HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text Free Full Text (PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (34) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Seyfried, M.S. Articles by Murdock, M.D. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Seyfried, M.S. Articles by Murdock, M.D. Agricola Articles by Seyfried, M.S. Articles by Murdock, M.D.

Response of a New Soil Water Sensor to Variable Soil, Water Content, and Temperature

USDA-ARS, 800 Park Blvd., Boise, ID 83712

View larger version (24K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Environmental chamber temperature, soil temperature, and period for four of the six samples measured during the eighth run. Only period readings collected when chamber and soil temperatures had equilibrated were used in subsequent analysis. Note that there were distinct temperature effects for two of the samples. The values indicated are the target values, which were slightly different from what we actually measured

View larger version (16K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Sensor and temperature corrected period (PC) determined using Eq. [2] related to G for all four soils at 25°C. There are three points from different runs for each soil– combination. The solid line represents the standard calibration supplied by the manufacturer. The dashed line the calibration for high EC (>0.3 S m-1) soils

View larger version (13K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Agreement between the C calculated with soil-specific calibrations using Eq. [3] and G. All data presented were collected at 25°C. The solid line represents perfect agreement

View larger version (25K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4. Effect of temperature on WCR response (a) for soil water contents about 0.30 m3m-3 (actually 0.29 m3m-3 for Foothill, 0.24 m3m-3 for Sand, 0.30 m3m-3 for Sheep Creek, and 0.28 m3m-3 for Summit) and (b) for soil water contents 0.10 m3m-3 (actually 0.10 for all soils except Summit, which was 0.12 m3m-3). Lines are the best fit linear regression. Each point is an average of the three replications with the error bars representing one standard deviation. Note the difference in y-axis scale between parts a and b

View larger version (20K): [in a new window]   Fig. 5. Variation in temperature effect for the four soils with different relative to the standard temperature correction provided by the manufacturer. Error bars represent the standard error for each point presented