Comparing Visible–Near‐Infrared Spectroscopy and a Pedotransfer Function for Predicting the Dry Region of the Soil‐Water Retention Curve. Issue 1 (3rd May 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Pittaki-Chrysodonta, Zampela; Arthur, Emmanuel; Moldrup, Per; Knadel, Maria; Norgaard, Trine; Iversen, Bo V.; de Jonge, Lis Wollesen
• Is Part Of: Vadose zone journal. Volume 18:Issue 1(2019)
• Page Start: 1
• Page End: 13
• Publication Date: 2019-05-03
• Subjects: Soil science -- Periodicals; Zone of aeration -- Periodicals; Groundwater flow -- Periodicals; Groundwater flow; Zone of aeration; Periodicals; Electronic journals; 631.4
• DOI: 10.2136/vzj2018.09.0180
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1539-1663

Abstract

Abstract : Core Ideas: The Campbell–Shiozawa (CS) model was fitted to dry region data. The CS model was anchored to soil water content at −10 6 cm H2 O matric potential. The model's parameters were well predicted from vis‐NIR spectra or a PTF. Both the vis‐NIRS and PTF models gave good predictions of dry region water retention. The soil‐water retention curve (SWRC) at the dry end, also known as soil water vapor sorption isotherms, is essential for the modeling of water vapor transport, microbial activity, and biological processes such as plant water uptake in the vadose zone. Measurement of detailed soil water vapor sorption isotherms (WSIs) can be time consuming. Therefore, we propose rapid, inexpensive methodologies (visible–near‐infrared spectroscopy [vis–NIRS] and a pedotransfer function [PTF]) to predict the Campbell–Shiozawa (CS) model parameters to obtain the WSIs. Water vapor sorption isotherms were measured on 144 soil samples with a vapor sorption analyzer. The CS semi‐logarithmic‐linear function anchored at a soil‐water matric potential of −10 6 cm H2 O (log|−10 6 | = pF 6) was fitted to the measured data because it accurately characterizes the WSIs. Thereafter, a vis–NIRS calibration model and a PTF, based on clay and organic C contents, were developed and used to predict the two reference CS model parameters (α and W 6 ). Both parameters were predicted with a reasonable degree of accuracy using vis–NIRS and the PTF (for α, RMSE values of 0.0041 and 0.0025, and for W 6, RMSE values of 0.0042 and 0.0034 for vis–NIRS and the PTF, respectively). Based on the predicted α and W 6 values, the predicted WSIs compared closely with the measured isotherms for individual soil samples from each field. At the field scale, the vis–NIRS model performed marginally better than the PTF. Thus, it is evident that the use of vis–NIRS or PTFs provides a relatively inexpensive approach to predicting soil water sorption isotherms.