See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/299390548

Site-Specific Variable-Rate Irrigation as a Means to Enhance Water Use

Efficiency

Article in Transactions of the ASAE. American Society of Agricultural Engineers · February 2016
DOI: 10.13031/trans.59.11165

CITATIONS READS
46 1,394

6 authors, including:

Susan A. O'Shaughnessy Steve Evett

Agricultural Research Service United States Department of Agriculture
112 PUBLICATIONS 2,220 CITATIONS 364 PUBLICATIONS 13,106 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Manuel Alejandro Andrade J. A. Price

University of Nevada, Reno Texas A&M University
37 PUBLICATIONS 436 CITATIONS 15 PUBLICATIONS 519 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Steve Evett on 11 July 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 SITE-SPECIFIC VARIABLE-RATE IRRIGATION
AS A MEANS TO ENHANCE WATER
USE EFFICIENCY
S. A. O’Shaughnessy, S. R. Evett, M. A. Andrade, F. Workneh, A Tribute to the Career of
J. A. Price, C. M. Rush Terry Howell, Sr.

ABSTRACT. The majority of irrigated cropland in the U.S. is watered with sprinkler irrigation systems. These systems are
inherently more efficient in distributing water than furrow or flood irrigation. Appropriate system design of sprinkler irri-
gation equipment, application methods, and farming practices (e.g., furrow diking) enhance crop water use efficiency
(WUE) by minimizing irrigation losses and improving soil water storage. For years, the paradigm for best irrigation
management practices included uniform application over an entire field, even though abiotic (soils, slope, aspect, etc.)
and biotic (insect pressure, plant disease) factors often cause spatial variations in water use and yield potential. However,
emerging technologies such as wireless communication coupled with soil water and plant sensors, commercially available
variable-rate irrigation (VRI) equipment, and the development of algorithms for computational data processing are shift-
ing this paradigm toward variable-rate management as a means to enhance crop WUE. This article focuses on the poten-
tial of site-specific VRI management (SS-VRIM) as a tool for enhancing WUE and the challenges encountered.
Keywords. Irrigation management, Moving irrigation systems, Prescription maps, Sensor networks, Variable-rate irrigation.

S
prinkler irrigation was developed in the 1890s by
Charles Skinner, a farmer from Ohio, and soon
afterward the merits of providing overhead irriga-
tion were realized. Beginning as early as 1917, the
first patents were granted for designs related to key con-
cepts for the development of mechanical move sprinklers
(Morgan, 1993). Since then, moving sprinkler systems have
evolved into large-scale mechanized systems that are criti-
cal to production agriculture. Across the U.S., 57% of irri-
gated cropland (fig. 1) is accomplished with sprinkler irri-
gation systems, of which 84% are center pivots (USDA-
NASS, 2013). Center pivots are popular because they re-
quire minimal manual labor to operate, are easy to main-
tain, can be designed to irrigate over small areas as well as
large areas, and can travel over flat fields as well as over
rolling hills. The growing inventory of moving irrigation
sprinkler systems is encouraging for two reasons: (1) a
moving irrigation system can be used as a platform to
mount sensors, thus providing a means to monitor large
areas of a field with a relatively limited number of sensors
and with temporal frequency; and (2) now that all sprinkler
irrigation manufacturers offer auxiliary equipment for re-
mote communication, monitoring, and control of sprinkler
operations (Kranz et al., 2012), the infrastructure of and
farmers’ exposure to added technological advancements in
irrigated agriculture are more conspicuous and widespread.
The focus of irrigation systems in the past has been effi-
ciency and uniformity of application (Howell et al., 2012).
Howell’s (2001) discussion of field water use efficiency
(WUE) (eq. 1) clearly indicates the roles of agronomic,
engineering, and management technologies toward enhanc-
ing WUE:

Submitted for review in January 2015 as manuscript number NRES

11165; approved for publication by the Natural Resources Environmental
Systems Community of ASABE in June 2015.
Mention of company or trade names is for description only and does
not imply endorsement by the USDA. The USDA is an equal opportunity
provider and employer.
The authors are Susan A. O’Shaughnessy, ASABE Member,
Research Agricultural Engineer, Steven R. Evett, ASABE Member,
Research Soil Scientist, and Manuel A. Andrade, ORISE Post-Doctoral
Fellow, USDA-ARS Conservation and Production Research Laboratory
(CPRL), Bushland, Texas; Fekede Workneh, Senior Research Scientist,
Jacob A. Price, Senior Research Associate, and Charles M. Rush, Plant
Pathologist, Texas A&M AgriLife Research and Extension, Amarillo,
Texas. Corresponding author: Susan A. O’Shaughnessy, USDA-ARS Figure 1. Percent of irrigated acres by method in the U.S. Of the
CPRL, P.O. Drawer 10, 2300 Experiment Station Rd., Bushland, TX 22.37 Mha irrigated in the U.S., 57% is irrigated with sprinkler sys-
79012; phone: 806-356-5770; e-mail: susan.oshaughnessy@ars.usda.gov. tems, of which 84% are center pivots (USDA-NASS, 2013).

Transactions of the ASABE

Vol. 59(1): 239-249 2016 American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers ISSN 2151-0032 DOI 10.13031/trans.59.11165 239
WUE =
(HI )(DM )
(1)
  E 
T (1 − WC) 1 + 
  (P + I + SW − D − Q − E ) 
where HI is harvest index, DM is dry matter above ground,
T is transpiration, WC is water content, E is soil water
evaporation, P is precipitation, I is irrigation, SW is root
zone soil water depletion, D is deep percolation, and Q is
runoff. Engineering technologies such as properly designed
sprinkler systems (Scherer et al., 1999), irrigation applica-
tion methods, and implementation of cropping systems that
improve the capture and infiltration of rainfall and irriga-
tion (furrow diking, crop residues) enable farmers to mini-
mize spray and evaporative losses during and after irriga-
tion events, decrease deep percolation, and improve soil
water storage from rainfall and irrigation. Irrigation man-
agement (IM) technologies can enhance crop WUE by
maximizing T relative to other soil water balance compo-
nents. An example is a deficit irrigation scheduling scheme
that ensures adequate amounts of water are applied at criti-
cal crop growth stages, with application of limited amounts
otherwise. Fundamental engineering and management
technologies are critical toward achieving optimal irrigation
management practices. However, given the current con-
straints of limited high-quality water supplies for agricul-
ture and regulatory restrictions on water use, producers
may be searching for additional means to enhance WUE
and more effectively use water supplies (Almas et al.,
2010).
Today, noteworthy increases in WUE will require ad-
vances in irrigation technology that go beyond the
achievements of the past 20 to 30 years. Examining tech-
niques to advance WUE at the field scale requires a closer
look at the factors that impact crop evapotranspiration
(ETc). Evapotranspiration is contingent on a number of
factors, including crop type, irrigation application method,
soil properties (e.g., salinity, soil water holding capacities,
slope, and soil bulk electrical conductivity; Camp and Sad-
ler, 2002; Sadler et al., 2002; Tolk and Howell, 2008;
Thompson et al., 2010), weather, abiotic and biotic stresses,
agronomic practices (e.g., fertigation amounts and timing,
planting geometry), crop development stage, and external
factors such as chemigation drift (Howell, 1990). These
factors or their effects can be highly variable within a sin-
gle field and result in non-uniform crop ET, making it dif-
ficult to maximize economic returns at the field scale
(Yang et al., 2002). With site-specific variable-rate irriga-
tion management (SS-VRIM), there is potential to optimize
transpiration spatially and temporally for timely detection
of abiotic and biotic crop stress. By integrating commercial
VRI systems with economical plant and soil water sensors,
supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) systems
should be able to implement variable-rate irrigation man-
agement (VRIM) to adapt to within-field problems
(O’Shaughnessy et al., 2013b). With these emerging
SCADA systems, it is reasonable to expect that advanced
engineering and irrigation management technologies will
address within-field variable crop water needs to optimize
WUE.
240
Although SS-VRIM systems are not commercialized
yet, VRIM is helping to shape a new paradigm for enhanc-
ing WUE in production agriculture. The first part of this
article describes a conceptual framework for SS-VRIM
systems. The second part summarizes three applications for
the utility of SS-VRIM based on the different objectives of:
(1) optimizing application depth as a function of soil tex-
ture and slope, (2) managing crop water stress at deficit
irrigation levels and controlling crop WUE, and (3) im-
proving irrigation WUE by spatiotemporal detection of
disease and disease severity for irrigation control of winter
wheat. The last section of this article provides a discussion
of future work.
SS-VRIM SYSTEMS
SPRINKLER EQUIPMENT AND PERFORMANCE
The backbone of an SS-VRIM system is a moving
sprinkler system (e.g., center pivot or linear move) outfitted
with a VRI package (King and Wall, 1998; Han et al.,
2009; Chavez et al., 2010). The five major irrigation com-
panies (Pierce, Reinke, T-L, Valmont, and Lindsay) offer
some type of sprinkler zone control to vary application
depths along the lateral pipeline of a moving irrigation sys-
tem as well as in sectors along the arc of travel of the sys-
tem (Kranz et al., 2012). Commercial VRI packages can be
added onto existing moving irrigation systems and are ad-
vertised as cross-compatible with other manufacturers’
sprinklers. With sprinkler zone control, variable amounts of
water can be applied radially as well as concentrically as
the lateral moves across a field. As such, prescription maps
for zone control can be effectively customized to address
within-field spatial variability. As a practical matter, pro-
ducers should choose low-elevation spray application (LE-
SA) or low-energy precision application (LEPA) (Lyle and
Bordovsky, 1983) rather than high-impact sprinklers or
mid-elevation spray application (MESA) to minimize drift
between the borders of field management zones
(O’Shaughnessy et al., 2013b). However, LEPA should
only be considered if the application volume does not ex-
ceed the soil storage volume. Soil storage volume on non-
sloped fields could be improved with alternate-furrow basin
tillage (Lyle and Dixon, 1977; Schneider and Howell,
2000).
Additionally, the VRI system should include a means
for remote monitoring and communication, as well as a
differential correction-enabled GPS receiver for spatial
precision, rather than relying on the center pivot angular
rotation resolver.
SENSOR NETWORK SYSTEMS
A number of different types of sensors, either in situ or
above ground, have been used to assess soil water or plant
status and can be used to provide useful data for SS-VRIM.
Numerous sensors have been used for agricultural applica-
tions, including infrared thermometers, soil water sensors,
optical sensors, imaging sensors (thermal and RGB), ultra-
sonic sensors, and computer vision sensors (table 1). Many
of these sensors are becoming more economical, e.g., FLIR
TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASABE
 Table 1. Sensors and sensor network systems appropriate for integration with variable-rate irrigation management systems.
Sensor Measurement Role within SS-VRIM Reference
Infrared thermometers Radiometric surface Direct irrigation management based Wanjura et al. (1992); Peters and Evett (2008)
temperature on detection of crop water stress
Soil water sensors Soil water content Detect soil water depletion level; Kim et al. (2009); Hedley and Yule (2009)
closed-loop feedback
Optical sensors Canopy reflectance Detect nitrogen deficiency Sui and Thomasson (2006)
Simulate Kc using NDVI Hunsaker et al. (2003)
Estimate percent canopy cover Trout et al. (2008)
Detect disease or pestilence Mirik et al. (2007); West et al. (2003)
Meteorological station Solar radiation, RH, Tair, Normalize canopy temperature data; Peters and Evett (2007)
wind speed calculate amount of water to apply.
Ultrasonic Plant height Detect abiotic stress Sui and Thomasson (2006)
Computer vision RGB image acquisition Detect disease Casanova et al. (2014)

has just released a miniature thermal imaging system on a
chip (SOC) for less than $400, and are easier to acquire on
the retail market. Other critical criteria for sensors and sen-
sor network systems include measurement accuracy, capa-
bility for wireless communication, reliable data throughput,
a small form factor to facilitate mounting on irrigation sys-
tems, durability against outdoor elements and time, reason-
able sampling frequency enabling sensors mounted on a
moving platform to capture an ample number of measure-
ments as the system moves across the field, and minimal
maintenance throughout an irrigation season.
Several previous studies have integrated IRT networks
with moving irrigation systems to monitor canopy tempera-
ture, detect and map crop water stress, and schedule irriga-
tions at the field scale (Wanjura et al., 1992; Sadler et al.,
2002; Peters and Evett, 2007; O’Shaughnessy and Evett,
2010a, 2010b; O’Shaughnessy et al., 2012). Networks of
soil water sensors strategically placed in management
zones can offer information relative to maximum allowable
depletion targets or soil water flux. Optical sensors measur-
ing canopy reflectance have a wide range of utility for pro-
duction agriculture, including detection of nutrient stress,
disease, and pest infestation and providing estimates of
crop coefficients. Meteorological stations can be used to
normalize temperature data maps over an irrigation season
or across seasons. It is also possible to use reference evapo-
transpiration (ETo) and crop water use (ETc) estimates from
weather data to check against under- or over-irrigations or
help determine irrigation amounts. Ultrasonic distance
measurements are becoming a popular means for estimat-
ing crop stress since there is a negative correlation between
height and plant vigor, and between height and nitrogen
status (Sui and Thomasson, 2006). Finally, computer vision
sensors can provide whole images or the analysis of images
to indicate percent disease within their field of view (FOV).
Imaging sensors are rapidly becoming miniaturized and
less expensive, making the scalability of a computer vision
network very promising for irrigation management in the
near future.
SUPERVISORY CONTROL AND DATA ACQUISITION
(SCADA) SYSTEM
The integration of soil water, plant, and weather data
with embedded computing systems and VRI sprinklers is
the basis for a SCADA system for production agriculture.
Machine interfaces within such a SCADA system are com-
plicated because the sensors, embedded computers, and
irrigation equipment are typically not made by the same
manufacturer and do not share the same communication
standard, data formatting at the sensor level, application
programming interfaces (APIs), or hardware interfaces. In a
SCADA system described by O’Shaughnessy et al.
(2013a), the embedded computer running the SCADA sys-
tem had two distinct telemetry modems: one for data col-
lection from the wireless sensor network of infrared ther-
mometers transmitting in the range of 2.5 GHz, and the
second polling data from a nearby weather station (CR1000
datalogger, Campbell Scientific, Logan, Utah) in the
900 MHz bandwidth. Additionally, there was a direct
communication link between the embedded computer and
the control panel of the center-pivot system, allowing for
data exchange in both directions and control of the VRI
system by the embedded computer. Beyond data collection,
the embedded computer also processed information based
on control algorithms, crop models, pre-established set
points, and constraints. The output could be structured as
informational, i.e., providing quantified levels, audible or
visual alarms, or recommendations. Moreover, the SCADA
system was capable of controlling action at the system level
(e.g., VRI) or controlling a subprocess, which may be as
simple as turning on a pump (fig. 2). Of paramount im-
portance is the ability of the end user, farmer, or irrigation
consultant to interact with the system by reviewing its rec-
ommendations and either accepting, modifying, or rejecting
them. The overall goal of an SS-VRIM system is to detect
within-field variability (due to abiotic and biotic stresses)
over time and space, provide decision support for the next
optimal irrigation decision (i.e., instructions for where,
when, and how much water to apply), and control the irri-
gation to optimize yield in return for water. In essence, SS-
VRIM systems aid in the management of spatiotemporal
control strategies (McCarthy et al., 2010) throughout the
irrigation season.
Examples of such systems include a VRI linear move
system developed by Kim et al. (2009) that used distributed
wireless sensor networks of in situ thermocouples and soil
water sensors to detect deficits in soil water levels to make
irrigation decisions for each management zone. However,
the performance of the system was never characterized in
terms of crop yield, ETc, or WUE, nor compared with a
conventional system. Work by ARS scientists at Bushland,
Texas, demonstrated that a SCADA system using wired
infrared thermometers and a plant feedback algorithm, i.e.,
the time temperature threshold (TTT) method, was able to

59(1): 239-249 241

Figure 2. Basic concepts involved in a supervisory control and data acquisition system for site-specific variable-rate irrigation management
(SS-VRIM) using machine-to-machine (M2M) and human-to-machine (H2M) interfaces.
control irrigations for soybean, cotton, and sorghum (Peters
and Evett, 2007, 2008; O’Shaughnessy and Evett, 2010b;
O’Shaughnessy et al., 2012). More recently, the work has
evolved into the integration of a wireless network of infra-
red thermometers with a commercial VRI center-pivot sys-
tem to build dynamic prescription maps based on spatio-
temporal assessment of crop water stress, using thermal
stress index thresholds to manage irrigation treatment lev-
els for cotton (O’Shaughnessy et al., 2015). The systems
developed at Bushland are realizations of the SCADA sys-
tem patented by Evett et al. (2014b). Although the progress
at Bushland has been incremental, the challenge remains to
develop robust algorithms that synthesize information from
sensors other than plant and micrometeorological network
systems, and to test these SCADA systems in a manner in
which farmers would operate them.
APPLICATIONS FOR SS-VRIM
OPTIMIZING APPLICATION DEPTH AS A FUNCTION
OF SOIL TEXTURE AND SLOPE
The possibility of water savings at the field scale exists by
using SS-VRIM to adjust watering rates to address inherent
topographical and physical soil differences, such as undulat-
ing slopes and variable soil textures, as well as any differ-
ences that cause variable available water holding capacity
(AWHC) and actual plant-available water within a field. As
discussed by Evett et al. (2014a), a first step could be to di-
vide the field into management zones (MZs) based on slope,
aspect, and soil texture and then install a soil water sensing
system in each MZ, with the caveat that the system adequate-
ly represents the soil water content of each MZ. Soil bulk
electrical conductivity mapping, in conjunction with USDA-
NRCS soil surveys (2015) and terrain features (Landrum et
al., 2015), may be useful in delineating MZs for fields in the
U.S. (Grisso et al., 2009). Hedley et al. (2013) defined MZs
in fields in New Zealand based on geostatistical interpolation
from electromagnetic induction surveys as well as soil hy-
draulic properties derived from soil core samples within each
MZ. An important shortcoming concerning the use of soil
water sensing is that soils are highly variable within short
distances, and soil water measurements are spatially variable
at any one time within the same MZ (Evett et al., 2008,
2009; Hedley and Yule, 2009).
242
Another approach to using VRI management to reduce
water wastage by optimizing application depth as a func-
tion of soil properties was reported by LaRue (2011). In
this case, a center pivot was outfitted with a commercial
VRI system with the objective to reduce the effects of field
variability by adequately watering the lighter soils (Cre-
vasse sandy loam) without flooding the heavier clay loam
soils. Shallow and deep geo-referenced maps of apparent
electrical conductivity (ECa) were developed for shallow
and deep EC using methods similar to those of Vories et al.
(2008) and were the basis for a prescription map. Water
depths for an MZ classified as a heavy soil received 60% of
the base application depth applied to an MZ classified as a
lighter soil. Overall, 12% less irrigation was applied to the
field using VRIM. The percent of irrigation depth to apply
relative to the base irrigation amount can be determined
using different methods. LaRue and Frederick (2012) sug-
gested using crop productivity ratings based on soil type, in
addition to geo-referenced soil data from the USDA-NRCS
(2015), to determine possible MZs and determine the bene-
fits of VRI relative to applying a uniform irrigation depth.
One shortcoming with the use of soil properties as the basis
for prescription maps is that the maps do not change over
time, and therefore temporal variability is ignored.
MANAGING CROP WATER STRESS AT DEFICIT
IRRIGATION AND CONTROLLING CROP WUE
SS-VRIM can be used to enhance crop WUE by imple-
menting an irrigation scheme that optimizes the ratio of
economic yield to crop water use. This can be achieved by
ensuring that irrigation is not limited during critical growth
stages and not supplied at times that would result in luxuri-
ant growth. Controlling crop WUE would enable a produc-
er to manage deficit irrigation schemes and maximize
WUE. Irrigation management studies to automatically con-
trol irrigation scheduling and crop WUE began in the 1990s
at the USDA-ARS laboratory in Bushland, Texas. Initial
studies were conducted by Evett et al. (1996, 2002, 2006)
using a subsurface drip irrigation system, stationary infra-
red thermometers, and a plant feedback algorithm (the TTT
method) for irrigation management of corn and soybean.
Advances were made to adapt the TTT method to a moving
irrigation system, as reported by Peters and Evett (2004,
2007, 2008). Irrigation management, with the TTT method,
TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASABE
of cotton (O’Shaughnessy and Evett, 2010b) and sorghum
(O’Shaughnessy et al., 2012) demonstrated that irrigation
scheduling using the plant feedback method resulted in lint
and grain yields that were at least equal to or greater than
irrigation scheduling with in situ soil water measurements.
Through 2010, VRI with moving systems at Bushland was
accomplished by nozzling, and site-specific control was
accomplished by ARS-developed software that communi-
cated with the pivot control panel.
In 2011, the two center-pivot systems at Bushland were
outfitted with commercial VRI systems, the plant feedback
algorithm was modified to incorporate an integrated crop
water stress index (iCWSI), and the wired IRTs were re-
placed with wireless IRTs. The commercial VRI systems
provided the flexibility of randomly varying the irrigation
treatment levels and methods in an arcwise and radial di-
rection. In 2012, field studies were initiated to investigate
the short-term objective of building dynamic prescription
maps from continuous measurements of canopy tempera-
ture and meteorological data to control VRI at the field
scale. The challenge here is that the performance of the
plant feedback method is scrutinized at a higher level, since
automatic irrigation scheduling for each plant feedback-
controlled treatment plot is independent of every other plot.
In 2012 and 2013, an SS-VRIM system consisting of a
three-span (130 m) VRI center pivot and integrated wire-
less sensor network system for crop canopy monitoring,
similar to that described earlier in the SCADA section, was
used to manage irrigation of cotton (Delta Pine, variety
1212RFBG2). The crop was planted in the southeast half of
a 5.3 ha center-pivot field in 2012 and in the northwest half
in the second year. The field was divided into 28 treatment
plots, consisting of seven sectors, 24° wide, and four con-
centric plots, each containing 24 plant rows spaced 0.76 m
apart. Irrigation methods and treatment levels were ran-
domized radially and concentrically. Plots were arranged in
a randomized complete block design in the arcwise direc-
tion (O’Shaughnessy et al., 2015). Half of the plots were
manually irrigated according to neutron probe measure-
ments of soil water depletion. Manual irrigation treatment
levels were 75%, 50%, and 25% replenishment of soil wa-
ter depletion to field capacity, while the corresponding
thermal stress index thresholds for the plant feedback-
controlled plots were 260, 290, and 344 (dimensionless).
The SCADA system responded by irrigating a plant feed-
back treatment plot when the mean calculated iCWSI ex-
ceeded its pre-established threshold. Mean lint yields com-
pared between methods were not significantly different for
the I75% and I50% irrigation treatment levels for both years.
Mean lint yield was significantly greater in the plant feed-
back-controlled treatment plots corresponding to the I25%
irrigation treatment level; however, mean seasonal crop
water use and mean irrigation amounts were also signifi-
cantly greater for these plant feedback treatment plots (data
not shown).
For each year, mean WUE was not significantly differ-
ent between irrigation treatments or irrigation methods (da-
ta were analyzed with Proc Mixed, SAS 9.3, SAS Institute,
Inc., Cary, N.C.) (fig. 3). However, the relationship be-
tween WUE and seasonal irrigation amount was linear in
59(1): 239-249
2012 for the plant feedback treatment plots, while the rela-
tionships were curvilinear for the manually controlled plots
for the same year and for both methods of irrigation man-
agement during 2013 (fig. 3a). Although not significantly
different, mean WUE for both years was numerically great-
er for the plant feedback-controlled treatment plots com-
pared with the manually controlled treatment plots (fig. 3b).
It is also noteworthy that seasonal irrigation amounts rela-
tive to the optimum WUE for the plant feedback method
bordered between the irrigation amounts applied to the
manual treatment plots for the I50% and I75% treatment lev-
els. This control is helpful, since a farmer may make the
rational decision to manage the crop with slight to moder-
ate deficit irrigation amounts to maximize WUE and then
reduce the planted area to cope with the supply limitation.
With this system, additional work would be needed to con-
trol irrigation WUE at lower irrigation treatment levels in
case a more severe deficit irrigation scheme was needed.
Severe deficit applications may be appropriate if a farmer
chooses to diversify risk by planting part of the field to a
more drought-tolerant crop and provide minimal supple-
mental irrigation. Another complication is that plant feed-
back systems are limited to monitoring crop canopy tem-
peratures in daylight hours. Because of this, the temporal
frequency with which a large center-pivot system (1/2 mile)
can complete one revolution may not be adequate for time-
ly determination of whole-field crop water stress, which
could inhibit dynamic prescription map building. Although
this has not yet been established as fact, possible solutions
include modifying the control algorithm to include fore-
casting based on past crop status and weather since the last
data were captured, and strategic placement of soil water
sensors to compensate for this perceived deficiency.
IMPROVING IRRIGATION WUE BY SPATIOTEMPORAL
DETECTION OF DISEASE IN WINTER WHEAT
Another objective for SS-VRIM would be to improve
WUE by withholding water from areas within a field where
physiological damage from biotic stress has progressed to a
point where the economic value of irrigation is no longer
justified. Winter wheat is a critical grain and forage crop
for producers in the Texas High Plains region, where ap-
proximately 30% of the total acreage devoted to its produc-
tion is irrigated from the declining Ogallala Aquifer (Co-
laizzi et al., 2009). Like many crops in this semi-arid re-
gion, winter wheat is subject to drought and hail stress,
high air temperatures, and limited precipitation, all of
which can cause significant yield reduction. However, of
equal concern are economic losses resulting from biotic
stresses, i.e., when water and fertilizer are applied to dis-
eased wheat for which there will be no profitable gain to
the producer. Of particular interest in the entire Great
Plains region are wheat streak mosaic virus (WSMV), Trit-
icum mosaic virus, and wheat mosaic virus. These diseases
are vectored by the wheat curl mite (Price et al., 2010).
Because mites occur naturally in various summer crops,
they can easily be transferred into fields planted early to
winter wheat, since early planting is a common practice in
the Texas High Plains. The infection potentially becomes
more severe over time, leading to significant reductions in
243
 0.40
WUEM = -1E-06x2 + 0.0009x + 0.1155
r² = 0.86

0.30

WUE (kg m-3)

0.20

WUEA= -3E-07x2 + 0.0005x + 0.1106

r² = 0.95
0.10
Manual
(a)
iCWSI

0.00
0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Irrigation (mm)

0.3
WUEA = -4E-06x2 + 0.0022x - 0.0493

r² = 0.94

0.2
WUE (kg m-3)

WUEM = -4E-06x2 + 0.0022x - 0.043

r² = 0.95
0.1
Manual

Manual plot (#12) (M25)

iCWSI suffered chemical damage

(b)
0.0
0 100 200 300 400

Irrigation (mm)

Figure 3. Relationship between water use efficiency (WUE) and seasonal irrigation amount (mm) for manually controlled plots (WUEM; black
circles) irrigated based on weekly in situ soil water readings and plant feedback-controlled plots (WUEA; open circles) for the (a) 2012 and
(b) 2013 cropping seasons. The mean WUE of the manually controlled plot that suffered chemical damage was not included in the quadratic
equation defining the relationship.

biomass and grain yield. Plants infected early in the season
do not recover, but suffer from necrosis or die (Price et al.,
2014). Mites are also easily dispersed by the wind, and
their mobility can cause spatial changes in the incidence of
disease over the irrigation season. Factors associated with
the timing of the infection and vector mobility result in
gradients of disease severity in time and space in winter
wheat fields (Workneh et al., 2009). However, there is a
significant relationship between diseased wheat and canopy
reflectance at the 555 nm bandwidth measured using a
handheld hyperspectral sensor (Workneh et al., 2009). Geo-
referenced reflectance measurements can be used to pin-
point the location of the disease, and a model is being de-
veloped to relate reflectance amounts and the time of

244 TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASABE

measurement to the severity level of the disease (F. Work-
neh, personal communication, 13 January 2015).
Winter wheat fields under center-pivot irrigation and in-
fected with viruses present an opportunity to implement
SS-VRIM. The functions of a SCADA system customized
to address the above-mentioned variability would be detec-
tion of crop water stress, crop disease, and disease severity
and provision of decision support as to which areas of the
field should continue to receive water and from which areas
of the field water should be withheld. It is estimated that
savings of $12 to $22 million in pumping costs alone could
be realized by reducing irrigation amounts by 1 in.
(2.54 cm) in the Texas Panhandle (the 26 northernmost
counties of Texas). External benefits of minimizing water
losses when irrigating are the reduction in nonpoint-source
pollution from agricultural runoff (thereby improving water
quality), facilitating optimal fertigation applications, and
reducing energy costs to pump water. Appropriate sensor
network systems would include IRTs to measure canopy
temperature and indicate areas where ET is marginal. Opti-
cal sensors measuring canopy reflectance would be re-
quired to detect disease and disease severity. Optical sen-
sors are needed in addition to thermal sensors to help the
system distinguish between abiotic (drought) and biotic
(disease) stress. A network of soil water sensors could be
deployed once a sizeable area of diseased plants was delin-
eated to help monitor the progress of disease, limit over-
irrigation, or decide when to withhold irrigation if soil wa-
ter levels at the root zone remain high. To further substanti-
ate the potential economic value of a SCADA system for
disease detection in winter wheat, it is worthwhile to look
at the effects of disease, the timing of the infection, the
irrigation level, and the effects of the interaction of timing
and irrigation level on grain and biomass yields and crop
WUE.
A recent field study (2012-2013) involved VRI amounts
of 100%, 67%, and 33% replenishment of soil water deple-
tion to field capacity (accomplished by nozzling), which
were applied to inoculated and non-inoculated wheat plots.
The 72 treatment plots were arranged in a split-plot design
with irrigation treatments applied concentrically, and the
subplots were the inoculation treatment or control plots
arranged in a randomized complete block design with six
replications. Each inoculated plot was inoculated once
based on a randomly assigned date: 1 October 2012,
14 March 2013, 4 April 2013, 16 April 2013, 30 April
2013, or no inoculation (control plots). Irrigation amounts
of 508, 340, and 168 mm were applied to each of the treat-
ment plots for the I100%, I67%, and I33% irrigation levels, re-
spectively. The Proc Mixed model was used for statistical
analysis, and control charts of X-bar and R for grain yield
(g) and crop WUE (kg m-3) (JMP ver. 10.0.0, SAS Institute,
Inc., Cary, N.C.) were used to illustrate (fig. 4) the follow-
ing critical points: (1) irrigating wheat at the I33% irrigation
level significantly reduced yields regardless of the inci-
dence of disease or its severity, and (2) the inoculation
event on 1 October 2012 significantly impacted mean grain
yields (fig. 4a) and WUE (fig. 4b) at the I67% and I100% irri-
gation levels, as these means were well below the lower
59(1): 239-249
control limit. Absolute yield results were low due to a late
freeze and hail damage events; however, these results imply
that SS-VRIM could be effectively applied to this problem.
FUTURE WORK
In the near future, we expect that commercialized
SCADA systems for production agriculture will function as
“smart irrigation machines.” With input from multiple
types of sensors, these machines should be able to map
areas of a field spatially and temporally throughout the
growing season. The maps could indicate the level of crop
stress, recommend irrigation scheduling schemes for each
management zone, and be uploaded as a prescription for
irrigation control. Our vision is that a user would be able to
build a software package to control a SCADA system. The
software package would prompt the user for information
regarding inherent within-field variability and specifica-
tions of the VRI hardware for zone control and sensor in-
put. Another function of this software package could be to
automatically delineate management zones for a specified
field by importing existing geographic information system
(GIS) databases such as yields from spectral monitors or
soil types from the USDA-NRCS (USDA-NRCS, 2013;
Andrade et al., 2015). The benefit of automated delineation
would be savings in time management and optimization of
inputs (Basso et al., 2011). The delineation could be
achieved using a number of approaches. For example,
Pedroso et al. (2010) used a segmentation algorithm on
grain yield data, Cid-Garcia et al. (2013) used linear pro-
gramming on various soil physical properties, and Li et al.
(2007) used semi-variance and cluster analysis on apparent
electrical conductivity (ECa) data.
Because many commercial companies provide services
and products that augment production agriculture through
technology, it would not be surprising if commercialized
SCADA systems were composed of multiple “add-on”
packages, e.g., VRI, wireless sensor network systems, and
software modules to accomplish the irrigation control strat-
egy. Sensor network systems could include a combination
of weather, plant, and soil water sensors, although the op-
timal sensor combination and control strategy may depend
on the crop, well capacity, and amount of within-field vari-
ability (McCarthy et al., 2014b). A software module could
be composed of algorithms that use hard computing from
direct measurements to signal an irrigation; Romero et al.
(2012) discuss several control theories. An example of hard
computing for the SCADA system would be the integration
of a soil water sensing network to check soil water status
and qualify irrigation decisions. A software module could
also be an established crop model (e.g., Aquacrop, CERES-
Wheat, Ozcot) that simulates an output, which in turn is
used as feedback for decision-making (McCarthy et al.,
2014a), or the module could be an irrigation scheduling
tool whose recommendations are used to control the VRI
system (e.g., Irrigator Pro; Stone et al., 2015). The opera-
tion of any add-on package, hardware or software, must be
completely integrated so that the SCADA system appears
as a single system to the producer.
245
 (a)
(b)
Figure 4. Control charts for (a) grain yield and (b) water use efficiency (WUE) for 72 treatment plots receiving irrigation treatment levels of
I100%, I67%, or I33%, and inoculated on one randomly assigned date: 1 = 1 October 2012, 2 = 14 March 2013, 3 = 4 April 2013, 4 = 16 April 2013,
5 = 30 April 2013, and 6 = no inoculation (control plots).
Decision support algorithms for a SCADA system must
be flexible and adaptable (McCarthy et al., 2010;
Goumopoulos et al., 2014): flexible in that a farmer can
override a machine-based decision, and adaptable in that
the SCADA system can make recommendations based on
within-season climatic variability or physiological changes
to the plant (brought about by abiotic and biotic stress). The
producer must have easy access to the SCADA system
from any location (Bartlett et al., 2015), and the communi-
cation technology must be familiar (Howell et al., 2012). At
the same time, the SCADA system must provide useful
information that readily indicates problems and/or provides
recommendations that meet the producer’s end goal, e.g.,
maximizing water savings and profits or optimizing crop
WUE. Importantly, the operation of the SCADA system
must not hinder daily on-farm operations (Kitchen, 2008).
To achieve this goal, the output of the SCADA system will
undoubtedly be based on advanced levels of decision sup-
246
Table 2. Examples of advanced decision support requirements
expected from supervisory control and data acquisition systems.
Factor Assessment
Precipitation Measurement and decision to withhold or apply sup-
plemental irrigation.
Disease Detection (spatial and temporal); level of severity.
Crop growth Estimate stage, link to yield sensitivity, or in the case
stage of deficit irrigation schemes link to application depth
when an irrigation is triggered.
Soil texture Import USDA-NRCS soil maps, link to set points to
check for over- or under-watering.
Percent slope Combine with soil texture and ECa and link to irriga-
tion amount.
Soil water Estimate spatial and temporal changes.
availability
Elevated canopy Distinguish between abiotic and biotic stress; irrigate
temperature in the case of abiotic but non-severe biotic stress.
port (table 2), which will rely on input from several sources
and from data management by more than one algorithm.
For example, with an end goal to optimize crop WUE, the
TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASABE
system will need to estimate ETc, solar radiation, and crop
growth stage as well as consider precipitation and other
climatic measurements, and perhaps soil texture and per-
cent slope, to make a recommendation as to when to irri-
gate and how much to apply. In the case of irrigation man-
agement of winter wheat susceptible to disease, the system
will need to discriminate between crop water stress and
disease stress, as well as determine the severity level of the
disease prior to making a recommendation to irrigate or
withhold an irrigation. Decision support algorithms are
responsible for providing irrigation control, and a SCADA
system could include multiple algorithms to accomplish
SS-VRIM, as in the SCADA system patented by Evett et al.
(2014b). The use of data from multiple types of sensor
network systems may necessitate the use of soft computing
algorithms such as fuzzy logic, artificial neural networks,
genetic algorithms, and support vector machines to deter-
mine which combination of data sets provide robust, cost-
effective, and reliable decision support for crop manage-
ment (Huang et al., 2010).
Whether the software modules used by a SCADA sys-
tem are hard or soft computing methods, as with any new
technology to be commercialized, there must be compre-
hensive field testing of the SCADA system to determine
the ease of implementation and demonstrate measurable
outcomes (e.g., irrigation amounts, yields, WUE). Field
studies to demonstrate the ease of implementation and re-
port its cost-effectiveness should reflect scenarios that have
real-world application. D’Antoni et al. (2012) published a
post-adoption review of GPS auto-steer farm equipment
and reported that adoption was widespread and positively
correlated to savings in input costs and the perceived future
importance of precision agriculture. Proving the outcomes
and anticipating hurdles for producers could help to pro-
mote acceptance of SCADA systems during the early stag-
es of adoption (Lamb et al., 2008).
CONCLUSIONS
Fundamental sprinkler engineering design, irrigation
technologies, and farming practices have been the corner-
stones to achieve a high level of WUE. However, with in-
creasing limitations on water supplies for crop production,
advancements to improve WUE must take on a new para-
digm. The commercialization of VRI sprinkler systems has
renewed interest in SS-VRIM. Three applications for SS-
VRIM were presented to demonstrate how VRI sprinklers
and preliminary SCADA systems could be used to enhance
WUE for production agriculture. Future commercialized
SCADA systems will be more sophisticated and have the
ability to detect variable crop stress (abiotic and biotic)
within a specific field, anticipate changes in variability over
time and space, and respond by providing recommenda-
tions for adaptive irrigation control schemes. While the
utility of VRI sprinklers and SCADA systems are slowly
being realized, many components of SCADA systems,
hardware and software, have been developed in research
studies. Future work requires a seamless synthesis of the
software and hardware components for robust irrigation
59(1): 239-249
control, easy operation of the SCADA system, and com-
prehensive field testing. Testing must be performed in a
manner that would be implemented by a producer. The
demonstration of positive and cost-effective outcomes will
be important in aiding the adoption of this emerging tech-
nology by producers.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors appreciate the dedicated work performed by
Brice Ruthardt, Support Scientist, and Luke Britten, Re-
search Agricultural Technician, USDA-ARS Conservation
and Production Research Laboratory, Bushland, Texas.
Funding for this project was provided in part by the Ogal-
lala Aquifer Program, a consortium of the USDA-ARS,
Kansas State University, Texas A&M AgriLife Research,
Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service, Texas Tech Uni-
versity, and West Texas A&M University.
REFERENCES
Almas, L., Vimlesh, K., Girase, A. J., New, L., Bretz, F., & Marek,
T. (2010). Cost analysis and water conservation potential of
irrigation technologies in the Texas Panhandle Water Planning
Area. In Proc. SAEA Annual Meeting. Tifton, Ga.: Southern
Agricultural Economics Association.
Andrade, M. A., O’Shaughnessy, S. A., & Evett, S. R. (2015).
ARSmartPivot v.1: Sensor based management software for
center-pivot irrigation systems. ASABE Paper No. 152188736.
St. Joseph, Mich.: ASABE.
Bartlett, A. C., Andales, A. A., Arabi, M., & Bauder, T. A. (2015).
A smartphone app to extend use of a cloud-based irrigation
scheduling tool. Comput. Electron. Agric., 111, 127-130.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2014.12.021.
Basso, B., Ritchie, J. T., Cammarano, D., & Sartori, L. (2011). A
strategic and tactical management approach to select optimal N
fertilizer rates for wheat in a spatially variable field. European J.
Agron., 35(4), 215-222.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2011.06.004.
Camp, C. R., & Sadler, E. J. (2002). Irrigation, deep tillage, and
nitrogen management for a corn-soybean rotation. Trans. ASAE.,
45(3), 601-608. http://dx.doi.org/10.13031/2013.8824.
Casanova, J. J., O’Shaughnessy, S. A., Evett, S. R., & Rush, C. M.
(2014). Development of a wireless computer vision instrument
to detect biotic stress in wheat. Sensors, 14(9), 17753-17769.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s140917753.
Chavez, J. L., Pierce, F. J., Elliott, T. V., Evans, R. G., Kim, Y., &
Iversen, W. M. (2010). A remote irrigation monitoring and
control system (RIMCS) for continuous move systems: Part B.
Field testing and results. Prec. Agric., 11(1), 11-26.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11119-009-9110-8.
Cid-Garcia, N. M., Albornoz, V., Rios-Solis, Y. A., & Ortega, R.
(2013). Rectangular shape management zone delineation using
integer linear programming. Comput. Electron. Agric., 93, 1-9.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2013.01.009.
Colaizzi, P. D., Gowda, P. H., Marek, T. H., & Porter, D. O. (2009).
Irrigation in the Texas High Plains: A brief history and potential
reductions in demand. Irrig. Drain., 58(3), 257-274.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ird.418.
D’Antoni, J. M., Mishra, A. K., & Joo, H. (2012). Farmers’
perception of precision technology: The case of autosteer
adoption by cotton farmers. Comput. Electron. Agric., 87, 121-
128. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2012.05.017.
Evett, S. R., Howell, T. A., Schneider, A. D., Upchurch, D. R., &
Wanjura, D. F. (1996). Canopy temperature based automatic
247
 irrigation control. In C. R. Camp et al. (Eds.), Proc. Intl. Conf.
Evapotranspiration and Irrigation Scheduling (pp. 207-213). St.
Joseph, Mich.: ASAE.
Evett, S. R., Howell, T. A., Schneider, A. D., & Wanjura. D. F.
(2002). Automatic drip irrigation control regulates water use
efficiency. Intl. Water Irrig. J., 22(2), 32-37.
Evett, S. R., Peters, R. T., & Howell, T. A. (2006). Controlling
water use efficiency with irrigation automation: Cases from drip
and center pivot irrigation of corn and soybean. In Proc. 28th
Annual Southern Conservation Systems Conf. (pp. 57-66).
Bushland, Tex.: USDA-ARS Conservation and Production
Research Laboratory.
Evett, S. R., Heng, L. K., Moutonnet, P., & Nguyen, M. L. (2008).
Field estimation of soil water content: A practical guide to
methods, instrumentation, and sensor technology. IAEATCS-30.
Vienna, Austria: International Atomic Energy Agency.
Evett, S. R., Schwartz, R. C., Tolk, J. A., & Howell, T. A. (2009).
Soil profile water content determination: Spatio-temporal
variability of electromagnetic and neutron probe sensors in
access tubes. Vadose Zone J., 8(4), 926-941.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2136/vzj2008.0146.
Evett, S. R., O’Shaughnessy, S. A., Colaizzi, P. D., & Schwartz, R.
C. (2014a). Soil water sensing: Implications of sensor
capabilities for variable-rate irrigation management. In Proc.
Irrig. Assoc. Expo. and Tech. Conf. Fairfax, Va.: Irrigation
Association.
Evett, S. R., O’Shaughnessy, S. A., & Peters, R. T. (2014b).
Irrigation scheduling and supervisory control and data
acquisition system for moving and static irrigation systems. U.S.
Patent No. 13,403,091.
Goumopoulos, C., O’Flynn, B., & Kameas, A. (2014). Automated
zone-specific irrigation with wireless sensor/actuator network
and adaptable decision support. Comput. Electron. Agric., 105,
20-33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2014.03.012.
Grisso, R., Alley, M., Holshouser, D., & Thomason, W. (2009).
Precision farming tools: Soil electrical conductivity. Publication
442-508. Blacksburg, Va.: Virginia Tech Cooperative
Extension. Retrieved from http://pubs.ext.vt.edu/442/442-
508/442-508_pdf.pdf.
Han, Y. J., Khalilian, A., Owino, T. W., Farahani, H. J., & Moore,
S. (2009). Development of Clemson variable-rate lateral
irrigation system. Comput. Electron. Agric., 68(1), 108-113.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2009.05.002.
Hedley, C. B., & Yule, I. J. (2009). A method for daily prediction of
daily soil water status for precise irrigation scheduling. Agric.
Water Mgmt., 96(12), 1737-1745.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2009.07.009.
Hedley, C. B., Roudier P., Yule, I. J., Ekanayake, J., & Bradbury, S.
(2013). Soil water status and water table depth modelling using
electromagnetic surveys for precision irrigation scheduling.
Geoderma, 199, 22-29.
Howell, T. A. (1990). Chapter 14: Relationships between crop
production and transpiration, evapotranspiration, and irrigation.
In Irrigation of Agricultural Crops (pp. 391-434). Agronomy
Monograph No. 30. Madison, Wisc.: ASA-CSSA-SSSA.
Howell, T. A. (2001). Enhancing water use efficiency in irrigated
agriculture. Agron. J., 93(2), 281-289.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2134/agronj2001.932281x.
Howell, T. A., Evett, S. R., O’Shaughnessy, S. A., Colaizzi, P. D.,
& Gowda, P. H. (2012). Advanced irrigation engineering:
Precision and precise. J. Agric. Sci. Tech., 2(1A), 1-9.
Huang, Y., Lan, Y., Thomson, S. J., Fang, A., Hoffman, W. C., &
Lacey, R. E. (2010). Development of soft computing and
applications in agricultural and biological engineering. Comput.
Electron. Agric., 71(2), 107-127.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2010.01.001.
248
Hunsaker, D. J., Pinter, Jr., P. J., Barnes, E. M., & Kimball, B. A.
(2003). Estimating cotton evapotranspiration crop coefficients
with a multispectral vegetation index. Irrig. Sci., 22(2), 95-104.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00271-003-0074-6.
Kim, J., Evans, R. G., & Iversen, W. M. (2009). Evaluation of
closed-loop site-specific irrigation with wireless sensor network.
Irrig. Drain. Eng., 135(1), 25-31. 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-
9437(2009).
King, B. A., & Wall, R. W. (1998). Supervisory control and data
acquisition system for site-specific center-pivot irrigation. Appl.
Eng. Agric., 14(2), 135-144.
http://dx.doi.org/10.13031/2013.19374.
Kitchen, N. R. (2008). Emerging technologies for real-time and
integrated agriculture decisions. Comput. Electron. Agric., 61(1),
1-3. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2007.06.007.
Kranz, W. L., Evans, R. G., Lamm, F. R., O’Shaughnessy, S. A., &
Peters, R. T. (2012). A review of mechanical move sprinkler
irrigation control and automation technologies. Appl. Eng.
Agric., 28(3), 389-397. http://dx.doi.org/10.13031/2013.41494.
Lamb, D. W., Frazier, P., & Adams, P. (2008). Improving pathways
to adoption: Putting the right P’s in precision agriculture.
Comput. Electron. Agric., 61(1), 4-9.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2007.04.009.
Landrum, C., Castrignano, A., Mueller, T., Zourarakis, D., Zhu, J.,
& De Benedetto, D. (2015). An approach for delineating
homogeneous within-field zones using proximal sensing and
multivariate geostatistics. Agric. Water Mgmt., 147, 144-153.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2014.07.013.
LaRue, J. L. (2011). Variable-rate irrigation 2010 field results for
Central Plains conference. In Proc. 23rd Ann. Central Plains
Irrig. Conf. (pp. 135-143). Colby, Kans.: Central Plains
Irrigation Association.
LaRue, J. L., & Frederick, C. (2012). Decision process for the
application of variable-rate irrigation. ASABE Paper No.
121337451. St. Joseph, Mich.: ASABE.
Li, Y., Shi, Z., & Li, F. (2007). Delineation of site-specific
management zones based on temporal and spatial variability of
soil. Pedosphere, 17(2), 156-164.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1002-0160(07)60021-6.
Lyle, W. M., & Bordovsky, J. P. (1983). LEPA irrigation system
evaluation. Trans. ASAE, 26(3), 776-781.
http://dx.doi.org/10.13031/2013.34022.
Lyle, W. M., & Dixon, D. R. (1977). Basin tillage for rainfall
retention. Trans. ASAE, 20(6), 1013-1021.
http://dx.doi.org/10.13031/2013.35693.
McCarthy, A. C., Hancock, N. H., & Raine, S. R. (2010).
VARIwise: A general-purpose adaptive control simulation
framework for spatially and temporally varied irrigation at sub-
field scale. Comput. Electron. Agric., 70(1), 117-128.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2009.09.011.
McCarthy, A. C., Hancock, N. H., & Raine, S. R. (2014a).
Simulation of irrigation control strategies for cotton using Model
Predictive Control within the VARIwise simulation framework.
Comput. Electron. Agric., 101, 135-147.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2013.12.004.
McCarthy, A. C., Hancock, N. H., & Raine, S. R. (2014b).
Development and simulation of sensor-based irrigation control
strategies for cotton using the VARIwise simulation framework.
Comput. Electron. Agric., 101, 148-162.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2013.12.014.
Mirik, M., Michels, G. J., Kassymzhanova-Mirik, S., & Elliott, N.
C. (2007). Reflectance characteristics of Russian wheat aphid
(Hemiptera: Aphididae): Stress and abundance in winter wheat.
Comput. Electron. Agric., 57(2), 123-134.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2007.03.002.
Morgan, R. M. (1993). Water and the Land: A History of American
TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASABE
 Irrigation. Fairfax, Va.: Irrigation Association.
O’Shaughnessy, S. A., & Evett, S. R. (2010a). Canopy temperature
based system effectively schedules and controls center-pivot
irrigation for cotton. Agric. Water Mgmt., 97(9), 1310-1316.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2010.03.012.
O’Shaughnessy, S. A., & Evett, S. R. (2010b). Developing wireless
sensor networks for monitoring crop canopy temperature using a
moving sprinkler system as a platform. Appl. Eng. Agric., 26(2),
331-341. http://dx.doi.org/10.13031/2013.29534.
O’Shaughnessy, S. A., Evett, S. R., Colaizzi, P. D., & Howell, T. A.
(2012). Grain sorghum response to irrigation scheduling with the
time-temperature threshold method and deficit irrigation levels.
Trans. ASABE, 55(2), 451-461.
http://dx.doi.org/10.13031/2013.41395.
O’Shaughnessy, S. A., Evett, S. R., Colaizzi, P. D., & Howell, T. A.
(2013a). Wireless sensor network effectively controls center-
pivot irrigation of sorghum. Appl. Eng. Agric., 29(6), 853-864.
O’Shaughnessy, S. A., Urrego, Y. F., Evett, S. R., Colaizzi, P. D., &
Howell, T. A. (2013b). Assessing application uniformity of a
variable-rate irrigation system in a windy location. Appl. Eng.
Agric., 29(4), 497-510.
O’Shaughnessy, S. A., Evett, S. R., & Colaizzi, P. D. (2015).
Dynamic prescription maps for site-specific variable-rate
irrigation of cotton. Agric. Water Mgmt., 159, 123-138.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2015.06.001.
Pedroso, M., Taylor, J., Tisseyre, B., Charnomordic, B., &
Guillaume, S. (2010). A segmentation algorithm for the
delineation of agricultural management zones. Comput.
Electron. Agric., 70(1), 199-208.
Peters, R. T., & Evett, S. R. (2004). Modeling diurnal canopy
temperature dynamics using one-time-of-day measurements and a
reference temperature curve. Agron. J., 96(6), 1553-1561.
Peters, R. T., & Evett, S. R. (2007). Spatial and temporal analysis of
crop stress using multiple canopy temperature maps created with
an array of center-pivot-mounted infrared thermometers. Trans.
ASABE, 50(3), 919-927. http://dx.doi.org/10.13031/2013.23156.
Peters, R. T., & Evett, S. R. (2008). Automation of a center pivot
using the temperature-time threshold method of irrigation
scheduling. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng., 134(3), 286-290.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9437(2008)134:3(286).
Price, J. A., Workneh, F., Evett, S. R., Jones, D. C., Arthur, J., &
Rush, C. M. (2010). Effects of wheat streak mosaic virus on root
development and water use efficiency of hard red winter wheat.
Plant Disease, 94(6), 766-770. http://dx.doi.org/10.1094/PDIS-
94-6-0766.
Price, J. A., Simmons, A. R., Rashed, A., Workneh, F., & Rush, C.
M. (2014). Winter wheat cultivars with temperature-sensitive
resistance to wheat streak mosaic virus do not recover from
early-season infections. Plant Disease, 98(4), 525-529.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1094/PDIS-04-13-0455-RE.
Romero, R., Muriel, J. L., & García, I., Muñoz de la Peña, D.
(2012). Research on automatic irrigation control: State of the art
and recent results. Agric. Water Mgmt., 114, 59-66.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2012.06.026.
Sadler, E. J., Camp, C. R., Evans, D. E., & Millen, J. A. (2002).
Spatial variation of corn response to irrigation. Trans. ASAE,
59(1): 239-249
V i e w p u b l i c a t i o
45(6), 1869-1881. http://dx.doi.org/10.13031/2013.11438.
Scherer, T. F., Kranz, W. L., Post, D., Werner, H., Wright, J. A., &
Yonts, C. D. (1999). Sprinkler Irrigation Systems (1st ed.).
Ames, Iowa: Midwest Plains Service.
Schneider, A. D., & Howell, T. A. (2000). Surface runoff due to
LEPA and spray irrigation of a slowly permeable soil. Trans.
ASAE, 43(5), 1089-1095. http://dx.doi.org/10.13031/2013.3001.
Stone, K. C., Bauer, P. J., Busscher, W. J., Millen, J. A., Evans, D.
E., & Strickland, E. E. (2015). Variable-rate irrigation
management using an expert system in the eastern coastal plain.
Irrig. Sci., 33(3), 167-175. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00271-
014-0457-x.
Sui, R., & Thomasson, J. A. (2006). Ground-based sensing system
for cotton nitrogen status determination. Trans. ASABE, 49(6),
1983-1991. http://dx.doi.org/10.13031/2013.22279.
Thompson, A. L., Sudduth, K. A., Henggeler, J. C., Vories, E. D., &
Rackers, A. D. (2010). Variable-rate irrigation management for
humid climates using a conventional center-pivot system.
ASABE Paper No. IRR109849. St. Joseph, Mich.: ASABE.
Tolk, J. A., & Howell, T. A. (2008). Field water supply: Yield
relationships of grain sorghum grown in three USA Southern
Great Plains soils. Agric. Water Mgmt., 95(12), 1303-1313.
Trout, T. J., Johnson, L. F., & Gartung, J. (2008). Remote sensing
of canopy cover in horticultural crops. HortSci., 43(2), 333-337.
USDA-NASS. (2013). Farm and ranch irrigation survey.
Washington, D.C.: USDA National Agricultural Statistics
Service. Retrieved from
www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Online_Resources/F
arm_and_Ranch_Irrigation_Survey/.
USDA-NRCS. (2013). Web soil survey. Washington, D.C.: USDA
Natural Resources Conservation Service. Retrieved from
http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov.
USDA-NRCS. (2015). Geospatial data gateway. Washington, D.C.:
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. Retrieved from
http://datagateway.nrcs.usda.gov/.
Vories, E., Tacker, P., Stephenson, D., Bajwa, S., & Perry, C.
(2008). Performance of a variable-rate center pivot system. In
Proc. World Water and Environ. Resources Congress. Reston,
Va.: ASCE.
Wanjura, D. F., Upchurch, D. R., & Mahan, J. R. (1992).
Automated irrigation based on threshold canopy temperature.
Trans. ASAE, 35(1), 153-159.
http://dx.doi.org/10.13031/2013.28582.
West, J. S., Bravo, C., Oberti, R., Lemaire, D., Moshou, D., &
McCartney, H. A. (2003). The potential of optical canopy
measurements for targeted control of field crop diseases. Ann.
Rev. Phytopathol., 41, 593-614.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.phyto.41.121702.103726.
Workneh, F., Jones, D. C., & Rush, C. M. (2009). Quantifying
wheat yield across the field as a function of wheat streak mosaic
intensity: A state space approach. Phytopathol., 99(4), 432-440.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1094/PHYTO-99-4-0432.
Yang, C., Everitt, J. H., Murden, F., & Robinson, J. R. C. (2002).
Spatial variability in yields and profits within ten grain sorghum
fields in south Texas. Trans. ASAE, 45(4), 897-906.
http://dx.doi.org/10.13031/2013.9936.
249
n s t a t s