A spatially distributed model of pesticide movement in Dutch macroporous soils

Tiktak, A.; Hendriks, R.F.A.; Boesten, J.J.T.I.; Linden, A.M.A. van der

doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.09.025

Cited by 21 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 49 publications

(77 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The problem with the first approach is that an area‐wide parameterization of a detailed model may not be possible due to a lack of data. For instance, detailed soil and weather data may not be available and the area‐wide parameterization of preferential flow models still poses a problem, although recent advances have been made in the development of pedotransfer functions (see “Informing Soil Models Using Pedotransfer Functions” section) for these types of models (Moeys et al, 2012; Tiktak et al, 2012). The second problem is that computational resources may still be limiting to carry out simulations for millions of scenarios that are required to represent the distribution of soil, vegetation (crop), and weather conditions and to consider uncertainties or spatial variability of stochastic parameters that cannot be mapped.…”

Section: Challenges In Dealing With Soil Heterogeneity and Uncertaintymentioning

confidence: 99%

Modeling Soil Processes: Review, Key Challenges, and New Perspectives

Vereecken

Schnepf

Hopmans

et al. 2016

Vadose Zone Journal

Self Cite

526

394

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The remarkable complexity of soil and its importance to a wide range of ecosystem services presents major challenges to the modeling of soil processes. Although major progress in soil models has occurred in the last decades, models of soil processes remain disjointed between disciplines or ecosystem services, with considerable uncertainty remaining in the quality of predictions and several challenges that remain yet to be addressed. First, there is a need to improve exchange of knowledge and experience among the different disciplines in soil science and to reach out to other Earth science communities. Second, the community needs to develop a new generation of soil models based on a systemic approach comprising relevant physical, chemical, and biological processes to address critical knowledge gaps in our understanding of soil processes and their interactions. Overcoming these challenges will facilitate exchanges between soil modeling and climate, plant, and social science modeling communities. It will allow us to contribute to preserve and improve our assessment of ecosystem services and advance our understanding of climate-change feedback mechanisms, among others, thereby facilitating and strengthening communication among scientific disciplines and society. We review the role of modeling soil processes in quantifying key soil processes that shape ecosystem services, with a focus on provisioning and regulating services. We then identify key challenges in modeling soil processes, including the systematic incorporation of heterogeneity and uncertainty, the integration of data and models, and strategies for effective integration of knowledge on physical, chemical, and biological soil processes. We discuss how the soil modeling community could best interface with modern modeling activities in other disciplines, such as climate, ecology, and plant research, and how to weave novel observation and measurement techniques into soil models. We propose the establishment of an international soil modeling consortium to coherently advance soil modeling activities and foster communication with other Earth science disciplines. Such a consortium should promote soil modeling platforms and data repository for model development, calibration and intercomparison essential for addressing contemporary challenges.

show abstract

Section: Challenges In Dealing With Soil Heterogeneity and Uncertaintymentioning

confidence: 99%

Modeling Soil Processes: Review, Key Challenges, and New Perspectives

Vereecken

Schnepf

Hopmans

et al. 2016

Vadose Zone Journal

Self Cite

526

394

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this approach, the solute flow input response at a certain depth is calculated from the solute flow input response in the layer above when the correlation is known between the points [Nissen et al, 2000]. Other models that have the capacity to include preferential flow are RZWQM [Ahuja et al, 1991], MACRO [Larsbo and Jarvis, 2003;Moeys et al, 2012], and PEARL [Tiktak et al, 2012].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Solute and sediment transport at laboratory and field scale: Contributions of J.-Y. Parlange

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

[1] We explore selected aspects of J.-Y. Parlange's contributions to hydrological transport of solutes and sediments, including both the laboratory and field scales. At the laboratory scale, he provided numerous approximations for solute transport accounting for effects of boundary conditions, linear and nonlinear reactions, and means to determine relevant parameters. Theory was extended to the field scale with, on the one hand, the effect of varying surface boundary conditions and, on the other, effects of soil structure heterogeneity. Soil erosion modeling, focusing on the Hairsine-Rose model, was considered in several papers. His main results, which provide highly usable approximations for grain-size class dependent sediment transport and deposition, are described. The connection between solute in the soil and that in overland flow was also investigated by Parlange. His theory on exchange of solutes between these two compartments, and subsequent movement, is presented. Both deterministic and stochastic approaches were considered, with application to microbial transport. Beyond contaminant transport, Parlange's fundamental contributions to the movement of solutes in hypersaline natural environments provided accurate predictions of vapor and liquid movement in desert, agricultural, and anthropogenic fresh-saline interfaces in porous media, providing the foundation for this area of research.

show abstract

“…Drains responded nonlinearly to groundwater level variations, attributable to nonlinearity in drainage resistance and a possible increase in hydraulic conductivity upwards in the soil profile. Higher hydraulic conductivities near the ground surface have been frequently observed and linked to the presence of macropores in the soil (Beven andGermann, 2013, 1982;Tiktak et al, 2012). In contrast, groundwater flows to and from the ditch were linearly related to head differences, indicating a deep flow system and negligible influence of groundwater level variations on drainage resistance.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%