## 3 Results and Discussion
### Modeling Results
Figure 6: The comparison between the modeled (SR_model) and measured (SR_meas) SR values (gCm\({}^{-2}\)day\({}^{-1}\)) for T (blue, Equation (1)) –TP (green, Equation (2))–TPP (orange, Equation (3a))–TPC (red, Equation (4))–TPPC (black, Equation (5))–TPPh (brown, Equation (3b)) models; lines—linear regression to determine the slope and intercept values; \(T_{air}\) (monitoring station) used for parameterization. _For Entic Podzol and T\({}_{\mathit{ali}}\):_  
* The best slope lm values (slope, Figure 7) were observed with the TPPC model in dry and wet environments (slope \(\approx\) 0.88-0.9), and with the TPPrh model in a normal environment (slope \(\approx\) 0.88);
* The best R\({}^{2}\)-lm values (\(R^{2}\), Figure 7) were observed with the TPPC model for all moisture conditions: \(R^{2}\approx\) 0.67 for dry, \(R^{2}\approx\) 0.77 for wet, and \(R^{2}\approx\) 0.74 for normal;
* The best MBE values (\(|\mathrm{MBE}|\), Figure 7) were observed with the TPPC model in normal and dry environments (\(|\mathrm{MBE}|\approx\) 0.15), while the TPP model gives the smallest \(|\mathrm{MBE}|\approx\) 0.11 in a wet environment;
* The best RMSE values (RMSE, Figure 7) were observed with the TPPC model for all moisture conditions: RMSE \(\approx\) 0.47 for dry, RMSE \(\approx\) 0.53 for wet, and RMSE \(\approx\) 0.63 for normal. _For Entic Luvisol and T\({}_{\mathit{soil}}\):_  
* The best slope-lm values (slope, Figure 7) were observed with the TPPrh for all moisture conditions (slope \(\approx\) 0.85-0.9);
* The best R\({}^{2}\)-lm values (\(R^{2}\), Figure 7) were observed with the TPPrh for all moisture conditions (\(R^{2}\approx\) 0.65-0.75);
* The best MBE values (\(|\mathrm{MBE}|\), Figure 7) were observed with the TPPrh for all moisture conditions (\(|\mathrm{MBE}|\approx\) 0.15);
* The best RMSE values (RMSE, Figure 7) were observed with the TPPrh for all moisture conditions (RMSE \(\approx\) 0.43-0.53). _For Haptic Luvisol and T\({}_{\mathit{ali}}\):_  
* The best slope-lm values (slope, Figure 7) were observed with the TPPrh model in dry and wet environments (slope \(\approx\) 0.85-0.91), and with the TPC and TPPC models in a normal environment (slope \(\approx\) 0.85);
* The best R\({}^{2}\)-lm values (\(R^{2}\), Figure 7) were observed with the TPPrh for all moisture conditions (\(R^{2}\approx\) 0.57-0.73);
* The best MBE values (\(|\mathrm{MBE}|\), Figure 7) were observed with the TPPrh model in normal and wet environments (\(|\mathrm{MBE}|\approx\) 0.15-0.23), and with the TPPC model in a dry environment (\(|\mathrm{MBE}|\approx\) 0.23);
* The best RMSE values (RMSE, Figure 7) were observed with the TPPrh for all moisture conditions (RMSE \(\approx\) 0.53-0.73). From the conducted analysis, we see that the \(SOC\) and water-holding abilities are critical for the choice of optimal SR models. The TPPrh model with the quadratic dependency on the temperature becomes more optimal in most of the environmental conditions--normal, dry, and wet--for Haptic Luvisol having the finer texture (silic), meaning lower permittivity to gasses [36], and the ability to hold larger amounts of water in comparison to Entic Podzol (Table 1) and for a longer time period. On the other hand, the TPPC model looks more optimal for sandy Entic Podzol, for which the weak water-holding ability leads to lack of water in the dry periods and brings forward the presence of \(SOC\)--as the substrate for the microbial community--to support SR when precipitation occurs. These conclusions are also supported by the comparison of the mean annual SR measurements with modeled values (Figure 8). While the TPPrh model shows a better annual performance for \(T_{\mathit{soil}}\), for \(T_{\mathit{air}}\), the TPPC model becomes slightly better for Entic Podzol--the respective SR measured and modeled values stay within the standard deviation ranges of each other. However, it should be noted that these conclusions based on the annual means can be biased toward the larger summer SR values, underestimating the effects of the smaller winter SR.