the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Twelve years profile soil moisture and temperature measurements in Twente, the Netherlands
Rogier Velde
Harm-Jan F. Benninga
Bas Retsios
Abstract. Spread across the Twente and neighbouring regions in the east of the Netherlands, a network of 20 profile soil moisture and temperature (5 cm, 10 cm, 20 cm, 40 cm and 80 cm) monitoring stations has been operational since 2009. In addition, field campaigns have been conducted covering the growing seasons of 2009, 2015, 2016 and 2017 during which soil sampling rings and handheld probes were used to measure the soil moisture content of in total 28 fields near 12 different monitoring stations. In this paper, we describe the design of the monitoring network and the field campaigns, adopted instrumentation, experimental setup, field sampling strategies, and the development of sensor calibration functions. The maintenance and quality control procedures, known issues specific to the Twente network, and time series of profile soil moisture and groundwater level for three stations are discussed. Further, an overview is provided of open third-party datasets (i.e. land cover/use, soil information, elevation, groundwater and meteorological observations) that can support the use and analysis of the Twente soil moisture and temperature datasets beyond the scope of this contribution. The data discussed are publicly available at https://doi.org/10.17026/dans-xr2-m6d8 (Van der Velde and Benninga, 2022) under the Creative Commons, CC BY 4.0 license.
- Preprint
(4233 KB) -
Supplement
(80 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Rogier van der Velde et al.
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on essd-2022-90', Anonymous Referee #1, 10 Aug 2022
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Rogier Van der Velde, 16 Nov 2022
We thank the referee for the positive and detailed comments. The level of detail and provided suggestions are much appreciated and motivate us to critically reflect at the content of the submitted manuscript. In attached file, we provide our point-by-point response to the comments.
kind regards
Rogier van der Velde
on behalf of the authors
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Rogier Van der Velde, 16 Nov 2022
-
RC2: 'Comment on essd-2022-90', Anonymous Referee #2, 05 Nov 2022
Summary:
This paper presents a dataset of ongoing in situ soil moisture measurements in a region in the eastern part of the Netherlands. The dataset covers the time period since 2009, 20 locations, and measurements at five different depths (in general). The paper presents also results from field campaigns that resulted in calibration functions for the soil moisture sensors.
General evaluation:
The paper is in general sound and I have only minor comments. However, a major concern is whether publication is warranted in a high impact journal like ESSD, for only 20 point soil moisture time series for a period of 13 years. Question is whether the dataset is unique enough for this journal. I have suggested "minor revision", but alternatively a recommendation could also be "rejection". I leave this decision to the editor.
Specific Comments:
L28. Instead of Mecklenburg et al., 2016 an earlier citation should be included.
L114. What does “forest” mean here? Fruit trees? Please specify.
L116. Probably harvested in September and October.
L185. What has happened in case of sensor failure? What if sensors had to be replaced? Was the same sensor type used? Was there a check for inhomogeneity in the measurement time series?
L296-L303. Can you explain why these RMSE´s are so large? What is the RMSE for the average soil moisture content of a complete field or area?
L335. iv) instead of v)
L343: Change to: “a readme document”
L366. Do you compare here individual measurement points with measurements?
L375. “lower groundwater levels” instead of “low groundwater levels”?
L391. How doe you explain this? Could it be related to preferential flow in the unsaturated zone?
L394. Or opposite? In situ groundwater levels (whose availability is more abundant than soil moisture measurements) provide information on soil moisture content.
L423. Typo: “third-party”.
Figure 8. Please explain the numbers in the figure (why twice “1”, “2”, “3” etc.)
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2022-90-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Rogier Van der Velde, 22 Nov 2022
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on essd-2022-90', Anonymous Referee #1, 10 Aug 2022
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Rogier Van der Velde, 16 Nov 2022
We thank the referee for the positive and detailed comments. The level of detail and provided suggestions are much appreciated and motivate us to critically reflect at the content of the submitted manuscript. In attached file, we provide our point-by-point response to the comments.
kind regards
Rogier van der Velde
on behalf of the authors
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Rogier Van der Velde, 16 Nov 2022
-
RC2: 'Comment on essd-2022-90', Anonymous Referee #2, 05 Nov 2022
Summary:
This paper presents a dataset of ongoing in situ soil moisture measurements in a region in the eastern part of the Netherlands. The dataset covers the time period since 2009, 20 locations, and measurements at five different depths (in general). The paper presents also results from field campaigns that resulted in calibration functions for the soil moisture sensors.
General evaluation:
The paper is in general sound and I have only minor comments. However, a major concern is whether publication is warranted in a high impact journal like ESSD, for only 20 point soil moisture time series for a period of 13 years. Question is whether the dataset is unique enough for this journal. I have suggested "minor revision", but alternatively a recommendation could also be "rejection". I leave this decision to the editor.
Specific Comments:
L28. Instead of Mecklenburg et al., 2016 an earlier citation should be included.
L114. What does “forest” mean here? Fruit trees? Please specify.
L116. Probably harvested in September and October.
L185. What has happened in case of sensor failure? What if sensors had to be replaced? Was the same sensor type used? Was there a check for inhomogeneity in the measurement time series?
L296-L303. Can you explain why these RMSE´s are so large? What is the RMSE for the average soil moisture content of a complete field or area?
L335. iv) instead of v)
L343: Change to: “a readme document”
L366. Do you compare here individual measurement points with measurements?
L375. “lower groundwater levels” instead of “low groundwater levels”?
L391. How doe you explain this? Could it be related to preferential flow in the unsaturated zone?
L394. Or opposite? In situ groundwater levels (whose availability is more abundant than soil moisture measurements) provide information on soil moisture content.
L423. Typo: “third-party”.
Figure 8. Please explain the numbers in the figure (why twice “1”, “2”, “3” etc.)
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2022-90-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Rogier Van der Velde, 22 Nov 2022
Rogier van der Velde et al.
Data sets
Twelve years profile soil moisture and temperature measurements in Twente (version 2022) Rogier van der Velde, Harm-Jan F. Benninga https://doi.org/10.17026/dans-xr2-m6d8
Rogier van der Velde et al.
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
430 | 156 | 16 | 602 | 42 | 9 | 6 |
- HTML: 430
- PDF: 156
- XML: 16
- Total: 602
- Supplement: 42
- BibTeX: 9
- EndNote: 6
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1