4.7 Article

On the estimation of spatially representative plot scale saturated hydraulic conductivity in an agricultural setting

期刊

JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGY
卷 570, 期 -, 页码 106-117

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.12.044

关键词

Saturated hydraulic conductivity; Local measurements; Spatial variability; Plot-scale estimate

资金

  1. Austrian Science Funds (FWF) as part of the Vienna Doctoral Programme on Water Resource Systems [DK W1219-N22]
  2. Italian Ministry of Education, University and Research (PRIN 2015)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Spatially representative estimates of saturated hydraulic conductivity, K-s are needed for simulating catchment scale surface runoff and infiltration. Classical methods for measuring K-s are time-consuming so sampling campaigns need to be designed economically. Important insights can be obtained by experiments directed to understand the controls of K-s in an agricultural setting and identify the minimum number of samples required for estimating representative plot scale K-s. In this study, a total of 131 double-ring infiltrometer measurements were made on 12 plots in a small Austrian catchment. A statistical analysis of K, across the catchment suggests K-s to be only slightly influenced by physical and topographical soil characteristics while land use is the main control. The highest values of K-s were observed in arable fields, with a median of about 3 times and a coefficient of variation (CV) of about 75% of those in grassland areas. An uncertainty analysis aimed at determining the minimum number of K-s measurements necessary for estimating the geometric mean of K-s over a given area with a specified accuracy suggests that, beyond a specific and plot-size dependent number of measurements, the benefit of any extra measurement is small. The confidence interval of the geometric mean of K-s decreases with the number of measurements and increases with the size of the plot sampled. Applications of these findings for designing field campaigns are discussed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据