Simultaneous monitoring of soil water content and salinity with a lowcost capacitanceresistance probe.  
Jump to Full Text  
MedLine Citation:

PMID: 23250279 Owner: NLM Status: InDataReview 
Abstract/OtherAbstract:

Capacitance and resistivity sensors can be used to continuously monitor soil volumetric water content (θ) and porewater electrical conductivity (EC(p)) with nondestructive methods. However, dielectric readings of capacitance sensors operating at low frequencies are normally biased by high soil electrical conductivity. A procedure to calibrate capacitanceresistance probes in saline conditions was implemented in contrasting soils. A lowcost capacitanceresistance probe (ECH2O5TE, 70 MHz, Decagon Devices, Pullman, WA, USA) was used in five soils at four water contents (i.e., from dry conditions to saturation) and four salinity levels of the wetting solution (0, 5, 10, and 15 dS·m1). θ was accurately predicted as a function of the dielectric constant, apparent electrical conductivity (EC(a)), texture and organic carbon content, even in high salinity conditions. Four models to estimate porewater electrical conductivity were tested and a set of empirical predicting functions were identified to estimate the model parameters based on easily available soil properties (e.g., texture, soil organic matter). The four models were reformulated to estimate EC(p) as a function of EC(a), dielectric readings, and soil characteristics, improving their performances with respect to the original model formulation. Lowcost capacitanceresistance probes, if properly calibrated, can be effectively used to monitor water and solute dynamics in saline soils. 
Authors:

Elia Scudiero; Antonio Berti; Pietro Teatini; Francesco Morari 
Related Documents
:

18635249  An integrated colloid fractionation approach applied to the characterisation of porewat... 24390639  Energy costs of carbon dioxide concentrating mechanisms in aquatic organisms. 23710459  Engineering microbial cells for the biosynthesis of natural compounds of pharmaceutical... 23152149  A rapid diagnostic technique of bactrocera cucurbitae and bactrocera zonata (diptera: t... 14987709  Plutonium isotope ratios in the yenisey and ob estuaries. 19394119  Using sequential extraction techniques to assess the partitioning of plutonium and nept... 7982389  The impact of soil lead abatement on urban children's blood lead levels: phase ii resul... 21248349  Effect of stomaching on numbers of bacteria recovered from chicken skin. 19941669  Natural selection drives the finescale divergence of a coevolutionary arms race involv... 
Publication Detail:

Type: Journal Article Date: 20121218 
Journal Detail:

Title: Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) Volume: 12 ISSN: 14248220 ISO Abbreviation: Sensors (Basel) Publication Date: 2012 
Date Detail:

Created Date: 20121219 Completed Date:  Revised Date:  
Medline Journal Info:

Nlm Unique ID: 101204366 Medline TA: Sensors (Basel) Country: Switzerland 
Other Details:

Languages: eng Pagination: 17588607 Citation Subset: IM 
Affiliation:

Department of Agronomy, Food, Natural Resources, Animals and Environment (DAFNAE), University of Padua, Viale dell'Università, 16, 35020 Legnaro, Italy. francesco.morari@unipd.it. 
Export Citation:

APA/MLA Format Download EndNote Download BibTex 
MeSH Terms  
Descriptor/Qualifier:

Full Text  
Journal Information Journal ID (nlmta): Sensors (Basel) Journal ID (isoabbrev): Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 14248220 Publisher: Molecular Diversity Preservation International (MDPI) 
Article Information Download PDF © 2012 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland License: Received Day: 12 Month: 11 Year: 2012 Revision Received Day: 13 Month: 12 Year: 2012 Accepted Day: 14 Month: 12 Year: 2012 collection publication date: Month: 12 Year: 2012 Electronic publication date: Day: 18 Month: 12 Year: 2012 Volume: 12 Issue: 12 First Page: 17588 Last Page: 17607 PubMed Id: 23250279 ID: 3571855 DOI: 10.3390/s121217588 Publisher Id: sensors1217588 
Simultaneous Monitoring of Soil Water Content and Salinity with a LowCost CapacitanceResistance Probe  
Elia Scudiero^{1}  
Antonio Berti^{1}  
Pietro Teatini^{2}  
Francesco Morari^{1}*  
1Department of Agronomy, Food, Natural Resources, Animals and Environment (DAFNAE), University of Padua, Viale dell’Università, 16, 35020 Legnaro, Italy; EMails: elia.scudiero@studenti.unipd.it (E.S.); antonio.berti@unipd.it (A.B.) 

2Department of Civil, Environmental and Architectural Engineering (ICEA), University of Padua, Via Trieste, 63, 35131 Padova, Italy; EMail: teatini@dmsa.unipd.it 

*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed; EMail: francesco.morari@unipd.it; Tel.: +39498272857; Fax: +39498272839. 
Coastal farmlands are often threatened by saltwater contamination that poses a serious risk for drinking water quality and agricultural activities. To control and evaluate the hazard of soil salinity, accurate measurements of soil water content and solute concentrations are needed. The term salinity refers to the presence of the major dissolved inorganic solutes (basically Na^{+}, Mg^{2+}, Ca^{2+}, K^{+}, Cl^{−}, SO_{4}^{2−}, HCO_{3}^{−}, NO_{3}^{−}, and CO_{3}^{2−} ions) in the soil [^{1}]. The salinity of a solution can be quantified in terms of its electrical conductivity (EC; dS·m^{−1}), which is strictly related to the total concentration of dissolved salts, with 1 dS m^{−1} being approximately equivalent to 10 meq·L^{−1} at 25 °C [^{2}]. Soil salinity is generally determined by measuring the electrical conductivity of aqueous extracts of saturated soilpastes (EC_{e}) or of other soil to water ratio extracts. However, such methods of investigation are destructive, timeconsuming, and usually not representative of the real salinity status of soils in field conditions [^{1}]. To determine the real (i.e., at actual soil water contents) stress conditions affecting crops and to monitor fluxes of salts (e.g., upward fluxes in the vadose zone) the electrical conductivity of the porewater (EC_{p}) should be measured instead. Multisensor probes have recently been developed in order to assess water content and electrical conductivity with continuous and nondestructive measurements.
The capacitance (dielectric) technique has been widely used to estimate soil volumetric water content (θ) [^{3}]. Capacitance sensors induce an alternating electric field in the surrounding medium. The total complex impedance is obtained by quantifying the voltage and the current induced by the electric field on the sensor electrodes. The impedance is related to the complex permittivity (or dielectric constant; ε_{r}) of the surrounding medium. The volume of the induced electric field depends mainly on the size and shape of the sensor electrodes. Moreover, the electric field decays rapidly, being inversely proportional to the square of the distance. Topp et al.[^{4}] noticed a strict correlation between ε_{r} measured by time domain reflectometry (TDR) and soil water content. They therefore proposed an empirical thirddegree polynomial in ε_{r} to calculate θ. The complex permittivity of the soil measured by dielectric sensors is the sum of soil real (ε’) and imaginary (ε″) permittivity (dielectric loss):
(1)
εr=ε′−j×ε″ 
The determination of the porewater electrical conductivity is a difficult task as it cannot be directly related to any sensor output. Typically sensors measure soil bulk (or apparent) electrical conductivity (EC_{a}), which is the combination of the contributions of the three phases constituting soils: solid, water and air [^{9},^{13}]. According to Corwin [^{14}], three pathways of current flow contribute to the EC_{a} measurement: current through the pore water solution (the liquid phase pathway); current through exchange complexes on the surface of soil colloids (the soilliquid phase pathway); and current through the soil particles that are in direct contact (the solid pathway). EC_{a} can be estimated from ε_{r} readings [^{15}] or from the electrical resistance that soil opposes to an alternating electric current [^{13},^{14}]. EC_{p} and EC_{a} are strictly correlated, indeed an increase of ions in the matrix solution leads to an increase of EC_{a} values [^{8},^{16},^{17}].
Several models to estimate EC_{p} from EC_{a} have been developed in the last sixty years, based on empirical relations as well as on theoretical assumptions. Models are usually based on the empirical relationship between EC_{a} and θ at constant EC_{p} values, where the magnitude of EC_{a} varies according to the tortuosity of the electrical current paths (depending on soil texture, density and particle geometry, particle pore distribution, and organic matter content). Tortuosity can be expressed in terms of a soil transmission factor (π) [^{16},^{18},^{19}] or soiltyperelated parameters [^{20}–^{22}].
Recent development of lowcost multisensor probes could make such EC_{p} models implementable for continuous monitoring purposes. However, since most of the EC_{p} models are calibrated in limited soil conditions [^{9},^{23}–^{25}], new relationships between variables and soil properties must be defined to extend their applicability to a wider range of soils.
The general aim of this study was to calibrate a multisensor probe for monitoring soil volumetric water content and soil water electrical conductivity in a heterogeneous saline coastal area. The specific objectives were: (i) to develop a procedure to simultaneously calibrate θ and EC_{p}; (ii) to test different models for EC_{p}; and (iii) to develop general functions to extend EC_{p} model application to a wide range of soils, even in critical saline conditions.
The sensor used in this experiment was an ECH_{2}O5TE probe (hereafter simply referred to as 5TE). 5TE is a multifunction sensor measuring ε_{r}, EC_{a}, and T (Decagon Devices Inc., Pullman, WA, USA). A detailed description of the 5TE can be found in Bogena et al.[^{26}] and Campbell and Greenway [^{27}]. The probe is a forktype sensor (0.1 m in length, 0.032 m in height). Two of the three tines host the dielectric sensor. The capacitance sensor supplies a 70 MHz electromagnetic wave to the prongs that charge according to the dielectric of the soil surrounding the sensor. The reference soil volume is ca. 3 × 10^{−4}·m^{3}. A charge is consequently stored in the prongs and it is proportional to the soil dielectric. Previous versions of dielectric sensors by Decagon Devices operate at lower frequencies (e.g., ECHO10 probe, 5 MHz). The increase of operating frequency has led to a higher salinity tolerance [^{6},^{8},^{12}]. In fact ε_{r} measurement with 5TE should not be affected by soil salinity up to EC_{e} values of 10 dS·m^{−1}[^{28}].
The bulk electrical conductivity is measured with a twosensor array. The array consists of two screws placed on two of the sensor tines. An alternating electrical current is applied on the two screws and the resistance between them is measured. The sensor measures electrical conductivity up to 23.1 dS m^{−1} with 10% accuracy; however a user calibration is suggested above 7 dS·m^{−1}. Temperature is measured with a surfacemounted thermistor reading the temperature on the surface of one of the prongs.
Soil samples from a coastal farmland affected by saltwater intrusion [^{29},^{30}] were cored for the calibration of the 5TE probe. The site is located at Ca’ Bianca, Chioggia (12°13′55.218″E; 45°10′57.862″N), just south of the Venice Lagoon, NorthEastern Italy. The area has high spatial variability in soil characteristics due to its deltaic origins (Figure 1).
Three sampling locations were chosen in the basin (sites A, B, and C, Figure 1). At sites A and B both topsoil (0 to 0.4 m depth) and subsoil (0.4 to 0.8 m depth) were collected, while only the topsoil was cored at site C since the profile is uniform. The main physical and chemical properties of the samples were characterized. Soil texture was determined with a laser particle size analyzer (Mastersizer 2000, Malvern Instruments Ltd., Great Malvern, UK). Soil total carbon content and soil organic carbon (SOC) content were analyzed with a Vario Macro Cube CNS analyzer (Elementar Analysensysteme GmbH, Hanau, Germany). Cation exchange capacity (CEC) was measured at a pH value of 8.2 according to the BaCl extraction method [^{31}]. Soil pH was measured with a 1:2 soil to water ratio with a pHmeter (S47K, Mettler Toledo, Greifensee, Switzerland). Particle density (ρ_{r}) was measured with an ethanol pycnometer [^{32}]. Bulk density (ρ_{b}) was determined from undisturbed core samples. EC_{e} was measured according to Rhoades et al.[^{1}].
Soil samples show high variability in sand (from 174.7 to 905.2 g·kg^{−1}), organic carbon content (from 15.4 to 147.8 g·kg^{−1}), and EC_{e} values (from 0.61 to 6.38 dS·m^{−1}). Five soil types were selected: a sandy soil with low SOC content and low EC_{e}, a siltyclayloam with low SOC content and high EC_{e}, two loam and one clayloam with mediumhigh SOC content. Main soil properties are listed in Table 1.
The 5TE probe was used in a mixture of soil (preliminarily airdried and sifted at 2 mm) and saline solution (54.92% Cl^{−}; 30.82% Na^{+}; 7.68% SO_{4}^{2−}; 3.81% Mg^{2+}; 1.21% Ca^{2+}; 1.12% K^{+}; 0.44%NaHCO_{4}) to reproduce saline groundwater of the experimental site [^{33}]. Soil samples were moistened to a relative saturation (S) of about 0, 0.35, 0.75, and 1.00 with a saline solution of 0, 5, 10, and 15 dS·m^{−1} (at 25 °C). The mixtures were prepared in a plastic container and then sealed and kept in a dark place at constant temperature 22 ± 1 °C for 48 hours. The soil was then packed uniformly in a 6 × 10^{−4}·m^{3} beaker to reproduce the field bulk density. Output values for ε_{r}, EC_{a}, and T were recorded by a datalogger (Em50, Decagon Devices) connected to the 5TE probe.
Electrical conductivity of the wetting solution (EC_{w}) differs from the electrical conductivity of the porewater (EC_{p}) [^{21}]. Porewater solution was extracted from a portion of the soil sample by vacuum displacement [^{34}] at −90 kPa and EC_{p} was measured with a S47K conductivity meter. EC_{e} was then measured on the remaining soil sample. Water content was determined gravimetrically (at 105 °C for 24 hours). Measures were replicated 3 times.
A threestep procedure was implemented to calibrate the sensor output for the collected samples: (1) model calibration to convert ε_{r} and EC_{a} readings to θ or EC_{p}; (2) comparison and selection of the best models; (3) simultaneous calibration of the selected models for θ and EC_{p} and evaluation of their robustness by applying a bootstrap procedure.
Dielectric permittivity can be converted to volumetric water content using empirical models (e.g., [^{4}]). However temperature and soil electrical conductivity affect the dielectric permittivity measurements of ECH_{2}O sensors [^{5},^{35},^{36}]. In one of their latest studies, Rosenbaum et al.[^{5}] developed an empirical calibration to correct the temperature effect on ε_{r} measurements which performed very well in both liquid and soil media. Investigating the effect of temperature on ε_{r}, Bogena et al. [^{26}] concluded that in a T range from 5 °C and 40 °C, ε_{r} varies up to 8% with respect to the reference liquid used (ε_{r} = 40 at 25 °C). As all the calibration experiments presented in this work took place at a controlled temperature of 22 ± 1 °C, the effect of T on ε_{r} was considered negligible. On the other hand, ε_{r} is much more sensitive to electrical conductivity changes [^{37}].
Polynomial modeltypes as that proposed by Topp et al. [^{4}] do not provide satisfactory θ estimates in the presence of high clay and organic contents or in saline soils, especially using sensors operating at low frequencies [^{12},^{38}]. Indeed, application of the Topp model to the experimental data of Ca’ Bianca provided a large average error (∼0.11 m^{3}·m^{−3}).
Three models were tested to find a satisfactory empirical relationship between ε_{r} and θ data for each soil at different EC_{w} values, namely:
 logistic model:
[Formula ID: FD2]
(2)θ=θMAX1+e−(a+b×εr)−U  hyperbolic model:
[Formula ID: FD3]
(3)θ=θMAX×a×εrθMAX+a×εr  logarithmic model:
[Formula ID: FD4]where θ_{MAX} is the volumetric content at saturation, a, b, and U are fitting parameters.
(4)θ=a+b×ln(εr)
The three models were compared with the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) [^{39}] and the one with the higher Akaike weight (W_{AIC}) [^{40}] was selected for the subsequent simultaneous calibration of θ and EC_{p}. The Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) is a measure of the goodness of fit of a specific model. It allows the direct comparison of different concurrent equations for model selection purposes. AIC accounts for the risk of overparameterization as well as for the goodness of fit; several models can be ranked according to their AIC, with the one having the lower value being the best. From the AIC, the Akaike weight (ΣW_{AIC} = 1) can be computed, which represents the probability that a specific model is the best, given the data and the set of candidate models. Note that the fitting parameters showed a high dependence on EC_{a} and physicochemical soil characteristics. To take this effect into account, the fitting parameters were expressed as a linear function of EC_{a} and other selected soil properties yielding a “general” calibration equation usable on the various soils of the study site.
Four models were tested: the first is the Malicki and Walczak [^{21}] model. They found that, when ε_{r} is higher than 6.2, the slope ∂EC_{a}/∂ε_{r} depends only on salinity but not on water content, nor bulk density, nor dielectric permittivity. They developed an empirical relationship linearly linking EC_{a} to ε_{r} for various values of EC_{w}, i.e., EC_{a}(ε_{r},EC_{w}). The validity of the linear relationships holds above a “converging point” characterized by ε_{r0} = 6.2 and EC_{a0} = 0.08 dS·m^{−1}. EC_{p} was consequently defined as a function of EC_{a}(ε_{r},EC_{w}) and soil texture:
(5)
ECp=ECa−ECa0(εr−εr0)×l 
On the basis of Equation (5), Hilhorst [^{20}] developed the following theoretical model:
(6)
ECp=εp×ECaεr−εECa=0 
(7)
εp=80.3−0.37×(T−20) 
The third tested model is the one proposed by Rhoades et al.[^{16}] (hereafter simply referred as Rhoades). They expressed the porewater electrical conductivity as:
(8)
ECp=ECa−ECsθ×π 
(9)
π=c+d×θ 
Archie’s law [^{22}] (hereafter simply referred as Archie) was developed to assess the conductivity of porewater in clayfree rocks and sediments, and it has been therefore used in soils containing neither clay minerals nor organic matter. According to Archie EC_{p} can be derived as follows:
(10)
ECp=k×ECaϕm×Sn 
Archie has been modified in order to be used also in soils containing clay minerals [^{42}] by simply considering the contribution of EC_{s} in Equation (10). Hence, EC_{p} was defined as:
(11)
ECp=k×ECa−ECsϕm×Sn 
Despite the fact that Archie was originally developed for deep sediments in oil research, it has been successfully applied in shallow groundwater systems to trace salinity. An example of such implementation is given by Monego et al.[^{43}]. It is worth noticing that Archie and Rhoades show a similar formulation, being equal when m = 1 and n = 1 (then k = 1/π).
The four models apply for θ > 0.1 m^{3}·m^{−3} (for Rhoades and Hilhorst), θ > 0.2 m^{3}·m^{−3} (for Malicki and Walczak), and S > 0.3 (for Archie).
The models were tested with the experimental (EC_{a},ε_{r}) values and the chemical and physical properties of the five soil samples collected at Ca’ Bianca. In a first step, the original formulations were tested by calculating the parameters according to the methodologies proposed by the authors. Next, the models were optimized by relating the calibration parameters to the physical and chemical characteristics of the soils. EC_{p} data at S ≈ 0.35 were excluded from the optimization as it was impossible to collect a sufficient amount of solution with the extraction method used in this experiment. EC_{p} data at S ≈ 0 were assumed equal to 0 dS·m^{−1}[^{8}].
The model parameters for the simultaneous quantification of θ and EC_{p} were calibrated by minimizing the following objective function:
(12)
RSStot=∑i=1N(ECp,i−EC^p,i)2+∑j=1M(W1×W2×(θj−θ^j))2 
(13)
W2=M×∑i=1NECp,iN×∑j=1Mθj 
This weighted procedure prevents one data type (i.e., EC_{p} or θ) from dominating the other, solely because of its higher numerical values.
In this study the limited dataset size (M = 80 and N = 55) did not allow a validation to be performed on an independent set of data. The models were thus validated through a bootstrap procedure [^{45}]. A Y number of iterations were carried out. At each iteration, a subset of 60 points out of 80 for θ and 42 out of 55 for EC_{p} were extracted, forming the calibration dataset. The remaining points were retained for validation.
At the end of the iterations, the root mean square error ( RMSE=∑i=1n(xi−x^i)2/n), which provides the goodness of fit, the median, and the 5th and 95th percentiles of the distribution of each parameter were retained for further analysis. The probability distribution function of RMSE was compared using the KolmogorovSmirnov (KS) test to assess the significance of difference in the model predictions.
The calibration procedure described above was performed using the Generalized Reduced Gradient (GRG) Nonlinear Solving Method (Frontline Systems, Inc., Incline Village, NV, USA).
Dependence of 5TE on bulk electrical conductivity was observed to be similar in all the tested soil samples. ε_{r} readings were greatly affected by EC_{a}: especially for high θ values, a small increase in EC_{w} significantly raised the dielectric output of the probe, indicating that dielectric readings carried out in highly conductive media must be corrected. This finding confirms the results by Rosenbaum et al.[^{5}] on the same probe and by Saito et al.[^{8}] on other Decagon dielectric probes operating at lower frequencies. An example of the nonlinear response of ε_{r} at different EC_{w} and θ values is presented in Figure 2(a). Starting from a relative saturation of 0.75, the response of the probe significantly diverged at salinity solution with EC_{w} > 10 dS m^{−1}. Figure 2(b) evidences also the direct effect of the EC_{w} on EC_{a} readings and how the effect was amplified at higher water content. This observation, confirmed by Schwank et al.[^{11}] and Rosenbaum et al.[^{5}], suggests investigating the effect of EC_{a} on θ estimation.
Between the tested θ models, Equation (4) showed the best performances, with an Akaike weight W_{AIC} close to 1 (Table 2).
Parameters a and b of the logarithmic model were found to be significantly correlated with the EC_{a} values at different water contents. Therefore the logarithmic model was reformulated as:
(14)
θ=(a′+a″×ECa)+(b′+b″×ECa)×ln(εr) 
(15)
θ=(a′+a″×ECa)×(1+q×ln(εr)) 
Equations (14) and (15) were compared with the AIC test. A W_{AIC} = 0.99 was obtained for Equation (15), indicating that this formulation of the logarithmic model is to be preferred over Equation (14), mainly for the reduced number of parameters.
To identify a “general” equation, q was set as a constant (=−0.766), whereas parameters a′ and a″ were related to soil properties (Table 3). Parameters a′ and a″ were estimated according to the following empirical equations:
(16)
a′=−0.352−0.006×SOC(%) 
(17)
a″=0.020−0.009×clay(%)sand(%) 
Equation (15) allows correcting of the effect of dielectric losses due to the high electrical conductivity of the medium [^{3}] due to high organic carbon content, salinity, and clay/sand ratio. The RMSE of Equation (15) was 0.038 m^{3}·m^{−3}.
The parameters of models (5), (6), (8), and (11) showed significant correlations with soil properties (Table 3).
The parameter l by Malicki and Walczak was confirmed to be mainly correlated to sand content. The calibrated parameters for Equation (5) are: EC_{a0} = 0.06 dS·m^{−1}; ε_{r0} = 7.1; l = 0.012 + 10^{−6}× sand(%) yielding RMSE = 2.52 dS·m^{−1}. In the original paper by Malicki and Walczak l varied from 0.0083 to 0.0127 while in this experiment the range was narrower, from 0.0117 to 0.0124.
The ε_{(ECa = 0)} parameter by Hilhorst was expressed as a function of soil organic carbon content:
(18)
εEC=0=4.851+0.203×SOC(%) 
According to Equation (18), ε_{ECa = 0} ranged from 5.16 to 7.85, values close to the interval found by Hilhorst (from 3.76 to 7.6 in soils and synthetic media). The calibrated model yielded RMSE = 2.34 dS m^{−1}.
Concerning the Rhoades and Archie models, the term EC_{s} was neglected as the 5TE probe registered EC_{a} = 0 in dry soil conditions. Please note that other Authors [^{41}] demonstrated that EC_{s} could assume a certain magnitude.
In contrast to Equation (9) by Rhoades et al.[^{16}], π was found to be uncorrelated with soil water content. Nevertheless, π showed a linear correlation with soil porosity (π = e + f × ϕ), with e and f depending on CaCO_{3} as follows:
(19)
π=(0.129×CaCO3(%)−1.779)+(−0.232×CaCO3(%)+3.989)×ϕ 
In the tested samples π ranged from 0.22 to 0.71, whereas Rhoades et al.[^{16}] found a variation from 0.01 to 0.6. The inverse correlation of CaCO_{3} with the tortuosity factor evidenced in the Ca’ Bianca soils can be explained by the fact that here a low CaCO_{3} content corresponds to high clay and SOC percentages. Indeed, the higher clay and SOC contents (more complicated geometric arrangement), the higher is soil tortuosity [^{41}]. The “general” formulation of the Rhoades model provided RMSE = 0.90 dS m^{−1}.
Several formulations were attempted for Archie in order to decrease the number of parameters related to soil properties. Here, the parameters k, m, and n were alternately fixed and kept independent from the soil type. The formulation with k = 0.487 provided the best fitting according to the AIC test. With fixed k, n showed a significant correlation with sand content:
(20)
n=−0.669+0.035×sand(%) 
It is worth noticing that with higher sand contents (Figure 3(a)) n ≅ 2.5, which is close to n values suggested for sandy media [^{13}]. As shown in Table 3, n decreases with increasing clay values. For given S and EC_{a} values, it is clearly derived from Equation (10) that the smaller the n the higher is EC_{p}, i.e., with a large percentage of clay the influence of “the liquid phase pathway” on the EC_{a} reading is reduced [^{14},^{41}]. A nonlinear relationship was detected between m and soil organic carbon (Figure 3(b)):
(21)
m=−0.018×SOC(%)+4.350×SOC(%)SOC(%)+0.966 
Values of m between 2.65 and 3.82 were derived. As reported by Archie, m becomes larger as the permeability of the porous medium decreases (increasing tortuosity). As shown in Figure 3(b) the magnitude of m rises with SOC. High organic contents decrease soil bulk density, possibly increasing soil tortuosity [^{46}]. Archie calibration returned RMSE = 0.65 dS m^{−1}.
Comparison between the RMSE values computed for the four EC_{p} models showed that the “general” formulation of Archie provided the best estimates. Archie also had the highest W_{AIC} (∼1.00). For the Malicki and Walczak, Hilhorst, and Rhoades models the W_{AIC} were close to zero.
These results are also confirmed by the linear regressions between measured and estimated EC_{p} (Figure 4). As displayed in this figure the models by Malicki and Walczak, and by Hilhorst did not show a good fitting, especially at high EC_{p} values, as already observed by [^{23},^{25}].
The different performances of the four models at various salinity ranges were tested resampling observed and estimated EC_{p} 2,000 times, to compute average RMSEs and their confidence intervals at p = 0.05 as previously done by Giardini et al.[^{47}]. The selected ranges were: (a) the 0–3 dS·m^{−1} and >3 dS·m^{−1}; and (b) the 0–10 dS·m^{−1} and >10 dS·m^{−1}.
At low EC_{p} range (i.e., EC_{p} < 3 dS·m^{−1}) Rhoades showed the smallest RMSE (0.57 dS·m^{−1}), nevertheless its performance was not significantly different from those by Hilhorst (RMSE = 0.93 dS·m^{−1}) and Archie (RMSE = 0.72 dS·m^{−1}). On the contrary, the model by Malicki and Walczak provided significantly higher errors (RMSE = 1.69 dS·m^{−1}).
Above 3 dS·m^{−1}, the models by Malicki and Walczak and by Hilhorst significantly differentiated from the other two. In fact they generally overestimated EC_{p} in the range from 3 to 10 dS·m^{−1} with RMSE equal to 2.16 and 1.43 dS·m^{−1}, respectively. On the other hand they underestimated EC_{p} when the porewater was very conductive (i.e., EC_{p} > 10 dS·m^{−1}), with RMSE = 3.28 dS·m^{−1} and RMSE = 3.83 dS·m^{−1}, respectively.
In their work, Malicki and Walczak used TDR probes at fairly high frequencies, reducing the influence of EC_{a} on ε_{r}. Moreover, their study was conducted using a wetting solution with a maximum conductivity of 11.7 dS·m^{−1}. In the present work, calibrating the Malicki and Walczak model only for EC_{p} < 10 dS·m^{−1} would provide satisfactory estimations (RMSE = 1.00 dS·m^{−1}). Moreover, the metrics of fitting regression would have shown a slope and intercept of 0.837 and 0.680, yielding very similar results to those obtained by Malicki and Walczak in their work. With some limitations, the model by Malicki and Walczak might therefore be used in capacitance applications as well as TDR [^{21}] and frequencydomain reflectometry [^{10}].
Hilhorst validated his model in a much lower EC_{p} range than the one used in this work. Hilhorst actually indicated the validity upper bound for the probe used in his work as 3 dS·m^{−1}. Indeed, in the present study the model showed good performances in the 0–3 dS·m^{−1} range. Moreover, calibrating the model for EC_{p} <10 dS·m^{−1} would suitably yield a RMSE of 0.68 dS·m^{−1} with an observedestimated relationship having a slope and an intercept of 0.957 and 0.127, respectively. Most likely, the higher operating frequency of 5TE compared to the capacitive probe used by Hilhorst (i.e., 30 MHz) could have increased the range of model validity. However, as stated by Hilhorst, the model assumptions cease to be valid at higher salt concentrations as ε_{p} significantly deviates from that of free water (Equation (7)). From the experiment presented here this limit seems to be EC_{p} ∼ 10 dS·m^{−1}.
The comparison of the error distribution at different EC_{p} ranges showed that Rhoades and Archie did not give significantly different performances. Nevertheless, the Rhoades model showed a larger RMSE at high EC_{p} values than at low ones (EC_{p} < 10 dS·m^{−1}: RMSE = 0.78 dS·m^{−1}; EC_{p} > 10 dS·m^{−1}: RMSE = 1.17 dS·m^{−1}). On the other hand, the Archie model showed a greater consistency over the two salinity ranges (EC_{p} < 10 dS·m^{−1}: RMSE = 0.69 dS·m^{−1}; EC_{p} > 10 dS·m^{−1}: RMSE = 0.54 dS·m^{−1}).
As reported above, the “general” formulations of Rhoades and Archie showed overall similar performances. As already stated experimental θ values were used in the two equations. A simultaneous calibration was then done estimating EC_{p} and θ from EC_{a} and ε_{r} readings by substituting the “general” logarithmic θ model (Equation (15)) within Rhoades and Archie “general” models. The W_{1} weight (Equation (12)) was set to 0.5, thus improving the EC_{p} estimation without notably worsening the θ evaluation.
The combined logarithmic θ model and Rhoades reads:
(22)
ECp=ECa(a′Rhoades+a″Rhoades×ECa)×(1−0.742×ln(εr))×πRhoades 
(23)
a′Rhoades=−0.427−4.0⋅10−5×SOC(%) 
(24)
a″Rhoades=0.024−0.008×clay(%)sand(%) 
(25)
πRhoades=(0.074×CaCO3(%)−1.354)+(−0.132×CaCO3(%)+3.232)×ϕ 
Similarly, the combined logarithmic θ model and Archie becomes:
(26)
ECp=0.466×ECaϕmArchie((a′Archie+a″Archie×ECa)×(1−0.738×ln(εr))ϕ)nArchie 
(27)
a′Archie=−0.427−0.006×SOC(%) 
(28)
a″Archie=0.036−0.012×clay(%)sand(%) 
(29)
mArchie=−2.8⋅10−4×SOC(%)+4.134×SOC(%)SOC(%)+0.719 
(30)
n=−0.697+0.040×sand(%) 
The calibration of Equation (22) yielded RSME values for θ and EC_{p} of 0.048 m^{3}·m^{−3} and 0.77 dS·m^{−1}, respectively. Better overall results were obtained by Equation (26): RMSE = 0.046 m^{3}·m^{−3} and RMSE = 0.63 dS·m^{−1} for θ and EC_{p}, respectively. It is worth noting that the simultaneously calibrated parameters were very close to the independently calibrated ones.
A bootstrap validation was done on the simultaneous calibrations. A total of 5,000 iterations were operated for both Equations (22) and (26). Table 4 shows the variations of the slope and intercept of the fitting linear regression between observed and predicted values. Soil water content was correctly predicted by both the equations: the slope and intercept medians of the observedestimated relationships were fairly close to 1 and 0, respectively. EC_{p} predictions were less accurate, generally overestimated by Equation (22) and underestimated by Equation (26) (Table 4).
According to the KolmogorovSmirnov test, significant differences were observed between the two equations. The Archiebased model provided significantly lower RMSE values on the validation sets for both θ (p < 0.01) and EC_{p} (p < 0.01) (Figure 5(a,b)). Equations (22) or (26) provided similar maximum errors for water content, with maximum RMSE of 0.08 m^{3}·m^{−3} and 0.09 m^{3}·m^{−3}, respectively. On the other hand, Equation (22) produced a maximum EC_{p} error higher than that of Equation (26) (451.42 dS·m^{−1}vs. 211.26 dS·m^{−1}). The overall more accurate prediction of the system implementing Archie can be justified by the more flexible functional form of the EC_{p} model allowed by the two exponential parameters.
Lowcost capacitanceresistance multiprobe sensors are becoming popular for agroenvironmental studies. In order to obtain reliable results, robust models for soil water content and porewater electrical conductivity must be calibrated in different soil and climatic conditions, especially when these instruments are used in coastal areas with contrasting soils and affected by saltwater contamination.
This experiment verifies the possibility of simultaneously quantifying water content and porewater electrical conductivity from complex permittivity, bulk electrical conductivity, and soil temperature measurements performed by the ECH_{2}O5TE (Decagon Devices, Inc.) probe. This result was achieved by improving empirical/theoretical reference models with the use of parameters dependent on physical and chemical soil properties, such as texture, soil organic carbon and soil carbonates. The improved models, in particular the one developed starting from Archie’s law, prove to be reliable and robust over a wide range of water content (from dry to saturated conditions), salinity conditions (porewater electrical conductivity from 0 to ∼20 dS·m^{−1}), and soil types (from sand with low SOC to clayloam with high SOC).
Further studies performed in different soil and climatic environment coupled with improved dielectric sensors (e.g., with higher operating frequencies) will allow the accuracy of soil water content and porewater salinity determination to be increased.
This study was funded within the Research Programme “GEORISKS: Geological, Morphological and Hydrological Processes: Monitoring, Modelling and Impact in the NorthEastern Italy”, WP4, the University of Padova, Italy.
θ  volumetric water content 
ε_{r}  soil complex permittivity 
EC_{a}  bulk electrical conductivity 
EC_{p}  porewater electrical conductivity 
EC_{w}  electrical conductivity of the solution used to wet the soil 
EC_{s}  electrical conductivity of the solid phase 
EC_{e}  electrical conductivity of aqueous extract of saturated soilpaste 
References
1..  Rhoades J.D.,Chanduvi F.,Lesch S.M.. Soil Salinity Assessment: Methods and Interpretation of Electrical Conductivity MeasurementsFood & Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO)Rome, ItalyYear: 1999 
2..  Richards L.A.,US Salinity Laboratory StaffUSDA Handbook No. 60. Diagnosis and Improvement of Saline and Alkali SoilsU.S. Government Printing OfficeWashington, DC, USAYear: 1954 
3..  Fares A.,Polyakov V.. Advances in Crop Water Management using Capacitive Water SensorsAdv. AgronYear: 2006904377 
4..  Topp G.C.,Davis J.L.,Annan A.P.. Electromagnetic Determination of Soil Water Content: Measurements in Coaxial Transmission LinesWater Resour. ResYear: 198016574582 
5..  Rosenbaum U.,Huisman J.A.,Vrba J.,Vereecken H.,Bogena H.R.. Correction of Temperature and Electrical Conductivity Effects on Dielectric Permittivity Measurements with ECH2O SensorsVadose Zone JYear: 201110582593 
6..  Kelleners T.J.,Soppe R.W.O.,Robinson D.A.,Schaap M.G.,Ayars J.E.,Skaggs T.H.. Calibration of Capacitance Probe Sensors Using Electric Circuit TheorySoil Sci. Soc. Am. JYear: 200468430439 
7..  Kelleners T.,Soppe R.,Ayars J.,Skaggs T.. Calibration of Capacitance Probe Sensors in a Saline Silty Clay SoilSoil Sci. Soc. Am. JYear: 200468770778 
8..  Saito T.,Fujimaki H.,Inoue M.. Calibration and Simultaneous Monitoring of Soil Water Content and Salinity with Capacitance and FourElectrode ProbesAm. J. Environ. SciYear: 20084683692 
9..  Friedman S.P.. Soil Properties Influencing Apparent Electrical Conductivity: A ReviewComput. Electron. AgricYear: 2005464570 
10..  Wilczek A.,Szypłowska A.,Skierucha W.,Cieśla J.,Pichler V.,Janik G.. Determination of Soil Pore Water Salinity Using an FDR Sensor Working at Various Frequencies up to 500 MHzSensorsYear: 201212108901090523112636 
11..  Schwank M.,Green T.R.. Simulated Effects of Soil Temperature and Salinity on Capacitance Sensor MeasurementsSensorsYear: 20077548577 
12..  Pardossi A.,Incrocci L.,Incrocci G.,Malorgio F.,Battista P.,Bacci L.,Rapi B.,Marzialetti P.,Hemming J.,Balendonck J.. Root Zone Sensors for Irrigation Management in Intensive AgricultureSensorsYear: 200992809283522574047 
13..  Allred B.J.,Groom D.,Reza Eshani M.,Daniels J.J.. Resistivity MethodsHandbook of Agricultural GeophysicsAllred B.J.,Daniels J.J.,Reza Ehsani M.CRC Press, Taylor & Francis GroupNew York, NY, USAYear: 200885108 
14..  Corwin D.L.. Past, Present, and Future Trends of Soil Electrical Conductivity Measurements Using Geophysical MethodsHandbook of Agricultural GeophysicsAllred B.J.,Daniels J.J.,Reza Eshani M.CRC Press, Taylor & Francis GroupNew York, NY, USAYear: 20081744 
15..  Dalton F.N.,Herkelrath W.N.,Rawlins D.S.,Rhoades J.D.. TimeDomain Reflectometry: Simultaneous Measurement of Soil Water Content and Electrical Conductivity with a Single ProbeScienceYear: 198422498999017731998 
16..  Rhoades J.D.,Raats P.A.C.,Prather R.J.. Effects of LiquidPhase Electrical Conductivity, Water Content, and Surface Conductivity on Bulk Soil Electrical ConductivitySoil Sci. Soc. Am. JYear: 197640651655 
17..  Rhoades J.,Manteghi N.A.,Shouse P.,Alves W.. Estimating Soil Salinity from Saturated SoilPaste Electrical ConductivitySoil Sci. Soc. Am. JYear: 198953428433 
18..  Mualem Y.,Friedman S.P.. Theoretical Prediction of Electrical Conductivity in Saturated and Unsaturated SoilWater Resour. ResYear: 19912727712777 
19..  Heimovaara T.J.,Focke A.G.,Bouten W.,Verstraten J.M.. Assessing Temporal Variations in Soil Water Composition with Time Domain ReflectometrySoil Sci. Soc. Am. JYear: 199559689698 
20..  Hilhorst M.A.. A Pore Water Conductivity SensorSoil Sci. Soc. Am. JYear: 20006419221925 
21..  Malicki M.A.,Walczak R.T.. Evaluating Soil Salinity Status from Bulk Electrical Conductivity and PermittivityEur. J. Soil SciYear: 199950505514 
22..  Archie G.E.. The Electrical Resistivity Log as an Aid in Determining Some Reservoir CharacteristicsTrans. AIMEYear: 194255462 
23..  Persson M.. Evaluating the Linear Dielectric ConstantElectrical Conductivity Model Using TimeDomain ReflectometryHydrol. Sci. JYear: 200247269277 
24..  Amente G.,Baker J.M.,Reece C.F.. Estimation of Soil Solution Electrical Conductivity from Bulk Soil Electrical Conductivity in Sandy SoilsSoil Sci. Soc. Am. JYear: 20006419311939 
25..  Hamed Y.P.,Magnus Berndtsson R.. Soil Solution Electrical Conductivity Measurements Using Different Dielectric TechniquesSoil Sci. Soc. Am. JYear: 20036710711078 
26..  Bogena H.R.,Herbst M.,Huisman J.A.,Rosenbaum U.,Weuthen A.,Vereecken H.. Potential of Wireless Sensor Networks for Measuring Soil Water Content VariabilityVadose Zone JYear: 2010910021113 
27..  Campbell G.S.,Greenway W.C.. Moisture Detection Apparatus and Method U.S. Patent 6904789. Day: 14 Month: 6 Year: 2005 
28..  Kizito F.,Campbell C.S.,Campbell G.S.,Cobos D.R.,Teare B.L.,Carter B.,Hopmans J.W.. Frequency, Electrical Conductivity and Temperature Analysis of a LowCost Capacitance Soil Moisture SensorJ. HydrolYear: 2008352367378 
29..  Scudiero E.,Deiana R.,Teatini P.,Cassiani G.,Morari F.. Constrained Optimization of Spatial Sampling in Salt Contaminated Coastal Farmland Using EMI and Continuous Simulated AnnealingProc. Environ. SciYear: 20117234239 
30..  Keesstra S.,Geissen V.,Mosse K.,Piiranen S.,Scudiero E.,Leistra M.,van Schaik L.. Soil as a Filter for Groundwater QualityCurr. Opin. Environ. Sustain.Year: 2012710.1016/j.cosust.2012.10.007 
31..  Sumner M.E.,Miller W.P.,Sparks D.L.,Page A.L.,Helmke P.A.,Loeppert R.H.,Soltanpour P.N.,Tabatabai M.A.,Johnston C.T.. Cation Exchange Capacity and Exchange CoefficientsMethods of Soil Analysis. Part 3Chemical MethodsSSSA and ASAMadison, WI, USAYear: 199612011229 
32..  Blake G.,Hartge K.. Particle DensityMethods of Soil Analysis. Part 1. Agronomy Monographs 9Klute A.ASAMadison, WI, USAYear: 1986377382 
33..  Gattacceca J.C.,ValletCoulomb C.,Mayer A.,Claude C.,Radakovitch O.,Conchetto E.,Hamelin B.. Isotopic and Geochemical Characterization of Salinization in the Shallow Aquifers of a Reclaimed Subsiding Zone: The Southern Venice Lagoon CoastlandJ. HydrolYear: 20093784661 
34..  Wolt J.G.,John G.. A Rapid Routine Method for Obtaining Soil Solution Using Vacuum DisplacementSoil Sci. Soc. Am. JYear: 198650602605 
35..  Jones S.B.,Blonquist J.M. Jr.,Robinson D.A.,Rasmussen V.P.,Or D.. Standardizing Characterization of Electromagnetic Water Content Sensors: Part 1. MethodologyVadose Zone JYear: 2005410481058 
36..  Saito T.,Fujimaki H.,Yasuda H.,Inoue M.. Empirical Temperature Calibration of Capacitance Probes to Measure Soil WaterSoil Sci. Soc. Am. JYear: 20097319311937 
37..  Blonquist J.M. Jr.,Jones S.B.,Robinson D.A.. Standardizing Characterization of Electromagnetic Water Content Sensors: Part 2. Evaluation of Seven Sensing SystemsVadose Zone JYear: 2005410591069 
38..  Seyfried M.,Murdock M.. Response of a New Soil Water Sensor to Variable Soil, Water Content, and TemperatureSoil Sci. Soc. Am. JYear: 2001652834 
39..  Akaike H.. A New Look at the Statistical Model IdentificationIEEE Trans. Autom. ContrYear: 197419716723 
40..  Burnham K.P.,Anderson D.R.. Model Selection and MultiModel Inference: A Practical InformationTheoretic ApproachSpringerNew York, NY, USAYear: 2002 
41..  Rhoades J.,Manteghi N.,Shouse P.,Alves W.. Soil Electrical Conductivity and Soil Salinity: New Formulations and CalibrationsSoil Sci. Soc. Am. JYear: 198953433439 
42..  Waxman M.,Smits L.. 1863AElectrical Conductivities in OilBearing Shaly SandsSPEYear: 19688107122 
43..  Monego M.,Cassiani G.,Deiana R.,Putti M.,Passadore G.,Altissimo L.. A Tracer Test in a Shallow Heterogeneous Aquifer Monitored via TimeLapse Surface Electrical Resistivity TomographyGeophysicsYear: 201075WA61 
44..  Van Genuchten M.T.,Leij F.,Yates S.. The RETC Code for Quantifying the Hydraulic Functions of Unsaturated SoilsEPAAda, OK, USAYear: 1991 
45..  Efron B.. Bootstrap Methods: Another Look at the JackknifeAnn. StatistYear: 19797126 
46..  Barber S.A.. Soil Nutrient Bioavailability: A Mechanistic ApproachJohn Wiley & Sons IncNew York, NY, USAYear: 1995 
47..  Giardini L.,Berti A.,Morari F.. Simulation of Two Cropping Systems with EPIC and CropSyst ModelsItal. J. AgronYear: 199812938 
Article Categories:
Keywords: capacitanceresistance probe, salinity, water content, porewater electrical conductivity, probe calibration. 
Previous Document: Dynamic propagation channel characterization and modeling for human body communication.
Next Document: Colonization of Potato Rhizosphere by GFPTagged Bacillus subtilis MB73/2, Pseudomonas sp. P482 and...