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

net/publication/340081130

Irrigation Scheduling Approaches and Applications: A Review

Article in Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering · March 2020

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)IR.1943-4774.0001464

CITATIONS READS
110 7,793

6 authors, including:

Zhe Gu Zhiming Qi
Hohai University McGill University
22 PUBLICATIONS 391 CITATIONS 194 PUBLICATIONS 2,864 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Rasika Burghate Xiyun Jiao

Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth, Akola Hohai University
4 PUBLICATIONS 113 CITATIONS 77 PUBLICATIONS 1,239 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Zhiming Qi on 25 April 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Irrigation Scheduling Approaches
and Applications: A Review
Zhe Gu, Ph.D. 1; Zhiming Qi 2; Rasika Burghate 3; Shouqi Yuan 4; Xiyun Jiao 5; and Junzeng Xu, Aff.M.ASCE 6

Abstract: In an effort to improve plant growth and to achieve high yield and/or quality, irrigation scheduling (IS) seeks to provide plants with
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nanjing Forestry University on 03/21/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

appropriate quantities of water at appropriate times. To better understand irrigation scheduling’s main processes and principles, its four most
common methods of operation—(1) evapotranspiration and water balance (ET-WB), (2) soil moisture (Θ) status, (3) plant water status, and
(4) models—along with their pros and cons are introduced and compared. Irrigation applications, including software, programs, and asso-
ciated controllers are introduced. Given that some of these methods focus on Θ or plant responses to soil moisture, the determination of target
soil moisture levels, along with estimates (either calculated or measured) of current soil moisture status are key to both scheduling irrigations,
and the precise replenishment of soil moisture to target levels. Accordingly, factors in the soil-crop-atmosphere system affecting soil moisture
must be considered in the scheduling process. As all four types of IS methods focus on soil water content, which serves as a bridge between
irrigation management and crop water requirements for growth, future scheduling methods should focus on the management of soil moisture
based on an advanced understanding of its effects on crop growth either by the integration of existing IS methods or the development of new
models, using intelligent algorithms. Using these approaches, more practical, accurate, and easily adaptable IS applications should be de-
veloped for real-time farming operations. Weather station networks and online data access should be enhanced to better serve these IS
applications. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)IR.1943-4774.0001464. © 2020 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Evapotranspiration (ET) and water balance; Soil water status; Plant-based measurements; Model based.

Introduction
The roughly 1.55 × 109 ha of arable lands currently (2015) culti-
vated in the world represent about 11% of the Earth’s total land
surface (World Bank Group 2019). This percentage is predicted
to reach 13% by 2050 (Alexandratos and Bruinsma 2012). Of these
arable lands, roughly 17% are subject to any form of irrigation man-
agement. However, this relatively small fraction of land equipped
for irrigation may contribute as much as 30%–40% of the world’s
gross agricultural output (Walker 1989). Driven by rising urban and
industrial competition for limited water resources (Fernández and
Cuevas 2010; Walker 1989), high agricultural water consumption
1
Postdoctoral Research Fellow, College of Agricultural Engineering,
Hohai Univ., No. 1 Xikang Rd., Nanjing 210098, China. ORCID:
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2483-0880. Email: zhegu2018@hhu.edu.cn
2
Associate Professor, Dept. of Bioresource Engineering, McGill Univ.,
Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue, QC, Canada H9X 3V9 (corresponding author).
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8233-165X. Email: zhiming.qi@
mcgill.ca
3
Graduate Student, Dept. of Bioresource Engineering, McGill Univ.,
Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue, QC, Canada H9X 3V9. Email: rasika
.burghate@mail.mcgill.ca
4
Professor, Research Center of Fluid Machinery Engineering and Tech-
nology, Jiangsu Univ., 301 Xuefu Rd., Zhenjiang 212013, China. Email:
shouqiy@ujs.edu.cn
5
Professor, College of Agricultural Engineering and Cooperative
Innovation Center for Water Safety and Hydro Science, Hohai Univ.,
No. 1 Xikang Rd., Nanjing 210098, China. Email: xyjiao@hhu.edu.cn
6
Professor, College of Agricultural Engineering, State Key Laboratory
of Hydrology-Water Resources and Hydraulic Engineering, Hohai Univ.,
No. 1 Xikang Rd., Nanjing 210098, China. Email: xjz481@hhu.edu.cn
Note. This manuscript was submitted on November 20, 2018; approved
on November 21, 2019; published online on March 20, 2020. Discussion
period open until August 20, 2020; separate discussions must be submitted
for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Irrigation and
Drainage Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9437.
(40%–80%) (Bazzani 2005; FAO 2001), and water wastage (Walker
1989), the global water scarcity crisis is worsening. Faced with lim-
ited arable and irrigated lands, and limited water resources, future
agriculture must nonetheless try to feed an increasing population.
This places greater stress on irrigation management to improve water
use efficiency (WUE) and productivity (FAO 2001).
The water scarcity also poses new challenges on urban water
utilities, where the need for landscape irrigation will continue to
grow with increasing populations (Davis et al. 2009; Mayer et al.
1999). It was reported that 72% of study participants applied less
than 70% of the theoretical irrigation requirement (TIR) to land-
scape, with about 27% applying only about 10% of TIR; in contrast,
about 13% applied excess irrigation (exceeding 130% of TIR), and
some even applied more than 300% of TIR (DeOreo et al. 2016). For
such landscape irrigation, a well-devised schedule benefited both
plant quality and water savings, as an estimated 20%–50% water
savings was achieved when using mild to aggressive landscape con-
servation practices (DeOreo et al. 2016).
The importance of water in plants arises from its role in support-
ing photosynthesis, regulating temperature via evaporative cooling,
maintaining structure through cell turgor pressure (i.e., in maintain-
ing leaf orientation), and transporting nutrients into and throughout
the plant, thereby supporting its growth. While irrigation guaran-
tees crop growth in regions where rainfall is insufficient to support
crop growth and yield, it must be scheduled properly, lest crops
suffer water stress at a critical growth stage, or excess water applied
that leads to ponding, waterlogging, runoff and/or deep seepage,
thereby leaching applied nutrients and polluting water bodies.
Though in regions where soil salinity is of a concern, excessive
water is required to be applied to leach the salts down in the soil
profile. Over the last few decades, a number of methods for sched-
uling and quantifying the required depth of individual irrigation
applications have been proposed. The present paper reviews a num-
ber of irrigation scheduling (IS) methods effectively employed in

© ASCE 04020007-1 J. Irrig. Drain. Eng.

J. Irrig. Drain Eng., 2020, 146(6): 04020007

 determining appropriate irrigation timing and depth for crop growth;
however, reports on these methods seldom consider their economic
impacts, government policies, or water supply constraints. Some
methods, do, however, aim to schedule irrigations to achieve opti-
mum water productivity and net economic returns. Irrigation for salt
leaching is not within the scope of the present paper; however, irri-
gation schedules developed through the IS methods presented here,
can serve as the basis for salt leaching irrigation decisions. For ex-
ample, using methods discussed in the present paper, Hoffman et al.
(1990) employing the leaching requirement Lr , considering the salin-
ity of the irrigation water and the crop salt tolerance threshold, and
setting the depth of water infiltrated to (1 þ Lr ) times the soil water
deficit were able to develop an effective irrigation for salt leaching
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nanjing Forestry University on 03/21/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
regime.
The quantity of water applied and the timing of its application
are both of significant importance in IS whether in landscape
or agricultural applications (McCready and Dukes 2011; Vellidis
et al. 2016b). A good irrigation schedule, achieved through well-
informed IS criteria, can provide significant irrigation water sav-
ings, whether it be for landscape applications, agricultural crop
yield and quality, or turf quality. Among the various IS approaches
that have been proposed and developed, four types can be distin-
guished according to what scheduling rests upon: (1) evapotranspi-
ration (ET) and soil water balance, (2) soil moisture (Θ) status,
(3) plant water status, and (4) simulation model output. Although
evapotranspiration and soil water balance (ET-WB) is a sort of
modeling, this paper separated the two components with a model-
based IS method in this context to address the popularity in appli-
cation and inspiration of basic components during the scheduling
procedure.
Evapotranspiration and Soil Water Balance–Based IS
ET-WB-Based Approach
The ET-WB method is a widely used IS method whereby the main
consumptive element, crop evapotranspiration (ET c ), is first esti-
mated according to methods outlined in the Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO) Irrigation and Drainage Paper 56 (Allen et al.
1998), and the daily soil water deficit then calculated on the basis of
the soil water balance equation. Irrigation events are scheduled
when the total water depletion exceeds the readily available water
(RAW, Huffman et al. 2013)
RAW ¼ MAD · ðθfc − θpwp Þ · Dr ð1Þ
where RAW is in a dimension of L, Dr is the root zone depth or that
of a soil layer within the root zone (L), MAD is the management
allowed depletion (i.e., a fraction of the total available water that
is allowed to be depleted), θfc is volumetric Θ at field capacity
(L3 · L−3 ), and θpwp is volumetric Θ at the permanent wilting point
(L3 · L−3 ). Values of θfc and θpwp for different soil textures can be
found in Huffman et al. (2013).
Suggested MAD values for four crop groups at nine rates of
maximum daily evapotranspiration can be found in Huffman et al.
(2013) as well and Doorenbos and Kassam (1979). For example,
for maize (Zea mays L.), soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.]
and cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.), suggested MAD is 0.6 when
a maximum daily ET is 5 mm · day−1 , or 0.7 when ET is
4 mm · day−1 . When irrigation is triggered, Θ is generally returned
to θfc (Huffman et al. 2013).
As crop requirements (ET c ) are estimated during the crop
growth process, the ET-WB method is a fundamental and important
IS approach. The estimation of ET c is the key point of the ET-WB
© ASCE 04020007-2
J. Irrig. Drain Eng., 2020, 146(6): 04020007
method and can be achieved through different calculations drawing
on a range of remote sensing measurements (Glenn et al. 2007;
Pereira et al. 2015). However, since this paper concentrates on
IS methods rather than the estimation of ET c , these studies related
to the improvement of ET c (or ET 0 and K c ) estimation are not de-
tailed here. Due to the fact that direct ET c measurement is costly
and labor intensive (e.g., using lysimeters), it is generally estimated
using the crop coefficient (K c ) multiplied by the reference evapo-
transpiration (ET 0 ). The ET 0 can be calculated from meteorologi-
cal data using the well-known FAO Penman-Monteith equation
(Allen et al. 1998). The K c is normally selected through a single
crop coefficient approach, or a dual crop coefficient approach when
separate crop transpiration (K cb ) and soil evaporation (K e ) co-
efficients are considered (Allen et al. 1998). It is challenging to
calibrate the K c value using ET 0 and ET c measured through a site-
specific field lysimeter experiment, because the K c values obtained
through this calibration may vary dramatically each day during the
growing season due to various factors in the soil-plant-atmosphere
system (López-Urrea et al. 2009). Therefore, K c values used in ir-
rigation scheduling are usually derived using a piecewise linear ap-
proach using the procedures and tables in Allen et al. (1998) as a
mean K c approach that avoids the variability of actual daily K c.
The performance of ET-based IS methods varies under different
management systems. Davis et al. (2009) showed that when main-
taining turfgrass quality an ET-based IS method significantly re-
duced irrigation water use. However, compared to traditional
experience-based irrigation regimes, ET-based irrigation in some
cases failed to achieve the same crop yield (Hunsaker et al. 2015)
or turf quality (McCready et al. 2009) due to a lower allowance of
the soil water content during the growing season. When testing the
performance of satellite-based ET irrigation controllers, Devitt et al.
(2008) found that 81% of ET-based controllers (scheduled auto-
matically according to ET data) achieved water saving when the
controllers were individually programmed at each site according
to the manufacturer’s recommendations.
The ET-based method depends strongly on (1) the accuracy of
the estimated ET 0 , (2) building a better crop coefficient (K c ) curve
over the growing season using a single or dual crop coefficient or
site-specific calibration approach, (3) evaluating soil properties to
determine the soil’s water holding capacity, and (4) measuring site-
specific rainfall (Davis and Dukes 2010). Improving the accuracy
of estimating all these parameters is the main challenge of ET-WB-
based approach, and therefore to minimize the accumulative error
of soil water deficit estimation. Another challenge of this approach
is spatial and temporal variability for a large-scale ET estimate.
Gowda et al. (2008) found that although daily ET was accurately
estimated based on remote sensing data, the spatial and temporal
resolution of this data may limit its use for mapping spatial ET
distribution for irrigation scheduling purposes, especially at the
field-scale level of 10–200 ha. However, ET-WB-based IS showed
advantages in some cases due to its feasibility. When a scientific
(versus experience-based) IS scheduling method is first imple-
mented over a growing season, the ET-WB method is relatively
easy to implement and is proven effective when field weather data
and FAO suggested K c curves for the crop are available. The ET-
WB method remains feasible even if soil properties are unknown,
assuming the accumulated daily soil water deficit calculated by ET
estimates is quenched in a timely manner. For instance, irrigations
can be triggered at a fixed interval (e.g., every 3 days or twice a
week) to quench the soil water deficit calculated by ET estimates
(Grabow et al. 2013; Davis et al. 2009). However, recharging the soil
to θfc may increase the risk of percolation if a precipitation event
occurs in days immediately following the irrigation event. Thanks
to easy access to field weather data, this method is applicable to
J. Irrig. Drain. Eng.
 fields all over the world, and various ET-based irrigation software
and control systems have been developed to facilitate scheduling.
ET-WB-Based IS Applications
Some computer applications, including software and decision sup-
port systems (DSSs), have been developed to implement ET-WB-
based IS and to liberate farmers from laborious calculations and the
need to understand the science of the method. Among these, the
SmartIrrigation apps (Migliaccio et al. 2013, 2016) will be high-
lighted. These applications are related strictly to irrigation sched-
uling, namely irrigation timing and quantity determination, without
considering economic and government regulatory factors (Yang
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nanjing Forestry University on 03/21/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
et al. 2017).
SmartIrrigation apps are interactive ET-based IS tools that op-
erate on smartphone platforms. Several apps have been developed
for different plants, such as citrus, turf, strawberry (Fragaria ×
ananassa Duchesne), cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.), avocado
(Persea americana Mill.), and vegetables, and is still under devel-
opment for other crops, like blueberry (Vaccinium sect. Cyanococ-
cus) and soybean. These apps are available on the website (Smart
Irrigation Apps Group 2019). SmartIrrigation apps were first re-
leased in 2013 by Migliaccio et al. (2013) for citrus, turf, and straw-
berry, and further crop apps were later developed. SmartIrrigation
apps were developed based on an ET and water balance model,
using meteorological data, soil parameters, crop phenology, crop
coefficients, and irrigation applications to estimate root zone water
deficit (see “ET-WB-Based Approach” section). The apps notify
users when irrigation is needed and the amount of water to irrigate.
Vellidis et al. (2014, 2015, 2016a) described the development of
the SmartIrrigation Cotton app, along with the calibration, validation,
and field evaluation of the model integrated in the app. The Cotton
app was reported to be able to predict soil water content reason-
ably well and to save water when compared to other IS methods
(e.g., Checkbook and CWSI methods, discussed in section “Crop
Water Stress Index Method”). However, in a wet year, it failed to
achieve higher yields and WUE than the simply rainfed treatment
(Vellidis et al. 2016b). Migliaccio et al. (2016) in introducing the
development of SmartIrrigation apps for different crops, pointed
out their limitations: these apps are currently only useful in
Florida and Georgia and only for those crops grown in fields
in proximity to meteorological stations. Considering spatial varia-
tion in rainfall, and the finite set of weather stations, it is spatially
limited in making accurate schedules.
Besides the SmartIrrigation apps, several IS applications have
been successfully applied. Using a dual crop coefficient approach
to estimate ET c , Rosa et al. (2012a, b) developed and tested the
SIMDualKc software to simplify the computation and quickly
provide ET c information for irrigation scheduling. Employing a
short-term water balance that can be adjusted according to mea-
sured Θ trends, the Washington Irrigation Scheduling Expert soft-
ware (WISE; Leib et al. 2001), allows easy access to ET 0 values
from Washington State’s sixty Public Agriculture Weather System
stations. Thysen and Detlefsen (2006) described an internet imple-
mentation of a previous stand-alone PC-based irrigation decision-
making program based essentially on an ET and water balance
method. Chauhan et al. (2013) introduced a web-based DSS,
AQUAMAN, to assist Australian peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.)
growers to schedule irrigation based on the ET-WB method intro-
duced in FAO-56. Bartlett et al. (2015) developed a smartphone
app to extend the usage of the Water Irrigation Scheduling for Ef-
ficient Application system, an ET-WB-based IS tool developed by
Colorado State University. Perea et al. (2017) developed a multi-
platform application (IrriFresa) for precision irrigation scheduling
© ASCE 04020007-3
J. Irrig. Drain Eng., 2020, 146(6): 04020007
in strawberries, consisting of a PC and a mobile module, based on
ET simulated by the Hydrus 2D model. This application offers
farmers daily/weekly information about irrigation amount and tim-
ing. Car et al. (2012) developed a system, IrriSatSMS, using mobile
phone text messages to provide farmers with irrigation scheduling
advice based on water balance calculation.
Some ET-based controllers are also widely employed in land-
scape irrigation systems (Dukes 2012), providing both irrigation
decisions and control signals to the system. Devitt et al. (2008)
evaluated the water saving potential of an ET-based satellite irriga-
tion controller. In another study, three brands of commercial ET
controllers (Toro Intelli-sense, ETwater Smart Controller 100 and
Weathermatic SL1600) were evaluated and shown to provide, on
average, a 43% water saving compared to the time-based irrigation
approach without a rain sensor (Davis et al. 2009). Only half of the
theoretical irrigation requirement was applied by the three brands
of ET controllers (Davis and Dukes 2010).
Soil-Moisture-Based IS
Irrigation Timing and Amount
The Θ-based IS methods compare monitored Θ (inferred from sen-
sor measurements) to Θ-based thresholds to trigger irrigation (tim-
ing). The monitored Θ is commonly measured by time domain
transmission sensors or reflectometry probes, neutron probes,
capacitance sensors, granular matrix sensors, etc. (Hedley and Yule
2009; Migliaccio et al. 2010; Thompson et al. 2007b). Related to
Θ, soil water tension or soil matric potential (ψm ), measured by
tensiometers, is another parameter used to quantify soil water avail-
able for plant use.
In an effort to benefit crop growth, yield, and quality, Θ-based
IS methods focus mainly on determining when irrigation should be
applied to maintain root zone Θ within an appropriate range (Viani
2016). Various methods have been proposed to determine irrigation
timing based on a lower limit or threshold of Θ, θth (Haley and
Dukes 2012; Zotarelli et al. 2010), e.g., θth ≤ 0.12 m3 m−3 ; or
when soil tension, ψm , reaches a set threshold (Hoppula and Salo
2007; Migliaccio et al. 2010; Thompson et al. 2007b), e.g., jψm j >
25 kPa. The threshold value varies according to soil properties and
crops, and is determined either through field experiments, where
crop responses to different levels of water stress under various ir-
rigation treatments are investigated (Hoppula and Salo 2007;
Migliaccio et al. 2010; Wang et al. 2017), or drawn from existing
studies (Haley and Dukes 2012). Therefore, these thresholds are
optimized for specific locations and crop species due to their re-
sponses to crop growth, yield, and quality, etc. Thompson et al.
(2007b) proposed an alternative to determine threshold values of
ψm , using an indicator of plant water stress, the leaf water potential
(ψleaf ). A linear regression was established between ψm and ψleaf for
conditions ranging from well-watered to nonwatered, and the point
where the relationship broke from a linear relationship was chosen
as the ψm threshold. Thompson et al. (2007a) also proposed an in
situ approach for determining the lower limit in ψm -based irrigation
management, by monitoring reductions in Θ as a reflection of crop
water uptake.
Besides the use of Θ or ψm thresholds, the available soil water
content threshold (AWCth ) has also been employed in Θ-based IS
approach, to which the actual available soil water content (AWC, %)
is compared:
 
θa − θpwp
AWC ¼ 100 · ð2Þ
θfc − θpwp
J. Irrig. Drain. Eng.
 where θa is the actual (measured) volumetric soil water content
(L3 · L−3 ). The value of AWCth was determined graphically as the
value of AWC where ψleaf of unwatered plants started to diverge from
that of fully irrigated plants using a linear relationship (Thompson
et al. 2007b). Basically, the AWCth is equivalent to the Θ threshold,
θth , under a soil of specific moisture capacity and soil depth (Fig. 1):
1 irrigation scheduling due to its capacity to measure spatial and tem-
θth ¼ AWCth ðθfc − θpwp Þ þ θpwp
100
However, the use of fixed AWCth values has proved unreliable
for irrigation scheduling, given uncertainties arising from the def-
inition of rooting depth, measurements of θfc and θpwp , as well as
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nanjing Forestry University on 03/21/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
sensor calibration and sensor accuracy (Thompson et al. 2007b). Ac-
cordingly, the adoption of a dynamic rooting depth along with dy-
namic θfc and θpwp values across the rooting depth (Gu et al. 2017a;
Liu et al. 2017) can probably improve irrigation performance.
Under Θ-based irrigation scheduling, the most common way to
determine the necessary depth of irrigation is to apply a threshold-
based quantity (Migliaccio et al. 2010; Zotarelli et al. 2010), or
a fixed quantity irrigation at each event using an existing timer/
controller (Haley and Dukes 2012). The threshold-based method
interrupts irrigation when the threshold condition no longer exists,
i.e., when jψm j drops below the threshold value (e.g., jψm j <
25 kPa), where the sensor measuring the soil water status acts as
a switch to turn on and off the irrigation events (Migliaccio et al.
2010). Similar to an ET-WB-based approach, the irrigation depth
determined by Θ-based methods can also represent the quantity of
water needed to refill the soil profile to θfc (Wang et al. 2017),
i.e., irrigation ceases when θa reaches θfc (Haley and Dukes 2012;
Hoppula and Salo 2007). However, without considering leaching
requirements for soil salinity control, recharging the soil up to a
value lower than θfc is recommended to avoid percolation and to
increase the WUE. When applying irrigation up to the soil’s θfc , soil
properties need to be appropriately estimated. Among the irrigation
amount determination methods, applying a fixed amount of irriga-
tion is effective in alleviating water stress, at the risk of, however,
leading to either deep percolation or insufficient irrigation, result-
ing in water and nutrient loss or impaired crop growth.
Stirzaker et al. (2017) proposed a novel irrigation timing and
depth determination method whereby irrigation was triggered and
aborted according to the activation/nonactivation of wetting front
fc
So il wat er con ten t ( )
RAW = AW × MAD
a
AW
th
AWC
AWC th
pwp
0 soil-water-balance-predicted Θ may underestimate θa (Hedley and
Fig. 1. Similarity and differences in defining the soil moisture content
threshold (θth ) between ET-based methods and AWC threshold methods.
AW = available water; AWC = available soil water content; AWCth =
available soil water content threshold; MAD = management allowed
depletion; RAW = readily available water; θa = actual volumetric soil
water content; θfc = volumetric soil moisture at field capacity; θpwp =
volumetric soil moisture at permanent wilting point; and θth = soil moist-
ure threshold.
© ASCE
J. Irrig. Drain Eng., 2020, 146(6): 04020007
detectors installed at soil depths of 300 and 600 mm. However, the
installation density of detectors was too coarse to provide accept-
able results on all occasions, thereby limiting its applicability. By
localizing the wetting front using soil impedance measurements
(Gnecchi et al. 2015), wetting-front-detector-controlled irrigation
scheduling might be improved.
The Θ-based method has the advantage of allowing variable rate
ð3Þ
poral Θ variability in the field. Accordingly, the spatial differences
in irrigation quantity required for different blocks of the field can be
considered. As an alternative to using a sensor array (Vellidis et al.
2008, 2013), Hedley et al. (2013) investigated the use of an electro-
magnetic mapping technique to map the soil water status and soil
properties including AWC and θfc (Hedley and Yule 2009), which
were used to determine the triggering threshold (θth or AWCth ).
In contrast to the low spatial resolution of Θ measurements using
traditional sensors, electromagnetic mapping techniques have the
potential to achieve a high spatial resolution in both Θ and soil
properties, and therefore serve to map θth to a higher resolution and
schedule a more accurate variable rate irrigation (Hedley and Yule
2009). The major weakness of an Θ-based IS approach resides in
the inaccuracy of Θ measurements using sensors (Evett et al. 2011).
Practically, Θ sensors are used to track soil water trends and then
coupled with other IS approaches.
Relationships between Θ-Based and ET-WB-Based
Approaches
Both ET-WB-based and Θ-based methods apply soil water balance
equations to schedule irrigation, though different current soil water
estimations and triggering thresholds are employed. Under the ET-
WB-based IS method the lower limit of Θ (triggering threshold) is
defined using MAD, while Θ-based approaches use AWCth . How-
ever, when AWCth ¼ 1 − MAD, the θth defined in Eq. (3) is equiv-
alent to the lowest limit defined in Eq. (1) (Fig. 1). With regard to
determining the level of θth , the difference between the Θ-based
method and the ET-WB-based method resides in the former using
site-specific field experiments to assess the threshold (Thompson
et al. 2007a, b), whereas the ET-WB-based method uses a default
value drawn from FAO-56 (Allen et al. 1998). For the current Θ
status, the ET-WB-based method employs an estimated deficit to
θfc , which is calculated through ET estimation and a water balance
equation; whereas the Θ-based method employs Θ sensor measure-
ments. The adoption of different current Θ estimations and trigger-
ing thresholds in irrigation timing is summarized in Table 1. With
these different combinations of current Θ estimates and triggering
thresholds, different irrigation timing methods have been applied in
practice. For example, using a soil water balance equation to predict
current θa , irrigation was triggered when the calculated θa dropped
below a preset threshold (Haley and Dukes 2012), making it easier
to conduct irrigation scheduling as Θ sensors and soil θfc proper-
ties were not necessary in this case. However, under the effect
of capillary rise from a shallow water table and/or lateral flow,
Yule 2009). Hedley and Yule (2009) applied an MAD value of
0.55 to define AWCth , such that irrigation was triggered when
θa reached this threshold (Table 1). Evett et al. (2011) investigated
whether Θ sensors were sufficiently accurate to conduct IS using a
MAD-defined threshold and found that they all required soil-
specific calibration except conventional time domain reflectome-
try probes.
To conclude, ET-WB-based and Θ-based IS methods are tightly
connected in the way they focus on Θ status.
04020007-4 J. Irrig. Drain. Eng.
 Table 1. Comparison on methods of irrigation timing in ET-WB-based and Θ-based approaches
Current soil water status I. θfc , θth , θpwp
A. θa measurements Typical Θ-based method
B. θa estimation Theoretical evaluation of water
through SWB needs (Haley and Dukes 2012).
Note: AWCth = available soil water content threshold; ET = evapotranspiration; MAD = management allowed depletion; SWB = soil water balance; θa = actual
volumetric soil water content; θfc = volumetric soil moisture at field capacity; θth = soil moisture threshold; and θpwp = volumetric soil moisture at permanent
wilting point.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nanjing Forestry University on 03/21/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Θ-Based IS Applications
Developed by the United States Department of Agriculture Agricul-
tural Research Service (USDA-ARS) and University of Georgia on
the basis of 25 years of data on conservation-minded irrigation man-
agement (USDA-ARS 2016), Irrigator Pro is an expert system de-
signed to provide irrigation scheduling recommendations based on
soil measurements like soil ψm and soil temperature. Limited to three
crops—peanuts (Arachis hypogaea L.), corn, and cotton—Irrigator
Pro has been evaluated and applied for the implementation of var-
iable rate irrigation (VRI) (Bauer et al. 2008; Lamb et al. 2015; Stone
et al. 2015; Vellidis et al. 2013). The system seeks to maintain soil
temperatures and Θ within their optimum ranges according to
principles described on the website of the USDA-ARS National Pea-
nut Research Laboratory (USDA-ARS, National Peanut Research
Laboratory 2019a, b). Employing a largely Θ-based method, Irriga-
tor Pro triggers irrigation in one or more of these situations:
1. dry soil, namely when AWCðprobeÞ drops below zero, where
the AWCðprobeÞ is calculated as the difference between θa —
estimated by Θ probe readings—and a baseline Θ (e.g., set
to when soil jψm j equals to 40 kPa);
2. heat stress, when the maximum soil temperature since the last
watering event (rain or irrigation) reaches the allowed maxi-
mum; and/or
3. when a specific crop growth stage is reached, irrigation is applied
until the AWCðprobeÞ reaches its maximum for the field’s soil type.
When soil moisture probe readings are not available, the
AWCðprobeÞ can alternatively be calculated using a checkbook
method based on rainfall, irrigation, and expected water use. Though
Irrigator Pro provides no specific recommendations for the quantity
of irrigation to be applied, it is able to predict the timing when irri-
gation is needed through a criteria that the AWCðprobeÞ drops below
0.0 in the next 7 days.
Based on a Θ-based scheduling method Gutiérrez et al. (2014),
Nemali and van Iersel (2006) developed soil moisture sensor (SMS)
controllers to maintain a certain Θ. For such systems, the installa-
tion of a wireless sensor network is usually necessary for field-scale
irrigation management (Haule and Michael 2014; Vellidis et al.
2008). The performance of several brands of SMS controllers avail-
able on the market (e.g., Acclima, Rain Bird, Irrometer, Water
Watcher, etc.) relies on their accuracy in measuring volumetric Θ
(Cardenas-Lailhacar and Dukes 2010). The evaluation of well-
programed ET controllers and SMS controllers showed a reduction
in water application compared to time-based treatments in which
irrigation was set at a fixed time interval (McCready and Dukes
2011; McCready et al. 2009).
Plant-Based IS
Instead of using the Θ threshold to schedule irrigation in Θ-based
IS methods, plant-based IS methods use plant-water-status-related
© ASCE
J. Irrig. Drain Eng., 2020, 146(6): 04020007
Thresholds
II. AWCth
AWCth ¼ 100ð1 − MADÞ (Hedley and Yule 2009; Evett et al. 2011);
AWCth evaluated experimentally (Thompson et al. 2007b)
ET-based method [AWCth ¼ 100ð1 − MADÞ]
indices. Plant-based IS methods are based on the relationship be-
tween crop water stress and soil water deficit. Accordingly, they
can be used to define the optimum Θ level for crop growth. As
the sensitivity to water deficit varies among different plant species,
plant tissues, and crop phenological stages, a wide range of plant-
based stress measurements have been proposed as being germane to
irrigation scheduling. Reviewing plant-based measurements for ir-
rigation scheduling, Jones (2004) found two principal categories:
1. plant-water-status-based—direct measurements of leaf/xylem/
stem water potential and indirect measurements of leaf thick-
ness, stem and fruit diameter variation, and turgor pressure
(Padilla-Díaz et al. 2016); and
2. those based on plant physiology—measurements of sap flow,
xylem cavitation, stomatal conductance, and thermal sensing.
An efficient plant-based irrigation program depends on whether
whatever measurement is made is sensitive enough to properly as-
sess the water deficit for the specific plant/crop (Jones 2004). For
example, plants with strong endogenous control systems maintain a
stable leaf water status over a wide range of evaporative demand or
soil water supplies; therefore, one cannot use plant water status as
the index for irrigation scheduling. These include cowpea [Vigna
unguiculata (L.) Walp.], corn, and poplar (Populus L.). Since leaf/
xylem/stem water potential are not well adapted for automation of
irrigation scheduling due to difficulties in real-time measurement,
stem diameter variation (SDV), sap flow and canopy temperature
sensing are more often applied in automatic irrigation systems.
While SDV and sap flow are mostly used for commercial orchard
plants, e.g., grapevine (Vitis L.), apple (Malus domestica Borkh.),
pear (Pyrus communis auct. iber.), and olive (Olea europaea L.)
trees (Steppe et al. 2008; Fernández et al. 2008), thermal sensing
technique are more commonly used for herbaceous crops and trees,
e.g., soybean, cotton, grain sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench]
(O’Shaughnessy and Evett 2010; O’Shaughnessy et al. 2011, 2012),
corn (Evett et al. 1996; DeJonge et al. 2015), bermudagrass [Cyn-
odon dactylon (L.) Pers.] (Emekli et al. 2007), apple trees (Osroosh
et al. 2015, 2016), and wine grapes (Bellvert et al. 2016), etc. Re-
viewing several SDV-derived IS approaches, including maximum
daily stem shrinkage/growth rate, Fernández and Cuevas (2010)
pointed out that the effectiveness of an SDV-derived index must be
evaluated, because many factors other than water status may affect
the index, e.g., growth patterns, crop load, plant age, and field man-
agement practices. Besides, SDV measurements tend to be affected
by noises from raindrops and small animals. Expert supervision is
routinely required, which compounds the limited applicability of
SDV-derived indices for automating irrigation.
Given the recent development of thermal sensing using infrared
thermometers and other thermography techniques, canopy temper-
ature (T °c ) has recently been applied as a key factor for irrigation
scheduling. Commonly used canopy-temperature-based methods
include the temperature-time-threshold (TTT), crop water stress in-
dex (CWSI), and temperature stress day (TSD). One of the major
04020007-5 J. Irrig. Drain. Eng.
 challenges of canopy temperature-based methods is the diurnal dy-
namics of T °c , which commonly follows a pattern of sine wave.
To verify that T °c can be used to indicate the plant water stress,
DeJonge et al. (2015) compared T °c with midday (within 2 h past
solar noon) leaf water potential and found that they were in good
correlation. T °c was normally measured by infrared thermometers or
mapped by thermal cameras during 12:00 to 14:00 solar time
(Bellvert et al. 2016; Clawson and Blad 1982; Clawson et al. 1989;
Gardner et al. 1981b; Jackson et al. 1981; Osroosh et al. 2015; Yuan
et al. 2004), though some measured T °c several times during the
daytime and calculated a mean CWSI (Alderfasi and Nielsen 2001;
Emekli et al. 2007). However, for those methods requiring temporal
measurements (e.g., the TTT method), a continuous sampling of T °c
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nanjing Forestry University on 03/21/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
is required, with the diurnal T °c dynamics embedded into the meth-
ods (O’Shaughnessy and Evett 2010; O’Shaughnessy et al. 2011,
2012; Osroosh et al. 2016; Peters and Evett 2008; Taghvaeian
et al. 2014).
Under a plant-based approach, Steppe et al. (2008) derived the
desired depth of irrigation from the time integration of the sap flow;
however, for most cases the calculated irrigation depth is not im-
portant as the control system will not terminate the irrigation until
the measured plant stress index returns to the desired range (Jones
2004; Osroosh et al. 2015). To account for a possible lag in the
physiological response for some crops, a fixed depth of irrigation
can be applied (Osroosh et al. 2015).
Temperature-Time-Threshold Method
The TTT method triggers irrigation only when T °c exceeds a crop-
specific temperature threshold (T °th ) for greater than a predeter-
mined time period (time threshold, tth ) within 1 day (Wanjura et al.
1995, 2004, 2006). The amount of water is applied according to
local daily ET. For instance, Evett et al. (1996) proposed that
30 mm of water, which euqualed to three times of the peak daily
ET (3 × 10 mm ¼ 30 mm), should be applied to corn when the
daily accumulated time for the canopy temperature above 28°C
(T °th ¼ 28°C) exceeded 240 min (tth ¼ 240 min) on the 3rd day
after the previous irrigation. The TTT method has been evaluated
on a number of occasions (DeJonge et al. 2015; Osroosh et al.
2016; O’Shaughnessy and Evett 2010; Peters and Evett 2008),
and was reported to show promise for auto-irrigation scheduling,
given appropriate T °th and tth values determined in previous studies.
The TTT method is easy to apply because it only needs the T °th and
tth , e.g., T °th ¼ 22.2°C and tth ¼ 225 min for drip-irrigated apple
trees in the state of Washington (Osroosh et al. 2016); T °th ¼
28°C and tth ¼ 452 min for cotton in Texas (O’Shaughnessy and
Evett 2010). However, it can be inaccurate because canopy temper-
ature can be affected by the ambient temperature, e.g., T °c can be
high on a hot day even if the crop is well watered. Moreover, the
TTT method only consider canopy temperature threshold and the
time when the threshold was exceeded, but no attention was paid to
the extent to which T °th is exceeded (DeJonge et al. 2015). More-
over, the irrigation amount determined by peak daily ET is inac-
curate and may cause deep seepage.
Crop Water Stress Index Method
Proposed by Idso et al. (1981) and Jackson et al. (1981), the crop
water stress index (CWSI) method schedules irrigation on the basis
of the crop’s water stress based on the T °c and atmospheric vapor
pressure deficit (VPD). The CWSI is calculated as
ðT °c − T °a Þ − D2
CWSI ¼ ð4Þ
D1 − D2
© ASCE 04020007-6
J. Irrig. Drain Eng., 2020, 146(6): 04020007
D1 ¼ maxðT °c − T °a Þ—water stressed crop; maximum stress baseline
ð5Þ
D2 ¼ minðT °c − T °a Þ—well-watered crop; no-water-stress baseline
ð6Þ
where T °a is the air temperature; T °c is the canopy temperature; and
baselines D1 and D2 , which are usually a linear function of VPD,
are used to represent the effect of VPD. The CWSI is close to zero
when the crop is well watered and closer to 1.0 as the water stress
gets more severe.
This method is normally used to determine irrigation timing
through an evaluation of the CWSI under different irrigation treat-
ments, and the baseline temperature was acquired through experi-
ments with fully stressed and nonstressed treatments (Emekli et al.
2007; Gontia and Tiwari 2008). The CWSI threshold was set by
users and can serve to trigger irrigations using thermal-sensed T °c .
The accuracy of baselines is the key to this method, especially for
D2 (Idso 1982). Some studies suggest that D2 changed at different
crop growth stages. For example, preheading and postheading
baselines for corn varied and needed to be calibrated separately
(Alderfasi and Nielsen 2001; Gontia and Tiwari 2008). Three meth-
ods were found in the literature to obtain baseline temperatures for
determining CWSI: Idso et al. (1981) and Idso (1982) defined the
baselines (D1 and D2 ) using an empirical linear relationship be-
tween T °c − T °a and VPD, and Jackson et al. (1988) related these
parameters through a one-layer canopy energy balance model,
while Alves and Pereira (2000) modified this canopy energy model
to avoid the evaluation of crop surface resistances. Yuan et al.
(2004) evaluated those three methods and concluded that baselines
derived through the method of Alves and Pereira (2000) were the
most practical, and those defined by Jackson et al. (1988) the most
reasonable. However, both Alves and Pereira (2000) and Jackson
et al. (1988) required the measurement of more components
(e.g., net radiation and ground heat flux) than Idso et al. (1981) and
Idso (1982) did, making irrigation scheduling more complex. Even
though the empirical Idso definition of CWSI baselines is not as
accurate as that of the other two definitions, it had been commonly
adopted by the irrigation community. As leaf temperature fluctuates
rapidly with changes in radiation, windspeed, and air temperature,
the baseline temperature in CWSI [Eq. (4)] is affected by the envi-
ronmental variations as well. In areas under more humid environ-
ment (lower VPD) and lower levels of radiation, the sensitivity of
baselines in CWSI calculations is reduced and thereby the reliabil-
ity of CWSI method decreases. To cope with the low sensitivity of
baselines, Jones (1999) suggested to measure maximum and mini-
mum T °c using infrared thermometers from a dry (nontranspiring,
by covering the leaf with petroleum jelly) and wet real leaf surface,
respectively.
A CWSI time threshold (CWSI-TT) method was proposed by
O’Shaughnessy et al. (2012) to overcome the limit that the CWSI
has to be measured near solar noon or soon after, and under cloud-
free conditions. Similar to the TTT method, the CWSI-TT method
triggers irrigation when the observed CWSI value exceeds the
CWSI threshold for longer than the time threshold. Compared to
manual irrigation based on weekly neutron probe readings, the
CWSI-TT method proved to be more effective on scheduling irri-
gation for grain sorghum (O’Shaughnessy et al. 2012). However,
O’Shaughnessy et al. (2012) pointed out that thermal-based indices
(either CWSI or CWSI-TT) monitored using radiometric sensors
may generate false irrigation triggers in the early season when
the soil temperature affected T °c measurement. Osroosh et al. (2015)
accordingly developed a CWSI dynamic threshold (CWSI-DT),
J. Irrig. Drain. Eng.
 which beyond following the conventional CWSI method, added
three further rules: (1) no irrigation is required as long as the CWSI
shows a decreasing trend; (2) irrigation must be stopped if no
observable decrease in the CWSI occurs after several successive
irrigation events exceeding soil water–holding capacity; and (3) no
irrigation is needed if evaporative demand is too low. Osroosh et al.
(2015) reported that the proposed CWSI-DT method was able to
avoid the false stress signals caused by the effect of wind, shoot
growth, or other unwanted factors, and to minimize the effect
caused by temporary atmospheric conditions, along with those as-
sociated with infrared thermometer installation and measurement
errors. The erroneous stress signals in the early season were pre-
vented as well.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nanjing Forestry University on 03/21/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
With the help of thermal imaging or infrared thermography tech-
niques, the CWSI method has been used to monitor spatial and tem-
poral crop water stress (Bellvert et al. 2016; O’Shaughnessy et al.
2011) and then to schedule a variable irrigation in different regions
of the field. The fusion of thermal and visible imaging improved the
accuracy of CWSI by accounting for soil background effects on mea-
sured temperature (Möller et al. 2006). The 2D-CWSI developed by
Tilling et al. (2007) based on the vegetation index-temperature (VIT)
trapezoid (Moran et al. 1994) allowed the application of CWSI to
partially vegetated fields.
Temperature Stress Day Method
The TSD method is based on the difference between the stressed
and nonstressed T °c of a given crop (Clawson and Blad 1982;
Gardner et al. 1981a, b). Even though it is more easily affected by
some environmental factors (e.g., humidity) (Clawson et al. 1989),
given their simplicity, TSD indices have been applied in a number
of recent studies (DeJonge et al. 2015; Taghvaeian et al. 2014).
Taghvaeian et al. (2014) evaluated the simple TSD index, the
degrees above non-stressed (DANS), which represented the differ-
ence between stressed and nonstressed canopy temperatures. When
applied to sunflowers (Helianthus annuus L.), they found DANS to
be strongly correlated with several crop parameters, including the
fraction of intercepted photosynthetically active radiation (fIPAR),
leaf area index (LAI), leaf water potential, and root growth. Accord-
ingly, it was suggested that a simple DANS index, based solely on
T °c and estimated by a simple subtraction, might be used as effec-
tively as CWSI in monitoring of plant water status and therefore
in scheduling irrigations for sunflower in arid/semiarid regions.
DeJonge et al. (2015) evaluated six canopy-temperature-based
water stress indices, including three previously proposed (CWSI,
DANS, and TTT), and three newly introduced: degrees above critical
temperature (DACT; critical temperature is equivalent to temperature
threshold defined in TTT method), integrated DANS (IDANS), and
integrated DACT (IDACT). Their experiment showed that the simple
indices, DANS and DACT, and their integrated surrogates generated
similar representations of water status as CWSI, but with fewer
parameters. Given its simplicity, the TSD method is likely to be
adopted by farmers in irrigation scheduling for some crops in some
regions.
Model-Based IS
The model-based IS methods reviewed are limited to those in-
tended for determining irrigation timing and amount for a specific
field, rather than the determination of the distribution of water re-
sources for several fields and/or crops (Alvarez et al. 2004). Among
these model-based IS methods, the utilization of process-based mod-
els and regression models are summarized. Irrigations are scheduled
using simulated results from a process-based model. For regression
© ASCE 04020007-7
J. Irrig. Drain Eng., 2020, 146(6): 04020007
models, irrigations are scheduled using optimized algorithms built on
the soil water balance equation.
Process-Based Models
Using the previously mentioned IS methods, scheduling can be
done on the basis of crop/plant responses to Θ, and is therefore
subject to the influence of the atmosphere, the growth stages of
the crop, and the soil type, etc. To obtain a more precise and de-
pendable irrigation schedule, models founded on a theoretical study
of the crop’s growth process and considering the effects of the soil-
crop-atmosphere system in a holistic manner have been tested.
Among these models, the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT),
CROPWAT, AquaCrop, and RZWQM2 models are highlighted in
this review. These models, after appropriate calibration, can accu-
rately simulate crop responses to variable atmospheric and soil con-
ditions and management scenarios, e.g., the Root Zone Water
Quality Model (RZWQM2) model (Ahuja et al. 2000; Ma et al.
2012a, b). As these models contribute to investigating crop re-
sponses to different irrigation management regimes, they in return
benefit to irrigation scheduling. However, process-based models
are commonly used for irrigation planning but not real-time deci-
sion-making. To fill this gap, Gu et al. (2017a) developed a soft-
ware, IrrSch, to determine irrigation timing and amount based on
RZWQM2 simulated plant water stress and soil water regime. This
software, along with irrigation control hardware, has been adopted
in an on-going field experiment to test its feasibility in real-time
irrigation scheduling for cotton (Chen et al. 2019).
Irrigation events modelled in SWAT can be scheduled either:
1. by the user—by providing inputs for application dates, amounts,
and application efficiencies; or
2. by an automatic irrigation module (Arnold et al. 1998; Neitsch
et al. 2011), whereby irrigations are triggered by either a water
stress threshold or a soil water deficit threshold fixed by the user.
The quantity of water applied is calculated to replenish the root
zone soil to θfc (though a lesser amount is suggested to avoid ex-
cessive percolation if rainfall occurs in the following days) or a
fraction thereof for deficit irrigation. The SWAT model calculates
water stress by comparing actual and potential plant transpiration
(T a , T pot , respectively). Transpiration is either simulated by the
Penman-Monteith method or derived as a linear function of poten-
tial evapotranspiration (ET pot ) and LAI (Neitsch et al. 2011; Sun
and Ren 2014). Both Sun and Ren (2014) and Maier and Dietrich
(2016) found that, when used for irrigation scheduling, the SWAT
model consistently overestimated the amount of irrigation required.
Therefore, the model’s accuracy in automatic irrigation control
needs to be improved.
Developed by the Land and Water Development Division of
FAO, CROPWAT is a computer program to calculate crop water
and irrigation requirements from climatic and crop data (Smith
1992; Savva and Frenken 2002). CROPWAT uses what is essen-
tially the ET-WB method, combined with the ability to predict
yield reduction due to water stress (Doorenbos and Kassam 1979).
To schedule irrigations, CROPWAT requires climatic data (tem-
perature, relative humidity, wind speed, sunshine hours, rainfall),
crop data (planting date, K c curve, rooting depth at different
growth stages, the allowable Θ depletion level, and the yield re-
sponse factor K y ), along with soil data (total available soil water
content, initial soil water depletion). Irrigations under CROPWAT
can be triggered by a Θ threshold, at fixed intervals, by a predeter-
mined depleted amount of water, or by a reduction in ET. The
water depth applied is the amount to bring Θ back to θfc or to
a fixed level below or above θfc ; otherwise, the replenishment
point is at the user’s discretion. In the latest version of CROPWAT
J. Irrig. Drain. Eng.
 (version 8.0) all the calculations are based on the two FAO pub-
lications of the Irrigation and Drainage Series, namely, No. 56
(Allen et al. 1998) and No. 33 (Doorenbos and Kassam 1979).
CROPWAT’s ability to simulate deficit irrigation scheduling
was evaluated by Smith et al. (2002), while Feng et al. (2007)
and Augustin et al. (2015) used it to develop an optimal irrigation
schedule. George et al. (2000) developed an irrigation scheduling
model similar to CROPWAT while using the nine most commonly
used ET 0 estimation methods and providing a graphical user
interface.
The FAO’s simplified crop model, AquaCrop (Raes et al. 2009;
Steduto et al. 2009), developed to simulate attainable crop biomass
and harvestable yield in response to available water, can schedule
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nanjing Forestry University on 03/21/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
irrigation events by manually specifying the time and depth of each
application, or by the model automatically developing a schedule.
In the latter case, irrigations are scheduled either at a fixed time
interval and depth, or by a fixed percentage of allowable water
depletion of the root zone. Using the AquaCrop model and drawing
on a long series of historical climate data, Geerts et al. (2010) opti-
mized irrigation frequency during sensitive crop growth stages
based on indicative crop development traits at the stage’s onset.
A simplified readable irrigation chart was subsequently generated
for farmers. However, this simplified irrigation chart only suggests
the irrigation frequency during the critical crop growth stage, with-
out irrigation amount information or adjustment due to atmospheric
conditions of given years.
Developed by USDA-ARS, RZWQM2 is a one-dimensional
model with emphasis on management effects on hydrologic cycle,
water quality, and crop production (Ahuja et al. 2000). Equipped
with the Decision Support System for Agrotechnology Transfer
(DSSAT) model (Jones et al. 2003) and the Simultaneous Heat and
Water (SHAW) model (Flerchinger and Saxton 1989), RZWQM2
simulates crop growth on a daily basis under different field man-
agement practices and specific soil-plant-atmosphere systems. The
RZWQM2 model provides several IS methods: by fixed interval,
triggered by a root zone depletion (MAD), or triggered by a thresh-
old of the ratio of actual ET to potential ET. By obtaining field-
observed climate data and online forecasting data using a software
they developed, Gu et al. (2017a, b) and Liu et al. (2017) applied
the RZWQM2 model to simulate the predicted crop water stress,
and to judge whether irrigation was required on a daily basis. The
irrigation depth was calculated to return the current soil water con-
tent to θfc . In this way, irrigations can be scheduled in a real-time
sense as long as the real-time atmospheric data are available. The
RZWQM2 model also integrates fixed intervals, specified dates, or
an option dependent on soil water depletion in the root zone in its
irrigation module.
Other models reportedly used for irrigation scheduling pur-
poses include DAISY, a one-dimensional mechanistic soil-plant-
atmosphere system model (Abrahamsen and Hansen 2000; Seidel
et al. 2016) and SIMETAW# (SIMulation of EvapoTranspiration of
Applied Water), a model capable of assessing climate change im-
pacts on future irrigation demand, thereby facilitating user develop-
ment of adaptation strategies (Mancosu et al. 2016). Seidel et al.
(2016) used a partially calibrated DAISY model to schedule irri-
gation: when the soil ψm reached a fixed threshold, an irrigation
of fixed depth was triggered. A web-based user interface was de-
veloped to run the modified van Genuchten model (to convert the
soil water tension data to volumetric water content) and to derive
irrigation scheduling recommendations. By integrating the web-
based interface with a wireless Θ sensing array (UGA SSA) and
a VRI-enabled center pivot irrigation system, a precise automated
VRI system was achieved (Liakos et al. 2015; Liang et al. 2016;
Vellidis et al. 2016c).
© ASCE 04020007-8
J. Irrig. Drain Eng., 2020, 146(6): 04020007
Before applying process-based models in IS, they must be cali-
brated; thus, historic field measurements are needed. The effective-
ness of process-based model-derived IS depends on the precision of
the model itself and the quality of calibration. For example, Xu et al.
(2019) found that the AquaCrop tended to underestimate Θ with a
root-mean-square error of 0.15 cm3 cm−3 after calibration, which
may affect the irrigation scheduling. Irrigations scheduled by
DAISY failed to generate a better yield than a simple ψm -based
method, probably as a result of poor calibration or low model ac-
curacy (Seidel et al. 2016). However, the use of process-based mod-
els in IS have mostly been the purview of research efforts to
evaluate historical water management, to predict future water de-
mands in a certain area, and to optimize the soil water depletion
levels for a crop (Linker and Kisekka 2017), etc. Research on real-
time irrigation scheduling based on model outputs is less common
at present. Thorp et al. (2017) used the CSM-CROPGRO-Cotton
model to assist in-season irrigation scheduling by estimating
ET. Gu et al. (2017a) developed an irrigation scheduling software
based on RZWQM2. Water-stress-based methods, such as those
employed in the SWAT model (Neitsch et al. 2011; Sun and Ren
2014) and the RZWQM2 model (Saseendran et al. 2014, 2015; Gu
et al. 2017a), are generally more reasonable and practical once the
model is assured of an accurate prediction in plant water stress after
calibration and validation. However, without links to precise weather
forecasts, these models, when involved in real-time IS, may derive an
erroneous timing and quantity of irrigation for a field, especially
when a large rainfall events occurs soon after irrigation. Once the
present weather data are recorded, the crop water status need to be
updated.
Regression Models
Besides process-based models for IS, some scholars have recently
proposed methods using regression models. Lopes et al. (2016)
transformed the irrigation planning problem into an optimal control
problem for the object of minimizing the total volume of irrigation
during the entire growing season. The optimal control problem was
subjected to a soil water balance function, minimum Θ constraint,
and maximum irrigation amount for a single event. However, this
algorithm required model-derived whole-year weather data, which
are unpredictable and may lead to the failure of the proposed
method. To overcome this problem, Lopes et al. (2016) further im-
proved the irrigation planning by applying model predictive control
(MPC) techniques, where the optimal control problem was fre-
quently recomputed at each interval by taking into account mea-
sured system variables. The MPC method, also known as receding
horizon control (RHC), was applied by Park et al. (2009) to the
problem of irrigation management, by incorporating sensor mea-
surements (feedback), predictive models, and optimization algo-
rithms to maintain Θ levels. An MPC algorithm was also tested
by Saleem et al. (2013) for real-time IS based on soil water balance
and a given Θ range; however, the system dynamic function was
based on a simple water balance equation and ET c and precipita-
tion were assumed to be directly available. To solve this problem,
Delgoda et al. (2016) combined an MPC algorithm with the Aqua-
Crop model, where the system dynamic function was given by a
linear first-order time-series model based on system identification
from AquaCrop. The AquaCrop model also provided feedback on
the root zone Θ deficit during the MPC’s optimization process.
A predominant advantage of using MPC/RHC algorithms in IS
is its ability to be programmed into a controller and thereby be used
in real-time applications. Park et al. (2009) executed the RHC al-
gorithm in a real-time manner on a field computer through collect-
ing real-time soil moisture, temperature, and meteorological data,
J. Irrig. Drain. Eng.
 while Saleem et al. (2013) developed an MPC controller for the
purpose of real-time IS.
Using only weather data to simulate changes in Θ, Tsang and
Jim (2016) employed artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms, featur-
ing an artificial neural network (ANN) and fuzzy logic, to develop
an optimal irrigation strategy. The ANN was trained to predict Θ
based on four daily weather variables, while the fuzzy-neural net-
work served to determine irrigation timing and depth. A laptop was
used to run AI algorithms and transmit real-time control signals to
an irrigation controller. Navarro-Hellín et al. (2016) proposed a ma-
chine learning program to serve as a reasoning engine to manage
agricultural irrigation, thereby replacing the expert agronomist. The
machine learning program employed PLSR and ANFIS (machine
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nanjing Forestry University on 03/21/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
learning technologies) to calculate appropriate irrigation decisions
considering the weather, crop, and soil characteristics, along with
field measurements from soil sensors. Linker et al. (2016) used
both the crop model AquaCrop and a nonlinear constrained opti-
mization to investigate the highest yield achievable for any given
water quantity through optimizing the water-depletion level and re-
plenishment level implemented at five different growth stages. With
a well-calibrated RZWQM2 model to assess the derived solutions,
Nguyen et al. (2017) applied an ant colony algorithm to search for
an optimal irrigation schedule to maximize the net return of a sin-
gle crop.
However, for real-time IS, regression methods using either
optimization or AI algorithms must be validated since they are
commonly trained using the historical weather data, which may
not actually possess the same trend as the current weather data.
The effect of the uncertainty of predicted weather data should also
be evaluated. The performance of regression models should be
compared to that of other methods, e.g., Θ-based, plant-based,
or process-based models, so that the effectiveness could be evalu-
ated. Development of those softwares and controllers that inte-
grated with regression models/algorithms is challenging but is
driven by the commercial value of real-time IS. Fortunately, with
the development of AI hardware, e.g., Raspberry Pi that is able to
run complex mathematical algorithms, those regression IS methods
can be implemented in real time with low cost.
Concluding Remarks and Future Perspectives
Advantages and Disadvantages of the IS Approaches
The four types of IS methods each have their advantages and pit-
falls, being effective in some conditions but presenting less than
ideal results in some fields when poorly suited or operated. Osroosh
et al. (2016) compared seven different irrigation methods for apple
orchards (e.g., ET-WB-based, conventional, Θ-based methods, and
plant-based methods) based on the total irrigation water applied,
Table 2. Requirements and constraints of the four types of irrigation scheduling methods
Methods Requirements
ET-WB-based Weather data; K c curve of the crop; suggested MAD
and estimated soil properties
Θ-based Sensors and monitoring system; validated trigger
threshold(s)
Plant-based Sensors and monitoring system; validated trigger
threshold(s)/conditions
Model-based Calibrated model via previous field experiment data;
weather data; developed software or procedure
© ASCE 04020007-9
J. Irrig. Drain Eng., 2020, 146(6): 04020007
simplicity, and expense for a grower to implement. A method using
soil ψm thresholds decreased applied water but caused severe water
stress and decreased fruit quality. The TTT and CWSI-DT methods,
as well as Θ-based methods drawing on neutron probe readings,
provided a similar result to the ET-WB-based methods in terms
of water consumption, while keeping apple trees free from water
stress. Considering the characteristics of being economical, easy to
implement, and fairly accurate, it was concluded that ET-WB-based
methods were the optimal choice among these methods.
In terms of conditions for implementing ET-WB-based meth-
ods, atmospheric data must be available and can be applied imme-
diately for the FAO reference ET calculation. The K c curves, as
well as MAD, should be accessible as well in order to calculate
irrigation depth. However, the other three types of methods require
specific preparations prior to their application: Θ- and plant-based
methods need sensors and monitoring systems to be installed;
thresholds to trigger the irrigation need to be researched and vali-
dated; while for models, calibration via previous field experiment
may be required. Installing sensors and a monitoring system in the
field is laborious for farmers, so they might prefer to equip them-
selves with infrared thermometers on a portable irrigation system
(O’Shaughnessy et al. 2012). Plant-based methods may require
expert supervision as the monitored data can be a puzzle to farmers,
making irrigation less reliable (Fernández and Cuevas 2010). Model-
based methods are easier for the users, given a developed software or
procedure based on a well-calibrated model (George et al. 2000; Gu
et al. 2017a).
An IS approach must be appropriate to the specific conditions at
hand. For an orchard, a plant-based method measuring either the
stem diameter or sap flow can be used, whereas an ET-WB-based
method or a model-based method would prove inappropriate, given
that the tree species may not likely be available in the model or
the suggested K c and duration of crop stages are not appropriate
in the FAO document for an individual field. For areas where it
is difficult or impossible to access weather data, an ET-WB-based
method or a model-based method are not achievable. The main re-
quirements and constraints for the different methods are listed
briefly in Table 2.
It is worth noting that both the ET-WB-based and model-based
methods need only onsite weather data when operating, without
further measured information on the Θ and plant growth, because
the ET-WB-based methods assume full irrigation and for the model-
based methods Θ and plant growth are predicted by the model.
This is similar to an open loop control, under which errors between
the calculated or simulated parameters may accumulate during the
scheduling process and thus result in delayed or early onset irriga-
tion. The Θ- and plant-based methods both focus on measured
real-time conditions of the soil or plant, which mimics a closed loop
control. In this way, the scheduling effectiveness depends strongly on
Constraints
Limited to the crops for which K c and MAD are provided in FAO
document; cumulative error may occur during the scheduling process
Depends on the accuracy of measured soil moisture and the validity of
the threshold; sensor measurements may vary and not be representative
of the full field conditions due to field variability
Noise in sensitive measured data (e.g., SDV) may make scheduling
impossible; depends on the sensitivity of the measured parameter and
the validity of the trigger thresholds or conditions
Depends on the calibration quality and model accuracy; cumulative
error may occur in real-time scheduling
J. Irrig. Drain. Eng.
 the accuracy of measurements, reliability of the system and the val-
idity of the trigger threshold.
To conclude, IS seeks to maintain Θ in a reasonable range for
crop growth and to meet transpiration requirement of crops/plants.
None of the methods summarized above guaranteed to deliver a
perfect schedule; instead, they provide the supporting data and a
better understanding of IS.
Factors Considered in IS
A study carried out at the University of Georgia’s Stripling Irriga-
tion Research Park near Camilla, Georgia, by Vellidis et al. (2016b)
compared the effectiveness of different cotton IS methods among
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nanjing Forestry University on 03/21/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
themselves [Checkbook, SmartIrrigation App and the University of
Georgia Smart Sensor Array (UGA-SSA; Vellidis et al. 2013)] and
to a strictly rainfed treatment. They found that in a wet year the
scheduling methods resulted in a significantly lower yield and
water use efficiency than the rainfed treatment. This study indicates
that for cotton a slight water stress during certain phenological
stages stimulated its growth. Similarly, in Irrigator Pro for cotton
irrigation, once the first cracked boll stage occurred, irrigation was
applied to return the soil to its maximum AWCðprobeÞ , and then no
more irrigation was applied for the rest of the season, promoting
boll opening and preventing boll rot and attending yield and quality
loss (USDA-ARS, National Peanut Research Laboratory 2019a).
Delving deep into the four types of IS methods, it is found that
they all focus on the Θ, which functions as a bridge/connection
between irrigation management and crop water required for growth.
In other words, for the purpose of improving crop growth and sav-
ing water, irrigation management methods are intended to adjust Θ
to a certain level where crop growth can be guaranteed with im-
proved irrigation water use efficiency. To achieve this, the follow-
ing three points need to be implemented:
1. Determine a range of Θ levels (target level) that promote crop
growth throughout the entire growing season. Different target
levels should be determined for different growth stages by
applying various irrigation treatments in the field before employ-
ing the Θ-based or plant-based scheduling methods (Padilla-
Díaz et al. 2016; Wang et al. 2017). For example, when using
water stress indices, the lower Θ limit is defined as where water
stress occurs, while the upper Θ might be defined as θfc .
2. Estimate actual Θ correctly and precisely, using values inferred
from sensor measurement in a Θ-based method, through plant
measurements when using plant-based methods, or estimated
through an ET-WB method (considering the weather and soil
characteristics) or other models. A number of factors may contri-
bute to a more precise and reliable measurement or estimation of
Θ, e.g., weather, soil, crop, and their interactions. These are con-
sidered in advanced agricultural system models, e.g., RZWQM2.
When using plant measurements to represent Θ, considering more
factors such as crop growth stage would benefit scheduling
(Bellvert et al. 2016).
3. Apply the exact amount of water to return Θ from its current
status to a target level. To achieve this, irrigation frequency
and quantity should be coordinated so the crop is neither under
water stress nor overirrigated (resulting in runoff, deep seepage
or unnecessary drainage) (McCready and Dukes 2011). Irriga-
tion frequency will be higher when irrigation quantity at each
event is decreased.
In general, to schedule an appropriate irrigation, factors includ-
ing the weather, soil properties, and crop growth should be consid-
ered in both Steps 1 and 2. The ET-WB method uses MAD and soil
properties to define the target Θ level and estimates θa by the water
balance, where the target Θ is a general value provided by FAO
© ASCE 04020007-10
J. Irrig. Drain Eng., 2020, 146(6): 04020007
without considering site-specific conditions. Accordingly, estima-
tion errors for Θ can accumulate and result in erroneous irrigation.
Methods based on Θ or plant characteristics both use a threshold as
the target level. This is developed through previous studies and a
consideration of crop responses. They estimate Θ using the mea-
sured value, thereby avoiding cumulative error, but being highly
dependent on the accuracy and reliability of measurements. How-
ever, the target level remains unchanged across the growing season,
without responding to different weather and crop growth condi-
tions. Model-based methods can account for various factors and
provide a target level based on simulated crop responses (e.g., water
stress). However, many factors must be considered, so models may
fail to accurately estimate the θa because of the accumulated error
over the growing season. To better schedule irrigation, the factors
mentioned above should be considered in setting the target level,
and a reliable and precise estimation of θa is needed. Water stress
methods, which integrate the primary factors stated above, re-
present advanced methods in terms of determining appropriate tar-
get Θ values. Using a more precise, or at least well-calibrated
model, plant water stress and real-time Θ can be estimated accu-
rately, though this accuracy could be enhanced when a few mea-
surements could serve as feedback. When determining the depth of
irrigation in Step 3, weather forecasts are also crucial factors to be
considered to avoid run off and/or deep seepage after an ensuing
precipitation event. Moreover, the forecasted rainfall data should be
updatable. McCready et al. (2009) found that a high setting of sat-
uration allowance for the Rain Bird ET Manager controller, that
allows for rainfall to be stored in the root zone by not irrigating
fully to field capacity, resulted in low soil-water content during
periods of low rainfall and therefore affected turf quality. A pre-
cisely forecasted rainfall in a few days following the irrigation
event makes the irrigation decision more efficient because the fore-
casted rainfall will be deducted to avoid deep percolation when this
rainfall event occurs.
Although the IS approaches discussed above have been widely
used, several practical factors, including the ease of use, economic,
governmental, and water availability constraints or salt leaching re-
quirements, were not considered when developing those systems.
For instance, as salt may either rise from deeper soil layers or origi-
nate in poor-quality irrigation water, a leaching irrigation can be
scheduled during or between crop growing seasons. Alternatively,
a coefficient for salinity leaching requirement Lr (Hoffman et al.
1990) can be applied in calculating the required depth for each ir-
rigation event to leach salts beyond the root zone.
Conclusions and Perspectives in IS
Irrigation scheduling methods for better crop growth were re-
viewed. These methods are summarized and categorized into four
types: ET-WB-, Θ-, plant-, and model-based methods. The four
types of methods are all able to successfully schedule irrigations
when properly operated. With more applications needed for IS,
tools (software, programs, and controllers) have been developed
to facilitate the decision process.
However, today’s IS methods must reach a compromise between
practicability, accuracy, and universalizability. The ET-WB method
can be widely used regardless of the field conditions (e.g., soil and
crop growth), as long as the weather data, K c , and MAD are avail-
able (soil water capacity is not even necessary). This method, while
practicable with the guidelines provided by FAO-56, is not very
accurate under site-specific conditions, especially when the error
of daily Θ estimations cumulates. Θ- and plant-based methods
are popular and accurate when the measurement is applicable
and reliable, but they are relatively less practical because of the
J. Irrig. Drain. Eng.
 need to install and maintain sensors in the field. If the sensors fail
to transmit correct signals—due to sensing malfunctions or field
noises like animals and rainfall—the scheduling may fail. Model-
based methods are relatively accurate and easy to implement in dif-
ferent fields once the model is calibrated; however, they require
previously collected field data in order to be calibrated by research-
ers with a professional background. Some combinations of the four
types of methods, e.g., integration of model-based methods with Θ
measurements (Liakos et al. 2015; Vellidis et al. 2016c; Navarro-
Hellín et al. 2016), and more development of user-friendly appli-
cations based on the above methods can promote the utilization of
IS methods.
The improvement of IS efficiency relies on our understanding of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nanjing Forestry University on 03/21/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
crop growth responses to water; thus, studies on crop phenology
and responses to various factors in soil-crop-atmosphere system
should be enhanced. Given the importance of Θ in IS (see section
“Factors considered in IS”), the development of more effective
scheduling methods should focus on the control of Θ, based on
an advanced understanding of its effect on crop growth. With a pre-
cise estimation of real-time Θ and well-defined Θ/water stress
threshold by the model, as well as weather forecast data and mea-
sured feedback if available, the process-based model can yield a
better irrigation regime in terms of water savings and favorable
plant growth. In viewing the development and application of intel-
ligent algorithms, agricultural soil-crop-atmosphere system model-
ing might achieve an evolution over the conventional process-based
models and result in a more effective irrigation scheduling. Those
approaches based on regression models should be pressed forward
to integrate with software or decision support systems for the pur-
pose of real-time operation. Last but not least, less expensive equip-
ment (e.g., sensors and weather station) need to be developed so as
to be more affordable for farmers. Moreover, the accessibility of
online historical and forecast weather data need to be improved,
especially in developing countries.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by the National Key Research and De-
velopment Program of China (No. 2017YFC0403303), the Natural
Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada-Discovery
program (RGPIN 04784-14), the Fundamental Research Funds
for the Central Universities (2019B18214), the National Natural
Science Foundation of China (51909064), the Project funded by
China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (2019M651684), and
The Belt and Road Special Foundation of the State Key Laboratory
of Hydrology-Water Resources and Hydraulic Engineering
(2019490411). Many thanks to China Scholarship Council (CSC)
program that financially supported Zhe’s visiting study at McGill
University (Canada) that promotes the production of this review
paper, and appreciation to Dr. Georges T. Dodds who proofread
this review. We also wish to thank the editor and anonymous re-
viewers for their helpful comments and suggestions.
Notation
The following symbols are used in this paper:
AWC = actual available soil water content;
AWCth = available soil water content threshold;
AWCðprobeÞ = difference between measured and baseline soil
moisture (in Irrigator Pro);
Dr = root zone depth;
D1 = maximum crop water stress baseline;
© ASCE 04020007-11
J. Irrig. Drain Eng., 2020, 146(6): 04020007
D2 = no-water-stress baseline;
ET = evapotranspiration;
ET c = crop evapotranspiration;
ET pot = potential evapotranspiration;
ET 0 = reference evapotranspiration;
IS = irrigation scheduling;
K c = crop coefficient;
LAI = leaf area index;
Lr = coefficient for salt leaching requirement;
T a = actual plant transpiration;
T pot = potential plant transpiration;
T °a = air temperature;
T °c = canopy temperature;
T °th = canopy temperature threshold;
tth = time threshold;
VPD = atmospheric vapor pressure deficit;
Θ = soil moisture;
θa = actual volumetric soil water content;
θfc = volumetric soil moisture at field capacity;
θpwp = volumetric soil moisture at permanent wilting point;
θth = soil moisture threshold;
ψm = soil matric potential; and
ψleaf = leaf water potential.
References
Abrahamsen, P., and S. Hansen. 2000. “Daisy: An open soil–crop–
atmosphere system model.” Environ. Modell. Software 15 (3): 313–330.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-8152(00)00003-7.
Ahuja, L., K. Rojas, J. Hanson, M. Shaffer, and L. Ma. 2000. Root zone
water quality model. Highlands Ranch, CO: Water Resources
Publications.
Alderfasi, A. A., and D. C. Nielsen. 2001. “Use of crop water stress index
for monitoring water status and scheduling irrigation in wheat.” Agric.
Water Manage. 47 (1): 69–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-3774(00)
00096-2.
Alexandratos, N., and J. Bruinsma. 2012. World agriculture towards 2030/
2050: The 2012 revision. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization.
Allen, R. G., L. S. Pereira, D. Raes, and M. Smith. 1998. Crop
evapotranspiration-guidelines for computing crop water requirements—
FAO irrigation and drainage paper 56. Rome: Food and Agriculture
Organization.
Alvarez, J. F. O., J. A. de Juan Valero, J. M. T. Martín-Benito, and E. L.
Mata. 2004. “Mopeco: An economic optimization model for irrigation
water management.” Irrig. Sci. 23 (2): 61–75. https://doi.org/10.1007
/s00271-004-0094-x.
Alves, I., and L. S. Pereira. 2000. “Non-water-stressed baselines for irri-
gation scheduling with infrared thermometers: A new approach.” Irrig.
Sci. 19 (2): 101–106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002710050007.
Arnold, J. G., R. Srinivasan, R. S. Muttiah, and J. R. Williams. 1998.
“Large area hydrologic modeling and assessment. Part I: Model devel-
opment.” J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 34 (1): 73–89. https://doi.org/10
.1111/j.1752-1688.1998.tb05961.x.
Augustin, L. K., A. H. Yagoob, W. K. Kirui, and Y. Peiling. 2015. “Optimal
irrigation scheduling for summer maize crop: Based on GIS and CROP-
WAT application in Hetao district; Inner Mongolia autonomous region,
China.” J. Biol. Agric. Healthcare 5 (18): 95–102.
Bartlett, A., A. Andales, M. Arabi, and T. Bauder. 2015. “A smartphone app
to extend use of a cloud-based irrigation scheduling tool.” Comput. Elec-
tron. Agric. 111 (Feb): 127–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2014
.12.021.
Bauer, P. J., K. C. Stone, W. Bussche, J. A. Millen, D. E. Evans, and E. E.
Strickland. 2008. “Site-specific irrigation of peanuts on a coastal plain
field.” In Vol. 222 of Proc., 9th Int. Conf. on Precision Agriculture.
Princeton, NJ: CiteSeerX.
J. Irrig. Drain. Eng.
 Bazzani, G. M. 2005. “An integrated decision support system for irrigation
and water policy design: DSIRR.” Environ. Modell. Software 20 (2):
153–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2003.12.017.
Bellvert, J., P. Zarco-Tejada, J. Marsal, J. Girona, V. González-Dugo, and E.
Fereres. 2016. “Vineyard irrigation scheduling based on airborne ther-
mal imagery and water potential thresholds.” Aust. J. Grape Wine Res.
22 (2): 307–315. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajgw.12173.
Car, N. J., E. W. Christen, J. W. Hornbuckle, and G. A. Moore. 2012.
“Using a mobile phone short messaging service (SMS) for irrigation
scheduling in Australia—Farmers’ participation and utility evaluation.”
Comput. Electron. Agric. 84 (Jun): 132–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.compag.2012.03.003.
Cardenas-Lailhacar, B., and M. Dukes. 2010. “Precision of soil moisture
sensor irrigation controllers under field conditions.” Agric. Water Man-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nanjing Forestry University on 03/21/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
age. 97 (5): 666–672. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2009.12.009.
Chauhan, Y. S., G. C. Wright, D. Holzworth, R. C. Rachaputi, and J. O.
Payero. 2013. “Aquaman: A web-based decision support system for
irrigation scheduling in peanuts.” Irrig. Sci. 31 (3): 271–283. https://doi
.org/10.1007/s00271-011-0296-y.
Chen, X., Z. Qi, D. Gui, Z. Gu, L. Ma, F. Zeng, L. Li, and M. W. Sima.
2019. “A model-based decision support system for irrigation scheduling
to improve water productivity.” Agronomy 9 (11): 686. https://doi.org
/10.3390/agronomy9110686.
Clawson, K., R. Jackson, and P. Pinter. 1989. “Evaluating plant water stress
with canopy temperature differences.” Agron. J. 81 (6): 858–863.
https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj1989.00021962008100060004x.
Clawson, K. L., and B. L. Blad. 1982. “Infrared thermometry for sched-
uling irrigation of corn.” Agron. J. 74 (2): 311–316. https://doi.org/10
.2134/agronj1982.00021962007400020013x.
Davis, S., and M. Dukes. 2010. “Irrigation scheduling performance by
evapotranspiration-based controllers.” Agric. Water Manage. 98 (1):
19–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2010.07.006.
Davis, S., M. Dukes, and G. Miller. 2009. “Landscape irrigation by
evapotranspiration-based irrigation controllers under dry conditions
in Southwest Florida.” Agric. Water Manage. 96 (12): 1828–1836.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2009.08.005.
DeJonge, K. C., S. Taghvaeian, T. J. Trout, and L. H. Comas. 2015. “Com-
parison of canopy temperature-based water stress indices for maize.”
Agric. Water Manage. 156 (Jul): 51–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat
.2015.03.023.
Delgoda, D., H. Malano, S. K. Saleem, and M. N. Halgamuge. 2016.
“Irrigation control based on model predictive control (MPC): Formu-
lation of theory and validation using weather forecast data and AQUA-
CROP model.” Environ. Modell. Software 78 (Apr): 40–53. https://doi
.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2015.12.012.
DeOreo, W. B., P. Mayer, B. Dziegielewski, and J. Kiefer. 2016. Residential
end uses of water, version 2: Executive report. Denver: Water Research
Foundation.
Devitt, D., K. Carstensen, and R. Morris. 2008. “Residential water savings
associated with satellite-based ET irrigation controllers.” J. Irrig. Drain.
Eng. 134 (1): 74–82. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9437(2008)
134:1(74).
Doorenbos, J., and A. Kassam. 1979. Yield response to water—Irrigation
and drainage paper 33. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization.
Dukes, M. 2012. “Water conservation potential of landscape irrigation
smart controllers.” Trans. ASABE 55 (2): 563–569. https://doi.org/10
.13031/2013.41391.
Emekli, Y., R. Bastug, D. Buyuktas, and N. Y. Emekli. 2007. “Evaluation of
a crop water stress index for irrigation scheduling of bermudagrass.”
Agric. Water Manage. 90 (3): 205–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat
.2007.03.008.
Evett, S. R., T. A. Howell, A. D. Schneider, D. R. Upchurch, and D. F.
Wanjura. 1996. “Canopy temperature based automatic irrigation con-
trol.” In Proc., Int. Conf. on Evapotranspiration and Irrigation Sched-
uling, 207–213. St. Joseph, MI: American Society of Agricultural
Engineers.
Evett, S. R., R. C. Schwartz, N. T. Mazahrih, M. A. Jitan, and I. M. Shaqir.
2011. “Soil water sensors for irrigation scheduling: Can they deliver a
management allowed depletion?” Acta Hort. 888 (888): 231–237.
https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2011.888.26.
© ASCE 04020007-12
J. Irrig. Drain Eng., 2020, 146(6): 04020007
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 2001. Overview paper: Irriga-
tion management transfer, sharing lessons from global experience.
Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization.
Feng, Z., D. Liu, and Y. Zhang. 2007. “Water requirements and irrigation
scheduling of spring maize using GIS and CropWat model in Beijing-
Tianjin-Hebei region.” Chin. Geog. Sci. 17 (1): 56–63. https://doi.org
/10.1007/s11769-007-0056-3.
Fernández, J., and M. Cuevas. 2010. “Irrigation scheduling from stem
diameter variations: A review.” Agric. Forest Meteorol. 150 (2):
135–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2009.11.006.
Fernández, J., S. Green, H. Caspari, A. Diaz-Espejo, and M. Cuevas. 2008.
“The use of sap flow measurements for scheduling irrigation in olive,
apple and Asian pear trees and in grapevines.” Plant Soil 305 (1–2):
91–104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-007-9348-8.
Flerchinger, G. N., and K. E. Saxton. 1989. “Simultaneous heat and water
model of a freezing snow-residue-soil system: I. Theory and develop-
ment.” Trans. ASABE 32 (2): 565–571. https://doi.org/10.13031/2013
.31040.
Gardner, B., B. Blad, D. Garrity, and D. Watts. 1981a. “Relationships be-
tween crop temperature, grain yield, evapotranspiration and phenologi-
cal development in two hybrids of moisture stressed sorghum.” Irrig.
Sci. 2 (4): 213–224. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00258375.
Gardner, B., B. Blad, and D. Watts. 1981b. “Plant and air temperatures in
differentially irrigated corn.” Agric. Meteorol. 25: 207–217. https://doi
.org/10.1016/0002-1571(81)90073-X.
Geerts, S., D. Raes, and M. Garcia. 2010. “Using AquaCrop to derive defi-
cit irrigation schedules.” Agric. Water Manage. 98 (1): 213–216. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2010.07.003.
George, B. A., S. A. Shende, and N. S. Raghuwanshi. 2000. “Development
and testing of an irrigation scheduling model.” Agric. Water Manage.
46 (2): 121–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-3774(00)00083-4.
Glenn, E. P., A. R. Huete, P. L. Nagler, K. K. Hirschboeck, and P. Brown.
2007. “Integrating remote sensing and ground methods to estimate
evapotranspiration.” Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 26 (3): 139–168. https://doi
.org/10.1080/07352680701402503.
Gnecchi, J. A. G., A. M. Patiño, F. L. Paramo, A. D. C. T. Anguiano, and
D. L. Espinoza. 2015. “Investigation of wetting front propagation dy-
namics using soil impedance measurements: Implications for modelling
and irrigation scheduling.” Water Resour. Manage. 29 (1): 197–210.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-014-0835-4.
Gontia, N., and K. Tiwari. 2008. “Development of crop water stress index
of wheat crop for scheduling irrigation using infrared thermometry.”
Agric. Water Manage. 95 (10): 1144–1152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.agwat.2008.04.017.
Gowda, P. H., J. L. Chavez, P. D. Colaizzi, S. R. Evett, T. A. Howell, and
J. A. Tolk. 2008. “ET mapping for agricultural water management:
Present status and challenges.” Irrig. Sci. 26 (3): 223–237. https://doi
.org/10.1007/s00271-007-0088-6.
Grabow, G., I. Ghali, R. Huffman, G. Miller, D. Bowman, and A. Vasanth.
2013. “Water application efficiency and adequacy of ET-based and soil
moisture–based irrigation controllers for turfgrass irrigation.” J. Irrig.
Drain. Eng. 139 (2): 113–123. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IR
.1943-4774.0000528.
Gu, Z., Z. Qi, L. Ma, D. Gui, J. Xu, Q. Fang, S. Yuan, and G. Feng. 2017a.
“Development of an irrigation scheduling software based on model pre-
dicted crop water stress.” Comput. Electron. Agric. 143 (Dec): 208–221.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2017.10.023.
Gu, Z., Z. Qi, L. Ma, and S. Yuan. 2017b. “Water stress based deficit irri-
gation scheduling using RZWQM2 model for maize in Colorado.”
In Proc., 2017 ASABE Annual Int. Meeting, St. Joseph, MI: American
Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers.
Gutiérrez, J., J. F. Villa-Medina, A. Nieto-Garibay, and M. Á. Porta-
Gándara. 2014. “Automated irrigation system using a wireless sensor
network and GPRS module.” IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. 63 (1):
166–176. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIM.2013.2276487.
Haley, M. B., and M. D. Dukes. 2012. “Validation of landscape irrigation
reduction with soil moisture sensor irrigation controllers.” J. Irrig. Drain.
Eng. 138 (2): 135–144. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IR.1943-4774
.0000391.
J. Irrig. Drain. Eng.
 Haule, J., and K. Michael. 2014. “Deployment of wireless sensor networks
(WSN) in automated irrigation management and scheduling systems: A
review.” In Proc., 2nd Pan African Conf. on Science, Computing and
Telecommunications (2014), 86–91. New York: IEEE.
Hedley, C., P. Roudier, I. Yule, J. Ekanayake, and S. Bradbury. 2013. “Soil
water status and water table depth modelling using electromagnetic sur-
veys for precision irrigation scheduling.” Geoderma 199 (May): 22–29.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2012.07.018.
Hedley, C., and I. Yule. 2009. “A method for spatial prediction of daily soil
water status for precise irrigation scheduling.” Agric. Water Manage.
96 (12): 1737–1745. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2009.07.009.
Hoffman, G. J., J. D. Rhoades, J. Letey, and F. Sheng. 1990. “Salinity man-
agement.” In Management of farm irrigation systems, edited by G. J.
Hoffman, T. A. Howell, and K. H. Solomon. St. Joseph, MI: American
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nanjing Forestry University on 03/21/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Society of Agricultural Engineers.
Hoppula, K. I., and T. J. Salo. 2007. “Tensiometer-based irrigation sched-
uling in perennial strawberry cultivation.” Irrig. Sci. 25 (4): 401–409.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00271-006-0055-7.
Huffman, R. L., D. D. Fangmeier, W. J. Elliot, and S. R. Workman. 2013.
“Irrigation principles.” In Soil and water conservation engineering. 7th
ed. 351–373. St. Joseph, MI: American Society of Agricultural and
Biological Engineers.
Hunsaker, D., A. French, P. Waller, E. Bautista, K. Thorp, K. Bronson, and
P. Andrade-Sanchez. 2015. “Comparison of traditional and ET-based
irrigation scheduling of surface-irrigated cotton in the arid southwestern
USA.” Agric. Water Manage. 159 (Sep): 209–224. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.agwat.2015.06.016.
Idso, S., R. Jackson, P. Pinter, R. Reginato, and J. Hatfield. 1981. “Normal-
izing the stress-degree-day parameter for environmental variability.”
Agric. Meteorol. 24: 45–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-1571(81)
90032-7.
Idso, S. B. 1982. “Non-water-stressed baselines: A key to measuring and
interpreting plant water stress.” Agri. Meteorol. 27 (1–2): 59–70. https://
doi.org/10.1016/0002-1571(82)90020-6.
Jackson, R. D., S. Idso, R. Reginato, and P. Pinter. 1981. “Canopy temper-
ature as a crop water stress indicator.” Water Resour. Res. 17 (4): 1133–
1138. https://doi.org/10.1029/WR017i004p01133.
Jackson, R. D., W. P. Kustas, and B. J. Choudhury. 1988. “A reexamination
of the crop water stress index.” Irrig. Sci. 9 (4): 309–317. https://doi.org
/10.1007/BF00296705.
Jones, H. G. 1999. “Use of infrared thermometry for estimation of stomatal
conductance as a possible aid to irrigation scheduling.” Agric. For. Mete-
orol. 95 (3): 139–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1923(99)00030-1.
Jones, H. G. 2004. “Irrigation scheduling: Advantages and pitfalls of plant-
based methods.” J. Exp. Bot. 55 (407): 2427–2436. https://doi.org/10
.1093/jxb/erh213.
Jones, J. W., G. Hoogenboom, C. H. Porter, K. J. Boote, W. D. Batchelor, L.
Hunt, P. W. Wilkens, U. Singh, A. J. Gijsman, and J. T. Ritchie. 2003.
“The DSSAT cropping system model.” Eur. J. Agron. 18 (3–4): 235–
265. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1161-0301(02)00107-7.
Lamb, M. C., R. B. Sorensen, R. C. Nuti, and C. L. Butts. 2015. “Agro-
nomic and economic effect of irrigation rate in cotton.” Crop Forage
Turfgrass Manage. 1 (1): 1–7.
Leib, B. G., T. V. Elliott, and G. Matthews. 2001. “Wise: A web-linked and
producer oriented program for irrigation scheduling.” Comput. Electron.
Agric. 33 (1): 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1699(01)00170-3.
Liakos, V., G. Vellidis, M. Tucker, C. Lowrance, and X. Liang. 2015. “A
decision support tool for managing precision irrigation with center piv-
ots.” In Precision agriculture’15, 713–720. Wageningen, Netherlands:
Wageningen Academic Publishers.
Liang, X., V. Liakos, O. Wendroth, and G. Vellidis. 2016. “Scheduling ir-
rigation using an approach based on the van Genuchten model.” Agric.
Water Manage. 176 (Oct): 170–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat
.2016.05.030.
Linker, R., I. Ioslovich, G. Sylaios, F. Plauborg, and A. Battilani. 2016.
“Optimal model-based deficit irrigation scheduling using AquaCrop:
A simulation study with cotton, potato and tomato.” Agric. Water Man-
age. 163 (Jan): 236–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2015.09.011.
© ASCE 04020007-13
J. Irrig. Drain Eng., 2020, 146(6): 04020007
Linker, R., and I. Kisekka. 2017. “Model-based deficit irrigation of maize
in Kansas.” Trans. ASABE 60 (6): 2011–2022. https://doi.org/10.13031
/trans.12341.
Liu, C., Z. Qi, Z. Gu, D. Gui, and F. Zeng. 2017. “Optimizing irrigation
rates for cotton production in an extremely arid area using RZWQM2
simulated water stress.” Trans. ASABE 60 (6): 2041–2052. https://doi
.org/10.13031/trans.12365.
Lopes, S. O., F. A. Fontes, R. Pereira, M. de Pinho, and A. M. Gonçalves.
2016. “Optimal control applied to an irrigation planning problem.”
Math. Prob. Eng. 2016 (Jun): 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016
/5076879.
López-Urrea, R., F. M. de Santa Olalla, A. Montoro, and P. López-Fuster.
2009. “Single and dual crop coefficients and water requirements for
onion (Allium cepa L.) under semiarid conditions.” Agric. Water Man-
age. 96 (6): 1031–1036. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2009.02.004.
Ma, L., L. Ahuja, B. Nolan, R. Malone, T. Trout, and Z. Qi. 2012a. “Root
zone water quality model (RZWQM2): Model use, calibration, and val-
idation.” Trans. ASABE 55 (4): 1425–1446. https://doi.org/10.13031
/2013.42252.
Ma, L., T. J. Trout, L. R. Ahuja, W. C. Bausch, S. Saseendran, R. W.
Malone, and D. C. Nielsen. 2012b. “Calibrating RZWQM2 model
for maize responses to deficit irrigation.” Agric. Water Manage.
103 (Jan): 140–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2011.11.005.
Maier, N., and J. Dietrich. 2016. “Using swat for strategic planning of basin
scale irrigation control policies: A case study from a humid region in
Northern Germany.” Water Resour. Manage. 30 (9): 3285–3298.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-016-1348-0.
Mancosu, N., D. Spano, M. Orang, S. Sarreshteh, and R. L. Snyder. 2016.
“Simetaw#—A model for agricultural water demand planning.” Water
Resour. Manage. 30 (2): 541–557. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-015
-1176-7.
Mayer, P. W., W. B. DeOreo, E. M. Opitz, J. C. Kiefer, W. Y. Davis, B.
Dziegielewski, and J. O. Nelson. 1999. Residential end uses of water.
Denver: American Water Works Association Research Foundation.
McCready, M., and M. Dukes. 2011. “Landscape irrigation scheduling ef-
ficiency and adequacy by various control technologies.” Agric. Water
Manage. 98 (4): 697–704. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2010.11.007.
McCready, M., M. Dukes, and G. Miller. 2009. “Water conservation po-
tential of smart irrigation controllers on St. Augustinegrass.” Agric.
Water Manage. 96 (11): 1623–1632. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat
.2009.06.007.
Migliaccio, K., J. Debastiani Andreis, C. Fraisse, K. Morgan, and G.
Vellidis. 2013. “SmartIrrigation apps: Urban turf.” Univ. of Florida
IFAS Extension. Accessed January 20, 2019. http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu
/pdffiles/AE/AE49900.pdf.
Migliaccio, K. W., K. T. Morgan, G. Vellidis, L. Zotarelli, C. Fraisse, B. A.
Zurweller, J. H. Andreis, J. H. Crane, and D. L. Rowland. 2016. “Smart-
phone apps for irrigation scheduling.” Trans. ASABE 59 (1): 291–301.
https://doi.org/10.13031/trans.59.11158.
Migliaccio, K. W., B. Schaffer, J. H. Crane, and F. S. Davies. 2010. “Plant
response to evapotranspiration and soil water sensor irrigation sched-
uling methods for papaya production in South Florida.” Agric. Water
Manage. 97 (10): 1452–1460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2010.04
.012.
Möller, M., V. Alchanatis, Y. Cohen, M. Meron, J. Tsipris, A. Naor, V.
Ostrovsky, M. Sprintsin, and S. Cohen. 2006. “Use of thermal and
visible imagery for estimating crop water status of irrigated grapevine.”
J. Exp. Bot. 58 (4): 827–838. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erl115.
Moran, M., T. Clarke, Y. Inoue, and A. Vidal. 1994. “Estimating crop water
deficit using the relation between surface-air temperature and spectral
vegetation index.” Remote Sens. Environ. 49 (3): 246–263. https://doi
.org/10.1016/0034-4257(94)90020-5.
Navarro-Hellín, H., J. Martínez-del Rincon, R. Domingo-Miguel, F. Soto-
Valles, and R. Torres-Sánchez. 2016. “A decision support system for
managing irrigation in agriculture.” Comput. Electron. Agric.
124 (Jun): 121–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2016.04.003.
Neitsch, S. L., J. G. Arnold, J. R. Kiniry, and J. R. Williams. 2011. Soil and
water assessment tool theoretical documentation version 2009. College
Station, TX: Texas Water Resources Institute.
J. Irrig. Drain. Eng.
 Nemali, K. S., and M. W. van Iersel. 2006. “An automated system for
controlling drought stress and irrigation in potted plants.” Sci. Hortic.
(Amsterdam) 110 (3): 292–297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2006
.07.009.
Nguyen, D. C. H., J. C. Ascough II, H. R. Maier, G. C. Dandy, and A. A.
Andales. 2017. “Optimization of irrigation scheduling using ant colony
algorithms and an advanced cropping system model.” Environ. Modell.
Software 97 (Nov): 32–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2017.07
.002.
O’shaughnessy, S., S. Evett, P. Colaizzi, and T. Howell. 2011. “Using ra-
diation thermography and thermometry to evaluate crop water stress in
soybean and cotton.” Agric. Water Manage. 98 (10): 1523–1535.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2011.05.005.
O’Shaughnessy, S., and S. Evett. 2010. “Canopy temperature based system
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nanjing Forestry University on 03/21/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
effectively schedules and controls center pivot irrigation of cotton.”
Agric. Water Manage. 97 (9): 1310–1316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.agwat.2010.03.012.
O’Shaughnessy, S. A., S. R. Evett, P. D. Colaizzi, and T. A. Howell. 2012.
“A crop water stress index and time threshold for automatic irrigation
scheduling of grain sorghum.” Agric. Water Manage. 107 (May):
122–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2012.01.018.
Osroosh, Y., R. T. Peters, C. S. Campbell, and Q. Zhang. 2015. “Automatic
irrigation scheduling of apple trees using theoretical crop water stress
index with an innovative dynamic threshold.” Comput. Electron. Agric.
118 (Oct): 193–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2015.09.006.
Osroosh, Y., R. T. Peters, C. S. Campbell, and Q. Zhang. 2016. “Compari-
son of irrigation automation algorithms for drip-irrigated apple trees.”
Comput. Electron. Agric. 128 (Oct): 87–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.compag.2016.08.013.
Padilla-Díaz, C., C. Rodriguez-Dominguez, V. Hernandez-Santana, A.
Perez-Martin, and J. Fernández. 2016. “Scheduling regulated deficit ir-
rigation in a hedgerow olive orchard from leaf turgor pressure related
measurements.” Agric. Water Manage. 164 (Part 1): 28–37. https://doi
.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2015.08.002.
Park, Y., J. S. Shamma, and T. C. Harmon. 2009. “A Receding Horizon
Control algorithm for adaptive management of soil moisture and chemi-
cal levels during irrigation.” Environ. Modell. Software 24 (9): 1112–
1121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2009.02.008.
Perea, R. G., I. F. García, M. M. Arroyo, J. R. Díaz, E. C. Poyato, and
P. Montesinos. 2017. “Multiplatform application for precision irrigation
scheduling in strawberries.” Agric. Water Manage. 183 (Mar): 194–201.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2016.07.017.
Pereira, L. S., R. G. Allen, M. Smith, and D. Raes. 2015. “Crop evapotran-
spiration estimation with FAO56: Past and future.” Agric. Water Man-
age. 147 (Jan): 4–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2014.07.031.
Peters, R. T., and S. R. Evett. 2008. “Automation of a center pivot using the
temperature-time-threshold method of irrigation scheduling.” J. Irrig.
Drain. Eng. 134 (3): 286–291. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733
-9437(2008)134:3(286).
Raes, D., P. Steduto, T. C. Hsiao, and E. Fereres. 2009. “Aquacrop—The
FAO crop model to simulate yield response to water: II. Main algorithms
and software description.” Agron. J. 101 (3): 438–447. https://doi.org/10
.2134/agronj2008.0140s.
Rosa, R. D., P. Paredes, G. C. Rodrigues, I. Alves, R. M. Fernando, L. S.
Pereira, and R. G. Allen. 2012a. “Implementing the dual crop coeffi-
cient approach in interactive software. 1. Background and computa-
tional strategy.” Agric. Water Manage. 103 (Jan): 8–24. https://doi
.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2011.10.013.
Rosa, R. D., P. Paredes, G. C. Rodrigues, R. M. Fernando, I. Alves, L. S.
Pereira, and R. G. Allen. 2012b. “Implementing the dual crop coeffi-
cient approach in interactive software: 2. Model testing.” Agric. Water
Manage. 103 (Jan): 62–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2011.10
.018.
Saleem, S. K., D. K. Delgoda, S. K. Ooi, K. B. Dassanayake, L. Liu,
M. N. Halgamuge, and H. Malano. 2013. “Model predictive control
for real-time irrigation scheduling.” IFAC Proc. Volumes 46 (18):
299–304. https://doi.org/10.3182/20130828-2-SF-3019.00062.
Saseendran, S., L. Ahuja, L. Ma, D. Nielsen, T. Trout, A. Andales, J.
Chávez, and J. Ham. 2014. “Enhancing the water stress factors for
© ASCE 04020007-14
J. Irrig. Drain Eng., 2020, 146(6): 04020007
simulation of corn in RZWQM2.” Agron. J. 106 (1): 81–94. https://doi
.org/10.2134/agronj2013.0300.
Saseendran, S., T. Trout, L. Ahuja, L. Ma, G. McMaster, D. Nielsen, A.
Andales, J. Chavez, and J. Ham. 2015. “Quantifying crop water stress
factors from soil water measurements in a limited irrigation experi-
ment.” Agric. Syst. 137 (Jul): 191–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy
.2014.11.005.
Savva, A., and K. Frenken. 2002. FAO (irrigation manual): Module 4 crop
water requirements and irrigation scheduling. Harare, Zimbabwe: Sub-
Regional Office for East and Southern Africa.
Seidel, S. J., S. Werisch, K. Barfus, M. Wagner, N. Schütze, and H. Laber.
2016. “Field evaluation of irrigation scheduling strategies using a
mechanistic crop growth model.” Irrig. Drain. 65 (2): 214–223.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ird.1942.
Smart Irrigation Apps Group. 2019. “Smart irrigation apps.” Accessed
August 23, 2019. http://smartirrigationapps.org/.
Smith, M. 1992. Vol. 46 of CROPWAT: A computer program for irrigation
planning and management. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization.
Smith, M., D. Kivumbi, and L. Heng. 2002. “Use of the FAO CROPWAT
model in deficit irrigation studies.” In Deficit irrigation practices,
17–27. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization.
Steduto, P., T. C. Hsiao, D. Raes, and E. Fereres. 2009. “Aquacrop—The
FAO crop model to simulate yield response to water: I. Concepts and
underlying principles.” Agron. J. 101 (3): 426–437. https://doi.org/10
.2134/agronj2008.0139s.
Steppe, K., D. J. De Pauw, and R. Lemeur. 2008. “A step towards new
irrigation scheduling strategies using plant-based measurements and
mathematical modelling.” Irrig. Sci. 26 (6): 505–517. https://doi.org/10
.1007/s00271-008-0111-6.
Stirzaker, R. J., T. C. Maeko, J. G. Annandale, J. M. Steyn, G. T. Adhanom,
and T. Mpuisang. 2017. “Scheduling irrigation from wetting front
depth.” Agric. Water Manage. 179 (Jan): 306–313. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.agwat.2016.06.024.
Stone, K., P. Bauer, W. Busscher, J. Millen, D. Evans, and E. Strickland.
2015. “Variable-rate irrigation management using an expert system in
the eastern coastal plain.” Irrig. Sci. 33 (3): 167–175. https://doi.org/10
.1007/s00271-014-0457-x.
Sun, C., and L. Ren. 2014. “Assessing crop yield and crop water produc-
tivity and optimizing irrigation scheduling of winter wheat and summer
maize in the Haihe plain using SWAT model.” Hydrol. Process. 28 (4):
2478–2498. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.9759.
Taghvaeian, S., L. Comas, K. C. DeJonge, and T. J. Trout. 2014. “Conven-
tional and simplified canopy temperature indices predict water stress in
sunflower.” Agri. Water Manage. 144 (Oct): 69–80. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.agwat.2014.06.003.
Thompson, R., M. Gallardo, L. Valdez, and M. Fernández. 2007a. “Deter-
mination of lower limits for irrigation management using in situ assess-
ments of apparent crop water uptake made with volumetric soil water
content sensors.” Agric. Water Manage. 92 (1): 13–28. https://doi.org
/10.1016/j.agwat.2007.04.009.
Thompson, R., M. Gallardo, L. Valdez, and M. Fernández. 2007b. “Using
plant water status to define threshold values for irrigation management
of vegetable crops using soil moisture sensors.” Agric. Water Manage.
88 (1): 147–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2006.10.007.
Thorp, K. R., D. J. Hunsaker, K. F. Bronson, P. Andrade-Sanchez, and
E. M. Barnes. 2017. “Cotton irrigation scheduling using a crop growth
model and FAO-56 methods: Field and simulation studies.” Trans.
ASABE 60 (6): 2023–2039. https://doi.org/10.13031/trans.12323.
Thysen, I., and N. K. Detlefsen. 2006. “Online decision support for irriga-
tion for farmers.” Agric. Water Manage. 86 (3): 269–276. https://doi.org
/10.1016/j.agwat.2006.05.016.
Tilling, A. K., G. J. O’Leary, J. G. Ferwerda, S. D. Jones, G. J. Fitzgerald,
D. Rodriguez, and R. Belford. 2007. “Remote sensing of nitrogen and
water stress in wheat.” Field Crop. Res. 104 (1): 77–85. https://doi.org
/10.1016/j.fcr.2007.03.023.
Tsang, S., and C. Jim. 2016. “Applying artificial intelligence modeling to
optimize green roof irrigation.” Energy Build. 127 (Sep): 360–369.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.06.005.
J. Irrig. Drain. Eng.
 USDA-ARS (Agriculture Research Service). 2016. “Expert systems.”
Accessed August 23, 2019. https://www.ars.usda.gov/southeast-area
/dawson-ga/national-peanut-research-laboratory/docs/expert-systems/.
USDA-ARS (Agriculture Research Service), National Peanut Research
Laboratory. 2019a. “Available water content calculation.” Accessed
August 23, 2019. https://irrigatorpro.org/#/calculations.
USDA-ARS (Agriculture Research Service), National Peanut Research
Laboratory. 2019b. “IrrigatorPro description.” Accessed August 23,
2019. https://agresearchmag.ars.usda.gov/2005/nov/water.
Vellidis, G., et al. 2014. “A smartphone app for scheduling irrigation
on cotton.” In Proc., 2014 Beltwide Cotton Conf., New Orleans, LA.
Memphis, TN: National Cotton Council.
Vellidis, G., V. Liakos, J. Andreis, C. Perry, W. Porter, E. Barnes, K.
Morgan, C. Fraisse, and K. Migliaccio. 2016a. “Development and as-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nanjing Forestry University on 03/21/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
sessment of a smartphone application for irrigation scheduling in cot-
ton.” Comput. Electron. Agric. 127 (Sep): 249–259. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.compag.2016.06.021.
Vellidis, G., V. Liakos, C. Perry, W. Porter, M. Tucker, S. Boyd, M.
Huffman, and B. Robertson. 2016b. “Irrigation scheduling for cotton
using soil moisture sensors, smartphone apps, and traditional methods.”
In Vol. 16779 of Proc., 2016 Beltwide Cotton Conf., 772–780. New
Orleans: National Cotton Council.
Vellidis, G., V. Liakos, W. Porter, M. Tucker, and X. Liang. 2016c. A dy-
namic variable rate irrigation control system. St. Louis: Academic
Publishers.
Vellidis, G., V. Liakos, M. Tucker, C. Perry, J. Andreis, C. Fraisse, and K.
Migliaccio. 2015. “A smartphone app for precision irrigation schedul-
ing in cotton.” In Precision agriculture’15, 701–708. Wageningen,
Nertherlands: Wageningen Academic Publishers.
Vellidis, G., M. Tucker, C. Perry, C. Kvien, and C. Bednarz. 2008. “A real-
time wireless smart sensor array for scheduling irrigation.” Comput.
Electron. Agric. 61 (1): 44–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2007
.05.009.
Vellidis, G., M. Tucker, C. Perry, D. Reckford, C. Butts, H. Henry, V.
Liakos, R. Hill, and W. Edwards. 2013. “A soil moisture sensor-based
variable rate irrigation scheduling system.” In Precision agriculture’13,
713–720. New York: Springer.
© ASCE 04020007-15
View publication stats J. Irrig. Drain Eng., 2020, 146(6): 04020007
Viani, F. 2016. “Experimental validation of a wireless system for the
irrigation management in smart farming applications.” Microw.
Opt. Technol. Lett. 58 (9): 2186–2189. https://doi.org/10.1002/mop
.30000.
Walker, W. R. 1989. Guidelines for designing and evaluating surface irri-
gation systems. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization.
Wang, J., G. Huang, J. Li, J. Zheng, Q. Huang, and H. Liu. 2017. “Effect of
soil moisture-based furrow irrigation scheduling on melon (Cucumis
melo L.) yield and quality in an arid region of Northwest China.” Agric.
Water Manage. 179 (Jan): 167–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat
.2016.04.023.
Wanjura, D., D. Upchurch, and J. Mahan. 1995. “Control of irrigation
scheduling using temperature-time thresholds.” Trans. ASAE 38 (2):
403–409. https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.27846.
Wanjura, D., D. Upchurch, and J. Mahan. 2004. “Establishing differential
irrigation levels using temperature-time thresholds.” Appl. Eng. Agric.
20 (2): 201. https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.15892.
Wanjura, D., D. Upchurch, and J. Mahan. 2006. “Behavior of temperature-
based water stress indicators in biotic-controlled irrigation.” Irrig. Sci.
24 (4): 223–232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00271-005-0021-9.
World Bank Group. 2019. “World bank open data.” Accessed August 23,
2019. https://data.worldbank.org.
Xu, J., W. Bai, Y. Li, H. Wang, S. Yang, and Z. Wei. 2019. “Modeling rice
development and field water balance using AquaCrop model under
drying-wetting cycle condition in eastern China.” Agric. Water Manage.
213 (Mar): 289–297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2018.10.028.
Yang, G., L. Liu, P. Guo, and M. Li. 2017. “A flexible decision support
system for irrigation scheduling in an irrigation district in China.” Agric.
Water Manage. 179 (Jan): 378–389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat
.2016.07.019.
Yuan, G., Y. Luo, X. Sun, and D. Tang. 2004. “Evaluation of a crop water
stress index for detecting water stress in winter wheat in the North
China plain.” Agric. Water Manage. 64 (1): 29–40. https://doi.org/10
.1016/S0378-3774(03)00193-8.
Zotarelli, L., M. D. Dukes, J. M. S. Scholberg, K. Femminella, and R.
Munoz-Carpena. 2010. “Irrigation scheduling for green bell peppers
using capacitance soil moisture sensors.” J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 137 (2):
73–81. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IR.1943-4774.0000281.
J. Irrig. Drain. Eng.