Soil water infiltration under different land use conditions: in situ tests and modeling

Failache, Moisés Furtado; Zuquette, Lázaro Valentin

doi:10.1590/2318-0331.262120210063

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Scientific/Technical Article • RBRH 26 • 2021 • https://doi.org/10.1590/2318-0331.262120210063 copy

Soil water infiltration under different land use conditions: in situ tests and modeling

Infiltração de água no solo em diferentes condições de usos do solo: ensaios in situ e modelagem

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

ABSTRACT

The efficiency and suitability of different models to estimate infiltration rates in Ferralic Arenosols and Rhodic Ferralsols in southern Brazil are evaluated in this paper. The influence of nine types of land use and soil management practices on infiltration modeling is also assessed. Model parameterization was performed fitting 42 experimental infiltration curves obtained by in situ tests with a double-ring infiltrometer. Soil characterization was also performed in laboratory. The results were assessed using basic statistical descriptors and model accuracy indicators (Nash and Sutcliffe efficiency coefficient and root mean square error). The investigated models satisfactorily simulated the infiltration rates and the most accurate model was modified Kostiakov, followed by the Horton; Singh and Yu; modified Holtan; Holtan; Philip; Green and Ampt/Mein and Larson and Kostiakov. Different types of land uses and soil management practices significantly affect the infiltration rates, mainly those combination with great presence of macroporosity that resulted in an erratic infiltration behavior and affected the infiltration model accuracy.

Keywords:
Infiltration rates; Infiltration modeling; Land-use management; Infiltration test; Brazil

Soil type	Origin	Texture	Color	saturated hydraulic conductivity (cm/s)	Depth (m)	Porosity (m)	Minerals	Landuse types
Rhodic Ferralsols	Weathering of the basalts of the Serra Geral Formation	clay-to-loam-clay	Reddish brown	10^-4-10^-5	<10	0.50-0.65	Quartz, kaolinite, limonite, magnetite, hematite, goethite and ilmenite.	Pasture, (Brachiaria brizantha), Forest (semideciduous forest), cultivated, forest (Eucalyptus sp. and Pinus sp.), sugarcane (Saccharum barberi), banana plantations (Musa sp.)
Ferralic Arenosols	weathering of the aeolian low cemented sandstones of the Botucatu Formation	Sandy (fine and medium sand fractions)	Yellowish to reddish yellow	>10^-4	5-25	<0.50	Quartz, kaolinite and gibbsite	Pasture, (Brachiaria brizantha), Forest (semideciduous forest), cultivated, forest (Eucalyptus sp. and Pinus sp.), sugarcane (Saccharum barberi), orange plantation

Model	Author	Equation	Parameter description and characteristics
Horton (HO)	Horton (1940)Horton, R. E. (1940). An approach toward a physical interpretation of infiltration-capacity. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 5(C), 399-417. http://dx.doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1941.036159950005000C0075x. http://dx.doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1941.0361...	$f = f_{c} + (f_{0} - f_{c}) e x p^{- γ t}$	f is the infiltration rate (mm/h); f0 (mm/h) and fc (mm/h) are the initial and final infiltration rates, respectively; t (h) is the time; and γ (min^-1) is an empirical constant that reflects how the decay in the infiltration rates depends on the soil type and land use and management practices.
Philip (PH)	Philip (1957)Philip, J. R. (1957). The theory of infiltration: 1. The infiltration equation and its solution. Soil Science, 83(5), 345-358. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00010694-195705000-00002. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00010694-19570...	$f = 0.5 S_{p} t^{- 0.5} + K$	S_p (mm/h^-1/2) is the sorptivity, which is a function of the suction potential, and K (mm/h)is a parameter with dimension of the saturated hydraulic conductivity and is related to infiltration gravity factor.
Green and Ampt/Mein and Larson (GA)	Green & Ampt (1911)Green, W. H., & Ampt, G. (1911). Studies on soil physics, 1. The flow of air and water through soils. Journal of Agricultural Science, 4, 1-24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0021859600001441. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0021859600001... ; Mein & Larson (1973)Mein, R., & Larson, C. (1973). Modelling infiltration during a steady rain. Water Resources Research, 9(2), 384-394. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/WR009i002p00384. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/WR009i002p0038...	$f = K_{f s} (1 + \frac{h_{c e} Δ θ}{F})$	K_fs (mm/h) is the hydraulic conductivity of the transmission zone, which may be associated with the saturated hydraulic conductivity; h_ce (mm) is the effective capillarity at the wetting front; F (mm) is the cumulative infiltration at time t; and Δθ is the difference between the saturated volumetric water content (θ_s) and the initial volumetric water content (θ_i).
Kostiakov (KV)	Kostiakov (1932)Kostiakov, A. N. (1932). On the dynamics of the coefficient of water-percolation in soils and on the necessity for studying it from a dynamic point of view for purposes of amelioration. Soviet Soil Science, 14, 17-21.	$f = α t^{- β}$	α (>0) and β (0<β≤1) are empirical constants related to the soil suction and hydraulic conductivity characteristics.
Modified Kostiakov (MK)	Mezencev (1948)Mezencev, V. J. (1948). Theory of formation of the surface runoff. Meteorologia i Gidrologia, 3, 33-40.	$f = α_{1} t^{- β_{1}} + f_{c}$	α₁ and β₁ are empirical constants related to the suction and hydraulic conductivity characteristics.
Holtan (HO)	Holtan (1961)Holtan, H. N. (1961). A concept for infiltration estimates in watershed engineering (Bulletin, No. 41-51). Washington: Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture	$f = f_{c} + a {(S_{0} - F)}^{n}$	a and n are constants that characterize how the soil type and surface layer conditions depend on the type of land use and management practices; S_o (mm) is the initial potential water storage in the soil, which is represented by the water deficit (total porosity (TP) minusinitial moisture) multiplied by a predefined depth of a permeable soil layer; and the quantity (So - F) represents the soil's capacity to store water.
Modified Holtan (MH)	Huggins & Monke (1966)Huggins, L. F., & Monke, E. J. (1966). The mathematical simulation of the hydrology of small watersheds (Technical Report, No. 1, 130 p.). Indiana: Resources Research Center, Purdue University Water.	$f = f_{c} + a_{1} {[\frac{(S_{0} - F)}{T P}]}^{n_{1}}$	a₁ and n₁ are constants that depend on the type of soil and the type of land use and management practices, respectively.
Singh & Yu (SY)	Singh & Yu (1990)Singh, V. P., & Yu, F. X. (1990). Derivation of infiltration equation using systems approach. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, 116(6), 837-858. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9437(1990)116:6(837). http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-943...	$f = f_{c} + \frac{A {[S (t)]}^{m}}{{[S_{0} - S (t)]}^{y}}$	where A, m and y are constants that depend on the characteristics of the infiltration conditions, which are obtained by fitting experimental data, and S(t) is the water storage available at time t.

Soil type	Particle density (g cm^-3)	Clay^a a Average and standard deviation values obtained for each soil property; (%)	Silt^a (%)	Fine sand^a (%)	Medium sand ^a (%)	Coarse sand ^a (%)	Texture^b b Soil grain size was classified by texture triangle proposed by United States Department of Agriculture (1999);	Land use type and soil management practice	Dry bulk density (g cm^-3)^c	Total porosity^c c Average values obtained for each soil property.	Experimental sorptivity ^c (mm h ^-1/2)	Saturated hydraulic conductivity (mm/h)
Rhodic Ferralsols (Red Latosol in Brazilian soil classification)	2.900 +- 0.067	48.2 +- 11.4	23.1 +- 6.9	21.6 +- 3.9	7.6 +- 1.2	3.1 +- 0.6	Clay Loam	Sugarcane plantation (ending of the cycle)	1.520	0.48	37.3	6.8
								Sugarcane plantation (middle of the cycle)	1.358	0.54	40.6	13.0
								Sugarcane plantation (beginning of the cycle)	1.300	0.57	35.7	40.0
								Forest	1.200	0.59	289.0	76.2
								Cultivated forests	1.425	0.57	360.0	117.5
								Pasture with cattle trampling	1.500	0.58	54.8.0	79.6
								Banana plantation	1.450	0.57	346.8	237.1
Ferralic Arenosols (Quartzarenic Neosol in Brazilian soil classification)	2.669 +- 0.129	4.3 +- 1.2	7.4 +- 3.2	34.3 +- 3.8	47.4 +- 1.4	6.6 +- 0.3	Sand	Sugarcane plantation (ending of the cycle)	1.580	0.41	26.5	12.7
								Sugarcane plantation (beginning of the cycle)	1.510	0.43	61.4	86.4
								Pasture without cattle trampling	1.440	0.46	718.5	190.8
								Forest	1.420	0.47	764.4	736.8
								Cultivated forests	1.540	0.42	44.0	40.2
								Pasture with cattle trampling	1.560	0.42	45.1	12.0
								Orange plantation	1.570	0.41	41.8	86.4

Soil type	Land use type and soil management practices	Philip		Green and ampt-Mein and Larson					Horton			Kostiakov		Modified Kostiakov			Holtan
Soil type	Land use type and soil management practices	K (mm/h)	S_p (mm/h^-1/2)	K_fs (mm/h)	h_ce (mm)	∆θ	θ ^sa	θ_i^b	fc (mm/h)	fi (mm/h)	γ (min^-1)	α	β	α₁	β₁	f_c (mm/h)	a	n	fc (mm/h)	s_o (mm)
Rhodic Ferralsols (Red Latosol in Brazilian soil classification)	Sugarcane plantation (ending of the cycle)	1.5	13.0	6.7	32.0	0.20	0.48	0.28	10.8	95	33.5	7.2	0.487	3.9	0.608	5.0	20.0	1.2	11.1	2.9
	Sugarcane plantation (middle of the cycle)	11.5	9.5	17.0	6.2	0.24	0.54	0.30	17.3	64	18.8	15.0	0.289	10.5	0.349	4.9	0.000001	6.6	17.2	15.2
	Sugarcane plantation (beginning of the cycle)	12.8	9.2	16.6	5.6	0.32	0.57	0.25	20.3	97	55.2	15.5	0.278	0.6	0.935	18.6	0.3	4.1	20.3	4.0
	Forest	25.0	81.1	15.7	812.6	0.34	0.59	0.25	77.8	880	33.2	46.3	0.571	25.7	0.689	36.6	2.0	1.8	77.5	31.9
	Cultivated forests	49.8	164.5	92.8	330.0	0.27	0.57	0.30	162.8	1158	30.1	116.3	0.434	14.3	0.932	136.8	0.001	3.3	162.2	67.9
	Pasture with cattle trampling	6.9	25.8	14.3	53.3	0.26	0.58	0.32	24.7	172	29.3	18.2	0.430	4.4	0.763	17.2	0.000007	6.2	25.1	16.3
	Banana plantation	143.2	89.4	184.2	64.7	0.24	0.57	0.33	219.4	938	54.5	170.2	0.258	6.8	0.901	199.1	0.000003	4.0	243.6	99.9
Ferralic Arenosols (Quartzarenic Neosol in Brazilian soil classification)	Sugarcane plantation (ending of the cycle)	1.9	10.5	4.3	28.6	0.27	0.41	0.14	11.0	113.6	68.3	5.1	0.524	0.5	1.025	9.2	0.3	5.0	10.6	3.4
	Sugarcane plantation (beginning of the cycle)	30.0	13.1	36.7	5.4	0.33	0.43	0.11	41.0	133.6	47.2	34.2	0.208	2.2	0.728	36.0	0.00001	6.5	40.9	11.3
	Pasture without cattle trampling	306.8	160.8	404.6	67.8	0.29	0.46	0.14	411.3	1367.9	26.7	354.5	0.235	58.2	0.566	335.2	0.0004	3.0	412.9	119.7
	Forest	299.5	375.3	423.1	288.4	0.38	0.47	0.08	552.5	2730.1	29.5	452.2	0.321	38.4	0.886	485.6	0.000001	3.8	550.0	255.4
	Cultivated forests	18.4	8.1	24.2	2.8	0.27	0.42	0.13	20.3	52.4	6.0	21.0	0.214	21.0	0.214	0.1	0.000003	4.6	20.0	33.7
	Pasture with cattle trampling	7.1	15.0	13.4	17.9	0.29	0.42	0.12	17.2	101.8	26.3	12.9	0.398	5.4	0.567	9.8	0.000003	6.3	16.2	15.5
	Orange plantation	4.7	15.6	9.3	29.7	0.27	0.41	0.12	18.0	146.4	56.5	10.0	0.464	0.9	0.950	14.9	0.000001	8.7	17.5	9.1

Soil type	Land use type and soil management practices	Modified Holtan^a a the total porosity for each infiltration condition is presented in Table 1.				Singh and Yu
Soil type	Land use type and soil management practices	a₁	n₁	fc (mm/h)	s_o (mm)	A	m	y	fc (mm/h)	s_o (mm)
Rhodic Ferralsols (Red Latosol in Brazilian soil classification)	Sugarcane plantation (ending of the cycle)	9.0	1.2	11.1	2.9	3,00E-02	0	10.11	10.8	53.9
	Sugarcane plantation (middle of the cycle)	0.00001	5.3	17.3	12.3	2.34	0.709	0.36	0	40.9
	Sugarcane plantation (beginning of the cycle)	0.2	3.2	20.4	3.2	0.85	0	3.29	19.1	65.0
	Forest	0.00002	3.8	75.1	51.4	0.81	1.678	1.43	62.4	135.3
	Cultivated forests	0.000002	3.9	161.7	76.0	1.29	1.575	0	152.6	31.1
	Pasture with cattle trampling	0.000001	5.4	25.2	14.7	0.86	1.149	0.29	0	42.0
	Banana plantation	0.1	2.0	221.7	27.2	1279.91	0	1.57	203.3	58.0
Ferralic Arenosols (Quartzarenic Neosol in Brazilian soil classification)	Sugarcane plantation (ending of the cycle)	0.02	4.5	10.7	3.0	9,00E-07	0.003	22.69	12.8	5.1
	Sugarcane plantation (beginning of the cycle)	0.000006	6.8	42.9	5.6	3.60	0.807	0.21	20.5	19.2
	Pasture without cattle trampling	0.00004	3.0	413.0	119.7	1.63	1.955	1.47	403.0	62.3
	Forest	0.000002	3.3	534.5	232.8	388.43	0.066	0.00	554.4	14.5
	Cultivated forests	0.02	2.1	21.2	15.1	2.30	0.959	0.25	2.4	18.4
	Pasture with cattle trampling	0.000003	5.3	16.9	11.6	1.42	0.782	1.13	12.9	35.6
	Orange plantation	0.000001	6.7	17.7	7.2	1.37	0.808	0.65	9.2	37.8

Soil type	Land use and management practice	Model	RMSE (mm/h)	NSE	Model classification based on NSE values *1	Soil type	Land use and management practice	Model	RMSE (mm/h)	NSE	Model classification based on NSE values *1
Rhodic Ferralsols	Sugarcane plantation (ending of the cycle)	PH	3.20	0.922	G	Ferralic Arenosols	Sugarcane plantation (ending of the cycle)	PH	3.50	0.896	ST
		GA	3.65	0.871	ST			GA	3.59	0.900	G
		HO	3.16	0.960	VG			HO	1.88	0.970	VG
		KV	3.66	0.919	G			KV	4.03	0.889	ST
		KM	2.86	0.927	G			KM	1.47	0.981	VG
		HT	3.62	0.945	G			HT	2.00	0.967	VG
		HM	3.62	0.945	G			HM	2.07	0.966	VG
		SY	3.29	0.932	G			SY	3.79	0.849	ST
	Sugarcane plantation (middle of the cycle)	PH	4.56	0.846	ST		Sugarcane plantation (middle of the cycle)	PH	3.18	0.920	G
		GA	4.56	0.846	ST			GA	3.87	0.918	G
		HO	3.33	0.893	ST			HO	6.04	0.826	ST
		KV	2.27	0.937	G			KV	4.31	0.854	ST
		KM	2.21	0.939	G			KM	3.53	0.933	G
		HT	3.24	0.893	ST			HT	6.16	0.820	ST
		HM	3.27	0.891	ST			HM	6.74	0.813	ST
		SY	3.63	0.860	ST			SY	1.77	0.984	VG
	Sugarcane plantation beginning of the cycle)	PH	3.23	0.906	G		Pasture without cattle trampling	PH	42.89	0.921	G
		GA	2.57	0.941	G			GA	57.56	0.878	ST
		HO	1.85	0.961	VG			HO	32.64	0.960	VG
		KV	4.90	0.805	ST			KV	63.70	0.836	ST
		KM	1.73	0.971	VG			KM	44.24	0.929	G
		HT	1.95	0.958	VG			HT	30.00	0.963	VG
		HM	1.99	0.955	VG			HM	30.00	0.963	VG
		SY	1.47	0.978	VG			SY	36.19	0.942	G
	Forest	PH	35.32	0.822	ST		Forest	PH	33.35	0.956	VG
		GA	18.91	0.975	VG			GA	33.18	0.951	VG
		HO	17.72	0.984	VG			HO	37.03	0.955	VG
		KV	20.68	0.978	VG			KV	55.50	0.907	G
		KM	13.07	0.985	VG			KM	31.83	0.959	VG
		HT	17.93	0.985	VG			HT	37.90	0.954	VG
		HM	17.11	0.986	VG			HM	38.91	0.951	VG
		SY	24.51	0.955	VG			SY	45.88	0.912	G
	Cultivated forests	PH	28.12	0.933	G		Cultivated forests	PH	2.93	0.897	ST
		GA	22.71	0.960	VG			GA	5.29	0.708	UT
		HO	17.23	0.982	VG			HO	1.66	0.968	VG
		KV	37.89	0.910	G			KV	1.25	0.980	VG
		KM	13.12	0.986	VG			KM	1.26	0.980	VG
		HT	17.64	0.981	VG			HT	1.40	0.975	VG
		HM	17.38	0.981	VG			HM	2.03	0.957	VG
		SY	27.10	0.925	G			SY	1.95	0.945	G
	Pasture with cattle trampling	PH	4.57	0.947	G		Pasture with cattle trampling	PH	1.27	0.990	VG
		GA	4.22	0.961	VG			GA	2.31	0.975	VG
		HO	6.10	0.917	G			HO	2.43	0.979	VG
		KV	5.22	0.934	G			KV	2.27	0.977	VG
		KM	3.85	0.967	VG			KM	1.15	0.992	VG
		HT	5.83	0.923	G			HT	2.09	0.983	VG
		HM	5.89	0.922	G			HM	2.10	0.985	VG
		SY	4.61	0.946	G			SY	2.14	0.968	VG
	Banana plantation	PH	24.36	0.931	G		Orange plantation	PH	3.91	0.913	G
		GA	17.88	0.960	VG			GA	3.41	0.922	G
		HO	29.38	0.918	G			HO	5.17	0.896	ST
		KV	37.96	0.843	ST			KV	5.32	0.894	ST
		KM	15.44	0.977	VG			KM	2.47	0.967	VG
		HT	51.31	0.710	UT			HT	4.73	0.902	G
		HM	32.08	0.893	ST			HM	4.90	0.898	ST
		SY	17.03	0.970	VG			SY	2.34	0.977	VG

Associação Brasileira de Recursos Hídricos Av. Bento Gonçalves, 9500, CEP: 91501-970, Tel: (51) 3493 2233, Fax: (51) 3308 6652 - Porto Alegre - RS - Brazil
E-mail: rbrh@abrh.org.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] E-mails: moisesfailache@hotmail.com (MFF), lazarus1@sc.usp.br (LVZ)