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 (16) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Larsbo, M. Articles by Jarvis, N. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Larsbo, M. Articles by Jarvis, N. GeoRef GeoRef Citation Agricola Articles by Larsbo, M. Articles by Jarvis, N. Related Collections Dual Porosity/Permeability Models Solute Transport Models

An Improved Dual-Permeability Model of Water Flow and Solute Transport in the Vadose Zone

^a Dep. of Soil Sciences, SLU, Box 7014, 750 07 Uppsala, Sweden
^b Agrosphere Institute, ICG–IV, Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH, D–52425 Jülich, Germany
^c Currently, Soil Protection Group, Insitute of Terresterial Ecology, ETH Zurich, Grabenstrasse 11a, 8952 Schlieren, Switzerland

View larger version (18K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Example of the modified van Genuchten soil water retention function used in MACRO for a fictitious soil (vg = 0.03 cm–1, nvg = 1.5, r = 0.0, and b = 0.5 m3 m–3).

View larger version (21K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Degree of saturation in macropores simulated by MACRO and given by the analytical solution (Germann, 1985). Two cases are shown: (i) 24-h pulse at 1-m depth and (ii) 3-h pulse at 0.5 m depth. Ima = 2 mm h–1, Ks(ma) = 10 mm h–1, ma = 0.1 m3 m–3, mi = b = 0.4 m3 m–3, n* = 2 for both cases.

View larger version (23K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Percolation rates from the microlysimeter experiment following irrigations. The best GLUE simulation (black dotted line) and the minimum and maximum values of the simulations with EFtot values larger than 0.5 (gray lines) are compared with measured data (triangles).

View larger version (14K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4. Chloride leaching rates from the microlysimeter experiment following applications. The best GLUE simulation (black dotted line) and the minimum and maximum values of the simulations with EFtot larger than 0.5 (gray lines) are compared with measured data (triangles).

View larger version (15K): [in a new window]   Fig. 5. Resident Cl– concentrations from the microlysimeter experiment at the end of the experiment. The best GLUE simulation (squares) and the minimum and maximum values of the simulations with EFtot larger than 0.5 (gray lines) are compared with measured data (triangles).

View larger version (83K): [in a new window]   Fig. 6. The EFtot values for all GLUE simulations from the microlysimeter experiment. The horizontal lines indicate the threshold value for acceptable simulations of 0.5. Kb is the saturated matrix hydraulic conductivity, ma,s is the macroporosity, n* is the kinematic exponent, and d is the diffusion pathlength.

View larger version (28K): [in a new window]   Fig. 7. Cumulative distributions of rescaled model efficiencies conditioned on all measured data from the microlysimeter experiment for two EFtot threshold values defining acceptable simulations compared with the initial uniform distributions. The number of acceptable simulations is denoted n. Kb is the saturated matrix hydraulic conductivity, ma,s is the macroporosity, n* is the kinematic exponent, and d is the diffusion pathlength.