WORKING SESSION 3:

Optimising irrigation
management, which tools?
ANIMATOR: Rodney Thompson (University of Almeria, Spain)
SECRETARY: Benjamin Gard (APREL, France)
PARTICIPANTS: Everybody present
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research
and innovation programme under grant agreement No 689687
 Our objectives

• To identify the best tools, considering:

– Crop type, geography (water quality, irrigation frequency)
– Different technical level of growers
• To identify what is preventing more adoption of these
tools
– Do we need modifications or newer tools,
– Do we need carrots (e.g. subsidies) or sticks (e.g.
legislation)
• To determine how we can increase adoption?

This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation
programme under grant agreement No 689687
 To evaluate available tools, consider:
• effectiveness
• ease-of use (“farmer-friendly”)
• robustness
• existing use in horticulture/agriculture (feedback from growers)
• availability of relevant background information
– reference values (“limits”) for sensors
– ETo equations and Kc values for FAO approach
• the need for support
• context: crop type, farming system
• suitability to different types of growers
• cost
• anything else? Suggestions?
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation
programme under grant agreement No 689687
 Preliminary results from survey
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS - ATTITUDES
• Growers generally aware that tools available
• Growers reluctant to use newer technologies, “why changing a winning
team?”
• Recommendations from other growers & research stations have influence
• Concern for cost of implementing new technologies
• Some growers expressed an interest, but were concerned of cost
• Spain (GHs; Almeria): Fertigation not investment priority, once have system
• Smaller growers particularly concerned about costs
• RT Question: Are costs so large?

This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation
programme under grant agreement No 689687
 Preliminary results from FN survey
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS - PRACTICES
SUBSTRATE-GROWN CROPS
• Dutch/Belgium GHs: climate sensors often used; automated; water often
recycled
• Spanish GHs-substrate: demand tray system used; auto irrigation; free-
draining
SOIL-GROWN CROPS
• Spain-general: strong interest in automatic irrigation; tools as labor-saving
devices. Cost seen as barrier
• Irrigation scheduling is largely based on experience
• Little adoption of tools that can help to optimize irrigation

This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation
programme under grant agreement No 689687
 Major tools for improved irrigation
management
1) Estimation of crop water requirements (FAO approach)
2) Use of 1) with soil water balance
3) Soil matric potential sensors
4) Volumetric water content sensors
5) Plant and crop sensors (and Remote Sensing)
6) Combined approaches

This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation
programme under grant agreement No 689687
 ISSUES: Estimation of crop water
requirements
• Many large technological developments through ICT
– ICT: Information and Communication Technology
• Suitability of ETo equations and Kc values?
– Simple vs. complex ETo equations, locally-derived or general Kc values?
• Foreword planning: weather forecasts, average climatic data
• Different levels of technology
– Apps, printed tables
• Supplement with sensors??

This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation
programme under grant agreement No 689687
 ISSUES: Soil water sensors
• Soil matric potential (SMP) or volumetric water content (VWC)?
• Different designs, costs, types etc.
– Which one most suitable for a grower/crop?
• All require “limits” i.e. reference values
– When to START (and STOP) irrigating
– How do growers obtain the values for limits?
– Accuracy of sensor (possible calibration issues)
• Other issues
– Support
– Automatic irrigation with sensor?

This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation
programme under grant agreement No 689687
 ISSUES: Plant and crop sensors
Do they have applications in practical farming?
• Dendrometers
• Turgor pressure sensor
– Yara Water-Sensor
– Directly measures water status of leaves

• Canopy temperature
– Precision agriculture and remote sensing applications

This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation
programme under grant agreement No 689687
 Our objectives again
IN THE CONTEXT OF LOW LEVEL OF ADOPTION OF THESE
TECHNOLOGIES, OUR JOB NOW IS:
• To identify the best tools, considering:
– Crop type, geography (water quality, irrigation frequency)
– Different technical level of growers
• To identify what is preventing more adoption of these tools
– Do we need modifications or newer tools,
– Do we need carrots (e.g. subsidies) or sticks (e.g. legislation)
• To determine how we can increase adoption?

This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation
programme under grant agreement No 689687
 GETTING STARTED
• We need to consider
o Vegetables
o Fruit trees
o Ornamentals
• For each crop type and cropping situation, identify the best
techniques considering:
o Effectiveness
o Farmer-friendliness
o Robustness
o Cost
o etc.

This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation
programme under grant agreement No 689687
WORKING SESSION 3:
DISCUSSION PART

Report of exchanges between participants

Overview of raised issues and proposed solutions

This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation
programme under grant agreement No 689687
 DISCUSSION
ALL SENSOR APPROACHES
Need to be precise about when to stop and start irrigation; if not precise can result in
various problems
For NEW greenhouse crops, comprehensive information possible from different sensors
e.g. leaf temp, substrate water content, climate etc. provides detailed information on
plant activity which enable to optimise irrigation
Issue of sensors number solved by replication e.g. 3 and use of soil mapping e,g, EC to
identify locations for soil sensors and where to avoid putting sensor

PLANT WATER STATUS SENSORS

Integration of atmospheric demand and soil water supply; plant sensors indicate what is
occurring to the crop
Opinion expressed that using when using plant sensors that the irrigation may be
commenced when the crop is already beginning to show water deficit, Using soil water
sensors will avoid this.
Yara plant water sensor that measures turgor pressure seen as a direct and sensitive
measure of crop water status
Plant sensors best suited to perennial rather than annual crops
Example of the simple pressure bomb being used to aid irrigation management of open air
processing tomato
SOIL AND SUBSTRATE SENSORS
Calibration very important to have accurate data; best done for each cropping situation
Opinion expressed that for substrate that matric potential sensors best for substrate; easier to
use, cheap; calibration a requirement. Tensiometers were effective
Some sensors not suitable for certain crops e.g. Watermark sensors (a granular matrix
sensor) not suitable crops such as lettuce. This sensor is not effective in moist soils.
Different opinions about Soil Matric Potential (SMP) versus Volumetric Water Content (VWC)
sensors
SMP easier to interpret
WMC provide output in mm and can be easier to use where irrigation homogenously
applied e.g. sprinkler
There should be different ways of presenting outputs to different types of growers
An example was the use of a traffic light system by the Australian company MEA. The traffic
light display was positioned so that it was visible from a road or track frequently passed by
the farmer. The light system indicated that irrigation was required, that the crop was well-
watered or that it may soon require irrigation.
Use of remote sensing, e.g. NDVI, from satellites, for assisting in determining crop water
requirements and for precision irrigation. NDVI data are being used to derive in-situ and
current crop coefficient (Kc) values.
VWC sensors can be affected by temperature causing errors. Manufacturers were not
helpful with solutions.
Variation in threshold values (i.e. when to irrigate) between species and even between
varieties of a given species
 DISCUSSION
Lack of information on threshold values for when to initiate irrigation. When
trying start the use of sensors in a region, it was necessary to develop
threshold values for individual crops.
Very important that soil/substrate sensors positioned correctly both in
relation to the plant and within the field. Growers often need advice on
sensor placement, particularly when beginning to use.
For positioning within a field, the use of soil mapping with electrical
conductivity (EC) is useful for identifying soil spatial variability
Sensor position particularly important in substrate, because of heterogeneous
distribution of water
To automate or not to automate. There is some demand for automation; but
also the view was expressed that sensors should just be used as an aid

ISSUES AFFECTING ADOPTION OF SENSORS

Sensors are too expensive
Central Europe: Growers do not understand concepts such as Soil matric
potential; apparently growers lack background knowledge to use SMP sensors
Central Europe: Poor quality sensors available to growers are a problem
Growers are generally reluctant to adopt sensor technologies
 DISCUSSION
How to increase adoption?
Need to inform and educate growers
Demonstration, particularly from other growers; also videos
Information from experimental trials and farm demonstrations that show reduction in
water use are effective
Are subsidies required, as used with IPM
Need for effective advice and support
Objective should be to train growers so that with time can use the technology
independently; training period is often necessary.
Sensors have been around for 15 years, but very low adoption because the sensors are
perceived as being too expensive
There are important practical issues of being able to connect sensors to computer systems
that program irrigation (which often can also be used for climate control in greenhouses)
Being able input the signal from sensor to computer system dedicated to irrigation
Compatibility issues. Integrating sensors signal into software
 ANNEX

This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation
programme under grant agreement No 689687
ISSUES: Soil matric potential (SMP) sensors
• GENERAL: single absolute values of SMP can be used for limits
• Tensiometers
– Limited measurement range; preparation and maintenance
requirements
– No calibration issues
• Granular matrix sensors (Watermark)
– Wider measurement range
– Performance issues: slow response, wet soils…
Accuracy?
– Calibration (conversion of resistance to SMP)
• Modified FDR sensors (e.g. Decagon MPS-6)
– Wide range; new: little information available
– Possible calibration and salinity issues (see next slide)

This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation
programme under grant agreement No 689687
ISSUES: Volumetric water content (VWC) sensors
• Most available VWC sensors are FDR; many models available
• All subsequent comments for FDR
• GENERAL: single absolute values of VWC cannot be used for limits
• How to derive limits?
– Standard values for soil texture class?
– Laboratory retention curve and convert from SMP?
– Determine in-situ?
• Calibration issues (converting frequency to VWC)
• Possible salinity effects
• Dynamic data interpretation overcomes issues of
– Establishing limits
– Calibration

This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation
programme under grant agreement No 689687
AND NOW FOR SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT:
A very different soil water sensor
• Tells when to STOP irrigating
• Known as a Wetting Front Detector
• Sold as “Full Stop sensor”
• Informs when root zone is at Field Capacity
• Simple manual technology
• Cost: <60€

This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation
programme under grant agreement No 689687