An assessment of the BEST procedure to estimate the soil water retention curve: A comparison with the evaporation method

An assessment of the BEST procedure to estimate the soil water retention curve: A comparison with... The Beerkan Estimation of Soil Transfer parameters (BEST) procedure is an attractive, easy, robust, and inexpensive way for a complete soil hydraulic characterization but testing the ability of this procedure to estimate the water retention curve is necessary as relatively little information is available in the literature. In this investigation the soil water retention curve was predicted for four differently textured soils by applying three existing BEST algorithms (i.e., slope, intercept and steady) and the results compared with those measured by the standard Wind evaporation method. A sensitivity analysis of the infiltration constants, β and γ, was also carried out and their impact on the estimated retention curve scale parameter, hg, was evaluated. BEST-slope underestimated the soil water retention for three of the four soils under consideration, providing relatively low root mean squared differences between estimated and measured data (0.0261 cm3cm−3 ≤ RMSD ≤0.0483 cm3cm−3). For one site (PAL, sandy-loam soil), BEST-steady provided the lowest RMSD value (0.0893 cm3cm−3) among the considered algorithms, but the water retention was systematically overestimated as a consequence of a relatively higher difference between field and lab saturated soil water contents. A specific calibration performed for β and γ highlighted that: i) the water retention estimations by BEST-slope were more sensitive to β than those obtained by BEST-intercept and BEST-steady; ii) with the exception of PAL soil, the lowest RMSD values were obtained with BEST-slope. Estimation of the soil water retention curve was not significantly worse when reference values of infiltration constants (β = 0.6 and γ = 0.75) were used as detected by negligible differences in RMSDs as compared to calibrated β and γ. Therefore, it was concluded that the BEST-slope algorithm yielded predictions of water retention closer to the laboratory estimated ones than the alternative BEST algorithms (i.e. BEST-intercept and -steady). For these algorithms, the less accurate estimates of the water retention data were attributed to hg overestimations due to the independence of the retention curve scale parameter from γ. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Geoderma Elsevier

An assessment of the BEST procedure to estimate the soil water retention curve: A comparison with the evaporation method

Loading next page...
 
/lp/elsevier/an-assessment-of-the-best-procedure-to-estimate-the-soil-water-JSH8p9FIsL
Publisher
Elsevier
Copyright
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V.
ISSN
0016-7061
eISSN
1872-6259
D.O.I.
10.1016/j.geoderma.2018.01.014
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

The Beerkan Estimation of Soil Transfer parameters (BEST) procedure is an attractive, easy, robust, and inexpensive way for a complete soil hydraulic characterization but testing the ability of this procedure to estimate the water retention curve is necessary as relatively little information is available in the literature. In this investigation the soil water retention curve was predicted for four differently textured soils by applying three existing BEST algorithms (i.e., slope, intercept and steady) and the results compared with those measured by the standard Wind evaporation method. A sensitivity analysis of the infiltration constants, β and γ, was also carried out and their impact on the estimated retention curve scale parameter, hg, was evaluated. BEST-slope underestimated the soil water retention for three of the four soils under consideration, providing relatively low root mean squared differences between estimated and measured data (0.0261 cm3cm−3 ≤ RMSD ≤0.0483 cm3cm−3). For one site (PAL, sandy-loam soil), BEST-steady provided the lowest RMSD value (0.0893 cm3cm−3) among the considered algorithms, but the water retention was systematically overestimated as a consequence of a relatively higher difference between field and lab saturated soil water contents. A specific calibration performed for β and γ highlighted that: i) the water retention estimations by BEST-slope were more sensitive to β than those obtained by BEST-intercept and BEST-steady; ii) with the exception of PAL soil, the lowest RMSD values were obtained with BEST-slope. Estimation of the soil water retention curve was not significantly worse when reference values of infiltration constants (β = 0.6 and γ = 0.75) were used as detected by negligible differences in RMSDs as compared to calibrated β and γ. Therefore, it was concluded that the BEST-slope algorithm yielded predictions of water retention closer to the laboratory estimated ones than the alternative BEST algorithms (i.e. BEST-intercept and -steady). For these algorithms, the less accurate estimates of the water retention data were attributed to hg overestimations due to the independence of the retention curve scale parameter from γ.

Journal

GeodermaElsevier

Published: Jun 15, 2018

References

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create lists to
organize your research

Export lists, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off