Microsoft Word - 19-Agra_42371 177 Original Article Biosci. J., Uberlândia, v. 34, supplement 1, p. 177-188, Dec. 2018 ASSESSING PEDOTRANSFER FUNCTIONS TO ESTIMATE THE SOIL WATER RETENTION VALIDAÇÃO DE FUNÇÕES DE PEDOTRANSFERÊNCIA PARA ESTIMATIVA DA RETENÇÃO DE ÁGUA NO SOLO Bruno Teixeira RIBEIRO 1 ; Adriana Monteiro da COSTA 2 ; Bruno Montoani SILVA 1 ; Fernando Oliveira FRANCO 3 ; Camila Silva BORGES 1 1. Departamento de Ciência do Solo, Universidade Federal de Lavras – UFLA, Lavras, MG, Brasil. brunoribeiro@dcs.ufla.br; 2. Instituto de Geociências, Departamento de Geografia, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais – UFMG, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brasil; 3. Empresa de Pesquisa Agropecuária de Minas Gerais, Unidade Oeste, Uberaba, MG, Brasil. ABSTRACT: Considering the importance of soil water retention for agricultural and environmental purposes, the objective of this study was to assess three pedotransfer functions (PTFs) used to estimate the soil moisture at field capacity (FC) based on soil attributes easily determined. A collection of 17 soils from the Cerrado and Pantanal biomes, including surface and subsurface horizons, was used. PTF-1 considers clay, organic matter, coarse sand, and microporosity; PTF-2 clay, total sand, and organic matter; and PTF-3 only microporosity. The estimated FC values were correlated to soil moisture values measured at different soil water potentials (0, 6, 10, 33, 100, 300, and 1500 kPa) to verify which potential corresponded to estimated FC. The data were subjected to regression analysis and Mann-Whitney rank-sum test to compare predicted and measured values and to principal component analysis (PCA). The analysis of the full dataset indicated that there was a strong correlation (R 0.84–0.91; R2 0.71–0.82; RMSE 0.07–0.09) between estimated FC and soil water retention measured at potentials of 10 kPa and 33 kPa. FC estimated by PTF-3 correlated better with water holding capacity at 6 kPa. When the PTFs were reapplied to homogeneous soil groups (identified by PCA analysis), the correlation between predicted and measured FC was decreased. KEYWORDS: Soil-water retention. Principal component analysis. Soil moisture. INTRODUCTION Water retention in soils has a crucial agronomic and environmental importance. Several phenomena depend on soil water retention, including plant growth and nutrient absorption, leaching of nutrients and pollutants, irrigation and drainage, hydrological recharge and modeling, and biochemical processes and microbial activity, among others. Water retention is determined and modeled in laboratory conditions; however, its measurement is time-consuming and costly, especially in tropical climates, where the soil properties vary widely and data are scarce (HARTEMINK, 2002; COSTA et al., 2013; BOTULA et al., 2014). The upper limit of soil water content available to plants is known as field capacity (FC). FC has been defined as the soil water content remaining after free drainage is negligible (TOLK, 2003) and can be determined in situ or measured in the laboratory (VEIMEHYER; HENDRICKSON, 1949). FC is quantified in the laboratory using undisturbed soil samples saturated with distilled water and equilibrated at a soil water potential of 6, 10, or 33 kPa (REICHARDT, 1988; RUIZ et al., 2003; KLEIN et al., 2006). The remaining water content corresponds to FC. Nonetheless, a consensus about FC estimation has not been reached (REICHARDT, 1988; SOUZA; REICHARDT, 1996; SILVA et al., 2014). In Brazil, a potential of 10 kPa has been largely used for sandy and clayey soils with granular microstructure. The primary soil attributes related to FC are texture, structure, and organic matter (AULER et al., 2017). A coarse soil texture and low organic matter content result in low FC (RAWS et al., 2003; TOMASELLA et al., 2000; COSTA et al., 2013). Moreover, the size, distribution, and connectivity of pores as affected by soil structure and management strongly affect FC. Pedotransfer functions (PTFs) have helped overcome the difficulties in estimating FC by using soil data that are easily measured and strongly associated with FC (PIDGEON, 1972; BOUMA, 1989; LOOY et al., 2017). PTFs are also available for tropical soils, including those in Brazil (MACEDO, 1991; TOMASELLA et al., 2000; REICHERT et al. 2009; COSTA et al., 2013; SANTOS et al., 2013; SOARES et al., 2014). However, much effort is still needed to accurately predict soil hydraulic properties in the tropics (MINASNY; HARTEMINK, 2011; BOTULA et al., 2014). Accurate use of PTFs depends on their thorough validation under different conditions and in this sense, Macedo et al. (2002) recommended to use their equations for sand, loamy sand, and sandy Received: 05/12/17 Accepted: 15/06/18 178 Assessing pedotransfer… RIBEIRO, B. T. et al. Biosci. J., Uberlândia, v. 34, supplement 1, p. 177-188, Dec. 2018 loam soil samples. We choose PTFs because the soil attributes used in these functions are easily determined, and physical data on Pantanal soils are limited. In this context, this study aimed to estimate FC in distinct soils samples from the Pantanal and Cerrado biomes, using three PTFs equations. MATERIAL AND METHODS This study was carried out using several surface and subsurface horizons of 14 soils from the Cerrado and Pantanal biomes in Brazil, totaling 69 soil samples. The soils were classified and studied during the 2012 Brazilian Meeting of Soil Classification and Correlation, Mato Grosso do Sul state, Brazil (RBCC, 2012) (Table 1). The soil attributes used in this study are shown in Table 2. The original data are available in the Field Handbook for the Soils of Pantanal and Cerrado, Mato Grosso state, Brazil (RBCC, 2012). The volumetric soil moisture at FC was estimated using the three PTFs proposed by Macedo (1991) and Macedo et al. (2002): FC = -0.01C – 0.37S + 1.36OM – 0.02CS + 0.19MC + 42.20 (1) FC = 0.05C – 0.45S + 1.80OM + 49.39 (2) FC = 0.80MC + 2.32 (3) where FC is field capacity (% by volume), C is clay content (%), OM is organic matter content (%), CS is coarse sand (%), and MC is microporosity (%). The estimated FC values obtained by each PTF (1, 2, and 3) were correlated with real soil water contents determined at different potentials (0, 6, 10, 33, 100, 300, and 1500 kPa). The soil water retention curve was built according to Embrapa (2011) using a potential table and Richards’s chamber. The Shapiro-Wilk test was used to check the normality of data. The measured and estimated data were compared using Student’s t-test (for normal data) or Mann-Whitney rank-sum test (for non- normal data). In this study, Student’s t-test (or the Mann-Whitney rank-sum test) compared two data groups (estimated and measured data). These tests assess whether the mean estimated FC values are statistically equal to the mean measured FC values (FABIAN; OTTONI FILHO, 2000). Principal component analysis (PCA) was performed using the software Statistica. PCA was used to identify soil groups according to the analyzed soil attributes (Table 2) and to calculate the predicted soil moisture content using the three PTFs with the remaining soil moisture at different potentials. Table 1. Soil collection selected for this study and classified according to the Brazilian System of Soil Classification (Embrapa, 2013). Soil nº Soil Horizon Layer (cm) 1 Orthic Humiluvic Spodosol Eko 0-6 2 Orthic Humiluvic Spodosol Eko 6-15 3 Orthic Humiluvic Spodosol Eko 45-81 4 Orthic Humiluvic Spodosol Eko 81-103 5 Orthic Humiluvic Spodosol Eko 107-132 6 Orthic Natric Planosol SNo 0-2 7 Orthic Natric Planosol SNo 2-8 8 Orthic Natric Planosol SNo 25-36 9 Orthic Natric Planosol SNo 47-75 10 Orthic Quartzarenic Neosol RQo 0-12 11 Orthic Quartzarenic Neosol RQo 36-58 12 Orthic Quartzarenic Neosol RQo 58-86 13 Orthic Quartzarenic Neosol RQo 131-145 14 Orthic Quartzarenic Neosol RQo 0-12 15 Orthic Quartzarenic Neosol RQo 20-40 16 Orthic Quartzarenic Neosol RQo 40-80 17 Orthic Quartzarenic Neosol RQo 80-125 18 Orthic Quartzarenic Neosol RQo 0-4 19 Orthic Quartzarenic Neosol RQo 4-30 20 Orthic Quartzarenic Neosol RQo 30-60 179 Assessing pedotransfer… RIBEIRO, B. T. et al. Biosci. J., Uberlândia, v. 34, supplement 1, p. 177-188, Dec. 2018 21 Orthic Quartzarenic Neosol RQo 60-103 22 Orthic Quartzarenic Neosol RQo 0-5 23 Orthic Quartzarenic Neosol RQo 24 Orthic Quartzarenic Neosol RQo 56-78 25 Orthic Quartzarenic Neosol RQo 88-107 26 Orthic Quartzarenic Neosol RQo 107-128 27 Orthic Haplic Chernosol MXo 0-10 28 Orthic Haplic Chernosol MXo 10-29 29 Orthic Haplic Chernosol MXo 29-50 30 Orthic Haplic Chernosol MXo 50-72 31 Eutrophic Regolitic Neosol RRe 0-10 32 Eutrophic Regolitic Neosol RRe 33 Eutrophic Regolitic Neosol RRe 28-63 34 Eutrophic Regolitic Neosol RRe 91-125 35 Eutrophic Haplic Gleisol GXve 0-4 36 Eutrophic Haplic Gleisol GXve 37 Eutrophic Haplic Gleisol GXve 18-45 38 Eutrophic Haplic Gleisol GXve 64-91 39 Orthic Haplic Vertisol VXo 0-4 40 Orthic Haplic Vertisol VXo 41 Orthic Haplic Vertisol VXo 16-26 42 Orthic Haplic Vertisol VXo 34-57 43 Saprolitic Carbonatic Haplic Cambisol CXk 0-5 44 Saprolitic Carbonatic Haplic Cambisol CXk 45 Saprolitic Carbonatic Haplic Cambisol CXk 30-55 46 Orthic Quartzarenic Neosol RQo 0-5 47 Orthic Quartzarenic Neosol RQo 9-19 48 Orthic Quartzarenic Neosol RQo 19-53 49 Orthic Quartzarenic Neosol RQo 53-80 50 Eutrophic Haplic Planosol SXe 0-4 51 Eutrophic Haplic Planosol SXe 30-45 52 Eutrophic Haplic Planosol SXe 45-87 53 Petrocalcic Rendzic Chernosol MDlk 0-8 54 Petrocalcic Rendzic Chernosol MDlk 8-24 55 Petrocalcic Rendzic Chernosol MDlk 24-41 56 Petrocalcic Rendzic Chernosol MDlk 41-61 57 Tipic Eutrophic Red Nitosol Nve 61-72 58 Tipic Eutrophic Red Nitosol Nve 10-23 59 Tipic Eutrophic Red Nitosol Nve 23-39 60 Tipic Eutrophic Red Nitosol Nve 39-59 61 Dystroferric Red Latosol LVdf 0-7 62 Dystroferric Red Latosol LVdf 07-14 63 Dystroferric Red Latosol LVdf 29-47 64 Dystroferric Red Latosol LVdf 47-70 65 Quartzarenic Neosol RQ 0-12 66 Quartzarenic Neosol RQ 12-27 67 Quartzarenic Neosol RQ 27-47 68 Quartzarenic Neosol RQ 47-73 69 Quartzarenic Neosol RQ 73-118 Table 2. Soil attributes selected to estimate the field capacity (FC). Nº Clay Sand Organic matter Coarse sand Microporosity -----------------------------------------------------------------%*----------------------------------------------------------------- 1 4 81 1.3 17 36 2 4 90 0.8 23 37 3 4 94 0.1 21 26 4 6 91 0.4 23 21 5 14 82 0.1 18 25 6 6 58 10.1 19 50 180 Assessing pedotransfer… RIBEIRO, B. T. et al. Biosci. J., Uberlândia, v. 34, supplement 1, p. 177-188, Dec. 2018 7 10 60 2.5 20 48 8 6 72 0.1 21 28 9 35 38 0.2 10 38 10 4 93 1.0 29 21 11 4 92 0.2 28 20 12 4 95 0.1 30 20 13 4 95 0.0 30 24 14 4 93 0.8 30 24 15 4 94 0.2 29 22 16 4 94 0.2 29 22 17 4 95 0.1 29 23 18 6 63 3.8 12 30 19 8 82 1.0 16 27 20 10 84 0.5 17 27 21 8 86 0.3 20 32 22 4 91 1.2 13 35 23 4 93 0.5 13 32 24 4 95 0.0 14 26 25 6 88 0.1 12 28 26 6 88 0.0 11 28 27 25 57 2.2 37 33 28 27 56 1.8 37 32 29 25 58 1.0 38 29 30 25 54 0.5 35 29 31 10 73 2.1 63 20 32 10 76 0.8 64 15 33 10 69 0.5 61 14 34 10 80 0.2 63 17 35 38 23 5.7 14 35 36 36 34 2.8 21 28 37 21 50 0.5 32 33 38 23 45 0.2 30 29 39 32 32 5.9 22 31 40 34 39 3.5 21 35 41 40 32 1.9 20 31 42 44 33 0.8 21 37 43 47 11 8.8 7 40 44 55 11 4.1 6 38 45 64 12 1.2 6 38 46 4 84 1.3 13 32 47 4 91 0.3 14 23 48 4 93 0.1 14 21 49 4 92 0.1 16 22 50 12 43 4.1 4 31 51 38 39 0.4 6 29 52 36 44 0.3 8 29 53 17 54 8.5 19 51 54 21 53 6.9 15 45 55 19 58 5.2 19 43 56 11 73 4.4 33 45 57 58 17 3.4 8 31 58 60 16 2.6 9 35 59 66 14 1.9 7 39 60 74 12 1.5 6 41 61 61 16 4.3 7 31 62 63 16 3.6 8 35 63 66 19 2.2 8 40 64 66 20 1.8 8 42 65 10 88 1.0 41 18 66 10 89 0.4 40 15 181 Assessing pedotransfer… RIBEIRO, B. T. et al. Biosci. J., Uberlândia, v. 34, supplement 1, p. 177-188, Dec. 2018 67 12 86 0.3 34 13 68 12 85 0.3 32 14 69 14 85 0.2 32 13 Average 22 63 1.8 22 30 Median 11 72 0.8 20 29 Standard deviation 21 30 2.3 14 9 * % unit was used to respect the original equations (1, 2 and 3). According to International System of Units (SI), for total sand, clay, coarse sand and organic matter 1 % = 10 g kg-1 and for microporosity 1 % = (cm3 cm-3).100 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION PCA identified four soil groups (Figure 1). The soil groups were classified by texture. The first group included soils with a clay content ranging from 6.2% to 35.2%: surface and subsurface samples from Planosols and Chernosols and subsurface samples from Gleisols. The second group included clay soils (clay content ranging from 35.2% to 74.1%): surface and subsurface samples from Gleisols, Vertisols, Cambisols, Nitosols, and Latosols, and subsurface samples from Planosols. The third and fourth groups included sandy soils (clay content of less than 15.0%). The third group was formed by surface and subsurface samples from Spodosols and Orthic Quartzarenic Neosols, and by subsurface samples (depth of 25 to 36 cm) from Orthic Natric Planosols. The fourth group comprised soils with the highest coarse sand content: surface and subsurface samples from Orthic Quartzarenic Neosols, Quartzarenic Neosols, Eutrophic Regolithic Neosol and one subsurface sample (depth of 45 to 81 cm) from Orthic Humiluvic Spodosol. Figure 1. Principal component analysis (PCA 1 and PCA 2) of the studied soils. The dots and numbers represent the soil order. Group 1: 6, 7, 9, 27, 28, 29, 30, 37, 38, 50, 53, 54, 55, and 56. Group 2: 9, 35, 36, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 51, 52, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, and 64. Group 3: 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, and 46. Group 4: 3, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 24, 31, 32, 33, 34, 47, 48, 49, 65, 66, 67, 68, and 69. PCA indicated that FC estimated by PF-1 was closer to soil moisture at 10 KPa and 33 KPa compared with FC estimated by PF-2 and PF-3 (Figure 2). In addition, the results of the Mann- Whitney rank-sum test revealed that there was no statistically significant difference between the FC estimated by PTFs 1, 2, and 3, and the soil moisture remaining at 10 KPa and 33 KPa (except for PTF-1 at 33 KPa). Moreover, there was a negative correlation between sand content (total and coarse) and soil water retention. The clay content was more related to the remaining soil moisture at higher potentials. 182 Assessing pedotransfer… RIBEIRO, B. T. et al. Biosci. J., Uberlândia, v. 34, supplement 1, p. 177-188, Dec. 2018 Figure 2. Principal component analysis (PCA 1 and PCA 2) of the soil attributes and FC estimated by PTFs 1, 2, and 3 (the order is represented by the arrows). Table 2. Mann-Whitney rank-sum test (p-value) comparing field capacity (FC) estimated by PTFs 1, 2, and 3 (MACEDO, 1991) and the soil moisture remaining at different potentials. PF Applied tension (KPa) 0 6 10 33 100 300 1.500 1 < 0.001* 0.003* 0.950ns 0.026* < 0.001* < 0.001* < 0.001* 2 < 0.001* 0.003* 0.392ns 0.204ns < 0.001* < 0.001* < 0.001* 3 < 0.001* < 0.001* 0.714ns 0.134ns 0.002* < 0.001* < 0.001* *statistically significant difference: the difference in the median values between the two groups is higher than would be expected by chance; ns, no statistically significant difference: the difference in the median values between the two groups may be due to random sampling variability. FC values estimated by PTFs 1, 2, and 3 and correlated with the soil water contents measured at different potentials (kPa) are shown in Figures 3, 4, and 5, respectively. The best fit (1:1 regression line) for all PTFs was obtained for estimated FC values and soil moisture at 10 kPa. A potential of 10 kPa or 33 kPa is commonly used to determine the water holding capacity of soils (upper limit of the water content available to plants). Nonetheless, there is not a consensus about the optimal potential to be applied to different soils. For instance, soil water retention at 10 kPa or 33 kPa did not represent the upper water limit available under field conditions for cohesive horizons from Yellow Latosol (AGUIAR NETTO et al., 1999). The PTFs proposed by Macedo (1991) were obtained for sandy surface horizons from Argisols. In this study, the mean and median concentration of sand in the soil collection used was 63% and 72%, respectively (Table 2). These results may help explain the suitability of all tested PTFs to estimate FC (Figures 3, 4, and 5). The tested PFs were also appropriately correlated with the determined FC in situ (FABIAN; OTTONI FILHO, 2000). The predicted FC values allowed estimating the soil water content remaining at the applied potentials. All PTFs were significant (F test) with R2 ranging from 0.42 to 0.83, indicating that the water content remaining at different tensions (from 0 to 1500 KPa) was associated with FC values estimated using the three PTFs. Ghanbarian-Alavijeh and Millán (2010) also found that the water contents at different matric potentials were linearly correlated with each other. 183 Assessing pedotransfer… RIBEIRO, B. T. et al. Biosci. J., Uberlândia, v. 34, supplement 1, p. 177-188, Dec. 2018 Figure 3. Linear regression between field capacity (FC) estimated by PTF-1 and soil moisture measured at different tensions (0, 6, 10, 33, 100, 300, and 1500 KPa). The dotted line represents the 1:1 regression line. *p<0.001 (F test). 184 Assessing pedotransfer… RIBEIRO, B. T. et al. Biosci. J., Uberlândia, v. 34, supplement 1, p. 177-188, Dec. 2018 Figure 4. Linear regression between field capacity (FC) estimated using PTF-2 and soil moisture quantified at different tensions: 0, 6, 10, 33, 100, 300, and 1500(KPa). The dotted line represents the 1:1 regression line. *p<0.001 (F test). 185 Assessing pedotransfer… RIBEIRO, B. T. et al. Biosci. J., Uberlândia, v. 34, supplement 1, p. 177-188, Dec. 2018 Figure 5. Linear regression between field capacity (FC) estimated using PF3 and soil moisture measured at different tensions (KPa): 0, 6, 10, 33, 100, 300, and 1500. The dotted line represents the 1:1 regression line. *p<0.001 (F test). 186 Assessing pedotransfer… RIBEIRO, B. T. et al. Biosci. J., Uberlândia, v. 34, supplement 1, p. 177-188, Dec. 2018 After four soil groups were identified by PCA, PTFs 1, 2, and 3 were reapplied in each soil group to estimate FC at 10 KPa and 33 KPa (Table 3). In group 1, the three PTFs accurately predicted FC at 33 KPa. In group 2, PTF-1 accurately predicted FC at 10 KPa. In group 3, PTF-1 accurately estimated FC at 33 KPa. In group 4, PTFs 1 and 2 appropriately estimated FC at 10 KPa. PTFs 1 and 2 presented a larger variation than PTF- 3 (equations 1 to 3). PTF-3 predicted only microporosity and was suitable for only one condition (group 1 soils at 10 KPa). Table 3. Mann-Whitney rank-sum test (p-value) comparing field capacity (FC) estimated by PTFs 1, 2, and 3 (Macedo, 1991) and the soil moisture content remaining at 10 KPa and 33 KPa for each soil group identified by PCA. Tension (kPa) PF 10 33 10 33 10 33 10 33 Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 1 0.03* 0.77ns 0.133ns 0.002* 0.002* 0.47ns 0.15ns < 0.001* 2 0.009* 0.48ns 0.007* <0.001* < 0.001* 0.04* 0.83ns 0.002* 3 0.05* 0.63ns <0.001* <0.001* 0.02* < 0.001* < 0.001* < 0.001* * statistically significant difference: the difference in the median values between the two groups was higher than would be expected by chance; ns, no statistically significant difference: the difference in the median values between the two groups may be due to random sampling variability. CONCLUSIONS Considering the full dataset, a good 1:1 ratio between estimated field capacity and observed soil water retention at 10 kPa was obtained. Predicted field capacity was statistically similar to measured values. Principal component analysis identified four different soil groups based on texture. After reapplying the pedotransfer functions to each soil group, the difference between predicted and measured values increased. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors gratefully acknowledge the following Brazilian research agencies: Fapemig, Capes and CNPq. Also, we thank CNPq (Process 141595/2018-3) supporting the costs of this publication. RESUMO: Considerando a importância da retenção de água no solo para fins agronômicos e ambientais, objetivou-se com este trabalho avaliar três funções de pedotransferência (FP) para estimativa da capacidade de campo (CC) com base em atributos de solo facilmente determinados. Uma coleção de 17 solos dos biomas Cerrado e Pantanal, incluindo amostras superficiais e subsuperficiais, foram utilizadas. FP 1 considera o conteúdo de argila, matéria orgânica, areia grossa e microporosidade. FP 2 considera argila, areia total e matéria orgânica. A FP 3 leva em consideração apenas microporosidade. Os valores estimados de CC foram correlacionados aos valores de umidade obtidos em diferentes potenciais (0, 6, 10, 33, 100, 300, and 1500 kPa) com o intuito de verificar qual potencial corresponde à CC estimada. Os dados foram submetidos à análise de regressão, ao teste Mann-Whitney rank-sum para comparar valores medidos e estimados e realizada análise de componentes principais (PCA). Considerando todo o conjunto de dados, foi obtida uma forte correlação (R 0.84–0.91; R2 0.71–0.82; RMSE 0.07–0.09) entre CC estimada e a umidade do solo obtida nos potenciais de 10 kPa e 33 kPa. A CC estimada pela FP 3 correlacionou melhor com a retenção de água no potencial de 6 kPa. Quando as FP’s foram reaplicadas em grupos de solos homogêneos (identificados pela PCA), a correlação entre valores estimados e medidos diminuiu. PALAVRAS-CHAVE: Retenção de água no solo. Análise de componentes principais. Umidade do solo. REFERENCES AGUIAR NETTO, A. O.; NACIF, P. G. S.; REZENDE, J. O. Avaliação do conceito de capacidade de campo para um Latossolo Amarelo coeso do Estado da Bahia. Revista Brasileira de Ciência do solo, v. 23, n. 3, p. 661-667, 1999. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-06831999000300020 187 Assessing pedotransfer… RIBEIRO, B. T. et al. Biosci. J., Uberlândia, v. 34, supplement 1, p. 177-188, Dec. 2018 BOTULA, Y. D.; RANST, E. V.; CORNELIS, W. M. Pedotransfer functions to predict water retention for soils of the humid tropics: A review. Revista Brasileira de Ciência do Solo, v. 38, n. 3, p. 679-698, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-06832014000300001 BOUMA, J. Using soil survey data for quantitative land evaluation. In: STEWART, B.A. (Ed.) Advances in Soil Science. New York: Springer Verlag. 1989. v. 9. p. 177-213. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-3532-3_4 COSTA, A.; ALBUQUERQUE, J. A.; ALMEIDA, J. A.; COSTA, A.; LUCIANO, R. V. Pedotransfer functions to estimate retention and availability of water in soils of the State of Santa Catarina, Brazil. Revista Brasileira de Ciência do Solo, v. 37, p. 889-910, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-06832013000600010 https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-06832013000400007 FABIAN, A. J.; OTTONI FILHO, T. B. Determinação de capacidade de campo in situ ou através de equações de regressão. Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira, v. 35, n. 5, p. 1029-1036, 2000. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-204X2000000500022 GHANBARIAN-ALAVIJEH, B.; LIAGHAT, A.; HUANG, G. H.; VAN GENUCHTEN, M.TH. Estimation of the van Genuchten soil water retention properties from soil textural data. Pedosphere, v. 20, n. 4, p. 456-465, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1002-0160(10)60035-5 HARTEMINK, A. E. Soil science in tropical and temperate regions - some differences and similarities. Advances in Agronomy, v. 77, p. 269-292, 2002. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2113(02)77016-8 KLEIN, V. A.; REICHERT, J. M.; REINERT, D. J. Água disponível em um Latossolo Vermelho argiloso e murcha fisiológica de culturas. Revista Brasileira de Engenharia Agrícola e Ambiental, v. 10, p. 646-650, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1415-43662006000300016 MACEDO, J. R. Determinação de retenção hídrica por correlação múltipla e de variabilidade espacial em solos podzólicos de Seropédica, RJ. 1991. 174 f. Dissertação, Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, 1991. https://doi.org/10.1081/CSS-120005747 MACEDO, J. R.; MENEGUELLI, N. A.; OTTONI FILHO, T. B.; LIMA, J. R. S. Estimation of field capacity and moisture retention based on regression analysis involving chemical and physical properties in Alfisols and Ultisols of the state of Rio de Janeiro. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, v. 33, p. 2037-2055, 2002. MINASNY, B.; HARTEMINK, A. E. Predicting soil properties in the tropics. Earth-Science Reviews, v. 106, p. 52-62, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2011.01.005 OKI, T.; KANAE, S. Global hydrological cycles and world water resources. Science, v. 313, n. 5790, p. 1068- 1072, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1128845 PIDGEON, J. D. The measurement and prediction of available water capacity of ferrallitic soils in Uganda. Journal of Soil Science, v. 23, n. 4, p. 431- 441, 1972. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2389.1972.tb01674.x RAWLS, W. J.; PACHEPSKY, Y. A.; RITCHIE, J. C.; SOBECKI, T. M.; BLOODWORTH, H. Effect of soil organic carbon on soil water retention. Geoderma, v. 116, p. 61–76, 2003. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016- 7061(03)00094-6 REICHARDT, K. Capacidade de campo. Revista Brasileira de Ciência do Solo, v. 12, p. 211-216, 1988. REICHERT, J. M.; ALBUQUERQUE, J. A.; KAISER, D. R.; REINERT, D. J.; URACH, F. L.; CARLESSO, R. Estimation of water retention and availability in soils of Rio Grande do Sul. Revista Brasileira de Ciência do Solo, v. 33, n. 6, p. 1547-1560, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-06832009000600004 188 Assessing pedotransfer… RIBEIRO, B. T. et al. Biosci. J., Uberlândia, v. 34, supplement 1, p. 177-188, Dec. 2018 REUNIÃO BRASILEIRA DE CLASSIFICAÇÃO E CORRELAÇÃO DE SOLOS, 10., 2012. Corumbá. Guia de excursão de estudos de solos no Pantanal e Cerrados do estado de Mato Grosso do Sul. Corumbá: Embrapa Pantanal; Rio de Janeiro: Embrapa Solos; Campo Grande: Embrapa Gado de Corte; Viçosa: Sociedade Brasileira de Ciência do Solo; Recife: Ed. da Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco, 2012. 176p. RUIZ, H. A.; FERREIRA, G. B.; PEREIRA, J. B. M. Estimativa da capacidade de campo de Latossolos e Neossolos Quartzarênicos pela determinação do equivalente de umidade. Revista Brasileira de Ciência do Solo, v. 27, p. 389-393, 2003. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-06832003000200019 SANTOS, W. J. R.; CURI, N.; SILVA, S. H. G.; ARAÚJO, E. F.; MARQUES, J. J. Pedotransfer functions for water retention in different soil classes from the center- southern Rio Grande do Sul State. Ciência e Agrotecnologia, v. 37, n. 1, p. 49-60, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1413-70542013000100006 SILVA, B. M.; SILVA, E.É. A.; OLIVEIRA, G. C.; FERREIRA, M. M.; SERAFIM, M. E. Plant-available soil water capacity: Estimation methods and implications. Revista Brasileira de Ciência do Solo, v. 38, n. 1, p. 464–475, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-06832014000200011 SOUZA, L. D.; REICHARDT, K. Estimativas da capacidade de campo. Revista Brasileira de Ciência do Solo, v. 20, n. 2, p. 183-189, 1996. TOLK, J. A. Plant-available Soil Water In: LAL, R. (Ed.). Encyclopedia of Water Science. New York: Marcel Dekker, Ic., 2008. p. 1113-1116. TOMASELLA, J.; HODNETT, M. G.; ROSSATO, L. Pedotransfer functions for the estimation of soil water retention in Brazilian soils. Soil Science Society of American. Journal, v. 64, p. 327-338, 2000. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2000.641327x VEIHMEYER, F. J.; HENDRICKSON, A. H. Methods of measuring field capacity and permanent wilting percentages of soils. Soil Science, v. 68, n. 1, p. 75–94, 1949. https://doi.org/10.1097/00010694-194907000- 00007