1996•Soil Science Society of America JournalRequires access

Artificial Neural Networks to Estimate Soil Water Retention from Easily Measurable Data

Yakov A. Pachepsky, Dennis Timlin, G. Várallyay

Open publisher page 367 citations

Abstract

Abstract Indirect estimation of soil water retention from easily measurable data of soil surveys is needed to extend the applicability of hydrological models. Artificial neural networks (ANN) are becoming a common tool for modeling complex “input‐output” dependencies. The objective of this work was to compare the accuracy of ANN and statistical regressions for water retention estimation from texture and bulk density. We used data on water contents at eight matric potentials for 130 Haplustoll and 100 Aquic Ustoll soil samples. Although the differences were not always statistically significant, ANN predicted water contents at selected matric potentials better than regression. The performances of ANN and regressions were comparable when van Genuchten's equation was fitted to data for each sample, and parameters of this equation were estimated from texture and bulk density. The precision of parameter estimations was lower than the precision of estimating water contents at a given soil water potential with both ANN and regressions. Grouping samples by horizons improved the precision of the estimates, especially in subsoil. Because they can mimic natural “many inputs‐many outputs” relationships, ANN may be useful in the estimation of soil hydraulic properties from easily measurable soil data.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Abstract Indirect estimation of soil water retention from easily measurable data of soil surveys is needed to extend the applicability of hydrological models. Artificial neural networks (ANN) are becoming a common tool for modeling complex “input‐output” dependencies. The objective of this work was to compare the accuracy of ANN and statistical regressions for water retention estimation from texture and bulk density. We used data on water contents at eight matric potentials for 130 Haplustoll and 100 Aquic Ustoll soil samples. Although the differences were not always statistically significant, ANN predicted water contents at selected matric potentials better than regression. The performances of ANN and regressions were comparable when van Genuchten's equation was fitted to data for each sample, and parameters of this equation were estimated from texture and bulk density. The precision of parameter estimations was lower than the precision of estimating water contents at a given soil water potential with both ANN and regressions. Grouping samples by horizons improved the precision of the estimates, especially in subsoil. Because they can mimic natural “many inputs‐many outputs” relationships, ANN may be useful in the estimation of soil hydraulic properties from easily measurable soil data.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 367 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Abstract Indirect estimation of soil water retention from easily measurable data of soil surveys is needed to extend the applicability of hydrological models. Artificial neural networks (ANN) are becoming a common tool for modeling complex “input‐output” dependencies. The objective of this work was to compare the accuracy of ANN and statistical regressions for water retention estimation from texture and bulk density. We used data on water contents at eight matric potentials for 130 Haplustoll and 100 Aquic Ustoll soil samples. Although the differences were not always statistically significant, ANN predicted water contents at selected matric potentials better than regression. The performances of ANN and regressions were comparable when van Genuchten's equation was fitted to data for each sample, and parameters of this equation were estimated from texture and bulk density. The precision of parameter estimations was lower than the precision of estimating water contents at a given soil water potential with both ANN and regressions. Grouping samples by horizons improved the precision of the estimates, especially in subsoil. Because they can mimic natural “many inputs‐many outputs” relationships, ANN may be useful in the estimation of soil hydraulic properties from easily measurable soil data.

Key concepts: Pedotransfer function, Subsoil, Soil science, Soil texture, Artificial neural network, Soil water, Water potential, Water retention

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Artificial Neural Networks to Estimate Soil Water Retention from Easily Measurable Data — Research Paper | ScholarLens