HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text Free Full Text (PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Crescimanno, G. Articles by Garofalo, P. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Crescimanno, G. Articles by Garofalo, P. Agricola Articles by Crescimanno, G. Articles by Garofalo, P. Related Collections Solute Transport Models Sustainable Management of the Vadose Zone Irrigation

Management of Irrigation with Saline Water in Cracking Clay Soils

Università di Palermo, Dipartimento ITAF–Sezione Idraulica, Viale delle Scienze, 13 90128 Palermo, Italy

View larger version (19K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Shrinkage characteristic obtained for the Ap horizon of Baglio5 profile. The continuous line represents the Kim model fitted to the measured (u, e) values.

View larger version (15K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2. (Baglio5 soil profile, Ap horizon). Water retention curve (a) obtained by the parameter estimation method using the B-G model, including the SCIM measurements in the optimization procedure and fixing ksat. wp is the water content independently measured at h = –15 300 cm. Hydraulic conductivity function (b) obtained by the parameter estimation method using the B-G model including the SCIM measurements in the optimization procedure and fixing ksat.

View larger version (27K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Baglio5 soil profile: daily volumetric water content, , predicted by SWAP at (a) 30 cm and at (b) 45 cm.

View larger version (23K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4. Baglio5 soil profile: daily electrical conductivity of saturated soil extract, ECsat, predicted (a) at 30 cm and (b) at 45 cm assuming for Ldis the value of 20 cm.

View larger version (21K): [in a new window]   Fig. 5. Amount of solutes accumulated, S (mg cm–2), in the seven soil profiles according to the three considered irrigation schedulings (Scenario 1).

View larger version (23K): [in a new window]   Fig. 6. Water distribution along the soil profile 1 d after irrigation (Baglio1 profile).

View larger version (17K): [in a new window]   Fig. 7. Average volumetric water content, m (m3 m–3), during the irrigation season of year 2000 according to Scenario 1 (Baglio1 profile).

View larger version (16K): [in a new window]   Fig. 8. Amount of solutes accumulated in the soil profiles, S (mg cm–2), in Scenarios 1c and 1c'.

View larger version (20K): [in a new window]   Fig. 9. Cumulative water flow from the cracks into the matrix, CWF (cm), obtained for the different profiles.

View larger version (30K): [in a new window]   Fig. 10. Crack volume as percentage of volume at saturation, Vcr/V (%), vs. pressure head (a) for Baglio2, Baglio4, Baglio5, Baglio6, and Baglio7, and (b) for Baglio1 and Baglio3.

View larger version (35K): [in a new window]   Fig. 11. Overall flux of solutes, CWQ (mg cm–2 d–1), from the soil profiles, flux of solutes leaving the matrix (CWQm), and the cracks (CWQcr).

View larger version (22K): [in a new window]   Fig. 12. Hydraulic conductivity functions, k (cm h–1), obtained for the seven profiles for the A1 horizon.

View larger version (14K): [in a new window]   Fig. 13. Amount of solutes accumulated in the soil profiles, S (mg cm–2), according to Scenarios 1c and 2c.

View larger version (33K): [in a new window]   Fig. 14. Overall flux of solutes, CWQ (mg cm–2 d–1), from the soil profiles in the 2c scenario.

View larger version (17K): [in a new window]   Fig. 15. Average electrical conductivity of the saturated extract, ECsat (dS m–1), vs. time (Baglio1 profile).