• Title of article

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

  • Author/Authors

    J.L. Varble، نويسنده , , J.L. Ch?vez، نويسنده ,

  • Issue Information
    روزنامه با شماره پیاپی سال 2011
  • Pages
    14
  • From page
    93
  • To page
    106
  • 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, m3 m−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; dS m−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 ± 0.035 m3 m−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 equation was as accurate as the calibrated logarithmic equation and can be used to convert soil water potential (kPa) to volumetric soil water content (m3 m−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.
  • Keywords
    Soil moisture determination , Soil water sensor calibration , Irrigation monitoring , Water management
  • Journal title
    Agricultural Water Management
  • Serial Year
    2011
  • Journal title
    Agricultural Water Management
  • Record number

    1326996