Advertisement

Irrigation Science

, Volume 29, Issue 5, pp 423–430 | Cite as

Wireless lysimeters for real-time online soil water monitoring

  • Y. KimEmail author
  • J. D. Jabro
  • R. G. Evans
Original Paper

Abstract

Identification of drainage water allows assessing the effectiveness of water management. Passive capillary wick-type lysimeters (PCAPs) were used to monitor water flux leached below the root zone under an irrigated cropping system. Wireless lysimeters were developed for web-based real-time online monitoring of drainage water using a distributed wireless sensor network (WSN). Twelve PCAP sensing stations were installed across the field at 90 cm below the soil surface, and each station measured the amount of drainage water using two tipping buckets mounted in the lysimeter and continually monitored soil water contents using two soil moisture sensors installed above the lysimeter. A weather station was included in the WSN to measure micrometeorological field conditions. All in-field sensory data were periodically sampled and wirelessly transmitted to a base station that was bridged to a web server for broadcasting the data on the internet. Communication signals from the in-field sensing stations to the base station were successfully interfaced using low-cost Bluetooth wireless radio communication. Field experiments resulted in high correlation between estimated and actual drainage with r 2 = 0.95 and confirmed a reliable wireless communication throughout the growing season. A web-linked WSN system provided convenient remote online access to monitor drainage water flux and field conditions without the need for costly time-consuming supportive operations.

Keywords

Wireless Sensor Network Drainage Water Vadose Zone Volumetric Soil Water Content Actual Drainage 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Boll J, Steenhuis TS, Selker JS (1992) Fiberglass wicks for sampling of water and solutes in the vadose zone. Soil Sci Soc Am J 56:701–707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Czigany S, Flury M, Harsh JB, Williams BC, Shira JM (2005) Suitability of fiberglass wicks to sample colloids from vadose zone pore water. Vadose Zone Journal 4:175–183Google Scholar
  3. Evans RG, Iversen WM (2005) Combined LEPA and MESA irrigation on a site specific linear move system. Presented at 26th annual irrigation association international irrigation show, phoenix, AZ, Nov. 6–8, 2005, Paper IA05-1298Google Scholar
  4. Gee GW, Ward AL, Caldwell TG, Ritter JC (2002) A vadose zone water fluxmeter with divergence control. Water Resour Res 38(8):1411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Initium Co (2005) Promi-SD user manual v2.0. Initium Co., Sungnam, KoreaGoogle Scholar
  6. Jabro JD, Kim Y, Evans RG, Iversen WM (2008) Passive capillary sampler for measuring soil water drainage and flux in the vadose zone: design, performance, and enhancement. Appl Eng Agric 24(4):439–446Google Scholar
  7. Kim Y, Evans RG, Iversen WM (2008) Remote sensing and control of an irrigation system using a distributed wireless sensor network. EEE Trans Instrum Meas 57(7):1379–1387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kim Y, Evans RG, Iversen WM (2009) Evaluation of closed-loop site-specific irrigation with wireless sensor network. J Irrigation Drainage Eng 135(1):25–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Klocke NL, Todd RW, Hergert GW, Watts DG, Parkhurst AM (1993) Design, installation and performance of percolation lysimeters for water quality sampling. Transactions ASAE 36(2):429–435Google Scholar
  10. Lee WS, Burks TF, Schueller JK (2002) Silage yield monitoring system. Presented at the 2002 ASAE annual international meeting, Chicago, IL, July 27–31, 2002, Paper No. 021165Google Scholar
  11. Louie MJ, Shelby PM, Smesrud JS, Gatchel LO, Selker JS (2000) Field evaluation of passive capillary samplers for estimating groundwater recharge. Water Resour Res 36(9):2407–2416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Oksanen T, Ohman M, Miettinen M, Visala A (2004) Open configurable control system for precision farming. Presented at the ASAE international conference on automation technology for off-road equipment, Japan, Aug. 1–4, 2004, pp 184–191, Paper No. 701P1004Google Scholar
  13. Owens LB (1990) Nitrate-nitrogen concentrations in percolate from lysimeters planted to a legume-grass mixture. J Environ Quality 19(1):131–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Shock CC, David RJ, Shock CA, Kimberling CA (1999) Innovative, automatic, low-cost reading of watermark soil moisture sensors. In proceedings irrigation association technical conference, Falls Church, VA, pp, 147–152Google Scholar
  15. Shukla S, Srivastava S, Hardin JD (2006) Design, construction, and installation of large drainage lysimeters for water quantity and quality studies. Appl Eng Agric 22(4):529–540Google Scholar
  16. Syvertsen JP, Smith ML (1996) Nitrogen uptake efficiency and leaching losses from lysimeter grown citrus tress fertilized at three nitrogen rate. J Am Soc Hortic Sci 121(1):57–62Google Scholar
  17. Wall RW, King BA (2004) Incorporating plug and play technology into measurement and control systems for irrigation management. Presented at the 2004 ASAE/CSAE annual international meeting, Ottawa, Canada, Aug. 1–4, 2004, Paper No. 042189Google Scholar
  18. Zhang Z (2004) Investigation of wireless sensor networks for precision agriculture. Presented at the 2004 ASAE/CSAE annual international meeting, Ottawa, Canada, Aug. 1–4, 2004, Paper No. 041154Google Scholar
  19. Zhu Y, Fox RH, Toth JD (2002) Leachate collection efficiency of zero-tension and passive capillary fiberglass wick lysimeters. Soil Sci Soc Am J 66:37–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag (outside the USA) 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Electrical and Computer EngineeringPurdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA
  2. 2.Northern Plains Agricultural Research Laboratory, USDA-ARSSidneyUSA
  3. 3.Northern Plains Agricultural Research Laboratory, USDA-ARSSidneyUSA

Personalised recommendations