
Cantoni et al., 2007). This system has been implemented under the name of Total
Channel Controls and has resulted in distribution efficiencies in excess of 90% compared with the
efficiencies of 70–75% typically achieved under manual control (see Figure 16).

Smart Water Metering

Knowing the amount of water being used and where it is used are important elements associated
with practicing efficient irrigation. Typical pressurized irrigation farms are characterized by
complex hydraulics due to numerous pipe fixtures and modifications that occur over time, and
variable irrigation block flow delivery due to poor design and setup. Where flow monitoring
occurs, it is often conducted by manual readings of a water meter at irregular intervals.
Smart irrigation metering involves the assessment of unique hydraulic characteristics at the
source of a delivery system with multiple outlets (Pezzaniti, 2009). This requires an ability to
record and automate analysis of high-frequency flow and pressure sensor data and allows not only
for the continuous monitoring of water consumption but also for the identification of individual
irrigation valve operation. Smart water meters have the following attributes (Giurco et al., 2008):
real-time monitoring, high-resolution interval metering (Z10 s), automated data transfer (e.g.,
drive by, GPRS, and 3G), and access to data via the internet or SMS. Most modern mechanical
and electronic water meters and pressure sensors have features (e.g., pulse output) that allow flow
to be monitored or logged. Hence, the implementation of smart water meters for monitoring on-
farm irrigation typically

(a) (b)

Figure 16 Modernization of open-channel delivery in Australia provides a near on-demand system. Photos: Michael Kai courtesy Rubicon
Water.
involves the addition of a datalogger and communications to a traditional water meter and
pressure sensor.
Coupling the identification of valve operation with the measured meter flows makes it possible
to disaggregate the water flow so that any component within an irrigation system can be
identified. This enables the flow and total volume applied to each irrigation block within the
system to be recorded, providing comparative data for both the assessment of irrigation efficiency
and the identification of maintenance and operating issues (e.g., pump wear, filter blockages,
pipeline leaks, and emitter variations). The water use information obtained may be used to
improve irrigation design and practice. Similarly, the subsequent analysis of smart water meter
401 Water: Advanced Irrigation Technologies

data can be automated and integrated with controllers to optimize water, energy, and maintenance
requirements.

Partial Root Zone Drying and Regulated Deficit Irrigation

PRD and RDI strategies involve manipulating the placement of irrigation water and moisture
deficit within the root zone to increase crop water use efficiency. The major differences between
PRD and RDI are associated with the nature of the localized soil moisture and plant water status
conditions (Ruiz-Sanchez et al., 2010). Both hydraulic and biochemical signals are involved in
regulating stomatal and plant growth rates in response to changes in the abiotic environment
(Chalmers et al., 1981; Davies and Zhang, 1991). PRD involves creating alternate drying and
wetting of subsections of the plant root zone (Figure 17) to elevate biochemical signaling while
maintaining plant water status (Loveys et al., 2000; Stoll et al., 2000; Dodd et al., 2006). Hence,
PRD strategies maintain plant water status and create a favorable physiological response through
elevated biochemical signaling. RDI involves reducing the moisture availability throughout the
entire plant root zone resulting in a reduced plant water status (Kriedemann and Goodwin, 2003).
RDI improves crop WUE by maintaining plant water status within the prescribed limits of deficit
with respect to maximum water potential (Kriedemann and Goodwin, 2003).
PRD strategies attempt to maintain water availability and plant water status simultaneously
while elevating the biochemical signaling (increasing ABA levels and alkalization of sap pH)
within the plant. The elevated ABA has been found (Loveys et al., 2000; Stoll et al., 2000) to
coincide with a partial reduction in stomatal conductance and a differential effect on vegetative
and reproductive production (Davies et al., 2000), both of which lead to an improvement in crop
water use efficiency for fruiting crops.
Practical limitations in the successful application of PRD and RDI are related to the soil
hydraulic properties, volume, and frequency of irrigation water applications, and the occurrence
of in-season rainfall. PRD and RDI strategies are difficult to apply in furrow irrigation systems
and PRD is also difficult to implement under sprinkler irrigation systems. However, both PRD
and RDI may be implemented using drip irrigation and precision applicators on large mobile
irrigation machines. White and Raine (2009) suggested that the creation of a soil moisture
gradient across the plant root zone large enough to trigger a PRD response is most likely to be
achieved
 Water: Advanced Irrigation Technologies

Figure 17 PRD in grapevines. Subsurface drip lines supply water to one side or the other of the vine. In this diagram water is supplied through
two irrigation cycles to the right hand line. The water content of the soil at various depths is shown as output from Enviroscan sensors. Although
the soil around the right hand sensor wets and dries in response to the irrigation, the soil on the left hand side of the vine continues to dry.
Reproduced from Loveys, B.R., Grant, W.J.R., Dry, P.R., McCarthy, M.G., 1997. Progress in the development of partial root-zone drying.
Australian
Grapegrower and Winemaker 403, 18–20.

on light-textured soils located in semiarid regions that experience minimal in-season rainfall
events.
RDI is particularly useful in controlling vegetative growth and increasing fruiting in
indeterminate crops (e.g., cotton). For example, White (2006) found RDI (79% of predicted ET)
of cotton under field conditions produced a 31.5% improvement in crop water use productivity
over commercial practice (i.e., applying 100% of predicted ET). However, the largest bene fits
derived from deficit irrigation were associated with the management of crop agronomy (i.e.,
vegetative growth, fruit retention rate, and crop earliness) and the increased utilization of in-
season rainfall.

Applied Machine Vision of Plants for Irrigation Management

The automated visual assessment of plant condition, specifically foliage wilting, reflectance, and
growth parameters, using machine vision has potential use as input for real-time VRI and
fertigation systems in precision agriculture. Crop-sensing tasks that have been successfully
demonstrated using machine vision in outdoor conditions include automated identification of
weed species (Slaughter et al., 2008), nitrogen status (Noh et al., 2005), plant size (Shrestha and
Steward, 2005), and multispectral properties using narrow band imaging (e.g., Carter and Miller,
1994). McCarthy et al. (2010) have reviewed the use of applied machine vision for plant sensing
in irrigation applications.
Farm managers typically include visual assessment of crop condition to inform management
decisions (e.g., irrigation timing) and treat the whole field uniformly based on their manual
observations. For example, internode length measurement (i.e., the distance between branch
junctions, Figure 18) is part of a plant-based water stress monitoring regime for cotton suggested
403 Water: Advanced Irrigation Technologies

for growers (Milroy et al., 2002). A machine vision system with access to a large proportion of
the field potentially enables automatic condition assessment for different plants at high spatial
frequency in the field. Such sensing capability, in conjunction with the implementation of
appropriate variablerate application hardware, enables agricultural fields to be treated as a
conglomerate of control units for operations such as irrigation and fertigation (e.g., Smith et al.,
2009).
The design of a vision system for the measurement of plant attributes is affected by many
factors, including the scale of the plant measurement (i.e., leaf- or canopy-level) and the
measurement environment (e.g., a laboratory or in the field).
Direction of enclosure
movement (across row) Transparent
Camera window
enclosure 2
Plant
Camera specimen
3
In
le
4

m
0.9
6

(a) (b)

Figure 18 (a) Moving image capture apparatus; and (b) stylized sample image from apparatus, with main stem nodes num
from McCarthy, C.L., Hancock, N.H., Raine, S.R., 2009. Automated internode length measurement of cotton plants under fie
Transactions of the ASABE 52 (6), 2093–2103; Cotton plant graphic adapted from University of Hamburg, 1998. Virtual Plan
http:// www.biologie.uni-hamburg.de/b-online/virtualplants/ipivp.html (accessed 19.10.12).
Automated machine vision sensing of individual plants in the field is presently limited to early
stage crops (where neighboring plants are too small to touch or overlap), or, for more mature
canopies, to whole-plant characteristics such as plant biomass. The use of near-infrared (NIR)
imaging, background boards, and shade structures with artificial illumination reduces the
complexity of the segmentation process but adds extra components and potentially physical bulk
to the overall measurement system. In the indoor environment, a monocular vision system can
identify small canopy changes for irrigation scheduling purposes.
Identification of plant structure using stereo vision enjoys greater success for smaller plants.
Applications in the outdoor environment typically provide overall canopy geometry, which is
useful for monitoring crop growth in areas of a field or identifying plant height changes, for
example, between different species (i.e., weed and crop). Determination of leaf and branching
structure of individual plants is currently limited, even in indoor environments, and relies on the
image having a plain background. Knowledge of plant growth patterns (e.g., phyllotaxis)
potentially assists measurement by image analysis.
The sensing and image analysis task may be simplified by imaging only in that part of the
electromagnetic spectrum that accentuates features of interest more effectively than the broad
visible bands provided by standard RGB cameras. Sensing of different regions of the
electromagnetic spectrum potentially enables discrimination of plant materials based on color
(visible), cellular structure (NIR), thermal (mid-infrared), or hardness (X-ray) properties.
Machine vision systems for field use must be designed to be robust to sunlight variations
(Slaughter et al., 2008). Active sensing systems are less susceptible to ambient sunlight than
passive sensing systems. However, low-cost (passive sensor) cameras with simple imposed
illumination may also have reduced dependency on sunlight (e.g., Edan et al., 2000).
Attaching a machine vision system to the gantry of a center pivot or lateral move irrigation
machine potentially enables crop condition to be measured in real-time as the irrigation machine
moves across the field (e.g., Colaizzi et al., 2003; McCarthy et al., 2009). Alternatively, tractor-
mounting of the system may be desirable, so assessments can be made as the tractor moves
alongside the field. On-the-go in-field sensing of geometric crop plant parameters is currently
limited to leaf shape identification and biomass estimation in the foliage of small plants, or plant
height and biomass estimation in fully developed canopies. To measure plant leaf-level attributes
 Water: Advanced Irrigation Technologies

(e.g., internode length and leaf shape) in maturing field plants requires the design of a robust
outdoor machine vision system that achieves a detailed structure sensing. These systems have so
far only been reported for automated laboratory or greenhouse systems on a limited number of
crops under controlled lighting and environmental conditions.

Fertigation and chemigation

Efficient nutrient and chemical use in agriculture involves accurate spatial and temporal
placement of the applied fertilizer or chemical. Fertigation involves supplying dissolved fertilizer
to crops through an irrigation system (Bar-Yosef, 1999). Although fertigation has the advantage
of being able to accurately apply fertilizer, liquid application of ammoniacal fertilizers can lead to
deleterious drops in soil pH (Stork et al., 2003), because roots release hydrogen ions to take up
ammonium ions, and this should be considered when fertigating with these compounds.
Fertigation is commonly applied using both surface and pressurized irrigation application
systems. When combined with an efficient irrigation system, both nutrients and water can be
manipulated and managed to maximize marketable yield and nutrient efficiency (New South
Wales Dept of Primary Industries (NSW DPI), 2000). Soluble inorganic nutrients are normally
used for fertigation but the application of humic substances via fertigation systems has also been
found (Selim and Mosa, 2012) to increase root zone moisture holding capacity in sandy soils and
increase crop productivity.
Chemigation in broad-acre crops is most commonly applied by large mobile irrigation
machines (i.e., center pivots or linear moves). Herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides may be
injected into the main irrigation water pipe for distribution through the irrigation emitters (e.g.,
Quad-Spray, Senninger Irrigation Inc., Clermont, FL, USA) with the water. Alternatively,
chemigation may be conducted using a separate system of distribution pipework with spray heads
suspended underneath the irrigation machine truss rods to enable the application of chemical
either with or without irrigation water (Foley and Raine, 2001).
The efficiency of fertigation and chemigation strategies is highly dependent on the
performance (i.e., uniformity) and management of the irrigation system. Fertigation uniformity in
microirrigation systems is primarily a function of emitter discharge uniformity where the
fertilizer is injected during the middle third or half of the total irrigation time ( Hanson et al.,
2006). Fertilizers injected into water applied to furrow irrigation systems are similarly affected by
the nonuniformity of the applied water, with efficiencies often low due to percolation losses at the
head end of the field and tailwater runoff losses. Simulation models combining the overland water
flow (Saint-Venant equations), solute transport (advection– dispersion), and infiltration have been
developed (Perea et al., 2010; Burguete et al., 2009) to evaluate and optimize the application of
fertilizers in furrow irrigation systems. Modifying the water inflow hydrograph to improve the
uniformity of water application and reducing tailwater runoff has been found to improve both
nutrient uniformity and efficiency (Moravejalahkami et al., 2012). Similarly, using alternative
furrow irrigation strategies has also been found (Ebrahimian et al., 2012) to increase lateral water
movement, reducing water and nitrate losses via runoff and deep percolation.
Decision support systems are increasingly being used (e.g., Incocci et al., 2012) to identify
optimal fertigation requirements based on crop growth and environmental conditions. Site-
specific fertigation of zones within conventional pressurized irrigation systems may be achieved
by the installation and control of separate injection facilities for each zone. However,
implementation of separate systems to date has been limited because of the expense and control
complexity (Coates et al., 2012). Where a centralized injection facility is used, the selection of
the optimum injection strategy will be a function of the crop needs, scheduling limitations, and
system design parameters including emitter type, fluid distribution system travel time, and field
slope (Coates et al., 2012).

Future Directions – Emerging Risks, Technical Challenges, and Future

Developments

Section Overview
Despite concerns regarding international food security, and the drive to support sustainable
intensification, agriculture still faces a number of challenges that are likely to hamper any
widespread uptake of advanced technologies, including precision irrigation. This section
405 Water: Advanced Irrigation Technologies

identifies the emerging risks and ‘drivers for change,’ highlights the environmental and technical
challenges constraining innovation in precision irrigation, and briefly considers selected novel
technologies on the horizon that will support the future sustainability of irrigated agriculture and
horticulture.

Emerging Risks
In most countries, agriculture provides significant societal benefits, by making important
contributions to national economies and underpinning rural employment. Although the most
obvious contribution is probably in the production of ‘food’ and ‘nonfood’ crops, agricultural
ecosystems also provide other services, including regulation of air quality, climate, and water
purification. Agricultural land delivers nonmaterial cultural benefits such as land for recreation
and valued characteristic landscapes, supporting habitats, wildlife, biodiversity, and ecosystem
services. The importance of agricultural land, including irrigated croplands, therefore goes far
beyond food production – the future actions of farmers can thus have positive or negative effects
on these services, all of which are likely to be affected by climate change.

Climate impacts on irrigated production

Internationally, agriculture is regarded as one of the sectors at most risk from a changing climate,
due to the impact of increased temperatures, reduced rainfall, and increased frequency of extreme
events, not only in the tropics but also in humid and temperate environments (Falloon and Betts,
2010; Knox et al., 2012). Outdoor rainfed and irrigated crops are particularly sensitive, both
directly from changes in rainfall and temperature and also indirectly, as any change in climate
will also impact on the agricultural potential of soils by modifying soil water balances and
changing land suitability for production (Daccache et al., 2012). These changes will in turn affect
the availability of water to plants and impact on other land management practices (e.g.,
trafficability for seedbed preparation, spraying, and harvesting) including the demand for
irrigation (Daccache et al., 2011). In regions where rainfed agriculture is dominant, changes in
the timing, distribution, and reliability of rainfall may force a gradual switch to irrigated
production, to maintain crop yields. Here precision irrigation could become important,
particularly for supplemental irrigation. By combining better weather forecasting techniques to
make better use of effective rainfall with, for example, VRI, the negative impacts of agroclimate
uncertainty on crop yield and quality could be reduced.
Farmers also face a range of ‘nonclimate’ risks that potentially represent a more immediate
threat to sustainable food production than climate change. Most notable is the increasing burden
of environmental protection and its consequent impacts on water resources (both supply and
allocation) for irrigated agriculture (Knox et al., 2010). However, investment in advanced
precision irrigation technologies still requires consistent and reliable supplies of water.
Demands for greater environmental protection
Governments and society are seeking greater levels of environmental protection. In irrigated
agriculture, probably the greatest short-term risks relate to the impacts of new water regulation.
For example, in Europe, a number of new directives have recently been enforced, including the
Water Framework Directive (WFD 2000/60/E). Despite its title, the WFD is as much about land
management as it is about water management. It is the most substantial legislation produced by
the European Commission and provides the major driver for sustainable management of water
across Europe. By 2015, it requires that all inland and coastal waters within de fined river basins
reach at least ‘good status’ and defines how this should be achieved through the establishment of
environmental objectives and ecological targets for surface waters. The WFD applies to all waters
to tackle diffuse source pollution, ranging from fertilizer and pesticide applications on rainfed and
irrigated land to urban runoff. In agriculture, the dependence on fertilizers and pesticides means
that many farms may be subjected to much greater levels of surveillance to ensure that diffuse
pollution from cropped areas is not contributing to water quality degradation. Irrigated agriculture
is widely viewed as a key target for improvement. Similar pressures on irrigated farming are
known to exist in other continents including the US and Australasia.
However, the rising costs for fertilizer (and energy for water pumping) are themselves acting
as an industry brake, with many irrigated farms actively seeking new measures to reduce fertilizer
inputs and water use. Collectively, these may provide a positive indirect response to water
regulation and drive the uptake of precision irrigation technologies. These could help reduce
nitrate leaching risks, nonbeneficial losses of water offfarm, and levels of energy consumption
(and hence carbon footprint) for irrigated production.
 Water: Advanced Irrigation Technologies

Although most environmental regulations are implemented at the river basin or catchment
scale, their impact will be felt at the farm level, particularly when irrigated farms are located in
water-stressed catchments or in proximity to internationally protected habitats or environmentally
designated sites. Under these conditions, precision agriculture practices, including irrigation,
could again help reduce some of the impacts of agricultural water abstraction on local habitats
and the risks associated with nitrate leaching to the environment.
Finally, farms in the future may be subjected to increasing levels of monitoring and scrutiny
(traceability) to demonstrate compliance with national and international regulation. Precision
irrigation technologies will undoubtedly have an increasing role in demonstrating ‘best practice’
in irrigation management. In this context, technologies that target water applications both
spatially and temporally, taking into account heterogeneities in soil moisture, crop development,
and climate, are likely to be viewed positively by environmental regulators. In parallel, changes
in water regulation are exposing irrigated farms to new water supply risks.

Competition for water resources

Internationally, irrigated agriculture faces rising competition for access to reliable, low-cost, and
high-quality water. In Northern Europe, for example, farmers are under increasing regulatory
pressure to improve irrigation efficiency; indeed,

Figure 19 Overhead irrigation on iceberg lettuces using a modified mobile hosereel fitted with a
boom. Before harvest, the sprinklers are replaced with drop tubes to avoid soil splash impacting on
crop quality. Photo: J. Knox.

demonstrating ‘efficient’ water use is a prerequisite for renewing an abstraction license (permit)
(Knox et al., 2012). In Mediterranean Europe, where irrigated agriculture accounts for
approximately 60% of all abstractions (OECD, 2012), production is at risk due to increasing
water scarcity and competition for scarce resources (Wriedt et al., 2009). In some countries,
abstraction regimes are in place, but in others new frameworks for regulation, including those for
irrigation control are being implemented. Within these frameworks, higher levels of water
efficiency will inevitably be required. Precision irrigation, often only considered in the form of
drip (or trickle) irrigation, is often seen by water regulators as being ‘good’ for the environment.
Other forms of precision and VRI will no doubt be encouraged.
In many catchments where irrigated agriculture is concentrated, rising demand for water
between different sectors (notably, agriculture, public/domestic supply, and industry) coupled
with reduced allocations to meet environmental flows means that allocations for irrigation are
becoming less reliable and more expensive. The situation is exacerbated by examples where
irrigated agriculture is cited as being the primary cause of environmental damage and
overabstraction, mainly during the summer months when river and groundwater levels are at their
lowest and irrigation demands peak.
In future, farmers will need to demonstrate more efficient and sustainable use of water to
secure rights (licenses/permits) for irrigation abstraction. Technical measures such as switching
from sprinkler to micro (drip)-irrigation are often promoted by industry and the regulator to
reduce the environmental impact of abstractions and increase water efficiency. Replacement of
overhead irrigation sprinklers with drop tubes is an example of system modification to efficiently
deliver irrigation to the root zone of a salad crop, also minimizing soil splash onto the plant, to
reduce the amount of washing required during the processing stage (Figure 19). However, any
environmental gain may be limited if more efficient techniques such a precision irrigation do not
407 Water: Advanced Irrigation Technologies

result in a reduction in net water use, but simply support an increase in irrigation command. Any
water ‘saved’ via precision irrigation could be reallocated to other crops; the environmental
impact could thus be negative not positive, due to reduced return flows from previously
‘inefficient’ irrigation (Hedley and Yule, 2008; Perry et al., 2009).

Drivers for Change

Development of innovative approaches to combine better spatial and temporal knowledge of soil,
crop, and equipment management practices to reduce variability in crop yield and quality through
advanced irrigation technologies is a major ‘driver for change,’ whether driven by consumer
(market), regulatory, and public demands for greater environmental sustainability.
To maintain output, agriculture has intensified and become much more specialized, and for
many farmers, investment in irrigation has provided the basis to maintain or increase profitability.
For example, in high-value cropping, irrigation is not a marginal activity used to boost yield, but
an essential component of production to deliver premium quality, continuous supplies of produce
to processors and retailers. It has also become a prerequisite for meeting the increasing market
demands for quality and continuity of supply. Despite this external driver, irrigation of field crops
in many parts of Europe and elsewhere has changed relatively little over the last few decades.
However, with rapidly rising labor and energy costs, farm businesses are now assessing the
impacts of irrigation variability (nonuniformity) on crop yield and quality much more proactively
(see e.g., Figures 5, 6, 15 and 19). This is because the quality assurance benefits of irrigation can
be substantial and relate to the whole crop, not just to the extra marginal yield due to irrigation.
Quality criteria are increasingly specified as a condition of contract and sale, and failure to meet
quality requirements can lead to large price discounting, and possibly rejection and loss of
contract.
Over the past decade, grower or crop assurance schemes have also played an important part in
driving water efficiency in irrigation and supporting uptake of advanced irrigation technologies.
These schemes require growers to audit their irrigation systems and provide traceability and
accountability in support of public health and environmental protection regulation. These
schemes have also provided the basis for growers to comply with industry protocols for food
safety and crop assurance (Monaghan and Hutchison, 2012).
In the future, water cost is likely to become a major driver for change – not necessarily the
unit cost for securing access to a water supply, but more likely the energy costs associated with
conveyance and pressurized delivery of in-field irrigation. With increased attention to water
conservation during drought spells, competition from environmental, recreational, public/
domestic use, and regulatory constraints, the current economics of VRI, which are proving a
deterrent to investment, may well change (Sadler et al., 2005; Hedley and Yule, 2009).

Future Developments
Combining wireless technologies with variable rate application
On most farms, making maximum use of soil moisture and rainfall, knowing precisely where and
when irrigation has to be applied, and then applying it accurately and uniformly are the
fundamental steps in the pathway to water efficiency (Knox et al., 2012). Although irrigation is
an essential component of production to maximize yield in arid and semiarid regions, there is
growing evidence that optimized irrigation regimes under temperate and humid conditions can
also lead to improved postharvest quality resulting in reduced crop waste through the food supply
chain. However, at present most farmers are restricted in their ability to match the timing and
frequency of irrigation applications to inherent spatial and temporal variations in soil moisture
and crop growth. They generally have only limited information on plant water status, rely on
limited in-situ point measurements of soil as a proxy for field-scale soil moisture availability, and
use conventional irrigation systems that lack sufficient flexibility and technology (control) for
variable water application.
However, developments in crop and soil moisture sensing, coupled with wireless
telecommunications for in-field soil moisture monitoring and thermal imaging, now provide
opportunities to develop smarter, closed-loop systems capable of applying water variably both
across and along fields. Most research to date has focused on developing such technologies for
use under sprinkler (center pivot and linear move) irrigation systems. The potential for VRI using
individually controlled solenoid valved sprinklers, similar to those used in the sports turf (golf)
industry, is also now being evaluated in high value horticulture, where sprinkler irrigation is still
the preferred method of application.
 Water: Advanced Irrigation Technologies

Digital advances in cloud computing and remote sensing

Alongside innovations in irrigation systems and soil moisture monitoring, digital advances using
the latest cloud computing technologies are also moving swiftly into precision agriculture. Put
simply, cloud computing involves using networks of remote servers hosted on the internet to
store, manage, and process data, rather than hosting information and data on local servers. They
generally rely on wireless data transfer and mobile web applications, in combination with other
tools and spatial technologies including GPS and GIS. Cloud technology is well established
within data-intensive industries, but only recently emerging in agriculture where various
applications are being marketed. For example, in the USA, cloud services provide on-farm
support from agribusinesses and consultants, for agrochemical application management. Other
precisionrelated tools are now emerging.
New uses relating to precision irrigation could include applications for mobile devices
operating in the cloud to spatially monitor soil moisture, crop growth, and irrigation in real-time
via in-field sensor arrays. Other cloud uses include providing data to refine planting and harvest
operations, by integrating GPS and GIS data or managing equipment performance (pressures,
flow rates, abstractions) at district or catchment scales. RFID tags, which automatically download
data, are also becoming more widespread in agriculture. For example, tagging systems have been
developed to collect data on the moisture content of straw bales, weight, and in- field position
(GPS); in the future, similar cheap, possibly biodegradable, microtags could be deployed across
fields to measure seasonal changes in soil moisture, organic content, crop canopy development,
and canopy stress, or for monitoring and optimizing energy needs across pressurized irrigation
distribution networks (Carrillo Cobo et al., 2011). However, data security issues relating to
confidentiality, integrity, availability, and accountability still need to be resolved before cloud
technology can be fully integrated into precision irrigation.
There is also increasing potential for new applications linking the use of high-resolution and -
frequency remote sensing data (e.g., MODIS) to inform on-farm irrigation management,
including mapping croplands, and monitoring spatial changes in crop cover in support of farm
monitoring of irrigation water use and evapotranspiration (ET) (Thenkabail et al., 2012). Recent
remote sensing developments provide scope for mapping croplands in a routine, rapid, and
consistent way, with sufficient accuracy (Congalton and Green, 2009). There is also potential to
use remote sensing to identify irrigated regions, where improvements in water productivity
should be targeted to reduce ‘yield gaps’ (Fereres et al., 2011). By integrating advanced
technologies such as cloud computing with developments in precision irrigation and remote
sensing, there is also broader scope to improve one’s understanding of the links between food
production and water scarcity, and the impacts of climate change on food supplies.

Summary
In the future, committed efforts will be needed to implement advanced irrigation technologies
that are appropriate for different types of farming systems to improve both water and energy
efficiency while maintaining or improving crop yield and quality. Considering the demands on
natural resources, precision irrigation is likely to play an increasingly important role, but a
number of factors remain important. These include the changing economics of irrigation, the
rising cost of energy, the increasing importance of crop assurance, and the role of retailers
(supermarkets) in influencing consumer attitudes and behavior toward quality assurance and fresh
produce.
The uptake of precision irrigation is likely to be slow and dependent on appropriate support
systems and knowledge transfer to engage farmer support and trust. Insufficient recognition of
field variability, the lack of a whole-farm approach, limited knowledge of the links between crop
quality and precision irrigation, and the alignment of crop assurance schemes with environmental
auditing will all need to be resolved.
The way forward for precision irrigation seems to mirror observations from precision
agriculture. Here the key has been to keep the farmer’s perspective central to the objective.
Farmer needs, of course, vary depending on the agricultural system (e.
g., intensive horticulture vs. extensive broad-acre cropping), the scale of business (e.g., family
farm vs. agribusiness), underlying agroclimatic conditions (e.g., arid vs. humid), and many other
socioeconomic factors (e.g., attitudes to risk, etc.). The tacit knowledge of farmers is thus critical.
New farm-scale precision equipment assists farmers to finetune the existing management
procedures, but requires the accompanying decision support tools to monitor and adapt this new
level of control.
Such technologies can be carefully positioned to fill specific (and crucial) gaps in the existing
irrigation toolkits using the tacit knowledge of farmers (McBratney et al., 2005) to assist
409 Water: Advanced Irrigation Technologies

improved farm-scale irrigation practice.

The limited opportunity to increase global freshwater allocations for irrigation (OECD, 2012)
will require collective initiatives beyond the farm gate to optimize regional-level tradeoffs. These
include tradeoffs between improved water use efficiency of modern pressurized systems versus
their greater energy consumption; as well as tradeoffs between the best use of irrigation to meet
global food demands and the pressing need to maintain the multiple ecosystem services that
global freshwater resources provide.

See also: Climate Change: Agricultural Mitigation. Climate Change and Plant Disease.
Climate Change: Cropping System Changes and Adaptations. Climate Change, Society, and
Agriculture: An
Economic and Policy Perspective. Food Security: Food Defense and
Biosecurity. Food Security, Market Processes, and the Role of
Government Policy. Food Security: Postharvest Losses. Food
Security: Yield Gap. Precision Agriculture: Irrigation. Virtual Water and Water Footprint of
Food Production and Processing. Water Use: Recycling and Desalination for Agriculture.
Water: Water Quality and Challenges from Agriculture. World Water Supply and Use:
Challenges for the Future

References
Adhikari, D.D., Goorahoo, D., Cassel, F., Zodolske, D., 2008. Smart irrigation as a method of freeze prevention:
A proposed model. 2008 ASABE Annual International Meeting. Providence, Rhode Island, Paper No.
085189. St. Joseph, MI: American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers.
Akyildiz, I.F., Stuntebeck, E.P., 2006. Wireless underground sensor networks:
Research challenges. Ad Hoc Networks 4, 669–686.
Allen R.G., Periera L.S., Raes D., Smith M., 1998. Crop evapotranspiration. Guidelines for computing crop
water requirements. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper 56. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of
the United Nations.
Al-Naeem, M.A.H., 1993. Optimisation of hosereel rain gun irrigation systems in wind; simulation of the effect
of trajectory angle, sector angle, sector position and lane spacing on water distribution and crop yield.
PhD Dissertation, Silsoe College, Cranfield University.
Anwar, A.A., Clarke, D., de Vries, T., 2006. Channel capacity under arranged demand irrigation. Agricultural
Water Management 82, 148–160.
Austin, N.R., Prendergast, J.B., 1997. Use of kinematic wave theory to model irrigation on cracking soil.
Irrigation Science 18, 1–10.
Bajaber, F., Awan, I., 2011. Adaptive decentralized re-clustering protocol for wireless sensor networks.
Journal of Computer and System Sciences 77, 282–292.
Bar-Yosef, B., 1999. Advances in fertigation. Advances in Agronomy 65, 1–77.
Bautista, E., Clemmens, A.J., Strelkoff, T.S., Schlegal, J., 2009. Modern analysis of surface irrigation systems
with WinSRFR. Agricultural Water Management 96, 1146–1154.
Beddington, J., 2010. Food security: Contributions from science to a new and greener revolution.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 365, 61–71.
Bishop, T., Minansy, B., 2006. Digital soil-terrain modelling: The predictive potential and uncertainty. In:
Grunwald, S. (Ed.), Environmental Soil-Landscape Modelling. Geographic Information Technologies and
Pedometrics. New York: Taylor and Francis, pp. 185–213.
Blonquist, J.M., Jones, S.B., Robinson, D.A., 2006. Precise irrigation scheduling for turfgrass using a subsurface
electromagnetic soil moisture sensor. Agricultural Water Management 84, 153–165.
Bogena, H.R., Huisman, J.A., Oberdorster, C., Vereecken, H., 2007. Evaluation of a low-cost soil water content
sensor for wireless network applications. Journal of Hydrology 344, 32–42.
Bos, M.G., 1985. Summary of International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage definitions on irrigation
efficiency. ICID Bulletin 34, 28–31.
Brevik, E.C., Fenton, T.E., Lazari, A., 2006. Soil electrical conductivity as a function of soil water content and
implications for soil mapping. Precision Agriculture 7, 393–404.
Broring, A., Echterhoff, J., Jirka, S., et al., 2011. New generation sensor web enablement. Sensors 11, 2652–
2699.
Burguete, J., Zapata, N., García-Navarro, P., et al., 2009. Fertigation in furrows and level furrow systems. II:
Field experiments, model calibration, and practical applications. Journal of Irrigation and Drain
Engineering 135 (4), 413–420.
Burt, C.M., Clemmens, A.J., Strelkoff, T.S., et al., 1997. Irrigation performance measured: Efficiency and
uniformity. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering 123 (6), 423–442.
Camp, C.R., Sadler, E.J., 1994. Center pivot irrigation system for site-specific water and nutrient management.
ASAE Paper No 94−1586. St. Joseph, MI: American Society of Agricultural Engineers.
Camp, C.R., Sadler, E.J., 1998. Site-specific crop management with a centre pivot.
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 53, 312–315.
 Water: Advanced Irrigation Technologies

Camp, C.R., Sadler, E.J., Evans, D.E., Usrey, L.J., Omary, M., 1998. Modified centre pivot system for precision
management of water and nutrients. Applied Engineering in Agriculture 14 (1), 23–31.
Camp, C.R., Sadler, E.J., Evans, R.G., 2006. Precision water management: Current realities, possibilities and
trends. In: Srinivasan, A. (Ed.), Handbook of Precision Agriculture. Binghamton, NY: The Haworth Press,
pp. 153–183 (Chapter 5).
Cantoni, M., Weyer, E., Li, Y., et al., 2007. Control of large scale irrigation networks. Proceedings of the IEEE
95 (1), 75–91.
Cape, J., 1998. Using software to review sprinkler performance. Irrigation Australia 13 (3), 18–20.
Capraro, F., Patino, D., Tosetti, S., Schugurensky, C., 2008a. Neural network-based irrigation control for
precision agriculture. IEEE International Conference on Networking, Sensing and Control, Sanya, China,
April 6−8, pp. 357−362. UK:
Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers.
Capraro, F., Schugurensky, C., Vita, F., et al., 2008b. Intelligent irrigation in grapevines: A way to obtain
different wine characteristics. In: Proceedings of the 17th World Congress. Seoul, Korea: International
Federation of Automatic Control.
Cardenas-Lailhacar, B., Dukes, M.D., Miller, G.L., 2010. Sensor-based automation of irrigation on
bermudagrass during dry weather conditions. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering 136 (3), 161–
223.
Carrillo Cobo, M.T., Rodríguez Díaz, J.A., Montesinos, P., López Luque, R., Camacho Poyato, E., 2011. Low
energy consumption seasonal calendar for sectoring operation in pressurized irrigation networks.
Irrigation Science 29, 157–169.
Carrion, P., Tarjuelo, J.M., Montero, J., 2001. Sirias: A simulation model for sprinkler irrigation 1, Description
of the model. Irrigation Science 20 (2), 73–84.
Carter, G., Miller, R., 1994. Early detection of plant stress by digital imaging within narrow stress-sensitive
wavebands. Remote Sensing and Environment 50, 295–302.
Chalmers, D.J., Mitchell, P.D., Van Heek, L., 1981. Control of peach tree growth and productivity by regulated
water supply, tree density and summer pruning.
Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science 106, 307–312.
Chavez, J.L., Pierce, F.J., Matthews, G.R., 2006. Performance of a continuous move irrigation control and
monitoring system. 2006 ASABE Annual International Meeting, Oregon. St. Joseph, MI: American Society
of Agricultural and Biological Engineers.
Chavez, J.L., Pierce, F.J., Evans, R.G., 2010. Compensating inherent linear move application errors using a
variable rate irrigation system. Irrigation Science 28, 203–210.
Christiansen, J.E., 1941. Hydraulics of sprinkling systems for irrigation. Transactions American Society of Civil
Engineers 107, 221–239.
Clemmens, A.J., 1992. Feedback control of basin irrigation system. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Division
118 (3), 480–497.
Coates, R., Delwiche, M., Brown, P., 2006. Design of a system for individual microsprinkler control.
Transactions of the ASABE 49 (6), 1963–1970.
Coates, R.W., Delwiche, M.J., 2009. Wireless mesh network for irrigation control and sensing. Transactions of
the ASABE 52, 971–981.
Coates, R.W., Delwiche, M.J., Brown, P.H., 2005. Precision irrigation in orchards:
Development of a spatially varied microsprinkler system. FRUTIC 05, 12−16 September, Montpellier,
France. Montpellier: Information and Technology for Sustainable Fruit and Vegetable Production.
Coates, R.W., Delwiche, M.J., Brown, P.H., Shackel, K.A., 2004. Precision irrigation/ fertilization in orchards.
2004 ASAE/CSAE Annual International Meeting.
Coates, R.W., Sahoo, P.K., Schwankl, L.J., Delwiche, M.J., 2012. Fertigation techniques for use with multiple
hydrozones in simultaneous operation. Precision Agriculture 13, 219–235.
Colaizzi, P., Barnes, E., Clarke, T., et al., 2003. Water stress detection under high frequency sprinkler irrigation
with water deficit index. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering 129 (1), 36–43.
Congalton, R.G., Green, K., 2009. Assessing the Accuracy of Remotely Sensed Data: Principles and Practices,
second ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Taylor and Francis. pp. 183.
Costanza, R., dArge, R., deGroot, R., et al., 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural
capital. Nature 387, 253–260.
Daccache, A., Keay, C., Jones, R.J.A., et al., 2012. Climate change and land suitability for potato production in
England and Wales: Impacts and adaptation.
Journal of Agricultural Science 150 (2), 161–177.
Daccache, A., Weatherhead, E.K., Stalham, M.A., Knox, J.W., 2011. Impacts of climate change on irrigated
potato production in a humid climate. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 151, 1641–1653.
Davies, W.J., Bacon, M.A., Thompson, D.S., Sobeih, W., Gonzales-Rodriguez, L., 2000. Regulation of leaf and
fruit growth in plants growing in drying soil: Exploitation of the plants’ chemical signalling system and
hydraulic architecture to increase the efficiency of water use in agriculture. Journal of Experimental
Botany 51, 1617–1626.
Davies, W.J., Zhang, J., 1991. Root signals and the regulation of growth and development of plants in drying
soil. Annual Review of Plant Physiology and Plant Molecular Biology 42, 55–76.
De Jonge, K.C., Kaleita, A.L., Thorp, K.R., 2007. Simulating the effects of spatially variable irrigation on corn
yields, costs, and revenue in Iowa. Agricultural Water Management 92, 99–109.
Dodd, I.C., Theobald, J.C., Bacon, M.A., Davies, W.J., 2006. Alternation of wet and dry sides during partial
rootzone drying irrigation alters root-to-shoot signalling of abscisic acid. Functional Plant Biology 33,
1081–1089.
Douglas, P., Dassanayake, K.B., Chapman, D.F., et al., 2010. An integrated model for simulation of border-
check irrigated dairy pasture production systems.
Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 74, 39–50.
411 Water: Advanced Irrigation Technologies

Duke, H.R., Buchleiter, G.W., Heermann, D.F., Chapman, J.A., 1997. Site specific management of water and
chemicals using self-propelled sprinkler irrigation systems. In: Stafford, J.V. (Ed.), Precision Agriculture
'97, vol. 1, Spatial Variability in Soil and Crop. Oxford, UK: Bios Scientific Publishers, pp. 273–280.
Dukes, M.D., Perry, C., 2006. Uniformity testing of variable-rate center pivot irrigation control systems.
Precision Agriculture 7, 205–218.
Dukes, M.D., Scholberg, J.M., 2004. Automated subsurface drip irrigation based on soil moisture. ASAE Paper
No. 052188. St. Joseph, MI: American Society of Agricultural Engineers.
Ebrahimian, H., Liaghat, A., Parsinejad, M., Playan, E., 2012. Distribution and loss of water and nitrate under
alternate and conventional furrow fertigation. Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research 10 (3), 849–863.
Edan, Y., Rogozin, D., Flash, T., Miles, G., 2000. Robotic melon harvesting. IEEE Transactions on Robotics and
Automation 16 (6), 831–834.
Elliott, R.L., Walker, W.R., 1982. Field evaluation of furrow infiltration and advance functions. Transactions of
the ASAE 25 (2), 396–400.
Emilio, C., Perez-Lucena, C., Roldan-Canas, J., Miguel, A., 1997. IPE: Model for management and control of
furrow irrigation in real time. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering 123 (4), 264–269.
Evans, R.G., Han, S., Kroeger, M.W., Schneider, S.M., 1996. Precision centre pivot irrigation for efficient use
of water and nitrogen. Precision Agriculture.
In: Proceedings of the third International Conference, June 23−26, pp. 75−84.
Minneapolis, MN: ASA/CSSA/SSSA.
Evans, R.G., Harting, G., 1999. Precision irrigation with center pivot systems on potatoes. In: Proceedings of
ASCE 1999 International Water Resources Engineering Conference. Reston, VA: American Society of Civil
Engineers.
Evans, R.G., Iversen, W.M., Kim, Y., 2012. Integrated decision support, sensor networks, and adaptive control
for wireless site-specific sprinkler irrigation.
Applied Engineering in Agriculture 28 (3), 377–387.
Evans, R.G., King, B.A., 2012. Site-specific sprinkler irrigation in a water-limited future. Transactions of the
ASABE 55, 493–504.
Evett, S.R., Peters, R.T., Howell, T.A., 2006. Controlling water use efficiency with irrigation automation: Cases
from drip and center pivot irrigation of corn and soybean. Southern Conservation Systems Conference,
Amarillo, TX.
Falloon, P., Betts, R., 2010. Climate impacts on European agriculture and water management in the context of
adaptation and mitigation – The importance of an integrated approach. Science of the Total Environment
408 (23), 5667–5687. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2009.05.002.
Fang, Q., Chen, Y., Yu, Q., et al., 2007. Much improved irrigation use efficiency in an intensive wheat-maize
double cropping system in the North China Plain.
Journal of Integrative Plant Biology 49 (10), 1517–1526.
Fereres, E., Orgaz, F., Gonzalez-Dugo, V., 2011. Reflections on food security under water scarcity. Journal of
Experimental Botany 62, 4079–4086.
Fischer, G., Tubiello, F.N., van Velthuizen, H., Wiberg, D.A., 2007. Climate change impacts on irrigation
water requirements: effects of mitigation, 1990−2080. Technological Forecasting and Social Change
74, 1083–1107.
Foley, J., 2011. Performance improvement of centre pivots and lateral moves. PhD Dissertation, Faculty of
Engineering and Surveying, University of Southern Queensland.
Foley, J.P., Raine, S.R., 2001. Centre Pivot and Lateral Move Machines in the Australian Cotton Industry.
University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba:
National Centre for Engineering in Agriculture Publication 1000176/1.
Ghinassi, G., 2010. Advanced technologies applied to hose reel rain-gun machines: New perspectives towards
sustainable sprinkler irrigation. XVIIth World Congress of the International Commission of Agricultural and
Biosystems Engineering (CIGR), June 13−17. Quebec City, Canada: Canadian Society for Bioengineering
(CSBE/SGGAB).
Gillies, M., 2008. Managing the effect of infiltration variability on the performance of surface irrigation. PhD
Dissertation, Faculty of Engineering and Surveying, University of Southern Queensland.
Gillies, M.H., Smith, R.J., 2005. Infiltration parameters from surface irrigation advance and runoff data.
Irrigation Science 24 (1), 25–35.
Gillies, M.H., Smith, R.J., Raine, S.R., 2007. Accounting for temporal inflow variation in the inverse solution for
infiltration in surface irrigation. Irrigation Science 25 (2), 87–97.
Gillies, M.H., Smith, R.J., Raine, S.R., 2008. Measurement and management of furrow irrigation at the field
scale. Irrigation Australia 2008 − National Conference and Exhibition, 20−22 May. Melbourne. Mascot,
NSW, Sydney:
Irrigation Australia Limited.
Gillies, M.H., Smith, R.J., Raine, S.R., 2011. Evaluating whole field irrigation performance using statistical
inference of inter-furrow infiltration variation.
Biosystems Engineering 110, 134–143.
Gillies, M.H., Smith, R.J., Williamson, B., Shanahan, M., 2010. Improving performance of bay irrigation
through higher flow rates. Australian Irrigation Conference and Exhibition, 8−10 June 2010. Sydney.
Mascot, NSW, Sydney:
Irrigation Australia Limited.
Giurco, D., Carrard, N., McFallan, S., et al., 2008. Residential End-Use Measurement Guidebook: A Guide to
Study Design, Sampling and Technology. Victoria:
Institute for Sustainable Futures, UTS and CSIRO for the Smart Water Fund.
Godwin, R.J., Miller, P.C.H., 2003. A review of the technologies for mapping withinfield variability. Biosystems
Engineering 84, 393–407.
 Water: Advanced Irrigation Technologies

Gonzalez-Dugo, M.P., Moran, M.S., Mateos, L., 2006. Canopy temperature variability as an indicator of crop
water stress severity. Irrigation Science 24, 233–240.
Green, S.R., Kirkham, M.B., Clothier, B.E., 2006. Root uptake and transpiration: From measurements and
models to sustainable irrigation. Agricultural Water Management 86, 165–176.
Greenwood, D.J., Zhang, K., Hilton, H.W., Thompson, A.J., 2010. Opportunities for improving irrigation
efficiency with quantitative models, soil water sensors and wireless technology. Journal of Agricultural
Science 148, 1–16.
Grose, D.J., Parkin, C.S., Weatherhead, E.K., 1998. Modelling a multi-phase plume in a cross flow − An
agricultural application. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Liquid Atomization and
Sprinkler Systems, July 1998, pp. 487−492, UMIST, Manchester.
Han, Y.J., Khalihan, A., Owino, H.J., Frahani, H.J., Moore, S., 2009. Development of Clemson variable-rate
lateral irrigation system. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 68, 108–113.
Hanson, B., O’Connell, N., Hopmans, J., Simunek, J., Beede, R., 2006. Fertigation with Microirrigation.
Publication 21620. Oakland, CA: University of California Agricultural and Natural Resources
Communication Services.
Hanson, B.R., Bowers, W., Davidoff, B., et al., 1995. Field performance of microirrigation systems. In:
Proceedings of the Fifth International Microirrigation Congress, pp. 769−774, St. Joseph, MI: American
Society of Agricultural Engineers.
Harvey Water, 2012. Harvey Pipe Project: Saving Water We Already Have − A System Wide Approach with
Multiple Benefits. Harvey, WA: Harvey Water. Available at:
http://www.harveywater.com.au/userfiles/HarveyPipeProject1.pdf (accessed 19.10.12).
Hedley, C.B., Roudier, P., Yule, I.J., Ekanayake, J., Bradbury, S., 2013. Soil water status and water table
modelling using electromagnetic surveys for precision irrigation scheduling. Geoderma 199, 22–29.
Hedley, C.B., Yule, I.J., 2008. Soil water status mapping and two variable-rate irrigation scenarios. Journal of
Precision Agriculture 10, 342–355.
Hedley, C.B., Yule, I.J., 2009. A method for spatial prediction of daily soil water status for precise irrigation
scheduling. Journal of Agricultural Water Management 96, 1737–1745.
Hedley, C.B., Yule, I.J., 2011. Soil water status maps for variable rate irrigation. In: Clay, D., Shanahan, J.,
Pierce, F. (Eds.), GIS Applications in Agriculture Nutrient Management for Improved Energy Efficiency.
Third Book in CRC GIS in Agriculture Series. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, pp. 173–190.
Heermann, D.F., Buchleiter, G.W., Bausch, W.C., Stahl, K., 1997. Nondifferential
GPS for use on moving irrigation systems. In: Stafford, J.V. (Ed.), Precision Agriculture '97, vol. 1, Spatial
Variability in Soil and Crop. Oxford, UK: Bios Scientific Publishers, pp. 567–574.
Henderson, C.W.L., Yeo, M.B., Finlay, G., 2008. Customising drip irrigation for profitable vegetable
production. Irrigation Australia 2008 − National Conference and Exhibition, 20−22 May, Melbourne.
Sydney: Irrigation Australia Ltd.
Hezarjaribi, A., Sourell, H., 2007. Feasibility study of monitoring the total available water content using non-
invasive electromagnetic induction-based and electrodebased soil electrical conductivity measurements.
Irrigation and Drainage 56, 53–65.
Hibbs, R.A., James, L.G., Cavalieri, R.P., 1992. A furrow irrigation automation system utilizing adaptive
control. Transactions of the ASAE 35 (3), 1063–1067.
Hornbuckle, J.W., Car, N.J., Destombes, J., et al., 2009. Measuring, mapping and communicating the effects of
poor drip irrigation distribution uniformity with satellite remote sensing and web based reporting tools.
Presented at the Irrigation and Drainage Conference 2009, 18−21 Oct. Swan Hill, VIC: Irrigation Australia
Ltd.
Humpherys, A.S., 1969. Automation of furrow irrigation systems. Transactions of the ASAE 14 (3), 460–470.
Humpherys, A.S., 1995a. Semi-automation of irrigated basins and borders: I. Single function turnout gates.
Applied Engineering in Agriculture 11 (1), 67–74.
Humpherys, A.S., 1995b. Semi-automation of irrigated basins and borders: II. Dualfunction turnout gates.
Applied Engineering in Agriculture 11 (1), 75–82.
Humpherys, A.S., 1995c. Semi-automation of irrigated basins and borders: III. Control elements and system
operation. Applied Engineering in Agriculture 11 (1), 83–91.
Humpherys, A.S., Fisher, H.D., 1995. Water sensor feedback control system for surface irrigation. Applied
Engineering in Agriculture 11 (1), 61–65.
IAASTD, 2009. Agriculture at a crossroads: Synthesis report. International Assessment of Agricultural
Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development.
Washington, DC: Island Press.
Incocci, L., Massa, D., Pardossi, A., et al., 2012. A decision support system to optimise fertigation
management in greenhouse crops. Acta Horticulturae 927, 115–122.
Inman-Bamber, G., Attard, S., 2005. Inventory of Australian software tools for onfarm water management.
CRC for Irrigation Futures Technical Report No. 02/05, May 2005, 70p.
Jackson, T.M., Khan, S., Hafeez, M., 2010. A comparative analysis of water application and energy
consumption at the irrigated field level. Agricultural Water Management 97, 1477–1485.
Jonard, F., Weihermuller, L., Jadoon, K.Z., et al., 2011. Mapping field-scale soil moisture with L-band
radiometer and ground-penetrating radar over bare soil.
IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 49, 2863–2875.
Jury, W.A., Vaux, H.J., 2007. The emerging global water crisis: Managing scarcity and conflict between water
users. Advances in Agronomy 95, 1–76.
Kelly, B.F.J., Acworth, R.I., Greve, A.K., 2011. Better placement of soil moisture point measurements guided
by 2D resistivity tomography for improved irrigation scheduling. Soil Research 49, 504–512.
Khatri, K.L., Smith, R.J., 2006. Real-time prediction of soil infiltration characteristics for the management of
furrow irrigation. Irrigation Science 25 (1), 33–43.
413 Water: Advanced Irrigation Technologies

Khatri, K.L., Smith, R.J., 2007. Toward a simple real-time control system for efficient management of furrow
irrigation. Irrigation and Drainage 56 (4), 463–475.
Kim, Y., Evans, R.G., Iversen, W.M., 2009. Remote sensing and control of an irrigation system using a
distributed wireless sensor network. IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement 57 (7),
1379–1387.
Kim, Y., Jabro, J.D., Evans, R.G., 2011. Wireless lysimeters for real-time online soil water monitoring. Irrigation
Science 29, 423–430.
King, B.A., Kincaid, D.C., 2004. A variable flow rate sprinkler for site-specific irrigation management. Applied
Engineering in Agriculture 20 (6), 765–770.
King, B.A., Wall, R.W., 1998. Supervisory control and data acquisition system for site-specific centre pivot
irrigation. Applied Engineering in Agriculture 14 (2), 135–144.
King, B.A., Wall, R.W., Kincaid, D.C., Westermann, D.T., 1997. Field scale performance of a variable rate
sprinkler for variable water and nutrient application. ASAE Paper No 972216. St. Joseph, MI: American
Society of Agricultural Engineers.
King, B.A., Wall, R.W., Kincaid, D.C., Westermann, D.T., 2005. Field testing of a variable rate sprinkler and
control system for site-specific water and nutrient application. Applied Engineering in Agriculture 21 (5),
847–853.
Knox, J.W., Kay, M.G., Weatherhead, E.K., 2012. Water regulation, crop production and agricultural water
management − Understanding farmer perspectives on irrigation efficiency. Agricultural Water
Management 108, 3–8.
Knox, J.W., Morris, J., Hess, T.M., 2010. Identifying future risks to UK agricultural crop production − Putting
climate change in context. Outlook on Agriculture 39 (4), 249–256.
Knox, J.W., Weatherhead, E.K., 2005. The growth of trickle irrigation in England and Wales; data, regulation
and water resource impacts. Irrigation and Drainage 54, 1–9.
Koech, R., 2012. Automation and real-time control of furrow irrigation. PhD Dissertation, Faculty of
Engineering and Surveying. University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba.
Kriedemann, P.E., Goodwin, I., 2003. Regulated Deficit Irrigation and Partial
Rootzone Drying. An Overview of Principles and Applications (Edited by Currey, A.). Irrigation Insights No.
3, Product No. PR 020 382. Canberra, ACT: Land and Water Australia. ISBN 0642 76089 6.
Kseneman, M., Gleich, D., Potocnik, B., 2012. Soil-moisture estimation from TerraSAR-X data using neural
networks. Machine Vision and Applications 23, 937–952.
Lal, R., 2009. Soils and wood food security. Soil Tillage Research 102, 1–4.
Lam, Y., Slaughter, D.C., Wallender, W.W., Upadhyaya, S.K., 2007. Machine vision monitoring for control of
water advance in furrow irrigation. Transactions of the ASABE 50 (2), 371–378.
Langat, P.K., Smith, R.J., Raine, S.R., 2008. Estimating the furrow infiltration characteristic from a single
advance point. Irrigation Science 26 (8), 367–374.
Limerinos, J.T., 1970. Determination of the manning coefficient from measured bed roughness in natural
channels. In: Studies of Flow in Alluvial Channels, Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1898B, Prepared
in Cooperation with the
California Department of Water Resources. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. Available at:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/wsp/1898b/report.pdf (accessed 29.04.14).
Loveys, B., Dry, P., Stoll, M., McCarthy, C., 2000. Using plant physiology to improve the water use efficiency of
horticultural crops. In: Ferreira, M.I., Jones, H.G. (Eds.), 3rd International Symposium on Irrigation of
Horticultural Crops, pp. 187−197 (Acta Horticulturae). Leuven, Belgium: International Society for
Horticultural Science.
Loveys, B.R., Grant, W.J.R., Dry, P.R., McCarthy, M.G., 1997. Progress in the development of partial root-zone
drying. Australian Grapegrower and Winemaker 403, 18–20.
Lyle, W.M., Bordovsky, J.P., 1981. Low energy precision application (LEPA) irrigation system. Transactions of
the ASAE 24, 1241–1245.
Lyle, W.M., Bordovsky, J.P., 1983. LEPA irrigation system evaluation. Transactions of the ASAE 26, 776–781.
Maheswararajah, S., Halgamuge, S.K., Dassanayake, K.B., Chapman, D., 2011. Management of orphaned-
nodes in wireless sensor networks for smart irrigation systems. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing 59
(10), 4909–4922.
Mailhol, J.C., Gonzalez, J.M., 1993. Furrow irrigation model for real-time applications on cracking soils.
Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering 119 (5), 768–783.
Mareels, I., Weyer, E., Ooi, S.K., 2003. Irrigation networks: A sytems engineering approach. IEEE Fourth
International Conference on Control and Automation, Montreal, Canada. UK: Institute of Electrical and
Electronic Engineers.
Mareels, I., Weyer, E., Ooi, S.K., et al., 2005. Systems engineering for irrigation systems: Successes and
challenges. Annual Reviews in Control 29, 191–204.
McBratney, A., Whelan, B., Ancev, T., Bouma, J., 2005. Future directions of precision agriculture. Precision
Agriculture 6 (1), 7–23.
McCann, I.R., King, B.A., Stark, J.C., 1997. Variable rate water and chemical application for continuous-move
sprinkler irrigation systems. Applied Engineering in Agriculture 13, 609–615.
McCarthy, C.L., Hancock, N.H., Raine, S.R., 2009. Automated internode length measurement of cotton plants
under field conditions. Transactions of the ASABE 52 (6), 2093–2103.
McCarthy, C.L., Hancock, N.H., Raine, S.R., 2010. Applied machine vision of plants − A review with
implications for field deployment in automated farming operations. Intelligent Service Robotics 3 (4), 209–
217.
McClymont, D.J., Smith, R.J., 1996. Infiltration parameters from optimisation on furrow irrigation advance
data. Irrigation Science 17 (1), 15–22.
McClymont, L., Goodwin, I., O’Connell, M., Whitfield, D., 2009. Optimising water use efficiency − A decision
framework for on-farm improvements. Irrigation and Drainage Conference 2009, 18−21 Oct. Swan Hill,
 Water: Advanced Irrigation Technologies

VIC: Irrigation Australia Ltd.

Meron, M.R., Hallel, R., Shay, G., Feuer, R., 1996. Soil-sensor actuated automatic drip irrigation of cotton. In:
Proceedings International Conference on Evapotranspiration and Irrigation Scheduling, San Antonio, TX,
November, pp. 886−892. St. Joseph, MI: American Society of Agricultural Engineers.
Milroy, S., Goyne, P., Larsen, D., 2002. Cotton information sheet: Irrigation scheduling of cotton. Technical
Report. Narrabri, NSW: Australian Cotton Cooperative Research Centre.
Minasny, B., McBratney, A., 2006. A conditioned Latin hypercube method for sampling in the presence of
ancillary information. Computers & Geosciences 32 (9), 1378–1388.
Monaghan, J.M., Daccache, A., Vickers, L., et al., 2013. More ‘crop per drop’ − Constraints and opportunities
for precision irrigation in European agriculture.
Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 93 (5), 977–980.
Monaghan, J.M., Hutchison, M.L., 2012. Distribution and decline of human pathogenic bacteria in soil after
application in irrigation water and the potential for soil-splash mediated dispersal onto fresh produce.
Journal of Applied Microbiology 112, 1007–1019.
Montero, J., Tarjuelo, J.M., Carrion, P., 2001. Sirias: A simulation model for sprinkler irrigation 2. Calibration
and validation of the model. Irrigation Science 20 (2), 85–98.
Moore, I.D., Grayson, R.B., Ladson, A.R., 1991. Digital terrain modeling: A review of hydrological,
geomorphological, and biological applications. Hydrological Processes 5, 3–30.
Moravejalahkami, B., Mostafazadeh-Fard, B., Heidarpour, M., Abbasi, F., 2012. The effects of different inflow
hydrograph shapes on furrow irrigation fertigation.
Biosystems Engineering 111, 186–194.
Mostafazadeh-Fard, B., Osroosh, Y., Eslamian, S., 2006. Development and evaluation of an automatic surge
flow irrigation system. Journal of Agriculture and Social Sciences 2 (3), 129–132.
Nesa Sudha, M., Valarmathi, M.L., Babu, A.S., 2011. Energy efficient data transmission in automatic irrigation
system using wireless sensor networks.
Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 78, 215–221.
Niblack, M., Sanchez, C.A., 2008. Automation of surface irrigation by cut-off time or cut-off distance control.
Applied Engineering in Agriculture 24 (5), 611–614.
Noh, H., Zhang, Q., Han, S., Shin, B., Reum, D., 2005. Dynamic calibration and image segmentation methods
for multispectral imaging crop nitrogen deficiency sensors. Transactions of the ASAE 48 (1), 393–401.
New South Wales Dept of Primary Industries (NSW DPI), 2000. Horticultural Fertigation − Techniques,
Equipment and Management. Sydney, Australia: New South Wales Department of Primary Industries.
O’Shaughnessy, S.A., Evett, S.R., 2010. Canopy temperature based system effectively schedules and controls
center pivot irrigation of cotton. Agricultural Water Management 97, 1310–1316.
OECD, 2012. OECD Environmental Outlook to 2050: Consequences of Inaction. OECD Publishing.
doi:10.1787/9789264122246-en. Available at: http://www.oecd. org/environment/outlook2050 (accessed
14.01.14).
Olaya, V., Conrad, O., 2009. Geomorphometry in SAGA. In: Hengl, T., Reuter, H.I. (Eds.), Geomorphometry −
Concepts, Software, Applications. Developments in Soil Science, vol. 33. Amsterdam, The Netherlands:
Elsevier, pp. 293–308.
Ooi, S.K., Mareels, I., Cooley, N., Dunn, G., Thoms, G., 2008. A systems engineering approach to viticulture on-
farm irrigation. In: Proceedings of the 17th World Congress. Seoul, Korea: The International Federation of
Automatic Control.
Ozaki, Y., 1999. Design of a robotic self-travelling sprinkler system. Master of Science Dissertation, Cranfield
University at Silsoe, UK.
Perea, H., Strelkoff, T., Adamsen, F., Hunsaker, D., Clemmens, A., 2010. Nonuniform and unsteady solute
transport in furrow irrigation. I: Model development. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering 136 (6),
365–375. Perez-Urrestarazu, L., Rodriguez-Diaz, J.A., Camacho-Poyato, E., Lopez Luque, R.,
2009. Quality of service in irrigation distribution networks: Case of Palos de la Frontera irrigation district
(Spain). Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering 135, 755–761.
Perez-Urrestarazu, L., Rodriguez-Diaz, J.A., Camacho-Poyato, E., Lopez-Luque, R., Borrego-Jaraba, F.M., 2012.
Development of an integrated computational tool to improve performance of irrigation districts. Journal
of Hydroinformatics 14 (3), 716–730.
Perry, C., 2007. Efficient irrigation; inefficient communication; flawed recommendations. Irrigation and
Drainage 56, 367–378.
Perry, C., Pocknee, S., Hansen, O., 2003. A variable rate pivot irrigation control system. In: Stafford, J.,
Werner, A. (Eds.), 4th European Conference on Precision Agriculture, pp. 539–544. Berlin, Germany:
Wageningen Academic Publishers.
Perry, C.J., Steduto, P., Allen, R.G., Burt, C.M., 2009. Increasing productivity in irrigated agriculture:
Agronomic constraints and hydrological realities. Agricultural Water Management 96, 1517–1524.
Peters, R.T., Evett, S.R., 2007. Spatial and temporal analysis of crop conditions using multiple canopy
temperature maps created with center-pivot-mounted infrared thermometers. Transactions of the ASABE
50, 919–927.
Peters, R.T., Evett, S.R., 2008. Automation of a centre pivot using the temperaturetime-threshold method of
irrigation scheduling. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering ASCE 134, 286–291.
Pezzaniti, D., 2009. Smart irrigation metering technology: Identifying the potential benefits and uptake issues.
Technical Report No. 04/09. Toowoomba, QLD: CRC for Irrigation Futures.
Phene, C.J., Howell, T.A., 1984. Soil sensor control of high-frequency irrigation systems. Transactions of the
ASAE 27 (2), 392–396.
Pierce, F.J., Elliott, T.V., 2008. A modbus RTU, multidrop bus design for precision irrigation. In: Proceedings
9th International Precision Agriculture Conference, 20 23 July 2008, p. 68. Denver.
415 Water: Advanced Irrigation Technologies

Planells-Alandi, P., Tarjuelo-Martin-Benito, J.M., Ortega-Alvarez, J.F., CasanovaMartinez, M.I., 2001. Design of
water distribution networks for on-demand irrigation. Irrigation Science 20, 189–201.
Postel, S., 1999. Pillars of Sand. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
Precision Irrigation, 2014. Available at: http://www.precisionirrigation.co.nz/ (accessed 14.01.14).
Qian, D., Shi, Y., Zhang, K., 2007. Study of wireless-sensor-based groundwater monitoring instrument. In:
Watershed Management to Meet Water Quality Standards and TMDLS (Total Maximum Daily Load). San
Antonio, TX: ASABE.
Raine, S.R., McClymont, D.J., Smith, R.J., 1997. The development of guidelines for surface irrigation in areas
with variable irrigation. Proceedings of the Australian Society of Sugar Cane Technology 19, 293–301.
Raine, S.R., Walker, W.R., 1998. A decision support tool for the design, management and evaluation of
surface irrigation systems. In: National Conference. Brisbane: Irrigation Association of Australia.
Richards, P.J., Weatherhead, E.K., 1993. Prediction of raingun application patterns in windy conditions.
Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research 54, 281–291.
Rodriguez-Diaz, J.A., Perez-Urrestarazu, L., Camacho-Poyato, E., Montesinos, P., 2011. The paradox of
irrigation scheme modernization: More efficient water use linked to higher energy demand. Spanish
Journal of Agricultural Research 9, 1000–1008.
Rowshon, M.K., Amin, M.S.M., Lee, T.S., Shariff, R.M., 2009. GIS-integrated rice irrigation management
information system for a river-fed scheme. Water Resources Management 23, 2841–2866.
Ruiz-Garcia, L., Lunadei, L., Barreiro, P., Robla, J.I., 2009. A review of wireless sensor technologies and
applications in agriculture and food industry: State of the art and current trends. Sensors 9, 4728–4750.
Ruiz-Sanchez, M.C., Domingo, R., Castel, J.R., 2010. Review: Deficit irrigation in fruit trees and vines in Spain.
Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research 8 (S2), S5–S20.
Sadler, E.J., Camp, C.R., Evans, D.E., Usrey, L.J., 1997. A site-specific irrigation system for the southeastern
USA coastal plain. In: Stafford, J.V. (Ed.), ‘Precision Agriculture’ 97, vol. 1, Spatial Variability in Soil and
Crop. Oxford, UK: Bios Scientific Publishers, pp. 337–344.
Sadler, E.J., Evans, R.G., Buchleiter, G.W., King, B.A., Camp, C.R., 2000. Design considerations for site specific
irrigation. Proceedings of the 4th Decennial National Irrigation Symposium. 304–315.
Sadler, E.J., Evans, R.G., Stone, K.C., Camp, C.R., 2005. Opportunities for conservation with precision
irrigation. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 60 (6), 371–379.
Schache, M., 2011. Identifying best management practice through irrigation benchmarking: Would you like
probes with your drippers? In: Irrigation Australia, 2011 Irrigation & Drainage Conference, Launceston,
Tasmania. Mascot, NSW, Sydney: Irrigation Australia Limited.
Schwankl, L.J., Raghuwanshi, N.S., Wallender, W.W., 2000. Furrow irrigation performance under spatially
varying conditions. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering 126 (6), 355–361.
Seckler, D., Barker, R., Amarasinghe, U., 1999. Water scarcity in the 21st century.
International Journal of Water Resources Development 15, 29–42.
Selim, E.M., Mosa, A.A., 2012. Fertigation of humic substances improves yield and quality of broccoli and
nutrient retention in a sandy soil. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science 175 (2), 273–281.
Shannon, E.L., McDougall, A., Kelsey, K., Hussey, B., 1996. Watercheck − A coordinated extension program for
improving irrigation efficiency on Australian cane farms. Proceedings of the Australian Society of Sugar
Cane Technology 18, 113–118.
Sherlock, M.D., McDonnell, J.J., 2003. A new tool for hillslope hydrologists: Spatially distributed groundwater
level and soilwater content measured using electromagnetic induction. Hydrological Processes 17, 1965–
1977.
Shrestha, D.S., Steward, B.L., 2005. Shape and size analysis of corn plant canopies for plant population and
spacing sensing. Applied Engineering in Agriculture 21 (2), 295–303.
Shull, H., Dylla, A.S., 1976. Wind effects of water application patterns from a large, single nozzle sprinkler.
Transactions of the ASAE 19, 501–504.
Slaughter, D.C., Giles, D.K., Downey, D., 2008. Autonomous robotic weed control systems: A review.
Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 61, 63–78.
Smith, R.J., 1989. Uniformity of applications from lateral move irrigation machines.
CIGR 11th International Congress on Agricultural Engineering, Dublin. Published.
In: Dodd, V., Grace, P. (Eds.), Agricultural Engineering, 1. Land and Water Use.
Rotterdam: AA Balkema.
Smith, R.J., Baillie, J.N., McCarthy, A.C., Raine, S.R., Baillie, C.P., 2010. Review of precision irrigation
technologies and their application. A Report for National Program for Sustainable Irrigation. NCEA
Publication 1003017/1, November 2010. Toowoomba, QLD: University of Southern Queensland, 94 pp.
Smith, R.J., Gillies, M.H., Newell, G., Foley, J.P., 2008. A decision support model for travelling gun irrigation
machines. Biosystems Engineering 100 (1), 126–136.
Smith, R.J., Gillies, M.H., Shanahan, M., Campbell, B., Williamson, B., 2009.
Evaluating the performance of bay irrigation in the GMID. In: Irrigation Australia, 2009 Irrigation &
Drainage Conference, Swan Hill, VIC, 18−21 October. Mascot, NSW: Irrigation Australia Limited.
Smith, R.J., Raine, S.R., McCarthy, A.C., Hancock, N.H., 2009. Managing spatial and temporal variability in
irrigated agriculture through adaptive control.
Australian Journal of Multi-Disciplinary Engineering 7 (1), 79–90.
Smith, R.J., Raine, S.R., Minkovich, J., 2005. Irrigation application efficiency and deep drainage potential
under surface irrigated cotton. Agricultural Water Management 71 (2), 117–130.
Stoll, M., Loveys, B., Dry, P.R., 2000. Hormonal changes induced by partial rootzone drying of irrigated
grapevine. Journal of Experimental Botany 51, 1627–1634.
Stork, P.R., Jerie, P.H., Callinan, A.P.L., 2003. Subsurface drip irrigation in raised bed tomato production. II.
Soil acidification under current commercial practice.
Australian Journal of Soil Research 41, 1305–1315.
 Water: Advanced Irrigation Technologies

Sudduth, K.A., Kitchen, N.R., Wiebold, W.J., et al., 2005. Relating apparent electrical conductivity to soil
properties across the north-central USA. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 46, 263–283.
Thenkabail, P.S., Knox, J.W., Ozdogan, M., et al., 2012. Assessing future risks to agricultural productivity,
water resources and food security: How can remote sensing help? Photogrammetric Engineering and
Remote Sensing 78 (8), 773–782.
Thessler, S., Kooistra, L., Teye, F., Huitu, H., Bregt, A.K., 2011. Geosensors to support crop production: Current
applications and user requirements. Sensors 11, 6656–6684.
Thompson, A.L., Martin, D.L., Kranz, W.L., 2000. Water application distribution under center pivot systems.
In: Proceedings of the 4th Decennial National Irrigation Symposium, Phoenix, AZ, 14−16 November. St.
Joseph, MI: American Society of Agricultural Engineers.
Thompson, R.B., Gallardo, M., Valdez, L.C., Fernandez, M.D., 2007. Determination of lower limits for irrigation
management using in situ assessments of apparent crop water uptake made with volumetric soil water
content sensors. Agricultural Water Management 92, 13–28.
Torre-Neto, A., Schuller, J.K., Haman, D.Z., 2000. Networked sensing and valve actuation for spatially variable
microsprinkler irrigation. ASAE Paper No. 001158.
Triantafilis, J., Kerridge, B., Buchanan, S.M., 2009. Digital soil-class mapping from proximal and remotely
sensed data at the field level. Agronomy Journal 101 (4), 841–853.
Trout, T.J., 1990. Furrow inflow and infiltration variability impacts on irrigation management. Transactions of
the ASAE 33 (4), 1171–1178.
Trout, T.J., Mackey, B.E., 1988. Furrow Inflow and Infiltration Variability.
Transactions of the ASAE 31 (2), 531–537.
Turral, H., Svendsen, M., Faures, J.M., 2010. Investing in irrigation: Reviewing the past and looking to the
future. Agricultural Water Management 97, 551–560.
Uniwater, 2008. Regional and economic benefits through smarter irrigation. Final Report on STI Project,
University of Melbourne.
Vellidis, G., Tucker, M., Perry, C., Kvien, C., Bednarz, C., 2008. A real-time wireless smart sensor array for
scheduling irrigation. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 61, 44–50.
Waine, T.W., Blackmore, B.S., Godwin, R.J., 2000. Mapping Available Water Content and Estimating Soil
Textural Class Using Electromagnetic Induction. EurAgEng
2000, Paper Number: 00-SW-044. Warwick, UK: European Society of Agricultural Engineers.
Walker, W.R., 1989. Guidelines for designing and evaluating surface irrigation systems. FAO Irrigation
Drainage Paper 45. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
Walker, W.R., 2005. Multilevel calibration of furrow infiltration and roughness.
Journal of Irrigation and Drain Engineering 131 (2), 129–136.
Walker, W.R., Skogerboe, G.V., 1989. Surface Irrigation: Theory and Practice.
Atlantic city, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Wallace, J.S., Batchelor, C.H., 1997. Managing water resources for crop production. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 352, 937–947.
Wanjura, D.F., Upchurch, D.R., Mahan, J.R., 2004. Establishing differential irrigation levels using temperature-
time thresholds. Applied Engineering in Agriculture 20 (2), 201–206.
White, S.C., 2006. Partial rootzone drying and regulated deficit irrigation in cotton under large mobile
irrigation machines. PhD Dissertation. University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba.
White, S.C., Raine, S.R., 2009. Physiological response of cotton to a root zone soil moisture gradient:
Implications for partial rootzone drying irrigation. Journal of Cotton Science 13, 67–74.
Wriedt, G., Van der Velde, M., Aloe, A., Bouraoui, F., 2009. Estimating irrigation water requirements in
Europe. Journal of Hydrology 373, 527–544. Zerihun, D., Feyen, J., 1996. BORDEV: BORder Design-
Management and Evaluation Manual & FURDEV: FURrow Design-Management and Evaluation Manual.
Unpublished Manuals, Leuven, Belgium: Institute for Land and Water Management, Kotholieke Universiteit.