土壤传递函数与模型结构:是什么驱动农业水文模型结果的差异?

IF 4 2区 农林科学 Q2 SOIL SCIENCE
Maria Eliza Turek, Johannes Wilhelmus Maria Pullens, Katharina Hildegard Elisabeth Meurer, Edberto Moura Lima, Bano Mehdi-Schulz, Annelie Holzkämper
{"title":"土壤传递函数与模型结构:是什么驱动农业水文模型结果的差异?","authors":"Maria Eliza Turek,&nbsp;Johannes Wilhelmus Maria Pullens,&nbsp;Katharina Hildegard Elisabeth Meurer,&nbsp;Edberto Moura Lima,&nbsp;Bano Mehdi-Schulz,&nbsp;Annelie Holzkämper","doi":"10.1111/ejss.70088","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Pedotransfer functions (PTFs) are widely used empirical relationships to estimate soil hydraulic parameters. PTFs are usually derived from point soil samples analysed in the field or laboratory; thus, they contain uncertainties at different levels (i.e., from sampling and measuring techniques, as well as empirical approaches chosen to quantify relationships). When PTFs are used to parametrize agro-hydrological models, both the choice of PTF and the choice of the model may influence the simulation results. Both sources of variance (PTF choice and model structural differences) were found to be relevant in previous studies, but how they relate to each other has rarely been investigated. In this study, we addressed this research gap by conducting a systematic analysis of the variance in selected agro-hydrological model outputs (i.e., seepage water, soil water content, actual evapotranspiration, transpiration, biomass production) based on an ensemble of 18 PTFs applied to four agro-hydrological models, namely: APEX, CANDY, DAISY and SWAP. The models were calibrated for aboveground biomass and phenology of silage maize and evaluated using data of actual evapotranspiration, seepage water and soil water content obtained from a lysimeter facility in Switzerland. ANOVA-based variance partitioning was applied to attribute variance in model outputs to two uncertainty sources (PTF choice, model choice). Overall, we found that agro-hydrological model structural differences had a larger influence on the variance in model outputs than PTF differences. Further analyses undertaken per model showed that the sensitivity of the simulated outputs to the choice of PTF differed between the models; our results showed that the models integrating the Richards equation (SWAP, DAISY) were more sensitive to the choice of PTF than those using a reservoir cascade approach (APEX, CANDY). Our results also showed that simulated outputs using the mean of a PTF ensemble performed better than when using a single PTF, irrespective of the model and output variable. We therefore recommend using PTF ensembles in agro-hydrological modelling studies. The benefit of using large PTF ensembles is, however, likely to be reduced in larger ensembles of agro-hydrological models, as structural model uncertainties will dominate over PTF uncertainties, according to the four-member model ensemble investigated here.</p>","PeriodicalId":12043,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Soil Science","volume":"76 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ejss.70088","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Pedotransfer Functions Versus Model Structure: What Drives Variance in Agro-Hydrological Model Results?\",\"authors\":\"Maria Eliza Turek,&nbsp;Johannes Wilhelmus Maria Pullens,&nbsp;Katharina Hildegard Elisabeth Meurer,&nbsp;Edberto Moura Lima,&nbsp;Bano Mehdi-Schulz,&nbsp;Annelie Holzkämper\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/ejss.70088\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Pedotransfer functions (PTFs) are widely used empirical relationships to estimate soil hydraulic parameters. PTFs are usually derived from point soil samples analysed in the field or laboratory; thus, they contain uncertainties at different levels (i.e., from sampling and measuring techniques, as well as empirical approaches chosen to quantify relationships). When PTFs are used to parametrize agro-hydrological models, both the choice of PTF and the choice of the model may influence the simulation results. Both sources of variance (PTF choice and model structural differences) were found to be relevant in previous studies, but how they relate to each other has rarely been investigated. In this study, we addressed this research gap by conducting a systematic analysis of the variance in selected agro-hydrological model outputs (i.e., seepage water, soil water content, actual evapotranspiration, transpiration, biomass production) based on an ensemble of 18 PTFs applied to four agro-hydrological models, namely: APEX, CANDY, DAISY and SWAP. The models were calibrated for aboveground biomass and phenology of silage maize and evaluated using data of actual evapotranspiration, seepage water and soil water content obtained from a lysimeter facility in Switzerland. ANOVA-based variance partitioning was applied to attribute variance in model outputs to two uncertainty sources (PTF choice, model choice). Overall, we found that agro-hydrological model structural differences had a larger influence on the variance in model outputs than PTF differences. Further analyses undertaken per model showed that the sensitivity of the simulated outputs to the choice of PTF differed between the models; our results showed that the models integrating the Richards equation (SWAP, DAISY) were more sensitive to the choice of PTF than those using a reservoir cascade approach (APEX, CANDY). Our results also showed that simulated outputs using the mean of a PTF ensemble performed better than when using a single PTF, irrespective of the model and output variable. We therefore recommend using PTF ensembles in agro-hydrological modelling studies. The benefit of using large PTF ensembles is, however, likely to be reduced in larger ensembles of agro-hydrological models, as structural model uncertainties will dominate over PTF uncertainties, according to the four-member model ensemble investigated here.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12043,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Soil Science\",\"volume\":\"76 2\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ejss.70088\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Soil Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ejss.70088\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SOIL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Soil Science","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ejss.70088","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOIL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

土壤传递函数(PTFs)是广泛应用于土壤水力参数估计的经验关系。ptf通常是从现场或实验室分析的点土壤样品中得出的;因此,它们包含不同层次的不确定性(即,来自抽样和测量技术,以及选择用于量化关系的经验方法)。当使用PTF参数化农业水文模型时,PTF的选择和模型的选择都会影响模拟结果。在以往的研究中,两种方差来源(PTF选择和模型结构差异)都是相关的,但它们之间的关系却很少被研究。在本研究中,我们基于应用于四个农业水文模型(APEX、CANDY、DAISY和SWAP)的18个ptf集合,通过对选定农业水文模型输出(即渗透水、土壤含水量、实际蒸散发、蒸腾、生物质产量)的方差进行系统分析,解决了这一研究空白。这些模型是根据青贮玉米的地上生物量和物候进行校准的,并使用从瑞士的一个蒸渗仪设施获得的实际蒸散、渗水和土壤含水量的数据进行评估。基于方差分析的方差划分应用于两个不确定性源(PTF选择,模型选择)的模型输出中的属性方差。总体而言,我们发现农业水文模型结构差异对模型输出方差的影响大于PTF差异。对每个模型进行的进一步分析表明,不同模型的模拟输出对PTF选择的敏感性不同;我们的研究结果表明,整合Richards方程的模型(SWAP, DAISY)比使用油藏级联方法的模型(APEX, CANDY)对PTF的选择更敏感。我们的结果还表明,无论模型和输出变量如何,使用PTF集合的平均值的模拟输出比使用单个PTF时表现更好。因此,我们建议在农业水文模型研究中使用PTF集合。然而,根据本文研究的四成员模型集合,使用大型PTF集合的好处可能会在更大的农业水文模型集合中减少,因为结构模型的不确定性将主导PTF的不确定性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Pedotransfer Functions Versus Model Structure: What Drives Variance in Agro-Hydrological Model Results?

Pedotransfer Functions Versus Model Structure: What Drives Variance in Agro-Hydrological Model Results?

Pedotransfer functions (PTFs) are widely used empirical relationships to estimate soil hydraulic parameters. PTFs are usually derived from point soil samples analysed in the field or laboratory; thus, they contain uncertainties at different levels (i.e., from sampling and measuring techniques, as well as empirical approaches chosen to quantify relationships). When PTFs are used to parametrize agro-hydrological models, both the choice of PTF and the choice of the model may influence the simulation results. Both sources of variance (PTF choice and model structural differences) were found to be relevant in previous studies, but how they relate to each other has rarely been investigated. In this study, we addressed this research gap by conducting a systematic analysis of the variance in selected agro-hydrological model outputs (i.e., seepage water, soil water content, actual evapotranspiration, transpiration, biomass production) based on an ensemble of 18 PTFs applied to four agro-hydrological models, namely: APEX, CANDY, DAISY and SWAP. The models were calibrated for aboveground biomass and phenology of silage maize and evaluated using data of actual evapotranspiration, seepage water and soil water content obtained from a lysimeter facility in Switzerland. ANOVA-based variance partitioning was applied to attribute variance in model outputs to two uncertainty sources (PTF choice, model choice). Overall, we found that agro-hydrological model structural differences had a larger influence on the variance in model outputs than PTF differences. Further analyses undertaken per model showed that the sensitivity of the simulated outputs to the choice of PTF differed between the models; our results showed that the models integrating the Richards equation (SWAP, DAISY) were more sensitive to the choice of PTF than those using a reservoir cascade approach (APEX, CANDY). Our results also showed that simulated outputs using the mean of a PTF ensemble performed better than when using a single PTF, irrespective of the model and output variable. We therefore recommend using PTF ensembles in agro-hydrological modelling studies. The benefit of using large PTF ensembles is, however, likely to be reduced in larger ensembles of agro-hydrological models, as structural model uncertainties will dominate over PTF uncertainties, according to the four-member model ensemble investigated here.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
European Journal of Soil Science
European Journal of Soil Science 农林科学-土壤科学
CiteScore
8.20
自引率
4.80%
发文量
117
审稿时长
5 months
期刊介绍: The EJSS is an international journal that publishes outstanding papers in soil science that advance the theoretical and mechanistic understanding of physical, chemical and biological processes and their interactions in soils acting from molecular to continental scales in natural and managed environments.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信