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 (3) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Strock, J. S. Articles by Gumpertz, M. L. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Strock, J. S. Articles by Gumpertz, M. L. GeoRef GeoRef Citation Agricola Articles by Strock, J. S. Articles by Gumpertz, M. L.

Spatial Variability of Water and Bromide Transport Through Variably Saturated Soil Blocks

^a Southwest Research and Outreach Center, Univ. of Minnesota, Lamberton, MN 56152
^b Dep. of Soil Science, North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC 27695
^c Statistics Dep., North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC 27695

View larger version (23K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1. (a) Cumulative effluent volume (%) vs. cumulative basal area (%), and (b) cumulative bromide mass (%) vs. cumulative basal area (%) for undisturbed soil blocks from a Piedmont landscape.

View larger version (24K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Mean volumetric water content and soil water pressure, from bromide transport experiments lasting 19–33 d, at four depths and after 22 hr of drainage.

View larger version (31K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Mean soil water pressure versus time and at four depths for replicate soil blocks taken from interfluve, linear slope, and foot slope landscape positions.

View larger version (88K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4. Spatial distribution of cumulative effluent percent by cell from interfluve 1 (a), interfluve 2 (b), linear slope 1 (c), linear slope 2 (d), foot slope 1 (e), and foot slope 2 (f).

View larger version (26K): [in a new window]   Fig. 5. Frequency distribution of cumulative outflow percent from interfluve 1 (a), interfluve 2 (b), linear slope 1 (c), linear slope 2 (d), foot slope 1 (e), and foot slope 2 (f).

View larger version (19K): [in a new window]   Fig. 6. Breakthrough curves for replicate soil blocks taken from the interfluve (a), linear slope (b), and foot slope (c).

View larger version (20K): [in a new window]   Fig. 7. Regression of percent cumulative effluent versus percent total bromide for (a) interfluve 1 and 2, (b) linear slope 1 and 2, and (c) footslope 1 and 2.