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

This Article Abstract Full Text Free Full Text (PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Kohler, A. Articles by Schulin, R. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Kohler, A. Articles by Schulin, R. GeoRef GeoRef Citation Agricola Articles by Kohler, A. Articles by Schulin, R. Related Collections Preferential Flow Other Environmental Contamination Soil Systems

Using Simple Bucket Models to Analyze Solute Export to Subsurface Drains by Preferential Flow

^a Federal Office for Water and Geology, Hydrological Survey, 3003 Bern, Switzerland
^b Swiss Federal Institute for Environmental Science and Technology (EAWAG), 8600 Dübendorf, Switzerland
^c Partners GmbH, Blaufahnenstrasse 14, CH-8093 Zurich, Switzerland
^d Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Department of Soil Protection, Grabenstrasse 3, 8952 Schlieren, Switzerland

View larger version (38K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Schematic of the experimental site in the study area. Shaded region shows the Br- application area.

View larger version (91K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Pictures of a dye infiltration test with high (bottom) and low (top) infiltration rates (after Gada and Felber, 1996). The total amount of infiltration was equal to 40 mm for both tests. The dimensions of the grids are 10 by 10 cm.

View larger version (66K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Schematic representation of surface-trigger and subsoil-trigger models used to analyze the conditions for triggering of preferential flow.

View larger version (24K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4. Measured (solid lines) and calculated (symbols) water contents by the subsoil-trigger model at depths of 0.3 and 0.6 m.

View larger version (35K): [in a new window]   Fig. 5. Time course of drainage discharge and Br- concentration (left) and Br- concentration vs. discharge (right) for the period of 25 Aug. 1995 to 12 Feb. 1996.

View larger version (34K): [in a new window]   Fig. 6. Time course of drainage discharge and Br- concentration (left) and Br- concentration vs. discharge (right) for the period of 13 Feb. 1996 to 8 June 1996.

View larger version (42K): [in a new window]   Fig. 7. Time course of drainage discharge and Br- concentration (left) and Br- concentration vs. discharge (right) for the period of 9 June 1996 to 8 Aug. 1997.

View larger version (23K): [in a new window]   Fig. 8. Partitioning of drain discharge into matrix and preferential flow for the event on 18 Nov. 1995. (a) Measured drainage discharge. (b) Measured (symbols) and interpolated (thick line) Br- concentration of drainage effluent as well as the interpolated matrix flow concentration. (c) Cumulative export of Br- in the drainage effluent due to preferential and matrix transport.

View larger version (22K): [in a new window]   Fig. 9. Partitioning of drain discharge into matrix and preferential flow for the event on 3 May 1996. (a) Measured drainage discharge. (b) Measured (symbols) and interpolated (thick line) Br- concentration of drainage effluent as well as the interpolated matrix flow concentration. (c) Cumulative export of Br- in the drainage effluent due to preferential and matrix transport.

View larger version (16K): [in a new window]   Fig. 10. Measured drainage discharge and Br- concentration for the period of 24 Aug. 1995 to 8 Aug. 1997. The symbols indicate the timing at which preferential flow was predicted by the surface-trigger (triangle) and the subsoil-trigger (circle) models.