مقایسه عملکرد حسگر‏های هوشمند رطوبت خاک با چند روش متداول تعیین رطوبت خاک در روش آبیاری میکرو

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشیار بخش مهندسی آب، دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه شیراز، شیراز، ایران

2 دانشجوی کارشناسی ارشد، بخش مهندسی آب، دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه شیراز، شیراز، ایران

چکیده

تخمین دقیق از مقدار آب خاک برای برنامه­بندی مؤثر آبیاری لازم می‏باشد. روش‏های متعددی برای تعیین رطوبت خاک به­کار برده می‏شود که دقت و سرعت اندازه‏گیری رطوبت خاک در این روش‏ها دارای اهمیت ویژ‏ه­ای است. حسگر‏های هوشمند رطوبت خاک در سال‏های اخیر به عنوان روشی سریع در برآورد رطوبت خاک مورد توجه قرار گرفته­اند. در این تحقیق عملکرد 4 حسگر‌ هوشمند شامل Watermark 200ss-v، Watermark 200ss، ICS 9001 و ICS 9101 به عنوان یک روش سریع با چند روش متداول تعیین رطوبت خاک شامل روش وزنی، تانسیومتری، نوترون‏متر و بلوک‏های گچی در عمق‏های 30 و 60 سانتی‏متری از سطح خاک در روش آبیاری میکرو مقایسه شدند. نتایج نشان داد در عمق 30 و 60 سانتی­متری از سطح خاک، تمام حسگر‏های هوشمند بجز حسگر ICS 9101 تخمین مناسبی از رطوبت خاک دارند به­طوریکه حسگر‏های Watermark 200ss-v، Watermark 200ss، ICS 9001 و ICS 9101 مقدار RMSE 13، 11، 16 و 23% و R2 79/0، 84/0، 73/0 و 55/0 را به ترتیب نشان دادند. بین روش‏های متداول تعیین رطوبت خاک نوترون‏متر دارای دقت مناسب  نسبت به روش وزنی و تانسیومتر و بلوک‏های گچی دقت کم­تری در تعیین مقدار رطوبت خاک نشان دادند. نتایج این تحقیق نشان داد حسگر‏های Watermark 200ss-v و Watermark 200ss و تانسیومتر در مکش‏های پایین نسبت به مکش‏های بالا اندازه‏گیری دقیق‏تری از مقدار رطوبت خاک نشان می‏دهند.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Investigation the Performance of Smart Sensors as a New Approach to Determine Soil Moisture Content

نویسندگان [English]

  • Ali Asghar Ghaemi 1
  • Javad Rahmani Soghayeh 2
1 Associate Professor, Water Engineering Department, College of Agriculture, Shiraz University, Shiraz.وIran
2 Graduate Student, Water Engineering Department, College of Agriculture, Shiraz University, Shiraz., Iran
چکیده [English]

Accurate estimation of soil water content is necessary for effective irrigation scheduling. Different methods are used to determine the soil water content in which the speed and accuracy of the measurement by these methods are important. In recent years, smart sensors has been introduced as a fast and accurate method in order to estimate soil moisture content. In this study, the performance of 4 smart sensors as the fast method were compared with several conventional methods in order to estimate soil moisture content at 30 and 60 cm depth from soil surface in a micro irrigation system. The smart sensors used in this study were Watermark 200ss-v, Watermark 200ss, ICS9001 and ICS 9101 and the conventional methods used were tensiometer, gypsum blocks, neutron meter and gravimetric method. Results indicated that all smart sensors used in this research except of ICS 9101 were acceptable device for estimating the soil moisture content at 30 and 60 cm depths from the soil surface.  The relative root mean square error (RRMSE) for the sensors of Watermark 200ss-v, Watermark 200ss, ICS 9001 and ICS9101 were 13, 11, 16 and 23% and the coefficient of correlation R2 values were 0.79, 0.84, 0.73 and 0.55, respectively. Furthermore, among the conventional methods, the neutron meter also showed a reasonable accuracy while the equitable accuracy were not observed in gypsum blocks and tensiometer.  Results showed that the performance of Watermark 200ss-v, Watermark 200ss and tensiometer for measuring the soil moisture under low soil moisture tension is better than in high soil tension condition.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • performance
  • Precision agriculture
  • Sensor
  • Smart irrigation
  • Water content

Boutraa,T., Akhkha,A., Alshoaibi,A and Atta,R 2011. Evaluation of the effectiveness of an automated irrigation system using wheat crops. Agriculture and Biology Journal of North America 2: 80-88.

Cardenas-Lailhacar,B., Dukes,M.D. 2009. Precision of soil moisture sensor irrigation controllers under field conditions. Agricultural Water Management 97: 666-672.

Campbell,G.S., Mulla,D.J. 1990. Measurement of soil water content and potential. Chapter 6 In Stewart B.A. and Nielsen D.R. (co-editors). Irrigation of Agricultural Crops. American Society of Agronomy. Madison, USA pp 127-142.

Charlesworth,P. 2005. Soil Water Monitoring, Irrigation Insights No. 1, Second Edition. Coelho E.F. and D. Or. 1996. Flow and uptake patterns affecting soil water sensor placement for drip irrigation management. Trans. ASAE 39(6):2007-2016.

Chow,L., Xing,Z., Rees,H.W. Meng,F and Monteith,J. 2009. Field performance of nine soil water content sensors on a sandy loam soil in new brunswick, maritime region, Canada. Sensors, 9: 9398-9413.

Gardner, W.R (1986), Water Content. In A. Klute (ed.) Method of Soil Analysis Part 1. 2 nd ed Agronomy 9: 493-544.

Hanson,R.B., Orloff,S., Pters, D. 2000. Monitoring soil moisture helps refine irrigation management. California Agriculture 54, 38-42.

Irrometer. 2010. Watermark Soil Moisture Sensor – Model 200SS. Specification Document. Irrometer company, Inc. P. O. Box 2424, Riverside, CA 92516. http://www. irrometer. com

Larson,G.F. 1985. Electrical sensor for measuring moisture in landscape and agricultural soils. U. S. Patent 4,531,087. Date of Patent: July 23, 1995.

Leib,B.G, Jabro,J.D and Mtthews,G.R. 2003. Field evaluation and performance comparison of soil moisture sensors. Soil Science 168, 396-408.

Leib,B.G. 1998. The 1998 survey of irrigation scheduling providers. The Washington Irrigator News letter, Washington State University, Prosser,WA.

Leib,B.G., Hattendorf,M., Elliott,T and Matthews,G. 2002. Adoption and of 1998.Agric.Water Manage. 55:105–120.Adaptation of Scientific Irrigation Scheduling: Trend from Washington, USA as of 1998.Agric.Water Manage. 55:105–120.

McCann,I.R., Kincaid,D.C and Wang,D. 1992 Operational characteristics of the Watermark model 200 soil water potential sensor for irrigation management. Applied Engr. in Agriculture 8(5):605-609. ASAE, 2950 Niles Rd.,St. Joseph, MI 49085

Nolz,R., Kammerer,G and Cepuder,P. 2012. Calibrating soil water potential sensors integrated into a wireless monitoring network. Agricultural Water Management. 116: 12– 20.

Prichard,T., Hanson,B. Schwankl,L., Verdegaal,P and Smith,R. 2004. (Draft publication) Deficit irrigation of quality winegrapes using micro-irrigation techniques. University of California Cooperative Extension, p. 91 (Revised April 2004)

SAS Institute. 2002. SAS/STAT User’s Guide for the Personal Computer, Version 8. 01. SAS Institute, Inc. , Cary,NC.

Spaans,E.J.A and Baker,J.M. 1992. Calibration of Watermark soil moisture sensors for soil matric potential and temperature. Plant and Soil143: 213-217

Thompson, R.B., Gallardo,M., Aguera, T., Valdez, L.C., Fernandez, M D. (2006), Evaluation of the watermark sensor for use with drip irrigated vegetable crops. Irriggation Science Journal. 24, 185–202.

Yoder,R.E., Johnson,D.L., Wilkerson, J.B and Yoder,D.C 1998. Soil water sensor performance. Appl. Eng. Agric. 14, 121-133.