Irrigation Science

, Volume 34, Issue 5, pp 409–420 | Cite as

Yield, quality and profitability of sensor-controlled irrigation: a case study of snapdragon (Antirrhinum majus L.) production

  • Monica Saavoss
  • John Majsztrik
  • Bruk Belayneh
  • John Lea-Cox
  • Erik Lichtenberg
Original Paper

Abstract

Advanced wireless irrigation sensor networks that can monitor and control irrigation are only recently available commercially, but on-farm research has found a number of advantages compared with current irrigation practices including reduced water application, disease incidence, production time and labor, together with increased profitability. We examined the effects of wireless sensor networks to precisely control irrigation based on substrate moisture in a 0.15-ha greenhouse producing cut-flower snapdragons (Antirrhinum majus). We calculated changes in yield, production time, quality, cost, revenue and profit using grower data on production, expenditures and sales, which included 3 years of data before and after implementation of sensor irrigation networks. Sensor-based irrigation was associated with a 62 % ($65,173 or $434,487 ha−1) increase in revenue and a 65 % ($35,327 or $325,513 ha−1) increase in profit per year. Sensor-based irrigation was also associated with increases in the quality and the number of stems harvested per crop. The time to first harvest and time to last harvest were reduced for all cultivar groups, indicating that the plants grew faster using sensor networks. Production time per crop was decreased, allowing 2.5 additional crops per year. Electricity usage was also reduced, likely due to less frequent irrigation using sensor networks. These results are in line with other benefits we have seen by installing sensor networks in other types of ornamental operations.

References

  1. Ackerman F, Stanton E (2011) The last drop: climate change and the southwest water. CrisisRep., Stockholm Environment Institute, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  2. Beeson RC Jr, Haydu J (1995) Cyclic microirrigation in container-grown landscape plants improves plant growth and water conservation. J Environ Hortic 13(1):6–11Google Scholar
  3. Belayneh BE, Lea-Cox JD, Lichtenberg E (2013) Costs and benefits of implementing sensor-controlled irrigation in a commercial pot-in-pot container nursery. HortTechnology 23:760–769Google Scholar
  4. Beeson RC, Arnold MA, Bilderback TE, Bolusky B, Chandler S, Gramling HM, Lea-Cox JD, Harris JR, Klinger PJ, Mathers HM, Ruter J, Yeager TH (2004) Strategic vision of container nursery irrigation in the next ten years. J Environ Hortic 22:113–115Google Scholar
  5. Brennan D (2008) Factors affecting the economic benefits of sprinkler uniformity and their implications for irrigation water use. Irrig Sci 26:109–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cabrera RI, Evans RY, Paul JL (1993) Leaching losses of N from container-grown roses. Sci Hortic 53:333–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chappell M, Dove SK, van Iersel MW, Thomas PA, Ruteret J (2013) Implementation of wireless sensor networks for irrigation control in three container networks. HortTechnology 23:747–753Google Scholar
  8. Chen J, Huang Y, Caldwell RD (2001) Best management practices for minimizing nitrate leaching from container-grown nurseries. In: Optimizing nitrogen management in food and energy production and environmental protection. Proceedings of 2nd international nitrogen conference on science and policy. Sci World 1(S2):96–102Google Scholar
  9. Daum D, Schenk MK (1996) Gaseous nitrogen losses from a soilless culture system in the greenhouse. Plant Soil 183:69–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Evans RG, LaRue J, Stone KC, King BA (2013) Adoption of site-specific variable rate sprinkler irrigation systems. Irrig Sci 31:871–887CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Groffman PM, Tiedje JM (1991) Relationships between denitrification, CO2 production and air-filled porosity in soils of different texture and drainage. Soil Biol Biochem 23(3):299–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hall CR, Hodges AW, Palma MA (2011) Sales, trade flows and marketing practices within the U.S. nursery industry. J Environ Hortic 29:14–24Google Scholar
  13. Lichtenberg E, Majsztrik J, Saavoss M (2013) Profitability of sensor-based irrigation in greenhouse and nursery crops. HortTechnology 23(6):770–774Google Scholar
  14. Myrold DD, Tiedje JM (1985) Establishment of denitrification capacity in soil: effects of carbon, nitrate and moisture. Soil Biol Biochem 17(6):819–822CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Parke JL, Grunwald NJ (2012) A systems approach for management of pests and pathogens of nursery crops. Plant Dis 96(9):1236–1244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ristvey AG, Lea-Cox JD, Ross DS (2004) Nutrient uptake, partitioning and leaching losses from container-nursery production systems. Acta Hortic 630:321–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ross DS, Lea-Cox JD, Teffeau KM (2002) The importance of water in the nutrient management process. Proc South Nurs Assoc Res Conf 46:574–577Google Scholar
  18. Sauer T, Havlik P, Schneider UA, Scmid E, Kindermann G, Obersteiner M (2010) Agriculture and resource availability in a changing world: the role of irrigation. Water Resour Res 46:W06503. doi:10.1029/2009WR007729 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Schaible G, Aillery M (2012) Water conservation in irrigated agriculture: trends and challenges in the face of emerging demands. Economic Information Bulletin EIB-99, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of AgricultureGoogle Scholar
  20. US Department of Agriculture (2009) Census of Agriculture: United States Summary and State Data, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  21. van Iersel M, Seymour RM, Chappell M, Watson F, Dove SK (2009) Soil moisture sensor-based irrigation reduces water use and nutrient leaching in a commercial nursery. SNA Research Conference, Atlanta, GA, S. Nursery AssociationGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Monica Saavoss
    • 1
  • John Majsztrik
    • 2
  • Bruk Belayneh
    • 3
  • John Lea-Cox
    • 3
  • Erik Lichtenberg
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Agricultural and Resource EconomicsUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkUSA
  2. 2.Department of Agriculture and Environmental ScienceClemson UniversityClemsonUSA
  3. 3.Department of Plant Science and Landscape ArchitectureUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations