1. Reproducibility of the Wet Part of the Soil Water Retention Curve: A European Interlaboratory Comparison
- Author
-
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, Aurore Degré, and UCL - SST/ELI/ELIE - Environmental Sciences
- Subjects
Soil Science - 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.
- Published
- 2023