Journal cover Journal topic
Earth System Science Data The data publishing journal
Journal topic

Journal metrics

Journal metrics

  • IF value: 10.951 IF 10.951
  • IF 5-year value: 9.899 IF 5-year
    9.899
  • CiteScore value: 9.74 CiteScore
    9.74
  • SNIP value: 3.111 SNIP 3.111
  • IPP value: 8.99 IPP 8.99
  • SJR value: 5.229 SJR 5.229
  • Scimago H <br class='hide-on-tablet hide-on-mobile'>index value: 38 Scimago H
    index 38
  • h5-index value: 33 h5-index 33
Discussion papers
https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2019-75
© Author(s) 2019. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2019-75
© Author(s) 2019. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Submitted as: data description paper 21 Jun 2019

Submitted as: data description paper | 21 Jun 2019

Review status
This discussion paper is a preprint. It is a manuscript under review for the journal Earth System Science Data (ESSD).

Soil moisture and matric potential – An open field comparison ofsensor systems

Conrad Jackisch1,a, Kai Germer2, Thomas Graeff3,4, Ines Andrä2, Katrin Schulz2, Marcus Schiedung2, Jaqueline Haller-Jans2, Jonas Schneider2, Julia Jaquemotte2, Philipp Helmer2, Leander Lotz2, Andreas Bauer3, Irene Hahn3, Martin Šanda5, Monika Kumpan6, Johann Dorner6, Gerrit de Rooij7, Stefan Wessel-Bothe8, Lorenz Kottmann9, Siegfried Schittenhelm9, and Wolfgang Durner2 Conrad Jackisch et al.
  • 1Karlsruhe Institute of Technology KIT, Institute of Water Resources and River Basin Management, Chair of Hydrology, Kaiserstr. 12, 76131 Karlsruhe, Germany
  • 2Technische Universität Braunschweig, Institute of Geoecology, Dept. Soil Science and Soil Physics, Langer Kamp 19c, 38106 Braunschweig, Germany
  • 3University of Potsdam, Institute of Earth and Environmental Science, Potsdam, Germany
  • 4Umweltbundesamt (Federal Environment Agency), Department IV 2.1, Dessau-Rosslau, Germany
  • 5Czech Technical University, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Department of Irrigation, Drainage and Landscape Engineering,Thakurova 7, 166 29, Praha 6, Czech Republic
  • 6Federal Agency for Water Management, Institute for Land & Water Management Research, 3252 Petzenkirchen, Austria
  • 7Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research UFZ, Department of Soil System Science, Theodor-Lieser-Str. 4, 06120 Halle, Germany
  • 8ecoTech Umwelt-Meßsysteme GmbH, Nikolausstr. 7, 53129 Bonn, Germany
  • 9Julius Kühn-Institute, Federal Research Centre for Cultivated Plants, Institute for Crop and Soil Science, Bundesallee 58, 38116 Braunschweig, Germany
  • acurrent address: Technische Universität Braunschweig, Institute of Geoecology, Dept. Landscape Ecology and Environmental Systems Analysis, Langer Kamp 19c, 38106 Braunschweig, Germany

Abstract. Soil water content and matric potential are central hydrological state variables. A large variety of automated probesand sensor systems for state monitoring exists and is frequently applied. Most studies solely rely on the calibration by themanufacturers. Until now, there is no commonly agreed calibration procedure. Moreover, several opinions about the capabilitiesand reliabilities of specific sensing methods or sensor systems exist and compete.

A consortium of several institutions conducted a comparison study of currently available sensor systems for soil water5content and matric potential under field conditions. All probes have been installed in 0.2 m depth below surface following best practice procedure. We present the setup and the recorded data of 58 probes of 15 different systems measuring soil moisture and further 50 probes of 14 different systems for matric potential. The measuring campaign was conducted in the growing period of 2016. The monitoring data, results from pedophysical analyses of the soil and laboratory reference measurements for calibration are published in Jackisch et al. (2018, https://doi.org/10.1594/PANGAEA.892319).

Conrad Jackisch et al.
Data sets

Soil moisture and matric potential - An open field comparison of sensor systems C. Jackisch, I. Andrä, K. Germer, K. Schulz, M. Schiedung, J. Haller-Jans, J. Schneider, J. Jaquemotte, P. Helmer, L. Lotz, T. Graeff, A. Bauer, I. Hahn, M. Šanda, M. Kumpan, J. Dorner, G. de Rooij, S. Wessel-Bothe, L. Kottmann, S. Schittenhelm, and W.Durner https://doi.org/10.1594/PANGAEA.892319

Conrad Jackisch et al.
Viewed  
Total article views: 397 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total BibTeX EndNote
319 73 5 397 3 5
  • HTML: 319
  • PDF: 73
  • XML: 5
  • Total: 397
  • BibTeX: 3
  • EndNote: 5
Views and downloads (calculated since 21 Jun 2019)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 21 Jun 2019)
Viewed (geographical distribution)  
Total article views: 290 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 289 with geography defined and 1 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 
Cited  
Saved  
No saved metrics found.
Discussed  
No discussed metrics found.
Latest update: 20 Sep 2019
Download
Short summary
Soil water content and matric potential are central hydrological state variables. A large variety of automated probes and sensor systems for field monitoring exists. In a field experiment under idealised conditions we compared 15 systems for soil moisture and 14 systems for matric potential. The individual records of one system agree well to each other. Most records are also plausible. However, the absolute values of the different measuring systems span a very large range of possible truths.
Soil water content and matric potential are central hydrological state variables. A large...
Citation