Pros and Cons of Different Irrigation Scheduling Approaches: A Review

Addisu Asefa; Minda Tadesse

doi:doi:10.11648/j.bio.20241206.11

Review Article |

| Peer-Reviewed

Pros and Cons of Different Irrigation Scheduling Approaches: A Review

Addisu Asefa^*

, Minda Tadesse

Published in American Journal of Bioscience and Bioengineering (Volume 12, Issue 6)

Received: 6 July 2024 Accepted: 21 October 2024 Published: 12 November 2024

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

Scheduling irrigation involves making a decision of how much water to apply and when. Three factors enter into the decision: water needs of the plants, water availability, and storing capacity of the soil around the roots. When to irrigate should be greatly influenced by water needs of the plants. Irrigation scheduling (IS) aims to give plants the right amount of water at the right times in order to promote plant growth and achieve high yield and/or quality. The four most popular ways of operating irrigation scheduling includes: evapotranspiration and water balance (ET-WB), soil moisture status, plant water status, and models based irrigation scheduling. When the four types of irrigation scheduling systems are thoroughly examined, it becomes clear that they are all centered on soil moisture, which serves as a link or bridge between crop water needed for growth and irrigation management). A few studies have been accomplished on pros and cons of different irrigation scheduling approaches. The purpose of this review was to provide some information on pros and cons of four selected irrigation scheduling methods, viz: evapotranspiration and water balance (ET-WB), soil moisture status, plant water status, and models based irrigation scheduling. When the four types of irrigation scheduling systems are thoroughly examined, it becomes clear that they are all centered on soil moisture, which serves as a link or bridge between crop water needed for growth and irrigation management. Plant-based techniques can need professional oversight since farmers may find it difficult to understand the tracked data, which reduces the dependability of irrigation. When built software or a procedure is based on a well-calibrated model, model-based methods are simpler for users. When compared to the soil moisture sample irrigation scheduling approach, the evapotranspiration losses irrigation scheduling method uses less irrigation water regardless of the minimal yield difference.

Published in	American Journal of Bioscience and Bioengineering (Volume 12, Issue 6)
DOI	10.11648/j.bio.20241206.11
Page(s)	91-96
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Irrigation Scheduling, Evapotranspiration, Water Balance, Soil Moisture

References

[1]	Ahuja, L. R., Saseendran, S. A., Ma, L., Nielsen, D. C. and Trout, T., 2008. Using a system model to maximize water use efficiency through optimizing management inputs and scheduling of limited irrigations for site-specific weather and soil conditions. In World Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2008: Ahupua'A (pp. 1-5).
[2]	Alexandratos, N. and Bruinsma, J., 2012. World agriculture towards 2030/2050: the 2012 revision.
[3]	Allen, R. G., Pereira, L. S., Raes, D. and Smith, M., 1998. Crop evapotranspiration-Guidelines for computing crop water requirements-FAO Irrigation and drainage paper 56. Fao, Rome, 300(9), p. D05109.
[4]	Allen, R. G., Pereira, L. S., Raes, D. and Smith, M., 1998. FAO Irrigation and drainage paper No. 56. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 56(97), p. e156.
[5]	Bates, L. M. and Hall, A. E., 1981. Stomatal closure with soil water depletion not associated with changes in bulk leaf water status. Oecologia, 50, pp. 62-65.
[6]	Bauder, T. A., 2002. Advantages and limitations of ET-based irrigation scheduling.
[7]	Behboudian, M. H., Mills, T. M. and Janick, J., 2010. Deficit irrigation in deciduous orchards. Horticultural Reviews. John Wiley & Sons, Inc, pp. 105-131.
[8]	Davis, S. L. and Dukes, M. D., 2010. Irrigation scheduling performance by evapotranspiration-based controllers. Agricultural water management, 98(1), pp. 19-28.
[9]	Davis, S. L., Dukes, M. D. and Miller, G. L., 2009. Landscape irrigation by evapotranspiration-based irrigation controllers under dry conditions in Southwest Florida. Agricultural Water Management, 96(12), pp. 1828-1836.
[10]	Evett, S. R., Schwartz, R. C., Casanova, J. J. and Heng, L. K., 2012. Soil water sensing for water balance, ET and WUE. Agricultural Water Management, 104, pp. 1-9.
[11]	Farag, A. A., Atta, Y. M. and El-komy, M. S., 2019. Effect of irrigation by gated pipes and traditional irrigation system with mixed water on soil, drainage water and crop. Misr Journal of Agricultural Engineering, 36(3), pp. 849-860.
[12]	Fereres, E., Goldhamer, D. A. and Parsons, L. R., 2003. Irrigation water management of horticultural crops. HortScience, 38(5), pp. 1036-1042.
[13]	Fernández, J. E., 2017. Plant-based methods for irrigation scheduling of woody crops. Horticulturae, 3(2), p. 35.
[14]	Glenn, E. P., Huete, A. R., Nagler, P. L., Hirschboeck, K. K. and Brown, P., 2007. Integrating remote sensing and ground methods to estimate evapotranspiration. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences, 26(3), pp. 139-168.
[15]	Gu, Z., Qi, Z., Burghate, R., Yuan, S., Jiao, X. and Xu, J., 2020. Irrigation scheduling approaches and applications: A review. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, 146(6), p. 04020007.
[16]	Gu, Z., Qi, Z., Ma, L., Gui, D., Xu, J., Fang, Q., Yuan, S. and Feng, G., 2017. Development of an irrigation scheduling software based on model predicted crop water stress. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 143, pp. 208-221.
[17]	Hunsaker, S., Chen, H. C., Maughan, D. and Heaston, S., 2015. Factors that influence the development of compassion fatigue, burnout, and compassion satisfaction in emergency department nurses. Journal of nursing scholarship, 47(2), pp. 186-194.
[18]	Jones, H. G., 2004. Irrigation scheduling: advantages and pitfalls of plant-based methods. Journal of experimental botany, 55(407), pp. 2427-2436.
[19]	Jones, H. G., 2006, August. Irrigation scheduling–comparison of soil, plant and atmosphere monitoring approaches. In V International Symposium on Irrigation of Horticultural Crops 792 (pp. 391-403).
[20]	McCready, M. S., Dukes, M. D. and Miller, G. L., 2009. Water conservation potential of smart irrigation controllers on St. Augustinegrass. Agricultural water management, 96(11), pp. 1623-1632.
[21]	Munoz-Carpena, R., Ritter, A. and Bosch, D. D., 2004. Field methods for monitoring soil water status. Soil–water–solute process characterization. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Fla, pp. 167-195.
[22]	Ortega Álvarez, J. F., de Juan Valero, J. A., Tarjuelo Martín-Benito, J. M. and López Mata, E., 2004. MOPECO: an economic optimization model for irrigation water management. Irrigation Science, 23, pp. 61-75.
[23]	Pereira, L. S., Allen, R. G., Smith, M. and Raes, D., 2015. Crop evapotranspiration estimation with FAO56: Past and future. Agricultural water management, 147, pp. 4-20.
[24]	Pereira, L. S., Perrier, A., Allen, R. G. and Alves, I., 1999. Evapotranspiration: concepts and future trends. Journal of irrigation and drainage engineering, 125(2), pp. 45-51.
[25]	Shahrokhnia, M. A. and Jorenush, M. H., 2022. Comparison of the effect of different irrigation scheduling tools on applied water and citrus fruit quality.
[26]	Stirzaker, R. J., Maeko, T. C., Annandale, J. G., Steyn, J. M., Adhanom, G. T. and Mpuisang, T., 2017. Scheduling irrigation from wetting front depth. Agricultural Water Management, 179, pp. 306-313.
[27]	Walker, Glen R., Lu Zhang, Tim W. Ellis, Tom J. Hatton, and Cuan Petheram. "Estimating impacts of changed land use on recharge: review of modelling and other approaches appropriate for management of dryland salinity." Hydrogeology Journal 10(2002): 68-90.
[28]	Williams, L. E. and Araujo, F. J., 2002. Correlations among predawn leaf, midday leaf, and midday stem water potential and their correlations with other measures of soil and plant water status in Vitis vinifera. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science, 127(3), pp. 448-454.
[29]	Wu, X., Zhang, W., Liu, W., Zuo, Q., Shi, J., Yan, X., Zhang, H., Xue, X., Wang, L., Zhang, M. and Ben-Gal, A., 2017. Root-weighted soil water status for plant water deficit index based irrigation scheduling. Agricultural Water Management, 189, pp. 137-147.
[30]	Alvarez, S., Bañón, S. and Sánchez-Blanco, M. J., 2013. Regulated deficit irrigation in different phenological stages of potted geranium plants: Water consumption, water relations and ornamental quality. Acta Physiologiae Plantarum, 35, pp. 1257-1267.

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Asefa, A., Tadesse, M. (2024). Pros and Cons of Different Irrigation Scheduling Approaches: A Review. American Journal of Bioscience and Bioengineering, 12(6), 91-96. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.bio.20241206.11

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Asefa, A.; Tadesse, M. Pros and Cons of Different Irrigation Scheduling Approaches: A Review. Am. J. BioSci. Bioeng. 2024, 12(6), 91-96. doi: 10.11648/j.bio.20241206.11

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Asefa A, Tadesse M. Pros and Cons of Different Irrigation Scheduling Approaches: A Review. Am J BioSci Bioeng. 2024;12(6):91-96. doi: 10.11648/j.bio.20241206.11

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.bio.20241206.11,
  author = {Addisu Asefa and Minda Tadesse},
  title = {Pros and Cons of Different Irrigation Scheduling Approaches: A Review
},
  journal = {American Journal of Bioscience and Bioengineering},
  volume = {12},
  number = {6},
  pages = {91-96},
  doi = {10.11648/j.bio.20241206.11},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.bio.20241206.11},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.bio.20241206.11},
  abstract = {Scheduling irrigation involves making a decision of how much water to apply and when. Three factors enter into the decision: water needs of the plants, water availability, and storing capacity of the soil around the roots. When to irrigate should be greatly influenced by water needs of the plants. Irrigation scheduling (IS) aims to give plants the right amount of water at the right times in order to promote plant growth and achieve high yield and/or quality. The four most popular ways of operating irrigation scheduling includes: evapotranspiration and water balance (ET-WB), soil moisture status, plant water status, and models based irrigation scheduling. When the four types of irrigation scheduling systems are thoroughly examined, it becomes clear that they are all centered on soil moisture, which serves as a link or bridge between crop water needed for growth and irrigation management). A few studies have been accomplished on pros and cons of different irrigation scheduling approaches. The purpose of this review was to provide some information on pros and cons of four selected irrigation scheduling methods, viz: evapotranspiration and water balance (ET-WB), soil moisture status, plant water status, and models based irrigation scheduling. When the four types of irrigation scheduling systems are thoroughly examined, it becomes clear that they are all centered on soil moisture, which serves as a link or bridge between crop water needed for growth and irrigation management. Plant-based techniques can need professional oversight since farmers may find it difficult to understand the tracked data, which reduces the dependability of irrigation. When built software or a procedure is based on a well-calibrated model, model-based methods are simpler for users. When compared to the soil moisture sample irrigation scheduling approach, the evapotranspiration losses irrigation scheduling method uses less irrigation water regardless of the minimal yield difference.
},
 year = {2024}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Pros and Cons of Different Irrigation Scheduling Approaches: A Review

AU  - Addisu Asefa
AU  - Minda Tadesse
Y1  - 2024/11/12
PY  - 2024
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.bio.20241206.11
DO  - 10.11648/j.bio.20241206.11
T2  - American Journal of Bioscience and Bioengineering
JF  - American Journal of Bioscience and Bioengineering
JO  - American Journal of Bioscience and Bioengineering
SP  - 91
EP  - 96
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2328-5893
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.bio.20241206.11
AB  - Scheduling irrigation involves making a decision of how much water to apply and when. Three factors enter into the decision: water needs of the plants, water availability, and storing capacity of the soil around the roots. When to irrigate should be greatly influenced by water needs of the plants. Irrigation scheduling (IS) aims to give plants the right amount of water at the right times in order to promote plant growth and achieve high yield and/or quality. The four most popular ways of operating irrigation scheduling includes: evapotranspiration and water balance (ET-WB), soil moisture status, plant water status, and models based irrigation scheduling. When the four types of irrigation scheduling systems are thoroughly examined, it becomes clear that they are all centered on soil moisture, which serves as a link or bridge between crop water needed for growth and irrigation management). A few studies have been accomplished on pros and cons of different irrigation scheduling approaches. The purpose of this review was to provide some information on pros and cons of four selected irrigation scheduling methods, viz: evapotranspiration and water balance (ET-WB), soil moisture status, plant water status, and models based irrigation scheduling. When the four types of irrigation scheduling systems are thoroughly examined, it becomes clear that they are all centered on soil moisture, which serves as a link or bridge between crop water needed for growth and irrigation management. Plant-based techniques can need professional oversight since farmers may find it difficult to understand the tracked data, which reduces the dependability of irrigation. When built software or a procedure is based on a well-calibrated model, model-based methods are simpler for users. When compared to the soil moisture sample irrigation scheduling approach, the evapotranspiration losses irrigation scheduling method uses less irrigation water regardless of the minimal yield difference.

VL  - 12
IS  - 6
ER  -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Addisu Asefa

Irrigation and Water Harvest Research Department, Jimma Agricultural Research Center, Jimma, Ethiopia

Contact Email

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1499-0127
Minda Tadesse

Irrigation and Water Harvest Research Department, Jimma Agricultural Research Center, Jimma, Ethiopia

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7964-5375

Download PDF

Sections

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Asefa, A., Tadesse, M. (2024). Pros and Cons of Different Irrigation Scheduling Approaches: A Review. American Journal of Bioscience and Bioengineering, 12(6), 91-96. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.bio.20241206.11

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Asefa, A.; Tadesse, M. Pros and Cons of Different Irrigation Scheduling Approaches: A Review. Am. J. BioSci. Bioeng. 2024, 12(6), 91-96. doi: 10.11648/j.bio.20241206.11

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Asefa A, Tadesse M. Pros and Cons of Different Irrigation Scheduling Approaches: A Review. Am J BioSci Bioeng. 2024;12(6):91-96. doi: 10.11648/j.bio.20241206.11

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.bio.20241206.11,
  author = {Addisu Asefa and Minda Tadesse},
  title = {Pros and Cons of Different Irrigation Scheduling Approaches: A Review
},
  journal = {American Journal of Bioscience and Bioengineering},
  volume = {12},
  number = {6},
  pages = {91-96},
  doi = {10.11648/j.bio.20241206.11},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.bio.20241206.11},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.bio.20241206.11},
  abstract = {Scheduling irrigation involves making a decision of how much water to apply and when. Three factors enter into the decision: water needs of the plants, water availability, and storing capacity of the soil around the roots. When to irrigate should be greatly influenced by water needs of the plants. Irrigation scheduling (IS) aims to give plants the right amount of water at the right times in order to promote plant growth and achieve high yield and/or quality. The four most popular ways of operating irrigation scheduling includes: evapotranspiration and water balance (ET-WB), soil moisture status, plant water status, and models based irrigation scheduling. When the four types of irrigation scheduling systems are thoroughly examined, it becomes clear that they are all centered on soil moisture, which serves as a link or bridge between crop water needed for growth and irrigation management). A few studies have been accomplished on pros and cons of different irrigation scheduling approaches. The purpose of this review was to provide some information on pros and cons of four selected irrigation scheduling methods, viz: evapotranspiration and water balance (ET-WB), soil moisture status, plant water status, and models based irrigation scheduling. When the four types of irrigation scheduling systems are thoroughly examined, it becomes clear that they are all centered on soil moisture, which serves as a link or bridge between crop water needed for growth and irrigation management. Plant-based techniques can need professional oversight since farmers may find it difficult to understand the tracked data, which reduces the dependability of irrigation. When built software or a procedure is based on a well-calibrated model, model-based methods are simpler for users. When compared to the soil moisture sample irrigation scheduling approach, the evapotranspiration losses irrigation scheduling method uses less irrigation water regardless of the minimal yield difference.
},
 year = {2024}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Pros and Cons of Different Irrigation Scheduling Approaches: A Review

AU  - Addisu Asefa
AU  - Minda Tadesse
Y1  - 2024/11/12
PY  - 2024
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.bio.20241206.11
DO  - 10.11648/j.bio.20241206.11
T2  - American Journal of Bioscience and Bioengineering
JF  - American Journal of Bioscience and Bioengineering
JO  - American Journal of Bioscience and Bioengineering
SP  - 91
EP  - 96
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2328-5893
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.bio.20241206.11
AB  - Scheduling irrigation involves making a decision of how much water to apply and when. Three factors enter into the decision: water needs of the plants, water availability, and storing capacity of the soil around the roots. When to irrigate should be greatly influenced by water needs of the plants. Irrigation scheduling (IS) aims to give plants the right amount of water at the right times in order to promote plant growth and achieve high yield and/or quality. The four most popular ways of operating irrigation scheduling includes: evapotranspiration and water balance (ET-WB), soil moisture status, plant water status, and models based irrigation scheduling. When the four types of irrigation scheduling systems are thoroughly examined, it becomes clear that they are all centered on soil moisture, which serves as a link or bridge between crop water needed for growth and irrigation management). A few studies have been accomplished on pros and cons of different irrigation scheduling approaches. The purpose of this review was to provide some information on pros and cons of four selected irrigation scheduling methods, viz: evapotranspiration and water balance (ET-WB), soil moisture status, plant water status, and models based irrigation scheduling. When the four types of irrigation scheduling systems are thoroughly examined, it becomes clear that they are all centered on soil moisture, which serves as a link or bridge between crop water needed for growth and irrigation management. Plant-based techniques can need professional oversight since farmers may find it difficult to understand the tracked data, which reduces the dependability of irrigation. When built software or a procedure is based on a well-calibrated model, model-based methods are simpler for users. When compared to the soil moisture sample irrigation scheduling approach, the evapotranspiration losses irrigation scheduling method uses less irrigation water regardless of the minimal yield difference.

VL  - 12
IS  - 6
ER  -

Copy | Download