\documentclass[10pt]{article}

\usepackage{fullpage}
\usepackage{setspace}
\usepackage{parskip}
\usepackage{titlesec}
\usepackage[section]{placeins}
\usepackage{xcolor}
\usepackage{breakcites}
\usepackage{lineno}
\usepackage{hyphenat}





\PassOptionsToPackage{hyphens}{url}
\usepackage[colorlinks = true,
            linkcolor = blue,
            urlcolor  = blue,
            citecolor = blue,
            anchorcolor = blue]{hyperref}
\usepackage{etoolbox}
\makeatletter
\patchcmd\@combinedblfloats{\box\@outputbox}{\unvbox\@outputbox}{}{%
  \errmessage{\noexpand\@combinedblfloats could not be patched}%
}%
\makeatother


\usepackage{natbib}




\renewenvironment{abstract}
  {{\bfseries\noindent{\abstractname}\par\nobreak}\footnotesize}
  {\bigskip}

\titlespacing{\section}{0pt}{*3}{*1}
\titlespacing{\subsection}{0pt}{*2}{*0.5}
\titlespacing{\subsubsection}{0pt}{*1.5}{0pt}


\usepackage{authblk}


\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage[space]{grffile}
\usepackage{latexsym}
\usepackage{textcomp}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage{tabulary}
\usepackage{booktabs,array,multirow}
\usepackage{amsfonts,amsmath,amssymb}
\providecommand\citet{\cite}
\providecommand\citep{\cite}
\providecommand\citealt{\cite}
% You can conditionalize code for latexml or normal latex using this.
\newif\iflatexml\latexmlfalse
\providecommand{\tightlist}{\setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}\setlength{\parskip}{0pt}}%

\AtBeginDocument{\DeclareGraphicsExtensions{.pdf,.PDF,.eps,.EPS,.png,.PNG,.tif,.TIF,.jpg,.JPG,.jpeg,.JPEG}}

\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage[greek,english]{babel}



\usepackage{float}








\begin{document}

\title{Can Dense, Deep Profiles of Soil Water Sensors Determine Change in
Storage as Well as a Weighing Lysimeter or Neutron Probe?}



\author[1]{Steven Evett}%
\author[1]{Gary Marek}%
\author[1]{Robert Schwartz}%
\author[1]{Paul Colaizzi}%
\author[1]{David Brauer}%
\affil[1]{USDA Agricultural Research Service}%


\vspace{-1em}



  
  \date{May 10, 2024}


\begingroup
\let\center\flushleft
\let\endcenter\endflushleft
\maketitle
\endgroup





\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{abstract}
Properly designed, calibrated, and operated weighing lysimeters are
recognized as accurate tools for measuring changes of soil water storage
(\selectlanguage{greek}Δ\selectlanguage{english}S) in the soil profile contained in the lysimeter. The neutron probe,
NP, also is recognized as an accurate tool for determining soil profile
water storage, S, and \selectlanguage{greek}Δ\selectlanguage{english}S over the depth range of the neutron probe
readings, again when properly calibrated and operated. Both methods have
been used to calculate evapotranspiration (ET) using the soil water
balance equation (ET = \selectlanguage{greek}Δ\selectlanguage{english}S + I + P + R + F) applied to a control volume,
where I is irrigation, P is precipitation, R is the sum of runon and
runoff, and F is flux into or out of the control volume. However,
weighing lysimeters are expensive to install and operate and are not
portable, and the neutron probe faces regulatory pressures and cannot be
used unattended, limiting its use. Past attempts to use electromagnetic
soil water sensors based on capacitance principles to accurately
determine profile water content have not met with success. Recent
advances in soil water senor technology have led to accurate, low power,
and relatively inexpensive electronic soil water sensors based on time
domain reflectometry (TDR) theory, which can be installed in situ.
Assuming that accurate values or controls were available for I, P, R,
and F, we concentrated on evaluating S and \selectlanguage{greek}Δ\selectlanguage{english}S as determined by
lysimeter, NP, and TDR sensors. Over a cropping season at Bushland,
Texas, USA we compared S and \selectlanguage{greek}Δ\selectlanguage{english}S in a 2.3-m deep profile of silty clay
loam soil as assessed by a large, precision weighing lysimeter, the NP
in two access tubes in the lysimeter, and three profiles of TDR soil
water sensors installed in the lysimeter, each profile consisting of 15
sensors. Weighing lysimeter mass was recorded every 5 minutes and TDR
sensors were read every 15 minutes, both automatically using
dataloggers, while the neutron probe readings were done manually at
approximately one-week intervals. Comparing TDR sensors with neutron
probe, coefficients of determination for profile water content and for
\selectlanguage{greek}Δ\selectlanguage{english}S were 0.97 and 0.91, respectively, when one-week intervals were
considered. Coefficients of determination for comparisons of TDR sensors
to lysimeter were 0.95 for S and 0.92 for \selectlanguage{greek}Δ\selectlanguage{english}S, while values for
comparison of neutron probe to lysimeter were 0.91 for water storage and
0.83 for \selectlanguage{greek}Δ\selectlanguage{english}S, again for one-week intervals. Poorer performance of the NP
was likely due to the fact that it could not be read to depths greater
than 1.90 m, which limited the profile sensed to the top 2.0 m of soil.%
\end{abstract}%



\sloppy




\selectlanguage{english}
\FloatBarrier
\end{document}

