the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Technical note: Towards a paradigm change in observing soil water content via cosmic-ray neutron sensing
Abstract. Observing soil moisture via cosmic-ray neutron sensing has seen a rapid methodological development and expansion during the last decade. However, to foster its application some change in perspective may be useful. We reformulate the most common calibration equation used when working with CRNS data, the Desilets equation, and provide a simple and insightful form. This leads us also to a new option for calibration of CRNS time series without any local sampling of soil moisture, and also without knowledge on CRNS detector sensitivity. At the same time it delivers the basis for a quantitative expression on how heterogeneities in the footprint contribute to the CRNS-derived soil moisture as well as why statistical errors in practice may be larger than assumed usually. Finally, we suggest to also define the area (and volume) represented by the CNRS observation in a more pragmatic way and complement it by indicating needs for better standardization.
- Preprint
(732 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-4141', Anonymous Referee #1, 04 Mar 2025
This interesting manuscript describes a revised formulation and physical interpretation of the Desilets calibration equation, which has been widely used to estimate soil water content based on cosmic-ray neutron sensing. The results show that the equation can be considered as fraction where the numerator represents the difference between the maximum neutron count rate at a site and the current neutron count rate, and the denominator represents the difference between the current neutron count rate and the minimum neutron count rate for the site. This is a small but meaningful and insightful extension of the revised Desilets equation provided by Kohli et al. (2021). This seems like the core contribution of the manuscript.Â
The manuscript also shows that there should be a fixed ratio between maximum and minimum neutron count rates for a site; thus it is only necessary to determine one of these parameters via calibration. This formulation suggests a calibration approach where either the maximum or minimum neutron count rate is identified from a suitable time series of neutron counts at the site.
I think it would be good, and perhaps essential, to strengthen this contribution by providing some actual quantitative examples of this calibration approach and how it compares with the standard calibration approach based on soil sampling. Only some qualitative examples are shown currently, with no assessment of accuracy.
I did not find much value in the other sections of the manuscript, i.e. sections 2.4 and following. Perhaps other readers will find some benefit there. Section 3 seems mostly speculative.
I have provided 36 specific questions, comments, and suggested edits in an attached pdf version of the manuscript.
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-4141', Anonymous Referee #2, 05 Mar 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2024-4141/egusphere-2024-4141-RC2-supplement.pdf
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
119 | 17 | 4 | 140 | 4 | 4 |
- HTML: 119
- PDF: 17
- XML: 4
- Total: 140
- BibTeX: 4
- EndNote: 4
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1