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

This Article Abstract Figures Only 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 Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (16) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Paltineanu, I.C. Articles by Starr, J.L. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Paltineanu, I.C. Articles by Starr, J.L. Agricola Articles by Paltineanu, I.C. Articles by Starr, J.L.

DIVISION S-1-SOIL PHYSICS

Preferential Water Flow Through Corn Canopy and Soil Water Dynamics Across Rows

^a USDA-ARS, Environmental Chemistry Lab., Beltsville, MD 20705-2350 USA
^b Paltin Int. Inc., 6309 Sandy St., Laurel, MD 20707 USA

jstarr{at}asrr.arsusda.gov

	ABSTRACT

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION Materials and methods NOTES Results and discussion Summary and conclusions REFERENCES

 
Small-scale and spatially dependent variation in real-time soil water dynamics, caused largely by agricultural practices, is not well understood. Objectives of this study were (i) to quantify the preferential stemflow vs. throughfall of water under rainfall and sprinkler irrigation during the closed corn (Zea mays L.) canopy period and from senescence to harvest, and (ii) to quantify in real time the corresponding row and interrow soil water dynamics under multiple annual no-tillage and plow-tillage corn experiments. Water redistribution through the corn canopy was studied for a 2-yr period, with stemflow measured by placing flexible polyethylene bags on plants, and throughfall by placing jars between corn rows. Soil water dynamics was studied for a 3-yr period, with multisensor capacitance probes and a monitoring system at five-row and interrow positions for each tillage. Highly significant (P < 0.001) linear positive relationships were found between both stemflow (S_F) and average throughfall (T_F) to rainfall. An inverse third-order relationship was found between the ratio of S_F/T_F and rainfall. Real-time soil water dynamics data showed that the smaller rainfall events (<15 mm) resulted in a significant (P < 0.05) water infiltration advantage for the no-tillage in-row position compared with the no-tillage interrow positions and compared with the plow-tillage in-row position. These results were consistent with the stemflow vs. throughfall data obtained under the closed corn canopy. Real-time soil water dynamics vs. rainfall intensity at different soil layers showed the importance of rainfall and sprinkler irrigation redistribution induced by the canopy, type of tillage, and position across corn rows.

Abbreviations: LAI, leaf area index • TDR, time domain reflectometry

	INTRODUCTION

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION Materials and methods NOTES Results and discussion Summary and conclusions REFERENCES

 
RECENT DEVELOPMENT of different monitoring systems for studying real-time soil water content over large areas, as well as concern for the fate of water and chemicals under no-till vs. conventionally tilled corn, require reevaluation of water partitioning through the corn canopy and the corresponding movement into the soil profile. Water redistribution through corn canopies has been studied for more than 80 years in North America, Europe, and Africa with different objectives, methodologies, and instrumentation (Table 1) . Kiesselbach (1916) reported measurements of direct corn stemflow using potometers under the rainfall conditions of Nebraska. Several experimenters have attempted direct stemflow measurement by placing different homemade collection cups or funnels around the base of the corn plants (Haynes, 1940; Glover and Gwynne, 1962; Steiner et al., 1983; van Elecwijck, 1989; Parkin and Codling, 1990; Warner and Young, 1991; Bui and Box, 1992). In one study, flexible plastic bags were placed at the base of corn plants in the field, and accumulated water was extracted with a large syringe after sprinkler irrigation applications (Paltineanu and Apostol, 1974; Paltineanu, 1975). Water collected as direct corn stemflow varied greatly, generally ranging from 12 to 57% of the water collected at the crop canopy, under different rainfall or sprinkler irrigation occurrences (Table 1). Direct measurements of throughfall have been performed by placing water-collection cans across corn rows and large pans between corn rows (Haynes, 1940; Paltineanu and Apostol, 1974; Paltineanu, 1975; Quinn and Laflen, 1983; Steiner et al., 1983; Parkin and Codling, 1990; Dowdy et al., 1993). Water collected as average throughfall between the corn rows also varied greatly, generally ranging from 35 to 84% of water collected at the crop canopy (Table 1). Direct measurements of water remaining on the plants after sprinkler irrigation represented 0.1 to 0.36 mm, under an application rate of 6 mm h^-1 (Paltineanu and Apostol, 1974; Paltineanu, 1975). In another study, plant-intercepted water was calculated by difference and found to range from 0.5 to 7.0 mm under center-pivot sprinkler irrigation (Steiner et al., 1983). Only a few studies reported a complete water balance in the soil–plant–atmosphere system using discrete soil water content measurements by neutron thermalization and/or gravimetric methods down to 150 cm (Paltineanu and Apostol, 1974; Paltineanu, 1975) and down to 90 cm (Shanholtz and Younos, 1994). Spatial (across corn rows) and temporal distribution (every 1–2 d) of soil water content in the tilled layer (0–20 cm) of a corn crop was studied by van Wesenbeeck and Kachanoski (1988), using permanently placed time domain reflectometry (TDR) transmission-line probes. Waddell and Weil (1996) studied water redistribution in soil weekly, under ridge-till and no-till corn, using tensiometers (15–90 cm depths) placed at the in-row and non-traffic interrow positions.

	Materials and methods

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION Materials and methods NOTES Results and discussion Summary and conclusions REFERENCES

 
Field experiments were conducted on a Mattapex silt loam (fine-silty, mixed, active, mesic Aquic Hapludult) soil at the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center, Beltsville, MD. The A_p horizon has about 35% sand, 56% silt, 9% clay, and 8 g organic C kg^-1. The overall slope at the experimental site was about 4%. Precipitation is fairly evenly distributed throughout the year, but can be zero to >200 mm in any given month.

Site Layout and Treatments
This research was part of a broader field study at a field site that was incrementally changed from moldboard plow-tillage to no-tillage corn during a 4-yr period (Starr and Paltineanu, 1998). The experimental site had 26 paired plots (4.6 x 25 m) that were laid out on the contour. The slope under plow-tillage was somewhat greater than the site-average 4% slope because of plowing uphill. A 3.0-m wide berm and drainage ditch separated each 4.6-m wide plot to prevent the movement of surface runoff from one plot into the next. Before initiating tillage treatments in 1994, all plots were plowed with a moldboard plow to a depth of 20 to 25 cm and disked, and corn was planted for two consecutive years. In 1995, the plots were in their fourth year of corn and their second year of no-tillage. The plots of both tillage treatments were planted with a six-row no-tillage planter in 76-cm rows at a plant population of 59000 plants ha^-1; sprayed for weed control with atrazine [ 2 - c h l o r o - 4 a - ( e t h y l a m i n o ) - 6 - ( i s o p r o p y l a m i n o ) - s - t r i a z i n e ] , metolachlor [2-chloro-N-(2-ethyl-6-methylphenyl)-N-(2-methoxy-1-methylethyl)acetamide], and glyphozate [N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine]; and top dressed with NH₄NO₃ fertilizer (120 kg N ha^-1).

A Campbell Scientific¹ weather station (Campbell Scientific, Logan, UT) and an evapotranspiration simulator (ETgage, Model A, Loveland, CO) (Starr and Paltineanu, 1998) were placed about 25 m to the north of the plow-tillage Plot 6 (Fig. 1) . Sprinkler-irrigation water was applied four times in August 1995 as a crop-saving measure in this normally rain-fed study. Sprinkler-irrigation water was applied only as considered necessary to ensure continued growth of corn and did not represent a scheduling plan by either climatic considerations or capacitance-probe data. A continuous-moving big-gun sprinkler (Nelson Irrig. SR100, Walla Walla, WA), installed on AgRail drum–type equipment, was rolled down the central alleyway adjacent to two rows of paired plots. The amounts of irrigation water applied were measured by a tipping-bucket rain gage placed between the pair of plow-tillage and no-tillage field plots and by collection jars placed on wooden boards in the berm–ditch areas adjacent to the stemflow and throughfall points of study (Fig. 1).

View larger version (39K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 1 Schematic layout of the experimental site, showing instrumented plots of no-tillage (NT) and plow-tillage (PT) corn, with positions of multisensor capacitance probes (M,F), datalogging station (DL), weather station (WS), evapotranspiration gauge (ET), second tipping-bucket rain gage (R), rainfall jars (RJ), five bagged plants (os), and seven jars (oc)

View larger version (155K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 2 Photo showing collection of stemflow in bagged plants and throughfall in jars. Arrows point to water level in two bags

Soil Water Monitoring
Ten of 16 EnviroSCAN (Sentek Pty, Kent Town, South Australia) multisensor capacitance probes were installed shortly after planting corn in 2 of the 26 field plots (Fig. 1) for three consecutive years (1995–1997). The other six probes were placed at the non-traffic interrow position in six plots as part of a separate study on spatial variability (Starr and Paltineanu, 1998). Probes were placed at different locations within the plots each year, with sensors always placed at depths of 10, 20, 30, and 50 cm on each probe. Probes were placed in each tillage replicate at the in-row positions (R3, R4) and at the wheel-traffic interrow positions (R2.5, R4.5); and a non-replicated probe was placed at the non-traffic interrow position (R3.5). After completing probe installation and hookup to the datalogging station, as described by Starr and Paltineanu (1998), water contents were recorded at each sensor on 10-min intervals. The zone of major influence of the sensors represents a cylinder of soil, 10 cm along the axis of the probe, in a 10-cm ring around its PVC access pipe (Paltineanu and Starr, 1997). The four sensing-depth intervals for this probe configuration were 5- to 15-, 15- to 25-, 25- to 35-, and 45- to 55-cm. Water content at each sensor may be expressed as either a volumetric percentage or as a depth of water (mm per 10-cm soil depth).

Terminology
The terms stemflow and throughfall commonly represent dynamic flow of water (volume/area/time). However, for the past 80 years, scientists have been measuring total accumulated volumes of rainfall or irrigation water coming from different capture areas (the corn canopy for stemflow and the openings of rainfall cans or pans for water throughfall between corn rows), divided by arbitrarily chosen redistribution areas. Redistribution in the soil profile of water coming via stemflow or throughfall has generally been studied by discrete soil water measurements at arbitrarily chosen time intervals (days, weeks), or before and after rainfall or sprinkler irrigations. We converted all measurements to cumulated water units of height (mm) for incoming rainfall or irrigation, evapotranspiration, canopy-redistributed water at the soil surface as stemflow or throughfall, and in the soil as water storage in discrete 10-cm layers and cumulatively in the soil profile (5–35 or 5–55 cm).

	Results and discussion

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION Materials and methods NOTES Results and discussion Summary and conclusions REFERENCES

 
Rainfall-frequency distributions during the closed corn canopy (taken to be 19 July to 1 Oct.), both historically (1949–1997) and throughout the time frame of this study (1994–1997), are shown in Fig. 3 . Summer precipitation in this area often occurs in thunderstorms, with 80% of the events being <20 mm d^-1, and events >60 mm d^-1 accounting for <2% of the events. In this case, the 3-yr average cumulative rainfall was essentially the same as the long-term average. On 1 Aug. 1994, the LAI during closed canopy was 3.6 ± 0.2 and no irrigations were needed; in 1995, however, a deficit of 60 mm of seasonal rainfall occurred through early August, compared with the long-term average (Starr and Paltineanu, 1998), resulting in a lower LAI of 3.0 ± 0.4 (23 Aug. 1995). The extended dry conditions prompted the sprinkler irrigations (Table 2) to save the crop from severe drought conditions.

View larger version (27K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 3 Summer rainfall distributions at Beltsville, MD, from 1949–1997 and for 1994–1997

View larger version (25K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 4 Relationship between stemflow (SF) and throughfall (TF) to rainfall (R) and irrigation (I). Receiving area for SF was 150 cm2 (7.5 x 20 cm) and 309 cm2 for TF (7 x 7.5-cm jars)

View larger version (19K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 5 Ratios of stemflow (SF) to throughfall (TF) per unit-area, and across inrow and interrow areas

View larger version (36K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 6 Ratios of average throughfall (TF) to rainfall (R) or irrigation (I), during closed corn canopy, and from senescence to harvest in 1994 and 1995. Error bars represent 95% probability

Multiyear Analysis of Soil Water Storage across Corn Rows
Statistical analysis, using the SAS mixed procedure (SAS Institute, 1997), was performed on mean increases in soil water storage following rainfall or irrigation events. Overall, differences due to tillage alone were not significant (P > 0.05), but there were strong position and tillage x position effects ( ). Major sources of these significant differences are evident in Table 4 . Rainfall values up to 15 mm typically account for 80% of our summer rains, and resulted in 26 events with measurable increases in soil water storage. Twelve of these 26 events had rainfalls of 5 mm or less. These smaller rainfalls (up to 15 mm) resulted in a significant water-infiltration advantage for the no-tillage in-row position, compared with the other no-tillage positions and compared with the in-row position of plow-tillage. Perhaps surprisingly, there was also a significantly greater increase in soil water storage at the traffic interrow position of plow-tillage, compared with the non-traffic interrow positions. This result may be partially due to soil crusting, surface slope, and micro relief, as will be discussed below.

Soil Water Storage Dynamics for Small and Large Rainfalls
Real-time soil water dynamics are illustrated in Fig. 7 for a small (4.3-mm) and a large (43.7-mm) rainfall event, when the corn had a closed canopy. The dynamics of cumulative soil water storage associated with the top three sensors (5- to 35-cm soil-depth interval) varied with the sensor location, tillage, and the amount of rainfall. Bottom sensors were not included in these comparisons because neither rainfall penetrated to that sensing depth (45–55 cm).

View larger version (38K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 7 Rainfall intensity for two events, and cumulative soil water storage (5–35 cm) by row position under plow-tillage and no-tillage corn

View larger version (43K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 8 Rainfall intensity for one event, and associated cumulative water infiltration (5–35 cm) by row position under plow-tillage and no-tillage corn

Real-Time Infiltration Rates by Soil Depth and Position
Plow-Tillage, In-Row Positions
Infiltration rates were calculated from the slopes of steadily increasing soil water storage. For example, at the plow-tillage in-row position R4, from t 3.2 to 7.5 h, the soil water storage rose at a nearly constant rate of about 3.6 mm h^-1 (Fig. 8, Table 6). Then shortly after the onset of the highest rainfall intensity, the infiltration rate nearly doubled to about 6.1 mm h^-1 from t 7 to 10 h. Soil water storage at the other in-row position, R3.0, began to increase about 5.9 h after the rainfall started. However, in this row both the slow and the faster infiltration rates were much higher than in R4.0 (8.5 and 13.9 mm h^-1), resulting in 60% more water (66.8 vs. 40.9 mm) accumulating in the 5 to 35 cm of soil (Table 5). The end of the rainfall approximately corresponded to the end of the rise in soil water storage at both in-row positions under plow-tillage.

No-Tillage, In-Row Positions
Rainfall penetrated to the capacitance-sensing depths under no-tillage much quicker than under plow-tillage, due in part to its initially much wetter soil profile (Fig. 8). The first increases in soil water storage were detected at the no-tillage in-row position R4.0, about 1 h after the rainfall began. The soil water storage rose quickly, at a rate of more than 8 mm h^-1 for 2.5 h, then continued to slowly increase for another 7 h. After a delayed start at the R3.0 in-row position, the water storage rose even more rapidly, resulting in nearly twice the water accumulation than in-row R4.0 (Table 5).

Traffic and Non-Traffic Interrow Positions
Water infiltrated at two of the no-tillage interrow positions much earlier than under plow-tillage (Fig. 8), with more water accumulation at two of the three interrow positions (Table 5). The no-tillage downslope traffic interrow (R4.5) position was initially wetter than any other position. This position also had the earliest rise in the interrow soil water storage (at ), but with the smallest net increase of any position (Table 5). Under plow-tillage, there was a pattern of slowly increasing soil water storage at all three interrow positions for the first 9.5 h after the initiation of rainfall. At that time, coincident with the greatest rainfall intensity, all five plow-tillage positions showed an increased rate of water infiltration. Evidence will be presented below for overland flow into soil cracks at the downslope, plow-tillage, traffic interrow position.

Soil Water Dynamics by Depth and Position
The sequential timing and pattern of water movement to successive soil depths resulting from the 43.7-mm rainfall is shown in Fig. 9 . Rainfall redistributed through the corn canopy to the in-row positions of no-tillage resulted not only in earlier infiltration (Fig. 8, Table 6), but also in deeper penetration than in any interrow position (Fig. 9). Rapid rise in soil water storage also occurred at the no-tillage traffic interrow position R2.5, starting about 2 h later than at the two in-row positions (Fig. 8). The near-abrupt increase from the 10- to the 20-cm sensors at R2.5 occurred when the soil water content at the 10-cm sensor depth quickly rose from 23 to 30% (i.e., mm/10 cm). Rapid increases in soil water storage also occurred at three other positions when the soil water storage approached 30 mm/10 cm, suggesting a transition to filling of mesopores, if not macropores. Lack of water penetration below 25 cm in the traffic interrows may reflect the higher density of the soil layer near the bottom of the plow layer (Starr et al., 1995). Volumetric soil water content at the 50-cm depth was essentially unaffected by this rainfall event, but was greatly affected by tillage, and to a lesser amount by row–interrow position, varying between 20 and 32 mm/10 cm of soil (i.e., 0.2–0.32 m³ m^-3).

View larger version (36K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 9 Soil water dynamics at four sensor depths, at each in-row (R3, R4) and interrow position (R2.5, R3.5, R4.5), following onset of a 43.7-mm rainfall event

	Summary and conclusions

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION Materials and methods NOTES Results and discussion Summary and conclusions REFERENCES

 
Redistribution of rainfall and sprinkler irrigation through closed corn canopies to the soil surface, and the corresponding small-scale variation of soil water content were quantified under no-tillage and plow-tillage conditions. Water redistribution by the corn canopy was studied for 2 years by measuring stemflow captured in modified plastic bags attached to corn stems, and by collecting interrow throughfall water in glass jars. Real-time soil water dynamics was studied for a 3-yr period with multisensor capacitance probes connected to a datalogger. Small-scale, spatially dependent variation in real-time soil water dynamics was largely caused by cultural practices that resulted in localized changes and patterns of preferential water flow. The experimental data showed the following:

Corn canopy effects on water redistribution by stemflow vs. throughfall.

• (a) A highly significant (P < 0.001) linear positive relationship was found between both stemflow ( ) and average throughfall vs. rainfall (R), for rainfalls of 0.3 to 60 mm.
  
• (b) An inverse third-order relationship was found between the ratio of S_F/T_F and rainfall (mm), showing the importance of larger quantities of rainfall and sprinkler irrigation coming as preferential stemflow at full corn canopy vs. throughfall.
  
• (c) The average ratio of throughfall to rainfall (T_F/R) increased from full corn crop canopy (37%) to the senescence to harvest period (70%), when corn leaves bend downward.
  

Real-time soil water dynamics, measured at 10-min intervals, at four soil depths, at five row and interrow positions, under plow-tillage and no-tillage corn.

• (a) Smaller rainfall events (<15 mm), which typically account for 80% of our summer rains, resulted in significantly increased soil water storage in the 5- to 55-cm soil depths for the no-till in-row position, compared with the other no-till interrow positions, and compared with the plow-tillage in-row position.
  
• (b) No-tillage water accumulations were larger and with deeper soil penetration at the in-row positions than at any other position.
  
• (c) Stemflow water from a 4.3-mm rainfall event, under closed canopy and following 15 d without rainfall, was measured only at the in-row positions under no-tillage.
  
• (d) A large rainfall event (43.7 mm) averaged about twice as much water infiltration at the in-row positions than at the traffic and nontraffic interrow positions, with water penetration to the 30-cm sensor depth only at the in-row positions under both plow-tillage and no-tillage.
  
• (e) Infiltration at the in-row positions of no-tillage was twice as fast as under plow-tillage, showing the interactive effects of preferential water flow induced by the crop canopy, type of tillage, and positions across corn rows.
  

These results show that using a real-time soil water monitoring system, with multisensor capacitance probes placed at the in-row and interrow positions of corn vs. real-time data of incoming rainfall could highly improve the understanding of real-time water dynamics phenomena in the soil–plant–atmosphere continuum. Coupling measured plant canopy effects on water redistribution by stemflow vs. throughfall with real-time measures of water inputs by rainfall or irrigation and soil water dynamics with depth and time can lead to better understanding and prediction of water and chemical penetration in soils. We believe that further research to study and correlate the real-time components of water balance in the soil–plant–atmosphere system over large areas will enhance our understanding and predictive capability of water and chemicals in agricultural systems.

	ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

 
We thank Peter Downey, technician at USDA-ARS NRI-ECL; Kristin Measells and Catherine Wells, graduate students of the University of Maryland at College Park, for their assistance and technical support; and Dr. C. Gr. Popescu, retired agricultural engineer, Bucharest, Romania, for his contribution to the method for stemflow collection.

	NOTES

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION Materials and methods NOTES Results and discussion Summary and conclusions REFERENCES

 
¹ Trade names are used in this publication to provide specific information. Mention of a trade name does not constitute a guarantee or warranty of the product or equipment by the USDA nor an endorsement over other similar products.

Received for publication March 30, 1998.

	REFERENCES

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION Materials and methods NOTES Results and discussion Summary and conclusions REFERENCES

 

• Bui E.N., Box J.E., Jr. Stemflow, rain-throughfall and erosion under canopies of corn and sorghum. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1992;56:242-247.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Dowdy, R.H., J.A. Lamb, J.L. Anderson, R.S. Alessi, and D.C Reicosky. 1993. Rainfall distribution under corn and soybean canopies at the Minnesota MSEA site. p. 382–385. In Agricultural research to protect water quality: Proc. Conf., Minneapolis, MN. 21–24 Feb. 1993. Soil Water Conserv. Soc., Minneapolis, MN.
• Glover J., Gwynne M.M. Light rainfall and plant survival in Africa: I. Maize. J. Ecol. 1962;50:111-118.
• Haynes J.L. Ground rainfall under vegetative canopy of crops. J. Am. Soc. Agron. 1940;32:176-184.
• Kiesselbach T.A. Transpiration as a factor in crop production. Univ. Nebraska Agric. Exp. Station. Res. Bull. 1916;6:31-72.
• Paltineanu I.C., Starr J.L. Real-time soil water dynamics using multisensor capacitance probes: Laboratory calibration. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1997;61:1576-1585.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Paltineanu I.C. Experiments in establishing water application efficiency on irrigated field crops. Romania: Bucharest, 1975 Ph.D. thesis, Agronomic Institute Library.
• Paltineanu, I.C., and I. Apostol. 1974. Possibilities of using the neutron method for water application efficiency studies in sprinkler and furrow irrigation. p. 477–506. In Proc. Symp. Isotope and Radiation Techniques in Soil Physics and Irrigation Studies, Vienna. 1–5 Oct. 1973. IAEA, Vienna.
• Parkin T.B., Codling E.E. Rainfall distribution under a corn canopy: Implications for managing agrochemicals. Agron. J. 1990;82:1166-1169.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Quinn N.W., Laflen J.M. Characteristics of raindrop throughfall under corn canopy. Trans. ASAE 1983;26:1445-1450.
• SAS Institute. SAS/STAT Software: Changes and enhancements through release 6.12. Cary, NC: SAS Inst, 1997.
• Shanholtz V.O., Younos T.M. A soil water balance model for no-tillage and conventional till systems. Agric. Water. Manage. 1994;26:155-168.
• Starr J.L., Paltineanu I.C. Soil water dynamics using multisensor capacitance probes in non-traffic interrows of plow- and no-till corn. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1998;62:114-122.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Starr, J.L., I.C. Paltineanu, and D.J. Timlin. 1995. Temporal in situ changes of soil properties as affected by tillage, position and plants. p. 139–140. In Kearney Found. Int. Conf. Proc., Davis, CA. Sept. 1995. Kearney Found. Soil Sci., Davis, CA.
• Steiner J.L., Kanemasu E.T., Clark R.N. Spray losses and partitioning of water under center pivot sprinkler system. Trans. ASAE 1983;26:1128-1134.
• van Elecwijck L. Stemflow on maize: A stemflow equation and the influence of rainfall intensity on stemflow amount. Soil Tech. 1989;2:41-48.
• van Wesenbeeck I., Kachanoski R.G. Spatial and temporal distribution of soil water in the tilled layer under a corn crop. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1988;52:363-368.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Waddell J.A., Weil R.R. Water distribution in soil under ridge-till and no-till corn. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1996;60:230-237.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Warner, G.S., and R.A. Young. 1991. Measurement of preferential flow beneath mature corn. In T.J. Gish and A. Shirmohammadi (ed.) Preferential flow. Proc. Nat. Symp., Chicago. 16–17 Dec. 1991. ASAE, St. Joseph, MI.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				G. B. Triplett Jr. and W. A. Dick No-Tillage Crop Production: A Revolution in Agriculture! Agron. J., May 7, 2008; 100(Supplement_3): S-153 - S-165. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. L. Starr and R. Rowland Soil Water Measurement Comparisons Between Semi-Permanent and Portable Capacitance Probes Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., January 1, 2007; 71(1): 51 - 52. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. L. Starr and D. J. Timlin Using High-Resolution Soil Moisture Data to Assess Soil Water Dynamics in the Vadose Zone Vadose Zone J., August 1, 2004; 3(3): 926 - 935. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. J. Gish, W. P. Dulaney, K.-J. S. Kung, C. S. T. Daughtry, J. A. Doolittle, and P. T. Miller Evaluating Use of Ground-Penetrating Radar for Identifying Subsurface Flow Pathways Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., September 1, 2002; 66(5): 1620 - 1629. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Abstract Figures Only 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 Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (16) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Paltineanu, I.C. Articles by Starr, J.L. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Paltineanu, I.C. Articles by Starr, J.L. Agricola Articles by Paltineanu, I.C. Articles by Starr, J.L.