Next Article in Journal
Detection of Apple Trees in Orchard Using Monocular Camera
Previous Article in Journal
Livelihood Capital, Speculative Preferences, and Natural Rubber Farmers’ Participation in Cooperatives
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agriculture
Volume 15
Issue 5
10.3390/agriculture15050563
agriculture-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Quantification of Soil Water Retention Capacity in the Protected Water Management Area Žitný Ostrov (Slovakia)

by
Zdena Krnáčová
1,
Mária Barančoková
1,* and
Martin Labuda
2
1
Institute of Landscape Ecology, Slovak Academy of Sciences, 81499 Bratislava, Slovakia
2
Department of Environmental Ecology and Landscape Management, Comenius University, 84104 Bratislava, Slovakia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agriculture 2025, 15(5), 563; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15050563
Submission received: 27 January 2025 / Revised: 28 February 2025 / Accepted: 5 March 2025 / Published: 6 March 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Agricultural Water Management)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Water is a crucial resource in agriculture, but climate change has led to more frequent droughts, particularly at the start of the growing season, adversely affecting crop yields. This paper evaluates soil water retention capacity (SWRC) in the Protected Water Management Area Žitný ostrov, which is home to Slovakia’s most fertile soils and significant groundwater reserves. In our study, we adopted a new methodological approach and developed an algorithm for weighting selected physical parameters from the valued soil-ecological units (VSEUs) database, applicable to larger territorial units. To estimate SWRC, we used an algorithm based on the physical parameters of VSEUs, reclassifying them into 10 categories of cumulative water retention capacity (CWRC) and mapping SWRC in the model area. Most of the area demonstrates high water retention due to groundwater, but these sources are being increasingly depleted. Agriculture, as a significant contributor to groundwater pollution, must adapt to climate change by implementing crop management practices that reduce agrochemical seepage and preserve water supply. Regenerative agriculture and agroforestry, which enhance soil properties, are proposed as viable solutions. Additionally, infrastructure such as dams, ponds, and rainwater harvesting systems, along with the expansion of wetlands, can help capture and store water in areas with lower retention capacity. This study aims to identify critical zones with varying retention capacities and recommends crop rotation adjustments to prevent agrochemical seepage and enhance water retention. These practices are essential for sustaining agriculture while protecting water resources amidst global climate challenges.

1. Introduction

Soil ecosystem services are diverse and essential yet often undervalued. These services are classified as provisioning, regulatory, supporting, and cultural services. Soils, as part of natural capital, provide ecosystem services extending beyond agricultural production. Without services such as clean water supply and flood protection, essential ecosystem functions would not be possible [1]. Despite their significance, the scope and importance of soil ecosystem services remain insufficiently understood [2].
Various approaches exist to assess soil ecosystem services. Some rely on precise field measurements and mathematical modeling [3,4,5], while others use existing data refined through expert analysis. A detailed understanding of these services is crucial for optimizing agricultural management. The spatial distribution of soil physical-chemical properties is fundamental for sustainable agricultural planning [6].
Organic farming systems tend to have an advantage in soil water retention and infiltration, contributing to yield stability during droughts [7]. Ecological intensification involves integrating ecosystem service regulation and support into agricultural processes [8]. This approach is particularly relevant for vulnerable regions like Žitný ostrov, which features productive Chernozems, Luvisols, and Fluvisols, along with the largest groundwater reserves in Central Europe. However, agricultural intensification has led to ecological instability, affecting groundwater quality through the loss of natural vegetation, wetland modifications, and land conversion.
Agricultural landscapes serve more than just phytomass production; they shape the environment and influence human settlements. Poor land management can cause soil degradation, erosion, and negatively impact natural resources [9,10,11,12,13,14]. Mati et al. [15,16] highlighted a connection between evapotranspiration and soil water reserves, emphasizing the risk of soil drought in Slovakia’s lowlands. These findings stress the need to optimize soil water management.
Hydraulic properties are essential for irrigation, drainage, and predicting water balance, directly influencing crop productivity. Weather conditions remain a critical factor in crop production. In areas without groundwater influence, precipitation is the sole water source, and climate projections suggest increasing aridity. The southern Podunajská nížina lowland is expected to transition from a humid to a dry sub-humid climate [17]. Factors such as altitude, topography, and soil hydro-physical properties determine water availability for plants. Soil aggregate stability is another crucial indicator, affecting aeration, root growth, water retention, erosion resistance, and carbon sequestration [18,19,20,21]. Studies in Southern Asia indicate that maintaining stable soil aggregates over years of sustainable management improves soil organic carbon content and structure.
Agroforestry, which integrates trees with crops and livestock, can positively affect soil water balance by reducing soil bulk density [22,23,24]. In Slovakia, soil monitoring is conducted by the Soil Science and Conservation Research Institute NPPC, the National Forest Centre—Forestry Research Institute in Zvolen, and the Central Control and Testing Institute in Agriculture.
Based on CWRC assessment, this study aims to delineate critical zones prone to agrochemical leaching, optimize land use, and restore landscape stability in Žitný ostrov. The region, with its vast groundwater reserves, requires sustainable land management to preserve water quality. Monitoring groundwater quality, a key indicator of sustainable farming, follows Government Regulation No. 617/2004 Coll.
The primary objective of this study is to evaluate and quantify the water retention capacity of soils, a crucial ecosystem service, within the highly vulnerable area of Žitný ostrov. This region faces significant environmental challenges due to agricultural intensification, which has led to considerable declines in biodiversity and ecological integrity. This study’s priority is to preserve and restore groundwater quality, as it forms the largest water reserves in Central Europe and is vital for regional sustainability. To achieve this, we analyzed the physical parameters of VSEU (soil depth, granularity, and skeletal content) to estimate a cumulative index of soil retention capacity. The VSEU, which represents quasi-homogeneous and well-defined spatial units, allowed for precise classification of field water capacity (FWC in mm), following the methodology outlined by Vilček [25]. By transforming the cumulative VSEU index into a digital framework, we created a map layer depicting soil water retention capacity across the model area.
Based on these findings, we proposed sustainable organic crop cultivation systems that avoid agrochemical use, along with practical measures to capture and manage runoff water. Furthermore, using an algorithm that integrates weighted physical data, we identified critical zones of contaminant seepage and recommended comprehensive measures to restore ecosystem stability and enhance the region’s ecological resilience.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

Our study area encompasses the Protected Water Management Area of Žitný ostrov (PWMA Žitný ostrov), one of the ten protected water management areas in the Slovak Republic. It is important to note that the PWMA Žitný ostrov does not correspond exactly to the geographical area of Žitný ostrov, which is situated between the main course of the Danube (currently its old channel) and the course of the Little Danube.
The area is located in the southwestern part of western Slovakia, primarily covering the district of Dunajská Streda. It extends partially into the districts of Galanta to the north and into the districts of Bratislava and Senec to the northwest. It is bounded by the Danube River to the south and includes 164 municipalities and cadastral territories (Figure 1).
The total monitored area spans 1200.63 km2 (coordinates 48°02′ N 17°29′ E), representing 2.45% of Slovakia’s total land area. Agriculture is the dominant land use, covering nearly 78% (928.56 km2) of the area. Urbanized and industrial areas make up almost 9%, while forests account for 7%, and water resources also cover 6%. The largest cities in the region are Komárno, Dunajská Streda, and Šamorín, while the peripheral parts of Bratislava (Vrakuňa and Podunajské Biskupice) are also included. The major industry in the area is the Slovnaft refinery. From 1977 to 1992, the Gabčíkovo Hydroelectric Dam was constructed within this monitored area, intended to provide flood protection, improve water navigation, supply drinking water, and generate electricity.
The Žitný ostrov PWMA is situated within the Alpine-Himalayan system in the Pannonian Basin sub-system, specifically within the West Pannonian Basin province. It is part of the Malá Dunajská kotlina basin sub-province, located within the Podunajská nížina lowland region and the Podunajská rovina plain [26]. The Podunajská rovina plain can be divided into two sub-regions based on hydrological and morphological criteria.
The first, larger sub-region covers the eastern part of the Podunajská rovina plain, where soils have developed under the influence of groundwater and floodwaters. The prevalent soil types are various subtypes of Mollic Fluvisols, which, in some areas, transition into Haplic Chernozems. In the lower sections of the alluvial plain, between aggradational ridges where groundwater is nearer to the surface, Mollic Gleysols are present. In areas on the margins of these ridges, where groundwater is slightly deeper, Eutric Mollic Fluvisols occur. The crests of aggradational ridges, where groundwater is the deepest, are characterized by Mollic Fluvisols and Mollic Fluvisols calcaric. Along the rivers in the floodplains, broad strips of Eutric Fluvisols calcaric are found. The central area of Veľký Žitný ostrov, situated between Bratislava and Dunajská Streda, is covered by Chernozems calcaric and Haplic Chernozems. The remaining part of Veľký Žitný ostrov consists of Mollic Fluvisols calcaric with patches of Mollic Gleysols. Patches of Aerosols Calcaric are found on wind-blown sands. Between Zlatná na Ostrove and Moča, there are patches of Solonetz, Solonchaks, and Mollic Solonchaks.
The second sub-region is located in the western part of Žitný ostrov, where the Podunajská rovina plain is slightly elevated, and groundwater has not influenced the soils for an extended period. Here, Chernozems calcaric are found, not on loess but on calcareous alluvial deposits with nearby gravel substrates. Occasionally, Mollic Fluvisols calcaric and Mollic Gleysols are present. Along the Danube River and the Little Danube, Eutric Fluvisols calcaric and Eutric Haplic Gleysols can be found.
The territory is mostly represented by Chernozems (Haplic Chernozems and Chernic Chernozems). They occupy 41% of the monitored area. Chernozems are a soil type with a dark humus horizon occurring on loess, on older alluvial sediments where flooding has not occurred for a very long time, and, in some areas, also on loess clays. The second most widespread soil type is Fluvisols (Gleyic Fluvisols, Eutric Fluvisols, and Calcaric Fluvisols). These soils cover almost 22% of the area. Fluvisols (alluvial soils) are a soil type that occurs only on the floodplains of watercourses that are, or until recently were, affected by flooding and significant fluctuations in the water table. They have a light humus horizon. Another soil type, which covers 13% of the area, is Chernozems. In the territory, they occur in the Chernic Chernozems and Mollic Fluvisols subtypes. These soils are characterized by a dark humus horizon, occurring mainly in the floodplains of watercourses, less so on uplands in places affected by higher groundwater levels. The other soil units are only 2% represented. These are Lithic Leptosols, Skeletal Leptosols, Haplic Histosols, and Anthropis Regosols (Figure 2).
The maximum altitude in the monitored area is 128.6 m a.s.l. (Štvrtok na Ostrove), while the minimum is 108.5 m a.s.l. (Veľký Meder). The surrounding area is characterized by fluvial relief and horizontal to sub-horizontal sedimentary structures. It lies within the alluvial floodplain of the Danube and the Little Danube, on a gently undulating plain with an average slope ranging from 0‰ to 0.4° [27].
According to the climatic classification of [28], the Žitný ostrov region is classified as warm, dry to very dry, with mild winters. The long-term average annual air temperature exceeds 10 °C. The warmest month of the year is July, with an average monthly temperature around 21.0 °C. The coldest month is January, with an average monthly temperature just below freezing. The long-term average annual precipitation ranges from 511 to 580 mm. The highest monthly precipitation values typically range from 60 mm to 70 mm, while the lowest values are between 25 mm and 35 mm. One of the most important characteristics of soil is its ability to retain water within its profile. This capacity, known as soil water retention, is primarily influenced by the physical properties of the soil, which are determined by factors such as soil subtype, structure, and granularity. The soil’s water storage capacity and infiltration rate play a key role in the environment’s resistance to surface runoff or water stagnation, particularly during intense or torrential rainfall events.

2.2. Methodology

Soil water retention capacity is commonly expressed through hydro-limits of field water capacity (FWC). Field water capacity refers to the amount of water held in the soil between gravitational and capillary forces and is represented by a pressure of 2.0–2.9 pF [29]. Soil hydro-limits can be defined as FWC, the point of reduced availability for plants (PRA), and the wilting point (WP), which are typically expressed in volumetric units or in millimeters of water column in the soil profile.
Because directly measuring hydrological soil capacities is challenging, pedotransfer functions (PTFs), which statistically estimate these properties, are commonly used for indirect assessment [30]. The apparent correlation between volumetric water content (Θh), saturated hydraulic conductivity (K(h2)), and the content of individual soil granularity fractions has led to the development of an empirical model, known as a pedotransfer function (PTF). This model correlates easily measured soil characteristics (e.g., granularity, soil bulk density, organic matter content) with hydro-physical soil properties [31,32,33,34,35,36].
The pedotransfer function assumes, supported by direct pF measurements, that the higher the clay content in the soil relative to the dust and sand fractions, the greater the water storage capacity and, consequently, the higher the water retention capacity. A similar relationship holds for soil depth: the deeper the soil, the more water it can store in its profile. Field water capacity (FWC) with pF values between 2.5 and 3.0 represents the maximum soil moisture retained in the soil profile over an extended period for specific horizons [37]. Electrical resistivity tomography (ERT), a geophysical method, is also being used to investigate soil physical properties, including soil water capacity. This method allows for more accurate determination of soil water retention [38]. By using Res2dinv (x32 ver. 3.71.118) software, the resistivity image of the soil can be reconstructed into soil sections [39]. Correct interpretation of these images provides more accurate information about soil properties, particularly concerning soil water content and its movement.
In this study, we relied on the parameters of the soil-ecological unit (VSEU), which provides detailed ecological characterization of soil subtypes. The VSEU represents quasi-homogeneous, well-defined spatial units. Each VSEU is identified by a seven-digit code that encapsulates its soil climatic properties through a series of codes representing specific characteristics at fixed locations (Figure 3).
In this paper, the cumulative water retention capacity of soils (CWRC) was evaluated using the methodologies outlined by [35,41]. The evaluation was based on the parameters of the Soil-Ecological Unit (VSEU) [42], which encompass all the fundamental physical soil properties.
This procedure can be expressed in the following logistic form:
C W R C   s o i l s = C Q S U 1 − 100 − C S C 1 − 3 × C G S 1 − 5 × C S D 1 − 3 ,
where
  • CWRC soils—Coefficient of soil water retention capacity;
  • CQSU—Category quality of soil unit in SEU database;
  • CSC—Category of soil skeleton content (skeleton content in %);
  • CGS—Category of soil granularity (clay content in %);
  • CSD—Category of the soil depth.
The productivity (quality) category of soils was assessed according to [43], where the productivity index (IP) was calculated for individual soil subtypes, yielding values ranging from 1 to 100 for the study area. The soils in the model area exhibited a wide range of quality, from shallow Lithosols (Leptosols, shallow, loamy-sandy, strongly skeletal) to deep carbonate Chernozems (Chernozems calcaric and Mollic Fluvisols, deep, without skeleton). The skeletal content values were incorporated, with higher skeletal content reducing the CWRC value and vice versa.
The most significant factors influencing the CWRC value were soil grain size and the depth of the soil profile. These values were multiplied by the resulting soil quality values. The range of the calculated values spanned from 1 to 112 points. The intervals of CWRC values, as calculated by the algorithm, are shown in Table 1, which were further categorized into 10 groups (Table 2). The VSEU code also includes data on slope and exposure, but we did not evaluate these factors because the model area is flat. As a result, different VSEU codes with similar characteristics were assigned the same description for the assessed attributes. The innovation of our methodology lies in the development of an algorithm to quantify CWRC using readily available physical parameters from the VSEUs.
The output is the CWRC soil index, which allows for the review of all major mapping soil units in relation to classified soil-ecological units in the Slovak Republic.
To evaluate the potential of soils to retain water, we selected a categorization based on water supply derived from field water capacity (FWC) (in mm). This categorization is based on the study by [41], where FWC values (cm3 × cm3) were aggregated by granular categories of the digital layer of classified soil-ecological units, according to individual soil-ecological regions. Thus, during the evaluation of soil retention capacity, the spatial distribution of granularity was also considered. Subsequently, the values were recalculated according to the categorization of classified soil-ecological units, considering soil depth and the potential for water accumulation, expressed as mm of the water column (examples are provided later for the case study areas).
The diversity of geological and hydrological conditions in the area, along with the predominant climatic and vegetation factors, also significantly influenced the soil cover and its characteristics.
According to the algorithm outlined in [44], the range of intervals for the individual categories of the CWRC soil index was divided into 10 categories, as shown in Table 2.
By linking the categories of cumulative CWRC soils to the vector database of VSEUs, we were able to create a spatial map of soil water retention capacity in the model area.
The selected provisioning environmental soil function we evaluated is soil water retention capacity (SWRC) [35]. This function is one of the most significant and extensively researched, as it can be measured directly or derived through modeling. We acknowledge that there are numerous other equally important functions that were not included in our analysis. This limitation assumes, which is also confirmed by direct measurements of pF values, that the higher the clay fraction in the soil compared to the silt and especially the sand fraction, the higher the water storage capacity and, consequently, the greater the water retention capacity. A similar relationship applies to soil depth: the deeper the soil, the more water can be stored in its profile [41]. Further research, involving the standardization of methodological approaches, could address the evaluation of these other functions.
We used the soil information system of valued soil-ecological units (VSEUs), managed by the Soil Science and Conservation Research Institute NPPC in Bratislava, as the foundation for evaluating supporting soil ecosystem services [42]. In total, there were 3000 individual VSEU units (many of which were repeated) in the area of interest. After eliminating repetitive units, we evaluated 77 unique units and, based on similarity parameters, identified 11 distinct soil subtypes (Figure 3).
The database was converted into the universal vector format DXF and into a format compatible with the GIS program environment: ARC/INFO. This makes it usable with all types of GIS that support the DXF format.
Table 1 presents an example of soil water retention capacity evaluation using CWRC (derived from the output physical data of VSEU) across 10 categories. Taking into account soil depth, granularity, and skeletal content, the CWRC values were reclassified from 10 categories into five levels of field water capacity (FWC, measured in mm of water column) based on the methodology of Vilček [25] (Table 3).

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Spatial Distribution of Cumulative CWRC Soil Categories

The spatial distribution of cumulative CWRC soil categories, projected into the vector database of VSEU polygons, is depicted in Figure 4 and Figure 5, along with a graphical representation of the area sizes for individual categories. The analysis reveals that categories 10, 9, and 8, which exhibit very high field water capacity, cover an extensive area of 61,669.82 ha, representing 66% of the territory. These soils consist primarily of cultivated Fluvisols, Chernozems, and Mollic Fluvisols, characterized by deep clayey to clayey-loamy textures with minimal or no skeletal content. The field water capacity (FWC) for these soils exceeds 400 mm of water column.
Soils in category 7, classified as having high field water capacity, extend across 2936.87 ha, accounting for 3% of the area. These soils are moderately deep, clayey-loamy with a moderate skeletal content, and their FWC ranges between 300 and 400 mm. Meanwhile, categories 6, 5, and 4, which are classified as having medium field water capacity, collectively cover 24,642.79 ha or 27% of the total territory. These soils exhibit sandy-loamy textures with varying depths and higher skeletal content, with an FWC ranging from 200 to 300 mm.
Category 3, identified as having low field water capacity, is found over an area of 3578.26 ha. These soils are moderately shallow to shallow, predominantly sandy with increased skeletal content, and possess an FWC between 100 and 200 mm. Finally, categories 2 and 1, which represent soils with very low field water capacity, consist of predominantly shallow sandy soils with high permeability. These soils are distributed across just 28.26 ha, with an FWC of less than 100 mm. The results underscore the varying water retention capacities of different soil types across the study region, providing valuable insights for land management and agricultural planning.
The majority of soils in the Protected Water Management Area of Žitný ostrov exhibit favorable hydro-physical properties, significantly influencing their water retention capacity across the region. The map representation of FWC categories, expressed in millimeters of water column, is shown in Figure 6.

3.2. Systematic Monitoring of Soil Water Limits and Retention Capacity

Systematic monitoring in the past was primarily conducted in the Protected Water Management Area of Žitný ostrov and the Východoslovenská nížina lowland, where selected values of the hydro-limit of field water capacity (FWC) and the point of reduced availability of water for plants (PRA) were reported. Representative monitored plots in the Protected Water Management Area of Žitný ostrov were chosen by The Soil Science and Conservation Research Institute to reflect and characterize the potential impacts of various structures of the hydroelectric power plant on the area. These locations included Zlatná na Ostrove (sandy soils), Trstená (medium-heavy soils), Kľúčovec (heavy soils), and Kráľova lúka (clay to loam soils). The thickness of the soil profile was also considered, with measurements taken from soil profiles 100 cm deep. Monthly averages for Zlatná na Ostrove showed that the hydro-limit FWC was 273.1 mm of water column. In Trstená, the hydro-limit FWC was 320.1 mm, and in Kľúčovec, it reached 347.4 mm of water column in the soil. At Kráľova lúka, the FWC was 427.7 mm of water column. The type of soil was the primary factor considered [45].
Some authors [12,37,44] worked on evaluating water reserves in soil using hydro-limits for the soils of the Východoslovenská nížina lowland. In this area, the hydro-limit PRA (the point of reduced availability of water for plants) was monitored. In the conditions of the Východoslovenská nížina lowland, a significant positive value for the average reserve of readily available soil water (above the level of reduced available water content) was recorded only in light sandy-loam Fluvisol. In moderately heavy clayey-loamy Luvisol and heavy clayey-loamy Gleyic Fluvisol, the average soil water reserve was below the available water content level, resulting in negative values for readily available soil water.
We identified areas with moderate and low soil water retention capacity (almost one-third of the area) by mapping the values of soil retention capacity. For these areas, measures for capturing runoff rainwater are necessary, some of which are discussed below.
Our results are also comparable with other authors. For example, Jabro et al. [46] evaluated FWC on sandy loam and clay loam soils, and their FWC results were 228 mm and 344 mm, respectively. Their work was based on an evaluation of the soil retention curve (using sensor technology), which was obtained from measurements of volumetric moisture content and moisture potential. Walczak et al. [47] analyzed FWC on different soil units, taking into account soil grain size, rock type, humus content, and total soil content. Sandy soils were 100–200 mm, and clay soils were 300–500 mm, which is also comparable to our results. Rehák et al. [45] investigated the water content in the aeration zone of the soil (100 cm) by two computational methods and direct monitoring. They based their results on the volumetric moisture content of different soil types and their proportion in the total area of Žitný ostrov. They calculated 273.1 mm for light soils, 320.3 mm for medium soils, 347.4 mm for heavy soils, and 427.7 mm for very heavy soils. Balkovič et al. [48] focused on the water-holding capacity in different pedo-ecological regions of Slovakia and evaluated the FWC at 260 mm.

3.3. Sustainable Landscape Management: Restoring Biodiversity and Stability Through Ecological Practices and Crop Rotation

Currently, the study area is predominantly managed through conventional practices, such as the use of agrochemicals and the destruction of wetlands, resulting in reduced biodiversity and landscape stability. The intensification of crop production, particularly during the 20th century, has exacerbated these issues. To address these challenges, we propose measures to restore the landscape’s stability and sustainability.
Some relevant and suitable sustainable practices include ecological land management systems, multifunctional agriculture, and regenerative agriculture. In the agroclimatic conditions of the Protected Water Management Area of Žitný ostrov, effective use of green manure—cover crops grown for direct incorporation into the soil—is an appropriate method for improving soil structure. Green manure plants can be cultivated as main crops (e.g., clover, grass, alfalfa), cover crops, catch crops (e.g., rye, rapeseed), non-overwintering catch crops (e.g., white mustard), or under-seeding and cover crops (e.g., Trifolium subterraneum).
To implement alternative (sustainable) farming systems, soil tillage techniques can be employed that substitute traditional moldboard plowing with shallow tillage using rotary or chisel plows, leaving crop residue on the surface or incorporating it into the topsoil [49]. Biological pest control plays a crucial role in sustainable systems, where natural predators of harmful pests are used, creating favorable conditions for these predators through biocorridors, groves, nesting sites, and small water bodies. An innovative and promising approach involves the artificial synthesis of substances for intra- or inter-species communication, such as juvenoids and pheromones, which are used in visual, olfactory, and acoustic traps or for monitoring harmful insect populations.
Crop rotation is a key agrotechnical measure in sustainable agriculture, harnessing the abilities of certain crop species to positively influence soil’s physical, chemical, and biological properties [50]. Well-planned and organized crop rotation optimizes the use of soil resources and solar energy. The structure and composition of crops must align with the soil and climate conditions, maintaining biological balance. It should include crops that regenerate soil fertility and protect environmental components. Crop diversity is important, both in varietal and species composition, with a move away from the dominance of winter cereals, an increased proportion of Fabaceae family plants, perennial crops, legumes, and vegetables, and a noticeable reduction in maize for grain. Crop rotation should ensure year-round soil cover, which is essential for reducing weed infestations. Therefore, under-seeding and intercrops for green manure are commonly used. Additionally, alternating between temporary meadows and pastures with arable crops is beneficial. Phytosanitary soil properties are key for plant protection against harmful organisms, and crop rotation can help regulate these properties. The use of allelopathy, such as in cultivating medicinal and aromatic plants alongside market crops, can also contribute to phytopathological goals.

3.4. Enhancing Soil Water Retention Capacity Through Crop Selection, Rotation, and Sustainable Fertilization Practices

To increase soil water retention capacity, several factors are important, including not only the type of crop grown or the succession of crops (crop rotation) but also the method of soil fertilization. The application of organic fertilizers, such as stable manure, plant residues, green manure, grass, and other mulching materials, positively impacts soil structure by increasing organic matter content. This, in turn, improves soil aeration and creates favorable conditions for soil organisms, ranging from micro-organisms to macro-organisms. Crop rotation takes advantage of the different abilities of various crops to enhance overall soil water retention. Avoiding long-term monoculture minimizes soil depletion and water loss, as each crop has a unique relationship with the soil and water. Crop rotation thus helps optimize these differences to improve soil conditions and reduce water loss, which is essential for sustainable agriculture and water management.
For soils with high retention capacity and extensive farming, crops with shallow to moderately deep root systems that require higher irrigation or water content in the soil profile may be preferred. Examples include cereals (wheat, barley), corn, or sunflower. In areas with medium and low retention capacity, crops with moderately deep to deep root systems, which are effective at absorbing water, should be chosen. Suitable options include grasses and crops from the Fabaceae family (e.g., legumes, clovers), which help capture runoff water and mitigate soil erosion.
In regions with medium and low retention capacity, measures to enhance soil water retention should be prioritized. Effective strategies include reducing the prevalence of winter cereals, increasing the proportion of clovers (plants from the Fabaceae family and other perennial crops), fodder and edible legumes, and vegetables, while significantly reducing the cultivation of maize for grain [51]. Alongside common field crops, small-scale crops like medicinal plants, buckwheat, and others also play an important role in improving soil retention and agricultural diversity.

3.5. Regenerative Agriculture and Agroforestry: Strategies for Enhancing Soil Health, Water Retention, and Landscape Sustainability

Integrated hedgerows are dense plantings of native trees and shrubs at the edges of fields or between plots. It is important to prioritize native tree and shrub species that are adapted to the site conditions. On Rye Island, where the soils are fertile and the water regime is closely linked to watercourses and groundwater, selecting appropriate tree species for riparian strips is crucial. These riparian belts must consist of species that are well-suited to local conditions while also providing ecological and protective functions, such as willow (Salix spp.), poplar (Populus spp.), alder (Alnus spp.), oak (Quercus spp.), and ash (Fraxinus excelsior).
The implementation of cover crops as part of management in Protected Water Management Areas (PWMAs) helps maintain ecological balance and enhances the sustainability of agricultural production. The use of perennial crops and intercrops in rotations requires strategic planning that considers ecological conditions, economic objectives, and long-term land sustainability. Proper implementation boosts soil fertility, reduces erosion, promotes biodiversity, and protects water resources. Agroforestry, which integrates the cultivation of trees, shrubs, agricultural crops, and animal grazing, also provides solutions for highly vulnerable areas, such as protected watersheds. These systems are designed to enhance soil conservation, water retention, biodiversity, and landscape sustainability.
Within regenerative agriculture, several measures can be adopted to improve soil water retention, particularly in highly vulnerable areas like protected water management zones. These measures promote soil health, reduce erosion, and enhance the water regime in the landscape:
  • Constructing wetlands and retention features
  • Where feasible, wetlands or small retention ponds can be established to capture excess water and gradually release it into the surrounding soil.
  • Limiting industrial fertilizers, pesticides, and other toxic substances from legacy environmental loads
  • Excessive use of chemicals degrades the soil, reducing its ability to bind organic matter and retain water. Regenerative agriculture prioritizes organic alternatives.
  • Holistic grazing
  • Managed livestock rotation improves soil health, supports the natural nutrient cycle, and enhances the soil’s water retention capacity.
  • Agroforestry systems
  • Combining the cultivation of trees, shrubs, agricultural crops, or animal grazing offers solutions tailored to highly vulnerable areas such as protected water management zones.
  • These systems are designed to promote soil conservation, water retention, biodiversity, and landscape sustainability.
  • Windbreaks and shelterbelts protect soil from erosion and enhance water retention.
  • Integrated hedgerows
  • Hedgerows are dense plantings of native tree and shrub species along field edges or between plots.
  • In Žitný ostrov, where soils are predominantly fertile and moist but sensitive to water management, it is important to carefully select species for agroforestry systems with mixed alley cropping.
  • This system allows for the combination of crops and trees with the aim of improving soil sustainability, capturing carbon, and enhancing the economic value of farming.
  • Integrated livestock management
  • Grazing livestock (e.g., rotational grazing) ensures the input of organic matter through manure and leftover feed.
  • Regular alternation of pastures with arable land improves the organic matter content in the soil.

4. Conclusions

This study revealed that soils with very high field water capacity (FWC > 400 mm), primarily Fluvisols, Chernozems, and Mollic Fluvisols, cover 66% of the territory. Soils with moderate FWC (200–300 mm) make up 27%, while soils with low and very low capacity account for nearly 4%. One-third of the area has limited retention capacity, highlighting the need for measures to capture water. Systematic monitoring in Žitný ostrov and the Eastern Slovak Lowland revealed significant variations in soil water capacity depending on soil type and location. While heavy clayey-loamy soils exhibited higher water reserves, sandy-loam and shallow soils showed reduced water availability.
Determining the CWRC value and assigning it to individual VSEU units, along with mapping critical agrochemical leaching zones, enables the proposal of targeted measures aimed at maximizing water use efficiency by plants and minimizing negative environmental impacts such as soil erosion and degradation. An integrated approach to water management in agricultural land includes various techniques to optimize water use and ensure the sustainable management of water resources.
Intensive agriculture has negatively impacted biodiversity and landscape stability, making it essential to implement sustainable farming practices. Proposed solutions include ecological farming, crop diversification, green manure, and biological pest control. Crop rotation is crucial for soil fertility, weed control, and efficient water management. Organic fertilization and strategic crop selection improve soil structure and water retention. Shallow-rooted crops such as wheat and corn are suitable for high-retention soils, while deep-rooted legumes and grasses benefit soils with low water retention capacity. Reducing maize monoculture and increasing the share of Fabaceae species can significantly improve water balance in vulnerable areas.
Integrating trees and shrubs into agricultural systems (agroforestry) can enhance soil health and water retention capacity. Effective strategies include wetland construction, windbreaks, shelterbelts, holistic grazing, and rotational pasture management, all of which support the ecological stability of the landscape. Windbreaks and shelterbelts also protect the soil from erosion and improve water retention.
Recommendations for sustainable land use in Žitný ostrov include implementing agroforestry and regenerative agriculture to maintain soil fertility and water balance, reducing agrochemical use in favor of organic alternatives, and restoring wetland ecosystems to protect groundwater. Maintaining groundwater quality in the study area remains a priority. Proposals for landscape protection and revitalization can be incorporated into landscape and land-use planning and implemented through regional programs of the National Rural Development Network of Slovakia and other strategic documents. These findings provide a basis for effective strategies to enhance soil water retention and ensure the long-term ecological stability of the landscape.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Z.K.; methodology, Z.K. and M.L.; software and validation, M.B.; investigation, Z.K.; formal analysis, Z.K.; resources, Z.K.; data curation, Z.K. and M.B.; writing—original draft preparation, Z.K., M.B. and M.L.; writing—review and editing, Z.K., M.L. and M.B.; visualization, M.B.; supervision, Z.K., M.B. and M.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by the project GP VEGA 2/0015/24: Multi-criteria approach of sustainable multifunctional use of highly vulnerable area determination, funded by the Scientific Grant Agency of the Slovak Ministry of Education, Science and Sport, and the Slovak Academy of Sciences.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

All the data are included in the main text.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Rodrigues, A.F.; Latawiec, B.J.; Reid, B.J.; Solórzano, A.; Schuler, A.E.; Lacerda, C.; Fidalgo, E.C.C.; Scarano, F.R.; Tubenchlak, F.; Pena, I.; et al. Systematic review of soil ecosystem services in tropical regions. R. Soc. Open Sci. 2021, 8, 201584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. AbdelRahman, M.A.E.; Shalaby, A.; Aboelsoud, M.H.; Moghanm, F.S. GIS spatial model based for determining actual land degradation status in Kafr El-Sheikh Governorate, North Nile Delta. Model. Earth Syst. Environ. 2018, 4, 359–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Antal, J.; Špánik, F. Hydrology of Agricultural Landscapes; SPU: Nitra, Slovakia, 2004. (In Slovak) [Google Scholar]
  4. Schäfer, K.V.R.; Oren, R.; Lai, C.T.; Katul, G.G. Hydrologic balance in an intact temperate forest ecosystem under ambient and elevated atmospheric CO2 concentration. Glob. Change Biol. 2002, 8, 895–911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Gahala, A.M.; Seal, R.R.; Piatak, N.M. Hydrologic Balance, Water Quality, Chemical-Mass Balance, and Geochemical Modeling of Hyperalkaline Ponds at Big Marsh, Chicago, Illinois, 2016–17; U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2019–5078; U.S. Geological Survey: Reston, VA, USA, 2019; 31p. [CrossRef]
  6. Dominati, E.; Patterson, M.; Mackay, A. A Framework for Classifying and Quantifying the Natural Capital and Ecosystem Services of Soils. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69, 1858–1868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Gomiero, T.; Pimentel, D.; Paoletti, M.G. Environmental Impact of Different Agricultural Management Practices: Conventional vs. Organic Agriculture. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 2011, 30, 95–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Bommarco, R.; Klein, D.; Potts, S.G. Ecological intensification: Harnessing ecosystem services for food security. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2013, 28, 230–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Caswell, H. Theory and models in ecology: A different perspective. Ecol. Model. 1988, 43, 33–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Crawley, M.J. Statistical Computing: An Introduction to Data Analysis Using S-Plus; John Michael Wiley & Sons: Chichester, UK, 2002; p. 772. [Google Scholar]
  11. Guimaraes Couto, E.; Stein, A.; Klamt, E. Large area spatial variability of soil chemical properties in central Brazil. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 1997, 66, 139–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Hoosbeek, M.R.; Amundson, R.G.; Bryant, R.B. Pedological modelling. In Handbook of Soil Science; Sumner, M.E., Ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2000; pp. E77–E116. [Google Scholar]
  13. Tixier, P. Modelling in agroecology: From simple to complex models, and vice versa. In Proceedings of the International Crop Modelling Symposium (iCROPM 2020), Montpellier, France, 3–5 February 2020; CIRAD: Montpellier, France, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  14. Murkhart, A. Special Issue “Agroecosystem Modelling”. Plants 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Mati, R. Influence of environmental conditions on the water regime of soils in the Eastern Slovak Lowlands. In Vplyv Antropogénnej Činnosti na Vodný Režim Nížinného Územia; Ústav Hydrológie Slovenskej Akadémie Vied: Michalovce, Slovakia, 2004; pp. 134–142. (In Slovak) [Google Scholar]
  16. Mati, B.M.; Mutie, S.; Gadain, H.; Home, P.; Mtalo, F. Impacts of Land-Use/Cover Changes on the Hydrology of the Transboundary Mara River, Kenya/Tanzania. Lakes Reservoirs. Res. Manag. 2008, 13, 169–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Takáč, J. Soil Water Saturation in Slovakia; NPPC: Washington, DC, USA, 2021; pp. 64–66. (In Slovak) [Google Scholar]
  18. Lal, R.; Shukla, M.K. Principles of Soil Physics; Marcel Dekker: New York, NY, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Koch, H.J.; Stockifish, N. Loss of soil organic matter upon ploughing under a loess soil after several years of conservation tillage. Soil Tillage Res. 2006, 86, 73–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Gupta, S.C.; Larson, W.E. Estimating Soil Water Retention Characteristics from Particle Size Distribution, Organic Matter Percent, and Bulk Density. Water Resour. Res. 1979, 15, 1633–1635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Papadopoulos, A. Soil Aggregates, Structure, and Stability. In Encyclopedia of Agrophysics; Gliński, J., Horabik, J., Lipiec, J., Eds.; Encyclopedia of Earth Sciences Series; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Amelung, W.; Bossio, D.; de Vries, W.; Kögel-Knabner, I.; Lehmann, J. Towards a global-scale soil climate mitigation strategy. Nat. Commun. 2020, 11, 5427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Hüttl, R.; Prechtel, A.; Bens, O. (Eds.) Zum Stand der Humusversorgung der Böden in Deutschland. In Cottbuser Schriften zur Ökosystemgenese und Landschaftsentwicklung; Band 7; BTU: Cottbus, Germany, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  24. Demo, M.; Jureková, Z.; Húska, D.; Ďuďák, J.; Fehér, A.; Galambošová, J.; Halmová, D.; Hanáčková, E.; Kalúz, K.; Kotrla, M.; et al. Designing Sustainable Farming Systems in the Landscape; Slovenská Poľnohospodárska Univerzita: Nitra, Slovakia, 2011. (In Slovak) [Google Scholar]
  25. Vilček, J. Mapping and assessment of environmental functions of agricultural soils in Slovakia (in Slovak). Geogr. Časopis 2014, 66, 287–304. [Google Scholar]
  26. Mazúr, E.; Lukniš, M. Geomorphological subdivision of the SSR and CSSR. In Part of Slovakia; Slovenská kartografia: Bratislava, Slovakia, 1986. (In Slovak) [Google Scholar]
  27. Kočický, D.; Ivanič, B. Geomorphological Subdivision of Slovakia. M 1:50 000 [Online]; Štátny geologický ústav Dionýza Štúra: Bratislava, Slovakia, 2011; Available online: https://app.geology.sk/mapportal/indexn.html#/inspire/24 (accessed on 15 September 2024). (In Slovak)
  28. Lapin, M.; Faško, P.; Melo, M.; Šťastmý, P.; Tomlain, J. Climatic areas. M 1: 1 000 000 (in Slovak). In Atlas Krajiny Slovenskej Republiky. 1. vyd; Ministerstvo Životného Prostredia: Bratislava, Slovakia; Slovenská Agentúra Životného Prostredia: Banská Bystrica, Slovakia, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  29. Igaz, D.; Bárek, V.; Halaj, P.; Takáč, J.; Čimo, J. A comparison of measured soil moisture with simulated results obtained by selected models for Danubian lowland. Cereal Res. Commun. 2008, 36, 1619–1622. [Google Scholar]
  30. Tietje, O.; Tapkenhinrichs, M. Evaluation of Pedo-Transfer Functions. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1993, 57, 1088–1095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Droogers, P.; Bouma, J. Simulation modelling for water governance in basins. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 2014, 30, 475–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Pachepsky, Y.A.; Timlin, D.; Varallyay, G. Artificial Neural Networks to Estimate Soil Water Retention from Easily Measurable Data. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1996, 60, 727–733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Lamorski, K.; Pastusyka, J.; Krzyszczak, J.; Slawinski, C. Soil Water Dynamic Modelling Using 631 the Physical and Support Vector Machine Methods. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. 2013, 12, 632. [Google Scholar]
  34. Houšková, B. Retention Capacity of Agricultural Soils in Slovakia; Vedecké Práce VÚPOP: Bratislava, Slovakia, 2011; Volume 33, pp. 72–78. (In Slovak) [Google Scholar]
  35. Krnáčová, Z.; Hreško, J.; Vlachovičová, M. An evaluation of soil retention potential as an important factor of water balance in the landscape. Morav. Geogr. Rep. 2016, 24, 44–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Krnáčová, Z.; Kenderessy, P.; Hreško, J.; Kubínsky, D.; Dobrovodská, M. Assessment of Landscape Retention Water Capacity and Hydrological Balance in Traditional Agricultural Landscape (Model Area Liptovská Teplička Settlements, Slovakia). Water 2020, 12, 3591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Šútor, J.; Štekauerová, V. Hydrophysical Characteristics of Žitný Ostrov Island Soils; UH SAV: Bratislava, Slovakia, 2000. (In Slovak) [Google Scholar]
  38. Mališ, J.; Homolák, M.; Orságová, K. Researh of soil moisture by integrated methods at mirobasin level. In Proceedings of Soil Science and Conservation Research Institute; The Soil Science and Conservation Research Institute NPPC: Banská Bystrica, Slovakia, 2009; ISBN 978-80-891128-59-4. [Google Scholar]
  39. Loke, M.H. Tutorial: 2-D and 3-D Electrical Imaging Surveys. 2001. Available online: https://www.geotomosoft.com (accessed on 15 September 2024).
  40. Džatko, M.; Sobotská, J.; Granec, M.; Bezák, P. Handbook for the Use of Maps Soil Ecology Units; Výskumný Ústav Pôdoznalectva a Ochrany Pôdy: Bratislava, Slovakia, 2009. (In Slovak) [Google Scholar]
  41. Bujnovský, R.; Balkovič, J.; Barančíková, G.; Makovníková, J.; Vilček, J. Assessment and Valuation of Ecological Functions of Agricultural Soils in Slovakia; Výskumný Ústav Pôdoznalectva a Ochrany Pôdy: Bratislava, Slovakia, 2009. (In Slovak) [Google Scholar]
  42. NAFC (National Agricultural and Food Center). Database of Soil-Ecological Units (QSEU) Slovakia; Mierka 1:10 000; NPPC: Lužianky, Slovakia, 2021. (In Slovak) [Google Scholar]
  43. Džatko, M. Assessment of the Production Potential of Agricultural Soils and Soil-Ecological Regions of Slovakia; Výskumný Ústav Pôdoznalecttva a Ochrany Pôdy: Bratislava, Slovakia, 2002. (In Slovak) [Google Scholar]
  44. Pišút, P.; Prochádzka, J. Contribution to the Knowledge of Soil Genesis and Land Cover Structure on Žitný Ostrov (Paleomeander Dunaja, Nekyje); Sobocká, J., Ed.; Diagnostika, Klasifikácia a Mapovanie Pôd: Bratislava, Slovakia, 2011. (In Slovak) [Google Scholar]
  45. Rehák, Š.; Stradiot, P.; Abaffy, D. Evaluation of Water Content in Soils of Žitný Ostrov from the Point of View of Its Exploitation for Biosphere. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2021, 906, 012095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Jabro, J.D.; Evans, R.G.; Kim, Y.; Iversen, W.M. Estimating in situ soil–water retention and field water capacity in two contrasting soil textures. Irrig. Sci. 2009, 27, 223–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Walczak, R.; Ostrowski, J.; Witkowska-Walczak, B.; Slawinski, C. Spatial characteristic of hydro-physical properties in arable mineral soils in Poland as illustrated by field water capacity [FWC]. Int. Agrophys. 2002, 16, 151–159. [Google Scholar]
  48. Balkovič, J.; Orgánus, T.; Skalský, R. Potential water storage capacity of the root zone of cultural phytoceonoses in the Záhorská nížina—A quantification of soil accumulation function. Ekológia 2004, 23, 393–407. [Google Scholar]
  49. Šútor, J.; Rehák, Š. Quantification of water reserves in the soil aeration zone of Žitný ostrov. Geogr. Časopis 2007, 51, 61–75. [Google Scholar]
  50. Lacko-Bartošová, M.; Cagáň, Ľ.; Čuboň, J.; Kováč, K.; Kováčik, P.; Macák, M.; Moudrý, J.; Sabo, P. Sustainable and Organic Farming; Slovenská poľnohospodárska univerzita: Nitra, Slovakia, 2005. (In Slovak) [Google Scholar]
  51. Berndorfer, T. New Call for Proposals: Support for the Construction of Water Retention Measures in the Urban Landscape (in Municipalities); Slovenská Poľnohospodárska Univerzita: Bratislava, Slovakia, 2018. (In Slovak) [Google Scholar]
Agriculture 15 00563 g001
Figure 1. Model area of the Protected Water Management Area Žitný ostrov.
Figure 1. Model area of the Protected Water Management Area Žitný ostrov.
Agriculture 15 00563 g001
Agriculture 15 00563 g002
Figure 2. Soil subtypes of the Protected Water Management Area Žitný ostrov. Legend: 1—Lithic Leptosols and Skeletic Leptosols; 2—Eutric Regosols; 3—Eutric Fluvisols; 4—Gleyic Fluvisols; 5—Calcaric Fluvisols; 6—Haplic Chernozems; 7—Chernic Chernozems; 8—Mollic Fluvisols; 9—Mollic Gleysols; 10—Haplic Histosols; 11—Antropic Regosols; 12—forest areas; 13—water surfaces; 14—urban areas.
Figure 2. Soil subtypes of the Protected Water Management Area Žitný ostrov. Legend: 1—Lithic Leptosols and Skeletic Leptosols; 2—Eutric Regosols; 3—Eutric Fluvisols; 4—Gleyic Fluvisols; 5—Calcaric Fluvisols; 6—Haplic Chernozems; 7—Chernic Chernozems; 8—Mollic Fluvisols; 9—Mollic Gleysols; 10—Haplic Histosols; 11—Antropic Regosols; 12—forest areas; 13—water surfaces; 14—urban areas.
Agriculture 15 00563 g002
Agriculture 15 00563 g003
Figure 3. The structure of the VSEU code [40].
Figure 3. The structure of the VSEU code [40].
Agriculture 15 00563 g003
Agriculture 15 00563 g004
Figure 4. Spatial distribution of CWRC cumulative soil categories.
Figure 4. Spatial distribution of CWRC cumulative soil categories.
Agriculture 15 00563 g004
Agriculture 15 00563 g005
Figure 5. Areas of soils based on their cumulative water retention capacity (CWRC soils).
Figure 5. Areas of soils based on their cumulative water retention capacity (CWRC soils).
Agriculture 15 00563 g005
Agriculture 15 00563 g006
Figure 6. Map representation of field water capacity attribute (FWC in mm) categories. Legend: 1—very high; 2—high; 3—medium; 4—low; 5—very low.
Figure 6. Map representation of field water capacity attribute (FWC in mm) categories. Legend: 1—very high; 2—high; 3—medium; 4—low; 5—very low.
Agriculture 15 00563 g006
Table 1. The numerical range of each category for the determination of the RWCR.
Table 1. The numerical range of each category for the determination of the RWCR.
The Range of CWRC Value Intervals Calculated from the AlgorithmNumerical Designation of CategoriesCWRC Category
1–11.21Very low
11.3–22.42Very low
22.5–33.63low
33.7–44.84low
44.9–565medium
57–67.26medium
67.3–78.47high
78.5–89.68Very high
89.7–100.89Very high
100.9–11210Very high
Table 2. Categories of cumulative CWRC index values.
Table 2. Categories of cumulative CWRC index values.
Soil SubtypesVSEUNumerical Designation of CategoriesCWRC Category
Detailed breakdown of soil parameters
Eutric Fluvisol cultivated, medium deep, sandy-loamy, without skeleton00010015medium
Eutric Fluvisol cultivated, medium deep, sandy-loamy, weakly skeletal00010114medium
Eutric Fluvisol cultivated, medium deep, sandy-loamy, weakly skeletal00010214medium
Eutric Fluvisol cultivated, medium deep, sandy-loamy, moderately skeletal 00010315medium
Eutric Fluvisol cultivated, shallow, loamy-sandy, moderately skeletal 00010412very low
Eutric Fluvisol cultivated, shallow, loamy-sandy, without skeleton00140653low
Eutric Fluvisol cultivated, deep, loamy, without skeleton, 00020029very high
Eutric Fluvisol cultivated, deep, loamy, moderately skeletal00020128very high
Eutric Fluvisol cultivated, deep, loamy, moderately skeletal00020428very high
Eutric Fluvisol cultivated, deep, loamy, without skeleton001200310very high
Eutric Fluvisol cultivated, deep, loamy-sandy, without skeleton00020059very high
Eutric Fluvisol cultivated, deep, loamy-sandy, without skeleton00150059very high
Chernozem cultivated, medium deep, sandy—loamy, weakly skeletal00360356medium
Chernozem cultivated, deep, loamy, without skeleton001800310very high
Chernozem cultivated, deep, clayey-loamy, without skeleton00340029very high
Chernozem cultivated, medium deep, clayey-loamy, moderately skeletal00180137high
Chernozem cultivated, medium deep, clayey-loamy, moderately skeletal00180336medium
Chernozem cultivated, medium deep, clayey-loamy, without skeleton00360128very high
Molic Fluvisol cultivated, deep, loamy-sandy, without skeleton00190018very high
Lithic Leptosol in complex with Haplic Leptosol, shallow, loamy, strongly skeletal01970621very low
Table 3. Reclassified categories of cumulative indexes.
Table 3. Reclassified categories of cumulative indexes.
CodeCategoryField Water Capacity of Water Column in Soil Profile (in mm)
1Very high400>
2High300–400
3Medium200–300
4Low100–200
5Very low<100
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Krnáčová, Z.; Barančoková, M.; Labuda, M. Quantification of Soil Water Retention Capacity in the Protected Water Management Area Žitný Ostrov (Slovakia). Agriculture 2025, 15, 563. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15050563

AMA Style

Krnáčová Z, Barančoková M, Labuda M. Quantification of Soil Water Retention Capacity in the Protected Water Management Area Žitný Ostrov (Slovakia). Agriculture. 2025; 15(5):563. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15050563

Chicago/Turabian Style

Krnáčová, Zdena, Mária Barančoková, and Martin Labuda. 2025. "Quantification of Soil Water Retention Capacity in the Protected Water Management Area Žitný Ostrov (Slovakia)" Agriculture 15, no. 5: 563. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15050563

APA Style

Krnáčová, Z., Barančoková, M., & Labuda, M. (2025). Quantification of Soil Water Retention Capacity in the Protected Water Management Area Žitný Ostrov (Slovakia). Agriculture, 15(5), 563. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15050563

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop