MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1998059145 · doi:10.2136/vzj2012.0070

Field Level Soil Moisture Variability at 6‐ and 3‐cm Sampling Depths: Implications for Microwave Sensor Validation

2013· article· en· W1998059145 on OpenAlexafffund
Justin R. Adams, Aaron Berg, Heather McNairn

Bibliographic record

VenueVadose Zone Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil Moisture and Remote Sensing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsWater contentEnvironmental scienceRemote sensingSampling (signal processing)Soil scienceCalibrationMicrowaveSoil waterMoistureFootprintHydrology (agriculture)GeologyMeteorologyStatisticsMathematicsGeographyGeotechnical engineeringOpticsComputer sciencePhysicsDetector

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Calibration/validation experiments are critical to developing and testing soil moisture retrieval algorithms from microwave remote sensing platforms. Ground sampling must be optimally designed to minimize sources of error or bias during data collection. An important consideration in the design of ground sampling campaigns is that the in situ measured soil moisture is representative of the retrieval depth of a microwave sensor. Because of the popularity of portable impedance probe instruments, volumetric soil moisture is usually measured at a constant depth of approximately 0 to 6 cm and aggregated over a spatial extent representative of a pixel footprint. However, the retrieval depth of microwave signals can vary, and in agricultural soils is typically representative of the top ∼5 cm (or less) of the soil surface. It is unknown whether this mismatch between the depth of ground measured soil moisture and microwave retrieved soil moisture significantly contributes to error during sensor calibration/validation. This issue is addressed based on an analysis of over 3400 impedance probe measurements collected in 72 agricultural fields over four sampling occasions. Volumetric soil moisture was measured at depths of approximately 6 and 3 cm, at 24 locations in each field. The observed soil moisture sampling distributions and statistical moments are compared between these two measurement depths. Results demonstrate that the majority of fields exhibit a near‐normal sampling distribution at both the 6‐ (60 of 72) and 3‐cm (59 of 72) depths. An average difference of 0.016 m 3 m −3 exists between all field means, generally indicating that wetter measurements are observed from the samples at 6 cm than those at 3 cm. Statistically significant differences were found between the measurement depths for field means (23 of 72), distributions (21 of 72), and variances (9 of 72). These findings demonstrate the importance of recognizing near‐surface volumetric soil moisture spatial and depth variability effects during ground sampling experiments to minimize error in calibration/validation of retrieval algorithms.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.786
Threshold uncertainty score0.455

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.229 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVadose Zone JournalSame topicSoil Moisture and Remote SensingFrench-language works237,207