% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{Guillaume:1010151,
      author       = {Guillaume, Benjamin and Aroui Boukbida, Hanane and Bakker,
                      Gerben and Bieganowski, Andrzej and Brostaux, Yves and
                      Cornelis, Wim and Durner, Wolfgang and Hartmann, Christian
                      and Iversen, Bo V. and Javaux, Mathieu and Ingwersen,
                      Joachim and Lamorski, Krzysztof and Lamparter, Axel and
                      Makó, András and Mingot Soriano, Ana María and Messing,
                      Ingmar and Nemes, Attila and Pomes-Bordedebat, Alexandre and
                      van der Ploeg, Martine and Weber, Tobias Karl David and
                      Weihermüller, Lutz and Wellens, Joost and Degré, Aurore},
      title        = {{R}eproducibility of the wet part of the soil water
                      retention curve: a {E}uropean interlaboratory comparison},
      journal      = {Soil},
      volume       = {9},
      number       = {1},
      issn         = {2199-3971},
      address      = {Göttingen},
      publisher    = {Copernicus Publ.},
      reportid     = {FZJ-2023-02979},
      pages        = {365 - 379},
      year         = {2023},
      abstract     = {The soil water retention curve (SWRC) is a key soil
                      property required for predicting basic hydrological
                      processes. The SWRC is often obtained in the laboratory with
                      non-harmonized methods. Moreover, procedures associated with
                      each method are not standardized. This can induce a lack of
                      reproducibility between laboratories using different methods
                      and procedures or using the same methods with different
                      procedures. The goal of this study was to estimate the
                      inter- and intralaboratory variability of the measurement of
                      the wet part (from 10 to 300 hPa) of the SWRC. An
                      interlaboratory comparison was carried out between 14
                      laboratories, using artificially constructed, porous
                      reference samples that were transferred between laboratories
                      according to a statistical design. The retention
                      measurements were modelled by a series of linear mixed
                      models using a Bayesian approach. This allowed the detection
                      of sample-to-sample variability, interlaboratory
                      variability, intralaboratory variability and the effects of
                      sample changes between measurements. The greatest portion of
                      the differences in the measurement of SWRCs was due to
                      interlaboratory variability. The intralaboratory variability
                      was highly variable depending on the laboratory. Some
                      laboratories successfully reproduced the same SWRC on the
                      same sample, while others did not. The mean intralaboratory
                      variability over all laboratories was smaller than the mean
                      interlaboratory variability. A possible explanation for
                      these results is that all laboratories used slightly
                      different methods and procedures. We believe that this
                      result may be of great importance regarding the quality of
                      SWRC databases built by pooling SWRCs obtained in different
                      laboratories. The quality of pedotransfer functions or maps
                      that might be derived is probably hampered by this inter-
                      and intralaboratory variability. The way forward is that
                      measurement procedures of the SWRC need to be harmonized and
                      standardized.},
      cin          = {IBG-3},
      ddc          = {550},
      cid          = {I:(DE-Juel1)IBG-3-20101118},
      pnm          = {2173 - Agro-biogeosystems: controls, feedbacks and impact
                      (POF4-217)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-2173},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      UT           = {WOS:001021655700001},
      doi          = {10.5194/soil-9-365-2023},
      url          = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/1010151},
}