Evaluating the Effect of Soil Texture on the Response of Three Types of Sensors Used to Monitor Soil Water Status

Accurate monitoring of soil water status can be an important component of precision irrigation water management. A variety of commercial sensors measure soil water status by relating sensor electrical output to soil water content or soil water potential. However, sensor electrical output can also be affected by soil characteristics other than water content, such as soil texture, salinity, and temperature. This makes it difficult to accurately measure and interpret soil water status without prior on-site calibration. In this study, we investigated the impact of soil texture on the response of three types of sensors commonly used to monitor soil water status, including the Decagon EC-5, the Vegetronix VH400, and the Watermark 200ss granular matrix sensor. A replicated laboratory experiment was conducted to evaluate the response of these types of sensors using four major soil textural classes commonly found in South Carolina. We found that the three types of sensors had a significant response to changes in soil water content, but while the EC-5 and VH400 sensors had a linear response, the Watermark 200ss had a curvilinear response that was explained by an exponential decay function. The response of the three sensor types, however, was significantly affected by soil texture, which will significantly affect the trigger point used to initiate irrigation based on the output from these sensors. Therefore, it is suggested that guidelines on how to use these sensors for local soils need to be developed and made available to farmers, so that they can make better irrigation scheduling decisions.

[1]  Suat Irmak,et al.  EC06-783 Watermark Granular Matrix Sensor to Measure Soil Matric Potential for Irrigation Management , 2006 .

[2]  Charles A. Shapiro,et al.  Large-scale on-farm implementation of soil moisture-based irrigation management strategies for increasing maize water productivity , 2012 .

[3]  Ahmad Khalilian,et al.  Site-Specific Irrigation Management in Coastal Plain Soils , 2008 .

[4]  J. A. Tolk,et al.  Soil Profile Water Content Determination: Sensor Accuracy, Axial Response, Calibration, Temperature Dependence, and Precision , 2006 .

[5]  T. J. Dean,et al.  SOIL MOISTURE MEASUREMENT BY AN IMPROVED CAPACITANCE TECHNIQUE, PART I. SENSOR DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE , 1987 .

[6]  W. Rawls,et al.  Estimating generalized soil-water characteristics from texture , 1986 .

[7]  G. Miller SENSOR BASED IRRIGATION EFFECTS ON ROOT DISTRIBUTION AND GROWTH OF GRAFTED AND NON-GRAFTED WATERMELONS , 2012 .

[8]  Jean L. Steiner,et al.  PRECISION OF NEUTRON SCATTERING AND CAPACITANCE TYPE SOIL WATER CONTENT GAUGES FROM FIELD CALIBRATION , 1995 .

[9]  David D. Tarkalson,et al.  USE OF TIME DOMAIN REFLECTOMETRY FOR CONTINUOUS MONITORING OF NITRATE-NITROGEN IN SOIL AND WATER , 2006 .

[10]  Steven R. Evett,et al.  Evapotranspiration by Soil Water Balance Using TDR and Neutron Scattering , 1993 .

[11]  Ronald T. Atkins,et al.  Soil Moisture Determinations Using Capacitance Probe Methodology , 1998 .

[12]  David G. Chandler,et al.  Field Calibration of Water Content Reflectometers , 2004 .

[13]  G. Gee,et al.  Particle size analysis by hydrometer: a simplified method for routine textural analysis and a sensitivity test of measurement parameters. , 1979 .

[14]  Steven R. Evett,et al.  Soil Material, Temperature, and Salinity Effects on Calibration of Multisensor Capacitance Probes , 2000 .

[15]  D. Z. Haman,et al.  PERFORMANCE OF THE WATERMARK. GRANULAR MATRI X SENSOR IN SANDY SOILS , 2001 .

[16]  Michael H. Young,et al.  Monitoring Near‐Surface Soil Water Storage in Turfgrass using Time Domain Reflectometry and Weighing Lysimetry , 1997 .