Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22574050›Full record

ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2009

Wireless in-situ Sensor Network for Agriculture and Water Monitoring on a River Basin Scale in Southern Finland: Evaluation from a Data User's Perspective.

Niina Kotamäki, Sirpa Thessler, Jari Koskiaho, Asko O Hannukkala, Hanna Huitu, Timo Huttula, Jukka Havento, Markku Järvenpää

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Smart query answering for marine sensor data.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2011
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Sensing a changing world.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2009
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Niina KotamäkiFinnish Environment Institute, Jyväskylä Office / PO Box 35, FIN-40014 University of Jyväskylä / Finland; E-Mail: timo.huttula@environment.fi.
Sirpa Thessler
Jari Koskiaho
Asko O Hannukkala
Hanna Huitu
Timo Huttula
Jukka Havento
Markku Järvenpää

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Sensor networks are increasingly being implemented for environmental monitoring and agriculture to provide spatially accurate and continuous environmental information and (near) real-time applications. These networks provide a large amount of data which poses challenges for ensuring data quality and extracting relevant information. In the present paper we describe a river basin scale wireless sensor network for agriculture and water monitoring. The network, called SoilWeather, is unique and the first of this type in Finland. The performance of the network is assessed from the user and maintainer perspectives, concentrating on data quality, network maintenance and applications. The results showed that the SoilWeather network has been functioning in a relatively reliable way, but also that the maintenance and data quality assurance by automatic algorithms and calibration samples requires a lot of effort, especially in continuous water monitoring over large areas. We see great benefits on sensor networks enabling continuous, real-time monitoring, while data quality control and maintenance efforts highlight the need for tight collaboration between sensor and sensor network owners to decrease costs and increase the quality of the sensor data in large scale applications.

Indexed as

agriculturedata qualityenvironmental monitoringnetwork maintenanceSensor networks

Identifiers

PMID22574050
PMCPMC3348794

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.