My Account: Log In | Join | Renew
Search
Author
Title
Vol.
Issue
Year
1st Page

Abstract

  VZJ Banner

This article in VZJ

  1. Vol. 7 No. 3, p. 992-1000
     
    Received: Dec 31, 2007
    Published: Aug, 2008


    * Corresponding author(s): Steve.Evett@ars.usda.gov
 View
 Download
 Alerts
 Permissions

doi:10.2136/vzj2008.0001

Field Calibration Accuracy and Utility of Four Down-Hole Water Content Sensors

  1. Naem Th. Mazahriha,
  2. Nedal Katbeh-Baderb,
  3. Steven R. Evett *c,
  4. James E. Ayarsd and
  5. Thomas J. Troute
  1. a National Centre for Agricultural Research and Extension, Amman-Irbid Highway St., P.O. Box 639, Baq'a 19381, Jordan
    b Environment Quality Authority, El-Bireh, P.O. Box 3841, Ramallah, Palestine
    c USDA-ARS, Conservation and Production Research Lab., P.O. Drawer 10, Bushland, TX 79012
    d USDA-ARS Water Management Research Lab., 9611 South Riverbend Ave., Parlier, CA 93648
    e USDA-ARS Water Management Research Unit, 2150 Centre Ave., Building D, Suite 320, Fort Collins, CO 80526-8119. Mention of trade names or commercial products in this article is solely for the purpose of providing specific information and does not imply recommendation or endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture

Abstract

Soil water balance studies of profile water content, changes in stored water, crop water use, and spatial variability of water content and use require accurate soil water determinations that are representative across at least field-sized areas. Several capacitance and other electromagnetic (EM) sensors are commercially available for use in access tubes to determine profile water content. Scientists and practitioners need to know if they are suitable replacements for the neutron moisture meter (NMM) in terms of accuracy and utility. In a field calibration of the NMM and three EM sensors in a Panoche clay loam soil in the San Joaquin Valley of California, three access tubes were installed in a site dried by plant water uptake and three were installed in an adjacent plot wetted to saturation and allowed to drain. Sensors were read and volumetric water content samples taken at several depths at each access tube; calibrations of water content vs. sensor reading were calculated for each depth and for appropriate combinations of depths by regression analysis. Calibrations for the EM sensors changed rapidly with depth, often requiring separate calibrations for every 10- or 20-cm depth range, and were relatively inaccurate (RMSE of 0.015–0.063 m3 m−3). The NMM is the preferred choice for accurate profile water content and change in storage determination. In general, the EM sensors cannot be recommended for profile water content or change in storage determinations due to their relatively less accurate (larger RMSE values) calibrations, strong dependence of calibration slopes and exponents on depth, probable dependence of the calibrations on soil bulk electrical conductivity (BEC), and the likelihood of BEC changes in the field during the irrigation season.

  Please view the pdf by using the Full Text (PDF) link under 'View' to the left.

Copyright © 2008. Soil Science SocietySoil Science Society of America

Facebook   Twitter