{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.029766123316796598, 'fraction_numerical': 0.008504606661941885, 'mean_word_length': 5.303571428571429, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Estimation of leaf wetness duration for a short-grass surface

The measurement of leaf wetness duration (LWD) was investigated using subhourly dielectric, infrared surface temperature, dewpoint temperature, grass temperature and relative humidity (RH) measurements. Near real-time LWD data and information displays and alerts were made available timeously via a web-based system. LWD was estimated above a short-grass surface using five methods: dielectric leaf wetness sensors (LWS); a constant RH for which wetness events were registered for RH greater than 87%; RH between 70–87% if RH increased by more than 3% in 30 min; and two dewpoint depression-based methods for which surface-measured temperature, using an infrared thermometer (IRT), and grass temperature were compared with the dewpoint at either 0.1 or 2 m. The RH methods generally overestimated LWD compared to the other methods. There was reasonable agreement between IRT- and grass-temperature methods if rain days were excluded but these methods showed poor agreement with LWS measurements of LWD. Microclimatic and radiative conditions, during nocturnal condensing events, are reported. Automatic weather station data would have more value if grass temperature was included for determination of LWD by comparison of grass temperature with a measured dewpoint, with timeous alerts and web-based display of near real-time LWD data and graphics.