Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

A Model-Based Real-Time Decision Support System for Irrigation Scheduling to Improve Water Productivity

A Model-Based Real-Time Decision Support System for Irrigation Scheduling to Improve Water... Article A Model-Based Real-Time Decision Support System for Irrigation Scheduling to Improve Water Productivity 1,2,3,4 1,2,4, 1,2 5 6 1,2 Xiaoping Chen , Zhiming Qi *, Dongwei Gui , Zhe Gu , Liwang Ma , Fanjiang Zeng , 1 7 Lanhai Li and Matthew W. Sima State Key Laboratory of Desert and Oasis Ecology, Xinjiang Institute of Ecology and Geography, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Urumqi 830011, China; cxp0418@126.com (X.C.); guidwei@ms.xjb.ac.cn (D.G.); zengfj@ms.xjb.ac.cn (F.Z.); lilh@ms.xjb.ac.cn (L.L.) Cele National Station of Observation and Research for Desert Grassland Ecosystem in Xinjiang, Cele, 848300 Xinjiang, China University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China Department of Bioresource Engineering, McGill University, Ste-Anne-de-Bellevue, QC, H9X 3V9, Canada College of Agricultural Engineering, Hohai University, 1 Xikang Road, Nanjing 210098, China; zhegu2017@163.com USDA-ARS Rangeland Resources and Systems Research Unit, Fort Collins, CO 80526, USA; Liwang.Ma@ars.usda.gov Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544, USA; sima.matthew@gmail.com * Correspondence: zhiming.qi@mcgill.ca Received: 20 September 2019; Accepted: 25 October 2019; Published: 27 October 2019 Abstract: A precisely timed irrigation schedule to match crop water demand is vital to improving water use efficiency in arid farmland. In this study, a real-time irrigation-scheduling infrastructure, Decision Support System for Irrigation Scheduling (DSSIS), based on water stresses predicted by an agro-hydrological model, was constructed and evaluated. The DSSIS employed the Root Zone Water Quality Model (RZWQM2) to predict crop water stresses and soil water content, which were used to trigger irrigation and calculate irrigation amount, respectively, along with forecasted rainfall. The new DSSIS was evaluated through a cotton field experiment in Xinjiang, China in 2016 and 2017. Three irrigation scheduling methods (DSSIS-based (D), soil moisture sensor-based (S), and conventional experience-based (E)), factorially combined with two irrigation rates (full irrigation (FI), and deficit irrigation (DI, 75% of FI)) were compared. The DSSIS significantly increased water productivity (WP) by 26% and 65.7%, compared to sensor-based and experience- based irrigation scheduling methods (p < 0.05), respectively. No significant difference was observed in WP between full and deficit irrigation treatments. In addition, the DSSIS showed economic advantage over sensor- and experience-based methods. Our results suggested that DSSIS is a promising tool for irrigation scheduling. Keywords: irrigation decision support system; agro-hydrological model; RZWQM2; water stress; weather forecast 1. Introduction Improving water use efficiency (WUE) has become an important strategy in dealing with drought in zones with limited water resources. The exploitation of available fresh water, especially groundwater resources, has seriously hindered sustainable agriculture development and even Agronomy 2019, 9, 686; doi:10.3390/agronomy9110686 www.mdpi.com/journal/agronomy Agronomy 2019, 9, 686 2 of 19 economic growth in arid and semi-arid regions. Modern technologies are helping to achieve efficient water use in these regions [1]. One of the major water users, agriculture, now faces intense competition from other major water users, especially the industrial sector [2]. As a country with an enormous agricultural sector, China has a large area of cultivated lands, including marginal agricultural lands. China’s agricultural water use accounts for about 70% of its total water consumption. The relatively low crop yield and WUE in many regions is the result of unreasonable irrigation and fertilizer application rates [3,4]. In order to improve the utilization of limited water resources under a modern agricultural practice, an accurate and efficient water-saving irrigation decision support system is required. Establishing an automatic irrigation system can substantially improve irrigation WUE and crop productivity [5–7]. Several irrigation Decision Support Systems (DSSs) have been developed [8–12] and used in agricultural water resource management to improve WUE. A DSS can successfully serve to develop irrigation scheduling based on real-time crop status information [13]. An accurate and efficient DSS should take many factors into consideration, including weather, crop type, soil water status, irrigation method, and application efficiency [14,15]. Therefore, accurate measurements of soil, plant, and environmental variables are particularly important. To characterize the water status of the plant and soil, real-time sensors are commonly used to determine irrigation timing and amount. For example, automatic irrigation systems have been implemented using tensiometers; however, tensiometers require recalibration [16], and their positioning greatly affects soil water matric potential measurements [17]. Moreover, these irrigation systems require intensive labor and expensive devices to monitor soil moisture (θ). In addition, their installation in the field can affect field operations, especially mechanized harvesting. Furthermore, due to field variability, accurate installation of tensiometers is imperative for them to be effective. Weather is one of the key factors considered in estimating crop water requirements, so, in order to improve irrigation WUE, agronomists generally rely on information (daily temperature, reference evapotranspiration (ET), and precipitation) from weather stations to adjust irrigation schedules. For example, Car et al. [18] designed an irrigation system management system that implemented a mobile phone Short Messaging Service (SMS) to access weather forecasts; however, their ET-based irrigation scheduling and SMS system did not accurately reflect crop water deficit conditions. A series of indices have been developed to optimize irrigation scheduling: indirect, external environmental factors, e.g., θ and meteorological conditions [19–22], and direct, crop physiological parameters, e.g., canopy temperature [23–25]. Indirect indicators such as θ may not reflect the crop’s water deficit, whereas crop physiological indicators are more accurate in estimating crop water deficit. With multiple factors to be considered, irrigation scheduling merely based on θ measurements cannot accurately determine optimal irrigation timing and quantity. Crop water requirements are related to leaf area index (LAI), crop root growth, and upcoming weather conditions. At present, few irrigation scheduling DSSs draw on indirect (vs. direct) indicators to determine irrigation timing and quantity. Gao et al. [26] has developed a precision irrigation system based on crop water stresses measured by a wireless sensor network employing an acoustic emission technique. The use of sensors to monitor crop water status is a widely used method to study crop water stresses [27]. As a non-destructive method to monitor crop canopy temperature, the infrared thermometer has an additional advantage of producing low measurement errors in plant temperature [28]; however, this method to calculate crop water stresses usually requires a reference value of crop canopy temperature under full irrigation [29]. Crop models integrate various aspects of agricultural production systems and it may be used as a surrogate for irrigation scheduling. Thorp et al. [30] developed a prototype precision farming DSSs called Apollo using the Decision Support System for Agrotechnology Transfer (DSSAT) crop growth model. Likewise, a two-level optimization model incorporating the SWAP-EPIC agro-hydrological model was developed to maximize an irrigation system’s WUE and economic returns [31]. While applying crop models directly to irrigation management and decision-making is rare, Thorp et al. [32] did report that the CSM-CROPGRO-Cotton model could provide appropriate in-season irrigation management recommendations. Crop models have also been applied as simulation tools Agronomy 2019, 9, 686 3 of 19 to address a variety of research questions related to irrigation management under subsurface drip irrigation [33]. Agro-hydrological models and software (i.e., the Root Zone Water Quality Model (RZWQM)) have been widely applied to simulate crop responses to water stresses under various environmental scenarios, and to make irrigation decisions to alleviate crop water stresses. The RZWQM model has shown promise in simulating crop water and nutrient cycling [34,35], and in the evaluation of agricultural water resources utilization and ecosystem viability [36]. Using a Root Zone Water Quality Model (RZWQM2) (a later version of RZWQM), Saseendran et al. [37] tested the effectiveness of different water stress factors in RZWQM simulation of maize (Zea mays L.) under different irrigation conditions. Ma et al. [38] used the RZWQM2 model to predict maize yield under different deficit irrigation. Based on crop water stress simulated in the RZWQM model, Fang et al. [39] optimized irrigation strategies for a wheat–maize (Triticum aestivum L.–Z. mays) double cropping system on the North China Plain. Evaluating the accuracy of simulation of crop growth and water stress in eastern Colorado using the RZWQM2 model, Qi et al. [29] found the dates of water stress occurrence and the responses of crop yield to water stresses to be well simulated. Based on the fact that RZWQM2 can adequately simulate water stresses under various environmental scenarios, Gu et al. [40] developed an irrigation scheduling software RZ_IrrSch based on the RZWQM2-predicted crop water stresses. The software was tested under two virtual scenarios: arid maize production in Colorado and a humid soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr.) production in Mississippi of USA. However, the DSS has not been implemented or evaluated to schedule irrigation at a field site. This study constitutes an effort to combine this agro-hydrological model-based software and irrigation control hardware to construct a new Decision Support System for Irrigation Scheduling (DSSIS). As virtual tests suggested that the software would perform better under arid conditions, this new DSSIS system was constructed and assessed in an extremely dry cotton field in southern Xinjiang, China. The RZWQM2 model had been calibrated using data collected at an irrigated cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) site in this region from 2007–2014 by Liu et al. [41]. Therefore, the objective of this study was to test a new DSSIS in improving water productivity (WP) for irrigated cotton in a cotton field in Northwest China. 2. Materials and Methods 2.1. Root Zone Water Quality Model (RZWQM2) The Root Zone Water Quality Model (RZWQM) is a 1D model housing physical, chemical, and biological processes for simulating agricultural management effects on soil processes, crop production, and water quality [42–44]. Agricultural management includes plant management (planting density, row spacing, planting depth, method of planting, time of harvest, type of harvest), irrigation management (type of irrigation, application rate, time, and amount of irrigation), and − + fertilizer management (methods of application, NO3 -N, NH4 -N, Urea-N amount). The RZWQM2 model incorporates DSSAT (Decision Support System for Agrotechnology Transfer) version 4.0 crop growth modules and the SHAW (Simultaneous Heat and Water) energy balance modules. The DSSAT model provides a database of cultivar parameters for the crops and cultivars simulated in the RZWQM2 model. The CSM-CROPGRO-COTTON model (DSSATv4.5), incorporated into RZWQM2 model, was used in this study. In RZWQM2, the potential evapotranspiration (PET) is estimated using the Shuttleworth–Wallace method, and actual root water uptake is derived from either the Nimah–Hanks equation when the generic plant growth module is invoked or from an empirical equation when the DSSAT crop growth modules are used. 2.2. Decision Support System for Irrigation Scheduling (DSSIS) Framework As a key component of the newly developed decision support system for irrigation scheduling (DSSIS), the RZWQM2 model served as the engine in making irrigation scheduling decisions. The water stress factor calculated by the RZWQM2 model was used to set the timing of future irrigations. The amount of future Agronomy 2019, 9, 686 4 of 19 irrigation under the DSSIS was estimated through the difference between soil field capacity θfc and simulated θ of the rooting layer, minus current and 4-day forecasted rainfall. 2.2.1. The DSSIS Framework Design The DSSIS system is composed of two major parts, a core control software (IrrSch, version, Manufacturer, City, US State abbrev. if applicable, Country), and irrigation hardware. Having provided weather updates information to IrrSch software installed on a PC, the user can then send the irrigation command (irrigation time and amount) to irrigation control software through a network switchboard, which controls the irrigation valves and circulating pump. The DSSIS system includes four main components (Figure 1): • Irrigation pipeline system, consisting of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe, drip irrigation pipe, and valves. The drip irrigation pipes are equipped with pressure compensation type emitters with a –1 flow rate of 5 Lh at a pressure of 1–2 bar. The distance between two emitters is 0.1 m to match the plant spacing. • Irrigation control software, consisting of weather data acquisition (online for the future and site- specific for current), RZWQM2 model, and IrrSch decision and control software. The development of this IrrSch software can be found in Gu et al [40]. The system functions as follows:  The RZWQM2 model, with crop and soil parameters calibrated using a historical field experiment from 2007–2014 [41], is installed on a PC;  The IrrSch software retrieves current day weather information from an on-site weather station as well as 4-day weather forecasts from a weather Application Program Interface (API) (http://api.openweathermap.org), and subsequently feeds into RZWQM2;  RZWQM2 is called by IrrSch and executed to predict the water stress factor, crop ET, and θ for the current and four upcoming days;  When the current day’s predicted water stress factor is less than a user defined threshold, an irrigation event is triggered and the amount of water to be supplied is calculated using the θfc, the predicted current θ, the predicted crop rooting depth, and the total amount of current and forecast 4-day rainfall. • Irrigation control hardware, consisting of soil moisture sensors, electromagnetic valves, the field programmable logic controller (F-PLC), the site of programmable logic controller (S-PLC), frequency conversion controller (FCC), and the user operating the S-PLC to facilitate irrigation; • Peripheral equipment, consisting of a reservoir, circulating pump, strainer, and groundwater pumping station, to secure a water supply for crops. Agronomy 2019, 9, 686 5 of 19 Figure 1. The Decision Support System for Irrigation Scheduling (DSSIS) based on Root Zone Water Quality Model (RZWQM2) predicted water stress factor and weather forecasts. F-PLC, the field programmable logic controller; S-PLC, the site of programmable logic controller; FCC, frequency conversion controller. 2.2.2. The Network Information Transfer in the DSSIS The developed DSSIS used an agricultural management information network (Figure 2) to control information flow in the system. The network switchboard control system consisted of the spot irrigation control room, the F-PLC, and meteorology station. The user imports weather information to the computer located in the spot irrigation control room through a network switchboard, relying on the IrrSch software to send the irrigation command to the S-PLC through a Single Chip Microcomputer (SCM). The system will implement an irrigation event when the electromagnetic valve and the FCC receive the irrigation command from the computer. The FCC controls the start or stop of pumping. In order for the user to see variations in θ in a convenient and timely manner, the F-PLC receives and feeds back information on θ to the S-PLC’s touch screen. Figure 2. Network structure of Decision Support System for Irrigation Scheduling (DSSIS). SCM, Single Chip Microcomputer; PLC, programmable logic controller; S-PLC, the site of programmable logic controller; FCC, frequency conversion controller. D-FI and D-DI, the DSSIS system using an RZWQM2 model simulated water stress under full irrigation and deficit irrigation; S-FI and S-DI, sensor–based full irrigation and deficit irrigation; E-FI and E-DI, experience-based full irrigation and deficit irrigation. 2.3. Irrigation Control Software 2.3.1. Information Acquisition Using the water stresses calculated by RZWQM2 to determine the timing of irrigation is one of the key features of the DSSIS, but applying the right amount of irrigation water to achieve the most efficient use of water is equally important for any irrigation system. Another feature of the DSSIS is that the quantity of irrigation applied is determined using θfc, the predicted current θ, the simulated crop rooting depth, and the total amount of current and forecast 4-day rainfall. The meteorological data includes the daily minimum and maximum temperature, shortwave radiation, wind speed, relative humidity, and rainfall. Since the format of automatically downloaded weather data is incompatible with the format of RZWQM2 input files, it was necessary to establish a MySQL database to reformat the weather information. Subsequently, weather data were fed into RZWQM2 by initiating the IrrSch software from the MySQL database. The user could then make a timely decision regarding irrigation based on the simulated water stresses, the water deficit, and the estimated irrigation amount for the next four days. Agronomy 2019, 9, 686 6 of 19 2.3.2. Irrigation Schedule Software The IrrSch software is composed of two main interfaces: • The first interface (Figure 3) hosts seven steps through which users can input basic information into the software. Steps 1 through 6 include entering previously calibrated and validated information regarding RZWQM2 model parameters [41]. Because some parameters (planting density, tillage, etc.) do not need to be updated annually, users simply update the planting date. The seventh step includes three subroutines, but the user only controls two of these:  the “Update Weather Data” button to read the weather data files which have been downloaded from the weather station;  the “Calculation” button to run the RZWQM2 model and for the IrrSch to enter the second interface. Figure 3. Main interface of IrrSch software. • The second interface is the irrigation operations interface (Figure 4), which serves to view the information regarding water stress and crop growth, and provides users with the ability to send an irrigation instruction to the SCM. On this interface, the “Calculate” button may be used to update the value of soil water stress factor (SWFAC, 0 = extreme stress and 1 = no stress), root depth and irrigation amount and timing, as well as rainfall and crop biomass. If the value of water stress factor is less than 0.9, users must input an irrigation amount and time by pressing the “+” button. In other words, irrigation will not be triggered if SWFAC > 0.9. The suggested maximum single irrigation amount is presented in the tables of the second interface. The “Send to SCM” button will send irrigation instructions to the S-PLC and activate the FCC controlled circulating pump. The whole irrigation management operation may be automated to promote the adoption and commercialization of this newly developed irrigation management system. Root length is determined within RZWQM by simulated root growth in each soil layer. Agronomy 2019, 9, 686 7 of 19 Figure 4. Second user operation interface of IrrSch software. 2.3.3. The Water Stress Factor Algorithm in DSSIS The soil water stress factor (SWFAC) calculated by the RZWQM2 model represents the extent to which θ across the rooting depth cannot meet crop transpiration. SWFAC is used to calculate photosynthesis and other elements of the dry matter accumulation processes, and thus provides a good indication of water deficit. Accordingly, irrigation was triggered when SWFAC dropped below 0.9. The specific calculation of SWFAC in the DSSIS includes three steps: (1) the soil parameters and initial θ as inputs into the RZWQM2 model, (2) weather data downloaded from an onsite weather station (current day) and from a weather API (next 4 days), and (3) RZWQM2 simulated daily crop growth (biomass and leaf area index, etc.) as well as potential transpiration (Tp) and actual crop water uptake. The formula for SWFAC is given as [45]: ∑ RWU(L) RLV(L)∆L (1) SWFAC = , ( ) () k e (2) RWU(L) = , k lnRLV(L) (3) ( ) ∆ R G R T = , ∆ γ(1 ) where –3 –1 c —volumetric heat capacity of air (MJ∙m ∙°C ), −3 k1, k2 and k3—dimensionless constants drawn from DSSAT, v3.5: k1 = 1.32 × 10 , k2 = 120 − [250 × LL(L)], and k3 = 7.01. –2 G—heat flux below the canopy (MJ∙m ), 3 –3 LL(L)—lower limit of plant-available water in the soil layer (cm ∙cm ), –2 R —net radiation above the canopy (MJ∙m ), –2 R —net radiation over the bare soil and residue (MJm ), 3 –3 RWU(L)—potential root uptake per unit root length for soil layer L (cm watercm root), –3 RLV(L)—root length density in the soil layer (cm root∙cm soil), 3 –3 SW(L)—current soil water content in the soil layer (cm ∙cm ), T —potential transpiration (cm), calculated using the Shuttleworth–Wallace equation, VPD —air vapor pressure deficit at the mean canopy height (kPa), –1 γ —bulk boundary layer resistance of the canopy elements within the canopy (s∙m ), –1 γ —bulk stomatal resistance of the canopy (s∙m ), –1 γ—the psychrometric constant (kPa∙°C ), –3 ρ—the density of air (kg∙m ), –1 ∆ —slope of the saturation vapor press versus temperature curve (kPa∙°C ), Agronomy 2019, 9, 686 8 of 19 ∆L—the depth of the soil layer (cm). 2.4. Irrigation Control Hardware 2.4.1. The F-PLC Design The F-PLC (Figure 5) has two main functions: (1) controlling the electromagnetic valves by receiving computer instructions, (2) receiving the information from the soil moisture sensor and sending the information to S-PLC through the network switchboard. The F-PLC is composed of an air switch, fuse protector, wire connector, PLC (Siemens SIMATIC S7-200 SMART, Beijing, China), relay, soil moisture sensors, and electromagnetic valves. The soil moisture sensors (Dalian Qifeng Technology Co. Ltd, China, SMTS-II-485) used an RS-485, MODBUS-RTU protocol for their output signal. The sensor served to monitor θ and soil temperature based on frequency domain reflectometry (FDR) measurements taken at two-second intervals. The measurement accuracy of θ and soil temperature were 3% and 0.4 °C, respectively. The soil moisture sensors were calibrated prior to installation. Figure 5. Design chart of the F-PLC employed in this study. PLC, programmable logic controller. 2.4.2. The S-PLC Design The S-PLC (Figure 6) also had two main functions: • to provide a touch screen for the user to implement irrigation events by controlling the electromagnetic valves and view real-time information on θ, and • to control the F-PLC, which controls the circulating pump. The S-PLC mainly includes a touch screen (SIEMENS SMART LINE), PLC, and power source box. The touch screen: • to monitor real time variation in θ for each plot in order to set an appropriate irrigation threshold under the desired irrigation regime, and to control the irrigation system for that plot, and • to select manual or rotation irrigation mode. Agronomy 2019, 9, 686 9 of 19 Figure 6. Design chart of the S-PLC employed in this study. PLC, programmable logic controller. 2.4.3. The FCC Design The main function of the FCC (Figure 7) is to ensure the equipment smoothly, reduce energy consumption, adjust the running frequency of the equipment, and reduce the damage to the motor caused by the large current when the device is started. The FCC is made up of operation buttons, a frequency converter (JTE 320S-D), a liquid level transistor relay (JYB-714), an alternating current contactor, a fuse protector, a relay, an air switch, a wire connector, and a terminal block. Figure 7. Design chart of the FCC employed in this study. AC Contactor, Alternating Current Contactor. 2.5. Experimental Site The infrastructure of the DSSIS, sensor- and experience-based irrigation system was constructed in March 2016 at the Cele National Station of Observation & Research for Desert-Grassland Ecosystem, Chinese Academy of Sciences (37°01’06’’ N, 80°43’48’’ E) in the Qira Oasis of southern Xinjiang, China (Supplement Figure S1). To evaluate the effectiveness of the DSSIS, it was compared with other two irrigation scheduling methods relying on soil moisture sensors and conventional experience-based approaches, respectively, all factorially combined with either full (FI) or deficit irrigation (DI, 75% of FI). The experiment has been conducted since April 2016, and, in this study, two years of data are reported (2016 and 2017). The experimental field area covered an area of 0.144 ha in a fine sand soil. Weather data were recorded at the Cele National Station of Observation & Research for Desert-Grassland Ecosystems weather station (51826) near the test site (Figure 8). The field was divided into 24 experimental plots, each 10 m long (N/S) and 6 m wide (E/W), arranged in two sets of twelve plots, 2 m apart, arrayed on either side of the E–W running irrigation mains (Figure 9). Each plot was randomly assigned one of 24 (3 × 2 × 4) irrigation scheduling× irrigation amount × replicate combinations. On 10 April 2016 and 19 April 2017, cotton (G. hirsutum cv. ‘Xinluzao No. –1 779’) was planted in N/S rows at a 0.1 m row spacing and average rate of 222,000 seeds∙ha . Cotton was harvested on 23 September 2016 and 28 September 2017. Sheep manure was applied at planting –1 at a rate of 240 kg N ha , and fertilizer supplemented throughout the growing season according to plant growth and fertilizer uptake estimated through experience. Prior to sowing, each plot was covered with three 1.25 m wide bands of plastic mulch (0.6 m apart), each bearing two drip lines. The –3 average soil bulk density was measured to be 1.32, 1.32, 1.34, 1.36, and 1.16 g cm for the 0–0.15 m, 0.15–0.25 m, 0.25–0.40 m, 0.40–0.65 m, and 0.65–1.0 m soil layers, respectively. Agronomy 2019, 9, 686 10 of 19 Figure 8. Daily maximum and minimum temperature (A), wind speed and solar radiation (B), relative humidity and rainfall (C) at the experimental site during the cotton growing period (April–October) in 2016 and 2017. Figure 9. Layout of the experimental plots. D-FI and D-DI, the DSSIS system using RZWQM2 model simulated water stress under full irrigation and deficit irrigation; S-FI and S-DI, sensor–based full irrigation and deficit irrigation; E-FI and E-DI, experience–based full irrigation and deficit irrigation. 2.6. Irrigation Treatment Design The field experiment followed a completely randomized 3 × 2 factorial design with four replicates. One factor was irrigation scheduling, including: • the DSSIS system using RZWQM2 model simulated water stress factor (D), soil moisture sensor (S), and experience (E). • The other factor is irrigation amount, including full (FI) and deficit (DI, 75% of full) irrigation. Water meters were used in each plot to ensure precise irrigation amounts when the value of SWFAC fell below a threshold of 0.9. Based on the difference between the θfc and current simulated θ, the depth of irrigation to be applied was calculated with IrrSch software [40], developed in Java language under the Eclipse platform. For the soil moisture sensor-based method, the irrigation event was triggered when the soil moisture sensors installed in the first soil layer reached a threshold of 3 –3 0.06 cm cm and the full irrigation amount was calculated based on measured θ and θfc set at 0.15 3 –3 cm cm . In the present study, the soil type is fine sand. The upper and lower thresholds of the sensor- based irrigation scheduling method were based on the literature [46], where it was reported that the total amount of water available for plant uptake called “plant available water” (PAW) ranged from 3 –3 0.14 to 0.03 cm cm in sandy soils. Haley and Dukes [47] set the irrigation threshold of sensor-based 3 –3 method at 0.07 cm cm in a fine sand. In order to meet crop water demand and achieve water savings, 3 –3 we set the irrigated lower threshold of sensor-based full irrigation to 0.06 cm cm at 0.10 m and Agronomy 2019, 9, 686 11 of 19 3 –3 irrigated upper threshold of sensor-based full irrigation to 0.15 cm cm at 0.20 m. For the conventional experience-based method, the irrigation timing and amount followed the schedule of a neighboring cotton field managed by field technicians (Table 1). Table 1. Experimental treatments imposed. Irrigation Threshold Treatment Basis of Irrigation Measurement Start Stop D-FI RZWQM2 model SWFAC * SWFAC < 0.9 θfc RZWQM2 model SWFAC D-DI Same as D-FI 75% of D-FI 3 –3 3 –3 Soil moisture Field-measured θ θ0-0.1m = 0.06 cm cm θ0-0.2m = 0.15 cm cm S-FI Soil moisture Field-measured θ S-DI Same as S-FI 75% of S-FI Experience Visual/tactile Grower’s experience θfc E-FI Experience Visual/tactile E-DI Same as E-FI 75% of E-FI * RZWQM2 simulated water stress factor (see Equation 1): SWFAC = 1 indicates that there is no water stress; SWFAC < 1 indicates some water stress; SWFAC = 0 indicates maximum water stress. D-FI and D-DI, the DSSIS system using RZWQM2 model simulated water stress under full and deficit irrigation; S-FI and SDI, sensor-based under full and deficit irrigation; E-FI and E-DI, experience- based under full and deficit irrigation. θ, soil water content. 2.7. Yield, Water Productivity (WP), and Soil Water Content Seed cotton yield was measured by manually harvesting all plants in each plot. Grain yield was computed using the seed cotton yield multiplied by the seed to fiber ratio. The seed to fiber ratio was measured using 500 lint samples from D-FI and D-DI plots. In each experimental plot, θ was monitored with soil moisture sensors buried at depths of 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.5, and 0.8 m, representing the θ in soil layers of 0–0.15 m, 0.15–0.25 m, 0.25–0.40 m, 0.40–0.65 m, and 0.65–1.0 m, respectively. In addition, during the pre-irrigation and post-harvest periods, soil samples were collected in each experimental plot at weekly intervals, at the same soil depths near the cotton roots. The collected soil samples were placed in an oven at 105 °C for two days and dried to constant weight in the laboratory. The measured θ was compared with each layer’s simulated θ. The water productivity (WP) was defined as the ratio of seed cotton yield to the sum of irrigation and precipitation water depths over the full growing season: (4) WP = , ( ) where –3 WP—irrigation water use efficiency (kg m ), –2 Y—seed cotton yield (kg m ), I—the irrigation amount (m), P—precipitation (m). 2.8. Statistical and Economic Analysis The effects of the irrigation scheduling and irrigation levels on crop yield, total irrigation amount, and water productivity (WP) were analyzed using the PROC ANOVA procedure of SAS 9.2 software (Manufacturer, City, US State abbrev. if applicable, Country). Differences between means were examined at a probability level of 0.05 using Duncan’s multiple range test. The irrigation scheduling × amount interaction was not significant (p > 0.05) for crop yield, total irrigation amount, or WP. To evaluate the RZWQM2 model performance in simulating θ, the mean difference (MD), coefficient of determination (R ), Nash–Sutcliffe model efficiency (ENS), and root mean squared error (RMSE) were used to evaluate the goodness of fit between simulated and measured values. The ratio of the MD to the measured mean is defined as the relative MD. Given the wide range of datasets Agronomy 2019, 9, 686 12 of 19 involved, it is difficult to select a model performance criterion that would address all sources of inaccuracy; however, for simplicity, model performance was considered satisfactorily when ENS ≥ 0.5 [29]. For yield prediction, only the MD was used since yield was only measured at harvest. An economic analysis was conducted based on the assumption that the infrastructure for each irrigation scheduling was applied to a 10-ha cotton field, an average size of a drip irrigation farm in this area, with a 10-year operational lifetime. Labor cost was set at $50 per person for operating each −3 −1 irrigation event, and water and cotton price at $0.04 m and $1.30 kg , respectively, according to −1 −1 Shareef et al. [48] Fertilizer, seed and machinery was estimated $1500 ha y , the same for all irrigation scheduling methods. 3. Results and Discussion 3.1. Effectiveness of Irrigation Scheduling Methods Statistical analyses of the effect of irrigation scheduling and irrigation quantity on seed cotton yield, total irrigation amount, and WP showed that the DSSIS method had an obvious advantage by increasing seed cotton yield, reducing total irrigation, and enhancing WP (Table 2). Averaged across –1 both full and deficit irrigation strategies, two-year mean seed cotton yield was 4.44 Mg ha under the –1 –1 DSSIS method, about 1.04 Mg ha (30.5%) and 0.73 Mg ha (19.4%) greater (p ≤ 0.05) than yields –1 –1 under sensor-based and experience-based irrigation (3.40 Mg ha and 3.72 Mg ha ), respectively. The 2-year averaged total seasonal irrigation under both the DSSIS and sensor-based irrigation scheduling methods (316 mm) was significantly lower (31.7% and 33.6%, respectively) than that under experience-based irrigation (476 mm). The 2-year mean WP under the DSSIS method was 1.16 –3 –3 −3 kg m , 0.24 kg m (26%, p ≤ 0.05) greater than that under the sensor-based method and 0.46 kg m (65.7%, p ≤ 0.05) greater than that under the experience-based method. With respect to full vs. deficit irrigation strategies, the average total irrigation over two years under deficit irrigation (320 mm) was roughly 75% of that under full irrigation (424 mm), suggesting that the equipment functioned well as designed thereby saving 25% of water (p ≤ 0.05). Mean seed cotton yield under full irrigation was 4.19 –1 –1 – Mg ha , significantly greater (by 0.67 Mg ha or 19%) than that under deficit irrigation (3.52 Mg ha 1 –3 ). In contrast, the 2-year mean WP under full irrigation (0.95 kg m ) was only 5.2% greater than –3 under deficit irrigation (0.90 kg m ), an insignificant difference (p > 0.05). In general, the DSSIS method with irrigation triggered by model predicted water stresses performed significantly better than sensor-and experience-based methods. Table 2. Crop yield, total irrigation amount, and WP as affected by two treatment factors. −1 −3 Seed Cotton Yield (Mg ha ) Total Irrigation Amount (mm) WP (kg m ) Factors 2016 2017 Average 2016 2017 Average 2016 2017 Average Irrigation Scheduling DSSIS (D) 4.44 4.43 4.44A 324 326 325B 1.23 1.10 1.16A Sensor (S) 4.00 2.80 3.40B 429 204 316B 0.86 0.98 0.92B Experience (E) 3.40 4.02 3.71AB 481 471 476A 0.66 0.74 0.70C Irrigation amount Full (FI) 4.16 4.21 4.19a 470 378 424a 0.84 0.96 0.95a Deficit (DI) 3.74 3.29 3.52b 353 289 320b 0.98 0.91 0.90a Means in each column followed by different letters indicates significant difference (p ≤ 0.05). Capital letters for irrigation scheduling and lowercase letters for irrigation amount. DSSIS, Decision Support System for Irrigation Scheduling; WP, water productivity. Statistical analyses across the six treatments showed that the DSSIS model-based method with deficit irrigation (D-DI) was the best overall choice (Table 3). There was no significant decrease in the 2-year mean seed cotton yield under D-DI compared to other treatments. Compared to D-FI, D-DI reduced the total of irrigation amount by 85 mm (23.2%) with only a small and non-significant –1 decrease in seed cotton yield (0.47 Mg ha or 10.1%). Compared to the E-FI irrigation practice Agronomy 2019, 9, 686 13 of 19 commonly implemented in the region, D-DI not only saved about 48% irrigation water (282 mm vs. –1 –1 543 mm) but also increased seed cotton yield by 4% (4.20 Mg ha vs. 4.04 Mg ha ) and WP by 85.1% –3 –3 –1 (1.24 kg m vs. 0.67 kg m ). Compared to the S-DI treatment’s seed cotton yield of 2.96 Mg ha , D- DI provided a yield increase of 42% (p ≤ 0.05), and a WP increase of 40.9% (p ≤ 0.05) in spite of an increase in water use of 4.4% (p ≤ 0.05). Table 3. Crop yield, total irrigation amount, and WP under different irrigation treatments. −1 −3 Seed Cotton Yield (Mg ha ) Total Irrigation Amount (mm) WP (kg m ) Treatments 2016 2017 Average 2016 2017 Average 2016 2017 Average 4.58 4.76 4.67a 370 365 368c 1.11 1.07 1.09ab D-FI 4.30 4.10 4.20ab 278 287 282d 1.35 1.13 1.24a D-DI 4.28 3.41 3.84abc 490 234 362c 0.80 1.09 0.95bc S-FI 3.73 2.19 2.96c 368 173 270e 0.91 0.87 0.89bcd S-DI 3.61 4.47 4.04abc 550 537 543a 0.61 0.73 0.67d E-FI 3.20 3.58 3.39bc 413 405 409b 0.70 0.74 0.72cd E-DI Means in each column followed by different letters indicates significant difference (p ≤ 0.05). The better cotton performance under DSSIS could be attributed to its greater irrigation frequency, which relieved crop water stress in a timely manner. The D-FI treatment triggered irrigation 6–9 times with an irrigation interval of 12.5 days on average for the two years. Comparatively, S-FI treatment triggered irrigation 4–7 times with an irrigation interval of 16.5 days on average over the two years. The experience-based method resulted in only 5–6 irrigation events with an interval of 16.5 days on average over the two years. Generally, a method of high frequency and low quantity per irrigation was the best strategy for shallow root plant growth. However, in the desert region where this study was undertaken, owing to the limited irrigation water and increasing competition between irrigation districts for water, high frequency irrigation intervals are not feasible. In addition, cotton is a drought-tolerant plant and some studies have reported that drip irrigation intervals should be set at a week or 15 days [49–52]. Over the two years, the response of water stress factor and measured θ to irrigation events triggered in the D-FI treatment are shown in Figure 10A. Owing to the increase in rooting depth of cotton under this treatment, the 2-year mean irrigation depth over the reproductive stage (July to August) was 200 mm greater than that at the vegetative stage (May to June). Crop water requirements were low at the vegetative stage due to less radiation energy or vapor deficit to drive ET. However, because of the timely irrigation, the water stress simulated by RZWQM2 was alleviated and the crop recovered from the very short time period of water stress (1–2 days). The soil water content and irrigation event for the S-FI and E-FI treatments over two years are depicted in Figure 10B and Figure 10C, respectively. The decrease in irrigation amount under DSSIS-based method (vs. experience- based method) might be attributable to a decrease in ET or soil water content. DSSIS can fill the soil profile to satisfy the crop transpiration (Figure 10A). There was very little rainfall in this region (Qira Oasis), and rainfall did not exceed 2.0 cm each time. Therefore, the projected rainfall has little effect on actual irrigation in DSSIS in this region. However, no matter how much the forecasted rainfall is, the minimum irrigation amount applied would always be more than 3.0 cm in this study. Even though the actual rainfall might be less than the predicted rainfall, the water stresses could be removed owing to the fact that irrigation amount exceeds 3.0 cm each time. In other words, the water stresses will be detected earlier, and another irrigation will be triggered when current rainfall is less than the forecasted ones. The poorer performance of sensor-based irrigation scheduling method may be related to field 3 –3 operation and irrigation threshold. Irrigation events were triggered when θ reached 0.06 cm cm in May and June, but, later, due to broken sensors in 2016, no water was applied at the locations where the sensors were installed. Instead, irrigation water was applied every two weeks in order to maintain crop growth. This malfunction demonstrated that the DSSIS was less affected by field operation than the sensor-based irrigation scheduling. The significant decrease in cotton yield under sensor-based Agronomy 2019, 9, 686 14 of 19 (vs. DSSIS-based) irrigation scheduling in 2017 might be attributed to the low threshold of θ set for the sensors, which resulted in a lower amount of irrigation water applied. Based on the literature 3 -3 [46,47], we set the irrigation threshold to 0.06 cm cm for the fine sand in the study. The external environment, such as weather condition or field operation, may not be the main factor. However, a fixed upper and lower irrigation threshold values may be the main factor, which leads to a low irrigation amount for sensor-based method. In our study, the sensor-based irrigation scheduling method used a fixed upper and lower threshold to maintain the soil water content in the root soil layer. In fact, water stress may occur at different soil water content during the crop growth season. Sensor accuracy and installed position may also affect irrigation time and amount for sensor-based irrigation scheduling. Figure 10. The water stress response to irrigation and rainfall in the D-FI treatment in 2016 and 2017 (A); soil water content response to irrigation and rainfall in the S-FI treatment in 2016 and 2017 (B); and soil water content response to irrigation and rainfall in the E-FI treatment in 2016 and 2017 (C). WS-predicted, predicted water stress; SWC, soil water content; SWC—0.10 m and SWC—0.20 m, soil water content monitored by sensor in 0.10 m and 0.20 m soil profile, respectively. The economic analysis showed that the DSSIS in general achieved the highest net profit, with an assumption that the infrastructure of each method was applied to a 10-ha field with a 10-year operational lifetime (Supplement Table S1). The total investment for the infrastructure of DSSIS, −1 −1 sensor-, and experience-based methods were $449, $389 and $0 ha y . The experience-based method was more labor intensive, with two working days for each irrigation event, while it was one working day for the DSSIS and sensor-based. The number irrigation events in each year were 7, 5, and 5 for the DSSIS, sensor-, and experience-based methods, and therefore the labor salary were $350, $250, −1 −1 and $500 for those three methods, respectively. Water bills were $130, $126, and $190 ha y , according to the irrigation amount in Table 2. Taking the $1500 investment on fertilizer, seed, and machinery into account, the total cost for DSSIS, sensor-, and experience-based methods were $2429, −1 −1 −1 $2265, and $2190 ha y , while the total revenue from cotton sale were $5772, $4420, and $4823 ha −1 y based on the observed yield, respectively. Therefore, the net profit for DSSIS, sensor- and −1 −1 experience-based irrigation control methods were $3343, $2155, and $2633 ha y , respectively. 3.2. Simulated and Measured Grain Yield and the Soil Moisture The better performance of the DSSIS method can be attributed to a reasonably accurate simulation of crop yield and θ by RZWQM2. The simulated and measured grain yield, θ for each layer and soil water storage for the whole soil profile over two years are shown in Table 4. Simulated –1 – average grain yield under D-FI was 3.40 Mg ha , within 16.8% of the measured value of 2.91 Mg ha 1 –1 , while simulated average grain yield under D-DI was 2.44 Mg ha , within 2.1% of the measured –1 value of 2.39 Mg ha . Agronomy 2019, 9, 686 15 of 19 Table 4. Statistics of comparison for simulated versus measured crop yield and soil moisture over two years for full irrigation (D-FI) and deficit irrigation (D-DI). b b Full Irrigation Deficit Irrigation Parameter 2 2 Sim. Obs. MD ENS R RMSE Sim. Obs. MD ENS R RMSE 2016–2017 Grain yield 3.40 2.91 0.49 — — — 2.44 2.39 0.05 — — — −1 (Mg ha ) θ (0.05–0.15 m) 0.13 0.13 0.006 0.55 0.61 0.033 0.12 0.12 −0.002 0.69 0.69 0.031 θ (0.15–0.25 m) 0.13 0.12 0.003 0.85 0.79 0.023 0.12 0.12 −0.004 0.60 0.62 0.031 θ (0.25–0.40 m) 0.13 0.12 0.012 0.65 0.71 0.030 0.10 0.10 −0.001 0.46 0.47 0.030 θ (0.40–0.65 m) 0.11 0.12 −0.008 −0.04 0.19 0.037 0.08 0.10 −0.014 −0.17 0.12 0.032 θ (0.65–1.00 m) 0.10 0.11 −0.013 0.12 0.39 0.024 0.09 0.09 −0.003 0.19 0.20 0.203 SWS (0–1.00 m) 10.86 10.29 0.572 0.48 0.60 1.879 8.85 9.25 −0.407 0.48 0.51 1.896 a 3 –3 b θ = soil water content (cm cm ), SWS = soil water storage (cm). Sim. = simulated mean, Obs. = measured mean, MD = mean difference, ENS = Nash-Sutcliffe model efficiency, R = coefficient of determination, and RMSE = root mean squared error. Agronomy 2019, 9, 686 16 of 19 Except for the 0.40–0.65 m and 0.65–1.00 m soil layers, the RZWQM2 model adequately simulated the θ for each layer across the entire soil profile, both for full irrigation treatments (ENS ≥ 3 –3 3 –3 2 0.65; 0.023 m m ≤ RMSE ≤ 0.033 m m ; and 0.61 ≤ R ≤ 0.79) and deficit irrigation treatments (ENS ≥ 3 –3 3 –3 2 0.46; 0.030 m m ≤ RMSE ≤ 0.031 m m ; and 0.46 ≤ R ≤ 0.69) (Table 4, Figure 11). The soil water storage for both the full and deficit irrigation in the 0–1.0 m soil profile was simulated by the RZWQM2 model in an acceptable manner (ENS ≥ 0.48; R ≥ 0.51–Table 4, Figure 11).Although the model did poorly for the 0.40–0.65 m and 0.65–1.0 m soil layers under full irrigation and deficit irrigation, the model performance on simulatingθ in this study was comparable to other studies with RZWQM2 [29,53]. Figure 11. Simulated and measured soil water content for the full irrigation field (A) and deficit irrigation field (B) based on DSSIS in 2016 and 2017. 4. Conclusions To alleviate the water crisis and improve water productivity (WP) in irrigated agriculture, a Decision Support System for Irrigation Scheduling (DSSIS) was tested in a case study wherein it was compared, under both full and deficit irrigation, with soil moisture sensor and conventional experience-based irrigation scheduling. The DSSIS, using model-predicted real-time water stress as a threshold to trigger irrigation, performed the best with the highest WP, the highest cotton yield, and a significant reduction in total irrigation amount compared to the experience-based method. Use of DSSIS under deficit irrigation saved the greatest amount of irrigation water (approximately 50%), increased yield by 4.0%, and enhanced WP by 80.6% compared to experience-based full irrigation. DSSIS is the most cost-effective according to the economic analysis. This study concluded that, given its ability to improve WP and to enhance economic return, the DSSIS is a promising infrastructure for real-time irrigation scheduling. Combined with deficit irrigation the DSSIS might be the best choice for farmers in the area under study. Further studies are needed to evaluate the effectiveness of DSSIS under other climate conditions and cropping systems. Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/2073-4395/9/11/686/s1, Figure S1.: Field experiment facilities, Table S1.: Economic analysis of the newly developed DSSIS applied to a 10-ha field with a 10-year operational lifetime. Agronomy 2019, 9, 686 17 of 19 Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Z.Q., D.G., and F.Z.; Methodology, Z.Q. and X.C.; Software, Z.G.; Writing, X.C. and Z.Q.; Writing—Review and Editing, X.C., Z.Q., L.M., Z.G., L.L., and M.S. Funding: This study was carried out during a visiting study at McGill University and was financially supported by the China Scholarship Council (CSC) program, Xinjiang Thousand Talent Program for Young Professionals (Y672071001), and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (U1603343,41471031). Acknowledgments: We wish to thank the editor and anonymous peer reviewers who significantly helped in improving this manuscript. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funding sponsors had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results. References 1. Navarro-Hellín, H.; Martínez-del-Rincon, J.; Domingo-Miguel, R.; Soto-Valles, F.; Torres-Sánchez, R. A decision support system for managing irrigation in agriculture. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2016, 124, 121–131. 2. Yang, G.; Liu, L.; Guo, P.; Li, M. A flexible decision support system for irrigation scheduling in an irrigation district in China. Agric. Water Manage. 2017, 179, 378–389. 3. Kong, Q. Analysis on the key factor of inhibiting cotton production development and discussion on its strategies. Xinjiang Agric. Sci. 2010, 47, 3–5. 4. Wang, W.; Lu, J.; Ren, T.; Li, X.; Su, W.; Lu, M. Evaluating regional mean optimal nitrogen rates in combination with indigenous nitrogen supply for rice production. Field Crops Res. 2012, 137, 37–48. 5. Ghazichaki, Z.; Monem, M. Development of Quantified Model for Application of Control Systems in Irrigation Networks by System Dynamic Approach. Irrig. Drain. 2019, 68, 433–442. 6. Farooq, M.; Hussain, M.; Ul-Allah, S.; Siddique, K. Physiological and agronomic approaches for improving water-use efficiency in crop plants. Agric. Water Manage. 2019, 219, 95–108. 7. Ahmadi, S.; Andersen, M.; Plauborg, F.; Poulsen, R.; Jensen, C.; Sepaskhah, A.; Hansen, S. Effects of irrigation strategies and soils on field grown potatoes: yield and water productivity. Agric. Water Manage. 2010, 97, 1923–1930. 8. Nawandar, N.; Satpute, V. IoT based low cost and intelligent module for smart irrigation system. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2019, 162, 979–990. 9. Kropp, I.; Nejadhashemi, A.; Deb, K.; Abouali, M.; Roy, P.; Adhikari, U.; Hoogenboom, G. A multi-objective approach to water and nutrient efficiency for sustainable agricultural intensification. Agric. Syst. 2019, 173, 289–302. 10. Ge, Y.; Li, X.; Huang, C.; Nan, Z. A Decision Support System for irrigation water allocation along the middle reaches of the Heihe River Basin, Northwest China. Environ. Model. Softw. 2013, 47, 182–192. 11. Grassini, P.; Yang, H.; Irmak, S.; Thorburn, J.; Burr, C.; Cassman, K. High-yield irrigated maize in the Western US Corn Belt: II. Irrigation management and crop water productivity. Field Crops Res. 2011, 120, 133–141. 12. Baseca, C.C.; Sendra, S.; Lloret, J.; Tomas, J.A. Smart Decision System for Digital Farming. Agronomy-Basel. 2019, 9, 216. 13. Kinzli, K.; Gensler, D.; DeJonge, K.; Oad, R.; Shafike, N. Validation of a Decision Support System for Improving Irrigation System Performance. J. Irrig. Drain Eng. 2015, 141. doi.10.1061/(ASCE)IR.1943- 4774.0000829 14. Dabach, S.; Lazarovitch, N.; Šimůnek, J.; Shani, U. Numerical investigation of irrigation scheduling based on soil water status. Irrig. Sci. 2013, 31, 27–36. 15. Tanure, S.; Nabinger, C.; Becker, J. Bioeconomic model of decision support system for farm management. Part I: Systemic conceptual modeling. Agric. Syst. 2013, 115, 104–116. 16. Dukes, M.; Scholberg, J. Soil moisture controlled subsurface drip irrigation on sandy soils. Appl. Eng. Agric. 2005, 21, 89–101. 17. Soulis, K.; Elmaloglou, S.; Dercas, N. Investigating the effects of soil moisture sensors positioning and accuracy on soil moisture based drip irrigation scheduling systems. Agric. Water Manage. 2015, 148, 258– Agronomy 2019, 9, 686 18 of 19 18. Car, N.; Christen, E.; Hornbuckle, J.; Moore, G. Using a mobile phone Short Messaging Service (SMS) for irrigation scheduling in Australia–Farmers’ participation and utility evaluation. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2012, 84, 132–143. 19. Blonquist, J.; Jones, S.; Robinson, D. Precise irrigation scheduling for turfgrass using a subsurface electromagnetic soil moisture sensor. Agric. Water Manage. 2006, 84, 153–165. 20. Coates, R.; Delwiche, M.; Brown, P. Design of a system for individual microsprinkler control. Trans. ASABE. 2006, 49, 1963–1970. 21. Kim, Y.; Evans, R. Software design for wireless sensor-based site-specific irrigation. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2009, 66, 159–165. 22. Miller, G.; Farahani, H.; Hassell, R.; Khalilian, A.; Adelberg, J.; Wells, C. Field evaluation and performance of capacitance probes for automated drip irrigation of watermelons. Agric. Water Manage. 2014, 131, 124– 23. Taghvaeian, S.; Chávez, J.; Hansen, N. Infrared thermometry to estimate crop water stress index and water use of irrigated maize in Northeastern Colorado. Remote Sens-Basel. 2012, 4, 3619–3637. 24. DeJonge, K.; Taghvaeian, S.; Trout, T.; Comas, L. Comparison of canopy temperature-based water stress indices for maize. Agric. Water Manage. 2015, 156, 51–62. 25. Carroll, D.; Hansen, N.; Hopkins, B.; DeJonge, K. Leaf temperature of maize and crop water stress index with variable irrigation and nitrogen supply. Irrig. Sci. 2017, 2, 1–12. 26. Gao, F.; Yu, L.; Zhang, W.; Xu, Q.; Jiang, Q. Preliminary study on precision irrigation system based on wireless sensor networks of acoustic emission for crop water stress. Trans. CSAE. 2008, 24, 60–65. 27. Playan, E.; Salvador, R.; Lopetz, C.; Lecina, S.; Dechmi, F.; Zapata, N. Solid-setsprinkler irrigation controllers driven by simulation models: opportunities and bottlenecks. J. Irrigat. Drain. Eng. 2014, E140, 28. O’Shaughnessy, S.; Evett, S.; Colaizzi, P.; Howell, T. Grain sorghum response to irrigation scheduling with the time-temperature threshold method and deficit irrigation levels. Trans. ASAE. 2012, 55, 451–461. 29. Qi, Z.; Ma, L.; Bausch, W.; Trout, T.; Ahuja, L.; Flerchinger, G.; Fang, Q. Simulating maize production, water and energy balance, canopy temperature, and water stress under full and deficit irrigated corn. Trans. ASAE. 2016, 59, 623–633. 30. Thorp, K.; DeJonge, K.; Kaleita, A.; Batchelor, W.; Paz, J. Methodology for the use of DSSAT models for precision agriculture decision support. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2008, 64, 276–285. 31. Jiang, Y.; Xu, X.; Huang, Q.; Huo, Z.; Huang, G. Optimizing regional irrigation water use by integrating a two-level optimization model and an agro-hydrological model. Agric. Water Manage. 2016, 178, 76–88. 32. Thorp, K.; Hunsaker, D.; Bronson, K.; Andrade-Sanchez, P.; Barnes, E. Cotton irrigation scheduling using a crop growth model and FAO-56 methods: field and simulation studies. Trans. ASABE. 2017, 60, 2023– 33. Kisekka, I.; Aguilar, J.P.; Rogers, D.H.; Holman, J.; O’Brien, D.M.; Klocke, N. Assessing deficit irrigation strategies for corn using simulation. Trans. ASAE. 2016, 59, 303–317. 34. Stulina, G.; Cameira, M.; Pereira, L. Using RZWQM to search improved practices for irrigated maize in Ferhana, Uzabekistan. Agric. Water Manage. 2005, 77, 263–281. 35. Cameira, M.; Fernando, R.; Ahuja, L. Using RZWQM to simulate the fate of nitrogen in field soil-crop environment in the Mediterranean region. Agric. Water Manage. 2007, 90, 121–136. 36. Hanson, J.; Ahuja, L.; Shaffer, M.; Rojas, K.; DeCoursey, D.; Farahani, H.; Johnson, K. RZWQM simulating the effects of management on water quality and crop production. Agric. Syst. 1998, 57, 161–195. 37. Saseendran, S.; Ahuja, L.; Ma, L.; Trout, T.; Andales, A.; Chaves, J.; Ham, J. Enhancing the water stress factors for simulation of corn (Zea mays L.) in RZWQM2. Agron. J. 2014, 106, 81–94. 38. Ma, L.; Trout, T.; Ahuja, L.; Bausch, W.; Saseendran, S.; Malone, R.; Nielsen, D. Calibrating RZWQM2 Model for maize responses to deficit irrigation. Agric. Water Manage. 2012, 103, 140–149. 39. Fang, Q.; Wang, J.; Yu, S. Water-saving potential and irrigation strategies for wheat-maize double cropping system in the North China Plain. Trans. CSAE. 2011, 27, 37–44. 40. Gu, Z.; Qi, Z.; Ma, L.; Gui, D.; Xu, J.; Fang, Q.; Yuan, S. Development of an irrigation scheduling software based on model predicted crop water stress. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2017, 143, 208–221. 41. Liu, C.; Qi, Z.; Gu, Z.; Gui, D.; Zeng, F. Optimizing irrigation rates for cotton production in an extremely arid area using RZEWM2-simulated water stress. Trans. ASABE. 2017, 60, 1–14. Agronomy 2019, 9, 686 19 of 19 42. Ahuja, L.R.; Rojas, K.W.; Hanson, J.D.; Shaffer, M.J.; Ma, L. Root zone water quality model: Modeling management effects on water quality and crop production. Water Resources Publications: Littleton, CO, USA, 43. Ma, L.; Hoogenboom, G.; Ahuja, L.; Ascough, J.; Saseendran, S.A. Evaluation of the RZWQM-CERES-Maize hybrid model for maize production. Agric. Syst. 2006, 87, 274–295. 44. Ma, L.; Hoogenboom, G.; Ahuja, L.; Nielsen, D.; Ascough, J.C. Development and evaluation of the RZWQM-CROPGRO hybrid model for soybean production. Agron. J. 2005, 97, 1172–1182. 45. Saseendran, S.; Trout, T.; Ahuja, L.; Ma, L.; McMaster, G.; Nielsen, D.; Andales, A.; Chavez, J.; Ham, J. Quantifying crop water stress factors from soil water measurements in a limited irrigation experiment. Agric. Syst. 2015, 137, 191–205. 46. Zotarelli, L.; Dukes, M.; Morgan, K. Interpretation of soil moisture content to determine soil field capacity and avoid over-irrigating sandy soils using soil moisture sensors. Agri. Bio. Eng. Dep. UF/IFAS Ext. 2013 AE460, 1–4. 47. Haley, M.; Dukes, M. Validation of landscape irrigation reduction with soil moisture sensor irrigation controllers. J. Irrig. Drain Eng. 2012, 138, 135–144. 48. Shareef, M.; Gui, D.; Zeng, F.; Waqas, M.; Zhang, B.; Iqbal, H. Water productivity, growth, and physiological assessment of deficit irrigated cotton on hyperarid desert–oases in northwest China. Agric. Water Manage. 2018, 206, 1–10. 49. Ibragimov, N.; Evett, S.; Esanbekov, Y.; Kamilov, B.; Mirzaev, L.; Lamers, J. Water use efficiency of irrigated cotton in Uzbekistan under drip and furrow irrigation. Agric. Water Manage. 2007, 90, 112–120. 50. Sezen, S.; Yazar, A.; Kapur, B.; Tekin, S. Comparison of drip and sprinkler irrigation strategies on sunflower seed and oil yield and quality under Mediterranean climatic conditions. Agric. Water Manage. 2011, 98, 1153–1161. 51. Martins, J.; Rodrigues, G.; Paredes, P.; Carlesso, R.; Oliveira, Z.; Knies, A.; et al. Dual crop coefficients for maize in southern Brazil: model testing for sprinkler and drip irrigation and mulched soil. Biosyst. Eng. 2013, 115, 291–310. 52. Dar, E.; Brar, A.; Mishra, S.; Singh, K. Simulating response of wheat to timing and depth of irrigation water in drip irrigation system using CERES-wheat model. Field Crops Res. 2017, 214, 149–163. 53. Ma, L.; Nielsen, D.; Ahuja, L.; Malone, R.; Saseendran, S.; Rojas, K.; Hanson, J.; Benjamin, J. Evaluation of RZWQM under varying irrigation levels in eastern Colorado. Trans. ASAE. 2003, 46, 39–49. © 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Agronomy Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute

A Model-Based Real-Time Decision Support System for Irrigation Scheduling to Improve Water Productivity

Loading next page...
 
/lp/multidisciplinary-digital-publishing-institute/a-model-based-real-time-decision-support-system-for-irrigation-wg8BAo3WQo

References (52)

Publisher
Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute
Copyright
© 1996-2019 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated Terms and Conditions Privacy Policy
ISSN
2073-4395
DOI
10.3390/agronomy9110686
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Article A Model-Based Real-Time Decision Support System for Irrigation Scheduling to Improve Water Productivity 1,2,3,4 1,2,4, 1,2 5 6 1,2 Xiaoping Chen , Zhiming Qi *, Dongwei Gui , Zhe Gu , Liwang Ma , Fanjiang Zeng , 1 7 Lanhai Li and Matthew W. Sima State Key Laboratory of Desert and Oasis Ecology, Xinjiang Institute of Ecology and Geography, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Urumqi 830011, China; cxp0418@126.com (X.C.); guidwei@ms.xjb.ac.cn (D.G.); zengfj@ms.xjb.ac.cn (F.Z.); lilh@ms.xjb.ac.cn (L.L.) Cele National Station of Observation and Research for Desert Grassland Ecosystem in Xinjiang, Cele, 848300 Xinjiang, China University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China Department of Bioresource Engineering, McGill University, Ste-Anne-de-Bellevue, QC, H9X 3V9, Canada College of Agricultural Engineering, Hohai University, 1 Xikang Road, Nanjing 210098, China; zhegu2017@163.com USDA-ARS Rangeland Resources and Systems Research Unit, Fort Collins, CO 80526, USA; Liwang.Ma@ars.usda.gov Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544, USA; sima.matthew@gmail.com * Correspondence: zhiming.qi@mcgill.ca Received: 20 September 2019; Accepted: 25 October 2019; Published: 27 October 2019 Abstract: A precisely timed irrigation schedule to match crop water demand is vital to improving water use efficiency in arid farmland. In this study, a real-time irrigation-scheduling infrastructure, Decision Support System for Irrigation Scheduling (DSSIS), based on water stresses predicted by an agro-hydrological model, was constructed and evaluated. The DSSIS employed the Root Zone Water Quality Model (RZWQM2) to predict crop water stresses and soil water content, which were used to trigger irrigation and calculate irrigation amount, respectively, along with forecasted rainfall. The new DSSIS was evaluated through a cotton field experiment in Xinjiang, China in 2016 and 2017. Three irrigation scheduling methods (DSSIS-based (D), soil moisture sensor-based (S), and conventional experience-based (E)), factorially combined with two irrigation rates (full irrigation (FI), and deficit irrigation (DI, 75% of FI)) were compared. The DSSIS significantly increased water productivity (WP) by 26% and 65.7%, compared to sensor-based and experience- based irrigation scheduling methods (p < 0.05), respectively. No significant difference was observed in WP between full and deficit irrigation treatments. In addition, the DSSIS showed economic advantage over sensor- and experience-based methods. Our results suggested that DSSIS is a promising tool for irrigation scheduling. Keywords: irrigation decision support system; agro-hydrological model; RZWQM2; water stress; weather forecast 1. Introduction Improving water use efficiency (WUE) has become an important strategy in dealing with drought in zones with limited water resources. The exploitation of available fresh water, especially groundwater resources, has seriously hindered sustainable agriculture development and even Agronomy 2019, 9, 686; doi:10.3390/agronomy9110686 www.mdpi.com/journal/agronomy Agronomy 2019, 9, 686 2 of 19 economic growth in arid and semi-arid regions. Modern technologies are helping to achieve efficient water use in these regions [1]. One of the major water users, agriculture, now faces intense competition from other major water users, especially the industrial sector [2]. As a country with an enormous agricultural sector, China has a large area of cultivated lands, including marginal agricultural lands. China’s agricultural water use accounts for about 70% of its total water consumption. The relatively low crop yield and WUE in many regions is the result of unreasonable irrigation and fertilizer application rates [3,4]. In order to improve the utilization of limited water resources under a modern agricultural practice, an accurate and efficient water-saving irrigation decision support system is required. Establishing an automatic irrigation system can substantially improve irrigation WUE and crop productivity [5–7]. Several irrigation Decision Support Systems (DSSs) have been developed [8–12] and used in agricultural water resource management to improve WUE. A DSS can successfully serve to develop irrigation scheduling based on real-time crop status information [13]. An accurate and efficient DSS should take many factors into consideration, including weather, crop type, soil water status, irrigation method, and application efficiency [14,15]. Therefore, accurate measurements of soil, plant, and environmental variables are particularly important. To characterize the water status of the plant and soil, real-time sensors are commonly used to determine irrigation timing and amount. For example, automatic irrigation systems have been implemented using tensiometers; however, tensiometers require recalibration [16], and their positioning greatly affects soil water matric potential measurements [17]. Moreover, these irrigation systems require intensive labor and expensive devices to monitor soil moisture (θ). In addition, their installation in the field can affect field operations, especially mechanized harvesting. Furthermore, due to field variability, accurate installation of tensiometers is imperative for them to be effective. Weather is one of the key factors considered in estimating crop water requirements, so, in order to improve irrigation WUE, agronomists generally rely on information (daily temperature, reference evapotranspiration (ET), and precipitation) from weather stations to adjust irrigation schedules. For example, Car et al. [18] designed an irrigation system management system that implemented a mobile phone Short Messaging Service (SMS) to access weather forecasts; however, their ET-based irrigation scheduling and SMS system did not accurately reflect crop water deficit conditions. A series of indices have been developed to optimize irrigation scheduling: indirect, external environmental factors, e.g., θ and meteorological conditions [19–22], and direct, crop physiological parameters, e.g., canopy temperature [23–25]. Indirect indicators such as θ may not reflect the crop’s water deficit, whereas crop physiological indicators are more accurate in estimating crop water deficit. With multiple factors to be considered, irrigation scheduling merely based on θ measurements cannot accurately determine optimal irrigation timing and quantity. Crop water requirements are related to leaf area index (LAI), crop root growth, and upcoming weather conditions. At present, few irrigation scheduling DSSs draw on indirect (vs. direct) indicators to determine irrigation timing and quantity. Gao et al. [26] has developed a precision irrigation system based on crop water stresses measured by a wireless sensor network employing an acoustic emission technique. The use of sensors to monitor crop water status is a widely used method to study crop water stresses [27]. As a non-destructive method to monitor crop canopy temperature, the infrared thermometer has an additional advantage of producing low measurement errors in plant temperature [28]; however, this method to calculate crop water stresses usually requires a reference value of crop canopy temperature under full irrigation [29]. Crop models integrate various aspects of agricultural production systems and it may be used as a surrogate for irrigation scheduling. Thorp et al. [30] developed a prototype precision farming DSSs called Apollo using the Decision Support System for Agrotechnology Transfer (DSSAT) crop growth model. Likewise, a two-level optimization model incorporating the SWAP-EPIC agro-hydrological model was developed to maximize an irrigation system’s WUE and economic returns [31]. While applying crop models directly to irrigation management and decision-making is rare, Thorp et al. [32] did report that the CSM-CROPGRO-Cotton model could provide appropriate in-season irrigation management recommendations. Crop models have also been applied as simulation tools Agronomy 2019, 9, 686 3 of 19 to address a variety of research questions related to irrigation management under subsurface drip irrigation [33]. Agro-hydrological models and software (i.e., the Root Zone Water Quality Model (RZWQM)) have been widely applied to simulate crop responses to water stresses under various environmental scenarios, and to make irrigation decisions to alleviate crop water stresses. The RZWQM model has shown promise in simulating crop water and nutrient cycling [34,35], and in the evaluation of agricultural water resources utilization and ecosystem viability [36]. Using a Root Zone Water Quality Model (RZWQM2) (a later version of RZWQM), Saseendran et al. [37] tested the effectiveness of different water stress factors in RZWQM simulation of maize (Zea mays L.) under different irrigation conditions. Ma et al. [38] used the RZWQM2 model to predict maize yield under different deficit irrigation. Based on crop water stress simulated in the RZWQM model, Fang et al. [39] optimized irrigation strategies for a wheat–maize (Triticum aestivum L.–Z. mays) double cropping system on the North China Plain. Evaluating the accuracy of simulation of crop growth and water stress in eastern Colorado using the RZWQM2 model, Qi et al. [29] found the dates of water stress occurrence and the responses of crop yield to water stresses to be well simulated. Based on the fact that RZWQM2 can adequately simulate water stresses under various environmental scenarios, Gu et al. [40] developed an irrigation scheduling software RZ_IrrSch based on the RZWQM2-predicted crop water stresses. The software was tested under two virtual scenarios: arid maize production in Colorado and a humid soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr.) production in Mississippi of USA. However, the DSS has not been implemented or evaluated to schedule irrigation at a field site. This study constitutes an effort to combine this agro-hydrological model-based software and irrigation control hardware to construct a new Decision Support System for Irrigation Scheduling (DSSIS). As virtual tests suggested that the software would perform better under arid conditions, this new DSSIS system was constructed and assessed in an extremely dry cotton field in southern Xinjiang, China. The RZWQM2 model had been calibrated using data collected at an irrigated cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) site in this region from 2007–2014 by Liu et al. [41]. Therefore, the objective of this study was to test a new DSSIS in improving water productivity (WP) for irrigated cotton in a cotton field in Northwest China. 2. Materials and Methods 2.1. Root Zone Water Quality Model (RZWQM2) The Root Zone Water Quality Model (RZWQM) is a 1D model housing physical, chemical, and biological processes for simulating agricultural management effects on soil processes, crop production, and water quality [42–44]. Agricultural management includes plant management (planting density, row spacing, planting depth, method of planting, time of harvest, type of harvest), irrigation management (type of irrigation, application rate, time, and amount of irrigation), and − + fertilizer management (methods of application, NO3 -N, NH4 -N, Urea-N amount). The RZWQM2 model incorporates DSSAT (Decision Support System for Agrotechnology Transfer) version 4.0 crop growth modules and the SHAW (Simultaneous Heat and Water) energy balance modules. The DSSAT model provides a database of cultivar parameters for the crops and cultivars simulated in the RZWQM2 model. The CSM-CROPGRO-COTTON model (DSSATv4.5), incorporated into RZWQM2 model, was used in this study. In RZWQM2, the potential evapotranspiration (PET) is estimated using the Shuttleworth–Wallace method, and actual root water uptake is derived from either the Nimah–Hanks equation when the generic plant growth module is invoked or from an empirical equation when the DSSAT crop growth modules are used. 2.2. Decision Support System for Irrigation Scheduling (DSSIS) Framework As a key component of the newly developed decision support system for irrigation scheduling (DSSIS), the RZWQM2 model served as the engine in making irrigation scheduling decisions. The water stress factor calculated by the RZWQM2 model was used to set the timing of future irrigations. The amount of future Agronomy 2019, 9, 686 4 of 19 irrigation under the DSSIS was estimated through the difference between soil field capacity θfc and simulated θ of the rooting layer, minus current and 4-day forecasted rainfall. 2.2.1. The DSSIS Framework Design The DSSIS system is composed of two major parts, a core control software (IrrSch, version, Manufacturer, City, US State abbrev. if applicable, Country), and irrigation hardware. Having provided weather updates information to IrrSch software installed on a PC, the user can then send the irrigation command (irrigation time and amount) to irrigation control software through a network switchboard, which controls the irrigation valves and circulating pump. The DSSIS system includes four main components (Figure 1): • Irrigation pipeline system, consisting of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe, drip irrigation pipe, and valves. The drip irrigation pipes are equipped with pressure compensation type emitters with a –1 flow rate of 5 Lh at a pressure of 1–2 bar. The distance between two emitters is 0.1 m to match the plant spacing. • Irrigation control software, consisting of weather data acquisition (online for the future and site- specific for current), RZWQM2 model, and IrrSch decision and control software. The development of this IrrSch software can be found in Gu et al [40]. The system functions as follows:  The RZWQM2 model, with crop and soil parameters calibrated using a historical field experiment from 2007–2014 [41], is installed on a PC;  The IrrSch software retrieves current day weather information from an on-site weather station as well as 4-day weather forecasts from a weather Application Program Interface (API) (http://api.openweathermap.org), and subsequently feeds into RZWQM2;  RZWQM2 is called by IrrSch and executed to predict the water stress factor, crop ET, and θ for the current and four upcoming days;  When the current day’s predicted water stress factor is less than a user defined threshold, an irrigation event is triggered and the amount of water to be supplied is calculated using the θfc, the predicted current θ, the predicted crop rooting depth, and the total amount of current and forecast 4-day rainfall. • Irrigation control hardware, consisting of soil moisture sensors, electromagnetic valves, the field programmable logic controller (F-PLC), the site of programmable logic controller (S-PLC), frequency conversion controller (FCC), and the user operating the S-PLC to facilitate irrigation; • Peripheral equipment, consisting of a reservoir, circulating pump, strainer, and groundwater pumping station, to secure a water supply for crops. Agronomy 2019, 9, 686 5 of 19 Figure 1. The Decision Support System for Irrigation Scheduling (DSSIS) based on Root Zone Water Quality Model (RZWQM2) predicted water stress factor and weather forecasts. F-PLC, the field programmable logic controller; S-PLC, the site of programmable logic controller; FCC, frequency conversion controller. 2.2.2. The Network Information Transfer in the DSSIS The developed DSSIS used an agricultural management information network (Figure 2) to control information flow in the system. The network switchboard control system consisted of the spot irrigation control room, the F-PLC, and meteorology station. The user imports weather information to the computer located in the spot irrigation control room through a network switchboard, relying on the IrrSch software to send the irrigation command to the S-PLC through a Single Chip Microcomputer (SCM). The system will implement an irrigation event when the electromagnetic valve and the FCC receive the irrigation command from the computer. The FCC controls the start or stop of pumping. In order for the user to see variations in θ in a convenient and timely manner, the F-PLC receives and feeds back information on θ to the S-PLC’s touch screen. Figure 2. Network structure of Decision Support System for Irrigation Scheduling (DSSIS). SCM, Single Chip Microcomputer; PLC, programmable logic controller; S-PLC, the site of programmable logic controller; FCC, frequency conversion controller. D-FI and D-DI, the DSSIS system using an RZWQM2 model simulated water stress under full irrigation and deficit irrigation; S-FI and S-DI, sensor–based full irrigation and deficit irrigation; E-FI and E-DI, experience-based full irrigation and deficit irrigation. 2.3. Irrigation Control Software 2.3.1. Information Acquisition Using the water stresses calculated by RZWQM2 to determine the timing of irrigation is one of the key features of the DSSIS, but applying the right amount of irrigation water to achieve the most efficient use of water is equally important for any irrigation system. Another feature of the DSSIS is that the quantity of irrigation applied is determined using θfc, the predicted current θ, the simulated crop rooting depth, and the total amount of current and forecast 4-day rainfall. The meteorological data includes the daily minimum and maximum temperature, shortwave radiation, wind speed, relative humidity, and rainfall. Since the format of automatically downloaded weather data is incompatible with the format of RZWQM2 input files, it was necessary to establish a MySQL database to reformat the weather information. Subsequently, weather data were fed into RZWQM2 by initiating the IrrSch software from the MySQL database. The user could then make a timely decision regarding irrigation based on the simulated water stresses, the water deficit, and the estimated irrigation amount for the next four days. Agronomy 2019, 9, 686 6 of 19 2.3.2. Irrigation Schedule Software The IrrSch software is composed of two main interfaces: • The first interface (Figure 3) hosts seven steps through which users can input basic information into the software. Steps 1 through 6 include entering previously calibrated and validated information regarding RZWQM2 model parameters [41]. Because some parameters (planting density, tillage, etc.) do not need to be updated annually, users simply update the planting date. The seventh step includes three subroutines, but the user only controls two of these:  the “Update Weather Data” button to read the weather data files which have been downloaded from the weather station;  the “Calculation” button to run the RZWQM2 model and for the IrrSch to enter the second interface. Figure 3. Main interface of IrrSch software. • The second interface is the irrigation operations interface (Figure 4), which serves to view the information regarding water stress and crop growth, and provides users with the ability to send an irrigation instruction to the SCM. On this interface, the “Calculate” button may be used to update the value of soil water stress factor (SWFAC, 0 = extreme stress and 1 = no stress), root depth and irrigation amount and timing, as well as rainfall and crop biomass. If the value of water stress factor is less than 0.9, users must input an irrigation amount and time by pressing the “+” button. In other words, irrigation will not be triggered if SWFAC > 0.9. The suggested maximum single irrigation amount is presented in the tables of the second interface. The “Send to SCM” button will send irrigation instructions to the S-PLC and activate the FCC controlled circulating pump. The whole irrigation management operation may be automated to promote the adoption and commercialization of this newly developed irrigation management system. Root length is determined within RZWQM by simulated root growth in each soil layer. Agronomy 2019, 9, 686 7 of 19 Figure 4. Second user operation interface of IrrSch software. 2.3.3. The Water Stress Factor Algorithm in DSSIS The soil water stress factor (SWFAC) calculated by the RZWQM2 model represents the extent to which θ across the rooting depth cannot meet crop transpiration. SWFAC is used to calculate photosynthesis and other elements of the dry matter accumulation processes, and thus provides a good indication of water deficit. Accordingly, irrigation was triggered when SWFAC dropped below 0.9. The specific calculation of SWFAC in the DSSIS includes three steps: (1) the soil parameters and initial θ as inputs into the RZWQM2 model, (2) weather data downloaded from an onsite weather station (current day) and from a weather API (next 4 days), and (3) RZWQM2 simulated daily crop growth (biomass and leaf area index, etc.) as well as potential transpiration (Tp) and actual crop water uptake. The formula for SWFAC is given as [45]: ∑ RWU(L) RLV(L)∆L (1) SWFAC = , ( ) () k e (2) RWU(L) = , k lnRLV(L) (3) ( ) ∆ R G R T = , ∆ γ(1 ) where –3 –1 c —volumetric heat capacity of air (MJ∙m ∙°C ), −3 k1, k2 and k3—dimensionless constants drawn from DSSAT, v3.5: k1 = 1.32 × 10 , k2 = 120 − [250 × LL(L)], and k3 = 7.01. –2 G—heat flux below the canopy (MJ∙m ), 3 –3 LL(L)—lower limit of plant-available water in the soil layer (cm ∙cm ), –2 R —net radiation above the canopy (MJ∙m ), –2 R —net radiation over the bare soil and residue (MJm ), 3 –3 RWU(L)—potential root uptake per unit root length for soil layer L (cm watercm root), –3 RLV(L)—root length density in the soil layer (cm root∙cm soil), 3 –3 SW(L)—current soil water content in the soil layer (cm ∙cm ), T —potential transpiration (cm), calculated using the Shuttleworth–Wallace equation, VPD —air vapor pressure deficit at the mean canopy height (kPa), –1 γ —bulk boundary layer resistance of the canopy elements within the canopy (s∙m ), –1 γ —bulk stomatal resistance of the canopy (s∙m ), –1 γ—the psychrometric constant (kPa∙°C ), –3 ρ—the density of air (kg∙m ), –1 ∆ —slope of the saturation vapor press versus temperature curve (kPa∙°C ), Agronomy 2019, 9, 686 8 of 19 ∆L—the depth of the soil layer (cm). 2.4. Irrigation Control Hardware 2.4.1. The F-PLC Design The F-PLC (Figure 5) has two main functions: (1) controlling the electromagnetic valves by receiving computer instructions, (2) receiving the information from the soil moisture sensor and sending the information to S-PLC through the network switchboard. The F-PLC is composed of an air switch, fuse protector, wire connector, PLC (Siemens SIMATIC S7-200 SMART, Beijing, China), relay, soil moisture sensors, and electromagnetic valves. The soil moisture sensors (Dalian Qifeng Technology Co. Ltd, China, SMTS-II-485) used an RS-485, MODBUS-RTU protocol for their output signal. The sensor served to monitor θ and soil temperature based on frequency domain reflectometry (FDR) measurements taken at two-second intervals. The measurement accuracy of θ and soil temperature were 3% and 0.4 °C, respectively. The soil moisture sensors were calibrated prior to installation. Figure 5. Design chart of the F-PLC employed in this study. PLC, programmable logic controller. 2.4.2. The S-PLC Design The S-PLC (Figure 6) also had two main functions: • to provide a touch screen for the user to implement irrigation events by controlling the electromagnetic valves and view real-time information on θ, and • to control the F-PLC, which controls the circulating pump. The S-PLC mainly includes a touch screen (SIEMENS SMART LINE), PLC, and power source box. The touch screen: • to monitor real time variation in θ for each plot in order to set an appropriate irrigation threshold under the desired irrigation regime, and to control the irrigation system for that plot, and • to select manual or rotation irrigation mode. Agronomy 2019, 9, 686 9 of 19 Figure 6. Design chart of the S-PLC employed in this study. PLC, programmable logic controller. 2.4.3. The FCC Design The main function of the FCC (Figure 7) is to ensure the equipment smoothly, reduce energy consumption, adjust the running frequency of the equipment, and reduce the damage to the motor caused by the large current when the device is started. The FCC is made up of operation buttons, a frequency converter (JTE 320S-D), a liquid level transistor relay (JYB-714), an alternating current contactor, a fuse protector, a relay, an air switch, a wire connector, and a terminal block. Figure 7. Design chart of the FCC employed in this study. AC Contactor, Alternating Current Contactor. 2.5. Experimental Site The infrastructure of the DSSIS, sensor- and experience-based irrigation system was constructed in March 2016 at the Cele National Station of Observation & Research for Desert-Grassland Ecosystem, Chinese Academy of Sciences (37°01’06’’ N, 80°43’48’’ E) in the Qira Oasis of southern Xinjiang, China (Supplement Figure S1). To evaluate the effectiveness of the DSSIS, it was compared with other two irrigation scheduling methods relying on soil moisture sensors and conventional experience-based approaches, respectively, all factorially combined with either full (FI) or deficit irrigation (DI, 75% of FI). The experiment has been conducted since April 2016, and, in this study, two years of data are reported (2016 and 2017). The experimental field area covered an area of 0.144 ha in a fine sand soil. Weather data were recorded at the Cele National Station of Observation & Research for Desert-Grassland Ecosystems weather station (51826) near the test site (Figure 8). The field was divided into 24 experimental plots, each 10 m long (N/S) and 6 m wide (E/W), arranged in two sets of twelve plots, 2 m apart, arrayed on either side of the E–W running irrigation mains (Figure 9). Each plot was randomly assigned one of 24 (3 × 2 × 4) irrigation scheduling× irrigation amount × replicate combinations. On 10 April 2016 and 19 April 2017, cotton (G. hirsutum cv. ‘Xinluzao No. –1 779’) was planted in N/S rows at a 0.1 m row spacing and average rate of 222,000 seeds∙ha . Cotton was harvested on 23 September 2016 and 28 September 2017. Sheep manure was applied at planting –1 at a rate of 240 kg N ha , and fertilizer supplemented throughout the growing season according to plant growth and fertilizer uptake estimated through experience. Prior to sowing, each plot was covered with three 1.25 m wide bands of plastic mulch (0.6 m apart), each bearing two drip lines. The –3 average soil bulk density was measured to be 1.32, 1.32, 1.34, 1.36, and 1.16 g cm for the 0–0.15 m, 0.15–0.25 m, 0.25–0.40 m, 0.40–0.65 m, and 0.65–1.0 m soil layers, respectively. Agronomy 2019, 9, 686 10 of 19 Figure 8. Daily maximum and minimum temperature (A), wind speed and solar radiation (B), relative humidity and rainfall (C) at the experimental site during the cotton growing period (April–October) in 2016 and 2017. Figure 9. Layout of the experimental plots. D-FI and D-DI, the DSSIS system using RZWQM2 model simulated water stress under full irrigation and deficit irrigation; S-FI and S-DI, sensor–based full irrigation and deficit irrigation; E-FI and E-DI, experience–based full irrigation and deficit irrigation. 2.6. Irrigation Treatment Design The field experiment followed a completely randomized 3 × 2 factorial design with four replicates. One factor was irrigation scheduling, including: • the DSSIS system using RZWQM2 model simulated water stress factor (D), soil moisture sensor (S), and experience (E). • The other factor is irrigation amount, including full (FI) and deficit (DI, 75% of full) irrigation. Water meters were used in each plot to ensure precise irrigation amounts when the value of SWFAC fell below a threshold of 0.9. Based on the difference between the θfc and current simulated θ, the depth of irrigation to be applied was calculated with IrrSch software [40], developed in Java language under the Eclipse platform. For the soil moisture sensor-based method, the irrigation event was triggered when the soil moisture sensors installed in the first soil layer reached a threshold of 3 –3 0.06 cm cm and the full irrigation amount was calculated based on measured θ and θfc set at 0.15 3 –3 cm cm . In the present study, the soil type is fine sand. The upper and lower thresholds of the sensor- based irrigation scheduling method were based on the literature [46], where it was reported that the total amount of water available for plant uptake called “plant available water” (PAW) ranged from 3 –3 0.14 to 0.03 cm cm in sandy soils. Haley and Dukes [47] set the irrigation threshold of sensor-based 3 –3 method at 0.07 cm cm in a fine sand. In order to meet crop water demand and achieve water savings, 3 –3 we set the irrigated lower threshold of sensor-based full irrigation to 0.06 cm cm at 0.10 m and Agronomy 2019, 9, 686 11 of 19 3 –3 irrigated upper threshold of sensor-based full irrigation to 0.15 cm cm at 0.20 m. For the conventional experience-based method, the irrigation timing and amount followed the schedule of a neighboring cotton field managed by field technicians (Table 1). Table 1. Experimental treatments imposed. Irrigation Threshold Treatment Basis of Irrigation Measurement Start Stop D-FI RZWQM2 model SWFAC * SWFAC < 0.9 θfc RZWQM2 model SWFAC D-DI Same as D-FI 75% of D-FI 3 –3 3 –3 Soil moisture Field-measured θ θ0-0.1m = 0.06 cm cm θ0-0.2m = 0.15 cm cm S-FI Soil moisture Field-measured θ S-DI Same as S-FI 75% of S-FI Experience Visual/tactile Grower’s experience θfc E-FI Experience Visual/tactile E-DI Same as E-FI 75% of E-FI * RZWQM2 simulated water stress factor (see Equation 1): SWFAC = 1 indicates that there is no water stress; SWFAC < 1 indicates some water stress; SWFAC = 0 indicates maximum water stress. D-FI and D-DI, the DSSIS system using RZWQM2 model simulated water stress under full and deficit irrigation; S-FI and SDI, sensor-based under full and deficit irrigation; E-FI and E-DI, experience- based under full and deficit irrigation. θ, soil water content. 2.7. Yield, Water Productivity (WP), and Soil Water Content Seed cotton yield was measured by manually harvesting all plants in each plot. Grain yield was computed using the seed cotton yield multiplied by the seed to fiber ratio. The seed to fiber ratio was measured using 500 lint samples from D-FI and D-DI plots. In each experimental plot, θ was monitored with soil moisture sensors buried at depths of 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.5, and 0.8 m, representing the θ in soil layers of 0–0.15 m, 0.15–0.25 m, 0.25–0.40 m, 0.40–0.65 m, and 0.65–1.0 m, respectively. In addition, during the pre-irrigation and post-harvest periods, soil samples were collected in each experimental plot at weekly intervals, at the same soil depths near the cotton roots. The collected soil samples were placed in an oven at 105 °C for two days and dried to constant weight in the laboratory. The measured θ was compared with each layer’s simulated θ. The water productivity (WP) was defined as the ratio of seed cotton yield to the sum of irrigation and precipitation water depths over the full growing season: (4) WP = , ( ) where –3 WP—irrigation water use efficiency (kg m ), –2 Y—seed cotton yield (kg m ), I—the irrigation amount (m), P—precipitation (m). 2.8. Statistical and Economic Analysis The effects of the irrigation scheduling and irrigation levels on crop yield, total irrigation amount, and water productivity (WP) were analyzed using the PROC ANOVA procedure of SAS 9.2 software (Manufacturer, City, US State abbrev. if applicable, Country). Differences between means were examined at a probability level of 0.05 using Duncan’s multiple range test. The irrigation scheduling × amount interaction was not significant (p > 0.05) for crop yield, total irrigation amount, or WP. To evaluate the RZWQM2 model performance in simulating θ, the mean difference (MD), coefficient of determination (R ), Nash–Sutcliffe model efficiency (ENS), and root mean squared error (RMSE) were used to evaluate the goodness of fit between simulated and measured values. The ratio of the MD to the measured mean is defined as the relative MD. Given the wide range of datasets Agronomy 2019, 9, 686 12 of 19 involved, it is difficult to select a model performance criterion that would address all sources of inaccuracy; however, for simplicity, model performance was considered satisfactorily when ENS ≥ 0.5 [29]. For yield prediction, only the MD was used since yield was only measured at harvest. An economic analysis was conducted based on the assumption that the infrastructure for each irrigation scheduling was applied to a 10-ha cotton field, an average size of a drip irrigation farm in this area, with a 10-year operational lifetime. Labor cost was set at $50 per person for operating each −3 −1 irrigation event, and water and cotton price at $0.04 m and $1.30 kg , respectively, according to −1 −1 Shareef et al. [48] Fertilizer, seed and machinery was estimated $1500 ha y , the same for all irrigation scheduling methods. 3. Results and Discussion 3.1. Effectiveness of Irrigation Scheduling Methods Statistical analyses of the effect of irrigation scheduling and irrigation quantity on seed cotton yield, total irrigation amount, and WP showed that the DSSIS method had an obvious advantage by increasing seed cotton yield, reducing total irrigation, and enhancing WP (Table 2). Averaged across –1 both full and deficit irrigation strategies, two-year mean seed cotton yield was 4.44 Mg ha under the –1 –1 DSSIS method, about 1.04 Mg ha (30.5%) and 0.73 Mg ha (19.4%) greater (p ≤ 0.05) than yields –1 –1 under sensor-based and experience-based irrigation (3.40 Mg ha and 3.72 Mg ha ), respectively. The 2-year averaged total seasonal irrigation under both the DSSIS and sensor-based irrigation scheduling methods (316 mm) was significantly lower (31.7% and 33.6%, respectively) than that under experience-based irrigation (476 mm). The 2-year mean WP under the DSSIS method was 1.16 –3 –3 −3 kg m , 0.24 kg m (26%, p ≤ 0.05) greater than that under the sensor-based method and 0.46 kg m (65.7%, p ≤ 0.05) greater than that under the experience-based method. With respect to full vs. deficit irrigation strategies, the average total irrigation over two years under deficit irrigation (320 mm) was roughly 75% of that under full irrigation (424 mm), suggesting that the equipment functioned well as designed thereby saving 25% of water (p ≤ 0.05). Mean seed cotton yield under full irrigation was 4.19 –1 –1 – Mg ha , significantly greater (by 0.67 Mg ha or 19%) than that under deficit irrigation (3.52 Mg ha 1 –3 ). In contrast, the 2-year mean WP under full irrigation (0.95 kg m ) was only 5.2% greater than –3 under deficit irrigation (0.90 kg m ), an insignificant difference (p > 0.05). In general, the DSSIS method with irrigation triggered by model predicted water stresses performed significantly better than sensor-and experience-based methods. Table 2. Crop yield, total irrigation amount, and WP as affected by two treatment factors. −1 −3 Seed Cotton Yield (Mg ha ) Total Irrigation Amount (mm) WP (kg m ) Factors 2016 2017 Average 2016 2017 Average 2016 2017 Average Irrigation Scheduling DSSIS (D) 4.44 4.43 4.44A 324 326 325B 1.23 1.10 1.16A Sensor (S) 4.00 2.80 3.40B 429 204 316B 0.86 0.98 0.92B Experience (E) 3.40 4.02 3.71AB 481 471 476A 0.66 0.74 0.70C Irrigation amount Full (FI) 4.16 4.21 4.19a 470 378 424a 0.84 0.96 0.95a Deficit (DI) 3.74 3.29 3.52b 353 289 320b 0.98 0.91 0.90a Means in each column followed by different letters indicates significant difference (p ≤ 0.05). Capital letters for irrigation scheduling and lowercase letters for irrigation amount. DSSIS, Decision Support System for Irrigation Scheduling; WP, water productivity. Statistical analyses across the six treatments showed that the DSSIS model-based method with deficit irrigation (D-DI) was the best overall choice (Table 3). There was no significant decrease in the 2-year mean seed cotton yield under D-DI compared to other treatments. Compared to D-FI, D-DI reduced the total of irrigation amount by 85 mm (23.2%) with only a small and non-significant –1 decrease in seed cotton yield (0.47 Mg ha or 10.1%). Compared to the E-FI irrigation practice Agronomy 2019, 9, 686 13 of 19 commonly implemented in the region, D-DI not only saved about 48% irrigation water (282 mm vs. –1 –1 543 mm) but also increased seed cotton yield by 4% (4.20 Mg ha vs. 4.04 Mg ha ) and WP by 85.1% –3 –3 –1 (1.24 kg m vs. 0.67 kg m ). Compared to the S-DI treatment’s seed cotton yield of 2.96 Mg ha , D- DI provided a yield increase of 42% (p ≤ 0.05), and a WP increase of 40.9% (p ≤ 0.05) in spite of an increase in water use of 4.4% (p ≤ 0.05). Table 3. Crop yield, total irrigation amount, and WP under different irrigation treatments. −1 −3 Seed Cotton Yield (Mg ha ) Total Irrigation Amount (mm) WP (kg m ) Treatments 2016 2017 Average 2016 2017 Average 2016 2017 Average 4.58 4.76 4.67a 370 365 368c 1.11 1.07 1.09ab D-FI 4.30 4.10 4.20ab 278 287 282d 1.35 1.13 1.24a D-DI 4.28 3.41 3.84abc 490 234 362c 0.80 1.09 0.95bc S-FI 3.73 2.19 2.96c 368 173 270e 0.91 0.87 0.89bcd S-DI 3.61 4.47 4.04abc 550 537 543a 0.61 0.73 0.67d E-FI 3.20 3.58 3.39bc 413 405 409b 0.70 0.74 0.72cd E-DI Means in each column followed by different letters indicates significant difference (p ≤ 0.05). The better cotton performance under DSSIS could be attributed to its greater irrigation frequency, which relieved crop water stress in a timely manner. The D-FI treatment triggered irrigation 6–9 times with an irrigation interval of 12.5 days on average for the two years. Comparatively, S-FI treatment triggered irrigation 4–7 times with an irrigation interval of 16.5 days on average over the two years. The experience-based method resulted in only 5–6 irrigation events with an interval of 16.5 days on average over the two years. Generally, a method of high frequency and low quantity per irrigation was the best strategy for shallow root plant growth. However, in the desert region where this study was undertaken, owing to the limited irrigation water and increasing competition between irrigation districts for water, high frequency irrigation intervals are not feasible. In addition, cotton is a drought-tolerant plant and some studies have reported that drip irrigation intervals should be set at a week or 15 days [49–52]. Over the two years, the response of water stress factor and measured θ to irrigation events triggered in the D-FI treatment are shown in Figure 10A. Owing to the increase in rooting depth of cotton under this treatment, the 2-year mean irrigation depth over the reproductive stage (July to August) was 200 mm greater than that at the vegetative stage (May to June). Crop water requirements were low at the vegetative stage due to less radiation energy or vapor deficit to drive ET. However, because of the timely irrigation, the water stress simulated by RZWQM2 was alleviated and the crop recovered from the very short time period of water stress (1–2 days). The soil water content and irrigation event for the S-FI and E-FI treatments over two years are depicted in Figure 10B and Figure 10C, respectively. The decrease in irrigation amount under DSSIS-based method (vs. experience- based method) might be attributable to a decrease in ET or soil water content. DSSIS can fill the soil profile to satisfy the crop transpiration (Figure 10A). There was very little rainfall in this region (Qira Oasis), and rainfall did not exceed 2.0 cm each time. Therefore, the projected rainfall has little effect on actual irrigation in DSSIS in this region. However, no matter how much the forecasted rainfall is, the minimum irrigation amount applied would always be more than 3.0 cm in this study. Even though the actual rainfall might be less than the predicted rainfall, the water stresses could be removed owing to the fact that irrigation amount exceeds 3.0 cm each time. In other words, the water stresses will be detected earlier, and another irrigation will be triggered when current rainfall is less than the forecasted ones. The poorer performance of sensor-based irrigation scheduling method may be related to field 3 –3 operation and irrigation threshold. Irrigation events were triggered when θ reached 0.06 cm cm in May and June, but, later, due to broken sensors in 2016, no water was applied at the locations where the sensors were installed. Instead, irrigation water was applied every two weeks in order to maintain crop growth. This malfunction demonstrated that the DSSIS was less affected by field operation than the sensor-based irrigation scheduling. The significant decrease in cotton yield under sensor-based Agronomy 2019, 9, 686 14 of 19 (vs. DSSIS-based) irrigation scheduling in 2017 might be attributed to the low threshold of θ set for the sensors, which resulted in a lower amount of irrigation water applied. Based on the literature 3 -3 [46,47], we set the irrigation threshold to 0.06 cm cm for the fine sand in the study. The external environment, such as weather condition or field operation, may not be the main factor. However, a fixed upper and lower irrigation threshold values may be the main factor, which leads to a low irrigation amount for sensor-based method. In our study, the sensor-based irrigation scheduling method used a fixed upper and lower threshold to maintain the soil water content in the root soil layer. In fact, water stress may occur at different soil water content during the crop growth season. Sensor accuracy and installed position may also affect irrigation time and amount for sensor-based irrigation scheduling. Figure 10. The water stress response to irrigation and rainfall in the D-FI treatment in 2016 and 2017 (A); soil water content response to irrigation and rainfall in the S-FI treatment in 2016 and 2017 (B); and soil water content response to irrigation and rainfall in the E-FI treatment in 2016 and 2017 (C). WS-predicted, predicted water stress; SWC, soil water content; SWC—0.10 m and SWC—0.20 m, soil water content monitored by sensor in 0.10 m and 0.20 m soil profile, respectively. The economic analysis showed that the DSSIS in general achieved the highest net profit, with an assumption that the infrastructure of each method was applied to a 10-ha field with a 10-year operational lifetime (Supplement Table S1). The total investment for the infrastructure of DSSIS, −1 −1 sensor-, and experience-based methods were $449, $389 and $0 ha y . The experience-based method was more labor intensive, with two working days for each irrigation event, while it was one working day for the DSSIS and sensor-based. The number irrigation events in each year were 7, 5, and 5 for the DSSIS, sensor-, and experience-based methods, and therefore the labor salary were $350, $250, −1 −1 and $500 for those three methods, respectively. Water bills were $130, $126, and $190 ha y , according to the irrigation amount in Table 2. Taking the $1500 investment on fertilizer, seed, and machinery into account, the total cost for DSSIS, sensor-, and experience-based methods were $2429, −1 −1 −1 $2265, and $2190 ha y , while the total revenue from cotton sale were $5772, $4420, and $4823 ha −1 y based on the observed yield, respectively. Therefore, the net profit for DSSIS, sensor- and −1 −1 experience-based irrigation control methods were $3343, $2155, and $2633 ha y , respectively. 3.2. Simulated and Measured Grain Yield and the Soil Moisture The better performance of the DSSIS method can be attributed to a reasonably accurate simulation of crop yield and θ by RZWQM2. The simulated and measured grain yield, θ for each layer and soil water storage for the whole soil profile over two years are shown in Table 4. Simulated –1 – average grain yield under D-FI was 3.40 Mg ha , within 16.8% of the measured value of 2.91 Mg ha 1 –1 , while simulated average grain yield under D-DI was 2.44 Mg ha , within 2.1% of the measured –1 value of 2.39 Mg ha . Agronomy 2019, 9, 686 15 of 19 Table 4. Statistics of comparison for simulated versus measured crop yield and soil moisture over two years for full irrigation (D-FI) and deficit irrigation (D-DI). b b Full Irrigation Deficit Irrigation Parameter 2 2 Sim. Obs. MD ENS R RMSE Sim. Obs. MD ENS R RMSE 2016–2017 Grain yield 3.40 2.91 0.49 — — — 2.44 2.39 0.05 — — — −1 (Mg ha ) θ (0.05–0.15 m) 0.13 0.13 0.006 0.55 0.61 0.033 0.12 0.12 −0.002 0.69 0.69 0.031 θ (0.15–0.25 m) 0.13 0.12 0.003 0.85 0.79 0.023 0.12 0.12 −0.004 0.60 0.62 0.031 θ (0.25–0.40 m) 0.13 0.12 0.012 0.65 0.71 0.030 0.10 0.10 −0.001 0.46 0.47 0.030 θ (0.40–0.65 m) 0.11 0.12 −0.008 −0.04 0.19 0.037 0.08 0.10 −0.014 −0.17 0.12 0.032 θ (0.65–1.00 m) 0.10 0.11 −0.013 0.12 0.39 0.024 0.09 0.09 −0.003 0.19 0.20 0.203 SWS (0–1.00 m) 10.86 10.29 0.572 0.48 0.60 1.879 8.85 9.25 −0.407 0.48 0.51 1.896 a 3 –3 b θ = soil water content (cm cm ), SWS = soil water storage (cm). Sim. = simulated mean, Obs. = measured mean, MD = mean difference, ENS = Nash-Sutcliffe model efficiency, R = coefficient of determination, and RMSE = root mean squared error. Agronomy 2019, 9, 686 16 of 19 Except for the 0.40–0.65 m and 0.65–1.00 m soil layers, the RZWQM2 model adequately simulated the θ for each layer across the entire soil profile, both for full irrigation treatments (ENS ≥ 3 –3 3 –3 2 0.65; 0.023 m m ≤ RMSE ≤ 0.033 m m ; and 0.61 ≤ R ≤ 0.79) and deficit irrigation treatments (ENS ≥ 3 –3 3 –3 2 0.46; 0.030 m m ≤ RMSE ≤ 0.031 m m ; and 0.46 ≤ R ≤ 0.69) (Table 4, Figure 11). The soil water storage for both the full and deficit irrigation in the 0–1.0 m soil profile was simulated by the RZWQM2 model in an acceptable manner (ENS ≥ 0.48; R ≥ 0.51–Table 4, Figure 11).Although the model did poorly for the 0.40–0.65 m and 0.65–1.0 m soil layers under full irrigation and deficit irrigation, the model performance on simulatingθ in this study was comparable to other studies with RZWQM2 [29,53]. Figure 11. Simulated and measured soil water content for the full irrigation field (A) and deficit irrigation field (B) based on DSSIS in 2016 and 2017. 4. Conclusions To alleviate the water crisis and improve water productivity (WP) in irrigated agriculture, a Decision Support System for Irrigation Scheduling (DSSIS) was tested in a case study wherein it was compared, under both full and deficit irrigation, with soil moisture sensor and conventional experience-based irrigation scheduling. The DSSIS, using model-predicted real-time water stress as a threshold to trigger irrigation, performed the best with the highest WP, the highest cotton yield, and a significant reduction in total irrigation amount compared to the experience-based method. Use of DSSIS under deficit irrigation saved the greatest amount of irrigation water (approximately 50%), increased yield by 4.0%, and enhanced WP by 80.6% compared to experience-based full irrigation. DSSIS is the most cost-effective according to the economic analysis. This study concluded that, given its ability to improve WP and to enhance economic return, the DSSIS is a promising infrastructure for real-time irrigation scheduling. Combined with deficit irrigation the DSSIS might be the best choice for farmers in the area under study. Further studies are needed to evaluate the effectiveness of DSSIS under other climate conditions and cropping systems. Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/2073-4395/9/11/686/s1, Figure S1.: Field experiment facilities, Table S1.: Economic analysis of the newly developed DSSIS applied to a 10-ha field with a 10-year operational lifetime. Agronomy 2019, 9, 686 17 of 19 Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Z.Q., D.G., and F.Z.; Methodology, Z.Q. and X.C.; Software, Z.G.; Writing, X.C. and Z.Q.; Writing—Review and Editing, X.C., Z.Q., L.M., Z.G., L.L., and M.S. Funding: This study was carried out during a visiting study at McGill University and was financially supported by the China Scholarship Council (CSC) program, Xinjiang Thousand Talent Program for Young Professionals (Y672071001), and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (U1603343,41471031). Acknowledgments: We wish to thank the editor and anonymous peer reviewers who significantly helped in improving this manuscript. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funding sponsors had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results. References 1. Navarro-Hellín, H.; Martínez-del-Rincon, J.; Domingo-Miguel, R.; Soto-Valles, F.; Torres-Sánchez, R. A decision support system for managing irrigation in agriculture. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2016, 124, 121–131. 2. Yang, G.; Liu, L.; Guo, P.; Li, M. A flexible decision support system for irrigation scheduling in an irrigation district in China. Agric. Water Manage. 2017, 179, 378–389. 3. Kong, Q. Analysis on the key factor of inhibiting cotton production development and discussion on its strategies. Xinjiang Agric. Sci. 2010, 47, 3–5. 4. Wang, W.; Lu, J.; Ren, T.; Li, X.; Su, W.; Lu, M. Evaluating regional mean optimal nitrogen rates in combination with indigenous nitrogen supply for rice production. Field Crops Res. 2012, 137, 37–48. 5. Ghazichaki, Z.; Monem, M. Development of Quantified Model for Application of Control Systems in Irrigation Networks by System Dynamic Approach. Irrig. Drain. 2019, 68, 433–442. 6. Farooq, M.; Hussain, M.; Ul-Allah, S.; Siddique, K. Physiological and agronomic approaches for improving water-use efficiency in crop plants. Agric. Water Manage. 2019, 219, 95–108. 7. Ahmadi, S.; Andersen, M.; Plauborg, F.; Poulsen, R.; Jensen, C.; Sepaskhah, A.; Hansen, S. Effects of irrigation strategies and soils on field grown potatoes: yield and water productivity. Agric. Water Manage. 2010, 97, 1923–1930. 8. Nawandar, N.; Satpute, V. IoT based low cost and intelligent module for smart irrigation system. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2019, 162, 979–990. 9. Kropp, I.; Nejadhashemi, A.; Deb, K.; Abouali, M.; Roy, P.; Adhikari, U.; Hoogenboom, G. A multi-objective approach to water and nutrient efficiency for sustainable agricultural intensification. Agric. Syst. 2019, 173, 289–302. 10. Ge, Y.; Li, X.; Huang, C.; Nan, Z. A Decision Support System for irrigation water allocation along the middle reaches of the Heihe River Basin, Northwest China. Environ. Model. Softw. 2013, 47, 182–192. 11. Grassini, P.; Yang, H.; Irmak, S.; Thorburn, J.; Burr, C.; Cassman, K. High-yield irrigated maize in the Western US Corn Belt: II. Irrigation management and crop water productivity. Field Crops Res. 2011, 120, 133–141. 12. Baseca, C.C.; Sendra, S.; Lloret, J.; Tomas, J.A. Smart Decision System for Digital Farming. Agronomy-Basel. 2019, 9, 216. 13. Kinzli, K.; Gensler, D.; DeJonge, K.; Oad, R.; Shafike, N. Validation of a Decision Support System for Improving Irrigation System Performance. J. Irrig. Drain Eng. 2015, 141. doi.10.1061/(ASCE)IR.1943- 4774.0000829 14. Dabach, S.; Lazarovitch, N.; Šimůnek, J.; Shani, U. Numerical investigation of irrigation scheduling based on soil water status. Irrig. Sci. 2013, 31, 27–36. 15. Tanure, S.; Nabinger, C.; Becker, J. Bioeconomic model of decision support system for farm management. Part I: Systemic conceptual modeling. Agric. Syst. 2013, 115, 104–116. 16. Dukes, M.; Scholberg, J. Soil moisture controlled subsurface drip irrigation on sandy soils. Appl. Eng. Agric. 2005, 21, 89–101. 17. Soulis, K.; Elmaloglou, S.; Dercas, N. Investigating the effects of soil moisture sensors positioning and accuracy on soil moisture based drip irrigation scheduling systems. Agric. Water Manage. 2015, 148, 258– Agronomy 2019, 9, 686 18 of 19 18. Car, N.; Christen, E.; Hornbuckle, J.; Moore, G. Using a mobile phone Short Messaging Service (SMS) for irrigation scheduling in Australia–Farmers’ participation and utility evaluation. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2012, 84, 132–143. 19. Blonquist, J.; Jones, S.; Robinson, D. Precise irrigation scheduling for turfgrass using a subsurface electromagnetic soil moisture sensor. Agric. Water Manage. 2006, 84, 153–165. 20. Coates, R.; Delwiche, M.; Brown, P. Design of a system for individual microsprinkler control. Trans. ASABE. 2006, 49, 1963–1970. 21. Kim, Y.; Evans, R. Software design for wireless sensor-based site-specific irrigation. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2009, 66, 159–165. 22. Miller, G.; Farahani, H.; Hassell, R.; Khalilian, A.; Adelberg, J.; Wells, C. Field evaluation and performance of capacitance probes for automated drip irrigation of watermelons. Agric. Water Manage. 2014, 131, 124– 23. Taghvaeian, S.; Chávez, J.; Hansen, N. Infrared thermometry to estimate crop water stress index and water use of irrigated maize in Northeastern Colorado. Remote Sens-Basel. 2012, 4, 3619–3637. 24. DeJonge, K.; Taghvaeian, S.; Trout, T.; Comas, L. Comparison of canopy temperature-based water stress indices for maize. Agric. Water Manage. 2015, 156, 51–62. 25. Carroll, D.; Hansen, N.; Hopkins, B.; DeJonge, K. Leaf temperature of maize and crop water stress index with variable irrigation and nitrogen supply. Irrig. Sci. 2017, 2, 1–12. 26. Gao, F.; Yu, L.; Zhang, W.; Xu, Q.; Jiang, Q. Preliminary study on precision irrigation system based on wireless sensor networks of acoustic emission for crop water stress. Trans. CSAE. 2008, 24, 60–65. 27. Playan, E.; Salvador, R.; Lopetz, C.; Lecina, S.; Dechmi, F.; Zapata, N. Solid-setsprinkler irrigation controllers driven by simulation models: opportunities and bottlenecks. J. Irrigat. Drain. Eng. 2014, E140, 28. O’Shaughnessy, S.; Evett, S.; Colaizzi, P.; Howell, T. Grain sorghum response to irrigation scheduling with the time-temperature threshold method and deficit irrigation levels. Trans. ASAE. 2012, 55, 451–461. 29. Qi, Z.; Ma, L.; Bausch, W.; Trout, T.; Ahuja, L.; Flerchinger, G.; Fang, Q. Simulating maize production, water and energy balance, canopy temperature, and water stress under full and deficit irrigated corn. Trans. ASAE. 2016, 59, 623–633. 30. Thorp, K.; DeJonge, K.; Kaleita, A.; Batchelor, W.; Paz, J. Methodology for the use of DSSAT models for precision agriculture decision support. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2008, 64, 276–285. 31. Jiang, Y.; Xu, X.; Huang, Q.; Huo, Z.; Huang, G. Optimizing regional irrigation water use by integrating a two-level optimization model and an agro-hydrological model. Agric. Water Manage. 2016, 178, 76–88. 32. Thorp, K.; Hunsaker, D.; Bronson, K.; Andrade-Sanchez, P.; Barnes, E. Cotton irrigation scheduling using a crop growth model and FAO-56 methods: field and simulation studies. Trans. ASABE. 2017, 60, 2023– 33. Kisekka, I.; Aguilar, J.P.; Rogers, D.H.; Holman, J.; O’Brien, D.M.; Klocke, N. Assessing deficit irrigation strategies for corn using simulation. Trans. ASAE. 2016, 59, 303–317. 34. Stulina, G.; Cameira, M.; Pereira, L. Using RZWQM to search improved practices for irrigated maize in Ferhana, Uzabekistan. Agric. Water Manage. 2005, 77, 263–281. 35. Cameira, M.; Fernando, R.; Ahuja, L. Using RZWQM to simulate the fate of nitrogen in field soil-crop environment in the Mediterranean region. Agric. Water Manage. 2007, 90, 121–136. 36. Hanson, J.; Ahuja, L.; Shaffer, M.; Rojas, K.; DeCoursey, D.; Farahani, H.; Johnson, K. RZWQM simulating the effects of management on water quality and crop production. Agric. Syst. 1998, 57, 161–195. 37. Saseendran, S.; Ahuja, L.; Ma, L.; Trout, T.; Andales, A.; Chaves, J.; Ham, J. Enhancing the water stress factors for simulation of corn (Zea mays L.) in RZWQM2. Agron. J. 2014, 106, 81–94. 38. Ma, L.; Trout, T.; Ahuja, L.; Bausch, W.; Saseendran, S.; Malone, R.; Nielsen, D. Calibrating RZWQM2 Model for maize responses to deficit irrigation. Agric. Water Manage. 2012, 103, 140–149. 39. Fang, Q.; Wang, J.; Yu, S. Water-saving potential and irrigation strategies for wheat-maize double cropping system in the North China Plain. Trans. CSAE. 2011, 27, 37–44. 40. Gu, Z.; Qi, Z.; Ma, L.; Gui, D.; Xu, J.; Fang, Q.; Yuan, S. Development of an irrigation scheduling software based on model predicted crop water stress. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2017, 143, 208–221. 41. Liu, C.; Qi, Z.; Gu, Z.; Gui, D.; Zeng, F. Optimizing irrigation rates for cotton production in an extremely arid area using RZEWM2-simulated water stress. Trans. ASABE. 2017, 60, 1–14. Agronomy 2019, 9, 686 19 of 19 42. Ahuja, L.R.; Rojas, K.W.; Hanson, J.D.; Shaffer, M.J.; Ma, L. Root zone water quality model: Modeling management effects on water quality and crop production. Water Resources Publications: Littleton, CO, USA, 43. Ma, L.; Hoogenboom, G.; Ahuja, L.; Ascough, J.; Saseendran, S.A. Evaluation of the RZWQM-CERES-Maize hybrid model for maize production. Agric. Syst. 2006, 87, 274–295. 44. Ma, L.; Hoogenboom, G.; Ahuja, L.; Nielsen, D.; Ascough, J.C. Development and evaluation of the RZWQM-CROPGRO hybrid model for soybean production. Agron. J. 2005, 97, 1172–1182. 45. Saseendran, S.; Trout, T.; Ahuja, L.; Ma, L.; McMaster, G.; Nielsen, D.; Andales, A.; Chavez, J.; Ham, J. Quantifying crop water stress factors from soil water measurements in a limited irrigation experiment. Agric. Syst. 2015, 137, 191–205. 46. Zotarelli, L.; Dukes, M.; Morgan, K. Interpretation of soil moisture content to determine soil field capacity and avoid over-irrigating sandy soils using soil moisture sensors. Agri. Bio. Eng. Dep. UF/IFAS Ext. 2013 AE460, 1–4. 47. Haley, M.; Dukes, M. Validation of landscape irrigation reduction with soil moisture sensor irrigation controllers. J. Irrig. Drain Eng. 2012, 138, 135–144. 48. Shareef, M.; Gui, D.; Zeng, F.; Waqas, M.; Zhang, B.; Iqbal, H. Water productivity, growth, and physiological assessment of deficit irrigated cotton on hyperarid desert–oases in northwest China. Agric. Water Manage. 2018, 206, 1–10. 49. Ibragimov, N.; Evett, S.; Esanbekov, Y.; Kamilov, B.; Mirzaev, L.; Lamers, J. Water use efficiency of irrigated cotton in Uzbekistan under drip and furrow irrigation. Agric. Water Manage. 2007, 90, 112–120. 50. Sezen, S.; Yazar, A.; Kapur, B.; Tekin, S. Comparison of drip and sprinkler irrigation strategies on sunflower seed and oil yield and quality under Mediterranean climatic conditions. Agric. Water Manage. 2011, 98, 1153–1161. 51. Martins, J.; Rodrigues, G.; Paredes, P.; Carlesso, R.; Oliveira, Z.; Knies, A.; et al. Dual crop coefficients for maize in southern Brazil: model testing for sprinkler and drip irrigation and mulched soil. Biosyst. Eng. 2013, 115, 291–310. 52. Dar, E.; Brar, A.; Mishra, S.; Singh, K. Simulating response of wheat to timing and depth of irrigation water in drip irrigation system using CERES-wheat model. Field Crops Res. 2017, 214, 149–163. 53. Ma, L.; Nielsen, D.; Ahuja, L.; Malone, R.; Saseendran, S.; Rojas, K.; Hanson, J.; Benjamin, J. Evaluation of RZWQM under varying irrigation levels in eastern Colorado. Trans. ASAE. 2003, 46, 39–49. © 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Journal

AgronomyMultidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute

Published: Oct 27, 2019

There are no references for this article.