SSSAJ Journal of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Education
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Published online 1 January 2009
Published in Soil Sci Soc Am J 73:1-6 (2009)
DOI: 10.2136/sssaj2008.0146
© 2009 Soil Science Society of America
677 S. Segoe Rd., Madison, WI 53711 USA
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Logsdon, S. D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Logsdon, S. D.
GeoRef
Right arrow GeoRef Citation
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Logsdon, S. D.
Related Collections
Right arrow Soil Methods/Instrumentation
Right arrow Water Content
Right arrow Other Geophysical Methods

SOIL PHYSICS

CS616 Calibration: Field versus Laboratory

S. D. Logsdon*

NSTL, 2110 University Blvd., Ames, IA 50011

* Corresponding author (sally.logsdon{at}ars.usda.gov).

Recently developed permittivity probes operate at lower frequencies (MHz range). Soils with large amounts of high-charge clays (superactive) often have higher measured permittivity values for a given water content than do factory calibrations of the newer probes. The purpose of this study was to determine site-specific field and laboratory calibrations of CS616's (water content reflectometers) for soils with "superactive" mineralogy. Field calibration of CS616 (readings converted to square root of apparent permittivity or {varepsilon}a1/2) was determined as a function of neutron-probe water content data, {theta}. Laboratory calibrations used undisturbed columns taken from the same depths where the CS616 probes had been in the field. Another laboratory study compared data for two packed columns, one with wet and dry soil zones and the other with homogeneous water content. The laboratory calibration was linear with {varepsilon}a1/2. The field calibration was nonlinear, and the {varepsilon}a1/2 values were even higher than the laboratory values, emphasized more in the intermediate {theta} range. The column with wet and dry soil had higher {varepsilon}a1/2 than the homogeneous column, probably due to the electromagnetic field (EMF) preferentially responding to the wet zones. Heterogeneous field soil water content could have contributed to the higher {varepsilon}a1/2 than for laboratory calibration, and the nonlinear {varepsilon}a1/2({theta}) relation for field data.

Abbreviations: CEC, cation-exchange capacity • EMF, electromagnetic field • PVC, polyvinyl chloride • TDR, time domain reflectometry • {varepsilon}a, apparent permittivity • {sigma}dc, direct current electrical conductivity




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Soil Sci.Home page
S. D. Logsdon, G. Hernandez-Ramirez, J. L. Hatfield, T. J. Sauer, J.H. Prueger, and K. E. Schilling
Soil Water and Shallow Groundwater Relations in an Agricultural Hillslope
Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., July 14, 2009; 73(5): 1461 - 1468.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
The SCI Journals Agronomy Journal Crop Science
Journal of Natural Resources
and Life Sciences Education
Vadose Zone Journal
Journal of Plant Registrations Journal of
Environmental Quality
The Plant Genome
Copyright © 2009 by the Soil Science Society of America.