Journal of Hydrology 476 (2013) 332–344

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Hydrology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jhydrol

Estimating the parameters of the Green–Ampt infiltration equation

from rainfall simulation data: Why simpler is better
An Van den Putte a,⇑, Gerard Govers a, Annemie Leys b, Christoph Langhans c, Wim Clymans a, Jan Diels a
a
Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, K.U. Leuven, Celestijnenlaan 200 E, 3001 Heverlee, Belgium
b
Department of Agriculture and Fishery, Flemish Government, Belgium
c
Forest and Water Group, Department of Forest and Ecosystem Science, University of Melbourne, Australia1

a r t i c l e i n f o s u m m a r y

Article history: Soil erosion models need detailed runoff and infiltration data as input. This information can be deduced
Received 11 April 2011 from empirical relationships or from dynamic models. Here we investigate to what extent it is possible to
Received in revised form 28 October 2012 derive meaningful parameterizations for the Green–Ampt Mein-Larson infiltration model (GAML) using a
Accepted 31 October 2012
dataset consisting of 350 rainfall simulation experiments carried out over a period of 6 years in Central
Available online 9 November 2012
This manuscript was handled by Corrado
Belgium. We applied three different parameterization strategies for the Green–Ampt Mein-Larson model
Corradini, Editor-in-Chief to evaluate the number of degrees of freedom that would result in optimum model performance. We
found that a good description of the evolution of infiltration during an experiment was achieved for most
Keywords:
experiments independent of the number of parameters that was allowed to vary. However, acceptable
Rainfall simulation simulations, based on estimated parameter values, could only be obtained for rainfall simulations per-
Green–Ampt Mein-Larson infiltration model formed in spring or early summer when the soils were relatively dry and infiltration was dominantly con-
Model calibration trolled by soil surface conditions. Under these conditions, major controls in effective hydraulic
Soil cover conductivity were soil cover and crusting stage as well as the clay content of the topsoil. Even under these
Soil crusting circumstances, good simulations were only possible when only a single parameter value needed to be
estimated from the measured data. When more than one parameter value needed to be estimated, pre-
dictions were much poorer, mainly due to the large uncertainty associated with the parameter value esti-
mates.
No good simulations were possible for the winter period: due to the wet state of the soil, infiltration is
then no longer controlled by soil surface conditions so that it became impossible to derive meaningful
parameter values form the measured field data. This may pose severe limitations on runoff prediction
from agricultural land under these conditions. In comparison to a regression-based model based on
the available data, the use of the GAML model resulted in slightly worse predictions but the use of a
dynamic model allows for greater flexibility. However, one should be aware that local calibration and val-
idation remain necessary and that the prediction uncertainty remains relatively large.
Ó 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction a given precipitation amount based on a curve number, which is

Models describing surface water hydrology and/or water ero-
sion require an accurate description of runoff and infiltration and
several approaches to runoff prediction have been developed (see
Migliaccio and Srivastava (2007) for an overview). Several models
(e.g. CREAMS (Knisel, 1980) and SWAT (Tuppad et al., 2011)) use
the SCS curve number approach which is designed to calculate
the partitioning between runoff and precipitation for an event of
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +32 474241238; fax: +32 16 32 29 80.
E-mail addresses: an_vandenputte@yahoo.com (A. Van den Putte), gerard.go-
vers@ees.kuleuven.be (G. Govers), annemie.leys@lv.vlaanderen.be (A. Leys), chris-
toph.langhans@unimelb.edu.au (C. Langhans), wim.clymans@ees.kuleuven.be (W.
Clymans), jan.diels@ees.kuleuven.be (J. Diels).
1
Present address.
primarily dependent on the soil type, the land use and the catch-
ment status prior to the rainfall event (Ponce and Hawkins,
1996). The curve number method is the obvious choice in data
sparse environments and for larger catchments. Dynamic infiltra-
tion models, on the other hand, allow accounting for variations
in rainfall duration and intensity at a sub-hourly time scale. This
is of particular interest when runoff generation during high-inten-
sity, short-duration rainfall events, which are known to cause the
major part of soil erosion (e.g. Takken et al., 1999), needs to be pre-
dicted and the effects of land management need to be accounted
for. Several dynamic models do exist: some of them, such as the
Green–Ampt model, were derived from physical principles govern-
ing infiltration under particular conditions (Green and Ampt,
1911), while others, such as the Horton model (Horton, 1933) are

0022-1694/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.10.051
 A. Van den Putte et al. / Journal of Hydrology 476 (2013) 332–344
empirical in nature. Dynamic infiltration models are easier to
incorporate in spatially distributed modelling frameworks than
the curve number method, but require more input data as well
as proper calibration before they can be successfully applied. They
are still much easier to implement than the full Richards equation,
without a major loss in prediction accuracy if the conditions for
which the model was developed are satisfied (Mein and Larson,
1973).
The Green–Ampt infiltration equation is one of the most widely
used infiltration equations in hydrological/erosion models. It has,
among others, been incorporated in the WEPP (Laflen et al.,
1997), SWAT (Tuppad et al., 2011) and ANSWERS (Bouraoui and
Dillaha, 1996) models. In its original form, the model was designed
to simulate infiltration under ponding conditions in a homoge-
neous soil. Over time, several modifications have been proposed.
Mein and Larson (1973) modified the model so that infiltration
during a steady rainfall event could be simulated: this form of
the model is commonly called the Green–Ampt Mein-Larson
(GAML) model. Other studies have added additional flexibility to
the Green–Ampt model and formulations exist to account for the
development of a soil crust (Rawls et al., 1990), temporally-varying
effective hydraulic conductivity (Ahuja and Tsuji, 1976) and lay-
ered soil profiles (Childs and Bybordi, 1969). Esteves et al. (2000)
used a two-layer formulation to account for crust formation on
bare soils in the Sahel. A review of all variants of the Green–Ampt
model has recently been published by Kale and Sahoo (2011).
However, in most model implementations the GAML model as
modified by Chu (1978) to account for temporally varying rainfall
is used. The assumption that the GAML model can be applied using
spatially uniform parameter values is acceptable as a first approx-
imation at the plot scale. At the field scale more complex formula-
tions of infiltration accounting for the spatial variability of
hydraulic soil properties should be used, otherwise predicted run-
off simulations may differ strongly from observations (Corradini
et al., 2002). Formulations of this type involving the GAML model
as basic support were proposed by Govindaraju et al. (2001) for
homogeneous soil vertical profiles and Corradini et al. (2011) for
two-layered soil profiles with a more permeable upper layer.
Theoretically, the GAML model describes piston-type infiltra-
tion, whereby rain water is drawn into the soil based on the com-
bined effects of capillary suction and gravity, resulting in a sharply
defined wetting front. The basic GAML model has two parameters
for which values need to be provided, being the effective hydraulic
conductivity (Ke) and the capillary pressure at the wetting front
(w). The use of adequate values for these parameters is key to run-
off and erosion prediction. The results of process-based overland
flow and erosion models have repeatedly been shown to be (very)
sensitive to the values used, especially with respect to hydraulic
conductivity (e.g. De Roo and Jetten, 1999; Nearing et al., 1990).
Furthermore, one might expect the model to produce reasonable
predictions only when the field conditions correspond more or less
to the basic conditions for which the model was designed.
Several studies have been carried out to derive parameter val-
ues for the GAML model. Brakensiek and Onstad (1977) used pond-
ed infiltration, but it is well known that such data cannot be
considered to be representative for infiltration under rainfall. Risse
et al. (1994) derived ‘optimal’ values for the effective hydraulic
conductivity over a series of rainfall events (thus not allowing for
temporal variability in effective hydraulic conductivity) on fallow
land by minimising the least square error on runoff production
as measured on a series of USLE plots on seven different sites. Mod-
el efficiency (ME) values for different sites were between 0.07 and
0.84. Risse et al. (1995a,b) also compared the runoff predictions ob-
tained with optimised values with those obtained when the curve
number method was used to derive so-called baseline hydraulic
conductivity values under fallow conditions. A similar analysis
333
was performed by Nearing et al. (1996) using the approach devel-
oped by Risse et al. (1994) and including data for cropped plots.
Both the investigations showed that the GAML model performed
better than the curve number method.
All the studies discussed above attempted to derive average val-
ues for Ke, while not accounting explicitly for the temporal varia-
tion that might be induced by changing soil surface conditions
due to crusting, crop growth etc. Freebairn et al. (1989) found that
the optimal Ke value to simulate runoff production was positively
related to soil cover and negatively to the amount of rainfall prior
to the rainfall event. Risse et al. (1995a,b) used a series of fallow
plot data to assess the effect of crusting on the temporal variability
of the effective hydraulic conductivity. They found that crusting
negatively affected Ke, while there was a positive relationship with
event size and again a negative relationship with initial soil mois-
ture content. Introducing submodels for these factors in the calcu-
lation procedure allowed improving the average ME from 0.56 to
0.70. Zhang et al. (1995a,b) used the results of this study to calcu-
late temporally variable values for Ke for row crops. They found
that when crops are present effective hydraulic conductivity de-
pends on the effective total soil cover and the total event precipi-
tation. ME ranged from 0.30 to 0.82 with an average of 0.66,
excluding one site for which predictions were particularly poor.
A similar analysis for perennial crops was carried out by Zhang
et al. (1995a,b), whereby an extra correction was introduced, sim-
ply multiplying the effective hydraulic conductivity as calculated
for row crops by 1.81. Resulting ME values were between 0.28
and 0.68. Esteves et al. (2000) did not calibrate the effective
hydraulic conductivity in their model, but the suction at the wet-
ting front.
The overview above shows that calibration of the GAML model
is indeed possible and can be reasonably successful. The ap-
proaches vary in complexity with respect to the (assumed)
description of the factors controlling infiltration and hence also
with respect to the information that is required. It is, however, still
unclear whether the incorporation of additional effects through a
more refined model description and/or through more refined
parameter estimation methods do indeed result in better predic-
tive capabilities. Clearly, studies like the ones carried out by e.g.
Freebairn et al. (1989) and Zhang et al. (1995a, 1995b) show that
accounting for more crusting and vegetation effects does allow
for a better simulation. Thus, the model is better capable of
describing variations in runoff production when these effects are
incorporated. However, at least two main reasons can be identified
as to why models may not necessarily allow making better inde-
pendent predictions when more complex process descriptions,
requiring more parameterization, are introduced. First, more com-
plex descriptions generally require more input data which are al-
ways subject to measurement errors and uncertainty: at a certain
point the uncertainty associated with additional input data will
overwhelm the gain in predictive ability due to a better process
description (Van Rompaey and Govers, 2002). Second, having more
parameters may lead to overparameterization: parameter values
will then become highly interdependent, poorly constrained and
difficult to relate to measured system properties so that it becomes
impossible to obtain meaningful parameter values independently
(Beven, 1989).
With respect to the GAML model it is not known whether or not
more sophisticated model formulations and/or an increased num-
ber of parameters to be calibrated indeed lead to better prediction
results. In particular, the possible improvement that may result in
overland flow prediction by allowing the model to account for
changes in soil surface properties during a rainfall event have hith-
erto not been systematically explored. Furthermore, information
on how the effects of land management techniques should be
accounted for when the GAML model is used for infiltration
334 A. Van den Putte et al. / Journal of Hydrology 476 (2013) 332–344
simulation is still scarce. Our knowledge of factors controlling run-
off generation on arable land has increased significantly because
large amounts of data were collected, both under natural and sim-
ulated rainfall (e.g. Auerswald and Haider, 1996; Cerdan et al.,
2002; Freebairn and Gupta, 1990; Le Bissonnais et al., 2005; Leys
et al., 2007). However, these data were mainly used to develop
and/or calibrate empirical models. To the best of our knowledge,
only Zhang et al. (1995a) and Zhang et al. (1995b) proposed tested
methodologies to account for the presence of a crop and/or residue
in Green and Ampt parameterization. Such information is vital for
practical applications, as reductions in runoff and soil loss can be
most easily reached through adjusted land management strategies.
The availability of a well-parameterised GAML model accounting
for these effects would allow to evaluate to what extent modified
practices may alter runoff generation during high-intensity, ero-
sive rainfall events, the effects of which may not be well captured
when using an empirical approach focusing on the calculation of
total runoff amounts at the daily time scale.
Finally, it is not certain that the GAML model is capable of
describing and predicting infiltration on arable land for all possible
conditions: the piston-type infiltration that the model assumes
may be a reasonable assumption when the soil is relatively dry
prior to a rainfall event, but may break down under more wet con-
ditions. The identification of such conditions is essential to define
the conditions under which the model may successfully be applied.
Thus, applying the GAML model for runoff prediction is mainly
hampered by difficulties in choosing the adequate number of
parameters to be calibrated and selecting appropriate parameter
values. At the same time it is not clear under which field conditions
the model may be successfully applied. The first objective of this
paper is therefore to investigate to what extent it is possible to
use rainfall simulation data to derive meaningful parameteriza-
tions for the GAML model and to investigate which parameteriza-
tion strategy yields optimal results in terms of simulation. In order
to do this, we used a large dataset consisting of 350 rainfall simu-
lations carried out over a period of 6 years in Central Belgium on
arable land under various crops, crop stages and management
techniques. The second objective is to investigate under which of
the tested conditions the GAML model can be successfully applied
and how model parameters depend on factors related to tillage
technique used and soil conditions.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. The GAML model
The Green–Ampt infiltration model assumes a homogeneous
soil and a sharp wetting front, and under these assumptions it
can be derived from Buckingham-Darcy’s law for water flow
through a soil. The movement of water is assumed to be the result
of both capillary forces that suck the water front into the soil and
gravity. This results in so-called piston-type infiltration. The origi-
nal Green–Ampt equation, describing infiltration under ponded
conditions, was extended by Mein and Larson (1973) to a two-
stage model describing infiltration under constant rain: the
Green–Ampt Mein-Larson model (GAML). The original Green–
Ampt model describes the infiltration rate by the following equa-
tion (Mein and Larson, 1973):
 
wDh
f ¼ Ke 1 þ ð1Þ
F
where f is the infiltration rate (mm h1), Ke is the effective hydraulic
conductivity (mm h1), F is the cumulative infiltration (mm), w is
the suction at the wetting front (mm) and Dh is the difference be-
tween saturated and initial volumetric moisture content (m3 m3).
The GAML model describes the situation when runoff occurs
only after some time, called the ponding time tp (h). Two equations
describe the two stages of the GAML model (Mein and Larson,
1973):
F ¼ rt for t 6 tp ð2Þ
 
wDh þ F
F ¼ K e ðt  t p Þ þ F p þ wDh ln for t P t p ð3Þ
wDh þ F p
where r is the rainfall intensity (mm h1), Fp is the cumulative infil-
tration until ponding (mm) and t is the time (h).
Ponding time can be calculated by applying Eq. (2) at ponding
time and using it to rearrange Eq. (1). This yields following
equation:
K e wDh
tp ¼ ð4Þ
rðr  K e Þ
whereby it is assumed that the increase in volumetric moisture con-
tent at the time of ponding is equal to the volumetric moisture con-
tent increase over the whole experiment.
Surface sealing due to rainfall impact may cause a decrease of
the hydraulic conductivity with time. To account for such variable
Ke, Ahuja and Tsuji (1976) assumed that Ke would decrease expo-
nentially with time. However, crust development is dependent
on cumulative rainfall energy, rather than time, so that their equa-
tion may be reformulated as follows (Van Doren and Allmaras,
1978):
K e ðtÞ ¼ K f þ ðK i  K f Þ expðB  KEcum Þ ð5Þ
1
where Kf is the final effective conductivity (mm h ) (infinite time),
Ki is the initial effective conductivity (mm h1), KEcum = the cumula-
tive rainfall energy since the beginning of the event (J m2), and B is
a rate constant (J1 m2).
2.2. Data
2.2.1. Field measurements
In total, 350 rainfall simulations were carried out on small plots
(ca. 0.75 by 0.75 m) on 21 arable fields in the Belgian Loess Belt
from 2004 to 2010. The trial fields, with slopes ranging from 1%
to 21%, are listed in Tables 1a and 1b.
Simulations were carried out in spring or early summer on
fields where maize, sugar beet or potato were grown and in late
winter on fields with winter wheat. Each trial field was split up
in at least two parts: one part was ploughed conventionally (CP,
mouldboard plough to depth of 25–30 cm) and on the other part(s)
non-inversion tillage was applied, which can be deep (DRT, 20–
30 cm) or shallow (SRT, 5–15 cm) reduced tillage or direct drilling
(DD). On both the non-inversion tilled and conventionally
ploughed part(s) three locations were selected for a rainfall simu-
lation. Wheel tracks were avoided and care was taken that the
three replicates were located on similar slope gradients. At each
location a small runoff plot of ca. 0.75 m  0.75 m was installed
and four rain gauges were placed at the plot borders to measure
simulated rainfall intensity (I, mm h1). For all experiments, a noz-
zle-type field rainfall simulator was used equipped with a Lechler
460.788 nozzle (for more details see Poesen et al., 1990) which was
suspended at 3 m height. Under laboratory conditions this setup
results in a rainfall intensity of ca. 45 mm h1 with a kinetic energy
of ca. 15 J m2 mm1, which is about 60% of that of natural
rainstorms of the same intensity (van Dijk et al., 2002). Due
to variations in weather conditions and water temperature,
measured rainfall intensity varied considerably and averaged
55 ± 29 mm h1. It may be assumed that the drop size distribution
 A. Van den Putte et al. / Journal of Hydrology 476 (2013) 332–344 335

Table 1a
Main characteristics of the trial fields and number of rainfall simulations performed in (a) 2004, 2005 and 2006, (b).

Year Field Tillage techniquea Cropb Nc Sandd (%) Siltd (%) Clayd (%) Slope (%)
2004 F4 CP, DRT M 6 3.7 ± 0.6 81.5 ± 0.9 14.8 ± 0.5 8.8 ± 0.9
F14 SRT, DD SB 6 3.9 ± 0.3 81.2 ± 0.8 14.9 ± 0.7 4.0 ± 0.3
F1 CP, DRT, SRT M 9 27.0 ± 9.1 60.6 ± 6.8 12.4 ± 2.4 9.7 ± 1.1
F2 CP, SRT M 4 3.2 ± 0.6 82.0 ± 1.2 14.8 ± 1.4 17.5 ± 2.0
F7 CP, SRT M 6 61.3 ± 2.3 30.1 ± 3.0 8.6 ± 1.5 7.7 ± 0.8
F10 CP, SRT SB 5 46.1 ± 4.4 41.9 ± 4.3 12 ± 0.6 11 ± 0.4
F5 CP, SRT, DD SB 7 22.5 ± 5.1 65.4 ± 4.4 12.1 ± 0.9 8.6 ± 2.0
F16 CP, DRT SB 6 3.4 ± 0.9 80.3 ± 0.6 16.3 ± 1.2 4.5 ± 0.4
F15 CP, DRT SB 6 4.7 ± 1.3 78.5 ± 0.9 16.7 ± 0.7 11.3 ± 0.7
F6 CP, DRT P 4 41.0 ± 1.9 47.5 ± 3.4 11.6 ± 1.6 8.4 ± 0.1
2005 F18 CP, 2X DRT SB 9 3.9 ± 0.4 80.5 ± 1.3 15.6 ± 1.4 8.6 ± 0.5
F2 CP, DRT M 6 3.7 ± 0.6 81.2 ± 0.4 15.0 ± 1.0 17.9 ± 1.7
F7 CP, DRT SB 6 58.7 ± 1.0 33.7 ± 1.3 7.6 ± 1.2 7.0 ± 0.9
F17 CP, SRT, DD SB 7 5.2 ± 0.9 79.9 ± 0.6 15.0 ± 0.9 9.5 ± 1.6
F10 CP, SRT WW 6 49.1 ± 4.4 40.3 ± 3.2 10.6 ± 1.3 11.5 ± 1.3
F15 CP, DRT WW 6 5.1 ± 1.0 80.8 ± 1.2 14.1 ± 1.0 10.7 ± 0.5
F3 CP, SRT P 6 5.6 ± 0.6 76.6 ± 3.8 17.8 ± 3.9 5.0 ± 0.7
F5 CP, SRT WW 7 25.5 ± 3.6 62.4 ± 4.1 12.1 ± 1.4 8.1 ± 1.0
F8 CP, SRT WW 6 18.6 ± 1.6 71.6 ± 1.1 9.8 ± 1.2 5.4 ± 0.8
F1 CP, DRT, DD WW 11 26.0 ± 4.9 63.4 ± 3.9 10.6 ± 1.5 8.5 ± 0.9
2006 F20 CP, DRT SB 6 26.3 ± 3.1 61.3 ± 3.2 12.3 ± 1.4 8.9 ± 1.2
F21 DRT SB 6 4.1 ± 0.2 79.9 ± 0.7 16.1 ± 0.9 5.4 ± 0.7
F7 CP, DRT WW 6 58.7 ± 1.0 33.7 ± 1.3 7.6 ± 1.2 7.9 ± 0.8
F1 CP, DRT, SRT SB 12 25.1 ± 4.5 64.3 ± 2.8 10.6 ± 1.9 8.5 ± 0.9
a
CP: conventional mouldboard plough; DRT: deep reduced tillage; SRT: superficial reduced tillage; DD: direct drilling.
b
M: maize; P: potato; SB: sugar beet; WW: winter wheat.
c
N: number of conducted rainfall simulations.
d
Sand (2–0.063 mm), silt (0.002–0.063 mm), clay (<0.002 mm); average based on three topsoil samples for each tillage technique.

Table 1b
Main characteristics of the trial fields and number of performed rainfall simulations in 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010.

Year Field Tillage techniquea Cropb Nc Sandd (%) Siltd (%) Clayd (%) Slope (%)
2007 F10 CP, DRT SB 6 34.3 ± 1.7 57.2 ± 1.9 8.5 ± 1.7 10.3 ± 0.9
F12 CP, DRT SB 4 25.3 ± 1.4 67.0 ± 0.5 7.7 ± 1.4 5.5 ± 0.6
F8 CP, DRT M 6 23.3 ± 1.2 67.4 ± 1.5 9.3 ± 1.3 6.7 ± 1.0
F1 CP, DRT, DD WW 20 38.2 ± 6.2 56.1 ± 5.7 5.7 ± 0.7 6.3 ± 1.5
2008 F10 CP, DRT M 6 35.4 ± 3.9 55.5 ± 2.8 9.1 ± 1.3 11.7 ± 1.0
F2 CP, DRT M 6 NA NA NA 14.6 ± 2.7
F6 CP, DRT SB 6 34.3 ± 3.0 56.6 ± 2.3 9.0 ± 0.8 8.4 ± 0.7
F7 CP, DRT SB 6 47.6 ± 2.2 45.0 ± 2.6 7.3 ± 0.8 9.0 ± 1.3
F8 CP, DRT M 4 NA NA NA 7.9 ± 1.5
IWT1 CP, 4X DRT SB 15 11.3 ± 3.5 78.6 ± 1.6 10.1 ± 2.2 3.1 ± 0.5
IWT2 CP, 4X DRT P 15 11.4 ± 1.5 79.2 ± 1.0 9.4 ± 1.0 2.7 ± 0.6
IWT3 CP, 2X DRT, SRT P 12 10.0 ± 1.6 79.9 ± 0.8 10.1 ± 0.9 3.4 ± 1.2
F1 CP, DRT, SRT WW 27 34.1 ± 5.1 59.6 ± 4.5 6.3 ± 1.4 7.3 ± 1.6
2009 F10 CP, DRT M 5 37.2 ± 2.1 54.2 ± 1.6 8.6 ± 1.0 10.3 ± 1.0
F12 CP, DRT WW 6 23.7 ± 1.0 66.4 ± 1.1 9.9 ± 0.4 5.4 ± 1.7
F17 CP, DRT WW 6 17.3 ± 0.5 74.0 ± 0.7 8.7 ± 0.4 6.6 ± 0.8
F6 CP, DRT M 6 39.3 ± 2.1 52.4 ± 2.4 8.3 ± 1.4 8.7 ± 0.8
IWT2 CP, DRT WW 5 10.9 ± 0.3 79.6 ± 0.8 9.5 ± 0.9 3.0 ± 1.2
IWT5 CP, 3X DRT P 12 24.5 ± 8.9 65.8 ± 8.4 9.7 ± 0.7 3.8 ± 1.7
F1 CP, DRT, SRT M 9 34.3 ± 4.5 59.7 ± 4.4 5.9 ± 0.6 7.1 ± 0.8
2010 F1 CP, DRT, SRT WW 9 17.8 ± 1.8 72.9 ± 1.4 9.3 ± 1.4 9.0 ± 1.2
a
CP: conventional mouldboard plough; DRT: deep reduced tillage; SRT: superficial reduced tillage; DD: direct drilling.
b
M: maize; P: potato; SB: sugar beet; WW: winter wheat.
c
N: number of conducted rainfall simulations.
d
Sand (2–0.063 mm), silt (0.002–0.063 mm), clay (<0.002 mm); average based on three topsoil samples for each tillage technique.

and hence the rainfall kinetic energy were not strongly affected by
these variations in intensity as the same nozzle and water pressure
were used throughout all experiments.
Before the start of each experiment, a soil sample was collected
with a Kopecky ring (100 cm3, 0–0.05 m topsoil) next to every plot
for the determination of initial dry volume weight (qbi, g cm3),
initial volumetric moisture content (hini, %), soil organic matter
(OM, %) and texture. Before the start of each experiment an orthog-
onal top view picture of every plot was taken to make an assess-
ment of the soil surface state and cover (Cv, %). Soil surface
crusting (Cr, %) was assessed by determining the fraction of the to-
tal surface covered by either a depositional or a structural crust,
based on a series of reference pictures. Pictures for 10%, 30%, 70%
and 100% crusting are shown in Fig. 1.
Next, simulated rainfall was applied until steady-state runoff
was reached: the duration of the experiments varied between 30
and 60 min. For all rainfall simulation experiments the runoff-time
relationship was measured and consequently the cumulative
336 A. Van den Putte et al. / Journal of Hydrology 476 (2013) 332–344

Fig. 1. Pictures illustrating crusting percentages of 10% (a), 30% (b), 70% (c) and 100% (d).

infiltration (F, mm) was calculated and used to evaluate the appli-
cability of the GAML model.
After the experiment another Kopecky ring sample was taken to
determine the final moisture content. The crop planting date was
obtained from the farmers. Rainfall depth (Px, mm, with x being
the number of days) over different periods preceding the rainfall
simulation and maximum daily rainfall amount (IMAX, mm day1)
in the period between planting and the experiment were obtained
from rain gauges placed at the field site or from a weather station
located nearby (<6 km) the field. All variables that were considered
are presented in Table 2.
2.2.2. Laboratory analysis
Volumetric and gravimetric moisture content of the topsoil be-
fore and after the experiment were determined by weighing the
Kopecky samples before and after oven-drying (24 h at 105 °C).
Grain size analysis was carried out using laser diffractometry
(Coulter LS 13 320) after boiling a small subsample for 15 min
and maintaining dispersion during the analysis by ultrasonic stir-
ring. For the samples collected between 2004 and 2008, the OM
content was determined with the Walkley and Black method
(Walkley and Black, 1934), while for those taken in 2009 and
2010 OM contents were measured with a vario MAX CN Macro

Table 2
Range of values of measured soil/surface and rainfall characteristics during the spring/summer and winter experiments.

Characteristic Abbreviation Units Range summer crops Range winter crops

Soil covered with crust Cr % 0–100 10–100
Total cover (crop and residues) Cv % 0–43 0.51–75
Topsoil (0–0.05 m) organic matter content OM % 0.88–5.5 1.2–7.4
Topsoil initial dry volume weight qbi g cm3 0.63–1.33 0.93–1.52
Silt content of topsoil Si % 26–83 36–81
Clay content of topsoil Cl % 4–26 4–14
Silt/sand ratio Si/Sa 0.41–33 0.64–7.6
Slope Slope % 1.2–20.5 1.2–13
Initial volumetric soil moisture hini cm3 cm3 0.02–0.29 0.11–0.37
Rainfall intensity of experiment I mm h1 28–82 26–82.5
Maximum daily rainfall from sowing to experiment IMAX mm day1 8–40 12–35
Cumulative rainfall depth from sowing to experiment P mm 26–145 125–375
Rainfall depth during 1 to 5 days preceding experiment P1–P5 mm 0–41.5 0–12
 A. Van den Putte et al. / Journal of Hydrology 476 (2013) 332–344
Elemental Analyzer (Elementar Analysensysteme GmbH, Germany).
A linear regression was therefore conducted using 21 samples that
were analysed using both methods (OCCN = 1.25  OCWB + 0.114,
R2 = 0.96, where OCCN = the organic carbon content as measured
with the CN analyzer and OCWB is the organic carbon content as
measured with the Walkley–Black method) so that the Walkley
and Black data could be made comparable to those obtained from
total combustion.
2.3. Model calibration and validation
For some of the experiments that were performed a quality
check revealed that not all necessary data were collected with suf-
ficient accuracy. Therefore the results of only 298 experiments
were used for model calibration and validation. As it was immedi-
ately clear that the runoff response in spring and early summer (on
summer crops) was different from that in late winter (on winter
crops), these datasets were analysed separately. Both datasets
were further split in a calibration and validation set by ranking
all observations based on the value of the runoff coefficient. Subse-
quently every observation with an odd rank number was assigned
to the calibration dataset and every observation with an even rank
number was assigned to the validation dataset. The final number of
observations in each subdataset is given in Table 5.
2.3.1. Calibration procedures
The GAML infiltration formula for predicting cumulative infil-
tration to dry or uniformly wet soil (Eq. (3)) can be expressed in
dimensionless form as (Barry et al., 2005):
" #
 F þ 1
F ¼t þ 
F p þ ln  for t  P 0
Fp þ 1
where F is the dimensionless cumulative infiltration, t is the
dimensionless time and F p is the dimensionless cumulative infiltra-
tion at time of ponding, using the following substitutions:
2K e F
F ¼
S2
2K e F p
F p ¼
S2
2K 2e
t ¼ ðt  t p Þ for t P t p
S2
where S is the sorptivity for a Green–Ampt soil, defined as
S2 ¼ 2K e wDh
The LambertW function is the function W(x) such that
WðxÞ exp½WðxÞ ¼ x
A solution of the dimensionless form of the GAML model in terms of
the LambertW function (Barry et al., 2005) is
F  ¼ 1  W 1 ½ð1 þ F p Þ expð1  t   F p Þ for F  P F p
P 0; t P 0
in which W1 is the lower branch of the LambertW function.
Approximations of the LambertW function can thus be used to find
F. To evaluate the GAML model and to fit the F versus t curve the
following approximation of the LambertW function, discussed by
Parlange et al. (2002), was used:
8 9
< ½2  2 lnðxÞ2 =
1
W 1 ðxÞ  lnðxÞ  ln  lnðxÞ þ 1
: 1þ½22 lnðxÞ2 ;
6 base-10 logarithm before regression analysis was applied. The
337
which is valid for 0 P x P exp(1) and has a maximum relative
error of 0.03%. In our analysis
x ¼ ð1 þ F p Þ expð1  t   F p Þ ð14Þ
F p and t are needed to obtain x. To calculate F p and t four values
are required: Ke, w, tp and Dh. For the calibration datasets, the latter
was always directly calculated as the difference between the mea-
sured volumetric soil water at the end and the beginning of the
rainfall simulation. Three different fitting procedures were used to
obtain optimised values for the model parameters Ke and w and
for tp for each rainfall event in the calibration datasets.
In the first procedure (fit1), both Ke and w were obtained by
model optimisation and tp was then obtained from Eq. (4). The
model optimisation was done by comparing the model fit for a
wide range of different values of Ke and w in all possible combina-
tions. Values for Ke ranged from zero to the average rainfall inten-
sity of the rainfall simulation (mm h1), with steps of 0.25 mm h1.
Evaluated values for w ranged from zero to 500 mm, with steps of
2.5 mm.
In a second procedure (fit2), only Ke was optimised. The value of
w was fixed at the average value that was obtained during fit1 for
all experiments considered, i.e. 182 mm. Evaluated Ke values ran-
ged again from zero to the rainfall intensity of the rainfall simula-
tion (mm h1), with steps of 0.25 mm h1. The time to ponding was
again derived from Eq. (4).
In the first and second procedure, Ke was assumed to remain
constant over the rainfall experiment. In a third procedure (fit3),
the effective hydraulic conductivity was assumed to vary with
cumulative rainfall kinetic energy as described by Eq. (5): this re-
ð6Þ quired four parameters (w, Ki, Kf and B) to be estimated. The time
to ponding (tp) was assumed to be equal to the time to runoff
which was obtained by extrapolating the measured runoff–time
curve to zero runoff. Ki values were evaluated in a range from zero
to the rainfall intensity of the rainfall simulation (mm h1), with
steps of 0.25 mm h1 while Kf was allowed to vary between zero
to Ki, again in steps of 0.25 mm h1. The rate constant (B) was
ð7Þ
tested in a range from 0.006 to 0.03 m2 J1, with steps of
0.0012 m2 J1. Evaluated values for w ranged from zero to
500 mm, with steps of 10 mm.
ð8Þ
The parameter value set having the lowest sum of squared er-
rors for the differences between the observed and the computed
values of the cumulative infiltration curve was retained as the
ð9Þ
‘best’ parameter set. The fitting procedures were performed using
Matlab (Mathworks, 2009).
ð10Þ
2.3.2. Validation of the GAML model
We examined if the GAML model parameters obtained with the
ð11Þ three procedures can be related to measured system properties. To
this end, the GAML parameter values obtained for the calibration
datasets were related to the measured soil/surface and rainfall
characteristics using multiple regression. Next, parameter values
for the validation dataset were predicted using these regression
equations, and these parameter values were used to predict the
ð12Þ infiltration for comparison with the measured infiltration. Apart
from the GAML parameter values, the increase of volumetric mois-
ture content during the experiment also needed to be predicted:
this was estimated from the measured initial soil moisture content.
As the distribution of model parameter values was strongly
skewed, Ke and Dh values were transformed to their square root
while w values were transformed to their base-10 logarithm before
regression analysis was applied. In case of the 3rd procedure (fit3)
Kf, Ki, w and B were estimated by regression. Ki and Kf values were
ð13Þ not transformed while w and B values were transformed to their
338 A. Van den Putte et al. / Journal of Hydrology 476 (2013) 332–344

Statistics of parameter values and model efficiency for the different GAML parameterization procedures (see text for symbols). The average value (AVG), standard deviation (STD), median (Q50), minimum (MIN) and maximum (MAX)
soil/surface and rainfall characteristics used are described in

0.23

0.43

0.73

0.64
52.75
1.63

1.88

4.19
1.00

1.00
Table 2.

68.8

63.3

67.0
25.0

1.0
MAX

500

500
For each experiment in the calibration and validation datasets
the cumulative infiltration curve was then calculated using the
parameter values predicted by regression from the corresponding
calibration set. Similar to the approach used by Risse et al.
(1994), model performance was then quantified by calculating root

0.0073
mean square error (RMSE) and model efficiency (ME) by comparing

0.048
0.001

3.75
0.35

0.22

0.81
0.01

0.01

0.02

0.04
MIN

2.5

5.0
10.0
measured and estimated infiltration at each measured data point.

0
For our study, these measures give an indication of the goodness
of fit and can be compared to evaluate the relative performance
of different models but they may not be used to derive significance
levels as measurements of cumulative infiltration are obviously

0.999

0.996
autocorrelated. An average value of ME and RMSE was then calcu-

0.18

0.15

0.41

0.38
0.06

0.10

0.10
28.5
87.5

21.5

30.5
45.0
5.0
10.0

1.0
Q50
lated per dataset for every GAML model type.
We also simulated the total runoff coefficient as well as the
runoff coefficient after 10, 20 and 30 min. When a negative runoff
coefficient was obtained, it was set to zero. The predicted total
runoff coefficient for each experiment was then compared to the

0.35

0.13
0.11
0.38

0.11

0.64
0.06

0.09
0.09

0.03
observed total runoff coefficient using RMSE and ME statistics.

6.2
17.9
205.8

13.5

14.9

147.0
13.0
STD
Simulated runoff coefficients at intermediate times could not
directly be compared to observations given that measurement

Winter (n = 101)
times often did not correspond exactly to 10, 20 or 30 min. There-
fore, values for the RC at these moments as interpolated from the
cumulative infiltration curve were used.

0.12
0.98
0.32

0.17
0.97
0.54

0.13
0.99
0.59
0.09

28.9

23.9
200.5

8.4
80.3
28.0
42.0
AVG
2.4. Multiple regression
value of the optimal parameter values as well as of the model fit statistics (ME and RMSE) are given for spring/summer and winter data.

The total runoff coefficient was also directly related to mea-

sured soil/surface and rainfall characteristics through multiple
regression for the calibration dataset. We assumed that such a
0.65

0.59

0.79

0.47
1.76

2.02

5.03
1.00

1.00

1.00
53.3

31.3

62.5
50.5

25.0
MAX

regression model describes the variation within the dataset as 500

500
accurately as possible given the information collected with respect
to soil/surface and rainfall characteristics. A regression model may
therefore outperform a dynamic model such as GAML both in the
calibration and validation stage, as there are no a priori constraints
on how the available information can be assimilated in the model.
0.014

0.043

3.75
0.75

0.56
0.01

0.01
0.05

0.02
0.01

0.01

0.05
2.5

1.5

5.0
10.0
MIN

Comparing the performance of a regression model with that of the

0
GAML provides an indication as to how well the information mea-
sured in the field is transferred towards the GAML model through
the parameter estimation techniques used here.
The performance of the regression model was evaluated for the
validation datasets by comparing its predictions of the total runoff
0.999

0.997
0.18

0.13

0.16

0.19

0.36

0.14
0.99
0.44
10.3

40.5
18.5
62.5

7.0
16.0
Q50

coefficient to the measured values using the same statistical met-

50

rics as used for the evaluation of the GAML predictions.

3. Results
0.13

0.27

0.18

0.35

0.11

0.73
0.07

0.08

0.09

0.04
199.1
13.4

11.6

204.4
5.4

6.7
13.0

3.1. Calibration of the GAML model

STD

The fit1 procedure resulted in a GAML model that fitted the ob-
Summer (n = 197)

served cumulative infiltration curves well for both spring/summer

and winter data (Table 3). The RMSE never exceeded 1.76 mm and
mean RMSE was 0.26 mm and 0.32 mm for spring/summer and
0.18

0.17
0.98
0.26

0.24
0.98
0.46

0.16
0.98
0.69
172.7

181.4
19.2

38.6
10.9

10.3
18.0

winter experiments respectively. Mean ME was 0.98 for spring/

AVG

summer data as well as for winter data. For some experiments,

however, the fit was very poor: the minimum ME however was
only 0.045 for spring/summer data. For winter data, the minimum
ME was 0.35.
The fit2 procedure resulted in a similar goodness of fit despite
RMSE (F) (mm)

RMSE (F) (mm)

RMSE (F) (mm)

Dh (cm cm )
3

the fact that only one degree of freedom was allowed (Table 3).
Ke (mm h1)

Ke (mm h1)

Kf (mm h1)
Ki (mm h1)

The RMSE never exceeded 2.02 mm and the mean RMSE was
3

w (mm)

w (mm)
B (h1)
ME (F)

ME (F)

ME (F)

0.46 mm for spring/summer experiments and 0.54 mm for winter

tp (h)

tp (h)

tp (h)
Table 3

fit1

fit2

fit3

experiments. The mean ME for all spring/summer experiments

was 0.98 and the mean ME for all winter experiments was 0.97.
 A. Van den Putte et al. / Journal of Hydrology 476 (2013) 332–344 339

Again, minimum ME was very low, especially for spring/summer
data (0.01). For winter data, minimum ME was 0.22.
The fit3 procedure, using a variable effective hydraulic conduc-
tivity, resulted in equal fits for the spring/summer data and better
fits for the winter data (Table 3). The RMSE never exceeded
5.03 mm and the mean RMSE was 0.69 mm for spring/summer
experiments and 0.59 mm for winter experiments. The mean ME
was 0.98 for all spring/summer experiments and 0.99 for all winter
experiments. For spring/summer data, the minimum ME was 0.56
and for winter data the minimum ME was 0.81, so all experiments
were modelled well using this fitting procedure.
3.2. Relating GAML model parameters to measured data
The Ke values obtained from the fit1 procedure were poorly re-
lated to crusting stage for the spring/summer data (R2 = 0.19) and
to P4 for the winter data (R2 = 0.18) (Table 4). Also, the resulting
predicted variation in Ke for the calibration data (10–32 mm h1
for spring/summer data and 20–46 mm h1 for winter data) was
much lower than the observed variations (0–70 mm h1) in final
infiltration rates. Log10(w) was only very poorly related to soil
crusting for spring/summer data (R2 = 0.08) and could not be re-
lated to any measured variable for winter data.
When only Ke was determined by optimisation (fit2), a much
better correlation relation with measured variables was found (R2
of 0.49 for spring/summer data and 0.34 for winter data) (Fig. 2).
Controls on Ke appeared to be different in winter compared to
spring/summer. In spring/summer, Ke was mainly determined by
soil crusting, soil cover and soil clay content. For winter experi-
ments, Ke was positively related to initial soil moisture content
and the amount of rain during the 2 days preceding the simulation.
Part of this difference may be related to the different conditions
under which the datasets were collected: In winter, more than
45% of the plots had a crust cover exceeding 90% whereas in
spring/summer, this was only the case for 16% of the observations.
In spring/summer, 80% of the observations had a vegetation cover
below 20%, whereas in winter, the vegetation cover was higher
than 40% for 72% of the observations (Fig. 3).
For fit3, Kf could not be related to any measured variable for
spring/summer data, and could be related poorly to P4 for winter
data (r2 = 0.20) (Table 4). The variation in Kf predicted for the
calibration dataset (17 mm h1 for spring/summer data and
24.3–41.9 mm h1 for winter data) was again much lower than
the observed variations in final infiltration rates (0–70 mm h1).
Log10(w) was reasonably well related to rainfall intensity for the
spring/summer data (r2 = 0.43) and for the winter data (r2 = 0.32).
Rate constant B was well related to four different variables for
the spring/summer data (r2 = 0.52), but could not be related to
any measured variable for winter data. Ki was poorly related to
some of the measured variables for the spring/summer data
(r2 = 0.18) and for the winter data (r2 = 0.22).
3.3. Multiple regression model
For the spring/summer calibration dataset, the variation in the
total runoff coefficient could be described by the following multi-
ple regression equation:
sqrtðRCÞ ¼ 0:39 þ 0:004C r  0:02Cl  0:0063C v þ 0:0041I
ðn ¼ 66; r 2 ¼ 0:59; ME ¼ 0:59; RMSE ¼ 0:12Þ ð15Þ
A dummy variable for non-inversion tillage was also included in the
regression analysis, but it did not appear to be a significant factor.
For the winter calibration dataset (n = 42), no acceptable regression

Table 4
Regression equations relating GAML parameter values to measured data for the different fitting procedures. For an explanation of the variables, see Table 2. CALs is the calibration
dataset for spring/summer data and CALw is the calibration dataset for winter data.

Model type Dataset Equations N r2

All fits CALs sqrt(Dh) = 0.58  0.012hini 66 0.53
CALw sqrt(Dh) = 0.63  0.014hini 42 0.63
fit1 CALs sqrt(Ke) = 5.51  0.022Cr 66 0.19
CALw sqrt(Ke) = 4.51 + 0.21P4 42 0.18
CALs log10(w) = 1.39 + 0.0059Cr 66 0.08
CALw log10(w) = 1.91 42
fit2 CALs sqrt(Ke) = 3.07 + 0.031Cv  0.017Cr + 0.059Cl 66 0.49
CALw sqrt(Ke) = 1.49 + 0.11hini + 0.35P2 42 0.34
fit3 CALs Kf = 17.08 66
CALw Kf = 24.3 + 1.6 P4 40 0.20
CALs log10(w) = 3.78  0.04I 66 0.43
CALw log10(w) = 2.92  0.03I 40 0.32
CALs log10(B) = 1.61 + 0.03hini  0.04Cl + 0.01Cr + 0.52dumP 66 0.52
CALw log10(B) = 1.04 40
CALs Ki = 39.1 + 1.1Cl  0.29I 66 0.18
CALw Ki = 47.2  2.6 Si/Sa + 1.7P3 40 0.22

Table 5
Average ME and RMSE for the prediction of cumulative infiltration with the GAML model using parameter values estimated from measured data through regression (see text for
symbols). Values are given for the different fitting procedures and for spring/summer and winter datasets (CALs and VALs are calibration and validation datasets for spring/
summer data and CALw and VALw are calibration and validation datasets for winter data).

Dataset N GAML model (fit1) GAML model (fit2) GAML model (fit3)

ME RMSE ðmmÞ ME RMSE ðmmÞ ME RMSE ðmmÞ

CALs 66 0.54 2.84 0.63 2.09 0.03a 3.69a
VALs 65 0.31 2.78 0.41 2.22 0.32a 3.67a
CALw 42 0.29 4.44 0.11 3.89 2.04a 5.00a
VALw 41 1.86 4.28 1.47 3.62 5.05a 5.89b
a
N = N  1, F-curve could not be fitted for 1 observation.
b
N = N  2, F-curve could not be fitted for 2 observations.
340 A. Van den Putte et al. / Journal of Hydrology 476 (2013) 332–344

Fig. 2. Simulated versus observed values for Ke (fit2 procedure). (Ke is the effective hydraulic conductivity; CALs and VALs are calibration and validation datasets for spring/
summer data and CALw and VALw are calibration and validation datasets for winter data).

Fig. 3. Histograms of crust (Cr) and residue and crop (Cv) cover percentages for spring/summer and winter field plots.

model could be found to describe the variation in runoff
coefficients.
3.4. Model validation
3.4.1. Cumulative infiltration curves
It appeared that the GAML model with parameters estimated by
regression could not be meaningfully used to predict cumulative
infiltration during the winter period: the GAML model performed
very poorly, regardless of the fitting procedure used (Table 5).
For spring/summer experiments, model performance for the cali-
bration dataset improved when one parameter was used (fit2) in
comparison to a two-parameter and four-parameter model (fit1
and fit3). The one-parameter model (fit2) also clearly performed
best for the validation data (Table 5).
3.4.2. Runoff coefficients
As for the cumulative infiltration curves, the parameters for
none of the GAML model calibration procedures could be success-
fully estimated by regression to predict runoff coefficients for
winter data (Table 6). For spring/summer validation data, the
one-parameter fit2 procedure resulted in a clearly higher ME as
compared to the fit1 and fit3 procedures. However, the highest
ME (0.44) was obtained for the regression model (Table 6). Predic-
tions obtained using the GAML model fit2 are shown in Fig. 4 and
predictions obtained using the MR model are shown in Fig. 5.
For the spring/summer data, the simulation of the runoff coeffi-
cients improved with rainfall duration (Table 7). Model efficiency
after 10 min of rainfall was still very low and meaningful simula-
tions for the validation dataset were only possible for rainfall dura-
tions of 20 and 30 min. Again, the results from the one-parameter
model calibration (fit2) were best. The results from the four-
parameter model calibration (fit3) were poor for all rainfall
durations. For the winter data, model performance was again very
poor, regardless of the calibration procedure used.
4. Discussion
The first part of our analysis shows that, in most cases, the
GAML model is indeed capable of describing correctly the time-
dependent evolution of cumulative infiltration using a single
parameter (Ke) to optimise the model fit. This is surprising as some
 A. Van den Putte et al. / Journal of Hydrology 476 (2013) 332–344
Fig. 4. Simulated versus observed total runoff coefficient. Simulated values obtained using the GAML model with parameter estimates obtained from the fit2 procedure. (CALs
and VALs are calibration and validation datasets for spring/summer crops and CALw and VALw are calibration and validation datasets for winter crops). Full lines are
regression lines for calibration datasets, while dotted lines are for validation datasets.
Fig. 5. Simulated versus observed total runoff coefficient for the spring/summer
data. Simulated values were obtained using the multiple regression model (Eq.
(15)). CALs and VALs are calibration and validation datasets. The full line is the
regression line for the calibration dataset, while the dotted line is for the validation
dataset.
of the basic assumptions of this model are most certainly not en-
tirely met. During most experiments the soil surface showed a
clear evolution with a decline in roughness and an increase in
crusting stage, causing a change of infiltration characteristics over
time during the experiments. Furthermore, soils were sometimes
relatively wet before the experiments took place (especially in
winter) and it is doubtful whether infiltration under such condi-
tions can be described as piston-flow. The one-parameter model
did perform poorly for a limited number of experiments where
the infiltration rate rapidly dropped to near-zero values after the
start of the rainfall. This typically occurred in experiments where
initial crusting stage of the soil was (very) high.
Table 6
ME and RMSE for the total runoff coefficient predicted using the GAML model and different parameterization methods (see text for symbols). VALs is the validation dataset for
spring/summer data and VALw is the validation dataset for winter data.
Dataset N GAML model (fit1) GAML model (fit2)
ME RMSE ME
VALs 65 0.20 0.17 0.32
VALw 41 0.37 0.24 0.14
a
N = N  1, F-curve could not be fitted for 1 observation.
b
N = N  1, F-curve could not be fitted for 2 observations.
341
However, the fact that the used GAML model is capable of
describing the data does not automatically imply that it can also
be used for prediction. None of the different calibration procedures
resulted in parameter estimations that allowed successful predic-
tion of the winter validation data. Given the fact that the used
GAML model is capable of describing these data when correctly
parameterised this can only be explained by the fact that the vari-
ables measured to characterise the experimental conditions (crust-
ing stage, soil cover, etc., see Table 2) did not truly control the
variation in infiltration, so that the information required to suc-
cessfully parameterize the model was lacking. This is supported
by the fact that a multiple regression model based on the same
measured variables also failed to correctly predict the runoff coef-
ficient for winter experiments.
When considering only the spring/summer data, the predictive
capability of the one parameter GAML model was clearly superior
to that of model versions with more parameters, while still being
somewhat lower than that of a multiple regression equation (when
considering partial and total runoff coefficients). Thus, while allow-
ing more parameters to be calibrated does increase the model’s
ability to describe the data it actually decreases its predictive abil-
ity. This is because the two and four parameter calibration proce-
dures result in parameter values that are poorly related to the
measured variables. Optimisation of more than one parameter va-
lue allows the model to respond to variability in infiltration
dynamics that is not captured or controlled by the measured data,
resulting in physically unrealistic parameter values for some
experiments (Table 4). Hence, it is also impossible to estimate opti-
mal parameter values from those measured data for these model
formulations, which is essential for successful prediction. Our re-
sults thereby confirm the observations of Risse et al. (1994) who
stated that the performance of the GAML model could not be im-
proved by calibrating w in addition to Ke.
The use of a one-parameter version requires that the suction at
the wetting front is estimated beforehand. This value can be
GAML model (fit3) MR model
RMSE ME RMSE ME RMSE
0.15 0.38a 0.26a 0.44 0.14
0.22 0.27b 0.35b 0 0.20
342 A. Van den Putte et al. / Journal of Hydrology 476 (2013) 332–344

Table 7 effective hydraulic conductivity decreases from 2 to 0.56 mm h1

Mean model efficiency and root mean square error for the prediction of intermediate after 200 mm of rainfall due to crust formation. The presence of
runoff coefficients using the GAML model and different parameterization methods
(RC10 = runoff coefficient after 10 min, RC20 = runoff coefficient after 20 min, RC30 = -
a 50% vegetation cover is predicted to increase Ke from 0.56 to
runoff coefficient after 30 min, see also text for symbols). VALs is the validation 2.01 mm h1 (a factor of 3.6). Assuming realistically that the same
dataset for spring/summer data and VALw is the validation dataset for winter data. amount of rainfall leads to 100% crusting for the soils studied here,
Model Dataset N RC10 RC20 RC30
our equations predict Ke to be reduced by crusting from 15.6 to
type 5.1 mm h1 (thus by a factor 3), but when a 50% vegetation cover
ME RMSE ME RMSE ME RMSE
would be present, the predicted effective hydraulic conductivity
fit1 VALs 65 0.10 0.12 0.27 0.15 0.37 0.16 of fully crusted soil is 14.5 mm h1, i.e. an increase by a factor
fit1 VALw 41 0.71 0.16 0.41 0.21 0.31 0.24
2.8 in comparison to the uncovered soil. Thus, similar tendencies
fit2 VALs 65 0.10 0.11 0.38 0.14 0.47 0.15
fit2 VALw 41 0.06 0.12 0.08 0.19 0.03 0.22 are observed but absolute values are clearly different. On the other
fit3 VALs 64 0.38 0.11 0.07 0.19 0.45 0.24 hand, the absolute values we predict for a fully crusted, bare soil
fit3 VALw 39 0.20 0.11 0.11 0.19 0.31 0.24 vary from 3.8 mm h1 for a soil with a clay content of 10% to
6.5 mm h1 for a soil with a 20% clay content, a range that is very
similar to that proposed by Schroeder and Auerswald (2000) for
estimated from the Brooks-Corey parameters (Brooks and Corey, silty soils that are sensitive to crusting (3–7 mm h1). The reasons
1964). Rawls et al. (1983) estimated a value of 166.8 mm for silt for the discrepancies in absolute values between our study and
loam soils, the textural class of all but two fields in our study, a va- those of Risse et al. (1995a,b) and Zhang et al. (1995a,b) is not fully
lue which is very similar to the value of 182 mm we used (the understood, but they may be partly due to the fact that these
mean of all values that were obtained through calibration of the authors used the results from natural rainfall in their studies. The
two parameter GAML model). We tested a wide range of values infiltration capacity of crusted soils is known to depend on rainfall
for w (75–500 mm). Model efficiencies above 0.9 were obtained intensity (Langhans et al., 2010; Zhang et al., 1995a). It may be
with this wide range of values for the majority of the experiments. safely assumed that average rainfall intensity of the events studied
Values between 150 and 200 mm resulted in maximum model effi- by Risse et al. (1995a,b) and Zhang et al. (1995a,b) was significantly
ciencies. It may therefore be concluded that existing pedotransfer lower than the average rainfall intensity used in our study. This
functions allow obtaining a value for w that is sufficiently realistic may result in lower calibrated effective hydraulic conductivity
to allow for the calibration of a one-parameter GAML model. values, even though Zhang et al. (1995a,b) attempted to account
The Ke values we obtained through calibration of the one for this effect by including total event rainfall amount as predictor
parameter version of the GAML model were positively related to for soil surfaces with a crop cover. Risse et al. (1994) already
soil cover and clay content of the topsoil and negatively to soil noted that calibrated effective hydraulic conductivity values for
crusting stage by the following equation (Table 4): natural rainfall were indeed lower than those derived from
(high-intensity) rainfall simulations. Complex natural rainfall
sqrtðK e Þ ¼ 3:07 þ 0:031C v  0:017C r þ 0:059Cl patterns involve periods of infiltration, soil moisture redistribution
ðr 2 ¼ 0:49 and N ¼ 66Þ ð16Þ and re-infiltration: modelling of infiltration under natural rainfall
has to account for these processes (Corradini et al., 1997).
Previous experimental studies have repeatedly confirmed that soil Thus, our findings for infiltration in spring/summer are largely
surface crusting has a strong influence on the infiltration character- consistent with other evidence in the literature. This does not hold
istics of silty loamy soils (e.g. Fox et al., 1998; Le Bissonnais and for the winter period: although the infiltration response we ob-
Singer, 1993; Martin et al., 2001; Schroeder and Auerswald, 2000). served on wheat fields during the winter period can be described
Also, several studies have shown that infiltration is improved by by the GAML model, it was not possible to predict parameter val-
the presence of residue or crop cover (e.g. Auerswald and Haider, ues allowing meaningful predictions from the data we measured.
1996; Freebairn and Gupta, 1990; Gilley et al., 1986; Zhang et al., One of the explanations for this is that conditions between exper-
1995a). Similarly, the fact that topsoil clay content is positively re- iments did not vary sufficiently: in winter, soils were always (very)
lated to Ke for silt loams soils is not unexpected as aggregate struc- wet and a crust was already formed before initiation of the rainfall
tural stability can be expected to increase with increasing clay experiments (Table 2, Fig. 3). Also, vegetation cover was relatively
content. high for most of the experiments (Fig. 3). Soil moisture status ex-
It is not straightforward to directly compare our results quanti- plained some of the Ke variability, but the determination coefficient
tatively with those from other GAML parameterization studies, but was fairly low (Table 4). It should, however, also be considered that
some interesting observations can be made. Risse et al. (1995a,b) under such conditions variations in infiltration capacity may not be
obtained reference values for effective hydraulic conductivity (Kb) primarily controlled by the status of the soil surface and the vege-
on bare soils under freshly tilled conditions by optimising a nega- tation cover. For the winter experiments, the average calculated
tive exponential relationship between rainfall kinetic energy and infiltration depth during a rainfall simulation experiment was
effective hydraulic conductivity. They obtained values ranging be- 0.88 m and infiltration depth exceeded the depth of the plough
tween 0.73 and 2.22 mm h1 for silty loam soils. Assuming a clay layer for 65% of the experiments. For the spring/summer experi-
percentage of 15%, Eq. (16) predicts a much higher effective ments the average calculated infiltration depth was only 0.15 m
hydraulic conductivity of 15.6 mm h1. Building on the work of because of the dryer soil conditions and only for 6% of the experi-
Risse et al. (1995a,b) and Zhang et al. (1995a,b) assessed cover ef- ments the depth of the plough layer was exceeded. This implies
fects on effective infiltration rates. When a 50% cover is assumed that subsurface characteristics will control to a large extent infil-
and assuming a Kb value of 2 mm h1, Ke is predicted to increase tration and hence also runoff generation for the winter experi-
from 2 to 2.7 mm h1 following the methodology proposed by ments. No information on subsoil properties was collected and it
Zhang et al. (1995a,b). Eq. (16) from the present study on the other may hence not be expected that good runoff predictions are
hand predicts Ke to rise from 15.6 to 30.3 mm h1, a far stronger possible.
increase. Both methodologies predict similar relative effects with The use of the GAML model resulted, as expected, in some loss
respect to soil crusting. Assuming realistic values for the crust of predictive capability for the total runoff coefficient in compari-
factor (0.25) and the soil structural stability factor (0.002), the son to a pure regression model (Table 6). However, the increase
equations proposed by Risse et al. (1995a,b) predict that the in flexibility that can be obtained by using a dynamic model
 A. Van den Putte et al. / Journal of Hydrology 476 (2013) 332–344
outweighs the relatively minor loss in predictive capacity. While
an empirical regression model predicting the runoff coefficient will
only be applicable for experiments of approximately the same
intensity and duration, a calibrated dynamic model may be used
as a basis for predicting runoff amounts produced for events with
varying duration and/or varying intensity, provided that the effect
of varying rainfall intensities and water depths on effective infiltra-
tion are effectively accounted for (Langhans et al., 2011). However,
one should be aware that local validation will remain necessary.
Earlier work (Risse et al., 1994) already showed that pedotransfer
functions may only be used locally and for the scale for which they
were developed.
5. Conclusions
Predicting runoff generation on arable land is inherently diffi-
cult due to the rapidity with which soil and crop conditions
change. While a relatively simple, dynamic model such as the
GAML model allows to describe very well variations in cumulative
infiltration (and hence runoff generation) under simulated rainfall,
prediction is not always successful.
The failure of the GAML model to predict the variation in runoff
generation on winter wheat fields is mainly due to the fact that the
variability in runoff generation under winter conditions is not only
controlled by soil surface characteristics, but also by subsoil prop-
erties. The latter are almost impossible to measure on a routine ba-
sis, which may pose important limitations on our capability to
predict runoff generation correctly under these conditions.
Model performance was much better for spring/summer condi-
tions. The main factors controlling infiltration were soil surface
crusting state, soil vegetation cover and soil clay content: these
findings are consistent with those of other studies although rela-
tively large discrepancies may exist with respect to the absolute
values that are estimated. Tillage technique as such did not have
a significant effect: thus, the impact of conservation tillage is ade-
quately captured by assessing its impacts on soil surface character-
istics (cover and crusting stage).
Despite the fact that the infiltration characteristics of a tilled
soil surface clearly evolve throughout a high-intensity rainfall
event, the GAML model performed best when only a single param-
eter was allowed to vary and temporal variation is not explicitly ta-
ken into account. When more than one parameter needs
calibration, uncertainties in parameter prediction overwhelm pos-
sible gains in predictive capability. Thus, under the conditions
tested, simpler is indeed better: the use of a single parameter ver-
sion of the model yields to better predictions. It is also feasible as
the suction at the wetting front can indeed be estimated from
existing pedotransfer functions.
As expected, the use of the GAML model resulted in a loss of
predictive capability when compared to an empirical, regression-
based model. However, the loss of predictive capability is relatively
limited and is outweighed by the gains in flexibility and applicabil-
ity that are obtained by using a conceptual model.
Acknowledgements
This study was supported by the IWT-project ‘From demonstra-
tion to optimalisation: development of a decision-support instru-
ment for the optimalisation of reduced tillage techniques starting
from a multi-disciplinary approach’ and by the EU-LIFE project SO-
WAP (www.sowap.org) as well as Syngenta Inc. The authors wish
to thank K. Auerswald and M. Nearing for their valuable comments
and Jan Valckx, Katleen Gillijns, Greet Dielis, Lore Fondu, Sabrina
Vandevelde, Jos Meersmans, Mustafa Ayyad and many other col-
leagues for their help with the rainfall simulations. Many thanks
343
also to all the farmers for the maintenance of the split fields and
the practical assistance.
References
Ahuja, L.R., Tsuji, G.Y., 1976. Use of Green–Ampt equation with variable
conductivity. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 40 (4), 619–622.
Auerswald, K., Haider, J., 1996. Runoff curve numbers for small grain under German
cropping conditions. J. Environ. Manage. 47 (3), 223–228.
Barry, D.A., Parlange, J.Y., Li, L., Jeng, D.S., Crapper, M., 2005. Green–Ampt
approximations. Adv. Water Resour. 28 (10), 1003–1009.
Beven, K., 1989. Changing ideas in hydrology – the case of physically-based models.
J. Hydrol. 105 (1–2), 157–172.
Bouraoui, F., Dillaha, T.A., 1996. Answers-2000: runoff and sediment transport
model. J. Environ. Eng. – ASCE 122 (6), 493–502.
Brakensiek, D.L., Onstad, C.A., 1977. Parameter-estimation of Green and Ampt
infiltration equation. Water Resour. Res. 13 (6), 1009–1012.
Brooks, R.H., Corey, A.T., 1964. Hydraulic Properties of Porous Media. Hydrology
Paper. Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado.
Cerdan, O., Le Bissonnais, Y., Couturier, A., Saby, N., 2002. Modelling interrill erosion
in small cultivated catchments. Hydrol. Process. 16 (16), 3215–3226.
Childs, E.C., Bybordi, M., 1969. Vertical movement of water in stratified porous
material. I: Infiltration. Water Resour. Res. 5 (2), 446–459.
Chu, S.T., 1978. Infiltration during an unsteady rain. Water Resour. Res. 14 (3), 461–
466.
Corradini, C., Melone, F., Smith, R.E., 1997. A unified model for infiltration and
redistribution during complex rainfall patterns. J. Hydrol. 192 (1–4), 104–124.
Corradini, C., Govindaraju, R.S., Morbidelli, R., 2002. Simplified modelling of areal
average infiltration at the hillslope scale. Hydrol. Process. 16 (9), 1757–1770.
Corradini, C., Flammini, A., Morbidelli, R., Govindaraju, R.S., 2011. A conceptual
model for infiltration in two-layered soils with a more permeable upper layer:
from local to field scale. J. Hydrol. 410 (1–2), 62–72.
De Roo, A.P.J., Jetten, V.G., 1999. Calibrating and validating the LISEM model for two
data sets from the Netherlands and South Africa. Catena 37 (3–4), 477–493.
Esteves, M., Faucher, X., Galle, S., Vauclin, M., 2000. Overland flow and infiltration
modelling for small plots during unsteady rain: numerical results versus
observed values. J. Hydrol. 228 (3–4), 265–282.
Fox, D.M., Le Bissonnais, Y., Bruand, A., 1998. The effect of ponding depth on
infiltration in a crusted surface depression. Catena 32 (2), 87–100.
Freebairn, D.M., Gupta, S.C., 1990. Microrelief, rainfall and cover effects on
infiltration. Soil Tillage Res. 16 (3), 307–327.
Freebairn, D.M., Gupta, S.C., Onstad, C.A., Rawls, W.J., 1989. Antecedent rainfall and
tillage effects upon infiltration. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 53 (4), 1183–1189.
Gilley, J.E., Finkner, S.C., Varvel, G.E., 1986. Runoff and erosion as affected by
sorghum and soybean residue. Trans. ASAE 29 (6), 1605–1610.
Govindaraju, R.S., Morbidelli, R., Corradini, C., 2001. Areal infiltration modeling over
soils with spatially correlated hydraulic conductivities. J. Hydrol. Eng. 6 (2),
150–158.
Green, W.H., Ampt, G., 1911. Studies in soil physics. I: The flow of air and water
through soils. J. Agric. Sci. 4, 1–24.
Horton, R.E., 1933. The role of infiltration in the hydrological cycle. Trans. Am.
Geophys. Union 14, 446–460.
Kale, R., Sahoo, B., 2011. Green–Ampt infiltration models for varied field conditions:
a revisit. Water Resour. Manage 25 (14), 3505–3536.
Knisel, W., 1980. CREAMS – A Field-Scale Model for Chemicals, Runoff and Erosion
from Agricultural Management Systems. USDA Conservation Research Report
No. 26, 640 pp.
Laflen, J.M., Elliot, W.J., Flanagan, D.C., Meyer, C.R., Nearing, M.A., 1997. WEPP-
predicting water erosion using a process-based model. J. Soil Water Conserv. 52
(2), 96–102.
Langhans, C., Govers, G., Diels, J., Clymans, W., Van den Putte, A., 2010. Dependence
of effective hydraulic conductivity on rainfall intensity: loamy agricultural soils.
Hydrol. Process. 24 (16), 2257–2268.
Langhans, C. et al., 2011. Experimental rainfall–runoff data: reconsidering the
concept of infiltration capacity. J. Hydrol. 399 (3–4), 255–262.
Le Bissonnais, Y., Singer, M.J., 1993. Seal formation, runoff, and interrill erosion from
17 California soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 57 (1), 224–229.
Le Bissonnais, Y. et al., 2005. Variability of soil surface characteristics influencing
runoff and interrill erosion. Catena 62 (2–3), 111–124.
Leys, A., Govers, G., Gillijns, K., Poesen, J., 2007. Conservation tillage on loamy soils:
explaining the variability in interrill runoff and erosion reduction. Eur. J. Soil Sci.
58 (6), 1425–1436.
Martin, P., Papy, F., Capillon, A., 2001. Agricultural field state and runoff risk:
proposal of a simple relation for the silty-loam soil context of the Pays de Caux
(France). In: Stott, D.E., Mohtar, R.H., Steinhardt, G.C. (Eds.), Sustaining the
Global Farm. Selected papers from the 10th International Soil Conservation
Organization Meeting held May 24–29, 1999 at Purdue University and the
USDA-ARS National Soil Erosion Research Laboratory, pp. 293–299.
Mathworks, 2009. Matlab. Mathworks, Natick, MA, USA.
Mein, R.G., Larson, C.L., 1973. Modeling infiltration during a steady rain. Water
Resour. Res. 9 (2), 384–394.
Migliaccio, K.W., Srivastava, P., 2007. Hydrologic components of watershed-scale
models. Trans. ASABE 50 (5), 1695–1703.
Nearing, M.A., Deerascough, L., Laflen, J.M., 1990. Sensitivity analysis of the WEPP
hillslope profile erosion model. Trans. ASAE 33 (3), 839–849.
344 A. Van den Putte et al. / Journal of Hydrology 476 (2013) 332–344
Nearing, M.A., Liu, B.Y., Risse, L.M., Zhang, X., 1996. Curve numbers and Green–
Ampt effective hydraulic conductivities. Water Resour. Bull. 32 (1), 125–
136.
Parlange, J.-Y., Barry, D.A., Haverkamp, R., 2002. Explicit infiltration equations and
the Lambert W-function. Adv. Water Resour. 25, 1119–1124.
Poesen, J., Ingelmo-Sanchez, F., Mücher, H., 1990. The hydrological response of soil
surface to rainfall as affected by cover and position of rock fragments in the top
layer. Earth Surf. Process. Landforms 15, 653–671.
Ponce, V.M., Hawkins, R.H., 1996. Runoff curve number: has it reached maturity? J.
Hydrol. Eng. 1 (1), 11–19.
Rawls, W.J., Brakensiek, D.L., Miller, N., 1983. Green–Ampt infiltration parameters
from soils data. J. Hydraulic Eng.-ASCE 109, 62–70.
Rawls, W.J., Brakensiek, D.L., Simanton, J.R., Kohl, K.D., 1990. Development of a crust
factor for a Green Ampt model. Trans. ASAE 33 (4), 1224–1228.
Risse, L.M., Nearing, M.A., Savabi, M.R., 1994. Determining the Green–Ampt effective
hydraulic conductivity from rainfall–runoff data for the WEPP model. Trans.
ASAE 37 (2), 411–418.
Risse, L.M., Liu, B.Y., Nearing, M.A., 1995a. Using curve numbers to determine base-
line values of Green–Ampt effective hydraulic conductivities. Water Resour.
Bull. 31 (1), 147–158.
Risse, L.M., Nearing, M.A., Zhang, X.C., 1995b. Variability in Green–Ampt effective
hydraulic conductivity under fallow conditions. J. Hydrol. 169 (1–4), 1–24.
Schroeder, R., Auerswald, K., 2000. Modelling the seasonal variation of a seal-
induced runoff generation in small agricultural catchments. Zeitschrift fuer
Kulturtechnik und Landentwicklung 41 (4), 167–172.
Takken, I. et al., 1999. Spatial evaluation of a physically-based distributed erosion
model (LISEM). Catena 37 (3–4), 431–447.
Tuppad, P., Douglas-Mankin, K.R., Lee, T., Srinivasan, R., Arnold, J.G., 2011. Soil and
water assessment tool (SWAT) hydrologic/water quality model: extended
capability and wider adoption. Trans. ASABE 54 (5), 1677–1684.
van Dijk, A., Bruijnzeel, L.A., Rosewell, C.J., 2002. Rainfall intensity-kinetic energy
relationships: a critical literature appraisal. J. Hydrol. 261 (1–4), 1–23.
Van Doren Jr., D.M., Allmaras, R., 1978. Effect of residue management practices
on the soil physical environment, microclimate and plant growth, Crop
Residue Management Systems. Spec. Pub. 31. ASA, Madison, Wis., pp. 49–83.
Van Rompaey, A.J.J., Govers, G., 2002. Data quality and model complexity for regional
scale soil erosion prediction. Int. J. Geogr. Inform. Sci. 16 (7), 663–680.
Walkley, A., Black, I.A., 1934. An examination of the Degtjareff method for
determining soil organic matter and a proposed modification of the chromic
acid titration method. Soil Sci. 27, 29–38.
Zhang, X.C., Nearing, M.A., Risse, L.M., 1995a. Estimation of Green–Ampt
conductivity parameters. I: Row crops. Trans. ASAE 38 (4), 1069–1077.
Zhang, X.C., Nearing, M.A., Risse, L.M., 1995b. Estimation of Green–Ampt
conductivity parameters. II: Perennial crops. Trans. ASAE 38 (4), 1079–1087.