Skip to content

Posts from the ‘Soil moisture sensors’ Category

Oct 31

Water Potential/Water Content:  When to Use Dual Measurements

In a previous post, we discussed water potential as a better indicator of plant stress than water content.  However, in most situations, it’s useful to take dual measurements and measure both water content and water potential.  In a recent email, one of our scientist colleagues explains why: “The earlier article on water potential was excellent.  But what should be added is an explanation that the intensity measurement doesn’t translate directly into the quantity of water stored or needed. That information is also required when managing water through irrigation.  This is why I really like the dual measurement approach. I am excited about the possibilities of information that can be gleaned from the combined set of water content, water potential, and spectral reflectance data.”

Field plantation with a sprinkler in the middle of it

Potato field irrigation

Managing Irrigation

The value of combined data can be illustrated by what’s been happening at the Brigham Young University Turf Farm, where we’ve been trying to optimize irrigation of turfgrass (read about it here). As we were thinking about how to control irrigation, we decided the best way was to measure water potential.  However, because we were in a sandy soil where water was freely available, we also guessed we might need water content. Figure 1 illustrates why.

Turf farm data concerning water potential diagram

Figure 1: Turf farm data: water potential only

Early water potential data looks uninteresting; it tells us there’s plenty of water most of the time, but doesn’t indicate if we’re applying too much.  In addition, if we zoom in to times when water potential begins to change, we see that it reaches a stress condition quickly.  Within a couple of days, it is into the stress region and in danger of causing our grass to go into dormancy.  Water potential data is critical to be able to understand when we absolutely need to water again, but because the data doesn’t change until it’s almost too late, we don’t have everything we need.

Turf farm data dual measurements data diagram

Figure 2: Turf farm data, volumetric water content only

Unlike water potential, the water content data (Figure 2) are much more dynamic. The sensors not only show the subtle changes due to daily water uptake but also indicate how much water needs to be applied to maintain the root zone at an optimal level. However, with water content data alone, we don’t know where that optimal level is. For example, early in the season, we observe large changes in water content over four or five days and may assume, based upon onsite observations, that it’s time to irrigate. But, in reality, we know little about the availability of water to the plant. Thus, we need to put the two graphs together (Figure 3).

Water potential and vol. water content diagram

Figure 3: Turfgrass data: both water potential and volumetric water content together.

In Figure 3, we have the total picture of what’s going on in the soil at the BYU turf farm. We see the water content going down and can tell at what percentage the plants begin to stress.  We also see when we’ve got too much water: when the water content is well above where our water potential sensors start to sense plant stress. With this information, we can tell that the turfgrass has an optimal range of 12% to 17% volumetric water content. Anything below or above that range will be too little or too much water.  

Soil water potential and volumetric water content diagram

Figure 4: Turfgrass soil moisture release curve (black). Other colors are examples of moisture release curves for different types of soil.

Dual measurements will also allow you to make in situ soil moisture release curves like the one above (Figure 4), which detail the relationship between water potential and water content.  Scientists can evaluate these curves and understand many things about the soil, such as hydraulic conductivity and total water availability.

Download the “Researcher’s complete guide to water potential”—>

Download the “Researcher’s complete guide to soil moisture”—>

Get more information on applied environmental research in our

LinkedInMessengerRedditThreadsCopy

Oct 9

31 Comments

Water Content helps Turf Growers find Water/Nutrient Balance

Many athletes don’t like artificial turf. They say it’s hot, uncomfortable to run on, causes burns when you slide or fall on it, and changes the way a ball moves.  Professional women’s soccer players even started a lawsuit over FIFA’s decision to use artificial turf in the 2015 Women’s World Cup.

Soccer players running after the soccer ball on a green field

Soccer players on natural turf.

Some universities—including Brigham Young University—have responded to athlete concerns by using natural turf fields for practice and in their stadiums. But the challenge is to develop plants and management practices for natural turf that help it stand up to frequent use and allow it to perform well even during the difficult fall months. It’s a perfect research opportunity.

BYU turf professor and manager of BYU sports turf, Bryan Hopkins and his colleagues in the Plant and Wildlife Department, have been able to set up a new state-of-the-art facility to study plants and soil in both greenhouse and natural conditions. The facility includes a large section of residential and stadium turfgrass.  

Before Soil Sensors

Initially, BYU maintained the turf farm grass on a standard, timer-based irrigation control system, but over time they realized that understanding the performance of their turf relative to moisture content and nutrient load is crucial. Last year during Memorial Day weekend their turf farm irrigation system stopped working when no one was around to notice.  During those four days temperatures rose to 40 C (100 F), and the grass in the field slipped into dormancy due to heat stress. In response, Dr. Hopkins began imagining a system of soil moisture sensors to constantly monitor the performance of the turf grass.  He wanted not only to make sure the turf never died but also to really understand the elements of stress so they could do a better job growing healthy turf.

Sensors Give a Clear Picture

Soon afterward, a team of scientists, including fellow professor Dr. Neil Hansen, installed volumetric water content (VWC) and matric potential sensors at two different sites: one in the sports turf and one in a residential turf plot.  Each plot had two installations of sensors at 6 cm and 15 cm, along with VWC only at 25 cm, to measure water moving beyond the root zone. Combining these measurements, they could clearly see when the grass was reaching stress conditions and how quickly the turf went from the beginning of stress (in terms of water content and time) to permanent wilting point. In addition, ancillary measurements of temperature and electrical conductivity provide an opportunity for modeling surface and root zone temperature as well as fertilizer concentration dynamics.

Researcher digging a dirt canal and installing sensors

Installing water content sensors at the BYU turf farm.

Errors Revealed

What the researchers learned was that they were using too much water. Dr. Colin Campbell, a METER research scientist who worked with BYU on sensor installation, comments, “We found in the first year that the plants never got stressed at all. So this year, the researchers allowed the water potential (WP) at 6 cm to drop into the stress range (~ -500 kPa) while observing WP at 15 cm (-50 kPa to -60 kPa). We hope this approach will reduce irrigation inputs while creating some stress in the grass in order to push the roots deeper.”

What’s happening with the water?

Dr. Campbell’s favorite part of the sensor data was the detailed picture it gave of what was happening with the water in the sandy soil (Figure 1). He says, “Most people believe that they have an intuitive feel for water availability in soil.  If we were only using water content sensors, seeing a typical value of 20% would lead us to believe we were comfortably in the middle of the plant available range (A).  But in this study, using our colocated soil water content and soil water potential sensors, the data showed readings over 15% VWC were too wet to affect the WP (B). However, once WP visibly changed, it quickly moved toward critical stress levels (C, -1500 kPa is permanent wilting point); it only took two days for the water potential to change from -8 kPa to -1000 kPa.  A subsequent dry period (D) shows similar behavior, but this time the 15 cm WP drops to near -1000 kPa.”

Water potential changes diagram

Figure 1

The plant stress levels were reached surprisingly quickly in this soil because its sand composition has a lot of large pores and not very many small ones (Figure 2). Campbell explains, “The large pores store water that is not held tightly due to low surface area, so the water is freely available. But at around 10% VWC all the water from the large pores is used up. As the soil dries beyond that, the water is held tightly in small pores and becomes increasingly unavailable. This is clear in the moisture release curve.  We see almost no change in water potential as the soil dried to 16% VWC, but from 10% down to 7%, the water potential reached permanent wilting point, and it happened in just over a day.”

VWC and Water potential sensors diagram

Figure 2

What the Future Holds:

The researchers wanted to make sure that if they went down to certain stress levels, they wouldn’t cause harm to the plants, so this year, they installed a weather station to monitor evapotranspiration and calculate irrigation application rates.  They also began measuring spectral reflectance to monitor changes in leaf area (NDVI) and photosynthesis (PRI).  This will enable them to see the impact on the plants as the turf is drying down.  “In the future,” says Campbell, “we hope that both commercial and residential turf growers will be able to more effectively control their irrigation and nutrients based on what we find in this study.”

Download the “Researcher’s complete guide to water potential”—>

Download the “Researcher’s complete guide to soil moisture”—>

Get more information on applied environmental research in our

LinkedInMessengerRedditThreadsCopy

Oct 2

Soil Moisture and Temperature Sensors Aid Landmine Detection

Anti-personnel landmines are one of the most dangerous environmental hazards worldwide. Each year thousands of people are injured by landmines buried in eighty different countries.  Ben Wallen, Ph.D. candidate and active military officer at the Colorado School of Mines, is using soil moisture and temperature sensors to model, simulate, and predict how environmental conditions affect landmine detection performance.

Researcher and an army graduate student standing next to "The U.S Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center" sign

Landmine research conducted at the Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) by LTC Benjamin Wallen, a graduate student at Colorado School of Mines, and Stacy Howington, a senior research engineer at ERDC.

Landmine Detection

Anti-personnel landmines are difficult to detect. They are small and often contain very little metal. It is difficult to differentiate between a landmine and, for example, a rock.

Success depends on many factors, including the landmine’s physical composition and how long it’s been in the ground. The numerical and analytical models used to find the mines rely on detailed data about conditions in the subsurface.  Wallen and his Ph.D. advisor, Dr. Kate Smits, realized that changing environmental conditions—particularly changes in soil moisture content—were commonly overlooked in developing these models. By gaining a greater understanding of these dynamic environmental conditions, Wallen thought he could better calibrate the numerical models used in detection technologies such as ground penetrating radar.

Researcher and army engineer student working on an installation site

Installing METER sensors at landmine detection field site at the Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) by LTC Benjamin Wallen and Matthew Geheran, a student engineer at ERDC.

Comparisons

The goal of Wallen’s research was to improve understanding of the complex flow processes of water, water vapor, and air in the shallow subsurface.  He installed soil moisture and temperature sensors in a field site in order to understand how landmines buried at different depths affect spatial patterns of soil moisture.  He compared holes with mines at a shallow depth (2.5 cm) to more deeply buried mines (10 cm).  He also measured the environmental response to shallow empty holes roughly the size that you’d dig for the placement of a mine.  He realized if there was an identifiable response between a disturbed hole with nothing in it and a hole with a mine buried, researchers would be able to do experiments with different soils in a lab without needing a buried landmine in order to investigate the environmental response associated with a buried landmine.

Results

Wallen was able to see differences in the “with mine” and “without mine” treatments.  He says, “The soil moisture in the disturbed soil 2.5 cm below the surface with no landmine inserted matched very well to a shallow-buried mine.  The only time it really deviated was when there was a saturation event. At that point, there was a break from that relationship, but then, in 36 hours, the soil moisture returned to matching very closely between the disturbed soil hole and the shallow-buried mine.”  Wallen says there was also a relationship in the case of the more deeply buried mine. He adds, “For a deeply buried mine, both the soil moisture and temperature in the disturbed soil 2.5 cm below the surface had a strong correlation with the response to the dug, disturbed hole.”

Shallow Buried Mine- Soil Moisture as a Function of Depth diagram

Disturbed and Undisturbed Soil- Soil Moisture as a Function of Depth Diagram

An Array of Sensors is Crucial

Ben says it was important to his study to use a suite of measurement tools that complimented each other.  In addition to soil moisture and temperature sensors, he used an IR camera to detect surface temperature differences prior to the saturation event, during saturation event, and then afterward, helping identify the different scenarios of shallow-buried mines, deep buried mines, and the disturbed soil. He comments, “There are numerous global climate models that may be used to predict evaporation from energy balances in order to understand what is occurring. By combining the sensors in this minefield detection scenario, we were able to really understand what was going on at different depths with soil moisture and temperature, and that enabled us to better understand how the system responds.”

The Next Step

Now that Wallen has done a soil characterization of the site, he wants to incorporate the data into a 3D model to ensure that the model accurately represents the actual physical conditions he’s observed. The next step is modeling under different climatic conditions: seeing what the environmental response is for various mine scenarios in a different soil environment.

Making the World a Safer Place

The goal, according to Wallen, is to provide pertinent information that will improve landmine detection technologies. Understanding how temperature contrast impacts remote sensing technology and understanding how the soil moisture signature impacts ground penetrating radar.  Ben says, “Ideally, this information takes us one step farther in being able to identify potential locations for landmines, but there is a long way to go. This is just one piece of the pie, but every step forward moves us toward the goal of making the world a little bit safer for everyone.”

Acknowledgments:

This research was made possible through sensors provided by Decagon (now METER), funding from the Society of American Military Engineers Denver Metro Post, field site access from the Waterways Experimentation Station (WES), and assistance with equipment and research support from scientists and engineers at the Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) in Vicksburg, MS. Their support and knowledge based upon over a decade of research exploring disturbed soil for threat detection and environmental effects on sensor performance was essential to enable quality research at their site.

Download the “Researcher’s complete guide to water potential”—>

Download the “Researcher’s complete guide to soil moisture”—>

Get more information on applied environmental research in our

LinkedInMessengerRedditThreadsCopy

Sep 11

Scientists and Greenhouse Growers Collaborate to Help the Environment

Bodies of water across the world face extreme pressure from non-point source pollution.  It’s easy to get overwhelmed by the sheer enormity of this problem, but it didn’t daunt Dr. John Lea-Cox, Research and Extension Specialist for horticulture at University of Maryland.  Dr. Lea-Cox was acutely aware that agriculturally applied fertilizers threatened serious harm to the Chesapeake Bay area near his home. Using an early version of METER’s water content sensors, he began to put together a system that could monitor water status in nursery operations. The effort was based on the work of Dr. Andrew Ristvey (now a colleague at Maryland) who showed water savings of more than 50% during his PhD work using TDR sensors in pots growing ornamental plants.  Dr. Lea-Cox and his colleagues wanted to ultimately develop a network of soil moisture and environmental sensors that would help greenhouse and nursery growers know when to turn on and off their water. Their goal was to reduce nutrient and water use through more efficient application.

Close up of a yellow flower with red tipped petals

How did Dr. John Lea-Cox, Research and Extension Specialist for horticulture at University of Maryland, convince nursery growers to reduce water and fertilizer use?

Convincing Growers

One hurdle facing Dr.Lea-Cox was that water savings didn’t resonate with all growers.  But he soon realized that better irrigation control influenced things growers did care about: higher quality crops, lower mortality rate, and less spending on pesticides.  Dr. Lea-Cox discovered that when he showed growers their moisture sensor data, they were hooked. One snapdragon grower, who found that he could use the sensors to produce a more lucrative A grade crop, said he would not like to go back to the days before sensors. “My gosh, it would be like going back ten years. It would be like trying to measure the temperature in a room without a thermometer. We are totally dependent on them.”

Pink orchids growing in a nursery super green nursery

Orchids grown in a nursery.

Finding Collaborators

Dr. Lea-Cox was not only good at convincing growers, but scientific collaborators as well.  Building on this team’s initial findings, he organized a project to develop water retention curves to tie the amount of water in pots to what was actually available to the plant for several different mixes of potting soil. He realized that moisture measurements were practically useless to growers without a mechanism for viewing them all in one place, so he began to look for collaborators who could build an integrated, wireless system to get root zone information to the nursery grower’s computer and allow them to set irrigation limits and automate their systems based on soil and weather data.  

The resulting collaboration was a group of diverse scientists and commercial growers who could study root behavior, plant-environmental interactions, the performance of the plants, and individual grower interaction with the system.  After a few years of testing, the group received $5M in funding from the Specialty Crops Research Initiative (SCRI) Program over five years to improve horticulture for ornamental plants grown in the U.S.

Lauren Crawford, METER’s soils product manager, says that the resulting collaboration was unique. “It was amazing that an instrumentation company, a research group, and commercial growers were able to work so well together. It was because of the trust we had for each other. We were very transparent about what we were doing, even when we knew that transparency would be difficult. The result was that we were able to make tremendous progress in both science and technology.”

Watch two virtual seminars highlighting SCRI research given by scientists Marc Van Iersel and John Lea-Cox.

Download the “Researcher’s complete guide to soil moisture”—>

Get more information on applied environmental research in our

LinkedInMessengerRedditThreadsCopy

Aug 28

2 Comments

Low Impact Design: Sensors Validate California Groundwater Resource Management

Michelle Newcomer, a PhD candidate at UC Berkeley, (previously at San Francisco State University), recently published research using rain gauges, soil moisture, and water potential sensors to determine if low impact design (LID) structures such as rain gardens and infiltration trenches are an effective means of infiltrating and storing rainwater in dry climates instead of letting it run off into the ocean.

Body of water with rain droplets hitting the surface

Can Low Impact Design Structures store rainwater?

Low Impact Design Structures

Global groundwater resources in urban, coastal environments are highly vulnerable to increased human pressures and climate variability. Impervious surfaces, such as buildings, roads, and parking lots prevent infiltration, reduce recharge to underlying aquifers, and increase contaminants in surface runoff that often overflow sewage systems. To mitigate these effects, cities worldwide are adopting low impact design (LID) approaches to direct runoff into natural vegetated systems such as rain gardens that reduce, filter, and slow stormwater runoff. LID hypothetically increases infiltration and recharge rates to aquifers.

Three pictures the first depicts an aerial view of an infiltration trench, the second depicts an infiltration trench site, and the third depicts a irrigated green lawn

Infiltration and Recharge

Michelle and the team at San Francisco State University, advised by Dr. Jason Gurdak, realized that the effects of LID on recharge rates and quality were unknown, particularly during intense precipitation events for cities along the Pacific coast in response to inter-annual variability of the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO). Using water potential and water content sensors she was able to quantify the current and projected rates of infiltration and recharge to the California Coastal Westside Basin aquifer system. The team compared a LID infiltration trench surrounded by a rain garden with a traditional turf-lawn setting in San Francisco.  She says, “Cities like San Francisco are implementing these LID structures, and we wanted to test the quantity of water that was going through them.  We were interested specifically in different climate scenarios, like El Niño versus La Niña, because rain events are much more intense during El Niño years and could cause flash flooding or surface pollutant overflow problems.”

Infiltration trench site diagram

Sensors Tell the Story

The research team looked at the differences in the quantity of water that LID structures could allow to pass through.  Michelle says. ”The sensors yielded data proving LID areas were effective at capturing the water, infiltrating it more slowly, and essentially storing it in the aquifer.”  The team tested how a low-impact development-style infiltration trench compared to an irrigated lawn and found that the recharge efficiency of the infiltration trench, at 58% to 79%, was much higher than that of the lawn, at 8% to 33%.

Daily time series of precipitation and volumetric water content

Rain Gauges Yield Surprises

Though it wasn’t part of the researchers’ original plan, they used rain gauges to measure precipitation, which yielded some surprising data.  Michelle comments, “We were just going to use the San Francisco database, but it became necessary to use the rain gauges because of all the fog.  The fog brought a lot of precipitation with it that didn’t come in the form of raindrops.  As it condensed on the leaves, it provided a substantial portion of the water in the budget, and that was surprising to me.  The rain gauge captured the condensate on the funnel of the instrument, so we were able to see that a certain quantity of water was coming in that is typically neglected in many studies.”

Future El Niño Precipitation

Michelle also found some really interesting results regarding El Niño and La Niña.  She says, “I did a historical analysis to establish baselines for frequency, intensity, and duration of precipitation events during El Niño and La Niña years.  I then ran projected climate data through a Hydrus-2D model, and the models showed that with future El Niño intensities, recharge rates were effectively higher for a given precipitation event. During these events, in typical urban settings, water runs off so fast that only these rain gardens and trenches would be able to capture the rain that would otherwise be lost to the ocean. This contrasts with a La Niña climate scenario where there’s typically less rain that is more diffuse. Most of that rain may eventually be lost to evaporation during dry years.  So using sensors and 2D modeling we have validated the hypothesis that LID structures provide a service for storing water, particularly during El Niño years where there are more intense rainstorms.”

Michelle’s research received some press online and also was featured in the AGU EOS Editor’s spotlight.   Her results are published in the journal Water Resources Research.

Download the “Researcher’s complete guide to water potential”—>

Download the “Researcher’s complete guide to soil moisture”—>

Get more information on applied environmental research in our

LinkedInMessengerRedditThreadsCopy

Jul 31

34 Comments

Water Potential Versus Water Content

Dr. Colin Campbell, soil physicist, shares why he thinks measuring soil water potential can be more useful than measuring soil water content.

A horsetail plant showing possible signs of guttation where the water potential in the soil overnight is high enough to force water out of the stomates in the leaves.

A horsetail plant showing possible signs of guttation where the water potential in the soil overnight is high enough to force water out of the stomates in the leaves.

I know an ecologist who installed an extensive soil water content (VWC) sensor network to study the effect of slope orientation on plant available water.  He collected good VWC data, but ultimately he was frustrated because he couldn’t tell how much of the water was available to plants.

He’s not alone in his frustration. Accurate, inexpensive soil moisture sensors have made soil VWC a justifiably popular measurement, but as many people have discovered, a good hammer doesn’t make every soil water problem a nail. I like to compare water potential to temperature because both are considered “intensive” variables that define the intensity of something.

People often try to quantify their own environment, because those measurements define comfort and happiness.  Long ago, they discovered they could make an enclosed glass tube, put mercury inside, and infer this intensive variable called temperature from the changes in the mercury’s volume. This was an obvious way to define the comfort level of a human being.

Thermometer laying on top of wood

People discovered they could make an enclosed glass tube, put mercury inside, and infer an intensive variable called temperature.

They could have measured the heat content of their surroundings.  But they would have discovered that while heat content would be higher in a larger room and lower in a smaller room, you would feel the same comfort level in both rooms.  The temperature measurement helps you know whether or not you’d be comfortable without any other variables entering into the equation.

Similar to heat content, water content is an amount. It’s an extensive variable.  It changes with size and situation. Consider the following paradoxes:

  • A soil with fairly low volumetric water content can have plenty of plant-available water and a soil with high water content can have almost none.
  • Gravity pulls water down through the profile, but water moves up into the soil from a water table.
  • Two adjacent patches of soil at equilibrium can have significantly different water content.

In these and many other cases, water content data can be confusing because they don’t predict how water moves.  Water potential measures the energy state of water and thus explains realities of water movement that otherwise defy intuition. Like temperature, water potential defines the comfort level of a plant.   Similar to the room size analogy for temperature, if we know the water potential, we can know whether plants will grow well or be stressed in any environment.

sand with plants poking out and a blue sky in the background

Soil, clay, sand, potting soil, and other media, all hold water differently.

Plants don’t understand the concept of a content in terms of “comfort” because soil, clay, sand, potting soil, and other media, all hold water differently.  Imagine a sand with 30% water content. Due to its low surface area, the sand will be too wet for optimal plant growth, threatening a lack of aeration to the roots, and flirting with saturation.  Now consider a fine textured clay at that same 30% water content. The clay may appear only moist and be well below optimum “comfort” for a plant due to the surface of the clay binding the water and making it less available to the plant.

Water potential measurements clearly indicate plant available water, and, unlike water content, there is an easy reference scale. We know that plant optimal runs from about -2-5 kPa which is on the very wet side, to about -100 kPa, at the drier end of optimal.  Below that plants will be in deficit, and past -1000 kPa they start to suffer.  Depending on the plant, water potentials below -1000 to -2000 kPa cause permanent wilting.

So, why would we want to measure water potential? Water content can only tell you how much water you have.  If you want to know how fast water can move, you need to measure hydraulic conductivity.  If you want to know whether water will move and where it’s going to go, you need water potential.

Learn more

Soil moisture is more than just knowing the amount of water in soil. Learn basic principles you need to know before deciding how to measure it. In this 20-minute webinar, discover:

  • Water content: what it is, how it’s measured, and why you need it
  • Water potential: what it is, how it’s different from water content, and why you need it
  • Whether you should measure water content, water potential, or both
  • Which sensors measure each type of parameter

Many questions about water availability and movement are best answered by measuring water potential.  To find out more, watch any of the virtual seminars below, or visit our new water potential website.

Download the “Researcher’s complete guide to water potential”—>

Water Potential 101: Making Use of an Important Tool

Water Potential 201:  Choosing the Right Instrument

Water Potential 301: How to Push Your Instruments Past their Specifications

Water Potential 401: Advances in Field Water Potential

Find out when you should measure both water potential and water content.

Take our Soil Moisture Master Class

Six short videos teach you everything you need to know about soil water content and soil water potential—and why you should measure them together.  Plus, master the basics of soil hydraulic conductivity.

Watch it now—>

Download the “Researcher’s complete guide to soil moisture”—>

LinkedInMessengerRedditThreadsCopy

Jul 24

Lessons from the Field – Sensor Installation Considerations

In the Midwest, government incentives are sometimes provided to convert marginal lands to switchgrass, a leading choice for bio-energy feedstock production.  Michael Wine, a researcher at New Mexico Tech, wanted to investigate whether switchgrass’s deeper root systems would affect the water cycle both during and after crop establishment.  In the first stages of his investigation, he learned that many factors need to be considered when determining the optimal location for sensor installation.

Aquifer Recharge

Wine used Gee passive capillary lysimeters to determine deep drainage under natural vegetation, wheat, and switchgrass in order to improve our understanding of both the baseline water cycle and the water budget associated with a switchgrass monoculture in Woodward, Oklahoma.  He put the lysimeters and some soil moisture (capacitance) sensors into the Beaver-North Canadian River Alluvial Aquifer to look at recharge, but ran into challenges with sensor installation from the start.

Climate Considerations

One thing Wine learned was that biofuels aren’t very successful in his research location– there wasn’t enough water to support switchgrass.  He says, “Most places here may have no precipitation recharge for a great many years. But there are sites, such as sub-humid environments, where you could get a whole lot of infiltration in a very short time.” In hindsight, Wine says he “would have increased his use of preliminary data to more efficiently determine the frequency of recharge events.”

Using Preliminary Data to help Site Instrumentation

Wine learned that it’s important to think about the time constant of your system when siting instrumentation and that preliminary data are crucial. He says, “Before sensor installation, I did a chloride mass balance which helped me determine where I should install the lysimeters.”  He had been planning to put them at watersheds at the USDA-ARS Southern Plains Range Research Station, but the chloride mass balance showed there hadn’t been a recharge event at that site in the past 200 years. So he chose to install the lysimeters at the USDA-ARS Southern Plains Experimental Range, located in the Beaver-North Canadian River Alluvial Aquifer, a site with coarser soil and higher permeability.

Wine also thinks numerical modeling could have been useful in determining placement. “In siting the instruments, numerical modeling would’ve been a big help because we could have predicted the likelihood and frequency of recharge events.  So I think preliminary data, numerical modeling, and environmental tracers can all help in terms of where to place these research devices.”

a baby calf walking towards the photographer with other cows, who are collectively walking through a field

After long absences, Wine often had to repair damage caused by cattle.

Proximity to Research Site

Another challenge was that the researchers were located in Stillwater, Oklahoma, far from their research site. The experiment was protected by fences, but after long absences,  Wine often had to repair damage caused by cattle.  “I really need to hand it to these instruments that can be trampled numerous times by cows and the battery compartment filled up with water,” Wine says. “They just needed to be dusted off, dried out, new batteries inserted, and they worked great.”  Wine adds that researchers need to consider the distance between their office and their research site because in his case, the cows would have been less of an issue if it had been a fifteen-minute drive instead of three hours each way. He adds, “Selecting a nearby research site would have allowed us additional flexibility in our experimental methods; for example, with a nearby site we could have more easily conducted artificial rainfall simulations if a particular year turned out to be too dry for natural recharge events to occur.”

Proper Siting of Equipment Makes a Difference

Once Wine determined the correct placement of his instruments, he was finally able to get some interesting data.  He says, “There are large pulses of focused recharge that do occur in certain places, and we quantified one of those pulses following a storm with one of the lysimeters.  We’ve got about a year’s worth of data. Since we installed lysimeters at adjacent upland (diffuse recharge) and lowland (concentrated recharge) sites, we succeeded in observing large differences between the recharge fluxes at these nearby sites.”  Wine’s plan is to see if he can replicate the results of the lysimeter experiment using numerical modeling, because he says, “the data look reasonable, but I’d like to confirm the measurements due to the cows playing havoc with our site.”  Wine is excited as these lysimeters are yielding the first direct physical measurements of diffuse and concentrated groundwater recharge in the Beaver-North Canadian River Alluvial Aquifer, and he’s optimistic that his numerical modeling will match this unique time series of direct physical measurements of groundwater recharge.

Download the “Researcher’s complete guide to soil moisture”—>

Get more information on applied environmental research in our

LinkedInMessengerRedditThreadsCopy

Apr 22

The Scientific Instrumentation Museum of Horrors

Chris Chambers is the primary technical support scientist at METER.  Deep within the recesses of his office, there is a collection of scientific instrumentation we like to call the “Museum of Horrors”.  It showcases the many instruments that have been mangled and destroyed over the years by insects, animals, or the environment.

Melted Serial Cable sitting on a stone

This serial cable melted when it got too close to a sample heating oven.

We get a few instruments back every year that are burned up in a fire, chewed up by rodents, and occasionally we get one that’s been exploded by lightning. We interviewed Chris to find out how to prevent scientific instrumentation from being damaged or destroyed by these types of natural disasters.

Soil Moisture Sensor that got Eaten by Ants

Beware of ant hills. This soil moisture sensor got eaten by ants.

Animals and insects:

The single most important thing you can do to prevent damage from animals is to protect your cables. You can protect your cables with cable armor, electrical conduit, or PVC pipe. Even better is to place cables in some type of conduit and then bury it.  Keeping things tidy around the data logger and avoiding exposed cables as much as possible will go a long way toward preventing animals and insects from ruining your experiment.

An ECH2010 Laying in Dirt and Chipped by a Shovel

A retired ECH2O10 that was hit by a shovel.

Lightning:

Lightning is not as big of a danger on METER loggers as it is with third party loggers (read about logger grounding here). Where we typically see people run into problems with lightning is when they have long lengths of cable between the data logger and sensor. Long cable runs act like lightning harvesting antennae.  The best thing to do is to keep the cables shorter and do not spread them out in lots of different directions.

TEROS12 with a Bent Needle from Being Pushed into a Rock

This soil moisture sensor was pushed into a rock.

Wildfire:

We have a few instruments every year that get burned up in fires, but there is not much you can do about this hazard except for watching for reports of encroaching fires that may be in your surrounding area and evacuating important instrumentation.

Data Logger that was Struck by Lightning Laying in Bark

A data logger that was struck by lighting.

Flooding:

The worst killer of data loggers is flooding.  We have a lot of customers that try and bury their loggers, and that’s generally a terrible idea.  Unless you can guarantee the logger will be waterproofed and put some desiccant inside the box, it will probably end badly.  There are a few scientists out there that have done a really good job of waterproofing, but they generally spend almost as much effort and money waterproofing as they do purchasing the actual logger.

There’s always going to be some risk to your scientific instrumentation because you’re installing it outside, but hopefully, these tips will help you avoid disaster and keep your system out of the museum of horrors.

Download the “Researcher’s complete guide to soil moisture”—>

Get more information on applied environmental research in our

LinkedInMessengerRedditThreadsCopy

Apr 16

7 Comments

Do the Standards for Field Capacity and Permanent Wilting Point Need to Be Reexamined?

We were inspired by this Freakonomics podcast, which highlights the book, This Idea Must Die: Scientific Problems that are Blocking Progress, to come up with our own answers to the question:  Which scientific ideas are ready for retirement?  We asked METER scientist, Dr. Gaylon S. Campbell, which scientific idea he thinks impedes progress.  Here’s what he had to say about the standards for field capacity and permanent wilting point:

Canola Field right next to an eroded soil cliff

A layered soil, a soil that has a fine-textured horizon on top of a coarse-textured soil, will hold twice as much water as you’ll predict from the -⅓ bar value.

Idea:

The phrase, “this idea must die,” is probably too strong a phrase, but certainly some scientific ideas need to be reexamined, for instance the standard of -⅓ bar (-33 kPa) water potential for field capacity and -15 bars (-1500 kPa or -1.5 MPa) for permanent wilting point.

Where it came from:

In the early days of soil physics, a lot of work was done in order to establish the upper and lower limit for plant available water.  The earliest publication on the lower limit experiments was by Briggs and Shantz in 1913. They planted sunflowers in small pots under greenhouse conditions, letting the plants use the water until they couldn’t recover overnight, after which they carefully measured the water content (WC).  The ability to measure water potential came along quite a bit later in the 1930s using pressure plates.  As those measurements started to become available, a correlation was found between the 15 bar pressure plate WCs and the WCs that were determined by Briggs and Shantz’s earlier work.  Thus -15 bars (-1.5 MPa) was established as the lower limit of plant available water.  The source of the field capacity WC data that established a fixed water potential for the upper limit is less clear, but the process, apparently, was similar to that for the lower limit, and -⅓ bar was established as the drained upper limit water potential in soil.

Sunflowers against a blue sky

Briggs and Shantz planted sunflowers in small pots under greenhouse conditions, letting the plants use the water until they couldn’t recover overnight, after which they carefully measured the water content (WC).

Damage it does:  

In practice, using -15 bars to calculate permanent wilting point probably isn’t a bad starting point, but in principle, it’s horrible. Over the years we have set up experiments like Briggs and Shantz did and measured water potential. We have also measured field soils after plants have extracted all the water they can.  Permanent wilting point never once came out at -15 bars or -1.5 MPa.  For things like potatoes, it was approximately -10 bars (-1 MPa), and for wheat it was approximately -30 bars (-3 MPa).  We found that the permanent wilting point varies with the species and even with soil texture to some extent.

Of course, in the end it doesn’t matter much as the moisture release curve is pretty steep on the dry end, and whether you predict it to be 10 or 12% WC, it doesn’t make a huge difference in the size of the soil water reservoir that you compute.

However, on the field capacity end of the scale, it matters a lot.  If you went out and made measurements of the water potentials in soils a few days after a rain, it would be an absolute accident if any of them were ever -⅓ bar (-33 kPa).  I’ve never seen it.  A layered soil, a soil that has a fine-textured horizon on top of a coarse-textured soil, will hold twice as much water as you’ll predict from the -⅓ bar value.  On the other hand, if you’re getting pretty frequent rains or irrigation, that field capacity number becomes irrelevant. Thus, -⅓ bar may be a useful starting point for determining field capacity, but it’s only a starting point.

Why it’s wrong:

Field capacity and permanent wilting point are dynamic properties.  They depend on the rate at which the water is being extracted or the rate at which it’s being applied.  They also depend on the time you wait to sample after irrigation. Think of the soil as a leaky bucket.  If you were trying to carry water in a leaky bucket and you walked slowly, the bucket would be empty by the time you get the water where you want it. However, if you run fast, there will still be some water left in the bucket.  Similarly, if a plant can use water up rapidly, most of it will be intercepted, but if a plant is using water slowly, the water will move down past the root zone and out the bottom of the soil profile before the plant can use it.  These are dynamic phenomena that you are trying to describe with static variables.  And that’s where part of the problem comes.  We need a number to do our calculations with, but it’s important to understand the factors that affect that number.

Rye Field

Rye field

What do we do now:

What I hope we can do is better educate people. We should teach that we need a value we call field capacity or permanent wilting point, but it’s going to be a dynamic property.  We can start out by saying: our best guess is that it will be -⅓ bar for finer-textured soils and -1/10 bar (-10 kPa) for coarser-textured soils. But when we dig a hole and find out there is layering in the profile or textural discontinuities, we’d better adjust our number.  If we’re dealing with irrigated farmland, the adjustment will always be up, and if we’re dealing with dryland or rain-fed agriculture where the time between water additions is longer, we’ll use a lower number.

Some Ideas Never Die:

One of the contributors to the book, This Idea Must Die, Dr. Steve Levitt, had this to say about outdated scientific ideas, and we agree:  “I love the idea of killing off bad ideas because if there’s one thing that I know in my own life, it’s that ideas that I’ve been told a long time ago stick with me,  and you often forget whether they have good sources or whether they’re real. You just live by them. They make sense. The worst kind of old ideas are the ones that are intuitive. The ones that fit with your worldview, and so, unless you have something really strong to challenge them, you hang on to them forever.”

Harness the power of soil moisture

Researchers measure evapotranspiration and precipitation to understand the fate of water—how much moisture is deposited, used, and leaving the system. But if you only measure withdrawals and deposits, you’re missing out on water that is (or is not) available in the soil moisture savings account. Soil moisture is a powerful tool you can use to predict how much water is available to plants, if water will move, and where it’s going to go.

In this 20-minute webinar, discover:

  • Why soil moisture is more than just an amount
  • Water content: what it is, how it’s measured, and why you need it
  • Water potential: what it is, how it’s different from water content, and why you need it
  • Whether you should measure water content, water potential, or both
  • Which sensors measure each type of parameter

Take our Soil Moisture Master Class

Six short videos teach you everything you need to know about soil water content and soil water potential—and why you should measure them together.  Plus, master the basics of soil hydraulic conductivity.

Watch it now—>

Download the “Researcher’s complete guide to soil moisture”—>

Download the “Researcher’s complete guide to water potential”—>

LinkedInMessengerRedditThreadsCopy

Mar 27

The Right Auger For Water Content Sensor Installation

Traveling around the world, I’ve seen many ways to install soil moisture sensors.  Digging a trench to the required depth and inserting the sensors into the sidewall is certainly the most common technique. But using a shovel takes a lot of effort, especially in rocky soil.  To solve this problem, I like to use an auguring tool because of its ability to dig through soil to deeper depths without taking a lot of time. Also, the footprint of an augured hole is also only a few inches, which makes for a much cleaner installation.  Still, borrowing an auger from the lab next door and heading to the field may not be the best option.  This is what we did on the Cook Farm project a few years back.

Standard Bucket Auger

Standard bucket auger (image: www.atlanticsupply.com)

The Cook Agricultural Farm is a 37 Ha managed research site near Pullman, Washington where a combined team of Decagon and WSU scientists installed 150 water content sensors over 30 sites a few years ago. At each site, we used the techniques outlined in METER’s installation video, which can be found here.  However, the hardest thing about this installation was that we used some borrowed, standard bucket augers to bore the holes. These had a cutting surface along the bottom and an enclosed cylinder to hold the soil.  Once we filled that bucket, we had a difficult time getting the soil out which really slowed the installation.

Researcher Digging Soil Out of the Bucket Auger

Ben digging soil out of the bucket auger during the Cook Farm Installation, 2009.

Recently while traveling to Germany, I learned about the Edelman Auger.  The company that makes these (Eijkelkamp), says that most people in America use bucket augers to bore into fine soils which is needlessly time consuming.  Edelman Augers, originally designed by the Army to dig latrines, will save time and labor.

Edelman Auger

Edelman auger.

At first, I was skeptical.  It only had two cutting blades that ran up the auger in kind of loop; how would the soil lift out of the hole?  However, when I tried one later in the day, the auger cut through the soil, making a 10 cm hole with very little effort, and as I removed it, the soil came out easily.  It wasn’t hard to get the soil out from between the blades because there was no enclosed cylinder for the bucket.  I wish I’d known about this auger when I was trying to install sensors at the Cook Farm.

So, here are a few tips about augers to help you pick the best one for your work:

  • The Eijkelkamp Edelman augers are best for silty soils to clay soils so pick this one if you’re working in sites with these types of soils.  It’s also great for digging a quick latrine.
  • Bucket augers are best for sandy soils because of the enclosed cylinder will help lift the loose sand out of the borehole.
  • If you’re trying to install your soil moisture sensors in very rocky soils, try a stony soil auger.  It has big blades to help move small rocks and lift them out of the hole.

Download the “Researcher’s complete guide to soil moisture”—>

Get more information on applied environmental research in our

LinkedInMessengerRedditThreadsCopy
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »