% 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{Laloy:18205,
author = {Laloy, E. and Javaux, M. and Vanclooster, M. and Roisin, C.
and Bielders, C.L.},
title = {{E}lectrical resistivity in a loamy soil: {I}dentification
of the appropriate pedo-electrical model},
journal = {Vadose zone journal},
volume = {10},
issn = {1539-1663},
address = {Madison, Wis.},
publisher = {SSSA},
reportid = {PreJuSER-18205},
pages = {1023 - 1033},
year = {2011},
note = {This work was supported by the Direction Generale de
l'Agriculture, des Ressources Naturelles et de
l'Environnement of the Walloon Region (DGARNE-RW) within the
project INFOSOL. Support of J. Verswijvel in the laboratory
ERT measurements is highly appreciated. We thank Damien
Jougnot and John Koestel for their many useful comments and
suggestions. We also acknowledge Andre Revil for fruitful
discussions.},
abstract = {Electrical resistance tomography (ERT) can be used for the
noninvasive characterization of soil moisture and soil
structural heterogeneity. Any attempt to relate electrical
resistivity measurements to soil moisture content or soil
bulk density, however, must rely on a "pedo-electrical"
function, i.e., a conductivity model for soils. This study
aimed to test five pedo-electrical models for their ability
to reproduce electrical resistivity as measured by ERT in a
silt loam soil sample across a range of moisture and bulk
density values. The Waxman and Smits model, the Revil model,
the volume-averaging (VA) model, the Rhoades model, and the
Mojid model were inverted within a Bayesian framework,
thereby identifying not only the optimal parameter set but
also parameter uncertainty and its effect on model
prediction. The VA model outperformed the other models in
terms of both fit and parameter consistency with respect to
independent estimates of surface conductivity obtained with
published pedotransfer functions. Sensitivity of the
electrical resistivity was then studied by means of the
calibrated VA model, revealing an approximately 1.5 times
higher sensitivity to soil moisture content than to soil
bulk density. In addition, the sensitivity of electrical
resistivity to soil moisture and soil bulk density was found
to increase as soil moisture and bulk density decreased. The
VA model calibrated on the basis of resistivity measurements
appeared to simulate relatively well the measured soil
moisture content for electrical resistivity values < 100
Omega m. As opposed to water content, the soil porosity was
badly approximated by the model. It appears therefore that
ERT is more suitable for detecting heterogeneity in soil
water content than differences in soil bulk density.},
keywords = {J (WoSType)},
cin = {IBG-3},
ddc = {550},
cid = {I:(DE-Juel1)IBG-3-20101118},
pnm = {Terrestrische Umwelt},
pid = {G:(DE-Juel1)FUEK407},
shelfmark = {Environmental Sciences / Soil Science / Water Resources},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
UT = {WOS:000294007600019},
doi = {10.2136/vzj2010.0095},
url = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/18205},
}