% 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”.
@PHDTHESIS{Baatz:828402,
author = {Baatz, Roland},
title = {{P}rocess-based modelling of regional water and energy
fluxes taking into account measured neutron intensities by
cosmic-ray probes},
volume = {362},
school = {RWTH Aachen},
type = {Dr.},
address = {Jülich},
publisher = {Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH Zentralbibliothek, Verlag},
reportid = {FZJ-2017-02363},
isbn = {978-3-95806-211-5},
series = {Schriften des Forschungszentrums Jülich Reihe Energie $\&$
Umwelt / Energy $\&$ Environment},
pages = {xvi, 135 S.},
year = {2017},
note = {RWTH Aachen, Diss., 2016},
abstract = {At the land surface, the hydrologic cycle is strongly
linked to soil water content (SWC). Land surface models
describe the mass and energy fluxes at the land surface and
to the atmosphere with a spatial resolution of a few
km$^{2}$ at the catchment scale. The calibration and
evaluation of land surface models requests observation data,
ideally at the same spatial resolution. SWC characterization
by model prediction and observation remains a challenge in
land surface hydrology. Recently, cosmic-ray probes (CRPs)
were developed for continuous passive SWCe stimation from
neutron flux measurements at a scale relevant for land
surface models. One objective of this work was to set up a
network of ten CRPs and to evaluate SWC estimates by CRPs.
For evaluation, the footprint average SWC of the CRPs was
compared to the horizontally and vertically weighted signal
of two distributed networks of in-situ SWC sensors. Three
different parameterization methods to estimate SWC from
neutron flux were compared. Numerical complexity and
potential applications distinguish the three
parameterization methods. The three parameterization methods
resulted in close SWC estimates at the ten study sites
although the neutron flux – SWC relationships were
slightly different amongst the parameterization methods. SWC
estimated by the calibrated CRPs was very close to SWC
measured by alternative SWC measurements. Root mean square
errors (RMSEs) of the SWC were 0.031 cm$^{3}$/cm$^{3}$ at
the distributed in-situ SWC sensor networks. [...]},
cin = {IBG-3},
cid = {I:(DE-Juel1)IBG-3-20101118},
pnm = {255 - Terrestrial Systems: From Observation to Prediction
(POF3-255)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-255},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)3 / PUB:(DE-HGF)11},
urn = {urn:nbn:de:0001-2017032820},
url = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/828402},
}