Assessing soil hydrophobicity and its variability through the soil profile using two different methods

被引:41
|
作者
Buczko, U [1 ]
Bens, O [1 ]
机构
[1] Brandenburg Tech Univ Cottbus, Chair Soil Protect & Recultivat, D-03013 Cottbus, Germany
关键词
D O I
10.2136/sssaj2005.0183
中图分类号
S15 [土壤学];
学科分类号
0903 ; 090301 ;
摘要
Soil water repellency (hydrophobicity) and its heterogeneity in field soils under natural conditions can cause unstable wetting fronts, preferential flow, and accelerated solute leaching. For assessing possible effects of water repellency and its heterogeneity on flow processes in a given soil, investigations of both overall levels of repellency and its variability are necessary. The purpose of this study was to assess water repellency levels and its variability in sandy soils under a pine-beech forest transformation chronosequence. Water repellency was quantified at four plots for soil depths between 0 and 160 cm on disturbed and oven-dried samples with the water drop penetration time (WDPT) test and the sessile drop method (SDM) (contact angles [CAs]). Intrasample variability was quantified with a heterogeneity index (RI) which is based on the difference between the 90 and 10% quantile, divided by the overall range of encountered values. For both methods and all plots, repellency levels were highest in the topsoil layer (0- to 10-cm depth) and decreased clearly with increasing depth. Larger maximum values of intrasample variability were determined with the WDPT method compared to the SDM. When the proportion of estimated measurement error is subtracted from heterogeneity values, the average heterogeneity is higher for log(WDPT) (mean 8.9%) than for CAs (mean 6.7%). The preferential flow which was observed at this site despite the ostensible homogeneity of the soil may be due to the high variability of hydrophobicity, although other factors (e.g., runnel flow) may contribute to this as well.
引用
收藏
页码:718 / 727
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Comparison of two methods for assessing impact of contaminated soil on groundwater quality
    Jiang, L. (jl-iep@vip.163.com), 1600, Editorial Board Research of Environmental Sciences (26):
  • [22] EVALUATING THE SOIL MOISTURE CONTENT THROUGH DIFFERENT INTERPOLATION METHODS
    Yildirim, D.
    Cemek, B.
    Unlukara, A.
    PROCEEDING OF 6TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON TRENDS IN AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING 2016, 2016, : 719 - 725
  • [23] Measurement of uranium concentration in soil samples by two different methods
    Baykara, O.
    Kulahci, F.
    Dogru, M.
    JOURNAL OF RADIOANALYTICAL AND NUCLEAR CHEMISTRY, 2007, 272 (01) : 195 - 197
  • [24] Measurement of uranium concentration in soil samples by two different methods
    O. Baykara
    F. Kulahci
    M. Doğru
    Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry, 2007, 272 : 195 - 197
  • [25] Soil variability as determined by statistical methods
    Post, AH
    SOIL SCIENCE, 1924, 17 (04) : 343 - 357
  • [26] Disruptive methods for assessing soil structure
    Díaz-Zorita, M
    Perfect, E
    Grove, JH
    SOIL & TILLAGE RESEARCH, 2002, 64 (1-2): : 3 - 22
  • [27] Soil Profile Variability in an Established Residential Community
    Rainey, Donald P.
    Shober, Amy L.
    Shurberg, Gitta
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE FLORIDA STATE HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY, VOL 125, 2012, 125 : 343 - 347
  • [28] Spatial variability of soil organic matter content in Eastern Croatia assessed using different interpolation methods
    Durdevic, Boris
    Jug, Irena
    Jug, Danijel
    Bogunovic, Igor
    Vukadinovic, Vesna
    Stipesevic, Bojan
    Brozovic, Bojana
    INTERNATIONAL AGROPHYSICS, 2019, 33 (01) : 31 - 39
  • [29] Variability of Root Length Density as Measured by Auger Core and Soil Profile Sampling Methods
    Wang, Hongyu
    Cui, Zhengguo
    Yang, Zhenming
    Naseer, Muhammad Rehman
    Li, Qiuzhu
    Cui, Jinhu
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURE AND BIOLOGY, 2019, 22 (02) : 215 - 222
  • [30] Comparison of different methods for assessing effects of soil interparticle forces on aggregate stability
    Liu, Jingfang
    Hu, Feinan
    Xu, Chenyang
    Wang, Zilong
    Ma, Rentian
    Zhao, Shiwei
    Liu, Gang
    GEODERMA, 2021, 385