Search

Soil moisture profile sensors (SMPSs) have a high potential for climate-smart agriculture due to their easy handling and ability to perform simultaneous measurements at different depths. To date, an accurate and easy-to-use method for the evaluation of long SMPSs is not available. In this study, we developed laboratory and field experiments to evaluate three different SMPSs (SoilVUE10, Drill&Drop, and SMT500) in terms of measurement accuracy, sensor-to-sensor variability, and temperature stability. The laboratory experiment features a temperature-controlled lysimeter to evaluate intra-sensor variability and temperature stability of SMPSs. The field experiment features a water level-controlled sandbox and reference TDR measurements to evaluate the soil water measurement accuracy of the SMPS. In both experiments, a well-characterized fine sand was used as measurement medium to ensure homogeneous dielectric properties in the measurement domain of the sensors. The laboratory experiments with the lysimeter showed that the Drill&Drop sensor has the highest temperature sensitivity with a decrease of 0.014 m3 m−3 per 10 °C, but at the same time showed the lowest intra- and inter-sensor variability. The field experiment with the sandbox showed that all three SMPSs have a similar performance (average RMSE ≈ 0.023 m3 m−3) with higher uncertainties at intermediate soil moisture contents. The presented combination of laboratory and field tests were found to be well suited to evaluate the performance of SMPSs and will be used to test additional SMPSs in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Soil water content is a key variable for understanding and modelling ecohydrological processes. Low-cost electromagnetic sensors are increasingly being used to characterize the spatio-temporal dynamics of soil water content, despite the reduced accuracy of such sensors as compared to reference electromagnetic soil water content sensing methods such as time domain reflectometry. Here, we present an effective calibration method to improve the measurement accuracy of low-cost soil water content sensors taking the recently developed SMT100 sensor (Truebner GmbH, Neustadt, Germany) as an example. We calibrated the sensor output of more than 700 SMT100 sensors to permittivity using a standard procedure based on five reference media with a known apparent dielectric permittivity (1 < Ka < 34.8). Our results showed that a sensor-specific calibration improved the accuracy of the calibration compared to single "universal" calibration. The associated additional effort in calibrating each sensor individually is relaxed by a dedicated calibration setup that enables the calibration of large numbers of sensors in limited time while minimizing errors in the calibration process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Soil water content (SWC) monitoring is often used to optimize agricultural irrigation. Commonly, capacitance sensors are used for this task. However, the factory calibrations have been often criticized for their limited accuracy. The aim of this paper is to test the degree of improvement of various sensor- and soil-specific calibration options compared to factory calibrations by taking the 10HS sensor as an example. To this end, a two-step sensor calibration was carried out. In the first step, the sensor response was related to dielectric permittivity using calibration in media with well-defined permittivity. The second step involved the establishment of a site-specific relationship between permittivity and soil water content using undisturbed soil samples and time domain reflectometry (TDR) measurements. Our results showed that a model, which considered the mean porosity and a fitted dielectric permittivity of the solid phase for each soil and depth, provided the best fit between bulk permittivity and SWC. Most importantly, it was found that the two-step calibration approach (RMSE: 1.03 vol.%) provided more accurate SWC estimates compared to the factory calibration (RMSE: 5.33 vol.%). Finally, we used these calibrations on data from drip-irrigated almond and apple orchards and compared the factory calibration with our two-step calibration approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]