SSSAJ Journal of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Education
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Published in Soil Sci Soc Am J 44:228-231 (1980)
© 1980 Soil Science Society of America
677 S. Segoe Rd., Madison, WI 53711 USA
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Dane, J. H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Dane, J. H.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Dane, J. H.

Comparison of Field and Laboratory Determined Hydraulic Conductivity Values1

J. H. Dane2

ABSTRACT

Several new methods of determining hydraulic conductivity (K)-volumetric water content ({theta}) relations have been developed recently. Emphasis is on simplification of procedures that determine K({theta}) relations in the field. This paper compares four different procedures by which K({theta}) relations were determined for several horizons of a Troup loamy sand (Grossarenic Paleudults). The first procedure consisted of in situ measurements of water content and pressure head profiles following irrigation. All measurements were obtained with the soil surface covered to prevent evaporation. The data were used to calculate K({theta}) values. The second procedure consisted of a model that used water retention curves and saturated K values determined on undisturbed core samples. The third method was a variation of the second in that water retention data were used as measured in situ. The fourth method used in situ measured water content data only. For the coarse textured soil used in this investigation the latter method was modified in that two empirical equations were needed instead of one to represent one K({theta}) relation. All four methods resulted in K({theta}) relations that were in fairly good agreement.


NOTES

1 Contribution from the Auburn University Agric. Exp. Stn., Auburn, AL 36830.

2 Assistant Professor of Soil Physics, Dep. of Agronomy & Soils. Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36830.

Received for publication August 2, 1979. Accepted for publication November 13, 1979.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Soil Sci.Home page
M. D. Madsen, D. G. Chandler, and W. D. Reynolds
Accounting for Bias and Boundary Condition Effects on Measurements of Saturated Core Hydraulic Conductivity
Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., May 1, 2008; 72(3): 750 - 757.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
The SCI Journals Agronomy Journal Crop Science
Journal of Natural Resources
and Life Sciences Education
Vadose Zone Journal
Journal of Plant Registrations Journal of
Environmental Quality
The Plant Genome
Copyright © 1980 by the Soil Science Society of America.