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


     

This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text Free
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
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 Similar articles in Web of Science
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 Web of Science (10)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Pachepsky, Y.
Right arrow Articles by Giménez, D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Pachepsky, Y.
Right arrow Articles by Giménez, D.
GeoRef
Right arrow GeoRef Citation
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Pachepsky, Y.
Right arrow Articles by Giménez, D.
Related Collections
Right arrow Soil Methods/Instrumentation
Right arrow Water Content
Soil Science Society of America Journal 65:460-462 (2001)
© 2001 Soil Science Society of America

DIVISION S-6-SOIL & WATER MANAGEMENT & CONSERVATION

Comparison of soil water retention at field and laboratory scales

Yakov Pachepskya, Walter J. Rawlsb and Daniel Giménezc

a Bldg. 007 Rm. 104, BARC-WEST, Beltsville, MD 20705
b USDA-ARS Hydrology and Remote Sensing Lab., Beltsville, MD 20705
c Dep. of Environmental Sciences, Rutgers, The State Univ. of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ 08901

Corresponding author (ypachep{at}hydrolab.arsusda.gov)

Water content and soil water matric potential are measured in different soil volumes and at different spatial scales in the laboratory and in the field. The objective of this work was to use a large database to compare field and laboratory water retention. The database consisted of 135 datasets for soil horizons of various textures. Coarse-textured soils had the average difference between field and laboratory water contents close to zero. On the contrary, fine-textured soils with the sand content <50% had field water contents substantially smaller than the laboratory water contents in the range of water contents from 0.45 to 0.60 cm3 cm-3. A quadratic regression explained 70% of variability in field water contents as computed from the laboratory data. A fractal scaling of the bulk density could contribute to the observed field–lab differences in volumetric water contents for the range of high water contents.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Vadose Zone JHome page
R. C. Schwartz, R. L. Baumhardt, and T. A. Howell
Estimation of Soil Water Balance Components Using an Iterative Procedure
Vadose Zone J., January 23, 2008; 7(1): 115 - 123.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Vadose Zone JHome page
A. K. Guber, Ya. A. Pachepsky, M. Th. van Genuchten, W. J. Rawls, J. Simunek, D. Jacques, T. J. Nicholson, and R. E. Cady
Field-Scale Water Flow Simulations Using Ensembles of Pedotransfer Functions for Soil Water Retention
Vadose Zone J., March 8, 2006; 5(1): 234 - 247.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Soil Sci.Home page
A. Nemes, M. G. Schaap, and J. H. M. Wosten
Functional Evaluation of Pedotransfer Functions Derived from Different Scales of Data Collection
Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., July 1, 2003; 67(4): 1093 - 1102.
[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 © 2001 by the Soil Science Society of America.