03.12.2012 Views

SCHRIFTENREIHE Institut für Pflanzenernährung und Bodenkunde ...

SCHRIFTENREIHE Institut für Pflanzenernährung und Bodenkunde ...

SCHRIFTENREIHE Institut für Pflanzenernährung und Bodenkunde ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

cm).<br />

92<br />

where Tz* is the temperature measured at the uppermost soil depth, z* (2<br />

Root water uptake was simulated using the model of Feddes et al. (1978).<br />

According to the root measurements, the maximum rooting depth was<br />

considered to be 1 m, with the highest root density in the upper 30 cm. The<br />

rooting depth increased linearly from 0 cm at the beginning of simulation to a<br />

maximum value at the date of “full cover” or harvest. The critical pressure heads<br />

in the water stress response function of Feddes were adapted from grass<br />

(Wesseling, 1991), and adjusted for the local conditions with a value of -1500<br />

kPa for the wilting point p3.<br />

Water and Heat Flow Simulations<br />

The coupled water and heat transport module implemented in HYDURS-1D<br />

was tested using measured depth-averaged soil moisture and temperature (soil<br />

temperature at 5 cm depth was derived from Eq. [7] using the measured value in<br />

2 cm depth). According to phenological data from IMGERS (Chen and Wang,<br />

2000), the growing season starts aro<strong>und</strong> late April and ends aro<strong>und</strong> early<br />

October. According to our measurements (Gao, 2007), LAI increased rapidly<br />

from early May to late July, reached a peak in late August, and then decreased<br />

precipitously. Thus we assigned the growing season, i.e., simulation time, to the<br />

period from 1 May to 30 September. The simulated soil profile was considered to<br />

be 100 cm deep with observation nodes located at 5, 20, and 40 cm depths.<br />

In this study, we used five model approaches to explore the influence of soil<br />

hydraulic parameter availability on the quality of the model results (Table 1).<br />

Simulation 1 was conducted as a direct approach, using laboratory-derived<br />

hydraulic parameters (LDP) fitted by RETC code without any optimization. In<br />

simulation 2, hydraulic parameters were derived by a neural network (NN)<br />

prediction tool ROSETTA (Schaap et al., 2001) based on data of soil texture and<br />

bulk density. In simulation 3, an inverse model (Inverse) was used to estimate<br />

hydraulic parameters using a Levenberg–Marquardt parameter optimization<br />

algorithm. A layered soil profile with different parameters for each layer is<br />

assumed. The hydraulic functions described in Eqs. [1] and [2] may contain up to

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!