Scientists often misunderstand average relative humidity (see part I). In fact, it’s not uncommon to encounter average relative humidity being misused in scientific literature. This week, learn which measurement should be used instead.
Humid conditions in a pine forest.
What is Wrong with Average Relative Humidity?
We often use average values to illustrate the behavior of parameters over time. One of the most common is air temperature, where we effectively graph average half-hourly temperature across a day or daily temperature across a year to show important details about the environment. But, consider what average relative humidity would look like.
As noted above, a general rule, though not consistent everywhere, is that the temperature at night cools down to the point where the air is saturated and the relative humidity is 100% (1). During the day, depending on the climate and weather, the saturated vapor pressure may increase roughly two to five times ea and relative humidity would be between 0.2 to 0.5. If we calculated an average for the day, it would most likely be between 0.6 and 0.75, no matter what environment was being measured. Of course, if it were raining or in the winter with low incoming radiation, this would be higher. Still, it is easy to see that an average relative humidity does not do much to define meteorological conditions.
The title of this chart is misleading because they were not averaging across the day, but only daily at noon. Image: Britannica.com/
What Should We Use Instead?
The measurement that should be reported is vapor pressure. Not only is it independent of temperature, but it can also be effectively averaged over time to show ecosystem behavior. However, this value will not be helpful to scientists who are identifying the pull generated by the atmosphere for water vapor in the plant or soil. This quantity is called vapor deficit and is calculated by taking the difference between the saturation vapor pressure and ea.
We sense water deficit in the atmosphere through our skin.
As humans, we intuitively sense the deficit when we feel that the atmosphere is dry through drying of our lips or our skin. The same is true for plants. The dry atmosphere will exert a higher pull on the water, pulling it out through the leaves. The higher the difference between the vapor pressure and the saturation vapor pressure, the more pull for water. Although sometimes reported in literature, the most common use for vapor pressure is as a standard input to evapotranspiration models like FAO56 or Penman-Monteith.
See weather sensor performance data for the ATMOS 41 weather station.
Relative humidity is one of the most widely reported weather parameters and is familiar to most people.
Scientists sometimes misunderstand relative humidity.
Still, it is not uncommon to encounter it being misused. Here are two examples:
My sister recently stated that her son was experiencing 45℃ and 100% humidity while walking around during the day in the Philippines.
In scientific literature, I often find figures displaying daily average relative humidity over a period of weeks or months.
Both of these examples show a misunderstanding of what relative humidity is and how it can be used.
What is relative humidity?
Relative humidity (hr) is the ratio of the vapor pressure (ea) in the air over how much vapor pressure there could be if the air were saturated at that air temperature (saturated vapor pressure, es(Ta)).
While vapor pressure is a reasonably conservative quantity, meaning it doesn’t change drastically with time (i.e.hours), es(Ta) is solely tied to temperature, shown by the empirical Tetens equation:
where Ta is air temperature, and b =17.502 and c = 240.97℃ (constants). As the equation shows, saturated vapor pressure is only a function of temperature, so relative humidity in natural conditions will simply show a sinusoidal pattern that is inverse to air temperature.
When humidity is higher, the vapor concentration difference is smaller so we lose less water, reducing our ability to cool.
Why do we estimate it poorly?
When temperatures are elevated above our comfort zone, we begin to feel hot. Our bodies, which are adept at keeping us cool, evaporate water from our skin to return us to a comfortable skin temperature. When humidity is higher, the vapor concentration difference is smaller so we lose less water, thus reducing our ability to cool. In an attempt to balance the humidity, our body moistens the skin surface with sweat, leaving us feeling damp and sticky. This makes us feel like the air is nearly saturated, but in reality, the higher humidity has simply limited our ability to cool ourselves.
It is a relatively simple thing to convince ourselves that daytime humidities are never 100% unless it’s raining. We know that daytime temperatures are almost always higher than nighttime, due to solar radiation. And, we are familiar with dew that forms on surfaces as nighttime temperatures cool to the point that they begin to condense water out of the air (dew point temperature). If we assume that the vapor pressure of the air (ea) is the same as the saturation vapor pressure when the dew began to form (nighttime low temperature), then any air temperature throughout the day (Ta, which we assume would be higher) generates a saturation vapor pressure (es(Ta)) that is higher than ea and thus, relative humidity would be less than 1.
So, what about my nephew in the Philippines? Right now, a typical low temperature is 24℃ with a high of 34℃ (when it’s not raining). Under that scenario, the relative humidity, although it would feel quite high, would only be around 56% at midday.
Next Week: Learn what’s wrong with using average relative humidity in scientific papers and what measurement should be used instead.
Many dryland winter canola growers assume that if they plant earlier, they will establish a stronger plant, but Washington State University researcher Megan Reese recently found that this was not the case. She and her team discovered that planting earlier increases risk to the plant, as more water is used, and the reduced amount of water then left after the winter season limits spring regrowth. Megan’s findings could be valuable as water is the most yield-limiting factor in eastern Washington state’s wheat-dominated dryland systems, where winter canola has newly emerged as a rotational crop.
Winter canola is cold hardy, but it’s not as resilient as wheat.
Early Planting:
Winter canola is cold hardy, but it’s not as resilient as wheat. It’s planted in August, much earlier than winter wheat, which is planted in the late fall. In order to survive, winter canola has to establish a hardy taproot system so that plants have reserves to survive the winter. Megan says, “Opinions vary, but anecdotally, a dinner plate sized plant can survive winter fairly well, so that’s why winter canola is planted in August . However, because establishment and germination can be an issue, we decided to try planting in June at Ritzville, Washington, thinking the soil would be more moist and have a cooler seedbed. However, the early planting date had a negative effect on winter survival. Not one of the early plants survived. We found the plants that started earlier used a lot more water, and consequently, the winter rains weren’t enough to refill the soil profile. Excessive growth and bolting also contributed to low survivorship.”
Methods and Moisture Release Curves:
Megan monitored soil water in the profile several different ways. At one location she used a neutron probe and hand-sampled gravimetric soil moisture in the top 30 cm of the profile, and in other locations, she was limited to hand samples. Then she combined those measurements with local weather stations to provide the crop water balance for the canola. Using these data, she was able to determine soil water use as indicated by the water content change through the growing season and calculate the depletion of soil water.
Anecdotally, a dinner plate sized plant can survive winter fairly well.
Megan also took soil samples into the lab from each depth increment at every site and used a chilled mirror hygrometer to construct a moisture release curve. This helped her to define the apparent permanent wilting point at -1.5 MPa. She says, “I was able to then see how efficient canola was at extracting available water, and I could look at available water instead of total water contents, which was more useful in terms of plant accessible moisture in the soil profile. It allowed me a consistentplatform to compare actual water amounts across sites with differing soil types. At one site, 12.5% of the water was unavailable, but in the sandier soils at another site, it was 4%. So there were significant differences in permanent wilting point.”
Water and Physiological Challenges Affect Winter Survival:
Megan found that the June planted canola used every milliliter of available water in the soil profile by late October/early November, but August-planted canola still had some water above wilting left in the profile over the winter, which helped the plants in the spring. She says, “It was a milder winter, so we didn’t get the usual amount of snow and rain, which probably played a role, but we did not see the profile refilled in the June-planted canola. In addition, those June plants were purple and wilted by November, so water stress could have hurt the plants in terms of its defenses. However, I think a larger issue was that they grew so large (the crowns actually elongated and bolted so they weren’t close to the soil) they were more susceptible to the harsh temperatures, whereas the August planted canola were much smaller and their crowns stayed right on the soil surface.” These findings are based on only one year of data, and Megan notes that early plantings have worked well in the milder climate of Pendleton, OR.
What Does it Mean for Farmers?
Megan says, “We were able to surprise a lot of farmers by showing that canola roots access water down to 1.5 to 1.7 m in the fall; it was hard to believe that a winter crop would do that. Also, in my second year’s data, we followed water use all the way through harvest, so we were able to show how much yield we gained for every millimeter of water used, and farmers liked hearing that number as well. I think it’s useful information that incorporates biophysics principles and answers some questions that these new canola producers are interested in. I have three locations this season that we are currently following to give farmers a further idea of what the water use looks like, when canola uses that water, and from where in the soil profile. Hopefully, this research will help them manage their rotations and look at the possibility of adopting canola.”
The hyper-arid United Arab Emirates (UAE) has a rapidly dwindling supply of groundwater, and that water is becoming increasingly saline.
Dubai is situated on the coast of the UAE.
With very little recharge and irrigation comprising 75% of groundwater use, natural water resources in this region are disappearing fast. PhD candidate Wafa Al Yamani works for the Environmental Agency of Abu Dhabi, which has contracted with Plant and Food Research in New Zealand to investigate using treated sewage effluent and groundwater for irrigating the desert forests along their motorways.
Sidr trees in the UAE forest.
The Desert Forests
The UAE desalinates all the water for their cities, so the tertiary treated sewage effluent from these cities could be a viable resource, replacing some groundwater for irrigation of the desert forests. These forests perform a wide range of ecosystem services from sand stabilization along all UAE motorways to harboring a great deal of biodiversity. There is also a cultural association with the forests. The original ruler of the UAE, Sheikh Zayed, embarked on a program in the 1970s of “greening the desert,” so the people see the desert forests as a legacy of their founder.
Infiltrometers were used to examine how the drip irrigation system worked.
Measuring Water Use:
Wafa and her PhD advisor, Dr. Brent Clothier, had a goal to minimize groundwater use and maximize value by quantifying the irrigation needs of the UAE’s five most important desert-forestry species. They also wanted to determine the impact of treated sewage effluent on forest growth and health. They used infiltrometers to examine how the drip irrigation system worked. Dr. Clothier says, “These soils have hydraulic conductivities of between 2 and 5 meters an hour. They are highly permeable desert sands. We can find out how wide the bulb (the wetted area underneath an irrigation dripper) is and how deep the water will travel by using an infiltrometer to look at the hydraulic properties of the soil.” Dr. Clothier has also developed software to predict water movement radially, with depth and with the time that the drippers are on. He comments, “We’ve now got a setup of two drippers per tree, and we will use that in the future for modeling how the trees are taking up water from the root zone.”
Researchers built dykes of 20 cm to stop surface redistribution of dripper water.
The scientists used a heat pulse method to measure tree water-use by comparing sap flow with evaporative demand (ETo). They used Time Domain Reflectometry (TDR) to measure soil water content, and they have developed a “light stick” using light sensors to detect the shadow area of the trees to measure trees’ leaf area in order to predict the crop factor that will enable prediction of tree water-use from ETo.
Next week:Find out how Wafa and her team use infiltrometers to predict dripper behavior and how the treated effluent resolves salinity issues.
There are many reasons why you should never bury your data logger.* Most scientists who try it, fail (see part 1). However, there is one innovative team at Washington State University who has found a way to overcome many of the problems which plague burieddata loggers. They now happily collect data from the road, sitting in the cab of a truck.
The research team houses their data loggers in a water-resistant case marked with a radio ball marker and surface flagging.
Collecting Data by Radio
Caley Gasch decided she wanted to bury data loggers in an actively managed field at the Cook Agricultural Farm, so they weren’t constantly taking down data loggers for cultivation, spraying, and harvest. She says, “We wanted a better system because after we took the data loggers down, they often did not get put back up for weeks, leaving giant gaps in our data. The idea of burying the data loggers and simply reading them by radio had crossed our minds, but we were stymied by four questions.”
How would we bury the dataloggers so that we could find them again?
To solve this problem, the team buried the data loggers with a radio power identifier ball, originally made by the 3M Corporation, for locating buried power lines. She says, “It’s a radio monitor that transmits a radio signal, and we have an instrument that we can then use to find them.” Caley buries a radio marker with the data logger so that if the flag that marks the logger location gets removed by farming equipment or the weather (which always seems to happen), she still has the ability find the buried data logger.
How the cables fit through the ports.
How would we avoid filling them with water, especially on a large scale?
Caley says she’s had success keeping water out of all but three of her forty-two data loggers. She says the shallow soil in those three locations gets easily saturated in the winter, so they are still trying to modify the system. However, the method they have developed works well for the other 39 data loggers.
Their method is to place the data loggers inside a pelican case, which is a plastic, water-tight box. She says, “We modify the boxes so the sensor cables leaving the data logger can exit the box through cable entry connectors which we tighten down with a plastic screw. We make a watertight seal where the cable can go in and out of the box, and we also add some heat shrink tubing on the cables themselves to tighten that connection. We put silica desiccant packs inside of the pelican box along with the data logger to keep the humidity low. This will collect any condensation that builds up or even soak up small amounts of water that leak in.” Caley says that any water leakage they have had is probably through the ports where they’ve modified the pelican box for cable entry, but in most locations, it’s not a problem.
A sealed port.
How could we get radio signal to transmit out of the soil far enough?
Caley says, typically, she can connect with the radio signal up to 100 meters away from the loggers when they are buried. She adds, “We have successfully connected to loggers that are 0.5 km away, but it depends on the landscape, the amount of water in the soil, the season, the kind of crop that’s growing, and the terrain that’s between the scientist and the data logger. We have to get closer to most loggers. 100 meters is convenient enough for the farms that we are working on. The roads are within that distance to each of the loggers, so we never have to actually leave the vehicle to collect our data.”
How long will the batteries last?
Caley says they’ve gotten away with only changing the batteries once a year. She usually collects data twice each year and changes the batteries in the spring. She says, “By the time March comes around the batteries are pretty close to being dead, but we’ve been successful with just five alkaline AA batteries lasting about a year.”
One Challenge:
In some cases, the loggers haven’t been buried deep enough, and farm equipment crushed them, or the seeder penetrated the boxes. Caley says, “We just have to make sure they are buried deep enough. We typically bury them at least 30 cm deep, and that seems to work pretty well with the current farm equipment.”
A buried data logger that has been dug up.
For the Future:
Caley has a new idea for modifying the locations that are prone to flooding. She will keep the loggers buried most of the year, and then dig them up during the winter. “After the harvest in the fall, when the grower gives us permission, we will go out and dig up the boxes and mount the dataloggers on a short post, so they can spend the winter above ground. Then, after the soil has dried a little in the spring, but prior to seeding to minimize disturbance, we will bury them again.” Caley says that even though digging them up in the winter is more work, it’s worth her time. She concludes, “It’s still worth it to bury the loggers during the growing season so we don’t continually have data gaps while growers are seeding, spraying, or making a pass over the field.”
*Note: METER’s (formerly Decagon) official position is that you should never bury your data logger. But we couldn’t resist sharing a few stories of scientists who have figured out some innovative ideas which may or may not be successful if tried at other sites.
Globally, the number one reason for data loggers to fail is flooding. Yet, scientists continue to try to find ways to bury their data loggers to avoid constantly removing them for cultivation, spraying, and harvest. Chris Chambers, head of Sales and Support at METER always advises against it. He warns, “Almost all natural systems, even arid ones, will saturate at least once or twice a year—and it only takes once.” Still…there are innovative scientists who have had some success.
A prototype buriable logger container, made from a paint can, PVC elbow, silicone, epoxy putty, and desiccant. Photo Credit: NDSU | Soil Sciences | Soil Physics
The Good
Radu Carcoana, research specialist and Dr. Aaron Daigh, assistant professor at North Dakota State University, use paint cans to completely seal their data loggers before burying. They drill ports for the sensor cables, seal them up, and when they need to collect data, they dig up the cans. Chambers comments, “So far it looks promising, but we had a long discussion about the consequences of getting any water in those cans. I don’t know what they were sealing the ports with, but they were pretty confident that they could even dunk their paint cans under water.” The North Dakota research team buried the paint cans last fall, and Chambers says he’s reserving judgment until spring. Radu comments, “The picture above is just the concept. The story will continue in April when we see the North Dakota winter toll.” (See update).
The Bad
Chambers has good reason for his skepticism. If a logger gets saturated even once, its life will be short. And even if it doesn’t get completely flooded, there is still risk. As water gets into the enclosure that encases the logger, the resulting high humidity can damage the instrument. Chambers says, “If loggers that are mounted on a post get a small amount condensation or water inside, they’ll be fine. But the buried ones have no escape route for water vapor. If they get wet or are exposed to water vapor even once, they are going to fail. We’ve seen horror stories time and time again. It’s just not a good environment for electronics.”
One group of scientists tried burying their loggers in five-gallon buckets.
The Ugly
Chambers likes to relate a cautionary tale about some scientists in Seattle, who buried their data loggers in five-gallon buckets with lids. They taped their loggers to the lid, but when they dug the buckets up, they were half full of water, and the loggers were dead. This is because as the buckets filled with water, the loggers were continuously exposed to water-condensing conditions. After the loggers were repaired, the scientists re-buried them. But, six weeks later, their buckets were again half full of water, and their loggers were dead.
One Success Story So Far
There is one innovative group at Washington State University, however, who can be considered successful. Postdoctoral research associate Caley Gasch decided she wanted to bury data loggers in the Cook Agricultural Farm, an actively managed field, so they weren’t constantly taking down loggers and causing large gaps in their data.
Next week:Find out how she was able to solve many of the problems that prevent successful deployment of data loggers underground.
Get more information on applied environmental research in our
Due to controversy over the growing number of high capacity wells in the Wisconsin Central Sands, University of Wisconsin PhD student, Mallika Nocco, is researching how agricultural land use, irrigation, and climate change impact the region’s water-energy balance (see part I). This week, read about her challenges installing lysimeters below the root zone, how she used a GPS system that can find the lysimeters within a half-inch of accuracy, and her surprising conclusions.
This relatively small ecological region has gone from 60 high capacity wells in 1960 to over 2,500 today.
Below the Root Zone
Nocco says getting the lysimeters below the root zone was a major challenge. “We tried a couple of things, but we settled on installing all the lysimeters with an 18-inch auger that would drill a hole slightly bigger than the whole lysimeter. We dug an 80 cm trench to the top of the monolith zone. Then, we pounded the drain gauge divergence control tube to 1.4 m to obtain an intact monolith, wherever it was possible to do so. We also stratified soil moisture sensors at 10, 20, 40, and 80 cm. We used heavy equipment to slowly lift out the monolith, dig out the soil below, and place it back in, keeping track of all of the different soil horizons, and backfilled as close to the bulk density as we could.”
Passive capillary lysimeter installation
Finding the Lysimeters with GPS
Typically, scientists bury lysimeters close to the edge of the field so they are easy to locate, but Nocco was concerned that they would prejudice their data due to the donut effect of center pivot irrigation: more irrigation hits the center of the field with less irrigation toward the edges. She comments, ”When I installed the first ten lysimeters, I had not yet come up with a way to find everything. Those instruments are all about 15 meters from the field edge so that I could triangulate measurements and find them during cultivation. But then I met an extension scientist at the university who had access to an RTK GPS system, which can locate instrumentation within a half-inch of accuracy. With his help and training, we were able to install the rest of the lysimeters at more random spots throughout the field.”
Nocco was concerned that they would prejudice their data due to the donut effect of center pivot irrigation.
Surprising Conclusions
Nocco says that ET and differences in crop physiology do not explain or account for all of the variability that she saw in groundwater recharge. Her team did a particle size analysis on the soils adjacent to the lysimeters, and she comments, “We thought that the greater the relative sand content in the soils, the more recharge we would have seen, but what we are seeing is the opposite. The particle size analysis reveals a negative linear correlation between potential recharge and sand content. The more silt there is in these lysimeters, the more volume of recharge. What I’m curious about now is if we’re seeing a greater volume of recharge in the siltier spots from flux convergence. I’m trying to obtain the time series data from the pressure transducers to see if maybe the sandier areas had less potential recharge, but perhaps drained faster. I have seen a correlation between antecedent soil moisture content and particle size (with no correlation based on crop type). So it also looks like the siltier soils are holding more water when the rain comes through.”
What’s Next?
Eventually, Nocco plans to use field-generated estimates of groundwater recharge and ET to parameterize and validate a dynamic, agroecosystem model, Agro-IBIS, simulating hydrological responses to climate and land use changes over the past 60 years. Nocco will then share the water-energy budgets and water quantity/climate simulations with stakeholders in the Wisconsin Central Sands area.
Due to controversy over the growing number of high capacity wells in the Wisconsin Central Sands, University of Wisconsin PhD student, Mallika Nocco, is researching how agricultural land use, irrigation, and climate change impact the region’s water-energy balance. She and her team have uncovered some surprising results.
A class 1 trout stream has sufficient natural reproduction to sustain populations of wild trout at or near carry capacity.
Water Use Debate
There are class 1 trout streams in the Central Sands region, and some people worry that the increasing number of high capacity wells used for agriculture will reduce the water levels in those streams. “Lake Huron has lost about 11 feet of water since 2000,” says one resident of the Central Sands area, “and water levels are continuing to drop.” In 2008, the small well he used to pump drinking water went dry, and he blames the high capacity wells.” (Aljazeera America) On the other side of the debate, agriculture irrigated by these wells is extremely valuable to the state, and growers have taken quite a bit of time to understand the water cycle and their role in it. You can read about their water management goals and accomplishments here.
Updating Former Research
Irrigated agriculture wasn’t prevalent or profitable in the Wisconsin Central Sands until groundwater irrigation with high capacity wells became feasible in the 1950s. Since then, this relatively small ecological region has gone from 60 high capacity wells in 1960 to over 2,500 today.
Mallika Nocco is studying potential groundwater recharge from irrigated cropping systems that use the wells, hoping to understand if the irrigation water is lost or returned to the groundwater. She says, “Until now, we’ve been relying on models validated by two lysimeters in the 1970s. Champ Tanner (one of the fathers of environmental biophysics) designed the weighing lysimeters, and they were very accurate, but we wanted to do a larger scale study with multiple crops to get a handle on interannual variability and to improve our understanding of recharge in the region so we can do a better job of managing irrigation and groundwater.”
Lysimeter installation into actively managed fields presented challenges that the research team had to overcome.
Measuring Recharge
Nocco used twenty-five drain gauge lysimeters to capture vadose zone flux under potato and maize cropping systems. She monitored soil water (and temperature) flux by stratifying water content sensors from the soil surface to a depth of 1.4 meters. She also estimated evapotranspiration (ET) using a porometer to measure stomatal conductance, in addition to obtaining micrometeorology, leaf area index, and gas exchange measurements.
Nocco and her team had to put their sensors in to avoid cultivation, so they extended the drain gauge PVC that comes up to the soil surface and removed it any time there was major fieldwork, whether it was tillage or planting, so that the area over the lysimeter got the same treatment as the rest of the agricultural fields.
Below the Root Zone
Nocco says getting the lysimeters below the root zone was a challenge. Next week, read about how she solved that challenge, how she used a GPS system to find the lysimeters within a half-inch of accuracy, and about her surprising conclusions.
In the conclusion to last week’s blog, Mark Blonquist, chief scientist at Apogee Instruments and air temperature measurement expert, explains the complexities of some proposed solutions to the problems that challenge accurate air temperature measurement.
An aspirated radiation shield manufactured by Apogee Instruments in Logan, Utah. Multiple models of passive and active shields are available from several manufacturers.
Solution: Passive Radiation Shield
In addition to an accurate sensor, accurate air temperature measurement requires proper shielding and ventilation of the sensor. Passive shields do not require power, making them simple and low-cost, but they warm above air temperature in low wind or high solar radiation. Warming is increased when there is snow on the ground due to increased solar radiation load from higher albedo and increased reflected solar radiation. Errors as high as 10 degrees C have been reported in passive shields over snow (Genthon et al., 2011; Huwald et al., 2009). The figure below shows the differences in error for the two conditions.
Corrections for Passive Shields
Equations to correct air temperature measurements in passive shields have been proposed, but often require measurement of wind speed and solar radiation, and are applicable to a specific shield design. Corrections that don’t require additional meteorological measurements have also been proposed, such as air temperature adjustment based on the difference between air temperature and interior plate temperature differences. Others have suggested modifying traditional multi-plate passive shields to include a small fan that can be operated under specific conditions, but using natural aspiration when wind speeds are above an established threshold.
Solution: Active Shields
Warming of air temperature sensors above actual air temperature is minimized with active shields, which are more accurate than passive shields under conditions of high solar radiation load or low wind, but power is required for the fan. The power requirement for active shields ranges from one to six watts (80-500 mA). For solar-powered weather stations, this can be a major fraction of power usage for the entire station and has typically required a large solar panel and large battery. Power requirement and cost are disadvantages of active shields (Table 3), and they have led to the use of less accurate passive shields on many solar-powered stations.
Also, the fan motor can heat air as it passes by. Active shields should be constructed to avoid recirculation of heated air back into the shield. There is no reference standard for the elimination of radiation-induced temperature increase of a sensor for air temperature measurement, but well-designed active shields minimize this effect.
Table 3: Advantages and disadvantages of passive (naturally-aspirated) and active (fan-aspirated) radiation shields.
There is no reference standard for the elimination of radiation-induced temperature increase of a sensor for air temperature measurement, but well-designed active shields minimize this effect. Radiation-induced temperature increase was analyzed in long-term experiments over snow and grass surfaces by comparing temperature measurements from three models of active radiation shields (the same temperature sensor was used in all shields and were matched before deployment). Continuous measurements for one year indicated that mean differences among shield models were less than 0.1 C over grass and less than 0.3 C over snow. Differences increased with increasing solar radiation, particularly during winter months when there was snow (high reflectivity) on the ground.
Air Temperature: a Complex Measurement
The properties of materials and nearly all biological, chemical, and physical processes are temperature dependent. As a result, air temperature is perhaps the most widely measured environmental variable. Accurate air temperature measurement is essential for weather monitoring and climate research worldwide. The road to accuracy is complex, however, and will continue to be challenging given the trade-off between accuracy and power consumption with passive and active shields.
Get more information on applied environmental research in our
See weather sensor performance data for the ATMOS 41 weather station.
Mark Blonquist, chief scientist at Apogee Instruments and air temperature measurement expert, explains the difficulties of obtaining accurate air temperature.
The accuracy of air temperature has come a long way.
Accurate air temperature measurements are challenging, despite decades of research and development aimed at improving instruments and methods. People assume that they can use a static louvered radiation shield along with a temperature sensor and start measuring accurate air temperature. That assumption is good if you are at a site where the wind blows all the time (roughly greater than 3 m/s). However, if the wind at your field site is below that, you’re going to see errors due to solar heating (See Figure 1).
Figure 1: Passive Shield Error: Data for 3 different models are graphed.
Challenge 1: Accurate Sensors
Over the years, thermocouples, thermistors, and platinum resistance thermometers (PRTs) have been used for air temperature measurement, each with associated advantages and disadvantages. PRTs have the reputation as the preferred sensor for air temperature measurement due to high accuracy and stability. However, thermistors have high signal-to-noise ratio, are easy to use and low cost, and have similar accuracy and stability to PRTs. Thermocouples are becoming less commonly used for air temperature measurement because of the requirement of accurate measurement of reference temperature (i.e., meter temperature, data logger panel temperature).
Challenge 2: Housing Air Temperature Sensors
The challenge of accurate air temperature measurement is far greater than having an accurate sensor, as temperature measured by an air temperature sensor is not necessarily equal to air temperature. Temperature sensors must be kept in thermal equilibrium with air through proper shielding in order to provide accurate measurements. To do this, housings should minimize heat gains and losses due to conduction and radiation, and enhance coupling to air via convective currents. They must shield it from shortwave (solar) radiant heating and longwave radiant cooling. A temperature sensor should also be thermally isolated from the housing to minimize heat transport to and from the sensor by conduction. The housing should provide ventilation so the temperature sensor is in thermal equilibrium with the air. Also, the housing should keep precipitation off the sensor, which is necessary to minimize evaporative cooling of the sensor. Conversely, condensation on sensors can cause warming. When condensed water subsequently evaporates, it cools the sensor via removal of latent heat (evaporational cooling).
Challenge 3: Size of Sensor
The magnitude of wind speed effects on air temperature measurement in passive shields is highly dependent on the thermal mass (size) of the sensor. Many weather stations have combined relative humidity and temperature sensors, which are much larger than a stand-alone air temperature sensor. Air temperature errors from larger probes are greater than those from smaller sensors. One study, Tanner (2001), reported results where a common temperature/RH probe was approximately 0.5 degrees C warmer than a common thermistor in a weather-proof housing.
Thermal mass of temperature sensors also has a major impact on sensor response time. Sensors with small thermal mass equilibrate and respond to changes quicker and are necessary for applications requiring high-frequency air temperature measurements.
Challenge 4: Proper Shielding
In addition to an accurate sensor, accurate air temperature measurement requires proper shielding and ventilation of the sensor. Active, fan aspiration improves accuracy under conditions of low wind but requires power to operate the fan. Passive, natural aspiration minimizes power use but can reduce accuracy in conditions of high solar load or low wind speed. Radiation shields for air temperature sensors should be placed in an environment where air temperature is representative. For example, air temperature sensors and radiation shields should not be deployed on the tops of buildings or in areas where they will be shaded by structures or trees. Conditions in microenvironments have that potential to be very different from surrounding conditions. Typical mounting heights for air temperature sensors are 1.2 to 2.0 meters above the ground. Typically, radiation shields should be mounted over vegetation.
Up next: Mark Blonquist explains the complexities of some of the proposed solutions to the above challenges in part 2.
Get more information on applied environmental research in our