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 Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (4) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Assouline, S. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Assouline, S. GeoRef GeoRef Citation Agricola Articles by Assouline, S. Related Collections Hydraulic Conductivity Soil Compaction Soil Models

Modeling the Relationship between Soil Bulk Density and the Hydraulic Conductivity Function

Institute of Soil, Water and Environmental Sciences, A.R.O., the Volcani Center, P.O.B. 6, Bet Dagan 50250, Israel

View larger version (20K): [in a new window]   Fig.1. Pore size distributions derived from the predicted water retention curve expressions according to Eq. [16] for uncompacted (dashed lines) and compacted (solid lines) soils at different bulk densities: (a) Columbia sandy loam, (b) Touchet silt loam, and (c) an unconsolidated sand.

View larger version (9K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Relationship between the relative change in the computed mean pore radius (rmc/rm) and the relative bulk density (c/) (solid circles), and the fitted expression given by Eq. [20] (solid line).

View larger version (16K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Relationship between the computed relative change in the pore shape constant (cc/c) and the relative bulk density (c/) for various soils (symbols), and curves representing Eq. [22] for different values of (solid lines).

View larger version (21K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4. Measured relative changes in the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksc/Ks) vs. relative bulk density (c/) for the various soils (symbols). The curves represent Eq. [23] for different values of .

View larger version (15K): [in a new window]   Fig. 5. Relationship between the power parameter in the expression for the hydraulic conductivity function, , and the coefficient of variation for the water retention curve, , for uncompacted (Uncomp., the calibration data from Assouline, 2005) and compacted (Comp.) soil samples. Equation [24] is the curve fitted to the data, and the dashed lines represent the 95% confidence limits of the fitted curve.

View larger version (11K): [in a new window]   Fig. 6. Comparison between predicted Ksc/Ks (compacted and initial saturated hydraulic conductivity values) and c/ (compacted and initial soil bulk density) according to Eq. [12] and [13] (symbols), Eq. [23] (solid line), and measured data for the various soils in the data set (solid circles).

View larger version (32K): [in a new window]   Fig. 7. The hydraulic conductivity function (HCF), K(), predicted according to (a) Eq. [A6] and (b) Eq. [A4] (curves) and measured values (solid symbols) for Columbia sandy loam, Touchet silt loam, and an unconsolidated sand at different values of compacted bulk density, c. The dashed lines represent the HCFs at the initial bulk density.