JEQ
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text Free
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Related articles in JEQ
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (13)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Roulier, S.
Right arrow Articles by Jarvis, N.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Roulier, S.
Right arrow Articles by Jarvis, N.
GeoRef
Right arrow GeoRef Citation
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Roulier, S.
Right arrow Articles by Jarvis, N.
Related Collections
Right arrow Pesticides
Right arrow Inverse Procedures/Parameter Estimation
Right arrow Dual Porosity/Permeability Models
Right arrow Nonequilibrium Flow

Modeling Macropore Flow Effects on Pesticide Leaching

Inverse Parameter Estimation Using Microlysimeters

Stéphanie Roulier* and Nicholas Jarvis

Department of Soil Sciences, SLU, Box 7014, 750 07 Uppsala, Sweden



View larger version (38K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 1. (a) Daily precipitation and (b) potential evaporation (calculated with the Penman equation) during the field phase of the experiment.

 


View larger version (20K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 2. Comparison between measured and simulated accumulated water percolation for one example column from each landscape element: (a) hilltop, (b) slope, and (c) hollow.

 


View larger version (38K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 3. Measured and simulated tracer flux concentration for (a) hilltop, (c) slope, and (e) hollow and tracer resident concentration for (b) hilltop, (d) slope, and (f) hollow. The term EF is the model efficiency calculated using Eq. [13].

 


View larger version (61K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 4. Response surfaces of the objective function in the (a) (n*, d) and (b) (Dv, d) planes for one hilltop column. The cross identifies the parameter values estimated by the inverse procedure and the hatched area defines the posterior uncertainty domains for these estimates. The shaded scale indicates the values of the goal function.

 


View larger version (92K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 5. Response surface of the objective function in the (n*, d) plane for one slope column. The cross identifies the parameter values estimated by the inverse procedure and the hatched area defines the posterior uncertainty domains for these estimates. The shaded scale indicates the values of the goal function.

 


View larger version (39K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 6. Measured and simulated pesticide flux concentration for (a) hilltop, (c) slope, and (e) hollow and resident concentrations for (b) hilltop, (d) slope, and (f) hollow. The term EF is the model efficiency.

 





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
The SCI Journals Agronomy Journal Crop Science
Journal of Natural Resources
and Life Sciences Education
Vadose Zone Journal
Soil Science Society of America Journal Journal of Plant Registrations The Plant Genome
Copyright © 2003 by the American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America.