@article{fdi:010088207,
  title = {{R}eproducibility of the wet part of the soil water retention curve : a {E}uropean interlaboratory comparison},
  author = {{G}uillaume, {B}. and {A}roui {B}oukbida, {H}anane and {B}akker, {G}. and {B}ieganowski, {A}. and {B}rostaux, {Y}. and {C}ornelis, {W}. and {D}urner, {W}. and {H}artmann, {C}hristian and {I}versen, {B}. {V}. and {J}avaux, {M}. and {I}ngwersen, {J}. and {L}amorski, {K}. and {L}amparter, {A}. and {M}ako, {A}. and {S}oriano, {A}. {M}. {M}. and {M}essing, {I}. and {N}emes, {A}. and {P}omes-{B}ordedebat, {A}. and van der {P}loeg, {M}. and {W}eber, {T}. {K}. {D}. and {W}eihermuller, {L}. and {W}ellens, {J}. and {D}egre, {A}.},
  editor = {},
  language = {{ENG}},
  abstract = {{T}he soil water retention curve ({SWRC}) is a key soil property required for predicting basic hydrological processes. {T}he {SWRC} is often obtained in the laboratory with non-harmonized methods. {M}oreover, procedures associated with each method are not standardized. {T}his can induce a lack of reproducibility between laboratories using different methods and procedures or using the same methods with different procedures. {T}he goal of this study was to estimate the inter- and intralaboratory variability of the measurement of the wet part (from 10 to 300 h{P}a) of the {SWRC}. {A}n interlaboratory comparison was carried out between 14 laboratories, using artificially constructed, porous reference samples that were transferred between laboratories according to a statistical design. {T}he retention measurements were modelled by a series of linear mixed models using a {B}ayesian approach. {T}his allowed the detection of sample-to-sample variability, interlaboratory variability, intralaboratory variability and the effects of sample changes between measurements. {T}he greatest portion of the differences in the measurement of {SWRC}s was due to interlaboratory variability. {T}he intralaboratory variability was highly variable depending on the laboratory. {S}ome laboratories successfully reproduced the same {SWRC} on the same sample, while others did not. {T}he 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. {W}e believe that this result may be of great importance regarding the quality of {SWRC} databases built by pooling {SWRC}s obtained in different laboratories. {T}he quality of pedotransfer functions or maps that might be derived is probably hampered by this inter- and intralaboratory variability. {T}he way forward is that measurement procedures of the {SWRC} need to be harmonized and standardized.},
  keywords = {},
  booktitle = {},
  journal = {{S}oil},
  volume = {9},
  numero = {1},
  pages = {365--379},
  ISSN = {2199-3971},
  year = {2023},
  DOI = {10.5194/soil-9-365-2023},
  URL = {https://www.documentation.ird.fr/hor/fdi:010088207},
}