Comparison of different mass transport calculation methods for wind erosion quantification purposes

Autores
Panebianco, Juan Esteban; Buschiazzo, Daniel Eduardo; Zobeck, Ted M.
Año de publicación
2010
Idioma
inglés
Tipo de recurso
artículo
Estado
versión publicada
Descripción
Quantitative estimation of the material transported by the wind under field conditions is essential for the study and control of wind erosion. A critical step of this calculation is the integration of the curve that relates the variation of the amount of the material carried by the wind with height. Several mathematical procedures have been proposed for this calculation, but results are scarce and controversial. One objective of this study was to assess the efficiency of three mathematical models (a rational, an exponential, and a simplified Gaussian function) for the calculation of the mass transport, as compared to the linear spline interpolation. Another objective of this study was to compare the mass transport calculated from field measurements obtained from a minimum of three discrete sampling heights with measurements of nine sampling heights. With this purpose, wind erosion was measured under low surface roughness conditions on an Entic Haplustoll during 25 events. The rational function was found to be mathematically limited for the estimation of wind eroded sediment mass flux. The simplified Gaussian model did not fit to the vertical mass flux profile data. Linear spline interpolation generally produced higher mass transport estimates than the exponential equation, and it proved to be a very flexible and robust method. Using different sampling arrangements and different mass flux models can produce differences of more than 45% in mass transport estimates, even under similar field conditions. Under the conditions of this study, at least three points between the soil surface and 1·5 m high, including one point as closest as possible to the surface, should be sampled in order to obtain accurate mass transport estimates. Additionally, the linear spline interpolation and the non-linear regression using an exponential model, proved to be mathematically reliable methods for calculating the mass transport. © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Fil: Panebianco, Juan Esteban. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Instituto de Ciencias de la Tierra y Ambientales de La Pampa. Universidad Nacional de La Pampa. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales. Instituto de Ciencias de la Tierra y Ambientales de La Pampa; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de La Pampa. Facultad de Agronomía; Argentina
Fil: Buschiazzo, Daniel Eduardo. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Instituto de Ciencias de la Tierra y Ambientales de La Pampa. Universidad Nacional de La Pampa. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales. Instituto de Ciencias de la Tierra y Ambientales de La Pampa; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de La Pampa. Facultad de Agronomía; Argentina. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria; Argentina
Fil: Zobeck, Ted M.. USDA‐ARS; Estados Unidos
Materia
Mass Flux Profile
Mass Transport
Wind Erosion
Nivel de accesibilidad
acceso abierto
Condiciones de uso
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
Repositorio
CONICET Digital (CONICET)
Institución
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
OAI Identificador
oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/53661
Acceder
id CONICETDig_fa3c556f01d28690fbdc93276e288513
oai_identifier_str oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/53661
network_acronym_str CONICETDig
repository_id_str 3498
network_name_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
spelling Comparison of different mass transport calculation methods for wind erosion quantification purposesPanebianco, Juan EstebanBuschiazzo, Daniel EduardoZobeck, Ted M.Mass Flux ProfileMass TransportWind Erosionhttps://purl.org/becyt/ford/1.5https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1Quantitative estimation of the material transported by the wind under field conditions is essential for the study and control of wind erosion. A critical step of this calculation is the integration of the curve that relates the variation of the amount of the material carried by the wind with height. Several mathematical procedures have been proposed for this calculation, but results are scarce and controversial. One objective of this study was to assess the efficiency of three mathematical models (a rational, an exponential, and a simplified Gaussian function) for the calculation of the mass transport, as compared to the linear spline interpolation. Another objective of this study was to compare the mass transport calculated from field measurements obtained from a minimum of three discrete sampling heights with measurements of nine sampling heights. With this purpose, wind erosion was measured under low surface roughness conditions on an Entic Haplustoll during 25 events. The rational function was found to be mathematically limited for the estimation of wind eroded sediment mass flux. The simplified Gaussian model did not fit to the vertical mass flux profile data. Linear spline interpolation generally produced higher mass transport estimates than the exponential equation, and it proved to be a very flexible and robust method. Using different sampling arrangements and different mass flux models can produce differences of more than 45% in mass transport estimates, even under similar field conditions. Under the conditions of this study, at least three points between the soil surface and 1·5 m high, including one point as closest as possible to the surface, should be sampled in order to obtain accurate mass transport estimates. Additionally, the linear spline interpolation and the non-linear regression using an exponential model, proved to be mathematically reliable methods for calculating the mass transport. © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Fil: Panebianco, Juan Esteban. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Instituto de Ciencias de la Tierra y Ambientales de La Pampa. Universidad Nacional de La Pampa. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales. Instituto de Ciencias de la Tierra y Ambientales de La Pampa; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de La Pampa. Facultad de Agronomía; ArgentinaFil: Buschiazzo, Daniel Eduardo. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Instituto de Ciencias de la Tierra y Ambientales de La Pampa. Universidad Nacional de La Pampa. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales. Instituto de Ciencias de la Tierra y Ambientales de La Pampa; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de La Pampa. Facultad de Agronomía; Argentina. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria; ArgentinaFil: Zobeck, Ted M.. USDA‐ARS; Estados UnidosJohn Wiley & Sons Ltd2010-10info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501info:ar-repo/semantics/articuloapplication/pdftext/richtextapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/11336/53661Panebianco, Juan Esteban; Buschiazzo, Daniel Eduardo; Zobeck, Ted M.; Comparison of different mass transport calculation methods for wind erosion quantification purposes; John Wiley & Sons Ltd; Earth Surface Processes And Landforms; 35; 13; 10-2010; 1548-15550197-9337CONICET DigitalCONICETenginfo:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1002/esp.1995info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/esp.1995info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesshttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas2025-09-29T10:04:58Zoai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/53661instacron:CONICETInstitucionalhttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/Organismo científico-tecnológicoNo correspondehttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/oai/requestdasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.arArgentinaNo correspondeNo correspondeNo correspondeopendoar:34982025-09-29 10:04:58.743CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicasfalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Comparison of different mass transport calculation methods for wind erosion quantification purposes
title Comparison of different mass transport calculation methods for wind erosion quantification purposes
spellingShingle Comparison of different mass transport calculation methods for wind erosion quantification purposes
Panebianco, Juan Esteban
Mass Flux Profile
Mass Transport
Wind Erosion
title_short Comparison of different mass transport calculation methods for wind erosion quantification purposes
title_full Comparison of different mass transport calculation methods for wind erosion quantification purposes
title_fullStr Comparison of different mass transport calculation methods for wind erosion quantification purposes
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of different mass transport calculation methods for wind erosion quantification purposes
title_sort Comparison of different mass transport calculation methods for wind erosion quantification purposes
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv Panebianco, Juan Esteban
Buschiazzo, Daniel Eduardo
Zobeck, Ted M.
author Panebianco, Juan Esteban
author_facet Panebianco, Juan Esteban
Buschiazzo, Daniel Eduardo
Zobeck, Ted M.
author_role author
author2 Buschiazzo, Daniel Eduardo
Zobeck, Ted M.
author2_role author
author
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv Mass Flux Profile
Mass Transport
Wind Erosion
topic Mass Flux Profile
Mass Transport
Wind Erosion
purl_subject.fl_str_mv https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1.5
https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1
dc.description.none.fl_txt_mv Quantitative estimation of the material transported by the wind under field conditions is essential for the study and control of wind erosion. A critical step of this calculation is the integration of the curve that relates the variation of the amount of the material carried by the wind with height. Several mathematical procedures have been proposed for this calculation, but results are scarce and controversial. One objective of this study was to assess the efficiency of three mathematical models (a rational, an exponential, and a simplified Gaussian function) for the calculation of the mass transport, as compared to the linear spline interpolation. Another objective of this study was to compare the mass transport calculated from field measurements obtained from a minimum of three discrete sampling heights with measurements of nine sampling heights. With this purpose, wind erosion was measured under low surface roughness conditions on an Entic Haplustoll during 25 events. The rational function was found to be mathematically limited for the estimation of wind eroded sediment mass flux. The simplified Gaussian model did not fit to the vertical mass flux profile data. Linear spline interpolation generally produced higher mass transport estimates than the exponential equation, and it proved to be a very flexible and robust method. Using different sampling arrangements and different mass flux models can produce differences of more than 45% in mass transport estimates, even under similar field conditions. Under the conditions of this study, at least three points between the soil surface and 1·5 m high, including one point as closest as possible to the surface, should be sampled in order to obtain accurate mass transport estimates. Additionally, the linear spline interpolation and the non-linear regression using an exponential model, proved to be mathematically reliable methods for calculating the mass transport. © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Fil: Panebianco, Juan Esteban. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Instituto de Ciencias de la Tierra y Ambientales de La Pampa. Universidad Nacional de La Pampa. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales. Instituto de Ciencias de la Tierra y Ambientales de La Pampa; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de La Pampa. Facultad de Agronomía; Argentina
Fil: Buschiazzo, Daniel Eduardo. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Instituto de Ciencias de la Tierra y Ambientales de La Pampa. Universidad Nacional de La Pampa. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales. Instituto de Ciencias de la Tierra y Ambientales de La Pampa; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de La Pampa. Facultad de Agronomía; Argentina. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria; Argentina
Fil: Zobeck, Ted M.. USDA‐ARS; Estados Unidos
description Quantitative estimation of the material transported by the wind under field conditions is essential for the study and control of wind erosion. A critical step of this calculation is the integration of the curve that relates the variation of the amount of the material carried by the wind with height. Several mathematical procedures have been proposed for this calculation, but results are scarce and controversial. One objective of this study was to assess the efficiency of three mathematical models (a rational, an exponential, and a simplified Gaussian function) for the calculation of the mass transport, as compared to the linear spline interpolation. Another objective of this study was to compare the mass transport calculated from field measurements obtained from a minimum of three discrete sampling heights with measurements of nine sampling heights. With this purpose, wind erosion was measured under low surface roughness conditions on an Entic Haplustoll during 25 events. The rational function was found to be mathematically limited for the estimation of wind eroded sediment mass flux. The simplified Gaussian model did not fit to the vertical mass flux profile data. Linear spline interpolation generally produced higher mass transport estimates than the exponential equation, and it proved to be a very flexible and robust method. Using different sampling arrangements and different mass flux models can produce differences of more than 45% in mass transport estimates, even under similar field conditions. Under the conditions of this study, at least three points between the soil surface and 1·5 m high, including one point as closest as possible to the surface, should be sampled in order to obtain accurate mass transport estimates. Additionally, the linear spline interpolation and the non-linear regression using an exponential model, proved to be mathematically reliable methods for calculating the mass transport. © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
publishDate 2010
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2010-10
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
info:ar-repo/semantics/articulo
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/11336/53661
Panebianco, Juan Esteban; Buschiazzo, Daniel Eduardo; Zobeck, Ted M.; Comparison of different mass transport calculation methods for wind erosion quantification purposes; John Wiley & Sons Ltd; Earth Surface Processes And Landforms; 35; 13; 10-2010; 1548-1555
0197-9337
CONICET Digital
CONICET
url http://hdl.handle.net/11336/53661
identifier_str_mv Panebianco, Juan Esteban; Buschiazzo, Daniel Eduardo; Zobeck, Ted M.; Comparison of different mass transport calculation methods for wind erosion quantification purposes; John Wiley & Sons Ltd; Earth Surface Processes And Landforms; 35; 13; 10-2010; 1548-1555
0197-9337
CONICET Digital
CONICET
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1002/esp.1995
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/esp.1995
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
text/richtext
application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv John Wiley & Sons Ltd
publisher.none.fl_str_mv John Wiley & Sons Ltd
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
reponame_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
collection CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname_str Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.name.fl_str_mv CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.mail.fl_str_mv dasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.ar
_version_ 1844613880141053952
score 13.070432

Publicaciones similares