1887

Abstract

Summary

Agriculture, industry, airport activities all have impact on the quality of soil and water. To improve risk assessment, monitoring, design and implementation of cost-effective preventive or mitigation measures and/or policies we require a better understanding of the underlying environmental processes. Spatial heterogeneity plays a critical role for describing water and solute transport processes in the unsaturated zone. Heterogeneous water flow in soils is complex and challenging to quantify due to changes in soil hydraulic properties across different spatial scales.

We conducted an experiment involving different field and laboratory sensory techniques and measurements to examine 3D functional heterogeneity and its physical drivers in natural soil. We compare the spatial heterogeneity of the soil from ERT measurements at two scales with the observed spatial distribution of hydraulic properties calculated from soil samples and TDR data.

ERT helped to visualize the heterogeneity of the studied system. Although at first the high resistive feature observed with ERT could not be explained by tensiometer and/or TDR data, there was a distinct difference in the retention curves inside and outside the feature, which creates difference in resistivity values. These observations help us to better understand the links between soil hydraulic properties and heterogeneous water flow.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201802497
2018-09-09
2020-06-07
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Anderson, J.L. and Bouma, J.
    [1973] Relationships Between Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity and Morphometric Data of an Argillic Horizon. SSSA Proc.37:408–421.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Angulo-Jarmillo, R.,
    2000. Field measurement of soil surface hydraulic properties by disc and ring infiltrometers: A review and recent developments. Soil Till. Res.55: 1–29.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Binley, A., Kemna, A.
    [2005] DC Resistivity and Induced Polarization Methods. In: RubinB. Hubbard, S.S. (Editors), Hydrogeophysics. Springer, pp. 129–156
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Jørgensen, P. and Østmo, S.R.
    [1990] Hydrogeology in the Romerike area, Southern Norway. NGU Bull.418:19–26.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. KværnøS.H., Haugen, L.E., Børresen, T.
    [2007] Variability in topsoil texture and carbon content within soil map units and its implications in predicting soil water content for optimum workabilitySoil Till. Res.95: 332–347.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Depountis, N., Harris, C., DaviesM.C.R.
    [2001] An assessment of miniaturised electrical imaging equipment to monitor pollution plume evolution in scaled centrifuge modellingEngin. Geol.60: 83–94.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Kemna, A., Binley, A., Ramirez, A., Daily, W.
    [2000] Complex resistivity tomography for environmental applications. Chem. Eng. J.77: 11–18.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Olsen, P.A., Binley, A., Henry-Poulter, S., Tychet, W.
    [1999] Characterizing solute transport in undisturbed soil cores using electrical and X-ray tomographic methodsHydrol. Process. 13: 211–221.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201802497
Loading
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201802497
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error