the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Technical Note: revisiting the general calibration of cosmic-rayneutron sensors to estimate soil water content
Maik Heistermann
Till Francke
Martin Schrön
Sascha E. Oswald
Abstract. Cosmic-ray neutron sensing (CRNS) is becoming increasingly popular for monitoring soil water content (SWC). To retrieve SWC from observed neutron intensities, local measurements of SWC are typically required to calibrate a location-specific parameter, N0, in the corresponding transfer function. In this study, we develop a generalized conversion function that explicitly takes into account the different factors that govern local neutron intensity. That way, the parameter N0 becomes location-independent, i.e., generally applicable. We demonstrate the feasibility of such a "general calibration function" by analysing 75 CRNS sites from four recently published datasets. Given the choice between the two calibration strategies – local or general – users will wonder which one is preferable. To answer this question, we estimated the resulting uncertainty of the SWC by means of error propagation. While the uncertainty of the local calibration depends on both the local reference SWC itself and its error, the uncertainty of the general calibration is mainly governed by the errors of vegetation biomass and soil bulk density. An interactive online tool is provided to support the decision decide which calibration strategy – local or general – is preferable in the user-specific application context (https://cosmic-sense.github.io/local-or-global).
- Preprint
(631 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(143 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Maik Heistermann et al.
Status: open (until 14 Oct 2023)
-
CC1: 'missing supplementary?', Jingnuo Dong, 16 Aug 2023
reply
Should there be a supplementary material doc? It's not in the Download panel.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2023-169-CC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on CC1', Maik Heistermann, 17 Aug 2023
reply
Dear Jingnuo,
thank you very much for spotting this issue, and sorry for the inconvenience.
I have contacted Copernicus editorial support to add the missing supplementary file. Until then, I have attached the file to this reply, so you can use it right away. Again, I apologize for the inconvenience.
Kind regards,
Maik-
CC2: 'Reply on AC1', Jingnuo Dong, 17 Aug 2023
reply
Awesome. Thank you, Maik.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2023-169-CC2
-
CC2: 'Reply on AC1', Jingnuo Dong, 17 Aug 2023
reply
-
AC1: 'Reply on CC1', Maik Heistermann, 17 Aug 2023
reply
-
RC1: 'Comment on hess-2023-169', Anonymous Referee #1, 28 Aug 2023
reply
The authors present a valuable technical note to the CRNS community on understanding local vs. global calibration uncertainty. The authors provide a comprehensive dataset from various CRNS experiments and calibrations across Europe. The article is well written, and data is appropriately documented in the appendix and online. I do have some suggestions and comments that need to be addressed prior to publication.
Line 20: Typically we don’t included dimensions for the a0, a1, and a2 as they are derived coefficients from Desilets 2010. The units make the equation balance, but I am not sure if they need to be included?
Line 123 eq 5. McJannet and Desilets 2023 recently addressed a similar topic on using different neutron monitors and correcting for spatial variability. I am not sure exactly how these approaches are the same or differ, but the citation should be added with a short discussion of that paper. Also in the original COSMOS project an fscaling factor was included. This was also tied to the appropriate reference pressure selected using the COSMOS online calculator (http://cosmos.hwr.arizona.edu/Util/calculator.php). Use of the long-term average pressure for reference pressure instead of the one from the COSMOS online calculator did cause some problems when using the rover at different locations in my experience.
McJannet DL, Desilets D (2023) Incoming Neutron Flux Corrections for Cosmic-Ray Soil and Snow Sensors Using the Global Neutron Monitor Network. Water Resources Research, 59(4):e2022WR033889. https://doi.org/10.1029/2022WR033889
Line 140. The vegetation correction for biomass is still an active area of research so would suggest a little more discussion here, particularly as its uncertainty is identified as being significant later in the manuscript. Hawdon et al. 2014 found a linear reduction in count rate at low biomass but it became more nonlinear for higher biomass and with sites with forest canopy. Franz 2015 found a linear reduction in count rate around 1% per kg/m^2 for croplands which is similar as reported by Baatz 2015. It seems there is a geometric effect for sites with a clumpy distribution of water, but I am not sure it is fully resolved yet (Franz et al 2013 provided some MCNPx simulations as well as Andreasen 2016, 2017). I am cautious about using the Baatz 2015 empirical equation for all vegetation types especially at high biomass sites within forests where this is likely a geometric factor reducing the impact of increasing biomass on the reduction in neutron counts (i.e. maybe a 0.3 or 0.5% in count rate per kg/m^2). I think so additional discussion of this effect some be added especially as it impacts the main conclusions of the paper.
Hawdon A, McJannet D, Wallace J (2014) Calibration and correction procedures for cosmic-ray neutron soil moisture probes located across Australia. Water Resources Research, 50(6):5029–5043. https://doi.org/10.1002/2013wr015138
Franz TE, Wang T, Avery W, Finkenbiner C, Brocca L (2015) Combined analysis of soil moisture measurements from roving and fixed cosmic ray neutron probes for multiscale real-time monitoring. Geophysical Research Letters, 42https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL063963
Franz TE, Zreda M, Rosolem R, Hornbuckle BK, Irvin SL, Adams H, Kolb TE, Zweck C, Shuttleworth WJ (2013) Ecosystem-scale measurements of biomass water using cosmic ray neutrons. Geophysical Research Letters, 40(15)https://doi.org/10.1002/grl.50791
Andreasen M, Jensen KH, Desilets D, Zreda M, Bogena HR, Looms MC (2017) Cosmic-ray neutron transport at a forest field site: the sensitivity to various environmental conditions with focus on biomass and canopy interception. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 21(4):1875–1894.
L238. Avery 2016 also provided an uncertainty analysis and provided a CONUS map of soil properties for use with CRNS rovers and compared local sampling vs. available continuous datasets.
Avery WA, Finkenbiner C, Franz TE, Wang T, Nguy-Robertson AL, Suyker A, Arkebauer T, Muñoz-Arriola F (2016) Incorporation of globally available datasets into the roving cosmic-ray neutron probe method for estimating field-scale soil water content. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 20(9):3859–3872. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-3859-2016
In general: Crow 2012 describes the relationship between average soil moisture and its variance at different spatial aggregations. This relationship is asymmetric but parabolic shaped. Meaning that you would expect the highest standard deviation at intermediate soil moisture and low SD at low soil moisture and intermediate SD at high soil moistures. This information could be included in the expected range of SD across average soil moisture. I am not sure how this physical constraint would affect the local vs. general calibration suggestions. The same is also true for the bulk density and LW due to textural differences within a CRNS footprint. The point is there is both measurement error due to the instrument/method and natural variation due to spatial variability with a CRNS footprint.
Crow WT, Berg AA, Cosh MH, Loew A, Mohanty BP, Panciera R, Rosnay P de, Ryu D, Walker JP (2012) Upscaling Sparse Ground-Based Soil Moisture Observations For The Validation Of Coarse-Resolution Satellite Soil Moisture Products. Reviews of Geophysics, 50https://doi.org/10.1029/2011rg000372
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2023-169-RC1 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Maik Heistermann, 11 Sep 2023
reply
Please find the response as a pdf in the supplement file.
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Maik Heistermann, 11 Sep 2023
reply
Maik Heistermann et al.
Maik Heistermann et al.
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
262 | 74 | 18 | 354 | 16 | 4 | 7 |
- HTML: 262
- PDF: 74
- XML: 18
- Total: 354
- Supplement: 16
- BibTeX: 4
- EndNote: 7
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1