4.7 Article

A scaling approach for the assessment of biomass changes and rainfall interception using cosmic-ray neutron sensing

期刊

JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGY
卷 525, 期 -, 页码 264-276

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.03.053

关键词

Cosmic-ray; Soil moisture; Scaling; Interception; Biomass water; Agricultural field

资金

  1. Leibniz Institute for Agricultural Engineering Potsdam-Bornim (ATB)
  2. European Union [213007]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cosmic-Ray neutron sensing (CRS) is a unique approach to measure soil moisture at field scale filling the gap of current methodologies. However, CRS signal is affected by all the hydrogen pools on the land surface and understanding their relative importance plays an important role for the application of the method e.g., validation of remote sensing products and data assimilation. In this study, a soil moisture scaling approach is proposed to estimate directly the correct CRS soil moisture based on the soil moisture profile measured at least in one position within the field. The approach has the advantage to avoid the need to introduce one correction for each hydrogen contribution and to estimate indirectly all the related time-varying hydrogen pools. Based on the data collected in three crop seasons, the scaling approach shows its ability to identify and to quantify the seasonal biomass water equivalent. Additionally, the analysis conducted at sub-daily time resolution is able to quantify the daily vertical redistribution of the water biomass and the rainfall interception, showing promising applications of the CRS method also for these types of measurements. Overall, the study underlines how not only soil moisture but all the specific hydrological processes in the soil-plant-atmosphere continuum should be considered for a proper evaluation of the CRS signal. For this scope, the scaling approach reveals to be a simple and pragmatic analysis that can be easily extended to other experimental sites. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据