Hi @nicole.pommares and welcome to the forum!
The soil map has some missing data in the water body zones. What would correspond in these cases?
This isn’t a perfect solution, but I would recommend interpolating to fill in the missing soil values. Here is an old post that mentions this issue.
The only results that I think are consistent are those of QF (ranging from 0 to 1914), although there is missing data for the water bodies (I assume due to the lack of information on the soil map)
Yes, you are correct that you will see missing data in the QF layer where there are missing soil data.
and those of L and L_avail (both ranging from -1841 to 1274, I don’t know if it’s correct to have negative values and for them to be equal).
Yes, L can be negative. Here is a section of the users guide that discusses this:
“The local recharge, or potential contribution to baseflow, of a pixel is computed from the local water balance. Precipitation that does not run off as quickflow, and is not evapotranspired by the vegetation on a pixel, can infiltrate the soil to become local recharge. Local recharge can be negative if a pixel does not receive enough of its own water to satisfy its vegetation requirements (determined by its crop factor Kc ), so it uses water generated upslope of the pixel as well (referred to as an “upslope subsidy”.)”
Does this address your concerns? If not, what results are you expecting to see? If you feel like the results you’re getting are incorrect, please first ensure that you’re running the latest version of InVEST (as updates to the SWY model have been made in recent releases) and if you’re still concerned, feel free to share your data and logfile and I can take a closer look. Thanks!