the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Data-Driven Scaling Methods for Soil Moisture Cosmic Ray Neutron Sensors
Abstract. Cosmic ray neutron probes (CRNS) are increasingly used for soil moisture measurement, yet uncertainties persist due to reliance on traditional analytical scaling methods that may not fully account for site-specific and sensor-specific characteristics. This study introduces a novel, data-driven calibration approach to estimate key scaling parameters (beta, psi, and omega) for CRNS, emphasizing local environmental factors and sensor attributes. The method provides a more flexible, empirical approach to calibration by directly calculating correction parameters from measurement data.
The results demonstrate that the new method is both reliable and robust, showing strong correlations between the estimated parameters and those predicted by analytical methods. However, the study also reveals systematically higher variability in calibration parameters than previously assumed, underscoring the importance of data quality and careful selection of NMDB reference sites. Sensor-specific factors, such as the energy spectrum, along with site-specific factors like elevation and geographic proximity to NMDB sites, significantly influence scaling parameters, highlighting the necessity for site- and sensor-specific calibration to improve soil moisture estimates. Future research should focus on refining these scaling methods and enhancing data quality to further improve CRNS measurement accuracy.
- Preprint
(1622 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 01 Jan 2025)
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3108', Todd Caldwell, 29 Nov 2024
reply
The Baatz et al. (2024) paper presents a very clear explanation of all the scaling factors used to correct cosmic ray neutron counts. In particular, sections 2.1.1 to 2.1.3 provide great detail on each. The intro paragraph at line 54 presents each very succinctly. I appreciate their efforts to really illustrate these concepts - and the fact that many of us have inherently considered these essentially fixed parameters.
The authors use inverse modeling to derive model parameters (e.g., beta, omega and psi) and their uncertainty. However, it is a little unclear what the forward model is they are inverting. Equations 1-3 and multiplied to get the total flux correction (Npih, eq. 4) at Line 186. The synthetic experiments are presented well. I am not following inversions of beta, omega and psi at the site level. Could you present the forward model and the error term that is being minimized? Or, if I am off target with the optimization scheme, could you elaborate on the inversion routine a little more?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3108-CC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on CC1', Roland Baatz, 04 Dec 2024
reply
Thank you for your thoughtful feedback and for highlighting the need to better clarify the inversion process.
Please find our reply attached.
-
AC1: 'Reply on CC1', Roland Baatz, 04 Dec 2024
reply
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
174 | 40 | 7 | 221 | 2 | 1 |
- HTML: 174
- PDF: 40
- XML: 7
- Total: 221
- BibTeX: 2
- EndNote: 1
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1