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
  • [31] Assessing cypermethrin-contaminated soil with three different earthworm test methods
    Zhou Shiping
    Duan Changqun
    Wang Xuehua
    Michelle, Wong Hang Gi
    Yu Zefen
    Fu Hui
    JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES, 2008, 20 (11) : 1381 - 1385
  • [32] Evaluation of different methods for assessing bioavailability of DDT residues during soil remediation
    Wang, Jie
    Taylor, Allison
    Xu, Chenye
    Schlenk, Daniel
    Gan, Jay
    ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION, 2018, 238 : 462 - 470
  • [34] Spatial and temporal variability of soil gas diffusivity, its scaling and relevance for soil respiration under different tillage
    Schwen, Andreas
    Jeider, Eva
    Boettcher, Juergen
    GEODERMA, 2015, 259 : 323 - 336
  • [35] Assessing Soil Water Retention Characteristics and Their Spatial Variability Using Pedotransfer Functions
    Liao Kai-Hua
    Xu Shao-Hui
    Wu Ji-Chun
    Ji Shu-Hua
    Lin Qing
    PEDOSPHERE, 2011, 21 (04) : 413 - 422
  • [36] Two soil profile reconstruction techniques
    McBratney, AB
    Bishop, TFA
    Teliatnikov, IS
    GEODERMA, 2000, 97 (3-4) : 209 - 221
  • [37] Assessing spatial variability of soil enzyme activities in pasture topsoils using geostatistics
    Askin, Tayfun
    Kizilkaya, Ridvan
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF SOIL BIOLOGY, 2006, 42 (04) : 230 - 237
  • [39] Soil water content and salinity determination using different dielectric methods in saline gypsiferous soil
    Bouksila, Fethi
    Persson, Magnus
    Berndtsson, Ronny
    Bahri, Akissa
    HYDROLOGICAL SCIENCES JOURNAL-JOURNAL DES SCIENCES HYDROLOGIQUES, 2008, 53 (01): : 253 - 265
  • [40] Assessing Soil Nutrient Additions through Different Composting Techniques in Northern Ethiopia
    Teka, Kassa
    Berihu, Tesfay
    Amdu, Hailemariam
    Araya, Tigist
    Nigussie, Samuel
    MOMONA ETHIOPIAN JOURNAL OF SCIENCE, 2014, 6 (02): : 110 - 126