% 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{Weihermller:57158,
author = {Weihermüller, L. and Huisman, J. A. and Lambot, S. and
Herbst, M. and Vereecken, H.},
title = {{M}apping the spatial variation of soil water content at
the field scale with different ground penetrating radar
techniques},
journal = {Journal of hydrology},
volume = {340},
issn = {0022-1694},
address = {Amsterdam [u.a.]},
publisher = {Elsevier},
reportid = {PreJuSER-57158},
pages = {205 - 216},
year = {2007},
note = {Record converted from VDB: 12.11.2012},
abstract = {Two ground penetrating radar (GPR) techniques were used to
estimate the shallow soil water content at the field scale.
The first technique is based on the ground wave velocity
measured with a bistatic impulse radar connected to 450 MHz
ground-coupled antennas. The second technique is based on
inverse modeling of an off-ground monostatic TEM horn
antenna in the 0.8-1.6 GHz frequency range. Data were
collected on a 8 by 9 m partially irrigated intensive
research plot and along four 148.5 m transects. Time domain
reflectometry, capacitance sensors, and volumetric soil
samples were used as reference measurements. The aim of the
study was to test the applicability of the ground wave
method and the off-ground inverse modeling approach at the
field scale for a soil with a silt Loam texture. The results
for the ground wave technique were difficult to interpret
due to the strong attenuation of the GPR signal, which is
related to the silt Loam texture at the test site. The root
mean square error of the ground wave technique was 0.076
m(3) m(-3) when compared to the TDR measurements and 0.102
m(3) m(-3) when compared with the volumetric soil samples.
The off-ground monostatic GPR measured less within-field
soil water content variability than the reference
measurements, resulting in a root mean square error of 0.053
m(3) m(-3) when compared with the TDR measurements and an
error of 0.051 m(3) m(-3) when compared with the volumetric
soil samples. The variability between the two GPR
measurements was even Larger with a RSME of 0.115 m(3)
m(-3). In summary, both GPR methods did not provide adequate
spatial information on soil water content variation at the
field scale. The main reason for the deviating results of
the ground wave method was the poor data quality due to high
silt and clay content at the test site. Additional reasons
were shallow reflections and the dry upper soil layer that
cannot be detected by the ground wave method. In the case of
off-ground GPR, the high sensitivity to the dry surface
layer is the most likely reason for the observed deviations.
The off-ground GPR results might be improved by using a
different antenna that allows data acquisition in a lower
frequency range. (C) 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights
reserved.},
keywords = {J (WoSType)},
cin = {ICG-4 / JARA-ENERGY / JARA-SIM},
ddc = {690},
cid = {I:(DE-Juel1)VDB793 / $I:(DE-82)080011_20140620$ /
I:(DE-Juel1)VDB1045},
pnm = {Terrestrische Umwelt},
pid = {G:(DE-Juel1)FUEK407},
shelfmark = {Engineering, Civil / Geosciences, Multidisciplinary / Water
Resources},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
UT = {WOS:000248166500006},
doi = {10.1016/j.jhydrol.2007.04.013},
url = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/57158},
}