SSSAJ
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Published online 16 May 2007
Published in Soil Sci Soc Am J 71:866-871 (2007)
DOI: 10.2136/sssaj2006.0195
© 2007 Soil Science Society of America
677 S. Segoe Rd., Madison, WI 53711 USA
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text Free
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Xin, X. L.
Right arrow Articles by Xu, M. X.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Xin, X. L.
Right arrow Articles by Xu, M. X.
GeoRef
Right arrow GeoRef Citation
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Xin, X. L.
Right arrow Articles by Xu, M. X.
Related Collections
Right arrow Weed Management
Right arrow Water Content
Right arrow Soil Physics

A New Resistance Sensor for Monitoring Soil Matric Potential

X. L. Xin, F. A. Xu, J. B. Zhang* and M. X. Xu

State Experimental Station of Agro-Ecosystem in Fengqiu; State Key Lab. of Soil and Sustainable Agriculture Inst. of Soil Science, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Nanjing 210008, People's Republic of China


Figure 1
View larger version (31K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
Fig. 1. Schematic of the prototype resistance sensor. All measurements are in millimeters.

 

Figure 2
View larger version (21K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
Fig. 2. Effect of polyacrylamide (PAM) on reproducibility of resistance measurements with the same sensor: (a) with PAM, (b) without PAM. Arrows indicate sequence of measurements (drying); the sensor was installed in the soil sample and water was removed by air drying.

 

Figure 3
View larger version (14K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
Fig. 3. Measured resistance as a function of soil temperature for two sensors. Each data point represents an average of two measurements. RT/R25 is the ratio of the measured resistance at a temperature T (°C) and 25°C.

 

Figure 4
View larger version (13K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
Fig. 4. Measured resistance as a function of electrical conductivity for three sensors.

 

Figure 5
View larger version (11K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
Fig. 5. Calibration function between electrical resistance (R) and soil matric potential ({psi}).

 

Figure 6
View larger version (17K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
Fig. 6. Comparison of soil matric potentials measured with resistance sensors vs. tensiometers in the sandy soil. The first wetting–drying cycle was used for sensor calibration and the subsequent cycles for sensor validation.

 

Figure 7
View larger version (19K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
Fig. 7. Soil matric potential determined by resistance sensors and tensiometers in two different soils. The sand was used for calibration and the silty clay soil was used for validation.

 

Figure 8
View larger version (15K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
Fig. 8. Response time of three electrical sensors during water desorption from saturation to a matric potential of –10 kPa.

 





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
The SCI Journals Agronomy Journal Crop Science
Journal of Natural Resources
and Life Sciences Education
Vadose Zone Journal
Journal of Plant Registrations Journal of
Environmental Quality
The Plant Genome
Copyright © 2007 by the Soil Science Society of America.