# comment_soil_properties

comment_soilprop_ID: 11
comment_soilprop:
Particle density by volumetric displacement; clay fraction by hydrometer method, and sand fraction by wet sieving.


comment_soilprop_ID: 14
comment_soilprop:
Bulk density & saturated water content, for largest sample only. Pore-surface area is 3470 m2/kg. Particle size from intrusion volume.


comment_soilprop_ID: 15
comment_soilprop:
PSD with sieving & sedimentation. Organic matter expressed as org. C, 0.27% carbonate, 0.10% total N. Particle density with pycnometer.


comment_soilprop_ID: 16
comment_soilprop:
PSD with sieving & sedimentation. Organic matter expressed as org. C, 0.06% carbonate, 0.06% total N. Particle density with pycnometer.


comment_soilprop_ID: 21
comment_soilprop:
Organic matter as Org. C; pH-CaCl2. PSD with wet sieving & pipette method. Particle density with pycnometer.


comment_soilprop_ID: 22
comment_soilprop:
Organic matter as Org. C, 3.59% carbonate, 0.18% total N. Particle density with pycnometer, PSD with sieving and sedimentation.


comment_soilprop_ID: 23
comment_soilprop:
Organic matter as Org. C, 1.19% carbonate, 0.38% total N. Particle density with pycnometer, PSD with sieving and sedimentation.


comment_soilprop_ID: 24
comment_soilprop:
Organic matter as Org. C, 0.24% carbonate, 0.28% total N. Particle density with pycnometer, PSD with sieving and sedimentation.


comment_soilprop_ID: 25
comment_soilprop:
Organic matter as Org. C, 0.12% carbonate, 0.57% total N. Particle density with pycnometer, PSD with sieving and sedimentation.


comment_soilprop_ID: 26
comment_soilprop:
Organic matter as Org. C, 0.03% carbonate, 0.17% total N. Particle density with pycnometer, PSD with sieving and sedimentation.


comment_soilprop_ID: 27
comment_soilprop:
Organic matter as Org. C, 0% carbonate, 0.24% total N. Particle density with pycnometer, PSD with sieving and sedimentation.


comment_soilprop_ID: 28
comment_soilprop:
Organic matter as Org. C, 0% carbonate, 0.09% total N. Particle density with pycnometer, PSD with sieving and sedimentation.


comment_soilprop_ID: 29
comment_soilprop:
Organic matter as Org. C, 0% carbonate, 0.05% total N. Particle density with pycnometer, PSD with sieving and sedimentation.


comment_soilprop_ID: 30
comment_soilprop:
Organic matter as Org. C, 0% carbonate, 0.08% total N. Particle density with pycnometer, PSD with sieving and sedimentation.


comment_soilprop_ID: 31
comment_soilprop:
Organic matter as Org. C., 0.15% carbonate, 0.13% total N. PSD from G. Dumbeck (Ph.D.  Thesis, Univ. of Giessen).


comment_soilprop_ID: 32
comment_soilprop:
Organic matter as Org. C., 0.18% carbonate, 0.12% total N. PSD from G. Dumbeck (Ph.D.  Thesis, Univ. of Giessen).


comment_soilprop_ID: 33
comment_soilprop:
Organic matter as Org. C., 0.27% carbonate, 0.12% total N. PSD from G. Dumbeck (Ph.D.  Thesis, Univ. of Giessen).


comment_soilprop_ID: 34
comment_soilprop:
Organic matter as Org. C., 5.13% carbonate, 0.05% total N. Particle density with pycnometer. PSD by sieving and sedimentation.


comment_soilprop_ID: 36
comment_soilprop:
Particle density with pycnometer, organic matter with wet combustion and multiplication by 1.724 (Mebius, 1967), PSD by sonic vibration dispersion and pipette method.


comment_soilprop_ID: 38
comment_soilprop:
Organic matter as Org. C., 0.06% carbonate, 0.10% total N. Particle density with pycnometer. PSD by sieving and sedimentation.


comment_soilprop_ID: 39
comment_soilprop:
PSD with wet sieving and pipette method.  Particle density with pycnometer. Organic matter as Org. C. pH-CaCl2


comment_soilprop_ID: 40
comment_soilprop:
PSD with wet sieving and pipette method.  Particle density with pycnometer. Organic matter as Org. C. pH CaCl2


comment_soilprop_ID: 41
comment_soilprop:
The texture by pipette method, using NaPO3 as dispersing agent. Organic matter obtained with Walkley-Black method. pH in 1:10 H2O suspension.


comment_soilprop_ID: 42
comment_soilprop:
Texture determined by pipette method, using NaPO3 as dispersing agent. Organic matter obtained with Walkley-Black method. pH in 1:10 H2O suspension.


comment_soilprop_ID: 43
comment_soilprop:
Bulk density from 12 core samples after lab retention measurement. Particle density estimated from Molokai soil. Saturated conductivity from steady infiltration in the field. Saturated water content at 10 cm suction.


comment_soilprop_ID: 44
comment_soilprop:
Bulk density from 24 core samples after lab retention measurement, averaged over 2 depths. Particle density estimated from Molokai soil. Saturated conductivity from steady infiltration in the field. Saturated water content at 10 cm suction.


comment_soilprop_ID: 45
comment_soilprop:
Bulk density from 12 core samples after lab retention measurement, averaged over 2 depths. Particle density estimated from Molokai soil. Saturated conductivity from steady infiltration in the field. Saturated water content at 10 cm suction.


comment_soilprop_ID: 46
comment_soilprop:
Bulk density from 36 core samples averaged over 2 depths after lab. retention measurement. Particle density estimated from Molokai soil. Saturated conductivity from steady infiltration in the field. Saturated water content at 10 cm suction.


comment_soilprop_ID: 47
comment_soilprop:
Bulk density from 18 core samples after lab retention measurement. Particle density estimated from Molokai soil. Saturated conductivity from steady infiltration in the field. Saturated water content at 10 cm suction.


comment_soilprop_ID: 48
comment_soilprop:
Bulk density from 36 core samples after lab retention measurement, averaged over 2 depths. Particle density estimated from Molokai soil. Saturated conductivity from steady infiltration in the field. Saturated water content at 10 cm suction.


comment_soilprop_ID: 49
comment_soilprop:
Bulk density from 18 core samples after lab retention measurement, averaged over 2 depths. Particle density estimated from Molokai soil. Saturated conductivity from steady infiltration in the field. Saturated water content at 10 cm suction.


comment_soilprop_ID: 50
comment_soilprop:
Bulk density from 41 core samples after lab retention measurement, averaged over 2 depths. Particle density estimated from Molokai soil. Saturated conductivity from steady infiltration in the field. Saturated water content at 10 cm suction.


comment_soilprop_ID: 51
comment_soilprop:
Bulk density from 22 core samples after lab retention measurement, averaged over 2 depths. Particle density estimated from Molokai soil. Saturated conductivity from steady infiltration in the field. Saturated water content at 10 cm suction.


comment_soilprop_ID: 52
comment_soilprop:
Bulk density from core samples after laboratory retention mesurement. Particle density estimated from Molokai soil. Saturated conductivity from steady infiltration in the field. Saturated water content at 10 cm suction.


comment_soilprop_ID: 53
comment_soilprop:
Bulk density from 22 core samples after lab retention measurement. Particle density estimated from Molokai soil. Saturated conductivity from steady infiltration in the field. Saturated water content at 10 cm suction.


comment_soilprop_ID: 54
comment_soilprop:
Bulk density from 10 core samples after lab retention measurement. Particle density estimated from Molokai soil. Saturated conductivity from steady infiltration in the field. Saturated water content at 10 cm suction.


comment_soilprop_ID: 56
comment_soilprop:
These values are for undisturbed samples, for disturbed samples DBD=1.2, Ksat=37.2, & SWC=.5; Macropores contribute substantially to in situ Ksat.


comment_soilprop_ID: 63
comment_soilprop:
Quartz & plagioclase are the dominant minerals with some amphibole & miscellaneous clay minerals. The specific surface is 4.2m2/g.


comment_soilprop_ID: 82
comment_soilprop:
The soil is very high in organic matter, approx. 6.0% org. C, and 90 ton/ha for each sample layer, pH-CaCl2.


comment_soilprop_ID: 83
comment_soilprop:
The soil is very high in organic matter, approx. 3.7% org. C, and 90 ton/ha for each sample layer, pH-CaCl2.


comment_soilprop_ID: 84
comment_soilprop:
The soil is very high in organic matter, approx. 3.3% org. C, and 90 ton/ha for each sample layer, pH-CaCl2.


comment_soilprop_ID: 88
comment_soilprop:
Bulk density from oven drying undisturbed samples at 105 C. PSD using the densimetric method (ISSS).


comment_soilprop_ID: 89
comment_soilprop:
undisturbed samples for bulk density and disturbed samples for particle density with pycnometer method. Organic C by method of Prof. Turin.


comment_soilprop_ID: 90
comment_soilprop:
undisturbed samples for bulk density and disturbed samples for particle density and aggregate-size dist. by Kachinsky's method.  PSD defined by pycnometer and dry sieving.


comment_soilprop_ID: 92
comment_soilprop:
100 cm3 undist. samples for BD. PSD with Na2P2O7 & ultrasonic bath. ASD with dry sieving. PD with pycnometer, SAR & EC from solution samples.


comment_soilprop_ID: 93
comment_soilprop:
100 cm3 undist. samples for BD. PSD with Na2P2O7 & ultrasonic bath. ASD with dry sieving. PD with pycnometer. SAR & EC from solution samples.


comment_soilprop_ID: 94
comment_soilprop:
100 cm3 undist. samples for BD. PSD with Na2P2O7 & ultrasonic bath. PD: pycnometer. ESP: soil solution obtained with vacuum, pressure lysimeter.


comment_soilprop_ID: 95
comment_soilprop:
100 cm3 undist. samples for BD. PSD with Na2P2O7 & ultrasonic bath. PD: pycnometer. SAR & ESP: soil solution obtained with vacuum, pressure lysimeter.


comment_soilprop_ID: 98
comment_soilprop:
BD: on 7.6x7.6 core sample according to Blake & Hartge (1986). PSD: pipette method.  pH: McLean (1986). EC: Rhoades (1986). Org. C: combustion (Nelson & Sommers, 1986).


comment_soilprop_ID: 99
comment_soilprop:
BD: on 7.6x7.6 core sample according to Blake & Hartge (1986). PSD: pipette method.  pH: Mclean (1986). EC: Rhoades (1986). Org. C: combustion (Nelson & Sommers, 1986).


comment_soilprop_ID: 100
comment_soilprop:
BD: on 7.6x7.6 core sample according to Blake & Hartge (1986). PSD: pipette method.  pH: McLean (1986).


comment_soilprop_ID: 105
comment_soilprop:
Arithmetic average Ksat of three plots.  Undisturbed samples for bulk density.  Disturbed samples for soil texture analysis using the pipette method.


comment_soilprop_ID: 109
comment_soilprop:
Particle size with hydrometer method and particle density with pycnometer. Data are average of 18 replicates.


comment_soilprop_ID: 110
comment_soilprop:
Particle size with hydrometer method and particle density with pycnometer. Data are average of 12 replicates.


comment_soilprop_ID: 111
comment_soilprop:
Particle size with hydrometer method and particle density with pycnometer. Data are average of 9 replicates.


comment_soilprop_ID: 112
comment_soilprop:
Particle size with hydrometer method and particle density with pycnometer. Data are average of 18 replicates


comment_soilprop_ID: 120
comment_soilprop:
Bulk density measurements were carried out with a gamma probe at 9 different depths.  Disturbed samples for soil textural analysis at 5 depths. Vertical saturated conductivity.


comment_soilprop_ID: 121
comment_soilprop:
Undisturbed samples for bulk density.  Disturbed samples for soil textural analysis. Particle-size dist. determined with dry sieving. Vertical saturated conductivity.


comment_soilprop_ID: 127
comment_soilprop:
100 cm3 undisturbed samples for BD, particle-size analysis, after dispersion with NaOH and boiling, using dry sieving. PD with pycnometer.


comment_soilprop_ID: 128
comment_soilprop:
100 cm3 undisturbed samples for BD, particle size analysis, after dispersion with NaOH and boiling, using dry sieving. PD with pycnometer.


comment_soilprop_ID: 131
comment_soilprop:
Undisturbed sample for bulk density. The wet aggregate-size dist. was determined with sieving in water for one hour. The particle density with pycnometer.


comment_soilprop_ID: 132
comment_soilprop:
Undisturbed sample for bulk density. The psd was determined with hydrometer and dry sieving.  The particle density with pycnometer.


comment_soilprop_ID: 133
comment_soilprop:
Undisturbed sample for bulk density. The psd was determined with dry sieving.  The particle density was determined with pycnometer method.


comment_soilprop_ID: 134
comment_soilprop:
Org. C. decreases from 1.6% to 0.22% between 0 and 60 cm.  Clay fraction is 0.22 between 0 and 22.5 cm, 0.16 between 22.5 and 30 cm depth interval, and remains between 0.13 and 0.18 from 30 to 150 cm.


# contact_person

contact_person_ID: 1
contact_person:
J.H. Dane, Dept. of Agronomy and Soils, Auburn Univ., AL 36849-5412. Phone (205)844-3974, fax (205)844-3945.


contact_person_ID: 3
contact_person:
J.M. Davidson, IFAS 1022 McCarty, Univ. of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611. Phone (904)392-1784, fax (904)392-4965.


contact_person_ID: 4
contact_person:
D.K. Cassel, Dept. of Soil Sci., Box 7619, North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC 27695-7619. Phone (919)515-2655, fax (919)515-2167.


contact_person_ID: 5
contact_person:
J.W. Hopmans, Dept. LAWR, 211 Veihmeyer, UC Davis, Davis, CA 95616. Phone (916)752-3060, fax (916)752-5262.


contact_person_ID: 6
contact_person:
J.C. Parker, Crop and Soil Sci. Dept., Virginia Tech., Blacksburg, VA 24061-0404. Phone (703)321-5775, fax (703)231-4163.


contact_person_ID: 7
contact_person:
R.R. Bruce, USDA-ARS So. Piedmont Cons. Res. Ctr., Box 555, Watkinsville, GA 30647. Phone (404)769-5631.


contact_person_ID: 9
contact_person:
R.J. Luxmoore, Oak Ridge National Lab., P.O. Box 2008, Bldg.  1505, Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6038. Phone (615)574-7357, fax (615)576-8646.


contact_person_ID: 10
contact_person:
M.L. Rockhold, Batelle Pacific N.W. Lab., P.O.Box 999, Richland, WA 99352. Phone (509)376-8311, fax (509)376-5368.


contact_person_ID: 11
contact_person:
T.C. Rasmussen, School of Forest Resources, Univ. of Georgia.  Athens, GA 30602. Phone (706)542-4300, fax (602)621-1422.2


contact_person_ID: 12
contact_person:
W. Ehlers, Inst. Agronomy & Plant Breeding, von Siebold Str.  8, 3400 Goettingen, Germany. Phone 0551-394357.


contact_person_ID: 13
contact_person:
G. Wessolek, Inst. fur Oekologie, TU Berlin, Salzufer 11-12, D1000 Berlin 10, Germany. Phone 030-31473123, fax 030-31421123.


contact_person_ID: 14
contact_person:
K. Teiwes, Forschungs- und Studienzentrum Landwirtschaft u.  Umwelt, Am Vogelsang 6, 3400 Goettingen, Germany.


contact_person_ID: 15
contact_person:
D.B. Jaynes, USDA-ARS-NSTL 2150 Pammel Drive, Ames, IA 50011.  Phone (515)294-8243, fax (515)294-8125.


contact_person_ID: 16
contact_person:
D.D. Fritton, Dept. of Agron., Penn State Univ., University Park, PA 16802. Phone (814)865-1143, fax (814)863-7043.


contact_person_ID: 17
contact_person:
K. Bohne, Dept. of Plant Production & Land Improvement, Rostock University, Justus-von-Liebig-Weg 6, Rostock, Germany.  Phone +49-381-4405536, fax +49-381-4405526


contact_person_ID: 19
contact_person:
T. Brandyk, Land Reclamation Dept., Warsaw Agricultural Univ., 02-766 Warsaw, Poland. Phone +439061,ext.1471, fax 471562.


contact_person_ID: 20
contact_person:
L.R. Ahuja, USDA-ARS, Great Plains Systems Res. Unit, Fort Collins, CO 80522. Phone (303)490-8300, fax (303)490-8310.


contact_person_ID: 21
contact_person:
J. Bley, Inst. of Soil Science, 7000 Stuttgart 70, Germany.  Phone +0711-459-2935, fax +0711-459-2785.


contact_person_ID: 22
contact_person:
B. Clothier, Env. Physics Section, DSIR Fruit & Trees, Private Bag, Palmerston North, New Zealand. Phone +64 (63) 68-019, fax +64 (63) 86-731.


contact_person_ID: 26
contact_person:
J.R. Nimmo, USGS, WRD, MS-421, 345 Middlefield Road, Menlo Park, CA 94025. Phone (415)329-4537, fax (415)329-4538.


contact_person_ID: 27
contact_person:
S. Lorentz, Dept. Agric. & Chem. Eng., Colorado State Univ., Fort Collins, CO 80523. Phone (303)491-8413, fax (303)491-8224.


contact_person_ID: 29
contact_person:
U. Schindler, Inst. of Hydrology, Centre for Research on Agricultural Landscapes and Land Use (ZALF)e.V., O-1278 Muncheberg, W.-Pieck-Str. 72, Germany. Phone (033


contact_person_ID: 30
contact_person:
H. Gerke, U.S. Salinity Laboratory, 4500 Glenwood Dr., Riverside, CA 92501. Phone (714)369-4855, fax (714)369-4818.


contact_person_ID: 31
contact_person:
V. Comegna, Inst. Agric. Hydraulics, Univ. of Naples, Via Universita', n.100, 80055 Portici (Napoli), Italy. Phone +39-81-274488, fax +39-81-376254.


contact_person_ID: 32
contact_person:
P. Luescher, Eidgenoessische Forschungsanstalt fuer WSL, 8903 Birmensdorf, Switzerland. Phone +(01)7392111.


contact_person_ID: 33
contact_person:
A.M. Zeiliguer, Moscow Hydromeliorative Inst.  Prijanishikova st. 19, Moscow U-550, 127550 Russia. Phone +21632-51


contact_person_ID: 34
contact_person:
Y. Takeshita, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Okayama Univ., 1-1, Tsushima-Naka, 3-chome, Okayama 700, Japan. Fax (81)(862)53-2993.


contact_person_ID: 36
contact_person:
H.S. Sen, Officer-in-Charge, Central Soil Salinity Res. Inst.  Res. Stn. Canning, 24 Paraganas(S), W.B., India 743329. Ph# (031752)241.


contact_person_ID: 37
contact_person:
W.M. Schuh, N. Dakota State Water Comm., 900 E. Boulevard, Bismarck ND 58505-0187. Phone (701)224-2750, fax (701)224-3696


contact_person_ID: 38
contact_person:
W. Bouten, Nieuwe Prinsengracht 130, NL 1018 VZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Phone 20-5257451, fax 20-5257431


contact_person_ID: 39
contact_person:
M.J.M. Romkens, USDA-ARS-NSL, P.O. Box 1157, Oxford, MS 38655.  Phone (601)232-2927. Fax (601)232-2915.


contact_person_ID: 40
contact_person:
A. Rab, Dept. of Conservation & Environment, Keith Turnbull Research Institute, P.O. Box 48, Frankston, Vic. 3199, Australia. Phone (03)785-0111, fax (03)785-2007


contact_person_ID: 41
contact_person:
K.A. Olsson, Dept. of Agric., Inst. for Sustainable Development, Tatura, Victoria, Australia 3616. Phone (058)249222, fax (058)242509


contact_person_ID: 42
contact_person:
O.H. Jacobsen, Dept. of Soil Physics, Soil Tillage and Irrigation, The Danish Institute of Plant and Soil Science, PO Box 23, Research Centre Foulum, DK-8830 Tjele


contact_person_ID: 43
contact_person:
H. Vereecken, Forschungszentrum Julich, (KSA) GmbH, Erdol und Geochemie, Postfach 1913, D-5170 Julich, Germany


contact_person_ID: 44
contact_person:
J.N.M. Stricker, Dept. of Hydrology, Soil Sci. and Hydraulics, Agric. Univ., Nieuwe Kanaal 11, 6709 PA Wageningen, The Netherlands. Phone +8370-83846, fax +8370-84


contact_person_ID: 50
contact_person:
J.C. van Dam, Dept. of Hydrology, Soil Sci. and Hydraulics, Agric. Univ., Nieuwe Kanaal 11, 6709 PA Wageningen, The Netherlands. Phone +8370-82773, fax +8370-84759


contact_person_ID: 52
contact_person:
H.H. Becher, Inst. fur Bodenkunde, TU Munchen, D-85350 Freising, Germany. Phone +8161-713734, fax +8161-714466


contact_person_ID: 54
contact_person:
S. Shiozawa, Dept. of Agric. Eng., The Univ. of Tokyo, Yayoi 1-1-1, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113, Japan. Phone 03-3812-2111 ext.5352, fax 03-5684-0297.


contact_person_ID: 56
contact_person:
D.E. Elrick, Dept. of Land Resource Sci., Univ. of Guelph, Guelph, Ont. N1G 2W1. Canada. Phone (519)824-4120


contact_person_ID: 58
contact_person:
A. Poulovassilis, Agric. Univ. of Athens. 75 Iera Odos, Botanicos, 11855 Athens, Greece. Phone +3461-944, fax +3460-885


# comment_general

comment_general_ID: 25
comment_general:
30 yr. forest regrowth on old agricultural land dominated by short-leaf pine, 4% slope; parent material is conasauga shale


comment_general_ID: 28
comment_general:
30-yr. forest regrowth on cleared land, dominated by oak-hickory species and some white oak, parent material is Knox dolomite


comment_general_ID: 29
comment_general:
30-yr. forest regrowth on cleared land, dominated by oak-hickory species and some white oak, parent material is Knox dolomite.


comment_general_ID: 31
comment_general:
The geological material is a slightly welded tuffaceous rock with numerous fractures, phenocrysts and xenoliths.


comment_general_ID: 37
comment_general:
Average of two depths (2-12 & 12-22 cm). Data for untilled soil. Typical colluvium on top of a "Para-Brown Earth."


comment_general_ID: 38
comment_general:
M horizon is from 30-80 cm. Data for untilled soil. Typical colluvium on top of a "Para-Brown Earth."


comment_general_ID: 50
comment_general:
See also: Jaynes, in Anderson and Burt (ed.) Process Studies in Hillslope Hydrology. John Wiley, 1990.


comment_general_ID: 51
comment_general:
Soil profile was located in a grassed area. See also Fritton, D.D. Ph.D. Thesis, Iowa State University.


comment_general_ID: 54
comment_general:
Permanent grassland located in the low plain part of the river valley. Degree of decomposition = 60%


comment_general_ID: 55
comment_general:
Permanent grassland located in the low plain part of the river valley. Degree of decomposition = 50%


comment_general_ID: 57
comment_general:
Average of two depths (2-12 & 12-22cm). Reduced tillage using a rotary harrow for seedbed preparation. Typical colluvium.


comment_general_ID: 58
comment_general:
M horizon is from 30-80 cm. Reduced tillage using a rotary harrow for seedbed preparation. Typical colluvium.


comment_general_ID: 61
comment_general:
This site was a permanent grass cover and is located in a rain forest. 12% slope, elevation 195m. Parent material: volcanic ash over cinders. Soil is highly aggregated. Color 10YR3/3


comment_general_ID: 62
comment_general:
This site was a permanent grass cover and is located in a rain forest. 12% slope, elevation 195m. Parent material: volcanic ash over cinders. Soil is highly aggregated. Color: 10YR3/4, Average of two depths (42-50 & 72-80cm).


comment_general_ID: 63
comment_general:
This site was a permanent grass cover and is located in a rain forest. 12% slope, elevation 195m. Parent material: volcanic ash over cinders. Soil is highly aggregated.


comment_general_ID: 64
comment_general:
Vegetation: sugarcane. Elevation: 160 m, 4% slope. Parent material: residuum from basic igneous rock.


comment_general_ID: 65
comment_general:
Vegetation: sugarcane, swollen fingergrass. Elevation: 165 m.  1% slope. Parent material: residuum from basic igneous rock.


comment_general_ID: 66
comment_general:
Vegetation: sugarcane. Elevation: 162 m. 3% slope. Borderline between Molokai and Lahaina series. Parent material: residuum from basic igneous rock. Color: 2.5YR2/4


comment_general_ID: 67
comment_general:
Vegetation: sugarcane. Elevation: 162 m. 3% slope. Borderline between Molokai and Lahaina series. Parent material: residuum from basic igneous rock. Color: 10YR3/4


comment_general_ID: 68
comment_general:
Vegetation: swollen fingergrass, guineagrass, sugarcane.  Elevation: 128 m, 3% slope. Parent material: residuum from basic igneous rock. Color: 2.5YR3/4


comment_general_ID: 69
comment_general:
Vegetation: sugarcane. Elevation: 76 m, 4% slope. Parent material: residuum from basic igneous rock. Color: 2.5YR2/4


comment_general_ID: 70
comment_general:
Vegetation: sugarcane. Elevation: 76 m, 4% slope. Parent material: residuum from basic igneous rock. Color: 10R3/4


comment_general_ID: 71
comment_general:
Vegetation: guineagrass, natal redtop, lantana, koa-haole.  Elevation: 213 m, 7% slope. Parent material: residuum from basic igneous rock. Color: 2.5YR2/2


comment_general_ID: 72
comment_general:
Vegetation: guineagrass, natal redtop, lantana, koa-haole.  Elevation: 213 m, 7% slope. Parent material: residuum from basic igneous rock. Color: 2.5YR2/4


comment_general_ID: 73
comment_general:
Vegetation: irrigated sugarcane. Elevation: 186 m, 1% slope.  Parent material: residuum from basic igneous rock. Color: 2.5YR3/2


comment_general_ID: 74
comment_general:
Vegetation: irrigated sugarcane. Elevation: 186 m, 1% slope.  Parent material: residuum from basic igneous rock. Color: 2.5YR2/4


comment_general_ID: 75
comment_general:
Soil classification, particle size, and chemical analysis reported by West et al., 1984. Hydraulic properties were investigated by Bley and Bationo. Soil was very homogeneous, aeolian deposit.


comment_general_ID: 79
comment_general:
Alluvial soil overlying a deep coarse-gravel base at 1 m.  Vegetation: ryegrass / clover paddock, regularly grazed by dairy cows.


comment_general_ID: 80
comment_general:
Orchard with 17 yr. old apple trees. Alluvial/aeolian soil; 20 cm upper layer high in organic matter and sandy loam C horizon.


comment_general_ID: 95
comment_general:
Series formerly known as Oakley. Sample site according to code used in Nimmo & Akstin (1988). Date represents year of collection.


comment_general_ID: 100
comment_general:
Soil structure more stable with Soltrol than with water. No retention data. Semi-consolidated soil was passed through a #14 sieve.


comment_general_ID: 101
comment_general:
Soil structure more stable with Soltrol than with water. No retention data. Semi-consolidated soil was passed through a #35 sieve.


comment_general_ID: 102
comment_general:
The soil belongs to the Ardisols. Soil structure more stable with Soltrol than with water. No retention data.


comment_general_ID: 103
comment_general:
Soil belongs to the Mollisols. Soil structure more stable with Soltrol than with water. No retention data.


comment_general_ID: 104
comment_general:
Sample taken at 30cm depth. Soil structure more stable with Soltrol than with water. No retention data.


comment_general_ID: 105
comment_general:
Sample taken at 13cm depth. Soil structure more stable with Soltrol than with water. No retention data.


comment_general_ID: 106
comment_general:
Sample taken at 51cm depth. Soil structure more stable with Soltrol than with water. No retention data.


comment_general_ID: 114
comment_general:
Vegetation is a mature beech forest (approx. 120 yrs. old), 420 m. above sea level. The soil is developed on marly limestone rock & variable amounts of aeolian deposits (loess).


comment_general_ID: 132
comment_general:
Site was covered by lucern.  Dynamics of soil water regime, evaporation and plant physiological parameters were studied


comment_general_ID: 133
comment_general:
Site was covered by lucern.  Dynamics of soil water regime, evaporation and plant physiological parameters were studied.


comment_general_ID: 134
comment_general:
Apple orchard under bare fallow with trickle irrigation.  Investigation of soil hydraulic properties and biomass production.


comment_general_ID: 135
comment_general:
Investigation of hydraulic properties and biomass production for apple orchard under trickle irrigation.


comment_general_ID: 136
comment_general:
The site is located on the eastern coastal fringe of India in Sunderbans delta.  The area is salt affected and partly waterlogged.  The land capability is class II.


comment_general_ID: 137
comment_general:
Glacio-fluvial-lacustrine deposits in the Glacial Lake Dakota Basin which have been reworked by wind to some extent.


comment_general_ID: 138
comment_general:
Nonirrigated center-pivot irrigated potato field covered with winter barley.  Formed in coarse textured deposits left by glacial melt water and reworked by wind.


comment_general_ID: 139
comment_general:
Nonirrigated wheat field.  Formed in coarse textured deposits left by glacial melt water and reworked by wind.


comment_general_ID: 140
comment_general:
Nonirrigated wheat field.  Formed in moderately coarse and coarse textured deposits left by glacial melt waters.  Somewhat poorly drained, calcareous soil in slight depression on lake plain.


comment_general_ID: 141
comment_general:
Nonirrigated wheat field.  Poorly and very poorly drained calcareous soil on sandy upland formed in moderately coarse to coarse textured deposits left by glacial melt water.


comment_general_ID: 142
comment_general:
Nonirrigated corn field.  Deep nearly level to steep well-drained soils formed in medium textured glacial till, found on glacial and sand-mantled till plains.


comment_general_ID: 143
comment_general:
Nonirrigated corn field.  Deep nearly level to steep well-drained soils formed in medium-textured glacial till, found on glacial and sand-mantled till plains.


comment_general_ID: 144
comment_general:
Site was located in a broad, nearly depressional area in a fallow field.  Poorly to very poorly drained alkali soils on lake plains occurring as nearly level areas or slight depressions formed in moderately coarse and coarse textured deposits left by glacial melt water.


comment_general_ID: 145
comment_general:
Nonirrigated corner of a center-pivot irrigated cornfield.  Deep, well drained soils on uplands, alluvial fans and foot slopes in the James River Valley and on lake plains formed in medium textured deposits left by glacial melt water.


comment_general_ID: 146
comment_general:
Nonirrigated corner of a center-pivot irrigated cornfield.  Deep, well-drained soils on uplands, alluvial fans and foot slopes in the James River Valley and on lake plains formed in medium textured deposits left by glacial melt water.


comment_general_ID: 147
comment_general:
Nonirrigated wheat field.  Deep, moderately well-drained, nearly level to gently sloping soils on uplands, terraces and lower foot slopes in the James River Valley formed in deposits left by glacial melt water.


comment_general_ID: 148
comment_general:
The area was 15 m by 15 m on a relatively flat portion of a severely eroded slope (0-20%) that had been in bermuda grass for years.


comment_general_ID: 209
comment_general:
Measurements on bare soil lysimeter filled to resemble layered profile.  Cultivated Plainfield sand with 25 cm plow layer; medium to coarse sand to 2 m, and coarse sand and gravel between 2 and 6 m.


# comment_field_general

comment_field_ID: 1
comment_field:
2 by 2 m square plots were bounded by 28-cm high boards placed 12 cm above and 16 cm below the surface.  A neutron probe access tube was installed at the center of each plot to determine water contents.  Soil water pressure head values were obtained using three parallel jet-fill tensiometers, with cups installed at depths of 20, 40, 60 ,80, 100.  The hydraulic conductivity was derived by solving the Richards equation using measured head and water content profiles during internal drainage after flood irrigation with a zero flux condition at the surface.  The data are for the first drainage cycle.


comment_field_ID: 2
comment_field:
Three plots of 3m x 3m with a 10 cm high border of soil were used. Tensiometers were installed at depths of 8,15,23,30,46,61,76,91,122, and 152 cm. The plots were thoroughly wetted for 24 hours prior to the commencement of the drainage experiment. They were covered to prevent evaporation and rewetting by rainfall. Infiltration rates could not be measured and no water content readings were made.


comment_field_ID: 3
comment_field:
Three plots of 3 by 3 m were bounded by 30 cm high boards inserted 10 cm below the soil surface.  An inner area of 90 by 90 cm in the center was divided in 36 squares of 15 by 15 cm.  Tensiometers varying in length from 15 cm to 150 cm were randomly assigned to these squares, using 10 depths and three tensiometers per depth.  Hydraulic head values were determined with mercury manometers.  The plot was flooded until "apparent equilibrium" was attained, during the subsequent drainage the plot was covered to prevent evaporation.  Tensiometer readings were taken as frequently as every 10 to 15 minutes.  No frequent water content determinations were carried out.


comment_field_ID: 4
comment_field:
All vegetative cover was removed from the soil surface and 2.3 by 2.3 or 2.7 by 2.7 m square plots were bounded by a wooden dike extending 15 cm below the soil surface.  Three sets of tensiometers were installed in each plot, each connected to a mercury manometer.  Each plot was flooded by rapidly pumping water on to the soil surface until the soil was wetted to at least 120 cm depth.  Final infiltration rates were determined and the soil was immediately covered to reduce temperature fluctuations and prevent water transport across the surface.  No water content measurements were made but instead laboratory measured retention data were used.


comment_field_ID: 6
comment_field:
All vegetative cover was removed and a 60 cm deep trench was excavated around a 2.7 by 2.7 m square plot.  The plot was wrapped in plastic and bounded by a wooden dike to allow ponding.  Tensiometer cups were installed at the boundaries of various horizons or at arbitrary spacings within a horizon and connected to mercury manometers.  The plots were flooded by rapidly pumping water until the soil profile was wetted to 90 cm depth.  During the redistribution of water pressure head was monitored and no water contents were measured, then the soil was covered.  At the end of the experiment, pits were dug to take core samples (7.5 cm-high, 7.6 cm ID).


comment_field_ID: 7
comment_field:
An area of 3.06 x 3.06 m was enclosed by 30-cm high boards which extended to a depth of 18 cm below the surface.  Tensiometers were installed in triplicate at 10 depths and connected to mercury manometers. The plots were ponded until no changes in pressure head could be observed. After drainage of free water the plots were covered with a plastic sheet and roof. In some cases the plastic was removed later on to allow evaporation. Sampling pits were dug 1 m from the plot with a backhoe. No water contents were determined.


comment_field_ID: 8
comment_field:
A trench of 50 to 75 cm deep was dug around 3m x 3m plots.  The walls were covered by plastic and trenches were filled again.  The plastic sheet extended above the surface and was supported by a frame of 5cm x 15 cm boards.  Tensiometers were installed in duplicate at the center of each plot at the boundaries of horizons and connected to mercury manometers.  From 15,000 to 30,000 liters of water was applied to flood the plots.  Zero drainage time was assumed to have occurred when 50% of the soil surface still had free water.  At this time the plots were covered.  In situ retention data were obtained from neutron probe and tensiometer readings.


comment_field_ID: 9
comment_field:
At six sites a trench was dug to about 2.2 m with a backhoe for profile description and sampling for laboratory determinations.  An impervious layer was constructed around the 2.5 m x 2.5 m plot.  The boundary extended 15 cm above the surface to allow ponding.  Three or four tensiometers were installed at nine depths, the tensiometers were connected to a mercury manometer.  After sufficient ponding, tensiometer readings were taken for up to 82 days during redistribution.  Soil samples were taken at each tensiometer depth at several times during drainage for gravimetric determination of soil water.  The conductivity curve was calculated according to the instantaneous profile method using laboratory retention data.


comment_field_ID: 10
comment_field:
Two 3.06 m x 3.06 m plots were enclosed with wooden boards of 10 cm width which were installed to a depth of 18 cm in narrow trenches.  Tensiometers with mercury manometers were placed in triplicate at six depths.  About 50 cm of water was applied to each plot during which the tensiometer readings became constant over time.  Next the soil was covered and allowed to drain while frequent tensiometer readings were taken.  Conductivity was calculated according to the instantaneous profile method using laboratory retention data.


comment_field_ID: 11
comment_field:
Two plots of 2.4 m x 2.4 m were used.  A 15 cm wide, 75 cm deep trench was dug with a backhoe around each plot.  Plastic was wrapped around the soil and the trenches were refilled with soil.  Dikes were built to allow flooding of the plots.  A neutron probe access tube was installed in the center of the plot and three rows of tensiometers at seven depths were used.  Tensiometers were connected to mercury manometers to determine soil water pressure head.  Plots were flooded until the profile was completely wetted as indicated by tensiometer readings and then allowed to drain while the soil surface was covered.


comment_field_ID: 12
comment_field:
Six sites were selected for the study. Each 3m x 3m site was surrounded by 20 cm boards extending 10 cm above the soil surface to permit flooding. Triplicate tensiometers were installed at 15, 30, 45, 60, 75, 90, 120, and 150 cm at randomly selected points on a 30 cm by 30 cm grid in the center of the plot. Water content was measured with neutron scattering using two access tubes. Water was ponded on the soil surface for 6 days until steady-state pressure heads & infiltration rate was maintained for 24 hrs. Subsequently the soils were allowed to drain while the surface was covered. Initially tensiometer readings were taken at 1-3 hr. intervals & water content measurement every 2 hrs. After the experiment six 7.6cm long cores (I.D.=7.6cm) were taken at each sampling depth.


comment_field_ID: 13
comment_field:
Each 3m x 3m site was surrounded by 20cm boards extending 10cm above the soil surface to permit flooding. Black plastic water barriers were used below the boards to a depth of 60 cm. Triplicate tensiometers were installed at depths of 15, 30, 45, 60, 75, 90, 120, and 150 cm. Water contents were measured by neutron scattering. Water was ponded on the plot for 2 to 3 days, the surface was covered and tensiometers were read frequently to monitor the redistribution. Core samples taken after the experiment were 5.4 cm in diameter and 3 cm long. Laboratory retention data were used to determine hydraulic conductivity rather than field data.


comment_field_ID: 14
comment_field:
Three sites were selected. Each 3m x 3m site was surrounded by a vertical plastic film to a depth of 60 cm to reduce lateral water flow. Triplicate tensiometers were installed at 15, 30, 45, 60, 75, 90, 120, and 150 cm at randomly selected points on a 30 by 30cm grid in the center of the plot. Water content was measured with neutron scattering using two access tubes. Water was ponded on the soil surface for 6 days until steady-state pressure heads & infiltration rate was maintained for 24 hrs. Subsequently the soils were allowed to drain while the surface was covered. Initially tensiometer readings were taken at 1-3 hr. intervals and water content measurements every 2 hrs. After the experiment six 7.6cm long cores (I.D.=7.6cm) were taken at each sampling depth.


comment_field_ID: 15
comment_field:
A 2m trench was dug on three sides of a 2m x 2m area. The inside of the trench was wrapped in rubber and the trench was filled with soil. On the fourth side a pit was dug down to 3m and lined with concrete. Two neutron access tubes were installed and two series of tensiometers were positioned at 11 depths through the concrete face. Over 200cm water was applied to flood the soil, after which the plot was covered.  Water content and pressure head were monitored for 101 days.  Four approaches were used to calculate conductivity.


comment_field_ID: 16
comment_field:
A 2m trench was dug on three sides of a 2m x 2m area. The inside of the trench was wrapped in rubber and the trench was again filled with soil. On the fourth side a pit was dug down to 3m and lined with concrete. Two vertical neutron access tubes were installed and two series of horizontal tensiometers were positioned at 11 depths through the concrete face. Over 200 cm water was applied to flood the soil, after which the plot was covered. For 55 days water content and pressure head were monitored. Four approaches were used to calculate conductivity.


comment_field_ID: 17
comment_field:
A caisson of 7.6 m depth & 2.7 m I.D. was filled with coarse sand passed through a 1.27 cm dia. screen.  Two unsteady drainage flux method studies were conducted. Water was ponded between the caisson walls and the soil was covered with plastic and a thin soil layer. Water content was measured with a neutron probe and matric heads with a tensimeter pressure transducer. Tensiometers were placed at 15-30 cm depth increments to a depth of 180 cm. The hydraulic conductivity curve was determined with time-averaging & the instantaneous profile method. The Guelph permeameter was used to determine the field saturated conductivity. The reported value is the geometric mean of 15 observations.


comment_field_ID: 18
comment_field:
An unsteady drainage-flux experiment was conducted at a 2m x 2m site. Water content and pressure head were observed at five depths, during redistribution after the plot was formed and had been flooded; with a neutron probe and tensiometers.  The hydraulic conductivity was calculated by a time-averaging method. The field saturated conductivity was determined around the plot, at two depths, with the Guelph permeameter. The reported value is the arithmetic mean of nine observations. The reported hydraulic properties are geometric averages for two depths.


comment_field_ID: 19
comment_field:
An unsteady drainage-flux experiment was conducted at a 2m x 2m site. Water content and pressure head were observed at five depths, during redistribution after the plot was formed and had been flooded; with a neutron probe and tensiometers.  The hydraulic conductivity was calculated by a time-averaging method. The field saturated conductivity was determined around the plot, at two depths, with the Guelph permeameter. The reported value is the arithmetic mean of nine observations. The reported hydraulic properties are geometric averages for three depths.


comment_field_ID: 20
comment_field:
Estimates based on air & water single-hole constant head injection tests over 3 meter intervals centered on locations where core segments were obtained. Field estimates include fracture flow, while laboratory samples were conducted only on rock matrix.


comment_field_ID: 21
comment_field:
The instantaneous profile method was used to determine hydraulic properties in situ. Pressure heads were determined with tensiometers connected to pressure transducers; water content was determined with neutron scattering. Mathematical expressions were fitted to pressure head & water content profiles to obtain the hydraulic conductivity. Undisturbed samples were taken at the same site for laboratory experiments.


comment_field_ID: 23
comment_field:
Infiltration & drainage measurements were made in a double-ring infiltrometer, equipped with multiple-depth tensiometers at the center. Ring sizes: inner 30 cm, outer 120 cm. Tensiometer cups were at 7.6, 22.9, 45.7, 76.2, 107, & 137 cm depth, and connected to Hg manometers. Hydraulic conductivities were derived by Darcian analysis of the tensiometer data taken during redistribution, subject to zero flux at the surface, using lab retention data. Ksat was obtained from tension & flux measurements during infiltration. Because of its location in a rain forest, the soil could not be drained beyond the lowest tensions shown in the data.


comment_field_ID: 24
comment_field:
Infiltration and drainage measurements were made in a double-ring infiltrometer (inner & outer dia. 30 & 120 cm), equipped with multi-depth tensiometers, at 7.6, 22.9, 45.7, 76.2, 107, and 137 cm depths connected to Hg manometers.  Ksat was determined from steady infiltration & measured head gradient. Hydraulic conductivities were determined by integrating the Richard's equation, using laborabory retention data & field determined head gradients.  Occasionally, water contents were obtained from core samples taken between inner & outer rings.


comment_field_ID: 25
comment_field:
Hydraulic properties in the field were measured according to the internal drainage method by Hillel et al.(1972), Soil Sci. 114:395-400. Water content & pressure head were measured simultaneously with neutron probe & tensiometers connected to pressure transducers. The soil was very homogeneous and one retention curve was used for whole profile. Saturated conductivity was inferred from the infiltration rate during apparent saturation, approximately 720 cm/d.


comment_field_ID: 26
comment_field:
2.3 by 2.3 m square plots were bounded by 30 cm high boards placed 10cm below the surface and the perimeter of the plot was wrapped with a plastic barrier to a depth of 60 cm. A neutron probe access tube was installed at the center of each plot to determine water contents. Soil water pressure head values were obtained using a triplicate set of tensiometers attached to Hg manometers; with cups at the same depth for which undisturbed samples were taken. The hydraulic conductivity was derived from measured head & water content profiles during drainage after flood irrigation with a zero flux condition at the surface.


comment_field_ID: 27
comment_field:
2.3 x 2.3 m square plots were bounded by 30 cm high boards and placed 20 cm above and 10 cm below the surface. A neutron probe access tube was installed at the center of each plot to determine water contents. Soil water pressure head values were obtained using a triplicate set of parallel tensiometers attached to Hg manometers; with cups at the same depth for which undisturbed samples were taken. The hydraulic conductivity was derived from measured head and water content profiles during drainage after flood irrigation with a zero flux condition at the surface.


comment_field_ID: 28
comment_field:
3.7 x 3.7 square plots were bounded by 25 cm high boards and the perimeter of the plot was wrapped with a plastic barrier to a depth of 72 cm. A neutron probe access tube was installed at the center of each plot to determine water contents. Soil water pressure head values were obtained using a triplicate set of tensiometers attached to Hg manometers; with cups at the same depth for which undisturbed samples were taken. The hydraulic conductivity was derived from measured head and water content profiles during drainage after flood irrigation with a zero flux condition at the surface.


comment_field_ID: 29
comment_field:
Two disc permeameters (SSSAJ 52:1205) of radii 22 & 92.5 mm were used to determine conductivity and sorptivity for the wet range (J.SS 40:563). Ksat was determined with twin rings (Aust. J. Soil Res. 20:295). Immediately after removal of the large disc, a thin sliver of surface soil was scraped away for gravimetric determination of the water content.  This was repeated for the twin rings to give retention in the wet range.


comment_field_ID: 30
comment_field:
Soil water pressure heads were obtained using tensiometers installed at depths of 5, 15, 25, 35, 50, 70 & 100cm. The heads were measured automatically every 30 minutes. The water content profiles were estimated using the laboratory water retention curve. Unsaturated conductivity was calculated on the basis of the difference between two adjacent estimated water content profiles.


comment_field_ID: 31
comment_field:
A plot of 2 x 2 m square was bounded by 110-cm high steel boards placed 10 cm above the surface. After supplying enough water, the surface was covered by a vinyl sheet to prevent evaporation. Soil water pressure heads were obtained using duplicate tensiometers installed at depths of 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, & 90 cm. The water content profiles were estimated using the water retention curve from the laboratory. The pressure head was measured at 8:00 am every day. The conductivity was calculated from the difference between 2 adjacent estimated water content profiles.


comment_field_ID: 32
comment_field:
A 2.3 x 2.3 m square plot was bounded by 30 cm high boards, 15 cm above the surface. Two or three access tubes were located in the center of the plot for the water content, with corresponding tensiometers at depths 15, 30, 61, 91, 122, & 152 cm were connected to Hg manometers with nylon spaghetti tubing. The plot was flooded at a rate of 0.5 cm/min and covered with a polyethylene sheet. Pressure heads and water content were monitored throughout the internal drainage. Conductivity was determined according to Richards' equation using laboratory measured retention data.


comment_field_ID: 33
comment_field:
A 3.7 x 3.7 m square plot was bounded by 30 cm high boards, 15 cm above the soil surface. Two or three access tubes were located in the center of the plot for the water content, with corresponding tensiometers at depths 15, 30, 61, 91, 122, & 152 cm connected to Hg manometers with nylon spaghetti tubing. The plot was flooded at a rate of 0.5 cm/min. and covered with a polyethylene sheet. Pressure heads and water content were monitored throughout the internal drainage. Conductivity was determined according to Richard's equation using laboratory measured retention data.


comment_field_ID: 34
comment_field:
Six replicate core samples of 250 cm3 were taken at random sites and ovendried at 105 degrees C for 1 week to determine the water content. Pressure head was determined in situ with 5 cm long & 2.2 cm diameter tensiometers connected to Hg manometers at depths where core samples were taken.


comment_field_ID: 35
comment_field:
The experiment was conducted on a leveled fallow plot 5m x 5m, surrounded by borders. A neutron probe access tube and Hg-H2O manometer type tensiometers were installed at the center of the plot at seven different depths. The plot was ponded until a steady infiltration rate was obtained. During the subsequent drainage period the plot was covered with an impervious plastic sheet to prevent evaporation and rainfall. The internal drainage of the profile was monitored by taking frequent neutron probe and tensiometer readings over a period of about 45 days.


comment_field_ID: 36
comment_field:
Siskov type tensiometers with ceramic meters were installed to determine the soil water pressure value.  Sampling for humidity rate assessment was made by an auger.


comment_field_ID: 37
comment_field:
Experimental plot of 4x4 m was set in the center of the field.  Tensiometers attached to mercury manometers were used to determine daily pressure.  The water content was measured gravimetrically from samples obtained with an auger, once every 2 to 3 days with 3 replications.  Conductivity was obtained by applying a vacuum pulse to the tensiometer, the observed response was used to determine K according to W. Gardner.


comment_field_ID: 39
comment_field:
A 3x3 m square area was enclosed by a wooden dike placed 15.2 cm into the soil.  Two replicate neutron probe access tubes, tensiometers installed in a circular pattern at a radius of 46 cm from tubes at 15.2 (or 30.4) cm intervals to a depth of 1.4 m (or 2.5 m).  The plot was carefully flooded through a slotted PVC well screen until steady tensiometer readings were obtained.  Drainage was supposed to initiate (t=0) when half of the soil surface was still ponded, the soil was covered with various barriers and a sufficiently large tent. Neutron and tensiometer readings, using different count times, were taken with decreasing frequency.  After the IP experiment bulk soil samples were taken from sampling areas


comment_field_ID: 40
comment_field:
Pressure heads were measured at several depths in the field with an automatic tensiometer system.  Water contents were measured, at a distance of 3 meters, with a neutron probe below a depth of 0.50 m.  Time domain reflectrometry was used above 0.50 m for measuring volumetric water contents.


comment_field_ID: 41
comment_field:
2.1-m x 1.8-m plots were constructed by digging 1.25-m deep trenches which were lined with concrete. Four access tubes were installed in each plot to a depth of 1.6-m. Neutron probe readings at 31,38,46,61,76,91,107, and 122-cm depth were augmented with gravimetric sampling. Sets of 8 to 12 tensiometers were placed near the center of each wall, straight-wall porous cups (19-mm by 66.7-mm) were inserted laterally in the soil and connected to a Hg reservoir. There was a flat roof 50 cm above each plot. For Ap horizons unsaturated hydraulic properties only measured on site 3D.  Site 1/3D soil was also covered with plastic/styrofoam.  Conductivity was determined according to instantaneous profile method (zero flux at surface). Site 2/3E Conductivity was calc. with plane of zero


comment_field_ID: 42
comment_field:
Measurements were made on 4 x 4m level non-vegetated plots enclosed within the banks to permit surface flooding.  Soil water contents were measured on 12 occasions with a neutron probe calibrated on site. Three aluminum access tubes were installed in the centre of the plot 0.5m apart. 4 replicate profiles were used to measure soil water suction daily with tensiometers. The conductivity was calculated using the zero-flux method (similar to the instantaneous profile method).


comment_field_ID: 43
comment_field:
Measurements were made on a 6x6 m level plot within soil banks to allow surface flooding. The profile was wetted up to a depth of 130 cm, the water table was below 3 m. The water content was monitored during drainage for 31 days by gravimetric sampling and neutron probe measurements in a 3x3 m center plot. Four replicate suction profiles were measured at depths 5,12.5,27.5,42.5 and 92.5 cm with Hg manometers.  Core samples were taken at corresponding depths with a sleeve sampler. Hydraulic conductivity was determined according to the instantaneous profile method using the plane of zero flux method.


comment_field_ID: 44
comment_field:
Retention in a 1.5m deep pit, tensiometers and 3-wire TDR probes were horizontally inserted into the soil.  A 1m x 1m surface was wetted and measurements of pressure heads and water contents were taken during drying of the soil.


comment_field_ID: 45
comment_field:
The hydraulic conductivity was measured on bare soils with the plane of zero flux method (Arya et al., SSSAP 39)


comment_field_ID: 46
comment_field:
An infiltration experiment was conducted and the conductivity was calculated by fitting the expressivity (van Genuchten, 1980) to the data.


comment_field_ID: 47
comment_field:
A neutron probe access tube (170cm) was installed at the center of a 10x10m plot to determine water contents.  The probe used was a SOLO 20.  Measurements were carried out every 10 cm.  Ten mercury tensiometers were installed around the access tube at different depths for pressure head readings.


comment_field_ID: 48
comment_field:
A neutron probe access tube (110cm) was installed at the center of a 4x4m plot to determine water contents.  The probe used was a TROXLER 1255.  Measurements were carried out every 10 cm.  Five mercury tensiometers were installed around the access tube at different depths (15, 30, 45, 60 and 75 cm) for pressure head readings.


comment_field_ID: 49
comment_field:
A neutron probe access tube (170cm) was installed at the center of a 1x1m plot to determine water contents.  The probe used was a SOLO.  Measurements were carried out every 10 cm.  Ten mercury tensiometers were installed around the access tube at ten different depths for pressure head readings.


comment_field_ID: 50
comment_field:
Five cultivation and sowing treatments and two rates of N top dressing were tested in four replicates.  Plot size of 27x10m.


# publication

publication_ID: 3
publication:
Quisenberry et al., South. Coop. Ser. Bull. 263, South Carolina Agric. Exp. Sta., Clemson, SC, 1987.


publication_ID: 5
publication:
Nofziger et al., South. Coop. Ser. Bull. 265, Oklahoma Agric.  Exp. Sta., Stillwater, OK 74078, 1983.


publication_ID: 7
publication:
Rockhold et al., Characterization of Unsaturated Hydraulic Conductivity at the Hanford Site. PNL-6488, Pac. NW Lab, Richland, WA


publication_ID: 8
publication:
Rasmussen et al., Unsaturated Fractured Rock Characterization Methods and Data Sets at the Apache Leap Tuff Site, NUREG/CR-5596.


publication_ID: 11
publication:
Dane, J.H., and S. Hruska. 1983. In-situ determination of soil hydraulic properties during drainage. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.  47:619-624.


publication_ID: 20
publication:
Ahuja and El-Swaify, 1975. Hydrologic Characteristics of Benchmark Soils of Hawaii's Forest Watersheds. Univ. of Hawaii.


publication_ID: 21
publication:
Green et al., 1982. Water conduction in Hawai'i Oxic Soils.  Techn. Report No. 143, Water Resour. Res. Center, Univ. of Hawaii.


publication_ID: 36
publication:
Ciollaro, Comegna, and Ruggiero. 1988. Acta, "Irrigazione e Ricerca" Symposium, Bologna, Italy, pp.33-38.


publication_ID: 40
publication:
Richard and Luescher, 1991. Phys. Eig. von Boeden der Schweiz.  Vol 5. Eidg. Anstalt fuer Vers. CH-8093 Birmensdorf, Spec.  Publ. 24


publication_ID: 41
publication:
Richard et al., 1983. Phys. Eig. von Boeden der Schweiz. Vol 3. Eidg. Anstalt fuer Vers. CH-8093 Birmensdorf, Spec. Publ.  11


publication_ID: 42
publication:
Richard and Luescher, 1987. Phys. Eig. von Boeden der Schweiz.  Vol 4. Eidg. Anstalt fuer Vers. CH-8093 Birmensdorf, Spec.  Publ. 18


publication_ID: 43
publication:
Richard and Luescher, 1983. Phys. Eig. von Boeden der Schweiz.  Vol 3. Eidg. Anstalt fuer Vers. CH-8093 Birmensdorf, Spec.  Publ. 10


publication_ID: 44
publication:
Richard and Luescher, 1987. Phys. Eig. von Boeden der Schweiz.  Vol 4. Eidg. Anstalt fuer Vers. CH-8093 Birmensdorf, Spec.  Publ. 23


publication_ID: 45
publication:
Richard et al., 1981. Phys. Eig. von Boeden der Schweiz. Vol 2. Eidg. Anstalt fuer Vers. CH-8093 Birmensdorf, Spec. Publ.  6


publication_ID: 46
publication:
Richard and Luescher, 1987. Phys. Eig. von Boeden der Schweiz.  Vol 4. Eidg. Anstalt fuer Vers. CH-8093 Birmensdorf, Spec.  Publ. 20


publication_ID: 47
publication:
Richard and Luescher, Phys. Eig. von Boeden der Schweiz. Vol 5. Eidg. Anstalt fuer Vers. CH-8093 Birmensdorf, Spec. Publ.  28


publication_ID: 48
publication:
Richard et al., 1981. Phys. Eig. von Boeden der Schweiz. Vol 2. Eidg. Anstalt fuer Vers. CH-8093 Birmensdorf, Spec. Publ.  5


publication_ID: 49
publication:
Richard et al., 1978. Phys. Eig. von Boeden der Schweiz. Vol 1. Eidg. Anstalt fuer Vers. CH-8093 Birmensdorf, Spec. Publ.  3


publication_ID: 50
publication:
Richard et al., 1981. Phys. Eig. von Boeden der Schweiz. Vol 2. Eidg. Anstalt fuer Vers. CH-8093 Birmensdorf, Spec. Publ.  7


publication_ID: 51
publication:
Richard et al., 1981. Phys. Eig. von Boeden der Schweiz. Vol 2. Eidg. Anstalt fuer Vers. CH-8093 Birmensdorf, Spec. Publ.  8


publication_ID: 52
publication:
Richard et al., 1983. Phys. Eig. von Boeden der Schweiz. Vol 3. Eidg. Anstalt fuer Vers. CH-8093 Birmensdorf, Spec. Publ.  12


publication_ID: 53
publication:
Richard et al., 1983. Phys. Eig. von Boeden der Schweiz. Vol 3. Eidg. Anstalt fuer Vers. CH-8093 Birmensdorf, Spec. Publ.  13


publication_ID: 54
publication:
Richard et al., 1983. Phys. Eig. von Boeden der Schweiz. Vol 3. Eidg. Anstalt fuer Vers. CH-8093 Birmensdorf, Spec. Publ.  14


publication_ID: 55
publication:
Richard et al., 1983. Phys. Eig. von Boeden der Schweiz. Vol 3. Eidg. Anstalt fuer Vers. CH-8093 Birmensdorf, Spec. Publ.  15


publication_ID: 56
publication:
Richard et al., 1983. Phys. Eig. von Boeden der Schweiz. Vol 3. Eidg. Anstalt fuer Vers. CH-8093 Birmensdorf, Spec. Publ.  16


publication_ID: 57
publication:
Richard et al., 1983. Phys. Eig. von Boeden der Schweiz. Vol 3. Eidg. Anstalt fuer Vers. CH-8093 Birmensdorf, Spec. Publ.  17


publication_ID: 58
publication:
Richard and Luescher, 1987. Phys. Eig. von Boeden der Schweiz.  Vol 4. Eidg. Anstalt fuer Vers. CH-8093 Birmensdorf, Spec.  Publ. 19


publication_ID: 59
publication:
Richard and Luescher, 1987. Phys. Eig. von Boeden der Schweiz.  Vol 4. Eidg. Anstalt fuer Vers. CH-8093 Birmensdorf, Spec.  Publ. 22


publication_ID: 60
publication:
Richard and Luescher, Phys. Eig. von Boeden der Schweiz. Vol 5. Eidg. Anstalt fuer Vers. CH-8093 Birmensdorf, Spec. Publ.  25


publication_ID: 71
publication:
Olsson and Rose, (1978) Hydraulic properties of a red-brown earth determined from in-situ measurements.  Aust. J. Soil Res. 16:169-80


publication_ID: 76
publication:
Dane, 1976.  Soil hydr. cond. - salt relationships. Ph.D.  Thesis. Colorado State Univ.  Dane and Klute, 1977.  Salt effects on the hydr


publication_ID: 77
publication:
Hopmans and Stricker, Soil hydraulic properties in the study area Hupsels..., Agric. Univ. Wageningen, 1987.


publication_ID: 78
publication:
Haverkamp and Parlange, 1986.  Predicting the water-retention curve from particle-size dist.: 1. Sandy soils without organic matter. Soi


publication_ID: 79
publication:
Vauclin et al., 1989.  Numerical modeling of coupled heat and water flows during drying in a stratified bare soil. Journal of Hydrology,


publication_ID: 80
publication:
Vachaud et al., 1982.  La station hydroclimatologique du Mornag III. Estimation de la consommation hydrique d'nue culture de ble en sec,


publication_ID: 81
publication:
Haverkamp, 1981.  Valorisation des resultats relatifs a l'etude des relations eau-sol-plantes a Bouake. Rapport no.  1947, International


publication_ID: 82
publication:
Vachaud et al., 1978.  Methodes de caracterisation hydrodynamique in situ d'un sol non sature. Ann. Agronomique, 29(1):1-36


publication_ID: 83
publication:
Haverkamp et al., 1978.  Caracterisation hydrodynamique in situ a partir d'un essai d'infiltration. Ann. meeting of the FAO/UNESCO. Colo


publication_ID: 84
publication:
J.I. Freijer and L. de Lange. 1990. Determination of hydraulic conductivity of four Dutch soils with the sprinkling infiltrometer method


# comment_lab_general

comment_lab_ID: 1
comment_lab:
Undisturbed samples (I.D. 5.35 cm) were obtained with a drop hammer type sampler, (3 cm high) for retention and for saturated conductivity (6 cm high). Water retention was obtained with Tempe pressure cells, pressure cookers, and pressure membranes. The water outflow volume was monitored to determine water content at each equilibrium pressure between successive pressures.  The saturated hydraulic conductivity was determined with the constant head method using vertical samples. Average temperature during experiments was 25 C.


comment_lab_ID: 2
comment_lab:
Undisturbed soil cores (7.6 cm high and 7.6 cm I.D.) were taken from pits dug adjacent to the field plots.  The cores were prewetted and put into pressure plate extractors and subjected to a series of increasing pressures.  They were removed and weighed after equilibration at each pressure.  The samples were oven-dried to determine water contents and bulk density.  Subsamples were taken from each core to determine the soil texture by the pipette method.


comment_lab_ID: 3
comment_lab:
Undisturbed core samples (I.D.=5.39 cm, height=3.0 cm) were obtained with a drop hammer type sampler for water retention, saturated hydraulic conductivity, and bulk density determinations. Disturbed samples were collected for particle density, soil texture, and organic matter content.  Water retention in the range of 0-350 cm water with Tempe pressure cells, and for 15000 cm water with a pressure plate apparatus. These data were used to determine the hydraulic conductivity in situ.


comment_lab_ID: 4
comment_lab:
Four to six 7.6 cm-high by 7.6 cm I.D. cores were taken with a Uhland soil sampler from each soil horizon.  Retention data were determined using a pressure outflow system (Cassel, 1974, North Dakota Agric. Exp. Sta. Bull. 494).  Water outflow was determined volumetrically.  The saturated hydraulic conductivity was measured on the same samples with the constant head method.  The samples were oven dried to determine saturated water content and bulk density, and finally, the sample was crushed for a 15-bar water content determination.


comment_lab_ID: 5
comment_lab:
Disturbed (dried and sieved) soil material was packed into a flow cell (21 cm high, 10 cm wide, and 7 cm thick) to investigate the temperature dependancy of hydraulic properties.  Tension was measured with micro tensiometers, water content with dual-energy gamma-system, and temperature with Cu-Constantan thermocouples.  Drainage was accomplished by applying suction at the bottom of the flow cell, which consisted of a ceramic plate, whereas a zero flux existed at the top of the cell.  Initially, the temperature of the flow cell was maintained at 20C.  Then the top of the flow cell was kept at 45C, resulting in a temperature profile in the soil.  During the drainage, hydraulic properties could be determined at various positions and, therefore, for various temperatures.


comment_lab_ID: 6
comment_lab:
Undisturbed samples were taken with a Uhland-type impact sampler.  Retention data were obtained using a pressure outflow system (Cassel, 1974, North Dakota Agric. Exp. Sta.  Bull. 494).  The saturated hydraulic conductivity was measured on the same samples with the constant head method.  The samples were oven dried to determine bulk density and the sample was crushed for a 15-bar water content determination.


comment_lab_ID: 7
comment_lab:
Retention curves were determined on 7.5 cm-long cores with a 7.5 cm I.D.  These were placed on a 1-bar plate and saturated.  They were then put in a pressure chamber.  A sequence of increasing pressures was applied, at the equilibrium of each pressure step the samples were weighed and placed back on the plate.  After the final equilibrium, the cores were oven-dried to determine bulk density.


comment_lab_ID: 8
comment_lab:
A pit was dug adjacent to each plot for core sampling.  Undisturbed samples (I.D. 5.35 cm) for retention (3-cm high) and for saturated conductivity (6-cm high), were obtained with a drop hammer type sampler.  Water retention was obtained with Tempe pressure cells and pressure cookers.  Water outflow volumes between successive pressures were determined gravimetrically.  The saturated hydraulic conductivity was determined with the constant head method using vertical samples.  Average temperature during experiment was 25 C.


comment_lab_ID: 9
comment_lab:
Core samples were taken from a pit dug within 2 to 4 m from each plot.  Three cores (5.4 cm I.D. and 3 cm. long) were taken from the center of each horizon using a hand-driven soil core sampler.  Retention curves were determined with Tempe pressure cells, using a series of regulated and increasing pneumatic pressures.  At each equilibrium the water content was determined by weighing.  Bulk density was determined after the retention measurements were completed.


comment_lab_ID: 10
comment_lab:
Three to six core samples for each horizon were wetted from the bottom in a reservoir of water by raising the water level by increments over time and finally reaching the top of the core and placed on ceramic plates (with air entry values of about 400 cm) in individual pressure chambers.  Water content was determined gravimetrically after equilibrium at final pressure. Volume of outflow data were then used to calculate water contents for each equilibrium pressure.  For 0.3, 0.5, and 1 bar pressures the remaining samples were used on a multiple-sample pressure cell.  For 1, 2, 4, and 15 bars, clods were placed on sieved material at pressure plates.  Saturated hydraulic conductivity was determined with a gradient between 1 and 2.


comment_lab_ID: 11
comment_lab:
Sampling pits were dug within 1 m of each site.  Cores of 8 cm length and 8 cm I.D. were sampled in triplicate at each tensiometer depth.  For the retention data the cores were gradually saturated and placed in a pressure chamber on a five-bar plate.  A sequence of increasing pressures was applied to the samples at equilibrium, after each pressure change, the samples were removed, weighed, and replaced on the plate.  After these determinations the samples were oven-dried and weighed.


comment_lab_ID: 12
comment_lab:
Soil cores were saturated in Buchner funnels to permit exposing the cores to suctions up to 152cm in increments of 20cm.  Water released at each pressure was collected in graduated cylinders.  Four cores from each depth were then put in a pressure plate extractor for higher pressures.  Afterwards the water content and bulk density were determined.  During prewetting for the retention curve, swelling was observed.


comment_lab_ID: 13
comment_lab:
Water retention curves were obtained with Tempe cells for all six cores taken at each tensiometer depth. Afterwards the bulk density was determined on all cores.


comment_lab_ID: 14
comment_lab:
Three replicate cores of 7.2cm I.D. and 5.0cm height were sampled for each study depth at a distance of 3m from the neutron access tubes. Retention curves were determined by the hanging column technique (Vomocil, 1965).


comment_lab_ID: 15
comment_lab:
Three replicate cores of 5.4 cm I.D. and 3 cm height were sampled for each study depth at a distance of 3 m from the neutron access tubes. Retention curves were determined by the hanging column technique (Vomocil, 1965).


comment_lab_ID: 16
comment_lab:
Acrylic cylinders were packed to bulk densities of 1.6 and 1.7 g/cm3, the lower contained a porous stainless steel plate connected to a vacuum chamber. The upper end of the cylinder was connected to a syringe pump & solution reservoir for steady flow. The experiment was started with a unit gradient and a flux equal to the saturated hydraulic conductivity. Subsequently, lower steady fluxes were achieved by reducing the applied flux and applying a vacuum at the bottom. Tensiometers were installed and read with a tensimeter. Water contents were determined by weighing the entire column.


comment_lab_ID: 18
comment_lab:
Estimates based on 105 oriented core segments at 3 m intervals from nine inclined boreholes. 5cm long, 6cm I.D.  samples were used for bulk and particle densities, porosity, sat. & unsat. conductivity, and water retention with pressure plate (<10 bar). Samples with a diameter and length of 1cm were used to determine water retention (>10 bar), bulk and particle densities, and porosity with thermocouple psychrometry. Hydraulic conductivity was determined with the inverse method from Tempe cells using multistep outflow data.


comment_lab_ID: 19
comment_lab:
Water retention curve was obtained on undisturbed soil cores (I.D. = 5.5 cm, height = 4.2 cm) in a pressure plate apparatus after capillary saturation for h=10 to 316 cm, while disturbed samples were used for h=631 to 15850 cm.  Water losses between successive pressures were determined gravimetrically. Unsaturated hydraulic conductivity was determined with a slow evaporation method by measuring matric potential at 2 depths & water losses due to evaporation through the surface of an undisturbed soil core (I.D.=8 cm, height=6 cm). Saturated hydraulic conductivity was determined on undisturbed soil cores (I.D.=5.5 cm, height=4.2 cm) with a permeameter.


comment_lab_ID: 20
comment_lab:
The sample was placed on a balance & saturated, then evaporation was established by blowing air with a ventilator over the top of the sample. Water content was determined with TDR probes, whereas pressure heads were determined with pressure transducers in combination with micro-tensiometers.  The water flux was determined from the balance readings during the measurement. The conductivity curve could be derived from the water flux & tensiometer measurements.


comment_lab_ID: 21
comment_lab:
Air dried soil was (<6mm) packed into a 150cm long column (76cm I.D.). Porous cups were installed 10cm from the bottom to collect drainage water at a suction of 140cm. Triplicate tensiometers were installed at 6 depths and connected to mercury manometers. An aluminum access tube was installed in the center of the column to determine water content with neutron scattering. Steady-state (modified short column) and redistribution methods were used to determine conductivity.  A steady flux was established with adjustable constant flow pumps. Water was applied at 12 points at the surface starting with low flow rates and gradually increasing the rate, after which the rates were gradually decreased. Water content and pressure head were also monitored during redistribution after flood irrigation .


comment_lab_ID: 22
comment_lab:
Undisturbed samples (I.D.=5.4cm) were obtained with a drop hammer type sampler, for retention (4.2cm high) and hydraulic conductivity (10cm high). Water retention was determined on six replicates with a pressure plate apparatus after capillary wetting. The soil water diffusivity was determined on six to eight replicates with the hot air method (Arya).


comment_lab_ID: 23
comment_lab:
Water retention curve was obtained on undisturbed soil cores (I.D.=5.5 cm, height=4.2 cm) in a pressure plate apparatus after vacuum saturation, for h=10 to 316 cm. Disturbed samples were used for h=631 to 15850 cm. Water losses between successive pressures were determined gravimetrically. Unsaturated hydraulic conductivity was determined with a slow evaporation method by measuring matric potential at 2 depths & water losses due to evaporation through the surface of an undisturbed soil core (I.D.=8 cm, height=6 cm). Saturated hydraulic conductivity was determined with undisturbed soil cores (I.D.=5.5 cm, height=4.2 cm) with a constant/falling head permeameter.


comment_lab_ID: 24
comment_lab:
Column was packed with sieved medium sand. Column diameter is 10 cm. Water content was measured with a moveable gamma system and pressure head with a series of tensiometers.


comment_lab_ID: 25
comment_lab:
The soil was packed into cylinders (3 cm height and 5.3 cm diameter) to a bulk density of 1.2 g/cm3 for retention.  Samples were wetted from the bottom. A combination of hanging water columns (Tempe cell) and air pressure (cooker with plates) was used to obtain the retention curve in the range of 0 to 1000 cm water. For the diffusivity measurement the soil was packed into a 100 cm long, 10 cm wide, 1.75 cm thick container. Bulk density varied from 1.26 to 1.32 g/cm3 in the measurement region. Diffusivity was obtained with the Bruce & Klute method for several times according to Whisler et al. (1968). The room temperature was 27 +/- 2 degrees celsius.


comment_lab_ID: 26
comment_lab:
Sorptivity method according to Dicksen (SSSAP 39:22). Water was applied under suction to undisturbed soil samples of 100cm^3. The effect of membrane impedance could be neglected. The diffusivity was calculated from the sorptivity obtained from the cumulative infiltration and time of infiltration. After the experiment was completed a soil sample was taken to gravimetrically determine water content at the applied suction (25 to 150 cm water).


comment_lab_ID: 27
comment_lab:
Sorptivity method according to Dicksen (SSSAP 39:22). Water was applied under suction to undisturbed soil samples of 100cm^3. The effect of membrane impedance could be neglected. The diffusivity was calculated from the sorptivity obtained from the cumulative infiltration and time of infiltration. After the experiment was completed a soil sample was taken to gravimetrically determine water content at the applied suction (15 to 360 cm water).


comment_lab_ID: 28
comment_lab:
Sorptivity method according to Dicksen (SSSAP 39:22). Water was applied under suction to undisturbed soil samples of 100cm^3. The effect of membrane impedance could be neglected. The diffusivity was calculated from the sorptivity obtained from the cumulative infiltration and time of infiltration. After the experiment was completed a soil sample was taken to gravimetrically determine water content at the applied suction (15 to 600 cm water).


comment_lab_ID: 29
comment_lab:
Sandy soil material was taken from glacial sites and packed into cores (I.D.=12 cm, length 140 cm). The column was saturated. Tensiometers were installed at vertical distances of 10 cm, water content was measured with gamma ray transmission. The unsaturated hydraulic functions were determined, according to the instantaneous profile method (Watson, WRR 2(u)), from automatically monitoring internal drainage. Drainage was observed for >30 days after which evaporation from the top occurred.


comment_lab_ID: 30
comment_lab:
Samples were taken with a drop hammer (4.8cm high ID=5.35cm) for retention and for saturated conductivity (6.3cm high I.D.=7.2cm). Retention with a sand-box (0<h<500cm) & pressure membrane (1000<h<15000cm), outflow volumes were determined gravimetrically. Saturated conductivity was obtained with the constant head method using vertical samples. Unsaturated conductivity was determined on undisturbed soil columns (95cm high ID=20.5cm). Tensiometers connected to mercury manometers, were positioned at 5 or 10cm intervals from 10-80cm below the soil surface with the water table at 80cm below the surface. Steady flow was accomplished after approx. 1 month for evaporation or infiltration.


comment_lab_ID: 31
comment_lab:
Four to seven undisturbed soil cores were obtained using a San Dimas sampler, containing an auger rotating around a stationary collection tube. Core size: ID=11 cm, height=7.5 cm. Water retention, at selected pressure, was obtained using hanging water columns. Saturated hydraulic conductivity was determined with the constant head method.  Average temp. during the experiment was 25 degrees C. The reported data are the average for four to seven cores.


comment_lab_ID: 32
comment_lab:
Undisturbed soil cores (ID=9.84 cm, h=7.62) were taken with a San Dimas sampler. Samples were wrapped in paraffin film, treated with formaldehyde & stored at 4 C until used. Cores were inserted in a lucite conductivity cell with glass wool or porous PVC at the ends for measurement of saturated conductivity using unit gradient. For water retention a 1-bar air-entry porous ceramic plate was connected to a hanging water column for suctions up to 100 cm water. For higher pressures a pressure plate apparatus was used.  Temperature was 21 C.


comment_lab_ID: 33
comment_lab:
Water retention was measured with soil moisture pressure apparatus. Samples were probably disturbed during transport from field to laboratory. Saturated conductivity in the laboratory using equipment from Eykelkamp.


comment_lab_ID: 34
comment_lab:
Undisturbed samples were obtained with a drop hammer type sampler. Sample size: ID=7.62 cm and height=7.62 cm for retention and saturated conductivity. Water retention was obtained with modified tempe pressure cells and pressure cookers. Water outflow volumes between successive pressures were determined gravimetrically. The saturated hydraulic conductivity was determined with the constant head method using vertical samples. Average temperature during experiment was 25 C.


comment_lab_ID: 35
comment_lab:
Two pairs of 4.5 x 5 cm core samples were taken from the surface and fom a depth of 20 cm and placed on a Buchner funnel, suction was determined with a ceramic filter-stick tensiometer. The pressure-transient inflow/outflow technique (SSSAJ 47:1068-1072) was used to determine wetting and draining diffusivity for h=2.5, 32.5 and 82.5cm. Cumulative outflow/inflow allowed determination of the retention curve.  Retention at high suctions (1000cm) was determined with a pressure plate apparatus. The diffusivity (and hence conductivity) was determined on disturbed (packed) columns using the technique by Bruce & Klute.


comment_lab_ID: 36
comment_lab:
Only disturbed, repacked samples were used. Diffusivity was determined according to Bruce & Klute & a pressure-propagation technique (SSSAJ 47:636-640) to find D at saturation. Water retention was obtained from pressure-transient outflow on 5 cm wide & 2.5 cm long cores (SSSAJ 47:1068-1072). Some unsaturated conductivity data were also obtained from the long column method (unit gradient).


comment_lab_ID: 37
comment_lab:
Two 5 x 5 cm core samples were taken from the surface and placed on a Buchner funnel in the lab, suction was determined with a ceramic filter-stick tensiometer.  Retention at 1000 and 15000 cm was obtained with a pressure plate apparatus. The pressure-transient inflow/outflow technique (SSSAJ 47:1068-1072) was used to determined wetting and draining diffusivity with 300 cm pressure increments. The retention curve was obtained from the cumulative outflow/inflow.


comment_lab_ID: 38
comment_lab:
Undisturbed samples with I.D.= 5.0 cm and a height of 5.1 cm for retention, and I.D.= 10.0 cm and a height of 4.0 cm for conductivity, were used. Average temperature during the experiment was 20 C.


comment_lab_ID: 39
comment_lab:
Undisturbed samples with I.D.= 5.1 cm and a height of 5.0 cm for retention, and I.D.= 10 cm and a height of 3 cm for conductivity, were used. Water outflow volumes between successive pressures were determined gravimetrically.  Average temperature during experiment was 25 C.


comment_lab_ID: 40
comment_lab:
Custom made cylindrical stainless steel cores (ID=5.26 cm, length=5.18 cm) were packed with air dry sand for determining retention curves for various liquids. A porous ceramic disk was used to prevent the nonwetting fluid from exiting the porous medium. A positive pressure was applied to the nonwetting fluid while the wetting fluid pressure was controlled to be atmospheric. Equilibrium was assumed when movement of the wetting fluid ceased. The fluid content was determined gravimetrically. All pressures are expressed in water equivalent heights and three packed replicate cores were used.


comment_lab_ID: 41
comment_lab:
An 8.5 cm high cell was constructed to measure the retention for air-water and air-water-Soltrol systems. The cell contains two pairs of ceramic rings connected to a vacuum/pressure source, pressure transducers, and burets; a hydrophilic pair for water and a hydrophobic pair for Soltrol. The liquid levels were regulated with the pressure/vacuum source, whereas the burets served as a sink/source for fluid and allow determination of liquid content equilibrium. The water pressure is reported in cm H2O as measured with pressure transducers. Air was at atmospheric pressure. Results are for five replicate packings.


comment_lab_ID: 42
comment_lab:
An 8.5 cm high cell was constructed to measure the retention for air-water and air-water-Soltrol systems. The cell contains two pairs of ceramic rings connected to a vacuum/pressure source, pressure transducers, and burets; a hydrophilic pair for water and a hydrophobic pair for Soltrol. The liquid levels were regulated with the pressure/vacuum source, whereas the burets served as a sink/source for fluid and allow determination of liquid content equilibrium. The soltrol pressure is reported in cm H2O as measured with pressure transducers. Air was at atmospheric pressure. Results are for two replicate packings.


comment_lab_ID: 43
comment_lab:
An 8.5 cm high cell was constructed to measure the retention for air-water and air-water-Soltrol systems. The cell contains two pairs of ceramic rings connected to a vacuum/pressure source, pressure transducers, and burets; a hydrophilic pair for water and a hydrophobic pair for Soltrol. The liquid levels were regulated with the pressure/vacuum source, whereas the burets served as a sink/source for fluid and allow determination of liquid content equilibrium. Water content vs. the oil-water capillary pressure heads are reported in cm H2O as measured with pressure transducers. Air was at atmospheric pressure.  Results are for five replicate packings.


comment_lab_ID: 44
comment_lab:
An 8.5 cm high cell was constructed to measure the retention for air-water and air-water-Soltrol systems. The cell contains two pairs of ceramic rings connected to a vacuum/pressure source, pressure transducers, and burets; a hydrophilic pair for water and a hydrophobic pair for Soltrol. The liquid levels were regulated with the pressure/vacuum source, whereas the burets served as a sink/source for fluid and allow determination of liquid content equilibrium. Water and oil content (total liquid content) vs. the air-oil capillary pressure heads reported in cm H2O as measured with pressure transducers. Air was at atmospheric pressure. Results are for five replicate packings.


comment_lab_ID: 45
comment_lab:
Samples were packed by the drop impact method of Ripple et al. (Powder Technol. 8:165-175, 1973) using a drop height of 2.8 mm and an impact frequency of 1/1.8 per second. Samples were additionally compacted in a centrifuge at 1910 g's. The steady-state centrifuge method produced essentially uniform moisture profiles within the samples. Fluxes measured during centrifugation were used to obtain K, sample weight & tensiometer readings after centrifugation yielded water content & pressure head, respectively. Details of the procedure can be found in WRR 23(1) & SSSAJ 52(2).


comment_lab_ID: 46
comment_lab:
Samples were packed by the drop impace method of Ripple et al. (Powder Technol. 8:165-175, 1973) using a drop height of 0.6 mm & an impact frequency of 1/1.8 per second. Samples were additionally compacted in a centrifuge at 1910 g's. The steady-state centrifuge method produced essentially uniform moisture profiles within the samples. Fluxes measured during centrifugation were used to obtain K; sample weight & tensiometer readings after centrifugation yielded water content & pressure head, respectively. Details of the procedure can be found in WRR 23(1) & SSSAJ 52(2).


comment_lab_ID: 47
comment_lab:
Samples were packed by the drop impact method of Ripple et al. (Powder Technol. 8:165-175, 1973) using a drop height of 2.8 mm & an impact frequency of 1/100 per second. Samples were additionally impacted in a centrifuge at 1910 g's. The steady-state centrifuge method produced essentially uniform moisture profiles within the samples. Fluxes measured during centrifugation were used to obtain K; sample weight & tensiometer readings after centrifugation yielded water content & pressure head, respectively. Details of the procedure can be found in WRR 23(1) & SSAJ 52(2).


comment_lab_ID: 48
comment_lab:
Samples were packed by the drop impact method of Ripple et al. (Powder Technol. 8:165-175, 1973) using a drop height of 2.8 mm & an impact frequency of 1/1.8 per second. Samples were additionally compacted in a centrifuge at 140 g's. The steady-state centrifuge method produced essentially uniform moisture profiles within the samples. Fluxes measured during centrifugation were used to obtain K; sample weight & tensiometer readings after centrifugation yielded water content & pressure head, respectively. Details of the procedure can be found in WRR 23(1) & SSSAJ 52(2).


comment_lab_ID: 49
comment_lab:
Samples were packed by the drop impact method of Ripple et al. (Powder Technol. 8:165-175, 1973) using a drop height of 2.8 mm & an impact frequency of 1/100 per second. Samples were additionally compacted in a centrifuge at 140 g's. The steady-state centrifuge method produced essentially uniform moisture profiles within the samples. Fluxes measured during centrifugation were used to obtain K; sample weight & tensiometer readings after centrifugation yielded water content & pressure head, respectively. Details of the procedure can be found in WRR 23(1) & SSAJ 52(2).


comment_lab_ID: 50
comment_lab:
Samples were packed by the drop impact method of Ripple et al. (Powder Technol. 8:165-175, 1973) using a drop height of 0.6 mm & an impact frequency of 1/1.8 per second. Samples were additionally compacted in a centrifuge at 140 g's. The steady-state centrifuge method produced essentially uniform moisture profiles within the samples. Fluxes measured during centrifugation were used to obtain K; sample weight & tensiometer readings after centrifugation yielded water content & pressure head , respectively. Details of the procedure can be found in WRR 23(1) & SSAJ 52(2).


comment_lab_ID: 51
comment_lab:
Medium was prepared by washing & sieving the sand, then mixing the desired quantities of the fractions. The soil was packed in a modified Tempe cell with porous membranes & water reservoirs at top and bottom to determine retention curve. A set amount of water was drawn from the sample with a vacuum source at the bottom via a buret. After equilibration, pressure head is determined at the loose fitting top of the sample via a porous membrane and transducer. Medium was packed in a conductivity cell to same density as retention experiment. A falling head supply was placed on top of the sample, two tensiometers were inserted to allow measurement of hydraulic gradient. Bottom consists of capillary barrier connected to vacuum source to establish a unit gradient.


comment_lab_ID: 52
comment_lab:
Wetting fluid is Soltrol C. Disturbed samples were obtained by carefully packing a 3.18 cm dia. and 10 cm long column with porous inflow & outflow barriers and two tensiometers.  A mariotte device was used for liquid supply, pressure head was changed by adjusting the levels of the inflow & outflow reservoirs. Conductivity was determined from steady flow experiments, tensiometer readings and measured discharge.  For the retention curve, the soil was packed in a 7cm long column. The pressure was again regulated with the inflow & outflow levels, the fluid content was obtained at equilibration by clamping of all leads & weighing the column. The experimental information was reported in cm H2O assuming a temperature of 20 C.


comment_lab_ID: 53
comment_lab:
A semi-consolidated undisturbed sample was taken with a sleeve-type sampler, during subsequent transport and experiment the soil remained in the sleeve. The wetting fluid, Soltrol C, was applied with a Mariotte device and collected at the bottom to determine the discharge. Two tensiometers, connected to Hg manometers, could move freely against the sample while maintaining hydraulic contact. The sample was moved up or down to establish the desired gradient & discharge. The reported heads are in cm H2O assuming a temperature of 20 C.


comment_lab_ID: 54
comment_lab:
The soil was passed through a #14 sieve and packed in a 10 cm long, 3.18 cm wide column. The wetting fluid, Soltrol C, was applied with a Mariotte device and collected at the bottom to determine the discharge. Two tensiometers, connected to Hg manometers, could move freely against the sample while maintaining hydraulic contact. The sample was moved up or down to establish the desired gradient and discharge. The reported heads are in cm H2O assuming a temperature of 20 C.


comment_lab_ID: 55
comment_lab:
The soil was passed through a #35 sieve and packed in a 4 cm long, 3.18 cm wide column. The wetting fluid, Soltrol C, was applied with a Mariotte device and collected at the bottom to determine the discharge. Two tensiometers, connected to Hg manometers, could move freely against the sample while maintaining hydraulic contact. The sample was moved up or down to establish the desired gradient and discharge. The reported heads are in cm H2O assuming a temperature of 20 C.


comment_lab_ID: 56
comment_lab:
A 10 cm long undisturbed sample was taken vertically with a sleeve-type sampler, during the subsequent transport and experiment the soil remained in the sleeve. The wetting fluid, Soltrol C, was applied with a Mariotte device and collected at the bottom. Two tensiometers, connected to Hg manometers, could move freely against the 10 cm long sample while maintaining hydraulic contact. The sample was moved up or down to establish the desired gradient and discharge. The reported heads are in cm H2O assuming a temperature of 20 C.


comment_lab_ID: 57
comment_lab:
An undisturbed sample was taken horizontally with a sleeve-type sampler, during the subsequent transport and experiment the soil remained in the sleeve. The wetting fluid, Soltrol C, was applied with a Mariotte device and collected at the bottom. Two tensiometers, connected to Hg manometers, could move freely against the sample while maintaining hydraulic contact. The sample was moved up or down to establish the desired gradient and discharge. The reported heads are in cm H2O assuming a temperature of 20 C.


comment_lab_ID: 58
comment_lab:
The soil was passed through a #48 sieve and packed in a 10 cm long, 3.18 cm wide column. The wetting fluid, Soltrol C, was applied with a Mariotte device and collected at the bottom. Two tensiometers, connected to Hg manometers, could move freely against the sample while maintaining hydraulic contact. The sample was moved up or down to establish the desired gradient and discharge. The reported heads are in cm H2O assuming a temperature of 20 C.


comment_lab_ID: 59
comment_lab:
A 10cm long undisturbed vertical sample was taken at 30 cm with a sleeve-type sampler; during the subsequent transport and experiment the soil remained in the sleeve. The wetting fluid, Soltrol C, was applied with a Mariotte device and collected at the bottom to determine the discharge. Two tensiometers, connected to Hg manometers, could move freely against the sample while maintaining hydraulic contact. The sample was moved up or down to establish the desired gradient & discharge. The reported heads are in cm H2O assuming a temperature of 20 C.


comment_lab_ID: 60
comment_lab:
A 10cm long horizontal undisturbed sample was taken at 30 cm with a sleeve-type sampler; during the subsequent transport and experiment the soil remained in the sleeve. The wetting fluid, Soltrol C, was applied with a Mariotte device and collected at the bottom to determine the discharge. Two tensiometers, connected to Hg manometers, could move freely against the sample while maintaining hydraulic contact. The sample was moved up or down to establish the desired gradient and discharge. The reported heads are in cm H2O assuming a temperature of 20 C.


comment_lab_ID: 61
comment_lab:
The soil was passed through a #48 sieve and packed in a 10 cm long, 3.18 cm wide column. The wetting fluid, Soltrol C, was applied with a Mariotte device and collected at the bottom to determine the discharge. Two tensiometers, connected to Hg manometers, could move freely against the sample while maintaining hydraulic contact. The sample was moved up or down to establish the desired gradient and discharge. The reported heads are in cm H2O assuming a temperature of 20 C.


comment_lab_ID: 62
comment_lab:
A 10cm long undisturbed vertical sample was taken at 13 cm with a sleeve-type sampler; during the subsequent transport and experiment the soil remained in the sleeve. The wetting fluid, Soltrol C, was applied with a Mariotte device and collected at the bottom to determine the discharge. Two tensiometers, connected to Hg manometers, could move freely against the sample while maintaining hydraulic contact. The sample was moved up or down to establish the desired gradient and discharge. The reported heads are in cm H2O assuming a temperature of 20 C.


comment_lab_ID: 63
comment_lab:
A 10cm long undisturbed horizontal sample was taken at 13 cm with a sleeve-type sampler; during the subsequent transport and experiment the soil remained in the sleeve. The wetting fluid, Soltrol C, was applied with a Mariotte device and collected at the bottom to determine the discharge. Two tensiometers, connected to Hg manometers, could move freely against the sample while maintaining hydraulic contact. The sample was moved up or down to establish the desired gradient and discharge. The reported heads are in cm H2O assuming a temperature of 20 C.


comment_lab_ID: 64
comment_lab:
An undisturbed vertical sample was taken at 51 cm with a sleeve-type sampler; during the subsequent transport and experiment the soil remained in the sleeve. The wetting fluid, Soltrol C, was applied with a Mariotte device and collected at the bottom to determine the discharge. Two tensiometers, connected to Hg manometers, could move freely against the sample while maintaining hydraulic contact. The sample was moved up or down to establish the desired gradient and discharge. The reported heads are in cm H2O assuming a temperature of 20 C.


comment_lab_ID: 65
comment_lab:
An undisturbed horizontal sample was taken at 51 cm with a sleeve-type sampler; during the subsequent transport and experiment the soil remained in the sleeve. The wetting fluid, Soltrol C, was applied with a Mariotte device and collected at the bottom to determine the discharge. Two tensiometers, connected to Hg manometers, could move freely against the sample while maintaining hydraulic contact. The sample was moved up or down to establish the desired gradient and discharge. The reported heads are in cm H2O assuming a temperature of 20 C.


comment_lab_ID: 66
comment_lab:
A plexiglass column of 4.5 cm inner diameter was packed with quartz sand. The column consists of 2 circular tensiometers connected to pressure transducers, and 4 air entry rings to ensure that the air inside the column is at atmospheric pressure. For the retention curve, column & tensiometers were vacuum saturated; the lower column outlet was connected to a constant head reservoir. Drying & wetting curves were determined by changing the reservoir level in increments. At steady state, h was obtained from the tensiometer readings, whereas water content was measured with gamma attenuation (Am-241). For the conductivity, water was supplied at constant rate at the top. The outflow head was regulated by maintaining constant water levels in the outflow systems.


comment_lab_ID: 67
comment_lab:
Vertical undisturbed samples of 250 cm3 (I.D.=7.2 cm, 6.1 cm length) were used for measuring hydraulic parameters and bulk density. Two tensiometers at a distance of 3 cm were installed. The sample was sealed from the bottom, put on a scale, the upper surface exposed to allow evaporation, and the weight of the sample was monitored over time. The hydraulic conductivity was calculated with Darcy's law assuming quasi steady-state. Retention was also obtained from the experimental results.


comment_lab_ID: 68
comment_lab:
Vertical undisturbed samples (100 cm3, I.D.=5.5 cm, 4.2 cm long) were used. The water retention curve was determined with the pressure plate apparatus. For the conductivity, the sample was placed between 2 ceramic plates. Water flow was measured under steady-state conditions.


comment_lab_ID: 69
comment_lab:
Vertical undisturbed samples of 250 cm3 (I.D.=7.2 cm, 6.1 cm long) were used for measuring hydraulic parameters and bulk density. Two tensiometers at a distance of 3 cm were installed. The sample was sealed from the bottom, put on a scale, the upper surface exposed to allow evaporation, and the weight of the sample was monitored over time. The hydraulic conductivity was calculated with Darcy's law assuming quasi steady-state. Retention was also obtained from the experimental results. For h>800 cm the retention values were determined with the pressure plate apparatus.


comment_lab_ID: 70
comment_lab:
Triplicate 7.62 x 7.62 cm core samples were taken at soil depths at which tensiometer cups were located, with a hydraulic probe or an Uhland soil sampler. Retention was determined with a pressure outflow apparatus; soil cores in Buchner funnels with lucite lids. The water outflow volume between successive pressure steps was obtained for the retention curve.


comment_lab_ID: 71
comment_lab:
Undisturbed core samples (250 cm3, 5 cm high) were vacuum saturated for one week and placed on ceramic plates, retention data were obtained with hanging water columns (h< 330 cm). For the conductivity the samples were vacuum saturated. Ceramic plates were placed at the top and bottom after small tensiometers had been installed. Steady flow was established using a Mariotte device at h=10, 20, 30, and 50 cm. For good hydraulic contact between plates and soil, a prewetted silt-textured quartz powder was applied. The retention curve for 1, 3 and 15 bar was obtained on 2 repacked samples using a pressure cooker. The water content was determined at equilibrium for each applied pressure.  Retention and hydraulic cond. data are average values from 10 replications.


comment_lab_ID: 72
comment_lab:
Four undisturbed soil blocks (30 cm high, 25x25 cm area) were coated with artificial resin before top and bottom were cut with a stone saw. The blocks were placed on ceramic plates with a prewetted silty textured quartz powder contact medium. Small tensiometers were installed at four depths.  The blocks were saturated, hanging water columns were used to maintain various pressures. The cumulative drainage and pressure heads were determined during transient drainage.  Subsamples were taken afterwards for the retention curve, determined with hanging water columns and pressure plates.  Conductivity was calculated according to the instantaneous profile method using these retention data.


comment_lab_ID: 73
comment_lab:
Undisturbed core samples (250 cm3, 5 cm high) were vacuum saturated for one week and placed on ceramic plates, retention data were obtained with hanging water columns (h< 330 cm). For the conductivity the samples were vacuum saturated. Ceramic plates were placed at the top and bottom after small tensiometers had been installed. Steady flow was established using a Mariotte device at h=10, 20, 30, and 50 cm. For good hydraulic contact between plates and soil, a prewetted silt-textured quartz powder was applied. The retention curve for 1, 3 and 15 bar was obtained on repacked samples using a pressure cooker. The water content was determined at equilibrium for each applied pressure.  Retention and hydraulic cond. data are average values from 6 replications.


comment_lab_ID: 74
comment_lab:
Undisturbed samples (ID=8 cm, 15 cm high) were taken from a soil pit. After capillary saturation the sample was allowed to evaporate from the top, during which sample weight (using load cells) & pressure head (using micro-tensiometers connected to pressure transducers) were monitored. The retention curve was obtained at four or five depths according to Boels et al. (Soil Sci. 126:191). Saturated hydraulic conductivity was obtained on undisturbed vertical samples using the falling head method. The average temperature during the experiment was 23 C.


comment_lab_ID: 75
comment_lab:
Undisturbed samples (ID=8cm, 15cm high) were taken from a soil pit. The sample was saturated and allowed to evaporate using a fan at the top.  Water content was measured with gamma attenuation (Cs-137) and pressure at four depths with micro-tensiometers consisting of sintered glass plates connected to pressure transducers. For h>300 the retention was obtained on the same sample with a pressure plate apparatus. The saturated hydraulic conductivity was obtained with the falling head method using vertical samples. The conductivity was determined according to the instantaneous profile method. The average temperature during the experiment was 23 C.


comment_lab_ID: 76
comment_lab:
Undisturbed samples (ID=8cm, 15cm high) were taken from a soil pit. The sample was saturated and allowed to evaporate using a fan at the top.  Water content was measured with gamma attenuation (Cs-137) and pressure at four depths with micro-tensiometers consisting of sintered glass plates connected to pressure transducers. For h>300 the retention was obtained on the same sample with a pressure plate apparatus. The saturated hydraulic conductivity was obtained with the constant head method using vertical samples. The conductivity was determined according to the instantaneous profile method. The average temperature during the experiment was 23 C.


comment_lab_ID: 77
comment_lab:
Undisturbed samples (I.D.=4.9, 3.8cm high) were obtained with a drop hammer type sampler. Water retention was obtained with tempe cell and negative pressure membranes.  Water outflow volumes between successive negative pressures were determined gravimetrically.  Samples were saturated from the bottom by capillarity.


comment_lab_ID: 78
comment_lab:
Undisturbed samples (I.D.=8.6cm, 75cm high) were obtained with a triple tube type sampler.  The saturated hydraulic conductivity was determined using undisturbed vertical samples.


comment_lab_ID: 79
comment_lab:
Undisturbed samples (I.D.=8.6cm, 42.6cm high) were obtained with a triple tube type sampler.  The saturated hydraulic conductivity was determined using vertical samples.


comment_lab_ID: 80
comment_lab:
Disturbed samples were used.  Acrylic rectangular boxes 7.0 cm high, 10.0 cm wide, and 60 cm long.  The saturated hydraulic conductivity was determined using disturbed vertical samples.


comment_lab_ID: 81
comment_lab:
Disturbed samples were used.  Sample size: acrylic rectangular boxes 5.0 cm high, 8.0 cm wide, and 74.5 cm long.  The saturated hydraulic conductivity was determined using vertical samples.


comment_lab_ID: 82
comment_lab:
Size of undisturbed samples: I.D. = 5.56 cm height = 2.5 cm.  Water retention was obtained by automatic pressure plate apparatus, in which drained water was collected continuously.  The water content was determined gravimetrically at the last pressure; other points of equilibrium on retention curve were calculated from drainage volume.


comment_lab_ID: 83
comment_lab:
Disturbed soil samples were air dried and packed to natural bulk density for all determinations. Conductivity was obtained from separately determined soil water diffusivity and water retention curves.


comment_lab_ID: 84
comment_lab:
Water retention was determined on replicates 3-cm long and 5.3-cm I.D. undisturbed samples.  Samples were placed on 6-cm diameter sample plates (1 bar bubbling pressure) and placed in a pan, followed by saturation with distilled water.  Sample plate assemblies were then set on 30-cm diameter ceramic plates (1 bar bp) in pressure pot extractors.  Water content was determined gravimetrically after each pressure step.  Conductivity and diffusivity was determined on a 6-cm long and 5.3-cm I.D. undisturbed core sample using the method by Doering(1965).


comment_lab_ID: 85
comment_lab:
Water retention was determined on replicates 3-cm long and 5.3-cm I.D. undisturbed samples.  Samples were placed on 6-cm diameter sample plates (1 bar bubbling pressure) and placed in a pan, followed by saturation with distilled water.  Sample plate assemblies were then set on 30-cm diameter ceramic plates (1 bar bp) in pressure pot extractors.  Water content was determined gravimetrically after each pressure step.


comment_lab_ID: 86
comment_lab:
For the conductivity curve, undisturbed samples were collected in columns, diameter 12 cm and height 20 cm.  Unsaturated cond. was measured with the sprinkling infiltrometer method for stationary flow at flux-head boundary conditions.  The hydraulic gradient was measured with 4 tensiometers.  K values are calculated, for 3 layers of 4-5 cm thickness, from the measured hydraulic gradient and the imposed flux density. The lab retention data was obtained using (see Heffer) the "Burette Method" Dutch Standard NEN 5786; suctions between h=0 & 150 cm were regulated through the water level in a burette.


comment_lab_ID: 87
comment_lab:
The 30 mm x 51 mm bulk density cores taken in duplicate from each soil horizon at the end of the experiment usually were between consecutive tensiometer positions.  The sampling rings were tapped into the soil profile, extracted and shaved to fit core volume.  Soil material was taken from each horizon for analysis of textural composition.  Laboratory determinations of saturated hydraulic conductivity were made on 75 mm x 75 mm cylindrical soil cores taken in duplicate from each horizon.  Desorption curves were determined on 10 mm x 75 mm cylindrical cores prepared from the same cores after hydraulic conductivity measurements.


comment_lab_ID: 88
comment_lab:
The 30 mm x 51 mm bulk density cores taken in duplicate from each soil horizon at the end of the experiment usually were between consecutive tensiometer positions.  The sampling rings were tapped into the soil profile, extracted and shaved to fit core volume.  Soil material was taken from each horizon for analysis of textural composition.  Laboratory determinations of saturated hydraulic conductivity were made on 75 mm x 75 mm cylindrical soil cores taken in duplicate from each horizon.  Desorption curves were determined on 10 mm x 75 mm cylindrical cores prepared from the same cores after hydraulic conductivity measurements. A 1-cm thick sample cut from the sample for the K-sat, was used for retention measurements at 10,30 and 100-cm suction as well as 330,1000,3000 and 10000 pressure


comment_lab_ID: 89
comment_lab:
Water retention characteristics were determined during drainage for six cores (73mm in diameter and 57mm high) for matric suction from 0 to 1500 kPa of water using tension table, pressure plate and pressure membrane apparatus.


comment_lab_ID: 90
comment_lab:
Retention was determined on the 7.3-cm diameter, 19.92-cm high cores with pressure-plate equipment (0-3000 cm). Water contents at 15300 cm were determined on crushed samples with pressure-membrane equipment. All measurements were made at 20 +- 1 C.


comment_lab_ID: 91
comment_lab:
Sample size: I.D.=6.1cm and height=3.42cm for retention and Ksat, and 8.55cm for unsat. cond.  Water retention was obtained by drainage, using sand box equipment, pressure cookers and pressure membranes.  Ksat was determined with the constant head method using vertical samples.  For unsat.  cond. determination, samples were brought to saturation after which a suction of 50 cm water was applied.  One end of the soil sample was exposed to a stream of hot air.  Afterwards the sample was sliced and the soil water profile determined gravimetrically.  Philips iterative procedure was used to solve Richards equation and obtain soil water diffusivity.


comment_lab_ID: 92
comment_lab:
Sample size: I.D.=6.1cm and height=3.42cm for retention and Ksat, and 8.55cm for unsat. cond.  Water retention was obtained by drainage, using sand box equipment, pressure cookers and pressure membranes.  Ksat was determined with the constant head method using vertical samples.  For unsat.  cond. determination, samples were brought to saturation after which a suction of 75 cm water was applied.  One end of the soil sample was exposed to a stream of hot air.  Afterwards the sample was sliced and the soil water profile determined gravimetrically.  Philips iterative procedure was used to solve Richards equation and obtain soil water diffusivity.


comment_lab_ID: 93
comment_lab:
Sample size: I.D.=6.1cm and height=3.42cm for retention and Ksat, and 8.55cm for unsat. cond.  Water retention was obtained by drainage, using sand box equipment, pressure cookers and pressure membranes.  Ksat was determined with the constant head method using vertical samples.  For unsat.  cond. determination, samples were brought to saturation after which a suction of 100 cm water was applied.  One end of the soil sample was exposed to a stream of hot air.  Afterwards the sample was sliced and the soil water profile determined gravimetrically.  Philips iterative procedure was used to solve Richards equation and obtain soil water diffusivity.


comment_lab_ID: 94
comment_lab:
Undisturbed samples were obtained by manually pushing a core horizontally into the soil.  Sample size: I.D.=5cm and height=5cm.  Water retention values were obtained according to NEN 5786 for pressure heads up to 150cm.  Lower pressure heads were measured with a pressure membrane apparatus and air drying (rel. humidity=60%).  Water contents were measured gravimetrically.  The conductivity data were measured on undisturbed samples (I.D.=12cm and height=20cm) with the sprinkling infiltrometer method for stationary flow at flux-head boundary conditions using 4 tensiometers, giving values for three layers (each 4-5 cm thick).  Ret.  data was obtained (h=0-150 cm) with Dutch Standard NEN 5786 "Burette Method".


comment_lab_ID: 96
comment_lab:
Ten replicate undist. samples (cores of 200cm volume and 8.7cm height) were taken randomly for diffusivity measurements.  After saturating and equilibrating the horizontal cores, evaporation was induced with a welding torch while the soil was weighted and turned repeatedly during the procedure.  After 16 min. the process was terminated and the soil cut up into 12 to 15 segments to determine water content and bulk density according to Bruce & Klute.  Water ret. was determined with a pressure plate apparatus, results are for capillary wetting (1975).


comment_lab_ID: 97
comment_lab:
Ten replicate undist. samples (cores of 229cm volume and 10cm height) were taken randomly (at 10cm depth intervals) for diffusivity measurements.  After saturating and equilibrating the horizontal cores, evaporation was induced with a welding torch while the soil was weighted and turned repeatedly during the procedure.  After 16 min. the process was terminated and the soil cut up into 12 to 15 segments to determine water content and bulk density according to Bruce & Klute.  Six replicate undist. samples (cores of 100cm volume and 4cm height) were taken for retention measurements with a pressure-plate apparatus.


comment_lab_ID: 98
comment_lab:
Undist. 100cm^3 core samples were placed on a sand box with a hanging water column, for retention low press. chambers were used for h=200 and 630cm disturbed samples in high press. chambers.  Undist. columns (20cm high, 19.5 I.D.) were excavated.  Ksat was determined first, and then unsaturated with the crust method (of increasing thickness) with a tensiometer(4cm long, 2cm I.D.) just below the crust.  The hot air method was used on subsamples(10cm high, 4.5cm I.D.) for the dry range.  The samples were brought at h=40cm(or lower) and wrapped in aluminum foil, equilibrated horizontally, and exposed to a heat source at one end.  Cumulative evaporation was monitored every minute. Bruce & Klute analysis was used to calculate D.a


comment_lab_ID: 99
comment_lab:
Air dried soil (<2mm) was packed in a plexiglass flow cell with two ring tensiometers. Porous end barriers consisting of Acropor supported by nylon mesh were used to allow unsaturated flow.  Water was applied to the shaft of a free moving piston.  The hydraulic gradient and pressure head in the cell were controlled by separate inflow/outflow systems, unit gradient was maintained.  The volume of water passed through was determined gravimetrically.  Water content was measured with a gamma radiation system.  Solutions composed of NaCl and CaCl2 with various SAR values percolated through the soil.  Ca concentrations in the effluent were determined by titration.  An overburden of 13.1 g/cm^2 occurred because of the experimental setup.


comment_lab_ID: 100
comment_lab:
Air dried soil (<2mm) was packed in a plexiglass flow cell with two ring tensiometers. Porous end barriers consisting of Acropor supported by nylon mesh were used to allow unsaturated flow.  Water was applied to the shaft of a free moving piston.  The hydraulic gradient and pressure head in the cell were controlled by separate inflow/outflow systems, unit gradient was maintained.  The volume of water passed through was determined gravimetrically.  Water content was measured with a gamma radiation system.  Solutions composed of NaCl and CaCl2 with various SAR values percolated through the soil.  Ca concentrations in the effluent were determined by titration.  An overburden of 13.2 g/cm^2 occurred because of the experimental setup


comment_lab_ID: 101
comment_lab:
Air dried soil (<2mm) was packed in a plexiglass flow cell with two ring tensiometers. Porous end barriers consisting of Acropor supported by nylon mesh were used to allow unsaturated flow.  Water was applied to the shaft of a free moving piston.  The hydraulic gradient and pressure head in the cell were controlled by separate inflow/outflow systems, unit gradient was maintained.  The volume of water passed through was determined gravimetrically.  Water content was measured with a gamma radiation system.  Solutions composed of NaCl and CaCl2 with various SAR values percolated through the soil.  Ca concentrations in the effluent were determined by titration.  An overburden of 13.1 g/cm^2 occurred because of the experimental setup


comment_lab_ID: 102
comment_lab:
Water retention was determined by slow evaporation of undisturbed wet samples.  The pressure head was determined with tensiometers while the water content was obtained from gravimetric sampling. The conductivity was obtained with the crust method for heads up to 8 cm and the sorptivity method (SSSAJ 43:827) for higher suctions.


comment_lab_ID: 103
comment_lab:
Water retention was determined by slow evaporation of undisturbed wet samples.  The pressure head was determined with tensiometers while the water content was obtained from gravimetric sampling. The conductivity was obtained with the crust method for heads up to 40 cm and the sorptivity method (SSSAJ 43:827) for higher suctions.


comment_lab_ID: 104
comment_lab:
Water retention was determined by slow evaporation of undisturbed wet samples.  The pressure head was determined with tensiometers while the water content was obtained from gravimetric sampling. The conductivity was obtained with the crust method for heads up to 58 cm and the sorptivity method (SSSAJ 43:827) for higher suctions.


comment_lab_ID: 105
comment_lab:
Water retention was determined by slow evaporation of undisturbed wet samples.  The pressure head was determined with tensiometers while the water content was obtained from gravimetric sampling. The conductivity was obtained with the crust method for heads up to 58 cm.


comment_lab_ID: 106
comment_lab:
Water retention was determined by slow evaporation of undisturbed wet samples.  The pressure head was determined with tensiometers while the water content was obtained from gravimetric sampling. The conductivity was obtained with the crust method for heads up to 29 cm and the sorptivity method (SSSAJ 43:827) for higher suctions.


comment_lab_ID: 107
comment_lab:
Water retention was determined by slow evaporation of undisturbed wet samples.  The pressure head was determined with tensiometers while the water content was obtained from gravimetric sampling. The conductivity was obtained with the crust method for heads up to 42 cm and the sorptivity method (SSSAJ 43:827) for higher suctions.


comment_lab_ID: 108
comment_lab:
Water retention was determined by slow evaporation of undisturbed wet samples.  The pressure head was determined with tensiometers while the water content was obtained from gravimetric sampling. The conductivity was obtained with the crust method for heads up to 23 cm and the sorptivity method (SSSAJ 43:827) for higher suctions.


comment_lab_ID: 109
comment_lab:
Water retention was determined by slow evaporation of undisturbed wet samples.  The pressure head was determined with tensiometers while the water content was obtained from gravimetric sampling. The conductivity was obtained with the crust method for heads up to 35 cm and the sorptivity method (SSSAJ 43:827) for higher suctions.


comment_lab_ID: 110
comment_lab:
Water retention was determined by slow evaporation of undisturbed wet samples.  The pressure head was determined with tensiometers while the water content was obtained from gravimetric sampling. The conductivity was obtained with the crust method for heads up to 67 cm and the sorptivity method (SSSAJ 43:827) for higher suctions.


comment_lab_ID: 111
comment_lab:
Water retention was determined by slow evaporation of undisturbed wet samples.  The pressure head was determined with tensiometers while the water content was obtained from gravimetric sampling. The conductivity was obtained with the crust method for heads up to 54 cm and the sorptivity method (SSSAJ 43:827) for higher suctions.


comment_lab_ID: 112
comment_lab:
Water retention was determined by slow evaporation of undisturbed wet samples.  The pressure head was determined with tensiometers while the water content was obtained from gravimetric sampling. The conductivity was obtained with the crust method for heads up to 32 cm and the sorptivity method (SSSAJ 43:827) for higher suctions.


comment_lab_ID: 113
comment_lab:
Water retention was determined by slow evaporation of undisturbed wet samples.  The pressure head was determined with tensiometers while the water content was obtained from gravimetric sampling. The conductivity was obtained with the crust method for heads up to 65 cm and the sorptivity method (SSSAJ 43:827) for higher suctions.


comment_lab_ID: 114
comment_lab:
Water retention was determined by slow evaporation of undisturbed wet samples.  The pressure head was determined with tensiometers while the water content was obtained from gravimetric sampling. The conductivity was obtained with the crust method for heads up to 4 cm and the hot air method for higher suctions.


comment_lab_ID: 115
comment_lab:
Water retention was determined by slow evaporation of undisturbed wet samples.  The pressure head was determined with tensiometers while the water content was obtained from gravimetric sampling. The conductivity was obtained with the crust method for heads up to 1 cm and the hot air method for higher suctions.


comment_lab_ID: 116
comment_lab:
Water retention was determined by slow evaporation of undisturbed wet samples.  The pressure head was determined with tensiometers while the water content was obtained from gravimetric sampling. The conductivity was obtained with the crust method for heads up to 24 cm and hot air method for higher suctions.


comment_lab_ID: 117
comment_lab:
Water retention was determined by putting undisturbed core samples on a sand box.  Suction was applied by a hanging water column or suction pump.  The conductivity was obtained on undisturbed samples with the crust method for h up to 45 cm and the hot air method (SSSAP 39:424).


comment_lab_ID: 118
comment_lab:
Water retention was determined by putting undisturbed core samples on a sand box.  Suction was applied by a hanging water column or suction pump.  The conductivity was obtained on undisturbed samples with the crust method for h up to 110 cm and the hot air method (SSSAP 39:424).


comment_lab_ID: 119
comment_lab:
Water retention was determined by putting undisturbed core samples on a sand box.  Suction was applied by a hanging water column or suction pump.  The conductivity was obtained on undisturbed samples with the crust method for h up to 57 cm and the hot air method (SSSAP 39:424).


comment_lab_ID: 120
comment_lab:
Water retention was determined by putting undisturbed core samples on a sand box.  Suction was applied by a hanging water column or suction pump.  The conductivity was obtained on undisturbed samples with the crust method for h up to 25 cm and the hot air method (SSSAP 39:424).


comment_lab_ID: 121
comment_lab:
Water retention was determined by putting undisturbed core samples on a sand box.  Suction was applied by a hanging water column or suction pump.  The conductivity was obtained on undisturbed samples with the crust method for h up to 30 cm and the hot air method (SSSAP 39:424).


comment_lab_ID: 122
comment_lab:
Water retention was determined by putting undisturbed core samples on a sand box.  Suction was applied by a hanging water column or suction pump.  The conductivity was obtained on undisturbed samples with the crust method for h up to 34 cm and the hot air method (SSSAP 39:424).


comment_lab_ID: 124
comment_lab:
A hanging water column was used for h between 0 and 150 cm on 100-cm^3 samples taken from a depth between 30 and 35 cm.  The water content at 1000 and 16000 cm suction was determined on disturbed aggregates which were placed in a pressure chamber for two weeks. Finally, the water content at h=420000 cm was determined using a vapor pressure equilibrium technique. The conductivity was measured on undisturbed samples (sample size 2260 cm3) using the sprinkling infiltrometer method. Several steady flow rates were established between h=0 and 100cm using an infiltrometer at the top of the sample and a sand table under suction at the bottom. Four tensiometers are inserted in the sample to measure the pres. gradient.


comment_lab_ID: 125
comment_lab:
A hanging water column was used for h between 0 and 150 cm on 100-cm^3 samples taken form a depth between 30 and 35 cm.  The water content at 1000 and 16000 cm suction was determined on disturbed aggregates which were placed in a pressure chamber for two weeks. Finally, the water content at h=420000 cm was determined using a vapor pressure equilibrium technique.


comment_lab_ID: 126
comment_lab:
A hanging water column was used for h between 0 and 150 cm on 100-cm^3 samples taken form a depth between 30 and 35 cm.  The water content at 1000 and 16000 cm suction was determined on disturbed aggregates which were placed in a pressure chamber for two weeks. Finally, the water content at h=420000 cm was determined using a vapor pressure equilibrium technique.  Hydraulic conductivity was determined with the one-step outflow method.


comment_lab_ID: 127
comment_lab:
A hanging water column was used for h between 0 and 150 cm on 100-cm^3 samples taken form a depth between 30 and 35 cm.  The water content at 1000 and 16000 cm suction was determined on disturbed aggregates which were placed in a pressure chamber for two weeks. Finally, the water content at h=420000 cm was determined using a vapor pressure equilibrium technique. The hydraulic conductivity was measured with the sorptivity method.


comment_lab_ID: 128
comment_lab:
A hanging water column was used for h between 0 and 150 cm on 100-cm^3 samples taken form a depth between 30 and 35 cm.  The water content at 1000 and 16000 cm suction was determined on disturbed aggregates which were placed in a pressure chamber for two weeks. Finally, the water content at h=420000 cm was determined using a vapor pressure equilibrium technique. The hydraulic conductivity was determined with the crust method.


comment_lab_ID: 129
comment_lab:
A hanging water column was used for h between 0 and 150 cm on 100-cm^3 samples taken form a depth between 30 and 35 cm.  The water content at 1000 and 16000 cm suction was determined on disturbed aggregates which were placed in a pressure chamber for two weeks. Finally, the water content at h=420000 cm was determined using a vapor pressure equilibrium technique. The hydraulic conductivity was determined with the evaporation method.


comment_lab_ID: 130
comment_lab:
A hanging water column was used for h between 0 and 150 cm on 100-cm^3 samples taken from a depth between 70 and 75 cm.  The water content at 1000 and 16000 cm suction was determined on disturbed aggregates which were placed in a pressure chamber for two weeks. Finally, the water content at h=420000 cm was determined using a vapor pressure equilibrium technique. The conductivity was measured on undisturbed samples (sample size 2260 cm3) using the sprinkling infiltrometer method. Several steady flow rates were established between h=0 and 100cm using an infiltrometer at the top of the sample and a sand table under suction at the bottom. Four tensiometers are inserted in the sample to measure the pres. gradient.


comment_lab_ID: 131
comment_lab:
A tensiometer connected to a burette was inserted in a saturated, undisturbed soil sample (10.2cm diameter, height=14.5cm). Incremental increases of suction were applied to the burette, the radial outflow from the sample into the tensiometer was monitored over time while the suction was measured with a Hg manometer. The water content of the sample was determined gravimetrically at the end of the experiment. The conductivity was determined for each pressure increment according to Gardner (1960) and Richards & Richards (SSSAP 26(6)).


comment_lab_ID: 132
comment_lab:
Size of undisturbed samples: I.D.=7.50 cm height=5.0 cm from 0-25cm depth.  Water retention was measured according to Ball & Hunter(J. Soil Sci., 1986), an equation was fitted to the data for use in the diffusivity determination.  Hydraulic conductivity was determined by the hot air method of Arya et al.(1981) on columns from 5-25cm depth.


comment_lab_ID: 133
comment_lab:
Undisturbed subsample (10g) was taken from 365-cm^3 soil samples to determine water retention with a pressure cooker (ceramic membr., h<1000cm) and pressure chamber (cellophane membr., h>2000cm) for each suction. Hydraulic conductivity was determined from steady flow experiments using tensiometers connected to Hg-manometers and gypsum blocks to obtain suction outside the tensiometer range.  EC of gypsum blocks (each separately) was calibrated against suction using pressure chambers.  The saturated conductivity was obtained by ponding undisturbed core samples & placing a dome permeameter on top, Ksat was then determined using the constant and falling head methods (Hartge, Z. Kulturt.  7:155).


comment_lab_ID: 134
comment_lab:
Air dried soil was passed through a 3mm screen and packed in a cylindrical can, the lengths of the three soil columns used were 117, 84 and 84cm with cross sections of 314, 320 and 323cm^2.  A constant water table was maintained at the bottom of the column and moved upward through the column and evaporated from the top. Eight tensiometers at distances of 10cm were installed.  Upon steady flow, part of the soil was sampled destructively for volumetric water content.  Conductivity was calculated from Darcy's law and the tensiometer readings, assuming steady flow.  The water supply was then disconnected and the soil was allowed to dry for 34, 0 and 3 days respectively, after which the soil was again sampled for water content.


comment_lab_ID: 135
comment_lab:
Hydraulic conductivity was obtained on a disturbed sample in a (5cm high, 5cm I.D.) column with ceramic plates on the top and bottom.  Flow was controlled by applying positive or negative pressures on the plates.  Soil water suction and hydraulic gradients were determined by tensiometers.  Measurement started at saturation, suction was then gradually increased.  The hydraulic gradients were about 0.5-2.  Water contents were obtained from retention data by linear interpolation.  Retention data were obtained on disturbed samples (5cm I.D., 2cm high) at the same bulk density as for the conductivity by applying suction through ceramic plates.


comment_lab_ID: 136
comment_lab:
Steady-state flow in 3.6cm I.D. and 15cm long columns.  Water was applied under constant tension through a fitted glass plate at one end of a horizontal column.  Just before the wetting front appeared at the other end, a second plate at slightly higher tension was placed in contact with the soil. The pressure gradient for steady flow was obtained from tensiometers near both column ends. Drying (Nielsen & Biggar, Soil Science 92:192-193).


comment_lab_ID: 137
comment_lab:
The diffusivity was determined for theta < 0.12 using evaporation measurements on 10-cm long, 5-cm I.D. lucite soil columns. For higher water contents conductivity data were obtained with the long column method (unit gradient) on sand from the 25-60 cm depth.


comment_lab_ID: 138
comment_lab:
The conductivity was determined on a 140-cm long, 10-cm I.D.  soil column packed to a bulk density of 1.6 g/cm^3.  Tensiometers, installed at 30, 50, 70, 90, and 110 cm depth, were connected to manometers.  The conductivity was equated to the steady flow rate, water was supplied at the top.


comment_lab_ID: 139
comment_lab:
A 1-m long 10.2-cm I.D. column, was filled with fine Del Monte sand. The column consisted of 20 rings with tensiometers arranged in a helicoidal pattern every other ring. The water table was fixed. After the water pressures reached equilibrium the column was sliced in 5-cm intervals to determine the volumetric water content, the pressure follows from the position w.r.t. the water table (drying and wetting curves were obtained by starting with a dry or saturated soil). For lower water contents additional results were obtained with a Haynes type apparatus. The hydr. cond.  was determined as a function of soil-water pressure with a long column, 5.4-cm I.D., where for a large part a unit-gradient condition existed, the hydr. cond. follows directly from the constant downward flow rate.


comment_lab_ID: 140
comment_lab:
Air dried soil was passed through a 2-mm sieve and packed into perforated aluminum cylinders (3.8cm I.D., 5cm long) to a density of 1.2 g/cm^3.  Air pressure was supplied through the perforations, two cellulose acetate filters were used as porous membranes at the end of the cylinder which were connected to two burettes through a water reservoir and stopcocks.  The burettes measure the volume of in/outflow for retention and conductivity measurements.  The vertical distance between the burettes determines the pressure gradient whereas the air pressure through the perforations of the sample determines the degree of desaturation.  Both drying and wetting experiments can be conducted.


comment_lab_ID: 141
comment_lab:
Measurements on single or duplicate cores (7.4cm I.D., 7.5cm long) for four depth increments in the 0-30cm interval.  Measurements were made with ceramic plates for higher pressure and millipore filters for low pressures.  Soil water diffusivity and retention were determined concurrently for suctions between 0 and 1000cm using the outflow technique of Gardner (SSSAP20:317) modified by Kunze and Kirkham (SSSAP26:421).


comment_lab_ID: 142
comment_lab:
A perspex tube (2.9cm I.D., 140cm long) was packed with a mixture of four different sand fractions.  Five tensiometers were installed to measure pressure head.  Constant flow rates were achieved by applying water at the top with a Mariotte flask while applying a suction at the lower end through a porous disk and a water reservoir.  The water content was determined by weightening the whole apparatus.  During these conditions a uniform water content profile occurs with the steady state flow rate equal to the conductivity.  By adjusting the suction at the bottom, a range of water contents could be established. Several drying and wetting branches were reported.


comment_lab_ID: 143
comment_lab:
Air dried, 2mm sieved soil was packed into a plexiglass tube (9.05cm I.D., 60cm long).  The water content was obtained with gamma attenuation (Davidson & Nielsen(1963)).  Water was applied from a Mariotte burette at 4-cm suction through a porous bronze plate (25 micrometer pores).  Tensiometers were used to determine the pressure head (8-m suction) for the retention curve.  The hydraulic conductivity was obtained from the measured water content distribution, using the Boltzmann transformation, and the measured retention curve.


comment_lab_ID: 144
comment_lab:
The measurement for conductivity was made on a brass column (7.3 I.D., 122 cm long) by a modified Childs method(1950).  Dry soil was poured slowly into the column and wetted/dried several times.  A steady flow rate, less than the saturated cond., was applied after ponding.  The pressure head was measured at various sections of the columns.  The water ret.  was measured on a packed column which was saturated and then allowed to drain.  After steady state was established (measured with a tensiometer inserted in the surface layers), samples were taken to determine the water content gravimetrically.


