表征全吸力范围的土壤水分特征曲线模型评估及其转换函数构建

doi:10.31497/zrzyxb.20191219

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

基于非饱和土壤水力性质数据库（UNSODA）中选取的从砂土到黏土共256个土壤样本,系统性地评价了表征全吸力范围的土壤水分特征曲线模型（LIAO模型）的适用性,并构建和验证了预测LIAO模型参数的土壤转换函数（PTFs）。结果表明：（1）与传统的van Genuchten模型（仅适用于描述毛管水运动）相比,LIAO模型对不同质地土壤水分特征曲线的预测精度更高,均方根误差（RMSE）降低了约45%;（2）LIAO模型参数与土壤基本性质（如砂粒、粉粒、黏粒、有机质含量和容重）之间存在不同程度的相关性,其中参数θ_s与容重的相关性（r=-0.783,P<0.01）最强,而其余参数与粉粒的相关程度最高;（3）基于逐步回归方法构建的PTFs能够解释LIAO模型参数总变异的31%~65%,其中对θ_s的预测精度最高,经双交叉验证表明PTFs稳定性较好。研究成果可为区域（尤其是干旱和半干旱地区）土壤水文模型提供参数支持。

关键词: 土壤转换函数, 全吸力范围, 水分特征曲线, 逐步回归

Abstract:

Capillary water and film water are two important forms of soil water. In humid and semi-humid areas, capillary water is the water that moves quickly and is easily absorbed and utilized by plants. However, in arid and semi-arid areas, film water becomes the key factor limiting soil and water conservation and vegetation growth, and nutrient migration and utilization in soil due to the low soil water content. Soil water characteristic curve (SWRC) is an important soil hydraulic property, which represents the functional relationship between soil water content and pressure head, and is an essential parameter of the soil water movement model. Therefore, a model is urgently needed to describe the SWRC with consideration of the characteristics of capillary water and film water simultaneously. Recently, LIAO model has been proposed to represent the SWRC due to both capillary water and film water. However, this model has not been systematically evaluated. In this study, a total of 256 soil samples from coarse- to fine-textured were selected from unsaturated soil hydraulic property database (UNSODA). These samples were then applied to evaluate the soil water retention curve model from saturation to oven-dryness (LIAO model). Finally, pedotransfer functions (PTFs) for predicting LIAO model parameters were developed and validated. The results showed that: (1) Compared with the classic van Genuchten model which can only describe soil water retention characteristics due to capillary flow, LIAO model can better predict water retention curves for different textured soils with the decrease in root mean squared error by 45%. (2) LIAO model parameters were found to have different degrees of correlation with basic soil properties such as sand, silt, clay, organic matter contents and bulk density. θ_s had the strongest correlation (r=-0.783, P<0.01) with bulk density, while other parameters had the strongest correlation with silt. (3) Stepwise regression based-PTFs can explain 31%-65% of the variance in LIAO model parameters. The highest accuracy was found for θ_s. The signs of the regression coefficients and the determination coefficients were stable by the double cross-validation method. The results provided supports for soil water movement simulation at regional scale, especially in arid and semi-arid environments.

Key words: pedotransfer functions, from saturation to oven-dryness, water retention curve, stepwise regression

安乐生, 赵宽, 李明. 表征全吸力范围的土壤水分特征曲线模型评估及其转换函数构建[J]. 自然资源学报, 2019, 34(12): 2732-2742.

AN Le-sheng, ZHAO Kuan, LI Ming. Evaluation of soil water retention curve model from saturation to oven-dryness and development of pedotransfer functions for predicting model parameters[J]. JOURNAL OF NATURAL RESOURCES, 2019, 34(12): 2732-2742.

图/表 7

图1

表1

表2

基于VG模型和LIAO模型的土壤水分特征曲线拟合结果对比"

模型	参数	质地										总计
模型	参数	砂土	壤砂土	砂壤土	粉砂土	粉砂壤土	壤土	砂质黏壤土	粉砂质黏壤土	粉砂质黏土	黏土	总计
VG 模型	θ_s/(cm³/cm³)	0.387± 0.046	0.426± 0.068	0.403± 0.055	0.400± 0.030	0.417± 0.057	0.467± 0.090	0.445± 0.032	0.487± 0.122	0.522± 0.059	0.543± 0.080	0.430± 0.078
	θ_r/(cm³/cm³)	0.063± 0.039	0.068± 0.042	0.035± 0.046	0.021± 0.042	0.015± 0.034	0.036± 0.062	0.064± 0.099	0.059± 0.073	0.088± 0.102	0.051± 0.077	0.041± 0.054
	α^-1	0.0341 ±0.0312	0.0491 ±0.0491	0.0307 ±0.0316	0.0044 ±0.0014	0.0212 ±0.0286	0.0605 ±0.1195	0.0859 ±0.0772	0.0365 ±0.0292	0.0231 ±0.0366	0.0936 ±0.1596	0.0394 ±0.0683
	n	2.675± 0.881	2.032± 0.626	1.444± 0.486	1.546± 0.383	1.263± 0.162	1.210± 0.163	1.316± 0.339	1.443± 0.566	1.134± 0.085	1.105± 0.041	1.603± 0.723
	R²	0.994± 0.007	0.991± 0.011	0.989± 0.012	0.978± 0.011	0.981± 0.019	0.987± 0.014	0.985± 0.014	0.978± 0.030	0.984± 0.018	0.978± 0.020	0.986± 0.016
	RMSE/ (cm³/cm³)	0.0080± 0.0037	0.0100± 0.0056	0.0091± 0.0050	0.0170± 0.0057	0.0117± 0.0077	0.0086± 0.0061	0.0094± 0.0059	0.0087± 0.0063	0.0053± 0.0015	0.0084± 0.0040	0.0096± 0.0061
LIAO模型	θ_s/(cm³/cm³)	0.382± 0.045	0.418± 0.066	0.405± 0.065	0.421± 0.045	0.440± 0.063	0.468± 0.093	0.440± 0.046	0.493± 0.120	0.529± 0.053	0.549± 0.078	0.437± 0.081
	A	0.1513± 0.2965	0.2511± 0.3570	0.5444± 0.4425	0.7502± 0.4997	0.4809± 0.4327	0.2445± 0.3493	0.3333± 0.4654	0.2196± 0.3546	0.4556± 0.5242	0.1930± 0.3518	0.3463± 0.4127
	λ/cm	0.0626± 0.0836	0.0390± 0.0727	0.0042± 0.0158	0.0002± 0.0001	0.0066± 0.0301	0.0184± 0.0546	0.0038± 0.0058	0.0158± 0.0531	0.0003± 0.0004	0.0016± 0.0023	0.0208± 0.0549
	τ	-0.417± 0.454	-0.581± 0.496	-0.965± 0.467	-1.064± 0.391	-0.872± 0.485	-0.606± 0.450	-0.759± 0.450	-0.601± 0.496	-0.771± 0.460	-0.412± 0.468	-0.700± 0.505
	α/cm^-1	0.0596± 0.1553	0.0760± 0.1560	0.3064± 0.4127	0.2351± 0.2488	0.3954± 0.4281	0.1444± 0.2064	0.2202± 0.3832	0.1976± 0.2907	0.2975± 0.4709	0.2490± 0.2957	0.2273± 0.3420
	n	3.361± 1.156	2.823± 1.244	2.162± 1.949	2.387± 2.349	1.956± 1.934	1.846± 1.141	2.569± 2.219	3.147± 3.197	1.294± 0.347	3.089± 2.719	2.422± 1.863
	R²	0.997± 0.003	0.996± 0.006	0.996± 0.006	0.987± 0.009	0.995± 0.005	0.998± 0.004	0.999± 0.001	0.990± 0.015	0.998± 0.003	0.997± 0.004	0.996± 0.006
	RMSE/ (cm³/cm³)	0.0058± 0.0030	0.0065± 0.0041	0.0054± 0.0041	0.0127± 0.0062	0.0061± 0.0042	0.0034± 0.0029	0.0028± 0.0026	0.0053± 0.0037	0.0022± 0.0017	0.0035± 0.0027	0.0053± 0.0039

表2

图2

表3

表4

表5

参考文献 22

[1]	徐绍辉, 张佳宝, 刘建立, 等. 表征土壤水分持留曲线的几种模型的适应性研究. 土壤学报, 2002, 39(4): 498-504.
	[XU S H, ZHANG J B, LIU J L, et al.Suitability of models describing soil water retention curve. Acta Pedologica Sinica, 2002, 39(4): 498-504.]
[2]	王修康, 戚兴超, 刘艳丽, 等. 泰山山前平原三种土地利用方式下土壤结构特征及其对土壤持水性的影响. 自然资源学报, 2018, 33(1): 63-74.
	[WANG X K, QI X C, LIU Y L, et al.Soil structure and its effect on soil water holding property under three land use patterns in piedmont plain of Mountain Tai. Journal of Natural Resources, 2018, 33(1): 63-74.]
[3]	LIAO K, XU F, ZHENG J, et al.Using different multimodel ensemble approaches to simulate soil moisture in a forest site with six traditional pedotransfer functions. Environmental Modelling & Software, 2014, 57: 27-32.
[4]	CHRISTIAENS K, FEYEN J.Analysis of uncertainties associated with different methods to determine soil hydraulic properties and their propagation in the distributed hydrological MIKE SHE model. Journal of Hydrology, 2001, 246: 63-81.
[5]	GUBER A K, PACHEPSKY Y A, VAN GENCUHTEN M TH, et al. Multimodel simulation of water flow in a field soil using pedotransfer functions. Vadose Zone Journal, 2009, 8: 1-10.
[6]	RYEL R J, CALDWELL M M, YODER C K, et al.Hydraulic redistribution in a stand of Artemisia tridentata: Evaluation of benefits to transpiration assessed with a simulation model. Oecologia, 2002, 130: 173-184.
[7]	WANG Y, MA J, ZHANG Y, et al.A new theoretical model accounting for film flow in unsaturated porous media. Water Resources Research, 2013, 49: 5021-5028.
[8]	彭海英, 童绍玉, 李小雁. 内蒙古典型草原土壤及其水文过程对灌丛化的响应. 自然资源学报, 2017, 32(4): 642-653.
	[PENG H Y, TONG S Y, LI X Y.Effects of thicketization of rangeland on soil and soil hydrological processes in Inner Mongolia. Journal of Natural Resources, 2017, 32(4): 642-653.]
[9]	LIAO K, LAI X, ZHOU Z, et al.A simple and improved model for describing soil hydraulic properties from saturation to oven dryness. Vadose Zone Journal, 2018, 17: 180082, Doi: 10. 2136/vzj2018.04.0082.
[10]	黄元仿, 李韵珠. 土壤水力性质的估算—土壤转换函数. 土壤学报, 2002, 39(4): 517-523.
	[HUANG Y F, LI Y Z.Estimation of soil hydraulic properties-pedo-transfer functions. Acta Pedologica Sinica, 2002, 39(4): 517-523.]
[11]	VAN GENUCHTEN M TH. A closed-form equation for predicting the hydraulic conductivity of unsaturated soils. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 1980, 44: 892-898.
[12]	CAMPBELL G S, SHIOZAWA S.Prediction of hydraulic properties of soils using particle size distribution and bulk density data. In VAN GENUCHTEN, M TH, et al. (eds.) Proceedings of the International Workshop on Indirect Methods for Estimating the Hydraulic Properties of Unsaturated Soils. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992: 317-328.
[13]	NEMES A, SCHAAP M G, LEIJ F J, et al.Description of the unsaturated soil hydraulic database UNSODA version 2.0. Journal of Hydrology, 2001, 251: 151-162.
[14]	刘建立, 徐绍辉, 刘慧. 几种土壤累积粒径分布模型的对比研究. 水科学进展, 2003, 14(5): 588-592.
	[LIU J L, XU S H, LIU H.Investigation of different models to describe soil particle-size distribution data. Advances in Water Science, 2003, 14(5): 588-592.]
[15]	NORUSIS J M.SPSS Professional Statistics 6.1. Chicago: SPSS Inc., 1994.
[16]	GREEN P E, CAROLL J D. Analysing Multivariate Data. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1978.
[17]	LIAO K, XU S, WU J, et al.Uncertainty analysis for large-scale prediction of the van Genuchten soil-water retention parameters with pedotransfer functions. Soil Research, 2014, 52: 431-442.
[18]	WÖSTEN J H M, LILLY A, NEMES A, et al. Development and use of a database of hydraulic properties of European soils. Geoderma, 1999, 90: 169-185.
[19]	WÖSTEN J H M, VAN GENUCHTEN M TH. Using texture and other soil properties to predict the unsaturated soil hydraulic functions. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 1988, 52: 1762-1770.
[20]	VEREECKEN H, MAES J, DARIUS P.Estimating the soil moisture retention characteristics from texture, bulk density and carbon content. Soil Science, 1989, 148: 389-403.
[21]	RAJKAIA K, KABOSA S, VAN GENUCHTEN M TH. Estimating the water retention curve from soil properties: Comparison of linear, nonlinear and concomitant variable methods. Soil & Tillage Research, 2004, 79: 145-152.
[22]	RAWLS W J, GISH T J, BRAKENSIEK D L.Estimating soil water retention from soil physical properties and characteristics. Advances in Soil Science, 1991, 16: 213-235.

质地	样本数/个	SAND/%	SILT/%	CLAY/%	OM/%	BD/(g/cm³)
砂土	43	91.51±2.91	5.65±2.87	2.84±1.57	0.59±0.71	1.53±0.10
壤砂土	26	83.50±2.77	10.29±3.54	6.21±2.23	1.12±1.01	1.46±0.15
砂壤土	38	62.59±6.82	26.68±7.53	10.73±4.16	1.17±0.78	1.50±0.13
粉砂土	4	3.78±1.18	86.85±3.32	9.38±2.19	0.74±0.38	1.44±0.08
粉砂壤土	68	17.55±10.23	66.05±8.92	16.40±5.25	1.15±1.51	1.45±0.15
壤土	41	41.44±6.32	38.58±5.33	19.98±4.58	2.23±1.90	1.29±0.24
砂质黏壤土	6	54.43±6.13	21.02±4.15	24.55±3.33	0.97±0.81	1.45±0.11
粉砂质黏壤土	14	8.48±5.54	57.35±6.43	34.17±4.86	3.17±3.06	1.33±0.30
粉砂质黏土	4	8.08±4.65	44.53±3.63	47.40±7.03	6.29±5.52	1.26±0.17
黏土	12	15.74±10.26	32.38±6.47	51.88±6.87	3.06±2.08	1.18±0.27
总计	256	47.10±31.21	36.88±24.29	16.02±12.66	1.50±1.85	1.43±0.20

	SAND	SILT	CLAY	OM	BD
θ_s	-0.366^**	0.213^**	0.495^**	0.596^**	-0.783^**
A	-0.193^**	0.550^**	-0.085	-0.055	0.128^*
λ	0.320^**	-0.594^**	-0.226^**	-0.129^*	0.138^*
τ	0.215^**	-0.582^**	0.111^*	0.137^*	-0.126^*
α	-0.285^**	0.568^**	0.122^*	-0.121^*	0.128^*
n	0.194^**	-0.627^**	0.143^*	0.133^*	-0.036

参数	回归方程	R²
θ_s	0.8037+0.0002×SILT+0.0010×CLAY+0.0019×OM-0.2760×BD	0.65
A	-0.3155+0.0046×SILT+0.3442×BD	0.31
λ	0.0363-0.0006×SILT-0.0005×CLAY-0.0090×OM+0.0098×BD	0.32
τ	-0.1370-0.0068×SILT+0.0034×CLAY+0.0011×OM-0.2576×BD	0.32
α	-0.2293+0.0045×SILT+0.0013×CLAY-0.0101×OM+0.1988×BD	0.35
n	2.9585-0.0183×SILT+0.0017×CLAY+0.0746×OM	0.42

参数	子集	回归方程	R²
θ_s	1	0.8374+0.0001×SILT+0.0019×CLAY+0.0003×OM-0.2994×BD	0.59
	2	0.7956+0.0002×SILT+0.0009×CLAY+0.0026×OM-0.2680×BD	0.67
A	1	-0.2813+0.0054×SILT+0.3316×BD	0.38
	2	-0.2957+0.0068×SILT+0.2246×BD	0.26
λ	1	0.0634-0.0005×SILT-0.0018×CLAY-0.0140×OM+0.0047×BD	0.30
	2	0.0097-0.0003×SILT-0.0004×CLAY-0.0007×OM+0.0162×BD	0.33
τ	1	0.1108-0.0071×SILT+0.0054×CLAY+0.0310×OM-0.3168×BD	0.29
	2	0.2401-0.0069×SILT+0.0012×CLAY+0.0217×OM-0.1424×BD	0.35
α	1	-0.6165+0.0037×SILT+0.0106×CLAY-0.0388×OM+0.4029×BD	0.33
	2	-0.0367+0.0054×SILT+0.0016×CLAY-0.0225×OM+0.0266×BD	0.36
n	1	3.3052-0.0203×SILT+0.0386×CLAY+0.0472×OM	0.37
	2	1.5553-0.0026×SILT+0.0123×CLAY+0.1710×OM	0.49