Abstract
Real time soil moisture monitoring using sensors has potential to save irrigation water and improve water productivity. Field experiments were carried out for two successive years (2016-17 and 2017-18) to produce wheat crop at the Water Management Research Center, Postgraduate Agricultural Research Station, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad. Field irrigation methods included flood irrigation (canvas pipe), perforated pipe irrigation, and drip irrigation under different planting geometries and irrigation designs. The sensor-based irrigation systems were developed using locally available material to minimize the cost of equipment development and energy consumption for crop irrigation. Seven wheat crop treatments used in this experiment were T1-flood irrigation flat sowing by rabi-drill, T2-flood irrigation bed furrow planting with 0.254 m furrow, T3-perforated pipe irrigation bed furrow planting with 0.254 m furrow, T4-perforated pipe irrigation bed furrow planting with 0.203 m furrow, T5- perforated pipe irrigation bed furrow planting with 0.152 m furrow, T6-drip irrigation flat with 0.914 m lateral spacing and T7- drip irrigation on beds with 0.914 m lateral spacing. An IT-based web server was developed for monitoring soil moisture status to serve as decision support system for applying irrigation to the crops. The developed sensors sent soil moisture signals on cloud for data storage, reuse and sharing purpose using coding. The irrigation was applied based on soil moisture status. The system based on micro-controller was tested for irrigating wheat crop. Raspberry Pi-3 (Model B) controlled hardware in distribution box (DB) made excellent use of indigenized soil moisture sensors for calibration and irrigation water management. Type-I (Single probe) and Type-II (Double probe) steel sensors performed best due to high R2 values of about 0.99 and RMSE in the range of 3.30% - 3.50% during calibration. The calibration further improved the accuracy of both steel and copper sensors. Since the sensors were designed, developed, and calibrated during the 1st year (2016-17) and properly installed in 2nd year (2017-18), therefore, have affected crop and soil parameters positively. Drip irrigation treatments (T6 = 359.56 mm and T7 = 358.65 mm) required significantly lowest mean amount of water than those by all the other treatments and the flood irrigation treatments (T1 = 431.55 mm and T2 = 424.95 mm) required significantly greatest (α = 0.05) amount of mean irrigation depth. Drip irrigation treatments (T6 and T7) produced high mean water productivity values (14.30 and 14.20) than those under flood irrigation treatments (T1 = 9.6 and T2 = 10.30) and perforated pipe irrigation treatments (T3 = 12.66, T4 = 12.43 and T5 = 12.30). The mean yield of wheat grain over two years was greater under drip irrigation treatments (T6 = 5145.1 kg/ha and T7 = 5091 kg/ha) than those under flood (T1 = 4139 kg/ha, T2 = 4371 kg/ha) and perforated pipe irrigation treatments (T3 = 4969 kg/ha, T4 = 4872 kg/ha, T5 = 4775.7 kg/ha). Perforated pipe irrigation treatments had significantly greater (α = 0.5) wheat grain yield than those under flood irrigation treatments.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 11
Claim · model-written summary
Steel sensors had high calibration fit and low error.
- Taxon
- wheat
Triticum aestivumt0 - Outcome
- R2 valuese0
- Value
- about 0.99e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Type-I (Single probe) and Type-II (Double probe) steel sensors performed best due to high R2 values of about 0.99 and RMSE in the range of 3.30% - 3.50% during calibration”
t0“wheat crop”
Claim · model-written summary
Calibration improved accuracy of steel and copper sensors.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Outcome
- accuracye0
- Direction
- improvede0
- Comparator
- both steel and copper sensorse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The calibration further improved the accuracy of both steel and copper sensors”
t0“wheat crop”
Claim · model-written summary
Drip treatment T6 used less water than other treatments.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- T6e0
- Outcome
- mean amount of watere0
- Direction
- loweste0
- Value
- 359.56 mme0
- Comparator
- all the other treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Drip irrigation treatments (T6 = 359.56 mm and T7 = 358.65 mm) required significantly lowest mean amount of water than those by all the other treatments”
t0“wheat crop”
Claim · model-written summary
Drip treatment T7 used less water than other treatments.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- T7e0
- Outcome
- mean amount of watere0
- Direction
- loweste0
- Value
- 358.65 mme0
- Comparator
- all the other treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Drip irrigation treatments (T6 = 359.56 mm and T7 = 358.65 mm) required significantly lowest mean amount of water than those by all the other treatments”
t0“wheat crop”
Claim · model-written summary
Flood treatment T1 required the greatest irrigation depth.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- T1e0
- Outcome
- mean irrigation depthe0
- Direction
- greateste0
- Value
- 431.55 mme0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“flood irrigation treatments (T1 = 431.55 mm and T2 = 424.95 mm) required significantly greatest (α = 0.05) amount of mean irrigation depth”
t0“wheat crop”
Claim · model-written summary
Flood treatment T2 required the greatest irrigation depth.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- T2e0
- Outcome
- mean irrigation depthe0
- Direction
- greateste0
- Value
- 424.95 mme0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“flood irrigation treatments (T1 = 431.55 mm and T2 = 424.95 mm) required significantly greatest (α = 0.05) amount of mean irrigation depth”
t0“wheat crop”
Claim · model-written summary
T6 had higher water productivity than flood and perforated pipe irrigation.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- T6e0
- Outcome
- mean water productivitye0
- Direction
- highe0
- Value
- 14.30e0
- Comparator
- flood irrigation treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Drip irrigation treatments (T6 and T7) produced high mean water productivity values (14.30 and 14.20) than those under flood irrigation treatments (T1 = 9.6 and T2 = 10.30) and perforated pipe irrigation treatments (T3 = 12.66, T4 = 12.43 and T5 = 12.30)”
t0“wheat crop”
Claim · model-written summary
T7 had higher water productivity than flood and perforated pipe irrigation.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- T7e0
- Outcome
- mean water productivitye0
- Direction
- highe0
- Value
- 14.20e0
- Comparator
- flood irrigation treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Drip irrigation treatments (T6 and T7) produced high mean water productivity values (14.30 and 14.20) than those under flood irrigation treatments (T1 = 9.6 and T2 = 10.30) and perforated pipe irrigation treatments (T3 = 12.66, T4 = 12.43 and T5 = 12.30)”
t0“wheat crop”
Claim · model-written summary
T6 produced greater grain yield than flood and perforated pipe treatments.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- T6e0
- Outcome
- yield of wheat graine0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- 5145.1 kg/hae0
- Comparator
- floode0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The mean yield of wheat grain over two years was greater under drip irrigation treatments (T6 = 5145.1 kg/ha and T7 = 5091 kg/ha) than those under flood (T1 = 4139 kg/ha, T2 = 4371 kg/ha) and perforated pipe irrigation treatments (T3 = 4969 kg/ha, T4 = 4872 kg/ha, T5 = 4775.7 kg/ha)”
t0“wheat crop”
Claim · model-written summary
T7 produced greater grain yield than flood and perforated pipe treatments.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- T7e0
- Outcome
- yield of wheat graine0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- 5091 kg/hae0
- Comparator
- floode0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The mean yield of wheat grain over two years was greater under drip irrigation treatments (T6 = 5145.1 kg/ha and T7 = 5091 kg/ha) than those under flood (T1 = 4139 kg/ha, T2 = 4371 kg/ha) and perforated pipe irrigation treatments (T3 = 4969 kg/ha, T4 = 4872 kg/ha, T5 = 4775.7 kg/ha)”
t0“wheat crop”
Claim · model-written summary
Perforated pipe irrigation produced significantly greater wheat grain yield than flood irrigation.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- Perforated pipe irrigation treatmentse0
- Outcome
- wheat grain yielde0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Comparator
- flood irrigation treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Perforated pipe irrigation treatments had significantly greater (α = 0.5) wheat grain yield than those under flood irrigation treatments”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
797 papers in the same direction as this paper · 184 in the opposite direction · 7 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
985 papers more in this group
See all 989 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.