See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/275731598

Soil Profile Water Content Determination

Article  in  Vadose Zone Journal · August 2006

DOI: 10.2136/vzj2005.0149

CITATIONS READS
161 1,708

3 authors:

Steve Evett Judy Tolk

United States Department of Agriculture United States Department of Agriculture
345 PUBLICATIONS   10,310 CITATIONS    88 PUBLICATIONS   3,660 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Terry A. Howell
United States Department of Agriculture
387 PUBLICATIONS   15,256 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Middle East Regional Irrigation Management Information System View project

Center pivot automation based on the time temperature threshold method of irrigation scheduling. View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Judy Tolk on 05 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Published online July 26, 2006

Soil Profile Water Content Determination: Sensor Accuracy, Axial Response, Calibration,
Temperature Dependence, and Precision
Steven R. Evett,* Judy A. Tolk, and Terry A. Howell

ABSTRACT
Although the neutron moisture meter (NMM) has served the need A CCURATE soil water content estimations are re-
quired for determinations of crop water use, water
use efficiency, irrigation efficiency, and in soil hydrology.
Reproduced from Vadose Zone Journal. Published by Soil Science Society of America. All copyrights reserved.

for accurate soil water content determinations well, increasing reg-

ulatory burdens, including the requirement that the NMM not be left For nearly 50 yr, the NMM has served this need well, but
unattended, limit the usefulness of the method. Newer methods, increasing regulatory burdens, including the require-
which respond to soil electromagnetic (EM) properties, typically allow ment that the NMM not be left unattended, limit the
data logging and unattended operation, but with uncertain precision,
usefulness of the method, particularly for unattended,
accuracy, and volume of sensitivity. In laboratory columns of three
soils, we compared the Sentek EnviroSCAN and Diviner 2000 ca-
automated data acquisition. In many field experiments,
pacitance devices, the Delta-T PR1/6 Profiler capacitance probe, the these limitations prevent the method from being use-
Trime T3 tube-probe, all EM methods, with the NMM and con- ful for capturing the depth of water added to the soil via
ventional time domain reflectometry (TDR, also an EM method). All irrigation or precipitation without confounding effects
but conventional TDR can be used in access tubes. Measurements of crop water use, deep percolation, and/or evaporation
were made before, during, and after wetting to saturation in triplicate from the soil surface that occur between measurements.
repacked columns of three soils ranging in total clay content from 17 Since 1980, several methods have been brought to the
to 48%. Each column was weighed continuously, and thermocouple
scientific market that rely on responses to soil EM prop-
determinations of temperature were made every 30 min throughout.
All of the devices were sensitive to temperature except for the NMM,
erties as a surrogate for soil water content (Topp et al.,
with conventional TDR being the least sensitive of the EM devices 1980; Dean et al., 1987; Paltineanu and Starr, 1997).
(sensitivity ,|0.0006| m3 m23 C21). The Trime T3 and Delta-T PR1/6 These EM methods typically allow data logging and un-
devices were so sensitive to temperature (0.015 and 0.009 m3 m23 °C21, attended operation, but with uncertain precision and ac-
respectively, in saturated soil using soil-specific calibration) as to be curacy (Baumhardt et al., 2000; Evett and Steiner, 1995;
inappropriate for routine field determinations of soil profile water Kelleners et al., 2004a, 2004b), probably related to small
content. Temperature sensitivity was up to 12 times larger in saturated measurement volumes and sensitivity to bulk electrical
soils compared with values in air-dry soils, corresponding to the much
conductivity and temperature.
larger bulk electrical conductivities of these soils when saturated. All
devices exhibited estimation precision better than 0.01 m3 m23 under
All of the EM methods generate an electrical signal
isothermal conditions. However, under nonisothermal conditions, es- and measure some property (typically a frequency or
timation precision for the EM sensors worsened as the number of travel time) of the response of this signal to changes in
measurements (and time involved in taking readings) increased, and the apparent permittivity of the soil, ea. For a signal at a
as the soils became wetter, resulting in precision values .0.01 m3 m23 for single angular frequency, v, the effect of direct current
the Trime and Delta-T devices. Accuracy of the devices was judged by electrical conductivity, sdc, on the apparent permittivity
the root mean squared difference (RMSD) between column mean can be represented by (Robinson et al., 2003)
water contents determined by mass balance and those determined by 0 ( 1
the devices using factory calibrations. Smaller values of the RMSD 
 2 )0:5
metric indicated more accurate factory calibration. The Delta-T system
was least accurate, with an RMSD of 1.299 m3 m23 at saturation. At
ea 5
me9 @
2
11 11 erelax 0 1
sdc
veo =
e9 A [1]

saturation, the Diviner, EnviroSCAN, NMM, and Trime devices all

exhibited RMSD values .0.05 m3 m23, while TDR exhibited RMSD where e9 is the real component of the complex dielectric
,0.03 m3 m23. Soil-specific calibrations determined in this study re- permittivity, e0relax is the increase in permittivity due to
sulted in RMSE of regression values (an indicator of calibration ac- relaxation losses, and eo is the permittivity of free space
curacy) ranging from 0.010 to 0.058 m3 m23. All of the devices would (8.854 3 10212 F m21). The value of e9 is largely depen-
require separate calibrations for different soil horizons. Of the EM
dent on the permittivity of the free water in soil, but the
devices, only the Delta-T PR1/6 exhibited axial sensitivity appreciably
larger than the axial height of the sensor, indicating small measurement
value of ea is dependent also on the measurement fre-
volumes generally, and suggesting that these systems may be suscep- quency, the value of sdc, and relaxation effects. Thus,
tible to small-scale variations in soil water content (at scales smaller temperature sensitivity of EM methods may be due to,
than the representative elemental volume for water content) and to soil among other causes, the temperature sensitivity of soil
disturbance close to the access tube caused during installation. bulk electrical conductivity (sa, S m21), the negative
temperature dependence of the permittivity of free
S.R. Evett, J.A. Tolk, and T.A. Howell, USDA-ARS, Conservation & water (20.41 to 20.33 8C21 from 0 to 408C), and the
Production Research Laboratory, Soil and Water Management Re- effect of sa changes on the effective measurement fre-
search Unit, Bushland, TX 79012. Received 15 Dec. 2005. *Corre-
sponding author ([email protected]). quency (Evett et al., 2005). The apparent permittivity
may also increase with the release of bound water from
Published in Vadose Zone Journal 5:894–907 (2006).
Original Research
doi:10.2136/vzj2005.0149 Abbreviations: EM, electromagnetic; NMM, neutron moisture meter;
ª Soil Science Society of America RMSD, root mean squared difference; RMSE, root mean squared
677 S. Segoe Rd., Madison, WI 53711 USA error; TDR, time domain reflectometry.

894
 www.vadosezonejournal.org 895

soil particle surfaces as temperature increases (Wraith were made vs. soil water content determined by
and Or, 1999). mass balance in soil columns and by TDR using the
It is well known that the value of ea increases with Eq. [2] calibration.
soil sa (Wyseure et al., 1997; Robinson et al., 2003),
particularly for sa .0.2 S m21. Also, the value of sa
increases with soil water content and temperature
Accuracy, Bias, and Precision
(Rhoades et al., 1976; Mmolawa and Or, 2000). How- Accuracy, bias, and precision are key concepts in sen-
ever, due to the complex interactions of factors affect- sor evaluation and description. A more accurate sensor
Reproduced from Vadose Zone Journal. Published by Soil Science Society of America. All copyrights reserved.

ing permittivity, the value of ea may increase or decrease (or method) is one whose reading is closer to the true
with temperature, depending on the soil texture and value of the property being sensed. Precision is related
water content (Campbell, 1990; Pepin et al., 1995; to the scatter of repeated readings around the mean
Persson and Berndtsson, 1998; Wraith and Or, 1999), sensor reading. A more precise sensor exhibits less
with nonsaline sandy soils more often displaying a nega- scatter. It is important to note that a precise reading may
tive temperature dependence of ea, as might be expected be quite inaccurate, that is, it may be biased from the
since such soils do not display increases in sa with in- true mean. Thus, accuracy is affected both by sensor bias
creasing water content as do some nonsaline clayey soils. and precision. Calibration is the accepted method of
In the frequency range in which most capacitance soil removing or reducing sensor bias. Thus, any inaccuracy
water sensors operate (100s of MHz), the value of per- not removed by calibration may be considered to be
mittivity is frequency dependent and increases as mea- related to sensor precision. Even if not biased, an in-
surement frequency decreases (Campbell, 1990). The dividual reading from a less precise sensor is less likely
operating principle of capacitance sensors is that the to be close to the true mean. Moreover, the operational
resonant frequency decreases as water content (per- meaning of these terms is determined by the method by
mittivity) increases. Thus, there is likely a confounding which they are evaluated and the context in which they
effect of the frequency dependence of permittivity; and are used. A common statistic used to evaluate the ac-
that effect is probably strengthened in soils with appre- curacy of a sensor is the RMSD between the sensor
ciable sa. In sum, there may be a nonunique relationship reading and the true value of the property. The true
between water content and ea for capacitance sensors in property value is, of course, determined by another
warmer, wetter soils with larger sa. method that will itself involve some error. It is common
Assuming that relaxation effects were negligible, to determine the true value by a method that is known to
Evett et al. (2005) determined a water content (uv, m3 be, or can be shown to be, sufficiently accurate so that
m23) calibration equation for conventional TDR in whatever error is inserted into the measurement system
terms of sa, and the travel time (tt, s) and effective by this method is smaller than some predetermined cri-
frequency (fvi, MHz) of the TDR pulse in a probe of terion. In soil water work, the standard method of de-
length L (m): termining the true value is mass balance; and the errors
involved are those inherent in the mass determination;
uv 5 20:182 1 0:1271[co tt /(2L)] and if volumetric water content is desired, the error in
2 0:004933[sa /(2pfvi eo Þ]0:5 [2] volume determination. An example of the use of the
RMSD would be when comparing water contents, es-
While possibly not applicable in sandy soils, Eq. [2] was timated using the sensor with preset or “factory” calibra-
accurate to 0.01 m3 m23, and it reduced temperature tion, with water contents determined by mass balance.
dependency of water contents estimated in the three In calibration work, a common statistic of accuracy is the
soils studied here to ,0.0006 m3 m23 8C21, employing root mean squared error (RMSE) of the calibration
only information available from the TDR waveform. equation (Kempthorne and Allmaras, 1986), which is
The apparent temperature sensitivity in terms of the typically determined by linear or nonlinear regression of
water contents estimated using EM methods is affected the sensor output versus the water content determined
by the shape of the calibration curve and the value of by mass balance. Discussion of which of these should be
multiplicative coefficients in the calibration equations the independent variable is an important topic in sta-
for each method. For a given sensitivity of the response tistics that has practical consequences for calibration of
variable (e.g., frequency or travel time), the sensitivity of soil water sensors (Greacen, 1981) that will not be dis-
estimated water content increases as the slope of the cal- cussed here. Both the RMSD and the RMSE are used
ibration equation increases. For curvilinear calibrations, here, each in the appropriate context.
this may compound the effect of temperature sensitivities Precision may be evaluated by calculating the SD of
at the wet end, at which slopes are typically larger. water content estimations from repeated measurements
Our objectives were twofold: (i) to compare, in three with the sensor in some standard environment for which
different soil materials, the accuracy, precision, temper- no variation of temperature or water content or other
ature sensitivity, and axial sensitivity of several com- possible covariable is allowed. This definition of pre-
mercially available devices that could be used in access cision is of somewhat limited usefulness in that sensors
tubes to estimate soil water content in the root zone are not typically used in such environments. Another
and below and (ii) to calibrate these devices in the method for evaluating precision is to make repeated
three soils and compare these with factory calibrations. measurements in a uniform medium, but inserting and
Comparisons of water content reported by each device removing the sensor at each measurement. If the in-
 896 VADOSE ZONE J., VOL. 5, AUGUST 2006

sertion is into a number of access tubes in a field of dence of sa on water content is much less for the smaller-clay-
uniform soil, then the value of precision so determined content C soil than for the other two. Also, the temperature
includes any variability due to access tube installation dependence of sa in the C soil is approximately one-half of that
and contact with the soil (a real and important part of in Soils A and B. These same soils were used in the TDR
calibration resulting in Eq. [2].
the sensing system), soil variability on the spatial scale at
Each soil was packed uniformly into three replicate plastic
which the sensor operates (making the volume sensed columns. Soil in each column was 75 cm deep and 55 cm in
an important sensor property), and variability in any diameter, and rested on a 5-cm-deep bed of fine pure silica
covariates (e.g., temperature) that may interfere with sand in which was embedded a ceramic filter tube specified at
Reproduced from Vadose Zone Journal. Published by Soil Science Society of America. All copyrights reserved.

the readings during the time it takes to make the re- 100-kPa air-entry potential (Fig. 1). Soil was packed in 5-cm
peated readings (making environmental sensor inter- layers around access tubes, which were held in place with a jig
ferences important sensor properties). Because a user so that tube positions would be identical in each column.
does not have perfect control over sensor or access tube Distances between access tubes and between access tubes and
installation, and has no control over the sensor’s volume column walls were great enough to be outside the radial dis-
of measurement or environmental variables that may tance within which 95% of the measurement influence can
be found for the EM devices tested. For the conventional
interfere, such as temperature, it makes sense to eval-
TDR systems, horizontal, trifilar TDR probes (20-cm length,
uate sensor precision under these real conditions of op- Dynamax, Inc., Houston, model TR-100) were installed at
eration. In our study, we evaluated precision in a more depths of 2, 5, 15, 25, 35, 45, 55, and 65 cm in each column to
perfect environment. Access tube–soil contact and soil determine soil water content (uv, m3 m23) and bulk electrical
uniformity at the small scale were made as near perfect conductivity (sa, S m21).1 Type T thermocouples were installed
as possible by packing crushed and sieved soil around at the same depths to determine soil temperature (T, 8C).
the access tubes. Sensor precision was evaluated at the Three samples for initial gravimetric water content were ob-
air-dry soil initial condition and at the completely sat- tained every two layers during packing. Column sides were
urated end point, both conditions under which soil water covered with reflective aluminum foil to minimize daily heat-
content could not vary appreciably. Sensors were not ing and cooling on the sides. Column soil surfaces were left
exposed to solar radiation and air temperature variations in
moved during the evaluation of precision. However,
the greenhouse that housed the experiment. The greenhouse
because soil temperature is known to interfere with EM was not cooled and was only heated sufficiently in winter to
sensors, we did allow soil temperature to vary. We eval- prevent freezing, the intention being to provide a wide varia-
uated precision using both short-term series of measure- tion in daily and seasonal temperature in the soils. Before
ments, to minimize soil temperature variation and to wetting, the soil columns were flushed with CO2 gas fed into
approach the first (ideal) definition of precision given the bed of sand at their bottoms to displace air in the pore
above, and long-term measurement series, during which space. The columns were then wetted from the bottom, dis-
temperature varied considerably so that precision values placing the CO2. Any CO2 not displaced dissolved in the water,
so determined included the variation due to any temper- resulting in completely saturated soil columns. Soil surface
ature effect on the sensor reading. We feel that this is a height was measured periodically as the soils wetted to adjust
soil volume for swelling.
reasonable evaluation of precision because none of the
Column mass was determined every 6 s using a data logger
sensors studied allowed for sensing of soil temperature, (Campbell Scientific, Inc., Logan, UT, model CR7) connected
none of the sensor calibrations included temperature or to the paralleled output of the four load cells in each scale
a temperature-related covariate such as bulk electrical (Weigh-Tronix, Inc., Fairmount, MN, model DS3040-10K),
conductivity (except for the TDR system), and so none using a six-wire bridge configuration to minimize temperature-
facilitated correction for temperature effects by a user. induced errors. Mean values were output every 5 min. Cali-
bration with test masses traceable to NIST resulted in RMSE
values of linear regression #50 g for all scales. Initial volu-
METHODS AND MATERIALS metric water content of each column was computed from
Three soils were acquired in fall 2000 at Bushland, TX, air- the mass of soil added, the volume of the column, and the wa-
dried, crushed and sieved to #2-mm diameter (USDA-ARS ter contained in the soil as determined from the gravimet-
Conservation & Production Research Laboratory, 358 119 N ric samples.
lat, 1028 069 W long, 1170 m elev. above MSL). The soils were Estimates of uv and sa, using the 72 20-cm trifilar TDR
(i) a silty clay loam (30% clay, 53% silt), hereinafter referred probes, were made every 30 min using the TACQ program
to as Soil A; (ii) a clay (48% clay, 39% silt), Soil B; and (iii) a (Evett, 2000a, 2000b; Evett et al., 2005) controlling a conven-
clay loam (35% clay, 40% silt) containing 50% CaCO3 (17% tional TDR system that included an embedded computer
total clay), Soil C. Soils A, B, and C were derived, respectively, (IBM PC/AT compatible), cable tester (Tektronix Inc. Red-
from the A, Bt, and Btk horizons of a Pullman soil, which is a mond, OR, model 1502C), and five coaxial multiplexers
fine, mixed, superactive, thermic Torrertic Paleustoll with (Evett, 1998). Water contents were calculated both using Eq.
mixed clay mineralogy including large proportions of illite and [2] and the calibration of Topp et al. (1980). Thermocouples
montmorillonite (smectite). The difference in total clay con- were sensed every 30 min using the CR7 data logger to deter-
tent from 17% (of total mass, including the CaCO3) to 30 to mine T.
48% between Soils C, A, and B, respectively, should illuminate Three capacitance type soil water sensing systems were used
any texture dependence of the devices. The 50% CaCO3 con- (Delta-T Devices Ltd., Cambridge, UK, model PR1/6 Profile
tent of soil C should illuminate effects of the carbonate content
of caliche horizons, which are CaCO3–rich horizons common
in soils of the Great Plains and further west in the United 1
The mention of trade or manufacturer names is made for
States. These soils exhibit sa values that increase with both information only and does not imply an endorsement, recommenda-
water content and clay content (Table 1), although the depen- tion, or exclusion by USDA-Agricultural Research Service.
 www.vadosezonejournal.org 897

Table 1. Physical properties of the three soils.

sa,‡ Temperature dependency of sa
Soil Clay† Silt CaCO3 Air-dry Saturated Air-dry Saturated Field bulk density
21 21 21 23
% mass dS m dS m °C Mg m
25
A 30 53 0.5 0.038 1.360 29.47 3 10 0.0336 1.42
24
B 48 39 3.5 0.039 1.471 21.15 3 10 0.0363 1.45
25
C 17.5 20 50 0.033 0.754 28.57 3 10 0.0163 1.41
Reproduced from Vadose Zone Journal. Published by Soil Science Society of America. All copyrights reserved.

† Percentage of total mass before carbonate removal.

‡ Bulk electrical conductivity at 25°C calculated from equations in Table 5 of Evett et al. (2005).

Probe; Sentek Environmental Technologies, Kent Town, frequencies range from approximately 100 MHz for CW to
South Australia, models EnviroSCAN and Diviner 2000). approximately 150 MHz for CA. However, in the range of
The EnviroSCAN system features a string of sensors placed permittivities relevant to soil water systems, EnviroSCAN SF
every 10 cm on a plastic backbone through which a communi- values range from |0.35 in air-dry soil to |0.95 in saturated
cations cable runs to the sensor-string head. Sensors were cen- soil; corresponding sensor resonant frequencies vary from
tered at 5-, 15-, 25-, 35-, 45-, 55-, and 65-cm depths. One string |133 to |105 MHz. Diviner 2000 frequencies range from |240
of sensors was placed in one column of each soil and logged to |330 MHz, corresponding to CW and CA counts, respec-
continuously every 30 min. The Diviner 2000 consists of a tively; the range in soils is from |250 MHz in saturated soil to
single sensor, similar to that used in the EnviroSCAN, fitted to |287 MHz in air-dry soil. Accuracy was not specified in units of
a square rod that allows the sensor to be lowered to the 1.6-m soil water content.
depth in an access tube. The same size PVC plastic access tube The PR1/6 probe has six capacitance sensor element pairs
is used for both Sentek systems (5.1-cm i.d., 5.6-cm o.d.). We on fixed spacing on a monolithic round plastic rod. The sensor
made readings periodically in two columns of each soil with the centers of measurement are at depths of 10, 20, 30, 40, 60, and
Diviner 2000 at the same depths as for the EnviroSCAN. 100 cm. In use, the rod is lowered into an epoxy-fiberglass
Output from the Sentek systems is a count proportional to the access tube (26-mm i.d., 28-mm o.d.). In our study, the rod was
sensor circuit (resonant) frequency. This count is scaled to a positioned so as to obtain readings at 5, 15, 25, 35, 45, 55, and
value between zero and unity called the scaled frequency, SF 65 cm. Because the cylindrical plates that form the capacitance
element in this sensor have a gap on one side, two readings
SF 5 (CA 2 CS )/(CA 2 CW ) [3] were made at each depth, with the probe rotated 908 around its
axis after the first reading to ensure full coverage. The PR1/6
where CA is the count with the sensor in the access tube, which
operates at approximately 100 MHz, and its output is a voltage
is itself surrounded by air; CS is the count with the access tube
(V) ranging from zero to |0.4 V and exhibiting a curvilinear
surrounded by the soil; and CW is the count with the access
relationship with e0.5 (Delta-T Devices Ltd., 2001). Accuracy
tube surrounded by nonsaline water. Actual sensor frequen-
is stated as 60.05 m3 m23 (0–0.6 m3 m23, 0–408C) using the
cies are 4096 times the recorded counts (Sentek, 1994), and
factory calibration and 60.03 m3 m23 using soil-specific cali-
bration, with errors of less than 20.0001 m3 m23 per mS m21 in
soils with sa of up to 8 dS m21.
The NMM (Campbell Pacific Nuclear International, Inc.,
model 503DR1.5) was used with a depth control stand (Evett
et al., 2003) for measurements centered at the 10-cm depth and
in 20-cm increments below that. Factory calibrations for the
NMM are known to be inaccurate in many soils (Hignett and
Evett, 2002). Because the soil columns were too small to en-
tirely contain the neutron flux in the air-dry condition, the
NMM was field calibrated. Using methods described by
Hignett and Evett (2002), the accuracy (field calibrated)
should be at least 0.01 m3 m23 and insensitive to sa.
Finally, we used the Trime T3 tube probe, which is a cylin-
drical probe with two waveguides oriented vertically on
opposite sides of a cylindrical plastic body (IMKO Micro-
modultechnik, GmbH, Ettlingen, Germany, model TRIME-T3
Tube Access Probe). The measurement length of the T3 probe
is 17.5 cm. The probe is suspended from a cable and lowered
to any desired depth in the polycarbonate plastic access tube
(41-mm i.d., 44-mm o.d.). Using a depth control stand, we
made measurements at 17.5-cm depth intervals with the top-
Fig. 1. Top and side view cross sections of a soil column showing the most measurement centered at 8.75 cm below the soil surface.
placement of access tubes, TDR probes, and thermocouples. Daily measurements were made. A measurement was also
Column sides were covered with aluminum foil. For axial made with the probe resting against the bottom of the access
sensitivity tests, each sensor was centered above its access tube tube. The T3 probe was matched with the Trime-FM field
and at a height (usually 30 cm above the soil surface) such that the
measuring device, which sends a fast rise time pulse through a
soil (either dry or saturated) did not influence the sensor reading.
Then the sensor was lowered in 2-cm increments, with a reading coaxial cable to the probe and outputs a “pseudo” transit time
taken at each increment, until it passed through the access tube and that is related to water content. Transit times are determined
reached a position below the soil surface that was lower than the using a voltage comparator that is set in sequence to a series of
depth at which further lowering did not influence the sensor reading voltage levels, at each of which the reflected signal is timed
(usually 30 cm below the soil surface). until its voltage equals or exceeds that of the comparator.
 898 VADOSE ZONE J., VOL. 5, AUGUST 2006

Thus, a series of transit time measurements are acquired. The calculated by first using four measurements (made at 15- or
complete waveform is not acquired. Thus, unlike conventional 30-min intervals depending on the sensor involved), then 8,
TDR systems, the Trime-FM does not acquire or output a then 12, etc. until 4 d of measurements were included in the
waveform, nor does it perform an internal waveform analysis calculation, resulting in SD values for a range of periods of
by tangent line fitting. The voltage comparator is located in the measurement. Sensors with automatic data logging were read
Trime-FM, so transit times must include any variation in pulse for longer periods; those that required manual operation were
travel time along the 3-m coaxial cable. Resolution is stated read for up to 1 d. The second SD calculation was done to see if
as 3 ps, and accuracy as 60.03 m3 m23 (0–0.6 m3 m23) for sa SD was stable, decreased, or increased as the number of sam-
#1 dS m21 (IMKO, 2000). ples included in the calculation increased and as temperature
Reproduced from Vadose Zone Journal. Published by Soil Science Society of America. All copyrights reserved.

For each EM sensor except conventional TDR, nonlinear fluctuations increased during the longer periods.
regressions of water content as determined by the calibrated
TDR system versus sensor output were done using the RESULTS
SigmaPlot software (Systat Software Inc., SigmaPlot ver-
sion 9.0). For the three capacitance systems, readings were After packing, the soil columns had mean initial water
taken at the same depths as with the TDR system, so water contents of 0.051, 0.056, and 0.041 m3 m23 for Soils A, B,
contents and sensor outputs from equivalent depths were and C, respectively, and mean bulk densities of 1.48,
paired directly in the data sets. For the Trime system, the TDR- 1.47, and 1.40 Mg m23, respectively.
determined water contents were interpolated to find mean
water contents for depth intervals equivalent to those read by
the Trime tube probe. Because on the dry end the volume of
Reported Water Contents in Air-Dry and
measurement of the NMM exceeded the volume of the soil Saturated Soils
columns, calibration of the NMM was not attempted using data The factory calibration for each system was used to
from the soil columns. Instead, a field calibration was done calculate reported water contents from raw sensor out-
using the methods of Evett and Steiner (1995) in the Pullman puts. In air-dry soils water content values from the Trime
soil at Bushland in the horizons from which Soils A, B, and C
tube probe ranged from 0.037 to 0.059 m3 m23 larger
were derived.
Axial sensitivity was determined by lowering each sensor in than water content calculated from mass balance (Table 2).
2-cm increments from a height well above the air-dry soil The Diviner reported mean water contents ranging from
surface to a depth well below the soil surface (high enough 0.021 to 0.040 m3 m23 larger than actual values. The
above and deep enough below the soil surface, respectively, EnviroSCAN was more accurate, reporting mean water
so that readings did not change with vertical position). Data contents ranging from 0.003 to 0.024 m3 m23 larger than
from three replicates were fitted using SigmaPlot to a four- actual. The Delta-T probe was most inaccurate, report-
parameter sigmoidal curve ing mean water contents ranging from 0.085 to 0.096 m3
uv 5 y0 1 a/{1 1 exp[2(z 2 z0 )/b]} [4] m23 larger than actual. The conventional TDR and NMM
were most accurate, giving readings within 0.015 m3 m23
where y0, a, z0, and b were fitted parameters and z was the of those determined by mass balance. The good accuracy
height of the sensor center relative to the soil surface. The
value of y0 represented the minimum reading, which was
of the NMM in dry soil using the factory calibration was
obtained when the sensor was well above the soil surface, and essentially an accident since (i) the soil columns were
the value of y0 1 a represented the maximum reading obtained not large enough to represent an equivalent infinite
with the sensor well below the soil surface. A 90% axial volume of air-dry soil and (ii) other access tubes were
response height was determined as the difference between the close enough to represent voids within the measurement
z value at which uv was 5% less than y0 + a and the z value at volume of the NMM. For these reasons, when field cali-
which uv was 5% more than a. brations were used, water content was underestimated
To test for temperature sensitivity, periodic (15–30 min) by 0.066 m3 m23 on average using the NMM.
measurements were made over at least 2 d in the air-dry soil In saturated soils and using factory calibration, only
columns with a sensor of each device centered at the 25-cm conventional TDR (using the Topp et al., 1980 calibra-
depth for comparison with data of temperatures at that depth.
Tests of sensitivity to temperature and to the soil–air interface
were repeated when the soils reached saturation. The soil- Table 2. Air-dry and saturated column mean volumetric water con-
specific calibrations determined during this study were used to tents (uv , m3 m23) by mass balance, and device errors (m3 m23)
calculated using factory calibrations.
calculate water contents from sensor readings taken during the
temperature sensitivity measurements. Error–Difference from VWC by mass balance
Precision can be assessed through repeated measurements Mass Delta-T Diviner Enviro-
with time (usually made with the sensor in one place and Soil balance uv PR1/6 2000 SCAN Trime T3 NMM TDR
condition), or through repeated measurements across space, as
Air-dry
in the field. In the latter case, variability in time is typically 3 23
m m
confounded with variability in space. Another variability
A 0.051 0.093 0.021 0.003 0.037 20.004 20.015
assessment is one done with multiple sensors of the same B 0.056 0.096 0.024 0.024 0.054 20.004 20.009
type each placed in an identical environment, in which case the C 0.041 0.085 0.040 0.019 0.059 20.012 20.001
intersensor variability is assessed. We made repeated mea- RMSD† 0.091 0.030 0.018 0.051 0.007 0.010
surements with the subject sensor in one place in a soil column Saturated
to measure variability with time. The SD was assessed by A 0.433 1.339 0.084 20.037 0.064 20.093 0.002
including four consecutive measurements in the calculation, B 0.474 1.312 0.001 20.062 0.088 20.117 0.004
then the next four, etc. until all the data had been used to C 0.481 1.244 20.037 20.104 0.055 20.106 20.042
RMSD 1.299 0.053 0.073 0.070 0.106 0.024
calculate SD values, resulting in data on the running value of
SD for the time period involved. The SD was alternatively † Root mean squared difference.
 www.vadosezonejournal.org 899

tion) was reasonably accurate, reporting water contents

within 0.024 m3 m23 of mass balance on average. For the
other sensors, accuracy decreased in the order: Diviner
2000, Trime T3, EnviroSCAN, NMM, and Delta-T PR1/6
(Table 2). The Delta-T reported unrealistic water con-
tents ranging from 1.24 to 1.34 m3 m23. The variation of
the degree and sign of errors among soils indicated that
soil-specific calibrations were required for all of these
Reproduced from Vadose Zone Journal. Published by Soil Science Society of America. All copyrights reserved.

sensors, with the possible exception of conventional

TDR (depending on the need for accuracy). In fact,
Evett et al. (2005) showed that including bulk electrical
conductivity and effective frequency (both of which can
be determined from TDR waveforms) in the calibration
model can produce a common calibration for these three
soils, with an accuracy of 0.01 m3 m23. The inaccurate
estimations from the NMM using the factory calibration Fig. 2. Example of data for axial sensitivity tests showing axial
support the statement that factory calibrations for the response of the Delta-T PR1/6 instrument in air-dry soil. Positive
NMM are seldom useful (Hignett and Evett, 2002). The x axis numbers are for sensor heights above the soil surface.
NMM was accurate to within 0.016 m3 m23 in all three
saturated soils (data not shown) when using field appeared to be sensitive to changes in the sensed me-
calibrations for the soil horizons represented by Soils dium above and below the active electrodes of the sensor.
A, B, and C, including the separate calibration for the
10-cm depth (e.g., Evett and Steiner, 1995).
Sensitivity to the Soil-Air Interface for
Sensitivity to the Soil–Air Interface for Saturated Soil
Air-Dry Soil When the soil was saturated, the height of the 90%
response window was smaller (compared with the air-
The NMM had a 90% response window of 28 cm, as
dry case) for every sensor except the Trime (Table 3),
expected, more than twice its detector tube length of
which acts more as a transmission line rather than as an
13.2 cm (Table 3). The response window was centered at
antenna, and which responds to the travel of a pulse
6.0 cm below the soil surface; this result was not un-
along the complete length of this line. The capacitance
expected because the radioactive source is located just
sensors act as weak antennas whose field collapses as
below the detector tube. The Delta-T probe 90% re-
the permittivity of the surrounding medium (the soil)
sponse window was centered at 20.4 cm, just below the
increases. For the Diviner, EnviroSCAN, and Delta-T
soil surface, and had a height of 8.0 cm, almost twice the
sensors, the response heights decreased to 0.50, 0.63,
sensor height (Fig. 2). However, the 2-cm depth incre-
and 1.16 of the sensor height, respectively, in saturated
ment used between measurements may not have been
soil. The ratios of response to sensor heights vary in
small enough to obtain good precision with this probe,
inverse relationship to the measurement frequency of
which had the smallest height. The Diviner had a 90%
these three sensors, indicating that as measurement fre-
response window of 6.0 cm, almost the same as the
quency increases, the sensed volume may decrease.
6.2-cm sensor height. The sensor response was centered
Data of Paltineanu and Starr (1997) show that 90% of
at 1.5 cm below the soil surface. The EnviroSCAN sensor
the EnviroSCAN response volume is within 3 cm
is very similar to that of the Diviner, but is difficult to
radially of the access tube wall. If this is true for the
move within the access tube. For these reasons, we did
Diviner 2000, as seems probable, then these sensors
not test soil–air interface sensitivity of the EnviroSCAN
exhibit measurement volumes ,400 cm3 compared with
sensor in dry soil. The Trime probe, with a sensor height
of 17.5 cm, achieved 90% response for an 18-cm-high the .14 000 cm3 volume sensed by the neutron probe in
window. Sensor response was centered at 1.75 cm above saturated clay soil (Eq. [3.1.3–49] of Hignett and Evett
(2002) with uv 5 0.50 m3 m23 and a 4.45-cm o.d. access
the soil surface. Of the EM methods, only the Delta-T
tube). All of the capacitance sensors will have a limited
field of influence beyond the sensor body in saturated
Table 3. Axial response to the soil–air interface. soils. Only the NMM and PR1/6 demonstrated 90%
Height of 90% Ratio of response response windows appreciably larger than their sensor
response window to sensor heights heights in saturated soils.
Sensor height/
Instrument diameter Dry Wet Dry Wet In both air-dry and saturated soil, the Trime was the
cm
only sensor that had an asymmetrical response (Fig. 3),
Delta-T PR1/6 4.8/2.5 7.4 5.6 1.54 1.16 such that its response was weighted toward one end of
Sentek Diviner 6.3/4.7 6.2 3.1 0.99 0.50 the probe. This contrasts with the linear response that
Sentek 6.2/5.05 NA† 3.9 NA 0.63
EnviroSCAN is observed when a TDR probe is inserted into dry or
Neutron probe 13.2/3.8 27.7 15.6 2.10 1.18 saturated soil, an indication that, while acting like a
Trime T3 17.5/4.2 16.9 18.3 0.97 1.04 transmission line device, the Trime is not acting like a
† NA means not available. conventional TDR system.
 900 VADOSE ZONE J., VOL. 5, AUGUST 2006

that for Soils A and B, particularly at the wet end, so

separate calibrations for Soil C were obtained for each
system. The calibration model used was the power func-
tion used by Baumhardt et al. (2000), which, like the fac-
tory calibration, includes an intercept term. The RMSE
of regression, an indicator of calibration accuracy, was
between 0.018 and 0.025 m3 m23 for all calibrations of
the EnviroSCAN and Diviner 2000 systems. Positive
Reproduced from Vadose Zone Journal. Published by Soil Science Society of America. All copyrights reserved.

intercept values ranging from 0.024 to 0.041 m3 m23 in-

dicated that these calibrations are inaccurate at the ex-
treme dry end, which is understandable since we did not
have data for water contents less than the air-dry soil
water contents, which ranged from 0.041 to 0.056 m3
m23. Calibrations fitted using a power equation without
an intercept term, as was done by Paltineanu and Starr
(1997), did not fit the data well at either the dry or wet
ends. This brings up the question of the nature of water
Fig. 3. Axial response of the Trime T3 system in air-dry and saturated held by these soils at ,0.04 or 0.05 m3 m23. Water that
soils. A photograph of the probe is scaled to match its length with is not given up during prolonged air drying is closely
the x-axis scale of the graph. The response in air-dry soil was
asymmetrical. The response in saturated soil was also asymmetrical bound to soil particles and does not respond to electro-
and showed an intermediate peak coincident with the midpoint magnetic waves as does free water. Thus, it is reasonable
of the probe where the signal is carried on a flexible conductor to use an intercept term in calibration models for these
between the upper set of plates on the right and the lower set on two EM sensors, accepting that bound water is not
the left.
represented by these calibrations even though it may be
driven off by oven drying.
Calibrations Our EnviroSCAN calibrations were similar to that of
Calibration of the EnviroSCAN and Diviner 2000 Baumhardt et al. (2000) for pooled data from the Olton
systems was straightforward, and these systems re- soil sampled 180 km south of Bushland, a sandier soil
sponded similarly to the three soils (Table 4). Data for that is otherwise similar to Pullman (Fig. 4). Our calibra-
Soils A and B plotted together for each system, so a tions and that of Baumhardt et al. (2000) exhibit more
common calibration for the A and B soils was obtained sensitivity to changes in scaled frequency at water con-
for each system. Data for Soil C did not plot on top of tents .0.2 m3 m23 and less sensitivity to changes in SF at
water contents ,0.1 m3 m23 than does the factory cali-
Table 4. Calibration equations for EnviroSCAN, Diviner 2000, bration (Fig. 4). Our calibrations indicate that noise in
PR1/6, and Trime T3 soil water content sensing systems in three
soils. All coefficients are significant at the P 5 0.01 level. estimated water contents due to noise in scaled fre-
2
quency measurements would increase as the soil be-
Soil Soil water sensor N r RMSE
EnviroSCAN†
3.812
A&B uv 5 0.024 1 0.605SF 178 0.993 0.022
4.981
C uv 5 0.041 1 0.781SF 90 0.996 0.018
Diviner 2000
5.421
A&B uv 5 0.034 1 0.457SF 336 0.992 0.024
6.182
C uv 5 0.028 1 0.563SF 192 0.993 0.025
Trime T3‡
2.426
A&B uv 5 0.017 1 5.81E-8 3 TP 310 0.993 0.023
2.752
C uv 5 0.018 1 7.48E-9 3 TP 158 0.997 0.016
Delta T PR1/6§
Data from Days 207 and 212, 2002 omitted:
A&B uv 5 20.0003 1 2.11(V)2.307 480 0.985 0.029
C uv 5 0.0011 1 2.15(V)2.318 239 0.986 0.026
All data included:
2.155
A&B uv 5 3.36(V 2 0.0128TV) 562 0.981 0.037
2.592
C uv 5 5.38(V 2 0.0124TV) 287 0.970 0.052
A&B uv 5 2.39(V 2 1.47saV)2.121 562 0.956 0.058
0.3252
C uv 5 20.613 1 1.10(V 2 6.07saV) 287 0.968 0.054
Conventional TDR¶
A, B, C uv 5 20.182 1 0.1271[cott/(2L)] 3879 0.997 0.010
2 0.004933[sa/(2pfvieo)]0.5
CPN 503DR Neutron Moisture Meter#
A uv 5 20.0051 1 0.2331CR 6 0.997 0.004
B uv 5 20.1054 1 0.2425CR 24 0.988 0.008
C uv 5 20.0454 1 0.2079CR 20 0.992 0.006
† SF is scaled frequency. Fig. 4. Calibration curves for the EnviroSCAN system for the com-
‡ TP is pseudo transit time.
§ V is voltage (V); T is temperature (°C), and sa is bulk electrical con-
bined data from Soils A and B and for Soil C, compared with the
ductivity (S/m). factory calibration (Factory E) and the calibration of Baumhardt
¶ tt is travel time (s), and fvi is effective frequency (Hz). Result from Evett et al. (2000) in the Olton soil, and calibration curves for the Diviner
et al. (2005). 2000 system for the combined Soils A and B data and for the C soil,
# CR is count ratio. The NMM was field calibrated. compared with the factory calibration (Factory D).
 www.vadosezonejournal.org 901

for Soils A and B, and one-half of that for Soil C.

Calibrations for the EnviroSCAN system deviated from
the factory calibration most at the wet end. For the
Diviner 2000, differences from the factory calibration
were largest in the mid range of uv. For both sensors,
maximum differences from factory calibrations were on
the order of 0.1 m3 m23.
The Trime T3 system produced similar calibrations in
Reproduced from Vadose Zone Journal. Published by Soil Science Society of America. All copyrights reserved.

all soils, but again data for Soil C was different enough at
the wet end to justify a separate calibration equation
(Table 4). For equivalent values of pseudo transit time,
our calibrations resulted in smaller estimates of water
content across the entire range than did the factory cal-
ibration (Fig. 5). The power equation that we used
(Table 4) provided a more reasonable fit to the data near
the dry end than was shown by the fourth-order poly-
nomial used by the manufacturer. The nonlinearity of
our calibrations and that of the manufacturer is anoth-
Fig. 5. Calibrations of the Trime T3 tube probe for the combined
data from Soils A and B, and for Soil C, compared with the fac- er indication that the Trime device does not work like a
tory calibration. TDR device. In our soils, calibration of conventional
TDR systems is essentially linear with travel time. The
comes wetter, if noise in SF measurement is constant Trime device calibration is more similar to the calibra-
across its range. tions of capacitance devices presented here, including
Calibrations for the Diviner 2000 were similar to the differences between calibrations in different soils
those for the EnviroSCAN system in that Soils A and B at the wet end. We believe that this is due to sensitivity
plotted together, allowing a common calibration for of the Trime transit time measurement method to the
both soils (Table 4, Fig. 4). Again, the calibration for Soil combined effects of sa and T, as we will discuss later in the
C was different. And again, the Diviner 2000 was more section on temperature sensitivity. Differences from fac-
sensitive to changes in water content at smaller water tory calibration were largest at water contents ,0.1 m3
contents and less sensitive at larger water contents. m23, with differences being as large as 0.07 m3 m23.
However, in our soils there were greater differences Calibration of the Delta-T PR1/6 system was compli-
from the factory calibration for the Diviner 2000, except cated by the large temperature sensitivity of this system
at the air-dry and saturated ends. For all soils, all cali- in wet soil. When the soil was dry, the PR1/6 output was
brations for the EnviroSCAN and Diviner 2000 resulted not very temperature sensitive (Fig. 6), but at the wet
in approximately the same estimates of water content end, a temperature increase from |218C on Days 56 and
at the dry end. Calibration differences between soils in- 67 of 2002 to |308C on Days 207 and 212 of 2002 caused
creased as the soil water content increased, indicating an increase in output of |0.16 V, equivalent to a bias of
a link to soil sa, which similarly increases with uv and 0.026 m3 m23 8C21 if using the factory calibration for
which is small and nearly identical for all three soils at clay soil (Fig. 6, left). At the dry end, a temperature
the dry end, but increases to |1.5 dS m21 at the wet end decrease from |358C on Days 199 and 201 of 2001 to

Fig. 6. (Left) Data of water content from the TDR system in soil B versus output (V) from the PR1/6 for Soil B. Data from the wet end are from
warm summer days (Days 207 and 212) plot well to the right of those from cool winter days, indicating that output from the PR1/6 is increasing
with soil temperature. In contrast, on the dry end data from warm summer days (Days 199 and 201) plots in the same location as those from cold
winter days. Except for Days 199, 201, 207, and 212, all data shown were acquired between Days 2 and 67 of 2001. (Right) Calibrations for Soils A
and B combined and for Soil C when Days 207 and 212, 2002 are omitted, compared with the factory calibration.
 902 VADOSE ZONE J., VOL. 5, AUGUST 2006

|188C on Days 2 and 7 of 2002 caused little change in calibration, but calibration accuracies were better than
output. Omitting data from Days 207 and 212 of 2002 0.01 m3 m23 (Table 4).
(and thus ignoring temperature effects), resulted in
calibration equations similar to those of the other
capacitance sensors in that data for Soils A and B
Temperature Effects in Dry and Wet Soils
plotted together in plots of water content versus sensor Temperatures in the soil columns varied diurnally by
output, and Soil C plotted apart, particularly at the wet up to 168C due to radiational heating and cooling in the
end. Also, like the EnviroSCAN, Diviner, and Trime T3 green house. Temperature variations decreased with
Reproduced from Vadose Zone Journal. Published by Soil Science Society of America. All copyrights reserved.

systems, calibrations in our soils were quite different depth, indicating that the reflective shielding was
from the factory calibrations (either “clay” or “mineral,” effective in preventing heat loading on the sides of the
Fig. 6, right). But, these differences were much larger for columns. Corresponding soil column masses indicated
the Delta-T system. For a given value of sensor output, that temperature effects on water content derived from
water content in our soils was always smaller than that mass sensing were , 0.01 m3 m23. Water content deter-
indicated by factory calibrations. mined with each device, using both factory calibrations
Several nonlinear regression calibration models in- and the calibrations reported in this paper, was linearly
cluding soil temperature as an independent covariable regressed vs. temperature using data from both the air-
were tried while including the data from Days 207 and dry and saturated end points when water content in the
212 of 2002. The best of these resulted in calibrations in columns was invariant over time. Soil type did not in-
terms of sensor output V (V) and T (8C) with coefficients fluence the relationship between reported water con-
of determination $0.97 and RMSE values of 0.037 m3 m23 tent and soil temperature of the EnviroSCAN system
for Soils A and B (combined data) and 0.051 m3 m23 for (Fig. 8). Soil-specific calibration decreased the observed
Soil C (Table 4, Fig. 7). Since the temperature effect in temperature dependency at the air-dry end, but in-
these soils is largely tied to the increase of soil bulk creased it to 0.0017 m3 m23 8C21 at the saturated end
electrical conductivity (sa) with temperature, attempts (Table 5). The Diviner responded similarly, but the tem-
were made to calibrate in terms of sensor output and sa, perature sensitivity at the saturated end was larger
resulting in similar values of r 2 and RMSE for soil C, but (0.0030 m3 m23 8C21) using the soil-specific calibrations.
with an unrealistically negative intercept. For the com- For the Delta-T PR1/6, the sensitivity was small in air-
bined Soil A and B data, inclusion of an intercept term dry soil, changing to 0.0251 m3 m23 8C21 for saturated
resulted in nonsignificant coefficient estimates, but omis- soil using the factory calibration. When the calibration
sion of the intercept term resulted in highly significant including temperature as an independent variable was
fitted parameters and a reasonable compound curved used, the sensitivities were negative and larger in mag-
surface (Fig. 7). For calibrations including Tor sa the cali- nitude at the air-dry end and smaller at the saturated
brations were compound curved surfaces similar to those end. If the calibration that ignored temperature was
in Fig. 7, with little effect of T or sa at small values of uv, used (omitting Days 207 and 212 of 2002), then the sen-
and increasing effects of T and sa as the soils wetted. sitivity was 0.0089 m3 m23 8C21 for saturated soil. Thus,
A single calibration for conventional TDR estimated the calibration that included temperature as a covariate
water content with accuracy of 0.01 m3 m23 in all three overcorrected for temperature sensitivity at the wet end,
soils (Table 4) (Evett et al., 2005). Separate calibrations even though it succeeded in reducing the gross error in
were required for each soil with the NMM field estimated water contents caused by a large difference

Fig. 7. (Left) Calibration of PR1/6 in terms of sensor output (V) and soil temperature using combined data of Soils A and B. (Right) Calibration for
Soil C.
 www.vadosezonejournal.org 903

ates the fast rise time pulses and times the return of
those pulses. Evett (2000b) measured changes in TDR
pulse transit times as large as 0.28 ns in coaxial cables
over 24-h periods, and these were strongly related to
ambient temperature variations of as much as 178C. A
0.28-ns variation in tt for this temperature range would
result in an approximately 0.0015 m3 m23 8C21 variation
in estimated water content using Eq. [2], too small to
Reproduced from Vadose Zone Journal. Published by Soil Science Society of America. All copyrights reserved.

account for all of the temperature-related variations in

Trime-estimated water contents observed here. Thus,
we expect that the major influence of temperature is on
the Trime FM unit’s determination of transit time, either
due to temperature instability of the electronic circuits
or due to inadequacy of the transit time determination
method to fully account for effects of sa.
Data from Laurent (personal communication, 2003)
illustrate an explanation related to soil temperature and
Fig. 8. Example of significant temperature effects on water content the transit time determination method used in the
values reported by the Sentek EnviroSCAN in three air-dry soils. Trime-FM unit (Fig. 9). In a uniform smectitic clay soil
profile, neutron probe data indicated uniform water
in temperature (0.55 m3 m23 for a 218C temperature contents with depth, but readings from the Trime system
change at the saturated end, or 0.0262 m3 m23 8C21). in the same polycarbonate access tube indicated differ-
Soil-specific calibrations reduced the temperature ent water contents. Waveforms, acquired with a Tektronix
sensitivity of the Trime T3 sensor to 0.0047 m3 m23 8C21 1502C TDR cable tester connected to the Trime coaxial
for air-dry soil, increasing to 0.0146 m3 m23 8C21 for cable at the point of connection with the Trime-FM
saturated soil. These results are not in agreement with measuring unit and subjected to conventional TDR
the data from the calibration, for which the data from travel time analysis, also showed equal water contents.
Days 56, 67, 207, and 212 of 2002 plotted together, However, transit times that would be measured using a
indicating little effect of temperature. This suggests that voltage comparator are different for the different
the temperature sensitivity observed for the Trime sys- waveforms (Fig. 9). This is because the slope of the re-
tem is related not to soil temperature changes but to air flected TDR pulse decreases with depth in this profile,
temperature changes, which would affect the coaxial probably due to warmer temperatures at depth and the
cable and Trime FM measurement unit. Data for the large amount of smectite clay in this soil, which would
calibrations were taken at approximately the same time lead to appreciable sa even in a nonsaline soil. To con-
of day every time, reducing the daily but not the sea- trol this effect, the Trime system uses an algorithm that
sonal temperature variation observed during calibra- reduces the comparative voltage at which transit time is
tion. Data for the temperature dependency studies were determined as the value of sa increases and the reflected
taken on 30-min intervals for periods 24 h or longer, waveform height decreases. Apparently, this algorithm
during which air temperature in the greenhouse is not completely effective in some soils, including those
changed greatly. We conjectured that the temperature at Nancy, France and in the Texas High Plains. Further
sensitivity observed with the Trime system was related study is needed to determine the exact causes of tem-
to either the cable or to the Trime FM unit that gener- perature sensitivity with the Trime system.

Table 5. Temperature effects on water content values estimated using the factory calibrations and the soil-specific calibrations (New)
reported herein from data measured in air-dry and in saturated soil. The TDR system used the calibration of Evett et al. (2005) or Topp
et al. (1980). Slopes were significant at the P 5 0.001 level†.
Air-dry soil Saturated soil
2 2
Instrument, calibration Slope r SE Slope r SE‡
3 23 21 3 23 21 3 23 21 3 23 21
(m m ) °C (m m ) °C (m m ) °C (m m ) °C
Delta_T PR1/6, factory 0.0009 0.76 0.00003 0.0251 0.94 0.00024
Delta-T PR1/6, new§ 0.0005 0.76 0.00001 0.0089 0.94 0.00009
Delta-T PR1/6, new¶ 20.0015 0.98 0.00001 20.0173 0.99 0.00007
Diviner, factory 0.0005 0.65 0.00005 0.0019 0.77 0.00010
Diviner, new 0.0005 0.65 0.00005 0.0030 0.77 0.00016
EnviroSCAN, factory 0.0009 0.77 0.00002 0.0010 0.88 0.00001
EnviroSCAN, new 0.0005 0.74 0.00001 0.0017 0.87 0.00002
Trime T3, factory 0.0092 0.52 0.00115 0.0204 0.75 0.00117
Trime T3, new 0.0047 0.52 0.00059 0.0146 0.75 0.00084
TDR (Topp et al., 1980) 0.0005 0.33 0.00005 0.0024 0.61 0.00006
TDR (Evett et al., 2005) 0.0006 0.32 0.00006 0.0005 0.02 0.00011
† Regressions and regression slopes were not significant for the TDR and neutron probe devices.
‡ SE is the standard error of the slope.
§ For calibration excluding Days 207 and 212 and with no temperature variable.
¶ For calibration including Days 207 and 212 and a temperature variable.
 904 VADOSE ZONE J., VOL. 5, AUGUST 2006

(2005). Sensitivities were computed both for single sen-

sors at the 25-cm depth (as for all the other sensors
studied) and for the column mean water content as
determined by the eight TDR probes in each column.
Sensitivities for single probes were not significant (Evett
et al., 2005). When column mean water contents were
used, noise in individual readings was canceled out by
the averaging process, resulting in statistically significant
Reproduced from Vadose Zone Journal. Published by Soil Science Society of America. All copyrights reserved.

sensitivities. In air-dry soils, temperature sensitivity was

small using both calibrations. The r 2 values were smaller
(#0.33) for TDR than for any other sensor, indicat-
ing the weak linear relationship (Table 5). For satu-
rated soils, temperature sensitivity using the Topp et al.
(1980) calibration was larger (0.0024 m3 m23 8C21) than
Fig. 9. Waveforms collected from a Trime T3 probe using a Tektronix sensitivities of the EnviroSCAN and Diviner 2000 using
1502 C TDR cable tester connected to the coaxial cable at the
Trime-FM measuring device. At each depth shown, a waveform was factory calibrations. Using the calibration of Evett et al.
collected with the top end of the probe waveguides placed at that (2005) in saturated soils, the temperature sensitivity was
depth in an access tube placed in a uniform smectitic clay soil. smaller (0.0005 m3 m23 8C21) than that for any other
Water content as measured with a neutron probe was uniform EM device, and the linear relationship was nearly non-
throughout the profile. Travel time analysis by intersection of tan-
gent lines (red with a vertical red line indicating the intersections)
existent (r 2 5 0.02).
showed that travel time was practically equal at all depths, indi-
cating that conventional TDR would predict equal water contents
throughout the profile, although the Trime-FM did not. The relative
Precision in Dry and Wet Soils
lengths of horizontal arrows drawn from the left y axis to the Precision was assessed both as a running mean SD of
waveforms indicate the changes in transit time for different set-
point voltages at which a comparator circuit would time the arrival
a fixed number of water content determinations and as
of the reflected pulse. The transit times illustrated in this manner the SD of all determinations taken during increasingly
are greater for the waveforms from deeper within the profile even long periods of time. The latter value of SD would in-
though water contents are the same. The differences in slope of clude any increase in variability due to temperature
the reflected pulse are due to differences in soil temperature and/or changes over each period. Compared with results from
bulk electrical conductivity. Data courtesy of Jean-Paul Laurent,
Chargé de Recherches au CNRS, Laboratoire d’étude des the other sensors, for the relatively temperature in-
Transferts en Hydrologie et Environnement, Grenoble, France. sensitive NMM and TDR the value of SD was rela-
tively stable with increasing sampling time and with
Temperature sensitivities for conventional TDR were time, being at most |0.001 m3 m23 for the NMM and
determined using both the Topp et al. (1980) calibration |0.002 m3 m23 for TDR in air-dry soils, and |0.003 and
and the calibration in terms of travel time, bulk electri- |0.007 m3 m23 for NMM and TDR, respectively, in
cal conductivity, and effective frequency of Evett et al. saturated soils (Table 6). For TDR in saturated soils, SD
Table 6. Standard deviations (m3 m23) for six soil water sensing systems calculated as the mean of SD values calculated over short intervals
(SD of four values for 1 to 2 h) over periods of 1 to 4 d, and taken as the long-term value of SD calculated using data from the entire
period (1–4 d). Values were calculated using both the factory and the soil-specific calibrations determined in the present study. Missing
values indicate that data were not available on 0.25- to 0.5-h intervals for periods exceeding 0.8 d.
Air-dry soils Saturated soils
Sensor Calibration A B C A B C
Delta-T PR1/6 mean factory 0.000 12 0.0023 06
soil specific 0.000 06 0.0011 56
long-term factory 0.002 42 0.0838 05
soil specific 0.001 16 0.0536 77
Diviner mean factory 0.000 21 0.000 45
soil specific 0.000 18 0.000 73
long-term factory 0.000 52 0.002 13
soil specific 0.000 43 0.003 45
EnviroSCAN mean factory 0.000 06 0.000 06 0.000 07 0.000 10 0.000 08 0.000 07
soil specific 0.000 03 0.000 04 0.000 03 0.000 12 0.000 12 0.000 14
long-term factory 0.000 75 0.000 79 0.000 92 0.001 52 0.001 18 0.001 26
soil specific 0.000 46 0.000 52 0.000 35 0.002 07 0.001 80 0.002 65
NMM mean factory 0.000 58 0.001 61
soil specific 0.000 91 0.002 40
long-term factory 0.001 16 0.002 33
soil specific 0.001 67 0.003 46
TDR mean factory 0.000 50 0.000 65 0.000 99 0.001 81 0.001 84 0.000 69
soil specific 0.000 56 0.000 72 0.001 10 0.004 02 0.004 71 0.001 05
long-term factory 0.000 97 0.001 32 0.001 78 0.004 65 0.004 76 0.001 34
soil specific 0.001 05 0.001 44 0.001 95 0.006 33 0.007 15 0.001 77
Trime T3 mean factory 0.001 38 0.002 97
soil specific 0.000 69 0.002 12
long-term factory 0.009 02 0.018 32
soil specific 0.004 60 0.013 14
 www.vadosezonejournal.org 905

was two to four times as large in Soils A and B as in Soil slopes of factory calibrations. For TDR, in both air-
C due to the increased noise in determination of travel dry and saturated soils, SD values increased when soil-
time caused by the larger bulk electrical conductivity in specific calibration was used because the soil-specific
Soils A and B (reduced slope of the second rising limb of calibration involved determining both the bulk electrical
the waveform; see Evett, 2000b). conductivity and the effective frequency in addition to
Values of SD for the Delta-T PR1/6, Diviner 2000, the travel time (Evett et al., 2005), which added some
EnviroSCAN, and Trime T3 systems fluctuated with random noise to the resulting water content values. In
time and increased with increasing time during which saturated soils, the effect of soil-specific calibrations was
Reproduced from Vadose Zone Journal. Published by Soil Science Society of America. All copyrights reserved.

water content values were included in the calculation mixed, resulting in some decrease in SD for the Delta-T
(e.g., Fig. 10). Fluctuating and increasing SD values were PR1/6 and Trime T3 instruments, but resulting in in-
due to the temperature sensitivity of these instruments creased SD values for the EnvironSCAN and Diviner
and reached a maximum value within one-half day for 2000 instruments due to the larger slopes of the calibra-
all but the Delta-T PR1/6. For the latter instrument, SD tion curves for the latter instruments as compared with
values continued to increase to as large as 0.084 m3 m23 factory curves at the saturated end.
with increasing numbers of data used in the calculation In both air-dry and saturated soils, values of SD were
past 3 d of data, although a local maximum was reached soil specific, but not in any particular ranking order.
in one-half day. For the less temperature-sensitive Values of SD were larger (from |2 to 40 times) in satu-
EnviroSCAN and Diviner 2000 instruments, short-term rated soils than in air-dry soils, regardless of the instru-
(four-value means in Table 6) SD values were ,0.001 m3 ment, soil type, or calibration used.
m23, while short-term SD values in saturated soils were
as large as 0.0030 m3 m23 for the Trime T3, and as large
as 0.0023 m3 m23 for the Delta-T PR1/6.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
Except for TDR, in air-dry soils the soil-specific cal- Using the factory calibrations, the conventional TDR
ibrations reported herein caused SD values to decrease system was more accurate than the other EM sys-
by approximately 50% because slopes of soil-specific tems, all of which misestimated water content more on
calibrations tended to be smaller on the air-dry end than both the air-dry and saturated ends than did TDR. The
EnviroSCAN, Diviner 2000, NMM, and Trime T3 sys-
tems exhibited roughly equivalent accuracies, and the
Delta-T PR1/6 was not accurate. With the exception
of conventional TDR, all of the devices required soil-
specific calibrations to achieve accuracies better than
60.04 m3 m23. Using factory calibrations, all of the EM
systems were more accurate at the air-dry end than at
the saturated end, probably due to the increase in bulk
electrical conductivity as these soils saturated. Of the
capacitance sensors, the accuracy at the saturated end,
where effects of sa and T were largest, was best for the
sensor with the largest measurement frequency (Diviner
2000) and worst for the sensor with the smallest mea-
surement frequency (Delta-T PR1/6), emphasizing the
importance of greater measurement frequencies in ca-
pacitance sensors. Kelleners et al. (2005) suggested
that capacitance sensor measurement frequencies should
be .500 MHz—all of the capacitance sensors studied
here operate at frequencies less than this criterion.
Soil-specific calibrations produced accuracies (RMSE
values) on the order of 0.02 m3 m23 for the EnviroSCAN,
Diviner 2000, and Trime T3 systems. For the first two,
RMSE values were slightly better than those achieved by
Baumhardt et al. (2000), but not as good as the 0.009 m3
m23 value achieved by Paltineanu and Starr (1997). Soil-
specific calibration accuracy for the PR1/6 was on the
order of 0.04 to 0.05 m3 m23. Calibrated accuracies for
the TDR and NMM were twice as good as those for EM
systems employed in access tubes.
Fig. 10. Example of variation over time of standard deviation (SD) The conventional TDR system was insensitive to soil
values for the EnviroSCAN system. Data are for air-dry soils. The temperature fluctuations when measurements at a sin-
SD (top) is calculated using all data values beginning with zero time gle depth with a single sensor were correlated with tem-
and continuing until the time at which the data are plotted. The
Running SD is the SD for four consecutively acquired values perature at that depth, that is, the procedure that was
beginning at each time (bottom) at which the data are plotted; it followed for all other sensors in this study. However, in
shows a periodic temperature effect. a companion study (Evett et al., 2005), a temperature
 906 VADOSE ZONE J., VOL. 5, AUGUST 2006

dependency was found when the mean of water contents ing an increase in apparent variability of water content
from several probes was considered. We think the ap- sensed in wetter field soils. The small measurement vol-
parent lack of temperature sensitivity found when using umes also mean that field calibrations may not succeed
one sensor is due to random error (noise) in travel time in many soils because the volume of soil sensed by these
determination, and that this noise was canceled out when probes is too small to allow sampling within that volume
averaging data from several probes, thus allowing the with existing volumetric soil sampling equipment.
underlying temperature sensitivity to become clear in the The NMM was insensitive to soil temperature and had
companion study. This, and the relatively small temper- the largest axial response height in dry soil, though
Reproduced from Vadose Zone Journal. Published by Soil Science Society of America. All copyrights reserved.

ature dependency of conventional TDR in many soils, slightly smaller than that of the Trime probe in saturated
may explain why some studies have reported no tem- soil. While the axial response height of the Trime probe
perature sensitivity for TDR. Temperature sensitivity of is relatively large, its radial response is unknown, but
TDR was nearly eliminated by including bulk electrical expected to be smaller than that of the NMM. Field tests
conductivity and effective frequency in a single calibra- will determine its sensitivity to variations in field soil
tion for these three soils. water content. The measurement volume of the NMM is
The EnviroSCAN and Diviner 2000 were moderately known to be roughly spherical. Because of the larger
sensitive to temperature at the saturated end, probably measurement volume of the NMM, it should be less
due to sensitivity to bulk electrical conductivity, which sensitive to small-scale variations in soil properties and
varies with temperature. Both the Delta-T and Trime to soil disturbance caused during access tube installa-
were quite sensitive to temperature fluctuations, proba- tion. For these reasons, and because we know that the
bly due to the relatively small measurement frequency NMM can be accurately field calibrated (Hignett and
of the former and to temperature-sensitive transit time Evett, 2002), it remains the recommended probe for
measurement algorithms in the latter. The PR1/6 was profile soil water content determination from within ac-
most sensitive to soil temperature changes. Although the cess tubes. Of the EM sensors used in access tubes, only
Delta-T and Trime systems can be calibrated in the labo- the EnviroSCAN and Diviner appear to be temperature
ratory for a specific soil, their temperature sensitivity leads insensitive enough to be useful for field work, but their
to the conclusion that they cannot be recommended for small measurement volumes indicate problems with vari-
field work in soil profile water content determination ability of readings in field settings. Three field studies of
where daily or seasonal variations in temperature could spatial sensitivity supporting this have been concluded
cause large errors in water content determination. and will be reported in future.
Precision was affected by soil type, temperature fluc- Needed improvements in EM soil water content sen-
tuations, the soil wetness, and the calibration equation sors include reduced temperature sensitivity, increased
used. Precision of all instruments was worse in saturated measurement volume, decreased sensitivity to soil type
soils than in air-dry soils, with values of SD as large as and bulk electrical conductivity, and more linear cal-
0.02 and 0.08 m3 m23 for the Trime T3 and Delta-T ibrations. Our results with the Delta-T PR1/6 sensor
PR1/6, respectively. Precision determined by repeated indicate that sensing of soil temperature and/or bulk
measurements in short time periods gives false confi- electrical conductivity as covariates may be insufficient
dence, as precision determined from longer periods was to fully correct water content estimates from some EM
larger for all instruments studied, due to temperature sensors. Application of an electric circuit model to cor-
interferences. However, the increase of SD with longer rect EnviroSCAN calibrations in a saline silty clay was
periods of measurement was minimal for the NMM and also only partially successful for Kelleners et al. (2004a).
TDR instruments because of their relative lack of tem- Increasing the measurement frequency of the capacitance
perature sensitivity. sensors should lessen the influence of bulk electrical
The small measurement volumes of the Delta-T, conductivity and temperature, but perhaps at the expense
Diviner, and EnviroSCAN probes will make them sen- of decreasing already small measurement volumes.
sitive to small-scale variations in soil water content and
bulk density close to the access tube, and sensitive to any ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
soil disturbance during access tube installation. For Soils We are grateful for the long-term, dedicated involvement of
A and B, our calibration equations tended to be more Mr. Brice B. Ruthardt, Biological Technician, during this
curvilinear than the factory calibrations, with steeper effort. This work was partially funded by Research Contract
slopes at the wet end. This means that variations in the Number: 11186/FAO, titled “Accuracy and Precision of
output of the sensors (whether that be a voltage, a fre- Neutron Scattering, TDR, and Capacitance Methods of Soil
Water Measurement” funded by the International Atomic
quency, or a pseudo transit time) near the wet end will
Energy Agency. We wish to thank the High Plains Under-
cause greater variations in estimated water content ground Water Conservation District no. 1, Lubbock, TX; the
using our soil-specific calibrations than using factory North Plains Groundwater Conservation District, Dumas, TX;
calibrations. The curvilinear nature of these calibration and the Panhandle Groundwater Conservation District, White
equations also means that variability in the output signal Deer, TX for their trust and support.
will cause variability of estimated field water contents to
increase as the soil wets. This might be expected to in- REFERENCES
teract with the fact that the measurement volumes of the Baumhardt, R.L., R.J. Lascano, and S.R. Evett. 2000. Soil material,
capacitance sensors (EnviroSCAN, Diviner, and PR1/6) temperature, and salinity effects on calibration of multisensor
decrease as soil water content increases, possibly caus- capacitance probes. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 64:1940–1946.
 www.vadosezonejournal.org 907

Campbell, J.E. 1990. Dielectric properties and influence of conduc- Calibration of capacitance probe sensors in a saline silty clay soil.
tivity in soils at one to fifty megahertz. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 54: Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 68:770–778.
332–341. Kelleners, T.J., R.W.G. Soppe, D.A. Robinson, M.G. Schaap, J.E.
Dean, T.J., J.P. Bell, and A.J.B. Baty. 1987. Soil moisture measurement Ayars, and T.H. Skaggs. 2004b. Calibration of capacitance probe
by an improved capacitance technique: Part I. Sensor design and sensors using electric circuit theory. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 68:430–439.
performance. J. Hydrol. 93:67–78. Kempthorne, O., and R.R. Allmaras. 1986. Errors and variability of
Delta-T Devices Ltd. 2001. User manual for the profile probe type observations. p. 1–31. In A. Klute (ed.) Methods of soil analysis.
PR1. Delta-T Devices Ltd., Burwell, Cambridge, UK. Part 1. 2nd ed. ASA and SSSA, Madison, WI.
Evett, S.R. 1998. Coaxial multiplexer for time domain reflectometry Mmolawa, K., and D. Or. 2000. Root zone solute dynamics under drip
measurement of soil water content and bulk electrical conductivity. irrigation: A review. Plant Soil 222:163–190.
Reproduced from Vadose Zone Journal. Published by Soil Science Society of America. All copyrights reserved.

Trans. ASAE 41:361–369. Paltineanu, I.C., and J.L. Starr. 1997. Real-time soil water dynamics
Evett, S.R. 2000a. The TACQ program for automatic time domain using multisensor capacitance probes: Laboratory calibration. Soil
reflectometry measurements: I. Design and operating character- Sci. Soc. Am. J. 61:1576–1585.
istics. Trans. ASAE 43:1939–1946. Pepin, S., N.J. Livingston, and W.R. Hook. 1995. Temperature-depen-
Evett, S.R. 2000b. The TACQ program for automatic time domain dent measurement errors in time domain reflectometry determina-
reflectometry measurements: II. Waveform interpretation methods. tions of soil water. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 59:38–43.
Trans. ASAE 43:1947–1956. Persson, M., and R. Berndtsson. 1998. Texture and electrical conduc-
Evett, S.R., and J.L. Steiner. 1995. Precision of neutron scattering and tivity effects on temperature dependency in time domain reflec-
capacitance type moisture gages based on field calibration. Soil Sci. tometry. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 62:887–893.
Soc. Am. J. 59:961–968. Rhoades, J.D., P.A.C. Raats, and R.J. Prathe. 1976. Effects of liquid-
Evett, S.R., J.A. Tolk, and T.A. Howell. 2003. A depth control stand phase electrical conductivity, water content, and surface conduc-
for improved accuracy with the neutron probe. Available at tivity on bulk soil electrical conductivity. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 40:
www.vadosezonejournal.org. Vadose Zone J. 2:642–649. 651–655.
Evett, S.R., J.A. Tolk, and T.A. Howell. 2005. 2005. TDR laboratory Robinson, D.A., S.B. Jones, J.M. Wraith, D. Or, and S.P. Friedman.
calibration in travel time, bulk electrical conductivity, and effective 2003. A review of advances in dielectric and electrical conductivity
frequency. Available at www.vadosezonejournal.org. Vadose Zone measurement in soils using time domain reflectometry. Available at
J. 4:1020–1029. www.vadosezonejournal.org. Vadose Zone J. 2:444–475.
Greacen, E.L. 1981. Soil water assessment by the neutron method. Sentek. 1994. EnviroSCAN documentation. Chapter 3: Technical
CSIRO, Melbourne, Australia. description. Sentek Sensor Technologies, Stepney, SA, Australia
Hignett, C., and S.R. Evett. 2002. Neutron thermalization. p. 501–521. Topp, G.C., J.L. Davis, and A.P. Annan. 1980. Electromagnetic deter-
In J.H. Dane and G.C. Topp (ed.) Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 4. mination of soil water content: Measurements in coaxial transmis-
SSSA Book Ser. 5. SSSA, Madison, WI. sion lines. Water Resour. Res. 16:574–582.
IMKO. 2000. Operating manual TRIME-FM. IMKO Micromodul- Wraith, J.M., and D. Or. 1999. Temperature effects on soil bulk di-
technik Gmbh, Ettlingen, Germany. electric permittivity measured by time domain reflectometry: Ex-
Kelleners, T.J., D.A. Robinson, P.J. Shouse, J.E. Ayars, and T.H. perimental evidence and hypothesis development. Water Resour.
Skaggs. 2005. Frequency dependence of the complex permittivity Res. 35:361–369.
and its impact on dielectric sensor calibration in soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Wyseure, G.C.L., M.A. Mojid, and M.A. Malik. 1997. Measurement of
Am. J. 69:67–76. volumetric water content by TDR in saline soils. Eur. J. Soil Sci.
Kelleners, T.J., R.W.G. Soppe, J.E. Ayars, and T.H. Skaggs. 2004a. 48:347–354.

View publication stats