Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 8 minor 37 references

SoilSound: Smartphone-based Soil Moisture Estimation

T0 review · 3 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read SoilSound claims that a commodity smartphone, by emitting FMCW acoustic chirps toward the soil and recording their reflections during a five-second vertical lift, can estimate volumetric soil moisture without any calibration or soil…

desk verdict SoilSound's vertical-scan reflective acoustic approach is a genuine novelty, but its headline 2.39% MAE rests on a lenient range-aware metric that overstates accuracy relative to prior work. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.09823 v1 pith:JXZXBNTL submitted 2025-09-11 cs.SD cs.AIcs.ETcs.HCeess.SP

Yixuan Gao , Tanvir Ahmed , Shuang He , Zhongqi Cheng , Rajalakshmi Nandakumar This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.SDcs.AIcs.ETcs.HCeess.SP
keywords soilmoisturesensingsmartphoneacousticFMCWchirpsurfaceroughnessmodelspecularreflectionconvolutionalneuralnetworkverticalscannon-invasiveagriculture
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

SoilSound proposes that a commodity smartphone can estimate soil moisture by emitting FMCW acoustic chirps toward the ground and recording their reflections while the phone is lifted slowly. The paper argues the physical link is surface roughness: wetter soil is smoother, so it reflects more sound specularly, and a CNN trained on 2D range-profiles from vertical scans learns to read moisture from this signature. The system requires no calibration, no probes in the soil, and no specialized hardware, and the field evaluation reports a mean absolute error of 2.39% across ten outdoor locations and tracks moisture from 15.9% to 34.0%.

What carries the argument

The central object is the moisture-dependent surface roughness model, Eq. (5): $\sigma_h(\theta_v) = \sigma_{h,\mathrm{dry}}\exp(-\alpha S_e^\beta) + \sigma_{h,\mathrm{sat}}$, where $S_e$ is effective saturation, combined with the Rayleigh roughness parameter $g = 2\pi\sigma_h/\lambda$ and the Kirchhoff-approximation specular reflection law $P_{\mathrm{spec}} = P_{\mathrm{inc}} R_0 \exp(-g^2)$. This pair turns moisture content into a measurable acoustic reflection amplitude. The vertical scan adds the second ingredient: because the collection solid angle $\Omega_{\mathrm{eff}}(h) \propto (a/h)^2$ narrows with height, multi-height range profiles re-weight the specular versus diffuse components, giving the CNN independent constraints and preventing overfit to a single height.

What would settle it

A direct test would be to measure the specular reflection strength and the surface roughness simultaneously on the same soil sample as it dries, using a profilometer or confocal microscopy for $\sigma_h$ and the FMCW setup for $P_{\mathrm{spec}}$, and check whether $\ln(P_{\mathrm{spec}})$ declines linearly with $\sigma_h^2$ across moisture levels and soil types. If the relationship breaks when soil texture or organic matter changes, then the Eq. 5 model, not moisture, is what the CNN has learned.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that soil moisture can be measured from the reflected acoustic signal at the air-soil interface, using the roughness-dependent specular reflection rather than the transmission of sound through soil. A dry soil surface is rough and scatters sound diffusely; as water binds particles through capillary forces, the surface smooths and the specular reflection strengthens. The paper models the moisture-dependent roughness with an exponential form and shows that at common audio wavelengths the Rayleigh roughness parameter drops from about 1.9 to 0.4, multiplying the specular power by a large factor while the plane-wave reflection coefficient stays almost constant. A convolutional network trained on the combined range-bin and device-height structure of the reflections then estimates volumetric water content. The paper reports an MAE of 2.39% across ten outdoor locations and argues the system generalizes across soil types because the vertical scan supplies geometric diversity that prevents the model from latching onto soil-specific signatures.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes that the exponential, moisture-dependent surface roughness law (Eq. 5) with its literature-derived parameters is the dominant, generalizable mechanism by which water content changes the acoustic reflection, and that a CNN trained on nine loamy sand samples plus one transfer test on potting soil has learned this moisture-invariant mapping rather than soil-specific acoustic signatures.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A user can point a phone at bare soil, lift it steadily for five seconds, and get a moisture reading in under one second of processing, with no calibration or soil disturbance.
  • Because the model relies on reflection, it reads only the top few centimeters of soil; subsurface layers remain effectively invisible.
  • The system works across soil types without retraining: a model trained on loamy sand transferred to organic potting soil, and field errors stayed low at nine of ten outdoor locations.
  • The approach opens the 1–22 kHz audio band of commodity phones to material characterization, not just ranging.
  • Grass cover breaks the assumption: predictions on thick grass consistently underestimate moisture (MAE 18.52%).

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same specular-versus-diffuse reasoning could extend to other granular surfaces (sand, snow, mulch) where water or cohesion changes roughness, giving a general phone-based surface-moisture probe.
  • A testable extension is to use the model's activation map directly to estimate the Rayleigh parameter $g$ per height, potentially yielding a physics-grounded moisture estimate that needs no training data at all.
  • The observed 9.1% error at one high-moisture outdoor location and degraded extrapolation performance suggest the CNN may encode the training moisture distribution rather than the full $\exp(-g^2)$ curve; a dataset spanning saturation for each soil type would show whether the model is truly learning the physics.
  • Because transfer to high-organic soil worked without fine-tuning, collecting crowdsourced scans with the app itself could let the model adapt to new soil classes through federated learning, which the paper mentions as future work.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 8 minor

Summary. This paper presents SoilSound, a smartphone-based acoustic sensing system for estimating volumetric soil water content without inserting probes. The phone transmits 7-22 kHz FMCW chirps while the user moves it upward over about 15 cm; reflection range profiles at successive heights are stacked into a 64x64 image and processed by a CNN that regresses moisture. The manuscript proposes a surface-roughness explanation for why reflections grow with moisture (Section 3), describes synchronization, direct-path cancellation, mode-based noise removal, and an Android implementation, and reports a lab LOOCV MAE of 5.01%, a cross-soil MAE of 3.65%, a five-user MAE of 1.14%, and a field MAE of 2.39% across 10 outdoor locations. The central claim is accurate, calibration-free, non-invasive soil moisture estimation across soil types, environments, and users.

Significance. If the reported accuracy were measured on the same basis as prior work, SoilSound would be a noteworthy demonstration of commodity-smartphone acoustic reflectometry for soil moisture, with practical accessibility advantages. The paper deserves credit for implementing a complete on-device pipeline, for the vertical-scan ablation in Section 6.2.1 showing that single-height features overfit soil type, and for candidly reporting limitations such as grass coverage and depth penetration. However, the central quantitative claim is weakened by the range-aware error metric and by the small number of soil types and field locations; the physical model in Section 3.2 is plausible but not directly validated. The contribution is promising, but the evidence as reported does not yet substantiate the headline 2.39% MAE in a way that is comparable with Table 1.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.4.2, Eq. (10)] The reported MAE values, including the headline 2.39% field figure, use a range-aware VWC error that assigns zero error whenever the prediction falls inside the interval spanned by five TEROS-12 readings. This is not the same quantity as the conventional MAEs listed in Table 1; because the TEROS-12 itself has a calibration MAE of about 3% [8], wide ground-truth intervals can make predictions several percent from the true mean count as zero error. The paper never reports the widths of the ground-truth ranges, so the reader cannot compare SoilSound with prior systems or audit the headline claim. Please report conventional MAE against the mean (or midpoint) of the ground-truth readings, together with the distribution of range widths, and use that metric in Table 1.
  2. [Sections 6.1 and 6.4] The generalization claims rest on very small samples: nine loamy-sand samples for LOOCV, five potting-soil samples for cross-soil transfer, five users, and ten field locations with no reported soil classification. Only two base soil types are prepared in the lab, and the outdoor locations are not described in terms of texture or organic matter. With this sample size, the claim in Section 6.1.2 that the model learned a moisture-invariant mapping across soil types is not strongly supported; the fixed-height ablation demonstrates the value of vertical scans but does not identify the acoustic features that generalize. Please provide per-location soil descriptions, confidence intervals for the reported MAEs, and ideally an independent held-out soil type from a different textural class.
  3. [Section 3.2.1, Eq. (5)] The mechanistic claim that moisture-dependent surface roughness is the dominant cause of the observed reflection changes is supported only by illustrative parameter values (alpha = 3-5, beta = 1.5, sigma_h_dry = 5-10 mm, sigma_h_sat = 0.5-1 mm) taken from the soil-mechanics literature; these parameters are not measured for the tested soils, nor is the roughness-moisture relation directly validated. Since the CNN is trained on labeled samples, the learned mapping could in principle exploit soil-specific acoustic signatures rather than the hypothesized roughness effect. I am not asking for a full physical inversion, but the paper should provide either direct surface-roughness measurements or a synthetic-data test using Eq. (5) to show that the model's learned features are consistent with the proposed mechanism.
minor comments (8)
  1. [Section 5] The phrase "an xx camera" is an unresolved placeholder and should be replaced with the actual camera specification.
  2. [Section 6.1] The sentence "We then freeze this model and use it for training for all subsequent experiments" is confusing; presumably the frozen model is used for evaluation, not for training, in later sections.
  3. [Section 6.4.1] The statement that the system achieved "0.0% error" should be clarified as meaning the prediction fell inside the range-aware ground-truth interval, and the width of that interval should be given.
  4. [Section 6.1] "Taro probe" appears to be a typo; please clarify which probe was used to verify moisture content before each experiment.
  5. [Section 6.4.3] There is a typo "surafces" for "surfaces," and in several places "Soilsound" should be "SoilSound."
  6. [Table 1] Add a footnote to the SoilSound row stating that the 2.39% figure is a range-aware MAE defined by Eq. (10), not a conventional MAE, so readers are not misled by the comparison.
  7. [Section 2.3] The sentence "Several works have showed that the soil moisture can be mapped by accurately by determining the velocity" contains a grammatical error; please revise.
  8. [References] Reference [4] is incomplete and reference [22] lacks full publication details; please complete all bibliographic entries.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation found: the CNN is trained on independently labeled samples, the roughness model is motivating rather than fitted to the field result, and the range-aware VWC metric is an accuracy-accounting concern rather than a circular step.

full rationale

SoilSound's central claim is that a CNN maps 2D acoustic range profiles to volumetric water content. The training uses leave-one-out cross-validation on lab-prepared loamy sand samples (Section 6.1.1), and the model is then frozen and tested on unseen organic potting soil and outdoor locations (Sections 6.1.2 and 6.4). The target quantity is measured independently with a TEROS-12 sensor, so the estimator is not defined in terms of the predicted value or in terms of the field error. The surface-roughness model in Eq. 5 is presented as a physical motivation, with parameters quoted from soil-mechanics literature rather than optimized to reduce the reported errors; even if that model were an ansatz, it is not the mechanism that produces the moisture estimate, so it is not a fitted input relabeled as a prediction. No load-bearing self-citation appears: Eq. 3 cites Darmon et al., Eq. 5 cites Lu and Likos and Ravindran and Gratchev, and the range-aware error definition cites CoMEt; none of these are self-citations invoking a uniqueness theorem to force the design. The evaluation does use Eq. 10, which assigns zero error to any prediction inside the five-reading ground-truth range, and the paper does not report the widths of those ranges; this makes the headline 2.39% MAE difficult to compare with the conventional MAEs listed in Table 1. That is a real methodological limitation in accuracy accounting, but it is not a circular derivation: the prediction itself is not constructed from the ground-truth range, and the model was not fit to the field or test samples. The paper also candidly reports limitations such as grass coverage and shallow depth penetration, which further supports that the central sensing claim is not derived from its own output. Overall, no step in the claimed derivation chain reduces by definition to its input, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a supervised CNN trained on labeled soil samples, so the parameters that matter most (CNN weights) are learned from data rather than derived. The physical model in Section 3 provides motivation, but its own parameters are taken from literature and are not fitted or validated. The weakest load-bearing premises are the assumed moisture-roughness transfer function and its generalizability to unseen soils.

free parameters (3)
  • Roughness decay alpha (Eq. 5) = 3-5 (literature values for sand)
    Controls how quickly surface roughness drops as moisture rises; chosen from prior soil mechanics literature, not fitted in this paper.
  • Nonlinearity exponent beta (Eq. 5) = 1.5
    Shapes the saturation behavior of roughness; cited as a typical value, not estimated from data.
  • Dry and saturated roughness sigma_h_dry and sigma_h_sat (Eq. 5) = 5-10 mm; 0.5-1 mm
    Assumed ranges for sandy soils; these drive the claimed 34x specular power increase but are not measured in this paper.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math The Kirchhoff approximation with exponential roughness factor (Darmon et al. [9]) describes acoustic specular reflection at the air-soil interface.
    Central model assumption in Section 3.2.1, Equations 3 and 4; not independently verified for soil at 7-22 kHz.
  • domain assumption Soil surface roughness decreases exponentially with effective saturation (Eq. 5) as capillary cohesion binds particles.
    Taken from unsaturated soil mechanics [22] and cohesion studies [28]; adopted without soil-specific measurement.
  • standard math Subsurface reflections are negligible because the transmission coefficient T0 = 1 - R0 is at most 0.0028.
    Physics stated in Section 3.2.2 to justify ignoring deeper soil layers.
  • domain assumption Vertical scan provides complementary geometric diversity that lets a CNN trained on two lab soils generalize to unseen field soils.
    Ablation in Section 6.2.1 supports but does not establish robustness across broad soil compositions.
  • domain assumption ARCore visual-inertial height tracking is accurate enough for the 1-5 cm/s scan speed and 1.14 cm range bins.
    Used in Section 4.2.2 without quantitative validation of height error.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SoilSound: Smartphone-based Soil Moisture Estimation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JXZXBNTL

@misc{pith2026250909823,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SoilSound: Smartphone-based Soil Moisture Estimation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JXZXBNTL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.09823}
}
read the original abstract

Soil moisture monitoring is essential for agriculture and environmental management, yet existing methods require either invasive probes disturbing the soil or specialized equipment, limiting access to the public. We present SoilSound, an ubiquitous accessible smartphone-based acoustic sensing system that can measure soil moisture without disturbing the soil. We leverage the built-in speaker and microphone to perform a vertical scan mechanism to accurately measure moisture without any calibration. Unlike existing work that use transmissive properties, we propose an alternate model for acoustic reflections in soil based on the surface roughness effect to enable moisture sensing without disturbing the soil. The system works by sending acoustic chirps towards the soil and recording the reflections during a vertical scan, which are then processed and fed to a convolutional neural network for on-device soil moisture estimation with negligible computational, memory, or power overhead. We evaluated the system by training with curated soils in boxes in the lab and testing in the outdoor fields and show that SoilSound achieves a mean absolute error (MAE) of 2.39% across 10 different locations. Overall, the evaluation shows that SoilSound can accurately track soil moisture levels ranging from 15.9% to 34.0% across multiple soil types, environments, and users; without requiring any calibration or disturbing the soil, enabling widespread moisture monitoring for home gardeners, urban farmers, citizen scientists, and agricultural communities in resource-limited settings.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.09823 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Experiment of the FMCW acoustic system mounted at a fixed location: (a) range profiles at vari￾ous moisture levels, (b) reflection amplitude at the soil surface range bin. 3.2 Our Approach Based on above experiment, we note that the roughness of the soil surface is another critical factor that influences the reflection behavior. The key insight is that as more water is added to the soil, the surface becomes smoother… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. system overview 4.3.1 Synchronization and Boundary Detection. The recorded signal has a distinctive pattern, a periodic silence followed by a sharp energy onset, that serves as an unambiguous synchro￾nization marker. When a sudden energy increase is detected after a quiet period, it is marked as the beginning of a new chirp in the received signal. To find the energy increase, we compute short-time energy using a sli… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Effect of mode removal on the 2D range pro [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: LOOCV soil moisture estimation errors for 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Model performance on organic potting soil [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: First convolutional layer activation map show [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Variation of moisture estimation across five [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comprehensive outdoor field evaluation of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [8]

    Sofia Cominelli, Leonardo D Rivera, William G Brown, Tyson E Ochsner, and Andres Patrignani. 2024. Calibration of TEROS 10 and TEROS 12 electromagnetic soil moisture sensors.Soil Science Society of America Journal88, 6 (2024), 2104–2122

    work page 2024

  2. [1]

    [n. d.]. Aroya Solus 3 in 1 Bluetooth EC Sensor, Soil Moisture Soil Temperature - Water Content Sensor. https://forevergreenindoors. com/products/solus-bluetooth-water-content-sensor

    work page

  3. [2]

    [n. d.]. TEROS 12 Advanced Soil Moisture Sensing. https://metergroup. com/products/teros-12/

    work page

  4. [3]

    Francesco Adamo, Gregorio Andria, Filippo Attivissimo, and Nicola Giaquinto. 2004. An acoustic method for soil moisture measurement. IEEE transactions on instrumentation and measurement53, 4 (2004), 891–898

    work page 2004

  5. [4]

    RR Allmaras, Robert E Burwell, William E Larson, Robert F Holt, and WW Nelson. 1966. Total porosity and random roughness of the interrow zone as influenced by tillage.Conservation research report (1966)

    work page 1966

  6. [5]

    Petr Beckmann and Andre Spizzichino. 1987. The scattering of elec- tromagnetic waves from rough surfaces.Norwood(1987)

    work page 1987

  7. [6]

    Zhaoxin Chang, Fusang Zhang, Jie Xiong, Junqi Ma, Beihong Jin, and Daqing Zhang. 2022. Sensor-free soil moisture sensing using lora signals.Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies6, 2 (2022), 1–27

    work page 2022

  8. [7]

    1974.Dielectric properties of soils as a function of moisture content

    Josef Cihlar and Fawwaz Tayssir Ulaby. 1974.Dielectric properties of soils as a function of moisture content. Technical Report

    work page 1974

Show all 37 references
  1. [9]

    Michel Darmon, Vincent Dorval, and François Baqué. 2020. Acoustic scattering models from rough surfaces: a brief review and recent advances.Applied Sciences10, 22 (2020), 8305

    2020

  2. [10]

    Jian Ding and Ranveer Chandra. 2019. Towards low cost soil sensing using Wi-Fi. InThe 25th annual international conference on mobile computing and networking. 1–16

    2019

  3. [11]

    Rong Ding, Haiming Jin, Dong Xiang, Xiaocheng Wang, Yongkui Zhang, Dingman Shen, Lu Su, Wentian Hao, Mingyuan Tao, Xinbing Wang, et al. 2023. Soil moisture sensing with uav-mounted ir-uwb radar and deep learning.Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiqu...

    2023

  4. [12]

    Dara Entekhabi, Eni G Njoku, Peggy E O’neill, Kent H Kellogg, Wade T Crow, Wendy N Edelstein, Jared K Entin, Shawn D Goodman, Thomas J Jackson, Joel Johnson, et al . 2010. The soil moisture active passive (SMAP) mission.Proc. IEEE98, 5 (2010), 704–716

    2010

  5. [13]

    Yuda Feng, Yaxiong Xie, Deepak Ganesan, and Jie Xiong. 2022. Lte- based low-cost and low-power soil moisture sensing. InProceedings of the 20th ACM Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems. 421–434

    2022

  6. [14]

    Google. 2024. ARCore: Google’s Platform for Building Augmented Reality Experiences. https://developers.google.com/ar. Accessed: 2025-09-01

    2024

  7. [15]

    Wenli Jiao, Ju Wang, Yelu He, Xiangdong Xi, and Fuwei Wang. 2023. SoilTAG: Fine-grained soil moisture sensing through chipless tags. IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing23, 3 (2023), 2153–2170

    2023

  8. [16]

    Nikhil Jorapur, Vinay S Palaparthy, Shahbaz Sarik, Jobish John, Maryam Shojaei Baghini, and GK Ananthasuresh. 2015. A low-power, low-cost soil-moisture sensor using dual-probe heat-pulse technique. Sensors and Actuators A: Physical233 (2015), 108–117

    2015

  9. [17]

    Colleen Josephson, Manikanta Kotaru, Keith Winstein, Sachin Katti, and Ranveer Chandra. 2021. Low-cost in-ground soil moisture sensing with radar backscatter tags. InProceedings of the 4th ACM SIGCAS Conference on Computing and Sustainable Societies. 299–311

    2021

  10. [18]

    Usman Mahmood Khan and Muhammad Shahzad. 2022. Estimating soil moisture using RF signals. InProceedings of the 28th annual inter- national conference on mobile computing and networking. 242–254

    2022

  11. [19]

    Daniel Kiv, Garvita Allabadi, Berkay Kaplan, and Robin Kravets. 2022. Smol: Sensing soil moisture using LoRa. InProceedings of the 1st ACM Workshop on No Power and Low Power Internet-of-Things. 21–27

    2022

  12. [20]

    Jayantha Kodikara, Pathmanathan Rajeev, Derek Chan, and Chaminda Gallage. 2014. Soil moisture monitoring at the field scale using neutron probe.Canadian Geotechnical Journal51, 3 (2014), 332–345

    2014

  13. [21]

    J Ledieu, P De Ridder, P De Clerck, and S Dautrebande. 1986. A method of measuring soil moisture by time-domain reflectometry.Journal of Hydrology88, 3-4 (1986), 319–328

    1986

  14. [22]

    Ning Lu and William J Likos. 2006. Suction stress characteristic curve for unsaturated soil.Journal of geotechnical and geoenvironmental engineering132, 2 (2006), 131–142

    2006

  15. [23]

    Elham Meisami-asl, A Sharifi, Hossein Mobli, Afshin Eyvani, and Reza Alimardani. 2013. On-site measurement of soil moisture content using an acoustic system.Agricultural Engineering International: CIGR Journal15, 4 (2013), 1–8

    2013

  16. [24]

    Michael L Oelze, William D O’Brien, and Robert G Darmody. 2002. Measurement of attenuation and speed of sound in soils.Soil Science Society of America Journal66, 3 (2002), 788–796

    2002

  17. [25]

    E RoTimi Ojo, Paul R Bullock, Jessika L’Heureux, Jarrett Powers, Heather McNairn, and Anna Pacheco. 2015. Calibration and eval- uation of a frequency domain reflectometry sensor for real-time soil moisture monitoring.Vadose Zone Journal14, 3 (2015), vzj2014–08

    2015

  18. [26]

    B Hanumantha Rao and DN Singh. 2011. Moisture content determina- tion by TDR and capacitance techniques: a comparative study.Int. J. Earth Sci. Eng4, 6 (2011), 132–137

    2011

  19. [27]

    Muhammad Waseem Rasheed, Jialiang Tang, Abid Sarwar, Suraj Shah, Naeem Saddique, Muhammad Usman Khan, Muhammad Imran Khan, Shah Nawaz, Redmond R Shamshiri, Marjan Aziz, et al . 2022. Soil moisture measuring techniques and factors affecting the moisture dynamics: A comprehensiv...

    2022

  20. [28]

    Sinnappoo Ravindran and Ivan Gratchev. 2022. Effect of water content on apparent cohesion of soils from landslide sites.Geotechnics2, 2 (2022), 385–394

    2022

  21. [29]

    MBG Sakti, DP Ariyanto, et al. 2018. Estimating soil moisture content using red-green-blue imagery from digital camera. InIOP Confer- ence Series: Earth and Environmental Science, Vol. 200. IOP Publishing, 012004

    2018

  22. [30]

    Kangle Song, Jing Nie, Yang Li, Jingbin Li, Pengxiang Song, and Sezai Ercisli. 2024. Regional soil water content monitoring based on time- frequency spectrogram of low-frequency swept acoustic signal.Geo- derma441 (2024), 116765

    2024

  23. [31]

    Colby M Steelman and Anthony L Endres. 2011. Comparison of petrophysical relationships for soil moisture estimation using GPR ground waves.Vadose Zone Journal10, 1 (2011), 270–285

    2011

  24. [32]

    Yimiao Sun, Weiguo Wang, Luca Mottola, Ruijin Wang, and Yuan He

  25. [33]

    Perry Taneja, Hiteshkumar Bhogilal Vasava, Solmaz Fathololoumi, Prasad Daggupati, and Asim Biswas. 2022. Predicting soil organic mat- ter and soil moisture content from digital camera images: Comparison of regression and machine learning approaches.Canadian Journal of Soil Sci...

    2022

  26. [34]

    G Clarke Topp, J Lee Davis, and A Peter Annan. 1980. Electromag- netic determination of soil water content: Measurements in coaxial transmission lines.Water resources research16, 3 (1980), 574–582

    1980

  27. [35]

    Michal Voldán, Libor Husník, and David Mahovsk`y. 2024. Moisture estimation by measurement of attenuation of the acoustic resonance Gao, et al. mode.Applied Acoustics217 (2024), 109847

    2024

  28. [36]

    Ju Wang, Liqiong Chang, Shourya Aggarwal, Omid Abari, and Srini- vasan Keshav. 2020. Soil moisture sensing with commodity RFID systems. InProceedings of the 18th International Conference on Mobile Systems, Applications, and Services. 273–285

    2020

  29. [2022]

    InProceedings of the 20th ACM Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems

    Aim: Acoustic inertial measurement for indoor drone local- ization and tracking. InProceedings of the 20th ACM Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems. 476–488

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.