Soil Use and Management, June 2008, 24, 156–162 doi: 10.1111/j.1475-2743.2008.00154.

Comparison of three dielectric moisture sensors for

measurement of water in saline sandy soil

M. Inoue, B. A. Ould Ahmed, T. Saito, M. Irshad & K. C. Uzoma

Arid Land Research Center, Tottori University, Tottori, Hamasaka 680-0001, Japan

Abstract
The number of sensor types available for measuring soil water content has increased but investigations
to compare their performance in saline soils needs clarification. In this study the performance of com-
mercially available, low-cost soil moisture sensors [time domain reflectometry (TDR), PR1 and WET],
all measuring changes in the dielectric constant of the soil water, was evaluated under laboratory con-
ditions in a saline sandy soil. The three sensors were also tested in the same sandy soil growing drip
irrigated sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L. cv. Moench) in a greenhouse. Plants were irrigated daily with
either saline water (ECw: 9.4 dS ⁄ m) or fresh water (0.11 dS ⁄ m). The volume of irrigation was equiva-
lent to 100% of the pan evaporation. The results showed that measurement accuracy was strongly
dependent on the salinity of the soil. The PR1 sensor overestimated volumetric water content (h) when
the salinity level exceeded 4 dS ⁄ m [root mean square of the standard error (RMSE) = 0.009
cm3 ⁄ cm3]. The WET sensor significantly overestimated h irrespective of the salinity level (RMSE =
0.014 cm3 ⁄ cm3). The TDR sensor estimated h with more accuracy (RMSE = 0.007 cm3 ⁄ cm3) and thus
can be considered as more reliable than the other two sensors. The calibrations were strongly affected
by the salinity level of the water, so we recommend that calibration equations are modified to take
account of salinity.

Keywords: TDR sensor, PR1 sensor, WET sensor, salinity, sorghum, water content

of soil–air–water mixtures. Studies of soil–water distribution

Introduction
There is a general consensus that the use of saline water for
irrigation together with associated secondary salinization is a
serious issue for agricultural productivity particularly in arid
and semi-arid areas. It is important to continuously measure
water content and salinity status of the soils for better agri-
cultural management. Rapid and reliable techniques for
monitoring in situ volumetric soil water content and electrical
conductivity of soils are necessary to avoid soil salinization.
Mwale et al. (2005) reported that accurate measurement of
soil moisture content is crucial for studies of crop response
to water stress, and for practical applications such as irriga-
tion scheduling. Soil water contents can be measured in the
field using the gravimetric method, neutron scattering, or
with methods based upon the thermal or electrical properties
Correspondence: B. A. Ould Ahmed. E-mail: a_bouya@yahoo.com
Received October 2007; accepted after revision April 2008
Editor: Bryan Davies
at small spatial scales are limited by the lack of suitable
measurement techniques (Amato & Ritchie, 1995).
With the introduction of time domain reflectometry
(TDR) for non-destructive determination of soil water (Topp
et at., 1980), many publications have shown the method to
be useful (e.g. Jacobsen & Schjønning, 1993; Plauborg, 1995;
Noborio, 2001; Azam-Ali & Squire, 2002; Mwale et al.,
2005; Plauborg et al., 2005). The variables which affect TDR
response in soils are texture, structure, soluble salts, water
content, temperature, density and measurement frequency
(Topp et al., 1980).
The PR1 profile probe (Delta-T Devices, UK) and WET
sensor (Delta-T Devices Ltd, Burwell, UK) are commercial
dielectric sensors. The sensors measure the dielectric constant
(e) of soil, the value of which is predominantly determined
by its moisture content, and converted into an equivalent
estimate of volumetric water content (h). The effective radii
of WET and PR1 sensors are 7 and 10 cm, respectively.
Two equations are used to estimate water content from
readings taken with the PR1:

156 ª 2008 The Authors. Journal compilation ª 2008 British Society of Soil Science
 Dielectric moisture sensors for measurement of water in saline soil 157
pffiffi
e ¼ 0:88 þ 4:24V þ 65:6V 2  272:7V 3 þ 402:9V 4 ð1Þ
pffiffi
e  a0
h¼ ð2Þ
a1
where V is the voltage reading from the sensor, and a0 and
a1 are parameters which need specific calibrations.
However, it is necessary to be sure that PR1 gives an accu-
rate and consistent measurement. Hanson & Piters (2000)
reported that the PR1 provided reliable and accurate esti-
mates of h, that were comparable to those obtained from
standard methods. Others have reported that the PR1 does
not give consistent readings and so is not suitable for con-
ducting comparative studies against standard methods (Evett
& Steiner, 1995; Tomer & Anderson, 1995), thereby suggest-
ing that soil-specific assessment of this sensor is necessary.
Estimates of h using the WET sensor are calculated from
the following equation:
pffiffi
ea  b0
h¼ ð3Þ
b1
pffiffi
where parameters b0 ¼ ðeh0 Þ, and ea is the real part of the
apparent permittivity. As suggested by Delta-T Devices
(2001), a specific calibration is recommended to estimate
parameters b0 and b1, but if it is not possible then the values
for b0 and b1 for different soil types can be found in the
sensor’s user manual (Delta-T Devices, 2001). According to
the calibration manual, the values differ depending on the
physicochemical properties of soils. Several models have been
proposed to correct the effect of bulk electrical conductivity
on the soil dielectric constant (e.g. Wyseure et al., 1997;
Robinson et al., 1999). Similar studies have suggested correc-
tions for mineral and organic soils (Malicki et al., 1996) and
volcanic soil (Bartoli et al., 2007). Regalado et al. (2007)
found that the WET sensor measurement was not accurate
when salt concentration increased above 3 dS ⁄ m.
Moisture sensors based on dielectric properties are power-
ful tools for real-time and simultaneous measurement of soil
water content and bulk electrical conductivity in situ. How-
ever, problems arise when there is significant salinity as
reported by Topp et al. (2000). There are several potential
sources of error that must receive attention while measuring
soil water. For instance, the sensors need calibration for
specific conditions associated with differences in soils and
manufacturer’s sources.
The TDR principle is based on transmitting a spectrum of
electromagnetic waves into a waveguide (TDR probe) which
is embedded in the soil for investigation and measuring the
signal waves as a function of time (Topp et al., 1982; Dalton
et al., 1984; Nadler et al., 1991; Noborio et al., 1994; Heim-
ovaara et al., 1995; Inoue, 1998; Nakashima et al., 1998;
Dehghanisanji et al., 2004). However, there is major concern
about the influence of soil salinity on the sensor readings.
Some previous studies have shown that at the same h the
ª 2008 The Authors. Journal compilation ª 2008 British Society of Soil Science, Soil Use and Management, 24, 156–162
travel time in saline soil was longer than for non-saline soil,
which leads to an overestimation of h (Nadeler et al., 1999;
Sun et al., 1999; Inoue, 2004). Wyseure et al. (1997) also
reported that increasing the concentration of dissolved ions
in soil water apparently increased the measured travel time.
In view of the problems associated with the calibration for
TDR, WET and PR1 sensors under saline conditions, com-
parative investigations are required to assess their perfor-
mance and level of accuracy.
The objectives of this study were:
1. to monitor volumetric soil water content (h) simulta-
neously by calibrating TDR, WET and PR1 sensors in
saline sandy soil condition;
2. to compare these sensors to manufacturer’s calibrations
and
3. to estimate soil water contents in the field with these sen-
sors compared with gravimetric measurements.
Materials and methods
Laboratory experiment
The study was carried out using three dielectric moisture
sensors (i.e. TDR, WET and PR1) in the Sub Division of
Soil Conservation, Arid Land Research Center, Tottori
University, Japan. The characteristics of the sand dune soil
used in the experiment are given in Table 1. Saline solu-
tions were prepared and mixed thoroughly with air-dried
and sieved (< 2 mm) Tottori sand dune soil. Different
amounts of NaCl (i.e. 0.5–50 g) were dissolved in deionized
water to develop various level of electrical conductivity of
the soil solution (ECw) ranging from 1.01 to 74.70 dS ⁄ m
(Table 2). Soil samples were calibrated with these saline
solutions by mixing thoroughly in the 2 L vinyl bags for
homogeneity. The h values attained at the respective salt-
soil treatments ranged from 0.016 to 0.248 cm3 ⁄ cm3
(Table 2). The saturated volumetric water contents were
calculated from the ratio of the given mass of the dry soil to
the mass of water. Soil samples were packed uniformly into
containers of known volume (for TDR and WET sensors
Table 1 Some physical properties of the dune sand soil
Property Value
Sand (%) 96.1
Silt (%) 0.4
Clay (%) 3.5
Particle density, qs (g ⁄ cm3) 2.66
Field capacity, FC (cm3 ⁄ cm3) 0.08
Wilting point, WP (cm3 ⁄ cm3) 0.024
Saturated soil hydraulic conductivity, Ks (cm ⁄ s) 0.02
Bulk density, q (g ⁄ cm3) 1.55
Saturated soil moisture content (cm3 ⁄ cm3) 0.413
158 M. Inoue et al.

Table 2 Concentration of soil solution and its respective electrical Statistical analysis
conductivity and water content in soil
Data were statistically analysed and the relationship between
NaCl solution EC of soil Soil water water content estimated by the sensors and that measured by
(g ⁄ L) solution (dS ⁄ m) (h) (cm3 ⁄ cm3) gravimetric method was determined by multiple regression
analysis (SAS, 1991). The relationship between h and e was
0.5 1.01 0.016 defined statistically and compared with the manufacturer’s
1.0 1.99 0.031
calibrations using root mean square error (RMSE):
2.0 3.83 0.047 rPffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi
n 2
i¼1 d i
3.5 6.52 0.062
5.0 9.15 0.093
RMSE ¼ ð4Þ
n
10 17.70 0.124
where di is the difference between ith predicted by model and
20 34.10 0.155
ith measured values and n is the number of data pairs.
30 48.20 0.186
50 74.70 0.248

Results and discussion

10 cm diameter · 16 cm height ¼ 1256 cm3, for PR1 20 cm
diameter · 14 cm height ¼ 4396 cm3. Determination of dielectric constant in sandy soil
The PR1 sensor was immersed into a purpose-built access The experiment demonstrated that readings of the PR1 and
tube set in the centre of the container. All the sensors were WET probes were strongly affected by the EC of the sandy
installed vertically in the containers. The gravimetric water
content was determined by oven drying of three soil samples
from each container. After each measurement each container
was shaken and repacked with soil to a given bulk density to
minimize the error due to change in electrical conductivity
and to avoid salt accumulation at the edges of the container.
The TDR sensor consists of three 6-cm long rods 1 cm in
diameter and rod-to-rod spacing of 5 cm as detailed by
Dehghanisanji et al. (2004). The PR1 profile probe consists
of a single rod 110 cm long and 2.5 cm in diameter. The
probes were compared using fresh water as well as saline soil
solution. The WET sensor used in this study has three rods,
6.5 cm long, spaced 1.5 cm apart.

Greenhouse experiment
The performance of the three sensors was investigated in the
greenhouse of Arid Land Research Center Tottori University
Japan during April–August 2005 and 2006. The area under
the greenhouse was divided into 1.2 m · 1.2 m plots. Sor-
ghum (Sorghum bicolor L. cv. Moench) was grown in the
plots and irrigated daily either with saline water (ECw:
9.4 dS ⁄ m) or fresh ⁄ normal water (0.11 dS ⁄ m) through a drip
irrigation system at a rate equivalent to the daily open-pan
evaporation. In each plot, the drip irrigation pipe was
divided into three laterals each with four emitters 40 cm
apart. The experiment was replicated twice in fully random-
ized blocks. During the 2005 and 2006 growing seasons 770
and 850 mm of irrigation were applied, respectively. The
detail of the experimental methodology is described by Ould
Ahmed et al. (2007). The sensors (TDR and WET in 2005;
TDR and PR1 in 2006) were installed vertically at depth 10,
20 and 30 cm. Gravimetric water content was measured at
3-day intervals up to crop maturity on 10 cm depth cores Figure 1 Relationship between volumetric water content and dielec-
taken to 30 cm. tric constant for (a) TDR, (b) WET and (c) PR1 in the sandy soil.

ª 2008 The Authors. Journal compilation ª 2008 British Society of Soil Science, Soil Use and Management, 24, 156–162
 Dielectric moisture sensors for measurement of water in saline soil 159

Table 3 Calibration equations of TDR, PR1 and WET sensors obtained in sandy soil. Electrical conductivity (ECw, dS ⁄ m)

Sensor Range of salinity Equation a b c d Correlation P

TDR 0–20 a + be + ce2 )0.125 0.043 )0.008 0.99 0.004

‡ 20 a+ be + ce2+ de3 )0.311 0.235 )0.038 0.003 0.99 0.001
WET 0–4 a + be )0.19 1.78 0.99 0.001
4–10 a + be )0.15 1.32 0.99 0.011
‡ 10 a + be + ce2 0.04 )0.37 1.943 0.99 0.003
PR1 0–4 a + be )0.07 0.028 0.99 0.001
4–10 a + be )0.05 0.021 0.99
‡ 10 a + be + ce2 0.006 0.001 0.001 0.99 0.0041

e denotes dielectric constant.

soil (Figure 1) but the TDR probe was much less so, with ease of use and other factors affecting the output of the
differences only showing at ECw greater than 17 dS ⁄ m. Sim- instruments (e.g. temperature, salinity) become consider-
ilar results were reported for different soils (Campbell, 1990; ations in the choice of methods (Or & Wraith, 1999; Wraith
Kelleners et al., 2005; Regalado et al., 2007). The WET sen- & Or, 1999).
sor showed the greatest sensitivity to salts (Figure 1b). The
PR1 sensor showed similar data to the TDR sensor when the
salinity level of the soil was less than 4 dS ⁄ m, but its accu-
racy was impaired by higher salinity (Figure 1c). The analysis
of the data indicated that the dielectric constant measured by
WET and PR1 sensors can be calibrated according to the
following salinity levels: (i) low salinity < 4 dS ⁄ m, (ii) med-
ium salinity 4–10 dS ⁄ m, and (iii) high salinity > 10 dS ⁄ m
(Table 3). Similarly our results indicate that the TDR sensor
requires separate calibration equations for soil salinities less
than and more than 20 dS ⁄ m (Table 3).
Figure 2 depicts the average dielectric constant measured
by the sensors at three levels of soil salinity. The data show
that the dielectric constant measured by the WET sensor was
much larger than that for the TDR and PR1 sensors. Rega-
lado et al. (2007) attributed such data to the frequency (F)
dependence of the real permittivity for F < 500 MHz.
Table 3 summarizes the calibration equations predicting
water content by the sensors. The bulk density of the soils
significantly affected the prediction of h as reported by Kell-
eners et al. (2005), Blonquist et al. (2006) and Regalado
et al. (2007); therefore, a constant bulk density (q: 1.55
g ⁄ m3) was used during this experiment. The calibrations were
carried out at three levels: lower salinity (ECw < 4 dS ⁄ m),
medium salinity (ECw > 4 and < 10 dS ⁄ m), and higher
salinity (ECw > 10 dS ⁄ m). All the fitted equations were sig-
nificant at P < 0.005. The TDR sensor was found efficient
and less affected by the salinity levels than PR1 and WET
sensors. The data showed that the fitted equations for PR1
and WET sensors were linear for lower and medium salinity
but non-linear at higher salinity levels (Table 3). Across all
sensors, the calibrations were found to overestimate h when
the ECw was very high, e.g. 75 dS ⁄ m or more than the
equivalent seawater concentration (30 g ⁄ L). Both TDR and
capacitance methods depend on changes in the soil dielectric Figure 2 Relationship between volumetric water content and dielec-
constant to measure soil volumetric water content. Therefore, tric constant under lower, medium and higher salinity levels.

ª 2008 The Authors. Journal compilation ª 2008 British Society of Soil Science, Soil Use and Management, 24, 156–162
160 M. Inoue et al.
Measurement of water content in the greenhouse
The measurement of water content using TDR, WET and
PR1 sensors was also carried out in the greenhouse growing
sorghum with saline as well as normal irrigation water. The
comparison between TDR and WET sensors during the 2005
experiment showed that WET sensor overestimated h. A sim-
ilar result was observed with the PR1 sensor but to a lesser
extent during the 2006 experiment (Figure 3a–c). Both WET
and PR1 sensors also overestimated h even in non-saline soil.
Of the three sensors the TDR sensor was more consistent
particularly under saline conditions.
The data in Figure 4 significantly indicate that h mea-
sured using the manufacturer’s equations for the WET and
PR1 sensors overestimated the actual water content. The
water content measured by the TDR, WET and PR1
sensors calibrated for salinity agreed well with the gravi-
metric estimates. In the 0–20 dS ⁄ m, h was estimated with
ª 2008 The Authors. Journal compilation ª 2008 British Society of Soil Science, Soil Use and Management, 24, 156–162
Figure 3 Regression models for (a) TDR,
(b) WET and (c) PR1 sensor showing esti-
mated soil moisture (using our calibration
Table 2) versus moisture measured by gravi-
metric method during 2005 and 2006 experi-
ment.
RMSE of 0.007 and 0.014 cm3 ⁄ cm3 for the TDR and
WET sensors, respectively, during 2005. For 2006, the
RMSE were 0.011 and 0.009 cm3 ⁄ cm3 for TDR and PR1,
respectively.
Conclusion
1. The comparison of sensors for soil water measurement
indicated that the output readings were significantly
affected by the EC level of soil.
2. WET and PR1 sensors overestimated volumetric water
content even when the salinity was less than 4 dS ⁄ m.
Under medium and higher salinity level, the errors were
larger.
3. Of the sensors listed the TDR was the most accurate
under saline conditions.
4. A modified calibration depending on the salinity is
strongly recommended.
 Dielectric moisture sensors for measurement of water in saline soil 161
Figure 4 Comparison of manufacturers’ and
estimated calibration for TDR, WET sensors
and gravimetric method during 2005; and
between TDR and PR1 sensors during 2006
for soil water content under saline and
normal irrigation at 0–30 cm.
5. The development of salt-resistant moisture probes would
be more effective in salt-affected soils.
Acknowledgements
We appreciate and acknowledge the funding of Global COE
program by Japan Society for the Promotion of Science
(JSPS) for this research study. Useful suggestions and
improvements to the manuscript made by Dr Bryan
Davies, Editor of Soil Use and Management are gratefully
acknowledged.
References
Amato, M. & Ritchie, J.T. 1995. Small spatial scale soil water con-
tent measurement with time-domain reflectometry. Soil Science
Society of America Journal, 59, 325–329.
Azam-Ali, S.N. & Squire, G.R. 2002. Principles of tropical agronomy.
CAB International, Wallingford, UK.
Bartoli, F., Regalado, C.M., Basile, A., Buurman, P. & Coppola, A.
2007. Physical properties in European volcanic soils: a synthesis
and recent developments. In: Soils of volcanic regions in Europe,
pp. 515–537. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Blonquist, J.M., Jones, S.B., Lebron, I. & Robinson, D.A. 2006.
Microstructural and phase configurational effects determining
water. Dielectric relationships of aggregated porous media. Water
Resources Research, 42, W05424, doi:10.1029/2005WR004418.
Campbell, J.E. 1990. Dielectric properties and influence of conduc-
tivity in soils at one to fifty megahertz. Soil Science Society of
America Journal, 54, 332–341.
Dalton, F.N., Herkelrath, W.N., Rawlins, D.S. & Rhoades, J.D.
1984. Time-domain reflectometry: simultaneous measurement of
soil water content and electrical conductivity with a single probe.
Science, 224, 989–990.
ª 2008 The Authors. Journal compilation ª 2008 British Society of Soil Science, Soil Use and Management, 24, 156–162
Dehghanisanji, H., Yamamoto, T. & Inoue, M. 2004. Practical
aspects of TDR for simultaneous measurements of water and sol-
ute in a dune sand field. Journal of Japanese Society of Soil Phys-
ics, 98, 21–30.
Delta-T Devices. 2001. User manual for profile probe type PR1.
Delta-T Devices Ltd, Cambridge, UK.
Evett, S.R. & Steiner, J.L. 1995. Precision of neutron scattering and
capacitance type soil water content gauges from field calibration.
Soil Science Society of America Journal, 59, 961–968.
Hanson, B.R. & Piters, D. 2000. Soil type affects accuracy of dielec-
tric moisture sensors. California Agriculture, 54, 43–47.
Heimovaara, T.J., Focke, A.G., Bouten, W. & Verstraten, J.M.
1995. Assessing temporal variations in soil water composition with
time domain Reflectometry. Soil Science Society of America Jour-
nal, 59, 689–698.
Inoue, M. 1998. Evaluation of measuring precision of field-type
dielectric soil moisture probes using salty sand. Journal of Japan
Society of Hydrology and Water Resources, 11, 555–564.
Inoue, M. 2004. Soil moisture measurement of high salinity sand
using ADR probe. 51st Annual Meeting of Sand Dune Research,
Nigata, Japan, pp. 18–19.
Jacobsen, O.H. & Schjønning, P. 1993. A laboratory calibration of
time domain reflectometry for soil water measurement including
effects of bulk density and texture. Journal of Hydrology, 151,
147–157.
Kelleners, T.J., Robinson, D.A., Shouse, P.J., Ayars, J.E. & Skaggs,
T.H. 2005. Frequency dependence of the complex permittivity and
its impact on dielectric sensor calibration in soils. Soil Science
Society of America Journal, 69, 67–76.
Malicki, M.A., Plagge, R. & Roth, C.H. 1996. Improving the calibra-
tion of dielectric TDR soil moisture determination taking into
account the solid soil. European Journal of Soil Science, 47, 357–366.
Mwale, S.S., Azam-Ali, S.N. & Sparkes, D.L. 2005. Can the PR1
replace the neutron probe for routine soil-water measurement? Soil
Use and Management, 21, 340–347.
162 M. Inoue et al.
Nadeler, A., Gamliel, A. & Peretz, I. 1999. Practical aspects of salin-
ity effect on TDR-measured water-content: a field study. Soil Sci-
ence Society of America Journal, 63, 1070–1076.
Nadler, A., Dasberg, S. & Lapid, I. 1991. Time domain reflectometry
measurements of water content and electrical conductivity of lay-
ered soil columns. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 55,
938–943.
Nakashima, M., Inoue, M., Sawada, K. & Nicholl, C. 1998. Mea-
surement of soil water content by ADR method and its calibra-
tion. Journal of Groundwater Hydrology, 40, 509–519.
Noborio, K. 2001. Measurement of soil water content and electrical
conductivity by time domain reflectometry: a reviewer. Computer
and Electronics in Agriculture, 31, 213–237.
Noborio, K., McInnes, K.J. & Heilman, J.L. 1994. Field measure-
ments of soil electrical conductivity of water content by time
domain reflectivity. Computer and Electronics in Agriculture, 11,
131–142.
Or, D. & Wraith, J.M. 1999. Temperature effects on soil bulk dielec-
tric permittivity measured by time domain reflectometry: a physi-
cal model. Water Resources Research, 35, 371–383.
Ould Ahmed, B.A., Yamamoto, T., Rasiah, V., Inoue, M. & Anyoji,
H. 2007. The impact of saline water irrigation management
options in a dune sand on available soil water and its salinity.
Agricultural Water Management, 88, 63–72.
Plauborg, F. 1995. Evaporation from bare soil in a temperature
humid climate. Measurement using micro-lysimeters and TDR.
Agriculture and Forest Meteorology, 76, 1–17.
Plauborg, F., Iversen, B.V. & Learke, P.E. 2005. In situ comparison
of three dielectric soil moisture sensors in drip irrigated sandy
soils. Vadose Zone Journal, 4, 1037–1047.
Regalado, C.M., Ritter, A. & Rodrı́guez, G..R.M. 2007. Perfor-
mance of the commercial WET capacitance sensor as compared
ª 2008 The Authors. Journal compilation ª 2008 British Society of Soil Science, Soil Use and Management, 24, 156–162
with time domain reflectometry in volcanic soils. Vadose Zone
Journal, 6, 244–254.
Robinson, D.A., Gardner, C.M.K. & Cooper, J.D. 1999. Measure-
ment of relative permittivity in sandy soils using TDR, capacitance
and theta probes: comparison, including the effects of bulk soil
electrical conductivity. Journal of Hydrology, 223, 198–211.
SAS. 1991. SAS ⁄ STAT procedure guide for personnel computers, Ver-
sion 5. Statistical Analysis Systems Institute Inc., Cary, NC.
Sun, J., Young, G.D., McFarlane, R.A. & Chambers, B.M. 1999.
The effect of soil electrical conductivity on moisture determination
using time-domain reflectometry in sandy soil. Canadian Journal of
Soil Science, 80, 13–22.
Tomer, M.D. & Anderson, J.L. 1995. Field evaluation of a soil
water capacitance probe in fine sand. Soil Science, 159, 90–98.
Topp, G.C., Davis, J.L. & Annan, A.P. 1980. Electromagnetic deter-
mination of soil water content: measurements of coaxial transmis-
sion lines. Water Resources Research, 16, 574–582.
Topp, G.C., Davics, J.L. & Annan, A.P. 1982. Electromagnetic
determination of soil water content using TDR: I. Applications to
wetting fronts and steep gradients. Soil Science Society of America
Journal, 46, 672–678.
Topp, G.C., Zegelin, S. & White, I. 2000. Impact of real and imagi-
nary components of relatively permittivity on time domain reflec-
tometry measurement in soils. Soil Science Society of America
Journal, 64, 1244–1252.
Wraith, J.M. & Or, D. 1999. Temperature effects on soil bulk dielec-
tric permittivity measured by time domain reflectometry: experi-
mental evidence and hypothesis development. Water Resources
Research, 35, 361–369.
Wyseure, G.C.L., Mojid, M.A. & Malik, M.A. 1997. Measurement
of volumetric water content by TDR in saline soils. European
Journal of Soil Science, 48, 347–354.