Preprints
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-2438
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-2438
20 May 2026
 | 20 May 2026
Status: this preprint is open for discussion and under review for SOIL (SOIL).

Soil water forecasting for Australian dryland agriculture

Qazi Muqeet Amir, Floris F. Van Ogtrop, and Thomas F. A. Bishop

Abstract. Soil water availability is a critical constraint to agricultural productivity. While soil water forecasting has previously been conducted in the literature for irrigated fields and surface soil (0–10 cm), there is a limited understanding of subsurface soil water in dryland paddocks, particularly in Australia. Due to rooting depth typically extending below 10 cm, subsurface soil water forecasts in cropping systems, for example, enable decision-making relating to sowing, fertiliser use, and seasonal yield potential. This study aimed to identify the best performing methods, and the underlying variables that affect accuracy when forecasting subsurface soil water (30–100 cm). The methods appraised in this study are Random Forest, XGBoost, Multi-Layer Perceptron (MLP), Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM), and an Encoder-decoder LSTM (ENCDEC). Various in situ and remotely sensed meteorological data were used to forecast soil water up to multiple months ahead, at 54 probe sites across Australia.

We find all models can perform with relatively similar accuracy for sub-monthly forecasts. For longer lead times, MLP and XGBoost performed better for sites with uniform rainfall throughout the year, and the memory-based models, LSTM and ENCDEC, better at sites with seasonally-dominant rainfall. Furthermore, we determine an upper limit to model utility, as accuracy can become poor many months ahead, and can be replaced by a historic average as an estimate. We find our models to be 'useful' up to 4 months ahead on average, after which accuracy is too low, or a historic average outperforms a model. We find rainfall intensity and seasonality, and model choice, to be key drivers of forecast accuracy at a new site. This study highlights the capability of elementary forms of each ensemble and deep learning model to provide sufficiently accurate soil water forecasts, particularly in the absence of a rainfall forecast feature.

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.
Share
Qazi Muqeet Amir, Floris F. Van Ogtrop, and Thomas F. A. Bishop

Status: open (until 02 Jul 2026)

Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor | : Report abuse
Qazi Muqeet Amir, Floris F. Van Ogtrop, and Thomas F. A. Bishop
Qazi Muqeet Amir, Floris F. Van Ogtrop, and Thomas F. A. Bishop
Metrics will be available soon.
Latest update: 25 May 2026
Download
Short summary
We conduct the first ever Australia-wide soil water forecasting analysis to determine the best modelling techniques, expected accuracy of forecasts, and how far ahead a model can actually forecast. We find areas with rainfall throughout the year are less accurately forecasted than areas with seasonally-dominated rainfall. We are also able to identify preference for model depending on the rainfall patterns at a site. We generally find across Australia, models to be useful up to 4 months ahead.
Share