淤泥壤土和壤土中土壤水分传感技术的评价:性能评估、温度敏感性以及特定地点和传感器的校准功能

IF 1.4 4区 农林科学 Q3 AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING
K. Sharma, S. Irmak, M. Kukal, M. Vuran, A. Jhala, Xin Qiao
{"title":"淤泥壤土和壤土中土壤水分传感技术的评价:性能评估、温度敏感性以及特定地点和传感器的校准功能","authors":"K. Sharma, S. Irmak, M. Kukal, M. Vuran, A. Jhala, Xin Qiao","doi":"10.13031/trans.14112","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Reliable soil moisture information is vital for optimal irrigation management, farm-level agronomic decisionmaking, hydrologic studies, and cropping systems modeling. A wide range of soil moisture sensing technologies is commercially available, but their performance must be evaluated for diverse conditions of use. In this research, we investigated nine soil moisture sensors based on time-domain reflectometry, capacitance, and electrical resistance principles in production field conditions with two installation orientations, i.e., vertical (V) and horizontal (H), in two soils (silt loam and loamy sand) and two growing seasons (2017 and 2018). Performance parameters deduced from the 2017 datasets revealed that sensor type and soil type significantly affected the soil moisture sensor performance under factory calibration (F.C.); however, sensor installation orientation did not. Thus, the sensors were only evaluated based on their performance in horizontal orientation in both soils. Precision and accuracy were considered targets to assist in appropriate sensor selection. To improve sensor accuracy, site-specific calibration (S.S.C.) functions were developed and validated using independent datasets from 2018. Considering mean bias error (MBE), all sensors overestimated volumetric soil water content (v) in both soils, with the exception of TEROS 21 (MPS-6) in silt loam and JD probe in loamy sand. On average, sensor performance was 67% better in loamy sand than in silt loam. Overall, the sensors showed higher precision in silt loam (R2 = 0.53 to 0.93) than in loamy sand (R2 = 0.25 to 0.82). Substantial post-S.S.C. improvement (32% to 89%) was observed in all sensors’ performance relative to F.C. in silt loam. In loamy sand, while most sensors performed reasonably well with F.C., considerable improvements (28% to 85%) were observed with S.S.C. Significant differences (p < 0.05) were observed in sensors’ sensitivity to soil temperature (Tsoil), which ranged from 14°C to 23°C in silt loam and from 14°C to 25°C loamy sand during the experiments. The CS655, 10HS, 5TE, and TEROS 21 (MPS-6) sensors showed significant (p < 0.05) sensitivity to Tsoil fluctuations, with Tsoil explaining a maximum of 17% of the variance observed in sensor performance. No statistically significant (p > 0.05) sensitivity was detected for any of the sensors in loamy sand. TEROS 21 (MPS-6) had the highest sensitivity to Tsoil with a slope of -4.25. In contrast, while statistically significant (p < 0.05), 5TE was the least sensitive to Tsoil variability with a slope of 1.81. The information, data, and analyses presented here can be instrumental for informed sensor selection and use in decision-making in production fields with similar soil textures and soil water regimes.","PeriodicalId":23120,"journal":{"name":"Transactions of the ASABE","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of Soil Moisture Sensing Technologies in Silt Loam and Loamy Sand Soils: Assessment of Performance, Temperature Sensitivity, and Site- and Sensor-Specific Calibration Functions\",\"authors\":\"K. Sharma, S. Irmak, M. Kukal, M. Vuran, A. Jhala, Xin Qiao\",\"doi\":\"10.13031/trans.14112\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Reliable soil moisture information is vital for optimal irrigation management, farm-level agronomic decisionmaking, hydrologic studies, and cropping systems modeling. A wide range of soil moisture sensing technologies is commercially available, but their performance must be evaluated for diverse conditions of use. In this research, we investigated nine soil moisture sensors based on time-domain reflectometry, capacitance, and electrical resistance principles in production field conditions with two installation orientations, i.e., vertical (V) and horizontal (H), in two soils (silt loam and loamy sand) and two growing seasons (2017 and 2018). Performance parameters deduced from the 2017 datasets revealed that sensor type and soil type significantly affected the soil moisture sensor performance under factory calibration (F.C.); however, sensor installation orientation did not. Thus, the sensors were only evaluated based on their performance in horizontal orientation in both soils. Precision and accuracy were considered targets to assist in appropriate sensor selection. To improve sensor accuracy, site-specific calibration (S.S.C.) functions were developed and validated using independent datasets from 2018. Considering mean bias error (MBE), all sensors overestimated volumetric soil water content (v) in both soils, with the exception of TEROS 21 (MPS-6) in silt loam and JD probe in loamy sand. On average, sensor performance was 67% better in loamy sand than in silt loam. Overall, the sensors showed higher precision in silt loam (R2 = 0.53 to 0.93) than in loamy sand (R2 = 0.25 to 0.82). Substantial post-S.S.C. improvement (32% to 89%) was observed in all sensors’ performance relative to F.C. in silt loam. In loamy sand, while most sensors performed reasonably well with F.C., considerable improvements (28% to 85%) were observed with S.S.C. Significant differences (p < 0.05) were observed in sensors’ sensitivity to soil temperature (Tsoil), which ranged from 14°C to 23°C in silt loam and from 14°C to 25°C loamy sand during the experiments. The CS655, 10HS, 5TE, and TEROS 21 (MPS-6) sensors showed significant (p < 0.05) sensitivity to Tsoil fluctuations, with Tsoil explaining a maximum of 17% of the variance observed in sensor performance. No statistically significant (p > 0.05) sensitivity was detected for any of the sensors in loamy sand. TEROS 21 (MPS-6) had the highest sensitivity to Tsoil with a slope of -4.25. In contrast, while statistically significant (p < 0.05), 5TE was the least sensitive to Tsoil variability with a slope of 1.81. The information, data, and analyses presented here can be instrumental for informed sensor selection and use in decision-making in production fields with similar soil textures and soil water regimes.\",\"PeriodicalId\":23120,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Transactions of the ASABE\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Transactions of the ASABE\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.13031/trans.14112\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Transactions of the ASABE","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.13031/trans.14112","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

可靠的土壤湿度信息对于优化灌溉管理、农场一级农艺决策、水文研究和种植系统建模至关重要。广泛的土壤湿度传感技术是商用的,但它们的性能必须在不同的使用条件下进行评估。本研究基于时域反射、电容和电阻原理,在生产现场条件下,在两种土壤(粉壤土和壤土砂)和两个生长季节(2017年和2018年)下,采用垂直(V)和水平(H)两种安装方向,对9个土壤水分传感器进行了研究。从2017年数据集推断的性能参数显示,传感器类型和土壤类型显著影响工厂校准(F.C.)下的土壤湿度传感器性能;然而,传感器的安装方向没有变化。因此,仅根据传感器在两种土壤中的水平方向性能来评估传感器。精度和准确性被认为是帮助适当的传感器选择的目标。为了提高传感器精度,我们开发了特定地点校准(s.s.c)功能,并使用2018年以来的独立数据集进行了验证。考虑到平均偏置误差(MBE),所有传感器都高估了两种土壤的体积土壤含水量(v),但粉壤土中的TEROS 21 (MPS-6)和壤土中的JD探针除外。在壤土中,传感器性能平均比淤泥壤土好67%。总体而言,淤泥壤土的传感器精度(R2 = 0.53 ~ 0.93)高于壤土(R2 = 0.25 ~ 0.82)。大量的post-S.S.C。在淤泥壤土中,与F.C.相比,所有传感器的性能均有32%至89%的改善。在壤土中,虽然大多数传感器在F.C条件下表现良好,但在s.s.c条件下,传感器对土壤温度(Tsoil)的敏感性有显著提高(28% ~ 85%),在粉壤土中,土壤温度在14℃~ 23℃之间,在壤土中,土壤温度在14℃~ 25℃之间,试验期间传感器对土壤温度(Tsoil)的敏感性差异显著(p < 0.05)。CS655、10HS、5TE和TEROS 21 (MPS-6)传感器对Tsoil波动表现出显著(p < 0.05)的敏感性,Tsoil最多可以解释传感器性能中观察到的17%的方差。在壤土砂中,所有传感器的灵敏度均无统计学意义(p > 0.05)。TEROS 21 (MPS-6)对Tsoil的敏感性最高,斜率为-4.25。相比之下,5TE对土壤变异最不敏感,斜率为1.81,但有统计学意义(p < 0.05)。这里提供的信息、数据和分析可以帮助在具有相似土壤质地和土壤水分状况的生产领域进行明智的传感器选择和决策使用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluation of Soil Moisture Sensing Technologies in Silt Loam and Loamy Sand Soils: Assessment of Performance, Temperature Sensitivity, and Site- and Sensor-Specific Calibration Functions
Reliable soil moisture information is vital for optimal irrigation management, farm-level agronomic decisionmaking, hydrologic studies, and cropping systems modeling. A wide range of soil moisture sensing technologies is commercially available, but their performance must be evaluated for diverse conditions of use. In this research, we investigated nine soil moisture sensors based on time-domain reflectometry, capacitance, and electrical resistance principles in production field conditions with two installation orientations, i.e., vertical (V) and horizontal (H), in two soils (silt loam and loamy sand) and two growing seasons (2017 and 2018). Performance parameters deduced from the 2017 datasets revealed that sensor type and soil type significantly affected the soil moisture sensor performance under factory calibration (F.C.); however, sensor installation orientation did not. Thus, the sensors were only evaluated based on their performance in horizontal orientation in both soils. Precision and accuracy were considered targets to assist in appropriate sensor selection. To improve sensor accuracy, site-specific calibration (S.S.C.) functions were developed and validated using independent datasets from 2018. Considering mean bias error (MBE), all sensors overestimated volumetric soil water content (v) in both soils, with the exception of TEROS 21 (MPS-6) in silt loam and JD probe in loamy sand. On average, sensor performance was 67% better in loamy sand than in silt loam. Overall, the sensors showed higher precision in silt loam (R2 = 0.53 to 0.93) than in loamy sand (R2 = 0.25 to 0.82). Substantial post-S.S.C. improvement (32% to 89%) was observed in all sensors’ performance relative to F.C. in silt loam. In loamy sand, while most sensors performed reasonably well with F.C., considerable improvements (28% to 85%) were observed with S.S.C. Significant differences (p < 0.05) were observed in sensors’ sensitivity to soil temperature (Tsoil), which ranged from 14°C to 23°C in silt loam and from 14°C to 25°C loamy sand during the experiments. The CS655, 10HS, 5TE, and TEROS 21 (MPS-6) sensors showed significant (p < 0.05) sensitivity to Tsoil fluctuations, with Tsoil explaining a maximum of 17% of the variance observed in sensor performance. No statistically significant (p > 0.05) sensitivity was detected for any of the sensors in loamy sand. TEROS 21 (MPS-6) had the highest sensitivity to Tsoil with a slope of -4.25. In contrast, while statistically significant (p < 0.05), 5TE was the least sensitive to Tsoil variability with a slope of 1.81. The information, data, and analyses presented here can be instrumental for informed sensor selection and use in decision-making in production fields with similar soil textures and soil water regimes.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Transactions of the ASABE
Transactions of the ASABE AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING-
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: This peer-reviewed journal publishes research that advances the engineering of agricultural, food, and biological systems. Submissions must include original data, analysis or design, or synthesis of existing information; research information for the improvement of education, design, construction, or manufacturing practice; or significant and convincing evidence that confirms and strengthens the findings of others or that revises ideas or challenges accepted theory.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信