Influence of the shape of inter-horizon boundary and size of soil tongues on preferential flow under shallow groundwater conditions: A simulation study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Kulasekera, P. B. and Parkin, G. W. 2011. Influence of the shape of inter-horizon boundary and size of soil tongues on preferential flow under shallow groundwater conditions: A simulation study. Can. J. Soil Sci. 91: 211–221. Detailed studies of the impact of soil tongues at soil horizon interfaces are very important in understanding preferential flow processes through layered soils and in improving the accuracy of models predicting water and solute transport through the vadose zone. The implication of having soil tongues of different shapes and sizes created at the soil horizon interface on solute transport through a layered soil horizon was studied by simulating water and solute transport using the VS2DI model. This 2-D simulation study reconfirmed that soil tongues facilitate preferential flow, and the level of activeness of tongues may depend on the number of soil tongues, their spacing and distribution. Also, the size of the soil tongues (length and diameter at the interface between the soil horizons) and their shape influence the rate of preferential flow. Increasing tongue length consistently resulted in an increase in solute velocity across the entire soil profile regardless of the tongue shape; for example, a soil tongue of 0.25 m length increased solute velocity by about 1.5 times over a soil profile without tongues, but this increase might be different for soil types and groundwater conditions other than those considered in this study. Narrowing of tongues increased solute velocity, whereas increasing the number of tongues in a wider soil profile decreased the solute-front's velocity. As tongue length increased, the area containing solutes at prescribed elapsed times decreased. An implication of this study is that soil horizon tongue shape and spacing reduce pollutant residence times, hence inter-horizon boundary morphology should be considered when modelling transport through the vadose zone. As well, since the solute velocity behaviours of a triangular- and a wider rectangular-shaped tongue were nearly identical, simply measuring solute velocity in the field will reveal little information on the shape of a soil tongue.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".