A simple expression for the bulk field capacity of a sloping soil horizon

Abstract

Field capacity is a commonly used soil parameter in surface water hydrological models, loosely defined as the moisture content of a soil after drainage. The most commonly applied expression for field capacity is defined as the remaining water in a vertical soil column subject to 1/3 atm. of pressure head. While this quantification is sufficient in some cases, the definition is not consistent with the use of bulk field capacity in calculations of lateral drainage from hillslopes, as required by some surface soil parameterizations, nor does it address additional complications arising from differences in soil texture or sample size. Here, a simple alternative expression for bulk field capacity in a sloping or vertical soil is derived directly from Richards equation with the use of the Brooks‐Corey characteristics. It is demonstrated that this expression is consistent with data acquired from vertical soil columns, but may be extended to additional situations commonly found in surface water models and land surface schemes. The calculation of bulk field capacity requires only the Brooks‐Corey pore size distribution index, soil air‐entry pressure, and hillslope length and slope, and may be considered a physically based alternative to pedotransfer function or lookup table approaches. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons Ltd and Crown in the right of Canada.

Predicting the Net Basin Supply to the Great Lakes with a Hydrometeorological Model

“…The scheme partitions the water flux reaching the land surface into surface runoff and infiltration. ISBA also calculates interflow (lateral flow occurring in the upper part of the unsaturated zone) and gravitational drainage based on a subgrid-scale parameterization proposed by Soulis et al (2011).…”

Modelling of Seasonal Evapotranspiration from an Agricultural Field Using the Canadian Land Surface Scheme (CLASS) with a Pedotransfer Rule and Multicriteria Optimization

“…The correction of the third layer is unnecessary because a small percentage of organic matter is usually present only in the top layers. In any case, the correction would be incompatible with the improvements already implemented by Soulis et al (2011). Finally, the model produced similar effects of transpiration on the water content of the first and second layers during the crop maturity stage even when the second layer contained a larger reserve of water.…”

“…The optimization was, therefore, conducted only on the initial water content of the third layer over a range from field capacity to porosity (complete saturation). The correction for field capacity of the third layer, based on the approach of Soulis, Craig, Fortin, and Liu (2011), was not considered here because the suggested value of 0.086 m 3 m −3 was deemed too small. Tables 4 and 5, two parameters and one initial condition were optimized: LAI max , r s,min , and θ 3,ini .…”

Tiling soil textures for terrestrial ecosystem modelling via clustering analysis: a case study with CLASS-CTEM (version 2.1)

“…The field capacity of the lowest permeable layer, θ fc, b (m 3 m −3 ), accounts for the permeable depth of the whole overlying soil column, z b (m), and is found via Soulis et al (2011):…”