Dharumarajan et al. (2019) hydraulic PTFs for the Karnataka Plateau.¶
Source¶
Dharumarajan, S., Hegde, R., Lalitha, M., Kalaiselvi, B., & Singh, S. K. (2019). Pedotransfer functions for predicting soil hydraulic properties in semi-arid regions of Karnataka Plateau, India. Current Science, 116(7), 1237-1246. https://doi.org/10.18520/cs/v116/i7/1237-1246
DOI: 10.18520/cs/v116/i7/1237-1246
Scope¶
Territory: Karnataka Plateau, India
Dataset: Field capacity and permanent wilting point were modeled from 512 soil samples in the Northern Karnataka Plateau and 228 samples in the Southern Karnataka Plateau; infiltration was modeled from 100 Karnataka soil observations.
Functions¶
calc_ptf_dharumarajan2019_nkp¶
Estimate field capacity and wilting point for Northern Karnataka soils.
Status: implemented
Prediction target: Water content at field capacity and permanent wilting point from clay, sand, and cation exchange capacity.
Models: \(h(\theta)\) — Point water-retention estimates from multiple linear regression
Inputs¶
| Name | Type | Unit | Domain | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|
clay | number | % | Northern study range: 1.2 <= value <= 80.8 | Clay content. |
sand | number | % | Northern study range: 2.7 <= value <= 94.0 | Sand content. |
cation_exchange_capacity | number | C mol p+/kg | Northern study range: 1.7 <= value <= 80.9 | Cation exchange capacity. |
Outputs¶
| Name | Unit | Domain | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
field_capacity | % | — | Soil water content at -33 kPa matric potential. |
permanent_wilting_point | % | — | Soil water content at -1500 kPa matric potential. |
Note
The model was fitted to 512 soil-layer observations.
Note
Reported cross-validation RMSE values are 5.25% for FC and 3.71% for PWP.
Warning
The paper does not state whether its water-content percentages are gravimetric or volumetric.
Warning
The source gives inconsistent profile counts and district lists for the Northern dataset; see the scientific notes.
calc_ptf_dharumarajan2019_nkp_clay¶
Estimate Northern Karnataka field capacity and wilting point from clay.
Status: implemented
Prediction target: Water content at field capacity and permanent wilting point from clay content alone.
Models: \(h(\theta)\) — Point water-retention estimates from simple linear regression
Inputs¶
| Name | Type | Unit | Domain | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|
clay | number | % | Northern study range: 1.2 <= value <= 80.8 | Clay content. |
Outputs¶
| Name | Unit | Domain | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
field_capacity | % | — | Soil water content at -33 kPa matric potential. |
permanent_wilting_point | % | — | Soil water content at -1500 kPa matric potential. |
Note
The paper recommends this model when clay content is the only available predictor.
Note
Reported cross-validation RMSE values are 7.05% for FC and 4.74% for PWP.
Warning
The paper does not state whether its water-content percentages are gravimetric or volumetric.
Warning
The source gives inconsistent profile counts and district lists for the Northern dataset; see the scientific notes.
calc_ptf_dharumarajan2019_skp¶
Estimate field capacity and wilting point for Southern Karnataka soils.
Status: implemented
Prediction target: Water content at field capacity and permanent wilting point from clay, sand, and cation exchange capacity.
Models: \(h(\theta)\) — Point water-retention estimates from multiple linear regression
Inputs¶
| Name | Type | Unit | Domain | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|
clay | number | % | Southern study range: 5.8 <= value <= 67.8 | Clay content. |
sand | number | % | Southern study range: 4.4 <= value <= 92.3 | Sand content. |
cation_exchange_capacity | number | C mol p+/kg | Southern study range: 1.2 <= value <= 52.6 | Cation exchange capacity. |
Outputs¶
| Name | Unit | Domain | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
field_capacity | % | — | Soil water content at -33 kPa matric potential. |
permanent_wilting_point | % | — | Soil water content at -1500 kPa matric potential. |
Note
The model was fitted to 228 soil samples from 43 profiles.
Note
Reported cross-validation RMSE values are 3.05% for FC and 2.17% for PWP.
Warning
The paper does not state whether its water-content percentages are gravimetric or volumetric.
calc_ptf_dharumarajan2019_skp_clay¶
Estimate Southern Karnataka field capacity and wilting point from clay.
Status: implemented
Prediction target: Water content at field capacity and permanent wilting point from clay content alone.
Models: \(h(\theta)\) — Point water-retention estimates from simple linear regression
Inputs¶
| Name | Type | Unit | Domain | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|
clay | number | % | Southern study range: 5.8 <= value <= 67.8 | Clay content. |
Outputs¶
| Name | Unit | Domain | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
field_capacity | % | — | Soil water content at -33 kPa matric potential. |
permanent_wilting_point | % | — | Soil water content at -1500 kPa matric potential. |
Note
The paper recommends this model when clay content is the only available predictor.
Note
Reported cross-validation RMSE values are 5.39% for FC and 3.13% for PWP.
Warning
The paper does not state whether its water-content percentages are gravimetric or volumetric.
calc_ptf_dharumarajan2019_infiltration¶
Estimate infiltration rate for Karnataka soils from texture fractions.
Status: implemented
Prediction target: Infiltration rate from sand, silt, and clay contents.
Models: \(k(h)\) — Multiple linear regression for infiltration rate
Inputs¶
| Name | Type | Unit | Domain | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|
sand | number | % | — | Sand content in the Karnataka infiltration dataset. |
silt | number | % | — | Silt content in the Karnataka infiltration dataset. |
clay | number | % | — | Clay content in the Karnataka infiltration dataset. |
Outputs¶
| Name | Unit | Domain | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
infiltration_rate | mm/h | Observed study range: 2.3 <= value <= 35 | Soil infiltration rate measured with a double-ring infiltrometer. |
Note
The model was fitted to 100 Karnataka soil observations.
Note
The reported model R-squared is 41%, and the reported RMSE is 6.71%.
Warning
Predictor calibration ranges are not reported for the 100-observation dataset.