My Account: Log In | Join | Renew
Search
Author
Title
Vol.
Issue
Year
1st Page

Abstract

 

This article in JEQ

  1. Vol. 34 No. 2, p. 621-634
     
    Received: Apr 13, 2004
    Published: Mar, 2005


    * Corresponding author(s): Mats.Larsbo@mv.slu.se
 View
 Download
 Alerts
 Permissions
 Share

doi:10.2134/jeq2005.0621

Simulating Solute Transport in a Structured Field Soil

  1. Mats Larsbo * and
  2. Nicholas Jarvis
  1. Department of Soil Sciences, SLU, Box 7014, 750 07 Uppsala, Sweden

Abstract

Dual-permeability models have been developed to account for the significant effects of macropore flow on contaminant transport, but their use is hampered by difficulties in estimating the additional parameters required. Therefore, our objective was to evaluate data requirements for parameter identification for predictive modeling with the dual-permeability model MACRO. Two different approaches were compared: sequential uncertainty fitting (SUFI) and generalized likelihood uncertainty estimation (GLUE). We investigated six parameters controlling macropore flow and pesticide sorption and degradation, applying MACRO to a comprehensive field data set of bromide andbentazone [3-isopropyl-1H-2,1,3-benzothiadiazin-4(3H)-one-2,2dioxide] transport in a structured soil. The GLUE analyses of parameter conditioning for different combinations of observations showed that both resident and flux concentrations were needed to obtain highly conditioned and unbiased parameters and that observations of tracer transport generally improved the conditioning of macropore flow parameters. The GLUE “behavioral” parameter sets covered wider parameter ranges than the SUFI posterior uncertainty domains. Nevertheless, estimation uncertainty ranges defined by the 5th and 95th percentiles were similar and many simulations randomly sampled from the SUFI posterior uncertainty domains had negative model efficiencies (minimum of −3.2). This is because parameter correlations are neglected in SUFI and the posterior uncertainty domains were not always determined correctly. For the same reasons, uncertainty ranges for predictions of bentazone losses through drainflow for good agricultural practice in southern Sweden were 27% larger for SUFI compared with GLUE. Although SUFI proved to be an efficient parameter estimation tool, GLUE seems better suited as a method of uncertainty estimation for predictions.

  Please view the pdf by using the Full Text (PDF) link under 'View' to the left.

Copyright © 2005. American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, Soil Science SocietyASA, CSSA, SSSA