SSSAJ
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text Free
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
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 Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
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 ISI Web of Science (8)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bruckler, L.
Right arrow Articles by Ruy, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Bruckler, L.
Right arrow Articles by Ruy, S.
GeoRef
Right arrow GeoRef Citation
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Bruckler, L.
Right arrow Articles by Ruy, S.
Related Collections
Right arrow Hydraulic Conductivity
Right arrow Experiment Design
Right arrow Soil Physics

Testing an Infiltration Method for Estimating Soil Hydraulic Properties in the Laboratory

L. Bruckler*,a, P. Bertuzzia, R. Angulo-Jaramillob and S. Ruya

a Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, CSE Batiment Sols, Domaine Saint Paul, Site Agroparc, 84914 Montfavet Cedex 9, France
b Laboratoire d'Etude des Transferts en Hydrologie et Environnement, LTHE, UMR 5564 (CNRS, INPG, UJF), B.P.53, 38041 Grenoble Cédex 9, France



View larger version (31K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 1. Schematic representation of Wind's procedure for estimating the retention curve and the hydraulic conductivity–water content relationship under infiltration conditions (we and wm are gravimetric or volumetric water contents).

 


View larger version (41K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 2. Schematic representation of the experimental design: (1) pulsing pump, (2) drip infiltrometer, (3) soil cylinder, (4) microtensiometers, (5) electronic unit, (6) weighing device, (7) multiplexer, (8) datalogger, and (9) microcomputer.

 


View larger version (13K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 3. Simulated water potential versus time at several depths in a soil column under infiltration conditions (a) sandy soil (b) loamy soil.

 


View larger version (11K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 4. Comparison between the theoretical (dotted line) and estimated (continuous line) retention curves in numerical experiments with the infiltration method without measurement errors on tensiometric data (a) sandy soil (b) loamy soil.

 


View larger version (17K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 5. Simulated (symbols) and fitted (continuous line) water content profiles at several times in a soil column under infiltration conditions (a) sandy soil (b) loamy soil.

 


View larger version (18K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 6. Residuals (m3 m-3) of the water content profile fitting according to Eq. [1] during the simulated infiltration (a) sandy soil (b) loamy soil.

 


View larger version (10K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 7. Comparison between the theoretical (continuous line) and estimated (symbols) hydraulic conductivity–water content relationship in numerical experiments with the infiltration method for the sandy soil (a) no error on tensiometric measurements (b) ± 2 x 10-3 m on tensiometric measurements (c) ± 5 x 10-3 m on tensiometric measurements.

 


View larger version (12K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 8. Comparison between the theoretical (continuous line) and estimated (symbols) hydraulic conductivity–water content relationship in numerical experiments with the infiltration method for the loamy soil (a) no error on tensiometric measurements (b) ± 2 x 10-3 m on tensiometric measurements (c) ± 5 x10-3 m on tensiometric measurements conditions.

 


View larger version (23K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 9. Estimated hydraulic conductivity–water content relationship with Wind's method under infiltration conditions for the sandy soil. The parameter {theta}s is not estimated and set to its true value and the Ksat point is an independent measurement.

 


View larger version (16K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 10. Estimated hydraulic conductivity–water content (a) and hydraulic conductivity–water potential (b) relationships with Wind's method under infiltration conditions for the loamy soil. The parameter {theta}s is not estimated and set to its true value and the Ksat point is an independent measurement.

 





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 © 2002 by the Soil Science Society of America.