4.5 Article

Validation of water sorption-based clay prediction models for calcareous soils

期刊

JOURNAL OF PLANT NUTRITION AND SOIL SCIENCE
卷 180, 期 3, 页码 347-354

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/jpln.201700001

关键词

calcium carbonate; clay fraction; hygroscopic water; hysteresis; semi-arid soils

资金

  1. Danish Council for Independent Research [DFF-4184-00171]
  2. Shiraz University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Soil particle size distribution (PSD), particularly the active clay fraction, mediates soil engineering, agronomic and environmental functions. The tedious and costly nature of traditional methods of determining PSD prompted the development of water sorption-based models for determining the clay fraction. The applicability of such models to semi-arid soils with significant amounts of calcium carbonate and/or gypsum is unknown. The objective of this study was to validate three water sorption-based clay prediction models for 30 calcareous soils from Iran and identify the effect of CaCO3 on prediction accuracy. The soils had clay content ranging from 9 to 61% and CaCO3 from 24 to 97%. The three water sorption models considered showed a reasonably fair prediction of the clay content from water sorption at 28% relative humidity (RMSE and ME values ranging from 10.6 to 12.1 and -8.1 to -4.2, respectively). The model that considers hysteresis had better prediction accuracy than the other two that do not. Moreover, the prediction errors of all three models arose from under-prediction of the clay content. The amount of hygroscopic water scaled by clay content decreased with increasing CaCO3 content. The low organic carbon content of the soils and the low fraction of low-activity clay minerals like kaolinite suggested that the clay content under-predictions were due to large CaCO3 contents. Thus, for such water-sorption based models to work accurately for calcareous soils, a correction factor that considers the reduction of water content due to large CaCO3 content should be included.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据