Author
Listed:
- Theophilo Ottoni Filho
- Isaias Leal
- José de Macedo
- Bruno Reis
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.
Suggested Citation
Theophilo Ottoni Filho & Isaias Leal & José de Macedo & Bruno Reis, 2016.
"An Algebraic Pedotransfer Function to Calculate Standardized in situ Determined Field Capacity,"
Journal of Agricultural Science, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 8(8), pages 158-158, July.
Handle:
RePEc:ibn:jasjnl:v:8:y:2016:i:8:p:158
Download full text from publisher
More about this item
JEL classification:
- R00 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General - - - General
- Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General
Statistics
Access and download statistics
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ibn:jasjnl:v:8:y:2016:i:8:p:158. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Canadian Center of Science and Education (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cepflch.html .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.