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!
Thursday, January 21, 2016
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)