Operational exposure of leaf wetness sensors

Leaf wetness duration (LWD) is a key factor in plant disease occurrence in many phytopathosystems and, consequently, an important variable in disease warning systems. Measurement of LWD is often problematic because of the lack of a standard sensor, and lack of a standard exposure protocol. According...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Agricultural and forest meteorology 2004-11, Vol.126 (1), p.59-72
Hauptverfasser: Sentelhas, Paulo C., Gillespie, Terry J., Gleason, Mark L., Monteiro, José Eduardo B.A., Helland, Sara T.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 72
container_issue 1
container_start_page 59
container_title Agricultural and forest meteorology
container_volume 126
creator Sentelhas, Paulo C.
Gillespie, Terry J.
Gleason, Mark L.
Monteiro, José Eduardo B.A.
Helland, Sara T.
description Leaf wetness duration (LWD) is a key factor in plant disease occurrence in many phytopathosystems and, consequently, an important variable in disease warning systems. Measurement of LWD is often problematic because of the lack of a standard sensor, and lack of a standard exposure protocol. Accordingly, operational aspects of LWD exposure were evaluated using data from experiments in three different locations: Elora, Ontario, Canada; Ames, IA, USA; and Piracicaba, SP, Brazil. LWD sensors (flat, printed-circuit) were installed at different heights and angles, and above or inside different crops: turfgrass and corn in Elora; turfgrass and muskmelon in Ames; and turfgrass and cotton in Piracicaba. Visual observations of dew onset and dry-off were made for comparison with the different sensor positions. At Elora and Piracicaba, sensors deployed 30 cm above turfgrass and between 15° and 45° to horizontal showed the smallest errors in relation to visual observations of turfgrass wetness, for both dew onset and dry-off. Assuming the sensor at 30 cm and 30° as a reference for LWD measurements over turfgrass it was possible to identify significant differences among the different sensor heights and angles, showing that the position of the sensor had a strong effect on LWD measurements. Sensors at 190 cm measured shorter average LWD – 97 min for Elora and 54 min for Piracicaba – than sensors at 30 cm. No significant difference was observed between the sensors at 30 and 70 cm in both places. In Ames, the average difference in LWD between the sensors at 30 and 150 cm (both deployed at 45°) was 33 min. In relation to the angle of deployment, sensors at 0° and 15° measured longer average LWD – 38 min for Elora and 56 min for Piracicaba – than sensors at 30° and 45°. LWD measured by sensors near the standard screen height over turfgrass differed considerably from LWD measured by sensors in the canopy, especially during periods with less than 15 h of wetness. In contrast, sensors at 30 cm over the turfgrass showed potential for use in operational plant disease management systems because they provided much more accurate estimates of crop LWD despite large differences in crop height and structure.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.agrformet.2004.05.009
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_17593436</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0168192304001595</els_id><sourcerecordid>17593436</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c398t-486622c7cd73c4ea8bfa8d313b06c6711207cb87d2f0d3f261386d71062db6a63</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkMtOwzAQRS0EEqXwDc0GViSM7dR2lhXiJSF1AV1brjNGqdK4eFIef09KESxZzebce0eHsQmHggNXV6vCvaQQ0xr7QgCUBUwLgOqAjbjRMheihEM2GkiT80rIY3ZCtALgQutqxC7nG0yub2Ln2gw_NpG2CbMYshZdyN6x75AoI-woJjplR8G1hGc_d8wWtzfP1_f54_zu4Xr2mHtZmT4vjVJCeO1rLX2JziyDM7XkcgnKK825AO2XRtciQC2DUFwaVWsOStRL5ZQcs4t97ybF1y1Sb9cNeWxb12HckuV6WslS7kC9B32KRAmD3aRm7dKn5WB3duzK_tqxOzsWpnawMyTPfyYcedeG5Drf0F9ciYqr74XJngsu7qoGZvEkgMuhRFVTYQZitidwMPLWYLLkG-w81k1C39s6Nv9-8wUdSYeQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>17593436</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Operational exposure of leaf wetness sensors</title><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Sentelhas, Paulo C. ; Gillespie, Terry J. ; Gleason, Mark L. ; Monteiro, José Eduardo B.A. ; Helland, Sara T.</creator><creatorcontrib>Sentelhas, Paulo C. ; Gillespie, Terry J. ; Gleason, Mark L. ; Monteiro, José Eduardo B.A. ; Helland, Sara T.</creatorcontrib><description>Leaf wetness duration (LWD) is a key factor in plant disease occurrence in many phytopathosystems and, consequently, an important variable in disease warning systems. Measurement of LWD is often problematic because of the lack of a standard sensor, and lack of a standard exposure protocol. Accordingly, operational aspects of LWD exposure were evaluated using data from experiments in three different locations: Elora, Ontario, Canada; Ames, IA, USA; and Piracicaba, SP, Brazil. LWD sensors (flat, printed-circuit) were installed at different heights and angles, and above or inside different crops: turfgrass and corn in Elora; turfgrass and muskmelon in Ames; and turfgrass and cotton in Piracicaba. Visual observations of dew onset and dry-off were made for comparison with the different sensor positions. At Elora and Piracicaba, sensors deployed 30 cm above turfgrass and between 15° and 45° to horizontal showed the smallest errors in relation to visual observations of turfgrass wetness, for both dew onset and dry-off. Assuming the sensor at 30 cm and 30° as a reference for LWD measurements over turfgrass it was possible to identify significant differences among the different sensor heights and angles, showing that the position of the sensor had a strong effect on LWD measurements. Sensors at 190 cm measured shorter average LWD – 97 min for Elora and 54 min for Piracicaba – than sensors at 30 cm. No significant difference was observed between the sensors at 30 and 70 cm in both places. In Ames, the average difference in LWD between the sensors at 30 and 150 cm (both deployed at 45°) was 33 min. In relation to the angle of deployment, sensors at 0° and 15° measured longer average LWD – 38 min for Elora and 56 min for Piracicaba – than sensors at 30° and 45°. LWD measured by sensors near the standard screen height over turfgrass differed considerably from LWD measured by sensors in the canopy, especially during periods with less than 15 h of wetness. In contrast, sensors at 30 cm over the turfgrass showed potential for use in operational plant disease management systems because they provided much more accurate estimates of crop LWD despite large differences in crop height and structure.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0168-1923</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1873-2240</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.agrformet.2004.05.009</identifier><identifier>CODEN: AFMEEB</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Amsterdam: Elsevier B.V</publisher><subject>Agricultural and forest climatology and meteorology. Irrigation. Drainage ; Agronomy. Soil science and plant productions ; Biological and medical sciences ; Corn ; Cotton ; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology ; General agronomy. Plant production ; Leaf wetness duration ; Muskmelon ; Plant disease warning system</subject><ispartof>Agricultural and forest meteorology, 2004-11, Vol.126 (1), p.59-72</ispartof><rights>2004 Elsevier B.V.</rights><rights>2005 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c398t-486622c7cd73c4ea8bfa8d313b06c6711207cb87d2f0d3f261386d71062db6a63</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c398t-486622c7cd73c4ea8bfa8d313b06c6711207cb87d2f0d3f261386d71062db6a63</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168192304001595$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3536,27903,27904,65309</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=16291636$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Sentelhas, Paulo C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gillespie, Terry J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gleason, Mark L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Monteiro, José Eduardo B.A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Helland, Sara T.</creatorcontrib><title>Operational exposure of leaf wetness sensors</title><title>Agricultural and forest meteorology</title><description>Leaf wetness duration (LWD) is a key factor in plant disease occurrence in many phytopathosystems and, consequently, an important variable in disease warning systems. Measurement of LWD is often problematic because of the lack of a standard sensor, and lack of a standard exposure protocol. Accordingly, operational aspects of LWD exposure were evaluated using data from experiments in three different locations: Elora, Ontario, Canada; Ames, IA, USA; and Piracicaba, SP, Brazil. LWD sensors (flat, printed-circuit) were installed at different heights and angles, and above or inside different crops: turfgrass and corn in Elora; turfgrass and muskmelon in Ames; and turfgrass and cotton in Piracicaba. Visual observations of dew onset and dry-off were made for comparison with the different sensor positions. At Elora and Piracicaba, sensors deployed 30 cm above turfgrass and between 15° and 45° to horizontal showed the smallest errors in relation to visual observations of turfgrass wetness, for both dew onset and dry-off. Assuming the sensor at 30 cm and 30° as a reference for LWD measurements over turfgrass it was possible to identify significant differences among the different sensor heights and angles, showing that the position of the sensor had a strong effect on LWD measurements. Sensors at 190 cm measured shorter average LWD – 97 min for Elora and 54 min for Piracicaba – than sensors at 30 cm. No significant difference was observed between the sensors at 30 and 70 cm in both places. In Ames, the average difference in LWD between the sensors at 30 and 150 cm (both deployed at 45°) was 33 min. In relation to the angle of deployment, sensors at 0° and 15° measured longer average LWD – 38 min for Elora and 56 min for Piracicaba – than sensors at 30° and 45°. LWD measured by sensors near the standard screen height over turfgrass differed considerably from LWD measured by sensors in the canopy, especially during periods with less than 15 h of wetness. In contrast, sensors at 30 cm over the turfgrass showed potential for use in operational plant disease management systems because they provided much more accurate estimates of crop LWD despite large differences in crop height and structure.</description><subject>Agricultural and forest climatology and meteorology. Irrigation. Drainage</subject><subject>Agronomy. Soil science and plant productions</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Corn</subject><subject>Cotton</subject><subject>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</subject><subject>General agronomy. Plant production</subject><subject>Leaf wetness duration</subject><subject>Muskmelon</subject><subject>Plant disease warning system</subject><issn>0168-1923</issn><issn>1873-2240</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2004</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqFkMtOwzAQRS0EEqXwDc0GViSM7dR2lhXiJSF1AV1brjNGqdK4eFIef09KESxZzebce0eHsQmHggNXV6vCvaQQ0xr7QgCUBUwLgOqAjbjRMheihEM2GkiT80rIY3ZCtALgQutqxC7nG0yub2Ln2gw_NpG2CbMYshZdyN6x75AoI-woJjplR8G1hGc_d8wWtzfP1_f54_zu4Xr2mHtZmT4vjVJCeO1rLX2JziyDM7XkcgnKK825AO2XRtciQC2DUFwaVWsOStRL5ZQcs4t97ybF1y1Sb9cNeWxb12HckuV6WslS7kC9B32KRAmD3aRm7dKn5WB3duzK_tqxOzsWpnawMyTPfyYcedeG5Drf0F9ciYqr74XJngsu7qoGZvEkgMuhRFVTYQZitidwMPLWYLLkG-w81k1C39s6Nv9-8wUdSYeQ</recordid><startdate>20041120</startdate><enddate>20041120</enddate><creator>Sentelhas, Paulo C.</creator><creator>Gillespie, Terry J.</creator><creator>Gleason, Mark L.</creator><creator>Monteiro, José Eduardo B.A.</creator><creator>Helland, Sara T.</creator><general>Elsevier B.V</general><general>Elsevier</general><scope>FBQ</scope><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>KL.</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20041120</creationdate><title>Operational exposure of leaf wetness sensors</title><author>Sentelhas, Paulo C. ; Gillespie, Terry J. ; Gleason, Mark L. ; Monteiro, José Eduardo B.A. ; Helland, Sara T.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c398t-486622c7cd73c4ea8bfa8d313b06c6711207cb87d2f0d3f261386d71062db6a63</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2004</creationdate><topic>Agricultural and forest climatology and meteorology. Irrigation. Drainage</topic><topic>Agronomy. Soil science and plant productions</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Corn</topic><topic>Cotton</topic><topic>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</topic><topic>General agronomy. Plant production</topic><topic>Leaf wetness duration</topic><topic>Muskmelon</topic><topic>Plant disease warning system</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Sentelhas, Paulo C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gillespie, Terry J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gleason, Mark L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Monteiro, José Eduardo B.A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Helland, Sara T.</creatorcontrib><collection>AGRIS</collection><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><jtitle>Agricultural and forest meteorology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Sentelhas, Paulo C.</au><au>Gillespie, Terry J.</au><au>Gleason, Mark L.</au><au>Monteiro, José Eduardo B.A.</au><au>Helland, Sara T.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Operational exposure of leaf wetness sensors</atitle><jtitle>Agricultural and forest meteorology</jtitle><date>2004-11-20</date><risdate>2004</risdate><volume>126</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>59</spage><epage>72</epage><pages>59-72</pages><issn>0168-1923</issn><eissn>1873-2240</eissn><coden>AFMEEB</coden><abstract>Leaf wetness duration (LWD) is a key factor in plant disease occurrence in many phytopathosystems and, consequently, an important variable in disease warning systems. Measurement of LWD is often problematic because of the lack of a standard sensor, and lack of a standard exposure protocol. Accordingly, operational aspects of LWD exposure were evaluated using data from experiments in three different locations: Elora, Ontario, Canada; Ames, IA, USA; and Piracicaba, SP, Brazil. LWD sensors (flat, printed-circuit) were installed at different heights and angles, and above or inside different crops: turfgrass and corn in Elora; turfgrass and muskmelon in Ames; and turfgrass and cotton in Piracicaba. Visual observations of dew onset and dry-off were made for comparison with the different sensor positions. At Elora and Piracicaba, sensors deployed 30 cm above turfgrass and between 15° and 45° to horizontal showed the smallest errors in relation to visual observations of turfgrass wetness, for both dew onset and dry-off. Assuming the sensor at 30 cm and 30° as a reference for LWD measurements over turfgrass it was possible to identify significant differences among the different sensor heights and angles, showing that the position of the sensor had a strong effect on LWD measurements. Sensors at 190 cm measured shorter average LWD – 97 min for Elora and 54 min for Piracicaba – than sensors at 30 cm. No significant difference was observed between the sensors at 30 and 70 cm in both places. In Ames, the average difference in LWD between the sensors at 30 and 150 cm (both deployed at 45°) was 33 min. In relation to the angle of deployment, sensors at 0° and 15° measured longer average LWD – 38 min for Elora and 56 min for Piracicaba – than sensors at 30° and 45°. LWD measured by sensors near the standard screen height over turfgrass differed considerably from LWD measured by sensors in the canopy, especially during periods with less than 15 h of wetness. In contrast, sensors at 30 cm over the turfgrass showed potential for use in operational plant disease management systems because they provided much more accurate estimates of crop LWD despite large differences in crop height and structure.</abstract><cop>Amsterdam</cop><cop>Oxford</cop><cop>New York, NY</cop><pub>Elsevier B.V</pub><doi>10.1016/j.agrformet.2004.05.009</doi><tpages>14</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0168-1923
ispartof Agricultural and forest meteorology, 2004-11, Vol.126 (1), p.59-72
issn 0168-1923
1873-2240
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_17593436
source Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals
subjects Agricultural and forest climatology and meteorology. Irrigation. Drainage
Agronomy. Soil science and plant productions
Biological and medical sciences
Corn
Cotton
Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology
General agronomy. Plant production
Leaf wetness duration
Muskmelon
Plant disease warning system
title Operational exposure of leaf wetness sensors
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-27T07%3A13%3A19IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Operational%20exposure%20of%20leaf%20wetness%20sensors&rft.jtitle=Agricultural%20and%20forest%20meteorology&rft.au=Sentelhas,%20Paulo%20C.&rft.date=2004-11-20&rft.volume=126&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=59&rft.epage=72&rft.pages=59-72&rft.issn=0168-1923&rft.eissn=1873-2240&rft.coden=AFMEEB&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.agrformet.2004.05.009&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E17593436%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=17593436&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_els_id=S0168192304001595&rfr_iscdi=true