IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/agiwat/v101y2011i1p93-106.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Performance evaluation and calibration of soil water content and potential sensors for agricultural soils in eastern Colorado

Author

Listed:
  • Varble, J.L.
  • Chávez, J.L.

Abstract

This study evaluated the performance of three soil water content sensors (CS616/625, Campbell Scientific, Inc., Logan, UT; TDT, Acclima, Inc., Meridian, ID; 5TE, Decagon Devices, Inc., Pullman, WA) and a soil water potential sensor (Watermark 200SS, Irrometer Company, Inc., Riverside, CA) in laboratory and field conditions. Soil water content/potential values measured by the sensors were compared with corresponding volumetric water content (θv, m3m−3) values derived from gravimetric samples, ranging approximately from the permanent wilting point (PWP) to field capacity (FC) volumetric water contents. Under laboratory and field conditions, the factory-based calibrations of θv did not consistently achieve the required accuracy for any sensor in the sandy clay loam, loamy sand, and clay loam soils of eastern Colorado. Salt (calcium chloride dihydrate) added to the soils in the laboratory caused the CS616, TDT, and 5TE sensors to experience errors in their volumetric water content readings with increased bulk soil electrical conductivity (EC; dSm−1). Results from field tests in sandy clay loam and loamy sand soils indicated that a linear calibration (equations provided) for the TDT, CS616 and 5TE sensors (and a logarithmic calibration for the Watermark sensors) could reduce the errors of the factory calibration of θv to less than 0.02±0.035m3m−3. Furthermore, the performance evaluation tests confirmed that each individual sensor needed a unique calibration equation for every soil type and location in the field. In addition, the calibrated van Genuchten (1980) equation was as accurate as the calibrated logarithmic equation and can be used to convert soil water potential (kPa) to volumetric soil water content (m3m−3). Finally, analysis of the θv field data indicated that the CS616, 5TE and Watermark sensor readings were influenced by diurnal fluctuations in soil temperature, while the TDT was not influenced. Therefore, it is recommended that the soil temperature be considered in the calibration process of the CS616, 5TE, and Watermark sensors. Further research will be aimed towards determining the need of sensor calibration for every agricultural season.

Suggested Citation

  • Varble, J.L. & Chávez, J.L., 2011. "Performance evaluation and calibration of soil water content and potential sensors for agricultural soils in eastern Colorado," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 101(1), pages 93-106.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:agiwat:v:101:y:2011:i:1:p:93-106
    DOI: 10.1016/j.agwat.2011.09.007
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378377411002484
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.agwat.2011.09.007?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Pascual-Seva, Núria & San Bautista, Alberto & López-Galarza, Salvador & Maroto, José Vicente & Pascual, Bernardo, 2018. "Influence of different drip irrigation strategies on irrigation water use efficiency on chufa (Cyperus esculentus L. var. sativus Boeck.) crop," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 208(C), pages 406-413.
    2. Sharma, Kiran & Irmak, Suat & Kukal, Meetpal S., 2021. "Propagation of soil moisture sensing uncertainty into estimation of total soil water, evapotranspiration and irrigation decision-making," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 243(C).
    3. Hajdu, Istvan & Yule, Ian & Bretherton, Mike & Singh, Ranvir & Hedley, Carolyn, 2019. "Field performance assessment and calibration of multi-depth AquaCheck capacitance-based soil moisture probes under permanent pasture for hill country soils," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 217(C), pages 332-345.
    4. Visconti, Fernando & de Paz, José Miguel & Martínez, Delfina & Molina, Mª José, 2014. "Laboratory and field assessment of the capacitance sensors Decagon 10HS and 5TE for estimating the water content of irrigated soils," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 111-119.
    5. Arias, María & Notarnicola, Claudia & Campo-Bescós, Miguel Ángel & Arregui, Luis Miguel & Álvarez-Mozos, Jesús, 2023. "Evaluation of soil moisture estimation techniques based on Sentinel-1 observations over wheat fields," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 287(C).
    6. Singh, Jasreman & Ge, Yufeng & Heeren, Derek M. & Walter-Shea, Elizabeth & Neale, Christopher M.U. & Irmak, Suat & Woldt, Wayne E. & Bai, Geng & Bhatti, Sandeep & Maguire, Mitchell S., 2021. "Inter-relationships between water depletion and temperature differential in row crop canopies in a sub-humid climate," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 256(C).
    7. Younsuk Dong & Steve Miller & Lyndon Kelley, 2020. "Performance Evaluation of Soil Moisture Sensors in Coarse- and Fine-Textured Michigan Agricultural Soils," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-11, December.
    8. Singh, J. & Lo, T. & Rudnick, D.R. & Dorr, T.J. & Burr, C.A. & Werle, R. & Shaver, T.M. & Muñoz-Arriola, F., 2018. "Performance assessment of factory and field calibrations for electromagnetic sensors in a loam soil," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 196(C), pages 87-98.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:agiwat:v:101:y:2011:i:1:p:93-106. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/agwat .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.