HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text Free Full Text (PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (22) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Assouline, S. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Assouline, S. GeoRef GeoRef Citation Agricola Articles by Assouline, S. Related Collections Infiltration Surface Hydrology Soil Models

Rainfall-Induced Soil Surface Sealing

A Critical Review of Observations, Conceptual Models, and Solutions

The Department of Environmental Physics, Institute of Soil, Water and Environmental Sciences, A.R.O. Volcani Center, Bet Dagan 50250, Israel

View larger version (27K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1. The modeled distribution with depth of the bulk density within the seal layer according to the models in Eq. [1], [2], and [3], compared with the experimental data of Roth (1997) for (a) a sandy silt and (b) a loamy silt soil.

View larger version (16K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2. The methodology suggested by Baumhardt et al. (1990) for deriving the water retention curve of the seal layer (after Baumhardt et al., 1990).

View larger version (25K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3. The (a) water retention curves and (b) the hydraulic conductivity functions simulated by the model of Assouline and Mualem (1997) at different depths within the seal layer for the Atwood soil.

View larger version (54K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4. The distribution with depth and with time of (a) the bulk density and (b) the saturated hydraulic conductivity of the seal simulated by the model of Assouline and Mualem (1997) for the Sharon sandy loam.

View larger version (23K): [in a new window]   Fig. 5. The dynamic evolution of the observable seal thickness as calculated for three different resolution levels , compared with the modeled seal thickness (solid line) and the experimental data of Farres (1978).

View larger version (20K): [in a new window]   Fig. 6. Predicted and observed cumulative infiltration vs. rainfall duration for two rainfall intensities. (From Baumhardt et al., 1990. Reproduced with permission of the AGU, copyright 1990.)

View larger version (21K): [in a new window]   Fig. 7. The infiltration curves predicted by the model of Assouline and Mualem (1997) (solid lines) and the corresponding measured infiltration rates of Baumhardt et al. (1990), for rainfall intensities of 30 mm h–1 (open dots) and 90 mm h–1 (black dots).

View larger version (19K): [in a new window]   Fig. 8. Changes in the water content at the soil surface during seal formation for two rainfall intensities (30 and 90 mm h–1), applying uniform (dashed lines) and nonuniform (solid lines) seal representation. (From Assouline and Mualem, 2001. Reproduced with permission of the AGU, copyright 2001.)

View larger version (17K): [in a new window]   Fig. 9. Infiltration rate vs. cumulative infiltration for nonuniform (solid line) and uniform (dashed line) final invariant seal representation, for two rainfall intensities (28 and 56 mm h–1). (From Assouline and Mualem, 2001. Reproduced with permission of the AGU, copyright 2001.)

View larger version (18K): [in a new window]   Fig. 10. Water content distributions with depth after 28 mm of rainfall for nonuniform (solid line) and uniform (dashed line) final invariant soil seals for (a) I = 28 mm h–1 and (b) I = 56 mm h–1. The dotted lines represent the corresponding distributions of the saturated water content. (From Assouline and Mualem, 2001. Reproduced with permission of the AGU, copyright 2001.)

View larger version (16K): [in a new window]   Fig. 11. Simulated infiltration curves during a 25 mm h–1 rainfall applied after 12 and 48 h of redistribution with E = 0 and after 7.5 and 15 h of constant evaporation rate E = 5 mm d–1. (From Assouline and Mualem, 2003 with permission of Kluwer Academic Publishers.)

View larger version (18K): [in a new window]   Fig. 12. Simulated effect of the application of polymer P-101 on infiltration during soil sealing using the model of Assouline and Mualem (1997) and the experimental data of Ben-Hur (2001) for a loess soil.

View larger version (16K): [in a new window]   Fig. 13. Simulated effect of the electrical conductivity (EC) of the applied water on infiltration during soil sealing using the model of Assouline and Mualem (1997) and the experimental data of Agassi et al. (1981) for a high exchangeable Na percentage (ESP) loess soil. SW, saline water; DW, distilled water.

View larger version (17K): [in a new window]   Fig. 14. Infiltration curves when the field areal heterogeneity is accounted for (solid line) and when the field is uniform (dashed line) for the unsealed soil case and during seal formation.

View larger version (16K): [in a new window]   Fig. 15. Infiltration curves vs. cumulative rainfall during seal formation when the field is uniform (dashed line) and when the field areal heterogeneity is represented by f(Ks) (solid line) for two rainfall intensities (20 and 40 mm h–1). (From Assouline and Mualem, 2002. Reproduced with permission of the AGU, copyright 2002.)