| Autor: |
Stolte, J., Freijer, J. I., Bouten, W., Dirksen, C., Halbertsma, J. M., Van Dam, J. C., Van den Berg, J. A., Veerman, G. J., Wösten, J. H. M. |
| Zdroj: |
Soil Science Society of America Journal; November 1994, Vol. 58 Issue: 6 p1596-1603, 8p |
| Abstrakt: |
Knowledge of soil hydraulic properties is required for soil‐water flow models. Although many studies of individual methods exist, comparisons of methods are uncommon. Therefore, we compared application ranges and results for six laboratory methods for determining hydraulic conductivity or diffusivity on eolian sand, eolian silt loam, marine sandy loam, and fluviatile silt loam. The methods, hot air, sorptivity, crust, drip infiltrometer, Wind's evaporation, and one‐step outflow, fall into three groups: (i) those that only yield a conductivity curve; (ii) those that yield a simultaneous estimate of conductivity, diffusivity, water content, and pressure head; and (iii) those that yield a diffusivity curve. Diffusivities were converted to conductivities with a water retention curve. One main difference between the methods was the pressure head‐water content range. Despite the large differences between the methods, the results for the first two groups tended to be similar. The results of the third group did not match well with those of the first two. It proved difficult to compare these methods correctly due to hysteresis. |
| Databáze: |
Supplemental Index |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
Plný text