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 (8) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Si, B. Articles by Elrick, D.E. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Si, B. Articles by Elrick, D.E. Agricola Articles by Si, B. Articles by Elrick, D.E.

Measurement of Hydraulic Properties During Constant Flux Infiltration

Field Average

^a Land Resource Dep., Univ. of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1 Canada
^b College of Graduate Studies and Research, Univ. of Saskatchewan, 3 Campus Drive, Saskatoon, SK S7N 5A4 Canada

View larger version (15K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1 Diagram of wetted sample area (2 x 9 m2) and locations of multipurpose TDR probes

View larger version (15K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2 Water content vs. time for 40-, 60-, and 80-cm probes at position 3.4 m

View larger version (15K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3 Example of the linear relationship of water storage vs. time, at early time, for application rate 2.59 cm h-1 and TDR probe (20 cm) at position 3.4 m. The first five points were used in the regression

View larger version (19K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4 Measured and fitted water retention curves for 0- to 20-cm depth

View larger version (20K): [in a new window]   Fig. 5 Measured and fitted hydraulic conductivity curves for 0- to 20-cm depth

View larger version (19K): [in a new window]   Fig. 6 Average hydraulic conductivity as a function of average soil water content calculated for separate depth increments

View larger version (25K): [in a new window]   Fig. 7 Measured and predicted water storage (0–20 cm) vs. time for different application rates

View larger version (25K): [in a new window]   Fig. 8 Measured and predicted water storage (0–40 cm) vs. time for different application rates