% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@ARTICLE{Nieberding:1010227,
author = {Nieberding, Felix and Huisman, Johan Alexander and Huebner,
Christof and Schilling, Bernd and Weuthen, Ansgar and
Bogena, Heye},
title = {{E}valuation of {T}hree {S}oil {M}oisture {P}rofile
{S}ensors {U}sing {L}aboratory and {F}ield {E}xperiments},
journal = {Sensors},
volume = {23},
number = {14},
issn = {1424-8220},
address = {Basel},
publisher = {MDPI},
reportid = {FZJ-2023-03029},
pages = {6581 -},
year = {2023},
note = {The grants for this paper can not be selected from the drop
down menu. As stated in the paper: This research was funded
by the BMBF BioökonomieREVIER funding scheme with
its“BioRevierPlus” project “DG-RR” (grant number
031B1137DX) and BMBF funding measure WaX, project
“SpreeWasser:N” (grant number 02WEE1633I). Maybe these
can be added to the list?Best regards,Felix Nieberding},
abstract = {Soil moisture profile sensors (SMPSs) have a high potential
for climate-smart agriculture due to their easy handling and
ability to perform simultaneous measurements at different
depths. To date, an accurate and easy-to-use method for the
evaluation of long SMPSs is not available. In this study, we
developed laboratory and field experiments to evaluate three
different SMPSs (SoilVUE10, $Drill\&Drop,$ and SMT500) in
terms of measurement accuracy, sensor-to-sensor variability,
and temperature stability. The laboratory experiment
features a temperature-controlled lysimeter to evaluate
intra-sensor variability and temperature stability of SMPSs.
The field experiment features a water level-controlled
sandbox and reference TDR measurements to evaluate the soil
water measurement accuracy of the SMPS. In both experiments,
a well-characterized fine sand was used as measurement
medium to ensure homogeneous dielectric properties in the
measurement domain of the sensors. The laboratory
experiments with the lysimeter showed that the $Drill\&Drop$
sensor has the highest temperature sensitivity with a
decrease of 0.014 m3 m−3 per 10 °C, but at the same time
showed the lowest intra- and inter-sensor variability. The
field experiment with the sandbox showed that all three
SMPSs have a similar performance (average RMSE ≈ 0.023 m3
m−3) with higher uncertainties at intermediate soil
moisture contents. The presented combination of laboratory
and field tests were found to be well suited to evaluate the
performance of SMPSs and will be used to test additional
SMPSs in the future.},
cin = {IBG-3},
ddc = {620},
cid = {I:(DE-Juel1)IBG-3-20101118},
pnm = {2173 - Agro-biogeosystems: controls, feedbacks and impact
(POF4-217)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-2173},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
pubmed = {37514878},
UT = {WOS:001036612800001},
doi = {10.3390/s23146581},
url = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/1010227},
}