Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Functional evaluation of different soil hydraulic parametrizations in hydrological simulations reveals different model efficiency for soil moisture and water budget Cover

Functional evaluation of different soil hydraulic parametrizations in hydrological simulations reveals different model efficiency for soil moisture and water budget

Open Access
|Aug 2024

References

  1. Alletto, L., Pot, V., Giuliano, S., Costes, M., Perdrieux, F., Justes, E., 2015. Temporal variation in soil physical properties improves the water dynamics modeling in a conventionally-tilled soil. Geoderma, 243–244, 18–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2014.12.006
  2. Arnold, J.G., Moriasi, D.N., Gassman, P.W., Abbaspour, K.C., White, M.J. et al., 2012. SWAT: Model Use, Calibration, and Validation. Trans. ASABE, 55, 4, 1491–1508. https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.42256
  3. Baveye, P.C., Laba, M., 2015. Moving away from the geostatistical lamppost: Why, where, and how does the spatial heterogeneity of soils matter? Ecol. Modell., 298, 24–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2014.03.018
  4. Bréda, N.J.J., 2003. Ground-based measurements of leaf area index: a review of methods, instruments and current controversies. J. Exp. Bot., 54, 392, 2403–2417. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erg263
  5. Breuer, L., Eckhardt, K., Frede, H.G., 2003. Plant parameter values for models in temperate climates. Ecol. Modell., 169, 2–3, 237–293. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3800(03)00274-6
  6. Buzás, I., 1988. Talaj- és agrokémiai vizsgálati módszerkönyv 2. A talajok fizikai-kémiai és kémiai vizsgálati módszerei. (Buzás István, editor). Mezőgazdasági Kiadó, Budapest.
  7. Buzás, I., 1993. Talaj- és agrokémiai vizsgálati módszerkönyv 1. A talaj fizikai, vízgazdálkodási és ásványtani vizsgálata (Buzás István, editor). Inda 4231 Kiadó.
  8. Campbell Scientific, Inc., 2020. Product manual: CS616 and CS625 Water Content Reflectometers. Revision: 05/2020. https://s.campbellsci.com/documents/us/manuals/cs616.pdf
  9. Chaney, N.W., Wood, E.F., McBratney, A.B., Hempel, J.W., Nauman, T.W. et al., 2016. POLARIS: A 30-meter probabilistic soil series map of the contiguous United States. Geoderma, 274, 54–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2016.03.025
  10. Dai, Y., Shangguan, W., Duan, Q., Liu, B., Fu, S. et al. 2013. Development of a China dataset of soil hydraulic parameters using pedotransfer functions for land surface modeling. J. Hydrometeorol., 14, 3, 869–887. https://doi.org/10.1175/JHMD-12-0149.1
  11. Dai, Y., Xin, Q., Wei, N., Zhang, Y., Shangguan, W. et al. 2019. A global high-resolution data set of soil hydraulic and thermal properties for land surface modeling. J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst., 11, 9, 2996–3023. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019ms001784
  12. De Mendiburu, F., 2017. agricolae: Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research. R package version 1.2-8.
  13. De Pue, J., Rezaei, M., Van Meirvenne, M., Cornelis, W.M., 2019. The relevance of measuring saturated hydraulic conductivity: Sensitivity analysis and functional evaluation. J. Hydrol. 576: 628–638. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.06.079
  14. Decsi, B., Ács, T., Kozma, Z., 2020. Long-term water regime studies of a degraded floating fen in Hungary. Period. Polytech. Civ. Eng., 64(4 SE-Research Article), 951–963. https://doi.org/10.3311/PPci.16352
  15. Dorigo, W.A., Xaver, A., Vreugdenhil, M., Gruber, A., Hegyiová, A. et al. 2013. Global automated quality control of in situ soil moisture data from the International Soil Moisture Network. Vadose Zone J., 12, 3, vzj2012.0097. https://doi.org/10.2136/vzj2012.0097
  16. Đukić, V., Erić, R., Dumbrovsky, M., Sobotkova, V., 2021. Spatio-temporal analysis of remotely sensed and hydrological model soil moisture in the small Jičinka River catchment in Czech Republic. J. Hydrol. Hydromechanics, 69, 1, 1–12. doi: https://doi.org/10.2478/johh-2020-0038.
  17. Farkas, C., Hernádi, H., Makó, A., Máté, F., 2011. Estimating climate change effects on soil water balance elements of Hungarian calcic chernozem soils. Agrokémia és Talajt., 60, 41–56.
  18. Fatichi, S., Vivoni, E., Ogden, F.L., Ivanov, V.Y., Mirus, B. et al. 2016. An overview of current applications, challenges, and future trends in distributed process-based models in hydrology. J. Hydrol., 537, 45–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.03.026
  19. Feddes, R.A., Kowalik, P.J., Zaradny, H., 1978. Simulation of field water use and crop yield. Centre for Agricultural Publishing and Documentation, Wageningen.
  20. Federer, A.C., 2021. Brook90 Hydrological model. http://www.ecoshift.net/brook/brook90.htm.
  21. Fiala, K., Blanka, V., Ladányi, Z., Szilassi, P., Benyhe, B. et al. 2014. Drought severity and its effect on agricultural production in the Hungarian-Serbian cross-border area. J. Environ. Geogr., 7, 3-4 SE-, 43–51. https://doi.org/10.2478/jengeo-2014-0011
  22. Ganot, Y., Holtzman, R., Weisbrod, N., Nitzan, I., Katz, Y. et al. 2017. Monitoring and modeling infiltration--recharge dynamics of managed aquifer recharge with desalinated seawater. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 9, 4479–4493. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-4479-2017
  23. Gomis-Cebolla, J., Garcia-Arias, A., Perpinyà-Vallès, M., Francés, F., 2022. Evaluation of Sentinel-1, SMAP and SMOS surface soil moisture products for distributed ecohydrological modelling in Mediterranean forest basins. J. Hydrol., 608, 127569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2022.127569
  24. Guber, A.K., Pachepsky, Y.A., van Genuchten, M.T., Simunek, J., Jacques, D. et al. 2009. Multimodel simulation of water flow in a field soil using pedotransfer functions. Vadose Zone J., 8, 1, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.2136/vzj2007.0144
  25. Gupta, S., Papritz, A., Lehmann, P., Hengl, T., Bonetti, S. et al. 2022. Global mapping of soil water characteristics parameters–Fusing curated data with machine learning and environmental covariates. Remote Sens., 14, 8, 1947. DOI: 10.3390/rs14081947
  26. Harmel, R.D., Baffaut, C., Douglas-Mankin, K., 2018. Review and development of ASABE Engineering Practice 621: “Guidelines for Calibrating, Validating, and Evaluating Hydrologic and Water Quality Models”. Trans. ASABE, 61, 4, 1393–1401. https://doi.org/10.13031/trans.12806
  27. Hengl, T., 2017. GSIF: Global Soil Information Facilities. R package version 0.5-4. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=GSIF
  28. Ito, M., Azam, S., 2020. Relation between flow through and volumetric changes in natural expansive soils. Eng. Geol., 279, 105885. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2020.105885
  29. IUSS Working Group WRB, 2015. World Reference Base for Soil Resources 2014, update 2015. International soil classification system for naming soils and creating legends for soil maps. 3rd Ed. FAO, Rome (Italy).
  30. Johnson, S.G., 2014. The NLopt nonlinear-optimization package. https://nlopt.readthedocs.io/en/latest/.
  31. Karimi, P., Bastiaanssen, W.G.M., 2015. Spatial evapotranspiration, rainfall and land use data in water accounting –Part 1: Review of the accuracy of the remote sensing data. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 19, 1 507–532. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-507-2015
  32. Kozma, Z., Ács, T., Koncsos, L., 2014. Unsaturated zone modelling: The role of soil database classification. WIT Trans. Ecol. Environ., 185. https://doi.org/10.2495/SI140181
  33. Kozma, Z., Jolánkai, Z., Kardos, M.K., Muzelák, B., Koncsos, L., 2022. Adaptive water management-land use practice for improving ecosystem services –a Hungarian modelling case study. Period. Polytech. Civ. Eng. 66, 1 SE-Technical Notes, 256–268. https://doi.org/10.3311/PPci.18369
  34. Loosvelt, L., Pauwels, V.R.N., Cornelis, W.M., De Lannoy, G.J.M., Verhoest, N.E.C., 2011. Impact of soil hydraulic parameter uncertainty on soil moisture modeling. Water Resour. Res., 47, 3, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1029/2010WR009204
  35. Makó, A., Tóth, B., Hernádi, H., Farkas, C., Marth, P., 2010. Introduction of the Hungarian Detailed Soil Hydrophysical Database (MARTHA) and its use to test external pedotransfer functions. Agrokémia és Talajt., 59, 1, 29–38.
  36. Mohanty, B.P., Cosh, M.H., Lakshmi, V., Montzka, C., 2017. Soil moisture remote sensing: State-of-the-science. Vadose Zone J., 16, 1. https://doi.org/10.2136/vzj2016.10.0105
  37. Monteith, J.L., 1965. Evaporation and environment. Symp. Soc. Exp. Biol., 19, 205–234.
  38. MSZ-08.0205:1978, 1978. Determination of physical and hydrophysical properties of soils. (A talaj fizikai és vízgazdálkodási tulajdonságainak vizsgálata).
  39. Mualem, Y., 1976. A new model for predicting the hydraulic conductivity of unsaturated porous media. Water Resour. Res., 12, 3, 513–522.
  40. Nash, J.E., Sutcliffe. J.V., 1970. River flow forecasting through conceptual models part I — A discussion of principles. J. Hydrol., 10, 3, 282–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1694(70)90255-6
  41. Nasta, P., Szabó, B., Romano, N., 2021a. Evaluation of pedotransfer functions for predicting soil hydraulic properties: A voyage from regional to field scales across Europe. J. Hydrol. Reg. Stud., 37, 100903. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrh.2021.100903
  42. Nasta, P., Szabó, B., Romano, N., 2021b. Evaluation of pedotransfer functions for predicting soil hydraulic properties: A voyage from regional to field scales across Europe. J. Hydrol. Reg. Stud., 37, 100903. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrh.2021.100903
  43. Nemes, A., Schaap, M., Wösten, J., 2003. Functional evaluation of pedotransfer functions derived from different scales of data collection. Soil Sci. Soc. Am., 67, 1093–1102. https://www.soils.org/publications/sssaj/abstracts/67/4/1093 (accessed 29 April 2013).
  44. Nimmo, J.R., 2009. Vadose Water. In: Likens, G.E. (Ed.): Encyclopedia of Inland Waters: Oxford, UK, Elsevier, Vol. 1, pp. 766–777.
  45. Orgiazzi, A., Ballabio, C., Panagos, P., Jones, A., Fernández-Ugalde, O., 2018. LUCAS Soil, the largest expandable soil dataset for Europe: a review. Eur. J. Soil Sci., 69, 1, 140–153. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejss.12499
  46. Pásztor, L., Laborczi, A., Takács, K., Illés, G., Szabó, J. et al. 2020. Progress in the elaboration of GSM conform DSM products and their functional utilization in Hungary. Geoderma Reg., 21, e00269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geodrs.2020.e00269
  47. Poggio, L., de Sousa, L.M., Batjes, N.H., Heuvelink, G.B.M., Kempen, B. et al. 2021. SoilGrids 2.0: producing soil information for the globe with quantified spatial uncertainty. Soil, 7, 1, 217–240. https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-7-217-2021
  48. Qu, W., Bogena, H.R., Huisman, J.A., Schmidt, M., Kunkel, R., et al. 2016. The integrated water balance and soil data set of the Rollesbroich hydrological observatory. Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 8, 2, 517–529. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-8-517-2016
  49. R Core Team, 2019. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. https://www.r-project.org.
  50. Rahmati, M., Weihermüller, L., Vanderborght, J., Pachepsky, Y.A., Mao, L. et al. 2018. Development and analysis of the Soil Water Infiltration Global database. Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 10, 3, 1237–1263. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-10-1237-2018
  51. Rezaei, M., Seuntjens, P., Shahidi, R., Joris, I., Boënne, W. et al. 2016. The relevance of in-situ and laboratory characterization of sandy soil hydraulic properties for soil water simulations. J. Hydrol., 534, 251–265. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.12.062.
  52. Scanlon, B.R., Christman, M., Reedy, R.C., Porro, I., Simunek, J. et al. 2002. Intercode comparisons for simulating water balance of surficial sediments in semiarid regions. Water Resour. Res., 38, 12. https://doi.org/10.1029/2001WR001233
  53. Šimůnek, J., Šejna, M., Saito, H., Sakai, M., van Genuchten, M.T., 2013. The HYDRUS-1D Software Package for Simulating the Movement of Water, Heat, and Multiple Solutes in Variably Saturated Media, Version 4.17. 4.0. University of California Riverside, Riverside.
  54. Skierucha, W., Wilczek, A., Walczak, R.T., 2006. Recent software improvements in moisture (TDR method), matric pressure, electrical conductivity and temperature meters of porous media. Int. Agrophysics, 20, 3, 229–235.
  55. Soil Survey Staff Natural Resources Conservation Service United States Department of Agriculture, 2020. Web Soil Survey. Available online at https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/. (accessed 22 January 2020).
  56. Tong, R., Parajka, J., Salentinig, A., Pfeil, I., Komma, J. et al. 2021. The value of ASCAT soil moisture and MODIS snow cover data for calibrating a conceptual hydrologic model. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 25, 3, 1389–1410. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-1389-2021
  57. Tóth, B., Weynants, M., Nemes, A., Makó, A., Bilas, G. et al. 2015. New generation of hydraulic pedotransfer functions for Europe. Eur. J. Soil Sci., 66, 1, 226–238. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejss.12192.
  58. Tóth, B., Weynants, M., Pásztor, L., Hengl, T. 2017. 3D soil hydraulic database of Europe at 250 m resolution. Hydrol. Process., 31, 14, 2662–2666. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.11203
  59. Trodahl, M.I., Jackson, B.M., Deslippe, J.R., Metherell, A.K., 2017. Investigating trade-offs between water quality and agricultural productivity using the Land Utilisation and Capability Indicator (LUCI) - A New Zealand application. Ecosyst. Serv., 26, PB, 388–399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.10
  60. Usowicz, B., Lipiec, J., 2021. Spatial variability of saturated hydraulic conductivity and its links with other soil properties at the regional scale. Sci. Rep., 11, 1, 8293. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-86862-3
  61. van Genuchten, M.T., 1980. A closed-form equation for predicting the hydraulic conductivity of unsaturated soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 44, 892–898.
  62. Van Looy, K., Bouma, J., Herbst, M., Koestel, J., Minasny, B. et al. 2017. Pedotransfer functions in earth system science: Challenges and perspectives. Rev. Geophys., 55, 4, 1199–1256. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017RG000581
  63. Vereecken, H., 2002. Comment on the paper, “Evaluation of pedo-transfer functions for unsaturated soil hydraulic conductivity using an independent data set”. Geoderma, 108, 1, 145–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-7061(02)00127-1
  64. Vereecken, H., Diels, J., van Orshoven, J., Feyen, J., Bouma, J., 1992. Functional evaluation of pedotransfer functions for the estimation of soil hydraulic properties. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 56, 1371–1379. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1992.03615995005600050007x
  65. Vereecken, H., Schnepf, A., Hopmans, J.W., Javaux, M., Or, D., et al. 2016. Modeling soil processes: Review, key challenges, and new perspectives. Vadose Zone J., 15, 5, vzj2015.09.0131. https://doi.org/10.2136/vzj2015.09.0131
  66. Wang, Q., Adiku, S., Tenhunen, J., Granier, A., 2005. On the relationship of NDVI with leaf area index in a deciduous forest site. Remote Sens. Environ., 94, 2, 244–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2004.10.006
  67. Wesseling, J.G., Elbers, J.A., Kabat, P., den Broek, B.J., 1991. SWATRE: Instructions for input. Intern. Note, Winand Star. Centre, Wageningen, Netherlands 1991.
  68. Weynants, M., Montanarella, L., Tóth, G., Arnoldussen, A., Anaya Romero, M. et al. 2013. European HYdropedological Data Inventory (EU-HYDI). EUR –Scientific and Technical Research series, Luxembourg. ISSN 1831-9424
  69. Zhang, Y., Schaap, M.G., Zha, Y., 2018. A high-resolution global map of soil hydraulic properties produced by a hierarchical parameterization of a physically based water retention model. Water Resour. Res., 54, 12, 9774–9790. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018WR023539
  70. Zhang, Y., Weihermüller, L., Toth, B., Noman, M., Vereecken, H., 2022. Analyzing dual porosity in soil hydraulic properties using soil databases for pedotransfer function development. Vadose Zone J., 21, 5, e20227. https://doi.org/10.1002/vzj2.20227
  71. Zhao, Y., Rahmati, M., Vereecken, H., Or, D., 2024. Comment on ``Are soils overrated in hydrology?’’ by Gao et al. (2023). EGUsphere, 2024, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-629.
  72. Zhao, H., Zeng, Y., Lv, S., Su, Z., 2018. Analysis of soil hydraulic and thermal properties for land surface modeling over the Tibetan Plateau. Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 10, 2, 1031–1061. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-10-1031-2018
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/johh-2024-0013 | Journal eISSN: 1338-4333 | Journal ISSN: 0042-790X
Language: English
Page range: 312 - 335
Submitted on: Mar 25, 2024
|
Accepted on: Jun 10, 2024
|
Published on: Aug 15, 2024
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 4 issues per year

© 2024 Zsolt Kozma, Bence Decsi, Tamás Ács, Zsolt Jolánkai, Miklós Manninger, Norbert Móricz, Gábor Illés, Gyöngyi Barna, András Makó, Brigitta Szabó, published by Slovak Academy of Sciences, Institute of Hydrology
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.