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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Soil Science Society of America journal 2009-01, Vol.73 (1), p.1-6 |
---|---|
1. Verfasser: | |
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&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 & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Agricultural & 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 & 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 & 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 |