Watermark Abstracts

Spaans, E.J.A. and Baker, J.M. 1992, 'Calibration of Watermark Soil Moisture Sensors for Soil Matric Potential and Temperature', Plant and Soil, vol. 143, pp. 213-217.

Rapid, accurate, and automated measurement of soil matric potential is desirable. Evidence suggested that the Watermark resistance block might be an appropriate and inexpensive tool, so we conducted an evaluation of its relevant characteristics. A number of these blocks were calibrated under laboratory conditions to determine their individual and aggregate responses to soil matric potential, soil type, and temperature. We found that the temperature response could be expressed as a single equation, valid for all tested blocks, but comparison against matric potential revealed that each block had a characteristic response. Furthermore, block responses were different in two soils and, for a given soil, not necessarily reproducible. Given these limitations, these sensors are probably useful only as relative indicators of soil water status.

Request Information                              Back to Reference List

Stenitzer, E. and Gassner, L. 2005, 'Assessment of the Effect of Groundwater Lowering on the Capillary Rise in a Sandy Soil', in Monitoring and Modelling the Properties of Soil as a Porous Medium, eds. W.M. Skierucha and R.T. Walczak, Institute of Agrophysics PAS, Lublin, pp. 179-187

Importance of capillary conductivity in assessing the effect of lowering groundwater depth on the water supply of grassland by capillary rise is demonstrated applying the model SIMWASER using data on soil water regime and grass growth from field experiments in the Drau valley in Carinthia/Austria.

Request Information                              Back to Reference List

Stenitzer, E. and Gassner, L. 2005, 'In Situ Estimation of Deep Percolation in a Dry Area by Concurrent Measurements of Soil Water Content and Soil Water Potential', in Monitoring and Modelling the Properties of Soil as a Porous Medium, eds. W.M. Skierucha and R.T. Walczak, Institute of Agrophysics PAS, Lublin, pp. 188-195

For sustainable groundwater management, groundwater extraction must be kept below natural groundwater recharge. Quantification of natural groundwater recharge may be assessed either locally from groundwater fluctuations or for the whole catchment area by analysing low water discharge of its outlet. In many cases groundwater fluctuations may be influenced by massive but unknown water extraction and do not reflect natural conditions, and results of analysing low water discharge will not be representative to the area of interest within the whole catchment basin. Physically based simulation models could help to overcome such shortcomings, being able to predict unknown natural ground water recharge from well-known weather-, soil- and cropping- data. Such models have to be validated using measured deep percolation, either from lysimeters or from indirect flux measurements as described in this paper.

Request Information                              Back to Reference List

Thompson, R.B., Gallardo, M., et al. 2006, 'Evaluation of the Watermark sensor for use with Drip Irrigated Vegetable Crops', Irrigation Science, vol. 24, pp. 185-202.

The Watermark 200SS sensor was evaluated for the measurement of soil matric potential (SMP) with drip-irrigated vegetable crops. Pepper and melon crops were grown sequentially during autumn-winter and spring-summer, in a sandy loam soil in a greenhouse. Ranges of SMP were generated by applying three different irrigation treatments - 100, 50 and 0% of crop water requirements, during two treatment periods (16 December 2002-7 January 2003; 20 January-10 February 2003) in pepper and one treatment period (26 May-6 June 2003) in melon. Watermark sensors and tensiometers were positioned, at identical distances from irrigation emitters, at 10 cm soil depth, with four replicate sensors for each measurement. Electrical resistance from Watermark sensors and SMP from tensiometers were recorded at 30-min intervals. An in-situ calibration equation was derived using data from the first pepper treatment period. For data in the three treatment periods, SMP was calculated from Watermark electrical resistance using the in-situ, Thomson and Armstrong (in Appl Eng Agric 3:186-189 1987), Shock et al. (1998) and Allen (2000) calibration equations. Additionally, the Thomson and Armstrong (in Appl Eng Agric 3:186-189 1987) and Shock et al. (1998) equations were re-parameterised with the SOLVER function of Microsoft Excel 2000 using data from the first pepper treatment period. Watermark-derived SMP, for each equation, were compared with tensiometer-measured SMP, for < -10, -10 to -30, -30 to -50 and -50 to -80 kPa ranges, using visual analysis, and relative root mean square error (RRMSE) and mean difference (Md) values. In rapidly drying soil, the Watermark-derived SMP responded considerably more slowly to continual drying and to drying between irrigations, regardless of the calibration equation used. Otherwise, the Watermark sensor was able to provide an accurate indication of SMP, depending on the calibration equation. The in-situ and re-parameterised equations were accurate for the conditions in which they were derived/re-parameterised. However, as the growing conditions increasingly differed from those original conditions, these equations lost their advantage compared to the two published equations, suggesting that they are not robust approaches. The Thomson and Armstrong (in Appl Eng Agric 3:186-189 1987) equation generally provided an accurate indication of SMP at >-30 kPa, measuring to -2.5 kPa. Where the soil was not drying rapidly, the Shock et al. (1998) equation generally provided an accurate indication of SMP at -30 to -80 kPa. The use of dynamic data (collected every 30 min) compared to static data (collected only at 6 a.m.) did not influence the evaluation of calibration equations. This study suggested that the Watermark sensor can provide an accurate indication of SMP provided that a suitable calibration equation is derived/verified for the specific cropping conditions, and that the performance characteristics of the sensor are considered.

Request Information                              Back to Reference List