SSSAJ Grow Your Career with SSSA
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Published in Soil Sci Soc Am J 40:18-25 (1976)
© 1976 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 Kimball, B. A.
Right arrow Articles by Idso, S. B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Kimball, B. A.
Right arrow Articles by Idso, S. B.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Kimball, B. A.
Right arrow Articles by Idso, S. B.

Comparison of Field-measured and Calculated Soil-heat Fluxes1

B. A. Kimball, R. D. Jackson, R. J. Reginato, F. S. Nakayama and S. B. Idso2

ABSTRACT

Soil-heat fluxes calculated using DeVries' theory (1958, 1963) were compared with those experimentally determined in a field of Avondale loam at Phoenix, Ariz., on 6 days representing different seasons of the year. A fair agreement between measured and computed fluxes was obtained only after modifying the air shape factor curve and ignoring heat transfer due to water vapor movement. The omission of the latter implied that heat transfer by pure conduction was most important and that thermal and isothermal vapor fluxes exactly cancelled during the day and were insignificant at night.

"Measured" thermal conductivities were also determined from the ratio of the measured heat fluxes to the corresponding temperature gradient for those times when it was unlikely that isothermal vapor movement was significant. The lack of a temperature dependence in these data, as well as the flux comparisons, strongly indicate that the theory overestimated thermal vapor movement. These data plus others in the literature indicate that an individual "calibration" of the theory for a particular soil is required before reliable predications of soil-heat flux can be obtained.


NOTES

1 Contribution from the Agricultural Research Service, USDA.

2 Soil Scientist, Research Physicist, Soil Scientist, Research Chemist, and Soil Scientist, respectively, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory, 4331 E. Broadway, Phoenix, AZ 85040.

Received for publication May 5, 1975. Accepted for publication October 2, 1975.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Soil Sci.Home page
J. L. Heitman, R. Horton, T. Ren, I. N. Nassar, and D. D. Davis
A Test of Coupled Soil Heat and Water Transfer Prediction under Transient Boundary Temperatures
Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., September 1, 2008; 72(5): 1197 - 1207.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Agron. J.Home page
J. L. Steiner and J. L. Hatfield
Winds of Change: A Century of Agroclimate Research
Agron. J., May 7, 2008; 100(Supplement_3): S-132 - S-152.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Soil Sci.Home page
J. Bachmann, R. Horton, and R. R. van der Ploeg
Isothermal and Nonisothermal Evaporation from Four Sandy Soils of Different Water Repellency
Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., November 1, 2001; 65(6): 1599 - 1607.
[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 © 1976 by the Soil Science Society of America.