2016
DOI: 10.13031/aea.32.11196
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Soil Moisture Sensor Irrigation Controllers and Reclaimed Water; Part I: Field-plot Study

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

2
0
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 9 publications
2
0
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The water savings achieved by the WRS treatment ranged between 18% and 29%, with an average of 22%. Under the plot conditions in the area and with RS set at 6 mm, water savings between 13% and 34% have been reported in previous studies Cardenas and Dukes, 2016a;Davis et al, 2009;McCready et al, 2009), similar to our results.…”
Section: Water Savingssupporting
confidence: 92%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The water savings achieved by the WRS treatment ranged between 18% and 29%, with an average of 22%. Under the plot conditions in the area and with RS set at 6 mm, water savings between 13% and 34% have been reported in previous studies Cardenas and Dukes, 2016a;Davis et al, 2009;McCready et al, 2009), similar to our results.…”
Section: Water Savingssupporting
confidence: 92%
“…Conversely, the most irrigation cycles were bypassed by the SMS-based treatments, with 56% on average. The statistical difference in bypassed events between SMS and RS has been reported in other studies Cardenas and Dukes, 2016a;McCready et al, 2009). This difference is explained by the dry-out period of the RS (i.e., the time that the RS remains in bypass mode after a rain event stops) relative to the dry-out period of the soil (i.e., the amount of time after a rain event stops until the soil reaches its management-allowable depletion point and requires irrigation).…”
Section: Bypassed Irrigation Cyclessupporting
confidence: 80%