Export file:

Format

  • RIS(for EndNote,Reference Manager,ProCite)
  • BibTex
  • Text

Content

  • Citation Only
  • Citation and Abstract

Evaluation of FDR MI2X and New WiTu Technology sensors to determine soil water content in the corn and weed field

1 Water Conservancy College, North China University of Water Resources and Electric Power, Zhengzhou, Henan Province, P.R. China
2 Department of Agronomy, Sindh Agriculture University, Tandojam, Pakistan

Accurate determination of soil water contents (SWC) is crucially important in many scientific fields, particularly in agriculture. In this study, the performance of conventional FDR MI2X and New WiTu Technology water sensors was statistically evaluated under the impact of changing vegetative cover type (corn and weeds). A three replicated randomized complete block design (RCBD) field experiment was conducted from late April to August, 2019. The spring corn Nongda-1505 variety was planted and the field was left unsown to allow weeds to grow. To determine the SWC, six WiTu Technology sensors were installed in the middle of each plot. For FDR sensor measurements, PVC tubes were inserted at 30 cm distance from WiTu sensors and soil samples from the 0-20 cm, 20-40 cm and 40-60 cm depths were taken using soil sampling auger for measurement of gravimetric water content. Both FDR and new Technology of WiTu sensors showed varied performance as soil depth increased from the top layer 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 the WiTu Technology sensor ranged 98.24%, 95.85% and 92.02% for top, middle and deep soil layers, respectively, these results demonstrate that the soil water detection ability of WiTu Technology is high at the soil depth of 0-40 cm, whereas FDR's ability to detect SWC changes is satisfactory in 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 Technology. The SWC estimation of FDR and WiTu technology more fluctuated with changing vegetation cover type. Thus, the findings of this study provide an opportunity to further study on FDR MI2X and New WiTu Technology sensors for deep-rooted crops under the soil and climatic conditions of Zhengzhou, China.
  Figure/Table
  Supplementary
  Article Metrics

Keywords FDR; new WiTu Technology; soil water content; corn; weeds

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. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2020, 5(1): 169-180. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2020.1.169

References

  • 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.    
  • 2. Walker JP, Willgoose GR, Kalma JD (2004) In situ measurement of soil moisture: A comparison of techniques. J Hydrol 293: 85-99.    
  • 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.    
  • 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.    
  • 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.    
  • 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.    
  • 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.    
  • 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.    
  • 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.    
  • 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.    
  • 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.    
  • 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.    
  • 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.    
  • 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.    
  • 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.    
  • 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.    
  • 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.    
  • 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.    
  • 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.    
  • 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.

 

Reader Comments

your name: *   your email: *  

© 2020 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licese (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)

Download full text in PDF

Export Citation

Copyright © AIMS Press All Rights Reserved