CS616 Calibration: Field versus Laboratory

Recently developed permittivity probes operate at lower frequencies (MHz range). Soils with large amounts of high-charge clays (superactive) often have higher measured permittivity values for a given water content than do factory calibrations of the newer probes. The purpose of this study was to det...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Soil Science Society of America journal 2009-01, Vol.73 (1), p.1-6
1. Verfasser: Logsdon, S.D
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 6
container_issue 1
container_start_page 1
container_title Soil Science Society of America journal
container_volume 73
creator Logsdon, S.D
description Recently developed permittivity probes operate at lower frequencies (MHz range). Soils with large amounts of high-charge clays (superactive) often have higher measured permittivity values for a given water content than do factory calibrations of the newer probes. The purpose of this study was to determine site-specific field and laboratory calibrations of CS616's (water content reflectometers) for soils with "superactive" mineralogy. Field calibration of CS616 (readings converted to square root of apparent permittivity or a1/2) was determined as a function of neutron-probe water content data, . Laboratory calibrations used undisturbed columns taken from the same depths where the CS616 probes had been in the field. Another laboratory study compared data for two packed columns, one with wet and dry soil zones and the other with homogeneous water content. The laboratory calibration was linear with a1/2. The field calibration was nonlinear, and the a1/2 values were even higher than the laboratory values, emphasized more in the intermediate range. The column with wet and dry soil had higher a1/2 than the homogeneous column, probably due to the electromagnetic field (EMF) preferentially responding to the wet zones. Heterogeneous field soil water content could have contributed to the higher a1/2 than for laboratory calibration, and the nonlinear a1/2() relation for field data.
doi_str_mv 10.2136/sssaj2008.0146
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_288276551</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2035117781</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a4286-209ef71c641f38fa77b79eb08e9199c144690847b38a3077cc5526209805f18b3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkM9LwzAUx4MoOKdXrxbBi9D5XtKkieBhFOcPBh7qziGtiXTUdSabsv_elI5dvbwH731_wIeQS4QJRSbuQghmSQHkBDATR2SEGeMpCIHHZARMYMqV4qfkLIQlAHIFMCK3RSlQJIVpm8qbTdOt7pNZY9uP5Mf6sA3J3FRdfHR-d05OnGmDvdjvMVnMHt-L53T-9vRSTOepyagUKQVlXY61yNAx6UyeV7myFUirUKkas0wokFleMWkY5Hldc05FdEngDmXFxuR6yF377ntrw0Yvu61fxUpNpaS54ByjaDKIat-F4K3Ta998Gb_TCLrHoQ84dI8jGm72qSbUpnXerOomHFwUUSDHXvcw6H6b1u7-SdXl9JWWZT_jad9zNfid6bT59LFjUVJAFolLqYCyP2FOeGE</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>288276551</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>CS616 Calibration: Field versus Laboratory</title><source>Wiley Online Library All Journals</source><creator>Logsdon, S.D</creator><creatorcontrib>Logsdon, S.D</creatorcontrib><description>Recently developed permittivity probes operate at lower frequencies (MHz range). Soils with large amounts of high-charge clays (superactive) often have higher measured permittivity values for a given water content than do factory calibrations of the newer probes. The purpose of this study was to determine site-specific field and laboratory calibrations of CS616's (water content reflectometers) for soils with "superactive" mineralogy. Field calibration of CS616 (readings converted to square root of apparent permittivity or a1/2) was determined as a function of neutron-probe water content data, . Laboratory calibrations used undisturbed columns taken from the same depths where the CS616 probes had been in the field. Another laboratory study compared data for two packed columns, one with wet and dry soil zones and the other with homogeneous water content. The laboratory calibration was linear with a1/2. The field calibration was nonlinear, and the a1/2 values were even higher than the laboratory values, emphasized more in the intermediate range. The column with wet and dry soil had higher a1/2 than the homogeneous column, probably due to the electromagnetic field (EMF) preferentially responding to the wet zones. Heterogeneous field soil water content could have contributed to the higher a1/2 than for laboratory calibration, and the nonlinear a1/2() relation for field data.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0361-5995</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1435-0661</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.2136/sssaj2008.0146</identifier><identifier>CODEN: SSSJD4</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Madison: Soil Science Society</publisher><subject>accuracy ; Agronomy. Soil science and plant productions ; Biological and medical sciences ; Calibration ; cation exchange capacity ; clay minerals ; Earth sciences ; Earth, ocean, space ; electrical conductivity ; Electromagnetic fields ; Exact sciences and technology ; field experimentation ; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology ; laboratory calibrations ; Mineralogy ; Moisture content ; Polyvinyl chloride ; Probes ; probes (equipment) ; Sensors ; Soil science ; Soil water ; soil water content ; Soils ; Surficial geology ; Temperature effects ; time domain reflectometry ; Water content</subject><ispartof>Soil Science Society of America journal, 2009-01, Vol.73 (1), p.1-6</ispartof><rights>Soil Science Society of America</rights><rights>2009 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright American Society of Agronomy Jan/Feb 2009</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-a4286-209ef71c641f38fa77b79eb08e9199c144690847b38a3077cc5526209805f18b3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-a4286-209ef71c641f38fa77b79eb08e9199c144690847b38a3077cc5526209805f18b3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.2136%2Fsssaj2008.0146$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.2136%2Fsssaj2008.0146$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1416,27923,27924,45573,45574</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=21161516$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Logsdon, S.D</creatorcontrib><title>CS616 Calibration: Field versus Laboratory</title><title>Soil Science Society of America journal</title><description>Recently developed permittivity probes operate at lower frequencies (MHz range). Soils with large amounts of high-charge clays (superactive) often have higher measured permittivity values for a given water content than do factory calibrations of the newer probes. The purpose of this study was to determine site-specific field and laboratory calibrations of CS616's (water content reflectometers) for soils with "superactive" mineralogy. Field calibration of CS616 (readings converted to square root of apparent permittivity or a1/2) was determined as a function of neutron-probe water content data, . Laboratory calibrations used undisturbed columns taken from the same depths where the CS616 probes had been in the field. Another laboratory study compared data for two packed columns, one with wet and dry soil zones and the other with homogeneous water content. The laboratory calibration was linear with a1/2. The field calibration was nonlinear, and the a1/2 values were even higher than the laboratory values, emphasized more in the intermediate range. The column with wet and dry soil had higher a1/2 than the homogeneous column, probably due to the electromagnetic field (EMF) preferentially responding to the wet zones. Heterogeneous field soil water content could have contributed to the higher a1/2 than for laboratory calibration, and the nonlinear a1/2() relation for field data.</description><subject>accuracy</subject><subject>Agronomy. Soil science and plant productions</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Calibration</subject><subject>cation exchange capacity</subject><subject>clay minerals</subject><subject>Earth sciences</subject><subject>Earth, ocean, space</subject><subject>electrical conductivity</subject><subject>Electromagnetic fields</subject><subject>Exact sciences and technology</subject><subject>field experimentation</subject><subject>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</subject><subject>laboratory calibrations</subject><subject>Mineralogy</subject><subject>Moisture content</subject><subject>Polyvinyl chloride</subject><subject>Probes</subject><subject>probes (equipment)</subject><subject>Sensors</subject><subject>Soil science</subject><subject>Soil water</subject><subject>soil water content</subject><subject>Soils</subject><subject>Surficial geology</subject><subject>Temperature effects</subject><subject>time domain reflectometry</subject><subject>Water content</subject><issn>0361-5995</issn><issn>1435-0661</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2009</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkM9LwzAUx4MoOKdXrxbBi9D5XtKkieBhFOcPBh7qziGtiXTUdSabsv_elI5dvbwH731_wIeQS4QJRSbuQghmSQHkBDATR2SEGeMpCIHHZARMYMqV4qfkLIQlAHIFMCK3RSlQJIVpm8qbTdOt7pNZY9uP5Mf6sA3J3FRdfHR-d05OnGmDvdjvMVnMHt-L53T-9vRSTOepyagUKQVlXY61yNAx6UyeV7myFUirUKkas0wokFleMWkY5Hldc05FdEngDmXFxuR6yF377ntrw0Yvu61fxUpNpaS54ByjaDKIat-F4K3Ta998Gb_TCLrHoQ84dI8jGm72qSbUpnXerOomHFwUUSDHXvcw6H6b1u7-SdXl9JWWZT_jad9zNfid6bT59LFjUVJAFolLqYCyP2FOeGE</recordid><startdate>200901</startdate><enddate>200901</enddate><creator>Logsdon, S.D</creator><general>Soil Science Society</general><general>Soil Science Society of America</general><general>American Society of Agronomy</general><scope>FBQ</scope><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8AF</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>BKSAR</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PCBAR</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>R05</scope><scope>S0X</scope><scope>SOI</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200901</creationdate><title>CS616 Calibration: Field versus Laboratory</title><author>Logsdon, S.D</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a4286-209ef71c641f38fa77b79eb08e9199c144690847b38a3077cc5526209805f18b3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2009</creationdate><topic>accuracy</topic><topic>Agronomy. Soil science and plant productions</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Calibration</topic><topic>cation exchange capacity</topic><topic>clay minerals</topic><topic>Earth sciences</topic><topic>Earth, ocean, space</topic><topic>electrical conductivity</topic><topic>Electromagnetic fields</topic><topic>Exact sciences and technology</topic><topic>field experimentation</topic><topic>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</topic><topic>laboratory calibrations</topic><topic>Mineralogy</topic><topic>Moisture content</topic><topic>Polyvinyl chloride</topic><topic>Probes</topic><topic>probes (equipment)</topic><topic>Sensors</topic><topic>Soil science</topic><topic>Soil water</topic><topic>soil water content</topic><topic>Soils</topic><topic>Surficial geology</topic><topic>Temperature effects</topic><topic>time domain reflectometry</topic><topic>Water content</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Logsdon, S.D</creatorcontrib><collection>AGRIS</collection><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>STEM Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Materials Science &amp; Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Agricultural &amp; Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric &amp; Aquatic Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric &amp; Aquatic Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>University of Michigan</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Soil Science Society of America journal</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Logsdon, S.D</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>CS616 Calibration: Field versus Laboratory</atitle><jtitle>Soil Science Society of America journal</jtitle><date>2009-01</date><risdate>2009</risdate><volume>73</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>1</spage><epage>6</epage><pages>1-6</pages><issn>0361-5995</issn><eissn>1435-0661</eissn><coden>SSSJD4</coden><abstract>Recently developed permittivity probes operate at lower frequencies (MHz range). Soils with large amounts of high-charge clays (superactive) often have higher measured permittivity values for a given water content than do factory calibrations of the newer probes. The purpose of this study was to determine site-specific field and laboratory calibrations of CS616's (water content reflectometers) for soils with "superactive" mineralogy. Field calibration of CS616 (readings converted to square root of apparent permittivity or a1/2) was determined as a function of neutron-probe water content data, . Laboratory calibrations used undisturbed columns taken from the same depths where the CS616 probes had been in the field. Another laboratory study compared data for two packed columns, one with wet and dry soil zones and the other with homogeneous water content. The laboratory calibration was linear with a1/2. The field calibration was nonlinear, and the a1/2 values were even higher than the laboratory values, emphasized more in the intermediate range. The column with wet and dry soil had higher a1/2 than the homogeneous column, probably due to the electromagnetic field (EMF) preferentially responding to the wet zones. Heterogeneous field soil water content could have contributed to the higher a1/2 than for laboratory calibration, and the nonlinear a1/2() relation for field data.</abstract><cop>Madison</cop><pub>Soil Science Society</pub><doi>10.2136/sssaj2008.0146</doi><tpages>6</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0361-5995
ispartof Soil Science Society of America journal, 2009-01, Vol.73 (1), p.1-6
issn 0361-5995
1435-0661
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_288276551
source Wiley Online Library All Journals
subjects accuracy
Agronomy. Soil science and plant productions
Biological and medical sciences
Calibration
cation exchange capacity
clay minerals
Earth sciences
Earth, ocean, space
electrical conductivity
Electromagnetic fields
Exact sciences and technology
field experimentation
Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology
laboratory calibrations
Mineralogy
Moisture content
Polyvinyl chloride
Probes
probes (equipment)
Sensors
Soil science
Soil water
soil water content
Soils
Surficial geology
Temperature effects
time domain reflectometry
Water content
title CS616 Calibration: Field versus Laboratory
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-12T18%3A01%3A30IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=CS616%20Calibration:%20Field%20versus%20Laboratory&rft.jtitle=Soil%20Science%20Society%20of%20America%20journal&rft.au=Logsdon,%20S.D&rft.date=2009-01&rft.volume=73&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=1&rft.epage=6&rft.pages=1-6&rft.issn=0361-5995&rft.eissn=1435-0661&rft.coden=SSSJD4&rft_id=info:doi/10.2136/sssaj2008.0146&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2035117781%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=288276551&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true