You are on page 1of 62

1

4
5
6

8 Review of Dispersivity Lengths for Transport Modeling in


9 Soils
10
11
12
13 Jan Vanderborght and Harry Vereecken
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33 Agrosphere ICG-IV
34 Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH
35 D-52425 Jülich
36 e-mail: j.vanderborght@fz-juelich.de
37 tel: +49 2461 612281

1
1 Abstract
2 The one-dimensional convection-dispersion equation is often used to estimate the risk of non-

3 point source groundwater contamination and dispersivity is known to be a sensitive parameter

4 for predicting the mass that leaches from through the soil towards the groundwater. We

5 present a database of dispersivities that were derived from leaching studies in soils. Besides

6 dispersivities, the database contains information about experimental parameters: transport

7 distance, scale of the experiment, flow rate, boundary conditions, soil texture, pore water

8 velocity, transport velocity, and measurement method. Dispersivities increase with increasing

9 transport distance and scale of the experiment. Considerably larger dispersivities were

10 observed for saturated than for unsaturated flow conditions. No significant effect of soil

11 texture on dispersivity was observed but interactive effects of soil texture, lateral scale of the

12 experiment, and flow rate on dispersivity were significant. In coarse textured soils, lateral

13 water redistribution may take place over larger distances, which explains the larger

14 dependency of dispersivity on lateral scale of the experiment in coarse than in finer textured

15 soils. The activation of large interaggregate pores may explain the increase in dispersivity

16 with increasing flow rate in finer textured soils, which was not observed in soils with a

17 coarser texture. The distribution of dispersivities is positively skewed and better described by

18 a lognormal than a normal distribution. Different experimental factors explained 25 % of the

19 total variability of loge transformed dispersivities. The unexplained variance of the

20 dispersivity is large and its coefficient of variation amounts 100%.

2
1 Introduction
2 Models that calculated chemical transport in soils are more and more being used in practice.

3 Risk assessment on the basis of model calculations of leaching of surface applied chemicals

4 (fertilizers, pesticides) or of contaminants from contaminated sites towards the groundwater

5 becomes more and more legally prescribed. Examples are the FOCUS groundwater scenarios

6 (FOCUS, 2000) which must be used in the European pesticide registration procedure to

7 estimate the risk of groundwater contamination by surface applied pesticides. The reliability

8 of these model calculations depends on the accuracy with which relevant processes for

9 contaminant transport are implemented in transport models. An important process is the

10 transport in that occurs in the water phase. Reviews of different model approaches to describe

11 transport of dissolved substances are given by Feyen et al. (1998); Jury and Flühler (1992);

12 Nielsen et al. (1986), Vanclooster et al. (2005). Besides an appropriate model choice, also the

13 parameterization of the model plays an important role. To parameterize the water flow model,

14 databases of soil hydraulic parameters, e.g., HYPRES database (Wösten et al., 1999), the

15 UNSODA database (Nemes et al., 2001) and pedotransfer functions relating soil hydraulic

16 with spatialized information about other soil properties have been derived (Schaap et al.,

17 1998; Vereecken et al., 1990; Vereecken et al., 1989). Using pedotransfer functions in

18 combination with soil databases, hydraulic properties and model predictions can be

19 spatialized as well as soil management, and soil and groundwater protection policies. An

20 example of combining modeling of pesticide leaching with spatialized information about soil

21 properties and land use to derive spatial distributions of pesticide groundwater concentrations

22 is given by Tiktak et al. (2004). In their study, hydraulic properties and soil properties that are

23 related to pesticide sorption and decay (organic carbon content and soil pH) were spatialized

24 whereas transport parameters were chosen to be constant. Boesten (2004) showed that the

25 dispersivity, which is a transport parameter describing spreading or dispersion of a surface

26 applied solute pulse that leaches through the soil, has an important impact on predicted yearly

3
1 averaged pesticide concentration, especially for substances with a low leaching potential.

2 However, datasets of transport parameters such as those existing for hydraulic parameters are

3 missing. Gelhar et al. (1992) reviewed dispersivities derived from groundwater tracer studies

4 and found a scale dependency of the dispersivity, which increases with increasing transport

5 distance. Since the transport distance in groundwater tracer studies is much larger than the

6 typical transport distance in soils, it is questionable whether parameters derived from

7 groundwater tracer studies can be applied to soils. Furthermore, the structural properties of

8 soils and aquifers are substantially different. In soils, flow and transport are perpendicular to

9 the layering whereas in aquifers, they are mostly aligned with stratification. The origin of

10 stratification in soils and aquifers is also substantially different. In aquifers, stratification is

11 mostly the result of a sedimentation process whereas in soils it results from leaching and

12 precipitation processes. Finally, flow and transport processes in aquifers occur under saturated

13 and more or less steady flow conditions. In soils, flow and transport are highly dynamic

14 processes that change in magnitude and direction due to the continuously changing boundary

15 conditions. Also the water content and the pore volume in which transport takes places

16 change continuously. Therefore it is highly questionable whether transport properties obtained

17 from groundwater tracer studies can be translated to soils.

18 The objective of this study is to give an overview of transport properties, more specifically the

19 dispersivity, that were derived from tracer studies in soils. We focus on the dispersivity since

20 the convection dispersion model is the most widely used model to predict transport in soils

21 and to interpret tracer experiments, especially those tracer experiments that were carried out

22 under natural boundary conditions at the field plot scale and in undisturbed soil (which are

23 most relevant for practical applications). Beven et al. (1993) made a review of tracer

24 experiments and dispersivities in soils. However, the number of studies, especially the

25 number of field scale studies that could be reviewed at that time was relatively small.

26 Overviews of parameters of other transport models, such as mobile-immobile model

4
1 parameters (van Genuchten and Wierenga, 1976), were restricted to experiments that were

2 carried out in relatively small soil columns, which were often filled with disturbed soil or

3 artificial media such as glass beads, and which were carried out under high flow rates

4 (Goncalves et al., 2001; Griffioen et al., 1998; Haggerty et al., 2004).

5 In this review, we first define the dispersivity and how it is derived from leaching

6 experiments. Then we present a database of dispersivities derived from leaching experiments

7 in soils. Specific objectives of this paper are to provide, on the basis of available data in

8 literature, answers to the following questions:

9 • What is the range of dispersivities observed in leaching experiments and how are they

10 distributed?

11 • How does dispersivity depend on experimental factors such as scale of the experiment,

12 leaching rate, and transport distance?

13 • Is there a relation between soil texture and dispersivity?

14

15 This information is needed for a realistic parameterisation of dispersivity and its uncertainty

16 in modelling studies.

17

18 Definition of Dispersivity

19 Flow in the vadose zone is generally in the vertical direction. A common simplification is that

20 of one-dimensional (1-D) transport, i.e., solute fluxes and concentration gradients in the

21 horizontal direction are neglected. This assumption follows from the generally widespread

22 application of chemicals or pollutants at the soil surface, i.e., diffuse, or non-point source,

23 pollution. For several practical applications (prediction of transport of agrochemicals and

24 salts) the convection dispersion equation is used:

25

5
∂C ∂S ∂C ∂ ⎛ ∂C ⎞
1 θ + ρb = −θv + ⎜θD ⎟ − F (C , S ) [1]
∂t ∂t ∂z ∂z ⎝ ∂z ⎠

3 where θ is the volumetric water content, C (M L-3) the concentration in the soil water, ρb (M

4 L-3) the soil bulk density, S (M M-1) the concentration of the sorbed phase, v (L T-1) the pore

5 water velocity, D (L² T-1) the hydrodynamic dispersion coefficient, F(C,S) a function

6 describing reactions of the substance in the solid and liquid phases (e.g. decay, kinetic

7 sorption/desportion, precipitation/dissolution), and z the vertical coordinate. The

8 hydrodynamic dispersion accounts for a solute flux due to a concentration gradient that leads

9 to a decrease of peak solute concentrations with time and a smoothing of concentration

10 gradients. Two mechanisms are responsible for the dispersive solute flux: molecular diffusion

11 and hydromechanical dispersion. The former represents the effect of thermal agitation and

12 molecular collision, the latter represents the effect of variations of the advection velocity that

13 exist at a smaller scale than the scale of the averaging volume. The hydrodynamic dispersion

14 is related to the molecular diffusion constant of the substance in bulk water, D0, and the pore

15 water velocity, v, as:

16

17 D = λv + τ (θ )D0 [2]

18

19 where λ (L) is the dispersivity, τ a tortuosity coefficient, and D0 (L² T-1) the molecular

20 diffusion coefficient. Leaching experiment data do not contain information allowing a

21 discrimination between molecular diffusion and mechanical dispersion. However, the

22 effective molecular diffusion coefficient (τ(θ) D0) is in the order of 0.5 cm² d-1 and its the

23 contribution to the hydrodynamic dispersion D observed in the leaching experiments was on

24 average 5%. Therefore, the dispersivity, λ, was simply derived from the ratio D/v assuming

25 that molecular diffusion can be neglected.

6
1

2 Derivation of Dispersivity

3 Dispersivities are typically derived either from observed depth profiles of inert tracer

4 concentrations or from breakthrough curves (BTC) of tracer concentrations that are measured

5 in the effluent of columns or that are measured in a soil profile using solution samplers or

6 other devices suchs as time domain reflectometry (TDR) probes that monitor solute

7 concentrations. In general, the hydrodynamic dispersion coefficient, D, and the pore water

8 velocity v are derived from these profiles assuming that v and D are constant in the soil profile

9 and do not change with depth and time, i.e. a hydrodynamically homogeneous soil profile and

10 steady state flow conditions. For such situations, analytical solutions of the transport equation

11 can be derived and fitted to the observed depth profiles or BTCs. An overview of analytical

12 solutions of the 1-D CDE is given in Toride et al. (1999). Alternatively, time moments of

13 BTCs or depth moments of concentration depth profiles may be calculated and used to derive

14 the dispersion coefficient and pore water velocity (Jacques et al., 1998; Jury and Sposito,

15 1985; Jury and Roth, 1990; Russo, 2002). The calculation of time or depth moments does not

16 require the specification of a process model. Time moments can also be related to parameters

17 of other models which were fitted to breakthrough curves, e.g. the mobile-immobile model

18 (Valocchi, 1985), the convective lognormal transfer function model (Jury and Sposito, 1985)

19 or a stream tube model which accounts for dispersion within stream tubes (Toride and Leij,

20 1996). From time moments that are calculated from parameters of other models an apparent

21 dispersivity can be derived using the relation between the time moments of a BTC and

22 dispersivity. In some field-scale transport experiments, a salt tracer was applied on a large

23 surface and for a given depth in the soil profile, breakthrough curves were measured locally at

24 several locations (Biggar and Nielsen, 1976; Bowman and Rice, 1986; Vandepol et al., 1977).

25 The solution of a 1-D CDE was fitted to the locally measured BTCs and distributions of

7
1 ‘local’ CDE parameters, pore water velocities and ‘local’ dispersivities, λ(local) were derived.

2 Using time moment analysis, the apparent dispersivity of the field scale averaged

3 breakthrough curve, λ(field) can be derived from the distribution of the ‘local’ CDE parameters

4 (Toride and Leij, 1996):

6 λ( field ) = λ(local ) ) exp(σ ln2 v ) +


z
2
[ ( ) ]
exp σ ln2 v − 1 [3]

8 where <λ(local)> is the arithmetic average of the local dispersivities and σ ln2 v is the variance of

9 the loge transformed local velocities.

10

11 The analytical solutions of the convection dispersion equation apply for constant flow rates.

12 When the flow rate is not constant, the time coordinate is often transformed to a cumulative

13 infiltration or drainage coordinate I(t):

14

t
15 I (t ) = ∫ Jw( z , t ')dt ' [4]
0

16

17 where Jw(z,t) is the water flux at depth z and time t. This transformation leads to a similarly

18 smooth course of concentrations as under steady state flow conditions and the analytical

19 solution of the steady-state CDE, in which the time coordinate is replaced by I(t), is fitted

20 against the measured concentrations. The transformation in Eq. [4] involves a transformation

21 of the dimensions of the fitted parameters, v(I) and D(I). The fitted velocity, v(I) has dimension

22 L L-1 and represents the distance over which the substance is leached per unit of leached water

23 depth so that v ( I ) = θ −1 . The dispersivity λ(I) has the same dimension as the dispersivity

24 obtained under steady state flow conditions. λ(I) is in general larger than λ (Beese and

8
1 Wierenga, 1980; Vanderborght et al., 2000b; Wierenga, 1977) depending on the temporal

2 fluctuations of the water content during the leaching experiment. Beese and Wierenga (1980)

3 report that λ(I) may be a factor 3 larger than λ in the top soil where the dynamics of the water

4 flux and water content are large. The difference between λ(I) and λ decreases with increasing

5 depth and for smaller fluctuations of the water content (Vanderborght et al., 2000b).

6 For soil profiles with variable water content with depth, the following depth transform has

7 been proposed (Ellsworth and Jury, 1991):

z
9 z * (z ) = ∫ θ ( z ')dz ' [5]
0

10

11 When depth is transformed by Eq. [5], the pore water velocity v(z*) corresponds with the water

12 flux Jw and the dispersivity λ(z*) is expressed in terms of transformed length units. Although a

13 theoretical basis for the use of the depth transform in Eq. [5] is basically missing,

14 breakthrough curves in soil profiles with vertically varying soil water contents were often

15 fitted by a solution of the CDE in a homogeneous soil profile after replacing the real depth

16 coordinate by z*. The dispersivity λ(z*) that is derived from a breakthrough curve at

17 transformed depth z* can be expressed in real depth coordinates as:

18

z ( z*)
19 λ( z ) = λ [6]
z*

20

21 where λ(z) is an ‘apparent’ dispersivity length in real depth coordinates that predicts the

22 breakthrough at depth z assuming a soil profile with a vertically constant water content θ. The

23 direct effect of vertical variability of θ on the apparent dispersivity length λ(z) can be assessed

24 using the following formula (Vanderborght et al., 2000a):

9
1

2 ( )
λ( z ) = λ CV (θ )2 + 1 [7]

4 where CV(θ) is the coefficient of variation of the water content and λ is the dispersivity.

5 According to Eq. [7], a vertical variability of water contents leads to larger apparent

6 dispersivities. Since CV(θ) is generally smaller than one, the direct effect of vertical

7 variability of the water content on λ(z) is not so large. However, λ in Eq. [7] is assumed to be a

8 material constant that does not depend on θ neither varies with depth so that the apparent

9 dispersivity λ(z) also changes with depth when λ changes with θ or depth (indirect effect of θ

10 on λ(z)).

11

12 Database of Dispersivity Lengths

13 Contents of the database

14 The data base contains 635 entries derived from 57 publications in scientific journals. Since

15 soil structure has an important impact on solute transport, only experiments in undisturbed

16 soils were considered excluding experiments in repacked or refilled soil cores or columns.

17 Besides dispersivities, also experimental factors were included in the data base so that

18 relations between experimental factors and dispersivities can be inferred.

19 The following factors were included:

20 • dispersivity λ (cm),

21

22 Experimental scale

10
1 • transport distance z (cm), i.e., the vertical distance that the applied tracer travelled. The

2 transport distance corresponds with the length of the soil column, the depth where a

3 breakthrough curve was measured, or the center of mass of a concentration depth profile.

4 • scale of the leaching experiments. Three classes were considered: core-scale (soil cores

5 with a length < 30 cm), column scale (undisturbed soil monoliths with a length > 30 cm),

6 and field scale,

8 Boundary and flow conditions during the leaching experiment

9 • transport velocity v (cm d-1) derived from the tracer breakthrough or concentration depth

10 profiles,

11 • pore water velocity vp (cm d-1) derived from the flow rate divided by the volumetric water

12 content,

13 • ratio of v/vp which is a measure for preferential solute transport (v/vp > 1) or solute

14 retardation (v/vp < 1),

15 • average flow rate Jw (cm d-1) which is the net infiltrated water depth during the leaching

16 experiment divided by the duration of the experiment,

17 • effective flow rate Jweff (cm d-1) which is a measure for the flow rate intensity in the soil

18 during the experiment (for a definition see Vanderborght et al., 2000b),

19 • flow boundary condition type: steady (steady unsaturated flow obtained from a steady

20 irrigation), ponding or flooding (steady flow under saturated flow conditions), intermittent

21 (periodic flow under unsaturated conditions by intermittent irrigation), interpond (periodic

22 ponding or flooding of the soil surface), climatic (natural rainfall and soil evaporation),

23 interclim (natural rainfall and soil evaporation with intermittent additional irrigation),

24

25 Soil properties

11
1 • USDA soil texture class: c:clay, sic: silty clay, sc: sandy clay, cl: clay loam, sicl: silty clay

2 loam, scl: sandy clay loam, sil: silt loam, silg: silt loam gravel, l: loam, sl: sandy loam, ls:

3 loamy sand, s: sand, sg: sandy gravel,

4 • soil depth. Depth from which soil cores were taken: A (top soil: 0-30 cm), B horizon (30-

5 60 cm), C (subsoil: deeper than 60 cm).

7 Concentration measurements

8 • type of concentration that was measured: volume averaged or resident versus flux averaged

9 concentrations,

10 • measurement type: direct (in the effluent from soil columns or cores), coring (analysis of

11 soil samples), samplers (extraction of soil solution in the soil profile using suction samplers

12 or suction plates), TDR (concentrations derived from bulk soil electrical conductivity

13 measured with TDR), tile drains, dye tracers (image analysis of photographic recordings of

14 dye stained patterns on excavated soil surfaces), calculated (average concentrations

15 calculated from the average of local concentration measurements),

16

17 Miscellaneous

18 • experiment number. The experiment number groups all dispersivity values that were

19 obtained for the same field plot under the same leaching conditions.

20 • name of the field site where experiments were carried out or from where soil samples were

21 taken,

22 • author and year of publication.

23

24 A complete list is given in the Appendix.

25

26

12
1 Effects of experimental conditions: flow rate, scale of the

2 experiment, and transport distance on dispersivity.

4 Scale of the study, flow boundary condition type, and soil texture are considered to be

5 important experimental factors influencing the solute dispersion. In Figure 1, Figure 2, and

6 Figure 3, the number of data entries in different factor classes are shown together with the

7 mean dispersivity, mean flow rate, and mean transport distance in the factor classes.

8 With increasing scale of the leaching experiment, the average transport distance increases

9 whereas the flow rate decreases (Figure 1). The effect of the experimental scale on the

10 dispersivity length can therefore not be derived without considering the effects of flow rate

11 and transport distance on the dispersivity length. About two thirds of all dispersivities were

12 derived from leaching experiments carried out under steady-state flow conditions (Figure 2).

13 Although the mean flow rate in experiments carried out under continuous and intermittent

14 flooding boundary conditions is quite different, the mean dispersivities in these classes are

15 similar and much larger than in the other boundary condition classes. The mean dispersivity

16 was the smallest in experiments that were carried out under steady-state unsaturated flow

17 conditions whereas the mean flow rate was the second largest in these experiments. The

18 degree of saturation of the soil surface, i.e. continuously or periodically saturated (ponded)

19 versus unsaturated, seems to have a larger impact on the dispersivity than the mean flow rate

20 during the experiment. The larger dispersivities observed in leaching experiments with

21 saturated soil surface conditions clearly reflect the effect of flow and transport through larger

22 pores, i.e. macropores, which are activated under saturated conditions. Looking at the

23 combination between soil texture and flow boundary condition class (Figure 3), it is

24 remarkable that in clayey soils (c, sic, sc, cl, sicl, and scl) most experiments were carried out

25 under saturated flow conditions. Experiments under climatic boundary conditions were

13
1 mainly carried out in coarser textured soils. This correlation between boundary condition and

2 soil texture needs to be considered when effects of soil texture and boundary condition on the

3 dispersivity are investigated.

4 For further analysis, all experiments carried out under flooding and intermittent flooding

5 boundary conditions were grouped in a separate class. For the other group of experiments, the

6 soil texture classes were grouped into two texture classes: a ‘coarse’ texture class that lumps

7 the sand, loamy sand and sandy loam classes and a ‘fine’ texture class lumping the other

8 texture classes. Experiments that were carried out soils with a large stone content (texture

9 classes sg and silg) were excluded because they were not considered to be relevant for

10 agricultural use.

11

12 Although flow rate, Jw, and transport distance are continuous variables, their effect on the

13 dispersivity length was investigated through flow rate and transport distance classes. If

14 available, the effective flow rate, Jweff, rather than the time averaged flow rate was considered.

15 For transient flow conditions, the flow rate intensity in the soil column, which is quantified by

16 Jweff, was shown to be better correlated to the dispersivity than the time averaged flow rate

17 (Vanderborght et al., 2000a). Four flow rate classes were defined: flow rates smaller than 1

18 cm d-1, between 1 cm d-1 and 10 cm d-1, and larger than 10 cm d-1, and experiments carried out

19 under flooding and intermittent flooding boundary conditions. Most of the experiments that

20 were carried out under climatic conditions or climatic conditions with intermittent irrigation

21 fell into the flow class with flow rates smaller than 1 cm/d. Exceptions were studies in which

22 a large amount of water was infiltrated during a short time (rainfall events of more than 10 cm

23 d-1). These studies fell into the class with flow rates larger than 10 cm d-1.

24 For the transport distances, three classes were defined: studies with a transport distance

25 smaller than or equal to 30 cm, between 31 cm and 80 cm and between 81 and 200 cm. The

26 first class contains all soil core scale experiments and is relevant for the transport through the

14
1 upper soil layer or plough layer. In order to give the same weight to experiments in which

2 dispersivities were determined for several travel distances (e.g in a soil column or a field

3 plot), the data entries in a travel distance class that correspond to the same experiment or

4 experiment number were averaged and further treated as a single entry.

5 In Figure 4, the distribution of dispersivities in different flow rate and experimental scale

6 classes are shown for the different transport distance classes. Dispersivities derived from

7 experiments that were carried out using a flooding boundary condition were consistently

8 larger than dispersivities that were derived from other experiments. For the 0-30 cm travel

9 distance class, there is a clear increase of dispersivity length with increasing flow rate in the

10 core and column scale experiments. This increase is not or not so clearly seen in field-scale

11 experiments neither in the 31-80 and 81-200 cm travel distance classes.

12 Most leaching studies were carried out using artificial leaching rates. In order to reduce the

13 duration of the leaching experiment, the average flow rate in leaching experiments is mostly

14 considerably larger than under natural boundary conditions. For instance, a leaching

15 experiment carried out with a flow rate of 10 cm d-1 would correspond with a yearly

16 precipitation of 36500 mm, which is one to two orders of magnitude larger than the yearly

17 precipitation amount. On the other hand, rainfall and soil water flow are highly dynamic

18 processes with high rainfall or flow intensities occurring during only a short period of time

19 and with long intermittent periods without rainfall or significant downward flow. Therefore,

20 close to the soil surface vertical movement occurs during relatively short pulses with a high

21 flow rate. These high flow rates become sensibly buffered with depth, depending on the

22 hydraulic buffer capacity of the soil. From rainfall intensity records, the amount of rain that

23 falls with intensities smaller or larger than a certain threshold can be derived. As an example,

24 in Jülich (Germany), 10% of the total yearly precipitation occurs with an intensity larger than

25 13.2 cm d-1 whereas halve of the total yearly precipitation occurs with an intensity larger than

26 3.6 cm d-1. In that perspective, leaching experiments in the flow rate class 1 cm d-1 < Jw < 10

15
1 cm d-1 may also be considered realistic. Because flow rates larger than 10 cm d-1 were not

2 considered to be realistic for natural boundary conditions, dispersivities from this flow rate

3 class were excluded from further analyses. However, since the dispersivities in the 10 cm d-1

4 < Jw class were, except for the core and column scale experiments and travel distances smaller

5 than 30 cm, not very different from dispersivity distributions in other flow rate classes (Figure

6 4), their exclusion does not influence the results of the further analyses considerably.

7 The effect of experimental scale and travel distance on dispersivities derived from

8 experiments with a flow rate smaller than 10 cm d-1 is shown in Figure 5. Both the transport

9 distance and the lateral scale of transport experiment have an impact on the dispersivity.

10 Generally, dispersivity increases when the lateral scale of the experiment increases.

11 Therefore, field scale experiments are expected to be more representative for the dispersion

12 process under real conditions than experiments in soil columns or lysimeters that reduce

13 lateral redistribution of water flow, and hence the dispersion process. However, the difference

14 between field and column scale experiments is smaller for larger travel distances where the

15 two distributions tend to converge. Furthermore, solute fluxes can be measured in a column

16 experiment but not in a field experiment. In field experiments, concentrations are measured

17 locally at a number of points and the actually sampled area is only a small fraction of the total

18 cross sectional area of the field plot and may be even smaller than the area of a soil column or

19 lysimeter.

20 Looking at the effect of the transport distance on the dispersivity, the column scale

21 experiments clearly show an increase of dispersivity with transport distance. For the field

22 scale experiments, the dispersivity distribution in the 0-30 cm travel distance class is similar

23 to that in the 31-80 cm class. The larger dispersivities in the 0-30 cm transport distance class

24 for the field scale experiments may also be the result of transient flow conditions at the soil

25 surface and the transformation of the time coordinate to a cumulative infiltration or drainage

26 coordinate (Eq. [4]) that is often used to transform BTCs before fitting the solution of the

16
1 steady-state CDE. The increase of dispersivity with increasing travel distance in soils is in

2 line with a generally observed trend that was reported for dispersivities derived from

3 groundwater tracer studies (Gelhar et al., 1992). From those data, a rule of thumb that the

4 dispersivity length is approximately 1/10 of the travel distance was inferred. Applying this

5 rule of thumb to soil data, the median dispersivity would be overestimated. Considering the

6 large difference between the travel distances of the tracer experiments on the basis of which

7 this rule was derived and the transport distances in soils, this rule of thumb seems to be a

8 quite universal and applicable to obtain a rough estimate of dispersivities in soil. In Figure 6,

9 median values of dispersivities in the different experimental scale classes are plotted versus

10 the median value of the transport distance in the distance classes together with linear and

11 power law model fits. The plot suggests that the rate of increase of dispersivity with travel

12 distance is larger for smaller than for larger travel distances. The rate of increase of the

13 median dispersivities between the first and second and between the second and third travel

14 distance classes is similar. A constant rate of increase of dispersivity with travel distance can

15 be explained by assuming that velocities of individual solute particles remain perfectly

16 correlated with travel distance. When the spatial scale over which particles travel with a

17 constant velocity is smaller than the transport distance, the rate of increase of the dispersivity

18 decreases with travel distance and the dispersivity reaches an asymptotic value (e.g., Jury and

19 Roth, 1990). Figure 6 suggest that, in general, the asymptotic regime is not reached within the

20 first meter of the soil profile. This means that regions with higher or lower water fluxes and

21 particle velocities are vertically continuous over a distance of at least a few decimeter in soils.

22 However, several examples of soil profiles in which the dispersivity reaches an asymptotic

23 value exist so that this statement cannot be applied to each individual soil profile. When the

24 increase of the dispersivity with travel distance is explained by particle velocities that remain

25 constant along their trajectory, it is presumed that the variance of the particle velocities does

26 not change with depth in the soil profile. The increase of λ with travel distance could

17
1 alternatively be explained by an increase of the particle velocity variance with depth whereas

2 the particle velocities are correlated only over a microscopic distance. It may be presumed

3 that the top soil is more homogenized due to tillage than the subsoil soil so that the variance

4 of the particle velocities is smaller in the top than in the sub soil. However, there are two

5 arguments against using only this hypothesis to explain the increase of λ with travel distance.

6 An indirect argument is the increase of dispersivity with lateral scale of the experiment. This

7 implies that velocity variations exist on a macroscopic lateral scale and therefore must extend

8 over a macroscopic vertical distance. The second argument is that dispersivities are not larger

9 in soil cores from deeper soil horizons than in cores from the top soil (Figure 7).

10

11 Effect of soil texture on dispersivity.

12 The effect of the flow rate class on dispersivities in the coarse and fine texture soil classes is

13 shown in Figure 8. In both soil texture classes, dispersivities are larger for saturated than for

14 unsaturated flow conditions. It should be noted that the opposite was observed in leaching

15 experiments in repacked soil columns (e.g., De Smedt et al., 1986; Elrick and French, 1966;

16 Maraqa et al., 1997). For unsaturated flow experiments, dispersivity distributions do not

17 depend on flow rate class in soils with a coarser texture whereas dispersivities increase with

18 increasing flow rate in soils with a finer texture. In soils with a finer texture, the pores in the

19 soil matrix or the intra-aggregate pores are small so that the soil matrix has a low hydraulic

20 conductivity. When the leaching rate exceeds the conductivity of the intra-aggregate pores,

21 inter-aggregate pores, which are continuous over a much larger distance than the intra-

22 aggregate pores, are activated leading to an increase of the dispersivity with increasing flow

23 rate. In soils with a coarser texture, the pore sizes and hydraulic conductivity of the soil

24 matrix are much higher and more soil matrix pores are activated with increasing flow rate so

18
1 that the water filled pore network gets better connected and the tortuosity of the flow paths

2 decreases. This may even lead to a decrease of the dispersivity with increasing flow rate.

3 In the rest of the analysis, only data from unsaturated leaching experiments with a flow rate

4 smaller than 10 cm d-1 were considered. Figure 9 displays the effect of the transport distance

5 and texture on the dispersivity and Figure 10 the effect of the scale of the experiment and the

6 texture. In soils with a coarse texture, the dispersivity seems to be smaller than in soils with a

7 finer texture. In both soil classes, the dispersivity increases with travel distance. In finer

8 textured soils, the distributions of disperivities in column and field scale experiments are

9 similar whereas in coarser textured soils, larger dispersivities were observed in field than in

10 column scale experiments. This suggests that the lateral spatial scale of the transport

11 variability is smaller in finer textured soils than in coarser textured soils. In coarser textured

12 soils, lateral redistribution of water and funnelling of water towards ‘preferential flow

13 regions’ rather takes place in the soil matrix. This lateral redistribution may be strongly

14 reduced by imposing no-flow lateral boundary conditions. Solute spreading and dispersion

15 due to rapid transport in large inter-aggregate pores occurs on a smaller lateral scale which

16 may explain why no increase of dispersivity from the column to the field scale is observed in

17 finer textured soils.

18

19 Variability of dispersivities and analysis of variance

20 The box-plots in Figure 5, and Figure 7-Figure 10 suggest that the dispersivities are

21 lognormally distributed (the box plots are symmetric around the median when the y-axis of

22 the plots are logarithmically scaled). In Figure 11, histograms of non- and loge transformed

23 dispersivity distributions in the different travel distance classes are shown. The histograms

24 qualitatively indicate that dispersivity lengths are lognormally distributed. The logarithmic

25 transformation also suggests that the large dispersivity values in the tails of the non-

19
1 transformed distributions should not be considered as outliers, i.e. observations with a

2 probability of exceedance much lower than (#observations)-1.

3 An analysis of variance ANOVA was carried out to investigate the significance of the

4 different factor effects and the part of the variance of the loge transformed dispersivity

5 distribution that can be explained by these factors. To reduce the number of factors and have a

6 sufficient number of observations within a factor combination, only the factors transport

7 distance, texture, and experimental scale were investigated. Experiments with a flow rate

8 smaller than 10 cm d-1 were considered and the effect of flow rate class was not further

9 investigated. Core scale experiments were excluded to avoid factor combinations without

10 data. Since the dataset was not balanced, the data were analyzed within the framework of

11 generalized linear models using the GLM procedure of the SAS® software. The outcome of

12 the ANOVA is shown in Table 1. The total variance of loge transformed dispersivities in the

13 data set, σ log


2
e λ :total
= 0.878 and the coefficient of variation of the non transformed dispersivities

14 (
CVtotal = 119% ( CVtotal = 100 exp σ log
2
)
e λ ,total
− 1 ). The model explained variance is 25% (R²)

15 of the total variance and the unexplained variance σ log


2
e λ :error
= 0.753 and CVerror = 105%. The

16 variability of dispersivities within a factor class combination remains therefore relatively

17 large and unexplained. The factor explaining most of the variance is the transport distance.

18 Also the interaction between the scale of the experiment and the texture and the variability

19 explained by the scale of the experiment were significant (at 5% significance level). The

20 effect of soil texture was not significant.

21

22 Effect of measurement method

23 The effect of the measurement type is evaluated based on the ratio of the transport velocity

24 that is derived from the tracer movement, v, and the pore water velocity that is predicted from

20
1 the flow rate and the water content, vp. Deviation of the ratio v/vp from 1 is an indication that

2 the transport process is not well described by a model which presumes that solute transport

3 takes places in the entire water filled pore space or an indication that the observed solute

4 transport is not representative for the overall transport within the soil sample or field site.

5 The v/vp ratios are shown in Figure 12 for different measurement types and transport distance

6 classes and for saturated conditions or high flow rates (Jw > 10 cm d-1)(Figure 12 a) and

7 unsaturated flow conditions (Figure 12 b). The spreading of the v/vp ratios is the largest for

8 the soil solution samplers whereas direct measurement of the concentration breakthrough in

9 the effluent of a soil core/column leads to smallest variability in v/vp. The TDR technique and

10 soil coring method lead to an intermediate spreading of v/vp. The spreading v/vp can be related

11 to the soil volume that is actually sampled by the method. Soil samplers only sample the soil

12 water locally so that only a small fraction of the cross sectional is sampled, even when a large

13 number of samplers are used. As a consequence, the BTC obtained from averaging the local

14 measurements may deviate considerably from the averaged BTC of local concentrations or

15 solute fluxes at that depth (e.g., Weihermuller et al., 2005). Furthermore, suction samplers

16 distort the flow field to a certain extend which also leads to deviations of v estimated from

17 BTCs measured with suction samplers. The cross sectional area sampled by TDR probes and

18 the soil volume sampled by soil coring are larger which explains the smaller variability of v/vp

19 when these methods are used. If the concentration is measured directly in the effluent of a soil

20 core/column, then the entire cross-sectional area is sampled and the BTC is obviously

21 representative. However, also for the direct method, the variability of v/vp may be quite large,

22 e.g for the saturated conditions or high flow rates and small transport distances v/vp was found

23 in several experiments to be considerably larger than 1. These cases may be attributed to

24 preferential flow and an earlier arrival of the peak concentration than expected based on the

25 flow rate and the volumetric water content. If the total water filled porosity is accessible to the

26 solutes, be it by slow diffusion, a fast breakthrough of the peak concentration is followed by a

21
1 long tailing of the breakthrough curve due to slow release of solutes from the bypassed pore

2 region. This tailing cannot be described by the CDE so that a CDE fit leads to an

3 overestimation of the average pore water velocity in the total solute accessible pore volume,

4 i.e. inclusive of the pore volume in which water flow is very slow. In the effluent of a soil

5 core/column, flux concentrations or flux weighted averages of local concentrations are

6 measured. By TDR and soil coring methods, volume averaged or resident concentrations are

7 measured. TDR measures time series of resident concentrations whereas concentration depth

8 profiles are derived from soil coring. For small travel distances, v derived from TDR

9 measurements seem to underestimate vp, especially for saturated flow conditions. If

10 preferential flow occurs through a small part of the total pore volume, the early breakthrough

11 in the preferential flow region is hardly seen in volume averaged concentrations measured by

12 TDR. For larger travel distances and transport times, the opportunity for mixing and exchange

13 of solutes between preferential flow paths and bypassed regions increases and the deviation

14 between v and vp decreases. Another explanation for the smaller estimates of v is that solute

15 fluxes and pore water velocities are derived from a BTC of resident concentrations assuming

16 that the transport process can be predicted using a convective dispersion model with a

17 constant dispersivity. When dispersivity scales with travel distance, this approach leads to an

18 underestimation of the pore water velocity (Jacques et al., 1998).

19

20 Discussion and Conclusions

21 In agreement with reviews of dispersivities observed in groundwater tracer studies,

22 dispersivity in soils also scales with travel distance. Scaling of dispersivity with transport

23 distance implies that the transport distance in leaching experiments should be similar to the

24 range of transport distances for which predictions of solute concentrations must be made.

25 Scaling of dispersivity with transport distance could not be explained by an increase of the

22
1 soil heterogeneity in the subsoil, which is not regularly homogenized by soil tillage. This

2 implies that solute particle velocities are correlated over a macroscopic distance or that

3 regions with a higher, respectively lower transport velocity extend over a macroscopic vertical

4 distance. Dispersivities were always derived assuming a vertically homogeneous soil profile

5 with a constant or depth independent dispersivity. Therefore, dispersivities in this review are

6 ‘equivalent’ parameters that parameterize transport in an equivalent vertically homogeneous

7 soil profile. How to combine this vertically homogeneous equivalent soil profile, in terms of

8 the dispersion parameter, with vertical variations in soil biological and chemical properties

9 requires further investigation.

10 Since no general asymptotic regime was observed within the range of transport distances that

11 is covered by leaching experiments in soils, dispersivities in this review cannot be

12 extrapolated to predict transport over larger distances in deep vadose zones. Information

13 about larger scale transport in the vadose zone is scarce and difficult to obtain because of the

14 long travel times (e.g. Javaux and Vanclooster, 2004ab).

15 Dispersivity also scales with lateral scale of the experiment. Considering that solute

16 dispersion is caused by spatial variations in local water velocities, that this spatial variability

17 is predominantly caused by spatial variations in soil water fluxes, which outweigh the effect

18 of soil water content variability, and that the soil water flux at the soil surface is rather

19 homogeneous, the lateral scale of the ‘representative’ volume is related to the distance over

20 which water can be laterally redistributed within the soil profile. However, this lateral scaling

21 of dispersivity and the scale over which water is laterally redistributed is related to soil

22 texture. In finer textured soils, similar distributions of dispersivities are derived from column

23 and field scale studies indicating that column scale studies may be representative for field

24 scale transport. For coarser textured soils, however, lateral redistribution may take place over

25 a larger distance so that field-scale dispersion is larger than the dispersion observed in column

26 scale studies. Therefore, column scale studies in coarser textured soils, which are for instance

23
1 carried out to evaluate the risk of pesticide leaching, may not be representative for field scale

2 dispersion and, since pesticide leaching is positively correlated with dispersion, underestimate

3 field scale pesticide leaching. Larger scale structures such as compacted areas under wheel

4 tracks alternated with homogenized seed beds (Coquet et al., 2005ab), sand lenses (Hammel

5 et al., 1999), soil horizons with spatially variable thickness (van Wesenbeeck and Kachanoski,

6 1994), or layers with different texture that extend over large distances (Kung, 1990) may also

7 play an important role and redistribute water over larger lateral distances. Lateral

8 redistribution of water at the soil surface and within the soil profile on sloping terrain may

9 lead to lateral variations in vertical infiltration or leaching. Finally, variability in plant water

10 up take on both local and larger scale may lead to an additional variability of vertical water

11 fluxes. Since most leaching experiments were carried out in bare soils, the effect of plants on

12 solute spreading requires further investigation.

13 The fact that dispersion is caused by macroscopic variations of pore water velocities has also

14 important implications for the prediction of non-linear transport processes. Due to these

15 macroscopic variations in pore water velocities, concentrations vary in the horizontal

16 direction. If local processes (e.g. decay, sorption) depend in a non-linear way on the local

17 concentrations, then it is trivial that the lateral average of the local process cannot be

18 described by implementing the averaged concentration in the non-linear process model (e.g.,

19 Janssen et al., 2006; Vanderborght et al., 2006).

20 Dispersivities seem to be larger in finer textured soils but the difference between

21 dispersivities in fine and coarse textured soils was not found to be significant. Besides the

22 interaction between lateral scale of the leaching experiment and soil texture, there is also an

23 interactive effect of soil texture and flow rate on dispersivity. In finer textured soils,

24 dispersivity increases with flow rate also for unsaturated flow conditions. In soils with a

25 coarser texture, dispersivity distributions were not found to be different for different flow rate

26 classes, except for the case that the soil surface was saturated.

24
1 Dispersivity distributions were better described by a lognormal than a normal distribution.

2 The lognormal shape of the distribution in combination with a relatively large variance

3 implies that large dispersivity values, i.e. much larger than the median value of the

4 distribution, must be expected and considered in sensitivity studies.

5 However, a large part of the variance of the dispersivity distribution could not be explained by

6 the above mentioned parameters or factors. Since solute dispersion is a parameter that

7 quantifies the effect of the water velocity variability on transport, it should be related to soil

8 properties that entail information about this variability. In the field of stochastic continuum

9 modelling of unsaturated flow and transport processes, dispersivity is derived or ‘predicted’

10 from the spatial variance and spatial covariance of soil hydraulic parameters (e.g., Rubin,

11 2003). Unfortunately, obtaining information about the spatial variability of soil hydraulic

12 parameters is at least as elaborate as carrying out a leaching experiment. Therefore, relying on

13 indirect information about soil heterogeneity such as soil structure and soil classification

14 seems to be more within reach to improve the prediction of dispersivity and eventually

15 spatialize dispersivity parameters.

16

17

25
1 Tables
2 Table 1: Analysis of variance of loge transformed dispersivities measured in column and field
3 scale experiments for fluxes smaller than 10 cm d-1.
Source DF¶ SS† MSS‡
total 91 79.87 0.878
model 11 19.66
error 80 60.21 0.753

Source DF SS (Type III) Pr > F§


scale 1 3.64 0.03
texture 1 1.70 0.14
transport distance 2 10.11 0.002
scale*texture 1 3.27 0.040
scale*transport distance 2 0.41 0.76
texture*transport distance 2 1.37 0.40
scale*texture*transport 2 0.55 0.69
distance
4 ¶ DF: degrees of freedom
5 † SS: sum of squares
6 ‡ MSS: mean sum of squares (SS DF-1).
7 § Pr > F: Probability for an F value that is larger than (SS DF-1).
8 Bold values are significant factors at a significance level of 5%.

26
1 Figures
dispersivity: λ
λ (cm), travel distance (cm), or flow rate (cm d-1)

flow rate 400


travel distance
100

300

# Observations
200
10

100

1 0
re

ld
m

fie
co

lu
co

2
3
4 Figure 1: Number of observations (bars), mean flow rate (blue line), mean transport distance (black line),
5 and mean dispersivity (red line) in the experiment scale classes.
6

27
λ (cm), travel distance (cm), or flow rate (cm d-1) dispersivity: λ
1000 400
flow rate
travel distance

100 300

# Observations
10 200

1 100

0.1 0
g

n
n

g
ic

io

in

in

io
tio
at

od
at

at
od
im

ga

ig

ig
lo

flo
cl

rri

irr

irr
tf
+i

en
nt

dy
ic

e
at

itt

ea
itt

rm
im

st
cl

te
te

in
in

1
2
3 Figure 2: Number of observations (bars), mean flow rate (blue line), and mean dispersivity in the flow
4 boundary condition classes.
5

28
1
intermittent flooding
flooding
intermittent irrigation
steady irrigation
climatic + irrigation
climatic
100

10

0
2 c sic sc cl sicl scl sil silg l sl ls s sg
3 Figure 3: Number of observation in different soil texture classes (c:clay, sic: silty clay, sc: sandy clay, cl:
4 clay loam, sicl: silty clay loam, scl: sandy clay loam, sil: silt loam, silg: silt loam gravel, l: loam, sl: sandy
5 loam, ls: loamy sand, s: sand, sg: sandy gravel) and flow boundary condition classes.
6
7

29
1000 1000 1000
5
z = 0 to z = 30 cm z = 31 to z = 80 cm z = 81 to z = 200 cm
core 4 column column
column field field
field
100 100 100
41 1 4
6 5 8
2 5
48 9

λ (cm)
7
λ (cm)

λ (cm)
8 12
19 6
10 10 5 10
3 7
16
3

6 5
1 1 1 7 9
14

0.1 0.1 0.1

/d
10 /d
Jw 10 /d
10 /d

po /d

/d

/d
ed

Jw 10 /d
1 0 /d

po /d
ed

Jw 10 /d

po /d
ed

/d

ed
/d

/d

ed

/d

/d

/d

ed

/d

/d
/d
> cm

cm
< cm
> cm

cm
cm

< cm
> cm
cm

< cm

cm

cm
cm

cm

cm

cm
cm

cm

cm

cm

cm
nd

nd

nd

nd
nd

nd
po

po

po
10
10
Jw < 1

Jw 1

Jw < 1

10

10

10
1

10

10

10
<

<

<

<
<

<

<

>
<
<

>

>

>
1< w

1< Jw

1< w

Jw
Jw

Jw

Jw
Jw

Jw

Jw

Jw

Jw

Jw
Jw
Jw
J

1<

1<
1<
1<
Flow rate class Flow rate class Flow rate class

Figure 4: Effect of flow rate class and scale of the experiment on the dispersivity length for the different transport distance classes. The boxes span the 25% and 75%
percentiles, the thick black line is the median, and the 0% and 90% percentiles correspond with the extremities of the vertical bars. The numbers above or below the
boxes correspond with the number of observations in the class (Data from the same experiment in a travel distance class were averaged and treated as a single entry).

30
14
15 20
15
17
10
11

35
λ (cm)

1 core
column
field
cm

cm

cm
0

00
3

-8

-2
0-

31

81

Travel distance class


Figure 5: Effect of transport distance and scale of the experiment on the dispersivity. The boxes span the
25% and 75% percentiles, the thick black line is the median, and the 0% and 90% percentiles correspond
with the extremities of the vertical bars. The numbers above the boxes correspond with the number of
observations in the class. (Data from experiments with ponding boundary conditions and from
experiments with a flow rate larger than 10 cm d-1 were excluded, data from the same experiment in a
travel distance class were averaged and treated as a single entry.)

31
8
core
Y = 0.33X0.62
column R²= 0.90696
field

6 not included in regression


median λ (cm)

4 Y = 0.046* X + 1.23
R² = 0.916103

0
0 40 80 120
median travel distance (cm)
Figure 6: Effect of transport distance and scale of the experiment on the dispersivity: median values of
dispersivities versus median values of the transport distance in a transport distance class. Lines are best
fits of a linear and a power law model.

32
Top horizon
131
Deeper horizons
88
10
26

16
λ (cm)

0.1
No ponding Ponding included

Flow rate class


Figure 7: Dispersivities in soil cores taken from the top and from the sub soil. The boxes span the 25%
and 75% percentiles, the thick black line is the median, and the 0% and 90% percentiles correspond with
the extremities of the vertical bars. The numbers above the boxes correspond with the number of
observations in the class.

33
coarse
100 fine

10
λ (cm)

53
1
11
38
36

27 21 44 36

0.1
/d

/d

/d

ed
cm

cm

cm

nd
po
1

10

10
<

<

>
Jw

Jw

Jw
1<

Flow rate class


Figure 8: Effect of flow rate class and texture on the dispersivity. The boxes span the 25% and 75%
percentiles, the thick black line is the median, and the 0% and 90% percentiles correspond with the
extremities of the vertical bars. The numbers above or below the boxes correspond with the number of
observations in the class (Data from the same experiment in a travel distance class were averaged and
treated as a single entry).

34
coarse
fine

10
λ (cm)

12

1 14 22
19

31
30
cm

cm
cm

00
30

-8

-2
0-

31

81

Travel distance class


Figure 9: Effect of transport distance and texture on the dispersivity. The boxes span the 25% and 75%
percentiles, the thick black line is the median, and the 0% and 90% percentiles correspond with the
extremities of the vertical bars. The numbers below the boxes correspond with the number of observations
in the class. (Data from experiments with ponding boundary conditions and from experiments with a flow
rate larger than 10 cm d-1 were excluded, data from the same experiment in a travel distance class were
averaged and treated as a single entry.)

35
coarse
fine

10
λ (cm)

24 20
1 18

30
19
17
re

ld
m

fie
co

lu
co

Experimental scale class


Figure 10: Effect of the scale of the experiment and texture on the dispersivity. The boxes span the 25%
and 75% percentiles, the thick black line is the median, and the 0% and 90% percentiles correspond with
the extremities of the vertical bars. The numbers below the boxes correspond with the number of
observations in the class. (Data from experiments with ponding boundary conditions and from
experiments with a flow rate larger than 10 cm d-1 were excluded, data from the same experiment in a
travel distance class were averaged and treated as a single entry.)

36
40 a) 12
d)
μ = 0.81
σ = 0.92
30
8

20

4
10

0 0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 -1.6 -0.8 0 0.8 1.6 2.4 3.2 4

20 10
b) μ = = 1.55 e)
σ = 0.90
16 8
# Observations

12 6

8 4

4 2

0 0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 -1.6 -0.8 0 0.8 1.6 2.4 3.2 4

12 8
c) μ = 1.83 f)
σ = 0.86
6
8

4
2

0 0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 -1.6 -0.8 0 0.8 1.6 2.4 3.2 4
λ (cm) loge(λ) (λ is in cm)
Figure 11: Histograms of non- (a-c) and loge transformed dispersivities (d-f) in different transport
distance classes: a) and d) from 0-30 cm, b) and e) from 31-80 cm, and c) and f) from 81-200 cm. μ and σ
are, respectively, the mean and standard deviation of the loge transformed dispersivities. (Data from
experiments with ponding boundary conditions and from experiments with a flow rate larger than 10 cm
d-1 were excluded, data from the same experiment in a travel distance class were averaged and treated as a
single entry.)

37
1.6
a)

1.4

1.2 17
v/vp

104 15 7 27
1
8
9
6
0.8 35

0.6

0-30cm 31-80cm 81_200cm

direct
samplers
TDR
1.6 core b)

1.4

8
1.2
8
v/vp

6 12
117
46 3 12
1 8 76 34
4

0.8

0.6

0-30cm 31-80cm 81_200cm


Figure 12: Effect of measurement type and transport distance class on the ratio v/vp derived from tracer
experiments with (a) saturated conditions at the soil surface or a flow rate > 10 cm d-1 and (b) unsaturated
conditions and flow rate < 10 cm d-1. The boxes span the 25% and 75% percentiles, the thick black line is
the median. The numbers correspond with the number of observations in the class.

38
Appendix
Table with dispersivities and experimental factors (see text).
λ (cm) travel scale v vp v/vp Jw Jweff type of flow text. depth conc. meas. exp. experimental field source
distance tech. No.
-1 -1 -1 -1
cm cm cm d cm d cm d cm d
4.5 80.0 column 1.0 1.0 1.00 0.36 intermittent cl flux direct 195 Aberdeen Soil Series (ND, USA) (Cassel et al., 1974)
10.2 13.0 core 70.1 41.3 1.70 13.40 13.40 ponding sl C flux direct 137 Alentejo region (Portugal) (Goncalves et al., 2001)
20.7 20.0 core 102.7 30.8 3.33 12.90 12.90 ponding l A flux direct 138 Alentejo region (Portugal)
7.9 20.0 core 47.5 27.8 1.71 10.70 10.70 ponding l B flux direct 139 Alentejo region (Portugal)
14.9 14.5 core 2385.6 994.8 2.40 571.20 571.20 ponding c A flux direct 140 Alentejo region (Portugal)
8.3 14.5 core 93.2 59.1 1.58 30.00 30.00 ponding c B flux direct 141 Alentejo region (Portugal)
5.1 13.0 core 482.8 365.5 1.32 196.90 196.90 ponding c A flux direct 142 Alentejo region (Portugal)
7.6 14.5 core 74.9 73.3 1.02 36.20 36.20 ponding c A flux direct 143 Alentejo region (Portugal)
13.3 15.0 core 499.8 290.4 1.72 151.90 151.90 ponding c A flux direct 144 Alentejo region (Portugal)
13.2 15.0 core 1347.2 321.7 4.19 142.00 142.00 ponding sl A flux direct 145 Alentejo region (Portugal)
12.6 15.0 core 245.6 245.6 1.00 108.40 108.40 ponding sl A flux direct 146 Alentejo region (Portugal)
21.1 15.0 core 37.2 37.2 1.00 16.70 16.70 ponding sl A flux direct 147 Alentejo region (Portugal)
12.8 15.0 core 358.0 202.6 1.77 78.40 78.40 ponding scl B flux direct 148 Alentejo region (Portugal)
10.7 15.0 core 538.9 278.6 1.93 127.10 127.10 ponding c A flux direct 149 Alentejo region (Portugal)
11.5 15.0 core 764.9 490.3 1.56 206.90 206.90 ponding c B flux direct 150 Alentejo region (Portugal)
9.3 15.0 core 422.6 224.8 1.88 117.70 117.70 ponding c A flux direct 151 Alentejo region (Portugal)
16.1 15.0 core 442.5 261.5 1.69 136.90 136.90 ponding c A flux direct 152 Alentejo region (Portugal)
5.6 20.0 core 127.0 110.5 1.15 42.00 42.00 ponding ls A flux direct 153 Alentejo region (Portugal)
2.9 15.0 core 0.5 0.3 1.51 0.12 0.12 ponding scl B flux direct 154 Alentejo region (Portugal)
2.6 15.0 core 0.5 0.3 1.41 0.12 0.12 ponding scl B flux direct 155 Alentejo region (Portugal)
9.3 20.0 core 45.0 22.3 2.02 11.60 11.60 ponding c A flux direct 156 Alentejo region (Portugal)
7.8 20.0 core 160.5 91.3 1.76 58.30 58.30 ponding sc A flux direct 157 Alentejo region (Portugal)
15.0 20.0 core 450.2 143.6 3.13 91.70 91.70 ponding sc A flux direct 158 Alentejo region (Portugal)
12.1 20.0 core 1358.4 683.3 1.99 353.90 353.90 ponding sc A flux direct 159 Alentejo region (Portugal)
8.2 20.0 core 724.5 257.2 2.82 133.20 133.20 ponding sc A flux direct 160 Alentejo region (Portugal)
1.3 55.0 column 7.5 7.5 1.00 3.00 3.00 ponding sicl flux direct 198 Almena Soil Series (WI USA) (Anderson and Bouma, 1977)
0.5 55.0 column 2.8 2.8 1.00 1.10 1.10 ponding sicl flux direct 198 Almena Soil Series (WI USA)
1.1 10.0 core 4.0 2.3 1.69 0.77 0.77 steady sl A flux direct 136 Altenholz (Germany) (Kamra et al., 2001)
0.9 10.0 core 5.1 2.7 1.89 0.89 0.89 steady sl A flux direct 133 Altenholz (Germany) (Lennartz and Kamra, 1998)
2.9 10.0 core 4.7 2.4 1.96 0.76 0.76 steady sl A flux direct 133 Altenholz (Germany)
0.8 10.0 core 3.1 1.8 1.79 0.58 0.58 steady sl A flux direct 134 Altenholz (Germany) (Lennartz, 1999)
0.4 10.0 core 3.7 2.4 1.56 0.79 0.79 steady l A flux direct 135 AltenholzB (Germany)

39
λ (cm) travel scale v vp v/vp Jw Jweff type of flow text. depth conc. meas. exp. experimental field source
distance tech. No.
-1 -1 -1 -1
cm cm cm d cm d cm d cm d
1.5 20.8 field 2.40 2.40 steady l resident dye 26 Andelfingen (Switzerland) (Forrer et al., 1999)
11.7 36.9 field 2.40 2.40 steady l resident dye 26 Andelfingen (Switzerland)
4.5 48.0 field 2.40 2.40 steady l resident dye 26 Andelfingen (Switzerland)
0.7 13.1 field 0.40 0.40 steady l resident dye 27 Andelfingen (Switzerland)
0.8 30.7 field 0.40 0.40 steady l resident dye 27 Andelfingen (Switzerland)
1.5 62.1 field 0.40 0.40 steady l resident dye 27 Andelfingen (Switzerland)
8.1 75.0 column 81.6 69.6 1.17 6.61 6.61 steady silg flux direct 37 Basel (Switzerland) (Buchter et al., 1995)
5.9 75.0 column 79.3 70.8 1.12 6.73 6.73 steady silg flux direct 37 Basel (Switzerland)
3.6 55.0 column 22.4 22.4 1.00 9.20 9.20 ponding sicl flux direct 197 Batavia Soil Series (WI, USA) (Anderson and Bouma, 1977)
14.2 55.0 column 26.8 26.8 1.00 11.00 11.00 ponding sicl flux direct 197 Batavia Soil Series (WI, USA)
0.2 55.0 column 2.7 2.7 1.00 1.20 1.20 ponding sicl flux direct 199 Batavia Soil Series (WI, USA)
0.1 55.0 column 3.3 3.3 1.00 1.50 1.50 ponding sicl flux direct 199 Batavia Soil Series (WI, USA)
0.2 55.0 column 3.1 3.1 1.00 1.40 1.40 ponding sicl flux direct 199 Batavia Soil Series (WI, USA)
1.4 5.0 column 5.6 7.5 0.76 2.85 2.85 steady l resident TDR 1 Bekkevoort (Belgium) (Vanderborght et al., 2000a)
3.2 5.0 column 9.7 7.2 1.36 2.80 2.80 steady l resident TDR 1 Bekkevoort (Belgium)
2.0 12.5 column 7.2 7.5 0.96 2.85 2.85 steady l resident TDR 1 Bekkevoort (Belgium)
3.0 12.5 column 8.2 7.3 1.14 2.80 2.80 steady l resident TDR 1 Bekkevoort (Belgium)
3.9 20.0 column 8.6 7.6 1.12 2.85 2.85 steady l resident TDR 1 Bekkevoort (Belgium)
4.0 20.0 column 9.1 7.4 1.24 2.80 2.80 steady l resident TDR 1 Bekkevoort (Belgium)
3.9 27.5 column 9.7 7.8 1.24 2.85 2.85 steady l resident TDR 1 Bekkevoort (Belgium)
5.3 27.5 column 8.9 7.6 1.17 2.80 2.80 steady l resident TDR 1 Bekkevoort (Belgium)
6.2 35.0 column 10.0 8.0 1.24 2.85 2.85 steady l resident TDR 1 Bekkevoort (Belgium)
9.4 35.0 column 6.5 7.8 0.84 2.80 2.80 steady l resident TDR 1 Bekkevoort (Belgium)
4.8 42.5 column 9.2 8.2 1.13 2.85 2.85 steady l resident TDR 1 Bekkevoort (Belgium)
7.0 42.5 column 10.3 8.0 1.29 2.80 2.80 steady l resident TDR 1 Bekkevoort (Belgium)
3.7 50.0 column 8.6 8.2 1.05 2.85 2.85 steady l resident TDR 1 Bekkevoort (Belgium)
4.6 50.0 column 9.0 8.0 1.12 2.80 2.80 steady l resident TDR 1 Bekkevoort (Belgium)
5.4 57.5 column 9.5 8.3 1.15 2.85 2.85 steady l resident TDR 1 Bekkevoort (Belgium)
7.3 57.5 column 7.7 8.1 0.95 2.80 2.80 steady l resident TDR 1 Bekkevoort (Belgium)
3.6 65.0 column 9.0 8.3 1.08 2.85 2.85 steady l resident TDR 1 Bekkevoort (Belgium)
5.8 65.0 column 9.4 8.1 1.17 2.80 2.80 steady l resident TDR 1 Bekkevoort (Belgium)
4.6 72.5 column 9.1 8.3 1.10 2.85 2.85 steady l resident TDR 1 Bekkevoort (Belgium)
4.9 72.5 column 8.5 8.1 1.05 2.80 2.80 steady l resident TDR 1 Bekkevoort (Belgium)
4.5 80.0 column 8.1 8.3 0.98 2.85 2.85 steady l resident TDR 1 Bekkevoort (Belgium)
6.2 80.0 column 7.1 8.1 0.88 2.80 2.80 steady l resident TDR 1 Bekkevoort (Belgium)

40
λ (cm) travel scale v vp v/vp Jw Jweff type of flow text. depth conc. meas. exp. experimental field source
distance tech. No.
-1 -1 -1 -1
cm cm cm d cm d cm d cm d
7.0 87.5 column 7.4 8.2 0.90 2.85 2.85 steady l resident TDR 1 Bekkevoort (Belgium)
5.1 87.5 column 7.6 8.1 0.94 2.80 2.80 steady l resident TDR 1 Bekkevoort (Belgium)
7.3 93.0 column 7.6 8.2 0.93 2.85 2.85 steady l resident TDR 1 Bekkevoort (Belgium)
6.1 93.0 column 6.6 8.1 0.82 2.80 2.80 steady l resident TDR 1 Bekkevoort (Belgium)
10.9 105.0 column 8.1 8.2 0.99 2.85 2.85 steady l flux direct 1 Bekkevoort (Belgium)
11.4 105.0 column 8.2 8.1 1.01 2.80 2.80 steady l flux direct 1 Bekkevoort (Belgium)
0.9 5.0 column 15.9 15.9 1.00 6.80 6.80 steady l resident TDR 2 Bekkevoort (Belgium)
2.3 5.0 column 24.6 17.7 1.39 7.40 7.40 steady l resident TDR 2 Bekkevoort (Belgium)
3.5 12.5 column 19.7 16.4 1.20 6.80 6.80 steady l resident TDR 2 Bekkevoort (Belgium)
3.6 12.5 column 20.6 18.0 1.15 7.40 7.40 steady l resident TDR 2 Bekkevoort (Belgium)
3.5 20.0 column 18.4 17.1 1.08 6.80 6.80 steady l resident TDR 2 Bekkevoort (Belgium)
3.7 20.0 column 25.9 18.5 1.40 7.40 7.40 steady l resident TDR 2 Bekkevoort (Belgium)
3.5 27.5 column 19.4 17.6 1.10 6.80 6.80 steady l resident TDR 2 Bekkevoort (Belgium)
3.9 27.5 column 27.2 19.0 1.43 7.40 7.40 steady l resident TDR 2 Bekkevoort (Belgium)
5.2 35.0 column 20.0 18.2 1.10 6.80 6.80 steady l resident TDR 2 Bekkevoort (Belgium)
15.0 35.0 column 18.2 19.5 0.93 7.40 7.40 steady l resident TDR 2 Bekkevoort (Belgium)
6.4 42.5 column 20.6 18.5 1.11 6.80 6.80 steady l resident TDR 2 Bekkevoort (Belgium)
5.2 42.5 column 28.8 19.9 1.45 7.40 7.40 steady l resident TDR 2 Bekkevoort (Belgium)
5.8 50.0 column 23.3 18.7 1.25 6.80 6.80 steady l resident TDR 2 Bekkevoort (Belgium)
6.7 50.0 column 30.9 20.1 1.54 7.40 7.40 steady l resident TDR 2 Bekkevoort (Belgium)
8.8 57.5 column 22.1 18.8 1.17 6.80 6.80 steady l resident TDR 2 Bekkevoort (Belgium)
8.3 57.5 column 23.1 20.2 1.14 7.40 7.40 steady l resident TDR 2 Bekkevoort (Belgium)
6.4 65.0 column 23.0 18.9 1.21 6.80 6.80 steady l resident TDR 2 Bekkevoort (Belgium)
4.4 65.0 column 26.9 20.3 1.32 7.40 7.40 steady l resident TDR 2 Bekkevoort (Belgium)
7.2 72.5 column 23.3 19.0 1.23 6.80 6.80 steady l resident TDR 2 Bekkevoort (Belgium)
7.1 72.5 column 24.3 20.4 1.19 7.40 7.40 steady l resident TDR 2 Bekkevoort (Belgium)
6.9 80.0 column 17.8 19.0 0.93 6.80 6.80 steady l resident TDR 2 Bekkevoort (Belgium)
6.1 80.0 column 19.2 20.4 0.94 7.40 7.40 steady l resident TDR 2 Bekkevoort (Belgium)
12.0 87.5 column 15.6 19.0 0.82 6.80 6.80 steady l resident TDR 2 Bekkevoort (Belgium)
6.0 87.5 column 18.5 20.5 0.90 7.40 7.40 steady l resident TDR 2 Bekkevoort (Belgium)
14.7 93.0 column 14.5 19.0 0.76 6.80 6.80 steady l resident TDR 2 Bekkevoort (Belgium)
13.0 93.0 column 15.9 20.6 0.77 7.40 7.40 steady l resident TDR 2 Bekkevoort (Belgium)
18.0 105.0 column 19.4 19.0 1.02 6.80 6.80 steady l flux direct 2 Bekkevoort (Belgium)
14.3 105.0 column 21.4 20.6 1.04 7.40 7.40 steady l flux direct 2 Bekkevoort (Belgium)
2.0 5.0 column 2.9 3.5 0.84 1.30 1.30 steady l resident TDR 3 Bekkevoort (Belgium)

41
λ (cm) travel scale v vp v/vp Jw Jweff type of flow text. depth conc. meas. exp. experimental field source
distance tech. No.
-1 -1 -1 -1
cm cm cm d cm d cm d cm d
5.2 5.0 column 4.7 3.4 1.40 1.30 1.30 steady l resident TDR 3 Bekkevoort (Belgium)
2.1 12.5 column 3.4 3.5 0.97 1.30 1.30 steady l resident TDR 3 Bekkevoort (Belgium)
3.1 12.5 column 3.9 3.4 1.15 1.30 1.30 steady l resident TDR 3 Bekkevoort (Belgium)
3.0 20.0 column 3.9 3.6 1.08 1.30 1.30 steady l resident TDR 3 Bekkevoort (Belgium)
3.7 20.0 column 4.4 3.5 1.26 1.30 1.30 steady l resident TDR 3 Bekkevoort (Belgium)
2.6 27.5 column 4.3 3.7 1.16 1.30 1.30 steady l resident TDR 3 Bekkevoort (Belgium)
3.9 27.5 column 3.8 3.6 1.05 1.30 1.30 steady l resident TDR 3 Bekkevoort (Belgium)
2.8 35.0 column 4.1 3.8 1.08 1.30 1.30 steady l resident TDR 3 Bekkevoort (Belgium)
8.6 35.0 column 3.3 3.7 0.91 1.30 1.30 steady l resident TDR 3 Bekkevoort (Belgium)
2.7 42.5 column 4.2 3.8 1.10 1.30 1.30 steady l resident TDR 3 Bekkevoort (Belgium)
3.8 42.5 column 4.5 3.7 1.19 1.30 1.30 steady l resident TDR 3 Bekkevoort (Belgium)
2.2 50.0 column 4.0 3.9 1.03 1.30 1.30 steady l resident TDR 3 Bekkevoort (Belgium)
3.2 50.0 column 4.0 3.8 1.07 1.30 1.30 steady l resident TDR 3 Bekkevoort (Belgium)
2.9 57.5 column 4.2 3.9 1.08 1.30 1.30 steady l resident TDR 3 Bekkevoort (Belgium)
5.0 57.5 column 3.7 3.8 0.98 1.30 1.30 steady l resident TDR 3 Bekkevoort (Belgium)
2.4 65.0 column 4.2 3.9 1.07 1.30 1.30 steady l resident TDR 3 Bekkevoort (Belgium)
3.4 65.0 column 4.5 3.8 1.19 1.30 1.30 steady l resident TDR 3 Bekkevoort (Belgium)
2.4 72.5 column 4.3 3.9 1.10 1.30 1.30 steady l resident TDR 3 Bekkevoort (Belgium)
3.6 72.5 column 4.2 3.8 1.11 1.30 1.30 steady l resident TDR 3 Bekkevoort (Belgium)
2.8 80.0 column 4.1 3.9 1.06 1.30 1.30 steady l resident TDR 3 Bekkevoort (Belgium)
4.1 80.0 column 3.7 3.8 0.99 1.30 1.30 steady l resident TDR 3 Bekkevoort (Belgium)
2.8 87.5 column 4.1 3.8 1.06 1.30 1.30 steady l resident TDR 3 Bekkevoort (Belgium)
3.6 87.5 column 4.4 3.8 1.17 1.30 1.30 steady l resident TDR 3 Bekkevoort (Belgium)
3.3 93.0 column 4.1 3.8 1.06 1.30 1.30 steady l resident TDR 3 Bekkevoort (Belgium)
3.5 93.0 column 3.8 3.7 1.02 1.30 1.30 steady l resident TDR 3 Bekkevoort (Belgium)
3.7 105.0 column 3.8 3.8 0.99 1.30 1.30 steady l flux direct 3 Bekkevoort (Belgium)
4.2 105.0 column 3.9 3.7 1.04 1.30 1.30 steady l flux direct 3 Bekkevoort (Belgium)
1.4 10.0 field 4.6 7.7 0.60 2.84 2.84 steady l resident TDR 4 Bekkevoort (Belgium) (Jacques et al., 1998)
1.3 30.0 field 5.6 7.9 0.71 2.84 2.84 steady l resident TDR 4 Bekkevoort (Belgium)
2.0 50.0 field 6.6 8.0 0.82 2.84 2.84 steady l resident TDR 4 Bekkevoort (Belgium)
3.8 70.0 field 7.4 8.0 0.92 2.84 2.84 steady l resident TDR 4 Bekkevoort (Belgium)
6.2 90.0 field 7.1 8.0 0.89 2.84 2.84 steady l resident TDR 4 Bekkevoort (Belgium)
26.8 105.0 column 6.7 8.2 0.82 2.80 17.60 intermittent l flux direct 5 Bekkevoort (Belgium) (Vanderborght et al., 2000a)
123.8 105.0 column 17.8 24.3 0.73 8.20 56.90 intermittent l flux direct 6 Bekkevoort (Belgium)
8.5 35.0 field 0.28 15.00 climatic l resident TDR 7 Bekkevoort (Belgium) (Jacques et al., 2002)

42
λ (cm) travel scale v vp v/vp Jw Jweff type of flow text. depth conc. meas. exp. experimental field source
distance tech. No.
-1 -1 -1 -1
cm cm cm d cm d cm d cm d
20.0 55.0 field 0.28 15.00 climatic l resident TDR 7 Bekkevoort (Belgium)
15.8 75.0 field 0.28 15.00 climatic l resident TDR 7 Bekkevoort (Belgium)
21.7 95.0 field 0.28 15.00 climatic l resident TDR 7 Bekkevoort (Belgium)
3.5 80.0 column 1.1 1.1 1.00 0.36 intermittent cl flux direct 194 Beotia Soil Series (ND, USA) (Cassel et al., 1974)
3.0 7.5 column 1.0 2.5 0.38 1.00 2.60 intermittent sil resident TDR 9 Bertem (Belgium) (Vanderborght et al., 1997)
6.6 7.5 column 1.4 2.8 0.49 1.00 2.60 intermittent sil resident TDR 9 Bertem (Belgium)
2.8 22.5 column 1.1 2.5 0.42 1.00 2.60 intermittent sil resident TDR 9 Bertem (Belgium)
8.0 22.5 column 1.6 2.7 0.57 1.00 2.60 intermittent sil resident TDR 9 Bertem (Belgium)
4.1 37.5 column 1.2 2.5 0.49 1.00 2.60 intermittent sil resident TDR 9 Bertem (Belgium)
15.9 37.5 column 2.0 2.6 0.75 1.00 2.60 intermittent sil resident TDR 9 Bertem (Belgium)
6.4 50.0 column 1.5 2.5 0.61 1.00 2.60 intermittent sil resident TDR 9 Bertem (Belgium)
49.3 50.0 column 3.4 2.6 1.31 1.00 2.60 intermittent sil resident TDR 9 Bertem (Belgium)
11.8 70.0 column 1.9 2.5 0.76 1.00 2.60 intermittent sil resident TDR 9 Bertem (Belgium)
38.4 70.0 column 2.9 2.6 1.10 1.00 2.60 intermittent sil resident TDR 9 Bertem (Belgium)
17.8 90.0 column 2.2 2.5 0.89 1.00 2.60 intermittent sil resident TDR 9 Bertem (Belgium)
27.3 90.0 column 2.5 2.6 0.95 1.00 2.60 intermittent sil resident TDR 9 Bertem (Belgium)
47.0 90.0 column 2.6 1.00 2.60 intermittent sil flux calculated 9 Bertem (Belgium)
0.7 7.5 column 1.3 1.3 1.04 0.50 0.98 intermittent sil resident TDR 10 Bertem (Belgium)
0.7 7.5 column 1.2 1.4 0.82 0.50 0.98 intermittent sil resident TDR 10 Bertem (Belgium)
2.5 22.5 column 1.6 1.3 1.29 0.50 0.98 intermittent sil resident TDR 10 Bertem (Belgium)
1.3 22.5 column 1.3 1.4 0.98 0.50 0.98 intermittent sil resident TDR 10 Bertem (Belgium)
2.8 37.5 column 1.7 1.3 1.32 0.50 0.98 intermittent sil resident TDR 10 Bertem (Belgium)
1.6 37.5 column 1.4 1.3 1.07 0.50 0.98 intermittent sil resident TDR 10 Bertem (Belgium)
9.4 50.0 column 1.7 1.3 1.34 0.50 0.98 intermittent sil resident TDR 10 Bertem (Belgium)
3.1 50.0 column 1.5 1.3 1.10 0.50 0.98 intermittent sil resident TDR 10 Bertem (Belgium)
5.6 70.0 column 1.5 1.3 1.16 0.50 0.98 intermittent sil resident TDR 10 Bertem (Belgium)
3.7 70.0 column 1.5 1.3 1.13 0.50 0.98 intermittent sil resident TDR 10 Bertem (Belgium)
4.6 90.0 column 1.3 1.3 1.04 0.50 0.98 intermittent sil resident TDR 10 Bertem (Belgium)
4.8 90.0 column 1.5 1.3 1.10 0.50 0.98 intermittent sil resident TDR 10 Bertem (Belgium)
9.0 90.0 column 1.3 0.50 0.98 intermittent sil flux calculated 10 Bertem (Belgium)
149.0 10.0 core 1444.2 1444.2 1.00 660.00 660.00 ponding l flux direct 203 Blacksburg (VA, USA) (Parker and Albrecht, 1987)
38.0 10.0 core 232.8 232.8 1.00 95.00 95.00 ponding c flux direct 204 Blacksburg (VA, USA)
2.9 122.0 field 0.7 0.12 climatic sl resident coring 205 Blumberg (Germany) (Hammel et al., 1999)
7.7 30.0 core 51.8 51.8 1.00 20.64 20.64 steady sil A flux direct 129 Bozeman (MT USA) (Gaber et al., 1995)
7.2 30.0 core 17.8 17.8 1.00 7.92 7.92 steady sil A flux direct 130 Bozeman (MT USA)

43
λ (cm) travel scale v vp v/vp Jw Jweff type of flow text. depth conc. meas. exp. experimental field source
distance tech. No.
-1 -1 -1 -1
cm cm cm d cm d cm d cm d
1.6 30.0 core 16.6 16.6 1.00 6.48 6.48 steady sil A flux direct 131 Bozeman (MT USA)
1.8 30.0 core 2.9 2.9 1.00 0.96 0.96 steady sil A flux direct 132 Bozeman (MT USA)
29.0 84.0 field 0.4 0.56 14.40 interclim l flux samplers 175 Bulach (Switzerland) (Roth et al., 1991)
8.4 100.0 field 0.5 climatic sg resident coring 87 Creux de Chippis (Switzerland) (Schulin et al., 1987)
6.9 150.0 field 0.4 climatic sg resident coring 87 Creux de Chippis (Switzerland)
91.4 30.5 field 29.4 40.0 0.74 16.00 16.00 ponding cl flux samplers 191 Davis (CA, USA) (Biggar and Nielsen, 1976)
204.0 61.0 field 38.6 40.0 0.97 16.00 16.00 ponding cl flux samplers 191 Davis (CA, USA)
141.9 91.4 field 54.1 40.0 1.35 16.00 16.00 ponding cl flux samplers 191 Davis (CA, USA)
169.8 121.9 field 46.0 40.0 1.15 16.00 16.00 ponding cl flux samplers 191 Davis (CA, USA)
295.6 152.4 field 50.9 40.0 1.27 16.00 16.00 ponding cl flux samplers 191 Davis (CA, USA)
481.1 182.9 field 50.6 40.0 1.27 16.00 16.00 ponding cl flux samplers 191 Davis (CA, USA)
2.7 40.0 field 435.2 379.0 1.15 117.50 117.50 steady ls flux samplers 93 Delhi (Canada) (van Wesenbeeck and Kachanoski,
1991)

2.7 40.0 field 279.4 289.0 0.97 83.81 83.81 steady ls flux samplers 94 Delhi (Canada)

2.6 40.0 field 6.3 6.8 0.92 1.25 1.25 steady ls flux samplers 91 Delhi(ON, Canada) (Ward et al., 1995)
5.3 80.0 field 8.6 7.4 1.16 1.25 1.25 steady ls flux samplers 91 Delhi(ON, Canada)
8.2 84.5 field 25.7 25.0 1.03 4.00 4.00 steady ls resident coring 92 Delhi(ON, Canada)
1.9 150.0 field 8.4 7.8 1.08 1.40 interclim ls resident coring 22 Etiwanda (CA, USA) (Ellsworth and Jury, 1991)
10.8 169.0 field 7.5 7.8 0.97 1.40 interclim ls resident coring 22 Etiwanda (CA, USA)
9.1 198.0 field 8.4 7.8 1.08 1.40 interclim ls resident coring 22 Etiwanda (CA, USA)
5.5 223.0 field 7.3 7.8 0.94 1.40 interclim ls resident coring 22 Etiwanda (CA, USA)
12.6 238.0 field 9.5 7.8 1.22 1.40 interclim ls resident coring 22 Etiwanda (CA, USA)
5.8 239.0 field 7.9 7.8 1.02 1.40 interclim ls resident coring 22 Etiwanda (CA, USA)
6.8 263.0 field 7.9 7.8 1.01 1.40 interclim ls resident coring 22 Etiwanda (CA, USA)
6.9 272.0 field 7.3 7.8 0.94 1.40 interclim ls resident coring 22 Etiwanda (CA, USA)
7.1 282.0 field 8.1 7.8 1.04 1.40 interclim ls resident coring 22 Etiwanda (CA, USA)
7.2 317.0 field 9.0 7.8 1.16 1.40 interclim ls resident coring 22 Etiwanda (CA, USA)
4.9 319.0 field 7.8 7.8 1.00 1.40 interclim ls resident coring 22 Etiwanda (CA, USA)
4.9 356.0 field 8.6 7.8 1.11 1.40 interclim ls resident coring 22 Etiwanda (CA, USA)
4.8 357.0 field 8.1 7.8 1.04 1.40 interclim ls resident coring 22 Etiwanda (CA, USA)
8.9 427.0 field 7.7 7.8 0.99 1.40 interclim ls resident coring 22 Etiwanda (CA, USA)
7.9 532.0 field 8.1 7.8 1.04 1.40 interclim ls resident coring 22 Etiwanda (CA, USA)
5.6 30.0 field 1.9 3.7 0.52 0.55 interclim ls flux samplers 23 Etiwanda (CA, USA) (Butters and Jury, 1989)
13.7 60.0 field 1.8 3.2 0.55 0.55 interclim ls flux samplers 23 Etiwanda (CA, USA)

44
λ (cm) travel scale v vp v/vp Jw Jweff type of flow text. depth conc. meas. exp. experimental field source
distance tech. No.
-1 -1 -1 -1
cm cm cm d cm d cm d cm d
23.9 90.0 field 1.9 3.7 0.52 0.55 interclim ls flux samplers 23 Etiwanda (CA, USA)
15.7 120.0 field 2.1 3.9 0.54 0.55 interclim ls flux samplers 23 Etiwanda (CA, USA)
20.2 180.0 field 2.3 3.7 0.63 0.55 interclim ls flux samplers 23 Etiwanda (CA, USA)
29.1 305.0 field 2.9 3.1 0.95 0.55 interclim ls flux samplers 23 Etiwanda (CA, USA)
15.7 450.0 field 3.2 2.6 1.24 0.55 interclim ls flux samplers 23 Etiwanda (CA, USA)
10.2 30.0 field 3.1 4.0 0.78 0.60 12.00 climatic ls flux samplers 24 Etiwanda (CA, USA) (Jury and Sposito, 1985)
25.7 60.0 field 2.8 4.0 0.70 0.60 12.00 climatic ls flux samplers 24 Etiwanda (CA, USA)
15.1 90.0 field 3.7 4.0 0.93 0.60 12.00 climatic ls flux samplers 24 Etiwanda (CA, USA)
19.8 120.0 field 3.6 4.0 0.90 0.60 12.00 climatic ls flux samplers 24 Etiwanda (CA, USA)
15.7 180.0 field 4.3 4.0 1.08 0.60 12.00 climatic ls flux samplers 24 Etiwanda (CA, USA)
0.9 30.0 column 2.00 12.00 intermittent ls flux direct 80 Etiwanda (CA, USA) (Poletika and Jury, 1994)
0.5 30.0 column 2.00 12.00 intermittent ls flux direct 80 Etiwanda (CA, USA)
11.4 30.0 field 0.4 0.14 climatic s flux samplers 97 Fuhrberger (Germany) (Deurer et al., 2001)
28.3 70.0 field 0.4 0.14 climatic s flux samplers 97 Fuhrberger (Germany)
12.1 110.0 field 1.2 0.14 climatic s flux samplers 97 Fuhrberger (Germany)
0.9 5.0 column 14.1 33.1 0.42 13.00 13.00 steady sl resident TDR 12 Geel (Belgium) (Vanderborght et al., 2000a)
0.9 5.0 column 14.6 30.9 0.47 13.00 13.00 steady sl resident TDR 12 Geel (Belgium)
4.0 12.5 column 23.5 33.5 0.70 13.00 13.00 steady sl resident TDR 12 Geel (Belgium)
1.9 12.5 column 24.9 31.1 0.80 13.00 13.00 steady sl resident TDR 12 Geel (Belgium)
3.0 20.0 column 28.2 33.9 0.83 13.00 13.00 steady sl resident TDR 12 Geel (Belgium)
2.2 20.0 column 28.8 31.2 0.92 13.00 13.00 steady sl resident TDR 12 Geel (Belgium)
2.8 27.5 column 22.8 34.3 0.67 13.00 13.00 steady sl resident TDR 12 Geel (Belgium)
3.9 27.5 column 25.1 31.5 0.80 13.00 13.00 steady sl resident TDR 12 Geel (Belgium)
2.9 35.0 column 27.4 35.1 0.78 13.00 13.00 steady sl resident TDR 12 Geel (Belgium)
3.1 35.0 column 36.3 32.3 1.13 13.00 13.00 steady sl resident TDR 12 Geel (Belgium)
4.7 42.5 column 34.3 35.7 0.96 13.00 13.00 steady sl resident TDR 12 Geel (Belgium)
3.3 42.5 column 38.1 33.0 1.15 13.00 13.00 steady sl resident TDR 12 Geel (Belgium)
3.6 50.0 column 31.2 36.4 0.86 13.00 13.00 steady sl resident TDR 12 Geel (Belgium)
4.4 50.0 column 34.0 33.4 1.02 13.00 13.00 steady sl resident TDR 12 Geel (Belgium)
2.7 57.5 column 31.6 37.0 0.85 13.00 13.00 steady sl resident TDR 12 Geel (Belgium)
2.5 57.5 column 35.2 33.7 1.04 13.00 13.00 steady sl resident TDR 12 Geel (Belgium)
2.7 65.0 column 32.6 37.2 0.88 13.00 13.00 steady sl resident TDR 12 Geel (Belgium)
1.9 65.0 column 35.8 33.7 1.06 13.00 13.00 steady sl resident TDR 12 Geel (Belgium)
2.4 72.5 column 31.4 37.2 0.84 13.00 13.00 steady sl resident TDR 12 Geel (Belgium)
3.8 72.5 column 32.6 33.6 0.97 13.00 13.00 steady sl resident TDR 12 Geel (Belgium)

45
λ (cm) travel scale v vp v/vp Jw Jweff type of flow text. depth conc. meas. exp. experimental field source
distance tech. No.
-1 -1 -1 -1
cm cm cm d cm d cm d cm d
2.6 80.0 column 32.0 37.2 0.86 13.00 13.00 steady sl resident TDR 12 Geel (Belgium)
1.9 80.0 column 36.9 33.7 1.10 13.00 13.00 steady sl resident TDR 12 Geel (Belgium)
2.8 87.5 column 34.1 37.3 0.91 13.00 13.00 steady sl resident TDR 12 Geel (Belgium)
3.4 87.5 column 30.6 33.7 0.91 13.00 13.00 steady sl resident TDR 12 Geel (Belgium)
2.4 93.0 column 30.7 37.3 0.82 13.00 13.00 steady sl resident TDR 12 Geel (Belgium)
3.9 93.0 column 30.8 33.6 0.92 13.00 13.00 steady sl resident TDR 12 Geel (Belgium)
3.0 100.0 column 35.0 37.3 0.94 13.00 13.00 steady sl flux direct 12 Geel (Belgium)
4.2 100.0 column 34.9 33.6 1.04 13.00 13.00 steady sl flux direct 12 Geel (Belgium)
2.8 5.0 column 15.8 13.9 1.14 5.40 5.40 steady sl resident TDR 13 Geel (Belgium)
1.2 5.0 column 10.9 14.1 0.77 5.70 5.70 steady sl resident TDR 13 Geel (Belgium)
3.6 12.5 column 16.2 14.2 1.14 5.40 5.40 steady sl resident TDR 13 Geel (Belgium)
1.6 12.5 column 15.8 14.3 1.11 5.70 5.70 steady sl resident TDR 13 Geel (Belgium)
2.5 20.0 column 17.7 14.5 1.22 5.40 5.40 steady sl resident TDR 13 Geel (Belgium)
2.3 20.0 column 16.3 14.4 1.13 5.70 5.70 steady sl resident TDR 13 Geel (Belgium)
1.7 27.5 column 14.7 14.8 0.99 5.40 5.40 steady sl resident TDR 13 Geel (Belgium)
2.6 27.5 column 14.5 14.6 0.99 5.70 5.70 steady sl resident TDR 13 Geel (Belgium)
2.3 35.0 column 15.3 15.1 1.02 5.40 5.40 steady sl resident TDR 13 Geel (Belgium)
1.3 35.0 column 16.4 14.9 1.10 5.70 5.70 steady sl resident TDR 13 Geel (Belgium)
1.8 42.5 column 17.5 15.4 1.14 5.40 5.40 steady sl resident TDR 13 Geel (Belgium)
2.1 42.5 column 18.0 15.2 1.18 5.70 5.70 steady sl resident TDR 13 Geel (Belgium)
1.6 50.0 column 15.7 15.7 1.00 5.40 5.40 steady sl resident TDR 13 Geel (Belgium)
2.0 50.0 column 16.4 15.4 1.06 5.70 5.70 steady sl resident TDR 13 Geel (Belgium)
1.4 57.5 column 14.6 15.9 0.91 5.40 5.40 steady sl resident TDR 13 Geel (Belgium)
1.3 57.5 column 16.9 15.5 1.09 5.70 5.70 steady sl resident TDR 13 Geel (Belgium)
1.2 65.0 column 15.5 16.0 0.97 5.40 5.40 steady sl resident TDR 13 Geel (Belgium)
1.3 65.0 column 17.6 15.4 1.14 5.70 5.70 steady sl resident TDR 13 Geel (Belgium)
1.3 72.5 column 15.2 16.0 0.95 5.40 5.40 steady sl resident TDR 13 Geel (Belgium)
2.3 72.5 column 16.0 15.4 1.04 5.70 5.70 steady sl resident TDR 13 Geel (Belgium)
1.5 80.0 column 15.2 16.1 0.95 5.40 5.40 steady sl resident TDR 13 Geel (Belgium)
1.4 80.0 column 17.7 15.3 1.15 5.70 5.70 steady sl resident TDR 13 Geel (Belgium)
1.6 87.5 column 16.3 16.1 1.01 5.40 5.40 steady sl resident TDR 13 Geel (Belgium)
2.3 87.5 column 15.0 15.3 0.98 5.70 5.70 steady sl resident TDR 13 Geel (Belgium)
1.7 93.0 column 15.2 16.1 0.94 5.40 5.40 steady sl resident TDR 13 Geel (Belgium)
3.8 93.0 column 14.9 15.3 0.97 5.70 5.70 steady sl resident TDR 13 Geel (Belgium)
1.8 100.0 column 16.4 16.1 1.01 5.40 5.40 steady sl flux direct 13 Geel (Belgium)

46
λ (cm) travel scale v vp v/vp Jw Jweff type of flow text. depth conc. meas. exp. experimental field source
distance tech. No.
-1 -1 -1 -1
cm cm cm d cm d cm d cm d
3.3 100.0 column 16.9 15.3 1.10 5.70 5.70 steady sl flux direct 13 Geel (Belgium)
0.5 5.0 column 2.6 6.8 0.38 2.60 2.60 steady sl resident TDR 14 Geel (Belgium)
0.7 5.0 column 2.6 4.4 0.59 1.70 1.70 steady sl resident TDR 14 Geel (Belgium)
1.0 12.5 column 4.5 7.0 0.65 2.60 2.60 steady sl resident TDR 14 Geel (Belgium)
0.8 12.5 column 4.4 4.5 0.98 1.70 1.70 steady sl resident TDR 14 Geel (Belgium)
1.0 20.0 column 6.2 7.1 0.86 2.60 2.60 steady sl resident TDR 14 Geel (Belgium)
1.2 20.0 column 4.4 4.5 0.97 1.70 1.70 steady sl resident TDR 14 Geel (Belgium)
1.0 27.5 column 5.7 7.2 0.79 2.60 2.60 steady sl resident TDR 14 Geel (Belgium)
1.3 27.5 column 4.3 4.5 0.94 1.70 1.70 steady sl resident TDR 14 Geel (Belgium)
1.4 35.0 column 6.3 7.4 0.86 2.60 2.60 steady sl resident TDR 14 Geel (Belgium)
0.7 35.0 column 4.4 4.6 0.96 1.70 1.70 steady sl resident TDR 14 Geel (Belgium)
0.8 42.5 column 6.9 7.5 0.92 2.60 2.60 steady sl resident TDR 14 Geel (Belgium)
0.8 42.5 column 4.5 4.7 0.96 1.70 1.70 steady sl resident TDR 14 Geel (Belgium)
1.0 50.0 column 7.0 7.6 0.92 2.60 2.60 steady sl resident TDR 14 Geel (Belgium)
0.8 50.0 column 4.5 4.7 0.96 1.70 1.70 steady sl resident TDR 14 Geel (Belgium)
0.7 57.5 column 6.6 7.8 0.85 2.60 2.60 steady sl resident TDR 14 Geel (Belgium)
0.7 57.5 column 4.6 4.7 0.99 1.70 1.70 steady sl resident TDR 14 Geel (Belgium)
0.7 65.0 column 6.8 7.8 0.87 2.60 2.60 steady sl resident TDR 14 Geel (Belgium)
0.8 65.0 column 4.6 4.7 0.98 1.70 1.70 steady sl resident TDR 14 Geel (Belgium)
1.1 72.5 column 6.8 7.8 0.87 2.60 2.60 steady sl resident TDR 14 Geel (Belgium)
1.0 72.5 column 4.6 4.7 0.97 1.70 1.70 steady sl resident TDR 14 Geel (Belgium)
1.0 80.0 column 6.9 7.8 0.88 2.60 2.60 steady sl resident TDR 14 Geel (Belgium)
0.8 80.0 column 4.8 4.7 1.02 1.70 1.70 steady sl resident TDR 14 Geel (Belgium)
0.9 87.5 column 7.2 7.9 0.91 2.60 2.60 steady sl resident TDR 14 Geel (Belgium)
1.2 87.5 column 4.3 4.7 0.93 1.70 1.70 steady sl resident TDR 14 Geel (Belgium)
1.3 93.0 column 6.9 7.9 0.88 2.60 2.60 steady sl resident TDR 14 Geel (Belgium)
2.0 93.0 column 4.2 4.6 0.91 1.70 1.70 steady sl resident TDR 14 Geel (Belgium)
1.8 90.0 column 3.1 3.1 1.00 1.00 3.50 intermittent sl flux calculated 15 Geel (Belgium)
10.3 93.0 column 32.5 38.6 0.84 13.00 21.60 intermittent sl resident direct 16 Geel (Belgium)
16.1 93.0 column 24.1 35.8 0.67 12.90 25.70 intermittent sl resident direct 16 Geel (Belgium)
5.3 93.0 column 15.3 17.7 0.86 5.70 13.30 intermittent sl resident direct 17 Geel (Belgium)
7.1 100.0 column 13.6 16.0 0.85 5.70 22.00 intermittent sl resident direct 17 Geel (Belgium)
1.4 100.0 column 7.3 7.6 0.96 2.50 5.80 intermittent sl flux direct 18 Geel (Belgium)
4.3 100.0 column 6.4 6.6 0.98 2.30 10.30 intermittent sl flux direct 18 Geel (Belgium)
3.0 5.0 column 47.5 80.6 0.59 30.00 30.00 steady s resident TDR 11 Hamont (Belgium) (Vanderborght et al., 2001)

47
λ (cm) travel scale v vp v/vp Jw Jweff type of flow text. depth conc. meas. exp. experimental field source
distance tech. No.
-1 -1 -1 -1
cm cm cm d cm d cm d cm d
12.8 5.0 column 72.0 77.8 0.93 30.00 30.00 steady s resident TDR 11 Hamont (Belgium)
11.8 15.0 column 108.0 103.7 1.04 30.00 30.00 steady s resident TDR 11 Hamont (Belgium)
8.3 15.0 column 37.4 100.8 0.37 30.00 30.00 steady s resident TDR 11 Hamont (Belgium)
9.3 25.0 column 85.0 116.6 0.73 30.00 30.00 steady s resident TDR 11 Hamont (Belgium)
20.3 25.0 column 90.7 112.3 0.81 30.00 30.00 steady s resident TDR 11 Hamont (Belgium)
17.4 35.0 column 103.7 128.2 0.81 30.00 30.00 steady s resident TDR 11 Hamont (Belgium)
24.1 45.0 column 105.1 136.8 0.77 30.00 30.00 steady s resident TDR 11 Hamont (Belgium)
6.5 45.0 column 135.4 119.5 1.13 30.00 30.00 steady s resident TDR 11 Hamont (Belgium)
9.9 55.0 column 93.6 138.2 0.68 30.00 30.00 steady s resident TDR 11 Hamont (Belgium)
3.3 55.0 column 165.6 122.4 1.35 30.00 30.00 steady s resident TDR 11 Hamont (Belgium)
4.8 65.0 column 87.8 139.7 0.63 30.00 30.00 steady s resident TDR 11 Hamont (Belgium)
3.8 65.0 column 154.1 123.8 1.24 30.00 30.00 steady s resident TDR 11 Hamont (Belgium)
5.3 75.0 column 96.5 139.7 0.69 30.00 30.00 steady s resident TDR 11 Hamont (Belgium)
2.0 75.0 column 148.3 125.3 1.18 30.00 30.00 steady s resident TDR 11 Hamont (Belgium)
4.1 85.0 column 108.0 142.6 0.76 30.00 30.00 steady s resident TDR 11 Hamont (Belgium)
2.6 85.0 column 152.6 125.3 1.22 30.00 30.00 steady s resident TDR 11 Hamont (Belgium)
2.9 95.0 column 115.2 142.6 0.81 30.00 30.00 steady s resident TDR 11 Hamont (Belgium)
5.0 95.0 column 149.8 128.2 1.17 30.00 30.00 steady s resident TDR 11 Hamont (Belgium)
0.9 15.0 core 36.5 36.5 1.00 18.82 18.82 steady sil flux direct 192 Honeywood Soil Series (Canada) (Elrick and French, 1966)
5.3 20.0 core 47.5 47.5 1.00 21.84 21.84 steady sil A flux direct 107 Horotiu (New Zealand) (Magesan et al., 2003)
3.7 20.0 core 97.5 97.5 1.00 46.80 46.80 steady sil A flux direct 108 Horotiu (New Zealand)
1.4 20.0 core 140.0 140.0 1.00 67.20 67.20 steady sil A flux direct 108 Horotiu (New Zealand)
1.8 20.0 core 120.0 120.0 1.00 57.60 57.60 steady sil A flux direct 108 Horotiu (New Zealand)
1.0 20.0 core 105.0 105.0 1.00 50.40 50.40 steady sil A flux direct 108 Horotiu (New Zealand)
2.4 20.0 core 28.9 28.9 1.00 14.16 14.16 steady sil A flux direct 109 Horotiu (New Zealand)
4.7 20.0 core 54.7 54.7 1.00 27.36 27.36 steady sil A flux direct 110 Horotiu (New Zealand)
1.2 20.0 core 72.0 72.0 1.00 36.00 36.00 steady sil A flux direct 110 Horotiu (New Zealand)
2.2 20.0 core 72.0 72.0 1.00 36.00 36.00 steady sil A flux direct 110 Horotiu (New Zealand)
0.7 20.0 core 69.1 69.1 1.00 34.56 34.56 steady sil A flux direct 110 Horotiu (New Zealand)
9.3 15.0 core 125.5 125.5 1.00 51.46 51.46 ponding sil A flux direct 123 Jackson (TN, USA) (Wilson et al., 1998)
15.0 15.0 core 122.6 122.6 1.00 51.51 51.51 ponding sil A flux direct 123 Jackson (TN, USA)
3.9 15.0 core 111.8 111.8 1.00 51.45 51.45 ponding sil A flux direct 124 Jackson (TN, USA)
12.0 15.0 core 129.1 129.1 1.00 51.65 51.65 ponding sil A flux direct 124 Jackson (TN, USA)
8.5 15.0 core 111.6 111.6 1.00 51.34 51.34 ponding sil A flux direct 124 Jackson (TN, USA)
12.7 15.0 core 123.4 123.4 1.00 51.81 51.81 ponding sil A flux direct 124 Jackson (TN, USA)

48
λ (cm) travel scale v vp v/vp Jw Jweff type of flow text. depth conc. meas. exp. experimental field source
distance tech. No.
-1 -1 -1 -1
cm cm cm d cm d cm d cm d
2.1 15.0 core 11.5 11.5 1.00 5.07 5.07 steady sil A flux direct 126 Jackson (TN, USA)
1.8 15.0 core 13.0 13.0 1.00 5.05 5.05 steady sil A flux direct 126 Jackson (TN, USA)
4.9 15.0 core 9.8 9.8 1.00 4.53 4.53 steady sil A flux direct 126 Jackson (TN, USA)
4.3 15.0 core 12.7 12.7 1.00 5.09 5.09 steady sil A flux direct 126 Jackson (TN, USA)
0.5 15.0 core 14.4 14.4 1.00 5.18 5.18 steady sil A flux direct 127 Jackson (TN, USA)
2.4 15.0 core 13.0 13.0 1.00 5.18 5.18 steady sil A flux direct 127 Jackson (TN, USA)
1.1 15.0 core 13.0 13.0 1.00 5.18 5.18 steady sil A flux direct 127 Jackson (TN, USA)
2.2 15.0 core 13.2 13.2 1.00 5.15 5.15 steady sil A flux direct 127 Jackson (TN, USA)
0.6 15.0 core 2.9 1.9 1.49 0.61 0.61 steady ls A flux direct 117 Kiel (Germany) (Meyer-Windel et al., 1999)
0.6 15.0 core 1.0 0.8 1.28 0.24 0.24 steady sl A flux direct 118 Kiel (Germany)
1.6 15.0 core 1.0 0.8 1.20 0.25 0.25 steady sl A flux direct 118 Kiel (Germany)
1.6 29.0 core 5.6 4.2 1.33 0.84 0.84 steady s B flux direct 119 Kiel (Germany)
5.1 15.0 core 2.9 1.4 2.13 0.43 24.00 intermittent ls A flux direct 120 Kiel (Germany)
8.2 15.0 core 1.6 1.3 1.22 0.43 24.00 intermittent sl A flux direct 121 Kiel (Germany)
5.3 15.0 core 1.5 1.5 1.02 0.43 24.00 intermittent sl A flux direct 121 Kiel (Germany)
1.5 29.0 core 3.2 2.4 1.33 0.43 24.00 intermittent s B flux direct 122 Kiel (Germany)
1.4 15.0 field 2.7 4.0 0.67 1.50 1.50 steady sil resident TDR 8 Krauthausen (Germany) (Jacques et al., 1998)
2.9 35.0 field 2.9 3.8 0.76 1.50 1.50 steady sil resident TDR 8 Krauthausen (Germany)
4.1 50.0 field 2.9 3.6 0.80 1.50 1.50 steady sil resident TDR 8 Krauthausen (Germany)
7.5 70.0 field 2.6 3.5 0.74 1.50 1.50 steady sil resident TDR 8 Krauthausen (Germany)
6.6 90.0 field 2.6 3.5 0.74 1.50 1.50 steady sil resident TDR 8 Krauthausen (Germany)
40.9 149.5 field 3.9 4.7 0.84 2.00 2.00 steady sic resident samplers 193 Las Cruces (NM USA) (Vandepol et al., 1977)
5.0 5.0 column 64.8 102.0 0.64 20.40 20.40 steady sil resident TDR 48 Lexington (KY, USA) (Bejat et al., 2000)
4.0 5.0 column 32.2 61.8 0.52 20.40 20.40 steady sil resident TDR 48 Lexington (KY, USA)
3.1 15.0 column 48.2 74.2 0.65 20.40 20.40 steady sil resident TDR 48 Lexington (KY, USA)
2.1 15.0 column 41.0 60.0 0.68 20.40 20.40 steady sil resident TDR 48 Lexington (KY, USA)
1.6 25.0 column 52.1 69.5 0.75 20.40 20.40 steady sil resident TDR 48 Lexington (KY, USA)
2.9 25.0 column 45.6 61.8 0.74 20.40 20.40 steady sil resident TDR 48 Lexington (KY, USA)
1.5 32.5 column 53.0 69.5 0.76 20.40 20.40 steady sil flux direct 48 Lexington (KY, USA)
3.4 32.5 column 47.3 61.8 0.76 20.40 20.40 steady sil flux direct 48 Lexington (KY, USA)
5.1 6.0 core 150.9 167.9 0.90 89.01 89.01 ponding sil A flux direct 115 Lexington (KY, USA) (Perfect et al., 2002)
4.6 6.0 core 136.9 159.0 0.86 89.01 89.01 ponding sil A flux direct 115 Lexington (KY, USA)
6.7 6.0 core 159.0 174.5 0.91 89.01 89.01 ponding sil A flux direct 115 Lexington (KY, USA)
5.6 6.0 core 141.3 145.9 0.97 89.01 89.01 ponding sil A flux direct 115 Lexington (KY, USA)
3.5 47.0 column 6.8 6.2 1.11 1.42 intermittent ls resident TDR 28 Löddeköpinge (Sweden) (Persson and Berndtsson, 1999)

49
λ (cm) travel scale v vp v/vp Jw Jweff type of flow text. depth conc. meas. exp. experimental field source
distance tech. No.
-1 -1 -1 -1
cm cm cm d cm d cm d cm d
2.8 47.0 column 7.3 6.1 1.20 1.42 intermittent ls resident TDR 29 Löddeköpinge (Sweden)
1.8 47.0 column 7.8 6.0 1.31 1.42 intermittent ls resident TDR 30 Löddeköpinge (Sweden)
1.3 47.0 column 6.6 5.7 1.15 1.42 intermittent ls resident TDR 31 Löddeköpinge (Sweden)
2.8 27.0 column 108.5 105.5 1.03 30.60 30.60 steady ls resident TDR 99 Löddeköpinge (Sweden) (Persson and Berndtsson, 1998)
5.0 7.0 column 6.6 5.8 1.13 1.40 interpond ls resident TDR 100 Löddeköpinge (Sweden)
4.4 12.0 column 4.3 5.8 0.74 1.40 interpond ls resident TDR 100 Löddeköpinge (Sweden)
4.0 17.0 column 7.4 5.8 1.26 1.40 interpond ls resident TDR 100 Löddeköpinge (Sweden)
2.3 22.0 column 6.1 5.8 1.05 1.40 interpond ls resident TDR 100 Löddeköpinge (Sweden)
3.2 27.0 column 8.4 5.8 1.44 1.40 interpond ls resident TDR 100 Löddeköpinge (Sweden)
2.1 32.0 column 7.0 5.8 1.19 1.40 interpond ls resident TDR 100 Löddeköpinge (Sweden)
3.0 37.0 column 8.2 5.8 1.41 1.40 interpond ls resident TDR 100 Löddeköpinge (Sweden)
1.4 42.0 column 6.7 5.8 1.14 1.40 interpond ls resident TDR 100 Löddeköpinge (Sweden)
2.4 47.0 column 7.3 5.8 1.25 1.40 interpond ls resident TDR 100 Löddeköpinge (Sweden)
1.9 5.0 field 6.3 16.7 0.38 4.00 intermittent ls resident TDR 189 Löddeköpinge (Sweden) (Persson and Berndtsson, 2002)
3.4 10.0 field 9.4 16.0 0.58 4.00 intermittent ls resident TDR 189 Löddeköpinge (Sweden)
7.6 20.0 field 12.2 15.2 0.80 4.00 intermittent ls resident TDR 189 Löddeköpinge (Sweden)
8.3 30.0 field 12.9 15.4 0.84 4.00 intermittent ls resident TDR 189 Löddeköpinge (Sweden)
8.1 40.0 field 15.5 16.1 0.96 4.00 intermittent ls resident TDR 189 Löddeköpinge (Sweden)
7.5 50.0 field 18.2 16.7 1.09 4.00 intermittent ls resident TDR 189 Löddeköpinge (Sweden)
6.5 70.0 field 25.6 18.2 1.40 4.00 intermittent ls resident TDR 189 Löddeköpinge (Sweden)
5.3 90.0 field 27.2 19.9 1.37 4.00 intermittent ls resident TDR 189 Löddeköpinge (Sweden)
2.7 5.0 field 3.5 7.8 0.45 1.87 intermittent ls resident TDR 190 Löddeköpinge (Sweden)
8.5 10.0 field 4.7 7.5 0.62 1.87 intermittent ls resident TDR 190 Löddeköpinge (Sweden)
17.1 20.0 field 6.5 7.1 0.92 1.87 intermittent ls resident TDR 190 Löddeköpinge (Sweden)
33.6 30.0 field 6.4 7.2 0.89 1.87 intermittent ls resident TDR 190 Löddeköpinge (Sweden)
23.6 40.0 field 7.2 7.5 0.96 1.87 intermittent ls resident TDR 190 Löddeköpinge (Sweden)
21.7 50.0 field 8.6 7.8 1.10 1.87 intermittent ls resident TDR 190 Löddeköpinge (Sweden)
20.0 70.0 field 15.4 8.5 1.80 1.87 intermittent ls resident TDR 190 Löddeköpinge (Sweden)
6.7 90.0 field 16.5 9.3 1.78 1.87 intermittent ls resident TDR 190 Löddeköpinge (Sweden)
0.8 5.9 column 3.1 4.0 0.78 1.00 1.00 steady s resident TDR 19 Lommel (Belgium) (Seuntjens et al., 2001)
2.7 18.0 column 4.6 3.9 1.17 1.00 1.00 steady s resident TDR 19 Lommel (Belgium)
1.6 31.0 column 3.4 3.8 0.89 1.00 1.00 steady s resident TDR 19 Lommel (Belgium)
3.0 41.9 column 3.9 3.9 1.01 1.00 1.00 steady s resident TDR 19 Lommel (Belgium)
3.2 51.1 column 4.3 4.0 1.08 1.00 1.00 steady s resident TDR 19 Lommel (Belgium)
2.5 62.5 column 4.7 4.2 1.12 1.00 1.00 steady s resident TDR 19 Lommel (Belgium)

50
λ (cm) travel scale v vp v/vp Jw Jweff type of flow text. depth conc. meas. exp. experimental field source
distance tech. No.
-1 -1 -1 -1
cm cm cm d cm d cm d cm d
3.4 72.8 column 4.6 4.3 1.08 1.00 1.00 steady s resident TDR 19 Lommel (Belgium)
3.7 82.0 column 4.5 4.4 1.02 1.00 1.00 steady s resident TDR 19 Lommel (Belgium)
4.4 100.0 column 4.5 4.4 1.02 1.00 1.00 steady s flux direct 19 Lommel (Belgium)
0.8 8.0 column 3.4 5.3 0.65 0.99 0.99 steady s resident TDR 187 Lommel (Belgium)
1.8 14.0 column 3.6 5.5 0.65 0.99 0.99 steady s resident TDR 187 Lommel (Belgium)
2.2 20.0 column 4.0 5.1 0.79 0.99 0.99 steady s resident TDR 187 Lommel (Belgium)
2.2 27.0 column 4.0 4.9 0.83 0.99 0.99 steady s resident TDR 187 Lommel (Belgium)
3.5 35.0 column 3.5 4.6 0.75 0.99 0.99 steady s resident TDR 187 Lommel (Belgium)
3.3 62.0 column 3.2 4.4 0.72 0.99 0.99 steady s resident TDR 187 Lommel (Belgium)
4.3 70.0 column 3.5 4.4 0.80 0.99 0.99 steady s resident TDR 187 Lommel (Belgium)
2.4 78.0 column 3.5 4.3 0.81 0.99 0.99 steady s resident TDR 187 Lommel (Belgium)
1.9 88.0 column 3.6 4.3 0.84 0.99 0.99 steady s resident TDR 187 Lommel (Belgium)
12.3 100.0 column 5.4 4.3 1.26 0.99 0.99 steady s flux direct 188 Lommel (Belgium)
4.3 19.0 core 20.5 16.4 1.25 7.44 7.44 steady sl A resident TDR 101 Manawatu (New Zealand) (Vogeler et al., 1998)
3.8 29.0 core 20.5 16.4 1.25 7.44 7.44 steady sl A resident TDR 101 Manawatu (New Zealand)
2.6 31.0 core 17.1 16.4 1.04 7.44 7.44 steady sl A flux samplers 101 Manawatu (New Zealand)
3.8 34.0 core 18.0 16.4 1.10 7.44 7.44 steady sl A flux direct 101 Manawatu (New Zealand)
2.5 14.0 core 14.0 16.1 0.87 6.96 6.96 steady sl A resident TDR 102 Manawatu (New Zealand)
2.5 26.5 core 15.2 16.1 0.94 6.96 6.96 steady sl A flux samplers 102 Manawatu (New Zealand)
3.6 29.5 core 16.8 16.1 1.04 6.96 6.96 steady sl A flux direct 102 Manawatu (New Zealand)
2.8 26.5 core 51.4 65.3 0.79 31.20 31.20 steady sl A flux samplers 103 Manawatu (New Zealand)
5.9 29.5 core 65.3 65.3 1.00 31.20 31.20 steady sl A flux direct 103 Manawatu (New Zealand)
6.8 14.6 core 6.6 6.6 1.00 2.80 2.80 steady sl A flux direct 104 Manawatu (New Zealand) (Magesan et al., 1995)
2.7 15.0 core 13.4 13.4 1.00 6.40 6.40 steady sl A flux direct 104 Manawatu (New Zealand)
7.5 15.0 field climatic sl resident coring 106 Manawatu (New Zealand) (Vogeler et al., 2001)
27.1 55.0 field 11.0 0.2 45.07 0.06 interpond sl resident coring 86 Maricopa (AZ, USA) (Rice et al., 1986)
23.7 69.0 field 2.8 0.2 11.47 0.06 interpond sl resident coring 86 Maricopa (AZ, USA)
19.6 100.0 field 2.1 0.2 8.60 0.06 interpond sl resident coring 86 Maricopa (AZ, USA)
29.8 117.0 field 1.7 0.2 6.97 0.06 interpond sl resident coring 86 Maricopa (AZ, USA)
23.5 159.0 field 1.7 0.2 6.97 0.06 interpond sl resident coring 86 Maricopa (AZ, USA)
23.0 212.0 field 1.7 0.2 6.97 0.06 interpond sl resident coring 86 Maricopa (AZ, USA)
1.1 7.5 column 3.4 3.9 0.88 1.00 2.50 steady ls resident TDR 20 Meer (Belgium) (Vanderborght et al., 1997)
1.2 7.5 column 0.9 2.3 0.39 1.00 2.50 steady ls resident TDR 20 Meer (Belgium)
2.0 22.5 column 3.0 3.5 0.85 1.00 2.50 steady ls resident TDR 20 Meer (Belgium)
7.7 22.5 column 1.2 2.5 0.49 1.00 2.50 steady ls resident TDR 20 Meer (Belgium)

51
λ (cm) travel scale v vp v/vp Jw Jweff type of flow text. depth conc. meas. exp. experimental field source
distance tech. No.
-1 -1 -1 -1
cm cm cm d cm d cm d cm d
3.9 37.5 column 1.9 3.2 0.60 1.00 2.50 steady ls resident TDR 20 Meer (Belgium)
17.7 37.5 column 1.6 2.6 0.61 1.00 2.50 steady ls resident TDR 20 Meer (Belgium)
6.0 50.0 column 1.9 3.2 0.59 1.00 2.50 steady ls resident TDR 20 Meer (Belgium)
11.0 50.0 column 3.8 2.7 1.42 1.00 2.50 steady ls resident TDR 20 Meer (Belgium)
21.9 70.0 column 2.9 3.3 0.89 1.00 2.50 steady ls resident TDR 20 Meer (Belgium)
16.5 70.0 column 4.8 2.8 1.71 1.00 2.50 steady ls resident TDR 20 Meer (Belgium)
24.9 90.0 column 3.5 3.4 1.04 1.00 2.50 steady ls resident TDR 20 Meer (Belgium)
12.7 90.0 column 5.1 3.0 1.72 1.00 2.50 steady ls resident TDR 20 Meer (Belgium)
39.0 90.0 column 3.0 1.00 2.50 steady ls flux calculated 20 Meer (Belgium)
0.7 7.5 column 2.0 1.9 1.07 0.50 0.90 steady ls resident TDR 21 Meer (Belgium)
0.8 7.5 column 1.7 1.5 1.09 0.50 0.90 steady ls resident TDR 21 Meer (Belgium)
0.4 22.5 column 1.5 1.8 0.84 0.50 0.90 steady ls resident TDR 21 Meer (Belgium)
2.8 22.5 column 1.1 1.5 0.73 0.50 0.90 steady ls resident TDR 21 Meer (Belgium)
0.8 37.5 column 1.2 1.6 0.74 0.50 0.90 steady ls resident TDR 21 Meer (Belgium)
6.8 37.5 column 0.7 1.4 0.47 0.50 0.90 steady ls resident TDR 21 Meer (Belgium)
2.1 50.0 column 1.2 1.6 0.77 0.50 0.90 steady ls resident TDR 21 Meer (Belgium)
18.0 50.0 column 1.2 1.4 0.85 0.50 0.90 steady ls resident TDR 21 Meer (Belgium)
3.0 70.0 column 1.4 1.6 0.84 0.50 0.90 steady ls resident TDR 21 Meer (Belgium)
36.5 70.0 column 2.9 1.5 1.96 0.50 0.90 steady ls resident TDR 21 Meer (Belgium)
4.0 90.0 column 1.4 1.7 0.83 0.50 0.90 steady ls resident TDR 21 Meer (Belgium)
22.7 90.0 column 2.8 1.5 1.81 0.50 0.90 steady ls resident TDR 21 Meer (Belgium)
24.0 90.0 column 1.5 0.50 0.90 steady ls flux calculated 21 Meer (Belgium)
3.5 9.1 field 0.2 0.2 0.92 0.07 climatic sil resident coring 201 Merzenhausen (Germany) (Kasteel et al., 2006)
2.4 9.8 field 0.2 0.2 1.13 0.07 climatic sil resident coring 201 Merzenhausen (Germany)
2.3 22.9 field 0.2 0.2 0.92 0.09 climatic sil resident coring 201 Merzenhausen (Germany)
2.5 36.7 field 0.2 0.2 1.10 0.08 climatic sil resident coring 201 Merzenhausen (Germany)
4.8 40.0 field 0.2 0.3 0.54 0.11 climatic sil flux samplers 201 Merzenhausen (Germany)
2.9 46.2 field 0.2 0.3 0.73 0.10 climatic sil resident coring 201 Merzenhausen (Germany)
9.2 120.0 column 0.3 0.3 1.02 0.11 climatic sil flux direct 201 Merzenhausen (Germany)
5.7 120.0 field 0.2 0.3 0.80 0.11 climatic sil flux samplers 201 Merzenhausen (Germany)
21.5 55.0 column 19.3 19.3 1.00 8.50 8.50 ponding sicl flux direct 196 Morley Soil Series (WI, USA) (Anderson and Bouma, 1977)
13.7 55.0 column 22.7 22.7 1.00 10.00 10.00 ponding sicl flux direct 196 Morley Soil Series (WI, USA)
7.0 55.0 column 17.0 17.0 1.00 7.50 7.50 ponding sicl flux direct 196 Morley Soil Series (WI, USA)
2.8 30.0 core 1.6 1.6 1.00 0.70 0.70 steady sil A flux direct 50 NA (Germany) (Beese and Wierenga, 1983)
2.1 30.0 core 1.9 1.9 1.00 0.70 0.70 steady sil B flux direct 51 NA (Germany)

52
λ (cm) travel scale v vp v/vp Jw Jweff type of flow text. depth conc. meas. exp. experimental field source
distance tech. No.
-1 -1 -1 -1
cm cm cm d cm d cm d cm d
0.7 30.0 core 1.8 1.8 1.00 0.70 0.70 steady sil A flux direct 52 NA (Germany)
1.0 30.0 core 2.2 2.2 1.00 0.70 0.70 steady sil B flux direct 53 NA (Germany)
1.2 30.0 core 2.2 2.2 1.00 0.70 0.70 steady sil C flux direct 54 NA (Germany)
0.6 30.0 core 2.9 2.9 1.00 0.70 0.70 steady s A flux direct 55 NA (Germany)
0.8 30.0 core 2.3 2.3 1.00 0.70 0.70 steady s B flux direct 56 NA (Germany)
3.4 30.0 core 4.1 4.1 1.00 0.70 0.70 steady s C flux direct 57 NA (Germany)
1.6 17.0 core 196.2 251.1 0.78 102.96 102.96 steady ls A resident TDR 58 Naples (Italy) (Comegna et al., 1999)
2.3 17.0 core 237.2 284.9 0.83 105.41 105.41 steady ls A resident TDR 60 Naples (Italy)
4.1 17.0 core 692.7 311.0 2.23 140.59 140.59 steady ls A flux direct 61 Naples (Italy) (Comegna et al., 2001)
0.9 17.0 core 77.9 87.8 0.89 36.54 36.54 steady ls A flux direct 62 Naples (Italy)
0.6 17.0 core 58.8 69.1 0.85 28.06 28.06 steady ls A flux direct 63 Naples (Italy)
0.8 17.0 core 59.4 64.8 0.92 25.79 25.79 steady ls A flux direct 64 Naples (Italy)
1.4 17.0 core 19.4 27.4 0.71 8.81 8.81 steady ls A flux direct 65 Naples (Italy)
0.8 17.0 core 12.7 21.6 0.59 6.87 6.87 steady ls A flux direct 66 Naples (Italy)
1.5 17.0 core 7.8 8.6 0.90 2.75 2.75 steady ls A flux direct 67 Naples (Italy)
0.9 17.0 core 356.0 319.7 1.11 138.10 138.10 steady sl B flux direct 68 Naples (Italy)
0.7 17.0 core 354.0 316.8 1.12 136.22 136.22 steady sl B flux direct 69 Naples (Italy)
0.9 17.0 core 333.3 309.6 1.08 130.03 130.03 steady sl B flux direct 70 Naples (Italy)
0.6 17.0 core 109.1 100.8 1.08 40.92 40.92 steady sl B flux direct 71 Naples (Italy)
0.6 17.0 core 105.0 96.5 1.09 39.56 39.56 steady sl B flux direct 72 Naples (Italy)
0.6 17.0 core 89.7 86.4 1.04 35.08 35.08 steady sl B flux direct 73 Naples (Italy)
1.5 17.0 core 65.0 60.5 1.07 24.31 24.31 steady sl B flux direct 74 Naples (Italy)
0.4 17.0 core 13.9 13.0 1.07 5.02 5.02 steady sl B flux direct 75 Naples (Italy)
2.6 40.0 field 1.2 1.3 0.94 0.32 climatic ls resident coring 95 Nienwohlde (Germany) (Streck and Richter, 1999)
2.4 66.1 field 1.9 0.26 climatic ls resident coring 96 Nienwohlde (Germany) (Salzmann and Richter, 1995)
1.5 5.0 column 42.5 81.6 0.52 20.40 2.40 steady sl resident TDR 49 Pendleton (SC, USA) (Bejat et al., 2000)
1.1 5.0 column 32.9 68.0 0.48 20.40 2.40 steady sl resident TDR 49 Pendleton (SC, USA)
4.3 15.0 column 50.4 77.0 0.65 20.40 2.40 steady sl resident TDR 49 Pendleton (SC, USA)
3.0 15.0 column 49.4 66.9 0.74 20.40 2.40 steady sl resident TDR 49 Pendleton (SC, USA)
10.2 25.0 column 42.5 74.6 0.57 20.40 2.40 steady sl resident TDR 49 Pendleton (SC, USA)
4.0 25.0 column 51.4 63.1 0.81 20.40 2.40 steady sl resident TDR 49 Pendleton (SC, USA)
7.7 32.5 column 66.5 74.6 0.89 20.40 2.40 steady sl flux direct 49 Pendleton (SC, USA)
10.2 32.5 column 52.8 63.1 0.84 20.40 2.40 steady sl flux direct 49 Pendleton (SC, USA)
85.0 30.0 field 4.7 4.2 1.12 1.43 interpond cl resident samplers 81 Phoenix (AZ, USA) (Bowman and Rice, 1986)
165.1 60.0 field 6.6 4.2 1.57 1.43 interpond cl resident samplers 81 Phoenix (AZ, USA)

53
λ (cm) travel scale v vp v/vp Jw Jweff type of flow text. depth conc. meas. exp. experimental field source
distance tech. No.
-1 -1 -1 -1
cm cm cm d cm d cm d cm d
39.3 100.0 field 6.6 4.2 1.57 1.43 interpond cl resident samplers 81 Phoenix (AZ, USA)
50.3 140.0 field 6.2 4.2 1.47 1.43 interpond cl resident samplers 81 Phoenix (AZ, USA)
27.3 180.0 field 8.8 4.2 2.10 1.43 interpond cl resident samplers 81 Phoenix (AZ, USA)
37.9 240.0 field 8.6 4.2 2.05 1.43 interpond cl resident samplers 81 Phoenix (AZ, USA)
24.4 300.0 field 7.3 4.2 1.74 1.43 interpond cl resident samplers 81 Phoenix (AZ, USA)
70.2 30.0 field 6.2 4.2 1.48 1.43 interpond cl resident samplers 82 Phoenix (AZ, USA)
335.9 60.0 field 12.8 4.2 3.05 1.43 interpond cl resident samplers 82 Phoenix (AZ, USA)
120.9 100.0 field 3.9 4.2 0.92 1.43 interpond cl resident samplers 82 Phoenix (AZ, USA)
52.6 140.0 field 6.7 4.2 1.58 1.43 interpond cl resident samplers 82 Phoenix (AZ, USA)
29.6 180.0 field 7.3 4.2 1.73 1.43 interpond cl resident samplers 82 Phoenix (AZ, USA)
46.1 240.0 field 7.5 4.2 1.78 1.43 interpond cl resident samplers 82 Phoenix (AZ, USA)
25.5 300.0 field 4.7 4.2 1.12 1.43 interpond cl resident samplers 82 Phoenix (AZ, USA)
195.3 140.0 field 113.9 122.6 0.93 43.10 43.10 ponding cl resident samplers 83 Phoenix (AZ, USA) (Jaynes, 1991)
151.4 30.0 field 7.9 13.1 0.60 4.84 interpond cl resident samplers 84 Phoenix (AZ, USA) (Jaynes and Rice, 1993)
46.5 60.0 field 13.6 13.6 1.00 4.84 interpond cl resident samplers 84 Phoenix (AZ, USA)
51.2 100.0 field 11.6 13.9 0.83 4.84 interpond cl resident samplers 84 Phoenix (AZ, USA)
29.2 140.0 field 10.1 13.8 0.73 4.84 interpond cl resident samplers 84 Phoenix (AZ, USA)
36.1 180.0 field 13.8 13.8 1.00 4.84 interpond cl resident samplers 84 Phoenix (AZ, USA)
38.9 240.0 field 17.4 13.8 1.26 4.84 interpond cl resident samplers 84 Phoenix (AZ, USA)
42.8 300.0 field 22.4 14.0 1.60 4.84 interpond cl resident samplers 84 Phoenix (AZ, USA)
19.5 30.0 field 15.5 13.0 1.19 4.84 4.84 steady cl resident samplers 85 Phoenix (AZ, USA)
13.5 60.0 field 14.6 13.5 1.08 4.84 4.84 steady cl resident samplers 85 Phoenix (AZ, USA)
13.5 100.0 field 17.4 13.6 1.28 4.84 4.84 steady cl resident samplers 85 Phoenix (AZ, USA)
6.7 140.0 field 13.5 13.6 0.99 4.84 4.84 steady cl resident samplers 85 Phoenix (AZ, USA)
7.5 180.0 field 16.2 13.8 1.18 4.84 4.84 steady cl resident samplers 85 Phoenix (AZ, USA)
11.4 240.0 field 16.8 13.9 1.21 4.84 4.84 steady cl resident samplers 85 Phoenix (AZ, USA)
5.2 300.0 field 20.0 14.0 1.43 4.84 4.84 steady cl resident samplers 85 Phoenix (AZ, USA)
3.8 17.0 core 52.0 55.7 0.93 27.22 27.22 steady cl A resident TDR 59 Potenza (Italy) (Comegna et al., 1999)
4.1 17.0 core 39.0 56.2 0.69 27.46 27.46 steady cl A flux direct 76 Potenza (Italy) (Comegna et al., 2001)
1.2 17.0 core 18.1 18.7 0.97 7.49 7.49 steady cl A flux direct 77 Potenza (Italy)
4.1 6.0 core 167.9 202.3 0.83 89.01 89.01 ponding l A flux direct 111 Quicksand (KY,USA) (Perfect et al., 2002)
0.1 6.0 core 159.0 150.9 1.05 89.01 89.01 ponding ls A flux direct 112 Quicksand (KY,USA)
4.9 6.0 core 117.1 185.4 0.63 89.01 89.01 ponding l A flux direct 113 Quicksand (KY,USA)
6.4 6.0 core 136.9 164.8 0.83 89.01 89.01 ponding sil A flux direct 116 Quicksand (KY,USA)
1.5 8.5 core 14.8 14.8 1.00 10.00 10.00 steady sil A flux direct 105 Ramiha (New Zealand) (Magesan et al., 1995)

54
λ (cm) travel scale v vp v/vp Jw Jweff type of flow text. depth conc. meas. exp. experimental field source
distance tech. No.
-1 -1 -1 -1
cm cm cm d cm d cm d cm d
1.9 8.6 core 27.7 27.7 1.00 18.00 18.00 steady sil A flux direct 105 Ramiha (New Zealand)
1.2 25.0 field 3.8 3.5 1.07 1.06 1.06 steady sl flux samplers 79 Riverside (CA, USA) (Ellsworth et al., 1996)
1.1 44.0 field 4.4 3.5 1.24 1.06 1.06 steady sl resident coring 79 Riverside (CA, USA)
1.8 65.0 field 3.8 3.5 1.09 1.06 1.06 steady sl flux samplers 79 Riverside (CA, USA)
1.7 78.0 field 4.3 3.5 1.22 1.06 1.06 steady sl resident coring 79 Riverside (CA, USA)
2.5 115.0 field 4.4 3.5 1.25 1.06 1.06 steady sl resident coring 79 Riverside (CA, USA)
6.8 30.0 column 1.0 ponding ls flux direct 98 Silawa (TX, USA) (Heuvelman and McInnes, 1999)
15.9 90.0 field 5.0 ponding sc flux samplers 98 Silawa (TX, USA)
36.2 120.0 field 2.5 ponding scl flux samplers 98 Silawa (TX, USA)
9.1 100.0 column 0.92 0.92 steady s flux direct 32 Tinglev (Denmark) (Jacobsen et al., 1992)
4.1 100.0 column 1.03 1.03 steady s flux direct 33 Tinglev (Denmark)
1.9 100.0 column 1.18 1.18 steady s flux direct 34 Tinglev (Denmark)
5.8 100.0 column 1.59 1.59 steady s flux direct 35 Tinglev (Denmark)
3.9 100.0 column 1.63 1.63 steady s flux direct 36 Tinglev (Denmark)
5.5 12.5 core 257.5 257.5 1.00 141.60 141.60 steady cl A flux direct 161 Turrialba (Costa Rica) (Seyfried and Rao, 1987)
2.8 12.5 core 54.3 54.3 1.00 28.80 28.80 steady cl A flux direct 162 Turrialba (Costa Rica)
1.9 12.5 core 9.2 9.2 1.00 4.80 4.80 steady cl A flux direct 163 Turrialba (Costa Rica)
1.1 15.0 core 52.9 52.9 1.00 31.20 31.20 steady cl C flux direct 164 Turrialba (Costa Rica)
1.0 12.5 core 78.5 78.5 1.00 40.80 40.80 steady cl A flux direct 165 Turrialba (Costa Rica)
1.0 12.0 core 41.5 41.5 1.00 21.60 21.60 steady cl C flux direct 166 Turrialba (Costa Rica)
1.8 12.5 core 98.8 98.8 1.00 50.40 50.40 steady cl A flux direct 167 Turrialba (Costa Rica)
43.8 12.5 core 1111.6 1111.6 1.00 633.60 633.60 ponding cl A flux direct 168 Turrialba (Costa Rica)
16.2 12.5 core 113.7 113.7 1.00 64.80 64.80 ponding cl A flux direct 169 Turrialba (Costa Rica)
15.3 12.5 core 821.1 821.1 1.00 468.00 468.00 steady cl A flux direct 170 Turrialba (Costa Rica)
36.6 15.0 core 1148.0 1148.0 1.00 688.80 688.80 ponding cl C flux direct 171 Turrialba (Costa Rica)
24.5 12.5 core 859.6 859.6 1.00 472.80 472.80 ponding cl A flux direct 172 Turrialba (Costa Rica)
60.3 12.0 core 1306.7 1306.7 1.00 705.60 705.60 ponding cl C flux direct 173 Turrialba (Costa Rica)
90.3 12.5 core 1118.5 1118.5 1.00 592.80 592.80 ponding cl A flux direct 174 Turrialba (Costa Rica)
19.2 6.0 core 207.0 181.7 1.14 89.01 89.01 ponding sic A flux direct 114 Utica (KY, USA) (Perfect et al., 2002)
5.3 20.0 field 34.8 23.3 1.49 7.20 7.20 steady sl flux tile drains 88 Watkinsville (GA, USA) (Radcliffe et al., 1996)
3.9 20.0 field 8.6 5.8 1.49 2.40 2.40 steady sl flux tile drains 89 Watkinsville (GA, USA)
6.6 48.5 column 993.6 993.6 1.00 364.80 364.80 steady sl flux direct 90 Watkinsville (GA, USA) (Gupte et al., 1996)
12.1 23.0 core 16.2 16.2 1.00 8.40 8.40 steady sil A flux direct 176 Whitwell Wood (U.K.) (Smettem, 1984)
6.4 23.0 core 8.8 8.8 1.00 4.30 4.30 steady sil A flux direct 177 Whitwell Wood (U.K.)
8.3 23.0 core 14.7 14.7 1.00 7.20 7.20 steady sil A flux direct 178 Whitwell Wood (U.K.)

55
λ (cm) travel scale v vp v/vp Jw Jweff type of flow text. depth conc. meas. exp. experimental field source
distance tech. No.
-1 -1 -1 -1
cm cm cm d cm d cm d cm d
33.6 23.0 core 56.6 56.6 1.00 30.00 30.00 steady sil A flux direct 179 Whitwell Wood (U.K.)
7.8 23.0 core 32.2 32.2 1.00 16.10 16.10 steady sil A flux direct 180 Whitwell Wood (U.K.)
19.0 23.0 core 30.6 30.6 1.00 15.60 15.60 steady sil A flux direct 181 Whitwell Wood (U.K.)
16.5 23.0 core 37.6 37.6 1.00 19.20 19.20 steady sil A flux direct 182 Whitwell Wood (U.K.)
12.0 23.0 core 23.5 23.5 1.00 12.00 12.00 steady sil A flux direct 183 Whitwell Wood (U.K.)
8.5 28.0 core 20.4 20.4 1.00 10.00 10.00 steady sil A flux direct 184 Whitwell Wood (U.K.)
9.5 28.0 core 43.2 43.2 1.00 21.60 21.60 steady sil A flux direct 185 Whitwell Wood (U.K.)
5.2 15.0 field 0.4 0.6 0.70 0.18 interclim cl flux samplers 25 Windsor (CO, USA) (Fleming and Butters, 1995)
5.4 15.0 field 0.3 0.6 0.45 0.18 interclim cl flux samplers 25 Windsor (CO, USA)
62.8 28.0 field 0.4 0.6 0.68 0.18 interclim cl resident coring 25 Windsor (CO, USA)
8.7 30.0 field 0.6 0.6 1.01 0.18 interclim cl flux samplers 25 Windsor (CO, USA)
9.0 30.0 field 0.6 0.6 0.95 0.18 interclim cl flux samplers 25 Windsor (CO, USA)
55.8 42.0 field 0.8 0.6 1.35 0.18 interclim cl resident coring 25 Windsor (CO, USA)
25.1 61.2 field 0.8 0.6 1.42 0.18 interclim cl resident coring 25 Windsor (CO, USA)
7.5 79.8 field 1.0 0.6 1.75 0.18 interclim cl resident coring 25 Windsor (CO, USA)
14.5 80.0 field 0.7 0.6 1.28 0.18 interclim cl flux samplers 25 Windsor (CO, USA)
23.0 80.0 field 1.1 0.6 1.88 0.18 interclim cl flux samplers 25 Windsor (CO, USA)
9.8 120.0 field 0.7 0.6 1.16 0.18 interclim cl flux samplers 25 Windsor (CO, USA)
15.5 120.0 field 1.1 0.6 1.92 0.18 interclim cl flux samplers 25 Windsor (CO, USA)
5.4 158.0 field 0.7 0.6 1.18 0.18 interclim cl resident coring 25 Windsor (CO, USA)
9.7 160.0 field 0.7 0.6 1.26 0.18 interclim cl flux samplers 25 Windsor (CO, USA)
11.2 160.0 field 1.1 0.6 1.81 0.18 interclim cl flux samplers 25 Windsor (CO, USA)
7.9 200.0 field 0.8 0.6 1.38 0.18 interclim cl flux samplers 25 Windsor (CO, USA)
11.4 200.0 field 1.1 0.6 1.80 0.18 interclim cl flux samplers 25 Windsor (CO, USA)
3.1 208.0 field 0.9 0.6 1.55 0.18 interclim cl resident coring 25 Windsor (CO, USA)
4.1 218.6 field 0.7 0.6 1.13 0.18 interclim cl resident coring 25 Windsor (CO, USA)
5.1 279.0 field 0.8 0.6 1.42 0.18 interclim cl resident coring 25 Windsor (CO, USA)
7.4 15.0 core 115.9 115.9 1.00 51.00 51.00 ponding sil A flux direct 125 Winnsboro (LA, USA) (Wilson et al., 1998)
6.6 15.0 core 113.5 113.5 1.00 51.08 51.08 ponding sil A flux direct 125 Winnsboro (LA, USA)
22.1 15.0 core 117.8 117.8 1.00 51.85 51.85 ponding sil A flux direct 125 Winnsboro (LA, USA)
6.6 15.0 core 110.2 110.2 1.00 50.67 50.67 ponding sil A flux direct 125 Winnsboro (LA, USA)
2.5 15.0 core 11.5 11.5 1.00 5.07 5.07 steady sil A flux direct 128 Winnsboro (LA, USA)
0.4 15.0 core 12.0 12.0 1.00 5.16 5.16 steady sil A flux direct 128 Winnsboro (LA, USA)
0.4 15.0 core 13.7 13.7 1.00 5.20 5.20 steady sil A flux direct 128 Winnsboro (LA, USA)
0.6 15.0 core 12.5 12.5 1.00 5.12 5.12 steady sil A flux direct 128 Winnsboro (LA, USA)

56
λ (cm) travel scale v vp v/vp Jw Jweff type of flow text. depth conc. meas. exp. experimental field source
distance tech. No.
-1 -1 -1 -1
cm cm cm d cm d cm d cm d
4.3 16.4 core 16.8 10.9 1.54 6.77 6.77 steady cl A flux direct 38 Wytham (U.K.) (Dyson and White, 1989)
3.0 16.4 core 21.3 14.0 1.52 8.69 8.69 steady cl A flux direct 39 Wytham (U.K.)
4.3 16.4 core 31.0 22.1 1.40 13.70 13.70 steady cl A flux direct 40 Wytham (U.K.)
4.5 16.4 core 55.9 31.0 1.80 19.22 19.22 steady cl A flux direct 41 Wytham (U.K.)
4.1 16.4 core 53.0 34.3 1.55 21.26 21.26 steady cl A flux direct 42 Wytham (U.K.)
15.4 16.4 core 64.8 43.4 1.49 26.88 26.88 steady cl A flux direct 43 Wytham (U.K.)
11.1 16.4 core 75.4 54.2 1.39 33.60 33.60 steady cl A flux direct 44 Wytham (U.K.)
6.8 16.4 core 103.2 66.6 1.55 41.28 41.28 steady cl A flux direct 45 Wytham (U.K.)
17.8 16.4 core 129.1 89.4 1.44 55.44 55.44 steady cl A flux direct 46 Wytham (U.K.)
7.1 16.4 core 151.0 108.8 1.39 67.44 67.44 steady cl A flux direct 47 Wytham (U.K.)

57
References
Anderson, J.L., and J. Bouma. 1977. Water-Movement through Pedal Soils .1. Saturated
Flow. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 41:413-418.
Beese, F., and P.J. Wierenga. 1980. Solute Transport through Soil with Adsorption and Root
Water-Uptake Computed with a Transient and a Constant-Flux Model. Soil Sci.
129:245-252.
Beese, F., and P.J. Wierenga. 1983. The Variability of the Apparent Diffusion-Coefficient in
Undisturbed Soil Columns. Z. Pflanzen. Bodenk. 146:302-315.
Bejat, L., E. Perfect, V.L. Quisenberry, M.S. Coyne, and G.R. Haszler. 2000. Solute transport
as related to soil structure in unsaturated intact soil blocks. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.
64:818-826.
Beven, K.J., D.E. Henderson, and A.D. Reeves. 1993. Dispersion Parameters for Undisturbed
Partially Saturated Soil. J. Hydrol. 143:19-43.
Biggar, J.W., and D.R. Nielsen. 1976. Spatial Variability of Leaching Characteristics of a
Field Soil. Water Resour. Res 12:78-84.
Boesten, J. 2004. Influence of dispersion length on leaching calculated with PEARL, PELMO
and PRZM for FOCUS groundwater scenarios. Pest Manag. Sci. 60:971-980.
Bowman, R.S., and R.C. Rice. 1986. Transport of Conservative Tracers in the Field under
Intermittent Flood Irrigation. Water Resour. Res. 22:1531-1536.
Buchter, B., C. Hinz, M. Flury, and H. Fluhler. 1995. Heterogeneous Flow and Solute
Transport in an Unsaturated Stony Soil Monolith. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 59:14-21.
Butters, G.L., and W.A. Jury. 1989. Field Scale Transport of Bromide in an Unsaturated Soil
.2. Dispersion Modeling. Water Resour. Res 25:1583-1589.
Cassel, D.K., T.H. Krueger, F.W. Schroer, and E.B. Norum. 1974. Solute Movement through
Disturbed and Undisturbed Soil Cores. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 38:36-40.
Comegna, V., A. Coppola, and A. Sommella. 1999. Nonreactive solute transport in variously
structured soil materials as determined by laboratory-based time domain reflectometry
(TDR). Geoderma 92:167-184.
Comegna, V., A. Coppola, and A. Sommella. 2001. Effectiveness of equilibrium and physical
non-equilibrium approaches for interpreting solute transport through undisturbed soil
columns. J. Contam. Hydrol. 50:121-138.
Coquet, Y., J. Simunek, C. Coutadeur, M.T. van Genuchten, V. Pot, and J. Roger-Estrade.
2005a. Water and Solute Transport in a Cultivated Silt Loam Soil: 2. Numerical
Analysis. Vadose Zone J 4:587-601, doi:10.2136/vzj2004.0153.
Coquet, Y., C. Coutadeur, C. Labat, P. Vachier, M.T. van Genuchten, J. Roger-Estrade, and J.
Simunek. 2005b. Water and Solute Transport in a Cultivated Silt Loam Soil: 1. Field
Observations. Vadose Zone J 4:573-586, doi:10.2136/vzj2004.0152.
De Smedt, F., F. Wauters, and J. Sevilla. 1986. Study of Tracer Movement through
Unsaturated Sand. Geoderma 38:223-236.
Deurer, M., W.H.M. Duijnisveld, J. Bottcher, and G. Klump. 2001. Heterogeneous solute
flow in a sandy soil under a pine forest: evaluation of a modeling concept. J. Plant
Nutr. Soil Sci. 164:601-610.
Dyson, J.S., and R.E. White. 1989. The Effect of Irrigation Rate on Solute Transport in Soil
During Steady Water-Flow. J. Hydrol. 107:19-29.
Ellsworth, T.R., and W.A. Jury. 1991. A 3-Dimensional Field-Study of Solute Transport
through Unsaturated, Layered, Porous-Media .2. Characterization of Vertical
Dispersion. Water Resour. Res. 27:967-981.

58
Ellsworth, T.R., P.J. Shouse, T.H. Skaggs, J.A. Jobes, and J. Fargerlund. 1996. Solute
transport in unsaturated soil: Experimental design, parameter estimation, and model
discrimination. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 60:397-407.
Elrick, D.E., and L.K. French. 1966. Miscible Displacement Patterns of Disturbed and
Undisturbed Soil Cores. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 30:153-&.
Feyen, J., D. Jacques, A. Timmerman, and J. Vanderborght. 1998. Modelling water flow and
solute transport in heterogeneous soils: A review of recent approaches. J. Agric. Eng.
Res. 70:231-256.
Fleming, J.B., and G.L. Butters. 1995. Bromide Transport Detection in Tilled and Nontilled
Soil - Solution Samplers Vs. Soil Cores. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 59:1207-1216.
FOCUS. 2000. FOCUS groundwater scenarios in the EU review of active substances EC
Document Reference SANCO/321/2000 rev2.
Forrer, I., R. Kasteel, M. Flury, and H. Flühler. 1999. Longitudinal and lateral dispersion in
an unsaturated field soil. Water Resour. Res. 35:3049-3060.
Gaber, H.M., W.P. Inskeep, S.D. Comfort, and J.M. Wraith. 1995. Nonequilibrium Transport
of Atrazine through Large Intact Soil Cores. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 59:60-67.
Gelhar, L.W., C. Welty, and K.R. Rehfeldt. 1992. A Critical-Review of Data on Field-Scale
Dispersion in Aquifers. Water Resour. Res. 28:1955-1974.
Goncalves, M.C., F.J. Leij, and M.G. Schaap. 2001. Pedotransfer functions for solute
transport parameters of Portuguese soils. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 52:563-574.
Griffioen, J.W., D.A. Barry, and J.Y. Parlange. 1998. Interpretation of two-region model
parameters. Water Resour. Res. 34:373-384.
Gupte, S.M., D.E. Radcliffe, D.H. Franklin, L.T. West, E.W. Tollner, and P.F. Hendrix. 1996.
Anion transport in a Piedmont ultisol .2. Local-scale parameters. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.
60:762-770.
Haggerty, R., C.F. Harvey, C.F. von Schwerin, and L.C. Meigs. 2004. What controls the
apparent timescale of solute mass transfer in aquifers and soils? A comparison of
experimental results. Water Resour. Res. 40:W01510, doi:10.1029/2002WR001716.
Hammel, K., J. Gross, G. Wessolek, and K. Roth. 1999. Two-dimensional simulation of
bromide transport in a heterogeneous field soil with transient unsaturated flow. Eur. J.
Soil Sci. 50:633-647.
Heuvelman, W.J., and K. McInnes. 1999. Solute travel time distributions in soil: A field
study. Soil Sci. 164:2-9.
Jacobsen, O.H., F.J. Leij, and M.T. Vangenuchten. 1992. Parameter Determination for
Chloride and Tritium Transport in Undisturbed Lysimeters During Steady Flow. Nord.
Hydrol. 23:89-104.
Jacques, D., J. Simunek, A. Timmerman, and J. Feyen. 2002. Calibration of Richards' and
convection-dispersion equations to field-scale water flow and solute transport under
rainfall conditions. J. Hydrol. 259:15-31.
Jacques, D., D.J. Kim, J. Diels, J. Vanderborght, H. Vereecken, and J. Feyen. 1998. Analysis
of steady state chloride transport through two heterogeneous field soils. Water Resour.
Res. 34:2539-2550.
Janssen, G., O.A. Cirpka, and S. van der Zee. 2006. Stochastic analysis of nonlinear
biodegradation in regimes controlled by both chromatographic and dispersive mixing.
Water Resour. Res. 42:W01417, doi:10.1029/2005WR004042.
Javaux, M., and M. Vanclooster. 2004a. In situ long-term chloride transport through a
layered, nonsaturated subsoil. 1. Data set, interpolation methodology, and results.
Vadose Zone J. 3:1322-1330.
Javaux, M., and M. Vanclooster. 2004b. In situ long-term chloride transport through a
layered, nonsaturated subsoil. 2. Effect of layering on solute transport processes.
Vadose Zone J. 3:1331-1339.

59
Jaynes, D.B. 1991. Field-Study of Bromacil Transport under Continuous-Flood Irrigation.
Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 55:658-664.
Jaynes, D.B., and R.C. Rice. 1993. Transport of Solutes as Affected by Irrigation Method.
Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 57:1348-1353.
Jury, W.A., and G. Sposito. 1985. Field Calibration and Validation of Solute Transport
Models for the Unsaturated Zone. Soil. Sci. Soc. Am. J. 49:1331-1341.
Jury, W.A., and K. Roth. 1990. Transfer functions and solute movement through soil: Theory
and application Birkhäuser, Basel (Switzerland).
Jury, W.A., and H. Flühler. 1992. Transport of Chemicals through Soil - Mechanisms,
Models, and Field Applications. Adv. Agron. 47:141-201.
Kamra, S.K., B. Lennartz, M.T. Van Genuchten, and P. Widmoser. 2001. Evaluating non-
equilibrium solute transport in small soil columns. J. Contam. Hydrol. 48:189-212.
Kasteel, R., T. Pütz, and H. Vereecken. 2006. An experimental and numerical study on flow
and transport in a field soil using zero-tension lysimeters and suction plates. Eur. J.
Soil Sci.:(in press).
Kung, K.J.S. 1990. Preferential Flow in a Sandy Vadose Zone .2. Mechanism and
Implications. Geoderma 46:59-71.
Lennartz, B. 1999. Variation of herbicide transport parameters within a single field and its
relation to water flux and soil properties. Geoderma 91:327-345.
Lennartz, B., and S.K. Kamra. 1998. Temporal variability of solute transport under vadose
zone conditions. Hydrol. Process. 12:1939-1949.
Magesan, G.N., I. Vogeler, D.R. Scotter, B.E. Clothier, and R.W. Tilman. 1995. Solute
Movement through 2 Unsaturated Soils. Aust. J. Soil Res. 33:585-596.
Magesan, G.N., I. Vogeler, B.E. Clothier, S.R. Green, and R. Lee. 2003. Solute movement
through an allophanic soil. J. Environ. Qual. 32:2325-2333.
Maraqa, M.A., R.B. Wallace, and T.C. Voice. 1997. Effects of degree of water saturation on
dispersivity and immobile water in sandy soil columns. J. Contam. Hydrol. 25:199-
218.
Meyer-Windel, S., B. Lennartz, and P. Widmoser. 1999. Bromide and herbicide transport
under steady-state and transient flow conditions. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 50:23-33.
Nemes, A., M.G. Schaap, F.J. Leij, and J.H.M. Wosten. 2001. Description of the unsaturated
soil hydraulic database UNSODA version 2.0. J. Hydrol. 251:151-162.
Nielsen, D.R., M.T. van Genuchten, and J.W. Biggar. 1986. Water-Flow and Solute Transport
Processes in the Unsaturated Zone. Water Resour. Res. 22:S89-S108.
Parker, J.C., and K.A. Albrecht. 1987. Sample Volume Effects on Solute Transport
Predictions. Water Resour. Res. 23:2293-2301.
Perfect, E., M.C. Sukop, and G.R. Haszler. 2002. Prediction of dispersivity for undisturbed
soil columns from water retention parameters. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 66:696-701.
Persson, M., and R. Berndtsson. 1998. Estimating transport parameters in an undisturbed soil
column using time domain reflectometry and transfer function theory. J. Hydrol.
205:232-247.
Persson, M., and R. Berndtsson. 1999. Water application frequency effects on steady-state
solute transport parameters. J. Hydrol. 225:140-154.
Persson, M., and R. Berndtsson. 2002. Transect scale solute transport measured by time
domain reflectometry. Nord. Hydrol. 33:145-164.
Poletika, N.N., and W.A. Jury. 1994. Effects of Soil Surface Management on Water-Flow
Distribution and Solute-Dispersion. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 58:999-1006.
Radcliffe, D.E., P.M. Tillotson, P.F. Hendrix, L.T. West, J.E. Box, and E.W. Tollner. 1996.
Anion transport in a piedmont ultisol .1. Field-scale parameters. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.
60:755-761.

60
Rice, R.C., R.S. Bowman, and D.B. Jaynes. 1986. Percolation of Water Below an Irrigated
Field. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 50:855-859.
Roth, K., W.A. Jury, H. Fluhler, and W. Attinger. 1991. Transport of Chloride through an
Unsaturated Field Soil. Water Resour. Res. 27:2533-2541.
Rubin, Y. 2003. Applied stochastic hydrogeology Oford University Press, New York.
Russo, D. 2002. A note on the effective parameters of the convection-dispersion equation.
Water Resour. Res. 38:Art. No. 1017,doi:10.1029/2000WR000068.
Salzmann, T., and J. Richter. 1995. Field-Scale Vertical Transport from Horizontally Variable
Local Scale Transport Parameters. Water Resour. Res. 31:2453-2459.
Schaap, M.G., F.J. Leij, and M.T. van Genuchten. 1998. Neural network analysis for
hierarchical prediction of soil hydraulic properties. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 62:847-855.
Schulin, R., M.T. Vangenuchten, H. Fluhler, and P. Ferlin. 1987. An Experimental-Study of
Solute Transport in a Stony Field Soil. Water Resour. Res. 23:1785-1794.
Seuntjens, P., D. Mallants, N. Toride, C. Cornelis, and P. Geuzens. 2001. Grid lysimeter study
of steady state chloride transport in two Spodosol types using TDR and wick samplers.
J. Contam. Hydrol. 51:13-39.
Seyfried, M.S., and P.S.C. Rao. 1987. Solute Transport in Undisturbed Columns of an
Aggregated Tropical Soil - Preferential Flow Effects. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 51:1434-
1444.
Smettem, K.R.J. 1984. Soil-Water Residence Time and Solute Uptake .3. Mass-Transfer
under Simulated Winter Rainfall Conditions in Undisturbed Soil Cores. J. Hydrol.
67:235-248.
Streck, T., and J. Richter. 1999. Field-scale study of chlortoluron movement in a sandy soil
over winter: II. Modeling. J. Environ. Qual. 28:1824-1831.
Tiktak, A., D.S. de Nie, J.D. Pineros Garcet, A. Jones, and M. Vanclooster. 2004. Assessment
of the pesticide leaching risk at the Pan-European level. The EuroPEARL approach. J.
Hydrol. 289:222-238.
Toride, N., and F.J. Leij. 1996. Convective dispersive stream tube model for field-scale solute
transport .1. Moment analysis. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 60:342-352.
Toride, N., F.J. Leij, and M.T. van Genuchten. 1999. The CXTFIT code for estimating
transport parameters from laboratory or field tracer experiments. Version 2.1 Research
Report No. 137. U.S. Salinity Laboratory, Agricultural research sevice, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Riverside, CA.
Valocchi, A.J. 1985. Validity of the Local Equilibrium Assumption for Modeling Sorbing
Solute Transport through Homogeneous Soils. Water Resour. Res. 21:808-820.
van Genuchten, M.T., and P.J. Wierenga. 1976. Mass-Transfer Studies in Sorbing Porous-
Media .1. Analytical Solutions. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 40:473-480.
van Wesenbeeck, I.J., and R.G. Kachanoski. 1991. Spatial Scale Dependence of Insitu Solute
Transport. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 55:3-7.
van Wesenbeeck, I.J., and R.G. Kachanoski. 1994. Effect of Variable Horizon Thickness on
Solute Transport. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 58:1307-1316.
Vanclooster, M., M. Javaux, and J. Vanderborght. (2005): Solute Transport in Soil at the Core
and Field Scale, p. 1041-1055, In M. G. Anderson, ed. Encyclopedia of Hydrological
Sciences, Vol. 2. John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Vandepol, R.M., P.J. Wierenga, and D.R. Nielsen. 1977. Solute Movement in a Field Soil.
Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 41:10-13.
Vanderborght, J., A. Timmerman, and J. Feyen. 2000a. Solute transport for steady-state and
transient flow in soils with and without macropores. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 64:1305-
1317.

61
Vanderborght, J., D. Jacques, and J. Feyen. 2000b. Deriving transport parameters from
transient flow leaching experiments by approximate steady-state flow convection-
dispersion models. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 64:1317-1327.
Vanderborght, J., R. Kasteel, and H. Vereecken. 2006. Stochastic continuum transport
equations for field-scale solute transport: Overview of theoretical and experimental
results. Vadose Zone J. 5:184-203.
Vanderborght, J., C. Gonzalez, M. Vanclooster, D. Mallants, and J. Feyen. 1997. Effects of
soil type and water flux on solute transport. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 61:372-389.
Vanderborght, J., M. Vanclooster, A. Timmerman, P. Seuntjens, D. Mallants, D.J. Kim, D.
Jacques, L. Hubrechts, C. Gonzalez, J. Feyen, J. Diels, and J. Deckers. 2001.
Overview of inert tracer experiments in key Belgian soil types: Relation between
transport and soil morphological and hydraulic properties. Water Resour. Res.
37:2873-2888.
Vereecken, H., J. Maes, and J. Feyen. 1990. Estimating Unsaturated Hydraulic Conductivity
from Easily Measured Soil Properties. Soil Sci. 149:1-12.
Vereecken, H., J. Maes, J. Feyen, and P. Darius. 1989. Estimating the Soil-Moisture
Retention Characteristic from Texture, Bulk-Density, and Carbon Content. Soil Sci.
148:389-403.
Vogeler, I., D.R. Scotter, B.E. Clothier, and R.W. Tillman. 1998. Anion transport through
intact soil columns during intermittent unsaturated flow. Soil Tillage Res. 45:147-160.
Vogeler, I., S. Green, A. Nadler, and C. Duwig. 2001. Measuring transient solute transport
through the vadoze zone using time domain reflectometry. Aust. J. Soil Res. 39:1359-
1369.
Ward, A.L., R.G. Kachanoski, A.P. Vonbertoldi, and D.E. Elrick. 1995. Field and
Undisturbed-Column Measurements for Predicting Transport in Unsaturated Layered
Soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 59:52-59.
Weihermuller, L., R. Kasteel, J. Vanderborght, T. Putz, and H. Vereecken. 2005. Soil water
extraction with a suction cup: Results of numerical simulations. Vadose Zone J. 4:899-
907, doi: 10.2136/vzj2004.0156.
Wierenga, P.J. 1977. Solute Distribution Profiles Computed with Steady-State and Transient
Water-Movement Models. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 41:1050-1055.
Wilson, G.V., L. Yunsheng, H.M. Selim, M.E. Essington, and D.D. Tyler. 1998. Tillage and
cover crop effects on saturated and unsaturated transport of fluometuron. Soil Sci.
Soc. Am. J. 62:46-55.
Wösten, J.H.M., A. Lilly, A. Nemes, and C. Le Bas. 1999. Development and use of a database
of hydraulic properties of European soils. Geoderma 90:169-185.

62

You might also like