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

J.L. Varble and J.L. Chávez

Agricultural Water Management, 2011, vol. 101, issue 1, 93-106

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, 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.

Keywords: Soil moisture determination; Soil water sensor calibration; Irrigation monitoring; Water management (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2011
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (8)

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378377411002484
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:agiwat:v:101:y:2011:i:1:p:93-106

DOI: 10.1016/j.agwat.2011.09.007

Access Statistics for this article

Agricultural Water Management is currently edited by B.E. Clothier, W. Dierickx, J. Oster and D. Wichelns

More articles in Agricultural Water Management from Elsevier
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Catherine Liu ().