HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text Free Full Text (PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (11) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Amente, G. Articles by Reece, C. F. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Amente, G. Articles by Reece, C. F. GeoRef GeoRef Citation Agricola Articles by Amente, G. Articles by Reece, C. F.

Estimation of Soil Solution Electrical Conductivity from Bulk Soil Electrical Conductivity in Sandy Soils

Univ. of Minnesota, Dep. of Soil, Water, and Climate, St. Paul, MN 55108 USA

View larger version (30K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1 Setup of soil column experiments showing waveguide orientation and connections of drain test tubes used to collect effluent

View larger version (29K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2 Quadratic fit between temperature corrected ECb and soil water content, , depicted for eight different values of ECw. The curves intersect at a single point at slightly larger than 0.03 m3 m-3 and their r2 values range between 0.9986 to 0.9999

View larger version (26K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3 Changes in temperature corrected ECb with ECw evaluated from curve-fit of Fig. 1 shown for eight arbitrarily selected water contents. The solid lines represent linear regression lines

View larger version (15K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4 Dependence of soil solid electrical conductivity treated here as, ECim, on soil water content, . All of the ECim were determined from the intercepts of Fig. 3. The curve intersects the horizontal axis at = 0.032 m3 m-3 evaluated from the curve-fitted equation and corresponds with the relatively common intersection point of all the curves shown in Fig. 2

View larger version (24K): [in a new window]   Fig. 5 Experimentally determined geometric factor, Fg(expt), shown with Fg predicted using the following models: Mualem–Friedman Method 1, Fg(MF1) = (eff)(ß+1)/(s - r); Mualem–Friedman Method 2, Fg(MF2) = F(m)(eff)ß, with ß = 0.5; Marshall's method, Fg(M) = (eff)b, with b = 0.5; Millington and Quirk's method, Fg(MQ) = (eff)c/(s - r)2, with c = 10/3; and Penman's method, Fg(P) = 0.66

View larger version (24K): [in a new window]   Fig. 6 Experimentally determined geometric factor, Fg(expt), shown with Fg estimated using optimized values of powers of eff in the following models: Mualem–Friedman Method 1, Fg(MF1) = (eff)(ß+1)/(s - r); with ß + 1 = 1.356; Mualem–Friedman Method 2, Fg(MF2) = F(m)(eff)ß with ß = 0.068; and Marshall's method, Fg(M) = (eff)b with b = 0.58