Comparison of ECH2O-10HS and WATERMARK-200SS Soil Moisture Sensors

Authors: Huete, J.1*, A. Pardo2, N. Vázquez.2

*Corresponding Autor (joaquin.huete@larioja.org)
1
Servicio de Información Agroclimática de La Rioja-ECCYSA
CIDA-SIDTA. Carretera de Logroño a Mendavia, km 90. 26071 Logroño (La Rioja)
+34941291834
2
Sección de Recursos Naturales.
CIDA-SIDTA. Carretera de Logroño a Mendavia, km 90. 26071 Logroño (La Rioja)
+34941291455 CIDA

Abstract

In order to compare the quality of the information supplied by two inexpensive and easily available soil

moisture sensors, the Watermark sensor (Irrometer; Riverside, CA-USA) a granular matrix sensor and the ECHO2-

10HS sensor (Decagon; Pullman, WA, USA) an FDR sensor; two trials were carried out using two pots, 46.13 liters

capacity, with different textured soils: Loamy sand and Loam. In each of the pots three Watermark sensors and three

ECH2O-10HS sensors were installed. The pots were placed on two scales both with load cells. All the sensors and

the load cells were connected to a Campbell CR1000 datalogger which stored the readings every 60 minutes. The

entire system was put into a controlled temperature chamber at 18 °C and the pots were sown with fescue grass. A

total of three filling-emptying cycles in the Sandy-Loam soil adding 10, 5 and 10 L of water each time and two

cycles in the Loam soil adding 20 and 15 L of water each time, were carried out. The pots were refilled topped up

with water when the soil remained at constant dried weight for more than three consecutive days. The total volume

of water was applied at once. All measurements were converted into VWC (m3/m3) and segmented linear regressions

were carried out for the sensor readings vs. soil VWC. Standard Deviation to the average was also studied. Both

sensors types showed a strong relationship to the soil VWC in both soils. The Watermark sensors showed a good

response between –10 and –65 cb, above that range they showed no response to water content variation, below that

range the sensor to sensor variation in the readings was high. The ECH2O appeared to be very sensitive to soil

heterogeneity and the sensor to sensor differences were high in low VWC values.

Introduction

Soil moisture sensors are one of the tools that farmers and consultants can use in order to accommodate the

irrigation dosage to the crop needs (Shock et al., 2004). They can be helpful both in calculating irrigation dosage and
choosing the right moment for irrigation whilst aiming at different strategies: maximize water use efficiency whilst

maintaining crop yield (Shock et al., 1998, 2002; Muñoz-Carpena et al., 2003, 2008), water management to prevent

soil salinization (Inoue et al., 2008) or leaching of nutrients (Stieber and Shock, 1995; Greenwood et al. 2010) or to

prevent excessive plant stress in a water deficit strategy (Fares and Alva, 2000; Oussama et al., 2008).

Many soil moisture sensors have been developed to cover this need and nowadays there are different

sensors/models based on different methods of measuring soil water content. Charleswood (2005) provides an

extensive revision of the different sensors commercially available, a more recent review, also from a practical point

of view, can be found on Greenwood et al. (2010). Some of these sensors can be adapted to an automated data

collection system, and so they can be used in real time decision processes. This study was designed to compare these

last sensor types.

In this paper two relatively inexpensive and easily available sensors (Borhan, 2004; Chard, 2005) the

Watermark-200SS sensor (Irrometer, Riveside CA-USA) and the ECH2O-10HC sensor (Decagon; Pullman, WA,

USA), were compared in order to test the quality of the information that they provide.

Material and methods

The Watermark sensor consists of a pair of electrodes that are imbedded within a granular matrix chassis

that is in contact with the soil and constantly absorbs or releases water through diffusion from its surrounding. A

current is applied to the Watermark to obtain a resistance value. As the soil dries out the sensor moisture is reduced

and the electrical resistance between the electrodes is increased. The measured resistance is converted to water

suction units obtaining a readout of soil moisture water suction (Irrometer, 2005).

The ECH2O series sensors obtain Volumetric Water Content (VWC) by measuring the dielectric constant

of the media through the utilization of frequency domain technology (FDR). The ECH2O-10HS model incorporates

a high frequency oscillator, which allows the sensor to accurately measure soil moisture in any soil with minimal

salinity and textural effects (Decagon, 2008).

The sensors were installed inside two cylindrical pots of 46.13 L capacity (height: 0.29 m; diameter: 0.45

m) each filled with a different soil in terms of texture: Sandy-Loam, 5.3% clay and 77.3% sand; and Loam, 19.1%

clay and 51.5% sand; with dry soil densities of 1450 and 1486 kg/m 3 respectively. Pots were filled in layers of 5 cm
compacting manually each of them. Stones with diameter greater than 4 mm were removed by using a sieve before

filling the pots

In each of the pots three Watermark sensors and three ECH2O-10HS sensors were installed at 10 cm from

the surface –about 1/3 of the height of the pot. This depth is considered to be the most representative of the average

soil moisture of the pot, (L. Bissey, from Decagon, personal communication)-. To avoid electrical disturbances

between the ECH2O sensors they were separated by 15 cm at least between each other, the Watermarks were placed

nearby separating them by, at least 5 cm from the ECH2O sensor. All sensors were at least 10 cm away from the pot

walls. Special precautions where taken when installing the sensors in order to assure the best contact possible with

the soil by avoiding the creation of air bubbles and assuring the best possible contact between the sensor and the soil

before adding a layer of soil over them. Sensor wires were settled horizontally and joined in one of the sides of the

pots, channeling all together towards The pots were placed on two weighing balances both with load cells (Garos;

Madrid, Spain). All the sensors and the load cells were connected to a datalogger (model CR1000, Campbell

Scientific International, Logan, UT, USA) which took measurements every 30 seconds, storing the averaged results

every 60 minutes.

The entire system was put into a controlled temperature chamber at 18°C and the pots were sown with

fescue grass. Cycles of 12 hours light 12 hours dark were settled. A pressure plate (model 950B5, Soil Moisture

Equipment Co. Santa Barbara, CA, USA) connected to a vacuum pump was positioned at the bottom of each pot.

The vacuum line was taken out of the pot through the same channel?? used for the sensors. Every 4 hours the pump

was activated at a suction of 75 kPa which served to drain any accumulated water at the bottom of the pots.

Drainage was conducted to a common recipient, total drainage after all the 5 cycles was of approximately 7 liters

and it was mainly obtained in the following 12 hours after irrigation. Since the scales were controlling the water loss

there was no need to separate measurements of drainage.

Readings from the Watermark sensors were converted from electrical resistance (ER in kΩ ) values into

Soil Matric Potential (SMP in kPa) using the formula propossed by Shock et al. (1998) SMP = (4.093 + 3.213*ER)/

(1-0.00973*ER - 0.01205*Ts) where Ts is the soil temperature. Ts was considered to be equivalent to the

temperature measured by the datalogger Panel Temperature probe (Betatherm 10K3A1A, with an estimated error of

± 0.1ºC for temperatures in the range of 0 to 40ºC; Campbell Scientific, 2009), temperature in the datalogger panel

is considered to be the same as in the pots due to the continuous use of fans in the chamber. The soil water
characteristic curve was obtained by the use of the van Genuchten (1980) model, and thus readings given by the

Watermarks were converted into VWC. Voltage readings from the ECH2O-10HS sensors were converted in VWC

using the formula provided by Decagon Devices in the sensor manual (2008) VWC (m3/m3) = 5.84 10 -7 * mV2 –

2.01 * 10-4 *mV – 5.82 * 10-2 this equation is valid for soils with less than 10 dS/m conductivity, both the soils used

were well below this limit. All these calculations were done automatically by the datalogger each time it took a

measurement.

Three cycles of filling-emptying in the Sandy-loam soil adding 10, 5 and 10 L of water each time and two

cycles of filling-emptying in Loam soil adding 20 and 15 L of water both times were carried out. Water was added

by using a system of 4 drippers (2,2 L/h each). The pots were refilled when the readings from the weighing balances

indicated that the soils had dried to constant dry weight for at least three consecutive days

Data of the weight of the pots was used to calculate VWC of the soil during the filling-emptying cycles.

These calculated VWC data were compared with data from the sensors. The software used for the calculations and

regressions was SPSS, v15.0.1 for Windows.

Results and discussion

In order to compare the accuracy of the sensors, linear regressions between their readings and the weighing

scales were calculated. A segmented regression with a breakpoint was carried out for Watermarks and ECH 2O

sensors in both soils. The model used was:

VWCSensor = m*VWCWscale + b , for VWCWscale < Breakpoint

VWCSensor = m*Breakpoint + b, for VWCWscale ≥ Breakpoint

In the ECH2O sensors installed in the Sandy-loam soil no breakpoint was detected and thus the model was

simplified to a conventional linear regression.

Additionally to the regressions, Standard Deviation of the sensors from the average was calculated for both

the Watermark and the ECH2O sensors in both soils.

Since the Watermarks cannot measure below approximately –200cb (-0,2MPa), their measurements were

manually eliminated once the readings of each of the sensors were outside that limit. Data used for the Watermark

regressions comes from the average of at least two of the three sensors installed. Data used for the Watermarks

standard deviation comes from the data when all the three sensors were giving readouts. In the case of the ECH2O
 there was no need to eliminate data since they cover the whole measured range, but, the first 12 hours after filling

the pot with water were erased to eliminate the effect of the water infiltration (showing a constant value in the

weighing scale but different values in the ECH2O sensors).

Watermark

Figures 1 and 2 show the data of the sensors compared to the Weighing Scales, the estimated curve using

the regression model is also included. The existence of the breakpoint beyond which the sensors show no response is

a known characteristic of the sensor (Shock, 1998). This, from an agronomic point of view, is of no importance

since the values beyond that limit (equivalent to -10cb (-0.01MPa) in soil tension) are almost equivalent to soil

saturation. The slopes in the desiccation pattern of the Watermarks versus the soil VWC changed when Watermark

readings were around 0.090 m3/m3 in Sandy-loam soil and around 0.240 m3/m3 in Loam soil, these values

correspond to around -70 cb in terms of Soil Matrix Potential. No further statistical study has been carried out but

this change in tendency could affect the usage of the sensors for irrigation purposes beyond this limit.

0,25
0,5
W. Scale vs Watermark
W. Scale vs Watermark
W. Scale vs Estimated
W. Scale vs Estimated
0,20
0,4
VWC (m3/m3) Watermark

VWC (m3/m3) Watermark

0,15 0,3

0,10 0,2

0,05 0,1

0,00 0,0
0,00 0,05 0,10 0,15 0,20 0,25 0,0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5
3 3 3 3
VWC (m /m ) Weighing Scale VWC (m /m ) Weighing Scale

Figure 1 (left). Sandy-Loam soil, Watermark to Weighing Scale curve, both in VWC (m 3/m3) units. Regression
model was m= 0.589, b = 0.065, breakpoint = 0.096; R2 = 0.965

Figure 2 (right). Loam soil, Watermark to Weighing Scale curve, both in VWC (m3/m3) units. Regression model was
m= 0.641, b = 0.107, breakpoint = 0.318; R2 = 0.988

Regarding its precision, Watermark shows that as the soil dries out sensor to sensor differences between

readings increase (figures 3 and 4), the figures show that there is a point beyond which the variation in precision

increases rapidly until the sensors exceed their measuring range of -200 cb (-0,2MPa). This breakpoint is around
0.087 m3/m3 in the Sandy-loam soil and 0.244 m3/m3 in the Loam soil, which corresponds to about -70 Cb (-

0.07MPa) and about –65 Cb (-0.065MPa) respectively. The limit in their measuring range is also the explanation for

the increasing precision at the end of their curve in the Loam soil since all the measures converge to the same point,

in the Sandy-Loam soil the Watermarks exceeded rapidly their range before their measurements converged. Egbert

et al. (1992), using the old 200 Series Watermark concluded that those sensors could only be used as a relative indicator of

soil water status, Shock et al. (1998), indicated that the new Watermark series 200SS diminished the differences between

sensors, in this study we found that from the -10 to –65/-70 cb range –the lower limit depending on soil type- the sensors

gave a well correlated readout of soil moisture.

0,030 0,030

VWC-ECH2O vs St. Deviation

VWC-Watermark vs St. DeviationWM VWC ECH2O vs St. Deviation
0,025 0,025 VWC-Watermarkrk vs Col 4
Standard Deviation (m3/m3)
Standard Deviation (m3/m3)

0,020 0,020

0,015 0,015

0,010 0,010

0,005 0,005

0,000 0,000
0,00 0,05 0,10 0,15 0,20 0,25 0,0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4
3 3
VWC (m3/m3) VWC (m /m )

Figure 3 (left). Standard Deviation EH2O-10HS and Watermark sensors in Sandy-Loam soil

Figure 4 (right). Standard Deviation EH2O-10HS and Watermark sensors in Loam soil

ECH2O-10HS

Figures 5 and 6 show the data of the sensors compared to the Weighing Scales, the estimated curve using

the regression model is also included. The existence in the Loam Soil of the breakpoint beyond which the sensors

show no response could be considered as being complete saturation of the soil. The regressions show a strong

relationship with the data from the weighing scale with a very low y-intercept (b constant) for both soils. In the case

of the Loam soil there is an erratic behaviour in the curve of the sensor reading against the weighing scale, this could

be explained by soil heterogeneity according to L. Bissey, (personal communication). These results show, as other

authors suggest (Leib et al., 2003, Greenwood, 2009), that a calibration for the probes is necessary to know the real

values of the VWC but, as Leib et al. (2003) pointed out, since the general trend of the VWC measured by the
sensors is the same of the real VWC, it may not be necessary to do the calibration in order to set up thresholds to

trigger irrigation events.

0,25 0,5

W. Scale vs ECH2O W. Scale vs ECH2O

W. Scale vs Estimated W. Scale vs Estimated

0,20 0,4

VWC (m3/m3) ECH2O-10HS

VWC (m3/m3) ECH2O-10HS

0,15 0,3

0,10 0,2

0,05 0,1

0,00 0,0
0,00 0,05 0,10 0,15 0,20 0,25 0,0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5
3 3 3 3
VWC (m /m ) Weighing Scale VWC (m /m ) Weighing Scale

Figure 5. Sandy-Loam soil, EH2O-10HS to Weighing Scale curve, both in VWC (m 3/m3) units. Regression model
was VWCSensor = m*VWCWscale + b where, m= 0.757, b = 0.02; R2 = 0.978

Figure 6. Loam soil, EH2O-10HS to Weighing Scale curve, both in VWC (m3/m3) units. Regression model was m=
0.723, b = 0.014, breakpoint = 0.430; R2 = 0.977

Regarding its precision, ECH2O-10HS shows that, in the Sandy-Loam soil, as the soil dries out the

differences between readings from the sensors expressed as Standard Deviation decrease (figure 3). For the Loam

soil the precision seems to be almost constant regardless of the VWC of the soil (figure 4). These differences,

expressed as coefficient of variation (figures 7&8) show that the differences in the Sandy-Loam soil diminish from

11 to 5% until the VWC is 0.04 and then increase again up to around 10% as the soil gets drier. In the Loam soil the

differences are less than 5% for values of VWC over 0.150 and increase considerably up to 13% in the driest parts

of the range. The reason for the increasing lack of precision in the lower range can be found in the mathematical

expression of the Coefficient of Variation since the Standard Deviation is almost constant. Similar results of

variability, measured in terms of available field capacity, were found by Schmitz and Sourell (2000). In our study,

the variability between sensors can be interpreted as soil heterogeneity, the effect of the plant water usage or a

sensor characteristic due to the limited range explored in its measures.

 0,25
0,25

VWC-WM vs CV-WM VWC-Watermarkrk vs WM-CV

0,20 VWC ECH2O vs CV-ECHO VWC ECH2O vs ECH2O CV
0,20
Coefficient of Variation

Coefficient of Variation
0,15
0,15

0,10
0,10

0,05
0,05

0,00
0,00
0,00 0,05 0,10 0,15 0,20 0,25
0,0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4
3 3
VWC (m /m )
VWC (m3/m3)
Figure 7 (left). Coefficient of Variation ECH2O-10HS and
Watermark Sensors. Sandy-Loam soil

Figure 8 (right). Coefficient of Variation ECH2O-10HS and Watermark Sensors. Loam soil

Conclusions

Watermark showed good behaviour in the -10 to -65 cb range, which is the optimum range of soil moisture

for many commercial crops. Values above that range did not respond to variations in soil water. Below that range

the sensor to sensor variation increased rapidly and the measurements lacked precision. More studies are needed to

understand better the desiccation curve of the Watermark sensor, especially the apparent change of tendencies

produced around -65 cb that could be important from the point of view of the use of the sensor to control irrigation

in some crops.

ECH2O-10HS showed a strong relationship for the full range of measurements on both soils. Nevertheless

the sensor showed a high sensitivity to soil heterogeneity and the sensor to sensor differences were high. A

calibration of the probes can be skipped since the general trend of the VWC measured by the sensors is the quite

similar to the soil VWC.

Aknowledgements

We are grateful to the Regional Government of La Rioja for funding this research (Regional Projects PR-

18-08 and PR-18-09). We also thank the CIDA-SIDTA for its support and collaboration.
Bibliography

Borhan M.S, L. R. Parsons, 2004. Monitoring of soil water content in a citrus grove using capacitance ECH 2O
probes. Paper number 042110. ASAE Annual Meeting.

Chard, J. 2005. Watermark soil moisture sensors: Characteristics and Operating Instructions. Utah University,
retrieved from: http://www.usu.edu/cpl/PDF/WatermarkOperatingInstructions2.pdf at 15/01/2008.

Campbell Scientific, Inc. 2009. CR1000 Measurement and Control System, Rev 9/09. 464 p.

Charlesworth, P. 2005. Soil water monitoring, an information package. 2nd edition. CSIRO/CRC Irrigation Futures.
Land & Water Australia on behalf of the National Program for Sustainable Irrigation. 100p

Decagon Devices, Inc. 2008. 10HS Operator’s Manual, version 1.0. 19p

Egbert J.A., Spaans and J.M. Baker. 1992. Calibration of Watermark soil moisture sensors for soil matric potential and
temperature. Plant and Soil 143: 213-217

Fares, A, A.K. Alva.2000. Evaluation of capacitance probes for optimal irrigation of citrus through soil moisture
monitoring in an entisol profile. Irrigation Science 19: 57-64

van Genuchten, M, 1980. A closed-form equation for predicting the hidraulic conductivity of unsaturated soils. Soil
Science Society of America Journal 44:892-898

Greenwood, D.J., K. Zhang, H. W. Hilton and A. J. Thompson. 2010. Opportunities for improving irrigation
efficiency with quantitative models, soil water sensors and wireless
technology (Review). Journal of Agricultural Science,148, pp.1-16. doi:10.1017/S0021859609990487

Irrometer. 2005. Watermark Soil Moisture Measurement: Installation and Operation Manual.

Inoue, M., B.A. Ould Ahmed, T. Saito and M. Irshad. 2008. Comparison of Twelve Dielectric Moisture Probes for
Soil Water Measurement under Saline Conditions. American Journal of Environmental Sciences 4 (4). pp. 367-372

Leib, B.G., J.D. Jabro, G.R. Matthews. 2003. Field evaluation and performance comparison of soil moisture sensors.
Soil Science: Volume 168 - Issue 6 - pp 396-408

Muñoz-Carpena, R., H. Bryan, W. Klassen. 2003. Automatic soil moisture-based drip irrigation for imporoving
tomato production. Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 116:80-85

Muñoz-Carpena, R., M.D. Dukes, Y. Li, W. Klassen. 2008. Design and field evaluation of a new controller for soil-
water based irrigation. Applied Engineering in Agriculture. 24(2): 183-191.

Oussama H.M., J.Vera, L.M. Tapia, Y. García-Orellana, W. Conejero, I. Abrisqueta, M.C. Ruiz-Sánchez, J.M.
Abrisqueta-García. 2008. Irrigation scheduling of peach trees (prunus persica l.) by continuous measurement of
soil water status.Agrociencia 42: 857-868.

Shock, C.C., J.M. Barnum and M. Seddigh, 1998. Calibration of Waterkark soil moisture sensores for irrigation
management. Pp 139-146. Proceedings of the International Irrigation Show., San Diego, CA. Irrigation Association

Shock C.C.; Feibert E.B.G.; Seddigh M.; Saunders L.D. 2002. Water Requirements and Growth of Irrigated Hybrid
Poplar in a Semi-Arid Environment in Eastern Oregon. Western Journal of Applied Forestry, Volume 17, Number 1,
pp. 46-53(8)

Schmitz, M., H. Sourell. 2000. Variability in soil moisture measurements. Irrigation Science 19, pp 147-151
Stieber, T.D., C.C. Shock. 1995. Placement of soil moisture sensors in sprinkler irrigated potatoes. American
Journal of Potato Research. 72, Number 9. 533-543. DOI10.1007/BF02849256