% 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{Robinet:841080,
author = {Robinet, Jeremy and von Hebel, Christian and Govers, Gerard
and van der Kruk, Jan and Minella, Jean P. G. and Schlesner,
Alexandre and Ameijeiras-Marino, Yolanda and Vanderborght,
Jan},
title = {{S}patial variability of soil water content and soil
electrical conductivity across scales derived from
{E}lectromagnetic {I}nduction and {T}ime {D}omain
{R}eflectometry},
journal = {Geoderma},
volume = {314},
issn = {0016-7061},
address = {Amsterdam [u.a.]},
publisher = {Elsevier Science},
reportid = {FZJ-2017-08180},
pages = {160 - 174},
year = {2018},
abstract = {Quick, reliable and accurate estimates of soil water
content (SWC) at intermediate (slope) to larger
scale(catchment) are important for understanding
hydrological processes and may be provided by
electromagneticinduction (EMI). EMI measures the apparent
electrical conductivity of the subsurface (ECapp) which
represents adepth weighted average value of the bulk soil
electrical conductivity (ECb). The relation between ECb and
SWChas generally been investigated in soil cores or using
local measurements of SWC and ECb. Studies that
investigatedthe relation between ECapp measured with EMI and
SWC in considerably larger and internally moreheterogeneous
support volumes are far scarcer and cover a limited range of
environments with a limited range offactors contributing to
ECapp. This study developed a new calibration method to
obtain quantitative estimates ofSWC using EMI measured ECapp
data in a sub-tropical region in Southern Brazil at sites
with different soilproperties. SWC and ECb were measured in
soil pits with Time Domain Reflectometry (TDR) probes.
CollocatedECapp was simultaneously measured with EMI using
different coil separations and orientations to measure
overincreasing sensing volume. EMI measured ECapp data were
first calibrated against calculated ECapp, which werederived
from ECb profiles inserted in an exact EMI forward model. A
depth averaged SWC (SWCavg) was calculatedand different
calibrations that relate ECapp to SWCavg were evaluated.
ECapp measurements of the deepersensing coil configurations
could predict best the variability of SWCavg using a
non-linear relation. Spatiotemporalvariations of pore water
electrical conductivity (ECw) were found to be an important
cofounding factor.Temporal variations of ECw and the small
temporal variability of SWCavg prevented the prediction of
temporalvariability of SWCavg using ECapp measurements.
Overall, the combination of both calibration steps resulted
inthe description of $83\%$ of the spatial variability of
SWCavg from ECapp measurements.},
cin = {IBG-3},
ddc = {550},
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)16},
UT = {WOS:000424178400017},
doi = {10.1016/j.geoderma.2017.10.045},
url = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/841080},
}