An Algebraic Pedotransfer Function to Calculate Standardized in situ Determined Field Capacity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the large applicability of the field capacity (FC) concept in hydrology and engineering, it presents various ambiguities and inconsistencies due to a lack of methodological procedure standardization. Experimental field and laboratory protocols taken from the literature were used in this study to determine the value of FC for different depths in 29 soil profiles, totaling 209 soil samples. The volumetric water content (theta) values were also determined at three suction values (6 kPa, 10 kPa, 33 kPa), along with bulk density (BD), texture (T) and organic matter content (OM). The protocols were devised based on the water processes involved in the FC concept aiming at minimizing hydraulic inconsistencies and procedural difficulty while maintaining the practical meaning of the concept. A high correlation between FC and theta(6 kPa) allowed the development of a pedotransfer function (Equation 3) quadratic for theta(6 kPa), resulting in an accurate and nearly bias-free calculation of FC for the four database geographic areas, with a global root mean squared residue (RMSR) of 0.026 m3·m-3. At the individual soil profile scale, the maximum RMSR was only 0.040 m3·m-3. The BD, T and OM data were generally of a low predicting quality regarding FC when not accompanied by the moisture variables. As all the FC values were obtained by the same experimental protocol and as the predicting quality of Equation 3 was clearly better than that of the classical method, which considers FC equal to theta(6), theta(10) or theta(33), we recommend using Equation 3 rather than the classical method, as well as the protocol presented here, to determine in-situ FC.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".