Evaluation of two methods for measuring saturated hydraulic conductivity of soils under two vegetation covers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main goal of this work is to determine and to evaluate the saturated hydraulic conductivity for a silt loam soil in field and laboratory conditions. The experimental area was located in the Vallcebre research catchments, in headwaters of the Llobregat River (NE Spain). Hydraulic conductivity was measured in the field using the Guelph permeameter and field saturated hydraulic conductivity (Kfs) based on Elrick equation was calculated. The Guelph permeameter measures were made in two conditions (dry and wet) and in profiles below two vegetation covers (meadows and forest). To determine the saturated hydraulic conductivity at the laboratory (Ks) the constant head permeameter was used. The average Kfs values for the wet period was about 2 cm·h. During the dry period, both soil profiles presented higher values, about 7.5 cm·h. Under laboratory conditions, mean observed Ks values were between 12 and 25 cm·h. The relationship Kfs/Ks was of 0.1 cm·h in wet conditions and about 0.4 cm·h in dry conditions. The results indicated significant differences between both methods and between both seasons. Differences can be explained by the anisotropy of soils as a consequence of vegetation root system that promotes preferential flows paths.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".