Skip to main content
ARS Home » Southeast Area » Dawson, Georgia » National Peanut Research Laboratory » Research » Publications at this Location » Publication #137848


item Davidson, James
item Lamb, Marshall
item Sternitzke, Donald
item Butts, Christopher - Chris

Submitted to: American Peanut Research and Education Society Abstracts
Publication Type: Abstract Only
Publication Acceptance Date: 4/1/2001
Publication Date: 3/1/2002
Citation: Davidson Jr, J.I., Lamb, M.C., Sternitzke, D.A., Butts, C.L., Valentine, H. 2002. Irrigator pro 1.0 vs. irrigator pro 2.0. American Peanut Research and Education Society Abstracts.

Interpretive Summary: None required.

Technical Abstract: Irrigator Pro is an expert system marketed by the Peanut Foundation for scheduling irrigation and certain pest control practices for peanut production. Version 1.0 was developed using new concepts and different strategies for each of the 2 yield potentials, 3 variety (maturity) groups, 3 soil groups, 2-3 irrigation capacities, 8 time periods, 2 planting periods, 2 root depths, 2 canopy coverages, 2 probabilities of rain, 3 maximum/minimum soil temperature ranges, and 3 accumulated water ranges. Each strategy was rule based and these rules were developed from data and experience obtained from research experiments. Version 2.0 used the same new concepts and strategies contained in Version 1.0, but the strategies were based upon mathematical relationships that estimated potential yield loss/day/acre (YPL) by YPL = f (Vg, Yp, Sg, Wa, Cg, Ts, Pp, W3, W5, W7, W10, W14, W21, Pr) where Vg = variety group, Yp = yield potential of field, Sg, = soil group, Wa = accumulated water since planting, Pp = plant time period, Cg = canopy coverage group, Ts = soil temperature range, W3, W5, W7, W10, W14, and W21 is the amount of effective water during the last 3, 5, 7, 10, 14, and 21 days, respectively, and Pr = probability of rain range. The loss/day/acre was calculated form equations developed from 20 years of peanut irrigation research. The amount of irrigation, forecast for next irrigation, date to rerun program, and probability decision is correct are determined from equations that relate the magnitude of the potential losses to these variables. Three year validation results are presented to compare performance of Irrigator Pro 2.0 to 1.0. There was no significant difference in yields, grades, and shelling outturns from plots managed by these 2 expert systems. However, Irrigator Pro 2.0 provided more risk management information that should promote a higher percent of compliance and more proactive management than obtained with Irrigator Pro 1.0.