Posts from the ‘Water Potential sensors’ Category

Apr 7

Green Roofs—Do They Work? (Part II)

Innovative soil scientist, John Buck, and his team have discovered that green roofs have more capacity than people imagined (see part I). Below are some of the challenges he sees for the future, and the type of measurements he suggests researchers take, as they continue to validate the effectiveness of these urban ecosystems.

Green and whited plant on a garden rooftop with orange rocks

New Challenges for Green Roofs

Green roof results are promising, but they present a new challenge: making sure the plants have enough water. The crux of the challenge is that the lightweight, expanded shale/clay substrate material, the standard in green roof design, does a good job of soaking up the water, but has some peculiar properties that are unlike typical soils. Specifically, the expanded shale and expanded clay media tend to be dominated by sand and fine gravel-sized particles that provide a high proportion of macropores, but the interior porosity of the large particles is dominated with micropores. That pore size distribution leads researchers to two important questions— How much water will be readily available for plant growth? And, will the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity be adequate to avoid starving the roots under high-evaporative demand by allowing water to flow to roots from the bulk soil? These are critical questions as green roof technologies continue to evolve.

Researchers wonder, will the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity be adequate to avoid starving the roots under high-evaporative demand.

Measurements Required for Green Roof Validation

Still, Buck has learned a great deal from his work. Considering the wild spatial distribution of summer storms, quantitative green roof performance studies require that rainfall be measured locally. Monitoring of soil volumetric moisture content measurements in concert with rainfall and soil lysimeter measurements of drainage, reveal the degree of total and capillary saturation, drainage rate, and porosity available for storage. Soil water potential sensors, placed within the capillary fringe of water ponded over subsurface drainage layers, can provide useful insights regarding the dryness of the drainage layer and overlying soil, as well as the available storage of stormwater within the drainage layer.

Direct measurement of soil drainage using lysimeters is a key supplemental measurement on green roof performance quantification projects because there is an unmeasured component of water storage where drought-resistant alpine succulents (typically Sedum species) are used on green roofs. The Sedum plants can absorb up to 10 mm of rainfall equivalent in their plant tissues.

Plants poking out of the soil in front of a house

Measurement of soil drainage using lysimeters is a key supplemental measurement on green roof performance quantification projects.

Other Projects and Future Plans

At ground level, Buck is quantifying the performance of intensive stormwater infiltration areas known as rain gardens, bioretention areas, or more generically, infiltration-based stormwater best management practices (Infiltration-based BMPs). When monitoring infiltration-based stormwater BMPs, Buck has used similar tools to those used on green roofs, but has added water-level sensors and piezometers. Buck has found that ancillary measurements of electrical conductivity, often available on water content sensors, along with surface and pore water sampling, can be used to document transformations taking place in infiltration systems. These measurements now combine to show that green roofs and infiltration-based BMPs are indeed making a difference to urban environments and contributions to CSOs. The challenge now is how to implement this technology more widely. But, with the validation now in hand, that job should be quite a bit easier.

Download the “Researcher’s complete guide to water potential”—>

Download the “Researcher’s complete guide to soil moisture”—>

Get more information on applied environmental research in our

Apr 1

1 Comment

Green Roofs—Do They Work?

Green roofs are being built in large cities to provide stormwater management, reduce the urban heat island effect, and improve air quality—but are they effective? John Buck, an innovative soil scientist based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, has been trying to quantitatively answer this question in many different cities using soil monitoring equipment in order to determine the efficacy and best types of green infrastructure for managing stormwater.

Garden on a rooftop with flowers and a city around it

A green roof installation site at the Allegheny County Office Building in Pennsylvania.

Why Green Roofs?

In older cities, stormwater runoff is typically combined with sewage flows, and these combined waters are treated at a sewage treatment plant during dry weather and light rain events. Unfortunately, during more substantial storms (sometimes just a few mm of rain) the combined flows exceed the ability of the sewage treatment plant, and are discharged without treatment to surface waters as “combined sewage overflows” (CSOs). One of the ways to mitigate CSOs is to capture and store stormwater to keep it out of the combined sewer.

A green roof is essentially a garden on a roof, but rather than growing plants in soil, installers use a synthetic substrate made of expanded shale, expanded clay, crushed brick, or other highly porous, lightweight material with high infiltration rates. During a storm event, water will soak into the air-filled pore space in the substrate, which acts like a sponge to soak up the rain. Excess water will flow into a subsurface drainage layer and will leave the roof garden via existing roof drains. Because a substantial fraction of the stormwater is stored in the substrate, it can later dissipate through evapotranspiration instead of contributing to stormwater volume and CSOs.

Researcher kneeling testing soil with a soil sensor

Researchers are using soil moisture sensors for measuring temperature, bulk electrical conductivity and volumetric water content in green roofs and green infrastructure.

Finding Answers

Designers and regulators want to know how well green roofs work and if they are being over-engineered. They want answers to questions such as: “What sort of substrate should I be using? What type of plants can survive green roof conditions? Will I need to irrigate the green roof when there are no storms to water the plants?” and, “Will the green roof work as well during a one-inch storm that occurs over a half hour versus a five-inch storm that occurs over five days?”

Buck is using soil lysimeters and modified tipping bucket rain gauges to measure the quantity, intensity, and quality of water coming into and going out of the green roofs. He also tracks weather parameters and calculates daily evapotranspiration of landscapes. Using soil sensors, he measures electrical conductivity (dissolved salts), volumetric water content, and temperature. He has installed data loggers that send data to the web via GSM cellular connection, allowing stakeholders access to the data in real-time. This data telemetry provides additional data security, immediately updated results, instant feedback of system problems, and an easy way to share data with others.

Visualized data of the 87% annualized runoff reduction at Phipps Conservatory green roof site in Pittsburgh, PA.

What Has Been Learned?

Buck discovered that green roofs have much more capacity than people ever imagined. At The Penfield Apartments in St. Paul, Minnesota, the green roof retained enough water to reduce runoff to about half of a conventional roof, and the peak intensity of the runoff was about one-quarter of what it would have been without the green roof. At Phipps Conservatory in Pittsburgh, there was an 87% annualized runoff reduction and almost no runoff from typical summer rain events. Buck comments, “Interestingly, on the Penfield project, we expected better hydrologic performance where soils were thicker, but there was no difference, or results were slightly the reverse of expectations. That reversal was likely due to the confounding influence of irrigation, which was probably non-uniform and not metered or measured by the rain gauge.”

Next week: Read about some of the challenges John Buck sees for the future, and what kind of measurements he suggests researchers make, as they continue to validate the effectiveness of these urban ecosystems.

Download the “Researcher’s complete guide to soil moisture”—>

Get more information on applied environmental research in our

Nov 13

Will Sample Disturbance Lead to Lower Accuracy?

Sampling soil for laboratory analysis of water potential is done for two basic reasons. The simplest is to determine the current water potential of the soil. The other is to determine the moisture release curve of the soil. Regardless of the reason for measurement, the question of sample disturbance is important to ensure an accurate result. Dr. Colin Campbell explains why:

Soil is disturbed when it’s removed from its natural structure.

Water Potential and Pore Size:

In soil samples, the void spaces (pores) in between soil particles can be simplistically thought of as a system of capillary tubes, with a diameter determined by the size of the associated particles and their spatial association. The smaller the size of those tubes, the more tightly water is going to be held because of the surface association.

In a clay, water will be held more tightly than in a sand at the same water content because clay contains smaller pores and thus more surface area for the water to bind to. But, even sand can eventually dry to a point where there is only a thin film of water on its surfaces and water will be bound tightly. In principle, the closer water is to a surface, the tighter it will be bound.

Sample Disturbance

Sample disturbance (disturbing soil pores when you remove a sample from the ground) becomes an issue depending on the water potential of your sample. Typically, the less negative (wetter) the water potential, the larger impact sample disturbance will have on the measurement. We can do a calculation that shows there are specific pore sizes associated with specific water potentials (see table 1).

If you disturb a sample with low water potential, permanent wilting point (-1.5 MPa) for example, the pores that are still filled with water would be approximately 0.2 um in diameter, far too small to be broken apart by scooping up a sample. Thus, we could reasonably assume that your WP readings won’t be affected much. But if you disturb soil with higher water potential, say field capacity (-0.033 MPa), it’s much more likely that water will be disturbed, as it fills pores to approximately 9 um.

Hygrometers

Still, this is only an issue if you are attempting to measure in a high WP range. If your chilled-mirror hygrometer only measures up to -1000 kPa, sample disturbance will not be an issue because those pores that will have broken will likely be larger than the sub-micrometer that are holding water, which is beyond the accuracy of your instrument. However, some hygrometers can now measure to an upper limit of -100 kPa, which approaches the point where sample disturbance will make a difference.

Tensiometers

If you are sampling to measure with a tensiometer (measures 0 kPa to -80kPa), it’s extremely important to keep your samples intact because tensiometers cover the emptying range of the largest pores found in soil. A soil collar (sample ring) pounded into the ground will yield the most intact soil core. It’s the best method to use if you need make sure soil pores remain undisturbed to yield an accurate water potential measurement.

For a more in-depth examination of the magnitude of the effects of sample disturbance, read this chilled-mirror hygrometer App Note detailing the subject.

Download the “Researcher’s complete guide to water potential”—>

Download the “Researcher’s complete guide to soil moisture”—>

Get more information on applied environmental research in our

Nov 9

Screening for Drought Tolerance

Screening for drought tolerance in wheat species is harder than it seems. Many greenhouse drought screenings suffer from confounding issues such as soil type and the resulting soil moisture content, bulk density, and genetic differences for traits like root mass, rooting depth, and plant size. In addition, because it’s so hard to isolate drought stress, some scientists think finding a repeatable screening method is next to impossible. However, a recent pilot study done by researcher Andrew Green may prove them wrong.

Automatic Irrigation Setup

The Quest for Repeatability

Green says, “There have been attempts before of intensively studying drought stress, but it’s hard to isolate drought stress from heat, diseases, and other things.” Green and his advisors, Dr. Gerard Kluitenberg and Dr. Allan Fritz, think monitoring water potential in the soil is the only quantifiable way to impose a consistent and repeatable treatment. With the development of a soil-moisture retention curve for a homogeneous growth media, they feel the moisture treatment could be maintained in order to isolate drought stress. Green says, “Our goal is to develop a repeatable screening system that will allow us to be confident that what we’re seeing is an actual drought response before the work of integrating those genes takes place, since that’s a very long and tedious process.”

Why Hasn’t This Been Done Before?

Andrew Green, as a plant breeder, thinks the problem lies in the fact that most geneticists aren’t soil scientists. He says, “In past experiments, the most sophisticated drought screening was to grow the plants up to a certain point, stop watering them, and see which ones lived the longest. There’s never been a collaborative approach where physiologists and soil scientists have been involved. So researchers have imposed this harsh, biologically irrelevant stress where it’s basically been an attrition study.” Green says he hopes in his research to use the soil as a feedback mechanism to maintain a stress level that mimics what exists in nature.

Data acquisition a cabinet setup for green's expanded experiment

Data Acquisition Cabinet setup for Green’s expanded experiment.

The Pilot Study

Green used volumetric water content sensors, matric potential sensors, as well as column tensiometers to monitor soil moisture conditions in a greenhouse experiment using 182 cm tall polyvinyl chloride (PVC) growth tubes and homogenous growth media. Measurements were taken four times a day to determine volumetric water content, soil water potential, senescence, biomass, shoot, root ratio, rooting traits, yield components, leaf water potential, leaf relative water content, and other physiological observations between moisture limited and control treatments.

Soil Media: Advantages and Disadvantages

To solve the problem of differing soil types, Andrew and his team chose a homogeneous soil amendment media called Profile Greens Grade, which has been extensively studied for use in space and other applications. Green says, “It’s a very porous material with a large particle size. It’s a great growth media because at the end of the experiment you can separate the roots of the plant from the soil media, and those roots can be measured, imaged, and studied in conjunction with the data that is collected.” Green adds, however, that working with soil media isn’t perfect: there have been hydraulic conductivity issues, and the media must be closely monitored.

What’s Unique About this Study?

Green believes that because the substrate was very specific and his water content and water potential sensors were co-located, it allowed him to determine if all of his moisture release curves were consistent. He says, “We try to pack these columns to a uniform bulk density and keep an eye on things when we’re watering, hoping it’s going to stay consistent at every depth. So far it’s been working pretty well: the water content and the water potential are repeatable in the different columns.”

Irrigation setup for the expanded study with research data cabinet

Entire Irrigation setup for the expanded study.

Plans for the Future

Green’s pilot study was completed in the spring, and he’s getting ready for the expanded version of the project: a replicated trial with wild relatives of wheat. He’s hoping to use soil moisture sensors to make automatic irrigation decisions: i.e. the water potential of the columns will activate twelve solenoid valves which will disperse water to keep the materials in their target stress zone, or ideal water potential.

The Ultimate Goal

The ultimate goal of Green’s research is to breed wild species of wheat into productive forms that can be used as farmer-grown varieties. He is optimistic about the results of his pilot study. He says, “Based on the very small unreplicated data that we have so far, I think it is going to be possible to develop a repeatable method to screen these materials. With the data that we’re seeing now, and the information that we’re capturing about what’s going on below ground, I think being able to hold these things in a biologically relevant stress zone is going to be possible.”

Take our Soil Moisture Master Class

Six short videos teach you everything you need to know about soil water content and soil water potential—and why you should measure them together. Plus, master the basics of soil hydraulic conductivity.

Watch it now—>

Download the “Researcher’s complete guide to soil moisture”—>

Download the “Researcher’s complete guide to water potential”—>

Get more information on applied environmental research in our

Oct 31

Water Potential/Water Content: When to Use Dual Measurements

In a previous post, we discussed water potential as a better indicator of plant stress than water content. However, in most situations, it’s useful to take dual measurements and measure both water content and water potential. In a recent email, one of our scientist colleagues explains why: “The earlier article on water potential was excellent. But what should be added is an explanation that the intensity measurement doesn’t translate directly into the quantity of water stored or needed. That information is also required when managing water through irrigation. This is why I really like the dual measurement approach. I am excited about the possibilities of information that can be gleaned from the combined set of water content, water potential, and spectral reflectance data.”

Field plantation with a sprinkler in the middle of it

Potato field irrigation

Managing Irrigation

The value of combined data can be illustrated by what’s been happening at the Brigham Young University Turf Farm, where we’ve been trying to optimize irrigation of turfgrass (read about it here). As we were thinking about how to control irrigation, we decided the best way was to measure water potential. However, because we were in a sandy soil where water was freely available, we also guessed we might need water content. Figure 1 illustrates why.

Turf farm data concerning water potential diagram

Figure 1: Turf farm data: water potential only

Early water potential data looks uninteresting; it tells us there’s plenty of water most of the time, but doesn’t indicate if we’re applying too much. In addition, if we zoom in to times when water potential begins to change, we see that it reaches a stress condition quickly. Within a couple of days, it is into the stress region and in danger of causing our grass to go into dormancy. Water potential data is critical to be able to understand when we absolutely need to water again, but because the data doesn’t change until it’s almost too late, we don’t have everything we need.

Turf farm data dual measurements data diagram

Figure 2: Turf farm data, volumetric water content only

Unlike water potential, the water content data (Figure 2) are much more dynamic. The sensors not only show the subtle changes due to daily water uptake but also indicate how much water needs to be applied to maintain the root zone at an optimal level. However, with water content data alone, we don’t know where that optimal level is. For example, early in the season, we observe large changes in water content over four or five days and may assume, based upon onsite observations, that it’s time to irrigate. But, in reality, we know little about the availability of water to the plant. Thus, we need to put the two graphs together (Figure 3).

Water potential and vol. water content diagram

Figure 3: Turfgrass data: both water potential and volumetric water content together.

In Figure 3, we have the total picture of what’s going on in the soil at the BYU turf farm. We see the water content going down and can tell at what percentage the plants begin to stress. We also see when we’ve got too much water: when the water content is well above where our water potential sensors start to sense plant stress. With this information, we can tell that the turfgrass has an optimal range of 12% to 17% volumetric water content. Anything below or above that range will be too little or too much water.

Soil water potential and volumetric water content diagram

Figure 4: Turfgrass soil moisture release curve (black). Other colors are examples of moisture release curves for different types of soil.

Dual measurements will also allow you to make in situ soil moisture release curves like the one above (Figure 4), which detail the relationship between water potential and water content. Scientists can evaluate these curves and understand many things about the soil, such as hydraulic conductivity and total water availability.

Download the “Researcher’s complete guide to water potential”—>

Download the “Researcher’s complete guide to soil moisture”—>

Get more information on applied environmental research in our

Oct 23

Measuring Water Potential in Concrete

Trevor Dragon, a former METER Research and Development Engineer, was pouring concrete at his Beeville, Texas, farm one day and wondered if he could measure moisture in concrete with a matric potential sensor instead of the more traditionally used volumetric water content sensor (VWC) to get more accurate readings. Dragon says, “We had about five concrete trucks come in that day, and we poured five different slabs. Every truck had a different amount of water added. One particular batch of concrete was really wet and soupy, and I became curious to measure it and compare it to the other slabs.”

Concrete slab drying down at Trevor’s Texas farm.

Why Measure Moisture in Concrete?

As concrete hardens, portland cement reacts with water to form new bonds between the components of the concrete. This chemical process, known as hydration, gives concrete its characteristic rock-like structure. Too much or too little water can reduce the strength of the concrete. Adding excess water can lead to excessive voids in concrete while providing too little water can inhibit the cement hydration reaction. Thus, when you pour a slab in south Texas, where it’s exposed to high wind and intense heat, sufficient water must be added, and precautions must be taken to minimize evaporation of water from the slab surface as the concrete hardens.

Better Readings:

Dragon chose the matric potential sensor because he wondered if it would be more accurate than a VWC measurement. He says, “I knew that VWC sensors were calibrated for soil, and because of that they would lack accuracy. But the water potential sensor is calibrated for the ceramic it contains. I figured it would be closer to the real thing without having to do a custom calibration.”

Moisture in concrete has been difficult to measure because the high electrical conductivity early in the hydration process throws off water content sensor calibration. So, Dragon was surprised when his data turned out to be really good. He comments, “The dry down curve of the matric potential sensor was a perfect curve. There was a nice knee (drop from saturation) after about 200 minutes, and it just went down from there. We’re kind of stumped because we are trying to understand why the data came out so well and why the curve looks so good.”

Water Potential in Concrete

The scientists at METER sent the drydown curve to Dr. Spencer Guthrie, a civil engineering professor, to see what he thought. He explains, “I suspect that the concrete is experiencing initial set at around 200 minutes. This is a very normal time frame by which finishing operations need to be complete. At this stage in cement hydration, the concrete becomes no longer moldable. A rigid capillary structure is forming, and individual pores are taking shape. As hydration continues, the pores become smaller and smaller, which may explain the decrease in matric potential.”

New Methods:

One theory Dragon and his colleague Dr. Colin Campbell came up with was that perhaps Dragon’s unique method of inserting the sensors made a difference in the measurements. He explains, “The first thing I did was look for the rebar in the concrete, and I placed the sensors in the exact center of one of the squares to avoid the influence of metal on the sensor electromagnetic field. Also, I didn’t insert the sensors the same way you would insert them into soil. In soil, you put the sensors in vertically; I placed the water potential sensor horizontally because in this case, I was not interested in how water was moving in the slab but how it was being used over time.

What Does It Mean for the Future?

The behavior of the water potential sensor embedded in the concrete clearly indicated a drying process where water becomes less available over time. However, the implications are still unknown. Can the quality of the concrete be determined from the speed or extent of water becoming less available? Hopefully, this opportunistic experiment by Dragon will lead to more tests to show whether this approach is useful to others.

Dr. Guthrie agrees the idea should be explored further and comments, “The matric potential measurements were not redundant with the water content measurements. Instead, they offered additional, interesting information about the early hydration characteristics of the concrete. In the context of construction operations, the water potential data indicated what is normally determined by observing the impression left in the concrete surface from the touch of a finger. In the context of research, however, the use of a water potential sensor may yield helpful information about how certain admixtures, for example, influence the development of hydration products in concrete over time.”

Download the “Researcher’s complete guide to water potential”—>

Download the “Researcher’s complete guide to soil moisture”—>

Get more information on applied environmental research in our

Oct 16

Measuring Frozen Water Potential: How and Why?

In China recently, a fellow scientist asked Dr. Colin Campbell if matric potential sensors work in frozen soils. His answer? Sort of. In this blog, he explains what he meant by his enigmatic reply: When water freezes in the soil, most matric potential sensors won’t work accurately because frozen water essentially disappears to the measurement. For example, in a dielectric measurement circuit, most of the water that was polarized in the electromagnetic field solidifies in the ice matrix. Thus, because dielectric measurements determine the charge that is stored when water is polarized, ice is not measured. But, many matric potential sensors contain a component that will measure frozen water potential: the temperature sensor.

Horseshoe prints in frozen soil.

How Does Temperature Measure Water Potential?

The temperature of a frozen matrix like soil has a fundamental thermodynamic relationship to the energy state of that water. For every one degree C below freezing, the water potential decreases by 1.2 MPa. For example, if the soil drops down to -4 C, the soil water potential will be -4.8 MPa. However, one thing many people don’t understand is that there is still liquid water in frozen soils.

Where is the Liquid Water in a Frozen Soil?

Some liquid water will always be associated with soil surfaces because water, as a polar molecule, is attracted by opposite surface charges. Ice is a collection of water molecules that have slowed enough that they are arranged in a crystal-like structure. When ice arranges in that structure, it will attract and use all those water molecules that are available but will have difficulty stealing away water bound to soil surfaces. That water will remain liquid. As soil temperature drops, water layers closer and closer to soil particle surfaces will slow and join the ice structure.

Why Worry about Frozen Water Potential?

Previously, we’ve discussed the importance of water potential in determining the availability of water for plant growth. But below freezing, plants are either dormant or expired, so why measure frozen water potential?

There are a couple of reasons frozen soil water potential may be interesting to scientists. Liquid water in frozen soil still has the possibility to move. So, knowing soil temperature will allow models to predict water flow.

Even more interesting is what could be done with a temperature sensor and a measurement of water content using dielectric permittivity. As we mentioned earlier, ice essentially disappears to a dielectric measurement. Thus, a dielectric sensor water content measurement should provide the amount of liquid water in the soil. Using the temperature sensor to infer water potential (assuming the soil begins wet enough that its pre-frozen state has not reduced WP significantly), we can combine the WP and VWC measurements over a range of temperatures to generate an in situ moisture release curve. This idea was developed into a prototype instrument that appeared to have promise as a new laboratory technique to obtain moisture release curves.

Download the “Researcher’s complete guide to water potential”—>

Download the “Researcher’s complete guide to soil moisture”—>

Get more information on applied environmental research in our

Oct 9

31 Comments

Water Content helps Turf Growers find Water/Nutrient Balance

Many athletes don’t like artificial turf. They say it’s hot, uncomfortable to run on, causes burns when you slide or fall on it, and changes the way a ball moves. Professional women’s soccer players even started a lawsuit over FIFA’s decision to use artificial turf in the 2015 Women’s World Cup.

Soccer players running after the soccer ball on a green field

Soccer players on natural turf.

Some universities—including Brigham Young University—have responded to athlete concerns by using natural turf fields for practice and in their stadiums. But the challenge is to develop plants and management practices for natural turf that help it stand up to frequent use and allow it to perform well even during the difficult fall months. It’s a perfect research opportunity.

BYU turf professor and manager of BYU sports turf, Bryan Hopkins and his colleagues in the Plant and Wildlife Department, have been able to set up a new state-of-the-art facility to study plants and soil in both greenhouse and natural conditions. The facility includes a large section of residential and stadium turfgrass.

Before Soil Sensors

Initially, BYU maintained the turf farm grass on a standard, timer-based irrigation control system, but over time they realized that understanding the performance of their turf relative to moisture content and nutrient load is crucial. Last year during Memorial Day weekend their turf farm irrigation system stopped working when no one was around to notice. During those four days temperatures rose to 40 C (100 F), and the grass in the field slipped into dormancy due to heat stress. In response, Dr. Hopkins began imagining a system of soil moisture sensors to constantly monitor the performance of the turf grass. He wanted not only to make sure the turf never died but also to really understand the elements of stress so they could do a better job growing healthy turf.

Sensors Give a Clear Picture

Soon afterward, a team of scientists, including fellow professor Dr. Neil Hansen, installed volumetric water content (VWC) and matric potential sensors at two different sites: one in the sports turf and one in a residential turf plot. Each plot had two installations of sensors at 6 cm and 15 cm, along with VWC only at 25 cm, to measure water moving beyond the root zone. Combining these measurements, they could clearly see when the grass was reaching stress conditions and how quickly the turf went from the beginning of stress (in terms of water content and time) to permanent wilting point. In addition, ancillary measurements of temperature and electrical conductivity provide an opportunity for modeling surface and root zone temperature as well as fertilizer concentration dynamics.

Researcher digging a dirt canal and installing sensors

Installing water content sensors at the BYU turf farm.

Errors Revealed

What the researchers learned was that they were using too much water. Dr. Colin Campbell, a METER research scientist who worked with BYU on sensor installation, comments, “We found in the first year that the plants never got stressed at all. So this year, the researchers allowed the water potential (WP) at 6 cm to drop into the stress range (~ -500 kPa) while observing WP at 15 cm (-50 kPa to -60 kPa). We hope this approach will reduce irrigation inputs while creating some stress in the grass in order to push the roots deeper.”

What’s happening with the water?

Dr. Campbell’s favorite part of the sensor data was the detailed picture it gave of what was happening with the water in the sandy soil (Figure 1). He says, “Most people believe that they have an intuitive feel for water availability in soil. If we were only using water content sensors, seeing a typical value of 20% would lead us to believe we were comfortably in the middle of the plant available range (A). But in this study, using our colocated soil water content and soil water potential sensors, the data showed readings over 15% VWC were too wet to affect the WP (B). However, once WP visibly changed, it quickly moved toward critical stress levels (C, -1500 kPa is permanent wilting point); it only took two days for the water potential to change from -8 kPa to -1000 kPa. A subsequent dry period (D) shows similar behavior, but this time the 15 cm WP drops to near -1000 kPa.”

Figure 1

The plant stress levels were reached surprisingly quickly in this soil because its sand composition has a lot of large pores and not very many small ones (Figure 2). Campbell explains, “The large pores store water that is not held tightly due to low surface area, so the water is freely available. But at around 10% VWC all the water from the large pores is used up. As the soil dries beyond that, the water is held tightly in small pores and becomes increasingly unavailable. This is clear in the moisture release curve. We see almost no change in water potential as the soil dried to 16% VWC, but from 10% down to 7%, the water potential reached permanent wilting point, and it happened in just over a day.”

Figure 2

What the Future Holds:

The researchers wanted to make sure that if they went down to certain stress levels, they wouldn’t cause harm to the plants, so this year, they installed a weather station to monitor evapotranspiration and calculate irrigation application rates. They also began measuring spectral reflectance to monitor changes in leaf area (NDVI) and photosynthesis (PRI). This will enable them to see the impact on the plants as the turf is drying down. “In the future,” says Campbell, “we hope that both commercial and residential turf growers will be able to more effectively control their irrigation and nutrients based on what we find in this study.”

Download the “Researcher’s complete guide to water potential”—>

Download the “Researcher’s complete guide to soil moisture”—>

Get more information on applied environmental research in our

Aug 28

2 Comments

Low Impact Design: Sensors Validate California Groundwater Resource Management

Michelle Newcomer, a PhD candidate at UC Berkeley, (previously at San Francisco State University), recently published research using rain gauges, soil moisture, and water potential sensors to determine if low impact design (LID) structures such as rain gardens and infiltration trenches are an effective means of infiltrating and storing rainwater in dry climates instead of letting it run off into the ocean.

Body of water with rain droplets hitting the surface

Can Low Impact Design Structures store rainwater?

Low Impact Design Structures

Global groundwater resources in urban, coastal environments are highly vulnerable to increased human pressures and climate variability. Impervious surfaces, such as buildings, roads, and parking lots prevent infiltration, reduce recharge to underlying aquifers, and increase contaminants in surface runoff that often overflow sewage systems. To mitigate these effects, cities worldwide are adopting low impact design (LID) approaches to direct runoff into natural vegetated systems such as rain gardens that reduce, filter, and slow stormwater runoff. LID hypothetically increases infiltration and recharge rates to aquifers.

Infiltration and Recharge

Michelle and the team at San Francisco State University, advised by Dr. Jason Gurdak, realized that the effects of LID on recharge rates and quality were unknown, particularly during intense precipitation events for cities along the Pacific coast in response to inter-annual variability of the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO). Using water potential and water content sensors she was able to quantify the current and projected rates of infiltration and recharge to the California Coastal Westside Basin aquifer system. The team compared a LID infiltration trench surrounded by a rain garden with a traditional turf-lawn setting in San Francisco. She says, “Cities like San Francisco are implementing these LID structures, and we wanted to test the quantity of water that was going through them. We were interested specifically in different climate scenarios, like El Niño versus La Niña, because rain events are much more intense during El Niño years and could cause flash flooding or surface pollutant overflow problems.”

Sensors Tell the Story

The research team looked at the differences in the quantity of water that LID structures could allow to pass through. Michelle says. ”The sensors yielded data proving LID areas were effective at capturing the water, infiltrating it more slowly, and essentially storing it in the aquifer.” The team tested how a low-impact development-style infiltration trench compared to an irrigated lawn and found that the recharge efficiency of the infiltration trench, at 58% to 79%, was much higher than that of the lawn, at 8% to 33%.

Rain Gauges Yield Surprises

Though it wasn’t part of the researchers’ original plan, they used rain gauges to measure precipitation, which yielded some surprising data. Michelle comments, “We were just going to use the San Francisco database, but it became necessary to use the rain gauges because of all the fog. The fog brought a lot of precipitation with it that didn’t come in the form of raindrops. As it condensed on the leaves, it provided a substantial portion of the water in the budget, and that was surprising to me. The rain gauge captured the condensate on the funnel of the instrument, so we were able to see that a certain quantity of water was coming in that is typically neglected in many studies.”

Future El Niño Precipitation

Michelle also found some really interesting results regarding El Niño and La Niña. She says, “I did a historical analysis to establish baselines for frequency, intensity, and duration of precipitation events during El Niño and La Niña years. I then ran projected climate data through a Hydrus-2D model, and the models showed that with future El Niño intensities, recharge rates were effectively higher for a given precipitation event. During these events, in typical urban settings, water runs off so fast that only these rain gardens and trenches would be able to capture the rain that would otherwise be lost to the ocean. This contrasts with a La Niña climate scenario where there’s typically less rain that is more diffuse. Most of that rain may eventually be lost to evaporation during dry years. So using sensors and 2D modeling we have validated the hypothesis that LID structures provide a service for storing water, particularly during El Niño years where there are more intense rainstorms.”

Michelle’s research received some press online and also was featured in the AGU EOS Editor’s spotlight. Her results are published in the journal Water Resources Research.

Download the “Researcher’s complete guide to water potential”—>

Download the “Researcher’s complete guide to soil moisture”—>

Get more information on applied environmental research in our

Jul 31

34 Comments

Water Potential Versus Water Content

Dr. Colin Campbell, soil physicist, shares why he thinks measuring soil water potential can be more useful than measuring soil water content.

A horsetail plant showing possible signs of guttation where the water potential in the soil overnight is high enough to force water out of the stomates in the leaves.

I know an ecologist who installed an extensive soil water content (VWC) sensor network to study the effect of slope orientation on plant available water. He collected good VWC data, but ultimately he was frustrated because he couldn’t tell how much of the water was available to plants.

He’s not alone in his frustration. Accurate, inexpensive soil moisture sensors have made soil VWC a justifiably popular measurement, but as many people have discovered, a good hammer doesn’t make every soil water problem a nail. I like to compare water potential to temperature because both are considered “intensive” variables that define the intensity of something.

People often try to quantify their own environment, because those measurements define comfort and happiness. Long ago, they discovered they could make an enclosed glass tube, put mercury inside, and infer this intensive variable called temperature from the changes in the mercury’s volume. This was an obvious way to define the comfort level of a human being.

People discovered they could make an enclosed glass tube, put mercury inside, and infer an intensive variable called temperature.

They could have measured the heat content of their surroundings. But they would have discovered that while heat content would be higher in a larger room and lower in a smaller room, you would feel the same comfort level in both rooms. The temperature measurement helps you know whether or not you’d be comfortable without any other variables entering into the equation.

Similar to heat content, water content is an amount. It’s an extensive variable. It changes with size and situation. Consider the following paradoxes:

A soil with fairly low volumetric water content can have plenty of plant-available water and a soil with high water content can have almost none.

Gravity pulls water down through the profile, but water moves up into the soil from a water table.

Two adjacent patches of soil at equilibrium can have significantly different water content.

In these and many other cases, water content data can be confusing because they don’t predict how water moves. Water potential measures the energy state of water and thus explains realities of water movement that otherwise defy intuition. Like temperature, water potential defines the comfort level of a plant. Similar to the room size analogy for temperature, if we know the water potential, we can know whether plants will grow well or be stressed in any environment.

sand with plants poking out and a blue sky in the background

Soil, clay, sand, potting soil, and other media, all hold water differently.

Plants don’t understand the concept of a content in terms of “comfort” because soil, clay, sand, potting soil, and other media, all hold water differently. Imagine a sand with 30% water content. Due to its low surface area, the sand will be too wet for optimal plant growth, threatening a lack of aeration to the roots, and flirting with saturation. Now consider a fine textured clay at that same 30% water content. The clay may appear only moist and be well below optimum “comfort” for a plant due to the surface of the clay binding the water and making it less available to the plant.

Water potential measurements clearly indicate plant available water, and, unlike water content, there is an easy reference scale. We know that plant optimal runs from about -2-5 kPa which is on the very wet side, to about -100 kPa, at the drier end of optimal. Below that plants will be in deficit, and past -1000 kPa they start to suffer. Depending on the plant, water potentials below -1000 to -2000 kPa cause permanent wilting.

So, why would we want to measure water potential? Water content can only tell you how much water you have. If you want to know how fast water can move, you need to measure hydraulic conductivity. If you want to know whether water will move and where it’s going to go, you need water potential.

Learn more

Soil moisture is more than just knowing the amount of water in soil. Learn basic principles you need to know before deciding how to measure it. In this 20-minute webinar, discover:

Water content: what it is, how it’s measured, and why you need it
Water potential: what it is, how it’s different from water content, and why you need it
Whether you should measure water content, water potential, or both
Which sensors measure each type of parameter

Many questions about water availability and movement are best answered by measuring water potential. To find out more, watch any of the virtual seminars below, or visit our new water potential website.

Download the “Researcher’s complete guide to water potential”—>

Water Potential 101: Making Use of an Important Tool

Water Potential 201: Choosing the Right Instrument

Water Potential 301: How to Push Your Instruments Past their Specifications

Water Potential 401: Advances in Field Water Potential

Find out when you should measure both water potential and water content.

Take our Soil Moisture Master Class

Watch it now—>

Download the “Researcher’s complete guide to soil moisture”—>

Measuring and Modeling the Environment

Posts from the ‘Water Potential sensors’ Category

New Challenges for Green Roofs

Measurements Required for Green Roof Validation

Other Projects and Future Plans

Why Green Roofs?

Finding Answers

What Has Been Learned?

Water Potential and Pore Size:

Sample Disturbance

Hygrometers

Tensiometers

The Quest for Repeatability

Why Hasn’t This Been Done Before?

The Pilot Study

Soil Media: Advantages and Disadvantages

What’s Unique About this Study?

Plans for the Future

The Ultimate Goal

Take our Soil Moisture Master Class

Managing Irrigation

Why Measure Moisture in Concrete?

Better Readings:

New Methods:

What Does It Mean for the Future?

How Does Temperature Measure Water Potential?

Where is the Liquid Water in a Frozen Soil?

Why Worry about Frozen Water Potential?

Before Soil Sensors

Sensors Give a Clear Picture

Errors Revealed

What’s happening with the water?

What the Future Holds:

Low Impact Design Structures

Infiltration and Recharge

Sensors Tell the Story

Rain Gauges Yield Surprises

Future El Niño Precipitation

Learn more

Take our Soil Moisture Master Class