Assessing Errors and Accuracy in Dew-Point Potentiometer and Pressure Plate Extractor Measurements

Soil water potential can be determined quickly with a WP4 device, which uses a chilled mirror dew point technique. The instrument can be used to check the soil water potential of samples drained in a porous plate extractor (PPE). However, soil water potential measured in both devices on the same soil sample may not be in agreement, mainly in the wet-end of the water retention curve. This work investigates this problem, and further evaluates how equilibrating soil samples in a PPE with different permeable material at the sample bottom (filter paper [FP], polyester fabric [PE], and synthetic knitwear [SK]) affects the final water potential. Soil samples (soil fraction <2 mm) of an Ultisol and an Oxisol were drained at 0.5 and 1.5 MPa pressure in a PPE and the water potential of these samples was measured in a WP4. Another fraction of the same soil was used to obtain a WP4 water retention curve. The permeable materials caused large differences in water retention at 0.5 MPa pressure (0.006 g g(-1) in the Oxisol and 0.021 g g(-1) in the Ultisol), and the FP allowed more water drainage than PE and SK, indicating the latter two should be avoided when using a PPE to determine water extraction. In both soils, the water potential measured in the WP4 was lower than -0.5 MPa for samples under 0.5 MPa pressure and greater than -1.5 MPa for samples under 1.5 MPa pressure. The increase of residual (fitted minus measured) in the WP4 water retention curve indicated that above -0.7 MPa the precision of WP4 measurements decreased drastically.