Show simple item record

Authordc.contributor.authorNeira Román, José 
Authordc.contributor.authorOrtiz, Mauricio 
Authordc.contributor.authorRolston, Dennis 
Authordc.contributor.authorMorales Salinas, Luis 
Authordc.contributor.authorSeguel Seguel, Óscar 
Authordc.contributor.authorRiveros Burgos, Camilo 
Authordc.contributor.authorAcevedo, Edmundo 
Admission datedc.date.accessioned2021-05-06T22:47:29Z
Available datedc.date.available2021-05-06T22:47:29Z
Publication datedc.date.issued2020
Cita de ítemdc.identifier.citationJournal of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition Volumen: 21 Número: 1 Páginas: 404-414 Nov 2020es_ES
Identifierdc.identifier.other10.1007/s42729-020-00369-w
Identifierdc.identifier.urihttps://repositorio.uchile.cl/handle/2250/179484
Abstractdc.description.abstractThis study compares the goodness of fit of 10 empirical models used to predict gas diffusivity (DpD0-1) with experimental data obtained from Chilean soil samples from different soil management practices. Nine sites under different soil management practices were sampled at different depths. In total, 275 soil cores were obtained. The gas diffusion coefficient (D-p) was determined at different matric potentials using a gas diffusion chamber saturated with free-oxygen (O-2) nitrogen (N-2) as the gas that diffuses and oxygen as the measured gas inside the diffusion chamber with a gaseous oxygen sensor. Complementary soil properties were measured in order to modelate the diffusivity with several models. The use of statistical indexes, i.e., determination coefficient (r(2)), root mean square error (RMSE), mean bias error (BIAS), the agreement index (d), and the mean absolute error (MAE), to rank the models according to the fit of goodness was proposed. The models of Millington and Quirk (M-Q), Penman Water Linear Reduction Model (P-WLR), Millington Water Linear Reduction Model (MI-WLR), and Marshal Water Linear Reduction Model (MA-WLR) showed a high simplicity and had a better prediction of gas diffusivity than more complex models. The Three-Porosity Model (TPM) showed the worst performance among the models. Thus, the use of more complex models does not guarantee a better prediction of gas diffusivity. However, it is necessary to test other complex models that incorporate soil management practices and have presented better results than those used in this work. Also, incorporating new soil management could be the base to develop a more accurate comparison. Finally, the P-WLR and TPM models had the best and worst performances above all models. It is suggested to test new models and to increase soil management in future research.es_ES
Patrocinadordc.description.sponsorshipAgencia Nacional de Investigacion y Desarrollo (ANID) Regional CEAF/R19A10003es_ES
Lenguagedc.language.isoenes_ES
Publisherdc.publisherSpringeres_ES
Type of licensedc.rightsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Chile*
Link to Licensedc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/cl/*
Sourcedc.sourceJournal of Soil Science and Plant Nutritiones_ES
Keywordsdc.subjectGas diffusivity modelses_ES
Keywordsdc.subjectGoodness of fites_ES
Keywordsdc.subjectAir-filled porosityes_ES
Keywordsdc.subjectTortuosityes_ES
Títulodc.titleValidation of gas diffusivity models with Chilean soil sampleses_ES
Document typedc.typeArtículo de revista
dcterms.accessRightsdcterms.accessRightsAcceso Abierto
Catalogueruchile.catalogadorcfres_ES
Indexationuchile.indexArtículo de publicación ISIes_ES


Files in this item

Icon

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Chile
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Chile