Cargando…

Performance Assessment of Five Different Soil Moisture Sensors under Irrigated Field Conditions in Oklahoma

Meeting the ever-increasing global food, feed, and fiber demands while conserving the quantity and quality of limited agricultural water resources and maintaining the sustainability of irrigated agriculture requires optimizing irrigation management using advanced technologies such as soil moisture s...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Datta, Sumon, Taghvaeian, Saleh, Ochsner, Tyson E., Moriasi, Daniel, Gowda, Prasanna, Steiner, Jean L.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6264076/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30400674
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s18113786
_version_ 1783375412904067072
author Datta, Sumon
Taghvaeian, Saleh
Ochsner, Tyson E.
Moriasi, Daniel
Gowda, Prasanna
Steiner, Jean L.
author_facet Datta, Sumon
Taghvaeian, Saleh
Ochsner, Tyson E.
Moriasi, Daniel
Gowda, Prasanna
Steiner, Jean L.
author_sort Datta, Sumon
collection PubMed
description Meeting the ever-increasing global food, feed, and fiber demands while conserving the quantity and quality of limited agricultural water resources and maintaining the sustainability of irrigated agriculture requires optimizing irrigation management using advanced technologies such as soil moisture sensors. In this study, the performance of five different soil moisture sensors was evaluated for their accuracy in two irrigated cropping systems, one each in central and southwest Oklahoma, with variable levels of soil salinity and clay content. With factory calibrations, three of the sensors had sufficient accuracies at the site with lower levels of salinity and clay, while none of them performed satisfactorily at the site with higher levels of salinity and clay. The study also investigated the performance of different approaches (laboratory, sensor-based, and the Rosetta model) to determine soil moisture thresholds required for irrigation scheduling, i.e., field capacity (FC) and wilting point (WP). The estimated FC and WP by the Rosetta model were closest to the laboratory-measured data using undisturbed soil cores, regardless of the type and number of input parameters used in the Rosetta model. The sensor-based method of ranking the readings resulted in overestimation of FC and WP. Finally, soil moisture depletion, a critical parameter in effective irrigation scheduling, was calculated by combining sensor readings and FC estimates. Ranking-based FC resulted in overestimation of soil moisture depletion, even for accurate sensors at the site with lower levels of salinity and clay.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6264076
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-62640762018-12-12 Performance Assessment of Five Different Soil Moisture Sensors under Irrigated Field Conditions in Oklahoma Datta, Sumon Taghvaeian, Saleh Ochsner, Tyson E. Moriasi, Daniel Gowda, Prasanna Steiner, Jean L. Sensors (Basel) Article Meeting the ever-increasing global food, feed, and fiber demands while conserving the quantity and quality of limited agricultural water resources and maintaining the sustainability of irrigated agriculture requires optimizing irrigation management using advanced technologies such as soil moisture sensors. In this study, the performance of five different soil moisture sensors was evaluated for their accuracy in two irrigated cropping systems, one each in central and southwest Oklahoma, with variable levels of soil salinity and clay content. With factory calibrations, three of the sensors had sufficient accuracies at the site with lower levels of salinity and clay, while none of them performed satisfactorily at the site with higher levels of salinity and clay. The study also investigated the performance of different approaches (laboratory, sensor-based, and the Rosetta model) to determine soil moisture thresholds required for irrigation scheduling, i.e., field capacity (FC) and wilting point (WP). The estimated FC and WP by the Rosetta model were closest to the laboratory-measured data using undisturbed soil cores, regardless of the type and number of input parameters used in the Rosetta model. The sensor-based method of ranking the readings resulted in overestimation of FC and WP. Finally, soil moisture depletion, a critical parameter in effective irrigation scheduling, was calculated by combining sensor readings and FC estimates. Ranking-based FC resulted in overestimation of soil moisture depletion, even for accurate sensors at the site with lower levels of salinity and clay. MDPI 2018-11-05 /pmc/articles/PMC6264076/ /pubmed/30400674 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s18113786 Text en © 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Datta, Sumon
Taghvaeian, Saleh
Ochsner, Tyson E.
Moriasi, Daniel
Gowda, Prasanna
Steiner, Jean L.
Performance Assessment of Five Different Soil Moisture Sensors under Irrigated Field Conditions in Oklahoma
title Performance Assessment of Five Different Soil Moisture Sensors under Irrigated Field Conditions in Oklahoma
title_full Performance Assessment of Five Different Soil Moisture Sensors under Irrigated Field Conditions in Oklahoma
title_fullStr Performance Assessment of Five Different Soil Moisture Sensors under Irrigated Field Conditions in Oklahoma
title_full_unstemmed Performance Assessment of Five Different Soil Moisture Sensors under Irrigated Field Conditions in Oklahoma
title_short Performance Assessment of Five Different Soil Moisture Sensors under Irrigated Field Conditions in Oklahoma
title_sort performance assessment of five different soil moisture sensors under irrigated field conditions in oklahoma
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6264076/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30400674
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s18113786
work_keys_str_mv AT dattasumon performanceassessmentoffivedifferentsoilmoisturesensorsunderirrigatedfieldconditionsinoklahoma
AT taghvaeiansaleh performanceassessmentoffivedifferentsoilmoisturesensorsunderirrigatedfieldconditionsinoklahoma
AT ochsnertysone performanceassessmentoffivedifferentsoilmoisturesensorsunderirrigatedfieldconditionsinoklahoma
AT moriasidaniel performanceassessmentoffivedifferentsoilmoisturesensorsunderirrigatedfieldconditionsinoklahoma
AT gowdaprasanna performanceassessmentoffivedifferentsoilmoisturesensorsunderirrigatedfieldconditionsinoklahoma
AT steinerjeanl performanceassessmentoffivedifferentsoilmoisturesensorsunderirrigatedfieldconditionsinoklahoma