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.”
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.
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.
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).
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.
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
