Different scenarios for inverse estimation of soil hydraulic parameters from double-ring infiltrometer data using HYDRUS-2D/3D

Open access

Abstract

In this study, HYDRUS-2D/3D was used to simulate ponded infiltration through double-ring infiltrometers into a hypothetical loamy soil profile. Twelve scenarios of inverse modelling (divided into three groups) were considered for estimation of Mualem-van Genuchten hydraulic parameters. In the first group, simulation was carried out solely using cumulative infiltration data. In the second group, cumulative infiltration data plus water content at h = −330 cm (field capacity) were used as inputs. In the third group, cumulative infiltration data plus water contents at h = −330 cm (field capacity) and h = −15 000 cm (permanent wilting point) were used simultaneously as predictors. The results showed that numerical inverse modelling of the double-ring infiltrometer data provided a reliable alternative method for determining soil hydraulic parameters. The results also indicated that by reducing the number of hydraulic parameters involved in the optimization process, the simulation error is reduced. The best one in infiltration simulation which parameters α, n, and Ks were optimized using the infiltration data and field capacity as inputs. Including field capacity as additional data was important for better optimization/definition of soil hydraulic functions, but using field capacity and permanent wilting point simultaneously as additional data increased the simulation error.

REFERENCES

  • Abbasi F., 2015. Advanced soil physics. Tehran University Publication, Iran.

  • Abbasi F., Šimůnek J., Feyen J., van Genuchten M.Th., and Shouse P.J., 2003. Simultaneous inverse estimation of soil hydraulic and solute transport parameters from transient field experiments: homogeneous soil. Trans. ASAE, 46(4), 1085-1095.

  • Akaike H., 1974. A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Trans Automat Contr., 19, 716-723.

  • Alletto L., Pot V., Giuliano S., Costes M., Perdrieux F., and Justes E., 2015. Temporal variation in soil physical properties improves the water dynamics modeling in a conventionally-tilled soil. Geoderma, 243-244, 18-28.

  • Asgarzadeh H., Mosaddeghi M.R., Dexter A.R., Mahboubi A.A., and Neyshabouri M.R., 2014. Determination of soil available water for plants: consistency between laboratory and field measurements. Geoderma, 226-227, 8-20.

  • Bitterlich S., Durner W., Iden S.C., and Knabner P., 2004. Inverse estimation of the unsaturated soil hydraulic properties from column outflow experiments using free-form parameterizations. Vadose Zone J., 3, 971-981.

  • Bohne K., Roth C., Leij F.J., and van Genuchten M.Th., 1993. Rapid method for estimating the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity from infiltration measurements. Soil Sci., 55, 237-244.

  • Burnham K.P. and Anderson D.R., 2004. Multimodel inference: Understanding AIC and BIC in model selection. Sociol. Methods Res., 33, 261-304.

  • Damodhara Rao M., Raghuwanshi N.S., and Singh R., 2006. Development of a physically based 1D-infiltraton model for irrigated soils. Agric. Water Manag., 85, 165-174.

  • El-Nesr N.M., Alazba A.A., and Šimůnek J., 2014. HYDRUS simulations of the effects of dual-drip subsurface irrigation and a physical barrier on water movement and solute transport in soils. Irrig. Sci., 32, 111-125.

  • Hopmans J.W., Šimůnek J., and Bristow K.L., 2002. Indirect estimation of soil thermal properties and water flux from heat pulse measurements: Geometry and dispersion effects. Water Resour. Res., 38(1), 701-714.

  • Kandelous M.M., and Šimůnek J., 2010. Numerical simulations of water movement in a subsurface drip irrigation system under field and laboratory conditions using HYDRUS-2D. Agric. Water Manag., 97, 1070-1076.

  • Mualem Y., 1976. A new model for predicting the hydraulic conductivity of unsaturated porous media. Water Resour. Res., 12(3), 513-522.

  • Nakhaei M. and Šimůnek J., 2014. Parameter estimation of soil hydraulic and thermal property functions for unsaturated porous media using the HYDRUS-2D code. J. Hydrol. Hydromech., 62(1), 7-15.

  • Nash J.E. and Sutcliffe J.V., 1970. River flow forecasting through conceptual models. Part I: a discussion of principles. J. Hydrol., 10, 282-290.

  • Pollalis E.D. and Valiantzas J.D., 2015. Isolation of a 1D infiltration time interval under ring infiltrometers for determining sorptivity and saturated hydraulic conductivity: numerical, theoretical, and experimental approach. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng., 141(2), 10.1061/(ASCE)IR.1943-4774.0000796.

  • Ramos T.B., Šimůnek J., Gonçalves M.C., Martins J.C., Prazeres A., and Pereira L.S., 2012. Two-dimensional modeling of water and nitrogen fate from sweet sorghum irrigated with fresh and blended saline waters. Agric. Water Manag., 111, 87-104.

  • Rashid N.S.A., Askari M., Tanaka T., Šimůnek J., and van Genuchten M.Th., 2015. Inverse estimation of soil hydraulic properties under oil palm trees. Geoderma, 241-242, 306-312.

  • Reynolds W.D., Elrick D.E., and Youngs E.G., 2002a. Ring or cylinder infiltrometers (vadose zone). In: Dane, J.H., Topp, G.C. (Eds.): Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 4. Physical Methods. SSSA No. 5, Soil Science Society of America, Inc. Madison, WI, pp. 818-820.

  • Reynolds W.D., Elrick D.E., and Youngs E.G., 2002b. Single-ring and double or concentric-ring infiltrometers. In: Dane, J., Topp, G.C. (Eds): Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 4 - Physical Methods. SSSA No. 5, Soil Science Society of America, Inc. Madison, WI, pp, 821-826.

  • Ritter A., Munõz-Carpena R., Regalado C.M., Vanclooster M., and Lambot S., 2004. Analysis of alternative measurement strategies for the inverse optimization of the hydraulic properties of a volcanic soil. J. Hydrol., 295, 124-139.

  • Russo D., Bresler E., Shani U., and Parker J.C., 1991. Analysis of infiltration events in relation to determining soil hydraulic properties by inverse problem methodology. Water Resour. Res., 27, 1361-1373.

  • Schaap M.G., Leij F.J., and van Genuchten M.Th., 2001. ROSETTA: a computer program for estimating soil hydraulic parameters with hierarchical pedotransfer functions. J. Hydrol., 251,163-176.

  • Si B.C. and Kachanoski R.G., 2000. Estimating soil hydraulic properties during constant flux infiltration: Inverse procedures. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 64, 439-449.

  • Sillers W.S., Fredlund D.G., and Zakerzadeh N., 2001. Mathematical attributes of some soil-water characteristic curve models. Geotech. Geol. Eng., 19, 243-283.

  • Šimůnek J. and van Genuchten M.Th., 1996. Estimating unsaturated soil hydraulic properties from tension disc infiltrometer data by numerical inversion. Water Resour. Res., 32(9), 2683-2696.

  • Šimůnek J., Wendroth O., and van Genuchten M.Th., 1998. Parameter estimation analysis of the evaporation method for determining soil hydraulic properties. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 62, 894-905.

  • Šimůnek J., Wendroth O., Wypler N., and van Genuchten M.Th., 2001. Non-equilibrium water flow characterized by means of upward infiltration experiments. Eur. J. Soil Sci., 52(1), 13-24.

  • Šimůnek J., van Genuchten M.Th., and Šejna M., 2008. Development and applications of the HYDRUS and STANMOD software packages and related codes. Vadose Zone J., 7(2), 587-600.

  • Šimůnek J., van Genuchten M. Th., and Šejna M., 2011. The HYDRUS Software Package for Simulating Two- and Three-Dimensional Movement of Water, Heat, and Multiple Solutes in Variably-Saturated Media, Technical Manual, Version 2.0, PC Progress, Prague, Czech Republic.

  • van Genuchten M.Th., 1980. A closed-form equation for predicting the hydraulic conductivity of unsaturated soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 44(5), 892-898.

  • Willmott C.J., 1981. On the validation of models. Physical Geography, 2, 184-194.

  • Wöhling T. and Vrugt J.A., 2011. Multiresponse multilayer vadose zone model calibration using Markov chain Monte Carlo simulation and field water retention data. Water Resour. Res., 47, W04510. doi: 10.1029/2010WR009265.

International Agrophysics

The Journal of Institute of Agrophysics of Polish Academy of Sciences

Journal Information


IMPACT FACTOR 2016: 0.967
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 1.197

CiteScore 2016: 1.36

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2016: 0.447
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2016: 0.925

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 40 40 29
PDF Downloads 6 6 4