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

Deriving Hydrological Parameters for Modeling Water Flow under Field Conditions

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 /s and suction (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 /s and suction (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