Development of a Soil Water Sensor using Gypsum Block and a Multimeter

Author(s):  
CJ Ejieji ◽  
MB Fasasi
Keyword(s):  
2003 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 650
Author(s):  
Bobbie McMichael ◽  
Robert J. Lascano

2015 ◽  
Vol 92 (5) ◽  
pp. 582-592 ◽  
Author(s):  
Seth A. Byrd ◽  
Diane L. Rowland ◽  
Jerry Bennett ◽  
Lincoln Zotarelli ◽  
David Wright ◽  
...  

2007 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 46-52 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eugênio F. Coelho ◽  
Delfran B. dos Santos ◽  
Carlos A. V. de Azevedo

This research had as its objective the investigation of an alternative strategy for soil sensor placement to be used in citrus orchards irrigated by micro sprinkler. An experiment was carried out in a Tahiti lemon orchard under three irrigation intervals of 1, 2 and 3 days. Soil water potential, soil water content distribution and root water extraction were monitored by a time-domain-reflectometry (TDR) in several positions in soil profiles radial to the trees. Root length and root length density were determined from digital root images at the same positions in the soil profiles where water content was monitored. Results showed the importance of considering root water extraction in the definition of soil water sensor placement. The profile regions for soil water sensor placement should correspond to the intersection of the region containing at least 80% of total root length and the region of at least 80% of total water extraction. In case of tensiometers, the region of soil water potential above -80 kPa should be included in the intersection.


2003 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 650-654 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bobbie McMichael ◽  
Robert J. Lascano

2003 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 650-654 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. McMichael ◽  
R. J. Lascano

Sensors ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (13) ◽  
pp. 2872 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yong Chen ◽  
Gary W. Marek ◽  
Thomas H. Marek ◽  
Kevin R. Heflin ◽  
Dana O. Porter ◽  
...  

Performance evaluations and corrections of soil water sensors have not been studied using different installation orientations under various irrigation treatments in the Texas High Plains. This study evaluated the performance of four sensors using factory calibration and derived field corrections as compared to calibrated neutron moisture meters (NMMs). Sensor performance was assessed using horizontal insertion, laid horizontal placement, and vertical insertion at 15.2, 45.7, and 76.2 cm depths in a clay loam soil with three irrigation treatments. Results indicated the factory-calibrated Acclima 315 L performed satisfactorily using horizontal insertion as compared to NMM measurements at 45.7 and 76.2 cm depths with a ±2% mean difference (MD) and <3.5% root mean square error (RMSE). The factory-calibrated Acclima 315 L using horizontal insertion also performed satisfactorily across all irrigation treatments according to soil profile water storage (MD = 0.36% and RMSE = 3.25%). Generally, the factory-calibrated Decagon GS1 and Campbell Scientific 655 using vertical insertion agreed more closely with NMM measurements compared with other installation orientations. There was a significant underestimation of water storage (>60 mm) in the 0.9 m soil profile using the Watermark 200SS. In summary, field corrections are required for Decagon GS1, Campbell Scientific 655, and Watermark 200SS sensors.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document