Abstract
Water retention θ(h) and hydraulic conductivity K(h) are mandatory soil hydraulic properties (SHP) for consistent hydrological modeling and for an efficient irrigation management. Most commonly, SHP are determined by conventional methods (CM), based on hydrostatic equilibrium and the independent measurement of saturated hydraulic conductivity, which is used as a matching point for K(h) function. Alternatively, inverse-modeling experiments allow simultaneous parameter estimation using data from transient water flow conditions. This study aims to investigate the implications of these two protocols on simulations of soil water content (θ) and crop evapotranspiration (ET), and how they affect irrigation management and scheduling for different irrigation systems and crops. The SHP obtained from CM and IM were used in simulations with the Richards equation-based SWAP hydrological model. ET and θ were simulated for passion fruit under high-frequency drip irrigation and for pasture under conventional sprinkler irrigation. The simulation performance was evaluated using measured θ and ET obtained with passion fruit under drip irrigation. Both methods (CM and IM) gave similar results in the wetter range, while in the drier soil, CM estimated higher θ than IM. These differences affected the simulated ET and irrigation scheduling. Regarding the ET and θ simulations, for the drip irrigation scenario, in which the water content in the root zone remains near saturation, both SHP determination methods produced similar results. On the other hand, for scenarios with larger irrigation intervals such as sprinkler irrigation, simulations were affected significantly, with CM likely biasing irrigation frequency and depth.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ajdary K, Singh DK, Singh AK, Khanna M (2007) Modelling of nitrogen leaching from experimental onion field under drip fertigation. Agric Water Manag 89:15–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2006.12.014
Allen RG, Pereira LS, Raes D, Smith M (1998) Crop evapotranspiration—guidelines for computing crop water requirements—FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper 56. FAO
Alvino A, Leone A (1993) Response to low soil water potential in pea genotypes (Pisum sativum L.) with different leaf morphology. Sci Hortic 53:21–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4238(93)90134-C
Amiri E (2017) Evaluation of water schemes for maize under arid area in Iran using the SWAP Model. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal 48:1963–1976. https://doi.org/10.1080/00103624.2017.1408817
Autovino D, Rallo G, Provenzano G (2018) Predicting soil and plant water status dynamic in olive orchards under different irrigation systems with Hydrus-2D: model performance and scenario analysis. Agric Water Manag 203:225–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2018.03.015
Bescansa P, Imaz MJ, Virto I, Enrique A, Hoogmoed WB (2006) Soil water retention as affected by tillage and residue management in semiarid Spain. Soil Tillage Res 87:19–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2005.02.028
Bittelli M, Flury M (2009) Errors in water retention curves determined with pressure plates. Soil Sci Soc Am J 73:453–1460. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2008.0082
Brooks RH, Corey AT (1964) Hydraulic properties of porous media: hydrology papers. Colorado State University, Fort Collins
Brunetti G, Šimůnek J, Bogena HR, Baatz R (2019) On the information content of cosmic-ray neutron data in the inverse estimation of soil hydraulic properties. Vadose Zone J 18:180123. https://doi.org/10.2136/vzj2018.06.0123
Campbell GS (1974) A simple method for determining unsaturated conductivity from moisture retention data. Soil Sci 117:311–314. https://doi.org/10.1097/00010694-197406000-00001
Campbell GS (1988) Soil water potential measurement: an overview. Irrig Sci 9:265–273
Cresswell HP, Green TW, McKenzie NJ (2008) The adequacy of pressure plate apparatus for determining soil water retention. Soil Sci Soc Am J 72:41–49. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2006.0182
Dabach S, Shani U, Lazarovitch N (2015) Optimal tensiomenter placement for high-frequency subsurface drip irrigation in heterogenous soils. Agric Water Manag 152:91–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2015.01.003
Dane JH, Hruska S (1983) In-situ determination of soil hydraulic properties during drainage. Soil Sci Soc Am J 47:619–624. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1983.03615995004700040001x
de Jong van Lier Q, Wendroth O (2016) Reexamination of the field capacity concept in a Brazilian Oxisol. Soil Sci Soc Am J 79:9–19. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2015.01.0035
de Jong van Lier Q, Pinheiro EAR, Inforsato L (2019) Hydrostatic equilibrium between soil samples and pressure plates used in soil water retention determination: consequences of a questionable assumption. Revista Brasileira de Ciência do Solo 43:e0190014. https://doi.org/10.1590/18069657rbcs20190014
Dexter AR, Czyz EA, Richard G (2012) Equilibrium, non-equilibrium and residual water: consequences for soil water retention. Geoderma 177–178:63–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2012.01.029
Durner W (1994) Hydraulic conductivity estimation for soils with heterogeneous pore structure. Water Resour Res 30:211–223. https://doi.org/10.1029/93WR02676
Durner W, Schultze B, Zurmuhl T (1997) State-of-the-Art in inverse modeling of inflow/outflow experiments. In: Workshop on characterization and measurement of the hydraulic properties of unsaturated porous media, University of California, Riverside, CA, 22–24 October
Feddes RA, Kowalik PJ, Zaradny H (1978) Simulation of field water use and crop yield. Simulation Monographs. Pudoc, Wageningen
Gee GW, Ward AL, Zhang ZF, Campbell GS, Mathison J (2002) The influence of hydraulic nonequilibrium on pressure plate data. Vadose Zone J 1:172–178. https://doi.org/10.2113/1.1.172
Groenevelt PH, Grant CD (2004) A new model for the soil-water retention curve that solves the problem of residual water contents. Eur J Soil Sci 55:479–485. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2389.2004.00617.x
Hatiye SD, Hari Prasad KS, Ojha CSP (2018) Deep percolation under irrigated water-intensive crops. J Irrig Drain Eng 144:0418018
Hopmans JW, Šimůnek J, Romano N, Durner W (2002) Inverse modeling of transient water flow. In: Dane JH, Topp GC (eds) Methods of soil analysis, part 1, physical methods, chapter 3.6.2, 3rd edn. SSSA, Madison, pp 963–1008
Kaspar TC, Ewing RP (1997) Rootedge: software for measuring root length from desktop scanner images. Agron J 89:932–940. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj1997.00021962008900060014x
Kroes JG, van Dam JC, Bartholomeus RP, Groenendijk P, Heinen M, Hendriks RFA, Mulder HM. Supit I, van Walsum PEV (2017) SWAP version 4; theory description and user manual. Wageningen Environmental Research, Report 2780, Wageningen
Liang X, Liakos V, Wendroth O, Vellidis G (2016) Scheduling irrigation using an approach based on the van Genuchten model. Agric Water Manag 176:170–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2016.05.030
Madsen HB, Jensen CR, Boysen T (1986) A comparison of the thermocouple psychrometer and the pressure plate methods for determination of soil water characteristic curves. J Soil Sci 31:357–362. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2389.1986.tb00368.x
Mayer DG, Stuart MA, Swain AJ (1994) Regression of real-world data on model output: an appropriate overall test of validity. Agric Syst 45:93–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0308-521X(94)90282-8
Mualem Y (1976) A new model for predicting the hydraulic conductivity of unsaturated porous media. Water Resour Res 12:513–522. https://doi.org/10.1029/WR012i003p00513
Neter J, Kutner MH, Nachtsheim CJ, Wasserman W (1996) Applied linear statistical models, 4th edn. McGraw-Hill Publishing Co., Boston, p 720
Panda RK, Behera SK, Kashyap PS (2003) Effective management of irrigation water for wheat under stressed conditions. Agric Water Manag 63:37–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-3774(03)00099-4
Parker JC, Kool JB, van Genuchten MTh (1985) Determining soil hydraulic properties from one-step outflow experiments by parameter estimation: II. experimental studies. Soil Sci Soc Am J 49:1354–1359. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1985.03615995004900060005x
Peters A, Iden SC, Durner W (2015) Revisiting the simplified evaporation method: identification of hydraulic functions considering vapor, film and corner flow. J Hydrol 527:531–542. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.05.020
Phogat V, Skewes MA, Mccarthy MG, Cox JW, Simunek J, Petrie PR (2017) Evaluation of crop coefficients, water productivity, and water balance components for wine grapes irrigated at different deficit levels by a sub-surface drip. Agric Water Manag 180:22–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2016.10.016
Pinheiro EAR, de Jong van Lier Q, Inforsato L, Šimůnek J (2019) Measuring full-range soil hydraulic properties for the prediction of crop water availability using gamma-ray attenuation and inverse modeling. Agric Water Manag 216:294–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2019.01.029
Rawls WJ, Pachepsky YA, Ritchie JC, Sobecki TM, Bloodworth H (2003) Effect of soil organic carbon on soil water retention. Geoderma 116:61–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-7061(03)00094-6
Reynolds WD, Elrick DE, Youngs EG, Booltink HWG, Bouma J (2002) Laboratory methods. In: Dane JH, Topp GC (eds) Methods of soil analysis, part 1, physical methods, chapter 362, 3rd edn. SSSA, Madison, pp 963–1008
Richards LA (1948) Porous plate apparatus for measuring moisture retention and transmission by soil. Soil Sci 66:105–110. https://doi.org/10.1097/00010694-194808000-00003
Richards LA, Fireman M (1943) Pressure-plate apparatus for measuring moisture sorption and transmission by soils. Soil Sci 56:395–404. https://doi.org/10.1097/00010694-194312000-00001
Robinson JC, Bower JP (1987) Transpiration characteristics of banana leaves (Cultivar ‘Williams’) in response to progressive depletion of available soil moisture. Sci Hortic 30:289–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4238(87)90003-3
Roy D, Jia X, Steele DD, Lin D (2018) Development and comparison of soil water release curves for three soils in the red river valley. Soil Sci Soc Am J 82:568–577. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2017.09.0324
Savage MJ, Ritchie JT, Bland WL, Dugas WA (1996) Lower limit of soil water availability. Agron J 88:644–651. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj1996.00021962008800040024x
Schaap MG, Leij FJ (2000) Improved prediction of unsaturated hydraulic conductivity with the Mualem–van Genuchten model. Soil Sci Soc Am J 64:843–851. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2000.643843x
Siltecho S, Hammecker C, Sriboonlue V, Clermont-Dauphin C, Trelo-ges V, Antonino ACD, Angulo-Jaramillo R (2015) Use of field and laboratory methods for estimating unsaturated hydraulic properties under different land uses. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 19:1193–1207. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-1193-2015
Šimůnek J, Wendroth O, van Genuchten M (1998) Parameter estimation analysis of the evaporation method for determining soil hydraulic properties. Soil Sci Soc Am J 62:894–905
Šimůnek J, van Genuchten MTh, Sejna M (2016) Recent developments and applications of the HYDRUS computer software packages. Vadose Zone J. https://doi.org/10.2136/vzj2016.04.0033
Solone R, Bittelli M, Tomei F, Morari F (2012) Errors in water retention curves determined with pressure plates: effects on the soil water balance. J Hydrol 470–471:65–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.08.017
Tafteh A, Sepaskhah AR (2012) Application of HYDRUS-1D model for simulating water and nitrate leaching from continuous and alternate furrow irrigated rapeseed and maize fields. Agric Water Manag 113:19–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2012.06.011
Tan X, Shao D, Liu H (2014) Simulating soil water regime in lowland paddy fields under different water managements using HYDRUS-1D. Agric Water Manag 132:69–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2013.10.009
Taylor SA, Ashcroft GM (1972) Physical edaphology. Freeman and Co., San Francisco, pp 434–435
Tedeschi LO (2006) Assessment of the adequacy of mathematical models. Agric Syst 89:225–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2005.11.004
Van Genuchten MTh (1980) A closed-form equation for predicting the hydraulic conductivity of unsaturated soils. Soil Sci Soc Am J 44:892–897. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1980.03615995004400050002x
Van Genuchten MTh, Simunek J, Leij FJ, Sejna M (2009) Code for Quantifying the Hydraulic Functions of Unsaturated Soils. University of California Riverside. Riverside, CA, 92521, USA
Vazifedoust M, van Dam JC, Feddes RA, Feizi M (2008) Increasing water productivity of irrigated crops under limited water supply at field scale. Agric Water Manag 95:89–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2007.09.007
Vogel HJ (2000) A numerical experiment on pore size, pore connectivity, water retention, permeability, and solute transport using network models. Eur J Soil Sci 51:99–105. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2389.2000.00275.x
Vrugt JA, Stauffer PH, Wohling Th, Robinson BA, Vesselinov VV (2008) Inverse Modeling of subsurface flow and transport properties: a review with new developments. Vadose Zone J 7:843–864. https://doi.org/10.2136/vzj2007.0078
Xing X, Kang D, Ma X (2017) Differences in loam water retention and shrinkage behavior: effects of various types and concentrations of salt ions. Soil Tillage Res 167:61–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2016.11.005
Zachmann DW, DuChateau PC, Klute A (1981) The calibration of the richards flow equation for a draining column by parameter identification. Soil Sci Soc Am J 45:1012–1015. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1981.03615995004500060002x
Acknowledgements
This research was funded by the Bahia Research Foundation (FAPESB) through the young investigator Grant # TO JCB 006/2016.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Communicated by Isaya Kisekka.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
da Silva, A.J.P., Pinheiro, E.A.R. & de Jong van Lier, Q. Determination of soil hydraulic properties and its implications for mechanistic simulations and irrigation management. Irrig Sci 38, 223–234 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00271-020-00664-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00271-020-00664-5