נגישות
menu      
Advanced Search
Syntax
Search...
Volcani treasures
About
Terms of use
Manage
Community:
אסיף מאגר המחקר החקלאי
Powered by ClearMash Solutions Ltd -
Comments on “Field Calibration of Water Content Reflectometers”
Year:
2005
Authors :
Nadler, Arie
;
.
Volume :
69
Co-Authors:
Facilitators :
From page:
1356
To page:
1357
(
Total pages:
2
)
Abstract:

1 tried to evaluate and improve the performance of the commercial soil moisture sensor CS‐615 (Campbell Scientific Inc., Logan, UT). The authors should be complimented for their devoted efforts to provide growers with an accurate yet inexpensive tool for monitoring water content (WC), a critical parameter in agricultural production. Practically the authors propose a three‐phase campaign:

  1. . Extensive use of low cost but problematic sensors;
  2. . An upgrade, by one way or another, of the factorysupplied sensor calibration; and
  3. . Use of time domain reflectrometry (TDR) technology to intermittently verify water content reflectometer (WCR) calibration stability under field conditions.

My following comments intend to show that: (i) the calibration strategy offered and discussed by the authors may be problematic, (ii) the measurement frequency gap is unbridgeable, (iii) the selected experimental site is not a typical agricultural example, and (iv) it is worth checking if a simple and cheap electrical resistance measurement could not bring the same benefit for a fraction of the price.

Note:
Related Files :
calibration
sensors
soil
Soil moisture measurement
water
Water content reflectometer
Show More
Related Content
More details
DOI :
https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2005.0085le
Article number:
0
Affiliations:
Database:
Publication Type:
Comment / Commentary
;
.
Language:
English
Editors' remarks:
ID:
50634
Last updated date:
02/03/2022 17:27
Creation date:
01/10/2020 08:08
Scientific Publication
Comments on “Field Calibration of Water Content Reflectometers”
69
Comments on “Field Calibration of Water Content Reflectometers”

1 tried to evaluate and improve the performance of the commercial soil moisture sensor CS‐615 (Campbell Scientific Inc., Logan, UT). The authors should be complimented for their devoted efforts to provide growers with an accurate yet inexpensive tool for monitoring water content (WC), a critical parameter in agricultural production. Practically the authors propose a three‐phase campaign:

  1. . Extensive use of low cost but problematic sensors;
  2. . An upgrade, by one way or another, of the factorysupplied sensor calibration; and
  3. . Use of time domain reflectrometry (TDR) technology to intermittently verify water content reflectometer (WCR) calibration stability under field conditions.

My following comments intend to show that: (i) the calibration strategy offered and discussed by the authors may be problematic, (ii) the measurement frequency gap is unbridgeable, (iii) the selected experimental site is not a typical agricultural example, and (iv) it is worth checking if a simple and cheap electrical resistance measurement could not bring the same benefit for a fraction of the price.

Scientific Publication
You may also be interested in