## 5 Conclusions  
In this research, three irrigation techniques were evaluated and compared, the first one known as traditional or empirical that is applied by many farmers. The second one was called technified irrigation, which applies agricultural knowledge to create the irrigation schedule, and, finally, the smart irrigation proposed in this work. The smart irrigation proposal plans irrigation automatically and intelligently, considering energy management. When comparing the three techniques, it can be observed that traditional irrigation and technical irrigation exceed the moisture limit range, which indicates a waste of the water resources that can generate soil saturation, damaging its maximum growth. Whereas with the intelligent irrigation proposal, the moisture is within the limit band, which benefits plant growth and avoids wasting water.  
The smart irrigation system proposed, when compared to traditional irrigation, decreases diesel consumption by 38.4% and saves 55.42% compared to technified irrigation; by implementing the EMS of the microgrid, the cost for electricity generation creates a saving of 100% compared to technified irrigation. Being more economical, the proposed smart irrigation system optimizes the efficient use of water in the crop and maximizes the use of renewable resources in energy management.  
Finally, the smart irrigation proposal generates the irrigation hours in a crop and supplies the required electrical demand through the use of a microgrid based on renewable resources, at the same time that the environment is respected. The pump on/off system is according to the technical and optimal irrigation conditions. Also, the proposed determines the battery operation set points by taking into account the limitations of the SOC. If necessary, the diesel generator power is defined. The decisions made by the EMS maximizes the use of natural resources. This proposal ensures that water resources is not wasted by keeping the moisture in the desired range, allowing for optimal crop growth and an uninterrupted power supply.  
Figure 7: Energy management of a day with the proposed optimal irrigation.  
**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, W.Q., E.T. and J.L.; methodology, W.Q., E.T. and J.L.; software, W.Q. and E.T.; validation, W.Q., E.T. and J.L.; formal analysis, W.Q. and E.T.; investigation, W.Q., E.T. and J.L.; resources, W.Q. and E.T.; writing--original draft preparation, W.Q., E.T. and J.L.; writing--review and editing, W.Q., E.T. and J.L.; visualization, W.Q., E.T. and J.L.; project administration, J.L.; funding acquisition, J.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.  
This research received no external funding.  
**Institutional Review Board Statement:** Not applicable.  
**Informed Consent Statement:** Not applicable.  
**Data Availability Statement:** Not applicable.  
**Acknowledgments:** This work was supported in part by the Universidad de las Fuerzas Armadas ESPE and KU Leuven through the Project \"MIRA-ESTE: Specific, Innovative Microgrids Solutions (Accounting for Environmental, Social, Technological and Economic Aspects) for isolated rural areas of Ecuador\" under Project 2020-EXT-007, and in part by the Vlaamse Interuniversitaire Raad (VILR)-Universitaire Onrukikkelingssamenwerkting (UOS) and the Belgium Development Cooperation (DGD) under Project EC20205 IN322A101. In addition, the authors would like to thank the Sudhintersection de Redes, Estategia y Conocimiento (REC), Agencia Nacional de Investigacion y Desarrollo (ANID) of Chile, through the Project \"Electric microgrids for an energetically sustainable agriculture\", 2021-2022.  
**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.