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

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Schuh, W. M. Articles by Sweeney, M. D. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Schuh, W. M. Articles by Sweeney, M. D. Agricola Articles by Schuh, W. M. Articles by Sweeney, M. D.

Comparison of a Laboratory Procedure and a Textural Model for Predicting In Situ Soil Water Retention

Hydrology Div., North Dakota State Water Commission, 900 East Boulevard, Bismarck, ND 58505

M. D. Sweeney

Soil Science Dep., North Dakota State Univ., Fargo, ND 58105

*Corresponding author.

ABSTRACT

A physico-empirical model proposed by L.M. Arya and J.F. Paris in 1981 for predicting the soil moisture characteristic curve using particle size and bulk density data was compared with a commonly used laboratory method using undisturbed core samples and a pressure plate extractor, for precision in estimating in situ water retention measured with paired neutron probe and tensiometer installations. An empirical factor for the Arya and Paris (A&P) model was found to average close to the value ( = 1.38) proposed by its authors. Values for this experiment were different between texture classes. Loam and silt loam values were constant, while values for soils of sand, loamy sand, and sandy loam texture were nonconstant. The empirical factor was calibrated for (i) loam and coarse loam; (ii) silt loam; and (iii) sand, loamy sand, and sandy loam texture groups. The sandy soil values required linear calibration as a function of soil water potential. Results for the calibrated A&P model compared well, overall, with laboratory determinations on soils ranging in texture from sand to loam and silt loam. Laboratory estimates were slightly better for A and B horizon materials, while A&P estimates were better for C horizons. Error for estimation of field volumetric water content using A&P and lab methods was approximately twice the error for estimation of using a second field neutron-tensiometer installation within one meter of the first field apparatus.

Contribution from the North Dakota State Water Commission.

Received for publication June 15, 1987.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				K. Lamorski, Y. Pachepsky, C. Slawinski, and R. T. Walczak Using Support Vector Machines to Develop Pedotransfer Functions for Water Retention of Soils in Poland Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., September 1, 2008; 72(5): 1243 - 1247. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. M. P. Vaz, M. de Freitas Iossi, J. de Mendonca Naime, A. Macedo, J. M. Reichert, D. J. Reinert, and M. Cooper Validation of the Arya and Paris Water Retention Model for Brazilian Soils Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., April 11, 2005; 69(3): 577 - 583. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. I. Hwang and S. E. Powers Using Particle-Size Distribution Models to Estimate Soil Hydraulic Properties Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., July 1, 2003; 67(4): 1103 - 1112. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				Y. Pachepsky, W. J. Rawls, and D. Gimenez Comparison of soil water retention at field and laboratory scales Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., March 1, 2001; 65(2): 460 - 462. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				Ya. A. Pachepsky and W.J. Rawls Accuracy and Reliability of Pedotransfer Functions as Affected by Grouping Soils Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., November 1, 1999; 63(6): 1748 - 1757. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]