Skip to main content

Electronic leaf wetness duration sensor: why it should be painted

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare and evaluate the performance of electronic leaf wetness duration (LWD) sensors in measuring LWD in a cotton crop canopy when unpainted and painted sensors were used. LWD was measured with flat, printed-circuit wetness sensors, and the data were divided into two periods of 24 days: from 18 December 2001 to 10 January 2002, when the sensors were unpainted, and from 20 January to 13 February 2002, when the sensors were painted with white latex paint (two coats of paint). The data analysis included evaluating the coefficient of variation (CV%) among the six sensors for each day, and the relationship between the measured LWD (mean for the six sensors) and the number of hours with dew point depression under 2 °C, used as an indicator of dew presence. The results showed that the painting markedly reduced the CV% values. For the unpainted sensors the CV% was on average 67% against 9% for painted sensors. For the days without rainfall this reduction was greater. Comparing the sensor measurements to another estimator of LWD, in this case the number of hours with dew point depression under 2 °C, it was also observed that painting improved not only the precision of the sensors but also their sensitivity, because it increases the ability of the sensor to detect and measure the wetness promoted by small water droplets.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 3a, b.
Fig. 4a, b.
Fig. 5.

References

  • Armstrong R, Barthkur NN, Norris E (1993) A comparative study of three leaf wetness sensors. Int J Biometeorol 37:7–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell Scientific (1996) Model 237 – leaf wetness sensor. Campbell Scientific Inc., Logan

  • Getz RR (1991) Report on the measurement of leaf wetness. WMO (Commission for Instruments and Methods of Observation), Rome

  • Gillespie TJ, Duan RX (1987) A comparison of cylindrical and flat plate sensors for surface wetness duration. Agric For Meteorol 40:61–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillespie TJ, Kidd GE (1978) Sensing duration of leaf moisture retention using electrical impedance grids. Can J Plant Sci 58:179–187

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillespie TJ, Srivastava B, Pitblado RE (1993) Using operational weather data to schedule fungicides sprays on tomatoes in Southern Ontario, Canada. J Appl Meteorol 32:567–573

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huber L, Gillespie TJ (1992) Modeling leaf wetness in relation to plant disease epidemiology. Annu Rev Phytopathol 30:553–577

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim KS, Taylor SE, Gleason ML, Koehler KJ (2002) Model to enhance site-specific estimation of leaf wetness duration. Plant Dis 86:179–185

    Google Scholar 

  • Lau YF, Gleason ML, Zriba N, Taylor SE, Hinz PN (2000) Effects of coating, deployment angle, and compass orientation on performance of electronic wetness sensors during dew periods. Plant Dis 84:192–197

    Google Scholar 

  • Madeira AC, Kim KS, Taylor SE, Gleason ML (2002) A simple cloud-based energy balance model to estimate dew. Agric For Meteorol 111:55–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magarey RD (1999) A theoretical standard for estimation of surface wetness duration in grape. PhD dissertation. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA

  • Miranda RAC, Davie TD, Cornell SE (2000) A laboratory assessment of wetness sensors for leaf, fruit and trunk surfaces. Agric For Meteorol 102:263–274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pedro MJ Jr (1980) Relation of leaf surface wetness duration to meteorological parameters. PhD dissertation, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ont, Canada

  • Rao PS, Gillespie TJ, Schaafsma AW (1998) Estimating wetness duration on maize ears from meteorological observations. Can J Soil Sci 78:149–154

    Google Scholar 

  • Wei YQ, Bailey BJ, Stenning BC (1995) A wetness sensor for detecting condensation on tomato plants in greenhouses. J Agric Eng Res 61:197–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank CAPES and CNPq, Brazilian Government Institutions, for partially supporting this project, Dr. Ederaldo J. Chiavegatto, from ESALQ/USP, for his assistance with the experiment, and José Ricardo M. Pezzopane, from IAC, for assistance with the sensors. This experiment complies with current laws of the Brazilian Government.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to P. C. Sentelhas.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sentelhas, P.C., Monteiro, J.E.B.A. & Gillespie, T.J. Electronic leaf wetness duration sensor: why it should be painted. Int J Biometeorol 48, 202–205 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00484-004-0200-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00484-004-0200-z

Keywords.

  • Dew
  • Leaf wetness
  • Plant disease
  • Sensor
  • Relative humidity