329-14
Unsaturated Time Lag: Managing the Expectations of Policymakers Using Numerical Models.
See more from this Division:
SSSA Division: Soil Physics
See more from this Session:
Environmental Soil Physics and Hydrology Student Competition: Lightning Orals with Poster Presentations
Tuesday, November 4, 2014: 3:10 PM
Long Beach Convention Center, Room 102B
Sara E. Vero, Johnstown Castle, TEAGASC, Wexford, IRELAND, Rachel E. Creamer, Teagasc, Wexford, Ireland, Tiernan Henry, National University of Ireland Galway, Galway, Ireland, Mark G. Healy, National University of Ireland, Galway, Galway, IRELAND, Tristan G. Ibrahim, Dept. for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London, United Kingdom, Karl G Richards, Environment Soils and Landuse, Teagasc, Wexford, Ireland and Owen Fenton, Environment Research Centre, TEAGASC, Wexford, Ireland
Vertical time lag (t
u) of nutrients through the unsaturated zone may impair the ability of some agricultural watersheds to attain water quality improvements within expected timescales. Consequently, appraisal of t
u can create realistic timescales for mitigation measures to take effect. Numerical models, (e.g. Hydrus 1D) allow estimates of t
u based on soil characteristic data. This study presents an assessment of meteorological resolution and soil hydraulic parameter complexity on t
u estimates using this model. A conservative tracer was simulated through twelve soil profiles using hourly and daily meteorological records. For first breakthrough of the tracer at the base of the profile, the difference between daily and hourly timesteps never exceeded 0.01 yrs, suggesting that a daily resolution is sufficient. However, when total exit of the solute is of interest, an hourly timestep is recommended, as the difference in t
uranged from 0.10 to 0.42 yrs.
Simulations were then conducted based upon (a) textural class, (b) particle size distribution, (c) the full soil water characteristic curve (SWCC) and (d) a partial SWCC. Using generic data (methods (a) and (b)) underestimated tu by an average of 0.65 and 0.49 yrs respectively, compared to using the full SWCC. Excluding the arduous -15 bar pressure step (d), typically had a minor effect on tu compared to the full SWCC (av. 0.08 yrs). These results should inform model users of the optimum input data requirements for calculating tu.
See more from this Division:
SSSA Division: Soil Physics
See more from this Session:
Environmental Soil Physics and Hydrology Student Competition: Lightning Orals with Poster Presentations