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 Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Faust, A. E. Articles by Hinnell, A. C. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Faust, A. E. Articles by Hinnell, A. C. GeoRef GeoRef Citation Agricola Articles by Faust, A. E. Articles by Hinnell, A. C. Related Collections Watershed-Scale Studies Water Flow Models Recharge

Can Basin-Scale Recharge Be Estimated Reasonably with Water-Balance Models?

^a USGS, 520 N. Park Ave., Suite 221, Tucson, AZ 85719
^b Dep. of Hydrology and Water Resources, Univ. of Arizona, P.O. Box 210011, Tucson, AZ 85721
^c George E. Brown, Jr., Salinity Lab., 450 W. Big Springs Rd., Riverside, CA 92507

View larger version (139K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Location of study area, Rillito hydrologic unit 15050302 (Seaber et al., 1987), and physiographic features.

View larger version (64K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Annual potential recharge estimates for (A) Pedotransfer function PTF12 and (B) PTF 8. PTF 12 results in the least amount of basin total recharge of all the PTFs used in the study, and PTF 8 results in the greatest amount of basin total recharge.

View larger version (84K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Distribution of (A) soil depth (B) average annual precipitation, and (C) average annual precipitation less potential evaporation in the Rillito Creek study area from the Basin Characterization Model. Part C is the sum of monthly values, after adjusting for negative values.

View larger version (22K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4. Basin total recharge estimates and the percentage of the precipitation less potential evapotranspiration (P-PET) that becomes potential recharge in the Rillito Creek study area for each pedotransfer function.

View larger version (26K): [in a new window]   Fig. 5. Positive linear relation between the normalized recharge summed for a map unit and the difference of porosity and field capacity of the same map unit.

View larger version (10K): [in a new window]   Fig. 6. Average porosity (s), field capacity (fc), and porosity–field capacity (s– fc) for all layers in the study area for each PTF. PTFs are ranked from 1 to 10 in order of increasing total Rp (Fig. 4).