Available water capacity from a multidisciplinary and multiscale viewpoint. A review

Abstract

Soil–plant–atmosphere models and certain land surface models usually require information about the ability of soils to store and release water. Thus, a critical soil parameter for such reservoir-like models is the available water capacity (AWC), which is usually recognized as the most influential parameter when modeling water transfer. AWC does not have a single definition despite its wide use by scientists in research models, by regional managers as land-management tools and by farmers as decision-aid tools. Methods used to estimate AWC are also diverse, including laboratory measurements of soil samples, field monitoring, use of pedotransfer functions, and inverse modeling of soil-vegetation models. However, the resulting estimates differ and, depending on the method and scale, may have high uncertainty. Here, we review the many definitions of AWC, as well as soil and soil–plant approaches used to estimate it from local to larger spatial scales. We focus especially on the limits and uncertainties of each method. We demonstrate that in soil science, AWC represents a capacity—the size of the water reservoir that plants can use—whereas in agronomy, it represents an ability—the quantity of water that a plant can withdraw from the soil. We claim that the two approaches should be hybridized to improve the definitions and estimates of AWC. We also recommend future directions: (i) adapt pedotransfer functions to provide information about plants, (ii) integrate newly available information from soil mapping in spatial inverse-modeling applications, and (iii) integrate model-inversion results into methods for digital soil mapping.

Management zones and space-time prediction of soybean yield variability: machine learning techniques applied to soil physical quality parameters

“…Under local field conditions, the accuracy of SAW estimated by MLR was considered high, corroborating other research under different climate conditions (VEREECKEN et al, 2010, Szabó et al, 2019. The use of digital soil mapping was a quick and effective alternative in this research, which ensured an understanding of the soil and its different behaviors in each management zone, similar to the studies of Cousin et al (2022). It was possible to validate the first hypothesis of this study, in which the soil water balance in the MZs varies compared to the entire area, justifying the importance of the heterogeneous management of these regions.…”

Impact of hydrological connectivity on rainfed annual crops in Mediterranean hilly landscapes: a numerical exploration

“…The simulations of downstream crop functioning, which account for additional water supply from upstream runoff, are generated to encompass a wide range of situations typical of Mediterranean conditions. This is achieved by considering a diversity of environmental drivers that in uence crop functioning, such as (1) crop type, whose hydrological functioning and phenology are expected to vary signi cantly from crop to crop, (2) soil available water capacity, which is expected to vary signi cantly in relation to soil depth and texture via hydrodynamic properties (Cousin et al 2022), and (3) climate forcing, including rainfall, temperature and reference evapotranspiration, which is expected to encompass variability over several decades.…”

National soil data in EU countries, where do we stand?

“…However, it prevents gathering of information on soil type and risks mixing very different soil layers into one, thus possibly misrepresenting the properties of the rooting zone of plants. In a context of global change, taking into account the subsoil horizons becomes essential, because of, for example, their contribution to the water availability for vegetation in a drought context (Cousin et al, 2022), or their significant contribution to carbon storage (Balesdent et al, 2018).…”