Citation: Shuoshuo Zhang, Yichang Wei, Muhammad Nawaz Kandhro, Feng Wu. Evaluation of FDR MI2X and New WiTu Technology sensors to determine soil water content in the corn and weed field[J]. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2020, 5(1): 169-180. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2020.1.169
| [1] | Jun Du, Yi-chang Wei, Muhammad Rizwan Shoukat, Linyi Wu, Ai-ling He, Gao-yuan Liu, Zhong-yi Guo, Yaseen Laghari . Effects of nitrogen reduction rates on grain yield and nitrogen utilization in a wheat-maize rotation system in yellow cinnamon soil. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2024, 9(1): 317-335. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2024019 |
| [2] | Widowati, Sutoyo, Hidayati Karamina, Wahyu Fikrinda . Soil amendment impact to soil organic matter and physical properties on the three soil types after second corn cultivation. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2020, 5(1): 150-168. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2020.1.150 |
| [3] | Muhd Arif Shaffiq Sahrir, Nornasuha Yusoff, Kamalrul Azlan Azizan . Allelopathy activity under laboratory, greenhouse and field conditions: A review. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2023, 8(1): 78-104. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2023004 |
| [4] | Muhammad Rendana, Wan Mohd Razi Idris, Sahibin Abdul Rahim, Zulfahmi Ali Rahman, Tukimat Lihan, Habibah Jamil . Reclamation of acid sulphate soils in paddy cultivation area with organic amendments. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2018, 3(3): 358-371. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2018.3.358 |
| [5] | Alexandra Mora, Umayr Sufi, Jedediah I. Roach, James F. Thompson, Irwin R. Donis-Gonzalez . Evaluation of a small-scale desiccant-based drying system to control corn dryness during storage. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2019, 4(1): 136-148. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2019.1.136 |
| [6] | Joe Mari J. Maja, James Robbins . Controlling irrigation in a container nursery using IoT. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2018, 3(3): 205-215. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2018.3.205 |
| [7] | Aliou Badara Kouyate, Vincent Logah, Robert Clement Abaidoo, Francis Marthy Tetteh, Mensah Bonsu, Sidiki Gabriel Dembélé . Phosphorus sorption characteristics in the Sahel: Estimates from soils in Mali. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2023, 8(4): 995-1009. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2023053 |
| [8] | W. Mupangwa, I. Nyagumbo, E. Mutsamba . Effect of different mulching materials on maize growth and yield in conservation agriculture systems of sub-humid Zimbabwe. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2016, 1(2): 239-253. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2016.2.239 |
| [9] | Tuan Syaripah Najihah, Mohd Hafiz Ibrahim, A'fifah Abd Razak, Rosimah Nulit, Puteri Edaroyati Megat Wahab . Effects of water stress on the growth, physiology and biochemical properties of oil palm seedlings. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2019, 4(4): 854-868. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2019.4.854 |
| [10] | Jon Hellin, Santiago López Ridaura . Soil and water conservation on Central American hillsides: if more technologies is the answer, what is the question?. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2016, 1(2): 194-207. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2016.2.194 |
Accurate determination of soil water content (SWC) is crucially important because soil water is a good nutrient itself, carries essential nutrients for plant growth, critical for photosynthesis and normalizes temperature. The soil water also benefits the microbial communities for their metabolic activities. Soil forming processes and decomposition of crop residues depend on water [1,2].
Typically plant growth is correlated with optimum SWC [3,4]. Both excessive and deficit soil water conditions adversely affect plant life, consequently, reduces crop yield [5]. Generally, to supply the correct amount of water to crop while sustain yield is a primary goal of any agricultural system of the world. Following this objective, commonly sensors are used to determine SWC, since the estimation of soil water based on the traditional gravimetric method is difficult and time-consuming [6,7]. The sensors are faster and easy use to measure soil water storages [8,9]. Specially, Frequency domain reflectometry (FDR) [10,11]. FDR sensors provide continuous observation of the SWC, by transmitting an electromagnetic wave along with probes and records the reflected wave frequency, which presents variations depending on the dielectric properties of the soil measured through the capacitance [12,13]. In such a technique, sensors work as part of a capacitor in which the water molecules are separated and aligned in a dipolar electric field. Structurally the capacitor comprises of two hollow cylindrical metal electrodes settled coaxially but parted by numerous millimeters with a shielding plastic, and the use of an electronic oscillator yields a sinusoidal waveform [14]. This permit the capacitor to interact with the field soil outside of the tube; thus, the capacitance measured could be influenced by the soil bulk electrical permittivity and the dipoles respond to the frequency of the electric field, which can determine the capacitance that leads to knowing the dielectric constant and, therefore, the estimation of SWC. The relationship between the frequency of fluctuation and SWC is inverse [15].
The new layered tubular soil moisture meter (known as WiTu Technology) is developed by Shenyang WiTu Agricultural Technology Corporation limited of China. The basic principle of WiTu is also frequency domain reflectometry. According to the company, the performance of WiTu Technology is stable. The overall index has reached the level of international similar products. The instrument is widely used in soil body profile monitoring to measure the soil water and salt content of various soil types, to rationally arrange irrigation and fertilization, save water resources, and prevent soil surface pollution. The monitoring has continuity, high data precision, easy installation of the instrument, no damage to the soil structure, and free measurement of soil water and salt content at different depths. At present, the equipment has been applied in meteorological, agricultural, hydrological fields in different parts of China, and has been well received by users [16]. The vegetation land cover, chemical transport, water table, temperature, and rainfall intensity are main diverting factors, which affect the state of soil moisture [17] and then effect on working efficiency of sensors [18]. However, still, there is limited research work.
The objective of this study was to statistically evaluate the efficiency of new WiTu Technology and conventional FDR MI2X sensor under changing vegetation land cover.
Experimental site Yuanyang county is located at 34°47ʼN, 113°38ʼE, 70 m above sea level, Zhengzhou, North China Plain (NCP). The climatic condition of the region is temperate monsoon. The average annual precipitation and temperature are about 646 mm and 14.8 ℃, respectively; the frost-free period is 224 days at this site. The soil of the county is predominantly sandy loam. The basic chemical properties of experimental field soil are as follow: pH 8.3, Nitrogen content 0.6 g kg−1, Phosphorus 0.6 g kg−1, potassium 25.4 g kg−1, and organic matter 11 g kg−1 [19]. Furthermore, the location of the experimental site, soil hydraulic properties, and local weather conditions are presented in Table 1 and Figure 1, respectively.
| Depth (cm) | Particle fraction (%) | Soil texture (USDA) | BD (g cm−3) | Sw (cm3cm−3) | Fc (cm3cm−3) | Sr (cm3cm−3) | Ks (cm d−1) | ||
| Sand | Silt | Clay | |||||||
| 0–20 | 51 | 25 | 24 | Sandy Loam | 1.41 | 0.48 | 0.26 | 0.15 | 16.80 |
| 20–40 | 55 | 23 | 22 | Sandy Loam | 1.43 | 0.46 | 0.25 | 0.14 | 15.04 |
| 40–60 | 59 | 20 | 21 | Sandy Loam | 1.44 | 0.46 | 0.24 | 0.13 | 16.08 |
| Note: BD, bulk density; Sw, soil saturated water content; Fc, SWC at field capacity; Sr, soil residual water content; Ks, saturated hydraulic conductivity. | |||||||||
DownLoad:
CSV
A three replicated randomized completely block design (RCBD) field experiment was conducted during the spring growing seasons from late April to August 2019. Spring corn Nongda-1505 was planted, and a field was left unsown to allow weed to grow freely. The purpose of leaving the field for weeds to estimate sensors performance for deep soil layers, because corn roots generally do not grow deeper [20] as the weed grows[21]. The total amount of irrigation was 90 mm, which was applied to three split doses. There was the same irrigation management for the weed field. The soil water storage change in the corn and weed field was measured every week. The final density of corn was 5–7 plant m2. The root length of the corn crop was 22.3 cm. In the weed field, the grass Chenopodium album L. was dominated during the initial period, covered 70% of the plot and had root length 37.1 cm, Latterly, Humulus scandens (Lour.) Merr largely covered the field up-to 80% which had root length 51.7 cm. Other weeds which were as follow:Eleusineindica (L.) Gaertn, Setariaviridis (L.) Beauv., Abutilon theophrasti Medicus, Conyza Canadensis(L.)Cronq., Portulaca oleracea L., and Lotuscorniculatus L. These weeds had root lengths 19.4 cm, 18.2 cm, 56.5 cm, 21.3 cm, 9.4 cm, and 16.5 cm, respectively.
Six WiTu Technology sensors were installed in the middle of each plot. The PVC tubes for FDR sensor measurements were inserted at 30 cm distance from WiTu sensor. While soil samples from the 0–20cm, 20–40cm and 40–60cm depths were taken throughout the crop period using soil sampling auger. Soil sampling was done around the area of the sensor (Figure 2). After recording the weight of wet samples, the soil was oven-dried at 105 ℃ for 24 hours to achieve a constant weight. Then, the soil water storage was calculated using equations (1)–(5) [22]. The soil bulk density (BD) was obtained by dividing the mass of solids in the soil by the total volume [23].
| mvd=soil volumeWater volume | (1) |
| Water volume=Water wtWater density | (2) |
| Soil volume=Wbulk density(BD)Dry soil wt | (3) |
| Soil volume=Wbulk density(BD)Dry soil wt | (4) |
| mvd=Water wtDry soil wt×Bulk densityWater density | (5) |
The sensors' performance was evaluated by comparing SWC changes measured by sensors with true values of SWC change estimated by the gravimetric method. The following statistical indices were used to determine the sensor's accuracy [4].
Absolute difference (AD%):
| AD%=θr−θsθs∗100 | (6) |
Root mean squire error:
| RMSE=√1n∑ni=1(θr−θS)2 | (7) |
Index of agreement:
| d=1−Σni=1(θr−θS)2∑ni=1(|θr−θ|+|θS−θ|)2 | (8) |
Correlation coefficient:
| r=∑ni=1(θr−θ)+(θS−θ)√∑ni=1(θr−θ)2√∑ni=1(θS−θ)2 | (9) |
Where θr and θs are the real soil water storages measured by Gravimetric and sensor-based methods, respectively.
Absolute difference (AD%) between two real numbers is defined as the distance on the real line between these two points [4]. The closer is the value of the RMSE to 0, the more accurate is the sensor. Agreement index (d) denotes the ratio of the mean square error and the potential error. A perfect match between the gravimetric method and sensor measured results d valueranges close to 1. Zero specifies no fit. While correlations is defined as 0.90–1.00 (very Strong), 0.70–0.90 (strong), 0.50–0.70 (moderate), 0.30–0.50 (weak) and 0.0–0.30 (none).
The FDR sensor measured soil water storages were good agreement with the real observed value of the gravimetric method. The absolute difference (AD) was negative (−1.3–−2.65%) for both corn and weed fields, which indicates that FDR slightly underestimated SWC changes. While WiTu technology overestimated with positive AD (1.40–2.03%). When FDR was compared with WiTu Technology, then AD increased 2.71–4.89%. It means FDR overestimated SWC changes as compared to WiTu Technology. In the case of RMSE, values for both corn and weed fields were low, ranged 1.51–1.31. WiTu Technology had higher RMSE 2.03 only from the weed field. The RMSE was larger between FDR and WiTu Technology with values of 2.23–2.29. The d value of FDR for corn-field showed as 0.74, closer d value 0.90 resulted from the weed field. The d indication of WiTu Technology was well fit. Also, it was fit between FDR and WiTu Technology. Furthermore, FDR had a moderate correlation coefficient for cornfield, the r index showed as 0.64, while it had very strong correlation 95 for the weed field. WiTu Technology had a strong and very strong correlation 0.80 and 0.92 for corn and weed fields, respectively. When compared FDR with WiTu Technology, the r value significantly decreased up-to 0.46 for cornfield, indicated a weak relationship between FDR and WiTu Technology, however, it had strong correlationship coefficient for the weed field.
In this soil layer, the WiTu Technology measured soil water storage changes that were in good agreement for both corn and weed fields. The range of AD values was between positive 3.35–4.96%, RMSE 1.53–2.00, d value 0.73–0.85 and r 0.54–0.92. The only correlation coefficient of WiTu with the Gravimetric method was decreased in the corn field. In this soil layer the FDR had lower AD 2.24% and RMSE 1.58 in the corn field, and higher AD −14.2% and RMSE 4.29 in the weed field. The accuracy of FDR was highly diminished as compared to WiTu Technology. Also, FDR had a weak correlation with r index below 0.50. When FDR data values were compared with WiTu data, then there was significantly large AD 20.46% and highest RMSE 5.05 in the weed field, however, FDR showed consistency for corn field. The AD and RMSE was not higher. FDR estimated 2.66% higher SWC.The value of the correlation between FDR and WiTu was 0.83, revealed strong correlationship.
The statistical indices for deep SWC changes were important from the weed field because corn root length does not grow deeper as weed grow. The AD was 4.5% from corn and 5.24% from the weed field than the real SWC measured by the Gravimetric method. The RMSE was increased and ranged 2.20–3.82. While d showed good consistency and r resulted ina weak relationship with 0.35 value, almost near to null correlation between FDR and reference method. In this layer, WiTu sensor showed good agreement with the gravimetric method based on observed SWC changes in the corn field; however; it had higher AD 12.13%, RMSE 4.23 for the weed field. The AD was 6.55% when compared WiTu method. The RMSE ranged as 3.19. The SWC content curves under all methods are shown in Figure 3 and statistical analysis is presented in Table 2.
| Corn field | Soil depth cm | FDR × Gravimetric Method | WiTu × Gravimetric Method | FDR × WiTu Technology | |||||||||
| AD% | RMSE | D | r | AD% | RMSE | d | r | AD% | RMSE | d | r | ||
| 20 | −1.33 | 1.51 | 0.74 | 0.64 | 1.40 | 1.46 | 0.80 | 0.80 | 2.71 | 2.23 | 0.79 | 0.46 | |
| 40 | 2.24 | 1.58 | 0.69 | 0.48 | 4.96 | 2.00 | 0.73 | 0.54 | 2.66 | 1.23 | 0.68 | 0.83 | |
| 60 | 4.5 | 2.20 | 0.90 | 0.96 | 3.85 | 1.68 | 0.89 | 0.98 | −0.63 | 1.17 | 0.89 | 0.98 | |
| Weed field | 20 | −2.65 | 1.31 | 0.90 | 0.95 | 2.11 | 2.03 | 0.92 | 0.92 | 4.89 | 2.29 | 0.92 | 0.90 |
| 40 | −14.2 | 4.29 | 0.91 | 0.86 | 3.35 | 1.53 | 0.85 | 0.92 | 20.46 | 5.05 | 0.92 | 0.92 | |
| 60 | 5.24 | 3.82 | 0.89 | 0.35 | 12.13 | 4.23 | 0.89 | 0.71 | 6.55 | 3.19 | 0.90 | 0.71 | |
DownLoad:
CSV
The FDR and new Technology of WiTu showed varied performance as soil depth increased from top layer to deep layer, considering overall results of corn and weed field. FDR efficiency was significantly high at the topsoil layer (0–20 cm) with an average accuracy level of 98.01% and reduced in the middle soil layer up to 91.78%, then increased to 95.13% in the deep soil layer. While the average accuracy of WiTu Technology ranged 98.24%, 95.85% and 92.02% for top, middle and deep soil layers, respectively. These results proved that the soil water detection ability of WiTu Technology was good at the soil depth of 0–40cm, while FDR's ability to detect SWC changes was satisfactory in the top and deep layer and low in the middle layer. Furthermore, the FDR showed good consistency with WiTu in all soil layers of corn field, but there was larger error for the weed field, which indicated a huge difference in the data measured by FDR and WiTu. SWC estimation of FDR and WiTu technology more fluctuated with changing vegetation cover type. These results link with findings of [25] and [26], who reported that the sensor's observations for SWC were varied in the field which was covered by about 30% weeds. Current results are also in-line with [27]; they compared different FDR sensorswith the gravimetric method SWC changes and found that sensors had 1.27–11.90% AD and RMSE 2.16–16.43 under the effect of different soil conditions. Sensors that are often mentionedare their high susceptibility to biotic and abiotic effects [28,29]. In our study, there were two reasons could be attributed to observed data of sensors above 40 cm depth was not well fit with real values, one factor could be maximum soil water storage, sensors may fail to detect SWC precisely when pore spaces of soil are highly saturated [18] and other reason of larger error could be defined as the volumetric effect of bulk density (BD) [30]. BD directly effect on the sensor results [31,32,33,34]. However, Chow et al. [18] reported that sensors perform very varied with the response to increasing soil depths up to 60 cm. Sensors do not well capture soil water variation patterns with time, and when a rapid change in soil water state takes place after irrigation or rainfall events. In earlier research, Leib et al [35] found that the sensor-based measured SWC significantly varied. Also, many other researchers including reference [36,37,38] and [5], explored the variable performance of sensors with the response to soil depths. Therefore, we should pay attention to the influence of bulk density on the sensor when measuring soil moisture content and correct the measured data.
Therefore, we should pay attention to the influence of temperature and bulk density on the sensor when measuring soil moisture content and correct the measured data in time (Figure 4).
Both FDR and new WiTu Technology showed varied performance as soil depth increased from top to deep layer. FDR efficiency was significantly high at the topsoil layer (0–20 cm) with an average accuracy level of 98.01% and reduced in the middle soil layer to 91.78%, then increased to 95.13% in the deep soil layer. While the average accuracy of WiTu Technology ranged 98.24%, 95.85%, and 92.02% for top, middle, and deep soil layers, respectively. These results proved that the soil water detection ability of WiTu Technology was good at the soil depth of 0–40 cm, while FDR's ability to detect SWC changes was satisfactory in the top to deep layers and low in the middle layer. Furthermore, the FDR showed good consistency with WiTu in all soil layers of the corn field, but there was a larger error for the weed field, which indicated a huge difference in the data measured by FDR and WiTu.
The work was supported by the National Key R & D Program of China (2017YFD0301102-5); Zhongyuan Science and Technology Innovation Leadership Project (Project No. 194200510008). We thank Dr. Shah Jahan Leghari (Editor in Chief, J. Flori. and Landscp., UAE) for English language editing.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
| [1] |
Robinson DA, Jones SB, Wraith JM, et al. (2003) A review of advances in dielectric andelectrical conductivity measurement in soils using Time Domain Reflectometry. Vadose Zone J 2: 444-475. doi: 10.2136/vzj2003.4440
|
| [2] |
Walker JP, Willgoose GR, Kalma JD (2004) In situ measurement of soil moisture: A comparison of techniques. J Hydrol 293: 85-99. doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2004.01.008
|
| [3] |
Tiejun W, Kumar SS, András B (2019) On the use of the critical event concept for quantifying soil moisture dynamics. Geoderma 335: 27-34. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2018.08.013
|
| [4] |
Leghari SJ, Hu K, Liang H, et al. (2019) Modeling water and nitrogen balance of different cropping systems in the north China plain. Agronomy 9: 696. doi: 10.3390/agronomy9110696
|
| [5] |
Malajner M, Gleich D, Planinsic P (2019) Soil type characterization for moisture estimation using machine learning and UWB-Time of Flight measurements. Measurement 146: 537-543. doi: 10.1016/j.measurement.2019.06.042
|
| [6] |
Bridge BJ, Sabburg J, Habash KO, et al. (1996) The dielectric behaviour of clay soils and its application to time do-main reflectometry.J Soil Res 34: 825-835. doi: 10.1071/SR9960825
|
| [7] |
Yoshikawa K, Overduin PP (2005) Comparing unfrozen watercontent measurements of frozen soil using recently deve-loped commercial sensors. J Cold Reg Sci Technol 42: 250-256. doi: 10.1016/j.coldregions.2005.03.001
|
| [8] | Laurent JP, RuelleP, Delage L, et al. (2001) On the use of theTDR TRIME-tube system for profiling water-content insoils. J Proc TDR 1: 1-10. |
| [9] |
Lane P, Mackenzie DH (2001) Field and laboratory calibrationand test of TDR and capacitance techniques for indirectmeasurement of soil water content. J Soil Res 39: 1371-1386. doi: 10.1071/SR00095
|
| [10] |
Bogena HR, Huisman JA, Oberdörster C, et al. (2007) Evaluation of a low-cost soil water content sensor for wireless network applications. J Hydrol 344: 32-42. doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2007.06.032
|
| [11] |
Xu J, Ma X, Logsdon SD, et al. (2012) Short multineedle frequency domain reflectometry sensorsuitable for measuring soil water content. J Soil Sci Soc Am J 76: 1929-1937. doi: 10.2136/sssaj2011.0361
|
| [12] | Campbell GS, Greenway WC (2005) Moisture Detection Apparatus and Method. U.S. Patent 6,904,789. |
| [13] | Muñoz-Carpena R (2004) Field devices for monitoring soil water content. UF/IFAS Extension Bul.343. Florida: UF/IFAS Department of Agriculture, University of Florida. |
| [14] | Evett S, Cepuder P (2005) Capacitance sensors for use in access tubes. In: Evett SR, Heng LK, Moutonnet P, et al., Field estimation of soil water content: A practical guide to methods, instrumentation and sensor technology, training course series 30, Vienna: IAEA, 73-90. |
| [15] | Hernández JGR, Gracia-Sánchez J, Rodríguez-Martínez TP, et al. (2018) Correlation between TDR and FDR soil moisture measurements at different scales to establish water availability at the South of the Yucatan Peninsula. In: Soil Moisture. Available from: 10.5772/intechopen.81477. |
| [16] | Tubular soil moisture meter (WiTu Technology). Available from: http://www.agridatabase.com.cn/SixTeenSoil/SixTeenSoilAbout.aspx. |
| [17] | Paridah M, Moradbak A, Mohamed A, et al. (2016) We are Intech Open, the world's leading publisher of Open Access books Built by scientists, for scientists TOP 1%. Intech i, 13. Available from: https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/57353. |
| [18] |
Chow L, Xing Z, Rees H, et al. (2009) Field performance of nine soil water content sensors on a sandy loam soil in New Brunswick, Maritime Region, Canada. Sensors 9: 9398-9413. doi: 10.3390/s91109398
|
| [19] |
Zhang Z, Zhang X, Mahamood M, et al. (2016) Effect of long-term combined application of organic and inorganic fertilizers on soil nematode communities within aggregates. Sci Rep 6: 31118. doi: 10.1038/srep31118
|
| [20] |
Feng GZ, He XL, Coulter JA, et al. (2019) Effect of limiting vertical root growth on maize yield and nitrate migration in clay and sandy soils in Northeast China. Soil Tillage Res 195: 104407. doi: 10.1016/j.still.2019.104407
|
| [21] | Leghari SJ, Leghari UA, Leghari GM, et al.(2015) An overview on various weed control practices affecting crop yield. J Chem Biol Phys Sci 6: 059-069. |
| [22] | Shukla A, Harsh P, Mayank M, et al. (2014) Soil moisture estimation using gravimetric technique and FDR probe technique: A comparative analysis. Environ Sci 8: 89-92. |
| [23] |
Al-Shammary AAG, Kouzani AZ, Kaynak A, et al. (2018) Soil bulk density estimation methods: A review. Pedosphere 28: 581-596. doi: 10.1016/S1002-0160(18)60034-7
|
| [24] |
Doležal F, Litschmann T, Kŭcera J, et al. (2008) Field and laboratory ad hoc calibrations of Virrib and ThetaProbe dielectric sensors for soil moisture measurements. Soil Water Res 3: 199-214. doi: 10.17221/18/2008-SWR
|
| [25] | Li Y, Wang G, Cheng Y, et al. (2006) Fieldcalibration of FDR probe and its application in measu-ring soil water content in alpine meadow. J Arid Land Geogr 29: 543-547. (in Chinese) |
| [26] |
Paige GB, Keefer TO (2008) Comparison of field performance of multiple soil moisture sensors in a semi-arid rangeland1. JAWRA J Am Water Resour Assoc 44: 121-135. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-1688.2007.00142.x
|
| [27] | Vaz CM, Jones S, Meding M, et al. (2013) Evaluation of standard calibration functions for eight electromagnetic soil moisture sensors.Vadose Zone J 12: 0160. |
| [28] | Chen Y, Or D (2006) Effects of Maxwell-Wagner polarization on soil complex dielectric permittivity under variable temperature and electrical conductivity. Water Resour Res 42: 06424. |
| [29] |
Kizito F, Campbell CS, Campbell GS, et al. (2008) Frequency, electrical conductivity and temperature analysis of a low-cost capacitance soil moisture sensor. J Hydrol 352: 367-378. doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2008.01.021
|
| [30] | Evett SR, Heng LK, Moutonnet P, et al. (2008) Field estimation of soil water content: A practical guide to methods, instrumentation, and sensor technology. Vienna, Austria: IAEA-TCS-30, Intl. Atomic Energy Agency, 131. |
| [31] | Guo W (2007) Review of dielectric properties of fruits andvegetables. Trans Chin Soc Agric Eng 23: 284-289. (in Chinese) |
| [32] |
Stang JR, Buchan GD, Loiskandl W (2009) Field use and cali-bration of a TDR-based probe for monitoring water contentin a high-clay landslide soil in Austria. Geoderma 150: 23-31. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2009.01.002
|
| [33] | Zhang L, Guo W, Fu H, et al. (2011) Designof digital honey water content meter. Trans Chin Soc Agric Mach 42: 139-143, 147. (in Chinese) |
| [34] | Wang J, Guo W, Deng Y (2012) Determination of water content in small red beans basedon dielectric loss factor. J Food Sci 33: 216-220. |
| [35] | Leib BG, Jabro JD, Mathews GR (2003) Field evaluation and performance comparison of soil moisture sensors. Soil Sci 168: 396-408. |
| [36] | Hanson BR, Peters D (2000) Soil type affects accuracy of dielectric moisture sensors. California Agric 54: 43-47. |
| [37] |
McMichael B, Lascano RJ (2003) Laboratory evaluation of a commercial dielectric soil water sensor. Vadose Zone Jl 2: 650-654. doi: 10.2136/vzj2003.6500
|
| [38] | Zhao Y, Bai C, Kuang Q, et al. (2006) Performance of three types of soil moisture ensors: SWR, TDR and FD. J Beijing Forest Univ 28: 158-160. |
| 1. | Shu Xu, Yichang Wei, Abdul Hafeez Laghari, Xianming Yang, Tongchao Wang, Modelling effect of different irrigation methods on spring maize yield, water and nitrogen use efficiencies in the North China Plain, 2021, 18, 1551-0018, 9651, 10.3934/mbe.2021472 | |
| 2. | Meihan Liu, Paula Paredes, Haibin Shi, Tiago B. Ramos, Xu Dou, Liping Dai, Luis S. Pereira, Impacts of a shallow saline water table on maize evapotranspiration and groundwater contribution using static water table lysimeters and the dual Kc water balance model SIMDualKc, 2022, 273, 03783774, 107887, 10.1016/j.agwat.2022.107887 | |
| 3. | Shah Jahan Leghari, Kelin Hu, Yichang Wei, Tongchao Wang, Tofique Ahmed Bhutto, Mahmooda Buriro, Modelling water consumption, N fates and maize yield under different water-saving management practices in China and Pakistan, 2021, 255, 03783774, 107033, 10.1016/j.agwat.2021.107033 | |
| 4. | Lei Wang, Shah Jahan Leghari, Jiajun Wu, Na Wang, Min Pang, Liang Jin, Interactive effects of biochar and chemical fertilizer on water and nitrogen dynamics, soil properties and maize yield under different irrigation methods, 2023, 14, 1664-462X, 10.3389/fpls.2023.1230023 | |
| 5. | Shah Jahan Leghari, Kelin Hu, Yichang Wei, Tongchao Wang, Yaseen Laghari, Modelling the effects of cropping systems and irrigation methods on water consumption, N fates and crop yields in the North China Plain, 2024, 218, 01681699, 108677, 10.1016/j.compag.2024.108677 |
Shuoshuo Zhang, Yichang Wei, Muhammad Nawaz Kandhro, Feng Wu. Evaluation of FDR MI2X and New WiTu Technology sensors to determine soil water content in the corn and weed field[J]. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2020, 5(1): 169-180. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2020.1.169
| Depth (cm) | Particle fraction (%) | Soil texture (USDA) | BD (g cm−3) | Sw (cm3cm−3) | Fc (cm3cm−3) | Sr (cm3cm−3) | Ks (cm d−1) | ||
| Sand | Silt | Clay | |||||||
| 0–20 | 51 | 25 | 24 | Sandy Loam | 1.41 | 0.48 | 0.26 | 0.15 | 16.80 |
| 20–40 | 55 | 23 | 22 | Sandy Loam | 1.43 | 0.46 | 0.25 | 0.14 | 15.04 |
| 40–60 | 59 | 20 | 21 | Sandy Loam | 1.44 | 0.46 | 0.24 | 0.13 | 16.08 |
| Note: BD, bulk density; Sw, soil saturated water content; Fc, SWC at field capacity; Sr, soil residual water content; Ks, saturated hydraulic conductivity. | |||||||||
DownLoad:
CSV
| Corn field | Soil depth cm | FDR × Gravimetric Method | WiTu × Gravimetric Method | FDR × WiTu Technology | |||||||||
| AD% | RMSE | D | r | AD% | RMSE | d | r | AD% | RMSE | d | r | ||
| 20 | −1.33 | 1.51 | 0.74 | 0.64 | 1.40 | 1.46 | 0.80 | 0.80 | 2.71 | 2.23 | 0.79 | 0.46 | |
| 40 | 2.24 | 1.58 | 0.69 | 0.48 | 4.96 | 2.00 | 0.73 | 0.54 | 2.66 | 1.23 | 0.68 | 0.83 | |
| 60 | 4.5 | 2.20 | 0.90 | 0.96 | 3.85 | 1.68 | 0.89 | 0.98 | −0.63 | 1.17 | 0.89 | 0.98 | |
| Weed field | 20 | −2.65 | 1.31 | 0.90 | 0.95 | 2.11 | 2.03 | 0.92 | 0.92 | 4.89 | 2.29 | 0.92 | 0.90 |
| 40 | −14.2 | 4.29 | 0.91 | 0.86 | 3.35 | 1.53 | 0.85 | 0.92 | 20.46 | 5.05 | 0.92 | 0.92 | |
| 60 | 5.24 | 3.82 | 0.89 | 0.35 | 12.13 | 4.23 | 0.89 | 0.71 | 6.55 | 3.19 | 0.90 | 0.71 | |
DownLoad:
CSV
| Depth (cm) | Particle fraction (%) | Soil texture (USDA) | BD (g cm−3) | Sw (cm3cm−3) | Fc (cm3cm−3) | Sr (cm3cm−3) | Ks (cm d−1) | ||
| Sand | Silt | Clay | |||||||
| 0–20 | 51 | 25 | 24 | Sandy Loam | 1.41 | 0.48 | 0.26 | 0.15 | 16.80 |
| 20–40 | 55 | 23 | 22 | Sandy Loam | 1.43 | 0.46 | 0.25 | 0.14 | 15.04 |
| 40–60 | 59 | 20 | 21 | Sandy Loam | 1.44 | 0.46 | 0.24 | 0.13 | 16.08 |
| Note: BD, bulk density; Sw, soil saturated water content; Fc, SWC at field capacity; Sr, soil residual water content; Ks, saturated hydraulic conductivity. | |||||||||
| Corn field | Soil depth cm | FDR × Gravimetric Method | WiTu × Gravimetric Method | FDR × WiTu Technology | |||||||||
| AD% | RMSE | D | r | AD% | RMSE | d | r | AD% | RMSE | d | r | ||
| 20 | −1.33 | 1.51 | 0.74 | 0.64 | 1.40 | 1.46 | 0.80 | 0.80 | 2.71 | 2.23 | 0.79 | 0.46 | |
| 40 | 2.24 | 1.58 | 0.69 | 0.48 | 4.96 | 2.00 | 0.73 | 0.54 | 2.66 | 1.23 | 0.68 | 0.83 | |
| 60 | 4.5 | 2.20 | 0.90 | 0.96 | 3.85 | 1.68 | 0.89 | 0.98 | −0.63 | 1.17 | 0.89 | 0.98 | |
| Weed field | 20 | −2.65 | 1.31 | 0.90 | 0.95 | 2.11 | 2.03 | 0.92 | 0.92 | 4.89 | 2.29 | 0.92 | 0.90 |
| 40 | −14.2 | 4.29 | 0.91 | 0.86 | 3.35 | 1.53 | 0.85 | 0.92 | 20.46 | 5.05 | 0.92 | 0.92 | |
| 60 | 5.24 | 3.82 | 0.89 | 0.35 | 12.13 | 4.23 | 0.89 | 0.71 | 6.55 | 3.19 | 0.90 | 0.71 | |
