% 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{Nasta:886001,
author = {Nasta, Paolo and Bogena, Heye and Sica, Benedetto and
Weuthen, Ansgar and Vereecken, Harry and Romano, Nunzio},
title = {{I}ntegrating {I}nvasive and {N}on-invasive {M}onitoring
{S}ensors to {D}etect {F}ield-{S}cale {S}oil {H}ydrological
{B}ehavior},
journal = {Frontiers in water},
volume = {2},
issn = {2624-9375},
address = {Lausanne},
publisher = {Frontiers Media},
reportid = {FZJ-2020-04223},
pages = {26},
year = {2020},
abstract = {In recent decades, while great emphasis has been given to
the monitoring of point-scale soil moisture patterns and
field-scale integrated soil moisture, the measurement of
matric potential has attracted little attention. Information
on the soil matric potential is available in point-scale
measurements but is still missing at field-scale. This state
variable is necessary to understand hydrological fluxes and
to determine the soil water retention function (WRF) for
field-scale applications. In this study, we combine data
from cosmic-ray neutron probes (CRNP, non-invasive proximal
soil moisture sensors) and SoilNet wireless sensor networks
(invasive ground-based soil moisture and matric potential
sensors) installed in two sub-catchments with contrasting
land-use (agroforestry vs. near-natural forest) to derive a
field-scale WRF. We investigate the hypothesis that both
sensor types provide effective measurements that are
representative for the entire sub-catchment, as well as the
drawbacks of integrating the different measurement scales of
the sensor types (i.e., spatial-mean of distributed
point-scale data vs. an integrated field-scale measurement).
We found discrepancies in the data of the two sensor types
related to the effects of the time-varying vertical
measurement footprint of the CRNP, which induces a scale
mismatch between CRNP-based soil moisture (referring mostly
to near-surface depths) and the spatially averaged soil
matric potential data measured at soil depths of 0.15 and
0.30 m. To remove the offsets, we opted to use the soil
moisture index (SMI) based on the estimation of field
capacity and wilting point, retrieved from the knowledge of
the field-scale WRF. We found that the bimodality of SMI
calculated with SoilNet-based soil moisture induced by
Mediterranean rainfall seasonal behavior is not
well-captured by CRNP-based soil moisture, except in a
particularly dry year like 2017. The contrasts in SMI values
between the two test sites were associated with differences
in the spatial variability of soil moisture patterns
explained by soil texture or terrain characteristics. We
argue that field-scale WRFs are useful for the analysis of
hydrological processes at the sub-catchment (field) scale
and the application of distributed models.},
cin = {IBG-3},
ddc = {333.7},
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:000659473600001},
doi = {10.3389/frwa.2020.00026},
url = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/886001},
}