2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.02.062
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Using repeat electrical resistivity surveys to assess heterogeneity in soil moisture dynamics under contrasting vegetation types

Abstract: The version presented here may differ from the published version or from the version of the record. Please see the repository URL above for details on accessing the published version and note that access may require a subscription.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
18
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 38 publications
(29 citation statements)
references
References 87 publications
0
18
0
Order By: Relevance
“…It was notable that the forest top soil showed much greater variability in moisture content than the heather site, probably due to more root water uptake by pines and faster drainage through the shallower organic layer to dry the soils. It is also noticeable that soil moisture contents were lower and less variable at the forest site than the heather site, reflecting the much coarser subsoil characteristics (Dick et al, 2017). Whilst at the heather site there was a tendency to slightly overestimate moisture content in wet periods, for the forest site the model over-anticipated the wetup following summer 2015 and exaggerated the dry-down following very large rainfall inputs in December 2015/January 2016.…”
Section: 1model Test Against Soil Moisture and Transpirationmentioning
confidence: 91%
“…It was notable that the forest top soil showed much greater variability in moisture content than the heather site, probably due to more root water uptake by pines and faster drainage through the shallower organic layer to dry the soils. It is also noticeable that soil moisture contents were lower and less variable at the forest site than the heather site, reflecting the much coarser subsoil characteristics (Dick et al, 2017). Whilst at the heather site there was a tendency to slightly overestimate moisture content in wet periods, for the forest site the model over-anticipated the wetup following summer 2015 and exaggerated the dry-down following very large rainfall inputs in December 2015/January 2016.…”
Section: 1model Test Against Soil Moisture and Transpirationmentioning
confidence: 91%
“…Water age estimates are challenged by the natural multiscale heterogeneity of hydraulic conductivity (e.g., soil matrix vs. macropores in the subsurface) (Bachmair & Weiler, ; Troch et al, ), which can lead to long tails of the water age distribution functions (Kirchner et al, ). Additionally, heterogeneity in infiltration and percolation results from vegetation (e.g., interception and throughfall—e.g., Molina et al, —and root water uptake volumes and depths—e.g., Dick et al, ), snow accumulation and melt patterns (e.g., Garvelmann et al, ), and other spatially variable environmental characteristics.…”
Section: Quantifying Water Ages In the Critical Zonementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Geophysical properties can be related to soil state variables (e.g., soil moisture content, salt concentration), soil properties (e.g., clay content, cation exchange capacity), and root properties (e.g., root mass, root surface area) as summarized by Vanderborght et al (2013). Geophysical methods have been widely used in the past two decades to monitor moisture patterns associated with water flow (Deiana et al, 2007;Huisman, Snepvangers, Bouten, & Heuvelink, 2002;Looms, Jensen, Binley, & Nielsen, 2008;Lu & Sabatier, 2009;Oberdörster, Vanderborght, Kemna, & Vereecken, 2010;WeihermĂŒller, Huisman, Lambot, Herbst, & Vereecken, 2007;Zhou, Shimada, & Sato, 2001) and root water uptake (Beff, GĂŒnther, Vandoorne, Couvreur, & Javaux, 2013;Cassiani, Boaga, Vanella, Perri, & Consoli, 2015;Dick, Tetzlaff, Bradford, & Soulsby, 2018;GarrĂ©, Javaux, Vanderborght, Pages, & Vereecken, 2011;Jayawickreme, Van Dam, & Hyndman, 2008;Mares, Barnard, Mao, Revil, & Singha, 2016;Michot et al, 2003;Srayeddin & Dousssan, 2009;Vanella et al, 2018). The application of geophysical techniques in an agricultural context to study how agricultural production is affected by environmental variables (e.g., water availability, salinity) and agricultural management (e.g., impact of fertilizer and irrigation application), as well as to study fundamental soil-root interactions, is now referred to as…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%