Data_Sheet_5_A Novel Lithium Foil Cosmic-Ray Neutron Detector for Measuring Field-Scale Soil Moisture.CSV
During the past decade, cosmic-ray neutron sensing technology has enabled researchers to reveal soil moisture spatial patterns and to estimate landscape-average soil moisture for hydrological and agricultural applications. However, reliance on rare materials such as helium-3 increases the cost of cosmic-ray neutron probes (CRNPs) and limits the adoption of this unique technology beyond the realm of academic research. In this study, we evaluated a novel lower cost CRNP based on moderated ultra-thin lithium-6 foil (Li foil system) technology against a commercially-available CRNP based on BF3 (boron trifluoride, BF-3 system). The study was conducted in a cropped field located in the Konza Prairie Biological Station near Manhattan, Kansas, USA (325 m a.s.l.) from 10 April 2020 to 18 June 2020. During this period the mean atmospheric pressure was 977 kPa, the mean air relative humidity was 70%, and the average volumetric soil water content was 0.277 m3 m−3. Raw fast neutron counts were corrected for atmospheric pressure, atmospheric water vapor, and incoming neutron flux. Calibration of the CRNPs was conducted using four intensive field surveys (n > 120), in combination with continuous observations from an existing array of in situ soil moisture sensors. The time series of uncorrected neutron counts of the Li foil system was highly correlated (r2 = 0.91) to that of the BF-3 system. The Li foil system had an average of 2,250 corrected neutron counts per hour with an uncertainty of 2.25%, values that are specific to the instrument size, detector configuration, and atmospheric conditions. The estimated volumetric water content from the Li foil system had a mean absolute difference of 0.022 m3 m−3 compared to the value from the array of in situ sensors. The new Li foil detector offers a promising lower cost alternative to existing cosmic-ray neutron detection devices used for hectometer-scale soil moisture monitoring.
History
References
- https://doi.org//10.1002/2014WR016443
- https://doi.org//10.1002/wrcr.20463
- https://doi.org//10.1002/wat2.1097
- https://doi.org//10.5194/hess-17-5097-2013
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.jhydrol.2005.01.003
- https://doi.org//10.1029/2009WR008726
- https://doi.org//10.1002/2017WR021692
- https://doi.org//10.2136/vzj2013.08.0148
- https://doi.org//10.1002/hyp.10929
- https://doi.org//10.5194/essd-12-2289-2020
- https://doi.org//10.3389/frwa.2020.00009
- https://doi.org//10.1002/2015GL063963
- https://doi.org//10.1002/grl.50791
- https://doi.org//10.1002/2013WR015138
- https://doi.org//10.5194/hess-20-1269-2016
- https://doi.org//10.3389/frwa.2020.00010
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.nima.2018.06.052
- https://doi.org//10.1002/2015WR017169
- https://doi.org//10.1016/0022-1694(86)90097-1
- https://doi.org//10.2136/vzj2014.06.0077
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.radphyschem.2018.08.003
- https://doi.org//10.3390/rs9020103
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.nima.2011.12.003
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.radphyschem.2015.03.044
- https://doi.org//10.1175/JTECH-D-19-0214.1
- https://doi.org//10.5194/hess-15-3843-2011
- https://doi.org//10.2136/vzj2017.10.0177
- https://doi.org//10.1175/JHM-D-12-0120.1
- https://doi.org//10.1021/ac60214a047
- https://doi.org//10.5194/hess-21-5009-2017
- https://doi.org//10.5194/gi-7-83-2018
- https://doi.org//10.5194/hess-17-3205-2013
- https://doi.org//10.3390/agriculture9090202
- https://doi.org//10.2134/agronj2009.0123
- https://doi.org//10.3390/hydrology6030065
- https://doi.org//10.3390/hydrology7030048
- https://doi.org//10.3389/frwa.2020.00016
- https://doi.org//10.3354/cr030079
- https://doi.org//10.1109/LGRS.2014.2346784
- https://doi.org//10.1029/2008GL035655
- https://doi.org//10.5194/hess-16-4079-2012
CC BY 4.0