Predicting Depressional Storage from Soil Surface Roughness
E.C. Kamphorsta,
V. Jettenb,
J. Guérifa,
J. Pitkänenc,
B.V. Iversend,
J.T. Douglase and
A. Pazf
a Unité d'Agronomie Laon/Péronne, INRA, Laon, France
b Dep. of Physical Geography, Univ. of Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands
c MTT, Jokioinen, Finland
d Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Foulum, Denmark
e Scottish Agricultural College, Penicuik, UK
f Faculty of Sciences, Univ. of Coruña, Coruña, Spain

View larger version (18K):
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 1 Boundary conditions to fill digital evaluation model of a plot. Eight copies of the plot surface were arranged symmetrically around the inside plot to obtain a continuous surface ninefold larger than the plot
|
|

View larger version (21K):
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 2 Maximum depressional storage (MDS) values as a function of tillage (s = standard deviation; SE = standard error)
|
|

View larger version (19K):
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 3 Influence of grid spacing on maximum depressional storage (MDS), mean and standard deviation
|
|

View larger version (24K):
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 4 Random roughness (RR), limiting elevation difference (LD), and mean upslope depression (MUD) vs. maximum depressional storage (MDS). d = sample spacing. *** Significant at P = 0.001
|
|

View larger version (25K):
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 6 Influence of sample spacing and tillage on tortuosity (T)
|
|

View larger version (33K):
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 7 Evaluation of existing maximum depressional storage (MDS) predicting models. d = sample spacing, RMSE = root mean square error
|
|

View larger version (31K):
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 8 Models to predict a single value of maximum depressional storage (MDS) from random roughness (RR), with 95% confidence intervals. (a) all data (n = 221); (b) zoom of (a); (c) lab data (n = 48); (d) field data (n = 173). EV = explained variance
|
|
Copyright © 2000 by the Soil Science Society of America.