Preprints
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1496
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1496
06 Jan 2023
 | 06 Jan 2023

Reproducibility of the Wet Part of the Soil Water Retention Curve: A European Interlaboratory Comparison

Benjamin Guillaume, Hanane Aroui Boukbida, Gerben Bakker, Andrzej Bieganowski, Yves Brostaux, Wim Cornelis, Wolfgang Durner, Christian Hartmann, Bo V. Iversen, Mathieu Javaux, Joachim Ingwersen, Krzysztof Lamorski, Axel Lamparter, András Makó, Ana María Mingot Soriano, Ingmar Messing, Attila Nemes, Alexandre Pomes-Bordedebat, Martine van der Ploeg, Tobias Weber Karl David, Lutz Weihermüller, Joost Wellens, and Aurore Degré

Abstract. The soil water retention curve (SWRC) is a key soil property required for predicting basic hydrological processes. SWRC is often obtained in laboratory with non-harmonized methods. Moreover, procedures associated to each method are not standardized. This can induce a lack of reproducibility between laboratories using different methods and procedures or using the same methods with different procedures. The goal of this study was to estimate the inter/intralaboratory variability of the measurement of the wet part (from 10 to 300 hPa) of the SWRC. An interlaboratory comparison was conducted between 14 laboratories, using artificially constructed, porous and structured samples as references. The bulk densities of samples were different at the very beginning of the experiment. This resulted in a variability of retention properties between the samples, which was estimated by a linear mixed model with a "sample" random effect. Our estimate of inter/intralaboratory variability was therefore not affected by intrinsic differences between samples. The greatest portion of the differences in the measurement of SWRCs was due to interlaboratory variability. The intralaboratory variability was highly variable depending on the laboratory. Some laboratories successfully reproduced the same SWRC on the same sample, while others did not. The mean intralaboratory variability over all laboratories was smaller than the mean interlaboratory variability. A possible explanation for these results is that all laboratories used slightly different methods and procedures. We believe that this result may be of great importance regarding the quality of SWRC databases built by pooling SWRCs obtained in different laboratories. The quality of pedotransfer functions or maps that might be derived is probably hampered by this inter-/intralaboratory variability. The way forward is that measurement procedures of the SWRC need to be harmonized and standardized.

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

30 Jun 2023
Reproducibility of the wet part of the soil water retention curve: a European interlaboratory comparison
Benjamin Guillaume, Hanane Aroui Boukbida, Gerben Bakker, Andrzej Bieganowski, Yves Brostaux, Wim Cornelis, Wolfgang Durner, Christian Hartmann, Bo V. Iversen, Mathieu Javaux, Joachim Ingwersen, Krzysztof Lamorski, Axel Lamparter, András Makó, Ana María Mingot Soriano, Ingmar Messing, Attila Nemes, Alexandre Pomes-Bordedebat, Martine van der Ploeg, Tobias Karl David Weber, Lutz Weihermüller, Joost Wellens, and Aurore Degré
SOIL, 9, 365–379, https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-9-365-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-9-365-2023, 2023
Short summary

Benjamin Guillaume et al.

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor | : Report abuse
  • RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-1496', Anonymous Referee #1, 26 Jan 2023
    • AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Benjamin Guillaume, 17 Feb 2023
  • RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-1496', Anonymous Referee #2, 06 Feb 2023
    • AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Benjamin Guillaume, 17 Feb 2023
      • RC3: 'Reply on AC2', Anonymous Referee #2, 18 Feb 2023
        • AC4: 'Reply on RC3', Benjamin Guillaume, 21 Mar 2023
  • EC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-1496', Jan Vanderborght, 19 Feb 2023
    • AC3: 'Reply on EC1', Benjamin Guillaume, 10 Mar 2023

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor | : Report abuse
  • RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-1496', Anonymous Referee #1, 26 Jan 2023
    • AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Benjamin Guillaume, 17 Feb 2023
  • RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-1496', Anonymous Referee #2, 06 Feb 2023
    • AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Benjamin Guillaume, 17 Feb 2023
      • RC3: 'Reply on AC2', Anonymous Referee #2, 18 Feb 2023
        • AC4: 'Reply on RC3', Benjamin Guillaume, 21 Mar 2023
  • EC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-1496', Jan Vanderborght, 19 Feb 2023
    • AC3: 'Reply on EC1', Benjamin Guillaume, 10 Mar 2023

Peer review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision | EF: Editorial file upload
ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (01 Apr 2023) by Jan Vanderborght
AR by Benjamin Guillaume on behalf of the Authors (19 Apr 2023)  Author's response   Author's tracked changes   Manuscript 
ED: Publish as is (01 May 2023) by Jan Vanderborght
ED: Publish as is (08 May 2023) by Engracia Madejón Rodríguez (Executive editor)
AR by Benjamin Guillaume on behalf of the Authors (23 May 2023)  Manuscript 

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

30 Jun 2023
Reproducibility of the wet part of the soil water retention curve: a European interlaboratory comparison
Benjamin Guillaume, Hanane Aroui Boukbida, Gerben Bakker, Andrzej Bieganowski, Yves Brostaux, Wim Cornelis, Wolfgang Durner, Christian Hartmann, Bo V. Iversen, Mathieu Javaux, Joachim Ingwersen, Krzysztof Lamorski, Axel Lamparter, András Makó, Ana María Mingot Soriano, Ingmar Messing, Attila Nemes, Alexandre Pomes-Bordedebat, Martine van der Ploeg, Tobias Karl David Weber, Lutz Weihermüller, Joost Wellens, and Aurore Degré
SOIL, 9, 365–379, https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-9-365-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-9-365-2023, 2023
Short summary

Benjamin Guillaume et al.

Benjamin Guillaume et al.

Viewed

Total article views: 796 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total Supplement BibTeX EndNote
567 201 28 796 51 7 11
  • HTML: 567
  • PDF: 201
  • XML: 28
  • Total: 796
  • Supplement: 51
  • BibTeX: 7
  • EndNote: 11
Views and downloads (calculated since 06 Jan 2023)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 06 Jan 2023)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 804 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 804 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 

Cited

Latest update: 07 Oct 2023
Download

The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.

Short summary
Measurements of soil water retention properties play an important role in a variety of societal issues that depend on soil-water conditions. However, there is little concern about the consistency of these measurements between laboratories. We conducted an interlaboratory comparison to assess the reproducibility of the measurement of the soil water retention curve. Results highlight the need to harmonize and standardize procedures to improve the description of unsaturated processes in soils.