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

This Article Abstract Full Text Free Full Text (PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Fujimaki, H. Articles by Inoue, M. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Fujimaki, H. Articles by Inoue, M. GeoRef GeoRef Citation Agricola Articles by Fujimaki, H. Articles by Inoue, M. Related Collections Hydraulic Conductivity/Relative Permeability Water Retention/Capillary Pressure Evapotranspiration Models

A Transient Evaporation Method for Determining Soil Hydraulic Properties at Low Pressure

^a Institute of Agricultural and Forest Engineering, University of Tsukuba, 1-1-1 Tennohdai, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8572, Japan
^b Arid Land Research Center, Tottori University, 1390 Hamasaka, Tottori 680-0001, Japan

View larger version (27K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1. (a) Experimental setup for the outflow stage; (b) experimental setup for the evaporation stage.

View larger version (23K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Time evolution of outflow and evaporation.

View larger version (17K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Final water content profiles.

View larger version (14K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4. Measured and fitted steady-state water content profiles.

View larger version (21K): [in a new window]   Fig. 5. Soil water retention curve for Masa loamy sand and Tohaku loam.

View larger version (23K): [in a new window]   Fig. 6. Comparison of hydraulic conductivity from various determination methods.

View larger version (12K): [in a new window]   Fig. 7. Comparison of observed and optimized amounts of evaporation.

View larger version (16K): [in a new window]   Fig. 8. Comparison of measured and simulated final water content profiles.

View larger version (14K): [in a new window]   Fig. 9. Comparison of observed and optimized amounts of outflow.