Figure Captions
Figure 1: Overview of the used soil textures for the 12 USDA
soil classes. Red points indicate mean texture for each soil class.
Figure 2: Schematic sketch of the seven different scenarios
used for the modelling study with increasing model complexity from left
to right.
Figure 3: Retention (left) and hydraulic conductivity curves
right) for the for the USDA sand class for the 13 PTF (Parameters listed
in Annex Tab. 1 and 2). Note that y-axis for the hydraulic conductivity
is in log-scale.
Figure 4: a) simulated cumulative actual evaporationEa [cm] over the simulation period of 10988
days (30 years) for a bare soil with a homogeneous loamy sand soil
texture. b) and a bare soil with a homogeneous clay loam soil texture.
Light and dark grey shaded area represent the 70 and 90 % tolerance
interval, respectively
Figure 5: Absolute and b) relative number of outliers for
simulated Ea or ETa attend (10988 days) for the 13 pedotransfer
functions over all 12 USDA soil classes (11 for Clapp&Hornberger ) and
the homogeneous bare soil scenario.
Figure 6: a) Absolute and b) relative number of outliers for
simulated Ea or ETa attend (10988 days) for the 13 pedotransfer
functions over all USDA soil classes and scenario depict in Fig. 2.
Dotted lines represent a threshold of 10 and 20 % outliers, separating
robust (<10 %), intermediate (10-20%), and non-robust
(>20%) pedotransfer functions.
Figure 7: Boxplots of relative difference in % from model
ensemble mean (MEM) of simulated actual evapotranspiration,ETa , at tend = 10988 for
the homogeneous soil profiles either with bare soil
(Ea only) or vegetated with grass or wheat. Red
line indicates the median, box the 25 and 75 percentile, whiskers the
most extreme data points not considered as outliers, and stars the
outliers.
Figure 8: Actual evaporation [cm day-1]
for the sandy loam for the homogeneous bare soil scenario and all 12
pedotransfer functions with outliers exceeding the 90 % tolerance
interval.
Figure 9: a) boxplots of log10Ks for all PTFs, b) λ for the MvG formulation,
with indication of significant differences. For significance: A differs
from all other PTFs if no A is indicated, B, C, and D differ between
single PTFs). Boxes are the same as for Fig. 7.
Figure 10: Boxplots for a) LG , b)LC , and c) log10 MFP , for
all PTFs. Boxes and indication of significant differences are the same
as for Fig. 7.
Figure 11: Boxplots for a) S b) log10tgrav for all PTFs and c) log10τFC for all PTFs. Boxes and indication of
significant differences are the same as for Fig. 7.
Figure 12: Scatterplots of the different soil characteristics
gravitational length LG , characteristic length of
evaporation LC , matrix flux potential MFP ,
sorptivity S , characteristic time tgrav ,
elapsed time for the attainment of field capacitytFC , characteristic time for the attainment of
field capacity τFC , versusEa at tend for the
homogeneous bare soil scenario as well as τFCversus tFC .
Figure 13: Trioplot of the principle component analysis for
soil parameters, soil characteristics, and fluxes both available for MvG
and BC. Note, that only the combination of soil parameters, soil
characteristics and converged model runs were used.
Figure 14: Predicted Ea attend [cm] by multiple regression of soil
characteristics log10 (LG ),
log10 (LC ), and
log10 (S ) versus simulatedEa at tend [cm].