Articles | Volume 11, issue 1
https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-11-435-2025
© Author(s) 2025. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Special issue:
https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-11-435-2025
© Author(s) 2025. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Pooled error variance and covariance estimation of sparse in situ soil moisture sensor measurements in agricultural fields in Flanders
Marit G. A. Hendrickx
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, 3001, Belgium
KU Leuven Plant Institute (LPI), KU Leuven, Leuven, 3001, Belgium
Jan Vanderborght
Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, 3001, Belgium
Agrosphere Institute IBG-3, Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH, 52425 Jülich, Germany
Pieter Janssens
Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, 3001, Belgium
Soil Service of Belgium, Leuven, 3001, Belgium
Department of Biosystems, KU Leuven, Leuven, 3001, Belgium
Sander Bombeke
Proefstation voor de Groenteteelt, Sint-Katelijne-Waver, Sint-Katelijne-Waver, 2860, Belgium
Evi Matthyssen
Praktijkpunt Landbouw Vlaams-Brabant, Herent, 3020, Belgium
Anne Waverijn
Viaverda vzw, Kruishoutem, 9770, Belgium
Jan Diels
Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, 3001, Belgium
KU Leuven Plant Institute (LPI), KU Leuven, Leuven, 3001, Belgium
Related authors
No articles found.
Jayson Gabriel Pinza, Ona-Abeni Devos Stoffels, Robrecht Debbaut, Jan Staes, Jan Vanderborght, Patrick Willems, and Sarah Garré
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1166, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1166, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for SOIL (SOIL).
Short summary
Short summary
We can use hydrological models to estimate how water is allocated in soils with compaction. However, compaction can also affect how much plants can grow in the field. Here, we show that when we consider this affected plant growth in our sandy soil compaction model, the resulting water allocation can change a lot. Thus, to get more reliable model results, we should know the plant growth (above and below the ground) in the field and include them in the models.
Daniel Leitner, Andrea Schnepf, and Jan Vanderborght
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 29, 1759–1782, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-1759-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-1759-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Root water uptake strongly affects plant development and soil water balance. We use novel upscaling methods to develop land surface and crop models from detailed mechanistic models. We examine the mathematics behind this upscaling, pinpointing where errors occur. By simulating different crops and soils, we found that the accuracy loss varies based on root architecture and soil type. Our findings offer insights into balancing model complexity and accuracy for better predictions in agriculture.
Thuy Huu Nguyen, Thomas Gaiser, Jan Vanderborght, Andrea Schnepf, Felix Bauer, Anja Klotzsche, Lena Lärm, Hubert Hüging, and Frank Ewert
Biogeosciences, 21, 5495–5515, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-5495-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-5495-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Leaf water potential was at certain thresholds, depending on soil type, water treatment, and weather conditions. In rainfed plots, the lower water availability in the stony soil resulted in fewer roots with a higher root tissue conductance than the silty soil. In the silty soil, higher stress in the rainfed soil led to more roots with a lower root tissue conductance than in the irrigated plot. Crop responses to water stress can be opposite, depending on soil water conditions that are compared.
Ioanna S. Panagea, Antonios Apostolakis, Antonio Berti, Jenny Bussell, Pavel Čermak, Jan Diels, Annemie Elsen, Helena Kusá, Ilaria Piccoli, Jean Poesen, Chris Stoate, Mia Tits, Zoltan Toth, and Guido Wyseure
SOIL, 8, 621–644, https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-8-621-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-8-621-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The potential to reverse the negative effects caused in topsoil by inversion tillage, using alternative agricultural practices, was evaluated. Reduced and no tillage, and additions of manure/compost, improved topsoil structure and OC content. Residue retention had a positive impact on structure. We concluded that the negative effects of inversion tillage can be mitigated by reducing tillage intensity or adding organic materials, optimally combined with non-inversion tillage.
Jan Vanderborght, Valentin Couvreur, Felicien Meunier, Andrea Schnepf, Harry Vereecken, Martin Bouda, and Mathieu Javaux
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 4835–4860, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-4835-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-4835-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Root water uptake is an important process in the terrestrial water cycle. How this process depends on soil water content, root distributions, and root properties is a soil–root hydraulic problem. We compare different approaches to implementing root hydraulics in macroscopic soil water flow and land surface models.
Thuy Huu Nguyen, Matthias Langensiepen, Jan Vanderborght, Hubert Hüging, Cho Miltin Mboh, and Frank Ewert
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 24, 4943–4969, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-4943-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-4943-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
The mechanistic Couvreur root water uptake (RWU) model that is based on plant hydraulics and links root system properties to RWU, water stress, and crop development can evaluate the impact of certain crop properties on crop performance in different environments and soils, while the Feddes RWU approach does not possess such flexibility. This study also shows the importance of modeling root development and how it responds to water deficiency to predict the impact of water stress on crop growth.
Jannis Groh, Jan Vanderborght, Thomas Pütz, Hans-Jörg Vogel, Ralf Gründling, Holger Rupp, Mehdi Rahmati, Michael Sommer, Harry Vereecken, and Horst H. Gerke
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 24, 1211–1225, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-1211-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-1211-2020, 2020
Mehdi Rahmati, Lutz Weihermüller, Jan Vanderborght, Yakov A. Pachepsky, Lili Mao, Seyed Hamidreza Sadeghi, Niloofar Moosavi, Hossein Kheirfam, Carsten Montzka, Kris Van Looy, Brigitta Toth, Zeinab Hazbavi, Wafa Al Yamani, Ammar A. Albalasmeh, Ma'in Z. Alghzawi, Rafael Angulo-Jaramillo, Antônio Celso Dantas Antonino, George Arampatzis, Robson André Armindo, Hossein Asadi, Yazidhi Bamutaze, Jordi Batlle-Aguilar, Béatrice Béchet, Fabian Becker, Günter Blöschl, Klaus Bohne, Isabelle Braud, Clara Castellano, Artemi Cerdà, Maha Chalhoub, Rogerio Cichota, Milena Císlerová, Brent Clothier, Yves Coquet, Wim Cornelis, Corrado Corradini, Artur Paiva Coutinho, Muriel Bastista de Oliveira, José Ronaldo de Macedo, Matheus Fonseca Durães, Hojat Emami, Iraj Eskandari, Asghar Farajnia, Alessia Flammini, Nándor Fodor, Mamoun Gharaibeh, Mohamad Hossein Ghavimipanah, Teamrat A. Ghezzehei, Simone Giertz, Evangelos G. Hatzigiannakis, Rainer Horn, Juan José Jiménez, Diederik Jacques, Saskia Deborah Keesstra, Hamid Kelishadi, Mahboobeh Kiani-Harchegani, Mehdi Kouselou, Madan Kumar Jha, Laurent Lassabatere, Xiaoyan Li, Mark A. Liebig, Lubomír Lichner, María Victoria López, Deepesh Machiwal, Dirk Mallants, Micael Stolben Mallmann, Jean Dalmo de Oliveira Marques, Miles R. Marshall, Jan Mertens, Félicien Meunier, Mohammad Hossein Mohammadi, Binayak P. Mohanty, Mansonia Pulido-Moncada, Suzana Montenegro, Renato Morbidelli, David Moret-Fernández, Ali Akbar Moosavi, Mohammad Reza Mosaddeghi, Seyed Bahman Mousavi, Hasan Mozaffari, Kamal Nabiollahi, Mohammad Reza Neyshabouri, Marta Vasconcelos Ottoni, Theophilo Benedicto Ottoni Filho, Mohammad Reza Pahlavan-Rad, Andreas Panagopoulos, Stephan Peth, Pierre-Emmanuel Peyneau, Tommaso Picciafuoco, Jean Poesen, Manuel Pulido, Dalvan José Reinert, Sabine Reinsch, Meisam Rezaei, Francis Parry Roberts, David Robinson, Jesús Rodrigo-Comino, Otto Corrêa Rotunno Filho, Tadaomi Saito, Hideki Suganuma, Carla Saltalippi, Renáta Sándor, Brigitta Schütt, Manuel Seeger, Nasrollah Sepehrnia, Ehsan Sharifi Moghaddam, Manoj Shukla, Shiraki Shutaro, Ricardo Sorando, Ajayi Asishana Stanley, Peter Strauss, Zhongbo Su, Ruhollah Taghizadeh-Mehrjardi, Encarnación Taguas, Wenceslau Geraldes Teixeira, Ali Reza Vaezi, Mehdi Vafakhah, Tomas Vogel, Iris Vogeler, Jana Votrubova, Steffen Werner, Thierry Winarski, Deniz Yilmaz, Michael H. Young, Steffen Zacharias, Yijian Zeng, Ying Zhao, Hong Zhao, and Harry Vereecken
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 10, 1237–1263, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-10-1237-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-10-1237-2018, 2018
Short summary
Short summary
This paper presents and analyzes a global database of soil infiltration data, the SWIG database, for the first time. In total, 5023 infiltration curves were collected across all continents in the SWIG database. These data were either provided and quality checked by the scientists or they were digitized from published articles. We are convinced that the SWIG database will allow for a better parameterization of the infiltration process in land surface models and for testing infiltration models.
Gaochao Cai, Jan Vanderborght, Matthias Langensiepen, Andrea Schnepf, Hubert Hüging, and Harry Vereecken
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 22, 2449–2470, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-2449-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-2449-2018, 2018
Short summary
Short summary
Different crop growths had consequences for the parameterization of root water uptake models. The root hydraulic parameters of the Couvreur model but not the water stress parameters of the Feddes–Jarvis model could be constrained by the field data measured from rhizotron facilities. The simulated differences in transpiration from the two soils and the different water treatments could be confirmed by sap flow measurements. The Couvreur model predicted the ratios of transpiration fluxes better.
Félicien Meunier, Valentin Couvreur, Xavier Draye, Mohsen Zarebanadkouki, Jan Vanderborght, and Mathieu Javaux
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 6519–6540, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-6519-2017, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-6519-2017, 2017
Short summary
Short summary
To maintain its yield, a plant needs to transpire water that it acquires from the soil. A deep understanding of the mechanisms that lead to water uptake location and intensity is required to correctly simulate the water transfer in the soil to the atmosphere. This work presents novel and general solutions of the water flow equation in roots with varying hydraulic properties that deeply affect the uptake pattern and the transpiration rate and can be used in ecohydrological models.
Y. Rothfuss, S. Merz, J. Vanderborght, N. Hermes, A. Weuthen, A. Pohlmeier, H. Vereecken, and N. Brüggemann
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 19, 4067–4080, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-4067-2015, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-4067-2015, 2015
Short summary
Short summary
Profiles of soil water stable isotopes were followed non-destructively and with high precision for a period of 290 days in the laboratory
Rewatering at the end of the experiment led to instantaneous resetting of the isotope profiles, which could be closely followed with the new method
The evaporation depth dynamics was determined from isotope gradients calculation
Uncertainty associated with the determination of isotope kinetic fractionation where highlighted from inverse modeling.
V. Couvreur, J. Vanderborght, L. Beff, and M. Javaux
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 18, 1723–1743, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-18-1723-2014, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-18-1723-2014, 2014
Related subject area
Soil sensing
Assessing soil fertilization effects using time-lapse electromagnetic induction
Closing the phenotyping gap with non-invasive belowground field phenotyping
Using Monte Carlo conformal prediction to evaluate the uncertainty of deep learning soil spectral models
Uncovering soil compaction: performance of electrical and electromagnetic geophysical methods
Exploring the link between cation exchange capacity and magnetic susceptibility
The effect of soil moisture content and soil texture on fast in situ pH measurements with two types of robust ion-selective electrodes
Best performances of visible–near-infrared models in soils with little carbonate – a field study in Switzerland
Delineating the distribution of mineral and peat soils at the landscape scale in northern boreal regions
Improving models to predict holocellulose and Klason lignin contents for peat soil organic matter with mid-infrared spectra
Manuela S. Kaufmann, Anja Klotzsche, Jan van der Kruk, Anke Langen, Harry Vereecken, and Lutz Weihermüller
SOIL, 11, 267–285, https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-11-267-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-11-267-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
To use fertilizers more effectively, non-invasive geophysical methods can be used to understand nutrient distributions in the soil. We utilize, in a long-term field study, geophysical techniques to study soil properties and conditions under different fertilizer treatments. We compared the geophysical response with soil samples and soil sensor data. In particular, electromagnetic induction and electrical resistivity tomography were effective in monitoring changes in nitrate levels over time.
Guillaume Blanchy, Waldo Deroo, Tom De Swaef, Peter Lootens, Paul Quataert, Isabel Roldán-Ruíz, Roelof Versteeg, and Sarah Garré
SOIL, 11, 67–84, https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-11-67-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-11-67-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
This work implemented automated electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) for belowground field phenotyping alongside conventional field breeding techniques, thereby closing the phenotyping gap. We show that ERT is not only capable of measuring differences between crops but also has sufficient precision to capture the differences between genotypes of the same crop. We automatically derive indicators, which can be translated to static and dynamic plant traits, directly useful for breeders.
Yin-Chung Huang, José Padarian, Budiman Minasny, and Alex B. McBratney
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3703, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3703, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Uncertainty quantification plays a crucial role in reporting machine learning models in soil spectroscopy. This study introduces Monte Carlo conformal prediction (MC-CP), a novel method for uncertainty quantification in deep learning soil spectral models. MC-CP outperformed two established methods, providing the most reliable results. Its efficiency and robustness make it a practical choice for implementing soil spectral models in decision-making.
Alberto Carrera, Luca Peruzzo, Matteo Longo, Giorgio Cassiani, and Francesco Morari
SOIL, 10, 843–857, https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-10-843-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-10-843-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Soil compaction resulting from inappropriate agricultural practices affects soil ecological functions, decreasing the water-use efficiency of plants. Recent developments contributed to innovative sensing approaches aimed at safeguarding soil health. Here, we explored how the most used geophysical methods detect soil compaction. Results, validated with traditional characterization methods, show the pros and cons of non-invasive techniques and their ability to characterize compacted areas.
Gaston Matias Mendoza Veirana, Hana Grison, Jeroen Verhegge, Wim Cornelis, and Philippe De Smedt
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3306, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3306, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This study explores the link between soil magnetic susceptibility and cation exchange capacity (CEC) to improve prediction models for CEC in European soils. Results show that magnetic susceptibility significantly enhances CEC prediction in sandy soils, achieving high accuracy (R2 = 0.94). This offers a rapid, cost-effective way to estimate CEC, emphasizing the value of geophysical data integration in soil assessment.
Sebastian Vogel, Katja Emmerich, Ingmar Schröter, Eric Bönecke, Wolfgang Schwanghart, Jörg Rühlmann, Eckart Kramer, and Robin Gebbers
SOIL, 10, 321–333, https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-10-321-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-10-321-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
To rapidly obtain high-resolution soil pH data, pH sensors can measure the pH value directly in the field under the current soil moisture (SM) conditions. The influence of SM on pH and on its measurement quality was studied. An SM increase causes a maximum pH increase of 1.5 units. With increasing SM, the sensor pH value approached the standard pH value measured in the laboratory. Thus, at high soil moisture, calibration of the sensor pH values to the standard pH value is negligible.
Simon Oberholzer, Laura Summerauer, Markus Steffens, and Chinwe Ifejika Speranza
SOIL, 10, 231–249, https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-10-231-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-10-231-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This study investigated the performance of visual and near-infrared spectroscopy in six fields in Switzerland. Spectral models showed a good performance for soil properties related to organic matter at the field scale. However, spectral models performed best in fields with low mean carbonate content because high carbonate content masks spectral features for organic carbon. These findings help facilitate the establishment and implementation of new local soil spectroscopy projects.
Anneli M. Ågren, Eliza Maher Hasselquist, Johan Stendahl, Mats B. Nilsson, and Siddhartho S. Paul
SOIL, 8, 733–749, https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-8-733-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-8-733-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Historically, many peatlands in the boreal region have been drained for timber production. Given the prospects of a drier future due to climate change, wetland restorations are now increasing. Better maps hold the key to insights into restoration targets and land-use management policies, and maps are often the number one decision-support tool. We use an AI-developed soil moisture map based on laser scanning data to illustrate how the mapping of peatlands can be improved across an entire nation.
Henning Teickner and Klaus-Holger Knorr
SOIL, 8, 699–715, https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-8-699-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-8-699-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The chemical quality of biomass can be described with holocellulose (relatively easily decomposable by microorganisms) and Klason lignin (relatively recalcitrant) contents. Measuring both is laborious. In a recent study, models have been proposed which can predict both quicker from mid-infrared spectra. However, it has not been analyzed if these models make correct predictions for biomass in soils and how to improve them. We provide such a validation and a strategy for their improvement.
Cited articles
Albertson, J. D. and Montaldo, N.: Temporal dynamics of soil moisture variability: 1. Theoretical basis, Water Resour. Res., 39, 1274, https://doi.org/10.1029/2002WR001616, 2003.
Allen, R. G., Pereira, L. S., Raes, D., Smith, M.: Crop Evapotranspiration. Guidelines for Computing Crop Water Requirements, in: Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 56, FAO, Food & Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), ISBN 9251042195, 1998.
Ammann, L., Fenicia, F., and Reichert, P.: A likelihood framework for deterministic hydrological models and the importance of non-stationary autocorrelation, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 23, 2147–2172, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-23-2147-2019, 2019.
Brocca, L., Melone, F., Moramarco, T., and Morbidelli, R.: Spatial-temporal variability of soil moisture and its estimation across scales, Water Resour. Res., 46, W02516, https://doi.org/10.1029/2009WR008016, 2010.
Chaney, N. W., Roundy, J. K., Herrera-Estrada, J. E., and Wood, E. F.: High-resolution modeling of the spatial heterogeneity of soil moisture: Applications in network design, Water Resour. Res., 51, 619–638, https://doi.org/10.1002/2013WR014964, 2015.
Crow, W. T. and Van Loon, E.: Impact of Incorrect Model Error Assumptions on the Sequential Assimilation of Remotely Sensed Surface Soil Moisture, J. Hydrometeorol., 7, 421–432, https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM499.1, 2006.
De Lannoy, G. J. M., Verhoest, N. E. C., Houser, P. R., Gish, T. J., and Van Meirvenne, M.: Spatial and temporal characteristics of soil moisture in an intensively monitored agricultural field (OPE3), J. Hydrol., 331, 719–730, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JHYDROL.2006.06.016, 2006.
Deming, W. E.: Statistical adjustment of data, Wiley, NY, Dover Publications edition 1985, ISBN 0-486-64685-8, 1943.
Engeland, K. and Gottschalk, L.: Bayesian estimation of parameters in a regional hydrological model, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 6, 883–898, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-6-883-2002, 2002.
Evin, G., Kavetski, D., Thyer, M., and Kuczera, G.: Pitfalls and improvements in the joint inference of heteroscedasticity and autocorrelation in hydrological model calibration, Water Resour. Res., 49, 4518–4524, https://doi.org/10.1002/WRCR.20284, 2013.
Famiglietti, J. S., Ryu, D., Berg, A. A., Rodell, M., Jackson, T. J., Famiglietti, C., Ryu, D., Berg, A. A., Rodell, M., and Jackson, T. J.: Field observations of soil moisture variability across scales, Water Resour. Res., 44, W01423, https://doi.org/10.1029/2006WR005804, 2008.
Han, F., Hu, Z., Chen, N., Wang, Y., Jiang, J., and Zheng, Y.: Assimilating Low-Cost High-Frequency Sensor Data in Watershed Water Quality Modeling: A Bayesian Approach, Water Resour. Res., 59, e2022WR033673, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022WR033673, 2023.
Hawley, M. E., Jackson, T. J., and McCuen, R. H.: Surface soil moisture variation on small agricultural watersheds, J. Hydrol., 62, 179–200, https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1694(83)90102-6, 1983.
Hendrickx, M. G. A., Diels, J., Janssens, P., Schlüter, S., and Vanderborght, J.: Temporal covariance of spatial soil moisture variations: A mechanistic error modeling approach, Vadose Zone J., e20295, https://doi.org/10.1002/VZJ2.20295, 2023.
Hendrickx, M., Diels, J., Vanderborght, J., Janssens, P., Bombeke, S., Matthyssen, E., and Waverijn, A.: In situ soil moisture measurement data for sensor calibration and pooled measurement error modeling, KU Leuven RDR [data set], https://doi.org/10.48804/M6WKTN, 2025.
Jirkù, V., Kodešová, R., Nikodem, A., Mühlhanselová, M., and Žigová, A.: Temporal variability of structure and hydraulic properties of topsoil of three soil types, Geoderma, 204–205, 43–58, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.GEODERMA.2013.03.024, 2013.
Lawrence, J. E. and Hornberger, G. M.: Soil moisture variability across climate zones, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L20402, https://doi.org/10.1029/2007GL031382, 2007.
Ludbrook, J.: Linear regression analysis for comparing two measurers or methods of measurement: But which regression?, Clin. Exp. Pharmacol. P., 37, 692–699, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1681.2010.05376.x, 2010.
Mane, S., Das, N., Singh, G., Cosh, M., and Dong, Y.: Advancements in dielectric soil moisture sensor Calibration: A comprehensive review of methods and techniques, Comput. Electron. Agr., 218, 108686, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COMPAG.2024.108686, 2024.
Manns, H. R., Berg, A. A., Bullock, P. R., and Mcnairn, H.: Impact of soil surface characteristics on soil water content variability in agricultural fields, Hydrol. Process., 28, 4340–4351, https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.10216, 2014.
Pan, F. and Peters-Lidard, C. D.: On the Relationship Between Mean and Variance of Soil Moisture Fields1, J. Am. Water Resour. As., 44, 235–242, https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1752-1688.2007.00150.X, 2008.
Pauwels, V. R. N. and De Lannoy, G. J. M.: Error covariance calculation for forecast bias estimation in hydrologic data assimilation, Adv. Water Resour., 86, 284–296, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ADVWATRES.2015.05.013, 2015.
Pauwels, V. R. N., De Lannoy, G. J. M., Hendricks Franssen, H.-J., and Vereecken, H.: Simultaneous estimation of model state variables and observation and forecast biases using a two-stage hybrid Kalman filter, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 17, 3499–3521, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-3499-2013, 2013.
Rahmati, M., Amelung, W., Brogi, C., Dari, J., Flammini, A., Bogena, H., Brocca, L., Chen, H., Groh, J., Koster, R. D., McColl, K. A., Montzka, C., Moradi, S., Rahi, A., Sharghi S., F., and Vereecken, H.: Soil Moisture Memory: State-Of-The-Art and the Way Forward, Rev. Geophys., 62, e2023RG000828, https://doi.org/10.1029/2023RG000828, 2024.
Rosenbaum, U., Bogena, H. R., Herbst, M., Huisman, J. A., Peterson, T. J., Weuthen, A., Western, A. W., and Vereecken, H.: Seasonal and event dynamics of spatial soil moisture patterns at the small catchment scale, Water Resour. Res., 48, W10544, https://doi.org/10.1029/2011WR011518, 2012.
Rossini, P. R., Ciampitti, I. A., Hefley, T., and Patrignani, A.: A soil moisture-based framework for guiding the number and location of soil moisture sensors in agricultural fields, Vadose Zone J., 20, e20159, https://doi.org/10.1002/VZJ2.20159, 2021.
Samadi, S., Tufford, D. L., and Carbone, G. J.: Estimating hydrologic model uncertainty in the presence of complex residual error structures, Stoch. Env. Res. Risk A., 32, 1259–1281, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-017-1489-6, 2018.
Scharnagl, B., Iden, S. C., Durner, W., Vereecken, H., and Herbst, M.: Inverse modelling of in situ soil water dynamics: accounting for heteroscedastic, autocorrelated, and non-Gaussian distributed residuals, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss., 12, 2155–2199, https://doi.org/10.5194/hessd-12-2155-2015, 2015.
Schelle, H., Durner, W., Schlüter, S., Vogel, H.-J., and Vanderborght, J.: Virtual Soils: Moisture Measurements and Their Interpretation by Inverse Modeling, Vadose Zone J., 12, vzj2012.0168, https://doi.org/10.2136/vzj2012.0168, 2013.
Schlüter, S., Vanderborght, J., and Vogel, H. J.: Hydraulic non-equilibrium during infiltration induced by structural connectivity, Adv. Water Resour., 44, 101–112, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ADVWATRES.2012.05.002, 2012.
Schlüter, S., Vogel, H.-J., Ippisch, O., and Vanderborght, J.: Combined Impact of Soil Heterogeneity and Vegetation Type on the Annual Water Balance at the Field Scale, Vadose Zone J., 12, 1–17, https://doi.org/10.2136/vzj2013.03.0053, 2013.
Šimùnek, J., Van Genuchten, M. T., and Šejna, M.: HYDRUS: Model Use, Calibration, and Validation, T. ASABE, 55, 1261–1274, 2012.
Steenpass, C., Vanderborght, J., Herbst, M., Šimùnek, J., and Vereecken, H.: Estimating Soil Hydraulic Properties from Infrared Measurements of Soil Surface Temperatures and TDR Data, Vadose Zone J., 9, 910–924, https://doi.org/10.2136/VZJ2009.0176, 2010.
TEROS 10: http://publications.metergroup.com/Manuals/20788_TEROS10_Manual_Web.pdf, last access: 21 May 2024.
Teuling, A. J. and Troch, P. A.: Improved understanding of soil moisture variability dynamics, Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, 1–4, https://doi.org/10.1029/2004GL021935, 2005.
Vachaud, G., De Silans, A. P., Balabanis, P., and Vauclin, M.: Temporal Stability of Spatially Measured Soil Water Probability Density Function, Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 49, 822–828, https://doi.org/10.2136/SSSAJ1985.03615995004900040006X, 1985.
Vereecken, H., Kamai, T., Harter, T., Kasteel, R., Hopmans, J., and Vanderborght, J.: Explaining soil moisture variability as a function of mean soil moisture: A stochastic unsaturated flow perspective, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L22402, https://doi.org/10.1029/2007GL031813, 2007.
Vereecken, H., Huisman, J. A., Pachepsky, Y., Montzka, C., van der Kruk, J., Bogena, H., Weihermüller, L., Herbst, M., Martinez, G., and Vanderborght, J.: On the spatio-temporal dynamics of soil moisture at the field scale, J. Hydrol., 516, 76–96, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JHYDROL.2013.11.061, 2014.
Vogel, H. J., Weller, U., and Ippisch, O.: Non-equilibrium in soil hydraulic modelling, J. Hydrol., 393, 20–28, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JHYDROL.2010.03.018, 2010.
Vrugt, J. A.: Markov chain Monte Carlo simulation using the DREAM software package: Theory, concepts, and MATLAB implementation, Environ. Model. Softw., 75, 273–316, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2015.08.013, 2016.
Wang, C., Zuo, Q., and Zhang, R.: Estimating the necessary sampling size of surface soil moisture at different scales using a random combination method, J. Hydrol., 352, 309–321, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JHYDROL.2008.01.011, 2008.
Western, A. W. and Blöschl, G.: On the spatial scaling of soil moisture, J. Hydrol., 217, 203–224, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(98)00232-7, 1999.
Wikle, C. K. and Berliner, L. M.: A Bayesian tutorial for data assimilation, Physica D, 230, 1–16, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PHYSD.2006.09.017, 2007.
Yang, J., Reichert, P., Abbaspour, K. C., and Yang, H.: Hydrological modelling of the Chaohe Basin in China: Statistical model formulation and Bayesian inference, J. Hydrol., 340, 167–182, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JHYDROL.2007.04.006, 2007.
Short summary
We developed a method to estimate errors in soil moisture measurements using limited sensors and infrequent sampling. By analyzing data from 93 cropping cycles in agricultural fields in Belgium, we identified both systematic and random errors for our sensor setup. This approach reduces the need for extensive sensor networks and is applicable to agricultural and environmental monitoring and ensures more reliable soil moisture data, enhancing water management and improving model predictions.
We developed a method to estimate errors in soil moisture measurements using limited sensors and...
Special issue