HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text Free Full Text (PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Topp, G. C. Articles by Young, G. D. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Topp, G. C. Articles by Young, G. D. GeoRef GeoRef Citation Agricola Articles by Topp, G. C. Articles by Young, G. D. Related Collections Mechanical Impediance Soil Methods/Instrumentation Structure and Properties

Laboratory Calibration, In-Field Validation and Use of a Soil Penetrometer Measuring Cone Resistance and Water Content

^a Eastern Cereal & Oilseed Research Centre, Agriculture & Agri-Food Canada, 960 Carling Ave., Ottawa, ON, K1A 0C6, Canada
^b Environmental Sensors Inc. (ESI), Suite 100, 4243 Glanford Ave., Victoria, BC V8Z 4B9, Canada

View larger version (112K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1. The combination penetrometer showing also the details of the time domain transmissiometry helical parallel pair transmission line, force sensor, and cone. The length of the water content sensing region was 60 mm.

View larger version (36K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Schematic depiction of in-field calibration checking spring for cone penetrometer sensor.

View larger version (10K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3. The square root of relative permittivity of selected liquids, r, (Table 1) as a function of the output voltage (V) recorded from the time domain transmissiometry sensor. The line is the linear regression reported in Table 3.

View larger version (12K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4. Two representative time domain transmissiometry voltage profiles from the Rideau C soil column at mid-range water contents. The depth axis is the cone depth below the penetrometer base.

View larger version (10K): [in a new window]   Fig. 5. North Gower silty clay loam soil column data. Apparent relative permittivity, ra, data derived from TDR vs. time domain transmissiometry (TDT) voltage, for the 0- to 0.06-m depth (solid circle), 0.06- to 0.12-m depth (hollow triangle), and 0.10- to 0.16-m depth) (crosshair). The solid line is the fluid reference line from Fig. 3.

View larger version (9K): [in a new window]   Fig. 6. Rideau clay soil column data. Apparent relative permittivity, ra, data derived from TDR vs. time domain transmissiometry (TDT) voltage, for the 0- to 0.06-m depth (solid circle), 0.06- to 0.12-m depth (hollow triangle), and 0.10- to 0.16-m depth (crosshair). The solid line is the fluid reference line from Fig. 3. The dashed line is the regression line for the soil data from all three depths (Table 3).

View larger version (9K): [in a new window]   Fig. 7. Matilda sandy loam soil column data, ra from TDR vs. time domain transmissiometry (TDT) voltage, for the 0- to 0.06-m depth (solid circle), 0.06- to 0.12-m depth (hollow triangle), and 0.10- to 0.16-m depth (crosshair). The line is the fluid reference line from Fig. 3.

View larger version (9K): [in a new window]   Fig. 8. Field soil data, ra by TDR vs. time domain transmissiometry (TDT) voltage, for 112 locations taken at depths of 0 to 15 cm. The solid line is the fluid reference line from Fig. 3. The dashed line is the linear regression through the field data as given in the text.

View larger version (11K): [in a new window]   Fig. 9. Representative penetrometer cone resistance (PR) vs. water content relationships for (a) 0.21-m and (b) 0.27-m depths from the Best No-Till Continuous Corn (BNTCC) plot.