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


     


Published online 9 April 2007
Published in Vadose Zone J 6:207-220 (2007)
DOI: 10.2136/vzj2006.0115
© 2007 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 HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Germann, P.
Right arrow Articles by Vadilonga, T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Germann, P.
Right arrow Articles by Vadilonga, T.
GeoRef
Right arrow GeoRef Citation
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Germann, P.
Right arrow Articles by Vadilonga, T.
Related Collections
Right arrow Hydraulic Conductivity
Right arrow Preferential Flow
Right arrow Infiltration

Rivulet Approach to Rates of Preferential Infiltration

Peter Germann*, Andreas Helbling and Tomaso Vadilonga

Soil Science Section, Dep. of Geography, Univ. of Bern, Hallerstrasse 12, 3012 Bern, Switzerland

Figure 1
View larger version (43K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
FIG. 1. Schematic representation of a rivulet during Stokes flow. F, thickness of the water film; f, thickness variable; df, thickness differential; l, length of contact between mobile soil moisture of the rivulet and the soil-water system at rest; H(t), vertical length of rivulet; G, weight of rivulet; v(f), velocity of the water at distance f from the parts at rest; {eta}, viscosity causing momentum dissipation toward the stationary parts.

 

Figure 2
View larger version (25K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
FIG. 2. Properties of a rivulet in time and space (TI, ZI, and wR are scaling factors). (a) Characteristics of wetting and draining fronts and of four laminae. (b) w(Z,t) at four depths: z < ZI (twice), z = ZI, z > ZI. (c) w(Z,t) at four times: t < TS, TS < t < TI, t = TI, t > TI.

 

Figure 3
View larger version (30K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
FIG. 3. Measured volumetric soil moisture, {theta}(Z,t), and capillary head, h(Z,t), at depths 0.1 m and 0.2 m due to infiltration at a rate of qS = 45.5 mm h–1 during TS = 1h for Run 10.

 

Figure 4
View larger version (27K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
FIG. 4. Definitions of parameters and variables, shown for Run 7, depth 0.1 m. Times: thW, arrival of first pressure; thP, time of attaining pressure maximum; tW, arrival of first (measurable) moisture increase; tP, time of attaining steady soil moisture; TS, end of water input to the soil surface; tD, arrival of draining front; tF, end of measurements. Capillary heads: hinit, before infiltration; hmax, maximum. Volumetric soil moisture: {theta}in, initial; {theta}max, maximum; {theta}F, end of measurements; {theta}out, end of drainage or trailing wave; div{theta} (= {theta}out{theta}in), divergence; wS (= {theta}max{theta}out), amplitude of moisture wave.

 

Figure 5
View larger version (32K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
FIG. 5. Superposition of three rivulet ensembles applied to the data of Run 6. {theta}sup(Z,t) declines faster than {theta}(Z,t) because div{theta} > 0 was ignored in the analysis.

 

Figure 6
View larger version (23K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
FIG. 6. Ten rivulet ensembles applied to the data of Run 3, depth 0.1 m. Calibration: Approach applied to increasing limb of {theta}(Z,t). Validation: Superimposed trailing waves compared with data.

 

Figure 7
View larger version (29K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
FIG. 7. Linear regressions of measured vs. modeled mobile soil moisture of trailing wave (upper plot) and of residuals of modeled data (lower plot) for Run 3. The respective differences are not significant.

 

Figure 8
View larger version (23K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
FIG. 8. Film thicknesses of the rivulet ensembles vs. volumetric soil moisture for Runs 1–10. Input rates: {nabla} 15.3 mm h–1; {square} 28.8 mm h–1; {Delta} 45.5 mm h–1 at depth (a) 0.1 m and (b) 0.2 m. {theta}* ± 1 SE indicates boundary between arriving-only and flow-through rivulets. F(D = {eta}) represents the upper and lower limits of the film thickness where diffusivity equals kinematic viscosity (Germann et al., 1997).

 

Figure 9
View larger version (22K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
FIG. 9. Sum of contact lengths of ensembles vs. volumetric soil moisture for Runs 1–10. Input rates: {nabla} 15.3 mm h–1; {square} 28.8 mm h–1; {Delta} 45.5 mm h–1 at depth (a) 0.1 m and (b) 0.2 m. {theta}* ±1 SE indicates boundary between arriving-only and flow-through rivulets.

 

Figure 10
View larger version (31K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
FIG. 10. Modeled and measured mobile soil moisture, w(Z,t) = [{theta}(Z,t) – {theta}out], and volumetric flux densities, q(Z,t). (a) Run 6, depth 0.1 m: typical evolution of soil moisture and flow; (b) Run 6, depth 0.2 m: typical evolution of soil moisture and flow; (c) Run 2, depth 0.1 m: qmax {approx} qS due to {theta}in > {theta}*; (d) Run 5, depth 0.2 m: q(Z,t) is much reduced compared with other runs due to {theta}max {approx} {theta}*.

 





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 © 2007 by the Soil Science Society of America.