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 HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (5) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Mertens, J. Articles by Barkle, G. F. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Mertens, J. Articles by Barkle, G. F. GeoRef GeoRef Citation Agricola Articles by Mertens, J. Articles by Barkle, G. F. Related Collections Soil Physics Lysimeter/Rhizosphere Studies Water Flow Models

Multiobjective Inverse Modeling for Soil Parameter Estimation and Model Verification

^a Lincoln Environmental Research, Ruakura Research Centre, Private Bag 3062, Hamilton, New Zealand. J. Mertens, current address: Division Soil and Water Management, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Kasteelpark Arenberg 20, 3001 Leuven, Belgium
^b Aqualinc Research Limited, P.O. Box 14-041, Enderley, Hamilton, New Zealand

View larger version (5K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1. (a) "Sharp" and (b) rather "linear" Pareto fronts. F1 and F2 are the objective functions under consideration.

View larger version (103K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Profiles of the four different soil types at the locations where the lysimeters were installed.

View larger version (70K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Result of the inverse modeling for the unirrigated Pumice soil type (a) (weighting factor) = 0, (b) = 1, and (c) = 0.5. Simulated and observed soil moisture contents at three depths as well as simulated and observed biweekly leachate and cumulative leachate volumes are plotted.

View larger version (96K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4. Pareto front for the unirrigated Pumice soil type indicating the trade-off between goodness of fit to the soil moisture content [g1(F1)] and leachate volume [g2(F2)]; 11 000 out of a total of 15 000 simulations shown.

View larger version (44K): [in a new window]   Fig. 5. Normalized range of the Pareto optimal parameter values for the unirrigated Pumice soil type shown in Fig. 2 (thetaS = saturated volumetric water content; alpha and n are shape parameters; Ks = saturated hydraulic conductivity; d = rooting depth; 1, 2, and 3 = A, B, and C horizons). Extreme optimal Pareto parameter sets are indicated by bold and dashed lines.

View larger version (36K): [in a new window]   Fig. 6. Cumulative distributions of measured (1999, 2001, and 2003 or 1999, 2002, and 2004) and Pareto optimal top-layer saturated conductivities (Ks) for all unirrigated soil types.

View larger version (74K): [in a new window]   Fig. 7. Result of the inverse modeling for the irrigated Pumice soil type (a) (weighting factor) = 0, (b) = 1, and (c) = 0.5. Simulated and observed soil moisture contents at three depths as well as simulated and observed biweekly leachate and cumulative leachate volumes are plotted.

View larger version (38K): [in a new window]   Fig. 8. Comparison between cumulative soil hydraulic parameter distributions along the Pareto front for the irrigated (Irr) and unirrigated (Non-Irr) Pumice soil type (thetaS = saturated volumetric water content; alpha and n are shape parameters; K = hydraulic conductivity; subscripts 1, 2, and 3 = A, B, and C horizons).

View larger version (88K): [in a new window]   Fig. 9. Pareto front for the Pumice soil type indicating the trade-off between goodness of fit to the unirrigated (objective function Fnon-irr) and irrigated (objective function Firr) treatments.

View larger version (28K): [in a new window]   Fig. 10. Cumulative distributions of the measured top-layer saturated conductivities (Ks) for the unirrigated (non-irr) and irrigated (irr) Pumice soil type in 1999, 2001, and 2003.