The use of in situ volumetric water content at field capacity to improve the prediction of soil water retention properties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most pedotransfer functions (PTF) developed over the past three decades to generate water retention characteristics use soil texture, bulk density and organic carbon content as predictors. Despite the high number of PTFs published, most being class- or continuous-PTFs, the accuracy of prediction remains limited. In this study, we compared the performance of different class- and continuous-PTFs developed with a regional database. Results showed that the use of in situ volumetric water content at field capacity as a predictor led to much better estimation of water retention properties compared with using predictors derived from the texture, or the organic carbon content and bulk density. This was true regardless of the complexity of the PTFs developed. Results also showed that the best prediction quality was achieved by using the in situ volumetric water content at field capacity after stratification by texture. Comparison of in situ volumetric water content at field capacity, with the water retained at different matric potentials as measured in the laboratory, showed field capacity to approximate 100 hPa, whatever the soil texture. Finally, the lack accuracy of PTFs that do not use the in situ volumetric water content at field capacity as predictor did not appear due to the test soils being unrepresentative of the soils used to develop the PTFs, but were instead related to poor correlations between the predictors used and the water retention properties. Key words: Pedotransfer functions, root mean square error, mean error of prediction, standard deviation of prediction, texture, bulk density, organic carbon content
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".