Home > Publications database > Calibration of a catchment scale cosmic-ray probe network: A comparison of three parameterization methods > print

001     151431
005     20220930130027.0
024 7 _ |a 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.02.026
|2 doi
024 7 _ |a 1879-2707
|2 ISSN
024 7 _ |a 0022-1694
|2 ISSN
024 7 _ |a WOS:000339036100022
|2 WOS
037 _ _ |a FZJ-2014-01379
082 _ _ |a 690
100 1 _ |a Baatz, R.
|0 P:(DE-Juel1)144513
|b 0
|e Corresponding author
|u fzj
245 _ _ |a Calibration of a catchment scale cosmic-ray probe network: A comparison of three parameterization methods
260 _ _ |a Amsterdam [u.a.]
|c 2014
|b Elsevier
336 7 _ |a Journal Article
|b journal
|m journal
|0 PUB:(DE-HGF)16
|s 1405343782_22671
|2 PUB:(DE-HGF)
336 7 _ |a Output Types/Journal article
|2 DataCite
336 7 _ |a Journal Article
|0 0
|2 EndNote
336 7 _ |a ARTICLE
|2 BibTeX
336 7 _ |a JOURNAL_ARTICLE
|2 ORCID
336 7 _ |a article
|2 DRIVER
520 _ _ |a The objective of this work was to assess the accuracy of soil water content determination from neutron flux measured by cosmic-ray probes under humid climate conditions. Ten cosmic-ray probes were set up in the Rur catchment located in western Germany, and calibrated by gravimetric soil sampling campaigns. Aboveground biomass was estimated at the sites to investigate the role of vegetation cover on the neutron flux and the calibration procedure. Three parameterization methods were used to generate site-specific neutron flux - soil water content calibration curves: i) the N0-method, ii) the hydrogen molar fraction method (hmf-method), and iii) the COSMIC-method. At five locations, calibration measurements were repeated to evaluate site-specific calibration parameters obtained in two different sampling campaigns. At two locations, soil water content determined by cosmic-ray probes was evaluated with horizontally and vertically weighted soil water content measurements of two distributed in-situ soil water content sensor networks. All three methods were successfully calibrated to determine field scale soil water content continuously at the ten sites. The hmf-method and the COSMIC-method had more similar calibration curves than the N0-method. The three methods performed similarly well in the validation and errors were within the uncertainty of neutron flux measurements despite observed differences in the calibration curves and variable model complexity. In addition, we found that the obtained calibration parameters NCOSMIC, N0 and NS showed a strong correlation with aboveground biomass.
536 _ _ |a 246 - Modelling and Monitoring Terrestrial Systems: Methods and Technologies (POF2-246)
|0 G:(DE-HGF)POF2-246
|c POF2-246
|f POF II
|x 0
536 _ _ |a 255 - Terrestrial Systems: From Observation to Prediction (POF3-255)
|0 G:(DE-HGF)POF3-255
|c POF3-255
|f POF III
|x 1
588 _ _ |a Dataset connected to CrossRef, juser.fz-juelich.de
700 1 _ |a Bogena, Heye
|0 P:(DE-Juel1)129440
|b 1
|u fzj
700 1 _ |a Hendricks Franssen, H.-J.
|0 P:(DE-HGF)0
|b 2
700 1 _ |a Huisman, J. A.
|0 P:(DE-Juel1)129472
|b 3
|u fzj
700 1 _ |a Qu, W.
|0 P:(DE-Juel1)142576
|b 4
|u fzj
700 1 _ |a Montzka, C.
|0 P:(DE-Juel1)129506
|b 5
|u fzj
700 1 _ |a Vereecken, H.
|0 P:(DE-Juel1)129549
|b 6
|u fzj
773 _ _ |a 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.02.026
|g p. S0022169414001346
|0 PERI:(DE-600)1473173-3
|p 231–244
|t Journal of hydrology
|v 516
|y 2014
|x 0022-1694
856 4 _ |u https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/151431/files/FZJ-2014-01379.pdf
|z Published final document.
|y Restricted
909 C O |o oai:juser.fz-juelich.de:151431
|p OpenAPC
|p VDB
|p VDB:Earth_Environment
|p openCost
910 1 _ |a Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH
|0 I:(DE-588b)5008462-8
|k FZJ
|b 0
|6 P:(DE-Juel1)144513
910 1 _ |a Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH
|0 I:(DE-588b)5008462-8
|k FZJ
|b 1
|6 P:(DE-Juel1)129440
910 1 _ |a Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH
|0 I:(DE-588b)5008462-8
|k FZJ
|b 3
|6 P:(DE-Juel1)129472
910 1 _ |a Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH
|0 I:(DE-588b)5008462-8
|k FZJ
|b 4
|6 P:(DE-Juel1)142576
910 1 _ |a Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH
|0 I:(DE-588b)5008462-8
|k FZJ
|b 5
|6 P:(DE-Juel1)129506
910 1 _ |a Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH
|0 I:(DE-588b)5008462-8
|k FZJ
|b 6
|6 P:(DE-Juel1)129549
913 2 _ |a DE-HGF
|b Marine, Küsten- und Polare Systeme
|l Terrestrische Umwelt
|1 G:(DE-HGF)POF3-250
|0 G:(DE-HGF)POF3-255
|2 G:(DE-HGF)POF3-200
|v Terrestrial Systems: From Observation to Prediction
|x 0
913 1 _ |a DE-HGF
|b Erde und Umwelt
|l Terrestrische Umwelt
|1 G:(DE-HGF)POF2-240
|0 G:(DE-HGF)POF2-246
|2 G:(DE-HGF)POF2-200
|v Modelling and Monitoring Terrestrial Systems: Methods and Technologies
|x 0
|4 G:(DE-HGF)POF
|3 G:(DE-HGF)POF2
913 1 _ |a DE-HGF
|l Terrestrische Umwelt
|1 G:(DE-HGF)POF3-250
|0 G:(DE-HGF)POF3-255
|2 G:(DE-HGF)POF3-200
|v Terrestrial Systems: From Observation to Prediction
|x 1
|4 G:(DE-HGF)POF
|3 G:(DE-HGF)POF3
|b Erde und Umwelt
914 1 _ |y 2014
915 _ _ |a JCR/ISI refereed
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0010
|2 StatID
915 _ _ |a JCR
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0100
|2 StatID
915 _ _ |a WoS
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0110
|2 StatID
|b Science Citation Index
915 _ _ |a WoS
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0111
|2 StatID
|b Science Citation Index Expanded
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0150
|2 StatID
|b Web of Science Core Collection
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0199
|2 StatID
|b Thomson Reuters Master Journal List
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0200
|2 StatID
|b SCOPUS
915 _ _ |a Nationallizenz
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0420
|2 StatID
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)1050
|2 StatID
|b BIOSIS Previews
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)1060
|2 StatID
|b Current Contents - Agriculture, Biology and Environmental Sciences
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)1160
|2 StatID
|b Current Contents - Engineering, Computing and Technology
920 1 _ |0 I:(DE-Juel1)IBG-3-20101118
|k IBG-3
|l Agrosphäre
|x 0
980 _ _ |a journal
980 _ _ |a VDB
980 _ _ |a I:(DE-Juel1)IBG-3-20101118
980 _ _ |a UNRESTRICTED
980 _ _ |a APC

LibraryCollectionCLSMajorCLSMinorLanguageAuthor
Marc 21