% 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{Rosenbaum:9705,
author = {Rosenbaum, U. and Huisman, J. A. and Weuthen, A. and
Vereecken, H. and Bogena, H. R.},
title = {{S}ensor-to-{S}ensor {V}ariability of the {ECH}2{O} {EC}-5,
{TE}, and 5{TE} {S}ensors in {D}ielectric {L}iquids},
journal = {Vadose zone journal},
volume = {9},
issn = {1539-1663},
address = {Madison, Wis.},
publisher = {SSSA},
reportid = {PreJuSER-9705},
pages = {181 - 186},
year = {2010},
note = {We gratefully acknowledge the support by the SFB 32
"Pattern in Soil-Vegetation-Atmosphere Systems: Monitoring,
Modeling and Data Assimilation" funded by the Deutsche
Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG). Jan Vrba, Chair of
Electromagnetic Theory, RWTH Aachen University, is thanked
for his assistance with the complex dielectric permittivity
measurements. Colin Campbell, Decagon Devices, is thanked
for information concerning the company calibration of the
5TE sensor.},
abstract = {Low-budget sensors used in wireless soil water content
sensor networks typically show considerable variation.
Because of the large number of sensors in sensor network
applications, it is not feasible to account for this
variability using a calibration between sensor response and
soil water content. An alternative approach is to split the
calibration into two parts: (i) determination of sensor
response-permittivity relationships using standard liquids
with a defined reference permittivity, and (ii)
site-specific calibration between permittivity and soil
water content using a subset of sensors. In this study, we
determined sensor response-permittivity relationships for
several ECH2O, EC-5, TE, and 5TE sensors by Decagon Devices
(Pullman, WA). The objectives of this study were to
determine (i) the sensor-to-sensor variability and precision
of these sensor types, and ( ii) the increase in accuracy
when a sensor-specific calibration is used instead of a
single calibration. The results showed that the
sensor-to-sensor variability was significantly larger than
the measurement noise for each sensor type. When a
sensor-specific calibration was used, the RMSE expressed in
(equivalent) soil water content ranged from 0.008 cm(3)
cm(-3) for the TE sensor to 0.014 cm(3) cm(-3) for the EC-5
sensor in a permittivity range between (similar to)2 and 35.
When a single calibration was used, the RMSE was higher and
ranged from 0.01 cm(3) cm(-3) for the 5TE sensor to 0.02
cm(3) cm(-3) for the TE sensor. An improvement in accuracy
of nearly 0.01 cm(3) cm(-3) can be reached in the
high-permittivity range for each sensor type by calibrating
each sensor individually.},
keywords = {J (WoSType)},
cin = {ICG-4 / JARA-ENERGY},
ddc = {550},
cid = {I:(DE-Juel1)VDB793 / $I:(DE-82)080011_20140620$},
pnm = {Terrestrische Umwelt},
pid = {G:(DE-Juel1)FUEK407},
shelfmark = {Environmental Sciences / Soil Science / Water Resources},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
UT = {WOS:000274392600019},
doi = {10.2136/vzj2009.0036},
url = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/9705},
}