Soil Moisture Mapping of Golf Greens Using a Vehicle-Mounted L-Band Polarimeter
Le résumé fourni par la source
Soil moisture on golf greens affects playing conditions, turf health, and irrigation scheduling, but visual inspection is subjective and point probes undersample how moisture varies within a single green. We describe a passive L-band (1.4 GHz) radiometer mounted on a greensmower that maps soil moisture during routine mowing, producing hundreds of measurements per green on each pass. The instrument is a digital polarimeter: it measures all four Stokes parameters, and the polarization information can be used to separate radio frequency interference from the thermal emission of the soil. An automated per-green calibration maps the brightness temperature distribution accumulated over many mowing sessions onto the expected soil moisture range of each green, set by calibration anchors at the dry and wet ends. This converts brightness temperature to volumetric water content (VWC) without extra field calibration. We evaluated the retrieval on five putting greens at Waterford Valley Golf Club, Melbourne, Australia, against a handheld FieldScout TDR probe. The within-green spatial patterns are repeatable across the eight-week observation period and resolve the wet and dry zones of each green. After the reference probe’s own error is accounted for, the microwave random error is between 6 and 8% VWC, estimated from a single field day. The polarimetric interference rejection is tested across the whole course. The system’s strength is dense, repeatable mapping of relative soil moisture structure.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Soil Moisture Mapping of Golf Greens Using a Vehicle-Mounted L-Band Polarimeter
- Date Crossref
- 01/07/2026
- Éditeur
- MDPI AG
- Type
- posted-content
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.