Abstract. Long-term simulations of the water composition in acid forest soils require
that accurate descriptions of aluminium and base cation chemistry are used.
Both weathering rates and soil nutrient availability depend on the
concentrations of Al3+, of H+, and of base cations
(Ca2+, Mg2+, Na+, and K+) .
Assessments of the acidification status and base cation availability will
depend on the model being used. Here we review in what ways different dynamic
soil chemistry models describe the processes governing aluminium and base
cation concentrations in the soil water. Furthermore, scenario simulations
with the HD-MINTEQ model are used to illustrate the difference between model
approaches. The results show that all investigated models provide the same
type of response to changes in input water chemistry. Still, for base cations
we show that the differences in the magnitude of the response may be
considerable depending on whether a cation-exchange equation (Gaines–Thomas,
Gapon) or an organic complexation model is used. The former approach, which
is used in many currently used models (e.g. MAGIC, ForSAFE), causes stronger
pH buffering over a relatively narrow pH range, as compared to
state-of-the-art models relying on more advanced descriptions in which
organic complexation is important (CHUM, HD-MINTEQ). As for aluminium, a
“fixed” gibbsite constant, as used in MAGIC, SMART/VSD, and ForSAFE, leads to
slightly more pH buffering than in the more advanced models that consider
both organic complexation and Al(OH)3(s) precipitation, but in this
case the effect is small. We conclude that the descriptions of acid–base
chemistry and base cation binding in models such as MAGIC, SMART/VSD, and
ForSAFE are only likely to work satisfactorily in a narrow pH range. If the
pH varies greatly over time, the use of modern organic complexation models is
preferred over cation-exchange equations.