Dr. John Selker, hydrologist at Oregon State University and one of the scientists behind the Trans African Hydro and Meteorological Observatory (TAHMO) project, gives his perspective on the future of sensor technology.
Dr. John Selker (Image: andrewsforest.oregonstateuniversity.edu)
What sparked your interest in science?
I was kind of an accidental scientist in a sense. I went into water resources having experienced the 1985 drought in Kenya. I saw that water was transformative in the lives of people there. I thought there were lots of things we could do to make a difference, so I wanted to become a water resource engineer. It was during my graduate degree process that I got excited about science.
What was the first sensor you developed?
I’ve been developing sensors for a long time. I worked at some national labs on teams developing sensors for physics experiments. The first one I developed myself was as an undergraduate student in physics. I was the lab instructor for the class, and I wanted to do something on my own while the students were busy. I made a non-contact bicycle speedometer which was much like an anemometer. I took an ultrasonic emitter, trained it on the tire, and I could get the beat frequency between emitted sound and the backscatter to get the bicycle speed.
What’s the future of sensor technology?
Communication
Right now one of the very exciting advances in technology is communication. Having sensors that can communicate back to the scientists immediately makes a huge difference in terms of knowing how things are going, making decisions on the fly, and getting good quality data. Oftentimes in the past, a sensor would fail and you wouldn’t know about it for months. Cell phone technology and the ability to run a station on a few AA batteries for years has been the most transformative aspect of technological development. The sensors themselves also continue to improve: getting smaller and using less energy, and that’s excellent progress as well.
What often happens is that you install a solar sensor, and then a leaf or a dust grain falls on it, and you lose your accuracy.
Redundancy
I think the next big thing in sensing technology is how to use what we might call “semi-redundant” sensing. What often happens is that you install a solar sensor, and then a leaf or a dust grain falls on it, and you lose your accuracy. However, if you had a solar panel and a solar sensor, you could then do comparisons. Or if you were using a wind sensor and an accelerometer you could also compare data. We now have the computing capability to look at these things synergistically.
Accuracy
What I would say in science is that if we can get a few more zeros: a hundred times more accurate, or ten times more frequent measurements, then it would change our total vision of the world. So, what I think we’re going to have in the next few years, is another zero in accuracy. I think we’re going to go from being plus or minus five percent to plus or minus 0.5 percent, and we are going to do that through much more sophisticated intercomparisons of sensors. As sensors get cheaper, we can afford to have more and more related sensors to make those comparisons. I think we’re going to see this whole field of data assimilation become a critical part of the proliferation of sensors.
What are your thoughts on the future of sensor technology?
Get more information on applied environmental research in our
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.
On May 25, 2008 NASA’s Phoenix Lander successfully landed on the surface of Mars and used a robotic scoop arm to deliver regolith samples to the suite of instruments on the deck of the Lander—with one exception. The Thermal and Electrical Conductivity Probe (TECP), designed by a team of Decagon (now METER) research scientists, was mounted on the knuckle of the robotic arm and made direct contact with the regolith. It measured thermal conductivity, thermal diffusivity, electrical conductivity, and dielectric permittivity of the regolith, as well as vapor pressure of the air.
But, that’s starting at the end of the story. The fact is that TECP almost didn’t get started. After seeing a thermal properties needle at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco, Mike Hecht (project leader on the Mars Environmental Compatibility Assessment (MECA) instrument suite) encouraged his colleague Martin Buehler to call Decagon (now METER) to see if we’d be willing to participate in the Phoenix Lander project. When Martin called one Friday afternoon, announcing that he was from JPL and wondering if we would be willing to fly our sensor on the Phoenix Lander, I was instantly intimidated. I knew JPL was associated with NASA, and I couldn’t imagine why they would be calling Decagon. I always thought there was a fundamental relationship between NASA and Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and other major companies that did NASA work. I told him that Decagon, which was much smaller in those days, didn’t have the capacity to develop instrumentation for space flight. He suggested they come up for a visit and at least consult with us on what they would need to do to obtain this measurement. The following Monday, we were talking Martian science and inexorably hooked on the idea of joining the team.
I knew JPL was associated with NASA, and I couldn’t imagine why they would be calling Decagon.
Deciding to put one of our sensors on Mars did nothing to lessen the intimidation factor. But, working with Mike and his team at JPL/NASA taught us that doing amazing science can be an inspiring and collaborative effort. I’d always imagined NASA as a group of uber-scientists and engineers sitting in glass offices dreaming up and executing great projects that would be impossible for mere mortals. The reality is that sending something to Mars and having it do real science requires the combined effort of thousands of smart, dedicated people who are not that much different from the rest of us.
This idea was really brought home when we finally visited JPL. Although the things they were doing were amazing and on a much grander scale, they weren’t that much different from the things we do at Decagon. They had testing facilities, development facilities, production facilities, and support personnel all working together on projects, just like us. However, the projects were pretty amazing. We watched the robot arm being tested in a lab for the ability to dig martian soil analogs. We observed an ice probe working in a 55-gallon drum trying to prove it could melt its way down through the thick Martian polar ice caps. We were mesmerized by prototypes of Mars rovers being programmed and executing maneuvers on Martian surface analogs.
It was fun to discover who the Jet Propulsion Lab is and how enjoyable it is to collaborate with people that are thinking about new applications of technology. This collaboration also benefitted METER’s thermal properties instrument because the mathematical models we developed for Mars made this sensor much more accurate and effective. The Mars project expanded both the depth of our understanding and the breadth of our perspective. Even so, it was fun to find out that scientists who work at JPL have to put their pants on one leg at a time, just like all of us.
Watch this virtual seminar where Dr. Mike Hecht talks Mars, poetry, and Decagon’s (now METER’s) involvement in the Mars Phoenix Lander Mission.
Get more information on applied environmental research in our
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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
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.
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 (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 contentsensors 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.
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.
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.
With the recent news coverage of the SMAP (Soil Moisture Active Passive) satellite launch, researchers may wonder: what does remote sensing mean for the future of in situ measurements? We asked two scientists, Drs. Colin Campbell and Chris Lund, for answers to this complex question. Here’s what they had to say:
Image: www.jpl.nasa.gov
What is SMAP?
SMAP is an orbiting earth observatory that estimates soil moisture content in the top 5 cm of soil over the entire earth. The mission is three years long with measurements taken every 2-3 days. This will allow seasonal changes around the world to be observed over time, improving our ability to manage water resources and better parameterize land surface models. SMAP determines the amount of water found between the minerals, rocky material, and organic particles found in soil by measuring the ability of radar to penetrate the soil. The wetter the soil is, the less the radar will penetrate. SMAP has two different sensors on the platform: an L band aperture radar with a resolution of about a kilometer when it’s looking straight down (the pixel size is about 1 km by 1 km), combined with a passive radiometer with about 40 km of resolution. This combination creates a synthetic product that takes advantage of the sensitivity of the radiometer.
What does SMAP mean for in situ soil water content measurement?
It’s all about scale: In some ways, comparing in situ to SMAP measurements is like comparing apples to…well…mountain-sized apples. The two forms of measurement use vastly different scales. In situ soil moisture sensors measure water content at the volume of several liters of soil, maximum. Even the sensor with the largest field of sensitivity, the neutron probe, can only integrate a volleyball-sized volume. On the other hand, SMAP measures at a resolution of 1 km2, which is larger than the size of a quarter section, a large field for many farmers. Global soil moisture maps will allow scientists using SMAP to look at big picture applications like weather, climate and hydrological forecasting, drought, and flooding, while more detailed in situ measurements will tell a farmer when it’s time to water, or help researchers discover exactly why plants are growing in one location versus another. The difference in spatial scale makes the two forms of measurement useful for very different research purposes and applications. However, there are applications where the two measurements can be complementary. Most notably, in situ measurements are often temporally rich while being spatially poor. But, SMAP can be used to scale in situ measurements to areas where in situ measurements are absent. In situ measurements can also be used as a source of validation data for SMAP-derived values for any location where both in situ and SMAP measurements overlap. Thus, there is opportunity for synergy when pairing SMAP and in situ measurements.
Satellite image in Winter.
What can SMAP do that in situ measurement can’t?
Scientists say they’ve seen a relationship between the top 5 cm of soil moisture and some factors related to climate change and weather. Because in situ soil sensors sample across a spatial footprint of a few meters, it can be very difficult to use their data to say anything about processes occurring across broad spatial scales; two liters of soil is not going to tell you anything about weather or flooding. SMAP can help us better understand the interaction between the land surface and atmosphere, improving our understanding of the global water cycle as well as regional and global climate. This will help with forecasting crop yield, pest pressure, and disease…that’s big picture research.
The productivity of a forest also may depend on the general soil moisture measured by SMAP. For instance, if we got an idea of the soil moisture and greenness of a forest, we could tie together the approximate water availability and the resulting biomass accumulation with incoming solar radiation. Better biomass accumulation models could lead to better validation of global carbon cycle models.
SMAP will also be able to detect dry areas across the U.S. and challenges they might present. Surface runoff that leads to flooding could also be predicted as scientists will be able to see where soils reach saturated conditions.
In other applications, people working on global water or energy budgets have to parameterize the land surface in terms of how wet or dry it is. That’s the big advantage of SMAP’s relatively new data sets. Any time you’re running a regional climate model you have to parameterize what the soil moisture is in order to partition surface heat flux into sensible and latent heat flux. If there’s a lot of available water, it’s weighted more toward evaporation and less toward sensible heat flux. In areas where there’s little available water and low evaporation, you get high surface temperatures and sensible heat flux. So SMAP will be important for model parameterization as we haven’t had a good global data set for soil moisture until now.
In situ sensors show how much water is lost from the root zone and what is still left.
What can in situ sensors do that SMAP can’t?
In irrigated agriculture, farmers need to know when and how much to irrigate. In situsensors give them this information by showing how much water was lost from the root zone and what is still left. SMAP is unable to tell you what’s down in the root zone; it only reaches to 5 cm. Additionally, 1 km resolution is larger than most irrigation blocks. These factors mean that it will be difficult to make irrigation decisions from SMAP alone.
Scientists using in situ sensors are concerned with the soil moisture available in a local area because their time resolution is excellent and they have the ability to resolve what’s happening in particular conditions related to crops or natural systems. Natural systems are often heterogeneous, meaning there may be adjacent areas with different types of vegetation including trees, shrubs, and grass. Tree roots may grow deep while grass roots are shallow. Being able to look over all these different areas without averaging them together, as SMAP does, is critical in some applications.
What about geotechnical applications? Literature suggests SMAP output can help predict landslides. It is more likely that it can only see when the soil is generally saturated and generate a warning. But in slopes that are at risk of landslides, in situ monitoring with sensors such as tensiometers to measure positive pore water pressure may be more useful for determining when a slide is imminent.
SMAP, like in situ water content measuring systems, is also limited by the fact that it measures the amount, not the availability, of water. If it measures 23% water content in a certain area, that measurement may not tell us what we want to know. A clay soil at 23% VWC will be close to wilting point while a sand would be above the plant optimal range. SMAP doesn’t measure the energy status of water (water potential), so even if SMAP tells us a field has water content, that water might not be readily available. Water availability must be determined through a pedo-transfer function or moisture release curve appropriate for a specific soil type (It is possible to overlay SMAP data on soil type data to estimate energy state, but this might not be fine enough resolution to be useful).
Complementary Technology
How do SMAP and in situ instruments work together? The key is ground truthing in situ soil moisture measurements with SMAP type satellites and vice versa. Ground-based measurements at specific locations can be matched with satellite information to extrapolate over a field and gain confidence in the small continuous scale alongside the larger infrequent scale. It’s analogous of a video camera recording one plant continuously while a single shot camera snaps whole-field pictures every day. With the SMAP “single-shot” we can say, something changed from time A to time B, but we don’t know what happened in the middle (rain event, etc.). In situ measurements will tell us the details of what happened in between each snapshot. Putting both data sets together and matching trends, we can show correlation and complete the soil moisture picture. Basically, In situ measurements provide temporally rich information about soil moisture from a postage stamp-sized area of earth’s surface (driven by highly localized conditions), whereas SMAP gives us the ability to monitor broad scale spatiotemporal patterns across all of earth’s surface (driven by synoptic conditions).
March 11, 2015 marks four years since the Fukushima disaster. What have we learned?
Shortly after the Fukushima disaster, we donated some of our sensors to Dr. Masaru Mizoguchi, a scientist colleague at the University of Tokyo. He is using the equipment to contrive a more environmentally friendly method to rid rice fields in the villages near Fukushima of the radioactive isotope cesium 137.
Over the last three years, government contractors removed 5 cm of topsoil from fields in order to extract the radioactive isotope. The topsoil has been replaced with sand. The problem with this method is that it also removes most of the essential soil material, leaving the fields a barren wasteland with little hope of recovery anytime soon. Topsoil removal may also prove ineffective because wild boars dig up the soil to root for insects and larvae. This presents a problem in the soil stripping method, as it becomes impossible to determine exactly where the 5 cm boundary exists. In addition, typhoons and heavy rains erode the sand surface raising safety and stability concerns.
Currently, bags full of radioactive topsoil are stacked into pyramids in abandoned fields. An outer black bag layer filled with clean sand is placed around the outside to prevent radiation leakage. The government has promised that these bags will be removed and taken to a repository near the destroyed reactor, but many people don’t believe that will happen as the bags themselves only have a projected life of 3-5 years before they start to degrade. More of these pyramids are being built around Iitate village every day, which is a source of uneasiness for many people that are already cautious about returning.
Dr. Mizoguchi and his colleagues have come up with a new “flooding” method now being tested in smaller fields that can save the topsoil and organic matter while at the same time removing the cesium, making the land usable again within two years. The new method floods the field and mixes the topsoil with water, leaving the clay particles suspended. Because the cesium binds with the clay, they can drain the water and clay mixture into a pre-dug pit and bury it with a meter of soil after the water has infiltrated. After one year of using this method, the scientists saw that the cesium levels in the rice had gone down 89%. And in situ and laboratory instrumentation have shown that two years after cesium removal, the plants’ cesium uptake is negligible, and the food harvested is safe for consumption.
Dr. Mizoguchi standing by a sensor station containing Decagon sensors
Dr. Mizoguchi is monitoring the surrounding forests with our canopy and soils instrumentation in order to determine if runoff from the wilderness areas will return cesium to the fields and what can be done about it. He’s figured out a way to network all the instrumentation and upload data directly to the cloud. Still, even if this technology and new methodology work, will people around the world ever feel safe eating food grown near Fukushima? Dr. Mizoguchi says, “I believe that the soil is recovered scientifically and technically. However, harmful rumors will remain in the public mind for a long time, even if we show the data that proves safety. So we must keep showing the facts on Fukushima based on scientific data.”
Resurrection of Fukushima volunteers use Dr. Mizoguchi’s method to rehabilitate small farms
Incredibly, each weekend a volunteer organization of retired scientists and university professors use their own money and time to travel out to small village farms. There they labor to rehabilitate the land using Dr. Mizoguchi’s method. One of the recipients of this selfless work is a 72-year-old farmer who took his nonagenarian mother and returned to their home to fulfill her heartfelt plea that she could live out her final years outside the shadow of a highrise apartment (see this story in the video above). We are honored to be a part of this humanitarian effort.
Months ago, I was reading about the tragic test-flight crash of the Virgin Galactic passenger rocket plane and noting that there was a lot of criticism of that company for it’s “risky space venture.” In the midst of the heartbreak I felt at the deaths of the two pilots, as an innovator, I can somewhat sympathize with the Virgin Galactic Company in the realization that historically, innovation has involved risk. If you think about airplane development in the early 1900’s, every year 20% of pilots died because of malfunctions on airplanes (“By the spring of 1917, the life expectancy of a British pilot was put at eight days.” Van Creveld, The Age of Airpower, p. 28). Today we worry about the safety of air travel much less because people were willing to go through years of painful learning, and because of that learning, we no longer use trains as our fastest transportation.
Thankfully, no one’s life is on the line with Decagon sensor innovation. However, similar to early airplanes and the new rocket plane, when we release an instrument that is completely new (like our circuit board water content sensors), there are occasional problems that are not accounted for in our extensive laboratory and field testing. In light of this, we are grateful for scientists who are willing to give us feedback in order to aid innovation and advancement of science and technology. Here is an example of how scientists became our collaborators in developing a new product that helped to advance their discipline.
In 2000 we made our first water content sensor where we put the circuit board on the sensor itself, rather than a data logger. In advance of its release, we made a version of the sensor that was flexible with the idea that it would have excellent contact by conforming to the soil. In theory, it looked great, but when it was put in the ground, the sensor flexed and popped the components off the circuit board. Thanks to testing feedback, we made more rigid, 20cm long sensors, and the components had no more trouble.
Researchers loved the instrument but wanted shorter ones to put in greenhouse pots.
After this problem was solved, researchers loved the instrument but wanted shorter ones to put in greenhouse pots. So we made the shorter ones. Scientists then became concerned that the sensors were sensitive to salinity in higher electrical conductivity conditions. Coincidentally, components became available to raise the frequency to 70 MHz, which is much less sensitive to electrical conductivity. Thus, because scientists were willing to partner in the development process and learn with us, we have developed a sensor that is affordable, cutting-edge technology which advanced the discipline of soil science.
We love to partner with scientists in the pursuit of knowledge. A researcher at a conference once said to one of our scientists, “I hate your stuff…for the first couple of months. But then you guys take your lumps, make it better, and then I buy all your stuff.” He was saying this in jest because it certainly doesn’t happen with many of the products we release. But when it does, we appreciate the dedicated support of our scientist friends who enjoy learning along with us to make the same kind of advancement that helped the world move from trains to air, and now onward into commercial space travel.
We interviewed Gaylon Campbell, Ph.D. about his association with one of the fathers of environmental biophysics, John Monteith.
John Lennox Monteith, image:agrometeorology.org
Who was John Monteith?
John Monteith was a professor at the University of Nottingham in England and one of the founders of modern environmental biophysics. He pioneered the application of physical principles in the study of how plants and animals interact with their immediate environment. He started his career at Rothamsted Experimental Station in Harpenden, England and was hired as professor at Nottingham in the early 1970’s. He went on to spend time at the International Crops Research Institute for Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) in India. He published a textbook that has been a foundation for Environmental Biophysics, called Principles of Environmental Physics. He was elected a member of the Royal Society of London, which is the highest scientific distinction a person can receive in the UK. He was also a member of the Royal Meteorological Society and was its president in 1978. These societies are both sponsored by the crown, and he told me on the occasion that he was installed as the president of the Royal Meteorological Society, the queen attended and he sat by her at dinner. He is known for the Penman-Monteith equation that has become the basis for guidelines for estimating irrigation water requirements used by the FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations).
How did you meet him?
As an undergraduate, I knew of John because I worked for a professor at Utah State University (Sterling Taylor), who was measuring water potential in soil using thermocouple psychrometers. I was keenly interested in the subject, so Dr. Taylor gave me a paper on thermocouple psychrometers to read, published in 1958 by Monteith and Owen, written while John was at Rothamsted. John’s work there was influential in developing instrumentation which formed the foundation for Wescor, METER, and several other companies.
When Prof. Monteith’s book came out, it was pretty exciting for me, because it had everything in it that I was trying to teach as a professor of Soil Science. I wrote to John in 1977 inquiring about the possibility of doing a sabbatical there, and he wrote back immediately and arranged for us to come. Amazingly, he and his technician met our big family at Heathrow airport and loaded up the whole crew, including our many duffel bags, into a university minibus. A couple of our bags were missing, and John picked them up from the railway station in Nottingham and delivered them to us the next day. I have often marveled that such a busy and important man would take the time to care for us like that.
A sunflower field in Karnataka, India
What was he like as a colleague?
He was a humble man in a lot of ways. After he passed away, one of his colleagues wrote in and told about some of the experiences he’d had with John in India. India has a pretty hierarchical society, and it’s not uncommon for somebody who is in a position of authority to take advantage of that. John was in charge of one of the big groups within ICRISAT, and the thing that impressed his colleague was that whoever came into John’s office was treated with great respect, whether it was the cleaning person or the lab technician. If they had come to see him, they got the same treatment and the same respect that the director of the lab got.
We worked on a lot of projects together, but the proposal we submitted that was funded was one on improving thermocouple psychometry. I wrote up the paper, but he had written the proposal and provided the funding for the work. I put him down as an author on the paper, and when I got ready to submit it, he went over the paper just as if he were an author and then crossed his name out. He said he hadn’t contributed enough. Well, he contributed way more than most authors do, but he had a set of standards that he expected himself to meet and his contributions to that paper hadn’t met those standards. He was pretty amazing that way.
How did he get to be a part of the Penman-Monteith Equation?
Penman was head of the research group at Rothamsted Experimental Station which Monteith joined, following graduation. Penman was already an established researcher by the time Monteith got there, and the Penman equation was already well known. But, Monteith worked with that equation, and in my opinion, improved it substantially. He never wanted to take credit for that. He always claimed that Penman already understood the things he had added, and he never did call it a Penman-Monteith equation, always referring to it as the Penman equation. But I have never read things of Penman’s that indicated that he had anywhere near the depth of understanding of the equation that Monteith had. To my way of thinking, it’s completely appropriate that his name is associated with it.
What was John’s secret to accomplishing all he did, and how can scientists today emulate his meaningful career?
His gift was the gift of clear thinking. I gave a talk about him a while ago entitled “Try a Straight Line First.” John hated the complexity of modern computer models for crop growth because he couldn’t easily see the end from the beginning in those models. He had the ability to look at a problem, no matter how complex, and just reach in and grab the essence of that problem and show it to you. He used to talk about Occam’s Razor and not multiplying complexity. Einstein was supposed to have said, “Everything should be as simple as possible, but not simpler.” John was always able to find a simple way to look at problems. It may have been a complex process to get there, but once he was done, you had something that you could manipulate. I think simplicity and uncluttered thinking would be the thing to emulate.
One of the best parts of my job is the opportunity I get to teach others about the science and technique of measurement. For more than 10 years, I have participated in seminars and workshops all over the world to do just that. But, a couple of months ago, I had my first opportunity to work with my good friend Georg von Unold (METER Ag) to do a Bodentag workshop, German-style. I learned a lot from my experience, and I think the participants did as well.
UMS’s Georg von Unold with his backhoe, digging a permanent soil observation pit in the Black Forest
A Bodentag (meaning “soil day” in German) is an unusual opportunity for the attendees to get practical hands-on teaching and training from the people who understand soil and environmental instrumentation. In a typical conference, you will not get a chance to do things under field conditions. Instead of sitting in a conference room all day, a Bodentag starts with presentations to set the stage with the theory and principles of measurement, but quickly moves to the lab and field to get the participant’s hands dirty. With the diversity of measurements required for today’s multidisciplinary research, there is great value in structured field installation familiarity.
Our trip to Freiburg was a great example of how a Bodentag works. Preparation started early in the morning the day before as Georg used his large Mercedes Sprinter van full of equipment to tow his Bobcat excavator for more than five hours on our drive from Munich. When we got there, we were directed to a nearby site in the Black Forest where we used the excavator to dig a permanent soil observation pit (Georg’s gift to the institute there), complete with a stairwell that allowed people to go and inspect the pit face and install sensors. We prepared other stations to get people to install soil sensors with minimum impact, cut out intact soil columns for a field lysimeter, and remove intact soil cores.
Georg standing in the finished soil observation pit
The day of Bodentag, participants listened to two hours of lecture/presentations in the morning followed by both lab and field practicum sessions. During the field practicum, attendees could do actual installations of sensors into pit faces. This was useful because there were several researchers there who had Black Forest research sites, and they could look at and ask questions about the challenges of the rocky soil pervasive in that region. We used augers to dig holes to install Decagon sensors so everyone could see how that was done. Georg had one of his Smart Field Lysimeters out there and did a half-field installation. He showed them how to dig the Smart Field Lysimeter down into the soil, scrape the soil off, and actually collect a monolith right there.
After the outdoor practicum session, we went back to the lab where we broke up into small groups. There, people had an opportunity to go see laboratory instrumentation while learning some best practices for making measurements. In mine, people were using the WP4C water potential instrument to figure out the permanent wilting point of the soil that we brought. Attendees also got some careful training on the Hyprop to measure the wet end of the moisture release curve as well as learning about the KSAT, a METER instrument which measures saturated hydraulic conductivity. Because Bodentag is an opportunity to share ideas, we also got a chance to see the multi-step outflow instrumentation developed over the past 20 years by the Forest Research Center there in Freiburg that they use to create soil moisture characteristic curves.
2014 Bodentag attendees
At the end of the day, everyone was exhausted, and we still had a five-hour drive left to get back to Munich. But, everyone had a great time, and the students and researchers who were there learned enough so they could be confident when using an instrument to get the data they need in an experiment. It was a unique opportunity for me to see how to put together a great educational experience, and I am excited to try one here in the U.S. sometime soon: especially if I can run the excavator again!
