VZJ
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Published online 20 November 2006
Published in Vadose Zone J 5:1194-1204 (2006)
DOI: 10.2136/vzj2006.0014
© 2006 Soil Science Society of America
677 S. Segoe Rd., Madison, WI 53711 USA
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text Free
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (2) Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (2)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kawamoto, K.
Right arrow Articles by Komatsu, T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Kawamoto, K.
Right arrow Articles by Komatsu, T.
GeoRef
Right arrow GeoRef Citation
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Kawamoto, K.
Right arrow Articles by Komatsu, T.
Related Collections
Right arrow Soil Physics
Right arrow Air Permeability
Right arrow Diffusion

Gas Transport Parameters in the Vadose Zone

Gas Diffusivity in Field and Lysimeter Soil Profiles

Ken Kawamotoa,*, Per Moldrupb, Per Schjønningc, Bo V. Iversenc, Dennis E. Rolstond and Toshiko Komatsua

a Graduate School of Science and Engineering, Saitama Univ., 225 Shimo-okubo, Sakura-ku, Saitama, 338-8570, Japan
b Environmental Engineering Section, Dep. of Biotechnology, Chemistry, and Environmental Engineering, Aalborg Univ., Sohngaardsholmsvej 57, DK-9000 Aalborg, Denmark
c Dep. of Agroecology, Danish Inst. of Agricultural Sciences, Research Centre Foulum, P.O. Box 50, DK-8830 Tjele, Denmark
d Dep. of Land, Air, and Water Resources, Univ. of California, Davis, CA 95616


Figure 1
View larger version (29K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 1. Locations of soil sampling: three lysimeter soils came from Rønhave, Foulum, and Jyndevad; two agricultural field soils were sampled at Gjorslev and Mammen. Note that soils from Rønhave and Jyndevad were transported to lysimeters at Research Centre Foulum.

 

Figure 2
View larger version (23K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 2. Pore volume distribution for (a) lysimeter soils (Rønhave, Foulum, and Jyndevad) and field soils at (b) Gjorslev and (c) Mammen. Average data for each soil layer are given; d is equivalent pore diameter calculated from d = 3000(–{psi})–1 where {psi} is soil-water matric potential (cm H2O) (Schjønning, 1985b).

 

Figure 3
View larger version (31K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 3. Soil-gas diffusivities Dp/D0 as a function of air-filled porosity {varepsilon}: (a) all matric-potential ({psi}) measurements for lysimeter soils (Rønhave, Foulum, and Jyndevad); (b) all measurements for field soils (Gjorslev and Mammen); (c) measurements from C horizon samples with different soil textures at Mammen; and (d) measurements from sandy clay loam layers from Foulum, Gjorslev, and Mammen. Note different axes and log scale.

 

Figure 4
View larger version (23K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 4. Soil-gas diffusivities Dp,100/D0 as a function of air-filled porosity {varepsilon}100 for (a) lysimeter soils (Rønhave, Foulum, and Jyndevad), (b) field soils (Rønhave, Foulum, and Jyndevad) (Schjønning, 1985b), and (c) field soils (Gjorslev and Mammen). For (c), matric potential ({psi}) = –100 cm H2O data are plotted in both normal (left axis) and log scale (right axis). {varepsilon}100 = air-filled porosity at {psi} = –100 cm H2O; Dp,100/D0 = soil-gas diffusivity at {psi} = –100 cm H2O.

 

Figure 5
View larger version (35K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 5. Scatterplot comparison of predicted and measured soil-gas diffusivities (Dp/D0) for lysimeter soils (Rønhave, Foulum, and Jyndevad) and field soils (Gjorslev and Mammen). All measured data are given. Model predictions are: (a, b) the Millington and Quirk (1961) model (MQ) and (c, d) the three-porosity model (TPM). Calculated RMSE values using Dp/D0 data and log-transformed Dp/D0 data (values in brackets), Eq. [1], are given. Note different axes and log scale.

 

Figure 6
View larger version (14K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 6. Relation between the Campbell (1974) pore-size distribution parameter b and the tortuosity–connectivity parameter X for 96 soils. The X = 2 + 3/b curve is also drawn.

 

Figure 7
View larger version (16K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 7. Comparison of the three-porosity model (TPM) and the Millington and Quirk (1961) model (MQ) with measured data for field soils at Gjorslev at the (a) 0.43-m, (b) 2.15-m, and (c) 4.75-m depth. The average of soil-gas diffusivities (Dp/D0) at each matric-potential ({psi}) stage are shown in the plots. The standard deviations of both air-filled porosity {varepsilon} and Dp/D0 are shown in error bars. Average values of the Campbell pore-size distribution parameter b are also given.

 

Figure 8
View larger version (19K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 8. Depth distribution of soil-gas diffusivities Dp,100/D0 for Gjorslev and Mammen (field soils) at matric potential {psi} = –100 cm H2O. Average and standard deviation of Dp,100/D0 at each depth are shown. Predicted Dp/D0 by the three-porosity model (TPM) are given by dotted and solid lines.

 





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
The SCI Journals Agronomy Journal Crop Science
Journal of Natural Resources
and Life Sciences Education
Soil Science Society of America Journal
Journal of Plant Registrations Journal of
Environmental Quality
The Plant Genome
Copyright © 2006 by the Soil Science Society of America.