Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 12, 2026
08:49
Manufacturing Simple and Inexpensive Soil Surface Temperature and Gravimetric Water Content Sensors
Published on: December 21, 2019
9.4K
Evaluation of Three Soil Moisture Profile Sensors Using Laboratory and Field Experiments
Felix Nieberding1, Johan Alexander Huisman1, Christof Huebner2
1Agrosphere Institute (IBG-3), Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH, 52425 Jülich, Germany.
Sensors (Basel, Switzerland)
|July 29, 2023
Summary
Evaluating soil moisture profile sensors (SMPSs) for climate-smart agriculture is crucial. This study developed lab and field tests to assess SMPS accuracy and variability, finding all tested sensors performed similarly in sand.
Area of Science:
- Agricultural Engineering
- Soil Science
- Environmental Monitoring
Background:
- Soil moisture profile sensors (SMPSs) are vital for climate-smart agriculture, enabling simultaneous measurements at various depths.
- Current methods for evaluating long SMPSs lack accuracy and ease of use.
- Standardized evaluation protocols are needed to ensure reliable soil moisture data.
Purpose of the Study:
- To develop and validate a robust laboratory and field testing framework for evaluating Soil Moisture Profile Sensors (SMPSs).
- To assess the measurement accuracy, sensor-to-sensor variability, and temperature stability of three commercial SMPSs (SoilVUE10, Drill&Drop, SMT500).
- To provide a reliable method for performance evaluation applicable to future SMPS assessments.
Main Methods:
- Laboratory experiments utilized a temperature-controlled lysimeter to assess intra-sensor variability and temperature sensitivity.
- Field experiments employed a water level-controlled sandbox with reference TDR measurements for soil water accuracy evaluation.
- A well-characterized fine sand was used in both experiments to ensure consistent dielectric properties.
Main Results:
- The Drill&Drop sensor exhibited the highest temperature sensitivity (0.014 m³ m⁻³ per 10 °C) but demonstrated the lowest intra- and inter-sensor variability.
- Field tests in the sandbox revealed comparable performance across all three SMPSs, with an average RMSE of approximately 0.023 m³ m⁻³.
- All tested SMPSs showed increased uncertainty in measurements at intermediate soil moisture levels.
Conclusions:
- The combined laboratory and field testing approach provides a suitable methodology for evaluating SMPS performance.
- The study highlights the trade-offs between temperature sensitivity and variability in different SMPS models.
- This evaluation framework will be instrumental in assessing the suitability of various SMPSs for agricultural applications.
