Full TGIF Record # 333490
Item 1 of 1
Web URL(s):https://scisoc.confex.com/scisoc/2023am/meetingapp.cgi/Paper/150882
    Last checked: 12/05/2023
Publication Type:
Content Type:Abstract or Summary only
Author(s):Kardashina, Tatiana; Drach, Borys; Velasco-Cruz, Ciro; Leinauer, Bernd
Author Affiliation:Kardashina: Presenting Author and Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM; Drach: Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM; Velasco-Cruz and Leinauer: Extension Plant Sciences, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM
Title:Comparison of remote soil moisture sensing methods
Section:Golf turf management poster (includes student competition)
Other records with the "Golf turf management poster (includes student competition)" Section

C05 turfgrass science
Other records with the "C05 turfgrass science" Section

Other records with the "360" Section
Meeting Info.:St. Louis, Missouri: October 29-November 1, 2023
Source:ASA, CSSA, SSSA International Annual Meeting. 2023, p. 150882.
Publishing Information:[Madison, Wisconsin]: [American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America]
# of Pages:1
Abstract/Contents:"Studies have demonstrated increased water conservation potential of irrigation scheduling based on soil moisture sensors (SMS) compared to scheduling based on Evapotranspiration (ET). Nonetheless, the use of either in-ground or hand-held sensors has not been widely adopted. Complicating factors such as interference with standard agronomic practices and the time-consuming nature of surface measurements have limited the acceptance of SMS for irrigation scheduling. A study has been conducted at New Mexico State University to investigate the accuracy of two types of remote soil moisture sensing and compared to a ground penetrating Time Domain Reflectometry sensor (TDR 350). Remote sensing included an earth orbiting active microwave Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) sensor system operating at a wavelength of 4 to 8 cm (C-band) and a portable radiometer (PoLRa) mounted on a fairway reel-mower (TurfRad) using a wavelength of 21 cm (L-Band). Soil moisture readings were collected monthly and data were compared. Generally, both satellite and TurfRad underestimate soil moisture when compared to the TDR 350. A significant but weak correlation on all sampling dates between moisture values could only be determined for the TurfRad sensor and TDR 350. Remote sensing technologies such as satellite or TurfRad show promise in tracking soil moisture, however, their accuracy needs improvement. More studies are needed to investigate if models to estimate soil moisture from reflectance values specifically on turf areas can be improved."
Note:This item is an abstract only!
ASA/CSSA/SSSA Citation (Crop Science-Like - may be incomplete):
Kardashina, T., B. Drach, C. Velasco-Cruz, and B. Leinauer. 2023. Comparison of remote soil moisture sensing methods. Agron. Abr. p. 150882.
Fastlink to access this record outside TGIF: https://tic.msu.edu/tgif/flink?recno=333490
If there are problems with this record, send us feedback about record 333490.
Choices for finding the above item:
Web URL(s):
    Last checked: 12/05/2023
Request through your local library's inter-library loan service (bring or send a copy of this TGIF record)