Reply to ‘Comment on “A Modular Framework for Modeling Unsaturation Soil Hydraulic Properties Over the Full Moisture Range” by Tobias Weber, Wolfgang Durner, Thilo Streck, and Efstathios Diamantopoulos’

Abstract In Weber et al. (2019), https://doi.org/10.1029/2018wr024584 (hereafter W19), modeling soil hydraulic properties (SHP) was systematically framed and presented in a didactic, carefully thought‐out approach. In doing so, the authors coined the term SHP model system/model framework, acknowledging the decade old research on effective modeling of the SHP. At the heart of the model an integral was formulated that links non‐capillary saturation to capillary saturation, based on any given saturation function for the capillary part. This approach sparked the interest by Peters and Iden (2021), https://doi.org/10.1029/2020wr028397 who wrote a comment. In this reply, we providing a detailed perspective on the comment and scrutinize the opinions by Peters and Iden (2021), https://doi.org/10.1029/2020wr028397 . Additionally, we use the opportunity to clarify terminology with respect to the distinction between “non‐capillary” and “capillary” pore spaces. Further, the Brunswick model system presented in W19 has been implemented in the HYDRUS software suite (Diamantopoulos et al., 2024, https://doi.org/10.1002/vzj2.20326 ).