IFIN-HH planned work on plant-soil modelling D Galeriu, A - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
IFIN-HH planned work on plant-soil modelling D Galeriu, A Melintescu IFIN-HH Romania MYPC-FDMH upgrade RODOS-FDMH documented Some upgrade published No major change for Exchange velocity- Jacobs-Calvet-Ronda (preferred and tested)
Jacobs-Calvet-Ronda (preferred and tested) BUT more work on cuticle resistance (night uptake)
Jacobs-Calvet-Ronda (preferred and tested)
gmin,c - the cuticular conductance Ag - the gross assimilation rate- leaf Ds
Cs - the CO2 concentration at the leaf surface Ci
f 0
D0
Γ – CO2 compensation point For canopy - integrate on LAI We use gross canopy photosynthesis rate from WOFOST; Data base exist → advantage
gl,c – leaf C conductance; gl,w– leaf water conductance; gc,c– C canopy conductance; gc,w- water canopy conductance
between photosynthetic rate and the concentration difference of CO2 for leaf surface and leaf interior
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 VPD [kPa] relative conductance C3 teo Do=0.7 Do=1 Do=1.5
stomatal conductance and humidity defficit -C3 and C4 grass
0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 5 10 15 20 humidity deficit g/kg stomatal conductance m/s g_C3 g_C4
0.12 0.4 Boreal forest 0.06 0.875 Forest temperate 0.18 0.89 Rice and phalaris grass 0.12 0.093 Lobos 0.015 0.85 Low vegetation C4 0.07 0.89 Low vegetation C3 ad (kPa-1) fo Vegetation type
Water vapor deficit and soil water deficit
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Data: Kim&Verma A.gerardi Model: Goudriaan Chi^2 = 0.15201 Amax 39.15192 ±0.46071 eps/Amax 0.00148 ±0.00004
leaf Photosynthesis kg CO2/hah par micromoli/m2s
WOFOST for C4 grass, ambient temperature 40 C and for generic C4 (Kim and Verma data)
In the special grass version of WOFOST, the parameters are given: SLA between 0.0015 ( day 80) to 0.002 (day 300), Kdif = 0.6, eps=0.5 amax = 40 (day 95) 35 (day 200) and 25 (day 275). The amax and eps are in good agreement with ryegrass data (J Woledge). Kdif is compatible with the effective daily mean of extinction coefficient (Blomback) but SLA is questionable (Blomback give 0.003). The model value for sla is in divergence also with Lucerne (also close to 0.003, cf Woodward). Also Johnson gives SLA near 0.0025 and amax near 22. For hay a senescence loss can be added for OBT, using the senescence rate of 0.02 per day (cf Dowle) after day 200 and half this value before. For grass, we introduce a grazing loss for OBT following the procedure for mass loss (Dowle) but using, conservatively, a low livestock density. The grazing loss rate used is 0.02 per day and is effective only in the period of grazing (defined for a grass LAI bigger than 4, or a yield )
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Data: Kim&Verma A.gerardi Model: Goudriaan Chi^2 = 0.15201 Amax 39.15192 ±0.46071 eps/Amax 0.00148 ±0.00004
leaf Photosynthesis kg CO2/hah par micromoli/m2s
GRASS C3 and C4
From AQUACROP
From AQUACROP TO COMPLETE PLANT DATA BASE WITH MIN AND MAX ROOTH LENGTH Rice 0.6, wheat, potato>1. maize~2, but grass and lettuce <0.4
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 102 103 104 105 106 107
0-5 5-15 15-30 plant HTO concentration Bq/L initial grid step
Effect of soil grid size on the HTO concentration in soil layers and plant (geometric grid) We must first solve the dynamic equation for soil water, with a space grid (z) extending below roots →This gives soil water content, water flux and soil water extraction, at various depths:
∂θ ∂ ∂ ∂ t q z s
w w
= − +
Next we solve the HTO in soil and obtain the concentration of HTO at various depths and the concentration in transpiration water:
Sc dz dz dc D D d dz qc d dt c d
dis dif
− + + − = ] ) ( [ ) ( ) ( θ θ
The space grid is important and increases from surface to deeper zone. Optimization must minimize the error in the plant water concentration (after cloud passage).
ψ is the soil matric potential, k the hydraulic conductivity and z the depth
1.00E+03 1.00E+04 1.00E+05 1.00E+06 1.00E+07 1.00E+08 1.00E+09 1.00E+10 200 400 600 800 1000 hours C soil Bq/L
C0-5 C5-15 C15-30 1.00E+06 1.00E+07 1.00E+08 1.00E+09 1.00E+10 1.00E+11 200 400 600 800 1000 hours CHTO leaf
Rsoil as f(teta) 10 100 1000 10000 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 teta VULCTSUK CLAYLOAM SILTYSAND SANDTOT narsand
Soil resistance (upper left) HTO concentration in soil Layers (upper right) HTO concentration in grass (lower left)
0.13 0.47 0.75 1.00E-03 0.717 3.02
peat 0.02 0.11 1.57 4.00E-03 0.407 2.35
sand 0.1 0.23 1.35 3.00E-04 0.49 4.5
loam 0.28 0.43 1.33 8.00E-05 0.5 9
clay
g/cm3 Kg*s/m ^3) %vol J/kg PWP FC robulk ksat tetas b psie
Campbell soil parameters Van Ghenuhten also considered.
2 4 6 8 10 12 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 teta PF PFfine Pfv eryfine PFVG clay PFC clay PFC clay1
clay
2 4 6 8 10 12 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 teta PF Pfmedium Pfmedfine PFGloam PFC loam PFC R loam
loam
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 teta PF P FE C P FVG P FC
sand
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 teta PF P F E C P F VG P F VG ! P F C
peat
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 pf teta T sum agoi 1 T sum agoi 3 T sum agoi 4 ecpeat m iura1 m iura3 m iura5 kyushu1 kyushu3 kyushu4
ANDOSOL
Hydrogen balance>>HT deposition and conversion to hto
If the actual soil water volumetric content is θ and the maximum content at saturation is θs we have : ε = θs- θ With Λ the oxidation rate (s-1) and Deff the effective diffusion coefficient [m2/s] given by Defff= ε*Dsa [3] Where Dsa is the diffusion coefficient in the soil air
0.000 0.001 0.002 20 40 60
Count Bin Center Frequency Coun
MAXIMUM H2 Deposition velocity 0.0033 m/s !!
1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 10000000 CHT,CHTO depth
HT deposition Sand , dry season (up) wet season (down)
1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 10000000 CHT,CHTO depth
1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 10000000 CHT,CHTO depth
1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 10000000 CHT,CHTO depth
HT deposition clay , dry season (up) wet season (down
minimal complexity.
→ soil texture important for HTO remanence and site precipitation) LONG term:
transfer parameters, seasonal dependence.
time step.
loss=0.846*humsat*Vex*3.600/watmass [h-1]
season average PG
value for the crop Changing of tritium content in 3 soil types
The Shuttleworth-Wallace model defines fluxes from the vegetative and soil components with a resistance network. With the Shuttleworth-Wallace model, there is need to define values of the humidity deficit, temperature and vapour pressure at the canopy source height, D0, T0, e0.
c a a s ac ab aa c
C C R F R R R F − = + + + ) (
s a ss as aa s a c
C C R R R F R F − = + + + ) (
By analogy, for HTO:
Ca – HTO concentration in air; Cc – HTO concentration in vegetation; Cs – HTO concentration in soil; Raa– atmospheric resistance between reference level and canopy source height; Rac – boundary layer resistance; Rsc – canopy resistance; Ras – atmospheric resistance between canopy source height and soil surface; Rss - soil resistance; Fc - flux atmosphere – vegetation; Fs - flux atmosphere – soil. ) ( ) (
2 sa a ex va a ex c
C C V C C V F − − − = ) ( ) (
2 1 va a ex sa a ex s
C C V C C V F − − − =
Details are given elsewhere
(A. Melintescu, D. Galeriu, “A versatile model for tritium transfer from atmosphere to plant and soil”, Radioprotection,