4.3 Article

Comparison of Laboratory and Field Calibration of a Soil-Moisture Capacitance Probe for Various Soils

Journal

JOURNAL OF IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE ENGINEERING
Volume 138, Issue 4, Pages 310-321

Publisher

ASCE-AMER SOC CIVIL ENGINEERS
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)IR.1943-4774.0000418

Keywords

Soil-moisture sensor calibration; EC-20; Middle Rio Grande; Field and laboratory calibration; Dielectric soil-moisture probe; Factory-equation accuracy; Low-cost capacitance sensor; Precision irrigation; Increasing water-use efficiency

Funding

  1. New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission
  2. Endangered Species Act Collaborative Program

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Throughout the American west, irrigated agriculture has been targeted to increase water-use efficiency because of increased urban demands. Soil-moisture sensors offer a method to achieve efficiency improvements, but have found limited use primarily because of high cost and lack of soil-specific calibration equations. In this paper, the Decagon EC-20 soil-moisture sensor (a low-cost capacitance sensor) has been examined and a unique laboratory-calibration method has been developed. Field-and laboratory-calibration equations were developed for six soil types (sand, sandy loam, silt loam, loam, clay loam, and clay) in the Middle Rio Grande Valley for alfalfa and grass hay fields. The average absolute error in volumetric water content for field calibration was 0.430 m(3)/m(3), and 0.012 m(3)/m(3) for the laboratory calibration. The factory-calibration equation for the EC-20 was also evaluated and found to yield an average absolute error of 0.049 m(3)/m(3). In this study, it was found that the EC-20 is a reliable, cost-effective, and accurate sensor, and it is recommended that the laboratory-calibration method presented in this paper be used to obtain maximum accuracy. It is also recommended that the field calibration of the EC-20 soil-moisture sensor be foregone, as this type of calibration exhibits large error rates that are associated with colocation of samples, voids, organic residues, and root densities. Additionally, it was found that the field-calibration method was time-consuming, covered a small range of moisture content values, and was destructive to the area around installed sensors, which could lead to additional measurement errors. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)IR.1943-4774.0000418. (C) 2012 American Society of Civil Engineers.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available