Premium
An objective analysis of the dynamic nature of field capacity
Author(s) -
Twarakavi Navin K. C.,
Sakai Masaru,
Šimůnek Jirka
Publication year - 2009
Publication title -
water resources research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.863
H-Index - 217
eISSN - 1944-7973
pISSN - 0043-1397
DOI - 10.1029/2009wr007944
Subject(s) - richards equation , field (mathematics) , soil water , field capacity , soil science , drainage , pressure head , environmental science , water content , empirical modelling , geotechnical engineering , hydrology (agriculture) , computer science , mathematics , geology , engineering , simulation , pure mathematics , mechanical engineering , ecology , biology
Field capacity is one of the most commonly used, and yet poorly defined, soil hydraulic properties. Traditionally, field capacity has been defined as the amount of soil moisture after excess water has drained away and the rate of downward movement has materially decreased. Unfortunately, this qualitative definition does not lend itself to an unambiguous quantitative approach for estimation. Because of the vagueness in defining what constitutes “drainage of excess water” from a soil, the estimation of field capacity has often been based upon empirical guidelines. These empirical guidelines are either time, pressure, or flux based. In this paper, we developed a numerical approach to estimate field capacity using a flux‐based definition. The resulting approach was implemented on the soil parameter data set used by Schaap et al. (2001), and the estimated field capacity was compared to traditional definitions of field capacity. The developed modeling approach was implemented using the HYDRUS‐1D software with the capability of simultaneously estimating field capacity for multiple soils with soil hydraulic parameter data. The Richards equation was used in conjunction with the van Genuchten‐Mualem model to simulate variably saturated flow in a soil. Using the modeling approach to estimate field capacity also resulted in additional information such as (1) the pressure head, at which field capacity is attained, and (2) the drainage time needed to reach field capacity from saturated conditions under nonevaporative conditions. We analyzed the applicability of the modeling‐based approach to estimate field capacity on real‐world soils data. We also used the developed method to create contour diagrams showing the variation of field capacity with texture. It was found that using benchmark pressure heads to estimate field capacity from the retention curve leads to inaccurate results. Finally, a simple analytical equation was developed to predict field capacity from soil hydraulic parameter information. The analytical equation was found to be effective in its ability to predict field capacities.