Field Evaluation of 12 Soil Moisture Sensors on a Sandy Loam Soil in Lu’an, Subtropical Monsoon Climate Region, China

Abstract:

An in situ field test with three indices of stability, sensitivity and accuracy on 12 soil moisture sensors was carried out in a sandy loam soil located in Lu’an at the subtropical monsoon climate region (China). The results showed that the majority of sensors were above 0.98 with a higher stability degree except for HT-DR-601(0.348) and DZN3 (0.661). Almost all sensors had a sensitive response to a certain amount of precipitation but Hydra Probe II was an exception. Trime-pico, SM300, ML2X, SWR6 and DH-FDR had a higher accuracy than 0.785, while DZN3 and HT-DR-601 were very lower. The mean differences of SM300, Trime-pico and Uni_SM were between -1% and 0, while HTSMS-02, DH-FDR, SWR6, ML2X, MP-4C and MP-323 were between -5% and -1%. DZN3 had the largest values of -17.8%. Finally, SM300, Trime-pico, ML2X, SWR6 and DH-FDR were got scores above 9 points while MP-323 and Uni_SM were above 8.4, showing an outstanding performance. The field performance study could provide some choices for the large-scale filed applications and the drought monitoring system.

• Periodical: Advanced Materials Research (Volumes 482-484)
• Pages: 372-375
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.482-484.372
• Online since: February 2012
• Authors: Jing Cai Wang, Zi Qiang Xia, Ji Xing Wang, Zhi Hua Lu
• Keywords: Field Evaluation, Field Performance, Sensor, Soil Moisture, Statistical Analysis

References

[1] G.C. Topp, J.L. Davis and A.P. Annan: Water Resour. Res. Vol.16 (1980), p.574

[2] G.C. Topp and J.L. Davis: Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. Vol.49 (1985), p.19

[3] Ginger B. Paige and Timothy O. Keefer: J. Am. Water Resour. Ass. Vol.44 (2008), p.121

[4] G. Lukangu, M. J. Savage and M. A. Johnston: Irrigation Science. Vol.19 (1999), p.7

[5] B.G. Leib, J.D. Jabro and G.R. Matthews: Soil Science. Vol.168 (2003), p.396

[6] T.M. Addiscott and A.P. Whitmore: J. Agric. Sci. Vol.109 (1987), p.141