In Situ Comparison of Three Dielectric Soil Moisture Sensors in Drip Irrigated Sandy Soils

The number of different sensors available for measuring soil water content has increased since the introduction of time domain reflectometry (TDR). In this study the performances of the CS616 (Campbell Scientific, Ltd., Shepshed, UK) sensor and the Aquaflex (Streat Instruments., Ltd, Christchurch, NZ) sensor were compared with TDR using both vertically and horizontally installed sensors. It was found that the CS616 manufacturer's standard calibration needed to be linearly transformed, y = 0.59 x + 0.01 (m3 m−3), to obtain accurate measurements in a sandy soil with horizontally installed probes. In two different soils the standard calibration performed better, and smaller corrections were found, y = 0.87 x − 0.01 for a sandy loam and y = 0.96 x − 0.001 (m3 m−3) for a sandy loam with a larger clay content, respectively. The CS616 sensor was most likely affected by electrical conductivity at 1.6 dS m−1 in the soil solution when measuring in drip-fertigated potatoes ( Solanum tuberosum L.). In the period of fertigation, the sensor overestimated the soil water content in the sandy soil by 0.01 to 0.11 m3 m−3 compared with TDR measurements. The dynamic response of the vertically installed sensor to changes in soil water content was shown to be good, and the sensor may be useful for assessing threshold values in water content for the start and end of irrigation. The performance of the Aquaflex sensor was investigated in the sandy soil only, and the sensor was found to reflect the dynamics of soil water content well. However, the manufacturer's standard calibration underestimated the soil water content in the order of 0.10 m3 m−3 and even showed negative values.

[1]  S. Zegelin,et al.  Improved field probes for soil water content and electrical conductivity measurement using time domain reflectometry , 1989 .

[2]  J. Wraith,et al.  High-Resolution Measurement of Root Water Uptake Using Automated Time-Domain Reflectometry , 1991 .

[3]  Evaporation from bare soil in a temperate humid climate—measurement using micro-lysimeters and time domain reflectometry , 1995 .

[4]  A. P. Annan,et al.  Electromagnetic determination of soil water content: Measurements in coaxial transmission lines , 1980 .

[5]  F. Nachtergaele Soil taxonomy—a basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys: Second edition, by Soil Survey Staff, 1999, USDA–NRCS, Agriculture Handbook number 436, Hardbound , 2001 .

[6]  G. C. Topp,et al.  Electromagnetic Determination of Soil Water Content Using TDR: I. Applications to Wetting Fronts and Steep Gradients , 1982 .

[7]  B. Leib,et al.  FIELD EVALUATION AND PERFORMANCE COMPARISON OF SOIL MOISTURE SENSORS , 2003 .

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

[9]  Jeffrey P. Walker,et al.  In situ measurement of soil moisture: a comparison of techniques | NOVA. The University of Newcastle's Digital Repository , 2004 .

[10]  T. Miyamoto,et al.  Dielectric coated water content reflectometer for improved monitoring of near surface soil moisture in heavily fertilized paddy field , 2004 .

[11]  G. C. Topp,et al.  Time-Domain Reflectometry (TDR) and Its Application to Irrigation Scheduling* , 1985 .

[12]  O. H. Jacobsen,et al.  A laboratory calibration of time domain reflectometry for soil water measurement including effects of bulk density and texture , 1993 .

[13]  R. Berndtsson,et al.  Texture and electrical conductivity effects on temperature dependency in time domain reflectometry , 1998 .