Paper No.

SD98-118
An ASAE Meeting Presentation

Evaluation of soil moisture sensors in potato fields

by

S. Proulx R. Sri Ranjan G. Klassen

Department of Biosystems Department of Biosystems Soils and Crops Branch
Engineering Engineering Manitoba Agriculture
University of Manitoba University of Manitoba Box 1149
Winnipeg, MB R3T 5V6 Winnipeg, MB R3T 5V6 Carman, MB R0G 0J0

Written for presentation at the

1998 North Central Region Intersectional Meeting
Sponsored by
The South Dakota Section of
The American Society of Agricultural Engineers

Campus of South Dakota State University

Brookings, SD
September 24-26, 1998
SUMMARY:
Proper irrigation water management is important for improving produce quality and conserving scarce water resources. Soil
water content data is a reliable indicator of irrigation needs. The objectives of this study were to determine suitable methods
to measure soil water content in potato fields under Manitoba conditions and to develop a protocol for the proper installation,
calibration, and use of the sensors. Tensiometers and Watermark sensors can be used to measure soil moisture in potato
fields. However, the soil moisture characteristic curves should be available to convert the readings to volumetric water
content. The Aquaterr probe was found to be sensitive to the soil temperature and therefore it is not recommended for
measuring soil moisture in potato fields. The evaluation of Aqua-tel and VIRRIB sensors was not conclusive due to the
inadequate number tested during this study. Further testing under controlled conditions is needed.
KEYWORDS:

Tensiometer, water content, capillary pressure, water status.

The author(s) is solely responsible for the content of this technical presentation. The technical presentation does not necessarily reflect the
official position of ASAE, and its printing and distribution does not constitute an endorsement of views which may be expressed.

Technical presentations are not subject to the formal peer review process by ASAE editorial committees; therefore, they are not to be presented
as refereed publications.

Quotation from this work should state that it is from a presentation made by (name of author) at the (listed) ASAE meeting.

EXAMPLE: From Author's last name, Initials. "Title of Presentation". Presented at the Date and Title of meeting, Paper No. X. ASAE, 2950 Niles
Rd., St. Joseph, MI 49085-9659 USA.

For information about securing permission to reprint or reproduce a technical presentation, please send inquiries to ASAE.

ASAE, 2950 Niles Rd., St. Joseph, MI 49085-9659 USA

Voice: 616.429.0300 FAX: 616.429.3852 E-Mail:<hq@asae.org>
 Evaluation of Soil Moisture Sensors in Potato Fields

S. Proulx, R. Sri Ranjan and G. Klassen

INTRODUCTION

In Manitoba, the total irrigated acreage has doubled to 26,000 ha in less than a decade
(Association of Irrigators in Manitoba, 1997). However, as a result of the abolition of the grain
transportation subsidy scheme, the acreage is expected to expand even further as producers shift
towards high value crops such as potatoes and canola. Irrigation is needed to supplement the
growing season precipitation and the moisture stored in the soil at the beginning of the growing
season. Most of the potatoes grown are destined to the commercial potato processing plants
which demand a uniform product. Therefore, to ensure a uniform and high quality product
irrigation becomes essential. With the expansion of the irrigated land area, proper irrigation
water management has become a key issue for conserving water. Efficient utilisation of water
increases the overall economic return by decreasing water consumption, lowering energy costs
for pumping, preventing seepage of fertilizers, and increasing crop yield.
Producers have generally used the “feel of the soil” or the “appearance of the crop” to
schedule the next irrigation. However, several sources of information are available to help
farmers make accurate irrigation decisions. Weather-data which includes temperature,
precipitation, solar radiation, and wind data can be used in an evapotranspiration prediction
equation to account for the soil water status since last irrigation. Alternatively, soil moisture
sensors can be used to determine the water content of the soil directly.
There are many different methods such as gravimetric sampling, lysimeters, tensiometers,
neutron probes, resistance meters, capacitance meters, heat dissipation methods, time domain
reflectometry (TDR), and infrared probes available to determine soil water content. However,
the most suitable method to easily monitor the soil water status for scheduling the next irrigation
is yet to be determined. The best method should measure soil water accurately, quickly, be easy
to install in potato fields, and be easy to use.
The objectives of the field study were to determine the most suitable method and to
develop a protocol for the proper installation, calibration, and use of the sensors. Six different

2
types of soil moisture sensors that could be used in potato fields under Manitoba conditions were
compared with the gravimetric method. Sensor performance was evaluated in two soil types over
a range of moisture contents, and for different installation patterns, i.e. orientation of the sensors.
Soil moisture measurements obtained with tensiometers (Soilmoisture Equipment Corp., Model
2710AR), Watermark electrical resistance sensors, also called granular matrix sensors, (Irrometer
Co.), the Aqua-Tel electrical capacitance sensors (Automata Inc., Model Aqua-Tel94-29), the
Aquaterr portable capacitance probe (Aquaterr Instruments, Model 200), and the VIRRIB phase
transmission sensors (Environmental Sensors Inc.) were compared with the gravimetric method.

Literature review
Despite the wide array of soil moisture sensors available in the market, very few studies
comparing soil moisture sensors have been reported in the literature. Yoder et al. (1998)
compared the performance of the Troxler neutron gage, Troxler Sentry 200-AP capacitance
probe, Aqua-Tel capacitance sensors, time domain reflectometry, gypsum blocks, Watermark
electrical resistance sensors, and Agwatronics heat dissipation blocks under controlled soil and
water conditions. This laboratory study however could not take into consideration the limitations
encountered in the field such as the presence of a crop, heterogenous soil conditions, and
nonuniform water distribution. Eldredge et al. (1993) conducted an experiment in a potato field
comparing readings of soil water obtained with granular matrix sensors to tensiometer, neutron
probe, and gravimetric sampling results.
The tensiometers and granular matrix sensors have been in wide use and several research
projects have evaluated their performance (Phene et al. 1989; McCann et al. 1992; Shock and
Barnum 1993; Stieber and Shock 1995). However, very little information has been found in the
literature on the Aquaterr capacitance probe, the VIRRIB soil moisture sensor, and the Aqua-Tel.
The present study is expected to provide this information.
Theoretical background
Gravimetric method
In this method soil samples are collected in the field and weighed immediately while still moist.
The samples are then dried at 105°C for over 24 h in a convection oven and weighed again after

3
cooling in a desicator. The water content of the sample is calculated using the following
equation,

mw
θm = (1)
ms

where,

m = gravimetric water content (decimal fraction),
mw = mass of water contained in the sample (kg),
ms = mass of dry soil (kg).
To determine the volumetric water content of the soil, the gravimetric water content is multiplied
by the ratio of soil bulk density to water density. For a water density of 1000 kg/m3, the
relationship is simplified as follows,

θv = θm ⋅ ρs (2)

where,

v = volumetric water content (decimal fraction),
s = bulk density of dry soil (kg•m-3).
Tensiometer
Tensiometers measure the soil water potential directly. The soil water potential can also be
called soil water tension or soil matric potential. The tensiometer consists of a ceramic cup
connected to a vacuum gauge by a rigid tube. The tube is available in several lengths allowing
for the measurement at various depths in the soil. Prior to installation, the tube is filled with de-
aired water and the water is allowed to seep through the porous cup on the tensiometer tip until it
is fully saturated. Suction is then applied to the tube to create a vacuum within the tensiometer to
ensure that there is no air left in the system. Any remaining air bubbles in the stem are brought
to the top by application of the vacuum. Water is then poured into the stem and cap with an
O-ring is used to seal the tensiometer. Once buried in the soil, the water contained in the porous
cup tends to reach equilibrium with the soil water. Thus, in a completely saturated soil, the
gauge of the tensiometer would indicate zero since the free soil water would be in equilibrium

4
with the water contained in the tip. Under unsaturated conditions, the soil contains less water
and consequently has a higher capillary pressure. This creates a tension on the water contained
within the ceramic cup which releases water until the tension within the cup becomes equal to the
tension outside. The reading on the gauge of the tensiometer then indicates the capillary pressure
of the soil surrounding the porous cup.
The type of tensiometer tested in this study is manufactured by the Soilmoisture
Equipment Corp. (PO Box 30025, Santa Barbara, CA 93105, USA) and is distributed in Canada
by Hoskin Scientific (239 East 6th Ave., Vancouver, B.C.). It can measure soil matric potential
from saturation to approximately
85 kPa (Soilmoisture Equipment Corp., 1984). This is the
limit at which the high soil water potential exceeds the air entry pressure of the porous ceramic
cup causing air to break through the largest pores in the cup and the gage reading will be zero.
At this point, the tensiometer has to be refilled with water and a vacuum established as described
previously.
Watermark granular matrix sensors
Watermark sensors give indirect readings of the soil water potential based on the measurement of
electrical resistance. This moisture sensor consists of two concentric electrodes embedded in a
porous granular matrix. The matrix is composed of loose granular material held in place with a
permeable membrane covered by a perforated metal case. A solid gypsum wafer divides the
granular material in two sections. In the interior section of the sensor, the soil solution is allowed
to move freely in and out of the sensor. In the upper section, however, the granular material is
isolated from the surrounding soil. This way, the soil solution has to travel through the lower
section and the gypsum wafer, which will react to buffer the effect of salinity, before entering the
section that contains the electrodes.
The concept of the granular matrix sensor is based on the principles that the thickness of
the film of water on the granular matrix is a function of the capillary pressure of the matrix. The
electrical resistance of a granular matrix is a function of its water content, which can also be
expressed as water potential. At equilibrium conditions the capillary pressure of the granular
matrix will be equal to the surrounding soil. The electrical resistance of the sensor is therefore an
indirect measurement of the water potential of the surrounding soil. Watermark sensors cover a

5
range of water potentials from 0 to 200 kPa (Irrometer Co., Box 2424, Riverside, CA 92516,
USA).
Aqua-Tel and Aquaterr
Aqua-Tel and Aquaterr work sense soil moisture based on the relationship between the dielectric
constant and the water content of the soil. The dielectric constant of the soil is a composite of the
volume averaged composite of the dielectric constants of the soil particles, water, and air. The
dielectric constant of water is 80, whereas it does not exceed 5 for most of the soil minerals and
has a value of about 1 for air (Hanks and Ashcroft 1980). A variation in water content changes
the ratio of the soil-water-air combination and therefore its dielectric constant. A high frequency
alternating current is applied to the probe and the soil surrounding the probe acts as the dielectric
medium. The transmission of the oscillating wave is related to the dielectric constant of the
surrounding medium. Based on this relationship, the soil water content can be determined.
The Aqua-Tel (Automata Inc., 10551 E. Bennett Road, Grass Valley, CA 95945-7806,
USA) and the Aquaterr (Aquaterr Instruments Inc., 3459 Edison Way, Fremont, CA 94538,
USA) are two types of capacitance sensors. The Aqua-Tel (Model Aqua-Tel94-29) consists of
two parallel electrodes attached to a small electronic module and is permanently installed in the
soil. The 0.8128-m long electrodes are flat and made of stainless steel. The readings obtained
with this sensor are converted to volumetric water content using calibration curves for different
soil types published by Automata Inc.
The Aquaterr is a portable electrical capacitance probe. The electrodes are encapsulated
in the tip of a rigid metal stem attached to the meter. Readings can be interpreted depending on
the soil type using the chart shown on the meter. The readings are sensitive to the soil
temperature.
VIRRIB
The Virrib is a moisture sensor manufactured in the Czech Republic and is distributed in North
America by Environmental Sensors Inc. (PO Box 720698, San Diego, CA 92172-0698, USA)
measures soil water content based on the electromagnetic waves sent through the soil. It gives
the volumetric water content within a range of 0 to 55% (Environmental Sensors Inc.). The

6
sensor consists of two metallic rod electrodes shaped as concentric circles with an outer ring of
0.28 m diameter and an inner ring of 0.20 m diameter.
The operating manual published by the distributor indicates that the VIRRIB uses the
phase transmission method to measure moisture content. Phase transmission sensors measure
either the velocity of the wave passing through the soil or the phase shift of the electromagnetic
waves to determine the capacitance of the soil. However, no information could be found in the
literature indicating which of the two methods is used by VIRRIB.

METHODOLOGY
The experiments were carried out in a potato field at the Manitoba Crop Diversification Centre in
Carberry, Manitoba. The dominant soil type in this field is from the Ramada series. The first 0.4
m is composed of loam (31.5% sand, 42.2% silt, and 23.1% clay). The deeper layer of the root
zone, beyond 0.4 m is composed of silt loam (20% sand, 54% silt, and 26% clay).
The sensors were installed on two plots exposed to different water treatments. Plot A
was irrigated when 65% of the available water has been depleted which represents a volumetric
water content of approximately 0.25 whereas plot B was rainfed. Potatoes (Solanum tuberosum
L. CV. Russet Burbank) were grown as a row crop on the hills in both plots.
Installation of the probes
Tensiometer: A total of 18 tensiometers was used for the experiment: 9 on plot A and 9 on plot
B. The tensiometers were grouped in sets of three sensors installed at three different depths, 0.2,
0.3, and 0.5 m below the soil surface. This way, each set covered the entire root zone. However,
in plot B, one tensiometer at the 0.3-m depth was damaged during the experiments. Thus, plot B
only had 8 usable tensiometers. A screw-type auger of slightly smaller-diameter than the
tensiometer was used to create the hole in the soil. The resulting hole was then partially filled
with water and the tensiometer inserted into it. The soil surface was lightly packed around the
tensiometer to prevent preferential flow along the stem.
Watermark: A total of 18 Watermark sensors was evaluated. Before installation, the sensors
were soaked in water, then allowed to dry, and soaked again. The user manual published by the
Irrometer Co. recommends that Watermark sensors be installed wet. The sensors were brought

7
to the field submerged in a bucket of water and installed following the same procedure and
positions as for the tensiometers.
Aqua-Tel: Only three Aqua-Tel sensors were used for the experiment due to their size and cost.
In the irrigated plot, two probes were installed, one flat on its blades and the other on the side.
The last sensor was installed in the side position in the rainfed plot. Aqua-Tel sensor was
installed by digging a trench to a depth of 0.2 m. The sensor was placed at the bottom of the
trench in the desired position. Then, the hole was filled with soil and packed to ensure good
contact between the blades and the soil.
Aquaterr: The Aquaterr is a portable probe therefore a single sensor was required. To take
water content readings, the probe was pushed into the soil to the desired depth. A soil auger was
used to drill an access hole for measurements at depths of 0.3 and 0.5 m. Nine readings were
taken on each plot following the pattern of sets described for the tensiometers.
VIRRIB: Four Virrib moisture sensors were evaluated. Two VIRRIB sensors each were used
on each plot installed in different orientations, buried in the hill either perpendicular or parallel to
the rows. A 0.3 m deep trench was dug and the sensor positioned in the proper orientation. The
trench was back-filled to ensure complete coverage of the sensor.
Procedure for data collection
Data were collected five times in the irrigated plot and four times in the rainfed plot over a period
spanning eight weeks. Soils samples for the gravimetric method were taken from locations
similar to the locations of the tensiometers and Watermark sensors. To ensure the sampling of
undisturbed soil, the location of each sampling point was randomly determined and documented
each time. The Aquaterr required onsite-calibration for moisture content. The probe was
submerged into a bucket of water and the meter set to 100 between each set of readings. The
Watermark required that soil temperature be entered in the meter so that it automatically
calibrated the sensor against temperature. The other moisture sensors did not require any onsite-
calibration.
Data conversion to volumetric water content
Tensiometers and Watermark sensors: The readings obtained with the tensiometers and
Watermark sensors expressed the soil water tension in kPa (or centibars) and had to be converted

8
to volumetric water content to compare them with the other methods used. The soil moisture
characteristic curves, which shows the volumetric water content as a function of the matric
potential, were determined for each soil type using a pressure plate apparatus. These curves were
used to convert the suction readings to volumetric water content data.
Aqua-tel: Data collected with the Aqua-Tel were converted to the volumetric water content
using a calibration equation developed by the authors. The equation was established from the
statistical analysis of the numerical values derived from the curves published by Automata Inc.
From the statistical analysis of the calibration curves presented in the user manual, the
volumetric water content value,
v, was found to be dependent only of the meter readings, R, and
the proportion of sand (%), S, with a significance of 97.6% (R2 = 0.976). This relationship is
expressed by the following equation,

v= -2.698 + 66.237R - 170.003R3 + 154.197R4 + 4.257*10-8S4
(3)
Aquaterr: The readings, R, collected with the Aquaterr also had to be transformed to volumetric
water content,
v. Here, the relationship between the meter readings and the volumetric water
content was estimated with the equivalencies shown in Table I which were based on data in the
user manual published by the Aquaterr Instruments.
The volumetric water content at the permanent wilting point and at field capacity were read from
the characteristic curves for a matric potential of 33 and 1500 kPa respectively. Then, the
readings were interpreted with the calibration curve plotted for each soil type.
VIRRIB: Values obtained with the Virrib did not require calibration because the sensor gives
direct readings of volumetric water content.

RESULTS and DISCUSSION

The sensor readings were analysed to determine the effect of the range of moisture contents, soil
type, and installation patterns, i.e. the orientation of the probe. Volumetric water contents
measured with the different moisture sensors were plotted on the y-axis against those obtained
with the gravimetric method on the x-axis which was used as the standard (Figs. 1 to 6). Each
point shown in Figs. 1 through 6 represents the mean of three readings for tensiometer,

9
Watermark, or Aquaterr, and a single reading for Aqua-Tel or Virrib compared with the mean of
the three
v values obtained with the gravimetric sampling done at a given sampling time. The
error bars represent the standard errors of the mean. In other words, each point represents the
mean of all sensors available for a type of equipment, at a given depth and water treatment.
Since Aqua-Tel and Virrib sensors were installed in the shallower part of the root zone, their
readings were compared only with corresponding results from the gravimetric method, i.e. on
Figs.1, 2, 4, and 5 for the Virrib and Figs. 1 and 3 for the Aqua-Tel.
In addition to the comparison of the means, the validity of individual readings was
assessed based on the maximum standard error of 8% of
v calculated for the gravimetric
method. If the sensors gave readings that fell outside the ±8% band, as shown by the finer lines
parallel to the 1:1 line in Figs. 1 through 6, the reading was considered invalid. Table II presents
the validity of the readings (R) for each method per water treatment, soil type, and sensor
position.
Effect of the range of soil moisture contents
Most sensors in the irrigated plot performed better than those evaluated in the rainfed plot. The
range of actual
v observed in the irrigated plot was wider than that of the rainfed plot, e.g. the
widest range of moisture contents was measured at a depth of 0.2 m for both water treatments,
11.7% for the irrigated plot (Fig. 1) and 5.4% for the rainfed plot (Fig. 4).
Effect of soil type
The effect of soil type on sensor performance could only be evaluated for tensiometers,
Watermark sensors, and the Aquaterr probe because they were the only sensors installed in both
soil types. Because the composition of the soil changes from loam to silt loam at about 0.4 m
below the ground surface, sensors installed at depths of 0.2 and 0.3 m measured the water content
of the loam while those installed at 0.5 m measured water content of the silt loam.
Measurements of
v from the loam were more accurate than those from the silt loam.
Furthermore, a higher proportion of the readings were valid in loam, i.e. 67% in loam versus
22% in silt loam (Table II) and the readings taken in the silt loam overestimated
v (Figs. 3 and
6).

10
Effect of sensor orientation
The Aqua-Tel installed with the electrodes in the horizontal position gave closer
v
measurements than the other two installed on the side. However, four out of five of those
measurements were invalid. The only Virrib sensor that gave accurate readings was installed
across the row in the irrigated plot.
Tensiometers and Watermark sensors gave similar results, closely predicting
v in the
loam in the irrigated plot and overestimating
v in silt loam under both water treatments. The
Aquaterr probe gave a few measurements exceeding 50% of
v (Figs. 1, 2, 3, and 6), which
would indicate a soil porosity greater than 50%. Despite these invalid readings, this sensor
generally performed well. Aqua-Tel and Virrib sensors did not perform well, underestimating
v
in most occasions.

DISCUSSION
The summer of 1998 was relatively a wet year resulting in a soil that mostly did not dry out
completely. Therefore, the performance of the sensors could not be evaluated over a wide range
of soil moisture contents. The weather did not permit the soil water content to deplete any lower
than 23% by volume.
Even though the validity range determined from the standard error of the gravimetric
method tends to account for spatial variations in water contents, the difference in range of
moisture contents between the experimental plots show variation in soil properties that have
affected the hydraulic behaviour of the soil. It can be assumed that this variation in soil
properties is mainly due to the nonuniform density of the soil which may have been caused by
heavy machinery or even potato tubers. The soil moisture characteristic curves used for data
conversion for tensiometers, Watermark sensors, and the Aquaterr probes were determined with
average values of bulk density measured throughout the field. Therefore, the nonuniformity of
soil bulk density may account for a large portion of the variability of
v readings. In other words,
the conversion process affects the evaluation of the sensor performance and thus, it is essential to
determine the soil parameters with accuracy.

11
 Table II shows that from the readings taken in silt loam, only 3% in the rainfed plot and
36% in the irrigated plot were valid. The invalid results might also have been partly caused by an
inaccurate conversion of the readings. Thus, the effect of the soil type on sensor performance
cannot be clearly evaluated.
The readings exceeding 50% of
v taken with the Aquaterr probe, shown in Figs. 1, 2, 3,
and 6, were obtained when the temperature difference between the soil and the water used for the
calibration was greater than 10°C. This can indicate that the Aquaterr readings were affected by
temperature.
The Aqua-Tel and Virrib sensors have underestimated
v during most of the tests. This
might have been caused by improper installation. A sensor that is not totally covered by the soil
will underestimate
v since the air portion of the soil-water-air matrix is higher and thus, the
dielectric constant of the volume surrounding the sensor is lower. Further testing with the
sensors installed deeper in the soil is needed to determine the effect of the sensor orientation on
the performance.
Even though the Aquaterr probe gave satisfactory results, it was found to be extremely
difficult to insert the probe into drier soils. The use of the augur to create access holes each time
a reading is to be taken is cumbersome.
CONCLUSIONS
Tensiometers and Watermark sensors can be used to get a reasonable estimate of the soil
moisture status in potato fields. However, the soil moisture characteristic curves should be
accurately determined to convert the suction readings to volumetric water content.
The Aquaterr probe is not recommended for measuring soil moisture in potato fields
since it is highly sensitive to the temperature of the soil. The evaluation of the Aqua-Tel and
Virrib sensors is not conclusive due to improper installation and further testing is therefore
necessary.
The summer of 1998 was relatively wetter and as a result the soils did not dry out as
much. Therefore, the performance of the sensors could not be evaluated over a wide range of
soil moisture contents. Thus, soil moisture sensor performance needs to be evaluated under
controlled conditions that provide a wider range of soil moisture and homogenous soil properties.

12
 REFERENCES
Association of Irrigators in Manitoba. 1997. 1997 Manitoba Irrigation Survey. pp18.
Eldredge, E.P., C.C. Schock, and T.D. Stieber. 1993. Calibration of granular matrix sensors for
irrigation management. Agronomy Journal 85:1228-1232.
Hanks, R.J. and G.L. Ashcroft. 1980. Applied Soil Physics: Soil Water and Temperature
Applications, Logan, UT: Springer-Verlag.
McCann, I.R., D.C. Kincaid, and D. Wang. 1992. Operational characteristics of the Watermark
model 200 soil water potential sensor for irrigation management. Applied Engineering in
Agriculture 8(5):603-609.
Phene, C.J., C.P. Allee, and J.D. Pierro. 1989. Soil matric potential sensor measurements
in real-time irrigation scheduling. Agricultural Water Management 16:173-185.
Shock, C.C. and J.M. Barnum. 1993. Calibration of soil sensors for potato irrigation. (Abstract)
American Potato Journal 70:840.
Stieber, T.D. and C.C. Schock. 1995. Placement of soil moisture sensors in sprinkler irrigated
potatoes. American Potato Journal 72:533-543.
Yoder, R.E., D.L. Johnson, J.B. Wilkerson, and D.C. Yoder. 1998. Soil water sensor
performance. Applied Engineering in Agriculture 14(2):121-133.

13
Table I Equivalencies used for calibration of Aquaterr readings.

v
Water condition R Loam Silt Loam
Free water 100 100.0% 100.0%
Field capacity 90 37.0% 43.3%
Permanent wilting point 50 18.5% 18.5%
Equivalencies between water conditions and R values established with data published by
Aquaterr Instruments.

Table II Validity of the readings for each equipment, per depth or position, soil type, and
water treatment, determined with a standard error of 8% of
v.
Validity of readings (%)
Equipment Water trt Soil type Position Valid R/Total R (%) Soil type Water trt Equipment
0.20 m 15/15 (100)
Loam 93
Irrigated 0.32 m 11/13 (85) 72
Silt loam 0.50 m 5/15 (33) 33
Tensiometer 64
0.20 m 9/12 (75)
Loam 79
Rainfed 0.32 m 6/7 (86) 52
Silt loam 0.50 m 1/12 (8) 8
0.20 m 15/15 (100)
Loam 93
Irrigated 0.32 m 13/15 (87) 64
Silt loam 0.50 m 1/15 (7) 7
Watermark 52
0.20 m 6/12 (50)
Loam 54
Rainfed 0.32 m 7/12 (58) 36
Silt loam 0.50 m 0/12 (0) 0
0.20 m 11/15 (73)
Loam 77
Irrigated 0.32 m 12/15 (80) 73
Silt loam 0.50 m 10/15 (67) 67
Aquaterr 60
0.20 m 11/12 (92)
Loam 63
Rainfed 0.32 m 4/12 (33) 44
Silt loam 0.50 m 1/12 (8) 8
Side 0/5 (0)
Irrigated Loam 10
Aqua-Tel Flat 1/5 (20) 14
Rainfed Loam Side 1/4 (25) 25
Across 10/10 (100)
Irrigated Loam 70
Parallel 4/10 (40)
Virrib 42
Across 0/8 (0)
Rainfed Loam 6
Parallel 1/8 (13)

14
 M e a s u r e d v o lu m e tr ic w a te r c o n t e n t (% ) 55
T e n s io m e te r
50 W a te r m a r k
A q u a te r r
V ir r ib (a c r o s s )
45
V ir r ib (p a r a lle l)
A q u a -T e l (s id e )
40 A q u a -T e l (fla t)

35

30

25

20

15

10
20 25 30 35 40

A c t u a l v o lu m e tr ic w a te r c o n te n t (% )

Fig. 1. Volumetric water content measured with sensors as a function of
v obtained from the gravimetric
sampling at a depth of 0.2 m, in the irrigated plot. The validity range of measurement is delimited on both sides
of the 1:1 line (in bold) by a finer line.
M easu red vo lu m etric w ater co n ten t (% )

55
Tensiom eter
W aterm ark
50
A quaterr
V irrib (across)
45 V irrib (parallel)

40

35

30

25

20

15

10
20 25 30 35 40
A ctu al vo lu m etric w ater co n ten t (% )

Fig. 2. Volumetric water content measured with sensors as a function of
v obtained from the gravimetric
sampling at a depth of 0.3 m, in the irrigated plot. The validity range of measurement is delimited on both sides
of the 1:1 line (in bold) by a finer line.

15
 M e as u re d vo lu m e tric w ate r c o n te n t (% )
70
T e n s io m e te r
W a te rm a rk
65
A q u a te rr

60

55

50

45

40

35

30

25
20 25 30 35 40

A c tu a l v o lu m etric w a te r co n te n t (% )

Fig. 3. Volumetric water content measured with sensors as a function of
v obtained from the gravimetric
sampling at a depth of 0.5 m, in the irrigated plot. The validity range of measurement is delimited on both sides
of the 1:1 line (in bold) by a finer line.
M e a s u r e d v o lu m e tr ic w a te r c o n t e n t (% )

55
T e n s io m e te r
50 W a te r m a r k
A q u a te r r
V ir r ib (a c r o s s )
45
V ir r ib (p a r a lle l)
A q u a -T e l(s id e )
40

35

30

25

20

15

10
20 25 30 35 40

A c t u a l v o lu m e tr ic w a te r c o n te n t (% )

Fig 4. Volumetric water content measured with sensors as a function of
v obtained from the gravimetric
sampling at a depth of 0.2 m, in the rainfed plot. The validity range of measurement is delimited on both
sides of the 1:1 line (in bold) by a finer line.

16
 M e a s u r e d v o lu m e tr ic w a te r c o n t e n t (% )
55
T e n s io m e te r
50 W a te r m a r k
A q u a te r r
V ir r ib (a c r o s s )
45
V ir r ib (p a r a lle l)

40

35

30

25

20

15

10
20 25 30 35 40

A c t u a l v o lu m e tr ic w a te r c o n te n t (% )

Fig 5. Volumetric water content measured with sensors as a function of
v obtained from the gravimetric
sampling at a depth of 0.3 m, in the rainfed plot. The validity range of measurement is delimited on both
sides of the 1:1 line (in bold) by a finer line.
M e a s u r e d v o lu m e tr ic w a te r c o n t e n t (% )

60
T e n s io m e te r
55 W a te r m a r k
A q u a te r r
50

45

40

35

30

25

20

15
20 25 30 35 40

A c t u a l v o lu m e tr ic w a te r c o n te n t (% )

Fig. 6. Volumetric water content measured with sensors as a function of
v obtained from the gravimetric
sampling at a depth of 0.5 m, in the rainfed plot. The validity range of measurement is delimited on both
sides of the 1:1 line (in bold) by a finer line.

17