HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Free via Open Access OA Abstract OA 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 Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Weynants, M. Articles by Javaux, M. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Weynants, M. Articles by Javaux, M. GeoRef GeoRef Citation Agricola Articles by Weynants, M. Articles by Javaux, M. Related Collections Hydraulic Conductivity Soil Hydrology Pedotransfer Functions

Revisiting Vereecken Pedotransfer Functions: Introducing a Closed-Form Hydraulic Model

^a Dep. of Environmental Sciences and Land Use Planning, Univ. Catholique de Louvain, Croix du Sud 2/bte 2, B-1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
^b Institute for Chemistry and Dynamics of the Geosphere, Agrosphere Institute, ICG-IV, Forschungszentrum Juelich GmbH, D-52425 Juelich, Germany

View larger version (11K): [in this window] [in a new window]   FIG. 1. Belgian textural classes of the sampled soil horizons. The data from the Vereecken data set are shown in red and the ones from the test data set are shown in blue; Z = sand, S = loamy sand, P = light sandy loam, L = sandy loam, A = loam, E = clay, U = heavy clay.

View larger version (13K): [in this window] [in a new window]   FIG. 2. Example illustrating the difference of shape between the van Genuchten model (vG) with shape parameter m = 1 and with m = 1 – 1/n; is volumetric water content and pF is matric suction.

View larger version (27K): [in this window] [in a new window]   FIG. 3. Predictions of water content (mod) plotted against observations (meas) according to the Vereecken (circles) and Weynants (x's) pedotransfer functions for the training and test sets.

View larger version (26K): [in this window] [in a new window]   FIG. 4. Predictions of unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (Kmod) plotted against observations (Kmeas) according to the Vereecken (circles) and Weynants (x's) pedotransfer functions for the training set.

View larger version (13K): [in this window] [in a new window]   FIG. 5. Principal component analysis of the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks) and its potential predictors: sand and clay contents, bulk density (BD), and organic C content (OC). The red dots show the scattering of the data set in the space of the three first components, explaining 83.58% of the total variance.

View larger version (11K): [in this window] [in a new window]   FIG. 6. Boxplot of the ratio of the saturated hydraulic conductivity to the conductivity acting as a matching point at 0 potential [ln(Ksat)/ln(Ko)] for each textural class available in the Vereecken data set (Z = sand, S = loamy sand, P = light sandy loam, L = sandy loam, A = loam, E = clay, U = heavy clay). Numbers of observations in each class are given in parentheses. The box has lines at the lower quartile, median, and upper quartile values. Whiskers extend to the most extreme values within 1.5 times the interquartile range from the ends of the box. Outliers are displayed with a + sign.

View larger version (13K): [in this window] [in a new window]   FIG. 7. Ratio of the saturated hydraulic conductivity to the conductivity acting as a matching point at 0 potential [ln(Ksat)/ln(Ko)] vs. sand, silt, and clay content.