Search

The two-term infiltration equation (Formula presented.) is commonly used to determine the sorptivity, (Formula presented.) (Formula presented.), and product, (Formula presented.) (Formula presented.), of the dimensionless multiple (Formula presented.) and saturated soil hydraulic conductivity (Formula presented.) (Formula presented.) from cumulative vertical infiltration measurements (Formula presented.) (L) at times (Formula presented.) (T). This reduced form of the quasi-analytical power series solution of Richardson's equation of Philip enjoys a solid physical underpinning but at the expense of a limited time validity. Using simulated infiltration data, Jaiswal et al. have shown this time validity to equal about 2.5 cm of cumulative infiltration. The goals of this work are twofold. First, we investigate the extent to which cumulative infiltration measurements larger than 2.5 cm bias the estimates of (Formula presented.) and (Formula presented.). Second, we investigate the impact of epistemic errors on the inferred time validities and parameters. Partial infiltration curves up to 2.5 cm of cumulative vertical infiltration improve substantially the agreement between actual and least squares estimates of (Formula presented.) and (Formula presented.). But this only holds if the data generating infiltration process follows Richardson's equation and experimental conditions satisfy assumptions of soil homogeneity and a uniform initial water content. Otherwise, autocorrelated cumulative infiltration residuals will bias the least squares estimates of (Formula presented.) and (Formula presented.). Our findings reiterate and reinvigorate earlier conclusions of Haverkamp et al. and show that epistemic errors deteriorate the physical significance of the coefficients of infiltration functions. As a result, the parameters of infiltration functions cannot simply be used in storm water and vadose zone flow models to forecast runoff and recharge at field and landscape scales unless these predictions are accompanied by realistic uncertainty bounds. We conclude that the time validity of Philip's two-term equation is an elusive theoretical quantity with arbitrary physical meaning.

This comment challenges Gao et al. (2023)'s perspective rejecting the role of soil processes in hydrology. We argue that the authors present a false dichotomy between soil-centric and ecosystem-centric views. These two views of hydrology are complementary and reflect on the inherent multiscale complexity of hydrology where soil processes dominate at certain scales but other processes may become important at catchment scale. We recognize the need for a new scale aware framework that reconciles the interplay between soil processes at small scales with emergent behaviors driven by vegetation, topography and climate at large scales. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]