English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

A plot study comparing a variety of irrigation scheduling technologies was conducted in Gainesville, Florida, from 2015 to 2017. Our study objectives were to: (1) compare the ability of different irrigation scheduling technologies to bypass scheduled irrigation cycles and/or decrease water application; and (2) compare water savings. Twelve irrigation scheduling treatments were investigated, with each replicated three or four times. Treatments included time-based schedules without sensor feedback (WOS), with a rain sensor, deficit irrigation with a rain sensor, and non-irrigated. Also included were three soil moisture sensor (SMS) based treatments, three weather or ET-based treatments (ET), and two smartphone app-based treatments. Significant differences in turfgrass quality among all treatments (including non-irrigated) were not observed during the testing periods, which tended to be wetter than normal. Compared to WOS, the SMS, ET, and smartphone app treatments achieved water savings of 51% to 63%, 28% to 66%, and 51% to 63%, respectively, depending on treatment specifics. Inclusion of additional practices, such as a split irrigation strategy (half in the morning and half in the evening) and seasonal deficit irrigation, were shown to be advantageous in an area where rainfall is frequent and a substantial contributor to plant water needs. The SMS treatments saved water by bypassing scheduled irrigation cycles, the ET controllers saved water mainly through lower application depths, while the app-based treatments saved water through a combination of bypassing and applying lower irrigation depths. The payback period for the evaluated scheduling technologies ranged between 0 and 12 months. Financial and practical considerations should be included when recommending or acquiring one of these irrigation scheduling technologies.

Irrigation Savings from Smart Irrigation Technologies and a Smartphone App on Turfgrass