2011
DOI: 10.5194/hess-15-3877-2011
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Parameterization of a bucket model for soil-vegetation-atmosphere modeling under seasonal climatic regimes

Abstract: Abstract. We investigate the potential impact of accounting for seasonal variations in the climatic forcing and using different methods to parameterize the soil water content at field capacity on the water balance components computed by a bucket model (BM). The single-layer BM of Guswa et al. (2002) is employed, whereas the Richards equation (RE) based Soil Water Atmosphere Plant (SWAP) model is used as a benchmark model. The results are analyzed for two differently-textured soils and for some synthetic runs u… Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

2
53
0
1

Year Published

2013
2013
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 75 publications
(56 citation statements)
references
References 41 publications
2
53
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Additionally, the concept of "free drainage" is accepted to be vague, "negligible drainage" to be undefined and that two-to-three-day drainage time might not be compatible with negligible drainage (Cassel & Nielsen, 1986;Hillel, 1998;Romano & Santini, 2002;Twarakavi, Sakai, & Simunek, 2009;Assouline & Or, 2014). Due to operating field experiment difficulties, FC is commonly estimated in laboratory from soil samples, such as the water content at a specific suction value, typically 10 kPa or 33 kPa, which is generally considered incompatible with the definition of FC (Hillel, 1998;Twarakavi et al, 2009;Nemes, Pachepsky, & Timlin, 2011;Romano, Palladino, & Chirico, 2011;Ottoni Filho, Ottoni, Oliveira, Macedo, & Reichardt, 2014a). Thus, it is not only the FC concept that is questionable (Cassel & Nielsen, 1986;Assouline & Or, 2014), but also its most usual determination methodology.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Additionally, the concept of "free drainage" is accepted to be vague, "negligible drainage" to be undefined and that two-to-three-day drainage time might not be compatible with negligible drainage (Cassel & Nielsen, 1986;Hillel, 1998;Romano & Santini, 2002;Twarakavi, Sakai, & Simunek, 2009;Assouline & Or, 2014). Due to operating field experiment difficulties, FC is commonly estimated in laboratory from soil samples, such as the water content at a specific suction value, typically 10 kPa or 33 kPa, which is generally considered incompatible with the definition of FC (Hillel, 1998;Twarakavi et al, 2009;Nemes, Pachepsky, & Timlin, 2011;Romano, Palladino, & Chirico, 2011;Ottoni Filho, Ottoni, Oliveira, Macedo, & Reichardt, 2014a). Thus, it is not only the FC concept that is questionable (Cassel & Nielsen, 1986;Assouline & Or, 2014), but also its most usual determination methodology.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The latter is a prerequisite for characterizing accurately processes such as infiltration, redistribution, root-water uptake, drainage, and groundwater recharge. We refer the interested reader to Romano et al (2011) for a detailed comparison of bucket type and Richards-based vadose zone flow models.…”
Section: Main Differences Of Vic-3l and Clmmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The FC value is determined dynamically using a Richards-based numerical model as the average volumetric water content remaining in a soil profile, after having been completely wetted with water and free drainage beyond the root zone has become negligible [42,43]. Instead, the PWP value is estimated using the pedo-transfer function (PTF) of Vereckeen [44].…”
Section: Soil Hydraulic Characterization Of the Study Areamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This information is suitably embedded in the well-known "available water" (AW) parameter, which is the difference in the volumetric soil-water contents between the field capacity (FC) and permanent wilting point (PWP) conditions in soil (i.e. AW=FC-PWP) [42,43]. In the cases of relatively large land areas, such as the study area considered here, mapping the spatial variations of AW is an effective dynamic indicator to evaluate the efficiency of the selected phytoremediation protocol in the different parts of the territory.…”
Section: Soil Hydraulic Characterization Of the Study Areamentioning
confidence: 99%