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 Fleming, J. B. Articles by Butters, G. L. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Fleming, J. B. Articles by Butters, G. L. Agricola Articles by Fleming, J. B. Articles by Butters, G. L.

Bromide Transport Detection in Tilled and Nontilled Soil: Solution Samplers vs. Soil Cores

Dep. of Soil and Water Science, Univ. of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 95721

G. L. Butters^*

Dep. of Soil and Crop Sciences, Colorado State Univ., Fort Collins, CO 80523

*Corresponding author.

ABSTRACT

Experimental validation of solute transport models is often met with unsatisfying or ambiguous results. Aside from the inherent difficulty in conducting these experiments, the lack of a standard set of methodologies employed in these studies may be an impediment. This study was conducted to determine if the method employed in the sampling of soil solutes could influence the results of model validation attempts. A narrow pulse of KBr was uniformly applied to two 25-m² plots, one tilled and the other undisturbed, on a level Ulm clay loam (fine, montmorillonitic, mesic Ustollic Haplargid). Solute movement was then monitored for the next 388 d using replicated ceramic cup solution samplers at depths of 0.15, 0.30, 0.80, 1.20, 1.60, and 2.00 m and by the periodic removal of replicate soil cores in 0.05-m increments to a maximum depth of 3.70 m. Overall, the methods yielded consistent information regarding the mean convective transport of Br^–. Both methodologies indicated deeper and more rapid movement of Br^– in the nontilled soil, although the shallow solution samplers appear to miss the most rapidly moving solute. By the conclusion of the experiment, the difference between the centers of mass of the Br^– plumes in the tilled and nontilled soil was at least 0.6 m. The soil core and solution sampler methods appear to yield inconsistent measures of the solute dispersion but we attribute the differences to the effects of incomplete mass recovery and, we argue, follow naturally from the instrument window of the sampling methodology relative to the observed soil heterogeneity.

Received for publication June 27, 1994.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				T. M. Nissen and M. M. Wander Management and Soil-Quality Effects on Fertilizer-Use Efficiency and Leaching Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., September 1, 2003; 67(5): 1524 - 1532. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. Fortin, E. Gagnon-Bertrand, L. Vezina, and M. Rompre Preferential Bromide and Pesticide Movement to Tile Drains under Different Cropping Practices J. Environ. Qual., November 1, 2002; 31(6): 1940 - 1952. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. Vanderborght, A. Timmerman, and J. Feyen Solute Transport for Steady-State and Transient Flow in Soils with and without Macropores Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., July 1, 2000; 64(4): 1305 - 1317. [Abstract] [Full Text]