1. A System for Monitoring Soil Moisture in Canada’s Agricultural Landscapes Allan Howard 1 H. McNairn 1, A Pacheco 1, J. Powers 1, J. L’Heureux 1, A. Chipanshi 1, E. R. Ojo 2, S. Belair 3 1 Science & Technology Branch, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada 2 University of Manitoba 3 Science & Technology, Environment Canada August 2014

2. How Can Soil Moisture Monitoring Help? Extreme weather events and climatic variability have a significant effect on Canada’s agricultural sector: Years Economic ImpactComment 2010 & 2011 $700 million across Canada drought and flood relief 2008 - 2012 $ 785 million federal-provincial disaster relief payouts, and $16.7 billion agroclimate insurance was paid out. 2006 $110 million for excess wetness drought then hit the same region later that summer 2001-2002 $5.8 billion impact on GDP drought (cost of 2 yrs of a drought > 4 yrs duration) In the past 15 years only one year, 2013, had no major climate related disasters The costs do not reflect the total impact on the sector Early warning of impending drought or excessive moisture required for adaptation Soil moisture is an early warning indicator of: Drought onset Risk of flooding and excessive moisture 2

3. Real-Time In-Situ Soil Monitoring for Agriculture (RISMA) Develop best practices for monitoring soil moisture in agricultural landscapes Assist in calibrating remotely sensed soil moisture (e.g. SMAP) Series of in-situ soil moisture monitoring sites were installed between 2010 and 2012 Basic standards 3 –Standardized depths. –Coaxial Impedance Dielectric Reflectometry sensor technology: measure soil-dielectric and calculate soil moisture. –Soil temperature measured concurrent with soil moisture. –Near real time data transmission and processing with on- site data storage as backup. –Siting & soils to represent agricultural landscapes & practices for the area.

4. Locations of In-Situ Monitoring Sites 4

5. Soil Particle Size: MB and SK Sites 5 MB2 MB3 MB4 MB6 MB8 MB7 MB1 MB9 MB5 0-20cm MB5 50-100cm SK1 SK2 SK3 SK4 ON1 ON2 ON3 ON4 0-5 cm ON4 20 cm ON4 50 cm ON5

6. Soil Properties: MB sites 6 Station Crop (2013) Depth (cm) Density (g/cm 3 ) CEC (meq/100g) MB -1 Corn5 1.28 8.37 20 1.56 8.50 50 1.54 8.94 100 1.57 5.14 MB-2Corn5 1.35 24.3 20 1.63 21.5 50 1.63 12.2 100 1.57 6.02 MB-3Soybean5 1.47 21.0 20 1.52 21.9 50 1.44 19.4 100 1.41 15.8 MB-4Soybean5 1.33 5.14 20 1.50 6.02 50 1.60 6.50 100 1.58 4.43 MB-5Corn5 1.46 22.9 20 1.41 20.3 50 1.33 25.5 100 1.32 25.8 Station Crop (2013) Depth (cm) Density (g/cm 3 ) CEC (meq/100g) MB-6Soybean5 1.21 41.0 20 1.39 36.3 50 1.31 32.2 100 1.31 30.9 MB-7Corn5 1.40 12.2 20 1.59 12.4 50 1.57 12.6 100 1.58 5.36 MB-8Soybean5 1.22 40.7 20 1.38 39.7 50 1.38 37.6 100 1.50 35.6 MB-9Oat5 1.53 9.34 20 1.60 10.3 50 1.53 12.8 100 1.58 9.31 RoTimi Ojo et al, in review

7. Land Use Manitoba (MB): 12 sites; all annual crops –Crop rotation; corn, soybeans and oats in 2013 –Cultivation in spring; fall tillage for some rotations –Sensors located in field but protected from the farm operations; crops are the same but managed with plot equipment Saskatchewan (SK): 4 sites; all forage (perennial) crops –No cultivation but hay harvesting required twice/year –Sensors installed to 150 cm depth to account for deeper rooting Ontario Sites (ON): 5 sites; all annual crops –Corn and soybeans –Depth to 50 cm only due to high water table at the sites –Shallow sensors placed at field edge to be clear of field operations and 50 cm depth sensor placed in the field 7

8. Layout of Sensors 20 cm 50 cm 100 cm 1 150 cm 2 1 m Stevens Hydra Probes Surface - vertical placement 0-5cm At depth – all sensors are horizontal 5 cm 1 SK and MB sites only 2 SK sites only Depth offset Sensor nest spacing 8

9. AAFC Permanent soil moisture stations 3 replicates of moisture probes for each depth per station Depths: surface (0-5cm), 5 cm, 20 cm, 50 cm and 100 cm Probes are 15-30 m from field edge Tipping bucket rain gauge, air temp, relative humidity, solar radiation (installed 2013-14) at SK and MB sites Data is transmitted hourly via modem Soil Moisture Stations

10. Data Collection and Dissemination 10 Data recorded at 15 min intervals and transmitted hourly:  Soil Moisture (m 3 / m 3 )  Soil Temperature ( o C)  Precipitation (mm)  Air Temperature ( o C)  Relative Humidity (%)  Wind Speed (m/sec)  Wind Direction (deg)  Solar Radiation (MJ/ m 2 )* * At some sites Datalogger Telecom AAFC Firewall Data Receiver LoggerNet & Adcon Gateway Processing & Storage Server Internet SOS Server Raw and QC Data AAFC Internet Server Download via User- Friendly Website Download via AAFC FTP

11. Soil Moisture: MB Site 8; 2014 Jan 14-14 Mar 02-14 Jul 01-14 Jun 01-14 Feb 01-14 Apr 01-14 May 01-14 Aug 01-14 MB8 Hydraprobe R1 MB8 Hydraprobe R2 MB8 Hydraprobe R3 Precipitation MB8 Apr 16-14

12. 12 MB8 Hydraprobe R1 MB8 Hydraprobe R2 MB8 Hydraprobe R3 Precipitation MB8 Jan 01-14 Mar 02-14 Jul 01-14 Jun 01-14 Feb 01-14 Apr 01-14 May 01-14 Aug 01-14 MB8 (20cm) 2014 Season Summary MB8 (5cm) 2014 Season Summary Apr 16-14

13. RISMA website 2014 13

14. Some Key Points Some early success in calibrating a soil water budget model (VSMB) to the in-situ data at the SK sites –r 2 ranged from 0.54 – 0.93 based on site variability The surface sensors placed vertically have been valuable in validating remotely sensed data Field calibration of sensors is recommended –CEC is a key factor in calibration at the MB sites Lease agreements with land owners recommended Working in agricultural fields has challenges –Unexpected data dropping –Sites require vegetation management (e.g. weeding, cutting of grass, matching crop and mgmt. practices of the farm) –Cattle have chewed through wiring at some SK sites 14

15. Summary Still a work in progress Focus is currently on calibration and validation of sensor data Data is available at http://aafc.geocens.ca/networkshttp://aafc.geocens.ca/networks Several research and modelling studies and at least one operational agency using the data Agreement with NASA to provide data for SMAP Cal/Val until 2016 Key challenges: –Maintaining the data availability –Ensuring long-term viability of the sites 15

16. Thank You! Allan.Howard@agr.gc.ca