4.5 Article

A Pedotransfer Function for Field-Scale Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity of a Small Watershed

期刊

VADOSE ZONE JOURNAL
卷 18, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

SOIL SCI SOC AMER
DOI: 10.2136/vzj2019.02.0018

关键词

-

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

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Classical experimental techniques to determine point values of saturated hydraulic conductivity (K-s) are complex and time consuming; therefore, the development of pedotransfer functions, PTFs, to derive K-s from easily available soil properties is of great importance. However, PTFs have been generally developed at the local scale, while hydrological modeling requires K-s estimates at larger scales. A small Austrian catchment, where detailed soil characteristics were available, was selected to address this issue. Values of field-scale saturated hydraulic conductivity (), observed in a number of catchment areas by double-ring infiltrometers, were used to develop two PTFs, one by multiple linear regression (PTFMLR) and one by ridge regression (PTFR). Training and validation of the PTFs in the monitored areas indicate that the PTFR provides better outcomes with smaller average errors. This suggests that the ridge regression is a valid alternative to the classical multiple linear regression technique. Predictions of by the PTFs in the remaining areas, where infiltration measurements were not performed, were also made to obtain a map of for the whole catchment. Two alternative approaches were used: Method A-soil properties were first interpolated and then the PTFs applied; Method B-the PTFs were first applied to sites with available soil properties and then interpolated. The maps of obtained by the PTFMLR are not representative of the spatial variability. On the other hand, the map generated by the PTFR with Method A is consistent with catchment morphology and soil characteristics.

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

4.5
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