Evaluation of variable rate irrigation using a remote-sensing-based model

J. Burdette Barker, Derek M. Heeren, Christopher M.U. Neale and Daran R. Rudnick

Agricultural Water Management, 2018, vol. 203, issue C, 63-74

Abstract: Improvements in soil water balance modeling can be beneficial for optimizing irrigation management to account for spatial variability in soil properties and evapotranspiration (ET). A remote-sensing-based ET and water balance model was tested for irrigation management in an experiment at two University of Nebraska-Lincoln research sites located near Mead and Brule, Nebraska. Both fields included a center pivot equipped with variable rate irrigation (VRI). The study included maize in 2015 and 2016 and soybean in 2016 at Mead, and maize in 2016 at Brule, for a total of 210 plot-years. Four irrigation treatments were applied at Mead, including: VRI based on a remote sensing model (VRI-RS); VRI based on neutron probe soil water content measurement (VRI-NP); uniform irrigation based on neutron probe measurement; and rainfed. Only the VRI-RS and uniform treatments were applied at Brule. Landsat 7 and 8 imagery were used for model input. In 2015, the remote sensing model included reflectance-based crop coefficients for ET estimation in the water balance. In 2016, a hybrid component of the model was activated, which included energy-balance-modeled ET as an input. Both 2015 and 2016 had above-average precipitation at Mead; subsequently, irrigation amounts were relatively low. Seasonal irrigation was greatest for the VRI-RS treatment in all cases because of drift in the water balance model. This was likely caused by excessive soil evaporation estimates. Irrigation application for the VRI-NP at Mead was about 0 mm, 6 mm, and –12 mm less in separate analyses than for the uniform treatment. Irrigation for the VRI-RS was about 40 mm, 50 mm, and –98 mm greater in separate analyses than the uniform at Mead and about 18 mm greater at Brule. For maize at Mead, treatment effects were primarily limited to hydrologic responses (e.g., ET), with differences in yield generally attributed to random error. Rainfed soybean yields were greater than VRI-RS yields, which may have been related to yield loss from lodging, perhaps due to over-irrigation. Regarding the magnitude of spatial variability in the fields, soil available water capacity generally ranked above ET, precipitation, and yield. Future research should include increased cloud-free imagery frequency, incorporation of soil water content measurements into the model, and improved wet soil evaporation and drainage estimates.

Keywords: Evapotranspiration; Remote sensing; Soil water balance; Variable rate irrigation (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2018
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (13)

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378377418301082
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:agiwat:v:203:y:2018:i:c:p:63-74

DOI: 10.1016/j.agwat.2018.02.022

Access Statistics for this article

Agricultural Water Management is currently edited by B.E. Clothier, W. Dierickx, J. Oster and D. Wichelns

More articles in Agricultural Water Management from Elsevier
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Catherine Liu ().