The Use of

Soil Moisture
Sensors in an
Automated
Watering
System

Abstract
This experiment tested whether the addition of a soil moisture sensor controlled water
source to an automated watering sensor would achieve and maintain 25% soil moisture, ideal soil
for plant growth. The hypothesis was that if a soil moisture sensor is attached to an automated
watering system, then the soil will achieve and maintain 25% soil moisture. Current watering
systems are on timed schedules, which waste water, so an automated watering system based on
user-set soil moisture would be beneficial to saving water. A Vernier soil moisture probe was
connected to an Arduino Uno, which was coded and controlled a normally closed voltage
controlled valve through a relay switch. The prototype was tested with four levels of soil
moisture, 5%, 10%, 15%, and 30%. The final moisture was measured by connecting the soil
moisture sensor within the prototype to a Labpro 2. The soil with initial moisture of 5% was
overwatered by an average of 3.775%. The soil with initial moisture of 10% was overwatered by
an average of 1.575%. The soil with initial moisture of 15% was overwatered by an average of .
975%. The hypothesis was disproved because all of the levels all levels of initial moisture were
overwatered, due to water drainage after the prototype had shut off. In the future, the code
would be modified to reduce the target moisture percentage to below 25% based on the initial
moisture; the lower the initial moisture, the lower the target moisture percent should be.
Introduction
Up to 50% of all water used to irrigate lawns in the United States of America is wasted
due to inefficient and outdated watering systems, causing up to 17 billion liters of water to be
wasted each day (Outdoor Water Use in The United States, n.d) If the amount of wasted water is
not reduced, then copious amounts of money and water will continue to be wasted on
overwatering lawns. The purpose was to determine whether an automated watering system with
1

an integrated soil moisture sensor would regulate soil moisture levels. It was hypothesized that if
a soil moisture sensor is integrated into an automated watering system, then the soil will achieve
and maintain 25% soil moisture. The independent variable was the initial soil moisture levels of
5%, 10%, 15%, and 30%. The dependent variables were the final soil moisture percentage and
the time the system remained active.

Many irrigation and sprinkler systems are on a time schedule, wasting water and watering
plants when not needed. The plants do not receive enough water if the weather has been
continually sunny. Crops will either wither from lack of water or rot from too much water,
depending on the climate. If a solution is not found, incredible amounts of water will continue to
be wasted. Using a moisture sensor to determine the amount of water necessary, and watering
accordingly was proposed as a solution. The project completed by the researcher determined the
accuracy and effectiveness of a soil moisture sensor based sprinkler system, which will allow
implementation into consumers homes and provide the basis for future studies in the area of
optimized irrigation. The amount of water saved and amount of plant health increase were also
determined. The experiment completed by the researcher determined whether the addition of a
soil moisture sensor to a sprinkler system caused a more beneficial amount of water to reach the
plants. The amount of water saved and the amount of water used was dependent on the addition
of a moisture sensor to a sprinkler system. Coming from an environmentally-conscious family,
the researcher was interested in increasing the efficiency of sprinklers in order to save water
wasted on overwatering lawns.
Many factors affect soil moisture content, such as infiltration rate, penetration depth, and
moisture capacity. These factors are all affected by the type of soil and amounts of sand and
2

clay. Infiltration rate is the rate at which water is absorbed by the ground. Infiltration rate
changes the rate at which the ground needs to be watered, as the rate of watering needs to be less
than the infiltration rate or the water will run off, or be evaporated, and be wasted (McAfee,n.d.).
As the sand content in the soil increases, so does the infiltration rate, as sand is highly porous and
allows moisture to pass through more easily. As the clay content increases, the infiltration rate
decreases, as clay is not greatly porous. The porosity of soil is important to agriculture in
drought areas, allowing more of the rainfall to be used by the soil, and less by runoff, increasing
natural water sources and relying less heavily on continual irrigation. The infiltration rate of
loam, commonly used in both residential yards and farms, is between 0.2 and 2.54 centimeters
per hour. The infiltration rate slows down after the first 1.3 centimeters of depth, leading to the
advantage of watering with partial parts of necessary water in cycles and not delivering the full
amount at one time (Shaxson & Barber, 2003).
Water penetration depth is another factor of soil moisture content. Water penetration
depth determines the depth within which a set amount of water will permeate into the soil. The
penetration depth for one centimeter of water in loam is 12 centimeters. Penetration depth
allows the amount of water needed to be better determined, as when combined with root depth,
provides the amount of water which would be wasted by watering, allowing the overwatering to
be corrected. Penetration depth is also useful when determining how often a plant must be
watered, as if the plant has a shallow root depth, the plant needs to be watered in short bursts, as
extended watering sessions will allow excess water to sink below the root level. As the sand
increases, the penetration depth increases, and as the clay increases, the penetration depth
decreases, much like the infiltration rate and for the same reasons (Kopec, 1995).

Soil moisture capacity is one of the most important part of determining the correct
amount of water to use in gardening and agriculture. Soil moisture determines how much
moisture a set amount of soil can contain when completely moistened. If more water than the
soils capacity is used, the water will be wasted. Soil moisture capacity determines the
maximum amount of water to use while watering, by determining a value for capacity will limit
the amount of water a plant will receive. Soil moisture capacity depends on the amount of sand
and clay present in the soil. As the sand increases, the moisture capacity is diminished, and as
the clay increases, moisture capacity increases, unlike water penetration depth and infiltration,
but for the same reasons. Loam has a soil moisture content of from 22.5 to 40 centimeters per
meter of soil (Kopec, 1995).
In the United States alone, 30-40 million acres of land is used for lawns. According to
one research paper, 30 to 60 percent of all urban water is used on lawn care (Polycarpou, 2010).
Much of the water used is wasted due to sprinklers being on a timed schedule, regardless of
conditions and individual plant needs. Grasses only need to be watered 15 centimeters deep, as
they have shallow roots (Pockman & Small, 2010). Lawns are overwatered by 30 to 300
percent, according to one study. Rain sensors are capable of saving between 17 and 24 percent
of water used for irrigation (Feehan, 2014). While rain sensors reduce overwatering, there is still
overwatering occurring due to poorly timed and non-climatically optimized sprinklers. Up to 17
billion liters of water are wasted watering lawns each day, in the United States alone. (Outdoor
Water Use in the United States, n.d). While irrigation systems for agricultural purposes are not
optimized, they are more closely monitored, to improve crop yield and reduce cost of watering.
Residential yards are not closely monitored, and so lead to higher amounts of wasted water.
Hand watering is a very precise way to provide water, but requires time and effort many people
4

are not willing to invest in order to save water. An accurate way to determine the amount of
water needed is by measuring the soil moisture content. The downside to automated sprinklers is
watering before rain, but has no easily accessible solution (Water use it wisely, n.d.).
The Vernier probe used in the experiment completed by the researcher uses a
measurement of the dielectric constant of the soil in order to determine the moisture of the
soil. The sensor measures how much electromagnetic energy is transmitted through the soil,
using a measurement of dielectric permittivity, from one part of the sensor to another. Dielectric
permittivity is how much resistance is encountered by an electrical current. Since water
conducts more electricity than the other substances in soil, a higher water content will result in a
lower resistance, and thus a higher reading by the sensor. The determined value is used to
calculate the percent water of the soil. The range of the sensor is 0 percent to 45 percent with an
accuracy of +/- 4 percent (Soil Moisture Sensors, n.d.). The value obtained from the sensor
value was then used to program into a sprinkler to determine the amount of water needed. For
loam, the permanent wilting point of soil is 15 centimeters per meter of soil. The sensors data
was programmed into a sprinkler, which used the moisture levels to determine the amount of
water needed for watering.

Methods
Gather supplies. Connect the Vernier moisture probe to analog port 1 of the Vernier Arduino
interface shield and attach to the Arduino Uno. Connect wires from the Arduino at pin 13 and
ground to a Breadboard and add a 6 volt relay switch. Attach wires from the solenoid water
valve to the breadboard, so that electricity will activate the valve when the relay switch is active.

Plug in the 12V transformer to a wall socket and attach to the breadboard to power the circuit.
Attach valve to the end of a garden hose, leading from a faucet. Program the Arduino so that it
interprets a reading from the soil moisture sensor and deactivates the relay switch when it detects
more than 25% moisture and activates a time delay when between 20% and 25%. Fill 4 buckets
for each level, with 6 liters of soil, artificially moistened with even distribution of water, or dried
using a drying oven, to 5%, 10%, 15%, and 30% volumetric moisture content, verified using a
Vernier soil moisture probe. Bury the Vernier temperature probe connected to the product in the
soil, at a depth of 8 centimeters, horizontal to the ground, with the two arms of the apparatus
vertical to each other, to avoid water pooling on the flat surfaces. Activate the prototype, causing
water to travel through the voltage controlled valve, and through the hose, onto the soil.
Measure the time from system activation until shut off in seconds, as well as the final moisture.
Results
After Data collection was completed, a one-way ANOVA was performed to determine
whether the groups had significantly different data. The resulting value was 0.0003, indicating a
statistically significant difference, resulting in 3 sample t tests being performed, between each
level and the intended soil moisture of 25%. The t-test between the group with an initial soil
moisture of 5% and the intended result of 25% resulted in a p-value of 0.0029, implying
statistically different data. The t-test between the group with an initial soil moisture of 10% and
the intended moisture resulted in a p-value of 0.0074, and thusly statistically significant
differences exist between the groups. The t-test between the group with an initial moisture level
of 15% and the intended result produced a p-value of .024, which means there is a statistically
significant difference between the groups.

Conclusion
The hypothesis was disproven, since all of the trials produced more water than the
intended result of 25%, due to water pooling at the surface of the soil and draining into the soil
after the system had deactivated, which was a result of sustained watering. The lower the initial
soil moisture was, the higher the resulting final moisture was (see Table 1).

Due to this

relationship between initial moisture and final moisture, the 25% soil moisture deactivation point
in Arduino needs to be decreased based on initial moisture. A formula was devised to account
for drainage, 25-(15/the initial moisture). Using the opposite of this equation, to account for the
experimental design, t-tests were performed between the results of the experiment and the
updated moisture goals, and resulted in statistically insignificant differences. In a future design
of this prototype, the equation would be implemented into the Arduino code. Another factor
affecting drainage was the limited sample size. In future implementations of the prototype, the
device would be tested in a larger environment, such as a yard, which would decrease the amount
of sustained watered distribution, decreasing the amount of water drainage after system
deactivation. The data may also have been slightly inaccurate due to the soil moisture sensors
accuracy of +/- 4%.
References
Peer Reviewed
Feehan, K. (2014, January 1). Avoid Overwatering Lawns & Landscapes. Nebraska
Drought Resources.
Kopec, D. (1995, October 1). Turf Tips.

Outdoor Water Use in the United States. (n.d.). Retrieved from

http://www.epa.gov/watersense/pubs/outdoor.html
Pockman, W., & Small, E. (2010, January 1). The Influence of Spatial Patterns of Soil
Moisture on the Grass and Shrub Responses to a Summer Rainstorm in a
Chihuahuan Desert Ecotone. Ecosystems, 511-525.
Shaxson, F., & Barber, R. (2003, January 1). Optimizing Soil Moisture for Plant
Production.Food and Agriculture Orginization of the United Nations, 1-107.
Non Peer Reviewed
Efficient Irrigation. (n.d.). Water Use It Wisely. Retrieved from
http://wateruseitwisely.com/100-ways-to-conserve/landscape-care/principles-ofxeriscape-design/efficient-irrigation/
McAfee, J. (n.d.). Cool It! Texas Cooperative Extension.
Soil Moisture Sensor. (n.d.). Retrieved November 18, 2014, from
http://www.vernier.com/products/sensors/sms-bta/
Polycarpou, L. (2010, June 4). The Problem of Lawns. State of The Planet.

Appendix
Photo 1 ANOVA

Analysis of Variance

Test of all levels w atered

Response attribute (numeric): final_moisture
Grouping attribute (categorical): initial_moisture
Source DF

SS

MS

Groups

2 17.3867 8.6933 22.596 0.0003

Error

Total

3.4625 0.3847

11 20.8492

Ho: Population means of final_m oisture grouped by initial_m oisture are equal

This Photo represents the ANOVA performed on all of the levels watered by the system, as well
as the 25% intended soil moisture result.
Photo 2 T-test
Test of 5% vs target moisture

Compare Means

First attribute (numeric): final_moisture

Second attribute (numeric or categorical): target
Ho: Population mean of final_moisture equals that of
target
Ha: Population mean of final_moisture is not equal to
that of target

Count:
Mean:
Std dev:
Std error:

final_moisture
4
28.775
0.84212
0.42106

target
4
25
0
0

Using unpooled variances

Student's t: 8.965
DF:
3
P-value:
0.0029

This Photo represents the t-test performed between the level with an initial soil moisture of 5%
and the 25% intended soil moisture result.
Photo 3: T-test
Test of 10% vs target moisture

Compare Means

First attribute (numeric): final_moisture

Second attribute (numeric or categorical): target
Ho: Population mean of final_moisture equals that of
target
Ha: Population mean of final_moisture is not equal
to that of target

Count:
Mean:
Std dev:
Std error:

final_moisture
4
26.575
0.485627
0.242813

target
4
25
0
0

Using unpooled variances

Student's t: 6.486
DF:
3
P-value:
0.0074

This Photo represents the t-test performed between the level with an initial soil moisture of 10%
and the 25% intended soil moisture result.
Photo 4: T-test

10

Test of 15% vs target moisture

Compare Means

First attribute (numeric): final_moisture

Second attribute (numeric or categorical): target
Ho: Population mean of final_m oisture equals that of
target
Ha: Population mean of final_m oisture is not equal to
that of target

Count:
Mean:
Std dev:
Std error:

final_moisture
4
25.975
0.457347
0.228674

target
4
25
0
0

Using unpooled variances

Student's t: 4.264
DF:
3
P-value:
0.024

This Photo represents the t-test performed between the level with an initial soil moisture of 15%
and the 25% intended soil moisture result
Photo 5: T-test
Test of 5% vs target moisture

Compare Means

First attribute (numeric): final_moisture

Second attribute (numeric or categorical): target
Ho: Population mean of final_moisture equals that of
target
Ha: Population mean of final_moisture is not equal to
that of target

Count:
Mean:
Std dev:
Std error:

final_moisture
4
28.775
0.84212
0.42106

target
4
28
0
0

Using unpooled variances

Student's t: 1.841
DF:
3
P-value:
0.16

11

This Photo represents the t-test performed between the level with an initial soil moisture of 5%
and the intended soil moisture result, adjusted with the discovered equation.
Photo 6: T-test
Test of 10% vs target moisture

Compare Means

First attribute (numeric): final_moisture

Second attribute (numeric or categorical): target
Ho: Population mean of final_moisture equals that of
target
Ha: Population mean of final_moisture is not equal
to that of target

Count:
Mean:
Std dev:
Std error:

final_moisture
4
26.575
0.485627
0.242813

target
4
26.5
0
0

Using unpooled variances

Student's t: 0.3089
DF:
3
P-value:
0.78

This Photo represents the t-test performed between the level with an initial soil moisture of 10%
and the intended soil moisture result, adjusted with the discovered equation.
Photo 7: T-test

12

Test of 15% vs target moisture

Compare Means

First attribute (numeric): final_moisture

Second attribute (numeric or categorical): target
Ho: Population mean of final_moisture equals that of
target
Ha: Population mean of final_moisture is not equal to
that of target

Count:
Mean:
Std dev:
Std error:

final_moisture
4
25.975
0.457347
0.228674

target
4
26
0
0

Using unpooled variances

Student's t: -0.1093
DF:
3
P-value:
0.92

Photo 8: Testing Bucket

This picture is an image of the bucket that was used to contain the soil for the samples. The
system is active, so the valve is opened to allow water to pass through. This picture was taken on
1/24/15.
Photo 9: Prototype
13

This Picture is an image of the Arduino Uno connected to a breadboard with all of the
components to complete the system attached. The light at D13 is glowing, showing that the
system is powered, but the valve is not opened. This picture was taken on 1/24/15.
Picture 10: Arduino Code
int TimeBetweenReadings = 500;
const int ledPin = 13;

// pin that the LED is attached to

const int voltthreshold = 0.6; // an arbitrary threshold level that's in the range of the voltage
analog input

void setup() {
// initialize serial communication at 9600 bits per second:
pinMode(ledPin, OUTPUT);
// initialize serial communications:
Serial.begin(9600);
Serial.println("Time (s)

Moisture Readings from A0 (N)");

14

}
void loop() {
float Count;
float Voltage;
float Moisture;
float SensorReading;
boolean TimeDelay = false;
int ReadingNumber=0;
float Time;//the print below does the division first to avoid overflows
Serial.print(ReadingNumber/1000.0*TimeBetweenReadings);
Count = analogRead(A0);
Voltage = Count / 1023 * 5.0;// convert from count to raw voltage
Moisture = 120.09* Voltage - 42.268;// convert from raw voltage to moisture based on three
point calibration
if ((Moisture > 20 && Moisture <25) && !TimeDelay) {
digitalWrite(ledPin, HIGH);
}
if (Moisture >= 25){
TimeDelay = true;
digitalWrite(ledPin, LOW);
}
if (Moisture <= 20){
TimeDelay = false;

15

digitalWrite(ledPin, HIGH);
}
Serial.print("

");

Serial.println(Moisture);
Serial.print("

");

Serial.println(TimeDelay);
delay(TimeBetweenReadings);// delay in between reads for stability
ReadingNumber++;
}
This picture is a text copy of the code used to program the Arduino. This image shows the cutoff
point of 25%, as well as the time delay programmed to activate between 20% and 25%
Graph 1: Final Moisture

Final Moisture vs Initial Moisture

Final Moisture

32.0%
30.0%
28.0%
26.0%
24.0%
22.0%

Trial 1
Trial 2
Trial 3
Trial 4
0.05

0.1

0.15

0.3

Initial Moisture

This graph shows final moisture vs initial moisture. The bars are divided into groups by initial
moisture level. The different colors represent different trials.
16

Graph 2: Time System Remained Active

Time System Remained Active vs Initial Moisture

Time System Reamined Active in Seconds

25
20
15
10
5
0

Trial 1
Trial 2
Trial 3
Trial 4

Initial Moisture

This graph shows time system remained active vs initial moisture. The bars are divided into
groups by initial moisture. The different colors represent different trials.
Table 1: Final Moisture

Final Moisture
Initial Moisture

Trial 1

Trial 2

Trial 3

Trial 4

Average Total Error

5%

28.4%

29.7%

27.8%

29.2%

3.78%

10%

27.2%

26.7%

26.3%

26.1%

1.58%

15%

25.7%

26.5%

25.5%

26.2%

0.98%

30%

30%

30%

30%

30%

5%

This table shows final moisture vs initial moisture. The table is divided into rows by initial
moisture level and into columns by trial number. There is also a column representing the average
amount the experimental values in each level deviate from the intended result of 25%

17

Table 2: Time System Remained Active

Time System Remained Active in Seconds

Initial Moisture

Trial 1

Trial 2

Trial 3

Trial 4

5%

19.03

20.86

21.23

18.87

10%

16.43

15.86

17.24

16.83

15%

13.26

11.45

14.55

12.66

30%

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

This table shows time system remained active vs initial moisture. The table is divided into rows
by initial moisture level and into columns by trial number.

18