COMPARACIÓN DE DOS MÉTODOS ALTERNATIVOS AL POZO BARRENO PARA LA MEDICIÓN DE LA CONDUCTIVIDAD HIDRÁULICA SATURADA (Ks) EN UN ALFISOL

Marco Pfeiffer, Julio Haberland, C. Kremer, O. Seguel
{"title":"COMPARACIÓN DE DOS MÉTODOS ALTERNATIVOS AL POZO BARRENO PARA LA MEDICIÓN DE LA CONDUCTIVIDAD HIDRÁULICA SATURADA (Ks) EN UN ALFISOL","authors":"Marco Pfeiffer, Julio Haberland, C. Kremer, O. Seguel","doi":"10.4067/S0718-27912008000300005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The following study compared two field methods and one laboratory method to measure saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks) in the saturated phase of soil, all evaluated in a clayey loam soil with three replicates. The two field methods under study were the auger hole method (PB) and the cylinder infiltrometer (CI), the laboratory method was the constant head permeameter (PCC). Ks values delivered by the PCC method showed differences in magnitude (1,03 m day-1) and a high variability (CV=249%), thus using these method is not recommended for soil with similar characteristics to the studied one. The PB and the CI methods showed a low variability (CV=39 and 13%) and similar Ks values (10,8 and 7,1 m day-1), being recommended the use of both methods in soils with similar characteristics to the studied one. These methods are complementary, because of the PB requires the presence of a water level, meanwhile the CI requires the absence of these one.","PeriodicalId":54472,"journal":{"name":"Revista De La Ciencia Del Suelo Y Nutricion Vegetal","volume":"5 1","pages":"49-56"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2008-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista De La Ciencia Del Suelo Y Nutricion Vegetal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-27912008000300005","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

The following study compared two field methods and one laboratory method to measure saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks) in the saturated phase of soil, all evaluated in a clayey loam soil with three replicates. The two field methods under study were the auger hole method (PB) and the cylinder infiltrometer (CI), the laboratory method was the constant head permeameter (PCC). Ks values delivered by the PCC method showed differences in magnitude (1,03 m day-1) and a high variability (CV=249%), thus using these method is not recommended for soil with similar characteristics to the studied one. The PB and the CI methods showed a low variability (CV=39 and 13%) and similar Ks values (10,8 and 7,1 m day-1), being recommended the use of both methods in soils with similar characteristics to the studied one. These methods are complementary, because of the PB requires the presence of a water level, meanwhile the CI requires the absence of these one.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
比较两种测量油井饱和水力传导率(Ks)的替代方法
下面的研究比较了两种现场方法和一种实验室方法来测量土壤饱和阶段的饱和水力传导性(Ks),所有方法都在粘壤土中进行了三次重复。现场研究的两种方法分别是螺旋孔法(PB)和圆柱体渗透计(CI),室内研究的方法是恒水头渗透计(PCC)。PCC方法的Ks值存在量级差异(1.03 m day-1)和变异系数(CV=249%),因此不建议对与研究土壤特征相似的土壤使用PCC方法。PB和CI方法具有较低的变异率(CV分别为39和13%)和相似的k值(10、8和7、1 m day-1),推荐在与研究土壤特征相似的土壤中使用这两种方法。这些方法是互补的,因为PB需要有水位,而CI需要没有水位。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
THE EFFECT OF COMPOST AND SEWAGE SLUDGE ON SOIL BIOLOGIC ACTIVITIES IN SALT AFFECTED SOIL Effects of liming and nitrogen fertilization on the development of Oenothera affinis in a soil affected by copper mining COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF SPLIT-WINDOW ALGORITHMS FOR ESTIMATING SOIL TEMPERATURE SOIL NUTRIENT CONTENTS AND ENZYMATIC CHARACTERISTICS AS AFFECTED BY 7-YEAR NO TILLAGE UNDER MAIZE CROPPING IN A MEADOW BROWN SOIL PHOSPHORUS-MOLYBDENUM RELATIONSHIP IN SOIL AND RED CLOVER (Trifolium pratense L.) ON AN ACID ANDISOL
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1