Soil water content and salinity determination using different dielectric methods in saline gypsiferous soil
Bouksila, Fethi LU ; Persson, Magnus LU ; Berndtsson, Ronny LU
and Bahri, Akissa
(2008)
In Hydrological Sciences Journal
53(1).
p.253-265
- Abstract
- Abstract in Undetermined
Measurements of dielectric permittivity and electrical conductivity were taken in a saline gypsiferous soil collected from southern Tunisia. Both time domain reflectometry (TDR) and the new WET sensor based on frequency domain reflectometry (FDR) were used. Seven different moistening solutions were used with electrical conductivities of 0.0053-14 dS m(-1). Different models for describing the observed relationships between dielectric permittivity (K-a) and water content (theta), and bulk electrical conductivity (ECa) and pore water electrical conductivity (ECp) were tested and evaluated. The commonly used K-a-theta models by Topp et al. (1980) and Ledieu et al. (1986) cannot be recommended for the WET sensor.... (More) - Abstract in Undetermined
Measurements of dielectric permittivity and electrical conductivity were taken in a saline gypsiferous soil collected from southern Tunisia. Both time domain reflectometry (TDR) and the new WET sensor based on frequency domain reflectometry (FDR) were used. Seven different moistening solutions were used with electrical conductivities of 0.0053-14 dS m(-1). Different models for describing the observed relationships between dielectric permittivity (K-a) and water content (theta), and bulk electrical conductivity (ECa) and pore water electrical conductivity (ECp) were tested and evaluated. The commonly used K-a-theta models by Topp et al. (1980) and Ledieu et al. (1986) cannot be recommended for the WET sensor. With these models, the RMSE and the mean relative error of the predicted theta were about 0.04 m(3) m(-3) and 19% for TDR and 0.08 m(3) m(-3) and 54% for WET sensor measurements, respectively. Using the Hilhorst (2000) model for ECp predictions, the RMSE was 1.16 dS m(-1) and 4.15 dS m(-1) using TDR and the WET sensor, respectively. The WET sensor could give similar accuracy to TDR if calibrated values of the soil parameter were used instead of standard values. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
https://lup.lub.lu.se/record/790713
- author
- Bouksila, Fethi
LU
; Persson, Magnus
LU
; Berndtsson, Ronny
LU
and Bahri, Akissa
- organization
- publishing date
- 2008
- type
- Contribution to journal
- publication status
- published
- subject
- keywords
- soil salinity, gypsiferous soils, time domain reflectometry (TDR), frequency domain reflectometry (FDR)
- in
- Hydrological Sciences Journal
- volume
- 53
- issue
- 1
- pages
- 253 - 265
- publisher
- Taylor & Francis
- external identifiers
-
- wos:000253632500017
- scopus:40349101843
- ISSN
- 0262-6667
- DOI
- 10.1623/hysj.53.1.253
- language
- English
- LU publication?
- yes
- id
- 77ac5624-1a2c-4c2e-a8c0-c0f552d3fbe1 (old id 790713)
- date added to LUP
- 2016-04-01 14:48:38
- date last changed
- 2022-10-05 07:09:48
@article{77ac5624-1a2c-4c2e-a8c0-c0f552d3fbe1,
abstract = {{Abstract in Undetermined<br/>Measurements of dielectric permittivity and electrical conductivity were taken in a saline gypsiferous soil collected from southern Tunisia. Both time domain reflectometry (TDR) and the new WET sensor based on frequency domain reflectometry (FDR) were used. Seven different moistening solutions were used with electrical conductivities of 0.0053-14 dS m(-1). Different models for describing the observed relationships between dielectric permittivity (K-a) and water content (theta), and bulk electrical conductivity (ECa) and pore water electrical conductivity (ECp) were tested and evaluated. The commonly used K-a-theta models by Topp et al. (1980) and Ledieu et al. (1986) cannot be recommended for the WET sensor. With these models, the RMSE and the mean relative error of the predicted theta were about 0.04 m(3) m(-3) and 19% for TDR and 0.08 m(3) m(-3) and 54% for WET sensor measurements, respectively. Using the Hilhorst (2000) model for ECp predictions, the RMSE was 1.16 dS m(-1) and 4.15 dS m(-1) using TDR and the WET sensor, respectively. The WET sensor could give similar accuracy to TDR if calibrated values of the soil parameter were used instead of standard values.}},
author = {{Bouksila, Fethi and Persson, Magnus and Berndtsson, Ronny and Bahri, Akissa}},
issn = {{0262-6667}},
keywords = {{soil salinity; gypsiferous soils; time domain reflectometry (TDR); frequency domain reflectometry (FDR)}},
language = {{eng}},
number = {{1}},
pages = {{253--265}},
publisher = {{Taylor & Francis}},
series = {{Hydrological Sciences Journal}},
title = {{Soil water content and salinity determination using different dielectric methods in saline gypsiferous soil}},
url = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1623/hysj.53.1.253}},
doi = {{10.1623/hysj.53.1.253}},
volume = {{53}},
year = {{2008}},
}