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


     


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 (1)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Zavattaro, L.
Right arrow Articles by Grignani, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Zavattaro, L.
Right arrow Articles by Grignani, C.
GeoRef
Right arrow GeoRef Citation
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Zavattaro, L.
Right arrow Articles by Grignani, C.
Related Collections
Right arrow Soil Methods/Instrumentation
Right arrow Soil Models
Right arrow Soil Physics

Deriving Hydrological Parameters for Modeling Water Flow under Field Conditions

Laura Zavattaro and Carlo Grignani

Dipartimento di Agronomia, Selvicoltura e Gestione del Territorio, Università di Torino, 44, via Leonardo da Vinci, 10095 Grugliasco, Italy



View larger version (20K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 1. Soil bulk density along the profile. The bars represent the mean standard error and the numbers are the number of samples taken at each depth

 


View larger version (23K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 2. Relationship between the relative water content {theta}/{theta}s and suction {psi} (log kPa), field and laboratory measurements for different horizons of Tetto Frati soil

 


View larger version (28K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 3. Relationship between the relative water content {theta}/{theta}s and suction {psi} (log kPa), field and laboratory measurements for different horizons of Molinasso soil

 


View larger version (16K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 4. Hydraulic conductivity at the soil surface (from tension infiltrometer measurements) and in the 0.2- to 0.4-m layer (from the internal drainage method) in the two soils. The two lines represent the best-fit curves of Campbell's model

 


View larger version (34K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 5. Hydraulic head during the internal drainage experiment in the two soils

 


View larger version (26K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 6. Hydraulic conductivity curve calculated using measured Ks and parameters a and b from the retention curve (RC) compared with that from experimental data (a) measured at the soil surface with tension infiltrometers (TI), (b) measured in the 0.2- to 0.4-m layer with the internal drainage method (ID). The effect of shifting the matching point from saturation to a potential of -75 mm is also shown for the RC curve

 


View larger version (28K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 7. Simulated with LEACHM (continuous line) and measured (x) matric potentials at selected depths in the two soils. Note the scales on the y axis are not constant

 





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
The SCI Journals Agronomy Journal Crop Science
Journal of Natural Resources
and Life Sciences Education
Vadose Zone Journal
Journal of Plant Registrations Journal of
Environmental Quality
The Plant Genome
Copyright © 2001 by the Soil Science Society of America.