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

This Article Abstract Figures Only Full Text (PDF) Free An erratum has been published 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 (7) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Regalado, C. M. Articles by Ritter, A. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Regalado, C. M. Articles by Ritter, A. GeoRef GeoRef Citation Agricola Articles by Regalado, C. M. Articles by Ritter, A. Related Collections Hydrophobicity Volcanic Soils Water repellency

Soil Physics

Characterizing Water Dependent Soil Repellency with Minimal Parameter Requirement

Instituto Canario de Investigaciones Agrarias (ICIA), Dep. Suelos y Riegos, Apdo. 60 La Laguna, 38200 Tenerife, Spain

^* Corresponding author (cregalad{at}icia.es)

	ABSTRACT

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MATERIALS AND METHODS RESULTS AND DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONS REFERENCES

 
Soil water repellency varies nonlinearly with soil moisture, describing a repellency versus water content curve. Despite this water dependence, soil repellency is usually characterized by repellency indexes measured at fixed soil water content. We provide a statistically robust yet simple method to determine water repellency at a range of soil water contents, by proposing alternative water-dependent soil repellency parameters derived from the molarity of an ethanol droplet (MED) test. Useful correlations are found between some of these proposed repellency parameters, such is the case of the integrated area below the repellency curve, which is found to be strongly correlated with the soil water content at minimum repellency. Consequently, an efficient strategy for describing the repellency versus water content curve is designed based on a combination of parameter interdependence and a minimum number of determinations necessary. Following this strategy, only 27 samples are sufficient (p < 0.05) to characterize the water-dependent repellency of the studied soil. The integrated area below the repellency curve is proposed as the key index for repellency characterization. Furthermore, a new combined parameter IRDI (Integrative Repellency Dynamic Index) is defined as a measure of the average water dependent repellency. This allows simple comparisons of the whole water repellency behavior among different soils by coalescing the repellency curve into a single characteristic value.

Abbreviations: CDF, cumulative distribution function • CV, coefficient of variation • IRDI, Integrative Repellency Dynamic Index • MED, molarity of an ethanol droplet • OM, organic matter • PP, probability plots • SD, standard deviation • WDPT, water drop penetration time

	INTRODUCTION

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MATERIALS AND METHODS RESULTS AND DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONS REFERENCES

 
MOST SANDY, LOAMY, and clayey textured mineral soils and those of volcanic origin exhibit water repellency to some extent (Wallis and Horne, 1992; Doerr et al., 2000; Jaramillo et al., 2000). Water repellency may be caused by lowered surface free energy of the soil particles (Roy and McGill, 2002), due to organic coating by amphiphilic substances. These substances may originate from vegetation cover, microorganism activity, humic acids or lipids (Wallis and Horne, 1992). Investigating soil water repellency is important because it affects many other soil processes, such as infiltration (Wallis et al., 1990; van Dam et al., 1996), solute transport (Bauters et al., 2000), preferential flow (Jaminson, 1945; Ma'shum and Farmer, 1985; Wallis and Horne, 1992), overland flow, and soil erosion (Shakesby et al., 1994).

Wallis and Horne (1992) and Letey et al. (2000) reviewed many different measuring techniques and approaches used to characterize water repellency. Among these techniques, the water drop penetration time (WDPT) test (Letey, 1969) and the MED test (Roy and McGill, 2002) are suitable for moderately repellent soils. The former is a measure of hydrophobicity persistency, while the latter gives an indication of the degree of repellency. For slightly water repellent soils, the capillary-rise method (Letey et al., 1962), the tension infiltrometer (Tillman et al., 1989), and more recently the Wilhelmy plate method (Bachmann et al., 2003) can measure subcritical repellency (Tillman et al., 1989). Based on these methods, different repellency indexes have been derived (Letey et al., 2000).

Water repellency varies nonlinearly with the soil water content (King, 1981; Wallis et al., 1990; de Jonge et al., 1999; Goebel et al., 2004). Hence, repellency indexes are to be considered water dependent. Despite the interdependence between soil water content and hydrophobicity, repellency parameters are usually measured at one extreme water content only. Furthermore, there is no agreement about the parameters or indexes necessary for a complete characterization of the water dependency of soil repellency. In general soils are wettable close to saturation, becoming water repellent up to a maximum as moisture content decreases. After this maximum water repellency diminishes monotonically with decreasing water content, or rises again to a second local maximum (de Jonge et al., 1999; Goebel et al., 2004). The origin of this nonlinear behavior is not well understood, although some proposed hypotheses speculate about an enhanced microbial activity with increasing relative humidity, that is, soil water content (Roberts and Carbon, 1971; Jex et al., 1985); molecular conformational changes in the organic matter responsible for hydrophobicity (Wallis et al., 1990); the attachment/detachment of hydrophobic molecules from the soil mineral particles as water content varies (Doerr and Thomas, 2000); disruption of mineral and organic hydrophobic bonds by the energy release that comes from vapor condensation, and hence the displacement of hydrophobic moieties into soil pores (Doerr et al., 2002); reduction of soil particles surface free energy due to the formation of thin water films or the interaction between water and hydrophobic organic molecules (Derjaguin and Churaev, 1986; Goebel et al., 2004).

Repellency parameters are selected by the physical meaning of a particular soil water repellency aspect (surface tension, contact angle, or surface free energy of the solid) that is to be characterized. A thorough investigation of the statistical properties of these repellency parameters, specifically normality, variability, and minimal number of determinations, has not been performed up to date. Such properties are desirable if for example, soil water repellency data are to be included for extending solute transport, overland flow and erosion simulation models. In addition, repellency is usually measured at fixed water content, without considering its soil moisture dependency. Thereby, it would be useful to derive parameters from the repellency versus water content curve that integrate the water dependent behavior of soil repellency, which must be considered as a dynamic property. In this paper we discuss parameters derived from the MED test, because it provides physically meaningful data such as the contact angle or the surface free energy of the solid particles of the soil.

The objectives of this paper are: (i) to propose both static (water independent) and dynamic parameters to quantify the soil water repellency curve; (ii) to investigate their statistical properties and interdependency, determining the repellency parameters, which give the lowest variability and, based on these results, (iii) to provide an efficient strategy to fully characterize the repellency vs. water content curve with the smallest number of replicates.

	MATERIALS AND METHODS

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MATERIALS AND METHODS RESULTS AND DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONS REFERENCES

 
Study Area
The area of study is a 43.7-ha watershed in the Garajonay National Park, La Gomera Island, Spain (Fig. 1a, b) . It is covered by a subtropical mature mountain cloud forest mainly composed of species of the Laureaceae family partly covered by epiphytic bryophytes (Golubic, 2001). The watershed altitude ranges from 1090 to 1300 m above sea level with steep topography (slopes range between 10 and 40%) (Ritter and Regalado, 1999). The National Park is situated under the influence of a stratocumulus cloud layer caused by the trade wind temperature inversion that produces fog as it reaches the central high plateau of the island. These fog conditions provide high relative humidity and small temperature fluctuations for almost all of the year. Mean annual temperature and relative humidity range from 13 to 15°C, and 75 to 90%, respectively, while annual rainfall is between 600 and 800 mm. Soils are of volcanic origin and may be classified as Fulvudand. Their andic character confers particular physicochemical and hydraulic properties, such as high permeability, low bulk density, large microporosity, and water retention capacity (Warkentin and Maeda, 1980).

View larger version (81K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 1. (a, b) Location of the experimental site and sampling design: (c) random sampling for soil physicochemical properties, and (d) uniform for molarity of an ethanol droplet (MED) determinations.

Soil Physicochemical Properties
Standard methods (Dane and Topp, 2002) were used for determining the physicochemical properties. Soil texture was determined by the method of the Bouyoucos densimeter, with hexametaphosphate as the dispersing agent. The bulk density and porosity were determined by gravimetry in undisturbed samples. pH was determined both in water and NaF (Blakemore et al., 1981). The organic matter content was measured with the Walkey-Black method (Schnitzer, 1986). Lipid content was determined by extraction with Dicloromethane/methanol (9:1 v/v). Soil water retention at –33 kPa (field capacity) and –1500 kPa (wilting point) were determined with Richards porous plates. Soils were saturated with a 0.005 M CaSO₄ and thymol solution to minimize clay disaggregation and avoid degradation of organic matter (Dane and Hopmans, 2002). Since we observed significant soil shrinking as samples dried, individual weights of 0.7 kg were placed on top of each Richard's sample to assure close contact between the soil and the ceramic plates following Klute (1986). Soil surface area (S_e) was determined by placing 1 g of soil in weighing bottles and dried in vacuum to constant weight over diphosphorus pentaoxyde. These were then saturated to constant weight by adsorption in a sulfuric acid atmosphere (Newman, 1983).

Water Repellency Determinations
About 230 mL of each soil sample were placed on Petri dishes (0.14 m diam. and 0.02 m deep) and wetted from field moisture to saturation by manually spraying distilled water, homogenizing with a teaspoon, and leaving at room temperature for moisture equilibration for at least 24 h. The wetting process was performed in several steps for 2 to 3 d, during which Petri dishes remained closed to minimize evaporation. After saturation, repellency measurements were performed in desorption steps of about 3 g in weight and at least at 10 steps for each sample. In the early stages repellency was measured in air-dried samples leaving the Petri dishes open at room temperature. In the final stages (water content, _g < 0.20 kg kg^–1) samples were oven dried at 55, 60, and 105°C, leaving the samples to cool down at room temperature before starting with the repellency measurements.

Water repellency was determined with the MED test (Roy and McGill, 2002) using solutions of the following ethanol concentrations: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10%, and from 12.5 to 100% in 2.5% steps. Before each MED measurement, soil samples were weighed, homogenized, and leveled with a teaspoon and shaking. Ethanol molarity, M (mol L^–1), data was then converted to contact angle, , by means of (Roy and McGill, 2002):

[1]

where _w is the water-air surface tension (71.27 mN m^–1), and the 90° surface tension, _90°, (mN m^–1) is given by (King, 1981):

[2]

In Eq. [1] ranges from 90 to 109° (Roy and Mc. Gill, 2002). A wettable soil would have a contact angle 90°, while for a water repellent soil > 90°. The _90° is related to the solid-air surface tension or surface free energy of the solid, _s (mN m^–1), by the following simple proportionality relation (Carrillo et al., 1999):

[3]

where is a constant that varies with the molecular properties of the solid and liquid and has values ranging from 0.5 to 1.15. The molecular interaction parameter was recently investigated by Arye (G.A. Arye, personal communication, 2005), who propose average values for soils around 0.6.

Additionally, the WDPT test (Letey, 1969) was also used to characterize water repellency persistency with soil depth in a small subset of air-dried samples (n = 32).

Repellency Parameters
The description of the water dependent repellency curve in terms of quantitative parameters is scarce (de Jonge et al., 1999). We have analyzed the following 10 parameters to characterize the repellency versus water content curve (Fig. 2) : (1) both the increasing (s⁺) and, (2) modulus of the decreasing (|s^–|) repellency slopes (° kg^–1 kg); (3) the trapezoidal integrated area below the (_g) curve, S (° kg kg^–1); (4) the maximum contact angle measured, _max [°]; (5) the water content at _max, _g-max (kg kg^–1); (6) the contact angle in the dried soil, _105°C [°], or potential repellency (Dekker and Ritsema, 1994); (7) the lowest _g at which repellency is negligible ( 90°), _g-min (kg kg^–1); (8) the difference between maximum and potential repellency, _err [°] (i.e., _err = _max–_105°C); (9) the surface free energy of the solid at minimum water content, _s-105°C (mN m^–1); and (10) when repellency is maximum, _s-max (mN m^–1) (i.e., minimum surface free energy of the solid).

View larger version (21K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Mean repellency curves, indicating the parameters selected for their description, (a) in terms of contact angle, ; or (b) surface free energy of the solid, s. Bars indicate 95% confidence interval. For repellency parameter definitions see caption in Table 2.

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]   Table 2. Main statistics: mean, standard deviation (SD), range, and normality transformation (), of the repellency parameters (n = 140). Contact angle in the dried soil (105°C); surface free energy of the solid at minimum water content, s-105°C; and when repellency is maximum, s-max; maximum contact angle (max); err = max–105°C; water content at max (g-max); lowest g at which repellency is negligible (g-min); increasing (s+) and modulus of the decreasing (|s–|) repellency slopes; integrated area below the repellency (g) curve (S); organic matter content (OM).

[4]

where the plotting position was defined as p_i = (i – b)/(n + 1 – 2b), with n being the number of samples and b a plotting position parameter. A traditional choice is Blom's plotting position, b = 3/8, which ensures unbiased quantiles (Stedinger et al., 1992). Visual inspection of the plot of X_i versus Z_pi will thus reveal that if the data followed the hypothesized distribution, it should yield a straight line through the origin (Stedinger et al., 1992). Probability plots were computed with SYSTAT 10 (SPSS Inc., 2000).

Box-Cox Normality Plots
Visual inspection of probability plots is however rather subjective, and hence a more objective procedure was needed. A particularly useful family of transformations to achieve normality is the Box-Cox transformation:

[5]

where is the transformation parameter and X^*_i the transformed value, however, for 0, the transformation reverts to the natural logarithm of the data. Given the above Box-Cox transformation, it is helpful to define a measure of the normality of the resulting transformation by means of the correlation coefficient of a normal probability plot. The correlation is computed between the vertical and horizontal axis variables of the PP and is an objective measure of the linearity of the PP. The Box-Cox normality plot is a plot of these correlation coefficients for various values of the parameter (NIST/SEMATECH, 2005). The value of corresponding to the maximum correlation on the plot is then the optimal choice for . Box-Cox normality plots were computed with Dataplot (Filliben et al., 1978).

Minimum Number of Samples
Another important criterion when deciding between different measuring methods is the number of samples necessary to estimate the population mean of the parameter. This question may be solved in terms of the accepted range ± d about the mean. The number of samples required to estimate the mean of a population with a standard deviation is given by (Warrick and Nielsen, 1980):

[6]

n is the number of samples and Z_0.05 is the normalized difference from the mean for a 95% error probability (i.e., Z_0.05 = 1.96).

	RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MATERIALS AND METHODS RESULTS AND DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONS REFERENCES

 
Soil Characterization
USDA soil texture is loamy-clay (18.1% clay, 22.6% silt, 59.3% sand) and soil pH is acid (5.5 ± 0.4). Water retention is high at both field capacity (1.25 ± 0.24 kg kg^–1) and wilting point (0.43 ± 0.05 kg kg^–1), as it is typical of volcanic soils. Bulk density is low (600 ± 100 kg m^–3) because of the large microporosity and high organic matter content (42.3 ± 12.1 g 100 g^–1). Mean surface area is 197 ± 21 m²g^–1. The Al_p/Al_o and Al_o+ 1/2Fe_o relations and the organic matter content, constitute an organomineral soil in the top horizon. Both organic matter and lipid content decreased with soil depth, as did WDPT and MED contact angle. Below 0.23 m, soils were wettable at air-dry moisture. pH_NaF was lower in the first centimeters of the soil, which is consistent with the organomineral character of the topsoil (Table 1).

King (1981) also found increasingly sharp water repellency when water content varied from air-dry to near the wilting point, where it reached a maximum, and then decreased sharply to zero close to field capacity. Although hysteresis cannot be discarded in our case, rewetting oven-dry soil samples may bias the results, because of the heat pretreatment (de Jonge et al., 1999). This is particularly relevant in volcanic soils, where drying can have irreversible effects (Warkentin and Maeda, 1980). From air- to oven-dry we found that water repellency was essentially unchanged in most soil samples (70%), while 30% showed a decrease in water repellency within this moisture regime. King (1981) also observed that water repellency remained unchanged as soil moisture increased from oven to air-dry. De Jonge et al. (1999) and Goebel et al. (2004) reported a nonlinear behavior of water repellency. However, in their case most soils were wettable at very low water contents. In our case, only two soil samples recovered wettability after being oven dried (105°C). The drying process did not have an intensifying effect on the repellency, as found by de Jonge et al. (1999), where a second repellency maximum was detected for very low water contents as a consequence of the high temperatures. Heating may well affect the stereochemistry of the hydrophobic compounds or volatilize organic matter, and this may have some effect on the shape of the repellency curve at very low water contents (_g < 0.20 kg kg^–1). However, these effects are not relevant in field conditions and even then most of the conclusions derive here refer to water contents _g > 0.20 kg kg^–1. For some soil samples we observed only a slight increase in water repellency in the 105°C dried measurements, compared with that at the previous water content (60°C), but this cannot be attributed to temperature effects since similar behavior was observed by de Jonge et al. (1999) in freeze-dried samples.

Quantitative Description of the Water Repellency Curve
Statistics of the Repellency Parameters and Minimum Number of Measurements
Repellency parameters proposed to characterize the repellency versus water content curve have been introduced in the Materials and Methods section and Fig. 2. Standard statistics of these parameters and for the soil organic matter content (OM) are summarized in Table 2 and 3. A first look at these statistics shows that variability was different for the various parameters. In general, repellency parameters showed low variability, as compared with hydraulic or electrical conductivity with CV > 100% (Table 9.1 in Mulla and McBratney, 2002). While repellency slopes, s⁺ and |s^–|, are relatively highly variable (CV > 50%), _s-105°C, _s-max, _g-max, _g-min, _err, S, and OM show moderate variability (10 < CV 31%), and _105°C, _max are little variable (CV < 3%). Notice that although _105°C and _s-105°C, _max, and _s-max are equivalent parameters, their CV is quite different (Table 3). This is because the relationship between and _s is highly nonlinear (see Eq. [1]–[3]). From a methodological point of view, those parameters that show lower variability are preferable, since the minimum number of measurements necessary to characterize confidently the repellency curve is smaller. Notice that the estimation of some parameters with d = 5%, such as the repellency slopes, would require an extremely large number of samples if the mean is to be computed with a 95% probability (Table 3).

View larger version (37K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Probability plots of repellency parameters. Vertical axes show the expected value, Zpi.

One of the limitations of PP is that suitable transformations to achieve normality are not searched systematically. Additionally, interpretation of probability plots is rather subjective, since the best Gaussian transformation is determined by their visual inspection. A more systematic procedure is that of Box-Cox normality plots. Figure 4 depicts Box-Cox normality plots for the investigated parameters. Inspection of these shows that the log or power transformation is generally only an approximation of the best Gaussian distribution. The surface free energy of the solid at maximum repellency, _s-max, approaches normality after raising this parameter to a power of –1, although improvement is small; _s-105°C follows a normal distribution after a power transformation with exponent = –2. In most cases the Box-Cox curve rises sharply from = –2, until reaching its maximum. Thus finding a suitable normalizing transformation, based on the visual inspection ("eyeballing") of a probability plot would have not been difficult in these cases. By contrast, the S and _g-min Box-Cox curves appear flatter, rising slightly from = –2 (r² 0.92) up to a maximum between = 0 and = 1. Certainly, in these two examples, a decision based on the visual judgment of the probability plots would have not concluded that the underlying distributions were different for = 0 (log-normal) or = 1 (normal). _g-max and OM are considered Gaussian, since the maximum correlation is achieved near = 1.

View larger version (23K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 4. Box-Cox normality plots of repellency parameters. Vertical axes show the correlation coefficient. For repellency parameter definitions see caption in Table 2.

[7]

where l is the number of water monolayers of thickness (3.5 Å) bounded to the soil particles; _w is the water density, and S_e (m²g^–1) is the soil surface area. In a subset of n = 18 soil samples, we determined both the wilting moisture and the water content at –33 kPa or field capacity, _fc, and the surface area. Assuming three sheets of bound water (l = 3) in Eq. [7], the resulting mean _bw is 0.21 kg kg^–1. From this data subset, the following relation was found between _bw and _g-max (R² = 0.658):

[8]

Thus, since the slope in Eq. [8] is not unity, we can conclude that coating of the soil solid particles exerts a water repellency action further away from three sheets of water layers. Long-range forces on water layers adjacent to interfaces are well illustrated in the literature. For example, it has been demonstrated the existence of a sharp water birefringence interface at about 40 to 60 nm from solid substrates (Derjaguin and Churaev, 1986). A reduced water dielectric permittivity of ₀ = 23 to 25 (instead of 70 for bulk water) has been measured in montmorillonite interlayers of thickness 50 to 80 Å, that is, 7 to 11 water diameters apart from the montmorillonite surface (Derjaguin and Churaev, 1986).

Additionally we found the following relation between _g-max and the wilting moisture, _wp in gravimetric units (R² = 0.715) (Fig. 5a) :

[9]

View larger version (10K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 5. Correlation of the repellency parameters g-max and g-min with the soil water retention parameters (a) wp and (b) fc.

[10]

in terms of the soil wilting volumetric moisture.

Wettability is fully recovered at about field capacity. A plot of _g-min versus _fc shows this, as the correlation equation between the two is not far from the 1:1 line (dash line in Fig. 5b).

Parameter Correlations
Based on the need for a multi-parameter characterization of the water repellency curve, and given the distinct variability of such parameters, we have explored the possibility that some of these may be correlated. This may provide an efficient approach for characterizing the –_g curve. Table 4 summarizes the Spearman's rank correlation coefficient between the different parameters, and also the soil organic matter content. Relevant correlations are underlined. One may observe that S is correlated with most parameters, in particular, with _g-max, _g-min, s⁺, |s^–| and OM, where modulus of Spearman's rank correlation coefficient is above 0.725 (Fig. 6 and Table 4). De Jonge et al. (1999) also found a good correlation between S and OM. However, the results from different studies show that generally repellency is not correlated with the total amount of OM but with its "type" and degree of decomposition (Doerr et al., 2000; Ellerbrock et al., 2005). It is reliable the almost exact match of S and _g-min (R² = 0.997). This linear relationship S = S(_g-min) is expected, given the following approximate analytical expression of S obtained by triangularization:

[11]

View larger version (22K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 6. Correlation of the integrated area below the repellency curve, S, with other repellency parameters such as the water content at maximum, g-max, and minimum repellency, g-min, and with soil organic matter content (OM).

The above results motivate the following combined repellency parameter:

[12]

Notice that the parameter IRDI (Integrative Repellency Dynamic Index) is a measure of the average repellency function = (_g) within the water interval [0, _g-min], in contact angle units. It allows simple comparisons of the whole water repellency behavior among different soils by coalescing the repellency curve into a single characteristic value. We may stress the low variability of IRDI in our case, CV = 1.64%, which is certainly a consequence of the linear correlation between S and _g-min shown in Eq. [11] and Fig. 6b.

Strategy for Repellency Characterization
We thus propose the following efficient strategy to characterize the repellency properties of the current soil (Fig. 7) . This strategy needs to be proved in other soils before becoming a general procedure. S can be determined either from the OM of the soil sample (Fig. 6a) or _g-min (Fig. 6b). The former is not part of the repellency measurement protocol, but it is not unusual that this may have been measured, so it can provide us a rapid estimation of the S value, although with higher uncertainty (R² = 0.597). To be able to determine the water content at which _g-min is localized, at least three repellency measures at decreasing steps of water content from saturation are needed. However, this process is simplified by taking into account that _g-min is placed near the soil field capacity (Fig. 5b), and this may be already known or can be estimated from for example, soil texture. Combining S and _g-min the IRDI value can be computed. Once S is estimated, one can predict the moisture content at which repellency is maximum, that is, _g-max (R² = 0.544). Additional information as the soil surface area of the sample or the wilting point may provide us a way to check the validity of this result, by using Eq. [7], [8], and [9]. The inverse result is also valid and one may be able to provide an estimate of S_e and _wp from _g-max making use of the inverse relations described by Eq. [7], [8], and [9]. We computed the root mean square error (RMSE) of the two possible strategies for estimating _g-max that is, either from OM (Path A in Fig. 7) or from _g-min (Path B in Fig. 7), as a mean to quantify in one single measure the error involved in two consecutive determinations. As expected, RMSE of Path A is higher than B (0.147 versus 0.124). Finally once _g-max is identified, one can measure _s-max or _max by performing the MED test at such fixed water content. Also from S one can estimate two dynamic repellency properties as s⁺ and |s^–| (Fig. 7). Table 3 can help us in providing the minimum number of samples necessary in each case. The direct determination of s⁺ and |s^–| would require a rather intensive measuring campaign, not only because of their large variability (CV = 54.83 and 55.41%, respectively; Table 3), but also because for each slope computation at least three repellency measurements would be necessary for each soil sample. Thus the above extrapolation strategy may be a way to get round this problem. Additionally, a value of repellency when the soil sample is dried at 105°C can provide both the potential repellency and also an estimation of _err (Table 4).

View larger version (23K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 7. Flow diagram of the strategy proposed for characterizing the repellency curve with a minimal number of determinations. IRDI: Integrative Repellency Dynamic Index; OM: organic matter; Se: surface area; fc and wp: water content at field capacity and wilting point, respectively. For repellency parameter definitions see caption in Table 2.

	CONCLUSIONS

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MATERIALS AND METHODS RESULTS AND DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONS REFERENCES

By contrast to other soil properties, such as the water retention curve, which is described by generally accepted van Genuchten's parameters, there is no agreement about the parameters necessary for a complete characterization of the repellency curve. The integrated area below the repellency curve is an optimal candidate, since it encompasses both the water dependency of soil repellency and the correlation with most dynamic and static parameters investigated. In addition, S exhibits favorable statistical properties, such as normality and moderate variability. Taking into account all this information, we designed an efficient strategy to fully characterize the repellency curve, where S is the key index for repellency characterization. Following this strategy, S can be estimated in this soil through _g-min with only 27 samples. Furthermore, S and _g-min may be combined into a single parameter, IRDI as a measure of the average water dependent repellency.

The above conclusions have been obtained for one sampling site and it is not known how applicable the results are in a wider context. However the underlying assumption behind the current study is that some physicochemical processes support the shape of the repellency curve (and therefore the parameters that characterize it), since this has been also confirmed in previous studies from other World regions and soil types. In this sense some clues have been provided here in terms of the free energy of the organic coating of soil particles and its modification by the number of bound water layers. What may not be applicable in other studies is the "exact" numbers derived here, but the strategy, parameter sets to be investigated and mathematical techniques used.

Temporal variability is another issue not specifically addressed in this paper. In the field, soil water repellency is affected by physicochemical and biological effects throughout a wide variety of timescales. It is however worth stressing that some underlying temporal variability is implicit in the current study throughout the inclusion of the soil water status, since soil moisture content in the field is time dependent. As part of a hydrological study currently being performed in the studied watershed, field soil water content data is available. The inclusion of field soil moisture data into the above derived parameters may provide us with a more dynamic view of the repellency status of the soil in field conditions. Also field spatial variability of repellency parameters has not been addressed here. This will be presented elsewhere.

This study shows the importance of an appropriate experimental design and statistical analysis to obtain representative repellency indexes. In addition, such analysis may be useful for mean comparisons, spatial variability analysis, modeling, etc. A similar analysis as the one performed here, with parameters derived from the MED test, can be applied also to others, such as the soil repellency persistency measured with the WDPT test.

	ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

 
The authors thank A.R. Socorro and A. Pérez (ICIA) for their help in the field survey and laboratory analysis; Dr. G. Aschan (University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany) for his contribution in the vegetation description; S. Armas and Dr. J.M. Hernández (University of La Laguna, Spain) for the determination of andic properties; Dr. D.F.W. Naafs (Utrecht University, The Netherlands) for the soil lipid content determinations. We also thank A. Fernández and L.A. Gómez (Garajonay National Park) for their support. This work was financed with funds of the INIA Project Nr. RTA 01-097.

Received for publication February 25, 2005.

	REFERENCES

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MATERIALS AND METHODS RESULTS AND DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONS REFERENCES

 

• Bauters, T.W.J., T.S. Steenhuis, D.A. DiCarlo, J.L. Nieber, L.W. Dekker, C.J. Ritsema, J.-I. Parlange, and R. Haverkamp. 2000. Physics of water repellent soils. J. Hydrol. (Amsterdam) 231–232:233–243.
• Bachmann, J., S.K. Woche, M.-O. Goebel, M.B. Kirkham, and R. Horton. 2003. Extended methodology for determining wetting of porous media. Water Resour. Res. 39:1353 10.1029/2003WR002143.
• Blakemore, L.C., P.L. Searle, and B.K. Daly. 1981. Methods for chemical analysis of soils. New Zealand Soil Bureau Scientific Report 10A. DSIRO, Lower Hutt, New Zealand.
• Carrillo, M.L.K., J. Letey, and S.R. Yates. 1999. Measurement of initial soil-water contact angle of water repellent soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 63:433–436.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Dane, J.H., and J.W. Hopmans. 2002. Laboratory. Section p. 678–679. In J.H. Dane and G.C. Topp (ed.) Methods of soils analysis. Part 4. SSSA Book Series No. 5. SSSA, Madison, WI.
• Dane, J.H., and G.C. Topp (ed.). 2002. Methods of soils analysis. Part 4. SSSA Book Series No. 5. SSSA, Madison, WI.
• de Jonge, L.W., O.H. Jacobsen, and P. Moldrup. 1999. Soil water repellency: Effects of water content, temperature, and particle size. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 63:437–442.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Dekker, L.W., and C.J. Ritsema. 1994. How water moves in a water repellent sandy soil 1. Potential and actual water repellency. Water Resour. Res. 30:2507–2517.
• Derjaguin, B.V., and N.V. Churaev. 1986. Properties of water layers adjacent to interfaces. p. 663–738. In C.A. Croxton (ed.) Fluid interfacial phenomena. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
• Dirksen, C., and S. Dasberg. 1993. Improved calibration of time domain reflectometry soil water content measurements. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 57:660–667.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Doerr, S.H., and A.D. Thomas. 2000. The role of soil moisture in controlling water repellency: New evidence from forest soils in Portugal. J. Hydrol. (Amsterdam) 231–232:134–147.
• Doerr, S.H., R.A. Shakesby, and R.P.D. Walsh. 2000. Soil water repellency: Its causes, characteristics and hydro-geomorphological significance. Earth Sci. Rev. 51:33–65.[CrossRef]
• Doerr, S.H., L.W. Dekker, C.J. Ritsema, R.A. Shakesby, and R. Bryant. 2002. Water repellency of soils: The influence of ambient relative humidity. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 66:401–405.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Ellerbrock, R.H., H.H. Gerke, J. Bachmann, and M.-O. Goebel. 2005. Composition of organic matter fractions for explaining wettability of three forest soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 69:57–66.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Filliben, J.J., A. Heckert, and R.R. Lipman. 1978. NIST Dataplot. Co-sponsored by HPPC/SIMA. Available at www.itl.nist.gov/div898/software/dataplot/ (verified 11 Aug. 2005).
• Goebel, M.-O., J. Bachmann, S.K. Woche, W.R. Fischer, and R. Horton. 2004. Water potential and aggregate size effects on contact angle and surface energy. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 68:383–393.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Golubic, I. 2001. Vegetationskundliche Analyse von Lorbeerwald-und ähnlichen Beständen im Rahmen einer Untersuchung des Landschftswasserhaushalts im Garajonay National Park La Gomera (Kanarische Inseln). Diplomarbeit am Fachbereich 9/Pflanzensozieologie und–Ökologie. Universität Essen.
• Hallett, P.D., N. Nunan, J.T. Douglas, and I.M. Young. 2004. Millimeter-scale spatial variability in soil water sorptivity: Scale, surface elevation, and subcritical repellency effects. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 68:352–358.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Hopmans, J.W., and B. Overmars. 1986. Presentation and application of an analytical model to describe soil hydraulic properties. J. Hydrol. (Amsterdam) 87:135–143.
• Horowitz, J., and D. Hillel. 1987. A theoretical approach to the areal distribution of soil surface conductivity. Soil Sci. 143:231–240.
• Jaminson, V.C. 1945. The penetration of irrigation and rain water into sandy soils of Central Florida. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 10:25–29.
• Jaramillo, D.F., L.W. Dekker, C.J. Ritsema, and J.M.H. Hendrickx. 2000. Occurrence of soil water repellency in arid and humid climates. J. Hydrol. (Amsterdam) 231:105–111.
• Jex, G.W., B.H. Bleakley, D.H. Hubbell, and L.L. Munro. 1985. High humidity-induced increase in water repellency in some sandy soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 49:1177–1182.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• King, P.M. 1981. Comparison of methods for measuring severity of water repellence of sandy soils and assessment of some factors that affect its measurement. Aust. J. Soil Res. 19:275–285.[CrossRef]
• Klute, A. 1986. Water retention: Laboratory methods. In A. Klute (ed.) Methods of soil analysis. Part 1. 2nd ed. p. 581–594. ASA and SSSA, Madison, WI.
• Letey, J. 1969. Measurement of contact angle, water drop penetration time, and critical surface tension. Proc. Symp. Water Rep. Soils, Univ. Calif., Riverside.
• Letey, J., J. Osborn, and R.E. Pelishek. 1962. Measurement of liquid-solid contact angles in soil and sand. Soil Sci. 93:149–153.
• Letey, J., M.L.K. Carrillo, and X.P. Pang. 2000. Approaches to characterize the degree of water repellency. J. Hydrol. (Amsterdam) 231–232:61–65.
• Ma'shum, M., and V.C. Farmer. 1985. Origin and assessment of water repellency of a sandy soil. Aust. J. Soil Res. 23:623–626.[CrossRef]
• Mulla, D.J., J.H. Cushman, and P.F. Low. 1984. Molecular dynamics and statistical mechanics of water near and uncharged silicate surface. Water Resour. Res. 20:619–628.
• Mulla, D.J., and A.B. McBratney. 2002. Soil spatial variability. p. 343–373. In A.W. Warrick (ed.) Soil physics companion. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
• Newman, A.C.D. 1983. The specific surface of soils determined by water sorption. J. Soil Sci. 34:23–32.
• Newton, R.W. 1977. Microwave remote sensing and its application to soil moisture detection. Ph.D. diss. Texas A&M Univ., College Station.
• NIST/SEMATECH. 2005. NIST/SEMATECH e-handbook of statistical methods. Available at www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook (verified 11 Aug. 2005).
• Ritter, A., and C.M. Regalado. 1999. Balance hidrológico y simulación por ordenador del comportamiento de una cuenca tipo en el Parque Nacional de Garajonay. Instituto Canario de Investigaciones Agrarias (ICIA). Available at www.icia.es/gh/Garajonay/poster.html (verified 11 Aug. 2005).
• Roberts, F.J., and B.A. Carbon. 1971. Water repellence in sandy soils of South-Western Australia. II. Some chemical characteristics of the hydrophobic skins. Aust. J. Soil Res. 10:35–42.[CrossRef]
• Roy, J.L., and W.B. McGill. 2002. Assessing soil water repellency using the molarity of ethanol droplet (MED) test. Soil Sci. 167:83–97.
• Schnitzer, M. 1986. Organic matter characterization. p. 581–594. In A. Klute (ed.) Methods of soil analysis. Part 1. 2nd ed. ASA-SSSA, Madison, WI.
• Shakesby, R.A., C. de O.A. Coelho, A.D. Ferreira, J.P. Ferry, and R.P.D. Walsh. 1994. Fire, post-burn land management practices and soil erosion response curves in eucalyptus and pine forests, North-Central Portugal. p. 15–27. In M. Sala and J.L. Rubio (ed.) Soil erosion as a consequence of forest fires. Geoforma Ediciones, Logroño.
• Sposito, G., and R. Prost. 1982. Structure of water adsorbed on smectites. Chem. Rev. 82:553–573.[CrossRef][ISI]
• SPSS Inc. 2000. SYSTAT. Ver. 20. SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL.
• Stedinger, J.R., R.M. Vogel, and E. Foufoula-Georgiou. 1992. Frequency analysis of extreme events. 18.1–18.66. In D.R. Maidment (ed.) Handbook of hydrology. McGraw-Hill, New York.
• Tillman, R.W., D.R. Scotter, M.G. Wallis, and B.E. Clothier. 1989. Water-repellency and its measurement by using intrinsic sorptivity. Aust. J. Soil Res. 27:637–644.[CrossRef]
• van Dam, J.C., J.H.M. Wônsten, and A. Nemes. 1996. Unsaturated soil water movement in hysteretic and water repellent field soils. J. Hydrol. (Amsterdam) 184:153–173.
• Wallis, M.G., and D.J. Horne. 1992. Soil water repellency. Adv. Soil Sci. 20:91–146.
• Wallis, M.G., D.J. Horne, and K.W. McAuliffe. 1990. A study of water repellency and its amelioration in a yellow brown sand. 1. Severity of water repellency and the effects of wetting and abrasion. N. Z. J. Agric. Res. 3:139–144.
• Wang, J.R., and T.J. Schmugge. 1980. An empirical model for the complex dielectric permittivity of soils as a function of water content. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. GE-18:288–295.
• Warkentin, B.P., and T. Maeda. 1980. Physical and mechanical characteristics of Andisols. p. 281–299. In B.K.G Theng (ed.) Soils with variable charge. New Zealand Society of Soil Science, Offset Publications, New Zealand.
• Warrick, A.W., and D.R. Nielsen. 1980. Spatial variability of soil physical properties in the field. p. 319–344. In D. Hillel (ed.) Applications of soil physics. Academic Press. New York.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				K. Kawamoto, P. Moldrup, T. Komatsu, L. W. de Jonge, and M. Oda Water Repellency of Aggregate Size Fractions of a Volcanic Ash Soil Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., September 28, 2007; 71(6): 1658 - 1666. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. Bachmann, M. Deurer, and G. Arye Modeling Water Movement in Heterogeneous Water-Repellent Soil: 1. Development of a Contact Angle Dependent Water-Retention Model Vadose Zone J., August 1, 2007; 6(3): 436 - 445. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

G. Arye, I. Nadav, and Y. Chen Short-term Reestablishment of Soil Water Repellency after Wetting: Effect on Capillary Pressure-Saturation Relationship Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., April 5,&n