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 Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (3) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Kelleners, T. J. Articles by Skaggs, T. H. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Kelleners, T. J. Articles by Skaggs, T. H. GeoRef GeoRef Citation Agricola Articles by Kelleners, T. J. Articles by Skaggs, T. H. Related Collections Hydraulic Conductivity Lysimeter/Rhizosphere Studies Inverse Procedures/Parameter Estimation

Inverse Analysis of Upward Water Flow in a Groundwater Table Lysimeter

T. J. Kelleners^a,b,c,*, R. W. O. Soppe^b,d, J. E. Ayars^b, J. imnek^a,e and T. H. Skaggs^a

^a USDA-ARS, George E. Brown, Jr. Salinity Lab., 450 W. Big Springs Road, Riverside, CA 92507
^b USDA-ARS, Water Management Research Lab., 9611 S. Riverbend Ave., Parlier, CA 93648
^c Presently at Dep. of Plants, Soils, and Biometeorology, Utah State Univ., Logan, UT 84322
^d Alterra-ILRI, P.O. Box 47, 6700 AA Wageningen, The Netherlands
^e Presently at Dep. of Environmental Sciences, Univ. of California, Riverside, CA 92521

View larger version (22K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Simulated volumetric water content for the 100-d fallow period with hypothetical soil hydraulic properties. The numbers in the figure refer to the depth below the soil surface.

View larger version (17K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Sensitivity of the pressure head in the hypothetical soil to a 1% change in the soil hydraulic parameters in the van Genuchten–Mualem model at depths of 5, 15, and 35 cm below the soil surface.

View larger version (15K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Sensitivity of the cumulative upward bottom flux in the hypothetical soil to a 1% change in the soil hydraulic parameters in the van Genuchten–Mualem model.

View larger version (67K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4. Contour lines of the objective function for the parameter combinations –n, –Ks, and n–Ks using either (z,t), h(z,t), or Q(t) data in the objective function.

View larger version (55K): [in a new window]   Fig. 5. Contour lines of the objective function for nine parameter combinations using (z,t) data in the objective function.

View larger version (25K): [in a new window]   Fig. 6. Contour lines of the objective function for the parameter combinations –n, –Ks, and n–Ks using (z,t) and Q(t) data in the objective function.

View larger version (16K): [in a new window]   Fig. 7. Optimized (a) soil water retention and (b) hydraulic conductivity functions for the groundwater table lysimeter for Locations 1 and 2 compared with the Rosetta predicted soil hydraulic functions for a silty clay soil.

View larger version (41K): [in a new window]   Fig. 8. Measured (symbols) and calculated (lines) volumetric water content for the 79-d fallow period in the groundwater table lysimeter for (a) Location 1 and (b) Location 2. The numbers in the figures refer to the depth below the soil surface of the center of the sensors.

View larger version (15K): [in a new window]   Fig. 9. Initial and final measured (symbols) and calculated (lines) volumetric water content with depth for the 79-d fallow period in the groundwater lysimeter for (a) Location 1 and (b) Location 2.