001     57158
005     20200423204450.0
017 _ _ |a The definitive version is available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00221694
024 7 _ |a 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2007.04.013
|2 DOI
024 7 _ |a WOS:000248166500006
|2 WOS
024 7 _ |a 2128/2538
|2 Handle
037 _ _ |a PreJuSER-57158
041 _ _ |a eng
082 _ _ |a 690
084 _ _ |2 WoS
|a Engineering, Civil
084 _ _ |2 WoS
|a Geosciences, Multidisciplinary
084 _ _ |2 WoS
|a Water Resources
100 1 _ |a Weihermüller, L.
|b 0
|u FZJ
|0 P:(DE-Juel1)VDB17057
245 _ _ |a Mapping the spatial variation of soil water content at the field scale with different ground penetrating radar techniques
260 _ _ |a Amsterdam [u.a.]
|b Elsevier
|c 2007
300 _ _ |a 205 - 216
336 7 _ |a Journal Article
|0 PUB:(DE-HGF)16
|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
440 _ 0 |a Journal of Hydrology
|x 0022-1694
|0 3413
|v 340
500 _ _ |a Record converted from VDB: 12.11.2012
520 _ _ |a 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.
536 _ _ |a Terrestrische Umwelt
|c P24
|2 G:(DE-HGF)
|0 G:(DE-Juel1)FUEK407
|x 0
588 _ _ |a Dataset connected to Web of Science
650 _ 7 |a J
|2 WoSType
653 2 0 |2 Author
|a GPR
653 2 0 |2 Author
|a ground wave
653 2 0 |2 Author
|a off-ground
653 2 0 |2 Author
|a TDR
653 2 0 |2 Author
|a soil water content
653 2 0 |2 Author
|a field scale
700 1 _ |a Huisman, J. A.
|b 1
|u FZJ
|0 P:(DE-Juel1)129472
700 1 _ |a Lambot, S.
|b 2
|u FZJ
|0 P:(DE-Juel1)VDB54976
700 1 _ |a Herbst, M.
|b 3
|u FZJ
|0 P:(DE-Juel1)129469
700 1 _ |a Vereecken, H.
|b 4
|u FZJ
|0 P:(DE-Juel1)129549
773 _ _ |a 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2007.04.013
|g Vol. 340, p. 205 - 216
|p 205 - 216
|q 340<205 - 216
|0 PERI:(DE-600)1473173-3
|t Journal of hydrology
|v 340
|y 2007
|x 0022-1694
856 7 _ |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2007.04.013
|u http://hdl.handle.net/2128/2538
856 4 _ |u https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/57158/files/GPR-Final-text.pdf
|y OpenAccess
856 4 _ |u https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/57158/files/GPR-Final-text.jpg?subformat=icon-1440
|x icon-1440
|y OpenAccess
856 4 _ |u https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/57158/files/GPR-Final-text.jpg?subformat=icon-180
|x icon-180
|y OpenAccess
856 4 _ |u https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/57158/files/GPR-Final-text.jpg?subformat=icon-640
|x icon-640
|y OpenAccess
909 C O |o oai:juser.fz-juelich.de:57158
|p openaire
|p open_access
|p driver
|p VDB
|p dnbdelivery
913 1 _ |k P24
|v Terrestrische Umwelt
|l Terrestrische Umwelt
|b Erde und Umwelt
|0 G:(DE-Juel1)FUEK407
|x 0
914 1 _ |y 2007
915 _ _ |0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0010
|a JCR/ISI refereed
915 _ _ |2 StatID
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0510
|a OpenAccess
920 1 _ |d 31.10.2010
|g ICG
|k ICG-4
|l Agrosphäre
|0 I:(DE-Juel1)VDB793
|x 1
920 1 _ |0 I:(DE-82)080011_20140620
|k JARA-ENERGY
|l Jülich-Aachen Research Alliance - Energy
|g JARA
|x 2
920 1 _ |0 I:(DE-Juel1)VDB1045
|k JARA-SIM
|l Jülich-Aachen Research Alliance - Simulation Sciences
|g JARA
|x 3
970 _ _ |a VDB:(DE-Juel1)89912
980 1 _ |a FullTexts
980 _ _ |a VDB
980 _ _ |a JUWEL
980 _ _ |a ConvertedRecord
980 _ _ |a journal
980 _ _ |a I:(DE-Juel1)IBG-3-20101118
980 _ _ |a I:(DE-82)080011_20140620
980 _ _ |a I:(DE-Juel1)VDB1045
980 _ _ |a UNRESTRICTED
980 _ _ |a FullTexts
981 _ _ |a I:(DE-Juel1)IBG-3-20101118
981 _ _ |a I:(DE-Juel1)VDB1045
981 _ _ |a I:(DE-Juel1)VDB1047


LibraryCollectionCLSMajorCLSMinorLanguageAuthor
Marc 21