Advertisement

Estimating the field capacity and permanent wilting point at the regional scale for the Hexi Corridor in China using a state-space modeling approach

  • Xiangdong Li
  • Ming’an ShaoEmail author
  • Chunlei Zhao
Soils, Sec 5 • Soil and Landscape Ecology • Research Article
  • 41 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

The field capacity (FC) and permanent wilting point (PWP) are important soil hydraulic properties that determine the maximum available water for plants, and they are crucial parameters for biophysical models and irrigation management. However, previous estimates of the FC and PWP failed to consider their spatial correlations at the regional scale. Therefore, we estimated the FC and PWP using the state-space equation by considering the spatial correlations between soil properties.

Materials and methods

We estimated the FC and PWP using a first order autoregressive state-space equation based on the elevation (Elev), bulk density (BD), soil texture (Clay, Silt, Sand), soil organic carbon (SOC), and land use (LU) with a data set obtained from 104 in situ sampling sites across the entire Hexi Corridor.

Results and discussion

The results indicated that the distributions of the FC and PWP exhibited moderate variations in the Hexi Corridor, with values of 0.127 ± 0.060 and 0.075 ± 0.034 g/g (mean ± 1 standard deviation (SD)), respectively. According to t tests, the autocorrelation coefficients for FC, PWP, Elev, LU, Silt, Sand, and SOC as well as the cross-correlation coefficients between FC, PWP, and pertinent variables were significant with one lag distance (approximately 40 km) (p ˂ 0.05). Calculations of the coefficient of determination (R2) and root mean square error (RMSE) showed that the state-space models performed better at estimating FC and PWP than multiple linear stepwise regression models (SMLRs). Bivariate state-space equations based on Silt and LU were the optimal models for estimating FC (R2 = 0.999, RMSE = 0.002 g/g) and PWP (R2 = 0.997, RMSE = 0.002 g/g). According to the coefficients in the optimal state-space models, soil texture and LU were the dominant factors that affected the spatial variability in FC and PWP. After neglecting the spatial correlations between variables, the SMLRs showed that BD and soil texture were the best variables for estimating FC and PWP.

Conclusions

The state-space approach is recommended as a useful tool for quantifying larger-scale spatial patterns in soil properties.

Keywords

Field capacity Hexi Corridor Permanent wilting point State-space model Stepwise multiple linear regression 

Notes

Funding information

This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (41530854 and 41571130081) and the Open Research Fund of the State Key Laboratory of Soil Erosion and Dryland Farming on the Loess Plateau (A314021402-1717).

References

  1. Aschonitis VG, Antonopoulos VZ, Lekakis EH, Litskas VD, Kotsopoulos SA, Karamouzis DN (2013) Estimation of field capacity for aggregated soils using changes of the water retention curve under the effects of compaction. Eur J Soil Sci 64:688–698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bao SD (2000) Soil agro-chemistrical analysis (in Chinese). China Agriculture Press, BeijingGoogle Scholar
  3. Bormann H, Klaassen K (2008) Seasonal and land use dependent variability of soil hydraulic and soil hydrological properties of two northern German soils. Geoderma 145:295–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bruand A, Baize D, Hardy M (1994) Prediction of water retention properties of clayey soils: validity of relationships using a single soil characteristic. Soil Use Manag 10:99–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dai YJ, Shangguan W, Duan QY, Liu BY, Fu SH, Duan QY (2015) Development of a China dataset of soil hydraulic parameters using pedotransfer functions for land surface modeling. J Hydrometeorol 14:869–887CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Duan LX, Huang MB, Zhang LD (2016) Use of a state-space approach to predict soil water storage at the hillslope scale on the Loess Plateau, China. Catena 137:563–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fazackerley S, Lawrence R (2012) Automatic in situ determination of field capacity using soil moisture sensors. Irrig Drain 61:416–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Garg A, Li JH, Hou JJ, Berretta C, Garg A (2017) A new computational approach for estimation of wilting point for green infrastructure. Measurement 111:351–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Jia XX, Shao MA, Wei XR, Horton R, Li XZ (2011) Estimating total net primary productivity of managed grasslands by a state-space modeling approach in a small catchment on the Loess Plateau, China. Geoderma 160:281–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jia XX, Yang Y, Zhang CC, Shao MA, Huang LM (2017) A state-space analysis of soil organic carbon in China’s Loess Plateau. Land Degrad Dev 28:983–993CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jia XX, Shao MA, Yu DX, Zhang Y, Binley A (2019) Spatial variations in soil-water carrying capacity of three typical revegetation species on the Loess Plateau, China. Agric Ecosyst Environ 273:25–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jin XX, Wang S, Yu N, Zou HT, An J, Zhang YL, Wang JK, Zhang YL (2018) Spatial predictions of the permanent wilting point in arid and semi-arid regions of Northeast China. J Hydrol 564:367–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jonsen ID, Myers RA, Flemming JM (2003) Meta-analysis of animal movement using state-space models. Ecology 84:3055–3063CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kalman RE (1960) A new approach to linear filtering and prediction problems. Trans ASME-J Basic Eng 82:35–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Li H, Lascano RJ, Booker J, Wilson LT, Bronson KF, Segarra E (2002) State-space description of field heterogeneity: water and nitrogen use in cotton. Soil Sci Soc Am J 66:585–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Li ZW, Xu XL, Liu MX, Li XZ, Zhang RF, Wang KL, Xu CH (2017) State-space prediction of spring discharge in a karst catchment in Southwest China. J Hydrol 549:264–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Li XD, Shao MA, Zhao CL, Jia XX (2019) Spatial variability of soil water content and related factors across the Hexi Corridor of China. J Arid Land 11:123–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Liu ZP, Shao MA, Wang YQ (2012) Estimating soil organic carbon across a large-scale region: a state-space modeling approach. Soil Sci 177:607–618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McColl KA, Alemohammad SH, Akbar R, Konings AG, Yueh S, Entekhabi D (2017) The global distribution and dynamics of surface soil moisture. Nat Geosci 10:100–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Meyer PD, Gee GW (1999) Flux-based estimation of field capacity. J Geotech Geoenviron 125:595–599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mohanty M, Sinha NK, Painuli DK, Bandyopadhyay KK, Hati KM, Reddy KS, Chaudhary RS (2015) Modelling soil water contents at field capacity and permanent wilting point using artificial neural network for Indian soils. Natl Acad Sci Lett 38:373–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Morkoc F, Biggar JW, Nielsen DR, Rolston DE (1985) Analysis of soil water content and temperature using state-space approach. Soil Sci Soc Am J 49:798–803CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nielsen DR, Alemi MH (1989) Statistical opportunities for analyzing spatial and temporal heterogeneity of field soils. Plant Soil 115:285–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Poulsen TG, Moldrup P, Wendroth O, Nielsen DR (2003) Estimating saturated hydraulic conductivity and air permeability from soil physical properties using state-space analysis. Soil Sci 168:311–320Google Scholar
  25. Pringle MJ, Romano N, Minasny B, Chirico GB, Lark RM (2007) Spatial evaluation of pedotransfer functions using wavelet analysis. J Hydrol 333:182–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Qiao JB, Zhu YJ, Jia XX, Huang LM, Shao MA (2018) Estimating the spatial relationships between soil hydraulic properties and soil physical properties in the critical zone (0-100 m) on the Loess Plateau, China: a state-space modeling approach. Catena 160:385–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Qiao JB, Zhu YJ, Jia XX, Huang LM, Shao MA (2019) Pedotransfer functions for estimating the field capacity and permanent wilting point in the critical zone of the Loess Plateau, China. J Soils Sediments 19:140–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Reynolds CA, Jackson TJ, Rawls WJ (2000) Estimating soil water-holding capacities by linking the food and agriculture organization soil map of the world with global pedon databases and continuous pedotransfer functions. Water Resour Res 36:3653–3662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rienzi EA, Maggi AE, Scroffa M, Lopez VC, Cabanella P (2016) Autoregressive state spatial modeling of soil bulk density and organic carbon in fields under different tillage system. Soil Till Res 159:56–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Santra P, Kumar M, Kumawat RN, Painuli DK, Hati KM, Heuvelink GBM, Batjes NH (2018) Pedotransfer functions to estimate soil water content at field capacity and permanent wilting point in hot arid Western India. J Earth Syst Sci 127:35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Seneviratne SI, Corti T, Davin EL, Hirschi M, Jaeger EB, Lehner I, Orlowsky B, Teuling AJ (2010) Investigating soil moisture-climate interactions in a changing climate: a review. Earth Sci Rev 99:125–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Shao MA, Wang QJ, Huang MB (2006) Soil physics (in Chinese). Higher Education Press, BeijingGoogle Scholar
  33. Shumway RH, Stoffer DS (1982) An approach to time series smoothing and forecasting using the EM algorithm. J Time Ser Anal 3:253–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Shumway RH, Stoffer DS (2005) Time series analysis and its applications; with R example (third edition, Springer texts in statistics). Springer-Verlag, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. Sun HW, Yang JZ (2013) Modified numerical approach to estimate field capacity. J Hydrol Eng 18:431–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wang M, Su YZ, Yang X (2014) Spatial distribution of soil organic carbon and its influencing factors in desert grasslands of the Hexi Corridor, northwest China. PLoS One 9:e94652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wu TN, Wu GL, Wang D, Shi ZH (2014) Soil-hydrological properties response to grazing exclusion in a steppe grassland of the Loess Plateau. Environ Earth Sci 71:745–752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wu XT, Lu GH, Wu ZY, He H, Zhou JH, Liu ZC (2018) An integration approach for mapping field capacity of China based on multi-source soil datasets. Water 10(6):728CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Yan NN, Wu BF, Huang HP, Mu LL, Qian QJ (2005) Mapping of field capacity and wilting coefficient in China for drought monitoring. IGARSS 2005: IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium Vols 1–8, ProceedingsGoogle Scholar
  40. Yang Y, Wendroth O (2014) State-space approach to analyze field-scale bromide leaching. Geoderma s 217–218:161–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zacharias S, Bohne K (2008) Attempt of a flux-based evaluation of field capacity. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 171:399–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Zhang K, Su YZ, Yang R (2017) Biomass and nutrient allocation strategies in a desert ecosystem in the Hexi Corridor, northwest China. J Plant Res 130:699–708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Zhao CL, Shao MA, Jia XX, Nasir M, Zhang CC (2016) Using pedotransfer functions to estimate soil hydraulic conductivity in the Loess Plateau of China. Catena 143:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Zhao CL, Shao MA, Jia XX, Zhu YJ (2017) Estimation of spatial variability of soil water storage along the south–north transect on China’s Loess Plateau using the state-space approach. J Soils Sediments 17(4):1009–1020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Zhao CL, ShaoMA JXX, Zhu YJ (2018) Factors affecting soil desiccation spatial variability in the Loess Plateau of China. Soil Sci Soc Am J.  https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2017.11.0391

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xiangdong Li
    • 1
    • 2
  • Ming’an Shao
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  • Chunlei Zhao
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.State Key Laboratory of Soil Erosion and Dryland Farming on the Loess Plateau, Institute of Soil and Water ConservationChinese Academy of Sciences and Ministry of Water ResourcesYanglingChina
  2. 2.College of Natural Resources and EnvironmentUniversity of Chinese Academy of SciencesBeijingChina
  3. 3.Key Laboratory of Ecosystem Network Observation and Modeling, Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources ResearchChinese Academy of SciencesBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations