HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Free Full Text (PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (4) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Heathman, G. C. Articles by Brown, M. A. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Heathman, G. C. Articles by Brown, M. A. Agricola Articles by Heathman, G. C. Articles by Brown, M. A. Related Collections Soil Physics Water Content Soil Hydrology

DIVISION S-1—SOIL PHYSICS

Time Domain Reflectometry Field Calibration in the Little Washita River Experimental Watershed

USDA-ARS Grazinglands Research Laboratory, 7207 W. Cheyenne, El Reno, OK 73036

* Corresponding author (heathman{at}grl.ars.usda.gov)

Accurate measurement of profile soil water content is essential to many areas of environmental and agricultural research. In this study five methods were evaluated for determining volumetric profile soil water content from time domain reflectometry (TDR) data at nine locations within the Little Washita River Experimental Watershed (LWREW) in south central Oklahoma. Soil compositions for the sites ranged between 24.6 to 86.4% for sand and 5.2 to 29.2% for clay. Comparisons were made between gravimetric soil sample data and soil water content as determined by the TDR factory instrument calibration, two methods of site-specific calibration, a regional calibration technique, and an empirically derived universal approach. Method 1 is the factory calibration, which uses average values for model coefficients that were derived from extensive laboratory work and theoretical analysis. Method 2 fits a site-specific linear regression of TDR time delay on measured soil-core water content. Method 3 uses the factory calibration equation and site-specific values for the ratio of TDR time delay in dry soil, to that in air (T_s/T_a). In Method 4, a regional linear regression equation was developed from an analysis combining data from all study sites. Method 5 applies a universal equation based on the linear relationship between soil water content and the apparent dielectric constant of soil (K_a) measured by TDR. Statistical analysis of the data showed that of the five methods, only the mean root mean square error (RMSE) value for Method 2 was significantly different from all other methods ( = 0.05). Method 2 also had the smallest standard deviation and standard error, and the narrowest range of RMSE values. All field calibration methods show that it is necessary to include very low water content data in determining absolute water content. When compared with the factory calibration, all other methods improved the measurement of soil water content, with Method 2 providing the most accurate results at the site-specific level of analysis.

Abbreviations: LWREW, Little Washita River Experimental Watershed • ME, mean error • RMSE, root mean square error • TDR, time domain reflectometry • UO, instrument-specific calibration factor

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. S. Seyfried, L. E. Grant, E. Du, and K. Humes Dielectric Loss and Calibration of the Hydra Probe Soil Water Sensor Vadose Zone J., November 11, 2005; 4(4): 1070 - 1079. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]