% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@ARTICLE{Bogena:59685,
author = {Bogena, H. R. and Huisman, J. A. and Oberdörster, C. and
Vereecken, H.},
title = {{E}valuation of a low-cost soil water content sensor for
wireless network applications},
journal = {Journal of hydrology},
volume = {344},
issn = {0022-1694},
address = {Amsterdam [u.a.]},
publisher = {Elsevier},
reportid = {PreJuSER-59685},
pages = {32 - 42},
year = {2007},
note = {Record converted from VDB: 12.11.2012},
abstract = {Wireless sensor networks area promising new in situ
measurement technology for monitoring soil water content
changes with a high spatial and temporal resolution for
large areas. However, to realise sensor networks at the
small. basin scale (e.g. 500 sensors for an area of 25 ha),
the costs for a single sensor have to be minimised.
Furthermore, the sensor technique should be robust and
operate with a low energy consumption to achieve a long
operation time of the network. This paper evaluates a
tow-cost soil water content sensor (ECH2O probe model EC-5,
Decagon Devices Inc., Pullman, WA) using laboratory as well.
as field experiments. The field experiment features a
comparison of water content measurements of a forest soil at
5 cm depth using TDR and EC-5 sensors. The laboratory
experiment is based on a standardized sensor
characterisation methodology, which uses liquid standards
with a known dielectric permittivity. The results of the
laboratory experiment showed that the EC-5 sensor has good
output voltage sensitivity below a permittivity of 40, but
is less sensitive when permittivity is higher. The
experiments also revealed a distinct dependence of the
sensor reading on the applied supply voltage. Therefore, a
function was obtained that allows the permittivity to be
determined from the sensor reading and the supply voltage.
Due to the higher frequency of the EC-5 sensor, conductivity
effects were less pronounced compared to the older EC-20
sensor (also Decagon Devices Inc.). However, the EC-5 sensor
reading was significantly influenced by temperature changes.
The field experiment showed distinct differences between TDR
and EC-5 measurements that could be explained to a large
degree with the correction functions derived from the
laboratory measurements. Remaining errors are possibly due
to soil variability and discrepancies between measurement
volume and installation depth. Overall, we conclude that the
EC-5 sensor is suitable for wireless network applications.
However, the results of this paper also suggest that
temperature and electric conductivity effects on the sensor
reading have to be compensated using appropriate correction
functions. (C) 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.},
keywords = {J (WoSType)},
cin = {ICG-4 / JARA-SIM},
ddc = {690},
cid = {I:(DE-Juel1)VDB793 / I:(DE-Juel1)VDB1045},
pnm = {Terrestrische Umwelt},
pid = {G:(DE-Juel1)FUEK407},
shelfmark = {Engineering, Civil / Geosciences, Multidisciplinary / Water
Resources},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
UT = {WOS:000250026600003},
doi = {10.1016/j.jhydrol.2007.06.032},
url = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/59685},
}