This past Saturday, I took my youngest to his soccer game. The first thing I noticed, after the fact that it was unseasonably warm, was the condition of the playing field. The grass was brown and crunchy, and the soil was dry, hard, and cracked.
So what does this have to do with field safety? The less dense and lush the turf is, the dryer the soil, the harder the playing surface. Below is a link to information provided by the Sports Turf Managers Association, on the technical aspects of field hardness. But as you can imagine, the harder the surface, the greater chance for an athlete to be injured. .
The importance of irrigating and maintaining a correct soil moisture level goes beyond athletic field aesthetics. Several years ago, I was working with a public school system in Maryland. They were working towards irrigating all their athletic fields. I asked the man leading the charge, how he was able to convince the school district to go forward with such an investment? Not because I did not see value in the project, but it is not what is common practice in our area. He proceeded to tell me that he feels as the school district's athletic fields are outdoor classrooms. Athletic events and PE classes are held daily on the fields. Would you allow your child to practice in a gymnasium with cracked floors, or sit in a class room with holes in the wall!? Well said!
http://www.stma.org/sites/stma/files/STMA_Bulletins/Field_Hardness%20FINAL.pdf
Tuesday, September 13, 2016
Wednesday, April 20, 2016
A Smart Controller is not in the Budget
A smart controller is an irrigation controller, that adjusts run times, based on data the controller obtains. This may come in the form of a soil moisture sensor, basic weather station, or complex weather station that is located on site. It may also receive weather information via WiFi, cell signal, etc. Once the controller obtains the data, it estimates how much water needs to be replaced in the soil.
Research has shown that the use of a smart controller, on average, reduces landscape water consumption by 30%. In our area, due to the amount of rain we typically receive, the savings are probably higher. Research has also shown, that the use of a smart controller, can prevent over-watering, resulting in a healthier landscape.
The average installed price, for irrigation, on our 10 most recent projects is $30,000. These include larger commercial sites, small pad sites, and athletic fields. Two of those projects refused to discuss smart controllers, because of budget constraints. To upgrade the controller on the first project, I would estimate that it would have increased the cost by $500. The second project, $100. I believe the water savings in the first year would have paid for the increase in costs!
Research has shown that the use of a smart controller, on average, reduces landscape water consumption by 30%. In our area, due to the amount of rain we typically receive, the savings are probably higher. Research has also shown, that the use of a smart controller, can prevent over-watering, resulting in a healthier landscape.
The average installed price, for irrigation, on our 10 most recent projects is $30,000. These include larger commercial sites, small pad sites, and athletic fields. Two of those projects refused to discuss smart controllers, because of budget constraints. To upgrade the controller on the first project, I would estimate that it would have increased the cost by $500. The second project, $100. I believe the water savings in the first year would have paid for the increase in costs!
Thursday, January 21, 2016
Reducing Water Use Through Landscape Design
As an irrigation consultant/designer, there are many methods we can use to minimize landscape water usage. Product selection, sprinkler spacing, plant specific zoning, and smart technologies to name a few. What we, as irrigation professions, do not have control of is the plant species and site layout. A plant species will require a certain amount of water regardless of an irrigation design. It may not be feasible to zone a lone shrub with a group of other shrubs that are on the other side of the property.
Recently ANSI/ASABE S623 "Determining Landscape Plan Water Demands" has been published. It is a total of 14 pages, with cover sheet. This is an excellent read for any Landscape Architect or designer, who would like to reduce the water needed to keep their designed landscape aesthetically pleasing.
Feel free to post comments or questions about this standard!
Recently ANSI/ASABE S623 "Determining Landscape Plan Water Demands" has been published. It is a total of 14 pages, with cover sheet. This is an excellent read for any Landscape Architect or designer, who would like to reduce the water needed to keep their designed landscape aesthetically pleasing.
Feel free to post comments or questions about this standard!
Friday, January 8, 2016
Frequent or Deep and Infrequent, Which Watering Method is Best?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/asianturfgrass/8922147839/in/photostream/
Above is a link to a graph, illustrating the varying soil volumetric water content, over the course of a month. It compares two irrigated plots: One receiving frequent irrigation with short cycle times, and the other receiving infrequent irrigation with longer cycle times.
I came across this chart on Twitter. It received numerous replies and likes. The popular method, in the irrigation profession, is a deep and infrequent approach. The scientific theory behind this choice is to encourage deep roots, resulting in a more drought resistant and healthy landscape.
So, I am suggesting the chart is incorrect and we should ignore the results?
NO!
Then every irrigation system operator should change their method of programming, and irrigate more frequently with shorter cycle times?
NO!
This chart provides important data, and its results should be considered when programming an irrigation system. However, I do not think the chart provides a complete picture. It is important not to take a cookie cutter solution approach for every site. The irrigation system operator should work with an irrigation consultant, irrigation contractor, and landscape architect to establish the best baseline irrigation program. This should include site conditions, thresholds, goals, site uses, etc. The baseline program should be site specific, not a one-size-fits-all guess.
Above is a link to a graph, illustrating the varying soil volumetric water content, over the course of a month. It compares two irrigated plots: One receiving frequent irrigation with short cycle times, and the other receiving infrequent irrigation with longer cycle times.
I came across this chart on Twitter. It received numerous replies and likes. The popular method, in the irrigation profession, is a deep and infrequent approach. The scientific theory behind this choice is to encourage deep roots, resulting in a more drought resistant and healthy landscape.
So, I am suggesting the chart is incorrect and we should ignore the results?
NO!
Then every irrigation system operator should change their method of programming, and irrigate more frequently with shorter cycle times?
NO!
This chart provides important data, and its results should be considered when programming an irrigation system. However, I do not think the chart provides a complete picture. It is important not to take a cookie cutter solution approach for every site. The irrigation system operator should work with an irrigation consultant, irrigation contractor, and landscape architect to establish the best baseline irrigation program. This should include site conditions, thresholds, goals, site uses, etc. The baseline program should be site specific, not a one-size-fits-all guess.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)