Appl Water Sci (2011) 1:73–83

DOI 10.1007/s13201-011-0017-y

REVIEW ARTICLE

Intelligent irrigation performance: evaluation and quantifying

its ability for conserving water in arid region
Hussein M. Al-Ghobari • Fawzi S. Mohammad

Received: 19 January 2011 / Accepted: 1 October 2011 / Published online: 27 October 2011
Ó The Author(s) 2011. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com

Abstract Intelligent irrigation technologies have been including soil water status, water consumption, and crop
developed in recent years to apply irrigation to turf and yield. The initial results indicate that up to 25% water
landscape plants. These technologies are an evapotranspi- saving by intelligent irrigation compared to control
ration (ET)-based irrigation controller, which calculates ET method, while maintaining competing yield. Results show
for local microclimate. Then, the controller creates a pro- that the crop evapotranspiration values for control experi-
gram for loading and communicating automatically with ments were higher than that of ET-System in consistent
drip or sprinkler system controllers. The main objective of trend during whole growth season. The analysis points out
this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the new ET that the values of the two treatments were somewhat close
sensors in ability to irrigate agricultural crops and to con- to each other’s only in the initial development stages.
serve water use for crop in arid climatic conditions. This Generally, the ET-System, with some modification was
paper presents the case for water conservation using precise in controlling irrigation water and has been proven
intelligent irrigation system (IIS) application technology. to be a good mean to determine the water requirements for
The IIS for automating irrigation scheduling was imple- crops and to schedule irrigation automatically.
mented and tested with sprinkle and drip irrigation systems
to irrigate wheat and tomato crops. Another irrigation Keywords Intelligent irrigation  Evapotranspiration 
scheduling system was also installed and operated as Smart system  Control irrigation  Arid region
another treatment, which is based on weather data that
retrieved from an automatic weather station. This irrigation
control system was running in parallel to the former system Introduction
(IIS) to be control experiments for comparison purposes.
However, this article discusses the implementation of IIS, There were many intelligent irrigation systems (IISs)
its installation, testing and calibration of various compo- available and were used to compute crop water require-
nents. The experiments conducted for one growing season ments based on climatic data. Usually, intelligent irrigation
2009–2010 and the results were represented and discussed was integrated with smart controllers and using microcli-
herein. Data from all plots were analyzed, which were matic data to schedule irrigation water. The irrigation
controller functions were to govern the solenoid valves
(control action) in irrigation process. Ultimately, the con-
Mention of trade names was for informational purposes only and does troller decides when to start and how long to irrigate, in
not constitute endorsement by the authors or by the institutions they
serve.
order to bring the controlled variable up to the desired
value (set-point).
H. M. Al-Ghobari (&)  F. S. Mohammad Intelligent or smart irrigation technologies were regar-
Agricultural Engineering Department, ded as a promising tool to achieve landscape water savings
College of Food and Agriculture sciences,
and reduce non-point source pollution (Nautiyal et al.
King Saud University, P.O. Box 2460,
Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia 2010). Currently, there were a number of intelligent irri-
e-mail: [email protected] gation systems that can operate without human

123
74 Appl Water Sci (2011) 1:73–83

intervention. The smart controllers integrate many disci- 2009; Muñoz-Carpena and Dukes 2005; Lozano and
plines to produce a significant improvement in crop pro- Mateos 2007).These systems differ in their accuracy and
duction and resource management (Norum and Adhikari reliability.
2009). Application of smart irrigation controllers in an Playán and Mateos (2006) and Wolter and Burt (1996)
automated irrigation system has become a new trend in turf discussed how the modernization and optimization of irri-
industry. There were numerous smart irrigation control gation systems can contribute to the increase of water
manufacturers, which already exist or were emerging in the productivity in a context of global water scarcity. This
marketplace. A recent study was conducted in Cary, North process may be set up in two ways: (i) open-loop or,
Carolina to evaluate the effectiveness of two smart systems (ii) closed-loop (Kuo 1995). Automation of irrigation
(Nautiyal et al. 2010). systems, based on soil moisture sensing (SMS) has the
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabian intelligent irrigation potential to provide maximum water-use efficiency (WUE).
technology became recently an essential and important for Such systems are maintaining soil moisture between a
irrigation water scheduling. Hence, there is an increase in desired range, optimal or adequate, for plant growth and/or
agricultural production and a need to secure food to meet quality (Muñoz-Carpena and Dukes 2005).
the increasing population. Improving irrigation efficiency Intelligent irrigation usually depends on systems utiliz-
can contribute greatly to reducing production of cost of ing modern electronic sensors, which were capable of col-
crops, making the agriculture more competitive and sus- lecting data, analyzing and decision making to start/stop
tainable. Definitely, the widespread adoption of intelligent irrigation. These devices were transmitting the decisions to
irrigation would conserve a significant portion of excess electronic controller devices, which control sprinkler or drip
water applied. irrigation system. Several moisture sensors were commer-
Most of problems facing irrigation practices were solved cially available, such as tensiometers. Some researchers
by adopting intelligent irrigation controllers (Colin and used tensiometers sensors in irrigation scheduling for
Whitford 1996; Capraro et al. 2008). This novel control tomato under drip irrigation system (Mendez-Barroso et al.
method uses different mathematical models and measures 2008; Smajstrla and Locascio 1997). They found that the
the error between the steady-state-sensed value and the tomato crop during 4 years had a water tension equal to
desired value. If error exceeds some given tolerances, then 10 cb.
the controller uses an adaptive algorithm that modifies The objective of this article was to evaluate the use
model and control parameters (Iserman et al. 1992). Most intelligent system with sprinkle and drip irrigation systems
of the systems were using computers as central control unit, and field crops with different scheduling techniques in arid
which were capable of transferring accurate data auto- region, such as Saudi Arabia.
matically and remotely or through telephone in real time.
Recent technological advances have made soil water sen-
sors available for efficient and automatic operation of Materials and methods
irrigation systems.
The controller generally was connected to an electrical Site location and equipment installations
circuit that operates a solenoid attached to each valve.
Several moisture sensors were commercially available used The experiments involved selection of the appropriate
in sensing soil water (Muñoz-Carpena et al. 2003). They fields for implementing and conducting the necessary
generally can be used for manual readings to guide irri- experiments. This study was performed at the experimental
gation scheduling, while some of them can also be inter- farm of the College of Food and Agriculture Sciences,
faced directly with the irrigation controller in a closed loop King Saud University, Riyadh. Initially, the necessary
control system to automatically irrigate the crop (Zazueta hardware were selected such as two IIS units, automatic
et al., 1994). weather station, enviroscan, tensiometers, Water Marks,
The new IIS was currently under evaluation at the trial electronic controllers, solenoid valves, water meters,
farm in Dookie, Egypt and initial results indicate up to 43% pumps, and pressure gauges. While other accessories are
(average 38%) water saving over conventional irrigation made available, such as polyethylene and PVC pipes,
control methodologies (Dassanayake et al. 2009). In the elbows, tee joints, short nipples, ball valves, gate valves,
past 10 years, smart irrigation controllers have been adapters, couplings, line filters, sprinklers, and emitters.
developed by a number of manufacturers and have been The field was divided into four plots and the layout for two
promoted by water purveyors in an attempt to reduce over- types of irrigation systems were shown in Figs. 1 and 2).
irrigation (Michael and Dukes 2008).There were many The weather station was installed and set in a location
intelligent irrigation systems computing applied water and identical to the conditions of World Meteorological Orga-
ET that based on climatic conditions (McCready et al. nization (WMO). This weather station was used to measure

123
Appl Water Sci (2011) 1:73–83 75

Fig. 1 Schematic diagram of wheat field using sprinkler irrigation system for IIS and ICS treatments

the climate parameters that were used to compute evapo- applies it to the individual fields (zones) of irrigation. The
transpiration (ETo).These values were then compared with IIS calculates crop evapotranspiration (ETc) for local
those obtained from the IIS in both fields of wheat and microclimate automatically based on modified Penman
tomato crops. These devices were programmed in situ, equation (Allen et al. 1998) and creates a scientific pro-
taking into account the type of crops and the environment gram and downloads to the controller. The ET module was
prevailing conditions in the area. Then, they were cali- plugged into the irrigation controller Pro C, which was
brated and configured to implement the next phase of the called Controller Intelligent Port and adjusts irrigation run
study before collecting real data. times to only replace the amount of water the plants have
Devices of the two IIS used were installed according to lost, at a rate at which soil can absorb it. Irrigation con-
manufacturer’s instructions in the field of planned experi- troller Pro C was an irrigation controller that can control
ments. The systems were installed in the two different valves and pumps.
plots, for controlling irrigation for wheat and tomato crops. Intelligent Irrigation System requires a complete data-
Adjacent to these plots, automatic meteorological stations base for each station (or ‘‘zone’’) to be controlled. To setup
were installed. this database was easy, but the operator was completely
responsible for the accuracy of the information and
Intelligent system components, functions, obtained results from using the database. Every system
and installation must be carefully observed after initial installation.
Generally, most systems require adjustment, at station
The intelligent irrigation system used in the study was level, for some time after installation to provide ideal
Hunter ET-System*, the terms used in this text inter- results. Inattention can result in plant damage and water
changeably, was chosen for this study. This system cannot waste. However, to achieve this study, two IIS were
be considered as the best system, but it was cheaper and installed in the fields and used to irrigate two different
available in the local market. Moreover, it can be cus- crops by two irrigation methods; wheat and tomato crops
tomized by station (or ‘‘zone’’) for specific plant, soil, and under sprinkle and drip irrigation systems (Figs. 1, 2).
sprinkler types. This type of system uses digital electronic
controllers, ET sensors, and module. Its platform wired to Irrigation systems installation
ET module, which senses local climatic condition via dif-
ferent sensors measuring air wind speed, rainfall, solar The site of the study was divided into two main fields, each
radiation, air temperature, and relative humidity. Then the divided into two plots. One field was allocated for wheat
ET module receives the data from the ET sensor, and crop and the other for tomato crop, and each field

123
76 Appl Water Sci (2011) 1:73–83

Solinoid valve Pressure Gauge values of the performance indexes under operating field
Main Lines conditions. All indices values were found to be within
WM
Ball valve
filter
acceptable results and with good water distribution
Water
meter uniformity.

Contro System
Crops planting and monitoring
Emitter

Wheat (YecoraRojo) was planted in two plots on 9

Manual December 2009 and each plot was equal to an area of
Remote
control 9 m 9 24 m. They were harvested on 25 April 2010. Each
Panel
plot was irrigated by sprinkler irrigation system, and the
irrigation scheduling for the crop during the season were
End cap End cap
controlled by IIS for one plot, while the other was irrigated
by ICS as shown in (Fig. 1). The sowing rate was 180 kg/
Tomato Fields ha and fertilizers were added for both wheat plots. Fertil-
izers were containing nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium
Water Pump Water Tank
elements, and other elements were applied at the rate of
100 kg/ha. The other two plots were cultivated with tomato
(Lycopersicon esculentum Mill, GS-12) and transplanted
into the field on 14 February 2010. The last irrigation was
ET
System
in 29 May 2010. Each plot was irrigated by drip irrigation
Remote system. The irrigation scheduling was controlled by IIS and
ET System

control
Panel ICS. The area of each tomato plot was 10 m 9 12.5 m, and
located close to the wheat plots. Tomato seed germination
was in the cubes Jiffy-7 in greenhouse and seedlings were
Pipe transplanted in the field and irrigated lightly. Phosphate and
lines Pressure Gauge
potassium fertilizers were added for tomato followed by
WM fungal and viral diseases programs.
Ball valve
Water filter At wheat maturity, measurements were made on grain
Solinoid valve meter
yield (GY), biological yield (BY), plant height (PH). Grain
Fig. 2 Schematic diagram of tomato field using drip irrigation and biological yields were determined from the 5
systems for both intelligent irrigation (IIS) and control (ICS) systems rows 9 1 m. Harvest index (HI) was calculated as grain
yield/biological yield. Grain yield was estimated as the
weight of clean grain (taken from random seven samples
consisting of two plots IIS and irrigation control system with 1 m2 and converted to grain yield per hectare).
(ICS), as shown in Figs. 1 and 2. In IIS plots, crops were Moreover, 1,000 grain weight was recorded as the average
irrigated automatically via the Hunter ET System*, and in of samples taken at random from the harvested plants of
ICS plots irrigation scheduling was done manually by using each treatment. Plant height was measured at maturity as
the weather station, which was installed at the site and ETc the distance from soil surface to the top of the main spike,
values. Solid sprinkler and drip irrigation systems were excluding the awns. Daily and weekly (ETc) rates during
installed for both fields (Figs. 1, 2). These irrigation sys- the growth period were determined for IIS and ICS treat-
tems were designed to achieve high performance and dis- ments. Irrigation water depths (Dg) and accumulative
tributed water uniformity throughout irrigation. Each depths added to wheat crop via IIS and ICS plots were
system was equipped with controllers to control the pres- monitored throughout the growing season.
sure and flow meter to quantify the water added in each Similarly, daily ETc rates for tomato were measured by
irrigation event. IIS and ICS systems. The actual irrigation water depths
Sprinkler systems were used for wheat crops, while drip (Dg) added to tomato crop by both systems were monitored
irrigation systems were used to irrigate tomato crops. The and recorded by flow meters. Data on the quantities of
sprinkler and drip systems were evaluated in the fields irrigation water, plant growth and productivity were gath-
according to the methodology of Merriam and Kelle (1978) ered daily in special forms prepared for this purpose.
and ASABE Standard, S436.1 (2007). Evaluation tests During the growing season, the data at first hand were
were conducted for each irrigation system by checking analyzed.

123
Appl Water Sci (2011) 1:73–83 77

Sensors and controllers used Similarly, the values of tomato daily ETo measured by
the meteorological station. These values were multiplied
Soil water content (SWC) must be accurately observed for by crop coefficients and water application efficiency for
irrigation decision support. Moisture content was measured determining crop water requirement. Hence, by knowing
by the volumetric method at a depth of 20, 40, 60 cm from the area of the field (125 m2) and the discharge rate from
the soil surface, which was used for calibration purposes. the drippers (1,220 l/h), water quantity to be added in
In this method, soil samples were taken from all plots once specific event could be determined. Accordingly, the actual
each week and analyzed in the Irrigation Laboratory. In operation time required was then calculated using the fol-
light of these results, all the soil moisture measuring lowing procedure.
instruments used in this study were calibrate. Special forms VðLitÞ Kc  ETo ðmmÞ  Aðm2 Þ  Pw
were prepared to fill the data and results of this method. TðminÞ ¼ ¼
Qs ðLit= minÞ Ea  ð1  LRÞ  Qs ðLit= minÞ
In addition, three sensors were used in this study to
measure soil–water potentials: i.e. Watermarks, Tensio- Kc  ETo ðmmÞ  125  0:40
meters, and Enviroscan. Three groups of tensiometers were TðminÞ ¼
0:90  ð1  0:10Þ  1;220
60
installed in three plots of sandy loam soil at depths of 20,
¼ Kc  ETo ðmmÞ  3:04
40, 60 cm from the soil surface. Another three Watermark
sensors were installed in the same plot at the same depths. where LR = leaching requirement, 10%; Ea = water
Enviroscan was also installed in one location at five application efficiency, 90%; Pw = wetted area percentage,
different depths 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 cm. Hence, it was 40%.
continuous soil moisture monitoring sensor and the world’s When irrigation scheduling was determined for each
leading irrigation monitoring and scheduling device. It was crop in ICS plots, the irrigation system was turned on and
therefore considered as a modern device capable of mea- off in control experiments manually not automatically as in
suring soil moisture content continuously and transferring IIS. The depth of irrigation water (Dg) for intelligent
data through internet in the form of reports or graphs. treatment irrigated by sprinklers was calculated from the
A set of soil moisture content measurements by the three difference flow meter readings before and after irrigation.
methods were taken from IIS and ICS plots. The volu- These values were divided by the field area (216 m2) and
metric SWC data determined from the samples were multiplied by 1,000 to be converted into mm. Similar, steps
regressed against the tensiometers and watermarks poten- were followed in case of drip irrigation and divided the by
tial readings. wetted area instead of all area. However, after completing
the irrigation process, the actual time required and meter
Operation time required readings were recorded in both cases.

To calculate ETc for wheat, daily ETo values were first

measured by the meteorological station and then were Results and discussions
multiplied by crop coefficients and water application effi-
ciency. Hence, by knowing the area of wheat plot (216 m2) Soil analysis and soil–water status
and discharge from the eight sprinklers (4.88 m3/h), the
water quantity to be added in a specific event can be found The soil analysis from the experimental site shows that
out. Accordingly, the actual operation time required was the dominant soil texture of the layers (0–20, 20–30,
then calculated using the following procedure. 30–60 cm) was sandy loam. The soil–water potential
values for the two wheat plots were fluctuating between 10
VðLitÞ Kc  ETo ðmmÞ  Aðm2 Þ and 70 KPa throughout the growing season. Generally, the
TðminÞ ¼ ¼
Qs ðLit= minÞ Ea  Qs ðLit= minÞ upper layer (0–20 cm) soil-moisture was ranging from 10
Kc  ETo ðmmÞ  216 to 55 KPa. This was due to frequent irrigation with suffi-
TðminÞ ¼ cient water and the soil was not subjected to sever stress.
0:75  4:881;000
60
¼ Kc  ETo ðmmÞ  3:541 The volumetric SWC determined from the three layers
was regressed against the tensiometers and watermark
where T actual operation time required, min; V water readings. The regression equations of transforming the
volume to be added, lit.; Qs discharge from the irrigation potential readings to volumetric water content were gen-
system, lit/min; Kc crop coefficient; A area of the field, m2; erated as well. The correlation (R2) found to be ranging
ETo reference evapotranspiration, mm; Ea water applica- from 0.96 to 0.98 and from 0.91 to 0.95 for tensiometers
tion efficiency (75% for sprinkler and 90% for drip and water marks successively. It appears that the two
irrigation). sensors were less responsive to the soil drying between

123
78 Appl Water Sci (2011) 1:73–83

irrigations events than gravimetric method. This was crop ETc was calculated as the product of Kc and ETo for
because irrigation events were more frequents. ICS experiments only.

Comparison between controller types Water application for wheat

Evapotranspiration (ETc) Generally, in IIS plots for both crops the irrigation initi-
atedand terminated according to the data collected and
The processor in IIS determined ETo based on measured processed by the intelligent system and shown on the
weather parameters, which were sensed by smart control- instrument’s monitor. In light of this, the operator would
lers. Furthermore, these controllers were using weather carry out irrigation accordingly at a convenient time. In this
data to adjust the amount of irrigation water applied study, irrigation was started at early morning (7 a.m.) for
automatically. Weekly ETc rates for wheat and tomato both treatments. This system was used to schedule irriga-
crops under IIS experiments during growing season were tion based on weather parameters measurements. In addi-
calculated from daily records (Table 1). Then, these results tion, readings taken from the provided sensors were
were compared with the data obtained from ICS recorded continuously. Automatically retrieving these data
experiments. and processing calculation for determining the initiating or
The ETo rates for both crops in control plots were cal- terminating irrigation event. While, there were some
culated utilizing weather data obtained from local station options to choose for supplying more water or less
using modified Penman equation. This approach was according to the needs of plants. In this project, the system
mainly based on estimating the expected available SWC or was preset to operate with 80% of ET early cultivation
depletion after a certain period of time. Irrigation was days.
carried out when the estimated value of SWC dropped to a While, ETo for control plots was measured by the
specified threshold level. Then, the required water depth automatic weather station which was based on the Modi-
was determined from the soil water balance equation. fied Penman Method, FAO version. Daily ETo measure-
Adjustments to ETo for particular plant types were made ments multiplied by adequate crop coefficients can
using crop coefficients; Kc (Allen et al. 1998), where the accurately provide ETc and used to efficiently schedule
automated micro irrigation systems. Table 1 shows the
crop coefficient (Kc) for wheat to be multiplied with ETo
for different stages of crop development. Based on local
Table 1 Weekly ETc for wheat crop under the two treatments IIS and
experience, these stages were approximately of 15, 40, 60,
ICS
and 20 days, respectively, and were considered for evalu-
Growth period ETc for IIS ETo Kc ETc for ICS ation of Kc. The stages were initial, crop development,
(week) (mm/day) (mm/day) (mm/day)
mid-season, and late season.
1 1.71 2.81 0.70 1.97 By comparing the total ETc for wheat crops in both
2 1.78 3.81 0.70 2.67 treatments, IIS and ICS, found that the total ETc were
3 2.12 3.34 0.99 3.13 386.75 and 514.36 mm, respectively. As shown in Table 1,
4 2.62 3.81 0.99 3.78 the accumulated ETc value from IIS was 25% less than that
5 2.79 4.12 0.99 4.08 one obtained from the ICS. This represents a high per-
6 2.86 4.17 0.99 4.13 centage of conserving water which compensate for the
7 2.95 4.25 0.99 4.20 reduction of productivity, especially in areas that suffer
8 3.50 4.11 0.99 4.07 from water scarcity. The results indicated that each 1 mm
9 3.62 4.31 1.10 4.74 water depth applied by IIS and ICS to the wheat crop
10 3.77 4.57 1.10 5.03 produced 13 and 11.9 kg/mm, respectively. Therefore,
11 4.27 4.80 1.10 5.28 conserving water was something very important in areas
12 4.15 5.01 1.10 5.51 experiencing severe drought such as Saudi Arabia. In
13 4.36 5.29 1.10 5.82
general, this lack of water did not affect the external
14 4.67 5.98 1.10 6.58
appearance of the plant. From this table, it can be depicted
that ETc rates for ICS were higher than those for IIS and
15 5.05 6.09 1.10 6.70
following similar trends during whole growth season.
16 3.13 8.28 0.35 3.55
Weekly irrigation water (Dg) added to wheat crop for IIS
17 1.96 6.36 0.35 2.23
and ICS treatments were calculated and tabulated in
Avg. rate 3.25 4.32
Tables 2 and 3. The total amounts of irrigation water
Sum 386.75 514.36
applied during the season for wheat in the (IIS) and (ICS)

123
Appl Water Sci (2011) 1:73–83 79

Table 2 Weekly irrigation water added (Dg) to wheat crop for IIS treatment gives 17.64% lesser amount than that applied for
treatments the ICS treatment.
Growth Water Irrigation depth Accumulative depth The weekly accumulative irrigation water added (Dg) to
period (week) added (m3) (Dg) (mm) (Dg)c (mm) wheat throughout crop growing period for both treatments
were plotted in Fig. 3. The analysis of these two curves
0 0
points out that their values were close only in the initial
1 4.88 22.59 22.59
development stages of wheat and extremely great differ-
2 6.10 28.24 50.83
ences appear in the late season at full maturity of the crop.
3 4.55 21.06 71.90
4 9.19 42.55 114.44
Water application for tomato
5 2.60 12.04 126.48
6 4.64 21.48 147.96
Similarly, the irrigation for tomato crop was initiated and
7 4.55 21.06 169.03
terminated according to the data collected and processed by
8 5.04 23.33 192.36
the intelligent system. The convenient irrigation time for
9 6.43 29.77 222.13 both treatments, IIS and ICS, also were at early morning.
10 6.51 30.14 252.27 For IIS treatments, the schedule irrigation based on weather
11 7.56 35.00 287.27 parameters measurements. In addition, readings were taken
12 6.83 31.62 318.89 from provided sensors and recorded continuously during
13 6.75 31.25 350.14 the season. Then, they were automatically retrieved and in
14 13.99 64.77 414.91 determining initiating or terminating irrigation event.
15 11.39 52.73 467.64 Configuration of the system was used to be changed to
Sum 101.01 467.64 meet the needs of plants.
The ETo rates for tomato control experiment were
measured by the automatic weather station similar to wheat
control treatment using modified Penman Method, FAO
Table 3 Weekly irrigation water added (Dg) to wheat crop for ICS
version. Daily ETo measurements were multiplied by
treatments
adequate crop coefficients to accurately provide ETc and
Growth Water Irrigation depth Accumulative depth were used to efficiently schedule automated micro irriga-
period (week) added (m3) (Dg) (mm) (Dg)c (mm)
tion systems. Table 4 shows the crop coefficient (Kc) for
0 tomato to be multiplied by ETo for different stages of crop
1 6.1 28.24 28.24 development to determine ETc.
2 6.83 31.62 59.86 Weekly ETc values for tomato versus crop growth per-
3 5.21 24.12 83.98 iod under IIS and ICS were shown in Fig. 4. From this
4 8.3 38.43 122.41 figure, it can be depicted that ETc rates for ICS were higher
5 5.45 25.23 147.64 than those for IIS and following similar trends during
6 6.34 29.35 176.99 whole growth season. The analysis of these two curves
7 6.43 29.77 206.76 points out that their values were close only in the initial
8 6.75 31.25 238.01 development stages. Extremely great differences appear in
9 7.4 34.26 272.27 the 3rd–7th weeks of season. This means that during this
10 6.9 31.94 304.21 growing period the water application was much more in
11 7.33 33.94 338.15 ICS treatment than IIS. This may explain that tomato plants
12 7.51 34.77 372.92 were not exposed to water deficient nor to stress through
13 9.53 44.12 417.04
crop growth period. From this conclusion, it can be inter-
14 12.83 59.40 476.44
preted that the IIS more appropriates to irrigate vegetables,
such as tomato, coupled with drip irrigation system than for
15 19.76 91.48 567.92
cereal crops using sprinkle irrigation under arid conditions.
Sum 122.67 567.92
The reason of excesses on irrigation water applied could be
due to the adopted Kc values as obtained from literature for
variety region.
treatments were 467.68 and 567.87 mm (4,676.8 m3/ha Weekly irrigation water (Dg) added to tomato crop for
and 5,678.7 m3/ha), respectively. These amounts were less IIS and ICS treatments were calculated and tabulated in
than the amount of irrigation water practiced by the framers Tables 5 and 6. From these tables the total amounts of
in the region, which was at least 6,000 m3/ha. The IIS irrigation water applied during the season for tomato in the

123
80 Appl Water Sci (2011) 1:73–83

Fig. 3 Weekly accumulative

irrigation water added (Dg) to
wheat crop during the growth
period for IIS and ICS
treatments

Table 4 Weekly ETc for tomato crop under the two treatments IIS (IIS) and (ICS) treatments were 481.92 and 660.17 mm
and ICS (4,819.2 and 6,601.7 m3/ha), respectively. These amounts
Growth period ETc for IIS ETo Kc ETc for ICS were less than the amount of irrigation water practiced by
(week) (mm/day) (mm/day) (mm/day) the framers in the area. The total volume of water normally
applied for irrigating tomato in Riyadh area was 7,202 m3/
1 2.58 4.80 0.70 3.36
ha using drip irrigation method. The IIS was 27% less than
2 3.72 5.33 0.70 3.73
that applied for the ICS treatment, which was less than that
3 4.44 5.45 1.15 5.93
amount applied normally by farmers in Riyadh regions.
4 4.60 6.18 1.15 7.11
The weekly accumulative irrigation water added (Dg) to
5 5.13 6.20 1.15 7.14
tomato throughout crop growing period for both Systems
6 5.16 6.48 1.15 7.45
were presented in Fig. 5. The analysis of these two curves
7 4.95 5.41 1.15 6.23
points out that their values were close only in the initial
8 4.76 5.73 0.9 5.56
development stages and extremely spreading out gradually
9 5.28 6.96 0.9 6.26
along the season.
10 5.38 6.96 0.9 6.26
11 5.08 6.57 0.9 5.91 Statically analysis of yield
12 5.03 6.17 0.9 5.55
13 4.77 6.63 0.75 5.23 Wheat crop data were statistically analyzed and the least
14 3.39 5.91 0.75 4.43 significant differences (LSD) test was used to compare
Avg. rate 4.59 5.73 means at the 5% level. These values under two water
Sum 449.85 561.54 treatments were shown in Table 7. The agronomical data of

Fig. 4 Weekly ETc for tomato

vs. crop growth period for IIS
and ICS treatments

123
Appl Water Sci (2011) 1:73–83 81

Table 5 Irrigation water added (Dg) to tomato crop for IIS treatments the water treatment revealed significant variation in grain
Growing Water Irrigation depth Accumulative depth yield, biological yield, harvest index 1,000 kernel weight,
period (week) added (m3) (Dg) (mm) (Dg)c (mm) Spike length, plant height and WUE. The average grain
yield was 6.10 and 5.07 ton/ha for Control and Intelligent
1 0.97 19.52 19.52
2 0.68 13.54 33.06
systems treatments, respectively. The average biological
3 1.06 21.32 54.38
yield was 16.02 and 13.35 ton/ha for the same treatments,
4 1.64 32.62 87.00 respectively. Grain yield in intelligent irrigation technique
5 1.46 29.20 116.20 (IIS) was 17% less when compared to the control treatment
6 1.82 36.31 152.51 (ICS). In the aforementioned table, the harvest index,
7 1.72 34.44 186.95 1,000-kernel weight, and plant height the highest values
8 1.99 39.70 226.65 also obtained for control technique were given. In addition,
9 2.08 41.70 268.35 WUE had the highest values in IIS treatment (1.31 kg/m3)
10 2.09 41.84 310.19 compared to the ICS treatment (0.89 kg/m3) as shown in
11 2.14 42.87 353.06 Table 7.
12 2.35 46.91 399.97 A summary of the vegetative growth, fruit and Yield
13 3.00 60.07 460.04 characters for tomato plants growing in IIS and ICS
14 1.10 21.88 481.92 treatments were presented in Table 8. The agronomical
Sum 24.10 481.92 3,149.8
data of both water treatments showed signs of good growth
during the growing season. The average tomato yield was
Table 6 Irrigation water added (Dg) to tomato crop for ICS treatment 39.2 and 34.4 ton/ha for IIS and ICS water treatments,
Growing Water Irrigation depth Accumulative depth respectively. Comparing the tomato yield between IIS and
period (week) added (m3) (Dg) (mm) (Dg)t (mm) ICS treatments, the variation was 14.5%. The reason the
1 1.71 34.16 34.16 IIS resulting in greater yield than ICS could be attributed to
2 1.60 32.03 66.19 the variation of amount of water added to the two treat-
3 2.33 46.61 112.80 ments and the timing of irrigation. Comparing the yield of
4 2.53 50.54 163.34 tomato obtained with the average in the Riyadh region, we
5 2.66 53.16 216.50 found that the quantity obtained was in the upper limit of
6 2.94 58.78 275.28 the overall output.
7 3.03 60.54 335.82
8 2.98 59.48 395.30
9 2.46 49.22 444.52 Conclusions
10 2.65 52.82 497.34
11 2.39 47.93 545.27 The study was conducted with sprinkler and drip irrigation
12 1.69 33.74 579.01
systems, which were commonly used with these two types
13 2.80 55.91 634.92
of crops. The intelligent ICS has been successfully chosen,
14 1.26 25.25 660.17
implemented and functioned in the field. The system con-
Sum 33.03 660.17 4,960.62
figuration was changed to meet the water requirements

Fig. 5 Weekly cumulative 700

Cumulative depth of water added (mm)

irrigation water added (Dg) to (Dg)c, IIS for Tomato

(Dg)c, ICS for Tomato
tomato crop during the growth 600
period for IIS and ICS
treatments
500

400 y (ICS) = 0.0701x 3 - 0.8507x 2 + 31.868x

R2 = 0.9986

300

200 y (IIS) = 0.0526x 3 - 0.594x 2 + 26.328x

R2 = 0.9967
100

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Crop growth period (Week)

123
82 Appl Water Sci (2011) 1:73–83

Table 7 Statistical analyses of wheat crop data Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, dis-
Treatment GY BY HI KW PH SPL WUE tribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original
(ton/ (ton/ (%) (gm) (cm) (cm) (kg/m3) author(s) and source are credited.
ha) ha)

IIS 5.07b 13.35b 0.38 39.12b 49.50b 9.5 1.31a

a a a a
ICS 6.10 16.02 0.38 47.68 66.25 10.0 0.89b
LSD 0.85 2.58 NS 5.21 3.18 NS 0.17 References
(0.05)
Allen RG, Pereira LS, Raes D, Smith M (1998) Crop evapotranspi-
GY grain yield, SPL spike length, BY biological yield, PH plant ration guidelines for computing crop water requirements. FAO
height, HI harvest index, Kw 1,000 kernel weight, WUE water-use Irrigation and Drainage Paper No 56, p 301
efficiency, NS not Significant American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers (ASABE)
a
Significant at 0.05 level Standard S436.1 (2007) Test procedure for determining the
b
Significant at 0.05 level uniformity of water distribution of center pivot and lateral move
irrigation machines equipped with spray or sprinkler nozzles.
ASABE, St. Joseph
Capraro F, Schugurensky C, Vita F, Tosetti S, Lage A, Patiño D
Table 8 Vegetative growth, fruit and yield characters for tomato (2008) Intelligent irrigation in grapevines: a way to obtain
plants different wine characteristics. 17th FAC World Congress, Seoul,
Characters IIS treatment ICS treatment Korea.
Colin A, Whitford YD (1996) Intelligent irrigation (Booklet). Cohort
Plant height (cm) 44 39 International Pty Ltd, Australia
Dassanayake DK, Dassanayake H, Malano GM, Dunn Douglas P,
Number of branches 6 5
Langford J (2009) Water saving through smarter irrigation in
Fruit length (cm) 6.3 5.7 Australian dairy farming: use of intelligent irrigation controller
Fruit diameter (cm) 4.6 4.8 and wireless sensor network. 18th World IMACS/MODSIM
Fruit shape index (length/diameter) 1.37 1.2 Congress, Cairns, Australia, pp 4409–4417
Iserman R, Lachmann K, Matko D (1992) Adaptive control systems.
Average fruit weight (g) 95.0 93.0 Prentice Hall, London
Early yield (kg/m2)a 2.36 2.40 Kuo BC (1995) Automatic control systems, 7th edn. Prentice Hall,
Early yield (ton/ha) 23.6 24.0 London
Lozano D, Mateos L (2007) Usefulness and limitations of decision
Total yield (kg/m2) 3.92 3.74
support systems for improving irrigation scheme management.
Total yield (ton/ha) 39.2 34.4 J. Agric Water Manage 95(4):409–418
a McCready MS, Dukes MD, Miller GL (2009) Water conservation
The first fife harvests
potential of smart irrigation controllers on St Augustine grass.
J Agric Water Manage 96:1623–1632
according to the crop growth stages. There were some Mendez-Barroso LA, Payan JG, Vivoni ER (2008) Quantifying water
options to choose for supplying more water or less stress on wheat using remote sensing in the Yaqui Valley,
Sonora, Mexico. Agric Water Manage 95(6):725–736
according to the needs of plants. In this study, the system
Merriam JL, Kelle RJ (1978) Farm irrigation system evaluation: a
was preset to operate with 80% of ET. The intelligent guide for management. Utah State University, Logan
irrigation system along with the controllers works ade- Michael D, Dukes MD (2008) Water conservation potential of smart
quately and in a very accurate manner. This system showed irrigation controllers. In: 5th National decennial irrigation confer-
ence proceedings, Phoenix convention center, Phoenix, AZ, USA
its ability to provide more water for irrigation and has a
IRR10-9520. ASABE 2950 Niles Road, St. Joseph, MI 49085
potential for saving more water compared to irrigation Muñoz-Carpena R, Dukes MD (2005) Automatic irrigation based on
scheduling based on ET measurements. All of the tech- soil moisture for vegetable crops IFAS extension. University of
nologies tested (IIS) managed to reduce water application Florida
Muñoz-Carpena R, Li Y, Olczyk T (2003) Alternatives for low cost
compared to the ICS and ET controllers resulted in water
soil moisture monitoring devices for vegetable production in the
savings ranging from 18 to 27%. Overall, the proper south Miami-Dade County agricultural area. Fact Sheet ABE
installation and set-up of each of the technologies tested 333 of the Department of Agriculture and Biological Engineer-
here was an important factor in determining the effec- ing, University of Florida
Nautiyal M, Grabow G, Miller G, Huffman RL (2010) Evaluation of
tiveness to which each system could reduce water
two smart irrigation technologies in Cary, North Carolina. An
application. ASABE Meeting Presentation, Paper Number: 1009581. Pre-
sentation at the ASABE Annual International Meeting, David L.
Acknowledgments The authors wish to thank The National Plan for Lawrence Convention Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Sciences and Technology (King Saud University in cooperation with Norum MN, Adhikari D (2009) Smart irrigation system controllers.
King Abdul-Aziz City for Sciences and Technology) for providing In: 7th World Congress on computers in agriculture conference
funds to undertake this work through Grant No. 08-WAT327-2. proceedings, Reno, Nevada. ASABE, St. Joseph, Michigan

123
Appl Water Sci (2011) 1:73–83 83

Playán E, Mateos L (2006) Modernization and optimization of modernization of irrigation schemes: past experiences and future
irrigation systems to increase water productivity. Agric Water options, Bangkok, Thailand, 26–29 Nov, Food and Agricultural
Manage 80:100–116 Organization of the United Nations
Smajstrla AG, Locascio SJ (1997) Tensiometer-controlled, drip Zazueta FS, Smajstrla A, Clark GA (1994) Irrigation system
scheduling of tomato. Appl Eng Agric 12(3):315–319 controllers. Sheet SS-AGE-22. Department of Agricultural and
Wolter HW, Burt CM (1996) Concepts for irrigation system Biological Engineering, Florida Cooperative Extension Service,
modernization. In: Proceedings of the expert consultation on Institute of Food and Agriculture sciences, University of Florida

123