Quick Search:    advanced search

GSW Home   GeoRef Home   My GSW Alerts   Contact GSW   About GSW   Journals List   Help

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Huisman, J. A. Articles by Heuvelink, G. B. M. Search for Related Content GeoRef GeoRef Citation

Monitoring Temporal Development of Spatial Soil Water Content Variation

Comparison of Ground Penetrating Radar and Time Domain Reflectometry

^a Center for Geo-ecological Research (ICG), Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics (IBED), Physical Geography, Universiteit van Amsterdam, Nieuwe Achtergracht 166, 1018 WV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
^b Justus-Liebig University Giessen, Institute for Landscape Ecology and Resources Management, Heinrich-Buff-Ring 26-32, 35392 Giessen, Germany

Correspondence: ^* Corresponding author (sander.huisman{at}agrar.uni-giessen.de).

Received for publication 7 February 2003. We compare the capability of ground penetrating radar (GPR) and time domain reflectometry (TDR) to assess the temporal development of spatial variation of surface volumetric water content. In the case of GPR, we measured surface water content with the ground wave, which is a direct wave between the sender and receiver through the upper centimeters of the soil. Spatial water content variation was measured on 18 d with GPR and TDR during a 30-d monitoring period. To ensure large fluctuations in the spatial water content variation, we created a heterogeneous pattern of water content by irrigation on 2 d. The temporal development of the spatial variation was studied by means of the variogram and interpolated water content maps. To compare GPR and TDR variograms, we estimated confidence intervals of the experimental variograms and the variogram model parameters with a jackknife approach and a first-order approximation of model parameter uncertainty. The results showed that the 95% confidence intervals of the GPR experimental variogram were one to two orders of magnitude smaller than the 95% confidence intervals of the TDR experimental variogram because of the larger number of GPR measurements. Consequently, the uncertainty in the variogram model parameters was also much lower for GPR, which meant that the temporal development of the fitted GPR variogram model parameters was easier to interpret. Furthermore, the larger GPR measurement volume resulted in a low spatial nugget variance of 1 x 10^-6 to 1 x 10^-9 (m³ m^-3)² because short distance variation was averaged. This meant that GPR accurately measured spatial correlation lengths, even in the case of low water content variation. Interpolated maps showing the increase of water content due to irrigation and the subsequent gradual drying of the soil were more accurate and reproducible for GPR. It was concluded that the noninvasive GPR measurements provide the means to accurately and consistently monitor the development of spatial water content variation in time.

Abbreviations: GPR, ground penetrating radar • TDR, time domain reflectometry

This article has been cited by other articles:

				D. A. Robinson, C. S. Campbell, J. W. Hopmans, B. K. Hornbuckle, S. B. Jones, R. Knight, F. Ogden, J. Selker, and O. Wendroth Soil Moisture Measurement for Ecological and Hydrological Watershed-Scale Observatories: A Review Vadose Zone J., February 25, 2008; 7(1): 358 - 389. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. A. Huisman, J. A. Huisman, S. S. Hubbard, J. D. Redman, and A. P. Annan Measuring Soil Water Content with Ground Penetrating Radar: A Review Vadose Zone J., November 1, 2003; 2(4): 476 - 491. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]