Content uploaded by Younsuk Dong
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Younsuk Dong on Aug 05, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Trends and future of agricultural irrigation in Michigan
and Indiana
Younsuk Dong
1
| Catherine Christenson
1
| Lyndon Kelley
2,3
| Steve Miller
1
1
Department of Biosystems and
Agricultural Engineering, Michigan State
University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA
2
Michigan State University Extension,
East Lansing, Michigan, USA
3
Purdue University, West Lafayette,
Indiana, USA
Correspondence
Younsuk Dong, Department of Biosystems
and Agricultural Engineering, Michigan
State University, East Lansing, MI 48824,
USA.
Email: dongyoun@msu.edu
Funding information
Natural Resources Conservation Service,
Grant/Award Number:
NR213A750013G015
Abstract
Irrigation plays a critical role in Michigan and Indiana, USA, supporting vari-
ous crops such as commercial corn, seed corn, soybeans, potatoes, fruit and
vegetables. Irrigated lands in Michigan and Indiana have continuously
increased over the last 20 years. As Michigan and Indiana have experienced
more erratic precipitation and warmer temperatures, more irrigated lands will
be projected. This study focused on understanding the changes in irrigation in
Michigan and Indiana using USDA NASS data. The observation of changes
from 2002 to 2017 helped to identify the critical considerations for developing
future irrigation research and extension programmes in Michigan and
Indiana. The study found that continuation of the collaboration with stake-
holders, including state regulators, government staff, commodity groups, the
irrigation industry and farmers, will be important to disseminate the most up-
to-date irrigation information effectively to farmers. As more new irrigated
lands are expected, outreach programmes for the optimal design of irrigation
systems for specific crop types should be developed. Moreover, an easy-to-use
and affordable irrigation scheduling technology is needed to increase the adop-
tion rate of scheduling tools, ultimately improving irrigation water and energy
use efficiency and minimizing environmental impacts.
KEYWORDS
Indiana, irrigation, Michigan, outreach programme, water management
Résumé
L'irrigation joue un rôle important au Michigan et en Indiana, aux
Etats-Unis,
en soutenant diverses cultures telles que le maïs commercial, le maïs de
semence, le soja, les pommes de terre, les fruits et les légumes. Les terres irri-
guées du Michigan et de l'Indiana n'ont cessé d'augmenter au cours des 20 der-
nières années. Etant donné que le Michigan et l'Indiana connaissent des
précipitations plus irrégulières et des températures plus élevées, on prévoit une
Article title in French: Tendances et avenir de l'irrigation agricole au Michigan et en Indiana.
Received: 2 August 2022 Revised: 5 April 2023 Accepted: 19 June 2023
DOI: 10.1002/ird.2862
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
© 2023 The Authors. Irrigation and Drainage published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Commission for Irrigation and Drainage.
Irrig. and Drain. 2023;1–13. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ird 1
augmentation des terres irriguées. Cette étude a mis l'accent sur la compréhen-
sion des changements survenus dans l'irrigation au Michigan et en Indiana en
utilisant des données du NASS de l'USDA. L'observation des changements sur-
venus entre la période de 2002 à 2017 a permis d'identifier les considérations
critiques au développement de programmes futurs de recherche et de vulgari-
sation en irrigation au Michigan et en Indiana. L'étude a montré que la pour-
suite de la collaboration sera importante avec les parties prenantes, y compris
les régulateurs d'
Etat, le personnel du gouvernement, les groupes de produc-
teurs, l'industrie de l'irrigation et les agriculteurs pour diffuser efficacement
aux agriculteurs les informations les plus récentes concernant l'irrigation.
Etant donné que de nouvelles terres irriguées sont attendues, il sera nécessaire
de développer des programmes de sensibilisation à la conception optimale des
systèmes d'irrigation pour des types de cultures spécifiques. En outre, une tech-
nologie de programmation de l'irrigation facile à utiliser et abordable est néces-
saire pour augmenter le taux d'adoption des outils de programmation, afin
d'améliorer l'efficacité de l'utilisation de l'eau et de l'énergie d'irrigation et de
minimiser l'impact sur l'environnement.
MOTS CLÉS
irrigation, Michigan, Indiana, gestion de l'eau, programme de sensibilisation
1|INTRODUCTION
Irrigation is utilized to supplement or replace natural pre-
cipitation on over 23 million ha of agricultural land in the
United States (USDA, 2022). Although irrigated farms com-
prise only 6% of the US total land under cultivation, irri-
gated farm sales make up 39% of total US farm sales, worth
over US$152 billion in 2016 (Schaible, 2017). Irrigation can
reduce the effects of erratic precipitation and prolonged dry-
ness. Because of this benefit, irrigation has been used to
grow various crops such as corn, soybean, vegetables, for-
age, cotton, wheat, sorghum, rice, oats, fruit, and vegetables.
Irrigation plays an important role in Michigan and
Indiana and supports various crops, including commer-
cial corn, seed corn, soybeans, potatoes, fruit, vegetables,
and Christmas trees. Irrigation allows producers to grow
crops with confidence because they can manage drought
stress to ensure the quality and yield of the crops. This is
particularly crucial for the high-value/input crops
(e.g., seed corn, potatoes, blueberries, apples, cucumbers,
tomatoes), where the input costs may be as high as US
$5190 per hectare or more (Michigan State University
Extension, 2014). For example, in southern Michigan and
northern Indiana, there are about 60,702 ha of hybrid
seed corn. The value of this seed corn production was
estimated to be worth US$1.023 billion in 2014 (Michigan
State University Extension, 2014).
Michigan has experienced more erratic precipitation
and increased temperature on average by 1.1Cinthepast
50 years (Rudolph, 2020). Irrigation will be more important
in Michigan and Indiana to reduce the effects of erratic pre-
cipitation and increased temperatures. As more irrigated
lands are expected, it is critical to understand the trends of
agricultural irrigation, including harvested crops from irri-
gated land, irrigation application systems, irrigation deci-
sion tools and irrigation information sources, to develop an
effective irrigation extension programme. Thus, this study
focuses on understanding the changes in agricultural irriga-
tion water use, irrigation systems, geographic and irrigation
decision methods in Michigan and Indiana using
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) National
Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) data.
2|MATERIALS AND METHODS
2.1 |Study areas
Michigan and Indiana were selected for this study. Most
irrigated areas in Michigan and Indiana are primarily
2DONG ET AL.
15310361, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ird.2862, Wiley Online Library on [05/08/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
coarse-textured soil such as sand, loamy sand and sandy
loam. Specialty crops grow in importance near Lake
Michigan (orchards, vineyards, blueberries) due to the
moderating effect of the lake on temperature.
2.2 |Data collection and analysis
Data from the years 2002, 2007, 2012, and 2017 from the
states of Michigan and Indiana collected by USDA NASS
have been utilized for this research (USDA, 2004,2009,
2014a,2019). A comparison of these data over the 15-year
period of 2002–2017 can aid in understanding the irriga-
tion water use trends in Michigan and Indiana. This
study may be limited due to the amount of data available
from the USDA survey; however, the available data were
adequate to conduct the objective of this study. Thus, per-
centage change can be calculated using Equation (1)
(Mpanga et al., 2020):
%Δ¼Y2Y1
Y1
100 ð1Þ
where %Δ=per cent change, Y1=p2002 data and
Y2=p2017 data.
3|RESULTS
3.1 |Irrigated hectares
Irrigated lands in both Michigan and Indiana have been
continuously increasing since 2002. Figure 1shows the
irrigated hectares from 2002 to 2017. In the past 15 years,
irrigated hectares in Michigan and Indiana have
approximately doubled. In Michigan, there was approxi-
mately an increase of 96,720 ha of irrigated land from
2012 to 2017. One of the reasons for this significant
increase (40% increase) was the drought in 2012. In 2012,
Michigan and Indiana had record-high temperatures and
limited rainfall, resulting in significantly low yields of
corn and soybeans. When prolonged drought stress
occurs during the growing season, it can lead to signifi-
cant yield losses. During the 2012 drought, the economic
returns of irrigated corn and soybean farms were signifi-
cantly higher than those of non-irrigated farms. A reason
for the high economic returns was that many areas in the
corn belt of the United States struggled to produce crops
in 2012. In addition, many high-value crops, such as veg-
etables and fruit, suffered from record-high spring tem-
peratures and drought conditions in 2012. In 2012,
Michigan had the lowest apple yield since the 1980s, pro-
ducing only 47.6 million kg, which is 89% less than the
previous year (USDA, 2012,2014b). In addition, early-
spring warm temperatures led to premature crop devel-
opment, followed by multiple freezes, which devastated
tart cherry crops in Michigan (USDA, 2012).
3.2 |Trend of irrigated farm hectares by
the size of farm
Figure 2shows the number of irrigated farms by size of
farm in Michigan. In 2018, medium to large farms rang-
ing in size from 201 to 2023 plus hectares accounted for
88% of Michigan's total irrigated hectares. Irrigated farm
sizes from 809 to 2023 ha contributed 27% of Michigan's
total irrigated hectares in 2018. These data show most
irrigated lands in Michigan are operated by medium- or
large-size farms and grow field crops. Many of the
FIGURE 1 Irrigated hectares from
2002 to 2017 in Michigan and Indiana.
DONG ET AL.3
15310361, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ird.2862, Wiley Online Library on [05/08/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
smaller farms raise high-value crops such as fruit and
vegetables. Figure 3shows the number of irrigated farms
by size of farm in Indiana. In 2018, medium to large
farms ranging in size from 201 to 2023 plus hectares
accounted for 90% of Indiana's total irrigated hectares.
Irrigated farm sizes from 809 to 2023 ha contributed 47%
of Indiana's total irrigated hectares in 2018. Like Michi-
gan, most irrigated lands in Indiana are operated by
medium- or large-size farms and grow mostly field crops.
Many smaller farms grow high-value vegetables or fruit.
3.3 |Distribution of irrigated cropland
Figures 4and 5show irrigated hectares by county in
Michigan and Indiana. Primary irrigated hectares (over
80%) in Michigan are located in the southwest, centre
and west parts of Michigan. This is due to the combina-
tion of coarse-textured soil types and water availability.
More than 60% of irrigated hectares in Indiana are con-
centrated in the north of the state, especially in Knox
county. Most crops grown in these areas are commercial
corn, seed corn, soybeans and some fruit and vegetables.
3.4 |Irrigated hectares: Crops
Table 1shows the irrigated hectares by crop type in
Michigan. Most irrigated hectares in Michigan grow corn
and soybeans, and the area has continuously increased.
This is because the yield and quality of corn and soybean
can be maximized by providing adequate moisture during
FIGURE 2 Irrigated farm number by the size of farms in Michigan.
FIGURE 3 Irrigated farm number by the size of farms in Indiana.
4DONG ET AL.
15310361, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ird.2862, Wiley Online Library on [05/08/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
the critical time of growing. The critical times of irriga-
tion for corn are between VT (when the last branch of
the tassel is completely visible) and R6 (a black layer will
form at the kernel base) stage (unpublished data). The
critical times of irrigation for soybean are during the late
flowering, early pod fill and grain fill growth stages
(Endres & Kandel, 2021). According to the on-farm dem-
onstration study data conducted in 2021 by the Michigan
State University Irrigation team funded by USDA NRCS,
the lack of moisture during critical times (from late flow-
ering to grain fill growth stages) could result in decreas-
ing soybean yield of up to 1.07 t ha
–1
(unpublished data).
This is equal to US$920/ha using a soybean price of US
$859.8 t
–1
as of 25 July 2022 (Macrotrends, 2022). Irri-
gated lands for most fruit and vegetable production in
Michigan increased or remained the same, but interest-
ingly berries decreased in 2017. Table 2shows the irri-
gated hectares by crop type in Indiana. Most irrigated
hectares in Indiana grow corn and soybeans. Similarly to
Michigan, both corn and soybean irrigated lands continu-
ously increased.
3.5 |Irrigation system
Figures 6and 7show the irrigated hectares per irrigation
method in Michigan and Indiana, respectively. Neither
Michigan and Indiana has a flood irrigation system,
which is common in some southern parts of the
United States, because most irrigated lands in Michigan
and Indiana have coarse-textured soil. The majority of
irrigation systems used in Michigan are centre-pivot
irrigation systems. Big gun/travellers are second most
common as they have the advantages of mobility and irri-
gating small sections of fields. Recently, drip, trickle or
low-flow irrigation systems have been continuously
increasing, and they are mainly used in vegetable and
fruit tree production. Similarly to Michigan, a centre
pivot is the common irrigation method in Indiana. Lately,
the southern part of Indiana has experienced more erratic
precipitation, which led those in the vegetable and fruit
industries such as watermelon and strawberry to consider
installing an irrigation system to increase climate
resilience.
FIGURE 4 Michigan irrigated lands
by county in 2017.
DONG ET AL.5
15310361, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ird.2862, Wiley Online Library on [05/08/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
3.6 |Methods of determining when to
irrigate
Figures 8and 9show the number of farms per irrigation
decision method in Michigan and Indiana. Primary
methods for irrigation decisions used by Michigan
irrigators are condition of crop and feel of soil. Condition
of crop is not an effective method. This is because when
the plants show water stress, it is usually too late to mini-
mize its effect. A typical centre-pivot irrigation system
takes 24–36 h to apply 25.4 mm application, depending
on the irrigation system set-up and the size of the land.
FIGURE 5 Indiana irrigated lands by county in 2017. Blank counties have data ‘Withheld to avoid disclosing data for individual farms’.
TABLE 1 Irrigated hectares by crop type in Michigan.
Year
Corn for grain
or seed Soybean Winter wheat Dry bean Tomatoes Potatoes All berries
Orchards, vineyards,
nut trees
2002 75,186 29,288 3,616 3,714 1,506 17,478 6,108 4,120
2007 100,682 29,941 6,771 3,900 2,544 17,144 6,497 5,066
2012 121,390 33,955 4,706 4,370 578 13,649 9,983 7,497
2017 153,240 42,165 7,152 7,375 2,229 18,904 4,895 9,858
6DONG ET AL.
15310361, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ird.2862, Wiley Online Library on [05/08/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
This means that some parts of the field will only be irri-
gated after 24 or 36 h, prolonging water stress. In addi-
tion, the feel of soil method is not quantitative and is
judged by an individual, and thus lacks precision. A
personal schedule, report on daily evapotranspiration
and soil moisture device methods follow the condition of
crops and feel of soil. Indiana has the same trend as
Michigan. The use of scientific data-driven irrigation
TABLE 2 Irrigated hectares by crop type in Indiana.
Year
Corn for grain
or seed Soybean Winter wheat Dry bean Tomatoes Potatoes All berries
Orchards, vineyards,
nut trees
2002 63,704 30,368 1,276 308 1,420 771 189 2
2007 98,976 41,391 4,113 205 1,610 259 N/A 101
2012 125,443 39,812 1,986 N/A 1,211 338 N/A 155
2017 128,378 70,952 2,084 N/A 982 N/A 292 92
Abbreviation: N/A, not available.
FIGURE 6 Amount of land (hectares irrigated) per irrigation method: Michigan.
FIGURE 7 Amount of land (hectares irrigated) per irrigation method: Indiana.
DONG ET AL.7
15310361, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ird.2862, Wiley Online Library on [05/08/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
scheduling methods such as soil moisture devices and
daily evapotranspiration is relatively low.
3.7 |Irrigation information sources used
by farmers
Figures 10 and 11 show the percentage of farmers who
rely on irrigation information to decide when to irrigate.
In both Michigan and Indiana, most farmers rely on
obtaining irrigation information from irrigation equip-
ment dealers, extension agents or university specialists,
private specialists/consultants, neighbouring farms and
electronic information. In Michigan, the percentage of
change over time in each category has been minimal
since 2002, except for electronic information. In Indiana,
farmers relied more on irrigation information from exten-
sion agents or university specialists (17% increase since
2002), private specialists/consultants (21% increase since
2002) and electronic information (26% increase since
2002). Relying on information from neighbouring farms
decreased from 43% in 2002 to 33% in 2017.
3.8 |Irrigation expansion potential in
Michigan
As more irrigated lands are projected in Michigan and
Indiana, the potential geographic areas for more irriga-
tion are investigated. Due to the limited aquifer yield data
available for Indiana, only Michigan was addressed in
this paper. Digital soil data for Michigan and Indiana
FIGURE 8 Number of farms per irrigation decision method: Michigan.
FIGURE 9 Number of farms per irrigation decision method: Indiana.
8DONG ET AL.
15310361, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ird.2862, Wiley Online Library on [05/08/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
were downloaded from the USDA NRCS SSURGO data-
base and categorized by hydrologic soil group (Figure 12)
(USDA NRCS, 2022). Multiple groups of soils are deter-
mined in USDA NRCS. Hydrological Soil Group A soil
has characteristics of high infiltration and transmission
rates and low moisture-holding capacity, and examples of
Group A soils are sands or gravel. Hydrological Soil
Group B has characteristics of moderate infiltration,
moderate water-holding capacity and moderate runoff
volume, and examples of Group B soils are sandy loam,
loam, silt loam and silt. Hydrological Soil Group C soil
has characteristics of slow infiltration and high runoff
volume when wet, and an example of soil is clay loam.
Hydrological Soil Group D soil has characteristics of
slowest infiltration and highest runoff, and an example
soil is clay or having a permanent high water table. In
addition, there are groups of A/D, B/D and C/D. These
soils have a high water table, which indicates a low abil-
ity to drain water out of the root zone. However, if it is
drained, the first letter is considered as the soil type.
Note that the most common hydrologic soil groups in
Michigan are B (30%) and A (23%), while in Indiana, the
most common are groups C (24%) and C/D (21%). Based
on the mapping of irrigated land within the six most irri-
gated counties in Michigan (Cass, St Joseph, Branch,
Kalamazoo, Montcalm and Gratiot) from 2012 aerial
imagery, the results show that the most commonly irri-
gated soil types are group B (57% of all the irrigated soils
in these counties). There is a strong relationship between
coarse-textured soils and areas irrigated. Another impor-
tant factor in mapping irrigation potential is slope. Slopes
less than 5% are desirable, but some irrigation occurs on
slopes up to 10%.
The most important consideration regarding irriga-
tion is the availability of a legal and reliable water supply
with adequate quantity to meet the demands of the crop.
For example, the peak crop water demand in corn and
soybean production in Michigan is 6.35 mm day
–1
(Kelley, 2014). With this value, gross system capacity, the
amount of water required to be pumped to meet the
FIGURE 10 Percentage of farmers who use each source to decide when to irrigate: Michigan.
FIGURE 11 Percentage of farmers who use each source to decide when to irrigate: Indiana.
DONG ET AL.9
15310361, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ird.2862, Wiley Online Library on [05/08/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
demands of the crop, can be calculated using Equation (2)
(Kranz et al., 2008):
Gross system capacity ¼PET 166:7
HRS WAE ð2Þ
where gross capacity is the pumping rate required, L
min
–1
ha
–1
; PET is peak water use rate, mm day
–1
; HRS is
hours of pumping per day (h); WAE is water application
efficiency; and decimal, 166.7 is the conversion factor
between L min
–1
and ha mm h
–1
. For instance, if the
peak crop water use rate is 6.35 mm day
–1
, the pump
operates 24 h day
–1
and water application efficiency is
90%, the gross system capacity would be 49 L min
–1
ha
–1
.
So, a 784 L min
–1
well would be adequate for irrigating
16 ha. For larger irrigation sites such as 32 ha, a yield of
at least 1568 L min
–1
is needed. Multiple 784 L min
–1
wells are sometimes used to irrigate larger parcels. The
Michigan Statewide Groundwater Database was used to
estimate water availability (Figure 13).
The spatial analysis of irrigation potential resulted
from an overlay of land use, soil classification, slope and
water availability (Figure 14). For Michigan, there are
3,446,572 ha of contiguous agricultural land 16 ha or
more in size. Considering only hydrologic soil groups A
and B with slopes of 5% or less, there are 1,884,815 ha of
potential irrigation land (48% of the agricultural land
base). Of these potential irrigation hectares, 1,616,827 ha
occur in areas were well yields are likely to be at least
784 L min
–1
, but only 720,225 ha occur in areas were well
yields are likely to be at least 1568 L min
–1
.
There will be continued interest in expanding irriga-
tion water use, but water availability on agricultural
lands will limit the expansion when needing 1568 L min
–
1
. There is significantly more land where 784 L min
–1
may be available, allowing for 16 ha systems. The St
Joseph basin, south-west Michigan, has a unique combi-
nation of land use, soils and water availability. With
changes in the climate, there may be more irrigation
demand in northern Michigan. However, the expansion
of irrigation is limited by laws that limit the amount of
water that can be withdrawn from streams and aquifers.
3.9 |Future extension activities and
technology needs
As water is a valuable resource and irrigation lands are
expected to increase, research and outreach programmes
focusing on improving water and energy use efficiency
will be important in the future. Several extension bulle-
tins for improving water use efficiency have been pub-
lished and are available to Michigan and Indiana farmers
and industry stakeholders (Dong et al., 2020a,2020b). In
addition, the potential benefits such as water and energy
savings through retrofitting the irrigation system have
been demonstrated (Dong et al., 2023). However, the
information on recommended designs of centre-pivot and
drip irrigation system for specific crop types are lacking.
In the future, collaboration between university specialists
and industry stakeholders to develop an extension bulle-
tin or article for the effective design of irrigation systems
for specific crop types and for soil types is needed. In
Michigan, the Irrigation Generally Accepted Agricultural
and Management Practices (GAAMPs) committee is
formed by a group of people from universities, govern-
mental staff, regulators, well drillers, irrigation dealers,
farm bureaux and farmers. The leveraging of the inputs
from the Irrigation GAAMPs group will be significant to
improve the irrigation outreach programme.
Both Michigan and Indiana irrigators rely on getting
information from extension agents/university specialists,
irrigation dealers and private specialists/consultants. It is
important to build strong relationships between univer-
sity agents/specialists and industries (irrigation dealers,
private specialists/consultants and government agencies)
to effectively disseminate the most up-to-date irrigation
information to farmers.
Michigan and Indiana have experienced more erratic
precipitation over recent decades, driving demand for
FIGURE 12 State soils classified into hydrologic soil groups
(USDA NRCS, 2022).
10 DONG ET AL.
15310361, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ird.2862, Wiley Online Library on [05/08/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
technologies to improve water use efficiency and disease
management, increase crop production and quality and
maximize returns on investment. Weather- and sensor-
based irrigation scheduling tools have been proven to be
effective in improving water use efficiency. However, the
uptake and usage of these irrigation scheduling tools are
limited. In Michigan, only 7% of farms use soil moisture
sensor equipment to determine irrigation decisions
(Kukal et al., 2020). Research-grade remote soil moisture
monitoring systems are commercially available, but the
high cost of commercial systems is a barrier for farmers
and crop consultants. Further, the raw data from a data
logger are not suitable for farmers to make their farm
management decisions without some processing and
interpretation. The interpretation of ‘raw data’to ‘mean-
ingful information’in order to obtain timely decisions is
lacking. Thus, an affordable and easy-to-use sensor moni-
toring system is likely to increase adoption of the irriga-
tion scheduling tool, ultimately improving water use
efficiency.
The Michigan State University Irrigation team has
developed LOCOMOS (Low-Cost Sensor Monitoring
System), which is affordable, has easy access to real-time
sensor data and performs similarly to other commercial
systems (Dong, 2022). In 2021, the project team installed
and evaluated 83 LOCOMOS stations in Michigan and
Indiana (Figure 15). This system continuously measures
soil moisture levels, leaf wetness duration, temperature,
and humidity. The data are sent to an Internet of Things
(IoT) cloud webserver using an embedded cellular
modem. This allows farmers to access the data anywhere
using their computer or smartphone. The collected sensor
data are then calculated using algorithms to determine
irrigation timing and amount. Real-time location-specific
data could be used as input for disease prediction. The
team has developed an Android platform for a LOCO-
MOS smartphone App. This IoT system also has the abil-
ity to send notifications at desired irrigation thresholds
FIGURE 13 Aquifer yield in Michigan. Bedrock or glacial yields greater than 784 L min
–1
(left). Bedrock or glacial yields greater than
1568 L min
–1
(right).
FIGURE 14 Irrigation potential—greater than 16 ha, soils A
and B, slope less than 5% and estimated water supply of greater
than 784 L min
–1
.
DONG ET AL.11
15310361, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ird.2862, Wiley Online Library on [05/08/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
via text message or email. The long-term evaluation of
this technology in different crop types and locations is
needed to estimate the benefit of using the technology,
ultimately increasing its adoption. Lastly, the continued
collaboration with USDA Natural Resources Conserva-
tion Services, Michigan Soybean Promotion Committee,
Michigan Potato Industry Committee, Michigan Depart-
ment of Agriculture and Rural Development, Michigan
Translational Research and Commercialization
(MTRAC) AgBio Innovation Hub, and Michigan State
University AgbioResearch is important.
4|CONCLUSION
This study focused on understanding the changes in irri-
gation in Michigan and Indiana using USDA NASS data.
The observation of changes from 2002 to 2017 helped to
identify critical considerations for developing future irri-
gation research and extension programmes in Michigan
and Indiana. As more irrigated lands are expected in
Michigan and Indiana, effective and strategic planning
for irrigation research and extension programmes will be
needed. Affordable and easy-to-use irrigation scheduling
technology will be needed to increase the adoption rate
of irrigation technology, ultimately improving irrigation
water use efficiency.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to express their appreciation of the
Michigan State University Extension, USDA Natural
Resources Conservation Services (NRCS), Michigan
Soybean Promotion Committee, Michigan Potato Indus-
try Committee, Michigan Department of Agriculture and
Rural Development, and Michigan Translational
Research and Commercialization (MTRAC) AgBio Inno-
vation Hub for supporting the Michigan State University
Irrigation Programme. The information collected from
the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Pro-
ject (Grant No. NR213A750013G015) were used to sup-
port this paper.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
Data were obtained from USDA Farm and Ranch Irriga-
tion Survey.
REFERENCES
Dong, Y. (2022) Irrigation scheduling methods: overview and recent
advances, irrigation and drainage –recent advances. Jan. 2023.
Available from: https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.107386
Dong, Y., Kelley, L. & Anderson, E. (2023) Demonstration of
center pivot uniformity evaluation and retrofit to improve
water use efficiency. Journal of Water Resource and Protection,
15(3), 71–84. Available from: https://doi.org/10.4236/jwarp.
2023.153005
Dong, Y., Kelley, L. & Miller, S. (2020a) Efficient irrigation manage-
ment with center pivot systems. Michigan State University
Extension Bulletin E3439.
Dong, Y., Miller, S. & Kelley, L. (2020b) Improving irrigation water
use efficiency: using soil moisture sensors. Michigan State Uni-
versity Extension Bulletin E3445.
Endres, G. & Kandel, H. (2021) Soybean growth and management.
North Dakota State University Extension Bulletin A1174.
Google. (2022) My google map.
Kelley, L. (2014) Irrigation application volumes. Michigan State
University Irrigation Fact Sheet #14. Available from: https://
www.canr.msu.edu/uploads/235/67987/FactSheets/14_Irrigation
Application.pdf
Kranz, W., Martin, D., Irmak, S., Van Donk, S. & Yont, D. (2008)
Minimum center pivot design capacities in Nebraska. Univer-
sity of Nebraska extension bulletin G1851.
Kukal, M.S., Irmak, S. & Sharma, K. (2020) Development and appli-
cation of a performance and operational feasibility guide to
facilitate adoption of soil moisture sensors. Sustainability, 12(1),
321. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3390/su12010321
Macrotrends. (2022) Soybean prices –45 year historical chart.
Available from: https://www.macrotrends.net/2531/soybean-
prices-historical-chart-data#::text=Interactive%20chart%20of%20
historical%20daily,2023%20is%20%2415.0200%20per%20bushel
Michigan State University Extension. (2014) Value of irrigation to
the Southwest Michigan economy.
Mpanga, I.K., Neumann, G., Schuch, U.K. & Schalau, J. (2020) Sus-
tainable agriculture practices as a driver for increased harvested
cropland among large-scale growers in Arizona: a paradox for
small-scale growers. Advanced Sustainable Systems, 4(4),
FIGURE 15 Installed LOCOMOS locations across Michigan
and Indiana in 2021(Google, 2022).
12 DONG ET AL.
15310361, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ird.2862, Wiley Online Library on [05/08/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
1900143. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/adsu.
201900143
Rudolph, C. (2020) Providing real-time weather information for
growers. Michigan State University.
Schaible, G. (2017) Understanding irrigated agriculture. USDA Sta-
tistic: Farm Practices & Management.
USDA. (2004) 2002 census of agriculture - farm and ranch irrigation
survey. Vol. 3, special studies part 1. AC-02-SS-1.
USDA. (2009) 2007 census of agriculture - farm and ranch irrigation
survey. Vol. 3, special studies part 1. AC-07-SS-1.
USDA. (2012) Fruit and tree nuts outlook. A Report from the Eco-
nomic Research Service.
USDA. (2014a) 2012 census of agriculture - farm and ranch irriga-
tion survey. Vol. 3, special studies part 1. AC-12-SS-1.
USDA. (2014b) Irrigation –results from the 2013 farm and ranch
irrigation survey. 2012 census of agricultural highlights.
USDA. (2019) 2017 census of agriculture –2018 irrigation and
water management survey. Vol. 3, special studies part 1. AC-
17-SS-1.
USDA. (2022) Irrigation & Water use. United States Department of
Agriculture Economic Research Service.
USDA NRCS. (2022) Soil survey geographic database (SSURGO).
How to cite this article: Dong, Y., Christenson,
C., Kelley, L. & Miller, S. (2023) Trends and future
of agricultural irrigation in Michigan and Indiana.
Irrigation and Drainage,1–13. Available from:
https://doi.org/10.1002/ird.2862
DONG ET AL.13
15310361, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ird.2862, Wiley Online Library on [05/08/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
