Premium
Hydraulic Properties of a Clay Loam Soil and the Field Measurement of Water Uptake by Roots: III. Comparison of Field and Laboratory Data on Retention and of Measured and Calculated Conductivities
Author(s) -
Brust K. J.,
Bavel C. H. M.,
Stirk G. B.
Publication year - 1968
Publication title -
soil science society of america journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.836
H-Index - 168
eISSN - 1435-0661
pISSN - 0361-5995
DOI - 10.2136/sssaj1968.03615995003200030020x
Subject(s) - hydraulic conductivity , loam , soil science , hydraulics , soil water , water retention , field (mathematics) , chemistry , water content , conductivity , pore water pressure , core (optical fiber) , analytical chemistry (journal) , hydrology (agriculture) , mineralogy , geotechnical engineering , environmental science , geology , materials science , environmental chemistry , thermodynamics , mathematics , composite material , pure mathematics , physics
Soil water characteristics obtained on soil cores in the laboratory at air pressures < 1 bar agreed substantially with pressure‐water content relations determined in the field. Thus, in field studies of soil hydraulics, measurement of either water content or pressure potential may suffice. When the laboratory data were supplemented with a doubletube measurement of the saturated conductivity, the relation between water content and conductivity was calculated using two methods. Of these, the one due to Millington and Quirk gave less accurate agreement with actual field measurements than did the method proposed by Laliberte, Corey and Brooks. The latter method, when based on double‐tube measurements in the field and pressure cells or similar measurements on cores in the laboratory, appears useful. Retention values measured with the pressure membrane method on disturbed soil samples were out of line with both field and core results, even when the disturbing treatments were minimized.