IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/waterr/v12y1998i4p285-293.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Comparative Study of Two Methods for Modeling Soil Water Regime in Agricultural Fields

Author

Listed:
  • John Tsiros
  • Stamatis Elmaloglou
  • Robert Ambrose

Abstract

Two methods widely used in agrometeorogical simulation models for describing field soil water regimes are compared and evaluated based on their ability to predict experimental data from a single field study. The first method is based on a numerical solution to the Richards' equation for describing water movement in the soil profile, while the second method is based on soil-water capacity terms. The evaluation of the performance of the two methods is based on goodness-of-fit statistics and graphical analysis. Results indicate that the first method is more accurate for both the upper and the lower soil zones; the second method, despite its low performance in the upper soil zone can adequately describe soil moisture conditions in the lower soil zones. Recommendations are made for model use based on comparison results, the intended model use, and the difficulty in the acquisition of required model inputs. Copyright Kluwer Academic Publishers 1998

Suggested Citation

  • John Tsiros & Stamatis Elmaloglou & Robert Ambrose, 1998. "A Comparative Study of Two Methods for Modeling Soil Water Regime in Agricultural Fields," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 12(4), pages 285-293, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:waterr:v:12:y:1998:i:4:p:285-293
    DOI: 10.1023/A:1008073824019
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1023/A:1008073824019
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1023/A:1008073824019?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:waterr:v:12:y:1998:i:4:p:285-293. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.