VZJ
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Published online 16 August 2005
Published in Vadose Zone J 4:856-865 (2005)
DOI: 10.2136/vzj2004.0129
© 2005 Soil Science Society of America
677 S. Segoe Rd., Madison, WI 53711 USA
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text Free
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (2)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Persson, M.
Right arrow Articles by Wendt, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Persson, M.
Right arrow Articles by Wendt, J.
GeoRef
Right arrow GeoRef Citation
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Persson, M.
Right arrow Articles by Wendt, J.
Related Collections
Right arrow Soil Methods/Instrumentation
Right arrow Spatial Variability
Right arrow Experiment Design

Solute Transport Dynamics by High-Resolution Dye Tracer Experiments—Image Analysis and Time Moments

Magnus Perssona,*, Sahar Haridya, Jonas Olssonb and Johan Wendta

a Dep. of Water Resources Engineering, Lund Univ., Box 118, SE-221 00 Lund, Sweden
b Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute, SE-601 76 Norrköping, Sweden



View larger version (14K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 1. Experimental setup.

 


View larger version (20K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 2. Predicted vs. actual solute concentration Cs.

 


View larger version (12K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 3. The coefficient of variation (CV) for different averaging filters. The CVs were calculated from five different calibration samples assuming that they had a homogeneous concentration distribution. Since the pixel size was 0.0014 m, the different averaging areas range from 0.0014 by 0.0014 to 0.045 by 0.045 m.

 


View larger version (73K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 4. Dye patterns from the four experiments.

 


View larger version (44K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 5. The water content ({theta}) profile during the four experiments. The solid line represents the {theta} calculated by the HYDRUS model, the dotted line is the {theta} estimated by the dye photos. The + signs shows the TDR measured {theta}.

 


View larger version (40K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 6. Dispersivity ({lambda}) for different column widths plotted over depth for the four experiments.

 


View larger version (31K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 7. The coefficient of variation (CV) of local-scale velocity CVv plotted over depth for the four experiments.

 





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
The SCI Journals Agronomy Journal Crop Science
Journal of Natural Resources
and Life Sciences Education
Soil Science Society of America Journal
Journal of Plant Registrations Journal of
Environmental Quality
The Plant Genome
Copyright © 2005 by the Soil Science Society of America.