Downloaded 39 times
More Related Content
Similar to Rudnick 2017 water seminar-3
Rudnick 2017 water seminar-3
- 1. Advancements in IrrigationTechnology and their Impact on Water Management Spring2017WaterSeminarSeriesLincoln,NE March15,2017 DaranR.Rudnick,Ph.D. AssistantProfessor:IrrigationSpecialist DepartmentofBiologicalSystemsEngineering WestCentralResearchandExtension Center UniversityofNebraska-Lincoln Phone:(308)696-6709,Email:daran.rudnick@unl.edu
- 2. Personal Background • Hometown:South Sioux City, Nebraska • Education: • B.S. Biological Systems Engineering, UNL, 2011 • M.S. Agricultural and Biological Systems Engineering, UNL, 2013 • Ph.D. Agricultural and Biological Systems Engineering, UNL, 2015 • Appointment: • Irrigation Management Specialist (50% Research/ 50% Extension) Hometown South Sioux City, NE WCREC North Platte, NE UNL Lincoln, NE
- 3. Research Team • TurnerDorr: Irrigation Research Technologist II • Tsz Him Lo: PhD Graduate Research Assistant • Jasreman Singh: MS Graduate Research Assistant • Jacob Nickel: Irrigation Research Technician • Bridgett Dorr: Program Assistant Himmy Lo Jasreman Singh Turner Dorr & Bridgett Dorr
- 4. Acknowledgement This study isbased upon work that was jointly supported by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA-NIFA) under award numbers 2016-68007- 25066 and 2016-68008-25078, United States Geological Survey Section 104B under award number G16AP00068, and the Daugherty Water for Food Global Institute under award number 01117420. Also thankful for industry support through providing equipment and services.
- 5. Why do weIrrigate??? When precipitation and stored soil water in the crop root zone are insufficient to meet crop evapotranspiration (ET) demand, irrigation is required. Insufficient Irrigation can reduce: • Total Biomass • Grain Yield • Grain Quality • Net Return ($ per ha) Excessive irrigation can result in: • Runoff • Soil Erosion • Deep Percolation of Water (and Nutrients) • Environmental Degradation • Anaerobic Soil Conditions (Yield Penalty) • Increased Pumping Cost (i.e., energy cost) Source: Irmak (2009), Rudnick and Irmak (2015)
- 6. Nebraska Precipitation Precipitation, mm 100- 200 200 - 250 250 - 300 300 - 350 350 - 400 400 - 450 450 - 500 500 - 550 550 - 650 > 650 2000 2005 2010 Lng-Term Avg. Precipitation Increases West to East Irrigation Increases East to West Source: Rudnick et al. (2015)
- 7. Nebraska: Density ofRegistered Irrigation Wells 2007
- 8. Nebraska: Nitrate GroundwaterContamination Recorded concentration of nitrate (NO3) in irrigation wells from 1974 to 2012 (Quality- Assessed Agrichemical Database for Nebraska Groundwater, 2013). EPA Maximum Contamination Level (MCL) is 10 ppm
- 9. Effects of Over-or Under Irrigating Impact of Water Stress Full Irrigation Deficit Irrigation Rainfed Source: Jeff Golus Runoff and Soil Erosion Source: Pioneer.com High Soil Water Content
- 11. Crop Water Requirements Dependson: • Crop Type & Variety • Growth Stage • Soil Water & Nutrient Availability • Soil Physical & Chemical Properties • Micrometeorological Conditions • Among others Corn crop water use or daily evapotranspiration (ET) from a well-watered crop. The smooth line (A) depicts long-term daily ET and the jagged line (B) depicts daily ET for an individual year. (Taken from UNL NebGuide G1850, http://extensionpublications.unl.edu/assets/pdf/g1850.pdf). Corn Water Use (inch per day)
- 12. Water Demand fromVarious Sectors Climate Industry
- 13. Groundwater Declines inthe Ogallala Aquifer • Water level changes in the High Plains Aquifer, pre-development through 2007 • Groundwater is connected to surface water • Reduction in groundwater levels can limit water available for irrigation • Consequently, restrictions have been enforced in areas to sustain and/or extend the useable life of the aquifer for future generations Source: McGuire (2009) as modified from Lowry et al. (1967); Luckey et al. (1981); Gutentag et al. (1984); and Burbach (2007). Taken from Konikow (2013)
- 14. • Nebraska NaturalResource Districts (NRDs) water management regulations can include: • Allocating groundwater • Augmenting surface water • Requiring flow meters • Instituting well drilling moratoriums • Requiring water use reports • Restricting expansion of irrigated acres Nebraska Natural Resource Districts Allocations Updated February 2014 • Upper Niobrara-White NRD • 54” per 4 years • North Platte NRD • 70” per 5 years • & Pumpkin Creek = 36” per 3 years • South Platte NRD • 42 to 54” per 3 years (by subarea) • Upper Republican NRD • 65” per 5 years • Middle Republican NRD • 60” per 5 years • Twin Platte NRD • No allocation • Upper Loup NRD • No allocation • Middle Niobrara NRD • No allocation
- 15. Conventional Sprinkler Irrigation Applyinga uniform depth of water per area through the irrigation system to meet average crop water demands of a field. Source: pintrest.com
- 16.
- 17. Irrigation Distribution Uniformity 1. 2. 4. 3. Source:ASAE (2003) Source: Chuck Burr
- 18. Mobile Drip Irrigation(MDI) System Types • Sprinkler (Senninger IWob) & MDI Irrigation Levels • Full, Deficit, & Rainfed Residue Levels • No-Removal & Baling
- 19. MDI Research • PreliminaryResults • Similar grain yields and kernel weights across system types • Future Research Efforts • Crop Water Use (ET) • Long-term trends in production & water use
- 20. Variable Rate Irrigation SystemDescription
- 21. Variable Rate Irrigation(VRI) Applying variable depths or rates of water through an irrigation system to meet differences in crop water demands, soil conditions, and/or other constraints. 0.60 – 0.90 m 0.30 – 0.60 m 0 – 0.30 m Available Water Capacity, mm Source: Rudnick and Irmak (2014a, 2014b)
- 22. Types of VRI Dependingon system and controller VRI can be managed in sectors, bank of sprinklers, or individual sprinklers. Fixed Zone Control Irregular Zone ControlSector/Speed Control
- 23. Speed/Sector Control • Changesend tower speed at specified angular positions • Modifies application depth in sectors of the circular pass • Alters application duration but not application intensity • Does not affect sprinklers, system curve, or pump performance curve Sector/Speed Control 15 mm 20 mm 25 mmapplication intensity time at a given radius from pivot point
- 24. Sprinkler Control • Changesdischarge of individual or banks of sprinklers • Relies on valves directly upstream from sprinkler • Changes in sprinkler discharge achieved by pulsing • Turns off a sprinkler for a fraction of a cycle • Optimizes timing to minimize flow rate oscillations • Modifies application depth in more flexibly shaped zones as compared to sector control Solenoid Valve Pressure Regulator Sprinkler
- 25. Video of PulsingSprinklers
- 26. Sprinkler Control • Individualor groups of sprinklers (i.e., banks of sprinklers) • Changes in application depth accommodated by • Speed of pivot • Pulsing of sprinklers • Management zone must be greater than sprinkler throw diameter (consider sprinkler overlap!). More zones = more work! Fixed Zone Control 15 mm 20 mm 25 mmapplication intensity time sprinklers at a given radius from pivot point Irregular Zone Control
- 27. Example: Fixed ZonePivot at Big Springs, NE Span 1 - 6: On Span 7-8: Off Primary Valve Secondary Valves Smallest Zone 1ᵒ Change Span Control Controller
- 28. Example: Sprinkler ControlledPivot at Grant, NE
- 29. Variable Frequency Drive(VFD) • VFD speeds up or slows down the pump motor to reach a desired operating pressure or flow rate • Adopting VFD will depend on flow rate & pressure changes within the system (is it economical?) • High or premium efficiency motors are often required
- 30. Irrigation Management Technology Benefits& Challenges
- 31. Irrigation and NFertilizer Management A primary research and production goal is to further improve irrigation and nitrogen use efficiency to enhance economic return as well as prevent environmental degradation. Addressing the following will aid in this effort. • Reduce uncertainty in measuring/estimating crop water and nitrogen requirements • Account for spatial and temporal differences in crop water and nitrogen demand • Accurately apply inputs to minimize losses • Irrigation: runoff, percolation, evaporation • Nitrogen (depends on N type): volatilization, leaching, de-nitrification, runoff • Concurrently manage irrigation and nitrogen fertilizer • Fertigation is a step forward in this direction
- 32. Some Useful Informationfor Irrigation Management Information (Source): • Historical Records (Yield data, compaction issues, etc.) • Soil Properties (NRCS soil surveys, ECa mapping) • Topography (DEM-digital elevation maps via survey, LiDar, etc.) • Field Conditions (Residue level, pest pressure, nutrient availability, etc.) • Visual Observations (Drainage ways, streams, roads, etc.) • Soil Water Status (Soil water sensors) • Evaporative Demand (Climatic variables via weather station) • Crop Water Stress (Thermal sensors) • Crop Growth and Condition (Canopy reflectance, visual imagery, and crop models) • Remote Access to System (Telemetry) • System Performance (Pressure transducers, telemetry, etc.)
- 33. Management Zone Delineation •Apparent Electrical Conductivity (ECa) • Easy to measure and relatively low cost • Indirect indicator of important soil physical and chemical characteristics • Commonly used for VRI application • Some Factors Impacting ECa • Clay content and mineralogy • Soil salinity • Cation exchange capacity • Soil pore size distribution • Temperature • Organic matter content • Soil water content Source: Rudnick and Irmak (2014)
- 34. ECa Response Curvevs. Rooting Depth Source: Irmak and Rudnick, 2014 Crop Type Total Rooting Depth (ft) Effective Rooting Depth (ft) Alfalfa 8 – 12 4 – 5 Corn 5 – 6 3 – 4 Sorghum 6 – 7 3 – 4 Soybean 5 – 6 2 – 3 Winter Wheat 4 – 5 2 – 3 Mature Growth Stage, under well drained, deep silt loam soils
- 35. ECa vs. SoilHydraulic Properties Sources: Rudnick and Irmak (2014) 𝐴𝑊𝐻𝐶 = 𝐹𝐶 − 𝑊𝑃 × 𝑅𝐷 AWHC: Available Water Holding Capacity FC: Field Capacity WP: Wilting Point RD: Rooting Depth Soil Type Available Water (in/ft) Silt Loam 2.5 Sandy Clay Loam 2.0 Silty Clay Loam 2.0 Silty Clay 1.6 Sandy Loam 1.4 Loamy Sand 1.1 Fine Sand 1.0
- 36. Available Water Diagram forIrrigation using Soil Water Sensors Management Zone Water Freely Drains Crop Water Stress Zone Water Not Available to the Crop Dry Soil Saturation Field Capacity MAD = Trigger Point Latest Start Date Wilting Point Irrigation Soil Water Sensor
- 37. Some In-Situ SoilWater Sensor Companies
- 38. Soil Water Sensors& ETgage Campbell Scientific CS616 SWC Campbell Scientific CS655 SWC, Temp, & EC MPS-2 or MPS-6 5TE EC-5 SWP & Temp SWC, Temp, & EC SWC ---------- Decagon Devices ---------- Stevens Hydra Probe II SWC, Temp, & EC Acclima True TDR SWC, Temp, & EC Irrometer Watermark SWP Irrometer Tensiometer SWP ETgage (Atmometer) Reference ET Legend: SWP: Soil Water Potential SWC: Soil Water Content Temp: Soil Temperature EC: Bulk Electrical Conductivity
- 39. In-Field Sensor Evaluation Sensors: •AquaSpy • AquaCheck • John Deere Field Connect • Hortau • Decagon 5TE, EC5, MPS-2, MPS-6 • Stevens Hydraprobe • Acclima TDR315 • Campbell Scientific CS616 & CS655 • CPN Neutron Gauge • Irrometer Watermark, Tensiometer Year: 2016 Location: North Platte, NE Crop Type: Soybean Loam Soil little salinity
- 40. In-Field Sensor Performance • AllSensors tended to over-estimate θv (m3 m-3) Combined Depths Sensor MD SDD RMSD TDR315 0.047 0.019 0.050 CS655 0.056 0.055 0.078 HydraProbe2 0.095 0.036 0.102 5TE 0.036 0.015 0.039 EC5 0.048 0.026 0.054 CS616 0.149 0.051 0.157 Field Connect* 0.079 0.027 0.083 AquaCheck* 0.162 0.017 0.163
- 41. Evaluation of CalibrationTechniques • Offset Calibration • 2 Point Calibration • Regression Fitting • Retention Fitting • Laboratory Calibration Offset Example: • Take one accurate measurement in-season • Offset all other points • Assumption: Regression response is linear with a slope of 1 Well-Performing Offset Calibration
- 42. In-Field Regression Calibrations Regression Response •5 Linear and 19 Quadratic Linear Responses • Estimate of intercept > zero • Linear Coefficient < one • Sensors are more sensitive than reference Quadratic Responses • Sensitivity generally increased with θv within the observed θv range
- 43. Laboratory Calibrations • Mostsensors tended to over- estimate θv in the lower observed θv range. • Variability in sensor performance was observed between lab and field calibrations.
- 44. Laboratory Calibration Techniques Repackedversus Intact Soil Cores • Different drying trends • Repacked slightly underestimated water content
- 45. Statewide Soil Experiment • FiveSoil Types • Four Salinity Levels • Two Sensors Evaluated • TDR 315 & CS655 weight % of soil solids weight % of mineral fraction g cm-3 Soil Organic Matter Sand Silt Clay Target Bulk Density V 0.2 (0.0) 88 (1) 7 (1) 5 (1) 1.6 C 2.1 (0.1) 55 (3) 23 (3) 22 (0) 1.3 K 2.6 (0.1) 35 (2) 35 (3) 30 (2) 1.3 H 2.4 (0.1) 14 (3) 40 (5) 46 (2) 1.4 W 2.5 (0.1) 8 (4) 42 (1) 49 (4) 1.4
- 46. Instrumentation for VRIResearch Research Questions • How to collect and analyze different information of various spatiotemporal resolutions to inform VRI scheduling and prescription generation? • Would VRI affect nitrogen management? If so, how can irrigation and nitrogen management be optimized simultaneously?
- 47. Year 1 ManagementZones and Treatments • Two management zones—one consisting of gravelly soils and another consisting of non-gravelly soils • Zones were delineated using ECa, assuming lower ECa represents gravelly soils • Full irrigation (F): attempt to eliminate any water stress • Conventional (C): uniform irrigation based on the non-gravelly soil • Deficit irrigation (D): allow water stress during less sensitive growth stages • Non-irrigated (R): no irrigation
- 48. Sprinkler Controlled Pivotat Brule, NE
- 49. Point-Based Water StatusData AquaCheck multisensor capacitance probe neutron moisture meter wireless infrared thermometer scaled frequency units 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 D F C R D F R TotalWaterin0-0.9m June 23rd, 2016 0-0.3 m 0.3-0.6 m 0.6-0.9 m non-gravellygravelly irrigation: soil: 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 D F C R D F R TotalWaterin0-0.9m October 3rd, 2016 0-0.3 m 0.3-0.6 m 0.6-0.9 m non-gravellygravelly irrigation: soil: 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0:00 8:00 16:00 0:00 8:00 16:00 0:00 SurfaceTemperature(°C) Time fully irrigated deficit irrigated
- 50. Visible Imaging deficit irrigatedfully irrigated deficit irrigatedfully irrigated August 1st,2016 (silking) September 26th, 2016 (30% milk line)
- 51. Thermal Infrared Imagingaerial image taken by AirScout ground-based images taken using FLIR E60 non-irrigated fully irrigated
- 52. Radiometric Temperature Instruments • InfraredThermometers (IRTs) • Aerial Thermal Imagery (Airscout) Observations • Airscout observed smaller ranges in Temp as well as lower Temp values. AirScout thermal (left) and visible (right) image of the Brule site on 9/26/2016; the 12 monitoring locations are marked and labeled, and the rainbow color scale from blue to red in the thermal image denotes radiometric temperatures from low to high.
- 53. Collaborative VRI Research •Irrigation Management using Remote Sensing • Research project initiated at UNL Brule Water Laboratory in 2016 • Collaboration: • Burdette Barker • PhD Graduate Student • UNL Biological Systems Engineering • Derek Heeren • Assistant Professor: Irrigation Engineer • UNL Biological Systems Engineering • Christopher Neale • Director of Research • Water for Food Daugherty Global Institute
- 54. WCREC Research Site: Brule,NE Elevation (m) Topographic Map University of Nebraska-Lincoln West Central Research and Extension Center Brule Water Laboratory near Brule, NE 0 - 2 2 - 4 4 - 6 6 - 8 8 - 10 10 - 12 Slope (%) Soft Edge 1073 - 1075 1070 - 1073 1067 - 1070 1064 - 1067 1061 - 1064 1058 - 1061 1055 - 1058 1052 - 1055 1050 - 1052 ±
- 55. Irrigation Management UsingRemote Sensing Multispectral Imagery(Spatial– LowTemporal) Soils Map Weather Data (High Temporal) Previous Irrigation Maps New Irrigation Prescription and Schedule RS – Based Hybrid Water Balance Model Neale, C.M.U., Geli, H.M.E., Kustas, W.P., Alfieri, J.G., Gowda, P.H., Evett, S.R., Prueger, J.H., Hipps, L.E., Dulaney, W.P., Chavez, J.L., French, A.N., and Howell, T.A. (2012). Soil water content estimation using a remote sensing based hybrid evapotranspiration modeling approach. Advances in Water Resources, 50, 152-161.
- 56. VRI System atResearch Center
- 57. Experimental Layout atWCREC • Treatments • RS-based VRI management • Conventional or “uniform” management using water balance • Blocked by available water capacity zones (determined from neutron probe and soil series) • Continuous maize crop ~49 ha • Individual sprinkler zone control VRI Aerial Image Source: USDA-FSA (2014). USDA-FSA-APFO NAIP MrSID Mosaic for Keith County, Nebraska. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Aerial Photography Field Office, National Agricultural Imagery Program.
- 58. Preliminary Results WCREC IrrigationDepth: • Conventional: 324 mm • VRI w/ Remote Sensing: 342 mm Variability in seasonal irrigation amount.
- 59. Fertigation Research Demonstrate thepotential for improving nitrogen use efficiency (NUE) while optimizing profitability through the use of canopy reflectance and crop N modeling techniques. • Collaboration: • Brian Krienke • Suat Irmak • Richard Ferguson • Tim Shaver • Charles Shapiro • Keith Glewen • Locations: • West Central Research and Extension Center, North Platte, NE, USA • South Central Agricultural Laboratory, Clay Center, NE, USA
- 60. Variable Rate Fertigation(VRF) Applying variable amounts or rates of fertilizer through an irrigation distribution system to meet spatial and temporal differences in crop nutrient demands, soil conditions, and/or other constraints. VRF Scenarios: • VRF with variable rate fertigation pump • Uniform Irrigation and Variable Fertilizer • Variable Irrigation and Uniform Fertilizer • VRF with constant rate fertigation pump • Use VRI technology with uniform fertilizer speed
- 61. Thank You! The mentionof trade names or commercial products in and during this presentation does not constitute an endorsement or recommendation for use by the University of Nebraska-Lincoln or the author.